Is it wrong to judge the morality of God's actions?

[Sarkus]

Moderator note:
This thread was split from the following thread:

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/updated-what-position-are-you.167046

----

It doesn't matter. We can judge God by what he does (or is reported to have do). We don't have to know his mind to make a moral judgment about him.

Hmmm.
You can at best make a judgement based on what you know. You don't know what an omniscient God knows. So you surely can not judge his morality accurately if you don't know the full circumstances.
One can morally judge X for killing Y in cold blood. But if we don't know that Y was about to kill 1 million innocent people, how accurate is that judgement going to be?

Perhaps you can give an example of an action that God takes, per the Bible, that you think is morally questionable? And the basis on which you make that judgement?

To me, God is entirely outside of science and understanding, beyond, perhaps, being a label for the initial cause, if there was one, and whatever "initial cause" actually means. Anything we subsequently assign to the label, be it benevolence, or any moral judgement, is necessarily based on incomplete knowledge. If one has "faith" then one can excuse anything through those gaps in knowledge. And at that point, it may look to be a great product being sold, but "I'm out".

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

Hmmm.
You can at best make a judgement based on what you know. You don't know what an omniscient God knows. So you surely can not judge his morality accurately if you don't know the full circumstances.

I don't know what circumstances would excuse the killing of innocent people. Perhaps you will explain.

One can morally judge X for killing Y in cold blood. But if we don't know that Y was about to kill 1 million innocent people, how accurate is that judgement going to be?

It's going to be totally appropriate to judge X for killing Y in cold blood, in the circumstance that we don't know that Y was about to kill 1 million innocent people.

Do you have a particular historical example of this kind of thing in mind? Or is this just a random hypothetical musing of yours?

Perhaps you can give an example of an action that God takes, per the Bible, that you think is morally questionable?

Okay. Try Numbers 31, for example, where God orders the Israelites to slaughter the Midianites, via Moses. Specifically, God orders the Israelites to "execute the Lord's vengeance".

After the Israelites had killed "every male" and the kings of Midian, and taken captive all the women and children of Midian, and plundered all the Midianites' goods and property, Moses was angry at his army officers because they hadn't properly carried out God's wishes.

The problem was, you see, that the Israelite soldiers had spared the women and children. So Moses, instructed by God, commanded his soldiers to kill every male child of Midian, along with every woman. The only exception was that the 32,000 virgin girls of Midian were to be kept as sex slaves ("wives") for the Israelites.

Also, because the Israelites hadn't done the job properly the first time, as commanded by God, one in every fifty of the Israelites was ordered to be offered up as a human sacrifice to God.

Perhaps you can agree that all this is just a little ... morally questionable (?)

And the basis on which you make that judgement?

Basic human decency comes to mind. Beyond that, you might like to consider principles from secular humanism, if you feel that I need a more philosophical basis to make such judgments.

To me, God is entirely outside of science and understanding, beyond, perhaps, being a label for the initial cause, if there was one, and whatever "initial cause" actually means.

Then what use is it?

Anything we subsequently assign to the label, be it benevolence, or any moral judgement, is necessarily based on incomplete knowledge.

Yes. And so...? We are fallible human beings. We are obliged to act without complete knowledge, in many instances.

If one has "faith" then one can excuse anything through those gaps in knowledge.

Another reason why faith is a bad thing. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Sarkus]

I don't know what circumstances would excuse the killing of innocent people. Perhaps you will explain.

Yes. Quite easily. I suggest you look at, or reacquaint yourself with The Trolley Problem.

Trolley problem - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It's going to be totally appropriate to judge X for killing Y in cold blood, in the circumstance that we don't know that Y was about to kill 1 million innocent people.

Sure, it's appropriate for us to judge him based on our understanding of events and circumstances. But that has limitations in terms of relevancy. It's ultimately meaningless if we don't know the reality of their rationale, their circumstances etc.
Hiow often have you heard, anecdotally, of some Karen on Twitter being outraged about someone's actions, only to find out they didn't have the full story?

Do you have a particular historical example of this kind of thing in mind? Or is this just a random hypothetical musing of yours?

There are many examples of someone being judged poorly, only for reality to show them in different light. Hindsight is when reality catches up with those who only had part of the picture, as with Galileo etc. With God's actions we tend not to get given hindsight. But the principle is the same.

Okay. Try Numbers 31, for example,
...
Perhaps you can agree that all this is just a little ... morally questionable (?)

Asking me about specific examples, asking me to judge God's actions, really only tells me you don't understand the point I'm making.
We don't know what God is thinking, what God knows, what the greater plan is. In absence of those, all we can do is judge based on the incomplete data we do have, and it's accuracy in the face of reality is thus unknowable unless we ultimately get given that info.

Basic human decency comes to mind. Beyond that, you might like to consider principles from secular humanism, if you feel that I need a more philosophical basis to make such judgments.

It's an odd approach to judge God according to philosophies that don't include God. All you can achieve is judging God on what you know, and still not on what you don't know about God. So it doesn't actually add anything different to the argument.

Then what use is it?

To me? None.
But this isn't about me, rather about trying to morally judge God when we don't have the full understanding of him and his plan. At best, as your arguments have shown, is judge him based on our own understanding of the circumstances. We can apply human morality to what we know, but we're not talking about human activity, but by what God does. And with incomplete information.

Yes. And so...? We are fallible human beings. We are obliged to act without complete knowledge, in many instances.

Sure. No disagreement. The issues here, then, is when we are cognisant of there being incomplete knowledge, understanding, etc why we choose to make judgements at all rather than simply go: "I don't know", or at least admit that such judgements that we do make are limited to what we do know. Which in the case of God's actions will be precious little beyond what he wishes to reveal.
My overall point is that trying to judge God's morality is a fool's errand.

Another reason why faith is a bad thing. Thanks for pointing that out.

Similarly one can use reason to excuse any action as well. So is reason a bad thing?

(Note, neither faith nor reason can actually excuse any action; there are limits, but your same criticism of faith here can be applied to reason).

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

Yes. Quite easily. I suggest you look at, or reacquaint yourself with The Trolley Problem.

Trolley problem - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It's interesting that you want to introduce a tricky moral conundrum at this point, in an effort to try to justify the killing of innocent people.

Sure, it's appropriate for us to judge him based on our understanding of events and circumstances.

Correct. That's what I said, previously.

But that has limitations in terms of relevancy.

The limitations would be our understanding of events and circumstances. Which, as you have agreed, are always limited.

It's ultimately meaningless if we don't know the reality of their rationale, their circumstances etc.

I don't think it's meaningless to judge people (or gods) when they kill innocent people.

You're telling me that you'll never judge anyone unless you know the reality of their rationale, all the circumstances etc.? Really? Because you never can know that.

Hiow often have you heard, anecdotally, of some Karen on Twitter being outraged about someone's actions, only to find out they didn't have the full story?

In your example, it is possible to obtain evidence that might refute the initial claims. Unlike in your example with the god.

There are many examples of someone being judged poorly, only for reality to show them in different light. Hindsight is when reality catches up with those who only had part of the picture, as with Galileo etc. With God's actions we tend not to get given hindsight. But the principle is the same.

No, it really isn't. See above.

Asking me about specific examples, asking me to judge God's actions, really only tells me you don't understand the point I'm making.

You literally asked me to give you a specific example. Don't you remember?

Strange that you find it difficult to venture an opinion on the particular example I gave you, too. Almost bizarre.

We don't know what God is thinking, what God knows, what the greater plan is.

So God gets a free pass, no matter what he does, in your opinion?

Interesting position you have there.

In absence of those, all we can do is judge based on the incomplete data we do have...

Exactly what I suggested we do.

... and it's accuracy in the face of reality is thus unknowable unless we ultimately get given that info.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the particular biblical example I gave accurately describes what actually happened, I don't feel like I need any more data to judge that the god described there is a dick.

How about you? You think that maybe god's genocide is excusable, in this instance? Not to mention the forced "marriages" of all those innocent girls.

It's an odd approach to judge God according to philosophies that don't include God.

Not at all.

It's what any secular humanism worth his salt ought to be doing, and doing so loudly and proudly.

I don't know what's up with you that makes you want to give the god of the Old Testament a free pass. That's an issue that maybe you ought to address.

All you can achieve is judging God on what you know, and still not on what you don't know about God.

Correct. The same goes for all the people who have decided to worship that God.

What does that suggest to you about the morality of those worshippers? And about their attitude to evidence?

But this isn't about me, rather about trying to morally judge God when we don't have the full understanding of him and his plan.

A full understanding is impossible. We have to do the best we can with what we have.

We can apply human morality to what we know, but we're not talking about human activity, but by what God does. And with incomplete information.

There doesn't appear to be any other morality we can use, apart from human morality.

What superior alternative do you suggest we use?

Or do you just recommend we give God a free pass, no matter what he says or does?

Why is God special, in this regard? Why do you apply a double standard: okay to judge people, based on incomplete information, but not okay to judge God based on incomplete information?

Sure. No disagreement. The issues here, then, is when we are cognisant of there being incomplete knowledge, understanding, etc why we choose to make judgements at all rather than simply go: "I don't know", or at least admit that such judgements that we do make are limited to what we do know.

We always have incomplete knowledge. That isn't restricted to cases involving gods.

My overall point is that trying to judge God's morality is a fool's errand.

I couldn't disagree more.

Why are you giving God a free pass, when it comes to making moral judgments about it?

Similarly one can use reason to excuse any action as well.

Well, yes. If you start with a set of premises that are faulty, then you can construct a valid logical argument that leads to an unsound conclusion about an action (or anything else).

Are you saying you're willing to give God a free pass because human beings can use poor reasoning to rationalise bad action?

So is reason a bad thing?

It's preferable to the alternatives.

(Note, neither faith nor reason can actually excuse any action;

I disagree. I think that both faith and reason can be used (poorly) to excuse any action.

 

[James R]

Mayor: Good afternoon, Mr S. You asked for an appointment with me?

S: Yes. I want to request clarification from you about a recent event.

Mayor: Well, I gave the Police Chief all the details I think you need to know. But, seeing as you came all this way to see me, you can ask your questions.

S: Well, it's about the recent shooting at the ice cream shop, which you ordered. The police shot a whole lot of people there.

Mayor: Ah, yes. Well, they were acting under my authority.

S: Why did you order so many people to be shot?

Mayor: Ah, well, there were a lot of very bad people in that shop, you know. People who have done evil things. Some definite criminals. You can check their records, if you like.

S: Well, I already checked. Out of the 100 people who were shot, I managed to confirm that 10 were leaders of an organised crime syndicate. It strikes me that this extra-judicial killing skipped some of the usual checks and balances I would like to see applied in criminal justice cases, but maybe I can agree that those 10 people had it coming.

Mayor: You can take my word for it that they did. Some of them said some really horrible things about me, too, you know.

S: But what of the other 90 people in the shop? From what I've been able to find, none of them were criminals. As far as I can tell, they were innocent citizens of this town.

Mayor: Well, we here at the Town Hall have much better access to information than you do, Mr. S. Trust me, all 90 of them had it coming!

S: Among those 90 who were killed, I notice that 50 of them were young children who were there with their parents. Some of them were under 3 years old.

Mayor: That's true. The parents of those kids were all, like, really bad types, you know. Some of them didn't even vote for me! And you know what they say: "Like father, like son". The apples don't fall far from the tree. Besides, all those kids would have grown up to be criminals, anyway.

S: How do you know that?

Mayor: The Town Hall is a very well-resourced organisation, Mr S. Trust us, we can tell.

S: But those kids haven't committed any crimes.

Mayor: Ah, but they would have. They would have.

S: Is it okay to punish people for things they haven't done yet?

Mayor: Yes, it's fine, as long as you're sure that they will commit crimes in the future. And I'm sure that all those kids would have committed crimes, if I had let them live long enough!

S: Well, maybe you're right. Do you think that, next time you send out the police to shoot up an ice-cream store, you could let the townspeople know your reasons for doing that?

Mayor: It's always the same reason. They are bad people. Or they will be bad people in the future. So, they all have it coming! Trust me, I know when people are bad. And when they are going to grow up bad.

S: Okay. Well, that all seems fine. I think you have answered all the questions I have, to my satisfaction.

Mayor: Thanks for coming by, Mr S. It's always good to talk to concerned citizens. You'll be sure to vote for me in the upcoming election, won't you? You'd be a bad person if you didn't!

S: Will do, Mr Mayor. I have faith that you're looking out for the best interests of the entire town. Keep on doing what you're doing! And thanks again for taking the time to meet with me. For a while there, I was wondering whether all those kids really had to die. But now that you've explained it to me, I'd glad they are dead. Bye!

 

[Sarkus]

It's interesting that you want to introduce a tricky moral conundrum at this point, in an effort to try to justify the killing of innocent people.

It's interesting that rather than discuss the actual issue I raised, you try to turn it to being about me. We call that an ad hominem, btw. Please stop.
Now, are you actually going to address the issue, that, despite your earlier claim to the contrary, I believe there are scenarios that would excuse the killing of innocents, encapsulated by The Trolley Problem, for example?

I don't think it's meaningless to judge people (or gods) when they kill innocent people.

I don't think it's meaningless to judge people for it, but gods are categorically different.
With people we can know what the full picture is, or pretty darn close. Not so with God/gods.

You're telling me that you'll never judge anyone unless you know the reality of their rationale, all the circumstances etc.? Really? Because you never can know that.

No. I'm saying the relevancy of the judgement lessens the less we know. With people we can know reasonably well. Jumping to early judgement of people, when not all info is available, should be avoided, imo, and only judge when sufficiency if info is available.
With gods we can never assume sufficient info.

In your example, it is possible to obtain evidence that might refute the initial claims. Unlike in your example with the god.

Exactly. Hence judging humans is okay, but even then we must be mindful of possible info gaps. With gods, no such luck, and hence the futility of judging.

You literally asked me to give you a specific example. Don't you remember?

I asked hoping that you would recognise that we might not know everything about God's plan.

Strange that you find it difficult to venture an opinion on the particular example I gave you, too. Almost bizarre.

Again, an ad hominem. Please stop.
There is no need to offer an opinion because it is encapsulated in the overarching point I'm making. To wit: what is God's plan? Not just what he has told mere mortals, but what does God know about the scenario in question that we don't?

So God gets a free pass, no matter what he does, in your opinion?

Always. He's beyond interrogation.

Interesting position you have there.

Not really. I am, after all, an agnostic atheist.

Exactly what I suggested we do.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the particular biblical example I gave accurately describes what actually happened, I don't feel like I need any more data to judge that the god described there is a dick.

But you can't answer why he acted like that. You don't know if this is because, perhaps, it's the way people needed him to behave so as to save billions of innocents later on? Trolley problem, that you chose to ecase, etc. You can't know what you don't know, unlike with trying to judge other humans.

How about you? You think that maybe god's genocide is excusable, in this instance? Not to mention the forced "marriages" of all those innocent girls.

I'm making no judgement. For reasons given. I can't know his motives, his grand plan, all those things he knows in his omniscience that we can't. It is, as I have said, a fool's errand.

Not at all.

It's what any secular humanism worth his salt ought to be doing, and doing so loudly and proudly.

This is bizarre. Truly. We're talking about morally judging God, and you're going on about a philosophy that judges people and assumes no God. Bizarre.

I don't know what's up with you that makes you want to give the god of the Old Testament a free pass. That's an issue that maybe you ought to address.

Again with the ad hominem. Please stop.
I'm giving the God of the OT a free pass because it is futile to do otherwise, unless you want to simply judge God as you would person, and ignore everything you don't know that you don't know. Which is to ignore the fact that he's God.



I'll get to the rest later... have to dash out.

 

[Sarkus]

To continue from where I left off:

Correct. The same goes for all the people who have decided to worship that God.

What does that suggest to you about the morality of those worshippers? And about their attitude to evidence?

It says nothing about the morality of those worshippers. I don't know how they think it what they all do. Do you?
What it does say is that judging a higher being on our incomplete knowledge of their actions and reasoning is a fool's errand. To judge on incomplete knowledge and to assume the judgement is in anyway meaningful is to claim to understand God. Do you make such a claim?

A full understanding is impossible. We have to do the best we can with what we have.

Correct. And limit the applicability of any judgement to the level of information/knowledge we have. With other people we can have reasonable ideas of how complete or otherwise that information is, but even then we must be open to being wrong when other information arises. With gods, we don't even know where to start with assessing what information we might not know. So hiw can we possibly assess the accuracy of any judgement? We can't. So why bother.

There doesn't appear to be any other morality we can use, apart from human morality.

Why even try to use that for which you have no real idea of accuracy?? You may as well just guess.

What superior alternative do you suggest we use?

I don't suggest any alternative for assessing god's morality. I suggest not bothering to. It's a fool's errand. Pointless. You may as well just guess, or come up with whatever answer you want to do as to further whatever agenda one wants to push.

Or do you just recommend we give God a free pass, no matter what he says or does?

That depends on what you mean by "free pass". Do you give gravity a "free pass"?

Why is God special, in this regard? Why do you apply a double standard: okay to judge people, based on incomplete information, but not okay to judge God based on incomplete information?

Because with humans we have a reasonable idea of what information might be lacking in our judgements, and in the very least we might later become aware of future information that might change our judgement. Not so with God, unless he deigns to reveal it to us. We have no concept of what information is lacking when we make a judgement of God. God is a special case. He is THE special case.

We always have incomplete knowledge. That isn't restricted to cases involving gods.

And, often, our initial judgements are shown to be wrong after further information arises. It is not this that is the difference but that with God you simply don't know what information you don't have. With other people, you can have a reasonable idea.

I couldn't disagree more.

Why are you giving God a free pass, when it comes to making moral judgments about it?

Again, that depends on what you mean by "free pass". Can you elaborate on what you mean and what you intend to imply by that phrase?

Well, yes. If you start with a set of premises that are faulty, then you can construct a valid logical argument that leads to an unsound conclusion about an action (or anything else).

And if you don't know whether those premises are faulty or not?

Are you saying you're willing to give God a free pass because human beings can use poor reasoning to rationalise bad action?

No. To recall: I said that faith can be used to justify any action. You said that's another reason why faith is bad. I responded by saying that reason can also be used to justify any action.

i.e. if you're going to try to claim faith is bad because it can do X, you must logically be saying that everything that can do X is bad. E.g. reason is bad. Are you saying that reason is bad?

So, no, my counter here had nothing to do with judgement of god's morality, but rather on what you were trying to trash faith with. As it logically trashed that which you would otherwise wish to hold dear (i.e. reason).

 

[James R]

Friend of Mr S: It's good to see you, S. How did your meeting with the Mayor go?

S: Great! It turns out that all those kids the police shot in the ice cream shop had to die, because they would have grown up to be bad people.

Friend: Did he explain how he knows that the kids would have grown up to be bad?

S: No. But it's not my place to question the Mayor on such things. He has everything under control. We all just need to trust him. The kids all had it coming, he assured me.

Friend: I don't know. While I've heard that the Mayor has done some good things for this town, I still have an uncomfortable feeling inside about all those dead kids. I'd really like a better justification for shooting them all than "trust me, they had it coming".

S: Well, this is not just anybody you're talking about. You might want me to justify myself if I had ordered the police to shoot all those kids, but here you're talking about the Mayor!

Friend: Shouldn't the Mayor be held to the same moral standards as the rest of us?

S: No way! The Mayor is categorically different from the rest of us. He's been doing the job forever. He's experienced. He knows what he's doing. And he's a really good guy. We just need to trust that he has all the information and that whatever he does will be the right thing to do.

Friend: I still don't know. I'd like some more information on just how it is that the Mayor can be so confident that all those kids really would have grown up to be evil.

S: That's a silly thing to expect from the Mayor! He has the full picture. We don't. I'm sure that he must have thought about the long-term effects of having those kids shot, versus the long-term effects of letting them live. I'm totally sure he did what is best for the town as a whole, in the long run.

Friend (quietly): Don't tell anybody I said this, S, but sometimes I wonder if the Mayor is really the great guy most people say he is.

S: What are you saying?! You shouldn't jump to early judgments about the Mayor, based on your own limited perspectives. The Mayor is the guy with his finger on the pulse of this town. He's also the one with all the experience. In comparison, your opinions are necessarily inconsequential. Would you dare to put your paltry opinions head-to-head with the Mayor's supreme goodness? You should learn your place! Learn some humility, man! You're getting way above your station, there. You'd better watch out, or the Mayor might reach the conclusion that you're going to become a bad person.

Friend: You know, I'm having second thoughts about voting the Mayor back in, in the next election.

S: Who do you want to see run against the Mayor? Yourself?! Give me a break! The Mayor has a Plan for this town. A person like you could only spoil it, and ruin all the Mayor's good work.

Friend: Hmm... Maybe you're right.

S: Of course I'm right. You can't know the Mayor's motives or all the details of his Grand Plan for this town. It's a fool's errand to question his actions. Whatever he chooses to do is the Right Thing! Besides, it's futile to think that anybody would have a chance in an election against the Mayor. He's the Mayor, not some average bozo like you and me!

Friend: Well, you've convinced me again, S. I'm sure the Mayor had good reasons for having all those kids shot. I guess I'll be casting my vote for him in the election, as usual. Thanks for clearing all these doubts out of my mind, S. It's always good to talk to you.

 

[Sarkus]

Friend of Mr S: It's good to see you, S.

So, James R, rather than have the decency to actually address the issues I raised, you simply look to continue your own strawmen in the form of a "story"(?). And in doing so you simply show everyone else that you're not grasping the actual issue I raised. Whether this is stubbornness on your part, or lack of intelligence (as it really isn't difficult), or maybe something else, I do not judge. Either way, it's a shame you can offer nothing but fallacy.

But, hey, it's not as though I really expected anything different from you, like, you know, honesty or decency..

If you ever do want to address what I said, and not simply play with your own strawman, however fun that might be for you, do let me know.

 

[James R]

So, James R, rather than have the decency to actually address the issues I raised, you simply look to continue your own strawmen in the form of a "story"(?).

I addressed the issues you raised in the form of a "story"(?)

Did you like it?

 

[Sarkus]

I addressed the issues you raised in the form of a "story"(?)

Did you like it?

You only addressed strawmen. Let me know when you address the actual issues I raised. If you have the decency and honesty to do so, that is.

 

[James R]

You only addressed strawmen. Let me know when you address the actual issues I raised. If you have the decency and honesty to do so, that is.

Thanks for your kind invitation to engage with you in yet another pedantic discussion that completely misses the point. However, those kind of discussions with you only ever end up showing that your understanding of moral issues is both limited and, in some respects, bizarre.

Besides, I am confident that I have already made the points I wanted to make, in my fun story about Mr S and the Mayor.

So, respectfully, I will decline your invitation on this occasion.

 

[Sarkus]

Thanks for your kind invitation to engage with you in yet another pedantic discussion that completely misses the point.

That's your miscomprehension speaking. When you catch up you'll see that im being not pedantic, nor missing the point. But maybe you're warning me that you would only offer both? If so, how thoughtful.

However, those kind of discussions with you only ever end up showing that your understanding of moral issues is both limited and, in some respects, bizarre.

No, James R, it only shows that you retreat to dishonesty when you find yourself struggling. It's a shame but we're used to it.

Besides, I am confident that I have already made the points I wanted to make, in my fun story about Mr S and the Mayor.

Your strawmen do nothing but show the limitations of your position in this matter. And that you don't even seem to realise that they are strawmen is its own issue.
To wit: anologising God as a man is to ignore that He is God. But, hey, whatever floats your ignorance.

So, respectfully, I will decline your invitation on this occasion.

When all you have is misunderstanding, ignorance, and dishonesty, it is probably best you don't continue. If you ever do catch up, let me know.

 

[James R]

When you catch up you'll see that im being not pedantic, nor missing the point.

You do make me laugh sometimes, Sarkus.

I think we can all see just how non-pedantic you're being. Well done, you!

 

[Sarkus]

So still nothing constructive from you, James R. No addressing what I've previously said, and just content with attacking your strawmen. You're really jus telling everyone you're out of your depth in this discussion without actually telling everyone you're out of your depth.

Well done, you!

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

Like I said, I already made all the points I want to make, regarding your belief that the god you don't believe in is not to be questioned.

You're just crying out for more attention, as usual. Be content with what I gave you already.

Stop whining.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus:

Like I said, I already made all the points I want to make, regarding your belief that the god you don't believe in is not to be questioned.

You're just crying out for more attention, as usual. Be content with what I gave you already.

Stop whining.

James R
Like I said, the only points you have made in your "stories" have been attacking your own strawmen. And even in this latest post of yours you are dishonestly or ignorantly misrepresenting, continuing to address only a strawman.
Be content that your inability to hold an honest discussion has, again, been noted. Further efforts by you to dismiss that observation will only highlight it further.
If you don't want to continue this, stop addressing me, stop responding to me.
Simples.

 

[DaveC426913]

Like I said, the only points you have made in your "stories" have been attacking your own strawmen. And even in this latest post of yours you are dishonestly or ignorantly misrepresenting, continuing to address only a strawman.

I see the connection between James' Mayor analogy and God.
I'm not sure it qualifies as a strawman, but I do acknowledge it as a poor analogy.

So I guess I'm addresing James R:

A mayor is still a person, and as such, still falls under human-created moral codes. If I were to accept God created us humans and the world we inhabit then it follows, for me, that God is outside our moral framework.

It certainly must follow: if God is literally supernatural, then it follows that his morality is also supernatural - i.e we can't guess or assume.

Think about a UFOfan drawing conclusions about the nature of UFOs based on multiple, independent accounts. Magical Realist used to do this (humor me for a moment):

MR: "UFOS can fly in air and underwater and faster than Mach 2".
Skeptics hold up: "Hold up. THIS UFO may appear to have entered the water. And THAT UFO may have appeared to exced Mach 2, but neither of those inderendently exceed our capabilities."
MR: "But obviously all UFOs are the same thing. It's the only explanation."
Skeptics: "No. There isn't an explanation until there's an explanation. They're not the same thing until they're the same thing."

Likewise, it is folly to assume we can speak to the morals of an entity that has the power to create and destroy worlds with a snap. What else is he up to that we can't even begin to conceive of?


A better analogy, I think, is the herd of reindeer. We are stewards of our wildlands, or they will perish. Reindeer can multiply and eat until they strip the land of young saplings. Forests die, turn to plains, and reindeer populations plummet from starvation and disease.

We must cull the herds to keep them in balance with the environment (I mean we don't have to, we could let nature take its (default) couse and let the ecosystem exitnct itself, to be replaced by another).

To the reindeer, we are immoral. We kill them. That's all they see.

But are we? We are acting for the greater good of the species and the entire ecosytem. We know this, but the reindeer cannot possibly hope to comprehend our population surveys and statistics; they can't even read.

Likewise, we should assume we can't even begin to comprehend what God sees as the bigger picture. We must conclude that we can't draw conclusions in a vacuum of knowledge. Morality is a judgment and we don't have the facts to judge.

 

[Sarkus]

I see the connection between James' Mayor analogy and God.
I'm not sure it qualifies as a strawman, but I do acknowledge it as a poor analogy.

James R's "stories" are a strawman, because he (deliberately or otherwise, that's a separate matter) misrepresented my position, and argued against that rather than the point I was actually making. That is pretty much the definition of a strawman: addressing a distorted or misrepresentation of a person's argument rather than what they actually said.
That you can see a connection doesn't stop it being a misrepresentation. When that connection misses the obvious point, it stops being the other person's position but some fabrication - a strawman. If there had been no connection in his stories at all then not only would it have been a strawman but also a non sequitur. An absurd strawman, if you will.

The rest of your post is helpful, thanks.

 

[DaveC426913]

James R's "stories" are a strawman, because he (deliberately or otherwise, that's a separate matter) misrepresented my position, and argued against that rather than the point I was actually making.

ok perhaps I misunderstood the position you stated. I assumed the strawman you alluded to was the analogy of swapping a Mayor for God.