Which Button Would You Push?

[durangodawood]

Me too. Although I can see a justification to push A.....

Button A assumes a world so outrageously different from ours that I cant make heads or tails of it. A button/machine/mind that knows the future? The implications are so mysterious as to make moral reasoning almost impossible.

 

[Paulomycin]

Why does that make it good for God to kill them?

Because being born in sin automatically forfeits any entitlement to life. That's what the curse of the fall in Eden is all about. That's the main theme in the entire redemption narrative. That's still true, even when reading the Bible as pure fiction.

The text says that God ordered Saul to kill the infants. I am not making an argument. My question is why is it good for God to kill infants? That is not an appeal to emotion.

Because being born in sin automatically forfeits any entitlement to life. That's what the curse of the fall in Eden is all about. That's the main theme in the entire redemption narrative. That's still true, even when reading the Bible as pure fiction.

 

[Paulomycin]

No its not a fallacy. Its the topic: how to think about God doing a "very wrong thing". Sometime very wrong things also have emotional content. That doesnt make it a fallacy to discuss them.

It is "the topic" that you people are leveraging as an argumentative accusation.

The fact is, that this side of the rapture, God kills pretty much everyone including women and children.

That is a brute fact of nature.

Atheists cannot derive a value from a fact (see: "Is-Ought"). Atheists are appealing to someone's general god-given prejudice against killing babies. Because it is God alone, including those God-granted lawful institutions, who get to decide the grim reality of who lives and who dies.

And trying to conceal it all as a faux-discussion isn't fooling anyone here.

 

[durangodawood]

It is "the topic" that you people are leveraging as an argumentative accusation.

The fact is, that this side of the rapture, God kills pretty much everyone including women and children.

That is a brute fact of nature.

Atheists cannot derive a value from a fact (see: "Is-Ought"). Atheists are appealing to someone's general god-given prejudice against killing babies. Because it is God alone, including those God-granted lawful institutions, who get to decide the grim reality of who lives and who dies.

And trying to conceal it all as a faux-discussion isn't fooling anyone here.

So topics that might be distressing are just off limits?

Not buying it.

Plus in the face of it all youve made a perfectly good faith-based defense of the incident in question. So whats the problem?

 

[Paulomycin]

So topics that might be distressing are just off limits?

No. Don't attempt to strawman my position. Go back and actually read my post.

 

[Paulomycin]

Plus in the face of it all youve made a perfectly good faith-based defense of the incident in question. So whats the problem?

No, it's based in logic and narrative content. What part of "even when read as pure fiction" are you missing here?

 

[durangodawood]

No. Don't attempt to strawman my position. Go back and actually read my post.

Brutality (real or apparent) is naturally emotionally charged. There's is no emotionally neutral example to draw from.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Why do you say nothing? This is in your Bible. How have you reconciled this with your belief that God is good?

It is not for me to destroy. And yes, I have reconciled God's perogative to eliminate wickedness.

 

[Paulomycin]

Brutality (real or apparent) is naturally emotionally charged. There's is no emotionally neutral example to draw from.

"Naturally emotionally charged" is easy cover for a deliberate appeal to emotion fallacy. If it wasn't "naturally emotionally charged," then it wouldn't be the "go-to" atheist argument. Atheists need "naturally emotionally charged" examples in-order to leverage their emotional arguments.

 

[Halbhh]

doing nothing kills no one.

If only.

 

[durangodawood]

"Naturally emotionally charged" is easy cover for a deliberate appeal to emotion fallacy. If it wasn't "naturally emotionally charged," then it wouldn't be the "go-to" atheist argument. Atheists need "naturally emotionally charged" examples in-order to leverage their emotional arguments.

Ok, that there is just your screed against those two faced bad-faith atheist arguers.

But a good-faith atheist arguer might pick the exact same example when questioning how God could apparently contradict what we think of as goodness.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If only.

If you don't push button A and you don't push button B, then for this hypothetical you've killed no one. It's really not hard to understand.

 

[Paulomycin]

Ok, that there is just your screed against those two faced bad-faith atheist arguers.

Not at all. In fact, it was quite short.

But a good-faith atheist arguer might pick the exact same example when questioning how God could apparently contradict what we think of as goodness.

"We?" Speak for yourself. Again, you have zero objective evidence of any universal standard of "good." Morality is a universal claim. At best, all atheists can do in-general is conflate morality with ethics, which are societal. I've never claimed the existence of some comic-book form of dualism. That's a westernized TV/film cultural morality, which there is no proof or evidence to support.

 

[durangodawood]

...."We?" Speak for yourself. Again, you have zero objective evidence of any universal standard of "good." Morality is a universal claim. At best, all atheists can do in-general is conflate morality with ethics, which are societal. I've never claimed the existence of some comic-book form of dualism. That's a westernized TV/film cultural morality, which there is no proof or evidence to support.

Either way about typical notions of morality, my point stands about this particular example not necessarily indicating bad faith argumentation.

 

[Paulomycin]

Either way about typical notions of morality, my point stands about this particular example not necessarily indicating bad faith argumentation.

Okay, I'll ease up on you.

 

[durangodawood]

Okay, I'll ease up on you.

Thats very nice of you. Now I'm appealing to emotion by calling you nice.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT


This thread is closed for review.

This is not a Christian apologetic forum.

​

 

[Joy]

MOD HAT ON

After Staff Review
This Thread
is Now
Permanently Closed

RV: Off-Topic

This is not a forum where Christians are asked to defend their faith against objections and criticism from non-believers.

Non-Christian members who would like to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices, should start a thread in the Christian Apologetics forum.
​

MOD HAT OFF​