Author Topic: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?  (Read 20336 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #232 on: November 21, 2013, 02:23:38 AM »

I have explained that certain rules apply to some people but not others. The manager at a job does not follow the same rules as the employees.

Me and other Christians accept that, atheists don't. So, standstill.

There goes your "objective" morality then. If you think some actions (such as torturing children with fire) are immoral for us (and therefore wrong) but moral for your alleged God then God (aka - God's nature) cannot be the standard of what is moral (since it clearly is not objective at all - but changes with this alleged 'Gods' whims). And this all brings you back to the Euthyphro Dilemma. You can no longer appeal to "God's nature" as an out for what is moral (b/c clearly that alleged 'nature' does things which are immoral for us).

So, is something moral because this alleged 'God' commands it, or does this thing command is because it is moral? You can't have it both ways.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12432
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #233 on: November 21, 2013, 02:30:04 AM »
Might makes right.
Complacency in the face of suffering and tragedy.

No. It is understanding that we should fear God for our actions.

The same way a child may shake in terror when he got an F on his test waiting for his dad to get home. If the child was laughing and in an upbeat mood waiting for the father to come home, I would question the father's parenting skills.

Your post would have made a lot more sense if you'd started it with "Yes." instead of "No."  Because after denying that you were describing "might makes right" morality, you then went right on to describe "might makes right" morality:  "X is the right thing to do because I am afraid of what the authorities will do to me if I don't do X"
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #234 on: November 21, 2013, 03:31:39 AM »
I have explained that certain rules (of morality) apply to some people but not others. .

Then what you are saying is that there is no fixed standard of morality - that sometimes it is okay to burn people, sometimes not.  In which case there is no reason at all to accept that any moral standard suggested by your god is in any way "right" - its simply another opinion of what is right and wrong.

In which case, whatever your god decides to do to use cannot universally be described as good - and any punishment he may inflict is not done as a result of any moral imperative, but is done simply because he holds power.....might makes right.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #235 on: November 21, 2013, 03:33:23 AM »
I think the thread should be renamed.

Quote
Would you flood the entire earth to the extent of virtual complete death of all life, because of people "sinning"?
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3948
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #236 on: November 21, 2013, 08:31:21 AM »
The manager at a job does not follow the same rules as the employees.

However, he is supposed to follow the same morality; put in your hours, display a work ethic, don't steal from the company, etc. So your point is moot.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #237 on: November 21, 2013, 11:12:01 AM »
I have explained that certain rules apply to some people but not others. The manager at a job does not follow the same rules as the employees.

You "have explained" wrongly. I know you want it to be, but this is NOT a 'standstill', sorry. There is plenty we can say (regardless of how irrational you are - which has already been shown dozens of times).

You have demonstrated a False Analogy. You cannot rightly compare a manager of a company to this 'God' thing. Managers, judges, police officers etc are held to the SAME STANDARD - not a different one. Sorry, you are irrational again. None of these beings can violate the law and they would be just as immoral for locking a child in the basement and torturing them with fire. So again, your attempt with this analogy (which is so common with Christians) fails miserably. Managers are NOT held to a different standard of morality.

Again, you are now caught in the Euthyphro Dilemma. You cannot use "God's nature" as an out for that dilemma (as noted in my previous posts to MM). So answer the dilemma. Either this alleged 'God' is a thug dictator who can change the rules at anytime (making "objective morality" null and void), or morality is something this 'God' thing itself must follow (which means morality exists outside independently, and then we don't need God for anything). Which is it?
« Last Edit: November 21, 2013, 11:34:16 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #238 on: November 21, 2013, 11:33:35 AM »
You silly atheists just don't get it (in my skeptic12345 voice), the god I think I know is ABOVE the law. No rules apply to him. The only relationship he has to rules is that he makes them. You guys keep saying that morals are rules developed by man to help better our coexistence by laying out behavioral guidelines that serve to protect us from one another and then you try to subject my god to these rules all the while totally overlooking the fact that he is not real, I mean that he is not one of us so no rules for coexistence exists for him. All he does is insert the program of morality in our hearts so we can know how to interact with and coexist with one another all the while being mindful of the fact that we need to bow down to his might. The fact that you all can't see that god has nothing to do with us baffles me. You act like he walks with and interacts with us on a daily basis and would therefore need to be a part of our coexistance rule system, but he does not because he's outside of the realm of reality.

Is any of this really that hard?

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #239 on: November 21, 2013, 02:15:40 PM »
You silly atheists just don't get it (in my skeptic12345 voice), the god I think I know is ABOVE the law. No rules apply to him. The only relationship he has to rules is that he makes them. You guys keep saying that morals are rules developed by man to help better our coexistence by laying out behavioral guidelines that serve to protect us from one another and then you try to subject my god to these rules all the while totally overlooking the fact that he is not real, I mean that he is not one of us so no rules for coexistence exists for him. All he does is insert the program of morality in our hearts so we can know how to interact with and coexist with one another all the while being mindful of the fact that we need to bow down to his might. The fact that you all can't see that god has nothing to do with us baffles me. You act like he walks with and interacts with us on a daily basis and would therefore need to be a part of our coexistance rule system, but he does not because he's outside of the realm of reality.

Is any of this really that hard?

Wait... what? o.0
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #240 on: November 28, 2013, 03:25:36 AM »

Actually, you have (once again - as is so often the case) misrepresented my argument (straw man fallacy). I did not say, "X cannot do Y, therefore Y cannot do Y" and you are bearing false witness by misquoting me this way (btw). What I stated was that if God is the standard of morality, and you are to follow this 'standard', then God acts immorally by breaking his own nature/rules (which are supposedly "the standard"). Can God be the standard of morality and not be the standard of morality at the same time?

MY ARGUMENT:

P1 - If God's nature is the standard of morality, then anyone at all who breaks his rules (which are in accordance with his nature) has acted immorally
P2 - So too, anyone who follows God's rules is moral
P3 - God has broken his own stated rules (which are supposedly in accordance with is 'nature')
C - Therefore, God has acted immorally


The flaw in your argument is you assert that when God gives laws to mankind He is also subject to them.

If I tell my kids not to drive the car, am I breaking my rules when i drive it? Of couese not. The rule, though coming from me, does not apply to me. Of course, the state, for whatever reason, might rule that I can no longer drive the car. Fair enough. And when you find a higher authority than God, you might have some sort of case to suggest God might be breaking a rule.

You're arguing against a partial God. For the purpose of trying to make a point you claim that morality comes from God alone. What you ignore is that if God alone has ultmate authority to decide what is moral, you can't then make any sort of claim of "what goes for us goes for you also" against Him, no matter how it might appear to tick the boxes of some philosophical/logical formula.

I wish to stress again, as so many people have failed to read my various caveats, or have ignored them, that in my exchange with Median on this specific point I have not sought to comment on the rights and wrongs of God sending anybody to hell. I have sought only to argue that Median uses faulty logic in claiming that God is immoral if he acts in a way that would be immoral for me.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #241 on: November 28, 2013, 03:27:42 AM »

Actually, you have (once again - as is so often the case) misrepresented my argument (straw man fallacy). I did not say, "X cannot do Y, therefore Y cannot do Y" and you are bearing false witness by misquoting me this way (btw). What I stated was that if God is the standard of morality, and you are to follow this 'standard', then God acts immorally by breaking his own nature/rules (which are supposedly "the standard"). Can God be the standard of morality and not be the standard of morality at the same time?

MY ARGUMENT:

P1 - If God's nature is the standard of morality, then anyone at all who breaks his rules (which are in accordance with his nature) has acted immorally
P2 - So too, anyone who follows God's rules is moral
P3 - God has broken his own stated rules (which are supposedly in accordance with is 'nature')
C - Therefore, God has acted immorally


The flaw in your argument is you assert that when God gives laws to mankind He is also subject to them.

If I tell my kids not to drive the car, am I breaking my rules when i drive it? Of couese not. The rule, though coming from me, does not apply to me. Of course, the state, for whatever reason, might rule that I can no longer drive the car. Fair enough. And when you find a higher authority than God, you might have some sort of case to suggest God might be breaking a rule.

You're arguing against a partial God. For the purpose of trying to make a point you claim that morality comes from God alone. What you ignore is that if God alone has ultmate authority to decide what is moral, you can't then make any sort of claim of "what goes for us goes for you also" against Him, no matter how it might appear to tick the boxes of some philosophical/logical formula.

I wish to stress again, as so many people have failed to read my various caveats, or have ignored them, that in my exchange with Median on this specific point I have not sought to comment on the rights and wrongs of God sending anybody to hell. I have sought only to argue that Median uses faulty logic in claiming that God is immoral if he acts in a way that would be immoral for me.

The difference is, is a child capable or responsible enough to drive a car? Is it responsible for you to allow your child to drive a car in such a case?
That's a bad analogy.

Also it's illegal to allow a child to drive a car, and it's the parent who gets the consequences of it, so it's not the same even in that aspect.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #242 on: November 28, 2013, 03:40:55 AM »
.....if God alone has ultmate authority to decide what is moral, you can't then make any sort of claim of "what goes for us goes for you also" against Him.....

So morality is subjective, varies depending on whether you are the rulemaker or the subjects, and derived from a position of power?

Sorry, but I struggle to see how any of that makes god's decisions on morality "right".
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #243 on: November 28, 2013, 03:50:11 AM »

Actually, you have (once again - as is so often the case) misrepresented my argument (straw man fallacy). I did not say, "X cannot do Y, therefore Y cannot do Y" and you are bearing false witness by misquoting me this way (btw). What I stated was that if God is the standard of morality, and you are to follow this 'standard', then God acts immorally by breaking his own nature/rules (which are supposedly "the standard"). Can God be the standard of morality and not be the standard of morality at the same time?

MY ARGUMENT:

P1 - If God's nature is the standard of morality, then anyone at all who breaks his rules (which are in accordance with his nature) has acted immorally
P2 - So too, anyone who follows God's rules is moral
P3 - God has broken his own stated rules (which are supposedly in accordance with is 'nature')
C - Therefore, God has acted immorally


The flaw in your argument is you assert that when God gives laws to mankind He is also subject to them.

If I tell my kids not to drive the car, am I breaking my rules when i drive it? Of couese not. The rule, though coming from me, does not apply to me. Of course, the state, for whatever reason, might rule that I can no longer drive the car. Fair enough. And when you find a higher authority than God, you might have some sort of case to suggest God might be breaking a rule.

You're arguing against a partial God. For the purpose of trying to make a point you claim that morality comes from God alone. What you ignore is that if God alone has ultmate authority to decide what is moral, you can't then make any sort of claim of "what goes for us goes for you also" against Him, no matter how it might appear to tick the boxes of some philosophical/logical formula.

I wish to stress again, as so many people have failed to read my various caveats, or have ignored them, that in my exchange with Median on this specific point I have not sought to comment on the rights and wrongs of God sending anybody to hell. I have sought only to argue that Median uses faulty logic in claiming that God is immoral if he acts in a way that would be immoral for me.

The difference is, is a child capable or responsible enough to drive a car? Is it responsible for you to allow your child to drive a car in such a case?
That's a bad analogy.


Nope, for the point I am making it is a perfectly sound analogy. In fact, you have furthered my point quite nicely.

No, a child is not capable or responsible enough to drive a car. It requires somebody with much sounder capabilities to make that decision. In the case of God, nobody sounder exists.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #244 on: November 28, 2013, 03:55:26 AM »
.....if God alone has ultmate authority to decide what is moral, you can't then make any sort of claim of "what goes for us goes for you also" against Him.....

So morality is subjective, varies depending on whether you are the rulemaker or the subjects, and derived from a position of power?

Sorry, but I struggle to see how any of that makes god's decisions on morality "right".

For the purpose of my disagreement with Median's logic, it really doesn't matter whether you consider it 'right' that God is the one who decides. It matters only that he is. Can't you see that?
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #245 on: November 28, 2013, 04:08:06 AM »
.....if God alone has ultmate authority to decide what is moral, you can't then make any sort of claim of "what goes for us goes for you also" against Him.....

So morality is subjective, varies depending on whether you are the rulemaker or the subjects, and derived from a position of power?

Sorry, but I struggle to see how any of that makes god's decisions on morality "right".

For the purpose of my disagreement with Median's logic, it really doesn't matter whether you consider it 'right' that God is the one who decides. It matters only that he is. Can't you see that?

Absolutely.  It all depends on your "if" at the start of your statement (bolded).  And as I said, I didn't see anything in your response that led me to accept that "if" as being correct.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #246 on: November 28, 2013, 04:14:34 AM »
.....if God alone has ultmate authority to decide what is moral, you can't then make any sort of claim of "what goes for us goes for you also" against Him.....

So morality is subjective, varies depending on whether you are the rulemaker or the subjects, and derived from a position of power?

Sorry, but I struggle to see how any of that makes god's decisions on morality "right".

For the purpose of my disagreement with Median's logic, it really doesn't matter whether you consider it 'right' that God is the one who decides. It matters only that he is. Can't you see that?

Absolutely.  It all depends on your "if" at the start of your statement (bolded).  And as I said, I didn't see anything in your response that led me to accept that "if" as being correct.

This is why it is so very difficult to have discussions about God's authority, God's 'morality' and God's actions generally. If someone wants to argue something about God, it makes it very hard when one aspect of God's being is conceded (for the sake or argument) but another aspect of Gods being is not conceded when it is used to argue against the point being attempted.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #247 on: November 28, 2013, 04:18:05 AM »
This is why it is so very difficult to have discussions about God's authority, God's 'morality' and God's actions generally. If someone wants to argue something about God, it makes it very hard when one aspect of God's being is conceded (for the sake or argument) but another aspect of Gods being is not conceded when it is used to argue against the point being attempted.

Quite.  It must be very hard for you - for all Christians.  So why not explain exactly why your god can be both the arbiter of morality AND not subject to morality, without it boiling down to "might makes right"?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #248 on: November 28, 2013, 04:35:21 AM »
MM If you're going to quote me, DON'T quote mine me, address all the points of my post as they're all relevant.

Also it's illegal to allow a child to drive a car, and it's the parent who gets the consequences of it, so it's not the same even in that aspect.

You conveniently left this portion out.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3948
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #249 on: November 28, 2013, 04:06:27 PM »



No, a child is not capable or responsible enough to drive a car. It requires somebody with much sounder capabilities to make that decision. In the case of God, nobody sounder exists.

Major flaw in the argument...that isn't about morality that is about responsibility.

The morality is...it is wrong to endanger yourself and others with likely bodily harm and death. It applies to the adult and the child. If the adult had just come out of Dental surgery...they would be wrong to operate a motor vehicle...for the exact same moral argument that a child shouldn't operate a motor vehicle at all.



An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #250 on: November 28, 2013, 04:21:48 PM »
This is why it is so very difficult to have discussions about God's authority, God's 'morality' and God's actions generally. If someone wants to argue something about God, it makes it very hard when one aspect of God's being is conceded (for the sake or argument) but another aspect of Gods being is not conceded when it is used to argue against the point being attempted.

Quite.  It must be very hard for you - for all Christians.  So why not explain exactly why your god can be both the arbiter of morality AND not subject to morality, without it boiling down to "might makes right"?

I can't do that. No mere mortal can. But again, I don't think I need to be able to do that in order to demonstrate that Median's logic is flawed. God makes the rules, we are subject to them. Is that 'right'? You may think not. Can we explain how? Not really, no. But that doesn't make Median's argument correct.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #251 on: November 28, 2013, 04:25:31 PM »

The flaw in your argument is you assert that when God gives laws to mankind He is also subject to them.

If I tell my kids not to drive the car, am I breaking my rules when i drive it? Of couese not. The rule, though coming from me, does not apply to me. Of course, the state, for whatever reason, might rule that I can no longer drive the car. Fair enough. And when you find a higher authority than God, you might have some sort of case to suggest God might be breaking a rule.

You're arguing against a partial God. For the purpose of trying to make a point you claim that morality comes from God alone. What you ignore is that if God alone has ultmate authority to decide what is moral, you can't then make any sort of claim of "what goes for us goes for you also" against Him, no matter how it might appear to tick the boxes of some philosophical/logical formula.

I wish to stress again, as so many people have failed to read my various caveats, or have ignored them, that in my exchange with Median on this specific point I have not sought to comment on the rights and wrongs of God sending anybody to hell. I have sought only to argue that Median uses faulty logic in claiming that God is immoral if he acts in a way that would be immoral for me.

Driving a car is not a moral or immoral action. False analogy fallacy. But it's actually funny that you are attempting to argue in this way (i.e. - admitting that God can violate his own alleged rules). The bible states that God cannot lie. Isn't that b/c it "violates his nature"? Do you not believe that morality stems from this 'nature'? If so, then God's 'nature' is self-contradictory (and thus this God cannot exist). An alleged God that violates its own nature is logically absurd and incoherent. Yet you still hold onto it in spite of all reason to the contrary.

Attempting to use God's nature as a foundation for morality is irrational - b/c that 'nature' is contradictory in what it attempts to display, in the claims of that bible. Thus, you are still stuck in the Euthyphro Dilemma. So then answer the question. Is an action moral because God commands it or does he command it because it is moral? Remember: the "God's' nature" argument is not an option here.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #252 on: November 28, 2013, 04:28:32 PM »
MM If you're going to quote me, DON'T quote mine me, address all the points of my post as they're all relevant.

Also it's illegal to allow a child to drive a car, and it's the parent who gets the consequences of it, so it's not the same even in that aspect.

You conveniently left this portion out.

It was very convenient. I was rushed for time, and that part of your post didn't hold much relevance to the point I was making. It still doesn't.

No analogy is perfect. But it clearly demonstrates that a person making rules need not be subject to them.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #253 on: November 28, 2013, 04:31:33 PM »
MM If you're going to quote me, DON'T quote mine me, address all the points of my post as they're all relevant.

Also it's illegal to allow a child to drive a car, and it's the parent who gets the consequences of it, so it's not the same even in that aspect.

You conveniently left this portion out.

It was very convenient. I was rushed for time, and that part of your post didn't hold much relevance to the point I was making. It still doesn't.

No analogy is perfect. But it clearly demonstrates that a person making rules need not be subject to them.

So then you are choosing option #1 of the Euthyphro Dilemma? According to you, whatever this alleged God commands is 'right' merely b/c he says it's right?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #254 on: November 28, 2013, 04:33:07 PM »



No, a child is not capable or responsible enough to drive a car. It requires somebody with much sounder capabilities to make that decision. In the case of God, nobody sounder exists.

Major flaw in the argument...that isn't about morality that is about responsibility.

The morality is...it is wrong to endanger yourself and others with likely bodily harm and death. It applies to the adult and the child. If the adult had just come out of Dental surgery...they would be wrong to operate a motor vehicle...for the exact same moral argument that a child shouldn't operate a motor vehicle at all.

I disagree that it is a flaw in my argument, and your distinction between responsibility and morality, whilst quite valid, is not really relevant. I used the analogy to demonstrate that a law-giver need not be subject to the laws. It applies equally whether the person is dispensing responsibilities or moral laws.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #255 on: November 28, 2013, 04:35:49 PM »
I'll read up on this Euthyphro Dilemma later so I can respond appropriately.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #256 on: November 28, 2013, 04:38:55 PM »

I disagree that it is a flaw in my argument, and your distinction between responsibility and morality, whilst quite valid, is not really relevant. I used the analogy to demonstrate that a law-giver need not be subject to the laws. It applies equally whether the person is dispensing responsibilities or moral laws.

Merely making laws doesn't make them moral, especially in this case where you have an alleged deity who cannot lie yet deliberately deceives people (i.e. - lies to them, Hebrews 6, 2 Thessalonians 2).

Even further, how can a deity who violates his own rules be "holy" if it can violate its own moral prescriptions (which btw are supposed to be in accord with it's nature). Your argument fails miserably b/c you are ignoring passages like, "Be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect" or the claim that we are made "in God's image and likeness". And what about all the passages talking about being "Christlike" or being 'righteous as God is righteous'. These verses are an even further problem for your position if you are not resting your argument upon God's alleged "nature".

The bible says God is holy and that he does not change, and it also says that we are to mimic him, or be like him. Yet clearly if you think God can violate his own rules then it follows that he is violating his own nature. You have a clear contradiction on your hands.

« Last Edit: November 28, 2013, 05:08:22 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12432
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #257 on: November 28, 2013, 07:09:48 PM »
I can't do that. No mere mortal can. ...

Then the reasonable thing to say is "as far as humans can tell, divine morality is a 'might-makes-right' affair" - no?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #258 on: November 29, 2013, 05:12:20 AM »
Quite.  It must be very hard for you - for all Christians.  So why not explain exactly why your god can be both the arbiter of morality AND not subject to morality, without it boiling down to "might makes right"?

I can't do that. No mere mortal can. But again, I don't think I need to be able to do that in order to demonstrate that Median's logic is flawed. God makes the rules, we are subject to them. Is that 'right'? You may think not. Can we explain how? Not really, no. But that doesn't make Median's argument correct.

"Might makes right" then.  We are subject to rules, because someone says so.  There is no explanation as to why it is "right".  So the ONLY extant reason is "because I say so".

Might makes right.  Simples.

I can see why you don't want to come right out and agree that is what you are saying.  It doesn't sit very well with the claim of a loving and benevolent god, that the only expressible reason for the construction of morality is that of brute force.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3948
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #259 on: November 29, 2013, 05:59:36 AM »



No, a child is not capable or responsible enough to drive a car. It requires somebody with much sounder capabilities to make that decision. In the case of God, nobody sounder exists.

Major flaw in the argument...that isn't about morality that is about responsibility.

The morality is...it is wrong to endanger yourself and others with likely bodily harm and death. It applies to the adult and the child. If the adult had just come out of Dental surgery...they would be wrong to operate a motor vehicle...for the exact same moral argument that a child shouldn't operate a motor vehicle at all.

I disagree that it is a flaw in my argument, and your distinction between responsibility and morality, whilst quite valid, is not really relevant. I used the analogy to demonstrate that a law-giver need not be subject to the laws. It applies equally whether the person is dispensing responsibilities or moral laws.

No it doesn't. That's my point exactly, responsibility will vary based on ability...morality is for all. If Morality isn't for all...then might makes right.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2752
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #260 on: November 29, 2013, 06:45:02 AM »
Morality can't be for all, because the laws that we follow are recommendations, for our species to survive in a civilization. A dictum to not eat pork, or wash your hands, might be to control infection. You can argue that monogamy or permanent polygamy is also to control, or slow venereal disease, rather than the wrath of God. Obviously, killing is not good for our species, or any mammal, because our reproduction times are very slow, and the investment per child is high.

If the species changes, then the rules change. If you have a species which requires fertilization from multiple males, then you cannot possibly have monogamous morality, or the species will die. If there are no venereal diseases, then you can screw who you like. If the species requires rape to make the female ovulate, then rape is moral. If the animal requires death to spawn, then killing in certain circumstances is moral.

Morality is what necessarily has to happen to make the species survive, or the civilization/culture flourish.

It follows that God cannot have any morality, unless you know what God is trying to achieve, because the morality of God will be convergent on what needs to happen, for his reproduction to occur. We have no information on what God needs, to reproduce, or who he needs to exploit to achieve it. God could have no morality at all, if he does not need to reproduce, or create culture.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.