U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-05-2019, 06:04 AM
 
Location: Germany
3,092 posts, read 545,318 times
Reputation: 517

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
I don't know the OT. where does it say rape is ok?
The Midianite story, and there is a law about spoils of war in Deuteronomy. There is also the law about a rapist being able to marry his victim.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-05-2019, 06:27 AM
 
Location: Germany
3,092 posts, read 545,318 times
Reputation: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
I didn't call morality itself "his rules", no. I said that god could be what Plato called "the good" (moral goodness itself) and his rules would just be an expression of that good.
Post 97. You said "If morality is objective (matter of fact, not opinion), and this omniscient being exists, then it follows that he would know what is right/wrong better than we do (infallibly, in fact). So I do think that his rules would be our moral obligation to follow in that case".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
And I agree that Craig's moral argument for theism fails, but that's hardly relevant here. It does nothing to rescue the Euthyphro dilemma nor to show how his defense of the Canaanite story was invalid.
And? Why are you again talking about something I am not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
He doesn't just assert it, but he gives deductive arguments in favor of that conclusion. I asked you to show how they're question-begging, and so far you haven't been able to do it.
And all you have done is said WLC said it without arguing why he is more likely correct. Your argument from authority is about as valid as using icr.org. The problem is that a most powerful, all knowing god just existing must also be most improbable. WLC's deductive argument needs to get around this little problem

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
No, I asked you, because you're the one who said they pointed out that "WLC's arguments are scientifically not sound."
You want me to find the link where Carroll says why WLC is still wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
But I do know that in his debate with Craig, all Carroll was able to do was assert that there were working models of a past-eternal universe and models that evaded the Boltzmann Brain problem but he never got around to defending any of these supposed models. Apart from that he challenged the causal principle which is a metaphysical principle, not a scientific question, and gave several non sequiturs about what we should expect on theism (again, philosophy, not science).
The science Carroll uses defends those arguments. You know, the actual science WLC abuses. Your need to misrepresent this is amusing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
IOW, you're completely unfamiliar with the Boltzmann Brain problem.
Your assertion and incorrect non sequitur ignores the problems of probability with the Boltzmann Brain (and rubber duck) problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Not at all. It's the very gist of the objection. Craig (and his god) must be wrong because OMGSHOCKHORROR god commands that even the children be killed. That's the whole argument.
More straw. Here is what you actually said. "They want to just assert that such a god must be wrong (usually appealing to emotions rather than any sort of logical argument) and have us agree."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2019, 07:35 AM
 
Location: TX
6,074 posts, read 5,023,114 times
Reputation: 2592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
Post 97. You said "If morality is objective (matter of fact, not opinion), and this omniscient being exists, then it follows that he would know what is right/wrong better than we do (infallibly, in fact). So I do think that his rules would be our moral obligation to follow in that case".
Right, but that doesn't suggest in any way that he makes up what is right/wrong. Indeed, what I said was that morality would be a matter of fact and so by definition not made up. Now, Craig's refutation of the Euthyphro suggests that god's very nature could be moral goodness itself, so that in addition to not being arbitrarily made up it is also not something god refers to outside of himself. But in any case, his rules would simply be expressions of objective morality.

Quote:
And all you have done is said WLC said it without arguing why he is more likely correct.
Specifically, I'm disagreeing with your claim that his argument is question-begging by pointing out that he uses deductive arguments in support of his conclusions. We haven't even made it to the part where we discuss these arguments, because you're stuck on trying to suggest there aren't any - that he just begs the question at some point, and yet you're mum's the word on where and how.

Quote:
The problem is that a most powerful, all knowing god just existing must also be most improbable.
That's another claim you're making, but where's the argument for it?

Quote:
You want me to find the link where Carroll says why WLC is still wrong?
No, I want you to give the actual argument/objection, since you claim to know that a good one exists. Sending me on a wild goose chase won't work.

Quote:
Your assertion and incorrect non sequitur ignores the problems of probability with the Boltzmann Brain (and rubber duck) problem.
Please point out something I've said that was mere assertion and/or non sequitur, and elaborate on this "probability with the BB problem".

Quote:
Here is what you actually said. "They want to just assert that such a god must be wrong (usually appealing to emotions rather than any sort of logical argument) and have us agree."
Right, because that's what keeps happening. It's what Dawkins did, and it's what people are doing here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2019, 09:08 AM
 
Location: Germany
3,092 posts, read 545,318 times
Reputation: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Right, but that doesn't suggest in any way that he makes up what is right/wrong. Indeed, what I said was that morality would be a matter of fact and so by definition not made up. Now, Craig's refutation of the Euthyphro suggests that god's very nature could be moral goodness itself, so that in addition to not being arbitrarily made up it is also not something god refers to outside of himself. But in any case, his rules would simply be expressions of objective morality.
Then god is an immoral monster according to the OT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Specifically, I'm disagreeing with your claim that his argument is question-begging by pointing out that he uses deductive arguments in support of his conclusions. We haven't even made it to the part where we discuss these arguments, because you're stuck on trying to suggest there aren't any - that he just begs the question at some point, and yet you're mum's the word on where and how.
I DID point out the mathematics about complexity and probability. Perhaps instead of pushing WLC, you should try and calculate for yourself the complexity. WLC's deductive arguments needs to get around this problem (and I have a feeling his deductive arguments are refuted by the simple snowflake).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
That's another claim you're making, but where's the argument for it?
Ironically on icr.org. Their mathematics is about proteins is out to the power of 20, but the principle is sound. The more complex something is, the less likely it is to just exist by chance. And a most powerful god must be even more complex than a protein. The more powerful the definition of god, the more improbable it becomes. It is simple mathematics once you actually think about it for yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
No, I want you to give the actual argument/objection, since you claim to know that a good one exists. Sending me on a wild goose chase won't work.
The universe having a beginning argument is a misrepresentation of many (maybe most) cosmological arguments. The beginning of the universe as we know it does not mean the universe itself had a beginning.

You also need to find out what a wild goose chase actually is before you falsely accuse me of sending you on one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Please point out something I've said that was mere assertion and/or non sequitur, and elaborate on this "probability with the BB problem".
You incorrectly asserted "IOW, you're completely unfamiliar with the Boltzmann Brain problem" in an attempt to run away from the fine tuning argument. Your conclusion does not follow from my fine tuning point, therefore it is a on sequitur. And like many religious people, you appear to be trying to build chains of arguments so that you can ignore any points you do not like. You may have noticed i like pulling people back by these chains.

If you want to know the problems with the Boltzmann Brain idea (and the more probable Boltzmann rubber duck problem), a better place to ask would be the science section.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Right, because that's what keeps happening. It's what Dawkins did, and it's what people are doing here.
Apart from the many rational arguments you need to ignore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2019, 09:49 AM
 
Location: Oklahoma
2,149 posts, read 717,298 times
Reputation: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
i said, if their was an all powerful, all knowing being, how in no-gods name would we know if what it was doing was the right thing to do or not?

i used the child example as a reference point to show the difference in it and us. Its actually more like we would be ants. If I had to kill 1/2 the ants on my lawn to stop overpopulation, dease, sickness, and slow horrible deaths in those ants and help as many as I could. them calling me 'evil" is meaningless.

that all I was saying. I was not minimizing it at all. i was being realistic.

yes, dying, waking up, and flying away for our sins is all i needed to hear. I knew they were wrong for as long as I could remember.

4 years ago? for some reason i thought you were older. I didn't know you weren't even out of teens yet. my bad. i would have cut you more slack.
Don’t be ridiculous Arach. I’m in my 50’s. The age of 9 has nothing to do with the Bible being nonsense.

We are discussing good and evil from our human perspective. If we are the “beloved”creation of a higher being(which is a basic tenant of Christianity) this god should not consider us as we consider ants. For a god to judge us and give us laws, it should be discernible as righteous in our capacity to understand good and evil.

The abrahamic god did not instruct the Jews to not pillage, genocide, enslave and rape. It sanctioned these acts. This in no way reflects a loving god or simple acts of nature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2019, 10:33 PM
 
5,672 posts, read 1,465,368 times
Reputation: 856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
Yet the religious often insist on telling us how to live.

Do you see the problem, yet?
Not really. We just prefer not to live in filth. And people that prefer filth tend to get upset when asked to clean up and put up with others that prefer not to be in their filth. Sorry if that hits home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2019, 10:39 PM
Status: "A smidge querulous." (set 3 days ago)
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
24,154 posts, read 12,495,566 times
Reputation: 11066
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie View Post
Not really. We just prefer not to live in filth. And people that prefer filth tend to get upset when asked to clean up and put up with others that prefer not to be in their filth. Sorry if that hits home.
It doesn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2019, 10:54 PM
 
Location: TX
6,074 posts, read 5,023,114 times
Reputation: 2592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Right, but that doesn't suggest in any way that he makes up what is right/wrong. Indeed, what I said was that morality would be a matter of fact and so by definition not made up. Now, Craig's refutation of the Euthyphro suggests that god's very nature could be moral goodness itself, so that in addition to not being arbitrarily made up it is also not something god refers to outside of himself. But in any case, his rules would simply be expressions of objective morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
Then god is an immoral monster according to the OT.
How do you figure?

Quote:
I DID point out the mathematics about complexity and probability. Perhaps instead of pushing WLC, you should try and calculate for yourself the complexity.
Regarding what? You haven't even given your objection.

Quote:
WLC's deductive arguments needs to get around this problem
What "problem"?

Quote:
(and I have a feeling his deductive arguments are refuted by the simple snowflake).
Your feelings are irrelevant. It hasn't been done yet, to my knowledge, and I've seen countless attempts.

Quote:
The more complex something is, the less likely it is to just exist by chance. And a most powerful god must be even more complex than a protein.
Ok, so this is your objection (now I know). Craig's responded to this one as well in two ways:

1. For starters, simplicity is just one of many criteria philosophers and scientists use in comparing hypotheses, and it's not even necessarily the most important, especially compared to explanatory scope, explanatory power, degree of ad hocness, etc.
2. If conceptualize as a pure mind, god could be considered far more simple than a protein in that he has no parts. So postulating a god of this sort would represent an advance in simplicity, for whatever that might be worth.

Quote:
The universe having a beginning argument is a misrepresentation of many (maybe most) cosmological arguments.
This is a bit incoherent, but there have been many cosmologists and physicists to agree with Craig that the evidence (some have even said all the evidence) suggests a beginning.

Quote:
The beginning of the universe as we know it does not mean the universe itself had a beginning.
It would means all of contiguous spacetime. From the traditional Big Bang model to the post-BGV nucleated closed universe model, physicists have meant it had a beginning. As Barrow and Tipler (each of them eminent cosmologists as well as physicists) emphasize, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo."

John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press), p. 442.

Stephen Hawking agreed in a lecture available online: “The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.”

The Beginning of TIme - Stephen Hawking

Vilenkin (2015) “We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.”

http://inference-review.com/article/...f-the-universe

And yes, Vilenkin means all of contiguous spacetime. From his article, "A nucleated closed universe is all the space there is, aside from the disconnected spaces of other closed universes. Beyond it, there is no space, and no time." He even throws in the question "What causes the universe to pop out of nothing?" to make it explicit that we're talking about creation ex nihilo.

Quote:
You also need to find out what a wild goose chase actually is before you falsely accuse me of sending you on one.
I didn't exactly say you were sending me on one, just letting you now I've resolved to not be sent on one. Like it or not, that includes not going off to some other site whenever someone claims something there refutes my/Craig's arguments.

Quote:
You incorrectly asserted "IOW, you're completely unfamiliar with the Boltzmann Brain problem" in an attempt to run away from the fine tuning argument. Your conclusion does not follow from my fine tuning point, therefore it is a on sequitur.
You cited the anthropic principle. The Boltzmann Brain objection is a direct counter to that.

Quote:
And like many religious people, you appear to be trying to build chains of arguments so that you can ignore any points you do not like.
1. I'm an atheist.
and 2. I've tried to respond directly to every point, but if you think I've missed one simply point it out (specifically, I mean, not this vague "You're running from my points" stuff).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:22 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
10,322 posts, read 4,362,380 times
Reputation: 6598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
The Midianite story, and there is a law about spoils of war in Deuteronomy. There is also the law about a rapist being able to marry his victim.
Also in Judges 19. Pretty sick stuff. Can't imagine anyone finding enlightenment from reading this sick garbage perpetrated by the males of our species. Holy book? No!!!! More like a book or horrors.

Quote:
judges 19: the story of the unnamed woman
22 While they were enjoying themselves, the men of the city, who were corrupt, surrounded the house and beat on the door. They said to the old man whose house it was, “Bring out your guest, that we may abuse him.” 23 The owner of the house went out to them and said, “No, my brothers; do not be so wicked. Since this man is my guest, do not commit this crime. 24 Rather let me bring out my maiden daughter or his concubine. Ravish them, or do whatever you want with them; but against the man you must not commit this wanton crime.” 25 When the men would not listen to his host, the husband seized his concubine and thrust her outside to them. They had relations with her and abused her all night until the following dawn, when they let her go. 26 Then at daybreak the woman came and collapsed at the entrance of the house in which her husband was a guest, where she lay until the morning. 27 When her husband rose that day and opened the door of the house to start out again on his journey, there lay the woman, his concubine, at the entrance of the house with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, “Come, let us go”; but there was no answer. So the man placed her on an ass and started out again for home. 29 On reaching home, he took a knife to the body of his concubine, cut her into twelve pieces, and sent them throughout the territory of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw this said, “Nothing like this has been done or seen from the day the Israelites came up from the land of Egypt to this day. Take note of it, and state what you propose to do.” Judges 19:22-30 (NAB)

Last edited by Matadora; Yesterday at 03:13 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:56 PM
 
Location: TX
6,074 posts, read 5,023,114 times
Reputation: 2592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Also in Judges 19. Pretty sick stuff. Can't imagine anyone finding enlightenment from reading this sick garbage perpetrated by the males of our species. Holy book? No!!!! More like a book or horrors.
You are aware that the book of Judges was all about how people supposedly behaved when they didn't follow god, right? Especially in the final chapters?

In any case, this is just another appeal to emotion. None of you have been able to give a logical argument as to why god must be immoral, evil, etc. for allowing/commanding a given act.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top