The Problem of Evil (shivalinga to wiploc)

[shivalinga]

I'll dance wit ya.

no crying when you lose :rolleyes:

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

I'll dance wit ya.

no crying when you lose :rolleyes:

This thread is split from wiploc's original Problem of Evil (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=76005) thread to keep the challenge separate from SOMMS's.

Jason

[wiploc]

I'll dance wit ya.

no crying when you lose :rolleyes:

Cool. You're in line right after SOMMS. If SOMMS doesn't respond in a reasonable time, you move to the head of the line. Or, if you'd prefer, we can start a thread in EOG and go to it right now.

If we're doing a formal debate, what did you think of the parameters we specified in the thread that this split off from?


If I lose, I'll be delighted by my new knowledge.

crc

[shivalinga]

I can start tomorrow, i'm in california.

You said omniscient, that means different things, omnibenevolent
thats a new one on me and relative to our point of view, i'd say
those are kind of vague parameters but the basic concept of a being
who is in control of everything works for me.

[wiploc]

I can start tomorrow, i'm in california.

You said omniscient, that means different things, omnibenevolent
thats a new one on me and relative to our point of view, i'd say
those are kind of vague parameters but the basic concept of a being
who is in control of everything works for me.

So tell me, would you rather do an informal debate now, or a formal debate after my debate with SOMMS. (Or after SOMMS fails to respond. I'll give him thru the 7th.)

If you prefer a formal debate, do you agree with the terms SOMMS and I agreed to, or do you want to make changes.

Omniscient: Knows everything, including the future. Never has unintended consequences, because he always knows all implications of his decisions. Also wise: an omniscient god is neither stupid nor ignorant.

Omnibenevolent: Take words like loving, good, nice, and benevolent, and modify them with words like totally, all, infinitely, and unlimitedly, in no particular order.

Omnipotent: This should mean "able to do anything," but if god could violate logic then we couldn't trust the outcome of a logical discussion about him. Therefore, for the purposes of this discussion, let us stipulate that "omnipotent" means, "able to do anything except violate logic." Thus, no square circles, unmarried bachelors, or rocks too heavy for god to lift.

crc

[shivalinga]

I don't know what the difference is between formal and informal according to your definition, we can start either way whenever you want.

Omniscient is not absolute in my opinion because it denies a thinking being the possibility of a change of mind for both god and humans, if you deny the possibility of a change of mind by imposing omniscience in it's meaning of knowing 100% the future then we make both god and humans at the mercy of a planned future which goes against the idea of omnipotence which states that God has no lack of potency to change his mind and allow humans to change their minds as well, which means that omniscience when "as knowing what will happen in the future absolutely 100%" should not be considered as a law for a being who is omniscient and omnipotent, rather omniscient as being fully aware of everything at all times and having a plan for future reality but not necessarily bound to that plan due to the ability of God and humans to have a change within themselves that would affect the future that God creates.

Omnibenevolent using pure logic shouldn't be used as a standard because whether or not the Sun has good intentions or selfish intentions doesn't change the fact of our dependence on it or it's factual dominance in our lives.

Omnipotent should mean that god has all the ability and power that is possible to have, logic is relative to our comprehension within a 3 dimensional space time that God is not necessarily limited by.

But I'm ready to go,it will be quick and painless so don't think that it will be a long drawn out kind of debate.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

I don't know what the difference is between formal and informal according to your definition, we can start either way whenever you want.

Informal means taking the debate simply to the Existence of God(s) (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=59) forum. A formal debate means something more structured with no interference from other II users, in Formal Debates & Discussions (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=17).

Since you seem not to be familiar with the II Formal Debate procedure, I recommend reading here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=56983).

Jason

[wiploc]

I don't know what the difference is between formal and informal according to your definition, we can start either way whenever you want.

Informal it is! I have started us off here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1520598#post1520598).

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Informal it is! I have started us off here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1520598#post1520598).

Since the debate's informal, this thread will be closed.

Jason