Originally posted by Nemesio'That is correct.'
That doesn't answer my question. We're talking about logical necessity.
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 ...[text shortened]... recisely the number Decreed
for the greatest long-term good.
Is this correct?
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm sorry, KBH, but the Problem of Evil as outlined in BBarr's earlier thread reduces the 3-O god to cold porridge. Despite the typical xtian defense of "Satan", if God truly loved his creation, and he was omnipotent, he could, should and would prevent a great deal of cruelty, mindless destruction and human suffering. Please don't bother to invoke your obsequious attempts to "define" his "attributes", as it's an ineffective exercise in Wishful Thinking with a healthy dose of Secret Decoder Ring nonsense.
'That is correct.'
Fact of the matter is: you are the one making ridiculously specious claims. Especially if it is your contention that one less innocent Holocaust victim means less overall good in the world.
Originally posted by David CYou have failed time, time and time again to answer the most basic of questions.
I'm sorry, KBH, but the Problem of Evil as outlined in BBarr's earlier thread reduces the 3-O god to cold porridge. Despite the typical xtian defense of "Satan", if God truly loved his creation, and he was omnipotent, he could, should and would prevent a great deal of cruelty, mindless destruction and human suffering. Please don't bother to invoke your obseq ...[text shortened]... ntention that one less innocent Holocaust victim means less overall good in the world.
You have refused to assess value on suffering, thereby creating an artificial standard which eliminates any possibility of a sensible conclusion.
You ignore entire relevant and critical aspects of the formula, and claim it doesn't add up.
And you charge the claims of the Bible as specious? Ironically, your charge lacks the required ingredients to even rise to the same level. Either get to it, or sit and stew in your self-constructed coffin of ignorance. If the best you guys can come up with is the existence of evil, you have simply resigned after one move.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHActually one does not need to define a specific norm. Any norm over suffering with the property that, holding all else fixed, the addition of another suffering individual does not reduce the measure of aggregate suffering will suffice.
You have refused to assess value on suffering, thereby creating an artificial standard which eliminates any possibility of a sensible conclusion.
Originally posted by telerion"Suffering" requires a value, as those here using it are equating it with a negative (albeit unspecified, and as such unqualified).
Actually one does not need to define a specific norm. Any norm over suffering with the property that, holding all else fixed, the addition of another suffering individual does not reduce the measure of aggregate suffering will suffice.
The argument can essentially be reduced to the following:
Perfect created imperfection, ergo is not perfect. Of course, when put so simply, it loses a lot of the intended punch the one arguing it desires. Therefore, it must needs a lot of 'normative this' and 'contingency that' phrases thrown in and around it to lend an air of scholarly sophistication. Silly little argument, really.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo according to you, the argument from evil can be summarized as the following:
"Suffering" requires a value, as those here using it are equating it with a negative (albeit unspecified, and as such unqualified).
The argument can essentially be reduced to the following:
Perfect created imperfection, ergo is not perfect. Of course, when put so simply, it loses a lot of the intended punch the one arguing it desires. Therefore, ...[text shortened]... and around it to lend an air of scholarly sophistication. Silly little argument, really.
1. Perfect created imperfection.
2. Therefore perfect is not perfect.
LMAO. I guess even in the best of all possible worlds you cannot grasp the argument from evil.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou have failed...You have refused
Ironically, your charge lacks the required ingredients to even rise to the same level.
If by "assess value" you mean provide an example, I believe I just did. Or did you miss the part about "innocent Holocaust victim"? Please stop pretending that your "objections" have not been addressed.
You ignore entire relevant and critical aspects of the formula, and claim it doesn't add up.
Such as? Please be brief and in context.
you have simply resigned after one move.
Ostrich says what?
Originally posted by David COr did you miss the part about "innocent Holocaust victim"?
[b]You have failed...You have refused
If by "assess value" you mean provide an example, I believe I just did. Or did you miss the part about "innocent Holocaust victim"? Please stop pretending that your "objections" have not been addressed.
You ignore entire relevant and critical aspects of the formula, and claim it doesn't add up.
Such a ...[text shortened]... and in context.
you have simply resigned after one move.
Ostrich says what?[/b]
Everytime you (or, to be fair, anyone else here arguing the same position) is pushed to give value to suffering, you back away from the position. Let's try it again, since you repeat the offer. Is the suffering the IHV experiences the worst possible thing to happen?
relevant and critical aspects of the formula
Righteousness and justice.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI guess you'd have to determine which of all the instances of suffering (or anything else equal to 'less than perfect'😉 is needless. When you distinguish which instance qualifies, please let us know what standard you used for making the determination.
Not necessarily. One instance of needless suffering could also mean that God is not fully omniscient, or not morally perfect.