Originally posted by DarfiusI forgot to mention how happy I am that you have joined this discussioin of Problem of Evil. Thanks. Now, since the last couple pages of debate have been tangential to the main thrust of the argument presented originally (subject to the needed modification pointed out by Lucifershammer's excellent post), I think it is time to get back on track.
Compassion I can give you, eagle. Lies I cannot.
So, Darfius, which premise of my argument do you reject?
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI'll ask this again, but how do you define evil? For that matter
It could also be of course that neither evil nor good depend on each other. If you believe that good can stand alone, why not evil too?
how do you define good and evil. It would seem we should at
least have a basic agreement on what we are talking about before
we can say one can stand without the other.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI hope you are only talking to Pawnokeyhole here. The argument I've presented doesn't require any particular definition of 'evil'. You can use your very own definition, and it won't make a bit of difference to the argument.
I'll ask this again, but how do you define evil? For that matter
how do you define good and evil. It would seem we should at
least have a basic agreement on what we are talking about before
we can say one can stand without the other.
Kelly
Originally posted by skywalker redWell, if a theist thinks that God is omnipotent, but can't do everything it is logically possible for him to do, then that theist just doesn't know what the term means. Similar comments apply to the property of omniscience. Being all powerful and all knowing is not the same as just being really powerful and really smart.
question/ its very interesting that you have your own definitions of what omniscience and omnipotence is.. what if someone has a different defintion of these terms,, is their argument then inherently flawed?
Originally posted by bbarrWell,im just curious where you got your definitions from. it seems to me that your trying to pull of an incredible card trick here ,its analogous to saying something like ...hey , everyone, gather round, and I will show you something amazing, and you proceed to define your own terms(with your own words,or are they someone else's?)and then you take out a deck of cards and you challenge anyone present to wager whether or not you can actually pull it off. but then someone steps up and says, ill take that bet, but on one condition, the condtion is that you use a brand new deck of cards. Basically the person who steps up wants to keep you honest and make sure that your deck isnt stacked, so that he can make a bet against you being able to do the trick without feeling like he is being hustled.... anyway,, how about if we try to be as objective as possible about the terms omnipotence and omniscience... something like:
Well, if a theist thinks that God is omnipotent, but can't do everything it is logically possible for him to do, then that theist just doesn't know what the term means. Similar comments apply to the property of omniscience. Being all powerful and all knowing is not the same as just being really powerful and really smart.
omnipotence=an agency or force of unlimited power, having virtually unlimited authority or influence.
omniscience=having infinite awareness,understanding and insight,possessed of universal or complete knowledge.
1 edit
Originally posted by skywalker redI'm not interested in your feelings about my argument. If you want to reject a definition, tell me why and present your own. If you want to reject a premise, give me more reasons. I presented the argument in detail so I wouldn't have to deal with vague mumblings like "your argument seems like a card trick, blah blah blah...".
Well,im just curious where you got your definitions from. it seems to me that your trying to pull of an incredible card trick here ,its analogous to saying something like ...hey , everyone, gather round, and I will show you something ...[text shortened]... standing and insight,possessed of universal or complete knowledge.
You provided the following definitions:
omnipotence=an agency or force of unlimited power, having virtually unlimited authority or influence.
omniscience=having infinite awareness,understanding and insight,possessed of universal or complete knowledge.
These definitions are more expansive than mine, but they entail mine, so the argument still goes through. A being of unlimited power has the power to do particular thing that can be done, which is to say that being can do any thing that is logically possible. A being of complete knowledge would know the truth value of any proposition. If there was a proposition that such a being did not know the truth value of, then its knowledge would be incomplete.
Originally posted by bbarrwell, thats funny that you would categorize my response as "vague mumblings"...because if it wasnt for "vague mumblings", you would'nt have any thing to say on any of these threads... butr I am curious as to where you got your definitions. you still havent told me. I got mine out of websters dictionary, what is your source ?and I wasnt "vague" at all, I was very specific with the analogy of you trying to pull off a trick with a stacked deck.
I'm not interested in your feelings about my argument. If you want to reject a definition, tell me why and present your own. If you want to reject a premise, give me more reasons. I presented the argument in detail so I wouldn't have to deal with vague mumblings like "your argument seems like a card trick, blah blah blah...".
You provided the followi ...[text shortened]... hat such a being did not know the truth value of, then its knowledge would be incomplete.
Originally posted by bbarrIn other words for your argument you are basically speaking of
I hope you are only talking to Pawnokeyhole here. The argument I've presented doesn't require any particular definition of 'evil'. You can use your very own definition, and it won't make a bit of difference to the argument.
personal tastes?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, as has been explained and clarified several times in the thread, any definition
In other words for your argument you are basically speaking of
personal tastes?
Kelly
of Good and Evil will work. Yours, mine, his, someone else's, &c.
You see, the argument isn't about evil, so anyone reading the argument can
'fill in the blank' for evil as they see fit.
If you feel that the argument fails because your definition of evil (or good) makes
the argument incoherent, then I'd love to hear it.
Nemesio
Originally posted by skywalker redSkywalker: "...hey , everyone, gather round, and I will show you something amazing, and you proceed to define your own terms(with your own words,or are they someone else's?)and then you take out a deck of cards and you challenge anyone present to wager whether or not you can actually pull it off. but then someone steps up and says, ill take that bet, but on one condition, the condtion is that you use a brand new deck of cards."
Well,im just curious where you got your definitions from. it seems to me that your trying to pull of an incredible card trick here ,its analogous to saying something like ...hey , everyone, gather round, and I will show you something amazing, and you proceed to define your own terms(with your own words,or are they someone else's?)and then you take out ...[text shortened]... aving infinite awareness,understanding and insight,possessed of universal or complete knowledge.
..... lol ....... one more time the magician Bbarr is unmasked ..... not everybody is swallowing your tricks, Bbarr .....
Originally posted by ivanhoeBeing unmasked requires an argument.
..... lol ....... one more time the magician Bbarr is unmasked ..... not everybody is swallowing your tricks, Bbarr .....
For example, I could claim that I unmasked your ordained status. I could claim
it over and over and over. But I have no evidence to the claim, and so, such a
claim is simply my opinion. As such, it carries no argumentative weight.
Such is the case with your and Skywalker's claims that Bennett is a magician.
You can repeat it over and over like a mantra, but until you demonstrate it, it
has no substance.
Nemesio