swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I believe God is all good because He says so and if He is lying about that, then it completely destroys the entire foundation of my faith. There are nuances in faith that can be considered errors or even adiaphora, but that is not one.

---

Amen. At some point it has to become a matter of faith and belief. And you have to decide that on your own.

Best decision I ever made.

It isn't the base axiom. That's the point. The false premise is that you have to live in a formal system.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I believe God is all good because He says so and if He is lying about that, then it completely destroys the entire foundation of my faith. There are nuances in faith that can be considered errors or even adiaphora, but that is not one.

---

So does everyone else about most gods ever worshipped. That's kinda the point.

Shouldn't a belief that god is good put up a huge red flag when confronted with something like ETC hell or variously morally questionable actions or commands in the holy books? But when you take the belief as presuppositional about a particular god you then follow the path of believing even something like ETC hell is "good".

That's not to say the Bible explicitly teaches that. The OT most certainly doesn't and the NT say extremely little about the afterlife.

Zobel said:

---

It isn't the base axiom. That's the point. The false premise is that you have to live in a formal system.

---

The god/theology is fundamentally illogical therefore apparent contradictions are not of concern isn't very persuasive.

Best I can tell logic is a pretty darn good tool. I don't see a great reason to discard it rather than a contradiction.

Continue to seek God and you will find Him. And He is the ultimate good.

Aggrad08 said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I believe God is all good because He says so and if He is lying about that, then it completely destroys the entire foundation of my faith. There are nuances in faith that can be considered errors or even adiaphora, but that is not one.

---

So does everyone else about most gods ever worshipped. That's kinda the point.

Shouldn't a belief that god is good put up a huge red flag when confronted with something like ETC hell or variously morally questionable actions or commands in the holy books? But when you take the belief as presuppositional about a particular god you then follow the path of believing even something like ETC hell is "good".

That's not to say the Bible explicitly teaches that. The OT most certainly doesn't and the NT say extremely little about the afterlife.

---

That's not historically accurate at all...especially in any polytheistic religion.

I wholly reject the argument that if you value something more than religious faith, dogma or presupposition it's "worship". This isn't about Gödel either that's a red herring.

Christians in particular are quick to throw around the assertion of "worshipping" science or logic or evidence or what have you. With little grounds or appreciation for definitions.

The argument that apparent contradictions are not of concern or don't provide an actual satisfactory answer is fundamentally uncompelling. So much so that I think a large number of believers would fundamentally reject it. They believe their god, their faith is logical. Perfectly sound and complete reasoning. They seek logical arguments and solutions to satisfy their doubts and unbelief. The value of logic is too basic to discard so willfully.

Even within the Christian umbrella you have Catholics that seem to embrace logic and reason as being fundamental and approach their faith accordingly. There are problems with this approach but it's not central to my point. Do Catholics worship logic?

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I believe God is all good because He says so and if He is lying about that, then it completely destroys the entire foundation of my faith. There are nuances in faith that can be considered errors or even adiaphora, but that is not one.

---

So does everyone else about most gods ever worshipped. That's kinda the point.

Shouldn't a belief that god is good put up a huge red flag when confronted with something like ETC hell or variously morally questionable actions or commands in the holy books? But when you take the belief as presuppositional about a particular god you then follow the path of believing even something like ETC hell is "good".

That's not to say the Bible explicitly teaches that. The OT most certainly doesn't and the NT say extremely little about the afterlife.

---

That's not historically accurate at all...especially in any polytheistic religion.

---

Polytheism was often about fields of influence with gods of general attributes. Some were positive some were negative. There weren't the absolutes of monotheism. The point is the belief of good isn't remotely unique. Which leads to the second point in my statement all the same right?

I'm not forcing a binary anymore in this situation than any other application of logic to our universe.

Ok? That doesn't solve the problem.

It kinda does as far as humans are capable. Between you and I we have two fundamental assertions, neither of which can be demonstrated absolutely or at least yet haven't been.

They are:
The god of your religion is by nature perfectly good.

The law of non contradiction.

I find the latter superior and see no reason to discard it for the former.

Never made the first assertion. Go back and reread. Youre starting with a bad premise, and repeating it doesn't fix it.

Though it does seem perhaps you arent familiar with what I'm talking about with a formal system. Are you?

Go back and address the previous post then about the epistemological problem. Because you do make that error or you decide based on experience.

No it doesn't.

AGC said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I believe God is all good because He says so and if He is lying about that, then it completely destroys the entire foundation of my faith. There are nuances in faith that can be considered errors or even adiaphora, but that is not one.

---

So does everyone else about most gods ever worshipped. That's kinda the point.

Shouldn't a belief that god is good put up a huge red flag when confronted with something like ETC hell or variously morally questionable actions or commands in the holy books? But when you take the belief as presuppositional about a particular god you then follow the path of believing even something like ETC hell is "good".

That's not to say the Bible explicitly teaches that. The OT most certainly doesn't and the NT say extremely little about the afterlife.

---

That's not historically accurate at all...especially in any polytheistic religion.

---

Polytheism was often about fields of influence with gods of general attributes. Some were positive some were negative. There weren't the absolutes of monotheism. The point is the belief of good isn't remotely unique. Which leads to the second point in my statement all the same right?

---

No, I think she still has you. Even 'monotheistic' systems don't all claim God is good. But again, you've introduced another axiom: any commonality among beliefs negates claims of truth or goodness, yes? Prove that one please.

---

That's not the argument. Even a little. The argument is you must use some outside method of verification for the claim "god is good." It's not a unique claim. The claim in itself can certainly be measured against the actions of various gods

Zobel said:

---

No it doesn't.

---

Feel free to make any argument to that effect at your leisure. In the meantime I'll not take your word for it.

Aggrad08 said:

---

AGC said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I believe God is all good because He says so and if He is lying about that, then it completely destroys the entire foundation of my faith. There are nuances in faith that can be considered errors or even adiaphora, but that is not one.

---

So does everyone else about most gods ever worshipped. That's kinda the point.

Shouldn't a belief that god is good put up a huge red flag when confronted with something like ETC hell or variously morally questionable actions or commands in the holy books? But when you take the belief as presuppositional about a particular god you then follow the path of believing even something like ETC hell is "good".

That's not to say the Bible explicitly teaches that. The OT most certainly doesn't and the NT say extremely little about the afterlife.

---

That's not historically accurate at all...especially in any polytheistic religion.

---

Polytheism was often about fields of influence with gods of general attributes. Some were positive some were negative. There weren't the absolutes of monotheism. The point is the belief of good isn't remotely unique. Which leads to the second point in my statement all the same right?

---

No, I think she still has you. Even 'monotheistic' systems don't all claim God is good. But again, you've introduced another axiom: any commonality among beliefs negates claims of truth or goodness, yes? Prove that one please.

---

That's not the argument. Even a little. The argument is you must use some outside method of verification for the claim "god is good." It's not a unique claim. The claim in itself can certainly be measured against the actions of various gods

---

The argument is true. Uniqueness is irrelevant unless you accept the axiom that I put forth. You can't measure the claim at all unless you propose you, yourself, possess all the attributes and mode of existence of said God. Without it, how could you possibly know? You're finite and limited and to evaluate that which is not from your own perspective is hubris indeed.

lol no, that isn't how this works. i introduced the objection to the premise, and rather than even once addressing the objection you just appeal to hypothetical crowds and then ask again about logic with the same premise.

you can try to handwave away Gödel all you want, but in the end you've left this completely alone. i'm pretty sure you can't answer it, which is why you're not trying.

to reiterate:

Quote:

---

If morality is treated as a formal system, there will be truths about "good" that can't be derived from any set of axioms, divine or otherwise. A lack of formality implies that morality / reality inherently resists complete axiomatization, making your demand for a definitive standard a waste of time.

---

Your objection to the premise of not using logic was noted and found uncompelling . You offer no superior substitute to logic.

And you still haven't got past euthyphro. How do you know gods nature is good?

AGC said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

AGC said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I believe God is all good because He says so and if He is lying about that, then it completely destroys the entire foundation of my faith. There are nuances in faith that can be considered errors or even adiaphora, but that is not one.

---

So does everyone else about most gods ever worshipped. That's kinda the point.

Shouldn't a belief that god is good put up a huge red flag when confronted with something like ETC hell or variously morally questionable actions or commands in the holy books? But when you take the belief as presuppositional about a particular god you then follow the path of believing even something like ETC hell is "good".

That's not to say the Bible explicitly teaches that. The OT most certainly doesn't and the NT say extremely little about the afterlife.

---

That's not historically accurate at all...especially in any polytheistic religion.

---

Polytheism was often about fields of influence with gods of general attributes. Some were positive some were negative. There weren't the absolutes of monotheism. The point is the belief of good isn't remotely unique. Which leads to the second point in my statement all the same right?

---

No, I think she still has you. Even 'monotheistic' systems don't all claim God is good. But again, you've introduced another axiom: any commonality among beliefs negates claims of truth or goodness, yes? Prove that one please.

---

That's not the argument. Even a little. The argument is you must use some outside method of verification for the claim "god is good." It's not a unique claim. The claim in itself can certainly be measured against the actions of various gods

---

The argument is true. Uniqueness is irrelevant unless you accept the axiom that I put forth. You can't measure the claim at all unless you propose you, yourself, possess all the attributes and mode of existence of said God. Without it, how could you possibly know? You're finite and limited and to evaluate that which is not from your own perspective is hubris indeed.

---

Uniqueness isn't irrelevant while rejecting your axiom. That isn't remotely the case.

The last part of that paragraph can be used to just not look critically for any given religion. Following that train of thought you end up believing whatever your parents did.

I'll accept your complete refusal to answer as a white flag

Have a good weekend!

CHRIST IS RISEN!!

Zobel said:

---

I'll accept your complete refusal to answer as a white flag

Have a good weekend!

CHRIST IS RISEN!!

---

He is risen indeed!

Aggrad08 said:

---

AGC said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

AGC said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I believe God is all good because He says so and if He is lying about that, then it completely destroys the entire foundation of my faith. There are nuances in faith that can be considered errors or even adiaphora, but that is not one.

---

So does everyone else about most gods ever worshipped. That's kinda the point.

Shouldn't a belief that god is good put up a huge red flag when confronted with something like ETC hell or variously morally questionable actions or commands in the holy books? But when you take the belief as presuppositional about a particular god you then follow the path of believing even something like ETC hell is "good".

That's not to say the Bible explicitly teaches that. The OT most certainly doesn't and the NT say extremely little about the afterlife.

---

That's not historically accurate at all...especially in any polytheistic religion.

---

Polytheism was often about fields of influence with gods of general attributes. Some were positive some were negative. There weren't the absolutes of monotheism. The point is the belief of good isn't remotely unique. Which leads to the second point in my statement all the same right?

---

No, I think she still has you. Even 'monotheistic' systems don't all claim God is good. But again, you've introduced another axiom: any commonality among beliefs negates claims of truth or goodness, yes? Prove that one please.

---

That's not the argument. Even a little. The argument is you must use some outside method of verification for the claim "god is good." It's not a unique claim. The claim in itself can certainly be measured against the actions of various gods

---

The argument is true. Uniqueness is irrelevant unless you accept the axiom that I put forth. You can't measure the claim at all unless you propose you, yourself, possess all the attributes and mode of existence of said God. Without it, how could you possibly know? You're finite and limited and to evaluate that which is not from your own perspective is hubris indeed.

---

Uniqueness isn't irrelevant while rejecting your axiom. That isn't remotely the case.

The last part of that paragraph can be used to just not look critically for any given religion. Following that train of thought you end up believing whatever your parents did.

---

Uniqueness proves nothing; there can be a God from whom all other stories are derivatives. Nothing is invalidated, it is simply harder to evaluate for you.

The last part of the paragraph is only a problem for you. Since you seek to measure things by their creation, it follows that it's problematic.

The rest of us reject your assumptions though, and many of us are no longer in the religions of our parents, so clearly your logic is deficient.

AGC said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

AGC said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

AGC said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I believe God is all good because He says so and if He is lying about that, then it completely destroys the entire foundation of my faith. There are nuances in faith that can be considered errors or even adiaphora, but that is not one.

---

So does everyone else about most gods ever worshipped. That's kinda the point.

Shouldn't a belief that god is good put up a huge red flag when confronted with something like ETC hell or variously morally questionable actions or commands in the holy books? But when you take the belief as presuppositional about a particular god you then follow the path of believing even something like ETC hell is "good".

That's not to say the Bible explicitly teaches that. The OT most certainly doesn't and the NT say extremely little about the afterlife.

---

That's not historically accurate at all...especially in any polytheistic religion.

---

Polytheism was often about fields of influence with gods of general attributes. Some were positive some were negative. There weren't the absolutes of monotheism. The point is the belief of good isn't remotely unique. Which leads to the second point in my statement all the same right?

---

No, I think she still has you. Even 'monotheistic' systems don't all claim God is good. But again, you've introduced another axiom: any commonality among beliefs negates claims of truth or goodness, yes? Prove that one please.

---

That's not the argument. Even a little. The argument is you must use some outside method of verification for the claim "god is good." It's not a unique claim. The claim in itself can certainly be measured against the actions of various gods

---

The argument is true. Uniqueness is irrelevant unless you accept the axiom that I put forth. You can't measure the claim at all unless you propose you, yourself, possess all the attributes and mode of existence of said God. Without it, how could you possibly know? You're finite and limited and to evaluate that which is not from your own perspective is hubris indeed.

---

Uniqueness isn't irrelevant while rejecting your axiom. That isn't remotely the case.

The last part of that paragraph can be used to just not look critically for any given religion. Following that train of thought you end up believing whatever your parents did.

---

Uniqueness proves nothing; there can be a God from whom all other stories are derivatives. Nothing is invalidated, it is simply harder to evaluate for you.

The last part of the paragraph is only a problem for you. Since you seek to measure things by their creation, it follows that it's problematic.

The rest of us reject your assumptions though, and many of us are no longer in the religions of our parents, so clearly your logic is deficient.

---

The evidence certainly doesn't seem to point to a single god from which all are derivatives. Even if it did you wouldn't know which is the original and which isn't without some outside criteria. The second you start measuring outside of the dogmatic claims of a religion then you are denying your previous paragraph about being unfit to judge.

The logic isn't deficient your premise is. You violate your premise and do judge religious claims and sometimes become a different religion than your parents. How is that not obvious? My point was your assertion provides no means to judge a religion.

This is called projecting.

Feel free to make an argument anytime. But we will be sure to point out anytime you want to use the law of non contradiction. Which is what I'm applying and certainly doesn't require a formal system to assert. Its foundational beyond even formal logic.

It's so foundational that even your claim that you deny the premise that logic is applicable to your theology rests on the law of non contradiction. You can't do any argumentation without it it's so foundational.


Once we get tot he point where a religion need non contradiction to go away. It's in a bad spot.

Which god? Which religion describes god correctly? How do we know?

Some other guy says Islam. Another LDS. Another say Judaism. Throw in a Hindu for fun. How do we figure out who's correct if you can't make judgements towards religion/gods

Aggrad08 said:

---

Some other guy says Islam. Another LDS. Another say Judaism. Throw in a Hindu for fun. How do we figure out who's correct if you can't make judgements towards religion/gods

---

You study the various religions and pray for discernment. I found my peace when I put my faith in Jesus and starting completely trusting God. And I realized He had created me and loved me unconditionally.

Have never felt better in my life.