RE: Theists, some questions
November 13, 2013 at 3:47 pm
(This post was last modified: November 13, 2013 at 3:51 pm by GodsRevolt.)
(November 13, 2013 at 6:39 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: I disagree. Unless god personally intervenes in every single act of procreation, god has created the system that allows life to be created. It's not the same thing. We are directly involved (and therefore responsible) for the creation of our children, but we would not be directly involved in the creation of our grandchildren.
I disagree, we are directly involved, but it is through participation. We hold no jurisdiction over the creation of our children. Just because you want a child does not mean you get one. This proves lack of jurisdiction.
(November 13, 2013 at 6:39 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: Likewise, death is a part of that system, so unless god directly intervenes in order to make death occur, god is not directly responsible for it. We call god a murderer for those instances in which god has directly intervened to inflict death.
If you use this argument you can no longer turn to the 'Problem of Pain' argument because you are saying that He is not responsible for disease and hunger or any sort of death (that doesn't come directly from His hand).
You have to choose and, personally, I would go with the idea that He does control it all. It makes for a much more lively conversation.
(November 13, 2013 at 6:39 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: I wouldn't count on that being the case for much longer:
'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists
When you can show me a synthetic soul with free will, I'll be more impressed. But that is pretty amazing. Thanks for the share.
(November 13, 2013 at 7:54 am)Esquilax Wrote:(November 13, 2013 at 3:12 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: I think the phrase would be more accurate here if you said, "The Almighty makes right."
And if that's what you believe, then you've got no morals at all, just commands, and those can be countermanded at any time. If god commanded you to kill a baby, would you do it?
This is a fallacy.
Just because there are rules to follow does not mean that there are no morals. There is no connection here.
Orders are not 'in and of themselves' immoral. They can go either way. Choosing to follow orders is not an intrinsically immoral action either.
Are you suggesting that because you make your own rules in life you are more righteous then me? Because, if you are, then for me to be AS righteous as you I would have to follow YOUR rules, which would mean I would be taking orders again. No win for me, all righteousness for you.
". . . let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist." -G. K. Chesterton