Rsnbl Faith
stealthmongoose
Rsnbl Faith
Kiumaru
Rsnbl Faith
1) Creation gives authority because they gave you life. By your very existence, you owe God your all because He gave you your all. As for your second question, it doesn't. God gave us free-will, but if we don't do things properly that means we pay the price.
2) No I am subscribing to the "I'm able to fulfill my promises and uphold what I have" argument. Many strong people are in the wrong, and many strong people are in the right.
3) Again, you don't. You have free-will, I've never denied that.
1) Why do I owe God? It is not as if I made some sort of contract with God in his creation of me. If I created an entity for whatever reason, does that mean that this creation would owe it to me to kill themselves if I really wished for it? Since they owe everything to me, does that mean that I would have the ability to impress upon it morality which can be self-nihilating?
2) What promises?
3) I'm not talking about a "have to" in the coercive sense but rather in the moral sense. If we are to establish morality, morality establishes "shoulds" and "oughts" where these things "have to" be done lest one wants to be immoral. But why is the morality established by God the morality that we must follow?
1) Yes, it would. Unless the thing that made you were to say otherwise.
2) Hm...I guess I did word that poorly didn't I? I ought to say I am not subscribing to "might makes right" rather "might keeps what one has by right"
3) For the same reason a computer that breaks down and performance decreases is a bad computer, or a dull knife is a bad knife. It is not fit to accomplish what it must. It is why oughts and shoulds exist to begin with.
1.) Creation does not imply ownership. Bill Gates created Windows. Bill Gates does not own the copy of windows i acquired from him any more than he owns the mouse I am using to surf the web at this very instant. Bob Kane created Catwoman. Long before that horrid movie came out people were drawing Catwoman in ads, comic books, and other such media and fan work without Bob Kane's permission. My parents created me. They birthed me. Their control over my life has been limited to the degree of care and compassion they gave me growing up. They have no true control over my life aside from resource management besides what i can acquire on my own. I myself control an aspect of their lives through my superior knowledge of technology and management. Creation never implies control by virtue of itself.
3.)I do not believe you are answering the question with this one. "For the same reason that a computer that breaks down and performance increases is a bad computer, etc." is not an argument for morality originating with God. It is an argument that morality has a definite efficiency and premise that is constructed within the populace, not that God put it there. If you were trying to assert that morality should by it's definition have a set of efficient and beneficial qualities, then that is acceptable, but there is nothing in your statement that supports that you need a deity to determine morality.
My argument is actually that He holds to the authority He gained through creation by His might. Aka He does not let his rule slip from His fingers, the examples you gave are of those who allowed what they made to be used by others. As for Bill Gates, he actually holds the rights to the product and anyone else who pirates or falsifies it can get in trouble by the law. It doesn't really do anything. (but you must combine all 3, for 2 defends 3, 3 defends 2, and 1 defends 3 kind of thing. Pillars which hold up the entire argument.)
As for 3, this one is merely there to explain that things live by a certain purpose as given by the one who made them. It wasn't meant to say that God put it there.
As for me this argument is slightly boring me and is probably going to end up being tedious. (though I believe it already is) I have defended my position and I shall leave it as such. Reply if you wish, but I bid my adieu . (Though I will let all who responded to me know that I have not ignored you)
1. I assert that your argument regarding his control over his own universe is one that can be quite well disproven if not for the safety net of 'free will'. Application of free will to me effectively eliminates any control that said deity would have on said follower, especially if said follower has already broken the programming placed upon them for their perception of the world. That being said, the assertion of force to maintain grasp over one's creation usually implies a lack of control that needs to be rectified. I.E. Bill Gates would not need to have a law against piracy if piracy was not a threat to his product's profits.
This in itself to me shows a weakness on the part of the creator theory of control, at least when we're referencing Bill Gates' programming or the continuity of scripture in relevance to reality. Pirates do assert more than just a limited form of control over the product that they pirate, some going to the extent of completely customizing and refitting the operating system to do what they wish, sometimes to a greater form of efficiency than the original creator (Bill Gates) Intended.
This may seem irrelevant, but as a comparison it's very sound. If you assert that the creator (Let's call him God for now and assert that he exists for this experiment at least) has control over their creation, one must be willing to provide proof that the control is actually there. Thus, as far as i know, there is no situation i or anyone else has experienced where control over the creation is left in it's entirety to the part of the creator, even in the most fictional anecdotes it would be like saying that instead of creating DRM to fix issues with Bill Gates' Flawed operating system; "Bill Gates, the most holy of programmers hath decreed that no man shall use the most perfect of operating systems to defile the work of the most perfect of creators" And then proceed to pretend that bugs with Bill Gates' operating system don't exist. Beyond that also paint Bill Gates like a God even though he's not. Even if we went to that extreme it wouldn't change the fact that Bill Gates is no God and his creation is far from perfect, or within his control.
People customize their OS'es and mankind has run off with the planet. Not to say that nature is losing, but i don't think it's really thanks to divine intervention that we can assert any form of morality in the usage force, suffice it to say that we've learned a lot from causing wars, living through disease, starvation, etc. But to attribute this knowledge on life or morality in general to a divine being, i think you'd be forgetting to give credit where it is due.
3.) An assertion of purpose coinciding with creation? Have you ever used a chair to stand up and get something from a high shelf? That simple example aside, are you stating that the purpose of every being in existence is attributed to their creator? I doubt that very much. I, for example, use this computer to pirate music, as do you and almost everyone else within the united states. This goes directly against the purpose of the computer, which is to acquire and process legitimate information according to the DRM software that oh so dilligently monitors this sort of activity. Am i using this computer outside of it's creator's purpose? Probably. Could he stop me? If he wanted to waste the resources to do so. Would there be any need to? Probably not. Is there some natural or divine law preventing me from repurposing this computer to do whatever I wish within the boundaries of computing? Nothing that can't be changed if i put the effort into doing so.
Though you are leaving (which i'm sorry to hear about), i just wanted to post this last response to your argument. I don't doubt that you have the urge to not address these points, i can even sort of empathize with why it would seem tedious to you...i still believe others could learn from the post though.
Where does god fit into all of this again?
