a history of being exploited by colonialists
— baker
So which is it, a history of being exploited or there is not injustice in the world? Or do you think the exploitation is just? — Fooloso4
No, you're just measuring everything by your own human standards (instead of by God's)/quote]
That is true. I am human not a god. I do not know and cannot say what God's standard might be.
— baker
But if you're going to talk about God, you need to stick to the definitions actually provided by actual monotheistic religions — baker
True Christian faith is allowing you to choose the way on your own free-will. — SteveMinjares
Well, since they're using words, I assume they mean something by those words, and that they aren't just glossolaling or blowing hot air.Christian theologians have been arguing about the definition of God for centuries. Some think that it is a mistake to attempt to define what is beyond human comprehension, that any definition is false. — Fooloso4
No. The syllogism from which this originated was about God:The issue was whether there is injustice in the world. That question is not about religion. — Fooloso4
A just God would not allow injustice in the world
There is injustice in the world
Therefore God is not just — Fooloso4
I don't understand how someone cannot see these obvious inconsistencies. Lack of critical ability, lack of insight or simple self-deception? — Banno
The same thing happened on the Euthyphro thread. I think it has something to do with an existential vested interest. I am sure that if you are wrong you'll be able to cope, but if they are wrong ... — Fooloso4
Well, since they're using words, I assume they mean something by those words, and that they aren't just glossolaling or blowing hot air. — baker
You keep switching the goalposts, mixing two discourses. — baker
What do you know of God's justice?
— Fooloso4
Whatever can be done by syllogism. — baker
You mean like this?
A just God would not allow injustice in the world
There is injustice in the world
Therefore God is not just
— Fooloso4
The second premise is false, so the conclusion doesn't follow. — baker
Do I personally think there is injustice in the world? Of course I do. — baker
Not my problem. I only go where the syllogism takes me.Yes, they mean something by there words, but that does not mean that there must be some actual object that corresponds to the words. — Fooloso4
No, you keep mixing discourses, mixing the argument prodived by religion with the one provided by you.You've lost track of the argument:
God is defined as just to begin with. I'm not going to argue with definitions, for crying out loud.First, whether or not the second premise is true or false it is a syllogism, and thus demonstrates that God's justice cannot be concluded syllogistically.
And what did I say after that? I sed:Second, if the second premise is false then you are denying that there is injustice in the world. Now, you say:
Do I personally think there is injustice in the world? Of course I do.
— baker
So, the second premise is not false after all.
Do monotheists think there is injustice in the world? They can't, unless they run into some inconsistency with their definition of "God", or it turns out they worship a demigod. — baker
What do you know of God's justice? — Fooloso4
Athiest have been good to me and religious people too, l have also seen a fair amount of assholes from both sides likewise.
Let's stop debating generalizing atheists and religious people. — Wittgenstein
Sure.But instead you attempt to demonstrate that it is something you know syllogistically. And so, it becomes something to be examined by reason not religion, — Fooloso4
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.