Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

[Paulomycin]

I am not arguing that the story says Abraham killed his son. I am arguing that the story says that God commanded him to kill his son.

And you admit that killing your son is bad. (I couldn't get you to say it was wrong, but you did say it was bad.)

You claim that God would never tell us to do something wrong,

Where did I actually say that? Why can't you people direct quote anything when the chips are down? That is the real problem here.

All I'm saying is that God never tempts anyone, but we can be put to the test anytime. The binding of Isaac is clearly not a temptation, because it's literally the last thing Abraham would want to do.

 

[Paulomycin]

Wrong. Morals are "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." (source:morality - Bing, Oxford Dictionaries)

a.) Your "argumentum ad dictionarium" fails to address the classical Is-Ought Problem.

b.) From the exact same dictionary you cited:
value
[ˈvalyo͞o]
NOUN

2. a person's principles or standards of behavior; one's judgment of what is important in life.
"they internalize their parents' rules and values"
synonyms:
principles · moral principles · ethics · moral code · morals · moral values · standards · moral standards · code of behavior · rules of conduct · standards of behavior

^ Why do you have to make this so tedious?

I have told you my source of morality.

What, equivocation?

Get to work. Here, here's a video to help:

One may consider the following moral argument as an example of an is-ought problem:

1. Sam is stealing money from work.
2. Losing money by theft causes harm to Sam's employers.
3. (One ought to not cause harm to his employers.)
4. Therefore, Sam ought to stop stealing money from work.

Premises 1 and 2 are "is" statements, describing facts of what is happening. Premise 3 and Conclusion 4 are "ought" statements, that describes how things should be happening. But what is the source of this knowledge? This argument appears to be valid if the premises are true, but unless we can logically support Premise 3, it is not sound. What can possibly give us rational knowledge that things ought to be different than the way things are?

Hume argues that we cannot, and that ought statements, and other supposed moral knowledge, are not rational.

 

[Paulomycin]

OK, then these "compiled secular commentaries on the letters of Paul alone" had nothing on a missing body or even a clear reference to a bodily appearance of Jesus. None of that is found in Paul.

Wild guessing doesn't look good on you. It has everything to do with both a missing body and reported bodily appearances of Jesus. You're just looking for an excuse to avoid the evidence altogether. And no, I'm not going to spoon-feed it to you, because your obviously evasive behavior currently benefits me.

Paul seems to be describing a Jesus who left his body behind and rose in a new body.

Which verses? 1 Corinthians chapter 15 clearly addressed the resurrection of Jesus. In addition, Paul mentions the resurrection of Jesus in Romans 1:4 and 6:5; Philippians 3:10-11, and in 2 Timothy 2:18 where he addresses the issue of only a spiritual resurrection (that was not a literal physical resurrection) as Paul dealt with the false teaching of the Gnostics in 1 Corinthians 15. This false teaching taught that it was more or less an allegory.

Like I said, Paul describes a resurrected Jesus in a new body, not a body that came out of a grave.

"From the dead," would be from the same place of death. The dead body itself would be the most important detail.

Romans 6:4 - Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

1 Corinthians 15:4 - and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,

Uh, no that is not what you said. You said:

Historical evidence of the Resurrection (see Gary Habermas) would determine, "If Jesus were truly resurrected, then it would confirm everything He said about Himself, as well as scripture. It would prove that Jesus Christ is God incarnate."​

Nowhere does your post say it had to do with Jesus never dying again. You simply added that later and then complain that I missed something in your post that you never said.

None of the other individuals you referred to being raised from the dead predicted their own resurrection. That's the point. -Matthew 16:21, Matthew 17:23, Matthew 20:19, Matthew 27:64, Mark 9:31, Mark 10:34, Luke 9:22, Luke 13:32, Luke 24:7.

But anyway, how do you know that Jesus never died again?

1. Because He was still alive by the time He appeared to Paul in Acts 9. Many years later, John encounters the living Savior while on Patmos in Revelation 22:16.
2. Because you continue to explain how compounding pure hypotheticals "work."

 

[Paulomycin]

I was asking if one needed to keep the commandments to enter into eternal life. Jesus says you need to keep the commandments to enter into eternal life. Do you think that you need to keep the commandments to go to heaven?

^ Yes, and no fallen human being born under the curse of Adam has ever achieved this. Human beings are required to keep all the commandments perfectly & all the time. You're literally being asked to fulfill the entire law, and that if you break even the least of the commandments, then you have failed (James 2:10). Everyone has failed to do that. - Romans 3:23, Romans 5:12. No one can achieve this. Yet Jesus was the only One capable of fulfilling the law; having never sinned.

Nope, I meant what I said:

You say Abraham sinned when he offered up Isaac at God's command. If your God commanded Abraham to sin, maybe someday he will command you to sin, yes?
​

You say God commanded Abraham to do something bad (kill his son), yes?

God commanded Abraham to sin.

So you must think God sometimes commands people to do something bad, yes?

As a possible test, but never a temptation. Moreover, you're opening up a huge can of worms (to my advantage), implying that just because God does something one time, then He'd likely do it more than once (Example: If creation, then miracles). I know this is a warning you'll probably dismiss out of hand and not even think twice about, but I'm obligated to caution you anyway.

If your God sometimes commands people to do something bad, could it be that someday God will command you to do something bad?

Maybe, but God doesn't need another Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That covenant's one and done.

If God sometimes command doing something bad, how can you trust his commandments?

Again, because testing ≠ temptation.

That is only part of the story. The problem is in Genesis 22:1-2.

Note the operative word: "Prove," in that passage.

God: Hey Abraham.
Abraham: Here I am.

God: Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

Abraham: God's right. I really do love this son He gave me. Probably more than anything else. Do I love Isaac over and above God? I'm not sure. . .everything I could ever hope for is wrapped up in my son. If putting Isaac to death is commanded, and death is final, then that means God broke His promise! But God swore against Himself (Genesis 15:18). Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? -Genesis 18:25 God is omnipotent. He proved that the death of Sarah's womb is not final. Therefore, death is not final (Hebrews 11:19). Even if I kill Isaac, God's "many nations" promise will still be fulfilled "through Isaac." (Genesis 17:19, Genesis 21:12). I trust God's promise more than holding onto Isaac. Also, I'm pretty sure that in the end, the sacrifice will end up not Isaac Genesis 22:8, and we will both return from the mountain together. - Genesis 22:5

But am I willing to prove it?

Yes.

*Abraham stretches out his hand and takes the knife to slay his son*

Angel: “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” -Genesis 22:12

Why does there need to be a sacrifice?

Abraham necessarily had to demonstrate this to both himself and to everyone else in real-time in the material world. The binding of Isaac teaches that one must be willing to sacrifice literally everything if they are to walk with God. - Matthew 10:37 This is why Abraham's faith was so commendable, "concluding that God was able to raise [Isaac] up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense." - Hebrews 11:19

Meaning that Isaac was sacrificed in a figurative sense, yet without having actually sinned.

If somebody sinned against you, you would not need him to sacrifice an animal or son before you forgave him.

1. The world doesn't require forgiveness. On the contrary, some people demand far more reparations than the mere sacrifice of an animal. Some demand entire generations of children before a sin is forgiven.

2. When I am sinned against, I would not need the sacrifice of a lamb or a Son, because the Son = the Lamb that was already sacrificed on my behalf. Therefore, I forgive based on the sacrifice paid on my behalf.

So why cannot God do what you would do--just forgive without demanding a sacrifice? Is your God somehow limited?

"Just forgive" is possible, but would be unjust. Straight forgiveness without a just punishment is injustice. My sin was paid for on my behalf. Thus, God's justice is fulfilled and His reputation is inviolate.

 

[Paulomycin]

I don't think we will ever agree when we have vastly different epistemologies.

With your (non-objective) epistemology being completely vacuous.

1. Regarding the bucket of marbles analogy you believe that saying "I don't believe there are an even number of marbles in the bucket" is equivalent to saying "I believe there are an odd number of marbles in the bucket". I have explained why these are not equivalent and you don't agree.

There can be only two possible outcomes: Odd or even. "Indeterminate" is not a realistic outcome. It's merely a temporal observation. "Indeterminate" has no real bearing on the real outcome of actual odd or even marbles in the bucket.

2. You said that "I don't know" is not a position that you like to take and you even said it is not a real position and you implied that you should believe what the best evidence is. I disagree with this as well. The best evidence may not be good evidence.

If you're evaluating evidence as "good" or "not good enuf," in your case, then you're still admitting that evidence exists regardless. Again, evidence is objective. Persuasion/evaluation is subjective. Even some evidence is better than no evidence at all. You're gonna waste your entire life looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Without agreeing on these two epistemological positions I don't know how we will ever agree on anything.

Do you even know the formal name of your epistemology? Don't assume you're so special that it is at all an original epistemology in any way, shape, or form. Do you care enough about your own epistemology to even find out?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

With your (non-objective) epistemology being completely vacuous.

There can be only two possible outcomes: Odd or even. "Indeterminate" is not a realistic outcome. It's merely a temporal observation. "Indeterminate" has no real bearing on the real outcome of actual odd or even marbles in the bucket.

If you're evaluating evidence as "good" or "not good enuf," in your case, then you're still admitting that evidence exists regardless. Again, evidence is objective. Persuasion/evaluation is subjective. Even some evidence is better than no evidence at all. You're gonna waste your entire life looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Do you even know the formal name of your epistemology? Don't assume you're so special that it is at all an original epistemology in any way, shape, or form. Do you care enough about your own epistemology to even find out?

I have already answered these issues. I know you disagree. I don't see the point of continuing the same answers over and over.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Where did I actually say that? Why can't you people direct quote anything when the chips are down? That is the real problem here.

All I'm saying is that God never tempts anyone, but we can be put to the test anytime. The binding of Isaac is clearly not a temptation, because it's literally the last thing Abraham would want to do.

Post 380. l had repeatedly asked you, ""Setting out to kill your son as Abraham set out to do is wrong, yes?" You kept on evading, but finally in post #380 you responded to this question and admitted this was a bad thing.

That is the problem. ln your own words, your God commanded Abraham to do a bad thing (offer his son as a burnt sacrifice).

You said it was a bad thing. Are you changing your mind? Or is that your final answer?

 

[doubtingmerle]

a.) Your "argumentum ad dictionarium" fails to address the classical Is-Ought Problem.

b.) From the exact same dictionary you cited:
value
[ˈvalyo͞o]
NOUN

2. a person's principles or standards of behavior; one's judgment of what is important in life.
"they internalize their parents' rules and values"
synonyms:
principles · moral principles · ethics · moral code · morals · moral values · standards · moral standards · code of behavior · rules of conduct · standards of behavior

^ Why do you have to make this so tedious?




What, equivocation?

Get to work. Here, here's a video to help:

One may consider the following moral argument as an example of an is-ought problem:

1. Sam is stealing money from work.
2. Losing money by theft causes harm to Sam's employers.
3. (One ought to not cause harm to his employers.)
4. Therefore, Sam ought to stop stealing money from work.

Premises 1 and 2 are "is" statements, describing facts of what is happening. Premise 3 and Conclusion 4 are "ought" statements, that describes how things should be happening. But what is the source of this knowledge? This argument appears to be valid if the premises are true, but unless we can logically support Premise 3, it is not sound. What can possibly give us rational knowledge that things ought to be different than the way things are?

Hume argues that we cannot, and that ought statements, and other supposed moral knowledge, are not rational.

Why do you ignore what I say and say something I don't say?

Again, sigh, we need each other to survive and live a good life. We cannot expect people to give to us unless they think there is something in it for them. Therefore we need rules of behavior that guide people to work together in a way that we can consider fair. That is a firm basis for morality.

But you will just ignore what I say, yes?

 

[Kylie]

How do multiple manifestations of supernatural entities strengthen the atheist's position?

Who says that a different supernatural entity is the only explanation. There are many psychological conditions that can cause a person to hear voices in their head.

 

[Paulomycin]

I have already answered these issues. I know you disagree. I don't see the point of continuing the same answers over and over.

It's not about you or me. All that matters is the objective "why." That's where the truth is.

 

[Paulomycin]

Post 380. l had repeatedly asked you, ""Setting out to kill your son as Abraham set out to do is wrong, yes?" You kept on evading, but finally in post #380 you responded to this question and admitted this was a bad thing.

^ Direct quote omitted! I said it was bad because it is "sin." I was wondering why you couldn't post the entire quote.

That is the problem. ln your own words, your God commanded Abraham to do a bad thing (offer his son as a burnt sacrifice).

OH! So you not only admit that sin is real, but that it's also a bad thing! Sin is only defined as an immoral act considered to be a transgression against God Himself.

So you suddenly believe in God?

 

[Paulomycin]

Why do you ignore what I say and say something I don't say?

Because you're being evasive and I'm always more on-topic than your petty "gotcha" maneuvering and manipulation tactics.

Again, sigh, we need each other to survive and live a good life.

^ Is that a universal "ought," or is it prefaced by an "if" disclaimer, like you were doing before? How did you get to "needing each other to survive" from the brute fact of your natural existence alone?

We cannot expect people to give to us unless they think there is something in it for them.

But Socialists argue that ^ statement is morally bad. A significant number of atheists are typically Socialist, "If only we could get people to not be so greedy and give to the common good without a sense of self-interest."

But you will just ignore what I say, yes?

I notice you ignore my questions a lot (a lot). Like what I posted above. Fair is fair. Why can't I just do what you're doing?

 

[Paulomycin]

Who says that a different supernatural entity is the only explanation.

Does that mean you've decided to give up on invoking multiple manifestations of supernatural entities?

There are many psychological conditions that can cause a person to hear voices in their head.

When is anyone actually qualified to make a remote psychiatric diagnosis on a historical figure?

"B-but it's not history, it's myth!"

So then anyone trying to psychoanalyze a mythical character would be even more insane than the subject they try to diagnose.

 

[Yttrium]

When is anyone actually qualified to make a remote psychiatric diagnosis on a historical figure?

"B-but it's not history, it's myth!"

So then anyone trying to psychoanalyze a mythical character would be even more insane than the subject they try to diagnose.

Hmm. But someone around here said: "But I'm not going to be bullied into saying "I don't know," when at least some logical information to go on is staring everyone in the face. And that little bit is all we need, really."

With that in mind, it should be quite acceptable (and sane) for anyone to psychoanalyze anybody, including mythical characters, since there will be some evidence and some degree of knowledge of psychology (no matter how small).

[Sorry, I'm just starting to try to sort out your take on the "I don't know" position.]

 

[Paulomycin]

With that in mind, it should be quite acceptable (and sane) for anyone to psychoanalyze anybody, including mythical characters, since there will be some evidence and some degree of knowledge of psychology (no matter how small).

1. Not without a DSM-V you're not.
2. Practicing quack psychiatry is never socially acceptable, nor ethical.
3. Remote online diagnoses are never ethical either.

So what's your point?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Look, it would be beneficial to me personally to believe. My wife, kids and friends are believers so it has been a hard road at times losing my belief. I want to know what is true and what is not true. The evidence for God is not convincing, that is all.

Lots of us have experienced that. When believers say we have chosen the easy road, they don't realize the pressure that is out there to fall in line. But sorry folks, we know too much. Knowing what we know, there is no going back.

The fulfillment we find in life by following the truth, wherever it leads, makes it all worthwhile.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I've said that what Abe heard might not have been God. You seem to think that I am required to propose an alternative, despite the fact that anything I say would be speculation.

One wonders what Abraham would have done if the neighbor's kid snuck up behind him and said, "Hey Abraham. This is Yahweh. Go kill your son."

 

[doubtingmerle]

How did you get to "needing each other to survive" from the brute fact of your natural existence alone?

I explained this many times. We are social creatures that need each other to survive and live a good life.

If you disagree, I have proposed an experiment to prove me wrong: Go out into the woods far from any other people and there live a good life for many months without the benefit of anything from another person. That means you go out there naked and alone without a phone, a knife, a fishhook, a pair of shoes, or anything else you got from another human. Then come back and tell us how you lived the good life without the benefit of any other humans.

But Socialists argue that ^ statement ["We cannot expect people to give to us unless they think there is something in it for them."] is morally bad.

Please quote a socialist that says this.

And if somebody out there says this, that is irrelevant.

You and I must surely agree that "we cannot expect people to give to us unless they think there is something in it for them". If we agree, why don't we just stipulate that we agree and move on to the next point?

A significant number of atheists are typically Socialist, "If only we could get people to not be so greedy and give to the common good without a sense of self-interest."

Please quote a socialist that says this.

Most atheists I know support a range of socialist programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, etc. They also support free enterprise and individual initiative. There is a broad range in opinion about the extent of government programs.

But all of that is completely irrelevant to the argument I have made for morality. We need other people to work with us, and finding fair rules of behavior is the best way to get others to to work with us. It is that simple.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I said it was bad because it is "sin."

"It" refers to my statement, "Setting out to kill your son as Abraham set out to do is wrong, yes?"

If Abraham set out to kill his son, as Genesis says, then I say it was wrong. You say it is "bad" and "sin". You refuse to tell us whether you think it was wrong. One would think that if you thought it was "bad" and "sin", you would also think it was wrong, but you refuse to answer that question.

If somebody asks me if Paulomycin thinks it was wrong for Abraham to set out to kill his son, I will tell them we don't know, because he will not tell us. If you would rather I tell them you think it was wrong please let me know. If you would rather I tell them you think it was not wrong, please let me know that. In the meantime, I will tell them you refuse to answer.

So you not only admit that sin is real, but that it's also a bad thing! Sin is only defined as an immoral act considered to be a transgression against God Himself.

If "sin" is defined as "transgression against God", I can accept that definition.

However, I cannot tell you which acts are sin, because I have no reliable way of knowing what God says.

If you say that I should go by the Bible, then it seems it must be sin to wear clothes made of two different materials or pick up firewood on Saturday.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It's not about you or me. All that matters is the objective "why." That's where the truth is.

Ahh ok. But we disagree on how to best determine what the why is.