A General Argument from Evil.

Originally posted by bbarr

2) There has occurred at least one event E such that E brought about unnecessary suffering; suffering not logically necessary for the bringing about of greater good.

If you think the conclusion of this argument is false, then you are the ...[text shortened]... ate in your response which premise you think is false any why.[/b]

Nice presentation.

For some fun argument, I suggest that premise (2) is the most fragile. It makes an existential claim without derivation or evidence.

As you're a weak atheist, not one to believe existential claims without derivation or evidence, I'm sure this was an intentional omission on your part for the sake of clarity and brevity. Would you care to elaborate and defend the truth of (2)?

Originally posted by bbarr
[b]A General Argument from Evil:

God (def.): An entity that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

Omnipotent (def.): An entity G is omnipotent if and only if G can do anything that is logically possible.

Omniscient (def.): An entity G is omniscient if and only if G knows every true proposition.

Morally Perfect (def): An entity G i ...[text shortened]... s false. So, explicitly state in your response which premise you think is false any why.[/b]

The whole statement is false. Do you believe in GOD? Do you believe that for any reason that HE may exist? You may believe that what your statement is reasonable, but you have only looked at the question from only one point of view. There is another side of the statement, and have you looked at that side.
GOD dwells in a place called eternity. Which is a place we as human beings know very little about. Sure GOD has created all things, which includes all the laws of good and all laws of evil. GOD as we know HIM, has laws and all his creation in eternity obeys HIS Laws. Why does the creatated creatures obey Him in Eternity? Are they forced? Or do they by choice?
Where did evil come from? How did it come into being? All of GOD'S created beings have a purpose, they are to serve HIM. All that they are their hearts, minds, and souls(to our understanding of such) are focased on HIM,GOD. They serve HIM because they want to. They all know that they canot dwell without him.
Something happened.Was it supposed to? We may never know. The number one angel, Lucifer, had a job. That job was to bring to bring Praise unto GOD. This he did until,for whatever reason, he began to praise and worship himself. Why we will problely never know. Did GOD know that this could happen, yes of course. Could HE have prevented it, certainly. Then why did HE not?
Why did HE allow rebellion to come to pass? Could HE with little effort wipe Lucifer out? Yes indeed. But could there then be a continueous infraction of rebellion in eternity. Yes. Would all creation understand much clearer if HE, allowed the rebellion to play itself out? Would all of creation understand that only by doing what GOD, wants brings peace and harmony.
Would not all creation understand that they have a choice, to obey GOD, and all that HE wants. Or do your own thing. Lucifer chose to do his own thing. Did Lucifer understand completely what he was doing? We will probly never know. But he did know that GOD was a creater of laws. He only saw the good laws. He had no understanding of the laws that pertained to evil. Or the laws that governed his rebellion.
So with the rebellion of Lucifer, there became two forces. The good forces of GOD. The evil forces of Lucifer, now known as Satan. Even though satan has his army, he still has to follow those laws that were given by GOD for evil.
When man was created he as well was given a choice. He could follow GOD and his good laws. Or he could follow Satan, and obey the laws that GOD created for evil.
The evil in the world is not GOD'S fault. WE live in a world of choices. And each of our choices affect each other.
CHRIST came to give us another chance, to get back into the good grace of GOD.But HE is not going to force us to come to GOD. HE just made it easier for us to come to GOD. What many of us do not understand that we can not come to GOD our way. We have to come to GOD the way that HE wants. Through the Saving Power of HIS SON JESUS CHRIST.

Originally posted by bbarr
[b]A General Argument from Evil:

God (def.): An entity that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

Omnipotent (def.): An entity G is omnipotent if and only if G can do anything that is logically possible.

Omniscient (def.): An entity G is omniscient if and only if G knows every true proposition.

Morally Perfect (def): An entity G i ...[text shortened]... s false. So, explicitly state in your response which premise you think is false any why.[/b]

I clearly reject premise 2. Partly for what Doctor said, as it being a completely unsupported claim, but mostly because it is false.

I will wait for you to provide evidence for why you think it is correct.

Originally posted by blindfaith101
The whole statement is false. Do you believe in GOD? Do you believe that for any reason that HE may exist? You may believe that what your statement is reasonable, but you have only looked at the question from only one point of view. There is another side of the statement, and have you looked at that side.
GOD dwells in a place called eternity. Which i ...[text shortened]... We have to come to GOD the way that HE wants. Through the Saving Power of HIS SON JESUS CHRIST.

I'm sorry, which premise are you rejecting? 😛

Originally posted by Darfius
I clearly reject premise 2. Partly for what Doctor said, as it being a completely unsupported claim, but mostly because it is false.

I will wait for you to provide evidence for why you think it is correct.

O.K, now we're getting somewhere. I'll provide my defense of premise (2) tomorrow.

Originally posted by bbarr
[b]A General Argument from Evil:

God (def.): An entity that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

Omnipotent (def.): An entity G is omnipotent if and only if G can do anything that is logically possible.

Omniscient (def.): An entity G is omniscient if and only if G knows every true proposition.

Morally Perfect (def): An entity G i ...[text shortened]... s false. So, explicitly state in your response which premise you think is false any why.[/b]

This is simple enough - the theist rejects premise (2) (consequently n.10 as well) - no event has brought about suffering not necessary (I don't understand the term "logically necessary"😉 for the greater good.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
This is simple enough - the theist rejects premise (2) (consequently n.10 as well) - no event has brought about suffering not necessary (I don't understand the term "logically necessary"😉 for the greater good.

Actually, the theist must reject your definition of Omnipotence as well.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, the theist must reject your definition of Omnipotence as well.

No, this claim of yours is confused.

Originally posted by bbarr
[b]A General Argument from Evil:
Morally Perfect (def): An entity G is morally perfect if and only if for any two acts, events, or states of affairs A and B, if A is morally preferable to B then G prefers that A occur or obtain rather than B, and G acts accordingly.

NOTE: The notion of ‘morally preferable’ presume no particular ethical theory. The a ...[text shortened]... s false. So, explicitly state in your response which premise you think is false any why.[/b]

Your definition of "Morally Perfect" is not a definition. It is in essence a premise regarding the nature of God that says - God is moral perfect if God is morally perfect. It is a circular argument that says God is good if God does good.

" An entity G is morally perfect if and only if for any two acts, events, or states of affairs A and B, if A is morally preferable to B then G prefers that A occur or obtain rather than B, and G acts accordingly."

i.e.

God is morally perfect if God chooses the morally best actions every time.

i.e.

God is good if He does the right thing.

i.e.

God is good if God does good.

Of course circular arguments are formally valid, but you have not provided any additional information to define what is moral.

I think you can do better. The existence of evil is certainly an import theological issue.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, this claim of yours is confused.

Perhaps. I've had a long day at work.

Originally posted by Coletti
Your definition of "Morally Perfect" is not a definition. It is in essence a premise regarding the nature of God that says - God is moral perfect if God is morally perfect. It is a circular argument that says God is good if God does good ...[text shortened]... The existence of evil is certainly an import theological issue.

Definitions are not arguments, arguments have premises and definitions do not. The definition is not circular, because it doesn't rely upon the notion of moral perfection, only moral preferability. Further, the whole point of the definition is to remain neutral between competing ethical theories(as I made clear in the note presented just after the argument). Since the definition is entailed by the theistic ethical theory, they cannot reject it.

Is this actually going somewhere or is it just a survey of theists?

Originally posted by Coletti
Your definition of "Morally Perfect" is not a definition. It is in essence a premise regarding the nature of God that says - God is moral perfect if God is morally perfect. It is a circular argument that says God is good if God does good.

" An entity G is morally perfect if and only if for any two acts, events, or states of affairs A and B, if A is mo ...[text shortened]...

I think you can do better. The existence of evil is certainly an import theological issue.

It is not cicular at all. Why is a footballer called a footballer? Because he plays football.

Bennett is saying that the entity G is morally perfect if it follows a course of action to exhibit perfect morals in the same way as a entity G is a footballer if it plays football. Neither definition relies on a definition of what morals or football are. And indeed Bennett goes on to say:

NOTE: The notion of ‘morally preferable’ presumes no particular ethical theory. The argument that follows is neutral as to correctness of any particular ethical theory, and as such is applicable regardless of which ethical theory is correct.

It is the adherence to the process of choosing moral A over moral B if A is correct and B is not that makes it perfect. What A and B actaully are is irrelevant.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Is this actually going somewhere or is it just a survey of theists?

I want to get the little quibbles out of the way, and see if any theists out there wanted to reject any premise other than (2). Once that is done, then we try and determine what follows if we reject (2), that is, if we claim that there has never, in the history of the world, occurred an event that brought about more suffering than was absolutely necessary to maximize the good.

Originally posted by bbarr
[b]A General Argument from Evil:

God (def.): An entity that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

Omnipotent (def.): An entity G is omnipotent if and only if G can do anything that is logically possible.

Omniscient (def.): An entity G is omniscient if and only if G knows every true proposition.

Morally Perfect (def): An entity G i ...[text shortened]... s false. So, explicitly state in your response which premise you think is false any why.[/b]

Where did you got your definitions from? From the bible or from the dictionary? If the bible please please state where. If a dictionary LOL.