Hermes119:

The above boldened is wrong
I already gave an instance
If a human weighing 100kg is considered heavy it doesn't make the weight 100kg itself qualified to be described as heavy, the term can only be used with reference to a human
Because
For whales weighing 100kg may be regarded as severely light
You get my point now

Meaningless unless personal attributes such as goodness or Evilness can be quantified by a numeric values

Hermes119:

Yes @ the boldened
To describe someone or something as alive means it has the capacity to die
For instance
Can you describe air as alive ?
Can you describe water as alive ?
Can you describe a shoe as alive ?



Yes
If he lacks the capacity to be weak then he can't be strong,if you disagree then give me an instance of something that doesn't have the capacity to be weak but is described as strong


Your argument was refuted with utmost ease

Unfortunately for you, infinite regress of Cause and Effect is Logically and Scientifically impossible. Meaning that the ball of all the chains of causes, effects and systems must terminate at the Enigma: the Uncaused First Cause of Everything who brought EVERYTHING into being.

Such is infinitely powerful if we compare Him to the total Energy of the Universe.
Such is timeless: as He must have existed before TIME!
Such must be intelligent: as rules, laws and multiplicity of INTERDEPENDENT SYSTEMS can only be from an intelligent MIND!



Your argument in another form:
The Universe lacks the capacity to reduce itself to a gravitational singularity
Your conclusion:
Therefore the Universe cannot be infinitely BIG!

Wilgrea7:


You cannot simultaneously claim I'm trying to force God into a "mold" and then try to prove reasons for God's alleged holiness with inductive, deductive or other logical methods.




I do not disagree with this.



It cannot simply be so. Just as 50 cannot pass or fail in the absence of any other higher criteria, the your source of good and evil, cannot be seen as inherently good or evil, in the absence of any other higher criteria.



To both questions, it depends on your criteria, or definition of what it means to be weak/strong, and what it means to be dead/alive. But my answer to both questions, is still YES.

One thing I think you're missing here, is that the thing that makes God unable to be good for example, isn't just the fact that he cannot do bad, but the fact that whatever he does, determines what good and bad are.

Good and bad will always be determined in light of what your God does, similarly, for your analogy to work, strength will have to be determined in light of whatever your God does, irrespective of what he does.

I'll start with strength. Let me use MrX in in place of a God in this situation. If the criteria for strength is how many tons MrX can carry, and whatever MrX carries has to be the criteria for what strength is, then MrX can never be thought of as strong or weak, because it is what he carries that determines how we define strength and weakness.

God can never be strong, if he can never be seen as weak. If whatever he does automatically becomes the criteria for what strength and weakness are, then strength and weakness have to draw their definition from him, and not him from them.

You cannot simply define God, based on the very parameters that HAVE TO get their definition from him. To define God as anything, is to subject him to the definition of that thing. If the definition of that thing is dependent on God, and not the other way around, then it makes no logical sense to define God based on it.

It's like this

God's actions/will --> good and bad ---> Human actions.

Human actions can be defined in relation to good and bad. But good and bad have to be defined in relation to God's will and actions. God cannot then be defined in relation to good and bad, which are defined in relation to him.

I'll say it again. It is not just that God cannot do any wrong. It is that whatever God does, no matter what he does, are the very things that determine what good and bad are.

I think your problem is that you want to set a standard of attributes of goodness or Evilness OUTSIDE the Creator.

Unfortunately, God Himself is the YARDSTICK to which every action is Measured.

Let's assume we don't know who Adolf Hitler is but we know his Special Assistant.

The Special Assistant does everything his boss want and we can see that this special assistant is Evil.

By induction, what kind of person is his Boss?

This is simply what you refuse to see.

If God is Timeless (exist before time), can he Cease to Exist?

Your argument is like saying:
Since God lacks the capacity to Cease existing, does it mean that He cannot Exist?
Compare with:
If God lacks the capacity to DIE, does it mean that He cannot be ALIVE!?

TenQ:

I think your problem is that you want to set a standard of attributes of goodness or Evilness OUTSIDE the Creator.

Unfortunately, God Himself is the YARDSTICK to which every action is Measured.

Let's assume we don't know who Adolf Hitler is but we know his Special Assistant.

The Special Assistant does everything his boss want and we can see that this special assistant is Evil.

By induction, what kind of person is his Boss?

This is simply what you refuse to see.

If God is Timeless (exist before time), can he Cease to Exist?

Your argument is like saying:
Since God lacks the capacity to Cease existing, does it mean that He cannot Exist?
Compare with:
If God lacks the capacity to DIE, does it mean that He cannot be ALIVE!?

If we don’t know adolf Hitler how were we able to identify his lookalike relatives talkless of knowing adolf hitler has an assistant?
Bwahahahah

TenQ:

I was born BLANK of knowledge. However, my conscience was prewritten within me. My logical ability grew as I interacted with my environment. Looking at my environment, through the eyes of my logic and conscience, I concluded that there is a FORCE behind everything.

Just a quick one. There are a couple things I observed here.

1) You didn't directly know the will/purpose of God. You used your conscience, and assumed that whoever the creator was, placed your conscience there in accordance to his will, as to what right and wrong should be.

What that Force was, I concluded could not be a PHYSICAL force because the Universe consists of several multiple INTERDEPENDENT SYSTEMS. This this FORCE (for want of better words) is INTELLIGENT and thus a Living Being. The fact that all living things seem to have a Hardware (their bodies, brain, sensory organs etc) and a Software part (Soul- Intuition, Conscience, Will, Emotion, Instincts etc). It is impossible for a Software to develop from chaos. A program is a product of Intelligence.

This part speaks about how you arrived at the conclusion that a God exists. Since this isn't about the existence of God, I'll grant you this part. But what I'm curious to know, is how you arrived at the notion that whatever God was responsible for creation, put YOUR conscience in you, as a way for you to know what right and wrong should be.

That is, that your conscience, whatever it was, was somehow necessarily in line with the will of God. How could you have known that your conscience was in line with his will without knowing his will? Is it mere assumption?

You've previously told me that God answers to no one, and has the right to do with his creation as he pleases. What stops God from putting a conscience that points you away from his will on purpose? What stops God from changing his will, which would in turn change the criteria for right and wrong, and in turn make your conscience fall out of line and become an invalid pointer for good and evil?

Remember, we're talking about God in general here, not the one defined by religious texts, so saying things like "God never changes" as said by the bible won't really work here.

We've also previously agreed that the will of God is the final arbiter on good and bad. That means everything else under it, including your actions, would have to be judged by it, irrespective of your conscience, or your logical methods. How can you be sure that God's will has not changed since you were created, and your conscience is now an invalid pointer to what should be good or bad?

If you think God would notify you or update the conscience if he did so, why do you think so? Why does he have to notify you or update the conscience if he changes the rules of right and wrong? Remember, he doesn't have to answer to anyone.

Almost Half a million religions exist in this world. My conscience and logic helped me to filter out the noise to reduce them to just three religions. Religion is what man do in their attempt of pleasing their Deity!

The three religions that agree with my conscience and logic are
1. Judaism
2. Christianity
3. Islam

Their common grounds:
1. Monotheistic
2. Gives some Purpose of Creation
3. Destination of Humans

I had a choice between Christianity and Judaism. Judaism seem to be narrow whole Christianity makes more sense as it explains and extends Judaism.
Islam has too many problems and internal contradictions that made me discard it.

From this point the rest of the items mentioned follows through.

Yes, I was predisposed to Christianity because my parents were Christians. But in my 200Levels, I independently logically made my choice.

My experience within my path I cannot trade for even my life.

Why would you need to turn to any religion to determine what was in line with God's will? Wasn't your conscience and logic enough? Why do you need religion at all to know God's will?

The three criteria/common grounds you listed, apart from the first one (monotheism) do nothing to show how how they are in line with the will of God, which has also not been well-defined. There are a lot more questions I'd like to ask, but I'll keep it at this for now.

Wilgrea7:

I think in this case, they're trying to eat their cake and have it. They want a God who isn't subject to rules, but at the same time, can have titles based on the same rule it is not subject to.

It just can't happen.

That is one of the many things you do not get. Creators and LawMakers cannot be subjects to the rules they make for and over their creations,. They are always greater than the rules eg you don't need to drink petrol and have tires before you move just like your car.

Dtruthspeaker:


That is one of the many things you do not get. Creators and LawMakers cannot be subjects to the rules they make for and over their creations,. They are always greater than the rules eg you don't need to drink petrol and have tires before you move just like your car.

Then you don’t need to call the creators and lawmakers good or bad just call them as they are.

TenQ:

I think your problem is that you want to set a standard of attributes of goodness or Evilness OUTSIDE the Creator.

Unfortunately, God Himself is the YARDSTICK to which every action is Measured.

Let's assume we don't know who Adolf Hitler is but we know his Special Assistant.

The Special Assistant does everything his boss want and we can see that this special assistant is Evil.

By induction, what kind of person is his Boss?

This is simply what you refuse to see.

If God is Timeless (exist before time), can he Cease to Exist?

Your argument is like saying:
Since God lacks the capacity to Cease existing, does it mean that He cannot Exist?
Compare with:
If God lacks the capacity to DIE, does it mean that He cannot be ALIVE!?

Wrong analogy.

Adolf Hitler, and his actions are not the criteria by which we judge good and evil. Good and evil do not depend on the actions or will of hitler to get their definition. If we see his assistant as evil, it is because we have another external and higher standard, by which we judge good and evil.

We know hitler, as well as his assistant were evil, because how we define those terms were not dependent on their actions. Rather, their actions were judged based on our own objective criteria for what good and evil should be.

Dtruthspeaker:


That is one of the many things you do not get. Creators and LawMakers cannot be subjects to the rules they make for and over their creations,. They are always greater than the rules eg you don't need to drink petrol and have tires before you move just like your car.

If your God is greater than the rules he created, and cannot be subject to them, then why do you insist on giving him titles based on the very rules he is not subject to?

If God is above the criteria by which we determine what good and bad is, then why call him either good or bad, if he is not subject to the criteria that defines them?

Wilgrea7:


Wrong analogy.

Adolf Hitler, and his actions are not the criteria by which we judge good and evil. Good and evil do not depend on the actions or will of hitler to get their definition. If we see his assistant as evil, it is because we have another external and higher standard, by which we judge good and evil.

We know hitler, as well as his assistant were evil, because how we define those terms were not dependent on their actions. Rather, their actions were judged based on our own objective criteria for what good and evil should be.

That was why I said: assume we don't know who Adolf Hitler is just as mostly people don't know who God is.

The analogy stands!

I also said:

If God is Timeless (exist before time), can he Cease to Exist?

Your argument is like saying:
Since God lacks the capacity to Cease existing, does it mean that He cannot Exist?
Compare with:
If God lacks the capacity to DIE, does it mean that

Wilgrea7:


If your God is greater than the rules he created, and cannot be subject to them, then why do you insist on giving him titles based on the very rules he is not subject to?

If God is above the criteria by which we determine what good and bad is, then why call him either good or bad, if he is not subject to the criteria that defines them?

Because people who follow His general guidelines are Good people. Therefore their source must be GOOD! (I speak only for Christians)

TenQ:

Because people who follow His general guidelines are Good people. Therefore their source must be GOOD! (I speak only for Christians)

What makes them good people?
Then we proceed to use the same standard for the source.

TenQ:

Do you not desire a physical verifiable evidence for God?

I want verifiable evidence for a god. To leap from that to saying "whatever you can't measure doesn't exist!" shows just how disingenuous you are.

Wilgrea7:

If your God is greater than the rules he created, and cannot be subject to them, then why do you insist on giving him titles based on the very rules he is not subject to?

I told you since the beginning of this thread IT IS NOT US (MAN) WHO GAVE HIM WHAT YOU CALL A TITLE. (UNA CAN SUFFER PARTIAL DEAFNESS)

IT IS HE HIMSELF WHO TOLD US AND SHOWED US.

Wilgrea7:

If God is above the criteria by which we determine what good and bad is, then why call him either good or bad, if he is not subject to the criteria that defines them?

Do you call a person who gives you free and good accommodation/housing, free good food and good counsel, bad?

Is it not normal and natural that we call such persons good? (Gosh atheism definitely screws up people's assessment of good and Evil)

Dtruthspeaker:


I told you since the beginning of this thread IT IS NOT US (MAN) WHO GAVE HIM WHAT YOU CALL A TITLE. (UNA CAN SUFFER PARTIAL DEAFNESS)

IT IS HE HIMSELF WHO TOLD US AND SHOWED US.



Do you call a person who gives you free and good accommodation/housing, free god food and good counsel, bad?

So these are the standards that makes your god good? You are just talking

TenQ:

That was why I said: assume we don't know who Adolf Hitler is just as mostly people don't know who God is.

The analogy stands!

I also said:

If God is Timeless (exist before time), can he Cease to Exist?

Your argument is like saying:
Since God lacks the capacity to Cease existing, does it mean that He cannot Exist?
Compare with:
If God lacks the capacity to DIE, does it mean that

No your analogy does NOT stand. Not even slightly. You seem to have completely missed the part where I said hitler's actions, as well as his assistant's actions, are not the criteria by which we determine good and bad. How many times do I have to repeat it?

It's not a matter of knowing who he is. It's a matter of whether good and bad can get their definition from him, to which the answer is no. So the argument really doesn't compare to the one about God.

Also, your argument about God existing before time, and ceasing to exist really doesn't hold up. The very definition of existence is not determined by what God is, in this scenario. You have subjected God to your definition of existence.

Same with death. Life and death do not get their meaning from what God is. You're the one trying to subject God to the definition of life and death. If the definition of life, death, existence, nonexistence, good and bad all have to get their definition from God, then your arguments break down immediately.

Dtruthspeaker:


I told you since the beginning of this thread IT IS NOT US (MAN) WHO GAVE HIM WHAT YOU CALL A TITLE. (UNA CAN SUFFER PARTIAL DEAFNESS)

IT IS HE HIMSELF WHO TOLD US AND SHOWED US.

Explaining the same thing over and over again is beginning to tire me.

Whether you give your God the title or he gives himself does not change the basic fact.

Titles like Holy can only get their meaning in relation to something. If your God calls himself holy, that means he is the one subjecting himself to a criteria by which the word can be defined. If there is no criteria, then the word has no meaning.

Do you call a person who gives you free and good accommodation/housing, free god food and good counsel, bad?

Is it not normal and natural that we call such persons good? (Gosh atheism definitely screws up people's assessment of good and Evil)

Wrong analogy. We have a relatively well-defined criteria by which we determine good and bad. And the person who gives us food is human like us, and is therefore subject to that criteria.

You've repeatedly said that God is not subject to the criteria, and yet you want me to judge him based on it. Pick a side.

You want me to call God “good" based on certain things considered good. But when it comes to things considered bad, all of a sudden your God is above criteria

If you want me to judge your God based on the criteria by which we determine good and evil, then you have a lot of explaining to do when we get to the old testament

TenQ:

Because people who follow His general guidelines are Good people. Therefore their source must be GOOD! (I speak only for Christians)

I've explained why this source analogy doesn't make sense in respect to a God who's actions and will determine what right and wrong are... But you insist on using it. I don't know what else to tell you at this point

Wilgrea7:

Explaining the same thing over and over again is beginning to tire me.

Whether you give your God the title or he gives himself does not change the basic fact.

This is a change of post and evasion. First you accused us of giving God the Title "Holy".

Now I have answered, you have abandoned this position and changed your mouth! So this point is gone.

Wilgrea7:

Titles like Holy can only get their meaning in relation to something. If your God calls himself holy, that means he is the one subjecting himself to a criteria by which the word can be defined. If there is no criteria, then the word has no meaning.

The criteria is His Criteria! And not you and I because He is The One who set the word and condition of what Holy is!

So, you can have your own, my own, our own criteria, but it is completely immaterial and irrelevant.

That is why we say when we judge that "we would tie you with your own rope".

So, Access Him by His standards and not your own!

Wilgrea7:

If you want me to judge your God based on the criteria by which we determine good and evil, then you have a lot of explaining to do when we get to the old testament

That is the best part. Open a thread and see if you would have any reasonable and valid ground to stand on good and evil.

Dtruthspeaker:


This is a change of post and evasion. First you accused us of giving God the Title "Holy".

Now I have answered, you have abandoned this position and changed your mouth! So this point is gone.

There you go again... Picking irrelevant things and trying to make a big deal out of them. I said whether you or your God say it.. it doesn't change the basic rule behind words..

And now you're looking for a flimsy excuse to abandon the argument.

The criteria is His Criteria! And not you and I because He is The One who set the word and condition of what Holy is!

So, you can have your own, my own, our own criteria, but it is completely immaterial and irrelevant.

That is why we say when we judge that "we would tie you with your own rope".

So, Access Him by His standards and not your own!

What then is the criteria? If you know, I'd be happy to hear it.

If the criteria is not well-defined, then the word loses it's meaning

Dtruthspeaker:


.

Me: if you want to call God holy, there must be a criteria by which you define is holiness

You: I didn't call God holy.. he called himself holy

Me: my point still stands. Whoever calls God holy needs to do so based on a criteria, or else the word loses its meaning

You: arrrhhh.. me angry.. you change topic.. arrh.. me abandon argument.. arrrhhh

Wilgrea7:


I've explained why this source analogy doesn't make sense in respect to a God who's actions and will determine what right and wrong are... But you insist on using it. I don't know what else to tell you at this point

Bias aside!
If someone lives by ALL the tenets of Christ, would such a person be seen as Good or Evil?

Wilgrea7:

There you go again... Picking irrelevant things and trying to make a big deal out of them. I said whether you or your God say it.. it doesn't change the basic rule behind words..

From the beginning you made it relevant until now I have bursted it up. So I move on to the other issues.

And now you're looking for a flimsy excuse to abandon the argument.

Wilgrea7:

What then is the criteria? If you know, I'd be happy to hear it.

If the criteria is not well-defined, then the word loses it's meaning

You know them already He does only the Good! Intolerant of evil deeds.

Dtruthspeaker:


From the beginning you made it relevant until now I have bursted it up. So I move on to the other issues.

And now you're looking for a flimsy excuse to abandon the argument.



You know them already He does only the Good! Intolerant of evil deeds.

Touche my man. Outstanding logic right there.

Congratulations

Wilgrea7:


No your analogy does NOT stand. Not even slightly. You seem to have completely missed the part where I said hitler's actions, as well as his assistant's actions, are not the criteria by which we determine good and bad. How many times do I have to repeat it?

It's not a matter of knowing who he is. It's a matter of whether good and bad can get their definition from him, to which the answer is no. So the argument really doesn't compare to the one about God.

Also, your argument about God existing before time, and ceasing to exist really doesn't hold up. The very definition of existence is not determined by what God is, in this scenario. You have subjected God to your definition of existence.

Same with death. Life and death do not get their meaning from what God is. You're the one trying to subject God to the definition of life and death. If the definition of life, death, existence, nonexistence, good and bad all have to get their definition from God, then your arguments break down immediately.

Sorry, there is nothing I can do about you position!

You've just concluded indirectly that either an Uncaused First Cause doesn't exist or the Universe has always been there

LordReed:


I want verifiable evidence for a god. To leap from that to saying "whatever you can't measure doesn't exist!" shows just how disingenuous you are.

Sorry!
God doesn't fit into anyone's mold!

Okay!
Whatever you can't physically verify doesn't exist!

TenQ:

Bias aside!
If someone lives by ALL the tenets of Christ, would such a person be seen as Good or Evil?

Don't try to rope me into this.

My concept of right and wrong is irrelevant here. It can be likened to your example of the child crying because his mother held him down for a rabies shot.

What i consider right or wrong is irrelevant to what God, who is the authority on it does or says it is.

I'm like the bacteria in the toilet analogy you gave. My perspective is irrelevant. Only God's perspective is.

Wilgrea7:


Touche my man. Outstanding logic right there.

Congratulations

Now you see that you have nothing reasonable to go on with now that I have answered your question laying down His Criteria. And that all you think about God and His Actions are baseless.

Raise a thread about the old testament where you think God did evil, and I would show you that He Did The Good in each and every scenerio proving that Holiness means Good, no evil.

TenQ:

Sorry, there is nothing I can do about you position!

You've just concluded indirectly that either an Uncaused First Cause doesn't exist or the Universe has always been there

Please stop changing the goalpost. My response was not in any way related to this.. and i have no desire to debate this topic on this thread.

Dtruthspeaker:


Now you see that you have nothing reasonable to go on with now that I have answered your question laying down His Criteria. And that all you think about God and His Actions are baseless.

Raise a thread about the old testament where you think God did evil, and I would show you that He Did The Good in each and every scenerio proving that Holiness means Good, no evil.

1. This thread is about the ascribed holiness of your God.. so it's more than enough to discuss the things you want

2. Are you now accepting that your God is subject to the standards by which we judge good and bad?

Wilgrea7:


Don't try to rope me into this.

My concept of right and wrong is irrelevant here. It can be likened to your example of the child crying because his mother held him down for a rabies shot.

What i consider right or wrong is irrelevant to what God, who is the authority on it does or says it is.

I'm like the bacteria in the toilet analogy you gave. My perspective is irrelevant. Only God's perspective is.

It was a simple question!

If a person follow all the teachings of Christ, will such a person be good or evil?

Wilgrea7:

1. This thread is about the ascribed holiness of your God.. so it's more than enough to discuss the things you want

See it! See turning up and down like earthworm on which salt has been poured on.

You just said this was irrelevant after I answered you,

"There you go again... Picking irrelevant things and trying to make a big deal out of them. I said whether you or your God say it.. it doesn't change the basic rule behind words

And now you have twisted your way back to what you said, was "irrelevant" and we have left behind.

Wilgrea7:

2. Are you now accepting that your God is subject to the standards by which we judge good and bad?

Nope. He is not subject to our standard of good and evil. BUT THE STANDARD OF GOOD AND EVIL HE GAVE TO US!

TenQ:

It was a simple question!

If a person follow all the teachings of Christ, will such a person be good or evil?

Chrest