Talk:Problem of evil/Archive3
Does God violate his own morality[edit]
@GrammarCommie, et al: Taking the discussion of my previous proposed changes to the talk page.
My trouble with saying that "God is known to violate His morality" is that I, and many others, disagree that such a fact is known. I find such a belief typically comes from pop-culture's gross over simplification and cherry picking of the Bible. The entire "Because I'm God, Darn It" section is claiming we can't know God. That's where the later contradiction comes in (If you can't know God, then how do you know He is good?)
Yes, from somebody's bounded/limited view/understanding, God may seem to violate His own morality, but, because our view is limited, we might be incorrect (assuming God exists)
Separately, I don't think my second edit sounds stupid. I actually like the poetry of using "apparent" in a straight manner, then using "apparently" in a snarky manner within the same sentence. I concede that your mileage may vary; my first edit was simpler and more straight forward.
Come on, I am trying to get rid of the strawmen so that, a little later, I can make a great euphemistic play-on-words about how we regularly tell God to go violate Himself! :-) --Bertrc (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- While it is true that the triple O (Omnibenevolent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient) God is a ridiculous oversimplification of the Biblical God, it also bears pointing out that most Christians believe such nonsense, as do most Biblical literalists, and almost all Creationists. In addition, changing the meaning solely so you can make a dirty joke? Really? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- @GrammarCommie (et al), I'm not trying to change a definition. I'm actually a Christian who believes in the triple-O; I feel pop-culture oversimplifies God's morality, not His triple-O description. Since I do not believe that God violates His morality, I feel that unequivocally claiming He does violate His own morality is a strawman that weakens the entire section. I want to change the wording to eliminate the strawman and strengthen the section . . . Yes, I am trying to strengthen the section primarily so that I can make a dirty joke, later, but is that a problem? :-) --Bertrc (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Bertrc The problem here is that there are two separate versions of God (One could even argue two separate deities altogether since they share so little in common.) and that the Problem of Evil (and by extension the article) is arguing against the one that is argued to exist, i.e. the "triple-O" God. Hence the Biblical God is arguably not involved, ergo, there is no strawman. As to the argument that the "triple-O" God cannot violate his own morality... well... both the PoE and the article address that point. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- @GrammarCommie (et al), Okay, but that seems to be a comment on the overall article. I am simply addressing this one sentence. Yes, from somebody's bounded/limited view/understanding, God may seem to violate His own morality, but, because our view is limited, we might be incorrect (assuming God exists). If God actually exists and has designed the universe in some way so that He is not violating his own morality (which should be within the abilities of something that can do anything) then we are incorrect. ie. God only seems to violate his own morality from our bounded perspective when in reality, He might not be violating it; just as a tile design can make a floor seem to be buckled when in reality it might not be buckled. I want to remove the absolute claim and to let people make their own decision based on the rest of the section. --Bertrc (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Bertrc That would be adding an Escape hatch based on Special pleading. That argument also dodges the issue rather than face it, since it cannot win without rendering morality moot. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, so I'm trying to take on the strawman from the other side. Try not to be lazy. Either edit a change or, at least, discuss in the discussion before blindly rolling back. Heck, you didn't even include an edit comment! :-P~ --Bertrc (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- That would be because you ignored discussion, just like you're ignoring the fact that the article addresses most if not all of your points and refutes them. God is a fictional jackass, get over it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Dude, you sound like Trump! There's not much I can say if you're just going to lob insults like he does. ;-) :-P~ I'm not ignoring the discussion; I am altering what I write to try and take in your thoughts. I am not just reverting (Like a certain lazy person I could mention. :-P~ ) You didn't like my initial change, so I nuanced it. You didn't like the poetry of that phrasing, so I started a discussion. You couldn't countenance any divergence from your absolute statement, so I tried taking on the strawman elsewhere by changing a bogus response that almost no Christian would raise into an actual obvious response. You wanted to keep the nice, made up response that is easily knocked down, so I provided a section with actual Christian beliefs. I know I'm being a little snarky, here, but we're not wikipedia. Also, we're not Conservapedia; we are not an echo chamber; we edit, discuss and respond! (Although, things are heating up out here in meat-space, so I might not be able to respond for a bit) --Bertrc (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Bertrc I have tried to explain that the "we can't comprehend God's plan" and "God works in mysterious ways" arguments are addressed in the article, and that you're ignoring them. If the article doesn't strike you as reliable you could try reading several philosophy websites on the topic and compare the results. As for the accusation that I sound like Trump, well... I don't. I stated the facts, as I understand them (and I do understand them) , and you don't like that. I apologize if I came off harshly, but from where I sit you appear to want to change the article to agree with you, merely because you disagree with it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, you're just stating facts . . . The New York Times is failing, Mika Brzezinksi is dumb as a rock, God is a fictional jackass, James Comey is a nut job and Mexican immigrants are all rapists and murderers . . . sad. ;-) (BTW, your father is a hamster. :-P~ ) Anyhoo, this whole article has overlap. It can't be avoided. The section we are talking about is a different perspective on mysterious ways so there would be similar responses. Still, far be it from me to claim absolute knowledge. I'll break out my two main issues. --Bertrc (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- This debate is over, you have lost, and I am sorry that you cannot come to terms with that. The reason this debate is over is that you have decided to put words in my mouth, which I cannot stand, from anyone on any topic. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not really good at reading into things. I'll jump over to user talk pages to try clear up any tension, but please do let us know your thoughts in the sub sections, below. (that goes for anybody else, as well) --Bertrc (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, we're back! For the record, in my defense, lumping the insulting of God in with Trump's insulting of . . . well . . . just about everybody . . . is not "putting words in your mouth." One might have a case for "unacceptable hyperbole" and I certainly could be chastised for insulting GC much worse than he had insulted God. However, I think I have a strong case for calling shenanigans on the accusation that I "put words into [your] mouth"! :-P~ :-) --Bertrc (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not really good at reading into things. I'll jump over to user talk pages to try clear up any tension, but please do let us know your thoughts in the sub sections, below. (that goes for anybody else, as well) --Bertrc (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- This debate is over, you have lost, and I am sorry that you cannot come to terms with that. The reason this debate is over is that you have decided to put words in my mouth, which I cannot stand, from anyone on any topic. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, you're just stating facts . . . The New York Times is failing, Mika Brzezinksi is dumb as a rock, God is a fictional jackass, James Comey is a nut job and Mexican immigrants are all rapists and murderers . . . sad. ;-) (BTW, your father is a hamster. :-P~ ) Anyhoo, this whole article has overlap. It can't be avoided. The section we are talking about is a different perspective on mysterious ways so there would be similar responses. Still, far be it from me to claim absolute knowledge. I'll break out my two main issues. --Bertrc (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Bertrc I have tried to explain that the "we can't comprehend God's plan" and "God works in mysterious ways" arguments are addressed in the article, and that you're ignoring them. If the article doesn't strike you as reliable you could try reading several philosophy websites on the topic and compare the results. As for the accusation that I sound like Trump, well... I don't. I stated the facts, as I understand them (and I do understand them) , and you don't like that. I apologize if I came off harshly, but from where I sit you appear to want to change the article to agree with you, merely because you disagree with it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Dude, you sound like Trump! There's not much I can say if you're just going to lob insults like he does. ;-) :-P~ I'm not ignoring the discussion; I am altering what I write to try and take in your thoughts. I am not just reverting (Like a certain lazy person I could mention. :-P~ ) You didn't like my initial change, so I nuanced it. You didn't like the poetry of that phrasing, so I started a discussion. You couldn't countenance any divergence from your absolute statement, so I tried taking on the strawman elsewhere by changing a bogus response that almost no Christian would raise into an actual obvious response. You wanted to keep the nice, made up response that is easily knocked down, so I provided a section with actual Christian beliefs. I know I'm being a little snarky, here, but we're not wikipedia. Also, we're not Conservapedia; we are not an echo chamber; we edit, discuss and respond! (Although, things are heating up out here in meat-space, so I might not be able to respond for a bit) --Bertrc (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- That would be because you ignored discussion, just like you're ignoring the fact that the article addresses most if not all of your points and refutes them. God is a fictional jackass, get over it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, so I'm trying to take on the strawman from the other side. Try not to be lazy. Either edit a change or, at least, discuss in the discussion before blindly rolling back. Heck, you didn't even include an edit comment! :-P~ --Bertrc (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Bertrc That would be adding an Escape hatch based on Special pleading. That argument also dodges the issue rather than face it, since it cannot win without rendering morality moot. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- @GrammarCommie (et al), Okay, but that seems to be a comment on the overall article. I am simply addressing this one sentence. Yes, from somebody's bounded/limited view/understanding, God may seem to violate His own morality, but, because our view is limited, we might be incorrect (assuming God exists). If God actually exists and has designed the universe in some way so that He is not violating his own morality (which should be within the abilities of something that can do anything) then we are incorrect. ie. God only seems to violate his own morality from our bounded perspective when in reality, He might not be violating it; just as a tile design can make a floor seem to be buckled when in reality it might not be buckled. I want to remove the absolute claim and to let people make their own decision based on the rest of the section. --Bertrc (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Bertrc The problem here is that there are two separate versions of God (One could even argue two separate deities altogether since they share so little in common.) and that the Problem of Evil (and by extension the article) is arguing against the one that is argued to exist, i.e. the "triple-O" God. Hence the Biblical God is arguably not involved, ergo, there is no strawman. As to the argument that the "triple-O" God cannot violate his own morality... well... both the PoE and the article address that point. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- @GrammarCommie (et al), I'm not trying to change a definition. I'm actually a Christian who believes in the triple-O; I feel pop-culture oversimplifies God's morality, not His triple-O description. Since I do not believe that God violates His morality, I feel that unequivocally claiming He does violate His own morality is a strawman that weakens the entire section. I want to change the wording to eliminate the strawman and strengthen the section . . . Yes, I am trying to strengthen the section primarily so that I can make a dirty joke, later, but is that a problem? :-) --Bertrc (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Issues with "Because I'm God, Darn It[edit]
Hey everybody, @GrammarCommie and I are arguing about a few changes in the "Because I'm God Darn it" section. Point number 3) claims that God is known to violate His own morality. I disagree that He does, let alone that it is known that He does. I can understand people who do believe it, though. As such, I first tried changing it to "seems to violate His morality" and, next, tried a snarky play on "apparently". I think simply stating that God is known to violate his own morality is building up a strawman that is fun to knock down but will not create any engagement or discussion with dogmatic Christians (or, for that matter, with anybody who disagrees). Still, since I can't seem to get rid of that absolute statement (unless one o' you et al'ers wants to chime in) I am trying to address the resulting strawmen that occur later on. --Bertrc (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
What is the obvious response to the claim God breaks His own morality (and its implications)[edit]
We've claimed that God is known to violate his own morality; this means that His actions do not reflect morality; which means he is not a source of morality. We presently say that the obvious response our claim is "God is allowed to violate His own morality." I do not know a single Christian, dogmatic or not, who would come up with this response! [1] Instead, most Christians (and Jews, Muslims and Hindus) would immediately respond that God does not violate his own morality. As such, I think we should address the actual obvious response instead of a happy-happy-fun-fun strawman response. I made an edit that tried to do this. It is certainly an overlap with mysterious ways, but it is a different perspective on that. --Bertrc (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- ↑ Yes, I'm sure there are some simpletons out there, who would respond that God gets a pass, but I'm sure there are also atheist professors out in some remote corner of the world who try to humiliate their non-atheist students. Let's deal with the likely encounters
Is the tautology useless[edit]
We wind up, throughout this endeavor, with the tautology "Good is God and God is Good." We say that this tautology is useless. While tautology is not helpful for explaining what "good" is, the tautology is helpful in other areas. Namely, it gives a direction for how to be "good". If the tautology is true (big "if") then being "good" resolves to figuring out how to be like God. Now then, although the tautology does not tell you how to be good and like God, it is not useless in that area because it let's you know what your goal should be -- It's like the statement: "You win the game by catching the snitch; the snitch is what wins you the game". That is a useless statement for trying to learn how to catch the snitch, but the statement does have a use: Namely, it gives you a goal if you want to win the game -- I tried to capture this nuance of uselessness in a separate post]. --Bertrc (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Babby's first logical whoopsie[edit]
Fun fact: the free will theodicy (read: argument from free will) constitutes a literal teaching example of the modal fallacy in action.
The modal fallacy being a formal fallacy at that, there were no survivors. 85.226.177.90 (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- The the argument from free will is used against the free will theodicy. The free will theodicy says that God allows evil because God allows free will; some people use the "argument from free will" to dispute the "free will theodicy", claiming omniscience prevents free will. Schwarz' paper proposes that claiming omniscience prevents free will has a modal fallacy. --Bertrc (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)