Amaleq13

I made no assumptions but you certainly did and the assumption you made (i.e. that nobody had claimed God murdered infants) was obviously untrue. I have only accepted what was being asserted by others. It was asserted that "Whatever God does is good". It was asserted, by the Bible story author, that God murdered infants. You added the assertion that "murdering infants is evil" and I incorporated it. Your recent argument ignored that the second claim had already been made and tried to restate the argument as though it hadn't.

You are correct that the statement "Whatever God does it good", alone, in no way implies that God has murdered infants. The statement, alone, actually implies no specific behaviors. The specific behavior only becomes implied within the premise when someone asserts that God has murdered infants. In fact, any behavior attributed to God becomes implied within this opening premise as soon as it is attributed. But this argument has never been about that statement alone. It was attributed to God in the OP. You can't just pretend that the assertion was never made. In fact, it was originally made thousands of years ago when the author first created the story.

You asked why infants deserved mercy more than anyone else. I pointed out that this presupposed they were guilty of something so it begged the question. If you look up "mercy" in the dictionary and you will find that it presupposes guilt:

1. compassion shown toward an offender or enemy 2. a disposition to forgive or forbear

An "offender" or "enemy" are clearly assumed to be guilty of something. Likewise, to "forgive" or "forbear" assumes the individual-in-question has done something to deserve forgiveness or forbearance. Mercy is only applied to those who have already been found or are assumed guilty of something. I'm denying that infants could be found guilty of anything that would justifiably warrant execution. They are physically and mentally incapable. This makes the application of the term "mercy' as example of begging the question.

This argument has never been about the relative morality of murdering infants versus murdering adults. It has been about whether God can be said to be morally justified in murdering infants. As I have stated before, if you want to change the argument, you'll have to start another thread.

That it has "always been done that way" is not a logically valid defense of any claim. It is an example of the fallacy of an appeal to common practice. Again, this is not about people murdering infants but about God murdering infants.

Since when is the power of speech the determining factor with regard to defining someone as "human"? My parrot can speak but that doesn't make her human. Even if I accept your assertion that infants are "barely" human, they clearly are human and, therefore, deserving of the same rights as whoever you consider to be "fully" human.

Are you seriously trying to argue that God is morally justified in killing infants because they are unable to speak?

BDS

Amaleq, you are so literal-minded that you should start a comedy routine.

There are no "logically valid defenses" for any ethical claims, to one who thinks of logic as some sort of God. You always have to start somewhere. Ethics is analogical, more than logical.

Your starting points (that God murdered infants, and that murdering infants is evil) are no more "logically valid" than any others. This was my point from the start -- a point you seem incapable of understanding.

Here's a hypothetical for you, Amaleq: You are given a choice. You can either kill a new born baby, or everyone in the world will die, including the new born baby. If you kill the baby, everyone else will be saved. What do you do?

Amaleq13

I'm not sure why it is funny that I refuse to be side-tracked from the actual argument of this thread. What is laughable, however, is your consistent avoidance of the obvious paucity of the position you have unwisely chosen to defend.

I don't think it is true that there are no logically valid defenses for any ethical claims but I would be happy to discuss it if you wish to start a new thread on this tangential argument.

If you are referring to me with the second portion, you are mistaken. I consider logic to be the best standard/methodology for reaching reliable conclusions, not a "god".

Neither of these is my starting point. The former is found in the Bible originally but contained within the OP more recently while the latter is an assertion you introduced just a couple posts back.

If you would like to start a new thread on this tangential subject, I will be happy to participate.

Do you have any substantive and logically valid argument(s) for this thread?

BDS

Other than the many I've already made, no. I will, though, if you answer my hypothetical.

Also, I thought that the premise "murdering infants is evil" was one of your starting points. You've certainly acted as though it was.

raccoon

I haven't follow through the entire thread yet, but here are some of my thoughts in respond to some of the posts I saw:

1) According to mainline Christian doctrine, infants are still guilty of original sin, without faith in G-d, they must burn in hell eternally. So it's not a ticket to heaven at all, and cannot be used as a reason to justify infanticide.

2) To argue that G-d is "bad" for killing infants is rediculous. At the end, G-d kills EVERYONE. What's so special about infants again?

-raccoon

BDS

Exactly, raccoon.

The theological problem of God killing infants is part of the well know "problem of evil".

I'm not an expert on Christian apologetics, but I believe one standard answer to the problem of evil is that we humans (being imperfect and living within time) see things like death and suffering as evil, when, in fact, they are part of God's plan to build a perfect universe. Why death and suffering are necessary to this plan is unclear (why SHOULD it be clear to us puny, ignorant humans), but judging God's plan from a particular point in time and space is a flawed way of looking at it.

God is building a perfect world, and, for whatever reason, these things are needed for purposes of construction. Complaints from puny humans are analagous to somebody looking at a skyscraper which is under construction and complaining that it has no floors or windows.

Amaleq13

It is rarely a good idea to comment this late in the game without first reading what came first.

The concept of "original sin" is, IMHO, rationally incoherent (i.e. it is not a conclusion that can be reached through reason alone) and requires faith to be accepted. If I do not have faith in such a concept, why should I accept it as a legitimate part of an argument?

Beyond the incoherency of the concept in general, it is ultimately founded on assuming the Genesis fable to be literally true which I do not consider a reasonable assumption at all.

This Christian dogma seems to me nothing more than asserting without proof that I have a disease just so I will accept the "cure".

These are unsubstantiated assertions. I can just as easily reply that arguing that it is morally justifiable for God to murder infants is ridiculous. You seem to be losing track of your own theology because, according to Christian dogma, "death" was introduced by the actions of Adam and Eve not God. That everyone dies is not the same as everyone being killed by God.

Nothing your wrote provides a rational argument defending God's murder of infants as morally justified (i.e. right). I suspect that it because no such argument is possible. It is rationally incoherent (i.e. requires faith to be accepted).

Edited later to add:
This is not and never has been my position. If you actually read through the thread, you will find that I am ultimately denying that the biblical story can be attributed to an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God.

Amaleq13

I asked:
Do you have any substantive and logically valid argument(s) for this thread?

Since all of the arguments you have offered so far have been shown to be logically flawed, that is as close as I expect you to come to admitting you cannot defend the position.

Thank you.

Your hypothetical does not appear relevant to this thread. As I said, I would be more than happy to respond if you create a new thread with that as the topic.

That is contained in the OP but was not part of my original argument nor do I think that any of my subsequent arguments required it as an assumption. If you can show otherwise, I will gladly admit it. I have questioned whether the murder of infants can ever be justified but that hasn't really been a premise for my arguments. Your hypothetical albeit tangential question has the potential to answer that question with a "yes" but I think I can argue against it Assuming you start a different thread with that as the topic, of course.

Amaleq13

This question suggest that you recognize that the concept is flawed by special pleading.

The reason why death and suffering are "necessary" is, according to this belief, beyond our human comprehension. In other words, it cannot be rationally explained, it can only be accepted on faith.

I have found it best to avoid accepting conclusions on faith but to rely as much as possible on those than can be established through reason.

Q.E.D. I am an atheist.

BDS

Well, A, here's your first post, in which (it appears to me) you argue that 1) An omniscient and omnipotent God has many options. But, given the possibility of predestination, this is an untenable position. If God has predestined everything, then his options can be limited to this one possibility. Again, you should go to some Christian board where you can find those better versed than I in theology, but I believe that there has been reams of theological discussion about the nature of omnipotence. Does it mean that God can commit an evil act? The theologeans (I think, but I'm not sure) say, "no". We humans may think of "omnipotence" as "the ability to change things any time we want", but isn't that a contradiction for a perfect being? Why would he want to change things? Presumably, he can only "want" things to be one way.

As to your second point, A, if you would answer my hypothetical we might be able to address that point more specifically. Given my hypothetical, are you still unable to imagine a circumstance where murdering an infant is the only moral option? Why do you think my hypothetical is irrelevent, when it speaks directly and specifically to this very issue, which you brought up in the first place?