If you agree that you could be wrong, then how can you say there is no chance that child sacrifice is moral?
Because no argument has demonstrated that I am wrong and all logic demonstrates that I am correct.
I agree that you have moral responsibility to seek justification. God saying to sacrifice your child proves that the justification exists. Whether you know the actual justification is irrelevant - the fact that it exists tells you the act is moral.
No, you just contradicted yourself. You said I have a moral responsibility to seek justification for my actions, and then two sentences later you say it's irrelevant whether I know the actual justification for my actions. It cannot be both morally imperative I know the justification for my actions and be irrelevant as to whether or not I know the justification for my actions.
I am the person performing the action. I am choosing to perform the action. Therefore, the action is my responsibility. Therefore the moral imperative is on me to justify my actions, not deflect the question to someone else. That is morally irresponsible. I must be able to justify my actions. Merely knowing there is a justification is not good enough.
If you cannot demonstrate the justification, it isn't a proof.
That's simply not the case.
Of course it's the case. If you can't demonstrate why something is true, you haven't proven it.
You yourself have undermined the human ability to understand what is or is not moral, so how do you now know that the act commanded by an omnibenevolent God must be moral?
Maybe it isn't moral. You yourself have argued that your hypothetical God likes to run Milgram experiments. What if God is testing us? What if the point is that we're NOT supposed to kill the kid even if God tells us to?
Or maybe God is telling us to commit the evil action because in the process of doing it, we will not succeed and some cosmic comeuppance will befall us, like Pharaoh attacking Moses and the Hebrews.
Or maybe the action is straight up evil and we will succeed. Why would an omnibenevolent God order someone to perform an evil action and have them succeed? I don't know, but **** logic, right Tiax? We can't possibly know for sure if we have a handle on this morality thing, so that makes it entirely possible that evil actions might lead to good some how because reasons.
We've agreed that we have proof that God is omnibenevolent. Therefore, we can be certain of that. Thus, we can exclude the cases where God is actually evil.
No, that's not what I asked. You're dodging the question.
How do we know the action God is commanding isn't evil instead of good? Saying, "We can rule out God is evil" doesn't answer the question. It's irrelevant. By your own logic, God could command an evil action despite being good.
So how do you conclude that the action God is commanding is good? How do you know that God isn't commanding something evil?
It is not irresponsible if you have proof that the justification exists and therefore know the act is moral.
As I have stated, your own logic prevents us from knowing that the act is moral even if God is omnibenevolent.
Moreover, even if it were, it would still be irresponsible due to the fact that I do not know what the justification is.
Ultimately, the fact that you need to be concerned with is "is this act moral?", not "what is the justification for this act?". If you know the act is moral, you can safely perform it without being irresponsible.
But we do not know that.
Again, this confuses the issue.
Why? By demonstrating the paradoxical nature of your hypothetical scenario? That's not because what I said confuses the issue, Tiax, it's because what I said demonstrates how you are confused.
What you need to know in order to safely perform the action is that it is moral. You have the facts needed to conclude this.
Not only do I not, but you are proposing a scenario in which God is commanding an action that is decidedly not-Godlike.
That's like saying that the circle has three sides, or the classic "What's written on this side of the paper is true/what's written on the other side is false" paradox. Your scenario presents a logically impossible scenario. Why would God give an un-Godly command? How could behaving in a decidedly un-Godly manner be good when God is omnibenevolent? When we have definitions of what is good and how we can know good and know God, why would God command us to do the opposite, and why would the opposite of this be good?
That doesn't make any sense at all. It goes back to what we said at the start, this hypothetical scenario is bogus because God is behaving in a clearly immoral way.
Which only demonstrates what I've been saying all along: the correct answer is to not go ahead with it until God can justify his command.
No, Crashing00 is right. The question is a moral issue about whether child sacrifice can be justified. The situation we're examining is whether a person sacrificing his own child to God is morally justifiable. If you're trying to make the scenario into something other than which a child is actually being sacrificed, you're going on a tangent that has nothing to do with what we're discussing.
Thus, the statement, "Therefore, even if you are correct and there exists a logical argument which proves child sacrifice to be immoral, that does not constitute proof about any actual situation in which we might find ourselves," is a completely absurd thing to write, because the whole point of this discussion is that the scenario in which we have found ourselves is exactly that: a situation here we are asked to perform a child sacrifice. If you're talking about a scenario other than that, you're talking about something totally irrelevant to the topic.
The situation we can find ourselves in is a situation in which we are asked to perform what we believe to be child sacrifice, with all the caveats about our limited understanding of the nature of each part of that. We will never have perfect understanding of every implication of a proposed action.
The topic of discussion is to determine whether or not child sacrifice is something someone should perform in the name of God if God were to command it. Saying, "Well it's not really child sacrifice" is taking this discussion down an entirely pointless direction that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Because no argument has demonstrated that I am wrong and all logic demonstrates that I am correct.
If logic demonstrates that child sacrifice is immoral, then you would be incorrect to agree that there is a chance it is not. Do you believe that you can give a logical proof of the immorality of child sacrifice, and can give a logically sound way to identify the situations covered by that proof? If you can, this entire hypothetical is impossible.
No, you just contradicted yourself. You said I have a moral responsibility to seek justification for my actions, and then two sentences later you say it's irrelevant whether I know the actual justification for my actions. It cannot be both morally imperative I know the justification for my actions and be irrelevant as to whether or not I know the justification for my actions.
I am the person performing the action. I am choosing to perform the action. Therefore, the action is my responsibility. Therefore the moral imperative is on me to justify my actions, not deflect the question to someone else. That is morally irresponsible. I must be able to justify my actions. Merely knowing there is a justification is not good enough.
The moral responsibility, ultimately, is to know that the action is moral. If you know that there is a justification, then you know the act is moral. The knowledge that a justification exists is itself a justification, because it provides all the information you need to conclude that the act is moral.
By analogy, consider the question of whether a particular number can be factored. One way for me to prove to you that it can be factored is to show you the factorization. But this is not the only way. There are also ways for me to prove to you that the factorization exists without telling you what it is. If I give you such a demonstration, then you can safely conclude that the number is composite without ever knowing what the factors are. It would be foolish to see such a proof and then demand to know the factors anyway - that would give you no additional information about the core question of whether the number can be factored.
Of course it's the case. If you can't demonstrate why something is true, you haven't proven it.
If you can demonstrate that a proof exists, that is itself a proof. False statements cannot have proofs. Suppose that we come up with a framework of morality entirely in symbolic logic. We then build a verifiably-correct computer program to start churning through all possible proofs in this symbolic logic until it finds one that proves the statement "X is moral". If it ever finds such a proof, it stops and outputs "yes". It doesn't tell us what the proof is, and there's no way for us to go back and find out. But if we see that "yes", we can know such a proof exists, and therefore we can know that X is moral.
No, that's not what I asked. You're dodging the question.
How do we know the action God is commanding isn't evil instead of good? Saying, "We can rule out God is evil" doesn't answer the question. It's irrelevant. By your own logic, God could command an evil action despite being good.
So how do you conclude that the action God is commanding is good? How do you know that God isn't commanding something evil?
That's the definition of omnibenevolence. God cannot command an evil action because God is omnibenevolent and has proven himself to be so.
As I have stated, your own logic prevents us from knowing that the act is moral even if God is omnibenevolent.
Moreover, even if it were, it would still be irresponsible due to the fact that I do not know what the justification is.
Knowing the justification adds nothing beyond knowing that the justification exists.
Why? By demonstrating the paradoxical nature of your hypothetical scenario? That's not because what I said confuses the issue, Tiax, it's because what I said demonstrates how you are confused.
There is nothing paradoxical here unless you have a proof that child sacrifice must be immoral. I certainly grant that if such a proof exists, and if there is a way to prove it applies to any particular situation, then the hypothetical is impossible.
Not only do I not, but you are proposing a scenario in which God is commanding an action that is decidedly not-Godlike.
That's like saying that the circle has three sides, or the classic "What's written on this side of the paper is true/what's written on the other side is false" paradox. Your scenario presents a logically impossible scenario. Why would God give an un-Godly command? How could behaving in a decidedly un-Godly manner be good when God is omnibenevolent? When we have definitions of what is good and how we can know good and know God, why would God command us to do the opposite, and why would the opposite of this be good?
That doesn't make any sense at all. It goes back to what we said at the start, this hypothetical scenario is bogus because God is behaving in a clearly immoral way.
Which only demonstrates what I've been saying all along: the correct answer is to not go ahead with it until God can justify his command.
We have to distinguish the case where child sacrifice is definitely, provably immoral and the case where child sacrifice is only extremely likely to be immoral. In the first case, the hypothetical is clearly contradictory and absurd. However, in the second case, the hypothetical is quite possible, because there is a tiny sliver of a chance that God's command is not contradictory with his proposed nature. There is no logical impossibility if there exists even that tiniest of slivers of possibility that child sacrifice is immoral. A tiniest of slivers which, I remind you, you have already agreed exists. (although then argued does not exist, then agreed again that it might, then again argued it does not).
The topic of discussion is to determine whether or not child sacrifice is something someone should perform in the name of God if God were to command it. Saying, "Well it's not really child sacrifice" is taking this discussion down an entirely pointless direction that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The topic of discussion is that God has told us to perform child sacrifice. Our hypothetical selves therefore must interpret that command through our understanding of what child sacrifice is and what implications it has. This is different from the case where we as an omniscient narrators of the hypothetical know exactly what is being commanded and done.
Wrong. That is not the definition of omnibenevolent.
Omnibenevolent means that God must be infinitely good. Omnibenevolent. All benevolent.
It does not necessarily mean God cannot command an evil action, because...
God cannot command an evil action because God is omnibenevolent and has proven himself to be so.
How do you know it's an evil action to command you to commit an evil action?
You yourself have stated that we have imperfect understanding of good and evil. You could be totally wrong about God commanding something evil being an evil act. Maybe it's a good one. You don't know. You said you didn't.
There is nothing paradoxical here unless you have a proof that child sacrifice must be immoral.
Of course child sacrifice is immoral. All logic dictates that it is. Saying, "Well in this hypothetical scenario immoral actions aren't immoral" doesn't change that because there must then be a reason that it is moral, a reason that somehow exists despite flying in the face of all logic. You know the word for something that flies in the face of all logic? You guessed it: illogical.
That's the problem with your scenario. Things aren't moral because they're commanded by God, they're commanded by God because they're moral. Thus, you need to justify why they're moral. Tiax being lazy and saying, "Well whatever, they're justified. Because reasons," doesn't work, because you have to demonstrate what those reasons are. Those reasons matter. They inform our understanding of why something is moral. Without that, everything breaks down and the scenario makes no sense.
That's what a paradox is. Saying that a figure is a circle and that a figure has three sides doesn't work, because you're calling a circle something that all logic dictates is not one. Saying, "Well, you're completely wrong about what a circle is and whether or not it can have sides," tears down all framework and renders all terms meaningless.
We have to distinguish the case where child sacrifice is definitely, provably immoral and the case where child sacrifice is only extremely likely to be immoral.
No, you're not getting it. We have definitely proven it to be immoral. There are numerous logical arguments where it is immoral. We have logically demonstrated it is immoral. There are exactly zero justifications why it would be moral. Therefore, the proof that it is immoral holds.
In the first case, the hypothetical is clearly contradictory and absurd. However, in the second case, the hypothetical is quite possible, because there is a tiny sliver of a chance that God's command is not contradictory with his proposed nature. There is no logical impossibility if there exists even that tiniest of slivers of possibility that child sacrifice is immoral. A tiniest of slivers which, I remind you, you have already agreed exists. (although then argued does not exist, then agreed again that it might, then again argued it does not).
Burden of proof. If God wants to demonstrate the logic by which it is moral to commit infanticide, God's welcome to do so. Barring that, logical argument holds.
The topic of discussion is that God has told us to perform child sacrifice. Our hypothetical selves therefore must interpret that command through our understanding of what child sacrifice is and what implications it has. This is different from the case where we as an omniscient narrators of the hypothetical know exactly what is being commanded and done.
We know what is being commanded, Tiax. Child sacrifice. It's in the thread title. "Would you kill your own child?" Pretty explicit.
Also explicit is my answer. The answer is no until God demonstrates why it would be considered a moral action.
Wrong. That is not the definition of omnibenevolent.
Omnibenevolent means that God must be infinitely good. Omnibenevolent. All benevolent.
It does not necessarily mean God cannot command an evil action, because...
How do you know it's an evil action to command you to commit an evil action?
You yourself have stated that we have imperfect understanding of good and evil. You could be totally wrong about God commanding something evil being an evil act. Maybe it's a good one. You don't know. You said you didn't.
Sure, so let's consider the other properties of God that we've agreed to previously: honesty and omniscience. If God is omnibenevolent and omniscient, he knows exactly what is and is not moral. If he is honest, he cannot tell you that something is moral when it is not.
Of course child sacrifice is immoral. All logic dictates that it is. Saying, "Well in this hypothetical scenario immoral actions aren't immoral" doesn't change that because there must then be a reason that it is moral, a reason that somehow exists despite flying in the face of all logic. You know the word for something that flies in the face of all logic? You guessed it: illogical.
That's the problem with your scenario. Things aren't moral because they're commanded by God, they're commanded by God because they're moral. Thus, you need to justify why they're moral. Tiax being lazy and saying, "Well whatever, they're justified. Because reasons," doesn't work, because you have to demonstrate what those reasons are. Those reasons matter. They inform our understanding of why something is moral. Without that, everything breaks down and the scenario makes no sense.
That's what a paradox is. Saying that a figure is a circle and that a figure has three sides doesn't work, because you're calling a circle something that all logic dictates is not one. Saying, "Well, you're completely wrong about what a circle is and whether or not it can have sides," tears down all framework and renders all terms meaningless.
No, you're not getting it. We have definitely proven it to be immoral. There are numerous logical arguments where it is immoral. We have logically demonstrated it is immoral. There are exactly zero justifications why it would be moral. Therefore, the proof that it is immoral holds.
Okay, what is your logical proof that child sacrifice is immoral? Not just an argument that gives evidence that it is very likely immoral, but logic from first principles which proves it to be so.
Burden of proof. If God wants to demonstrate the logic by which it is moral to commit infanticide, God's welcome to do so. Barring that, logical argument holds.
There is no burden of proof here. God is agreed to be unable to be wrong about this.
We know what is being commanded, Tiax. Child sacrifice. It's in the thread title. "Would you kill your own child?" Pretty explicit.
Also explicit is my answer. The answer is no until God demonstrates why it would be considered a moral action.
Right, we know what the text of the command is. But we don't necessarily know all of the implications of following that command. If the question were, "If God tells you to press a button, would you do it?" does that imply that there can be no unstated effects of pressing that button?
Sure, so let's consider the other properties of God that we've agreed to previously: honesty and omniscience. If God is omnibenevolent and omniscient, he knows exactly what is and is not moral. If he is honest, he cannot tell you that something is moral when it is not.
Except God never actually said what he was commanding was benevolent or good.
What God proved was that God was omnibenevolent. But he never said anything about his command being good. You presumed his command had to be good. But you had no reason to claim as such, because you didn't know. See how trying to undermine the ability of a person to know something to be moral or immoral in an attempt to defend your point can be turned back against you?
And with this, you've pretty much conceded that omnibenevolent God commanding something says nothing about that command being good. You have defeated yourself.
Okay, what is your logical proof that child sacrifice is immoral? Not just an argument that gives evidence that it is very likely immoral, but logic from first principles which proves it to be so.
I've already given it.
If I love my child, why would I sacrifice him to God? Why would I bind him to an altar and kill him? I wouldn't want to kill him. I care about his well-being. I want him to live.
This is because I love my child. I love him to the point where I would voluntarily take harm, risk, and even death upon myself to prevent those things from coming to him. I love him with a love that is self-sacrificing.
And as we are to understand, that love is the highest form of good. That is the most godly love, and to love in that manner is the most godly action. God himself is defined and known by the fact that he loves to that extent. To know love is to know God, and to know God is to know that love.
So with that in mind, why precisely would sacrificing my son ever be a good or godly action? It wouldn't. Of course it wouldn't, it defies the fundamental basis behind that which allows us to claim an action is good or godly: love.
This is your problem. The word "good" means something. The word "benevolent" means something. The word "godly" means something. You can't just arbitrarily declare something to fulfill one of these definitions, it must actually fulfill one of these definitions. If it doesn't, it isn't that thing. Same deal as the circle. A triangle can't be a circle no matter how many times you declare that in the hypothetical situation you have crafted, the triangle is a circle. It doesn't work because the only way that term can mean anything is that it possesses the definition it has, and you must then demonstrate that the definition has been fulfilled.
There is no burden of proof here. God is agreed to be unable to be wrong about this.
Of course there is a burden of proof. There is ALWAYS a burden of proof, with every statement, every assertion. That's how burden of proof works.
Remember, something isn't right because God commands it. God commands it because it is right. Therefore, it is not right because God commands it. God commands it because it is right.
God commanding it therefore is not what proves it is right. What proves it is right is just that: the proof it is right. The fact that God commands it is because God knows the proof. But saying, "I know the proof," is not enough to fulfill the burden of proof. One must demonstrate the proof to fulfill the burden of proof. That's THE ENTIRE POINT of the burden of proof.
Right, we know what the text of the command is. But we don't necessarily know all of the implications of following that command.
Yes we do. We know that a child is going to be sacrificed, because that's the entire ******* point of this conversation: Would you be willing to sacrifice your own child?
If the question were, "If God tells you to press a button, would you do it?" does that imply that there can be no unstated effects of pressing that button?
Another bad analogy. There is nothing moral or immoral inherent to pushing a button. It's a button, whatever.
There is, however, a huge moral issue with killing a person, and that huge moral issue is entirely the point of this discussion. Saying, "Well maybe there won't be a person being killed," is totally contrary to the entire point of this discussion.
Except, no. God never actually said what he was commanding was benevolent or good.
What God proved was that God was omnibenevolent. But he never said anything about his command being good. You presumed his command had to be good. But you had no reason to claim as such, because you didn't know. See how trying to undermine the ability of a person to know something to be moral or immoral in an attempt to defend your point can be turned back against you?
And with this, you've pretty much conceded that omnibenevolent God commanding something says nothing about that command being good. You have defeated yourself.
We agreed that God could prove his nature to you, and that nature included omnibenevolence, honesty, and omniscience. Certainly if you do not have honesty, then you cannot deduce that his command is good. With it, however, you can be certain.
I've already given it.
If I love my child, why would I kill him instead of protecting him from death? I wouldn't want to kill him. I care about his well-being. I want him to live.
This is because I love my child. I love him to the point where I would voluntarily take harm, risk, and even death upon myself to prevent those things from coming to him. I love him with a love that is self-sacrificing.
And as we are to understand, that love is the highest form of good. That is the most godly love, and to love in that manner is the most godly action. God himself is defined and known by the fact that he loves to that extent. To know love is to know God, and to know God is to know that love.
So with that in mind, why precisely would killing my son ever be a good or godly action? It wouldn't. Of course it wouldn't, it defies the fundamental basis behind that which allows us to claim an action is good or godly: love.
This is your problem. The word "good" means something. The word "benevolent" means something. The word "godly" means something. You can't just arbitrarily declare something to fulfill one of these definitions, it must actually fulfill one of these definitions. If it doesn't, it isn't that thing. Same deal as the circle. A triangle can't be a circle no matter how many times you declare that in the hypothetical situation you have crafted, the triangle is a circle. It doesn't work because the only way that term can mean anything is that it possesses the definition it has, and you must then demonstrate that the definition has been fulfilled.
I am absolutely staggered that you believe this to be a sound logical proof from first principles. I can only conclude that you are unclear what some or all of those words mean. This isn't a proof, this isn't logical and this isn't from first principles. This is a rambling argument filled with bizarre unsupported claims about love. If this is all you have to support your claim that child sacrifice must with 100% certainty be immoral, then I'm not sure what else can be said.
Of course there is a burden of proof. There is ALWAYS a burden of proof, with every statement, every assertion. That's how burden of proof works.
Remember, something isn't right because God commands it. God commands it because it is right. Therefore, it is not right because God commands it. God commands it because it is right.
God commanding it therefore is not what proves it is right. What proves it is right is just that: the proof it is right. The fact that God commands it is because God knows the proof. But saying, "I know the proof," is not enough to fulfill the burden of proof. One must demonstrate the proof to fulfill the burden of proof. That's THE ENTIRE POINT of the burden of proof.
If God says he knows the proof, and God is honest, then the proof exists. If the proof exists, the act is moral.
Right, we know what the text of the command is. But we don't necessarily know all of the implications of following that command.
Yes we do. We know that a child is going to be sacrificed, because that's the entire ******* point of this conversation: Would you be willing to sacrifice your own child?
If the question were, "If God tells you to press a button, would you do it?" does that imply that there can be no unstated effects of pressing that button?
Another bad analogy. There is nothing moral or immoral inherent to pushing a button. It's a button, whatever.
There is, however, a huge moral issue with killing a person, and that huge moral issue is entirely the point of this discussion. Saying, "Well maybe there won't be a person being killed," is totally contrary to the entire point of this discussion.
They are not even close to analogous.
Sometimes pressing a button kills a person. Just as unforeseen circumstances can turn a neutral action into an immoral one, they can turn an otherwise immoral one into a moral one.
Even when you may or may not be doing both at the same time.
Though, to clarify, I do believe that the idea of demanding animal (or human) sacrifices for the expiation of sins is not benevolent at all. So I'm right there with you with regards to the whole, "Why on earth are you sacrificing a squirrel?!" conversation.
We agreed that God could prove his nature to you, and that nature included omnibenevolence, honesty, and omniscience. Certainly if you do not have honesty, then you cannot deduce that his command is good. With it, however, you can be certain.
You totally ignored everything I just said.
Even if we grant that God is all of those things, that doesn't change the fact that God commanding something does not make what is being commanded inherently good. It is not good necessarily because God never stated it was. Even if God is somehow guaranteed to be 100% incapable of lying, that still doesn't mean that he can't be commanding you to do something evil, because commanding you to do something evil is not lying.
Again, God never said anything about what he's commanding you to do being moral. You, Tiax, presumed it was moral based on God being omnibenevolent, but as we've stated, due to you undermining the human ability to presume something to be good or not, you have made that an invalid presumption.
I am absolutely staggered that you believe this to be a sound logical proof from first principles.
Well since it's so obvious that it's not sound, you surely must be able to demonstrate that it is not sound.
This is a rambling argument filled with bizarre unsupported claims about love.
How are they unsupported? They are rooted in the basis of Christian belief. To say that is unsupported is on par with me saying your claim that God's existence is unsupported, which is absurd because Christian belief is a fundamental element of this discussion!
If God says he knows the proof, and God is honest, then the proof exists. If the proof exists, the act is moral.
Ok, great. And what is that proof, exactly?
Because demonstrating the proof is the entire point of the burden of proof. You really haven't fulfilled it without doing that part.
Sometimes pressing a button kills a person.
But there's nothing inherently deadly about pushing a button in and of itself.
There is, however, something inherently deadly about killing a person. Because that's, y'know, what the word deadly means. We don't have to wonder what hidden deadliness killing a person might cause, the deadly consequences are obvious. They're the entire point of the discussion. Saying, "Well maybe there might not actually be deadly consequences in this discussion about whether or not it's moral to kill your own child" does nothing other than demonstrate that you have missed the point entirely and bog the thread up for multiple pages with tangents that have nothing to do with the thread.
most replies in this thread can be answered by simple studies of scripture or even observation of creation. Most critics of scripture have never read/studied the Bible and that's the truth. They aren't satisfied because God has never slapped them in the face and said "here i am.. your God.. worship me". And scripture tells us even if he did, they still wouldn't believe. God also won't violate our free will.. he won't make us love him.. because that wouldn't be love. God has already provided us with his word, if you want proof, look there. If your argument is "well what if I had never been introduced to scripture?" well scripture deals with that argument too. take up a study on that. and anyways.. you have been introduced to scripture by me.. just now. so now you have somewhat of a responsibility.
I believe in God for many reasons: I believe the universe (& time) was created/caused by something outside of the universe. I don't think that sufficient evidence exists that life was created by chance, and entropy makes it a physical impossibility. If everything tends toward disorder (disinformation) (it does) then DNA (very complex information) simply could not have happened without a mind orchestrating it. I believe that right and wrong exist outside of ourselves and the standard was set by the creator. The Bible tells of a being that satisfies every aspect necessary to be considered a God, or what philosophers call a "supreme being". No other faith can boast this claim. Allah of the Koran is a liar, he is unknowable, and he is capricious (as an example). I believe we are half spirit and half flesh and the immaterial (spiritual) creator desires fellowship with us, but our corrupt flesh always tends toward destruction. The Bible is never illogical. The Bible also describes man's predicament (sin) and provides us with a satisfactory means of redemption. Most other faiths either fail to acknowledge sin, or fail to deal with it appropriately. I also believe because I've never dealt with an issue that cannot be resolved by scripture. I could probably go on but i'll stop there.
And now we are faced with what most people call post-modernism.. or as C.S. Lewis called it, "post-humanism". If we take away right and wrong and objective reality.. i don't think we can call ourselves human anymore. Lying is worng, sunsets are pretty, and reality is objective. I couldn't bear to live in a world where we decided what was right, and where we weren't accountable to anyone, and nothing meant anything. If you call yourself an atheist, think about the actual ramifications of such a thing and ask yourself if that is really what you want. Then if you seek alternatives I promise you will not be disappointed.
if it is wrong to kill my son, why? where does that standard come from? if reality is subjective then i am free to decide that killing my son is perfectly fine. However if there is a standard written on my heart by my creator, then it is indeed wrong. I'm just presenting this as an argument to the original poster but i don't think it deals with the heart of the issue, which can only be resolved by a study of the story of Abraham, and a parallel study of the sacrifice of Christ.
Even if we grant that God is all of those things, that doesn't change the fact that God commanding something does not make what is being commanded inherently good. It is not good necessarily because God never stated it was. Even if God is somehow guaranteed to be 100% incapable of lying, that still doesn't mean that he can't be commanding you to do something evil, because commanding you to do something evil is not lying.
Again, God never said anything about what he's commanding you to do being moral. You, Tiax, presumed it was moral based on God being omnibenevolent, but as we've stated, due to you undermining the human ability to presume something to be good or not, you have made that an invalid presumption.
We've previously established that God tells you that it is moral. Read back in the thread.
Well since it's so obvious that it's not sound, you surely must be able to demonstrate that it is not sound.
It's not sound because it doesn't proceed in the manner of a sound logical proof. A logical proof begins with a set of formal propositions, and then applies rules of inference to generate new propositions. It is not the same as a debate argument.
How are they unsupported? They are rooted in the basis of Christian belief. To say that is unsupported is on par with me saying your claim that God's existence is unsupported, which is absurd because Christian belief is a fundamental element of this discussion!
You do not simply get to assume that all of Christian belief is true. After all, God had to prove his nature to you. We didn't just assume that Christian belief on his nature was 100% true.
Ok, great. And what is that proof, exactly?
Because demonstrating the proof is the entire point of the burden of proof. You really haven't fulfilled it without doing that part.
Go back to my example of the proof computer. If the proof computer spits out a "yes", does that satisfy you?
But there's nothing inherently deadly about pushing a button in and of itself.
There is, however, something inherently deadly about killing a person. Because that's, y'know, what the word deadly means. We don't have to wonder what hidden deadliness killing a person might cause, the deadly consequences are obvious. They're the entire point of the discussion. Saying, "Well maybe there might not actually be deadly consequences in this discussion about whether or not it's moral to kill your own child" does nothing other than demonstrate that you have missed the point entirely and bog the thread up for multiple pages with tangents that have nothing to do with the thread.
We don't have to wonder about what hidden deadliness it might cause, but we do have to wonder what other hidden facts there might be.
Most critics of scripture have never read/studied the Bible and that's the truth.
It is absolutely not the truth. There are numerous extremely informed critiques of the Bible out there. What you're doing is (mis)characterizing your opposition with a broad generalization that allows you to dismiss their critiques a priori without having to think about or even to read them. In other words, you're telling yourself a comfortable lie.
They aren't satisfied because God has never slapped them in the face and said "here i am.. your God.. worship me". And scripture tells us even if he did, they still wouldn't believe.
Well, then, scripture is wrong. Skeptics believe in what they can observe and verify. If we could observe God, we ought to believe he exists. (Worshiping him is a different question entirely.)
God has already provided us with his word, if you want proof, look there.
Many people have written many books over the years. That it is written down does not constitute proof that it is true. You yourself deny that the Qur'an constitutes proof of the divinity of Allah, even though it says quite plainly that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet. It is illogical to privilege the claims in the Bible over the claims in any other book. Hold them to the same standard of skepticism.
If everything tends toward disorder (disinformation) (it does) then DNA (very complex information) simply could not have happened without a mind orchestrating it.
This is a misunderstanding of the principle of entropy. Life is possible because the earth is not a closed system: energy is constantly being pumped into it from the sun. An increase in the complexity of a system on a local scale is very much allowed - indeed, chaos theory says that it is in some cases inevitable. And the theory of evolution actually explains explains how life can get more complex without an intelligent designer. It doesn't just say it can; it explains it, as an algorithmic process.
But anyway, when you look at the system as a whole, entropy is occurring. The sun is burning through its available energy. When it runs out, life on earth will cease. All those molecules of DNA and other biological structures will break down, and the local increase in complexity will be averaged out.
The Bible tells of a being that satisfies every aspect necessary to be considered a God, or what philosophers call a "supreme being". No other faith can boast this claim.
No faith whatsoever can boast this claim; the god of the Bible is emphatically not the god of the philosophers - about which see more below. And even if he were, it would not follow that what the Bible says is actually the truth. I could type out a description of the philosopher's god right here, but that would not imply this god's existence, any more than an accurate description of a unicorn would imply that unicorns exist.
Allah of the Koran is a liar, he is unknowable, and he is capricious (as an example).
Do you seriously mean to claim that the God of the Old Testament is not all three of these things?
The very story of Abraham and Isaac that we're talking about is an excellent example. Numbers 23:19 does say, "God is not man, that he should lie, / or a son of man, that he should change his mind". But in the Isaac story, God communicates with Abraham twice, first to say that he wants Isaac sacrificed, then to say that he doesn't. Each of these communications can either be true or false. If both are true, then God has changed his mind at some point between them. If God never changed his mind, then one or the other must be false. (And for the sake of completeness, let us note a fourth logical possibility: that neither is true, and God changed his mind in a really perverse way. This exhausts all the possibilities: 2 × 2 = 4.) And if one of the communications is false, God certainly knew it to be false at the time he made it, and it is clear that he made it with the intention that Abraham believe it - therefore, God lied.
As for unknowability... Job 11:7-9. Proverbs 25:2. Mark 4:11-13. The whole doctrine of the Trinity (though that's not in the Bible). The difficulty or impossibility of understanding God is a huge part of Judeo-Christian tradition. It honestly boggles me that you could criticize Islam for it.
The Bible also describes man's predicament (sin) and provides us with a satisfactory means of redemption.
The Bible says that we are condemned because of an act we did not perform (original sin) and then redeemed because of another act we did not perform (Jesus' self-sacrifice). A satisfactory moral system would state that people are responsible for their own actions, positive and negative.
And now we are faced with what most people call post-modernism.. or as C.S. Lewis called it, "post-humanism". If we take away right and wrong and objective reality.. i don't think we can call ourselves human anymore. Lying is worng, sunsets are pretty, and reality is objective. I couldn't bear to live in a world where we decided what was right, and where we weren't accountable to anyone, and nothing meant anything. If you call yourself an atheist, think about the actual ramifications of such a thing and ask yourself if that is really what you want. Then if you seek alternatives I promise you will not be disappointed.
I call myself an atheist and I also believe in objective reality and morality. Do not conflate atheism with moral and/or metaphysical relativism. They are separate positions with separate arguments for and against them.
Furthermore, the argument you present here rests on wishful thinking. You say you believe in God because you would not want to live in a world where there was no God. But your wishes do not determine what is actually true. By your logic, you ought to believe there's pirate gold buried in your backyard because you would not want to live in a world where there was no pirate gold, and you ought not to believe in cancer because you would not want to live in a world where there was cancer. It sucks, but sometimes the world is not the way we want it to be.
Let me be as clear as I can on this matter: I would very much prefer to live in a world where an omnibenevolent God existed (though for the record, the figure described in the Bible does not qualify as "omnibenevolent"). He's all-good - he'd make the world better by definition. I logically cannot not prefer him to no-him. But I'm still an atheist. I don't let what I want override what the evidence tells me. That's the principle of objectivism. When you say that you should believe what you want to be true, that's subjectivism. You are the one attacking objective reality here.
if it is wrong to kill my son, why? where does that standard come from? if reality is subjective then i am free to decide that killing my son is perfectly fine. However if there is a standard written on my heart by my creator, then it is indeed wrong.
If you think that nothing besides God can make something wrong, and you think God says it's wrong, why does God's say-so make it wrong when nothing else will? Couldn't our hypothetical subjectivist still say, "God says it's wrong, but I disagree; I still think it's fine", just like he says for every other moral reason you give him? Sure, God created him, but that doesn't automatically give God moral authority over him. Our parents created us, and we don't think that our parents are always morally correct. And God has the power to reward him for obedience and punish him for disobedience. But the same can be said for any other person in a position of power, and we don't think that they are always morally correct.
If there is an objective morality - and again, I affirm that there is - then God's will is an untenable source for it. The moral statements of a benevolent God must reflect moral facts that have some other explanation than just him, some reason why it's good to help people and bad to hurt people. A logic like that found in Hobbes or Kant or even Darwin that holds fast whether or not God exists.
Am I correct in thinking that this debate between Tiax and Highroller comes down to Tiax saying "God is benevolent; therefore everything he commands must be benevolent/lead to something that is benevolent" and Highroller saying "God commands things BECAUSE they are benevolent and BECAUSE he is benevolent."
I believe Highroller pointed this out much earlier, and afaik this really is the crux of it all.
I just want to make sure so that I can follow this a bit better.
Am I correct in thinking that this debate between Tiax and Highroller comes down to Tiax saying "God is benevolent; therefore everything he commands must be benevolent/lead to something that is benevolent" and Highroller saying "God commands things BECAUSE they are benevolent and BECAUSE he is benevolent."
I believe Highroller pointed this out much earlier, and afaik this really is the crux of it all.
I just want to make sure so that I can follow this a bit better.
No, I don't think so. I'm not saying that God saying it is what -causes- it to be good. I think Highroller and I agree that things are good independently of whether God says them. What I'm saying is that if we are certain about a few properties of God, then we can trust that his saying that an act is moral is sufficient for us to reason that there exists some justification that proves it so. Knowing that a justification exists, even if we do not know its details is sufficient to know that the act is moral. There cannot be a proof of a false statement.
Am I correct in thinking that this debate between Tiax and Highroller comes down to Tiax saying "God is benevolent; therefore everything he commands must be benevolent/lead to something that is benevolent" and Highroller saying "God commands things BECAUSE they are benevolent and BECAUSE he is benevolent."
I believe Highroller pointed this out much earlier, and afaik this really is the crux of it all.
I just want to make sure so that I can follow this a bit better.
Short answer: Tiax doesn't understand that he's created a logical paradox.
Long answer: I, and several others, addressed the problem of God commanding someone kill his child by saying that if God commands someone to kill his child, he is not benevolent barring very good reasons for doing so, as killing your own child is a decidedly malevolent action unless you have very good reasons for doing so. God commanding a malevolent action calls his omnibenevolence into question. I, for one, went as far to say that the voice I'm hearing is pretty clearly not God if that's the command I'm hearing.
Tiax then went on to ask that if, hypothetically, God were to prove he is God and God were to prove he is omnibenevolent, would I then kill my child?
And here's where the problem is. The core contradiction is still there. Tiax himself concedes that God cannot be both omnibenevolent and command a not-benevolent action. Which is precisely what he's doing in Tiax's hypothetical.
The problem is Tiax is affirming the truth value of both statements:
1. God is infinitely benevolent and cannot command a non-benevolent action.
2. God is commanding someone to sacrifice his own son to God without giving any justification.
This becomes problematic because killing your own kid without any justifications is not a benevolent action. That's what the word benevolent means. But if that's not what the word "benevolent" means, then the action cannot be benevolent. But we've stated that God cannot command a benevolent action. So we have a paradox. We have a situation in which two contradictory statements are both asserted to be true. This is impossible.
Now, Tiax has reacted to this by saying, "Well, maybe it IS benevolent. Because of reasons. Reasons I don't have to explain ever!" To illustrate the problem with Tiax's methodology, consider the following:
1. God says that the figure is a circle
2. God is infallible
3. The figure has three sides
Tiax would react to this by saying, "Well, maybe it's still a circle despite having three sides!"
Except, that's absurd. A circle by very definition cannot have three sides. A triangle has three sides. A circle is a shape in which all points are equidistant from the center. If it has three sides, it isn't a circle. Thus, we have a logical contradiction.
Tiax would respond to this by saying, "But it has to be a circle. God is infallible, and we have agreed this to be true!" He would then proceed to say this over and over again for like three pages. But in saying this, he's missing the fundamental point of the whole thing, that yes, we have agreed that God's infallibility is true, and that's the entire point of a paradox. Paradoxes happen when you agree on the truth value of two or more contradictory statements. So barring an explanation as to how a circle can have three sides, this is a paradox.
Now back to our thread. We are saying God is [1] omnibenevolent and incapable of commanding something not-benevolent, and [2] commanding someone to sacrifice his son.
Except [2] is not an action a benevolent person would perform. It totally contradicts any definition of benevolence.
Therefore, we have a logical paradox. We are affirming the truth value of two contradictory statements, which is illogical. Therefore, we are in a paradox.
And of course Tiax will argue, "Well it might not be a paradox, because it could still be a benevolent action. Because of reasons. Reasons I don't have to explain to you." And I will grant that maybe there's a way of resolving this paradox, but until it's presented, it's still a paradox. Because that's what a paradox is. You can't just pretend a paradox is not a paradox, that's intellectually disingenuous.
Yes, maybe God does have a perfectly valid reason for ordering me to kill my child. Alternatively, maybe both God and I are both stuck in a terribly constructed and logically contradictory hypothetical situation by Tiax. So until someone, anyone, demonstrates to me that it's not the second, no sell.
We've previously established that God tells you that it is moral. Read back in the thread.
Sorry, I'd forgotten.
It's not sound because it doesn't proceed in the manner of a sound logical proof. A logical proof begins with a set of formal propositions, and then applies rules of inference to generate new propositions. It is not the same as a debate argument.
If omnibenevolent God cannot command a non-benevolent action, and omnibenevolent God commands a benevolent action, this is a paradox.
Omnibenevolent God is commanding that contradicts the definition of benevolence.
Something cannot be benevolent and contradict the definition of benevolence.
Ergo, paradox.
Therefore, until God (or anyone else for that matter) resolves the paradox, **** logic.
You do not simply get to assume that all of Christian belief is true. After all, God had to prove his nature to you. We didn't just assume that Christian belief on his nature was 100% true.
No, this debate is fundamentally rooted in the Christian belief on the nature of God. That's the whole reason we're having a debate in the first place: because people are looking at the way God is behaving in the proposed scenarios and saying it's contradictory to the characteristics of which we define God. Christian belief must hold because that's the entire point.
Go back to my example of the proof computer. If the proof computer spits out a "yes", does that satisfy you?
Not until it demonstrates the rationale behind the answer.
God has already provided us with his word, if you want proof, look there.
Except for the part where the Bible is rife with contradictions and inaccuracies, as well as stories that are just outright made up. Either it is not the word of God, or God's word is rife with contradictions and inaccuracies, as well as stories that are just outright made up. Take your pick.
Personally, I choose former. And just to be clear: I'm Christian and do believe in God.
I also believe because I've never dealt with an issue that cannot be resolved by scripture.
Heh. Really? In what order were the things in Creation created?
if it is wrong to kill my son, why? where does that standard come from? if reality is subjective then i am free to decide that killing my son is perfectly fine. However if there is a standard written on my heart by my creator, then it is indeed wrong. I'm just presenting this as an argument to the original poster but i don't think it deals with the heart of the issue, which can only be resolved by a study of the story of Abraham, and a parallel study of the sacrifice of Christ.
But that's just it, that's the whole point of what we're talking about: God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son. Yes, God did intercede at the very end, but that's besides the point. Had God not interceded, Abraham would have killed his son. Abraham was fully prepared to kill his son.
Now, had he done so, would that have been moral? God was commanding him to do so, after all. What if God hadn't intervened?
If omnibenevolent God cannot command a non-benevolent action, and omnibenevolent God commands a benevolent action, this is a paradox.
Omnibenevolent God is commanding that contradicts the definition of benevolence.
Something cannot be benevolent and contradict the definition of benevolence.
Ergo, paradox.
Therefore, until God (or anyone else for that matter) resolves the paradox, **** logic.
You have not proven that commanding child sacrifice contradicts the definition of benevolence. This is not a simple definitional matter like circle/triangle, or crashing's married/bachelor. If you want to claim that child sacrifice is definitely not moral, you have to prove that. You have so far not done so, or even made a legitimate attempt at doing so. We all agree that it's almost certainly immoral, so merely arguing and presenting evidence that it is most likely immoral does not help. If you want to claim that we have a fundamental contradiction, you must establish that it is a logically-proven fact that child sacrifice is always immoral.
No, this debate is fundamentally rooted in the Christian belief on the nature of God. That's the whole reason we're having a debate in the first place: because people are looking at the way God is behaving in the proposed scenarios and saying it's contradictory to the characteristics of which we define God. Christian belief must hold because that's the entire point.
You were unwilling to accept that God is 100% certainly omnibenevolent etc. Yet that is a fundamental Christian belief. Now you've changed your mind. You seem to be inventing rules on the fly when they suit you, and abandoning them as soon as they don't.
Not until it demonstrates the rationale behind the answer.
So, consider the proof-checking computer, which runs a logically-verifiable program that iterates through all possible valid symbolic logic proofs in our moral calculus and stops and outputs "yes" when it finds one whose conclusion is "X is immoral" (note that if none exists, the computer may simply run forever). Which of the following statements do you disagree with?
1) If the computer outputs "yes", it has discovered a valid proof which demonstrates that X is immoral.
2) A false statement cannot have a valid proof. Therefore a statement which has a valid proof must be true.
It seems to me that if you accept both of those, you must accept that the computer's output of "yes" means that X is immoral.
If you already know that X is immoral given that the computer outputs "yes", it makes no sense to also demand to know the justification. That adds nothing to your knowledge.
You have not proven that commanding child sacrifice contradicts the definition of benevolence. This is not a simple definitional matter like circle/triangle, or crashing's married/bachelor.
Except for the part where it is.
Benevolence means concern for another's well-being. People who are concerned for another's well-being don't tie them to an altar and murder them. That's the opposite of what they would do. Ergo, not benevolent.
Besides, as I said before, WHY am I asking for rationale as to killing a child? Oh right, because I don't want to kill a child. Why don't I want to kill a child? Because I'm concerned for the safety of the child, and killing the child is about as contrary to being concerned for the safety of the child as could possibly be, right? That is what the word "safety" means, correct? Ok great. And what is that word we have when you're concerned for the well-being of others? Starts with a "b" and has eleven letters?
It's benevolence. SURPRISE!
If you want to claim that child sacrifice is definitely not moral, you have to prove that.
I have provided proofs that it is immoral...
We all agree that it's almost certainly immoral,
... and you have conceded that I have.
If you want to claim that we have a fundamental contradiction, you must establish that it is a logically-proven fact that child sacrifice is always immoral.
No, I don't. I just have to demonstrate that there are plenty of logical arguments why it's a stupid ******* idea to do so, and why it's blatantly ******* wrong.
Having done that, I can just sit back and relax while the burden of proof rests on Tiax to sit there and imagine why on earth it would be moral for sacrifice one's child. Because that's how burden of proof works. Likewise, it could be possible that there is a circle with three sides. Let someone prove that there is, and I will be more than happy to believe him, because that person will have met the burden of proof.
I don't have to prove beyond a doubt that there's no circumstance in which child sacrifice is moral. I've already stated there may well be. That's great. Let God prove it and I'll be more than happy to do so. But God hasn't proven it. And clearly, this is because we're in a haphazardly constructed hypothetical by Tiax that is paradoxical due to it being logically contradictory.
EDIT: By the way, Tiax, I just realized why this whole thing is really ironic and funny. Here goes:
Why are you an atheist? Have you proven beyond a doubt that God doesn't exist?
You were unwilling to accept that God is 100% certainly omnibenevolent etc.
Oh no no no no, I am perfectly willing to accept that God is 100% omnibenevolent. Remember, I actually believe in an omnibenevolent God actually exists in real life.
However, we are now in a hypothetical situation where God is commanding something un-God-like. Indeed, you have told me outright that I need to completely reevaluate everything I believe about God. So that is where I start my reevaluation, because you have God commanding something that is decidedly not-benevolent.
(Also not God-like. Also, directly contradictory to what God previously commanded. Cuz, y'know, he did do that too.)
Yet that is a fundamental Christian belief.
Yes it is.
Now you've changed your mind.
Yup.
You seem to be inventing rules on the fly when they suit you, and abandoning them as soon as they don't.
Actually, that's you, my friend. Any time you are confronted with the fact that your scenario logically contradicts itself, you dismiss the idea that it's logically contradictory. Hell, you haven't even bothered to make up a reason why child sacrifice is moral in this scenario. You just say, "Yup, it's totally moral. Trust me. It's moral because of reasons I don't have to explain to you. Yep. Totally moral in every way. And you just have to trust me on this without any logical explanation as to why the clearly immoral thing that God is uncharacteristically commanding you to do is totally fine and dandy. Because of reasons I don't have to explain. Because I said so."
You are the one who is performing somersaults to get your scenario to work. I, on the other hand, have been pointing to the dictionary and saying, "Dictionary," because words mean things. Saying something is benevolent when it contradicts the definition of benevolence is like saying a circle can have three sides. Hey, maybe it can, maybe I'm wrong, but you have to demonstrate that it can. You have to demonstrate that a shape is a circle. You have to demonstrate that sacrificing a child is benevolent. Playing games to dodge the burden of proof is not meeting the burden of proof. It's the opposite of that.
So, consider the proof-checking computer, which runs a logically-verifiable program that iterates through all possible valid symbolic logic proofs in our moral calculus and stops and outputs "yes" when it finds one whose conclusion is "X is immoral" (note that if none exists, the computer may simply run forever). Which of the following statements do you disagree with?
I disagree with the fact that it isn't sharing with me the totally logical rationale for saying it's correct. In other words, exactly the same reason I'm disagreeing with the God hypothetical scenario you provided. Replacing God with a supercomputer – while making for the premise of a very good Twilight Zone episode — does not make the problem go away.
If you already know that X is immoral given that the computer outputs "yes", it makes no sense to also demand to know the justification.
It makes no sense to be a rational and intellectually responsible human being?
You have not proven that commanding child sacrifice contradicts the definition of benevolence. This is not a simple definitional matter like circle/triangle, or crashing's married/bachelor.
Except for the part where it is.
Benevolence means concern for another's well-being. People who are concerned for another's well-being don't tie them to an altar and murder them. That's the opposite of what they would do. Ergo, not benevolent.
Besides, as I said before, WHY am I asking for rationale as to killing a child? Oh right, because I don't want to kill a child. Why don't I want to kill a child? Because I'm concerned for the safety of the child, and killing the child is about as contrary to being concerned for the safety of the child as could possibly be, right? That is what the word "safety" means, correct? Ok great. And what is that word we have when you're concerned for the well-being of others? Starts with a "b" and has eleven letters?
It's benevolence. SURPRISE!
If you want to claim that child sacrifice is definitely not moral, you have to prove that.
I have provided proofs that it is immoral...
We all agree that it's almost certainly immoral,
... and you have conceded that I have.
If you want to claim that we have a fundamental contradiction, you must establish that it is a logically-proven fact that child sacrifice is always immoral.
No, I don't. I just have to demonstrate that there are plenty of logical arguments why it's a stupid ******* idea to do so, and why it's blatantly ******* wrong.
Having done that, I can just sit back and relax while the burden of proof rests on Tiax to sit there and imagine why on earth it would be moral for sacrifice one's child. Because that's how burden of proof works. Likewise, it could be possible that there is a circle with three sides. Let someone prove that there is, and I will be more than happy to believe him, because that person will have met the burden of proof.
I don't have to prove beyond a doubt that there's no circumstance in which child sacrifice is moral. I've already stated there may well be. That's great. Let God prove it and I'll be more than happy to do so. But God hasn't proven it. And clearly, this is because we're in a haphazardly constructed hypothetical by Tiax that is paradoxical due to it being logically contradictory.
EDIT: By the way, Tiax, I just realized why this whole thing is really ironic and funny. Here goes:
Why are you an atheist? Have you proven beyond a doubt that God doesn't exist?
You were unwilling to accept that God is 100% certainly omnibenevolent etc.
Oh no no no no, I am perfectly willing to accept that God is 100% omnibenevolent. Remember, I actually believe in an omnibenevolent God actually exists in real life.
However, we are now in a hypothetical situation where God is commanding something un-God-like. Indeed, you have told me outright that I need to completely reevaluate everything I believe about God. So that is where I start my reevaluation, because you have God commanding something that is decidedly not-benevolent.
(Also not God-like. Also, directly contradictory to what God previously commanded. Cuz, y'know, he did do that too.)
Yet that is a fundamental Christian belief.
Yes it is.
Now you've changed your mind.
Yup.
You seem to be inventing rules on the fly when they suit you, and abandoning them as soon as they don't.
Actually, that's you, my friend. Any time you are confronted with the fact that your scenario logically contradicts itself, you dismiss the idea that it's logically contradictory. Hell, you haven't even bothered to make up a reason why child sacrifice is moral in this scenario. You just say, "Yup, it's totally moral. Trust me. It's moral because of reasons I don't have to explain to you. Yep. Totally moral in every way. And you just have to trust me on this without any logical explanation as to why the clearly immoral thing that God is uncharacteristically commanding you to do is totally fine and dandy. Because of reasons I don't have to explain. Because I said so."
You are the one who is performing somersaults to get your scenario to work. I, on the other hand, have been pointing to the dictionary and saying, "Dictionary," because words mean things. Saying something is benevolent when it contradicts the definition of benevolence is like saying a circle can have three sides. Hey, maybe it can, maybe I'm wrong, but you have to demonstrate that it can. You have to demonstrate that a shape is a circle. You have to demonstrate that sacrificing a child is benevolent. Playing games to dodge the burden of proof is not meeting the burden of proof. It's the opposite of that.
If you want to claim that "God is omnibenevolent, honest, etc." and "God says child sacrifice is immoral" are contradictory, you must prove that child sacrifice is definitely moral. Prove, not just argue. Otherwise, you have not proven a contradiction. You've just argued for the potential for a contradiction. If you cannot prove a contradiction, you cannot assert that my hypothetical "logically contradicts itself", as you have failed to show that. Nothing that you have posted so far even approaches an attempt at a proof.
I disagree with the fact that it isn't sharing with me the totally logical rationale for saying it's correct. In other words, exactly the same reason I'm disagreeing with the God hypothetical scenario you provided. Replacing God with a supercomputer – while making for the premise of a very good Twilight Zone episode — does not make the problem go away.
That is not one of the facts that is to be disagreed with. If you accept the two facts that I listed, you must accept the logical conclusion from them. Merely complaining that you don't get to know the secret proof doesn't change anything.
It makes no sense to be a rational and intellectually responsible human being?
It makes no sense to claim to be rational and fail to grasp that you already have the information needed to make an rational conclusion.
If you want to claim that "God is omnibenevolent, honest, etc." and "God says child sacrifice is immoral" are contradictory, you must prove that child sacrifice is definitely moral. Prove, not just argue. Otherwise, you have not proven a contradiction. You've just argued for the potential for a contradiction. If you cannot prove a contradiction, you cannot assert that my hypothetical "logically contradicts itself", as you have failed to show that.
Yes I have.
I have demonstrated why child sacrifice is immoral, not-benevolent, and un-Godly. You, however, are unable to provide anything to the contrary.
Thus, you have not met the burden of proof, and you have nothing to offer but a logical contradiction. Saying, "I am Tiax and therefore the burden of proof does not apply to me" does not change that.
It makes no sense to claim to be rational and fail to grasp that you already have the information needed to make an rational conclusion.
I have made the rational decision. The rational decision is to not sacrifice my child barring a rational argument from God or anyone else telling me that I should, detailing exactly why I should consider such an obviously immoral and not-benevolent action to be moral and benevolent.
Similarly, I should not consider the figure with three sides to be a circle barring a detailed explanation as to why I should consider a three-sided figure a circle.
Now if you have compelling evidence for either of those, by all means, contribute. But until then, you have not met the burden of proof, and the paradox remains a paradox.
You have simply given arguments to support the idea that it is immoral. We all agree that it is almost certainly immoral. You wish to claim more than that - that is it actually 100% certainly immoral, and therefore my hypothetical is contradictory on its face. If you wish to claim that, the burden of proof is on you. You must give a proof, not just an argument, but a series of logical inferences from first principles that PROVE it to be certain. Only then can you dismiss my hypothetical as flatly contradictory.
My claim, on the other hand, is what we all already agree to - that it is almost certainly immoral. That leaves a tiny sliver of chance that it is not. In that case, my hypothetical is not contradictory on its face and cannot be dismissed so easily.
EDIT: You already have a rational argument:
God says it's moral.
God knows what is moral.
God cannot lie about what is moral.
Therefore it's moral.
Or, in terms of the proof-checking computer:
The computer says there's a proof.
The computer cannot say "yes" unless it finds a proof.
Therefore, it's moral.
Whether or not you know the fundamental proof is not relevant. You can instead construct for yourself a proof which proceeds from these new facts to which you have been exposed - God's statement or the computer's output. This new proof is not fundamental and unconditional like the underlying reason for why the act is moral, but it is still valid. It merely depends on knowing additional facts and using them as new premises. Luckily for us, God has proven these new premises to us, and we are free to use them.
You have simply given arguments to support the idea that it is immoral. We all agree that it is almost certainly immoral. You wish to claim more than that - that is it actually 100% certainly immoral, and therefore my hypothetical is contradictory on its face.
Which it is. A circle cannot have three sides, a non-benevolent action cannot be benevolent. This is true by definition.
I have demonstrated that which you argue to be benevolent to not be benevolent, for it goes against the definition of the word "benevolent." Therefore, you logically contradict yourself.
If you wish to claim that, the burden of proof is on you. You must give a proof, not just an argument, but a series of logical inferences from first principles that PROVE it to be certain.
Which I have met the requirements of.
My claim, on the other hand, is what we all already agree to - that it is almost certainly immoral. That leaves a tiny sliver of chance that it is not. In that case, my hypothetical is not contradictory on its face and cannot be dismissed so easily.
Of course it can be dismissed easily. You have asserted it without evidence, and therefore I can certainly dismiss it without evidence.
Any rational human being must acknowledge his own fallibility. Maybe the circle can have three-sides. Maybe Tiax isn't wasting our time with his absurdity. Maybe the earth is flat. Certainly, anyone is welcome to bring a rational proof to the table to demonstrate as such.
But until that happens, you have not met the burden of proof. And as such, there is no weight to your argument. I have demonstrated that your argument is paradoxical. You have done nothing to reconcile the contradiction. You have merely attempted to say that the burden of proof doesn't apply to you through various rhetorical games, all the while refusing to acknowledge the contradiction.
You haven't met the burden of proof. You haven't reconciled the logical contradiction. Moreover, we know you can't because you've admitted as such in this thread.
Therefore, your argument has no validity at all. It remains a logical contradiction. Saying, "I am Tiax and the burden of proof doesn't apply to me because I don't want it to" does not count as a valid argument.
EDIT:
EDIT: You already have a rational argument:
God says it's moral.
God knows what is moral.
God cannot lie about what is moral.
Therefore it's moral.
No, YOU have a rational argument.
1. God cannot give a non-benevolent command
2. God orders child sacrifice
3. To commit child sacrifice is contrary to benevolence and thus non-benevolent
4. God, who cannot give a non-benevolent command, has given a non-benevolent command
You have, as much as you might wish otherwise, not demonstrated that child sacrifice is immoral. It's as simple as that. Give me a proof following the rules of logical inference, not a few paragraphs of rambling nonsense about how love is godly.
You have, as much as you might wish otherwise, not demonstrated that child sacrifice is immoral.
Of course I have. I've done so repeatedly throughout this thread. It's called, "Knowing what the definition of the word 'benevolent' is." Much like knowing that a three-sided figure cannot be a circle because of what the word "circle" means, sacrificing one's child to God cannot be said to be a "benevolent" action. Benevolence is defined by caring for the well-being and welfare of others. Killing someone is the exact ******* opposite of acting for that person's benefit.
Therefore, child sacrifice does not fulfill the definition of the word "benevolent."
Therefore, God has given a non-benevolent command, which contradicts your statement that God only gives benevolent commands, and therefore creates a logical paradox in which the statement, "God only gives benevolent commands" and "God commands child sacrifice" are established as contradictory yet are both affirmed by you to be true. The burden of proof now falls on you to reconcile the paradox.
Then you come in with some asinine response like, "Well that's impossible, because we agreed God only gives benevolent commands to be true," which just indicates you have no idea what a paradox even is. It's two or more statements affirmed to be true that contradict each other, Tiax. Saying it more isn't going to help you. You have to demonstrate why they're not contradictory. Burden of proof.
But all of this is me wasting my time because it's not like you actually care about what is logical or not. You're not listening because you've decided you're correct and are ignoring any argument to the contrary. This is why you avoid the burden of proof when it's applied to you. This is avoidance. You don't want yourself to be wrong, and in your mind that's enough to convince yourself that you are correct. But this is a place for logical discussion, Tiax.
The question was not to prove that killing is or is not benevolent. It was to prove that it is or is not moral.
Proving that it is not benevolent (which I still contend you have not done, by the way) doesn't really help. God is not the one doing the killing, so even if it were non-benevolent, it would not contradict his claimed nature. Similarly, giving a command that a non-benevolent action be taken is not necessarily itself non-benevolent. God's restrictions are that he takes only benevolent actions, knows exactly which actions are moral and immoral, and is honest with us when sharing his knowledge. He is perfectly within his rights to command a non-benevolent action be taken if that command turns out to not be non-benevolent.
Now, as to your claimed proof that killing not benevolent. You assert, without evidence, that killing is not in a person's benefit. How do you know this? It certainly seems probable, but we're in the realm of proofs here. These sorts of assertions need to be logically derived from first principles, not just thrown in. Further, the definition of benevolence is not "not killing". If it were, this would be as simple as the circle/triangle question.
You have, as much as you might wish otherwise, not demonstrated that child sacrifice is immoral.
Of course I have. I've done so repeatedly throughout this thread. It's called, "Knowing what the definition of the word 'benevolent' is." Much like knowing that a three-sided figure cannot be a circle because of what the word "circle" means, sacrificing one's child to God cannot be said to be a "benevolent" action. Benevolence is defined by caring for the well-being and welfare of others. Killing someone is the exact ******* opposite of acting for that person's benefit.
Therefore, child sacrifice does not fulfill the definition of the word "benevolent."
Therefore, God has given a non-benevolent command, which contradicts your statement that God only gives benevolent commands, and therefore creates a logical paradox in which the statement, "God only gives benevolent commands" and "God commands child sacrifice" are established as contradictory yet are both affirmed by you to be true. The burden of proof now falls on you to reconcile the paradox.
In the various Problem of Evil/Problem of Suffering threads, it was repeatedly argued that God could allow horrible things to happen because he knew (via omniscience) that the long-run outcome would be better. If God is benevolent by your definition above, then surely he would need to (for example) prevent all serious earthquakes, as he has the capability to do so, and failure to do so is injurious to the well-being and welfare of others. (And via the long-term consequences argument, child sacrifice of, say, Hitler, might've been long-run benevolent.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Except that in this case, God is actually COMMANDING you to do something.
there is a difference between allowing something to happen, and actually going out of your way to cause something. God will allow earthquakes and volcanoes, because he isn't doing anything to cause them. He will not command someone to perform child sacrifice, because he then is actually taking steps to cause something that is demonstrably wrong.
Who wants some mass produced nonsense when they can get a nice, homemade squirrel carcass?
No, you just contradicted yourself. You said I have a moral responsibility to seek justification for my actions, and then two sentences later you say it's irrelevant whether I know the actual justification for my actions. It cannot be both morally imperative I know the justification for my actions and be irrelevant as to whether or not I know the justification for my actions.
I am the person performing the action. I am choosing to perform the action. Therefore, the action is my responsibility. Therefore the moral imperative is on me to justify my actions, not deflect the question to someone else. That is morally irresponsible. I must be able to justify my actions. Merely knowing there is a justification is not good enough.
Of course it's the case. If you can't demonstrate why something is true, you haven't proven it.
No, that's not what I asked. You're dodging the question.
How do we know the action God is commanding isn't evil instead of good? Saying, "We can rule out God is evil" doesn't answer the question. It's irrelevant. By your own logic, God could command an evil action despite being good.
So how do you conclude that the action God is commanding is good? How do you know that God isn't commanding something evil?
As I have stated, your own logic prevents us from knowing that the act is moral even if God is omnibenevolent.
Moreover, even if it were, it would still be irresponsible due to the fact that I do not know what the justification is.
But we do not know that.
Why? By demonstrating the paradoxical nature of your hypothetical scenario? That's not because what I said confuses the issue, Tiax, it's because what I said demonstrates how you are confused.
Not only do I not, but you are proposing a scenario in which God is commanding an action that is decidedly not-Godlike.
That's like saying that the circle has three sides, or the classic "What's written on this side of the paper is true/what's written on the other side is false" paradox. Your scenario presents a logically impossible scenario. Why would God give an un-Godly command? How could behaving in a decidedly un-Godly manner be good when God is omnibenevolent? When we have definitions of what is good and how we can know good and know God, why would God command us to do the opposite, and why would the opposite of this be good?
That doesn't make any sense at all. It goes back to what we said at the start, this hypothetical scenario is bogus because God is behaving in a clearly immoral way.
Which only demonstrates what I've been saying all along: the correct answer is to not go ahead with it until God can justify his command.
The topic of discussion is to determine whether or not child sacrifice is something someone should perform in the name of God if God were to command it. Saying, "Well it's not really child sacrifice" is taking this discussion down an entirely pointless direction that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
If logic demonstrates that child sacrifice is immoral, then you would be incorrect to agree that there is a chance it is not. Do you believe that you can give a logical proof of the immorality of child sacrifice, and can give a logically sound way to identify the situations covered by that proof? If you can, this entire hypothetical is impossible.
The moral responsibility, ultimately, is to know that the action is moral. If you know that there is a justification, then you know the act is moral. The knowledge that a justification exists is itself a justification, because it provides all the information you need to conclude that the act is moral.
By analogy, consider the question of whether a particular number can be factored. One way for me to prove to you that it can be factored is to show you the factorization. But this is not the only way. There are also ways for me to prove to you that the factorization exists without telling you what it is. If I give you such a demonstration, then you can safely conclude that the number is composite without ever knowing what the factors are. It would be foolish to see such a proof and then demand to know the factors anyway - that would give you no additional information about the core question of whether the number can be factored.
If you can demonstrate that a proof exists, that is itself a proof. False statements cannot have proofs. Suppose that we come up with a framework of morality entirely in symbolic logic. We then build a verifiably-correct computer program to start churning through all possible proofs in this symbolic logic until it finds one that proves the statement "X is moral". If it ever finds such a proof, it stops and outputs "yes". It doesn't tell us what the proof is, and there's no way for us to go back and find out. But if we see that "yes", we can know such a proof exists, and therefore we can know that X is moral.
That's the definition of omnibenevolence. God cannot command an evil action because God is omnibenevolent and has proven himself to be so.
Knowing the justification adds nothing beyond knowing that the justification exists.
There is nothing paradoxical here unless you have a proof that child sacrifice must be immoral. I certainly grant that if such a proof exists, and if there is a way to prove it applies to any particular situation, then the hypothetical is impossible.
We have to distinguish the case where child sacrifice is definitely, provably immoral and the case where child sacrifice is only extremely likely to be immoral. In the first case, the hypothetical is clearly contradictory and absurd. However, in the second case, the hypothetical is quite possible, because there is a tiny sliver of a chance that God's command is not contradictory with his proposed nature. There is no logical impossibility if there exists even that tiniest of slivers of possibility that child sacrifice is immoral. A tiniest of slivers which, I remind you, you have already agreed exists. (although then argued does not exist, then agreed again that it might, then again argued it does not).
The topic of discussion is that God has told us to perform child sacrifice. Our hypothetical selves therefore must interpret that command through our understanding of what child sacrifice is and what implications it has. This is different from the case where we as an omniscient narrators of the hypothetical know exactly what is being commanded and done.
Omnibenevolent means that God must be infinitely good. Omnibenevolent. All benevolent.
It does not necessarily mean God cannot command an evil action, because...
How do you know it's an evil action to command you to commit an evil action?
You yourself have stated that we have imperfect understanding of good and evil. You could be totally wrong about God commanding something evil being an evil act. Maybe it's a good one. You don't know. You said you didn't.
Of course child sacrifice is immoral. All logic dictates that it is. Saying, "Well in this hypothetical scenario immoral actions aren't immoral" doesn't change that because there must then be a reason that it is moral, a reason that somehow exists despite flying in the face of all logic. You know the word for something that flies in the face of all logic? You guessed it: illogical.
That's the problem with your scenario. Things aren't moral because they're commanded by God, they're commanded by God because they're moral. Thus, you need to justify why they're moral. Tiax being lazy and saying, "Well whatever, they're justified. Because reasons," doesn't work, because you have to demonstrate what those reasons are. Those reasons matter. They inform our understanding of why something is moral. Without that, everything breaks down and the scenario makes no sense.
That's what a paradox is. Saying that a figure is a circle and that a figure has three sides doesn't work, because you're calling a circle something that all logic dictates is not one. Saying, "Well, you're completely wrong about what a circle is and whether or not it can have sides," tears down all framework and renders all terms meaningless.
No, you're not getting it. We have definitely proven it to be immoral. There are numerous logical arguments where it is immoral. We have logically demonstrated it is immoral. There are exactly zero justifications why it would be moral. Therefore, the proof that it is immoral holds.
Burden of proof. If God wants to demonstrate the logic by which it is moral to commit infanticide, God's welcome to do so. Barring that, logical argument holds.
We know what is being commanded, Tiax. Child sacrifice. It's in the thread title. "Would you kill your own child?" Pretty explicit.
Also explicit is my answer. The answer is no until God demonstrates why it would be considered a moral action.
Sure, so let's consider the other properties of God that we've agreed to previously: honesty and omniscience. If God is omnibenevolent and omniscient, he knows exactly what is and is not moral. If he is honest, he cannot tell you that something is moral when it is not.
Okay, what is your logical proof that child sacrifice is immoral? Not just an argument that gives evidence that it is very likely immoral, but logic from first principles which proves it to be so.
There is no burden of proof here. God is agreed to be unable to be wrong about this.
Right, we know what the text of the command is. But we don't necessarily know all of the implications of following that command. If the question were, "If God tells you to press a button, would you do it?" does that imply that there can be no unstated effects of pressing that button?
What God proved was that God was omnibenevolent. But he never said anything about his command being good. You presumed his command had to be good. But you had no reason to claim as such, because you didn't know. See how trying to undermine the ability of a person to know something to be moral or immoral in an attempt to defend your point can be turned back against you?
And with this, you've pretty much conceded that omnibenevolent God commanding something says nothing about that command being good. You have defeated yourself.
I've already given it.
If I love my child, why would I sacrifice him to God? Why would I bind him to an altar and kill him? I wouldn't want to kill him. I care about his well-being. I want him to live.
This is because I love my child. I love him to the point where I would voluntarily take harm, risk, and even death upon myself to prevent those things from coming to him. I love him with a love that is self-sacrificing.
And as we are to understand, that love is the highest form of good. That is the most godly love, and to love in that manner is the most godly action. God himself is defined and known by the fact that he loves to that extent. To know love is to know God, and to know God is to know that love.
So with that in mind, why precisely would sacrificing my son ever be a good or godly action? It wouldn't. Of course it wouldn't, it defies the fundamental basis behind that which allows us to claim an action is good or godly: love.
This is your problem. The word "good" means something. The word "benevolent" means something. The word "godly" means something. You can't just arbitrarily declare something to fulfill one of these definitions, it must actually fulfill one of these definitions. If it doesn't, it isn't that thing. Same deal as the circle. A triangle can't be a circle no matter how many times you declare that in the hypothetical situation you have crafted, the triangle is a circle. It doesn't work because the only way that term can mean anything is that it possesses the definition it has, and you must then demonstrate that the definition has been fulfilled.
Of course there is a burden of proof. There is ALWAYS a burden of proof, with every statement, every assertion. That's how burden of proof works.
Remember, something isn't right because God commands it. God commands it because it is right. Therefore, it is not right because God commands it. God commands it because it is right.
God commanding it therefore is not what proves it is right. What proves it is right is just that: the proof it is right. The fact that God commands it is because God knows the proof. But saying, "I know the proof," is not enough to fulfill the burden of proof. One must demonstrate the proof to fulfill the burden of proof. That's THE ENTIRE POINT of the burden of proof.
Yes we do. We know that a child is going to be sacrificed, because that's the entire ******* point of this conversation: Would you be willing to sacrifice your own child?
Another bad analogy. There is nothing moral or immoral inherent to pushing a button. It's a button, whatever.
There is, however, a huge moral issue with killing a person, and that huge moral issue is entirely the point of this discussion. Saying, "Well maybe there won't be a person being killed," is totally contrary to the entire point of this discussion.
They are not even close to analogous.
We agreed that God could prove his nature to you, and that nature included omnibenevolence, honesty, and omniscience. Certainly if you do not have honesty, then you cannot deduce that his command is good. With it, however, you can be certain.
I am absolutely staggered that you believe this to be a sound logical proof from first principles. I can only conclude that you are unclear what some or all of those words mean. This isn't a proof, this isn't logical and this isn't from first principles. This is a rambling argument filled with bizarre unsupported claims about love. If this is all you have to support your claim that child sacrifice must with 100% certainty be immoral, then I'm not sure what else can be said.
If God says he knows the proof, and God is honest, then the proof exists. If the proof exists, the act is moral.
Sometimes pressing a button kills a person. Just as unforeseen circumstances can turn a neutral action into an immoral one, they can turn an otherwise immoral one into a moral one.
Even when you may or may not be doing both at the same time.
Though, to clarify, I do believe that the idea of demanding animal (or human) sacrifices for the expiation of sins is not benevolent at all. So I'm right there with you with regards to the whole, "Why on earth are you sacrificing a squirrel?!" conversation.
You totally ignored everything I just said.
Even if we grant that God is all of those things, that doesn't change the fact that God commanding something does not make what is being commanded inherently good. It is not good necessarily because God never stated it was. Even if God is somehow guaranteed to be 100% incapable of lying, that still doesn't mean that he can't be commanding you to do something evil, because commanding you to do something evil is not lying.
Again, God never said anything about what he's commanding you to do being moral. You, Tiax, presumed it was moral based on God being omnibenevolent, but as we've stated, due to you undermining the human ability to presume something to be good or not, you have made that an invalid presumption.
Well since it's so obvious that it's not sound, you surely must be able to demonstrate that it is not sound.
How are they unsupported? They are rooted in the basis of Christian belief. To say that is unsupported is on par with me saying your claim that God's existence is unsupported, which is absurd because Christian belief is a fundamental element of this discussion!
Ok, great. And what is that proof, exactly?
Because demonstrating the proof is the entire point of the burden of proof. You really haven't fulfilled it without doing that part.
But there's nothing inherently deadly about pushing a button in and of itself.
There is, however, something inherently deadly about killing a person. Because that's, y'know, what the word deadly means. We don't have to wonder what hidden deadliness killing a person might cause, the deadly consequences are obvious. They're the entire point of the discussion. Saying, "Well maybe there might not actually be deadly consequences in this discussion about whether or not it's moral to kill your own child" does nothing other than demonstrate that you have missed the point entirely and bog the thread up for multiple pages with tangents that have nothing to do with the thread.
I believe in God for many reasons: I believe the universe (& time) was created/caused by something outside of the universe. I don't think that sufficient evidence exists that life was created by chance, and entropy makes it a physical impossibility. If everything tends toward disorder (disinformation) (it does) then DNA (very complex information) simply could not have happened without a mind orchestrating it. I believe that right and wrong exist outside of ourselves and the standard was set by the creator. The Bible tells of a being that satisfies every aspect necessary to be considered a God, or what philosophers call a "supreme being". No other faith can boast this claim. Allah of the Koran is a liar, he is unknowable, and he is capricious (as an example). I believe we are half spirit and half flesh and the immaterial (spiritual) creator desires fellowship with us, but our corrupt flesh always tends toward destruction. The Bible is never illogical. The Bible also describes man's predicament (sin) and provides us with a satisfactory means of redemption. Most other faiths either fail to acknowledge sin, or fail to deal with it appropriately. I also believe because I've never dealt with an issue that cannot be resolved by scripture. I could probably go on but i'll stop there.
And now we are faced with what most people call post-modernism.. or as C.S. Lewis called it, "post-humanism". If we take away right and wrong and objective reality.. i don't think we can call ourselves human anymore. Lying is worng, sunsets are pretty, and reality is objective. I couldn't bear to live in a world where we decided what was right, and where we weren't accountable to anyone, and nothing meant anything. If you call yourself an atheist, think about the actual ramifications of such a thing and ask yourself if that is really what you want. Then if you seek alternatives I promise you will not be disappointed.
if it is wrong to kill my son, why? where does that standard come from? if reality is subjective then i am free to decide that killing my son is perfectly fine. However if there is a standard written on my heart by my creator, then it is indeed wrong. I'm just presenting this as an argument to the original poster but i don't think it deals with the heart of the issue, which can only be resolved by a study of the story of Abraham, and a parallel study of the sacrifice of Christ.
We've previously established that God tells you that it is moral. Read back in the thread.
It's not sound because it doesn't proceed in the manner of a sound logical proof. A logical proof begins with a set of formal propositions, and then applies rules of inference to generate new propositions. It is not the same as a debate argument.
You do not simply get to assume that all of Christian belief is true. After all, God had to prove his nature to you. We didn't just assume that Christian belief on his nature was 100% true.
Go back to my example of the proof computer. If the proof computer spits out a "yes", does that satisfy you?
We don't have to wonder about what hidden deadliness it might cause, but we do have to wonder what other hidden facts there might be.
Well, then, scripture is wrong. Skeptics believe in what they can observe and verify. If we could observe God, we ought to believe he exists. (Worshiping him is a different question entirely.)
Many people have written many books over the years. That it is written down does not constitute proof that it is true. You yourself deny that the Qur'an constitutes proof of the divinity of Allah, even though it says quite plainly that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet. It is illogical to privilege the claims in the Bible over the claims in any other book. Hold them to the same standard of skepticism.
That is nobody's argument. To learn what people's arguments are, read their arguments.
This is a misunderstanding of the principle of entropy. Life is possible because the earth is not a closed system: energy is constantly being pumped into it from the sun. An increase in the complexity of a system on a local scale is very much allowed - indeed, chaos theory says that it is in some cases inevitable. And the theory of evolution actually explains explains how life can get more complex without an intelligent designer. It doesn't just say it can; it explains it, as an algorithmic process.
But anyway, when you look at the system as a whole, entropy is occurring. The sun is burning through its available energy. When it runs out, life on earth will cease. All those molecules of DNA and other biological structures will break down, and the local increase in complexity will be averaged out.
No faith whatsoever can boast this claim; the god of the Bible is emphatically not the god of the philosophers - about which see more below. And even if he were, it would not follow that what the Bible says is actually the truth. I could type out a description of the philosopher's god right here, but that would not imply this god's existence, any more than an accurate description of a unicorn would imply that unicorns exist.
Do you seriously mean to claim that the God of the Old Testament is not all three of these things?
The very story of Abraham and Isaac that we're talking about is an excellent example. Numbers 23:19 does say, "God is not man, that he should lie, / or a son of man, that he should change his mind". But in the Isaac story, God communicates with Abraham twice, first to say that he wants Isaac sacrificed, then to say that he doesn't. Each of these communications can either be true or false. If both are true, then God has changed his mind at some point between them. If God never changed his mind, then one or the other must be false. (And for the sake of completeness, let us note a fourth logical possibility: that neither is true, and God changed his mind in a really perverse way. This exhausts all the possibilities: 2 × 2 = 4.) And if one of the communications is false, God certainly knew it to be false at the time he made it, and it is clear that he made it with the intention that Abraham believe it - therefore, God lied.
As for unknowability... Job 11:7-9. Proverbs 25:2. Mark 4:11-13. The whole doctrine of the Trinity (though that's not in the Bible). The difficulty or impossibility of understanding God is a huge part of Judeo-Christian tradition. It honestly boggles me that you could criticize Islam for it.
The Bible says that we are condemned because of an act we did not perform (original sin) and then redeemed because of another act we did not perform (Jesus' self-sacrifice). A satisfactory moral system would state that people are responsible for their own actions, positive and negative.
I call myself an atheist and I also believe in objective reality and morality. Do not conflate atheism with moral and/or metaphysical relativism. They are separate positions with separate arguments for and against them.
Furthermore, the argument you present here rests on wishful thinking. You say you believe in God because you would not want to live in a world where there was no God. But your wishes do not determine what is actually true. By your logic, you ought to believe there's pirate gold buried in your backyard because you would not want to live in a world where there was no pirate gold, and you ought not to believe in cancer because you would not want to live in a world where there was cancer. It sucks, but sometimes the world is not the way we want it to be.
Let me be as clear as I can on this matter: I would very much prefer to live in a world where an omnibenevolent God existed (though for the record, the figure described in the Bible does not qualify as "omnibenevolent"). He's all-good - he'd make the world better by definition. I logically cannot not prefer him to no-him. But I'm still an atheist. I don't let what I want override what the evidence tells me. That's the principle of objectivism. When you say that you should believe what you want to be true, that's subjectivism. You are the one attacking objective reality here.
If you think that nothing besides God can make something wrong, and you think God says it's wrong, why does God's say-so make it wrong when nothing else will? Couldn't our hypothetical subjectivist still say, "God says it's wrong, but I disagree; I still think it's fine", just like he says for every other moral reason you give him? Sure, God created him, but that doesn't automatically give God moral authority over him. Our parents created us, and we don't think that our parents are always morally correct. And God has the power to reward him for obedience and punish him for disobedience. But the same can be said for any other person in a position of power, and we don't think that they are always morally correct.
If there is an objective morality - and again, I affirm that there is - then God's will is an untenable source for it. The moral statements of a benevolent God must reflect moral facts that have some other explanation than just him, some reason why it's good to help people and bad to hurt people. A logic like that found in Hobbes or Kant or even Darwin that holds fast whether or not God exists.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I believe Highroller pointed this out much earlier, and afaik this really is the crux of it all.
I just want to make sure so that I can follow this a bit better.
No, I don't think so. I'm not saying that God saying it is what -causes- it to be good. I think Highroller and I agree that things are good independently of whether God says them. What I'm saying is that if we are certain about a few properties of God, then we can trust that his saying that an act is moral is sufficient for us to reason that there exists some justification that proves it so. Knowing that a justification exists, even if we do not know its details is sufficient to know that the act is moral. There cannot be a proof of a false statement.
Long answer: I, and several others, addressed the problem of God commanding someone kill his child by saying that if God commands someone to kill his child, he is not benevolent barring very good reasons for doing so, as killing your own child is a decidedly malevolent action unless you have very good reasons for doing so. God commanding a malevolent action calls his omnibenevolence into question. I, for one, went as far to say that the voice I'm hearing is pretty clearly not God if that's the command I'm hearing.
Tiax then went on to ask that if, hypothetically, God were to prove he is God and God were to prove he is omnibenevolent, would I then kill my child?
And here's where the problem is. The core contradiction is still there. Tiax himself concedes that God cannot be both omnibenevolent and command a not-benevolent action. Which is precisely what he's doing in Tiax's hypothetical.
The problem is Tiax is affirming the truth value of both statements:
1. God is infinitely benevolent and cannot command a non-benevolent action.
2. God is commanding someone to sacrifice his own son to God without giving any justification.
This becomes problematic because killing your own kid without any justifications is not a benevolent action. That's what the word benevolent means. But if that's not what the word "benevolent" means, then the action cannot be benevolent. But we've stated that God cannot command a benevolent action. So we have a paradox. We have a situation in which two contradictory statements are both asserted to be true. This is impossible.
Now, Tiax has reacted to this by saying, "Well, maybe it IS benevolent. Because of reasons. Reasons I don't have to explain ever!" To illustrate the problem with Tiax's methodology, consider the following:
1. God says that the figure is a circle
2. God is infallible
3. The figure has three sides
Tiax would react to this by saying, "Well, maybe it's still a circle despite having three sides!"
Except, that's absurd. A circle by very definition cannot have three sides. A triangle has three sides. A circle is a shape in which all points are equidistant from the center. If it has three sides, it isn't a circle. Thus, we have a logical contradiction.
Tiax would respond to this by saying, "But it has to be a circle. God is infallible, and we have agreed this to be true!" He would then proceed to say this over and over again for like three pages. But in saying this, he's missing the fundamental point of the whole thing, that yes, we have agreed that God's infallibility is true, and that's the entire point of a paradox. Paradoxes happen when you agree on the truth value of two or more contradictory statements. So barring an explanation as to how a circle can have three sides, this is a paradox.
Now back to our thread. We are saying God is [1] omnibenevolent and incapable of commanding something not-benevolent, and [2] commanding someone to sacrifice his son.
Except [2] is not an action a benevolent person would perform. It totally contradicts any definition of benevolence.
Therefore, we have a logical paradox. We are affirming the truth value of two contradictory statements, which is illogical. Therefore, we are in a paradox.
And of course Tiax will argue, "Well it might not be a paradox, because it could still be a benevolent action. Because of reasons. Reasons I don't have to explain to you." And I will grant that maybe there's a way of resolving this paradox, but until it's presented, it's still a paradox. Because that's what a paradox is. You can't just pretend a paradox is not a paradox, that's intellectually disingenuous.
Yes, maybe God does have a perfectly valid reason for ordering me to kill my child. Alternatively, maybe both God and I are both stuck in a terribly constructed and logically contradictory hypothetical situation by Tiax. So until someone, anyone, demonstrates to me that it's not the second, no sell.
Sorry, I'd forgotten.
If omnibenevolent God cannot command a non-benevolent action, and omnibenevolent God commands a benevolent action, this is a paradox.
Omnibenevolent God is commanding that contradicts the definition of benevolence.
Something cannot be benevolent and contradict the definition of benevolence.
Ergo, paradox.
Therefore, until God (or anyone else for that matter) resolves the paradox, **** logic.
No, this debate is fundamentally rooted in the Christian belief on the nature of God. That's the whole reason we're having a debate in the first place: because people are looking at the way God is behaving in the proposed scenarios and saying it's contradictory to the characteristics of which we define God. Christian belief must hold because that's the entire point.
Not until it demonstrates the rationale behind the answer.
Except for the part where the Bible is rife with contradictions and inaccuracies, as well as stories that are just outright made up. Either it is not the word of God, or God's word is rife with contradictions and inaccuracies, as well as stories that are just outright made up. Take your pick.
Personally, I choose former. And just to be clear: I'm Christian and do believe in God.
Heh. Really? In what order were the things in Creation created?
But that's just it, that's the whole point of what we're talking about: God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son. Yes, God did intercede at the very end, but that's besides the point. Had God not interceded, Abraham would have killed his son. Abraham was fully prepared to kill his son.
Now, had he done so, would that have been moral? God was commanding him to do so, after all. What if God hadn't intervened?
You have not proven that commanding child sacrifice contradicts the definition of benevolence. This is not a simple definitional matter like circle/triangle, or crashing's married/bachelor. If you want to claim that child sacrifice is definitely not moral, you have to prove that. You have so far not done so, or even made a legitimate attempt at doing so. We all agree that it's almost certainly immoral, so merely arguing and presenting evidence that it is most likely immoral does not help. If you want to claim that we have a fundamental contradiction, you must establish that it is a logically-proven fact that child sacrifice is always immoral.
You were unwilling to accept that God is 100% certainly omnibenevolent etc. Yet that is a fundamental Christian belief. Now you've changed your mind. You seem to be inventing rules on the fly when they suit you, and abandoning them as soon as they don't.
So, consider the proof-checking computer, which runs a logically-verifiable program that iterates through all possible valid symbolic logic proofs in our moral calculus and stops and outputs "yes" when it finds one whose conclusion is "X is immoral" (note that if none exists, the computer may simply run forever). Which of the following statements do you disagree with?
1) If the computer outputs "yes", it has discovered a valid proof which demonstrates that X is immoral.
2) A false statement cannot have a valid proof. Therefore a statement which has a valid proof must be true.
It seems to me that if you accept both of those, you must accept that the computer's output of "yes" means that X is immoral.
If you already know that X is immoral given that the computer outputs "yes", it makes no sense to also demand to know the justification. That adds nothing to your knowledge.
Benevolence means concern for another's well-being. People who are concerned for another's well-being don't tie them to an altar and murder them. That's the opposite of what they would do. Ergo, not benevolent.
Besides, as I said before, WHY am I asking for rationale as to killing a child? Oh right, because I don't want to kill a child. Why don't I want to kill a child? Because I'm concerned for the safety of the child, and killing the child is about as contrary to being concerned for the safety of the child as could possibly be, right? That is what the word "safety" means, correct? Ok great. And what is that word we have when you're concerned for the well-being of others? Starts with a "b" and has eleven letters?
I have provided proofs that it is immoral...
... and you have conceded that I have.
No, I don't. I just have to demonstrate that there are plenty of logical arguments why it's a stupid ******* idea to do so, and why it's blatantly ******* wrong.
Having done that, I can just sit back and relax while the burden of proof rests on Tiax to sit there and imagine why on earth it would be moral for sacrifice one's child. Because that's how burden of proof works. Likewise, it could be possible that there is a circle with three sides. Let someone prove that there is, and I will be more than happy to believe him, because that person will have met the burden of proof.
I don't have to prove beyond a doubt that there's no circumstance in which child sacrifice is moral. I've already stated there may well be. That's great. Let God prove it and I'll be more than happy to do so. But God hasn't proven it. And clearly, this is because we're in a haphazardly constructed hypothetical by Tiax that is paradoxical due to it being logically contradictory.
EDIT: By the way, Tiax, I just realized why this whole thing is really ironic and funny. Here goes:
Why are you an atheist? Have you proven beyond a doubt that God doesn't exist?
Oh no no no no, I am perfectly willing to accept that God is 100% omnibenevolent. Remember, I actually believe in an omnibenevolent God actually exists in real life.
However, we are now in a hypothetical situation where God is commanding something un-God-like. Indeed, you have told me outright that I need to completely reevaluate everything I believe about God. So that is where I start my reevaluation, because you have God commanding something that is decidedly not-benevolent.
(Also not God-like. Also, directly contradictory to what God previously commanded. Cuz, y'know, he did do that too.)
Yes it is.
Yup.
Actually, that's you, my friend. Any time you are confronted with the fact that your scenario logically contradicts itself, you dismiss the idea that it's logically contradictory. Hell, you haven't even bothered to make up a reason why child sacrifice is moral in this scenario. You just say, "Yup, it's totally moral. Trust me. It's moral because of reasons I don't have to explain to you. Yep. Totally moral in every way. And you just have to trust me on this without any logical explanation as to why the clearly immoral thing that God is uncharacteristically commanding you to do is totally fine and dandy. Because of reasons I don't have to explain. Because I said so."
You are the one who is performing somersaults to get your scenario to work. I, on the other hand, have been pointing to the dictionary and saying, "Dictionary," because words mean things. Saying something is benevolent when it contradicts the definition of benevolence is like saying a circle can have three sides. Hey, maybe it can, maybe I'm wrong, but you have to demonstrate that it can. You have to demonstrate that a shape is a circle. You have to demonstrate that sacrificing a child is benevolent. Playing games to dodge the burden of proof is not meeting the burden of proof. It's the opposite of that.
I disagree with the fact that it isn't sharing with me the totally logical rationale for saying it's correct. In other words, exactly the same reason I'm disagreeing with the God hypothetical scenario you provided. Replacing God with a supercomputer – while making for the premise of a very good Twilight Zone episode — does not make the problem go away.
It makes no sense to be a rational and intellectually responsible human being?
If you want to claim that "God is omnibenevolent, honest, etc." and "God says child sacrifice is immoral" are contradictory, you must prove that child sacrifice is definitely moral. Prove, not just argue. Otherwise, you have not proven a contradiction. You've just argued for the potential for a contradiction. If you cannot prove a contradiction, you cannot assert that my hypothetical "logically contradicts itself", as you have failed to show that. Nothing that you have posted so far even approaches an attempt at a proof.
That is not one of the facts that is to be disagreed with. If you accept the two facts that I listed, you must accept the logical conclusion from them. Merely complaining that you don't get to know the secret proof doesn't change anything.
It makes no sense to claim to be rational and fail to grasp that you already have the information needed to make an rational conclusion.
I have demonstrated why child sacrifice is immoral, not-benevolent, and un-Godly. You, however, are unable to provide anything to the contrary.
Thus, you have not met the burden of proof, and you have nothing to offer but a logical contradiction. Saying, "I am Tiax and therefore the burden of proof does not apply to me" does not change that.
I have made the rational decision. The rational decision is to not sacrifice my child barring a rational argument from God or anyone else telling me that I should, detailing exactly why I should consider such an obviously immoral and not-benevolent action to be moral and benevolent.
Similarly, I should not consider the figure with three sides to be a circle barring a detailed explanation as to why I should consider a three-sided figure a circle.
Now if you have compelling evidence for either of those, by all means, contribute. But until then, you have not met the burden of proof, and the paradox remains a paradox.
My claim, on the other hand, is what we all already agree to - that it is almost certainly immoral. That leaves a tiny sliver of chance that it is not. In that case, my hypothetical is not contradictory on its face and cannot be dismissed so easily.
EDIT: You already have a rational argument:
God says it's moral.
God knows what is moral.
God cannot lie about what is moral.
Therefore it's moral.
Or, in terms of the proof-checking computer:
The computer says there's a proof.
The computer cannot say "yes" unless it finds a proof.
Therefore, it's moral.
Whether or not you know the fundamental proof is not relevant. You can instead construct for yourself a proof which proceeds from these new facts to which you have been exposed - God's statement or the computer's output. This new proof is not fundamental and unconditional like the underlying reason for why the act is moral, but it is still valid. It merely depends on knowing additional facts and using them as new premises. Luckily for us, God has proven these new premises to us, and we are free to use them.
I have demonstrated that which you argue to be benevolent to not be benevolent, for it goes against the definition of the word "benevolent." Therefore, you logically contradict yourself.
Which I have met the requirements of.
Of course it can be dismissed easily. You have asserted it without evidence, and therefore I can certainly dismiss it without evidence.
Any rational human being must acknowledge his own fallibility. Maybe the circle can have three-sides. Maybe Tiax isn't wasting our time with his absurdity. Maybe the earth is flat. Certainly, anyone is welcome to bring a rational proof to the table to demonstrate as such.
But until that happens, you have not met the burden of proof. And as such, there is no weight to your argument. I have demonstrated that your argument is paradoxical. You have done nothing to reconcile the contradiction. You have merely attempted to say that the burden of proof doesn't apply to you through various rhetorical games, all the while refusing to acknowledge the contradiction.
You haven't met the burden of proof. You haven't reconciled the logical contradiction. Moreover, we know you can't because you've admitted as such in this thread.
Therefore, your argument has no validity at all. It remains a logical contradiction. Saying, "I am Tiax and the burden of proof doesn't apply to me because I don't want it to" does not count as a valid argument.
EDIT:
No, YOU have a rational argument.
1. God cannot give a non-benevolent command
2. God orders child sacrifice
3. To commit child sacrifice is contrary to benevolence and thus non-benevolent
4. God, who cannot give a non-benevolent command, has given a non-benevolent command
A logical paradox.
Therefore, child sacrifice does not fulfill the definition of the word "benevolent."
Therefore, God has given a non-benevolent command, which contradicts your statement that God only gives benevolent commands, and therefore creates a logical paradox in which the statement, "God only gives benevolent commands" and "God commands child sacrifice" are established as contradictory yet are both affirmed by you to be true. The burden of proof now falls on you to reconcile the paradox.
Then you come in with some asinine response like, "Well that's impossible, because we agreed God only gives benevolent commands to be true," which just indicates you have no idea what a paradox even is. It's two or more statements affirmed to be true that contradict each other, Tiax. Saying it more isn't going to help you. You have to demonstrate why they're not contradictory. Burden of proof.
But all of this is me wasting my time because it's not like you actually care about what is logical or not. You're not listening because you've decided you're correct and are ignoring any argument to the contrary. This is why you avoid the burden of proof when it's applied to you. This is avoidance. You don't want yourself to be wrong, and in your mind that's enough to convince yourself that you are correct. But this is a place for logical discussion, Tiax.
Proving that it is not benevolent (which I still contend you have not done, by the way) doesn't really help. God is not the one doing the killing, so even if it were non-benevolent, it would not contradict his claimed nature. Similarly, giving a command that a non-benevolent action be taken is not necessarily itself non-benevolent. God's restrictions are that he takes only benevolent actions, knows exactly which actions are moral and immoral, and is honest with us when sharing his knowledge. He is perfectly within his rights to command a non-benevolent action be taken if that command turns out to not be non-benevolent.
Now, as to your claimed proof that killing not benevolent. You assert, without evidence, that killing is not in a person's benefit. How do you know this? It certainly seems probable, but we're in the realm of proofs here. These sorts of assertions need to be logically derived from first principles, not just thrown in. Further, the definition of benevolence is not "not killing". If it were, this would be as simple as the circle/triangle question.
In the various Problem of Evil/Problem of Suffering threads, it was repeatedly argued that God could allow horrible things to happen because he knew (via omniscience) that the long-run outcome would be better. If God is benevolent by your definition above, then surely he would need to (for example) prevent all serious earthquakes, as he has the capability to do so, and failure to do so is injurious to the well-being and welfare of others. (And via the long-term consequences argument, child sacrifice of, say, Hitler, might've been long-run benevolent.)
there is a difference between allowing something to happen, and actually going out of your way to cause something. God will allow earthquakes and volcanoes, because he isn't doing anything to cause them. He will not command someone to perform child sacrifice, because he then is actually taking steps to cause something that is demonstrably wrong.
"normality is a paved road: it is comfortable to walk, but no flowers grow there."
-Vincent Van Gogh
things I hate:
1. lists.
b. inconsistencies.
V. incorrect math.
2. quotes in signatures
III: irony.
there are two kinds of people in the world: those who can make reasonable conclusions based on conjecture.