rainbow walking

Jen: It may be my opinion that a benevolent god would have never created man in the first place in order to avoid suffering. That does not conflict with any laws of logic. It doesn't even conflict with any physical laws.

rw: That is a logical possibility but not one sustains PoE. Without man, who’d argue the point?

Jen: I still don't see how a reality in which there is no evil automatically means no free will. That's what a freewill defense against the PoE must show.

rw: It’s my opinion that without evil, good could never obtain. Even if it did, man wouldn’t be able to recognize it as the good. Good must have an anti-thesis in order to be defined as the good. No anti-thesis, nothing to determine the normative value of a choice. No values, creativity, passion or drama. Nothing but a dull, lifeless existence as a simpleton. I posted an “Amended FWD” that actually argues these points, in case you’re interested.

rem

RW,

1) If mean dictator 'Foo' existed, then he would order all political dissenters beheaded.

2) Foo's intelligence agency 'BAR' is omnicient and has information on all political dissenters.

3) In mean dictator Foo's country there can be no living dissenters (at least not for long and absolutely no active, public dissent as seen in the USA)

4) Dissent exists.

5) Therefore Foo does not exist.

I never became a subject of Foo by making that argument. I can imagine a world and describe it logically without contradicting myself in the real world.

1) We live in the real world (Z).

2) If we lived in an imaginary 'altered state' (Y) where, for the sake of argument, an omnimax god exists then evil could not exist in that world (Y).

3) Evil does exist in this world (Z)

4) Therefore an omnimax god does not exist in the real world (Z).

I never became a theist by positing an imaginary world with an imaginary god (at most I became an Imaginary Theist). Even if I had I could have been there (Y) for just a short time, made observations and come back to the real world (Z). The observations do not match, therefore the argument is sound.

I can only assume you are being intentionally obtuse. You are playing games with semantics because you know the logic is irrefutable.

Doesn't this then describe god? He apparently doesn't have the free will to do absolutely anything he wants. Many Christians say that god is incapable of doing evil. Why is it ok for God and not men?

rem

Dr Rick

RW; neither your opinion nor mine is a logical reason unless it is substantiated. Without a logical reason, there is no logical reason to accept either your opinion or mine as a premise.

So what? Nothing in the PoE requires such recognition by man.

That's an assertion begging substantiation. Furthermore, even if we were to accept your assertion without question, in your argument god could be the holder of the antithesis; an ooog would do as much.

Rick

rainbow walking

Very well then rem, take your imaginary victory and vamoose. In logically possible worlds you don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

Doesn't this then describe god? He apparently doesn't have the free will to do absolutely anything he wants. Many Christians say that god is incapable of doing evil. Why is it ok for God and not men?



rw: What, you can't imagine a way around that? I always thought an omnipotent god can do about anything he wants to. Oh, I forgot, that's only in cases where you get to postulate imaginary worlds to flit around between whenever it suites your fancy while posturing on about irrefutable logic.

rainbow walking

RW; neither your opinion nor mine is a logical reason unless it is substantiated. Without a logical reason, there is no logical reason to accept either your opinion or mine as a premise.


rw: Very well then, don't take my word for it. Have you got a logical argument to support a contention that good can stand alone without evil as a contrasting background?

So what? Nothing in the PoE requires such recognition by man.


rw: How then did PoE reason from evil? How did anyone recognize evil? How did you?

That's an assertion begging substantiation. Furthermore, even if we were to accept your assertion without question, in your argument god could be the holder of the antithesis; an ooog would do as much.


rw: So you're appealing to a logical contradiction as an argument? How can an omnibenevolent god be all evil, the anti-thesis of good?

Dr Rick

Only those things that are logically impossible are logically impossible. Everything else is logically possible

There is no logical reason that evil must contrast good; therefore, it is logically possible that good can stand alone without evil as a contrasting background unless it is logically proven that good cannot stand stand alone without evil as a contrasting background.

I recognize evil in part because it exists; I might otherwise not if it didn't. On the other hand, an omniscient god would recognize evil or else he would not know it. If a god did not know evil, then he would not be omniscient.

Yes, that is the PoE argument.

huh?

Rick

rem

Imaginary victory? I don't seem to remember any refutation. All I keep seeing is the same broken record non-argument over and over again with absolutely no logical backing. If you have a point to make, then make it, otherwise you are just wasting everybody's time. I do like that word, vamoose, though.
You've never explained why being able to imagine a logically possible world is 'having your cake and eating it too'. If you can clearly articulate the issue I'm willing to learn, but I haven't heard anything coming close to a coherent argument from you yet.
Now look who wants to have their cake and eat it! Christians routinely claim that their Omnipotent, Omnicient, Omnibenevolent god is only capable of doing good. This is obviously limiting to the alleged Christian God's free will, and yet nobody objects that this omnimax god's will is restricted in at least this one way while out of the other side of their mouth claim that restricting man's free will would turn them into robots. Is god a robot to a Christian?

And yes, an Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent god is a logical contradiction for this and many other reasons. The PoE argument argues from the Christian perspective, ignoring this glaring logical contradiction. Yet another reason why the omnimax god cannot logically exist.
You still have not addressed why postulating an imaginary scenario is an 'obvious contradiction'. You have made many attempts, but you have failed so far.

rem

Ensign Steve

That was just one example, though, and a bad one, I concede. I haven't offered up any others, but I think the other guys have already offered up a bunch of possiblities that still have not been shown to both violate logical law and eliminate free will.

If that is the case, what existed in "Paradise" prior to man's fall from grace? I'll give you A&E were simpletons, but how does it follow that their existence would be dull and lifeless? No creativity? I think Adam came up with all kinds of neat names fore the animals before he acquired free will. If it was such a bad existence, why was it Paradise?

What exists in heaven? Is there evil in heaven? Or are saved souls doomed to a dull, lifeless existence? In either case, it doesn't sound like heaven. But one case must be true, if lack of evil necessarily entails such an existence.

What existed before god created heaven and earth? Just god? Was god good? If so, there must have been evil, since: "No anti-thesis, nothing to determine the normative value of a choice." Where did that evil come from?

Sorry, these are old questions that you may have already answered. Can you link me to the other post? I am definitely interested.

Jen

PS: If it is your opinion that without evil, good could never obtain, then you are making a subjective claim. Did you mean to be an objective claim?

rainbow walking

rem: You've never explained why being able to imagine a logically possible world is 'having your cake and eating it too'. If you can clearly articulate the issue I'm willing to learn, but I haven't heard anything coming close to a coherent argument from you yet.


rw: What I've shown thusfar is that PoE is arguing: If an omnimax god existed I'd be a theist. Since I'm still an atheist, obviously an omnimax god couldn't exist.

Since when did the fact that some people do not believe an omni max deity exists become a logical argument, unto itself, that such a deity therefore does not exist?

I must have missed that class...

If we do a reductio ad absurdum, it's like saying atheism is part of the evil and suffering that this omnimax god would alleviate.

From the freewill perspective it shows that the atheist has freewill. So am I to deduce from this that the atheist would prefer to be a freewilless theist for such a world to obtain? Since obviously, were such a world to obtain, choosing to be an atheist could not.

If you're satisfied with that as an argument to justify your atheism far be it for me to rain on your parade. PoE still fails to obtain.

I've tried to show the logical connection to this being a contradiction inherent in PoE, but I've been labeled obtuse for my efforts. (shrug) You can't say I didn't warn you.


Now look who wants to have their cake and eat it! Christians routinely claim that their Omnipotent, Omnicient, Omnibenevolent god is only capable of doing good. This is obviously limiting to the alleged Christian God's free will, and yet nobody objects that this omnimax god's will is restricted in at least this one way while out of the other side of their mouth claim that restricting man's free will would turn them into robots. Is god a robot to a Christian?



rw: That's not my argument. My argument is that if you inculcate a god's omni-attributes to eliminate evil as an option you turn man into a simpleton and a congenital dependent on god. Being omni max is considerably more than just being a free moral agent.
I hold that an intervening deity would prohibit man from self determination, that if said deity were genuinely omnibenevolent this would best be expressed by allowing man self determination; that self determination cannot reach its fullest potential when a field of choices are removed from his access; and that an omniscient being would know better, by virtue of his omniscience, how to facilitate man's fullest potential than the man arguing for this beings intervention. PoE fails to obtain.


For a complete argumentation of my position go here:http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=45676

rainbow walking

Hi Jen,

Here's the link: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=45676