A General Argument from Evil.

Originally posted by Siebren

Where did you got your definitions from? From the bible or from the dictionary? If the bible please please state where. If a dictionary LOL.

Do you dispute that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally
perfect as defined above?

Nemesio

Originally posted by bbarr
Definitions are not arguments, arguments have premises and definitions do not. The definition is not circular, because it doesn't rely upon the notion of moral perfection, only moral preferability. [b]Further, the whole point of the definition is to remain neutral between competing ethical theories(as I made clear in the note presented just after the argument). Since the definition is entailed by the theistic ethical theory, they cannot reject it.[/b]

Definition are propositions. And all arguments are propositional. Since you have an undefined term, your argument has no weight.

The note on being ethically neutral is a red herring. Your argument depends on an understanding of what is the greater good (which is key to premise (2). But you can't get to (2) until you define moral. And since your (implied) definition of moral is antithetical to the definition of God, the argument is begging the question.

Originally posted by bbarr
I want to get the little quibbles out of the way, and see if any theists out there wanted to reject any premise other than (2). Once that is done, then we try and determine what follows if we reject (2), that is, if we claim that there has never, in the history of the world, occurred an event that brought about more suffering than was absolutely necessary to maximize the good.

There's no way to determine that. History is still happening. The answer is undetermined until the end of time. At that point, you can add up the chips and see who's the winner.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Do you dispute that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally
perfect as defined above?

Nemesio

You're starting to get the picture Nemesio. Morally perfect has not been defined (at least not up front).

Originally posted by Starrman
It is not cicular at all. Why is a footballer called a footballer? Because he plays football.

"Why is a footballer called a footballer?" ?!

Another example of a non-definition. A perfect example really.

Bbarr says that morally perfect is doing what is morally preferable. Thus morally perfect is not defined.

A dog is a canine.

It's a synonym. For it to be a definition, you need to provide some more information. A footballer is someone who plays football assumes you know what football is.

The other are definitions:

"Omnipotent" ... "can do anything that is logically possible"

and

"Omniscient"... "knows every true proposition"

but

"Morally Perfect"... "prefers that A" if "A is morally preferable to B"

Originally posted by Coletti
You're starting to get the picture Nemesio. Morally perfect has not been defined (at least not up front).

I think that Bennett is leaving it undefined for the expressed purpose
of allowing anyone to insert their definition of 'morally perfect' without
having to debate the merits of whether or not that definition is, in fact,
representative of 'moral perfection.'

For example, say Bennett gave this proposition:

Given: God is a good basketball player because he plays basketball well.

While he has not defined what makes a good basketball player, he
will, for the sake of the larger argument, accept whatever you
consider to be a good basketball player (even if it is demonstrably
false).

My point to Sieben was that he was scoffing at the proof without providing
a reason; in other words, s/he gave a meaningless post.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Coletti
Definition are propositions. And all arguments are propositional. Since you have an undefined term, your argument has no weight.

The note on being ethically neutral is a red herring. Your argument depends on an understanding of what is the greater good (which is key to premise (2). But you can't get to (2) until you define moral. And since your (im ...[text shortened]... inition of moral is antithetical to the definition of God, the argument is begging the question.

Morally perfect is defined as above, hence it is defined. Moreover, the definition provided is entailed by the theists own view, so no theist can reject it.

No matter what ethical theory ends up correct (except flat out skepticism), according to every theory (the theist's included), there will be some criterion or criteria in virtue of which some acts or events or states of affairs are morally preferable to others.

Given this, moral perfection is defined as above.

As far as the greater good is concerned, the theist can construe that however s/he prefers. The term, like all the explicitly moral terms in this argument, is meant to be neutral as to ethical theory. Every ethical theory will postulate that some ways the world could be would be better than other ways the world could be, and the theist is no different.

You are simply wrong that anything in my argument is question begging. Every moral term used is neutral as to ethical theory. The theist may conceive of 'morally preferable', 'greater good', and so on in a manner that accords with their faith. Nothing in the argument depends on this.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I think that Bennett is leaving it undefined for the expressed purpose
of allowing anyone to insert their definition of 'morally perfect' without
having to debate the merits of whether or not that definition is, in fact,
representative ...[text shortened]... a reason; in other words, s/he gave a meaningless post.

Nemesio

Indeed, this is what I've been trying to get across (I even included a note explicitly claiming this). Jeez.

The moral terms in the argument presume no ethical theory!

Originally posted by Nemesio
Do you dispute that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally
perfect as defined above?

Nemesio

Do you agree with Bbarr's reasoning in his first post and the resulting conclusion ?

Originally posted by Coletti
"Why is a footballer called a footballer?" ?!

Another example of a non-definition.

A dog is a canine.

It's a synonym. For it to be a definition, you need to provide some more information. A footballer is someone who plays football assumes you know what football is.

It's not a synonym at all.

However, this aside, a footballer is exactly that, a person who plays football. Footballer is a descriptive reference, it makes no claims as to what football is and indeed does not have to. Lets take one closer to home for you. A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. This is a perfectly correct definition and also does not explain what a Jesus Christ could be, nor what his teachings were.

Canine is not a definition of a dog, it is merely one of the properties of being a dog, of which there are many. A dog is four legged etc. With both footballer and Christian the definitions are complete and satisfactory.

Originally posted by bbarr
Morally perfect is defined as above, hence it is defined. Moreover, the definition provided is [b]entailed by the theists own view, so no theist can reject it.

No matter what ethical theory ends up correct (except flat out skepticism), according to every theory (the theist's included), there will be some criterion or criteria in virtue of which some ...[text shortened]... , and so on in a manner that accords with their faith. Nothing in the argument depends on this.[/b]

Your definition of "Morally Perfect"... "prefers A" if "A is morally preferable to B"

How can anyone reject what you have not provided? See my edits to my reply to Nemo. Notice how well you defined omniscient and omnipotent compared to "morally perfect."

What is morally preferred?? Oh, I know! - that which someone morally perfect would choose.

Bbarr: "Morally Perfect (def): An entity G is morally perfect if and only if for any two acts, events, or states of affairs A and B, if A is morally preferable to B then G prefers that A occur or obtain rather than B, and G acts accordingly."

Does this definition of being morally perfect entails the possibility of choosing the lesser evil ? The way your definition is formulated, my answer would be "yes".

And since God did not choose to do something you have not defined, then there is no God??

Originally posted by Coletti
Definition are propositions.

What nonsense.

Definitions don't have truth values. There are no true or false definitions.

Originally posted by Coletti
Your definition of "Morally Perfect"... "prefers A" if "A is morally preferable to B"

How can anyone reject what you have not provided? See my edits to my reply to Nemo. Notice how well you defined omniscient and omnipotent comp ...[text shortened]... Oh, I know! - that which someone morally perfect would choose.

No, that is not the definition I provided. The definition I provided was a conjunction, you left out 'and acts accordingly'.

You are correct that nobody can reject a definition of 'moral' that I have not provided. The reason I did not provide a definition is that the argument does not need to rely on any particular definition of 'moral'. For all I care you can presuppose your own ethical theory, or utilitarianism, of Kantianism, or virtue theory, or whatever. It won't matter for the sake of this argument.

Again:

The moral terms in the argument presume no ethical theory!


Further:

The validity of this argument does not depend on presuming any ethical theory!