@traviskurtz "So can God's nature be the answer in dealing with the Euthyphro dilemma?"
Let's say for a moment that god is perfect. Is he perfect because he has his properties or are his properties perfect because he has them? Unfortunately, Euthyphro can't seem to let go of god.
I have a pertinent Tumblr post at weseeinpart.tumblr.com: Heaven Mandated Genocide. I offer a few of my own conclusions after wrestling through some of this personally.
I should have mentioned this last time, I think this is a significant point.
By arguing for that God "probably" doesn't have a sufficient justifiable reason for His actions, you lessen your burden of proof, but your remove your ability to negate my claim.
The Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma if a third alternative is even possible. Since you are not arguing my alternative is impossible, the Euthyphro dilemma would still be false even if your argument was flawless.
@Epydemic2020 (1 of 2) "Since you are not arguing my alternative is impossible, the Euthyphro dilemma would still be false even if your argument was flawless"
I often use words such as 'likely' or 'probably', as I don't believe we can know many (some argue any) things with 100% certainty. However, for all practical purposes, my argument demonstrates that morality cannot be part of Yahweh's nature, as he (if he exists and the bible is true) was responsible for the most immoral acts of all time
Now, if you wish to use a god other than Yahweh to postulate a third option for ED, then I will withdraw my argument. However, this would have severe consequences for ALL of your morality arguments
Remember, you are making the claim that morality comes from Yahweh's nature. Therefore, I suggest that you offer concrete reasons why Yahweh's genocide command was moral. Arguments such as 'we can't know his intentions' are weak and speculative, and offer little to solidify your claim
As to your last argument, I would add that it is impractical for Jews economically speaking, to incorporate youngsters into their group. (I also wonder about the health of the Canaanite offspring, given their sexual practices).
I do think a biblical case can be made for Babies going to heaven/age of accountability, as well.
Overall, really good video. I liked your tone and the way you approached it.
I don't think your conclusion is correct, but I do think you presented your case well.
@Epydemic2020 “As to your last argument, I would add that it is impractical for Jews economically speaking, to incorporate youngsters into their group. (I also wonder about the health of the Canaanite offspring, given their sexual practices).”
Don’t you think this seems ad-hoc and underestimates the ability of an omnipotent god? However, even if I concede this, do you believe these offer a morally sufficient reason to command the death of children?
> it is impractical for Jews economically speaking, to incorporate youngsters into their group.
Agreed -- in real-life ancient times, it was more "practical" to slit the throats of babies than to arrange for daycare.
So it seems what you're saying is that the Hebrews were bound by all the ordinary limitations of warrior nomad tribes . . . which is a bit odd for a group allegedly being guided by an Omnipotent Benign God.
Just wondering: do you ever wish your religious beliefs were easier to defend? Do you ever wish you didn't have to defend "the good" side of the likes of baby butchering & genocide & eternal torment in hell? Wouldn't it be a relief to have a Holy Book that contained only philosophical & scientific brilliance?
Not that this is a loaded question or anything . . . just, you know, wondering :)
"is there any reason to believe these (sexual perversions like bestiality) were more common among the cannanites than other cultures?"
Yes. They primarily worship baal (even though their chief gods name is El, if my memory serves).
Baal is a fertility God. In that culture they have a dual use for the concept of fertility and "seed". They thought of fertility in relation to plants as well as sex. Worship of this sex deity (orgies around phallic idols, bestiality ect) was pervasive.
@Epydemic2020 “Worship of this sex deity (orgies around phallic idols, bestiality ect) was pervasive.”
So, are you suggesting this is a morally sufficient reason to command genocide? If so, then I must assume you would support the genocide of races that do/did similar things. I’m guessing that you probably would not. Instead, you most likely support the act because Yahweh commanded it, which ultimately brings us to the second option of ED.
I have a couple of thoughts in opposing the idea that God did not have morally justified reasons for exterminating the Canaanites.
First it is important to recognize that your argument is ultimately an "argument from ignorance" (but you do good to word it as an appeal to what is most likely).
As to why God would choose extermination, i personally can think of a couple of reasons...
...Knowing the consequences of His actions, God could easily foresee their existence to be a negative thing for humanity.
Their practices could have had a negative impact on the world (Canaan could spread their practices), or they could have messed with God's plan of bringing a savior through the Jews (by corrupting and or attacking the Jews) etc.
I don't think we have the info available to say God is unlikely to have sufficient reasons especially since, as you point out...
@Epydemic2020 “Knowing the consequences of His actions, God could easily foresee their existence to be a negative thing for humanity.”
This is a very nice thought, but you offer no evidence, only speculation. And, you ignore that Yahweh made it clear in scripture why he was commanding genocide. Now, you must defend his reasons or call his command immoral.
... God's past behavior. In Ninevah he seeks to warn the people, he seeks out peaceful alternatives on other occasions, and He has an explicitly stated that He loves us and wants what is best for us. This implies that He would want to, and acts in a way to bring about the greatest good for humanity. Without direct access to either a) God's intentions or b) the consequences of His actions, it is on very shaky ground to claim God's probably didn't have a justified reason.
Even if you don't think the Bible is the word of God, it is still an important historical document and contains many independently verifiable historical events.
The Exodus didn't happen, there is no evidence for the the existence of Jesus, there was no global flood, King Solomon is at best a gross exaggeration.
Please enlighten me on the "many independently verifiable historical events". Israeli archaeologists beg to differ.
Unless you mean that it contains real place names, like the Bourne Identity. In which case, it is as much history as the Bourne Identity is...
Lets start with your first claim "The Exodus didn't happen".
There is reason to think the Exodus did happen. The Amarna letters: conversations from Canaan to Egypt about the "apiru" (pronounced like Hebrew) people. Canaanites request assistance dealing with these dessert people taking their land.
From Egypt, you see Hebrew influence in Pharaoh's names, like Thutmoses II.
@Epydemic2020 “This implies that He would want to, and acts in a way to bring about the greatest good for humanity.”
Does it? Yahweh is inconsistent in his dealings with man. So, why must I take a default position that everything he does is good? If his actions dictate otherwise, this position is irrational.
@Epydemic2020 “Without direct access to either a) God's intentions or b) the consequences of His actions, it is on very shaky ground to claim God's probably didn't have a justified reason.”
Once again, his reasons for commanding genocide are clear. You want to assume he was justified in his command, but you only beg the question. You assume he is moral and therefore, all of his commands are moral. However, when one judges Yahweh based on his actions, it is easy to reject this proposition.
@Epydemic2020 “…it is important to recognize that your argument is ultimately an ‘argument from ignorance’ “
Really? I am asserting that, if the bible is true, we can know Yahweh’s reasons for commanding genocide, and we can determine whether or not they provide a morally sufficient justification. Instead, you take the position that we cannot know Yahweh’s intentions, so we cannot prove he didn’t have a morally sufficient reason to command genocide. Isn’t this an argument from ignorance?
This is WLC's response to the ED, what he & Epydemic don't realize is that this only pushes the problem back. To say good comes from god's nature is to say that he has a set of properties that constitute moral goodness. Either he has said properties because they are good, or they are good because he has them. Same as before, the latter makes good arbitrary, god could command genocide (which he does in the bible) & it would be good. The former makes the moral properties the standard of good.
@EpistemicFusion "Either he has said properties because they are good, or they are good because he has them. Same as before, the latter makes good arbitrary, god could command genocide (which he does in the bible) & it would be good. The former makes the moral properties the standard of good."
I think this is a very good point EpistemicFusion.
@crazypills2 Yes, Craig & his followers think they are escaping the dilemma, but it only pushed the problem back, the dilemma still stands. Another great point regarding divine command theory is that it is normally put forth as an objective morality, but morality is defined by what god commands. If morality is based on the commands of one person, even god, this is the very definition of SUBjective morality, not objective. If there are moral facts, they cannot be grounded in one person.
awesome video. I've argued genocide (and the resulting killing of children) with Christians before, but of course they argued that we're too dumb to understand god's reasons. If only I had memorized this video back then (not that I could, even if it had existed).
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on mans desire or effort, but on God's mercy. Romans 9:14-17 Just read Romans and see; God demonstrated his wrath to make his power known and at other times He showed mercy.
Another thing about child sacrifice: Is there any evidence apart (from the OT) that it actually occurred? IIRC it was only after the Romans destroyed Carthage that rumors started to circulate about the utter moral turpitude of the Carthaginians, including child sacrifice. If the story about the Canaanite child sacrifices are told only in the Old Testament, then we should wonder why that's the case.
(I haven't read all comments, so apologies if someone already brought up this point.)
@1Weemaryanne "Another thing about child sacrifice: Is there any evidence apart (from the OT) that it actually occurred?"
I haven't done extensive research in this area, but I do believe there is some evidence. However, I don't believe it is a prevalent as some apologists argue.
@crazypills2 Hm, that rings right. Nicking your kid's genitals is one thing, killing it is quite another. For that matter, it occurs to me that even animal sacrifices would have been rare because peasants don't have extra beasts to burn and the rich eat theirs. Sacrifices would have occurred only at ritual times, and as few of those as possible. It appears frequently in OT only because it has to do with "acknowledging God's power" which is a Big Event, so it's like news headlines about murder.
A most eloquent presentation. If Christians think it was okay to kill kids so they'd go straight to heaven, they shouldn't be anti-abortion! That they would try to justify any kind of genocide is pretty shameful. Most humans have higher moral standards than god!
Since when did Christians and Muslims have a monopoly on the god concept? Where the hell are the deists who don't use these disgusting books to justify things?
@SiriusMined "How is "flows from god" any different than "doesn't exist outside of god"?"
The Euthyphro Dilemma poses the dichotomy that morality either exists apart from god (making god unnecessary when it comes to morality) or that morality is the result of god's commands (making morality arbitrary). Epydemic poses a third alternative that morality comes from god's nature. In this case, morality isn't apart from god, but isn't arbitrary either.
Pretty much. It'll be interesting if Epydemic tries to leave Yahweh out of the discussion and address 'god' in general. This is a common tactic among Christians. They often argue using a 'god' other than the one they believe in.
@SisyphusRedeemed "Seems like epydemic has an easy out, at least in theory: the God of the bible is not the God he believes in. At least, not literally."
He does indeed; however, at what cost to his other arguments? As you are well aware, Christians rarely argue for their god when discussing things like his existence or his morality. And as you have done in many of your videos, we must call them on this.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I enjoy your logic, crazypills -the problem is that it lacks trust in God. For instance, I have never read anything in the bible where someone had actually sacrificed their child to God -read Jer 7:31 . Second, the Caananites were part Nephilim - they had to be destroyed, unless you would have wanted giant nephilims to have us for lunch. If you continue to remain skeptical, you'll never understand the bible - no matter how logical you are. Understanding God's word doesn't work that way.
@solarisgalrocks Read Judges 11:31-40, as you apparently have not done so since you mention that you haven't read anything in the bible where someone sacrificed their child to God. From the passage, God is clearly complicit in the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter, as Jephthah offers God a deal, and God accepts it by doing what Jephthah has asked for. God could have prevented it in any number of ways, and being all knowing he even knew exactly what was going to happen if he did as Jephthah asked.
@TheObserver89 that text has nothing to do with a sacrificial death, but it has to do with a dedicated life. She was dedicated to temple and couldnt marry/ remain a virgin. To what else can the “custom of Israel” refer when “the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite, four day in a year”? Dedicated temple worship. Why else would the daughter cry over her viriginity instead of over her own death? God had forbidden offering human sacrifices Jer 19:5
@solarisgalrocks "If you continue to remain skeptical, you'll never understand the bible - no matter how logical you are. Understanding God's word doesn't work that way."
Step back a moment and think about your comment. If someone said this same thing to you regarding the Qur'an, how would you respond?
@crazypills2 - Well my search was in finding God, not in finding what books are correct. So if I felt inclined to read the Qu'ran, I would absolutely do so - even if its to educate myself.
@solarisgalrocks "Well my search was in finding God, not in finding what books are correct."
So, you are willing to suspend any skepticism and accept the Qu'ran as the word of God? Any inconsistencies or errors in it, you would be happy to ignore?
@crazypills2 - Suspend skeptism - no - that's why I consistantly ask questions - I have left organized religion because I question everything. Now, if I asked for the Holy Spirit to guide me while having a humble heart, and the Qu'ran is where I'm sure God is leading me, then yes, I'd accept it. In fact, I would accept the, "Three Little Bears" if that's where God led me.
Please watch "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel. It's available on Netflix. I think it's an eye opener.
In the old testament God and the angels alone were in heaven. Men were borne and died on earth. Your after-life were nothing but your sons and daughters!
"Hell" is a "modern" concept not found in OT. (Although later Judaism had incorporated the Greek Hades / under-world (hell))
Today's biblical fundies have not understood (or read) that part of the Bible!
Of coarse Yahweh (or any god) does NOTexist..... But if he did,.... I would want to get to heaven ONLY to bash his fucking head in if at all possible, not worship the evil sonofabitch! NO I don't "hate" god, he doesn't exist. One more time..HE DOES NOT EXIST!!!!! BTW, great video crazypills2. I'm really glad I subscribed. :)
The kid shoots his concept of god in the foot if he claims morality flows from god's nature. god's nature is supposed to be perfect and unchanging, yet morality is imperfect and constantly changing. Therefore either morality cannot come from god or god is not perfect and unchanging. Either way the arguement fails.
@TheMudbrooker Epydemic's argument is a little different than most Christians I've encountered. He argues that morality is based on situations, but is still objective. Under the same exact situations, he argues that morality doesn't change. I'm guessing that the way he gets around the genocide problem is to say that the situation today is different than it was when the Jews entered the promise land. It's kind of like a 'get out of jail free' card.
I don't think this freshman guy who just took intro to philosophy has changed the philosophy of the past several centuries just yet. He might be able to after he finishes the sophomore class.
Always wondered why Yhwy orded the killing of all their livestock as well. Seems just a bit mental. I think we can all agree that Lot's wife deserved death because she faced the other direction, I mean damn you tell somebody to face north and they better damn well face north.
@askDiggerNicks " I think we can all agree that Lot's wife deserved death because she faced the other direction, I mean damn you tell somebody to face north and they better damn well face north."
2:30 Wow, talk about an anachronistic argument! (Not yours, I assume.) Aiui, the term "Jew" derived from Yehud Medinata, the name that the Persians gave to the conquered province (kingdom of Judah) after 539 BCE. Canaan predates the ancient Israelite territories.
I think that the bigger problem with arguments that attempt to "prove God" on the basis of absolute morality is that there is no conclusive evidence for absolute morality (nor, for that matter, for a deity).
like
snappez 5 months ago
Does this apply to a liberal Christian, one that would not hold to inerrancy of scripture?
traviskurtz 1 year ago
@traviskurtz "Does this apply to a liberal Christian, one that would not hold to inerrancy of scripture?"
Do you believe the passages I quoted are true or made-up stories?
crazypills2 1 year ago
Comment removed
traviskurtz 1 year ago
Comment removed
traviskurtz 1 year ago
@crazypills2 The textual God, in the verses seen above, are at an antithesis with the actual God.
traviskurtz 1 year ago
@traviskurtz "The textual God, in the verses seen above, are at an antithesis with the actual God."
I would tend to agree that if God existed, he/she would be nothing like Yahweh.
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2 So can God's nature be the answer in dealing with the Euthyphro dilemma?
traviskurtz 1 year ago
@traviskurtz "So can God's nature be the answer in dealing with the Euthyphro dilemma?"
Let's say for a moment that god is perfect. Is he perfect because he has his properties or are his properties perfect because he has them? Unfortunately, Euthyphro can't seem to let go of god.
crazypills2 1 year ago
Very well done!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates "Very well done!"
Well thank you Mr. Gates.
crazypills2 1 year ago
I have a pertinent Tumblr post at weseeinpart.tumblr.com: Heaven Mandated Genocide. I offer a few of my own conclusions after wrestling through some of this personally.
ryanaduffy77 1 year ago
crazypills, your videos are the best.
MagnusIan 1 year ago
@MagnusIan "crazypills, your videos are the best."
Why thank you MagnusIan :-)
crazypills2 1 year ago
I have a pertinent Tumblr post at weseeinpart.tumblr.com: Heaven Mandated Genocide
ryanaduffy77 1 year ago
I should have mentioned this last time, I think this is a significant point.
By arguing for that God "probably" doesn't have a sufficient justifiable reason for His actions, you lessen your burden of proof, but your remove your ability to negate my claim.
The Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma if a third alternative is even possible. Since you are not arguing my alternative is impossible, the Euthyphro dilemma would still be false even if your argument was flawless.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 (1 of 2) "Since you are not arguing my alternative is impossible, the Euthyphro dilemma would still be false even if your argument was flawless"
I often use words such as 'likely' or 'probably', as I don't believe we can know many (some argue any) things with 100% certainty. However, for all practical purposes, my argument demonstrates that morality cannot be part of Yahweh's nature, as he (if he exists and the bible is true) was responsible for the most immoral acts of all time
crazypills2 1 year ago
(2 of 2)
Now, if you wish to use a god other than Yahweh to postulate a third option for ED, then I will withdraw my argument. However, this would have severe consequences for ALL of your morality arguments
Remember, you are making the claim that morality comes from Yahweh's nature. Therefore, I suggest that you offer concrete reasons why Yahweh's genocide command was moral. Arguments such as 'we can't know his intentions' are weak and speculative, and offer little to solidify your claim
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2 Even other gods, the dilemma would still stand. The only kind of god it doesn't apply to is an evil god.
EpistemicFusion 1 year ago
Hey wait, didn't Yahweh sacrifice his own child?
So its ok when Yahweh does it, but not anyone else? Why does that sound familiar?
Eurthyphro wins.
johnycannuk 1 year ago
As to your last argument, I would add that it is impractical for Jews economically speaking, to incorporate youngsters into their group. (I also wonder about the health of the Canaanite offspring, given their sexual practices).
I do think a biblical case can be made for Babies going to heaven/age of accountability, as well.
Overall, really good video. I liked your tone and the way you approached it.
I don't think your conclusion is correct, but I do think you presented your case well.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 “As to your last argument, I would add that it is impractical for Jews economically speaking, to incorporate youngsters into their group. (I also wonder about the health of the Canaanite offspring, given their sexual practices).”
Don’t you think this seems ad-hoc and underestimates the ability of an omnipotent god? However, even if I concede this, do you believe these offer a morally sufficient reason to command the death of children?
crazypills2 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 “I do think a biblical case can be made for Babies going to heaven/age of accountability, as well.”
Do you think it’s enough to make this assertion without offering evidence?
crazypills2 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020
1 of 2:
> it is impractical for Jews economically speaking, to incorporate youngsters into their group.
Agreed -- in real-life ancient times, it was more "practical" to slit the throats of babies than to arrange for daycare.
So it seems what you're saying is that the Hebrews were bound by all the ordinary limitations of warrior nomad tribes . . . which is a bit odd for a group allegedly being guided by an Omnipotent Benign God.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
2 of 2:
Just wondering: do you ever wish your religious beliefs were easier to defend? Do you ever wish you didn't have to defend "the good" side of the likes of baby butchering & genocide & eternal torment in hell? Wouldn't it be a relief to have a Holy Book that contained only philosophical & scientific brilliance?
Not that this is a loaded question or anything . . . just, you know, wondering :)
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
It seemed like you misquoted Exodus 22:29. You skipped the very relevant beginning to that verse.
Verse 29 "Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. You must give me the firstborn of your sons."
"Granaries and vats" are not sacrificed on the altar, I have no reason to think the firstborn of sons would be sacrificed either.
By looking back at Jewish customs (some still held today) we can see firstborns are given to temple service (and can be redeemed).
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 “It seemed like you misquoted Exodus 22:29…I have no reason to think the firstborn of sons would be sacrificed either”
But you ignore Exodus 34:20. The implication is that if firstborn sons are not redeemed, they are to be killed.
crazypills2 1 year ago
"is there any reason to believe these (sexual perversions like bestiality) were more common among the cannanites than other cultures?"
Yes. They primarily worship baal (even though their chief gods name is El, if my memory serves).
Baal is a fertility God. In that culture they have a dual use for the concept of fertility and "seed". They thought of fertility in relation to plants as well as sex. Worship of this sex deity (orgies around phallic idols, bestiality ect) was pervasive.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 “Worship of this sex deity (orgies around phallic idols, bestiality ect) was pervasive.”
So, are you suggesting this is a morally sufficient reason to command genocide? If so, then I must assume you would support the genocide of races that do/did similar things. I’m guessing that you probably would not. Instead, you most likely support the act because Yahweh commanded it, which ultimately brings us to the second option of ED.
crazypills2 1 year ago
Good video.
I have a couple of thoughts in opposing the idea that God did not have morally justified reasons for exterminating the Canaanites.
First it is important to recognize that your argument is ultimately an "argument from ignorance" (but you do good to word it as an appeal to what is most likely).
As to why God would choose extermination, i personally can think of a couple of reasons...
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020
...Knowing the consequences of His actions, God could easily foresee their existence to be a negative thing for humanity.
Their practices could have had a negative impact on the world (Canaan could spread their practices), or they could have messed with God's plan of bringing a savior through the Jews (by corrupting and or attacking the Jews) etc.
I don't think we have the info available to say God is unlikely to have sufficient reasons especially since, as you point out...
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 “Knowing the consequences of His actions, God could easily foresee their existence to be a negative thing for humanity.”
This is a very nice thought, but you offer no evidence, only speculation. And, you ignore that Yahweh made it clear in scripture why he was commanding genocide. Now, you must defend his reasons or call his command immoral.
crazypills2 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020
... God's past behavior. In Ninevah he seeks to warn the people, he seeks out peaceful alternatives on other occasions, and He has an explicitly stated that He loves us and wants what is best for us. This implies that He would want to, and acts in a way to bring about the greatest good for humanity. Without direct access to either a) God's intentions or b) the consequences of His actions, it is on very shaky ground to claim God's probably didn't have a justified reason.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 You realize none of this ever actually happened right?
Just saying...
johnycannuk 1 year ago
@johnycannuk
Even if you don't think the Bible is the word of God, it is still an important historical document and contains many independently verifiable historical events.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Such as?
The Exodus didn't happen, there is no evidence for the the existence of Jesus, there was no global flood, King Solomon is at best a gross exaggeration.
Please enlighten me on the "many independently verifiable historical events". Israeli archaeologists beg to differ.
Unless you mean that it contains real place names, like the Bourne Identity. In which case, it is as much history as the Bourne Identity is...
johnycannuk 1 year ago
@johnycannuk
Lets start with your first claim "The Exodus didn't happen".
There is reason to think the Exodus did happen. The Amarna letters: conversations from Canaan to Egypt about the "apiru" (pronounced like Hebrew) people. Canaanites request assistance dealing with these dessert people taking their land.
From Egypt, you see Hebrew influence in Pharaoh's names, like Thutmoses II.
Amenhotep IV instituting monotheism, etc.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 “This implies that He would want to, and acts in a way to bring about the greatest good for humanity.”
Does it? Yahweh is inconsistent in his dealings with man. So, why must I take a default position that everything he does is good? If his actions dictate otherwise, this position is irrational.
crazypills2 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 “Without direct access to either a) God's intentions or b) the consequences of His actions, it is on very shaky ground to claim God's probably didn't have a justified reason.”
Once again, his reasons for commanding genocide are clear. You want to assume he was justified in his command, but you only beg the question. You assume he is moral and therefore, all of his commands are moral. However, when one judges Yahweh based on his actions, it is easy to reject this proposition.
crazypills2 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 “…it is important to recognize that your argument is ultimately an ‘argument from ignorance’ “
Really? I am asserting that, if the bible is true, we can know Yahweh’s reasons for commanding genocide, and we can determine whether or not they provide a morally sufficient justification. Instead, you take the position that we cannot know Yahweh’s intentions, so we cannot prove he didn’t have a morally sufficient reason to command genocide. Isn’t this an argument from ignorance?
crazypills2 1 year ago
I love your videos they're so interesting
CMO999 1 year ago
@CMO999 "I love your videos they're so interesting"
They take quite a bit of time to produce, so it's nice to hear people enjoy them.
crazypills2 1 year ago
This is WLC's response to the ED, what he & Epydemic don't realize is that this only pushes the problem back. To say good comes from god's nature is to say that he has a set of properties that constitute moral goodness. Either he has said properties because they are good, or they are good because he has them. Same as before, the latter makes good arbitrary, god could command genocide (which he does in the bible) & it would be good. The former makes the moral properties the standard of good.
EpistemicFusion 1 year ago
@EpistemicFusion "Either he has said properties because they are good, or they are good because he has them. Same as before, the latter makes good arbitrary, god could command genocide (which he does in the bible) & it would be good. The former makes the moral properties the standard of good."
I think this is a very good point EpistemicFusion.
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2 Yes, Craig & his followers think they are escaping the dilemma, but it only pushed the problem back, the dilemma still stands. Another great point regarding divine command theory is that it is normally put forth as an objective morality, but morality is defined by what god commands. If morality is based on the commands of one person, even god, this is the very definition of SUBjective morality, not objective. If there are moral facts, they cannot be grounded in one person.
EpistemicFusion 1 year ago
awesome video. I've argued genocide (and the resulting killing of children) with Christians before, but of course they argued that we're too dumb to understand god's reasons. If only I had memorized this video back then (not that I could, even if it had existed).
Brandt761 1 year ago
@Brandt761 "awesome video"
Thanks Brandt761
crazypills2 1 year ago
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on mans desire or effort, but on God's mercy. Romans 9:14-17 Just read Romans and see; God demonstrated his wrath to make his power known and at other times He showed mercy.
sandman66ohio 1 year ago
Another thing about child sacrifice: Is there any evidence apart (from the OT) that it actually occurred? IIRC it was only after the Romans destroyed Carthage that rumors started to circulate about the utter moral turpitude of the Carthaginians, including child sacrifice. If the story about the Canaanite child sacrifices are told only in the Old Testament, then we should wonder why that's the case.
(I haven't read all comments, so apologies if someone already brought up this point.)
1Weemaryanne 1 year ago
@1Weemaryanne "Another thing about child sacrifice: Is there any evidence apart (from the OT) that it actually occurred?"
I haven't done extensive research in this area, but I do believe there is some evidence. However, I don't believe it is a prevalent as some apologists argue.
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2 Hm, that rings right. Nicking your kid's genitals is one thing, killing it is quite another. For that matter, it occurs to me that even animal sacrifices would have been rare because peasants don't have extra beasts to burn and the rich eat theirs. Sacrifices would have occurred only at ritual times, and as few of those as possible. It appears frequently in OT only because it has to do with "acknowledging God's power" which is a Big Event, so it's like news headlines about murder.
1Weemaryanne 1 year ago
Urine also flows from God's nature.
TomMSTie 1 year ago
It's still all BULLSHIT unless you can PROVE god!! Everything else is all academic unless you can start from the point that a god actually exists!!!!
ElvisKnucklehead 1 year ago
Great video! Thoroughly researched and eloquently presented. A pleasure to watch :-)
wassholm 1 year ago
@wassholm "Thoroughly researched and eloquently presented. A pleasure to watch :-)"
Thanks for stopping by.
crazypills2 1 year ago
Epydemic2020 is dodging the actual dilemma:
either morality is FROM god or it is THROUGH god,
then the only valid third option is:
morality is without god!
gilgameshismist 1 year ago
A most eloquent presentation. If Christians think it was okay to kill kids so they'd go straight to heaven, they shouldn't be anti-abortion! That they would try to justify any kind of genocide is pretty shameful. Most humans have higher moral standards than god!
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian " If Christians think it was okay to kill kids so they'd go straight to heaven, they shouldn't be anti-abortion!"
Yes, that is one of the problems with crazy arguments.
crazypills2 1 year ago
Since when did Christians and Muslims have a monopoly on the god concept? Where the hell are the deists who don't use these disgusting books to justify things?
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally "Where the hell are the deists who don't use these disgusting books to justify things?"
They are here on youtube. If you haven't already, check out ReligionFreeDeist.
crazypills2 1 year ago
Great video, thanks!
LithodidMan 1 year ago
@LithodidMan "Great video, thanks!"
I'm glad you like it.
crazypills2 1 year ago
Good video, but I think it's even simpler than that"
How is "flows from god" any different than "doesn't exist outside of god"?
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined "How is "flows from god" any different than "doesn't exist outside of god"?"
The Euthyphro Dilemma poses the dichotomy that morality either exists apart from god (making god unnecessary when it comes to morality) or that morality is the result of god's commands (making morality arbitrary). Epydemic poses a third alternative that morality comes from god's nature. In this case, morality isn't apart from god, but isn't arbitrary either.
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2 i.e. have your cake, eat it too.
TomMSTie 1 year ago
@TomMSTie "i.e. have your cake, eat it too."
Pretty much. It'll be interesting if Epydemic tries to leave Yahweh out of the discussion and address 'god' in general. This is a common tactic among Christians. They often argue using a 'god' other than the one they believe in.
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2 I adore the irony of that.
TomMSTie 1 year ago
@crazypills2
"god's commands" would ALSO "flow from his nature", so I don't see how he's proposed a new option. It's just a restating of one of the existing ones.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
"So, for sacrificing children, I will send my followers to kill you AND YOUR CHILDREN"
It's amazing to me that apologists try to make excuses for this.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
I love Yahweh, that VOLCANO GOD!
Pablo113 1 year ago
Seems like epydemic has an easy out, at least in theory: the God of the bible is not the God he believes in. At least, not literally.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "Seems like epydemic has an easy out, at least in theory: the God of the bible is not the God he believes in. At least, not literally."
He does indeed; however, at what cost to his other arguments? As you are well aware, Christians rarely argue for their god when discussing things like his existence or his morality. And as you have done in many of your videos, we must call them on this.
crazypills2 1 year ago
I think you might want to consult with Nephilimfree on this important matter. :)
maxpolaris99 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I enjoy your logic, crazypills -the problem is that it lacks trust in God. For instance, I have never read anything in the bible where someone had actually sacrificed their child to God -read Jer 7:31 . Second, the Caananites were part Nephilim - they had to be destroyed, unless you would have wanted giant nephilims to have us for lunch. If you continue to remain skeptical, you'll never understand the bible - no matter how logical you are. Understanding God's word doesn't work that way.
solarisgalrocks 1 year ago
@solarisgalrocks Read Judges 11:31-40, as you apparently have not done so since you mention that you haven't read anything in the bible where someone sacrificed their child to God. From the passage, God is clearly complicit in the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter, as Jephthah offers God a deal, and God accepts it by doing what Jephthah has asked for. God could have prevented it in any number of ways, and being all knowing he even knew exactly what was going to happen if he did as Jephthah asked.
TheObserver89 1 year ago
Comment removed
solarisgalrocks 1 year ago
@TheObserver89 that text has nothing to do with a sacrificial death, but it has to do with a dedicated life. She was dedicated to temple and couldnt marry/ remain a virgin. To what else can the “custom of Israel” refer when “the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite, four day in a year”? Dedicated temple worship. Why else would the daughter cry over her viriginity instead of over her own death? God had forbidden offering human sacrifices Jer 19:5
solarisgalrocks 1 year ago
@solarisgalrocks "If you continue to remain skeptical, you'll never understand the bible - no matter how logical you are. Understanding God's word doesn't work that way."
Step back a moment and think about your comment. If someone said this same thing to you regarding the Qur'an, how would you respond?
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2 - Well my search was in finding God, not in finding what books are correct. So if I felt inclined to read the Qu'ran, I would absolutely do so - even if its to educate myself.
solarisgalrocks 1 year ago
@solarisgalrocks "Well my search was in finding God, not in finding what books are correct."
So, you are willing to suspend any skepticism and accept the Qu'ran as the word of God? Any inconsistencies or errors in it, you would be happy to ignore?
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2 - Suspend skeptism - no - that's why I consistantly ask questions - I have left organized religion because I question everything. Now, if I asked for the Holy Spirit to guide me while having a humble heart, and the Qu'ran is where I'm sure God is leading me, then yes, I'd accept it. In fact, I would accept the, "Three Little Bears" if that's where God led me.
Please watch "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel. It's available on Netflix. I think it's an eye opener.
solarisgalrocks 1 year ago
@solarisgalrocks Lee Strobel is a pseudo scientific hack, who wouldn't know rigorous inquiry if it came up and bit him in the ass.
Brandt761 1 year ago
In the old testament God and the angels alone were in heaven. Men were borne and died on earth. Your after-life were nothing but your sons and daughters!
"Hell" is a "modern" concept not found in OT. (Although later Judaism had incorporated the Greek Hades / under-world (hell))
Today's biblical fundies have not understood (or read) that part of the Bible!
skinnyjohnsen 1 year ago 2
@skinnyjohnsen "Today's biblical fundies have not understood (or read) that part of the Bible!"
Good point. I originally had this as part of my video, but had to cut it out, as well as some other stuff, because of its length.
crazypills2 1 year ago
Great study, crazypills. It's very enlightening.
ntoiyt 1 year ago
@ntoiyt "Great study, crazypills. It's very enlightening."
Thanks ntoiyt
crazypills2 1 year ago
Of coarse Yahweh (or any god) does NOTexist..... But if he did,.... I would want to get to heaven ONLY to bash his fucking head in if at all possible, not worship the evil sonofabitch! NO I don't "hate" god, he doesn't exist. One more time..HE DOES NOT EXIST!!!!! BTW, great video crazypills2. I'm really glad I subscribed. :)
6stringsbrainfingers 1 year ago
@6stringsbrainfingers "BTW, great video crazypills2. I'm really glad I subscribed. :)"
And I am glad I subscribed to you....
crazypills2 1 year ago
Translation: "Yahweh eats babies."
JCLeSinge 1 year ago
There is NEVER a morally sufficient reason for genocide. One of the few things that I am willing to say that it is categorically wrong.
TheAtheistPaladin 1 year ago
@TheAtheistPaladin "There is NEVER a morally sufficient reason for genocide."
I would have to agree.
crazypills2 1 year ago
The kid shoots his concept of god in the foot if he claims morality flows from god's nature. god's nature is supposed to be perfect and unchanging, yet morality is imperfect and constantly changing. Therefore either morality cannot come from god or god is not perfect and unchanging. Either way the arguement fails.
TheMudbrooker 1 year ago
@TheMudbrooker Epydemic's argument is a little different than most Christians I've encountered. He argues that morality is based on situations, but is still objective. Under the same exact situations, he argues that morality doesn't change. I'm guessing that the way he gets around the genocide problem is to say that the situation today is different than it was when the Jews entered the promise land. It's kind of like a 'get out of jail free' card.
crazypills2 1 year ago
fun fact: God once smoted a woman because she wasn't in the kitchen making him a sammich like she was supposed to.
adrenacrumb 1 year ago 2
Wow, I am very glad I subscribed to this channel - this video shows excellent knowlegde of the Bible, it is simply amazing ...
Nederdien 1 year ago
@Nederdien "Wow, I am very glad I subscribed to this channel - this video shows excellent knowlegde of the Bible, it is simply amazing ..."
Thanks Nederdien. I'm glad you enjoyed the video.
crazypills2 1 year ago
I don't think this freshman guy who just took intro to philosophy has changed the philosophy of the past several centuries just yet. He might be able to after he finishes the sophomore class.
askDiggerNicks 1 year ago
Always wondered why Yhwy orded the killing of all their livestock as well. Seems just a bit mental. I think we can all agree that Lot's wife deserved death because she faced the other direction, I mean damn you tell somebody to face north and they better damn well face north.
askDiggerNicks 1 year ago
@askDiggerNicks " I think we can all agree that Lot's wife deserved death because she faced the other direction, I mean damn you tell somebody to face north and they better damn well face north."
:-)
crazypills2 1 year ago
2:30 Wow, talk about an anachronistic argument! (Not yours, I assume.) Aiui, the term "Jew" derived from Yehud Medinata, the name that the Persians gave to the conquered province (kingdom of Judah) after 539 BCE. Canaan predates the ancient Israelite territories.
I think that the bigger problem with arguments that attempt to "prove God" on the basis of absolute morality is that there is no conclusive evidence for absolute morality (nor, for that matter, for a deity).
musekiteer 1 year ago
the flow from yaweh's nature stinks.
wearealltubes 1 year ago
equal rites for sacrifice!
wearealltubes 1 year ago
so first
wearealltubes 1 year ago