Does God Kill Babies (QUESTIONS) (2)
errancy@infidels.org errancy@infidels.org
Mon, 31 May 1999 20:34:53 EDT (00928215293, b771d41f.248484ad@aol.com)
In a message dated 5/30/99 1:24:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jftill@midwest.net writes:
>
> At 12:44 AM 5/29/99 EDT, you wrote:
> >
> >> At 06:28 PM 5/26/99 EDT, you wrote:
> >>
> >> >> TILL
> >> >> Once again, I will ask you to logically justify this assertion.
In
> >> earlier
> >> >> postings, I have shown reasons why this claim is unsound, so I
won't
>
> >> bother
> >> >> to rehash it. Just prove to us that your assertion is true.
> >> >
> >> >RANDY
> >> > We'll discuss this below. Are these "earlier postings" part of this
> >> thread or
> >> >something from further back? And do they consist of more than the "
> >> parenting"
> >> >comparison?
> >> >
> >>
> >> TILL
> >> Randy, I get a little tired of inerrantists who start weaving and
> dodging
> >> after they find themselves backed into a corner. The "earlier
posting"
> in
> >> question was sent just yesterday. I am cutting and pasting below the
> part
> >> relevant to this issue.
> >> ***************
<snip posting>
>> ********************
> >>
> >> So I have clearly given reasons why the antecedent in your conditional
> >> sentence does not necessitate its consequent. Another posting that
> delved
> >> more thoroughly into the logical fallacy in your reasoning was sent to
> the
> >> list today (entitled "If Yahweh Gave Life..."), so please don't try to
> >> pretend that you have not seen my rebuttal.
>
> >
> >RANDY
> >
> > I agree that the conclusion "God may take life" would not be seen to
> flow
> >by logical necessity from the statement "If God created life."
>
> TILL
> Okay, if you agree with this, then you can't use it as a defense for
> Yahweh's actions in the matter of the Amalekites, so now let's see you
> explain to us why we should not consider your god to be guilty of an
> appalling moral atrocity.
RANDY
While I agree that I can't defend God's actions with an argument that
proceeds by logical necessity, I haven't yet heard an accusation that
meets that criteria either.
>
> RANDY
> > In your remarks above you claim to have shown that my argument is
unsound.
>
> >I disagree. You have proven that my argument has not been proven to be
> sound
> >but you have not proven my argument to be unsound. The absence of proof
is
>
> >not the proof of unsoundness.
>
> TILL
> If you don't beat this, Randy, I'm going to have to conclude that you are
> evading the issue. For your argument to be sound, YOU must prove that the
> premises on which it is based are true. Since you have admitted that you
> can't prove your first premise to be true, then you have admitted that your
> argument is unsound. I may not have proven that it is unsound, but I don't
> have to prove it is unsound. All I have to do is show that you cannot
prove
> that it is a sound argument. You do understand that the burden of proof
> rests on the one who asserts, don't you?
>
> In effect, you are doing the same thing as the theists who come onto the
> list with their simplistic arguments for the existence of God. When we
> shoot down their arguments, they come back with, "Well, let's see you prove
> that God does NOT exist." We don't have to prove that God doesn't exist,
> because we are not asserting anything about the existence of this god
except
> that we don't find the evidence convincing enough to believe in his
> existence. In the same way, you can't demand that I prove that your
> argument is NOT sound. To have an argument, you must prove that it IS
sound.
>
RANDY
There are three categories into which an argument can be placed. Proven,
Unproven,
and Proven Wrong. My argument is currently in the Unproven category. As
such it carries no
weight to support any conclusion. However, if you wish to place my argument
in the
"proven wrong" category then you bear the burden of proving your assertion.
This point isn't
critical to our debate so I'll give you the last word on it.
>
> RANDY
> > In your statements above you argue:
> >
> >> Suppose we had the following conditional sentences: (1) If John Doe
> >> fathered baby Doe, then John Doe is entitled to abandon baby Doe. (2)
> If
> >> John Doe fathered baby Doe, then John Doe has an obligation to care
for
> and
> >> nurture baby Doe.
> >> Which one of these conditional sentences has a consequent that morally
> >> follows the statement of the antecedent?
> >
> > You've asked me for a consequent that follows it's antecedent by
logical
> >necessity. Does your consequent here follow your antecedent as a "moral
> >assumption?" How are "moral assumptions" established?
>
> TILL
> Well, let me ask you a question. Do you think that if John Doe fathered
> Baby Doe, then John Doe has an obligation to care for and nurture Baby Doe?
> If you do agree, then you are asking me to prove something that you agree
is
> true.
RANDY
Yes. Since you and I would "prove" this in different ways I would be very
interested
to see your proof. I'd also be interested to the answers to the questions I
asked above.
>
> Can't you see the difference? I don't agree that if God gave life, then
God
> has the right to take life, so you are asking me to surrender to a premise
> that I don't believe is true. However, if you agree that if John Doe
> fathered Baby Doe, then John Doe has an obligation to care for Baby Doe,
> then you must agree that I have stated a consequent that is necessitated by
> the antecedent of the conditional sentence. You can say that I have no
> effective counterargument only if you disagree with my conclusion.
>
> RANDY
> > It seems to me that you are here stating that your counterassertion
only
> >carries the weight
> >of an assumption and not that of a necessity. It seems to me that we
have
> an
> >epistemological
> >standoff with both of our arguments carrying the weight of assumptions
> >(depending on what you
> >mean by a "moral assumption.") As such, the critique of God's actions in
> >killing the Amalekite
> >babies, or the defense of such actions, would carry little weight within
> the
> >framework that's been
> >established.
> >
>
> TILL
> The only difference is that I firmly disagree with your assumption, but you
> (I strongly suspect) will agree with my assumption. I used the John Doe
> example because it is the closest parallel that I could imagine to your
> premise of a God who gives life.
RANDY
I agree that your assumption has something to do with parenting. I disagree
that it has anything to do with the ethics of creation.
Randy Bronson
>
> Farrell Till
> Skepticism, Inc.
> jftill@midwest.net
>
>