Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

O Felix Culpa

Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 9:17:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In this forum I want to continue the discussion of the Problem of any Evil from here,

http://www.debate.org...

In the above debate I argued for a theodicy which is made complete with the notion of a "fortunate fall" of man.

There's something to be said of having the cantus firmus of a past brokenness to make comprehensible the ‘other melodies of felicity,' providing a welcomed counterpoint by complete happiness in heaven. Without such a ‘fixed song' as the initial fall, I doubt that an eternal heaven would be complete, for the prospect of a future fall would seem to weigh heavier. The Christian would never go back from Divine Love with such a necessary cantus firmus or even consider false love.

Thus it is in the experience of happiness, tarnished by pain, that makes us yearn forever for that which is perfect. God succeeds at only a ‘first fall' of the free man with no more potential falls. Thus the necessary condition for a "Wholeness yearn" in a broken world is the divine allowance of pain: just like the necessary condition for a redwood to grow ever towards the sun is that it must first be well-rooted in dirt. In this, "God not only understands but shares the desire for complete & ecstatic happiness. He made me for no other purpose than to enjoy it" (Lewis).
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 9:34:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I consider what you have said to be consistent with the traditional use of the terms, truthful, valid, and interesting.

...

Now what?
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 10:15:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 9:34:08 PM, drafterman wrote:
I consider what you have said to be consistent with the traditional use of the terms, truthful, valid, and interesting.

...

Now what?

Not sure what you're asking.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 10:19:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 10:15:38 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 8/2/2012 9:34:08 PM, drafterman wrote:
I consider what you have said to be consistent with the traditional use of the terms, truthful, valid, and interesting.

...

Now what?

Not sure what you're asking.

I'm asking what the next step in this conversation is.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 10:28:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 10:19:37 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/2/2012 10:15:38 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 8/2/2012 9:34:08 PM, drafterman wrote:
I consider what you have said to be consistent with the traditional use of the terms, truthful, valid, and interesting.

...

Now what?

Not sure what you're asking.

I'm asking what the next step in this conversation is.

Well I'm heading to bed now, but check out UnitedAndy's & my recent debate if you're interested & I'll respond tomorrow morning. I guess the next step would be in answer to what I think your question is, namely if suffering / evil / pain disconfirms theism, or Christianity in particular. My theodicy provides a basis for a no answer. My skeptikism of actual gratuitous evil doubts we're in a good epistemic position vs an all knower to make such probability judgements, and my Existential Problem of Evil proves that ultimately any problem of evil we have can't be used as a positive proof against theism, but rather as a negative existential preference against theism given that we don't prefer whatever evils & God's supposed allowance of them.

(Please read that with charity, lol, I summed a big lot for ya.)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 10:44:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 9:17:36 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
In this forum I want to continue the discussion of the Problem of any Evil from here,

http://www.debate.org...

In the above debate I argued for a theodicy which is made complete with the notion of a "fortunate fall" of man.

There's something to be said of having the cantus firmus of a past brokenness to make comprehensible the ‘other melodies of felicity,' providing a welcomed counterpoint by complete happiness in heaven. Without such a ‘fixed song' as the initial fall, I doubt that an eternal heaven would be complete, for the prospect of a future fall would seem to weigh heavier. The Christian would never go back from Divine Love with such a necessary cantus firmus or even consider false love.

Thus it is in the experience of happiness, tarnished by pain, that makes us yearn forever for that which is perfect. God succeeds at only a ‘first fall' of the free man with no more potential falls. Thus the necessary condition for a "Wholeness yearn" in a broken world is the divine allowance of pain: just like the necessary condition for a redwood to grow ever towards the sun is that it must first be well-rooted in dirt. In this, "God not only understands but shares the desire for complete & ecstatic happiness. He made me for no other purpose than to enjoy it" (Lewis).

It confounds me how people fabricate reasoning for God's supposed actions. All this argument manages to do is shift the question. Why is pain a necessary condition for true happiness? Is it not within his power to remove that condition?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 10:44:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 10:44:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/2/2012 9:17:36 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
In this forum I want to continue the discussion of the Problem of any Evil from here,

http://www.debate.org...

In the above debate I argued for a theodicy which is made complete with the notion of a "fortunate fall" of man.

There's something to be said of having the cantus firmus of a past brokenness to make comprehensible the ‘other melodies of felicity,' providing a welcomed counterpoint by complete happiness in heaven. Without such a ‘fixed song' as the initial fall, I doubt that an eternal heaven would be complete, for the prospect of a future fall would seem to weigh heavier. The Christian would never go back from Divine Love with such a necessary cantus firmus or even consider false love.

Thus it is in the experience of happiness, tarnished by pain, that makes us yearn forever for that which is perfect. God succeeds at only a ‘first fall' of the free man with no more potential falls. Thus the necessary condition for a "Wholeness yearn" in a broken world is the divine allowance of pain: just like the necessary condition for a redwood to grow ever towards the sun is that it must first be well-rooted in dirt. In this, "God not only understands but shares the desire for complete & ecstatic happiness. He made me for no other purpose than to enjoy it" (Lewis).

It confounds me how people fabricate reasoning for God's supposed actions. All this argument manages to do is shift the question. Why is pain a necessary condition for true happiness? Is it not within his power to remove that condition?

Because you're super stupid.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 10:50:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 10:44:51 PM, Ren wrote:

Because you're super stupid.

I was going to insult you back, but there's no point in that. I think your comment speaks for itself.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 10:52:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 10:28:00 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 8/2/2012 10:19:37 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/2/2012 10:15:38 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 8/2/2012 9:34:08 PM, drafterman wrote:
I consider what you have said to be consistent with the traditional use of the terms, truthful, valid, and interesting.

...

Now what?

Not sure what you're asking.

I'm asking what the next step in this conversation is.

Well I'm heading to bed now, but check out UnitedAndy's & my recent debate if you're interested & I'll respond tomorrow morning. I guess the next step would be in answer to what I think your question is, namely if suffering / evil / pain disconfirms theism, or Christianity in particular. My theodicy provides a basis for a no answer. My skeptikism of actual gratuitous evil doubts we're in a good epistemic position vs an all knower to make such probability judgements, and my Existential Problem of Evil proves that ultimately any problem of evil we have can't be used as a positive proof against theism, but rather as a negative existential preference against theism given that we don't prefer whatever evils & God's supposed allowance of them.

(Please read that with charity, lol, I summed a big lot for ya.)

Charity requires me to presume you are telling the truth and making valid arguments. So I'm not sure how that's suppose to advance the conversation or invite true criticism.

Alas.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:07:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 10:44:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/2/2012 9:17:36 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
In this forum I want to continue the discussion of the Problem of any Evil from here,

http://www.debate.org...

In the above debate I argued for a theodicy which is made complete with the notion of a "fortunate fall" of man.

There's something to be said of having the cantus firmus of a past brokenness to make comprehensible the ‘other melodies of felicity,' providing a welcomed counterpoint by complete happiness in heaven. Without such a ‘fixed song' as the initial fall, I doubt that an eternal heaven would be complete, for the prospect of a future fall would seem to weigh heavier. The Christian would never go back from Divine Love with such a necessary cantus firmus or even consider false love.

Thus it is in the experience of happiness, tarnished by pain, that makes us yearn forever for that which is perfect. God succeeds at only a ‘first fall' of the free man with no more potential falls. Thus the necessary condition for a "Wholeness yearn" in a broken world is the divine allowance of pain: just like the necessary condition for a redwood to grow ever towards the sun is that it must first be well-rooted in dirt. In this, "God not only understands but shares the desire for complete & ecstatic happiness. He made me for no other purpose than to enjoy it" (Lewis).

It confounds me how people fabricate reasoning for God's supposed actions. All this argument manages to do is shift the question. Why is pain a necessary condition for true happiness? Is it not within his power to remove that condition?

Recall the definition of omnipotence I gave in the debate, plus the binding resolution together with the purpose or Teleos for which man exists.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:09:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 10:52:54 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/2/2012 10:28:00 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 8/2/2012 10:19:37 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/2/2012 10:15:38 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 8/2/2012 9:34:08 PM, drafterman wrote:
I consider what you have said to be consistent with the traditional use of the terms, truthful, valid, and interesting.

...

Now what?

Not sure what you're asking.

I'm asking what the next step in this conversation is.

Well I'm heading to bed now, but check out UnitedAndy's & my recent debate if you're interested & I'll respond tomorrow morning. I guess the next step would be in answer to what I think your question is, namely if suffering / evil / pain disconfirms theism, or Christianity in particular. My theodicy provides a basis for a no answer. My skeptikism of actual gratuitous evil doubts we're in a good epistemic position vs an all knower to make such probability judgements, and my Existential Problem of Evil proves that ultimately any problem of evil we have can't be used as a positive proof against theism, but rather as a negative existential preference against theism given that we don't prefer whatever evils & God's supposed allowance of them.

(Please read that with charity, lol, I summed a big lot for ya.)

Charity requires me to presume you are telling the truth and making valid arguments. So I'm not sure how that's suppose to advance the conversation or invite true criticism.

Alas.

To the best of my knowledge my argument is valid, you'll have to specify which you think I think is actually true, infant reincarnation, for example, I haven't adopted yet as a truth, just as a possibility given theism.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:10:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 10:50:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/2/2012 10:44:51 PM, Ren wrote:

Because you're super stupid.

I was going to insult you back, but there's no point in that. I think your comment speaks for itself.

Good on you for the higher road.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:26:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 10:50:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/2/2012 10:44:51 PM, Ren wrote:

Because you're super stupid.

I was going to insult you back, but there's no point in that. I think your comment speaks for itself.

Now I feel bad for laughing so much, but that'll go away. It always does.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:32:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 11:26:10 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 8/2/2012 10:50:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/2/2012 10:44:51 PM, Ren wrote:

Because you're super stupid.

I was going to insult you back, but there's no point in that. I think your comment speaks for itself.

Now I feel bad for laughing so much, but that'll go away. It always does.

I laughed a bit too... didn't know if they were buds or not.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 9:51:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Axiom says my contention, "Lastly, any evil is justified if it's outbalanced & first defeated, i.e., if its responded to in a virtuous manner (justice)." wasn't refuted by, "When this falls apart, then comes the mystery card. It's contrived nonsense." So he voted in my favor.

Maikuru says I ignored the examples of suffering & failed to give the necessity of infant suffering while claiming that animal suffering as unknowable which Maikuru says concedes the point. Maikuru also took conduct points since he thinks I dropped "character destruction" & my supposed "hypocrisy of perception." So he didn't vote in my favor.

I think Axiom picked up on something that I may have failed to illuminate. Namely that if suffered natural evils are truly defeated if there's a virtuous response to both potential & actual victims, then this enables an arena in which a free creation can make self forming choices in the pursuit of their's & others' happiness. Connect this notion to God's teleos for man, & we see a basis from which any evil can be justified, since defeat of evil through justice necessitates evils, but then such evils are out-balanced through God's ultimate teleos of man.

Now Maikuru says I ignored examples of suffering but it's hard to see his point since I dedicated two critique sections of the debate to support my denial of gratuitous suffering via said examples. For E1 I said that an all-knower would seem to have morally sufficient reasons to permit infant-death had he known the relevant counterfactuals of what that baby would have grown into (a more painful life with an inability to properly choose, say). This is the only point Maikuru had against my contra-E2, but I offered another critique! I entertained the notion of infant reincarnation into a properly functioning fetus. I then later spoke of how infants develop pain awareness function later on in the frontal lobe so that at best we're also ignorant on if they experience pain as we do. I also spoke of how none, not one of us were ever aware of any pain we experienced at birth, which is evidential. If there's no awareness of pain, there's simply no victim for whom one can charge against God.

As far as Maikuru claiming that I conceded UnitedAndy's point that the suffering of beasts is evidence against theism: I argued that we lack both knowledge of the beast's nature & its teleos for which they exist. We lack knowledge of their teleos because we lack knowledge of their natures. We don't know anything about their psychological makeup or their wills. I also asked if the claim, "the fawn's suffering appears unjustified" itself be justified, especially without knowing it's nature or purpose? This was never responded to so UnitedAndy cannot logically argue a case from ignorance. Hence this wasn't a concession on my part, rather it showed the bankruptcy of UnitedAndy's case. We simply don't stand in a good position to make certain probability judgements of pain awareness, then use those speculative judgements as any sort of proof against an all-knower.

Maikuru then misunderstands that UnitedAndy's "character destruction" point actually helped support my theodicy with respect to "self-forming choices"! Why should I respond to support for my theodicy? To be redundant? This should in now way count as a conduct point. It would be like if I scored a goal for the opposite soccer team and the team with the point received a penalty.

And lastly, if Maikuru were to check the context in which I spoke of perception and the reasonableness of accepting the truth of what we perceive given the absence of any defeater, he would have seen that the context involved truths of which are actually OBTAINABLE with our perception namely our perception of free will. This is the context which he quoted me. Now free will is so immediate it's ridiculous! Moral ontology, on the other hand, is not so immediate. We can gradually discover moral truths but we know a priori that we're free to choose. What I argued in this debate, is that the truths of moral ontology regarding God's all-knowing capacity, is very much unlike our partially knowing capacity. So we can't say with confidence that "when we perceive gratuity [of evil], it stands until we have a defeater." We simply don't stand in such an epistemic position to make that claim against an all knower. We can pro tanto make moral judgements against partial knowers in a pragmatic sense for the sake of society, etc. But to use the same pro tanto standards against an all-knower is unreasonable.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 11:16:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
When you invited me to participate in this conversation, RA, I thought we'd be discussing the PoE, not the debate lol. In any case, I will clarify my vote. It will be brief, as I believe my RFD was straightforward.

At 8/3/2012 9:51:59 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

Maikuru says I ignored the examples of suffering & failed to give the necessity of infant suffering while claiming that animal suffering as unknowable which Maikuru says concedes the point. Maikuru also took conduct points since he thinks I dropped "character destruction" & my supposed "hypocrisy of perception." So he didn't vote in my favor.

Now Maikuru says I ignored examples of suffering but it's hard to see his point since I dedicated two critique sections of the debate to support my denial of gratuitous suffering via said examples. For E1 I said that an all-knower would seem to have morally sufficient reasons to permit infant-death had he known the relevant counterfactuals of what that baby would have grown into (a more painful life with an inability to properly choose, say).

I acknowledged this in my RFD: "While Con argues infant death is a result of future knowledge..." It was not a factor in my vote.

This is the only point Maikuru had against my contra-E2, but I offered another critique! I entertained the notion of infant reincarnation into a properly functioning fetus.

This is a post-death argument. It does not explain or address the necessity of the extent of their pain and suffering prior to death. Failure to defeat this point affirms the resolution.

I then later spoke of how infants develop pain awareness function later on in the frontal lobe so that at best we're also ignorant on if they experience pain as we do. I also spoke of how none, not one of us were ever aware of any pain we experienced at birth, which is evidential. If there's no awareness of pain, there's simply no victim for whom one can charge against God.

You mentioned this in terms of animals in R3 but not for infants until R4. New final round arguments are not considered. Failure to defeat this point affirms the resolution.

As far as Maikuru claiming that I conceded UnitedAndy's point that the suffering of beasts is evidence against theism: I argued that we lack both knowledge of the beast's nature & its teleos for which they exist. We lack knowledge of their teleos because we lack knowledge of their natures. We don't know anything about their psychological makeup or their wills. I also asked if the claim, "the fawn's suffering appears unjustified" itself be justified, especially without knowing it's nature or purpose? This was never responded to so UnitedAndy cannot logically argue a case from ignorance. Hence this wasn't a concession on my part, rather it showed the bankruptcy of UnitedAndy's case. We simply don't stand in a good position to make certain probability judgements of pain awareness, then use those speculative judgements as any sort of proof against an all-knower.

I reject the claim that we know nothing of the nature, will, or psychological make-up of animals. It strikes me as absurd and in contradiction to common knowledge, scientific research, and everyday experiences. Pro's comments on this in R4 are also unanswered. Failure to defeat this point affirms the resolution.

Maikuru then misunderstands that UnitedAndy's "character destruction" point actually helped support my theodicy with respect to "self-forming choices"! Why should I respond to support for my theodicy? To be redundant? This should in now way count as a conduct point. It would be like if I scored a goal for the opposite soccer team and the team with the point received a penalty.

I found no connection between these two points at all. More detailed tagging of specific refutations may have added in understanding here.

And lastly, if Maikuru were to check the context in which I spoke of perception and the reasonableness of accepting the truth of what we perceive given the absence of any defeater, he would have seen that the context involved truths of which are actually OBTAINABLE with our perception namely our perception of free will. This is the context which he quoted me. Now free will is so immediate it's ridiculous! Moral ontology, on the other hand, is not so immediate. We can gradually discover moral truths but we know a priori that we're free to choose. What I argued in this debate, is that the truths of moral ontology regarding God's all-knowing capacity, is very much unlike our partially knowing capacity. So we can't say with confidence that "when we perceive gratuity [of evil], it stands until we have a defeater." We simply don't stand in such an epistemic position to make that claim against an all knower. We can pro tanto make moral judgements against partial knowers in a pragmatic sense for the sake of society, etc. But to use the same pro tanto standards against an all-knower is unreasonable.

I found insufficient justification for moments in which you chose to ignore our partial knower limitation (e.g. infant reincarnation) as opposed to capitalize upon it (e.g. animal suffering).

For those limiting their voting standards strictly to the resolution and the BOP, it is technically impossible for you to win. Luckily for you, very few voters fit that description lol. Good luck and thanks again for the interesting debate!
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 11:50:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/3/2012 11:16:36 PM, Maikuru wrote:
When you invited me to participate in this conversation, RA, I thought we'd be discussing the PoE, not the debate lol. In any case, I will clarify my vote. It will be brief, as I believe my RFD was straightforward.

At 8/3/2012 9:51:59 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

Maikuru says I ignored the examples of suffering & failed to give the necessity of infant suffering while claiming that animal suffering as unknowable which Maikuru says concedes the point. Maikuru also took conduct points since he thinks I dropped "character destruction" & my supposed "hypocrisy of perception." So he didn't vote in my favor.

Now Maikuru says I ignored examples of suffering but it's hard to see his point since I dedicated two critique sections of the debate to support my denial of gratuitous suffering via said examples. For E1 I said that an all-knower would seem to have morally sufficient reasons to permit infant-death had he known the relevant counterfactuals of what that baby would have grown into (a more painful life with an inability to properly choose, say).

I acknowledged this in my RFD: "While Con argues infant death is a result of future knowledge..." It was not a factor in my vote.

This is the only point Maikuru had against my contra-E2, but I offered another critique! I entertained the notion of infant reincarnation into a properly functioning fetus.

This is a post-death argument. It does not explain or address the necessity of the extent of their pain and suffering prior to death. Failure to defeat this point affirms the resolution.

I then later spoke of how infants develop pain awareness function later on in the frontal lobe so that at best we're also ignorant on if they experience pain as we do. I also spoke of how none, not one of us were ever aware of any pain we experienced at birth, which is evidential. If there's no awareness of pain, there's simply no victim for whom one can charge against God.

You mentioned this in terms of animals in R3 but not for infants until R4. New final round arguments are not considered. Failure to defeat this point affirms the resolution.

As far as Maikuru claiming that I conceded UnitedAndy's point that the suffering of beasts is evidence against theism: I argued that we lack both knowledge of the beast's nature & its teleos for which they exist. We lack knowledge of their teleos because we lack knowledge of their natures. We don't know anything about their psychological makeup or their wills. I also asked if the claim, "the fawn's suffering appears unjustified" itself be justified, especially without knowing it's nature or purpose? This was never responded to so UnitedAndy cannot logically argue a case from ignorance. Hence this wasn't a concession on my part, rather it showed the bankruptcy of UnitedAndy's case. We simply don't stand in a good position to make certain probability judgements of pain awareness, then use those speculative judgements as any sort of proof against an all-knower.

I reject the claim that we know nothing of the nature, will, or psychological make-up of animals. It strikes me as absurd and in contradiction to common knowledge, scientific research, and everyday experiences. Pro's comments on this in R4 are also unanswered. Failure to defeat this point affirms the resolution.

Maikuru then misunderstands that UnitedAndy's "character destruction" point actually helped support my theodicy with respect to "self-forming choices"! Why should I respond to support for my theodicy? To be redundant? This should in now way count as a conduct point. It would be like if I scored a goal for the opposite soccer team and the team with the point received a penalty.

I found no connection between these two points at all. More detailed tagging of specific refutations may have added in understanding here.

And lastly, if Maikuru were to check the context in which I spoke of perception and the reasonableness of accepting the truth of what we perceive given the absence of any defeater, he would have seen that the context involved truths of which are actually OBTAINABLE with our perception namely our perception of free will. This is the context which he quoted me. Now free will is so immediate it's ridiculous! Moral ontology, on the other hand, is not so immediate. We can gradually discover moral truths but we know a priori that we're free to choose. What I argued in this debate, is that the truths of moral ontology regarding God's all-knowing capacity, is very much unlike our partially knowing capacity. So we can't say with confidence that "when we perceive gratuity [of evil], it stands until we have a defeater." We simply don't stand in such an epistemic position to make that claim against an all knower. We can pro tanto make moral judgements against partial knowers in a pragmatic sense for the sake of society, etc. But to use the same pro tanto standards against an all-knower is unreasonable.

I found insufficient justification for moments in which you chose to ignore our partial knower limitation (e.g. infant reincarnation) as opposed to capitalize upon it (e.g. animal suffering).

For those limiting their voting standards strictly to the resolution and the BOP, it is technically impossible for you to win. Luckily for you, very few voters fit that description lol. Good luck and thanks again for the interesting debate!

In discussing the debate (on the PoE) we're in effect discussing the PoE. Now infant reincarnation addressed the necessity of the extent of their pain and suffering prior to death by the fact that they simply don't just die and that's all. If the fetus would have survived without a reincarnation for a properly functioning body, then I argued perhaps SFC's would diminish. Hence their death is a necessary condition. As for the suffering I addressed that saying we're ignorance on if they experience pain as we do. Let me ask, are you aware of any qualia when you were an infant? I'd love to hear about it since that would be quite the exception! Now I asked UA to make it five rounds, he didn't (for obvious reasons) so I was limited- anyhow (since I'm not refuting your debate vote but your argument), respond to the fact that no infant awareness of pain is experience, remembered by us or anything supporting that babies in fact experience pain as we do even though we KNOW their cerebral cortex-frontal lobe isn't developed enough to have higher order states.

Regarding E2, please cite common knowledge, scientific research, and everyday experiences that lend support to animals having a higher-order awareness of pain like we do. All the scientific, common knowledge and everday experiences I've been privy to merely show that animals REACT to stimulus and causal in/out-puts are apparent. But remember I conceded that already. I think you missed my point there. Also, what is the essence of an animal? What's their nature and purpose? Nobody knows! And by nature I mean the metaphysical sense as being qua being.

Regarding the character destruction, I listed links to what an SFC is and it should've been obvious how character destruction is self inflicted, not God inflicted, given my theodicy & free will. I didn't want to waste time on this issue since it was an obvious red-herring.

Please expound on what you mean by,

"I found insufficient justification for moments in which you chose to ignore our partial knower limitation (e.g. infant reincarnation) as opposed to capitalize upon it (e.g. animal suffering)."

Partially knowing something differs from standing in a good position to know something at all with ANY degree of confidence.

Now I'm not as concerned with votes as Pro was but I don't think it's "technically impossible for me to win" the debate since I negated P1 readily enough but you focussed most of your