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.
God created the world. He causes everything. That's kinda the point of God.
The question was not to prove that killing is or is not benevolent. It was to prove that it is or is not moral.
They're both synonyms for "good," Tiax.
Again, the dictionary is your friend. It tells you what words mean.
Proving that it is not benevolent (which I still contend you have not done, by the way) doesn't really help.
... Proving it is not benevolent doesn't help when the point of discussion is whether or not God is omnibenevolent? Omni-benevolent?
What is wrong with you?
God is not the one doing the killing, so even if it were non-benevolent, it would not contradict his claimed nature.
Of course it would. You said it yourself, God cannot command a non-benevolent action. That was one of your premises.
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?
Because that person gets sacrificed. Durr.
It certainly seems probable, but we're in the realm of proofs here.
It's probable in the same way that the statement, "The three-sided figure is not a circle" is probable. If you wish to bring that statement into contention, bring an argument that actually brings it into contention. Burden. Of. Proof.
These sorts of assertions need to be logically derived from first principles, not just thrown in.
It has been logically derived. For ****'s sake, you even agreed in your post just now that there's a logical case that has been made and it is most probably correct.
Ok, so if there's a logical case that's been made that there's a logical paradox, and if there are plenty of reasons given to think that there is, and you have given exactly zero reasons why there isn't one, why should we not dismiss your argument? What reason do we have not to? Why should we not go with the probable scenario that has logic backing it over the one that is improbable and has no logic backing it?
What is offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, right? So where's your evidence? Why should we accept your argument as true when you have stated it to be improbable?
For ****'s sake, Tiax, aren't you an atheist? Are you an atheist because you proved without a doubt God exists? Or are you an atheist because you believe that the probability is that there isn't a God, and in the absence of evidence that there is one, you're going with the belief that there isn't one, because you're absent evidence that there is one? Isn't that why you're an atheist? If that's the case, does it not occur to you that you are being a massive hypocrite right now?
Burden of proof. Stop arguing from ignorance and contribute actual substance to the discussion. If you can't, then concede your argument has no substance.
Further, the definition of benevolence is not "not killing".
It's also not "not theft" or "not arson" or "not rape" or "not maiming." Are you going to now claim those are benevolent actions?
You're not even thinking Tiax, you're just posting to get the last word in.
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.
And you notice how in every single one of those debates, the burden of proof is on the person arguing that to demonstrate exactly how, in the long run, that would be benevolent?
The problem is Tiax seems to think burden of proof doesn't apply to him. Despite the fact that it applies to everyone at every time always.
Here's the way a sensible person's logic works:
1. God is omnibenevolent
2. God gives a command to sacrifice one's child
3. Sacrificing one's child does not fit the definition of "benevolent," and really fits the antithesis of benevolence
4. There is a logical conflict between statement #1 and statement #3.
And this is how Tiax's logic works:
1. God is omnibenevolent
2. God gives a command to sacrifice one's child
3. Sacrificing one's child does not fit the definition of "benevolent," and really fits the antithesis of benevolence
4. There is a logical conflict between statement #1 and statement #3.
5. Logical conflicts are impossible because that would mean Tiax said something wrong.
6. Therefore there cannot be a logical conflict between statement #1 and statement #3.
Tiax has no basis for claiming that there isn't a logical conflict between God being omnibenevolent and God commanding child sacrifice. He's even stated he has no ability to reconcile the obvious logical disconnect. His "argument" basically amounts to "I don't want to be wrong, therefore I'm right."
I am an atheist in the sense that I strongly suspect there is not a god. I don't, however, suggest that I possess logical proof that there is no god. I therefore would not suggest that this proposed hypothetical is inherently contradictory with reality. I certainly accept that there exists a non-zero chance that God does exist, and so this hypothetical fits neatly in that chance, however small I might think it is. Maybe some people would describe this as a form of agnosticism, but I don't care that much about the label.
As to morality vs. benevolence, those are not synonyms. Morality describes what we ought to do. Benevolence describes, as you have noted, care for the well-being of others. You might believe that benevolence is moral, but you need to prove that. There is no a priori reason to suppose that we ought to care for the well-being of others rather than that we ought not to care. In the absence of proof, why should we not suspect that malevolence is moral, or that indifference is moral?
We all agree that child sacrifice and the implications of God's hypothetical command to do it are very probably immoral. If it is in fact immoral, then we all agree that my hypothetical is fundamentally contradictory. We can therefore set that aside as settled ground. We're all on the same page there. The question that remains is, does there exist a very small sliver of a chance that it is not immoral. If such a sliver exists, then we have a window in which my hypothetical is not contradictory. We are then free to explore the logical implications of the hypothetical, noting of course that they would only apply should we find ourselves in that tiny sliver of chance. If you want to dismiss the hypothetical entirely, then you have to close that window. You have to show that there does not exist ANY way for the hypothetical to be non-contradictory. When you refer in your post to the hypothetical as "improbable" rather than "impossible" you are conceding that this window exists.
Note, of course, I already think the hypothetical lies in the "very unlikely" category, just by the fact that it includes god's existence. Yet, I can still discuss the implications of it without insisting that I find it very likely to be irrelevant and in contradiction with reality. Similarly, I think it's very likely that child sacrifice is immoral - in fact, I would say I think there is a larger chance that god exists than I do that child sacrifice is moral. And, just as I consider god's hypothetical existence to make the entire discussion very likely to be in contradiction with reality, I consider the proposed implied morality of child sacrifice to be very likely in contradiction with reality. However, that does not prevent me from considering the implications of the case where neither is in fact in contradiction with reality. Since you surely think god's existence is much more likely than I do, it would seem that of the two of us, I think this whole scenario is even less probable than you do. In light of that, I don't think it's unreasonable of me to expect you to be able to discuss the implications despite your suspicion that it's very likely contradictory.
Now, the exception to this is if you have a proof - a step-by-step, formal proof - from which we can all objectively conclude that child sacrifice is immoral. Having such a proof would be a great leap forward in the realm of moral philosophy, so I'm pretty confident you don't have it. But if you did, you would change the scenario from "very, very likely in contradiction with reality" to "proven to be in contradiction to reality". In that case, and only in that case, you would be justified in dismissing the entire thing as fundamentally flawed and meaningless.
Tiax, did some reading: the burden of proof lies with the person trying to persuade someone from the default position.
i.e., the default position here is that child sacrifice is immoral, since that is what society has deemed. As you are trying to persuade people away from this, it is up to you to provide proof in your claim. If we were in, say, a tribe in Africa that practiced child sacrifice, then the burden of proof would be on us.
What you are doing is an argument from ignorance, where you are saying that child sacrifice is moral simply because we cannot prove that it is immoral. That is not a valid assertion, since society has deemed it immoral.
Also, morality is defined as the principles concerning the differentiating between right and wrong. Therefore, since society in this case defines what is right and wrong, Child Sacrifice is, indeed, immoral.
And now, on to the Bibical quotes: these are God speaking on the subject of child sacrifice.
In Deuteronomy 12:31 of the ESV God states (on the subject of worshipping him after the manner of Molech) You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.
Part of worshipping Molech is child sacrifice.
Then, in Ezekiel 20:31 (ESV) he again states: When you present your gifts and offer up your children in fire, you defile yourselves with all your idols to this day. And shall I be inquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live, declares the Lord God, I will not be inquired of by you.
There are multiple instances of God condemning such abominations, and child sacrifice in particular. So, by that token, I think we can safely say that God does, indeed, hate child sacrifice.
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.
And you notice how in every single one of those debates, the burden of proof is on the person arguing that to demonstrate exactly how, in the long run, that would be benevolent?
The terms of this discussion allow for questioning God, and allow that God has proven Itself as as Omnibenevolent and Omniscient, right?
Ok, so God explains thusly:
"If you sacrifice your child now, he becomes a martyr of (your) faith, and ascends to Heaven. You, in the meenwhile, have a lifetime to atone for this act, and so have the potential to avoid Hell.
If you do not, I, being Omniscient, know that tomorrow, your child will get into a fight in which he will kill an innocent and then die. He will go to Hell and suffer for eternity. You will become so depressed that you also will go to Hell upon commiting suicide.
If you follow my command, you will suffer great anguish, but knowing that you obeyed Me will bolster you sufficiently to avoid suicide and have a chance at redemption."
Thus, the sacrifice becomes a benevolent act- it is in the best interests of the child to go to Heaven instead of Hell.
(I've made a number of assumptions in this construct that are consistent with variosu Christian dogmas. Please allow for those assumptions for the sake of arguement. There is little point in debating the existance of Heaven/Hell. The argument assumes a Christian God, and many denominations assume Heaven/Hell, Sin, and redemption, etc... Take it at face value)
BTW, I'm an agnostic, but I do not believe in any omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent being One of the reasons for this is that you can construct scenarios like this if you beleive in the Christian/Hebrew/Islamic God, and I have a problem with that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
God created the world. He causes everything. That's kinda the point of God.
Again, the dictionary is your friend. It tells you what words mean.
... Proving it is not benevolent doesn't help when the point of discussion is whether or not God is omnibenevolent? Omni-benevolent?
What is wrong with you?
Of course it would. You said it yourself, God cannot command a non-benevolent action. That was one of your premises.
Because that person gets sacrificed. Durr.
It's probable in the same way that the statement, "The three-sided figure is not a circle" is probable. If you wish to bring that statement into contention, bring an argument that actually brings it into contention. Burden. Of. Proof.
It has been logically derived. For ****'s sake, you even agreed in your post just now that there's a logical case that has been made and it is most probably correct.
Ok, so if there's a logical case that's been made that there's a logical paradox, and if there are plenty of reasons given to think that there is, and you have given exactly zero reasons why there isn't one, why should we not dismiss your argument? What reason do we have not to? Why should we not go with the probable scenario that has logic backing it over the one that is improbable and has no logic backing it?
What is offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, right? So where's your evidence? Why should we accept your argument as true when you have stated it to be improbable?
For ****'s sake, Tiax, aren't you an atheist? Are you an atheist because you proved without a doubt God exists? Or are you an atheist because you believe that the probability is that there isn't a God, and in the absence of evidence that there is one, you're going with the belief that there isn't one, because you're absent evidence that there is one? Isn't that why you're an atheist? If that's the case, does it not occur to you that you are being a massive hypocrite right now?
Burden of proof. Stop arguing from ignorance and contribute actual substance to the discussion. If you can't, then concede your argument has no substance.
It's also not "not theft" or "not arson" or "not rape" or "not maiming." Are you going to now claim those are benevolent actions?
You're not even thinking Tiax, you're just posting to get the last word in.
And you notice how in every single one of those debates, the burden of proof is on the person arguing that to demonstrate exactly how, in the long run, that would be benevolent?
The problem is Tiax seems to think burden of proof doesn't apply to him. Despite the fact that it applies to everyone at every time always.
Here's the way a sensible person's logic works:
1. God is omnibenevolent
2. God gives a command to sacrifice one's child
3. Sacrificing one's child does not fit the definition of "benevolent," and really fits the antithesis of benevolence
4. There is a logical conflict between statement #1 and statement #3.
And this is how Tiax's logic works:
1. God is omnibenevolent
2. God gives a command to sacrifice one's child
3. Sacrificing one's child does not fit the definition of "benevolent," and really fits the antithesis of benevolence
4. There is a logical conflict between statement #1 and statement #3.
5. Logical conflicts are impossible because that would mean Tiax said something wrong.
6. Therefore there cannot be a logical conflict between statement #1 and statement #3.
Tiax has no basis for claiming that there isn't a logical conflict between God being omnibenevolent and God commanding child sacrifice. He's even stated he has no ability to reconcile the obvious logical disconnect. His "argument" basically amounts to "I don't want to be wrong, therefore I'm right."
As to morality vs. benevolence, those are not synonyms. Morality describes what we ought to do. Benevolence describes, as you have noted, care for the well-being of others. You might believe that benevolence is moral, but you need to prove that. There is no a priori reason to suppose that we ought to care for the well-being of others rather than that we ought not to care. In the absence of proof, why should we not suspect that malevolence is moral, or that indifference is moral?
We all agree that child sacrifice and the implications of God's hypothetical command to do it are very probably immoral. If it is in fact immoral, then we all agree that my hypothetical is fundamentally contradictory. We can therefore set that aside as settled ground. We're all on the same page there. The question that remains is, does there exist a very small sliver of a chance that it is not immoral. If such a sliver exists, then we have a window in which my hypothetical is not contradictory. We are then free to explore the logical implications of the hypothetical, noting of course that they would only apply should we find ourselves in that tiny sliver of chance. If you want to dismiss the hypothetical entirely, then you have to close that window. You have to show that there does not exist ANY way for the hypothetical to be non-contradictory. When you refer in your post to the hypothetical as "improbable" rather than "impossible" you are conceding that this window exists.
Note, of course, I already think the hypothetical lies in the "very unlikely" category, just by the fact that it includes god's existence. Yet, I can still discuss the implications of it without insisting that I find it very likely to be irrelevant and in contradiction with reality. Similarly, I think it's very likely that child sacrifice is immoral - in fact, I would say I think there is a larger chance that god exists than I do that child sacrifice is moral. And, just as I consider god's hypothetical existence to make the entire discussion very likely to be in contradiction with reality, I consider the proposed implied morality of child sacrifice to be very likely in contradiction with reality. However, that does not prevent me from considering the implications of the case where neither is in fact in contradiction with reality. Since you surely think god's existence is much more likely than I do, it would seem that of the two of us, I think this whole scenario is even less probable than you do. In light of that, I don't think it's unreasonable of me to expect you to be able to discuss the implications despite your suspicion that it's very likely contradictory.
Now, the exception to this is if you have a proof - a step-by-step, formal proof - from which we can all objectively conclude that child sacrifice is immoral. Having such a proof would be a great leap forward in the realm of moral philosophy, so I'm pretty confident you don't have it. But if you did, you would change the scenario from "very, very likely in contradiction with reality" to "proven to be in contradiction to reality". In that case, and only in that case, you would be justified in dismissing the entire thing as fundamentally flawed and meaningless.
i.e., the default position here is that child sacrifice is immoral, since that is what society has deemed. As you are trying to persuade people away from this, it is up to you to provide proof in your claim. If we were in, say, a tribe in Africa that practiced child sacrifice, then the burden of proof would be on us.
What you are doing is an argument from ignorance, where you are saying that child sacrifice is moral simply because we cannot prove that it is immoral. That is not a valid assertion, since society has deemed it immoral.
Also, morality is defined as the principles concerning the differentiating between right and wrong. Therefore, since society in this case defines what is right and wrong, Child Sacrifice is, indeed, immoral.
And now, on to the Bibical quotes: these are God speaking on the subject of child sacrifice.
In Deuteronomy 12:31 of the ESV God states (on the subject of worshipping him after the manner of Molech) You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.
Part of worshipping Molech is child sacrifice.
Then, in Ezekiel 20:31 (ESV) he again states: When you present your gifts and offer up your children in fire, you defile yourselves with all your idols to this day. And shall I be inquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live, declares the Lord God, I will not be inquired of by you.
There are multiple instances of God condemning such abominations, and child sacrifice in particular. So, by that token, I think we can safely say that God does, indeed, hate child sacrifice.
So, now, I ask you: how is Child Sacrifice moral?
"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.
So, hypothetically, if the baby would grow up to kill many babies, then God commanding its sacrifice would be justified?
Ok, so God explains thusly:
"If you sacrifice your child now, he becomes a martyr of (your) faith, and ascends to Heaven. You, in the meenwhile, have a lifetime to atone for this act, and so have the potential to avoid Hell.
If you do not, I, being Omniscient, know that tomorrow, your child will get into a fight in which he will kill an innocent and then die. He will go to Hell and suffer for eternity. You will become so depressed that you also will go to Hell upon commiting suicide.
If you follow my command, you will suffer great anguish, but knowing that you obeyed Me will bolster you sufficiently to avoid suicide and have a chance at redemption."
Thus, the sacrifice becomes a benevolent act- it is in the best interests of the child to go to Heaven instead of Hell.
(I've made a number of assumptions in this construct that are consistent with variosu Christian dogmas. Please allow for those assumptions for the sake of arguement. There is little point in debating the existance of Heaven/Hell. The argument assumes a Christian God, and many denominations assume Heaven/Hell, Sin, and redemption, etc... Take it at face value)
BTW, I'm an agnostic, but I do not believe in any omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent being One of the reasons for this is that you can construct scenarios like this if you beleive in the Christian/Hebrew/Islamic God, and I have a problem with that.
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.