RE: A list of all of God's crimes
June 11, 2012 at 4:20 am
(This post was last modified: June 11, 2012 at 4:29 am by genkaus.)
(June 10, 2012 at 5:22 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Doesn't matter. One is still talking about attributes, which are not proof of existence. It is still putting the cart before the horse.
Otherwise I could claim that my all powerful snarfwidget makes ice cream without a factory or workers and it too has no material or location.
What a person claims a god does or says is not evidence of it's existence. It is evidence that humans have vivid imaginations.
God's existence was never the subject of discussion here and for the purpose of this discussion, it was taken for granted. I mean, it doesn't make much sense to start a topic called "God's crimes" without the assumption of his existence. No one claims that his attributes are proff of his existence (though contradictory attributes are often pointed out as disproof).
(June 10, 2012 at 6:22 pm)AthiestAtheist Wrote: Um, no. You can't do that, ever. There's emancipation, but that's the opposite, and only applies after a judge makes a decision.
You mistake context. Child in this case does not only refer to those who are not legal adults, it refers to any of god's "children", which applies to adults and children alike.
(June 10, 2012 at 6:42 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Isn't that the cluster fuck humanity fights over? I agree with IF IF IF IF IF we are going to play "let's pretend" claimed god exists. What crimes could he be convicted of? He'd make Hitler look like a boy selling lemonade in a cute suburb on the street corner.
I totally agree with the immorality of the god concept. I know that we are strictly talking about claims here.
What crimes could such a being be convicted of? Hitler's fate would look like probation.
Now that you have made your opening statement to the jury, would you like to bring up the charges and present evidence?
(June 10, 2012 at 6:54 pm)Chuck Wrote: Concept of responsibility is born of system in which reciprocity is thought to lead to mutural benefit. A truly omnipotent totalitarian overlord need no reciprocity and can attain all his ends without increased trouble regardless of any efforts to thwart him by other participants in the system. So what rational reason is there to assert that he ought bind himself with anything born of reciprocity?
I disagree here. In case of humans, he deemed it necessary to give us "free-will", thereby relinquishing any control or authority over our wills. Apparently that was necessary for his ends, but ended in the side-effect of his loss of authority. To regain that authority, he has to concede responsibility.
