Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

[Mark Quayle]

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?

I am not going to claim God cannot speak to me audibly. Nor can I claim to have heard his clear direction as though he had used words. But "speak to me"? --yes definitely. In fact, the Holy Spirit is called 'the Comforter' for a reason.

Well, no. God commanded a particular people to do a particular thing for a particular time for a particular reason. All those particulars are past. The command given them is not given me. It was moral, it would not be nowadays. Nor is it mine to punish my fellow-man unless designated to do so by the state. (eg, I would not enjoy, but would do my duty if it fell to me to pull the handle to electrocute a man --even if I thought the deed would haunt me the rest of my days.)

Why would he command me to sacrifice my son? The reason for him to tell Abraham to do so is over with. I honestly don't get why this sort of question keeps being asked me. Abraham did not have a government in authority over him, with laws for him to follow, but God. I do not have a part in the story of how the Messiah came to be a man. I really am puzzled. I don't get why you, Kylie, Merle etc seem to think there is some integrity to this line of thinking.
But I think I did answer: If I thought God wanted me to kill my son, unless for example he was on the other side in war, or was engaged in deadly acts upon the defenseless and it fell to me to defend them, I should have my head examined.

I have a brother-in-law who was once overwhelmed with an urgency derived from a sudden repugnance for "the works of man's hands". His logical mind rebelled, of course, but yet he couldn't find a way to deny that God was telling him to get away, kind of Amish-style, from all such things. He knew that even then he would be dependent in many ways on the very thing he had come to detest. As it turns out, he had PTSD and speculates that he had had some exposure to 'Agent Orange" (Vietnam veteran). Even he was intelligent enough to know he should have his head examined. Yet he never could shake that compelling feeling, and so he ended up living (with my sister) in the sticks of Kentucky, off-grid. But they have the 'works of man's hands' to live with anyway. but he has done away with enough to ease his conscience. Nuts? Probably. Does it really matter? Who knows.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I am not going to claim God cannot speak to me audibly. Nor can I claim to have heard his clear direction as though he had used words. But "speak to me"? --yes definitely. In fact, the Holy Spirit is called 'the Comforter' for a reason.

Well, no. God commanded a particular people to do a particular thing for a particular time for a particular reason. All those particulars are past. The command given them is not given me. It was moral, it would not be nowadays. Nor is it mine to punish my fellow-man unless designated to do so by the state. (eg, I would not enjoy, but would do my duty if it fell to me to pull the handle to electrocute a man --even if I thought the deed would haunt me the rest of my days.)

Why would he command me to sacrifice my son? The reason for him to tell Abraham to do so is over with. I honestly don't get why this sort of question keeps being asked me. Abraham did not have a government in authority over him, with laws for him to follow, but God. I do not have a part in the story of how the Messiah came to be a man. I really am puzzled. I don't get why you, Kylie, Merle etc seem to think there is some integrity to this line of thinking.
But I think I did answer: If I thought God wanted me to kill my son, unless for example he was on the other side in war, or was engaged in deadly acts upon the defenseless and it fell to me to defend them, I should have my head examined.

I have a brother-in-law who was once overwhelmed with an urgency derived from a sudden repugnance for "the works of man's hands". His logical mind rebelled, of course, but yet he couldn't find a way to deny that God was telling him to get away, kind of Amish-style, from all such things. He knew that even then he would be dependent in many ways on the very thing he had come to detest. As it turns out, he had PTSD and speculates that he had had some exposure to 'Agent Orange" (Vietnam veteran). Even he was intelligent enough to know he should have his head examined. Yet he never could shake that compelling feeling, and so he ended up living (with my sister) in the sticks of Kentucky, off-grid. But they have the 'works of man's hands' to live with anyway. but he has done away with enough to ease his conscience. Nuts? Probably. Does it really matter? Who knows.

Does God change? Is Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever? If No and Yes, then shouldn't we conclude it was moral to make those commands?

 

[Paulomycin]

I'll try to make this as brief as I can.

Does God change? Is Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever? If No and Yes, then shouldn't we conclude it was moral to make those commands?

Yes, it was moral. The law still applies and it continues to condemn the sinner.

However, God (who does not change) has removed the Jewish temple authority to execute. In short, the judgmental authority has been suspended, and given over to Christ.

One cannot assume that judgement for violation of the law will never happen just because the immediacy of Mosaic due process was suspended. It will happen, but it's simply been delayed on account of grace. This is a literal grace period we are currently living in.

Bottom line: God never changed. The Israelite side of the covenant with God was violated. A lot. <-- That's why a Redeemer was necessary.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Does God change? Is Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever? If No and Yes, then shouldn't we conclude it was moral to make those commands?

Yes, God does not change. He is forever the same. Consistent, true, reliable.

It was indeed moral to make those commands. That doesn't mean his commands all apply universally throughout the ages.

To say that, at least to my mind, would be like saying that since the Government has the power of life and death and can execute, that I can too in any one particular case, without the Government's specific directive.

Also it is worth noting that in many cases where ancient Israel was required to do certain things we find repugnant, there were other matters involved. There was, for example concerning stoning a person to death, what has been called Mosaic due process. One didn't just upon finding a couple engaged in adultery, immediately pick up stones to kill them.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I don't recall saying you needed to. Pretty sure because you can't.

Of course I cannot prove a logician does not exist. I don't need to because I am not making that claim.

Modus Ponens and PSR wouldn't be necessary to "just assert it." You're simply forcing yourself to ignore the method of support.

No, I am asking you to demonstrate that your premise is true.

It's not bullying when you're blatantly rejecting what is probably the strongest and most forceful syllogistic form ever discovered, combined with the Principle of Sufficient Reason. You're literally rejecting reason itself.

Again, instead of supporting your arguments all you do is tell me if I don't agree with you then I am rejecting reason. Why not instead support your claims and answer my questions?

There is no rational evidence for a flat earth at all, because there is no sound presupposition that round earth is false!!! I can't even believe you're defending them.

I agree. However, you don't get to decide what others find convincing. I am not defending them, I think their reasoning skills are subpar, but they are convinced by the evidence and how they evaluate the evidence.

Nope. Feelings aren't facts.

You are confusing belief and what is actually true. People believe things to be true that are false on feelings all the time. I agree that feelings are not good evidence and only lead to truth coincidentally.

It's a proof. Please learn the difference between proof vs. evidence. You demand evidence, because you know there's an inductive escape hatch. This isn't the case with deductive proof. That's why I went with the proof.

How are you using the word proof?

You're not doing anything to actually correct me. Why hide your purported "true" knowledge of the nature of belief? Oh wait, maybe because you're faking it?

It is a long discussion. Please start a new thread if you want to talk about it.

Because there is no difference and you can't demonstrate any. Your pattern is nothing more than some puerile, "I know something you don't know," game but you continually fail to show your work.

You really see no difference between these two statements?

1. I do not believe gods exist.
2. I believe no gods exist.

1. Is a statement of non belief in a claim, it makes no claim at all. 2. Is a positive claim that a god does not exist and thus requires justification. If you don't understand this then we will never be able to communicate effectively.

^ And then, as usual, I have to point out the operative "or" within the definition itself, which makes it deliberately vague on the part of the one trying to fool others with it. Atheists always ignore that little "or;" desperately hoping that I'll overlook it as well. Sorry. Not gonna happen.

Wow, you really think you get to tell others what they think and do. You don't get to tell me how I use the word. This is what I said

What definition are you talking about? Here is a definition:

noun
deficiency or absence of something needed, desirable, or customary: lack of money; lack of skill.
something missing or needed: After he left, they really felt the lack.

So I am using lack as absence which has no relation to a ratio of belief to non belief.

Notice I clearly said I was using the absence definition not the deficiency. Or does not mean both, it means one or the other. So I have an absence of belief that gods exist. It is 100% non belief, which does not mean I am making an opposite claim.

If "deficiency," then you people will always-always refuse to give me any hard numbers, percentages, or ratios, of "how deficient." Which is my point all-along. If you were 100% "deficient," then it would be 100% EQUAL to 100% absence of belief! But if you were say, 99% deficient, then that's a 1% crack in your armor of incredulity that I can exploit. But you can't have that, either. Your only option is to evade the issue altogether.

No, I'm telling you that I have an absence of belief in gods.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

a.) The canon is closed. There is no new direct revelation of God until the Apocalypse. That's the reason why those (completely ignorant) hypotheticals always fail.

b.) Related to 'a,' the speculative question runs against God's Word. This is the gospel dispensation. God does not lie. God does not change His mind. The prophesy is that believers will be the persecuted, and not the persecutors. Any CHRINO who shoots someone and claims "God told me to," is an heretic. IIRC, there are strict rules on CF for this very reason.

These are assertions. How do you know these assertions are true?

 

[Tinker Grey]

It was indeed moral to make those commands. That doesn't mean his commands all apply universally throughout the ages.

But it does mean that circumstances could change and new commands would become applicable. So he could command you to kill like they did in the OT. So would you do it?

 

[Mark Quayle]

But it does mean that circumstances could change and new commands would become applicable. So he could command you to kill like they did in the OT. So would you do it?

Not unless he changed circumstance to make a theocracy under whose rule such commands would be made. Otherwise, it remains a bogus question. God doesn't command anybody to murder.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Not unless he changed circumstance to make a theocracy under whose rule such commands would be made. Otherwise, it remains a bogus question. God doesn't command anybody to murder.

Theocracy is irrelevant. If God spoke to you and told you kill, would you?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Theocracy is irrelevant. If God spoke to you and told you kill, would you?

Convince me it is God telling me to do it... God ahead. Theocracy is not irrelevant, and I can't even imagine God telling me anything that specific, immediate and violent. I'm thinking I'd have to be out of my mind to do it. In other words, almost as absurd as God telling me to murder. .

If you can show me a scenario where it wouldn't be against the law, and wouldn't contradict Scripture, let me know.

 

[doubtingmerle]

"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.

None of this clearly answers the question you are responding to, "Would you have willingly and gladly followed that command, and stoned those that teach a different religion?".

So if somebody asks if Mark Quayle would have willingly and gladly killed those who taught another religion back then, should I tell them that Mark refuses to answer, so we don't know? Or should I tell them Mark would have done it willingly but not gladly?

I clearly stated, "yes," and you completely skipped it.

This is in answer to the same question. At least you have a clear answer. Thank you. So you would have willingly and gladly killed those who did not believe.

And how is it that you do not think it was wrong to kill those of another religion? Because you think God said so?

So is your morality such that, if you had thought you were hearing from God, you would do it, no matter how much the act may appear to be an atrocity to the rest of us?

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

No, I asked you if you would have followed the command to kill. Nowhere did I say that command came from God.

Personally, I think the command came from religious leaders who didn't like that other religions were competing for tithes. Their solution was a doozy: "Kill any priest that teaches another religion. (Then bring all your tithes to me)".

 

[Tinker Grey]

Convince me it is God telling me to do it... God ahead. Theocracy is not irrelevant, and I can't even imagine God telling me anything that specific, immediate and violent. I'm thinking I'd have to be out of my mind to do it. In other words, almost as absurd as God telling me to murder. .

If you can show me a scenario where it wouldn't be against the law, and wouldn't contradict Scripture, let me know.

It's a hypothetical. In this scenario, you *are* convinced that it is God telling you to kill. Would you do it? Doesn't the word of God supersede the laws of man? And, killing someone who is attempting to lead you away from God does not contradict scripture.

 

[Kylie]

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.

Why don't you tell me the differences?

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

Ethical naturalists argue that statements of the form, "If you want X, then you ought to do Y" deduce moral values from the state of what is.

I gave you a brief overview of my basis of morality. It basically follows this form.

At best, you have to steal from a Westernized Judeo-Christian ethic and hope you don't get caught.

Read what I wrote about my basis for morality. Nowhere did I say that morality is based on what Jews and Christians say.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

. In other words, almost as absurd as God telling me to murder.

Or in other words almost as absurd as you not saying no to a simple question. You know the moral answer is no.

 

[Mark Quayle]

None of this clearly answers the question you are responding to, "Would you have willingly and gladly followed that command, and stoned those that teach a different religion?".

So if somebody asks if Mark Quayle would have willingly and gladly killed those who taught another religion back then, should I tell them that Mark refuses to answer, so we don't know? Or should I tell them Mark would have done it willingly but not gladly?

You want me to play your game. If I had been born back in those days, and was one of the Jewish people, and it fell to me to stone someone as required by the law, yes, I would have done it, but not without due process first. Willingly and gladly? --no, I would not be glad to do it, but I would do it.

You want a reason to trap, to mock, or whatever you can get out of it. You even pretend all you had been after to begin with is to find out if I had been one of them back then, and it fell to me to participate in execution by stoning, would I be happy to do it?

All off a bogus question assuming the impossible. You make me wish I had never tried to hold you to reason.

I hope you are disappointed. What an empty conversation this has been!

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, I asked you if you would have followed the command to kill. Nowhere did I say that command came from God.

Personally, I think the command came from religious leaders who didn't like that other religions were competing for tithes. Their solution was a doozy: "Kill any priest that teaches another religion. (Then bring all your tithes to me)".

Merle: "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?"

Merle: "Ok what if you were living in a world were First Cause sanctioned murder. Would you murder?"

Merle: "How do you answer the question I asked Mark? If the First Cause sanctioned murder, would you or would you not sanction murder?"

Merle: "If you thought God was commanding you to take an assault rifle, and kill dozens of people at random, would you do it?"

Merle: "Nowhere did I say that command came from God."

 

[Mark Quayle]

It's a hypothetical. In this scenario, you *are* convinced that it is God telling you to kill. Would you do it? Doesn't the word of God supersede the laws of man? And, killing someone who is attempting to lead you away from God does not contradict scripture.

Haha you just won't give up will you? Let me explain again --God does not contradict himself. If I am convinced God is telling me to do something he tells me not to do, I should have my head examined.

I can only guess your motives for trying to pin me down, so let me help you. I would kick myself in the butt if I thought it was God telling me such a thing.

If the day comes when the world has gone "zombie apocaplypse" and there is no government and the whole paradigm of society's norms are vacated and my mind was lost, it is possible I would be crazy enough to do such a thing, but even that --I don't think so. Again, your hypothetical is not valid. God does not contradict himself. And further, I have no indication that God has any plans to speak directly to anyone anymore, during this life.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Why don't you tell me the differences?

Because it feels incredibly pedantic, not to mention repetitive.

But ok, here's the first simple difference. In the theocracy of ancient Israel, when the commands were given, such as to stone the one who suggests idol worship, GOD was the only ruler, and what he says goes. He had no deputies. HE was the law.

Now we have all sorts of laws, and rulers are put in place by God --both the good and the bad-- for his purposes. I am not to break the laws they put in place, unless they break an obvious law of God.

Both God's law and man's law say do not murder, so I don't.