You can't judge God on moral grounds because he's the author of morality.

November 28, 2019, 12:12 pm

Agree31 Disagree31

50%
50%

The debate "You can't judge God on moral grounds because he's the author of morality." was started by RoyDierlijk on November 28, 2019, 12:12 pm. 31 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 31 people are on the disagree side. That might be enough to see the common perception. There is a tie in this debate, post your arguments, call some reinforcements and break this tie.

jrardin12 posted 10 arguments to the agreers part.
diecinueve posted 2 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 12 arguments, Bnice80 posted 1 argument, jrardin12 posted 12 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.

elly, HopeleSSJames3925, Jemjem13, ao and 27 visitors agree.
jrardin12, diecinueve, TheExistentialist, marky, Bnice80, JDAWG9693, Millenialist, Sparkytusk, Entropyrose, Helloguys, eli and 20 visitors disagree.

yes. god may be able to defy the laws of physics, but even he is bound by the laws of logic.

he can freeze the sun in the sky/space, but he cannot make it fully bright and fully dark at the same time. even omnipotence cannot create absurdity.

8 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

You keep repeating this claim, however you have refused to address the response to this claim. Since you haven't addressed it, I will pose it again. Although at this point I'm simply assuming your unable to address it and simply hope that if you repeat your baseless claims often enough it'll become true.

Why does the Bible get special treatment? The problem with fallacies is that you can also prove a contradiction.

If the Bible were not true, logic would not be meaningful.
Logic is meaningful.
Therefore, the Bible is true.
If "holy book x" were not true, logic would not be meaningful.
Logic is meaningful.
Therefore, "holy book x" is true.
According to "holy book x", the Bible is false.
Therefore the Bible is false.
Therefore the Bible is both true and false.
Therefore 2 + 2 = 5

Furthermore, what precludes logic from having meaning outside of the Bible?

Logic by necessity is a metaphysical and epistemological claim about logic that makes it exist in a meaningful way without the Bible.

The argument goes like this:

For anything that exists, it certainly exists, and it is certainly false to claim that it does not exist.

Everything that exists, exists; and it doesn’t not-exist.

All metaphysical realms are metaphysical realms. And they are certainly not not-metaphysical realms. In other words, absolutely no thing escapes logical necessity – nor could it ever, because “it” would have to be whatever “it” is.

In this light, it’s clear that God couldn’t ever “create” these truths; they are necessary. Not only is this the way it is, but it couldn’t possibly be any other way (as it could never be true that something exists without existing).

Thus: logic and existence are inseparable.

You cannot have existence without existence, and this truth also implies the existence of falsehood. If something is true, then it’s necessarily false to claim that it is not-true. Thus, truth and falsehood follow from the fact of existence – i.e. you can affirm or deny the existence of existence wherever existence exists.

So mere existence of anything makes logic a necessity.

8 months ago

In our circular argument proving the Bible is true by the Bible is valid because the laws of logic prove the God of the Bible.

8 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

You're just making statements without supporting them and continue to use circular reasoning.

"It's prophecies. The Bible makes many prophecies that end up coming to pass. The most known prophecies are those about the Messiah, Jesus Christ"

So the bible makes predictions that the Bible says came true.....this is circular reason again.

"External Evidence. Non-Biblical, Non-Christian, Archaeology"
This is the only statement that would constitute proof of the bibles truthfulness. However, you're just making a statement without support. Please provide proof of this claim.

"Science also is the Bibles side."
Again, just a claim without any support, please support your claims.

"Things such as dating of original writing, manuscripts, accuracy, corroboration of early church Father's."
Internal consistency isn't proof of anything. You must have external evidence to support a claim.

8 months ago

Sorry

3. Things such as dating of original writing, manuscripts, accuracy, corroboration of early church Father's.

4. External Evidence. Non-Biblical, Non-Christian, Archaeology

5. Miracles and Christ's Resurrection

6. Science also is the Bibles side.

8 months ago

We can know the Bible is true because:

1. Its unity. Even though it was written by different men over thousands of years it stays on topic (salvation of man).
2. It's prophecies. The Bible makes many prophecies that end up coming to pass. The most known prophecies are those about the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
3. Also there is a lot of internal evidence. Thin

8 months ago

I will show later how we can know that the Bible is true.

8 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

to..."have shown you can prove God's nature because He has said what His nature is"

No, you have shown that you can use circular reasoning and haven't been able to address the critique I posted of your nonsense "circular reasoning is ok" argument.

You are treating the bible as a special case and don't afford the same treatment to any other texts. Why is it the bible that's true and not the Vedas?

"Again, I can repeat it all day. The burden of proof on you is to prove me wrong"

First off, the burden of proof is on the affirmative claim. My only burden is to show that your proofs are flawed, irrational, or lack support.

You have failed to address the critique of your only argument (circular logic), thus the burden has shifted back to you to dispute that claim in a meaningful way, provide new evidence, etc.... You have no valid argument on which to base your claim at the moment. All you did was talk about non-sequiturs that aren't relevant to the critique I gave.

Then you simply made arbitrary, baseless claims about the bible being true and proveable, yet you provided no proof to support that claim.

8 months, 1 week ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

"Just because you make the arbitrary statement that the Bible isn't true is just that... arbitrary."
The arbitrary statement is actually that the Bible is true without any sort of proof. You have claimed that the Bible is true and can be proven so however you have not done so. Therefore, you are simply making an arbitrary statement in which you favor one book over all others.

8 months, 1 week ago

Just because you make the arbitrary statement that the Bible isn't true is just that... arbitrary.

8 months, 1 week ago

I have said the Bible can be proved true and no one has said why not. I am waiting.

8 months, 1 week ago

Again, I can repeat it all day. The burden of proof on you is to prove me wrong.

8 months, 1 week ago
Allirix
replied to...

You sound like a broken record again. You probably know this, but you keep making the mistake so I'll tell you anyway, referring back to the point someone criticised is not a valid way to defend criticism. It's ironically a form of circular reasoning.

8 months, 1 week ago

I have shown you can prove God's nature because He has said what His nature is.

8 months, 1 week ago

You actually can prove the truthfulness of the Bible.

8 months, 1 week ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

You're not addressing the larger point but rather arguing non-sequiturs.

Again; you have to admit that the nature of God cannot be determined by the Bible since you can neither prove the truthfulness of the Bible, nor the truthfulness of God.

You have failed to show that you can know the nature of God. I'd also argue that the task of "And that is why we then have investigate which book is the Truth." is an impossible task as you have no methodology for falsifying the claims made in any scripture

here we go again:

If the Bible were not true, logic would not be meaningful.
Logic is meaningful.
Therefore, the Bible is true.
If "holy book x" were not true, logic would not be meaningful.
Logic is meaningful.
Therefore, "holy book x" is true.
According to "holy book x", the Bible is false.
Therefore the Bible is false.
Therefore the Bible is both true and false.
Therefore 2 + 2 = 5

Ok, maybe now you can address the actual structure and not the non-sequiturs you've been wasting time with.

8 months, 1 week ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

"So we have to see if your Bible is true"
It is true because I say it's true and I couldn't possibly lie because my bible tells you that I can't lie.....see circular reasoning is just nonsense.

8 months, 1 week ago

So we have to see if your Bible is true. We have to see if what you say is true. If you have kept your promises. If you haven't changed your opinions.

8 months, 1 week ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

I'm well aware of Lisle's arguments and his plagiarism.

The critique of his argument stands though; it must assume the Bible is infallibly true to make such a connection in the first place.

I've rewritten the initial response so non-sequitur objections like the Koran doesn't deter from the actual issue.

If the Bible were not true, logic would not be meaningful.
Logic is meaningful.
Therefore, the Bible is true.
If the bible of the existentialist were not true, logic would not be meaningful.
Logic is meaningful.
Therefore, the the bible of the existentialist is true.
According to the bible of the existentialist, the Bible is false.
Therefore the Bible is false.
Therefore the Bible is both true and false.
Therefore 2 + 2 = 5

8 months, 1 week ago

Also, the Torah is the Bible and the Satanic Bible does not claim to be divine.

8 months, 1 week ago

https://thecreationclub.com/vicious-circular-reasoning-or-virtuous/

Here, this explains Jason Lisle's argument.

8 months, 1 week ago

Actually, you are not understanding what I said. I was responding to your suggestion that the Koran does not say the Bible is God's Word when it does. Next, only one Religious Book can be true because they all contradict each other. Therefore, only one religion can be true.

8 months, 1 week ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

So you agree that we cannot use the Bible to prove the nature, existence, or truthfulness of "God", since any book claiming to be divinely inspired has the same truth value as the Bible. Therefore the Bible of the Existentialist is just as divine as your Bible, is just as divine as the Koran, as the Tora, as the Satanic Bible, etc...

You must then also agree that we cannot know the nature of God as you previously claimed as the Bible of the Existentialist now claims that the God of the Bible is a Trickster. Since all divine texts have equal truth value, you cannot deduce the nature of God from scripture anymore.

8 months, 1 week ago

And that is why we then have investigate which book is the Truth. However, I will say that the Koran does say the Bible is the Word of God.

8 months, 1 week ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

"1. Without laws of logic, we could not make an argument"
this is a flawed premise, as we can make arguments without the use of logic. They may not be valid or sound arguments, but they are arguments nonetheless.

The argument you've expressed was first introduced by Jason Lisle.

Essentially it goes is another logical error called error of presupposition. The second portion of your argument "Because without the God of the Bible we have no basis for assuming laws of logic." It is often written like this:

If the Bible were not true, logic would not be meaningful.
Logic is meaningful.
Therefore, the Bible is true.

Sure, the first premise comes directly from Lisle's special place, but it also assumes that not only is there a connection between logic and the Bible's truthiness, it must assume the Bible is infallibly true to make such a connection in the first place. Remarkably, those premises as stated aren't paraphrased at all. Of course, this isn't the only example of extreme circularity in Lisle's work (and he's only one of a number of creationists).

Why does the Bible get special treatment? The problem with fallacies is that you can also prove a contradiction.

If the Bible were not true, logic would not be meaningful.
Logic is meaningful.
Therefore, the Bible is true.
If the Koran were not true, logic would not be meaningful.
Logic is meaningful.
Therefore, the Koran is true.
According to the Koran, the Bible is false.
Therefore the Bible is false.
Therefore the Bible is both true and false.
Therefore 2 + 2 = 5.

8 months, 1 week ago

Actually circular reasoning is a valid argument. Circular reasoning is only a logical fallacy when it is arbitrary. Let me give you an example of non-arbitrary circular reasoning.

1. Without laws of logic, we could not make an argument
2. We can make an argument
3. Therefore, there must be laws of logic

This argument is a non-fallacious use of circular reasoning.

Therefore, presupposing God exists to argue that He exists is a reasonable circular argument. Why? Because without the God of the Bible we have no basis for assuming laws of logic.

8 months, 1 week ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

You're using the bible to prove god's nature which is circular reasoning. If we had a book written by a trickster God he'd likely claim that he's good as well. Just like any con artist will portray himself as a good person.

Do you hold anyone's claim about themselves as absolute truth?

If I wrote a bible of the Existentialist and proclaimed to be holy in it and proclaimed that acts "x, y, and z" are good and acts "l,m, and n" are bad, could I use that book to prove that I am indeed holy and have undisputed knowledge of good and evil?

8 months, 1 week ago

We can know that His promise not to change has been kept because He has kept His other promises.

8 months, 1 week ago

God has revealed His nature in His Word, the Bible. He is not arbitrary because He has promised He will never change.
Malachi 3:6; Psalm 102:7; James 1:17; Psalm 33:11; Numbers 23:19; 1Samuel 15:29; Job 36:5; Psalm 89:34; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 7:21; Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 13:8;

8 months, 1 week ago

God's goodness: Nahum 1:7; Mark 10:18; Psalm 31:19-20; Psalm 34:8; Psalm 86:5; Psalm 100:5; Psalm 107:1 1 Chronicles 16:34; James 1:17; Romans 2:4; Romans 8:28.
Just to mention a few.

8 months, 1 week ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

which means that God's nature either can't be known, and therefore his commands can't be interpreted as either good or bad, he could be amoral with just arbitrary commands, or worse yet immoral and give commands which actually doom us "hell" if it exists.

So we have to have a method of evaluating good/bad that is apart from God.

8 months, 1 week ago
Bnice80
replied to...

God is omnipotent. He is a polarity of moral/immoral. Who is to say God is "judgeable/responsible/ethical/fair" He may not have a soul to be "judged" or to ascend. As to the purpose of our morals to steer between right/wrong, good/bad, moral/immoral.

8 months, 1 week ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

How do you know the God of the Bible is a Good God? You're just making claims without supporting them.

This is the equivalent of me telling you that "God is a 3 foot 2 inch bearded lady who lives in a basement in Boise, ID with some guy named Steve".

8 months, 2 weeks ago

The God of the Bible is a Good God and He never changes his morals.

8 months, 2 weeks ago

This claim makes morality irrelevant and whimsical.
If God decides "x" is good and "y" is bad and the basis for our understanding of good and bad is purely based on "God's will", then we must know the nature God to know that what God claims is good is actually good. If God is a trickster by nature, then "x" is good might actually not be true.

Furthermore, we must know the nature of every God and only listen to the most "good" God if we want the greatest moral good.
Are you essentially claiming to know the nature of your God and the nature of every other God?

8 months, 2 weeks ago

Yeah, that worked real well in Germany circa 1930s.

8 months, 2 weeks ago
diecinueve
replied to...

No. Morality is what we believe is good or bad. If society thinks something is right, that will be morally correct even if God thinks it is wrong

8 months, 2 weeks ago

Morality is what God has decided.

8 months, 2 weeks ago

So nothing is good or bad and morality depends on what God wants?

8 months, 2 weeks ago

Jesus did not supercede any morals.

8 months, 2 weeks ago
Allirix
replied to...

Except when the rules of the old testament were superseded by Jesus

8 months, 2 weeks ago

He cannot change morality, because He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

8 months, 2 weeks ago

if he is the author of morality, he can change morality.

if god came before you and said "now is the time to go forth and murder. this is not a change of mind, this was planned from the start. up until now the commandment was thou shall not kill, now it is thou shall kill."

does that mean killing now becomes good and all morality depends on the whims of a being we cannot hope to understand?

8 months, 2 weeks ago
Discuss "You can't judge God on moral grounds because he's the author of morality. " philosophy politics religion
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.