The Euthyphro Has Finally Been Destroyed. Now What?

[cvanwey]

You assumed "beating" is mandatory. No. It's optional.

Kool. If a slave master opts to beat his slave, and he happens to die from this beating on day 4, is he punished?

 

[Paulomycin]

If a slave master beats their slave, and they die on day 4 from this beating, are they punished????

The book says no, because you cannot predictably fix the situation to result in such an outcome.

 

[Paulomycin]

Great, I'm a deist now.

But I'll accept this as a grudging concession regardless.

 

[cvanwey]

According to logicians. I'm a huge fan of the 2nd Quinque viæ.

The irony is that the proof has been around for so long, that society simply tried to ignore it. . .or sweep it under the rug. But it didn't completely disappear. We're simply subjects of our secular public schooling. That doesn't mean it never existed! lol.

During the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, where did Hume or Kant ever refute any of the classical logical arguments for God's existence? <-- Don't forget that logic is math-based, therefore it constitutes proof.

Only direct citations with book names and quotes, please.

(and this isn't just limited to Hume or Kant. Any other philosopher OR SCIENTIST from the 18th, 19th, or 20th century is acceptable too.)

^ This includes Bertrand Russell. Don't think I'm trying to limit you to one or two individuals.

Wow, I'm glad I ran into you. I guess Romans 1:18-22 IS true. If I deny God's existence, it's either because I'm stupid and/or evil.

I don't really believe you're even a Deist.

I don't quote people too much, but since you are on a roll... Hitchens also stated that even if you were to prove deism, you would still have all your work ahead of you.

So, I have one question...

If a slave master beats their slave, and they die on day 4, does this [objective moral law giver] think that's a-okay?

 

[cvanwey]

The book says no, because you cannot predictably fix the situation to result in such an outcome.

No, you are reading too much into my question. Yes, the master opts to beat his slave. But maybe does not want to kill him. But he gets a little carried away, beats him, and he dies on day 4.

Is this okay for God?

I already know the Biblical answer. I just want to read you say it

 

[Paulomycin]

Wow, I'm glad I ran into you. I guess Romans 1:18-22 IS true. If I deny God's existence, it's either because I'm stupid and/or evil.

Well, that's the entire point. Paul and Kant cannot both be right.

I don't quote people too much, but since you are on a roll... Hitchens also stated that even if you were to prove deism, you would still have all your work ahead of you.

Of course I would. Yet atheism is still defeated. And from here, I have many options. One of my favorites is that, once omnipotence is established, I utilize it as a litmus test for all religious claims. Actually quite easy (and fun, too).

If a slave master beats their slave, and they die on day 4, does this [objective moral law giver] think that's a-okay?

You keep skipping the more than perfectly acceptable answer that I gave: "The book says no, because you cannot predictably fix the situation to result in such an outcome."

And I usually defer to what the book says.

 

[Paulomycin]

No, you are reading too much into my question.

DETAILS MATTER, BUDDY!!!

I already know the Biblical answer. I just want to read you say it

So you can use it as a petty "gotcha" to imply that some evil genius Jew slave-master can plan ahead for that exact outcome? lol. No.

 

[Paulomycin]

I already know the Biblical answer. I just want to read you say it

And if the slave doesn't die, it's an eye for an eye (he'll have to pay for every injury that led to the slave's critical condition).

In either case, I guarantee it's the last slave he'll ever own.

 

[cvanwey]

DETAILS MATTER, BUDDY!!!



So you can use it as a petty "gotcha" to imply that some evil genius Jew slave-master can plan ahead for that exact outcome? lol. No.

Nope, I just think you are using fancy lawyer tricks. I trust you know what I'm driving at... I'm letting you hang yourself ever so slowly. Let's try this again... I'll keep adding all the qualifiers you wish to add.

I acquire a slave. I have not converted him yet. He is also from, let's say... Russia. I whip him. 4 days later, he dies from infection. I did not mean to kill him. I did not realize he would die so easily. Is God a-okay with this?

 

[cvanwey]

And if the slave doesn't die, it's an eye for an eye (he'll have to pay for every injury that led to the slave's critical condition).

In either case, I guarantee it's the last slave he'll ever own.

You still have not answered the very simple and direct question. Why is that?

Is God okay with it?

 

[Paulomycin]

Nope, I just think you are using fancy lawyer tricks.

No. Details really do matter. And thanks for the compliment.

I trust you know what I'm driving at...

You want to accuse "God" or "The Biblical text" of condoning murder, when it's more like manslaughter. That's the eisegetical presuppositon you've built it on. And you've lost track of it.

 

[Paulomycin]

You still have not answered the very simple and direct question. Why is that?

Because you're angling for a cheap "gotcha," and you hate when details get in the way?

 

[cvanwey]

No. Details really do matter. And thanks for the compliment.



You want to accuse "God" or "The Biblical text" of condoning murder, when it's more like manslaughter. That's the eisegetical presuppositon you've built it on. And you've lost track of it.

Please answer the question. You are applying a response, but not answering my direct question.

 

[cvanwey]

Because you're angling for a cheap "gotcha," and you hate when details get in the way?

Is this as close to a concession as you are going to apply? That God is okay, as long as the death occurs on day 4?

 

[Paulomycin]

Please answer the question. You are applying a response, but not answering my direct question.

I've provided a highly detailed response. In fact, the more I think about it, the more details I can add to it. So thank you! I appreciate the opportunity.

*white flag* Parlay on the field?

Can we settle on God being "okay" with manslaughter? In this case, Deut 19 cannot apply.

Hello?

 

[cvanwey]

I've provided a highly detailed response. In fact, the more I think about it, the more details I can add to it. So thank you! I appreciate the opportunity.

*white flag* Parlay on the field?

Can we settle on God being "okay" with manslaughter? In this case, Deut 19 cannot apply.

Hello?

No highly detailed response is necessary. Multiple requests and counting...

I acquire a slave. I have not converted him yet. He is also from, let's say... Russia. I whip him. 4 days later, he dies from infection. I did not mean to kill him. I did not realize he would die so easily. Is God a-okay with this?

 

[Paulomycin]

No highly detailed response is necessary. Multiple requests and counting...

I acquire a slave. I have not converted him yet. He is also from, let's say... Russia. I whip him. 4 days later, he dies from infection. I did not mean to kill him. I did not realize he would die so easily. Is God a-okay with this?

There's nothing "highly detailed" about manslaughter.

 

[cvanwey]

There's nothing "highly detailed" about manslaughter.

God states that the master is not to be punished, but only if the slave lives passed 48 hours.

Please answer the question:

I acquire a slave. I have not converted him yet. He is also from, let's say... Russia. I whip him. 4 days later, he dies from infection. I did not mean to kill him. I did not realize he would die so easily. Is God a-okay with this?

 

[Paulomycin]

Please answer the question:

I acquire a slave. I have not converted him yet. He is also from, let's say... Russia. I whip him. 4 days later, he dies from infection. I did not mean to kill him. I did not realize he would die so easily. Is God a-okay with this?

I will say "yes," if you admit that it's manslaughter.

DEAL, OR NO DEAL?

 

[cvanwey]

I will say "yes," if you admit that it's manslaughter.

DEAL, OR NO DEAL?

There's no bargaining in truth. You agreed with me all along. You just did not want to admit it... I had to ask you 15 times, to get an honest answer.