"God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil"

[feeling]

"God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil"
Ok which ones?

[bennyboy]

@Benny The main problem is that your example of a human parent ignores all of the limits humans have, bith as children and as adults. A being with omnipotence and omniscience has no such limits, so treating it as if it did is a sort of equivoation.

Also, if by evil you mean suffering, then it isn't question-begging to say God, if he exists, allows for suffering. After all, you're just defining what you mean by the term.

If "evil" just means anything that people see as bad, then there is plenty of evil. But if that's all it means, it sounds like it's just a catch-all word people made to talk about stuff they dislike.

If "evil" is not synonymous with "suffering," then the Omni-3 argument doesn't necessarily hold. Morality implies a good goal, and suffering is not necessarily an impediment to, or a failure of, Cosmic goals, whatever they might be.

[feeling]

The parents argument fails btw because parents are neither omnipotent nor they are omniscient nor they designed us or the universe.

[bennyboy]

The parents argument fails btw because parents are neither omnipotent nor they are omniscient nor they designed us or the universe.

Are we down to pointless meme pics already? "U mad bro?" pics coming next, or maybe pics of masturbating smilies?

The point is that what is pleasant and what is "good" are not necessarily the same. "Good" implies a goal, and in the argument about God, if good is an arbitrary human concept, the argument is meaningless. If God is real, and goodness/evilness is defined by God, then there's no human constraint on what that goal might be, and no way for people to determine, on their own, whether what they find uncomfortable or unpleasant is actually "evil," in the cosmic sense.

I don't think, therefore, that the omni-3 argument is the slam-dunk people take it for, because it equivocates between different kinds of definitions. But it still doesn't matter-- there are MANY good reasons not to believe in God-- like a complete lack of evidence, for example, or the fact that God is defined differently among perhaps thousands of different cultures.

[feeling]

The parents argument fails btw because parents are neither omnipotent nor they are omniscient nor they designed us or the universe.

Are we down to pointless meme pics already? "U mad bro?" pics coming next, or maybe pics of masturbating smilies?

The point is that what is pleasant and what is "good" are not necessarily the same. "Good" implies a goal, and in the argument about God, if good is an arbitrary human concept, the argument is meaningless. If God is real, and goodness/evilness is defined by God, then there's no human constraint on what that goal might be, and no way for people to determine, on their own, whether what they find uncomfortable or unpleasant is actually "evil," in the cosmic sense.

I don't think, therefore, that the omni-3 argument is the slam-dunk people take it for, because it equivocates between different kinds of definitions. But it still doesn't matter-- there are MANY good reasons not to believe in God-- like a complete lack of evidence, for example, or the fact that God is defined differently among perhaps thousands of different cultures.

All right then what is the goal? Enlighten me oh wise one.

[MindForgedManacle]

Oops, didn't mean to post this...

[bennyboy]

Are we down to pointless meme pics already? "U mad bro?" pics coming next, or maybe pics of masturbating smilies?

The point is that what is pleasant and what is "good" are not necessarily the same. "Good" implies a goal, and in the argument about God, if good is an arbitrary human concept, the argument is meaningless. If God is real, and goodness/evilness is defined by God, then there's no human constraint on what that goal might be, and no way for people to determine, on their own, whether what they find uncomfortable or unpleasant is actually "evil," in the cosmic sense.

I don't think, therefore, that the omni-3 argument is the slam-dunk people take it for, because it equivocates between different kinds of definitions. But it still doesn't matter-- there are MANY good reasons not to believe in God-- like a complete lack of evidence, for example, or the fact that God is defined differently among perhaps thousands of different cultures.

All right then what is the goal? Enlighten me oh wise one.

Oh the sarcasm. It burns!

I'm not God. My sense of morality is based on emotion: the things that disturb me, and which I wish to avoid, and the things which please me, and which I wish to magnify.

However, morality is about right behavior or right views, and rightness implies a goal. IF there is a God, and IF that God's goals are different than ours then what we call evil based on our biological reactions to things as (very) temporary beings, and what God would call evil, based on a knowledge of all the universe and an immortal view on time, could conceivably be very different. Demanding that an actually-existent God subscribe to OUR sense of what is moral or just doesn't make sense in that context.

Personally, I suspect that IF there some kind of God or Deity, it has very little concern with how our individual lives play out, and that morality is therefore a purely human construct; I very much doubt that anything I do today will affect how the universe unfolds in any important way. But that's not a logical argument, just a personal hunch.

[feeling]

All right then what is the goal? Enlighten me oh wise one.

Oh the sarcasm. It burns!

I'm not God. My sense of morality is based on emotion: the things that disturb me, and which I wish to avoid, and the things which please me, and which I wish to magnify.

However, morality is about right behavior or right views, and rightness implies a goal. IF there is a God, and IF that God's goals are different than ours then what we call evil based on our biological reactions to things as (very) temporary beings, and what God would call evil, based on a knowledge of all the universe and an immortal view on time, could conceivably be very different. Demanding that an actually-existent God subscribe to OUR sense of what is moral or just doesn't make sense in that context.

Personally, I suspect that IF there some kind of God or Deity, it has very little concern with how our individual lives play out, and that morality is therefore a purely human construct; I very much doubt that anything I do today will affect how the universe unfolds in any important way. But that's not a logical argument, just a personal hunch.

Then it's a malevolent god.

[Esquilax]

I'm not God. My sense of morality is based on emotion: the things that disturb me, and which I wish to avoid, and the things which please me, and which I wish to magnify.

And those things are informed by the reality around you, are they not? I mean, this isn't just something predicated on your feelings; the reason you feel disturbed by violence is because violence demonstrably causes harm, something that you'd want to avoid because harm doesn't ever enhance life.

However, morality is about right behavior or right views, and rightness implies a goal. IF there is a God, and IF that God's goals are different than ours then what we call evil based on our biological reactions to things as (very) temporary beings, and what God would call evil, based on a knowledge of all the universe and an immortal view on time, could conceivably be very different. Demanding that an actually-existent God subscribe to OUR sense of what is moral or just doesn't make sense in that context.

Well, if such a god knew things about morality that we didn't and wanted us to follow rules based on that knowledge, then a little explanation is probably in order. If your premise is that our understanding of morality is limited, fine; education is the way to get around that.

Incidentally, the goal of morality is the welfare of thinking beings; what else could it possibly be? What morally good purpose could exist that doesn't concern itself with lifeforms?

[λάθε βιώσας]

I think it is the state which uses atheism to permit evil.

the NWO is using the media to prep our up and comers.

all you have to do is rob the people of their morality and badda bing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist%E2%...st_atheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

instant field day with your militant atheists on a mission to cure others of their delusion cause they are messin up the planet waring and all, besides were the delusionist not the cause of the dark ages?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pzMHD0F4yQ

communism begins from the outset with atheism -Owens