narsil wrote: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.