The Story of Isaac invalidates certain claims of God
1. God is claimed to be perfectly moral.
2. God is claimed to be omnscient.
3. God commanded Isaac to kill his own son to demonstrate his conviction.
4. He knew before hand of Isaac's conviction, and such a command is unecessary (due to 2)
5. Causing unecessary pain is immoral.
6. Therefore, 1 is false (due to 3 + 4 + 5)
7. Therefore, 'God', as he is claimed to be, is not true (due to 6)
Did I go wrong somewhere, or is this valid?
Yes
Side Score: 17
|
 |
No
Side Score: 3
|
|
|
|
|
3
points
1
point
1
point
So God can do what he wants, because he is God, and it is correct? Surely that leads to the idea that it is good for us to do such a thing also? Either it is good or it is bad, it must be true for all people, and such an action being good would contradict other statements on morality. And, it's violated by the Euthypro Dilemma. The only escape route I could think of was the idea that Isaac wouldn't have known his own devotion unless challenged in such a way, and by God's actions, he was benefited overall. Seems very much to be clutching at straws though, as he was pretty committed to begin with in the story. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
|
1. God is claimed to be perfectly moral. Moral by His definition, not yours. 3. God commanded Isaac to kill his own son to demonstrate his conviction. To demonstrate to Isaac Isaac's conviction. 4. He knew before hand of Isaac's conviction, and such a command is unecessary (due to 2) Yet that would not have shown Isaac anything. 5. Causing unecessary pain is immoral. As per your sense of morality. 6. Therefore, 1 is false (due to 3 + 4 + 5) There is no truth in morality; only opinion. 7. Therefore, 'God', as he is claimed to be, is not true (due to 6) 6 is invalid; 7, relying on the validity of the invalidated 6, is therefore also invalid. Side: No
4
points
Moral by His definition, not yours. & As per your sense of morality. & There is no truth in morality; only opinion. [Do to others as you would have done to yourself] The 9th commandment leads me to this conclusion, not my standard of morality, but that set out in the Bible. Does your entire argument for the validity of these claims lies on the conclusion that unnecessary pain is something we should want to happen to ourselves? There is no truth in morality; only opinion. Again, I refer to the ten commandments, and the words of Jesus. Christianity teaches that there is objective morality, either it is false there, false here, or God's actions here are morally correct. Side: Yes
I've noticed that responses like the above from theists always allow them never to concede the presence of flaws in their texts or doctrines, which makes me wonder whether the believer is playing an intentional game with the nontheist/skeptic, or whether their faith has brainwashed them to such an extent that they are genuinely incapable of seeing them. Either way, there's a problem. Side: Yes
|
