Go Back   AFA Forums > Religion, Unreason and Similar Tropes > Belief Central

Belief Central A place for the discussion of belief or a colony for repeated logical fallacies or misrepresentations.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #761  
Old 18th July 2016, 06:33 PM
wadaye wadaye is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,530
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
I said...


Are you suggesting that it would not be possible for it to be known if the command came from God? That if an all powerful God did exist, it would not be possible for people to know he was communicating with them?
Your claim is not merely that God exists, but that an all powerful God exists and may give such a command.

There is both a moral problem and an existential logical fallacy in such a claim.
the moral problem is that a command must come with the threat of force ir violence against the person if they don't obey the command. Consider Saul for example ...

Secondly the logical contradiction and existential fallacy; An all powerful God not only need not command, it can't command. Giving a command implies the possibility however vanishingly small that the recipient of the order will disobey. Ergo the all powerful God is not all powerful.

Edit: And if it is not all powerful it is also not God.
__________________
"I'm an ape, I'm an African ape and I'm proud of it, and you should be too". Richard Dawkins

Last edited by wadaye; 18th July 2016 at 06:35 PM.
Like Darwinsbulldog, odd liked this post
  #762  
Old 18th July 2016, 06:40 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,118
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Logical dissection of the four "Omnis" , I like it.
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.
  #763  
Old 18th July 2016, 08:09 PM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 240
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
wadaye said View Post
Your claim is not merely that God exists, but that an all powerful God exists and may give such a command.

There is both a moral problem and an existential logical fallacy in such a claim.
the moral problem is that a command must come with the threat of force ir violence against the person if they don't obey the command. Consider Saul for example ...

Secondly the logical contradiction and existential fallacy; An all powerful God not only need not command, it can't command. Giving a command implies the possibility however vanishingly small that the recipient of the order will disobey. Ergo the all powerful God is not all powerful.

Edit: And if it is not all powerful it is also not God.
And you think your argument has no possiblity of error? No possible solutions?
  #764  
Old 18th July 2016, 08:26 PM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 240
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

If the command is moral then to not follow the command is immoral. It would be immoral for justice not to be served for immoral actions.

An all powerful God can opt to create creatures with free will, the ability to choose not to follow commands. This is not a limit of power but a choice not to control all choices of creatures.
  #765  
Old 18th July 2016, 08:34 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,118
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
If the command is moral then to not follow the command is immoral. It would be immoral for justice not to be served for immoral actions.

An all powerful God can opt to create creatures with free will, the ability to choose not to follow commands. This is not a limit of power but a choice not to control all choices of creatures.
Again ptutt, you have nothing but claims here. Claims that depend on many things being true, but which you have not proved to be true.

Ethics is the study of morality. To be an ethical person requires the examination of morals. You are avoiding this, by going back to god's commands again.

Why not try to discuss an ethical approach to a human giving orders which may be questionable in a moral sense.

For example, what do you think are the merits or dis-merits of a death penalty? Leave god out of it for now, because it is obvious at present that we are talking past each other. Let's try and find some common ground. We wont do that by you insisting god exists, he commands, and you obey.

Countries exist, laws exists, death penalties exist. Let us have a debate about that.
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.
  #766  
Old 18th July 2016, 08:36 PM
Sendraks's Avatar
Sendraks Sendraks is offline
Buffoon
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 501
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Does ptutt have any arguments that aren't some form of special pleading? You know, anything worth actually engaging with?
__________________
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - which is true. Because if it did, it would stop" - Dara O'Briain
  #767  
Old 18th July 2016, 08:42 PM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 240
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
odd said View Post
The point is, ptutt, that people have actually done what you are suggesting as a hypothetical. And, as you have noted, the courts then form the opinion that they are insane - because to murder someone and say god told you to do it is insane.

These people actually believed god had spoken to them - I have twice now told you of a woman who killed her own children with a rock, she was pretty certain it was a clear command... Are these people just acting on God's commands and we are presuming they are insane, or are they insane?
It is a reasonable point however if you look back a few posts i stated that typically biblical commands were confirmed by some miracle not just a voice in their head. Surely you must accept that an omnipotent God would have a means available so you would know the command is from him. And i mean know.

If not you would have to deny all forms of evidence which God may use.

I think an issue here is some are unable to empathise with the theists position. Have you ever tried to play chess against yourself? (Bobby Fischer trained himself doing this.) Switch the board around and see everything from your opponents point of view.
  #768  
Old 18th July 2016, 08:43 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,118
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
Sendraks said View Post
Does ptutt have any arguments that aren't some form of special pleading? You know, anything worth actually engaging with?
I am not sure, so I am asking!
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.
  #769  
Old 18th July 2016, 08:56 PM
wadaye wadaye is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,530
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
It is a reasonable point however if you look back a few posts i stated that typically biblical commands were confirmed by some miracle not just a voice in their head. Surely you must accept that an omnipotent God would have a means available so you would know the command is from him. And i mean know.

If not you would have to deny all forms of evidence which God may use.

I think an issue here is some are unable to empathise with the theists position. Have you ever tried to play chess against yourself? (Bobby Fischer trained himself doing this.) Switch the board around and see everything from your opponents point of view.
yes. you don't seem to appreciate that we are trying to see it from your side. unfortunately the view is not good from there
__________________
"I'm an ape, I'm an African ape and I'm proud of it, and you should be too". Richard Dawkins
  #770  
Old 18th July 2016, 09:07 PM
two dogs's Avatar
two dogs two dogs is offline
Why do you ask ...?
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Shell Cove, NSW
Posts: 9,014
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
It is a reasonable point however if you look back a few posts i stated that typically biblical commands were confirmed by some miracle not just a voice in their head. Surely you must accept that an omnipotent God would have a means available so you would know the command is from him. And i mean know.

If not you would have to deny all forms of evidence which God may use.
Like the burning bush, that didn't actually burn. Is that the best he can do? Sounds like a cheap magician's trick to me.
__________________
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; ..."

"
Beer, if drunk with moderation, softens the temper, cheers the spirit and promotes health."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"Life is far too important a thing ever to talk seriously about it."

Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 07:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.