14 of 19
14
Why would a Christian want to change the world?
Posted: 14 October 2012 09:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 196 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6199
Joined  2006-12-20
Bryan - 14 October 2012 11:42 AM
StephenLawrence - 14 October 2012 11:29 AM
Bryan - 14 October 2012 11:02 AM

If I’m “coming up with imaginary logical contradictions to get God off the hook” then please have the courtesy to identify one or more of them.

The situation is that I say if God existed he would create a world without evil.

You say no he wouldn’t because he would be prevented from doing so because logic doesn’t allow it.

I say these preventions are imaginary.

I’ll leave it to you to identify them and argue why they are not imaginary.

Stephen

I’ve already done that.  If we remove logical restrictions from omnipotence then God can do anything at all regardless of whether it is logically impossible. 

But I’m not doing that. I’m saying there are no logical restrictions to God creating a world without evil and you are saying there are.

I reject that there are and say these are just theists inventions to overcome the problem of evil.

The specific inventions are free will and that some evil produces some greater good that couldn’t be gained any other way.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2012 12:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 197 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
StephenLawrence - 14 October 2012 09:33 PM
Bryan - 14 October 2012 11:42 AM
StephenLawrence - 14 October 2012 11:29 AM
Bryan - 14 October 2012 11:02 AM

If I’m “coming up with imaginary logical contradictions to get God off the hook” then please have the courtesy to identify one or more of them.

The situation is that I say if God existed he would create a world without evil.

You say no he wouldn’t because he would be prevented from doing so because logic doesn’t allow it.

I say these preventions are imaginary.

I’ll leave it to you to identify them and argue why they are not imaginary.

Stephen

I’ve already done that.  If we remove logical restrictions from omnipotence then God can do anything at all regardless of whether it is logically impossible. 

But I’m not doing that. I’m saying there are no logical restrictions to God creating a world without evil and you are saying there are.

You’re mistaken all the way across.

1)  If God can do anything at all regardless of logical restrictions then god can make the present world free of evil (as it is).  If you complain that this world is not free of evil because it has evil in it then you’re putting a logical restriction on god despite your insistence to the contrary.

2)  See #1

3)  I’m not saying that God can’t create a world entirely free of evil.  I gave an example of how God could do that earlier in the thread (big shiny marble).  The issue is how to create not just a world without evil but how to create the best possible world.  If that world contains beings with a free moral will then the possibility of evil is necessary (as I’ve already argued in the past posts of this thread).

I reject that there are and say these are just theists inventions to overcome the problem of evil.

You can’t do it consistently.  You end up contradicting yourself.

The specific inventions are free will and that some evil produces some greater good that couldn’t be gained any other way.

How are those inventions?  Aren’t they clearly possibilities that a deductive argument from evil must somehow account for?  Or are we that game to beg the question?

A deductive argument from evil isn’t allowed to ignore possibilities.

[ Edited: 17 October 2012 12:17 AM by Bryan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2012 12:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 198 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6199
Joined  2006-12-20
Bryan - 17 October 2012 12:15 AM

1)  If God can do anything at all regardless of logical restrictions then god can make the present world free of evil (as it is).  If you complain that this world is not free of evil because it has evil in it then you’re putting a logical restriction on god despite your insistence to the contrary.

Nobody is saying God can do anything logically impossible, so this is just not in the picture.


The issue is how to create not just a world without evil but how to create the best possible world.

There is only a problem if this is logically impossible. But it isn’t.

Theists say “oh yes it is” and invent the contradictions, which are just fiction to overcome the problem rather than real logical contradictions.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2012 09:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 199 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3351
Joined  2011-11-04
Bryan - 14 October 2012 05:29 PM
TimB - 14 October 2012 03:38 PM
Bryan - 14 October 2012 11:42 AM
StephenLawrence - 14 October 2012 11:29 AM
Bryan - 14 October 2012 11:02 AM

If I’m “coming up with imaginary logical contradictions to get God off the hook” then please have the courtesy to identify one or more of them.

The situation is that I say if God existed he would create a world without evil.

You say no he wouldn’t because he would be prevented from doing so because logic doesn’t allow it.

I say these preventions are imaginary.

I’ll leave it to you to identify them and argue why they are not imaginary.

Stephen

I’ve already done that.  If we remove logical restrictions from omnipotence then God can do anything at all regardless of whether it is logically impossible.  Obviously that includes existing despite the existence of evil.  Or refraining from making a universe free of evil, to put it more precisely in line with your objection.

It isn’t up to me to show that god must produce a universe free of evil.  It’s up to you.  Best of luck.

Yeah, and while you’re at it, Stephen, prove that the Easter Bunny doesn’t lay jelly beans.  It’s up to you.  (Bryan, OTOH, can assert whatever he wishes, without proof.)

Apparently TimB failed to note that I replied to Stephen with a deductive argument in the form of modus ponens.  The same form of argument Stephen used.  So whose proof is better, Tim?  And why?

Using philosophical terms that are obsure to a layperson do not make your argument any better. 

If God is omnipotent, then It can do the logically impossible. or If the Easter Bunny exists, it can lay jelly beans.

Both assertions are equally silly, IMO.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2012 10:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 200 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6199
Joined  2006-12-20
TimB - 17 October 2012 09:44 AM


If God is omnipotent, then It can do the logically impossible. or If the Easter Bunny exists, it can lay jelly beans.

Both assertions are equally silly, IMO.

Yes Tim, Brian is trying to say that 1) our definition of omnipotent is the silly version, but of course it isn’t.

We simply disbelieve that there are logical contradiction entailed in God making the world better than this, not that he could do it despite the contradictions.

Brian says we aren’t justifying our disbelief, but we see it as the theists have invented the contradictions in the first place so we don’t have much need. Brian turns our point of view on it’s head and says we are “begging the question”.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2012 10:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 201 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6199
Joined  2006-12-20
Bryan - 17 October 2012 12:15 AM

How are those inventions?  Aren’t they clearly possibilities that a deductive argument from evil must somehow account for?  Or are we that game to beg the question?

About as clear as the best of all possible worlds would have to include bananas.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2012 12:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 202 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
StephenLawrence - 17 October 2012 12:55 AM
Bryan - 17 October 2012 12:15 AM

1)  If God can do anything at all regardless of logical restrictions then god can make the present world free of evil (as it is).  If you complain that this world is not free of evil because it has evil in it then you’re putting a logical restriction on god despite your insistence to the contrary.

Nobody is saying God can do anything logically impossible, so this is just not in the picture.

The argument from evil can’t proceed without some definition of God’s ability to make the world free of evil.  You’re on the horns of dilemma if you want to make the argument.  Pretending there’s no dilemma is not an option.

The issue is how to create not just a world without evil but how to create the best possible world.

There is only a problem if this is logically impossible. But it isn’t.

Why would it be a problem if it’s logically impossible?  Because of the imaginary boundaries you place on God?

Theists say “oh yes it is” and invent the contradictions, which are just fiction to overcome the problem rather than real logical contradictions.

Stephen

Enough talk, Stephen.  Make your argument from evil without either assuming that God’s power is somehow logically limited or assuming that God can do everything including the logically impossible.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2012 12:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 203 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 17 October 2012 09:44 AM

Using philosophical terms that are obsure to a layperson do not make your argument any better. 

That’s not a weakness of my argument.  It’s a weakness of your understanding.  I can explain what I’m saying to you if you like.  Or you can look it up on the Internets.  Your choice.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2012 12:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 204 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6199
Joined  2006-12-20
Bryan - 17 October 2012 12:24 PM

Why would it be a problem if it’s logically impossible?  Because of the imaginary boundaries you place on God?

No, because of the boundaries of what is logically possible.

Enough talk, Stephen.  Make your argument from evil without either assuming that God’s power is somehow logically limited or assuming that God can do everything including the logically impossible.

The argument assumes God’s power is logically limited, so there is no problem.

It just dismisses theists invented logical limits.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2012 12:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 205 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
StephenLawrence - 17 October 2012 10:24 AM
TimB - 17 October 2012 09:44 AM


If God is omnipotent, then It can do the logically impossible. or If the Easter Bunny exists, it can lay jelly beans.

Both assertions are equally silly, IMO.

Yes Tim, Brian is trying to say that 1) our definition of omnipotent is the silly version, but of course it isn’t.

Tim’s definition is silly if it’s the one he proposes to use in an argument from evil.  We’ve yet to see which horn of the dilemma you will choose.  Stay evasive.  wink

We simply disbelieve that there are logical contradiction entailed in God making the world better than this, not that he could do it despite the contradictions.

If this is the best possible world despite the contradiction of it not being as good as some hypothetical world you think is better then you have no argument (based on the notion that omnipotence allows god to do absolutely anything).

So, do you want to join me in making up stuff or stick with the silly self-defeating definition?  Make your choice.

Brian says we aren’t justifying our disbelief, but we see it as the theists have invented the contradictions in the first place so we don’t have much need. Brian turns our point of view on it’s head and says we are “begging the question”.

Stephen

Define the omnipotence you understand God would use in order to improve on the present world, Stephen.  If it’s unlimited then this could be the best possible world even if it isn’t the best possible world.  It follows from your premise.  Your other choice is to agree with me that logic limits the meaning of “omnipotence.  No more dancing.  Make your choice.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2012 12:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 206 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
StephenLawrence - 17 October 2012 12:29 PM
Bryan - 17 October 2012 12:24 PM

Why would it be a problem if it’s logically impossible?  Because of the imaginary boundaries you place on God?

No, because of the boundaries of what is logically possible.

So if it’s logically impossible it’s a problem because it’s logically impossible?  Isn’t that going in a circle, Stephen?

Do better than that, please.

 

Enough talk, Stephen.  Make your argument from evil without either assuming that God’s power is somehow logically limited or assuming that God can do everything including the logically impossible.

The argument assumes God’s power is logically limited, so there is no problem.

It just dismisses theists invented logical limits.

So you get to assume God’s power is logically limited but theists don’t get to assume anything like that.

So who made you God?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2012 12:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 207 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6199
Joined  2006-12-20
Bryan - 17 October 2012 12:35 PM

  Your other choice is to agree with me that logic limits the meaning of “omnipotence.  No more dancing.  Make your choice.

I’ve agreed consistently as do most people who discuss this. Clearly nobody is expecting God to do the logically impossible.

What we would expect to see if God existed is for him to do the logically possible and create a world without evil.

You’ll then question my claim that is logically possible.

But it’s like questioning the claim that it’s logically possible for the moon to be made of blue cheese.

The answer is that there is no convincing reason why not.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2012 12:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 208 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6199
Joined  2006-12-20
Bryan - 17 October 2012 12:38 PM

So if it’s logically impossible it’s a problem because it’s logically impossible?  Isn’t that going in a circle, Stephen?

Do better than that, please.

Yep.

Is there really anything wrong with that? I’m assuming God is bound by logic.

So you get to assume God’s power is logically limited but theists don’t get to assume anything like that.

You do get to assume that, you just don’t get to make up logical limits to suit you.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2012 01:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 209 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
StephenLawrence - 17 October 2012 12:43 PM
Bryan - 17 October 2012 12:35 PM

  Your other choice is to agree with me that logic limits the meaning of “omnipotence.  No more dancing.  Make your choice.

I’ve agreed consistently as do most people who discuss this. Clearly nobody is expecting God to do the logically impossible.

What we would expect to see if God existed is for him to do the logically possible and create a world without evil.

It’s easy to show that you’re oversimplifying the matter.

Okay, God, based on omnipotence, has the power to create a world without evil. 

Now what?

You’ll then question my claim that is logically possible.

I’ll uncover the premises you’re hiding without which you don’t have an interesting conclusion.

Where do we go from here?  Now what?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2012 01:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 210 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
StephenLawrence - 17 October 2012 12:48 PM
Bryan - 17 October 2012 12:38 PM

So if it’s logically impossible it’s a problem because it’s logically impossible?  Isn’t that going in a circle, Stephen?

Do better than that, please.

Yep.

Is there really anything wrong with that? I’m assuming God is bound by logic.

So does the theist, taking into account that omnipotence is not the only attribute for god.

So you get to assume God’s power is logically limited but theists don’t get to assume anything like that.

You do get to assume that, you just don’t get to make up logical limits to suit you.

Explain the difference.

Give an example of a “made up” logical limit that suits me and how it’s different from one that I get to assume.

Profile
 
 
   
14 of 19
14