Now Narsil is famous

[stickmangrit]

alrighty, so I think there a large difference between defining words and circular reasoning. If there is a God, then he is the best thing, as he would be the greatest thing in all of existence. That's logical, and not a fallacy. No, it doesn't prove there is a God, I'm aware of that.

similarly, if there is a God, the He is the definition of good. there isn't another way around it. whatever you want good to mean, it can't be defined outside Him as the baseline reference.

and again, "I was just responding to Narsil's comment in ep37 that God must be considered fair if he sacrificed his son. I was giving an example of why the god in question not what he says he is." nope, I was was saying that if that's true, that he sacrificed his son for us, then yeah, I'm pretty sure that He's going to be more than fair with us.

most of these arguments raised by "Atheists" seem to boil down to an attempt throw down the "Logical Fallacy" card, and not an attempt to actually engage the argument where it lives. it's similar to saying that fish are stupid cause they don't have legs, because your only point of reference is walking on land, and you can't even begin to consider an aquatic environment.

welcome back Narsil.

now, your argument's kinda off. you posit that if there is a god, then he must be the best thing. you don't specify anything about his character, you don't take the possibility of a malicious deity into account, you simply state that if there is a higher creator, whatever they say is good. now, if you were to say that "if MY(i.e. Yahweh) god is true, then he is the best thing and the source of all good," which fits quite nicely into your belief system, and as that is the christian definition of the term you haven't really strayed from the logic train. but i could just as easily say that if i'm right, god's a bit of a trickster who placed all these confusing and contradictory religions into the human mindset while giving them all crippling breaks of logic and consistency to see if we would figure out that they're all bulls**t and rely on the sense of basic humanist morality he programmed into most of(discounting sociopaths) our heads. i could posit that if i'm correct, religion is a crutch, a trap set to weed out the undesirables(no, i don't genuinely believe this). neither of these arguments really hold any sway. the only difference between them and "if i am correct, the earth is flat" is that we can observe the earth and know that that statement is false, but since we can't observe the supernatural then somehow this argument gains validity? i'm sorry, it just doesn't jive for me.

and as for the logical fallacy bit, that(at least for me) really only comes up during the whole "100% literal, infallible bible" belief system in all of it's various increments. the earth is 6,000 years old and science is wrong. multitudes of the dead rose and walked into jerusalem when jesus was crucified, but nobody else in that period but matthew(including the other gospel authors) bothered to write this down, and even then it was years after the death of jesus. god wants us to love our neighbor, approves of mass genocide to settle land disputes, feels that when wronged you should "turn the other cheek," advocates capital punishment for numerous crimes, advocates an eye for an eye, and is "the same today, yesterday, and forever." oh, and every species of animal on earth is within walking distance of noah's house.

if you start with jesus' teachings as your core, filter out anything that blatantly contradicts them, use corroborating historical sources to determine what's history and what's allegory, and use historical and cultural perspective when determining why certain rules might be there, or if you just accept that it's written my fallible humans who probably jumbled some of the message, you have a much better argument. once you state that the bible is 100% true and perfect word of Yahweh, then all we have to do is start pointing at the cracks in it to discredit your argument.

[narsil]

you posit that if there is a god, then he must be the best thing. you don't specify anything about his character, you don't take the possibility of a malicious deity into account, you simply state that if there is a higher creator, whatever they say is good.

yep, that's all I said, that's all this argument needs, I'm not saying anything about Him, other that what the term "God" means in a monotheistic context, as opposed to god

he can't be malicious, as good is defined by whatever he is, he would get to define it, that's the implication of being creator. what are you going to appeal to that's outside of Him as a standard.

also implied is being the best thing, as what could be better than the identity that created everything?

this holds true for any God, not just Yahweh. if you accept that these is a God, there are a number of things that go with it, just by definition, and that's all I was saying. I'm not seeing how this is such a stretch.

[stickmangrit]

yep, that's all I said, that's all this argument needs, I'm not saying anything about Him, other that what the term "God" means in a monotheistic context, as opposed to god

he can't be malicious, as good is defined by whatever he is, he would get to define it, that's the implication of being creator. what are you going to appeal to that's outside of Him as a standard.

also implied is being the best thing, as what could be better than the identity that created everything?

this holds true for any God, not just Yahweh. if you accept that these is a God, there are a number of things that go with it, just by definition, and that's all I was saying. I'm not seeing how this is such a stretch.

pain is bad. we're programmed on a genetic level to react unfavorably to pain. getting hit by lightning hurts like a b**h, so we can qualify it in the bad column as well. if there was a god, and we knew of his existence as fact and he appeared and spoke to the world and individuals in it regularly, and he enjoyed regularly hurling lightning bolts down at people for the sheer glee of inflicting pain and suffering on the mortals he had created, we would still consider this bad. there would be little we could do about it, yes, but we would not be particularly appreciative of a god who routinely and blatantly inflicted this kind of potentially lethal pain and suffering on ourselves and our loved ones. this would still be bad from our perspective, but good from his.

[kobodur]

I was was saying that if that's true, that he sacrificed his son for us, then yeah, I'm pretty sure that He's going to be more than fair with us.

In what way does God send his son to die for people who didn't exist at the time? Why would nonexistant people need someone to die for them?

[stickmangrit]

I was was saying that if that's true, that he sacrificed his son for us, then yeah, I'm pretty sure that He's going to be more than fair with us.

In what way does God send his son to die for people who didn't exist at the time? Why would nonexistant people need someone to die for them? When you say "God sent his son..." how are you defining the word son?

dude, can we please avoid a trinity argument? it's a mystery, nobody knows what the hell it is, or how it works, we can posit that this makes it rather useless as a belief, but they'll cite it as on of the many "mysterious ways" that Yahweh operates, and that all will be answered when they get to heaven. that road's a dead end, trust me.

[kobodur]

Narsil said "We screwed up the world" I don't know about him, but the world was screwed up before I got here. Narsil said "God let us live with the consequences of our actions." I say before he let us live with the consequences of our actions, he forced us to live with the consequences of Adam's actions and the actions of all who have come before us. I don't know what Star Trek he was watching. The Star Trek I watched had plenty of human and intergalactic conflicts.

[Keep The Reason]

The problem I have with Narsil's premise is the flaw of a god "wanting" something / needing something in the first place.

The theist is confronted with this problem: is god perfect or not? Indeed Narsil's premise is based upon the (rather specious) claim that "we can imagine a being who is perfect" -- despite the inherent problems with that approach, even in granting it the deeper issue is how to explain how something that is claimed "perfect" now is lacking something that can be addressed by his creating something to fulfill it.

what is meant by "perfection"? The theist is on the hook for this definition and the contingent arguments that must follow. These contingent arguments are usually answered by theists using the usual "mystery" loopholes but I'd like to point out that this is always a cop-out answer if it's meant as an actual answer (an honest "I don't know" is far better).

It does well to remember that in an infinity in the past it seems perfectly acceptable that god not indulge in creation or have a desire for glory etc., so clearly there was a moment where god must have come to grips that he was apparently missing so something and needed it to be fulfilled.

Desire, want, need, expectation... All of these indicate a lacking of something that requires addressing and as far as we mortal beings are concerned, a materialistic worldview is in complete harmony with that as a function of our biology and psychology. But if such ,is applied to god you have to relinquish any concept of it being a "perfect" entity because unless those needs are somehow met, the entity is lacking in them and thus is missing something something else has... And therefore must be less than perfect.

Oh, and this applies to sin as well, but that's another post.