How could you tell?

[KCfromNC]

Prove it.
Finite and numbers are axioms which is the foundation that we used in everyday to day life.

Infinities and imaginary numbers are also used to successfully predict the behavior of things in everyday life. They're slightly more advanced than basic counting but the idea is the same. Like real and finite numbers, they're part of a language which is convenient for communicating certain facts about reality.

What this has to do with the topic I have no idea.

 

[Non sequitur]

Bump

Still waiting for replies from certain people...

 

[Non sequitur]

Ok, it's settled then.

The responses from believers have demonstrated there is no way to tell.

Kinda sad, really...

 

[brightlights]

I'm just curious.

I know theists assume their god is good, wrote/directly influenced the bible, talks to you, etc., but how would you know if your god was either evil or a trickster and lying?

This is the very essence of faith. Faith is not just believing that God exists. As James says, even the demons believe this and shudder. The demons do not believe that God is good. Anyone who has faith in a biblical sense believes not just that God exists, that he is trinity, that he inspired the holy scriptures, but also that he is good and trustworthy. Without this we would not believe at all.

So this is a premise that we embrace by faith. It is not known by us until we believe. The psalmist says: "taste and see that the Lord is good." And this is how we know. We have experienced his goodness.

 

[brightlights]

As an aside, this is the same question the serpent asked in the garden and so tripped the fall.

 

[Non sequitur]

This is the very essence of faith. Faith is not just believing that God exists. As James says, even the demons believe this and shudder. The demons do not believe that God is good. Anyone who has faith in a biblical sense believes not just that God exists, that he is trinity, that he inspired the holy scriptures, but also that he is good and trustworthy. Without this we would not believe at all.

So this is a premise that we embrace by faith. It is not known by us until we believe. The psalmist says: "taste and see that the Lord is good." And this is how we know. We have experienced his goodness.

Not what I asked. You are talking from a biased position; you believe what is said is true. This is circular reasoning (a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion).

How could you tell or determine that it is not?

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

In order to ask the question you have asked, you assume there is such a thing as evil. If you assume such a thing as evil, you assume that good exists from which evil is a departure. If you assume good and evil exist you assume a prescriptive standard or law according to which you determine what is evil and what is good. If you assume a prescriptive law, you assume a prescriptive law giver, for prescriptions can only come from prescribers. If you assume a prescriber you assume God.

So the question assumes God who by definition is good.

 

[brightlights]

Not what I asked. You are talking from a biased position; you believe what is said is true. This is circular reasoning (a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion).

How could you tell or determine that it is not?

You haven't done much philosophy have you?

 

[Non sequitur]

In order to ask the question you have asked, you assume there is such a thing as evil. If you assume such a thing as evil, you assume that good exists from which evil is a departure. If you assume good and evil exist you assume a prescriptive standard or law according to which you determine what is evil and what is good. If you assume a prescriptive law, you assume a prescriptive law giver, for prescriptions can only come from prescribers. If you assume a prescriber you assume God.

So the question assumes God who by definition is good.

Yeah, no.

There's a whole list of fallacies there, but the most telling is the special pleading and circular logic in the last sentence.

So, without those fallacies, can you answer?

 

[Non sequitur]

You haven't done much philosophy have you?

None, at all.

But I did notice you answering my question with a question and your previous fallacies.

Do I take it you cannot, unless you use them?

 

[brightlights]

Try reading my post again a bit more carefully.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

Yeah, no.

There's a whole list of fallacies there, but the most telling is the special pleading and circular logic in the last sentence.

So, without those fallacies, can you answer?

Refute the logic.

 

[Non sequitur]

Refute the logic.

(Paraphrasing) "By definition God is good". You arrived there through circular logic.

 

[Non sequitur]

Try reading my post again a bit more carefully.

I did and responded. Was I supposed to accept circular reasoning?

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

(Paraphrasing) "By definition God is good". You arrived there through circular logic.

I did?

So if I say a triangle by definition is a three-sided shape then that is circular logic?

 

[Non sequitur]

I did?

So if I say a triangle by definition is a three-sided shape then that is circular logic?

I said "through", not "is".

You are talking about using a label for something with tangible and demonstrable properties.

Also, Loki was not "good".

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

I said "through", not "is".

So if I say a triangle by definition is a three-sided shape then that conclusion came "through" circular logic?

 

[Non sequitur]

So if I say a triangle by definition is a three-sided shape then that conclusion came "through" circular logic?

No, a "triangle" is a label for something; it had *no* properties, prior to being used as a word to describe a three-sided shape. There is no logic going on.

This "God" that is good, has assumed properties. You can't get to its properties, without using some circular reasoning.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

No, a "triangle" is a label for something; it had *no* properties, prior to being used as a word to describe a three-sided shape. There is no logic going on.

This "God" that is good, has assumed properties. You can't get to its properties, without using some circular reasoning.

You're questioning why God must be good by definition. You should have just asked for me to explain why God is good by definition instead of accusing me of comitting a fallacy.

The word "God" as I use it and as philosophers use it refers to The Greatest Conceivable Being.

Whatever you can conceive of as being the "Greatest Being" that is God. In Spanish the word is Dios, in English, God, in Latin Deus, Italian Dio etc etc....

You can call the concept ghdhd if you like. The point is is that The Greatest Conceivable Being in order to be aptly labeled as such MUST possess certain attributes. One of them is goodness.

 

[intojoy]

I'm just curious.

I know theists assume their god is good, wrote/directly influenced the bible, talks to you, etc., but how would you know if your god was either evil or a trickster and lying?

It depends on how God is defined. Some for example believe that cows and snakes and animals are gods. Surely those that define god in those creatures do not view god as flawless perfection continually.

The accepted definition of God by Christiandom is a perfect being who is incapable of sin and indeed the Scriptures portray Him as Light in whom there is no darkness neither shadow of turning.

If you define God this way, He is incapable of error or deceit. It is only possible to think God could have any corruptness whatsoever if you defined Him as the gods of paganism do.