Dear seer
I apologizee for a rather late answer, but due to illness I have not been able to write it before now. Found it more important to comment than spend time on the graphics, so it is plain text. But, as they say, it is the content that matters.
I have started out by commenting on the last part in which you write in support for your own view. I will comment on the other part as well.
You wrote:
Very fair question to ask, and you asked it regarding my own points supporting my own view as well. I may have given a too narrow minded presentation regarding that. What I was pointing to regarding the logical approach was at least to be taken in a broader sense. You are right that two theories contradicting each other could be logically consistent on their own. What - at least in my opinion - could however not be the case would be that they all contained the right and true premises. So, you will have to look at the content, the premises, so to say, which is, in a broader context looking at the logic. Because if you can prove the premises wrong, the conclusion is most likely also wrong. Or it may be true but for other reasons than those presented in the presentation.
You wrote:
First of all, sorry to bore you, but basically we are back at fundamentalist logic. Anyone making any claim about fairness is wrong, since - no further reason given - our God is right. So, the idea that eternal torture of a baby is unfair is - in your regard - just one that one would have to blame oneself for having, since God is ultimately right whatever he does. So, I will actually have to praise God for doing so. And if he did the opposite, i would have to praise him for that. If he tortures women for being women, I will have to praise it. If he does not do so, I will have to praise it. So, it turns out, since you cannot justify the purpose God is claimed to have, it could be whatever. You seem to be stuck in the Leibnizian trap which is praising God for whatever. Which can hardly be praise, since it is a praise of whatever.
I apologizee for a rather late answer, but due to illness I have not been able to write it before now. Found it more important to comment than spend time on the graphics, so it is plain text. But, as they say, it is the content that matters.
I have started out by commenting on the last part in which you write in support for your own view. I will comment on the other part as well.
You wrote:
Very fair question to ask, and you asked it regarding my own points supporting my own view as well. I may have given a too narrow minded presentation regarding that. What I was pointing to regarding the logical approach was at least to be taken in a broader sense. You are right that two theories contradicting each other could be logically consistent on their own. What - at least in my opinion - could however not be the case would be that they all contained the right and true premises. So, you will have to look at the content, the premises, so to say, which is, in a broader context looking at the logic. Because if you can prove the premises wrong, the conclusion is most likely also wrong. Or it may be true but for other reasons than those presented in the presentation.
You wrote:
First of all, sorry to bore you, but basically we are back at fundamentalist logic. Anyone making any claim about fairness is wrong, since - no further reason given - our God is right. So, the idea that eternal torture of a baby is unfair is - in your regard - just one that one would have to blame oneself for having, since God is ultimately right whatever he does. So, I will actually have to praise God for doing so. And if he did the opposite, i would have to praise him for that. If he tortures women for being women, I will have to praise it. If he does not do so, I will have to praise it. So, it turns out, since you cannot justify the purpose God is claimed to have, it could be whatever. You seem to be stuck in the Leibnizian trap which is praising God for whatever. Which can hardly be praise, since it is a praise of whatever.
Comment