>could god have allowed for freedom to accept or reject his will but without the freedom to reject his will
This is just retarded semantics and like asking if God could create a square circle. It's just meaninglessness masquerading as an argument.
False attribution
Issue actually presented by Mackie
Refuted by Plantinga's free will defense
[...]
>free will
Right. But you're a Calvinist, so you don't believe in any of that stuff...
everytime this gaylord argument is posted, everyone forgets that "goodness" isn't up for you to decide.
Or at least, since you're not omniscient, and allegedly God is*, you are not in a position (if you are honestly considering God) to determine that the reality we exist in isn't "good"
Yeah, I think 'bad' is just a word humans made up for stuff they don't like.
This is only a problem for Christians who believe there are bad things in the world
>Yeah, I think 'bad' is just a word humans made up for stuff they don't like.
This is only a problem for Christians who believe there are bad things in the world
Are you just not understanding that the ultimate being* "arbitrarily" deciding something is not the same thing has humans "arbitrarily" deciding things?
Humans are not omniscient; therefore, in every decision they make there are deficiencies.
The ultimate being* "arbitrarily" deciding something and humans "arbitrarily" deciding things is the same thing because they are both arbitrary. Do you not know what arbitrary means?
>on the basis of personal whim
the implication being that God's whims are much better informed than ours.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
What could possibility inform God as to how to arbitrarily define "good" ?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>better informed
In what way? You just argued that god created morality. What existed previously to inform god about how morality should be created?
3 weeks ago
Ο Σολιταίρ
>better informed >In what way?
well, he knows everything, for one, and you don't.
are you shifting your argument to >yes, the Christian God isn't actually illogical >I just don't like him.
?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I just don't like him
This is the only atheist argument.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>He knows everything
Did he know what morality is, implying that morality already existed outside of god, or was there no morality to know of outside of god, implying that god created morality arbitrarily? That's the point.
3 weeks ago
Ο Σολιταίρ
>or was there no morality to know of outside of god, implying that god created morality arbitrarily?
If this were the case, would you be forced to admit you just don't personally like what God decided?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
No? you don't need to personally like or dislike arbitrary commands to acknowledge that they are arbitrary. >what god decided
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
So basically you are saying that even if God were real; you consider yourself to be fundamentally the same sort of entity?
Gotta get that sorted out, bud.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yes, the arbitrary moral dictations of an immortal and a mortal are both fundamentally arbitrary. You are the first person to be confused by this notion.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I don’t think the only difference between theoretical “God” and man is one of mortality…
We’ve asserted an omniscient, omnipotent God. Certainly this exceeds “mere” immortality…
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You're still confused? Do you need a food analogy to explain what arbitrary means or...
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yeah, I have a preference to not drown babies
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>rather than any reason or system
The implication being that god's whims are either not arbitrary after all, or they are equally as informed as our own whims.
>Plantinga taught at Calvin University
Ok. lol
Why are you telling me this?
Calvinists don't believe libertarian free will is true (the type of free will that is assumed in Plantinga's defence)
The name of a University Plantinga taught at, doesn't change Calvinist doctrine.
Evil only exists if God exists. If there is no God, moral concepts such as good and evil become mere human preferences. This exact thread has been answered thousands of times and you aren't fooling anyone.
>Then God is not good.
You might find him 'not-good' because in utilitarian paradigm he made you suffer, but that's actually irrelevant for him to be good.
I don't understand the arguments.
Seems like no one can define "good" and "evil".
Or it's more like the definition is based on different ethical systems.
Epicure was a proto-utilitarian before utilitarianism even existed. However, ethical discourse at the time was dominated by virtue ethics. God had the virtue of 'goodness' (these words literaly have the same root).
It doesn't really matter how many people are killed by god himself or whether he know or cares about 'evil'. Everything he has done is good. Period.
And I'm not even a religious person.
Morality is perfectly explained by naturalism. Without morals, we would not feel the need to help the weaker members of our species e.g. kids and we wouldn't want to work together as much, so survival chances would be much lower. Why the fuck would there need to be objective morality, this argument has always seemed like pure cope.
FREE WILL! OUR ABILITY TO CHOOSE OUR OWN ACTIONS AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM! THE REASON WHY WE AREN'T ROBOTS! THE REASON WHY JESUS CREATED US!
Next question
>could god have allowed for freedom to accept or reject his will but without the freedom to reject his will
This is just retarded semantics and like asking if God could create a square circle. It's just meaninglessness masquerading as an argument.
Isn't heaven pretty much where their is no evil, but also free will?
Heaven is where you'd go once you overcame evil, that doesn't negate evil existing in any form ever as the chart is describing.
So in heaven, you can still go to hell?
Not really. No one can conceive of a square circle, but everyone can conceive of a world where everyone had free will but no one performed evil.
everytime this gaylord argument is posted, everyone forgets that "goodness" isn't up for you to decide.
Or at least, since you're not omniscient, and allegedly God is*, you are not in a position (if you are honestly considering God) to determine that the reality we exist in isn't "good"
>god decides what is good
Therefore, goodness is arbitrary
Yeah I guess God is the arbiter or that.
What's the issue?
Most christians are uncomfortable with the notion that goodness is arbitrarily decided by god, and all the implications that follow.
>Most christians are uncomfortable with the notion that goodness is arbitrarily decided by god, and all the implications that follow.
uhhh, tough luck for them?
Yeah, I think 'bad' is just a word humans made up for stuff they don't like.
This is only a problem for Christians who believe there are bad things in the world
>Yeah, I think 'bad' is just a word humans made up for stuff they don't like.
This is only a problem for Christians who believe there are bad things in the world
Are you just not understanding that the ultimate being* "arbitrarily" deciding something is not the same thing has humans "arbitrarily" deciding things?
Humans are not omniscient; therefore, in every decision they make there are deficiencies.
No, I agree with all that.
Problem of evil goes away, if don't grant that there's such a thing as evil
The ultimate being* "arbitrarily" deciding something and humans "arbitrarily" deciding things is the same thing because they are both arbitrary. Do you not know what arbitrary means?
>on the basis of personal whim
the implication being that God's whims are much better informed than ours.
What could possibility inform God as to how to arbitrarily define "good" ?
>better informed
In what way? You just argued that god created morality. What existed previously to inform god about how morality should be created?
>better informed
>In what way?
well, he knows everything, for one, and you don't.
are you shifting your argument to
>yes, the Christian God isn't actually illogical
>I just don't like him.
?
>I just don't like him
This is the only atheist argument.
>He knows everything
Did he know what morality is, implying that morality already existed outside of god, or was there no morality to know of outside of god, implying that god created morality arbitrarily? That's the point.
>or was there no morality to know of outside of god, implying that god created morality arbitrarily?
If this were the case, would you be forced to admit you just don't personally like what God decided?
No? you don't need to personally like or dislike arbitrary commands to acknowledge that they are arbitrary.
>what god decided
So basically you are saying that even if God were real; you consider yourself to be fundamentally the same sort of entity?
Gotta get that sorted out, bud.
Yes, the arbitrary moral dictations of an immortal and a mortal are both fundamentally arbitrary. You are the first person to be confused by this notion.
I don’t think the only difference between theoretical “God” and man is one of mortality…
We’ve asserted an omniscient, omnipotent God. Certainly this exceeds “mere” immortality…
You're still confused? Do you need a food analogy to explain what arbitrary means or...
Yeah, I have a preference to not drown babies
>rather than any reason or system
The implication being that god's whims are either not arbitrary after all, or they are equally as informed as our own whims.
>informed
That means it's not arbitrary, retard.
False attribution
Issue actually presented by Mackie
Refuted by Plantinga's free will defense
>free will
Right. But you're a Calvinist, so you don't believe in any of that stuff...
Plantinga taught at Calvin University
Read the fwd
Post the relevant excerpt which addresses
>Plantinga taught at Calvin University
Ok. lol
Why are you telling me this?
Calvinists don't believe libertarian free will is true (the type of free will that is assumed in Plantinga's defence)
The name of a University Plantinga taught at, doesn't change Calvinist doctrine.
Think through the stuff you're saying
The problem of evil has been debated for over two millenia, dirt.
Evil only exists if God exists. If there is no God, moral concepts such as good and evil become mere human preferences. This exact thread has been answered thousands of times and you aren't fooling anyone.
What was the answer?
The first half of the post. Good lord.
Then God is not good.
Way to miss the point.
What was the point?
I don't have the patience to explain it a third time.
>Then God is not good.
You might find him 'not-good' because in utilitarian paradigm he made you suffer, but that's actually irrelevant for him to be good.
Evil only exist because God wants it to
>morality is just god's preferences
I have better morality than God. Prove me wrong.
I don't understand the arguments.
Seems like no one can define "good" and "evil".
Or it's more like the definition is based on different ethical systems.
Epicure was a proto-utilitarian before utilitarianism even existed. However, ethical discourse at the time was dominated by virtue ethics. God had the virtue of 'goodness' (these words literaly have the same root).
It doesn't really matter how many people are killed by god himself or whether he know or cares about 'evil'. Everything he has done is good. Period.
And I'm not even a religious person.
>Everything he has done is good. period.
Unperiod. The euthyphro dilemma.
Morality is perfectly explained by naturalism. Without morals, we would not feel the need to help the weaker members of our species e.g. kids and we wouldn't want to work together as much, so survival chances would be much lower. Why the fuck would there need to be objective morality, this argument has always seemed like pure cope.