Whence cometh Evil?

Originally posted by JonoKyle
They don't, however, answer the question of why God made humans that wouldn't choose him - is it really better to give them ~80 years of free will and an eternity in hell than to take away their free will and give them an eternity in heaven?

Exactly - I would argue that, if having free will results in people going to hell for eternity, then who needs it? We would be better off without it.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Please be a little more specific on your conclusions....

Seriously? Before I take the time to do so, will you first go on record affirming that you vouch for the correctness of the author's presentation, that you don't think it is simple, naive, confused, inchorent or factually mistaken?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Ever hear of a guy named Satan, Lucifer?...Please give him some credit. Else, why is he here?

Well, that's a good question. We lock up dangerous murderers because we want to keep them from killing again. Why does God let Satan roam free when he knows Satan has nothing but the worst intentions? That's just stupid. It's like turning a known serial killer loose.

God is allegedly all-powerful; Satan could not kill anyone without his consent. That's why Satan is irrelevant to this discussion.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Seriously? Before I take the time to do so, will you first go on record affirming that you vouch for the correctness of the author's presentation, that you don't think it is simple, naive, confused, inchorent or factually mistaken?

Most of it , yes.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Well, that's a good question. We lock up dangerous murderers because we want to keep them from killing again. Why does God let Satan roam free when he knows Satan has nothing but the worst intentions? That's just stupid. It's like turning a known serial killer loose.

God is allegedly all-powerful; Satan could not kill anyone without his consent. That's why Satan is irrelevant to this discussion.

There is a lot of bible teaching that you throw by the wayside....


http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=18

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Most of it , yes.

Well, let's start at the top. The author presents an example argument and then proceeds to analyze it.

Whatever affirms life should not involve death.
The death penalty involves the death of a person.
Therefore, the death penalty does not affirm life.

Though this is a valid argument, it is not true because it contains a false premise: the first one.

Do you agree with the author's analysis, or do you find that it betrays any conceptual flaws in the author's grasp of critical thinking?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Well, let's start at the top. The author presents an example argument and then proceeds to analyze it.

[quote]
Whatever affirms life should not involve death.
The death penalty involves the death of a person.
Therefore, the death penalty does not affirm life.

Though this is a valid argument, it is not true because it contains a false prem ...[text shortened]... do you find that it betrays any conceptual flaws in the author's grasp of critical thinking?

So far, I do...

Originally posted by checkbaiter
So far, I do...

Not surprising. Unfortunately, the author makes two glaring errors that should be recognizable to anybody who has grasped the fundamentals of critical thinking, and that no author publishing an essay on Ethics and Logic for the masses should make.

First, the author claims that the argument is not true in virtue of its false premise. This is wrong. There is no analytical connection whatsoever between the truth values of an argument's premises and the truth value of the argument itself because arguments do not have truth values. Arguments do not assert that anything is the case, and so they are neither true nor false.

Secondly, the author claims that the argument is valid. This is also wrong. The argument is invalid, because its conclusion cannot be derived from its premises using the rules of logical deduction. I suppose the author thinks the argument is valid because he thinks the first premise is logically equivalent to "Whatever affirms life does not involve death." If so, he is making the error of conflating descriptive and normative propositions, failing to distinguish between what is the case and what ought to be the case.

It is unfortunate that the author proceeds to declaim upon matters whose basic rudiments he has yet to understand as if he were an expert. It is unfortunate that he has duped you into vouching for him. When he scores 0 for 2 on an elementary analysis of a simple toy argument, you ought to doubt his credibility.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Not surprising. Unfortunately, the author makes two glaring errors that should be recognizable to anybody who has grasped the fundamentals of critical thinking, and that no author publishing an essay on Ethics and Logic for the masses should make.

First, the author claims that the argument is not true in virtue of its false premise. This is wron ...[text shortened]... for 2 on an elementary analysis of a simple toy argument, you ought to doubt his credibility.

Actually, didn't you miss "Logic also helps us to think clearly about what is being argued ethically"? ....as in helps?
You argue technicalties, your aim here has always been to enlarge yourself by your knowledge and any means possible with the same intent. It is a recurring thread on this forum. You always seem to miss the big picture....I am not pointing you out in particular, but many others who come here and mock God, the bible, and look to win arguements for whatever vain reason....allow me to wrap this up in a simple way, not only for you, but all on this Spirituality forum.
Let me refer to the Gospels where Jesus heals a blind man from birth, which had never before occured. The Pharisee's didn't care about the healing nor the man...they simply wanted to trap Jesus. They pointedly asked him "who did it, and how do you see?" They wanted logic, reasoning....did it fit their laws? Here is the man's answer....
24 So they again called the man who was blind, and said to him, "Give God the glory! We know that this Man is a sinner."
25 He answered and said, "Whether He is a sinner or not I do not know. One thing I know: that though I was blind, now I see."
26 Then they said to him again, "What did He do to you? How did He open your eyes?"
27 He answered them, "I told you already, and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become His disciples?"
28 Then they reviled him and said, "You are His disciple, but we are Moses' disciples.
29 "We know that God spoke to Moses; as for this fellow, we do not know where He is from."
30 The man answered and said to them, "Why, this is a marvelous thing, that you do not know where He is from; yet He has opened my eyes!............
In the same way, my answer to you is ....at one time I was blind and now I see....I do not know how, all I know is I believed and have been healed and delivered from many things....You can discredit me, mock me if you so choose, but I am still healed and you do not know how....there are many Christians like myself...they can not always articulate how, by your standards, but they have been delivered, their lives have been changed....I am an ordinary and simple Christian man who loves God and would like to let all know that He has healed me, He is good, faithful and kind, regardless of your misunderstandings....good day....

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Actually, didn't you miss "Logic also helps us to think clearly about what is being argued ethically"? ....as in helps?
You argue technicalties, your aim here has always been to enlarge yourself by your knowledge and any means possible with the same intent.

Technicalities? The entire substance of his analysis of the argument is completely erroneous. Both assertions that he makes about it are false, not in any marginal or technical manner, but in a manner that exposes fundamental misunderstandings prohibitive to fruitful logical analysis and indicative of someone who ought not be relied upon as a credible source of commentary in this realm.

In light of my analysis, do you still vouch for the author as a credible source of information about Ethics and Logic?

My analysis of his conceptual errors has no basis in any desire to mock God. Do you really think quoting Bible verses is a fruitful or relevant retort to my analysis of the author's presentation?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Actually, didn't you miss "Logic also helps us to think clearly about what is being argued ethically"? ....as in helps?
You argue technicalties, your aim here has always been to enlarge yourself by your knowledge and any means possible with the same intent. It is a recurring thread on this forum. You always seem to miss the big picture....I am not poi od, faithful and kind, regardless of your misunderstandings....good day....

In other words...you are unable to defend your source, you are unable to counter Dr. Scribs' logic, and now you would like to change the subject while affirming (for the thousandth time) that your God has worked some sort of magic on you and none of us can prove otherwise.

Truly, the stuff of an intellectual giant.

EDIT: Furthermore, why engage in arguments with people if all you're really here to do is wax poetic about your particular version of the magic man who has supposedly saved you?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
There is a lot of bible teaching that you throw by the wayside....


http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=18

Is there something in that link that answers my question about why God would allow Satan to run free?

On a quick skim, all I see is a presumption that there must be a battle between God and Satan. If God is truly omnipotent, he should be able to win this battle before it begins.

Edit: Yikes! Found this doozy:

Neither can He work at cross purposes with Himself. For example, God sent Moses to tell the Egyptian pharaoh to let His people go. Then why does Scripture say that “God hardened pharaoh’s heart” so that he refused to do so? Is God schizophrenic? No. It was the Devil who actually influenced pharaoh to harden his heart, but God could not reveal the Devil to His people then, so He used a figure of speech, Prophetic Metonymy, which is explained in detail in Don’t Blame God! Those who fail to recognize this are forced into the unenviable position of having to explain how a loving and righteous God can be guilty of causing a man to sin and then punishing him for it.

God took the rap for something Satan did?! And nobody updated the translation today?!

And now, the final blow. They admit that God has the power to stop the devil from acting:

What happens to him during the 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth?
Revelation 20 says he is "chained," that is, he is not free to act on the earth. Then there will be peace, safety, and prosperity on earth (for more on this, read The Christian's Hope.)

So, what's with the wait? Why not chain him up now?