Evidence in a religious forum

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 338
#31
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The Yahweh was wrong for killing all the innocent babies and children and donkeys in a flood. I honestly don't care what his excuse for doing so is that is some heinous shit. The babies and the donkeys were not doing anything wrong. He killed them anyway. That's not the only time he killed a  bunch of babies either. Actually killing babies was so important to him that he hardened Pharoah's heart so he wouldn't release the Jews until he got the chance to kill some. (In the story of course there is no archeological evidence of Egyptians owning Hebrews although the Babylonians by all accounts kept some)
#32
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,568
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
if everyone was corrupted, obviously the children was or going to grow up corrupted

he was sorry he made us
#33
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
if everyone was corrupted, obviously the children was or going to grow up corrupted
What kind of all powerful god can't even save the babies and provide them a chance to grow up in a good environment? I have to say if he just couldn't do that I don't think much of his omnipotence and if he could Idon't think much of his decision not to. 
he was sorry he made us
Then why not make people he would like in the first place? What kind of all knowing god doesn't know ahead of time the people he was making wouldn't be up to his standards? If he didn't know how things were going to turn out I don't think much of his omniscience and if he did I don't think much of his decision to create a bunch of people knowingly that he was just going to make suffer and die for being exactly what he created them to be.
#34
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,568
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
what is the debate here?he was sorry he made us and wanted a clean start, he is a loving god
#35
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So he was a loving god... that killed a bunch of babies. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding how you can make that argument. I remain unconvinced. Do you know who loves me? My mother. She raised me and supported me and protected me from harm and she didn't expect a thing in return. Actually I think it cost her rather a lot. In money and stretch marks and gray hair. That's love. Please don't compare the kind of love my mother showed me to whatever emotion the Yahweh had that made him sorry he ever made humans and also informed his decision to kill just a whole bunch of babies and donkeys on more than one occasion. That is some of the most toxic "love" I've ever heard of. In reality or fiction. 
#36
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,568
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
i already explained the theology
#37
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I don't care what excuse was given to pardon his monstrous behavior. Nothing can make what he did morally correct. According to the bible he is a genuine monster. He seems to have all of humanities biggest flaws blown up to cartoonish proportions. I'm willing to bet that of some human did a tiny (by comparison) genocide you wouldn't care what their reasons were you would just pronounce them immoral and rightfully so. Honestly I don't know why you are even trying to defend wiping out all of humanity and starting again. That isn't the plan of a loving god it is the plan of a James Bond villain. 
#38
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,568
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
it was morally right, it has to be
#39
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
it was morally right, it has to be
Why does it have to be? It doesn't seem to be. I'm getting some pretty serious cognitive dissonance here. You know who talks like that? An abused spouse. "No really he loves me" "he does it for my own good" "it's my own fault for (insert minor transgressions of your choice, maybe spilling god's beer or coveting some stuff)"
Topic's author
#40
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
It seems to be quite ok  to use the bible by non-believers as evidence of how bad and evil God is when they want to make a point about the evils of religion. So at that point it is considered ok to be evidence. 
Only if it is the agreed upon source material for assessing the character of the hypothetical god under discussion. If for example you had been told to refer to the book rather than to any Christian(s) in order to make such determinations. In much the same way one might use Star Wars movies to assess Han Solo's competence as an escape artist even while accepting that Star Wars is not useful in determining any facit of reality because it is a work of fiction. I am perfectly happy to entertain hypothetical situations and discuss the characteristics of fictional characters. 

In other words even if there is no Yahweh the figure presented in the bible can still be discussed using the source material as a guide for said discussion. 
With respect, the character of God is not the only subject up for discussion in a religious forum.  Anything pertaining to religion and indeed non-faith is up for discussion and therefore anything that any person believes is relevant evidence is also admissible.  Otherwise it is not a religious forum, but a secular forum posing as a religious forum in order to ridicule and mock people of a religious manner.  

And even if for the sake of the argument that everything in the religious forum is contained only within "understanding the character of God" then everything within the book is available as evidence. And respectfully, once it is admitted as evidence in relation to God's character - then unless there is good reason to reject it otherwise, it can be used to discuss other matters. 

The analogy to Star Wars or to Harry Potter are flawed in many ways. One is that Hans Solo is not only a fictional character in someone's fictional book, he is not the author. Christians whether you agree with them or not - take the character of God not only from how he is presented in the Bible but at the author as well. Hans Solo did not write his own character's personality. 

And even if we take your argument at its height - which I don't concede, even then it does not follow that Christian's beliefs in relation to other matters such as creation cannot be admitted as relevant evidence in this discussion. For some one to deny that a Christian's belief in creation cannot refer to the Genesis Story or say it is not evidence is simply incorrect. 
Topic's author
#41
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
yeah i'm disappointed in the opening poster. illogical post. for reasons others have pointed out. 
Ok - which parts were illogical? 

No one up above might have agreed and all took offence - yet no proved it was illogical. Mostly they referred to analogy and said "aha" it does not work there - therefore you are wrong". I am pretty disappointed that you actually think that is a real argument. 

But given some of your other responses. It does not surprise me. 
#42
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Christians whether you agree with them or not - take the character of God not only from how he is presented in the Bible but at the author as well.
Why does it matter what Christians believe? They have not to my knowledge met the burden of proof necessary to support any such claim. Also your beliefs don't change the words on the page and honestly if the Yahweh is the author that is almost worse. That means he himself articulated his own guilt in multiple genocides as either the perpetrator or the ringleader. So no matter who wrote the bible and whatever you believe and whether it is non fiction partly fiction or completely fiction the Yahweh has what I judge to be poor moral character. 
ridicule and mock people of a religious manner.  
I'm not mocking any poster here. I am arguably mocking a likely fictional character in a very old very questionable book. I'm not even trying to mock the Yahweh. I'm just being honest about my observations and opinions regarding the story that we have agreed to use as the reference material. I have not mentioned any of the posters here in a mocking or derogatory way. If you are offended just by someone questioning and disagreeing with your beliefs then debate might not be your thing.
Topic's author
#43
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Then you must be a Mormon, right? Because Joseph Smith doesn't admit the book of Mormon, which he transcribed from divine inspiration in the 19th century, is fiction.  According to him, it's true. And to all the Mormons. The point SecMer is making is that a book doesn't have to be a true story to evaluate the characters in it. And your point, "You cannot use the Bible to show that God is evil but reject the other cialims in it," would reflexively mean that to accept any claim in the bible, one must accept all claims in it as fact, not pick and choose which ones you like to draw a character in some way that is otherwise inconsistent with the book. 
SecMer point of a book not having to be a true story to evaluate characters might be correct. Yet even if it is correct, it does not go the heart of my original post. 

I never said one had to accept any or all claims in it.  My point was that one cannot on one hand eagerly use the bible as evidence to depict the character of God - and then disregard the bible as evidence per se for everything else. 

The Bible is not a fictional book. Parts of it might be. But it is one book made up of 66 books written over a long period of time. To dismiss it in relation to any other thing except to disparage the character of GOD is not even sensible. 

If people took that view many things would not been discovered in history - places etc. Many historians, many archeologists, many authors have commenced with the bible and been intrigued by its information and gone looking for things which others - possibly like you - have dismissed - and then discovered amazing things and things which have been utilized in other areas. 

Here is one for you to ponder.  The continental plates and their drift.  Who was the first person to suggest such a thing? A creationist who believed the bible. Based on a passage he read in the bible - he started thinking about what it meant and then got his map out and theorised how it might have been one continent originally and theorised about how it divided. At the time the scientific community laughed at him - imagine believing the bible might have anything to say in relation to science. They mocked him and laughed him out of the scientific community. And then several years after than - another scientist looked at the information and theories of the creationist and changed one thing. He said - if we were to suggest it happened over millions of years - rather than a short time, then this is really quite excellent. And lo and behold he became famous etc etc - and now most people who study continental plates and their drift use it fine. Yet, but for the creationist - this probably would never have occurred. Ironical really. But there you go. 

My point is and remains the same - it is irrational to dismiss the bible as evidence in relation to why I might believe something to be true. When someone says to me - prove something to me. There are various ways of proving things. Scientific proof is not the only valid proof. In fact if it was - then no court case would ever find anyone guilty or not guilty.  No economist would ever produce a theory. No humanist in  history would ever be able to prove anything. There are hard sciences and there are soft sciences. Most of the assumptions in relation to statistical analysis have demonstrably been shown to false. Yet we still use them.  

Revelation is a valid form of evidence. It might not be for everyone. But so what? Every person will put their own subjective weight on the evidence presented and draw their own conclusions.  Yet to refuse to admit it as evidence is a different matter.  In a court room - often you will have witnesses giving conflicting evidence. It is all evidence - and often these conflicting testimonies are on the same side.  Yet a judge won't dismiss the evidence just because they are conflicting. He may well attach more weight to one that other - but this does not rule out the evidence presented.  And at other times, some evidence which is adduced is ruled out after some discussion. And some things which people want to admit are ruled out - because it is not relevant, it is tainted or biased, it is hearsay, etc etc. 

But before it is ruled out or not adduced as being relevant - there is a ruling. And that ruling is not by the opposition - but by agreement between the two parties or by the judge.   It is not simply a unilateral decision made by one party because they don't accept it as evidence. 

Topic's author
#44
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not mocking any poster here. I am arguably mocking a likely fictional character in a very old very questionable book. I'm not even trying to mock the Yahweh. I'm just being honest about my observations and opinions regarding the story that we have agreed to use as the reference material. I have not mentioned any of the posters here in a mocking or derogatory way. If you are offended just by someone questioning and disagreeing with your beliefs then debate might not be your thing.
I will address this - for the record the first paragraph simply was not helpful and I disagreed with it. 

Yet, here I do need to point out that my original post here was not directed towards you. Mostly I have found you to be courteous in your manner of discussion and at least attempting to be honest in your discussions. It was directed towards another poster who I think changes the goal posts all of the times, is accusatory in his manner and refuses to play by the same rules he expects others to simply go along with. Secondly, my opening post was directed I suppose generally at others perhaps you - who are inconsistent I think in the way you approach the bible as evidence for what you want to attack and then then dismiss it for other things. 

I do find that unhelpful. It certainly is not a way you are ever going to convince anyone of anything.  As for being offended - I could care less about people trying to be offensive in most cases - but when they change the rules or call me a liar, that is intentionally being offensive and hurtful.  Or when they refuse to acknowledge that their position is wrong. I think that lacks intellectual dishonesty. I like debate - when the same rules apply to all, where it is not primarily ad hominen attack - and when both sides can acknowledge fair points on the other side. 

This is why I did not direct this opening post to you specifically. So far - despite the fact that we do disagree on many things - there is not generally a vitriolic attitude of nastiness prevalent in our discussions. Admittedly I sometimes am sardonic and even over the top. Yet mostly I try to remain calm and balanced in my approach. I value logic and philosophy and good arguments.  
#45
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
This is why I did not direct this opening post to you specifically. So far - despite the fact that we do disagree on many things - there is not generally a vitriolic attitude of nastiness prevalent in our discussions. Admittedly I sometimes am sardonic and even over the top. Yet mostly I try to remain calm and balanced in my approach. I value logic and philosophy and good arguments.  
I can respect that.
you - who are inconsistent I think in the way you approach the bible as evidence for what you want to attack and then then dismiss it for other things. 
I've already explained that I can assess the character of a fictional character. I can also assess the character of a real one. You don't need to demonstrate the reality of your claim for me to make all kinds of value judgements about any being you want to propose. Humans almost can't seem to help making value judgements. 

If you meant something else then I welcome clarification on the issue. 
#46
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,259
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
A written document is evidence. Though not necessarily proof of anything.

Hence a 2000 year old debate with no resolution.
#47
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,222
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
This thread is where we learned that SecularMerlin thinks the donkeys are the most innocent and precious of all the animals.
Topic's author
#48
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
A written document is evidence. Though not necessarily proof of anything.

Hence a 2000 year old debate with no resolution.
Thank you - it is evidence which is my point. I have said it is not necessarily proof - but evidence. I said that each person will put a certain amount of weight on each and every bit of evidence. 
#49
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
A written document is evidence. Though not necessarily proof of anything.

Hence a 2000 year old debate with no resolution.
Thank you - it is evidence which is my point. I have said it is not necessarily proof - but evidence. I said that each person will put a certain amount of weight on each and every bit of evidence. 
Evidence - yes!  It is evidence of history, not of truth.  A million sci-fi comics are not evidence that the Avengers actually existed.  But they are evidence of what people wanted to read about.
Topic's author
#50
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@lady3keys
A written document is evidence. Though not necessarily proof of anything.

Hence a 2000 year old debate with no resolution.
Thank you - it is evidence which is my point. I have said it is not necessarily proof - but evidence. I said that each person will put a certain amount of weight on each and every bit of evidence. 
Evidence - yes!  It is evidence of history, not of truth.  A million sci-fi comics are not evidence that the Avengers actually existed.  But they are evidence of what people wanted to read about.

They are evidence that such Avengers existed in someone's brain.   Yet, I think there is a distinct difference between the bible and comics. In the first place- quite different genre's. Quite different as to its intent. It is what is known as a revelation document and has authority per se. Obviously its authority is disputed by different people, yet, when we go into court we don't put our hands on a Marvel Comic and swear to tell the truth.  Religious books are such books that we do swear on. It is a book which has held significant authority in our Western Culture and indeed in other cultures as well.  It has also has a significant influence on our legal systems, our constitutions, our social structures, and even on the way we conduct science and humanities, including the arts and music. And more than this - it still retains a highly authoritative aspect of billions of people around the world.  For you it may be nothing. For others, they will be prepared to die for its words. 

That by itself demonstrates it is more than just another comic. Is it evidence of truth? I would say yes. Other would say no. Of course the question then must be What is truth? Who is the arbiter of truth? And who determines what truth is? Or whether trust exists or not. 

Those are serious questions - and ought to be addressed properly and respectfully. 
#51
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
For you it may be nothing. For others, they will be prepared to die for its words. 
Oh it means a great deal to me.  It isn't  "nothing" to me at all.   I think the Bible is critically important to our understanding, not just of history, but of who we are  --- as individuals, as spouses, as towns and cities, as nations and as people of Earth.  I think it shows the evolution of our thinking throughout time.  I can see this fact in the movement away from an "angry" God (old testament) to a more forgiving and "loving" God (new testament).  But to me, and just to me mind you, the Bible  is more the "gathered writings" of many people  who dug down deep into their souls to find the very best they could find (given their time periods and cultural beliefs).  I would like to think we have progressed more toward science now than towards storytelling (and the fire and brimstone of judgement).  But the worth of the earlier writers is never lost, just "seen in the light" of what we know today.

when we go into court we don't put our hands on a Marvel Comic and swear to tell the truth.  Religious books are such books that we do swear on. It is a book which has held significant authority in our Western Culture and indeed in other cultures as well.  It has also has a significant influence on our legal systems, our constitutions, our social structures, and even on the way we conduct science and humanities, including the arts and music. And more than this - it still retains a highly authoritative aspect of billions of people around the world. 
Very true!  Religion still holds sway.  And as I said up above, it is critically important to who all of us are, here in America.  And even though I no longer believe in religion per se, I was still raised Christian.  Consequently, my moral compass still owes much of its earliest existence to the Bible.   Still, I had to unlearn so very many entrenched ideas that hurt me, rather than helped me, in any way.  I'm sure it is different for everyone.
Topic's author
#52
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@lady3keys
For you it may be nothing. For others, they will be prepared to die for its words. 
Oh it means a great deal to me.  It isn't  "nothing" to me at all.   I think the Bible is critically important to our understanding, not just of history, but of who we are  --- as individuals, as spouses, as towns and cities, as nations and as people of Earth.  I think it shows the evolution of our thinking throughout time.  I can see this fact in the movement away from an "angry" God (old testament) to a more forgiving and "loving" God (new testament).  But to me, and just to me mind you, the Bible  is more the "gathered writings" of many people  who dug down deep into their souls to find the very best they could find (given their time periods and cultural beliefs).  I would like to think we have progressed more toward science now than towards storytelling (and the fire and brimstone of judgement).  But the worth of the earlier writers is never lost, just "seen in the light" of what we know today.

when we go into court we don't put our hands on a Marvel Comic and swear to tell the truth.  Religious books are such books that we do swear on. It is a book which has held significant authority in our Western Culture and indeed in other cultures as well.  It has also has a significant influence on our legal systems, our constitutions, our social structures, and even on the way we conduct science and humanities, including the arts and music. And more than this - it still retains a highly authoritative aspect of billions of people around the world. 
Very true!  Religion still holds sway.  And as I said up above, it is critically important to who all of us are, here in America.  And even though I no longer believe in religion per se, I was still raised Christian.  Consequently, my moral compass still owes much of its earliest existence to the Bible.   Still, I had to unlearn so very many entrenched ideas that hurt me, rather than helped me, in any way.  I'm sure it is different for everyone.

Thank you for your thoughtful insights.  I agree with you that the Bible reveals much that is important to us as a culture and a people of history and of other things as well. 

That you see the Bible as  one of "gathered writings" who have dug deep into their souls is helpful to understand where you are coming from. Thanks. I don't see personally any difference between the God of the OT and the NT.  They both demonstrate love and mercy and holiness and justice.  Personally I don't think science is anything to advance towards. Science is a tool. It is a helpful tool and quite useful in different ways. But I am not convinced that there is necessarily a trajectory between the Bible and Science. Fire and Brimstone are merely reflections of sanctions. We still have sanctions in our culture today - and honestly, sanctions will always exist. Personally, I think culture today has devolved - not progressed - which is one reason we should abolish capital punishment for one thing. I think I distrust our modern society and its so called progressive society more than ever. It has become selfish, demanding, over sensitive, dishonest, and mean.  I cannot think of a culture or a generation that has morphed into such a horrible society as this one.  I am embarrassed for every other generation before this one.  

I have never believed in religion. Religion ought to be abolished from my point of view. Yet, the definition today of religion is unhelpful so this is unlikely to happen anytime soon. I understand what you mean by adapting and maturing into an adult. I left my atheistic days behind when I realised it had nothing to offer of lasting substance. 


Again I thank you for your insights. 
#53
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,568
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
there cant be an evil god, its against its nature
#54
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Castin
This thread is where we learned that SecularMerlin thinks the donkeys are the most innocent and precious of all the animals.
Their just so cute and dumb. I can't help but love them. My favorite part of the petting zoo as a child. 
#55
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Do you know the difference between prescriptive and descriptive language? 

Prescriptive language is concerned with how words should or ought to be used. For example there are by definition no unmarried bachelors because we take bachelor to mean an unmarried man. This means if there are no unmarried men there are no bachelors. Period. There is no argument about that because that is how prescriptive language works. 

Descriptive language by contrast is concerned more with what someone means when they use a term than how that term should be used. If I said of someone descriptively "he sure is an unmarried bachelor" I might mean that although he is married he still promiscuous with single women like a bachelor or that although he is married he and his wife are estranged and he lives alone like a bachelor or even just that his nickname is the married bachelor and regardless of his actual attributes I refer to him as the married bachelor.

Now I'm fine with both kinds of language. Like whatever facilitates the conversation. The trouble comes when the waters get muddied in regards to which we are using.

Like if you are using prescriptive language to say that either a god of love exists or no god at all does that is fine but if then the figure under discussion does not display any of the behaviors or attitudes we traditionally associate with love then we must conclude that the figure under discussion cannot be referred to as a god in the context of our conversation and if you are using descriptive language to say that the Yahweh is a god of love because he loves to be worshipped or because he demands you love him and will punish you if you don't or just that you are defining the Yahweh as a god of love even if he does not fit the prescriptive definition of a loving or godly being that is fine whether he exists or not but what you cannot do is say that he must fit the prescriptive definition of a loving god just because you are referring to him as a god of love descriptively.
#56
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,568
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
what about the defintion of an mgb
#57
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Mgb? What is the definition of an mgb? Are we talking a prescriptive or descriptive here?
#58
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,568
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
both

and maxiamlly great being
#59
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
both
I think I've already explained why it can't be both
and maxiamlly great being
How do we tell the difference between a maximally great being and one who was just really really great? This seems like a difficult thing to determine with any degree of certainty or confidence in our conclusion. Unless you have some useful definition of what precisely makes one maximally great.

Also and this is just a bit more food for thought great is a subjective term that can only really be applied in some context. It could mean large (all beings great and small) or skilled at a particular task (what a great swimmer) just a something that was pleasant (well this has been a great conversation).
#60
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,568
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
god can not be evil by its nature of being morally perfect