On the contrary, "There is no evidence of an offsetting good to the evil of the black death"
is a statement of fact, if true. Why think it false? — Relativist

the factual statement would be, that we are not aware of any offsetting goods. That there are none is not a matter of fact. Your point assumes, that if there were compensating goods, we would see them and recognize them as such. I have challenged that point a few times now, without you addressing it.

Actually we have fought wars and engaged in proxy wars on behalf of Saudi Arabia... everything we do in the middle east is geared towards undermining Iran. That's why we've systematically overthrown every major dictator that was leaning closer to Iran.. It actually does largely come down to power and oil in the middle east.
So you're just completely wrong, aren't you? Canada and Mexico are in such close proximity to us they could never pose any threat to cutting off our oil, our economies are way too networked. — ibrust

So are you saying the United States of America is, or has been subservient to Saudi Arabia? I would say quite the contrary. We may well have engaged in all types of events to ensure consistent energy supply, but at no time was it at anyone's direction or interest other than our own.

So you're just completely wrong, aren't you? — ibrust

As an aside, and IMO, save these types of comments for your twitter feed. Just make your points, allow others to make theirs. Maybe even think that individuals can have differing viewpoints without the need to be antagonistic

There is nothing derogatory in saying that Germany gets gas from Russia and is thus economically dependent on Russia and functionally subservient to them. — ibrust

Where one decides to purchase their energy does not make them automatically subservient to them.

We are not, nor have been subservient to Saudi, Venezuela, Mexico, or Canada.

It could be equally true that Germany as a major purchaser of energy from Russia could exert influence on them.

There is no evidence of an offsetting good to the evil of the black death, so why believe there is an offsetting good? — Relativist

That is not a statement of fact. As above, the traditional argument is cognitive distance. Are you sure, that if there was a compensating good, you would see it and recognize it as such?

My statement refers to believing something solely on the basis that it is possible and without considering evidence. Do you really disagree with that? — Relativist

Not sure it is actually possible to belief something is possible without evidence. How would concept of something's possibility enter ones mind in the absence of something that would pass as evidence.

Both God's existence and his nonexistence are epistemically possible, so clearly we need more than mere possibility to justify belief. — Relativist

I always think the better question than "does God exist" is , is it reasonable to believe that God exists. The first question seems to require a level of evidence required of a fact. The second does not.

but mere possibility is insufficient grounds for rational belief in something. — Relativist

i disagree with this, depending on the level of evidence, or the basis of belief.

If we can't conceive of an offsetting good, why should we believe there is one? — Relativist

The classic argument to this point is cognitive distance. If there was a compensating good, would/could we see it, and recognize it as such. We human beings have a very long history on not believing a whole bunch of things exist, that is, until we close the cognitive distance that actually allows us to see them. Because we can not perceive something with the tools we have, is not a very good reason to deny it's existence.

The usual example given is:

A chess novice is watching 2 chess masters playing - She see one of the players lose his bishop early in the game and the novice see this a a bad thing. However the master knows that the loss was part of a strategy and was actually a very good thing.

If you have the time Dr. Hud Hudson does a very good job of on this issue in this lecture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJbgnyFlW5M

Who does? Everyone uses the Dark Arts. But policies do matter too, and Trump's policies were certainly a major part of what got him elected, and Adams has always said that. — gurugeorge

not sure I remember Trump actually articulating one complete policy during the campaign. Not really a detail type of guy it appears.

Could you say more? — frank

Always. There was always a stereotypical republican elite. Think Bill Buckley, J Press, 1970 Wall Street investment banker, Yacht club guy. The were the ruling elite easily slipping from leadership positions in politics to the military to business. Educated, wealthy, well spoken. George Will doing his best to keep the image alive.

Liberals are more likely to value ethics over practicality. — frank

I think you are assigning character traits to a party. I believe character, or the lack of it, is bipartisan.
We just don't seem to be that interested in character in our leaders anymore - more interested in personality.

Basically people live in parallel news environments with totally different facts. Social media just enforces that. — ssu

That's basically what I am saying. There is an objective reality, Trump did stand at that podium and he did say what he said. He did read that i meant " wouldn't " correction. How can there be such extreme and dichotomous views of this reality. How can Fox and MSNBC both garner so many followers exposing such polar views of the same actual events? Do we just chose sides now, like a sports team, and stay loyal to our brand no matter what ?

The term "elite" expresses angst about that — frank

I am old enough to remember when Republicans were the elite.

If you are dealing with someone who is capable of saying anything, does if even matter anymore what he says ? He is self contradictory often in the same sentence - quite a feat actually. He is willing to say absolutely anything that he believes will win the moment, irregardless of the truth, or other repercussions. He is playing checkers, one move at a time.

What I find amazing is the divide in America - for so many it seems so apparent that we have an incredible narcissist, with only a mild acquaintance with the truth, and a complete absence of character as President of the US. And to so many others he is so much the opposite. How can so many of us look at the same reality and have such radically different views of it.

It reminds me of the OJ verdict where so many white Americans were outraged that the jury could be so wrong and so many black Americans felt just the opposite.

True to yourself means adhering to your principles whether they are selfish and deceitful principles or not. — Metaphysician Undercover

Brings up an interesting point to me anyway. Can anyone be inherently selfish and deceitful? Or is that selfishness and deceitfulness a free choice made against some inter conflict to not be selfish and deceitful? And if there is internal conflict than are they being true to themselves, or merely justifying there act of will ?

"We see evil all around us, with no apparent good coming out of it." — FreeEmotion

as my post above, for the evil done by man, the compensating good is free will.

For natural evil ( illness, natural disaster, etc) that is harder to identify the good, and the discussion does lead to cognitive distance. if there was a good, would we know it and recognize it as such. There is much good in the world, do we know the cause of all of it ?

Agree, still mostly attend Novus Ordo in my parish, with the family. But try to make it to Latin Mass often. It is making quite a comeback with younger people as well. I think we have lost quite a bit post V2 - Not that V2 itself was poor, but the implementation swung too far IMO. Seems the pendulum is swinging back some - even with a very modern Pope.

My memory has become selective with age - just have fond memories left - Still prefer the tridentine mass

↪Bitter Crank But for the Latin I memorized as an altar boy — Ciceronianus the White

Ad Deum qui lætíficat iuventútem meam.

JohnLocke
7
Trump is a bastion of capitalism who will come down from the heavens on a chariot made of gold riding the righteous Messianic light of the unfettered free market, vaporising every left wing zealot below, restoring order and balance to this Earth and giving to our fragmented life a gravitas, a high seriousness, a divine significance, an emancipatory power that can unshackle us from the self limiting, deterministic and suffocating stranglehold that is Marxism, socialism and the left, allowing us to reach our fullest and truest potential and ambitions. — JohnLocke

I can see this etched at the entrance of the Trump presidential library and casino, but he will take credit for the quote

When we apply terms such as needed and reasonable we then need justifications for each, and these may be arrived at through the application of logic and deductive reasoning alone. Out of this intellectual application, a functional morality should arise. — Marcus de Brun

Which is often very very hard to arrive at - Is the use of torture on someone to get information that may save thousands functionally moral ? Would most agree or disagree? Is it a personal or communal judgement? Does that matter ? Do we know enough to make the judgement ?

Basically, the trolley problem in some form or another.

The argument from evil is an inference that a 3- omni God cannot exist, because this is inconsistent with the presence of so much evil in the world. Theists reject this with the "free-will" defense, which suggests that God "had" to allow evil because it is a necessary consequence of free will. My argument defeats this defense based in Christian doctrine: — Relativist

There are 2 classes of evil that the Argument from evil uses, and the core of the counter argument is the same for both. Compensating goods. There are 3 tests needed to meet this criteria. The first one is - the compensating good needs to be significantly better than evil, the second one is you can not have the good without the evil, and the third is there is no other way to get the good. In the first class of evil, that caused by man, the compensating good is free will. The proposition is, that it is significantly better to be a being with free will, than to be a being without free will. However this allows for choices that are evil, and you can not have this good without this evil.

The second type of evil is that not caused directly by man, such as illness or natural disasters. Finding the compensating goods in this class of evil is much more difficult. In general these discussions spin down to cognitive distance. That if there was a compensating good, we would have the ability to see it, and recognize it as such. There is no overwhelming argument that I know off that says we would. So it becomes a no-seeum defense. And your view on the validity of the proposition, that there are some states of affairs, that exist, or can exist that we are un aware off.

you going anywhere with this ?

a quilia is more than just "a feeling" , the concept is, there are things than can not be known by analysis, study, or science. They can only be known by experiencing them. Quilias, if you believe they exist, are facts. You can try describe blue, by some scientific explanations of wave lengths, but does it truly describe the experience of seeing blue ? I do not think so, and that experience of blue is factual.

Irrespective of the very good arguments of hard determinism, I, and I think most have the sensation of free will. When I stare at the ice cream in the freezer, I feel i am making an independent choice to have it or not. So is this sensation of choice a valid argument that free will does exist, however it can only be known by experience, and is not able to be known by analysis, investigation or reason. Is it a Qualia?

In the famous thought experiment, a person spends their entire life in a black and white room, with a black and white monitor. She spends her entire existence learning all there is to know about color. How the eye and optic system operate, wave lengths etc. She analytically and theoretically knows everything that can be known about color. Then they let her out of the room into a beautiful sunset - and she says "wow"? And is amazed. Did she learn anything new? I think yes. I think the experience of color is a different thing than the analysis of color. I feel the same about the sensation of choice.

Right, I finally understand. So what is your main standpoint then? That God exists or he doesn't exist? — GreyScorpio

That is a questions that requires an understanding of what is the basis for the truth claim, for either answer. If, as per the discussion above, the only valid truth claim you would accept is fact, that God could be proven as some being that occupies space at some point in time, can be measured and weighed. Or a predictable force or wave that the effects are subject to repeatable experiments where there is sufficient evidence to be explanatory as scientific theory. Than the answer would be there is no proof that God, per that definition, either exists or does not exist. The only scientific acceptable answer to that proposition is there is no answer. Science only confirms existences that are proved or disproved, science makes no claim on the unproven.

If the basis of the truth claim is reason, than the question would be better framed as is it a reasonable belief that God exists. And this is not a dichotomous condition. There a reasonable arguments that God does and does not exist. This is the realm of Philosophy, not science.

If the basis of the truth claim is faith, than there is no argument with the claim. People can belief by faith what they wish. Or chose not to believe what they wish by faith. This is in the realm of Theology.

- agree

I think in large measure, people talk past each other when they are not clear on the basis of what they believe to be true. You can believe things to be true by either, fact, reason or faith.

Often in "God exists" discussions one party is arguing from a basis of reason against another party arguing from a basis of fact. Or one is arguing a point based on faith.

it is not a matter of fact that God is,
it is reasonable to believe that some definitions of "God" is, or at least was
it is a matter of faith that the God of the Bible, or the Torah or the Koran, or the fill in the blank - exists.

no -

you are more than free to disagree, and there are very logical arguments against, but in no way can you make a reasoned case that the ontological, cosmological, or arguments be design are illogical.

but his existence is entirely illogical — GreyScorpio

completely disagree - theism is not illogical

This seems a different statement, but I disagree with this one. I don't see a good thing must be freely chosen to be considered good. Hypothetically, a robot that follows Asimov's 3 laws of robotics can still do good, even though it cannot choose to do harm. — Relativist

then the person who programmed it, in one way shape or the other chose to do good, not the robot.

Not sure if this helps on the attachment issue. Jesuits call it spiritual freedom. And in Ignatian Spirituality it is the described in the first principal and foundation - here below:

God created human beings to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by
doing this, to save their souls.

God created all other things on the face of the earth to help fulfill this
purpose.

From this it follows that we are to use the things of this world only to
the extent that they help us to this end, and we ought to rid ourselves
of the things of this world to the extent that they get in the way of this
end.

For this it is necessary to make ourselves indifferent to all created
things as much as we are able, so that we do not necessarily want
health rather than sickness, riches rather than poverty, honor rather
than dishonor, a long rather than a short life, and so in all the rest, so
that we ultimately desire and choose only what is most conducive for
us to the end for which God created us.

You tell me. — Jeremiah

it was meant to be thought provoking, guess not very effectively.

but that's a tautology. — Relativist

i do not see how,

Because freedom is necessary if goodness is to be freely chosen — EnPassant

is a tautology, it is saying something quite different - It is not real goodness if it is not freely chosen.

If I put a gun to your head and tell you to give the beggar a dollar, did you do anything good? Or if I promise you $1,000 if you give the beggar a dollar, and you chose to believe me, did you do anything good ?

Not sure there is a logical argument that if God exists, we would be able to understand God's nature. It seem man tries to understand a God, in human terms man can understand, and then propose this view of God is not valid. There may well be a very large cognitive distance between what God is and what we can understand.

I did, premise 4.

Theologically, you are missing the concept of forgiveness. Imperfect beings are forgiven their imperfect acts of free will.

Would this question qualify as a Qualia? Is a sense of what an individual experiences as free will, free will ?

What was absurd was some inherent desire to search for meaning, where there is none. Is there a reason we a pushing the mythical rock back up the hill, just to have it roll back down.
— Rank Amateur

Can you have a read above. There is meaning and it's a very personal one. No size fits all. That would be absurd and yet the suggestion/advice ''find one's own meaning'' is itself a universal claim, making the entire exercise a parade of absurdities. — TheMadFool

Wasn't making my own point, just clarifying what the absurdists philosophy was.

But i think very close to what Camus would have identified as the Absurd Hero
— Rank Amateur

What's an absurd hero? A man who realizes that there is no meaning to life outside of his own world is free to find his own meaning. To say that life is absurd because it has no meaning and then to level the same accusation at one who creates his own meaning is trying to eat the cake and have it too. — TheMadFool

To Camus the absurd hero is the person who understands that there is no meaning outside of our existence - and the best one can do is accept that and find meaning in ones own life and existence.

Again, not my philosophy.

Hm. Then it seems this God figure is no longer needed here. Falls out of the equation after a fashion. — jorndoe

can you expand some, I don't see how free will negates the existence of God - sure I am missing something

that all sounds very much like turning science into religion.

I was taught, science knows what it knows, and that is all that it knows. Said differently - science only makes truth claims about things science knows to be true. And it does not make any other truth claims.

I see no philosophic difference in a belief based on faith in an un-created creator, or a belief based on faith that science will someday know the answer to how the universe came to be.