How is accepting the most logically defensible option “intellectual laziness”?
3 Likes
Its an argument from ignorance when it is clear you have not investigated alternatives.
1 Like
And now we can add “argument from ignorance” to the ever-growing list.
4 Likes
What I say below has no bering on my respect for your intellect. IMO it is just hampered by an incoherent world-view you are trying to defend.
Your circular reasoning is based on an unsupported assertion that you concluded on:
Your argument from ignorance (lack of belief) is demonstrated by your ignorance of Theology as you generally mischaracterize it.
You say you lack belief but show no effort to explore belief. We live in a miraculous universe yet you lack belief that an intelligent creator could be behind it? There is a book that some claim is inspired by the creator yet you appear to have not taken an honest look at its credibility.
Because I have come to different conclusions on theological issues than you does not indicate I understand them any less than you do.
Most experts who have studied this topic agree with me, as it happens.
(And you still do not understand what circular reasoning is.)
2 Likes
God killed first born children in what you described as punishment for evil. This was after the supposed flood.
2 Likes
My question was how you link the fact of the universe to the god of Abraham. Seems tenuous to me.
2 Likes
That’s not an argument from ignorance. You need to read up on your logical fallacies.
2 Likes
Are you saying that “lack of belief in God” is not a claim against Gods existence?
What does it mean to lack belief?
If you “lack belief” does that mean God could exist you just don’t know enough to believe it?
Could your lack of belief be a result of your worldview being framed by philosophical naturalism which in turn filters out positive evidence for Gods existence?
For argument sake I will agree with using an ad populum support for your case however philosophers are not theologians.
A circular argument assumes your conclusion. Can you make the case there was more than assertion supporting your argument?
Yes and?
Mothers are allowed to their kill fetuses in the U.S. depending on state laws. Currently the argument is this is legally allowed because the fetus is within their body and they have rights over their own body. Wouldn’t God have similar authority over everything He creates no matter his or her age?
Let’s put in some words from the definition:
“It asserts… [Christianity] is false because it has not yet been proven true.”
Are you satisfied now that your position is a logical fallacy and that @colewd is correct?
Not unless you can quote where I have said “Christianity is false because it hasn’t yet been proven true.”
I thought you were done with making up things you imagine I’d say. Guess not.
Way to go, @thoughtful. You’ve just argued yourself into either supporting abortion or admitting your god is immoral.
So which is it?
(No, you didn’t really, because your understanding of the pro-choice position is yet another horribly mangled straw man you have created.)
2 Likes
It was a question to see if you’d agree. I wanted to see what you would say. So then, this was my follow-up question: Do you think Christianity is false?
You missed the entire point of my argument.
I’m presenting an argument that if one believes abortion is moral because the mother should have control over her own body, why is God immoral for having control over his creation - why can’t he kill or judge?
I’m not actually saying I agree with the abortion argument as presented; I’m trying to understand again how creation can claim to judge the morality of God. Maybe I missed it but I don’t think you answered that question.
To summarize because I don’t feel like belaboring the point anymore: We have no way of standing in judgment over God. He is creator and we are creation. To do so, we would be elevating ourselves to the level of God. This is the fall into sin that I tried to explain to @John_Harshman. Our choice is either to trust God that He is good; this is faith. Or to reject him because we are as gods judging Him and his commands.
1 Like
I got no answer.
1 Like
That you are easily confused is not our problem.
T_aquaticus has no burden of proof regarding your idea of god.
Unless you’d like to assume the burden of proof regarding the non-existence of the Cosmic Yoyo that pulls on the strings of the universe? (Or Unkulunku)
2 Likes
Really? Pet-owners set moral standards for their pets all the time:
- thou shalt not bite people
- thou shalt not steal food from the table
- thou shalt not chew objects that are not given to you for the purpose of chewing
etc
And often animals that can’t live up to these standards are punished.
Have you proven the non-existence of Unkulunku? If not, you’re intellectually lazy by your own standards.
4 Likes
I reject your choices. I’ll take option 3: judge the actions of the character in bible stories based on the content of those stories and my human ability to reason. For example, that character commits a greater genocide (and a greater ecological crime) than any human in history when he kills all people and animals except the few collected on one boat. There’s really no way to spin that. It’s not an act of love or justice. It’s just a crime.
Of course I don’t believe the story is true, and nothing like it ever happened. And I don’t believe the character in the story exists. Fortunately.
2 Likes
I would describe my position as I do not believe Christianity is true.
Because God does not have a body, apparently, so the analogy is completely inapt. We are also not parasitic upon him in the way a fetus is parasitic upon a woman.
A better analogy would be: If God can kill us because we are his creation, we should be able to kill our children if we judge that they deserve this.
I suspect you do not support parents killing their children, right?
Easy. If God exists, he’s a person. I can judge the morality of any person, no matter how big and powerful he is. Your question makes no sense to me. It’s like asking how I could morally judge the Prime Minister of my country. There is no reason I could not.
That’s also easy. If God existed we should judge him by his words and actions, rather than just taking on faith that he is “good.” That doesn’t mean I am seeing myself as a god, any more than if I judge Hitler as immoral I am seeing myself as the Chancellor of Germany.
Those are behavioural standards that we expect of them. It does not entail that we consider them to be moral agents who are culpable for their actions in the way we are. I actually mentioned this in my original comment.
3 Likes