Howdy Guest!  / Create an account
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Can you accept that Man is greater than God?
#11
(11-29-2017, 07:56 PM)KaelisRa Wrote:
Quote:I will answer each of those points on this premise: God either exists or he does not.

(08-17-2017, 08:56 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: Can you accept that Man is greater than God?
We can think. God cannot.

If God doesn't exist, then God cannot think, you are right. Man is greater.
If God does exist and cannot think, then we cannot hold him to a moral standard. Someone is only morally culpable, if they are aware of the immorality of their actions, and commit to them anyways.
As you DO hold God to a moral standard, God CAN think. God is at par with man.

Most of us would not use genocide when able to cure as well as kill the way God is said to be able to do.

Does that fact not put God below par?

Quote:
(08-17-2017, 08:56 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: We can reproduce true. God cannot.

If God doesn't exist, then no he cannot reproduce. Man is greater.
If God does exist, we must examine reproduction. When we reproduce a set of deterministic factors remove the control that we have over the outcome of our offspring. This could lead to any number of genetic deformities and maladies. God can create life, which is different from reproduction, as he has total control over the life he chooses to create. God is greater.

Are you suggesting that God would stand proud to admit he created what this link shows?

Would you stand proud if you created those abominations?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_-nHw0_...r_embedded

Quote:
(08-17-2017, 08:56 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: We can have many children. God cannot.

If God doesn't exist, then no He can't. God is greater. Seriously, the fact that you can have "many children" shows just how stupid the world is to reproduce to a point where the planet and the parents cannot sustain their families. God not even existing is better than we are.

I was showing ability and not the wise use of it. I can sustain my family, no problem.

Quote:If God does exist, creation vs reproduction takes place again, and God wins in that category. With no control over the number and quality of our offspring, God is better.

See above and recognize that God is quite the poor creator.

Quote:
(08-17-2017, 08:56 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: We place the lives of our wives and families above our own. God does not.

If God doesn't exist, God cannot prioritize thusly. However, not everyone chooses their wives and families above their own. Look to the statistics to see the number of single mothers, welfare-children, and history in general. Even if God doesn't exist, we lose to ourselves in this category.
If God does exist, you cannot assume His priorities. You can't guess the thoughts and priorities of your neighbour or wife, let alone a divine being. If everyone was able to see the world from the perspective of another, we would have infinitely less conflict. God is equal to us, at least.

You say after showing our flaws. Not much of a god I agree.

You are putting many limitations on God. So much for his Omni-everything.

Quote:
(08-17-2017, 08:56 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: We would cure instead of kill. God kills.

If God doesn't exist, he can't kill. God is greater, because we DO kill. Every day. Both discriminately and indiscriminately. Through hate and love. God is greater.
If God does exist, He still hasn't killed. Any story you could point to either has a man killing in His name, or an otherworldly being killing people and man attributing it to His name. Your claim in unfounded. God is greater.

If you are going to use scriptures to show God's good, while ignoring scriptures that show God as evil, then your honesty comes into question.

(08-17-2017, 08:56 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: We do not torture babies. God does.

Quote:Now we're getting ridiculous...but I'll humour you.

??

Have you rejected the King David story of God torturing David's baby for 6 days before finally killing it?

Do try not to cherry pick so much.

Quote:If God doesn't exist, He cannot torture babies. Unfortunately, we can and do. Look at the news. God is greater (even without existing).
If God does exist, there are verses that describe God showing himself as a tiny speck over the horizon by a mountain, and it nearly killed a man. I find the direct influence of God, to torture a baby, laughable because of this. It is a ridiculous notion that doesn't follow how the events would unfold: God appears so as to torture baby. The entire region bursts into flame and dies...God is mightier.

Do you also reject the whole flood story where God drowns many innocent babies and children. Or do you not see drowning someone as torture just before killing them?

Quote:
(08-17-2017, 08:56 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: We believe in freedom. God does not.

If God doesn't exist, He can't believe in freedom. Man is greater.
If God does exist, your claim is unfounded. God, having created man-kind, left us with the freedom of choice. This freedom is the single greatest gift that man-kind could hold. It gives you your right and ability to say stupid things like: We do not torture babies. God does.
So important is the concept of freedom, that you need to choose to freely believe in God and Jesus, and love them both for acceptance into heaven. Thus, you are wrong. God is greater.

Can you choose to freely believe if you believe that their is a hell for all who reject the genocidal God?

You also seem to think we have a choice to not sin. That cannot be so or we would have some examples of people that do not sin.

IOW, you do not have that free choice.

Quote:
(08-17-2017, 08:56 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: Jesus does which is why he took the judgement seat from His Father.

If Jesus took the judgement seat from His father, it is because He took responsibility for the actions of every generation and future generation of person.

Jesus was a Jew. Do you think he would ignore the moral Jewish teachings which say that he cannot take our responsibility for our own actions and sins?

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Quote:Your general manager at McDonald's gets in trouble with the upper-brass, because his subordinates are his responsibility. The upper-brass don't care about the underlings, it just means they haven't been trained properly or fired for being sub-par. The GM then passes judgement on their staff, as to who gets to stay a part of this McDick family. See what I mean?

Yes. What you are saying is that God screwed up his executive line when he created it as incompetent.

You do recognize that this is a genocidal son murdering God we are discussing. Right?

Regards
DL
Reply
#12
(12-02-2017, 12:23 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: You do recognize that this is a genocidal son murdering God we are discussing. Right?

Regards
DL

Dude, you can't assume that God is real, and then remove all the properties of a sentient being, while maintaining that moral rigor still applies to him. Logic doesn't work that way....

Furthermore, did you live during the time when God, in a genocidal manner, killed all of these sons? What's scarier is if God truly doesn't exist, and man was responsible for all of those catastrophes. Then, they created a deity and blamed him in a book, which would then lead to the founding of the basis for your gnostic bias. Perhaps it isn't really God you hate, but the mirror that this holds up to humanity as a whole.
Reply
#13
(12-04-2017, 02:22 PM)KaelisRa Wrote:
(12-02-2017, 12:23 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: You do recognize that this is a genocidal son murdering God we are discussing. Right?

Regards
DL

Dude, you can't assume that God is real, and then remove all the properties of a sentient being, while maintaining that moral rigor still applies to him. Logic doesn't work that way....

Furthermore, did you live during the time when God, in a genocidal manner, killed all of these sons? What's scarier is if God truly doesn't exist, and man was responsible for all of those catastrophes. Then, they created a deity and blamed him in a book, which would then lead to the founding of the basis for your gnostic bias. Perhaps it isn't really God you hate, but the mirror that this holds up to humanity as a whole.

I would agree that the supernatural Gods are all myths.

The problem is that theists do believe that that immoral genocidal son murdering prick is real and yet they can somehow label him as good.

I can apply my moral rigor to him because as Gen3 says, A & E, which is all of us, can become as God's in the knowing of good and evil.

Regards
DL
Reply
#14
If he doesn't exist, you cannot hold him to a moral standard. I can't hold the imaginary dragon in my house morally responsible for burning my food.

If theists believe in an "immoral genocidal son murdering prick", then they can call him good, great, even benevolent. It's all relative. To Satanists, Lucifer is the most good being of them all. To you, your beliefs are held as the most good.

All you are able to say right now is that, according to your standards, their god is evil. That is a claim, and must be dealt with logically. Unfortunately, there is no valid logic being applied. You're claiming the same unfounded things that they are.
Reply
#15
(12-06-2017, 08:01 PM)KaelisRa Wrote: If he doesn't exist, you cannot hold him to a moral standard. I can't hold the imaginary dragon in my house morally responsible for burning my food.

If theists believe in an "immoral genocidal son murdering prick", then they can call him good, great, even benevolent. It's all relative. To Satanists, Lucifer is the most good being of them all. To you, your beliefs are held as the most good.

All you are able to say right now is that, according to your standards, their god is evil. That is a claim, and must be dealt with logically. Unfortunately, there is no valid logic being applied. You're claiming the same unfounded things that they are.

I am always ready for a logical argument and can logically show that a genocidal prick of a God is an evil God.

The good of the many outweighs the good of the one murderous God.

Regards
DL


Reply
#16
(12-07-2017, 12:14 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: I am always ready for a logical argument and can logically show that a genocidal prick of a God is an evil God.

Alright then! Lets have it! Here's the argument that you've laid out:

P1: The Christian God is a genocidal prick.
P2: A genocidal god is an evil god.
C: The Christian God is an evil god.

Can you support P1 and P2 please?

(12-07-2017, 12:14 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: The good of the many outweighs the good of the one murderous God.

Unfortunately, this very same statement can be used to defend said murderous God. Lets just approach things from your initial argument above.
Reply
#17
(12-07-2017, 03:07 PM)KaelisRa Wrote:
(12-07-2017, 12:14 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: I am always ready for a logical argument and can logically show that a genocidal prick of a God is an evil God.

Alright then! Lets have it! Here's the argument that you've laid out:

P1: The Christian God is a genocidal prick.
P2: A genocidal god is an evil god.
C: The Christian God is an evil god.

Can you support P1 and P2 please?

(12-07-2017, 12:14 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: The good of the many outweighs the good of the one murderous God.

Unfortunately, this very same statement can be used to defend said murderous God. Lets just approach things from your initial argument above.

The scriptures, show God using genocide in Noah's day.

God is able to cure as well as kill and if curing is good, which it is, then killing instead is evil and shows an evil God iof he killed instead of curing.

I am surprised that I even have to say this.

Regards
DL
Reply
#18
(12-07-2017, 03:50 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: The scriptures, show God using genocide in Noah's day.

So, we are going to make the assumption that God exists. That isn't a problem. So, the "Great Flood" is your example of genocide. Do you remember why the flood had taken place?

(12-07-2017, 03:50 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: God is able to cure as well as kill and if curing is good, which it is, then killing instead is evil and shows an evil God iof he killed instead of curing.

Philosophically, curing and killing are both considered acts of commission. What that means is that an agent commits to the execution of the act. Acts of commission are subject to the principles of objective morality.

Unfortunately, saying that "curing is good and killing is bad" are claims that must be justified. The implications being that "Curing is always good" and "Killing is always bad". These are factual claims that are vulnerable to being disproved. All one must do is find a single instance where curing is not good, and killing is not bad.

The latter is easy to generate. Killing in self-defense is an easy example where killing can be a good way to preserve your own moral right to life. Thus, "Killing is mostly bad" is a more accurate moral claim, but it doesn't implicate God anywhere close to what it used to under your initial claim.

The former, "curing is always good", is a little more difficult to generate. However, all that need be generated is a single instance to disprove your absolute claim. One such instance would be that curing could lead to a slippery slope that ends up causing over-population. This could lead to a stress on a planet's ecology and ultimately lead to the death of us all. A second, more short-term, applicable example would be the "curing" of simple diseases, which can lead to more dangerous and drug-resistant strains. These strains of viruses can then attack us directly with minimal struggle, because we haven't created the proper anti-bodies with which to fight them (because we were "cured").

Thus, the claim "curing is always good" is false. Meaning that the claim "Curing is mostly good" is more accurate and, subsequently, less implicating of God.

Finally, morally implicating somebody has two parts: First, the act itself must be immoral. Second, the agent must intend to commit the act, fully knowing that the act is itself immoral.

Unfortunately, it is easier to crush your logic, than it is to prove God was doing something immoral. The reason being: God is omniscient. That means that he, objectively, knows all things. We cannot possibly fathom what it would mean to know all things objectively.

When any one of us makes a distinction, we do so from our own perspective or from popular perspective. There is no objectivity to them, because our logic is not so infallibly developed that we have omniscience of any moral situation.

As morality is objective, it is inferior logic and inferior judgement to hold someone responsible, by our subjective views. Consequently, your entire argument is invalid.

Earlier, you said:
(12-07-2017, 03:50 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: The good of the many outweighs the good of the one murderous God.

Well, it would seem that "the good of the many" is better judged by an omniscient being who holds all objective knowledge, rather than a being with limited access to knowledge and a subjective bias.

(12-07-2017, 03:50 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: I am surprised that I even have to say this.

I'm not surprised at all that I had to say everything I did. Icontexto-emoticons-08-032x032 Logic isn't many people's strong suit. I'm glad I could help clear up some concepts for you. Icontexto-emoticons-07-032x032
Reply
#19
(08-17-2017, 08:56 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: Can you accept that Man is greater than God?
We can think. God cannot.
We can reproduce true. God cannot.
We can have many children. God cannot.
We place the lives of our wives and families above our own. God does not.
We would cure instead of kill. God kills.
We do not torture babies. God does.
We believe in freedom. God does not.

You can not prove any of this. God is beyond the scope of human understanding. The knowledge we have about God is just a drop of water in the ocean. God can do everything you listed and more if he wanted to. He does not have to prove anything. God has better things to do like managing the known universe LOL. God does not murder. He is not going to poof down to earth and save you from your fate whatever it may be. He gave us freedom of choice and the freedom to walk the path we choose. His job is not to babysit. If he gave us a perfect life then life will not be worth living. We will be like the people from Invasion of the Body Snachers.
Reply
#20
(12-07-2017, 05:43 PM)KaelisRa Wrote:
Quote:
(12-07-2017, 03:50 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: The scriptures, show God using genocide in Noah's day.

So, we are going to make the assumption that God exists. That isn't a problem. So, the "Great Flood" is your example of genocide. Do you remember why the flood had taken place?

Yes. The sons of God had created the Nephelim after using the earth as a brothel and that had corrupted the world.

God chose to kill instead of cure which is more evil than good.

(12-07-2017, 03:50 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: God is able to cure as well as kill and if curing is good, which it is, then killing instead is evil and shows an evil God iof he killed instead of curing.

Quote:Philosophically, curing and killing are both considered acts of commission. What that means is that an agent commits to the execution of the act. Acts of commission are subject to the principles of objective morality.

I do not think morals are objective. I think they are all subjective.

What objective moral tenet are you referring to?

Quote:Unfortunately, saying that "curing is good and killing is bad" are claims that must be justified. The implications being that "Curing is always good" and "Killing is always bad". These are factual claims that are vulnerable to being disproved. All one must do is find a single instance where curing is not good, and killing is not bad.

Go ahead.

Quote:The latter is easy to generate. Killing in self-defense is an easy example where killing can be a good way to preserve your own moral right to life. Thus, "Killing is mostly bad" is a more accurate moral claim, but it doesn't implicate God anywhere close to what it used to under your initial claim.

This was not self defence as God cannot be killed. If you are going to mix scenarios, we will be talking past each other.

Quote:The former, "curing is always good", is a little more difficult to generate. However, all that need be generated is a single instance to disprove your absolute claim. One such instance would be that curing could lead to a slippery slope that ends up causing over-population. This could lead to a stress on a planet's ecology and ultimately lead to the death of us all. A second, more short-term, applicable example would be the "curing" of simple diseases, which can lead to more dangerous and drug-resistant strains. These strains of viruses can then attack us directly with minimal struggle, because we haven't created the proper anti-bodies with which to fight them (because we were "cured").

Thus, the claim "curing is always good" is false. Meaning that the claim "Curing is mostly good" is more accurate and, subsequently, less implicating of God.

Again you mix man's situation with God's. God was at issue, not man. Although you do show decent logic.


Quote:Finally, morally implicating somebody has two parts: First, the act itself must be immoral. Second, the agent must intend to commit the act, fully knowing that the act is itself immoral.

Unfortunately, it is easier to crush your logic, than it is to prove God was doing something immoral. The reason being: God is omniscient. That means that he, objectively, knows all things. We cannot possibly fathom what it would mean to know all things objectively.

True, but if we say that God is omniscient, he would not have begun the process that he knew would lead him to use genocide in the forst place. He would have know he was wasting time.

Quote:When any one of us makes a distinction, we do so from our own perspective or from popular perspective. There is no objectivity to them, because our logic is not so infallibly developed that we have omniscience of any moral situation.

I am making the distinction from the only perspective I can know using what is written in the bible.

Quote:As morality is objective, it is inferior logic and inferior judgement to hold someone responsible, by our subjective views. Consequently, your entire argument is invalid.

That is the second time you say that but we have not determined that and I disagree with it as I see morals as subjective.

Quote:Earlier, you said:
(12-07-2017, 03:50 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: The good of the many outweighs the good of the one murderous God.

Well, it would seem that "the good of the many" is better judged by an omniscient being who holds all objective knowledge, rather than a being with limited access to knowledge and a subjective bias.

This is an unproven assumption and the notion of omniscience should have God to never have to re-do anything.
Quote:
(12-07-2017, 03:50 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: I am surprised that I even have to say this.

I'm not surprised at all that I had to say everything I did. Icontexto-emoticons-08-032x032 Logic isn't many people's strong suit. I'm glad I could help clear up some concepts for you. Icontexto-emoticons-07-032x032

I think I am using logic better than you but let's see if you can show the objective morals that you allude to.

Do unto others, etc.is the main moral tenet that most people follow.

You have to imagine what you would want done to you as compared to is being done to you. That is a subjective judgement call. Right?

Regards
DL
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Religious lies. Why do so many knowingly accept them? Enemy No. 1 Gnostic 2 491 05-03-2018, 09:12 AM
Last Post: dragynraken
  The truth is greater than any religion Eden 63 31,450 05-06-2014, 12:30 PM
Last Post: pix



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)






About Talk Paranormal Forum

...

              Quick Links

              User Links

             ...

  • ...
  • ...
  • ...
  • ...