How could you tell?

[super animator]

You could.

But my question can't be answered by putting the burden on me.

Still a valid question.

Sure and dandy, but there are things that we based on which are called axioms that we have blind faith or trust in those certain axioms that we based our premise on it. If there are no axioms, only premise then we can't never found out if it's true in the first place, because you can question it's premise to no end which is the result of it's infinity nature.

Besides we tend to trust other by default until a valid reason on why we should distrust others is shown us. You can't get anywhere in life without putting trust in the line.

 

[Non sequitur]

Sure and dandy, but there are things that we based on which are called axioms that we have blind faith or trust in those certain axioms that we based our premise on it. If there are no axioms, only premise then we can't never found out if it's true in the first place, because you can question it's premise to no end which is the result of it's infinity nature.

Well, this isn't about a mathematical axiom. So, you are talking about a premise or starting point for reasoning; a self-evident proposition.

Classically, a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.

But an axiom deals with tangible things - when an equal amount is taken from equals, an equal amount results. Or a finite whole is greater than, or equal to, any of its parts.

We can demonstrate a "whole", "equal" and "parts".

We know falsehoods, however your problem arises when you throw in "God" into things. It's in no way, shape or form demonstrable; you can't relate to it, as you can the other things.

We don't have "blind faith or trust in those certain axioms that we based our premise on it", because your premise has to be based on something. And you have no premise with/for "God"... unless you are cheating.

Besides we tend to trust other by default until a valid reason on why we should distrust others is shown us. You can't get anywhere in life without putting trust in the line.

Some might and some might not. However, this is no good argument for something.

"Well, trust first. Find out later. That's how I operate!" That's just silly.

You can't get anywhere in life without walking. Also, you can get ran over by a bus. This "trust on the line" stuff might make a good Hallmark card, but that's pretty sophomoric.

All of these reasons you gave are either arguments from ignorance or special pleading.

You still have the problem of could you.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Great. Back on track.

How could you know/discern in your god was lying?

OK, to start with let's agree that wherever we get our moral values from we both recognise good from bad, and we would have the same understanding of those terms.

We also understand "love" in the same way as each other.

So when we are told by God to love one another and to do to others as we would have done to us, you and I both recognise that there are no negative connotations in those commands.

God also asks us to love Him. As we believe that we are not the result of a series of happy but accidental mutations living on a rock that appeared from nowhere, from nothing, with no catalyst, we tend to favour the existence of the God whom we believe gives us life. And as this same God commands us to love and respect each other it seems valid that we should at the very least include Him in that love.

I'm ignoring everything to do with the incarnation and its reasons for now.

So now we have to decide whether God is lying to us. To do that we have to examine potential motives and potential alternatives and their motives.

Firstly, is good better than evil? We will no doubt agree that in our shared understanding, good is preferable. So getting us to understand that good is better than evil, and to practice good alone, must in itself be a good thing.

Loving and respecting each other seems to me to have no possible evil connotation. In a previous post you said,

"Have you never seen a movie (or real life situation) in which the bad guy, leading everybody to believe everything he's doing is for good, actually served some nefarious means but NOBODY KNEW UNTIL AFTER THE FACT?

I mean, pick something on the opposing side of whatever political view you hold and you've got tons of examples, just to start".

The problem is you're comparing the motives of men dealing with men with the motives of God dealing with men. For the sake of this discussion you've assumed that God exists and I presume is all powerful. There would be no need for God to lie to us when He could achieve anything with a command, and to believe that He's tricking us into being what you and I know is the right thing would seem pointless.

OK, you may say He's playing a game. While we don't know of God's motivation for creation itself, it still seems massively unlikely that our doing good will have an evil outcome. I guess you'd have to give me an example of how you think and omnipotent, omniscient being could fool us into unwittingly producing evil by being good before I could argue the point, because I can't think of one.

If, however, God was to tell me (somehow?) that my killing my children was a command for "good", I would refuse and stop worshipping that God, because it is out of character for the God I believe I know and who has been revealed in scripture, in creation, and in my understanding.

So like you, I use discernment, my own judgement to see right from wrong, and as our judgement on such matters is likely to be the same, I feel it likely that this whole question is hypothetical insofar as I'm sure you don't believe that God, if He exists for you, is evil any more than I do. And as you don't even believe He exists, all the more hypothetical.

 

[HitchSlap]

OK, to start with let's agree that wherever we get our moral values from we both recognise good from bad, and we would have the same understanding of those terms.

We also understand "love" in the same way as each other.

So when we are told by God to love one another and to do to others as we would have done to us, you and I both recognise that there are no negative connotations in those commands.

God also asks us to love Him. As we believe that we are not the result of a series of happy but accidental mutations living on a rock that appeared from nowhere, from nothing, with no catalyst, we tend to favour the existence of the God whom we believe gives us life. And as this same God commands us to love and respect each other it seems valid that we should at the very least include Him in that love.

I'm ignoring everything to do with the incarnation and its reasons for now.

So now we have to decide whether God is lying to us. To do that we have to examine potential motives and potential alternatives and their motives.

Firstly, is good better than evil? We will no doubt agree that in our shared understanding, good is preferable. So getting us to understand that good is better than evil, and to practice good alone, must in itself be a good thing.

Loving and respecting each other seems to me to have no possible evil connotation. In a previous post you said,

"Have you never seen a movie (or real life situation) in which the bad guy, leading everybody to believe everything he's doing is for good, actually served some nefarious means but NOBODY KNEW UNTIL AFTER THE FACT?

I mean, pick something on the opposing side of whatever political view you hold and you've got tons of examples, just to start".

The problem is you're comparing the motives of men dealing with men with the motives of God dealing with men. For the sake of this discussion you've assumed that God exists and I presume is all powerful. There would be no need for God to lie to us when He could achieve anything with a command, and to believe that He's tricking us into being what you and I know is the right thing would seem pointless.

OK, you may say He's playing a game. While we don't know of God's motivation for creation itself, it still seems massively unlikely that our doing good will have an evil outcome. I guess you'd have to give me an example of how you think and omnipotent, omniscient being could fool us into unwittingly producing evil by being good before I could argue the point, because I can't think of one.

If, however, God was to tell me (somehow?) that my killing my children was a command for "good", I would refuse and stop worshipping that God, because it is out of character for the God I believe I know and who has been revealed in scripture, in creation, and in my understanding.

So like you, I use discernment, my own judgement to see right from wrong, and as our judgement on such matters is likely to be the same, I feel it likely that this whole question is hypothetical insofar as I'm sure you don't believe that God, if He exists for you, is evil any more than I do. And as you don't even believe He exists, all the more hypothetical.

Do you think Abraham should have stopped worshiping god when he told him to kill Isaac?

 

[crimsonleaf]

Do you think Abraham should have stopped worshiping god when he told him to kill Isaac?

It's not pertinent to the discussion. God stopped him killing the his son, so Abraham trusted God - rightly.

 

[HitchSlap]

It's not pertinent to the discussion. God stopped him killing the his son, so Abraham trusted God - rightly.

You said this:

"If, however, God was to tell me (somehow?) that my killing my children was a command for "good", I would refuse and stop worshipping[SIC] that God, because it is out of character for the God I believe I know and who has been revealed in scripture, in creation, and in my understanding."

Are you stating that you wouldn't even have begun to raise your knife to your son, as Abraham did? Or you would just stop worshiping him the moment god asked you to kill your child?

 

[crimsonleaf]

You said this:

"If, however, God was to tell me (somehow?) that my killing my children was a command for "good", I would refuse and stop worshipping[SIC] that God, because it is out of character for the God I believe I know and who has been revealed in scripture, in creation, and in my understanding."

Are you stating that you wouldn't even have begun to raise your knife to your son, as Abraham did? Or you would just stop worshiping him the moment god asked you to kill your child?

Ok, I apologise. I missed the link.

The answer is no, I wouldn't lift the knife. Sacrifice has been abolished by the single act of Christ's crucifixion. If I believed that God asked me to kill my child I'd seek medical help.

 

[HitchSlap]

Ok, I apologise. I missed the link.

The answer is no, I wouldn't lift the knife. Sacrifice has been abolished by the single act of Christ's crucifixion. If I believed that God asked me to kill my child I'd seek medical help.

You seem to be suggesting that at one point in time, child sacrifice was acceptable to god?

 

[Non sequitur]

OK, to start with let's agree that wherever we get our moral values from we both recognise good from bad, and we would have the same understanding of those terms.

We also understand "love" in the same way as each other.

So when we are told by God to love one another and to do to others as we would have done to us, you and I both recognise that there are no negative connotations in those commands.

God also asks us to love Him. As we believe that we are not the result of a series of happy but accidental mutations living on a rock that appeared from nowhere, from nothing, with no catalyst, we tend to favour the existence of the God whom we believe gives us life. And as this same God commands us to love and respect each other it seems valid that we should at the very least include Him in that love.

I'm ignoring everything to do with the incarnation and its reasons for now.

So now we have to decide whether God is lying to us. To do that we have to examine potential motives and potential alternatives and their motives.

I don't think you could possibly begin to understand the potential motives of a god. What is your jumping off point? If you say you could, what else is similar to a god's motives that you can compare and contrast them with?

Firstly, is good better than evil? We will no doubt agree that in our shared understanding, good is preferable. So getting us to understand that good is better than evil, and to practice good alone, must in itself be a good thing.

Loving and respecting each other seems to me to have no possible evil connotation. In a previous post you said,

"Have you never seen a movie (or real life situation) in which the bad guy, leading everybody to believe everything he's doing is for good, actually served some nefarious means but NOBODY KNEW UNTIL AFTER THE FACT?

I mean, pick something on the opposing side of whatever political view you hold and you've got tons of examples, just to start".

The problem is you're comparing the motives of men dealing with men with the motives of God dealing with men. For the sake of this discussion you've assumed that God exists and I presume is all powerful. There would be no need for God to lie to us when He could achieve anything with a command, and to believe that He's tricking us into being what you and I know is the right thing would seem pointless.

Argument from ignorance and special pleading.

OK, you may say He's playing a game. While we don't know of God's motivation for creation itself, it still seems massively unlikely that our doing good will have an evil outcome. I guess you'd have to give me an example of how you think and omnipotent, omniscient being could fool us into unwittingly producing evil by being good before I could argue the point, because I can't think of one.

Special pleading.

If, however, God was to tell me (somehow?) that my killing my children was a command for "good", I would refuse and stop worshipping that God, because it is out of character for the God I believe I know and who has been revealed in scripture, in creation, and in my understanding.

So, when God told Abraham to kill Issac, was that out of character? Should he have refused and stopped worshiping God?

This creates a problem, because you said it is out of character for the god you believe. Yet he did.

(I would ask you to not talk about after-the-fact things, "But he stopped it", as your statement was talking about before that.)

So like you, I use discernment, my own judgement to see right from wrong, and as our judgement on such matters is likely to be the same, I feel it likely that this whole question is hypothetical insofar as I'm sure you don't believe that God, if He exists for you, is evil any more than I do. And as you don't even believe He exists, all the more hypothetical.

Still, you have the problem of could you tell. Your only responses are arguments from ignorance and special pleading.

Can you offer anything, besides those two fallacies?

 

[crimsonleaf]

You seem to be suggesting that at one point in time, child sacrifice was acceptable to god?

No, animal sacrifice was. Abraham was a one-off which didn't result in anyone's death.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I don't think you could possibly begin to understand the potential motives of a god. What is your jumping off point? If you say you could, what else is similar to a god's motives that you can compare and contrast them with?



Argument from ignorance and special pleading.



Special pleading.



So, when God told Abraham to kill Issac, was that out of character? Should he have refused and stopped worshiping God?

This creates a problem, because you said it is out of character for the god you believe. Yet he did.

(I would ask you to not talk about after-the-fact things, "But he stopped it", as your statement was talking about before that.)



Still, you have the problem of could you tell. Your only responses are arguments from ignorance and special pleading.

Can you offer anything, besides those two fallacies?

I stick by what I've written because it's written from a Christian perspective. We claim a revealed understanding of God which you do not share, so further discussion is likely to prove unfruitful. You will challenge my claim, just as I would have during my many years of active atheism.

 

[super animator]

Well, this isn't about a mathematical axiom.

It's used in philosophy and in mathematics.

So, you are talking about a premise or starting point for reasoning; a self-evident proposition.

Classically, a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.

A starting-point have nothing to do with self-evident is just a axiom that we work with. Being self-evident just begs the question.

But an axiom deals with tangible things - when an equal amount is taken from equals, an equal amount results. Or a finite whole is greater than, or equal to, any of its parts.


We can demonstrate a "whole", "equal" and "parts".

An axiom does not always deal with tangible things, we have notation such as infinity and imaginary numbers and so forth. Nor they have to demonstrate in real life in order to work in mathematics.

We don't have "blind faith or trust in those certain axioms that we based our premise on it", because your premise has to be based on something.

Of course they do, otherwise they be called axioms.

Some might and some might not. However, this is no good argument for something.

What are you talking about!?

"Well, trust first. Find out later. That's how I operate!" That's just silly.

If your inaccurately oversimplifying on what I said than yes it's is silly.

You can't get anywhere in life without walking. Also, you can get ran over by a bus. This "trust on the line" stuff might make a good Hallmark card, but that's pretty sophomoric.

Again what are you talking about?!

All of these reasons you gave are either arguments from ignorance or special pleading.

You need to show me where and explain, instead of simply stating it.

 

[Non sequitur]

I stick by what I've written because it's written from a Christian perspective. We claim a revealed understanding of God which you do not share, so further discussion is likely to prove unfruitful. You will challenge my claim, just as I would have during my many years of active atheism.

If your perspective is false, based on whatever understanding (whether I understand it or not is irrelevant), you are not correct.

If you can't discern the difference between truth and not truth from a god, it's circular to try and place its properties before you make an assessment.

You understand the predicament, you are just choosing to ignore it.

I just wish you would be honest your conclusions.


Let's try this. Questions, no responses that are questions.

How could you tell/discern if a god was lying?

 

[HitchSlap]

No, animal sacrifice was. Abraham was a one-off which didn't result in anyone's death.

How do you know it was a "one-off?" Maybe god has asked others to commit human sacrifice without it being recorded in the Bible? Assuming god asked you to sacrifice your child, would you?

 

[Non sequitur]

It's used in philosophy and in mathematics.
A starting-point have nothing to do with self-evident is just a axiom that we work with. Being self-evident just begs the question.
An axiom does not always deal with tangible things, we have notation such as infinity and imaginary numbers and so forth. Nor they have to demonstrate in real life in order to work in mathematics.

You don't have infinity and imaginary numbers, without finite and real numbers; they are linked. Finite and numbers are tangible and demonstrable.

These axioms are an opposite of something tangible, especially something that you can relate to.

finite : infinite
numbers : imaginary numbers

god : not-god
god : opposite of god
god : ?

What's the opposite of "God"? What is a "not-God"? They seem equal. What can you even begin to relate it to? No baseline.

Of course they do, otherwise they be called axioms.


What are you talking about!?
If your inaccurately oversimplifying on what I said than yes it's is silly.
Again what are you talking about?!

You need to show me where and explain, instead of simply stating it.

I did. I bolded your words in the post I replied to.

- Loving and respecting each other seems to me to have no possible evil connotation
- you're comparing the motives of men dealing with men with the motives of God dealing with men
- seems massively unlikely that our doing good will have an evil outcome

Argument from emotion, argument from ignorance/special pleading, argument form emotion.

 

[Non sequitur]

If, however, God was to tell me (somehow?) that my killing my children was a command for "good", I would refuse and stop worshipping that God, because it is out of character for the God I believe I know and who has been revealed in scripture, in creation, and in my understanding.

I noticed you didn't respond to this and it was omitted from your response.

So, when God told Abraham to kill Issac, was that out of character? Should he have refused and stopped worshiping God?

This creates a problem, because you said it is out of character for the god you believe. Yet he did.

(I would ask you to not talk about after-the-fact things, "But he stopped it", as your statement was talking about before that.)

Well?

 

[super animator]

You don't have infinity and imaginary numbers, without finite and real numbers; they are linked.

Prove it.

Finite and numbers are tangible and demonstrable.

Finite and numbers are axioms which is the foundation that we used in everyday to day life. Not the other way around.

These axioms are an opposite of something tangible, especially something that you can relate to.

No they're not simply "opposite of something tangible", they are the starting points that we based our premise on.

finite : infinite
numbers : imaginary numbers

Any serious mathematician do not treat this to simply be opposite of each other.

god : not-god
god : opposite of god
god : ?

What's the opposite of "God"? What is a "not-God"? They seem equal. What can you even begin to relate it to? No baseline.

Your going off a tangent here. I never said anything concerning god here.

I did. I bolded your words in the post I replied to.

- Loving and respecting each other seems to me to have no possible evil connotation
- you're comparing the motives of men dealing with men with the motives of God dealing with men
- seems massively unlikely that our doing good will have an evil outcome

Argument from emotion, argument from ignorance/special pleading, argument form emotion.

I didn't say those words someone else did. Your confusing me with someone else.

 

[Non sequitur]

Prove it.

Ok. What is an imaginary number?

If your answer contains "number", then I've proven they are linked; starting with something tangible and demonstrable.

Finite and numbers are axioms which is the foundation that we used in everyday to day life. Not the other way around.

I didn't say they weren't. Again, finite and numbers are still tangible and demonstrable.

No they're not simply "opposite of something tangible", they are the starting points that we based our premise on.
Any serious mathematician do not treat this to simply be opposite of each other.

I'm not saying they are opposite or have to be. But the starting point you base your premise on is tangible and demonstrable.

Your going off a tangent here. I never said anything concerning god here.
I didn't say those words someone else did. Your confusing me with someone else.

My bad. I got you confused with crimsonleaf.


I still don't understand where you are going with this.

You aren't arguing, we can't know anything. Your foundation seems to be "blind faith or trust in those certain axioms that we based our premise on it". Essentially, a premise is an assumption that something is true.

How can you objectively have an assumption on a god? What is your foundation built upon? How could you know it's true?

 

[HitchSlap]

How do you know it was a "one-off?" Maybe god has asked others to commit human sacrifice without it being recorded in the Bible? Assuming god asked you to sacrifice your child, would you?

Bumped**

I would like hear CrimsonLeaf's answer to this.

 

[Non sequitur]

Very much so.

Also this:

So, when God told Abraham to kill Issac, was that out of character? Should he have refused and stopped worshiping God?

This creates a problem, because you said it is out of character for the god you believe. Yet he did.

(I would ask you to not talk about after-the-fact things, "But he stopped it", as your statement was talking about before that.)

I see a huge conflict in any answer, but welcome one.