Quote from stu:
The process of reasoning may well lead to conclusion, it often can.
A lack of evidence in the courtroom appears to leave arguments of science in a quest for ever more rationale, whereas the arguments of divinity are regularly dismissed for too much unsafe testimony. I see no substantive reasons why there must be something intrinsically flawed because it is anthropocentric?? A lot of IFâs there darkhorse but I am glad of that. Thinking back I seem to recall no Ifâs but just determinate assertion.
Reasoning how man stands in relation to his creator first requires a reasoning that man has a Creator. I agree with you , those are two distinct questions. But a hypothetical acceptance of the first only requires the questioners to establish another IF. If God exists is God moral etc
But even before that, a definition of God is essential , before the hypothetical acceptance for the sake of argument. If not God may well be being argued as nothing more than a quantum flux by both questioners, without either side of the argument realizing it.Then examine what an omnipotent form must entail. It is possible that it is inconceivable and/or it may be that an omnipotent form can apply to anything....including fairies.
Is it right to value an invisible, absent, hurtful, violent father the same as a living, breathing, loving, physical father. Is it not right for a child to refuse a father who is unreasonably cruel within a set of experiential events. For a God to give rationality but then say rationality is useless when thinking of God.,,, Isnât that by any rational standard simply self defeating contradiction .
But then again I agree with what you say in essence.... "many things that can be imagined or hypothesized cannot actually be actualized" --- unfortunately for the theist that must include the proposition for God along with anti gravity ointment , invisibility pills, and Pink Unicorns.I donât agree man is by and large the source of pain. Any number of parasitic microbes or cancerous tumors cause of all sorts and type of pain and suffering to man. The choice to combat these in any way possible does not become the option of choosing to have such âevilâ present.
Having the option of being free to choose evil does not require you to choose evil.
Itâs the being free to choose which is the free will, not the choice itself. And in the absence of other worthy standards, then manâs worthy standards set by mankind itself must be the crucial benchmark. Standards which are then essential to assess even the things which âcannot actually be actualizedâ.
Hmmm, I think we are just talking past each other now.
If God exists then anthropocentric arguments regarding the morality of God are flawed because man cannot be the center of a universe created and sustained by a higher being. You cannot propose condition 'A' as a hypothetical for debate and then assume a world in which condition 'A' does not apply.
Why is a definition of God essential before the debate can begin? Why can't positions be uncovered through the course of ongoing discussion? When you have a discussion with someone on a topic you haven't discussed before, isn't mutual discovery exactly what happens? What about topics in which detailed paramaters are hard to define, like quantum gravity or string theory? Does the necessity of having hard definitions from the start preclude any chance of reasonable discussion? Do you always have the habit of knowing where you are going before you start out? How do you ever learn anything you don't already know?
When and where does God ever say that rationality is useless?
Isn't this just a belief you choose to have in regards to theistic belief? It must be a very cherished belief on your part, because I have tried hard to divest you of it seemingly to no effect.
Who says God is hurtful, cruel or even absent? Those are all opinions you hold- and not even opinions in relation to a possible God, but rather in relation to the self contradictory straw man whose image you call upon to ridicule. And again the question has to be asked, in relation to what? How can you consider these things without the proper context and surrounding implications? We run into the anthropocentric problem once again- if man is not the center of the universe then man's judgments cannot assume such. There is much deeper water to swim in here, but it seems these trails keep getting written off with pat disagreements so that another clay can be launched.
In regards to man being the chief source of pain, that is a subject that could be discussed in far more detail, though I think it does not take much to deem microbes a poor scapegoat. The more we discover about our eating habits and lifestyle decisions, the more we recognize that many common day ailments are ultimately a result of our own choices even if passed down from multiple generations. Of course this only scratches the surface and opens another interesting can of worms- another well that probably delves too deep for a message board.
When I made reference to the ability of choosing evil I was referring to possibilities as to why evil existed in the world. If you remove God from the equation, the question becomes irrelevant because evil loses all definition. How did we shift the subject back to a different track so quickly anyhow?
You say being free to choose is what defines freedom. Yes, but free to choose WHAT? If there is no standard above man, then there is no good or evil either, there is only individual preference and social norms enforced by violence, controlled or uncontrolled, for societal benefit. If man is the highest being in existence, then every man is his own god, and no judgment can be visited upon him other than judgment of force by others around him who disagree with his choices. When man dies in this scenario, his morality dies. Good and evil are formless, empty and meaningless excepts as ephemeral definitions of what is generally accepted by society at the present time.
Your references to pink unicorns, gravity pills and unicorns et. al, not to mention the continued implications that God requires irrationality from his subjects, gives strong indication that you consider this debate beneath you. It's hard for me to answer your queries in a spirit of mutual interest when they are laced with insults, however indirect, and I really don't understand the purpose of engaging in mockery. I would think that given the opportunity to hear legitimate responses to your questions, you would be more interested in keeping the rapport going.
I remain surprised and mildly baffled that (many) atheists can be so naive as to assume their position is unassailable in terms of theists having no access to rational presuppositions. To believe you are right is one thing. To believe those of differing opinion cannot possibly have a logically developed position, to believe they are utterly incapable of having a reasoned framework, is mind-bogglingly obtuse. But you must assume this, otherwise why the continued cutting in with the patronizing bullshit about fairies and unicorns before the debate is finished- heck, before it has even really begun?
