Your biggest intellectual compromise for faith

[Magic Man]

again this is something ive already covered, just needlessly asking questions does not forward the conversation. he didnt eradicate it then because then he would have been eradicating us remeber he is good and at that stage we were underneath judgement just as much as everything else, he posponed it to give us the choice to come back to him.

First, he wouldn't necessarily be eradicating us. Second, if he's going to do it anyway at some point, why not just do it then? Is he going to wait until all humans are dead to make sure that everyone gets a chance to come back to him? Isn't he supposed to eradicate evil on Judgement Day, meaning we'll all be judged and then he'll eradicate evil? That would seem to make the decision to postpone it setting an arbitrary time frame.

im sorry thats probably my bad, i was using religious language, when we say he withdrew himself from the world we dont mean he went up and left, rather we mean in your terms "gave us space" im sorry for the crazy christian language

No problem.

well even if you made him, who is to say he wouldnt do the same again?

I would be to say. If I had God's power, I would say he wouldn't do the same again.

ultiamtely they must choose to make the change.

Only because that's the way he created us. He could have created us differently.

yes i never made the statement and its a silly response, im sorry it just is, you can be omniscient and not good omnibenelivent and not good, omnipotent and not good.

I'm not sure what you're not understanding here. You never said he was just good, and you never said he wasn't just good. You implied that he wasn't just good. You can be omnipotent and not be good, which is kind of the point. Either God is not omnipotent or he is not "just good".

he is I have never once rejected that.

Yes, you did. You said if he was just good, he would have eradicated evil at the fall. He didn't eradicate evil at the fall, therefore he would not be just good. I'm just going by what you said. But I didn't think you really believe that he's not just good, which is why I was trying to clarify.

it may be a good quality to us (kind need it) but you dont need to be merciful to be good, at least as far as i understand it.

How can you be good without being merciful?

I dont know either that doesnt mean its illogical just that I dont know.

Actually it does mean it's illogical. That's why I'm trying to find a logical explanation, but there is none.

but if you wanted me to speciulate, Id say is personhood, he desired us to matter and have relevance remeber you arnt his pet, he wants you to stand next to him and be his friend. thats called giving someone dignitity. IMHO.

That's called being cruel and unimaginative, in my opinion. Why not make us matter and have relevance and stand by his side while not having to go through suffering?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Boy this thread is going 90miles an hour

True dat!

 

[Magic Man]

You realize that you appeal to objective morality right in this statement, don't you?

Actually, I don't. All I said was we can agree that certain things are suffering and pain. All we need to agree on is that it's a bad thing to let your children suffer, if there's something you can do about it.

However, there is an objective morality.

I'm not sure it is. I don't think that Divine Command Morality is particularily useful, but I don't see how it violates any rules of logic.

And you're getting into another spot where you need to make a positive claim (and therefore take on the burden of proof) to get anywhere: to show that Divine Command Morality poses a logical problem, you would need to show that it's contradictory: i.e. that it calls objectively bad things "good" or vice versa. In order to do this validly, you first have to establish that some other, proper standard for objective morality exists.

We use the words "good" and "bad" to mean certain things. Murdering a baby is not good, no matter who does it. At that point, the words lose all meaning.

 

[tarasan]

Simply saying that goodness is part of "God's nature" doesn't actually resolve the Euthyphro dilemma.

acutally youll find it does, but rather than me trying to summerise it in a paragraph and make myself look like an idiot ill give you the typical answer from a website

Stand to Reason: Euthyphro's Dilemma

sorry if this is cheating but there is evidence in this very thread that I cant explain theology very well so there you go.

 

[Beaudreaux]

But that's the thing - there's two ways of looking at it:

- as an unanswered question ("how can a good god allow evil?"). In that case, there's no positive claim, so no burden of proof on the person asking the question, but also no intellectual compromise involved in simply saying "I don't know".

- as a logical claim ("Evil is logically inconsistent with a good god"). In this case, it's phrased as a positive claim, which places the burden of proof on the person asserting it. Until the claim is demonstrated to be true (or perhaps simply likely to be true or the most reasonable conclusion), there's no intellectual dishonesty in simply dismissing the claim as unsupported.

An intellectual compromise would only occur when the problem of evil, phrased as a positive claim, is actually demonstrated. Do you think it has been demonstrated?

But look more closely at the first question. Evil is the opposite of good. To allow evil is not to be good, so the question can be reduced to "how can a good God not be a good God?". As such, it is a logical contradiction in it's purest form.

 

[tarasan]

But look more closely at the first question. Evil is the opposite of good. To allow evil is not to be good, so the question can be reduced to "how can a good God not be a good God?". As such, it is a logical contradiction in it's purest form.

well thats not strickly true lets take an example

something cannot be both black and white, this is true its logicaly impossibly for a thing to be both black and white as they are opposites

However there are ways that such illogical things can be made possible say for example it was black on one side and white on another or black and white stripes.

the same is with this situation you present, aka so long as there is a good reason or if there are other attributes of Gods that pospone the destruction of evil etc.

because you are the one making hte claim against us you have to account for all these varaible and show how they arnt true.

 

[PolyHedral]

False equivalence. It's true that it's logically impossible for a thing to be both black and white at once. This is not the same as being part-white and part-black, which is perfectly allowable.

 

[tarasan]

False equivalence. It's true that it's logically impossible for a thing to be both black and white at once. This is not the same as being part-white and part-black, which is perfectly allowable.

thats exactly what i was saying, so long as there is a god explanation that something is what it is then it isnt illogical your example is a perfect one

and thats exactly what i said!!!

did you read my entire message?

 

[Nerthus]

Well I almost gave in and was about to accept that homosexuality was wrong. Thankfully I didn't.

 

[tarasan]

Well I almost gave in and was about to accept that homosexuality was wrong. Thankfully I didn't.

ohhhh ok cool, so long as you wieghed all the evidence im glad to hear it.

 

[Nerthus]

ohhhh ok cool, so long as you wieghed all the evidence im glad to hear it.

I don't think there is any valid evidence for me to believe otherwise. But, that's a different story

 

[Beaudreaux]

well thats not strickly true lets take an example

something cannot be both black and white, this is true its logicaly impossibly for a thing to be both black and white as they are opposites

However there are ways that such illogical things can be made possible say for example it was black on one side and white on another or black and white stripes.

the same is with this situation you present, aka so long as there is a good reason or if there are other attributes of Gods that pospone the destruction of evil etc.

because you are the one making hte claim against us you have to account for all these varaible and show how they arnt true.

You have made a subtle change to the question. A better example would be, "can somethigng be black and also not black?". Whatever you define black to be, something is either it or it's not...

 

[Willamena]

something cannot be both black and white, this is true its logicaly impossibly for a thing to be both black and white as they are opposites

What if the thing in question is a zebra?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What if the thing in question is a zebra?

Then the question becomes, is it black with white stripes, white with black stripes, or magenta covered in black and white stripes?

 

[Nerthus]

Then the question becomes, is it black with white stripes, white with black stripes, or magenta covered in black and white stripes?

Or a penguin.

Not everything is always as it seems.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Or a penguin.

Not everything is always as it seems.

I don't think I've ever seen a penguin successfully pass himself off as a zebra, but, then again, I wouldn't put anything past those sneaky little ********.

 

[Nerthus]

I don't think I've ever seen a penguin successfully pass himself off as a zebra, but, then again, I wouldn't put anything past those sneaky little ********.

Oh you've missed out!!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, I don't. All I said was we can agree that certain things are suffering and pain. All we need to agree on is that it's a bad thing to let your children suffer, if there's something you can do about it.

Oh, I agree. I think that it is awful to let one's children suffer. However, I think that the basis for this lies in our shared human experience, and as such is limited.

However, there is an objective morality.

Fine if you think so, but with this statement, you take on the burden of proof.

We use the words "good" and "bad" to mean certain things. Murdering a baby is not good, no matter who does it. At that point, the words lose all meaning.

If the terms "murdering" or "baby" don't have objective meanings, then phrase "murdering a baby is not good" can't have an objective meaning either. If that's the case, then it can't be objectively true.

acutally youll find it does, but rather than me trying to summerise it in a paragraph and make myself look like an idiot ill give you the typical answer from a website

Stand to Reason: Euthyphro's Dilemma

sorry if this is cheating but there is evidence in this very thread that I cant explain theology very well so there you go.

Still doesn't solve the problem. How do you evaluate the phrase "God's nature is good"? If it's against an external standard, then morality isn't rooted in God. If it's against a standard that's internal to God, then it still has the problem that it could be anything - it's completely arbitrary.

I think that in appealing to our own moral sense as the "proof" that God's nature is good, they hint at the real source of morality: our own moral sense. IMO, trying to build up our own moral beliefs and our shared societal values into something of supposedly cosmic importance and universal applicability is an exercise in puffery.

But look more closely at the first question. Evil is the opposite of good. To allow evil is not to be good, so the question can be reduced to "how can a good God not be a good God?". As such, it is a logical contradiction in it's purest form.

The bit I've highlighted is a positive claim that requires support in its own right. I'm sure that mball will be happy that you've decided to share the burden of proof with him.

I don't think I've ever seen a penguin successfully pass himself off as a zebra, but, then again, I wouldn't put anything past those sneaky little ********.

My ears are burning.

 

[Magic Man]

Oh, I agree. I think that it is awful to let one's children suffer. However, I think that the basis for this lies in our shared human experience, and as such is limited.

So, you're saying there's some way to not consider horrible things happening to a child "suffering?

Fine if you think so, but with this statement, you take on the burden of proof.

If the terms "murdering" or "baby" don't have objective meanings, then phrase "murdering a baby is not good" can't have an objective meaning either. If that's the case, then it can't be objectively true.

Well, I'd say they all have objective meanings. Wouldn't you?

The bit I've highlighted is a positive claim that requires support in its own right. I'm sure that mball will be happy that you've decided to share the burden of proof with him.

The proof is in the definitions of the words. You can change those definitions, I guess, but hen what's the point of having a conversation?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, you're saying there's some way to not consider horrible things happening to a child "suffering?

No, I'm saying that all the reasons I can see to consider suffering to be bad are rooted in the human condition, and the human condition is not universal.

Well, I'd say they all have objective meanings. Wouldn't you?

No, I wouldn't. I don't think that "murder" has an objective meaning, at the very least. "Murder" means illegal killing; is there one eternal law that supercedes all others?

The proof is in the definitions of the words. You can change those definitions, I guess, but hen what's the point of having a conversation?

You don't get out of your work that easily. Please show me any definition of "good" that explicitly states that "allowing evil" is incompatible with "good".