Who Let the Dogs Out?

[POI]

Theists will state Satan rules the roost here on earth. But someday, God will (contain/remove/isolate/other) him.

Imagine you possessed a very violent dog. He attacks or disrupts all animals and all people for which he encounters. Your only job is to contain him, by leash. You opt not to, citing free will or something other. Would you be considered wise?

For Debate:

Someday, God is going to contain Satan, but not yet. Why?

[TRANSPONDER]

There's a lot there and perhaps not quite considering where Satan would fit into that, either as a gofor for God or a loose cannon. In my view, the basis of morality is reciprocity; the Golden Rule. That implies empathy and wanting the best for everyone, that being extended from the immediate group to all humanity. Therefore, it would seem that the highest form of morality would be an egalitarian one. It therefore seems to me to follow that selfishness is the way Satan would try to undermine that God - given morality of empathy, supposing that God's morality is anything like the one He supposedly gave us.

But ultimately Satan isn't evil in this scenario. It's a balance. Wanting the best for all includes yourself. If someone dumps on you, sends rabid dogs to bite you, the happy Buddha here in the middle has to ask you if you're okay with a world that lets that happen to anyone, and you have to say no.

You don't get altruism without selfishness, because to have empathy and understand that he wants cats, you have to understand your love for your own cats, and you don't just give him all your cats because then you have none and you're sad, and if everybody cares for everybody, nobody else wants you to be sad anymore than you want him to be sad.

Christianity pretends you can have empathy and altruism without selfishness. Let's explore that, based on the Golden Rule. Because you are a selfless giver, and what you want is to give, give, give, and then starve to death, then do unto others as you would have them do unto you means take all their stuff so they starve but they get to be moral and selfless and happy. If you don't have that speck of selfishness to understand that you actually want things, for yourself, no other bloody reason, you don't have the understanding to do unto others anything that they'd actually want done to them.

The equilibrium is to share, as long as that won't hurt you, because at equilibrium everybody cares about everybody, everybody is also a little selfish, and nobody wants you to be hurt either.

Now, as to ad hom, it is a fallacy when used to discredit an argument. The obvious example is to say Delius wasn't a good composer because he went blind from Syphilis. Obviously that has nothing to do with whether his music is good, nor that Einstein's theories must be wrong because he dumped his wife and married his cousin. But I imagine ad hom could be appropriate where it is relevant to the argument. Like for instance debunking the Religious credentials of a politician who knows nothing of the Bible and apparently never attends church.

Let's refine the example a little bit. Let's say Einstein has this great argument about fidelity. Let's say I can't find a single flaw in it. I still don't think I have to accept it if he just dumped his wife. I don't think I have to accept an ironclad argument about morality from a known paedophile either. I don't think I have to accept diet advice from people fatter than I am, and I don't give a carp about the science behind it. At some point, you become your own credentials.

I agree that our own well - being is our basic instinct, with empathy for others being a secondary one and palaeontological biology even finds evidence of empathy of sacrifice for others as a feature of animals, let alone humans. We can put our own well being (selfishness) aside for the good of others, and even others we don't even know. Empathy. I wouldn't even begin to propose how that works with a god who is in charge of us or not and a devil who is ether working for God or against, and I rather dismiss that whole hypothesis and go with biological survival instinct.

Morals and ad Hom. advice from an unmarried marriage councillor as they say. The point of the ad hom is that. apart from advice on physics from someone is valid or not on its' own merits, not on how they conduct their affairs. I know that morals makes us disinclined to want to listen to advice on how to organise our affairs from a wife - beater or child - molester, but the advice might be sound, nonetheless. Disapproval of someone's morals does not logically invalidate what hypotheses he puts forward. Where I think ad hom does apply is where they try to claim the high moral ground because the political opponent sniffs glue off shaved sheep (what, me? Never even thought of it) when they do exactly the same themselves. ("Lies, lies, I do it with goats..."). The high moral ground - claim is where as hom is a valid argument, I propose.

[Miles]

If god effectively used wickedness {snip }...

God has not "used" wickedness, he has allowed wickedness, not the same thing. To learn more please see my earlier post, Why has it taken so much TIME to settle the issue of universal Sovereignty?

First of, please note that I did use "allow" in my question.

That said, to allow something implies a power to permit. I can permit you to enter my home or not permit you to do so. If I permit you to do so it's implied that I used my power to allow you. So, just as I used such power, so god used wickedness in the past to settle issues raised in Eden. However, if it makes you feel better, I can go along with your "allow." So let me rephrase.

original:..... "If god effectively used wickedness in the past to settle issues raised in Eden I assume they've all been taken care of. So why continue to allow it to exist?"

rephrased: "If god effectively allowed wickedness in the past to settle issues raised in Eden I assume they've all been taken care of. So why continue to allow it to exist?"

Se any meaningful difference in the two statements? I don't. Just a bit of nit picking.

Miles wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 9:48 pm
If god effectively [allowed] wickedness in the past to settle issues raised in Eden I assume they've all been taken care of.

...
You presume correctly.

Then what's with the continued wickedness? If he can allow it why not disallow it? Just getting more kicks from the suffering of his poor Earthlings?



.

[TRANSPONDER]

If god effectively used wickedness {snip }...

God has not "used" wickedness, he has allowed wickedness, not the same thing. To learn more please see my earlier post, Why has it taken so much TIME to settle the issue of universal Sovereignty?
viewtopic.php?p=845975#p845975

If god effectively [allowed] wickedness in the past to settle issues raised in Eden I assume they've all been taken care of.
...

You presume correctly. Since 1914 the issue has effectlively been settled and God is in the process of choosing those he sees as deserving of living under his world government. All that remains is to finish gathering the members of that world government ( 144, 000), kill off those that would rather not live under it, finish dealing with Satan and then let the good times roll!

Vivre le Royaume!!!



RELATED POSTS

Are we living in the last days?
viewtopic.php?p=1008292#p1008292

If God's kingdom has been in power since 1914 why have there been no significant changes on earth?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 72#p883772

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

GOD'S KINGDOM, MILLENIAL RULE and ...1914

We don't buy that excuse. God not only used wickedness but initiated it. Apart from the Flood, God supposedly hardened Pharaoh's heart when we was inclined to release the Israelies, just so God could exhibit his power. I can think of apologetics justifying doing that (mainly of the 'God knows best' kind) but that he Did it, not just 'used it' is what the Bible says.

[JehovahsWitness]

Miles wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 9:48 pm
If god effectively [allowed] wickedness in the past to settle issues raised in Eden I assume they've all been taken care of.

...
You presume correctly.

Since 1914 the issue has effectlively been settled and God is in the process of choosing those he sees as deserving of living under his world government. All that remains is to finish gathering the members of that world government ( 144, 000), kill off those that would rather not live under it, finish dealing with Satan and then let the good times roll!

Vivre le Royaume!!!



RELATED POSTS

Are we living in the last days?
viewtopic.php?p=1008292#p1008292

If God's kingdom has been in power since 1914 why have there been no significant changes on earth?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 72#p883772

Why has it taken TIME to settle the issue of universal sovereinty?
viewtopic.php?p=1097903#p1097903

Why has it SO MANY MILLENIA to settle the issue of universal sovereinty?
viewtopic.php?p=845975#p845975

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

GOD'S KINGDOM, MILLENIAL RULE and ...1914

[1213]

...So why doesn't God contain it...

What do you mean with that?

What do you mean by "what do I mean with that"?

We already have "knowledge of good and evil". Hence, there is no reason for God not to contain further "evil."

So, you are ready for that God removes all evil? Maybe God has still reason to allow it for a short moment. I trust He knows better than you.

[TRANSPONDER]

Miles wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 9:48 pm
If god effectively [allowed] wickedness in the past to settle issues raised in Eden I assume they've all been taken care of.

...
You presume correctly.

Since 1914 the issue has effectlively been settled and God is in the process of choosing those he sees as deserving of living under his world government. All that remains is to finish gathering the members of that world government ( 144, 000), kill off those that would rather not live under it, finish dealing with Satan and then let the good times roll!

Vivre le Royaume!!!



RELATED POSTS

Are we living in the last days?
viewtopic.php?p=1008292#p1008292

If God's kingdom has been in power since 1914 why have there been no significant changes on earth?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 72#p883772

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

GOD'S KINGDOM, MILLENIAL RULE and ...1914

...So why doesn't God contain it...

What do you mean with that?

What do you mean by "what do I mean with that"?

We already have "knowledge of good and evil". Hence, there is no reason for God not to contain further "evil."

So, you are ready for that God removes all evil? Maybe God has still reason to allow it for a short moment. I trust He knows better than you.

So all we get in the end is appeal to prophecy (the 1914 prophecy already shown to be unconvincing to anyone who doesn't already have Faith in it, and 'God knows best'. None of that adds up to a row of beans.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #40]

why is it not immoral and disgusting to have salvation based on belief rather than deeds and morals

But the church has always maintained that Salvation requires our deeds, such as baptism. And we must live a holy life or what awaits us is purgatory or hell for those that never turn to God.

[POI]

So, you are ready for that God removes all evil? Maybe God has still reason to allow it for a short moment. I trust He knows better than you.

You have given no reason for God to continue to allow evil. If we already have knowledge of evil, then there is no reason to allow for it to continue.

[Purple Knight]

Disapproval of someone's morals does not logically invalidate what hypotheses he puts forward.

I agree that it doesn't. And we're on the same page about the moral high ground, which is what got me thinking, in the first place, about how and when ad hominem is not a fallacy: When people use their own moral perfection as a premise in an argument. Yes I can bloody attack your character if it's terrible and you use it to brace your argument. I can attack it the same as anything else you found your argument on.

In fact, using one's own moral credentials as a premise in an argument, and then calling ad hom when those credentials are discredited, is what really ought to be a fallacy. I kind of what to call it IFSA, informal fallacy shield abuse, and also have it encompass when people set up a weak argument deliberately, then call strawman when you literally addressed what they just said.

Anyway, I was thinking about that one case where ad hominem is definitely not a fallacy. I just don't think it ends there.

Now I agree that moral advice from a paedophile, domestic abuser, or drunk might be sound. It also might not be, and I think saying that good moral advice is less likely to come from people of proven bankrupt moral character than from people without those strikes against them is perfectly reasonable. It's hardly deductive proof that their moral advice is bad, but that shouldn't stop us from considering it since ad hominem is an informal fallacy in the first place and doesn't apply to solid, absolute deductive reasoning, but to situations where strong and weak evidence is thrown on the pile of an argument's support. And if we're just weighing evidence anyway, the fact that someone is a paedophile, domestic abuser, or drunk... well, it doesn't weigh nothing.

Maybe we ought to treat it as nothing to prevent debate from becoming a political mudslinging pit, but if someone is arguing about morality, while proven to be morally bankrupt, I think that's extremely relevant.

[TRANSPONDER]

Disapproval of someone's morals does not logically invalidate what hypotheses he puts forward.

I agree that it doesn't. And we're on the same page about the moral high ground, which is what got me thinking, in the first place, about how and when ad hominem is not a fallacy: When people use their own moral perfection as a premise in an argument. Yes I can bloody attack your character if it's terrible and you use it to brace your argument. I can attack it the same as anything else you found your argument on.

In fact, using one's own moral credentials as a premise in an argument, and then calling ad hom when those credentials are discredited, is what really ought to be a fallacy. I kind of what to call it IFSA, informal fallacy shield abuse, and also have it encompass when people set up a weak argument deliberately, then call strawman when you literally addressed what they just said.

Anyway, I was thinking about that one case where ad hominem is definitely not a fallacy. I just don't think it ends there.

Now I agree that moral advice from a paedophile, domestic abuser, or drunk might be sound. It also might not be, and I think saying that good moral advice is less likely to come from people of proven bankrupt moral character than from people without those strikes against them is perfectly reasonable. It's hardly deductive proof that their moral advice is bad, but that shouldn't stop us from considering it since ad hominem is an informal fallacy in the first place and doesn't apply to solid, absolute deductive reasoning, but to situations where strong and weak evidence is thrown on the pile of an argument's support. And if we're just weighing evidence anyway, the fact that someone is a paedophile, domestic abuser, or drunk... well, it doesn't weigh nothing.

Maybe we ought to treat it as nothing to prevent debate from becoming a political mudslinging pit, but if someone is arguing about morality, while proven to be morally bankrupt, I think that's extremely relevant.

Yes. The point being, perhaps, that the advice should be taken on its' own merits and not on side issues such as what their character is or is claimed to be (unless the point being argued is based on character (1). I look at an argument about history or cosmology or whatever on its' own merits and don't consider whether they have a grubby personal record, which is perhaps why I sometimes mistake which 'side' a poster here is on. I don't list which ones are believers and which are not.

(1) like for instance the impudent claim that being a Christian is supposed to mean that they are morally better than non Christians.