Rocag said:

---

a world with an omnipotent and omniscient creator and free will is a logical contradiction.

---

Nah.

The problem is you are actually embedding oughts in your is statements that aren't actually demonstrable.

You could do the same with statements not related to god.

Quote:

---

a world with an omnipotent and omniscient creator and free will is a logical contradiction.

---

Nah.

Aggrad08 said:

---

The problem is you are actually embedding oughts in your is statements that aren't actually demonstrable.

You could do the same with statements not related to god.

---

"God is deserving of worship" is in fact a descriptive claim. It's an is. Hume was kinda silly on this point.

Oh - and it has the added bonus of being obviously true. If there is a being like the God of classical theism, it is obviously true that this being is worthy of our love and devotion.

I don't see that this is remotely the case. You can't sidestep Hume so easily there is a reason people acknowledged the problem for so long.

You embedding an ought in an is presents an empty claim. This is like saying chickens deserve to be eaten as a descriptive claim-while intuitively compelling it's not actually logically grounded.

And I would say that if a being that some on here believe in actually tortures a preponderance of humanity for all eternity it would clearly not be worthy of worship-If we are appealing to intuition which we shouldn't

Quote:

---

And I would say that if a being that some on here believe in actually tortures a preponderance of humanity for all eternity it would clearly not be worthy of worship-If we are appealing to intuition which we shouldn't

---

So many internet atheists rely on such terrible theology to justify their atheism. Who says God tortured people?

And of course we rely on intuitions. How would one justify the claim that we shouldn't rely on intuitions except by relying on intuitions? The idea that we shouldn't rely on intuitions is self-defeating.

I'm pointing out a theistic god a great many people believe in who we intuitively shouldn't worship. And it's no trouble at all finding people who believe in an ETC hell.

Broadly we are talking about a logical issue, and leaning on your intuition doesn't actually address the logic. You intuitively can say a chicken is a creature that deserves to be eaten it doesn't logically make it something you ought to do, there is an undemonstrated ought hiding in there you can't just intuit into place.

Quote:

---

I'm pointing out a theistic god a great many people believe in who we intuitively shouldn't worship. And it's no trouble at all finding people who believe in an ETC hell.

---

That's like saying, "there are obviously no physical constants in the universe. Some people believe science shows the earth is flat.

It's just worthless.

Quote:

---

You intuitively can say a chicken is a creature that deserves to be eaten it doesn't logically make it something you ought to do, there is an undemonstrated ought hiding in there you can just intuit into place.

---

You just aren't making sense. "If an all loving and all wise being created and sustains all that exists, then we ought to obey such a being" is nothing at all like "a chicken deserves to be eaten."

I'm sure you're a really smart, nice guy. I'm nit sure why you're working so hard to resist such obviously true claims.

You aren't seeming to understand, you are playing in logical pool trying to answer logical dilemmas with nothing but blind assertion and intuition. The point with an ETC god is that we don't actually know gods character-you have no more claim to the truth than the ETC folks do. Even if you regard them as idiot flat earthers. The only thing being granted is gods power and the question is whether that's enough.

If there actually were an all loving all powerful being I think it and I would get along ok. I don't think I could logically demonstrate I should do what it says though.

And if you actually want me to use my intuition, honestly I intuitively think a desire for worship from humans far beneath such a being and being invisible and jealous of our wandering devotion makes no intuitive sense to me.

But that's a separate issue and has nothing to do with hume

fat girlfriend said:

---

Quote:

---

And I would say that if a being that some on here believe in actually tortures a preponderance of humanity for all eternity it would clearly not be worthy of worship-If we are appealing to intuition which we shouldn't

---

So many internet atheists rely on such terrible theology to justify their atheism. Who says God tortured people?

And of course we rely on intuitions. How would one justify the claim that we shouldn't rely on intuitions except by relying on intuitions? The idea that we shouldn't rely on intuitions is self-defeating.

---

The descriptions of Hell in Christianity are of eternal torture and torment. You can choose to take that metaphorically, but the plain descriptions are pretty clear.

Sapper Redux said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Quote:

---

And I would say that if a being that some on here believe in actually tortures a preponderance of humanity for all eternity it would clearly not be worthy of worship-If we are appealing to intuition which we shouldn't

---

So many internet atheists rely on such terrible theology to justify their atheism. Who says God tortured people?

And of course we rely on intuitions. How would one justify the claim that we shouldn't rely on intuitions except by relying on intuitions? The idea that we shouldn't rely on intuitions is self-defeating.

---

The descriptions of Hell in Christianity are of eternal torture and torment. You can choose to take that metaphorically, but the plain descriptions are pretty clear.

---

Some are. Some are descriptions of a second death where people stop existing. Heaven is described as having streets of gold, but only ham-handed morons who can't understand basic human communication think that means heaven is going to literally have streets of gold.

Jesus said, "anyone who does not hate his father and mother cannot be my disciple" but an argument again theism that is predicated on the claim that theists think we should hate our mommas is a pretty bad argument.

And yet despite your arguments the belief in a Hell where people are tortured for all of eternity is in no way a fringe or uncommon belief within Christianity. It is the accepted dogma of some of the most popular versions of Christianity in America. Non-Christians aren't being unreasonable or inaccurate when we point to this as a commonly accepted belief within Christianity.

Though we are kind of getting off-topic here. To get back to your previous statement, Aggrad is absolutely correct that the phrase "God is deserving of worship" is basically just you restating "God ought to be worshiped" in a different way. It has the implication that some things ought to be worshiped in the first place which is not a point you've bothered to prove.

fat girlfriend said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Quote:

---

And I would say that if a being that some on here believe in actually tortures a preponderance of humanity for all eternity it would clearly not be worthy of worship-If we are appealing to intuition which we shouldn't

---

So many internet atheists rely on such terrible theology to justify their atheism. Who says God tortured people?

And of course we rely on intuitions. How would one justify the claim that we shouldn't rely on intuitions except by relying on intuitions? The idea that we shouldn't rely on intuitions is self-defeating.

---

The descriptions of Hell in Christianity are of eternal torture and torment. You can choose to take that metaphorically, but the plain descriptions are pretty clear.

---

Some are. Some are descriptions of a second death where people stop existing. Heaven is described as having streets of gold, but only ham-handed morons who can't understand basic human communication think that means heaven is going to literally have streets of gold.

Jesus said, "anyone who does not hate his father and mother cannot be my disciple" but an argument again theism that is predicated on the claim that theists think we should hate our mommas is a pretty bad argument.

---

The "second death" is specifically linked to being thrown into a lake of fire. The "outer darkness" refers to weeping and gnashing of teeth. Which verses are you using to suggest people stop existing?

Rocag said:

---

It seems to me that even inserting god into the equation doesn't really solve anything. Let's assume the existence of god and the idea that he's clearly set out how he wants humans to behave. The leap from there to saying "people ought to behave this way" still has the implied reasoning behind it that we are obligated to act according to what god wants. And where's the justification for that? Because he created us? So? I never asked to be created in the first place. Because he'll punish us if we don't? Threats are poor justification. Because he'll reward us if we do? That's just a bribe. Because it will make him happy? I see little reason to care if he's happy or not. The "ought" issue remains.

Furthermore every "ought" statement has some implied reasoning behind it even if that reasoning isn't explicitly stated. Why should I treat "Because god said so" as a more legitimate justification than one that prioritizes the collective welfare of mankind?

---

Let's say you came from a primitive culture and I gave you your first car. Would you read the owners manual on how to properly operate and maintain the car, written by the people who designed and built the car, or would you reli on the wisdom of your tribe who still doesn't believe cars exist?

Why should you trust God's purpose for you is superior to your Egos manifestations of purpose? Because He designed you. He knows in the most superior ways how you are best suited.

Doesn't mean you have. It's simply foolish not to.

Maybe that analogy works if at no point was I allowed to actually see the car but was instead just promised I'd get it some day in the unspecified future. And none of the people who gave me the owner's manual had ever seen a car before either. And the owner's manual itself seemed to be filled with contradictory facts and advice and just about everybody who read the manual seemed to disagree with what it meant.

Thats not what you initially asked.

I recognize the difficulties you elucidate in trusting what God's purpose for you might be.

But to the question whether or not that purpose should matter to you I would hope you can see why it should, following the presumption He exists, of course.

I thought we were jumping off topic since your response didn't really address how we go from even the assumed "IS" statement that God created us and knows more than we do to the "OUGHT" statement of we should do as told. You can say that it would be in our best interest to do so, but again that brings up the issue of moving from is to ought that this topic is based on.

Or is your answer to the question that if something is in a person's best interest they ought to do it?

I was trying to follow your own reasoning. You said:

Quote:

---

Let's assume the existence of god and the idea that he's clearly set out how he wants humans to behave. The leap from there to saying "people ought to behave this way" still has the implied reasoning behind it that we are obligated to act according to what god wants. And where's the justification for that? Because he created us?

---

My answer us, the justification is because it's in your best interest to do so. It is the path toward your best life. The best of all possible worlds for you.

If your response is "why would I even want that?" My response is one of incredulity. Why would you want what is best for you? Is this even a serious line of inquiry or being argumentative merely for the sake of being argumentative?

Again this goes back to where I said previously we're arguing in circles. Your line of reasoning says mankind has no right to set their own goals and priorities. I personally don't agree with that mindset, even given the assumptions. Even more so when we take those assumptions away and we are left with everyone basing their ought's and ought not's on opinions instead of certainties.

Sapper Redux said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

fat girlfriend said:

---

Quote:

---

And I would say that if a being that some on here believe in actually tortures a preponderance of humanity for all eternity it would clearly not be worthy of worship-If we are appealing to intuition which we shouldn't

---

So many internet atheists rely on such terrible theology to justify their atheism. Who says God tortured people?

And of course we rely on intuitions. How would one justify the claim that we shouldn't rely on intuitions except by relying on intuitions? The idea that we shouldn't rely on intuitions is self-defeating.

---

The descriptions of Hell in Christianity are of eternal torture and torment. You can choose to take that metaphorically, but the plain descriptions are pretty clear.

---

Some are. Some are descriptions of a second death where people stop existing. Heaven is described as having streets of gold, but only ham-handed morons who can't understand basic human communication think that means heaven is going to literally have streets of gold.

Jesus said, "anyone who does not hate his father and mother cannot be my disciple" but an argument again theism that is predicated on the claim that theists think we should hate our mommas is a pretty bad argument.

---

The "second death" is specifically linked to being thrown into a lake of fire. The "outer darkness" refers to weeping and gnashing of teeth. Which verses are you using to suggest people stop existing?

---

The gnashing of teeth refers to being in the presence of God without uniting to him. Your entire life revolves around memetic rivalry so when that is universally finished there's nothing else to compete against and all you have is God. This will ultimately destroy you which is why some people can argue that you cease to exist in whatever we deem existing to be but that might not be the case since the idea of resurrection is that God brings everyone back for eternity.

The idea is that you can give that rivalry up now (or try) and you absolutely should since that's the only reason we are some what civil right now. The memetic rivalry is still there but used mainly for the better house or car, first world problems.

I've never once said mankind has no right to set their own prioties. Mankind is free to do whatever they want. Such is free will.

I said if we work under the assumption that there is a creator, it would be wise to open to the kind of life that creator intended for you. Because, like, it created you and stuff. And knows you better then you know yourself.

“There is but one good; that is God. Everything else is good when it looks to Him and bad when it turns from Him.” - C.S. Lewis

— C. S. Lewis (@CSLewisDaily) August 20, 2022

Here is a piece from hot air.com that is pretty interesting about an embryo with a 'brain' being developed by scientists entirely from…stem cells (not the embryonic type).

It does beg the question as to who/why/what moral considerations should apply.

Quote:

---

I simply don't know how we can do this without addressing the question of when a brain starts to exhibit consciousness or the presence of a soul, depending on your religious and moralistic preferences. Does it not happen until the moment of birth as many liberals today contend? Or does it happen the moment that the sperm fertilizes the egg as others insist? Or somewhere in between? And does the fact that the brain was created using human stem cells rather than eggs and sperm make any difference morally?

If the brain is producing brain waves and starting to process information, then it clearly appears to be something that at least resembles "thinking." And a human brain capable of processing thoughts certainly sounds like it meets some of the basic definitions of what it means to be human. Do you have the right to flush that down the toilet and destroy it when your experiment is complete? If these scientists think they have easy answers to those questions, I would suggest they haven't thought this through fully.

---