Formal and Informal Logic

A 2300 year old non-sequiturEdited by iano, : me and maths!

No. It is not a non-sequitor at all. However, I will note your inability to answer it.I see that it is an entirely good point, because it shows the illogic of the concept of having an all powerful, all knowing, all good god existing, when evil exists in the world.Edited by ramoss, : clarified sentance.

In that case, absolute morality is arbitrary and capricious.For the benefit of our societies, we we need to adopt culturally relative moralities, in preference to this arbitrary and capricious morality of God.footnote: I think iano has just made an excellent case for atheism.

You would have to argue why the conclusion follows from the premise.I can think of another reasons why God is not willing to prevent evil - that has nothing to do with malevolence. Take free will. If God prevents me acting in an evil fashion when I want to then he would be constraining my free will to do so. His reason for not constraining my free will is not based in malevolence but in a desire to permit my free will expression - even if the consequences are that I do evil.Would you prefer yourself to be constrained so that you can do absolutely nothing wrong at all? (Remembering first that it would be Gods definition of evil that would apply - not your own
). The restraint would stretch into areas of your life: thought and deed to a degree unimaginable.Ramoss reads an evc post where someone says the Jews in Nazi Germany had it coming and is about to get angr.... ZAP!! Thought wiped out...Ramoss sees a pretty girl and is about to engage in some idle lus... ZAP!! thought wiped out...Ramoss is about to criticize someones for being selfis...ZAP!! Thought wiped out...I look forward to the day when this will be so. But would you?

According to your less than objective morality, how can you tell?Omni talked elsewhere of 'the slaughter of innocents' He presumed innocent. Do you too?

OK But Genesis tells us that we have the SAME knowledge of good and evil as God does. Granted that subjective applications of this knowledge could result in poor judgement in some marginal cases but on the whole, given the existence of God and given that our knowledge of good and evil is equivalent to His then a score of somewhere near 99% is more realistic.

I certainly would Well if the thought is wiped out and he has no memory of the thought then he also has no notion that it has been wiped out either. To him it never existed.
besides which the post wouldn't have existed in the first place.The bottom line is that if we never had any knowledge of the "evil" stuff we might have otherwise done then we would not be aware that we were being constrained from doing them. Therefore we would not percieve any limitations on our (illusionary) free will.Happy world. Great place to live eh?

Where does it say same?Take Hilter (where would we be without him) I am aware of his evil but have not the knowledge of evil in the same way that he has. I cannot concieve in the way he concieved - I am unable to conceive that way - even though I know of that evil.Bit the same way with God. Evil doesn't eminate from him, he cannot concieve of evil. We can.

I don't buy that. "Cannot" is not a word compatable with an all knowing God.
But let's not derail this thread too much.

No you certainly wouldn't. You are an automaton remember. Determined. You don't want anything.

But I can't tell the difference tho. It certainly feels like I would like it. And as feelings aren't real either for an automaton I just have to accept that God wants me to feel that way.

ok try this fun gamelist 5 advantages of free will ,assuming god exists and loves you .list 5 disadvantages of no free will but a paln life for you , assuming gods exists and loves you .

You first have to define God because if said God is omniscient and he exists then it negates free will anyway. We've been through all this before and given those premises it is the only logical conclusion.The other problem is that there is absolutely no way to tell the difference between having free will or not so there are no discernable advantages or disadvantages either way.Even if we don't have it, we still have the illusion of it.Whether God loves me or not doesn't really impact the outcome either.

I can tell, because I have actually taken time to study the Bible."Arbitrary and capricious" is not itself a moral judgement.

Your right of course. I should have said according to your own subjective (read: arbitrary and capricious) standards for measuring abitrariness and capriciousness.Whilst I don't claim total objectivity I can claim his holy spirit guiding and a certain lack of blindness that the non-Christian cannot claim (I am presuming of you that you are not a Christian in the sense that I am arguing from).