Absolutely agree. Still not going to commit a crime though. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
By essentally denying that this world's troubles can be seen to have (allegedly) come about through love, rather than evil. If you don't disagree with that, then we're sympatico.
I haven't denied that; I haven't taken a stance on that at all so far. Given that pretty much anything and everything can pass for "love," the point is moot anyway.
You you acknolwedge then, that - with some view into the internal logic of what God is (ostensibly) trying to do - he is not necessarily being evil, like a parent is not being evil for disciplining a child for breaking a critical rule?
This isn't a valid analogy, because God's punishment for disobedience is eternal; God has incomparably more power over his children than a human parent has over his children.
The fact that the principle is the same and it is different only in degree is why it's a valid analogy.
The difference isn't in the degree; God's abilities are in a different category altogether. God is a unique being, he has a category of his own, and he is the only member of that category. Hence no worldly analogy is adequate for describing God. If one person can do 10x, and another can do 1000x, then the difference is indeed in the degree. But this isn't the case when it comes to God who can do ∞x.
Disagree. Because many things are different doesn't mean everything is different. After all, for believers, the very existence of love itself is by God's example. It is not God that must model himself after our example, it is we who model ourselves after his. He invented it.* A parent establishing a rule whose violation results in punishment is a perfectly valid analogy. * Aside: I cannot believe these things are coming out of my mouth. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But I guess it's similar defending the Enterprise's warp engines. "Yes, it is fictional, but that doesn't mean it isn't generally logical." Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's the crucial things that are different. You'll need to be more specific. Only an actual believer can say that while remainig internally consistent. You're trying here to play three roles at the same time: 1. DA 2. meta-analyst of religious issues 3. someone with insider perspective on theistic issues That doesn't work. The idea that an eternal punishment for a temporary offense is a just punishment, is perfectly valid too, right? It's not the same. There is a limit to role-playing. Defending Enterprise's warp engines does not involve you, as a person; defending (or opposing) theism, however, does.
I laid out the crucial aspect. A parent who loves his children will sometimes have to let them hurt themselves. And sometimes they have to punish them. That is a truism, and aside from equivocating (i.e. details) it applies a Christian God. He invented it. Why? I can understand the logic even if I don't adhere to the premise. Why not? The simple nature of a DA is to be able to address an issue as if one believes the issue. Frankly, my personal views should be irrelevant to the argument. (Indeed, it would be an ad hom if you said "You're not a believer therefore your argment is invalid"). 1] That's what I mean by equivocating. You're getting into details. We're talking principle. The principle, as I laid out (parental love > rules > consequences > punishment) ), is sound, even by human standards. 2] "just" is an interesting choice of words. Who defines "justice"? In the presence of a God, it is not humans. It is God. How does that make any difference - without you having to commit an ad hominem?
Really? Human parents have the power to punish their children forever? You're mixing up your roles. No, that doesn't always hold. Some things are such that unless you actually put your life on the line for them, for real, you can't really know them or understand them. Not everything can be subject to an abstract philosophical exercise. Many religious topics can't, for example. Not all ad hominems are fallacious. Mixing up your roles again. Not all ad homs are fallacious.
That is an equivocation. Human parents (even loving ones) have the pwoer to punish their children. Full stop. Some things. I notice you did not say this thing. Yes, they are. It is tantamount to "You can't be a Gyny; you're a man."
Including this thing. If you're not a doctor, but you want to perform surgery, and someone tells you that you can't and shouldn't because you're not a doctor, this is an ad hominem, but it is not a fallacious one.
Sorry, an ad hominem in a discussion. You have no valid argument why my assertion is invalid based on what you know about my personal beliefs. I could be the Pope, I could be Lucifer, the validity of the stated argument itself is unchanged.
This does not actually address the target of discussion. Mixing up roles, true or not, is not a flaw in a presented case. BTW, it's not true. A DA is not exclusive of knowing how Believers believe, and it is certainly not exclusive of analyzing religous issues. Regardless, it is an evasion tactic. You did not address the point. Within the framework of the Christian God, God invented love.
In the case of discussing religion, it is sometimes not necessary to know anything about the other person's beliefs in order to reach some conclusions, it's enough to observe their actions. And the ad hominem is not personally against you; it is against anyone who would do what you're doing. That's where you're wrong. In theistic religion, the validity of an argument is justified by religious authority and submission to said authority, not by some abstract reasoning. This is where religion differs categorically from philosophy or science. For the purpose of this discussion, you have invented a theism of your own, which vaguely resembles pop Christianity, but you have left out all those of its tenets that do not suit your cause. Like all those about faith, personal responsibility, honesty, loyalty, obedience. Hence ad hom charges can be made against you or anyone who would do what you're doing. You are arguing about a theism that no actual theist holds. If all you're discussing is a religion of your own invention, then what you say is true. But if all you're discussing is a religion of your own invention, then your findings do not apply for actual religions. I addressed your point. You are wrong. You are arguing about a theism that no actual theist holds.
This is still an ad hom. You suppose I know nothing about theist beliefs , and it is upon that that you base your assumption that my arguments aren't valid. Address the argument, not the person. Pretend a priest said them. It shouldn't matter, but it seems to matter to you. Like everything else, it has internal logic. The internal validity of [ how a loving God can allow suffering ] is not diminished by the external invalidity of [his being fiction] No, I have not. I am describing what I learned in more than a decade of Catechism and weekly mass. You see, just because I am atheist does not mean I am not knowledgeable about God as any other former-Christian. And it does not mean I don't know what it feels like to be a theist (albeit an immature one). I held it. My parents held it. My congregation still holds it, as does the Catholic world, generally. Now... I should not have had to defend the source of my knowledge to convince you that I my arguments are well-placed. By addressing me instead of addressing my arguments, you have committed and perpetuated an ad hom spanning several posts. From this point on, please address the content of my arguments, and not the assumed source of them. Pretend they're coming from Father Smartypants of Doom. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is your projection. And it actually is a fallacious ad hominem. I said: "In the case of discussing religion, it is sometimes not necessary to know anything about the other person's beliefs in order to reach some conclusions, it's enough to observe their actions." You don't seem to understand what an ad hominem is. I provided links earlier. No. You're failing to understand my point. You also don't seem to understand the authority role of a Catholic priest (and the Catholic Magistrate) and the regard that a Catholic believer must have toward the priest in order for it to be a proper Catholic relationship. Per Catholic doctrine, the priest is God's representative on earth, and the Catholic believer must believe the priest not based on what the priest says, but on _who_ the priest is. It's an example of an appeal to authority, not to reason. Whatever the priest says, the believer has to believe it, no matter how unreasonable it may seem to him. Otherwise, he's not Catholic. By taking a religious claim out of its original context and trying to somehow view it all on its own, the meaning of the claim also changes. I won't pretend a priest said it, because right here, right now, he didn't. If I would somehow hear a Catholic priest say it, I, knowing what he expects me to think of him (ie. that he is God's representive on earth that must be unquestioningly believed), would stop listening and stop conversing because I don't regard him as the authority that the Catholic Church expects me to think he is. Even if I were to just pretend a priest said it, I would still stop listening and stop conversing. Many atheists are actually causing themselves a lot of confusion and stress by trying to evaluate religious claims outside of their original context. Doing so makes as much sense as taking a monolingual dictionary of a language one doesn't speak, and trying to nevertheless make sense of it. I make an effort to minimize that as far as I am concerned. It is not possible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who expects me to unquestioningly submit to his authority, while I refuse to submit this way. I would only be confusing myself and waste time if I were to try to listen to such a person, even if it is just in a pretend scenario. No. You're failing to understand my point. See back at the emic-etic distinction. One cannot coherently make that claim. Sure. Doesn't mean you have learned Catholic doctrine accurately or sufficiently. I was once talking to a self-proclaimed former Catholic, now atheist, who didn't know what "proper formation of conscience was." I keep noticing that many former Christians have a poor knowledge of Christian doctrines. Although that was not my point against you up until this very post. But now that you've said that about yourself, I can see where you're coming from, a possible reason of why you didn't stay in the religion you were born in (you didn't comply with the appeal to authority), and why the state of your current atheism is what it is. To me, you seem more like an immature atheist. You still have a bit of work to do on your atheism before it will stop causing strife to yourself and others. And yet you didn't comply with the appeal to authority; the appeal that was required of you. We don't know that. Maybe some (or many?) of them are what Catholics themselves sometimes call "Catholics only in name, but not in faith." You still don't understand what an adequate ad hominem is. Look, I'm not sure we can get any further here without you feeling even more offended by my words. You seem like you're still in a vulnerable post-religion or post-deconversion state. You trust me enough to give me some of your time and attention. The question is whether you can trust that I might know more about the topic at hand than you.
No, I'm basing it on what you've being saying. This is why it is not an ad hom. That's great. Relevance? I do. You are committing one. Refure the argument, not the arguer. Not relevant. I'm not suggesting any of this needs to be spoken by any authority; my concern is that you seem to need to accept the background of your opponent in order to accept the logic. Let it be any believer (well, anyone at all), the argument remains the same, believer, non-believer, child, sage, it doesn't matter to the validity of the arugment. If you think otherwise, and employ such background in a discussion, you are committing an ad hom. By that logic, no religious claim of any sort can be discussed. You are attempting to peek behind the curtain, to see who is really making the assertions. Whether that's me or the Pope, or a child or a sage. Not relevant to the argument. Nor did I. Ah, suddenly it's 'no, your knowedge is not necessarily germaine'. It wasn't relevant before I revealed it (though you were trying to make it so), it's no more relevant after (though now you're trying to make it not so). An ad hom, not relevant to the discussion, has now turned into an armchair psychoanalysis. Way, way off-topic. I really do. My personal views do not reflect upon the logic of the argument I make. Full stop. I am not offended but your words. Frankly, this has been one of the most civil discussions I've had on this board in a long time. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I am being curt because I don't wish this thread to go off-track by following an ad hom down a rabbit hole. Are you suggesting I concede simply because you declare you know more? Put your money where you mouth is. No one is stopping you from sharing your knowledge. Just make sure it is on-topic. Your views on my beliefs or my history are not the topic of the thread. (Yes, I put them out there. That still does not make them on-topic.) The subject of the thread is how can God make a world of pain and suffering unless he is evil, or thereabouts. Address that.
