WOTM: If God Is God, Part 1
This is an interesting series. There's a part two coming in a moment, and a part three coming next month. It's truly amazing to me what believers will agree to attempting to defend their "objective" morality.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!!! Brian
Comments (5)
This is not limited to religious arguments. This kind of intellectually dishonest argument is endemic in public discourse for at least the last 40 years that I have been watching/participating in such discussions. You cannot lose an argument that starts with "if/what if." How is that even remotely possible? Any and all reality-based objections are easy for the liar to brush aside given that the argument takes place in the alternate reality of the liar's making. It's like trying to argue with an episode of "The Outer Limits." (Remember the opening to the original: "we control your T.V. set, we control the horizontal, we control the vertical, we control everything you see and hear..."). Any and all evidence becomes meaningless as the liar can fabricate more elements in their fantasy construct to counter any and all real world information. Think back on the arguments you have had with trolls (IRL or online) and see if they didn't rely on this? (Or the brother of all dishonest arguments: how can you be sure is isn't X?). The only possible counter to this I have found is what you did: point out that this is a fantasy alternate reality and we might as well argue about who would win a fight to the death: leprechauns or unicors? (My money's on the unicorns, they're mean critters. And how can you know they're not?! So there!)
I keep asking what this morality is. What is Christian ethics? (There are college courses on this topic, but ordinary Christians, the real ones, don't know anything about the subject.) The best they can come up with is the Golden Rule.
When people focus more on the philosophy — or philosophical underpinnings of questions like this, they often neglect the practical questions and effects. Your point is excellent evidence of that phenomena. And in fact, that’s what I try to do when people talk like this — I make them confront their own thinking on a practical level. Another great point! Thanks for taking the time.
That's a hell (to use his theology) of a big "IF." We might as well pose something like: "If Chac is Tláloc…"; "if Ehécatl is Kulkulkán…"; "if Jupiter is Zeus…".
Right? How do you base everything on unknowable "ifs" and then think you have something "objective"? These people are nuckin' futs!