Facebook conversation with a Christian...

[Filosophize]

(I had posted the following on a facebook thread that then prompted this individual to message me)

"It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said “Thou shall not kill”..."

 

Conversation Start:

I don't want to come across wrong, but it would be cool to talk with you about your comment on one of (name removed) church posts.  Not trying to convince you about anything or even argue but maybe just explain our side of why its important to us.  I agree that there are some really screwed up things done in the name of God but that's why We believe in God and not in people.  Whats sad is that the Bible, Torah, Karan.... have all been used for evil things and they all claim that there God is better.  Any belief based on people will fall, be corrupt, and infiltrate peoples natural freedoms.  True "GOD" based faith will bring more than I can even claim to understand.  Hope to get a good conversation going on this without anyone taking it personally.  I honestly am curious on your thoughts behind the post.  It seemed passionate If I said something offensive I am not meaning too, like I said above hoping to get a little feed back.I hope your doing well too haven't seen you in a long while

11:56am

I don't believe that you truly, deep down really believe in a "god".

Am I wrong?

12:09pm

I believe in a God that created the earth (or used science to create earth), I believe that people are naturally "not good" and that we all spend our entire time on earth trying to find or be "good" and that the "good" we truly seek is really just a way for us to feel better about our shortfalls in life.  The thing so powerful about God is that he was never meant to be fully understood by people.  I believe that each person has a purpose that they will fulfill in life, and that every wrong or right step was intentional.  You ask if I "truly" believe in a God.  I say no I believe in the one and only God.

Do you deny that if you had been raised in a different random geographical area with a different predominant religion that you would most assuredly say the same thing except that you would believe that whatever god you were taught you would then think was the "one and only god" or even perhaps the "many true gods"

No, I don't deny that.  I endorse it, like I said above every single person has a purpose and will fulfill that purpose.  I was not made to ponder at what religion I would believe in if I was born in another country or culture.  I was born in this culture and focus on my personal relationship with it.  I embrace that others in other cultures question beliefs and practices, that they continue to seek truth and ponder the same questions that every being on earth has asked for centuries.  I think its clear at this point that no person has successfully proven anything other than God that makes sense (correct me if I am wrong) And quite frankly the time I spent outside of my culture I felt so lost and every once of myself fought against the belief in God only to have him literally lead me to a stronger belief in him. I have worked through my struggles in beliefs with God and am now in the middle of going through any doubts I have in the bible and other parts of my beliefs.  To say I have blind faith in Christianity would be wrong.  I am not the first in line to listen to flawed men preach.  You could say that I have blind faith in God.  I am fulfilled every day, seeking truth, and my purpose in life; outside the ordinary paying bills (etc).  My question to you why do you think that people call a belief in God silly/stupid/ not realistic?  And you think they are referring to a certain religion or just that there are so many sub beliefs that it makes it easy to tear apart in an argument?

"I was not made to ponder"

What do you mean by this?

haha nothing like taking something out of context

it was meant that I have already worked through my doubts in people, God, E.T., the flying spaghetti monster, and Godzilla.......  what do you believe in Mark?

honestly with no judgment

do you believe that non-believers in this Christian "god" are going to a place of eternal hellfire after death should they not accept the Christian "god"?

new rule: each person has to honestly answer a question before they get to ask another question

no

what do you believe in?

you are making a claim

you are the one stating that you believe in X

the burden of proof is always upon the person making the claim

if I were to claim that unicorns exist, it is not up to you to prove that I am wrong

it would be up to me to prove that I am correct

you know this ^^ is correct

so

do you believe that non-believers in this Christian "god" are going to a place of eternal hellfire after death should they not accept the Christian "god"?

it's okay to be uncomfortable with that question, I would be concerned if you weren't, but you can't deny it's importance or fail to answer it clearly, it is an undeniable tenant of the belief system

your original claim was that belief in X has led to killing even though they believe in "thou shall not kill."  And proof of God is/ up to the person who needs proof.  I have proof..... you do not..... Like I said earlier you will not find proof of God amongst flawed people because everyone is a hypocrite to a certain extent.  You want proof you I dare you to proof that he doesn't exist.

And yes I do believe in the second coming of Christ and that people will be judged by God and that there is a Hell and people will go there.

that was not my claim

There is no good without the Bad and no Spirit without the Flesh

"It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said “Thou shall not kill”..."

I would never condemn other people there.

^^ was my statement on the thread

not people killing

God killing

God ORDERING the killing

My apologies.

big difference tho

I agree

it's easy to say humans a flawed

no one will argue that

here is the thing

you answered the question (do you believe that non-believers in this Christian "god" are going to a place of eternal hellfire after death should they not accept the Christian "god"?) very indirectly

you said "yes I do believe in the second coming of Christ and that people will be Judged by God and that there is a Hell and people will go there."

So let's make this simple,

I asked (do you believe that non-believers in this Christian "god" are going to a place of eternal hellfire after death should they not accept the Christian "god"?)

Do you believe ^^ this or not.

Its not that simple Mark.  I believe you die, face Gods judgment, then go to either Heaven or Hell.

ok

Did you grow up a mother and father your entire childhood?

Only God know some things

Did you grow up a mother and father your entire childhood?

ie: was there any divorce, separation, step father/mother etc

if you mean "did I grow up with a mother and father my whole life?"  Then yes no history of divorce.  with the exception of my grandpa on my mom’s side.

tell me about your childhood experience with religion if you don't mind

Mom married my dad catholic and my dad was raised without religion and found it.  My mom eventually felt more aligned with Christian beliefs soon after being married

did your father "find it before or after meeting your mom"?

before

Probably after my his dad did.

Our family has a long history of turning from God, only later to return to the belief.

go on

Church was regular, spent middle school making friends with similar beliefs and high school making friends with people that I liked hanging out with regardless of belief.

tell me about this "Our family has a long history of turning from God, only later to return to the belief."

Church was spoon fed as if it was a manual to be the best Christian.... even though there is no true perfect Christian.  Which pissed me off.

tell me about this "Our family has a long history of turning from God, only later to return to the belief."

so I explored some other beliefs enough to get the big picture of a couple,  Mormonism, catholicism, Buddhism.......  and came to the conclusion that life is a constant battle between the spirit and the flesh.  spirit being naturally holy and the flesh being naturally selfish (craving and receiving what ever it desires, lust, greed, etc....) and found that being fulfilled is keeping that balance where the spirit over powers the flesh (I try to do this and fail a lot, but I never stop trying).

^^ that's interesting and I understand what you mean by it but you're still not telling me about "Our family has a long history of turning from God, only later to return to the belief."

My Grandpa rebelled against religion when he was a boy.  Worked his way to the top of Pacific Bell as one of the top V.P.'s and found that nothing made him more fulfilled and driven in life than his faith in God.  My Dad was a cowboy who cared nothing else about

sorry didn't see you typing

no worries I am slow

My mom was raised by divorced abusive alcoholics that preached God will smite you and God will hurt you etc.... That Fear of God is the most important thing i.e. catholic upbringing......

What sort of fallout would you expect from your parents should you tomorrow announce that you no longer believe in any gods?

being left on her own to survive on numerous occasions have led her to believe what she believes today.... Seeing as my parents aren't the only ones who have been through these things it is interesting when we use the word culture just doesn't work in these situations.  There isn't really a specific culture other than the normal fads of there generations but rather a specific event, or series of events that make us who we are today; and with it our constantly changing culture.....

I would be more worried about my grandparents than my parents.  I could be Gay for all my parents care if that’s what I truly believe.

They would be worried that I wouldn't be saved and that I would struggle through a lot of lifes already difficult challenges.

Do you admit that you may be wrong in your beliefs about the existence of a god entity?

Not that believing makes it all easy or anything but it helps your attitude and will keep moving on past the unfair lives we live.  100% work doesn't always mean 100% reward in this life.

I think that it is better to live a Life believing than life a Life questioning.  And there are days when I wonder about my beliefs just like the rest of us.....

I do always believe there is a God.

I mostly question practices and the religious routines.

You claim to believe, but do you admit that there is a chance that you're wrong

I was raised to always seek the truth and it has always led me to the Belief in God... The day that stops happening is the day that I will join millions of other people who believe one thing one day then flip flop on other days.  Like I said above I mostly question specific meanings of the bible and practices....

other than the time I have spent trying to avoid church and God I have never lost faith in God

just people and religion

why do you think you're so hesitant to just say that there is a chance that you could be wrong?

With God there isn't room for grey area you either believe or you don't

belief and faith are different from knowing

I have faith than an airplane is not going to land on my house in the next 30 seconds, but....

I could be wrong...

Do you find it hard to say "I have faith that a god exists, but I could be factually incorret"

knowing is only a perception.  it is really only what we think we know

you can't start skipping off to to other dimensions to avoid making a non wishy washy statement

I have faith than an airplane is not going to land on my house in the next 30 seconds, but....

I could be wrong...

does ^^ make sense?

No I think that is ok to say and feel and it is perfectly normal.  I personally know God exists.

okay, so there is a major problem there

what you're saying is simply not true

claiming knowledge that you don't have is very slippery

you can say "I believe XYZ," "I have faith in XYZ"

you can not say "I KNOW that zombie jesus rose from the grave cause I read it in a book"

it's important to be precise with language

Your logic is witty Mark and your debating skills are in fact excellent.  Are you questioning my beliefs or your own?  I am not the one that needs proof of God? I have experienced it and lived it.  I already mentioned that if you want proof God exists you won't find it in a conversation.  If you want proof I believe in something you already have it.  If you want to talk about specific beliefs we can do that but you can't generalize something like God and the rising of Jesus in the same sentence.  They are different.

^^ not the point

not mad just passionate

Do you think that I can be correct while claiming that I "know" that no plane will land on my head in the next 30 seconds?

^^ very easy question with only one answer

Faith is not a science, is not calculated, is not an emotion or a feeling, it isn't comparable to a Plane, or a boat on water, or your feet staying on the ground. It is something that is based on a personal level between you and God.  It is used incorrectly or lightly when being referred to a plane.  There is no earthly comparison for Faith Mark.  What you are talking about is hope.  You "hope" that a plane won't crash on your head and "believe it won't because it doesn't usually happen?

so NO

no

I am not talking about faith

I am talking about the difference between faith and knowing

most christians will accurately admit that while they have "faith" they also admit that there is a chance they are wrong in their belief

Ok no you do not know a plane will crash on your head

the distinction between the two words matters

similar to objective vs subjective

I am not most christians.  What's the point in believing something if you are willing to just turn around and say you could be wrong.  What a waste, especially when most people are unsure because the just walk to church and don't actually pursue God on a personal level

In your words, what is the difference between "knowing" and "believing"?

They are not settled in their "Faith" or "Belief" in God then?

Knowing i something that you were taught to know it is objective.  Believing is something that isn't taught it is found only by the person "seeking a belief" i.e. subjective

I know bible stories because I have been taught them.  I believe in God and that they are true because I have found my belief in God to be truth.

you're using language irresponsibly in that statement

it's okay

you "know" a story

because you were taught that story

that is a factual statement

however

you do NOT know if that story is true or not

Knowledge can be subjective and objective I am using it in this example as something that is taught like most believers

your statement is incorrect

knowledge cann't be subjective

a feeeling or a belief is subjective

knowledge is objective

absent the topic of coversation, your definitions of these words are not accurate

that's okay tho, let's clarify

I can know how to play a song

I can not know that a song is the best song

I can believe that a song is the best song

so back to the conversation at hand

john can say "I *feel* in my heart and soul that there is a god

john can say "I believe in a god"

john can say "I have faith that there is a god"

john can NOT say "I know there is a god"

I don't think you should feel werid about that

it's simply accurate use of language

Is not a main element of faith to believe absent objective proof?

Mark even if I told you I KNOW there is a God and that he has spoken to me in some supernatural way or spiritual way or through some kind of sign.  You would argue to death that it was a tumor, disease, I was illogical or used incorrect grammar to explain it to you.  Faith described in words is useless to a person who has no intention to find some.  It is also useless to a person who describes God as "Absent Objective Proof," as is if he is a lost toy that you KNOW existed at one point and can't find now.  I had fun with this conversation and have to start studying for a final but feel free to keep it going if you have more questions or thoughts I just wont be a quick responder the rest of today.  I am sorry if I used some words incorrectly it's how I have always used them and should probably get better about that.   God bless you Mark

You didn't answer the last question I asked and you attacked me for arguments that I have not made (You would argue to death that it was a tumor, disease, I was illogical or used incorrect grammar to explain it to you)

Conversation End (He logged off).

[MysterionMuffles]

From his first point, I would just argue that if the Bible was so divine, why would God allow such evil things to end up on the page? If he has the power to intervene and show up at will, and men are so fallible, how could he simply not have editted the Bible back in the ancient days so they wouldn't get so mistranslated and misconstrued? However I think you still a pretty good job.

 

"True "GOD" based faith will bring more than I can even claim to understand." 

 

Oh the irony in that statement....where do I even begin? Well I won't get too ahead of my self and just read the rest of your convo. Omg...he believes in a God that used science to create the world. Ok so God is not magical anymore? Rather he works with test tubes and...I dunno man. I'm barely skimming through your conversation and I can already see that this person wasn't even worth giving the time or day to.

 

I don't usually create my post as I read along, but I'm just getting easily bothered by this guy lol.

 

 

 

I believe in a God that created the earth (or used science to create earth), I believe that people are naturally "not good" and that we all spend our entire time on earth trying to find or be "good" and that the "good" we truly seek is really just a way for us to feel better about our shortfalls in life.  The thing so powerful about God is that he was never meant to be fully understood by people.  I believe that each person has a purpose that they will fulfill in life, and that every wrong or right step was intentional.  You ask if I "truly" believe in a God.  I say no I believe in the one and only God.

 

He's basically sticking to the original sin thing, and moving goal posts by saying he's not meant to be fully understood by people. It's just muddled up in confusion this whole thing. I cannot imagine how much trauma this guy had to receive to be so irrational.

 

Though I do love the question you asked instead of pointing these flaws out. I feel like I would've shamed him (something he'd probably used to anyway) for being such an idiot LOL! Good stuff keeping it Socratic!

 

His second message just wreaks of how indoctrinated he is. It does start out that he wants to respect other cultures, but feeling lost amongst them when he was outside of his own is not embracing or respecting them, rather than feeling unease that his cultural biases were being challenged.

 

Again I liked your question after that little speech of his, however I would also go so far as to ask: by which basis do you determine truth from falsehood? And if he just appeals to a Bible or priest he has already admitted are imperfect, then he's already lost the debate.

 

 

 

your original claim was that belief in X has led to killing even though they believe in "thou shall not kill."  And proof of God is/ up to the person who needs proof.  I have proof..... you do not..... Like I said earlier you will not find proof of God amongst flawed people because everyone is a hypocrite to a certain extent.  You want proof you I dare you to proof that he doesn't exist.

And yes I do believe in the second coming of Christ and that people will be judged by God and that there is a Hell and people will go there.

 

 

What a strawman argument...putting words in your mouth. Or well, hands since this is text chatting. Flawed people including himself since he is included in that category of people never knowing the full truth or how to fully be good. If he already believes in the second coming of Christ....again, I would've dipped from the conversation. But I do know how tempting it is to argue against it because at times it just seems so easy.

 

I will now refrain from commenting on anything else in detail as it seems to me that this person simply dodged all of your questions with more indirect bs. I would say, good stuff on this, you kept it curious and very simple...well as simple as you could manage with someone who just complicated things more and more.

I think asking about people's childhoods like you did, makes it a whole lot simpler as you were getting simpler answers from him. You cut the Occam's Razor deep into this one. I always feel uncomfortable that Stef "resorts" to the childhood history line of questioning, but honestly, it's such a valid approach and tends to simplify all these abstractions people love to bury their true feelings with. Good job on this!

 

 

I think that it is better to live a Life believing than life a Life questioning.

 

This bothers me so much though...it's an admission to blind faith already.

 

 

I am not most christians.  What's the point in believing something if you are willing to just turn around and say you could be wrong.  What a waste, especially when most people are unsure because the just walk to church and don't actually pursue God on a personal level

 

I would argue a life of curiousity beats this tenfold. It's not a waste to believe in something if you are willing to turn around and say you could be wrong, it would be a HUMBLE thing to do. Humility being a virtue taught by Christianity, it would be something to practice instead of arrogantly believing you are right without evidence. The world is an ever changing place, and to have the humility that knowledge is updatable means you can have all the belief and trust you want in something until otherwise proven incorrect.

[Filosophize]

Thanks for the reply (That Popular Anti-Social Guy)

 

I definitely left the conversation thinking of the quote "you can't reason someone out of a belief they were not reasoned into"

 

However, I enjoyed it, and did feel like I might have made some progress with him perhaps thinking a bit about the difference between "faith" and "knowing"

[wdiaz03]

Can't one argue that god killing people is a good thing for those people?

 

If god levels a city killing everyone, didn't he just give those people a one way ticket to eternal bliss in heaven?

 

Thinking that god killing people is evil is to apply atheist believes to religion.

[Holo Cene]

Can't one argue that god killing people is a good thing for those people?

 

If god levels a city killing everyone, didn't he just give those people a one way ticket to eternal bliss in heaven?

 

Thinking that god killing people is evil is to apply atheist believes to religion.

 

By that logic, you can go into a church and kill all of the congregation and call it "good" because your sending them to heaven.

[wdiaz03]

By that logic, you can go into a church and kill all of the congregation and call it "good" because your sending them to heaven.

 

Well, you already been told "thou shall not kill". By doing this you might be interfering with god's plan. Therefore only god would kill, unless he needs help, like in the case of Jesus, Where Judas had the others had to be part of the script of Jesus death.

[Holo Cene]

Well, you already been told "thou shall not kill". By doing this you might be interfering with god's plan. Therefore only god would kill, unless he needs help, like in the case of Jesus, Where Judas had the others had to be part of the script of Jesus death.

 

First, you didn't address what I said. It would be a "good" because who the hell doesn't want to go to heaven? 

Having exceptions to universal principles is exactly the kind of bullshit predators use to enslave man. God and religion is no different. You are giving moral and political authority to religious figures who can then invoke gods will to violate the principles that the religion supposedly embodies. Principles cannot be good for one but not the other or they are not principles. 

[cynicist]

Can't one argue that god killing people is a good thing for those people?

 

If god levels a city killing everyone, didn't he just give those people a one way ticket to eternal bliss in heaven?

 

Thinking that god killing people is evil is to apply atheist believes to religion.

 

Lol but wouldn't a benevolent god just put people in heaven rather than murder them? Besides for a rule to be moral it must be universal. If instead of god simply killing people, he tortured them and delighted in causing them pain, but at the same time had a rule that said you shouldn't do that as a human, I think you would have a different reaction. You seem to be suggesting that eternal bliss after death excuses breaking his own rules and the agony of dying, which is an argument from effect of course. 

 

Anyway to the OP I'm surprised you didn't bring up the murder that god did himself. The person responding to you seemed to think you were talking about acts done in the name of god instead. It would have been interesting to read the response to that. I would hesitate to bring it up with a live christian for fear of causing a meltdown in their minds from the knowledge that the god they worship does evil.

[wdiaz03]

First, you didn't address what I said. It would be a "good" because who the hell doesn't want to go to heaven? 

Having exceptions to universal principles is exactly the kind of bullshit predators use to enslave man. God and religion is no different. You are giving moral and political authority to religious figures who can then invoke gods will to violate the principles that the religion supposedly embodies. Principles cannot be good for one but not the other or they are not principles. 

 

I did address it, There's a rule not allowing people to kill. so it cannot be a "good" because you will be somehow interfering with god's plan for those people and also you will be breaking that rule.

 

god is an exception to everything. so why not go a step further and allow him to kill people here and there.

 

Don't shift from god to political authorities, no political authority can claim they unleashed a great flood. I'm strictly talking to acts of god here.

 

it seems clear that god created these rules just for humans.

 

"Honor thy mother and thy father" well god has no mother or father.

"adultery, steal, lie, shall not covet neighbor's wife, possessions " clearly applicable just to humans

"thou shall not kill" well he clearly kills so again when he kills is different than when we kill.

 

 

Lol but wouldn't a benevolent god just put people in heaven rather than murder them? Besides for a rule to be moral it must be universal. If instead of god simply killing people, he tortured them and delighted in causing them pain, but at the same time had a rule that said you shouldn't do that as a human, I think you would have a different reaction. You seem to be suggesting that eternal bliss after death excuses breaking his own rules and the agony of dying, which is an argument from effect of course. 

 

Anyway to the OP I'm surprised you didn't bring up the murder that god did himself. The person responding to you seemed to think you were talking about acts done in the name of god instead. It would have been interesting to read the response to that. I would hesitate to bring it up with a live christian for fear of causing a meltdown in their minds from the knowledge that the god they worship does evil.

 

True, you and me might do things different, but we don't know why this god chose to do things this way, maybe we are learning a valuable lesson with the suffering. Life in itself is a constant struggle, let me also remind you that if you are to put our lives (~100 years or so) in god's petri dish called earth in relation to eternal bliss in heaven even if you suffered intense pain all your life, compared to eternity it will feel like removing a splinter, a blink of an eye.

[Holo Cene]

I did address it, There's a rule not allowing people to kill. so it cannot be a "good" because you will be somehow interfering with god's plan for those people and also you will be breaking that rule.

 

god is an exception to everything. so why not go a step further and allow him to kill people here and there.

 

Don't shift from god to political authorities, no political authority can claim they unleashed a great flood. I'm strictly talking to acts of god here.

 

it seems clear that god created these rules just for humans.

 

"Honor thy mother and thy father" well god has no mother or father.

"adultery, steal, lie, shall not covet neighbor's wife, possessions " clearly applicable just to humans

"thou shall not kill" well he clearly kills so again when he kills is different than when we kill.

 

 

 

True, you and me might do things different, but we don't know why this god chose to do things this way, maybe we are learning a valuable lesson with the suffering. Life in itself is a constant struggle, let me also remind you that if you are to put our lives (~100 years or so) in god's petri dish called earth in relation to eternal bliss in heaven even if you suffered intense pain all your life, compared to eternity it will feel like removing a splinter, a blink of an eye.

 

You are way too deeply indoctrinated to even argue with, because no amount of reason or rationality trumps "faith". I'm surprised that a fundamental christian could apply to rational empirical philosophy.

[cynicist]

I did address it, There's a rule not allowing people to kill. so it cannot be a "good" because you will be somehow interfering with god's plan for those people and also you will be breaking that rule.

 

god is an exception to everything. so why not go a step further and allow him to kill people here and there.

 

Don't shift from god to political authorities, no political authority can claim they unleashed a great flood. I'm strictly talking to acts of god here.

 

it seems clear that god created these rules just for humans.

 

Yeah that's why god fails. He is an exception to everything we know about life and reality; Consequently since logic is based on the properties of reality, god becomes impossible. A funny thing to think about is this: We only apply morality to humans because other animals have limited intelligence; Since god's intelligence would be unlimited wouldn't morality be far more applicable to him than it could ever be to human beings? Of course the only counter argument would be that logic doesn't apply to god, but that also invalidates his existence. 

[wdiaz03]

You are way too deeply indoctrinated to even argue with, because no amount of reason or rationality trumps "faith". I'm surprised that a fundamental christian could apply to rational empirical philosophy.

 

Am I? I'm an atheist, I'm merely arguing that I have not seen compelling evidence that one can use the "thou shall not kill" as proof against how good/bad god is. Either we can find the answer together or If not, I say we stick to what we have good arguments for. I'm willing to hear good arguments on the matter.

 

 

Yeah that's why god fails. He is an exception to everything we know about life and reality; Consequently since logic is based on the properties of reality, god becomes impossible. A funny thing to think about is this: We only apply morality to humans because other animals have limited intelligence; Since god's intelligence would be unlimited wouldn't morality be far more applicable to him than it could ever be to human beings? Of course the only counter argument would be that logic doesn't apply to god, but that also invalidates his existence. 

 

If we where living in a petri dish right know, would the creator be outside our reality? Again one could argue that god is outside morality and logic, because he programmed those just for his creation. Obviously he being a perfect being could have created a perfect world full of perfect beings, but his creation seems imperfect ot us. who knows what hes intentions were.

 

Just like Asimov 3 laws of robotics only apply to the robots humans create, but not to humans themselves.

[Holo Cene]

Am I? I'm an atheist, I'm merely arguing that I have not seen compelling evidence that one can use the "thou shall not kill" as proof against how good/bad god is. Either we can find the answer together or If not, I say we stick to what we have good arguments for. I'm willing to hear good arguments on the matter.

 

Devil's advocate. Ok cool.

 

So that argument is like me saying Jesus' farts smelled like cotton candy. How do I arbitrarily get to make assertions about something just because someone told me it was true? That is a self fulfilling prophecy. You define god as being exempt from his own laws, but then when asked how you know that fact you reply "because the bible said so". Therefore you win the argument because you can use a definition that contradicts the opposite position. I say 2+2=5. You say that isn't mathematically possible. Then I respond with the fact that 2+2=5 in the 8th dimension because a mathematical metaphysician proclaimed it in his book I HAVE VISITED THE 8th DIMENSION. How do I argue against that from the perspective of the 8th dimension? I can't because for all intents and purposes it is bullshit.

[wdiaz03]

Devil's advocate. Ok cool.

 

So that argument is like me saying Jesus' farts smelled like cotton candy. How do I arbitrarily get to make assertions about something just because someone told me it was true? That is a self fulfilling prophecy. You define god as being exempt from his own laws, but then when asked how you know that fact you reply "because the bible said so". Therefore you win the argument because you can use a definition that contradicts the opposite position. I say 2+2=5. You say that isn't mathematically possible. Then I respond with the fact that 2+2=5 in the 8th dimension because a mathematical metaphysician proclaimed it in his book I HAVE VISITED THE 8th DIMENSION. How do I argue against that from the perspective of the 8th dimension? I can't because for all intents and purposes it is bullshit.

 

Yes, I agree, Its a matter of definition, else religion would not be as popular as it is, right?

 

If I believe 2 is special and 2=3, then no matter how much you argue than 2+2 is not 5, I can still claim than 2+2=5. Because everything that I know to be true and holy point to 2=3.

 

That's why I think claiming actions of a god to be good/bad is irrelevant because by definition god is put outside the context of those actions as they would apply to humans.

[Holo Cene]

Yes, I agree, Its a matter of definition, else religion would not be as popular as it is, right?

 

If I believe 2 is special and 2=3, then no matter how much you argue than 2+2 is not 5, I can still claim than 2+2=5. Because everything that I know to be true and holy point to 2=3.

 

That's why I think claiming actions of a god to be good/bad is irrelevant because by definition god is put outside the context of those actions as they would apply to humans.

 

I don't think you understood my definition. If I define god as a being that sucks my penis at night, how would you disprove it? Him sucking my wang, while he is invisible is just a part of what defines god. You are defining god as something that is outside of context, then you basically make it impossible to argue anything rational because your definition is irrational. 

[cynicist]

If we where living in a petri dish right know, would the creator be outside our reality? Again one could argue that god is outside morality and logic, because he programmed those just for his creation. Obviously he being a perfect being could have created a perfect world full of perfect beings, but his creation seems imperfect ot us. who knows what hes intentions were.

 

Yeah certainly you can argue that he might exist outside of our reality, like a scientist's relationship to a petri dish, but either he can still have an effect on our reality (something detectable) or he can't. If you go with the idea that god created reality but doesn't reside in it (and so can be immune to things like time or logic) and doesn't participate in it, that is no different from non-existence. (strictly the literal definition of objective measurable reality)

 

As soon as anything enters our world though, it becomes bound by the rules of our world like logic and physics. If he did something to break those rules then at least the evidence of that breakage would remain. Like if the effects of gravity were reversed for a time, then everything that came after would be affected by that change, like a ripple effect. Even if our memories were erased or whatever, the physical evidence would still be there. If say the event were undone, time reversed to clean up the mistake, that would be the same as it not happening. 

 

The fundamental truth is that our world is logical and there is no way to get around that; saying that the rules governing reality can be broken is the same as saying that there are no rules. Now that my brain has been sufficiently pretzel'd I'm going to take a short break

 

 

 

Just like Asimov 3 laws of robotics only apply to the robots humans create, but not to humans themselves.

 

The flaw with this argument is that Asimov's laws of robotics remain within the constraints of physical reality. He is also not making any exceptions because he is not claiming universality. His laws specifically apply to robots and not humans. Oh and to clarify, obviously worship no other god but me would not be a universally applicable rule, since he is god, but thou shalt not murder is universal. (if it wasn't then would it simply be god's opinion that we shouldn't kill each other? )

 

Understanding this insanity is not really possible so don't stress yourselves too much!

[wdiaz03]

Yeah certainly you can argue that he might exist outside of our reality, like a scientist's relationship to a petri dish, but either he can still have an effect on our reality (something detectable) or he can't. If you go with the idea that god created reality but doesn't reside in it (and so can be immune to things like time or logic) and doesn't participate in it, that is no different from non-existence. (strictly the literal definition of objective measurable reality) As soon as anything enters our world though, it becomes bound by the rules of our world like logic and physics. If he did something to break those rules then at least the evidence of that breakage would remain. Like if the effects of gravity were reversed for a time, then everything that came after would be affected by that change, like a ripple effect. Even if our memories were erased or whatever, the physical evidence would still be there. If say the event were undone, time reversed to clean up the mistake, that would be the same as it not happening.  The fundamental truth is that our world is logical and there is no way to get around that; saying that the rules governing reality can be broken is the same as saying that there are no rules. Now that my brain has been sufficiently pretzel'd I'm going to take a short break

  I agree with all this but we are not talking about god being detectable. I'm talking about how strong the argument "god is bad for killing people" or "god does not practice what he preaches"

The flaw with this argument is that Asimov's laws of robotics remain within the constraints of physical reality. He is also not making any exceptions because he is not claiming universality. His laws specifically apply to robots and not humans. Oh and to clarify, obviously worship no other god but me would not be a universally applicable rule, since he is god, but thou shalt not murder is universal. (if it wasn't then would it simply be god's opinion that we shouldn't kill each other? ) Understanding this insanity is not really possible so don't stress yourselves too much!

How is humans applying these laws just to robots different that god applying this laws just to humans? What if humans not killing each other is just his opinion? it seems universal just within the petri dish.Thanks for entertaining these thoughts.

[cynicist]

  I agree with all this but we are not talking about god being detectable. I'm talking about how strong the argument "god is bad for killing people" or "god does not practice what he preaches" 

How is humans applying these laws just to robots different that god applying this laws just to humans? What if humans not killing each other is just his opinion? it seems universal just within the petri dish.

Thanks for entertaining these thoughts.

 

Oh sorry I wasn't very clear. My point was that god can't break the laws of logic and these are the basis of morality (universality to be precise). So as soon as he puts forward a universal like "killing is wrong" it has to apply to him as much as anyone else, because there are no exceptions to universality in our world (whether god is in it or not) just as there are no exceptions for logic. The only way to counter that is to argue that he is not saying murder is morally wrong, but that he is just commanding humans not to do it because he doesn't like it. (god's opinion, or a simple demand for obedience from a stronger being). However, that runs counter to the christian idea that the bible and god in particular are not only morally good, but the source of morality.

 

IMO, the difference in the Asimov example is that those laws say what robots should do, but they make no universal claims. He doesn't say that robots who don't follow those rules are immoral. In fact he couldn't even he if wanted to, since those rules are programmed into robots and they have no choice on whether they follow them or not.

 

To help understand that a bit better, imagine if one type of animal, let's say dolphin, developed the same ability as humans to abstract principles through a substantial increase in intelligence. Suddenly, the same moral rules that apply to humans now apply to dolphins. We don't make up new rules for them, and they can't avoid being held responsible the same way we are. That is the difference between universal moral rules and simple prescriptions like "Don't do X". The only reason we don't apply these rules to other animals right now is because they don't understand them

[wdiaz03]

Oh sorry I wasn't very clear. My point was that god can't break the laws of logic and these are the basis of morality (universality to be precise). So as soon as he puts forward a universal like "killing is wrong" it has to apply to him as much as anyone else, because there are no exceptions to universality in our world (whether god is in it or not) just as there are no exceptions for logic. The only way to counter that is to argue that he is not saying murder is morally wrong, but that he is just commanding humans not to do it because he doesn't like it. (god's opinion, or a simple demand for obedience from a stronger being). However, that runs counter to the christian idea that the bible and god in particular are not only morally good, but the source of morality.

 

IMO, the difference in the Asimov example is that those laws say what robots should do, but they make no universal claims. He doesn't say that robots who don't follow those rules are immoral. In fact he couldn't even he if wanted to, since those rules are programmed into robots and they have no choice on whether they follow them or not.

 

To help understand that a bit better, imagine if one type of animal, let's say dolphin, developed the same ability as humans to abstract principles through a substantial increase in intelligence. Suddenly, the same moral rules that apply to humans now apply to dolphins. We don't make up new rules for them, and they can't avoid being held responsible the same way we are. That is the difference between universal moral rules and simple prescriptions like "Don't do X". The only reason we don't apply these rules to other animals right now is because they don't understand them

 

Thanks for explaining, I can see the universal principle applying to earthlings, but I don't see why it should apply to a superbeing. Keep in mind that killing to an earthling is different than to a superbeing. What you see as termination of life to a superbeing is something entirely different. What if what the superbeing does looks to us like killing.

I completely understand that a human cannot claim killing is wrong and not apply that rule to him/herself. I don't see why a superbeing can't excuse itself from that rule.

 

Again It could be that I'm slow.

[cynicist]

Thanks for explaining, I can see the universal principle applying to earthlings, but I don't see why it should apply to a superbeing. Keep in mind that killing to an earthling is different than to a superbeing. 

 

No I get that. The whole thing is really silly because logic applies to anything in our world, including a superbeing, but someone can just say he breaks logic whenever he wants to kill someone and we just call it a miracle. And when you start questioning the motive of a god that murders his own subjects they can pull out the 'god acts in mysterious ways' card and you lose. The best way to win is not to debate things that don't exist lol.

[James Dean]

Such Socrates, so wow. 

 

Good job being consistent and curious. I wonder what you got from the 'debate.' for lack of a better word... You could tell when he got irritated and impatient, he kept switching the goal posts and couldn't seem to follow the conversation without getting sidetracked... I honestly don't think anyone has talked to him like this before, by which I mean, I don't think anyone has actually ever talked to him. He was certainly thrown off track by your questions into his childhood, but you let it stray back into abstractions, I think you should have kept going with the questions, asking him about his parents and the discipline they used etc. 

 

There was one part I really loved...

 

Your logic is witty Mark and your debating skills are in fact excellent.  Are you questioning my beliefs or your own?  I am not the one that needs proof of God? I have experienced it and lived it.  I already mentioned that if you want proof God exists you won't find it in a conversation.  If you want proof I believe in something you already have it.  If you want to talk about specific beliefs we can do that but you can't generalize something like God and the rising of Jesus in the same sentence.  They are different.

 

not mad just passionate

 

Anyone feel like a defense mechanism buffet? I can almost imagine him sweating and shaking as he typed this, and by 'him' I mean his false self. And right at the end! in true form he can't even accept his own emotions, classic passive aggressive behavior... "not mad, just passionate." Yeah. Sure. That's why you were basically demanding we not question your beliefs at all. Don't you know that, "you can't generalize something like God."