Originally posted by LemonJelloThe argument is intended--- is directed--- at God, yes?
Freaky, 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.
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 quest ...[text shortened]... surmountable task just to get you to understand the assertorial content of premise frickin’ one.
I'm not going to jump through all of the hoops your ilk require.
Not because those hoops are completely without merit, mind you.
More, because the hoops here are simply barricades to getting at the truth.
Call them camouflage, and you won't be far off.
Nonetheless.
We both know (and you at least acknowledge this point) the argument is intended to refute God.
We don't need that statement at any step along the way, just so long as it gets there eventually.
Why?
It's the subject of the hypothesis, of course.
So while we can fence off premise one from the rest of them, we don't lose anything because premise one has to do with God.
Quit spending more time on the supposed need to define the subject of the entire argument: we can drag it through each and every premise without losing a single ounce of desire purity.
According to your formula, Hitler is redeemable.
Munch on that.
Now, you can rest on your argument as it relates to insufficient information, but the fact remains: counterbalancing action is not required unless there is deficiency.
As far as understanding the nuances of the argument, I will concede that some of them may be lost on me by virtue of my penchant of keeping the playing field level.
I'm not a big fan of constantly moving the goal posts.
Too hard to keep score.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The argument is intended--- is directed--- at God, yes?
I'm not going to jump through all of the hoops your ilk require.
Not because those hoops are completely without merit, mind you.
More, because the hoops here are simply barricades to getting at the truth.
Call them camouflage, and you won't be far off.
Nonetheless.
We both know (and you at ...[text shortened]... ng field level.
I'm not a big fan of constantly moving the goal posts.
Too hard to keep score.
We both know (and you at least acknowledge this point) the argument is intended to refute God.
Yes, duh, the argument purports to show that God does not exist. But that does not mean that each and every premise is about God. From the fact that a puzzle is meant to depict the Eiffel Tower, does it follow that each and every piece of the puzzle has a piece of the Eiffel Tower on it? Of course not. Similarly, you should not expect each and every premise of an argument that purports to show something about God, to show something about God. Just read premise (1) again. By itself it asserts nothing about God.
Quit spending more time on the supposed need to define the subject of the entire argument: we can drag it through each and every premise without losing a single ounce of desire purity.
Actually, I have been spending most of my time fending off your misreadings and misrepresentations of the argument. Here's my challenge to you: bring an objection against the argument that does not simply misrepresent beyond all get-out what some premise in the argument asserts. That would be a nice change of pace.
According to your formula, Hitler is redeemable.
Munch on that.
Pardon me for thinking that you are just posturing here. If there's some Hitler-inspired counterexample to one or more of the premises in the argument, then please flesh it out for us. Please state the counterexample and show how it is problematic for the argument.
As far as understanding the nuances of the argument, I will concede that some of them may be lost on me by virtue of my penchant of keeping the playing field level.
I'm not a big fan of constantly moving the goal posts.
Too hard to keep score.
All the parts of the argument are still right where I put them in the opening post. Please go check for yourself: nothing has moved around.
Probably, what's been moving around on you is your handle on what the premises in the argument assert.
8 Then he stood and cried out to the armies of Israel, and said to them, “Why have you come out to line up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and you the servants of Saul? Choose a man for yourselves, and let him come down to me. 9 If he is able to fight with me and kill me, then we will be your servants. But if I prevail against him and kill him, then you shall be our servants and serve us.”
Where is the theist with the intellectual skill and confidence to slay this Goliath of an argument? Is there even such a one left on RHP?
-Removed-I guess in your word-inundated, bamboozled state you have forgotten that it was you who had the question and I was simply trying to answer and clarify for you.
Here's a summary of our exchange, this time with fewer words so as not to bamboozle you:
divegeester (to no one in particular): "What would be an example of a right-making counterbalancing action?"
LemonJello: Basically, you are notionally confused, since the argument does not speak of rightmaking/wrongmaking/counterbalancing actions, but rather about rightmaking/wrongmaking/counterbalancing characteristics of actions. Then an example was provided to make this distinction more clear.
divegeester: "I see so the description can only be one single action which is weighed as morally positive or negative based on it positive or negative outcomes?...."
LemonJello: Nope, since it need not be based solely on positive or negative outcomes, such as would be specified by some wholly consequentialist account. At any rate, the argument in the OP does not endorse, and has no need to endorse, any particular account on this. That is left to the reader....
Hope that helps.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
-Removed-The thing about saying something along the lines of "bad shlt happens, but god is
supposed to be good, so god doesn't exist." is that while it might carry the gist of
the argument, it is by no stretch of the imagination logically sound.
The point and benefit of a deductive logical argument is that the conclusion follows
inevitably from the premises. So if the premises are right then the conclusion MUST
also be right. An inductive argument is weaker in that the conclusion follows probabilistically
and not inevitably, but you are still maintaining a robust framework for your argument.
To achieve this you have to use very precise language.
LJ has generally been sticking to extremely precise language for the whole thread which
maintains the integrity of the argument, I've been trying to re-frame it in different ways
to try to convey the meaning but probably at the cost of not maintaining the same level
of integrity.
But there is only so far you can go down that road before you have lost all the important
details that actually make the argument work.
I think a 'better' "at root" description might be this...
"Events occur in this world that are bad. A morally perfect being would stop such events if
it were able to. An omnimax being would be able to. Thus a morally perfect omnimax being
can't exist. If you define god to be a morally perfect omnimax being then god can't exist."
However this misses out an awful lot of crucial detail that actually makes the argument sound.
If you want to discuss whether the argument stands up you have to put back in all the details.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
-Removed-This is one of the reasons why precise language is required.
I actually don't know what it is you are saying here.
If the premises of the argument are correct [true].
AND
if all the steps of the argument are logically sound/valid.
THEN
The conclusion MUST also be correct [true].
That's how logic works.
If you don't like the conclusion, then you need to demonstrate that
either one or more of the premises is false, or that the argument isn't
logically sound.
OR you have to accept that fact that the conclusion is true whether you
like it or not.
This argument is inductive, so you can challenge the inductive step,
And claim that there are no instances of bad things happening that are
not justified by some greater purpose/benefit.
However I don't think that position is tenable.
It's improbable beyond belief that every single instance of suffering in
the entire history of the planet has been 100% morally justified.
You can of course also argue that the god you believe in doesn't match
the definition given in the argument.
But that requires your god not be ABLE to prevent bad things happening
even if it wants to. [either because of lack of knowledge, or lack of power]
Or not being morally perfect.
Or both.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
-Removed-I'm sorry but the devil is in the detail.
You have to pick through the minutiae.
If you don't want to do that then that's fine, but you can't claim that the
argument doesn't stand up without doing the legwork.
Looking at your first post:
What would be an example of a right-making counterbalancing action?
First, as LJ says, you need to be talking about right-making characteristics of an action,
and not right making actions.
You could for example have "the child dying of cancer gives us the last piece of the puzzle
to curing cancer and preventing it from ever happening again".
That is a positive [right-making] characteristic for the action of allowing the child to die.
However if you start getting into specific possible counterbalancing characteristic of the
action then you start getting into heated and intractable debates about whether or not
any specific set of counterbalancing characteristics are sufficient or not.
Which will depend on the moral system you use and what factors you take into account. ect.
So it's best to talk in generalities.
The argument acknowledges the possibility that right-making characteristics exist, without
needing to specify what they might be. Because it doesn't matter for the purposes of the argument.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
-Removed-The problem here is that if you want to go through the pluses and minuses and see if
a particular instance is a net positive or negative then you have this big big challenge
to go through all the possible consequences and aspects of that particular case...
And you have to do it for every single instance since the beginning of time...
That is obviously a non-starter.
That is why the argument deals with generalities.
The argument is dealing with ALL instances and not specific instances.
Also, in the interests of clarity, I am not claiming that finding the cure for cancer
is sufficient justification to allow the child to die, especially as an omnimax being
could presumably find a way of getting us to work out how to cure cancer without
the child dying. Or just flat out wipe out cancer itself.
However it IS an upside. If we discover a cure for cancer that's a good thing.
If this hypothetical kid dying allows us to get the cure then that is an upside.
I would agree that in the circumstances we are describing it's probably not [even close to]
sufficient upside, but it's still an upside. [right-making characteristic]
Basically you have the set of all instances of bad things happening that an omnimax being
could have stopped.
You then have the subset of bad things for which WE know of no counterbalancing upsides
that are sufficient to justify allowing them to happen.
You then have the subset of bad things for which there are no counterbalancing upsides that
are sufficient whether we know of them or not.
Basically to shoot down this argument you need to argue that the third and final set is empty.
Ie that no actual instances of bad things happening in the world have no counterbalancing upsides.
However, as ever, this argument ONLY applies to a very specific version of god.
It doesn't apply to any other god concepts.