Originally posted by FreakyKBHOk, well I'll leave others to decide whether suffering is a bad thing or not. All I'm trying to say with my previous post is that, no matter the sign, the arguments being raised rely on the idea that increasing the suffering of any particular individual increases (or at least does not decrease) the total amount of suffering in the world. I think that's a pretty innocuous assumption.
"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.
Originally posted by telerionAdding to (or, decreasing) another's suffering is a separate issue altogether.
Ok, well I'll leave others to decide whether suffering is a bad thing or not. All I'm trying to say with my previous post is that, no matter the sign, the arguments being raised rely on the idea that increasing the suffering of any particular individual increases (or at least does not decrease) the total amount of suffering in the world. I think that's a pretty innocuous assumption.
Freaky, the argument permits one to use his own lights regarding ethical theory. You have done that, and you reject the argument based on your assertion that the the greater good is always trivially and uniquely satisfied by whatever states of affairs actually obtain. If you cannot see how unbelievably stupid your notion of 'greater good' really is, then as far as I am concerned, the discussion is over.
Originally posted by LemonJelloFunny. In one breath you say the argument permits the "use of (one's) own lights," and then disparage the lights I use for the greater good. Nothing like a double standard, right?
Freaky, the argument permits one to use his own lights regarding ethical theory. You have done that, and you reject the argument based on your assertion that the the greater good is always trivially and uniquely satisfied by whatever states of affairs actually obtain. If you cannot see how unbelievably stupid your notion of 'greater good' really is, then as far as I am concerned, the discussion is over.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAll you have demonstrated is that the GAFE 'breaks down' when one applies stupid (and/or arbitrary) ethical theories. That's not much of an accomplishment, Freak.
Funny. In one breath you say the argument permits the "use of (one's) own lights," and then disparage the lights I use for the greater good. Nothing like a double standard, right?
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou are the one suggesting it, I am merely pointing it out. Back to the issue at hand, without a standard definition and valuation to such terms as suffer and good, there can be no argument made that will not end in absurdity.
All you have demonstrated is that the GAFE 'breaks down' when one applies stupid (and/or arbitrary) ethical theories. That's not much of an accomplishment, Freak.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, it doesn't require agreed upon ethical treatment. It just requires non-completely-stupid ethical treatment. Don't you see the difference?
You are the one suggesting it, I am merely pointing it out. Back to the issue at hand, without a standard definition and valuation to such terms as suffer and good, there can be no argument made that will not end in absurdity.
Originally posted by LemonJelloSine you are refusing to put the relevant aspects in the formula, you are back to the same argument:
No, it doesn't require agreed upon ethical treatment. It just requires non-completely-stupid ethical treatment. Don't you see the difference?
1. Perfect created imperfection.
2. Therefore perfect is not perfect.
...which is no argument, but rather a different way of saying something absurd.
What you are failing to grasp is that God created gods. Those gods must be like Him in their ability to decide, and their decisions must be protected against all violations, including their decisions to be (and remain) separate from God.
Anything less than that would be imperfect, meaning, not agreeing with His attributes.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis is not the argument. This is your so-called 'summary' about which I was LMAO earlier.
Sine you are refusing to put the relevant aspects in the formula, you are back to the same argument:
1. Perfect created imperfection.
2. Therefore perfect is not perfect.
...which is no argument, but rather a different way of saying something absurd.
Here's a free tip: any competent summary of a logically valid (and in this case, sound) argument does not terminate with a self-contradictory concluding statement.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNone of this addresses the issues I raised. I specifically chose the example of the Down's baby in part because it has absolutely nothing to do with free will. When is that going to sink in, Freaky? A blanket appeal to free will does nothing for you.
What you are failing to grasp is that God created gods. Those gods must be like Him in their ability to decide, and their decisions must be protected against all violations, including their decisions to be (and remain) separate from God.
Anything less than that would be imperfect, meaning, not agreeing with His attributes.
Originally posted by LemonJelloHow, exactly, did you determine that a DSB has nothing to do with the existence of free will?
None of this addresses the issues I raised. I specifically chose the example of the Down's baby in part because it has absolutely nothing to do with free will. When is that going to sink in, Freaky? A blanket appeal to free will does nothing for you.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHCommon sense. You should try using it.
How, exactly, did you determine that a DSB has nothing to do with the existence of free will?
I realize that in your thoroughly warped notion of divine justice, God arbitrarily striketh down unsuspecting future generations for current transgressions. If you are using that to suggest that the torment willfully inflicted upon the helpless Down's baby is plausibly related to the free will of prior moral agents, you have to be joking.
Originally posted by LemonJelloGod arbitrarily striketh down unsuspecting future generations for current transgressions.
Common sense. You should try using it.
I realize that in your thoroughly warped notion of divine justice, God arbitrarily striketh down unsuspecting future generations for current transgressions. If you are using that to suggest that the torment willfully inflicted upon the helpless Down's baby is plausibly related to the free will of prior moral agents, you have to be joking.
Eh? At what point in the decree did you ever see this being posited? At what point in my conversations here have you ever seen this posited? I'll save you the time: you haven't because it isn't true.
Help clear up the issue, will you? What is it that causes Down's Syndrome? Last time I checked, it was genetic and was mostly commonly seen as an error in the division of the cell known as non-disjunction. Error. As in, not as intended. When God created Adam and the woman, His creation held no error. When Adam sinned, error entered the scene replete with its many manifestations. Adam, being a free will moral agent existing prior to any errors in system, fits the bill. No joking.