Not really necessary. No matter what you say, your bible has no relevance to the philosophical argument.

The bible didn't redefine evil, evil was a concept already considered, and moreover, is understood in that way more so than the biblical way by any generation of philosophers.

All your argument states is that God cannot be evil because his will is good, and it just circular (again).

It does not change the problem of evil. The problem of what is understood to be evil. The problem of moral injustice, the problem of excessive suffering. All of which refutes a benevolent god.

In your philosophy, god is the definition, whereas philosophically, evil, moral, benevolence are clear concepts.

If you can't engage the argument philosophically, then all you can do is repeat circular mantras that have no place in intelligent reasoning.

LOL, Drich.......

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=modus+tollens

Sorry, you've been pissing in the wind all this time. I've been having a laugh though, since the argument actually denies the consequent (and is valid)......lol. You see, the point of the trilemna is that this -omni- god concept rules out the existence of evil, by definition. Your defense of the omni god by way of invoking free will has no relevance to the proposition at all (and falls under the remit of one of the propositions). "The Problem of Evil" as this argument is formulated is that it exists, not where it comes from. When you pass the buck onto man, you simply fall prey to the "able, but not willing" portion. Unless you would propose that god will not wipe out evil due to being bound by his word/free will, In which case, "willing, but not able". "Able, and willing" is completely out of the ballpark, if evil exists at all. Little something for everyone. The free will defense, (the most notable of which being Platinga's) only attempts to mount the defense by removing or redefining omnipotence. It's already been mentioned to you that this is a valid way to escape the argument, but you seem completely unwilling to ditch any of these -omni- claims (remember me asking you this directly....pages ago?). Waffling on about "enough truth" and "unauthorized biographies" etc.

But who cares? This god business isn't a matter of logic or philosophy, just superstition elevated to an institution. Now, on to the part where you justify your assertions, correct?

(April 4, 2012 at 7:43 am)Drich Wrote:

(April 4, 2012 at 2:09 am)Rhythm Wrote: Demonstrate the veracity of your assertions regarding "the nature of evil"? The free will defense is unconvincing, unless you can demonstrate that free will bit as well. Just making more work for yourself. Now you're stuck defending two ghostly concepts against demonstrable objections.

"You criticisms are not logical because you failed to account for magic"

I will be most happy to. But,thier is a little matter we must resolve First:

" Regardless of what you think of the biblical definitions, even if you took the biblical definitions of of this equation, Epicurus has still affirmed the consequent. How you ask? Because the conclusion can be false even when statements 1 and 2 are true. Since P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, other factors could account for Q (while P was false)."

Conceed this point and i will most happily move to the next. After all, one has absolutly nothing to do with the other.

If the conclusion of a valid argument is false, it does not mean the argument was invalid, it means the premise was false. Conversely, the conclusion of a valid argument being true does not make the premise true. Charging that the paradox affirms the consequent is purely a challenge against the form of the argument. Taking out the 'not' does not do this and neither does challenging the premise or the conclusion.

1. If cats are mammals, then dolphins are not native to outer space.
2. Dolphins are not native to outer space.
3. Therefore, cats are mammals.

The argument is valid, the conclusion is true, but the premise is false. If the paradox affirms the consequent, it is invalid, not necessarily untrue. If it is invalid, that means the conclusion does not follow from the premise as given: that, you have not shown.

---

Thanks Rhythm, I had forgotten the name of the argument and my formulation was clumsy, it should have been:

1. If P, then Q.
2. Not Q.
3. Therefore, not P.

(April 4, 2012 at 7:53 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote:

Quote:Not really necessary. No matter what you say, your bible has no relevance to the philosophical argument.

What if the "philosophical argument is based on the content of the Bible?

Quote:The bible didn't redefine evil, evil was a concept already considered, and moreover, is understood in that way more so than the biblical way by any generation of philosophers.

Do you have anything to back up your assertion? (understand what ever reference you list will be scrutinized so please do your research lest you wind up looking like the last guy the posted th first thing a google search provided.)

Quote:All your argument states is that God cannot be evil because his will is good, and it just circular (again).

No, you need my argument to be reasoned out that way, so you create a straw man rather than address what has actually been said.

Again Good and Evil are not absolute standards that have intrinsic values apart from God. We label everything in the Expressed will of God "good" because it is of God. Do you understand the difference? The bible is saying God IS the standard of Good, therefore everything He does is considered good simply because He is the standard. Your argument says I believe there is a universal "good' and everything god does meets this standard. Again the difference being you believe in a standard apart from God as being good, and the bible tells you that God is the good standard.

Quote:It does not change the problem of evil.

Indeed it does. In your understanding of good, If Good is a positive force then "evil is a negative force. (Yin/Yang) Therefore if "good" or the representative of good is truly good then why allow for evil? Right?

Well when God becomes the standard of Good rather than yielding to it (as you and apparently Epicurus understand it to mean) Then the allowance of evil can be understood to be the result or proof of free will, and Free will is indeed a gift of God. Therefore if one asks why does God allow for evil? we can look back and say it is because He allows for free will.

Quote:The problem of what is understood to be evil.

Indeed.
Look at how the definition of Evil has had to change and be twisted to convict God with crimes against humanity. What foolish logic has one use the bible to be a witness to these so called crimes but refutes the bible when it is used to explain away and dismiss these accusations?

Quote: The problem of moral injustice,

The problem of "Moral Justice" is.. the problem of existence outside of a self righteous society. There is no such thing as "moral Justice" in God's economy, and before you twist my words, know it is because "Moral justice" is a oxymoron. For how can their be true justice when your standard of morality has Incorporated sin into it's core standards?

Quote:the problem of excessive suffering. All of which refutes a benevolent god.

Use the bible to define this word, or use it to show me where God where God is called benevolent at all.

Quote:In your philosophy, god is the definition,

In the Bible God is defined as being the standard of Good and Righteousness.

I am simply going to change your next few statements to read correctly.

Quote:whereas philosophically, evil, moral, benevolence are clear concepts.

Where as man has had to change the meaning of, and add some of the following terms: good, Evil, Morality, and benevolence. In order to convict God with crimes against Humanity so people who do not wish to submit themselves to Him, can feel justified in their personal faith/beliefs.

Quote:If you can't engage the argument philosophically, then all you can do is repeat circular mantras that have no place in intelligent reasoning.

If you cannot engage the arguments i present directly as written, then know as your work has shown. Your efforts can be identified as a straw man fallacy, and summarily dismissed.

Do you not see the patterns repeating from one post to the next?

You have it in your mind in your philosophy that God is (X) I show you through Scripture that God is not (X) God is (Y). Yet you all (Truly no offense intended) who has a very very basic grasp of the God of the bible desperately hang on to the preconception of God you have Closed Your Minds around some time ago. Why? to preserve the validity of your arguments. What happened to the thinkers mantra? Simply follow where the facts lead. Where ever it may go. You all seem to follow the thinkers mantra so long as it does not take you to God.

---

[quote='Rhythm' pid='267696' dateline='1333544634']
LOL, Drich.......

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=modus+tollens

Sorry, you've been pissing in the wind all this time. I've been having a laugh though, since the argument actually denies the consequent (and is valid)......lol. You see, the point of the trilemna is that this -omni- god concept rules out the existence of evil, by definition. Your defense of the omni god by way of invoking free will has no relevance to the proposition at all (and falls under the remit of one of the propositions). "The Problem of Evil" as this argument is formulated is that it exists, not where it comes from. When you pass the buck onto man, you simply fall prey to the "able, but not willing" portion. Unless you would propose that god will not wipe out evil due to being bound by his word/free will, In which case, "willing, but not able". "Able, and willing" is completely out of the ballpark, if evil exists at all. Little something for everyone. The free will defense, (the most notable of which being Platinga's) only attempts to mount the defense by removing or redefining omnipotence. It's already been mentioned to you that this is a valid way to escape the argument, but you seem completely unwilling to ditch any of these -omni- claims (remember me asking you this directly....pages ago?). Waffling on about "enough truth" and "unauthorized biographies" etc.

But who cares? This god business isn't a matter of logic or philosophy, just superstition elevated to an institution. Now, on to the part where you justify your assertions, correct?

Again Epicurus still affirms the consequent. The fallacy has no bearing on truth just a preset of conditions which have been met by his argument. Just need to hear you say these word or a simply "yes i agree" will do.

Circular argument of the day award.

Also I would like to point out that Drich is arguing for something much more disturbing than it appears at face value, as he has done in other threads. He is arguing for a crusades type morality in which the supposed "will of god" is the only standard by which actions are judged. One is compelled to follow the will of god as the ONLY moral precept. There is literally no moral in this conception only obedience to god's will.

He has expressly stated that genocide, slavery, and the like are perfectly acceptable under the guise of divine command.

This is a dangerous kind of fundamentalism. One I doubt very much that even he believes and puts into action.

Quote:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

To be willing does not necessitate actual doing. For example, I'm willing to call my best friend bob, but that doesn't mean I'm going to (especially since that isn't his name). This also does not contradict omnipotence.

Quote:Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Once again, being able to do something as well as willing does not necessitate actual doing. Alternatively, is it malevolent to let your child choose not to study for a test, knowing full well that they will fail if they choose not to study?

Quote:Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

To reiterate, being able and willing does not necessitate action.

Quote:Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

I think I've already addressed the prior faults in the argument.

____

Overall, the argument isn't valid, and certainly isn't sound. It begs the question and fails to understand necessity. I don't really wish to analyze the validity of God or its characteristics, but when speaking of the paradox as a philosophical argument, one can't just apply it and expect it to pass as good logic.

I'm pretty sure I just explained that Epicuras denies (not affirms, denies) the consequent....I'm not sure why you feel the need to repeat yourself? Argumentum ad naseum ring a bell?

@Perhaps- Being able and willing does not "neccesitate action", but that's hardly a criticism of the argument, since that's precisely what the argument asks us, if able and willing, why is there no action (and before, again, free will is offered...the free will defense removes the "able"-omnipotence- bit)?

(April 4, 2012 at 8:46 pm)Perhaps Wrote:

Quote:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

To be willing does not necessitate actual doing. For example, I'm willing to call my best friend bob, but that doesn't mean I'm going to (especially since that isn't his name). This also does not contradict omnipotence.

Quote:Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Once again, being able to do something as well as willing does not necessitate actual doing. Alternatively, is it malevolent to let your child choose not to study for a test, knowing full well that they will fail if they choose not to study?

Quote:Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

To reiterate, being able and willing does not necessitate action.

Quote:Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

I think I've already addressed the prior faults in the argument.

____

Overall, the argument isn't valid, and certainly isn't sound. It begs the question and fails to understand necessity. I don't really wish to analyze the validity of God or its characteristics, but when speaking of the paradox as a philosophical argument, one can't just apply it and expect it to pass as good logic.

Semantics. If god doesn't want evil to exist but is unable to prevent it then he is not omnipotent. If god wants evil to exist he is malevolent. If god doesn't want evil to exist and is able to prevent it then evil should not exist. If both then he is both malevolent and not omnipotent.

The whole argument against it is simply muddying the water. In its simplest form this argument represent a contradiction in terms of the most fundamental kind.

(April 4, 2012 at 7:44 pm)mediamogul Wrote: Circular argument of the day award.

Also I would like to point out that Drich is arguing for something much more disturbing than it appears at face value, as he has done in other threads. He is arguing for a crusades type morality in which the supposed "will of god" is the only standard by which actions are judged. One is compelled to follow the will of god as the ONLY moral precept. There is literally no moral in this conception only obedience to god's will.

He has expressly stated that genocide, slavery, and the like are perfectly acceptable under the guise of divine command.

This is a dangerous kind of fundamentalism. One I doubt very much that even he believes and puts into action.

One could also point out that you are arguing for the type of "Morality" that put Hitler in power, and justified whatever steps it was necessary to resurrect germany from poverty and despair. For every single act was purposed for, and the preservation of the Fatherland, it's people and culture. (outlined in Mien kaumph) Thus sealing the fate and mindset of an entire country to follow a mad man where ever He decided to go. Hitler knew the power of controlling "morality" something you don't even seem to be aware of, and what is worse are willing to freely give to the popular culture you are apart of. (Those who do not know History are doomed to repeat it.)

Just FYI the travesties committed in the dark ages of the Church were not a call from God as you have misrepresented. for the same verses we have now existed then. Nothing in the word of God supported the actions of the Church. Their actions like the members of 1930 and 40's Germany, like your actions today was/is an appeal to general morality and preservation of culture and Way of life. Which is Exactly what you are doing here now.. Or do you want to talk about the sins of the gay community to confirm? (which would have you defend the ever changing popular morality, the same type of ever changing morality that Evil men seek to control.) Once in control they can bend and change morality at will simply by directing the culture to choose the lessor of two evils. As the sliding scale degrades so goes your moral High horse. What you will have left will be a pile of excuses as to the reasons you have let your moral values slip.

This pattern repeats itself over and over and over and over again. It's like every generation has to learn this lesson to one degree or another. Every couple of generations to a devastating degree.

So Yes I do believe in Absolutes, like the absolute standard offered by the Expressed will of God.

---

(April 4, 2012 at 9:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm pretty sure I just explained that Epicuras denies (not affirms, denies) the consequent....I'm not sure why you feel the need to repeat yourself? Argumentum ad naseum ring a bell?

@Perhaps- Being able and willing does not "neccesitate action", but that's hardly a criticism of the argument, since that's precisely what the argument asks us, if able and willing, why is there no action (and before, again, free will is offered...the free will defense removes the "able"-omnipotence- bit)?

So do you now want to look up some verses with me? I will give you a link for book chapter and verses, you read them and tell me what you see. then we can walk through what is happening together.

Let's start in the beginning. Gen 3:1-13 this lays the foundation for the most basic understanding of sin.

Read these 13 verses and tell me what you see.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV

I came into this thread looking for something related to food

I leave disappointed