RE: In UK atheists considred more moral than theists.
August 28, 2018 at 10:04 am
(This post was last modified: August 28, 2018 at 10:27 am by Huggy Bear.)
(August 26, 2018 at 3:59 am)Aroura Wrote: So what you are saying that an evil and cruel god is also perfect and makes perfect decisions that cannot be improved upon. Good, I'm glad we've cleared up your stance on that.
No, I'm saying that an omniscient being knows every outcome of any decision, and therefore cannot make a mistake... There are many more qualities to God than 'omniscience'.
(August 26, 2018 at 3:59 am)Aroura Wrote: (But also still, you simply cannot jump from A to therefore C while assuming B is simply part of A. That's a logical fallacy.) That is what you did in your opening line, and saying "Hey,I clearly MADE this assumption and stated my assumption clearly" doesn't fix the fact that you are making an assumption, a leap from A to C.
Omniscient does not mean what you said it means. Period. You can say you then assumed it also means he can make the decision, but that is simply not part of the definition of omniscient, which is literally what you said, that is was the definition. Things can be tangentially related without being part of the definitions of each other, and you cannot assume that one causes the other without showing it.
I'll repeat it for you again:
"an omniscient being knows every outcome of any decision, and therefore cannot make a mistake..."
You can try to rationalize that in to being false much as you want, but it only shows the desperation you atheists have in trying to prove me wrong about anything, no matter what subject.
(August 26, 2018 at 3:59 am)Aroura Wrote: Here let me show you:
John is happy, which by definition means his decisions are always kind, they cannot be any kinder.
Happiness does not necessarily equate to kind behavior.
Strawman...
So you're going to make up an argument out of thin air?
(August 26, 2018 at 3:59 am)Aroura Wrote: In such a way I am saying that omnipotence does not necessarily equate to perfect decisions. You have got to show the steps in the middle, you cannot just leap from your premise to your conclusion without showing your work.we're talking 'omniscience' not 'omnipotence'...
If an omniscient being makes a mistake, then obviously this being wasn't all knowing (because he would of known of the mistake before it was made) and by definition wasn't omniscient; Therefore the logic follows that a omniscient being is never wrong...
Got it?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect
Definition of perfect
1 a : being entirely without fault or defect : flawless
(August 26, 2018 at 3:59 am)Aroura Wrote: Also I'm actually trying to show you a flaw in thinking. I suspect you will respond defensively, but I just want you to step back and look at your own work here. I'm not arguing with you about the existence of god, I just want you to see how you present your own argument.
The next time you approach this same subject, you could instead explain why you think Omniessence alone would lead a god to make perfect decisions, instead of skipping that part and trying to include it in a definition it does not belong in.
Don't always just defend blindly. It's ok to have made an error in thinking (everyone does it!). Stop defending an obvious error, that just makes people take everything you say in the future less seriously. Go back, and just fill in the gap you left. REalize the mistake you made. It's not the end of the world. That's all I'm saying
I believe the only one pulling a blind defense is you...
