666...the Devils Moving Average
- Thread starter crackhead
- Start date
_______________________________________________
This whole hypothetical question should be labeled a "strawman".
1. It is a hypothetical. Obviously.
2. The answer can only be given in relation to Gods' benevolence.
a. Where has God said that the only attribute to His being is benevolence. He has said that He has several attributes or parts to His mentality. ie. jealousy, all knowing, everlasting, all powerful, loving, able to be angered, able to be provoked to wrath and several others. (life example): I had a faithful and loving pet but he was ailing. One part of me wanted to hang on to my beloved pet (love and benevolence sides) but the other side could only see the pain and suffering. So one side said hang on and the other side said let go and do what is probably best to not continue the suffering. There was more that one part of my mentality that had to be weighed to balance what needed to be done. At least give God the same leeway you would expect.
Doubter,
Before you start using terms such as "strawman", maybe
you should go learn what one IS first
To qualify as a strawman, it would require that I took TM's
original argument, modified/twisted it into a weaker form,
and then attack the weaker/different form.
I did NO such thing. Your claim is invalid.
I came up with a hypothetical situation to clearly explain *MY* point.
I did not modify TMs argument or use any of his original wording. Nada, Zippo.
You then conveniently reject it as a hypothetical situation, as if
that alone dismisses it. It does not. Hypothetical situations and
analogies are commonly used in debates to clarify points, and
cannot simply dismissed because they are not an actual event.
"2. The answer can only be given in relation to Gods' benevolence.
a. Where has God said that the only attribute to His being is benevolence. He has said that He has several attributes or parts to His mentality. ie. jealousy, all knowing, everlasting, all powerful, loving, able to be angered, able to be provoked to wrath and several others."
Where did I claim that god was ONLY benevolent? Anywhere?
Nope. Now THIS qualifies as a strawman. You changed my
argument to mean that I explicitly stated or assumed that
god is ONLY benevolent, and then attacked this different
version of my argument. Bzzzzzzzzzt again.
Read my argument again. Im simply claiming that LIKE A MAN
who stands idly by, and allows innocent children to die
when he could have prevented it, GOD should be held
responsible for the SAME negligent behavior.
You cannot label someone benevolent who commits this act.
Since no one wants to deal with MY argument here,
and only wishes to make excuses for their god, I see
no point in continuing this.
Im going to go get some trading work done instead.
peace
axeman
----------------------------------------------------------
Quote from axeman:
Here is the problem TM.
Imagine the following situation.
You walk up to a colorful wall with a door.
The door has a sign on it that says: "CIRCUS THIS WAY".
You open the door and just before you FALL TO YOUR DEATH,
you notice that the wall is on the edge of a cliff and
its too dark to notice there is no floor.
A huge crowd of excited kids are rushing towards the door with glee.
They open the door, and all fall to their deaths.
You stood by and said nothing. Not a peep.
ANY COURT OF LAW WOULD HOLD YOU RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE MAN SLAUGHTER OF ALL THESE CHILDREN.
But god gets a free ride.
He KNEW that church bus would crash.
What if the bus had babies on it?
Did they have free will to board the bus? Of course not.
Yet they are killed as well as god STOOD ASIDE, and let it happen.
If he really exists, there is no way he can be labeled benevolent
in any way. There are NO excuses for this.
I could come up with real life examples if you wish.
peace
axeman
Before you start using terms such as "strawman", maybe
you should go learn what one IS first
To qualify as a strawman, it would require that I took TM's
original argument, modified/twisted it into a weaker form,
and then attack the weaker/different form.
I did NO such thing. Your claim is invalid.
I came up with a hypothetical situation to clearly explain *MY* point.
I did not modify TMs argument or use any of his original wording. Nada, Zippo.
You then conveniently reject it as a hypothetical situation, as if
that alone dismisses it. It does not. Hypothetical situations and
analogies are commonly used in debates to clarify points, and
cannot simply dismissed because they are not an actual event.
"2. The answer can only be given in relation to Gods' benevolence.
a. Where has God said that the only attribute to His being is benevolence. He has said that He has several attributes or parts to His mentality. ie. jealousy, all knowing, everlasting, all powerful, loving, able to be angered, able to be provoked to wrath and several others."
Where did I claim that god was ONLY benevolent? Anywhere?
Nope. Now THIS qualifies as a strawman. You changed my
argument to mean that I explicitly stated or assumed that
god is ONLY benevolent, and then attacked this different
version of my argument. Bzzzzzzzzzt again.
Read my argument again. Im simply claiming that LIKE A MAN
who stands idly by, and allows innocent children to die
when he could have prevented it, GOD should be held
responsible for the SAME negligent behavior.
You cannot label someone benevolent who commits this act.
Since no one wants to deal with MY argument here,
and only wishes to make excuses for their god, I see
no point in continuing this.
Im going to go get some trading work done instead.
peace
axeman
----------------------------------------------------------
Quote from axeman:
Here is the problem TM.
Imagine the following situation.
You walk up to a colorful wall with a door.
The door has a sign on it that says: "CIRCUS THIS WAY".
You open the door and just before you FALL TO YOUR DEATH,
you notice that the wall is on the edge of a cliff and
its too dark to notice there is no floor.
A huge crowd of excited kids are rushing towards the door with glee.
They open the door, and all fall to their deaths.
You stood by and said nothing. Not a peep.
ANY COURT OF LAW WOULD HOLD YOU RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE MAN SLAUGHTER OF ALL THESE CHILDREN.
But god gets a free ride.
He KNEW that church bus would crash.
What if the bus had babies on it?
Did they have free will to board the bus? Of course not.
Yet they are killed as well as god STOOD ASIDE, and let it happen.
If he really exists, there is no way he can be labeled benevolent
in any way. There are NO excuses for this.
I could come up with real life examples if you wish.
peace
axeman
To qualify as a strawman, it would require that I took TM's
original argument, modified/twisted it into a weaker form,
and then attack the weaker/different form.
I did NO such thing. Your claim is invalid.
axeman
__________________________________________
I am saying that your hypothetical example limits (modifies and weakens) Gods' character to only a few attributes (benevolence and power, I dont't remember any others you mentioned) and then you attack Him on the basis of your perception that He totally failed to live up to what He claimed. That to me fits the definition of "strawman".
original argument, modified/twisted it into a weaker form,
and then attack the weaker/different form.
I did NO such thing. Your claim is invalid.
axeman
__________________________________________
I am saying that your hypothetical example limits (modifies and weakens) Gods' character to only a few attributes (benevolence and power, I dont't remember any others you mentioned) and then you attack Him on the basis of your perception that He totally failed to live up to what He claimed. That to me fits the definition of "strawman".
My argument does no such thing. Where does it state this??????
These are YOUR assumptions of MY argument.
Using your logic, If I said Bob is a nice guy, it's a strawman
because I failed to mention that he is ALSO jealous,
driven, and outgoing.
Get real. If I explicitly state that god was a bunch of things
that he WASN'T, so that I could attack this different
definition of him, you could claim a strawman.
No such thing happened.
peace
axeman
These are YOUR assumptions of MY argument.
Using your logic, If I said Bob is a nice guy, it's a strawman
because I failed to mention that he is ALSO jealous,
driven, and outgoing.
Get real. If I explicitly state that god was a bunch of things
that he WASN'T, so that I could attack this different
definition of him, you could claim a strawman.
No such thing happened.
peace
axeman
Im simply claiming that LIKE A MAN
who stands idly by, and allows innocent children to die
when he could have prevented it, GOD should be held
responsible for the SAME negligent behavior.
You cannot label someone benevolent who commits this act.
axeman
_______________________________________
Here you are stating "LIKE A MAN" God stood by, but He is not a man and views things differently. This is narrowing His frame of reference to "LIKE A MAN" and then attackng Him on that frame of reference. Strawman?
who stands idly by, and allows innocent children to die
when he could have prevented it, GOD should be held
responsible for the SAME negligent behavior.
You cannot label someone benevolent who commits this act.
axeman
_______________________________________
Here you are stating "LIKE A MAN" God stood by, but He is not a man and views things differently. This is narrowing His frame of reference to "LIKE A MAN" and then attackng Him on that frame of reference. Strawman?
Im not narrowing HIS frame of reference.
I could care less what HIS frame of reference is.
It doesn't matter what HIS frame of reference is.
If a man stands idly by, and allows innocent children
to die, can he stand in front of the judge and say:
"Well you see judge, you don't understand my frame
of reference, therefore cant hold me responsible".
Doesn't work. His frame of reference is not relevant.
REGARDLESS of the persons frame of reference, we
hold him NEGLIGENT.
If a man doesn't get let off the hook, why should I just
magically let god off the hook?
I don't. He shouldn't be. If he is in the SAME scenario
as the man, and stands idly by like the man, then he
deserves the same label of negligence like the man.
Where is the problem?
peace
axeman
I could care less what HIS frame of reference is.
It doesn't matter what HIS frame of reference is.
If a man stands idly by, and allows innocent children
to die, can he stand in front of the judge and say:
"Well you see judge, you don't understand my frame
of reference, therefore cant hold me responsible".
Doesn't work. His frame of reference is not relevant.
REGARDLESS of the persons frame of reference, we
hold him NEGLIGENT.
If a man doesn't get let off the hook, why should I just
magically let god off the hook?
I don't. He shouldn't be. If he is in the SAME scenario
as the man, and stands idly by like the man, then he
deserves the same label of negligence like the man.
Where is the problem?
peace
axeman