Originally posted by KellyJayHe is letting you move the line. The argument doesn't rest on the
Like I said, we are not talking about evil, but personal tastes, any ole
definition works, move the line where ever you want.
Kelly
line's being in any one place.
So, if you want to have an ultrastrict or ultrafree interpretation of evil,
the argument still holds.
Unless where you put your line causes formal (tautological?) incoherence...
So, for the purposes of analyzing his argument, assume that he will
agree to any definition of evil you want to use. If God is omnipotent,
omniscient, and morally perfect, (and you presumably agree with
these things), then the argument stands (unless you want to articulate
an objection).
Nemesio
Originally posted by skywalker redMany theists claim that God is morally perfect, or wholly good, or perfectly just and merciful, or omnibenevolent, or... If a theist attributes any of these properties to God, then I can formulate an argument from evil of the sort presented here. If the theist denies that God has any of these properties, but maintains that God is really moral, or exceptionally good, or almost completely just and merciful, or..., then I can present an accordingly modified problem of evil argument. If the theist denies that God has any of these properties, then that theist is not one that faces a threat from the argument I've presented. A theist can fully well maintain that God exists and doesn't give a damn about what is morally better or worse.
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? ...[text shortened]... interested in whether or not you approve of me voicing my opinion on this or any other thread,
Again, it doesn't matter where the definitions come from if the people to whom the argument is addressed agree with them, or if they have their own definitions that entail that mine are correct. You, for instance, provided two definitions above that entailed, respectively, two definitions I provided. So, even if I grant you that the definitions you provided above were correct, my argument would still go through.
In short, your ramblings in this thread are completely irrelevant to the argument I presented. In fact, I should thank you for doing me the favor of presenting your misguided and erroneous feelings in this thread, as you have provided an excellent example of what actual debate does not consist in.
Originally posted by NemesioI understand that, your repeating it does not add to anything. I am
He is letting you move the line. The argument doesn't rest on the
line's being in any one place.
So, if you want to have an ultrastrict or ultrafree interpretation of evil,
the argument still holds.
Unless where you put your line causes formal (tautological?) incoherence...
So, for the purposes of analyzing his argument, assume that he will
a ...[text shortened]... hese things), then the argument stands (unless you want to articulate
an objection).
Nemesio
simply stating that with any interpretation of evil, it is a matter of
taste not really evil that is being discussed.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI have repeated it because, if you understood it, you wouldn't be
I understand that, your repeating it does not add to anything. I am
simply stating that with any interpretation of evil, it is a matter of
taste not really evil that is being discussed.
Kelly
saying that 'the argument is subject to taste.'
The argument doesn't rely on an understanding of evil anymore than
it relies on an understanding of, say, justice. The argument's success
does not hinge on a definition and, as such, your complaint against
it is irrelevant.
Nemesio
1 edit
The argument is formulated such that it forces God into a logical contradiction by attributing the definition of moral perfection as choices - and then claiming "unnecessary" evil exits.
If God has the power to eliminate "unnecessary" suffering (i.e. evil) and yet He chooses not to, then He is either not morally perfect (good) or he does not have the other attributes of God (omniscience and omnipotents.) The argument is tautologically correct.
It comes down this: if God is good, then the existence of evil needs to be justified, or God is not omniscient and omnipotent.
The problem of evil is easily answered by some changes to the definitions and premises. However the solution is also tautologically correct.
Originally posted by ColettiYou can always reject premise (2) or (5). This gets you out of the dilemma without having to deny that God has the common three properties. If you would like to change the definitions, I'm open to suggestions.
The argument is formulated such that it forces God into a logical contradiction by attributing the definition of moral perfection as choices - and then claiming "unnecessary" evil exits.
If God has the power to eliminate "unnecessary" suffering (i.e. evil) and yet He chooses not to, then He is either not morally perfect (good) or he does not have th ...[text shortened]... me changes to the definitions and premises. However the solution is also tautologically correct.
Originally posted by ColettiI don't think I want to start a new thread on this very topic, but the revised definition is as follows:
Good point. Hey, can you copy the argument to a new thread -this one is getting so long it's hard to find the end 🙂. And you can insert the revised "moral perfection definition - and defense of 2.
Morally Perfect (def): An entity G is morally perfect if and only if for two states of affairs A and B, where A and B are specified as fully as G’s cognitive faculties allow, if A is morally preferable to B then G prefers that A obtain rather than B, and G acts accordingly.
The explanation for the revision and how it addresses Lucifershammer's criticism can be found on pg. 15 of this thread.
In the body of the argument, the only changes are cosmetic. For instance, instead of premise (2) reading:
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.
It will now read as follows:
[b]2'😉 There has obtained at least one fully specified state of affairs S such that S included as a constituent suffering logically unnecessary for the bringing about of greater good.
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarr"Morally preferable" needs to be defined.
I don't think I want to start a new thread on this very topic, but the revised definition is as follows:
Morally Perfect (def): An entity G is morally perfect if and only if for two states of affairs A and B, where A and B are specified a ...[text shortened]... ogically unnecessary for the bringing about of greater good.
Originally posted by NemesioYes, yes the barr argument doesn't rely on an understanding of
I have repeated it because, if you understood it, you wouldn't be
saying that 'the argument is subject to taste.'
The argument doesn't rely on an understanding of evil anymore than
it relies on an understanding of, say, justice. The argument's success
does not hinge on a definition and, as such, your complaint against
it is irrelevant.
Nemesio
evil; however, if anything can be called evil or good it isn't really
evil that is being discussed now is it? The greater good is what
ever God or you want it to be when judging between acts, it is not
a matter of this is really good or this is really evil therefore it is
not possible for God or anyone else to get it wrong. Since it is not
really a matter of what is really evil or really good anything can be
accepted or rejected for any reason and called good or evil.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarr[/b]Why would you banter about something like "E brought about
I don't think I want to start a new thread on this very topic, but the revised definition is as follows:
[b]Morally Perfect (def): An entity G is morally perfect if and only if for two states of affairs A and B, where A and B are specifie ...[text shortened]... ogically unnecessary for the bringing about of greater good.
unnecessary suffering" since any suffering as a result of an
acceptable allowance or act I would assume would be necessary?
Seems like you have a vague notion of evil, while a very concrete
notion of suffering by which to judge evil by.
Kelly