theophilus

This is simply logically false.

This conclusion would only be valid if both "worlds" were identical in nature and purpose. They are not.
This world has been corrupted by sin (if you want to ask why God hasn't done something about that, then I would direct you to the gospel); there is no sin in heaven.

This is not the best of all possible worlds. It is the ONLY possible world in which God's redemptive purpose can be accomplished.
Now, if you don't like that, you can take it up with him, but let's have no more of this logical foolishness.

beastmaster

Are you denying that there is less amoral evil in heaven than on earth? I'd love to hear your argument.

Theophilus, why didn't you finish reading my post? Lemme break down more good n simple for ya. Since heaven has less amoral evil than earth, there is at least one possible world with less amoral evil than this world.

Therefore, there must be some explanation for the extra amoral evil in this world. I did not deny the *possibility* that there is such an explanation -- the problem is that nobody knows what the explanation is.

You say that the reason is that the world has been corrupted by sin, but you do not dispute that god has the power to create a world free of sin since you admit that there is no sin in heaven.

Next, you claim that god has a mysterious "redemptive purpose" -- details are undisclosed but you ask me to "take it up with [god]" or "read gospel." Well, I have read gospel thank you, and god isn't answering my calls. Maybe you can flesh out what that redemptive purpose is and why god cannot accomplish that redemptive purpose and cure birth defects at the same time.

As for logical foolishness, mote/plank/eye.

diana

Argument from assertion. Nice.

He couldn't possibly have meant "good" and "bad" in reference to the consequences of "amoral evil," I guess. Earthquakes, I'm sure, have some good effects, but they certainly jeopardize a lot of God's creatures needlessly--because IF God is omnipotent, THEN he could have caused the "good" effects of earthquakes without subjecting us to their "bad" effects. Therefore, earthquakes are an example of some natural occurance that causes pain and suffering of our kind. From our perspective, we therefore place them in the general category of "bad."

Most of the world uses these terms in a relative sense rather than the absolute you appear to defend.

Well...we have worth to ourselves, just like other animals. And just like other animals, we find survival and comfort (etc) worth in others.

Or are you arguing that without your God, you would not even be worth anything to yourself? Would your family be "worth" nothing to you? How about your fellow man?

It's called reductio ad absurdum. I'll leave you and your intellectual chops to look it up.

d

Philosoft

And you still don't understand that a willful being is not a legitimate source of objective morality, no matter how powerful or fundamental.

Quote:

There is no materialistic morality, matter is neither good nor bad, so earthquakes, as a function of matter, are neither good nor bad in and of themselves.

No kidding. That's why secular philosophers don't appeal to materialism as a basis for morality. I don't even know how one might do that.

Quote:

People, in a materialistic system, have no inherent worth and their pain and suffering are just functions of the natural order.

And if they require a willful being to assign them purpose, they still have no "inherent worth."

Quote:

To say that "God is responsible" for this alleged immorality is to assume that God exists (as the ultimate authority of morality) ; it cannot, therefore be used as an argument against his existence.

:banghead:
See diana's post.

rainbow walking

rw: Cool line of reasoning Diana but, (if I may be allowed to take a stab at it for the sake of intellectual challenge), somewhat inconsistent as well. This whole omnipotence thing is a bit tricky in the first place. Here you’ve argued from the logically possible state of affairs perspective which, when closely examined, is the least effective line of argument against such a being’s possible existence.

For instance, let’s take the earthquake scenario. There is a large body of scientific evidence pointing to the conclusion that the configuration of the earth’s crust allows it to sustain the tremendous gravitational forces inflicted by other heavenly bodies in our solar system. The shifting of tectonic plates and continental drift are intricately related to the phenomenon of earthquakes and are logically necessary to maintain our current state of affairs on this planet.

Thus, your argument that a world free of earthquakes would be a logical possibility for an omnipotent being, able to do anything logically possible, is self-negating. I am, of course, assuming that you are referring to the logic of natural phenomena consistent to this universe. In order to create a world devoid of earthquakes, in this universe similar in all other ways to life sustaining worlds in this universe, would require this being to create an entirely new universe with a logic different from that which appears to account for the explanatory potential we’ve discovered thus far in this universe. So, in essence, you are arguing that omnipotence includes the ability to alter or change logic in order to remain logically consistent. But you have before you a greater burden of demonstrating this to belogically possible. So, with all due respect and in humble admiration for your amazing intellect, I think your argument fails to meet this burden.

Of course, you could argue that since this being created logic he could as easily un-create it or re-create it, yet this begs the question of whether there is, therefore, some greater underlying logic guiding the logic of this universe…a question which might lead you in directions of thought you may wish to pursue further. Certainly if logic is an intricate necessity of this universe and a guiding parameter of omnipotence one would have to conclude that the creation of logic itself would necessitate some higher, or otherwise different, form of logic to effectuate its creation…and then we’re back to cascading turtles all over again…yes?

If you hold a position that this being’s attributes are bound by logic, rather than his own will and purpose, you’ve demonstrated an inconsistency in the attribute but failed to respond to the question of evil and suffering. Such a being could have created no other universe than the one we currently observe. If, however, such a being’s attributes are guided by a logic superceding the logic we’ve observed in nature, such a being could have created any imaginable world but this still fails to demonstrate any inconsistency between his attributes and the evil and suffering that are resident to this world.

Since we have yet to ascertain a logical reason for why this universe exists as opposed to nothing at all, it is inconsistent to claim that the existence of such a being, in conjunction with this universe, is illogical. The most we can argue, from our perspective, is that the presence of evil and suffering in this universe is inconsistent with our conceptualization of omni-benevolence. Of course, it can conversely be argued that a great deal of the evil and suffering present in our current state of affairs is due primarily to our own inconsistency in applying such skills of logic and reasoning as we do possess.

rw: On the surface this, too, appears to be a sound logical deduction but, when closely examined, I find some rather glaring inconsistencies in it as well, as it reveals a large degree of subjective reasoning.

Again, using the earthquake example, one must consider whether the havoc caused by earthquakes to a small percentage of the human population is comparable to the utter destruction that would occur to the human race, indeed to all life on earth, if the shifting of tectonic plates did not occur. That the earth’s crust is so formed is a good thing. Additionally, now that we have identified the majority of these fault lines we can build more earthquake proof structures, thus eliminating the possible damages incurred. This involves better engineering and more manhours of labor to construct such buildings, which is a good thing for a small percentage of the population and the economy.

Likewise, when we label such phenomena as evil, (based entirely on their effects on human life and happiness), we invoke another inconsistency because there are a host of such phenomena that incur suffering and possible death that are also necessary to human life, phenomena like childbirth, surgery and other medical procedures, war and even education, (to a lesser degree), all incur a certain amount of suffering but can result in positive outcomes.

If we are going to question the integrity of such a being based on this subjective reasoning, which of these “evils” do we compel him to resolve? Why not all human suffering and death? It’s another cascading turtles scenario from left field and an inconsistent argument.

rw: Well, if such a being created these “rules of logic” along with everything else, there’s no logical reason why he must be bound by them, which runs contrary to your first argument above for inconsistency. Obviously, in order to have created them, he must have had to exist prior to their creation. If he existed prior to logic then he cannot be bound by it. If, however, he became bound by them in their creation then defining omnipotence as being able to do anything logically possible fails…unless you are willing to concede that it was logically necessary that he both create them and become bound by them, in which case, your argument for inconsistency is nullified.

rw: Setting aside, for the moment, the subjective designation of natural catastrophe as an amoral evil, let’s consider the ramifications of appealing to omnipotence to negate the effects of natural law. Since by “natural law” we mean those observable consistent effects caused by the attributes inherent in matter and energy, what you are basically arguing is that such a being could have created matter and energy to exhibit different attributes than those exhibited in our current state of affairs. But what you are really arguing is not a matter of omnipotence, since the act of creating anything with specific attributes does not originate from power alone but from knowledge even more so, any perceived inconsistency is not a charge against such a being’s power but his knowledge or omniscience. However, if we apply the concept of omniscience we come to another inconsistency in this line of reasoning. Obviously, since humans are not omniscient, it is illogical to argue against omniscience from a less than omniscient perspective. There may be a perfectly valid and logical reason for our current state of affairs. Since we have observed a logical consistency in nature it may be that such logic traces back to a creator. Logic, of course, is a matter of intellectual apprehension and not a result of power. Blaming omnipotence for the presence of evil and suffering in our world is the flaw in this argument. It is a charge against omniscience to a lesser degree and omnibenevolence to a higher degree. Raw power, to create anything, must be guided by some form of knowledge whether it is derived from the mind or the heart or a combination of the two.

rw: And I agree. It is an argument I would not make since I know, from historical precedence, that a better world can logically exist…and does…because humanity has made it so. And this could very well be the logical reason why there is a universe as opposed to nothing. If anything that threatens human life or happiness is “evil” then nothingness would have to be the greatest evil. If evil can be gradiated from the greatest to the least and finally cancelled out where good can blossom, and something is a lesser degree of evil than nothing, then something is better than nothing. Since we have something, we already have a leg up on nothing. The rest is up to us.

Dr. Retard

Oh really? Got any persuasive substantiation for these bold claims? Why should I accept your analysis of 'the only way morality can be evaluated'? If what makes rape evil is the mere fact that God dislikes rape, then what you're advocating is subjectivism. Big, honking subjectivism, to be sure, but subjectivism all the same.

theophilus

Nice try.

The "substantiation" is the impossibility of the contrary.

If you'd like to offer an alternative, I'm sure we'd all be interested. Please explain why your system should be normative.

You might focus on why rape is evil.

theophilus

An you still don't understand that morality is not some "add on" or some alien standard imposed from the outside. It is part of the created order.
You exist in a world which was created with a moral component.

Secular philosophers may not "appeal" to materialism, but any nontheistic standard they present must ultimately find it's rationale in the inherently materialistic nature of their philosophy and is therefore mere preference.

theophilus

I know what it is and I think you took a wrong turn somewhere.

theophilus

Well, since you haven't pointed out any logical errors in my post, I'll assume you have me confused with someone else.