I am using the problem of evil to try and show the apparent incompatibility of human procreation and moral goodness. The problem of evil implies God d...
I am not being idiosyncratic. You are confident that I am. But to be that confident about the matter I'd assume you knew a lot about the problem - mor...
The original problem of evil is a problem for anyone who believes themselves and this world to be the creation of an omnipotent, omniscient, morally g...
No, not remotely irrelevant. If the problem of evil is generated by the introduction of innocent sentient life into the world, then that's - you know ...
You can't refute someone by lolling at them. That isn't philosophy, it is just rude. I've explained why it raises a problem of evil for human procreat...
It is about the problem of evil, as I've just explained. The evils of the world that seem to imply that it is not the creation of an omnipotent, omnis...
What's uncontroversial is that innocent sentient life does not deserve to suffer. Whether guilty sentient life does is another matter. It's irrelevant...
No, a volcano erupting is not bad in and of itself. Or at least, it doesn't seem to be. But put a child on the slopes and then that eruption creates a...
If they're innocent, then they don't deserve to suffer or be treated unequally or lose their dignity. No, I don't see how that follows from anything I...
I still don't understand how you're addressing my argument. Are you saying that no decisions are free and thus nothing we do is right or wrong, blamew...
That's what creates the evil. As I said in the OP, imagine an omnipotent, omniscient, morally good god creates a world similar to this one except that...
I am talking about an omnipotent, omniscient, morally good being, which is traditionally what the word 'God' with an upper case G denotes. But let's n...
Yes, all prescriptions have some person or persons behind them. But that just confirms my second premise, which says precisely that. So I am unclear w...
It's not a trick, it's called 'philosophy'. You know, using reason to figure out what's true. Take a course in critical thinking. Here's a question yo...
Look, you clearly don't know what a valid argument is. This is valid: 1. There are existing prescriptions of reason 2. Any existing prescription is th...
The argument is not invalid or ridiculous. It is valid. It has a conclusion you don't like. Well, I never realized it was that easy and quick to cook ...
It's true of a lot of people. You think ruthless followers of reason are the norm or the exception? that's because you don't recognise a valid argumen...
No, 4 doesn't contradict 2. 4 refers to us lot - humans. It doesn't apply to all subjects. They're consistent, they just entail that Reason is not one...
Well, I was leaving open the possibility that I might have equivocated. I don't think I have, but someone who listens more carefully to reason than I ...
I agree that moral responsibility and free will can largely be used interchangeably. I don't think that's just something compatibilists would say - th...
It's valid according to the canons of logic. Er, no, the exact opposite. All you're doing is expressing your personal conviction - your personal convi...
Well, I take it that 'God' denotes a person with the qualities of omnipotence, omniscience and moral goodness. I can prove that a being with those qua...
Not with you I couldn't - you pretend to be something you're not, namely someone who knows the area (when clearly you don't). Why would I take instruc...
And also, what's the name of the thesis that two acts that are identical in all of their non-moral features will invariably be identical in terms of t...
Er, no. Was one of your parents a goldfish? I say things and they just fall out of your head, don't they? Reason is a person. A person. You know, like...
In the course of this discussion it has become painfully apparent to anyone who actually does know their stuff - that is, someone who's been properly ...
No, I am not positing a Platonic Form. I mean, obviously not. I am positing a person - a subject of experiences. A Patonic Form - whatever one of thos...
I agree that religions are nonsense designed by the dumb to control the dumber. And it is a crying shame that the defence of God has largely fallen to...
There's nothing missing as the argument by means of which I arrive at the conclusion that moral values are the values - or valuings - of a god is long...
It's weird you don't see that it is question begging to insist that a category error has been committed when an argument has been provided that proves...
Correct. Note, a proposition won't be rendered false by you sneering at it. You don't have that power. We can value something as a means, or as an end...
Yes, I don't know what that is. Our source of insight into what's a thing and what's not a thing is our reason. And my reason says that, until more cl...
Like I say, now you are derailing the debate. You are asking questions about how we can know things - anything. That's a huge question and not one dir...
How on earth does that follow from anything I said? Of course we can know what is and isn't a thing - our reason (which are faculties, note - means of...
You're just not getting this. What is and isn't a thing is constitutively determined by Reason. An omnipotent being would be Reason. And thus it is up...
I have literally no idea what you are talking about. And let's keep my penis out of this Hugh Janus. I have no clue - none at all - what a 'concentrat...
First, I do not see why having a desire would be a deficiency. Far from it - a lack of desires will be a deficiency. A being who, for example, has no ...
Comments