01 Apr 05
1 edit
Since you are talking about God, and you claim that the definition does not matter, then I will give you a theistic definition of morally preferable...again. "A thing is morally preferable if it is in accordance to the will of God."
All it takes is a definition. Your definition (and the key to your whole argument) is that "morally preferable" is that which promotes the "common good." How do you determine "common"? Is it all humanity, nature, the whole of the cosmos? And most importantly, does it include God?, since God is the issue at hand.
01 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarr2) 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.
[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 (d ...[text shortened]... ate in your response which premise you think is false any why.[/b][/b]
Okay, but what if an event occured and all the following suffering
was necessary? Calling the suffering unnecessary seems to imply
you have a clue about how God should have looked at everything
and how God should have acted too.
Kelly
01 Apr 05
Originally posted by Siebren1. Please look up 'logical possibility'. You don't know what it is, and I've already explained it once in this thread to pcaspian. It is false that you can do whatever it is logically possible for you to do. Seriously, look it up.
bbarr
"1. God cannot do some things it is logically possible for Him to do."
If something is "logically possible" to do it can be done. If something is logically possible for me to do. I can do it. Maybe you mean "God cannot do things we think is logically possible for God to do. Then again how can WE judge this.
"2. There are some true proposi ...[text shortened]... erable" to do.
In my opninion the fact of us not being perfect is the biggest problem here.
2. You don't know if the notion of omniscience includes that of knowing all true propositions? Wow. How could it not? If Omniscience means 'all-knowing', then how would an entity be omniscient and there be something it did not know?
3. What are you talking about? Either God is morally perfect or he is not. If he is, then he either always chooses the morally preferable option or he does not. If he does not always choose the morally preferable action, then it follows the one can be morally perfect while choosing not to do that which is morally preferable. But that is incoherent on any standard reading of 'morally perfect'. This definition has nothing to do with our knowledge, it is not making an epistemic claim.
I am not stating that God is choosing everything to happen. The argument presupposes nothing about our free will.
I have no idea what your last paragraph meant, I just can't parse it.
01 Apr 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerSure, it won't work with the following non-skeptical ethical theory:
I'm not rejecting Premise (5) - merely observing that your argument will not work with [b]any non-skeptical morality.[/b]
An act is morally preferable if and only if it maximizes gratuitous suffering.
Would you like to advocate such a view, and thereby reject your theism along with premise (5)?
01 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ColettiYour definition has already been noted, and as I said before you had posted it the first time, it doesn't matter for the sake of this argument. You are free to interpret the ethical terms in the argument in accord with your own ethical theory, whether that ethical theory is your own divine command theory, or utilitarianism, or Kantianism, or whatever. When you see the term 'morally preferable' in the argument, take it to mean whatever you, in fact, take 'morally preferable' to mean (e.g., liked more by God, more in line with scripture, whatever).
Since you are talking about God, and you claim that the definition does not matter, then I will give you a theistic definition of morally preferable...again. "A thing is morally preferable if it is in accordance to the will of G antly, does it include God?, since God is the issue at hand.
You are straight up confused, Coletti. I never even used the term 'common good'. The term I used is 'greater good'. Your theistic ethics will have some conception or other of 'greater good'. Use your own conception of 'greater good'! That's the whole point, for chrissakes.
Again:
Use your own conception of 'morally preferable'!
Use your own conception of 'morally preferable'!
Use your own conception of 'morally preferable'!
Use your own conception of 'morally preferable'!
Also:
Use your own conception of 'greater good'!
Use your own conception of 'greater good'!
Use your own conception of 'greater good'!
Use your own conception of 'greater good'!
Seriously, read this post until it sinks in, and then read it a couple more times for good measure. I can't understand why this is so hard for you to get. It is like you've just shut your brain off.
01 Apr 05
Originally posted by KellyJayIf all the suffering was necessary, then premise (2) would be false. Premise (2) seems like the one theists should reject, and I'll begin my defense of (2) once lingering misunderstandings regarding the definitions are cleared up.
[b]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.
Okay, but what if an event occured and all the following suffering
was necessary? Calling the suffering unnecessary seems to imply
you have a clue about how God should have looked at everything
and how God should have acted too.
Kelly[/b]
Out of curiousity, have any of the theists in this thread ever taken a class in formal logic?
01 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarr
You are deeply confused about the nature of logical possibility. An event E is logically possible if and only if the occurrence of E does not entail a contradiction. This is what logical possibility means. Hence, it is simply false that you can do all that it is logically possible for you to do. It is logically possible that you bring about the tranformation of all dogs into cats, merely be wishing it. Of course, this is not something you can actually do, it is merely logically possible that you could do it. In short, you are mistaking nomological possibility (possibility within the bounds of natural law) with logical possibility.
Good, now lets try and attribute logical possibility to God. By your definition of Onmipotence, we can conclude simply a generic God cannot fit your definition of 'omnipotence'.
Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift ?
(a) Suppose God can create such a stone. Then there is a stone he cannot lift. So he cannot be omnipotent.
(b) Suppose God cannot create such a stone. Then there is something he cannot do. So again he is not omnipotent.
(c) If this reasoning is correct, we shall have to conclude either (a) God does not exist, or (b) if God exists, then God is not omnipotent.
You could have stopped the argument at this premise.
01 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarrI stand corrected, you did not write "greater good" which does not import any humanistic ethical theory. 😳
... You are straight up confused, Coletti. I never even used the term 'common good'. The term I used is 'greater good'. ...
[/b]
I have studied logic which is why I understand that using "greater good" makes a big difference. I'm not confused, I just goofed. 😳 😳 😳
I shall now go to my corner and eat some humble pie...It doesn't taste good, it's just good for me.. 😳
And you are correct, I would say premise (2) is false.
01 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrIvanH: "Since when do you have a God .... "
Since long before I started playing chess here, but that is irrelevant to the point of this thread.
Anyway, since almost everybody is now on board with the rejection of (2), and the quibbling concering definitions has come to an hopefully ...[text shortened]... his in a few hours, after I have made it as rigorous as I can.
Bbarr: "Since long before I started playing chess here, but that is irrelevant to the point of this thread."
...... and at the same time you claim you are an atheist ..... 😕
01 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr: "No, it is not. This is an analogy. Analogies are neither true nor false. They are either accurate or innaccurate."
No, it is not. This is an analogy. Analogies are neither true nor false. They are either accurate or innaccurate. If you think that the analogy is innacurate, provide an argument to that effect. You claimed, without support, that one could not define 'omniscient' without being omniscient. There is no reason to believe that this claim of yours is correc ...[text shortened]... omniscient and not know all true propositions, then your claims here are completely irrelevant.
I googled on "The Fallacy of the False Analogy" ..... and guess what ?
01 Apr 05
Originally posted by SiebrenSiebren: " But I think posting on this forum would lead very quickly to an off-topic discusion."
Nemesio sorry for my late reaction.
I was trying to trigger an argument about the definitions.
Like stated by Coletti with a undefined term your argument has no weigth.
Sice the above very well succeeded I disagree with you in stating my post was meaningless. If you still think so please feel free to message me about it. I'm always open for discus ...[text shortened]... wledge I am a "he" and I am not a 100% Christian, I'm just not saying they are wrong either.
Please, continue your discussion on this forum and not by PM. We need people like you who are prepared to debate in a serious way ..... however I cannot promise you an easy ride ...... it will be quite bumpy in more than one way.
01 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrBBarr: "Premise (2) merely claims that there has occurred at least one event E such that a) E brought about suffering, and b) the suffering E brought about was not logically necessary for the maximization of the good."
No, it does not. Premise (2) merely claims that there has occurred at least one event E such that a) E brought about suffering, and b) the suffering E brought about was not logically necessary for the maximization of the good. The term 'go ...[text shortened]... t will be a moral skeptic, so that is immaterial in this context).
That was the "Fall of Men", the Original Sin ...... Right ?