ScreamingEagle
Gold Member
- Jul 5, 2004
- 13,399
- 1,707
- 245
Powerman said:The rationality to the argument was weak. The entire premise of the argument is that theological tradition holds more weight to it than logical intuition. Killing children is wrong. I don't care if God did it or not you simply can not justify it and attempting to do so in such an idiotic round about manner as they did is simply sick.
Weak in what way? In the example I gave you, the logic was stronger than anything you've come up with to prove it wrong, which you haven't.
If you can conceive that there may be exceptions where a person might kill a child rather than have it suffer a worse fate, then you open the possibility that God may have had His own reasons.
Could you perhaps imagine that maybe God had the children killed because to leave them stranded to die by themselves in a hot dangerous desert would be far worse than having them immediately come to heaven where they would be a million times happier?
If you will look again at the example in Post#35 with the 7 steps of possible reasoning, you will see that there is a contradiction between step 1 and step 7. This is how many people "reason" that there is no God and why they deny His existence.
However, as Miller points out, the whole thing stands or falls on the accuracy of the personal moral intuition in Step 3. So, unless you can prove otherwise, your personal assertion that God does not exist or that God is sick and horrible is false. Can you prove that there is absolutely NO EXCEPTION to what you see as the rule to not kill children?