Good logic or bad logic in this post? Help with logical fallacies.

LovE-RicH
LovE-RicH's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Good logic or bad logic in this post? Help with logical fallacies.

I'm having a debate with a theist friend from another forum. I asked him how someone, who is now in the highest place in Heaven ruling over the Heavens and the Earth, can be called a "victim" (I even said I wouldn't mind being tortured and dead for a few days if I knew I was going to the best place ever for eternity after that)...

I also asked if God is all-powerful, why did he have to do the whole procedure - "to save humans from Himself, He used Himself to impregnate Mary so she can give birth to Himself. When He was baptised, He used Himself to point out Himself as His beloved son. In the end, He sacrifised Himself to Himself so He can save humans from Himself", if he could've produced the exact same effect on people by snapping his fingers (if he's all-powerful, he should be able to do that, right?).

He also said "My God is no skydaddy, some celestial Santa Claus. My God is a scary God, mighty and terrifying, but also good. And there's no kidding with him". So I said that definition describes a TYRANT better than a benevolent God.

I also accused him of having poor logical skills, so when he responded with this post, he also asked if he's being logical (in a post before he said that his posts are logical, because God is logical - that has to bring a smile to anyone's faceSmiling). - Here is where you come in. I want you to expose his "logic" in this post below. To me his logic seems as one of a 14 year old and I already started writing a reply to him, but I saw some of you guys know all logical fallacies by name, that would help me to illustrate some things to him better. THANKS!

PS: This is a translation, so expect some linguistic mistakes:

Quote:

"A" cannot be "notA" at the same time in the same context.

So, a car cannot be an ameba at the same time in the same context, otherwise our communication would have no meaning.

What does that have to do with God? You said that if he's all-powerful, or if he's all-loving, he could (or would have to) simply snap his fingers and everyone would be forgiven. Of course those things don't happen anywhere. And when they do happen, we get angry at the injustice. Because of that, for God to forgive everyone, he wouldn't be just - if he didn't punish someone.

That's the catch. Because God is not just all-loving, but also perfect justice, He forgave us, but someone had to pay instead of us. Maybe this helps as an illustration... One day, during play and running around the house your kid runs into a table and brakes a vase. Of course you'll forgive him, right? But someone still has to pay for the vase.

Beacuse God is perfect love and perfect justice, he couldn't "simply" forgive everyone, but someone had to pay for the "damage". The Bible says that the "punishment for sin is death" (Rom 6,23), and that "everyone sinned" (Rom 3,23) - by that, we all deserve death.

That's why God, in his love, to spare us, sent his Son to die instead of us, to take the punishment for us. That's what Rom 5,7,8 says:

Quote:
Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.


Why did God have to take the long way and sacrifice his Son etc., instead of simply snapping his fingers and making everything right? That's an interesting question. God didn't want to create robots, but creatures with free will. Even though he knew that it will make many reject him, he decided to do that. Why? Well, imagine this situation: you meet a great girl and call her over to watch a movie. She has no idea, that the movie is actually made to send subconcious message that say "Your friend is great. He's the best. You love him with all your heart. You can't wait to become his wife". And at the end she throws herself in your arms and says: "I love you with all my heart. When will we get married?"

I know there are many sick people who would love to have such a video, but I believe that it would leave them empty at the end, because the women wouldn't really love them, they would be manipulated to love them! That's why God didn't want to create robots, but people who will freely love him.

This freedom lead to problems, because people decided to do evil and reject God (Rom 1,18 and forward), so God had to intervene to save them. He knew from the beginning that people would reject him, yet he didn't leave them, but gave his only Son to take the punishment for them.
That's what says John 3,16:

Quote:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life


Let's go back to the beginning. Because God is perfect love and perfect justice, he couldn't "simply" forgive people, someone had to "pay" for it. Not to punish the people, He took ALL the sins of the world (if someone thinks that's easy as LovE-RicH thinks, and going to hell after that, than we can really kiss logic goodbye). Because God is also omniscient, he knew that if he created humans with free will, they will sin, so he knew that he will have to save them.

But, to show you that our God is not a tyrant, He doesn't force anyone to believe in Him. He gives us the choice. That eternal life and forgivness he gives as a GIFT, that's not something you can earn (Ephesians 2,8-9).
If you don't believe, you earn what you deserve, he didn't make you do it.

Maybe that doesn't mean anything to you, and I know you don't want to believe it, but no matter if you believe it or not, that's the truth. If it's not, then neither is sin, nor justice, nor love, but they are just concepts thought of by man and which don't mean anything.

If you don't agree with that, then it's a matter of your lack of philosophy.

Oh yes, tell me above all, are any of my answers I offered logical (you don't have to believe in them, just tell me if they're logical). Thanks.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
quick

quick comment:

 

Quote:
m. But, to show you that our God is not a tyrant, He doesn't force anyone to believe in Him. He gives us the choice.

 

This is simply idiotic. Belief isn't a choice. You can't believe that you didn't just walk into a wall, if you just walked into a wall.

To have an actual choice, you have to know that the options actually exist. To 'choose' to follow god requires that you believe one exists.

The idea that a god couldn't make himself known without compelling belief implies a limit in 'god', which of course is contradictory to omnipotence. It also ignores the biblical claim that 'the devil' does not follow god.

PS Theists will typically resopnd by saying the limit is in people, and not 'god', but this just ignores that this omnipotent god would be responsible for the limit in the first place!

Theistic claims make no sense whatsoever. 

 

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


el.kundo
Posts: 31
Joined: 2007-08-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:But, to show you

Quote:

But, to show you that our God is not a tyrant, He doesn't force anyone to believe in Him. He gives us the choice. That eternal life and forgivness he gives as a GIFT, that's not something you can earn (Ephesians 2,8-9).

 

Doesn't force? Doesn't force? "believe in me or burn in hell forever" what a great choice to make

"And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts."
Billy Joel, 1993

And God spoke: You can stand under my umberella -ella -ella -eh -eh -eh ...


LovE-RicH
LovE-RicH's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the comment,

Thanks for the comment, todangst.

El.kundo: Yea, I know.Laughing out loud Isn't that like a father pointing a gun against his son's head and saying "Love me and I'll buy you a new car, otherwise I'll blow your brains out". Great options to give, shows that the father really loves his son... or doesn't it?Smiling


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
There is a fallacy of false

There is a fallacy of false analogy between punishment and eternal vengeance and it is hidden underneath a fallacy of equivocation between human-justice and god-justice, if either can be said to exist.

Punishment is intended to decrease the frequency of the behavior that led to the punishment. In other words, punishment is intended to be corrective. Then there's the death penalty which is not intended to be corrective but is intended to protect other members of society by removing "dangerous elements." (Death in my use means the annihilation of consciousness.) Eternal vengeance, however, is not like that. It's not intended to decrease the frequency of the behavior that led to the eternal vengeance. Eternal vengeance, by definition, never allows the person who receives it the chance to exhibit corrected behavior. (When it would it happen, after eternity?) It's not corrective. It's also unlike the death penalty. Eternal vengeance may keep "dangerous elements" out of society like the death penalty but it doesn't do so any more effectively, it only increases the amount of pain indefinitely without bound. Eternal torment is not justice, it's a bloodthirsty tyranny.

The ideas are not analogous. The poster has tried to bury that false analogy by equivocating two diametrically-opposite ideas of justice using just one word, "justice." A similar argument would be, "My theory is that it rained yesterday because my sidewalk is wet and that should be taught alongside the theory of evolution in public school science classrooms." Obviously, "theory" means two different things in that argument, just as "justice" means two different things in the original argument. The fallacious equivocation of the two notions of justice helps shield the fallacious analogy. That shield isn't very strong though.

I would also recommend the person to reconsider his or her notions of justice. I cannot think of any mortal that could have conceivably caused infinite damage or pain that would warrant an infinite punishment. Consider Hitler, for example. He was a horrible man that did many horrible things. If God is omniscient, he would be able to categorize pain in such a way that he could quantify it. In other words, he would be able to assign numbers to it. For example: a pinch is 0.1 pain points, soft punch is 0.3 pain points, and so on. God, being omniscient, would also know how many people had experienced pain due to Hitler. God, being omniscient, would be able to create an equation that determines the amount of pain caused: pain = average pain points per person * amount of people. Hitler's pain equation would come out to a staggeringly high number, certainly, but it would not be an infinite number. If God inflicted infinite punishment on Hitler, God's own pain equation would be: pain = infinity pain points * one person = infinite pain. How does finite pain warrant a return of infinite pain? By what meaning of the word would such be called Justice? It's not Justice. If God is omnibenevolent then God would exhibit principles of justice, not injustice, so "omnibenevolence" and "affliction of infinite pain as punishment for finite pain" are contradictory notions because the second implies a gratuitous pleasure in increasing the amount of pain in reality, which is contradictory to omnibenevolence.

I would also recommend the person to reconsider his or her interpretation of the Bible. I'll simply use an excellent poem by Gary Amirault, a Christian, about "Just What the Hell is Hell?" to make my argument.

Just What the Hell is "Hell"?

by Gary Amirault

There once was a time, 'twas plain to see
Just what the hell, Hell was meant to be.
But then theologians got into the act
And Hell no longer was a simple fact.

Hell formerly was a dark hidden space
Imperceivable, covered, a true hiding place.
It could be a place, as crude as a shed
Or could be a helmet, to cover your head.

Smoochers and kissers oft needed a hell
For hidden in darkness, no one could tell.
Hall, hole, and hull come from the same root
Along with a heel covered with a boot.

"Too simple!" So theologians once said
And now from their scheming, confusion has spread.
They hired the Dantes and Michaelangelos
To paint pretty pictures of many great woes

Fire and torment, with much superstition
Was added to pagan mythology and fiction.
The Goddess of Hel from Norse mythology
Became Satan, hero of most eschatology.

Jesus the Savior, delivered mankind
He came not for few, but for ALL men to find.
His portion became a rather small lot
While most of mankind, in Hell-fire would rot.

The way to this Hell became broad and wide
The gift of God's grace was at its low tide.
Clothes, creeds and days, the right denomination
Became the sole means, the way to salvation.

Gehenna, Hades, Tartaroo, and Sheol
All became places that could swallow your soul.
Preachers now had us, right where they wanted
"Obey or to Hell with you" they often taunted.

Countless denominations of devilish preachers
Forsook the Gift and became Satan's teachers.
Thousands of ways of deliverance from "Hell"
In common they all have a self-righteous smell.

"Finished" He cried, "I will draw all mankind"
The Father's desire, "all saved" in His mind.
The task He was given, He accomplished it all
And as His witness, He commissioned St. Paul.

Paul's Gospel was different, it's easy to tell
Because never once did he use the word "hell."
So "hell" is no more, it's becoming a bore
It's taking its place along with common folklore.

Punish he will, for our Father is just
In age-long correction, you surely can trust.
On vindictive torment our Father's not bent
Mercy will, yes! triumph over judgment.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


Shadrach
Shadrach's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-09-15
User is offlineOffline
"Very rarely will anyone

"Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

people die for all sorts of reasons, protecting loved ones or innocent people, for their country, depression, accidents, religious reasons, the list goes on and on.

 


Peeling
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-09-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote: "A" cannot be


Quote:
"A" cannot be "notA" at the same time in the same context.

So, a car cannot be an ameba at the same time in the same context, otherwise our communication would have no meaning.

A safer logical statement would be to say that a car cannot also not be a car at the same time in the same context.

Quote:
What does that have to do with God? You said that if he's all-powerful, or if he's all-loving, he could (or would have to) simply snap his fingers and everyone would be forgiven. Of course those things don't happen anywhere. And when they do happen, we get angry at the injustice.

First significant point: If your happiness depends upon the knowledge that someone else is enduring eternal torment, then you are being distinctly un-christian. Therefore, a god who acts to appease those who would be upset by another's lack of suffering is also un-christian. Our first logical contradiction.

Second significant point: he's talking about humans getting angry at what they perceive as failures of human justice. God cannot be bound by our expectations or definitions of justice. If he wanted to, he could define justice as being a free pass no matter what, and we would just have to play along.

Quote:
Because of that, for God to forgive everyone, he wouldn't be just - if he didn't punish someone.

Again, that would be according to our definition of justice, by which god could not be bound.

So far, there is a logical fallacy in the projection of human judgement upon god. Of course, god might believe in the same kind of justice we do, so although you can't use that possibility to shore up a logical proof, there's no second contradiction yet.

Quote:
That's the catch. Because God is not just all-loving, but also perfect justice, He forgave us, but someone had to pay instead of us. Maybe this helps as an illustration... One day, during play and running around the house your kid runs into a table and brakes a vase. Of course you'll forgive him, right? But someone still has to pay for the vase.

Now we do have a second logical contradiction. Remember that we've already assigned human-like understanding of justice to god in order to explain his actions. Now examine the two examples of Jesus and the vase-breaking boy. To make the vase-breaking a true analogy, we must modify and extend it:

One day, during play and running around the house you child runs into a table and breaks a vase. You want to forgive him, but believe that someone must be punished for breaking the vase. So you find your wife and make another baby together. A few years later, you haul off and punch the younger child in the face, smashing his nose up into his brain and killing him, as punishment for the older child breaking the vase.

Is that recognisable as human-like justice? Or would you be locked up for the rest of your life and called a monster?

Herein lies the second logical contradiction: you cannot say that god's status as a paragon of humanitarian justice excuses his monstrously inhumane and unjust acts.

Conversely, if you say that god's justice, however inhumane it seems, is perfect by definition, (making it ok for him to smash the life out of an innocent child because he's decided someone needs to be punished and he likes his naughty child better), then you cannot rationalise his acts by saying he is bound by human-like notions of justice.

 


DrTerwilliker
DrTerwilliker's picture
Posts: 151
Joined: 2007-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Your theist friend's

Your theist friend's stupidity makes me want to shoot myself in the face.

Thanks a lot!

 

*grumbles inaudibly*