Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 110
  1. #21
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The unsolveable problem of evil (12 Officers redux)

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    You might be able to go at it from the other end, too. Instead of asking why God doesn't intervene to stop every act in some class of acts, you could ask, "When does God intervene to stop any evil act?"
    Right, yes. In my mind, if it is always bad for God to intervene because of free will, then it means that any state of affairs, no matter how horrific, is compatible with God so long as free will is preserved. Humanity could make NOTHING BUT immoral choices and he would not intervene, for all I know. Thus I cannot know if such choices are bad in and of themselves or not.

  2. #22
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The unsolveable problem of evil (12 Officers redux)

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Well, you can say things like, "If God wants Adam to be married, He needs there to be another person." Or, "If God wants to draw a circle, He needs every point to be the same distance away from the center."
    Already covered this. You're hinting towards married bachelors and square circles. We already covered that god can't do things that are logically impossible so if you want to reword that concept to add "need" to it, that's all you... but there's not much point to it because it doesn't explain a "need" for things that do not pertain to logical impossibilities.

    So "If God wants there to be a maximum amount of goodness, He needs there to be a certain amount of evil" could be a legitimate claim--but only if "maximum amount of goodness" implies "certain amount of evil", which is the very point at issue. So I'd say it's circular rather than contradictory
    Meh. Toe-mate-oh, tah-mot-oh. Circular and unsupported does not an argument make.

    ---------- Post added at 02:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by estill View Post
    If you look in my last post I already stated that God could prevent evil if he chose. This is not important to my argument.
    It doesn't matter if that's not the point of your argument. If you acknowledge that god could prevent evil, but doesn't then he's malevolent. Period. End of discussion. If you think otherwise, the only point of the debate is to figure out what sort of fallacy or bad reasoning you've offered. To be sure, allowing needless suffering when one can stop it is an act of malevolence. End of discussion.

    I've pulled out the part of your post that directly addresses the situation I am arguing for. Just to reiterate, God can accomplish more good with the existence of evil than without. Now omnipotent beings cannot do contradictory things. We agree on this. Then the argument goes.

    1. Goal A is morally superior to Goal B.
    2. God can accomplish Goal A with the existence of evil but not Goal B.
    You either need to prove that Goal B is logically impossible or concede that you're contradicting the claim "god is omnipotent". Can you even give a scenario where this would make sense? The logically impossible aside, what the heck could Goal B even be, Estill? What activity or circumstance are you going to try to tell us god can't do?

  3. #23
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The unsolveable problem of evil (12 Officers redux)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    It doesn't matter if that's not the point of your argument. If you acknowledge that god could prevent evil, but doesn't then he's malevolent. Period. End of discussion. If you think otherwise, the only point of the debate is to figure out what sort of fallacy or bad reasoning you've offered. To be sure, allowing needless suffering when one can stop it is an act of malevolence. End of discussion.
    Not if God has a morally sufficient reason to permit evil. If God simply permits evil to exist for no reason other than to create suffering than yes that would be malevolent. I think that the question of if it is possible for God to have a morally sufficient reason to permit evil is the main point of contention here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    You either need to prove that Goal B is logically impossible or concede that you're contradicting the claim "god is omnipotent". Can you even give a scenario where this would make sense? The logically impossible aside, what the heck could Goal B even be, Estill? What activity or circumstance are you going to try to tell us god can't do?
    First, let me establish that since God is omniscient he is in the best position to evaluate morality. Agreed?

    An explanation would be very simple. God could destroy evil entirely. However, this would abolish free will. If free will is abolished then creatures no longer have the ability to freely choose God. It is possible that God may regard free creatures freely choosing him as an immense good. This could outweigh the existence of evil. Now can you prove that this scenario is impossible?

    Now Zhavric, the point I am trying to get across to you is that you are not going to be able to prove that it is impossible for God to have a morally sufficient reason to permit evil. You might be able to prove that it is unlikely but not impossible.
    If I find in myself a desire which nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another. C.S. Lewis

  4. #24
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The unsolveable problem of evil (12 Officers redux)

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    No dude, just answer the &%$# question. You don't answer questions with questions for goodness sake. Stop with that nonsense or I swear I'm out of here. First and last warning.
    I apologize, your correct it is pretty rude to answer a question with a question.

    I did however answer your question. I belive the question is nonsensical and meaningless when you consider the object and meaning of the words in context.
    I'll explain more below.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    If God IS good, then he's bound to his own nature to BE that.
    I don't believe he is "bound" in the sense that you are using. I mean in the same sense as would make "obligated" applicable. When we say God is bound by his own nature, it just means that he can't be anything other than himself. It isn't as though he is trying to live up to a standard which he has set (similar to what we do). He just is, and his actions are a natural result of who he is.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    And if child rape is evil, then he can neither do nor allow such an act.
    False, just because it is against God doesn't mean that God can not allow it. If that was his highest and most important desire that evil would not exist, then none of us would exist. My stance is that his highest desire is that the maximum amount of sinners be redeemed. Which is not a justification for the existence of sin, but rather a just way of dealing with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    So, does God have any moral responsibility or not?
    I know I'm repeating myself, but the question doesn't mean anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Ok, so if he defines something as evil, can he do that thing?
    Lets break this down a little.

    If evil is "against God" then for God to do evil he would have to do something which is against himself. Which is nonsense. Now if God were to define things as evil based on some whimsical desire, then your question may make sense. But, that is not what has been forwarded for how God is the definer of Good.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Is God good because of what he is, or because of what he says is good?
    I thought I did a pretty decent job of saying that before. I'm sure some have said it better but this was my attempt.
    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    We say that God is Good, because he defines (by his existence) what good is, God is the essence of Good.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    The point is this, if God isn't morally obligated in some way, it is essentially saying that God can be untrue to his very nature. So if he's not obliged to be what he is, which is good, then he can be something other than good, which means he's not good in the first place.
    This is what I really want to focus on, and break down.
    The above sentence doesn't mean anything and is talking in circles.

    Morally obligated.= It means that we ought to be a certain way. We have moral obligations because we have a creator. God does not have a creator. He is not obligated to do anything.

    Untrue to his very nature = not being yourself. Which is a self contradiction and means nothing. How can anything not be it self?

    God not being good. If god is by definition good, then he can not, not be good. Saying such a thing is possible is self contradictory and means nothing.

    Obligated God is not obligated, he "IS". There is no such thing as obligated to be yourself. You simply are yourself. (see above regarding "bound" and "obligated".


    As a whole, the term obligated simply doesn't apply to God. This does not keep him from being the standard of what "good" is.

    Specifically regarding the point that God "could" be something other than what he is, this is only true in the hypothetical sense. As in "for all we know", God could have been different. But this does not equate to him NOT being good. Nor does it establish that it is possible in actuality for God to be any different than he is. It is only an expression of our limited knowledge on the topic.
    (If we are addressing only the Christian idea of God, then that point to is wrong because he is held as "Unchanging".)

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Right, which is why he's obliged to be what he is.
    That doesn't make any sense.
    Suppose God were not benevolent, but malevolent towards us. Who can say that he should be benevolent towards us?

    Lets add a specific example. God hates that which is against him. Should he like what is against him? Who could say that he should act that way?

    Saying that God can be anything but himself, is self contradictory, and meaningless.

    ---------- Post added at 07:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by ZHAVRIC
    That's where I stopped reading because I have a question to ask you. If god is an omnipotent being capable of doing anything logically possible, what is a scenario where his desire would not match his action?
    When his desire is for a free willed actor apart from himself, to choose rightly apart from his intervention.
    But then, my post doesn't require Gods actions to not line up with his desire.
    I really suggest finishing reading the post.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  5. #25
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The unsolveable problem of evil (12 Officers redux)

    Quote Originally Posted by estill View Post
    Not if God has a morally sufficient reason to permit evil. If God simply permits evil to exist for no reason other than to create suffering than yes that would be malevolent. I think that the question of if it is possible for God to have a morally sufficient reason to permit evil is the main point of contention here.



    First, let me establish that since God is omniscient he is in the best position to evaluate morality. Agreed?

    An explanation would be very simple. God could destroy evil entirely. However, this would abolish free will. If free will is abolished then creatures no longer have the ability to freely choose God. It is possible that God may regard free creatures freely choosing him as an immense good. This could outweigh the existence of evil. Now can you prove that this scenario is impossible?

    Now Zhavric, the point I am trying to get across to you is that you are not going to be able to prove that it is impossible for God to have a morally sufficient reason to permit evil. You might be able to prove that it is unlikely but not impossible.
    Are you CAPABLE of following instructions? Are you CAPABLE of reading and coming up with new ideas? I'm not going in circles with you, Estill.

    Quote Originally Posted by From the op which you clearly either didn't read or are ignoring on purpose
    Declare by fiat that suffering and free will are mutually exclusive. If you want to argue that suffering is necessary, then begin by explaining why we have the free will to choose between good and bad artwork without any suffering. You can then continue by trying to explain why those exposed to the most suffering seem to derive the least amount of meaning or enjoyment from life. We don't need to be murdered to enjoy living. We don't need to be raped to enjoy sex. Such arguments cannot stand against common sense.
    I am not as patient as Dio. I'm just going to conclude that you're incapable of mature debate if you continue to ignore arguments and spam threads with unsupported claims.

    ---------- Post added at 10:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    God not being good. If god is by definition good, then he can not, not be good.
    Then I submit that your argument is flawed because you're allowing that god can do anything malevolent and simply call it "benevolent". This is a vile argument; it sets the stage to give a free pass to god by abusing the definition of malevolent where god is concerned. To be sure, raping children is not all right. Not for anyone and not for god. Period. Stop handing out free passes.

  6. #26
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The unsolveable problem of evil (12 Officers redux)

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't believe he is "bound" in the sense that you are using. I mean in the same sense as would make "obligated" applicable. When we say God is bound by his own nature, it just means that he can't be anything other than himself. It isn't as though he is trying to live up to a standard which he has set (similar to what we do). He just is, and his actions are a natural result of who he is.
    I understand the the distinction. I would argue that God is dual-bound because of what he is. He is intrinsically bound to be what he is (which is Good) because no thing can be something other than what they are, and even if he weren't intrinsically bound to his very nature (and we both accept that he is) and was instead someone who dictated what is good and evil, he himself would STILL be morally bound to conform to what he defined as "good", or else "good" and "evil" lose their distinction.

    So, with regards to the intrinsic bonding, I have argued for a long time that God CANNOT do an evil act in just the same way he can't make a rock so heavy he can't lift it. It's not a problem with God; it's a problem with the question. And given the theme of your most recent post, you seem to agree.

    But it's worth mentioning that this is something of a step for you given that I've seen you argue many times over the years that God CAN do evil acts, but he chooses not to because of his nature. I've also seen you argue that God can change his mind regarding what is good or not whenever he likes because he's God and he can do "whatever the hell he wants" to do with moral considerations. So if you still feel this way, then your understanding of what it means for God to actually BE the essence of good, and all the ramifications of that, is severely distorted.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    False, just because it is against God doesn't mean that God can not allow it.
    It most certainly does if he's a moral agent.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If that was his highest and most important desire that evil would not exist, then none of us would exist.
    Why not? Are you saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for man to exist without the actualization of evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My stance is that his highest desire is that the maximum amount of sinners be redeemed. Which is not a justification for the existence of sin, but rather a just way of dealing with it.
    Ok, but if the existence of evil isn't justified, then its existence is unjust. If it is unjust, then it shouldn't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If evil is "against God" then for God to do evil he would have to do something which is against himself. Which is nonsense. Now if God were to define things as evil based on some whimsical desire, then your question may make sense. But, that is not what has been forwarded for how God is the definer of Good.
    Again, I don't think I've misunderstood this. And, again, given some of the very troubling things you've said God can do over the years, I wonder if you have a full understanding of it yourself. For example, in a discussion about fairness (I think it's worth pointing out that fairness is a moral consideration), you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Regarding "Fair", my point was that it is Gods crap, and it is FAIR for him to do whatever the hell he wants with it. He can not be unfair, with that to which you have no claim. Fair has to do with what you are owed...
    (BTW, fairness doesn't deal exclusively with things that are owed in the sense you were using it. It also has to do with equal treatment, objectivity, honesty, legitimacy, etc. But I digress.)

    So if you say God can do "whatever the hell he wants" with a moral consideration like fairness, and then you go on to say that it's impossible for him to do wrong, you're saying that whatever God does is good by virtue of him doing it. This means (and this is a genuine consequence of your stance here, whether you like it or not), that God could come to earth, take human form, rape your wife and children, then go on to murder them, and these would all be good, just, fair, moral, etc things because:

    • God did them
    • God defines what Good is because he IS good
    • God can do "whatever the hell he wants" with his definitions of Good and
    • God can't do anything that isn't good


    So before you go on about the nonsensical nature of the question, I think we should land on what it means for God to BE good.

    Do you agree that God is incapable, due to his nature, to rape a child?

    If we can't come to an agreement on this simple matter, then there's really not much more to talk about, frankly.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This is what I really want to focus on, and break down.
    The above sentence doesn't mean anything and is talking in circles.
    Well, it's simply another way of saying the very thing you seem to be advocating in this thread, so the fact that you don't recognize this doesn't mean that the sentence is meaningless and/or "talking in circles". But I do take note of the sideways insult.

    Anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Morally obligated.= It means that we ought to be a certain way. We have moral obligations because we have a creator. God does not have a creator. He is not obligated to do anything.
    Ok, then if you hold that God has no moral obligations (neither intrinsically nor extrinsically), you must accept that God can do the above, and you must accept that it would be good if he did so.

    But you may need to re-state this bit based on that. Let's continue.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Untrue to his very nature = not being yourself. Which is a self contradiction and means nothing. How can anything not be it self?
    Yes, I agree with this. This is exactly why I say that God CANNOT do the above. It has nothing to do with his willingness to do so, and everything to do with his ability to do so. He CANNOT do such a thing because of what he IS.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    God not being good. If god is by definition good, then he can not, not be good. Saying such a thing is possible is self contradictory and means nothing.
    Yes, agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Obligated God is not obligated, he "IS". There is no such thing as obligated to be yourself. You simply are yourself. (see above regarding "bound" and "obligated".
    It's an intrinsic logical obligation, MT. Not a product of will. 1+1 MUST = 2. They don't choose to. So when I say "obligated", "bound", "necessarily" etc, this is the context in which I mean it. You're confusing logically necessary "obligations" with other "obligations" like paying your mortgage. Obviously I don't mean that when I'm asking about what God is obliged to be and/or do or NOT do.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As a whole, the term obligated simply doesn't apply to God. This does not keep him from being the standard of what "good" is.

    Specifically regarding the point that God "could" be something other than what he is, this is only true in the hypothetical sense. As in "for all we know", God could have been different.
    It doesn't matter what he could have been. It only matters what he IS.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    But this does not equate to him NOT being good. Nor does it establish that it is possible in actuality for God to be any different than he is. It is only an expression of our limited knowledge on the topic.
    (If we are addressing only the Christian idea of God, then that point to is wrong because he is held as "Unchanging".)
    Right, exactly. So if raping children is wrong for me to do, it is also wrong for God to do. If watching someone rape a child when I can stop it is wrong, then God watching someone rape a child is likewise wrong.

    Anyway, we need to establish some common ground before we continue, I think.

  7. #27
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The unsolveable problem of evil (12 Officers redux)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    Are you CAPABLE of following instructions? Are you CAPABLE of reading and coming up with new ideas? I'm not going in circles with you, Estill.
    Zhavric, you are fundamentally misunderstanding my argument. Maybe that's why you think I'm reasserting defeated points. I am not arguing that suffering and free will inextricably linked.

    I am arguing that it is possible that God may accomplish the most good possible in this world with its current amount of evil. You have not refuted this point and are attributing to me an argument that I did not make.

    Now you challenged me to show how this could be possible. I provided a scenario in which humans having libertarian free will (which means they can choose good or evil) results in good. Now if humans could not choose evil then they would not have libertarian free will and therefore would not be able to accomplish the same good.

    Now please use logic to prove that this theory is impossible. Or if you are convinced that this argument has already addressed link the posts please.
    If I find in myself a desire which nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another. C.S. Lewis

  8. #28
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The unsolveable problem of evil (12 Officers redux)

    Quote Originally Posted by estill View Post
    Zhavric, you are fundamentally misunderstanding my argument. Maybe that's why you think I'm reasserting defeated points. I am not arguing that suffering and free will inextricably linked.

    I am arguing that it is possible that God may accomplish the most good possible in this world with its current amount of evil. You have not refuted this point and are attributing to me an argument that I did not make.

    Now you challenged me to show how this could be possible. I provided a scenario in which humans having libertarian free will (which means they can choose good or evil) results in good. Now if humans could not choose evil then they would not have libertarian free will and therefore would not be able to accomplish the same good.

    Now please use logic to prove that this theory is impossible. Or if you are convinced that this argument has already addressed link the posts please.
    I think you're missing the point. Why must choosing evil cause suffering?

    ---------- Post added at 02:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    Are you CAPABLE of following instructions? Are you CAPABLE of reading and coming up with new ideas? I'm not going in circles with you, Estill.



    I am not as patient as Dio. I'm just going to conclude that you're incapable of mature debate if you continue to ignore arguments and spam threads with unsupported claims.

    ---------- Post added at 10:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 AM ----------



    Then I submit that your argument is flawed because you're allowing that god can do anything malevolent and simply call it "benevolent". This is a vile argument; it sets the stage to give a free pass to god by abusing the definition of malevolent where god is concerned. To be sure, raping children is not all right. Not for anyone and not for god. Period. Stop handing out free passes.
    This discussion would go much more smoothly if you would specify which (logically consistent) moral systems you are permitting. Here you're basically saying that any answer must the the feature "No act is evil for all humans but good for God." If you're assuming that this is true for the purposes of this discussion, then you should be explicit about your requirements.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  9. #29
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The unsolveable problem of evil (12 Officers redux)

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    I think you're missing the point. Why must choosing evil cause suffering?
    Alright I see thank you.

    I have to admit I'm a little confused. Zhavric, it seems like you are using evil and suffering interchangeably. Are you presenting the classical problem of evil or are you using the same logic just substituting suffering for evil?

    Your OP uses Hume's argument with evil but then the subsequent points use suffering.
    If I find in myself a desire which nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another. C.S. Lewis

  10. #30
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NY, NY
    Posts
    670
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The unsolveable problem of evil (12 Officers redux)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    Declare by fiat that suffering and free will are mutually exclusive. If you want to argue that suffering is necessary, then begin by explaining why we have the free will to choose between good and bad artwork without any suffering.
    You don't. Free will has literally nothing to do with choosing "good artwork from bad" because that isn't a choice with moral relevance.
    Ah, well - apparently my kids were too distracting to stay as a sig. I take that as a compliment

  11. #31
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The unsolveable problem of evil (12 Officers redux)

    Quote Originally Posted by zhavric
    III "Free will requires suffering"
    I have not once seen a theist support this argument. No one has been able to prove that suffering is mutually exclusive with free will. When pressed, theists argued that without a negative, it's impossible to understand a positive... that we can't know good if evil doesn't exist. What theists fail to understand is this: what's required is a comparison. We don't require suffering to draw a comparison. Artwork provides the best example. We can freely choose what art is good or bad without having to endure suffering. So if god insists that we require suffering to make comparisons / have free will, then we are discussing a malevolent god.
    Declare by fiat that suffering and free will are mutually exclusive. If you want to argue that suffering is necessary, then begin by explaining why we have the free will to choose between good and bad artwork without any suffering. You can then continue by trying to explain why those exposed to the most suffering seem to derive the least amount of meaning or enjoyment from life. We don't need to be murdered to enjoy living. We don't need to be raped to enjoy sex. Such arguments cannot stand against common sense.
    1) Are you sure you don't mean "mutually inclusive?"

    2) You forget the feelings and livelihood of those artists whose work is deemed bad.

  12. #32
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The unsolveable problem of evil (12 Officers redux)

    Quote Originally Posted by ZHAVRIC
    Then I submit that your argument is flawed because you're allowing that god can do anything malevolent and simply call it "benevolent"
    I am not appealing to an alternate meaning of benevolent. Your claim is false.


    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    So, with regards to the intrinsic bonding, I have argued for a long time that God CANNOT do an evil act in just the same way he can't make a rock so heavy he can't lift it. It's not a problem with God; it's a problem with the question. And given the theme of your most recent post, you seem to agree.
    I do. What I disagree is that that is anything like being "morally bound".
    Morality has to do with an external standard by which we must conform.
    There is nothing like that in relation to God. It is not correct to call God's boundedness to himself morally bounding.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    It most certainly does if he's a moral agent.
    I objected to the idea of God as a "moral agent" before.
    I don't think it applies to God as it is used for us.
    Gods role of a moral agent is that of definer, which is nothing like our roles as moral agents.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Why not? Are you saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for man to exist without the actualization of evil?
    Not "man", but you and I as specific Flawed men.
    Could a version of "man kind" exist. Sure, maybe. But that does not mean that you or I could exist in that world. And God Loves you and I specifically.
    So he wants what is best for you and I specifically in the context and relation to everyone else. Because He is fair and is not a respecter of persons (IE the only kind of fairness God ever claims for himself).

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Ok, but if the existence of evil isn't justified, then its existence is unjust. If it is unjust, then it shouldn't exist.
    There are two meanings to justified.
    1) Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason
    2) Declared or made righteous in the sight of God

    The first posses no problem to God allowing something for good reason, and still calling it evil. As long as you are using it in that context, then it is not contradictory to say it is justified, and unjust.

    If you are trying to use it in the second sense, then we are in disagreement. God isn't saying sin is good by saying "allowing sin for the purpose of redeeming man is good". It simply isn't the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Again, I don't think I've misunderstood this. And, again, given some of the very troubling things you've said God can do over the years, I wonder if you have a full understanding of it yourself. For example, in a discussion about fairness (I think it's worth pointing out that fairness is a moral consideration), you said:
    We can examine that if you like.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    So if you say God can do "whatever the hell he wants" with a moral consideration like fairness, and then you go on to say that it's impossible for him to do wrong, you're saying that whatever God does is good by virtue of him doing it
    I said "It is fair" for him to do "whatever the hell he wants". I was not making the claim that whatever God does is "fair".

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    (BTW, fairness doesn't deal exclusively with things that are owed in the sense you were using it. It also has to do with equal treatment, objectivity, honesty, legitimacy, etc. But I digress.)
    Question to opponent.. Did I use the word in any of those meanings?


    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    So if you say God can do "whatever the hell he wants" with a moral consideration like fairness
    Time out, now my memory is not the greatest, so it could be that I argued as you say. But I believe I argued that God Could not violate the definition of "fair" because he did not owe us anything. I don't believe I made the case that God was the definition of fair. If you have a link to the post which I made the argument as you are presenting, then please link to it. Otherwise, I do not think it is anything like I'm arguing now.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    So if you say God can do "whatever the hell he wants" with a moral consideration like fairness, and then you go on to say that it's impossible for him to do wrong, you're saying that whatever God does is good by virtue of him doing it
    See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    and then you go on to say that it's impossible for him to do wrong, you're saying that whatever God does is good by virtue of him doing it
    I do not say it is impossible for God to do wrong because whatever God does is good. I say It is nonsense to say "God can do something wrong". If you disagree, then you will have to define "wrong" outside of the context of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    This means (and this is a genuine consequence of your stance here, whether you like it or not), that God could come to earth, take human form, rape your wife and children, then go on to murder them, and these would all be good, just, fair, moral, etc things because:
    As far as we know, sure.
    In actuality, no.


    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    This means (and this is a genuine consequence of your stance here, whether you like it or not), that God could come to earth, take human form, rape your wife and children, then go on to murder them, and these would all be good, just, fair, moral, etc things because:
    No, this is not a genuine consequence. It is not a REAL possibility that God can come down and rape my wife and kids.

    This is alternate universe talk.
    Bottom line, yes if God were different we would live in a very different world. so what? All we can say is "for all we know" God could have been different. This does not establish that God could in actuality be different. Nor negate any of the points made by myself that God is acting in a benevolent way towards everyone.

    You have in your alternate universe included some self contradictory ideas.
    God murder = Can't happen, because it is not against any law for God to kill people.
    God rape= if raping children is bad because it is against Gods nature to rape children. Then to suppose that God could rape a child is nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    So before you go on about the nonsensical nature of the question, I think we should land on what it means for God to BE good.
    First, your #3 is wrong, and is not something I have argued in line with.
    Even granting all that you said above as true. That does not make your original statement make any sense.

    Still that is a good idea. What does it mean for God to "be" good.
    I say "Good is what God is". If God does not exist, then "good" does not exist.

    I welcome you to define Good in some alternate internally consistent way if you disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Well, it's simply another way of saying the very thing you seem to be advocating in this thread, so the fact that you don't recognize this doesn't mean that the sentence is meaningless and/or "talking in circles". But I do take note of the sideways insult. Anyway.
    That was not some sideways insult. That is my critique on the words you are putting together. If you are going to take it personal, then please don't bother responding. (edit)

    No, it is not the same thing, and I have argued why.
    In fact you continue to equate terms that are not the same, and forward contradictory terms as if they were possible at all. "God murdering people" for example. Or acting as though rape is bad separate from God. (hence the appeal to God raping my wife and kids) without establishing Rape as bad at all separate from God, and ignoring the internal incompatibility between the idea of God, and the idea of Murder.

    If you agree that God going against himself is nonsense, then why is your entire argument built upon that very assumption?

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Do you agree that God is incapable, due to his nature, to rape a child?
    Yes, But what does that mean beyond. "God doesn't want to rape children therefore he can't rape children".

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Right, exactly. So if raping children is wrong for me to do, it is also wrong for God to do.
    False. There are things which are wrong for you to do, which are o.k. for God to do.
    Killing for one thing. The reason is because there is a reason why it is wrong for you that applies to God in a totally different way.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    If watching someone rape a child when I can stop it is wrong, then God watching someone rape a child is likewise wrong.
    False, again along the same lines as above. There is a reason it is wrong for you, that applies to God in a totally different way.

    Please Explain why it is wrong for you to rape a child, and then explain how that reason also applies to God.

    I hold that it is wrong for you to rape a child because it is against God, and supposing God would rape a child is nonsense. Because it is to suppose God as not God.

    Discussing all the things God "Could, hypothetically, maybe" be, doesn't say anything about God as he is. Once you change the essence of God in a hypothetical to allow as a possibility he could rape and murder, then you are no longer working under the same premises as the question starts.

    If rape would remain as "evil" even if God just loved the **** out of rape. Then you are assuming a world where "rape" has the intrinsic value of being immoral separate from God. If that is the stance you are going to take, you are going to have to support that hidden primes.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  13. #33
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,027
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The unsolveable problem of evil (12 Officers redux)

    Quote Originally Posted by estill View Post
    I have been keeping up with the other thread and I have yet to see you counter the simple refutation to this argument. God may have a morally sufficient reason for permitting evil to exist. As long as this is even possible Hume's argument becomes a false dilemma. So unless you can prove that it is impossible the argument fails.
    Quote Originally Posted by estill View Post
    Now you can't simply say God is therefore malevolent here. You have to prove that it is impossible that God could accomplish more good with the existence of evil then without.
    I have not been keeping up with the other thread and do not intend to become much involved here either, so apologies upfront if I cover already tread ground or fail to adequately follow through with replies.

    Briefly, to say some state of affairs is possible is to usually mean one of two things: Simply put, it is logically/metaphysically possible, or it is epistemically possible, that is, so far as one knows, the state of affairs is not impossible.
    The line of argument that 'it is possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting evil' seems to me very desperate and frankly intellectually bankrupt. As far as I'm aware, there has never been an adequate answer for what could count as a morally sufficient reason for God to allow any number of real world examples of worldly suffering (read 'evil'). When the apologist says "it's possible that God had a morally sufficient reason for permitting it", it seems to me that all he's is saying is that "you cannot know that He doesn't", rather than establishing that in fact it is metaphysically or logically possible that He does.
    Since our knowledge is limited, no amount of reason or argument can ever be enough to overcome this appeal.

    A: "It's possible that there are square circles."
    B: "But that is definitionally self-contradictory."
    A: "Only in the geometries you are aware of, but perhaps there exists some geometry in which they can exist."
    B: "What geometry? How do you know that such a geometry is even possible?"
    A: "Well, since you can't know everything, you can't know that such a geometry is impossible, so it's possible."

    If this sort of argument is an adequate defense of God's Benevolence, it is an equally adequate defense of God's Malevolence (and innumerable other things). You see, God is really the Devil. He Hates Absolutely and wills to maximize suffering. Any good that you perceive is necessary for Him to accomplish a still greater Evil.
    Look, I can't explain how this makes sense seeing that some people appear to live long happy lives, and that I think I can easily imagine a more evil world than this, etcetera, but you can't prove that there isn't some unknown reason GoDevil has for allowing this to happen consistent with his will to maximize evil.

    Any argument that can be used with equal facility (mutatis mutandis) to defend a diametrically opposed position is probably best abandoned (Modal Ontological Argument).
    Faith is a vice.
    It is a substitute for courage.
    It is the abdication of Reason - the greatest attribute humans possess.
    It is the selling of one's soul for a happy lie.

  14. #34
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The unsolveable problem of evil (12 Officers redux)

    Quote Originally Posted by Galendir View Post
    Briefly, to say some state of affairs is possible is to usually mean one of two things: Simply put, it is logically/metaphysically possible, or it is epistemically possible, that is, so far as one knows, the state of affairs is not impossible.
    The line of argument that 'it is possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting evil' seems to me very desperate and frankly intellectually bankrupt. As far as I'm aware, there has never been an adequate answer for what could count as a morally sufficient reason for God to allow any number of real world examples of worldly suffering (read 'evil'). When the apologist says "it's possible that God had a morally sufficient reason for permitting it", it seems to me that all he's is saying is that "you cannot know that He doesn't", rather than establishing that in fact it is metaphysically or logically possible that He does.
    Since our knowledge is limited, no amount of reason or argument can ever be enough to overcome this appeal.

    A: "It's possible that there are square circles."
    B: "But that is definitionally self-contradictory."
    A: "Only in the geometries you are aware of, but perhaps there exists some geometry in which they can exist."
    B: "What geometry? How do you know that such a geometry is even possible?"
    A: "Well, since you can't know everything, you can't know that such a geometry is impossible, so it's possible."
    I think your argument would be a powerful one if I was appealing to something that was definitionally contradictory. If it can be shown to be logically contradictory then I will concede the position. The thread defines God's omnipotence as only being able to do the logically possible.
    If I find in myself a desire which nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another. C.S. Lewis

  15. #35
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The unsolveable problem of evil (12 Officers redux)

    Quote Originally Posted by Galendir View Post
    I have not been keeping up with the other thread and do not intend to become much involved here either, so apologies upfront if I cover already tread ground or fail to adequately follow through with replies.

    Briefly, to say some state of affairs is possible is to usually mean one of two things: Simply put, it is logically/metaphysically possible, or it is epistemically possible, that is, so far as one knows, the state of affairs is not impossible.
    The line of argument that 'it is possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting evil' seems to me very desperate and frankly intellectually bankrupt. As far as I'm aware, there has never been an adequate answer for what could count as a morally sufficient reason for God to allow any number of real world examples of worldly suffering (read 'evil'). When the apologist says "it's possible that God had a morally sufficient reason for permitting it", it seems to me that all he's is saying is that "you cannot know that He doesn't", rather than establishing that in fact it is metaphysically or logically possible that He does.u
    Since our knowledge is limited, no amount of reason or argument can ever be enough to overcome this appeal.

    A: "It's possible that there are square circles."
    B: "But that is definitionally self-contradictory."
    A: "Only in the geometries you are aware of, but perhaps there exists some geometry in which they can exist."
    B: "What geometry? How do you know that such a geometry is even possible?"
    A: "Well, since you can't know everything, you can't know that such a geometry is impossible, so it's possible."

    If this sort of argument is an adequate defense of God's Benevolence, it is an equally adequate defense of God's Malevolence (and innumerable other things). You see, God is really the Devil. He Hates Absolutely and wills to maximize suffering. Any good that you perceive is necessary for Him to accomplish a still greater Evil.
    Look, I can't explain how this makes sense seeing that some people appear to live long happy lives, and that I think I can easily imagine a more evil world than this, etcetera, but you can't prove that there isn't some unknown reason GoDevil has for allowing this to happen consistent with his will to maximize evil.

    Any argument that can be used with equal facility (mutatis mutandis) to defend a diametrically opposed position is probably best abandoned (Modal Ontological Argument).
    Once you have a usable generalized definition of geometry, square, and circle, you can begin to design such proofs. There's no such thing as a geometry we don't know about once we define what a geometry is. It's like saying there's a natural number we don't know about.

    But even supposing that there was a geometry where a square could be a circle, there's no geometry where a circle isn't a circle. Orr where parallel lines aren't parallel.

    I suspect there cannot be such a geometry; the derivative would vanish at the corners, giving you a contradiction. But I don't have my differential geometry book in front of me.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  16. #36
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The unsolveable problem of evil (12 Officers redux)

    Quote Originally Posted by estill View Post
    I think your argument would be a powerful one if I was appealing to something that was definitionally contradictory.
    Your argument is contradictory at every turn, Estill. You insist that god isn't malevolent AND that he allows suffering. This is a contradiction because benevolence and suffering don't match up. All your arguments to the contrary have fallen flat. What is your counter argument? If it's simply "Oh... well... that very well reasoned argument doesn't apply to me because I say so / I have counter argument other than to deny what you're saying / nuh-uh! / etc. " then I submit that's the same as conceding.

    ---------- Post added at 05:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Once you have a usable generalized definition of geometry, square, and circle, you can begin to design such proofs. There's no such thing as a geometry we don't know about once we define what a geometry is. It's like saying there's a natural number we don't know about.

    But even supposing that there was a geometry where a square could be a circle, there's no geometry where a circle isn't a circle. Orr where parallel lines aren't parallel.

    I suspect there cannot be such a geometry; the derivative would vanish at the corners, giving you a contradiction. But I don't have my differential geometry book in front of me.
    @_@

    So... you agree that god, if he exists, cannot be benevolent, right?

  17. #37
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The unsolveable problem of evil (12 Officers redux)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    Your argument is contradictory at every turn, Estill. You insist that god isn't malevolent AND that he allows suffering. This is a contradiction because benevolence and suffering don't match up. All your arguments to the contrary have fallen flat. What is your counter argument? If it's simply "Oh... well... that very well reasoned argument doesn't apply to me because I say so / I have counter argument other than to deny what you're saying / nuh-uh! / etc. " then I submit that's the same as conceding.[COLOR="Silver"]
    I feel like we have lost our way in this discussion. Let me essentially start over in a more concise way. Let me remind you that my arguments focus on simply proving it possible that God and suffering can coexist. You bear the burden of proof for showing that it is impossible. Now if you would like to adjust your position to that it is highly unlikely that God exists because of suffering then please indicate so.

    In regards to your initial argument you state that God cannot be omni-benevolent and omnipotent at the same time because suffering exists. Now I'm sure you know that these are not explicitly contradictory. You assume two implicit premises.

    1. An omni-benevolent God would not desire a world in which suffering exists.

    2. An omnipotent God could create a world in which suffering did not exist.

    I believe both of these premises are invalid.

    In response to premise 1: We are not in a position to assess whether or not God has a good reason for permitting suffering. God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting suffering to occur. Permitting suffering could accomplish greater good in the future while intervening could result in disastrous consequences. You agreed that God is omniscient, therefore he is in a position to evaluate the consequences of suffering over hundreds, even thousands of years. A specific example would be a parent disciplining their child. The suffering of the child accomplishes long term discipline and therefore, good.

    In response to premise 2: There are multiple possible questions to answer here but I will stick to the one you raise. Could God create a Universe with no suffering at all? God could not create a universe of creatures with libertarian free will in which no suffering existed. You can not logically force a creature with libertarian free will to always choose God. Therefore, God cannot create a world with libertarian free will in which evil is guaranteed not to exist. You can argue that God should have created a world without creatures who have libertarian free will but I'll let you argue that if you wish.

    My argument: I have gone on the offensive using the above arguments. I argue that it is possible that God could not have created a world with less suffering and more good than this world. Also, God may have a morally sufficient reason for allowing suffering to exist. As long as these assertions are even possible the problem of evil fails.

    Conclusion: I have presented new arguments and compiled my old ones. From this post it seems clearly possible to me that God and suffering can coexist. Also, I used suffering in this post instead of evil. Please indicate if this is your preference or not.
    If I find in myself a desire which nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another. C.S. Lewis

  18. #38
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The unsolveable problem of evil (12 Officers redux)

    Quote Originally Posted by estill View Post
    I feel like we have lost our way in this discussion. Let me essentially start over in a more concise way. Let me remind you that my arguments focus on simply proving it possible that God and suffering can coexist.
    They can coexist, but only if you also agree that god is malevolent.

    1. An omni-benevolent God would not desire a world in which suffering exists.

    2. An omnipotent God could create a world in which suffering did not exist.

    I believe both of these premises are invalid
    Then there's really no reason to continue. The first premise abuses the definition of benevolent and in disagreeing with the second premise you're claiming that god can't do things which are logically possible. It's pretty much as Galendir did nailed it. You saying over and over again "Yeah, but it's okay for god to let kids get raped & murdered" has been defeated several times. And it fails at face value. Now for goodness sakes man, stop repeating the same argument over and over as though it's not defeated. You are engaging in the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

  19. #39
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The unsolveable problem of evil (12 Officers redux)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    They can coexist, but only if you also agree that god is malevolent.



    Then there's really no reason to continue. The first premise abuses the definition of benevolent and in disagreeing with the second premise you're claiming that god can't do things which are logically possible. It's pretty much as Galendir did nailed it. You saying over and over again "Yeah, but it's okay for god to let kids get raped & murdered" has been defeated several times. And it fails at face value. Now for goodness sakes man, stop repeating the same argument over and over as though it's not defeated. You are engaging in the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.
    And if free will and the potential for suffering are mutually inclusive?

    You have not shown that you can have one without allowing for the other.

  20. #40
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The unsolveable problem of evil (12 Officers redux)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    Then there's really no reason to continue. The first premise abuses the definition of benevolent and in disagreeing with the second premise you're claiming that god can't do things which are logically possible. It's pretty much as Galendir did nailed it. You saying over and over again "Yeah, but it's okay for god to let kids get raped & murdered" has been defeated several times. And it fails at face value. Now for goodness sakes man, stop repeating the same argument over and over as though it's not defeated. You are engaging in the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.
    If you are so confident in your argument then prove it. I have provided logic to support my claims you have simply disregarded them. I Challenge to support a claim. you to bear your burden of proof and refute my arguments or concede. Simply saying they are defeated doesn't defeat them.
    If I find in myself a desire which nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another. C.S. Lewis

 

 
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •