Doktor S wrote:Holy crap I am about to agree with Implicator.
Dubya tee eff.
Anyway..
He is right, Jason. Go research Argumentum ad ignorantiam. You are defending an attack that doesn't exist, while missing the crucial point.
Can you tell me why am I wrong?
Nothing to do with the subject material. Only the delivery.
Obviously you didn't do the research I sugested, or you wouldn't be asking this.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.
You are arguing that 'gods' reasons for doing stuff must be based in sadism, and using the lack of counter evidence as evidence. The truth is, any hope of ever knowing 'gods' motivations for scriptural accounts died with the authors that invented them.
You are absolutly right. My delivery is terrible. But how does that make me wrong? I set up a premise from the begining of this thread, and I have tried to explain reason to him, and he keeps dissecting my argument until it is brought to a single word: murder.
But the point that I'm trying to make isn't that God doesn't exist. The point I'm trying to make is that there is physical, logical evidence that reveals God's nonexistence. Do I know that God exist? No, I don't know. Do I believe in God? I don't believe in God. Why don't I believe in God? Simply because of the logical contradictions that revolve around His nature.
I've been reading the Argumentum ad ignorantiam for about 20 minutes, and I agree with it. The only thing is my delivery (hope so). But you have to point out where I'm wrong. Is it something I said that wasn't true? Can you point it out for me? I don't use too much explanation because I use common sense. But I have to get in my head that common sense is not so common after all for some people.
Jason Proudmoore wrote:Implicator wrote:Actually, it is your argument that depends on this definition, Jason.
My argument doesn't depend on the explanation of "murder." You are the one who brought this up to refute my argument. So, the definition of "murder" is your argument. The definition of "murder" is there, you just have to understand it.
Jason, please
you used the word "murder" in your opening argument, right? If you want to assert that God is a murderer, then you must provide the definition of the term if someone asks. Since your argument uses the term, then your argument depends upon that term. I brought up the definition to rebut your argument. If you feel the definition is wrong, then tell me why - I simply used the dictionary definition as a starting point, as it presents the commonly agreed upon definition of the term.
Jason Proudmoore wrote:Implicator wrote: Exactly the point I was making - if a person kills within the law, then he is not guilty of murder. And so if you want to charge God with murder, you need to show that his killing was not lawful. You can't simply question his motivation; you have to actually show that it is against the law. This, of course, begs the question of which law you need to evaluate his actions against. Your task is not an easy one.
What is "lawful" in making meaningless sacrifices? He doesn't provide any logical explanation for demanding sacrifices in His name. Should we accept the idea that God is not murdering because He is God? His action (according to the definition of humanity) contradict His nature as being loving. You don't seem to understand this. Don't you understand that the law of God has to make sense to humankind? God can't show His own definition of "lawful" because such definition has to fall into humanity's definition of "lawful." And God seems to justify lots of things in the Bible that are regarded as loving, but they are contradicted when He does others things that are considered evil. The law that needs to be evaluated is God's law, because I'm a human being and think with human logic. Human logic is a law that can't be broken; it's how we humans do our own reasoning.
The issue isn't whether we accept God as not murdering; it is whether we accept your assertion that he does. To murder requires (at least) three things. First, that a person kill in an unlawful manner. Second, that there is a law that defines what is unacceptable killing. And third, that the person doing the killing is answerable to that law. If you want to show that God is a murderer, then you need to show all three of these things. If you fail on any one (or more) of these, then you have not demonstrated that God is a murderer. Now, it may happen to be true that he is (although I don't believe), but the point is you will have not proven that he is without demonstrating these three items.
Jason Proudmoore wrote:Implicator wrote: No, that is not entirely true, at least not as an analogy to killing a man. If I chose to kill a man to please a physical need, then I am committing murder, as it is against the law to kill another human for the purpose of eating them
at least in the US.
Is not entirely true? Are you for real, man? If you killed a man to please a physical need (hunger), this action is called "cannibalism"( look it up)." You can only be called murder if you killed a man with malicious purposes. Where is the good intention in killing something just for killing it? Doesn't that amount to murder? Of course it does
1) Cannibalism doesn't require you to kill a person. If a different person killed you, and then I chose to eat your flesh, my action would be considered cannibalism, not the one who killed you.
2) Although malice is quite often part of murder, one is not required. Malice is an intent to see a person suffer. If I blow up a person with a bomb, then I am not being malicious (because they aren't suffering), yet I could very well be charged with murder (unless I was at war, for instance).
3) To kill something for the sake of the kill could be called murder, if it were illegal to kill for the sake of the kill. Now granted, such an action is illegal in just about any place I can think of, but you have not shown that God kills only for the sake of the kill.
Jason Proudmoore wrote:Implicator wrote:Excellent question
I think you have hit the nail on the head. What exactly would justify sacrifices taking place in God's name? Well, if God is the creator of everything, then it is he who decides what is just and what is not. It would by him that the very concept of justice existed in the first place. It would be by him that concepts like love, fairness, equity, etc. form their meaning. It would be by him that the logic that you and I use has its existence. If God really exists, then his command, in conjunction with who he is, would be sufficient justification. That's the heart of the matter in all arguments of this type.
What would make killing innocent animals in God's name not being called "murder"? So, you are telling me that if God is the creator of everything we survey, it means that His action (in making meaningless killings of animals) are not meant to be called murder, because He is the creator? This is absurd. His action falls into the definition of what murder is. Well, God can decide what is just and what is not (in His own way), but the human logic contradicts His own logic of "just,"believe it or not.
Jason, we are getting sidetracked with this silliness about killing animals. Murder is when one
human kills another
human - you can't even use the term murder as it relates to animals, at least not the way the term is currently defined. Furthermore, you are making God in your own image here - you are confusing the creator with the created. You cannot hold God accountable to the laws of man when it is God who gave these laws to man
for man.
Jason Proudmoore wrote:Implicator wrote: My argument has been to rebut your argument, to show you (specifically) that you have not met your burden of proof in naming God as a sadist and/or murderer. It matters not one whit that I don't prove he isn't one, what matters is that I have rebutted your every attempt to prove that he is. Until such time as you can present some evidence (other than personal speculation) that shows God kills unlawfully and/or kills just for the sake of the kill, your argument does not succeed. I think you know this, as you constantly attempt to shift the burden back to me to prove that he is not what you claim, but as you made the initial positive assertion here, the burden is all yours.
Why don't you go out right now and sacrifice a pair of sheeps in God's name? You'll see that it is unlawful (and will most likely end up in serious problems with the APA). You see how unlawful that is? And that action (no matter what you or God calls it) is called murder, here on the planet Earth, where you and I (and lots of people) live.
I already answered this question elsewhere - I don't sacrifice animals because God has done away with the sacrificial system because of the sacrifice of his son Jesus. And no, although killing animals in the way you have stated may be illegal (in some states, countries, etc), it is by no means
murder as murder is the taking of one human life by another human. In short, it is a category error to apply the term "murder" to an animal.
Jason Proudmoore wrote:Implicator wrote:[/color]So because you personally (a limited, finite, fallible human being, at least according to the theory of the Bible) cannot find within yourself a reason as to why God wants a blood offering other than for the sake of blood, there isn't one? How absolutely arrogant of you. See, the problem here is that you won't let God be God even for the sake of argument. You won't let him be the sovereign creator and sustainer, if even for the sake of considering what the Bible says. What you do instead is to bring God down to the level of man so that you can try him in your court of law, according to standards that you have set up yourself. And this is why your argument fails miserably. You can't judge the creator of the universe according to standards intended for man, because God is not a man
he isn't even in the same category.
So, it is arrogant of me to show physical evidence (his own words) that show that He demands the display of blood from His sacrifices to be poured at His altar? How can you say such a thing? How arrogant am I? I'm showing evidence of such action. Am I missing anything? I let God be God, but the nature of His existence contradict the logic of mankind (that is for sure), even if His "logic" is something different from ours.
You are arrogant because you are implying God must tell you all of the reasons he has for doing all that he has, or else you won't believe him to be who he says he is. That is exactly what you are arrogant, Jason.
I
Jason, please
you used the word "murder" in your opening argument, right? If you want to assert that God is a murderer, then you must provide the definition of the term if someone asks. Since your argument uses the term, then your argument depends upon that term. I brought up the definition to rebut your argument. If you feel the definition is wrong, then tell me why - I simply used the dictionary definition as a starting point, as it presents the commonly agreed upon definition of the term.
murder
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
2. Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
3. A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.
v. murdered, murdering, murders
v. tr.
1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
5. Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.
I used the definition of "murder" and you didn't know in what way I used it. You gave me the definition of "murder" that falls into the definition of killing a human being "unlawfully." I gave you the definition and the examples to establish the difference between killing a human being and killing an animal. The definition of the word "murder" has 5 definitions (under verb), as you can see above. The first one is the definition that describes "[killing] (another human) unlawfully." I took the time to explain the difference between killing a human being and killing an animal that would not fall into the definition of murder and the ones that do. My argument doesn't refer to killing a human being unlawfully. It referred to the meaningless killings of animals that amount to brutal and inhumane. The first definition puts more emphasis on the action of killing a human being that amounts to murder. [Now] do you see the second definition, "to kill brutally or inhumanly"? This is a general definition. The second definition is applied universally. I used this definition to describe a murderous action against the animals being utilized in sacrifices.
However, I'm not bound to explain the definitions in which I use any word in any sentence. Since the meaning of the word is included in its context, it is up to you to find out how I use it.
inhumane
adj.
Lacking pity or compassion.
brutal
adj.
1. Extremely ruthless or cruel.
2. Crude or unfeeling in manner or speech.
3. Harsh; unrelenting: a brutal winter in the Arctic.
4. Disagreeably precise or penetrating: spoke with brutal honesty.
malice
n.
1. A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite.
2. Law. The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another
The issue isn't whether we accept God as not murdering; it is whether we accept your assertion that he does. To murder requires (at least) three things. First, that a person kill in an unlawful manner. Second, that there is a law that defines what is unacceptable killing. And third, that the person doing the killing is answerable to that law. If you want to show that God is a murderer, then you need to show all three of these things. If you fail on any one (or more) of these, then you have not demonstrated that God is a murderer. Now, it may happen to be true that he is (although I don't believe), but the point is you will have not proven that he is without demonstrating these three items.
I'm not talking about killing human beings. I'm talking about the meaningless sacrifices of animals in His name. I've never said that God sacrifices human beings in His name (However, He justifies killing people in his name in battles). I haven't found the verses that state God demanding the meaningless sacrifices of people at His altar. Killing human beings unlawfully is defined as murder. I'm explaining the second definition of "murder" that relates not just to human beings, but also animals. You seem to be stocked in the first definition of this word.
1) Cannibalism doesn't require you to kill a person. If a different person killed you, and then I chose to eat your flesh, my action would be considered cannibalism, not the one who killed you.
The one who killed me would be considered a murderer, according to the definition.
2) Although malice is quite often part of murder, one is not required. Malice is an intent to see a person suffer. If I blow up a person with a bomb, then I am not being malicious (because they aren't suffering), yet I could very well be charged with murder (unless I was at war, for instance).
If you want to see if blowing up a person to pieces is considered murder, just look it up and see if it falls into it.
3) To kill something for the sake of the kill could be called murder, if it were illegal to kill for the sake of the kill. Now granted, such an action is illegal in just about any place I can think of, but you have not shown that God kills only for the sake of the kill.
God is all powerful: this includes the power of persuasion (remember what He did to the pharaoh, hardened his heart). God has the power to end wars and suffering "with the wink of an eye." God doesn't choose to end all wars, or end suffering by persuasion (we know that He can do that by persuating). He chooses the other option instead. God has choices. [Now] we come to the meaningless, murderous act of killing animals in His name. He doesn't explain why He demands meaningless killings of animals in His name. Since He doesn't justify why He demands the killings of animals, the killings are meaningless. If the killings of animals are meaningless, such action is called "murder." It doesn't matter if Zeus (the main god of ancient Rome) did this, a human being, or any other imaginary character, the language demands this action to be called "murder." Maybe God has a reason for demanding the killing of animals (and perhaps a good reason), but since the act is meaningless (we don't know why He demands it), it is called "murder." It's simple language.
Jason Proudmoore wrote:Implicator wrote:Excellent question
I think you have hit the nail on the head. What exactly would justify sacrifices taking place in God's name? Well, if God is the creator of everything, then it is he who decides what is just and what is not. It would by him that the very concept of justice existed in the first place. It would be by him that concepts like love, fairness, equity, etc. form their meaning. It would be by him that the logic that you and I use has its existence. If God really exists, then his command, in conjunction with who he is, would be sufficient justification. That's the heart of the matter in all arguments of this type.
Yes, He's the creator (and created all the languages of the physical world, and also created logic and reasoning). He has even provided humanity His words for better understanding of his objectives and purposes through the Bible. If God did something that falls into the definition of the word that describes His action, the word that describes his action should be applied to Him. Let God be God and men be men. We use words to communicate states and actions.
Jason, we are getting sidetracked with this silliness about killing animals. Murder is when one
human kills another
human - you can't even use the term murder as it relates to animals, at least not the way the term is currently defined. Furthermore, you are making God in your own image here - you are confusing the creator with the created. You cannot hold God accountable to the laws of man when it is God who gave these laws to man
for man.
God see the second definition of the word murder.
Jason Proudmoore wrote:Implicator wrote: My argument has been to rebut your argument, to show you (specifically) that you have not met your burden of proof in naming God as a sadist and/or murderer. It matters not one whit that I don't prove he isn't one, what matters is that I have rebutted your every attempt to prove that he is. Until such time as you can present some evidence (other than personal speculation) that shows God kills unlawfully and/or kills just for the sake of the kill, your argument does not succeed. I think you know this, as you constantly attempt to shift the burden back to me to prove that he is not what you claim, but as you made the initial positive assertion here, the burden is all yours.
I already answered this question elsewhere - I don't sacrifice animals because God has done away with the sacrificial system because of the sacrifice of his son Jesus. And no, although killing animals in the way you have stated may be illegal (in some states, countries, etc), it is by no means
murder as murder is the taking of one human life by another human. In short, it is a category error to apply the term "murder" to an animal.
It doesn't matter what category killing an animal is in. It is for sure that killing an animal is considered lower than killing a human being. However, the meaningless killings of animal also constitute to murder, like it or not. I think it is the definition of the word that confuses you.
You are arrogant because you are implying God must tell you all of the reasons he has for doing all that he has, or else you won't believe him to be who he says he is. That is exactly what you are arrogant, Jason.
(
Again with the name calling.)
Well, God wrote the Bible (not directly but with the help of humans). In the Bible He explains His motives and objectives toward mankind. However, He doesn't explain why He demands humans to sacrifice animals in His name. Since He doesn't explain (the motive and objective) of these sacrifices, the only logical explanation is pleasure. Make a long list of possible causes, and you will see that logically it will fall into the "pleasure realm."
I
So, God is the lord of war. I thought God was the lord of peace and love. (Nevertheless, I always thought Mars was the lord of war.)
Exodus 15:3-- The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
This articulates perfectly, no allegorically, that God is a jealous entity. For those who have disproved this idea, here is physical evidence.
Deuteronomy 6:15-- (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.
Everybody has to obey religious authorities or they will most likely be put to death. No wonder why we had so much human carnage during the Dark Ages (and the abuse of power of the religious authories).
Deuteronomy 17:12-- And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
This is very self-explanatory. For those who follow God's "commandments and his statures" should deserve to die. Probably that's why lots of catholics and christians (if not all) are so afraid to question the existence of God.
Deuteronomy
28:15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:
28:16 Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field.
28:17 Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store.
28:18 Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.
28:19 Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out.
28:20 The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me
At least one very important deed that the gods of ancient Rome demanded mankind to do was to bury the dead, and according to this mythology, the gods stated that no man was above the gods. If not buried, the souls of those who were not buried would wander the earth in misery for all eternity. At least these gods were more merciful than the God of the Bible.
28:26 And thy carcase shall be meat unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and no man shall fray them away.
9:10 And the dogs shall eat Jezebel in the portion of Jezreel, and there shall be none to bury her. And he opened the door, and fled.
God is all love, all good, and not evil. Why does God send "evil" spirits to accomplish His will? Why didn't He send His angels to do it? This sounds more like Satan's doing than anything else.
Judges
9:23 Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:
This is the most unjust action done by any god. So, God killed 42 thousand Ephraimites because the word Shibboleth was mispronounced. Can anyone, anybody tell me the justice involved in this passage?
Judges
12:6 Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand.
It's a very famous passage. This passage is very interesting. Doesn't this remind you of 911 and those who keep sacrificing their lives in the name of religion?
Judges
16:27 Now the house was full of men and women; and all the lords of the Philistines were there; and there were upon the roof about three thousand men and women, that beheld while Samson made sport.
More "justice" in the name of the lord.
Chronicles
2:3 the sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and Shelah: which three were born unto him of the daughter of Shua the Canaanitess. And Er, the firstborn of Judah, was evil in the sight of the LORD; and he slew him.
Is this physically possible? Wow!!!! I guess that when it comes to God and His wars, He can do it all.
11:11 And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.
So, God threatens people in their dreams? And He granted us free will, what for? God puts the scare in the mind of people. This seems familiar.
Job
7:14 Then thou scarest me with dreams, and terrifiest me through visions:
Jeremiah
51:39 In their heat I will make their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they
may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the LORD.
51:40 I will bring them down like lambs to the slaughter, like rams with he goats.
Just cruel!!
Psalm
50:22 Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.
So, God only laughs during violent times, but He doesn't laugh in the times of peace. When God laughs, is He amused, or sadden by human suffering?
Psalm
59:8 But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.
Isn't this considered child abuse?
Proverbs
13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
How bizarre!!
Proverbs
19:18 Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.
The only way to please God is when His will is done. So, we have to do what the Bible says we should do.
Proverbs
16:7 When a man's ways please the LORD, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.
Do we have to kill children because of the "iniquity" of their fathers? Is this justice?
Isaiah
14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
How is it possible to know the authenticity of a prophet sent by God versus the authenticity of a bogus one?
Jeremiah
29:19 Because they have not hearkened to my words, saith the LORD, which I sent unto them by my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them; but ye would not hear, saith the LORD.
A God of love is capable to "bring evil upon all flesh" and terror. God is presented as evil, not as all loving.
Jeremiah
45:5 And seekest thou great things for thyself? seek them not: for, behold, I will bring evil upon all flesh, saith the LORD: but thy life will I give unto thee for a prey in all places whither thou goest
This is a good one. We know why God speaks in parables; He wants us to go to Hell.
Mark
4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
