Taking the fight to the real issue

Post Reply New Topic

No, Hanna's argument really avoids many of the defenses by simply requiring that a better world be possible, and then considering God less than morally perfect for not attaining the best of all possible worlds, or at least a world without E. Plantinga's argument is a justification for why E might exist, but it does not prove that E is necessary for G. In fact, none of the arguments used prove that evil is necessary for good to exist, they all only prove that evil might be justified in seeking good.

So, no, I don't really consider your rebuttal to really work. Even further, an absurd reason isn't something I'd consider a satisfactory rebuttal. The reason I'd say that is because if we regard premises of an argument to really be "good" rather than anything we can know to be right or wrong, then a silly reason doesn't really show that the premise we have is a bad premise. It shows that we don't have 100%, but frankly 100% is a fools errand anyway.


Honestly given that God could have directly implanted this knowledge, your rationale still seems like crap. (Are you going to say that it is logically impossible for God to directly implant knowledge? If God can do anything logically possible, then he can do this. This is the most efficient way to achieve G without E. Therefore, the problem of evil works.)


I already provided a great example. I didn't even think very hard about it. There are lots and lots and lots of ways that God can have this done. Frankly, Christian theology itself tends to hold the idea that the Fall was a horrible and unnecessary act. The issue is that there are logically possible worlds in which the Fall didn't occur.


The issue is that this "rebellion" isn't necessary.
1) Free will is deeply questionable given that physical models suggest determinism in the mind. Even further, neurological study is already finding the mechanisms of decision, and finding that they are not conscious, thus not really chosen.
2) The lack of submission makes no sense. Satan's rebellion, as I already pointed out, is so deeply irrational that it is arguably impossible to happen. Even further, as noted in some Christian theologies, such as Calvinist theology, man's lack of submission is something God could easily have control over.
3) If God has middle knowledge or any ability to reasonably predict the future, the Fall would have been pretty easy to prevent, as well as Satan's fall.
4) Depravity is really a very poor description of the evils we see in the world. It must be remembered that the church isn't much holier, if at all holier, than the unwashed masses.

Ultimately, this just seems like a clutching at straws.


And those who spend an eternity burning in hell??

Once again, we still have suffering that is not justified within standard Christian theology. Those in hell, being in a permanent state of suffering, do not really come to know God better or to morally improve, and they certainly are not happy. As such, this seems like a hollow rationalization.


Right..... Are you done killing whatever is left of your intellect by bludgeoning yourself over the head with your holy book? Most things you've stated is absurd and demonstrably not worth much consideration. Heck, the whole point of "knowing God" really probably relies on dualism, an idea that just doesn't make sense given the level of internal inconsistency in our selfhoods, and the degree of dependence every level of selfhood has on the material mind.


It actually doesn't fail. Part of the issue is that "possible worlds" tends to refer to logically possible worlds. By showing that something is possible, we state that in some logically possible reality it exists, and if we accept modal realism, this means that this world exists.

The possibility thus becomes certainty that God doesn't exist anywhere because Plantinga's ontological God must exist everywhere. If it is logically possible that God doesn't exist somewhere, then then God cannot exist anywhere, because for God to exist everywhere, then there cannot be a single place where God does not exist.

The arguments from ontologically proving evil beings are also still valid. As I already pointed out, Plantinga's argument's structure can include almost any being, many of which are not really possible with monotheism. So, unless you want to accept a large number of absurd other concepts that are still "maximal" something, then you have to admit that Plantinga's argument fails. If you say otherwise, then you have failed to grasp the structure of the argument.

Saying that these arguments "fail to recognize the logic of ontological arguments" is just crap. Ontological arguments fail. They are at best interesting, but honestly, nobody finds them persuasive, and everybody looks for the rhetorical trick, seeing these things as failures of the language to capture reality.

Some serious atheist thinkers will take this on, as I already stated, Martin EDITED a collection of essays, he didn't write the entire book. Even further, "Western conception of God"???? 91, are you f*****g serious??? The Christian God is often identified very strongly *AS* the "Western conception of God". Pulling this out doesn't rebut anything of much value, as without the "Western conception of God" we are mostly left with just the odder and less accepted ideas in speculative theology, certainly not a being that fits into anything you've argued for or defended.

Now look, if you want, you can still go on about how atheists are so "intellectually dishonest", but the arguments I just saw you put up are just ridiculous. The fact that a human being would put them up as serious is just further proof that God does not exist. How could a God who wanted his people to know him burden man with the cognitive limitations we all struggle through? Obviously it is possible that God could make us smarter. In making us smarter, we could better grasp the fact that he exists, and make less mistakes and engage in less foolishness. We'd probably even be happier. I mean, there is an entire line of argumentation along this line: the argument from nonbelief. (which is another reason why your notion of "Christianity seeks X", still seems downright questionable)

The problem is when stating that the world has more evil in it than it otherwise would you have to be able to reliably say that, x level of evil would lead to y amount of happiness with z number of people coming to know God. This would have to be done in a way that comes to a conclusion with less evil in the world. This argument fails for the same reason as absolute utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number can never been known in an absolute way, it is the same with this situation.There is no way that you could say, I know the intricate variables well enough to create a world that would be an all-round improvement. The argument you have made has an unsupportable burden of proof. You will need to find a new way to undermine the free will defense. The absurdity also shows the logical compatibility of the fee will defense, therefor proving that God and evil are not logically incompatible.



I contend that there is no way you could know that God could do this any better while maintaining the free will to choose God. Also a Christian believes that as you draw closer to God, God draws closer to you.



You are demonstrating free will; hence it comes under the free will defense.



1) You cannot rule out free will yet, unless you want every single criminal to have a perfect defense (this is proof that a world without free will is absurd). Also the science has not concluded that we do not have free will to the point of moral responsibly; presupposing this is not a reasonable argument.
2) I cannot speculate as to the decisions of Angelic beings.
2a) Calvinism does fail the problem of evil, hence why I am not a Calvinist
3) God’s middle knowledge is difficult to speculate on. Also God would only need a morally sufficient reason for allowing these things to occur, if he could have prevented them (hence the free will defense).
4) There are many ways that religious people are proven to be better off: charity and general health for instance. In regard to choices, people still have free will, even believers.

Yes, your right, it does look like you are clutching at straws, on this I agree with you.



Hell is eternal separation from God, this separation is invoked by a choice. Also since this is the result of a choice it falls under the free will defense.



This is where you went wrong. You are extrapolating possible to certain, a mistake I have repeatedly pointed out. Let me disprove it again with the evolution argument (please note again, I am not arguing against evolution): It is logically possible that God could have created a world where evolution is not necessary, the fact that this is possible does not make it a certainty that this is the fact in every possible world. Therefore, you cannot make possible a certainty. The only reason the ontological argument would fail is if you did as I mentioned and make God a certainty to not exist in this world, good luck proving that.

Also when I felt that I might have insulted you, I apologized very quickly afterwards, perhaps you might show some courtesy also.

Define 'come form' and 'nothing'. How is being un-caused equal to 'coming into existence, uncaused out of nothing'? Hint: god is un-caused.

Then what does?

Without science and technology we would both be dead and in a fairly short time.

ruveyn

Well, I don't think I need to make an absolute proof that a better world could exist. Rather, I think all that is sufficient is to propose ideas that strongly suggest that the quality of them will be better. I regard this as sufficient for handling the burden of proof, because if premise 7 is plausible, then there is nothing wrong with using it for the argument.

The free will defense isn't relevant because the whole point for Hanna is that a better world was logically possible. Hanna relies on moral luck, which means that even if the free will defense is valid, it still doesn't get anyone anywhere. The free will defense is a justification for evil, it is not a statement that this is the best of all possible worlds. Hanna argues that God is morally blameworthy for the mere fact that this is not the best of all possible worlds.


Or that God draws you closer.

First, I think free will is outright false. It is about as disproven as creationism, in my mind. (Creationism *COULD* be true, but our understanding of reality is such that it makes no sense for it to be true.)

Second, the point is rather obvious that God could manage to do this. By directly giving mankind knowledge, he can outright suppress sin, just like we already have most mathematical errors suppressed by the knowledge of addition. Even further, more people know him. I mean, here's a better proof:
1) The source of all evil is sin, rejecting God.
2) It is possible to know something well enough, that rejection makes no sense and thus is minimal or non-existent.
3) God can make us know Him well enough to satisfy premise 2.
4) If God makes us know him well enough to satisfy premise 2, then rejecting God will be minimal or non-existent. (2 and 3)
5) Evil will be minimal or non-existent under this possible world. (1 and 4)
6) Directly implanting knowledge insures everybody knows the truth of God.
7) Everybody is more people than that know in this world.
This possible world is better in having less evil and greater knowledge of God than our world. (4 and 7)
9) God is morally obligated to create the best of all possible worlds in terms of the level of evil and knowledge of him.
10) God created one world.
11) This world is not the best possible (8 and 10)
12) God failed an obligation. (9 and 11)
13) God is morally perfect and thus cannot fail a moral obligation, even of the weakest form.
14) God does not exist (12 and 13)

This seems obvious. I don't believe that absurd logical possibilities are meaningful, as while they may give us reason to question our logical premises, given that a logical premise is itself a matter to be questioned, in all cases, a possibility I see as absurd doesn't really add much.


Nope, I can't be. I don't believe in free will. I also don't believe that every detail of the garden was necessary to exist. Why do you think that all of these details were necessary? Satan does not seem necessary, he could have been excluded from that garden. The tree was unnecessary, man would have been perfectly happy without it, and he would have known God better without it. In fact, the entire story is unnecessary, it has the same surface implausibilities as most myths, which is to say that it is absurd.


I am fine with the idea that the world is absurd, so I don't think this gets us anywhere. In fact, I already outright stated that the absurdity of the world is a major reason I think God does not exist.

I'd have to disagree. I think that science really has undermined the ability of human beings as conscious actors. We are so often just covered with environmental factors, genetics factors, and so many other things that we do not choose that have power over our behavior, while conscious decision making is either small or non-existent. As such, I'd really have to say that it seems the truest that we do not have any meaningful form of free will. To me, this is what the science tends to suggest, as the mechanisms for free will are just radically implausible given our knowledge.


Sure you can, angelic beings are purposive actors. They are also not fallen. To hold that a third of angelic beings engaged in an action that is absurd even to us fallen folk, who have reduced knowledge of God is dramatically implausible.


Yet, I think that Calvinism's notion of salvation is one that has to be refuted, otherwise, I think Calvinist teaching on salvation is a find defense for an atheist. Why COULDN'T God just save man? Why shouldn't God just save man?


I am not sure that man merely having free will really logically entails man falling. So, if it is not entailed, then I see no reason why God would have to allow it. Would you allow a child to risk falling off of a cliff? No, but you would have to admit that anybody Falling is much worse. Unless man's fall is shown to be logically necessary, I have to regard it as an unnecessary evil. Given that God is supposed to eliminate all unnecessary evils, I have to say that the story is inconsistent.


Yes, but not really a sign of better behavior in terms of depravity.


Actually 91, I was referring to the nonsense you consider reasonable. How can you not see that your argument is just ridiculous on this? You complained just a minute ago that atheists were "so irrational" but you are denying the ability to imagine a better world, despite how basic such a property IS. Everybody imagines better worlds, and the mere possibility that these conceptions are all wrong is just a terrible disproof of something everybody already knows is right. (and that's not even getting into whether the possibility of this necessarily works on each problem)


First, free will just doesn't exist. It is absurd for me to have to believe in something that I regard the evidence to stand firmly against for your beliefs to be defended. I am will beyond just rejecting free will, and I've outright stated that, and I think that my moves are justified by the psychology of it all. So, your defense is empirically false as far as I am concerned.

Even further, the existence of free will does not necessitate hell. If hell is not logically necessary given free will, I still request a justification for it. It is an unnecessary evil, even GIVEN the defense you promoted.


You'll have to restate it. I don't know where it is.

I'd have to hold that if Plantinga's argument is tweaked right, you could prove exactly that! That being said, given that evolution is a historical event, and not an existent being, this might be more difficult.

Actually, I'd have to argue that my ontological argument works and is entirely valid. The reason being that a possible world without God, is just a matter of modal realities. If one holds that it is possible for God not to exist, then it is a matter of definition that there is a possible world without God. If there is a possible world without God, then God cannot exist, period.

Even further, I've stated this many times before, but the same logical structure of the ontological argument has been used to prove beings incompatible with the existence of God. This shows that the logic of the argument must contain some form of error. This is just a logical fact. You might as well be arguing against 2+2=4.


ok? I think your arguments are crap. What is there to apologize for? I don't apologize for thinking that, because they really do seem to be crap on these issues.

Your argument presupposes that people have no free will. I will not debate with you on those terms, they are just ridiculous (you have not proved it, science and philosophy have not proved it, you have no grounds to presuppose it). Also as I stated previously premise seven fails due to the fact that you cannot know that is would actually be a better world. How ludicrous are you going to get AG. Let me again demonstrate why (repeating your logically flawed argument will not make it true):As finite persons, we are limited in time, space, intelligence, and insight. But the transcendent and sovereign God sees the end from the beginning and providentially orders history so that His purposes are ultimately achieved through human free decisions. In order to achieve His ends, God may have to put up with certain evils along the way. Evils which appear pointless to us within our limited framework may be seen to have been justly permitted within God’s wider framework. To borrow an illustration from a developing field of science, Chaos Theory, scientists have discovered that certain macroscopic systems, for example, weather systems or insect populations, are extraordinarily sensitive to the tiniest perturbations. A butterfly fluttering on a branch in West Africa may set in motion forces which would eventually issue in a hurricane over the Atlantic Ocean. Yet it is impossible in principle for anyone observing that butterfly palpitating on a branch to predict such an outcome. The brutal murder of an innocent man or a child’s dying of leukemia could produce a sort of ripple effect through history such that God’s morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later and perhaps in another land. When you think of God’s providence over the whole of history, I think you can see how hopeless it is for limited observers to speculate on the probability that God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting a certain evil. We’re just not in a good position to assess such probabilities. You therefor cannot prove that this is not the best possible word for the purposes of God and therefor have no grounds to presuppose that you can say with certainty that such a world could exist.

Also I don’t think you will ever understand the ontological argument you simply do not seem to get that you cannot extrapolate a negative possibility to certainty when dealing with a maximal being. You would have to have a zero probability to extrapolate otherwise the possibility is established in some other logical world and the feedback destroys your argument.

At a certain point the lifeguard disengages from the rescuee who otherwise will drown him.

At a certain point the teacher disengages from the student who otherwise will just hold up the class.

Good point

That is very true, but it doesn't change the fact that time is a vector. Falsify me by finding a high-level physicist who says that it is otherwise at deep levels of physics.

Dead wrong. A single number can be used to either indicate the length of an interval of time or that starting point of a timing regime. A vector requires as least two numbers to be specified.

Now define the vector structure of time. Let us see how you represent either an instant of time or the length of a time interval.

ruveyn

No it doesn't. It has nothing to do with "no free will", but rather it brings up the relevant fact that even though people "rebel against God", rebels against geometry are a much smaller group. This suggests that there is something outright absurd about the workings of the Bible. It might also uphold the non-neutrality of our neural architecture, but that's a basic point.


Frankly, I don't really know how much is required to consider the matter dead. I think the Libet experiment is pretty close to sufficient. And the failure of quantum free will also really strongly suggests that no such thing as "free will" exists. This is not even getting into all of the problems with "conscious decision-making" based upon the divisions of the brain found outside of the Libet experiment. Given the overwhelming impact of I mean, at this point, the only way to say an acausal form of free will exists is to say that there is magic going around that keeps its face out of the lab, which is just a ridiculous ad hoc hypothesis. (and I am not even getting into all of the difficulties brought on by the material nature of the brain, its sub-divisions, and even the problems of these subdivisions being separable or damageable.) And if you want to go into compatibilist free will, then fine, but the issue there is how a God can really deny such an entity to exist.


Umm.... yeah.... The basic argument is "skeptical theism", and the basic problem is that our intuitions for skeptical theism are weaker than those against, think of it like the "Here is a hand" argument. I don't really feel the need to do much to address your point for that reason.

Even further, in my own argument that this is rather obvious, premise 7 literally comes from premise 6 and an honest comparison to the workings of this world.


Apparently not at all.


1) The problem is that this is still not plausible in the case of most evils. If this argument is plausible, then we also have to find a lot of other bad things happening being good as also plausible. The issue is that our common-sense intuition is clear on this matter, bad things are bad, and generally they are worse than good things.
2) The very same skepticism is also rejected in other fields. As finite persons, we are limited in time, space, intelligence and insight, however, we have no problem engaging in things that rely on knowledge that we cannot necessarily prove, this includes induction, this includes extrapolation of the laws of nature from our location across the known universe. We also accept the existence of an external world, because accepting that existence makes the most sense out of the reality we perceive. This skepticism is generally rejected on a very simple ground: While logically possible, it is incompatible with a stronger understanding of the workings of reality, and generally speaking our intellectual engagements are to get an understanding that "works".
3) If we cannot judge the historical behavior of God, then we cannot assess the moral attributes of any such being. A wholly evil God-like being is thus equally plausible to a wholly good God. This undermines any ability to know the existence of the being we call "God" as God refers to a morally good entity.
4) We can conceive of better of better worlds. We might not be able to test these worlds *perfectly* but given that very good conceptions can exist, the idea that these other worlds are are likely IMPOSSIBLE is just a hard bullet to swallow. I'd say that the burden of proof is on the skeptic of such a model more so than the person proposing it at this point.


Chaos theory is mathematics.


That is mostly a hyperbole with the butterfly. Even further, in most practice, there is a reasonable ability to predict.


Ok, but it probably wouldn't, all else equal.

And well, the issue here is also that if these evils are expected in naturalism, but we have no reason on the surface to expect them with theism, then naturalism is more probable. I mean, seriously, you're defending something that is skeptical to the point where most people would reject the possibility out of hand.


No, not really. We have a lot of evils. Most of them could be removed. There is little reason to think any of them are necessary, particularly given that the future isn't getting a lot better than the past anyway.


You know, I think there is good grounds to do this. Mostly because I CAN CONCEIVE OF A BETTER WORLD. Now, if I can conceive of a better world, then I'd have to say that the burden of proof is to prove that my conception actually isn't better. After all, all you prove is that it is possible that there are these issues, but frankly, there are a lot of things that could be improved, to the point where a list on them would be nearly endless. You want me to think that out of a nearly endless list of obvious improvements, ALL OF THEM will make things worse? That doesn't seem plausible at all to me, especially, as I stated before, Christian theism tends to believe that a better world can exist.(as noted by the Fall, once again) So, the problem is that it doesn't. Hanna points out that a better world could exist, and doesn't and thus he argues that even if God has a moral reason for having bad things happen, bad things that are not logically necessary, he is still not morally perfect because this world is not optimal.


Nope, you totally can. It's all based upon the modal logic of it. The key element is the nature of necessity. If something is defined as necessary, but it is possibly non-existent, then it cannot possibly exist. Something necessary must exist, so for it to possibly not exist, entails that it cannot exist.

That being said, ontological arguments are just loads of crap. I already pointed out to you that the logic underlying the ontological argument can be applied to anything, because the basic framework is overly permissive. Perhaps you do not want to see this, but this is a fact on the matter.

I've already cited sources for you, ruveyn. I'm not going to do it all over again.

This really doesn't disconfirm the "eternal Universe" hypothesis.



http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Not that I'm really (or at all) an expert in physics, but AG's Block Universe seems supported by Einstein's theories.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtMw2f5YJk0[/youtube]

@Master Pendant

I will respond to this in the topic thread 'Caveat Lector'

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3235541.html#3235541