God is good is an assumption

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

06.24.2019 08:26PM

3

4

7

06.24.2019 08:26PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

If you don't believe in God, good to you is an arbitrary thing to begin with, so I would argue that your reasoning is foundationally perverse.

What do you say good is? Obviously you have a different understanding of the concept, which is why you are asking for evidence.

But let it be noted at this point we are not talking about the OP anymore, because the OP has been thoroughly addressed. We are simply examining your misunderstanding.

#32

keithprosser

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

keithprosser

06.24.2019 08:29PM

3

06.24.2019 08:29PM

-->

@Mopac

Orthodox Christian theology is expressed in apodictic truths.
What that means is that these are not philosophical conclusions, but that which is self evident.

Not quite.

according to merriam-webster,

apodictic = expressing or of the nature of necessary truth or absolute certainty.

The difference between self-evident and apodictic is that things proven by sound argument are also apodictic. So Pythagoras' theorem is apodictic, even though it is not self-evident because it is rigorously proven.

The opposite is 'assertoric'' which means neither self-evident nor proven. For example, Fermat's last theorem was assertoric for 358 years but became apodictic in 1994.

#33

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

06.24.2019 08:33PM

3

4

7

06.24.2019 08:33PM

-->

@keithprosser

We certainly speak of what we know. We also know that to take God as anything but good is to miss the mark.

Topic's author

#34

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

4

9

11

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/god

06.24.2019 09:20PM

4

9

11

06.24.2019 09:20PM

-->

@Mopac

If you don't believe in God, good to you is an arbitrary thing to begin with, so I would argue that your reasoning is foundationally perverse.

How is my good arbitrary? Is it under your definition? I don't accept it if you are using it.

What do you say good is? Obviously you have a different understanding of the concept, which is why you are asking for evidence.

Why ask me this? I am not the one changing definitions in order to suit an agenda. I work with what is not bend reality to conform my ideas. You say God is ultimate reality yet you show no proof. You say God is good while not conforming to the actual definition instead change it because you feel like it.

But let it be noted at this point we are not talking about the OP anymore, because the OP has been thoroughly addressed. We are simply examining your misunderstanding.

Let it be noted you have yet to make God is good distant from an assumption. All you did was change definitions in order to bend it to your wants.

If you wanted my definition of God and good here it is:

God: a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshipped for doing so, or something that represents this spirit or being

Good: very satisfactory, enjoyable, pleasant, or interesting

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/good

#35

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

06.24.2019 10:24PM

3

4

7

06.24.2019 10:24PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

My religion is older than your language.

That definition you are using is for "god", not "God". It is not accurate to what we believe.

The definition you are using for good is, as I said, an arbitrary thing as what is "satisfactory, enjoyable, pleasant, or interesting" are all subjective judgement calls.

Topic's author

#36

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

4

9

11

06.24.2019 10:51PM

4

9

11

06.24.2019 10:51PM

-->

@Mopac

My religion is older than your language.

Appeal to tradition? If this isn't an argument that you are using for you being right then it was a waste of time.

That definition you are using is for "god", not "God". It is not accurate to what we believe.

Why are you appealing to people who aren't in this discussion? I used one of the best dictionary sites for the definition yet you say no we don't subscribe to it. Do you have a different definition? Do also include a link to your source not your own definition.

The definition you are using for good is, as I said, an arbitrary thing as what is "satisfactory, enjoyable, pleasant, or interesting" are all subjective judgement calls.

Good is subjective. Is that too hard for you to grasp? What I find enjoyable is not what you find enjoyable. It is that simple.

#37

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

06.24.2019 11:33PM

3

4

7

06.24.2019 11:33PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

I certainly am going to appeal to our holy tradition because this topic is about my religion.

If you adjust your attitude and maybe also show some respect to the subject matter, I will gladly pick up where we left off.

Do you want to know what we believe or are you here simply to argue? I do not respect your argument.

#38

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,959

2

3

06.25.2019 07:37AM

2

3

06.25.2019 07:37AM

-->

@Mopac

Your posts make no allowance for other's beliefs and yet you demand others show you charity and make allowances for your beliefs, that is hypocritical. But you only have dogma and it doesn't make allowances.

Topic's author

#39

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

4

9

11

06.25.2019 11:29AM

4

9

11

06.25.2019 11:29AM

-->

@Mopac

I certainly am going to appeal to our holy tradition because this topic is about my religion.

You used an appeal to tradition then you denied it.

If you adjust your attitude and maybe also show some respect to the subject matter, I will gladly pick up where we left off.

So when I actually dissect your point of view and realize you are simply using different definition to get to your means now you want me to not do that? I am not going to call you out until you use the agreed upon definition not the one you made up.

Do you want to know what we believe or are you here simply to argue? I do not respect your argument.

No I am here to understand. I am showing the flaws of your stance yet you don't change it. So my understanding is that you simply change definitions in order to suit your agenda.

#40

Debates: 1

Posts: 4,188

3

6

06.25.2019 12:28PM

3

6

06.25.2019 12:28PM

Look at the atheist hypocrite call out someone for what they do. LOL.

#41

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,959

2

3

06.25.2019 12:54PM

2

3

06.25.2019 12:54PM

witchypoo

bahahahahahahaha

Topic's author

#42

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

4

9

11

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hypocrite

06.25.2019 12:56PM

4

9

11

06.25.2019 12:56PM

@Polytheist-Witch

Look at the atheist hypocrite call out someone for what they do. LOL.

Hypocrite:someone who says they have particular moral beliefs but behaves in way thatshows these are not sincere:

Are you going to support your accusation or you are going to go back to ad-hom or name-calling?

#43

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

06.25.2019 02:28PM

3

4

7

06.25.2019 02:28PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

You are not arguing as one who is trying to understand. Youu are arguing as someone who is trying to refute.

I don't respect your argument.

By the way, you aren't refuting anything. You are wrong.

#44

Debates: 1

Posts: 4,188

3

6

06.25.2019 02:32PM

3

6

06.25.2019 02:32PM

Dear Atheists: No one cares if you believe in shit. No one cares if you respect shit. Try to make religion illegal and you will get shit. Now why are you in a a religion forum if you hate theists?

Topic's author

#45

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

4

9

11

06.25.2019 02:35PM

4

9

11

06.25.2019 02:35PM

-->

@Mopac

You are not arguing as one who is trying to understand. Youu are arguing as someone who is trying to refute.

I understand your argument. You are changing definitions in order to suit your agenda. I understand it clearly. Good is a subjective term but you have changed it to God's will.

I don't respect your argument.

You don't need to respect it in order to understand it.

By the way, you aren't refuting anything. You are wrong.

Not my fault you can't argue against the very thing I have clearly laid out you are doing.

#46

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

06.25.2019 03:32PM

3

4

7

06.25.2019 03:32PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

The Truth is God.

Merriam webster says "Supreme or ultimate reality"

Oxford says "Supreme Being"

These two things mean the exact same thing if understood correctly.

Your definition is invalid because it has nothing to do with what we mean when we say God.

And I will repeat, my religion is older than your language. You cannot change what we mean by changing the meanings of words. We know what we are saying, because we have 2000 years worth of writings that make clear what we are saying. Really, writing that goes back a thousand yesrs earlier still!

So your argument is invalid. It is invalid because you are trying to apply a false definition to what we mean. You are also interpreting our religion through your worldview, which was specifically formulated through sophistry by those who hated Christianity and wished for its demise.

You yourself say

"Good is subjective"

What that means to you is that good is an arbitrary thing, and you can say, "To say God is good is an assumption, because I don't like reality the way it is."

Well, if you don't accept God as the standard for good, what you call good is in fact EVIL. There is nothing good about embracing delusion, and if you think good is whatever you arbitrarily say is good because of some subjective whim, you are certainly in delusion.

Topic's author

#47

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

4

9

11

06.25.2019 03:46PM

4

9

11

06.25.2019 03:46PM

The Truth is God.

Merriam webster says "Supreme or ultimate reality"

Oxford says "Supreme Being"

You basically said truth is God yet you give the definition that states supreme ultimate reality. Give me the definition of truth from a dictionary.

Cambridge is the better dictionary so do use it or you know use a worse definition.

Merriam has multiple definitions so you are picking what suits you the best.

Oxford is better but also has multiple definitions. You are just picking what fits into your agenda.

Where is your definition of good as well?

And I will repeat, my religion is older than your language. You cannot change what we mean by changing the meanings of words. We know what we are saying, because we have 2000 years worth of writings that make clear what we are saying. Really, writing that goes back a thousand yesrs earlier still!

Appeal to tradition. Used the length of an idea to say it is correct which is a fallacy. An actual fallacy not something you make up. If you actually accept the length of your idea being correct then flat Earth is also correct because of how much longer people thought it was true.

So your argument is invalid. It is invalid because you are trying to apply a false definition to what we mean.

You keep saying we but all I see is you talking about what you believe. I don't know who else you are talking for but they are irrelevant to the conversation. It isn't a false definition and you yet to show that instead of saying it doesn't confine with my worldview. Yet again showing you don't operate on what is you operate on what you want things to be. Instead of accepting what reality is you decide to change reality to suit yourself.

What that means to you is that good is an arbitrary thing, and you can say, "To say God is good is an assumption, because I don't like reality the way it is."

Good is based on what I like. This isn't arbitrary because it is based on my environment and I choose from things that I like to personally associate with. Let me change your straw-man to my actual position "God is good is an assumption because you haven't shown it otherwise and I have clearly shown it to be the case".

Well, if you don't accept God as the standard for good, what you call good is in fact EVIL. There is nothing good about embracing delusion, and if you think good is whatever you arbitrarily say is good because of some subjective whim, you are certainly in delusion.

A personal attack? Okay. Isn't an argument against God is good is an assumption. I am not going to change the forum topic I made to bend it down to your will. You have yet to show how under my definition of good and God that God is good isn't an assumption.

#48

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

06.25.2019 04:43PM

3

4

7

06.25.2019 04:43PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

You are accusingg me of arguing deceitfully, so I am not interested in what you have to say.

MY RELIGION IS OLDER THAN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

You are arguing semantics. I am telling you what we believe. Your disputing over words does not interest me.

#49

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

06.25.2019 04:47PM

3

4

7

06.25.2019 04:47PM

Really though, people who argue deceitfully have to break posts up into chunks so they can remove what is said from proper context.

If this is not a deceitful way to argue, it is a sign of immaturity, a sign of not being able to listen to what someone is saying before trying to rebut them.

This is a fruitless argument, because Omar is just wildly throwing shit against the wall instead of trying to understand what he is arguing against.

#50

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,284

3

4

9

3RU7AL

06.25.2019 07:32PM

3

4

9

06.25.2019 07:32PM

-->

@keithprosser

The opposite is 'assertoric'' which means neither self-evident nor proven. For example, Fermat's last theorem was assertoric for 358 years but became apodictic in 1994.

Well stated.

Topic's author

#51

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

4

9

11

06.25.2019 07:38PM

4

9

11

06.25.2019 07:38PM

-->

@Mopac

You are accusingg me of arguing deceitfully, so I am not interested in what you have to say.

I didn't say deceitful. I simply said you change definitions to suit your agenda, engage in circular logic while on top of that can't substantiate the very thing you believe in.

MY RELIGION IS OLDER THAN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

If this means you are right then it is an appeal to tradition. Don't know how many times I need to explain how an appeal to tradition so I will simply give a link: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/44/Appeal-to-Tradition

You are arguing semantics. I am telling you what we believe. Your disputing over words does not interest me.

Saying I am arguing semantics doesn't mean I am wrong or right. Since you have given me very few words to work I do see my problem is semantic-al but the arguments boil down to semantics even when you simply are discussing things. You are not discussing generalities you were arguing specifics like God is truth. That is not general it is specific.

My problems with words is what you are doing wrong. Saying God is good in your sense isn't what I mean by it. I can say God is a prick and use your definitions and we wouldn't go anywhere but I have given my definitions and you still refuse to actually rebut my claims. Who is the one who is supposed to be telling who is wrong again? I did make this forum topic by the way.

Really though, people who argue deceitfully have to break posts up into chunks so they can remove what is said from proper context.

Where did break the context? I take everything you said and address it. You complaint holds nothing because if I did remove the context of something you would be able to show an example yet I don't see one.

If this is not a deceitful way to argue, it is a sign of immaturity, a sign of not being able to listen to what someone is saying before trying to rebut them.

Are you supposed to say how God is good is not assumption by my definitions or are you here to tell me your very simple circular logic?

This is a fruitless argument, because Omar is just wildly throwing shit against the wall instead of trying to understand what he is arguing against.

If you mean wildly as carefully showing you how you are wrong and throwing shit as in something landing and you can't rebut it then yes you are correct. The topic post was about I said not you. So why are you make this topic about yourself?

#52

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

06.25.2019 08:16PM

3

4

7

06.25.2019 08:16PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

You don't know what you are talking about. Since you are incapable of responding to me without breaking up my posts, you will now get twitter responses.

Topic's author

#53

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

4

9

11

06.25.2019 08:20PM

4

9

11

06.25.2019 08:20PM

-->

@Mopac

You don't know what you are talking about. Since you are incapable of responding to me without breaking up my posts, you will now get twitter responses.

I engaged throughly with what you said. You as can clearly been seen have not shown me the same courtesy. I have past responses to support that I quoted your responses in context while also responding to most of what you said. You on the other hand decide to simply dismiss my questions and do what you always do which is default to very simple arguments not actually adding depth or realizing we are using different definitions.

I don't know what you mean by twitter responses but if it is more bite-sized than what you did before. I doubt you can even type anything for your responses.

#54

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7