Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat is the difference between stealing from someone who gets
[b]Selfish acts are shown to be very selfish because they are done knowing that they are going to cause pain and suffering, if you keep the act but remove the suffering the acts would still be just as selfish only the ability for suffering is removed.
It seems you're saying that the selfishness lies in the motives of the selfish person and whe ...[text shortened]... ng person thinks suffering will occur, or that suffering actually does occur, or something else?[/b]
pleasure out of it, or stealing where the lost causes pain, it is still
stealing. What is the difference between beating someone up because
you hate them even if they only feel less pleasure, or if they actually
feel the pain in the act?
Pleasure is a feeling, the hate or selfishness behind stealing or an
attack is revealed very clearly because of the pain one feels. Just as
someone who endures great pain and suffering for another, so that
another may be spared, reveals a great deal about that person, while
another who would only act out of getting pleasure or something else
out of it, reveals something about them too.
Kelly
3 edits
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 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 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.
1) God exists.
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.
3) Since God is omnipotent, God could have prevented E from occurring.
4) Since God is omniscient, God would have known that E was going to occur.
5) Since God is morally perfect God would have preferred that E not occur, and acted accordingly.
6) If (3), (4), and (5), then E could not have occurred.
7) Hence, E did not occur.
8) But, by (2), E did occur.
9) Hence, either one or more premises (1) through (5) are false.
10) Premises (2) through (5) are true.
11) Hence, premise (1) is false; God does not exist.
This is a valid reductio, so the theist must reject either theism itself, or at least one of the following premises: (2), (3), (4), or (5).
If you think the conclusion of this argument is false, then you are thereby rationally committed to the claim that at least one of the premises is false. So, explicitly state in your response which premise you think is false any why.[/b]
I totally reject your whole post except that God does exist; as it is demanding that god must do, or god must do not.
God is Omnipotent!
At this time god is sitting back taking notes as to how and who he will be culling from the heard.
He is separating the sheep's from the goats.
The angel Satan has complete rule here on earth until he, and his angels are cast to the lake of fire with the second coming.
It is possible to be Omnipotent and decide to take no action.
RTh
[edit] Dispute that! Bi-atch!
1 edit
Originally posted by RingtailhunterCan I have some of whatever it is you are drinking? I totally reject your rejection of my argument, and I reject preemptively any rejection of my rejection of your rejection. I know "Where the Red Fern Grows" is a good book, but you should branch out of the 'coon huntin' genre.
Originally posted by bbarr
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 tha ...[text shortened]... de to take no action.
RTh
[edit] Dispute that! Bi-atch![/b]
Originally posted by bbarrWhich point that I posted do you dispute?
Can I have some of whatever it is you are drinking? I totally reject your rejection of my argument, and I reject preemptively any rejection of my rejection of your rejection. I know "Where the Red Fern Grows" is a good book, but you should branch out of the 'coon huntin' genre.
According to the bible, Satan and his angels were thrown to earth to rule until the second coming, or that God could be Omnipotent because he is taking no action here on earth as of late because he decided not to?
Some people forget that death to God is not as concerning as it is to the doubting human being; it is just another door and no more.
RTh
[miller light, scotch is gone]
Originally posted by RingtailhunterYou posted a point? I thought you were joking around, which is why I was joking around in return. You weren't actually attempting to present an argument, were you?
Which point that I posted do you dispute?
According to the bible, Satan and his angels were thrown to earth to rule until the second coming, or that God could be Omnipotent because he is taking no action here on earth as of late because he decided not to?
Some people forget that death to God is not as concerning as it is to the doubting human being; it is just another door and no more.
RTh
[miller light, scotch is gone]
Originally posted by bbarrROFL, so you can put words in my mouth and say it does not matter
It doesn't matter whether you said it, as these are entailed by your rejection of premise (2). If you reject these entailments, then you can't reject premise (2), if you want to reject these entailments and premise (2), then you are being irrational.
that I didn't say them. Logical to end no doubt.
Kelly
Originally posted by bbarrI reject it because your argument from evil is flawed.
You posted a point? I thought you were joking around, which is why I was joking around in return. You weren't actually attempting to present an argument, were you?
1)God exists.
Could be true, it is faith.
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.
God could prevent any suffering, but man decided to walk his own path with the taking of the apple
3) Since God is omnipotent, God could have prevented E from occurring.
True, God could have but for reasons stated above in answer #2 God left Satan and his angels to have domain on earth until god decides otherwise with the second coming.
4) Since God is omniscient, God would have known that E was going to occur.
redundant answer following answers to #2 and #3.
5) Since God is morally perfect God would have preferred that E not occur, and acted accordingly.
Yes, God would prefer it would not occur, but for answers to #2, #3, #4
the rest is bunk and it is suggesting that God must fit into the confines of logic made up by a being that does not even know if god exists for sure.
RTh
Originally posted by RingtailhunterNo, the argument is fine, your understanding of it is flawed. The argument was a reductio, so premise 1 was a supposition (and obviously not something I endorse). If you reject premise 2, then please see my defense of 2 on pg. 12 of this thread. The rejection of premise 2 is incompatible with the existence of free will, as is shown there. The defense of premise 5 is also found there (and if you understood the argument you'd realize that that is the premise you should want to reject, not 2). I'll argue with you further once you read my posts up through pg. 12.
I reject it because your argument from evil is flawed.
1)God exists.
[b]Could be true, it is faith.
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.
God could prevent any suffering, but man decided to walk his own path ...[text shortened]... nes of logic made up by a being that does not even know if god exists for sure.
RTh
[/b]
Originally posted by bbarrLOL! 😀 Ya know ya love me!
It is not my argument, it is nicknomo's. I was criticising his argument, for Christ's sake. Didn't you read my post. I don't know why I bother even responding to you. It isn't like you actually read the things I write.
You respond out of the deeply felt bond between us. I will return to your ealier post and read more carefully. It's not the first time I have misuderstood what you've written - and sometimes it my own fault. 🙂
Originally posted by bbarrOK. I went back and read nicknomo's post. His argument was fine, it was his "reply" section where he claims that the lack of human free-will removes human responsibility. And that is what you had in your response to nicknomo. (See, I read your post bbarr - I skipped nicknomo's). So I offer my apologies to both bbarr and nicknomo.
Again, you have failed to read my post with even a modicum of care. [b]I was reconstructing nicknomo's argument in my post above, not presenting my own, as should have been readily apparent. You have mistaken my criticism of his position for a presentation of my own position. I accept, in advance, your apologies for (once again) misreading my posts.[/b]
Thank you for accepting bbarr - I hope nicknomo will also.
I though nicknomo's argument was well done. I agree that God's omniscience and omnipotence necessarily implies predeterminism.
I disagree that this removes God's free-will. I think it is clear that God must act outside of the restrictions of time - that being another logical implication of being omniscient and omnipotent. If God can operate outside of time - he is not restricted to the predeterminism that we are. All we can perceive is that time and events occur as they occur and not some other way. But God may indeed change everything as He wishes. He may change the future and the past and how would we know - it does not change our experience of events as we perceive them.
I disagree that our lack of free-will removes our responsibility for our actions. We still do what we do because we are who we are - and God says he will reward us accordingly. But that issue may be for another thread.
------------
Note: I still find bbarr's description of logically necessary confusing. Would anyone else care to try to explain it? Dr Sciddles should take a swing (I think he owes it to bbarr with his postscript edit), but all are welcome. Maybe no one else understands it? I'm willing to learn something new.
-------------
So the question then comes down to: is this the best of all possible worlds? Well, for who? And how would we know? What makes one possible world better then another. bbarr implies suffering is the key. Why? It does not follow in any argument I've seen presented. It is a presupposition - and must be assumed (and should be justifiable). But what if the reduction of human suffering would not make this a better world - again if we have no standard to by which to measure - there is no reason to assume suffering is the key, nor happiness, nor peace. Is it logical to assume that any moral standard would lead to the same choice or outcomes??
I suppose that if we say the God predetermines all events and things - than maybe by bbarr's definition of logically necessary - all suffering is necessary. And since God has predetermined all things and events, then 5. is wrong because God has already made clear what He prefers - for he has already determined it. And this is consistent with what Scripture has said about God and man.
OK. I think I am coming around to some understanding of what bbarr is trying to say regarding premise 2. I still think it could have been clearer, but maybe that's just me. On that basis, I reject premise 5 as it logically contradicts the definition of God.
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr: "Conceiving of the divine as a person is itself absurd and idolatrous "
My argument applies to any god with with three relevant properties, regardless of whether they are conceived of as persons (or three persons, for that matter). If any of the other gods you mention are claimed to have these properties, then the argument applies to them as well.
I wonder how you as an atheist can state such a thing. From an atheistic viewpoint your statement of a certain notion being idolatrous is of course nonsense. Sometimes it seems you yourself doubt your own stances and as a result of that obscure your own position.