Evil exists and is therefore evidence for the existence of an all powerful and all good God.

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 154
#121
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@BrutalTruth
Nothing you have said thus far supports this claim.
But it's clear what the claim is.  I understand the argument to be:

If there is no moral standard then if A kills B it can't be good or bad - because there is no moral standard to measure murder against

But we live in a world where murder is wrong, so there must be a moral standard.  Now if that moral standard isn't just human opinion it must have been created by something other than humans, ie by God.


#122
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
I can read, bro. I know what his argument is. That has nothing to do with what you quoted from me.

#123
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@BrutalTruth
Possibly.   It's up to tradesecret to let us know.

#124
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
Let us know what? He doesn't decide what is and isn't a valid argument.
#125
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@BrutalTruth
Frankly, I don't think he quite understands his own argument and he's groping a bit.
#126
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
But we live in a world where murder is wrong, so there must be a moral standard.  Now if that moral standard isn't just human opinion it must have been created by something other than humans, ie by God.
There is absolutely no reason to arbitrarily disqualify/eliminate "moral intuition/opinion" as a de facto moral standard.

Why do dogs and ants and lions and lobsters not murder all of their family members?  Do they (must they) also believe in god(s)?
#127
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
You'll have to ask tradeecret what's wrong with having a human-derived moral standard!  I think it's because tradey thinks murder is so obviouly wrong it can't be just an opinion.
#128
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@b9_ntt
I'm watching this Fesser interview. [LINK]

What caused god? - no answer.

Just define god as the "prime mover".  Ontological gymnastics. [LINK]

Overemphasizes cause and effect as if it is being disputed by anyone.

Just define god as the "unactualized actualizer".  Ontological gymnastics. [LINK]

(IFF) god stops playing the song (THEN) the universe will instantly vaporize into non-existence.  Bald assertion.

Convinced that "supernatural" events are possible.  Bald assertion.

Sola Scriptura is fundamentally inadequate and therefore, catholicism is true.  Non sequitur.

Declares the harmony of faith and reason.  Bald assertion.

If humans have no supernatural soul, then we are equal to animals.  Bald assertion.  Begging the question.

Claims his philosophical proof is not inductive or probabilistic.  Bald assertion.

Claims his axioms are not reasonably doubtable.  Bald assertion.

Claims faith = reason.  Provably false.  This actually contradicts his own stated definition of faith which is "revealed by god".

Admits that "the trinity" is not knowable through purely rational philosophical investigation.

Charitably claims that "not everyone who fails to be convinced is intellectually dishonest".  A naked rush to disqualify.

And then claims that if someone says "the arguments are not convincing" they are "covering" for their own irrational rejection of god (or a "spiritual" problem).  Classic dime-store psychoanalysis.

"Faith of the Fatherless" is another rush to disqualify by way of dime-store psychoanalysis.

Can you name a prominent female atheist?  Can you name a prominent female prophet or church leader?

Proposes that atheist anger about the concept of god in general is somehow "proof" that god is real.  Non sequitur.
#129
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
@3RU7AL
Morality isn't based on opinion. It's based on survival instinct. The psyche can corrupt it, which makes it appear to be based on opinion, but at its core morality is a universe set of facts.
#130
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@b9_ntt
C.S. Lewis did it better. [LINK]
#131
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@BrutalTruth
It's based on survival instinct.
And survival bias.
#132
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Survival bias is part of the instinct.
#133
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
I won't watch the video. I will copy some arguments from Feser's books, which I think are hard to beat, and post them here.
#134
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Feser’s / Aquinas’ arguments for an “unmoved mover.” (Last Superstition, pp. 95-99)

1. Feser deduces the existence of a First Mover (FM), because
a. Some things move.
b. Something must move them.
c. There cannot be an infinite regress of movers.
d. Therefore, there is a FM, whose existence does not need to be actualized by anything else.

2. A First Mover must be itself unmoved, unchanging, and unmovable.
a. If it was moving or changing, i.e., going from potential to actual, something outside it would have to be moving it. Then it would not be the first mover.
b. It must also be unmovable to avoid an infinite regress of movers. So the FM must be fully actualized, with no potential. Having no potentiality, it could not possibly move or change.

3. There can be only one FM.
a. If there were more than one being of pure actuality, there would have to be some way to distinguish between them; one would have to have some feature the other one lacked.
b. To lack a feature is to have an unrealized potentiality. 
c. A purely actual being has no unrealized potentialities, by definition.

4. An FM must be immaterial.
“To be a material thing entails being changeable in various ways.”

5. An FM must be eternal.
Beginning or ceasing to exist would be an instance of change. It is outside time and space.

6. As “the common first member of all the various essentially ordered causal series that result in these instances of change, the Unmoved Mover is outside and distinct from them all, as that which sustains the entire world in motion from instant to instant.”

7. An FM must be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and have personality.
“But the Unmoved Mover, as the source of all change, is the source of things coming to have the attributes they have. Hence He has these attributes eminently if not formally. That includes every power, so that He is all-powerful. It also includes the intellect and will that human beings possess . . . so that He must be said to have intellect and will, and thus personality, in an analogical sense. It must have them in the highest degree, lacking any limitations inherent in a material being. “Hence He not only has knowledge, but knowledge without limit, being all-knowing.” It has no negative features or defects. Those would be privations, absence of a positive attributes and the FM has all attributes fully actualized. All-good in an analogical sense.”



#135
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@b9_ntt
One counter argument is that Newton (not even einstein!) showed that constant motion and no motion are the essentially same.

That is, being stationary is to have a speed of very precisely zero, which is just one value out of the infinite possibility of speeds.  Far from being the default state, being stationary is infinitely unlikely if you measure speed accurately enough.   What is needed - if anything - is a 'first stopper' not a first mover.

So the initial assumption is wrong - there is no need to examine the rest of the argument.

I still think this is the best explanation for anything:
 

#136
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@BrutalTruth
Survival bias is part of the instinct.
Your ontology is very similar to but not identical to my own.
#137
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@b9_ntt
Feser’s / Aquinas’ arguments for an “unmoved mover.” (Last Superstition, pp. 95-99)

1. Feser deduces the existence of a First Mover (FM), because
a. Some things move.
b. Something must move them.
c. There cannot be an infinite regress of movers.
d. Therefore, there is a FM, whose existence does not need to be actualized by anything else.
Spinoza covers this better.  Congratulations, you now have DEISM which is functionally identical to ATHEISM.

2. A First Mover must be itself unmoved, unchanging, and unmovable.
a. If it was moving or changing, i.e., going from potential to actual, something outside it would have to be moving it. Then it would not be the first mover.
b. It must also be unmovable to avoid an infinite regress of movers. So the FM must be fully actualized, with no potential. Having no potentiality, it could not possibly move or change.
Parmenides explains this better.  Congratulations, you have now disproved the concept of FREEWILL. [LINK]

3. There can be only one FM.
a. If there were more than one being of pure actuality, there would have to be some way to distinguish between them; one would have to have some feature the other one lacked.
b. To lack a feature is to have an unrealized potentiality. 
c. A purely actual being has no unrealized potentialities, by definition.
Spinoza covers this better.  Congratulations, you now have DEISM which is functionally identical to ATHEISM.

4. An FM must be immaterial.
“To be a material thing entails being changeable in various ways.”
Monism.  All conceivable gods must be able to interact with energy/matter/space/time either directly or indirectly and must therefore maintain a fundamental similarity.  Noumenon.

5. An FM must be eternal.
Beginning or ceasing to exist would be an instance of change. It is outside time and space.
Spinoza covers this better.  Congratulations, you now have DEISM which is functionally identical to ATHEISM.

6. As “the common first member of all the various essentially ordered causal series that result in these instances of change, the Unmoved Mover is outside and distinct from them all, as that which sustains the entire world in motion from instant to instant.”
"Outside and distinct" is noumenon.  Not "fundamentally immaterial" but rather epistemologically unknowable.  Magnum Mysterium.

7. An FM must be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and have personality.
WTF mate.  Please expose your axioms. [LINK]

“But the Unmoved Mover, as the source of all change, is the source of things coming to have the attributes they have. Hence He has these attributes eminently if not formally.
WTF mate.  Please expose your axioms. [LINK]

That includes every power, so that He is all-powerful. It also includes the intellect and will that human beings possess . . . so that He must be said to have intellect and will, and thus personality, in an analogical sense. It must have them in the highest degree, lacking any limitations inherent in a material being.
Humans are defined by their limitations.  If a god has no human limitations, then it is not "like a human" and cannot be said to have specifically human characteristics (like intellect and will and personality and gender). [LINK]

“Hence He not only has knowledge, but knowledge without limit, being all-knowing.” It has no negative features or defects. Those would be privations, absence of a positive attributes and the FM has all attributes fully actualized. All-good in an analogical sense.” 
Where did you get "all-good" from?
#138
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Unactualized actualizer. [LINK]

Which seems to be another way of saying "Higgs field".

Or ultimate observer. [LINK]
#139
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
Spinoza covers this better. 
it's not immediately apparent how that refutes Feser's argument!

Fundamentally Feser/Aquinas is based on Aristotelian physics and so their arguments' defects are the defects of Aristolelian physics, in particular that a force is required for sustained motion, which we now know to be false.

Once 1b ('Something must move them')is falsified the rest of the argument is rendered irrelevant.

#140
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Bravo! You have given me lots of things to study. Thank you.
#141
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@b9_ntt
Bravo! You have given me lots of things to study. Thank you.
Let me know if you need more specifics.
#142
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
it's not immediately apparent how that refutes Feser's argument!

Fundamentally Feser/Aquinas is based on Aristotelian physics and so their arguments' defects are the defects of Aristolelian physics, in particular that a force is required for sustained motion, which we now know to be false.

Once 1b ('Something must move them')is falsified the rest of the argument is rendered irrelevant.
If the Higgs field ceases to exist, then matter (energy) becomes incoherent.

This is the argument for why a "god" must be actively sustaining "everything".

It also destroys the argument that a "god" merely allows "evil" to exist, but does not "cause" it.
#143
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
Fundamentally Feser/Aquinas is based on Aristotelian physics and so their arguments' defects are the defects of Aristolelian physics, in particular that a force is required for sustained motion, which we now know to be false.
Once 1b ('Something must move them')is falsified the rest of the argument is rendered irrelevant.

Thank you, too. This is good stuff.
#144
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@b9_ntt
Once 1b ('Something must move them')is falsified the rest of the argument is rendered irrelevant.
I think I'm right... but it's almost a pity because Feser builds such a lot on top of 1b its deflating that its all a waste of time. i suggest that next time you are ever in argument with a 'feserite' you don't let them get past any even slightly dubious premise!

You can prove anything and everything with false premise.


#145
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
From an earlier post:
C.S. Lewis did it better. [LINK] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9fR1vSxNEQ
I don’t think so. Sounds like bs to me.

Parmenides explains this better. Congratulations, you have now disproved the concept of FREEWILL. [LINK] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNjmPyHIoOc
This speaker talks too fast for me.

WTF mate. Please expose your axioms. [LINK] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZMwKPmsbWE
This links to “The End of the World.” I don’t see the relevance.

Humans are defined by their limitations. If a god has no human limitations, then it is not "like a human" and cannot be said to have specifically human characteristics (like intellect and will and personality and gender). [LINK] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-gHgcmFB6Q
This links to a Rick & Morty Cartoon, “We need a hang glider.” I don’t see the relevance.

Unactualized actualizer. [LINK] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJDYPZYMt0Q

This link to Rationality Rules is relevant but includes unnecessary stuff that makes it tedious to listen to. I'm working on it.

Or ultimate observer. [LINK] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM
This one, Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism, is interesting. I’m still studying it.


#146
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@b9_ntt
C.S. Lewis did it better. [LINK] 
I don’t think so. Sounds like bs to me.
C.S. Lewis was a much better master of BS than Feser.

Parmenides explains this better. Congratulations, you have now disproved the concept of FREEWILL. [LINK] 
This speaker talks too fast for me.
Parmenides in 11 minutes. [LINK]

My key point is that an "unmoved mover" "prime mover" "unchanging god" "eternal god" is only compatible with a "block universe" [LINK]

WTF mate. Please expose your axioms. [LINK] 
This links to “The End of the World.” I don’t see the relevance.
Please explain why "An FM must be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and have personality".

Why would anyone take this statement at face-value?  WTF mate.

Humans are defined by their limitations. If a god has no human limitations, then it is not "like a human" and cannot be said to have specifically human characteristics (like intellect and will and personality and gender). [LINK] 
This links to a Rick & Morty Cartoon, “We need a hang glider.” I don’t see the relevance.
The link gives an example of a conceivable "god".  It is funny because this "god" still "thinks like a human" because, presumably, it used to be either an actual human or something more like a human than like a "god".  As its capabilities grow, it makes less and less sense for it to behave "like a human".

Unactualized actualizer. [LINK]
This link to Rationality Rules is relevant but includes unnecessary stuff that makes it tedious to listen to. I'm working on it.
I thought the point/counterpoint format was reasonably informative.

Or ultimate observer. [LINK]
This one, Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism, is interesting. I’m still studying it.
I guess 1 out of 6 isn't bad?  Let me know what you think.  I only agree with this one about 80%.
#147
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain why "An FM must be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and have personality".
Why would anyone take this statement at face-value?  WTF mate.

Feser gave his reasons:
“But the Unmoved Mover, as the source of all change, is the source of things coming to have the attributes they have. Hence He has these attributes eminently if not formally. That includes every power, so that He is all-powerful. It also includes the intellect and will that human beings possess . . . so that He must be said to have intellect and will, and thus personality, in an analogical sense. It must have them in the highest degree, lacking any limitations inherent in a material being. “Hence He not only has knowledge, but knowledge without limit, being all-knowing.” It has no negative features or defects. Those would be privations, absence of a positive attributes and the FM has all attributes fully actualized. All-good in an analogical sense.”

omnipotent: source of all change, of things have the attributes they have, including every power, in the highest degree
personality: must have intellect and will
omniscient: knowledge "in the highest degree"
omnibenevolent: good in the highest degree; can't be bad or evil because those are defined as lack of goodness.

It's all bs of course, but it fits together logically. He knows how to construct an argument.
#148
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@b9_ntt
“But the Unmoved Mover, as the source of all change, is the source of things coming to have the attributes they have.
This is a description of Kant's noumeon.  This is a logical and necessary premise, however I would take issue with the terminology "unmoved mover".

A better description would be "eternal substance".  Something that is eternal and unchanging cannot "move".  It might only "apparently move" from a subjective viewpoint, like that of a human, but to an objective observer, who necessarily views all things and all times with equal clarity, "movement" is "impossible".  Thank you Parmenides.

Hence He has these attributes eminently if not formally.
Wait.  "HE"???????????????????/  Where the heck did we jump to the conclusion that its a HE?  Please explain this snuck premise.

That includes every power, so that He is all-powerful.
If noumenon is all things that would include all conceivable power, axiomatically.

It also includes the intellect and will that human beings possess . . .
If noumenon is all things that would include all conceivable things, axiomatically.

so that He must be said to have intellect and will, and thus personality, in an analogical sense.
If noumenon is all things that would include all conceivable things, axiomatically.

However, it would be illogical to conclude that, as a whole, the vast expanse of all possible existence "has a personality".

It certainly contains or includes humans and humans have a Qualitative attribute we like to call "personality".

But the full scope and breadth of noumenon and its fundamental nature is BEYOND OUR HUMAN EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS (Ein Sof).

It must have them in the highest degree, lacking any limitations inherent in a material being.
Now he says "it"?  It must have all attributes that exist in all possible degrees, but not "unlimited" or "infinite" because INFINITY is an incoherent concept.

“Hence He not only has knowledge, but knowledge without limit, being all-knowing.”
Noumenon contains all possible things, including knowledge, but not "without limit".

It has no negative features or defects.
Noumenon has every possible (subjectively) "negative" feature and or defect because it is literally everything.

Those would be privations, absence of a positive attributes and the FM has all attributes fully actualized. All-good in an analogical sense.”
Noumenon is everything.  There is absolutely no way to logically separate it into either exclusively "all good" or "all bad".
#149
WisdomofAges
WisdomofAges's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 354
0
1
3
WisdomofAges's avatar
WisdomofAges
0
1
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Between YOUR EARS....is the construct of EVIL and some man made GOD garbage to defend YOU...... oh hopeless one......?

The FACT is...that GODS come and go just like the idiots that invent them....

How is it possible that all of the GODS of all the Ancient highly advanced civilizations of the Middle East are reduced to 3 totally
IDIOTIC competing for retarded sheeple slave drone GODS ? = JEW - JESUS - ALLAH....

Correction...the JEWS do not seek to promote and assimilate idiots into their GOD cult......only the spin off GODS competition for stupid
humans which include the JESUS joke....and later the absurd ALLAH God garbage invention....both are twisted psychotic fabrications
of the JEW God of MOSES !   

What of all the other GODS and "Divine Entities"  globally ?   oh, they don't matter....SCREW ALL OF YOU Middle East GOD Con ARTISTS

EVIL = the JEW-JESUS-ALLAH God garbage and all of the DEATH and DESTRUCTION done by RETARDS using these idiot GOD hoaxes 
as scapegoats for ATROCITIES against humanity and EARTH....

there is no greater DISGRACE to HUMANITY and all other life forms than this utter STUPIDITY and BICKERING over Middle East GOD hoaxes

All of these retards can go MURDER EACH OTHER in the name of their IDIOT GOD...then go ROT behind a walled in GOD Concentration Camp..

NO HUMAN EVER NEEDS any of these Middle East GOD hoaxes and the utter insanity of the DOGMA human Parasite Vampires have attached 
to these fake and WORTHLESS GOD HOAXES....the sooner these parasites drop dead the better for all remaining humans who do not need
this Middle East JEW-JESUS-ALLAH GOD garbage

#150
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
A better description would be "eternal substance".  Something that is eternal and unchanging cannot "move".  It might only "apparently move" from a subjective viewpoint, like that of a human, but to an objective observer, who necessarily views all things and all times with equal clarity, "movement" is "impossible".  Thank you Parmenides.

The conscious state of the Creator is a static Reality this is correct, it's a fixed state of awareness that permeates everything. Out of that fixed state of awareness comes forth "movement" and all of creation. However, energy is present with conscious activity and we observe this in the fabric of our universe, this energy is manipulated to create form within that fabric. The Big bang was an explosion generated by this Reality, and this explosion created a giant molding pot for the Creator to manifest whatever It wanted. The amount of energy created from an omnipresent, conscious Source is incredible.