If God was the Devil, How Would You Know?

[Purple Knight]

Questions for debate: If the more powerful being were the evil, and the rebel the good, how would you know this? What clues would you look for? Would it even be possible to glean such knowledge in a universe where the evil being is omnipotent and controls all? Is it a nonsense question because a being that was truly all-powerful would have every authority and power to set up the rules for good and evil and simply favour itself?

[Purple Knight]

If you paid 100% in taxes you'd be 100% a slave.

Except for the fact that slaves receive no wages.

If you paid 100% of your income in taxes you'd receive no wages.

Slaves have no income. 100% taxation would not change this.

Bloody Hell man!

Mr. Flaid: "Here you go Otis, it's $100 for all your hard work today. Now we'll just deduct the taxes here, and those there, and this fee, and that surcharge, oh and deduct for your food and upkeep. Ah, there we go. You owe me fourteen cents. Aren't you happy though? You're totally not a slave!"

Otis: "....."

[2ndRateMind]

Of course, every Christian is a taxpaying slave, if indeed being a taxpayer is to be a slave...
Therefore...what does that say about Christians/Christianity?

That we take our civil responsibilities seriously, and that we recognise that much more can be achieved by a group working together than by a whole bunch of individuals working separately.

Best wishes 2RM.

]

Serving money in the process. Is there any record of Jesus saying anything about this?

Maybe it was Buddha who said that man cannot serve both god and money?

Perhaps it was Krishna who said if you follow him and beleive his words you will be a free man rather than a slave to civil irresponsibility

No, it was Jesus, attributed as follows in wikipedia:

The Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke both quote Jesus using the word in a phrase often rendered in English as 'You cannot serve both God and mammon.'

I don't quite see how paying your taxes (in a liberal democracy), amounts to 'serving money.' Perhaps you can explain? After all, He also said 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's.'

Best wishes, 2RM.

Reportedly said, would be the true way to put it.

So in those two things Jesus reportedly said, they appear to cancel each other out.

In answer to your question I say that if democracy is okay to serve, there seems no reason why one would have to also serve Jesus, unless doing one is doing the other. In which case, everyone serving monetary systems democratically is also serving Jesus.

Or perhaps Jesus was answering one of those trick questions asked of him by those who were serving the democracy of the day.

Telling those that if they use money they serve/are slaves to the one who owns the money

According to your answer it appears that it must have been the image of Jesus on the money for why else would would he tell us to pay taxes based on the idea that we can serve monatary systems and Jesus/God at the same time because all rendering is essentailly rendering to God

Our money belongs to Caesar. Our hearts belong to God.

Best wishes, 2RM

[Purple Knight]

You're not. It got off-topic but I don't ever mind that.

Yours is the exact kind of answer I was looking for.

So let's run with that. Alright, you couldn't know, so do I have this right?:

If there is any being that is truly omnipotent, we can't possibly know right from wrong.

Yes, I'd agree 100%.

Good! Wonderful! Now we're getting somewhere.

Now we apply contraposition to the statement.

If there is any being that is truly omnipotent, we can't possibly know right from wrong.

Negate each:
~(there is a being that is truly omnipotent) = there is not a being that is truly omnipotent-
~(we cannot know right from wrong) = we can know right from wrong
And swap:
...And we get:

If we can know right from wrong, there cannot be a being that is truly omnipotent.

I say that's a pretty decent disproof of God. It's not airtight but frankly I think it's better than anything else out there. I call it the Argument from Morality. It fails if one is forced to admit that it's every bit possible the wool is simply being pulled over our eyes and we don't know, but most people who are moral are very certain that they do in fact know right from wrong.

[Tcg]

If you paid 100% in taxes you'd be 100% a slave.

Except for the fact that slaves receive no wages.

If you paid 100% of your income in taxes you'd receive no wages.

Slaves have no income. 100% taxation would not change this.

Bloody Hell man!

Mr. Flaid: "Here you go Otis, it's $100 for all your hard work today. Now we'll just deduct the taxes here, and those there, and this fee, and that surcharge, oh and deduct for your food and upkeep. Ah, there we go. You owe me fourteen cents. Aren't you happy though? You're totally not a slave!"

Otis: "....."

In slavery there is no, "Here you go Otis, it's $100 for all your hard work today." Given that Otis is owned by Mr. Flaid, Mr. Flaid pays Otis nothing.


Tcg

[Purple Knight]

In slavery there is no, "Here you go Otis, it's $100 for all your hard work today." Given that Otis is owned by Mr. Flaid, Mr. Flaid owes Otis nothing.

That's true. It's an example of what Mr. Flaid might say if he was trying to convince Otis he wasn't a slave.

It is easier to convince the slaves that they are free than suffer their disquiet and their rebellions.
- Purple Knight

[Tcg]

In slavery there is no, "Here you go Otis, it's $100 for all your hard work today." Given that Otis is owned by Mr. Flaid, Mr. Flaid owes Otis nothing.

That's true. It's an example of what Mr. Flaid might say if he was trying to convince Otis he wasn't a slave.

It is easier to convince the slaves that they are free than suffer their disquiet and their rebellions.
- Purple Knight

Nothing I've stated has anything to do with convincing slaves they aren't slaves. I've pointed out quite clearly that paying taxes doesn't make one a slave.


Tcg

[2ndRateMind]

You're not. It got off-topic but I don't ever mind that.

Yours is the exact kind of answer I was looking for.

So let's run with that. Alright, you couldn't know, so do I have this right?:

If there is any being that is truly omnipotent, we can't possibly know right from wrong.

Yes, I'd agree 100%.

Good! Wonderful! Now we're getting somewhere.

Now we apply contraposition to the statement.

If there is any being that is truly omnipotent, we can't possibly know right from wrong.

Negate each:
~(there is a being that is truly omnipotent) = there is not a being that is truly omnipotent-
~(we cannot know right from wrong) = we can know right from wrong
And swap:
...And we get:

If we can know right from wrong, there cannot be a being that is truly omnipotent.

I say that's a pretty decent disproof of God. It's not airtight but frankly I think it's better than anything else out there. I call it the Argument from Morality. It fails if one is forced to admit that it's every bit possible the wool is simply being pulled over our eyes and we don't know, but most people who are moral are very certain that they do in fact know right from wrong.

Now we're cooking with gas! It is my belief that the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven. One either believes, or one doesn't. As I have said elsewhere, a proven God would be damaging both to the individual particularly and humanity generally. An omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent proven God would confront us with a problem of obedience. How could we dare to disobey Him? What happens to free-will in such a scenario? As for a disproven God, one only needs cite the problems the existentialist school of philosophy found when they tried to get rid of Him.

Seems to me that God hides Himself from those who do not love Him, and want nothing to do with Him. And that is my 'argument from freedom*'. Since freedom is highly regarded, perhaps above all else, one may infer that the entity that bestowed that freedom on us is good.

Best wishes, 2RM

*You may like to reconsider the name of your 'argument from morality'. It is most often used to denote the argument: morals exist; God is moral; therefore God exists.

[Tcg]

You're not. It got off-topic but I don't ever mind that.

Yours is the exact kind of answer I was looking for.

So let's run with that. Alright, you couldn't know, so do I have this right?:

If there is any being that is truly omnipotent, we can't possibly know right from wrong.

Yes, I'd agree 100%.

Good! Wonderful! Now we're getting somewhere.

Now we apply contraposition to the statement.

If there is any being that is truly omnipotent, we can't possibly know right from wrong.

Negate each:
~(there is a being that is truly omnipotent) = there is not a being that is truly omnipotent-
~(we cannot know right from wrong) = we can know right from wrong
And swap:
...And we get:

If we can know right from wrong, there cannot be a being that is truly omnipotent.

I say that's a pretty decent disproof of God. It's not airtight but frankly I think it's better than anything else out there. I call it the Argument from Morality. It fails if one is forced to admit that it's every bit possible the wool is simply being pulled over our eyes and we don't know, but most people who are moral are very certain that they do in fact know right from wrong.

Now we're cooking with gas! It is my belief that the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven. One either believes, or one doesn't. As I have said elsewhere, a proven God would be damaging both to the individual particularly and humanity generally. An omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent proven God would confront us with a problem of obedience. How could we dare to disobey Him? What happens to free-will in such a scenario?

The author of the mythology contained in Romans 1 disagrees with you. Odd that you'd reject that mythology and not the mythology that teaches that there is a God.

Seems to me that God hides Himself from those who do not love Him, and want nothing to do with Him. And that is my 'argument from freedom'. Since freedom is highly regarded, perhaps above all else, one may infer that the entity that bestowed that freedom on us is good.

Best wishes, 2RM

You are suggesting that a God who plays hide and seek is good?


Tcg

[Purple Knight]

Now we're cooking with gas! It is my belief that the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven. One either believes, or one doesn't. As I have said elsewhere, a proven God would be damaging both to the individual particularly and humanity generally.

You're absolutely right. It would be damaging even to morality. What would that mean, that eternal knife at all our throats, do ill and you get sliced straight to Hell? Arguably just by knowing that knife is really there, it makes all our efforts to be good meaningless; it reduces them to the fearful screeching of a monkey being accosted by a bigger monkey.

However, a working disproof of God has no such flaws.

Seems to me that God hides Himself from those who do not love Him, and want nothing to do with Him. And that is my 'argument from freedom'. Since freedom is highly regarded, perhaps above all else, one may infer that the entity that bestowed that freedom on us is good.

I have no freedom. Not such as I want, anyway. If I make Choice A, that will be evil, but if I pick B, then that will be the evil choice. I have been called a genius, I have been called some other generally nice things, but not once in my life have I chosen a choice that has been good, and not for want of trying.

What is good? Is it he who protects minorities the most? He who opposes racism the most? That's certainly what it seems. I wouldn't know if it was actually the case since I'm a psychopath and I seem to be missing that part of my brain.

[2ndRateMind]

You are suggesting that a God who plays hide and seek is good?


Tcg

No. I am simply pointing out the disadvantages that would accrue were God to provide us an objective proof or disproof of Himself. As for our subjectives, well, God provides us with plenty of these proofs once we have decided to place our faith in Him. Problem is, subjective proofs do not travel well.

Best wishes, 2RM.