How do we approach a new proposition?

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
captain howdy
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:48 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by captain howdy » Fri May 17, 2019 12:37 pm

Og3 wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 5:08 am
I think we've come to an impasse, then.
The way out of the argument isn’t to talk about purpose. The way out of the argument is to show how gratuitous evil and an omnibenevolent God can somehow coexist. You can’t spin or BS your way out of it. Until you can square that circle you have lost this exchange. Any deity that could sit on his hands and watch 20 children slaughtered like seals or a puppy being abused and not stop it is as guilty as the person committing said evil.

captain howdy
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:48 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by captain howdy » Fri May 17, 2019 5:18 pm

Sorry---Trying to edit but ended up double posting

Og3
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Fri May 17, 2019 7:48 pm

captain howdy wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 10:52 am
Og3 wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 5:08 am
I think we've come to an impasse, then.
The way out of the argument isn’t to talk about purpose. The way out of the argument is to show how gratuitous evil and an omnibenevolent God can somehow coexist. You can’t spin or BS your way out of it. Until you can do that you have lost this exchange. Any deity that could sit on his hands and watch 20 children slaughtered like seals or a puppy being abused and not stop it is as guilty as the person committing said evil.
The problem, Captain is one of definitions. In logic we have to be clear, and we have to use words not for emotional effect, but for objective underlying meaning. Can God and Evil co-exist? Well, Ad Argumentum, yes.

But then we through in the "Gratuitous." What do we mean by that? If we mean "unnecessary and having no purpose" then we've begged the question, and we can't move forward without carrying the error forward. Of course, we can use an intermediary step and show that an evil was, in fact, gratuitous -- that is, it's not just a word we're throwing around because we're angry or want others to be angry. But that requires showing that X evil thing had no purpose in actual fact, and that requires that we argue from ignorance.

I realize, this may seem like I'm playing a shell game with words. Let me hide the evil under this teacup, spin them all around, and viola, there is incipient good under another teacup. I've also already questioned "Omni" and "Benevolent," and again we're using a charged word to give the argument weight. And if that's the case -- that it looks like sophistry and spin and a parlor trick with words -- then further discussion will only make us frustrated.

On the other hand, if -- and ONLY if -- we can question our assumptions, and ask whether X evil event is merely evil, or is in fact Gratuitously evil; or examine what we mean by benevolence and OmniBeneVolence, then we have a means where by we might be able to resolve the paradox.

So the question comes to this: do we examine our assumptions, or do we let them stand and simply call our assertions unanswerable?
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Fri May 17, 2019 7:50 pm

captain howdy wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 12:37 pm
Og3 wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 5:08 am
I think we've come to an impasse, then.
The way out of the argument isn’t to talk about purpose. The way out of the argument is to show how gratuitous evil and an omnibenevolent God can somehow coexist. You can’t spin or BS your way out of it. Until you can square that circle you have lost this exchange. Any deity that could sit on his hands and watch 20 children slaughtered like seals or a puppy being abused and not stop it is as guilty as the person committing said evil.
It would not be the first exchange I have lost, and I can only be glad that the outcome of my exchanges does not change objective fact.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1766
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Sat May 18, 2019 3:39 am

Og3 wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 7:50 pm
It would not be the first exchange I have lost,
Why thank you Og, I never thought that you would admit that! I'm feeling chuffed!
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

captain howdy
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:48 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by captain howdy » Sat May 18, 2019 3:48 am

Og3 wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 7:48 pm
captain howdy wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 10:52 am
Og3 wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 5:08 am
I think we've come to an impasse, then.
The way out of the argument isn’t to talk about purpose. The way out of the argument is to show how gratuitous evil and an omnibenevolent God can somehow coexist. You can’t spin or BS your way out of it. Until you can do that you have lost this exchange. Any deity that could sit on his hands and watch 20 children slaughtered like seals or a puppy being abused and not stop it is as guilty as the person committing said evil.
The problem, Captain is one of definitions. In logic we have to be clear, and we have to use words not for emotional effect, but for objective underlying meaning. Can God and Evil co-exist? Well, Ad Argumentum, yes.

But then we through in the "Gratuitous." What do we mean by that? If we mean "unnecessary and having no purpose" then we've begged the question, and we can't move forward without carrying the error forward. Of course, we can use an intermediary step and show that an evil was, in fact, gratuitous -- that is, it's not just a word we're throwing around because we're angry or want others to be angry. But that requires showing that X evil thing had no purpose in actual fact, and that requires that we argue from ignorance.

I realize, this may seem like I'm playing a shell game with words. Let me hide the evil under this teacup, spin them all around, and viola, there is incipient good under another teacup. I've also already questioned "Omni" and "Benevolent," and again we're using a charged word to give the argument weight. And if that's the case -- that it looks like sophistry and spin and a parlor trick with words -- then further discussion will only make us frustrated.

On the other hand, if -- and ONLY if -- we can question our assumptions, and ask whether X evil event is merely evil, or is in fact Gratuitously evil; or examine what we mean by benevolence and OmniBeneVolence, then we have a means where by we might be able to resolve the paradox.

So the question comes to this: do we examine our assumptions, or do we let them stand and simply call our assertions unanswerable?


Ah yes, definitions. Refresh my memory a moment---wasn't it you that was boasting on another thread about how you could define your way out of any paradox out there? Enough of this, I'm out. Thanks for your time

Og3
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Sat May 18, 2019 7:42 pm

SEG wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 3:39 am
Og3 wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 7:50 pm
It would not be the first exchange I have lost,
Why thank you Og, I never thought that you would admit that! I'm feeling chuffed!
I am the youngest of five boys, all above average in intellect. As a small child, I was often unable to overcome the arguments of my elders. But struggle against adversity builds strength. I posit that I could take the four of them combined in any fair debate today.

As a child I debated the Arminian versus Modified Arminian doctrinal positions (in a sloppy and ill-informed way, I confess) against my classmates. They, the full Arminians, had to read extra meaning into a couple of verses that I had as a solid proof-text on point. Of course, proof-texting is a thorny method, at best...

My first loss on a purely religious matter was in the seventh grade -- about 12 Years old, as grades don't match your methods, I think -- when a female classmate challenged me to provide biblical support for my position of total abstinence from alcohol. It turned out that she was right. And Cetera.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Sat May 18, 2019 7:50 pm

captain howdy wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 3:48 am
Og3 wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 7:48 pm
captain howdy wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 10:52 am

The way out of the argument isn’t to talk about purpose. The way out of the argument is to show how gratuitous evil and an omnibenevolent God can somehow coexist. You can’t spin or BS your way out of it. Until you can do that you have lost this exchange. Any deity that could sit on his hands and watch 20 children slaughtered like seals or a puppy being abused and not stop it is as guilty as the person committing said evil.
The problem, Captain is one of definitions. In logic we have to be clear, and we have to use words not for emotional effect, but for objective underlying meaning. Can God and Evil co-exist? Well, Ad Argumentum, yes.

But then we through in the "Gratuitous." What do we mean by that? If we mean "unnecessary and having no purpose" then we've begged the question, and we can't move forward without carrying the error forward. Of course, we can use an intermediary step and show that an evil was, in fact, gratuitous -- that is, it's not just a word we're throwing around because we're angry or want others to be angry. But that requires showing that X evil thing had no purpose in actual fact, and that requires that we argue from ignorance.

I realize, this may seem like I'm playing a shell game with words. Let me hide the evil under this teacup, spin them all around, and viola, there is incipient good under another teacup. I've also already questioned "Omni" and "Benevolent," and again we're using a charged word to give the argument weight. And if that's the case -- that it looks like sophistry and spin and a parlor trick with words -- then further discussion will only make us frustrated.

On the other hand, if -- and ONLY if -- we can question our assumptions, and ask whether X evil event is merely evil, or is in fact Gratuitously evil; or examine what we mean by benevolence and OmniBeneVolence, then we have a means where by we might be able to resolve the paradox.

So the question comes to this: do we examine our assumptions, or do we let them stand and simply call our assertions unanswerable?
Ah yes, definitions. Refresh my memory a moment---wasn't it you that was boasting on another thread about how you could define your way out of any paradox out there? Enough of this, I'm out. Thanks for your time
I believe I did say something such, in reply to someone who was playing fast and loose with definitions. What I argued for there -- and what I argue for here, with you -- is for solid definitions that prevent paradoxes by making it very clear what we mean at each stage.

Thank you for your time and for your honest debate. I would invite you to take a peek in the C.S. Lewis thread, though, as Lewis has just said some things that are very interesting and pertinent to the points here.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

captain howdy
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:48 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by captain howdy » Sat May 18, 2019 10:33 pm

Og3 wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 7:50 pm
Thank you for your time and for your honest debate. I would invite you to take a peek in the C.S. Lewis thread, though, as Lewis has just said some things that are very interesting and pertinent to the points here.
Thank you too. You’ve been gracious throughout

Og3
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Tue May 21, 2019 8:54 am

So, this is as good a place as any to wrap up another matter: I have just posted my last bit on Carrier's OHJ book, and I trust that SEG will shortly post his conclusion on Lewis, if he has not already. Based on these, I submit the following survey for the voluntary participation of those who followed both threads:

1. Were my responses to Carrier on point and based on his actual arguments?
2. Were SEG's responses to Lewis on point and based on his actual arguments?
3. Do you feel that I answered Carrier well?
4. Do you feel that SEG answered Lewis well?
5. Do you feel that one or the other of us could be said to have won the overall debate? (if we take the threads as a debate)
6. Have you changed your opinion in either direction on anything significant based upon those two threads?

I would be interested to know the general opinions on those six points; keeping in mind that popular vote does not make either me or SEG automatically "right" or "good."
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Post Reply