Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat a mess. It's painful to watch you at this point. My guess is that this argument hits a little too close to home, such that it compromises your ability to analyze it in an objective manner. My advice would be to put it down for a while and revisit it later.
[b]All that means is basically that it counts seriously (weightily) toward making the action wrong, in the absence of further, and perhaps countervailing, considerations.
So--- if I'm hearing the explanation aright, if the game ended after that there first premise, the score is... 1-0?
Nearly 1-0?
Almost 1-0?
Hey-if-things-don't-turn-around- ...[text shortened]... ally the opposite of suffering, is it?
If so, don't you need to demonstrate that?
Just sayin'.[/b]
Originally posted by LemonJelloThis argument is laughably dismissed, as evidenced by your inability to answer really simple, very basic questions.
What a mess. It's painful to watch you at this point. My guess is that this argument hits a little too close to home, such that it compromises your ability to analyze it in an objective manner. My advice would be to put it down for a while and revisit it later.
You seem to like the Yes/No propositions, so let's send one your way.
If premise one stood by itself, is God bad or good, given the parameters described?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPremise 1 on its own says nothing about gods existence let alone gods moral status.
This argument is laughably dismissed, as evidenced by your inability to answer really simple, very basic questions.
You seem to like the Yes/No propositions, so let's send one your way.
If premise one stood by itself, is God bad or good, given the parameters described?
If you feel otherwise please feel free to point out where in premise 1 it mentions
anything about god/s.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat's not a yes/no question, genius.
This argument is laughably dismissed, as evidenced by your inability to answer really simple, very basic questions.
You seem to like the Yes/No propositions, so let's send one your way.
If premise one stood by itself, is God bad or good, given the parameters described?
Originally posted by googlefudgeHoly crap, are you really that dense?
Premise 1 on its own says nothing about gods existence let alone gods moral status.
If you feel otherwise please feel free to point out where in premise 1 it mentions
anything about god/s.
Really?
The subject of this argument is... who, exactly?
Who is it that is "intentionally allowing" all of the suffering and death and forest fires and cancer?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are just so confused. You asked about premise (1) by itself.
Holy crap, are you really that dense?
Really?
The subject of this argument is... who, exactly?
[b]Who is it that is "intentionally allowing" all of the suffering and death and forest fires and cancer?[/b]
How about you tell us, in your own words, what premise (1) asserts. This ought to be interesting....
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FreakyKBHStep one doesn't say.
Holy crap, are you really that dense?
Really?
The subject of this argument is... who, exactly?
[b]Who is it that is "intentionally allowing" all of the suffering and death and forest fires and cancer?[/b]
Step one doesn't say anything about who is intentionally allowing the
described events to happen because step one applies to any being that
intentionally allows those events to happen.
If you had a cure for cancer and let the child die of it then step one would
apply to you.
This is what we mean when we say you are adding stuff that is not there.
Step one doesn't say anything about god/s.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf you add in that it's god that is the being in question then premise one
In the first premise, is God considered good or bad?
If He intentionally allows the suffering, death, cancer, forest fire without any other information, is He bad?
still doesn't say if god is good or bad.
Because premise one has only looked at the fact that there are bad points
to the actions described, it hasn't got to [yet] determining if there are any
good points that make up for the bad.
You seem to be trying to make premise 1 do the work of the entire argument
and then get upset when that doesn't work.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPremise (1) conjoined with the information that some agent intentionally allows such an instance of suffering/death does not provide sufficient information to answer the question of whether this agent is bad.
In the first premise, is God considered good or bad?
If He intentionally allows the suffering, death, cancer, forest fire without any other information, is He bad?
How many times does this need to be explained to you? Premise (1) does not give information sufficient to determine the overall, all things considered, moral status of such an action. It only states that the action has a very serious wrongmaking characteristic. That alone is simply insufficient information to determine the moral status of the action, since the moral status of the action is determined only by the overall net balance of all relevant wrongmaking and rightmaking characteristics.
Originally posted by LemonJelloI guess this is the hang-up then.
Premise (1) conjoined with the information that some agent intentionally allows such an instance of suffering/death does not provide sufficient information to answer the question of whether this agent is bad.
How many times does this need to be explained to you? Premise (1) does not give information sufficient to determine the overall, all things co ...[text shortened]... ned only by the overall net balance of all relevant wrongmaking and rightmaking characteristics.
You continue to insist there's not enough information, but the rest of the information does nothing more than open up the possibility that some good may come along and balance the situation out--- although that really just neutralizes the situation from bad back to a zero--- which necessarily says the first condition is bad.
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHuh? WTF?
I guess this is the hang-up then.
You continue to insist there's not enough information, but the rest of the information does nothing more than open up the possibility that some good may come along and balance the situation out--- although that really just neutralizes the situation from bad back to a zero--- which necessarily says the first condition is bad.
Well, at any rate, I answered your question; so now feel free to go ahead and tell us, in your own words, what premise (1) asserts.