VexingQuestions' Deontic-Ontological Argument (DOA) is one of the oddest arguments I've seen for the existence of a perfect being. It is presented as follows.
1. I ought to attain the highest form of happiness.
2. I ought to attain the highest form of happiness only if is possible that I attain the highest form of happiness.
3. ‘I attain the highest form of happiness’ is identical to ‘there is a perfect being and I am in communion with it’.
4. If it is possible that there is a perfect being and I am in communion with it, then it is possible that there is a perfect being, and it is possible that I am in communion with it.
5. A perfect being is identical to a necessarily existing maximally excellent being.
6. Therefore, a perfect being exists
Premise one doesn't seem very obvious. Even if there is a highest form of happiness, I don't see a very strong reason to say that I ought to attain it.
I'll grant premise two. However, with these two premises, I believe the first premise should state "I ought to attain the highest attainable form of happiness".
I don't see a reason to accept premise three. There can be a "highest form of happiness" without a God existing. It would simply be the highest form of happiness that you can attain without God. I can't say exactly what this is, but I'm sure it's out there.
The highest attainable happiness, is attainable. Even if an advocate of this argument does manage to demonstrate that the third premise is true, the atheist can simply reject the first premise without a problem. To say you don't ought to achieve the highest form of happiness is not problematic if that happiness isn't attainable. Thus, I believe my replacement of the first premise is much better, because it doesn't assume that the "'actual' highest form of happiness" can be acquired.
Furthermore,I would think that some people would want different things, and things that make some people happy wouldn't be the same for others. For instance, some people wouldn't take pleasure in worshiping a genocidal (see Noah's Flood), egotistical (see first four of the Ten Commandments) tyrant (see Hell), while others would (Note: I'm not attacking the morality of God, I'm simply stating attributes that can be ascribed to him).
I'll grant premise four.
While premise five is intuitive, I don't think that there is a strong reason to accept it, as it seems to be implying logical necessity is a perfection.
Monday, June 5, 2017
Saturday, April 22, 2017
J.P. Moreland on People Getting 'Forced' into Heaven
The quote that I will be discussing can be found here. Read it before reading this post so you know what I'm talking about.
When I read this quote, I was honestly confused about what it meant. Why would anyone want to go to hell? I don't think jackass who said this honestly believed that in the least.
It starts off by saying that "forcing people into heaven is dehumanizing". This is beyond stupid, because the only other option is an eternal fire. Who would choose to burn in fire eternally over going to a paradise?
Though it's fairly clear what this is actually saying. That atheists do, in fact, believe in God. Not just any God, but the one that he believes in, and, presumably, was raised to believe in. He's saying that we know God exists, but we reject him. My question is, who is this person to tell me what I do and do not believe? What peer reviewed study shows that everyone (Muslims, Atheists, Wiccans, Christians of other denominations, etc.) believes in the God that J.P. Moreland believes in?
He also says that God will respect our choice, and will respect and dignify it. The problem with this is that burning someone eternally is NOT DIGNIFYING OR RESPECTING SOMEOME. This is beyond simple. Burning someone for not believing in what they cannot see is extremely cruel.
A guy named Counter Apologist made an analogy that explains the cruelty of God's system. This is called the "game show analogy".
Imagine someone traps you in a game show where you have to guess the host's favorite color. The host sends his son in there to tell you his [the host's] favorite color, but he also sends in other boys who also claim to be his son. If you guess right, you get a million dollars, if not, you burn forever. You also don't have a choice as to whether or not you want to be in this game show.
Most people would think this is cruel, and I doubt anyone would be like "this is not cruel, he knows the host's favorite color... in his heart", but this is precisely what J.P. Moreland and anyone who makes this claim is doing.
When I read this quote, I was honestly confused about what it meant. Why would anyone want to go to hell? I don't think jackass who said this honestly believed that in the least.
It starts off by saying that "forcing people into heaven is dehumanizing". This is beyond stupid, because the only other option is an eternal fire. Who would choose to burn in fire eternally over going to a paradise?
Though it's fairly clear what this is actually saying. That atheists do, in fact, believe in God. Not just any God, but the one that he believes in, and, presumably, was raised to believe in. He's saying that we know God exists, but we reject him. My question is, who is this person to tell me what I do and do not believe? What peer reviewed study shows that everyone (Muslims, Atheists, Wiccans, Christians of other denominations, etc.) believes in the God that J.P. Moreland believes in?
He also says that God will respect our choice, and will respect and dignify it. The problem with this is that burning someone eternally is NOT DIGNIFYING OR RESPECTING SOMEOME. This is beyond simple. Burning someone for not believing in what they cannot see is extremely cruel.
A guy named Counter Apologist made an analogy that explains the cruelty of God's system. This is called the "game show analogy".
Imagine someone traps you in a game show where you have to guess the host's favorite color. The host sends his son in there to tell you his [the host's] favorite color, but he also sends in other boys who also claim to be his son. If you guess right, you get a million dollars, if not, you burn forever. You also don't have a choice as to whether or not you want to be in this game show.
Most people would think this is cruel, and I doubt anyone would be like "this is not cruel, he knows the host's favorite color... in his heart", but this is precisely what J.P. Moreland and anyone who makes this claim is doing.
Conservapedia: Top 10 Arguments Against Homosexuality
This article by the Christian/Conservative pseudo-encyclopedia, Conservapedia, outlines what it thinks are the best arguments against homosexuality. In one section, it outlines what it believes are the top 10 arguments. Well it looks like we're dealing with the best of the best. Let's see.
1. Homosexuality is unhealthy, and it's better to encourage people to adopt healthier lifestyles.
This is not an argument against homosexuality, it's simply an argument against not being cautious while having sexual intercourse. Secondly, homosexuality is not an 'unhealthy lifestyle', it's a sexual orientation. The studies that show that homosexuals get more STDs do not show that homosexuality directly causes said STDs. Those diseases can usually be tied into higher levels of promiscuity amongst homosexuals. Conservapedia is conflating correlation with causation.
2. It's not pro-life - it leads to various diseases, physical and psychological disorders and early death among those who practice homosexual behavior
This is mostly a repeat of the last claim. As far as psychological issues goes, I would presume that conservapedia is referring to things like depression, which you would expect due to homophobic bigotry. Conservapedia also didn't show that these issues would not take lives if they were not homosexual, nor did they show that these people would be more healthy if they were not homosexual. They also did not show that homosexuality is the direct cause of these disorders. Again, Conservapedia is conflating correlation with causation.
3. It's anti-Bible - no other conduct is condemned as much by the Bible as homosexuality.
This says more about the Bible than it does about homosexuality. Shouldn't an all good God spend more time condemning rape or genocide, than a sexual orientation that harms nobody? Secondly, this is not a good argument in a secular nation. The first amendment of the constitution states that a religion cannot be established via the state. Basing a law solely on a religion is clearly the state establishing a religion. This argument also assumes the Bible is true, which is extremely controversial.
4. It's infringing on more important freedoms, like freedom of religion and speech
They cite people suing others for discrimination against homosexuals. This is as much an attack on freedom of speech as someone suing a baker for not selling to blacks for religious reasons. I actually part with some on the left in that I agree that churches should be allowed to descriminate, because that is simply allowing people to practice their religion properly when it doesn't actually harm anyone who is not inside the religion. Businesses, should not have this right because they are not religious institutions. Another thing is that this is an argument against people not wanting to be descriminated against, not homosexuality itself.
5. It's another Leftist political movement, which Communists support
This is an ad hominem fallacy. Conservapedia is saying because leftists support X, X is false by definition. This is ineffably stupid. Furthermore, it is not a movement, but a sexual orientation.
6. It's promoted far too much by the liberal media - if the lifestyle were good, then why would liberal censorship of criticism be necessary?
I stand with conservapedia in that I don't believe opposing viewpoints should be censored. However, saying that because the 'liberal media' supports it, it is therefore wrong, is, again, an ad hominem fallacy. As for whether or not liberal censorship is necessary, if this list of arguments is the best that the anti-homosexual movement has to offer, then it is most certainly not necessary,
7. People should be (and have been) able to leave the lifestyle if they want to, so why are homosexuals working hard to ban conversion therapy?
My personal position on conversion therapy is that it should not be banned, but parents shouldn't be able to force their children to get it against their will. I believe one should be at an age where they can legally be their own legal guardian when they receive conversion therapy. This is not an argument against homosexuality.
8. Homosexuals are wealthier than heterosexuals, so homosexuals don't need any more handouts like benefits for same-sex couples.
Firstly, citation is needed and not provided for a claim like this. Secondly, just because they're rich doesn't mean they shouldn't to marry who they love. Finally, allowing homosexuals to marry or to not be descriminated against is not a handout, it's a right.
9. It's an anti-Christian movement - why aren't homosexual activists suing Muslim or Hindu bakers for not serving same-sex marriage?
1. Homosexuality is unhealthy, and it's better to encourage people to adopt healthier lifestyles.
This is not an argument against homosexuality, it's simply an argument against not being cautious while having sexual intercourse. Secondly, homosexuality is not an 'unhealthy lifestyle', it's a sexual orientation. The studies that show that homosexuals get more STDs do not show that homosexuality directly causes said STDs. Those diseases can usually be tied into higher levels of promiscuity amongst homosexuals. Conservapedia is conflating correlation with causation.
2. It's not pro-life - it leads to various diseases, physical and psychological disorders and early death among those who practice homosexual behavior
This is mostly a repeat of the last claim. As far as psychological issues goes, I would presume that conservapedia is referring to things like depression, which you would expect due to homophobic bigotry. Conservapedia also didn't show that these issues would not take lives if they were not homosexual, nor did they show that these people would be more healthy if they were not homosexual. They also did not show that homosexuality is the direct cause of these disorders. Again, Conservapedia is conflating correlation with causation.
3. It's anti-Bible - no other conduct is condemned as much by the Bible as homosexuality.
This says more about the Bible than it does about homosexuality. Shouldn't an all good God spend more time condemning rape or genocide, than a sexual orientation that harms nobody? Secondly, this is not a good argument in a secular nation. The first amendment of the constitution states that a religion cannot be established via the state. Basing a law solely on a religion is clearly the state establishing a religion. This argument also assumes the Bible is true, which is extremely controversial.
4. It's infringing on more important freedoms, like freedom of religion and speech
They cite people suing others for discrimination against homosexuals. This is as much an attack on freedom of speech as someone suing a baker for not selling to blacks for religious reasons. I actually part with some on the left in that I agree that churches should be allowed to descriminate, because that is simply allowing people to practice their religion properly when it doesn't actually harm anyone who is not inside the religion. Businesses, should not have this right because they are not religious institutions. Another thing is that this is an argument against people not wanting to be descriminated against, not homosexuality itself.
5. It's another Leftist political movement, which Communists support
This is an ad hominem fallacy. Conservapedia is saying because leftists support X, X is false by definition. This is ineffably stupid. Furthermore, it is not a movement, but a sexual orientation.
6. It's promoted far too much by the liberal media - if the lifestyle were good, then why would liberal censorship of criticism be necessary?
I stand with conservapedia in that I don't believe opposing viewpoints should be censored. However, saying that because the 'liberal media' supports it, it is therefore wrong, is, again, an ad hominem fallacy. As for whether or not liberal censorship is necessary, if this list of arguments is the best that the anti-homosexual movement has to offer, then it is most certainly not necessary,
7. People should be (and have been) able to leave the lifestyle if they want to, so why are homosexuals working hard to ban conversion therapy?
My personal position on conversion therapy is that it should not be banned, but parents shouldn't be able to force their children to get it against their will. I believe one should be at an age where they can legally be their own legal guardian when they receive conversion therapy. This is not an argument against homosexuality.
8. Homosexuals are wealthier than heterosexuals, so homosexuals don't need any more handouts like benefits for same-sex couples.
Firstly, citation is needed and not provided for a claim like this. Secondly, just because they're rich doesn't mean they shouldn't to marry who they love. Finally, allowing homosexuals to marry or to not be descriminated against is not a handout, it's a right.
9. It's an anti-Christian movement - why aren't homosexual activists suing Muslim or Hindu bakers for not serving same-sex marriage?
Conservapedia hasn't cited any instances where Hindu or Muslim bakers refused to serve homosexuals, and the homosexuals didn't sue them simply because they weren't christians. Also, homosexuality is not a movement, it is a sexual orientation.
10. It's a selfish movement - notice how billionaire homosexuals are not setting up hospitals as Christians have?
Conservapedia is saying 'most of these people aren't great people so I want to deny them the right to marry who they love.' Conservapedia is also conflating correlation with causation, because they haven't demonstrated that these people would be setting up hospitals if they weren't homosexual. Conservapedia calls homosexuality a selfish movement, let's say that it is a movement (and it isn't, it's a sexual orientation), if it was the case that homosexuality was a selfish movement, then a goal of the movement would be to not donate to charity. Conservapedia knows that is not the case. Even in Conservapedia's "Homosexual Agenda" article, they don't sink to the level of saying that destroying charity is an object of the homosexual agenda.
This article is a clear example of Conservapedia's idiocy.
This article is a clear example of Conservapedia's idiocy.
Friday, January 6, 2017
The Absurdity of Christian Salvation
Let's start with some questions. Do you believe in God? Do you believe that salvation comes through faith alone? Do you believe that you need to believe that you need faith to believe? This will be for people who answered yes to 1, and yes to either 2 or 3.
Do you think you would be the same religion if you were born somewhere else; for example, in Saudi Arabia? I would think that you would probably be a Muslim. I think that you would agree with me. This means that your place of birth is the reason why you'll be spending eternity in paradise, if you were born in another place, you would be spending eternity in scorching fire.
Your salvation was based solely on luck.
It doesn't take a genius to see there is something wrong with this. Imagine a school where you have to take a test to get in, and black people have to take a much harder test than white people. The majority of people (everyone who isn't a nazi) would realize the absurdity of that system. How does it differ from only allowing one religion into heaven? Because the majority of people are born with a religion and keep it.
My parents, who are Catholic and don't know the faith very well, believe that God will allow good people who never heard of Christianity into heaven. This is not supported biblically, as Jesus clearly stated that the only way to heaven was through him (John 14:6). The only reason why they would believe this is because they can't comprehend how a good, intelligent God would limit salvation to only those who were born into their religion.
It would be fairly easy to see why a religion would say that it's the only way to salvation. Christianity seems as if it was essentially designed to spread as fast as possible. Just think about it: you either spend eternity in paradise or in a raging fire, and the only way to get the former and not the latter is to be in that religion. Do you think it would have spread as fast if the salvation doctrine was "People who did good for the people around them will get rewarded, people who do nothing but good and suffer for the benefit of others get it even better, people who did more bad than good get adequate punishment; nothing extreme, and those who do extreme bad get eternally punished badly"?
It wouldn't have spread like it did, but it's thousands of times more sensible, and would make the world a better place, because a type of salvation that says "yeah ill forgive whatever you did no questions asked if you believe I will" doesn't punish on any basis other than being wrong. It's simply absurd, and harmful.
Do you think you would be the same religion if you were born somewhere else; for example, in Saudi Arabia? I would think that you would probably be a Muslim. I think that you would agree with me. This means that your place of birth is the reason why you'll be spending eternity in paradise, if you were born in another place, you would be spending eternity in scorching fire.
Your salvation was based solely on luck.
It doesn't take a genius to see there is something wrong with this. Imagine a school where you have to take a test to get in, and black people have to take a much harder test than white people. The majority of people (everyone who isn't a nazi) would realize the absurdity of that system. How does it differ from only allowing one religion into heaven? Because the majority of people are born with a religion and keep it.
My parents, who are Catholic and don't know the faith very well, believe that God will allow good people who never heard of Christianity into heaven. This is not supported biblically, as Jesus clearly stated that the only way to heaven was through him (John 14:6). The only reason why they would believe this is because they can't comprehend how a good, intelligent God would limit salvation to only those who were born into their religion.
It would be fairly easy to see why a religion would say that it's the only way to salvation. Christianity seems as if it was essentially designed to spread as fast as possible. Just think about it: you either spend eternity in paradise or in a raging fire, and the only way to get the former and not the latter is to be in that religion. Do you think it would have spread as fast if the salvation doctrine was "People who did good for the people around them will get rewarded, people who do nothing but good and suffer for the benefit of others get it even better, people who did more bad than good get adequate punishment; nothing extreme, and those who do extreme bad get eternally punished badly"?
It wouldn't have spread like it did, but it's thousands of times more sensible, and would make the world a better place, because a type of salvation that says "yeah ill forgive whatever you did no questions asked if you believe I will" doesn't punish on any basis other than being wrong. It's simply absurd, and harmful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)