The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[warpspeedpetey]

there is no such thing as the Problem of Evil. allow me to demonstrate.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Info-ga…ng_assumptions

Quote:
Working assumptions
Info-gap decision theory employs three simple constructs to capture the uncertainty associated with decision problems:

1.A parameter whose true value is subject to severe uncertainty.
2.A region of uncertainty where the true value of lies.
3.An estimate of the true value of .
It should be pointed out, though, that as such these constructs are generic, meaning that they can be employed to model situations where the uncertainty is not severe but mild, indeed very mild. So it is vital to be clear that to give apt expression to the severity of the uncertainty, in the Info-Gap framework these three constructs are given specific meaning.

Working Assumptions
1.The region of uncertainty is relatively large.
In fact, Ben-Haim (2006, p. 210) indicates that in the context of info-gap decision theory most of the commonly encountered regions of uncertainty are unbounded.
2.The estimate is a poor approximation of the true value of .
That is, the estimate is a poor indication of the true value of (Ben-Haim, 2006, p. 280) and is likely to be substantially wrong (Ben-Haim, 2006, p. 281).
In the picture represents the true (unknown) value of .

**The point to note here is that conditions of severe uncertainty entail that the estimate can – relatively speaking – be very distant from the true value . This is particularly pertinent for methodologies, like info-gap, that seek robustness to uncertainty. Indeed, assuming otherwise would – methodologically speaking – be tantamount to engaging in wishful thinking **.

as illustrated by this critique of info-gap decision theory, while one may have an estimate of the most moral possible way to govern the universe, you are operating from only the information you know, the possible ranges of information relevant to any particular event can be nearly infinite, therefore your estimate, based on only the information one has, is insufficient to draw valid conclusions about the morality of G-d, who by His omniscient nature has access to all pertinent information and is then able to make decisions based on information you do not know.

therefore there is no Problem of Evil.

 

[Oreoracle]

Again, there is no way you could possibly have enough information to conclude that God is omniscient (in other words, you can’t prove that an omniscient being must exist).

Secondly, we could make this claim about anyone, using your logic. Anyone could justify any atrocity on the grounds that you lack knowledge they possess (and they wouldn’t have to reveal their knowledge, either). But this is all irrelevant to God’s case, since Christians claim that he is omnipotent. Therefore, it is not necessary for any suffering to be produced by his actions. This, of course, is assuming that you believe suffering is evil.

 

[hatsoff]

there is no such thing as the Problem of Evil. allow me to demonstrate.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Info-ga…ng_assumptions

as illustrated by this critique of info-gap decision theory, while one may have an estimate of the most moral possible way to govern the universe, you are operating from only the information you know, the possible ranges of information relevant to any particular event can be nearly infinite, therefore your estimate, based on only the information one has, is insufficient to draw valid conclusions about the morality of G-d, who by His omniscient nature has access to all pertinent information and is then able to make decisions based on information you do not know.

therefore there is no Problem of Evil.

Ah, so God is like the fifth officer…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Again, there is no way you could possibly have enough information to conclude that God is omniscient (in other words, you can’t prove that an omniscient being must exist).

1. even if G-d were not omniscient, he would only need to know the information you dont, so omniscience isnt the issue. the lack of information on peoples part is.
2. G-d, as first cause would necessarily be the maximal state of being, imply completeness, what we call perfection, lacking nothing, omniscience, omnipotence, etc. that is the way we infer G-ds quallities. though that is for another thread.

and what do you mean “again”?

Secondly, we could make this claim about anyone, using your logic. Anyone could justify any atrocity on the grounds that you lack knowledge they possess (and they wouldn’t have to reveal their knowledge, either).

sure you could, and it still wouldnt mean they didnt have a good reason that you just didnt know about. so it doesnt disprove the arguemnt. take WWII, truman dropped the bomb because it was necessary to save the millions of lives that could have been potentially lost in a massive invasion of the japanese home islands, they were after all fighting to the death. if you didnt have the information truman had, you may call it one thing, while the true estimate of what it was is far from your position based only on the knowledge you had.

But this is all irrelevant to God’s case, since Christians claim that he is omnipotent. Therefore, it is not necessary for any suffering to be produced by his actions. This, of course, is assuming that you believe suffering is evil.

omnipotence doesnt mean that the best way to govern the universe doesnt include suffering, thats the kind of assumption im talking about. it may be better than a universe in which no suffering occurs for reasons which we dont know.

and since we dont know if there are perfectly good reasons for the creation of a universe where suffering occurs that we dont know about, then we are left in the same position as above, we dont have enough information to make valid judgements about the morality of G-d.

so when you say G-d could have created a better universe thats an assumption that is insupportable, this may be the best universe.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ah, so God is like the fifth officer…

are you refering to the inestimable officer Lowe?

 

[hatsoff]

are you refering to the inestimable officer Lowe?

Of the Titanic? No.

Here: infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Of the Titanic? No.

Here: infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html

little did you know that k had clubbed the killers infant son to death like a baby seal, and then fed it to the hogs, like in hannibal. see, new information can put a completely different light on things, which is why that lack of information invalidates conclusions about the morality of G-d.

thats the loaded language fallacy, its an attempt to sway th argument by appeal to emotion rather than an attack on the premise. if you dont do it, i wont do it. leave emotion for irrational people.

 

[hatsoff]

little did you know that k had clubbed the killers infant son to death like a baby seal, and then fed it to the hogs, like in hannibal. see, new information can put a completely different light on things, which is why that lack of information invalidates conclusions about the morality of G-d.

thats the loaded language fallacy, its an attempt to sway th argument by appeal to emotion rather than an attack on the premise. if you dont do it, i wont do it. leave emotion for irrational people.

It’s not an appeal to emotion, but an illustration of the ad-hoc excuse-making which accompanies apologetics. You’re avoiding falsification by making God unfalsifiable!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You’re avoiding falsification by making God unfalsifiable!

its not me doing so, its the nature of the situation, if you want to falsify the morality of G-ds actions, you cant because you dont know all the possible information relevant to those actions… im just pointing out that it means that there is no Problem of Evil, or as you say its an attempt to falsify the unfalsifiable.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

as For example, “all men are mortal” is unfalsifiable, since no finite amount of observation could ever demonstrate its falsehood: that one or more men can live forever.

and in the same way no finite amount of information could prove that G-ds actions are not moral. therefore we cannot draw valid conclusions about them.

 

[redhen]

You made a challenge on another thread to pop over here and see how you “destroyed the POE”.

and in the same way no finite amount of information could prove that G-ds actions are not moral. therefore we cannot draw valid conclusions about them.

That’s it? We can’t possibly consider, observe, measure, and analyze all the occasions of natural evil, thus it’s unfalsifiable, and therefore doesn’t exist.

Problem of Evil? What problem?

Ya know, I see a trend towards solipsism in your arguments. To paraphrase;

we can’t possibly know that any animal shows fear. There is no evidence because you’re just projecting your mental image onto the dog/rat, whatever.

I’m afraid the PoE still remains for future generations of theologians.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You made a challenge on another thread to pop over here and see how you “destroyed the POE”.

That’s it? We can’t possibly consider, observe, measure, and analyze all the occasions of natural evil, thus it’s unfalsifiable, and therefore doesn’t exist.

my argument doesnt say natural evil anywhere in it. it applies to any event you may wish to cause evil, not just natural evil

Problem of Evil? What problem?

thats my point. it doesnt really exist because there may always be information owhich one remains unaware.

Ya know, I see a trend towards solipsism in your arguments. To paraphrase;

we can’t possibly know that any animal shows fear. There is no evidence because you’re just projecting your mental image onto the dog/rat, whatever.

how is that solipsism, its simply pointing out the lack of evidence, and the bad science behind the assumptions that reactions of animals are emotions, as opposed to programmed resposes like a roomba might have, though “whatever” indicates that you arent willing to accept the irrationality of such an assumption, it destroys a cherished belief, if only your agnosticism extedned to your beliefs and not just others beliefs. let go of your emotions and seriously examine the rationality of those anthropomorphic assumptions

I’m afraid the PoE still remains for future generations of theologians.

how so? you didnt even attack the premise you just asserted it was about natural evil, when that is clearly not the case, it applies to any event, not just natural ones. try again.

 

[Oreoracle]

1. even if G-d were not omniscient, he would only need to know the information you dont, so omniscience isnt the issue. the lack of information on peoples part is.

Can you prove that God knows something I don’t?

1. G-d, as first cause would necessarily be the maximal state of being, imply completeness, what we call perfection, lacking nothing, omniscience, omnipotence, etc. that is the way we infer G-ds quallities. though that is for another thread.

As I said before in another thread, causing something doesn’t entail that one knows what they caused (thus, causing everything doesn’t mean that one knows everything). Even if you could prove that a first cause was required, you wouldn’t be able to prove that the first cause is sentient, sapient, or even animate, let alone omniscient.

and what do you mean “again”?

We’ve been through this in another thread.

sure you could, and it still wouldnt mean they didnt have a good reason that you just didnt know about. so it doesnt disprove the arguemnt. take WWII, truman dropped the bomb because it was necessary to save the millions of lives that could have been potentially lost in a massive invasion of the japanese home islands, they were after all fighting to the death. if you didnt have the information truman had, you may call it one thing, while the true estimate of what it was is far from your position based only on the knowledge you had.

But a question arises: why would God withhold his information? And, once again, you can’t prove that God exists or that he knows anything. Have you ever been able to observe God’s behaviors? Without observing behaviors, how can you induce that God thinks and feels?

omnipotence doesnt mean that the best way to govern the universe doesnt include suffering, thats the kind of assumption im talking about. it may be better than a universe in which no suffering occurs for reasons which we dont know.

I can’t argue with this. My conviction that suffering is bad is axiomatic. But the problem of evil assumes some idea of what evil is. My argument works no matter what definition of evil we use, so long as it exists and God can prevent it. Or do you not have a definition of evil?

and since we dont know if there are perfectly good reasons for the creation of a universe where suffering occurs that we dont know about, then we are left in the same position as above, we dont have enough information to make valid judgements about the morality of G-d.

Would it be unjust, then, to throw anyone in jail for commiting a crime? It is impractical not to pass judgment on what we see, to say the least.

I would also like to point out that your argument works in reverse as well: how can we be certain that God is good? Any takers?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Can you prove that God knows something I don’t?

i dont need to, it only needs to be possible for the argument to work. though of course i can prove omniscience anyway. but thats another thread.

As I said before in another thread, causing something doesn’t entail that one knows what they caused (thus, causing everything doesn’t mean that one knows everything).

sure it does, maximal state of being, inferring maximal qualities. but i dont want to hijack my own thread.

Even if you could prove that a first cause was required, you wouldn’t be able to prove that the first cause is sentient, sapient, or even animate, let alone omniscient.

sure i can, yet another thread.

We’ve been through this in another thread.

obviously, i meant where?

But a question arises: why would God withhold his information?

why would he give it? perfect knowledge is the equivalent of a denial of free will.

And, once again, you can’t prove that God exists or that he knows anything. Have you ever been able to observe God’s behaviors? Without observing behaviors, how can you induce that God thinks and feels?

1. if there is no proof G-d exists, then you cant blame Him then either. a self defeating proposition.
2. i dont need to know what G-d thinks or feels in order for the argument to work

I can’t argue with this. My conviction that suffering is bad is axiomatic. But the problem of evil assumes some idea of what evil is.

and those assumptions are the problem, if you knew all the relevant information, you may not think it evil. after all a child suffers when punished and thats not evil, so we know that suffering is not objectively evil.

My argument works no matter what definition of evil we use, so long as it exists and God can prevent it. Or do you not have a definition of evil?

your argument only works by assuming that suffering is intrinsically eviel, but thats just an assumption that you dont have the information to make.
morallyt bad is as good a definition as any for now.

Would it be unjust, then, to throw anyone in jail for commiting a crime? It is impractical not to pass judgment on what we see, to say the least.

it may be impractical but that doesnt make the conclusions valid.

I would also like to point out that your argument works in reverse as well: how can we be certain that God is good? Any takers?

maximal qualities again. though thats another thread. though im not sure thats the reverse of my argument, rather that would be that you do have enough information to draw valid conclusions.

none of this solves the central problem you have, you lack all possible information relevant to any event, there is always the possibility that there are reasons of which you are unaware for a particular event. thats what you need to disprove.

 

[redhen]

my argument doesnt say natural evil anywhere in it. it applies to any event you may wish to cause evil, not just natural evil

As a Christian, you must reconcile **moral **and **natural **evils with an omniscient and omnipotent God.

thats my point. it doesnt really exist because there may always be information owhich one remains unaware.

That was a facetious remark. How do you justify your claim (above) that things don’t exist unless we **know everything **there is to know about it?

how is that solipsism, its simply pointing out the lack of evidence, and the bad science behind the assumptions that reactions of animals are emotions,

It’s not just lack of evidence, again we are at a conceptual stage of argumentation, we seem to disagree on what **evidence **means.

how so? you didnt even attack the premise you just asserted it was about natural evil, when that is clearly not the case, it applies to any event, not just natural ones. try again.

As an agnostic I can make no claims about moral evil, so I must use the examples of natural evil, earthquakes, tsunamis, fire, etc., which many other people acknowledge as real. Not just atheists/agnostics, but Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians.

If the problem of evil (natural) did not exist as you claim, then why have so many Church fathers and doctors devoted so much of their time in apologetics towards it, i.e. theodicy?

 

[Oreoracle]

though of course i can prove omniscience anyway. but thats another thread.

Ohhh…Confident! Your friend MoM was confident, too, but he no longer debates with me. Perhaps he ran out of ammo?

Anyway, I’d be more than happy to debate with you if you were to create a thread involving this topic.

sure it does, maximal state of being, inferring maximal qualities. but i dont want to hijack my own thread.

Again: I’ll accept your challenge if you want to challenge me.

By the way…I’m assuming you’re a moral objectivist? This will take longer than I thought…

obviously, i meant where?

I’ve forgotten which thread. Sorry. It doesn’t matter, of course.

why would he give it? perfect knowledge is the equivalent of a denial of free will.

Are you suggesting that God doesn’t have free will? If he can have free will while possessing perfect knowledge, why can’t we?

1. if there is no proof G-d exists, then you cant blame Him then either. a self defeating proposition.

I can blame Christians who have the gall to defend a hypothetical being who supposedly killed millions of people.

1. i dont need to know what G-d thinks or feels in order for the argument to work

You do need to know if he thinks or feels, though. You haven’t proved that the “necessary being” has an intellectual or emotional capacity, let alone that he exercises them.

and those assumptions are the problem, if you knew all the relevant information, you may not think it evil.

They’re not “assumptions,” they’re ethical axioms (irreducible emotional convictions). Ethics are not facts, they are expressions of desires. “Humans should not kill humans” is an expression of your desire for humans to not kill each other. Nothing objective about that. Even if God said it, it would only be indicative of his emotions, and we’re back at square one.

after all a child suffers when punished and thats not evil, so we know that suffering is not objectively evil.

I don’t feel that it’s evil if the punishment prevents more suffering in the future. That’s usually why parents punish their children in the first place. Your argument simply disregards future consequences, a travesty that pervades deontology and moral absolutism.

morallyt bad is as good a definition as any for now.

Certainly. Now what does “morally bad” mean? Here’s a hint: to avoid circularity, don’t say “evil.”

it may be impractical but that doesnt make the conclusions valid.

True, but this level of skepticism defeats all positions equally, whether they are for or against God. Wouldn’t you say that if I should withdraw my case against God due to the lack of information, it’s only fair that you withdraw your case for God since you lack as much information as I do? If you truly found your argument to be satisfactory, you would feel that it is intellectually dishonest to be Christian since you can’t say with any degree of certainty that God is good. Are you willing to pack up your bags and lose your Christian faith? If not, why should I be persuaded?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

As a Christian, you must reconcile **moral **and **natural **evils with an omniscient and omnipotent God.

im happy treat them as one or separate as you choose. the argument works the same in both cases from my view point, but im willing to handle in the manner you feel gives you the best advantage.

That was a facetious remark. How do you justify your claim (above) that things don’t exist unless we **know everything **there is to know about it?

not things, your making a general statement here, the POE doesnt exist because its an assumption that there is no further relevant information for any given event than what the estimator knows.

It’s not just lack of evidence, again we are at a conceptual stage of argumentation, we seem to disagree on what **evidence **means.

we all know what evidence means, i can qualify it with any adjective necessary if you wish, invalid, insufficient, etc.

you could have a book claiming that the earth is the center of the universe, that would technically be evidence, would it be valid? no. so if you require very specific language i can oblige, but i think its implicit when i say you have no evidence that i mean what you propose as evidence is invalid.

however, im happy to oblige as necessary.

As an agnostic I can make no claims about moral evil, so I must use the examples of natural evil, earthquakes, tsunamis, fire, etc., which many other people acknowledge as real. Not just atheists/agnostics, but Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians.

oh… i agree there are natural events that result in unpleasant situations, but to make a valid conclusion that they are evil requires assuming there is no information that contradicts that conclusion. information you do not possess could invalidate that conclusion.

If the problem of evil (natural) did not exist as you claim, then why have so many Church fathers and doctors devoted so much of their time in apologetics towards it, i.e. theodicy?

i suppose for several reasons, but alot of people discussed phlogiston too, didnt mean that it actually existed.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ohhh…Confident! Your friend MoM was confident, too, but he no longer debates with me. Perhaps he ran out of ammo?

MoM is much smarter than me. you should be able to handle me easily then.

Anyway, I’d be more than happy to debate with you if you were to create a thread involving this topic.

Again: I’ll accept your challenge if you want to challenge me.

i will at some point, but for now lets focus on the POE

By the way…I’m assuming you’re a moral objectivist? This will take longer than I thought…

i dont care to put myself in a box.

Are you suggesting that God doesn’t have free will? If he can have free will while possessing perfect knowledge, why can’t we?

both can be possessed at once. but who would then act against that knowledge? being capable of and being rational to do so arent the same thing. so perfect knowledge denies the rational practice of free will, ergo, perfect knowledge denies free will, maybe i should say it denies the practical application of free will, but thats just phrasing to reach the same idea.

I can blame Christians who have the gall to defend a hypothetical being who supposedly killed millions of people.

and yet the atheist regimes that slaughtered 100 million peasants in the last century dont bother you at all? thats gall.

You do need to know if he thinks or feels, though. You haven’t proved that the “necessary being” has an intellectual or emotional capacity, let alone that he exercises them.

a being that couldnt think or feel couldnt be held responsible for evil either. He would shoulder no moral responsibility, because He wouldnt be a moral agent capable of acting in reference to right or wrong.

They’re not “assumptions,” they’re ethical axioms (irreducible emotional convictions). Ethics are not facts, they are expressions of desires. “Humans should not kill humans” is an expression of your desire for humans to not kill each other. Nothing objective about that. Even if God said it, it would only be indicative of his emotions, and we’re back at square one.

if your axiom can be invalidated by additional information, then it is an assumption that this or that is morally wrong. clearly its not self-evident, and not an axiom after all, im not sure how to phrase such a situation other than by the word assumption.

I don’t feel that it’s evil if the punishment prevents more suffering in the future.

exactly, and since you can never know if an event prevents more suffering, or is justified in any way, then you cant really validly conclude an event is evil.

Certainly. Now what does “morally bad” mean? Here’s a hint: to avoid circularity, don’t say “evil.”

how about morally imperfect, morally incomplete, unjust…how do you wish it to be defined? of

True, but this level of skepticism defeats all positions equally, whether they are for or against God. Wouldn’t you say that if I should withdraw my case against God due to the lack of information, it’s only fair that you withdraw your case for God since you lack as much information as I do?

not in the least, i can show omnibenevolence, or perfect goodness. in the same manner i can any of the maximal qaulities. from the maximal state of being, perfection, essence of existence, etc.

thoughs its good too know that your casting about for ways to withdraw your case against G-d already.

If you truly found your argument to be satisfactory, you would feel that it is intellectually dishonest to be Christian since you can’t say with any degree of certainty that God is good. Are you willing to pack up your bags and lose your Christian faith? If not, why should I be persuaded?

usually this statement comes a few hundred posts in, your running a little early.

you should be persuaded by the strength of the argument, not on my willingness to risk my soul on my ability to argue. either you possess the necessary information to make valid conclusions, or you dont. i say you dont, and cannot have such information without making assumptions about what is evil prior to recieving said information.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Again, there is no way you could possibly have enough information to conclude that God is omniscient (in other words, you can’t prove that an omniscient being must exist).

It has been proven on many threads that a necessary being transcending all time necessarily exists. This being the case, omniscience necessarily exists in that which transcends all contingent truth.

Secondly, we could make this claim about anyone, using your logic. Anyone could justify any atrocity on the grounds that you lack knowledge they possess (and they wouldn’t have to reveal their knowledge, either).

That doesn’t mean that God does not posses knowledge that justifies Gods actions. If you have finite knowledge, then you cannot seriously lay claim to the authority to judge Gods infinite act and knowledge of creating a world like this. At most, all you can say is that you personally don’t know how to justify Gods actions, but you must also admit that in respect of your limited knowledge you can not claim that it is necessarily true that God could have created a better world by fiat or that God had no moral right to create such a world as this. In other words, epistemologically speaking, it is impossible to show a true inconsistency in Gods allowing suffering without access to the proper knowledge. It is also dis-honest to claim Gods non-existence on a finite understanding of moral truth, since Gods perspective of things may contain knowledge which allows for certain actions that may appear to the unenlightened mind as evil, but for God is absolutely necessary if the greatest good is to be obtained; and God is justified if the greatest good outweighs the non-existence of human beings.

In order for your arguement to be effective in any sense, you would have to show in principle that mans non-existence is better then the potential for eternal happiness. But if you claim that human beings have an intrinsic value which can only be fulfilled by eternal happiness, you could not possibly argue for the non-existence of anybody; since your doing so would be a selfish act for want of not suffering. You would be undermining their value as existential beings, since their value is precisely rooted in the fact that they exist as persons, and the fact that they have the potential for heaven. In Christianity suffering is transformed into something that is necessary and glorious because it is through suffering that allows humanity into heaven, for in suffering great virtues are achieved that could not be achieved otherwise. And this is shown explicitly in the suffering of Jesus Christ. Salvation through suffering.

Another problem arises in the fact that you seem to think that some kind of objective intrinsic good exists in people irrespective of Gods existence. But thats another matter. The main point is, which warpspeedpetey has shown sufficiently, is that you have no epistemological truth regarding absolute moral acts of creation, and thus no authority.

 

[Oreoracle]

i dont care to put myself in a box.

It’s a direct question, Petey–every person whose serious about ethics should answer it. Are ethics objective, or subjective? Do they reside in reality, or form in one’s mind?

both can be possessed at once. but who would then act against that knowledge? being capable of and being rational to do so arent the same thing. so perfect knowledge denies the rational practice of free will, ergo, perfect knowledge denies free will, maybe i should say it denies the practical application of free will, but thats just phrasing to reach the same idea.

So God can’t practically apply free will? Your meaning escapes me.

and yet the atheist regimes that slaughtered 100 million peasants in the last century dont bother you at all? thats gall.

Where did I say it didn’t bother me? Needless slaughter is needless slaughter, no matter who does it. Oh I know…my evil twin brother Oracleoreo must have said something to make you think I support those regimes. Or perhaps I have a split personality. Whatever it is, I’m sure that my buddy Petey didn’t misrepresent me in an attempt to poison the well or avoid the point, not at all.

a being that couldnt think or feel couldnt be held responsible for evil either. He would shoulder no moral responsibility, because He wouldnt be a moral agent capable of acting in reference to right or wrong.

This possibility would surely be problematic to any intellectually honest person who believed they could prove that God must exist and is good. I mean, he can’t be good if he doesn’t have intentions, right?

if your axiom can be invalidated by additional information, then it is an assumption that this or that is morally wrong. clearly its not self-evident, and not an axiom after all, im not sure how to phrase such a situation other than by the word assumption.

Assumptions deal with facts, not ethics. This is why terms such as “assumptions” and “invalidate” are inappropriate when discussing ethics. Ethics can’t be proven wrong. They’re subjective. And to me, the axiom is self-evident, so speak for yourself.

exactly, and since you can never know if an event prevents more suffering, or is justified in any way, then you cant really validly conclude an event is evil.

Dang, I guess I should just give up trying to produce happiness and prevent suffering in this world because the ideal situation in which I’ll know everything will never come about. Why do we even try?

how about morally imperfect, morally incomplete, unjust…how do you wish it to be defined? of

This problem will probably be solved if you can define “morality” without using “good” and “bad,” since you used “moral” to define good and bad in the first place. The key is to avoid circularity and explain something without simply using synonyms. Break it down as far as you possibly can.

not in the least, i can show omnibenevolence, or perfect goodness. in the same manner i can any of the maximal qaulities. from the maximal state of being, perfection, essence of existence, etc.

Then by all means, reveal the argument! PM me if you don’t wish to start a thread. I mean, if you’re right, you’ll prevent a fellow human from being damned!

thoughs its good too know that your casting about for ways to withdraw your case against G-d already.

Not really. To be perfectly honest, and with all due respect, you sound like a young girl whose describing her father’s tendency to beat her and use her as a sexual plaything as not being “that bad” because of how much he’s had to go through with his drinking problem. Stop making excuses for those with power.

usually this statement comes a few hundred posts in, your running a little early.

you should be persuaded by the strength of the argument, not on my willingness to risk my soul on my ability to argue. either you possess the necessary information to make valid conclusions, or you dont. i say you dont, and cannot have such information without making assumptions about what is evil prior to recieving said information.

The same would have to apply to you, since your argument is a double-edged sword. Unless, of course, you think it requires less information to prove that God is good than it does to prove he is bad. But then, aren’t you making “assumptions” about goodness?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It’s a direct question, Petey–every person whose serious about ethics should answer it. Are ethics objective, or subjective? Do they reside in reality, or form in one’s mind?

why does it matter what my position is?

the argument is about drawing valid conclusions on limited information, not my personal beliefs.

So God can’t practically apply free will? Your meaning escapes me.

why couldnt he then? how can he act against himself? but again, this isnt integral to the argument.

Where did I say it didn’t bother me? Needless slaughter is needless slaughter, no matter who does it. Oh I know…my evil twin brother Oracleoreo must have said something to make you think I support those regimes. Or perhaps I have a split personality. Whatever it is, I’m sure that my buddy Petey didn’t misrepresent me in an attempt to poison the well or avoid the point, not at all.

then maybe you shouldnt have mentioned the faults of the faithful, as though faults are magnified in those regimes.

but again, its not integral to the argument.

This possibility would surely be problematic to any intellectually honest person who believed they could prove that God must exist and is good. I mean, he can’t be good if he doesn’t have intentions, right?

you claimed He couldnt think or feel, im pointing out that if that were the case, then you cant assign blame to someone who couldnt be a moral agent under those conditions.

Assumptions deal with facts, not ethics. This is why terms such as “assumptions” and “invalidate” are inappropriate when discussing ethics. Ethics can’t be proven wrong. They’re subjective. And to me, the axiom is self-evident, so speak for yourself.

and yet your axiom can be invalidated by new information, so its not self evident to others you have to prove it. and yet, without the information necessary to draw that conclusion, you cant. which is the point of my argument.

Dang, I guess I should just give up trying to produce happiness and prevent suffering in this world because the ideal situation in which I’ll know everything will never come about. Why do we even try?

go ahead, if you assign G-d responsibility for all events, that includes you.

This problem will probably be solved if you can define “morality” without using “good” and “bad,” since you used “moral” to define good and bad in the first place. The key is to avoid circularity and explain something without simply using synonyms. Break it down as far as you possibly can.

ok, then you tell me what your definition is under the conditions you just set.

Then by all means, reveal the argument! PM me if you don’t wish to start a thread. I mean, if you’re right, you’ll prevent a fellow human from being damned!

surely you have enough philosophy to know that was the argument. if i need to break it down, then it will have to wait for another time, its not integral to this argument.

Not really. To be perfectly honest, and with all due respect, you sound like a young girl whose describing her father’s tendency to beat her and use her as a sexual plaything as not being “that bad” because of how much he’s had to go through with his drinking problem. Stop making excuses for those with power.

i smell blood in the water…your betraying the weakness of your position, confidence doesnt result in insults, fear does.

The same would have to apply to you, since your argument is a double-edged sword. Unless, of course, you think it requires less information to prove that God is good than it does to prove he is bad. But then, aren’t you making “assumptions” about goodness?

1. i dont need to prove that G-d is good to prove the argument that you dont have enough information to conclude that he is bad.
2. omnibenevolence is inferred from the same maximal qualities as all the other omnis’. if you dont know why we believe G-d is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, then i will explain at the appropriate time.

that said, you have yet to addres the premise., the simple argument, is that you dont have enough infomation to draw valid conclusions about the morality of G-ds actions.

do you have any defense to that simple claim? if so present it.