First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
It makes no sense for god to create beings who do evil
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 5/28/08

Nessarose wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:


Nessarose wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:
In more simple form:


1. A maximally good being will always choose the best option it can.
2. A maximally powerful being can choose any logically possible option.
3. A maximally good being is possible.
4. Creating a maximally good being is a better option than creating a less-than-maximally good being.
5. Therefore a maximally good and powerful being will never create a less-than-maximally good being.
6. Less-than-maximally good beings exist.
7. Therefore, the less-than-maximally good beings were not created by a maximally good and powerful being.


What if it is not logically possible to create a less-than-maximally good being.
Clearly for an omnipotent being it is. I do not think that has to be addressed, since it is included in the definition of omnipotence.



You don't address this anywhere. If you're going to try to get somewhere with a syllogism, make sure it leaves no window for argument.

Thats not an argument which attacks mine.


I'm only trying to say, if you're planning to sell your point on pseudo-logic, please make sure it works... If someone can spot it, you failed at it. You have to make sure your pseudo-logic is valid, or it's no good.


I am afraid you did not point out a hole in my VALID logic. There is no such things as pseudo logic, there are only valid logical statements and invalid ones. More to the point the entire thread is pointing out that such a god as I describe as tri omni would not create such beings. That was the whole point of the train of reasoning; I can not see how you missed it. Since such beings do exist that god does not.
908 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25
Offline
Posted 5/28/08

YouAreDumb wrote:


Nessarose wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:


Nessarose wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:
In more simple form:


1. A maximally good being will always choose the best option it can.
2. A maximally powerful being can choose any logically possible option.
3. A maximally good being is possible.
4. Creating a maximally good being is a better option than creating a less-than-maximally good being.
5. Therefore a maximally good and powerful being will never create a less-than-maximally good being.
6. Less-than-maximally good beings exist.
7. Therefore, the less-than-maximally good beings were not created by a maximally good and powerful being.


What if it is not logically possible to create a less-than-maximally good being.
Clearly for an omnipotent being it is. I do not think that has to be addressed, since it is included in the definition of omnipotence.



You don't address this anywhere. If you're going to try to get somewhere with a syllogism, make sure it leaves no window for argument.

Thats not an argument which attacks mine.


I'm only trying to say, if you're planning to sell your point on pseudo-logic, please make sure it works... If someone can spot it, you failed at it. You have to make sure your pseudo-logic is valid, or it's no good.


I am afraid you did not point out a hole in my VALID logic. There is no such things as pseudo logic, there are only valid logical statements and invalid ones. More to the point the entire thread is pointing out that such a god as I describe as tri omni would not create such beings. That was the whole point of the train of reasoning; I can not see how you missed it. Since such beings do exist that god does not.


No, I saw that. And yes Pseudo-logic exists. Nonsequitars, ad homemin, post hoc, hasty generalizations...
6468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 5/28/08
Doing good is nothing, without the option to do evil
We can be happy, because we have seen suffering and sufferend ourselves
We can laugh wholeheartedly, because we have cried wholeheartedly
We can love, because we can hate
We can feel free, because we have felt imprisoned

That is what i choose to belive.

If you are in a whole world of light, you understand nothing of the concept of light, if there is no Darkness to contrast it too
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 5/28/08 , edited 5/28/08

Nessarose wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:


Nessarose wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:


Nessarose wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:
In more simple form:


1. A maximally good being will always choose the best option it can.
2. A maximally powerful being can choose any logically possible option.
3. A maximally good being is possible.
4. Creating a maximally good being is a better option than creating a less-than-maximally good being.
5. Therefore a maximally good and powerful being will never create a less-than-maximally good being.
6. Less-than-maximally good beings exist.
7. Therefore, the less-than-maximally good beings were not created by a maximally good and powerful being.


What if it is not logically possible to create a less-than-maximally good being.
Clearly for an omnipotent being it is. I do not think that has to be addressed, since it is included in the definition of omnipotence.



You don't address this anywhere. If you're going to try to get somewhere with a syllogism, make sure it leaves no window for argument.

Thats not an argument which attacks mine.


I'm only trying to say, if you're planning to sell your point on pseudo-logic, please make sure it works... If someone can spot it, you failed at it. You have to make sure your pseudo-logic is valid, or it's no good.


I am afraid you did not point out a hole in my VALID logic. There is no such things as pseudo logic, there are only valid logical statements and invalid ones. More to the point the entire thread is pointing out that such a god as I describe as tri omni would not create such beings. That was the whole point of the train of reasoning; I can not see how you missed it. Since such beings do exist that god does not.


No, I saw that. And yes Pseudo-logic exists. Nonsequitars, ad homemin, post hoc, hasty generalizations...


Those are logical fallacies which result in invalid statements.
6598 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Colorado
Offline
Posted 5/28/08
^^^Pseudo>> False
Pseudo-logic>>False logic
False Logic>>Logical Fallacies

(-__-")
908 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25
Offline
Posted 5/28/08
*shrug* I learned it as Pseudo-logic. Trust goes to my English teacher over random people on the net on this one
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 5/28/08

geeene_16 wrote:

^^^Pseudo>> False
Pseudo-logic>>False logic
False Logic>>Logical Fallacies

(-__-")


I just learned different terms. I guess that you can use that term if you want. My logic teacher was pretty strict on that stuff, and always made use correct terminology, or at least what he defined as such.
18691 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Singapore
Offline
Posted 5/28/08
I dont believe in god

but i know that evil will never disappear.
531 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / O CANADA!
Offline
Posted 5/28/08

Katorulez93 wrote:


OptimusGatts wrote:

I have the answers here using irrefutable numbers and sherlock holmes style deduction.

Questions 1-3

By all good im assuming you are saying he is 100% good. At 100% of good there is no room for evil. Heres a pie chart

O

blue= good
red=evil



as the chart indicates there is no evil in this god you have presented to us, Why would a 100% good god create something evil? He wouldn't because then he wouldnt be 100% good or "all" good as you have presented.

The counter point as stated in the beginning is that he is all powerful. If he can't make something evil then he would be 99.999999...% powerful and that doesnt match the criteria. So being stated that he is all powerful he can make evil.


Does it make sense that an all good god would create evil? No. Therefore, a god who creates evil is not 100% or "maximum" good. All knowing all good all powerful god could create evil if he chose to, but the being all good part prevents him from doing so.

Question 4

Hes all powerful, if he cant do one thing then hes not all powerful.






I answered your questions. your welcome






god didnt create things that are equal, he created people with free agency and they chose to be evil. he put us on earth to test us and some failed. Satan used his free agency to do evil and wanted to control people and make them do things and thus he went to hell.


As things relate to the topic creators questions my evidence is irrefutable. Any variables introduced by other users are merely conjecture and opinions. If you ask me there is no god. The prospect of an omnipotent being creating everything from nothing (including himself apparently) is: to me, laughable. I would find scientology more believable than a god figure. Even though both are quite comical. Both have no scientific proof other than the inability to be disproven. Only faith will allow you to see god or Xenu or whatever other religous concept you have faith/believe in. But that's a whole other discussion in another pre-existing thread.


As for your point of god not creating things equal, he created people with free agency, Okay, if you have faith/believe in that then that's your prerogative. As the clearly defined god in this topic stands, I am right.
11704 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 5/28/08

OptimusGatts wrote:


Katorulez93 wrote:


OptimusGatts wrote:

I have the answers here using irrefutable numbers and sherlock holmes style deduction.

Questions 1-3

By all good im assuming you are saying he is 100% good. At 100% of good there is no room for evil. Heres a pie chart

O

blue= good
red=evil



as the chart indicates there is no evil in this god you have presented to us, Why would a 100% good god create something evil? He wouldn't because then he wouldnt be 100% good or "all" good as you have presented.

The counter point as stated in the beginning is that he is all powerful. If he can't make something evil then he would be 99.999999...% powerful and that doesnt match the criteria. So being stated that he is all powerful he can make evil.


Does it make sense that an all good god would create evil? No. Therefore, a god who creates evil is not 100% or "maximum" good. All knowing all good all powerful god could create evil if he chose to, but the being all good part prevents him from doing so.

Question 4

Hes all powerful, if he cant do one thing then hes not all powerful.






I answered your questions. your welcome






god didnt create things that are equal, he created people with free agency and they chose to be evil. he put us on earth to test us and some failed. Satan used his free agency to do evil and wanted to control people and make them do things and thus he went to hell.


As things relate to the topic creators questions my evidence is irrefutable. Any variables introduced by other users are merely conjecture and opinions. If you ask me there is no god. The prospect of an omnipotent being creating everything from nothing (including himself apparently) is: to me, laughable. I would find scientology more believable than a god figure. Even though both are quite comical. Both have no scientific proof other than the inability to be disproven. Only faith will allow you to see god or Xenu or whatever other religous concept you have faith/believe in. But that's a whole other discussion in another pre-existing thread.


As for your point of god not creating things equal, he created people with free agency, Okay, if you have faith/believe in that then that's your prerogative. As the clearly defined god in this topic stands, I am right.



you have given no facts, you gave some rubbish and then i told you how your not correct. you have an opinion. obviously you do not know wat an opinion and fact is. you say something and therez no fact in it therefore its only opinion. now you can reply back with a childish immature response and say your right im wrong but that wouldnt show anything but your immaturity.
Posted 5/28/08
This discussion hasn't done a thing but cause argument.

It appears to me the original poster wanted nothing more then to debate an rather flimsy idea.

First Angels do not have souls. Thats the difference between human and angels. and why the angels originally rebelled. Because God gave lessor beings, humans the right of choice and free will. They who will inherit the earth and heaven. Ok I had to say that. omg angels..souls..(sighs)

Secondly. God is infallible. After all Omnipotent means he knows everything. Doesn't mean he's 100% Good Good has nothing to do with it. It's just the Original Poster's words that he's 100 percent good..

If we look at Christianity from a purely anthropological view, the idea comes to mind that God made everything. If thats the cause. He made Light, Darkness, Good..and (gasp) evil to. For without God, Satan would not exist. There cannot be an absolute good, without it's opposite. A reason for it to exist . To some extent. True Believes in God, are also worshipers of Satan also. Everything they do in life is against Satan. 'Love thy Neighbor' why? Because it's evil to be jealous of him, or to look at his wife wrong. Likewise Satanists who worship Lucifer in turn actually are also believers in God

Light and Dark. Good and Evil

As for creating the 100 pure human. Even if there weren't Original Sin, Free will means making your own mistakes. Doing right and wrong based on your own decisions.

The Original Poster's childish rant about why God didn't make a pure person, while giving free will is indeed a childish irresponsible rant.

'Oh if Someone else was infallible then why am I not perfect.'

Why is there evil? Because the Father gave us Free will, and we screwed the pooch, I believe is a famous american sayin
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 5/28/08

Nessarose wrote:
No, I saw that. And yes Pseudo-logic exists. Nonsequitars, ad homemin, post hoc, hasty generalizations...


Those are not called pseudo-logic, those are called logical fallacies, along with ad hoc, quaternio terminorum, undistributed middle, illicit process of major/minor terms, negative premises and equivocation, just to cite a few. I suppose that's what you meant however, but the word 'pseudo-logic' has not been coined long enough to be used in common discussions. If you want to address something, especially on a public forum where knowledge of logic is not particularly widespread, it would be best not to try to confuse your readers with specialized terminology. Plus, you spelled 'hominem' wrong.

More on topic, I've read a couple of your responses, yet I fail to see a concrete point to them. You've cited a couple paragraphs out of essays, you claim, but what is your stance on the subject? When you cite something, people tend to assume that is your stance, else why cite it at all? So I am going to assume what you cited contains something similar to your own beliefs. Then I will simply refute it with this, although it is quite true that many arguments cant be formulated to lead us to believe that a good God allowed evil to manifest as a means for us to know what good is, any of these same arguments can also be used to argue that an evil God allowed good to manifest for us to know evil. So that's not a valid solution to the problem of evil, try again.
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 5/28/08 , edited 5/28/08

jagoss312 wrote:

This discussion hasn't done a thing but cause argument.

It appears to me the original poster wanted nothing more then to debate an rather flimsy idea.

First Angels do not have souls. Thats the difference between human and angels. and why the angels originally rebelled. Because God gave lessor beings, humans the right of choice and free will. They who will inherit the earth and heaven. Ok I had to say that. omg angels..souls..(sighs)

Secondly. God is infallible. After all Omnipotent means he knows everything. Doesn't mean he's 100% Good Good has nothing to do with it. It's just the Original Poster's words that he's 100 percent good..
I clearly defined what I meant by "god". An all good god is a central precept of Christian theology. Did you really not know that?




If we look at Christianity from a purely anthropological view, the idea comes to mind that God made everything. If thats the cause. He made Light, Darkness, Good..and (gasp) evil to. For without God, Satan would not exist. There cannot be an absolute good, without it's opposite. A reason for it to exist . To some extent. True Believes in God, are also worshipers of Satan also.
Not something 99% of Christian theologians would agree with I am afraid.



Everything they do in life is against Satan. 'Love thy Neighbor' why? Because it's evil to be jealous of him, or to look at his wife wrong. Likewise Satanists who worship Lucifer in turn actually are also believers in God

Light and Dark. Good and Evil
How does that address my argument about god creating less than perfect beings?


As for creating the 100 pure human. Even if there weren't Original Sin, Free will means making your own mistakes. Doing right and wrong based on your own decisions.

The Original Poster's childish rant about why God didn't make a pure person, while giving free will is indeed a childish irresponsible rant.

'Oh if Someone else was infallible then why am I not perfect.'

Why is there evil? Because the Father gave us Free will, and we screwed the pooch, I believe is a famous american sayin





1. A maximally good being will always choose the best option it can.
2. A maximally powerful being can choose any logically possible option.
3. A maximally good being is possible.
4. Creating a maximally good being is a better option than creating a less-than-maximally good being.
5. Therefore a maximally good and powerful being will never create a less-than-maximally good being.
6. Less-than-maximally good beings exist.
7. Therefore, the less-than-maximally good beings were not created by a maximally good and powerful being.

I suppose #4 is where theists might attack this, eg. with the free will defense.





I have some possible arguments in mind (the third one is a more limited version, applicable to Christianity and Islam, but not to all possible theisms), including the following:

1) God is maximizing goodness, not free will. The latter is also maximized as long as it's good.

2) God has free will and is perfectly good.

Thus, entities with free will who are also perfectly good are possible. Thus, God could create perfectly good entities who have free will. So, free will (whatever that is) doesn't require that an entity be capable of evil (or, I'd say, of less than maximal goodness, but that's more than I'd need to argue).

I suppose the theist might want to argue that God is the only possible entity capable of free will and perfectly good, but then, there are two possible answers:

a) Why? That claim would seem to require some proving.

b) God can still not create anything, if creation (or at least the creation of moral beings) necessarily results in the creation of non-perfectly good moral beings. If God doesn't create anything, then the only thing in the world is God. Can that world be improved over, goodness-wise?

3) Entities (i.e. human souls) in Heaven have free will, yet they will never do evil. So, it's possible for a being to not be perfectly good, have free will, and yet never do evil. If (big "if") God can create beings that aren't perfectly good, he can create them so that they will never do evil.




Free will aside, my formulation of the first part is more complicated, but I'm trying to avoid interpretations that would leave some extra room to argue..

I I don't think it would be necessary to add anything to it if there were no chance of misunderstandings, but in my experience, misunderstandings are very common in these threads; of course, I run the risk that my attempts to clarify would only complicate matters, but there's always that problem I think. Anyway, we don't need the following to discuss anything, but I'll say it just in case some objections are presented later:

I suppose someone could argue that, in 4., there are situations in which creating a maximally good being is not the best option. For instance, if such being would be surrounded by evil beings or other beings that would hurt it. Of course, one could then reply that said situation wouldn't exist in the first place, etc., but to simplify, let's say that God wouldn't create a situations in which the best course of action is to create a non-maximally good being (they can argue for the necessity of evil, but that'd be a problem for theists as well, at least for many).

Also, 4. and 6. are about beings that can be morally evaluated (someone could say that making some non-moral, perhaps non-living being - for whatever reason that would be pleasing to the moral beings - is better in some situation; it could be argued, but I'd rather avoid that).

"Creating" here means directly or indirectly: some theists argue that many beings are not creations of God, but of other beings, in turn created by God (perhaps, after a long chain of beings). So, my point is that God wouldn't create a mechanism by which beings capable of evil will arise. In other words, it would not decide to change a world where entities capable of morality are all perfectly morally good, into one in which there are entities that aren't perfectly morally good.

As for the second part of my argument, that's less ambitious, and it's some sort of "even if" argument. In other words, even if the creation by God of moral beings that are not perfectly good is possible (i.e., even if the first part of the argument fails), then the question is how could God create beings that will do evil, even though he could create non-maximally good beings that will never do evil - thus, not introducing evil in the world.

While the second part seems unnecessary, given that most theists believe in Heaven (where there are arguably non-maximally good beings that will never do evil), I'd thought I'd add that, just in case.
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 5/28/08

One objection I can see being put forward (but hasn't been so far at the time of typing) is that God is a necessary being whereas we are contingent. God and creation are in different categories ontologically speaking. It may be possible that a necessary being can possess free will yet never do evil whereas contingent beings are incapable of possessing free will and that evil will never emerge. Ergo, the emergence of evil is logically necessary (and inevitable) amongst contingencies who possess free will.

This in itself is fraught with problems. For example, how will God actualize Heaven? Heaven is assumed to be a place free of the influence of evil but if all of those in Heaven (other than God) will be contingent and the emergence of evil is logically necessary amongst contingencies with free will and he cannot make us non-contingent how can he eradicate evil without violating free will? If it is logically necessary that God will violate free will to actualize Heaven then the whole "refusing to violate free will" defense fails especially as the actualization of evil results in the violation of free will also.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 5/28/08

jagoss312 wrote:

This discussion hasn't done a thing but cause argument.

It appears to me the original poster wanted nothing more then to debate an rather flimsy idea.

Secondly. God is infallible. After all Omnipotent means he knows everything. Doesn't mean he's 100% Good Good has nothing to do with it. It's just the Original Poster's words that he's 100 percent good.


I'm sorry, I have to refute this. This idea is not really flimsy, it has been troubling various different philosophers through time. Although the original poster has taken the liberty of slightly altering the original problem. Never the less, if you want a more accurate description of the original problem, look up 'problem of evil'.

Next, this argument is used exclusively for a Christian God, so you must understand, this argument does not make the assumption that God is the 3 O's(omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient) but instead, Christianity does. What this argument tries to prove is that God cannot logically possess all three of those qualities at the same time, using the proof that we have already witnessed in our world. You're also incorrect on your definitions of Omnipotence. Omnipotence is literally all(omni) powerful(potence), that has nothing to do with knowing everything, that just means he has the power to do everything. And Omnibenevolence does mean he is 100% good. Again, it's not the original poster's words, it's Christianity's words.



jagoss312 wrote:
If we look at Christianity from a purely anthropological view, the idea comes to mind that God made everything. If thats the cause. He made Light, Darkness, Good..and (gasp) evil to. For without God, Satan would not exist. There cannot be an absolute good, without it's opposite. A reason for it to exist . To some extent. True Believes in God, are also worshipers of Satan also. Everything they do in life is against Satan. 'Love thy Neighbor' why? Because it's evil to be jealous of him, or to look at his wife wrong. Likewise Satanists who worship Lucifer in turn actually are also believers in God

Light and Dark. Good and Evil

As for creating the 100 pure human. Even if there weren't Original Sin, Free will means making your own mistakes. Doing right and wrong based on your own decisions.


Quick word, Christians also claim that God is Omnipresent, in other words, he exists outside the realm of time, he can see the past, the future and everything in between. So he KNOWS how the world was going to turn out, he STILL made the world. Why? Why would a omnipotent/omnibenevolent/omniscient being create something evil? He could have just not created anything at all, but instead he decided to create evil.


jagoss312 wrote:
The Original Poster's childish rant about why God didn't make a pure person, while giving free will is indeed a childish irresponsible rant.

'Oh if Someone else was infallible then why am I not perfect.'

Why is there evil? Because the Father gave us Free will, and we screwed the pooch, I believe is a famous american sayin


Don't go calling other people childish when you don't even understand the full implication of his argument. And your logic is extremely flawed in your 'quote'. This is nothing like 'Oh if Someone else was infallible then why am I not perfect.' This is -
"If the maker is infallible, why are his creations not perfect?"
If he could not create a perfect being, then he is not omnipotent.
If he did not want to create a perfect being, then he is malevolent.
If he didn't know the being was not perfect, then he is not omniscient.
If he couldn't do any of the above, then why call him God?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.