Evidence

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant when you are the one that brought up the problem of evil?

You've certainly tried, but if we roll back the thread, your "reasons" were unacceptable and ad hoc. If it is possible that a MGB exist necessarily, then by the same token it is possible that a slightly less than MGB exist necessarily.

I would like a direct response to the reasons I DID give. So far, you've got nothing.

Because omniscience and omnipotence are distinct.

Not if omnipotence is defined as "the ability to do anything that is logically possible".

That's fine, it doesn't need to. All it needs to be is possibly necessary, like the MGB, which it is- or if it isn't, you've yet to provide any convincing reasons why it isn't.

If an alleged omnipotent being cannot do everything that is logically possible, why am I to believe that it is omnipotent? That IS a convincing reason why it can't be omnipotent. Remember, that is your postulation, not mines

Irrelevant.

Oh it is relevant. If it is not omnipotent, why am I to believe that it can create a universe from nothing?

There is no logical incoherency- no contradiction has been shown in the notion of a LGMB (as opposed to the MGB, which I showed would entail mutually exclusive- contradictory- properties)

Quit while you are behind, or better yet here...have a smoke :cigar:

It's an absolutely fatal objection to the argument- but only one of several. Perhaps if we continue at this you'll get to understand why.

Well, being the real "N-word" that I am, I must admit, when you first hit me with that objection, I was stunned. But then I had to do some serious thinking, and now the objection seems very much...baseless.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

How is it irrelevant when you are the one that brought up the problem of evil?

Whether free will is a solution to the problem of evil or not has nothing to do with what we were talking about- your claim is that omniscience and omnipotence are, at bottom, equivalent; to which I pointed out that this would make any formulations which attribute both omniscience and omnipotence to God redundant.

In any case, whether omnipotence/omniscience can be separated is also irrelevant, all that matters is that, IF it is possible to conceive of a maximally great being, a being which is maximally great in every respect, THEN it is also possible to conceive of a being which is very nearly maximally great in every respect, but not quite.

From there the argument proceeds along the same lines for the LMGB that it does for the MGB.

I would like a direct response to the reasons I DID give. So far, you've got nothing.

Why? Just for ***** and giggles? This thread has been wandering off-topic frequently enough as is, without us deliberately forcing it astray... And as I said, your reasons were abitrary, ad hoc, and thus illegitimate; you are trying to implement a double-standard so that you can rule out a LGMB but not a MGB. But, as I warned you before, you simply cannot have your cake and eat it too; as far as your argument goes, everything which applies to the MGB applies to the LGMB (for good or ill).

Not if omnipotence is defined as "the ability to do anything that is logically possible".

Doesn't matter; omnipotence would consist in a capacity to have all knowledge (since having all knowledge would be a possible state of affairs which omnipotence could enact)- the potential or possibility of all knowledge- whereas omniscience consists in the actual state of possessing all knowledge.

Thus, the two are distinct, even though, as noted above, this ultimately makes no difference to the LGMB argument.

If an alleged omnipotent being cannot do everything that is logically possible, why am I to believe that it is omnipotent? That IS a convincing reason why it can't be omnipotent. Remember, that is your postulation, not mines

You need something stronger than a "convincing reason". You need to show there is a logical contradiction. You have not done so.

(and, as it happens, you're wrong here anyways since the LGMB needn't be fully omnipotent, just very, very, powerful; i.e. slightly less than maximally great)

Oh it is relevant. If it is not omnipotent, why am I to believe that it can create a universe from nothing?

Creating a universe from nothing is not a premise in the Modal Ontological Argument, which is what we're talking about, which is why this is irrelevant. Follow?

Quit while you are behind, or better yet here...have a smoke :cigar:

Oh dear, you think you're ahead... That just further speaks to how far out of your depth you are here.

Well, being the real "N-word" that I am, I must admit, when you first hit me with that objection, I was stunned. But then I had to do some serious thinking, and now the objection seems very much...baseless.

Your initial reaction was correct. The objection is fatal for the argument. But there are other fatal problems facing the MOA as well, so its screwed either way.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Whether free will is a solution to the problem of evil or not has nothing to do with what we were talking about- your claim is that omniscience and omnipotence are, at bottom, equivalent; to which I pointed out that this would make any formulations which attribute both omniscience and omnipotence to God redundant.

Ok, call it redundant...so what? That is hardly a refutation of the argument.

In any case, whether omnipotence/omniscience can be separated is also irrelevant

I agree, it is irrelevant...and I find it amazing that you are calling things irrelevant that you brought up in the first place. If it is irrelevant now it was irrelevant when you first mentioned it.

, all that matters is that, IF it is possible to conceive of a maximally great being, a being which is maximally great in every respect, THEN it is also possible to conceive of a being which is very nearly maximally great in every respect, but not quite.

I very much disagree. I cannot conceive of a being that is said to be omnipotent but unable to do something that is logically possible. In fact, it can't happen, otherwise such a being is not so omnipotent after all.

From there the argument proceeds along the same lines for the LMGB that it does for the MGB.

No it doesn't, because the concept of a MGB doesn't have competing attributes. There is no logical incoherency based on the concept of a MGB. But there IS a logical incoherency with the LMGB. And there is no way out of it either.

Why? Just for ***** and giggles? This thread has been wandering off-topic frequently enough as is, without us deliberately forcing it astray... And as I said, your reasons were abitrary, ad hoc, and thus illegitimate; you are trying to implement a double-standard so that you can rule out a LGMB but not a MGB. But, as I warned you before, you simply cannot have your cake and eat it too; as far as your argument goes, everything which applies to the MGB applies to the LGMB (for good or ill).

Notice that throughout our exchanges I have stated that unless someone can find a logical incoherency based on the concept of a MGB, such a beings existence must be possible. You never did such a thing, all you did was try to show a parralle between some postulated LGMB and a MGB...I have demonstrated why a LGMB WOULDN'T work due to logical flaws based on the concept of a LGMB, which would make such a being UNNESSARRY. Instead of directly responding to this, you just simply dismiss it by calling it arbitrary and ac hoc, whle STILL not demonstrating why the concept of a MGB is logically absurd. I think I offered a legitimate response to your concept, but you didn't do the same with mines, which leads me to conclude that you won't, because you can't.

Doesn't matter; omnipotence would consist in a capacity to have all knowledge (since having all knowledge would be a possible state of affairs which omnipotence could enact)- the potential or possibility of all knowledge- whereas omniscience consists in the actual state of possessing all knowledge.

Thus, the two are distinct, even though, as noted above, this ultimately makes no difference to the LGMB argument.

It doesn't matter whether they are distinct or whether they are joint, the fact of the matter is if there is at least one thing that omnipotent being can't do that is logically coherent, then such a being cannot be omnipotent. This is not just me saying it, it is based on the mere definition of omnipotent. That is the price of omnipotence, you have to be able to do all logically possible things. There is no such thing as “I can't do X” when it comes to omnipotence (as long as it is logically coherent). And there is nothing illogical about a omnipotent being able to possess all-knowledge.

You need something stronger than a "convincing reason". You need to show there is a logical contradiction. You have not done so.

I did, and a very elaborate reason at that. Your only response is “they are distinct”, which doesn't even matter in face of the argument. The argument (or my response to your concept) is independent of whether or not the two attributes are distinct or joint....the argument is based on the mere concept of a term/attribute........omnipotence.

(and, as it happens, you're wrong here anyways since the LGMB needn't be fully omnipotent, just very, very, powerful; i.e. slightly less than maximally great)

The problem with that is you already said that this LGMB possess all omni's except omniscience. To late to back out now.

Creating a universe from nothing is not a premise in the Modal Ontological Argument, which is what we're talking about, which is why this is irrelevant. Follow?

Right, creating a universe from nothing is not a premise in the MOA, but the MOA is based on the concept of a MGB, which would possess the power to create a universe from nothing. The point was to be able to show that the argument is in light of the observational evidence in cosmology, which is that the universe began to exist, and its existence could not have been from a natural entity. Only a omnipotent being can create a universe from nothing....and I will tell you like I told cot, this harmonizes with the kalam argument beautifully.

Your initial reaction was correct. The objection is fatal for the argument. But there are other fatal problems facing the MOA as well, so its screwed either way.

Yeah, and what are these other fatal problems?

 

[Thief]

false and it is not even comprehensible to reality :slap:

And reality requires a photo, a fingerprint, an equation or an experimental result?

Some much for what goes on in your head.
No such thing there right?

Or do you believe your thoughts to be tangible?

 

[cottage]

No one said a world without evil was impossible, what do you think heaven will be all about? I am saying it is impossible to have a world rid of evil if you have people that exercise their free will. You can't gaurantee people will make the right choices 100% of the time..

That argument falls down immediately. Death and disease come to all. Suffering is universal and indiscriminate, regardless of our making any ‘right choices’.

Evil is nothing but the lack of holiness. In order for humans to have free will, that is the freedom to act in holy-like manners.....and the freedom to act in evil-like manners. There is a necessity for evil if free will is part of the package deal.

The notion of an omnipotent, infinite, perfect and all-loving being that punishes his finite, imperfect creation for their created faults is an absurdity that stands on its own. But when the Free Will Defence is introduced, the apologetic compounds what is already illogical, since it wants to say that it is better for an omni-benevolent God not to be omni-benevolent than for humans not be able to choose evil, which is to inform us that being able to suffer and to inflict suffering is of a greater moral worth than having that ability withdrawn or made impossible. Aside from the obvious contradiction, that argument is misleading since it assumes that free will must necessarily imply the existence of evil. It does not! (I have a separate argument to that effect). So once again we need a timely reminder that if God exists then nothing exists but what God brings into being. And of course it cannot be said that free will necessarily implies evil, because that presumes to dictate the nature of creation, which is contradictory if God is the omnipotent creator. If free will does include evil then it can only be because the omnipotent Creator makes it so and not because it is logically necessary.

 

[cottage]

Right, creating a universe from nothing is not a premise in the MOA, but the MOA is based on the concept of a MGB, which would possess the power to create a universe from nothing. The point was to be able to show that the argument is in light of the observational evidence in cosmology, which is that the universe began to exist, and its existence could not have been from a natural entity. Only a omnipotent being can create a universe from nothing....and I will tell you like I told cot, this harmonizes with the kalam argument beautifully.

Can you not see what is wrong here? The two arguments are fighting one another and never the twain shall meet. The modal argument insists that there is a necessary being, and the cosmological argument in all of its strands is founded in contingent being. The only way to bring the two things together is to show that cause is necessary, but which can’t be done because cause is contingent. In sum there is no necessary connection between a mere concept, as a putative object, and the actually existing object.

 

[Ouroboros]

Something is wrong with the idea that free will and evil must go hand in hand. The devil was supposedly in heaven, a world of no evil, and he had a choice (free will) to do "evil" and revolt. So obviously even the Bible acknowledges that free will can exist without evil (to begin with).

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Ok, call it redundant...so what? That is hardly a refutation of the argument.

It seems you're having a hard time following the discussion; I never said anything about "refuting the argument"- the point is that omniscience and omnipotent are distinct concepts.

I very much disagree. I cannot conceive of a being that is said to be omnipotent but unable to do something that is logically possible. In fact, it can't happen, otherwise such a being is not so omnipotent after all.

Nobody said the being was omnipotent. The being is slightly less than maximally great. That's all.

No it doesn't, because the concept of a MGB doesn't have competing attributes. There is no logical incoherency based on the concept of a MGB.

Actually there is, as we've already coverd (the whole maximal frugality vs. maximal generosity, maximal prudence vs. maximal courage and so on). But we'll bracket that, if only for the sake of discussion.

But there IS a logical incoherency with the LMGB. And there is no way out of it either.

Hmm, apparently you're referring to the strawman you've constructed, i.e. that the LMGB would have to be maximally powerful. Only, it isn't; in fact, ex hypothesi, it is slightly less than maximally great/powerful/etc.

What part of that don't you understand?

...I have stated that unless someone can find a logical incoherency based on the concept of a MGB, such a beings existence must be possible.

And by the same token, unless someone can find a "logical incoherency" (i.e. a contradiction) in the concept of a LGMB, its existence is possible as well. And no one has done so. (and no, your strawman does not count, obviously)

Like I said, the arguments for the MGB and the LGMB stand or fall together, because its the exact same argument.

I have demonstrated why a LGMB WOULDN'T work due to logical flaws based on the concept of a LGMB, which would make such a being UNNESSARRY. Instead of directly responding to this, you just simply dismiss it by calling it arbitrary and ac hoc

Because it was ad hoc... Duh! You can't pull a switch-aroo on a definition in a formal argument, halfway through the argument because you don't like the implication of your original definition (which is what you tried to do).

It doesn't matter whether they are distinct or whether they are joint, the fact of the matter is if there is at least one thing that omnipotent being can't do that is logically coherent, then such a being cannot be omnipotent. This is not just me saying it, it is based on the mere definition of omnipotent. That is the price of omnipotence, you have to be able to do all logically possible things. There is no such thing as “I can't do X” when it comes to omnipotence (as long as it is logically coherent). And there is nothing illogical about a omnipotent being able to possess all-knowledge.

Since the LGMB is not even purported to be omnipotent, this is completely off-topic.

I did, and a very elaborate reason at that.

But not a contradiction. Which is what is required. You could have a million elaborate reasons, but if one of them isn't a contradiction then you may as well have none.

The problem with that is you already said that this LGMB possess all omni's except omniscience. To late to back out now.

Actually it isn't- that's the great thing about LGMB's; they're imaginary, so we can make them up as we go along. So now I want to talk about an imaginary LGMB named "Gobbledeegook", which is slightly less than maximally great in every respect. And he's great at fuseball. And he had 16 heads. Now, since there is no contradiction in the concept of Gobbledeegook, it is POSSIBLE that Gobbledeegook exists... And we follow the steps of the MOA, and lo! and behold we've proved that Gobbledeegook exists necessarily.

Fun stuff.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It seems you're having a hard time following the discussion; I never said anything about "refuting the argument"- the point is that omniscience and omnipotent are distinct concepts.

Well, that’s what happens when you bring up irrelevant things like the problem of evil.

Nobody said the being was omnipotent. The being is slightly less than maximally great. That's all.

Once again, you said the being possesses all omni’s EXCEPT omniscience, which would imply the being is omnipotent. Keep denying this and I will be forced to give you the exact quote of what you said hahaha. Don’t make me do it. I don’t want to do it but if I have to, I will. I will call this “Strike 1”.

Actually there is, as we've already coverd (the whole maximal frugality vs. maximal generosity, maximal prudence vs. maximal courage and so on). But we'll bracket that, if only for the sake of discussion.

And I’ve already given reasons why that wouldn’t work.

Hmm, apparently you're referring to the strawman you've constructed, i.e. that the LMGB would have to be maximally powerful. Only, it isn't; in fact, ex hypothesi, it is slightly less than maximally great/powerful/etc.

What part of that don't you understand?

And again, you’ve already stated that this being possesses all omni’s EXCEPT omniscience, which would mean that this being is in fact omnipotent. Strike 2.

And by the same token, unless someone can find a "logical incoherency" (i.e. a contradiction) in the concept of a LGMB, its existence is possible as well. And no one has done so. (and no, your strawman does not count, obviously)

First off, it isn’t a strawman because I said it based on what you said as you were “defining” a LGMB. I understand the fact you now realize the concept of such a being is logically absurd and now you have to find a way out of the absurdity by backtracking on what you said. It is fun to watch, actually.

Like I said, the arguments for the MGB and the LGMB stand or fall together, because its the exact same argument.

So if this being is less than maximally great, its presence is less than maximally great, which means that there are possible worlds at which such a being doesn’t exist. That would make such a being unnecessary. The concept is self refuting.

Because it was ad hoc... Duh! You can't pull a switch-aroo on a definition in a formal argument, halfway through the argument because you don't like the implication of your original definition (which is what you tried to do).

My argument has been consistent from jump street. Enlighten me on a “switch-aroo” I pulled on a definition.

Ahhh yes. Strike 3. I hate that it had to come to this, I really do.

Now, in post #562, you said:

my slightly less than maximally great being is maximally great in every respect except it lacks maximalknowledge- therefore, its presence is maximally great.

Take special interest in the part of the text that is in bold and slightly bigger than the rest. That is what you originally said…so you went from saying that to saying this…

Nobody said the being was omnipotent. The being is slightly less than maximally great. That's all.

Tsk tsk tsk

Since the LGMB is not even purported to be omnipotent, this is completely off-topic.

In light of exhibit A and B, the above quote is a non-factor. So why am I responding to it? I don’t know…I don’t even know why I am continuing to type this while I am acknowledging the fact that I shouldn’t be typing.

But not a contradiction. Which is what is required. You could have a million elaborate reasons, but if one of them isn't a contradiction then you may as well have none.

It is a contradiction, so much of a contradiction that you are now contradicting yourself, as evident. And if it was so logically valid as you claim it is, there would be no contradiction, because the truth doesn’t contradict itself.

Actually it isn't- that's the great thing about LGMB's; they're imaginary, so we can make them up as we go along. So now I want to talk about an imaginary LGMB named "Gobbledeegook", which is slightly less than maximally great in every respect. And he's great at fuseball. And he had 16 heads. Now, since there is no contradiction in the concept of Gobbledeegook, it is POSSIBLE that Gobbledeegook exists... And we follow the steps of the MOA, and lo! and behold we've proved that Gobbledeegook exists necessarily.

Fun stuff.

My name ain’t Chuckie, so why should I get involved in this “Child’s Play”?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Can you not see what is wrong here? The two arguments are fighting one another and never the twain shall meet. The modal argument insists that there is a necessary being

Not only a necessary being, but a necessary being which possess the attribute of OMNIPOTENCE.

and the cosmological argument in all of its strands is founded in contingent being. The only way to bring the two things together is to show that cause is necessary, but which can’t be done because cause is contingent. In sum there is no necessary connection between a mere concept, as a putative object, and the actually existing object.

I don’t quite get where you are going with that, BUT I will say that the kalam cosmological argument states that the universe had a beginning and once you break down what it means to give a universe a beginning from NOTHING, you will draw the conclusion that only an OMNIPOTENT being can create a universe from nothing. If you can’t see the correlation between the two then I don’t know what to tell you.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That argument falls down immediately. Death and disease come to all. Suffering is universal and indiscriminate, regardless of our making any ‘right choices’.

Do you know for certain whether or not God may have morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering? You are basically saying “God doesn’t have any morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering”, which is a claim of knowledge, knowledge that you don’t have and leading you to a conclusion that isn’t warranted or supported.

The notion of an omnipotent, infinite, perfect and all-loving being that punishes his finite, imperfect creation for their created faults is an absurdity that stands on its own.

So if we, finite humans, can punish our own imperfect children for their actions, why can’t God punish his imperfect creation for their actions?

But when the Free Will Defence is introduced, the apologetic compounds what is already illogical, since it wants to say that it is better for an omni-benevolent God not to be omni-benevolent than for humans not be able to choose evil, which is to inform us that being able to suffer and to inflict suffering is of a greater moral worth than having that ability withdrawn or made impossible. Aside from the obvious contradiction, that argument is misleading since it assumes that free will must necessarily imply the existence of evil. It does not! (I have a separate argument to that effect). So once again we need a timely reminder that if God exists then nothing exists but what God brings into being. And of course it cannot be said that free will necessarily implies evil, because that presumes to dictate the nature of creation, which is contradictory if God is the omnipotent creator. If free will does include evil then it can only be because the omnipotent Creator makes it so and not because it is logically necessary.

So if I am a omnibenevolent being and also possess all-power and knowledge, and I have a child and my child has free will to make whatever decision he/she wants to make…and give my child some rules to abide by within the household, can I guarantee that my child will make the right choices all the time??? NO. And aside from that, sometimes pain and suffering can draw us closer to God. Maybe people have testified that their relationship with God has gotten better due to the trials and tribulations of life. If God knows that a person will get closer to him if and only if that person is going to suffer a hardship, then God may put that person through that hardship in order to achieve a higher goal, and that is a closer relationship with him. The minor hardship will soon come to past, but the relationship with God will last forever.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Once again, you said the being possesses all omni’s EXCEPT omniscience, which would imply the being is omnipotent. Keep denying this and I will be forced to give you the exact quote of what you said hahaha. Don’t make me do it. I don’t want to do it but if I have to, I will. I will call this “Strike 1”.

Oh dear, you're grasping at straws now. What you're failing to realize is that the properties of any particular less than maximally great necessary being are whatever we happen to stipulate.

And again, you’ve already stated that this being possesses all omni’s EXCEPT omniscience, which would mean that this being is in fact omnipotent. Strike 2.

Again, as above, there isn't some ONE thing that is THE less than maximally great necessary being- there are an infinite number of possible such beings, since they are entirely imaginary (and of course, their being imaginary is why the fact that the MOA proves they really exist is a problem)... As I said before, we can make them up as we go along. So since you're having such a hard time with the maximally great but not maximally knowledgable LMGNB, I said we should just move on to one that is easier for you to grasp. Again, since there are an infinite number of such beings we could make up.

Please tell me you're about to understand this, because I don't know how many more times I can repeat it.

First off, it isn’t a strawman because I said it based on what you said as you were “defining” a LGMB.

A particular LGMB, of an infinite number. There is no rule preventing us from talking about a different one.

I understand the fact you now realize the concept of such a being is logically absurd and now you have to find a way out of the absurdity by backtracking on what you said. It is fun to watch, actually.

Ah, so rather than actually show the logical absurdity, you're going to claim that I secretly know it is logically absurd. That's cute. Unfortunately, this tactic won't work in a discussion- if you can't say what the logically absurdity consists in, it does not exist for the purposes of our discussion. (and since there's no reason to suppose there IS any contradiction, I won't be holding my breath for you to ever produce one)

My argument has been consistent from jump street. Enlighten me on a “switch-aroo” I pulled on a definition.

We've already covered this.

In light of exhibit A and B, the above quote is a non-factor.

Think again.

It is a contradiction, so much of a contradiction that you are now contradicting yourself, as evident. And if it was so logically valid as you claim it is, there would be no contradiction, because the truth doesn’t contradict itself.

LOL... Spit it out already junior...

My name ain’t Chuckie, so why should I get involved in this “Child’s Play”?

I have no idea; I'm exhorting to step up to an adult-level discussion of the MOA, but you seem entirely unwilling. I'm nothing if not patient, however. But since your last post was premised upon a strawman, you're slipping further and further behind the curve.

 

[cottage]

Do you know for certain whether or not God may have morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering? You are basically saying “God doesn’t have any morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering”, which is a claim of knowledge, knowledge that you don’t have and leading you to a conclusion that isn’t warranted or supported.

But that’s the argument from ignorance once again.
What we can certainly say about suffering is that it is cruel. Now there is nothing contradictory in a Supreme Being making people suffer or being the author of wretchedness and misery for whatever reason; for the reason, that is to say the justification, is quite beside the point. The contradiction is where suffering takes place in the face of an all benevolent God. There is either suffering or there is no suffering, and there is either an all benevolent God or there is not. If you accept there is suffering then you must logically accept the conclusion, which is that God is less than all benevolent.

So if we, finite humans, can punish our own imperfect children for their actions, why can’t God punish his imperfect creation for their actions?

It seems that he does, according to your arguments. For by your own admission he is a poor workman, whose very own creation is able to challenge and defy him. And the free will defence is farcical for we have a supposedly omniscient being that punishes his creation for transgressions that he knew would occur. And worse still he punishes the innocent, too! Human imperfection doesn’t present a logical problem and cannot be used to justify evil in the world; the distinction is seen in ‘John Smith is a murderer’ and God is a murderer’. John Smith can be benevolent towards his fellow men, or he can do evil, but if God the Creator is all benevolent then he cannot be sometimes all benevolent or never all benevolent.

So if I am a omnibenevolent being and also possess all-power and knowledge, and I have a child and my child has free will to make whatever decision he/she wants to make…and give my child some rules to abide by within the household, can I guarantee that my child will make the right choices all the time??? NO.

Indeed no! But what wrong choices has eighteen-month infant done to deserve being punished with cancer?
Suffering is a feature of our world and parents have no option but to deal with it the best they can. The parents brought about the existence of the child via God and the parents themselves were caused by God and are essentially no different from their offspring in that respect. They too are finite, temporal, error-prone creatures. Therefore the parents cannot be held directly responsible for the child’s every action.But it is clearly mistaken to say an omnipotent God had no option but to create the world as we know it. For if God is the Absolutely Necessary Being then neither suffering nor the world itself exist necessarily but purely by his will alone. And if God was under no compunction to create the world then by the same argument we see that suffering is wholly unnecessary and unwarranted.

And aside from that, sometimes pain and suffering can draw us closer to God. Maybe people have testified that their relationship with God has gotten better due to the trials and tribulations of life. If God knows that a person will get closer to him if and only if that person is going to suffer a hardship, then God may put that person through that hardship in order to achieve a higher goal, and that is a closer relationship with him. The minor hardship will soon come to past, but the relationship with God will last forever.

Suffering in order to overcome suffering! I’m sorry but that is sophistical in every way.
An infant suffering with leukaemia is born innocent into the world, and the inhabitants of a village are swept away in a tsunami. Are you really saying that is the work of an omnipotent, all sufficient and benevolent God and done for beneficent purposes? In human terms minor suffering can be beneficial in order to overcome a greater suffering, and indeed life’s many tribulations can make a person stronger in some cases. But to suppose that an all sufficient being punishes his creation to facilitate or improve a relationship between them is an absurdity of the most explicit magnitude. And I’m not sure what you consider to be a ‘minor hardship’ is an entirely accurate term when there is manifestly so much extreme suffering in the world, but whatever has been in the past has still come to pass and can never be undone or removed from history. So the fact of suffering will last forever.

 

[cottage]

Not only a necessary being, but a necessary being which possess the attribute of OMNIPOTENCE.

I don’t quite get where you are going with that, BUT I will say that the kalam cosmological argument states that the universe had a beginning and once you break down what it means to give a universe a beginning from NOTHING, you will draw the conclusion that only an OMNIPOTENT being can create a universe from nothing. If you can’t see the correlation between the two then I don’t know what to tell you.

God needn’t be omnipotent but simply have just sufficient power or ability to bring the world into being. So it is false to say only an omnipotent being can create a universe from nothing. But that’s just a trivial point.

The real difficulty for the argument is God’s supposed necessity and the existence of the contingent world, which the cosmological argument mistakenly tries to connect, the one with the other. The cosmological argument infers the existence of God from what we understand as cause and effect, which is a feature of the known world. The cosmological argument argues inductively from a specific empirical phenomenon, applying it as a general principle, to conclude that other worlds (God) must be as this one in that respect. But the phenomenon of causation is a feature of the physical world and it cannot be both necessary and contingent. No contradiction is involved in denying any proposition in possible experience, to include the principle of cause and effect. The futility of the argument can be shown like this: Now if the same causal principle were a necessary and sufficient condition for bringing world’s into existence then it would be demonstrable, and thus true that the omnipotent being could not bring this world into existence without it! And so the absurdity we arrive at is that the Being’s omnipotence and creative ability is causation dependent: plainly it cannot be the former without the latter, and yet the latter (thedenial of which invites no contradiction) means that it cannot be the former!

 

[Thief]

God needn’t be omnipotent but simply have just sufficient power or ability to bring the world into being. So it is false to say only an omnipotent being can create a universe from nothing. But that’s just a trivial point.

Let's run with that part of your post.

Someone had to be First.....(Maybe we can agree on that up front)

Having created...He can then say...I AM!

No response.
The universe responds to His touch but nothing more.
It does not really 'respond'.

Who gets to be 'second'?
And will the power of creation be his as well?

I've heard God's favored angel was given the first creation.....light.
Hence the name.....Keeper of the Light.

I also hear it didn't work out so well.

Perhaps creation holds together better....when there is only one Creator.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Oh dear, you're grasping at straws now. What you're failing to realize is that the properties of any particular less than maximally great necessary being are whatever we happen to stipulate.

It is a self-contradictory concept if I’ve ever seen one. You’ve already defined what you meant by “less than maximally great”, and I’ve already pointed out why such a concept is absurd, unlike the concept of a MGB.

Again, as above, there isn't some ONE thing that is THE less than maximally great necessary being- there are an infinite number of possible such beings, since they are entirely imaginary (and of course, their being imaginary is why the fact that the MOA proves they really exist is a problem)... As I said before, we can make them up as we go along. So since you're having such a hard time with the maximally great but not maximally knowledgable LMGNB, I said we should just move on to one that is easier for you to grasp. Again, since there are an infinite number of such beings we could make up.

Once again, a self-contradictory concept. To be a necessary being is to be necessarily true in all possible worlds. Your imaginary being is not necessarily true in all possible worlds, because its presence is less than maximally great, which means its presence is not felt in all possible worlds, as you yourself admit. You can’t logically say your being is necessary if there its presence is not maximally great. The concept is internally incoherent.

Please tell me you're about to understand this, because I don't know how many more times I can repeat it.

I’ve been repeating myself over and over again from the very moment of our first exchange, so welcome to the party.

A particular LGMB, of an infinite number. There is no rule preventing us from talking about a different one.

Child’s Play.

Ah, so rather than actually show the logical absurdity, you're going to claim that I secretly know it is logically absurd. That's cute. Unfortunately, this tactic won't work in a discussion- if you can't say what the logically absurdity consists in, it does not exist for the purposes of our discussion. (and since there's no reason to suppose there IS any contradiction, I won't be holding my breath for you to ever produce one)

Well, I’ve already pointed out the blatant CONTRADICTION in what you said. You contradicted yourself for one of the following reasons…

1. You changed the concept because you knew it was absurd without realizing it would contradict what you previously said.

2. You simply forgot what position you previously held

3. You are making it up as you go along and not caring about a contradiction or otherwise.

I don’t know which one is true, and I refuse to sit here and try to figure it out. All I know is one truth statement doesn’t contradict another truth statement if it is so “true”.

We've already covered this.

Then I must of missed it.

Think again.
LOL... Spit it out already junior...

The evidence is within the same post you just responded too.

I have no idea; I'm exhorting to step up to an adult-level discussion of the MOA, but you seem entirely unwilling. I'm nothing if not patient, however. But since your last post was premised upon a strawman, you're slipping further and further behind the curve.

Hahahaha it’s been a pleasure, my friend. You’ve done your best. Now it is time to let your spirit loose…

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It is a self-contradictory concept if I’ve ever seen one.

Except you have failed to state the contradiction yet. Not sure why you're playing coy.

Once again, a self-contradictory concept.

Again, referring to facts not in evidence.

Your imaginary being is not necessarily true in all possible worlds, because its presence is less than maximally great, which means its presence is not felt in all possible worlds, as you yourself admit.

Show me which post I said that- don't put words in my mouth. Sure, some less than maximally great beings will have less than maximally great presence- and won't be necessary. But other less than maximally great beings have maximally great presence- and so exist in all possible worlds- but are less than maximally great in some other respect- not maximally knowledgeable, or not maximally good, for instance.

Well, I’ve already pointed out the blatant CONTRADICTION in what you said. You contradicted yourself for one of the following reasons…

1. You changed the concept because you knew it was absurd without realizing it would contradict what you previously said.

No. You've misunderstood this aspect of the argument, and are deliberately persisting in this ignorance so that you can fight a strawman (presumably because you're unable to address my argument).

Again, since apparently you failed to grasp it after I said it about 5 times in my last post, I have to reiterate once more that I'm not committed to any one particular (imaginary) less than maximally great being. Since you were confused about the omnipotence bit, I decided to let that one be and talk about a LGMB that you can understand. This is not "changing the concept"- as I said, there are an infinite number of LGMB's that we can make up. I'm not committed to any particular one.

And the fact that the MOA allows us to prove the existence of such an arbitrarily infinite number of imaginary beings is one reason it is such a terrible argument. (in addition to being logically invalid in all modal systems weaker than S5, and having several premises which are false or nonsensical)

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Except you have failed to state the contradiction yet. Not sure why you're playing coy.

Again, referring to facts not in evidence.

Show me which post I said that- don't put words in my mouth. Sure, some less than maximally great beings will have less than maximally great presence- and won't be necessary. But other less than maximally great beings have maximally great presence- and so exist in all possible worlds- but are less than maximally great in some other respect- not maximally knowledgeable, or not maximally good, for instance.

No. You've misunderstood this aspect of the argument, and are deliberately persisting in this ignorance so that you can fight a strawman (presumably because you're unable to address my argument).

Again, since apparently you failed to grasp it after I said it about 5 times in my last post, I have to reiterate once more that I'm not committed to any one particular (imaginary) less than maximally great being. Since you were confused about the omnipotence bit, I decided to let that one be and talk about a LGMB that you can understand. This is not "changing the concept"- as I said, there are an infinite number of LGMB's that we can make up. I'm not committed to any particular one.

And the fact that the MOA allows us to prove the existence of such an arbitrarily infinite number of imaginary beings is one reason it is such a terrible argument. (in addition to being logically invalid in all modal systems weaker than S5, and having several premises which are false or nonsensical)

And with that said, I will leave you to your absurdities :yes:

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And with that said, I will leave you to your absurdities :yes:

Translation: Now I will tuck tail and run.

 

[adi2d]

Page after page of posts. Could someone post some evidence?