how do you answer absurdities(without insults)? [Archive I]

theophilus

September 11, 2003, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Jobar
Hi dienekes, and welcome to the forum. Sounds like he is trying to have his omnibenevolence and deny it, too.

If the benevolence of God is beyond human understanding, then why do we call it benevolence? We can't call it anything, really- and as the classic problem of evil states, a god who knows of evil (human evil, which we can understand perfectly well) and has the power to remove that evil, yet does not- then why should we worship?

Well, as you'd know if you'd been paying attention to my arguments in the ongoing nonsense known as the PoE, it is not an issue of God's benevolence being beyond human understanding. It is a matter of what standard of benevolence is authoritative.

Since as a naturalist, you have no basis for asserting ANY standard of value within the scope of human experience, you cannot say whether God's standard passes any test.

In other words, you have no basis for calling anything good or evil unless you import a standard from some other system. The fact that you do call things good and evil is continuing proof that you have imported such a standard, specifically, the standard of Christian theism.

Even if you could identify an objective basis for human values, you'd have no basis for thinking that such values are normative for a god.

Finally, to suggest that the evil which is present in the world (even if you could identify it) is inconsistent with God's ultimate purpose and his perfect justice assumes information you can't possibly possess.

So, dienekes, I hope this gives you some ideas how a real Christian answer to your question might be presented.

theophilus

September 11, 2003, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by wordsmyth
Those answers seem more consistent with the wholly babble than the standard apologetics.

It is surprising that in light of your friends acknowledgement of this that he continues to believe such a being is deserving of respect rather than contempt, however.

What is surprising is that you, in the face of complete absence of any basis for knowing what standard determines who is "deserving of respect rather than contempt," continue to post this nonsense.

dienekes

September 11, 2003, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by theophilus
Okay, here's my comment. Explain how you determined this is an absurd answer.
Do you know that God doesn't have a plan that is unknown to us? How do you know that?
Do you know that you have free will? How have you validated that?

Mind you, your friend did an imperfect job (if your representation is accurrate - a BIG assumption), but it is closer than the free will argument.

I'd like to hear YOUR comments, please.

Well he did make a god claim first but then his arguments all hinge on uncertainties. I was not the one who made assumptions, he did(based on the bible). Then I asked him some questions then all he gave me was "I don't know, ask God" or he kept invoking Isiah 45:9. His last answer was it's evil only to human understanding and that it will turn out to be benevolent after all. I wondered how he came to this conclusion when he said so himself that it was beyond human understanding(could he be divine too? i don't know). So, essentially his arguments were: we don't know, therefore god exists.

It's absurd because he is using a case for agnosticism to argue for his god's existence.:)

Barcode

September 11, 2003, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by Keith Russell
I have never been presented with a theistic, supernatural, or spiritual claim that wasn't--ultimately--absurd.

K

Yes, and then they often say " it's just your *opinion* " or " you can't *disprove* things ", at which point I need to scream.very.loudly.

Obviously I cannot disprove something with 100% certainty, but a lot of things within religion and the God concept *are* dubious and contradictory. Those things cast doubt on the validity and veracity of the various claims being made.

Funny that the devout often take things as true because they *want* them to be, and then demand 100% proof that isn't subjective when it comes to stating why they might be wrong.

Double standards ...

Howard

September 11, 2003, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by theophilus
Well, maybe if you'd spent a little less time fantasizing and a little more time thinking, you'd have realized that you didn't have any basis for judging what is reasonable and what is evidence when it comes to immaterial issues, you wouldn't have been disappointed. This coming from someone who�s basis is a self-contradictory deity and an archaic and self-contradictory holy book. I�ll take science and human reasoning over Bible dogma any day .

As it is, you're stuck with your own "blind faith" in the ability of natrualism to explain anything and your own "willful ignorance" of what constitutes the "affairs of humanity."
I see the results of naturalistic scientific explanations all around me. I can�t see a damn thing that the human race has learned from your �God did it� explanation. Indeed, it wasn�t until humans stopped using supernatural explanations and started looking for natural ones that real progress was made in understanding our universe. Overall, Christianity has been and continues to be an impediment to knowledge. .

Jamie_L

September 11, 2003, 09:36 AM

Well, my first thought is that this is a redefinition of the word "benevolent". The word is being used to evoke connotations of loving and caring, but it is being used to actually describe something different. It no longer means what it normally means when used in conversation.

Second thought: either we can understand God, or it is beyond our ability to comprehend. If we can't understand God and his plan, then there is no way to know if he is loving and caring, that he does or does not have a grand plan, and we certainly can't know that he wants what is best for us.

As for no free will, well, at least this is more consistent with the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient being. It's nearly impossible to reconcile those qualities with free will. Give your friend kudos for that admission.

Jamie

Spurious Quirk

September 11, 2003, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Howard
Of course, because we live in a world full of sin and evil created by a being who (supposedly) abhors sin and evil. This situation is unexplainable by rational means so theists come up with copout �arguments� such as, �God works in mysterious ways� or �We finite humans cannot possibly comprehend the mind of an Infinite Being.�

What they are really saying is that God makes no sense to them either but they�re going to believe in him anyway. The only response I can come up with is asking them how they can believe in a concept that is illogical and self-contradictory. But I guess when you�re counting on eternal life, you can make yourself believe anything.

I can imagine a logical and non-self-contradictory explanation for why god allows evil and suffering:
God is an imbecile.

My reasoning (heh) is as follows:
1) God is omnipotent, and can do anything, including eliminate (or simply not create) evil.
2) God is omnibenevolent -- he's a really nice guy who doesn't want us to suffer, and would necessarily prevent us from suffering if he could.
3) Suffering exists.
4) Therefore god must be so stupid that he cannot comprehend that he can easily prevent evil from happening.

So why does evil exist? Because god screwed up when he was creating the universe. Is it possible for god to 'screw up'? Sure -- god can do anything, right?

Of course, this seems to contradict the notion of omniscience -- surely if he knows everything, then he knows that he can stop evil. I would say that this makes god even dumber -- he knows he can stop evil, but cannot put that knowledge in the meaningful context of his desire to actually stop evil.

Thus, he is like the idiot who knows 'intellectually' that i) he is hungry, and ii) that there is food in the fridge; yet who never actually puts the two together to arrive at the conclusion that he should go to the fridge to get food.

Pretty stupid, huh?

Cheers

p.s. Yes, I am kidding....but as Al Franken would put it, I am 'kidding on the square' -- i.e. I sort of mean it.

Jobar

September 11, 2003, 01:24 PM

Heh. Welcome to the forum, Spurious Quirk. (amusing name, that.)

It seems that the PoE can be resolved by denying either omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence, but put all three together and you can't have anything displeasing to any being having those qualities. Looks like the Christian God just wants to be pissed off all the time, doesn't it?

theophilus:
Since as a naturalist, you have no basis for asserting ANY standard of value within the scope of human experience, you cannot say whether God's standard passes any test.

In other words, you have no basis for calling anything good or evil unless you import a standard from some other system. The fact that you do call things good and evil is continuing proof that you have imported such a standard, specifically, the standard of Christian theism.

Even if you could identify an objective basis for human values, you'd have no basis for thinking that such values are normative for a god.

theo, tell me. Do you have some sort of a 're-set' button, which instantly takes you back to this position? We tell you over and over, until we're blue in the face, that there are NO objective values. When we ask you to demonstrate any, or give us examples, you can't. When we show you how human values are derived from the concrete, material world we experience, giving us relative, but quite servicable moral and ontological standards, you can't show us how those standards are incorrect. When we point out the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the 'standard of Christian theism' you do nothing but assert that we're wrong, but never can provide any shred of rational argument backing up your assertions. Bill has nearly written a book, with voluminous footnotes, addressing every one of your issues.

And yet you still come right back to this same place, like a scratched phonograph record.

Look, I have considerable respect for your ability to stand up and state your beliefs here, in the faces of all these outspoken and intelligent atheists. Not many are willing to do that, and of those fewer still are able to follow the intellectual arguments, and keep up with the discussion. But I'm getting very discouraged that no matter how patiently we try to explain what seems to me to be rather simple and obvious, you just go right back to your well-worn groove.

If you always modified your position to take into account the arguments you've already lost, I'd think you a great theologian, and a sparkling asset to this board. Tough opponents increase our abilities, and improve and polish our arguments. But you just play the same moves, again and again! Nice for beginning debaters, and new lurkers- but don't you get tired of doing it? Because I am (and I think I can safely say 'we are' here) getting mighty bored by it.

CJD

September 11, 2003, 01:49 PM

When we show you how human values are derived from the concrete, material world we experience, giving us relative, . . .

I am one theist who quite comfortably relishes the idea that reality is socially constructed. As such, there is a "brook of relativity" through which we must all pass. Some of us has done as much, others quite obviously have not (dreading things from the other side). Values of a particular culture, of course, take on an objectivity as the generations move on, and in turn those values do provide us with "servicable moral and ontological standards."

The question begged by the naturalist, however, is simple: supposing said values are ultimately derived from the concrete material world (of which, btw, I believe God to be a part, but I am using it in your sense, i.e., that of which God is not a part), how can the impersonal forces of the concrete material world tell us anything about morality? That is to say, how can we derive morality or obligation from premises about matter, motion, time and chance without succumbing to Hume's "is/ought" problem? Gravity could care less if I jump off a cliff.

Regards,

CJD

p.s. "Omni-benevolence," to my knowledge (and in the sense I gather you folks mean it), has never been delineated as an attribute of God in historic, orthodox Xianity.

theophilus

September 11, 2003, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by CJD
p.s. "Omni-benevolence," to my knowledge (and in the sense I gather you folks mean it), has never been delineated as an attribute of God in historic, orthodox Xianity.

I have pointed this out several times but it never seems to get through. So, you can expect to see it asserted again.

Spenser

September 11, 2003, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by CJD
p.s. "Omni-benevolence," to my knowledge (and in the sense I gather you folks mean it), has never been delineated as an attribute of God in historic, orthodox Xianity.

What exactly then is the difference between omnibenevolence and being morally perfect? Or would you say that God isn't morally perfect?

Spurious Quirk

September 11, 2003, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by CJD
"Omni-benevolence," to my knowledge (and in the sense I gather you folks mean it), has never been delineated as an attribute of God in historic, orthodox Xianity.

Ok, whatever -- how about "God is good", or "God is a morally perfect being"? I am not sure of the exact stance of (to pick an example) the Catholic church, but isn't that the essence of their position? That God is Good? How many Christians think (or have thought in the past) that their god is evil?

Cheers

theophilus

September 11, 2003, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Jobar
Even if you could identify an objective basis for human values, you'd have no basis for thinking that such values are normative for a god.

theo, tell me. Do you have some sort of a 're-set' button, which instantly takes you back to this position? We tell you over and over, until we're blue in the face, that there are NO objective values. When we ask you to demonstrate any, or give us examples, you can't. When we show you how human values are derived from the concrete, material world we experience, giving us relative, but quite servicable moral and ontological standards, you can't show us how those standards are incorrect. When we point out the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the 'standard of Christian theism' you do nothing but assert that we're wrong, but never can provide any shred of rational argument backing up your assertions. Bill has nearly written a book, with voluminous footnotes, addressing every one of your issues.

Yes, my RESET button is the same place as your PAYING ATTENTION button which has obviously not been pushed.

"Even if you could, etc.," is, of course, a conditional expression. It does not ask for any information.

As for telling me "ultil you're blue in the face," I was not aware that you merely telling me something was the final word. I thought we were into proof here - maybe, like a number of other things, that requirement just applies to theists.

"When we ask you for examples, you can't." You must be thinking of someone else. First, I've never asserted objective values, so asking me for examples is meaningless. What I've always clearly explained is that I'm talking about the ontology of values, not the specifics or unifority of values. Why can't you understand that?

"When we show you how standards are derived from human experience, etc." Once again, you haven't shown anything. YOu just assert "evolution did it;" evolution is evidently YOUR god of the gaps. Once again, I haven't asked for justification of any set of values, just an explanation of the existence of VALUES in a purely materialistic universe.

You beg the question by saying things like "useful, servicable standards" without specifying useful or serviceable for TO WHAT END. If "evolution did it," then there can be no END, since evolution is pure chance directed toward no goal.

Or, you (plural) drag in some unacknowledged underlying value, social stability, which brings us right back to the original question, i.e., where did that VALUE come from?

"When we point out the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the 'standard of Christian theism' you do nothing but assert that we're wrong, but never can provide any shred of rational argument backing up your assertions."

This is the best of all. If your arguments here are an example of your refutation of my arguments, which they are, then you've shown absolutely nothing. Contradiction is not proof. Saying things like "god doesn't account for anything," which has been the substance of Bill's "book," is not proof, it's just prejudice.

To be proof, it would have to follow the nature of my argument here to which you responded, i.e., "even if God exists AS REVEALED IN THE BIBLE, it would not account for morality because ..." But that hasn't been done.

What I get is, "your just assuming God;" well of course I'm assuming God. If one is going to explain how God explains morality, one HAS TO assume God. Duh!

And yet you still come right back to this same place, like a scratched phonograph record.

And comments like that have no value either, except to make you feel superior. Yes, I will keep coming back to the same questions until you provide real answers, not answers to your misunderstanding of my arguments.

Look, I have considerable respect for your ability to stand up and state your beliefs here, in the faces of all these outspoken and intelligent atheists. Not many are willing to do that, and of those fewer still are able to follow the intellectual arguments, and keep up with the discussion. But I'm getting very discouraged that no matter how patiently we try to explain what seems to me to be rather simple and obvious, you just go right back to your well-worn groove.

Okay, I'll change. How's this "evolution didn't do it, evolution didn't do it, evolution didn't do it." BTW, why should you get 'discouraged?" Is there some ultimate significance to my not "getting it?"

Well of course they seem "simple and obvious" to you because you assume your starting point as proof of your position. "There is a natural explanation for morality because there's a natural explanation for everything because there's a natural explanation for everything."

Talk about a broken record.

If you always modified your position to take into account the arguments you've already lost, I'd think you a great theologian, and a sparkling asset to this board.

The only way I could "modify" my position would be by abandoning it; just as you would have to abandon your position to modify it. That's what these debates are all about.

There is no common ground between Christian theism and atheism; they are mutually exclusive. The argument I am trying to address is which worldview constructed on each presuppositon gives the best account of life as we EXPERIENCE it; not as we try to redefine it to fit our position, e.g., morality as merely biological rather than ontologically supra-sensible.

Besides, I ask for evidence all the time, vis a vis, "evolution did it," and I've yet to receive even ONE answer. If you're really getting discouraged, why don't you encourage your buds here to correct this glaring deficiency?

Now, please don't send me another patronizing message like this complaining about my repeating the same thing in the face of your overwhelming proof until you, Bill and the gang have given me something besides misrepresentation, refutations of things I don't assert and bare assertions ala "evolution did it."

Spurious Quirk

September 11, 2003, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Spenser
What exactly then is the difference between omnibenevolence and being morally perfect? Or would you say that God isn't morally perfect?

Dammit Spenser! You beat me to it!

Cheers

theophilus

September 11, 2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Spurious Quirk
Ok, whatever -- how about "God is good", or "God is a morally perfect being"? I am not sure of the exact stance of (to pick an example) the Catholic church, but isn't that the essence of their position? That God is Good? How many Christians think (or have thought in the past) that their god is evil?

Cheers

Well, as an intellectually honest person, shouldn't you have found this out before you initiated a critique?

Would you let me get away with that?

theophilus

September 11, 2003, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Spenser
What exactly then is the difference between omnibenevolence and being morally perfect? Or would you say that God isn't morally perfect?

Well, isn't it your job to learn these things in advance before initiating an argument?

theophilus

September 11, 2003, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Spurious Quirk
Dammit Spenser! You beat me to it!

Cheers

Admitting that you don't know the meaning of terms about which you're arguing doesn't seem like anything to be proud of.

theophilus

September 11, 2003, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by dienekes
Well he did make a god claim first but then his arguments all hinge on uncertainties. I was not the one who made assumptions, he did(based on the bible). Then I asked him some questions then all he gave me was "I don't know, ask God" or he kept invoking Isiah 45:9. His last answer was it's evil only to human understanding and that it will turn out to be benevolent after all. I wondered how he came to this conclusion when he said so himself that it was beyond human understanding(could he be divine too? i don't know). So, essentially his arguments were: we don't know, therefore god exists.

It's absurd because he is using a case for agnosticism to argue for his god's existence.:)
Okay, here's your OP:

I presented the Argument from Evil and Suffering to my theist friend and you know how he answered it? Instead of using the freewill defense, he simply conceded that God is evil and there is nothing we can do about it. But wait, He is evil only to us. Because God has a reason for everything, whatever it is, we don't know. If we knew his reasons then we'd be like Him. But whatever his reasons are, this will all turn out to be benevolent. He even went as far as telling me that we don't have freewill at all and he got some verses to support it.

Have you encountered absurd answers such as that? I'd like to hear your comments please.[/b]

So, you "presented the Argument from Evil and Suffering, etc." and your reason for concluding that his answers were absurd are
1. He didn't use the freewill defense, but "conceded" that God is evil (I doubt he meant this categorically).

2. He asserted that God has some ultimately 'good' purpose for the evil he permits or causes but that this reason is not immediately transparent to us.

So, my questions to you remain unanswered ("He started it," is not a meaningful response).

Here they are again:

Explain how you determined this is an absurd answer (maybe it would help to look up the definition of absurd).

Do you know that God doesn't have a plan that is unknown to us? How do you know that?

Do you know that you have free will? How have you validated that?

No rush, I'll be around.

theophilus

September 11, 2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Howard
I see the results of naturalistic scientific explanations all around me. I can�t see a damn thing that the human race has learned from your �God did it� explanation. Indeed, it wasn�t until humans stopped using supernatural explanations and started looking for natural ones that real progress was made in understanding our universe. Overall, Christianity has been and continues to be an impediment to knowledge. .

Leaving aside that this is a load of crap, you've committed a fundamental categorical error.

You see the results of naturalistic science all around you. We're not talking technology here; we're talking about the metaphysical nature of good and evil and how we can/cannot have knowledge of them.

Naturalistic science has exactly 0 to say about such things.

Re, it wasn't until humans stopped using supernatural explanations, etc., that is simply historically false. The early Greek philosophers were quite theistic (not Christian) and they made significant scientific achievements.
Same for the Egyptians.
Same for Gallileo, Kepler, Newton.

This idea of yours is false but it is convienient when one doesn't want to know the truth.

Spurious Quirk

September 11, 2003, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by theophilus
Well, as an intellectually honest person, shouldn't you have found this out before you initiated a critique?

Would you let me get away with that?

"Don't get snippy!" -- Al Gore to Bush, 2000.

Having never debated you, I have no idea what I would let you get away with.

...before I initiated a critique???
Saying god was stupid must have pissed you off (I wonder why?).

So tell me, am I wrong in my understanding that many christians think of god as being entirely good?
See, I have heard many christians say this (often in the context of the definition of evil as the absence of good).
So while I don't know the exact position of (say) the Catholic church, I know what various christians have said to me -- and the essence of their position is an omnibenevolent god. Is this understanding incorrect?
CJD seems to say it is, and I was asking why he thought so, while at the same time admitting that I didn't know for sure.

Was that intellectually dishonest of me?

Cheers

theophilus

September 11, 2003, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by Barcode
Yes, and then they often say " it's just your *opinion* " or " you can't *disprove* things ", at which point I need to scream.very.loudly.

I would call this an outright lie, except that would be agains the rules. I will simply challenge you to present one case from this website where any theist has ever said anythign resembling that.

This is typical ignorant atheists cant. Denigrate your enemy and his argument.

Obviously I cannot disprove something with 100% certainty, but a lot of things within religion and the God concept *are* dubious and contradictory. Those things cast doubt on the validity and veracity of the various claims being made.

Once again, pure ignorance.
Of course every-THING within religion is dubious and contradictory to one who begins his thinking by denying God. What a revelation! **roll eyes**

Funny that the devout often take things as true because they *want* them to be, and then demand 100% proof that isn't subjective when it comes to stating why they might be wrong.

Another load of crap. How many "devout" can you cite who take things as true because they want them to be.

This, of course in contrast to the purely objective atheists such as yourself who only believe things because they have been overwhelmed with evidence.

Double standards ...

Double standard, indeed.

Spenser

September 11, 2003, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by theophilus
Well, isn't it your job to learn these things in advance before initiating an argument?

Now this is just you being a jerk...

theophilus

September 11, 2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Spurious Quirk
"Don't get snippy!" -- Al Gore to Bush, 2000.

Having never debated you, I have no idea what I would let you get away with.

Silly. I've never debated you, but I'm not letting you get away with that tactic.

...before I initiated a critique???
Saying god was stupid must have pissed you off (I wonder why?).

Because it's pure ignorance on your part.

So tell me, am I wrong in my understanding that many christians think of god as being entirely good?
See, I have heard many christians say this (often in the context
of the definition of evil as the absence of good).

No, you tell me. You're the one who wants to use these terms of which you have no clear idea. Do your homework or keep your mouth closed.

You don't help the atheist cause here by displaying your ignorance and intellectual sloth.

So while I don't know the exact position of (say) the Catholic church, I know what various christians have said to me -- and the essence of their position is an omnibenevolent god. Is this understanding incorrect?

Since you haven't defined what you mean by omni-benevolent or benevolent, I can't answer you.

CJD seems to say it is, and I was asking why he thought so, while at the same time admitting that I didn't know for sure.

No, what he was saying was that Christians do not use this term in any form to describe God and never use this as an argument for God's existence. This is a purely atheist construct.

theophilus

September 11, 2003, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Spenser
Now this is just you being a jerk...

I see. If I cite a quote by Popper which I can't immediately identify, I'm being dishonest. But if you use terms you don't understand or make claims you can't back up, then I'm a jerk.

Must be a nice position to be in; can't loose.

Spenser

September 11, 2003, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by theophilus
I see. If I cite a quote by Popper which I can't immediately identify, I'm being dishonest. But if you use terms you don't understand or make claims you can't back up, then I'm a jerk.

Must be a nice position to be in; can't loose.

It seems to me that being a presuppositionalist is a position in which you can't lose; at least to you. No, you were being a jerk. I can take the derogatory remarks no problem. I did however ask a question I felt was legitimate:

What exactly then is the difference between omnibenevolence and being morally perfect? Or would you say that God isn't morally perfect?

Insult me all you want, but answer the question. Like you say, evasion is not an answer...

Doctor X

September 11, 2003, 07:28 PM

theophilus:

Okay . . . here is one then.

[For those who are in need of sleep he is about to pontificate on unjust suffering again.--Ed.]

Also known as my Personally Perspicaciously Pedagogical Pediatric Pontine Tumor Proof! [ZZZZzzzzzzz.--Ed.]

To review: whatever one has for a philosophy of how things are--which a religion remains--it has to explain or at least not contradict actual observation. Thus, if I drop a rock on a WTO protestor and it hovers over his head then I have to explain it. Maybe he needs to wash his hair.

Children and adolescents can develop an infiltrating tumor of the supporting cells of the pons--metencephalon [Sigh . . . part of brain stem.--Ed.]. As with real estate "location! location!" governs the central nervous system. Over time, the child loses all voluntary motor function--save eye movements--but remains conscious and able to feel everything--including the bed sores. Surgery cannot remove it, chemotherapy only pisses it off, and radiation merely retards the progression.

Now, this is a rather protracted and extreme incident of suffering. It does not lend itself to ridiculous post hoc rationalization--if "die she must" to prevent her from becoming the next Celine Dion . . . well . . . there are quicker and less pyschologically and physically torturous ways to go.

There is no one or thing to "blame" in that it is not linked to environment--"We TOLD you not to watch Barney!"--or genetics. Incidentally, even if one could provide a link it would not remove the unjust nature of the suffering.

Given that this FACT exists--all too frequently--that children have suffered in an extreme and protracted fashion, we must explain it. This leads to the Five Possible Choices [Tm.--Ed.]:

1. No gods exist.
2. A god exists and he is evil.
3. A god exists and he is incompetent.
4. A god exists and he is irrelevant.
5. Some combination of 2-5.

The observations and conclusions of Spurious Quirk--Welcome to the Forums!--[Cue kazoo.--Ed.] lead to one of the choices--incompetent.

You are free to choose your own.

--J.D.

Jobar

September 11, 2003, 07:31 PM

theophilus, do you expect us to completely restate all the volumes of posts that have been addressed to this subject, each time we argue? My point is that we answer your objections, and provide the examples, and point out the fallacies in your position, over and over. And yet you try to say we have not. My previous post was not an argument, or an insult; more of a long-suffering sigh...

OK. Let's all try to stick to dienekes' topic, here, and not drag yet another thread off to a discussion of presuppositionalism. I am interested that you, and CJD, are not willing to commit to God being omnibenevolent. I have heard luvluv say something similar; that while God may be 'good' he is not 'omni-good'. The classic statement of the PoE points out that it's pointless to worship a God who does not alleviate human suffering. So- are either of you (or anyone else here) agreeing with dienekes' theist friend? In short- is God good, as we humans define good?

Doctor X

September 11, 2003, 07:46 PM

Jobar:

If I may. . . .

theophilus, do you expect us to completely restate all the volumes of posts that have been addressed to this subject, each time we argue? My point is that we answer your objections, and provide the examples, and point out the fallacies in your position, over and over. And yet you try to say we have not.

Confronting such evidence proves "too dark altogether." It removes the comfort that someone . . . something . . . cares about us. It is not an easy thing to do, of course, but this is a discussion board and if one does not want his beliefs challenged he should inhabit another board.

I am interested that you, and CJD, are not willing to commit to God being omnibenevolent.

Commital to omnibenevolence smacks one right up against the contradiction of unjust suffering. An omnibenevolent entity cannot allow such malevolence . . . unless . . . he cannot do anything about it. This would, by my rubrik above, render him irrelevant, but that conclusion is not likely to satisfy Theophilus or CJD.

With regards to dienkene's friend, it is a glorified "might makes right" argument. One version I love is from a favorite movie, The Ruling Class:

Bishop He will recover! Yes! God is merciful! Yes! Despite all appearances!

Indeed, the problem with Job is that the "answer" is "realistic"--"who the hell are you to question the universe?"--but it is hardly just or good.

It is a cop-out to "assume a good plan"--believe me . . . it is there . . . you just cannot understand it . . . really, the child drowning in her own secretions . . . it is good! Unfortunately, that does not fit the facts. In my example, someone suffers unjustly over a long period of time. Post hoc rationalization does not remove that fact.

Descends from the soapbox. . . .

--J.D.

Spurious Quirk

September 11, 2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by theophilus

...before I initiated a critique???
Saying god was stupid must have pissed you off (I wonder why?).

Because it's pure ignorance on your part.

Nice rebuttal there! I particularly like how you demolished my argu....oh wait, you were just attacking me ad hominem. Nevermind.

So tell me, am I wrong in my understanding that many christians think of god as being entirely good?
See, I have heard many christians say this (often in the context
of the definition of evil as the absence of good).

No, you tell me. You're the one who wants to use these terms of which you have no clear idea. Do your homework or keep your mouth closed.
[snip]
Since you haven't defined what you mean by omni-benevolent or benevolent, I can't answer you.

1) Good -- the state of being morally excellent, virtuous, kind, and benevolent.
2) Entirely -- wholly, completely, to the full or entire extent.
Thus: "God is entirely Good" means that the Divine Creator of the universe is completely and wholly of morally excellent, virtuous and benevolent character.

Omni -- all, universally, entirely.
Benevolent -- kind, disposed to doing good, disposed to performing beneficial acts.
Thus: "God is Omnibenevolent" means that god is universally or entirely disposed to doing good. Thus, there isn't a part of him that doesn't want to do good; meaning he is entirely of virtuous character.

CJD said that "omnibenevolent" was not how christians describe god. Spenser and I were trying to get him to realize that omnibenevolent is functionally equivalent (certainly in this context) to the phrase "entirely Good", which I hope you will realize from the above that it is.
Thus, he would be saying that christians do not say that God is entirely Good. I have talked to many christians, and virtually all of them (who I have discussed this topic with) say that God is entirely good. So CJD seems to be mistaken; though I suspect he is correct in saying that the term "omnibenevolent" itself is not used very often in christian circles.

What do you think? Is god entirely good? Is he even omnibenevolent (given the above definitions)?

You don't help the atheist cause here by displaying your ignorance and intellectual sloth.

Ad hominem again. You're really on a roll with that!

Cheers

Spenser

September 11, 2003, 07:56 PM

Nice rebuttal there! I particularly like how you demolished my argu....oh wait, you were just attacking me ad hominem. Nevermind.

LOL! That was sweet! Theophilus, for one who creates a thread Evasion is not an answer you seem to excel at it. It would be wonderful if the next time you tell one of us that we misrepresented your position that you would explain how.

Spurious Quirk

September 11, 2003, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by Doctor X

1. No gods exist.
2. A god exists and he is evil.
3. A god exists and he is incompetent.
4. A god exists and he is irrelevant.
5. Some combination of 2-5.

The observations and conclusions of Spurious Quirk--Welcome to the Forums!--[Cue kazoo.--Ed.] lead to one of the choices--incompetent.

--J.D. [/B]

Thanks!

But number 2 can't be strictly correct either. If god were evil and omnipotent (for theophilus that means "all-powerful", "able to do anything"), then he must still be incompetent, because there is a lot of good in the world.

Cheers

theophilus

September 11, 2003, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by Spenser
It seems to me that being a presuppositionalist is a position in which you can't lose; at least to you. No, you were being a jerk.

I don't mind a difference of opinion, but I am weary of people arguing from ignorance. Yes, I am a Christian presuppositionalist and you are an Atheist presuppositionalist. Please get this straight and don't "accuse" me of being a dreaded presuppositionalist again, like that proves something. It only proves that you don't know what you're talking about.

I can take the derogatory remarks no problem. I did however ask a question I felt was legitimate:

Well, maybe that's the problem; you "felt" it was a legitimate question but didn't bother to "think" about it.

What exactly then is the difference between omnibenevolence and being morally perfect? Or would you say that God isn't morally perfect?

Insult me all you want, but answer the question. Like you say, evasion is not an answer... [/B]

I'm not insulting you; I'm merely pointing out the defects of your postings here.
As I already said, you're the one who wants to argue the PoE, so the responsibility to know what you're talking about rests with you.

theophilus

September 11, 2003, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Spurious Quirk
Thanks!

But number 2 can't be strictly correct either. If god were evil and omnipotent (for theophilus that means "all-powerful", "able to do anything"), then he must still be incompetent, because there is a lot of good in the world.

Cheers

Please stop making dumb posts. You have no idea what I mean by omnipotent as I haven't discussed that topic for a very long time. Even if I had, your caricature is nothing like my belief.

As to there being a "lot of good" in the world. You'll have to enlighten us all as to your standard of "good" and how you arrived at that and why your impression that good exists is somehow destructive of God's sovereignty.

Spurious Quirk

September 11, 2003, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by theophilus
Please stop making dumb posts. You have no idea what I mean by omnipotent as I haven't discussed that topic for a very long time. Even if I had, your caricature is nothing like my belief.
That's odd, I don't remember telling you what you mean by omnipotent. I was merely defining my terms. I seem to remember you having a problem with that earlier.....
oh! I see, you thought by the phrase "for theophilus that means..." that I was attempting to characterize your position. No, no. I was just using the following structure: "For all the idiots in the audience, that means..."
See?

As to there being a "lot of good" in the world. You'll have to enlighten us all as to your standard of "good" and how you arrived at that and why your impression that good exists is somehow destructive of God's sovereignty.
I happen to think 'Good' exists only in a subjective sense. Thus, if people percieve good, then good exists. So how do I know a lot of good exists in the world? Because I see a lot of good in the world.

Cheers

theophilus

September 11, 2003, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by Spurious Quirk
Because it's pure ignorance on your part.

Nice rebuttal there! I particularly like how you demolished my argu....oh wait, you were just attacking me ad hominem. Nevermind.

Well, gee I guess you got me .. oh wait, you weren't making an argument. You were admitting that you didn't know the difference between the terms (or if there was a difference) omnibenevolent and morally perfect but that, nevertheless, you felt qualified to engage in an attack on God using the terms.
Nevermind

Since you haven't defined what you mean by omni-benevolent or benevolent, I can't answer you.

1) Good -- the state of being morally excellent, virtuous, kind, and benevolent.
2) Entirely -- wholly, completely, to the full or entire extent.
Thus: "God is entirely Good" means that the Divine Creator of the universe is completely and wholly of morally excellent, virtuous and benevolent character.

Omni -- all, universally, entirely.
Benevolent -- kind, disposed to doing good, disposed to performing beneficial acts.
Thus: "God is Omnibenevolent" means that god is universally or entirely disposed to doing good. Thus, there isn't a part of him that doesn't want to do good; meaning he is entirely of virtuous character.

Unfortunately, you didn't define what "morally excellent, virtuous, kind or good" mean.
However, now that you have a partial definition, let me ask you by what means you would use what everyone here claims is a purely naturalistic process, i.e., morality, to judge the goodness of God? Do you mean that God is good in that he employes the same biological adaptative, survival techniques that we do?

What if God, in fact determins and declares what is good. How would you use that authority to find fault with what he then does according to his own standard.

Just something to think about (I recommend it before answering).

CJD said that "omnibenevolent" was not how christians describe god. Spenser and I were trying to get him to realize that omnibenevolent is functionally equivalent (certainly in this context) to the phrase "entirely Good", which I hope you will realize from the above that it is.

No, omni-benevolence is a term created by atheists to try, through their misunderstanding of how God is presented in the Bible, to deny God.

Thus, he would be saying that christians do not say that God is entirely Good. I have talked to many christians, and virtually all of them (who I have discussed this topic with) say that God is entirely good. So CJD seems to be mistaken; though I suspect he is correct in saying that the term "omnibenevolent" itself is not used very often in christian circles.

No, that is not at all what we are saying (and if that's what your friends meant, it is only because they are ignorant of what the Bible teaches).

We are saying that we do not assert the goodness of God as conforming to some standard external to himself. God's goodness is a function of his nature; God is not good in the same way that you might be, i.e., by conforming your behavior to some external standard of conduct. He is that by which all goodness is judged. It is impossible for him not to be good.

There, now you have a Christian definition and have no excuse for continuing in the confusion of the PoE. If you want to challenge this definition, then that gets into theology and is not appropriate here.

Ad hominem again. You're really on a roll with that!

Cheers [/B]

No, a charge of ignorance is not ad homenim if it is directed against an argument.

theophilus

September 11, 2003, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Spurious Quirk
That's odd, I don't remember telling you what you mean by omnipotent. I was merely defining my terms. I seem to remember you having a problem with that earlier.....
oh! I see, you thought by the phrase "for theophilus that means..." that I was attempting to characterize your position. No, no. I was just using the following structure: "For all the idiots in the audience, that means..."
See?

I happen to think 'Good' exists only in a subjective sense. Thus, if people percieve good, then good exists. So how do I know a lot of good exists in the world? Because I see a lot of good in the world.

Cheers

Well, that settles it; we miight as well all close up shop. Let's see if I can do that.

"I happen to think that "crap" exists only in a subjective sense. Thus, if people perceive crap then crap exists. So how do I know a lot of crap exists in the worl? Because I see a log of crap in the world."

Okay, works for me.

theophilus

September 11, 2003, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Spurious Quirk
That's odd, I don't remember telling you what you mean by omnipotent. I was merely defining my terms. I seem to remember you having a problem with that earlier.....
oh! I see, you thought by the phrase "for theophilus that means..." that I was attempting to characterize your position. No, no. I was just using the following structure: "For all the idiots in the audience, that means..."
See?

Sorry, I missed this the first time.

Your peurille attempt at humour here doesn't work. Whether you meant me specifically or only to include me in a class, your definition is still wrong. See?

Well, of course you don't see. You're too busy making an ass of yourself.

Spurious Quirk

September 11, 2003, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by theophilus
You were admitting that you didn't know the difference between the terms (or if there was a difference) omnibenevolent and morally perfect but that, nevertheless, you felt qualified to engage in an attack on God using the terms.

This assumes that there is a meaningful difference between the two terms. You have not thus far demonstrated that.

No, omni-benevolence is a term created by atheists to deny, through their misunderstanding of how God is presented in the Bible, to try to deny God.

So tell me, what is the functional difference between omnibenevolent and morally perfect? Sure, they were made up by different people, but are they different in what they mean? Or are they equivalent in meaning?
Right now I'm just not seeing any meaningful difference -- maybe you can correct me..... rather than just spewing venom at me.

Unfortunately, you didn't define what "morally excellent, virtuous, kind or good" mean.

The point was not to fully define the terms, but rather to show that they were equivalent in meaning.

We are saying that we do not assert the goodness of God as conforming to some standard external to himself. God's goodness is a function of his nature; God is not good in the same way that you might be, i.e., by conforming your behavior to some external standard of conduct. He is that by which all goodness is judged.

If god is the standard by which everything is judged, then by definition he is good. Just as if wheat is the commodity by which an index is set (in that wheat=100), then by definition wheat is 100.

Your 'christian definition' doesn't refute my above argument in the slightest.

Cheers

Spurious Quirk

September 11, 2003, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by theophilus
Sorry, I missed this the first time.

Your peurille attempt at humour here doesn't work. Whether you meant me specifically or only to include me in a class, your definition is still wrong. See?

Well, of course you don't see. You're too busy making an ass of yourself.

-- Allo?

-- For all you non French speakers out there, that means hello.

There, does that example make it clearer? I wasn't including you in any class, I was just being demeaning.

Cheers

Doctor X

September 12, 2003, 09:47 AM

Spurious Quirk:

But number 2 can't be strictly correct either. If god were evil and omnipotent (for theophilus that means "all-powerful", "able to do anything"), then he must still be incompetent, because there is a lot of good in the world.

That is because you are IGNORANT! [Stop that!--Ed.] Sorry . . . all of this argumenta ad hominem floating around.

Anyways, the Five Possible Choices [PBUT--Ed.] have differing degrees of "likely"--I leave it to posters to argue which one they feel is most likely. I will note that, for some reason, Theophilus has ignored the request to address the issue.

Thus, one could argue that a truly evil Big Daddy would allow some good in the world so we can appreciate the pain and suffering that much more. Also, "evil" includes a capricious nature--"I think, today, after allowing him to make the touchdown, I will striken her with cancer."

Also, one does not have to presuppose "omnipotent." A god could be all good, not omnipotent and, therefore, unable to prevent injustice even if wants to. This would render him incompetent in the sense he cannot do the task if not irrelevant--"sure, he wants to help you, but he cannot." You cannot rely on him.

If someone wishes to claim omnipotence for a deity, then it does tend to collape the possibilities right to evil. One could try a "deistic-Blind Watchmaker" omnipotent deity who simply will not intervene. This may avoid evil, but it will make him irrelevant.

--J.D.

Spurious Quirk

September 12, 2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Doctor X

Thus, one could argue that a truly evil Big Daddy would allow some good in the world so we can appreciate the pain and suffering that much more.

Hmm, interesting.....but by the same token, couldn't a truly good Big Daddy allow some pain in the world so that we can appreciate the joy and happiness much more?

Sorry, I'm just being a devil's....uh...a god's advocate.

Cheers

CJD

September 12, 2003, 10:03 AM

Hello, all. This conversation has gotten rather combative since I've added my two cents, and a lot of silliness and unclear thinking have resulted. There are a few things to say at this point, and please, read slowly and carefully.

First, we must understand the context within which we are arguing. Atheists, please, recognize that you spend much time poking fun at a god who does not exist. We have had just a few measley centuries of misinformed, mushy Theology (proper), and you take that to be all-defining in terms of who God is�both as described in Scripture and embraced in historic, orthodox Christianity. There is no doubt many Xians think of God as a gigantic teddy bear, indeed, one who "is universally or entirely disposed to doing good."

The problem is what is implied in the word good, both by modern fundy-evangelicals and atheists alike. What the modern truly means when he/she says "God is universally or entirely disposed to doing good," is "God is universally or entirely disposed to doing good, that is, entirely disposed to making humankind happy."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Scripture nowhere portrays a god like this, nor has the historic Church ever confessed such a god. Such a god is fickle and capricious�not unlike our own ancient myths.

The atheist, for starters, has no right to dictate the terms of the argument. The reason for this is quite simple: as far as the PoE is concerned, the burden is on the objector, because if the objector has approached the argument correctly, then he/she will not only understand rightly what is being objected to, he/she will have agreed to assume the very same premises about God that the believer has already deduced. Thus the objector must refute the stated position of the objectee; otherwise you're just pissing in the wind.

So, when the objector says "good" in this context, it is hardly valid if "good" means anything less that "bringing glory to God." You see, God is not inclined to make you happy, he is inclined to bring himself glory. Contrary to what Doc X thinks, the poem Job does not have a problem with its theodicy, for it is entirely just IF you grant what at the outset of the so-called PoE you are supposed to grant, namely, MY perspective (having been informed by Scripture and tradition) on who God is. If you cannot bring yourself to do this, then you won't learn anything about that which you reject. You're like that fellow in Dumb and Dumber who slinks down into the bathroom corner, sucking his thumb, crying, "Find a happy place. Find a happy place . . . ."

There is no doubt that a tension exists in the Xian view, for it is very hard to imagine how God's purposes justify the evil in the world. But the Xian is not under any obligation whatsoever to show in every case how God's past and present actions contribute to the final good ("good" in the sense I have described above). Even further, you folks have no right to demand such an explanation, especially considering the absurdity of most alternatives.

In the end, your task is to show me that my conception of God is faulty (because according to my conception of who God is, God always acts within the proper authority of his Lordship). If you think this is unfair and unassailable, then good (debunking requires actual work, folks! read Read READ!). As I have stated elsewhere, I am not here to convince you of how some god loves you (as if all "love" is equal), looks out for you, has a wonderful plan for your life, etc., etc. I am largely here to make sure you are clear on what it is you reject.

By the way, there is a thread here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62370&perpage=25&pagenumber=1), related closely to this subject, wherein the �Euthyphro problem� and God's nature are discussed.

Regards,

CJD

Spurious Quirk

September 12, 2003, 10:07 AM

Originally by theophilus
We are saying that we do not assert the goodness of God as conforming to some standard external to himself. God's goodness is a function of his nature; God is not good in the same way that you might be, i.e., by conforming your behavior to some external standard of conduct. He is that by which all goodness is judged.

In case you didn't follow the whole wheat index thing, I thought of a (perhaps) clearer analogy: Locked in a vault in the international bureau of weights and measures in Sevres, France, is a bar of metal. That bar is the official meter, and is the standard by which all other meter sticks are measured. Now, since that bar is the official meter, it is by definition exactly one meter long. It is illogical to say that the meter is not one meter long -- it's the standard!

Similarly, if god is the standard of good -- if he "is that by which all goodness is judged" -- then necessarily he must be good.

Does that help?

Cheers

Doctor X

September 12, 2003, 10:11 AM

Spurious Quirk:

. . . couldn't a truly good Big Daddy allow some pain in the world so that we can appreciate the joy and happiness much more?

This would explain Country Western music. . . .

It is a valid question. I constructed the problem to remove some of the post hoc rationalizations. I thought of it as a response to a thread that claimed that suffering was necessary to enjoy life--it is not. The extreme nature of the suffering and its extent is what removes the "good" from this case. Someone could argue that "the family learns to love more . . . blah blah." This hardly merits six months of torture. Similarly, if "she will go to Heaven" is suppose to make up for it, why, then did Josef Mengele pass rather easily.

In response, someone creates a Hell: "He is hanging upside-down by his genitals listening to Hank Williams, Sr!" However, that hardly helps the child who did nothing to deserve her plight.

Similarly, the Holocaust represents a rather good example of unjust suffering, but someone could try to explain it by saying, "That is the evil of MAN!" I do not think it removes the responsibility of a deity to respond, but it side-tracks the discussion. Worse, some idiot will try to diminish the Holocaust.

This is all fun and games, but there is a sad reality to it all. First, children do die this way and families do have to cope with it. Similarly, recall Larry "Mr. Smarmy" King's interview with Mark (?) Klass--father of murdered/molested child Polly Klass. He rather bristled at the suggestion that Elizabeth Smart's return was a "miracle" for it implied that his daughter and other children who never return did not deserve such a miracle.

What? He did not pray enough? Fortunately, I did today--got a good parking space in front of the cafe! At least Big Daddy has his priorities straight. . . .

--J.D.

Spenser

September 12, 2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by theophilus
I'm not insulting you; I'm merely pointing out the defects of your postings here.
As I already said, you're the one who wants to argue the PoE, so the responsibility to know what you're talking about rests with you.

Theo,

You are more than intelligent enough to know what I am getting at, act like it. Perhaps if I rephrase this:

What do think the difference between omnibenevolence and being morally perfect is? Or would you say that God isn't morally perfect?

Plus this question was not aimed at just you. Any theist, including CJD.

A couple of posts later you define God as the standard in which all goodness is judged. Basically that God is the standard of goodness and there is no standard outside of himself. This means that anything that God does is good, and if God commands genocide, us humans have no way of distinguishing it as anything other than good right? Strangely enough most any human would deem genocide as evil. How are we humans suppose to distinguish between good and evil when God does things that most people would perceive as evil (like flooding the whole world minus a handful)? This really needs justification.

And please don't forget to answer this:

What do think the difference between omnibenevolence and being morally perfect is? Or would you say that God isn't morally perfect?

We are all waiting patiently.

Doctor X

September 12, 2003, 10:14 AM

CJD:

So you chose what? Evil? Incompetent? Some Combination?

Incidentally, the burden of proof does not lie in anyone disproving what you believe; it lies with you proving your belief. If you cannot, that is fine, but then you cannot expect others to share your beliefs.

--J.D.

Spurious Quirk

September 12, 2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by CJD
You see, God is not inclined to make you happy, he is inclined to bring himself glory.

He sounds like an asshole to me.

But seriously, you make an excellent point -- and somehow you avoid calling us names and insulting us. I wonder how you do it?

Cheers

Spurious Quirk

September 12, 2003, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Doctor X
This would explain Country Western music. . . .

It is a valid question. I constructed the problem to remove some of the post hoc rationalizations. I thought of it as a response to a thread that claimed that suffering was necessary to enjoy life--it is not. The extreme nature of the suffering and its extent is what removes the "good" from this case. Someone could argue that "the family learns to love more . . . blah blah." This hardly merits six months of torture. Similarly, if "she will go to Heaven" is suppose to make up for it, why, then did Josef Mengele pass rather easily.

In response, someone creates a Hell: "He is hanging upside-down by his genitals listening to Hank Williams, Sr!" However, that hardly helps the child who did nothing to deserve her plight.

Similarly, the Holocaust represents a rather good example of unjust suffering, but someone could try to explain it by saying, "That is the evil of MAN!" I do not think it removes the responsibility of a deity to respond, but it side-tracks the discussion. Worse, some idiot will try to diminish the Holocaust.

This is all fun and games, but there is a sad reality to it all. First, children do die this way and families do have to cope with it. Similarly, recall Larry "Mr. Smarmy" King's interview with Mark (?) Klass--father of murdered/molested child Polly Klass. He rather bristled at the suggestion that Elizabeth Smart's return was a "miracle" for it implied that his daughter and other children who never return did not deserve such a miracle.

What? He did not pray enough? Fortunately, I did today--got a good parking space in front of the cafe! At least Big Daddy has his priorities straight. . . .

--J.D.

I agree. Especially about Country & Western music....
:)

Cheers

markfiend

September 12, 2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by CJD
...Atheists, please, recognize that you spend much time poking fun at a god who does not exist....I think the reason I'm an atheist is because "he" doesn't exist. I know, I know, I'm misconstruing. I couldn't resist, sorry. :D...The problem is what is implied in the word good, both by modern fundy-evangelicals and atheists alike. What the modern truly means when he/she says "God is universally or entirely disposed to doing good," is "God is universally or entirely disposed to doing good, that is, entirely disposed to making humankind happy."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Scripture nowhere portrays a god like this, nor has the historic Church ever confessed such a god...But how about "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son..." (John 3:16) Surely one of the connotations of love is a desire for the happiness of the one loved? Should we not expect benevolence from a deity who (it is claimed) loves us?...I am not here to convince you of how some god loves you (as if all "love" is equal), looks out for you, has a wonderful plan for your life, etc., etc. I am largely here to make sure you are clear on what it is you reject...Well, you don't need to convince me, the fact that it says it right there in the Bible is contradicted by the evidence. And there you have your PoE. *shrug*

Edit to add: I'm leaving the office where I work now, so I'm sorry if it looks like I'm doing a "drive-by" on you, CJD.

Wyz_sub10

September 12, 2003, 10:35 AM

This is the second time I've had to post this today...in this forum.

(2) You will not post material that is knowingly defamatory, illegal, abusive, threatening, harassing, or racially offensive. As with anything, you will use good common sense. In other words, you agree not to be a jerk.

I see no reason to keep this thread going if it continues to be little more than a cyber-round table for insults and disparaging remarks.

Please focus on the issue, not the individual.

Thanks,

Wyz_sub10,
EoG Moderator

CJD

September 12, 2003, 12:06 PM

Spurious Quirk wrote:
But seriously, you make an excellent point -- and somehow you avoid calling us names and insulting us. I wonder how you do it?

I smile when I type�and I don't take myself all that seriously.

Doctor X, the burden of proof lies upon you if you object to my understanding of God and his relation to evil. This is incontestable. You must show that my understanding of God is deficient based on my criterion (Scripture and tradition), and IF you can do that, then obviously his relation to evil (as I have yet to explain anyway) comes into question. My whole point is that I am not here to "prove" at all, just (hopefully) to correct some misguided assumptions. Others "sharing my beliefs" is hardly a worthy motivation for anything.

markfiend, I haven't much to add, except that you should maybe entertain the possibility that not all love is equal love. Just as our own human love is complex, how much more complex would a supposed Creator's love be? Is he a binary being? Are you?

Nowhere in Scripture is it taught that God "loves you (as if all "love" is equal), looks out for you, has a wonderful plan for your life, etc., etc." That's just a bunch of modern fundy-evangelical mass evangelism gobbly-gook. If you wish to discuss this matter further, please invite me to the BC & H forum.

Regards,

CJD

theophilus

September 12, 2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by CJD
I smile when I type�and I don't take myself all that seriously.

Doctor X, the burden of proof lies upon you if you object to my understanding of God and his relation to evil. This is incontestable. You must show that my understanding of God is deficient based on my criterion (Scripture and tradition), and IF you can do that, then obviously his relation to evil (as I have yet to explain anyway) comes into question. My whole point is that I am not here to "prove" at all, just (hopefully) to correct some misguided assumptions. Others "sharing my beliefs" is hardly a worthy motivation for anything.

This is nice. Thank you.

markfiend, I haven't much to add, except that you should maybe entertain the possibility that not all love is equal love. Just as our own human love is complex, how much more complex would a supposed Creator's love be? Is he a binary being? Are you?

Nowhere in Scripture is it taught that God "loves you (as if all "love" is equal), looks out for you, has a wonderful plan for your life, etc., etc." That's just a bunch of modern fundy-evangelical mass evangelism gobbly-gook. If you wish to discuss this matter further, please invite me to the BC & H forum.

I completely agree.

theophilus

September 12, 2003, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by markfiend
how about "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son..." (John 3:16) Surely one of the connotations of love is a desire for the happiness of the one loved? Should we not expect benevolence from a deity who (it is claimed) loves us?

You see, the idea is that before one tries to make an argument, they make sure they know what they're talking about. If you consult any greek text, you'll see that the word "so" means thus or in this way. So, the meaning of the verse is not an affirmation of God's love, but an explanation of how that love was accomplished; "For thus God loved the world - that he gave his only begotten son."
Additionally, the word love here, as in all cases referring to God, is agape, the essence of which is "acting in the best interest of another." Thus, God acted in the best interest of the world by giving his only son." How was "giving his only son acting in the best interest of the world? Just this, Jesus came to bear the sins of the world under which men stand burdened and condemned.
Further, what is the "world" in view here? It is not mankind, but the "cosmos," i.e., that worldly system which operates against the authority of God.
So, a comprehensive rendering of the verse would be "For God thus acted in the best interest of rebellious sinners - he sent his only begotten son to free them from the penalty and effects of sin."

See what you can learn if you just apply yourself a little? I know it's easier and more satisfying to just parott what you've been told, but give it a try, i.e., finding out what you're talking about

Doctor X

September 12, 2003, 07:12 PM

CJD:

Unfortunately, you eroneously shift the blame:

Doctor X, the burden of proof lies upon you if you object to my understanding of God and his relation to evil.

If you wish anyone to agree with or care about your "understanding" then you must provide the evidence for your deity and your conception of his relationship to evil.

This is incontestable.

Ipse dixit and wrong, unfortunately.

You must show that my understanding of God is deficient based on my criterion (Scripture and tradition), . . .

Actually, no, since you have not provided your criteria as proof. However, I have demonstrated the deficiency of your understanding and you, as well as Theophilus have conveniently avoided it.

My whole point is that I am not here to "prove" at all, just (hopefully) to correct some misguided assumptions.

In order to "correct some misguided assumptions" you must provide evidence to support your corrections.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

--J.D.

CJD

September 12, 2003, 09:42 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctor X, the burden of proof lies upon you if you object to my understanding of God and his relation to evil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you wish anyone to agree with or care about your "understanding" then you must provide the evidence for your deity and your conception of his relationship to evil.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is incontestable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ipse dixit and wrong, unfortunately.

Ex contrario, DocX, res ipsa loquitur. Besides, you miss the entire point. I do not wish for anyone here to agree or care about my understanding, I wish them to see simply that their so-called problem is not a real problem, that is, it is not a wholesale slam-dunk problem for Xianity. That's all, nothing more or less. Basically, I came here and shouted something to the effect: "Well, that's not what I believe! And what's more, the history of orthodox interpretation agrees with ME! So where does that leave your problem?" Useless and dead, DocX, that's where. The best this so-called problem on this thread has done is shown a few uneducated fundy-types that they should read their bibles a little more critically.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must show that my understanding of God is deficient based on my criterion (Scripture and tradition), . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, no, since you have not provided your criteria as proof. However, I have demonstrated the deficiency of your understanding and you, as well as Theophilus have conveniently avoided it.

This was a hypothetical. IF I had offered my understanding, based on my criterion, then you would have to face it accordingly. I have yet to do this, and yet somehow you think you have begun demonstrating a deficiency. Mirabile visu verum!

In order to "correct some misguided assumptions" you must provide evidence to support your corrections.

What'd you have in mind? Exegesis? Do you not know my posting well enough to know that I would bore you to tears with biblical criticism? Really, though, I shouldn't have to do someone else's work for them. All they need to do is read a lot, and then read some more, and then learn the ancient languages, and then learn textual analysis, and then read some more, etc., etc.

At the very least, what I have writtern thus far, especially regarding historic, orthodox conceptions of who God is, can be easily confirmed with just a surface scan of the Church's landscape. No, I won't hold your hand on this one. Go to the library or something.

Regards,

CJD

Doctor X

September 14, 2003, 04:24 PM

Ex contrario, DocX, res ipsa loquitur .

Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam, after a fashion. Nevertheless, your statement remains an ipse dixit and, as demonstrated above, incorrect.

Besides, you miss the entire point.

On the contrary, I recognized your attempt to shift the burden of evidence.

I do not wish for anyone here to agree or care about my understanding, . . .

Your posts indicate otherwise. Note your response later:

I came here and shouted something to the effect: "Well, that's not what I believe! And what's more, the history of orthodox interpretation agrees with ME!. . . ."

I wish them to see simply that their so-called problem is not a real problem, . . .

Then you would have to provide evidence for that. Thus, to return to the afformentioned ipse dixit:

Basically, I came here and shouted something to the effect: "Well, that's not what I believe! And what's more, the history of orthodox interpretation agrees with ME! So where does that leave your problem?"

you merely make a claim without evidence. That evidence exists that contradicts your claim does, of course, render the Noble Readership skeptical. Your continued failure to provide this evidence only compounds the problem. Your attempt to shift the burden of evidence may lead the uncharitable to conclude you have less-than-honorable motivations.

The best this so-called problem on this thread has done is shown a few uneducated fundy-types that they should read their bibles a little more critically.

Given that you have avoided the problem, perhaps one can understand your misrepresentation of it. However, it remains that reality suggests five possible conclusions concerning a deity. You may either address the problem, or admit you cannot.

IF I had offered my understanding, based on my criterion, then you would have to face it accordingly. I have yet to do this, . . .

At least now an admission of a failure to back claims. I have read that admitting a problem is the first step towards recovery. Nonetheless, a problem has been proposed and you have, yet, to address it.

What'd you have in mind? Exegesis? Do you not know my posting well enough to know that I would bore you to tears with biblical criticism?

I make no judgement upon character. I have proposed a problem which really does not require hermeneutics. Given the activity on BC-H methinks you should not speculate on what entertains other posters.

Really, though, I shouldn't have to do someone else's work for them.

Argumentum ad ignorantum.

We have an individual who makes a claim but cannot provide any evidence for it. He now tries to imply that evidence exists out there . . . somewhere . . . if we only look for it.

That he continues to fail to provide it should not, apparently, dimiish our faith in its existence. . . .

I will note, en passant, that his characterization of biblical criticism leads to conclusions he might find "too dark altogether."

He then natters on about how the libraries hold literature that proves his ideas despite the fact that they hold literature that disprove his claims. A most incovenient non sequitur but perhaps that represents justice.

We still wait, of course, for him to address the Five Possible Choices {PBUT} [Stop that.--Ed.]

--J.D.

Wayne Delia

September 14, 2003, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Doctor X
Really, though, I shouldn't have to do someone else's work for them.Argumentum ad ignorantum.

We have an individual who makes a claim but cannot provide any evidence for it. He now tries to imply that evidence exists out there . . . somewhere . . . if we only look for it.

That he continues to fail to provide it should not, apparently, dimiish our faith in its existence. . . .Instead of an argument from ignorance ("I can't think of any other way this could have happened, therefore my God did it"), it's just a case of smokescreening and handwaving (i.e. "But there's TONS of evidence out there! Go look it up yourself! I'm not going to do your work for you!") It is still, of course, a grievous logical fallacy.

WMD

markfiend

September 15, 2003, 03:56 AM

Me:
how about "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son..." (John 3:16) Surely one of the connotations of love is a desire for the happiness of the one loved? Should we not expect benevolence from a deity who (it is claimed) loves us?CJD's reply:
markfiend, I haven't much to add, except that you should maybe entertain the possibility that not all love is equal love. Just as our own human love is complex, how much more complex would a supposed Creator's love be? Is he a binary being? Are you?

Nowhere in Scripture is it taught that God "loves you (as if all "love" is equal), looks out for you, has a wonderful plan for your life, etc., etc." That's just a bunch of modern fundy-evangelical mass evangelism gobbly-gook. If you wish to discuss this matter further, please invite me to the BC & H forum.
Yes, I see your point. Although what you say is a misconception of God is what I was taught as a child in the mainstream Church of England. *shrug*theophilus' reply:
You see, the idea is that before one tries to make an argument, they make sure they know what they're talking about.Well, thank you for your kind words theo. I was asking a question, not making an argument.If you consult any greek text, you'll see that the word "so" means thus or in this way. So, the meaning of the verse is not an affirmation of God's love, but an explanation of how that love was accomplished; "For thus God loved the world - that he gave his only begotten son."I'm not convinced, I'm sorry. It seems to me that even with "thus" for "so" you're stretching the quote to make it mean what you want it to mean. Would this then be the only "thus" of God's love? Is it sufficient demonstration of his love to send Jesus, and then nothing else, ever?That
Additionally, the word love here, as in all cases referring to God, is agape, the essence of which is "acting in the best interest of another."Well another definition I've found is "Love that is spiritual, not sexual, in its nature", or even like I said, "a desire for the happiness of the one loved"? Thus, God acted in the best interest of the world by giving his only son." How was "giving his only son acting in the best interest of the world? Just this, Jesus came to bear the sins of the world under which men stand burdened and condemned.I get heartily sick of this piece of Christian dogma. I fail to see how humankind is inherently sinful. Further, what is the "world" in view here? It is not mankind, but the "cosmos," i.e., that worldly system which operates against the authority of God. Wow. so Jesus redeemed the whole universe? If there are sinful aliens on Planet Xyggyz 30,000,000 light years away, his suffering and death redeemed their sins too? How do they know?So, a comprehensive rendering of the verse would be "For God thus acted in the best interest of rebellious sinners - he sent his only begotten son to free them from the penalty and effects of sin."

See what you can learn if you just apply yourself a little? I know it's easier and more satisfying to just parott what you've been told, but give it a try, i.e., finding out what you're talking aboutWell thank you for your analysis of my motives, theo. I'm only "parrotting" what I've been told by Christian teachers and "holy men". I'd appreciate it if you were a little more civil when answering my honest questions.

To restate the PoE:
There exists evil in the world.
Why should I worship a being that allows this evil to continue, when he is allegedly all powerful, and therefore capable of stopping it?

Volker

September 15, 2003, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by dienekes
I presented the Argument from Evil and Suffering to my theist friend and you know how he answered it? Instead of using the freewill defense, he simply conceded that God is evil and there is nothing we can do about it. But wait, He is evil only to us. Because God has a reason for everything, whatever it is, we don't know. If we knew his reasons then we'd be like Him. But whatever his reasons are, this will all turn out to be benevolent. He even went as far as telling me that we don't have freewill at all and he got some verses to support it.

Sorry, I haven't read all posts, so I hope I'm not duplicating anything.

You can argue against this position in the same way that you argue in case of the PoE, just "reverse" your normal arguments. If god is all evil then why is there anything good?

That's one thing with the problem of evil: If you have developed a perfect defense and can show that god can be good in spite of all the suffering, you can most of the times "reverse" the defense and defend with the same arguments that god is all evil in spite of all good things in the world. If the defense is successfull, the reverse defense will be successfull most of the time.

This leads to a contradiction, something I call "Scheme V". Scheme V goes as follows:

If an argument can be used to argue for A and at the same time to argue for ~A, something ist seriously wrong with the argument, no matter if you find the error, no matter how plausible you find the argument.

Example:

A wonder proves the truth of christianity. For the sake of the argument, assume that it is true. Now a wonder in the islamic religion will prove that islam is true, a wonder in hinduism will prove that hinduism is true and so on. So if this argument works, we have a serious contradiction, because not all of this religions can be true at the same time. This shows that the argument must be flawed, no matter how good you think it is.

There is no need to argue that there are no wonders. Just accept it and prove that there must be something wrong.

Instead of wonder you can insert a lot of other things like martyrdom, the number of people believing (remember, christianity was not always the biggest religion around), revelation, moral etc.

So, if a defense for the PoE is successfull, and you can show that the reverse defense ist successfull, too, the defense is flawed.

Simple, isn't it?

CJD

September 15, 2003, 10:03 AM

DocX, I will ask you once to work hard to refrain from twisting my words.

This issue is simple:

1) The so-called PoE necessarily assumes "a" god exists. Which god are you going to stick into it? All I have read thus far suggests that it is not the god both of Scripture and the god embraced in historic orthodox Xianity (there are, of course, exceptions to everything). This brings us to the second point.

2) "I have proposed a problem which really does not require hermeneutics." Any discussion involving deity, at least from an Xian perspective, involves hermeneutics. Surely you can see this. What's more, my experience in the BC&H forum suggests that most folks are interested in methodology and history�not exegesis. I can spend all night writing something and a common response by the learned is silence, while the typical response from the unlearned is something like, "Your engaging in hermeneutical gymnastics." Further, I did not intend to imply that biblical criticism leads to conclusions [ I ] might find "too dark altogether." It was unjust of you to suggest this. I merely expect reasonable people to recognize sound textual criticism, and they do, and have, on countless occasions.

3) Biblical criticism notwithstanding, the reason I would ever state that "I am not going to do your work for you," is because the stuff I am saying will be found in just about every historical theology textbook out there. This is not an Argumentum ad ignorantum. I shouldn't have to provide evidence for common knowledge, which is an unfortunate smokescreen on your behalf.

At any rate, peruse the following (I am not assuming this gets me "off the hook" re: showing the evidence, but again, I refuse to hand-feed people, especially smart asses):

Philip Schaff, History of the Church, 7 vols. Eerdmans.

_____, The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols. Same

Hubert Cunliffe-Jones, A History of the Christian Doctrine, T. & T. Clark.

J.N.D. Kelly Early Christian Doctrines Harper and Row.

J. Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 5 vols. Chicago.

_____ and Valerie Hotchkiss, Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 4 vols. Yale

The Pelikan History of the Church 6 vols.

Reinhold Seeberg, The History of Doctrines, Baker.

Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, Baker.

K. Froehlich, ed. Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, Fortress.

W. Placher, Readings in the History of Christian: From the Beginnings to the Eve of the Reformation vol. 1, Westminster.

_____, The History of Christian Theology: An Introduction, Westminster.

Justo Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought, 2 vols., Abingdon.

A. McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, Blackwell.

P.V. Reid, Readings in Western Religious Thought, 2 vols, Paulist Press.

Fr. Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology.

Roger Olson, The Story of Christian Theology, IVP.

T.D. McGonigle and J.F. Quigley, eds. A History of the Christian Tradition, 2 vols. Paulist Press.

Simply look up "God" in each of these books' indices and voila! you will have begun your quest. Once you have fully understood (within your capabilities) the doctrine of God from a historical theological perspective, then you might be ready for step one of the so-called PoE: "If God . . ."

A simple question: how could (in all probability) the only person in this discussion to have read much of the bibliography above be the one accused of "smokescreening and handwaiving?" Preposterous, indeed.

"He then natters on about how the libraries hold literature that proves his ideas despite the fact that they hold literature that disprove his claims."

This makes no sense to me. Are you saying that there are books out there that disprove my claims regarding how God has been viewed in Church history? What other claims have I made? I mean, now is the time for chapter-and-verse, friend.

Can it be said any more clearly? Given the argument assumes at the outset that "a" god exists, why would the person who does not think a god exists be allowed to dictate what type of god is being questioned? The argument itself demands that you ask me what type of God I believe in, and then, and only then, can you begin your argument. It's utterly non-sensical to presume that an atheist can correctly posit the conception of God from an Xian perspective!

One final thing you must realize is that by demanding others to entertain your Five Possible Choices you betray your desire to be someone worth reckoning. You have no right to dictate the terms of the argument; assuming as much exposes your Odyssean flaw. Maybe I will look at them again, and if I find them worth responding to, I will be sure to offer a comment or two.

Regards,

CJD

Maria L

September 15, 2003, 10:26 AM

theophilus

We are saying that we do not assert the goodness of God as conforming to some standard external to himself. God's goodness is a function of his nature; God is not good in the same way that you might be, i.e., by conforming your behavior to some external standard of conduct. He is that by which all goodness is judged. It is impossible for him not to be good.

How do you know this? What standard did you use to determine God's "goodness"?

Doctor X

September 15, 2003, 04:24 PM

Wayne:

Argumentum ad ignorantium--"argument to ignorance - use of information either unknown or to which the other cannot be privy."

Which is a "nitpick" since, frankly, your definition is quite common and quite valid. I consider both a variation on the theme. The "well . . . it's a mystery!" cop-out is a favorite of pulpits and witness stands everywhere.

Now. . . .

I will ask you once to work hard to refrain from twisting my words.

I merely discuss what the poster actually writes. If he is unhappy with the results of his labors he would do well to compose more responsibly.

This issue is simple:

Indeed. It involves addressing the problem posed. It does not involve:

1) The so-called PoE necessarily assumes "a" god exists. Which god are you going to stick into it?

Irrelevant to the problem. The "PoE" does not necessarily "assumes 'a' god exists." However, we can consider what reality says about any deity. One of the "solutions" to the problem remains non existence.

Any discussion involving deity, at least from an Xian perspective, involves hermeneutics.

No. The reality of the case described which leads to the Five Possible Choices does not involve hermeneutics.

A complaint about BC-H follows which does not address the problem here.

Further, I did not intend to imply that biblical criticism leads to conclusions [ I ] might find "too dark altogether." It was unjust of you to suggest this.

When a poster fails, repeatedly, to address a problem, one is forced to this conclusion.

. . . the reason I would ever state that "I am not going to do your work for you," is because the stuff I am saying will be found in just about every historical theology textbook out there.

Ipse dixit et non sequitur--does not address the problem.

A child, who cannot speak, who cannot move, who knows her fate, who feels pain, waits for an answer.

For some reason the poster provides none.

Instead, he indeed passes a "smoke screen"--with a bibliography--which, an unkind man would have to conclude covers his fear to address the problem.

Thus, one really cannot take his complaints seriously. When asked a question he attempts an argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam ad nauseum to then snipe:

Simply look up "God" in each of these books' indices and voila! you will have begun your quest. Once you have fully understood (within your capabilities) the doctrine of God from a historical theological perspective, then you might be ready for step one of the so-called PoE: "If God . . ."

Unfortunately, it does not succeed as a dodge of the implications of the Perniciously Perspicaciously Prodigiously Pedagogical Pediatric Pontine Tumor Problem proposed [Pompously.--Ed.] previously.

One does not need to clutter one's perspective with apology to consider reality.

A simple question: how could (in all probability) the only person in this discussion to have read much of the bibliography above be the one accused of "smokescreening and handwaiving?" Preposterous, indeed.

"Asked and answered. . . ."

Certainly ATTENTION to the problem rather than this argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam would change some opinions to something more favorable.

Moi: "He then natters on about how the libraries hold literature that proves his ideas despite the fact that they hold literature that disprove his claims."

This makes no sense to me. Are you saying that there are books out there that disprove my claims regarding how God has been viewed in Church history?

The self-center'd cry aside, the individual continues to avoid the problem and his books do not, in fact, answer the problem for him.

It is all well in good to demonstrate the dodges and, indeed, "smoke screens," perpetrated by the individual. However, when he stoops to misrepresentation:

Given the argument assumes at the outset that "a" god exists, why would the person who does not think a god exists be allowed to dictate what type of god is being questioned?

then, I am afraid I have no choice but to expose it.

On the contrary, belief in a deity does not affect the Problem--though one who does may find the conclusions rather upsetting. In that case, such need merely demonstrate that the suffering of the child--its extent and severity--are just and good.

That is all. The rest is just "smoke screen."

The argument itself demands that you ask me what type of God I believe in, and then, and only then, can you begin your argument.

Ipse dixit, of course, and wrong. The argument, and the current Problem, do not require such specifications at all. Indeed, part of the reason for the Problem is that is covers all types--unless someone wishes to propose a "god" not covered.

Of course, that would require addressing the Problem rather than avoiding it.

It's utterly non-sensical to presume that an atheist can correctly posit the conception of God from an Xian perspective!

Ipse dixit and, fortunately for biblical scholarship, incorrect. Indeed, one could argue that it is "non-sensical to presume" than a modern day Christian could "correctly posit the of a god from the perspective of Junior and his Band of Merry Men." One would have a better chance of defending it.

Thus, Wayne does this all condensce to a massive and craven argumentum ad ignorantium--"youse guys just can't possibly understand what I, great believer, understand."

Fortunately, for reality, "belief" and understanding of such do not bear on the Problem.

Now, comes the petulence. . . .

One final thing you must realize is that by demanding others to entertain your Five Possible Choices you betray your desire to be someone worth reckoning.

well, at least we have the admission that he has seen the Problem, though this leaves us the right to speculate on his continued failure to address them.

You [Cue violins.--Ed.] have no right to dictate the terms of the argument; . . .

I am sorry . . . I thought this was a DEBATE FORUM. I did not realize it was a personal "coffee klatch" designed to message and support the beliefs of this individual.

. . . assuming as much exposes your Odyssean flaw.

More Oedipal since it involves daring to ask a question which the answer may prove unpleasant.

Maybe I will look at them again, and if I find them worth responding to, . . .

Methinks, suddenly, the individual's Odyssean slip is showing. We mere mortals can only wait with in aguish hoping that, one day, the individual will descend from his soapbox to actually address the topic rather than his "injur'd merit."

--J.D.

Wayne Delia

September 15, 2003, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by Spurious Quirk
In case you didn't follow the whole wheat index thing, I thought of a (perhaps) clearer analogy: Locked in a vault in the international bureau of weights and measures in Sevres, France, is a bar of metal. That bar is the official meter, and is the standard by which all other meter sticks are measured. Now, since that bar is the official meter, it is by definition exactly one meter long. It is illogical to say that the meter is not one meter long -- it's the standard! This is probably true, at least I'm sure it was true at one time in the past. I seem to recall, though, that the definition of a meter is now in terms of a very large number of wavelengths of radioactive decay of an isotope, perhaps Strontium-90, but the point remains the same. (Caveat - I am perhaps the world's worst physicist and chemist.) The difference, of course, is that something "being a meter" carries no implication of morality, as would something "being good."

WMD

Wayne Delia

September 15, 2003, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by CJD
markfiend, I haven't much to add, except that you should maybe entertain the possibility that not all love is equal love. This is true. One example is sadomasochism, in which love is defined and experienced as either power or pain inflicted on others, or pain received from others. (The masochist says "Hurt me! Hurt me!" and the sadist says "No." :-) Perhaps this is the kind of love your God offers.

WMD

Wayne Delia

September 15, 2003, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by Doctor X
Wayne:

Argumentum ad ignorantium--"argument to ignorance - use of information either unknown or to which the other cannot be privy."

Which is a "nitpick" since, frankly, your definition is quite common and quite valid. I consider both a variation on the theme. The "well . . . it's a mystery!" cop-out is a favorite of pulpits and witness stands everywhere.I stand corrected (actually, I sit corrected.) Smokescreening and handwaving is a close cousin of AAI.

(massive text-ectomy)

Ipse dixit and, fortunately for biblical scholarship, incorrect. Indeed, one could argue that it is "non-sensical to presume" than a modern day Christian could "correctly posit the of a god from the perspective of Junior and his Band of Merry Men." One would have a better chance of defending it.

Thus, Wayne does this all condensce to a massive and craven argumentum ad ignorantium--"youse guys just can't possibly understand what I, great believer, understand.""After further review" (as the NFL referees say), yes, it does. I agree.

WMD

Spurious Quirk

September 15, 2003, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Wayne Delia
This is probably true, at least I'm sure it was true at one time in the past. I seem to recall, though, that the definition of a meter is now in terms of a very large number of wavelengths of radioactive decay of an isotope, perhaps Strontium-90, but the point remains the same. (Caveat - I am perhaps the world's worst physicist and chemist.)

Yeah.... I think you're right about this.

The difference, of course, is that something "being a meter" carries no implication of morality, as would something "being good."

WMD [/B]

And "being good" carries no implications of length, as would something "being a meter". What is your point?

Cheers

Doctor X

September 16, 2003, 05:22 PM

And "being good" carries no implications of length, . . .

What do the women member have to say about [Right STOP THAT!--Ed.]

Wayne:

Part of the problem with fallacious reasoning is that it "makes sense" or provides easy support to a belief. CJD is convinced of his beliefs which is, to be frank, his right. Unfortunately, in life reality can challenge beliefs. To avoid it, of course, perhaps one should not try to convince others of one's beliefs.

Yet, CJD cannot understand why people will disagree with him, and to accept disagreement requires doubt. The underlying belief is that if others "know as I know" then they must believe as he does or they are irretrievably stupid, blind, biased, et cetera.

Most people can handle doubt. In some areas, people just cannot examine their beliefs.

--J.D.

CJD

September 18, 2003, 10:29 AM

Backing up a few posts, before this turned into a pissing match, I wrote: "So, when the objector says "good" in this context, it is hardly valid if "good" means anything less that "bringing glory to God." You see, God is not inclined to make you happy, he is inclined to bring himself glory. Contrary to what Doc X thinks, the poem Job does not have a problem with its theodicy, for it is entirely just IF you grant what at the outset of the so-called PoE you are supposed to grant, namely, MY perspective (having been informed by Scripture and tradition) on who God is."

To which Doc X responded: "So you chose what? Evil? Incompetent? Some Combination?"

And elsewhere he/she explains what is meant by "irrelevance": "Sure, [god] wants to help you, but he cannot. You cannot rely on him."

To further expain my quote above, consider the following (posted elsewhere):

The PoE is not an atheist tool; Job (as portrayed in the text), who quipped, "Oh, that I had one to hear me! Here is my mark. Oh, that the Almighty would answer me, that my prosecutor had written a book!" (31:35), was no atheist. His desired bill of indictment did not come, because there was none (he was a righteous man). In this case, the reasons for suffering are not even entertained. According to this poem, Job is an upstanding character, who has lived an honorific life, and yet he had to learn to rest his entire case in the hands of a sovereign God. The lesson from this wisdom book should now be clear: how much more should we, those who cannot "hold a candle" up to the life of Job, exclaim, "Behold, I am of small account and vile! What shall I answer you? I lay my hand upon my mouth. I have spoken once, but I will not reply again�indeed, twice [have I answered], but I will proceed no further" (40:4�5).

No doubt you have an opinion as to where this falls on the beloved Five Possible Choices continuum, I do not, since I do not see a valid category for sovereignty. Arguing for irrelevance wouldn't be valid, since the orthodox conception of God is that he is both transcendent (a-temporal) and immanent (in time, involved and responsive to it). Arguing for incompetence only applies to Process theologians (or Open Theists, or the Ol