120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Keith&Co.]

Why is degree of dominion equivalent to degree of goodness? That is a non-sequitur.

No it's not! 'Dominion' is a very effective criteria to use.
Pecking order. Strong. Stronger. Strongest.

Except it doesn't work.

The state cannot compel me to donate blood even if a life depends on it. That is not because i am greater than the patient, it's because i have a right to control my own body more than the patient has a right to my bodily fluid. Or organs. They cannot make me donate a kidney or half a liver or whatever.

That's what i base my opinion on abortion on, as it goes. The state does not have control over her uterus, any more than liver, kidneys, blood, bone marrow...

So the 'dominion' only works in some situations, not all. Which means it's just another of several criteria which may be used to try to determine 'greatest.' ANd if there's more than one criteria, there can be more than one 'greatest.'


Unless you can produce god itself, maybe? Maybe if we could measure your gods directly, we could see if they are the greatest in any or all possible categories. But then, if you could establish your god as real, you wouldn't need us to agree to the ontological argument in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

The Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.

Excellent.
Tortoise, rabbit, light speed. dark energy, God. (Nothing can go faster than God.)

Proof that god can move at all, much less at infinite speed would be...?

 

[skepticalbip]

The Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.

Excellent.
Tortoise, rabbit, light speed. dark energy, God. (Nothing can go faster than God.)

Sorry but if god is everywhere then he can't move at all.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sorry but if god is everywhere then he can't move at all.

kinda reminds me of that joke.
The omnipresent god says: want to see me teleport to the moon and back?
(nothing happens for four seconds)
....Want to see it again?

 

[bigfield]

The Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.

Excellent.
Tortoise, rabbit, light speed. dark energy, God. (Nothing can go faster than God.)

How do you know that a god travels faster than light?

 

[Lion IRC]

Excellent.
Tortoise, rabbit, light speed. dark energy, God. (Nothing can go faster than God.)

How do you know that a god travels faster than light?

How do you know He can't? My claim would be that God could accelerate the universal expansion faster and faster if He wanted.

GenesisNemesis showed, very usefully, that there IS a fast and a faster and if the speed of light WAS the upper limit then that would be the maximally greatest.

 

[Keith&Co.]

How do you know that a god travels faster than light?

How do you know He can't?

You're the one making a positive claim. Show that you even grasp the burden of proof.

 

[Keith&Co.]

and if the speed of light WAS the upper limit then that would be the maximally greatest.

Maximally greatest what, though? If Electrons and protons and gamma all travel at the same speed, which one's greater?

 

[Lion IRC]

How do you know He can't?

You're the one making a positive claim. Show that you even grasp the burden of proof.

I don't need to prove that omnipotent being is omnipotent.
Nor do need to prove that hot is hot.

If someone says God can't do something they are the one making the claim and I would have thought they might be able to justify their claim.

And if if God isn't omnipotent then I won't worship Him, let alone attempt apologetics.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why wouldn't you worship him if he's not omnipotent? What if he's powerful enough to create a universe and all that but he's only 90/100 on the omnipotence scale?

Why is that unworthy of worship?

 

[Keith&Co.]

You're the one making a positive claim. Show that you even grasp the burden of proof.

I don't need to prove that omnipotent being is omnipotent.

Well, sure, but if you're trying to pretend that your god is not a fictional construct, then you might as well be defending Zeus, Odin, Amateratsu, Inan

Nor do need to prove that hot is hot.

You're trying to flog an argument that says God must exist. If you're going to just assert that your god meets the definition of the argument trying to prove he exists, then you're just spinning yoyur wheels.

If someone says God can't do something they are the one making the claim and I would have thought they might be able to justify their claim.

My claim is that no theist has ever given me a reason to think that any gods exist, and this 'most bestest' argument stalls for lack of a decent framework. define 'great' if you can.

 

[bigfield]

How do you know that a god travels faster than light?

How do you know He can't? My claim would be that God could accelerate the universal expansion faster and faster if He wanted.

As far as I know, no gods exist, and therefore no god can travel faster than light, or do anything else for that matter.

On the other hand, if we are talking about figments of one's imagination, then I can imagine countless fictional characters that can travel faster than light or "accelerate the universal expansion faster and faster". For example, Splurmax, an interdimensional being who can travel faster than light and also enjoys writing Harry Potter fanfic.

GenesisNemesis showed, very usefully, that there IS a fast and a faster and if the speed of light WAS the upper limit then that would be the maximally greatest.

You didn't anticipate GenNem's clever answer.

 

[Learner]

In line with the thought; if you could shoot a beam of light such as a powerful laser at a far distant galaxy. God could create a solar sytem before that beam of light reached there. For an 'alpha and omega' theres plenty of time between the starting and final reaching point of the laser beam.

 

[bigfield]

In line with the thought; if you could shoot a beam of light such as a powerful laser at a far distant galaxy. God could create a solar sytem before that beam of light reached there. For an 'alpha and omega' theres plenty of time between the starting and final reaching point of the laser beam.

Splurmax could do that, too.

 

[Learner]

Splurmax could do that, too.

God went forth and got his name in wikipedia for all to see.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Splurmax could do that, too.

God went forth and got his name in wikipedia for all to see.

So did Yoda....

 

[Learner]

So did Yoda....

Lol ok smart Alec!

 

[bigfield]

Splurmax could do that, too.

God went forth and got his name in wikipedia for all to see.

Many gods have their name on Wikipedia, including gods from comic books.

'Appeal to Wikipedia' is a novel apologetics argument in my experience. Well done for keeping it fresh, albeit farcical.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So did Yoda....

Lol ok smart Alec!

Um, no.
GOD did not make any Wiki entry. People who carry the thought in their head made the wiki entries for God, for Athena, for Yoda, Superman, Spiderman, Howard the Duck... People did that. Doesn't make the object of their entry real, though. The behavior of believers doesn't validate their beliefs....

 

[Learner]

Um, no.
GOD did not make any Wiki entry. People who carry the thought in their head made the wiki entries for God, for Athena, for Yoda, Superman, Spiderman, Howard the Duck... People did that. Doesn't make the object of their entry real, though. The behavior of believers doesn't validate their beliefs....

Perhaps I should have said Touché instead but yes I could go along with that.

Although there are resourceful information and good links to reference material which is useful with wikipedia what ever the subject of interest.Obviously I would be looking for something in the area relating to Christianity among other things.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Is there anything we know of which has higher intrinsic value than human life?

But you're assuming it's good for life to "flourish better." What's good about that? What good are any life forms? What harm would it be to just eliminate ALL life and ALL objects and leave nothing at all?

Lumpy, it was your point that humans were the least expendable life form.

No, that's your point, or what you believe. You would give higher priority to a human life. We all would.

So that's not only my point, but everyone's point, including yours.

For it not to be your point, you have to say there is something non-human we know of which you would give higher priority to, so that you would sacrifice human life in order to save that non-human object. And this would be an object which has no usefulness to humans, totally unnecessary for human survival or happiness, but is something valuable in itself and of greater value than human life.

If you cannot identify such an object, then you're agreeing with me that human life is the most valuable, or "least expendable" of anything we know of.

But if I'm wrong to say human life has this highest value, then you have to name what that object is that you would sacrifice human life in order to save.

You were wrong.

Only if you can name what object is more important than human life such that you would sacrifice human life to save it, i.e., giving that object the higher priority.

Pulling a 180 to make it a question about nihilism doesn't make your ill-thought-out, unsupportable idea any less wrong

It's not about nihilism. We're all rejecting that, because we think there is something that matters in the universe. Whatever it is that matters, human life is at the top of that list of values which matter.

YOU THINK SOMETHING MATTERS! If you did not, you would not post messages here. You can't choose to do something without believing that what you're choosing to do matters. So you are proving me right by posting messages here (and by everything else you choose to do). If you're choosing to do it, doesn't that automatically mean you think it matters? How could you CHOOSE to do something but not think it matters whether it gets done?

So then, what matters to you more than human life, such that you would protect it by destroying human life?