Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jobar · 01-17-2003, 09:42 AM

Arrogancy, this topic is precisely on the dividing line between the Moral Foundations and Principles forum, where we examine the definitions and implications of such concepts as 'Justice', and this forum, on the existence of God(s). So I think the discussion requires that we sometimes venture into territory which is normally the domain of MF&P.

However, your attempts to defend a literal reading of Genesis should be done in the Evolution/Creationism forum. Please continue any further discussion on that subject there. Jobar, moderator.

Dr Rick · 01-17-2003, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrogancy
...some plant life would be tremendously shifted by the waters, things would be carried and moved farther so that they spread to other areas, others would disappear) you're talking about subspecies that are degenerative of the main species. Geneology tells you how "polar bears," etc. could have come to be in 4,000 years from two parent animals, and how geological conditions could have allowed them at one time to cross land where water exists now...None of that is needed, especially if you go by geneology and come to the conclusion today that they variety that exists is a mix of degeneration and adaptation from parent species.

These idiosyncratic assertions are just a series of baseless ad hoc fallacies. If your going to make claims about the flora and fauna of the ancient world and conclusions on how polar bears evolved over 4000 years, you need to provide some evidence (in the E/C forum, of course)

Also, if the whole planet was flooded around 2400 BCE, about the time some of the Great pyramids were being built, why did the event go unnoticed by the Egyptians. They were keeping records that continue uninterupted for centuries before and after that time and would have written something about it, or at least stopped writing as they drowned.

Similarly, no records from the Chinese, Phoenecians, or Greeks of that time period mention anything about a flood, nor were they suddenly cut-off.

Rick

Philosoft · 01-17-2003, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrogancy
You are. It was already defined that justice was subjective - you then jump back to an objective justice whenever it becomes useful to your argument.

Look, I don't really care to get too philosophical here. If "justice" can mean "punishing some for the specific crimes of others, even though the 'some' did not in any way commit the crimes" then just say so and make your argument.

Quote:

This has already been covered, and you're just retreading ground and going in circles. Unless you can find someone that says that they have never Biblically sinned, you have no argument, as each person carries their own guilt because of it, which they die for inevitably.

I don't care. It doesn't matter. I am asking if God's action of punishing us for the crimes of A & E is a just action. Please feel free to use any definition of "just" you can support.

Quote:

Justice being subjective, I have no problem with this logic personally. The main reason is because experiences die with death - once someone dies, their suffering and internal experiences turn into non existance - nothing that they "felt" matters - it fades into nonexistance.

I still don't care. It still doesn't matter.

Quote:

Thus, not letting Adam and Eve have kids and letting them have kids equals the same thing in the end! The only difference being, this way, intelligent creation would be able to see that God's rule is superior to self rule, an issue that would not be settled otherwise. The people that DID suffer and die that chose to live under God would be resurrected back to Biblically perfect conditions - and I doubt that any of them would complain about what they experienced after living in that way for some time. That would be like me whining about stubbing my toe once when I was 2.

Okay, since you don't seem too keen on the topic at hand, I'm going to draw my own conclusions.

Possible Conclusion 1: You recognize God's actions are unjust and are trying to avoid discussing it.

Possible Conclusion 2: You don't think the human concept of justice applies to God.

Possible Conclusion 3: You honestly believe the above addresses the topic at hand.

Quote:

So what's your problem with that?

Everything. Please start again, using this post as a guideline for the questions I would like answered.

Jack the Bodiless · 01-18-2003, 06:50 AM

Quote:

You are. It was already defined that justice was subjective - you then jump back to an objective justice whenever it becomes useful to your argument.

It has been claimed that "Good" and "Bad" are subjective.

However, nowhere on this thread has anyone (except possibly yourself) disagreed with the absolute, clear, non-ambiguous principle that "justice" MUST involve linking the crimes committed by individuals to the punishment of those individuals.

It is possible that an excessive or inadequate punishment of the perpetrator can still be labelled as "unjust". This IS subjective.

But it is not possible that the punishment of somebody else can be labelled as "just". This is NOT subjective.

Just punishment of those innocent of the crime for which they are being punished is impossible by definition, just as a square circle is impossible by definition.

Believers in the "omnimax" God usually claim that God's omnipotence is limited by what is logically possible: even God cannot draw a square circle. You claim not to believe in this God, yet here you claim a greater level of omnipotence for yours: the ability to do the logically impossible.

hinduwoman · 01-19-2003, 06:12 PM

Look, justice as defined by Christians with regard to God seems to be a semnatic game. Whatever God does is just by definition.

winstonjen · 01-19-2003, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadownought
The only response I've heard is that we should not judge God as being unjust, because we are not as wise and powerful as God.

Bull hockey.

Me too. Also, "God created everything, therefore he is above the law." :boohoo:

winstonjen · 01-19-2003, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Selsaral
One of the arguments I've heard is that God (in his infinite power) can literally 'undo' any evil that he might inflict. He can not only later reward anyone he might kill, but he can remove their pain and longing for their former life etc. I am not too familiar with the christian bible, but I was quoted several lines that supported this thesis. I suppose this frees the christian god from any act of evil.

I disagree entirely. Just because the pain is 'removed' doesn't mean it never happened. It would be better if it never happened at all.

winstonjen · 01-20-2003, 01:07 AM

Quote:

("Cognitive dissonance": the ability to hold mutually exclusive views as both true, or the ability to "believe in" a Biblical verse without actually "believing" it in a real-world context.)

I thought that was "doublethink". See Orwell's 1984 for more details.

Jack the Bodiless · 01-20-2003, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hinduwoman
Look, justice as defined by Christians with regard to God seems to be a semnatic game. Whatever God does is just by definition.

However, if their concept of "just" involves punishing people for the crimes of others: then they're not speaking English anymore.

Similarly, on another thread, I referred to Radorth as a hippopotamus. I then defined a "hippopotamus" as someone who believes in the Nicene Creed.

But using a God-dependent definition of "just" to describe God is semantically void. It SAYS absolutely nothing whatsoever.

God is snurly. He is also absolutely ardfinkle.

Selsaral · 01-20-2003, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen
I disagree entirely. Just because the pain is 'removed' doesn't mean it never happened. It would be better if it never happened at all.

It's a silly argument, and I feel pained to keep defending (well, describing it), but you have it wrong. God can change time, entirely remove events from reality etc. If you can do ANYTHING, you can completely 'undo' an event. It's like a star trek episode where you go back in time, you can change events that previously occured. Of course, this doesn't really make sense or mean anything unless you are a christian positive that god is good and forced to defend his old testament actions. Once again, I will stress I personally find the argument rather sad, but I wanted to clear up your misunderstanding of it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-17-2003, 09:42 AM	#81
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Arrogancy, this topic is precisely on the dividing line between the Moral Foundations and Principles forum, where we examine the definitions and implications of such concepts as 'Justice', and this forum, on the existence of God(s). So I think the discussion requires that we sometimes venture into territory which is normally the domain of MF&P. However, your attempts to defend a literal reading of Genesis should be done in the Evolution/Creationism forum. Please continue any further discussion on that subject there. Jobar, moderator.

01-19-2003, 06:12 PM	#85
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	Look, justice as defined by Christians with regard to God seems to be a semnatic game. Whatever God does is just by definition.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.