[Serious] What God's justification for eternal torment?

[The Architect Of Fate]

We don't hold God to any standards, because He is God.  

Because he's god isn't an argument 

You can make up any standard you like, but you would be totally powerless to enforce it, so it is a moot point.

Whether it can be enforced or not is irrelevant 

  Therefore, it does not follow that if we are responsible for X then God is also responsible for X.

Yes it does and you have not refuted his point

[runewell]

How do you lawfully murder someone, if murder is unlawful killing?  How do you lawfully unlawfully kill someone?  That's a contradication.

As for the non-sequitur, how does it not follow that if God can give life, he can take it away?  I wasn't referring to humans there.

And finally you call me in error for not expressing an opinion about the other adjectives??

Do you think man-made laws are descriptive?

How do you square that god, in giving life, supposedly along with the Free Will™, is also sanctioned in ending it? You're arguing for nothing different than for parents to murder their children at a whim. Again, abhorrent and disgusting.

I don't understand the point of your first question.

How do you square that God, in giving live, is NOT sanctioned in ending it?  You're arguing for a God who is unable to do whatever He wants - Who is going to bring Him to justice?.  Laughable and illogical.

---

We don't hold God to any standards, because He is God.  

Because he's god isn't an argument 

You can make up any standard you like, but you would be totally powerless to enforce it, so it is a moot point.

Whether it can be enforced or not is irrelevant 

  Therefore, it does not follow that if we are responsible for X then God is also responsible for X.

Yes it does and you have not refuted his point

Is that all you do - ignore and dismiss whatever the other person says?   I will not waste my time on this.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I don't understand the point of your first question.

How do you square that God, in giving live, is NOT sanctioned in ending it? 

Because no were does it follow that giving life sanctions taking it 

You're arguing for a God who is unable to do whatever He wants -

Whether it can do what it wants is not a justification 

 Who is going to bring Him to justice?.  Laughable and illogical.

Whether or not anyone can bring him to justice does not sanction him to take life . No your responses are illogical .

---

Do you think man-made laws are descriptive?

How do you square that god, in giving life, supposedly along with the Free Will™, is also sanctioned in ending it? You're arguing for nothing different than for parents to murder their children at a whim. Again, abhorrent and disgusting.

I don't understand the point of your first question.

How do you square that God, in giving live, is NOT sanctioned in ending it?  You're arguing for a God who is unable to do whatever He wants - Who is going to bring Him to justice?.  Laughable and illogical.

---

Because he's god isn't an argument 



Whether it can be enforced or not is irrelevant 


Yes it does and you have not refuted his point

Is that all you do - ignore and dismiss whatever the other person says?   I will not waste my time on this.

I have neither ignored or dismissed anything . It's you who has failed to come up with an actual argument . You won't "waste your time" because you have no actual responses and you just repeat talking points 

[Nay_Sayer]

The trouble with foreknowledge and free will has nothing to do with a god, or with anyone making anyone else do anything.  

Laying aside the logical issues with foreknowledge and free will entirely, we'll have further moral difficulty understanding why an attribute that would make us responsible for x would not also make a god responsible for x.  If we do something knowing full well the consequence of that act, we hold ourselves responsible for that outcome.  

Do we hold gods to lesser standards than men?

We don't hold God to any standards, because He is God.  You can make up any standard you like, but you would be totally powerless to enforce it, so it is a moot point.  Therefore, it does not follow that if we are responsible for X then God is also responsible for X.

That's because you worship a fictional monster. I, however, hold FSM to very strict standards and xhe has never let me down.

[The Grand Nudger]

The trouble with foreknowledge and free will has nothing to do with a god, or with anyone making anyone else do anything.  

Laying aside the logical issues with foreknowledge and free will entirely, we'll have further moral difficulty understanding why an attribute that would make us responsible for x would not also make a god responsible for x.  If we do something knowing full well the consequence of that act, we hold ourselves responsible for that outcome.  

Do we hold gods to lesser standards than men?

We don't hold God to any standards, because He is God.  You can make up any standard you like, but you would be totally powerless to enforce it, so it is a moot point.  Therefore, it does not follow that if we are responsible for X then God is also responsible for X.

No standard would be a low standard.  

Are you sure that this vision of god is the one you want to impart?  A god that can't be forced to act in a moral fashion making morality moot?  Is that also how you view morality in the human context?  That, because some people will do bad things and no one can do anything about it, then they are not responsible for those things they've done?

[runewell]

We don't hold God to any standards, because He is God.  You can make up any standard you like, but you would be totally powerless to enforce it, so it is a moot point.  Therefore, it does not follow that if we are responsible for X then God is also responsible for X.

No standard would be a low standard.  

Are you sure that this vision of god is the one you want to impart?  A god that can't be forced to act in a moral fashion making morality moot?  Is that also how you view morality in the human context?  That, because some people will do bad things and no one can do anything about it, then they are not responsible for those things they've done?

What kind of God could be forced to act according to someone else's moral code?  Wouldn't be much of a God.  A God would ultimately get to determine right or wrong, not us.    

The human context is different - we don't have any power to inflict our personal morality on anyone else (I suppose you could while you are a parent, for a limited time).  We follow our own established laws or risk punishment - a collective morality if you will.  There are consequences for murder.  Man vs God is different from Man vs Man.

Some people will do "bad" things, and no one can do anything about it, but ultimately God will carry out justice on that person - but it doesn't happen swiftly.

[The Architect Of Fate]

What kind of God could be forced to act according to someone else's moral code? 

Irrelevant if it could 

Wouldn't be much of a God.  A God would ultimately get to determine right or wrong, not us.    

It would still be a god . This does not follow 

The human context is different - we don't have any power to inflict our personal morality on anyone else (I suppose you could while you are a parent, for a limited time).  We follow our own established laws or risk punishment - a collective morality if you will.  There are consequences for murder.  Man vs God is different from Man vs Man.

No it's not . The power imposition is irrelevant 

Some people will do "bad" things, and no one can do anything about it, but ultimately God will carry out justice on that person - but it doesn't happen swiftly.

None of this follows

[The Grand Nudger]

No standard would be a low standard.  

Are you sure that this vision of god is the one you want to impart?  A god that can't be forced to act in a moral fashion making morality moot?  Is that also how you view morality in the human context?  That, because some people will do bad things and no one can do anything about it, then they are not responsible for those things they've done?

What kind of God could be forced to act according to someone else's moral code?  Wouldn't be much of a God.  A God would ultimately get to determine right or wrong, not us.    

All kinds of gods, but I understand that the question was rhetorical.  I don't personally believe that a god or human beings get to determine right or wrong.  That would make the terms fundamentally arbitrary.

Do you believe that?  Do you believe that if god declared rape to be good, that rape would be good?  

The human context is different - we don't have any power to inflict our personal morality on anyone else (I suppose you could while you are a parent, for a limited time).  We follow our own established laws or risk punishment - a collective morality if you will.  There are consequences for murder.  Man vs God is different from Man vs Man.

Some people will do "bad" things, and no one can do anything about it, but ultimately God will carry out justice on that person - but it doesn't happen swiftly.

Why should there be consequences for murder if we cannot maintain that moral agents are responsible for the consequences of their actions?  On what theory does god carry out justice? God does what god wants, justice is just some word that we use for things that we can't force god to do, as I recall.

[Sal]

Do you think man-made laws are descriptive?

How do you square that god, in giving life, supposedly along with the Free Will™, is also sanctioned in ending it? You're arguing for nothing different than for parents to murder their children at a whim. Again, abhorrent and disgusting.

I don't understand the point of your first question.

I don't see why you cannot. It's a very basic observation of your claim. You assume whatever a god is capable of, is also a part of its nature. Christians usually phrase this with hollow terms, in this context, like "goodness" or "perfect" or some such shit. It's something WLC has fumbled his way to, with his divine command "theory" for example. All of the ways in we describe the consistency of Nature with physical theories from observing that very consistency. No matter what laws we describe Nature in, those are completely descriptive, while all man-made laws are just moral impositions, prescriptions, on how we ought to behave.

Or is it simply you do not understand the distinction between 'descriptive' and 'prescriptive'? You wouldn't be the first. Here's a question which might illustrate that: What do you think is the difference between the Newtonian law of gravitational attraction between mass, and a societal law about complete prohibition against stealing?

How do you square that God, in giving live, is NOT sanctioned in ending it?

"Might makes right"? Is that it? Pathetic. What a pathetic being you describe as god.

I guess "2 + 2 = 5", when 'god' has the student under its boot.

  You're arguing for a God who is unable to do whatever He wants - Who is going to bring Him to justice?.

The problem for any god doing anything at a whim - while at the same time thinking that is sanctioned somehow - is a fast track to excusing abhorrent behavior for those pretending to speak for that god. Your "god" is nothing more than a very human political tool to exert control and maintain power over people then.

Tell me, do you think your god is part of the reality we, as humans, experience? IOW, are the same rules we experience, applicable to god as well? You should be careful how you respond, lest your god having the exact appearance of non-existence.

  Laughable and illogical.

Your god is internally inconsistent, a contradiction, that I have little doubt you spun out of thin air to argue with atheists. Business as usual.

[runewell]

I don't personally believe that a god or human beings get to determine right or wrong.  That would make the terms fundamentally arbitrary.

Do you believe that?  Do you believe that if god declared rape to be good, that rape would be good?  

Why should there be consequences for murder if we cannot maintain that moral agents are responsible for the consequences of their actions?  On what theory does god carry out justice?  God does what god wants, justice is just some word that we use for things that we can't force god to do, as I recall.

I would agree that multiple sources would not be able to determine standards of right or wrong; I agree that would be arbitrary.  However, for a single God to determine right or wrong would work - there would be no confusion then.

I'm not going to answer the hypothetical question about rape.  Let's change it to genocide, why would that be inherently bad?  From a man vs man point of view, there are going to be wars and capital punishment but in general sure killing is bad.  But now if God orders Israel to wipe out other people why would that be different?  Well, I imagine they were carrying out his punishment on other countries that were disobedient - indeed their ability to do so typically depended on their own obedience to God.  I know this opens up a whole can of worms, let's just say in the New Testament we don't see this approach being carried out any longer.  I'm not pro-genocide, but God can wipe out whichever countries are deserving of that justice.

God does what God wants, justice is carrying out punishment for disobedience.