BDS

This discussion is going nowhere, ameleq.

You failed utterly to show that the Religious position was "invalid" (you only falsely accused it of being "special pleading" and repeated over and over that killing kids is never justified, or at least asked rhetorical questions implying that this was your position).

The essence of the religious position is that the will of God DEFINES what is good. This position is hardly invalidated when God kills a bunch of mewling, puking infants, nor is any pleading (special or otherwise) needed to excuse God. Why would it be? The only reason we humans are evil when we kill infants is that such behavior is opposed to the will of God.

This does, of course, raise the logical question as to whether calling God "omnibenevolent" is meaningful. Isn't it simply saying, "God is God"?

Oh well. Happy New Year!

cpickett

So killing an infant isn't wrong because you are taking the life of an innocent person, who could not in any way defend itself or threaten your life, it's wrong because God didn't condone it? No wonder Christians think we are a bunch of immoral beings if they have to rely upon their God, for something that basic.

Amaleq13

On the contrary, I have shown that it is founded on numerous logical fallacies.

You have yet to provide an argument (rather than an assertion) that establishes this conclusion.

EXACTLY! The premise is, as I have repeatedly explained, fundamentally logically flawed to the point where multiple logical errors can be identified in its composition. The specific flaw you appear to be identifying here is "circular reasoning". It is nothing more than a tautology. This observation, alone, is sufficient to conclude the premise is invalid. Then again, so were any of the previous observations of the logical fallacies inherent in the premise but who am I to complain when you have finally demonstrated understanding?

BDS

Ameleq ol' chap: All logical arguments are "circular". The premises imply the conclusions, or, stated differently, the conclusion is stated in the premises, given the rules of logic.

The religious position that "good" is defined as 'whatever God wills" is simply a definition and an explanation of religious principles. No doubt it then becomes redundant to call God 'omnibenevolent', unless, of course, one defines 'omnibenevolent' differently, somehow.

p.s. I'm not trying to argue for the religious point of view, merely to explain it. Any ethical sytem needs to start with SOME premise, which is taken as axiomatic. "Invalid" means "logicallly unsound". If you disagree with the premise, that does NOT make the argument "invalid". It makes it incorrect, but not "invalid". I wouldn't even mention this, but you're the one who rails on and on about logical fallacies, as if you are some sort of logician. yet you seem to fail to understand this simple point.

For example, when fundamentalists assume that the Bible is inerrant, they reach all sorts of strange conclusions. If their conclusions are based on faulty logic, they are "invalid"; if the logic is good, the conclusions may still be incorrect, if the Bible errs, but they are not "invalid".

Amaleq13

The fallacy of circular reasoning can also be called "begging the question". You are using "circular" in a different sense than in the definition of the logical fallacy. This is, itself, a logical fallacy called "equivocation" Logically valid arguments are, in fact, "circular" in the sense that the conclusion ultimately agrees with the premise but the significant difference is that the conclusion is not assumed by the premise but reasoned from the premise.

The fallacy of begging the question occurs when the premise includes the claim (explicitly or implicitly) that the conclusion argued is true. That is not true of logically sound arguments.

The original conclusion against which I argued was that it is morally justified (i.e. "good") for God to murder infants.

What you offered in defense of this (in the name of religionists) was: "Whatever God wills is good".

This statement clearly includes the claim that the conclusion above is true. It is not an argument for it but an assumption of it. That is the very definition of the logical fallacy of "begging the question" a.k.a. "circular reasoning".

What you have religionists asserting is no different from them asserting "God murdering infants is good" which is, of course, the conclusion under review. You have merely replaced the specific act with a general claim including all acts.

BDS

Not true.

The logical argument would be:

Premise: Whatever God does is good.
Premise: God once murdered a bunch of infants.

Conclusion: In that particular case, murdering infants was good.

Obviously, the argument is circular (in the sense I suggested earlier), but no more so than any other logical argument. For example, it would be possible to disagree with the conclusion by saying, "Actually, I don't think god ever murdered a bunch of infants, because I don't think the Bible story is true." So it would certainly be possible to think that whatever God does is good, and that murdering infants is bad. Neither premise suggests the conclusion (by itself). It is only when both premises are taken together that we may infer the conclusion.

Amaleq13

As I already explained, the original premise above clearly does include the assumption that the conclusion is true. That makes it an example of begging the question a.k.a. the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. This should be evident because, as I also already explained, the "whatever" of the original premise is nothing but a broad generalization that obviously includes the specific example contained in the conclusion. The only difference between the original premise and the conclusion is the specificity of the behavior.

In other words, "whatever" = "murdering infants". Actually, you can insert any of the horrific behaviors attributed to God in the Bible and reach the same logically invalid conclusion that they are morally justified.

Thus, the original premise can be restated to explicitly (rather than implicitly as it stands) include the conclusion without changing the meaning of either:

"God murdering infants is good."

This should make the logically fallacious nature of the argument apparent because the conclusion is clearly assumed within the original premise.

It completely begs the question of whether the murder of infants can ever be morally justified (i.e. good).

BDS

Wrong again, Amalec.

How could the premise "Whatever God does is good" imply anything whatsoever about the murder of children? It doesn't even mention children.

You need both premises to infer the conclusion, and it's so obvious that there's no point arguing about it. The original premise has nothing to do with murdering infants. "Whatever" does not imply that God will (or even could) do every kind of thing. Some behaviors (like being evil) are outside the realm of possibility.

In fact, if one were to presume:

Whatever God does is good
Murdering infants is evil

Conclusion: God never murders infants.

You are correct that you could assume from Premise 1 that: If God murdered infants, it was good.

However, you could not assume from premise one (as you do) that: ""God murdering infants is good." Why? Because God might never murder infants. Similarly, you could not assume that "God fornicating with goats is good". You could only assume that "if God fornicated with goats, it would be good."

I hope that's clear.

Amaleq13

It is a broad generalization that includes any behavior subsequently attributed to God. If you later claim that God spit in an old lady's eye, it is included in "whatever God does" and, therefore, "good". If later you claim that God cheated at checkers, it is included in "whatever God does" and, therefore, "good".

Given the totally comprehensive nature of the opening premise, both God spitting in an old lady's eye and God cheating at checkers must be considered "good".

To be fair to the Christians, you should probably limit the premise to:

"Whatever the Bible says God does is good."

This eliminates the spitting and cheating as "good" but not, unfortunately for the Christian (or his representative agnostic), the murder of children.

The only difference between saying "whatever God does" and "God murdered infants" is, as I already stated, the specificity of the claim.

Unfortunately for your argument, your second premise says that God did murder infants. Also, I'm not "assuming" anything. I'm simply substituting a specific behavior attributed to God for the general claim about all God's behavior.

If we include the premise: "Murdering infants is evil", we have created a paradox as soon as it is claimed that God murdered infants.

Whatever the Bible says God does is good.

Murdering infants is evil.

The Bible says God once murdered a bunch of infants.

Conclusion: One or more of the above has to go.

BDS

True (althogh I'm correct as well, we're saying different things). As is obvious when you state your theory formally, you were making assumptions which (as I tried to point out) I was not.

That is one reason why I asked why murdering infants was any worse than murdering anyone else, and never received an adequate answer.

In many societies, murdering infants is a time-honored tradition. In these societies, murdering infants is not considered MORE evil than murdering older people, but LESS. Infants are, after all, barely human. They can't even talk.