Philosoft

Argumentation by presupposition and assertion? Can you try this again, sans question begging?
Two things:

1. "Rationale in the inherently materialistic nature..." appears to be a fancy way of saying "appeal to materialism," which I pointed out was fallacious, and to which you agreed.

2. "Mere preference" does not logically follow from anything you posted. Perhaps you would like to post an argument showing how you reach that conclusion, and we can go from there?

theophilus

It follows perfectly. Since transcendent concepts, e.g., morality, cannot arise from pure materialism, the expression of values by any person or group is merely preference on their part and cannot be held to be superior to any other set of values.

Koyaanisqatsi

Yes, it's called "morality." What's your point?

You cited previously "rape," so why not start there? Is rape "evil" to a rapist?

Koyaanisqatsi

Other than yet another fallacy of assertion, what has "superiority" have to do with anything? Are you arguing about morality or piousness?

Philosoft

Sez you: What is this "created order" and when did morality become a "component"?
Stop rapid-fire asserting for a moment. What, exactly, do these concepts transcend? And how does a concept transcend anything? It exists in a mind, by definition. There is nothing transcendent about Christian morality. Your so-called objective morality comes from the mind of a being, same as mine.

Dr. Retard

OK, that's just crazy. Let's say you and your adversary talking to someone who's agnostic about these matters. "Is God's existence a prerequisite for objective morality?" "Gee, I don't know." You say "Yes, it is" and your adversary says, "No, it isn't". So you both have to convince the agnostic. What persuasive reasons can you offer?

Your only reason is "My adversary is wrong; what he's claiming is impossible!" The agnostic says, "Really? It's impossible? How? I don't follow". You say, "Sketch an atheistic objective morality". The agnostic says, "What? I'm not advocating an atheistic objective morality! I'm undecided on these matters. I just don't see why you think it's impossible". All you can say, it seems, is "Well, it's impossible, trust me".

That's dumb. If you want to persuade someone to accept a claim, someone who doesn't already accept it, you have to offer reasons. Especially with impossibility claims.

In any case, two can play at this game. If you'd like to offer an alternative to atheistic objective morality, I'm sure we'd all be interested. Please explain why your system is true ("should be normative" is pleonastic). Let's see your theistic objective morality. I hope it's better than big, honking subjectivism.

NonContradiction

Amoral evil is an oxymoron since, by definition, immorality is evil. Amoral is neither good nor evil. It's like saying "married bachelors."

It's interesting to note that David Hume, in his Dialogues of Natural Religion, concluded that God isn't evil since good exists, nor is he good since evil exists. The evidence, according to Hume, seems to indicate that God is indifferent to the pleasures and pains we may experience in this life. There is no "necessary" logical contradiction, according to Hume, between the goodness of God and the existence of evil in the world; however, he didn't believe that there was sufficient evidence to warrant saying that God is good.

In conclusion, I would say that the evidence doesn't support George Smith's assertion.

Philosoft

If "evil" contains a component of maliciousness, or intent to harm, which I think is reasonable, then it appears one could avoid a contradiction, as it is possible to do an immoral act without intent to harm.

Hume's solution to the PoE is rather disagreeable to many Christians.
Yeah, I suppose if you redefine the concept Smith is attacking, that might happen. I don't think Smith had Hume's god in mind when he wrote that.

beastmaster

I'm still waiting for a *reason* why birth defects are a necessary product of sin. "Sin therefore birth defects" strikes me as quite an imaginative leap.

I'm also curious to learn from you why your god must remind us of our lost condition by ignoring the suffering of innocent babies. Couldn't god "remind" us in a less cruel way? And wouldn't god's merciful intervention to cure babies of birth defects more effectively remind us of our lost condition by way of counterexample? (Paul, for example, says that the purpose of the goodness of the Mosaic Law is to remind us of our sinfulness because we cannot help but fall short of the Law. Thus, god can "remind" us of our sinfulness *both* by human evil and by divine goodness. It seems that curing babies of birth defects would be a wonderful way for god to remind us of our sinful nature by showing, through his acts, how far man falls short of the divine ideal of mercy.)

But the largest cavity in your assertions is why god arbitrarily withholds his mercy by not curing such afflictions. Your book says that god *can* cure afflictions without removing the sin -- Jesus cured lepers of leprosy. Why does god look the other way here?

Your unsupported assertions are not bona fide reasons and they demonstrate an ignorance of the thrust of the PoE.

OK, then God is powerless to cure birth defects. Therefore he is not omnipotent. Now we're getting somewhere.

I find it interesting that your god cannot reduce the suffering of babies. Even an ordinary doctor can remedy much of the suffering of a baby born with a defect, even without "correcting" the baby's "sinful nature." Is god less than a doctor?

The atheist does not need to rebut the PoE because the existence of birth defects is thoroughly consistent with the non-existence of god. Because the PoE illustrates that the omnimax god is *internally* inconsistent, there is no need for the atheist to construct a nontheistic basis for morality as an alternative to theistic morality.

diana

Greetings! Good to see you back. I rather enjoy the intellectual challenge, as well.

I agree that "omnipotence" is tricky. As a matter of fact, I'd state that it's either internally contradictory or virtually meaningless no matter how it is defined. I chose to include the "logically possible" qualification here because most theists who have given the Problem of Omnipotence any thought have wedged that into the definition in order to avoid the rock problem.

IOWs, I was just granting the unknown opponent a definition he's likely to agree with.

No. I meant God isn't bound to create a rock so large he can't lift it. To differentiate, I think of natural phenomena as "natural laws." They must ultimately function in non-contradictory ways (so...logically), but are not logic itself.

I included the blurb about how God supposedly created logic because I've had Christians tell me this. Once again, this is a case of my assuming the opposition's position (as best I can) in my rebuttal.

Understanding that you are using "logic" to mean "natural phenomena," don't Christians believe that God created everything that exists? (I assumed this in my rebuttal, as well.) Thus, everything we've thus far observed in the universe was also created by God. He could have made all of it to be consistent yet still non-destructive to us, his pet species.

Hm. Interesting point. So...this "divine" logic...would it allow mutually contradictory things to coexist, then?

See...this is why I sneer at the idea of "higher logic." It's one of those things, like omnipotence, that people can find a way to define, but must admit they have no clue what it really means.

Does there have to be a "why"? If so, why no "why" for God? I personally take the stance that "purpose" is a man-made construct.

Even so, my concept of an omni-benevolent being wouldn't allow innocents to suffer because those possessing logic and reason apply those assets inconsistently.

Of course, omnibenevolent is defined in relation to us. Everything is defined from our perspective, isn't it?

Ah...but couldn't an omnipotent being make it so the necessary shifts take place gradually, so as not to endanger his pet species?

Good point. Couldn't an omnipotent being make it so childbirth weren't painful? Surgery weren't necessary? War didn't occur? Everyone was born with knowledge and/or everyone were granted an education?

And yes...I think we (atheists, anyhow) label things "evil" based entirely on their effects on human life and happiness.

Sure. I'll go with that. Come to think of it, why does ANYTHING have to die? Why don't we just have giant food chutes coming from The Great Feeder in the sky? Or why do we require food at all?

Hmmm. Good points, all.

But I wouldn't say it was "logically necessary" that God be bound by his own rules of logic, as I'd have no basis whereby to support that assertion.

It appears you're right: I have more thinking to do on the problem of God and logic.

True.

And/or, I'd say. But isn't omniscience a necessary part of omnipotence? How can you be all-powerful if you don't know everything? If you don't know everything the clearly, there is a power you're missing.

So if logic is a matter of intellectual comprehension and not a result of power, then it must, perforce, exist period. This looks like it's counter to the assertion that God created it.

Or maybe I just don't understand what you mean by "not a result of power."

So you'd argue that God would have done better had he known? Or maybe he just doesn't know how to be nice?

True. I still think omniscience is a function of omnipotence, though.

Very simple and effective rebuttal, I think. Nice.

d