Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Argument of Righteous Bloodshed

Chaosism
Posts: 2,671
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 2:29:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is an argument that was kind of inadvertently created through a discussion with someone about the horrors brought about by differing religious beliefs. The conversation was pretty much about ISIS, as that is a tremendous example of this. This argument is intended to refute the defense that God doesn't interfere with humans' free will or actions. To be clear, this argument only pertains to bloodshed that results from religious disputes, not to general human acts of violence or other worldly evils.

P1) God exists. [assumed for the sake of argument]

P2) God has revealed influential information to mankind that has enabled belief in His existence.

P3) Mankind has built upon or altered this revealed information to form differing, incompatible religions.

P4) Mankind routinely arrives at conflict and bloodshed over religious beliefs.

P5) God is aware of the current state of the world (specifically pertaining to religious conflicts).

P6) God is capable of revealing influential information to mankind in order to end religious bloodshed.

P7) God is both willing and able to influence the minds and behaviors of mankind through information.

C) If all of the above premises are true, then ALL religious bloodshed is in full accordance with His will, evident by its continued existence. This is because God is both willing and able to instigate change to suit His will, but choses not to stop the current bloodshed.

If this argument is true, then this means that anyone, including ISIS, is correct in their belief that they are indeed correct in acting in accordance with His will whilst committing horrendous acts against humanity. Can anyone think of a good way to sensibly refute this argument?

Elaborations:
P2) This is observable in the existence of divinely inspired scriptures and prophets, the occurrence of miracles and revelations, and through claims of innate knowledge (Romans 1:18-20). No matter which of these are true or false, mankind would not be capable of believing in God without Him providing a means.

P6/P7) Knowledge plays a crucial role in our actions and beliefs, so any knowledge that is revealed does in fact influence those to whom it is revealed and go on to influence the world through their actions. God has already proven that He is able and willing to do this (P2).

In essence, I think this thing can be briefly summarized with a hypothetical syllogism.

P1) G > R
P2) R > B
C) G > B

G = God's Will, R = Religion, B = Religious Bloodshed
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 5:44:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 2:29:46 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This is an argument that was kind of inadvertently created through a discussion with someone about the horrors brought about by differing religious beliefs. The conversation was pretty much about ISIS, as that is a tremendous example of this. This argument is intended to refute the defense that God doesn't interfere with humans' free will or actions. To be clear, this argument only pertains to bloodshed that results from religious disputes, not to general human acts of violence or other worldly evils.

P1) God exists. [assumed for the sake of argument]

P2) God has revealed influential information to mankind that has enabled belief in His existence.

P3) Mankind has built upon or altered this revealed information to form differing, incompatible religions.

P4) Mankind routinely arrives at conflict and bloodshed over religious beliefs.

P5) God is aware of the current state of the world (specifically pertaining to religious conflicts).

P6) God is capable of revealing influential information to mankind in order to end religious bloodshed.

P7) God is both willing and able to influence the minds and behaviors of mankind through information.

C) If all of the above premises are true, then ALL religious bloodshed is in full accordance with His will, evident by its continued existence. This is because God is both willing and able to instigate change to suit His will, but choses not to stop the current bloodshed.

If this argument is true, then this means that anyone, including ISIS, is correct in their belief that they are indeed correct in acting in accordance with His will whilst committing horrendous acts against humanity. Can anyone think of a good way to sensibly refute this argument?

Elaborations:
P2) This is observable in the existence of divinely inspired scriptures and prophets, the occurrence of miracles and revelations, and through claims of innate knowledge (Romans 1:18-20). No matter which of these are true or false, mankind would not be capable of believing in God without Him providing a means.

P6/P7) Knowledge plays a crucial role in our actions and beliefs, so any knowledge that is revealed does in fact influence those to whom it is revealed and go on to influence the world through their actions. God has already proven that He is able and willing to do this (P2).

In essence, I think this thing can be briefly summarized with a hypothetical syllogism.

P1) G > R
P2) R > B
C) G > B

G = God's Will, R = Religion, B = Religious Bloodshed

Perhaps there is more than one god, and/or all 'revelation' is not of god.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Chaosism
Posts: 2,671
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 7:16:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 5:44:35 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

Perhaps there is more than one god, and/or all 'revelation' is not of god.

I would accept that, though that creates contradictions with monotheistic religion, obviously.

Regarding the revelations, if even some of it is from a god, then that god is evidently willing to influence people with his actions. This follows the same argument about those "false revelations" being permitted when they could be easily corrected in the same fashion: through influential revelatory information.

If all revelatory information is false, then this argument fails. That places us in the realm of deism, though.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 7:23:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 7:16:53 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/3/2015 5:44:35 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

Perhaps there is more than one god, and/or all 'revelation' is not of god.

I would accept that, though that creates contradictions with monotheistic religion, obviously.

Regarding the revelations, if even some of it is from a god, then that god is evidently willing to influence people with his actions. This follows the same argument about those "false revelations" being permitted when they could be easily corrected in the same fashion: through influential revelatory information.

If all revelatory information is false, then this argument fails. That places us in the realm of deism, though.

And if "the Devil" is real, and can wield the same variety of influence on humans as God? God could snuff him out, sure, but if we go by God being benevolent, it would be more God's role to try and correct than to arbitrarily extinguish His nemesis.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 7:35:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 2:29:46 PM, Chaosism wrote:
...P7) God is both willing and able to influence the minds and behaviors of mankind through information.

C) If all of the above premises are true, then ALL religious bloodshed is in full accordance with His will, evident by its continued existence.

If God"s will would be that people do against His will, why would He have told His will and that people should lie according to it?

We have Bible that tells how we should live and what is good way to live. And it is reason why I want to do good. So in my opinion it is clear that God has influenced by information. The problem is not what God has or has not done, but that people don"t want to live according to God"s will and love as it is taught. But don"t worry. Evil live will eventually end.

Because God wanted to give freedom, some people rather love evil than good and so try to make life eternal suffering for all. I think it is good that God allows that, because now we can see what godless life means, suffering and all evil things.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,671
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 7:53:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 7:23:01 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/3/2015 7:16:53 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/3/2015 5:44:35 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

Perhaps there is more than one god, and/or all 'revelation' is not of god.

I would accept that, though that creates contradictions with monotheistic religion, obviously.

Regarding the revelations, if even some of it is from a god, then that god is evidently willing to influence people with his actions. This follows the same argument about those "false revelations" being permitted when they could be easily corrected in the same fashion: through influential revelatory information.

If all revelatory information is false, then this argument fails. That places us in the realm of deism, though.

And if "the Devil" is real, and can wield the same variety of influence on humans as God? God could snuff him out, sure, but if we go by God being benevolent, it would be more God's role to try and correct than to arbitrarily extinguish His nemesis.

If the devil has power equal to that of God (omnipotence), then he is also a God.

If the devil has less power than God, then He is completely subservient to God, and is only permitted to operate by God's will, because God could effortlessly stop Him.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,671
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 8:04:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 7:35:03 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 12/3/2015 2:29:46 PM, Chaosism wrote:
...P7) God is both willing and able to influence the minds and behaviors of mankind through information.

C) If all of the above premises are true, then ALL religious bloodshed is in full accordance with His will, evident by its continued existence.

If God"s will would be that people do against His will, why would He have told His will and that people should lie according to it?

If God has moved people to change the world towards His will, then why does He not move people to change the world towards His will, now? If it is not being moved further, that is indicative that it is in alignment with His wishes.

We have Bible that tells how we should live and what is good way to live. And it is reason why I want to do good. So in my opinion it is clear that God has influenced by information. The problem is not what God has or has not done, but that people don"t want to live according to God"s will and love as it is taught. But don"t worry. Evil live will eventually end.

The Bible has good and evil (to us), as does the Quran and other holy texts. All of it, even that which we perceive as evil, is in accordance with the will of God if it is true. Since the Bible and the Quran are based upon Abrahamic theology, which one is true in regard to conflicts? Why would God allow the error if He did not will it to be so?

Because God wanted to give freedom, some people rather love evil than good and so try to make life eternal suffering for all. I think it is good that God allows that, because now we can see what godless life means, suffering and all evil things.

Freedom entails possibility, and possibility is incoherent to an all-knowing God. People do not control what they love or find desirable, whether they care or don't care about others, or how their nature will be. All of that is beyond our control, and an all-knowing creator could not create someone not knowing the variables. Regarding these, He knew about the results, yet, created these people anyway.
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2015 8:02:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 8:04:32 PM, Chaosism wrote:
If God has moved people to change the world towards His will, then why does He not move people to change the world towards His will, now?

I think the reason is that God wants people to be free. And unfortunately, even when people know what is good and right, they seem to love more evil than good.

Since the Bible and the Quran are based upon Abrahamic theology, which one is true in regard to conflicts?

It depends on what is actually said.

People do not control what they love or find desirable, whether they care or don't care about others, or how their nature will be.

I disagree with that. I think people have ability to think and act reasonably. Or do you act unreasonable way?

He knew about the results, yet, created these people anyway.

God knows all people and therefore he knows what will happen when people get into different situations.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,671
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2015 8:21:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2015 8:02:45 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 12/3/2015 8:04:32 PM, Chaosism wrote:
If God has moved people to change the world towards His will, then why does He not move people to change the world towards His will, now?

I think the reason is that God wants people to be free. And unfortunately, even when people know what is good and right, they seem to love more evil than good.

If God wanted people to be genuinely free, then He would not have influenced them in the first place, instead, allowing them to exist without providing the means of knowledge of Himself to change their behavior.

Since the Bible and the Quran are based upon Abrahamic theology, which one is true in regard to conflicts?

It depends on what is actually said.

Right - it was a general question. Since people on both sides of the conflicts truly believe that their side is true, then this conflict is born of misinformation, which is something (a) within God's ability to address and (b) something that has been perverted or misunderstood from the original information.

People do not control what they love or find desirable, whether they care or don't care about others, or how their nature will be.

I disagree with that. I think people have ability to think and act reasonably. Or do you act unreasonable way?

I'm not referring to actions, I am referring to that which drives actions. You cannot choose to like or dislike broccoli, for instance. You cannot choose to be (not just act like) a good person if you have no capacity for empathy. You cannot choose how much willpower you have. You cannot choose not to feel anger if something incites it in you; you can only act to manage it. And so on.

He knew about the results, yet, created these people anyway.

God knows all people and therefore he knows what will happen when people get into different situations.

God also knows full well this situations that will be caused by peoples' decisions and actions, too, if he is all-knowing. He knows all of His creation.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 12:07:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 2:29:46 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This is an argument that was kind of inadvertently created through a discussion with someone about the horrors brought about by differing religious beliefs. The conversation was pretty much about ISIS, as that is a tremendous example of this. This argument is intended to refute the defense that God doesn't interfere with humans' free will or actions. To be clear, this argument only pertains to bloodshed that results from religious disputes, not to general human acts of violence or other worldly evils.

P1) God exists. [assumed for the sake of argument]

P2) God has revealed influential information to mankind that has enabled belief in His existence.

P3) Mankind has built upon or altered this revealed information to form differing, incompatible religions.

P4) Mankind routinely arrives at conflict and bloodshed over religious beliefs.

P5) God is aware of the current state of the world (specifically pertaining to religious conflicts).

P6) God is capable of revealing influential information to mankind in order to end religious bloodshed.

P7) God is both willing and able to influence the minds and behaviors of mankind through information.

C) If all of the above premises are true, then ALL religious bloodshed is in full accordance with His will, evident by its continued existence. This is because God is both willing and able to instigate change to suit His will, but choses not to stop the current bloodshed.

Non sequitor. God revealing more information is a temporal event. You haven't made any argument that revealing that information today would be any more in accordance with god's will than revealing it 1,000 years from now. So the statement that God is endorsing blood shed through inaction is a non sequitor.

This argument does have any premises to support why God would do anything for the benefit of man kind. There are no premises that give an incentive for God to take any action. If we are to say God is an indifferent of, again indifference would not be endorsement.

God does his Will. And certainly wants his creation to do his Will. And God is prophesied to take actions regarding those that do his will and those that don't. You are arguing that because these actions have not happened so far then God endorses religious bloodshed. But God probably knows the best time to take action for his believers.

Plus the nature of evil is that it doesn't matter what information is revealed, or what actions are taken. A person who is against God will remain against God even after seeing him face to face.


If this argument is true, then this means that anyone, including ISIS, is correct in their belief that they are indeed correct in acting in accordance with His will whilst committing horrendous acts against humanity. Can anyone think of a good way to sensibly refute this argument?

Elaborations:
P2) This is observable in the existence of divinely inspired scriptures and prophets, the occurrence of miracles and revelations, and through claims of innate knowledge (Romans 1:18-20). No matter which of these are true or false, mankind would not be capable of believing in God without Him providing a means.

P6/P7) Knowledge plays a crucial role in our actions and beliefs, so any knowledge that is revealed does in fact influence those to whom it is revealed and go on to influence the world through their actions. God has already proven that He is able and willing to do this (P2).

In essence, I think this thing can be briefly summarized with a hypothetical syllogism.

P1) G > R
P2) R > B
C) G > B

G = God's Will, R = Religion, B = Religious Bloodshed
Chaosism
Posts: 2,671
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 1:40:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Thanks for responding!

At 12/5/2015 12:07:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Non sequitor. God revealing more information is a temporal event. You haven't made any argument that revealing that information today would be any more in accordance with god's will than revealing it 1,000 years from now. So the statement that God is endorsing blood shed through inaction is a non sequitor.

I'm not sure that I'm following you, here. If God acts to reveal information, then that is a reflection of God's will, isn't it? I am only referring to the observable bloodshed that occurs today. The argument simply is that if God has previously influenced the world to align it with His will, then it is possible that God can do the same again. Since He has elected not to, then He must view the current state of the world as not being in need of such change, even if this is a temporal condition.

This argument does have any premises to support why God would do anything for the benefit of man kind. There are no premises that give an incentive for God to take any action. If we are to say God is an indifferent of, again indifference would not be endorsement.

This argument doesn't make any statements about God acting for the benefit of mankind; it is specifically geared against the statement that God abstains from "correcting" those who believe they are acting in His name because He doesn't want to interfere with their free will. If God is indifferent to these conflicts, then why did He provide the influence that led up to these conflicts?

God does his Will. And certainly wants his creation to do his Will. And God is prophesied to take actions regarding those that do his will and those that don't. You are arguing that because these actions have not happened so far then God endorses religious bloodshed. But God probably knows the best time to take action for his believers.

Well, if He has already influenced His creation in an effort to conform to His will, then He is capable of doing so again, isn't He? If the events that occur in this world are part of a greater endeavor, and this endeavor is aligned with the will of God, then the necessary events to that plan are also aligned with His will. As an aside, if God is incapable of a plan that conforms entirely with His will, then He is not all-powerful.

Plus the nature of evil is that it doesn't matter what information is revealed, or what actions are taken. A person who is against God will remain against God even after seeing him face to face.

The problem in this specific matter (religious bloodshed) is that everyone thinks that they are good and that the others are evil. ISIS believes that THEY are the good ones who are following God's will and that WE are the evil ones who are against God. If the religion is wrong, then they are only "evil" because they have been allowed to be misled.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 2:06:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 2:29:46 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This is an argument that was kind of inadvertently created through a discussion with someone about the horrors brought about by differing religious beliefs. The conversation was pretty much about ISIS, as that is a tremendous example of this. This argument is intended to refute the defense that God doesn't interfere with humans' free will or actions. To be clear, this argument only pertains to bloodshed that results from religious disputes, not to general human acts of violence or other worldly evils.

P1) God exists. [assumed for the sake of argument]

P2) God has revealed influential information to mankind that has enabled belief in His existence.

P3) Mankind has built upon or altered this revealed information to form differing, incompatible religions.

P4) Mankind routinely arrives at conflict and bloodshed over religious beliefs.

P5) God is aware of the current state of the world (specifically pertaining to religious conflicts).

P6) God is capable of revealing influential information to mankind in order to end religious bloodshed.

P7) God is both willing and able to influence the minds and behaviors of mankind through information.

C) If all of the above premises are true, then ALL religious bloodshed is in full accordance with His will, evident by its continued existence. This is because God is both willing and able to instigate change to suit His will, but choses not to stop the current bloodshed.

If this argument is true, then this means that anyone, including ISIS, is correct in their belief that they are indeed correct in acting in accordance with His will whilst committing horrendous acts against humanity. Can anyone think of a good way to sensibly refute this argument?

Elaborations:
P2) This is observable in the existence of divinely inspired scriptures and prophets, the occurrence of miracles and revelations, and through claims of innate knowledge (Romans 1:18-20). No matter which of these are true or false, mankind would not be capable of believing in God without Him providing a means.

P6/P7) Knowledge plays a crucial role in our actions and beliefs, so any knowledge that is revealed does in fact influence those to whom it is revealed and go on to influence the world through their actions. God has already proven that He is able and willing to do this (P2).

In essence, I think this thing can be briefly summarized with a hypothetical syllogism.

P1) G > R
P2) R > B
C) G > B

G = God's Will, R = Religion, B = Religious Bloodshed

In all seriousness your argument is true. It is true in regards to a disproof of god, but that is the god that people have made in "their" image. God allows all of this, yes. Does this disprove an entity of godly power, no. If there are creators called "gods" (or god) that made this reality, are they cruel? Well, yes if there was no death. Since there is death, are they cruel... no. Why? When you die you are whole again. Violence, evil, darkness means nothing when you are "immortal." We want it, so our creators have made a platform (earth) in which we can have it. We are living in a reality we want, so is it god's will... yes. Does that make our creator(s) evil, or does that make us evil to ask for a world like this? Or in conclusion... there is no such thing as wrong, and the right path is the one that we have chosen.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 6:18:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2015 8:02:45 PM, 12_13 wrote:
I think the reason is that God wants people to be free. And unfortunately, even when people know what is good and right, they seem to love more evil than good.

Are you talking about the 7 billion decent humans or a couple of hundred deluded god believers?
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 6:20:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2015 2:06:16 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 12/3/2015 2:29:46 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This is an argument that was kind of inadvertently created through a discussion with someone about the horrors brought about by differing religious beliefs. The conversation was pretty much about ISIS, as that is a tremendous example of this. This argument is intended to refute the defense that God doesn't interfere with humans' free will or actions. To be clear, this argument only pertains to bloodshed that results from religious disputes, not to general human acts of violence or other worldly evils.

P1) God exists. [assumed for the sake of argument]

P2) God has revealed influential information to mankind that has enabled belief in His existence.

P3) Mankind has built upon or altered this revealed information to form differing, incompatible religions.

P4) Mankind routinely arrives at conflict and bloodshed over religious beliefs.

P5) God is aware of the current state of the world (specifically pertaining to religious conflicts).

P6) God is capable of revealing influential information to mankind in order to end religious bloodshed.

P7) God is both willing and able to influence the minds and behaviors of mankind through information.

C) If all of the above premises are true, then ALL religious bloodshed is in full accordance with His will, evident by its continued existence. This is because God is both willing and able to instigate change to suit His will, but choses not to stop the current bloodshed.

If this argument is true, then this means that anyone, including ISIS, is correct in their belief that they are indeed correct in acting in accordance with His will whilst committing horrendous acts against humanity. Can anyone think of a good way to sensibly refute this argument?

Elaborations:
P2) This is observable in the existence of divinely inspired scriptures and prophets, the occurrence of miracles and revelations, and through claims of innate knowledge (Romans 1:18-20). No matter which of these are true or false, mankind would not be capable of believing in God without Him providing a means.

P6/P7) Knowledge plays a crucial role in our actions and beliefs, so any knowledge that is revealed does in fact influence those to whom it is revealed and go on to influence the world through their actions. God has already proven that He is able and willing to do this (P2).

In essence, I think this thing can be briefly summarized with a hypothetical syllogism.

P1) G > R
P2) R > B
C) G > B

G = God's Will, R = Religion, B = Religious Bloodshed

In all seriousness your argument is true. It is true in regards to a disproof of god, but that is the god that people have made in "their" image. God allows all of this, yes. Does this disprove an entity of godly power, no. If there are creators called "gods" (or god) that made this reality, are they cruel? Well, yes if there was no death. Since there is death, are they cruel... no. Why? When you die you are whole again. Violence, evil, darkness means nothing when you are "immortal." We want it, so our creators have made a platform (earth) in which we can have it. We are living in a reality we want, so is it god's will... yes. Does that make our creator(s) evil, or does that make us evil to ask for a world like this? Or in conclusion... there is no such thing as wrong, and the right path is the one that we have chosen.

I think you'll find that having the horse in front of the cart is more effective than your current configuration.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 6:27:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2015 6:20:35 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/6/2015 2:06:16 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 12/3/2015 2:29:46 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This is an argument that was kind of inadvertently created through a discussion with someone about the horrors brought about by differing religious beliefs. The conversation was pretty much about ISIS, as that is a tremendous example of this. This argument is intended to refute the defense that God doesn't interfere with humans' free will or actions. To be clear, this argument only pertains to bloodshed that results from religious disputes, not to general human acts of violence or other worldly evils.

P1) God exists. [assumed for the sake of argument]

P2) God has revealed influential information to mankind that has enabled belief in His existence.

P3) Mankind has built upon or altered this revealed information to form differing, incompatible religions.

P4) Mankind routinely arrives at conflict and bloodshed over religious beliefs.

P5) God is aware of the current state of the world (specifically pertaining to religious conflicts).

P6) God is capable of revealing influential information to mankind in order to end religious bloodshed.

P7) God is both willing and able to influence the minds and behaviors of mankind through information.

C) If all of the above premises are true, then ALL religious bloodshed is in full accordance with His will, evident by its continued existence. This is because God is both willing and able to instigate change to suit His will, but choses not to stop the current bloodshed.

If this argument is true, then this means that anyone, including ISIS, is correct in their belief that they are indeed correct in acting in accordance with His will whilst committing horrendous acts against humanity. Can anyone think of a good way to sensibly refute this argument?

Elaborations:
P2) This is observable in the existence of divinely inspired scriptures and prophets, the occurrence of miracles and revelations, and through claims of innate knowledge (Romans 1:18-20). No matter which of these are true or false, mankind would not be capable of believing in God without Him providing a means.

P6/P7) Knowledge plays a crucial role in our actions and beliefs, so any knowledge that is revealed does in fact influence those to whom it is revealed and go on to influence the world through their actions. God has already proven that He is able and willing to do this (P2).

In essence, I think this thing can be briefly summarized with a hypothetical syllogism.

P1) G > R
P2) R > B
C) G > B

G = God's Will, R = Religion, B = Religious Bloodshed

In all seriousness your argument is true. It is true in regards to a disproof of god, but that is the god that people have made in "their" image. God allows all of this, yes. Does this disprove an entity of godly power, no. If there are creators called "gods" (or god) that made this reality, are they cruel? Well, yes if there was no death. Since there is death, are they cruel... no. Why? When you die you are whole again. Violence, evil, darkness means nothing when you are "immortal." We want it, so our creators have made a platform (earth) in which we can have it. We are living in a reality we want, so is it god's will... yes. Does that make our creator(s) evil, or does that make us evil to ask for a world like this? Or in conclusion... there is no such thing as wrong, and the right path is the one that we have chosen.

I think you'll find that having the horse in front of the cart is more effective than your current configuration.

Well, having the horse in front of the court would be the right configuration... Did you mean "cart in front of the horse?" That would be a better way to show your creative disapproval of my analogy. Or, you know... you can tell me how i am wrong.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 6:37:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2015 6:27:37 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 12/6/2015 6:20:35 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/6/2015 2:06:16 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 12/3/2015 2:29:46 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This is an argument that was kind of inadvertently created through a discussion with someone about the horrors brought about by differing religious beliefs. The conversation was pretty much about ISIS, as that is a tremendous example of this. This argument is intended to refute the defense that God doesn't interfere with humans' free will or actions. To be clear, this argument only pertains to bloodshed that results from religious disputes, not to general human acts of violence or other worldly evils.

P1) God exists. [assumed for the sake of argument]

P2) God has revealed influential information to mankind that has enabled belief in His existence.

P3) Mankind has built upon or altered this revealed information to form differing, incompatible religions.

P4) Mankind routinely arrives at conflict and bloodshed over religious beliefs.

P5) God is aware of the current state of the world (specifically pertaining to religious conflicts).

P6) God is capable of revealing influential information to mankind in order to end religious bloodshed.

P7) God is both willing and able to influence the minds and behaviors of mankind through information.

C) If all of the above premises are true, then ALL religious bloodshed is in full accordance with His will, evident by its continued existence. This is because God is both willing and able to instigate change to suit His will, but choses not to stop the current bloodshed.

If this argument is true, then this means that anyone, including ISIS, is correct in their belief that they are indeed correct in acting in accordance with His will whilst committing horrendous acts against humanity. Can anyone think of a good way to sensibly refute this argument?

Elaborations:
P2) This is observable in the existence of divinely inspired scriptures and prophets, the occurrence of miracles and revelations, and through claims of innate knowledge (Romans 1:18-20). No matter which of these are true or false, mankind would not be capable of believing in God without Him providing a means.

P6/P7) Knowledge plays a crucial role in our actions and beliefs, so any knowledge that is revealed does in fact influence those to whom it is revealed and go on to influence the world through their actions. God has already proven that He is able and willing to do this (P2).

In essence, I think this thing can be briefly summarized with a hypothetical syllogism.

P1) G > R
P2) R > B
C) G > B

G = God's Will, R = Religion, B = Religious Bloodshed

In all seriousness your argument is true. It is true in regards to a disproof of god, but that is the god that people have made in "their" image. God allows all of this, yes. Does this disprove an entity of godly power, no. If there are creators called "gods" (or god) that made this reality, are they cruel? Well, yes if there was no death. Since there is death, are they cruel... no. Why? When you die you are whole again. Violence, evil, darkness means nothing when you are "immortal." We want it, so our creators have made a platform (earth) in which we can have it. We are living in a reality we want, so is it god's will... yes. Does that make our creator(s) evil, or does that make us evil to ask for a world like this? Or in conclusion... there is no such thing as wrong, and the right path is the one that we have chosen.

I think you'll find that having the horse in front of the cart is more effective than your current configuration.

Well, having the horse in front of the court would be the right configuration... Did you mean "cart in front of the horse?" That would be a better way to show your creative disapproval of my analogy. Or, you know... you can tell me how i am wrong.
I didn't think I was being obtuse, I was saying that you had the cart before the horse, just saying.
But here let me help.
We want it, so our creators have made a platform (earth) in which we can have it. We are living in a reality we want, so is it god's will... yes. Does that make our creator(s) evil, or does that make us evil to ask for a world like this?

Surely it's our creators who created us with the desires you claim, so then claiming they simply supply what we want is a nonsense. They are supplying needs they created in us, they are supplying the world they wanted to supply.
(all hypothetical, since there are no creators.)
Hence you are putting the cart before the horse rather than the correct configuration I suggested.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 7:04:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2015 6:37:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/6/2015 6:27:37 AM, Outplayz wrote:

In all seriousness your argument is true. It is true in regards to a disproof of god, but that is the god that people have made in "their" image. God allows all of this, yes. Does this disprove an entity of godly power, no. If there are creators called "gods" (or god) that made this reality, are they cruel? Well, yes if there was no death. Since there is death, are they cruel... no. Why? When you die you are whole again. Violence, evil, darkness means nothing when you are "immortal." We want it, so our creators have made a platform (earth) in which we can have it. We are living in a reality we want, so is it god's will... yes. Does that make our creator(s) evil, or does that make us evil to ask for a world like this? Or in conclusion... there is no such thing as wrong, and the right path is the one that we have chosen.

I think you'll find that having the horse in front of the cart is more effective than your current configuration.

Well, having the horse in front of the court would be the right configuration... Did you mean "cart in front of the horse?" That would be a better way to show your creative disapproval of my analogy. Or, you know... you can tell me how i am wrong.
I didn't think I was being obtuse, I was saying that you had the cart before the horse, just saying.

Don't worry, it takes a lot to offend me in any way. I just pointed out your saying was said incorrectly bc sometimes i'm a ... well you know. I really meant to probe a response to pick your mind hopefully... creatively of course, this is an analogy or hypothetical as you have mentioned. However, i believe in certain aspects.

But here let me help.
We want it, so our creators have made a platform (earth) in which we can have it. We are living in a reality we want, so is it god's will... yes. Does that make our creator(s) evil, or does that make us evil to ask for a world like this?

Surely it's our creators who created us with the desires you claim, so then claiming they simply supply what we want is a nonsense. They are supplying needs they created in us, they are supplying the world they wanted to supply.

Never said they are supplying anything really. I am saying if this world was created than it is created for exactly what it is suppose to be. I am suggesting that we are okay with it since we are alive, right? If we had an option to choose, then we still chose to come here. I am saying that facing immortality; wouldn't everything be different? Such as death. If after this life you become immortal, what mortal coils would we really hold on to? Now, we may hold on to a lot, we may be petrified, but then... if we chose to come here, that means we were something before here... so then, what mortal coils would we hold on to if we became an immortal with experiences? Like i have always said, i think death is a creation of immortality. The escape. The platform would be our reality. This suggestion again is that this reality is what it is. You may ask, if that were true... i know i wouldn't have picked coming here... which i would respond is life really that bad. Yet, life is really bad for some, but is it. I am not them. I would not pick a high risk path. Then, some are just unlucky ... well, evil is a detriment to the good if you live in this reality. But how much evil is there really? And again, i am not them. Some people like to drink their own piss, how do i know some didn't come here to be tortured... i am me, and i only know who i am, and that is all that matters. You are all that matters. This world has everything for a reason. To me that reason is choice... what character do you want to live as... self awareness is knowing. Worshiping yourself is the right way... bc you are your creator. You are your creator in this life; i do not understand why that would magically disappear if their happened to be another. We are all accountable for ourselves and knowing yourself is strength bc you will find what you can experience here. If i am wrong, then there is no next step... but, i am always right bc this view keeps you accountable now.