Chain Logic and God

Are you telling me that this kind of torturous event isn't evil?

Precisely. It's an event, an action; nothing more. As reiterated, adding anything to that is from a subjective perspective, not objective.

Quote from: jdoe on February 16, 2008, 03:30:29 AM

An omnipotent being can do whatever the hell he wants, even if it seems illogical, contradictory, or inconsistent.  There is simply no way you could falsify the existence of God.  You can't use logic to determine whether He exists or not.

Why can't we use logic to determine his capabilities or attributes? And in turn the possibility of existence of a God strictly with those attributes. A God dedicated to the best and all that is good wouldn't strike people with lightning just for shits and giggles.

Yeah but as humans who are we to judge God? Our logic might not necessarily apply to God because our logic would be imperfect compared to God's logic. This argument is flawed from the start because of this.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 16, 2008, 06:36:57 AM

Are you telling me that this kind of torturous event isn't evil?

Precisely. It's an event, an action; nothing more. As reiterated, adding anything to that is from a subjective perspective, not objective.

You cannot claim something isn't evil if you can't define evil. What you have personally done is defined evil as subjective nullifying the argument on you/your beliefs, assuming the other premises also applied to you.

However, a religion that defines good and evil, in order to label God as all good, has a definition. Even if the definition was conjured by subjective thought on behalf of the religion's followers and creators. Nearly all definitions of evil, to people who follow such beliefs, would say it is evil to murder, etc. This is why I received many posts adding free will to cover that basis. Applying murder to something without free will, like nature, shows that the same definition of evil exists beyond humans and their choices.

Yeah but as humans who are we to judge God? Our logic might not necessarily apply to God because our logic would be imperfect compared to God's logic. This argument is flawed from the start because of this.

God's logic. In our universe, logic is universal... as is math. If you are arguing god is beyond this, then I cannot say this is necessarily false (as God is the alleged creator of such a logical system). But please consider this:

God still has attributes comprehendable to man like being 'all-good'. Man's logic and religion has come to depict God in man's terms. If man's logic is used to prove man's religious views of God as false, it means God doesn't exist as man thought. Now this DOES have no bearing on the real God, but just like the premises narrowing down the argument to certain depictions of God, this proves that God doesn't exist in the form the argument describes.

Quote from: Professor Gaystain on February 16, 2008, 08:08:03 AM

Yeah but as humans who are we to judge God? Our logic might not necessarily apply to God because our logic would be imperfect compared to God's logic. This argument is flawed from the start because of this.

God's logic. In our universe, logic is universal... as is math. If you are arguing god is beyond this, then I cannot say this is necessarily false (as God is the alleged creator of such a logical system). But please consider this:

God still has attributes comprehendable to man like being 'all-good'. Man's logic and religion has come to depict God in man's terms. If man's logic is used to prove man's religious views of God as false, it means God doesn't exist as man thought. Now this DOES have no bearing on the real God, but just like the premises narrowing down the argument to certain depictions of God, this proves that God doesn't exist in the form the argument describes.

So we take his description from the bible, and using this information give him titles, omnipotent, omniscient, and such. Then we take the definition of these words to disprove him? Interesting logic.

If the Bible is God's word then all depictions of God are on his own terms. Actually I really don't even know what this thread is about anymore. Ho hum.

I say he is using english translation of arabic words then using the english words definition to disprove god. Your proofs are flawed in that way in my mind.

If the bible were truly the word of God, then it would magically translate into every language.

And use a cooler font, all big and capital.

YES.. cause God is mighty. 

Apparently God is keeping me from using smilies today. 

You cannot claim something isn't evil if you can't define evil.

You can define it. It's just useless because it is not an objective observation. I've already explained why.

However, a religion that defines good and evil, in order to label God as all good, has a definition.

You can't use subjective beliefs as a premise to try and disprove the actual reality. If so, you could exchange the word god for anything you wished and tried to prove it.

Nearly all definitions of evil, to people who follow such beliefs, would say it is evil to murder, etc.

Keywords: "Nearly all."

Sorry for the misinterpretation, I must be horrible at conveying myself clearly.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 16, 2008, 02:04:35 PM

You cannot claim something isn't evil if you can't define evil.

You can define it. It's just useless because it is not an objective observation. I've already explained why.

I intend to stress the "you" rather than the "cannot", because you view it as subjective hence undefinable. Others can define evil and that is why they can assign the term places in religion.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 16, 2008, 02:04:35 PM

However, a religion that defines good and evil, in order to label God as all good, has a definition.

You can't use subjective beliefs as a premise to try and disprove the actual reality.

Thus

Now this DOES have no bearing on the real God

But I could make this clearer by saying, "no bearing with disproving the real God unless he fits the definition assigned by the bible" or something similar. We can prove what God is not, according to our language.

If so, you could exchange the word god for anything you wished and tried to prove it.

Care to provide an example? I can't see how to do this considering God is already defined as an "Omni-being" and taking the definitions and finding mutually exclusive characteristics is based upon that.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 16, 2008, 02:04:35 PM

Nearly all definitions of evil, to people who follow such beliefs, would say it is evil to murder, etc.

Keywords: "Nearly all."

I have already agreed with you that this word, and actually pretty much any word, depends on the concept the person assigns it. To those who have the 'correct' definition applied this definition to God and also fit the argument. I apologize for my lack of communicative ability as my fingers cannot type as fast as my thoughts (thank God) and I get ahead of myself sometimes.

I say he is using english translation of arabic words then using the english words definition to disprove god. Your proofs are flawed in that way in my mind.

Yeah. Every translation site there is comes up with different variations of this crap.
وإنما هو إله رحيم
وقال انه في المسرات الغفران
الله هو خير
الله هو كل شيء الجامع
الله هو كل ما هو جيد
الله ليس الشر

Quote from: Raist

I say he is using english translation of arabic words then using the english words definition to disprove god. Your proofs are flawed in that way in my mind.

Yeah. Every translation site there is comes up with different variations of this crap.
وإنما هو إله رحيم
وقال انه في المسرات الغفران
الله هو خير
الله هو كل شيء الجامع
الله هو كل ما هو جيد
الله ليس الشر

If i wasn't just done having sex I would get this joke better.

(yes that is me bragging)

There is no science in letting people choose arbitrary and subjective definitions to attempt and prove something about god. Even if that's not what you're getting at, this argument is going nowhere.

Describing God as omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient is fundamentally wrong because those definitions can't coexist. I'm saying god isn't everyone of these qualities unless the logic behind the argument I found and posted is flawed.

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

Why is this still going on when it was squashed within the first few posts? And Singularity you still stand by the original post? There have been loads of equally valid points made that prove it flawed...

Why is this still going on when it was squashed within the first few posts? And Singularity you still stand by the original post? There have been loads of equally valid points made that prove it flawed...

Now we are going to squeeze our hand tight singularity, then open them one by one, and blow across your palm. As we do this we say "I'm letting it go, it's not worth it."

And relax.

Quote from: divito the truthist on February 16, 2008, 07:17:30 AM

Precisely. It's an event, an action; nothing more. As reiterated, adding anything to that is from a subjective perspective, not objective.

You cannot claim something isn't evil if you can't define evil. What you have personally done is defined evil as subjective nullifying the argument on you/your beliefs, assuming the other premises also applied to you.

However, a religion that defines good and evil, in order to label God as all good, has a definition. Even if the definition was conjured by subjective thought on behalf of the religion's followers and creators. Nearly all definitions of evil, to people who follow such beliefs, would say it is evil to murder, etc. This is why I received many posts adding free will to cover that basis. Applying murder to something without free will, like nature, shows that the same definition of evil exists beyond humans and their choices.

Main Entry: 1evil 
Pronunciation: \ˈē-vəl, British often & US also ˈē-(ˌ)vil\
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): evil·er or evil·ler; evil·est or evil·lest
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English yfel; akin to Old High German ubil evil
Date: before 12th century
1 a: morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse> b: arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>
2 a (archaic) : inferior b: causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive <an evil odor> c: disagreeable <woke late and in an evil temper>
3 a: causing harm : pernicious <the evil institution of slavery> b: marked by misfortune : unlucky
— evil adverb archaic
— evil·ly  \-(l)ē\ adverb
— evil·ness  \-nəs\ noun

1: Does not apply to events.
2: Not related to the discussion.
3: Synonymous with pernicious, which can either mean (a) harmful, or b(wicked), an archaic definition.

The first meaning of the third definition is all you are going on, where evil simply means harmful. This is quite different from the first definition, which is the one Abrahamic religions go on (they are also the only ones that posit a "omni-4" God).

Other (apparent) flaws in your argument:

#1
You seem to deviate from the classical argument of the problem of evil. You may (I am not saying you are) suggest that because:

1. God-type X has to be every where (omnipresent).
2. God-type X has to be entirely good (entirely not-evil).
3. There are evil things.
God-type X cannot logically exist.

The flaw here is your confusing everywhere with everything. This is not omnipresence, but omnibeing, God being everything. All Abrahamic religions hold that God created all material things, so these material things are not God/the same substance as God.

#2
The false analogy of the babysitter

The baby tries to drink drain cleaner, not knowing any better. Human beings posses conscience, and have a sense of right and wrong.

#3
The classical argument is worthless too

Is God Willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and wiling?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.

The third line reaches a premature conclusion and the fifth has already been answered.

Showing your intelligence one brain cell at a time.

Thank you hara.

Evil is subjective. One man's evil is another mans good

One woman's face is another woman's seat.

Hitler sincerely believed he was doing good for the world. If he'd won, and any of us were alive, we'd believe it too.

We'd be people saved from the jews, who by now would have had super powers, or wanted to take over the world at a minimum.

Who says they haven't. Sylar is clearly Jewish; look at his nose.

But he just wants brains. Like a zombie.

My superpower is devolving threads. I'm thinking it's running at about 85% tonight.

I used to do that. I could DERAIL a thread. It was fun.