Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Thomas Metcalf · 06-18-2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by theophilus :

Quote:

The child does not know what the greater good is, either.

We humans are aware of greater goods all the time, so it looks as if the analogy breaks down. And parents are obligated to tell their children why they suffer.

Quote:

Besides, "greater good," is a meaningless term when applied to God's purposes. Since he is the standard of good, all his actions are absolutely good.

Absolute goods and greater goods are not inconsistent.

Quote:

"Evil" is a condition of material existence.

Not if God is omnipotent.

Quote:

But, to the point, it doesn't matter what the "higher good" may be. In order for the PoE argument to work, you must know that there is none.

Nope. I just have to show that there's no reason to believe there is; therefore, there is no reason to believe that evil doesn't militate against theism. You must show it's probable that there is a greater purpose, because just saying it's possible won't get you anywhere.

Dr Rick · 06-18-2003, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
This purpose is not "unknown;" the Bible is quite clear what that is. The fact that you don't know what it is or accept it does not put God out of business...Sorry, since you're the one who wants to convict God via the PoE, the burden of proof is on you to show that he does not have one.

That's two logical fallacies; shifting the burden of proof and a strawman, and your initial assertion is still unsubstantiated.

Quote:

Again, you're begging the question. Which evil is "necessary" and which is "unnecessary." By what standard do you, as a materialist, determine such. Why should your standard be normative.

In the inductive PoE, necessary evil is defined as that which is required to fulfill the putative omnimax god's unknown purpose proposed by the unknown purpose defense. Unnecessary evil would be any evil that is not necessary to fulfill that purpose. That's the standard the arguement proposes.

Quote:

Because in the providence of the all knowing creator, whose purpose is being accomplished in and through his creation, it is so.

For a guy who claims that God's purpose is "clearly" defined, you sure don't seem to know much about it.

Quote:

Do you know that the people in Afgthanistan do NOT need more suffering than the people in Beverly Hills?

There's something palpably disgusting about the implicit suggestion that babies in Afghanistan may "need" to freeze to death more than ones in Southern California.

Quote:

How do you know that? Why do you call one "suffering" and not the other. If pain and death are "good" (can you prove they're not), the it is the people in Beverly Hills who are suffering by having less.

There is no reason to assume that pain and death are good, so when you say "if they are" the burden of proof is upon you. Even if you are correct, and somehow people in Beverly Hills aren't getting their daily ration of what they should, then it's unfair to the people of Beverly Hills, and god is still not being omnibenevolent.
The theist.

Quote:

"Omni" of any kind is irrelevant to the illustration.

I think we just spotted the problem: you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about. The PoE is about "omni."

Quote:

The "alternatives" derive from the purpose. The "means" as well as the "end" are part of the purpose.

What kind of gibberish is this?

Quote:

Unless you know better.

An omni-god would.

theophilus · 06-18-2003, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spenser
Now that's funny. Correct me if I am wrong but the best one could do is interpret the bible. Seeing the great indecisiveness in Christianity as a whole this statement ultimately means nothing. All you are asserting is that only you have the correct interpretation of biblical theology.

Well, an argument from uncertainty is a logical fallacy. Just as absence of proof does not equate disproof, the fact that many people disagree on points of doctrine does not mean that there is not a certain message.

All literature must be "interpreted." If someone writes "the sun moved from east to west," we must determine if they are speaking phenomenally (it appears to do so) or if they meant to be literal and made a great mistake.

OK, what other reason could you possibly have for saying this:

Since "this" didn't follow your message, I can only assume I said it because I believe it to be true. I'll have to check your post and see if if deserves more.

I suppose we can dismiss your intent there as meaning nothing.

That would be pretty presumptuous, wouldn't it. Not at all intellectual.

Hmmm, I thought parents had the free will to attempt procreating.

Well, unless you have some independent basis for thinking that, I don't really see your point.

Since most children grow up to be very much like their parents, its hard to imagine a pool of souls, of 'individuals' who and then end up becoming so much like the people that they grew up around.

You must have left out a word, since this makes no sense.

Sounds like you are saying I'm assuming something with out considering an absurd mystery which may dictate otherwise.

No, I'm saying you assume that your knowledge of reality is comprehensive and you can make authoritative judgements about what IS or is NOT and I'm asserting that you have no foundation for that belief and, therefore, no basis for your claims. Besides, I wasn't emitting any sound waves, so if it "sounded" like anything to you, you need to have your hearing checked. What? you were speaking metaphorically? But that requires that I "interpret" what you said and "discern" that it wasn't literal.

I prefer Occums Razor thank you. You are born where you are born because you parents had you there.

I'm really tired of this constant misapplication of Occam. William's dictum is that you don't multiply entities beyond "necessity." This requires that you must know what is "necessary." The mere fact that you can assert a theory does not make your theory adequate to the explanation of anything. You have to "know" what the limits of possibility and necessity are before invoking the Blade.
Besides, William was a Christian.

I could have sworn I said you don't know that there is a purpose, not what the purpose may be, but take another step back if you will.

I know, on the basis of God's word both that there is a purpose and what it is. You, on the other hand have no basis for knowing either that there is not a purpose or that it is inadequate to your challenge.

Oops, 'just' not 'fair'. Funny, you are willing to concede that God is not fair, and if he is not fair once again omnibenevolence is a joke and he is being more evil to some than others so the argument stands.

"Fair" is a subjective concept. Justice is (or should be) an objective concept. What is "fair" may not be just. Two people may work on a job: one works twice as hard as the other; fairness would demand that they both be paid the same. Justice would would dictate that they be paid according to their work.

Besides, you don't know the true metaphysical nature of "suffering" and cannot speak authoritatively about his administration. "More evil" is a meaningless expression.

It's really silly the way you through around theological sounding words without having any real sense of what you're talking about. Omnibenevolence is not a biblical concept. God is not "all good" in the sense that there is some standard of good external to himself to which he "measures up."

Because of WHO he is, the creator and determiner of what is possible in all experience, his actions are by nature good and his law is the standard of good for his creation.

Same can be said for substituting the word just for fair. It would be unjust to give an unlevel playing field where some have to do very little to get into heaven while others have to overcome their society, that societies religion that is taught to then as correct of Xianity, possibly being killed as an infidel in the process, in order to avoid hell.

I'm sorry to say this, but you continually betray your ignorance of Christian doctrine and, therefore your arguments are meaningless.

No one gets into heaven by "doing little" or "doing much." Christianity teaches that all men are guilty before God. It teaches that all men know God as their creator through the created order and so are without excuse when they claim not to know him.

No man is advanced or retarded in his knowledge of God because of where he was born. All men ought to (are under obligation) to acknowledge God and are therefore condemned.

Justice demands that all should suffer the prescribed penalty for their rebellion, i.e., death. The fact that God has, of his own will and for his own purposes, undertaken to provide salvation for some does not make him unjust since he is under no obligation to save anyone.

How just is that 'just'? Sounds like you may be more ignorant of geography than I am of theology.

This is just silly.

Once again, if all people are not given a 'just' chance, a fair shot at finding Jesus and not burning in hell, then that is far more evil than necessary than could be justified from an omnibenevolent being. Billions of Chinese, Indians, Muslims and others are burning in hell cause they were taught something different, because they were born somewhere non-xian. Really 'just' huh?

Wrong. See above, I can't keep teaching the same lessons over and over.

As far as explaining the existence of evil as a transcendent concept, in a materialist world, why should anyone?

transcendent - Being above and independent of the material universe. Used of the Deity.

This is unobservable, unknowable, not likely and obviously you are attempting to get me to make a contradictory definition. Good and Evil are perfectly understandable concepts here in the material world and trying to say they mean something different somewhere else is another cop out.

Well, if they are so "perfectly understandable concepts here in the material world," i.e., they derive their meaning from the nature of material existence, you should have not trouble articulating an objective basis for them; one to which all men everywhere and at all times will subscribe. Nothing less will qualify.

Since you can't be right here on earth best answer with a nonsensical mystery....

The meaning here is unclear since my original statement didn't come here. If your statement means what it appears to say (oh no, there I go again, having to interpret what you say), it is jibberish. If by "right" you mean "correct" (you should really be more precise), then your point is still unclear.

Wow, you've out done me...

[/B]

theophilus · 06-18-2003, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
That's two logical fallacies; shifting the burden of proof and a strawman, and your initial assertion is still unsubstantiated.

In the inductive PoE, necessary evil is defined as that which is required to fulfill the putative omnimax god's unknown purpose proposed by the unknown purpose defense. Unnecessary evil would be any evil that is not necessary to fulfill that purpose. That's the standard the arguement proposes.

For a guy who claims that God's purpose is "clearly" defined, you sure don't seem to know much about it.

There's something palpably disgusting about the implicit suggestion that babies in Afghanistan may "need" to freeze to death more than ones in Southern California.

There is no reason to assume that pain and death are good, so when you say "if they are" the burden of proof is upon you. Even if you are correct, and somehow people in Beverly Hills aren't getting their daily ration of what they should, then it's unfair to the people of Beverly Hills, and god is still not being omnibenevolent.
The theist.

I think we just spotted the problem: you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about. The PoE is about "omni."

What kind of gibberish is this?

An omni-god would.

I was going to respond to this but could find nothing of substance.

theophilus · 06-18-2003, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Metcalf
Originally posted by theophilus :

We humans are aware of greater goods all the time, so it looks as if the analogy breaks down. And parents are obligated to tell their children why they suffer.

How so? Any human standard is pure subjectivism which makes the term "higher" meaningless. By whom are parents "obligated" to tell their children anything. Is it a biological obligation? How could any filial "obligation" exist in a purely materialistic world?

Absolute goods and greater goods are not inconsistent.

They may not be inconsistent, but since you don't know either, except subjectively, what's your point?

[/b]Not if God is omnipotent.[/b]

?????

Nope. I just have to show that there's no reason to believe there is; therefore, there is no reason to believe that evil doesn't militate against theism.

Nope, since evil is a purely subjective and therefore meaningless concept for making any ultimate judgements, you can't show that it militates against a human who has a different view, let alone against God.

You must show it's probable that there is a greater purpose, because just saying it's possible won't get you anywhere.

Since probability is a meaningless term when applied to transcendent concepts, your challenge is meaningless. God does not have to "prove" himself; he is not on trial.

You are making an affirmative charge that the PoE disproves God. You must therefore prove that you have comprehensive knowledge of the existential significance of evil as well as the existence of nonexistence of the transcendent purposes (not observed materially) of God.

Thomas Metcalf · 06-18-2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by theophilus :

Quote:

By whom are parents "obligated" to tell their children anything. Is it a biological obligation? How could any filial "obligation" exist in a purely materialistic world?

It's a moral obligation, and yes, moral obligations can exist in a materialistic world. It's just that they exist in the minds of human beings.

Quote:

They may not be inconsistent, but since you don't know either, except subjectively, what's your point?

That there is such a thing as a greater good, which is a good that outweighs the badness of an evil so much that it's worth it to allow the evil. Either that, or you have to assert that goods and evils are incommensurable, which is a rather strange position to take.

These concepts have been in philosophy of religion for centuries, so it's mildly suprising to me that you're unfamiliar with them.

Quote:

Nope, since evil is a purely subjective and therefore meaningless concept for making any ultimate judgements, you can't show that it militates against a human who has a different view, let alone against God.

Whether intense suffering exists is an objective fact, and everyone agrees that it's better to prevent gratuitous suffering than to allow it. Because gratuitous suffering probably exists, God probably doesn't exist.

Quote:

Since probability is a meaningless term when applied to transcendent concepts, your challenge is meaningless. God does not have to "prove" himself; he is not on trial.

No one's asking God to prove himself. I'm asking theists to prove God, or in fact, to show us that contrary to all the evidence, it's not the case that he probably doesn't exist.

Quote:

You are making an affirmative charge that the PoE disproves God.

Nope. I'm making an affirmative charge that the PoE provides evidence against God's existence, because evil exists and God would try to prevent evil. You are free to assert that evil has a greater purpose all you want, but until you provide evidence for that proposition, I'm not entitled to accept it to any degree.

Suppose I told you that there's an elephant in the room with you. Would you believe me? Why or why not?

bd-from-kg · 06-18-2003, 08:01 PM

Thomas Metcalf:

Quote:

You mean libertarian free will?

Yes.

Quote:

And, are you familiar with David O'Connor's attempt at a logical problem of evil that bypasses FWD?

No. Or rather, I hadn�t heard of it until you mentioned it. Since then I looked at the reviews of God and Inscrutable Evil at Amazon. so I�m no longer totally unfamiliar with it. But I�m not exactly familiar with it either. Would you like to elaborate?

Quote:

My own response to FWD is that natural laws prevent much freedom of action these days anyway, so it's doubtful that a little more would cause us to cease to have significant freedom.

Assuming that one is not content to simply observe that LFW is an incoherent concept, that�s one good response. Another is that the FWD entails that in many cases God allows free will to be exercised in ways that inhibit the exercise of free will itself. For example, someone might murder, enslave, or brainwash a number of people or implant a hypnotic suggestion in their minds. In all of these cases allowing this exercise of free will diminishes free will on net balance. If God allows evil because He places a high value on free will, why would He allow it to be exercised in ways that diminish it?

There are still other problems with the FWD, but these will do for now.

Thomas Metcalf · 06-18-2003, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by bd-from-kg :

Quote:

Would you like to elaborate?

I've only very briefly skimmed it, so I can't. But there's a good review in Religious Studies. I can look for the citation if you want.

Dr Rick · 06-18-2003, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
Since probability is a meaningless term when applied to transcendent concepts, your challenge is meaningless.

Pascal would likely not agree with this assertion, and absent any explanation and substantiation, there's no reason any rational person should.

This is no better than arguing that gods must exist simply because it's not impossible for them to exist.

An improbable god is still improbable, "transcendent" or otherwise.

Tyler Durden · 06-19-2003, 12:57 AM

Why did you avoid responding to Dr Rick's post? I found it to be rife with substance worth making comments about, even if most of them may be false. Please do not cheat your audience with a hand wave.

06-19-2003, 12:57 AM	#60
Tyler Durden Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: I am Jack's ID Posts: 592	O Theo! Why did you avoid responding to Dr Rick's post? I found it to be rife with substance worth making comments about, even if most of them may be false. Please do not cheat your audience with a hand wave.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.