A General Argument from Evil.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]God can not be eliminated, but many people do succeed in alienating themselves from God by working so hard to eliminate Him.

are you then rejecting the notion that there may be nothing to eliminate in the first place?

I am indeed convinced He does exist. Problem?

no problem at all. likewise, there should be no problem if someone e ...[text shortened]... [/b]

i don't think it would change the fact that there is plenty more room for improvement. [/b]

Ok L J,

There are several points in here where we are simply not connecting on the communication level, let alone the idea level. I can't afford the time to address all of them.

But...
yes, I am rejecting the idea that there is nothing to eliminate. Obviously, I believe in God (as do the demons). I don't mind being classified (if that's what you mean by pigeon-holing). Please don't put words in my mouth: I haven't called you any sort of heathen.

I don't speak to whether God had more than one choice, but that He did make only one choice in His creative design. He gave us free will. He doesn't give up omnipotence by choosing a certain route. He exercises it. And the problem with bbar's MP was there; He defined it with two contradictory choices. I just found a problem there (in my opinion).

In my view, His act was morally perfect because I can not find fault with it. He is not responsible for any harm that followed His initial act. Adam and Eve showed their moral imperfection by their choosing to separate themselves from what they knew to be moral perfection (obedience to their creator).

If one chooses to allow, just for a moment, that maybe God is godly (MP), then one can begin to see another explanation for the suffering in the world. Maybe it is too hard to use the word sin in these days, but why could sin (any choice that is outside of God's good and perfect will for us) not be a real entity that exists and has its evil effect on humanity (suffering).

I think furthermore, that it is not God's omnipotence that He uses to address our planetary suffering; it is His grace! "What end to suffering?" you say. Well that is what Jesus was sent by the Father to address directly! Not as a cop to gather all the bad guys and lock them up (especially since most of the badness is most often hidden in our hearts!), but to draw us into choosing His way through repentance and offering us heaven; the perfect, suffering free zone!

You're right. God did not just sit back and watch us ruin ourselves and the planet! The very day of the fall He announced that there would be salvation coming. Later, when the world was
'full of violence' He did start over with Noah, but all of that followed from
Aam and Eve's choice.
His initial choice, according to the established doctrine of the church, was perfect.

I agree with you that God can be questioned. But let's always hope that (if there is a God), His answers will always be satisfactory! If you or I could find fault with god, then once in a while I
would even beat him at chess. Now that is scairy!
In the same vein, I don't think I would ever be right if I approach God to correct Him.

Originally posted by howardgee
Yes, well KellyJay does seem to have the memory of a gold fish!

On 25th July 2005 in my "Main Problem With Evil" thread, he stated:

"I'm not sure what GAFE is, I have not followed any discussion where
that was a center piece of it. "

However, it is clear that he posted regularly to this GAFE thread over a long period!
I think the problem with KellyJay is that; if it isn't in the bible, he cannot take it in properly.

I pop in and out of a lot of debates, I still do not know what
'GAFE' means. If it was spelled out in detail, I don't recall seeing
it. If I did see it, I guess it did not leave a lasting impression on
me.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I pop in and out of a lot of debates, I still do not know what
'GAFE' means. If it was spelled out in detail, I don't recall seeing
it. If I did see it, I guess it did not leave a lasting impression on
me.
Kelly

General Argument from Evil.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
General Argument from Evil.

ROFL, no wonder howard was giving me grief.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I pop in and out of a lot of debates, I still do not know what
'GAFE' means. If it was spelled out in detail, I don't recall seeing
it. If I did see it, I guess it did not leave a lasting impression on
me.
Kelly

ermm... you are now posting in the thread!!!!!!!!

(Try reading the title)

Originally posted by howardgee
ermm... you are now posting in the thread!!!!!!!!

(Try reading the title)

If you read a post or two up, you will see I already got it.
That being said, simply knowing the title of a thread does
not mean that the meaning some people have of it's context
is going to be held by everyone else who has posted in it.
Kelly

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
The proof, even if perfectly flawless, wouldn't eliminate the possiblity of God existing. It would only show that no God defined as in the proof exists (or that logical contradictions can actually obtain, the denial of which is an implicit assumption in all reductio style proofs). Said another way, the proof's claim is really this: if God exists, ...[text shortened]... . (The Rattlesnake bit was used to clarify the reading for some, and to confuse it for others.)

I suppose the question would be, can any being (existent or not) be OOMP?

I think the idea of Omnipotence (as defined by bbarr) is inherently self-contradictory. The idea behind the GAFE II thread was to use some kind of diagonalisation argument to demonstrate this.

Originally posted by LemonJello
(i feel some ranting coming on.)

have you read through the formulation of the GAFE? if you have, then you know that the GAFE assumes no particular ethical theory. that is to say, the GAFE stands independent of any concepts concerning what constitutes 'morally preferable'.

that said, the argument will surely falter with some ethical theories. fo ...[text shortened]... od exists, he ain't worth worshipping. you really want to spend eternity with him?

No I have not read through this whole thing, it is quite large and
I don't want to attempt to. If you would spell it out so I can glean
the knowledge required, by all means do so.

I don't believe I have given you any “particular ethical theory" to
concern yourself about. I do believe I have seen some writings of
on this topic, but do not profess to understand what GAFE means
to you or others.

I do not believe any suffering is simply unnecessary, suffering is
a direct result of certain actions. Saying suffering is either necessary
or unnecessary in my view is like saying you do not like the smell
of the color nine, to coin a Christian song. As I have pointed out
to others here in other discussions I believe suffering itself is a
defense mechanism built into the universe by God, seeing it should
cause us (people) to stop treating others badly. Since God put us
here, we are responsible to simply "stop the violence" so to speak.
We were put in charge, we are responsible and we were charged
to behave a certain ways by God.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No I have not read through this whole thing, it is quite large and
I don't want to attempt to. If you would spell it out so I can glean
the knowledge required, by all means do so. [...]
Saying suffering is either necessary or unnecessary in my view is like saying you do not like the smell of the color nine, to coin a Christian song.

You feel comfortable joining in a conversation on a specific topic (with all of the basis and history of that conversation right at hand) and 1.) participate without gathering any background information and 2.) ask a participant in that conversation to give you "the good parts" so that you won't have to exert the effort to find out for yourself?

The very first post explains what the GAFE is. The remainder of the conversation is reaction to the GAFE and therein inspired tangents.

Also, I believe you may have meant "to quote a Christian song," unless you're Chris Rice...

Originally posted by KellyJay
No I have not read through this whole thing, it is quite large and
I don't want to attempt to. If you would spell it out so I can glean
the knowledge required, by all means do so.

I don't believe I have given you any “particular eth ...[text shortened]... sible and we were charged
to behave a certain ways by God.
Kelly

No I have not read through this whole thing, it is quite large and
I don't want to attempt to. If you would spell it out so I can glean
the knowledge required, by all means do so.

you don't need to read through the entire thread. just looking at the very first thread-opening post will give you a concise introduction to the essential features of the GAFE. the argument is valid (ie, the conclusion follows logically from the premises); so i would be very interested to know which premise(s) you think is(are) false OR why you think the defintion of god employed in the argument does not include the christian god of the bible.

I don't believe I have given you any “particular ethical theory" to
concern yourself about.

no; but you did say something to the effect that we, as humans, cannot hope to understand the way in which god works (paraphrasing). i was simply countering that while this may be true, it seems altogether very reasonable to assume that god would actively prevent logically unnecessary suffering. if you want to attack this assumption, then you are going to have to entertain the fact that god's own ethical code is pretty warped. otherwise, my point is that it will still boil down to whether or not you believe there exists logically unnecessary suffering.

I do not believe any suffering is simply unnecessary

okay, so i take it that you would reject Premise 2 of the GAFE?

Saying suffering is either necessary or unnecessary in my view is like saying you do not like the smell of the color nine, to coin a Christian song.

hardly. depending on the ethical code, each incidence of suffering is either logically necessary or logically unnecessary -- one or the other, but not both and not neither. i think that is pretty clear.

As I have pointed out to others here in other discussions I believe suffering itself is a defense mechanism built into the universe by God, seeing it should cause us (people) to stop treating others badly.

then it sounds like you think the necessity of suffering lies in the fact that it teaches us in hindsight that the evil acts that brought about said suffering are wrong. how, then, do you explain that fact that many heinous crimes only evince a reaction like 'how in the world could somebody do that?!' as opposed to a reaction like 'huh, i guess it's not right to do that and i guess we shouldn't do that.'? my point is that much of the suffering in the world does not teach us anything we don't already know about what is right and what is wrong. wouldn't such suffering be unnecessary by your own standard above? not to mention that many people obviously don't heed the lessons to be learned from suffering because they continue to commit evil acts despite the suffering that results -- which demonstrates that it is not a perfect (and probably not even a reliable) 'defense mechanism'.

As I have pointed out to others here in other discussions I believe suffering itself is a defense mechanism built into the universe by God, seeing it should cause us (people) to stop treating others badly.

i would also like to remind you just how strong that assertion that all suffering is logically necessary really is. it is not enough to simply argue that suffering can be causally sufficient in bringing about 'good' results; rather, one must further show that these 'good' results cannot possibly be brought about by other means that do not contain such suffering (or the same extent of suffering). surely we could learn about right and wrong in other ways than simply by observing the suffering that results from evil acts, don't you think?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH in Thread 41455
And in that case, it is ineffective.

By all means, FreakyKBH...do tell.

Originally posted by David C
By all means, FreakyKBH...do tell.

It's already been broughten.

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 would say 2 + 5 are flawed.

With regards to 5 , many parents know that sometimes you have to allow for things to happen to your child because the alternative is to take away their autonomy (or free will). Something happens and you didn't want it to occur but out of love you have you have allowed it (even though it was in your power to stop it). The opposite of this is the over protective parent.

With regard to 2 , this is an imcomplete answer but suffering and evil in my view are by products of God's attempts to create free will and love. God 'lets go' of the universe and of man's will to allow autonomy. Why? Because with no autonomy there can be no real love. God felt it was worth this cost to allow the possibility of there being creatures like us who could share or know that love. Unless you have tasted of this love this argument makes no sense. So God chose to not make a robotic universe but a more free one capable of producing us, with all the risks that entails. He thought this love so precious then he then went about dying right in front of us to demonstrate it. So God agonisizes over his creation, so to speak, in the belief we will think it was worth it. On one hand he is omnipotent on the other hand he has made himself vulnerable. He could end all suffering now (and says one day that he will) so why hang about? Could he have gone about it differently? Maybe love wasn't worth it? Who knows , but you have to understand the purpose before you can even begin to assess the cost properly.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I would say 2 + 5 are flawed.

With regards to 5 , many parents know that sometimes you have to allow for things to happen to your child because the alternative is to take away their autonomy (or free will). Something happens and you didn't want it to occur but out of love you have you have allowed it (even though it was in your power to stop it). ...[text shortened]... you have to understand the purpose before you can even begin to assess the cost properly.

5 suggests that God would make an effort to stop each and
every event of evil, which is the source of all suffering. I think
where the issues of debate are hovering is that it seems that
it is being suggested that God should act to stop the events
from ever occuring at all. I think of that like dealing with weeds
in the yard, you can cut them off, but unless you kill the root
they will come back. To grant will, leaves a yard in position
to have weeds, to not kill all will, and still deal with evil at the
root, things need to play out the way they are, so to speak.
Kelly

Originally posted by knightmeister
I would say 2 + 5 are flawed.

With regards to 5 , many parents know that sometimes you have to allow for things to happen to your child because the alternative is to take away their autonomy (or free will). Something happens and you didn't want it to occur but out of love you have you have allowed it (even though it was in your power to stop it). ...[text shortened]... you have to understand the purpose before you can even begin to assess the cost properly.

I've already responded to these objections in my defense of Premise 2 on pg. 12 of this thread.