What is outlandish about God utterances being the cause, therefore the method for creation?
Especially as that is what the Bible says happened.
Please do tell!
jan.
Why does God hate babies who have not sinned?
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
What is outlandish about God utterances being the cause, therefore the method for creation?
Especially as that is what the Bible says happened.
Please do tell!
jan.
First, I was referring to the nonsense you are claiming in your discussion with Balerion. He is doing just fine at refuting your tripe, so there is no need for me to repeat the arguments he is trying to drive home.
Second, I guess you missed this:
What about the other sons and daughters Adam had? You keep ignoring this.
It's not nonsense, it's the truth. Or do you think it's simply a coincidence that every named person in the geneology just so happens to be of the line that leads to Noah?
Are you serious? You mean you don't know what the significance of Noah is?
I mean, really?
Well, we know where Cain and Abel were, but I don't believe Adam's other children are ever mentioned by name. Why would that matter anyway? What's important is that we know he did have other children, because it says so in the scripture.
The rest of your post is dishonest BS that doesn't deserve my time.
He apparently just doesn't understand it. That's fair enough, if he wasn't so busy telling everyone else they were stupid for it.
Yep, Dunning-Kruger effect.
i am just trying to be clear on what your position is, that is why i keep asking things in different ways in response to your arguments. We will get to freewill below where you seem to be talking about it differently than you say here.
that is not what i said. I said that a tornado could have hit an uninhabited site. I have not said exactly why a tornado hadn't hit an inhabited site. I didn't say that tornadoes avoid inhabited homes. This was in response only to your position that they could not have built super safe homes. I feel that they could have built super safe homes for any number of reasons. Perhaps a side effect of the ultimate super-efficient home is that it is strong and weatherproof enough to withstand whatever weather events happen to show up. Or perhaps the people live in mobile communities that move away from the weather. Your insistence that my ideas are illogical, and subsequent incorrect interpretation of my points is interfering with the discussion. Exactly what you say about what i am doing is what YOU are actually doing, and your "bias" is getting in the way of making sense out of this conversation.
here is where you are inconsistent. When we talk about freewill above you say it includes limitations on actions, both from physics and the will of others. HERE however you seem to say that all actions have the possibility of harm. So you go forward and say no actions can be taken. I agree that in a world where NO actions can be taken there is no freewill. ****POINT #1 of the actual discussion**** I disagree that all actions have the potential to cause harm, and the safer the environment is, the less potential there is for harm to be caused. Your claim that ALL actions are barred is only substantiated, so far, by your personal worldview, you HAVE NOT proved that. It is this unproven idea that makes my version of freewill and your version of freewill different apparently.
***POINT #2****. The points i have made about extrapolation are entirely consistent with what humans have done. They have taken totally inappropriate and impossible ideas and made sense out of them. Einstein's famous thought experiment, one of the most celebrated imaginative ideas of all time, is absurd, but you seem to be saying these people of "safe world" can only have sensible thought experiments. I don't understand how you could say that, so please tell me where we draw the line at what is a good absurd thought experiment for the people of "safe world" and which are not possible for them to think about.
Are you kidding me. I pointed at something (wasted precautions) we HAVE in this world NOW, hence provably consistent with logic and even with our current reality, and you say it is inconsistent logically.
here again we have an actual point. ****POINT #3 of the actual discussion**** What is called evil is not just the worst thing that happens to someone in their life. If we are going to relativize what evil is, then all you have to have is a society that believes evil is necessary and a net positive. We need to talk about what we call evil, because your unproven idea that evil is just the worst out of two possible options is not agreed upon. Not by society nor by me. You are using your definition of evil which i do not accept. AGAIN, are you actually saying that chocolate ice cream, being the "worst" of two options, has to be considered as "evil", or not? I think that is what you are saying, but it sounds so wrong to me, i have to be very clear. *DO NOT PASS WITHOUT ANSWERING THIS QUESTION*
there is no point in discussing what else constitutes evil in "safe world" until we figure out whether chocolate ice cream is to be considered "evil".
I have merely asked questions about what you are saying, and i am generally polite enough to say "it seems" when i talk about another person's points. And also, no, it is not up to me only to provide the precise conditions within which evil is avoided, but also up to you that you show the condition within which evil is necessary.
TO SUM UP -
#1 -you seem to say all actions have the potential for negative results, therefore all actions must be barred, hence the reason there is no freewill in "safe world". I disagree with the premise that all actions have the potential for negative results. Please show how this follows. You really need to look at the idea as applied to our word, i.e. that all actions here have the potential to cause harm. This is not an accepted idea in society.
#2 - you seem to be implying that there is some limit on what makes a sensible extrapolation for the imaginary people we are talking about. You and i disagree on that and i have shown the absurdity of an actual thought experiment in our world to show that sensibility is not required for an extrapolation to be made by these imaginary people. Please refute that if possible, or explain your position.
#3 - you say that "evil is just the worst" of things that occur. I say that evil has a definition far different. Please confirm or deny the idea that chocolate ice cream, being the "worst, becomes "evil". Please explain why chocolate ice cream is evil if it is the worst of possible outcomes. Why is your definition more correct?
That is a BS excuse. I have been very clear. It is you who has been constantly changing the conditions of your hypothetical world. All this does is allow you to squirm away from engaging my arguments and muddy the water, exactly as you have just done here. Can you even just say whether or not you agree with the definition for free will I have given here?
Again you are only equivocating "super-efficient" instead of "super-safe", without providing any reason for either. You just continue an intellectually dishonest vicious regress, with each new equivocation failing to answer any question. So now I must ask, why would they be worried about efficiency or being highly mobile? Are they aware of a threat or time constraint? I have asked "why" each time, and so far you have only changed your wording without any supporting reasoning at all. There can be no incorrect interpretation of your points because you consistently fail to explain any reasoning. You just keep saying there could be "any number of reasons" without giving a single one. This is what trolls and the intellectually lazy do when they cannot be bothered to examine their own bias.
I am starting to think that you misrepresent my arguments only because they are completely beyond your comprehension. In that case you are unintentionally obtuse, but obtuse nonetheless.
Everything has some, even if small, possibility for harm, whether by accident, intent, or a long and unpredictable chain of causation. You cannot logically refute that. My point here is NOT that they could not take any action at all. It is only that, given your assertion that any actions that lead to harm would be negated, the result of any action would be highly unpredictable, as even good actions may cause harm and be negated. This is completely consistent with my above: "Actions are dependent upon achieving an intended result, which must be distinguishable from other results." If both good and bad actions are negated because of incidental harmful results then their negated results are indistinguishable. Not only that, the same good action would be randomly negated depending on some perfect prediction of harm in each specific case. This allows for no true intent, as results are completely unpredictable. And I have already shown that perfect prediction does not allow for any true free will.
And you have yet to define your "version" of free will.
No, you said these humans could extrapolate things they have absolutely no reason to connect. Einstein not only worked from the existing ideas of many people at the time (as opposed to the naive notion that he just came up with it out of nowhere) but he made connections observable in the physical world. Your ignorant incredulity does not make these "absurd", although you seem to be using this to excuse your own absurdities.
"Wasted precautions" can only exist because there are reasons to take precautions in the first place. Quit equivocating already. You hypocritically want a world where danger does not exist but somehow precautions against danger are taken for no reason at all.
Wait, I thought the 'people of "safe world"' were your thought experiment. Where the hell did this nonsense about them having a thought experiment enter into this?! You have not even defined the self-consistency of their world, so how can you hope to define one for a thought experiment in that context? This is just another vicious regress where you retreat to some new argument rather than explain your original argument. That is intellectually dishonest, and you have been doing it repeatedly.
All value judgments are subjective and relative (and are a completely separate issue from morality). You cannot refute that. But I see you are continuing to hypocritically make comparisons to our world, where evil is known beyond the worst experienced by most people.
I could not care less about what you may agree on, as you have yet to define a single thing you have said. You have since changed the conditions of this hypothetical world of yours, so my example of ice cream flavors no longer applies. I just told you that. Can you not read, or are you intentionally trolling? Again, as you have conveniently omitted from your quotes: "I made the example of ice cream flavors when you were claiming no bad existed." In response to that, you added "bad" to your little world. That is called moving the goalposts. Look it up. It falls under intellectual dishonesty.
I said the "worst", in general, would be evil, not the worst of any one specific choice. The worst of any one choice is simply bad.
You are a troll who dodges answering any questions. It is you who has made the claim contrary to reality, so the onus of proof falls to you. But biased hacks never realize that. I have already shown that evil is necessary in every condition your have added, but you have yet to provide any counterpoint other than squirming around and superficially changing your wording and conditions.
Ok cry away that i am a troll - but i summed up three simple points, and you are too worked up to talk about them. My "safe world" wasn't defined, i started out with the absence of evil, and thought it was perhaps possible to go further to the absence of "bad", but I don't know if that is the case until everything is thoroughly explained. My "safe world" still isn't defined, and only needs definition in response to your denial of it's possibility. If you are too much of a wimp to saddle up and discuss something with some basic congeniality, that is just too bad, but don't blame me. I truly wonder at people who talk about dodging questions, and then spend four or five paragraphs talking about the assumed intentions of the other person instead of answering simple defined questions as laid out in my previous post. And then you say "you cannot refute that". What a joke. If you aren't willing to put out a point and allow for disagreement, you might as well just go post to yourself. Calm down. I asked you to confirm 3 points on which i feel we disagree. I don't understand why you can't simply point out in which ways your ideas disagree with what i have written and point out how those points as i see them are incorrect, without flying off the handle and being rude.
TO SUM UP -
#1 - i would say that society is in agreement with me that not every action has the possibility for causing "harm". you say that is not logically refutable, yet society at large feels that there are actions which are safe. Please disprove their idea which is also mine that some actions are safe.
#2 - i am saying that humans are quite imaginative and can make ideas up that are quite disconnected. If i were to say these people ride around on vehicles faster than the speed of light, i feel that you would say that was absurd, yet you try to say einstein wasn't absurd. I don't see the qualitative difference in einstein's idea that people could somehow (supposedly impossible due to mass) travel as fast as light and shine a flashlight or catch a light beam, and some safeworlder's idea that their houses should move around to capture the best weather. the moving house actually seems much more sensible.
#3 - i am not sure why we wouldn't discuss a world with the absence of "evil" as we now define evil. Are we supposed to create a definition of the word "evil" out of imaginary creations and then agree on that definition? I can do that if that is what is necessary, but i was working off a proposed world with the absence of "evil" as we know it, and possibly without "bad", as we define it now, although removing "bad" as well seems more difficult to approach.
you need to calm down. it is just a discussion. I could get very personal, but i refrain for the purpose of fleshing out the question and hearing different ideas. You are the only one of the two of us that is going beyond the accepted ideas of a discussion with constant ad hominem that doesn't bother me in the least, but rather just wastes time. I am not going to get into a baby fight about who is a dummy, or who is supposedly just purposefully trying to be an asshole (which is categorically unprovable), i would politely suggest that you refrain from that as well.
TO SUM UP -
#1 - i would say that society is in agreement with me that not every action has the possibility for causing "harm". you say that is not logically refutable, yet society at large feels that there are actions which are safe. Please disprove their idea which is also mine that some actions are safe.
#2 - i am saying that humans are quite imaginative and can make ideas up that are quite disconnected. If i were to say these people ride around on vehicles faster than the speed of light, i feel that you would say that was absurd, yet you try to say einstein wasn't absurd. I don't see the qualitative difference in einstein's idea that people could somehow (supposedly impossible due to mass) travel as fast as light and shine a flashlight or catch a light beam, and some safeworlder's idea that their houses should move around to capture the best weather. the moving house actually seems much more sensible.
#3 - i am not sure why we wouldn't discuss a world with the absence of "evil" as we now define evil. Are we supposed to create a definition of the word "evil" out of imaginary creations and then agree on that definition? I can do that if that is what is necessary, but i was working off a proposed world with the absence of "evil" as we know it, and possibly without "bad", as we define it now, although removing "bad" as well seems more difficult to approach.
you need to calm down. it is just a discussion. I could get very personal, but i refrain for the purpose of fleshing out the question and hearing different ideas. You are the only one of the two of us that is going beyond the accepted ideas of a discussion with constant ad hominem that doesn't bother me in the least, but rather just wastes time. I am not going to get into a baby fight about who is a dummy, or who is supposedly just purposefully trying to be an asshole (which is categorically unprovable), i would politely suggest that you refrain from that as well.
This is both a complete lie and a fallacious appeal to emotion. If you were not so eager to confirm your tunnel vision bias you would have seen where I fully addressed each of your points, and having done so, had no need to repeat myself for your little redundant summary. You even avoided quoting any of my post that would directly contradict this lie, which would seem to indicate that you know you are lying.
Evince:
Syne said:
And what makes you think you can dictate what the "actual discussion" is?
CG said:
You seriously need to stop all this lying and trolling demands. So far, you have been lucky that I do not generally report anything shy of gross dishonesty and blatant trolling (which you have now fully demonstrated).
Yes, all of this is the usual sort of excuses people give when they have run out of viable arguments and do not have the integrity to admit it to themselves. Claiming all this overwrought umbrage over being called for using almost every fallacy in the book to avoid engaging simple logic. Instead of complaining about congeniality, would not it be easier to just actually address the points I raise? No, you seemingly think you can control both sides of a conversation, while hypocritically saying "you might as well just go post to yourself".
Better yet, why not take a little break, figure out your little "thought experiment", and come back when you are more prepared? And let us avoid calling people names while hypocritically whining about congeniality (all in the same sentence, at that). But if you truly just cannot keep up, by all means just say so. If my verbiage baffles you so much that you cannot recognize clear answers to your points, I will genuinely attempt to explain as I would to a ten year old.
Rude? You have called me names and lied about me because YOU were too overwrought to notice where each of your points had been answered.
Enough with the redundant summaries. Okay, I will try to talk down to your level so it may sink in this time.
1. Have you ever heard of the idiom (saying) "do more harm than good"?
do more harm than good
to be damaging rather than helpful Giving children too much freedom often does more harm than good.
Usage notes: usually said about things that are intended to be helpful but do not have a good result
Why is there a very well-used saying if "society" does not believe that any good action can cause harm? to be damaging rather than helpful Giving children too much freedom often does more harm than good.
Usage notes: usually said about things that are intended to be helpful but do not have a good result
2. You do not seem to understand what a thought experiment is.
thought ex·per·i·ment
Noun:
An experiment carried out only in the imagination.
And:Noun:
An experiment carried out only in the imagination.
ex·per·i·ment
Noun:
A scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact.
So what is the hypothesis you wish to test or known fact you wish to demonstrate? Noun:
A scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact.
3. Any difference in degrees of good, good and bad, etc. is a gradient (scale of change of a value). Gradients exist between any two related values. Even if the amount of change between these values is less, does not mean that either value ceases to exist. Evil, by definition, covers quite a range itself. Everything from immoral to offensive, all of which is widely considered to be bad.
So what evil are you denying? Open a dictionary and pick one.
Again with the appeal to emotion? Feel free to get personal. It will only further show you the hypocrite and not affect the reason I bring to bear. I will refrain from pointing out all of the fallacies you routinely employ as soon as you have the decency, intellectual honesty, and integrity to quit using them. You cannot ask for any fairer a trade off.
I was saying you were too worked up to "talk" about them, since you could not politely and reasonably "talk" about the 3 points without throwing in masses of ad hom. I clearly saw that you responded in your extremely disagreeable and belligerent way, and actually i incorporated your responses in my second summation of the same 3 points, in #1 using your word "harm" in a further attempt to gain some sort of mutual definitions that would be acceptable, in #2 regarding your point that you claim a different level of disconnection in my "resident's" thought processes than is acceptable, and also in #3 pointing out that our definitions of evil need to be agreed upon, thereby circumventing a continuous misunderstanding.
I would like to narrow our discussion in the future down to commentary on the three points, unless you feel the need to add a #4 for personal attacks, which you should then please keep exclusively in #4, for the sake of time. I would be glad to start a # 4 for you so that we can yell and scream at each other, if that will help you get your frustrations out. if you would like to add any other points, let's do so in an organized way.
1 - freewill
since when has the phrase "do more harm then good" applied to every activity in the world? This is a wild stretch. I understand there are many activities that do more harm then good. Are you seriously proposing that all activities can do more harm then good? Can giving my dog the occasional healthy dog treat do more harm then good, for example? Merely limiting people's access to some activity can prevent it from being taken to a dangerous level. You have already agreed that freewill can be limited by other's will and by physics, and still be called freewill. Why then must every action be allowed to be taken to the dangerous level, for freewill to exist, or must it at all? Again, please show me how any and all activities can do harm. Can thinking about flowers while i am in my bed getting ready to take a nap do harm?
2 extrapolation of thoughts
I intend to discover whether evil is necessary. I would also like to see if we must have things which are not evil but are bad. I suggest that in this thought experiment all possible options can be argued for or against without anybody getting upset. I would have suggested that einstein's thought experiment's about catching a beam of light would set the logical limit,in effect including impossibilities, but am willing to say we have to keep things MORE realistic than einstein would have. Are we willing to impose a supernatural power, as is considered a concrete reality in our world by many, upon the experiment? I don't know exactly what limits exactly should be set, but clearly some creativity must be allowed.
#3 - evil
Evil - 1.morally reprehensible (merriam-webster.com)
This implies intent and also that the harm would be more than minor inconvenience. A minor scrape on the knee can't be seen as evil, much less eating chocolate ice cream when the vanilla runs out. I would like to use the definition as the word is commonly used to describe the worst of all possible offenses, or even just very bad offenses or occurrences. I would not accept that the dog pooping in the house is "evil", for example, and there are millions of slightly offensive and negative things we could describe as "bad" which clearly should not be called "evil". If we need to
Syne,
He, doesn't have an argument.
So by your logic, no one actually creates anything, everything that goes into the finished product should take credit as co-creators?
For example, the paint, canvas, brush, and bowl of fruit, are all to be credited for the creation of a painting of a bowl of fruit on canvas.
jan.
He, doesn't have an argument.
So by your logic, no one actually creates anything, everything that goes into the finished product should take credit as co-creators?
For example, the paint, canvas, brush, and bowl of fruit, are all to be credited for the creation of a painting of a bowl of fruit on canvas.
jan.
Balerion,
Wrong. I dealt with it in a previous post. The Bible informs us that they came after Seth,
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Cain is not involved in this generation, period.
Every person named or written about are Adam's generation, no one is left out.
Obviously Abel is dead, but there is a replacement for his role of producing offspring.
Done and dusted.
you said earlier...
...'' The reason Cain is not mentioned in the geneology is because the geneology is meant to draw the line from Adam to Moses [Noah].''
Please show me how, this is the reason for THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM?
That's all I ask.
There is a pattern in THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM in that the firstborn is mentioned by name, then we are informed they beget sons and daughters, which is a much better
explanation for why they aren't named, than the reason you give above. If you don't think this is the case, please state why?
jan.
Wrong. I dealt with it in a previous post. The Bible informs us that they came after Seth,
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Cain is not involved in this generation, period.
Every person named or written about are Adam's generation, no one is left out.
Obviously Abel is dead, but there is a replacement for his role of producing offspring.
Done and dusted.
you said earlier...
...'' The reason Cain is not mentioned in the geneology is because the geneology is meant to draw the line from Adam to Moses [Noah].''
Please show me how, this is the reason for THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM?
That's all I ask.
There is a pattern in THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM in that the firstborn is mentioned by name, then we are informed they beget sons and daughters, which is a much better
explanation for why they aren't named, than the reason you give above. If you don't think this is the case, please state why?
jan.
I don't think you know what "generations of Adam" means. Clearly you have made up your own definition that fits your incorrect perception of the text. It's kind of impossible to continue this knowing that you're just going to make shit up to suit your argument.
Except Adam's other sons and daughters, and the sons and daughters of everyone else mentioned by name. I have no idea what you think it means to be of the "generations of Adam," but the only people named are those who belong to the line of Noah. That's the explanation in the text. You have failed to show anything other than your gross misunderstanding of the word "generation."
And I've shown it to you a hundred times. The purpose of the geneology is draw a line from Adam to Noah. Everyone of consequence within those texts are of this line: Noah, Moses, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, and David are all of Adam's line through Seth. The New Testament echoes the importance of this distinction by tying Jesus to David. It has nothing to do with being firstborn--and, in fact, it is not a list of firstborn sons in that genealogy (finally spelled it right), simply a list of sons through whom the sacred line continues. We know Seth was not the firstborn, but even if he was granted that distinction by Adam after Abel's death, it is not indicative of Cain's parentage. In Genesis 49, we're shown an example of this when Jacob takes Reuben's rights as firstborn away:
“Reuben, you are my firstborn,
my might, the first sign of my strength,
excelling in honor, excelling in power.
4 Turbulent as the waters, you will no longer excel,
for you went up onto your father’s bed,
onto my couch and defiled it.
my might, the first sign of my strength,
excelling in honor, excelling in power.
4 Turbulent as the waters, you will no longer excel,
for you went up onto your father’s bed,
onto my couch and defiled it.
The line to Moses then continued through Levi, the third-oldest. Point is, the key ingredient to being a part of this genealogy is not when you were born but your character as a person. Reuben is omitted because he is not a good person and did not continue the line to Moses, just as Cain was omitted because he was not a good person and did not continue the line to Noah.
As I've explained a dozen times already, that logic doesn't work, because Seth isn't the firstborn. And neither is Levi, yet he continues on the line to Moses later on in the text.
And let's not forget, I've already debunked your alternative theory for Cain's parentage.
Just keep telling yourself that.
Where did I say ANYTHING like "no one actually creates anything"?! I guess you did not understand the very simple difference between cause and means. They are not mutually exclusive.
Again, you are equivocating by claiming some special meaning of the word "talk" (which you only retroactively put in scare quotes). I have addressed every point you raised, and it can only be that you have failed to notice because you are projecting yourself getting "worked up" onto me.
Can you even make a single post anymore without employing a logical fallacy? You do know what logical fallacy is, right? If you do then you should know that you are currently making an argument from fallacy. This is when someone uses the fallacies employed by another to dismiss or neglect their argument, but the use of a fallacy does not, itself, make an argument wrong. I have continued to address yours even though you insist on making fallacious arguments. I have not assumed you wrong simply because you use ad hominems, equivocations, straw men, etc.. In this respect, I have been exceedingly polite.
You are STILL willfully lying. #1, it is completely superfluous that you incorporated my use of the word "harm" in your summary, as you already did the first time you mentioned it:
So this is yet another excuse as to why you completely missed my response to your points. The summaries of #2 and #3 also added no new arguments.CG said:
Seems this claim of "incorporated your responses in my second summation" is only an excuse to hypocritically throw in the ad homs of "disagreeable and belligerent". Just because someone does not agree with YOU does not make them generally disagreeable or belligerent.
Again, why do you think you have the solipsistic right to dictate what the discussion includes? If you cannot separate commentary from argument then that is your problem, but I am not about to pretend that you are not employing fallacious arguments. You have freely used fallacies throughout, including the hypocritical use of ad homs.
As far as "the sake of time", it is you neglecting my arguments that is wasting the most time. I would not have to point out the fallacies you use to dodge my questions/points if you would just simply respond to them in the first place.
I did not say the phrase "applied to every activity in the world", so the "wild stretch" is your own inference. My point is that an inherently good action has the possibility of doing harm (exactly what I said earlier). "More harm than good" is only mentioned because you said society at large does not think a good action can do harm. Not only do they thing a good action can do harm, they think a good action can do MORE HARM than good. This completely refutes your argument by consensus.
It is not necessary to my argument that "all" actions have the possibility to do harm. The possibility for any good actions to cause harm is sufficient. Here is my previous argument you missed:
So you wish to test the hypothesis: evil is not necessary. It is your thought experiment, so you have the responsibility to give answers AND reasons for any question put to this test. If at any point you cannot then your test has failed, as you have run into a situation in which your hypothesis cannot be maintained.
I will, for the moment, ignore that fact that this has already happened and give you the benefit of the doubt. But any further dodging of questions put to your scenario, without adequate reasoning, will constitute a failure of your hypothesis.
"Minor" is a value on a gradient which can only be defined if it is not one of the extremes. So a "minor inconvenience" must be so only compared to a "major" inconvenience or harm. Since you seem to deny the existence of major inconvenience or harm, a minor inconvenience must be "the worst of all possible offenses" in this world of yours.
You cannot have it both ways. Either you redefine evil within the gradient of possible experience you assert for your hypothetical world or you admit its possible existence within such a world. If the "morally reprehensible" is assumed, a priori, not to exist then this is the fallacy of assuming the initial point. You have not proven it, only asserted it.
But again, giving you the benefit of the doubt, let us assume that the morally reprehensible is possible within this world of yours. That is the only way to make any honest test of your hypothesis. You assert that evil must include intent. Fine. What if one person intentionally withholds a better thing for themselves by only allowing the worst for another?
And certainly I do not have to demand that you answer, an all caps, for you to finally start answering my questions.
So what was the ''means'' that made the earth and oceans bring forth animal, plants, and acquatics?
jan.
Nature.
Do you hold that nature exists separately and independently from God?
#1 freewill
#2 extrapolation of thoughts or whatever this
#3 evil
#4 - personal attacks and complaints about our back and forth (which seems to be necessary so let's have fun with it)
syne says i am lying and fallacious, etc etc. I am not, and tiny violins are playing for you. In thinking that your responses dictate the success of my proposed idea, you are incorrect. I am simply using your complaints (on special, this week only, use while fresh) against my idea in order to investigate the oft expressed claim that evil is necessary. Do you see what i did there? This oft expressed idea, that you seem to agree with, i can claim is incorrect, while the fact that people generally agree with me brings weight to my proposition that there are plenty of things that don't do harm. I SEE that, and it isn't because i am too dense to grasp these things, but rather that I use the consensus as a reason for you to respond, while you use the consensus as some sort of proof. I can say "i realize many people say x, but i disagree", while you have to AT LEAST ACKNOWEDGE the POSSIBILITY that you may be incorrect in your ideas. Putting your ideas on a pedestal, and getting wired up when people disagree, makes you a time-waster. By not doing that I can be a person who is able to discuss ideas, not just argue in the way people like you seem to be fated to do. (The tenth layer of hell is probably filled with people who can't discuss things calmly along with a trillion bullhorns.)
Also, OMG, you actually asked a question, about the topic at hand, and didn't just refer to each point you have made as some sort of question by default that i offend you by "ignoring". You might want to look back and see how many actual questions (that weren't about your ad homs, or debate tactics, or your complaints), that i have ignored from you. It is possible that i missed one or two, but you certainly don't have a case for me often ignoring your QUESTIONS.
And as for this
please note i would never say that an argument by consensus is necessarily true, only that it lends weight to your point if it were held as consensus, which i would suggest is not true in this case. I never said a good action cannot do harm, i said that not every action can do harm. You failed to answer the questions about feeding my dog a healthy treat, or thinking of flowers, but i get the idea here that you agree that there are actions i can choose that will not do harm? yes or no?
i am not sure then how you get to the idea that the denizens of "safe world" are not operating with free will. I thought that was your point, and the reason why this "safe world" cannot exist. I thought you were saying that you disagree that the proposed "safe world" could logically exist because cause and effect would be entirely removed thereby ending freewill as we know it or in any similar conceptualization of it.
#2 extrapolation of thoughts or whatever this
just as long as you realize that the limits we have set upon these hypotheticals is that they are possible. We don't have to include such absurdities as a human traveling at the speed of light in an open vehicle, or a flame that emits cold or whatever.
actual questions must be asked to be considered ignored, and failure to respond to one of the many "points" flying by is not dodging. If you feel you actually have a point which is material to the case, I would suggest you make that clear to me by pointing out the need for a response, i.e. asking a question.
#3 evil
i would like to define their lack of evil as such that a minor inconvenience, such as a scraped knee or the dog pooping in the house and stinking the place up, is the limit. If there is some change to that and i feel that we must allow for a broken arm for example, i will be glad to specifically arrange that with you at that time, and we would have to agree not to call a broken arm "evil", so we can be having the same conversation instead of two different ones.
you asked me to provide a definition of the word. I did. I do not accept the idea that people who have seen no evil will call selling chocolate ice cream "evil". Please explain why i should accept that. Also, i disagree that evil is necessitated in this world by logic until that is shown. If we were to get there i am sure you could provide at least a loose syllogism that would describe it, i.e. "evil is x, without x the people of safeworld have no freewill, not having freewill is something we consider evil, therefore there is no way for the people of safeworld to avoid evil."
I certainly don't think we can call me grabbing a vanilla ice cream and slightly disappointing another person, who must now eat chocolate, "evil". One of us had to have the chocolate, having the chocolate is a good thing. Unless the person says, "i won't eat chocolate" and starts crying, which is still not evil BTW, the good outweighs the inconvenience of a minor disappointment. We have to define what we are going to say the "worst" is, for us to see eye to eye on your question about "allowing the worst". If me choosing vanilla causes the person to suffer excruciating pain and i intend that to be the cause, it is "evil". If i didn't intend it but they suffer excruciating pain, i am willing, for the sake of investigation, to call that "evil". (chocolate allergies having been conquered in safeworld, i think it is ok to continue using this example)
#4 - personal attacks and complaints about our back and forth (which seems to be necessary so let's have fun with it)
syne says i am lying and fallacious, etc etc. I am not, and tiny violins are playing for you. In thinking that your responses dictate the success of my proposed idea, you are incorrect. I am simply using your complaints (on special, this week only, use while fresh) against my idea in order to investigate the oft expressed claim that evil is necessary. Do you see what i did there? This oft expressed idea, that you seem to agree with, i can claim is incorrect, while the fact that people generally agree with me brings weight to my proposition that there are plenty of things that don't do harm. I SEE that, and it isn't because i am too dense to grasp these things, but rather that I use the consensus as a reason for you to respond, while you use the consensus as some sort of proof. I can say "i realize many people say x, but i disagree", while you have to AT LEAST ACKNOWEDGE the POSSIBILITY that you may be incorrect in your ideas. Putting your ideas on a pedestal, and getting wired up when people disagree, makes you a time-waster. By not doing that I can be a person who is able to discuss ideas, not just argue in the way people like you seem to be fated to do. (The tenth layer of hell is probably filled with people who can't discuss things calmly along with a trillion bullhorns.)
Also, OMG, you actually asked a question, about the topic at hand, and didn't just refer to each point you have made as some sort of question by default that i offend you by "ignoring". You might want to look back and see how many actual questions (that weren't about your ad homs, or debate tactics, or your complaints), that i have ignored from you. It is possible that i missed one or two, but you certainly don't have a case for me often ignoring your QUESTIONS.
And as for this
I have the right to say or not say what i wish, and all of your crying isn't going to change that. I am merely trying to contain the toxicity so you and i, and others, don't have to fill pages with wasted insults masquerading as intelligence, although they bring nothing of value to the world.
