Why did God do Satan’s bidding?

[Angrboda]

It is in this context that such an appeal to hypocrisy would at least be plausible. It ignores the possibility that neither John nor Rhythm have the right of it, and that there may be another view which is correct.

I've previously noted that views on rights boil down to opinion. There is no "correct" view.

An opinion. What is your understanding of what an opinion is? My understanding is that an opinion is a proposition, asserted true, on the basis of facts and expertise acquired through experience and study. Opinions depend on the ability of the person making them for their weight. Who has appropriate ability to venture an opinion on the morals and rights of God, good or ill? You realize this leads directly to moral relativism, in which you believe that God is good and has these rights, not because of some objective fact, but because you say so. Are you now conceding that God is not objectively good, and has neither this nor any other right, but like all subjective truths, depends on the assent of others to make it so?

I agree that John's appeal to hypocrisy is fallacious,

Er, when a person makes a claim that they apply a principle consistently, how would you go about refuting it? Isn't pointing out inconsistency the most logical approach?

Please cite this claim of Rhythm's (or restate or paraphrase it, with appropriate links), so that I may examine it. Please also explain how you feel his inconsistency in the matter in any way relates to whether your argument for why God has certain rights is valid or not. (Which, correct me if I'm wrong, was that he possesses the "moral authority." Ignoring that this too leads to a circular argument, it seems you've simply substituted one undefined term for another. I would ask the same questions about 'moral authority' that I asked about rights. What is moral authority, how does one get it, and how does one know that someone has it? [And yes, Euthyphro is leering menacingly from the wings])

but perhaps it's fallacious on other grounds than simply misunderstanding the fallacy, or not grasping that the absence of a positive account of God's rights is not ameliorated by anything other than a successful positive account of those rights.

Who determines whether the positive account is successful, and on what basis must the judge? Again, this is opinion, and none of us can prove our case. Rhythm agreed that it's opinion, and claimed that he applies his opinions on rights consistently.

I think the problem, John, is that you need something a little stronger than 'opinion' to justify a being torturing people in burning fire for all eternity. If all you have is your opinion that God is good and has these rights, I'd ask a few questions. What matters of fact is this opinion based on? What expertise? There's a difference between the opinion of a trained professional as to the cause of my car's malfunction, and that of my Uncle. You seem to be equating the two. This seems self-serving, as expertise in theological matters doesn't grant one any utilitarian benefits in terms of diagnosing any tangible malfunction, and is primarily an exercise in memorizing the details of fairy tales, attempting to divine the truth in their tea leaves (like Drich does), and schooling oneself in a set of arguments that is not only not accepted anywhere outside of theology, but have been almost to a man refuted time and time again. Is that the source of your 'expertise', John, your knowledge of fairy tales and sophistic philosophical arguments?

For my part, I am a philosopher with no credentials or expertise. My opinion means nothing.

[John V]

An opinion. What is your understanding of what an opinion is?

I’m using it in the sense of:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion?s=t
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

My understanding is that an opinion is a proposition, asserted true, on the basis of facts and expertise acquired through experience and study. Opinions depend on the ability of the person making them for their weight. Who has appropriate ability to venture an opinion on the morals and rights of God, good or ill?

You seem to be speaking of a professional opinion, which is not applicable in this case. Neither side has presented such opinion.

You realize this leads directly to moral relativism, in which you believe that God is good and has these rights, not because of some objective fact, but because you say so. Are you now conceding that God is not objectively good, and has neither this nor any other right, but like all subjective truths, depends on the assent of others to make it so?

It’s no concession. I’ve argued multiple times on this forum that morality, including God’s, is subjective.

Please cite this claim of Rhythm's (or restate or paraphrase it, with appropriate links), so that I may examine it.

He said: “AI won't get you any farther with me, because I;m consistent in my application of rights, I wouldn't lord over AI any more than I would accept anyone lording over me. Self determination. If I deny another sentient being a right we have determined originates in sentience then who am I to protest when another labors to deny me that right?”

So, if I can show that he denies sentient beings certain rights, he is by his own admission not in a position to protest if that right is denied him. This is completely legitimate given his claim above, and is not an appeal to hypocrisy.

The classic example of the appeal to hypocrisy is:

A: I have evidence that smoking is bad for your health.
B: But I have evidence that you smoke yourself.

In this case, B’s argument is indeed fallacious. That A smokes has no bearing on his evidence, which should be considered on its own merits.

Now consider:

A: I do not smoke.
B: But I have evidence that you smoke.

In this case, B’s argument is completely legitimate, assuming he does have evidence. This is analogous to our case. Rhythm claimed in essence that he is not hypocritical on the issue of rights. Therefore, evidence that he is hypocritical is a legitimate refutation of that claim, and not an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy.

Note that he denies authority to grant or deny rights, deferring to US rights. So, my approach is based on US rights in general.

Please also explain how you feel his inconsistency in the matter in any way relates to whether your argument for why God has certain rights is valid or not.

Because he said, “If I deny another sentient being a right we have determined originates in sentience then who am I to protest when another labors to deny me that right?”

My position, which I addressed to you previously:

Where did he get them and, skipping to the end, who defines what a right is? Anyone can claim a right, declare a right for someone else, and define the right anyway they please.

Are they objective? They don’t seem so to me. This is why I couldn’t tell Rhythm why creation confers rights, and why he can’t explain why sentience and/or sapience confer rights. There is no right or wrong answer. So, all we can really strive for is consistency in application.

Strangely, people keep challenging me to prove a position which I have freely admitted is unprovable.

Note that when asked, Rhythm agreed that rights are opinions: “Do rights boil down to opinions? In and of themselves, yeah, you could probably stretch and call them that. Not that this makes them less compelling.”

(Which, correct me if I'm wrong, was that he possesses the "moral authority." Ignoring that this too leads to a circular argument, it seems you've simply substituted one undefined term for another. I would ask the same questions about 'moral authority' that I asked about rights. What is moral authority, how does one get it, and how does one know that someone has it? [And yes, Euthyphro is leering menacingly from the wings])

I’ve never seen the dilemma. It’s right because God does it. Again, this is opinion, and you’re free to disagree.

I think the problem, John, is that you need something a little stronger than 'opinion' to justify a being torturing people in burning fire for all eternity. If all you have is your opinion that God is good and has these rights, I'd ask a few questions. What matters of fact is this opinion based on? What expertise? There's a difference between the opinion of a trained professional as to the cause of my car's malfunction, and that of my Uncle. You seem to be equating the two. This seems self-serving, as expertise in theological matters doesn't grant one any utilitarian benefits in terms of diagnosing any tangible malfunction, and is primarily an exercise in memorizing the details of fairy tales, attempting to divine the truth in their tea leaves (like Drich does), and schooling oneself in a set of arguments that is not only not accepted anywhere outside of theology, but have been almost to a man refuted time and time again. Is that the source of your 'expertise', John, your knowledge of fairy tales and sophistic philosophical arguments?

For my part, I am a philosopher with no credentials or expertise. My opinion means nothing.

You refute yourself here. The first bolded section is your opinion, but you then claim that your opinion means nothing. This goes back to the beginning of the post, i.e. opinions v. expert opinions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Whether or not I deny a sentient being a right, or whether or not I am in a position to protest, or to grant rights - is incapable of making a case for your gods rights or authority to abrogate them.

Unprovable you say? More like you, personally, are incapable of proving it (but you really like to claim it, for whatever reason). Go ahead and wallow in that as long as you like. It does, however, make your excusing god in the story of Job just that - an excuse. Something you like to say, but are incapable of establishing or elaborating upon. A waste of breath -imo-.

Since we seem to have reached the terminus of this particular train of thought, lets explore why your "human ants" analogy doesn't pan out, shall we? This would give you the opportunity to find something to bitch and moan about with regards to whether or not I consistently apply my notions of rights. An opportunity that you haven't had yet (though that hasn't stopped you from going on as though you had).

[John V]

Whether or not I deny a sentient being a right, or whether or not I am in a position to protest, or to grant rights - is incapable of making a case for your gods rights or authority to abrogate them.

Unprovable you say? More like you, personally, are incapable of proving it (but you really like to claim it, for whatever reason). Go ahead and wallow in that as long as you like. It does, however, make your excusing god in the story of Job just that - an excuse. Something you like to say, but are incapable of establishing or elaborating upon. A waste of breath -imo-.

AI won't get you any farther with me, because I;m consistent in my application of rights, I wouldn't lord over AI any more than I would accept anyone lording over me. Self determination. If I deny another sentient being a right we have determined originates in sentience then who am I to protest when another labors to deny me that right?”

[The Grand Nudger]

So, are you looking to have myself and others explain this to you again or are you simply tired of the discussion at this point? Is there something in either quote that you want to point out?

Here, I'll try to make this as simple as possible for you.

I am consistent in my application of rights (we can have that discussion if you like)
-If- I weren't, it wouldn't matter with regards to your god and his rights (or ability to abrogate others rights). Because this would be what is known as "an appeal to hypocrisy" which is just an elaborate ad hom.

Now, if it makes you feel any better, if we had a discussion on animal rights (non-human rights would broadly cover that and include AI), for example, there would be moments which you could very easily consider me the worst kind of monster - and I wouldn't disagree. At least not in principle. Unfortunately nothing in our discussion would excuse your god (and that's assuming it excuses me...which is up for disagreement) without mortally wounding the very concept of god.....an endeavor in which I would gladly become your enabler.

What are you having trouble wrapping your head around?

[Angrboda]

What are you having trouble wrapping your head around?

A lamp post or telephone pole, preferably.