Why Did God Create......

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
381

Anyway your argument presupposes positive and negative outcomes, so circumlocute as you may, you are not going to be able to escape the fact that you have some idea of right and wrong. Arguing otherwise is stupidity, because you’ve already stated that if God would send someone to hell for engaging in homosexual activity he is a big meanie and you will take your toys and go home.

If you really believed in the squishy post-modern relative morality you purport to, you wouldn’t be so up in arms about God being all arbitrary about his judgments. Indeed, according to what you’ve just stated, the two of you are actually in accordance!

382

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Why should you define God? I can’t, as an honest person, agree with God’s existence if I don’t know what you mean by God. Is creating the universe all there is to it? A scientist might say that the “big bang” is the creator of the universe.[/quote]

To further define is to limit, which is something I cannot do.

What created the big bang? The other thread goes into nauseating detail about that.[/quote]

Well, m-theory suggests multiple dimensions, most of them greater than time. So it is theoretically possible that the nessissary components to create our universe could have always existed. In that same line of thought, however, it is also feasible that a hyper-dimensional being conciously created the universe, but this is really a topic deserving of its own thread.[/quote]

Like I said, it’s discussed here:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/physics_of_the_afterlife?id=4694416&pageNo=9

Jump in if you want, but read a few pages before you do. That way you won’t repeat whats already been said.

‘Always existed’ doesn’t resolve contingency, first. Second, technically anything existing in a state absent of time it ‘always there’. Time is irrelevant to the problem.

383

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
<<>>
But, if you insist on looking at the action you’ll have to define what “good” is if you want a black and white answer.[/quote]

OMG.

Can we lay off the sophistry? I asked you what you would tell your kid.

I don’t have to define “good.” You do. To your kid. That’s what we’re talking about.

[/quote]

I don’t use these words. I already told you in that same post that I find moral frameworks to be pointless.
[/quote]

You don’t use the word “good?”

384

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Anyway your argument presupposes positive and negative outcomes, so circumlocute as you may, you are not going to be able to escape the fact that you have some idea of right and wrong. Arguing otherwise is stupidity, because you’ve already stated that if God would send someone to hell for engaging in homosexual activity he is a big meanie and you will take your toys and go home.

If you really believed in the squishy post-modern relative morality you purport to, you wouldn’t be so up in arms about God being all arbitrary about his judgments. Indeed, according to what you’ve just stated, the two of you are actually in accordance!

[/quote]

Post-modern relative morality? I am a moral nihilist. The only internally consistent form of morality is relative morality and since it’s relative, it’s pointless. It’s much more unambiguous to just describe what is going on and it’s affect on you.

For example, I could say “your God is immoral”, but this is non-cognitive so I instead say “I find your God to be cruel” which is a statement not dependent on a moral framework.

385

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
<<>>
But, if you insist on looking at the action you’ll have to define what “good” is if you want a black and white answer.[/quote]

OMG.

Can we lay off the sophistry? I asked you what you would tell your kid.

I don’t have to define “good.” You do. To your kid. That’s what we’re talking about.

[/quote]

I don’t use these words. I already told you in that same post that I find moral frameworks to be pointless.
[/quote]

You don’t use the word “good?”

[/quote]

Not in terms of morality. I suppose it slips out occasionally when I’m referring to utility, but that’s about it.

386

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Why should you define God? I can’t, as an honest person, agree with God’s existence if I don’t know what you mean by God. Is creating the universe all there is to it? A scientist might say that the “big bang” is the creator of the universe.[/quote]

To further define is to limit, which is something I cannot do.

What created the big bang? The other thread goes into nauseating detail about that.[/quote]

Well, m-theory suggests multiple dimensions, most of them greater than time. So it is theoretically possible that the nessissary components to create our universe could have always existed. In that same line of thought, however, it is also feasible that a hyper-dimensional being conciously created the universe, but this is really a topic deserving of its own thread.[/quote]

Like I said, it’s discussed here:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/physics_of_the_afterlife?id=4694416&pageNo=9

Jump in if you want, but read a few pages before you do. That way you won’t repeat whats already been said.

‘Always existed’ doesn’t resolve contingency, first. Second, technically anything existing in a state absent of time it ‘always there’. Time is irrelevant to the problem.[/quote]

meh, maybe I’ll jump there later.

387

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
To be fair, I don’t believe Tiribulus has ever categorically condemned every Catholic soul to hell. To the contrary, he’s said specifically that some Catholics will in fact be saved, although he believes it is in spite of the church rather than because of it.

Now the church itself…yes he has repeatedly and unashamedly condemned the church as a tool of Satan rather than of god. But that is different from saying every Catholic will be damned.[/quote]

No, no in fairy land, you can simutaneously condemn people to hell love them at the same time. You know how he proclaimed his undying love for Morman’s, too damn bad God destined them all to go the the 7th level of hell.
Like how much he loves JW’s but God is shoving them in the the pit of Gehenna…

It’s the weird dichotomy you must have when you believe the words of self serving, power hungry pig of a man in John Calvin…I prefer God’s word unmolested myself.[/quote]

Honestly, I don’t see him as any different than any other believer, or any other well-intentioned person, for that matter. He cares about people, given the way he sees the world. Don’t get me wrong, I find his beliefs about the nature of god repugnant, and contradictory to what Jesus taught. I believe Jesus was about unconditional love, although god’s love doesn’t automatically absolve people from the consequences of their actions.

What I mean is, Tiribulus wants people to be happy, to find peace, and ultimately to be saved. He doesn’t believe it will happen unless they are born again and see the world as he does, but is that any different than Catholics, for example? Catholics don’t believe I will ever be truly happy, find peace, and be saved unless I am born again and see the world as they do, including their view that same sex relationships are an abomination before god.

I think you are more tolerant than most, but you still view homosexual behavior as a sin. You don’t judge me for it, but you believe I will be judged by god.

I’m ok with that, because I know your intentions are sincere. I believe Tiribulus’s intentions are sincere as well.
[/quote]

You define everybody, not ‘believers’. Everybody has their own paradigm and everybody thinks world would be a better place if people lined up with it.
There’s nothing I can do it being a sin. Being a homosexual isn’t a sin, homosexual acts are. In any event, it is what it is. I didn’t write the rules, so to speak.[/quote]

I believe men wrote the rules; you believe a god did. No way to know for sure who is right, as with so many other questions.[/quote]

And in as believing it to be divinely inspired, I am subject to the same ‘rules and regulations’. I just have different challenges than you do.

388

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Anyway your argument presupposes positive and negative outcomes, so circumlocute as you may, you are not going to be able to escape the fact that you have some idea of right and wrong. Arguing otherwise is stupidity, because you’ve already stated that if God would send someone to hell for engaging in homosexual activity he is a big meanie and you will take your toys and go home.

If you really believed in the squishy post-modern relative morality you purport to, you wouldn’t be so up in arms about God being all arbitrary about his judgments. Indeed, according to what you’ve just stated, the two of you are actually in accordance!

[/quote]

Post-modern relative morality? I am a moral nihilist. The only internally consistent form of morality is relative morality and since it’s relative, it’s pointless. It’s much more unambiguous to just describe what is going on and it’s affect on you.

For example, I could say “your God is immoral”, but this is non-cognitive so I instead say “I find your God to be cruel” which is a statement not dependent on a moral framework. [/quote]

What do you tell YOUR CHILD?!

389

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Anyway your argument presupposes positive and negative outcomes, so circumlocute as you may, you are not going to be able to escape the fact that you have some idea of right and wrong. Arguing otherwise is stupidity, because you’ve already stated that if God would send someone to hell for engaging in homosexual activity he is a big meanie and you will take your toys and go home.

If you really believed in the squishy post-modern relative morality you purport to, you wouldn’t be so up in arms about God being all arbitrary about his judgments. Indeed, according to what you’ve just stated, the two of you are actually in accordance!

[/quote]

Post-modern relative morality? I am a moral nihilist. The only internally consistent form of morality is relative morality and since it’s relative, it’s pointless. It’s much more unambiguous to just describe what is going on and it’s affect on you.

For example, I could say “your God is immoral”, but this is non-cognitive so I instead say “I find your God to be cruel” which is a statement not dependent on a moral framework. [/quote]

What do you tell YOUR CHILD?!
[/quote]

I feel like I’ve answered this several times now… but just to be clear, everything I’ve said to you I would also say to my child. These are the things I would have to say to them about what is “right” and what is “wrong”.

390

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Anyway your argument presupposes positive and negative outcomes, so circumlocute as you may, you are not going to be able to escape the fact that you have some idea of right and wrong. Arguing otherwise is stupidity, because you’ve already stated that if God would send someone to hell for engaging in homosexual activity he is a big meanie and you will take your toys and go home.

If you really believed in the squishy post-modern relative morality you purport to, you wouldn’t be so up in arms about God being all arbitrary about his judgments. Indeed, according to what you’ve just stated, the two of you are actually in accordance!

[/quote]

Post-modern relative morality? I am a moral nihilist. The only internally consistent form of morality is relative morality and since it’s relative, it’s pointless. It’s much more unambiguous to just describe what is going on and it’s affect on you.

For example, I could say “your God is immoral”, but this is non-cognitive so I instead say “I find your God to be cruel” which is a statement not dependent on a moral framework. [/quote]

Here:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
No, they are very different. Burning your hand is tautologically painful, being gay or working on Sunday requires absolutely no pain or suffering unless some sadistic “God” is going to arbitrarily define these things as worth punishment. I mean, what if God decided that wearing shirts made of mixed fibers or eating shellfish was a sin? That would be ridiculous… wouldn’t it? [/quote]

Game’s up, bub.You’re getting tangled up in your own web of sophistry. You are in dire need of some context of your own, which explains your silly, narcissistic worldview.

So which is it? Is God “sadistic” and “arbitrary” in meting out punishment, or is it all supposed to be arbitrary in the first place, in which case God is just doing whatever he feels like?

You used the word “noble” in one of your first posts on this thread. How does that word even square with a “moral nihilist’s” worldview? Nobility assumes honor, which assumes a moral standard.

I’m not even close to done yet but are you sure you want to keep going?

391

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Anyway your argument presupposes positive and negative outcomes, so circumlocute as you may, you are not going to be able to escape the fact that you have some idea of right and wrong. Arguing otherwise is stupidity, because you’ve already stated that if God would send someone to hell for engaging in homosexual activity he is a big meanie and you will take your toys and go home.

If you really believed in the squishy post-modern relative morality you purport to, you wouldn’t be so up in arms about God being all arbitrary about his judgments. Indeed, according to what you’ve just stated, the two of you are actually in accordance!

[/quote]

Post-modern relative morality? I am a moral nihilist. The only internally consistent form of morality is relative morality and since it’s relative, it’s pointless. It’s much more unambiguous to just describe what is going on and it’s affect on you.

For example, I could say “your God is immoral”, but this is non-cognitive so I instead say “I find your God to be cruel” which is a statement not dependent on a moral framework. [/quote]

This reeks of the dung of Nietzsche.

You kind of actually have to prove ‘good’ and ‘evil’ don’t exist for nihilism to be true. the meta-ethical entities are impossible to define, all we can say is we have a sense of it.

392

Edit: New Thread

393

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

I feel like I’ve answered this several times now… but just to be clear, everything I’ve said to you I would also say to my child. These are the things I would have to say to them about what is “right” and what is “wrong”.[/quote]

LOL! No you wouldn’t. This requires no explanation. Have a kid you’ll know why. I am not eloquent enough to describe the profundity of parenthood to a non-parent. You just can’t know it until you live it.

394

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
What do you tell YOUR CHILD?!
[/quote]
I feel like I’ve answered this several times now… but just to be clear, everything I’ve said to you I would also say to my child. These are the things I would have to say to them about what is “right” and what is “wrong”.[/quote]

[i]After being assaulted and robbed by two men one night, who subsequently escape with the family car, his jaw broken and two teeth knocked out, 8 year old TigerKid goes with clearly distraught TigerMom by taxi to visit TigerTime at the hospital.

He does not understand any of what is happening. His dad is the best person in the world. He is always nice, and loving, and takes such good care of him and TigerMom. Why would someone do this to his daddy? He is confused, scared, and insecure. His little TigerBrain hardly knows enough to elucidate the words it feels over and over: “Isn’t my daddy a good person? Why did this bad thing happen?”

When he finally asks his dad, this is the answer he receives:[/i]

[quote]
Well son, what happend tonight is just a symptom. Normal people don’t go out and suddenly feel the urge to assault people and steal something. It’s a build-up of psychological tension, or in some cases a hormonal imbalance.

My point is, placing the focus on the action itself is pointless. Is assault bad? Well, it’s certainly problematic if society is to function, but to split actions into “good” and “bad” is to miss the point. The problem is internal. Is poverty immoral? Is psychological instability immoral? Is a hormonal imbalance immoral?

These questions can’t be answered in a vacuum (as you’re trying to suggest) because these words; good, bad, moral, immoral - they are non-cognitive. They don’t actually mean anything by themselves. They only exist within context. Is happiness good? Is net utility good? What is “good” in a vacuum? If you can’t say what “moral” and “immoral” is in a vacuum then how can you say any act is entirely one or the other in the same vacuum?[/quote]

That about right?

395

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Anyway your argument presupposes positive and negative outcomes, so circumlocute as you may, you are not going to be able to escape the fact that you have some idea of right and wrong. Arguing otherwise is stupidity, because you’ve already stated that if God would send someone to hell for engaging in homosexual activity he is a big meanie and you will take your toys and go home.

If you really believed in the squishy post-modern relative morality you purport to, you wouldn’t be so up in arms about God being all arbitrary about his judgments. Indeed, according to what you’ve just stated, the two of you are actually in accordance!

[/quote]

Post-modern relative morality? I am a moral nihilist. The only internally consistent form of morality is relative morality and since it’s relative, it’s pointless. It’s much more unambiguous to just describe what is going on and it’s affect on you.

For example, I could say “your God is immoral”, but this is non-cognitive so I instead say “I find your God to be cruel” which is a statement not dependent on a moral framework. [/quote]

Here:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
No, they are very different. Burning your hand is tautologically painful, being gay or working on Sunday requires absolutely no pain or suffering unless some sadistic “God” is going to arbitrarily define these things as worth punishment. I mean, what if God decided that wearing shirts made of mixed fibers or eating shellfish was a sin? That would be ridiculous… wouldn’t it? [/quote]

Game’s up, bub.You’re getting tangled up in your own web of sophistry. You are in dire need of some context of your own, which explains your silly, narcissistic worldview.

So which is it? Is God “sadistic” and “arbitrary” in meting out punishment, or is it all supposed to be arbitrary in the first place, in which case God is just doing whatever he feels like?

You used the word “noble” in one of your first posts on this thread. How does that word even square with a “moral nihilist’s” worldview? Nobility assumes honor, which assumes a moral standard.

I’m not even close to done yet but are you sure you want to keep going?

[/quote]

… Are you delusional? These words don’t depend on a moral framework. I view your God as sadistic because he seems to receive joy from causing pain to others. This is a factual statement, not a moral statement. You CAN view sadism as immoral, but the word isn’t predicated on morality. =/

“Arbitrary” is a moral word? Seriously? To be honest, you’re the first person I’ve ever spoken to that considers “arbitrary” to be a moral word…

You’re putting the cart before the horse. These words have their own meanings, autonomous of morality.

396

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

I feel like I’ve answered this several times now… but just to be clear, everything I’ve said to you I would also say to my child. These are the things I would have to say to them about what is “right” and what is “wrong”.[/quote]

LOL! No you wouldn’t. This requires no explanation. Have a kid you’ll know why. I am not eloquent enough to describe the profundity of parenthood to a non-parent. You just can’t know it until you live it.
[/quote]

The naivete here is almost incomprehensible.

397

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Anyway your argument presupposes positive and negative outcomes, so circumlocute as you may, you are not going to be able to escape the fact that you have some idea of right and wrong. Arguing otherwise is stupidity, because you’ve already stated that if God would send someone to hell for engaging in homosexual activity he is a big meanie and you will take your toys and go home.

If you really believed in the squishy post-modern relative morality you purport to, you wouldn’t be so up in arms about God being all arbitrary about his judgments. Indeed, according to what you’ve just stated, the two of you are actually in accordance!

[/quote]

Post-modern relative morality? I am a moral nihilist. The only internally consistent form of morality is relative morality and since it’s relative, it’s pointless. It’s much more unambiguous to just describe what is going on and it’s affect on you.

For example, I could say “your God is immoral”, but this is non-cognitive so I instead say “I find your God to be cruel” which is a statement not dependent on a moral framework. [/quote]

Here:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
No, they are very different. Burning your hand is tautologically painful, being gay or working on Sunday requires absolutely no pain or suffering unless some sadistic “God” is going to arbitrarily define these things as worth punishment. I mean, what if God decided that wearing shirts made of mixed fibers or eating shellfish was a sin? That would be ridiculous… wouldn’t it? [/quote]

Game’s up, bub.You’re getting tangled up in your own web of sophistry. You are in dire need of some context of your own, which explains your silly, narcissistic worldview.

So which is it? Is God “sadistic” and “arbitrary” in meting out punishment, or is it all supposed to be arbitrary in the first place, in which case God is just doing whatever he feels like?

You used the word “noble” in one of your first posts on this thread. How does that word even square with a “moral nihilist’s” worldview? Nobility assumes honor, which assumes a moral standard.

I’m not even close to done yet but are you sure you want to keep going?

[/quote]

… Are you delusional? These words don’t depend on a moral framework. I view your God as sadistic because he seems to receive joy from causing pain to others. This is a factual statement, not a moral statement. You CAN view sadism as immoral, but the word isn’t predicated on morality. =/

“Arbitrary” is a moral word? Seriously? To be honest, you’re the first person I’ve ever spoken to that considers “arbitrary” to be a moral word…

You’re putting the cart before the horse. These words have their own meanings, autonomous of morality.[/quote]

So let me get this straight. You are claiming that the word “arbitrary” does NOT assume a standard?

Do you even know what the word means?

398

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Anyway your argument presupposes positive and negative outcomes, so circumlocute as you may, you are not going to be able to escape the fact that you have some idea of right and wrong. Arguing otherwise is stupidity, because you’ve already stated that if God would send someone to hell for engaging in homosexual activity he is a big meanie and you will take your toys and go home.

If you really believed in the squishy post-modern relative morality you purport to, you wouldn’t be so up in arms about God being all arbitrary about his judgments. Indeed, according to what you’ve just stated, the two of you are actually in accordance!

[/quote]

Post-modern relative morality? I am a moral nihilist. The only internally consistent form of morality is relative morality and since it’s relative, it’s pointless. It’s much more unambiguous to just describe what is going on and it’s affect on you.

For example, I could say “your God is immoral”, but this is non-cognitive so I instead say “I find your God to be cruel” which is a statement not dependent on a moral framework. [/quote]

This reeks of the dung of Nietzsche.

You kind of actually have to prove ‘good’ and ‘evil’ don’t exist for nihilism to be true. the meta-ethical entities are impossible to define, all we can say is we have a sense of it. [/quote]

Prove good and evil don’t exist? You’re talking about them like they are physical entities floating around. Good and evil are just examples of circumlocution. They’re blanket terms to describe something else (usually happiness/unhappiness or utility/disutility). You can define good and evil into existence if you really want to, but I find that completely unnecessary as I’m perfectly capable of describing what I like/dislike and why.

399

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Anyway your argument presupposes positive and negative outcomes, so circumlocute as you may, you are not going to be able to escape the fact that you have some idea of right and wrong. Arguing otherwise is stupidity, because you’ve already stated that if God would send someone to hell for engaging in homosexual activity he is a big meanie and you will take your toys and go home.

If you really believed in the squishy post-modern relative morality you purport to, you wouldn’t be so up in arms about God being all arbitrary about his judgments. Indeed, according to what you’ve just stated, the two of you are actually in accordance!

[/quote]

Post-modern relative morality? I am a moral nihilist. The only internally consistent form of morality is relative morality and since it’s relative, it’s pointless. It’s much more unambiguous to just describe what is going on and it’s affect on you.

For example, I could say “your God is immoral”, but this is non-cognitive so I instead say “I find your God to be cruel” which is a statement not dependent on a moral framework. [/quote]

Here:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
No, they are very different. Burning your hand is tautologically painful, being gay or working on Sunday requires absolutely no pain or suffering unless some sadistic “God” is going to arbitrarily define these things as worth punishment. I mean, what if God decided that wearing shirts made of mixed fibers or eating shellfish was a sin? That would be ridiculous… wouldn’t it? [/quote]

Game’s up, bub.You’re getting tangled up in your own web of sophistry. You are in dire need of some context of your own, which explains your silly, narcissistic worldview.

So which is it? Is God “sadistic” and “arbitrary” in meting out punishment, or is it all supposed to be arbitrary in the first place, in which case God is just doing whatever he feels like?

You used the word “noble” in one of your first posts on this thread. How does that word even square with a “moral nihilist’s” worldview? Nobility assumes honor, which assumes a moral standard.

I’m not even close to done yet but are you sure you want to keep going?

[/quote]

… Are you delusional? These words don’t depend on a moral framework. I view your God as sadistic because he seems to receive joy from causing pain to others. This is a factual statement, not a moral statement. You CAN view sadism as immoral, but the word isn’t predicated on morality. =/

“Arbitrary” is a moral word? Seriously? To be honest, you’re the first person I’ve ever spoken to that considers “arbitrary” to be a moral word…

You’re putting the cart before the horse. These words have their own meanings, autonomous of morality.[/quote]

So let me get this straight. You are claiming that the word “arbitrary” does NOT assume a standard?

Do you even know what the word means? [/quote]

A “standard” and a “moral standard” are not the same thing. Don’t pretend like you don’t know that.