04 May 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemIt is well established that Freaky does not distinguish between writing which he has authored and writing with which he agrees.
The posts on that page happened 8 months before you joined the site. Do you endorse Coletti's position? If so, you could have cleared up the confusion in this thread by simply stating that you had not personally made an argument because you thought the arguments of others were sufficient.
. . . and the two are not identical.
04 May 06
Originally posted by telerionCute. As has been established, I am citing my own post from this thread. While I obviously agree with everything I author, there are many other authors with whom I agree on various points, as well.
It is well established that Freaky does not distinguish between writing which he has authored and writing with which he agrees.
. . . and the two are not identical.
04 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are asserting that the arguments are found wanting without
As has been demonstrated previously--- not 'rejected out of hand' as charged--- the arguments were found wanting. If you wish to revisit the threads, feel free.
Internally inconsistent? Ranting and raving? Your insults carry no weight. Why not give the believers something to think about by backing the charges up rather than throw empty insult ...[text shortened]... as "ranting and raving" go, perhaps an on-line dictionary will clear up your word confusion.
demonstrating same (Freakism).
Reiterate for all of us who cannot find your refutation precisely what
you found wanting. Otherwise, you fit the bill for ranting and raving.
Nemesio
04 May 06
1 edit
Freaky rejects Premise 2 of the GAFE. As to why his grounds for rejection should be taken at all seriously, I am at a complete loss. If I were to venture to put his rejection of Premise 2 into form, it seems like he holds the following (it's not really clear since Freaky has not presented any organized or developed argument at all):
1. For any event decreed by God, its obtaining is logically necessary for the greater good.
2. Any event that obtains was decreed by God.
3. Therefore, any event that obtains is logically necessary for the greater good.
Basically, then, any event that obtains is logically necessary for the greater good simply in virtue of its having obtained in necessary accordance with God's decree.
Freaky, is this accurate?
If so, then what exactly is your support? Further, you should really think about what your view entails. When you say that the world would have been worse off if even one Holocaust victim had been spared in contravention to God's plan, you are only being consistent. But haven't you considered just how silly that entailment really is? When your ethical treatment is so far removed from, and indeed contrary to, intuition, then why not toss it into the nearest garbage can?
04 May 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloFirst let me point out that (2) really screws around with "free will."
Freaky rejects Premise 2 of the GAFE. As to why his grounds for rejection should be taken at all seriously, I am at a complete loss. If I were to venture to put his rejection of Premise 2 into form, it seems like he holds the following (it's not really clear since Freaky has not presented any organized or developed argument at all):
1. For any event ...[text shortened]... from, and indeed contrary to, intuition, then why not toss it into the nearest garbage can?
Also, I believe (1) can be relaxed a bit to read "For any event permitted by God . . ." After all, God permitting an event is a choice on his part. If all his choices lead to the greater good (the best of all possible worlds), then every event that God permits also leads to the greater good.
Now if we assume that humans have been endowed with "free will", as many xians do, then human choice is necessary for at least some events to obtain. Each of these events must also lead to the greater good because God permitted them to obtain. Therefore every human choice that ever caused an event to obtain led to the greater good. Stated differently, if any one human choice which led to any event which obtained had not been made, then the outcome would have been inconsistent with the greater good (and the best of all possible worlds).
So three questions:
1) What's so bad about sin anyway?
2) Is bad really "good" (i.e. is every "wrong" . . . right?)
3) If every event that I have caused has led to the best of all possible worlds, does that make me a really f***ing cool guy?
04 May 06
Let's make it real easy for everyone, shall we? Since I say the argument cited has been put to bed, and since according to the few of you (curiously, now weeks later) the argument has not been refuted, and since this argument is reportedly a refutation of the doctrine of the divine decree, how about the few of you provide the salient points which you view as invalidating the DODD.
04 May 06
Originally posted by telerionI believe (2) would render libertarian free will false. However, libertarian free will is incoherent to begin with. So Freaky still has the coherent notion of compatibilism to work with.
First let me point out that (2) really screws around with "free will."
Also, I believe (1) can be relaxed a bit to read "For any event permitted by God . . ." After all, God permitting an event is a choice on his part. If all his choices lead to the greater good (the best of all possible worlds), then every event that God permits also leads to t ...[text shortened]... led to the best of all possible worlds, does that make me a really f***ing cool guy?
Concerning God's merely permitting some things to occur, this seems to me to be another area in which Freaky's theory is contradictory. His notion of decree is a method by which God renders events certain -- God's decree in itself carries causal sufficiency. In contrast to this, a minimal view of permittance implies no causal sufficiency: permitting an act does not imply that the act is carried out. So if Freaky wants to say that God's permitting some events to obtain is part of a decree by which God renders all events certain, then Freaky is committed to some view of permittance whereby God's permitting an act to obtain implies that the act does obtain. That strikes me as contradictory. If Freaky wants to say that God merely permits some events, then within the decree he has described, I think I have to view permittance as no different than causation. At any rate, such causation on God's part is still compatible with human free will (of a compatibilist sort).
The rest of your post I agree with completely. At least under a compatibilist notion of free will, Freaky is committed to the absurdities you point out, and your three questions are good questions for Freaky to ponder.
04 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSome problems with the DODD:
Let's make it real easy for everyone, shall we? Since I say the argument cited has been put to bed, and since according to the few of you (curiously, now weeks later) the argument has not been refuted, and since this argument is reportedly a refutation of the doctrine of the divine decree, how about the few of you provide the salient points which you view as invalidating the DODD.
1. It is contradictory on many points, as has already been pointed out.
2. It supposes the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God. This supposition is false, as demonstrated by the GAFE.
3. Where it is not contradictory or false, it is arbitrary. You have not offered a shred of support for even one of its claims. Is there any such support?
05 May 06
Originally posted by LemonJello1. It is contradictory on many points, as has already been pointed out.
Some problems with the DODD:
1. It is contradictory on many points, as has already been pointed out.
2. It supposes the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God. This supposition is false, as demonstrated by the GAFE.
3. Where it is not contradictory or false, it is arbitrary. You have not offered a shred of support for even one of its claims. Is there any such support?
You've yet to show one contradiction. Name one, and your job is done.
2. It supposes the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God. This supposition is false, as demonstrated by the GAFE.
This from the very first post, very first page:
"This thread is an outline form of the divine decree, from the position of assumption of biblical veracity."
I do not know where the term "omnibenevolent" came from; it certainly is not part of the doctrine, nor is it a biblical description. When the Bible speaks of God's goodness, it is goodness of intrinsic value, not merely 'all-good,' as the term seems to want to convey.
3. Where it is not contradictory or false, it is arbitrary. You have not offered a shred of support for even one of its claims. Is there any such support?
You'll have to support your first sentence first. Your second sentence is found both in the Bible and in history. The third sentence is dismissed by the response to the second.
05 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHGAFE is a refutation of DODD, unless you deny that God is either
Let's make it real easy for everyone, shall we? Since I say the argument cited has been put to bed, and since according to the few of you (curiously, now weeks later) the argument has not been refuted, and since this argument is reportedly a refutation of the doctrine of the divine decree, how about the few of you provide the salient points which you view as invalidating the DODD.
omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent.
Nemesio
05 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDoes your god perform evil acts?
I do not know where the term "omnibenevolent" came from; it certainly is not part of the doctrine, nor is it a biblical description. When the Bible speaks of God's goodness, it is goodness of intrinsic value, not merely 'all-good,' as the term seems to want to convey.
If not, he is all good-works doing. Bene- well/good, volens- wishing/doing.
Omnibenevolent doesn't mean 'all-good,' like you suggest. It indicates
a driving instinct of desiring that all good be done.
Nemesio
05 May 06
Originally posted by NemesioThe term used in GAFE is:
GAFE is a refutation of DODD, unless you deny that God is either
omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent.
Nemesio
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.
Nemesio
05 May 06
Originally posted by NemesioThe formula does not take into consideration other moral agents. Other than that, in a vaccum, it would work.
The term used in GAFE is:
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.
Nemesio