Bad Arguments
- Home
- Board: /his/ - History & Humanities
- Reading: Bad Arguments
I see terrible meme philosophical arguments for and against God.
What are some of the worst you've heard for/against religion?
>Either God exists or doesn't.
>If he doesn't and you don't believe then nothing happens.
>But if he does and you don't believe then you go to Hell.
>Just believe he exists, it's safer.
>>966659
honestly Pascal's wager, though I also think it's in a way the strongest. simply pointing out other religions that also claim to have the exclusive path to some type of salvation makes it collapse but I also think that it is the main thing that keeps people in their faith even when they've seen convincing arguments against it. this was true for me anyways. i was convinced that christianity was unlikely to be true long before I actually stopped believing because I couldn't stop being afraid of hell
>>966659
Pascal's Wager is the one that sticks out as being the worst argument for god.
There's quite a few bad arguments against god as well but I can't think of any one with a name.
what are your criterion for argument
because if you accept completely unfounded and unfocused opinions as arguments then boi where to fucking start just take a spin through /his/
>>966710
OP here.
Worst of the worst of memes. Anything you can constitute as a shitty Internet argument for or against a deity or several.
Another one.
>Religion A says something in Holy Book.
>Religion B says something else.
>Neither is right so we must assume all are wrong.
>Can God create a stone that he can not lift and then lift it?
>>966659
The worst I've seen so far is the assertion that the existence of other religions disproves Christianity.
The reason for it being so terrible is that Christianity itself asserts other religions exist.
If no other religions had ever existed that would falsify Christianity, not vindicate it.
Most of them are equally terrible, since almost all of them rely heavily on causality and drawing absolute conclusions based on incomplete knowledge. David Hume nullifies about 99% of pretty much all arguments they have. All you have left after Hume is some vague fragments about how there's something 'beyond reality', whatever that means
>>966736
What's worse is that idiots usually give a terrible answer.
>Here's my throw away card
>"God is perfect and beyond paradox"
How it's clear Christianity is a man-made concept because we can trace its origins and evolution through history and see how various people and organizations changed it to serve their earthly goals.
Oh wait, that's actually a good argument against it, so scratch it.
>>966737
was your post supposed to be the terrible argument?
>>966736
It's like asking god to create a three sided square.
>>966737
What about when other religions also explain away Christianity?
>Totally not sarcastic
The ontological argument leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Here is the form that I usually see it in:
1. God is perfect
2. It is better to exist than to not exist
3. God exists
>>966671
this is probably one of the most flawed arguments ever tbqh
>God is your magical sky fairy!
I'm an atheist-leaning agnostic, but this argument shows what a complete and utter lack of understanding many atheists (and even some religious people I imagine) have about God. God is not a "being," he is not some creature that floats around in the Cosmos, he is instead *being itself*, an incomprehensible metaphysical ultimate that can't be degenerate to the image of some big santa figure living in the clouds.
>>966802
Here's the perfect response.
>Utopia is a perfect place
>A place that exists beyond our imagination is better
>Utopia exists
>God is defined in part by existence, so he exists
>>966827
I think the original argument is that you have as much evidence for a 'pink unicorn' or 'magical fairy', but idiots probably copypasta and memed it into the horror that cringe brings me.
>if you can question the existence of god then god exists
>god exists or does not exist, but he must exist to exist or not exist
it just seems beyond argument.
>>966851
Nah thats a response that points out the absurdity of the argument without actually refuting it
>>966843
Doesn't that not work due to the subjectivity of how a person would define Utopia?
If you are referencing the place from the Thomas More's imagination, I would not want to live there.
In my, perhaps I would want to be dictator, and thus you (or at least someone else) would not want to live there.
Though I do agree the ontological argument is fairly unconvincing.
>>966827
It is an annoying and unsophisticated insult without an actual argument but the "incomprehensible metaphysical ultimate" is primarily a later development. it's pretty obvious that God was supposed to be in the sky simply from that we still refer to him as being in heaven, not someplace outside the bounds of space and time. the non-transcendent version of God can very clearly be seen in Genesis which even uneducated atheists and believers have read. The transcendent incomprehensible God is only truly believed in its entirety by theologians
Did anyone here waste their money on God's Not Dead 2? Is it as dumb as the commercials made it look?
I mean that strawman
>We are going to PROVE once and for all that God is DEAD
made me cringe, even as a Christian. Who talks like that?
>>966733
That's not a shitty argument. There is no reason to assume correctness.
>>966916
>Evolution says we evolved
>Christianity says Genesis
>Both can't be true so we assume both are false
>>966884
Why would anyone spend money on that shit.
These types of christian films have been in the works for a long time. A lot of big shot hollywood types had to get their start in movies like these. I don't know the market is, youth groups maybe?
But what's really puzzling to me is how they're starting to have big box office success all of a sudden.
>>966930
Promotion of degenerate sexual minorities runs rampart in the USA nowadays, movies and TV shows need to have perfect and untouchable faggots and trannies, so whatever Christians are left latch to something that's made for them.
>>966923
Not equivalent arguments. The science is demonstrable.
>>966937
You need to get out of /pol/ and experience the real world. most films and tv shows don't have gay characters and trannies, though it is true that mainstream shows are starting to have both when they used to not.
>whatever Christians are left
something around 80% of Americans are Christians while 60% of Americans support gay marriage. this clearly shows that acceptance of gays =/= equal ceasing to be Christian.
>>966960
>though it is true that mainstream shows are starting to have both when they used to not.
So basically you agree with me, but just don't want to say it clearly. You need to stop shaking and accept reality.
And yes, how many people do you think go to see shit like God's Not Dead 2? It's gonna be the minority that's not for faggotry.
>>966962
>"This is partially true but..."
>Stops reading
>Ignores partially
>Ignores but
>"Just get red pilled. /pol/ right again."
I'm glad you're bringing plenty of bad arguments to the bad argument thread. Thank you.
>>966962
No, you greatly exaggerated how many shows have gays/trans characters to the point that it could flood the market to the point that the only thing Christians could watch is specifically religious shows
>>966987
Your brain turned to mush and you can't think anything outside your crazy /pol/ - not /pol/ dichotomy. I'm just some guy from Easter Europe watching several American TV shows per week and I just noticed many of them recently started having fags and trannies. That's all there to is.
But if your head nothing but muh /pol/ boogeyman exists. You can't see beyond your own fucking nose, you American shit.
>God doesn't exist
>"Why do you hate God, anon?"
>>967002
How do you know god didnt set up the universe as a test of critical thinking, and you only get into heaven if you reject all religions, everyone else goes to hell?
>>967007
Now we are getting to the truly worst.
>"You just want to live in sin"
>>967007
There are legitimately good reasons to hate god though
>>967008
I don't. I guess in that case, even refusing to make a choice means I'm making one
>>966659
Pascal's Wager is one of the worst for. Appealing to Pluralism is one of the worst against.
>>967018
Thats the point, the wager is ridiculous as every possible option faces the same risk
>>966994
The language you used was very /pol/ to be fair, especially that you specifically used the word degenerate. Honestly I don't have a problem with gays in tv shows or IRL because I don't see anything wrong with it. Trans people I do recognize as having a mental disorder but I don't think shaming them accomplishes anything. In a way it actually helps promote it by giving them a martyr narrative
>>967021
Yeah, I guess I didn't realize that I made the unprovable assumption that atheism = ticket to hell
>Objective morality exists therefore god exists because of god didnt exist objective morality couldn't exist but it does exist therefore god exists
>that whole CS Lewis spiel about knocking over a milk jug and it reproducing a map of London
>parts of the Bible are historically accurate therefore the whole book is historically accurate
>>967027
Thats all right, at least you see the flaw now
Any argument from incredulity really takes the cake.
At least when I make those arguments, I acknowledge they're fallacious, but it's usually limited to shit like "there's an estimated 10 quintillion stars in the universe, I won't accept that there isn't a single advanced lifeform outside of earth, the probability is too high".
>>967029
William Lane Craig does the first one quite a bit.
>Objective morality can't exist without God
>Therefore if God doesn't exist nothing can be said to be truly wrong
>But Objective Morality does exist and you know it, you can feel it. I mean c'mon, are you really a relativist? lol
In fact, as far as arguments for Christianity go almost Craig's entire career could go in this thread.
>>967029
>CS Lewis
>"""""""lay-theologian"""""""
Have you ever heard his trilemma?
I can't stand the man.
>>967015
Like what?
>>967029
Fucking hell I forgot that Lewis was the genius who said we couldn't trust our own thoughts without a god.
>God is real because the bible says...
>God does not exist because science concludes...
>Your world-view is wrong because my world-view is right
>>966750
>n-no my argument refuted
>better call it terrible
>>966754
The existence of other religions doesn't prove or disprove Christianity, Islam, etc.
If another religion says that other religions exist (Islam with Christianity as an example) then the existence of Christianity itself doesn't demonstrate that the religion is false.
>>967037
He created the universe, and everything in it. Everything bad is ultimately his responsibility, it exists either because he willed it to, or is/was willing to allow it. That makes him a bit of a bastard in my view
>>967019
How is appealing to pluralism bad?
>>967040
Thats actually very well put, well done
>>966960
Actually all that shows is that claiming to be Christian doesn't make you Christian
Being opposed to homosexuality is required to be a Christian. Just like actually watching birds is required to be a bird watcher
>>967048
Define bad
>>967049
Because it doesn't prove anything
It doesn't even imply anything
>>967053
Almost all christians claim that jesus supercedes the old testament, and jesus said nothing about homosexuals. If you are going to demand christians follow the old testament then you have to follow ALL of it, which you dont because its insane
>>967057
Anything that causes suffering
>>967058
It's not supposed to prove anything. It's supposed to weaken assertions.
>>967059
It's just a rephrasing of the problem of evil. Which is probably the best argument against a perfect god.
>>967059
Whats wrong with this argument pray tell?
>>967049
Disagreements and multiple coexisting ideologies about the nature of reality don't serve to dismiss any core notions between them. This goes for religious and non-religious worldviews.
As >>967058 said, it's a non sequitur.
>>967067
Its the original problem of evil isnt it?
>>967053
You're implying the entirety of what makes you not only dennotatively but also completely Christian is a rejection of homosexuality. So what was all the Jesus and flood stuff about if all that being Christian is 'no-homo', assuming you weren't using false equivalence and it is equal to bird watching to a bird watcher.
>>967060
Here we go
Old Testament is still valid
No saying that does not mean you need to follow EVERYTHING there.
Even Paul explained why you don't
And yes if you're a Christian Jesus said things about homosexuality. He's God so what God says in the Old Testament Jesus said.
Here's an explanation in it's entirety by Jimmy Atkins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBTpsVFhPPw
>>967070
Yeah as it turns out. I didn't realize that.
>>967053
Uh, no, being Christian means you follow CHRIST
>>967082
Birdwatchers:Birdwatching::Christians:No-homo
Duh. Jesus isn't a thing.
>>967069
In the country text of the wager it works fine.
>We have a concept of a perfect being
>Existing is more perfect than not existing
>Therefore our concept must actually exist as a real entity
>>967064
>Utilitarians
>>967091
Wait, what? We were talking about the appeal to pluralism, were we not?
>>967064
>Utilitarians
>>967093
Suffering is bad. God created conditions in which people suffer when he didnt have to. That makes god a dick
>>966827
>God is not a "being," he is not some creature that floats around in the Cosmos, he is instead *being itself*, an incomprehensible metaphysical ultimate that can't be degenerate to the image of some big santa figure living in the clouds.
An incomprehensible and transcendent metaphysical Ground of Being Itself, who gets absolutely furious if a guy fucks another guy?
>>967097
Why is suffering bad?
>>967094
Yes it works fine when it would be appropriate to use it such as I the context of Pascale wager
>>967100
Because it hurts
>>967107
And? Its painful, not bad.
>>966875
>It is an annoying and unsophisticated insult without an actual argument but the "incomprehensible metaphysical ultimate" is primarily a later development.
It seriously isn't. God as "being itself" is seen in the patristic era and the key understanding of God to come out of the establishment of the hypostatic union as doctrine.
>>967105
But then it's trying to assert something entirely different.
>>967107
>>967108
>waiting for the appeal to consensus
>>967022
Most people would consider both to be degeneracy around these parts of the world.
Although it's slowly changing even here.
>>967107
Your house is on fire and your lungs burn as they fill up with smoke. It hurts and it wakes you up. Is that "bad?"
>>966659
Against God
-The moral code preached by its adhrents is unpalatable to me/barbaric/evil ect.
-The world is unfair/people suffer
-it would be really bad if there was a God
For God
-The opposite of the above three.
-Most people believe in God/ smart people have belived in God for thousands of years they cannot all be wrong/ you are just arrogant.
-All a humans desires can be fulfilled by nature humans desire meaning/God therefore there must be a God.
-God of the Gaps - real popular with quantum physics
-A report of a miracle or fulfillment of an extremely vague prophecy whilst simultaneously rejecting other miracles or prophecies
Bonus
the most annoying argument - the armchair pyschologist.
You are just rebelling against God, dont worry there no more need to fight just open your heart to him // You are just willingly blind to the reality of the world stop using religion as a crutch and embrace reality
the argument where because of a meme they pushed it looks bad to not be a christian is probably one of the worst
>>967114
Pretty good post
>>967113
Not that anon, but pain is useful, not inherently 'bad'.
>>967109
Hey Wolfshiem, how often do you browse these boards?
>>967122
Anything goes is bad if used improperly.
It being bad In certain circumstances texts does not make it bad overall.
>>967142
The point I was trying to clarify was the plurism issue is terrible for dismissing religion however it can play a very helpful and useful role in analyzing them and dealing with exceptionalism arguments.
I think the problem the poster had was that in seeing the value of the second point were unable to understand how it could not be helpful in the first.
>>966930
>But what's really puzzling to me is how they're starting to have big box office success all of a sudden.
Micro-targeted marketing via social media. Youth groups and church communities have FB and WhatsApp groups and co-ordinate excursions to the cinema.
You have to understand, too, that 'big' box office success is relative here. The films are already cheap to make, a big part of their success lies in further slashing marketing costs. Marketing, production and distribution costs for GND and GND2 combined could well be less than the ad-buy for Batman Vs Superman.
for god?
the first cause argument. It doesn't prove the existence of the God or a god-like creature.
against god?
probably the big bang. Big bang can be refuted causality, who/what created big bang and so on..
both are running around circles because by human logic the universe is paradoxical
>>967060
>Almost all christians claim that jesus supercedes the old testament, and jesus said nothing about homosexuals.
>For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
>And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Romans 1:26-35
>God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die
Now, that's Paul, not Jesus, granted. But Jesus didn't really say all that much, frankly.
It's also true that much of the anti-gay sentiments from Christians stems from a cultural conflict, or so I think at least. They're all het up about eg gay adoption, but they don't seem to worry about adoption by the greedy or the wrathful. But when they look for textual support for their sentiments, it is in fact there to be found, no question.
>>967064
Anything? Like, a flu shot? Stings, right? So flu shots are bad?
>>967067
>Which is probably the best argument against a perfect god.
The best argument against a perfect god is that a perfect god is a solution in search of a problem. The AfE just fails.
>>967069
>>966733
Religious pluralism implies that most of the views contained are wrong. If there are any contradictions between the religions, that means some are wrong and some are right.
Besides, this whole "all religions really point to the same truth" bullshit is so completely idiotic I'm having trouble understanding why anybody would spew this garbage.
>Hey, heard about the Lakers win yesterday?
>What? Warriors won, dipshit, you're wrong.
>I'm only partially wrong, the match actually happened! Hurr
>Hey, heard about the Lakers vs Redskins game yesterday?
>What the fuck are you talking about, you moron? They're not even in the same sports.
>Hurrr, football is a sport that exists, and basketball is a sport that exists. I'm not wrong, derpdyderp
Fuck off with this inane bullshit.
>>967239
Yes, pain is inherently bad
>>966692
You clearly have not read pascal's wager
>>967252
So flu shots are bad, then. So too are blood tests that might detect a fatal but curable disease. Potentially life-saving chemotherapy is also bad. Laser eye surgery that can literally stop you going blind, well, it hurts, so it's bad.
Given that so many clearly desirable and useful things are 'bad' on your account, what does it actually mean for a thing to be bad? I've listed several things that basically nobody but a few religious extremists would agree shouldn't exist, but they're all 'bad' according to you. Doesn't it seem like that's a pretty useless definition of 'bad', if it paints all manner of things that people would oppose abolishing (and not for self-interested reasons, either - people would oppose abolishing them even if they knew they would never need to use them).
>>967272
And the prevention of more pain via a flu shot is good. It's not complicated.
>>967275
But the flu is not the only source of pain
>>967275
So potential future pain is more important that current temporary pain?
>>967294
>spooks all the way down.
>>967294
>things are only good or evil, fuck nuance
Are you some form of a religious asshat? This is the same kind of retardation as "all sins are equal".
>>967307
It hurts even if it stops more hurt later, dont be nitpicky
>>967275
>And the prevention of more pain via a flu shot is good. It's not complicated.
Claim: all of the suffering God permits is in furtherance of preventing greater suffering. All superfluous suffering is, in fact, prevented by God.
And from there you can see yourself, I'm sure, how the whole ball of wax just falls to pieces.
>>967313
When did he ever make that claim?
>>967313
>Making the just world argument
>Laughing smugfrechmen
>>967320
>When did he ever make that claim?
He didn't make it - I'm making it.
>>967322
>God is also the one who picks what kind of suffering or pleasure people receive after they die. They don't just go to hell by choice.
This gets into far more specific theologies where you can certainly generate a theoretically infinite number of possible Gods who would, in fact, be objectionable. Your problem is that I only need to be able to generate one that isn't. If you really, genuinely believe I can't, we can continue for a while.
The escape hatch from the trap you're building is free will, just as a teaser.
>>967325
It's not as though I actually believe it. I'm not even a theist.
>>967336
Honestly I as just happy to make a voltaire post that wasnt
>HRE
>>967335
>We wouldtn suffer if god didnt either make us suffer or allow us to
And we wouldn't suffer if the doctor didn't stick us with that needle. Or no, actually we already agreed that we'd suffer even more. It's all still the same claim: All the suffering in existence is necessary to prevent greater suffering. This entails certain restrictions on God, naturally - it must be true that it couldn't create a universe where suffering is impossible, for instance.
>>967346
There is no necessary suffering though, only what god wills or allows. refer to the problem of evil post in this thread
>>967346
>it must be true that it couldn't create a universe where suffering is impossible, for instance.
I don't see where you made that leap. It's fucking trivial to create a thinking brain that can do nothing but feel >euphoric
>>967335
>We wouldtn suffer if god didnt either make us suffer or allow us to
You really need to work on your wording or else it really becomes difficult to tackle your statement.
>>967346
You're spooked to the very core, friend.
>>967363
Fair enough. My point is that god created the universe. Everything that happens in the universe is there either because god wished it to be, or merely allowed it without actively making it occur (assuming that statement even makes sense for god)
The most annoying thing about religious people in general is when they defend their faith through claiming to be the absolute authority on what it means to belong to that faith.
I mean, how many times have you heard the claim from conservative Muslims, or Christians that, "these people aren't *really* Christians, or Muslims, because they don't practice the religion in exactly the same way as I do, and because of this, they either deserve to die, or be persecuted in some way(See ISIS, IRA etc)."
I mean, that type of argument has already happened in this thread alone, and it didn't take long.
>>967397
This is how my grandma views a lot of things because of cult leader Jimmy Swaggart saying that since they're not following (and giving their money to) him they're not in the right. He has even written books on the subject, and never fails to slam other religions or sects whenever he can. It's cultish shit.
>>967114
Good god i hate the crutch thing.
That basically implies that I have no right to drink my problems away or indulge in enjoyable activities, because then I'd be relying on THEM as a crutch.
Implication: KILL YOURSELF FAGGOT
>>967397
Every group in general tends to do that. There really isn't any argument for or against anything, it's just fallacious thinking.
>>967359
>There is no necessary suffering though, only what god wills or allows.
Bro, I AM referring to the PoE post, in this thread and in all threads. This path you're heading down is how the argument from evil fails. It's how all instances of the general argument from evil fail.
When you say there is only what God wills or allows, this entails a claim:
>All suffering is permitted by God, therefore all suffering can be prevented by God
This is false (or so I will claim) outside of the case where God simply doesn't bother creating the universe. I have food cooking, so here's the quickest I can lay out the case:
>God is morally perfect
>The 'good' is that which God desires, the 'bad' is that which God opposes
>God desires that we choose to worship and obey him of our own free will
>Successfully doing so permits us to attain communion with God, which is the highest possible good
>Suffering exists either to prompt correct behaviour, to instill virtuous thinking or to warn against vicious inclination
>If suffering did not exist, we could not attain communion with God, therefore we could not attain the highest possible good
>Therefore suffering is necessary
The Epicurean response usually looks something like: "So if God CAN'T let us into Heaven without allowing suffering, how can God be omnipotent?" To which the response is that God can only do that which it is possible to do; God can't create five-sided triangles, God doesn't know the last digit of pi, etc. This is what is entailed by 'necessity', after all.
>>967366
Or perhaps your assumption that I actually hold the position I'm arguing for is *your* spook.
>>967397
>IRA
Um, if you mean the Provos, then... no. That's not what was/is going on there at all. That's a political conflict with clear cultural signifiers delineating the combatants, with the respective flavours of Christianity just being one of the more prominent and reliable indicators of affiliation. Nobody joined the 'ra because they had a hate-boner for consubstantiation or whatever.
>>967424
>The 'good' is that which God desires, the 'bad' is that which God opposes
>might makes right morality
wew lad, you're free to go live in your own filth in the cave if you think what a celestial thug says matters just because he said it.
>>967424
Who said anything about being let into heaven? Also why would god create beings that might not be worthy of his heaven? What a fucking dick
>>967429
The problem there is not specific religious tenets, but the existence of religion as a social identifier in the first place. You can have a "gas the kikes" mentality based on nothing other than them being in an outgroup.
>>967429
Sure it was an intrinsically political conflict, but that didn't stop people from killing each others children along religious lines.
>>967429
>That's a political conflict
And religion is a perfect tool to herd the idiotic masses for your political goals. That doesn't absolve the concept of religion whatsoever.
>>967436
That's not 'might makes right'. It's explicitly not claiming that the good is good because God *determines* that it is good. It's saying that the quality of goodness simply IS the quality of being desired by God.
>>967439
>Who said anything about being let into heaven?
I did, because it forms part of my justification.
>Also why would god create beings that might not be worthy of his heaven?
God cannot create free-willed beings who are guaranteed entry into Heaven. That's not how free will works.
>>967467
Yeah, and god wanting what he wants causes unimaginable suffering for us poor shmucks down here, and hating him for it is perfectly valid
>>967467
That's exactly what it is, other than the desired tautology. Is there any other qualifier for 'good' other than being desired by god?
I can define good as the quality of being desired by me, too. It's not an argument.
>>967472
Then why the hell give us free will at all? I dont want to get into heaven, i dont want to hang out with god, I just want shit to not hurt, hell i'll take non-existence, but no, you have to exist, you have to suffer, and the only reason is because god is a dick
>>967475
Yes, but why does their motivations matter, if they end up killing people for simply belonging to a religious group?
Even if you assume that being Protestant makes you highly likely to be a Loyalist, that doesn't give the IRA, or vice versa, the right to murder children.
I think that conflict was made infinitely worse by religion, and it would've been solved quite abit earlier if it wasn't for religion imo.
>>967477
>causes unimaginable suffering for us poor shmucks down here, and hating him for it is perfectly valid
But it's nothing compared to the suffering that it prevents. You're still complaining about the flu jab.
>>967478
>That's exactly what it is
No, that's exactly what it isn't. 'Might makes right' implies that it is because God is powerful that goodness accords with its will. This is not what is being claimed; again, what is being claimed is that when we say a thing is 'good', we are saying that it is pleasing to God. That is what it means for a thing to be 'good'; that is the definition of the term (for our purposes here).
>I can define good as the quality of being desired by me, too. It's not an argument.
Yah, great, and if we were trying to prove or disprove that it's impossible for YOUR country ass to exist, it might be helpful. We're not, though, and it isn't. The argument proceeded from claims about God's moral perfection. If it surprises you that goodness ends up being defined during the course of that argument, then you should sit the fuck and shut the fuck up, because you're in over your head.
>>967485
>Then why the hell give us free will at all?
Because God wants us to choose to worship and obey him of our own free will. We can't do that unless we have free will.
>I dont want
It doesn't matter what you want. It only matters what God wants.
>>967486
>Yes, but why does their motivations matter,
Ask the guy who started talking about their motivations.
>>967488
>No, that's exactly what it isn't. 'Might makes right' implies that it is because God is powerful that goodness accords with its will. This is not what is being claimed; again, what is being claimed is that when we say a thing is 'good', we are saying that it is pleasing to God. That is what it means for a thing to be 'good'; that is the definition of the term (for our purposes here).
Whose definition is this? I don't give a flying fuck about what your sky dictator thinks. Simply defining to be good is not an argument no matter how much you'd like that.
>Yah, great, and if we were trying to prove or disprove that it's impossible for YOUR country ass to exist, it might be helpful. We're not, though, and it isn't. The argument proceeded from claims about God's moral perfection. If it surprises you that goodness ends up being defined during the course of that argument, then you should sit the fuck and shut the fuck up, because you're in over your head.
Actually, I'm more relevant than your god, because I actually exist. All I say is good, off with your head.
>> the suffering that it prevents
If you let me hurt you a lot now I wont hurt you even worse later? I'm supposed to not hate this person?
>>967491
Precisely, you do understand. God is a dick, If I was capable of causing him pain I would consider it just to do so
>>967494
>Simply defining to be good is not an argument no matter how much you'd like that.
I haven't presented it as an argument. I've presented it as a claim in furtherance of an argument.
You are, manifestly, not qualified to discuss this with adults, so no more replies for you.
>>967492
>Ask the guy who started talking about their motivations.
I am that guy m8, and I didn't claim that religion was their only motivation for killing people, I just said that there is a tendency when things become sectarian to dehumanize the other group, which is why I mentioned IRA at all.
There's no reason for you to get your tits in a vice, I could've said Baharatya Jana Sangh instead, which is a Hindu Nationalist Party in India instead, and the same would be true.
>>967501
You simply asserted that whatever he wants is good. That, I agree with you, is not even an argument. It's a bold claim based on nothing and you can fuck off.
>adults
Adults who are still afraid of boogeymen?
>>967499
>I wont hurt you even worse late
God does not inflict, nor can it prevent, the later, greater suffering. This suffering can be understood as the total absence of Godly presence, or however you would understand the opposite of communion with God.
>Precisely, you do understand. God is a dick
But when you say "God is a dick" all you are saying is that you desire other than that which God desires; you desire evil, therefore you are evil.
>>967511
>I didn't claim that religion was their only motivation for killing people,
>>967397
>because they don't practice the religion in exactly the same way as I do, and because of this, they either deserve to die, or be persecuted in some way(See ISIS, IRA
You totally did claim that, and it's totally wrong, and it totally doesn't matter.
>>967512
>You simply asserted that whatever he wants is good.
Yeah, I posited an axiom, son. You'll know you're ready to join the conversation when you no longer need to google shit I say to you. So toddle off and google that.
>Adults who are still afraid of boogeymen?
Well I've already said I'm not a theist. But I suppose it's too much to expect that you read and understand the actual things I actually say. Can't ask too much of children.
>>967513
>God does not inflict, nor can it prevent
God made me exist, nothing compelled him to do that. Moreso he made me exist in a world guaranteed to cause me to suffer, and virtually guaranteed to mean I wont see heaven. None of that is necessary
>therefore you are evil.
So what? Why do I care what my tyrant considers good or evil?
>>967518
>You totally did claim that, and it's totally wrong, and it totally doesn't matter.
Yes, because as I said here:
>"Even if you assume that being Protestant makes you highly likely to be a Loyalist, that doesn't give the IRA, or vice versa, the right to murder children."
They did associate religion with political adherence, which made them think they had the right to kill people, which means that they considered Protestantism the wrong kind of Christianity.
Deal with it.
>>967526
>Yeah, I posited an axiom, son.
Why?
>>967527
>God made me exist, nothing compelled him to do that.
This much is true, your specific existence is not necessary. But you'd have killed yourself by now if you hated it that much.
>Why do I care what my tyrant considers good or evil?
Why do you expect that God cares what you consider good or evil?
>>967073
>Unitarians
>are you even trying
>I'm an atheist
>>967528
>They did associate religion with political adherence, which made them think they had the right to kill people, which means that they considered Protestantism the wrong kind of Christianity.
All of this is so hilariously wrong. They already thought they had the right to kill people, and their justifications for that (you can read them! They actually straight-up COME OUT AND SAY why they're killing people! No speculation necessary!) stem exclusively from political matters.
Your theory fails to account for, oh, let's say:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Turnley
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Bunting
... who were, wait for it, PROTESTANT Republican activists! They were murdered by Loyalists!
Here's the meat of it: You said something wrong on the internet. Someone corrected you. That's all it had to be. Why drag it out?
>>967533
>But you'd have killed yourself by now if you hated it that much.
Its not that bad, the point is that ALL suffering is his responsibility, and if he exists im going to hell when I die anyway
>Why do you expect that God
I never claimed god cares, all ive said is that hating god is justified
>>967554
>Is this one of those "pretending to be retarded" type deals, then? A shitposting affair?
It's one of those "Here is a bad argument, which happens to argue for a position I hold" type deals.
>>967556
>Its not that bad, the point is that ALL suffering is his responsibility
Just saying it doesn't make it so.
>>967555
Wait a minute, so exceptions to a rule, makes the rule wrong?
Are you saying they didn't associate religion with political adherence, simply because you could find a couple of examples where it wasn't the case?
>>967560
>bad argument
You don't prove something is a bad argument by asserting axioms the other party does not agree with.
But thanks for the funposting.
>>967532
>Why?
To refute the claim that the Epicurean trilemma proves that an omnimax God is impossible.
>>966659
>I see terrible meme philosophical arguments for and against God.
>You can't prove God doesn't exist, so he must exist.
>Something can't come from nothing, so God must exist to create something. Don't ask what created him, he just came from nothing.
And their mirror images on the other side:
>You can't prove God exists, therefore he doesn't exist.
>Physics explain how something can come from nothing, therefore God doesn't exist.
>>967565
>Wait a minute, so exceptions to a rule, makes the rule wrong?
We're not talking about 'a rule'. We're talking about a chain of reasoning, suggested by you, namely:
>>>967555
>They did associate religion with political adherence, which made them think they had the right to kill people, which means that they considered Protestantism the wrong kind of Christianity.
That a group like the INLA even permitted Protestants to join proves, unequivocally, that your thinking on this is objectively wrong. This conversation is over, you clearly have some problem with acknowledging even the slightest mistake.
>>967561
He created it, he made me capable of experiencing, he could have created a setup that did not lead to untold suffering but he didnt. That makes him worth hating
>>967566
>You don't prove something is a bad argument by asserting axioms the other party does not agree with.
So I should only posit axioms that my opponent agrees with? Well, that'll work out swell, I'm sure.
>>967567
If you blatantly define everything as agreeing with your position, you can "refute" anything. I hope you understand that you're still being disingenuous, at least.
>>967575
I don't have a problem acknowledging a mistake at all, but i'd like to see you explain something like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers
Without it having to do with religion.
>>967579
No, only those that you BOTH agree with, so you can have a conversation, you fucking mongoloid. The conclusions are what are supposed to be argued, not the premises. You can literally argue anything on your own premises.
>>967576
>he could have created a setup that did not lead to untold suffering
I've already said this isn't the case, feel free to deal with that argument if you want. Just repeating yourself isn't getting anywhere.
>>967580
>If you blatantly define everything as agreeing with your position, you can "refute" anything.
I honestly don't understand what you're saying here. I think the Epicurean trilemma/the argument from evil/whatever fails to establish the impossibility of an omnimax God. In order to show that it fails in doing this, I must construct a possible omnimax God which satisfies all three points of the trilemma. How am I supposed to do with that without making some claims about what it means to be good, etc? Honestly. Show me the way.
>>967586
>How am I supposed to do with that without making some claims about what it means to be good, etc?
You're supposed to make premises other people agree with. This is literally communication 101.
If you think this refutes the Epicurean trilemma, you're dead wrong because people will simply say your definition of "good" is not the one they're basing their argument off of.
>>967586
Your argument rests on what god wants. Gods desire causes me to suffer. That makes him no different from any other bully or tyrant who has ever existed. He is worthy of hatred and opposition
>>967573
>>You can't prove God exists, therefore he doesn't exist.
Wouldn't an atheist be better off saying
>You can't prove God exists, therefore you shan't force your values on others
>>967581
>Without it having to do with religion.
We've been over this. It 'has to do with religion' in that religion is a fairly reliable predictor of cultural and political affiliation in this context. It has nothing to do with religion in that you could replace the members of the Shankill Butchers with otherwise identical people who merely happened to be atheists, and you'd get the same result. They weren't motivated by the tenets and creeds of their religion, which, again, is what you started out saying.
>>967586
>I honestly don't understand what you're saying here.
Here's an analogy, because you seem a little dense.
You say apples contain sugars. I say they don't, because an apple in my head is a piece of pure iron alloy around 6kg in mass and rectangular in shape. I just "refuted" your statement that apples contain sugar. This is the level of discourse you're propagating.
>>967591
That is the usual response, but that would no do for his strawman.
I usually say 'so there is no reason to assume one exists'
>>967588
>If you think this refutes the Epicurean trilemma, you're dead wrong because people will simply say your definition of "good" is not the one they're basing their argument off of.
And those people will be idiots, and I will laugh at them, because it doesn't matter what definition THEY apply to 'goodness'. What matters is that there exists a possible omnimax God which survives the trilemma, thus refuting the argument. Anyone butting in with "Well that's not how *I* define goodness blah blah" doesn't understand the argument and can be safely ignored.
>>967590
So you have no interest in addressing the argument. Cool.
>>967485
>I-is that you, Ivan?
>>967591
That's just common sense stuff that all reasonable people understand.
If you are a Christian and believe in the Christian God, you shouldn't be walking around trying to convert people.
>>967600
>And those people will be idiots, and I will laugh at them, because it doesn't matter what definition THEY apply to 'goodness'. What matters is that there exists a possible omnimax God which survives the trilemma, thus refuting the argument. Anyone butting in with "Well that's not how *I* define goodness blah blah" doesn't understand the argument and can be safely ignored.
There exists a possible definition to suit your purpose for anything. Definitions of words we're talking about have to match, otherwise the conversation becomes incoherent.
>>967600
Im accepting your argument. Your argument makes god worth hating
>>967600
Are you seriously not aware that there's not a statement you can make that I couldn't redefine in such way that it would become false? Are you seriously this daft when it comes to simple communication of concepts?
>>967501
>brings random ad hominems into an argument
>claims others are childish
Though I suppose I'm naive from expecting anything else from a 4chan thread...
>>967603
Who?
>>967597
Instead of an analogy, let's game out the actual conversation:
Epicurean: If god cannot prevent evil, he is not all-powerful. If he is unwilling to, he is not all-good. If he is able and willing, why is there evil?
>Theist: Well, many goods are contingent on suffering for their existence.
Epicurean: I don't believe that.
>Theist: Well, goodness is that which accords with the will of God, so-
Epicurean: That's not how I define 'goodness'.
>Theist: Oh, OK. So I suppose we can say, then, that the God I worship definitely ISN'T 'all-good', according to your personal definition of goodness, but very definitely might exist while according perfectly with MY definition of 'goodness'.
Epicurean: Well, no, I was trying to prove that God doesn't ex-
>Theist: BYYYYYEEEEEEE!
If we take this dipshit approach, then the theist never needs to bother addressing the argument in the first place.
>>967601
You do not know what a straw man argument is.
>>967582
>this, please. anything else isn't a reasoned discussion, it's just inane barking
>>967624
Not to mention this line of reasoning makes god either less than all-powerful, or "good" being dependent entirely on his whim, which is a shitty kind of good
>>967606
>Definitions of words we're talking about have to match, otherwise the conversation becomes incoherent.
They don't need to match if your case is that there exists no possible X given Y. Once I've posited Y, that's all the common ground we need ('Y' here is that evil exists). After that, it's all down to you being a silly Billy by going all absolutist with the idea that there's NO POSSIBLE X given Y. All I need is possibility, not your assent that X actually exists.
>>967609
>Im accepting your argument.
No, you're not, you're still saying that God is responsible for all suffering, which my argument rejects.
Not that there are no dumb atheists, but theists tend to be less intelligent as a given. Which is why I'm of a 3rd position, the Notgiveafuckism
>>967625
A straw man argument is an argument that argues against a caricature or distortion of the other person's position.
Injecting a favorable definition to your position rather than what the other person actually means is a strawman argument.
>>967624
What part of "if we don't agree on definitions, the conversation is not going anywhere" don't you get?
>If we take this dipshit approach, then the theist never needs to bother addressing the argument in the first place.
The point is not in making shit up and living in your own world, but having a coherent conversation. I'm sorry this is too hard for you.
>>967630
>this line of reasoning makes god either less than all-powerful, or "good" being dependent entirely on his whim
It doesn't do either of those things. "All-powerful" simply indicates that God is capable of doing anything that is possible. It doesn't mean that nothing is impossible. Good being defined as the will of God doesn't mean that something is good because God determines that it is good, it means that God desiring something is the fact of its goodness.
>>967635
xkcd.jpg
>>967633
Your line of reasoning states that my suffering is direct causal result of gods desire. Either he is capable of desiring different, in which case he is a bastard, or he is not, in which case he is not much of a god
>>967636
he was hopeless from the point at which he didn't agree that axioms intrinsically rely on agreement to be of any value in rational discourse...
>>967636
>Injecting a favorable definition to your position rather than what the other person actually means is a strawman argument.
Re-read this until you realise how stupidly wrong it is. It doesn't even match the sentence above it.
More broadly, think, for just a minute, about what I'm saying when I talk about the AfE's claim that an omnimax God is IMPOSSIBLE. Think about the degree of leeway that offers in rebuttal: it doesn't matter how wildly, crazily IMPLAUSIBLE the posited omnimax God is, all that matters is that it's POSSIBLE.
So, suppose we have this dispute, and the first premise of every argument I present is:
>You are mistaken about the nature of goodness.
Is that IMPOSSIBLE? Or is it merely something you find IMPLAUSIBLE? And if the latter, then can't I present it along with the rest?
>What part of "if we don't agree on definitions, the conversation is not going anywhere" don't you get?
The part where your definition happens not to be relevant, for the reasons I've explained above.
>I'm sorry this is too hard for you.
It may be two or three minutes from now, it may even have been a few seconds ago, but before too long, you're going to realise that I'm actually right. And you'll regret this tone, then.
>>967657
>More broadly, think, for just a minute, about what I'm saying when I talk about the AfE's claim that an omnimax God is IMPOSSIBLE.
And under certain definitions of "good" or "evil", it is. You're not providing a definition for either that anybody agreed to.
>>967647
>he is not, in which case he is not much of a god
Even if God could desire other than it desires... why would it? It can't have any possible motivation to do so.
>>967649
Both of you are complete fucking idiots who don't understand the very, very basics of discourse, rational or otherwise.
>waaah i don't agree with that axiom
>you have to posit axioms that we both agree on
>what do you mean that would only be possible if we already agreed on everything
>stop talking crazy
>>967641
If he is capable of changing his desires then "good" is nothing more than god's whim, and it could just as easily be the exact opposite tomorrow. If he cannot change his desires, then he is not all powerful
>>967660
>what do you mean that would only be possible if we already agreed on everything
Where did you get this? People can agree that "good" means maximizing human well-being, and one be a capitalist and the other a socialist/commie pinko/anarchist.
You ARE a cretin.
>>967660
>Even if God could desire other than it desires... why would it?
Why desire what he currently does? If its "goodness" is derived from his desire, rather than his desire being derived from its goodness, then there is nothing holding him to that decision. If there is some reason that he desires a particular set of morals more than others, then the goodness of that set does not derive from him
>>967659
>And under certain definitions of "good" or "evil", it is.
Hooray! And under certain definitions of "God", too, God is impossible:
>God is defined as the immaterial ground of all being which creates universes in which ashtrays don't exist
And the ashtray beside me makes atheists of us all. But if you, while I'm waving my ashtray around all NO GODS! NO MASTERS! just happen to butt in with, Excuse me, that's not how I define God... do I get to yell and scream at you about how you have to posit axioms we both agree on?
>>967636
To try to save this (>>967624) poorly articulated position, it's important to note that it is Epicurus's argument that states that theists' beliefs about God are self-contradicting, therefore the argument proceeds from the theists' definitions (as it an argument considering whether or not theists' beliefs are contradictory--i.e., Epicurus say the apple he posits cannot possibly based on his (the other's, not epicurus's) definitions of it
>>967665
>If he cannot change his desires, then he is not all powerful
This doesn't follow. God can't make itself stop being God, which is what changing its desires would entail.
>>967668
>People can agree that "good" means maximizing human well-being
And they can disagree about that, too. And discussion between them is still possible, it's just that it will mostly be about whether or not good means maximising human well-being.
And no, of the two of us, you are most certainly the cretin. You are wrong about the nature of rational discourse, you are wrong about the impermissibility of positing a contentious axiom, and you are wrong about the specific case ITT. You haven't even bothered addressing what I've said in response, you've just kept repeating yourself. There's a reason for that, and it has nothing to do with whether or not I'm a cretin.
>>967674
Not necessarily, considering what people judge as good or evil are not judged from god's perspective. Let's just say for the sake of the argument that it's true regardless.
The capper to all this, though, is that no theist actually holds to such a definition and can, without fail, be pushed to disavow it. I think that's enough for the argument to have merit.
>>967660
Wikipedia:
>An axiom or postulate as defined in classic philosophy, is a statement (in mathematics often shown in symbolic form) that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question. Thus, the axiom can be used as the premise or starting point for further reasoning or arguments, usually in logic or in mathematics.[1] The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'
I don't know what you mean when you say the word axiom, but it's certainly not what the rest of the world does. If we don't mean the same thing by the words we use, we aren't really communicating (cf. inane barking)
>>967681
>And they can disagree about that, too.
You implied that agreeing on axioms implies agreement on everything. You're simply dead wrong. Fuck off.
>>967681
>This doesn't follow. God can't make itself stop being God, which is what changing its desires would entail.
How so?
>>967670
>If its "goodness" is derived from his desire
Again, not derived from. People keep slipping back into this. It's not that God pushes a button and X becomes good or not good, so you could say, well, God could have not pushed that button.
Think about a food you like. Did you choose to like it? Could you choose not to like it? Why would you (let's assume the food is in no way unhealthy)?
>>967681
why can't he stop himself from being God? just because he never would doesn't mean that he hypothetically can't
>>967693
So why did god choose to like that particular set of morals?
>>967687
You implied that I was in error by positing a definition of goodness. You've spent close to two solid hours being embarrassingly, stupidly wrong about that, in the teeth of relatively patient explanations. YOU fuck off.
>>967700
You are in error if you think that your definition garners any agreement. I can define every single word you say as "baa" and label you a sheep. Learn what an axiom is, sheep.
>>967684
>I don't know what you mean when you say the word axiom, but it's certainly not what the rest of the world does.
Maybe you should have read past the first paragraph:
>As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning.
Fuckwit.
>>967692
>How so?
It seems kind of self-evident to me, really. God (minus X and plus Y) is not God (plus X and minus Y).
>>967706
>I'll just choose my own starting point for reasoning and be rite everytiem
Baa baa, sheepie.
I would have said that everything has a certain probability that it exists because nothing is truly knowable we assume what exists and what's not by how probable it seems to exist and by that logic the probability of god existing for an atheist seems small because he didn't experience any evidence that leads to god's existence, on the other hand their are also people who have experienced something that makes them conclude the probability of god's existence is high enough for them to base their life over that belief, it's basically a very controversial subject because it begs the question of how do humans decide what is and what's not probable to exist and base further action off of that belief, when I was an atheist the world seemed entirely physical to me, I didn't even know how to describe what I feel, if someone asked me what feelings are I'd tell him they are chemical phenomena that occurs in the brain or if I was asked what they are subjectively I'd say that it's something too abstract for me to understand and I don't really know what they are, now after I became spiritual I can say that subjectivity is even more important, what is more real and meaningful than the infinite spectrum of feelings we experience once we put our minds to focus on those feelings, sure it's not something wecan scientifically examine in the outside world because they happen inside of us, but you can subjectively examine these experiences to great accuracy over time, I believe that atheist are so preoccupied with searching objective truth that they forgot that the human experience is both objective and subjective and the subjective experience is the one in which meaning or the spirit of existence resides, sure we can't know anything but isn't it better to dedicate your life both to the examination of subjective phenomena and objective? and no I'm not talkingabout examining subjectivity from an objective perspective I'm talking about examining the infinite subjective experience itself.
>>967699
>So why did god choose to like that particular set of morals?
You're begging the question of God's having 'chosen' to desire what it desires. That seems incoherent to me.
>>967693
>Think about a food you like. Did you choose to like it? Could you choose not to like it? Why would you (let's assume the food is in no way unhealthy)?
Of course not, im not omnipotent. But if I could choose to alter my preferences, I would hardly be negating myself by doing so
>>967702
OK, that's it, you are definitely the stupidest person I've ever encountered on 4chan. And I've been to /tv/. I've argued with /pol/. With /POL/.
>>967711
>i'll just link to a wikipedia article that proves me wrong
>>967717
>baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
You hungry or something?
>>967716
>But if I could choose to alter my preferences, I would hardly be negating myself by doing so
In an absolutely strict sense, you would be, I'd say. You wouldn't be 'you' anymore, you'd be an incredibly similar, though still different person.
>>967722
>proves me wrong
It literally says "accepted without controversy or question". Your inane tautological definition was IMMEDIATELY disputed.
Now you're just plain shitposting.
>>967726
>You wouldn't be 'you' anymore, you'd be an incredibly similar, though still different person.
Even if I accept this, and I dont really, my "new self" self would be no more or less valid than the old one, so why can the same not be true of god.
I see what you are trying to say, that god is what perfect, and therefore his desires are already perfect, and anything else would be less than perfect yes? But you have already defined perfect to be what god desires, so if gods desire changed, for whatever reason or no reason, his new desires must, by your definition, be equally perfect
>>967693
I agree people are missing the point about goodness being inherent in the objects of God's desire; but then, not everyone's that familiar with Plato.
But take an individual suffering, e.g. hunger. Now, the experience of hunger is quite unrelated to (in christian terms) the human struggle towards coming to freely love Christ and God. The existence of hunger, furthermore, pits living beings against one another as they need to devour one another for sustenance, creating more unnecessary suffering. One can easily imagine a world in which hunger does not exist (living beings all are supplied energy by an external source, e.g. the sun). Therefore, God has apparently meaninglessly created a world with more suffering in it. Thus, one of the following must be true:
A) God is incapable of removing hunger from humans (i.e. he is not all powerful); the argument that God cannot create a four sided triangle doesn't apply here unless you truly consider hunger an essential part of living beings, which seems ridiculous by induction (plants exist)
Therefore,
B) God does not want to prevent the human experiencing of hunger.
For B to be true (if God allowing theodicy exists), hunger and the existence of violent competition for existence must be somehow defined as good. Yet suffering in general seems to be bad, in that it is not what God wants, as we are told that Christ/God weep when they see us suffering. Furthermore, this suffering seems to be rather irrelevant to any essential spiritual good in the human condition w/r/t God
>>967733
>It literally says "accepted without controversy or question"
The first paragraph says that, yes (with specific respect to Ancient Greek philosophy).
The SECOND paragraph, on the other hand, begins:
>As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning.
I know you won't read past that point, but trust me, it doesn't get any better for you from there.
>>967736
>I see what you are trying to say, that god is what perfect, and therefore his desires are already perfect, and anything else would be less than perfect yes? But you have already defined perfect to be what god desires, so if gods desire changed, for whatever reason or no reason, his new desires must, by your definition, be equally perfect
I think 'equally perfect' is a contradiction in terms - isn't it?
>>967741
>As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning.
And you're still operating under the assumption that you can simply pick your own starting point and everybody else has to go along with this. I'm waiting for a justification for this.
The classic ontological argument
"The world is so complex, therefore God exists"
"Faith"
>>967747
Become the new perfect then. You have stated perfection is a consequence of gods desire, so if his desire changed then his old desire is no longer perfect and his new desire is
>>967424
>creating beings to want to enter a communion is not possible but suffering to coax them is
Poor design
>muh free will
It is not free will when the most powerful wants you to do something in the first place
>>967752
not him, but to correct--perfection is not a consequene of God's desire, but an intrinsic quality of the objects that He does in fact desire
>>967754
The best part about it is the part of free will not existing on the count of being an incoherent concept.
>>967740
But now you try to say you know better than God what is good and what's not for reality and existence itself when your knowledge and perspective is comparable to that of an ant next to a human, sure to the human mind certain things seems as though they are not necessary or as if we could live without them, but that's only the arrogance of someone who thinks he understands better than God what is good and what is evil compared to the whole of existence.
all we know is what's good and evil compared to the human experience and do our best within that realm.
>>967740
>For B to be true (if God allowing theodicy exists), hunger and the existence of violent competition for existence must be somehow defined as good. Yet suffering in general seems to be bad, in that it is not what God wants, as we are told that Christ/God weep when they see us suffering. Furthermore, this suffering seems to be rather irrelevant to any essential spiritual good in the human condition w/r/t God
There are all kinds of ways around this. One of the trickier ploys is to suggest that one of God's desires is the full manifestation of its nature. Forgiveness (or whatever you want to call it) being one aspect of its nature, it actually needs us to sin in order for it to forgive us - this is the Felix Culpa doctrine, the idea that it was better for the Fall to happen than not, precisely because if it never happened, there would be nothing to forgive.
With specific regard to basic privation like hunger, we can say that in a world where no-one was ever hungry, no-one would ever starve, certainly, and no-one would ever suffer the unpleasantness of hunger. But then, no-one would ever be inspired by that suffering to feel compassion. No-one would feel any charitable impulse, no-one would sacrifice their own pleasure to feed a starving person. All we need suppose is that the existence of compassion is more pleasing to God than its non-existence and we have our justification. We need to do some mopping-up - responsibility for the people who actually starve to death has to be shunted off on to human free will, any cases of unavoidable starvation are just fuel for yet more compassion etc - and we have a pretty wildly implausible, but undeniably possible state of affairs.
>>967749
>I'm waiting for a justification for this.
You've been given several. Have fun going back through the thread to find them; Lord knows I'm done with you. You should have been paying attention the first time around.
>>967741
>The SECOND paragraph, on the other hand, begins:
>>As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning.
Oh, good, so any pretense of reason is out of the window now.
Here's an axiom for ya - I'm right about everything, you're only right insofar as you agree with me, plus you're an invalid.
See you later (^:
>>967762
Thats not what he's arguing though. He has defined good as being that which god desires, I am proceeding from that definition
>>967752
No, again, people keep slipping back into this notion that things are good because God desires them, like it's this causal relationship. The quality of goodness IS the quality of being desired by God. There is no 'new' perfection and no 'old' perfection; there's only that which is perfect and that which is imperfect. Time isn't a relevant dimension here, this shit's eternal.
>>967754
>It is not free will when the most powerful wants you to do something in the first place
Well yeah, it is. Free will doesn't mean will free from consequences.
>>967768
>kek
>>967774
There are two possibilites, and two only.
Either god desires a thing because it is good
Or it is good because god desires it
Pick one and stick with it
>>967767
The only justification given was:
A) NOT given by you
B) Was only partially true if not outright false, because of the fact that the problem of evil is not articulated through the premise of "god is good", otherwise it would not have been articulated in the first place.
>>967782
>There are two possibilites, and two only.
False.
>>967774
Right, which:
A) Makes god irrelevant in this pursuit, and
B) If there's something he desires and cannot achieve, makes him impotent as well
>>967717
I actually think I found the worst argument for god right here
>>967790
And your logically consistent alternative is?
>>967790
Gripping analysis.
>>967782
No, there aren't. He's explained it quite simply--"goodness" and "desirability for God" are synonymous terms. It's like being water and being chemically comprised of h2o -- Thing's aren't water BECAUSE they're comprised of h2o, and they're not comprised of h2o because they're water; the two qualities are fundamentally identical
>>967803
Then this is simple morality by fiat.
>>967803
That means that goodness is locked to a specific set of morals, which means god has no say in what good is, which makes god impotent
>>967805
no, because God doesn't decide what's good. It just exists as good or bad, intrinsically, and God also desires it
>>966659
When I was studying A Level Philosophy, we heard one argument that God was defined as perfect, and therefore must exist as his existence was a prerequisite of perfection.
People actually believe this shit.
>>967807
>this cognitive dissonance
>because God doesn't decide what's good
God "being good" means PRECISELY that WHATEVER he decides is good.
>It's like being water and being chemically comprised of h2o
>It just exists as good or bad, intrinsically, and God also desires it
There's a disconnect between these explanations.
>>967806
No it doesn't, it just means that goodness is something that objectively exists, just like squareness. You can't decide whether or not something is a square, but that isn't because you're not powerful enough
>>966659
>for
Pascal's wager
"Just look around, bro!"
Aquinas' 5th way
"Lel, something can't come from nothing."
"I have faith, therefore it's true."
"(quotes Bible)"
>against
"Well who created God?"
"Can God make a stone so heavy..."
The problem of evil
"I don't think so, therefore it's false"
"Well I already BTFO Christianity so obviously God don't real!"
>>967806
>which makes god impotent
Well we're back to God not being able to make itself stop being God. Certainly there are things that God cannot do: God cannot make a five-sided triangle etc. Omnipotence only extends to the possible.
>>967808
That is the same thing as saying that good is inherent the the things that are good, which is one of the options
>>967811
>God "being good" means PRECISELY that WHATEVER he decides is good.
No, this is wrong.
>>967818
>That is the same thing as saying that good is inherent the the things that are good, which is one of the options
No, it's not. That suggests that there's a causal relationship between two separate phenomena: the goodness and the being desired by God. There is no causal relationship between being an unmarried male and being a bachelor; they are the same condition. Being good and being desired by God are likewise the same phenomenon.
Proponents of either end of the proposed dichotomy are trying to insert a causal clause into a tautology. Is Dave a bachelor because he is unmarried, or is he unmarried because he is a bachelor? YOU HAVE TO PICK ONE etc.
>>967816
>Well we're back to God not being able to make itself stop being God. Certainly there are things that God cannot do: God cannot make a five-sided triangle etc. Omnipotence only extends to the possible.
>make oneself stop being something
>is impossible even given omnipotence
You can go shoot yourself in the brain right this second, does that not constitute a change in your head?
>>967821
>Then god is subservient to logic
This is like saying "God is subservient to the mind of God".
>>967823
>No, this is wrong.
Because?
If I'm "perfectly good" or some such nonsense like that, everything I decide is good by definition.
>>967825
>You can go shoot yourself in the brain right this second, does that not constitute a change in your head?
Yes, it does. But I am only a contingent being. God is a necessary entity.
>>967823
This is a false comparison because "goodness" does not imply omnipotence or any other of god's characteristics. The terms are NOT synonymous.
>>967829
This is the first time I'm hearing that humans have more options than god. Sucks to be that guy, eternity must be boring as fuck.
>>967828
>If I'm "perfectly good" or some such nonsense like that, everything I decide is good by definition.
Unless (to assume the false dichotomy) you are perfectly good only because you embody perfectly that which is good independently of you.
As for "Why", I explained it in the rest of the post, sorry, maybe I should have said that.
>>967811
>God "being good" means PRECISELY that WHATEVER he decides is good
Do you mean that all of His decisions are good? To that I'd agree, but I'd say it's irrelevant because that's not the sense in which I was using decide-
Or do you mean that God being good means that He determines what is good, and goodness only comes from His deciding that something is good?
Because that statement is contradictory, because it states that God is good; therefore goodness must exist as a quality independently of God's determining something to be good. It just so happens that everything that is good is also desired by God, as God possesses the quality of recognizing the good
>>967831
>This is a false comparison because "goodness" does not imply omnipotence or any other of god's characteristics. The terms are NOT synonymous.
I don't understand this objection, can you explain it?
>>967833
>Sucks to be that guy, eternity must be boring as fuck.
Luckily God exists outside of time.
It has probably been post a million times so far but
>Atheists believe in God, they just hate him
>Atheists want to live in sin
>You were molested when you were little or lost a parent, that's why you are an atheist
>Le immovable mover meme
>Le universe is fuckhuge so someone had to have made it
>Le table exists because of a creator so God made le universe
It goes on and on. God's not Dead is a goldmine.
>>967840
>Luckily God exists outside of time.
Existence is necessarily temporal. If you mean something else, do explain what the fuck existing outside of time means.
>>967840
>I don't understand this objection, can you explain it?
Being a bachelor is synonymous with being unmarried. Being good is NOT synonymous with being a god, because being a god carries other baggage.
>>967851
And it begs the question, why this set of morals? Since the justification for good is circular, there is no good reason why it couldnt be any other set of morals
>>967837
>Or do you mean that God being good means that He determines what is good, and goodness only comes from His deciding that something is good?
Irrelevant. We do not know what is "good", and God is either incoherent in his goodness, or does not care enough to provide us a coherent framework for it.
>>967837
I got derailed with this oh so fun debate we have going on here, but to contribute to the original intent of the thread:
A Proof of God's Existence:
>The music of Bach exists
>Therefore, God exists.
>You either get this, or you don't
Peter Kreeft, Handbook of Christian Apologetics
>>967861
There is literally no denying this self evidently perfect argument
>>967851
>This god has no free will.
I suppose it might technically be correct to say that God has no free will (though this is not the same as saying, as you seem to, that God is determined). Sort of in the same way that God doesn't have a conscience - what could God ever feel guilty about? Similarly, what choices could God ever face? There is only the perfect and the imperfect. We, when we make a choice (assuming Christian free will etc) are forced to weigh options in ignorance and hope, and to struggle against our baser desires. God is ignorant of nothing and has no baser desires. No conditions necessary to what humans call 'choice' can apply to God.
>>967864
haha. I even love Bach, but i still think it's funny
>>967851
>If god has given me free will, then I am more powerful than god
Countless other things in the natural world (gravity, death) exist without free will, but are certainly more powerful than humans. Free will=!power
>>967853
>Existence is necessarily temporal.
Well... so you say. I say otherwise, or at least Christians do.
And by-the-by, if existence is necessarily temporal, does time exist?
>>967876
haha nice trip. same here, but arguing for religion is fun sometimes. Plus too many atheists are too condescending about their atheism and believe that religion is fundamentally logically indefensible, which it isn't
>>967855
>Being a bachelor is synonymous with being unmarried. Being good is NOT synonymous with being a god
I didn't say it was. I said being good and being *desired by* God are synonymous.
>>967865
I mean, this is literally the not-omnipotent option for god that epicurus was describing, so if you are happy with that then good for you
>>966671
Fuck Pascal's wager, I rather rot in hell than lying to myself.
>>967880
no it isn't. Imagine a spear launched with infinite momentum--it will break through anything it collides with. It can't choose which direction it goes in, but it is still all powerful.
>>967876
>And by-the-by, if existence is necessarily temporal, does time exist?
Time is a concept for measurement, it's not a thing that exists. You might as well be asking if numbers exist.
>>967885
I would say numbers certainly do exist, much more than you do, but hey, I'm a Platonist
>>967879
That means whatever god desires is good. Which leaves the question of what exactly god might desire, and for what reason.
>>967485
aaawh what's wrong in your life? Why do you suffer. I feel like hugging you
>>967882
>Nah, God can do anything it's possible to do. It's just that there are things it's impossible to do.
>I can kill myself or eat ice cream
>god can't
This isn't even the "god is omnipotent minus logical contradictions" level of omnipotence. Might as well drop the term entirely.
>>967890
it's literally Ivan's argument in the brothers K, and don't worry, at the end of the chapter he gets a kiss from his brother
>>967882
Sure given that definiton of omnipotence, but thats not the one epicurus was using. All youve really done is accepted one of the offered branches of the trilemma rather than refuting it
>>967885
Yeah, that's another one - do numbers exist?
And it's sort of funny that existence can be wholly contingent on something that's nothing more than a concept, don't you think?
>>967886
> I'm a Platonist
Literally almost fell out of my seat.
>>967887
>That means whatever god desires is good.
Well, whatever God desires *IS* good, but its goodness is not determined by its being desired by God.
>>967891
The problem is that you're envisioning a God who exists as a conscious being making decisions in a similar fashion to humans, whereas God does not necessarily have to exist in such a manner
>>967891
There is a difference between 'never could' and 'never would'.
>>967897
>Yeah, that's another one - do numbers exist?
Yes, as brain states, not as things in and of themselves.
>>967899
I mean almost all Christians are Platonists. Though I'm not a christian
>>967114
This basically concludes the entirety of Internet religious arguments.
Byoutifol.
>>967900
>Well, whatever God desires *IS* good, but its goodness is not determined by its being desired by God.
And I haven't implied that. Simply that whatever he desires already includes things like cancer and viruses, which makes me question why these things are good. Or if there's any reason for it.
If good is -merely- being what god wants, then that's as good a definition as might makes right. If there's no other way to assess goodness, then it's worthless.
>>967894
aaawh that's nice. That book was BIG though. Only read like 200 pages. still on my to do list.
Dostoyevsky is king btw.
>>967902
And I'm fascinated to hear how existence in a different matter, especially "outside of time", would be characterized.
>>967906
So, what about things like circles and triangles? We're living in a universe with (at least) three dimensions, so they can't ever be physically instantiated, right? Literally physically impossible. How then were we able to envision them? How did we, by interrogating them, come to develop powerful predictive tools regarding the real world around us (think about pi for a minute)?
>>967894
Ive never read that book
>>967898
but what's wrong? This is not the right board for this, but why do you feel like you suffer so much?
>>967904
There is actually zero difference. Never could is perfectly synonymous with never would.
>>967250
What about religious pluralism turned on its head? That all forms of theology is false because God transcends human comprehension, because God is beyond the universe? Is that a bad argument, a good one, or just not an argument at all?
>>967922
No no no dont worry about me ive got everything sorted out. All my issues are philosophical ones, or at least stem from philosophy
>>967920
>So, what about things like circles and triangles?
They're also useful tools, like numbers.
>We're living in a universe with (at least) three dimensions, so they can't ever be physically instantiated, right? Literally physically impossible.
The dimensions have nothing to do with whether they're possible to instantiate or not.
>How then were we able to envision them?
Pattern recognition of the brain.
>How did we, by interrogating them, come to develop powerful predictive tools regarding the real world around us (think about pi for a minute)?
Useful emergent properties of our 4-dimensional spacetime. This is about as inane as requiring that some "carbonness" (to jump to chemistry) need exist to be instantiated when all it is, is lower level interactions forming a complex pattern.
>>966736
That isn't about the existence of God, it is about whether omnipotence is a nonsensical paradox, which it is.
>>967927
>How so?
Because if you can be certain something never WOULD happen, then something must be absolutely preventing it, which means it never COULD happen
>>967933
Well, the definition of omnipotence given here is logically consistent, it just leads to a fairly pathetic god
>>967929
good for you.
>>967939
I mean, im going to kill myself, but im ok with that
>>967932
>The dimensions have nothing to do with whether they're possible to instantiate or not.
Well, of course they do. It's impossible for a circle to exist in a three-dimensional universe.
>Pattern recognition of the brain.
What pattern? They don't and can't exist physically. What patterns are we recognising?
>Useful emergent properties of our 4-dimensional spacetime.
Yeah, you are successfully identifying the thing I'm asking you to explain. We agree about what it is: I'm asking you how it's possible. How did something that sprang into being as nothing more than a concept, a brain-state, lead us to the ability to predict the motions of the planets? How did something that's nothing more than an idea tap in to some of the most fundamental aspects of reality?
>>967918
To get in to complicated physics stuff...time is a concept constructed in the human brain in response observing to the effects of the positioning of large amounts of matter in close proximity, gravity, and motion through space. The idea of time as a constant, universally uniformly existing thing is a misconception caused by our limited perspective as humans--for a simple, less consequential example, time does not run at the same rates at all places in the universe; clocks in satelites are programmed faster because time does not move as fast in space due to the lower gravity. So it's very easy to imagine something existing not in the same temporal space as we do.
>>967935
Ah, yeah, that's different. I'm saying there's a difference between "John couldn't murder his mother" and "John wouldn't murder his mother"
The former is true if, for example, John is dead. It's not true if John is just a really nice bloke who wouldn't hurt a fly.
>>967927
>For things like cancer and viruses, you can see my post here:>>967766
You say there's ways around this, but there's no firm justification for any of it. You can turn every justification upside down and argue that "good" actually means maximizing suffering or whatever nonsense you want. I'm not interested in "good" I cannot investigate.
>>967951
> It's impossible for a circle to exist in a three-dimensional universe.
I'd be really interested to hear why. Insufficient dimensionality is an actual reason, superfluous dimensionality isn't.
>>967957
>You say there's ways around this, but there's no firm justification for any of it.
It's all put together to dispose of the Argument from Evil, that's all. The trip is not a joke.
>>967955
John is constrained by time, "never" becomes meaningless in this context.
>>967959
What would it be made of?
>>967961
That doesn't hold any water, since John is also not a necessary entity existing outside of time. I was just explaining what I meant.
>>967955
Yeah but when you say "john wouldnt murder his mother" what you really mean is "I dont believe john would ever murder his mother". You would concede if pressed that it is not beyond the realm of possibility that john would murder his mother. But thats not what you were saying regarding god, you arent saying "I dont believe god would ever do something that wasnt perfect, even though its possible" you are saying its impossible for that to occur, by definition
>>967957
Would you say that goodness exists?
>>967960
>It's all put together to dispose of the Argument from Evil, that's all.
Still? You cannot dispose of it by not subscribing to the language people who use the argument employ.
>>967964
A looped fundamental string.
>>967969
Good and evil are human value judgements, so if you mean in the platonist sense, nope.
>>967968
>But thats not what you were saying regarding god, you arent saying "I dont believe god would ever do something that wasnt perfect, even though its possible" you are saying its impossible for that to occur, by definition
Yup. But it's not because of conditions external to God, so it's not like what we think of as determinism. You could even think of it as the ultimate, total expression of perfect free will (though that's really only an analogy, terms like 'free will' and 'determined' just don't really apply).
>>967972
>You cannot dispose of it by not subscribing to the language people who use the argument employ.
Oh God we've been over and over and over this:
>>967673
>it's important to note that it is Epicurus's argument that states that theists' beliefs about God are self-contradicting, therefore the argument proceeds from the theists' definitions (as it an argument considering whether or not theists' beliefs are contradictory--i.e., Epicurus say the apple he posits cannot possibly based on his (the other's, not epicurus's) definitions of it
tl;dr Epicurus is ALREADY using the terms that THEISTS employ. Third parties wandering in yelling about not accepting the premises don't understand the argument and should go away until they do.
>>967977
But by that definition speaking of goodness is irrelevant when discussing God, so protesting God's world is evil makes no sense
>>967984
>tl;dr Epicurus is ALREADY using the terms that THEISTS employ.
If he did, he wouldn't be making the argument, would he?
>>967991
>If he did, he wouldn't be making the argument, would he?
He would and he did. Your implicit premise, that Epicurus is not subject to error, is false.
>>967993
It's the kind of obvious error one would think a philosopher wouldn't make, but whatever. Now it's Anon's argument, and it doesn't use the tautological nonsense definition of good and evil that a certain part of theists do.
By the way, you're simply assuming that good and evil were defined the same way 2000 years ago as you did in this thread. It's more than likely they weren't.
>>967984
Epicurus propses a trilemma, i.e 3 options that are supposed to be equally unacceptable. You have just accepted one of the options and then set out an argument as to why it actually is acceptable. Which is fine, you've done a decent job of it, but you havent actually refuted the trilemma
>>967974
Wiki says:
>Cosmic strings, if they exist, would be extremely thin with diameters of the same order of magnitude as that of a proton
Not a circle. A very, very short cylinder.
>>968001
Nah, they're infinitesimally wide.
>>967997
>By the way, you're simply assuming that good and evil were defined the same way 2000 years ago as you did in this thread.
The argument is the same regardless of the specific definitions.
>>968000
>You have just accepted one of the options and then set out an argument as to why it actually is acceptable.
No, I haven't. I've refuted the trilemma, which fails (now I mean, I personally have done jack shit, most credit goes to Plantinga, but the point is that all current forms of the AfE fail).
>>968006
And the "refutation" relies on the definition of good being synonymous with god. Which more than likely wasn't the case 300 BC as it is a largely Christfag apologist invention of at least half a millennium later.
infinite doesn't mean everything possible people, you have infinite numbers between 2 and 3 but non of them would ever be a 4, omnipotent doesn't mean anything you can and can't imagine just infinite power within it's own limits.
>>968005
Under certain assumptions they're treated that way, from what I understand. That's not the same as their actually being that way. If they're 'about as thick as a proton' then they're three-dimensional and can't form a circle.
>>968009
OK, but so what? Euthyphro is the same. Pretty big deal for Athenian polytheists, not so big a deal for contemporary monotheists. Tempus fugit.
>>968008
You've literally just accepted one of the options epicurus offered. I.e god is good, willing, but not all powerful (by the definition he was using). It doesnt matter that you use a different definition of all powerful, its not an argument about labels. You have accepted that god does not have the quality that epicurus called all-powerful
>>968014
The only posited limitation was dimensionality, I'm not talking about actual physics theories.
>>968022
maybe he is all powerful but your limited cause and effect comprehending mind can't logically fathom the true power of God
what now fag?
>>968018
>OK, but so what? Euthyphro is the same. Pretty big deal for Athenian polytheists, not so big a deal for contemporary monotheists. Tempus fugit.
So your argument is false because it rests on Epicurus accepting your definition. He 100% wouldn't have.
Not gonna google whatever shit you learned in your sophistry classes, speak like a human.
>>968027
If that is true then he allows evil.
>>968028
>Speak like a human
Get off of /his/ normalfag.
>>968025
>The only posited limitation was dimensionality, I'm not talking about actual physics theories.
Dimensionality is the property I've referred to in rebuttal. If you're not talking about actual physics theories, what are you talking about?
>>968027
Yes, so?
>>968040
so Epicurus got BTFO'd and confirmed for shit argument.
>>968028
>So your argument is false because it rests on Epicurus accepting your definition. He 100% wouldn't have.
Anyone presenting the argument is, de facto, accepting the definitions of the person they're addressing it to. This isn't difficult.
>>968022
>You have accepted that god does not have the quality that epicurus called all-powerful
Oh, I get you. Yeah, this was dealt with already. If Epicurus has his own definition of omnipotence that's Epicurus' business. No reason for me to care.
>>968048
You have said nothing to contradict epicurus
>>968051
>If Epicurus has his own definition of omnipotence
It means you accept his argument even if you reject the labels. The labels dont matter
>>968052
You have said nothing to contradict the fact that I contradicted Epicurus
>>968044
>You referred to dimensions as if it had something to do with it.
It has everything to do with it; we're literally discussing whether a two-dimensional entity can exist in a three-dimensional universe.
>Physics theories concerning are universe are not the end-all-be-all on what is allowed in what dimensions.
I see. Presumably "Some randomer on the internet" is a far more reliable authority?
>>968056
I know its bait, but please explain to me precisely how you have refuted the argument
>>968051
>Anyone presenting the argument is, de facto, accepting the definitions of the person they're addressing it to. This isn't difficult.
It wasn't addressed originally to the pedanti shitposters in your chair, so it's not false. (:
And no, I can give whatever definitions I want to what arguments I give.
>>968057
>It has everything to do with it; we're literally discussing whether a two-dimensional entity can exist in a three-dimensional universe.
You're talking about OUR universe when discussing physics, which is a subset of any possible three-dimensional universe. A two-dimensional object can in principle easily exist in three dimensions, there's no reason why it shouldn't. Sides of a cube are two-dimensional flat surfaces.
>>968054
>It means you accept his argument even if you reject the labels.
Bro, the conclusion of the argument is "God doesn't exist because his existence is contradictory".
How about this:
>You don't have a red Ford Escort.
Yes I do! There it is! Look!
>I wouldn't call that a "Ford Escort".
It's got the Ford logo, and the Escort logo, and it's... it's definitely a Ford Escort.
>That's not how I define "Ford Escort".
Um, OK. Whatever.
>I win!
If there is some sense in which I've "accepted" Epicurus' argument, then it's the same sense in which the Ford Escort owner has "accepted" the greentexter's argument.
>>968062
If you use your own definitions rather than his then you are interacting with a a new argument you have created rather than his
Its like if someone said "if A then B"
And you say "no, A should actually be called C, and this other thing should be called A, and this other thing doesn't = B, therefore your argument is wrong"
>>968062
>And no, I can give whatever definitions I want to what arguments I give.
You can posit any number of theoretical impossible gods, see for example:>>967673. But Epicurus wasn't trying to sketch out what an impossible god looks like: He was trying to prove that no gods exist.
So if you want to make a particular definition of "God" and calibrate its settings until it definitely doesn't exist, by all means, go ahead. We all need a hobby. But there are two things that you are definitely NOT doing when you're doing that. Firstly, you're not making the argument Epicurus made. Secondly, you're not presenting an argument that merits rebuttal.
>>968081
>If you use your own definitions rather than his then you are interacting with a a new argument you have created rather than his
Not really, rather I'm going back to the root of his argument instead of engaging christian apologetics that came centuries later.
The second part of your post is basically what you've been doing. Nobody agreed to your changing of premises.
>>968072
Thats not the conclusion. The conclusion is that god is either not all good, not willing, or not all powerful, given epicurus' concept of what those 3 things mean. And you have accepted that god cannot have the quality epicurus called "all-powerful"
>>968084
>So if you want to make a particular definition of "God"
What, are you dense or something? The point of contention is your redefinition of good and evil, which he most certainly did not subscribe to.
>>968065
>You're talking about OUR universe when discussing physics
Yes, I'm talking about our universe. I'm saying that two-dimensional objects can't exist in our universe. I don't care if they can exist in other ones.
>>968060
Epicurus
If God is not able to prevent evil than he is not omnipotent
I tell you that evil is a human concept God sees the whole of reality what is evil for us is a perfect necessity in God's creation
Epicurus
he's a fag for not preventing evil I'm le so important that I know better than God what is evil and good compared to the whole of reality
Epicurus
why does evil existss I'm le important human I know better than God what's necessary and what's not in the whole of creation
his last argument isn't even worth refuting
Do you understand now why it's a shit argument?
>>968088
The root of his argument is not whether certain qualities deserve certain labels, only that certain qualities are mutually exclusive
>>968095
Then you shouldn't have mentioned its dimensionality, which is irrelevant, doofus.
>>968089
>The conclusion is that god is either not all good, not willing, or not all powerful, given epicurus' concept of what those 3 things mean.
So, if Epicurus happens to disagree with me about what constitutes 'goodness', that proves that... Epicurus does not agree with me about what constitutes 'goodness'.
I'm struggling to see what conclusion pops out from this other than "Epicurus does not worship the theoretical God I'm pretending to believe in for the sake of argument". Help me out?
>>968099
> only that certain qualities are mutually exclusive
That is absolutely true. Those qualities still need to be defined.
>>968094
>What, are you dense or something? The point of contention is your redefinition of good and evil
If Epicurus' definition of 'good' and 'evil' are not assumed to be my own, isn't it true that I can just ignore his argument?
>>968101
Explain.
>>968103
>that proves that... Epicurus does not agree with me about what constitutes 'goodness'.
That proves that you're addressing his argument from dishonest grounds.
>>968097
So i think what your are trying to do is answer the question "then whence cometh evil" saying that evil is necessary for gods perfect plan yes? If so, how can evil be a part of perfection?
>>968107
Given similar properties as our universe, a two-dimensional universe wouldn't host circles and triangles either. The number of dimensions is irrelevant. What's wrong with you?
Epicurus literally got rekt, if you guys don't have any new arguments other than MUH DEFINITIONS then just stop posting.
>>968110
And more specifically, how can a perfectly good being create a universe with evil in it?
>>968110
because evil is only a moral guideline for humans, in the greater scope of reality from which god sees the whole of reality it is a good.
lrn2perspective
>>968115
If you really think that, you don't have the first clue what constitutes communication.
>>968120
>None of what you're saying is making the least bit of sense to me. If the number of dimensions isn't relevant, then what are you considering as relevant?
It's relevant only in so far as it is sufficient. Whether it's 3 or 15 is irrelevant.
What's relevant is whether the universe is discrete or continuous.
>>968123
no you're just emotionally invested in a shit argument for some reason and can't stand to see it refuted
>>968127
So, I'm fairly sure the thread has become infested by rusemen. Tripcode OUT!
palate cleanser
>>968133
Farewell tripfag you're doing God's work!
>>968133
So you seriously have nothing to substantiate your retarded assertion that the existence of geometric shapes has anything do to with dimensionality?
>>968132
The "refutation" involves dishonest semantic games. If you really think tht's convincing, good for ya.
>>968165
No you are just incapable of admitting that you're wrong because you're trapped in your own self importance but it's ok maybe on day you'll grow up and understand that it's ok to be wrong sometimes..
>>968180
If you can define yourself to be right, you can surely be right. The problem is others can do the same.
>>968274
The argument does not address a "god is good" tautology. I'm sorry you're too blind to see it.
>>968289
no I'm sorry you're too blind to see that
>>968298
I did see that, and I pointed out to ya, bud (;
>>968513
I did see that you did see that i did see that, and I pointed out to ya, bud (;
>>966710
>what are your criterion
Trying to be smarter than you really are?
>>966659
How to avoid actually acknowledging an argument against the existence of a higher power: Fedora. Fedora. Lol fedora. Tip.
>>966659
>just open your heart brah
![rynrye[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/M0xh1an.jpg "rynrye[2]")
