Fun with Logic

[Lorizael]

Oh wait, there's no flaw in the initial premise here. There is evidence that God is in fact evil, and philosophers attempted to prove how there wasn't. I then showed that their line of logic still led them to an evil god. I do not make the assumption that God is not evil.

[Kirnwaffen]

Oh, and of course good and evil are ambiguous.

What I'm talking about is strictly within the confines of the argument. Evil is used in two ways, leading to two possible conclusions to the argument:

1) God is evil (in the traditional sense)
2) God is the absence of God

The first is fallacious because the argument states that evil, in the traditional sense, does not exist. The second is fallacious for obvious reasons.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by SnowFire
what if something "Good" must be something chosen of free will?

There is an initial assumption in Christian theology that God is good. No other thing is defined as good.

A lightning bolt hitting a tree isn't "good," it's neutral. In this case, by creating free will, God increased the capacity for goodness in the world as well.

Most christian philosophers are of the opinion that everything not of free will is in God's plan, and thus any action of the natural universe is intended by God. God being good, that action is then good.

Why can't human activities be neutral? Is me picking up a pencil good or evil? It's useless and therefore sloth and evil! But wait, it's exercise and staving off gluttony- good!

This is irrelavent. All that matters is that humans are the only beings capable of evil actions, and God had to have known that.

Fine, God created evil. Isn't it possible that humans have some other unique property, and creating evil was a byproduct?

Uh, unless you can offer any suggestions here, your statement doesn't really matter. Yes, as a byproduct of something else, God made himself worthy of hell...

[Kirnwaffen]

There is evidence that God is in fact evil, and philosophers attempted to prove how there wasn't. I then showed that their line of logic still led them to an evil god. I do not make the assumption that God is not evil.

I have to disagree. The stated premise for the argument is that God is good by it's nature. Good being the opposite of evil, the assumption that God is not evil is integral to the argument, unless you redefine "Good".

[The Vagabond]

Evil and good is how the world works. Without evil, good would make no sense. And the world would make no sense, and wouldn't be able to function. For all his omnipotence, can you imagine God creating something that doesn't make any sense?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen


I have to disagree. The stated premise for the argument is that God is good by it's nature. Good being the opposite of evil, the assumption that God is not evil is integral to the argument, unless you redefine "Good".

Unless God can be both good and evil at the same time. Being omnipotent, this may very well be possible. It requires the best kind of omnipotence though, the kind that allows you to violate logic. And if we're going there, there isn't really a point in us having a logical debate.

So I think my argument just shows that if you follow traditional Christian theology to its logical conclusion, it is inconsistent and flawed, proving in fact that their own god is either evil or does not exist.

[SnowFire]

Most christian philosophers are of the opinion that everything not of free will is in God's plan, and thus any action of the natural universe is intended by God. God being good, that action is then good.

In that case, a tiger going on a killing spree in a small town or a hurricane are all "good" actions, which renders the term pretty useless. Again, neutral I can see, but if you're using "Most Christian philosophers" like this, frankly we have bigger problems. I for one would totally disagree with that. Yes, MCP believe in the existence of God's plan... as well as God's omnipotence. However, MMCP (add "Modern" in) also believe in physics, or at least that God created physics and- for the most part- lets it run its course. God doesn't turn water into wine for jollies, in other words. Therefore, the creation of a hurricane might not be something directly part of "God's plan" (even if it, too, is indirectly caused by God since he made the system that produced it).

After that, we get into more assumptions that are flaky. The creation of evil sentences God to Hell? What?! Okay, fine, let's assume God is good & stuff. Maybe God wants to be Baskin Robbins and have different flavors of Good? I don't know, maybe God wants to have reformed criminals, and not being a criminal himself, was forced to allow free will to allow other types of Good to exist? Just talking off the top of my head here, but why is the creation of evil so bad? Aren't there things that can compensate for it? (Hint: If you say No, please provide a reason.)

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by SnowFire
Most christian philosophers are of the opinion that everything not of free will is in God's plan, and thus any action of the natural universe is intended by God. God being good, that action is then good.

In that case, a tiger going on a killing spree in a small town or a hurricane are all "good" actions, which renders the term pretty useless. Again, neutral I can see, but if you're using "Most Christian philosophers" like this, frankly we have bigger problems. I for one would totally disagree with that. Yes, MCP believe in the existence of God's plan... as well as God's omnipotence. However, MMCP (add "Modern" in) also believe in physics, or at least that God created physics and- for the most part- lets it run its course. God doesn't turn water into wine for jollies, in other words. Therefore, the creation of a hurricane might not be something directly part of "God's plan" (even if it, too, is indirectly caused by God since he made the system that produced it).

After that, we get into more assumptions that are flaky. The creation of evil sentences God to Hell? What?! Okay, fine, let's assume God is good & stuff. Maybe God wants to be Baskin Robbins and have different flavors of Good? I don't know, maybe God wants to have reformed criminals, and not being a criminal himself, was forced to allow free will to allow other types of Good to exist? Just talking off the top of my head here, but why is the creation of evil so bad? Aren't there things that can compensate for it? (Hint: If you say No, please provide a reason.)

But if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then he would have foreseen the creation of that hurricane and done something to prevent it from happening. Since the hurricane was not prevented, God must have meant it to be so, and thus it is good.

No, the creation of evil does not sentence God to hell. God being evil (which was the eventual conclusion of my argument) sentences him to hell.

The creation of evil is bad because it is evil. Evil, by definition, is bad. The only thing that can logically compenate for evil is a greater amount of good. But God, being omnipotent, could have very easily created a greater amount of good simply by willing it into existence if he so choosed. He did not choose to do this, however. Instead he chose to create evil.

[Kirnwaffen]

Unless God can be both good and evil at the same time. Being omnipotent, this may very well be possible. It requires the best kind of omnipotence though, the kind that allows you to violate logic. And if we're going there, there isn't really a point in us having a logical debate.

Well, after re-reading the question presented in the argument and realizing I misread it, I find that my arguments still stand. The way that God is defined in that question ("good by nature") implies that God is wholly good, and, therefore, negates any possibility of God being evil.

[SnowFire]

But if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then he would have foreseen the creation of that hurricane and done something to prevent it from happening. Since the hurricane was not prevented, God must have meant it to be so, and thus it is good.

Read what I wrote again, please. Somebody who takes this view is clearly of the view that God controls EVERYTHING, and God does not "withdraw himself" from any part of the world. Ergo, because God is good, this world is always good and following God's plan no matter how bad it seems. I don't hold to that extreme determinist view, but it's consistent. However, if you pick up half the extreme determinism and not the other half, yes, you will get a weird and possibly evil God.

Lorizael- no offense- but I need to get to bed soon, and your assumptions are just very different than mine, or even ones that I can accept as consistent. I agree that bad assumptions give a bad result, mind, I just think that's not very enlightening.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Several months ago, I outlined a proof for monkspider that evil and the Christian god cannot co-exist as defined by orthodox Christian doctrines. However, I forgot what I did, and I didn't write it down.

That was a pretty good proof.

[Flubber]

How is this fun?

The problem I see with the proofs is that they are self-fullfilling., You define things in the manner that gets the result sought-- I believe that the nature of God is not something universally decided by most religions, except in the most broad strokes.

After all If I define or assume that north is South, then I have no problem proving that Canada is south of Mexico. While the assumptions in the proof aren't that bad, the concepts are so capable of variable definition to stretch logic.

Lets work backwards on the initial proof

You claim God is evil ( is this completely evil or just partially-- I will assume completely

This is so as God pursued an evil end-- ( is this necessarily true??-- could an individual do something evil and NOT be evil).

God pursued an evil end in creating humans with free will which must be evil as goodness exists in the rest of creation

** Couldn't this be a proof that God is good since all that he created except for free will in humans was good ( a quastionable premise but no more questionable than anything above.

** Your answer is that evil is merely the absence of good but again thats an unproven and debateable premise-- What if your premise is that evil and good can exist in all thinks and that the knowledge of both evil and good resides in GOD

etc etc

[st_swithin]

The definitions of 'good' and 'evil' could not exist without the definitions of 'us' and 'them.' After all, for a thing to be perceived as either good or evil, it must affect some other thing in such a way that it can be determined to be one or the other.

IMHO, God is an imaginary friend for adults who need someone else to blame for their actions. "God made me do it" is a common theme among religious zealots, and their followers tend to follow this same irrational line of thinking, taking it as gospel, if you will.

God says x, y, and z are forbidden. God's priests repeat God's words. Worshippers repeat God's priests' interpretations of God's words. Therefore, even if a theoretical God existed, the interpretation of God's words have been diluted through at least one level before they reach the disciples.

Any strict definition of good and evil on the part of God has gone through one interpretation via the priest, whose definitions of good and evil may or may not be exactly the same as God's, and are again reinterpreted by the disciples who may or may not have their own definitions of good and evil.

Good, evil, us, them, and God must all be assumed to 1) exist and 2) have the same unilateral definition to all, in order for us to make any subsequent assumptions.

My free will tells me that I don't believe in one of them, so none of the others matter much. It doesn't even matter which one I don't believe in.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It requires the best kind of omnipotence though, the kind that allows you to violate logic. And if we're going there, there isn't really a point in us having a logical debate.

Well now you get it . God CAN defy logic, because he is God. I don't see how you can say God is omnipotent and then not allow for God to violate logic.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
Still fallacious because God's existance is an implicit premise of the argument. I also take issue with the ambiguity of the term "evil".

It is not fallacious.

By assuming something is true, then proceed to show that this will lead to a contradiction, is a valid method of proof. The technique is called RAA.