Originally posted by nicknomo"1) The General Argument from Evil requires the specification of a particular moral theory. " False
I'm curious as to why everyone answers false for #1
I think a particular moral theory is implicit in the argument, therefore it does not need to be added. (Although "particular" theory is not really the case, it is more like a general secular moral theory is implied.)
(P.S. Edit: I guess I gave a "trick" answer.)
Originally posted by ColettiI simply cannot wait for bbarr to read this elaboration.
"1) The General Argument from Evil requires the specification of a particular moral theory. " [b]False
I think a particular moral theory is implicit in the argument, therefore it does not need to be added. (Although "particular" theory is not really the case, it is more like a general secular moral theory is implied.)
(P.S. Edit: I guess I gave a "trick" answer.)[/b]
Originally posted by nicknomoWhat would you say is the "religious moral theory" implied? And does it really invalidate the argument?
a trick answer indeed. Religious moral theory is implied... but that is a specific moral theory. A moral theory based on the teachings of Plato & Socrates would be a tad bit different. I think religious moral theory invalidates the argument...
I tend to think the argument is valid formally. I don't agree with all the premises. But that does not invalidate it logically (technically one might say).
Religious moral theory is that God has set forth rules for the human race to follow. God need not follow the exact same set of rules. Otherwise, thall shalt not kill would have done God in long ago (he did a bit of smiting in the old testament). Furthermore, look at the Book of Job....
It is logically valid, but the premises are contradictory to the religious moral theory.
With say the Sophist view of morality, there is a right and wrong based on how well it suits the community as a whole. There are also views of concrete rights and wrongs, where what God does can be calssified as morally wrong (thus supporting the argument).
However, god is not bound by our moral duties. He is not obligated to do much of anything... God is the one who defines the morals, and who gives reward and punishment for their execution (or lack thereof). For religious purposes, morals are nothing more than following god's wishes.. Thats something god will always do (logical implication).
If you say its gods moral duty to ensure no suffering and no ill fate to those that don't deserve it... then you need not look further than the Bible. Noah's flood, Book of Job and many more illustrate that not only can god let non deserved suffering happen, but he can even be the cause. I don't think anything in the Bible indicates God has to act a certain way... He has his reason for doing things, and that's all he needs.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe answers to all of the questions are to be found in the pages of these forums. Judging from the variety of answers given, that makes little difference. So, you should feel free to take the quiz with confidence that you will not influence anybody else's responses.
Of course I cannot take the quizz. One question in it is about me. I would give away the correct answer to others that came in after me.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles10)False.
I have prepared a short quiz to help us review some things that we have learned through our spiritual debates.
Please answer each item True or False, and offer any elaborations that you feel are necessary. Note that some may be trick questions.
1) The General Argument from Evil requires the specification of a particular moral theory.
2) ...[text shortened]... lares a falsehood, because belief in Jesus is not actually a sufficient condition for salvation.
You have to believe in the personal Jesus that he came to save you and that you can't do anything to gain Salvation.
If you believe in him and add things to gain salvation or add books like the Watch Tower or the Mormon Bible then you don't really believe in Jesus.
Originally posted by RBHILLHow about #7? I tend to think this one is true.
10)False.
You have to believe in the personal Jesus that he came to save you and that you can't do anything to gain Salvation.
If you believe in him and add things to gain salvation or add books like the Watch Tower or the Mormon Bible then you don't really believe in Jesus.
Originally posted by ColettiOh my God.
"1) The General Argument from Evil requires the specification of a particular moral theory. " [b]False
I think a particular moral theory is implicit in the argument, therefore it does not need to be added. (Although "particular" theory is not really the case, it is more like a general secular moral theory is implied.)
(P.S. Edit: I guess I gave a "trick" answer.)[/b]
Originally posted by bbarrWell do you disagree that all religious moral theory is, is essentially following the word of god? It's simply god saying to man "do this because I want you to". That's what it comes down to. Unlike modern philosophical moral theories, there is no other absolute standard for all entities to be judged by. God is making the rules, and he is defining what is moral. What is moral is what he wants. God makes it no secret we are to do what HE wants. If not, he will smite your ass... or let it burn in hell for the rest of eternity. I don't agree with that moral theory, but its basically what it boils down to.
Because that is the answer to #1.
As I've listed, if you hold that standard the same standard to god, the Bible would have proven God immoral ~2000 years ago.