Faith, Logic, and Freedom

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

X=42

 

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

X = 42 for you, for me and for the Prof.  And for everyone, everywhere and anywhere.

 

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

2(18)+2(3)=x

36+6=x

x = 42

 

Is this correct @TheRedneckProfessor?

I concur that X=42.

 

Do you see how that works, @Edgarcito?  All 4 of us followed the same mathematical formula and got the same result.  We all arrived, quite correctly, at the same conclusion.  This is how an absolute works.  

 

Now, let's apply this to logic.

 

 

If logic is an absolute, then everyone should either agree with the conclusion, or, if disagreeing, be able to point out a flaw in the logic.  Let's begin:

 

PROPOSITION: god is both all-loving and all-powerful. 

 

 OBSERVATION: Evil exists

 

 GIVEN:

 

A. If god is both able and willing to prevent evil, then evil would not exist.

 

B. If god is neither able nor willing to prevent evil, then god is neither all-loving nor all-powerful. 

 

 PROGRESSION:

 

1. If god is able to prevent evil, but not willing to, then god is not all-loving. 

 

2. If god is willing to prevent evil, but not able to, then god is not all-powerful.

 

CONCLUSION: The proposition that god is both all-loving and all-powerful is not true.

 

 DISCUSSION: It is possible that god is all-loving but not all-powerful.  It is possible that god is all-powerful but not all-loving.  It is possible that god is neither all-loving nor all-powerful, which raises the question: why worship god?

 

But it is not possible for god to be both all-loving and all-powerful. 

 

__________________________

 

Once again, to ensure there us no bias in the conclusion, I am going to call upon both @DarkBishop and @walterpthefirst to state whether they agree with the conclusion or not; and, if disagreeing, can find a fault in the logic.

 

I am also going to ask the same of you, @Edgarcito.  If logic is an absolute, you will have no choice but to come to the same conclusion that Walt, DB, and I all come to.

 

So, Ed, Do you, or do you not, agree with the conclusion that god cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful?  Keep in mind the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded third.  A is A and cannot be not-A; and either A is true or not-A is true; but they cannot both be true.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

I agree with the proposition, Prof.

 

The same rules that applied to the math apply here. 

 

Just as Ed arrived at 42 by agreeing with the rules, so Ed should agree with the proposition by continuing to agree with the rules.

 

The only way he can arrive at a different conclusion is by withholding his agreement.

 

 

Walter.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

 

I concur that X=42.

 

Do you see how that works, @Edgarcito?  All 4 of us followed the same mathematical formula and got the same result.  We all arrived, quite correctly, at the same conclusion.  This is how an absolute works.  

 

Now, let's apply this to logic.

 

 

If logic is an absolute, then everyone should either agree with the conclusion, or, if disagreeing, be able to point out a flaw in the logic.  Let's begin:

 

PROPOSITION: god is both all-loving and all-powerful. 

 

 OBSERVATION: Evil exists

 

 GIVEN:

 

A. If god is both able and willing to prevent evil, then evil would not exist.

 

B. If god is neither able nor willing to prevent evil, then god is neither all-loving nor all-powerful. 

 

 PROGRESSION:

 

1. If god is able to prevent evil, but not willing to, then god is not all-loving. 

 

2. If god is willing to prevent evil, but not able to, then god is not all-powerful.

 

CONCLUSION: The proposition that god is both all-loving and all-powerful is not true.

 

 DISCUSSION: It is possible that god is all-loving but not all-powerful.  It is possible that god is all-powerful but not all-loving.  It is possible that god is neither all-loving nor all-powerful, which raises the question: why worship god?

 

But it is not possible for god to be both all-loving and all-powerful. 

 

__________________________

 

Once again, to ensure there us no bias in the conclusion, I am going to call upon both @DarkBishop and @walterpthefirst to state whether they agree with the conclusion or not; and, if disagreeing, can find a fault in the logic.

 

I am also going to ask the same of you, @Edgarcito.  If logic is an absolute, you will have no choice but to come to the same conclusion that Walt, DB, and I all come to.

 

So, Ed, Do you, or do you not, agree with the conclusion that god cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful?  Keep in mind the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded third.  A is A and cannot be not-A; and either A is true or not-A is true; but they cannot both be true.

 

 

 

I'll tell ya what. I want to be somewhat of a wild card on this. As it stands after seeing the other thread about the suffering for sin. I would side with you right now. And I agree with your conclusion. 

 

But I'll give Ed a chance. There were more variables in that thread than just yours or Edgarcitos. We haven't had a debate in awhile. 

 

I would like to see a debate between yourself and Edgarcito on the matter. Just you and him. Peanut gallery and all. 

 

Prove both your points out semi-formally for the world to see. So we all can get every one of the variables in the matter. Just between the two of you. And to add a twist. No emotionally charged pictures allowed. Just prove your points with text and links. Does that sound fair? And Ed can be in the peanut gallery to. (Which will be a variable in the equation)  That'd be a nice change. If he's up for a little banter. 

 

Then when its over we'll have an equation. With all pertinent variables available to come to the conclusion of the matter. 

 

Who's up for a nice somewhat formal debate? @Edgarcito?

 

I know RNP is up for it. Are you? I'm Agnostic non-theist not atheist. I leave open the possibility for someone to prove my findings otherwise. Just look in the ExC spirituality forum. My hope is that reincarnation is the afterlife. But at the same time I realize the logical conclusion is that there is nothing. And I'm ok with that too. Present your argument without everyone else butting in. 

 

Also to be fair. @Joshpantera can be the moderator of the debate. Or possibly @TABA if Josh isn't interested. 

 

The RNP will not be the one pulling the strings on the debate. He will only be a participant. 

 

DB

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

I agree with the proposition, Prof.

 

36 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 And I agree with your conclusion. 

So, @Edgarcito, it looks like DarkBishop, Walter, and I all agree with the logical conclusion that god cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful.  But, the purpose of this experiment is to test whether or not logic is an absolute.  If logic is an absolute, like mathematics, then all 4 of us should arrive at the same logical conclusion, following the same logical progression, just as all 4 of us arrived at the same answer following the same mathematical formula. 

 

What say you, Ed?  Do you agree that god cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful?  And, if not, can you demonstrate a flaw in the logic?

 

Barring either of those two options, are you willing to concede that logic is not an absolute?  And, if making such a concession, would you then be willing to retract your previous assertion that there must be a true logic, which is essentially a law (and which, by implication, you have attempted to conflate with objective morality)?

[mwc]

     I say folks here read this page (Logical Problem of Evil).  Then go ahead and read this one (The Evidential Problem of Evil).

 

          mwc

 

[walterpthefirst]

In the Logical Problem of Evil page Plantinga's defence has a fatal flaw.

 

He attempts to explain the existence of moral evil and natural evil by appealing to scripture.

 

God allowed natural evil to enter the world as part of Adam and Eve’s punishment for their sin in the Garden of Eden.

 

And people take this seriously?

 

Belief in scripture is by FAITH, not by evidence!

 

So, to explain the evidence of evil in the world Plantinga appeals to non-evidence?

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

A further flaw in Plantinga's defense is that he assumes all facets of free will are morally significant.  However, as I've stated before, the 10-year-old sex slave has no choice in what is happening to her, morally significant or otherwise.  Her free will is being repeated and brutally violated.  The proposition that it is happening because god chooses not to violate "free will" completely overlooks the fact that god is violating her free will by his omission and refusal to prevent it from happening to her.  Genuine and robust free will, as Plantinga envisions here is simply not possible in a situation in which an unwilling participant has no other option but to submit to the will of another. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Moreover, morally significant free will, as described by Plantinga, is inconsistent with the plan of salvation as described in the bible.  Genuine and robust free will is exactly that: a decision freely made with no strings attached.  But the god of the bible demands that we either choose what he wants us to choose, or face the eternal consequences of hellfire everlasting.  This is NOT a morally significant choice from our perspective.  It is a choice made to avoid consequences that far outweigh the actual significance of the decision.

 

Consider what Plantinga, himself says: "The essential point of the Free Will Defense is that the creation of a world containing moral good is a cooperative venture; it requires the uncoerced concurrence of significantly free creatures. But then the actualization of a world W containing moral good is not up to God alone; it also depends upon what the significantly free creatures of W would do."

 

But the introduction of hell as a consequence of "free will" is the very antithesis of uncoerced concurrence of significantly free creatures.  Therefore, the description of morally significant free will is not applicable to the christian religion.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Next, consider the quote from C.S. Lewis:

 

"Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. ...  The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other…. And for that they must be free."

 

Yet the god of the bible requires, and has required since Cain and Abel, the shedding of blood in order to unite himself with us.  Apparently, god is not able to have a relationship with us based upon free will alone (ours or his); he also requires blood.

 

Would an omnipotent god not be able to have a relationship with us by simply choosing to, without the shedding of blood?  Would an omniscient god not know that genuine love, goodness, and joy can only come through genuine, robust, and morally significant free will, without the coercion of hell or the atrocity of filicide?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Hicks also seems to be basing his argument on the vision of morally significant free will wherein a person is genuinely and robustly in control and command of their own responses:

 

"The value-judgment that is implicitly being invoked here is that one who has attained to goodness by meeting and eventually mastering temptations, and thus by rightly making responsible choices in concrete situations, is good in a richer and more valuable sense than would be one created ab initio in a state either of innocence or of virtue…. I suggest, then, that it is an ethically reasonable judgment… that human goodness slowly built up through personal histories of moral effort has a value in the eyes of the Creator which justifies even the long travail of the soul-making process."

 

Thus, apparently leaving the 10-year-old sex slave out of his consideration altogether.  What sort of "temptations" is she supposed to be mastering?  How can she possible make responsible choices in the concrete situation of her own de facto subjugation?   Is it an ethically reasonable judgment that the only moral effort she is afforded is the struggle to merely stay alive in order to endure more atrocity?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Stump argues that suffering brings us closer to god; and is therefore a morally sufficient reason for god to allow it:

 

"Natural evil—the pain of disease, the intermittent and unpredictable destruction of natural disasters, the decay of old age, the imminence of death—takes away a person’s satisfaction with himself. It tends to humble him, show him his frailty, make him reflect on the transience of temporal goods, and turn his affections towards other-worldly things, away from the things of this world. No amount of moral or natural evil, of course, can guarantee that a man will [place his faith in God]…. But evil of this sort is the best hope, I think, and maybe the only effective means, for bringing men to such a state."

 

What she seems to overlook is that temporal suffering has failed to bring the vast majority of humanity to god; and eternal suffering is god's designed method of consequence.  This belies the supposed omniscience and omni-benevolence of god.  Firstly, an omniscient god would have realized beforehand that such a scheme would fail for a large percentage of his creation.  Secondly, to design eternal suffering as the consequence of the suffering produced by free will is the complete opposite of benevolence, let alone omni-benevolence.

[Edgarcito]

13 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

I agree with the proposition, Prof.

 

The same rules that applied to the math apply here. 

 

Just as Ed arrived at 42 by agreeing with the rules, so Ed should agree with the proposition by continuing to agree with the rules.

 

The only way he can arrive at a different conclusion is by withholding his agreement.

 

 

Walter.

The problem Walter is, I don't agree.  Yes, 42, to that set of rules, but let me pose this.  1) Two lefts make a right.  2) Two wrongs don't make a right.  And 3), multiplying two negatives, the answer is positive. 

 

Is mathematics saying logically that statement 2 is wrong? 

 

What do we do with this please.

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

The problem Walter is, I don't agree.  Yes, 42, to that set of rules, but let me pose this.  1) Two lefts make a right.  2) Two wrongs don't make a right.  And 3), multiplying two negatives, the answer is positive. 

 

Is mathematics saying logically that statement 2 is wrong? 

 

What do we do with this please.

 

Well, the first thing we do is to look at the rules that apply to the example given by the Prof and not to your examples.

 

That's because the subject under discussion is absolutes and your examples are not examples of absolutes.

 

Can you do as the Prof asked you and find the logical flaw within what he has described?

[walterpthefirst]

If logic is an absolute, then everyone should either agree with the conclusion, or, if disagreeing, be able to point out a flaw in the logic.

 

 

Once again, to ensure there us no bias in the conclusion, I am going to call upon both @DarkBishop and @walterpthefirst to state whether they agree with the conclusion or not; and, if disagreeing, can find a fault in the logic.

 

I am also going to ask the same of you, @Edgarcito.  If logic is an absolute, you will have no choice but to come to the same conclusion that Walt, DB, and I all come to.

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

This is what the Prof asked of you, me and DB thirteen hours ago, Edgarcito.

 

The Prof asked that if you disagreed, that you find the fault in the logic of his argument.

 

Presenting your own, different argument is simply dodging what was asked of you.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Guess we aren't having a debate. That would of been cool . But eh whatever. I think the whole argument has been proven out for the most part anyway. Unless Ed has something new to add to it. 

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

If logic is an absolute, then everyone should either agree with the conclusion, or, if disagreeing, be able to point out a flaw in the logic.

Right, so I'm not an expert in mathematics, but logically two rights make a left, multiplying two negatives gives us a positive.... And, in my mind yields, two immoral acts should yield a moral act.

 

As I specified, I don't have any quarrel with those rules in his example but do have trouble following this seemingly inconsistent path.

 

Thanks.

[walterpthefirst]

5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Right, so I'm not an expert in mathematics, but logically two rights make a left, multiplying two negatives gives us a positive.... And, in my mind yields, two immoral acts should yield a moral act.

 

As I specified, I don't have any quarrel with those rules in his example but do have trouble following this seemingly inconsistent path.

 

Thanks.

 

Then let me help you, Edgarcito.

 

Your examples are off-topic.

 

To stay on a consistent path you need to look at only the Prof's examples.

 

By finding the logical fault (if any) with his examples you will be staying on a consistent path.

 

Substituting your own examples is inconsistent.

 

That help?

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Then let me help you, Edgarcito.

 

Your examples are off-topic.

 

To stay on a consistent path you need to look at only the Prof's examples.

 

By finding the logical fault (if any) with his examples you will be staying on a consistent path.

 

Substituting your own examples is inconsistent.

 

That help?

No sir, that doesn't help.  You might want to please re-read the thread and understand the point I'm arguing.  Which is, very simply, we don't know how all the puzzle pieces fit together to become an absolute. (I believe there IS that absolute given we had the ability/capability to understand).  From my understanding, mathematics uses axioms that are assigned, which makes both sources, ours and mathematics, subjective and incomplete despite the pleadings and examples. 

 

Which in turn goes back to the Galatians scripture.....paraphrasing, "who gave you this information who told you this was right". 

 

Seems rather straightforward.... 

[walterpthefirst]

I agree with the proposition, Prof.

The same rules that applied to the math apply here. 

Just as Ed arrived at 42 by agreeing with the rules, so Ed should agree with the proposition by continuing to agree with the rules.

The only way he can arrive at a different conclusion is by withholding his agreement.

Walter.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Then what I wrote 13 hours ago is coming true, Ed.

 

You are now withholding your agreement to play by the Prof's rules and find the logical flaw in his argument.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

I agree with the proposition, Prof.

The same rules that applied to the math apply here. 

Just as Ed arrived at 42 by agreeing with the rules, so Ed should agree with the proposition by continuing to agree with the rules.

The only way he can arrive at a different conclusion is by withholding his agreement.

Walter.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Then what I wrote 13 hours ago is coming true, Ed.

 

You are now withholding your agreement to play by the Prof's rules and find the logical flaw in his argument.

 

 

A damn prophet Walter, who knew....  (but I'd please like to see the associated equation(s))

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No sir, that doesn't help.  You might want to please re-read the thread and understand the point I'm arguing.  Which is, very simply, we don't know how all the puzzle pieces fit together to become an absolute. (I believe there IS that absolute given we had the ability/capability to understand).  From my understanding, mathematics uses axioms that are assigned, which makes both sources, ours and mathematics, subjective and incomplete despite the pleadings and examples. 

 

Which in turn goes back to the Galatians scripture.....paraphrasing, "who gave you this information who told you this was right". 

 

Seems rather straightforward.... 

 

But by agreeing to take part in the exercise of finding the logical flaw in the Prof's argument you haven't been arguing your own point.  You put that on hold while you are checking the validity of his.

 

But now you are shifting the goalposts by switching back the point you were arguing before you agreed to come aboard and check the logic of the Prof's argument.

 

This is an avoidance tactic.  A dodge.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

A damn prophet Walter, who knew....  (but I'd please like to see the associated equation(s))

 

This is the Prof's show, so ask him.

 

But he will tell you the same thing I just did.

 

By asking these off-topic things you are dodging what he's asked of you.

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

But by agreeing to take part in the exercise of finding the logical flaw in the Prof's argument you haven't been arguing your own point.  You put that on hold while you are checking the validity of his.

 

But now you are shifting the goalposts by switching back the point you were arguing before you agreed to come aboard and check the logic of the Prof's argument.

 

This is an avoidance tactic.  A dodge.

 

 

 

 

I told you I didn't have any problem with the logic he put forth, didn't I?  TWICE.  Do you not accept that I don't have any problem with his example, but DO have a problem with the example I THEN presented?  Do you not see the sequence here?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@Edgarcito, you are welcome to introduce, or re-introduce, any topic or point you would like.  You are not, however, entitled to have said introductions entertained until such time as you have sufficiently addressed the issue currently before you.

 

Do you, or do you not, agree with the logical conclusion that god cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving.  If disagreeing, can you find a flaw in the logic (sufficient reason for rejecting the conclusion)?

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I told you I didn't have any problem with the logic he put forth, didn't I?  TWICE.  Do you not accept that I don't have any problem with his example, but DO have a problem with the example I THEN presented?  Do you not see the sequence here?

 

And the example you then presented is off-topic, as you well know.

 

Game over.