Originally posted by orfeoUgh. What do you think? Suppose you see a child crossing the street in the path of an oncoming car. Suppose it is well within your power to save the child without any risk to you. Suppose you choose to not to exercise your power to save the child. Have you thereby done something wrong?
JUST ONE MORE...
God is omnipotent. Can he not for reasons of choice/principle NOT exercise his power? Bind himself in advance?
Or does that make him morally imperfect?
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrLet me try (and you correct me if I am mistaken):
I don't know how much clearer I can make this point.
Either we are asserting that E occurred or not.
If we assert it has not occurred (that every incidence of suffering that
has happened was necessary), then we affirm BUS (deny that
COG has any argumentative merit) and have to agree that if one
person fewer had died in the Holocaust would have created a state
that (at the end of the equation that only G can calculate, being
omniscient) failed to maxmize the good.
If we assert that E has occurred, then we must either deny BUS or
affirm COG.
At no time are we obligated or even able (being limitedly-scient) to
calculate the values of the suffering equation. We assume that God
does so and either tolerates unnecessary suffering or deems that no
unnecessary suffering happens.
Have I got this correct, Sir Bennett?
Nemesio
Originally posted by dj2beckerI spent too long on these arguments to respond in detail to cut and paste jobs. So, here is a quick response:
The argument above is valid as long as it refers to a certain perception of God. Evil and good are simply the two opposites that are found throughout nature. Without opposites, the Yin and Yang, life would not be possible at all. Without opposites we would also have no freedom of choice. Therefore God does not interfere. Imagine two armies approaching, the ...[text shortened]... tand God in human terms.
http://www.self-realization.com/prooffor.htm#The%20Design%20Argument
If God created the universe, then at some point there was nothing other than God.
Suppose God is completely good.
If so, then if it is the case that good cannot exist without evil, then there must have existed evil at that point where there was nothing but God.
But God is completely good by supposition, hence there could have been no evil at the point where there was nothing but God.
So, either God is not completely good, or good can exist without evil.
Which claim would you like to reject?
Further, even if it is a metaphysical necessity that good and evil both exist if either exists, this doesn't entail that they have to exist in equal amounts. Hence, it doesn't follow that all the evil in the world is logically necessary.
Originally posted by NemesioAlmost. The only error here is the bold text in the following:
Let me try (and you correct me if I am mistaken):
Either we are asserting that E occurred or not.
If we assert it has not occurred (that every incidence of suffering that
has happened was necessary), then we affirm BUS (deny that
COG has any argumentative merit) and have to agree that if one
person fewer had died in the Holocaust would have ...[text shortened]... eems that no
unnecessary suffering happens.
Have I got this correct, Sir Bennett?
Nemesio
If we assert it has not occurred (that every incidence of suffering that
has happened was necessary), then we affirm BUS (deny that
COG has any argumentative merit) and have to agree that if one
person fewer had died in the Holocaust would have created a state
that (at the end of the equation that only G can calculate, being
omniscient) created unnecessary suffering.
This should read "failed to maxmize the good". I am not committed to the claim that any failure to maximize the good will involve unnecessary suffering, because I am not committed to the claim that unnecessary suffering is the only thing that is bad.
Originally posted by bbarrEdited to conform correctly to your argument and to serve as
Almost. The only error here is the bold text in the following:
If we assert it has not occurred (that every incidence of suffering that
has happened was necessary), then we affirm BUS (deny that
COG has any argumentative merit) and have to agree that if one
person fewer had died in the Holocaust would have created a state
that (at the end of the ...[text shortened]... I am not committed to the claim that unnecessary suffering is the only thing that is bad.
an accurate summary of same.
Nemesio
If God created the universe, then at some point there was nothing other than God.
Well, to be technical, He created the angels sometime before the universe. Lucifer turned out to be a pretty bad one.
Suppose God is completely good.
No need to suppose. He is.
If so, then if it is the case that good cannot exist without evil, then there must have existed evil at that point where there was nothing but God.
That's not the case. Good can exist without evil. Such will it be in Heaven.
But God is completely good by supposition, hence there could have been no evil at the point where there was nothing but God.
Correct. Though there was evil before the universe was formed because of Satan.
So, either God is not completely good, or good can exist without evil.
Good can exist without evil.
Further, even if it is a metaphysical necessity that good and evil both exist if either exists, this doesn't entail that they have to exist in equal amounts. Hence, it doesn't follow that all the evil in the world is logically necessary.
You should learn what Christians believe evil is before you attempt to make these premises. Evil is the absence of God. Free will is the catylyst for the possibility of evil.
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusHey Darfius,
You should learn what Christians believe evil is before you attempt to make these premises. Evil is the absence of God. Free will is the catylyst for the possibility of evil.
Did you realize that Bennett's post was in direct response to the unOrthodox
claim that Evil and Good by necessity must co-exist from a CHRISTIAN (djbecker)?
Did you? I bet you didn't. You should be rebuking djbecker, not Bennett, because
both of you are coming to the same conclusion (Bennett was showing how, in the
context of Judeo-Christian theology, djbecker's opinion was totally wrong).
I guess the Holy Spirit was with Bennett on this issue rather than djbecker...
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusPlease try and follow along Darfius. My post was in response to dj2becker's cut and paste job, wherein it is claimed that good cannot exist without evil. My post was meant to point out some implications of that claim for a theist who also believes that God is both completely good and the creator of the universe.
If God created the universe, then at some point there was nothing other than God.
Well, to be technical, He created the angels sometime before the universe. Lucifer turned out to be a pretty bad one.
Suppose God is completely ...[text shortened]... ce of God. Free will is the catylyst for the possibility of evil.
2 edits
Originally posted by DarfiusDarfius: Evil is the absence of God
[b/]If God created the universe, then at some point there was nothing other than God.
Well, to be technical, He created the angels sometime before the universe. Lucifer turned out to be a pretty bad one.
Suppose God is complet ...[text shortened]... ce of God. Free will is the catylyst for the possibility of evil.
This is the typical BS you pull; you simply change the definition of a word so it comports with your pre-existing position. Of course, accepting this definition makes this whole thread moot. This is not a standard definition or even a "Christian" one; it is your own invention to avoid the logic of Bbarr's argument. The dictionary definition of evil is: "morally reprehensible" (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary); I defy you to present a dictionary that defines "evil" as "the absence of God".
Originally posted by no1marauderWhile you are correct that this is a typically Darfian BS tactic, it still doesn't follow that this tactic succeeds in diffusing my argument. Premise (2) will merely be recast as: "There is at least one instance of God's absence that is logically unnecessary for the greater good." Everything else proceeds as before. As I have tried to make clear to the theists in this thread, the argument I've presented does not depend on any particular notion of evil.
Darfius: Evil is the absence of God
This is the typical BS you pull; you simply change the definition of a word so it comports with your pre-existing position. Of course, accepting this definition makes this whole thread moot. This is not a standard definition or even a "Christian" one; it is your own invention to avoid the logic of Bbarr ...[text shortened]... Dictionary); I defy you to present a dictionary that defines "evil" as "the absence of God".
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWow, no1, you're particularly venemous today. Is that a new haircut?
Darfius: Evil is the absence of God
This is the typical BS you pull; you simply change the definition of a word so it comports with your pre-existing position. Of course, accepting this definition makes this whole thread mo ...[text shortened]... sent a dictionary that defines "evil" as "the absence of God".
If any Christian claims good cannot exist without evil, then they do not understand the Bible and what it says about Heaven, and they should appeal to a more knowledgable brother or sister for help. I do this for areas where I am foggy.
Also, no1, since God is in no way morally reprehensible, and humans can be, it is logical to deduce that evil is the absence of God.
Originally posted by DarfiusDarfius: Also, no1, since God is in no way morally reprehensible, and humans can be, it is logical to deduce that evil is the absence of God.
Wow, no1, you're particularly venemous today. Is that a new haircut?
If any Christian claims good cannot exist without evil, then they do not understand the Bible and what it says about Heaven, and they should appeal to a more knowledgable brother or sister for help. I do this for areas where I am foggy.
Also, no1, since God is in no way morally reprehensible, and humans can be, it is logical to deduce that evil is the absence of God.
No, it ain't by any definition of "logical" I've ever seen. The fact that your supposed God ain't evil doesn't mean the term evil must encompass him. That's like saying because my Mercedes can't fly, flight is the absence of my Mercedes.
Originally posted by DarfiusCan you be more specific?
Also, no1, since God is in no way morally reprehensible, and humans can be, it is logical to deduce that evil is the absence of God.
As I understand it, God is omnipresent, He cannot be absent anywhere.
Do you mean absent from a person's heart in that they have not accepted God?