Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

[doubtingmerle]

You're an atheist. You have no objective reason why you "would not do it."

"It" in context refers to my question, "What you would do if you thought God was commanding you to take an assault rifle, and kill dozens of people at random?"

Uh, yes I do have an objective reason to not take an assault rifle and kill dozens of people. First, we need other people in order to survive. That involves building trusting relationships with other people where we each help each other. There is no other way for humans to survive, at least not in any appreciable numbers, and at least not with any decent quality of life. As killing dozens of people with an assault rifle would ruin that trust relationship, it would be universally regarded that the killer was breaking the trust relationship. Such things are wrong.

In addition to this pragmatic reason, I have the reason of my own values. I greatly value the human mind, and all humans. So it would be wrong for me to end something of so much value.

I quoted verses that recommended killing people that differ with your religion. I think that commandment to kill is wrong. What would you do if you were living in that day? Would you have willingly and gladly followed that command, and stoned those that teach a different religion?

 

[Paulomycin]

Uh, yes I do have an objective reason to not take an assault rifle and kill dozens of people. First, we need other people in order to survive.

You're merely shifting from one moral appeal you cannot prove to the next. Why do you need anyone to survive? How many is enough? Doesn't that mean you can kill the rest? I can follow you while you play "kick the can" anywhere you go.

That involves building trusting relationships with other people where we each help each other.

Why is that necessary? Survival? You only need enough to survive as a majority with the biggest stick. You have no objective moral imperative for appealing to "survival."

I also note you invoked "survival" instead of "flourishing." Very telling.

Such things are wrong.

Which is a "just so" fallacy begging the question. You cannot explain why it's wrong. Utilitarian and pragmatic appeals are fickle and are never a substitute for moral claims.

In addition to this pragmatic reason, I have the reason of my own values. I greatly value the human mind, and all humans. So it would be wrong for me to end something of so much value.

Oh, so you're appealing to circular reason in-addition to mere pragmatism.

I think that commandment to kill is wrong. What would you do if you were living in that day? Would you have willingly and gladly followed that command, and stoned those that teach a different religion?

Yes. Your hypothetical assumes that God exists (!) and that I'm actually a Jew living in ancient Israel under the temple law. As such, your judgy "gotcha" attempt wouldn't apply, because in this scenario I cannot be judged by a secular non-standard. You would have to flip-flop from the assumption that God literally exists to one where God does not.

Which would make you a hypocrite. Go ahead, prove me right.

And if your hypothetical is not real, then there's nothing for me to worry about.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I didn't ask you if Deuteronomy 13:6-10 applied to you. I asked you if you agree that
it is wrong to kill people as these verses command. That seems like a simple question.

Can I take it that you have no comment on whether it is wrong to kill people that promote a different God from you?

I didn't get from you that the question was about whether someone else had a different god from me or not. For ancient Israel it was necessary at specific times for specific people for specific purposes. Not a blanket commandment. Today we don't have that directive. We don't live in a theocracy, either. Things are quite a bit different.

Seems you didn't, uh, follow what I have said. If God commanded me to kill someone, (and I will add --in contradiction to his Word), I would know it wasn't God who told me. I don't believe in 'new revelation' --that is, that God need add to or subtract from his Word, but I do not deny he can do whatever he chooses. If I thought God told me to kill someone, I don't know what I'd do until the time came. Each situation is different. eg if I was in the army and it was before me to do, I would do it, with the knowledge that God has put me there to do it, even if he didn't tell me directly to do it. If, on the other hand, I was in my present situation and someone I can't stomach "desperately needed killing" I would not do it, even if I heard voices, because it is not mine to do, and is contrary to Scripture.

Also, it should be mentioned that if someone whose care I am charged with --even a neighbor or someone whom I am able to help-- who is under attack for their lives, it is a foregone conclusion that I am to defend them. I don't need to ask God's wisdom. I should already have been doing that.

Does that help? Have we gotten to the clever 'gotcha' point yet?

 

[Kylie]

If God commanded me to kill someone, (and I will add --in contradiction to his Word), I would know it wasn't God who told me.

Didn't God tell people to kill others several times in the OT?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Didn't God tell people to kill others several times in the OT?

Yes. Big time. I don't think you are unintelligent enough to see several differences between their situation and mine, however.

Wondering why you brought that up --testing me?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I didn't ask you if Deuteronomy 13:6-10 applied to you. I asked you if you agree that
it is wrong to kill people as these verses command. That seems like a simple question.

Can I take it that you have no comment on whether it is wrong to kill people that promote a different God from you?


It occurs to me that we are supposed to be discussing issues here and not discussing each other's mindset. Is it too much to ask that you deal with what I say, rather than attacking my supposed mindset?

Well suppose that you think your Maker commands something that most people think is wrong, such as killing people that worship a different God. I would think, in that case, one should do what is right, and refrain from mass murdering those of another religion. It is not clear to me if you would do what is right, or if you would do what you think you are hearing from God. Do you have no desire to claify your views?

Can you please refrain from casting judgement on others?

I have no wish to bend fact to fit "my truth."

I am not here to judge God. I am here to understand if you would commit an atrocity if you thought God wanted you to do it.

I'll give you credit for persistence. If I thought something was an atrocity (NOTE: NOT NECESSARILY WHAT YOU THINK IS AN ATROCITY) No, I would not do it. Happy?

Your question has migrated considerably. You have finally begun to explain your terms. Not, "If God commanded" but "If you thought God commanded". You have also finally made it clear that to you --at least it appears clear to me that you think this-- killing by the command of God is necessarily murder.

When government begins its social engineering mistakes, please bear in mind that I am as unlikely to commit murder as you are. I detest murder, and believe it should be punishable by death at the hand of government.

 

[Kylie]

Yes. Big time. I don't think you are unintelligent enough to see several differences between their situation and mine, however.

Wondering why you brought that up --testing me?

Yes, there are differences, but there are also similarities.

Here's one. What if God told you to kill someone for working on the Sabbath? He did that in Numbers 15:32-36. There are many people in our society who work every day of the week. Should they likewise be stoned if they work on the Sabbath?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, there are differences, but there are also similarities.

Here's one. What if God told you to kill someone for working on the Sabbath? He did that in Numbers 15:32-36. There are many people in our society who work every day of the week. Should they likewise be stoned if they work on the Sabbath?

So see to those differences. You restate the same basic question.

But if you do not know we don't live in a theocracy or how that fact is relevant to the question, I really don't know what to tell you. We are not commanded to kill those who work on the Sabbath, nor for that matter anyone else for their ungodliness.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I didn't get from you that the question was about whether someone else had a different god from me or not.

No problem. If you didn't get my question, I will explain it to you again with a little more detail. Here is my original post with emphasis added:

An example of killing in a way that most of us consider wrongful killing would be:

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) [emphasis added]
​

Do you agree that it is wrong to kill people as these verses command?​

OK, that is what I wrote in the post you responded to. I added some emphasis in bold this time, since you claim you had trouble understanding the question the first time.

Is it now clear what I am asking? Do you or do you not think that it is wrong to kill people for teaching the worship of another god as these verses command?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I'll give you credit for persistence.

See, at least I have some good attributes, huh?

If I thought something was an atrocity (NOTE: NOT NECESSARILY WHAT YOU THINK IS AN ATROCITY) No, I would not do it. Happy?

I have been asking you about the killing commanded in Deuteronomy 13:6-10. You say you wouldn't do it if it was an atrocity.

I have a follow up question. Do you think it is an atrocity?

Your question has migrated considerably. You have finally begun to explain your terms. Not, "If God commanded" but "If you thought God commanded".

Since we have no way of knowing what God commands, the best we can do is go by what we think God commands, yes?

You have also finally made it clear that to you --at least it appears clear to me that you think this-- killing by the command of God is necessarily murder.

Nope. I never said this, or anything remotely close to this. Try again.

I detest murder

 

[doubtingmerle]

But if you do not know we don't live in a theocracy or how that fact is relevant to the question, I really don't know what to tell you. We are not commanded to kill those who work on the Sabbath, nor for that matter anyone else for their ungodliness.

Ah, those who don't live in theocracies should not kill people who work on the Sabbath. Those who do live in theocracies should?

That is one reason why I am opposed to theocracies.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No problem. If you didn't get my question, I will explain it to you again with a little more detail. Here is my original post with emphasis added:

An example of killing in a way that most of us consider wrongful killing would be:

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) [emphasis added]​

Do you agree that it is wrong to kill people as these verses command?​

OK, that is what I wrote in the post you responded to. I added some emphasis in bold this time, since you claim you had trouble understanding the question the first time.

Is it now clear what I am asking? Do you or do you not think that it is wrong to kill people for teaching the worship of another god as these verses command?

Wow. That is the extent of your question? IS wrong? Of course it IS wrong. WAS wrong? NO! It was not wrong back then during that theocracy. I seem to recall there were many other posts having to do with other matters. The only thing I recall about this being your original post is that this is original to you --far from your first post to me proposing an absurd question about God telling me to murder or otherwise to do wrong.

However, I will now try to go back and find that post, just to be sure this was not it.

Ok, here is what I take to be your original post, your original absurd question:

Ah so if we lived in a universe where the God of that universe said murder is good, then we should put our reason on hold and start murdering?

this, msg #182, was posted as if in response to this which I wrote Kylie, I think it was:
Mark Quayle said: ↑
The meaning of 'good' is no less meaningless if we depend on ourselves for its meaning. Fact does not depend on us. We are students, not masters.

Apparently you think that part of the thread is now irrelevant or something, I don't know. I thought you were still dealing with it, trying to defend the usefulness of that absurd question.

So to comment on my answer, IS is not WAS. Murder is wrong, of course, and so we can be sure God would not condone, sanction or command it. Killing is quite another thing. God was not wrong to command the execution he describes in the quote you post (Deuteronomy 13: 6-10). It would, however be wrong for followers of Christ to do so nowadays, as things are a lot different now, including the fact we do not live in a theocracy, and the command was not addressed to us.

FWIW I too detest the notion of a church-ruled public government. We don't need to repeat the last few thousand years. If we had a [supposed] theocracy, even a [purported] 'Christian' government, that brand or sect or denomination would either not be mine or soon would not be mine. Nobody believes quite exactly what I do and I do not want it illegal for me to believe what i do. I love the First Amendment.and consider it very wise. I also love freedom of conscience. I really don't care what the Pope thinks and I shouldn't have to care what the Pope thinks. I have enough problems of my own.

Are we good now? Your original question was absurd, and your 'gotcha' doesn't work.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You're merely shifting from one moral appeal you cannot prove to the next. Why do you need anyone to survive? How many is enough? Doesn't that mean you can kill the rest? I can follow you while you play "kick the can" anywhere you go.

Huh? My statement "First, we need other people in order to survive," was a lead in to a paragraph where I explained what it meant and why this applies to morality.

But in the age of tweets, you break my paragraph into tweets and treat each tweet as though it was a standalone argument.

Complex intellectual arguments are not resolved by tweets. Read the paragraph.

Why is that necessary? Survival? You only need enough to survive as a majority with the biggest stick. You have no objective moral imperative for appealing to "survival."

Seriously? You want to know why relationships are necessary for survival? Try living for a few months on your own without the benefit of anything provided to you by another human, not even a pocketknife, a fishhook, or underwear. If you survive, you can tell us how you successfully found a fulfilling life without any benefit from any other person.

I also note you invoked "survival" instead of "flourishing." Very telling.

Wow. Whole books have been written on morality. I tried to give you the condensed version in two paragraphs. You try to find something missing, and declare victory.

For the record, this was not even missing. I mentioned "decent quality of life".

Which is a "just so" fallacy begging the question. You cannot explain why it's wrong. Utilitarian and pragmatic appeals are fickle and are never a substitute for moral claims.

I explained morality briefly in two paragraphs. If you want a complete discussion, see books like Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism - Richard Carrier - Google Books

I cannot condense the entire content of that book into three tweets.

Yes. Your hypothetical assumes that God exists (!) and that I'm actually a Jew living in ancient Israel under the temple law.

Nowhere did I assume that God exists.

Again, my question was, "Would you have willingly and gladly followed that command, and stoned those that teach a different religion?". You won't tell me your answer?

If somebody asks me if Paulomycin would have willingly and gladly stoned people that teach a different religion, do you want me to say, "I don't know, because he refuses to tell us whether he would?"

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ah, those who don't live in theocracies should not kill people who work on the Sabbath. Those who do live in theocracies should?

That is one reason why I am opposed to theocracies.

No. That is not what I said. Your reduction of what I said into a simplistic trap did not go unnoticed. You didn't even have the subtlety to put it in the form of a question, but issue a condemnation within your claim concerning what I said. Go on with ya!

Not all supposed theocracies are the same, not being under the political rule of the Omnipotent God of all things. IF God is the visible ruler (and it won't happen until it is obviously so) whatever he says is just and pure. Any other theocracy rule, instead, is through a go-between, just as the Pope and his crew pretend to be. The only reason Moses (and later, the priesthood) was that, is because the people couldn't bear the presence of God. And so, the trouble started.

But like I said in another post, I am against theocracies too.

 

[Paulomycin]

Yes, there are differences, but there are also similarities.

Here's one. What if God told you to kill someone for working on the Sabbath? He did that in Numbers 15:32-36. There are many people in our society who work every day of the week. Should they likewise be stoned if they work on the Sabbath?

Are you even familiar with Mosaic due process? Who's gonna put him on trial? Where are the elders? The temple is destroyed. Did you even bother to finish the rest of the Bible?

 

[Paulomycin]

But in the age of tweets, you break my paragraph into tweets and treat each tweet as though it was a standalone argument.

Maybe because you're repeating it like one, and hoping it'll stick?

Complex intellectual arguments are not resolved by tweets. Read the paragraph.

It's not really that complex. This is nothing more than you trying to "proof by assertion" your way out of the general atheist failure to account for morality.

*erasing blackboard*

Have you even heard of the classical "Is-Ought" dilemma? That's why you're struggling here. Atheists can't solve the dilemma, because you can't derive a value from a fact of nature. At best, you have to steal from a Westernized Judeo-Christian ethic and hope you don't get caught.

Seriously?

Seriously. You are drowning in it. Richard Carrier never solved the Is-Ought Dilemma either.

 

[Paulomycin]

Note: If someone is desperate enough to even try to defend Richard Carrier, I already have the book, as well as the criticism of that defense loaded and chambered.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Nowhere did I assume that God exists.

Again, my question was, "Would you have willingly and gladly followed that command, and stoned those that teach a different religion?". You won't tell me your answer?

Was not your hypothetical asking whether God's command to stone someone was wrong? Then it assumes God.

"Willingly and gladly" is not the notion I get from the command, nor do I suppose it was intended to be a sweet and happy thing as commanded. I expect it was, at least originally, a very somber and horrible thing --very effective at making people think twice about doing the crime that results in stoning, particularly those required to participate in the execution.

It amazes me to see you do not consider the explanation that we are not under a theocracy to be an answer.

 

[Paulomycin]

Again, my question was, "Would you have willingly and gladly followed that command, and stoned those that teach a different religion?". You won't tell me your answer?

I clearly stated, "yes," and you completely skipped it. The very thread demonstrates you have a chronic reading problem here.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Was not your hypothetical asking whether God's command to stone someone was wrong? Then it assumes God.

"Willingly and gladly" is not the notion I get from the command, nor do I suppose it was intended to be a sweet and happy thing as commanded. I expect it was, at least originally, a very somber and horrible thing --very effective at making people think twice about doing the crime that results in stoning, particularly those required to participate in the execution.

It amazes me to see you do not consider the explanation that we are not under a theocracy to be an answer.

Do you believe God speaks to you? If so, what does a theocracy have to do with it? Could he not command you to sacrifice your son as he commanded Abraham?

Theocracy or not, did God not command people to kill people who lead them away from God? Was this moral or not? Would you do it or not?