He said -"The world right now is not 100% good, but it is not the world God created. "
Wait what? God didn't create this world? What the fuck does that mean Theo? This world was created by Allah? Something else created this world? It was brought about by natural selection and random processes? Give me a fucking break, you just keep making it more and more entertaining to troll you, I can never expect what sort of ridicules things you will say next.
Aaron cannot seem to understand the difference between creation and post creation. The only thing God created was a 100% good world. God simply allowed this world to come about. Allowing something to come about does not = God creating something, thus, to assert as many times as you did that God created the world with evil in it is false. I see you've admitted to trolling me. Like I said, you're a joke, glad you've admitted it, by your own admission you're not here for honest discussion.
You don't understand the premise. God would still exist, but the state of moral Good would be lessened by the presence of evil. The ironic thing is, that you who constantly calls me illogical are making a logic error by denying that premise. The greatest possible good defined - Greatest possible state of moral goodness. God would still be the same, but the state of possible goodness would be lessened.
Once again Aaron has resorted to telling me I don't understand something. A quick re cap on this often and very tiring tactic.
1. No no no. God is morally obligated to do the good. Creating a world with evil is not "the good". Even a 2 year old can see that, right?
2. All fine and good, and not really addressing my point. The question is this: Why is there evil in the world and were did it come from?Why is there evil in the world and were did it come from?
3. if god created a world with the potential for evil, a created a world with evil in it.
4. Theo says that a world with the possibility of evil is not the same as a world with the actuality of evil. While this statement may be true if the creator of such a world was not the greatest possible being, the creator he argues for is the greatest possible being.
5. Theo, that's my whole point. I don't care what it was like at the exact moment of creation. I am saying, THE WORLD GOD CREATED HAS EVIL IN IT, BECAUSE OF HOW HE MADE IT.
6. I was never arguing that God created the world evil. If I said such a thing, and I am almost certain I have not, that wasn't my point.
You've changed your point 6 different times. Now, onto the NEW POINT, which will undoubtedly be changed after it is shown to be wanting as well.
God would still exist, but the state of moral Good would be lessened by the presence of evil.
How on earth does Gods existence depend upon the presence of evil or the overall state of possible goodness being lessened?
If you accept premise one, you have to accept premise three. The only premise you can really argue against here is premise one, but your a little too hot in the collar to see that. You attempt to reject the premise was a strawman.
3 is not about whether god creates anything, if god created only a perfect world, still the GPG, but when he creates a world, like ours, WITH EVIL IN IT, not the GPG.
My point is that God created a world that has evil in it, and that it is the way it is by design. There is a flaw in the way the world was created that allows evil. This flaw is here because the world is the way god created it.
So now, we have the 7th installment of the point, which is just as absurd as the other 6. God did not design the world that has evil in it, God designed a world that did not have evil in it.
1. At the beginning when God was alone it was GPG
2. When God created everything it was still GPG
3. When God allowed evil to come into existence it was not GPG
4. When all is said and done, it will be the GPG (God reigns on earth, end of satan, GPG for all time etc. etc.)
So, if you're asserting God creating the world that has evil in it because of #3 then that logic states that God created the world with the GPG because of #1 and #2 and #4. You cannot have it both ways. Either God created the world with evil in it based upon #3 or God created the world with the GPG based upon 1,2 and 4. You're taking one specific point in time and saying God created the world with evil in it, despite other specific points in time that state God did not create the world with evil in it and instead created it with the GPG. You're being logically inconsistent.
Not only that, but if we assume for the sake of argument that the inclusion of the 'flaw' of free will led to something other than the GPG, that assumes that Gods existence and 'all goodness' is dependent upon God choosing the GPG. So you're assuming that God is obligated in some way shape or form to choose the GPG, you're also assuming that God didn't choose the GPG for His creation, in knowing that God is only the GPG and thus choose the GPG for His creation. Oh and before you even assert that God needed to create something, that is also an assumption. God can create just because He wants to or create things for His pleasure, which does not = need.
I was never arguing that God created the world evil. If I said such a thing, and I am almost certain I have not, that wasn't my point. I did say God created the world with natural evils, something you have only responded to by invoking creationism, and btw ID doesn't give an accounting for natural evil sorry.
Natural evil? what on earth are you even talking about? you just sat there and said 'moral good' in your previous statement, now you're talking about natural evil. Natural evil is not moral evil. You're equivocating. Either evil means morally wrong or bad or it means characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering. Natural evil cannot be morally evil, since animals, gravity, and elements do not have morals nor do animals operating on natural instincts violate any type of moral code. So you're equivocating. Looking forward to you screaming 'that's not what I meant again.' Despite you clearly talking about natural evil.
Lastly the Augustinian Theodicy, is the free will defense you moron. Who feed you that bad information. If that's what you are arguing for, you have not expressed that in a clear way.
I believe you're once again taking what I said out of context. A quick recap.
You said: Again, I cannot stress this enough, no respectable Christian philosopher would say that God created a world that doesn't contain evil in it.
Augustine said God created a world that doesn't contain evil in it, therefore your ridiculous claim is false. You're now, once again, taking what I said out of context, since I brought up Augustine to simply refute your ignorant claim.
8 comments:
Theo... why do you keep ignoring the main thing I am saying, that my issue has never been that whether evil was present at the moment of creation, it was whether evil was present in creation. Which it is.
You contradict yourself, you deny premises that are logical conclusions, you straw man my arguments, you constantly tell me what I am saying even if it should be clear that I am not saying that, you tell me I am wrong and then fail to prove it, and you get huffy when I do. You have never once been interested in honest discussion, just attempting to prove you are right. You trolled first. I just more enjoyment out of it =)
You should change your name to theological-shouting. This world is not the greatest possible good, this world exists, therefor there is not the greatest possible good.
"Natural evil? what on earth are you even talking about? you just sat there and said 'moral good' in your previous statement, now you're talking about natural evil. Natural evil is not moral evil."
You're right, which is why I only brought them up as a side note, but these are still things you have to account for, and have not btw. You want to say there is nothing morally wrong with God creating viruses and parasites, go infect yourself with some them and tell us how morally good your god is for putting you in a world with them. Tell the victims of katrina and the tsunami that they died of a morally neutral act.
When God places people in danger via natural evil, only god may be held responsible, thus god is evil. Unless you care to give a better explanation?
"Not only that, but if we assume for the sake of argument that the inclusion of the 'flaw' of free will led to something other than the GPG, that assumes that Gods existence and 'all goodness' is dependent upon God choosing the GPG. So you're assuming that God is obligated in some way shape or form to choose the GPG, you're also assuming that God didn't choose the GPG for His creation, in knowing that God is only the GPG and thus choose the GPG for His creation."
Now you seem to finally be understanding the argument. And yes as I said before, god would be morally obligated to do the GPG. Unless you are arguing for an evil or incompetent god? Think about this before you respond, do you really want to argue that god is not obligated to create the gpg? Do you know everything that entails?
"Aaron cannot seem to understand the difference between creation and post creation. The only thing God created was a 100% good world. God simply allowed this world to come about. Allowing something to come about does not = God creating something, thus, to assert as many times as you did that God created the world with evil in it is false."
You said "This is not the world God created". But that doesn't follow, if this isn't the world God created than whose world is it's?
This is why I keep saying, that if god created the world, with the foreknowledge, that the world would turn out this way, this is the world god intended, no eden. If he had intended eden than he is incompetent, because he made it with a flaw.
This is why I brought supralapsarianism, which I still don't think you have a clue as to what that is, because you don't deal in philosophy, just biblical verse arguments.
Can you explain why supralapsarianism is incorrect? I am not talking about election btw. Make a post on supralapsarianism if you want to keep this discussion fresh.
Theo... why do you keep ignoring the main thing I am saying, that my issue has never been that whether evil was present at the moment of creation, it was whether evil was present in creation. Which it is.
No one is ignoring it, in fact I respond to it all the time, the problem here is your 'main thing' has changed 6 times already. You're now on your 7th installment of the 'main thing' and it will undoubtedly change to something else.
You contradict yourself, you deny premises that are logical conclusions, you straw man my arguments, you constantly tell me what I am saying even if it should be clear that I am not saying that, you tell me I am wrong and then fail to prove it, and you get huffy when I do. You have never once been interested in honest discussion, just attempting to prove you are right. You trolled first. I just more enjoyment out of it =)
More baseless assertions from you. You assert with no evidence that I have contradicted myself, created a straw man. Then assert AGAINST THE EVIDENCE, that I 'constantly tell you what you're saying' despite me responding directly to your quotes, and I tell you I am wrong without proving it. I have proved just about every single assertion you've made to be false, from 'God created the world evil' to 'Potential is synonymous with actual,' etc. etc. The only person not here for honest intelligent discussion is you, you've made that clear with your own words, since you've already admitting to trolling me.
You're right, which is why I only brought them up as a side note, but these are still things you have to account for, and have not btw. You want to say there is nothing morally wrong with God creating viruses and parasites, go infect yourself with some them and tell us how morally good your god is for putting you in a world with them. Tell the victims of katrina and the tsunami that they died of a morally neutral act.
Why on earth do I need to account for it when you have just admitted that moral evil and natural evil are not the same? man you continue with your illogical nonsense. Tsunamis and Hurricans do not have morals, how stupid are you? neither do viruses or parasites. Moral evil does not = natural evil. God creating Viruses and Parasites is not evil, anymore than someone creating a walking cane is evil.
When God places people in danger via natural evil, only god may be held responsible, thus god is evil. Unless you care to give a better explanation?
God doesn't place anyone in danger, you're an idiot. God did not force those people to live in New Oreleans nor did God force them to ignore the warnings of the impending hurricane. Try again. I need a laugh and your terrible logic is doing the trick.
Now you seem to finally be understanding the argument. And yes as I said before, god would be morally obligated to do the GPG.
No, I am understanding the 7th installment of your ever changing argument. You state God is morally obligated to do the GPG. Why might that be? because you say so? you're simply assuming it, this is called BEGGING THE QUESTION. You're assuming your premises are true without providing a shred of evidence it is.
Unless you are arguing for an evil or incompetent god? Think about this before you respond, do you really want to argue that god is not obligated to create the gpg? Do you know everything that entails?
A God that is not morally obligated to do the GPG is neither evil nor incompetent. You sure do love to assume things don't you? not to mention you have ignored a large portion of my argument, specifically the part where I said that God created the GPG in regards to the creation.
You said "This is not the world God created". But that doesn't follow, if this isn't the world God created than whose world is it's?
You're being logically inconsistent, try again. I've already posted this but you're ignoring it. Here it is again:
1. At the beginning when God was alone it was GPG
2. When God created everything it was still GPG
3. When God allowed evil to come into existence it was not GPG
4. When all is said and done, it will be the GPG (God reigns on earth, end of satan, GPG for all time etc. etc.)
So, if you're asserting God creating the world that has evil in it because of #3 then that logic states that God created the world with the GPG because of #1 and #2 and #4. You cannot have it both ways. Either God created the world with evil in it based upon #3 or God created the world with the GPG based upon 1,2 and 4. You're taking one specific point in time and saying God created the world with evil in it, despite other specific points in time that state God did not create the world with evil in it and instead created it with the GPG. You're being logically inconsistent.
This is why I keep saying, that if god created the world, with the foreknowledge, that the world would turn out this way, this is the world god intended, no eden. If he had intended eden than he is incompetent, because he made it with a flaw.
Good job in conceding the argument. God created the world with foreknowledge that the world would turn out this way correct, but by that logic, God also had foreknowledge that the world would become the GPG after all of the events in revelation happened, thus, according to your ridiculous logic, that is the world that God intended, which is the world with the GPG, since that is the ultimate goal. Like I said, you're being logically inconsistent, picking and choosing specific periods in time and ignoring others. By your logic, since God had foreknowledge of a world with the GPG, that is the world God intended, therefore there is no flaw. Way to refute yourself. I imagine the 8th installment of the next point coming up very soon.
Theo, were did I say God created the world evil? Please show me quote. This is the straw man. I never said "created the world evil" I said created a world with evil in it. Please for the sake of Christ show me were I said "God created the world evil." I said god created natural evils in the world, but that's not the same thing.
You say I have changed my stance 7 times, but you if you read the 7 quotes it's obvious that they all say the same thing... So what are you on about? God created a world with evil in it. That's a tautology, it's absolutely true. An argument from a bible verses is not a logical argument, specially if the evidence of existence proves the opposite.
Why don't you address supralapsarianism? Are you scared?
"1. At the beginning when God was alone it was GPG
2. When God created everything it was still GPG
3. When God allowed evil to come into existence it was not GPG
4. When all is said and done, it will be the GPG (God reigns on earth, end of satan, GPG for all time etc. etc.)"
Premise 3 admits my argument, and is my point. Right now, it is not the GPG. Lowering the GPG is going against the will of God as far as I can see. When all is said and done, billions of creations will be in hell, and trillions more will have suffered through life. How is that the GPG?
BTW if that is supposed to be a syllogism it is neither sound nor valid. The conclusion doesn't follow logically from the premises. I am not sure what you are trying to assert with those 4 points.
Theo, you don't express yourself in a way that I can clearly understand. If you spent less time telling me I was illogical, and spent more time demonstrating it, perhaps I would understand what you are trying to say. But you don't, and I can't.
Again, you continue to amuse, but your points are so poorly expressed, at least from my perspective, that I really can't tell wtf you are actually arguing.
Try this, remove the personal insults and just tell me what you actually mean. It will be much better for both of us.
"God doesn't place anyone in danger, you're an idiot. God did not force those people to live in New Oreleans nor did God force them to ignore the warnings of the impending hurricane. Try again. I need a laugh and your terrible logic is doing the trick."
What? God didn't place us in the world then?
Let me give you an example. I lock you in a room with a lion, a tiger and a bear. I also put parasites in the water and infectious disease in the air. Would I morally culpable for your death? Certainly from a legal stand point I would.
How is this analogy any different from God placing us in a world with natural evil, with the exception of size and scope?
If one of your family members dies of cancer and you going to say it's their fault for being alive? Are you going to say that the millions of people who suffered from leprosy deserved it for contracting it? Will you say that the millions who died of the black plague deserved it for living were they did died?
Will you ever address my claims in a fair way with out distorting my arguments?
On a slightly unrelated note, have you ever considered that your worldview is wrong? I would never say I have completely proved any one wrong about anything, because there would always be the potential for epistemic doubt. I know nothing with absolute certainty. You claim in nearly every line of every post that you have "Proved me wrong, absolutely." How can you be absolutely sure of any knowledge? Absolute sureness of knowledge is the greatest sign of ignorance, self deception and close mindedness. You are a paragon of this Theo, which is why I get such a laugh out of you.
Post a Comment