Thomas Panzer

Sozial-Liberal, Atheist, Föderalist

[Thomas Panzer @tpawap]

@x_out_ignorance So you are preaching, instead of doing science.
Denying reality to replace it with fairy tales, will not help society... that's what I think.

[Thomas Panzer @tpawap]

@x_out_ignorance No matter what... aha.

Why does it matter so much to you? It's just one thing out of so many, and many are much more important in our daily life, isn't it?

[Thomas Panzer @tpawap]

@BasedEmbraced Of course the "evil god hypothesis" will in some way or another be in conflict with the things you believe a god to be.
I just thought "it doesn't work" would have meant more than that.

[Thomas Panzer @tpawap]

@BasedEmbraced If the "evil god" is the standard of morality, then the "evil god" cannot exist?
Why?

(And if you meant the "good god", you're not doing an internal critique)

[Thomas Panzer @tpawap]

@BasedEmbraced Tautologies are "truths", sure. But they aren't good arguments.

So your arguments is "God is defined to be the greatest thing, and because great means good by definition, God can't be evil"... not a good argument. You have to recognise that.

[Thomas Panzer @tpawap]

@BasedEmbraced I'm not applying my morals here.

I would assume that the "evil god hypothesis" still includes *that* god as the standard for morality, doesn't it? It wouldn't make sense to use a different, "good god" as the standard for the "evil god". (Wouldn't be an internal critique anymore)

[Thomas Panzer @tpawap]

@BasedEmbraced If it’s not up to our opinions, as you keep saying, then why can't you help but keep asking for my opinion?
(I would agree that it's up to our opinion, though).

[Thomas Panzer @tpawap]

@SharhyY @BasedEmbraced Of course you can participate, but you're not quite on topic yet. The question is: How do you know that it's not the other way around: Humans are good by nature, and God gave them the ability to steal (be evil), because God is evil?

[Thomas Panzer @tpawap]

@BasedEmbraced And come on, this has nothing to do with atheism. I'm just trying to get to the core of what *you* mean by "the evil god hypothesis just doesn't work".
I could be a polytheist, believing in both good and bad gods, and ask the same question.

[Thomas Panzer @tpawap]

@BasedEmbraced Sorry, I (and you) switched from "greater" to "better" and I didn't notice.

So "It comes down to this: good is better than evil" is a tautology then? In the end it's about the definition of words, and "it doesn't work" just means "God is defined as good, so it can't be evil"?

[Thomas Panzer @tpawap]

@BasedEmbraced How isn't it, without presupposing any of those two god hypotheses?

[Thomas Panzer @tpawap]

@BasedEmbraced Then it also comes down to "I prefer a good god, therefor an evil god doesn't work (for me)"...?

Or how are our personal preferences logically linked to that question?

[Thomas Panzer @tpawap]

@BasedEmbraced "Good is better than evil" is a subjective statement, a preference, isn't it?

[Thomas Panzer @tpawap]

@BasedEmbraced Any argument that cannot just be "mirrored"? The fall from evil to good; free will to become voluntarily evil, etc?

Do you think our preferences determine the properties of a god?
(I think so, sure, because all god are imaginary; but that's a weak argument from your side)

[Thomas Panzer @tpawap]

@BasedEmbraced So the first part is just that both "maximally evil" and "maximally good" does not conform to reality?

And the second is that great must mean good, not evil. Or simply "I defined god to be good, so it can't be evil". Just define great as evil, and it "works".

[Thomas Panzer @tpawap]

@x_out_ignorance If they were no forks in the tree of life, there would be only one form of life, right? And there are forks because evolution has no goal, and there are many niches to thrive in. That's why there are many forms of life. Evolution doesn't stop, it just finds many different niches.

[Thomas Panzer @tpawap]

@x_out_ignorance The picture on the right is a crocodile, the closest living relative of birds. Same type of scales.

And you said "bird with scales *or* reptile with feathers", not both.
Birds are reptiles, so given a fossil with feathers, how do you tell that it's not a bird?

[Thomas Panzer @tpawap]

@KORIANDOL0 Nevertheless he wrote some obviously wrong things there.
What's his name?

[Thomas Panzer @tpawap]

@KORIANDOL0 That would be a mistake. IQs don't make anyone knowledgeable about anything, nor do they prevent anyone from being wrong, mistaken or even malicious.