Does God Kill Babies (QUESTIONS) (2)
errancy@infidels.org errancy@infidels.org
Mon, 31 May 1999 20:34:44 EDT (00928215284, 364a2eaa.248484a4@aol.com)
In a message dated 5/29/99 6:48:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bdtayl@yahoo.com
writes:
> > > Tim
> > > OK, now change 1a to:
> > >
> > > "that which is given, and sustained, belongs to the giver, and
> sustainer,
> > > forever"
> > >
> > > You may insert all the extra words you like. You still haven't proven
> > > the new 1a., or the old one.
> > >
> >
> > RANDY
> >
> > Let me back up and try again:
> >
> > 1. God chose, moment to moment, to continue sustaining the life of
> > these Amalekite babies.
> >
> > 2. God was free to choose not to sustain the life of these babies at
any
>
> > moment He so chose
> >
> > It seems to me that since God's will belongs to God He would be free
to
> > choose according to His own purposes. If you would say that I haven't
> proven
> >
> > these assertions either then let me ask what positive assertion about
God'
> s
> > behavior, good or bad, would you offer that can be proven with logical
> > undeniability?
>
> Tim
> Yes, you have not demonstrated that (1) is true again,
RANDY
Yes, and I haven't proven that God created the Amalekite babies either.
But you accepted
that assertion without me proving it. Apparently we agree that the Bible
says that God
created the Amalekite babies. It sounds like you're saying that you don't
think the Bible
says that God sustained the life of the Amalekite babies moment to moment.
My support
for this assertion is Acts 17:28. The God I am defending in this debate is
the God who
created these babies, sustained the life of these babies moment to moment,
and at a
certain point in history chose to end the life of these babies. So let me
ask you directly:
1. Do you agree that the Bible says God created these Amalekite babies?
2. Do you agree that the Bible says God sustained the life of these
Amalekite babies
moment to moment?
3. Do you agree that the Bible says God killed these Amalekite babies?
If we don't agree on these questions then we're just talking past each
other.
I hope we agree that we're debating whether or not what the Bible says
about God leads
to a logical contradiction. These assertions are what I believe the Bible
says about God.
TIM
but now that
> you have used the word "sustain", you argument is even worse.
>
> If I choose to cease "sustaining" my house, my child, my car, or
> my lawn, then will eventully stop functioning or die.
>
> To stop "sustaining" something is far different than actively killing
> it by say running it through with a sword, or bashing it's head against
> the rocks.
>
> As you can see "stop sustaining" and "kill" are quite different.
RANDY
Sure. But I don't see how you've shown that to stop sustaining is worse
than killing. You don't deal with my statements regarding that fact that
God's will belongs To God and so it would be reasonable for Him to choose
according to His own purposes. I'm sure you disagree with my conclusion
but I'd at least like to hear your reasons why.
TIM
>
> You have attempted to reword your argument twice. It isn't working.
>
> To answer your question. I judge the recorded behavior of a deity
> as I do that of anyone else. I do not assume "goodness" a priori.
>
> Thus, without further detail in 1 Samuel 15:3, I conclude the act
> is wrong by my morals, which are shared by many world governments. It's
> called the Geneva Convention.
RANDY
This does not answer my question. I asked for an argument that proceeded
with logical undeniability. The Geneva Convention is not a logically
undeniable
moral authority. Although I'm not familiar with the entire wording of the
Geneva
Convention I would tend to doubt that it addresses the morality of acts
committed
by a deity. But I could be wrong.
TIM
>
> I have previously commented on the patent absurdity your argument
> leads to when applied to many religions simultaneously
> (the historical situation we are discussing here).
>
> > > Tim
> > > Well, we can stop right here. You are trying to assume something that
> > > is not in the text. Here, you are assuming only one insulin pump, and
> > > of course, in 1 Samuel 15:3, you are going to assume that Yahweh had
> > > reason to kill all babies.
>
> > RANDY
> >
> > Well, let's not get me ahead of myself here. Right now we're just
talking
>
> >about insulin pumps. If we can ever agree about this discussion we can
> > move on to discussing babies.
>
> Tim
> The insulin pump is an analogy referring back to 1 Samuel 15:3. I
> provided no detail indicating that the insulin pump was the only one
> in existence, and given the availability of insulin pumps, I state
> now that one could not assume such.
>
> >>TIM
> > >
> > > Unfortunately for you, you have just committed the fallacy of circular
> > > reasoning. That is, you assume as a premise (Yahweh had a reason),
> > > what you seek to conclude (Yahweh had a reason, therefore it is
> justified)
> > >
> > > The text gives no reason for the slaughter of the Amalekite babies,
> > > therefore your argument, which relies on a fallacy, has failed.
> >
> >
> > RANDY
> >
> > My argument in this discussion had said nothing about Amalekite babies
> > either. Let's back up. Your original argument said:
> >
> >
> > We also have another logical problem. You argue:
> >
> > 1. Yahweh created the Amalekite babies.
> > 2. Therefore he has a right to have them slaughtered.
> >
> > (2) does not logically follow from (1). (1) cannot be proven in this
> > case.
> >
> > It is as fallacious as arguing:
> >
> > 1. Dr. X created Randy's artificial heart.
> > 2. Therefore Dr. X can remove and destroy it whenever he likes.
> >
> > Such reasoning is truly ridiculous, even after we prove that Dr. X
> > created Randy's artificial.
> >
> >
> > I hear you saying that there is no situation in which it would
> > be moral for Dr. X to remove the {insulin pump}. I am arguing
> > that there could be at least one situation in which the removal
> > would be justified. You have made an implied universal
> > statement about the morality of removing the pump. Since your
> > statement is a universal negative it seems to me that I should be
> > able to specify any conditions I can imagine in arguing for a
> > counterexample.
>
> Tim
> I said nothing of the sort. The idea that there is one pump, must
> be added to the text. Therefore, the one adding the detail would
> be engaging in circular logic to reach an apriori conclusion,
> just as you have been doing.
RANDY
Wouldn't circular logic be assuming only one insulin pump as a
premise and then coming to the conclusion that there's only one
insulin pump?
>
> In "specifying the conditions" this is precisely what you are
> doing, engaging in circular logic.
>
> > TIM
> > >
> > > Finally, referring back to your new "1a", you'll note that it is
> > > irrelevant here (in my original analogy) whether the Doctor here
> > > "sustains" the the insulin pump from moment to moment. That still
> > > does not prove he has the right to take it away.
> > >
> >
> > RANDY
> >
> > Then are you making the assertion that the fact that the pump is keeping
> > the patient alive obligates the doctor to continue to choose to sustain
> > the pump?
>
> Tim
> Nice attempt at shifting the burden of proof. It obligates the Doctor
> not to rip it from the patient's body. That is the analogy in question.
RANDY
In offering the analogy of the patient and the insulin pump are you
asserting
that there is no conceivable situation in which the creator of the pump
would
be justified in removing the pump? If not, what are you asserting?
Randy Bronson
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>