The Problem Of Good

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have no idea what you are talking about, and to be honest, neither do you.

unfortunate... deconstructionism and the symbolic nature of language aren't really tough subjects...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What about the rest of what I said? You simply ignore the real definition for your own inadequate definition.

If atheism is the absence of a belief in a god, the theism is the presents of a belief in a god.

but, your definitions are irrelevant to the topic, much as mine are

so, get over yourself and participate in the topic at hand, or make a thread that is called "this is how I define religious terms" and see how many people are really interested in nit-picking your semantics

Originally posted by inimalist
unfortunate... deconstructionism and the symbolic nature of language aren't really tough subjects...

but, your definitions are irrelevant to the topic, much as mine are

so, get over yourself and participate in the topic at hand, or make a thread that is called "this is how I define religious terms" and see how many people are [b]really interested in nit-picking your semantics [/B]

So, you consider debunking the assertion made by the thread to not be part of the topic? In other words, we are not allowed to disagree with the assumption made at the beginning?

you are allowed to do whatever you want

its childish to persist in demanding that people accept your terms for the discussion before it is allowed to go forward. Everyone accepted your "I am a theist and I believe this is a false problem" statement, yet to you, it was important that all theism be discussed in relation to the "one truth" you have regarding its definition. Hell, the OP even clarified to you how theism is being used in the thread.

Save everyone agreeing with you, what else could you want from this topic? It is irrelevant to you, you expressed that

Originally posted by inimalist
you are allowed to do whatever you want

its childish to persist in demanding that people accept your terms for the discussion before it is allowed to go forward. Everyone accepted your "I am a theist and I believe this is a false problem" statement, yet to you, it was important that all theism be discussed in relation to the "one truth" you have regarding its definition. Hell, the OP even clarified to you how theism is being used in the thread.

Save everyone agreeing with you, what else could you want from this topic? It is irrelevant to you, you expressed that

I am only responding to people who find it necessary to insult me. This need to insult shows a weak spot. In a debate, you always go for the weak spots.

I am being the antagonist. Why can't anyone show me how the assertion of this thread is a real problem. The constant attacks on myself, just confirms that I am right.

you do have a point

people seem to be reacting to the way you go about debating things, rather than engaging you

it must be a flaw in everyone else

(you do have a point though, sorry, you managed to get a bit under my skin here, lol)

Originally posted by inimalist
you do have a point

people seem to be reacting to the way you go about debating things, rather than engaging you

it must be a flaw in everyone else

(you do have a point though, sorry, you managed to get a bit under my skin here, lol)

I'm not perfect, but I'm also not talking about you primarily. Read back, and you will see that this thread was just going to turn into a "lets beat on the theists' thread. What a waste of time. I set out to try and make it more interesting, if not for you, at least for me.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So imagine God makes a statement that something is good or should be done. Their are two possibilities: either the statement is inherently true or it is subjective.

In either case it seems to cause a problem for theism.

If it an intrinsic good then we do not need God because the thing/idea being good in independent of God.
If is is not an intrinsic good then God's position in no more valid than mine or yours and thus we do not need God anymore than any other philosopher.

Thoughts? Third options?

For Mormons, the second option is sort of the answer. We believe that there are eternal laws that surpass even God. God is on a level of famliarity with these laws that is so close, that they are really His own personal beliefs. Inside of his creations/relm/etc. these laws are eternal, correct, absolute, etc. There is the possibility of outside this plane and Mormons speculate that God could have peers with their own multiverse to take care of.

Bardock and I talked about this: moral absolutism.

So, I guess this is a 3rd option: the rabbit hole is deeper than we realize.

Originally posted by dadudemon
We believe that there are eternal laws that surpass even God.

...Mormons speculate that God could have peers with their own multiverse to take care of.

Originally posted by Mindship
If He has peers, then is He truly 'God'? Or just a multiverse deity?

Deconstructionism. 😠

😆 😆 Sorry, but I couldn't resist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Deconstructionism. 😠

😆 😆 Sorry, but I couldn't resist.

Originally posted by Mindship
It just seemed an odd statement to me. I've heard of this before, I find it fascinating it's within a JudeoChristian context, and I've always wondered why it stops short (or so it seems).

I know what you mean. It's almost like it was all made up by humans. 😉

Originally posted by dadudemon
For Mormons, the second option is sort of the answer. We believe that there are eternal laws that surpass even God. God is on a level of famliarity with these laws that is so close, that they are really His own personal beliefs. Inside of his creations/relm/etc. these laws are eternal, correct, absolute, etc. There is the possibility of outside this plane and Mormons speculate that God could have peers with their own multiverse to take care of.

Bardock and I talked about this: moral absolutism.

So, I guess this is a 3rd option: the rabbit hole is deeper than we realize.

If it's deeper than we realize, then how do we realize it? Really, how can we even speculate on this? Seems like this is destined to remain unsubstantiated.

Seems like this is destined to remain unsubstantiated.

You're going to use this as a criticism of a particular religious belief?

Really?

Why not, for example, on any other faith?

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
You're going to use this as a criticism of a particular religious belief?

Really?

Why not, for example, on any other faith?

Originally posted by dadudemon
For Mormons, the second option is sort of the answer. We believe that there are eternal laws that surpass even God. God is on a level of famliarity with these laws that is so close, that they are really His own personal beliefs. Inside of his creations/relm/etc. these laws are eternal, correct, absolute, etc. There is the possibility of outside this plane and Mormons speculate that God could have peers with their own multiverse to take care of.

That seems to knock God off his pedestal quite a bit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, I guess this is a 3rd option: the rabbit hole is deeper than we realize.

How do we realize something we don't realize?

huh. Digi always seems so civil as to border on apologetic. That is, his responses to [the one with plus size font, whose name escapes me] are always so unervingly civil and yet effective that I got the impression that Digi qualified for the Gerald award. (This is unquestionably a good thing.)

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
You're going to use this as a criticism of a particular religious belief?

Really?

Why not, for example, on any other faith?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Oh, he certainly has. Read other threads in the forum.

That.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
huh. Digi always seems so civil as to border on apologetic. That is, his responses to [the one with plus size font, whose name escapes me] are always so unervingly civil and yet effective that I got the impression that Digi qualified for the Gerald award. (This is unquestionably a good thing.)

lol, thanks? I'm getting all sorts of ambiguous compliments in this forum today.

As for the civil yet affective comment (which I do take as an excellent compliment), I generally try to model what I have to preach to an unfortunate number of KMC members each day. That, and it just doesn't pay to get upset with ushome (who I believe is the large-fonted poster you referred to). As long as you're going to try to erode a brick wall, you might as well hump it gently instead of banging your head against it.

...or something.

😮

crackers

Originally posted by Digi
That.

lol, thanks? I'm getting all sorts of ambiguous compliments in this forum today.

As for the civil yet affective comment (which I do take as an excellent compliment), I generally try to model what I have to preach to an unfortunate number of KMC members each day. That, and it just doesn't pay to get upset with ushome (who I believe is the large-fonted poster you referred to). As long as you're going to try to erode a brick wall, you might as well hump it gently instead of banging your head against it.

...or something.

😮

crackers

Originally posted by HueyFreeman
I can't do that effectively. If I approach aggressively I come off as on the prowl and condescending which in turn causes them to shut me out. If I approach with "kid gloves" they assume I'm wrong anyway. I tend to just say nothing and keep everyone happy.

Correct humping technique is an acquired skill.

fdog

It's a fine line, and I do occasionally let myself be a bit more acerbic with posters with whom I have quite a history, very little of it agreeable. And though it may be unfortunate, my position as a global mod may also have something to do with it. There's undoubtedly a difference in the way I'm treated and/or listened to as a result of it. And while the position occasionally brings more criticism and dismissal, usually it's the opposite.

Originally posted by Lucius
Many theists of the three Abrahamic faiths make the claim that certain actions are intrinsically good because God has declared them to be good through scripture or revelation.

That is where the dilemma comes into play.

Like charity. I don't think that is a dilemma.