On Hell and Forgiveness

[Neo-Scholastic]

A god who kills innocent babies for no reason is greater than one who does not. I defy any Christian to prove me objectively wrong.

Kind of hard to do when you won't even acknowledge that mathematics is objective.

[The Grand Nudger]

Abstraction, like ontological subjectivity before it, does not preclude epistemic objectivity.

We can use math to make objective statements, but it's still an abstraction..just as we can use the subjective contents of our experience to make objective statements. Anyhoo, that's way too softball of a question to justify that particular outburst of misunderstanding.

That a babykilling god is not great is demonstrable in the same way that a given bit of math is demonstrable. You start with your axioms and then show your work. Catch-22, ultimately...since demonstrating that a babykilling god is not, in fact, great..also demonstrates that great fairy is not great.

[Angrboda]

A god who kills innocent babies for no reason is greater than one who does not.  I defy any Christian to prove me objectively wrong.

Kind of hard to do when you won't even acknowledge that mathematics is objective.

If I grant you that math is objective, does that help any?

[Amarok]

Kind of hard to do when you won't even acknowledge that mathematics is objective.

If I grant you that math is objective, does that help any?

No he will just jump to another apologist ploy

[Neo-Scholastic]

Kind of hard to do when you won't even acknowledge that mathematics is objective.

If I grant you that math is objective, does that help any?

Depends on your willingness to engage in deep exegesis. What specific story concerns you?

[The Grand Nudger]

I doubt that Jorg actually had a specific story in mind, but isn't it amusing that even within the very narrow context of babykilling, you...completely worried about some endgame that isn't even there, have to wonder -which- example of babykilling you need to defend?

Allah Akbar!

[Crossless2.0]

I doubt that Jorg actually had a specific story in mind, but isn't it amusing that even within the very narrow context of babykilling, you...completely worried about some endgame that isn't even there, have to wonder -which- example of babykilling you need to defend?

“Deep” exegesis . . .

Lol

[Amarok]

I doubt that Jorg actually had a specific story in mind, but isn't it amusing that even within the very narrow context of babykilling, you...completely worried about some endgame that isn't even there, have to wonder -which- example of babykilling you need to defend?

Allah Akbar!

But Khem were not all knowing surly their must be some hidden unknown reason for it   

But...But.. Freewill ....

[The Grand Nudger]

This is why classical theism, as opposed to open theism and evangelicals attempts to carve out a newer and more decent god, strangles all of this shit in it's crib. OT style.

[SteveII]

And I'm sure I have pointed out to you that it is not necessary for us to be able to know what it means to be the "greatest possible being". I don't need a definition for that conception of God to be true just as I don't need to know all the natural numbers to understand the concept of infinity.

It's not an epistemological problem, Steve, as was already pointed out to you in that thread.  As well as the problem that this results in your God's values being arbitrary and thus not an example of moral perfection in an independent thread.  Regardless, we're back to God is good because you say so.  And I'm the most beautiful woman in the world because I say so.  Big deal.  You can assert shit without reason.  So can anybody.  For the claim that God is morally perfect to have any value, it would have to be coherent.  It isn't, so you're just muttering incomprehensible gibberish and hoping that nobody notices.

The Christian God is defined as the greatest possible being (scripture-informed Perfecting Being Theology). If you cobble together some lesser characteristics and say "your God could be this way", you are redefining the word. For this conversation and every one after, I do not grant the redefining of the term 'God'. There is nothing incoherent about the standard definition. You can easily glean attributes of God from the Bible and then systematize them into a doctrine using philosophy/logic. The concept has been discussed since Augustine. 

Closer to the Truth has a nice series of interviews I just listened to https://www.closertotruth.com/series/wha...g-theology

---

And I'm sure I have pointed out to you that it is not necessary for us to be able to know what it means to be the "greatest possible being". I don't need a definition for that conception of God to be true just as I don't need to know all the natural numbers to understand the concept of infinity.

You do, however, need a partial order that has a largest element. The problem is that 'greater' isn't well defined. Even if it were, there is no reason to think there is a greatest element.

So, at the very least, you need a consistent definition of 'greater'. Since there is more than one variable on which you want to measure (power, goodness, knowledge, etc), you have to find a consistent way to guarantee a maximum on each variable at the same time. This is usually impossible, even when each individual variable has a largest element.

Nope. Concerning God, the concept of 'greatest' does not require us to know what is actually the greatest. You are confusing ontology with epistemology.