Purple Knight wrote:An exception for it to supernaturally change/suspend the affect of gravity in that moment on one item but not another? You are asking for it to have the ability to perform a miracle? Or something else?
If you call that a miracle, sure.
It really matters whether you call that a miracle, or more importantly, what definition you attach to the term because I might be misunderstanding you by thinking you are calling it a miracle. If you are asking for a miracle, then what's the big deal about a mega-entity performing a miracle? Why would such a being be impossible?
Purple Knight wrote:Only one being created the universe and it must be worthy of worship for theism to be true. There are at least as many ways for it to be non-worthy even if the universe was created as worthy. If it's rapey, that's a no (I... I bloody assume). If it bites the heads off bats, that's a no. See where I'm going?
You are going down a different road. The binary question (which I used to make a critique of your use of a specific principle) was whether theism or atheism is true, not whether the god-creator is good or evil. I used that specific example (instead of something like whether God is good or evil) because you don't agree with the conclusion that your principle spits out. I'm trying to show that you are inconsistent in the use of the principle and, therefore, should drop the principle.
There is one way to get the answer of atheism, namely that no god exists. There are various versions of theism that have a creator that is worthy of worship. That there are various versions of theism that have a creator or creators that are not worthy of worship does not matter. In fact, it just adds to the probability (using your principle) that theism should be viewed as true unless atheism can be proven.
Remember that this was the part about how the die could have two sides, three sides, four sides, five sides, six sides, twenty sides, etc., each with a corresponding number. That one single die could be any of those types of dice, you said, makes it more probable that the die rolled would not land on a 1.
Purple Knight wrote:The permission to kill them all was not an exaggeration. You also can't find similar talk with similar gusto about people being told, by God, to simply kill herds of Jews including children. The best you can find is that some people have killed Jews, and that God allowed it, but that doesn't make it justified. Remember, everything that happens, including murder, God technically allows in the same way, by just not stopping it. Doesn't make murder right. Those Assyrians probably burned in Hell.
Your argument was that, in the Bible, God justifies the Jews' wars but not wars against the Jews by others. I said that the Bible shows wars as God's judgment over both Jew and Gentiles for their wicked actions. You seem to be wanting the Hebrew scriptures to contain books with God talking to the other nations, not addressed to Jews at all, and telling them to drive out and kill the Jews; books addressed wholly to non-Jews? If so, why should one expect such a thing? What we have are books addressed to Jews, some telling them to fight for the promised land, driving out and killing in judgment of the actions of wicked nations
as well as books addressed to Jews that speak of Jews being driven out and killed in judgment of their wicked actions.
Purple Knight wrote:The consequence would be that irrationality being taken to task. But it never is, and insults win wherever they are permitted.
How can it be taken to task?
Purple Knight wrote:To be in the right. If I was just right, I wouldn't have to concede.
Okay. But you have been judging the other way around, which doesn't work. Let's say Person X is your opponent. You are arguing this (at least it seems to me you are):
(1) If Person X is right, then Person X doesn't concede.
(2) Person X doesn't concede.
(3) Therefore, Person X is right.
This is a textbook fallacy called affirming the consequent.
(1) If it is raining outside, then there are clouds in the sky.
(2) There are clouds in the sky.
(3) Therefore, it is raining outside.
We know the second is obviously false because we see clouds without it raining quite often. But I may be misunderstanding your point and this is an unintended straw man I've attacked.
Purple Knight wrote:To judge the truth of this we'd have to define "society" which is very hard to do. Is it American society? What about all the sub-cultures? What about an individual who is a part of various sub-cultures?
Whatever people are immersed in, is what they tend to imitate.
Sure. I don't see how that helps us define "society".
Purple Knight wrote:I still think (if God is all you say it is) that allowing people to be rewarded obviously and consistently for the wrong thing would be out of bounds. This would mislead people.
Reward and punishment is how we all learn morality to begin with, even if it evolves into a greater understanding later. If one thing is always rewarded, that's obviously right.
I don't understand why you think irrational people who simply hurl insults are rewarded. They get a pat on the back from other irrational people. They largely get ignored by rational people or insulted back by those unable to control their emotions in the face of irrationality and insults. That's a reward?