demrald

dk
So you deny premise 1.
The Euthyphro problem is a different matter.
Are "just" and "merciful" moral qualities? If so, this contradicts your preceding assertion that God cannot be said to be moral.
Saying "God acts in such a way as to permit rapes and murders" is semantically equivalent to what I said, so I see no reason to object to it.
How does this follow?
But determining what he meant by this is another (and presently irrelevant) matter altogether.

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: demrald ]</p>

The Other Michael

sweep,

That isn't an ad hom as far as I can tell and your characterization of the statement is a bit of a strawman.

Try to not take impersonal statements personally.

If someone makes a case that the conservative Christian worldview has inconsistancies, you'll be quite welcome to dispute their argument, hopefully in a civil and logical fashion.

This is NOT RR&P - all participants are expected to behave in an adult and civil fashion in order to facilitate the discussion.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, Second Class

sweep

dear, the other micheal, i'm not taking anything personally, but i do have the ability to judge, as do you. This includes something i characterize as "the nose". The nose detects bullshit. I don't like politics because it causes us all to smile and be nice for the sake of it. I don't think that has anything to do with being 'an adult', but perhaps i could try not to rush.

While i admit my statement was 'jumping to conclusions' i was trying to posit my judgement that at the core of this discussion can be found the beating heart of a professed atheist. And that beating heart has intentions. In this case to undermine a 'conservative christian' worldview. In this sense demralds demo is nothing but a cheap swing at the outgroup, being contrary to his beliefs.

It is obvious that god isn't going to stop a rape- shit happens all the time. I want to know what the point is of demonstrating logical inconsistencies in a view typically rejected by people of a different persuasion. Why care at all if christian worldview is crap.

If i can't speak from the heart then i'm just being polite, and skirting around the real issues. If my judgement is inaccurate, shoot me down- I'm after some fierce input, not some half-baked waffled from a super-cerebral giant.

Regards&gt; sweep, the civil dog

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: sweep ]</p>

dk

dk: If premise 1 is true, it means nothing. If premise 1 falsie, it still means nothing.
dk: - I agree, so what does it mean? God is moral or God is perfectly moral or God is imperfectly moral? I don’t have a clue.
dk: In the strictest sense justice is: “giving to each person that which is due, nothing more or less”. Mercy transcends justice and law with faith, hope and charity. Hey, what is a moral quality?
dk: God created people with free will, so if free will is good then people are at liberty to oppose God’s will. But by opposing God people deprive themselves of the good God wills. If free will is bad then freedom, liberty, morality, rape and murder are misnomers. Liberty is the discretionary exercise of power, hence free will is the antecedent of liberty. My golly it would logically follow that justice is God’s will, and injustice opposes God’s will. Hey, in human law, justice is an authoritative expression of God’s will. hmmm.
dk: - The power evil has over people deprives them of free will and subsequently liberty. The power people have over evil follows from accenting to God’s will.
dk: - If people are the measure of all things then God’s has no part in human affairs. At the start of this post I thought you had a good idea, to formulate a logical argument about God from evil. Then you immediately switched gears, let me restate the initial premises. But lets limit good to murder.
<ol type="1">[*]God is evil, and therefore murder is good.[*]God gave mankind liberty to murder.[*]God blesses mankind with murder.[*]It is moral to murder and God rewards the murderer with prosperity, pleasure and power.[/list=a]
Hey, this sounds a lot like human sacrifice, where virgins, children and innocence are slaughtered to appease the Gods. By golly I think a number of hedonistic religions were founded on this very premise. For example when a Pharaoh died, they sacrificed all his handmaids and wives so Pharaoh could be served in the next life. Lets follow this through, lets put some names to these religions and cultures. What did Fascists, Command Style Communists, Napoleon, Roman Despots, Napoleonic Code, Justinian Code, Enlightened Despots, Divine Kings, Divine Emperors, Chinese Dynasties, etc... think about murder, and who gave the gods their just due?

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

99Percent

Playing devils advocate here, it might be that conclusion 4 also needs an additional premise: that God is omniscient, and therefore knows ultimately whether to prevent or not what for us mere mortals appear immoral. For example, if I were to know that Hitler was going to be evil when he was a baby I might very have killed him as a baby, which would appear to be highly immoral. Thus the phrase "God works in mysterious ways". Mysterious to us, but perfectly valid for God to act what to us is immoral.

But of course this is all bullshit.

sweep

I wish i knew exactly what you're on about DK- you're one of the posters i always have trouble with and not one i would like to make trouble with.

ARe you saying that it is us, the human race, that endow the gods with moral qualities, and that the gods are exempt from possessing any of those qualities.

sweep

Lets say for arguments sake, that I am an atheist- I have a big badge on my chest saying "I am an atheist" (and proud of it, otherwise i wouldn't be wearing a badge)

being an Atheist I don't believe in god; 'god' does not exist. Then for whatever reason I note the following, and want to show that it doesn't work:

1 God is (perfectly) moral.
2 God is aware of and can prevent certain evils (eg., rapes and murders).
3 God refrains from preventing these certain evils.
4 It is not immoral to refrain from preventing these certain evils.

Doesn't the word god make the logic automatically void?
now try this:

1 I am (perfectly) moral.
2 I am aware of and can prevent certain evils (eg., rapes and murders).
3 I refrain from preventing these certain evils.
4 It is not immoral to refrain from preventing these certain evils.

In other words I am absolutely moral, I can stop (what I deem to be) immoral acts, but I will not stop these immoral acts, and it not immoral to do nothing to stop an immoral act.

still I ask myself 'so what?'- why am I wasting my time with this? It doesn't matter and it isn't important, and it doesn't affect anyone&gt; *sigh*

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: sweep ]</p>

demrald

dk
This is nonsense. If the argument is valid, the truth of premise one has important implications.
Would you consider being unjust or unmerciful to be immoral qualities? Why or why not? Tentatively, let's define 'moral quality' as "a right, good, or ethically proper characteristic of a being."
Could you explain how this is in any way relevant to my argument?
This is simply begging the question, as you previously said "The power people have over evil comes from God, so the point is meaningless," and I asked how that follows. You have simply restated the proposition I previously asked you to support.
Do you have a hermeneutical justification for Protagoras meaning this? If so, I would love to see it, but in another thread, please.
This is not a logical argument from evil (although I said it was "basically another formulation of the logical argument from evil,", I also qualified that it is not intended to disprove God's existence, as the LAE usually is) and the argument you presented following this line has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. As such, it will be ignored.

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: demrald ]</p>

demrald

99percent
I think this is covered in premise 2, where it is stated that God is aware of the act(s).
This isn't about the appearance of morality, however, but the actuality of it. If God doesn't prevent the act in question, then not preventing the act can't be immoral. Using your Hitler example, if utilitarianism is true, then killing baby Hitler may not be wrong, regardless of appearances. Of course, I know of no orthodox theism that subscribes to utilitarianism.

demrald

sweep
What in the world do you mean? By "void" do you mean "invalid," or something else?
And this has what bearing on the argument at hand?
Perhaps you should share these feelings with a professional therapist.

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: demrald ]</p>