Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God is good ?

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 4:47:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
On what basis can this claim be made ?

I am looking for more justification that just God by definition is good.

For example, why isn't it possible that an all powerful or very powerful and mostly good God exists ?

I also wouldn't mind have a debate on this topic.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 5:03:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 4:47:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
On what basis can this claim be made ?

I am looking for more justification that just God by definition is good.

For example, why isn't it possible that an all powerful or very powerful and mostly good God exists ?

I also wouldn't mind have a debate on this topic.

God isn't necessarily good by definition, but rather god's character is what defines "good". Otherwise, good as a concept is meaningless.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 5:03:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 5:03:07 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 5/9/2011 4:47:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
On what basis can this claim be made ?

I am looking for more justification that just God by definition is good.

For example, why isn't it possible that an all powerful or very powerful and mostly good God exists ?

I also wouldn't mind have a debate on this topic.

God isn't necessarily good by definition, but rather god's character is what defines "good". Otherwise, good as a concept is meaningless.

(In an objective sense)
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 5:17:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 4:47:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
On what basis can this claim be made ?

I am looking for more justification that just God by definition is good.

I am not too sure. But this is an aspect about God which is common in all major religions. I guess that counts for something.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 5:18:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 5:03:07 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 5/9/2011 4:47:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
On what basis can this claim be made ?

I am looking for more justification that just God by definition is good.

For example, why isn't it possible that an all powerful or very powerful and mostly good God exists ?

I also wouldn't mind have a debate on this topic.

God isn't necessarily good by definition, but rather god's character is what defines "good". Otherwise, good as a concept is meaningless.

And why is Gods character the thing that defines "Good" ? Why can't something else be the thing that defines "good" ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 5:20:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 5:17:30 AM, baggins wrote:
At 5/9/2011 4:47:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
On what basis can this claim be made ?

I am looking for more justification that just God by definition is good.

I am not too sure. But this is an aspect about God which is common in all major religions. I guess that counts for something.

Not really, appeal to popularity fallacy.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 5:26:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 5:20:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/9/2011 5:17:30 AM, baggins wrote:
I am not too sure. But this is an aspect about God which is common in all major religions. I guess that counts for something.

Not really, appeal to popularity fallacy.

It's not a fallacy. Definitions are generally validated by what a large majority of people hold to be true. For example, it is widely agreed what the word "car" means. If someone were to counter the commonly held definition of "car" and say that "car" actually refers to what we call a "house," that person is simply wrong.

Likewise, the majority of religions define God as "all-good" or "omni-benevolent" as part of his character. If someone believes the contrary about God, it simply is not relevant.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 5:29:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 5:26:26 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/9/2011 5:20:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/9/2011 5:17:30 AM, baggins wrote:
I am not too sure. But this is an aspect about God which is common in all major religions. I guess that counts for something.

Not really, appeal to popularity fallacy.

It's not a fallacy. Definitions are generally validated by what a large majority of people hold to be true. For example, it is widely agreed what the word "car" means. If someone were to counter the commonly held definition of "car" and say that "car" actually refers to what we call a "house," that person is simply wrong.

Likewise, the majority of religions define God as "all-good" or "omni-benevolent" as part of his character. If someone believes the contrary about God, it simply is not relevant.

Of course it's possible for people to make philosophical arguments demonstrating that said being is not in fact omni-benevolent, but this would be done by showing that his actions contradict his nature, and therefore, such a being can't exist.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 5:33:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 5:29:18 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/9/2011 5:26:26 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/9/2011 5:20:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/9/2011 5:17:30 AM, baggins wrote:
I am not too sure. But this is an aspect about God which is common in all major religions. I guess that counts for something.

Not really, appeal to popularity fallacy.

It's not a fallacy. Definitions are generally validated by what a large majority of people hold to be true. For example, it is widely agreed what the word "car" means. If someone were to counter the commonly held definition of "car" and say that "car" actually refers to what we call a "house," that person is simply wrong.


Of course it's possible for people to make philosophical arguments demonstrating that said being is not in fact omni-benevolent, but this would be done by showing that his actions contradict his nature, and therefore, such a being can't exist.

Doesn't this assume that Gods nature is good in the first place ? Can you make an argument for that, or just assume it ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 5:51:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 5:18:35 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/9/2011 5:03:07 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 5/9/2011 4:47:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
On what basis can this claim be made ?

I am looking for more justification that just God by definition is good.

For example, why isn't it possible that an all powerful or very powerful and mostly good God exists ?

I also wouldn't mind have a debate on this topic.

God isn't necessarily good by definition, but rather god's character is what defines "good". Otherwise, good as a concept is meaningless.

And why is Gods character the thing that defines "Good" ? Why can't something else be the thing that defines "good" ?

God's character would be objective. I can't really think of any other source for "good" which could be objective, hence only god could define good.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 5:52:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 5:33:12 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/9/2011 5:29:18 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/9/2011 5:26:26 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/9/2011 5:20:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/9/2011 5:17:30 AM, baggins wrote:
I am not too sure. But this is an aspect about God which is common in all major religions. I guess that counts for something.

Not really, appeal to popularity fallacy.

It's not a fallacy. Definitions are generally validated by what a large majority of people hold to be true. For example, it is widely agreed what the word "car" means. If someone were to counter the commonly held definition of "car" and say that "car" actually refers to what we call a "house," that person is simply wrong.


Of course it's possible for people to make philosophical arguments demonstrating that said being is not in fact omni-benevolent, but this would be done by showing that his actions contradict his nature, and therefore, such a being can't exist.

Doesn't this assume that Gods nature is good in the first place ? Can you make an argument for that, or just assume it ?

How are you defining good? You seem to have an assumption of what it is to ask these questions.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 6:00:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
How are you defining good? You seem to have an assumption of what it is to ask these questions.

I did ask for an argument that supports that "God is good"

And your the one who said Gods character defines what is good. So...... on what basis do you claim that Gods character is what defines good ? Why can't something else be what defines what is good ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 6:07:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 5:20:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/9/2011 5:17:30 AM, baggins wrote:
At 5/9/2011 4:47:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
On what basis can this claim be made ?

I am looking for more justification that just God by definition is good.

I am not too sure. But this is an aspect about God which is common in all major religions. I guess that counts for something.

Not really, appeal to popularity fallacy.

Agreed.

Somehow God being good appears to be very natural - and not just a question of definition. And yet I cannot think of an argument because of which it would be necessary. Maybe we are just lucky that our God happens to be good. I guess I will think about it...
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 6:10:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 6:00:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
How are you defining good? You seem to have an assumption of what it is to ask these questions.

I did ask for an argument that supports that "God is good"

And your the one who said Gods character defines what is good. So...... on what basis do you claim that Gods character is what defines good ? Why can't something else be what defines what is good ?

I have already stated why god's character must define good (in the ethical sense).
"God's character would be objective. I can't really think of any other source for "good" which could be objective, hence only god could define good."
If you can name another objective source for goodness you will have disproven the argument.

Obviously God being the only thing which could define good does not necessarily mean god is the definition of good. It could also mean good does not exist. However, if we assume (objective) good to exist, we assume it to be defined by god.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 6:11:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 6:10:24 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
However, if we assume (objective) good to exist, we assume it to be defined by god.

And by asking the question, you assume good to exist. (Which I don't believe it does)
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 6:16:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 4:47:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
On what basis can this claim be made ?

I am looking for more justification that just God by definition is good.

For example, why isn't it possible that an all powerful or very powerful and mostly good God exists ?

I also wouldn't mind have a debate on this topic.

You are asking that IF God (from Whom everything comes) is real then is He good?

So, would a bad God give us a concept of good and bad to judge Him with?
The Cross.. the Cross.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 6:24:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 6:16:04 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 5/9/2011 4:47:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
On what basis can this claim be made ?

I am looking for more justification that just God by definition is good.

For example, why isn't it possible that an all powerful or very powerful and mostly good God exists ?

I also wouldn't mind have a debate on this topic.

You are asking that IF God (from Whom everything comes) is real then is He good?

So, would a bad God give us a concept of good and bad to judge Him with?

Unless shown as a logical impossibility, then the answer has to be maybe.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 6:26:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 6:24:41 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/9/2011 6:16:04 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 5/9/2011 4:47:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
On what basis can this claim be made ?

I am looking for more justification that just God by definition is good.

For example, why isn't it possible that an all powerful or very powerful and mostly good God exists ?

I also wouldn't mind have a debate on this topic.

You are asking that IF God (from Whom everything comes) is real then is He good?

So, would a bad God give us a concept of good and bad to judge Him with?

Unless shown as a logical impossibility, then the answer has to be maybe.

How can you show anything to be that? this is a DEBATE site!

It is the EVIL who wish to BLUR the line between good and evil!
The Cross.. the Cross.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 6:28:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 6:10:24 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 5/9/2011 6:00:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
How are you defining good? You seem to have an assumption of what it is to ask these questions.

I did ask for an argument that supports that "God is good"

And your the one who said Gods character defines what is good. So...... on what basis do you claim that Gods character is what defines good ? Why can't something else be what defines what is good ?

I have already stated why god's character must define good (in the ethical sense).
"God's character would be objective. I can't really think of any other source for "good" which could be objective, hence only god could define good."
If you can name another objective source for goodness you will have disproven the argument.

Obviously God being the only thing which could define good does not necessarily mean god is the definition of good. It could also mean good does not exist. However, if we assume (objective) good to exist, we assume it to be defined by god.

Even if I don't name another source of objective good, this doesn't prove God is good by default, thats just an argument from ignorance. You can't prove me false therefore I must be right be default.

"Obviously God being the only thing which could define good" Why ?

"However, if we assume (objective) good to exist, we assume it to be defined by god."

We should question our assumptions now shouldn't we. Maybe we should not be making that assumption, maybe we should question on what basis this assumption is made ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 6:34:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 6:26:38 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 5/9/2011 6:24:41 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/9/2011 6:16:04 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 5/9/2011 4:47:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
On what basis can this claim be made ?

I am looking for more justification that just God by definition is good.

For example, why isn't it possible that an all powerful or very powerful and mostly good God exists ?

I also wouldn't mind have a debate on this topic.

You are asking that IF God (from Whom everything comes) is real then is He good?

So, would a bad God give us a concept of good and bad to judge Him with?

Unless shown as a logical impossibility, then the answer has to be maybe.

How can you show anything to be that? this is a DEBATE site!

Explain comment.

It is the EVIL who wish to BLUR the line between good and evil!

Red Herring, attacking the person/people, ad hominem............I hope for your own intellectual integrity you have more to back up the God is good thing that having to resort to this ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 6:39:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 6:28:48 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Even if I don't name another source of objective good, this doesn't prove God is good by default, thats just an argument from ignorance. You can't prove me false therefore I must be right be default.

"Obviously God being the only thing which could define good does not necessarily mean god is the definition of good. It could also mean good does not exist. "
"Obviously God being the only thing which could define good" Why ?

Already established. God is the only potential objective source of such morality, given his status as an omnimax entity. At this stage your lack of reading comprehension has seriously annoyed me. One more strike and you're out (or rather I am)
"However, if we assume (objective) good to exist, we assume it to be defined by god."

We should question our assumptions now shouldn't we. Maybe we should not be making that assumption, maybe we should question on what basis this assumption is made ?

Follows from previous logical statements.

What I have established, (and you have magnificently failed to refute) is that if objective good exists it requires an objective source. The only hypothetical source for such an objective truth must be god (all other sources are relative - god's objectivity is definitional as an omnimax entity).
Your inititial question assumes ethical good exists in an objective way. God must define what that good is, or it doesn't exist. As you have axiomatically assumed that good to exist, it must be defined by god's nature.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 7:00:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 6:39:27 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 5/9/2011 6:28:48 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Even if I don't name another source of objective good, this doesn't prove God is good by default, thats just an argument from ignorance. You can't prove me false therefore I must be right be default.

"Obviously God being the only thing which could define good does not necessarily mean god is the definition of good. It could also mean good does not exist. "
"Obviously God being the only thing which could define good" Why ?

Already established. God is the only potential objective source of such morality, given his status as an omnimax entity. At this stage your lack of reading comprehension has seriously annoyed me. One more strike and you're out (or rather I am)

No its not established.

You can't assume God is all good, to prove that God is all good. You claim that God is omnimax entity, yet part of being an omnimax entity means that you are all good.

Congrats, you just proved that God is all good, by assuming God is all good.

So before you take me to task for my so called lack of reading comprehension, how about you look at your circular arguments.

"What I have established, (and you have magnificently failed to refute) is that if objective good exists it requires an objective source. The only hypothetical source for such an objective truth must be god (all other sources are relative - god's objectivity is definitional as an omnimax entity)."

Why can't there be an objective standard that is NOT an omnimax entity ? For example an Entity that is all good, but not all powerful ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 7:27:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 7:00:09 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/9/2011 6:39:27 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 5/9/2011 6:28:48 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Even if I don't name another source of objective good, this doesn't prove God is good by default, thats just an argument from ignorance. You can't prove me false therefore I must be right be default.

"Obviously God being the only thing which could define good does not necessarily mean god is the definition of good. It could also mean good does not exist. "
"Obviously God being the only thing which could define good" Why ?

Already established. God is the only potential objective source of such morality, given his status as an omnimax entity. At this stage your lack of reading comprehension has seriously annoyed me. One more strike and you're out (or rather I am)

No its not established.

You can't assume God is all good, to prove that God is all good. You claim that God is omnimax entity, yet part of being an omnimax entity means that you are all good.

Congrats, you just proved that God is all good, by assuming God is all good.

So before you take me to task for my so called lack of reading comprehension, how about you look at your circular arguments.

"What I have established, (and you have magnificently failed to refute) is that if objective good exists it requires an objective source. The only hypothetical source for such an objective truth must be god (all other sources are relative - god's objectivity is definitional as an omnimax entity)."

Why can't there be an objective standard that is NOT an omnimax entity ? For example an Entity that is all good, but not all powerful ?

Ok, your last strike just went so I won't bother responding after this. (If you can't be bothered to read and think about my arguments, why should I bother with yours?)

Let us assume God is omnimax* (since we are discussing god in relation to whether he was good, I thought it would be taken as given that we are not assuming omnimax as including omnibenevolent - however, it appears I greatly overestimated you)
Assuming an objective "good" exists, it would require an objective source.
If an objective source exists, an omnipotent, omniscient being is going to be it. (Please note, I am not assuming that god is necessarily an objective source, merely that if anything exists which is an objective source, the highest being (definitionally god) would be it)
Something below that entity, ie an imperfect being can not ever be an objective source due to its imperfection.
Hence if there is an objective source only a perfect entity could be it.

Now returning to actual question.
If we assume that objective good exists. We must be assuming that an objective source exists.
If nothing other than god can be that objective source, and that source exists, god must be the objective source.
Therefore, either;
- God does not exist and neither does good as an objective concept
- God exists, but good does not
- God exists and good does, and he defines what that good is.

* definitional - contesting is retarded, as if it isn't perfect, it isn't the same concept of god
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 7:36:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Defining good in absence of God is a not possible. So God has to be good by definition. This argument is correct - and can be defended in a debate. However I think this answer avoids the question.

So rather than defining good - let use our common sense definition of good. Is their any restriction on God to send all the faithful people to hell while granting salvation to evil ones. I don't think so. If God decides to send good people to hell, no one can hold God to account. On other hand God is just and keeps the promises. Their is no reason why God would behave like that (even though it is in God's power). So we should thank God for that.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 7:46:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant to baggins
Not really, appeal to popularity fallacy.

Illegalcombatant to Thaddeus
thats just an argument from ignorance

Illegalcombatant to DATCMOTO
Red Herring, attacking the person/people, ad hominem...

Illegalcombatant to Thaddeus
how about you look at your circular arguments.

Can we conclude that Illegalcombatant's arguments are full of fallacies! :)

I am introducing a new kind of fallacy - APPEAL TO FALLACY
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 7:50:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 7:46:19 AM, baggins wrote:
Illegalcombatant to baggins
Not really, appeal to popularity fallacy.

Illegalcombatant to Thaddeus
thats just an argument from ignorance

Illegalcombatant to DATCMOTO
Red Herring, attacking the person/people, ad hominem...

Illegalcombatant to Thaddeus
how about you look at your circular arguments.

Can we conclude that Illegalcombatant's arguments are full of fallacies! :)

I am introducing a new kind of fallacy - APPEAL TO FALLACY

May I just point out that neither of the comments which he labelled as fallacies were as such.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 7:54:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 7:36:32 AM, baggins wrote:
Defining good in absence of God is a not possible. So God has to be good by definition. This argument is correct - and can be defended in a debate. However I think this answer avoids the question.

So rather than defining good - let use our common sense definition of good. Is their any restriction on God to send all the faithful people to hell while granting salvation to evil ones. I don't think so. If God decides to send good people to hell, no one can hold God to account. On other hand God is just and keeps the promises. Their is no reason why God would behave like that (even though it is in God's power). So we should thank God for that.

As a moral nihilist I don't accept any "common sense" definition of good, and reject your argument on the grounds that a common sense definition of good is unfortunately (and slightly ironically =P) undefined.
Also any question of whether god is good from the conventional perspective ends up with the athiests spamming verses which have genocide in them and DAT spamming verses about how super duper awesome god is and how much he likes his trowsers.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 8:05:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 5:03:07 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 5/9/2011 4:47:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
On what basis can this claim be made ?

I am looking for more justification that just God by definition is good.

For example, why isn't it possible that an all powerful or very powerful and mostly good God exists ?

I also wouldn't mind have a debate on this topic.

God isn't necessarily good by definition, but rather god's character is what defines "good". Otherwise, good as a concept is meaningless.

We talked about this before and I think we were mostly on the same page. I'm not sure that I'm willing to go the final mile with you in saying that good could not have an objective meaning without God.

It seems to me that it could be true that there is an objective morality that is simply part of reality. Granted I don't see a reason to believe this, but I don't see how it would be logically impossible either. *Note, I'm not arguing for objective morality, I'm just saying I don't think we can rule it out as impossible or meaningless.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 8:13:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ok, your last strike just went so I won't bother responding after this. (If you can't be bothered to read and think about my arguments, why should I bother with yours?)


You claim that only God can be the objective source. You back that up by saying only God (the Omnimax entity) can be the objective source. Is this mean't to be an impressive argument ?

"Assuming an objective "good" exists, it would require an objective source."

Does an objective reality require a God as the source ? If God didn't exist, does that mean the shape of the world can't be objectively true ?

If the objective reality of a physical world does not require God, then why would God be required for an objective morality ?

If God does not exist, then it would be objectively true that God does not exist, so you don't necessarily need God to have something be objectively true.

This refutes your argument that only a "God/Omnimax entity" is a necessary pre condition for objective truth, such as objective morality.

As I said before, you only need an objective moral standard, in order for their to be objective good. A moral objective standard can exist with or without all the other omni attributes all in one being.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2011 8:15:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/9/2011 7:50:22 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 5/9/2011 7:46:19 AM, baggins wrote:
Illegalcombatant to baggins
Not really, appeal to popularity fallacy.

Illegalcombatant to Thaddeus
thats just an argument from ignorance

Illegalcombatant to DATCMOTO
Red Herring, attacking the person/people, ad hominem...

Illegalcombatant to Thaddeus
how about you look at your circular arguments.

Can we conclude that Illegalcombatant's arguments are full of fallacies! :)

I am introducing a new kind of fallacy - APPEAL TO FALLACY

May I just point out that neither of the comments which he labelled as fallacies were as such.

Show how my logic fallacious claim was wrong, if you show that I will take it back, if not your just full of crap :)
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12