or if it is, what is it called? because i see this tactic employed so often in philosophical debates yet no one addresses it:
“well you simply cannot question the things god does and allows because he is perfect and we are imperfect so our moral compass is also flawed.”
“so you think genocide is not bad because good allows it?”
and you either look like an idiot or a fucking psychopath. you could say:
“well, no i don’t think so, but god does!”
but the obvious rebut would be:
“but god has a perfect moral compass, and yours is imperfect. so you know your reasoning is flawed while god allowing genocide is perfectly moral but you choose to go with the imperfect reasoning?”
so it’s a lose-lose. because if you did employ the argument that from a purely logical perspective, follows, then you’re evil !!!
“yes. genocide is perfectly acceptable if god allows it.”
“you’re sick.”
and i would have to agree. but the thing with this sort of argument is that it forces your opponent into a corner where they have to either let go of the argument or look like a really terrible person, which is why is think it should be considered a fallacy.
Which part of this was a fallacy? Cause i mean you are already arguing the existence of something that the other party has not proven and cannot prove, then proceeds to exclaim things about the decisions and preferences of the thing that has not been proven to exist just to then end up at the notion of questioning what god does and does not allow despite of it existing.
I mean, technically you had not said a single sentence that would not be a fallacy one way or another so… which in particular did you mean?
the argument was just used as an illustration. i don’t believe in god.
it’s not considered a fallacy but i think it should be because in my opinion, saying something like,“so you think genocide is acceptable” puts the other person in a position where they either have to be a bad person or lose the debate. and while saying “yes it is acceptable” would logically follow, again, it paints you as a bad person.
i think a point that puts the other person in that sort of position should be considered a fallacy for that reason. so this part
The fallacy is called voluntarism. Divine command theory (a theory made by humans) commits it just as much as humans do when they make up the laws that violate that every valuer is a valuer who should treat every valuer as a valuer (the golden rule)… on pain of rationality (self-destructs to do otherwise), and the dissonance resulting from failure to align the character of one’s thoughts, values, and behaviors.
An unjust law is no law at all, which is why we don’t need divine command theory. God can create the good no more than they can create their own personhood. They are the good. They always think, value, and behave according to the golden rule that describes them—the cross (and resurrection) being the ultimate demonstration in time.
Does someone actually make the argument that because God allows evil he thinks evil is good? Can you maybe link me to that argument?
Genocide for the sake of genocide is not something you find in the Bible. Handling an entirely corrupt group of people? Different situation. This is relevant even today when certain cultures think it is fine and dandy to launch attacks from a place that has innocent people in it, and who train up their children to kill their enemies rather than resolve conflicts with them peacefully. You can’t just let that spread unchecked. You especially can’t let that sort of culture get nukes. It’s not genocide to handle them, because it has nothing to do with their genetics (if they share genetics, perhaps they are racist on the level of the KKK who has had similar tactics?). They are ideological extremists whose ideology impacts everyone around them in a deadly way. They launch attacks and hide among the people who are dying around them and accuse others (on the defense) of genocide. This has been going on for thousands of years because they were not handled … in the bud.
They don’t represent the majority of the people they hide among. The people they hide among need to be empowered to expel them.
Humanity has achieved a diamond so beautiful, it is not a question of why it is not given precedence over all, but will we achieve the unspeakable good fortune to see it do so.
God is not humanity. God is there, and humanity is there. If humanity ceases to exist, God will still be there. Many people miss that this is what the myth of Prometheus illustrates.
The true martyrs are the people who accept to wither away and die having achieved only this vision.
It is a fallacy and I would call it the fallacy of allowing the arbitrary into cognition. Your first example, “you can’t say that about God because god is perfect.” Is also the fallacy of self-exclusion. One is essentially exempting their belief from scrutiny. It could also be circular reasoning if it is being used in a debate about the existence of God since it assumes the very thing that is at issue.
It really doesnt though.
You just have not distanced yourself far enough from the question and the debate.
Here is what it looks like when you do:
You have the standard claim of not being able to question god because he is the creator and owner of this game server, so what he says goes.
The entire debate is basically done in this first point.
You were not the one who proclaimed god to be the ultimate authority, it was your opposition, so when you continue:
But evil exists, people constantly pvp and uninstall eachother in this game, so our dear lord admin god has to be okay with it. It’s his server, his game, his rules.
So by point 2 your opposition has argued themselves in a corner.
They made the claim that god is the ultimate authority, so now THEY need to choose whether they are okay with what god had created or they gonna denounce it.
One way or another, its not YOU who put themselves in a corner here. Its your opposition.
You did not make the claim that god was the ultimate authority.
Let them decide whether or not they are okay with the world their god has created.
