"God's morality is higher than yours" as an illegitimate argument (page 5)

Lucky Calamity

Argument from authority is useless.

Evidence is what is most useful and important, but if your adversary does not understand the rules of evidence-based reasoning, then all I can do is wish you good luck.

Also, ditto on what Farkel says about,"using the conclusion to prove the premise," in his link on what's right about being right.

Good luck!

"Either way, it is stupid to think that a being of limited knowledge and judgement can judge a being of unlimited knowledge and judgement. We even try to get all the facts when we judge other humans, so that our judgement is true. How can a limited human possibly have all the facts so that he can judge God? It is simply not possible for us to know how an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent God would act.

BTS"

Well, if we were made in god's image, then we would have every logical (and otherwise comprehensible) right to look in the mirror and make reapairs to the handiwork as we saw fit, despite our "limited knowledge."

And if there is omnipotent omniscience in that refection, then there would be no evil and no wrong to fix anyway. Evil would logically not exist if god were indeed all-knowing, all-loving AND all-powerful, regardless of the limited knowledge of his creations.

gubberningbody

BTS,

"A bit of a logic failure there. I fixed it for you."

- Actually there was no "logic" failure.

A logical argument isn't evaluated in that manner as to it's "logic". I think you're confusing valid forms with truth-values of statements. The thing you were referring to wasn't even an example of logic, it was simply a statement, and this taken from someone elses "argument".

We wrongly judge each other all the time. Even in our court systems. How many guilty walk and innocent pay? So really, the issue is not the submitting of God to human judgement, which happens all the time and with everyone that thinks about it, but the correct judgement of God. As I have demonstrated, this is not really possible due to our own limitations. We cannot judge the will of this being without possesing these same attributes. In our legal system we are required to be judged by "a jury of our peers". We are not God's peers.

It's hard to break this down so you can see what you're doing more clearly, but I'll try.

You say we "wrongly" judge each other all the time, but you haven't demonstrated this to be the case. Certainly people are at odds with the judgments made by others, but to declare these to be "wrong" is to suggest that one happens to have in his/her posession the attribute of infallibility. (Even if this were so, such a claim would still need be evaluated and judged by others and this "claim" would likely remain a "claim" at least until you killed off all those who disagreed. (perhaps this is the game after all))

You also make the suggestion, albeit implied that one must be identical with another entity, (such as A=A) in order to form a correct evaluation of that entity. I would suggest that this is a redefinition of the term "correct" to that of ""identity". If this were so (which it cannot be without such a redefinition) I'd say that you've said it must be necessary to at least be as insane in the same manner and to the same degree as the next insane man to form a sane judgment of this other.

That's incoherent. Moreover the illustration of the legal system fails in another important manner - it is not as if we have power greater than this being that we can or could ever inflict punishments such that our "judgment" ought need be one of this being's "peers". The clear illustration would be that we who are in this concentration camp called "this system of things" have identified and in some cases "judged" the one running this camp to be unworthy of our love and affection. These "judgments" never need to be the judgments of "peers".

gubberningbody

So it is perfectly reasonable to reject the main argument because the argument is based on circular logic, redefinition of terms and a failure to appreciate that all valuations of morality are taken from the position of the evaluator. This includes judging whether a being such as is our captor deserves, merits or otherwise has any chance of gaining our love and affection.

Farkel

gubberingbody,

You are one of the most incoherent posters I have ever seen. I've read your comments three times over and still don't understand a single thing you are attempting to say.

I can see that you are intelligent, but from your comments I can also see what I always see when someone writes such incoherent things: your ideas are also incoherent.

A=A

Farkel

gubberningbody

Farkel, perhaps I should use longer sentences and fewer commas??

On the other hand, Hegel was a skosh in the unintelligible department too. (derived from the japanese - sukoshi, which means “a little bit.”)

I'm reminded in all this of the stoner student whose short term memory was damaged from smoking dope (great term, btw) who raises his hand to ask the question at the end of the lecture with:

Stoner:

"I just don't get it?"

Instructor:

"You don't get what?"

Stoner:

"The whole thing."

Instructor:

"You'll have to be more specific. This lecture wasn't a gestalt delivered in a moment that I might reply with an explanatory gestalt in return"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUjjFETMTxE