Gee i am just returning to the forum after a few days away my last post on this topic was 57of 81... Tec has perished along with her fanatical beliefs in a better tomorrow, but has poster been sufficiently influenced by this debate to change there origional point of view?
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
besty
"we don't know what we can't know" = it's a mystery
next.
nice try flamegrilled. pls keep posting on other topics - i like your style.
-
bohm
flamegrilled: Suppose I tell you this story: Yesterday I walked into the woods. After a few hours I saw a boy with a broken leg. He yelled at me to call for help, but I walked home instead without calling for help. A week later they are still searching for him.
What do you think of me?
Suppose you feel i did something wrong, as I am certain a judge would feel as well. I tell you: You dont have the full picture, there *might* be an *unknown* reason why i did not call for help.
If you ask what that reason may be, i will tell you: What part of *unknown* don't you understand?
How do you feel about that explanation?
-
flamegrilled
"we don't know what we can't know" = it's a mystery
I accept that this crudely describes the argument. As I said before if we are just crudely reframing the opposing view then Cofty's is "if god exists he dun it". It's an assertion. It's not based on anything logical.
-
flamegrilled
bohn - you are a being of roughly equal intelligence and sentience to me and the hypothetical judge. That is a very different scenario to the one under discussion.
-
bohm
flamegrilled: It is bohm.
So you are saying your reply in the situation above would be:
If you were super-intelligent and/or super-sentinent I would say you did nothing wrong in leaving the boy to die in the woods because in that case you *might* have an *unknown* reason for doing so.
-
LucidChimp
To crudely state Cofty's argument would be: "If god exists he didn't stop it".
That's a fact isn't it?
-
flamegrilled
So you are saying your reply in the situation above would be:
If you were super-intelligent and/or super-sentinent I would say you did nothing wrong in leaving the boy to die in the woods because in that case you *might* have an *unknown* reason for doing so.
No. I'm saying that Cofty couldn't logcally conclude that you didn't exist, or perhaps more specifically that he shouldn't conclude that he has access to more information than you do if you are a super-intelligent and/or super-sentient being.
Now if there is no evidence to the contrary then based upon this information alone if we have to reach a decision then we are probably going to judge you as bad. I grant that.
The difference with God and the tsunami is first of all that a theist will not acknowledge that there is no evidence to the contrary. Also we do have the option of reserving judgement.
[have hit posting limit]
-
bohm
So you are saying your reply in the situation above would be:
If you were super-intelligent and/or super-sentinent I would say you did nothing wrong in leaving the boy to die in the woods because in that case you *might* have an *unknown* reason for doing so.
Flamegriled: No. (...) if there is no evidence to the contrary then based upon this information alone if we have to reach a decision then we are probably going to judge you as bad. I grant that.
Super!
So your new claim is there is some information you could be told about me, like many people described how I helped them and did things for them, and I assured you I was very good in a book many people claimed I had inspired, then that would weight more heavily than a single boy I left to die in the woods?
How many boys would I have to leave to die in the woods before you began to question if the earlier reports about my goodness was fully accurate or if I was sometimes good and sometimes not so good like everybody else?
-
jgnat
All analogies are the weaker argument because they can only be roughly equivalent. They often appeal to emotion. Puppies, kittens, parents and children.