• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Special Pleading and the PoE (Part 3)

Rise

Well-Known Member
Wordy.

Are you going to properly adjust your definition so we can move ahead or are you not?

Logical fallacy, failure of the burden of rejoinder.

You have not attempted to give any valid counter arguments to my arguments which refuted your claim that my definition was faulty in any way.

If you are not able or willing to give a counter argument then you have failed your burden of rejoinder and conceded the debate by being unwilling to meet the requirements of what is entailed in a debate.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
I will say ahead of time that I'm not interested in a response if it's just going to be a bunch of mis-called fallacy lists and fallacy fallacy. This is an obnoxious way to discuss, let's please avoid it.

Maybe I should take a drink every time the word is used.
 

alypius

Active Member
I have started quite a few threads about the PoE, but there is still more to talk about. Today I'd like to talk about this little issue: ostensibly, given the premises that God exists, that God is omnipotent, that God is omniscient, and that God created humans deliberately, then it is reasonable to conclude that God is responsible for our moral compasses: that evaluation that we perform when we feel something has morally good or morally bad implications.

For instance, perhaps this is the reason that we might feel guilty if we hurt somebody, even unintentionally.

Ostensibly, if God is benevolent and wishes for us to be morally good agents, God would endow us with functioning moral cognitive faculties: God would give us the ability to detect what is morally good and what is morally bad. (Now, obviously as a non-theist and moral non-cognitivist I don't believe any of this; just working within the framework of the premises).

Let us return again to the example given in the last couple of PoE posts: childhood leukemia. If we were to imagine a being giving or allowing a child to suffer horribly from leukemia and then die, most of our moral compasses tingle "this is bad."

But why? If we are to use the theodicy that this post series is about (that is, "God has an unknown, but benevolent, reason for causing/allowing physical suffering in the world"), why wouldn't our moral compasses register this as good even if we didn't understand why, if it was actually good?

In other words, we are between a rock and a hard place: if children with leukemia is actually congruent with God's benevolence, and God gave us functioning cognitive, moral faculties, why wouldn't this register as good to us?

If it is actually good, but registers on our moral compasses as bad, why did God give us malfunctioning moral cognitive faculties? Wouldn't that be an entirely new problem unto itself?

What if the world was created good but is now fallen?
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
What if the world was created good but is now fallen?

Unless anything is in charge of how the physics of the world works other than God (in which case God is not omnipotent), God is still culpable for it regardless of whether it was always that way or became that way for some other reason.

The direction that would probably go in is some theodicy whereby suffering is attempted to be justified as a punishment or consequence (I don't think that would go very well). God, if omnipotent and omniscient, would still be in charge of why physics operate the way it operates.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
There are many fatal flaws in your response:

1. You don't understand how logic works.
A logically invalid argument can't be used to support a conclusion.

If you say "Gravity causes things to fall down because I had soup for dinner", nobody is required to accept your statement as a logically valid argument to prove your conclusion is true because it is the logical fallacy of nonsequitur.

You aren't entitled to have your illogical nonsense statements regarded as true just because you wish them to be, without being able to logically justify why they must be regarded as true.

You aren't entitled to logically dismiss all the ironclad evidence we have to prove the earth is a sphere just because you can find someone who thinks the earth is flat.

Likewise, you aren't entitled to dismiss overwhelming logical and Scriptural evidence of what the Bible says merely on the basis that you can find someone who thinks otherwise.

It s a logical fallacy of nonsequitur. Your conclusions don't follow logically from your premises.

2. You cannot show any error with the fallacies I have pointed out.
Which means your logic was invalid and fallacious.

Since you have committed those fallacies, then the burden is on you to fix your invalid arguments so they become valid.

You are not entitled to make invalid fallacious arguments and then have people treat them as though they are logically valid statements of truth.


3. Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You cannot give any logical reasons to prove your assertion is true that I am supposedly obfuscating or deflecting by pointing out that your argument are blatantly fallacious and invalid.

Your assertion is not proven true just because you assert it is.


4. Logical fallacy, "the pout".
You are committing this fallacy by rejecting reasoned dialogue as a possibility.

5. Logical fallacy, failure of the burden of rejoinder.
The burden of rejoinder is on you to offer a valid counter argument to my arguments. Otherwise my arguments stand unrefuted by you. And those arguments refuted your claims.

So therefore your claims stand refuted unless you can offer a counter argument to defend them.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely asserting that I cannot prove my conclusions about the Bible are true by using the Bible and logic doesn't make your claim true just because you assert it is.
You have given no logical reasons why we would believe your claim is true.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
I gave you four posts full of logical arguments and scriptural evidence which establish that my original conclusion about what the Bible says is true.
Posts 103, 104, 153, and 154.

You don't have any grounds for claiming the Bible doesn't say that, or that Christians are misinterpreting the Bible, unless you can refute the arguments and evidence I presented.

If you aren't willing or able to do that then you don't have the logical right to make claims to the contrary.

You are guilty of merely asserting the opposite is true without being willing or able to logically prove why it would be.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion, and failure to meet your burden of proof.

You have not given a single logical argument or Scriptural evidence to support your claim that original sin is a misinterpretation of the Bible.

The onus is on you as the one making the claim to provide proof of your claim.
I already told you I will not reply to any more posts if you continue to talk about logical fallacies, so I did not even read this post.
As soon as I skimmed it and saw the words 'logical fallacy' I knew I was done.

Happy trails.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
There are many fatal errors in your statement.

1. I already did that. Posts 103, 104, 153, 154. You aren't willing or able to refute them.

2. Logical fallacy, shifting the burden of proof.

You were the one who made the claim in post 80 that I supposedly made assertions about what the Bible really said about original sin which aren't true.

The burden of proof is on you to give reasons why your claim should be regarded as true.

3. Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.

I already pointed out why you were false to make that claim in a previous post. Repeating your refuted claim doesn't make it true just because you repeat it.


4. Logical fallacy, deliberate ignorance.

You are choosing to ignore the posts I gave you which provide the Biblical evidence and logic for my conclusions.
Willfully choosing to ignore them doesn't mean they don't exist.

You are engaging in intellectual dishonesty by continuing to practice deliberate ignorance even though I have pointed out the error in your claim.

5. Logical fallacy, appeal to laziness.
One I had to coin for this forum as well.

The fact that you don't want to take the time to look at the arguments and evidence I gave in those four posts to establish my conclusion is true, does not absolve you of the logical requirement to do so if you want to try to dispute what I have argued.

6. Logical fallacy, failure of the burden of rejoinder.

If you are not willing to look at my arguments and deal with them then you have failed your burden of rejoinder and tacitly conceded the debate by being unwilling to meet the basic requirements of a debate.

Not serious enough, apparently, to be able to use proper logic and Biblical evidence in order to demonstrate why your claims should be believed to be true.

But what you claimed in post 80 isn't supported by the Bible anyway, so you'll never be able to use logic or Biblical evidence to support your claim no matter how seriously you try to take it.

You simply can't prove that which isn't true.

That's why the only thing you have to offer us is the fallacious appeal to the authority of your religious leader, whose opinion about what the Bible supposedly says must be true even if it directly contradicts what the Bible says.

Your premise is fallacious.
Your premise is the false idea that the truth of what the Bible says is determined by who is more "qualified" to pronounce what the Bible says is true.

That is an illogical and fallacious appeal to authority.

If you say the Bible says Jesus was a pink elephant, and I say the Bible says Jesus was a Jewish man, logic and evidence will tel us which one of these claims is true.

It doesn't become true to say that Jesus was a pink elephant just because your religious authority says it is so.

You just made a claim right there.
You claimed to be making no claims.
But you haven't refuted the arguments I gave which showed why you were making claims that require proof.

Merely asserting it doesn't make it true just because you assert it.

You have failed to meet your burden of rejoinder by being unable to offer a counter argument for why you supposedly don't have a burden of proof.

We can even go back to your first claims:

Your claims:
1. That the Bible tells us none of what I said.

Which would men you are claiming the Bible does not say:
a) God created the world without death
b) Death and corruption came in through Adam's sin.
c) God will one day remove sin, death, and corruption from the world.
d) That "c" reflects God's true design an intent.

2. That Christians have misinterpreted the Bible.

3. That original sin is a false doctrine.

4. Jesus did not come to save us from original sin.

5. Jesus did not know about original sin.

6. That the only people who will be saved are those who believe in the church doctrines.

7. That you can tell us what the Bible verses "really" mean.

#6 is a strawman fallacy I never argued for, by the way. To say you are saved by faith in Jesus is not the same as saying you are saved by faith in a particular church doctrine (assuming that doctrine doesn't cause you to violate what would be necessary to have saving faith). But to simply say "church doctrine" could mean anything, including insignificance disputes over minor details.

Right there we have some burdens you are required to prove:
1. Why you can supposedly show from the Bible that original sin is a false doctrine. The fact that you believe you can claim it is a false doctrine implies you know what the Scriptural basis for it is already, and therefore are prepared to refute why it is false.
2. Any example where Christians have misinterpreted the Bible points A to D or on the issue of original sin. You must be able to provide an example because if you claim Christians are misinterpreting the Bible then that implies you know what Biblical verses they are using. If you don't know what verses they are using to support their conclusions then you are incapable of being able to judge whether or not what they believe is actually in error according to the Bible.

Since I have given you the verses that I based my conclusions on in posts 103,104,153, and 154, the burden of proof and burden of rejoinder is on you to do the following

1. Why the Bible supposedly forces you to conclude something other than what I did, using logically valid reasons and evidence.
2. Why I have supposedly misinterpreted any of those verses, using logically valid reasons.
3. What the "real" meaning of those verses supposedly is and what logical/evidential basis you have for claiming your meaning is true.

"I don't have enough time" doesn't absolve you of your logical burdens and requirements.
You can simply concede if you don't have enough time or desire to defend our original claims.
What you can't do, is refuse to concede but then go around continuing to merely assert you are right when you aren't willing to prove it.
I already told you I will not reply to any more posts if you continue to talk about logical fallacies, so I did not even read this post.
As soon as I skimmed it and saw the words 'logical fallacy' I knew I was done.

Happy trails.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Logical fallacy, failure of the burden of rejoinder.

You have not attempted to give any valid counter arguments to my arguments which refuted your claim that my definition was faulty in any way.

If you are not able or willing to give a counter argument then you have failed your burden of rejoinder and conceded the debate by being unwilling to meet the requirements of what is entailed in a debate.

I have already said: "If you don't define death as a biological process at the start, your conclusion will not be logically consistent with death being a biological process. Either that or you don't actually use your terms as you define them. In both cases you would need to fix your definition."

Since you haven't fixed your definition, we can not progress.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
The Problem of Evil obtains given the observation of preventable suffering in the world and the premises that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (understood to mean something like never malevolent, concerned with suffering of sapient creatures without fail, etc.) The Problem isn't specific to any particular faith; just to any concept where each of the premises are held to be true. If the glove fits, then one has to work out how to wear it.

There are two problems with that viewpoint:

1. You misunderstood the point I was making:
Which is that if I am giving you logical explanations for how the God of the Bible can be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent by referencing Biblical theology, then it would be wrong for you to demand that my answer to the issue must abandon Biblical theological and philosophical premises and align to your non-Biblical presumptions about what you think your idea of “God” can and can’t do.

It is important to point out that when I say that it does not mean I am abandoning the premises of omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence for God as revealed in the Bible.

An example of what you couldn’t do, for instance, is claim we are forced to accept your premise that mankind has no power by their free will to act upon the world in a way that goes against it’s normal or intended physical function. Ie. Presuming a type of materialistic restraint upon mankind which grants man no ability to operate in the universe outside of what his physical body can bump against.

That is a viewpoint that is not consistent with the Bible, or many other religions for that matter, but is a philosophical premise coming out of the philosophy of materialism.

Such a materialistic philosophical presumption is not logically required as part of the “problem of evil” formulation which only puts three stipulations on the character of God and says nothing about what man’s design and capabilities are. To put limits on what you think God can create man to be capable of doing would itself be violating your premise that God is omnipotent.

There are many other instances where you must be careful not to impose your unnecessary philosophical presumptions onto what is otherwise a logically valid answer to the “problem of evil”.


2. This is not really related to the original point I was making, but I think it is worth acknowledging since it was brought up:
I believe it is actually wrong to claim that the “problem of evil” is not by it’s nature an attempt to refute the Biblical idea of God. Because, practically speaking, only the Abrahamic religions (which have their roots in Judaism) as major religions even postulate the idea of such an omni being existing. You would be hard pressed to find any other religious traditions around the world that believe in an omni being meeting the attributes in the PoE, and it would only represent a small population of the overall religious belief if you did.

The PoE, as it’s formulated, therefore has virtually no relevance as an argument outside of the Biblical tradition as that is virtually the only place where you find a being of such attributes said to be real.

We don’t see the PoE come into existence until the 4th century AD where it is attributed to epicurus who lived in the 3rd-4th century BC – but this seems to be a spurious claim considering that epicurus’ doesn’t appear to have considered such a being with these attributes to even be a possibility that needed to be refuted. He lived in the ancient Greek worldview where the prevailing idea was multiple gods all of whom were not omni good, knowing, or powerful.

The PoE argument would have actually refuted epicurus’ own belief about the gods because as I understand it he believed the gods were perfect but so perfect that they were detached from our life and had no interact with it. I don’t know that he claimed they had any omni knowledge or power, but at the very least he claimed they were omni good but then claimed they were detached from the affairs of man. Which would go against the idea that an all good being would be required to interfere in the affairs of man to put a stop to evil if they were actually all good.

So there would be no need for him to formulate an argument against the idea of an omni god because I don't see any indication that was something the Greek people considered to be something real or even potentially real.

Likely the only way he would even be exposed to that idea as a possibility would be by being in contact with ideas coming out of the relatively nearby Judea. But if that’s the case then it just brings things full circle and makes him proposing the PoE still an argument that necessarily comes out of a Bible worldview.

It seems far more likely to me that the PoE was a post Christian roman invention drawn out of a Biblical worldview which was then attributed to epicurus in order to lend an air of credibility to it.


There is nothing about free will that necessitates the existence of physical suffering, though: you would be free whether or not you're able to stub your toe; but you would not be free if you're unable to insult a friend and ruin your friendship. Later on we discuss physical vs. emotional suffering: physical suffering isn't necessary for free will, emotional suffering is.

Your conclusion is based on two false premises.

False premise #1: Emotional suffering is unavoidable and required to be experienced by anyone with free will.

That actually isn’t true according to the Bible.
Revelation 21:3 says there will one day be no more death, sorrow, crying, or pain.
God is going to do away with sorrow and crying.

We therefore have no reason to believe that Adam and Eve experienced emotional pain prior to their rebellion to God. Because other things God is going to do away with, such as death, were not present prior to the fall either.

How is that possible, you ask?
Your false premise comes out of a misunderstanding of the nature and source of emotional pain, as well as misunderstanding the nature of God.

If God is the source of love, then no one can be loving apart from God.

If God is perfect love, perfectly right, and of perfect character, and one abides in perfect union with God’s character and nature to express perfect love, then it would be logically impossible for those people to wrong each other by their actions.

If relationship with God also provides you all that you need to be happy, then you are never in a state of emotional lack that would give you reason to feel sad or emotionally pained by the actions of others.

Because if you ask yourself what emotional pain essentially is: It comes down to people acting unloving towards you or you feeling like you lack something you want or need.

Therefore, emotional evil would, much like physical evil, be a state of existence only experienced if one chooses to use their free will to leave union with God because God is the source of love and the only one who can provide everything you need.

It is not required, as you claimed, for someone to always experience emotional evil and emotional pain in order for free will to exist. They can make a choice about whether or not they want to experience that.

And it is not a choice that God is capable of preventing from happening if God doesn’t want to force man to remain in relationship and union with God – because to break union from God is the definition of how one starts to experience emotional evil and pain.

So the Biblical account of God is actually more good and awesome than you imagined because it’s possible to have both free will and not have emotional pain – it’s your choice.


False premise #2: That physical suffering cannot be linked with the necessity of free will.

Your false premise comes out of a similar misunderstanding of the nature of physical pain/death and the nature of God in relation to man.

If physical pain, corruption, and death, are all the result of what happens to the body as a natural consequence of being disconnected from the source of life (God), then it would be logically impossible for there to exist a world in which someone could experience eternal life without physical suffering while also being disconnected from union with God as the only source of life.

It would come down to the individual’s choice about whether or not they want to reject relationship and union with God.

God cannot force someone to be in union with Him without violating their free will to choose.
Therefore, God cannot force someone to make the choice that will prevent them from experiencing death/pain/suffering.

We could argue, indeed, that it would be immoral for God to force someone to stay in relational union with Him – which is then why He doesn’t, because He is perfectly moral by nature and cannot do anything that would go against who He is.

Therefore, there is no basis for accusing God of not being good enough to create a world without physical or emotional suffering because doing so would necessarily require Him to either do something that was not good by forcing people to be in union with Him against their free will, or it would require Him to not give them free will which then it’s questionable if they even exist as conscious beings at all in that case because they’d just be robots no different than the physical laws God set up to govern the movement of the planets.

These weren't unspoken actually: these are all defended openly throughout the PoE series I've been writing (this is over three posts, though, so it's understandable that it's a little spread out).

In that instance I didn’t say they were unspoken premises. I said they were unproven.
 
Last edited:

Rise

Well-Known Member
Let's look at what I said, which was: "In terms of the physical rules and laws of the universe and while preserving (P), what God wants is the same as what God allows." Emphasis added.

Humans don't have power over what physics exist in the universe, they only have the power to use physics for technologies. Whatever physics exist are there by God's will given the premises, and so must be by God's intent. (Even if we argue that physics which allow for leukemia are a punishment for sin, punishments are still exacted intentionally: it would still be God's intention that physics work out that way).

If you want to argue that humans have the power to literally change the universe's physics on their own without God's help, I'm going to doubt that claim and we might be at an impasse. Why wouldn't humans have that power any more, for instance? What is the mechanism for this power (and would God not be responsible for the existence of this mechanism)?



When I said that finite creatures are bounded by laws, I mean logical limitations as much as anything else; also mathematical limitations (math is really just extended logic anyway). Whatever humans are capable of (they are not omnipotent, so they have some metaphysical limits of power for instance) is governed by something: be it simple logical limitations of what they are, or perhaps by God if one exists in creating them a certain way with certain limitations.



What is the mechanism for "sin" resulting in death? Are you saying this mechanism is beyond God's power?

There are several problems with your argument:

1. Your claim is already refuted on the basis that free will is itself an example of God gifting to man the ability to do something which is unconstrained by any laws which God created to govern the operation of the universe.
Free will by definition cannot be free will unless it’s able to operate under the direction of the individual's will exclusively and not subject to any law which God created to put other things under subjugation to His will.

2. Therefore, it is false to claim that things can’t happen without God intending them to. It is presuming a false standard of materialistic determinism which assumes that nothing and no one can violate or alter the laws that were established at the start of the universe.

3. There is no logical requirement as part of the PoE formulation that says there are any limitations that must be imposed on what mankind can or cannot do. You don’t know what abilities or gifts God could have given to man to operate independently of God’s laws that go beyond just free will. You can’t force people to take on your materialistic presumptions because the PoE as it’s formulated doesn’t require you to.

4. You falsely assume that physical suffering must be a punishment from God for sin. I have given you an alternative possibility for why physical suffering could exist without God actively sending it as a punishment.

5. You falsely assume that physical suffering doesn't have to be a part of reality as a consequence of free will. But I gave you an alternative possibility which shows why it would be logically impossible and contradictory for that to happen because God is the source of life and if you are given the freedom to reject the source of life then death is the unavoidable logical and necessary consequence of that.

It feels like this is abandoning omnipotence as a premise.

Your misperception comes out of not understanding what I was arguing for.

Because if what I argued for were to be abandoning omnipotence then you would also be guilty of abandoning the premise of omnipotence by claiming God can’t create a world in which emotional suffering is not a possibility.

Because what I am putting forth as an answer to the PoE question is using the same premises as limitations that you are. Which are:
1. That God can’t create or perform a logical contradiction.
2. That God desires to give mankind free will and therefore cannot violate that goal.
3. That God giving us free will is a good thing and therefore doesn’t violate his omnibenevolence.

But the interesting thing is that you don’t even have a logical basis for making those presumptions without the Bible as your worldview. You just take for granted they are legitimate limitations on the PoE.


Let’s examine why:

1. The issue of logical contradiction.
Why do you lay claim to the idea that God is not powerful enough to create a world where free will exists but he can’t use his power to prevent emotional pain from happening?

The answer is because it’s a logical contradiction. And you assume that God cannot logically contradict Himself.

But why do you assume God can’t logically contradict Himself? Why do you assume he has to be bound by the laws of logic? How do you know they aren’t just laws he created that can be violated at will if he chooses? If he were truly all powerful couldn’t he do that which is even logically impossible? By definition you’d have to conclude that, otherwise you’re just putting limits on his power and therefore he’s no longer all powerful.

Only with a Biblical worldview do we have a reason for believing your premise is true that God can’t contradict himself.
As I pointed out earlier, the Bible tells us God cannot lie and does not change. The reason he cannot lie is because He cannot do anything which is inconsistent with who He is, and He cannot change who He is, therefore he never has lied and never can lie. God is Truth. His nature is what defines what truth is and all that is not in alignment with God is a lie. (John 17:17, Psalm 119:160, Proverbs 30:5, Isaiah 65:16, Psalm 119:151, John 3:33, John 8:26, John 17:3, John 14:6)

Therefore, that is why we can conclude from a Biblical standpoint why is impossible for God to create a contradiction. It would be a form of lying. It would violate and contradict who He is, His very nature as Truth. By definition truth is objective and singular.


2. The issue of free will being a good thing. You take for granted it is, but upon what basis do you presume to claim it is morally good? Without a theistic creator you logically have no possibility for an objective standard to make value judgements about anything being good or bad. All your have is your subjective opinion, with no way to tell someone who differs from you why your opinion of morality is right and why theirs is wrong.

Without the ability to claim that free will is a morally right thing, and therefore a necessary thing, you have no logical basis for not simply accusing God of failing to be omnibenevolent by refusing to constrain people’s choices so that they can never cause emotional pain to others.

You have no reason to believe your premises are true on purely logical grounds. You just take for granted that they are.

I am more than willing to just grant that the Christian deity may not be omnipotent and so avoid the Problem of Evil, that would be fine; any deity can avoid the Problem of Evil by simply dropping one of the premises. That has always been the case.



Many arrows in the Christian worldview appear to be pointing away from omnipotence as a premise.

Nothing I have argued requires concluding God lacks omnipotence.
As I have outlined already: your false conclusion comes out of misunderstanding of what I have argued the Bible says about the nature of God, creation, man, sin, life, death, and free will.

This doesn't make any sense, though. Leukemia and physics are very specific things. You're speaking vaguely of "disconnecting from God" having "consequences," but something determines what those consequences are. It’s no different than If you're saying it's humans, then I've already commented on this above when I asked what the mechanism is and why you ascribe humans this kind of power. Whatever mechanism there is, God, as the creator, is culpable for the existence of the mechanism. As an omnipotent being, God could have created a world in which people didn't want to "connect with God" (or whatever this vagueness means) and still didn't have physical suffering because either God is omnipotent and controls the physics of the universe (and so the Problem exists) or God does not have power over the physics of the universe (and so isn't omnipotent, and so the Problem is avoided).

You are failing to make a distinction between consequences of logical necessity and consequences by God’s design choices.

The former is a requirement to exist because for anything else to exist would be a logical contradiction and therefore a logical impossibility.

For instance: If God is the source of life, and there is no other source of life, and to have life you must be connected to God, then it is a logical impossibility for God to create a being that can have life while disconnected from God.

And if you don’t give someone the choice to disconnect from God then they don’t have free will. And I could argue, but won’t try to get into now, that if one doesn’t have free will then they don’t even have a conscious mind – which means they don’t exist as a person with a mind but are just a programmed robot.

You can’t, therefore, accuse God of failing to design a world in which someone can have the free will to reject God but then also not experience the logical consequence of death because they have rejected the only source of life. Unless you want to ascribe to God the power to do that which is logically contradictory – but there’s a whole slew of other problems associated with that. And I don't think we have to get into it because you’re not going to try to argue that.
 
Last edited:

Rise

Well-Known Member
The context here is that I was saying a choice doesn't have to be between a good thing and a bad thing to be a free choice: there is no reason for any choice to have to result in physical suffering to retain free will; as we could have free will without any physical suffering.

Except, as I already outlined, your solution doesn’t work and was never a real option.

If physical death results from being cut off from the source of life (God), then there is logically no way you can have the free will to reject God and then not have that choice result in losing life.

No, I am not an ontological materialist.

It seems I may have incorrectly assumed you were a materialist when you labeled yourself a nontheist by assuming nontheism was equivalent to atheism/agnosticism.
Do you believe in a spirit realm that is not bound by the laws of material physics but don’t believe in any kind of creator deity behind it all?
It might be beside the point, but I am curious how you think a spiritual realm unbound by the laws of matter could come into existence without a theistic origin for that which transcends the laws of the universe.


Regardless, it doesn’t actually change the point I was making:
Which is that either way you have no logical basis for assuming you can define the attributes and limits of mankind as part of the logic of the PoE formulation. The PoE only defines the attributes of God and then tries to draw logical conclusions from those premises.

In that sense you are still borrowing many aspects of philosophical materialism by assuming certain limits are on mankind that other religious worldviews would not assume.

If you want to talk about minds, consider that I have values like altruism and empathy: harm somebody in front of me and I'm going to feel very upset about it, and I can't control this fact even if I for some reason tried to: I follow my limitations, I am limited to being altruistic and empathetic beyond my own control. We have limits, this is what I was saying; bounds in which we operate. I'm going to snip through some stuff responding to ontological materialism since that was never the claim.

You are falsely assuming that you don’t have the choice to change your level of altruism and empathy, as though you are hardwired to operate as you are.

But you can’t prove that presumption is true.

Psychologically we know that empathy and altruism can change in people over time based on what they experience. Extreme examples would be how soldiers in war can reduce or even seem to eliminate any empathy or care for their enemy. I don’t think you would dispute this happens. The only question then is what role does the person’s choice play in that change.

If people do not have the capability to increase or decrease their loving attitude towards others by choice, then any calls for people to act in a more moral way are meaningless as everyone is just a deterministic product of their circumstances and no one truly has free will. No one could be held responsible for their actions or attitudes if that were the case.

But if you aren’t willing to abandon the concept of objective morality and free will, then you can’t claim you have no choice in whether or not your heart becomes more loving towards others or more the opposite.

The Bible tells us that people have the ability to change themselves to love more by being in closer union with God who is love (1 John 4:7-9, Matthew 5:43-48, 1 Peter 1:22, Romans 5:5, Ephesians 5:1-2, 1 John 3:2-3, Psalm 17:15, Romans 12:2, John 15:9-17, Matthew 22:36-40, John 14:21-23, 1 John 4:20, 1 John 4:12).

It also tells us that people have the ability to harden their hearts and sink into greater levels of evil by their choices. (Jeremiah 16:12, Matthew 13:15, Romans 2:5, Romans 1:18-32, 1 Timothy 4:1-2)

An omnipotent wouldn't require a means to an end like the whole notion of having to "enter creation to save us." It doesn't logically add up. Maybe it is the case that the Christian deity isn't the philosopher's definition of omnipotent (which is to have the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs), and that would be okay (and it would resolve the Problem of Evil).

You are making assumptions again about what God or can’t do without regards to what the Bible says about the nature of the issues involved here.

Just as you falsely assumed that God could create a world in which people have life without embracing the only source of life.

You haven’t considered the possibility that there could be other factors involved that makes the incarnation of Jesus being necessary for salvation. Factors you simply aren’t aware of because you aren’t well versed enough in what the Bible says about it

Based on what we have already established about God:
-Not changing.
-Being Truth.
-Not being able to contradict or violate his nature.
It is perfectly possible that there could be necessary logical restraints on what God can do to put save man from the effects of their choice to reject God and therefore suffer the unavoidable logical consequences of that decision.

But getting into that issue right now would be getting ahead of ourselves.

If we don’t first establish that death can logically be experienced without contradicting God’s omni-nature, then we would not have a sound foundation from which to to discuss the specifics of why Jesus to come for us.

This has the feel of a deepity to it (something that sounds deep at first glance, but is just so much noncognitive nonsense when digested).

You have not shown any logical fault with what I outlined about the principle of separation from God as the source of life being that which results in the logically necessary and unavoidable consequence of death.

Therefore you have no basis for calling it nonsense (which implies you think it’s illogical).

If "separation from God" causes death, what is the mechanism? Why isn't it instant, where is "life" (whatever that vaguely means if we're not talking about literal biology) coming from them? This is just speaking in mystical bits that sound like they're meaningful, but they're not.

Your argument is fallacious; because understanding the exact metaphysical details of how this process works is not logically required for the concept to be logically valid and for the premises to be sound.

You don’t expose any logical fault with what I have outlined because you haven’t given any logical reason why we would need to know exactly every detail about how the process works in order for the conclusion to be logically possible.

Your standard would also be hypocritical because you wouldn’t apply that standard to other areas of understanding, such as science. If you had to understand every aspect of the mechanisms behind a phenomenon before you could come to any conclusions then you’d never be able to advance your understanding.

You have a false definition of “meaning” to mean “complete and total understanding down to the smallest detail”.
If you applied that standard to science then nothing we have concluded about anything can be said to be meaningful because we don’t fully truly understand how anything works.

Also, to call it a “mechanism” is to imply a false premise that it’s some kind of physical law God created to govern the operation of death and life – rather than recognizing it as a logically necessary consequence of the nature of God that to be separated from life is to experience what it’s lack is (ie death).

Besides, there are still some very serious problems ethically with this whole notion.

You have no logical grounds for claiming God’s actions are immoral.

As a nontheist, you can’t have an objective standard of morality with which to place a value judgement on God’s actions. Which means you cannot logically make any argument based on doing that.

Because you cannot have objective morality without a creator behind everything. The reason you cannot is because there’s no mind to assign intent and purpose to every aspect of creation which then defines how it is “suppose to be”.

Without a standard of “how things are suppose to be”, we have no way of objectively saying that how things currently are is wrong.

If a child tells a parent "I hate you, I'm running away," the parent is still culpable for the suffering the child experiences if they actually manage to get out the door and into danger.

What exactly would you have God do under the Biblical worldview I outlined?

Force you to conform to his will and take away your free will?

Force you into a relationship with himself and not let you leave?

Because we’ve already established that it’s not logically possible for you to choose to leave the source of life and then still possess life. That would be a logical contradiction that is impossible.

Your solution of forcing people to stay in relationship with god and be conformed to his will would probably violate your definition of omnibelevolence, so that isn’t an option for that reason.

Additionally, your solution isn’t even logically possible even if we ignore the omnibenevolence issue. Because if God were to take away your free will so that you are automatically conformed to his will then you wouldn’t be a conscious being capable of having a relationship with him in the first place. You’d just be a robot. You can’t have a relationship with a robot because they lack consciousness.


So at that point you’d cease to exist as a person/mind.

So what you’re really advocating as a solution to the problem is that God simply should never have created you in the first place.

But you see the problem this presents. Creating beings God can relate to on a willing basis cannot be achieved without the necessary possibility that they will choose not to relate to God.

Unless you want to advocate that God extinguish all life and never create it again, there is no other logical way for this situation to be.
 
Last edited:

Rise

Well-Known Member
This whole argument that human children "choose" (somehow by nature of some aggregate choice, whatever that means) to suffer horribly and then die is just not one that I'm willing to bite without a lot less nebulousness; and I don't think anyone should accept it without a lot more clarity either.



Non-malevolent parents will try to help children understand whatever issue is causing the divide, and keep the children safe in the meanwhile.



Why does a child with leukemia experience so much less life and love than someone like Hitler?

A few issues with this:

1. Children suffering from conception is a sad condition, and going back to your contention: the reason we find it sad is because God finds it sad.


2. It is a legitimate question to ask why this happens if it makes God sad – but trying to answer that question would be getting ahead of ourselves.

First we have to come to terms with the fact that death and suffering does not have to be designed or intended by God, but is a necessary and unavoidable consequence of the fact that we have free will and God is the only source of life and love.

Trying to answer the question without first coming to terms with that will not yield an understanding of what is going on or why.


3. We have no reason to believe hitler is experiencing more life than a child who dies. Based on what the Bible says and hitler’s history we have every reason to believe he would be in hell, separated from God, suffering beyond our ability to comprehend. We also have Biblical reason to believe the child has been gathered into God’s presence where their pain has ceased and they have more joy than we can comprehend (Matthew 19:13-14, Matthew 18:3, 2 samuel 12:22-23, Matthew 18:10, Luke 18:15-16, Mark 10:15, Isaiah 7:14-16)


4. From a logical standpoint, you are not in a position to make a value judgement about whether or not it violates God’s omnibenevolence.

Firstly because you would need a theistic creator source to appeal to for your objective moral values.

Secondly, because you are not omniscient and lack the capacity for understanding all the possibilities for why something happens and why God does or does not act in a given circumstance.

Logically, it is only necessary that there be one possible reason to explain why something could be congruent with God’s all-good nature for your claim to be false that God is supposedly malevolent for the existence of a particular circumstance.


5. The form of your argument is itself fallacious; because your willingness to accept a conclusion, or how you feel about a conclusion, has no bearing on the truth of that conclusion or the validity/soundness of the logic and premises that were used to reach that conclusion. You don’t refute the logical validity of an argument by deciding you just don’t like the conclusion.

Children rebel against their parents all the time, and parents don't boil them alive or something in response.

Your analogy is based on the false premise that God is inflicting death on man as a punishment for rebellion, rather than recognizing the possibility that death could be a necessary and unavoidable consequence of free will because God is the only source of life.

This seems like more deepity type stuff: what does it mean to be "united to Him?" In what way, is there a mechanism for this?

How am I, a nontheist, experiencing life and love if I'm separated? Is the mechanism of this separation supposed to be on some kind of sliding scale?

Biblically, to be united to God is to share perfectly in His character and nature. Meaning, you act in perfect accordance with God’s nature and character and do not deviate from that (which would be defined as sin). That would mean you would act with perfect love towards God and others.The basis for that is found throughout many of the scriptures I have already given so far.

Calling it a mechanism would be inaccurate because that’s falsely implying it’s some kind of physical law that has been created, rather than a necessary logical aspect of reality independent of a law God creates to govern the universe.

Understanding the exact details of how this works is not necessary for it to be a logically valid answer to the PoE question. You have given no logical reason why it would be necessary to understand all the exact details of how it works in order for it to be accepted as a logically valid answer to the PoE question.

Is God vulnerable to finite beings?
I don’t know what you mean by “vulnerable”. You’d have to define more specifically what you mean by that before I could answer the question.

None of this makes any sense on even a cursory examination; not just in a cognitive way (as in, understanding what it's even supposed to mean) but on a mechanistic level if we throw our arms up and pretend it has meaning, it still doesn't make much sense.

You are committing the logical fallacy of appeal to personal incredulity by claiming that because you don’t understand it or how it works that must therefore mean it’s not be true.

You cannot claim what I said doesn’t make logical sense unless you can demonstrate actual logical fault with it.

What does it take to "accept" life and love? Mere belief, such as by being convinced it's all real (and somehow makes cognitive sense)? If that's it, then an omnipotent and omniscient God could provide each person with what they need to know to make an informed decision. Informed decisions don't violate free will. If something else, please explain.

The Bible does not define it as mere belief, as per the Scriptures I have already given. Obedience to God’s will is how it’s defined.

Knowledge won’t do you any good if you make the choice to not obey what you know is true.

The Bible says God has already made it known to man in their inner being that He exists, He created them, and what is right and wrong to do. So that no man will be with excuse on the final day of judgement. They won’t be able to claim ignorance or claim God isn’t just in how He judges them. Romans 1:18-32.

If you don’t want to do what is right, then the only thing more knowledge is likely to do is bring greater condemnation on you for choosing to do what you know is wrong.

One likely reason God is not more overt in forcing this knowledge on people and proving it is because they will be under greater judgement for disobeying the truth if they are given more profound proof they have of it’s truth. Luke 10:10-12. We see also in the Exodus and the early church of Acts where judgement is swift and supernatural in nature, which coincides with the level of high supernatural activity and revelation of God’s truth they are experiencing on a regular basis. You don’t really see that in the Scripture where knowledge of God and proof of His truth is scarce.

Yes there is. If my goal is for someone to have free will, I do not have to include physical suffering to attain that goal: so if I do include physical suffering anyway, I have introduced preventable suffering. That's evidence of malevolence.

I have already demonstrated why your claim is false that we must assume free will and no possibility of death can exist at the same time without contradiction.

Additionally, even if we presumed God did put it there intending for you to experience it, your argument is fallacious because it is based on the false premise that you have any basis for accusing God’s actions of being malevolent.

As I already explained above, without a theistic creator you have no objective morality with which to label something malevolent vs benevolent.
And with a theistic creator, logically they are the only one who can define what is moral by what intent they give to creation.

So no matter which way you try to have it, you end up being completely unable to logically accuse God of being malevolent because either He gives the standard by which right/wrong is judged or you have no standard with which to judge.


Which renders the whole PoE question null from a practical perspective. The question is self refuting if you are dealing with the creator of everything, or deny there is a creator of everything, because in either case you have no moral basis with which to judge whether or not this omni-being is benevolent or not.

The only way the PoE question doesn’t logically fall apart is if you posit an all powerful, all knowing being, who is not himself the creator of everything, but there actually is a creator of everything. Practically speaking, almost nobody believes in such a being. So the question isn’t actually logically relevant.
 
Last edited:

Rise

Well-Known Member
I have already said: "If you don't define death as a biological process at the start, your conclusion will not be logically consistent with death being a biological process. Either that or you don't actually use your terms as you define them. In both cases you would need to fix your definition."

Since you haven't fixed your definition, we can not progress.

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition and failure to meet the burden of rejoinder.

I already gave reasons why your claim is false. You haven't attempted to refute those with counter arguments.

By your unwillingness to meet your burden of rejoinder to offer a valid counter argument, your argument stands refuted and you have conceded the debate.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
I already told you I will not reply to any more posts if you continue to talk about logical fallacies, so I did not even read this post.
As soon as I skimmed it and saw the words 'logical fallacy' I knew I was done.

Happy trails.

Logical fallacies: "The Pout", "Deliberate Ignorance", "Failure of the Burden of Rejoinder"
By being unwilling to offer counter arguments, and unwilling to read the counter arguments, you have failed to meet your burden of rejoinder and thus conceded the debate.

It was already clear you didn't have any valid counter arguments to offer which is why you simply and repeatedly reverted to constant fallacious arguments.

The fact that you admitted you don't think you are required to obey the laws of logic means you would have never been capable of giving a logically valid defense of your position.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Logical fallacy, argument by repetition and failure to meet the burden of rejoinder.

I already gave reasons why your claim is false. You haven't attempted to refute those with counter arguments.

By your unwillingness to meet your burden of rejoinder to offer a valid counter argument, your argument stands refuted and you have conceded the debate.

I gave reasons why my claim is true and you haven't refuted them.
By refusing to fix your definition you have conceded the debate. Thank you.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
I will say ahead of time that I'm not interested in a response if it's just going to be a bunch of mis-called fallacy lists

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You cannot quote a single fallacy I have pointed out and demonstrate any error with it.
Merely asserting it is in error doesn't make it true just because you assert it is.

And if it is not in error, then the fault is with the one who committed the error.

You have a responsibility to correct your fallacious invalid argument to be valid if you want it to be regarded as true.

No one is entitled to make logically fallacious arguments and demand others accept them as valid truth.

And if you think you can make fallacious arguments without having them called out for being fallacious, then it raises the question:
Why do you feel entitled to use invalid logic and demand others accept it as valid logic?


and fallacy fallacy.

Your claim is false.
A fallacy fallacy is when you try to claim a conclusion is wrong simply because a fallacy was used in it's logic.

You will not be able to quote anywhere that I have supposedly done any such thing.

Pointing out why a specific argument is fallacious, and therefore why that specific argument is invalid, is not only not the definition of "fallacy fallacy" but it is the very definitional means by which a logical debate takes place - because by definition no logical debate could take place if no one would point out why the logic of the other person was at fault. You would just be throwing opinions at each other never able to come to agreeen

This is an obnoxious way to discuss, let's please avoid it.

Whether or not you commit fallacies is in your hands.
If you don't want to have to have your fallacious arguments called out for being fallacious then don't make fallacious arguments.

What makes you feel entitled to argue fallaciously and then demand others accept it as valid logic?

That would be like putting forth a nonsense scientific model and demanding your peers accept it as true just because you don't like it when people point out the logical flaws in your reasoning.

If I am not at fault for pointing out why your argument is fallacious, then you are at fault for making a fallacious argument, and the burden is on you to reformulate your argument to become valid.

Your fallacious arguments don't stop being fallacious just because someone stops pointing out why they are fallacious.


In your particular case, you didn't have a significant problem with making fallacious arguments in what I have responded to so far. Which is refreshing. Not everyone has a problem forming logical arguments and understanding logical rebuttals. But those that do usually devolve into doing nothing but arguing with fallacies when they realize they don't have a valid counter argument left because they don't care about what is true.
 
Last edited:

Rise

Well-Known Member
I gave reasons why my claim is true and you haven't refuted them.
By refusing to fix your definition you have conceded the debate. Thank you.

Logical fallacy, malas fides.
Your claim is a knowing lie because by definition you cannot have offered a counter argument to an argument you admitted you never read.

Your failure of the burden of rejoinder stands with you tacitly conceding the debate.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Logical fallacy, malas fides.
Your claim is a knowing lie because by definition you cannot have offered a counter argument to an argument you admitted you never read.

Your failure of the burden of rejoinder stands with you tacitly conceding the debate.

You can't have offered a proper rebuttal if you insist on maintaining a logical contradiction.

Since you refuse to fix the definition, you refuse to debate, and therefore forfeit the debate.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You cannot quote a single fallacy I have pointed out and demonstrate any error with it.
Merely asserting it is in error doesn't make it true just because you assert it is.

And if it is not in error, then the fault is with the one who committed the error.

You have a responsibility to correct your fallacious invalid argument to be valid if you want it to be regarded as true.

No one is entitled to make logically fallacious arguments and demand others accept them as valid truth.

And if you think you can make fallacious arguments without having them called out for being fallacious, then it raises the question:
Why do you feel entitled to use invalid logic and demand others accept it as valid logic?




Your claim is false.
A fallacy fallacy is when you try to claim a conclusion is wrong simply because a fallacy was used in it's logic.

You will not be able to quote anywhere that I have supposedly done any such thing.

Pointing out why a specific argument is fallacious, and therefore why that specific argument is invalid, is not only not the definition of "fallacy fallacy" but it is the very definitional means by which a logical debate takes place.



Whether or not you commit fallacies is in your hands.
If you don't want to have to have your fallacious arguments called out for being fallacious, then don't make fallacious arguments.

What makes you feel entitled to argue fallaciously and then demand others accept it as valid logic?

That would be like putting forth a nonsense scientific model and demanding your peers accept it as true just because you don't like it when people point out the logical flaws in your reasoning.

If I am not at fault for pointing out why your argument is fallacious, then you are at fault for making a fallacious argument, and the burden is on you to reformulate your argument to become valid.

Your fallacious arguments don't stop being fallacious just because someone stops pointing out why they are fallacious.


In your particular case, you didn't have a significant problem with making fallacious arguments in what I have responded to so far. Which is refreshing.

I’ll respond on a laptop, but for instance, you can’t call out fallacies in this post quoted here because it was not an argument :p

In any case, real responses coming in a while.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
I’ll respond on a laptop, but for instance, you can’t call out fallacies in this post quoted here because it was not an argument :p

In any case, real responses coming in a while.

You made two claims of truth which were false and gave no supportive reasons for why we should believe your claims are true.
1. Your implied claim that any fallacy I have called someone out for is misapplied or in error.
2. Your implied claim I have supposedly committed the fallacy fallacy.

You did not state them as opinions or beliefs, but as facts.

I pointed out why, therefore, neither of your claims are true. Claiming they are true without supporting reasons or evidence makes you guilty of either a failure to meet your burden of proof or a fallacy of argument by assertion.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
You can't have offered a proper rebuttal if you insist on maintaining a logical contradiction.

Since you refuse to fix the definition, you refuse to debate, and therefore forfeit the debate.

Logical fallacy, malas fides

You can't claim to know what someone has or has done when you admit to not reading their arguments.
Therefore, cannot claim anything needs to be fixed about that which you never read.

By your malas fides of not arguing in good faith, you are not even trying to have a debate.
 
Top