Total Posts:163|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Where the Canaanite massacres genocide?

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 11:03:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This thread if for ethang who contends that the Canaanite slaughter(s) weren't genocide.

First, some definitions:

God: God: is the creator and sustainer of the universe and is unlimited with regard to knowledge (omniscience), power (omnipotence), extension (omnipresence), and moral perfection.

Genocide: Genocide: ..any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Second, let's get the texts in mind:

"1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you" 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. " [Deut 7:1-2]"

"16However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.17Completely destroy[a]them"the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites"as the Lord your God has commanded you." [Deut 20:16-18]

I contend these acts were genocide and thus God didn't order them (because a perfectly good being wouldn't do such a thing).

In other words, I believe something like the following argument to be sound:

(1) If God is perfectly good, he never commands the extermination of one people by another unless there is some great good that he cannot achieve without doing so.
(2) According to the biblical record, God sometimes commanded the extermination of one people by another.
(3) We see that the biblical rationale for these commands is very poor.
(4) If God is perfectly good, then the biblical record sometimes misrepresents him.

I think (1) and (2) are uncontroversial. (3) is where the action is at. I think we can see that the typical "biblical rationales" given are indeed very poor. For instance, it is wrong to kill Canaanite women in order to prevent Israelite men from marrying them or to prevent them from "abhorrent religious practices". It is wrong to kill the Canaanites for the sins of their ancestors (or children for the sins of their fathers and mothers). It would be a monstrous thing for God to command PEOPLE to exterminate another people group as it would be bad for spiritual and moral development.

I think there numerous reasons for not accepting these narratives as anything but morally horrendous and not attributable to God.

I'll just take bits and parts of what I have wrote in previous debates:

"Rationalizing Genocide

Why are we taking the testimony of the perpetrators of genocide so literally and at face value? Of course the perpetrators of genocide are going to make it seem as if their enemies are the most evil and malevolent and threatening people possible - it's simply a psychological fact that humans will often demonize each other in order to justify and rationalize committing moral atrocities on each other that they wouldn't do otherwise....

There seem to be elements in common that provide the rationale for genocide: (1.1) Divide: distinguish between an in and out-group while asserting the superiority of the in group and the inferiority of the out group. (2.) Demonize: accuse the out-group of promoting an injustice, inequality, or presenting a threat. (3.1) Destroy: implore the in-group to redress the perceived injustice, with divine/transcendent backing. [6] I think, Israel's reasons (rationalizations) given for the genocide clearly fit this pattern. WRT to (1.1) the Israelites clearly think they are divinely chosen and that God has given them the land that the Canaanites occupy thus giving them superiority (Gen 15:18-21). (2.1) The Canaanites have no right to the land for doing "unclean" things (Lev 18:24-27). (3.1) God gives the Israelites divine license to wipe out the Canaanites (Deut 20:16-18, as quoted above). Why should we accept this account of genocide as any different from an other obviously failed rationales for genocide such as those of the Nazis or Hutus?"

"Child Killers

I think this reason right here should be enough to affirm the resolution: even if we suppose that the adult Canaanites were irredeemably evil - and there's not really a reason we should concede that - why in the world should we suppose that the children are irredeemably evil and should be wiped out along with them? Children are the innocent ones, and nearly all recognize that losing children is one of wars greatest tragedies. But, in the Israelites' case, Canaanite children aren't just dying as "collateral damage" - the Israelites are specifically targeting the children as targets for death for the crimes of their elders. As if children could be held morally responsible for the sins of their fathers and mothers."

"Soul-Destroying Effects

But setting those above reasons aside there are even more problematic points. Not only is genocide a moral atrocity to the victims, it is also a moral atrocity to the victimizer. We have numerous reports and ample evidence today that show the devastating effects of war on the soldiers who do the killing. It often scars these soldiers for the their entire lives (which gives rise to our concept of PTSD). War does horrible things to people and can turn normal people into ones who will either willingly or unwillingly commit moral atrocities. I would suggest that nothing could be more traumatizing than a solider having to kill children under divine sanction which would be done under more brutal conditions than most modern day analogues....Perhaps someone could say "Well, all that is technically true but times were much more brutal back then; killing children wouldn't be so hard on the Israelites because they'd be desensitized to it living in those hard times." That may very well be true, but that only highlights more problems. Don't we lament the fact that a normal person can be turned into someone who actually enjoys or is numb to the brutalizing effects of war (or, more specifically, murdering children)?"

"Present day genocide?

Supposing we accept the rationale for the Canaanite genocide, what, exactly, would rule out us using the underlying rationalizations to authorize modern day genocide? It's already been shown time and again that the genocides in the bible have been used to justify religious violence in the past. If one thinks their God had authorized genocide in the past, why not in the present or future? Imagine I said that God told me that killing all Muslims would be an excellent idea (including those "evil" Muslim children that had the misfortune to be born to the wrong family). Why would Christians reject my claim to a divine command? I maintain the reason would be a moral one. Other Christians would rightly recognize that such an evil act is incompatible with the nature of a perfectly good God and take it to mean that I did not receive a true divine command to exterminate all Muslims. Of course, if one does not accept that these genocide texts are being erroneously attributed to God then what reason has another Christian to reject my "divine" command?"
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 11:27:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 11:03:43 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
This thread if for ethang who contends that the Canaanite slaughter(s) weren't genocide.

First, some definitions:

God: God: is the creator and sustainer of the universe and is unlimited with regard to knowledge (omniscience), power (omnipotence), extension (omnipresence), and moral perfection.

Genocide: Genocide: ..any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Second, let's get the texts in mind:

"1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you" 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. " [Deut 7:1-2]"

"16However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.17Completely destroy[a]them"the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites"as the Lord your God has commanded you." [Deut 20:16-18]

I contend these acts were genocide and thus God didn't order them (because a perfectly good being wouldn't do such a thing).

In other words, I believe something like the following argument to be sound:

(1) If God is perfectly good, he never commands the extermination of one people by another unless there is some great good that he cannot achieve without doing so.
(2) According to the biblical record, God sometimes commanded the extermination of one people by another.
(3) We see that the biblical rationale for these commands is very poor.
(4) If God is perfectly good, then the biblical record sometimes misrepresents him.

I think (1) and (2) are uncontroversial. (3) is where the action is at. I think we can see that the typical "biblical rationales" given are indeed very poor. For instance, it is wrong to kill Canaanite women in order to prevent Israelite men from marrying them or to prevent them from "abhorrent religious practices". It is wrong to kill the Canaanites for the sins of their ancestors (or children for the sins of their fathers and mothers). It would be a monstrous thing for God to command PEOPLE to exterminate another people group as it would be bad for spiritual and moral development.

I think there numerous reasons for not accepting these narratives as anything but morally horrendous and not attributable to God.

I'll just take bits and parts of what I have wrote in previous debates:

"Rationalizing Genocide

Why are we taking the testimony of the perpetrators of genocide so literally and at face value? Of course the perpetrators of genocide are going to make it seem as if their enemies are the most evil and malevolent and threatening people possible - it's simply a psychological fact that humans will often demonize each other in order to justify and rationalize committing moral atrocities on each other that they wouldn't do otherwise....

There seem to be elements in common that provide the rationale for genocide: (1.1) Divide: distinguish between an in and out-group while asserting the superiority of the in group and the inferiority of the out group. (2.) Demonize: accuse the out-group of promoting an injustice, inequality, or presenting a threat. (3.1) Destroy: implore the in-group to redress the perceived injustice, with divine/transcendent backing. [6] I think, Israel's reasons (rationalizations) given for the genocide clearly fit this pattern. WRT to (1.1) the Israelites clearly think they are divinely chosen and that God has given them the land that the Canaanites occupy thus giving them superiority (Gen 15:18-21). (2.1) The Canaanites have no right to the land for doing "unclean" things (Lev 18:24-27). (3.1) God gives the Israelites divine license to wipe out the Canaanites (Deut 20:16-18, as quoted above). Why should we accept this account of genocide as any different from an other obviously failed rationales for genocide such as those of the Nazis or Hutus?"

"Child Killers

I think this reason right here should be enough to affirm the resolution: even if we suppose that the adult Canaanites were irredeemably evil - and there's not really a reason we should concede that - why in the world should we suppose that the children are irredeemably evil and should be wiped out along with them? Children are the innocent ones, and nearly all recognize that losing children is one of wars greatest tragedies. But, in the Israelites' case, Canaanite children aren't just dying as "collateral damage" - the Israelites are specifically targeting the children as targets for death for the crimes of their elders. As if children could be held morally responsible for the sins of their fathers and mothers."

"Soul-Destroying Effects

But setting those above reasons aside there are even more problematic points. Not only is genocide a moral atrocity to the victims, it is also a moral atrocity to the victimizer. We have numerous reports and ample evidence today that show the devastating effects of war on the soldiers who do the killing. It often scars these soldiers for the their entire lives (which gives rise to our concept of PTSD). War does horrible things to people and can turn normal people into ones who will either willingly or unwillingly commit moral atrocities. I would suggest that nothing could be more traumatizing than a solider having to kill children under divine sanction which would be done under more brutal conditions than most modern day analogues....Perhaps someone could say "Well, all that is technically true but times were much more brutal back then; killing children wouldn't be so hard on the Israelites because they'd be desensitized to it living in those hard times." That may very well be true, but that only highlights more problems. Don't we lament the fact that a normal person can be turned into someone who actually enjoys or is numb to the brutalizing effects of war (or, more specifically, murdering children)?"

"Present day genocide?

Supposing we accept the rationale for the Canaanite genocide, what, exactly, would rule out us using the underlying rationalizations to authorize modern day genocide? It's already been shown time and again that the genocides in the bible have been used to justify religious violence in the past. If one thinks their God had authorized genocide in the past, why not in the present or future? Imagine I said that God told me that killing all Muslims would be an excellent idea (including those "evil" Muslim children that had the misfortune to be born to the wrong family). Why would Christians reject my claim to a divine command? I maintain the reason would be a moral one. Other Christians would rightly recognize that such an evil act is incompatible with the nature of a perfectly good God and take it to mean that I did not receive a true divine command to exterminate all Muslims. Of course, if one does not accept that these genocide texts are being erroneously attributed to God then what reason has another Christian to reject my "divine" command?"

1. If evil is absolutely immoral
2. And murder is evil,
3. Then, murder is absolutely immoral.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 11:33:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So, the theological principle (God must not allow gratuitous suffering) is uncontroversial when you make an argument, but I make one, oh it controversial and you mention people that argue against it lol

"Peter Van Inwagen's no minimum argument." - You to me
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 11:43:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, if that's how you define God, then there is only one argument for God's existence: The Modal Ontological Argument. No other argument could establish tri-omniness. The Kalam? Fine-Tuning? Even the Moral argument cannot establish God.

Christians tend to pull a bait and switch. They argue for some vague mind, or person, using cosmological arguments or fine-tuning, but that isn't sufficient to establish God according to their own definitions.

So, you can accept that definition of God PCP, but then you have to say the Kalam, Fine-Tuning, and Moral Arguments aren't really arguments for "God".
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:00:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 11:33:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So, the theological principle (God must not allow gratuitous suffering) is uncontroversial when you make an argument, but I make one, oh it controversial and you mention people that argue against it lol

"Peter Van Inwagen's no minimum argument." - You to me

Way to to pull it out of context, smh. You asked if there were any arguments against the claim that God must not allow gratuitous suffering, and I mentioned his argument(s). I never claimed I endorsed them.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:04:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:00:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 11:33:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So, the theological principle (God must not allow gratuitous suffering) is uncontroversial when you make an argument, but I make one, oh it controversial and you mention people that argue against it lol

"Peter Van Inwagen's no minimum argument." - You to me

Way to to pull it out of context, smh. You asked if there were any arguments against the claim that God must not allow gratuitous suffering, and I mentioned his argument(s). I never claimed I endorsed them.

Way to pull what I am saying out of context. I never asked for arguments against the claim. I claimed it was uncontroversial:

"This should be uncontroversial since this is an argument specifically against the classical philosophical view of God (if this is not your conception of God, then this argument isn't for you). God by definition is the greatest possible being, and is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. A maximally great being would be necessary, so if God is possible then he is necessary (this is true due to modal axiom S5). This would mean that benevolence would hold in every possible world. This entails that if God is possible, then every possible world has no gratuitous suffering (as benevolence necessitates that all suffering has a morally sufficient reason). If gratuitous suffering is even possible, and exists in some possible world, then God is not possible. If God was possible, then in no possible world would there be gratuitous suffering. So if it is the case that gratuitous suffering is possible; God is not possible. Simple."

Then you posted some dude who argued against it, apparently, trying to show "controversy". It doesn't matter whether you agreed or not.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:07:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 11:43:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, if that's how you define God, then there is only one argument for God's existence: The Modal Ontological Argument. No other argument could establish tri-omniness. The Kalam? Fine-Tuning? Even the Moral argument cannot establish God.

Christians tend to pull a bait and switch. They argue for some vague mind, or person, using cosmological arguments or fine-tuning, but that isn't sufficient to establish God according to their own definitions.

So, you can accept that definition of God PCP, but then you have to say the Kalam, Fine-Tuning, and Moral Arguments aren't really arguments for "God".

I don't need a single argument to prove every single attribute of God; cumulative arguments work too. Just because an argument is isn't sufficient on it's own to prove a conclusion, doesn't mean it can't provide evidence for some conclusion.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:07:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Nvm, just read the thread again and you were right, I took you out of context. I got you confused with UniteDandy as well, as you quoted my convo with him.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:09:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:07:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 11:43:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, if that's how you define God, then there is only one argument for God's existence: The Modal Ontological Argument. No other argument could establish tri-omniness. The Kalam? Fine-Tuning? Even the Moral argument cannot establish God.

Christians tend to pull a bait and switch. They argue for some vague mind, or person, using cosmological arguments or fine-tuning, but that isn't sufficient to establish God according to their own definitions.

So, you can accept that definition of God PCP, but then you have to say the Kalam, Fine-Tuning, and Moral Arguments aren't really arguments for "God".

I don't need a single argument to prove every single attribute of God; cumulative arguments work too. Just because an argument is isn't sufficient on it's own to prove a conclusion, doesn't mean it can't provide evidence for some conclusion.

So you admit the "God exists" at the end of those arguments are non-sequiturs and they don't establish that conclusion by themselves? fine with me.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:11:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:07:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 11:43:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, if that's how you define God, then there is only one argument for God's existence: The Modal Ontological Argument. No other argument could establish tri-omniness. The Kalam? Fine-Tuning? Even the Moral argument cannot establish God.

Christians tend to pull a bait and switch. They argue for some vague mind, or person, using cosmological arguments or fine-tuning, but that isn't sufficient to establish God according to their own definitions.

So, you can accept that definition of God PCP, but then you have to say the Kalam, Fine-Tuning, and Moral Arguments aren't really arguments for "God".

I don't need a single argument to prove every single attribute of God; cumulative arguments work too. Just because an argument is isn't sufficient on it's own to prove a conclusion, doesn't mean it can't provide evidence for some conclusion.

Also, I would love to hear this collective case for tri-omnism, because I have never heard one!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:12:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You can't have your cake and eat it too...

If God is tri-omni by definition then all arguments for God, accept the Modal Ontological Argument, are non-sequiturs.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:12:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:04:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:00:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 11:33:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So, the theological principle (God must not allow gratuitous suffering) is uncontroversial when you make an argument, but I make one, oh it controversial and you mention people that argue against it lol

"Peter Van Inwagen's no minimum argument." - You to me

Way to to pull it out of context, smh. You asked if there were any arguments against the claim that God must not allow gratuitous suffering, and I mentioned his argument(s). I never claimed I endorsed them.

Way to pull what I am saying out of context. I never asked for arguments against the claim. I claimed it was uncontroversial:

"This should be uncontroversial since this is an argument specifically against the classical philosophical view of God (if this is not your conception of God, then this argument isn't for you). God by definition is the greatest possible being, and is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. A maximally great being would be necessary, so if God is possible then he is necessary (this is true due to modal axiom S5). This would mean that benevolence would hold in every possible world. This entails that if God is possible, then every possible world has no gratuitous suffering (as benevolence necessitates that all suffering has a morally sufficient reason). If gratuitous suffering is even possible, and exists in some possible world, then God is not possible. If God was possible, then in no possible world would there be gratuitous suffering. So if it is the case that gratuitous suffering is possible; God is not possible. Simple."

Then you posted some dude who argued against it, apparently, trying to show "controversy". It doesn't matter whether you agreed or not.

Lol, then it isn't uncontroversial. There are a substantial minority philosophers who think his arguments are good. I was bringing up the fact that it ISN'T uncontroversial, and implying that you need to do more to argue in it's favor. So...what is your point in bring this up again? That the "no gratuitious suffering" principle is controversial....and? That in and of itself says nothing about its correctness.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:17:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:12:52 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:04:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:00:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 11:33:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So, the theological principle (God must not allow gratuitous suffering) is uncontroversial when you make an argument, but I make one, oh it controversial and you mention people that argue against it lol

"Peter Van Inwagen's no minimum argument." - You to me

Way to to pull it out of context, smh. You asked if there were any arguments against the claim that God must not allow gratuitous suffering, and I mentioned his argument(s). I never claimed I endorsed them.

Way to pull what I am saying out of context. I never asked for arguments against the claim. I claimed it was uncontroversial:

"This should be uncontroversial since this is an argument specifically against the classical philosophical view of God (if this is not your conception of God, then this argument isn't for you). God by definition is the greatest possible being, and is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. A maximally great being would be necessary, so if God is possible then he is necessary (this is true due to modal axiom S5). This would mean that benevolence would hold in every possible world. This entails that if God is possible, then every possible world has no gratuitous suffering (as benevolence necessitates that all suffering has a morally sufficient reason). If gratuitous suffering is even possible, and exists in some possible world, then God is not possible. If God was possible, then in no possible world would there be gratuitous suffering. So if it is the case that gratuitous suffering is possible; God is not possible. Simple."

Then you posted some dude who argued against it, apparently, trying to show "controversy". It doesn't matter whether you agreed or not.

Lol, then it isn't uncontroversial. There are a substantial minority philosophers who think his arguments are good. I was bringing up the fact that it ISN'T uncontroversial, and implying that you need to do more to argue in it's favor. So...what is your point in bring this up again? That the "no gratuitious suffering" principle is controversial....and? That in and of itself says nothing about its correctness.

Well, that is weird, because the only "defense" your first premise (which implies the theological principle) in this thread is that it is uncontroversial. If that doesn't have anything to do with truth, then why not actually defend that premises?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:18:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:12:52 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:04:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:00:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 11:33:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So, the theological principle (God must not allow gratuitous suffering) is uncontroversial when you make an argument, but I make one, oh it controversial and you mention people that argue against it lol

"Peter Van Inwagen's no minimum argument." - You to me

Way to to pull it out of context, smh. You asked if there were any arguments against the claim that God must not allow gratuitous suffering, and I mentioned his argument(s). I never claimed I endorsed them.

Way to pull what I am saying out of context. I never asked for arguments against the claim. I claimed it was uncontroversial:

"This should be uncontroversial since this is an argument specifically against the classical philosophical view of God (if this is not your conception of God, then this argument isn't for you). God by definition is the greatest possible being, and is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. A maximally great being would be necessary, so if God is possible then he is necessary (this is true due to modal axiom S5). This would mean that benevolence would hold in every possible world. This entails that if God is possible, then every possible world has no gratuitous suffering (as benevolence necessitates that all suffering has a morally sufficient reason). If gratuitous suffering is even possible, and exists in some possible world, then God is not possible. If God was possible, then in no possible world would there be gratuitous suffering. So if it is the case that gratuitous suffering is possible; God is not possible. Simple."

Then you posted some dude who argued against it, apparently, trying to show "controversy". It doesn't matter whether you agreed or not.

Lol, then it isn't uncontroversial. There are a substantial minority philosophers who think his arguments are good. I was bringing up the fact that it ISN'T uncontroversial, and implying that you need to do more to argue in it's favor. So...what is your point in bring this up again? That the "no gratuitious suffering" principle is controversial....and? That in and of itself says nothing about its correctness.

You seem to be all over the place here. If the theological premise controversial, or not? Because you just admitted it was in your last post, but said it isn't when you say premise 1 of your argument is uncontroversial, which assumes God wouldn't allow gratuitous suffering.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:20:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:17:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:12:52 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:04:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:00:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 11:33:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So, the theological principle (God must not allow gratuitous suffering) is uncontroversial when you make an argument, but I make one, oh it controversial and you mention people that argue against it lol

"Peter Van Inwagen's no minimum argument." - You to me

Way to to pull it out of context, smh. You asked if there were any arguments against the claim that God must not allow gratuitous suffering, and I mentioned his argument(s). I never claimed I endorsed them.

Way to pull what I am saying out of context. I never asked for arguments against the claim. I claimed it was uncontroversial:

"This should be uncontroversial since this is an argument specifically against the classical philosophical view of God (if this is not your conception of God, then this argument isn't for you). God by definition is the greatest possible being, and is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. A maximally great being would be necessary, so if God is possible then he is necessary (this is true due to modal axiom S5). This would mean that benevolence would hold in every possible world. This entails that if God is possible, then every possible world has no gratuitous suffering (as benevolence necessitates that all suffering has a morally sufficient reason). If gratuitous suffering is even possible, and exists in some possible world, then God is not possible. If God was possible, then in no possible world would there be gratuitous suffering. So if it is the case that gratuitous suffering is possible; God is not possible. Simple."

Then you posted some dude who argued against it, apparently, trying to show "controversy". It doesn't matter whether you agreed or not.

Lol, then it isn't uncontroversial. There are a substantial minority philosophers who think his arguments are good. I was bringing up the fact that it ISN'T uncontroversial, and implying that you need to do more to argue in it's favor. So...what is your point in bring this up again? That the "no gratuitious suffering" principle is controversial....and? That in and of itself says nothing about its correctness.

Well, that is weird, because the only "defense" your first premise (which implies the theological principle) in this thread is that it is uncontroversial. If that doesn't have anything to do with truth, then why not actually defend that premises?

Not really weird. I will defend it if ethang disputes it. I don't have unlimited space or unlimited time. I brought up reasons for affirming where I think most people will take objection.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:21:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This seems like a blatant contradiction. Your first premise in this thread is essentially the theological principle (God wouldn't allow suffering without a greater good, which means no gratuitous suffering), and you said it was uncontroversial. Now you are saying "yup, it is controversial!" lol
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:23:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"(1) If God is perfectly good, he never commands the extermination of one people by another unless there is some great good that he cannot achieve without doing so."

That is the "God wouldn't allow gratuitous suffering" principle.

You said it was uncontroversial when defending your argument, but when I use the same principle, it is controversial... Interesting.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:24:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:18:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:12:52 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:04:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:00:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 11:33:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So, the theological principle (God must not allow gratuitous suffering) is uncontroversial when you make an argument, but I make one, oh it controversial and you mention people that argue against it lol

"Peter Van Inwagen's no minimum argument." - You to me

Way to to pull it out of context, smh. You asked if there were any arguments against the claim that God must not allow gratuitous suffering, and I mentioned his argument(s). I never claimed I endorsed them.

Way to pull what I am saying out of context. I never asked for arguments against the claim. I claimed it was uncontroversial:

"This should be uncontroversial since this is an argument specifically against the classical philosophical view of God (if this is not your conception of God, then this argument isn't for you). God by definition is the greatest possible being, and is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. A maximally great being would be necessary, so if God is possible then he is necessary (this is true due to modal axiom S5). This would mean that benevolence would hold in every possible world. This entails that if God is possible, then every possible world has no gratuitous suffering (as benevolence necessitates that all suffering has a morally sufficient reason). If gratuitous suffering is even possible, and exists in some possible world, then God is not possible. If God was possible, then in no possible world would there be gratuitous suffering. So if it is the case that gratuitous suffering is possible; God is not possible. Simple."

Then you posted some dude who argued against it, apparently, trying to show "controversy". It doesn't matter whether you agreed or not.

Lol, then it isn't uncontroversial. There are a substantial minority philosophers who think his arguments are good. I was bringing up the fact that it ISN'T uncontroversial, and implying that you need to do more to argue in it's favor. So...what is your point in bring this up again? That the "no gratuitious suffering" principle is controversial....and? That in and of itself says nothing about its correctness.

You seem to be all over the place here. If the theological premise controversial, or not? Because you just admitted it was in your last post, but said it isn't when you say premise 1 of your argument is uncontroversial, which assumes God wouldn't allow gratuitous suffering.

Are you serious? Things can be controversial in one context, but uncontroversial in another context. When I'm talking to another Christian it's uncontroversial that God exists and we get on to discussing specific theological tenets. When I'm talking to an atheist it's controversial that God exists.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:26:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:24:43 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:18:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:12:52 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:04:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:00:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 11:33:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So, the theological principle (God must not allow gratuitous suffering) is uncontroversial when you make an argument, but I make one, oh it controversial and you mention people that argue against it lol

"Peter Van Inwagen's no minimum argument." - You to me

Way to to pull it out of context, smh. You asked if there were any arguments against the claim that God must not allow gratuitous suffering, and I mentioned his argument(s). I never claimed I endorsed them.

Way to pull what I am saying out of context. I never asked for arguments against the claim. I claimed it was uncontroversial:

"This should be uncontroversial since this is an argument specifically against the classical philosophical view of God (if this is not your conception of God, then this argument isn't for you). God by definition is the greatest possible being, and is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. A maximally great being would be necessary, so if God is possible then he is necessary (this is true due to modal axiom S5). This would mean that benevolence would hold in every possible world. This entails that if God is possible, then every possible world has no gratuitous suffering (as benevolence necessitates that all suffering has a morally sufficient reason). If gratuitous suffering is even possible, and exists in some possible world, then God is not possible. If God was possible, then in no possible world would there be gratuitous suffering. So if it is the case that gratuitous suffering is possible; God is not possible. Simple."

Then you posted some dude who argued against it, apparently, trying to show "controversy". It doesn't matter whether you agreed or not.

Lol, then it isn't uncontroversial. There are a substantial minority philosophers who think his arguments are good. I was bringing up the fact that it ISN'T uncontroversial, and implying that you need to do more to argue in it's favor. So...what is your point in bring this up again? That the "no gratuitious suffering" principle is controversial....and? That in and of itself says nothing about its correctness.

You seem to be all over the place here. If the theological premise controversial, or not? Because you just admitted it was in your last post, but said it isn't when you say premise 1 of your argument is uncontroversial, which assumes God wouldn't allow gratuitous suffering.

Are you serious? Things can be controversial in one context, but uncontroversial in another context. When I'm talking to another Christian it's uncontroversial that God exists and we get on to discussing specific theological tenets. When I'm talking to an atheist it's controversial that God exists.

That doesn't matter, nice red-herring. That attributes of God aren't dependent on his existence buddy lol Ever heard of conditional statements?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:27:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:23:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"(1) If God is perfectly good, he never commands the extermination of one people by another unless there is some great good that he cannot achieve without doing so."

That is the "God wouldn't allow gratuitous suffering" principle.

You said it was uncontroversial when defending your argument, but when I use the same principle, it is controversial... Interesting.

No....you realize I could agree with PvI's no minimum argument and still endorse 1 right?

There's a difference between God COMMANDING an evil and God ALLOWING an evil.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:27:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:24:43 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:18:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:12:52 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:04:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:00:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 11:33:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So, the theological principle (God must not allow gratuitous suffering) is uncontroversial when you make an argument, but I make one, oh it controversial and you mention people that argue against it lol

"Peter Van Inwagen's no minimum argument." - You to me

Way to to pull it out of context, smh. You asked if there were any arguments against the claim that God must not allow gratuitous suffering, and I mentioned his argument(s). I never claimed I endorsed them.

Way to pull what I am saying out of context. I never asked for arguments against the claim. I claimed it was uncontroversial:

"This should be uncontroversial since this is an argument specifically against the classical philosophical view of God (if this is not your conception of God, then this argument isn't for you). God by definition is the greatest possible being, and is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. A maximally great being would be necessary, so if God is possible then he is necessary (this is true due to modal axiom S5). This would mean that benevolence would hold in every possible world. This entails that if God is possible, then every possible world has no gratuitous suffering (as benevolence necessitates that all suffering has a morally sufficient reason). If gratuitous suffering is even possible, and exists in some possible world, then God is not possible. If God was possible, then in no possible world would there be gratuitous suffering. So if it is the case that gratuitous suffering is possible; God is not possible. Simple."

Then you posted some dude who argued against it, apparently, trying to show "controversy". It doesn't matter whether you agreed or not.

Lol, then it isn't uncontroversial. There are a substantial minority philosophers who think his arguments are good. I was bringing up the fact that it ISN'T uncontroversial, and implying that you need to do more to argue in it's favor. So...what is your point in bring this up again? That the "no gratuitious suffering" principle is controversial....and? That in and of itself says nothing about its correctness.

You seem to be all over the place here. If the theological premise controversial, or not? Because you just admitted it was in your last post, but said it isn't when you say premise 1 of your argument is uncontroversial, which assumes God wouldn't allow gratuitous suffering.

Are you serious? Things can be controversial in one context, but uncontroversial in another context. When I'm talking to another Christian it's uncontroversial that God exists and we get on to discussing specific theological tenets. When I'm talking to an atheist it's controversial that God exists.

Ask an Atheist, if God exists there is no gratuitous suffering, this is the basis for most Atheistic arguments lol If anything, that should be more controversial with the theists, as they can avoid the PoE that way.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:28:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:27:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:23:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"(1) If God is perfectly good, he never commands the extermination of one people by another unless there is some great good that he cannot achieve without doing so."

That is the "God wouldn't allow gratuitous suffering" principle.

You said it was uncontroversial when defending your argument, but when I use the same principle, it is controversial... Interesting.

No....you realize I could agree with PvI's no minimum argument and still endorse 1 right?

There's a difference between God COMMANDING an evil and God ALLOWING an evil.

No there is isn't. Commanding evil, and allowing evil = EVIL.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:29:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:27:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:23:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"(1) If God is perfectly good, he never commands the extermination of one people by another unless there is some great good that he cannot achieve without doing so."

That is the "God wouldn't allow gratuitous suffering" principle.

You said it was uncontroversial when defending your argument, but when I use the same principle, it is controversial... Interesting.


No....you realize I could agree with PvI's no minimum argument and still endorse 1 right?

Ya, but you can't on one hand say the theological premise is uncontroversial when you use your argument, but when I use one with the SAME PRINCIPLE, oh, it is controversial.


There's a difference between God COMMANDING an evil and God ALLOWING an evil.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:32:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:28:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:27:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:23:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"(1) If God is perfectly good, he never commands the extermination of one people by another unless there is some great good that he cannot achieve without doing so."

That is the "God wouldn't allow gratuitous suffering" principle.

You said it was uncontroversial when defending your argument, but when I use the same principle, it is controversial... Interesting.

No....you realize I could agree with PvI's no minimum argument and still endorse 1 right?

There's a difference between God COMMANDING an evil and God ALLOWING an evil.

No there is isn't. Commanding evil, and allowing evil = EVIL.

Nope. Good Lord.

(1) Mr. Jones sees Billy picking on Tommy. He allows Billy to pick on Tommy for two minutes and then steps in, using Billy"s bullying as a teaching moment for both Billy and Tommy so that neither will bully in the future.

(2) Mr. Jones commands Billy to pick on Tommy. He insists that Billy pick on Tommy for two minutes and then steps in, using Billy"s bullying as a teaching moment for both Billy and Tommy so that neither will bully in the future.

(1) and (2) are morally equivalent?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:32:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:29:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:27:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:23:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"(1) If God is perfectly good, he never commands the extermination of one people by another unless there is some great good that he cannot achieve without doing so."

That is the "God wouldn't allow gratuitous suffering" principle.

You said it was uncontroversial when defending your argument, but when I use the same principle, it is controversial... Interesting.


No....you realize I could agree with PvI's no minimum argument and still endorse 1 right?

Ya, but you can't on one hand say the theological premise is uncontroversial when you use your argument, but when I use one with the SAME PRINCIPLE, oh, it is controversial.


Yes I can. Allowing =/= commanding.


There's a difference between God COMMANDING an evil and God ALLOWING an evil.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:33:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:32:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:28:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:27:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:23:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"(1) If God is perfectly good, he never commands the extermination of one people by another unless there is some great good that he cannot achieve without doing so."

That is the "God wouldn't allow gratuitous suffering" principle.

You said it was uncontroversial when defending your argument, but when I use the same principle, it is controversial... Interesting.

No....you realize I could agree with PvI's no minimum argument and still endorse 1 right?

There's a difference between God COMMANDING an evil and God ALLOWING an evil.

No there is isn't. Commanding evil, and allowing evil = EVIL.

Nope. Good Lord.

(1) Mr. Jones sees Billy picking on Tommy. He allows Billy to pick on Tommy for two minutes and then steps in, using Billy"s bullying as a teaching moment for both Billy and Tommy so that neither will bully in the future.

(2) Mr. Jones commands Billy to pick on Tommy. He insists that Billy pick on Tommy for two minutes and then steps in, using Billy"s bullying as a teaching moment for both Billy and Tommy so that neither will bully in the future.

(1) and (2) are morally equivalent?

This is stupid. You do know that someone could be justified in commanding something evil, if he has a morally sufficient reason, just like someone could be justified in allowing something evil with good reason. This is a "loaded" scenario you have created.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:34:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:32:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:29:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:27:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:23:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"(1) If God is perfectly good, he never commands the extermination of one people by another unless there is some great good that he cannot achieve without doing so."

That is the "God wouldn't allow gratuitous suffering" principle.

You said it was uncontroversial when defending your argument, but when I use the same principle, it is controversial... Interesting.


No....you realize I could agree with PvI's no minimum argument and still endorse 1 right?

Ya, but you can't on one hand say the theological premise is uncontroversial when you use your argument, but when I use one with the SAME PRINCIPLE, oh, it is controversial.


Yes I can. Allowing =/= commanding.

Let me rephrase, there is a difference, but not a relevant one as far as evil is concerned.



There's a difference between God COMMANDING an evil and God ALLOWING an evil.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:37:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:33:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:32:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:28:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:27:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:23:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"(1) If God is perfectly good, he never commands the extermination of one people by another unless there is some great good that he cannot achieve without doing so."

That is the "God wouldn't allow gratuitous suffering" principle.

You said it was uncontroversial when defending your argument, but when I use the same principle, it is controversial... Interesting.

No....you realize I could agree with PvI's no minimum argument and still endorse 1 right?

There's a difference between God COMMANDING an evil and God ALLOWING an evil.

No there is isn't. Commanding evil, and allowing evil = EVIL.

Nope. Good Lord.

(1) Mr. Jones sees Billy picking on Tommy. He allows Billy to pick on Tommy for two minutes and then steps in, using Billy"s bullying as a teaching moment for both Billy and Tommy so that neither will bully in the future.

(2) Mr. Jones commands Billy to pick on Tommy. He insists that Billy pick on Tommy for two minutes and then steps in, using Billy"s bullying as a teaching moment for both Billy and Tommy so that neither will bully in the future.

(1) and (2) are morally equivalent?

This is stupid. You do know that someone could be justified in commanding something evil, if he has a morally sufficient reason, just like someone could be justified in allowing something evil with good reason. This is a "loaded" scenario you have created.

Oh okay. So you have no argument that states the morally equivalence of the two scenarios. So allowing an evil =/= commanding evil. A

And no, I don't think someone can be justified in commanding a moral horror, but someone might be justified in allowing a moral horror
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:39:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:37:07 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:33:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:32:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:28:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:27:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:23:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"(1) If God is perfectly good, he never commands the extermination of one people by another unless there is some great good that he cannot achieve without doing so."

That is the "God wouldn't allow gratuitous suffering" principle.

You said it was uncontroversial when defending your argument, but when I use the same principle, it is controversial... Interesting.

No....you realize I could agree with PvI's no minimum argument and still endorse 1 right?

There's a difference between God COMMANDING an evil and God ALLOWING an evil.

No there is isn't. Commanding evil, and allowing evil = EVIL.

Nope. Good Lord.

(1) Mr. Jones sees Billy picking on Tommy. He allows Billy to pick on Tommy for two minutes and then steps in, using Billy"s bullying as a teaching moment for both Billy and Tommy so that neither will bully in the future.

(2) Mr. Jones commands Billy to pick on Tommy. He insists that Billy pick on Tommy for two minutes and then steps in, using Billy"s bullying as a teaching moment for both Billy and Tommy so that neither will bully in the future.

(1) and (2) are morally equivalent?

This is stupid. You do know that someone could be justified in commanding something evil, if he has a morally sufficient reason, just like someone could be justified in allowing something evil with good reason. This is a "loaded" scenario you have created.

Oh okay. So you have no argument that states the morally equivalence of the two scenarios. So allowing an evil =/= commanding evil.

No I don't, besides the fact that it is intuitively obvious.


And no, I don't think someone can be justified in commanding a moral horror, but someone might be justified in allowing a moral horror

Do you have an argument for this?