Originally posted by FreakyKBH
(bbarr said🙂 EVERY instance of evil/pain/suffering is logically necessary for the greater good...
You are correct, sir.
(bbarr said🙂 I only need one example of logically unnecessary suffering to dissolve from reality your God.
And yet this you have been unable to do. By all means, however, press on.
So, to be clear, if just one person fewer died in the Holocaust, greater good will not have been
served?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI suppose we better thank Zacarias Moussaoui then for his inestimably generous service.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b](bbarr said🙂 EVERY instance of evil/pain/suffering is logically necessary for the greater good...
You are correct, sir.
(bbarr said🙂 I only need one example of logically unnecessary suffering to dissolve from reality your God.
And yet this you have been unable to do. By all means, however, press on. ...[text shortened]... just one person fewer died in the Holocaust, greater good will not have been
served?
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by telerionConsidering LJ and Bbarr deny that free will (in a non-deterministic sense - which is IMO the only sense which makes moral responsibility possible) exist, I'm not sure you can argue he ought to be punished either.
I suppose we better thank Zacarias Moussaoui then for his inestimably generous service.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerOn the contrary, I would say that some determinism is required for moral responsibility. How would it make any sense to say that one can be morally responsible only for random willings/actions (which is what the existence of libertarian free will entails)?
Considering LJ and Bbarr deny that free will (in a non-deterministic sense - which is IMO the only sense which makes moral responsibility possible) exist, I'm not sure you can argue he ought to be punished either.
EDIT: The following thread is aimed at this subject:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=40919
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemGood thing He keeps things in balance then, huh?
"If you had a friend who was a tightrope walker, and you were walking down the sidewalk with him, and he fell, that would be completely unacceptable!" -Mitch Hedberg
Suffering is not the 'ultimate transgression' - but even [b]one instance of unnecessary suffering is unacceptable in a universe under the watch of an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect God.[/b]
Originally posted by telerionYou're simply not getting it. God created a separate free will agent. God created gods.
Yes, there's a lot of confusion there.
I guess if he were on trial for being unreasonable and I was his attorney, I claim that heaven cannot exist without this fallen earth. The two worlds are not separable.
The downside though is that man's free will is completely irrelevant (not that it wasn't before, but I doubt Freak wants to let that one go).
Originally posted by NemesioForget suffering/death/pain for a moment. Reduce all events to the same value, namely 1 or 0. 1 = actual, 0 = possible. In the decree, there are no 0's. The 1's could be any event, good, bad, indifferent; any and all events are 1's.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b](bbarr said🙂 EVERY instance of evil/pain/suffering is logically necessary for the greater good...
You are correct, sir.
(bbarr said🙂 I only need one example of logically unnecessary suffering to dissolve from reality your God.
And yet this you have been unable to do. By all means, however, press on. ...[text shortened]... just one person fewer died in the Holocaust, greater good will not have been
served?
Nemesio[/b]
If even one 1 were missing, the whole thing falls apart. It is ALL necessary.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat doesn't answer my question. We're talking about logical necessity.
Forget suffering/death/pain for a moment. Reduce all events to the same value, namely 1 or 0. 1 = actual, 0 = possible. In the decree, there are no 0's. The 1's could be any event, good, bad, indifferent; any and all events are 1's.
If even one 1 were missing, the whole thing falls apart. It is ALL necessary.
God decreed certain actions to take place. If He decreed unnecessary
bad/suffering/evil actions, then that makes him a real jerk. If, however,
He deemed, in His infinite wisdom, that every bad/suffering/evil action
were indeed necessary, then you have must answer my question above with 'That is correct.'
That is:
In His considering the Decree to be made, He recognized that one
fewer horrible death in the Holocaust would have not maximized the
greatest good, therefore He did not decree it. In other words, the
number of deaths in the Holocaust are precisely the number Decreed
for the greatest long-term good.
Is this correct?
Nemesio
Originally posted by telerionWacky Zacky's actions were his actions. Who, exactly, are you to take them away? What level of arrogance does it take to assume such power as to deny another entity's autonomy? The arrogance of murder is what it is: nothing less.
I thought that Zac's actions were necessary for the best of all possible worlds.