Chain Logic and God

this thread is successfully devolved and derailed. Where shall we go next?

Derail, devolve, dement.

That is our mission.

Enlist today!

this thread is successfully devolved and derailed. Where shall we go next?

Ummmm, find a noobs thread tell him he is worthless and then announce what the topic is now about. I did that on another forum's Bullshit category, the noob threatened to have me banned.

Premise1:     If there is a God, God is defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Premise2:     If God exists, there would be no evil in the world.
Premise3:     There is evil in the world.
Conclusion:   There is no God.

Here's an example:
Consider a babysitter taking care of your three year old. You come home to find out your kid drank a bottle of drain cleaner (the evil). The babysitter cannot have all four qualities of being there - able to prevent/stop it - knowing better - and being a 'good' babysitter, and still have the kid drinking drain cleaner. All four 'omni' qualities and evil are inherently mutually exclusive. Since evil exists, no such being exists.

Any thoughts on the evidential argument from evil? 

1. If there is a God, then he is God.
2. God would let evil happen in the world, because lets face it, the world would be pretty dull without it.
3. Since God, being eternal, would need amusement, statement 2 would be true.
4. There is evil in the world.
5. Therefore, there could or could not be a God.

Showing your intelligence one brain cell at a time.

Thank you hara.

I can't tell if I should feel insulted or proud.

Proud.

I will try rewording this since the term subjective seems to heavily influence people's understanding of the argument's validity:

The conclusion is subjective as well. Ones man's good is another man's evil, but one man's good is not the same man's evil. God is not omnibenevolent in the same context or subjectivity as being evil according to your understanding of it. Varying degrees shows nothing of overlapping perfect opposites, if you will.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 13, 2008, 02:06:36 PM

Premise1:     If there is a God, God is defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Premise2:     If God exists, there would be no evil in the world.
Premise3:     There is evil in the world.
Conclusion:   There is no God.

Here's an example:
Consider a babysitter taking care of your three year old. You come home to find out your kid drank a bottle of drain cleaner (the evil). The babysitter cannot have all four qualities of being there - able to prevent/stop it - knowing better - and being a 'good' babysitter, and still have the kid drinking drain cleaner. All four 'omni' qualities and evil are inherently mutually exclusive. Since evil exists, no such being exists.

Any thoughts on the evidential argument from evil? 

1. If there is a God, then he is God.
2. God would let evil happen in the world, because lets face it, the world would be pretty dull without it.
3. Since God, being eternal, would need amusement, statement 2 would be true.
4. There is evil in the world.
5. Therefore, there could or could not be a God.

I don't understand what premise one accomplishes. It has minor significance as I see it and establishes only that God is alone in 'his' status and that he is male, which can be contested as it is unproven nor relevant. Perhaps the quality of eternal seen in premise three should be mentioned.

Premise two states God would do allow evil without support for the claim, unless you consider it to be in conjunction with premise three, that he would need amusement which in turn is also unsupported.
Is this God omniscient? If so he has already conceived all possible things amusing to him, as is the case if he is beyond time. Also, how is evil necessary for amusement? Being good/pure is something many people reach  for in pursuit happiness.

Your conclusion is not really a conclusion because nothing is established. We have made no progress in understanding the matter than before. The same options exist and nothing has been eliminated. Proving something is possible is not a counter example to a separate proof showing it is not possible. However, I believe you could expand or revise this proof fruitfully. If it can achieve a sound understanding of God, I do no know. Work with it a bit.

free will

divine plan

if God is perfect then he must be evil as well as good as perfection would mean nothing must be lacking, including evil

there's loads more counter arguments but this is boring so I won't bother

Free will is partially covered in my babysitter example one way, and was also discussed to be a limit to God's creative ability another way. Surely God, could create a world with free will but no evil. This still ends with one of the definitions of God removed. On the side from the debate, may I ask why free will is even necessary? Do we even have free will?

The divine "Grand Plan" is actually not so much of an answer as a method of avoiding the question.
When one asks "why", the response "it is God's will" isn't truly an answer. If anything, it is an appeal to force (God is all powerful and what he says goes)

God is 'perfect' is a much broader category of definitions and therefore is harder to both prove and disprove. This seems to be a new definition of God in a way, as I only applied the argument to an omni-4 God.

In any case, I will still play with this notion: How does perfect mean nothing is lacking? Is this even a logical possibility considering God cannot contain universal absence along with universal existence?

If you find philosophy so boring, you have no duty to read or post. That was your decision.

This isn't philosophy it's religion. Applying philosophy or worse still, science to religion is like trying to play snooker with a piece of rope. It's arguing for the sake of it that's why it's boring.

This isn't philosophy it's religion. Applying philosophy or worse still, science to religion is like trying to play snooker with a piece of rope. It's arguing for the sake of it that's why it's boring.

It's rationalistic approach to the philosophy of religion, yes.
There are two main kinds of philosophy in my book: Empiricism and rationalism.
Do you consider philosophy as a whole to be 'for the sake of it' or ultimately pointless?

How much do clothes cost in the matrix?

An arm, a leg, and your right ovary.

Quote from: Professor Gaystain on February 17, 2008, 12:13:30 PM

free will

divine plan

if God is perfect then he must be evil as well as good as perfection would mean nothing must be lacking, including evil

there's loads more counter arguments but this is boring so I won't bother

Free will is partially covered in my babysitter example one way, and was also discussed to be a limit to God's creative ability another way. Surely God, could create a world with free will but no evil. This still ends with one of the definitions of God removed. On the side from the debate, may I ask why free will is even necessary? Do we even have free will?

The divine "Grand Plan" is actually not so much of an answer as a method of avoiding the question.
When one asks "why", the response "it is God's will" isn't truly an answer. If anything, it is an appeal to force (God is all powerful and what he says goes)

God is 'perfect' is a much broader category of definitions and therefore is harder to both prove and disprove. This seems to be a new definition of God in a way, as I only applied the argument to an omni-4 God.

In any case, I will still play with this notion: How does perfect mean nothing is lacking? Is this even a logical possibility considering God cannot contain universal absence along with universal existence?

If you find philosophy so boring, you have no duty to read or post. That was your decision.

You can't have free will without the possibilty of choosing evil so evil must exist. It's not free will if it's limited to just good. Whether free will actually exists or not is the only problem with this argument.

Divine plan is an answer. It's like looking at a woven rug, on the underside it's a mess of loose ends and it doesn't make sense, you can't see what it's supposed to look like, but on the top side it looks right, so if there is a divine plan, humans can only see the underside of it and therefore can't understand it, it'll just look like a mess to them but God would see the top of it, what it actually achieves.

I dunno about the 'perfect' one, I haven't looked into it.

And I don't find philosophy boring, I find this argument boring. It's been refuted so many times in so many different ways already yet you still don't get it.

Quote from: Kasroa Is Gone on February 19, 2008, 10:42:10 AM

This isn't philosophy it's religion. Applying philosophy or worse still, science to religion is like trying to play snooker with a piece of rope. It's arguing for the sake of it that's why it's boring.

It's rationalistic approach to the philosophy of religion, yes.
There are two main kinds of philosophy in my book: Empiricism and rationalism.
Do you consider philosophy as a whole to be 'for the sake of it' or ultimately pointless?

Aren't "for the sake of it" and "utterly pointless" the same thing? I consider philosophy useful in the development of humans. I consider Religion to have nothing to do with philosophy. The reason why this argument is boring (apart from the fact it was over within a few responses on the first page) is that you simply can't apply rationalistic approaches to religion because any number of irrational responses. You keep trying to lay down concrete conditions and then basing a conclusion on that but it just doesn't work. Religion doesn't work like that. It matters not if God is omni-4. He can still allow evil to happen, the bible explains why he does in great detail as a matter of fact. There are no rules or confines in a debate about God and creating them to support one point of view is sheer folly.

Divine plan is an answer. It's like looking at a woven rug, on the underside it's a mess of loose ends and it doesn't make sense, you can't see what it's supposed to look like, but on the top side it looks right, so if there is a divine plan, humans can only see the underside of it and therefore can't understand it, it'll just look like a mess to them but God would see the top of it, what it actually achieves.

That's actually a clever analogy I've never heard before.

And I don't find philosophy boring, I find this argument boring. It's been refuted so many times in so many different ways already yet you still don't get it.

Hear, hear!

Quote from: Professor Gaystain on February 19, 2008, 12:04:16 PM

Divine plan is an answer. It's like looking at a woven rug, on the underside it's a mess of loose ends and it doesn't make sense, you can't see what it's supposed to look like, but on the top side it looks right, so if there is a divine plan, humans can only see the underside of it and therefore can't understand it, it'll just look like a mess to them but God would see the top of it, what it actually achieves.

That's actually a clever analogy I've never heard before.

Quote from: Professor Gaystain on February 19, 2008, 12:04:16 PM

And I don't find philosophy boring, I find this argument boring. It's been refuted so many times in so many different ways already yet you still don't get it.

Hear, hear!

yeah I thought so, can't remember where I heard it though

Premise1:     If there is a God, God is defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Premise2:     If God exists, there would be no evil in the world.
Premise3:     There is evil in the world.
Conclusion:   There is no God.

Here's an example:
Consider a babysitter taking care of your three year old. You come home to find out your kid drank a bottle of drain cleaner (the evil). The babysitter cannot have all four qualities of being there - able to prevent/stop it - knowing better - and being a 'good' babysitter, and still have the kid drinking drain cleaner. All four 'omni' qualities and evil are inherently mutually exclusive. Since evil exists, no such being exists.

Any thoughts on the evidential argument from evil? 

Why can God not exist if evil exists?  That doesn't make sense.

Quote from: Professor Gaystain on February 17, 2008, 12:13:30 PM

free will

divine plan

if God is perfect then he must be evil as well as good as perfection would mean nothing must be lacking, including evil

there's loads more counter arguments but this is boring so I won't bother

Free will is partially covered in my babysitter example one way, and was also discussed to be a limit to God's creative ability another way. Surely God, could create a world with free will but no evil. This still ends with one of the definitions of God removed. On the side from the debate, may I ask why free will is even necessary? Do we even have free will?

The divine "Grand Plan" is actually not so much of an answer as a method of avoiding the question.
When one asks "why", the response "it is God's will" isn't truly an answer. If anything, it is an appeal to force (God is all powerful and what he says goes)

God is 'perfect' is a much broader category of definitions and therefore is harder to both prove and disprove. This seems to be a new definition of God in a way, as I only applied the argument to an omni-4 God.

In any case, I will still play with this notion: How does perfect mean nothing is lacking? Is this even a logical possibility considering God cannot contain universal absence along with universal existence?

If you find philosophy so boring, you have no duty to read or post. That was your decision.

If there is only one option, then there is no free will.  Evil has to exist for there to be free will.  That's not the source of my arguement. When God created us, he didn't want a bunch of robots walking around , he wanted people who wanted to serve Him. 

His "divine plan" as you put it, is not an avoidance as much as it is an understanding.  He has a plan for our lives, because he can see the whole picture.  He knows what's best for us because he sees the outcome of all our choices because of His omniscience.  His plan is for us to have what's best for our lives.

I will address the points in numerical form to save time:
1. Evil has to exist for free will to exist.
I must ask "why can't there be choices between good and good?" Surely God could create such a world. No?
2. God's divine plan is beyond comprehension.
This assumes there is a God and that there is a good reason for evil. (I suppose it relates heavily with the first issue.)
3. Defining a "Perfect" God was something you did Gayer.

if God is perfect then he must be evil as well as good as perfection would mean nothing must be lacking

4. This argument is still a place you don't have to post. Whether it is philosophy or this thread you dislike, it is your decision to participate or not.
5. We are currently debating the refutes. You cannot claim they are valid if I can still pick them apart. It reminds me of the "[RE/FE] wins!!!" People put in the first post of a thread after they present their side. I also might make note that I do not support this argument, but enjoy debate and am exercising my abilities to maintain the conclusion.

I saw somewhere that God doesn't want robot followers. Everything in such a sentence is an assumption:
1. We have free will
2. God exists
3. What God wants

You haven't picked them apart very well, in fact you don't even seem to understand them.

Elaborate.

For instance you don't understand the free will argument. It's not free will if you don't have the choice for evil, just choosing between good and good is not a choice.

If God created a world without evil, the only options would be good. Which good we choose would exercise free will. Please explain why choices are not free will, if evil doesn't exist.

Consider a scenario where people could not be harmed emotionally, physically, financially, etc. what choice could you make to commit an evil act?

I can't explain things well, sure someone else could do this much better than me but I'm trying. But basically its not choosing to do good if there isn't an option to choose to do evil also.
In your scenario, if you have no option to commit an evil act then you are not being given the full choice so you do not have real free will.

Anyway I have to go now but I hope someone else can explain it better.

Thank you for taking additional time for discussing this with me.
The choice doesn't exist if there is an impossibility in it. If people couldn't be harmed, you can't harm them. If this is an elimination of free will because an option is impossible, than we don't have free will because we don't have an option of vanishing, teleporting, flying without technological aid, etc. We still have other choices to make and define our own personalities with.

The problem with the debate on the creation of evil and the choice of freewill is that too many people consider evil as a thing.  God did not create evil.  He merely created good.   Just as darkness is just the absence of light, evil is merely the absence of good.  Man doesn't choose to do evil.  Man chooses to not do good.

I'm still waiting for Neo to appear.

Not that I disagree, but what is your definition of evil?

Harm physically, emotionally, or otherwise?
The absence of good?
Obstruction of morals and ethics?

All definitions I can think of are still conflicting with omnibenevolence.

In the babysitter example, did the babysitter create the bleach? This definition is still in conflict with the omni-properties.

The problem with the debate on the creation of evil and the choice of freewill is that too many people consider evil as a thing.  God did not create evil.  He merely created good.   Just as darkness is just the absence of light, evil is merely the absence of good.  Man doesn't choose to do evil.  Man chooses to not do good.

Ahem, man did NOT create anything (according to one book in particular, and the thinkings of other men).