Originally posted by LemonJelloYou simply said there's not enough information.
Huh? WTF?
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.
I asked, based on that information alone, if that is all you know, is God good or bad?
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIn case you haven't noticed, moral perfection is simply definitional to the concept 'God' in the context of the argument.
I'm trying to narrow you down.
Don't fight it.
It feels good, doesn't it?
Is God good or bad based on premise one, no other info available?
So, again, I take it that your question is the following. Given (1); and given that some agent intentionally allows an event such as those at issue in (1); what follows regarding whether this agent is good or bad? Again: nothing follows regarding that, since there is insufficient information from the givens. What do you not understand about this?
Ok...now quid pro quo....
Originally posted by LemonJelloI guess I don't understand.
In case you haven't noticed, moral perfection is simply definitional to the concept 'God' in the context of the argument.
So, again, I take it that your question is the following. Given (1); and given that some agent intentionally allows an event such as those at issue in (1); what follows regarding whether this agent is good or bad? Again: nothing f ...[text shortened]... nformation from the givens. What do you not understand about this?
Ok...now quid pro quo....
How can the scales be weighted without some form of an assessment being made?
Did you not say the scale is weighted toward bad on the basis of premise one?
After all, what is the use of a counterbalance of any kind, if there is nothing in the balance after premise one?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHow can you still not get this?
I guess I don't understand.
How can the scales be weighted without some form of an assessment being made?
Did you not say the scale is weighted toward bad on the basis of premise one?
After all, what is the use of a counterbalance of any kind, if there is nothing in the balance after premise one?
In the context of the argument, the moral status of a morally relevant action is determined only by the net balance of all relevant wrongmaking and rightmaking characteristics of that action. So, if you are given only that action A has a very serious wrongmaking characteristic, what then follows about the moral status of action A? Nothing, since you have insufficient information to determine the moral status of A. You know that the action possesses one characteristic that tips the scale toward moral wrongness; but to determine the overall moral status, you would need information regarding whether or not there are relevant rightmaking characteristics that would tip it the other way. Not sure how else to explain this to you....
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou've explained it just fine, thank you.
How can you still not get this?
In the context of the argument, the moral status of a morally relevant action is determined only by the net balance of all relevant wrongmaking and rightmaking characteristics of that action. So, if you are given only that action A has a very serious wrongmaking characteristic, what then follows about the moral status o ...[text shortened]... g characteristics that would tip it the other way. Not sure how else to explain this to you....
So...
If all you have is the scale weighted thusly, if you have no further information, how does the game end?
Is God good or bad in that instant?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDo you honestly think my answer is going to be any different than the last times (plural) that you already asked me this? There is not enough information in the givens to answer the question. Not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.
You've explained it just fine, thank you.
So...
If all you have is the scale weighted thusly, if you have no further information, how does the game end?
Is God good or bad in that instant?
Now, remember: quid pro quo....
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI have in front of me a Kaspersky antivirus installation disk.
You simply said there's not enough information.
I asked, based on that information alone, if that is all you know, is God good or bad?
Based on that information alone, if that is all you know, tell me if I legally purchased it
or if I pirated it?
If you have insufficient information the answer is that the status is undetermined.
Step 1 alone does not give enough information to make a determination of god being
morally good or bad. [Step 1 doesn't actually mention god at all as you know]
And bear in mind that his is me saying that, I'm not exactly shy about calling gods evil.
The answer to your question is, and always will be, that step one doesn't give sufficient
basis to determine the morality of the described actions, whomsoever performs that action.
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFreaky, before you allege that I am not answering your question, I will take the time here to explain in detail why the answer is that there is insufficient information.
You've explained it just fine, thank you.
So...
If all you have is the scale weighted thusly, if you have no further information, how does the game end?
Is God good or bad in that instant?
Your question was initially put to us this way:
"If premise one stood by itself, is God bad or good, given the parameters described?"
On the face of it, your question simply makes no sense. Premise (1), standing by itself, asserts nothing about God; it only asserts something regarding a property of an action. So your question on the face of it is just a head-scratcher. So, let's say we give you the benefit of the doubt and take it that your question was roughly as follows:
Suppose premise (1). Also suppose that God intentionally allows, say, a child to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer. Based on this, is God good or bad?
Unfortunately, this question still makes no sense. 'God' in the context of the argument is a concept that is simply partially defined by the attribute of moral perfection. So, just in virtue of this, what sense does such a question make?
So, take three, we need to suppose your question was something roughly as follows:
Suppose premise (1). Also suppose that some agent S intentionally allows, say, a child to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer. Based on this, is S good or bad?
Now, the answer to this is that there is insufficient information given. This is clearly so for at least two glaring reasons.
First, the only substantial thing that follows from the two givens is that S carries out an action that has a very serious wrongmaking characteristic. But that in itself is not even sufficient to conclude either (1) S carries out a morally wrong action or (2) S carries out a morally right action. That's because, as I have told you again and again and again, just the fact that some action has a very serious wrongmaking characteristic is not sufficient information for you to determine if that action is morally right or morally wrong or morally neutral. So, relevant to your question, we know that S carries out an action that is either morally right or morally wrong or morally neutral. Not much to go on, is it?
Second, you're asking about whether S is "good or bad". But that is an assessment of one's character, which is in turn not defined by a single morally relevant action but by a complex of action-guiding dispositions. It's somewhat doubtful that you could determine wholesale the nature of one's character simply on the basis of one morally relevant action (for the sake of the argument, it only needs to be able to conclude, on the basis of one morally relevant action, that some agent is not morally perfect). Even if you could, an obvious precondition would be that you have sufficient information to determine the moral status of that action. In this scenario, as has already been explained ad nauseam, that is not the case.
So the answer to your question is that there is insufficient information provided.
In the argument as presented, it is not the author's intention to show that God is bad (and 'God' in the argument is defined as a being that is, among other things, morally perfect; so it would not make much sense to then try to argue that such an entity is morally handicapped, now would it? ). Rather, the argument purports to show that God does not exist. To do that, it does not need to show that any omnipotent and omniscient being, supposing it did exist, would have to be "bad". It just needs to show that any such being, if it exists, is not morally perfect. So, not only does premise (1) not entail that any agent is "bad"; nowhere in the entire argument is such a thing entailed. The only thing the argument does entail that even remotely resembles such a thing, is that any omnipotent and omniscient being, supposing it exists, falls short of moral perfection. But falling short of moral perfection does not imply that one is "bad".
Frankly, I do not expect you to understand all these nuances of the argument. Right now, it's a Herculean, seemingly insurmountable task just to get you to understand the assertorial content of premise frickin’ one.
Originally posted by googlefudgeThat is, all due respect, an inane and embarrassing analogy, which doesn't remotely respond to the question put before this stage.
I have in front of me a Kaspersky antivirus installation disk.
Based on that information alone, if that is all you know, tell me if I legally purchased it
or if I pirated it?
If you have insufficient information the answer is that the status is undetermined.
Step 1 alone does not give enough information to make a determination of god being ...[text shortened]... ent
basis to determine the morality of the described actions, whomsoever performs that action.
You'll want to take a few steps back, polish up your act and then give it another whack.