A General Argument from Evil.

Originally posted by bbarr
I 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 nee ...[text shortened]... track.

So, Darfius, which premise of my argument do you reject?

Bbarr: "I forgot to mention how happy I am that you have joined this discussioin of Problem of Evil."

Ha ha ha, I can see your sharpened knife blickering behind your back, Bbarr ..... sure you're happy.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Being unmasked requires an argument.

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.
Y ...[text shortened]... t it over and over like a mantra, but until you demonstrate it, it
has no substance.

Nemesio

I gave my objections. If Bbarr has performed his trick I will not stand in awe and admiration. I simply ask myself how gullible people can be as long as the presentation is impressive. I wish a real expert on formal logic would sweep the floor with him and show him all four corners of the Debating forums.

Originally posted by Nemesio
No, as has been explained and clarified several times in the thread, any definition
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

Have you become Bbarr's assistent ?

Originally posted by skywalker red
well, 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 de ...[text shortened]... the analogy of you trying to pull off a trick with a stacked deck.

I'm sorry, why is it relevant where I got these definitions? I could have come up with them on my own, or heard them from a Christian philosopher, or found them written on the back of a napkin. How I came about the definitions is immaterial to the argument at hand.

Now, you cribbed your definitions above from Webster's. Your definitions of omnipotence and omniscience entail my definitions. Hence, if your definitions are correct, then the assertions made in my definitions are also correct. Hence, it does not matter at all for the purposes of the argument I've presented whether your definitions are correct or mine are correct. This is really straightforward.

So, if you are going to reject a definition, tell me which and why. If you are going to reject a premise, tell me which and why. If you are want to pout nonsense about cards regarding an argument you haven't read closely and obviously don't understand, perhaps you could resist the urge and refrain from further cluttering this thread.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

I gave my objections. If Bbarr has performed his trick I will not stand in awe and admiration. I simply ask myself how gullible people can be as long as the presentation is impressive. I wish a real expert on formal logic would sweep the ...[text shortened]... oor with him and show him all four corners of the Debating forums.

You gave objections? Oh, do you mean the one that was self-refuting? Was there another one?

Kind and Patient Readers...

Dear readers, please help. Ivanhoe has apparently presented an actual objection to an argument. But when bactracking through the this thread, I can only find one objection of his, and it is self-refuting. I am worried there may be another objection I have overlooked, but I am at a loss as to where it might be. If any of you can remember coming across this phantom objection, please let me know forthwith.

Thank you, and God bless.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

I gave my objections. If Bbarr has performed his trick I will not stand in awe and admiration. I simply ask myself how gullible people can be as long as the presentation is impressive. I wish a real expert on formal logic would sweep the floor with him and show him all four corners of the Debating forums.

Bbarr is the quintessential expert on logic!
I know, because I can't understand logical people and I can't understand Bbarr!
Seriously, I wish I had his intellect!

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]

okay, fatman, lets start over shall we.... for starters, your Definition of God is false and should be discarded because God is NOT "morally perfect" and who ever said that he was? and the reason that I keep asking you where you got your very questionable definitions is obvious isnt it. Ivanhoe is right. Just how gullible do you think people are?
Obviously if you can define God as "morally perfect" , then all you have to do is assert that God is somehow NOT morally perfect and therefore... God as such , does not exist.

and im not really interested in whether or not you approve of me voicing my opinion on this or any other thread,

Originally posted by bbarr
You gave objections? Oh, do you mean the one that was self-refuting? Was there another one?

[b]Kind and Patient Readers...

Dear readers, please help. Ivanhoe has apparently presented an actual objection to an argument. But whe ...[text shortened]... ection, please let me know forthwith.

Thank you, and God bless.[/b]

I wonder why you waste your time on proving the unprovable.

C'mon, continue and let's get this operetta over with.


EDIT: "A god who let us prove his existence would be an idol."

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Originally posted by ivanhoe

I gave my objections. If Bbarr has performed his trick I will not stand in awe and admiration. I simply ask myself how gullible people can be as long as the presentation is impressive. I wish a real expert on formal logic would sweep the floor with him and show him all four corners of the Debating forums.

Even if you do not consider yourself an expert in formal logic, you could fast-forward to the conclusion, and take issue with that. (I did not see that you ever did take issue with it, but this has been a really long thread...)

Even though bbarr's argument was a lengthy read, and I am also not an expert on formal logic, I did not find it too hard to understand. I do not see why people refer to this as 'magic' or 'a trick'. I can see why people might object to reading something that lengthy, but if so, they would do better to admit it.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I wonder why you waste your time on proving the unprovable.

C'mon, continue and let's get this operetta over with.


EDIT: "A god who let us prove his existence would be an idol."

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

I agree with you Ivanhoe,, I think he wastes his time with this nonsense because he has too much free time,, maybe he should get a hobby,,, like chess maybe!

Originally posted by skywalker red
okay, fatman, lets start over shall we.... for starters, your Definition of God is false and should be discarded because God is NOT "morally perfect" and who ever said that he was?

Well, most christians and (I think) muslims believe that their god is morally perfect, for starters. Don't believe me? Just ask Darfius, RBHILL, or dj2becker. Wish there were some obvious muslims on the site too...

Originally posted by skywalker red
I agree with you Ivanhoe,, I think he wastes his time with this nonsense because he has too much free time,, maybe he should get a hobby,,, like chess maybe!

Uggh, this type of argument makes me cringe.

I could easily argue that few hobbies are a bigger 'waste of time' than chess. That's not the point. If chess, or online debates, are of personal interest, what does it matter if others consider it a waste of time?

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Well, most christians and (I think) muslims believe that their god [b]is morally perfect, for starters. Don't believe me? Just ask Darfius, RBHILL, or dj2becker. Wish there were some obvious muslims on the site too...[/b]

well, just look at YAHWEH in the old testament, some of his actions can hardly be considered "morally Perfect", or do you disagree with that?

Originally posted by skywalker red
well, just look at YAHWEH in the old testament, some of his actions can hardly be considered "morally Perfect", or do you disagree with that?

I agree...but you had asked "who claims that god is morally perfect?". The bible makes this claim repeatedly.

Originally posted by Nemesio
No, as has been explained and clarified several times in the thread, any definition
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

Like I said, we are not talking about evil, but personal tastes, any ole
definition works, move the line where ever you want.
Kelly