rainbow walking

I am, and thank you. Instead of a headache, I'm snowed in.

rw, Oh my, I hope you stay warm.


The problem is, I can take this premise, and lay out a whole new argument. In my revised argument, I can show that God has a plan: And that plan is the slow and painful eradication of all life in the universe. This creates a problem, as we become incapable of falsifying either God's plan for Love or God's plan for Malice. If there's a way to sneak out from under this little issue, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, I don't think we can reasonably allow this premise.

(In other words: If you know a way out, please share. )

rw: Yes, you could formulate a new argument from that proposition iff that were the only proposition. Unfortunately, there are a whole nuther slew of them that specify a particular plan that negates your appeal to this line of reasoning. But then, you wouldn’t be arguing PoE, since you’d have a reason for the existence of evil and suffering consistent to this god’s purpose. Sometimes the way out is to delve deeper in…all I’m gonna say.


Z: The statement "A God Exists" is nonfalsifiable. But individual deities can be falsified. Climb Mt. Olympus, note the lack of Gods. That falsifies those Gods (who, by the by, were not omnipotent). The PoE attempts to falsify an omnimax deity. But this one premise sets us up such that an omnimax deity is nonfalsifiable. That means the concept is no longer 'scientific,' and can't reasonably be debated.


rw: The proposition, by your own admission, is true. Any true statement, to be true, must be falsifiable. Dig deeper.


Z: Yes, we are. But if this premise holds for this God, it holds for ANY God with omniscience as an attribute. At which point it becomes impossible to distinguish.
rw: Only if that is the only attribute. Remember omnibenevolence is also part of the mix.

(Think of it this way. This argument is built on premises. If the argument is valid, all its premises are true. That includes the contraversial one. If THAT premise is true, then I can make an equally valid argument for a omnimalicious deity.)


rw: Only from that one proposition. It would be uninteresting and short lived as I inculcated other propositions to demolish your argument. But if you insist, go ahead and formulate your argument and put it to the test. I’ll be happy to accommodate.


Don’t let the prospect of a god knowing more than you do, intimidate you. You have a right to question, challenge and demand explanations anyway. I did. That’s how I came to be an atheist.

Ganymede

Why would an omnimax god bother? He must by definition know whether the said morally perfect man would in fact obtain. It seems to me he would have 2 choices:

A. Let man suffer for X period of time, after which he will become morally perfect (and hence achieve the objective), or

B. Create morally perfect man from the get go (and hence achieve the objective.

An omnimax god would be required to choose option B.

G

rainbow walking

And how would this morally perfect creature recognize his own moral perfection if he'd never been exposed to imperfection or immorality?

How would you test his moral perfection without some morally imperfect choices available, and how would you make them available without some morally imperfect creatures to bring them into reality?

Some set of options would have to obtain to afford this creature choices. In other words, some form of evil or potential evil would be necessary to achieve the moral aspect of his perfection. Otherwise you have only created a simpleton.

If that were the case your first question would be most succint: Why would an omnimax god bother to create a simpleton who might be described as morally perfect and recognized as such by this god, but would be un-able to know this for himself.

ReasonableDoubt

So Rainbow, are you saying that God needs humans to be imperfect in order to recognize his own perfection? So doesn't that mean that God needs something, and therefore is not omnimax?

rainbow walking

Hi Reasonabledoubt,


You said: So Rainbow, are you saying that God needs humans to be imperfect in order to recognize his own perfection? So doesn't that mean that God needs something, and therefore is not omnimax?

rw: There was a time when I had this very same thought, but then that sort of contradicts omniscience. I would assume that this level of knowing would include knowing oneself, wouldn't you? a morally perfect being, (as I described it in this argument), is not the same as an omnimax being.