I can't claim to have read this whole thread so, if this is a repeat, please forgive me. But a morally perfect God can't act in accordance with no.5 in the original logic chain.
I'll set up a hypothetical situation.
You see a child in the street playing and there is a car coming. Neither the driver nor the child seem to notice and you can reach the child with little or no chance of harm to yourself.
Assuming no.s 1-5 in the original post's logic chain are all true, what do you do?
Jeff
Originally posted by jebryI believe 2 to be false, and the reason is the words, "unnecessary
I can't claim to have read this whole thread so, if this is a repeat, please forgive me. But a morally perfect God can't act in accordance with no.5 in the original logic chain.
I'll set up a hypothetical situation.
You see a child in the street playing and there is a car coming. Neither the driver nor the child seem to notice and you can reach the ch ...[text shortened]...
Assuming no.s 1-5 in the original post's logic chain are all true, what do you do?
Jeff
suffering." These two words all else seems to rest on, even the
term evil is left vague and undefined in all of this.
Since any act can cause suffering as a direct or indirect result of
the act, the verbiage unnecessary never applies. Your car accident
that is about to occur, is a direct result of a car hitting a child.
The term unnecessary does not apply, if anyone get hits by a
moving car there will be a direct result, and depending on how
hard they are hit a level of suffering will follow. Much like a
chemical reaction, it simply will occur because that is what happens
when certain chemicals are mixed. You mix a car and a child
there is going to be suffering.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are confusing causal efficacy with logical necessity. Please reread my defense of premise (2), wherein I distinguish between the two and discuss this common mistake. Further, 'evil' doesn't need to be defined in this argument. As I, Nemesio, and others have pointed out repeatedly, the theist can use their own definition of 'evil' in the argument. It doesn't matter for the sake of the argument, how you define 'evil'.
I believe 2 to be false, and the reason is the words, "unnecessary
suffering." These two words all else seems to rest on, even the
term evil is left vague and undefined in all of this.
Since any act can cause suffering as a direct or indirect result of
the act, the verbiage unnecessary never applies. Your car accident
that is about to occur, is a ...[text shortened]... n certain chemicals are mixed. You mix a car and a child
there is going to be suffering.
Kelly
I repeat: Use your own definition of 'evil'.
Use your own definition of 'evil'.
Use your own definition of 'evil'.
Use your own definition of 'evil'.
Use your own definition of 'evil'.
O.K.? Do you get this? You can use your very own definition of 'evil', and it doesn't matter as far as the argument is concerned. I purposely did not define 'evil', so that the argument would apply regardless of the definition of 'evil' a theist employed. The argument works regardless of the definition of 'evil' the theist employs. The argument cuts across definitions of 'evil'.
Do you understand this yet? Do I need to say this in a different way?
This is such a simple point, please grasp it.
Originally posted by bbarrNo, I have not read the thread. There are over 20 pages. You should remember which page you gave your last, most updated definition or lack of definition of the term so you can quickly answer people like me without every person having to dig through 20+ pages of back and forth conversation. You can be seriously obnoxious when you get on your little philosophy horse, bbarr.
You have read the thread, haven't you? If so, then read it again, because you are completely lost. If not, then please move along to a different thread.
I'll assume you're still working with this:
The definition entails that a morally perfect person will choose the lesser evil only when the lesser evil is the least evil of any available alternatives...Again, I am making no claims here as to what the term 'evil' means, other than that 'more evil' entails 'less morally preferable'.
I reject 5. I see no reason to see any connection between God's postulated 'moral perfection' and whether God prefers E to happen unless 'moral perfection', 'morally preferable' or 'evil' are defined.
For example: I will define 'morally perfect' as 'infinitely hairy'. 5) does not follow.
Here's another, more popular definition (I think Coletti offered it earlier): 'Good' is defined as the will of God. God always prefers his will be done than his will not be done. As God is omnipotent, God's will cannot not be done, and evil does not exist. Therefore I again reject 5), because no event has occurred which God had preferred to not have occurred. (Did that sentence make sense?)
In other words, your argument assumes a certain relationship between suffering and good/evil. Therefore it's validity hinges on what good/evil are exactly and whether or not your assumed relationship actually exists or not.
Originally posted by bbarrYou should actually read what my said, and get off the evil
You are confusing causal efficacy with logical necessity. Please reread my defense of premise (2), wherein I distinguish between the two and discuss this common mistake. Further, 'evil' doesn't need to be defined in this argument. As I, Nemesio, and others have pointed out repeatedly, the theist can use their own definition of 'evil' in the argument. ...[text shortened]... Do I need to say this in a different way?
This is such a simple point, please grasp it.
definition, it wasn't the main point.
Kelly
Originally posted by Siebrenhey, Siebren, thats a very good question,, I already asked bbar where he got his definitions, and he couldnt tell me, he said something like "its irrelevant", but I hardly think its irrelevant, I think its a question that he needs to answer. bbar knows that if his definitions are false (which they are)namely, that God is "morally perfect", then his whole argument crumbles like a house of CARDS. did i say cards again,, i have to stop.
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.
Originally posted by skywalker redIs it possible you're not aware of the large number of religious people who believe their own god to be morally perfect? I believe the argument applies more to them.
hey, Siebren, thats a very good question,, I already asked bbar where he got his definitions, and he couldnt tell me, he said something like "its irrelevant", but I hardly think its irrelevant, I think its a question that he needs to answer. bbar knows that if his definitions are false (which they are)namely, that God is "morally perfect", then his whole argument crumbles like a house of CARDS. did i say cards again,, i have to stop.
I am frankly surprised that more of the christians on the site aren't calling you on that statement.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Is it possible you're not aware of the large number of religious people who believe their own god to be morally perfect? I believe the argument applies more to them.
I am frankly surprised that more of the christians on the site aren't calling you on that statement.
It will be one of the white rabbits that will emerge from the illusionist's black hat.
Thanks for the response Kelly, but I was hoping someone would answer my question. So, I'll repeat it here and give my answer:
You see a child in the street playing and there is a car coming. Neither the driver nor the child seem to notice and you can reach the child with little or no chance of harm to yourself.
Assuming no.s 1-5 in the original post's logic chain are all true, what do you do?
My answer is, you do nothing. And here is my explanation.
You have learned from your parents or teachers or just from hard experience that there is nothing you can do. By acting you have zero chance of improving the outcome, but you definitely can make things worse. If the child's death doesn't increase the common good, God will take care of the child, and He will do it without any danger to anyone. If the child's death does increase the common good, there is nothing you can do because God will have to stop you.
So, a God who acts to stop human suffering is not morally perfect because it will lead to a world where we can't act in any way to relieve the suffering of our fellow man and we would therefor never be able to gain a sense of morals or learn any type of moral obligation to others. A morally perfect God will do exactly what God has done. And that is leave the alleviation of suffering to us.
One more point and I'll open this to rebuttal. I would also argue that God not only leaves this to us, as He should, but he also provided a person, or group of people, in every situation that could have prevented the suffering, if they had acted as God had intended they should.
Jeff
Originally posted by jebryDo you know what the greater good is? Is the greater good to be
Thanks for the response Kelly, but I was hoping someone would answer my question. So, I'll repeat it here and give my answer:
You see a child in the street playing and there is a car coming. Neither the driver nor the child seem to notice and you can reach the child with little or no chance of harm to yourself.
Assuming no.s 1-5 in the original post's ...[text shortened]... t could have prevented the suffering, if they had acted as God had intended they should.
Jeff
found here in this life time, or in one that never ends? We are
speaking about God. We do not have all the answers, we do not
know all the questions.
My gripe with nr 2 still stands with the words "unnecessary suffering,"
because the meaning of “unnecessary” cannot be justified, because it
labels some types of suffering as necessary while others not.
Kelly