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

[Sarkus]

You may think it sophistry, James R. That doesn't mean that it is to those that believe other than you do. So calling it sophistry is really just you saying that you don't understand/comprehend/acknowledge what they believe, and their position. That's okay. You don't need to. But then you can't legitimately talk about their God as if you do. You can only look at it from an external p.o.v. and treat it as other than the God it is believed to be.

As for the question you ask, it's a loaded question: there's no scriptoral evidence that God would ever punish someone in the manner you ask. There is mention of eternal punishment, but not "burning in fire". Then there is mention of "lakes of fire" (Revelations) but nothing with regard eternity. So, where are you getting this idea of God punishing people in such a manner? Man-made threats to make people behave, perhaps?

But then let's have a look at what religions actually believe with regard such a punishment: it is actually only a minority that believe in a literal burning in hell for eternity. To many sects, the "burning" is metaphorical, to reflect their separation from God. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, many mainstream Protestants believe this interpretation. Some believe hell is self-chosen, not something God inflicts, as people freely reject God, etc. Again, Catholics, Protestants etc. Some sects don't believe that it is "eternal", and that it is temporary and purifying. There are some who believe that the "burning in hell for eternity" is a metaphor for simply ceasing to exist.
So the answer one gives, even granting the premises, really does depend on what one believes in this matter.

Then, even if one accepts that premise that God does punish some by sending them to burn in hell for eternity, the question is one of whether the punishment is just. If one rejects the infinite (God), can any punishment ever reach the level of being unjust?

Every Christian religion will likely have answers to such questions. They've had 2,000 years to work on them, after all. You, nor I, may find them particularly convincing, but, frankly, so what. We don't believe God even exists. And, no, I don't have all the answers.

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

You may think it sophistry, James R.

Thanks for giving me your permission to think my own thoughts, Sarkus. Much appreciated. I don't know what I'd do without you.

That doesn't mean that it is to those that believe other than you do.

I think you vastly overestimate the sophistication of your average Christian, when it comes to considering God's morality.

So calling it sophistry is really just you saying that you don't understand/comprehend/acknowledge what they believe, and their position.

You are trying to insult me again. I understand it just fine, I assure you, and I also understand what motivates you to be so insulting. Do you?

I also acknowledge that a few Christians have rationalised things this way over the centuries.

I think that, really, you are saying that you don't understand the problem, without even realising that is what you're saying.

So, there we are. Now we're at an impasse.

Do you want to wave your penis at me some more and double down on your claim that I'm too dumb to understand this properly? That would be consistent with your usual behaviour. I notice that, the minute I wrote a one-line comment on somebody else's post to this thread, you felt like you had to jump in, as if you somehow felt personally slighted that I would post again to this thread.

But then you can't legitimately talk about their God as if you do. You can only look at it from an external p.o.v. and treat it as other than the God it is believed to be.

I don't see why I should accept poor rationalisations and apologetics for a god that is almost certainly not even real. You go right ahead and do that, though, if it makes you happy.

As for the question you ask, it's a loaded question: there's no scriptoral evidence that God would ever punish someone in the manner you ask.

A lack of scriptural evidence has never stopped Christians from believing whatever they want to believe about their God. Besides, that was just one example, and I only mentioned it because it was mentioned in one of the sources I referred to.

We could look at any number of evil acts of Yahweh, most of them very well attested to in the "scripture". I have directed you towards a few specific examples previously. You were unwilling to engage in a discussion of any of them.

So, where are you getting this idea of God punishing people in such a manner?

It's a very long tradition in certain strands of Christianity.

Christianity is not a single edifice, Sarkus. Why do you think there are so many separate denominations and sects of Christianity? The answer is simple: they all diverge in certain aspects of what they believe about Jesus and God, about what is required to get into heaven, and more.

Man-made threats to make people behave, perhaps?

The Old Testament is more or less a continuous threat by God to try to get the Israelites to behave. Have you read it?

But then let's have a look at what religions actually believe with regard such a punishment: it is actually only a minority that believe in a literal burning in hell for eternity. To many sects, the "burning" is metaphorical, to reflect their separation from God. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, many mainstream Protestants believe this interpretation.

A metaphorical eternal punishment. Okay. If you say so.

Some believe hell is self-chosen, not something God inflicts, as people freely reject God, etc.

That's poor thinking. After all, God has the ultimate power and control in the situation. If he wanted to end eternal punishment - or prevent it from happening in the first place - he could.

Some sects don't believe that it is "eternal", and that it is temporary and purifying.

I'm sure they have some kind of "scriptural" justification for that view, as well.

There are some who believe that the "burning in hell for eternity" is a metaphor for simply ceasing to exist.

What of heaven, then, and being with the Father after death? Simply ceasing to exist kind of obviates the whole Christian project, does it not?

So the answer one gives, even granting the premises, really does depend on what one believes in this matter.

Indeed. You're in for a hard uphill battle if you're going to keep trying to defend Christian morality.

Then, even if one accepts that premise that God does punish some by sending them to burn in hell for eternity, the question is one of whether the punishment is just. If one rejects the infinite (God), can any punishment ever reach the level of being unjust?

Why would an infinite God give two hoots about whether a mortal human (that he caused to be created) rejected him? Is his ego really so fragile?

But let us suppose that God's ego really is that fragile. Is it then just to punish a person for eternity, for a "crime" committed in a short and brutish mortal lifetime? Is that your idea of justice?

Every Christian religion will likely have answers to such questions.

Yes. Sophistry such as the example we have just explored.

They've had 2,000 years to work on them, after all.

2000 years of vested interests and cultural imperialism.

You, nor I, may find them particularly convincing, but, frankly, so what.

So, it makes sense to dispense with faulty notions and to try to promote more sensible ones. It increases net human wellbeing.

We don't believe God even exists. And, no, I don't have all the answers.

Your humbleness greatly impresses me. Perhaps other readers will be similarly impressed.

 

[Sarkus]

Thanks for giving me your permission to think my own thoughts, Sarkus. Much appreciated. I don't know what I'd do without you.

??? I was simply stating a comparison: you may do this, others may do that. Standard English language. Why do you choose to pick an interpretation of "may" that you feel slight's you, rather than any other interpretation that makes more sense in cotext?? It wouldn't be to pick a fight, would it? "May" in this context is merely expressing that you are doing one thing out of many options. Nothing to do with permission. So stop trying to pick a fight.

I think you vastly overestimate the sophistication of your average Christian, when it comes to considering God's morality.

I'm talking about classical theism and the religions that follow it. I can't and don't speak with regard individual people. For the religions in question, there is no sophistry. You may call it that, but to them it is not.

You are trying to insult me again.

No insult intended. If you did understand it, you would accept the arguments as they relate to classical theism, rather than disputing them. But you don't accept them. So no insult, just a statement of fact, as evidenced by you calling them sophistry.

I understand it just fine, I assure you, and I also understand what motivates you to be so insulting. Do you?

Again, you're just looking to pick a fight, James R. Please don't. Nothing I have said warrants you trying to do so.

I also acknowledge that a few Christians have rationalised things this way over the centuries.

"A few". I am referring to the actual religions in question. Those religions that follow classical theism. I.e. Catholics, the majority of protestants, etc. I can not and do not speak with regard individuals.

I think that, really, you are saying that you don't understand the problem, without even realising that is what you're saying.

So, there we are. Now we're at an impasse.

Whereas my criticism was evidenced by your referring to the arguments of classical theism as sophistry, your criticism of me is self-sealing. It can be thus ignored as such.

Do you want to wave your penis at me some more and double down on your claim that I'm too dumb to understand this properly? That would be consistent with your usual behaviour. I notice that, the minute I wrote a one-line comment on somebody else's post to this thread, you felt like you had to jump in, as if you somehow felt personally slighted that I would post again to this thread.

Please stop looking to pick a fight, James R. Nothing I wrote above warrants it.

I don't see why I should accept poor rationalisations and apologetics for a god that is almost certainly not even real. You go right ahead and do that, though, if it makes you happy.

No one is asking you to accept them on a personal level. The point is that if you don't accept them then you're not judging the morality of their God. And if you do accept them then there is no point in judging the morality of their God.
It's no more complex than that.

A lack of scriptural evidence has never stopped Christians from believing whatever they want to believe about their God. Besides, that was just one example, and I only mentioned it because it was mentioned in one of the sources I referred to.

Sure, and your example has been answered.

We could look at any number of evil acts of Yahweh, most of them very well attested to in the "scripture". I have directed you towards a few specific examples previously. You were unwilling to engage in a discussion of any of them.

You beg the question by referring to "any number of evil acts". Classical theism disputes this premise from the outset. To them there are zero "evil acts" by Yahweh, as I have been explaining. Discussing any of individually will not alter the metaphysics behing their view, will not alter one jot that their God is good, and does not do anything other than good. Yes, people not adhering to the same metaphysics will arrive at different views on the matters, but then if you're not adhering to the same metaphysics you're not referring to the same God that they believe in. So to look at individual examples is pointless, as it doesn't further the issue at all.

It's a very long tradition in certain strands of Christianity.

Some small sects, perhaps. Within classical theism the vast majority do not believe in a literal burning in a literal hell as being a punishment from God. Most believers in the literal interpretation are not adherents to classical theism.

Christianity is not a single edifice, Sarkus. Why do you think there are so many separate denominations and sects of Christianity? The answer is simple: they all diverge in certain aspects of what they believe about Jesus and God, about what is required to get into heaven, and more.

I don't disagree. I am, and have been, referring to classical theism. I have made this quite clear throughout, have I not? It covers the vast majority of Christians. It does not, however, include all Christians. If Christians of non-classical theism want to believe in literal burning in hell for all eternity, that's up to them, and I'll let them answer the matter from their perspective.

The Old Testament is more or less a continuous threat by God to try to get the Israelites to behave. Have you read it?

I have read it, James R. Your point being?

A metaphorical eternal punishment. Okay. If you say so.

Flippancy doesn't help.

That's poor thinking. After all, God has the ultimate power and control in the situation. If he wanted to end eternal punishment - or prevent it from happening in the first place - he could.

So what if God has that power? If he has given people freewill, and people self-choose, why should he intervene?

I'm sure they have some kind of "scriptural" justification for that view, as well.

They do. Malachi 3:2-3, 1 Corinthians 3:13-15, for example.

What of heaven, then, and being with the Father after death? Simply ceasing to exist kind of obviates the whole Christian project, does it not?

FYI: Annihilationists may be Christian, but they aren't classical theists. It is actually incompatible with classical theism. I gave their view just to show that there is a diverse range of interpretations.

Indeed. You're in for a hard uphill battle if you're going to keep trying to defend Christian morality.

Vacuuous.

Why would an infinite God give two hoots about whether a mortal human (that he caused to be created) rejected him? Is his ego really so fragile?

In classical theism, God has no ego. He doesn't "care" in the way one human might care for another. God's feelings can not be hurt, he needs no validation, has no pride etc. He "cares" because he is goodness itself. If you want an analogy, it is somewhat like a doctor caring that a patient refuses medicine. It is not because the doctor feels slighted. There is no ego involved. No offence taken. They "care" because the patient is harming themselves by not taking the medicine.
So, no, nothing to do with ego.

But let us suppose that God's ego really is that fragile. Is it then just to punish a person for eternity, for a "crime" committed in a short and brutish mortal lifetime? Is that your idea of justice?

Classical theism rejects the premise of the question. God has no ego.

Yes. Sophistry such as the example we have just explored.

I refer you to #241,

2000 years of vested interests and cultural imperialism.

2000 years of philosophical thinking. From Plato, Aristotle to Anshelm, Aquinas, and beyond.

So, it makes sense to dispense with faulty notions and to try to promote more sensible ones. It increases net human wellbeing.

You are assuming that they all start with the same metaphysics that you do. They do not. What you might consider to be "faulty notions" under your metaphysical outlook might be nothing of the sort under theirs.

 

[Sarkus]

To return the thread to the actual question posed...

Let me ask: to what end does one judge the morality of God’s actions? If God’s actions are necessarily good, as classical theism asserts, what purpose is served by declaring them "evil"?

Is the goal truly “to correct faulty notions and promote more sensible ones”? If so, on what metaphysical foundation can one determine which notions are faulty? Each person’s beliefs and arguments are built upon a metaphysical framework. If these frameworks are internally consistent and not demonstrably false, then simply standing across from one another and shouting “you are wrong, your notions are faulty” simly ignores the very foundations of the other’s position. To have any meaningful dialogue, one must surely first understand the metaphysics upon which the other’s beliefs are built, and appreciate how their conclusions follow from that framework. This is true for both sides.
It is not enough to claim understanding, and then ignore them. E.g. to claim that you acknowledge their metaphysical position that "God is good" and then turn round the next moment with a loaded question about the "evil actions of Yahweh".

So is the aim to persuade someone to abandon their foundational beliefs? But how could one do that? And even if one could, by what standard is one person’s metaphysics superior to another’s? Is it simply “might makes right,” or an appeal to popularity?

Or is it really just an excuse to "bash" religions and religious adherents? "Look, your God is evil!" sort of thing.


Ultimately, is there any point in judging the morality of God's actions?
The vast majority of believers in God hold that God is good, that God can do no evil. There is thus no value in a judgement, as the judgement is a given. The only value lies in understanding why the action is good: the reasoning, the purpose, or other metaphysical principles behind it.

The minority of believers who think God can do evil? They are extremely rare. While theoretically such positions could exist, they constitute a tiny minority, and I am not aware of any significant examples in the mainstream. For them, sure, I'll accept that a judgement of the the morality of God's actions might have value.

For non-believers, any judgement of God's morality is made from outside the metaphysical framework in which God's actions are defined. If the believer’s framework is internally consistent and logically coherent, the non-believer is not evaluating God objectively, but rather measuring God against their own assumptions. As a result, such moral judgments are not assessments of God, but effectively attacks on the religion and its adherents. The judgement tells us more about the non-believer’s metaphysical assumptions than about that which they are ostensibly judging.

So is there any point? There doesn't seem to be: either it is redundant, too rare to consider, or just a proxy for bashing religions rather than engaging meaningfully.

But, heck, maybe that is the point?

 

[James R]

Let me ask: to what end does one judge the morality of God’s actions? If God’s actions are necessarily good, as classical theism asserts, what purpose is served by declaring them "evil"?

Let me ask: to what end does one judge God if classical theism asserts that, as far as God is concerned, black is white? If God is necessarily the perfect being, as classical theism asserts, what purpose is served by pointing out that black isn't, in point of fact, white?

 

[Sarkus]

Let me ask: to what end does one judge God if classical theism asserts that, as far as God is concerned, black is white?

Wow. Four informal fallacies in a single question. Not bad.

Strawman (whodathunkit). Classical theism does not assert that God can be contradictory, but rather the opposite, that He can not be. Therefore to ask how He can be is to argue not against God/classical theism but against your ongoing caricature version thereof.

Loaded question. You are asserting a premise that is not true (namely that God can make contradictions) that must be accepted in any direct answer. Since this premise is not granted, the statement is loaded, and can thus be ignored.

Begging the question. Your question assumes that which it is trying to prove: that classical theism is unintelligible (through contradiction).

Category error. Treating a moral judgement as if it is a matter of objective fact, divorced from metaphysical framework.

And these are just off the top of my head. There may be more, but I'll stick with these four.


TL;DR: your question is fallacious: God does not say that black is white, nor does classical theism say that God does.

If God is necessarily the perfect being, as classical theism asserts, what purpose is served by pointing out that black isn't, in point of fact, white?

This question, if intended as a separate one, suffers the same flaws as your first. If it was intended simply as a reframing of the first, well, the comments above should suffice.


Maybe start with the assumptions that they start with, their metaphysical framework. Then try to look at God's actions through their lens. That's the only way to really understand their position. You don't have to accept it. I don't. You might question why they hold to such a metaphysical framework (that would be an entirely different thread, of course), but just obstinately refusing to do anything but look at things through your own framework is going to get you nowhere in understanding them. Of course, that presupposes that you are even interested in understanding them, which is certainly not a given.

But please at least stop asking such fallacious questions.

 

[James R]

My questions were illustrative, Sarkus. I did not set out to prove anything, there. I think I made my point just fine.

Maybe start with the assumptions that they start with, their metaphysical framework. Then try to look at God's actions through their lens.

I already did that.

You don't have to accept it.

I'm so glad you have once again affirmed that you give me your permission to have my own thoughts and opinions about things, Sarkus.

It's something of a puzzle that you seem to feel the need to continually reaffirm your support of my having views of my own but it's not a bad thing, I suppose.

You might question why they hold to such a metaphysical framework (that would be an entirely different thread, of course)...

I did raise some objections to this particular apologetic. Maybe you missed them. Oh well.

... but just obstinately refusing to do anything but look at things through your own framework is going to get you nowhere in understanding them.

It's ironic that you say so, while you completely refuse to look at things through any framework other than the one you are trying to promote, while actually not believing any of it yourself.

 

[Sarkus]

My questions were illustrative, Sarkus.

Illustrative of what, James R? Criticisms of your favourite caricature of God? Your inability to ask coherent or meaningful questions about the classical theist God? Your inability to avoid logically fallacious questions? After all, as shown, your questions were not meaningful with regard the God of classical theism. So just what do you believe them to be illustrative of, James R?

I did not set out to prove anything, there.

Apologies, I was inferring that you were asking questions to highlight what you saw as an obvious contradiction in whichever God you were trying to be relevant about. Any answer that accepted the contradiction, which a direct answer to your loaded question would require, would act as logical "proof" of that contradiction, whether that was your intention or not, whether you would recognise that or not.

I think I made my point just fine.

That rather depends (a) on what "point" you were trying to make, and (b) whether you were trying to convince more than just yourself.
To the former: what point were you trying to make, at least with regard the God of classical theism rather than some caricature version thereof? Then we'll see if you have actually made your point "just fine" to anyone other than yourself.

However, as it is, you have asked logically fallacious questions, failed to address those fallacies, and still think your point was made "just fine". There is no honesty in your response, James R. There is clearly no intention by you of being productive.

I already did that.

Where? Nowhere in this thread, even after a re-read, can I find such. Please can you point out where you think you may have already done so?

I'm so glad you have once again affirmed that you give me your permission to have my own thoughts and opinions about things, Sarkus.

It's something of a puzzle that you seem to feel the need to continually reaffirm your support of my having views of my own but it's not a bad thing, I suppose.

You once again wilfully misinterpret "may/might" to be about permission rather than indication of alternatives. You continue to argue absent good faith, James R.

I did raise some objections to this particular apologetic. Maybe you missed them. Oh well.

It seems I have missed them if they exist, and a further re-reading of this thread has not helped point them out to me. Please can you therefore provide reference to where you think you have? Bear in mind I am not referring simply to you disagreeing with their rationalisation when based on your metaphysical framework, but questioning of why they hold that metaphysical framework in the first place. Bear in mind, also, that that particular issue is actually moot with regard this thread, as if one accepts that they are classical theists, they have that framework, irrespective of why. So, as said, that question, of why they might hold that framework rather than any other, would be for another thread.

It's ironic that you say so, while you completely refuse to look at things through any framework other than the one you are trying to promote, while actually not believing any of it yourself.

Firstly, I have explicitly looked at things through other frameworks as well as the one I am being Devil's Advocate for. #244 is just the latest example.
Secondly, why does it matter if I believe the position of the classical theist or not? That is an ad hominem argument. It is a strawman, about me, that has nothing to do with the actual arguments that I have put forth.

So, please, enough of your deflection, evasion, fallacious arguments/questions, ad hominems etc, and try to return to the actual point of this thread. Without the accompanying dishonesty, please.

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

Illustrative of what, James R?

I'll leave you to think about it some more.

Apologies, I was inferring that you were asking questions to highlight what you saw as an obvious contradiction in whichever God you were trying to be relevant about.

I accept your apology.

Any answer that accepted the contradiction, which a direct answer to your loaded question would require, would act as logical "proof" of that contradiction, whether that was your intention or not, whether you would recognise that or not.

I don't understand this bit.

That rather depends (a) on what "point" you were trying to make, and (b) whether you were trying to convince more than just yourself.

Indeed.

To the former: what point were you trying to make, at least with regard the God of classical theism rather than some caricature version thereof?

That it's not wrong to judge the morality of the God of classical theism.

However, as it is, you have asked logically fallacious questions, failed to address those fallacies, and still think your point was made "just fine".

Unfortunately, two out of three of your claims here are incorrect.

There is no honesty in your response, James R. There is clearly no intention by you of being productive.

You're boring me. Sorry to say, but it's true. *yawn*

Where?

In my head, in consideration of my own readings separate from this thread.

Nowhere in this thread, even after a re-read, can I find such. Please can you point out where you think you may have already done so?

Done. See just above.

You once again wilfully misinterpret "may/might" to be about permission rather than indication of alternatives.

I see. The alternatives are that I accept the assumptions you have been promoting or that I reject them.

I reject them.

You continue to argue absent good faith, James R.

I think I stopped arguing several posts ago. Maybe you missed it.

It seems I have missed them if they exist...

Yes. That seems to be the case. Oh well.

Please can you therefore provide reference to where you think you have?

Nah. Can't be bothered at the moment. Maybe I'll get to it later. I don't feel like I owe you any favours, at the moment. After all, you're being very abrasive.

Bear in mind, also, that that particular issue is actually moot with regard this thread, as if one accepts that they are classical theists, they have that framework, irrespective of why.

Are people allowed to question other people's frameworks, or is it always wrong in your eyes to compare and judge one against another?

Firstly, I have explicitly looked at things through other frameworks as well as the one I am being Devil's Advocate for. #244 is just the latest example.

I might get to #244 later. You raise some valid questions there, along with repetitive some stuff that you keep harping on about for some reason.

Secondly, why does it matter if I believe the position of the classical theist or not?

I think that a person who actually believed it might do more convincing job of defending it than you're doing. That's all. Arguing with you about this seems like a bit of a waste of my time. I'd rather argue it out with an actual classical theist. No offence.

That is an ad hominem argument. It is a strawman, about me...

It's not a strawman to state that fact that you're not a classical theist.

I'm also not saying you're wrong because of some personal trait you have (or lack), which would be ad hominem.

So what are you talking about?

...that has nothing to do with the actual arguments that I have put forth.

Neither did your ad hominem comments about me. (See?)

So, please, enough of your deflection, evasion, fallacious arguments/questions, ad hominems etc, and try to return to the actual point of this thread. Without the accompanying dishonesty, please.

Not now. You'll have to learn patience, I'm afraid.

 

[Sarkus]

Please stop the dishonesty and trolling, James R.
If you don't want to engage, just stop posting. All you've done in this latest post of yours is confirm that you're totally out of your depth on this matter. That and that your default response when drowning like this is to revert to childish trolling and dishonesty. There again, the dishonesty is not limited to just when you're struggling.
But, hey, my bad for expecting anything else.

 

[Sarkus]

Also, and because it may help instruct other readers, and because you really are such a good source of material when it comes to ad hominems and logical fallacies:

I'm also not saying you're wrong because of some personal trait you have (or lack), which would be ad hominem.

Indeed, that would be an ad hominem fallacy.
However, you really should be aware that personal attacks that stand outside of an argument are also referred to as ad hominems, more correctly ad hominem attacks or remarks, which are attacks against the person, just not forming part of a fallacious argument. E.g. simply calling someone stupid is an ad hominem attack - an attack against the person.
Both the personal attack, and the fallacy that relies on that attack, are known as ad hominems.
Hope that's cleared it up for you.

Furthermore, in the specific case in question, ignoring an argument on ground of a personal trait (e.g. the Devil's Advocate not personally believing the argument they put forth) absolutely is an ad hominem fallacy. More specifically it is known as ad hominem circumstantial One doesn't need to claim the position is wrong, one merely has to ignore it from that person due to the personal trait, or motive, etc. E.g. "you smell, so I'm not going to listen to what you have to say on the matter" is such an ad hominem fallacy.
And since the personal trait you used was being Devil's Advocate, it also falls into the sub-category of argument from authenticity - dismissing what someone says if they don't personally believe it.
It is also a genetic fallacy - dismissing arguments on the basis of source.

But, sure, I'll give you that it wasn't also a strawman. I was just getting too carried away there. Sorry. But heck, it's still more than just 1 fallacy. So that's not too bad. Well done, you!

 

[James R]

Please stop the dishonesty and trolling, James R.

What dishonesty? As for trolling, it's cute to hear that from you. You have no self awareness.

If you don't want to engage, just stop posting.

Like you do, you mean? I should follow your example?

Remember how this has always gone before. It doesn't stop until I call a halt. You have proven yourself time and again to be incapable of knowing when to stop and/or unable to stop yourself even if/when you do know.

All you've done in this latest post of yours is confirm that you're totally out of your depth on this matter.

I'll leave the readers to judge that for themselves, as always. I'd say that you're just a tad biased on the matter, wouldn't you agree?

That and that your default response when drowning like this is to revert to childish trolling and dishonesty.

You shouldn't make false accusations. They make you look small.

Also, and because it may help instruct other readers, and because you really are such a good source of material when it comes to ad hominems and logical fallacies [snip pedantic lecture #357].

I'm sure that the "other readers" appreciate your pedantry just as much as I do.

Furthermore, in the specific case in question, ignoring an argument on ground of a personal trait ...

You must be confusing me for somebody else. I haven't ignored any argument in this thread.

... dismissing arguments on the basis of source.

I haven't done that, either. Get your facts straight before you launch an attack, next time.

 

[Sarkus]

What dishonesty? As for trolling, it's cute to hear that from you. You have no self awareness.

James R, if you’re not able to recognise your own dishonesty when it is pointed out to you, that becomes a problem. Although I suspect this is really just you claiming ignorance when you know better, and would thus be itself an example of your dishonesty.
To cite some examples from just your last few posts here, though:
“Nah, Can’t be bothered at the moment.” and other other non-responses.
“In my head,…” in response to where you had answered a question.
Lying, e.g. when you said “two out of three of your claims here are incorrect” when the evidence is clear: you raised a fallacious question, failed to address the fallacies, and still think your point was made “just fine”. All three were correct. (I mean, I could accept that one may be incorrect, if you now think your point was not made "just fine"?)
Deliberate uncharitable interpretation of the word “may”, as highlighted twice by me.

So, please, stop being dishonest. And please stop trolling.

Like you do, you mean? I should follow your example?

I do want to engage, James R. With the thread topic. With anyone who can put forth a point to discuss on the matter. You clearly don’t want to, at least not honestly, or you would have addressed the relevant points I have raised in a manner that actually furthers discussion. You’re the one posting: “I think I stopped arguing several posts ago.”, “Arguing with you about this seems like a bit of a waste of my time. I'd rather argue it out with an actual classical theist.”
So, I repeat: if you don’t want to engage (with the thread topic) stop posting here. I’ll also add that if you don’t want to engage with me specifically, then stop replying to me. Ignore what I post.

Remember how this has always gone before. It doesn't stop until I call a halt. You have proven yourself time and again to be incapable of knowing when to stop and/or unable to stop yourself even if/when you do know.

Given that you are the only one with the ability to moderate, any such moderation activity is of course going to come from you! But that doesn’t change the fact that in most of those occasions, at least where I am also involved, it is you who begin the trashing of the thread/discussion. You get out of your depth, you struggle, you get put on the back foot, and so you troll, you engage in dishonesty. You then get called out, and ultimately the thread gets closed. By you, because your behaviour can not be curtailed by anyone else.
So, yeah, I remember.

I'll leave the readers to judge that for themselves, as always. I'd say that you're just a tad biased on the matter, wouldn't you agree?

No. I simply dislike dishonesty. And I dislike people clearly trying to trash threads because they get put on the back foot, when they could instead just simply disengage.

You shouldn't make false accusations. They make you look small.

Oh, the irony.
Anyhoo, I've exampled above your dishonesty, and your post #249 is clear trolling.

You must be confusing me for somebody else. I haven't ignored any argument in this thread.

You have, clearly:
“Nah, Can’t be bothered at the moment.”
Failing to address the criticism of your clearly fallacious argument, claiming that your point was made “just fine”.
All evidence of evasion.

You have ignored arguments, as evidenced, and it is clear from your comments that it is because, as you explicitly say, you are bored by not dealing with someone who actually believes the arguments they are putting forth. Unless you were lying about that, and simply trolling? Yeah, could be that, I guess.

I haven't done that, either. Get your facts straight before you launch an attack, next time.

Oh, okay. You’re not saying that the arguments are wrong, you’re just saying that you want to avoid the arguments – more obviously than you already have, at least - because of a personal trait (being Devil’s Advocate). Got it.
And yet, you’re still responding.

Now, do you have anything to say that is actually relevant to the thread?

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

James R, if you’re not able to recognise your own dishonesty when it is pointed out to you, that becomes a problem.

That might be a problem, if it were ever to become the case. I agree with this hypothetical.

Although I suspect this is really just you claiming ignorance when you know better, and would thus be itself an example of your dishonesty.

You're free to suspect whatever you like, naturally - even if your suspicions are widely at variance with the facts of the matter.

To cite some examples from just your last few posts here, though:
“Nah, Can’t be bothered at the moment.” and other other non-responses.

That's not a non-response. I responded to you. Grab a dictionary. Look up the word.

“In my head,…” in response to where you had answered a question.

You mischaracterise that part of our interaction - deliberately, I assume. I refer any interested readers to check the actual record, since you have proven that you are willing to lie about such things.

Lying, e.g. when you said “two out of three of your claims here are incorrect” when the evidence is clear...

Again, I invite any interested readers to check "the evidence" for themselves. There's no reason I need to repeat myself just because you think your fantasy version of history needs another repeated airing.

I do want to engage, James R. With the thread topic.

Yes, yes. I can tell that what you really want to discuss is the thread topic, even though you feel forced to instead focus your efforts on making ad hominem attacks on me. Your posts clearly support your claim that this is what you are truly interested in. (*sarcasm*)

With anyone who can put forth a point to discuss on the matter.

Why don't you shut up, then, and leave some space for this hypothetical person who wants to discuss the topic with you to get a word in edgewise between your constant personal attacks?

You clearly don’t want to, at least not honestly, or you would have addressed the relevant points I have raised in a manner that actually furthers discussion.

Correct (apart from the "not honestly" bit). Was I not clear about that in a previous post? You bore me. You're a repetitive, pedantic troll. I have lost interest in having any further discussion of this particular topic with you.

Clear enough for you?

You’re the one posting: “I think I stopped arguing several posts ago.”, “Arguing with you about this seems like a bit of a waste of my time. I'd rather argue it out with an actual classical theist.”

Exactly. What do you think my words there mean? Do you have a comprehension problem?

So, I repeat: if you don’t want to engage (with the thread topic) stop posting here.

Happy to do that once you've finished trying to keep this thread as your own personal anti-James R shitshow.

You can't stop yourself, can you? You've never been able to before, and I'm sure you can't now, either.

I’ll also add that if you don’t want to engage with me specifically, then stop replying to me. Ignore what I post.

Stop posting stuff about me. Is that too hard for you? I think it is. I think that you cry out for my constant attention. It's a bit creepy.

I guess it could just be another case of Main Character Syndrome, though. Because, by trying to make it about me, it always ends up being about you. Is that what you really want?

Given that you are the only one with the ability to moderate, any such moderation activity is of course going to come from you!

Reading comprehension problem again, Sarkus - or are you deliberately trying to mislead any remaining readers of this thread?

This isn't about moderation, and you know it.

No. I simply dislike dishonesty. And I dislike people clearly trying to trash threads because they get put on the back foot, when they could instead just simply disengage.

I can tell that you dislike that by just how often you go out of your way to trash threads. Um.

Oh, the irony.

Indeed.

You have, clearly:
“Nah, Can’t be bothered at the moment.”
Failing to address the criticism of your clearly fallacious argument, claiming that your point was made “just fine”.
All evidence of evasion.

Correct. I'm am trying to evade having any further discussion with you on this topic, Sarkus. Reading comprehension problem?

I made no fallacious argument, of course.

You have ignored arguments...

No.

...as evidenced...

No.

... and it is clear from your comments that it is because, as you explicitly say, you are bored by not dealing with someone who actually believes the arguments they are putting forth.

Yes. That's one reason.

Unless you were lying about that, and simply trolling? Yeah, could be that, I guess.

Of course I wasn't lying. I've caught you out in several lies and/or evasions in just this post that I'm replying to right here, so we know that you don't have the moral high ground on honesty, here, Sarkus. Your track record on that is getting progressively more muddy. You're building up a reputation.

Oh, okay. You’re not saying that the arguments are wrong, you’re just saying that you want to avoid the arguments...

I really don't know how I can be any blunter, Sarkus. I don't want to "avoid the arguments" when it comes to topic of this thread. I want to avoid talking to you, specifically. You're a terrible conversationalist, a pedant, a self-important supercilious man who assumes he is always the smartest person in the room, and a person who is willing to bend the truth when it suits him. You're also not fun to talk with. You apparently have no sense of humour at all and zero capacity for self-reflection.

Just a frightful bore, and a rude one as well.

Now, do you have anything to say that is actually relevant to the thread?

Sure, but not to you.

 

[Sarkus]

To bring this thread back to topic, and to address the latest point raised, lest the past few posts of… whatever… serves to dissuade people:

Let me ask: to what end does one judge God if classical theism asserts that, as far as God is concerned, black is white? If God is necessarily the perfect being, as classical theism asserts, what purpose is served by pointing out that black isn't, in point of fact, white?

To which I responded, as Devil’s advocate for classical theism, that it was a fallacious question, for the following reasons:

Strawman - Classical theism does not assert that God can be contradictory, but rather the opposite, that He can not be. Therefore to ask how He can be is to argue not against God/classical theism but against your ongoing caricature version thereof.
Loaded question - the question implicitly asserts a premise that is not true (namely that God can make contradictions) that must be accepted in any direct answer. Since this premise is not granted, the statement is loaded, and can thus be ignored.
Begging the question - The question assumes that which it is trying to prove: that classical theism is unintelligible (through contradiction).
Category error - Treating a moral judgement as if it is a matter of objective fact, divorced from metaphysical framework.


Now, maybe people agree that the question is fair to ask, but then how would people dissolve the fallacies from a classical theist perspective?

James R claims that there are no fallacies in the argument (his question implicitly advancing a reductio-style critique of classical theism that is, at least in the pragmatic and rhetorical sense, an argument) despite the clear explanation of them above, but does not explain further. And he refuses to elaborate to me, at least. Can anyone else dissolve the fallacies, explain to me why they are not the fallacies I have highlighted?




Also, so as to remind of my non-DA position with regard the question of the value of judging God’s morality (that was the original question, altered in this thread to be a question of whether it was wrong or not, a position no one actually claimed. So I am answering with regard the value of judging God’s morality):

(originally in post #244):
"
Let me ask: to what end does one judge the morality of God’s actions? If God’s actions are necessarily good, as classical theism asserts, what purpose is served by declaring them "evil"?

Is the goal truly “to correct faulty notions and promote more sensible ones”? If so, on what metaphysical foundation can one determine which notions are faulty? Each person’s beliefs and arguments are built upon a metaphysical framework. If these frameworks are internally consistent and not demonstrably false, then simply standing across from one another and shouting “you are wrong, your notions are faulty” simly ignores the very foundations of the other’s position. To have any meaningful dialogue, one must surely first understand the metaphysics upon which the other’s beliefs are built, and appreciate how their conclusions follow from that framework. This is true for both sides.
It is not enough to claim understanding, and then ignore them. E.g. to claim that you acknowledge their metaphysical position that "God is good" and then turn round the next moment with a loaded question about the "evil actions of Yahweh".

So is the aim to persuade someone to abandon their foundational beliefs? But how could one do that? And even if one could, by what standard is one person’s metaphysics superior to another’s? Is it simply “might makes right,” or an appeal to popularity?

Or is it really just an excuse to "bash" religions and religious adherents? "Look, your God is evil!" sort of thing.


Ultimately, is there any point in judging the morality of God's actions?

The vast majority of believers in God hold that God is good, that God can do no evil. There is thus no value in a judgement, as the judgement is a given. The only value lies in understanding why the action is good: the reasoning, the purpose, or other metaphysical principles behind it.

The minority of believers who think God can do evil? They are extremely rare. While theoretically such positions could exist, they constitute a tiny minority, and I am not aware of any significant examples in the mainstream. For them, sure, I'll accept that a judgement of the the morality of God's actions might have value.

For non-believers, any judgement of God's morality is made from outside the metaphysical framework in which God's actions are defined. If the believer’s framework is internally consistent and logically coherent, the non-believer is not evaluating God objectively, but rather measuring God against their own assumptions. As a result, such moral judgments are not assessments of God, but effectively attacks on the religion and its adherents. The judgement tells us more about the non-believer’s metaphysical assumptions than about that which they are ostensibly judging.

So is there any point? There doesn't seem to be: either it is redundant, too rare to consider, or just a proxy for bashing religions rather than engaging meaningfully.
"

I repeat all that here, to get this thread back on track.

 

[DaveC426913]

 

[Sarkus]

Such a sophism is just evidence of you either not reading or not understanding the arguments already put forth, at least with regard classical theism. Your argument rails against a caricature of the God they actually affirm. It is a strawman. It conveniently ignores the metaphysical nature of their God, and assumes that which they reject. Your post, coming, as it does, after all this has already been explained in the thread, can only really be taken as your unwillingness to engage honestly.
Happy New Year.

 

[DaveC426913]

Such a sophism is just evidence of you either not reading or not understanding the arguments already put forth, at least with regard classical theism. Your argument rails against a caricature of the God they actually affirm. It is a strawman.

Who are you responding to?

 

[TheVat]

Also the meme can't really argue against deism, the view that God sets things in motion but does not intervene in what then unfolds. This seems to get into the ontology of a God - it's essential nature, capacities for action, presence in the world, priorities for sentient development, etc. Since all that is beyond the epistemic reach of apes with cellphones, then yeah, it's all just metaphysical conjecture butting heads.

 

[DaveC426913]

I should probably clarify this post.

It is just something that came across my feed. I do not offer it as my argument, or necessarily espouse the viewpoint in it.

It's just food for thought.