A perfect god can not exist?

@Extrain,

Extrain;157972 wrote:

I've gone over it in colloquial prose before. What good will any more efforts of mine do? I don't know what more I can do.

You haven't gone over it before. I asked you to use "all ethical truths are relative" as your starting point and the first thing you've given me close to that was the symbolic version. Why can't you also give me the plain English version? You seem like you're being evasive which is usually when people don't want to be shown wrong and they know they will be.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;157976 wrote:

You haven't gone over it before. I asked you to use "all ethical truths are relative" as your starting point and the first thing you've given me close to that was the symbolic version. Why can't you also give me the plain English version? You seem like you're being evasive which is usually when people don't want to be shown wrong and they know they will be.

I have already given you english version.

You don't seem to understand that to refute a universal generalization such as "all moral truths are relative" it only requires one instance to make that generalization false. Here is one possible instance:

Let,

P=Killing 6 million Jews is wrong.
~P=Killing Jews is not wrong.

"P is true in culture A" is true
"~P is true in culture B" is true.
"P is true in culture A and ~P is true in culture B" is true in culture A and in culture B, C, D, E,....since this is supposed to be a non-relative truth. So it is true in all cultures.

Therefore, "P and ~P is true" is true in culture A.
^

1 Reply

@Extrain,

Extrain;157978 wrote:

"P is true in culture A and ~P is true in culture B" is true in culture A

So what? Saying that "~P is true in culture B" is true in culture A is not the same as saying that "~P is true" in culture A. It can be the case that "~P is true in culture B" is true in culture A while also "~P is true" is false in culture A.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;158017 wrote:

So what? Saying that "~P is true in culture B" is true in culture A is not the same as saying that "~P is true" in culture A. It can be the case that "~P is true in culture B" is true in culture A while also "~P is true" is false in culture A.

Not so. It is a fact that one is saying that "~P is true in culture B" while one is within culture A, and if one is within culture A while saying "~P is true in culture B" there is no fact of the matter in A whether "~P is true in culture B" since "~P" is only true within culture B.

Therefore, contrary to what you say, it cannot be the case that "~P is true in culture B" is true in culture A if "~P "is only true within culture B. You erroneously seem to think "~P is true" has different meanings when you say "~P is true within culture B" and "~P is true" within culture B. So you are begging the question whether it can even be possilbe that "~P is true in culture B" is true in culture A while "~P" is false within culture A. You can't even consistently claim this if ~P is true within culture B in culture A since ~P is false within culture A. This is a contradiction.

1 Reply

@Extrain,

1. In the modern USA it is true that in WWII Germany it was right to kill Jews.
2. In the modern USA it is wrong to kill Jews.

Both (1) and (2) are consistent with each other.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;158045 wrote:

1. In the modern USA it is true that in WWII Germany it was right to kill Jews.
2. In the modern USA it is wrong to kill Jews.

Both (1) and (2) are consistent with each other.

No they are not.

3. The conclusion follows, So in the modern USA it is true that it is both right and wrong to kill Jews.

1 Reply

@Extrain,

Extrain;158047 wrote:

3. The conclusion follows, So in the modern USA it is both right and wrong to kill Jews.

No, it's not. Read it again because you're making an elementary mistake.

In the modern USA it is wrong to kill Jews and true that in WWII Germany it was right to kill Jews. You're removing the "in WWII Germany" and I refuse to believe you're that dense to not notice it.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;158048 wrote:

No, it's not. Read it again because you're making an elementary mistake.

In the modern USA it is wrong to kill Jews and true that in WWII Germany it was right to kill Jews. You're removing the "in WWII Germany" and I refuse to believe you're that dense to not notice it.

I can't believe you are so dense not to notice that "it is true that" does not change meaning in your own cultural context when you utter those two statements. Get a brain.

If it is true that P, then P.

If it is true that it is right to kill jews in WWII germany in A, then it is right to kill jews in Germany in A.

This is a linguistic truism.

1 Reply

@Extrain,

Let me try one last time.

The fact that, in the modern USA, in WWII Germany, it was right to kill Jews does not imply that in the modern USA, it is right to kill Jews.

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Hello fellow thinkers,

What , may I ask, is not perfect? after all - Everything is unique...
1) No two things, physical or ethereal, can occupy the same place in any relative realm of time and space - and are therefore unique by location alone.
2) Being unique is, by definition, having individualistic properties.

Is not everything unique?
Yes it is.

Therefore - whatever your interpretation of God may be? It is ultimately and definitively PERFECT. As is your idea, your interpretation and your opinion.

Please, please, please post me any event or occurence that is not perfect.
Thank you and goodnight.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;158058 wrote:

Let me try one last time.

The fact that, in the modern USA, in WWII Germany, it was right to kill Jews does not imply that in the modern USA, it is right to kill Jews.

Let me try one last time.

If MMR relativism is true, then within the Modern USA there is simply no fact of the matter about whether or not it is right for Germans to kill Jews within the context of WWII Germany. But there is still the fact of the matter that, within the Modern USA, the Germans were wrong to kill the Jews. So you have said nothing at all about whether killing jews is right or wrong within the context of WWII Germany.

Why is this so difficult to understand? If MMR is true, it leads precisely to this completely empty result. Consequently, you have no reason whatsoever within the Modern USA to believe MMR is true anyway, because within the Modern USA MMR is false!

The empty paradox is that if MMR is true, then you can't consistently hold that it is. So if it is true, then it is false. And if is false, then it is false.

1 Reply

@Extrain,

Extrain;158090 wrote:

If MMR relativism is true, then within the Modern USA there is simply no fact of the matter about whether or not it is right for Germans to kill Jews within the context of WWII Germany.

Yes there is. It's relative. If the Germans think it was right then it was right within that context.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;158107 wrote:

Yes there is. It's relative. If the Germans think it was right then it was right within that context.

That's not correct. "The Germans think what Hitler did was right" is not the content of the Germans' own jugment "Hitler is right." "Hitler is right" means "Hitler is right" in that context. It doesn't mean "We Germans believe what Hitler did was right." There is no fact of the matter about this judgment in culture A since, in culture A, this judgment is false because what Hitler did was wrong in cutlure A. So there is not fact of the matter about what Hitler did being right or wrong in the German context within the modern USA context if MMR is true. If you think there is a fact of the matter within the Mordern USA context, then you are saying something contradictory about what Hitler did being both right and wrong in the Modern USA context.

1 Reply

@Extrain,

Extrain;158129 wrote:

That's not correct. "The Germans think what Hitler did was right" is not the content of the Germans' own jugment "Hitler is right." "Hitler is right" means "Hitler is right" in that context. It doesn't mean "We Germans believe what Hitler did was right." There is no fact of the matter about this judgment in culture A since, in culture A, this judgment is false because what Hitler did was wrong in cutlure A. So there is not fact of the matter about what Hitler did being right or wrong in the German context within the modern USA context if MMR is true.

You're the one that asserted there was such a fact in the first place. All I said was "all ethical truths are relative". You still haven't shown any contradiction that it implies.

Extrain;158129 wrote:

If you think there is a fact of the matter within the Mordern USA context, then you are saying something contradictory about what Hitler did being both right and wrong in the Modern USA context.

No, the claim "all ethical truths are relative" doesn't imply that. I've already explained why and you haven't said anything new yet. How about we just end this discussion since it seems to be a waste of time?

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;158179 wrote:

You're the one that asserted there was such a fact in the first place. All I said was "all ethical truths are relative". You still haven't shown any contradiction that it implies.

Killing is wrong=P
Killing is not wrong=~P

"P" is true if and only if P
"~P" is true if and only if ~P.

P and ~P are what would be the case if "P" or "~P" were true. If P or not P did not hold in either culture, then "P" or "~P" would be false in that culture.

Night Ripper;158179 wrote:

No, the claim "all ethical truths are relative" doesn't imply that. I've already explained why and you haven't said anything new yet. How about we just end this discussion since it seems to be a waste of time?

Yes it does. It implies:

"Killing Jews is not wrong" is true relative WWII Germany, and
"Killing Jews is wrong" is true relative to Modern USA.

Do you disagree that this is what your statement implies? If you do, then you are not saying anything at all by saying "All moral truths are relative."

If the following proposition were true within Modern USA, "In WWII Germany, 'killing Jews is right' is true," then Killing Jews is, in fact, right in for WWII Germany in Modern USA. "True" and "right/wrong" don't suddenly change their meanings within the exact same linguistic context and culture of Modern USA. So, since killing Jews is, in fact, wrong in Modern USA, therefore, MMR is false in Modern USA.

1 Reply

@Extrain,

Extrain;158200 wrote:

If the following proposition were true within Modern USA, "In WWII Germany, 'killing Jews is right' is true," then Killing Jews is, in fact, right in for WWII Germany in Modern USA.

It is true that within modern USA "in WWII Germany killing Jews is right" but that's not the same thing as, it is true that within modern USA "killing Jews is right". That would be dishonestly dropping "in WWII Germany". If you leave that then there is no contradiction.

I think we should just drop this discussion though because you are either too stubborn or incapable of admitting your mistake.

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;151718 wrote:

Hi All

That the idea of a perfectly good god contradicts itself means that it is impossible for a good god to exist. An amoral or immoral one could exist though. The evidence is suffering, pain and the unsuitability of the universe for peaceful life is rather a big hint, however, that God is not amoral, but is actually immoral and sadistically evil. Of course it is completely more obviously the case that there isn't a god of any kind, but if there was one, it wouldn't make sense to call it "moral", it'd have to amoral at best.

Actually the god you are referring to is the god we humans would like and our perception of what is perfect. In true reality the God the is perfect is the one that literally does everything; sees all, knows all, does all. And it is possible for this God to exist because even to us it makes since for what he does. He controls good, evil, life, death, time, space, the actual perfect God is the one that can do everything, who is well rounded, who literally controls everything that exist.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;158384 wrote:

It is true that within modern USA "in WWII Germany killing Jews is right" but that's not the same thing as, it is true that within modern USA "killing Jews is right". That would be dishonestly dropping "in WWII Germany". If you leave that then there is no contradiction.

I think we should just drop this discussion though because you are either too stubborn or incapable of admitting your mistake.

I'm completely aware of what you are saying. You are just too stubborn to look at the logical consequences of your groundless assertion. If it is true that within the modern USA "in WWII Germany killing Jews is right" then it is a fact that within modern USA killing Jews is right in WWII Germany. LEM says it either is, or is not a fact that, in Modern USA killing Jews in Germany is right.

So you are asserting this:

(1) (W)P and (W)(S)~P
(2) "(W)P" is true if and only if (W)P.
(3) "P" is true in W if and only if P in W.
(4) "(W)(S)~P" is true if and only if (W)(S)~P.
(5) "(S)~P" is true in W if and only if (S)~P in W.
(6) "~P" is true in S if and only if ~P in S.
(7) "~P" is true if and only if ~P.
(8) Law of Bivalnece says, "Either P or ~P but not both,"
(9) Therefore, within (W) both P and ~P.
Contradiction. (1) is false.

If you want to dispute this logical result you have to do a lot more work since I've already given a logical proof that it is false.

The stubborness is yours. You just stupidly assume you are immune from logical criticism just like a religious fundamentalist does, that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Apply yourself. I'm done talking with a child.

1 Reply

@Extrain,

1. Within the context of WWII Germany, killing Jews was right.
2. Within the context of modern USA, killing Jews is wrong.

There's no logical contradiction. Both (1) and (2) are uttered within the context of modern USA so if you like then you can change them to:

1. Within the context of modern USA, within the context of WWII Germany, killing Jews was right.
2. Within the context of modern USA, within the context of modern USA, killing Jews is wrong.

Again, there's no logical contradiction. It doesn't matter how you try to twist it. It doesn't matter how many insults you hurl, calling your opponent stupid, a fundamentalist, whatever. You're still wrong and you haven't shown otherwise.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;158469 wrote:

1. Within the context of WWII Germany, killing Jews was right.
2. Within the context of modern USA, killing Jews is wrong.

There's no logical contradiction. Both (1) and (2) are uttered within the context of modern USA so if you like then you can change them to:

1. Within the context of modern USA, within the context of WWII Germany, killing Jews was right.
2. Within the context of modern USA, within the context of modern USA, killing Jews is wrong.

Again, there's no logical contradiction. It doesn't matter how you try to twist it. It doesn't matter how many insults you hurl, calling your opponent stupid, a fundamentalist, whatever. You're still wrong and you haven't shown otherwise.

Pay attention to what you just said:

Both (1) and (2) are uttered within the context of modern USA:

(W):

"(S)~P" is true if and only if ~P.

If ~P is true in S then "~P" is true.

You are simultaneously committed to believing ~P is true and false in S.
Contradiction.

1 Reply

A perfect god can not exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know