10 May 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloLJ, it's already been broughten. I can lead you to water, but I can't make you drink. Without reading the doctrine, you argue against it using the GAFE. The GAFE is laughably silly in its "argument" against the character of God, and refuted with simple ease. Any additional arguments you have offered have already been addressed within the doctrine which I have typed out for your perusal.
Look, you're the one who advocates the stance that all evil/suffering/pain that exists is logically necessary for the greater good. This stance of yours is either arbitrary, or you have reasons to back up your stance. If you say that all instances of suffering/pain are logically necessary for the greater good; and if this is not arbitrary and you have s ...[text shortened]... reater good. The greater good is not some endogenous function of God's whims and fancies.
10 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI note that you didn't answer the question.
The most troubling part for me, in this whole exercise, is that silly little 'riddles' and 'puzzles' like this actually trouble some people. They truly have talked themselves into believing that this represents a moral dilemma of sorts that somehow makes God appear morally challenged. If it wasn't such a sad state of affairs, I'd be tempted to laugh.
The ignorance and arrogance is appalling.
In the course of the 'big picture of human history,' did every time an old lady got beaten up
constitute the righteous thing having happened?
Please note that you indicated that it would be righteous for a moral being, such as myself,
to interfere with the free will of the assaulter.
Nemesio
10 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou talk about its being refuted, but you don't offer the refutation. You simply say that
LJ, it's already been broughten. I can lead you to water, but I can't make you drink. Without reading the doctrine, you argue against it using the GAFE. The GAFE is laughably silly in its "argument" against the character of God, and refuted with simple ease. Any additional arguments you have offered have already been addressed within the doctrine which I have typed out for your perusal.
the existence of other moral beings make it invalid. But, it is clear that it does not, because
God is a moral being as well, with the potential to act just as I have the potential to act.
Indeed, my potential is infinitely less capable than His, as is my knowledge. Which returns
us to my example: my limited knowledge and limited capacity tells me that interfering with
the assailant's free will is a good and righteous thing.
Why doesn't God have the same benevolent attitude?
Nemesio
10 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, BDP, I believe it to be the very crux of GAFE to claim that God really should have been able to figure out some system wherein evil/pain/suffering would have been avoided...
[b]We should be past this point already. Both GAFE and the Bible accept the possibility of evil.
Well, damned if I ain't stumped, in that case. To hear you fellers say it, even one instance of 'avoidable' evil (and, really, isn't it all avoidable?), and the whole idea of God as the Bible describes Him is out the window. No, BDP, I believe it ...[text shortened]... of the Bible certainly offers us no excuse for not being aware of God's policies.[/b]
Wrong. The GAFE allows for all kinds of acts of evil, so long as they serve some greater good.
The only healthy doubt a thinking person should ever entertain is toward oneself.
In that case, the next time a Nigerian offers you a share of US THIRTY-THREE MILLION ($$ 33,000,000), you must take him at his word. 🙄
You mean, like in the future?
No, I mean, like, the contents of your belief system, and stuff.
How in God's name would you know what I consider? You know what I assert, but certainly not what I privately consider: don't flatter yourself.
And here I was assuming that your assertions came from your considerations on the matter. Guess I should have known better than to take you at your word.
The examples you gave (or any you could possibly muster out of Scripture, for that matter) only serve to show your ignorance of each unique situation.
😴😴😴
A child might as well condemn me for telling him that Santa Claus is false. "How dare you pass judgment on the One who brings me toys every year!" 😀
10 May 06
Originally posted by NemesioI note that you didn't answer the question.
I note that you didn't answer the question.
In the course of the 'big picture of human history,' did every time an old lady got beaten up
constitute the righteous thing having happened?
Please note that you indicated that it would be righteous for a moral being, such as myself,
to interfere with the free will of the assaulter.
Nemesio
Funny, your memory is good for a short amount of time, but somehow fades as time passes. Don't be too troubled, it happens to all of us. Good thing we have the posts recorded here at TFC for guys like you, me and the rest of the gang who mysteriously have forgotten that we have had this conversation already.
10 May 06
Originally posted by NemesioLessee if I have this straight: you do all the good that you possibly can? Highly improbable and doubtful, without even considering a sin nature. Read the doctrine: this has been addressed, as well.
You talk about its being refuted, but you don't offer the refutation. You simply say that
the existence of other moral beings make it invalid. But, it is clear that it does not, because
God is a moral being as well, with the potential to act just as I have the potential to act.
Indeed, my potential is infinitely less capable than His, as is my knowl ...[text shortened]... good and righteous thing.
Why doesn't God have the same benevolent attitude?
Nemesio
10 May 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemWrong. The GAFE allows for all kinds of acts of evil, so long as they serve some greater good.
No, BDP, I believe it to be the very crux of GAFE to claim that God really should have been able to figure out some system wherein evil/pain/suffering would have been avoided...
Wrong. The GAFE allows for all kinds of acts of evil, so long as they serve some greater good.
The only healthy doubt a thinking person should ever entertain is t ...[text shortened]... ta Claus is false. "How dare you pass judgment on the One who brings me toys every year!" 😀
Problem solved, it appears!
In that case, the next time a Nigerian offers you a share of US THIRTY-THREE MILLION ($$ 33,000,000), you must take him at his word.
Apparently, I should have said, "The only healthy doubt a thinking person should ALWAYS entertain is toward oneself."
And here I was assuming that your assertions came from your considerations on the matter. Guess I should have known better than to take you at your word.
I suppose I could have publicly asserted what I privately consider. Only an idiot would ever assert they have no doubt when it comes to any current available propositions. However, it has been my experience that the Bible is to be trusted even above my own thoughts. It wasn't always that way, but I eventually matured to that perspective.
10 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou don't have it straight. I never claimed I did all the good I can;
Lessee if I have this straight: you do all the good that you possibly can? Highly improbable and doubtful, without even considering a sin nature. Read the doctrine: this has been addressed, as well.
I consider this a trait of being imperfect: I fail to maximize the good
that my finite potential permits.
You assert that your god is perfect (as in perfectly good, among other
things). And yet, your god, with his infinite potential, fails to intercede
on an old lady's behalf while, at the same time, demanding that I
intercede (in order to be morally good).
Your doctrine addresses this in contradiction. This is why I point it out.
Nemesio
10 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, if you agree that every time an old lady is assaulted by someone
[b]I note that you didn't answer the question.
Funny, your memory is good for a short amount of time, but somehow fades as time passes. Don't be too troubled, it happens to all of us. Good thing we have the posts recorded here at TFC for guys like you, me and the rest of the gang who mysteriously have forgotten that we have had this conversation already.[/b]
without your god's interference that good is optimized, then your
god is a pervert.
Nemesio
10 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHProblem solved, it appears!
[b]Wrong. The GAFE allows for all kinds of acts of evil, so long as they serve some greater good.
Problem solved, it appears!
In that case, the next time a Nigerian offers you a share of US THIRTY-THREE MILLION ($$ 33,000,000), you must take him at his word.
Apparently, I should have said, "The only healthy doubt a thinking person should AL ...[text shortened]... ve my own thoughts. It wasn't always that way, but I eventually matured to that perspective.[/b]
I'm not willing to reject premise #2 as you do; this remains the main point of disagreement. However, this has been discussed ad nauseum, so let's not go over it further.
Apparently, I should have said, "The only healthy doubt a thinking person should ALWAYS entertain is toward oneself."
Is this really any better? Surely such a person completely lacks confidence.
Only an idiot would ever assert they have no doubt when it comes to any current available propositions.
In regards to the metaphysical, I agree; perhaps the forums would be more enlightening to all of us if everyone was a bit more honest and/or forthcoming about the doubts they have.