The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[warpspeedpetey]

I’m not missing it. I’m saying that many rules are more difficult for some people to follow. The “no large purses” rule applied to boys too, but that’s not very difficult for us to follow. It’s easy to impose a rule that necessitates practicing a lifestyle that you already practice. If I said that everyone should have to post on internet forums daily, most people would gag. The rule would be easy for me to abide by, though.

No. Rather, I think the rules are only difficult for some. There are only a few “universally difficult” rules imposed by Catholics. One such rule, I would say, is “thou shalt not covet.” (In any form of the rule, including not coveting thy neighbor’s wife and so on.) For nearly any rule, you’ll find some who can acclimate themselves to the rule, if not already acclimated, with relative ease.

hardly, it is no more difficult for a thief than it is for me not to steal, unless its a mental illness. same way for for homosexuals, it is no more difficult for them to be celibate than for me to be celibate, iunless its a mental illness.

Right, it has to be about what I want to do. It’s impossible for an evil atheist such as myself to care about the desires of others. That’s simply beyond my ability. There’s no way an atheist can experience even basic empathy without Christ holding his hand along the way. Give me a break.

spare me the outrage, you dont seem to have empathy for any but those who practice lifestyles contrary to the teaching of the Faith, youre dodging.

so let me ask the question again.

is that why you hate religion, because it says something youre doing or want to do is wrong?

Metaphors are never self-explanatory. What is the metaphor’s relevance to this discussion?

yes they are, if its important, go back through the posts and find it.

No one (I think), I just think it’s funny that you treat something that you doubt relatively strongly as a fact, especially when your Church advertises the idea of God as an obvious truth.

it is obvious, after all, when i finally cam around, i that doesnt mean its not something one can doubt. there is a difference.

Yes, and apparently the pain is so unbearable that you assume there’s an afterlife. It’s your way to avoid thinking about true death–complete oblivion–directly. No one wants to comtemplate it, so you’re not alone, but at least some of us don’t have to make up stories about an afterlife to cope. Death, we have every reason to believe, is the end of the line, and not just an event that displaces you to another plane of existence. Your religion has ended many lives by trivializing death in this way.

this is one of the sillier things atheists say. they dont seem to realize that the chances of going to heaven are rather slim, thats why its called the narrow path, Jesus said that many will call His name, and say that they knew him, when in fact they did not. the vast majority of Christains are going to hell. how is that preferable over non-existence?

What were the specifics mentioned in the prophecy?

clarifyingchristianity.com/m_prophecies.shtml
christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html
bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm
hopeofisrael.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=27
allabouttruth.org/messianic-prophecy.htm

you will see things specific and general, but look at the odds of any one man fullfilling even a small portion. you cant get by the math. here

pageproducer.arczip.com/truthinlove/messianicodds.html

Think about it. These martyrs were poor. They weren’t going anywhere in life. The only thing guaranteed to them was a few years longer of their miserable existence. It makes sense that they would delude themselves into thinking there was something more: a powerful savior who would aid them in their time of need and smite their enemies. Judaism considers your “loving” god to be quite vengeful, in case you haven’t read up on that. These martyrs were folks who were bullied, and so they dreamed up an even bigger bully who was on their side. It makes perfect sense from a psychological point of view.

have you never read the Bible? the Apostles were working men, with jobs and money, just like today, fishermen, tax collectors, a zealot. they werent bullied or have the need to think up a Messiah. a Messiah was mentioned hundreds of times, thousands of years before Christ. and even if they did, why would they die for a lie? youre dreaming up stuff here.

If you are speaking the truth, I question your sanity.

then youre being irrational, look at the numbers above in the link above and try to tell me that.

Where on Earth did you get that figure from? A website?

does that make the math wrong?

if you dont like websites then develop your own arguments, there is little you say that cant be pulled of of atheist websites.

Being an agnostic, I don’t think anything can count as evidence of a god’s existence. You can’t prove an infinite quality. No matter how much power God demonstrated (however you define “power”), we couldn’t know that he is all-powerful. The same goes for omnipresence, omnibenolence, omniscience, and so on. Finite examples can’t prove infinite qualities.

indeed, finite examples cant be used to prove infinite qualities. maybe there is a mathematical tool, but that would just be logic games. however, here you say that there can be no evidence of G-ds existence, clearly that is false. you believe in animal emotions on very limited evidence.

fact is, you hold different standards of evidence for things you want to be true and things you dont want to be true. thats a hypocritical position to hold. you know this as well as i whether you care to admit it or not.

so the question remains. what are you doing that the church condemns?

 

[MindOverMatter]

…Or we could just be wrong about the principle.

We don’t assume that it is wrong to infer logical truths when dealing with other topics that have nothing to do with God. We accept logic. So, it seems that you are just begging for me to accept irrationality so that you don’t have to face the inevitability of what contingency implies. The principles are correct and sufficient. Nothing that i have stated about those principles is unreasonable. They follow logically. Just like “if a man is a bachelor, then he is not married”, it also follows true that if something is by nature “contingent” existentially, then logically speaking it requires a necessary existential cause, since out of nothing comes nothing. This is a reasonable concept. If you disagree, then you must present something more reasonable then your unwarranted as well as unreasonable doubt. If denial of God leads you deny logic altogether, then we have nothing more to discuss.

And because we can’t sense this nature, and would only know of it through your dubious deductions, we can’t say much more than “a necessary being exists.”

We can know of a transcendent intelligent cause in reference to ourselves and the observation of effects. We can make valid inferences to things that are logically necessary.

You haven’t presented any reason why we can’t.

Nothing else can really be said of the necessary being, so attributing a personality and a history to it, i.e., making it God, is wishful thinking.

We attribute personality to a necessarily cause because it follows necessarily in reference to its effects.

Petey’s failed to give me a meaningful definition of “perfect” (in the sense of being maximal). It’s such a loaded, emotional word. You’re better off using “necessary.”

A necessary being is perfect. In respect of necessity, a perfect being is that which lacks nothing; it is that which defines the difference between being and absolute non-being. A being that begins to exist is an imperfect being because it is dependent on perfection inorder to exist. And so, “petey”, is correct. A perfect being is a maximal being, so far as it is by definition “ultimate reality”.

I always love how Christians use dichotomies as ultimatums. So either I agree with you or I’m illogical?

No. Either you agree with logical necessity, or you are illogical by definition.

No sir, I’m perfectly capable of saying, “I don’t know.” I know it hurts to admit it sometimes, but we don’t know.

If something is logically necessary, saying that you don’t know amounts to nothing more then willful ignorance. You would not deny logic under any other condition. You accept that you exist don’t you? Would you question it?

…Or we just shrug our shoulders and say, “We don’t know. In fact, this doesn’t seem relevant to our lives. Why worry about it?”

I think you would like to think that the existence of God is not relevant to your life; but thats another thread.
In any case thats all you reasoning amounts to; the shrugging of shoulders in the face of necessary truth.

Again, your dichotomical ultimatums only make you look like an aggressive brat;

It is you who is being aggressive by calling me a brat. I presented a logically consistent arguement and you didn’t like it. Full-stop.

one whose constant cry is, “Agree with me or you’re stupid!” Frankly, I wish you’d grow up.

And i guess shrugging your shoulders and refusing to admit that i have made a logically consistent arguement is a sign of your maturity.

We don’t know if your explanation is accurate, because we simply can’t test it.

Ask your self if you exist. If you conclude that you exist, then you agree that one can know something for certain with out scientific verification or falsification. If that wasn’t enough, low and behold, it also means that there is a legitimate basis for inferring logically necessary truths on the basis of self evident principles and observation. There is no need to verify it, for the question of contingency is a metaphysical question; it is not a scientific question.

And if you’re addressing me.

Thats who i thought i was addressing.

I don’t try to find an explanation in nothing.

As far as I’m concerned, you are not interested in any logical explanation that contradicts your world view; and this much you have made evident to me by the fact that you profess an unwarranted agnosticism to any concept that necessary implicates Gods existence. The very idea of God is obviously a problem for you before one ever comes to the question of existence. It seems to me that God doesn’t fit you taste, and so you despise anyone that believes in him. Thats why you are on this forum. You are not interested in logical truth. You have only come on this forum to wax lyrical about how irrational and childish Christians are for believing in God. Am i correct?

I don’t care about the “origin of the universe.” I live my life without seriously pondering where everything came from and deriving ethics from my conclusion.

You can hoodwink yourself; but you can’t hoodwink me.

I really don’t care what your interested in. The fact of the matter is that you presented a false arguement. Then I presented a perfectly reasonable arguement that refutes your arguement. And now you are in denial because you know what my arguement implies.

I never asserted naturalism, did I?

Well…naturalism follows necessarily if the supernatural doesn’t exist. Does it not? I am saying that naturalism is in principle insufficient for explaining why there are potential physical events in the first place. Naturalism does not explain existence. Thus we must look to a higher cause.

 

[Oreoracle]

…and if it doesnt exist, and cannot exist, then it cant even be a possibility.

B-O-G-U-S. It’s possible for no fairies to exist, for no dodos to exist, for no dinosaurs to exist, etc. Non-existence is a possibility. Again, you’re just saying that it’s possible for us to crack one egg, then another, and another, but there’s no way that we can crack the whole dozen! If some things can be taken out of existence, there’s no reason to assume everything can’t be taken out of existence. As for God being existence itself, that’s just wordplay. “Existence” is just the state of existing. There’s no reason to assume that existence is an entity unto itself.

this causal chain need not have existed, no causal chain need have existed, but that is not “nothing”, you still have bare existence, G-d. that would just be the situation had G-d decided to do nothing creative.

Tell me, did you get this “bare existence” nonsense from Plato, or Aquinas? Why do you assume it exists? (Now we’re getting into the really confusing language, because we’re now speaking of the existence of existence). And a question I asked elsewhere on this forum was never answered: If every quality requires the quality of (“bare”) existence to exist, why doesn’t bare existence require the quality of bare existence, and so on? Why stop at positing only one arbitrary, undetectable quality?

since you cant understand his work yet, maybe he isnt the fool? if a man looked at a page out of an algebra text, and declared the author a fool, would he be right? probably not, he would be the fool unknowingly exposing himself. which is why you are so much fun!

Aquinas’ works are not in the same league as algebra textbooks. With the Summa, it’s more like opening a diary filled with one’s musings of astrology (not to be confused with astronomy). All guesswork.

and yet they dont make our lives easier, they indeed make it more difficult. back to those pesky commandments.

So you admit that you only insist that ethics are objective because it makes you feel more inclined to be a moral person? I’m sorry that you have to delude yourself in order to do good deeds and keep out of trouble. Some of us have more willpower, my insecure friend.

i would like to be able to lie, steal, and fornicate, after all why not?

It’s your ethical system we’re talking about, so you tell me. Why, other than “God said…?”

youve received it twice now. infinite. what need do we have for a further definition? its objective. there is even a mathematical definition for it.

Yes, but math doesn’t deal with objects, just numbers. The sad thing is, even if greatness is an object (and it is not), you wouldn’t be justified in claiming that there’s an infinite amount of it because you would only be observing finite amounts. You can look at the stars in the night sky and say, “Wow, there must be an infinite amount of those. I mean, these are only a few of the stars in our solar system. Imagine how many are in the whole universe!” This would be unjustified, however. You cannot conclude that there must be an infinite amount of stars simply because there are “a lot of stars.”

But this doesn’t even matter, because you can’t tell me how I would identify “greatness” as an object in the first place. It’s not too much to ask, Pete. Nearly everyone has a different opinion of what “greatness” is. You need some definition.

nothingness fails on compltely different grounds than “value” or “greatness”

The “nothingness” argument was meant to bring you around to a different point entirely, but we never got that far.

you admit in another thread that most definitions are circular in nature, so your really just trying to depend on this fact as a way to avoid the erroneous understanding of “nothingness” or to avoid the maximal qualities, they are “infinite” simple as that. you cant actually argue against them can you?

Saying that they are infinite is meaningless if you can’t tell me what they are in essence! It’s like saying that God is infinitely gusphorkaughen; it’s completely incomprehensible, because I don’t understand the other adjective. You say that these qualities combined make God infinitely great. What is “greatness?”

whose opinions are they? if i said that i am a male, is that an opinion?

Yes, because it is something you believe (by definition, ideas that you support are your opinions). The great thing about “male” is that we can test that proposition. All we have to do is check your anatomy to verify whether or not your a male. But if you said something like, “I should not lie to my friends” it is not a proposition, because we can’t test its truth value. “Shoulds” do not in any way describe the world, or at least not directly. You may be able to infer the attitude of the person uttering the ethic, but not much else. The world that should be is spoken of because we desire it (and our desires form the world that should be), whereas the world that is is spoken of because it is.

so when G-d says He is good, is that an opinion?

Yes, but we can’t verify this particular opinion. God, if he exists, has his own vision of “the world that should be.” And in that world he dreams of, he fits in just fine. But whose to say that one proposed “world that should be” is truer than another? The answer is that they aren’t true, they’re simply desired. Otherwise, they would be “the world that is.” But even then, “I should not lie to my friends” would not be objective. It would be, instead, “I do not lie to my friends.”

 

[wussup]

B-O-G-U-S. It’s possible for no fairies to exist, for no dodos to exist, for no dinosaurs to exist, etc.

Ahh, here your wrong. Ever seen Jurassic Park? We have DNA from both Dodo’s and dinosaurs. With DNA we can create beings known as dodo, etc., hence they do exist

Non-existence is a possibility. Again, you’re just saying that it’s possible for us to crack one egg, then another, and another, but there’s no way that we can crack the whole dozen! If some things can be taken out of existence, there’s no reason to assume everything can’t be taken out of existence. As for God being existence itself, that’s just wordplay. “Existence” is just the state of existing. There’s no reason to assume that existence is an entity unto itself.

I gave a great response to your non-existence theories, and yet you do not respond…I am beginning to understand the frustration of others. I went through a lot of time to address you seriously and now begin to wonder if there was anything but huff and puff…

Aquinas’ works are not in the same league as algebra textbooks. With the Summa, it’s more like opening a diary filled with one’s musings of astrology (not to be confused with astronomy). All guesswork.

Hmmmm, you seem to be the expert on Aquinas. According to Aquinas, why does man in his primitive state see God through his essence?

The “nothingness” argument was meant to bring you around to a different point entirely, but we never got that far.

I went that far. But it seems that when an attempt to have a rational discussion is made (rather than ad hominem arguments) you bale. I took your nothingness argument to its logical conclusion, and determine that you have no understanding of what you are talking of. You talk of ‘concept’, but do not understand the term. You speak of ‘existence’ but do not understand the concept of ‘sein’. You do not know what ‘nothingness’ is by equating it to ‘zero’, a dreadful mistake as I pointed out by explaining that ‘zero’ in terms of the Universe implies no energy, no mass, and no entropy, where as ‘nothingness’ is an extremely complicated term with many schools of thought (ever heard of Kyoto?). You speak as if learned, then explain why your arguments are weak because you are not a philosopher. Any who, I am willing to discuss this, as are others, but am getting the impression you do not want a discussion, but rather want an argument (in the common vernacular).

Sorry guys, even I can get cranky in my old age.

 

[wussup]

Wsp, let’s get back to your original statement…

Your link does not work…

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.

Which ‘Problem of Evil’ are you addressing?

 

[Oreoracle]

Dude, I can respond to you, but you have to give me time. These posts take about 25 minutes a piece. I don’t type, I just peck at the keys, so I do get tired of writing consecutive posts of this length (though this post in particular isn’t that long). I’m 16, so it’s a miracle that I’m willing to do this in the first place. I don’t see why you’re in such a hurry. In formal debates, folks will sometimes wait days before each response in order to relax and absorb what their opponent has said. It would be very convenient for you if I just read your post and immediately rattled off a response filled with errors just so you could nitpick more than you already do.

‘Universe’ as you/we have been using it is a noun. Your use of it in the sentence, ““Universe” isn’t an item that exists, it’s a collective term; a sum. It is a concept, very much like any number.” [pg. 18, #270] implies the use as an adjective,

Actually I said that it was a term, so I was using it as a noun. If I wanted to use it as an adjective, I’d have said “universal.”

and here you agree the number, ‘zero’ in the case discussed, is an adjective. Ok. I am not into semantics word games, but the discussion does mandate a bit of precise language or it is difficult to understand what your saying and your being a bit inconsistent. It is difficult to discuss this if the concepts are slippery eels. Your explanation of ‘concept’ mixes the two prevailing ideas of concept, and while these are not antithetical, they do not mix well because it creates a discussion that is difficult to address accurately.

I’m sorry, but the two definitions of “concept” you offered seem identical to me. What’s the difference? Is there a difference between a symbol denoting an object and a mental construct reflecting reality? I think not. “2” is both a symbol and a mental construct, denoting a group of objects and reflecting situations we encounter in the real world.

So universe as concept, such as a number (in your language), and adjective, is not the same as your statement where the universe is a noun. Frege would suggest that the term Universe is an abstract word of ephemoral meaning until it is given context in denotation.

As I have stated, “universe” is a noun, and I have not deviated from this. I don’t know where it is you believe I’ve used the word “universe” as an adjective. That wouldn’t be suspicious argumentation, it would be a grammatical error.

The universe is “the sum of all that exists.” A sum of zero (no things) can fill this mold, and you have not demonstrated why it cannot. We’re back to the “you can crack some eggs, but not all of them” argument that seems commonplace here.

Here is the problem your having, on one side of your mouth you are espousing a specific concept of noun and adjective, ‘a universe with nothing’, and then an abstract word without definition. Then when an argument is made, you can point to the one or the other and claim foul. Really, not good form old man.

Or you’re just misunderstanding simple reasoning.

And yet you don’t buy into it. I’m getting the feeling of schizophrenia here. You just said, “you could say that the universe of nothingness I’m referring to is the possible world in which the causal chain never came about” and yet now you are arguing against the ‘possible world’ of your scenario. And then in this quote you say “I don’t buy into the ‘possible world’ idea at all” and then you say, “there’s no reason to believe that this isn’t the one and only possible world”. So which is it. Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?

In a way, yes. I’m showing Pete that there is no reason to assume nothingness is an impossibility if we accept all this “possible worlds” nonsense.

Nope, I’m not working to form a conclusion on a matter far beyond the capacity of my species. I’m content with a simple “I don’t know.” The problem is that most people aren’t able to accept that they are ignorant.

You have some interesting ideas, but you need develop them sufficiently so they can be discussed rationally and seriously.

I could certainly create a self-consistent metaphysical system if I so desired, just as those astrologists could make a self-consistent system of those magical celestial bodies. In the end, metaphysical philosophies are founded on guesses, much like astrology. (And look what happened to it…)

Also, I was serious about the ‘negative entropy’ idea, and you aren’t addressing it

I don’t understand “negative entropy” because I’m in the tenth grade. All I’ve heard about entropy is that it is “the tendency to become more chaotic.” That’s meaningless to a sophomore in high school.

 

[wussup]

I’m 16, so it’s a miracle that I’m willing to do this in the first place. I don’t see why you’re in such a hurry. In formal debates, folks will sometimes wait days before each response in order to relax and absorb what their opponent has said.

That explains a lot, no sarcasm intended. Welcome to the world of philosophy. If you are going to talk like you have developed arguments, than don’t be surprised when people treat you other than you would prefer when it is discovered your arguments are not developed.

I’m sorry, but the two definitions of “concept” you offered seem identical to me. What’s the difference? Is there a difference between a symbol denoting an object and a mental construct reflecting reality? I think not. “2” is both a symbol and a mental construct, denoting a group of objects and reflecting situations we encounter in the real world.

Great observation and great question. The difference is subtle but real. The Representational Theory of Mind is 'ideas are correlations between the person thinking and the symbolic representations attempting to describe. Dr. Horst of Wesleyen University’s Department of Philosophy has a great power point presentation on Concepts in general. Caution, it is for the serious academic.

The Semantic Theory of Concepts identifies the concept with the abstract (vs the mental theory of mind). This is Frege’s idea. Further, he holds that the abstract idea must be in context in order for it to be a concept. It is my understanding that the difference is akin to saying, (for the RTM) ‘Bears doing their business in the wood’ is a mental construct independent of reality, whereas Frege’s is to hold the individual nouns as abstracts then contextualizing it into the deed.

The universe is “the sum of all that exists.” A sum of zero (no things) can fill this mold, and you have not demonstrated why it cannot. We’re back to the “you can crack some eggs, but not all of them” argument that seems commonplace here.

Bluntly speaking, metaphors suck. They are weak examples of a poorly stated argument. On the other hand, my argument is well based, and because you are not educated enough to understand it does not weaken the argument.

The problem is that most people aren’t able to accept that they are ignorant.

I cannot agree with you more…

I could certainly create a self-consistent metaphysical system if I so desired, just as those astrologists could make a self-consistent system of those magical celestial bodies. In the end, metaphysical philosophies are founded on guesses, much like astrology. (And look what happened to it…)

Sigh… Mark Twain said, '“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so”, and "“Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”

I don’t understand “negative entropy” because I’m in the tenth grade. All I’ve heard about entropy is that it is “the tendency to become more chaotic.” That’s meaningless to a sophomore in high school.

Think pizza. What happens when you put a hot pizza in a cold refrigerator? Yep, the temperature (called ‘T’) goes down. According to entropy (called s), what is happening is a high energy state is moving into a low energy state. The lower the energy state (called ‘Q’). What is the absolute lowest theoretical temperature? 0 Celcius is where water freezes at. But, as you know from sipping on the Vodka Dad keeps in the freezer, there is still lots of energy available. -273 Celsius (approximately) is when all atoms etc, stop moving. Scientists created a another temperature scale called Kelvin to make doing equations easier. In this temperature scale, Kelvin (K) is calculated as -273C=0K Do the simple math;

s=q/t​

,

or entropy = energy divided by temperature

Say the energy = 2000 BTU
and the Temperature is 0K.

What is the 2000/0? That’s right there is no answer because you can’t divide by 0.

So, to answer your question, a universe of zero energy would have zero temperature and would have zero entropy because 0/0 does not only equal 1 but it also equals 0. So, a Universe with 0 stuff, is impossible. However, mathematically and theoretically it is possible to have a temperature of >0K. That would mean a system would add energy into it as. Welcome to the mind boggling world of philosophy. So, a universe of zero is impossible because it is impossible to have an entropy of 0. Now you have your answer. Ask you science teacher.

scientists

 

[Oreoracle]

We don’t assume that it is wrong to infer logical truths when dealing with other topics that have nothing to do with God.
Logical truths are different than empirical truths. For instance, the truth value of “There are four cans in my room.” is subject to change, but the truth value of “AB=BA” is not. And for logical truths, we only need to test their consistency with the rest of the logical system. For empirical truths, we have to experiment with tangible entities.

it also follows true that if something is by nature “contingent” existentially,

 

[Oreoracle]

Warpspeed and wussup,

I’ll get to your posts when I can. I have some thinking to do, and I don’t want to overlook any points you’ve made by hurrying this.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If some things can be taken out of existence, there’s no reason to assume everything can’t be taken out of existence.

sure there is, because if you take everything out of existence, what do you have? “nothing”…and that doesnt exist. having “nothing” is quite literally impossible.

As for God being existence itself, that’s just wordplay. “Existence” is just the state of existing. There’s no reason to assume that existence is an entity unto itself.

the necessary being, and what is necessary to everything regardless of anything else? existence. no matter what other qualities a being may have, it must have existence, or it is not.

Tell me, did you get this “bare existence” nonsense from Plato, or Aquinas?

it begins in the summa. it winds its way through a couple other disciplines and becomes manifest in various fcontingency arguments.

Why do you assume it exists?

its not an assumption its a necessity. it must be true in all possible worlds.

(Now we’re getting into the really confusing language, because we’re now speaking of the existence of existence). And a question I asked elsewhere on this forum was never answered: If every quality requires the quality of (“bare”) existence to exist, why doesn’t bare existence require the quality of bare existence, and so on? Why stop at positing only one arbitrary, undetectable quality?

because if you go any farther back you come to “nothing”, something that doesnt exist. it is the base state, required for all other states of beings.

Aquinas’ works are not in the same league as algebra textbooks. With the Summa, it’s more like opening a diary filled with one’s musings of astrology (not to be confused with astronomy). All guesswork.

then you arent paying attention, under that thinking everything is guesswork, but as you refuse to read it, your opinion doesnt carry any weight now does it?

So you admit that you only insist that ethics are objective because it makes you feel more inclined to be a moral person? I’m sorry that you have to delude yourself in order to do good deeds and keep out of trouble. Some of us have more willpower, my insecure friend.

did i say that? do you think you are a moral person? yet you support homosexuality and refuse to worship G-d, id say that no matter how many good deeds you do, that is an utterly immoral position. what was it again that you wanted to do that the Church condemns? youre still avoiding the question. that doesnt show will power, that shows that you are unwilling to exercise willpower.

It’s your ethical system we’re talking about, so you tell me. Why, other than “God said…?”

i need no other reason, i accept the unavoidable mathematical evidence. ive come to accept the brute fact that there is a G-d, we can get there philosophically, rationally, and logically. so i know with all possible certainty there is a G-d. ive been around the block and know the difference between what i want to be true and what is true. i would like to have spent the weekend at the bar talking women into making me their next bad decision. what i did was work on my truck, go grocery shopping, confession, go to an auction, etc. stayed out of moral trouble.

Yes, but math doesn’t deal with objects, just numbers.

of course “greatness” only makes sense when applied to qualities, but we can call any quality infinite. thats what the omnimaxs are. infinite intelligence, infinite power, infinite presence, infinite goodness. what would an infinite IQ be? i dont know that it is an object, something that has dimension, etc. but math works with quantities all the time that dont reflect an object. i dont think its so strange.

But this doesn’t even matter, because you can’t tell me how I would identify “greatness” QUOTE]

ive given it to you do you really need me to post the definition of greatness again? btw what the fascination with the word “greatness”? i dont think ive used it much have I?

use any of these.

education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/great

The “nothingness” argument was meant to bring you around to a different point entirely, but we never got that far.

are we clear yet that there is no such thing as nothing? the sooner you admit it, the faster we can progress to other points. if your concept of nothing is inherent to your next argument, then it already fails on that poinnt alone, or at least it should.

Saying that they are infinite is meaningless if you can’t tell me what they are in essence!

what cant you understand, the word infinite, or the word omniscient? its patently clear to everyone else. do you need me to literally post the definition of the words?

It’s like saying that God is infinitely gusphorkaughen; it’s completely incomprehensible, because I don’t understand the other adjective.

again do you need me to post the definitions of the words omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent? really, what is not to understand? you could google them as easily as i.

You say that these qualities combined make God infinitely great. What is “greatness?”

where did i say that? i dont remember even using the word great outside of a definition.

Yes, because it is something you believe (by definition, ideas that you support are your opinions).

what? who ever told you that? opinions are unsupported beliefs, as far sai understand it.

The great thing about “male” is that we can test that proposition. .

and the desire of the Creator? i would suggest that such a thing is the objective purpose of the creation.

Yes, but we can’t verify this particular opinion. QUOTE]

yes we can verify it, there were a great many witnesses.

however, G-d is the Creator, what you think you have a choice in, you do not. even if you dont accept it you will be held to account for it. what is subjective for G-d, for us as creations is objective. you may not like it, but as i said before, there are few little more pointless than discussions of ethics and morals. if there is a G-d you have no choice, if there isnt, it doesnt matter what you do at all.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

As far as I’m concerned, you are not interested in any logical explanation that contradicts your world view; and this much you have made evident to me by the fact that you profess an unwarranted agnosticism to any concept that necessary implicates Gods existence. The very idea of God is obviously a problem for you before one ever comes to the question of existence. It seems to me that God doesn’t fit you taste, and so you despise anyone that believes in him. Thats why you are on this forum. You are not interested in logical truth. You have only come on this forum to wax lyrical about how irrational and childish Christians are for believing in God. Am i correct?

Brilliant!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Wsp, let’s get back to your original statement…

Your link does not work…

Which ‘Problem of Evil’ are you addressing?

lets try it again. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Info-gap#Working_assumptions

and the POE is the regular illusion atheists use to fool the unwary. though the thread has long left that past.

 

[MindOverMatter]

But therein lies the assumption–you assume that certain objects are contingent. Sure, you can tell for certain that some entities are contingent, but the rest is mere induction (a probabilistic argument from experience).

I am not going to debate the evidence on this particular thread. Suffice to say that it is valid to conclude that a “contingent” entity requires a fundamental existential cause by definition of its contingency. And thus there is a criteria by which we can infer, from the contingency of a being, the actual existence of a “necessary being”, once we have identified the contingency and the limited nature of physical reality as an existential cause.

So God possesses everything that is substantial.

I never said that; at least not in the way that you intend to imply. I said that God is a “perfect being” as in God lacks nothing that is fundamental to his existence. Anything that begins to exist is limited in its contingency and is thus not a perfect being. Anything that has physical dimension is not perfect, since it is limited in some real and fundamental manner.

Okay, so is God both short and tall?

You cannot have an objectively perfect “tall”. This is the very reason why an informed philosopher understands that a perfect being is by definition transcendent of any finite or potential reality and does not possess material limitations in so far as such a being is actually infinite in nature. God is immaterial in his fundamental nature in so far as God is perfect in every extent. But since I never implied that God was the tallest being in the first place, your objection is irrelevant. To say that God is the “greatest being” or “reality” is not the same as saying that God has the greatest physical dimension. If and when I say that God possesses everything, then you can raise such an objection. Until then, learn to read my posts properly please, and please stop changing the context in which i pose an arguement.

There are other questions and objections that you made that will have to be dealt with on another thread inorder to be dealt with sufficiently. You will have to wait until tomorrow before you see the thread. I will send you a link.

 

[JOHNONEVI]

Interesting. Okay. In laymans terms can you please explain the moral point of the story, and how it applies to the discussion, in a less cryptic fashion.
By this i mean just be plain about what you intend to convey.

In the book of Genesis Man was created, made not begotten, in the image of God. Therefore Humans are intrinsically good because God the Father/Creator in whose image we are made is intrinsically good. The Fall resulted from a separation of that truth. The Fall resulted from the separation from the Truth. And the ensuing remorse and guilt that followed. Evil is a construct. It is not inherent in Man but a construct of his mind. The mind is a wonderful tool, a servant but makes a horrible master. A mind not connected to the inherent nature of God the soul and spirit] is an autocratic bully and capable of inventing a multitude of atrocities. Evil does exist as a byproduct of the mind but does not exist at all in the realm of the spirit and the soul. Eliminating evil is as easy as changing the mental process.

 

[TEPO]

You mean the problem of evil does not exist? :coolinoff: What a relief…

:choocho: :jrbirdman: :whackadoo:

 

[1holycatholic]

… it is natural for humans to selecitively bread animals for their use. …

 

[wussup]

And sorry you are also wrong on your second point, too, because if Nature is all there is then it logcially follows that it is natural for humans to selecitively bread animals for their use. How could it be otherwise?

I wasn’t going to say anything, but while I do prefer tempura when breading my shrimp, clams, mackeral, and vegies, usually I rather bake. Its much healthier and imoh, tastier. Or even better, sushi. There is not breading in that. I think these two examples would count as ‘otherwise’ than ‘breading my animals’.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

dude! too sweet!

 

[redhen]

You mean the problem of evil does not exist? :coolinoff: What a relief…

I see now the genesis for warpspeedpetey’s idea, it stems from Cartesianism.

I’ve been searching the stacks at a Catholic university I am attending (long story), and there’s a whole section allocated to theodicy. The thing is though is that all the books deal with moral evil. I only found one book that attempts to deal with natural evil.

• Nature red in tooth and claw* : theism and the problem of animal suffering
  Michael J. Murray. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2008,

The author goes through the historical arguments, and dismisses them, rightfully so. His best argument is that of normic regularity, in other words, that’s just the way the world works. The author can’t imagine any possible alternative configuration for our world that would eliminate pain and suffering (natural not moral), or even lessen it.

I’ll leave you with a quote I came across from Descartes, the father of modern philosophy.

“For in my view, pain exists only in the understanding. What I do is explain all the external movements which accompany feeling in us; in animals it is these movements alone which occur, and not pain in a strict sense.” (from page 50 of the above book)

So, since non-human animals don’t experience pain, there is no problem of evil. Warspeedpetey would agree, I’m sure.

To me, this is an affront to common sense.

 

[TEPO]

I see now the genesis for warpspeedpetey’s idea, it stems from Cartesianism.

I don’t know what you people are talking about -but I want to…

Are you saying that evil does not exist or “the problem” of evil does not exist?