[Serious] Fallacies & Strategies

[Deesse23]

I asked you how you know, and you just re-stated your claim.
Want to try again? Especially in the light of the fact that you cant know if your god is good or bad. How do you know it was not necessary for your god to create us because he is good (or bad)? How did you rule out that being good (or bad) does not include the necessity to create humans?

If God necessarily has to create humans, then He can't be a deity.. the latter being usually defined as a necessary being, isn't contingent on anything.

How do you know your god is such a god?
Maybe he is a lower god who had to create humans?

the deity is self sufficient by definition.

Who defines your deity as such? You.
Self sufficient? Why does he need to be worshipped? Does not sound necessary at all to me.
Maybe he is a lower god who had to create humans and needs to be worshipped.

So again, it certainly doesn't follow from God being benevolent/malevolent that He should create us. I am not sure why this is difficult for you.

You agree that your god could be malevolent?!

You also did not answer my question why babies have cancer in the context of you claiming that your god puts disease on people to test their faith?

If you keep making up shit, you need to factor in follow up questions, you know.

[Anomalocaris]

I define the existence, perfection, and worship-worthiness if my deity to be above any question.  If you question these in anyway, you are committing a categorical error.

[The Grand Nudger]

Arguments from assertion are fun that way - end of the day..if a person thinks they work..you can just define them as wrong. Not their assertions. Them, literally. As in, what it means to be bob, is to be wrong, by definition.

[The Architect Of Fate]

If God necessarily has to create humans, then He can't be a deity.. the latter being usually defined as a necessary being, isn't contingent on anything.

How do you know your god is such a god?
Maybe he is a lower god who had to create humans?

the deity is self sufficient by definition.

Who defines your deity as such? You.
Self sufficient? Why does he need to be worshipped? Does not sound necessary at all to me.
Maybe he is a lower god who had to create humans and needs to be worshipped.

So again, it certainly doesn't follow from God being benevolent/malevolent that He should create us. I am not sure why this is difficult for you.

You agree that your god could be malevolent?!

You also did not answer my question why babies have cancer in the context of you claiming that your god puts disease on people to test their faith?

If you keep making up shit, you need to factor in follow up questions, you know.

How does he know it's not part of gods essential nature to create?

[Deesse23]

How do you know your god is such a god?
Maybe he is a lower god who had to create humans?


Who defines your deity as such? You.
Self sufficient? Why does he need to be worshipped? Does not sound necessary at all to me.
Maybe he is a lower god who had to create humans and needs to be worshipped.

You agree that your god could be malevolent?!

You also did not answer my question why babies have cancer in the context of you claiming that your god puts disease on people to test their faith?

If you keep making up shit, you need to factor in follow up questions, you know.

How does he know it's not part of gods essential nature to create?

Exactly.

Its all assertions, all made up. Defining gods into existence. The fact that people have to resort to this shit clearly indicates that they have nothing better. If they had, they would present it.

But they, nut buying the BS....thats a fallacy, fool!

[The Architect Of Fate]

ck on the second page of this thread, Neo said that it was a category error to speak of the God of classical theism as if it were an entity, like the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus.

There are fundamental differences. For example, Santa Claus, if he existed, would have parts (feet and hands, for example) and would move around (delivering presents). But these are not characteristics of the God of classical theism.

I don't expect that anyone is much interested in learning about the thing they're arguing against. Still, in case anyone would like to know more, Edward Feser's blog describes this in a readable way

Yup and it's not a category error Neo is simply wrong and nothing you listed here changes that and Edward Feser is a hack and a huckster 

[polymath257]

Back on the second page of this thread, Neo said that it was a category error to speak of the God of classical theism as if it were an entity, like the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus.

There are fundamental differences. For example, Santa Claus, if he existed, would have parts (feet and hands, for example) and would move around (delivering presents). But these are not characteristics of the God of classical theism.

I don't expect that anyone is much interested in learning about the thing they're arguing against. Still, in case anyone would like to know more, Edward Feser's blog describes this in a readable way.

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09...heism.html

It seems to me that the simplistic concept of God is the one that has multiple category errors and basic philosophical mistakes.

For example, the idea that existence needs something to 'sustain' it seems fundamentally wrong. It stems from the mistake of dividing existence into 'necessary' and 'contingent'. That is old, Aristotelian and Thomistic, philosophy and needs to be discarded.

The idea that an 'absolutely simple' thing can be intelligent, good, or sustain anything is another basic category error. Simple things that do not change cannot be or do anything. So a 'simple God' is not the type of thing that *could* do the things claimed for it.

The article you linked to has, from my perspective, a host of irrationalities, philosophical mistakes, and abundant nonsense. And yes, I have just read it. That was wasted time.

[Angrboda]

Back on the second page of this thread, Neo said that it was a category error to speak of the God of classical theism as if it were an entity, like the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus.

There are fundamental differences. For example, Santa Claus, if he existed, would have parts (feet and hands, for example) and would move around (delivering presents). But these are not characteristics of the God of classical theism.

I don't expect that anyone is much interested in learning about the thing they're arguing against. Still, in case anyone would like to know more, Edward Feser's blog describes this in a readable way.

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09...heism.html

Said properties must be relevant to the comparison for it to invalidate the comparison. How do you see having parts vs not having parts as being a relevant property?

I'll have to read Feser's article later, but there's an element of No True Scotsman type argument running through his article from what I gathered skimming it.

[The Grand Nudger]

I wouldn't worry about it. Let's just use fesers thoughts since feser knows his shit.

Since most classical theists attribute intellect and will to God, they too generally regard God as personal.

Five proofs of the existence of god.

Let's check in with noted god expert Saint Tom, while we're at it?

Then, since whatsoever is most excellent in creatures should be attributed to God, it is fitting that the word person should be attributed to God.

De Potentia Dei.

Voila, done. Feser and Tom say my comparison is apt. Any more questions?

@Helios

How can we know whether it's in gods essential nature to create? Well, according to the god of classical theism™ being a creator is greater than not being a creator, and we know* that this god is the greatest x. It follows from that..that to be the god of classical theism..it must, indeed, create. Mind you, the abrahamic god is not now nor has it ever been the god of classical theism, and the god of classical theism now proposed by contemporary apologists is a retconned appeal to a tradition that never was, in mere reality - so there's that.

[R00tKiT]

You simply, by your own logic, cannot know if your belief that your god is good, or omniscient, or purple, is or is not correct -- even inside this framework you're trying to impose upon the conversation.

I notice you completely ignored my point that theists continually judge their gods as good or evil on a regular basis, even as (as you admit) they have no way of knowing it. You should perhaps answer that point? How can you judge your god to be good or evil if you don't have the same knowledge he or she has? Because that is your argument.

Let's start with the last point: theists judging God (I prefer describing, but let's not get too caught up in semantics) to be benevolent or malevolent. As I said, theists usually refer to scripture when it comes to God's character. I am aware that the Old Testament contains many morally ambiguous verses, but I'll let christians sort out their mess. In Islam, God is described as merciful, gracious, among other properties. And, in contrast to christianity, God is not omnibenevolent, in the sense that God doesn't love everyone unconditionally.

Being close to God is something that one needs to earn by faithfully performing religious deeds, having good conduct, etc. You know the drill.

And it makes sense to me, at least. I don't conceive how God can "love" a mass murderer, or a rapist who never showed remorse or repented. The Christian God apparently adores the likes of Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc, etc. He loves them so much that he sacrificed himself for them and then resurrected himself. You can see why the christian concept of God is nonsense, precisely because it posits unconditional benevolence, which is simply a human fantasy. And I forgot to mention that this vulnerability in christian belief gives us the following knockdown argument : 

1. God, as conceived in christian belief, is unconditionally benevolent.
2. (From 1.) God, as conceived in christian belief, is unconditionally benevolent towards non-christians.
3. According to christian belief, non-christians are damned to eternity in hell, where the christian God continues to love them unconditionally.

4. (From 2. And 3.) The christian God doesn't exist.

As for how I know God is omniscient:as I said, the thread isn't about the perennial question of God's existence. We assume here that there is some sound argument establishing the existence of the God of classical theism, the orthodoxly conceived God of major religions. Some arguments purportedly establish more than just the existence. Take the ontological argument, which defines God as a being than which no greater can be conceived. Clearly, this definition entails omnipotence and omniscience. The soundness of this argument is another matter entirely, there are dozens of variants of the ontological argument alone, the modern ones are logically valid (and also sound if you accept that the concept of God is possible, not just conceivable), and whatever objection you might have against one of them may not carry over the other variants. So, if someone accepts the aforementioned argument, he accepts, by the same token, that the being whose existence is established is the greatest conceivable, hence omniscience.