Causes of Suffering

[no1tovote4]

I am presuming an omnipotent and omniscient God.





You have deliberately missed almost all my points.

No, in every case I have pointed out that as long as you define it solely by the physical universe then you are working with only a portion of the picture. It would be like attempting to solve a physics problem with only addition under your belt. I can understand your premise if I base all of my existence only within the physical... However what we are arguing is based solely in the spiritual ignoring the spiritual in the argument lends the entirety of the argument to logical fallacy. It would be like arguing that math can't work because I only believe in blue, neither are part of one another.

He should, not that He would, or has. These words
have different meanings, you know.





Absolutely.





No.





Previously addressed





Not solely emotion, but also the evidence provided by
the bones and ashes of God’s countless victims.

Of the physical existence, without knowledge or even acknowledgement of the larger spiritual picture. Arguing the lack of morality only in this particular existence because of the refusal to see that larger picture. All of that is fine, but why argue religion at all if you have no belief in spirituality or that there can possibly be a larger picture and reasons beyond your worldview that may or may not determine a larger morality? That there can be reasons that this can be like the surgeon who in every case works to improve the lot of the person so effected? That we cannot see that larger picture only shows a lack of our own understanding, not the lack of morality.

Please quote me without paraphrase, citing my post #.

I have reviewed your post #s 61-62-70-71-74 (page 5)
-78 (page 6), all of which contain quotes by me, and I am
unable to locate the statement you refer to.

here it is:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=404911&postcount=56

"The untimely deaths of by now billions of innocent people
as the result of disease and natural calamity such as flood,
famine, and eathquake is enough evidence for me to feel
that the case against God has been proved."

It is my assertion that this is not evidence for reasons previously propounded and taking into consideration the much larger picture that must be afforded to the spiritual because of the very nature of that which you are arguing against.

 

[no1tovote4]

Originally Posted by USViking
I myself have made a choice not to believebecause I consider His malevolent nature tohave been established, if He exists. I thinkit would be better for there to be no God than for there to be a malevolent one.

And I have given many different scenarios where the actions of the God though being the same would be moral regardless. There is not any clear evidence that his actions are immoral when judging by the much larger picture of the actual spiritual existence of the Deity, the very fact that if he exists it is within the larger picture that you deny exists at all. What reason to argue that existence if you won't recognize the very nature of the Being and the much larger view they must have?

 

[deaddude]

Interesting. I was trying to think of some other common forms of suffering (like death or disease or crime) but most of them stem from sin, and the consequences thereof.

Ok I fail to see how premature ageing stems from sin, how about childhood cancer, radiation damage, so called "collateral damage."

 

[USViking]

The untimely deaths of by now billions of innocent people
as the result of disease and natural calamity such as flood,
famine, and eathquake is enough evidence for me to feel
that the case against God has been proved.

You take the phrase “case against” to mean “existence”,
when I mean it: “He is Guilty.”

 

[USViking]

No, in every case I have pointed out that as long as you define it solely by the physical universe then you are working with only a portion of the picture.

Actually, I have made note of the fact your preference
for the hypothetical spiritual gives my view additional
ammunition:

(from post #79)

All the more reason to assume the greater acuteness of the
suffering God has in store for us in the spiritual world.

It would be like attempting to solve a physics problem with only addition under your belt. I can understand your premise if I base all of my existence only within the physical... However what we are arguing is based solely in the spiritual ignoring the spiritual in the argument lends the entirety of the argument to logical fallacy. It would be like arguing that math can't work because I only believe in blue, neither are part of one another.

Actually, what my view does is root out unnecessary
constructs, such as the lumineferous ether of the spiritual.

Of the physical existence, without knowledge or even acknowledgement of the larger spiritual picture. Arguing the lack of morality only in this particular existence because of the refusal to see that larger picture.

I refuse to see any larger and more complicated picture
until you provide evidence of its necessity, and you have
not done so.

All of that is fine, but why argue religion at all if you have no belief in spirituality or that there can possibly be a larger picture and reasons beyond your worldview that may or may not determine a larger morality?

Why not argue it? The muddle and fuzziness of the spiritual
worldview is such an inviting target.

That there can be reasons that this can be like the surgeon who in every case works to improve the lot of the person so effected? That we cannot see that larger picture only shows a lack of our own understanding, not the lack of morality.

You are right- I cannot see these spirits you keep referring to,
nor any sign other than that they are a complete figment of
your imagination.

Alternatively, I can see the material results of the material
act of surgery in the form of a material, healthy patient.

 

[USViking]

And I have given many different scenarios where the actions of the God though being the same would be moral regardless.

No you have not.

All you have really offered is this:
"There is a spiritual world, therefore God is moral",
as you do below:

There is not any clear evidence that his actions are immoral when judging by the much larger picture of the actual spiritual existence of the Deity, the very fact that if he exists it is within the larger picture that you deny exists at all. What reason to argue that existence if you won't recognize the very nature of the Being and the much larger view they must have?

 

[no1tovote4]

Actually, I have made note of the fact your preference
for the hypothetical spiritual gives my view additional
ammunition:

(from post #79)






Actually, what my view does is root out unnecessary
constructs, such as the lumineferous ether of the spiritual.

You take possibility and translate it to certainty...

I refuse to see any larger and more complicated picture
until you provide evidence of its necessity, and you have
not done so.

The problem is you argue against a Being that exists solely in that larger more complicated picture, and attempt to reduce it to a plainly physical level. It is illogical to do so.

Why not argue it? The muddle and fuzziness of the spiritual
worldview is such an inviting target.

Yes. It may be, but it still doesn't prove the immorality of that Being especially when no attempt is made to argue for or against him in the actual realm where this Being would exist, but in fact the refusal to argue the larger picture where the Deity must exist simplifies it beyond measure to better fit your emotional and illogical response.

You are right- I cannot see these spirits you keep referring to,
nor any sign other than that they are a complete figment of
your imagination.

Alternatively, I can see the material results of the material
act of surgery in the form of a material, healthy patient.

There are many things we cannot see that do exist, saying that you have still not proven either the logical immorality of the Being, nor the Being's non-existence, doesn't mean I have a certainty that they do exist or that the Being is Moral. The argument is that you have not provided evidence for either case because you argue this Entity outside of the boundaries of which It exists. That is Reductio Ad Absurdam, it is a logical fallacy which is what I have been pointing out to you from the beginning of our conversation.

Refusing to see logic over the more emotional response of, "I am angry so I refuse to even argue a spiritual Being in a larger sense where they must exist!" doesn't make the logic disappear.

It is simplistic to argue that the value system of this Being is lacking when ignoring the larger view that such a Being must have in their Existence.

 

[no1tovote4]

No you have not.

All you have really offered is this:
"There is a spiritual world, therefore God is moral",
as you do below:

Yes I have. I have stated that growth may require some suffering, that this Being's larger view takes it into account and like the surgeon he understands the benefit of the smaller suffering to make great strides for the future happiness and well-being of the patient. So too this Being could be looking out for the future by allowing for the spiritual growth you are so wont to deny. I have made the argument in several different ways, that you refuse to actually understand the argument says more about your stubbornness to cling to illogical assertions than it does of my communications skills.

That you once again refuse to even acknowledge that the argument has been made is simply Reductio ad Absurdam and is in its element a fallacious argument outside of any logical reason.

You have argued that on the purely physical sense of this world that the Being's actions would be considered immoral, I have understood that and have stated by implication that this would be true, if the Being existed solely physically. I then pointed out the larger picture such a Being must have if it is in Existence and several ways that their actions could be considered moral when taking into account that larger picture refusing to see that if such a Being exists they would have that larger view because of their means of existence doesn't make that logical statement untrue, or without value.

Refusing to acknowledge that, if that Being does exist, it would exist outside the boundaries of your understanding, and outside of the limited morality of the physical, and that the Being would practice morality within that higher understanding also doesn't make that logical statement wrong or but it does make your argument illogical.

 

[USViking]

You take possibility and translate it to certainty...

I take the lack of evidence, and translate it
to a suggestion you provide evidence.

The problem is you argue against a Being that exists solely in that larger more complicated picture, and attempt to reduce it to a plainly physical level. It is illogical to do so.

There is nothing illogical about it until you provide
contradicting evidence in support of this spiritual
world of yours.

Yes. It may be, but it still doesn't prove the immorality of that Being especially when no attempt is made to argue for or against him in the actual realm where this Being would exist, but in fact the refusal to argue the larger picture where the Deity must exist simplifies it beyond measure to better fit your emotional and illogical response.

My premise is that what you call “the actual realm”
is a figment of your imagination, and that there is
no “larger picture”. The conclusions I have drawn
are fully logical.

There are many things we cannot see that do exist, saying that you have still not proven either the logical immorality of the Being, nor the Being's non-existence, doesn't mean I have a certainty that they do exist or that the Being is Moral. The argument is that you have not provided evidence for either case because you argue this Entity outside of the boundaries of which It exists.

Could you please rephrase this?- I am afraid
I cannot follow you here.

That is Reductio Ad Absurdam, it is a logical fallacy which is what I have been pointing out to you from the beginning of our conversation.

Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate form of argument.

You are free to reject it by accepting the conclusion
which I consider to be absurd, namely that the bones
and ashes of so many victims are evidence of God’s
moral nature rather than His immoral nature.

Refusing to see logic over the more emotional response of, "I am angry so I refuse to even argue a spiritual Being in a larger sense where they must exist!" doesn't make the logic disappear.

It is possible to fully logical, and angry at the same time,
as I have been in the course of our discussion.

It is simplistic to argue that the value system of this Being is lacking when ignoring the larger view that such a Being must have in their Existence.

Simple answers are usually the best ones.

 

[dilloduck]

If there WAS a God, how do you imagine the world as we know it would be?

 

[USViking]

Yes I have. I have stated that growth may require some suffering, that this Being's larger view

This reduces to: “There is a spiritual world”
from which you, speaking for God, arbitrarily
assert emanates a need to suffer.

takes it into account and like the surgeon he understands the benefit of the smaller suffering to make great strides for the future happiness and well-being of the patient. So too this Being could be looking out for the future by allowing for the spiritual growth you are so wont to deny.

And this reduces to: “Therefore God is moral.”

I have made the argument in several different ways, that you refuse to actually understand the argument says more about your stubbornness to cling to illogical assertions than it does of my communications skills.

I am stubborn in the face of your poor communication skills.

That you once again refuse to even acknowledge that the argument has been made is simply Reductio ad Absurdam and is in its element a fallacious argument outside of any logical reason.

Addressed in my last post.

You have argued that on the purely physical sense of this world that the Being's actions would be considered immoral, I have understood that and have stated by implication that this would be true, if the Being existed solely physically.

There is no implication the Being is solely physical
from the fact that the results of His malevolence
are percieved by us in a solely physical way.

I do not think I have ever said God cannot have a
spiritual component if He exists. He may of course
assume any form He wishes.

I then pointed out the larger picture such a Being must have if it is in Existence and several ways that their actions could be considered moral when taking into account that larger picture

No, what you have said is the actions must be moral
on account of some presumably spritual “growth”
which accrues from suffering. You have done nothing
to define or explain what this “growth” might be,
much less provide any evidence it actually takes place.

refusing to see that if such a Being exists they would have that larger view because of their means of existence doesn't make that logical statement untrue, or without value.

Refusing to acknowledge that, if that Being does exist, it would exist outside the boundaries of your understanding, and outside of the limited morality of the physical, and that the Being would practice morality within that higher understanding also doesn't make that logical statement wrong or but it does make your argument illogical.

I am satisfied my own view is large enough,
and you have given me no reason to reconsider.

 

[no1tovote4]

I take the lack of evidence, and translate it
to a suggestion you provide evidence.

We are talking about the possibility that a Spritual Entity might exist, you attempt to translate that to a certainty and expect physical evidence...

Reductio ad Absurdam again. Asking for physical evidence of the spiritual is not only illogical, but impossible and simply adds to the logical fallacies of your current line of "reasoning" (I use that term in the loosest sense..)

There is nothing illogical about it until you provide
contradicting evidence in support of this spiritual
world of yours.

Rubbish.

This is an analogy of your argument.

(Assume we are both landlocked with no possibility for me to provide evidence of the existence of oceans).


We begin a discussion about whales...

You say, "I don't believe in whales, they are too big to exist on land! I don't believe in the ocean... therefore we cannot even discuss the possibility that they may exist in the ocean!"

I say, "Their very Existence depends on the ocean, you can't argue this without it!"

You say, "No, you must give me proof that whales exist on the land in order for me to believe that they exist!"

I say, "This is illogical, they exist specifically in the ocean!"

You say, "Well I refuse to believe in the ocean until you bring me a cup of ocean to hold in my hand!"
(remember the assumption...)

I say, "Look, how can we discuss ocean dwelling creatures if you won't even admit to the possibility of the ocean!"

You say, "Prove it!"

It is simply a logical fallacy to argue the non-existence of an ocean dweller without first acknowledging the possibility of the ocean... It is equally a fallacy of logic to argue a spiritual being without first acknowledging the possibility of the spiritual realm that would be necessary to It's existence

My premise is that what you call “the actual realm”
is a figment of your imagination, and that there is
no “larger picture”. The conclusions I have drawn
are fully logical.

Except as I have pointed out above. They are not logical when arguing a Spiritual being by stating they must follow the morality of the physical realm....

Could you please rephrase this?- I am afraid
I cannot follow you here.

As above by rejecting the possibility of the ocean you have simply not proven the whale cannot exist given the physicality of the land locked species. You have attempted to disprove it by first taking it from the element in which it must exist and created a logical fallacy. There is no easy way to put this, your argument is not logical.

Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate form of argument.

No it isn't, it is a logical fallacy and therefore specifically not a legitimate form of argument.

You are free to reject it by accepting the conclusion
which I consider to be absurd, namely that the bones
and ashes of so many victims are evidence of God’s
moral nature rather than His immoral nature.

Only if taken, like the whale, out of the very element of God's being. Otherwise your argument is simpy a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

It is possible to fully logical, and angry at the same time,
as I have been in the course of our discussion.

It is, but it is impossible to be logical and use fallacies of logic at the same time. This argument of yours is entirely emotive and in no way deductive or inductive in its reasoning. It is missing the logical element where the discussion can begin. (The assumption of the possibility of the ocean...)

Simple answers are usually the best ones.

But, as in this case, they may be simply illogical.

 

[no1tovote4]

This reduces to: “There is a spiritual world”
from which you, speaking for God, arbitrarily
assert emanates a need to suffer.

Not so, may is a word that I used. That you deny the logical possibility emanates from the emotive form of argument and not from the logical, and is at the very center of this discussion... Which is, and has been from the beginning, based on the question of an illogical assumption...

And this reduces to: “Therefore God is moral.”

No, it reduces it to, God may exist, and if He does, judgment on the physical realm is firstly unfair and lastly illogical.... Therefore God MAY be moral based on inductive reasoning and actual logic....

I am stubborn in the face of your poor communication skills.

No, you are stubborn because of lack of logic and the firm reliance of emotive argument.

There is no implication the Being is solely physical
from the fact that the results of His malevolence
are percieved by us in a solely physical way.

No, that is only one perception of the events, that in which you exist. This is the basis of my argument from the beginning, there is a larger perception that this Being would have to have by the very essence of Its existence that you refuse to consider because you WANT so desperately to hold onto your anger.

Thus again taking the whale from the water to argue its size... (too big to live on land and I refuse to admit that there may be oceans.)

I do not think I have ever said God cannot have a
spiritual component if He exists. He may of course
assume any form He wishes.

No, what you have said is the actions must be moral
on account of some presumably spritual “growth”
which accrues from suffering. You have done nothing
to define or explain what this “growth” might be,
much less provide any evidence it actually takes place.

I have not, I said that the actions COULD be moral for reasons previously assigned. The specific "Growth" would be determined by different belief systems, none of which I am arguing. I am simply arguing the possibility that, if the Deity exists, It's actions could be moral for reasons you refuse to consider. (Because I don't believe in the Ocean and you can't make me consider it even though this particular creature must have the Ocean to survive!)

I am satisfied my own view is large enough,
and you have given me no reason to reconsider.

And so is the guy standing in the desert who insists the ocean doesn't exist and whales are therefore too large to exist, it doesn't mean his argument is logical.

 

[5stringJeff]

Ok I fail to see how premature ageing stems from sin, how about childhood cancer, radiation damage, so called "collateral damage."

Sickness and disease, which can ultimately lead to death, is part of the consequence of sin. The Bible says that in heaven, there is no sickness or disease.

 

[deaddude]

Again I fail to see how a child born without telomeres is the consequence of anything other than a tragic mutation.

 

[USViking]

We are talking about the possibility that a Spritual Entity might exist, you attempt to translate that to a certainty and expect physical evidence...

Reductio ad Absurdam again. Asking for physical evidence of the spiritual is not only illogical, but impossible and simply adds to the logical fallacies of your current line of "reasoning" (I use that term in the loosest sense..)

Asking for evidence is not a reduction anything.
and I am pleased to have elicited from you an
admission that not only do you have no evidence
for your supposition of a spiritual realm, but also
no evidence is possible.

You are free to believe in any unsupported supposition,
and I am as free to reject it.

Rubbish.

This is an analogy of your argument.

(Assume we are both landlocked with no possibility for me to provide evidence of the existence of oceans).


We begin a discussion about whales...

You say, "I don't believe in whales, they are too big to exist on land! I don't believe in the ocean... therefore we cannot even discuss the possibility that they may exist in the ocean!"

I say, "Their very Existence depends on the ocean, you can't argue this without it!"

You say, "No, you must give me proof that whales exist on the land in order for me to believe that they exist!"

I say, "This is illogical, they exist specifically in the ocean!"

You say, "Well I refuse to believe in the ocean until you bring me a cup of ocean to hold in my hand!"
(remember the assumption...)

I say, "Look, how can we discuss ocean dwelling creatures if you won't even admit to the possibility of the ocean!"

You say, "Prove it!"
It is simply a logical fallacy to argue the non-existence of an ocean dweller without first acknowledging the possibility of the ocean... It is equally a fallacy of logic to argue a spiritual being without first acknowledging the possibility of the spiritual realm that would be necessary to It's existence.

This is not an“analogy”. Arguing the existence of
material things for which copious eyewitness testimony
exists is not “analogous” to arguing the existence of a
spritual thing for which you have admitted no evidence
is possible.

Oceans and whales are not spiritual, and testimony
to their existence is of such scope and duration that it
would be acceptible to me even if I had never seen
either for myself (I have seen both).

Except as I have pointed out above. They are not logical when arguing a Spiritual being by stating they must follow the morality of the physical realm....

You have provided no reason why I should not.

As above by rejecting the possibility of the ocean you have simply not proven the whale cannot exist given the physicality of the land locked species. You have attempted to disprove it by first taking it from the element in which it must exist and created a logical fallacy. There is no easy way to put this, your argument is not logical.

Previously addressed.

Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate form of argument.

No it isn't, it is a logical fallacy and therefore specifically not a legitimate form of argument.

Not according to Wikipedia, it isn’t:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdam
(from the link, emphasis added)

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to the absurd", traceable back to the Greek … "reduction to the impossible", often used by Aristotle), also known as an apagogical argument or reductio ad impossibile, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, arrives at an absurd result, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong, since it led to this absurd result.

See also the Internet Encyclopdia of Philosophy:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/reductio.htm
(from the link, emphasis added):

Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable. It is a style of reasoning that has been employed throughout the history of mathematics and philosophy from classical antiquity onwards.

Your credibility as a logician, which was never very high,
has just taken a couple of more hits, hasn’t it?

Only if taken, like the whale, out of the very element of God's being. Otherwise your argument is simpy a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

It is, but it is impossible to be logical and use fallacies of logic at the same time. This argument of yours is entirely emotive and in no way deductive or inductive in its reasoning. It is missing the logical element where the discussion can begin. (The assumption of the possibility of the ocean...)

Previously addressed.

But, as in this case, they may be simply illogical.

Why, because I employed Reductio ad absurdum?
Oh, no- that is a legitimate form of argument after all.

 

[USViking]

Not so, may is a word that I used. That you deny the logical possibility emanates from the emotive form of argument and not from the logical, and is at the very center of this discussion... Which is, and has been from the beginning, based on the question of an illogical assumption...

I never denied the possibility of a spiritual world,
I said evidence for the existence of God was in my
opinion insufficient to justify belief in Him, and I
would extend this to the entire realm of the spiritual.

You have gone one better by saying evidence is not
possible, although it occurs to me I myself might be
swayed by such an observation as a person walking on water.

No, it reduces it to, God may exist, and if He does, judgment on the physical realm is firstly unfair and lastly illogical.... Therefore God MAY be moral based on inductive reasoning and actual logic....

By implication you are saying God May NOT be moral.
I guess I should be happy to have coaxed this out of you.

Is your view, then, that His benevolence a toss-up?

If so, you might want to withdraw a few of the things
you have said earlier, such as:

(from post #70, emphasis added)

It is more than possible that some suffering in this small physical existence better prepares you for the next existence where there can be larger challenges for your next step in learning...

BTW, If something is “more than possible”, then what
could it be, other than certain?

No, you are stubborn because of lack of logic and the firm reliance of emotive argument.

My logic is sound, and it is based largely on a legitimate
form of argument which you wrongly supposed to be
fallacious. Now that that prop has been kicked out from
under you I wonder what kind of logical error and sophistry
you will resort to next.

There is no implication the Being is solely physical
from the fact that the results of His malevolence
are percieved by us in a solely physical way.

No, that is only one perception of the events, that in which you exist. This is the basis of my argument from the beginning, there is a larger perception that this Being would have to have by the very essence of Its existence that you refuse to consider because you WANT so desperately to hold onto your anger.

Thus again taking the whale from the water to argue its size... (too big to live on land and I refuse to admit that there may be oceans.)

You are not answering the statement you are quoting.

I have not, I said that the actions COULD be moral for reasons previously assigned.

If so, you might want to withdraw a few of the things
you have said earlier, such as:

(from post #70, emphasis added)

It is more than possible that some suffering in this small physical existence better prepares you for the next existence where there can be larger challenges for your next step in learning...

BTW, If something is “more than possible”, then what
could it be, other than certain?

The specific "Growth" would be determined by different belief systems, none of which I am arguing. I am simply arguing the possibility that, if the Deity exists, It's actions could be moral for reasons you refuse to consider. (Because I don't believe in the Ocean and you can't make me consider it even though this particular creature must have the Ocean to survive!)

This is nothing except a cynical dodge. “Growth” has been
the basis of your moral defence of the suffering imposed
upon us by God for several pages. Now you are saying you
are cashiering it.

And so is the guy standing in the desert who insists the ocean doesn't exist and whales are therefore too large to exist, it doesn't mean his argument is logical.

Don’t forget to tell him he is not allowed to employ
reductio ad absurdum!

 

[no1tovote4]

Asking for evidence is not a reduction anything.
and I am pleased to have elicited from you an
admission that not only do you have no evidence
for your supposition of a spiritual realm, but also
no evidence is possible.

You are free to believe in any unsupported supposition,
and I am as free to reject it.

You are, but as I stated through implication before, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This is not an“analogy”. Arguing the existence of
material things for which copious eyewitness testimony
exists is not “analogous” to arguing the existence of a
spritual thing for which you have admitted no evidence
is possible.

That is why it is an analogy, if it was exactly the same thing then it wouldn't be an analogy.... Plus, we are arguing the existence of the "mythical" water creature with no eyewitnesses...

Oceans and whales are not spiritual, and testimony
to their existence is of such scope and duration that it
would be acceptible to me even if I had never seen
either for myself (I have seen both).

Which is why I called it analogous.... It means that it isn't the same thing, but a way to look at something different that you may see the point from a different angle, instead you choose to still ignore that arguing the "spiritual" without first assuming the "spiritual" is the same as arguing ocean creatures against the disbelief of oceans... That you hadn't seen the ocean or that I hadn't certainly wouldn't prove that they do not exist... However arguing the mythical whale creature without first assuming that oceans can exist is the same as arguing God without first assuming the spiritual. It places limitations that are not part of the actuality of the being... One could not exist without the ocean, the other could not without the spiritual.

It is very analogous...

You have provided no reason why I should not.

But I have.

Not according to Wikipedia, it isn’t:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdam
(from the link, emphasis added)


See also the Internet Encyclopdia of Philosophy:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/reductio.htm
(from the link, emphasis added):


Your credibility as a logician, which was never very high,
has just taken a couple of more hits, hasn’t it?

No, it has not. According to rules of logic it is a fallacious argument...

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

Check out the list, see why it is so. Fallacious logic is not, by definition, logical....

I will say one thing though, I should have used Reductive Fallacy for the second, you only used Reductio ad Absurdam ( more specifically the Fallacy of the General Rule) once.

If you were in Debate Class you would have failed by an attempt to support your argument using fallacious logic.

Why, because I employed Reductio ad absurdum?
Oh, no- that is a legitimate form of argument after all.

LOL. No, it isn't. As shown by another link. That people attempt to use it in argument does not make Reductio ad absurdam into aything other than a fallacious argument.

Oh, I should also have stated that often Reductio ad absurdum can be truly a logical argument, but it can easily lead to fallacious argument, it then becomes the Fallacy of the General Rule (your more specific fallacy). Your specific use was fallacious as pointed out often and easily in each of posts....

Arguing the spiritual without first assuming the spiritual is exactly the same thing as arguing the possibility of a whale without first assuming the ocean. Each would be a Fallacy Of The General Rule.

 

[no1tovote4]

I never denied the possibility of a spiritual world,
I said evidence for the existence of God was in my
opinion insufficient to justify belief in Him, and I
would extend this to the entire realm of the spiritual.

Except your original statement denies even the possibility of the spiritual, and each further argument until this one you have stated, "I deny the existence of that larger view of the spiritual." And thus yes you did deny the existence of the spiritual. I am happy that you no longer deny that possibility, now it is actually possible to expound on the morality of the Deity without using the fallacy of the general rule.

You have gone one better by saying evidence is not
possible, although it occurs to me I myself might be
swayed by such an observation as a person walking on water.

You might, but like me you would be looking for the stones in the water.....

By implication you are saying God May NOT be moral.
I guess I should be happy to have coaxed this out of you.

I have stated that at least five times in here. However you, using again the Fallacy of the General Rule (as an extention of Reductio Ad Absurdum) turn the logic around making it a certainty of immorality by judging a spiritual (ocean) creature based on the Physical (land-locked) creatures you know. But thankfully, you now understand the possibility of the spiritual and that because of that the Deity could have a much larger view than this mortal coil...

Is your view, then, that His benevolence a toss-up?

Yes, I have pointed that out several times. It is my view that it could be a toss-up.

If so, you might want to withdraw a few of the things
you have said earlier, such as:

(from post #70, emphasis added)

BTW, If something is “more than possible”, then what
could it be, other than certain?

Probable. More than possible can make something probable, it does not mean that it is a certainty...

More likely than not is not the same thing as saying it is a surety... You are using that fallacious logic again and showing that your command of English itself is lacking.

My logic is sound, and it is based largely on a legitimate
form of argument which you wrongly supposed to be
fallacious. Now that that prop has been kicked out from
under you I wonder what kind of logical error and sophistry
you will resort to next.

Legitimate forms of argument can be used fallaciously as shown in my previous post to this one. The fallacy of the general rule used in reductio ad absurdum makes the entirety of the argument fallacious.....

You are not answering the statement you are quoting.

Quoting whom?

If so, you might want to withdraw a few of the things
you have said earlier, such as:

(from post #70, emphasis added)

BTW, If something is “more than possible”, then what
could it be, other than certain?

Once again, probable... If something is more than possible, but not certain it is probable.

This is nothing except a cynical dodge. “Growth” has been
the basis of your moral defence of the suffering imposed
upon us by God for several pages. Now you are saying you
are cashiering it.

No, I am saying that it may be important to your growth. I have never told you to hoard away suffering, nor suggested that the Deity wishes you to. I have stated that the suffering now may, through growth, make it so you have less suffering in the future. Either on this realm or in the spiritual, and that this Being would have that view rather than the limited physical view.

Don’t forget to tell him he is not allowed to employ
reductio ad absurdum!

No, he is not allowed to employ fallacious reasoning within an argument using reductio ad absurdum.... (Fallacy of the General Rule...)

 

[USViking]

Except your original statement denies even the possibility of the spiritual, and each further argument until this one you have stated, "I deny the existence of that larger view of the spiritual." And thus yes you did deny the existence of the spiritual. I am happy that you no longer deny that possibility, now it is actually possible to expound on the morality of the Deity without using the fallacy of the general rule.

I may deny the existence of something without
denying the possibility, however unlikely, that
I may be wrong. I may also deny its existence
without claiming to prove it does not exist.

You might, but like me you would be looking for the stones in the water.....

Huh?

I have stated that at least five times in here.

I do not believe you have.

However you, using again the Fallacy of the General Rule (as an extention of Reductio Ad Absurdum) turn the logic around making it a certainty of immorality by judging a spiritual (ocean) creature based on the Physical (land-locked) creatures you know. But thankfully, you now understand the possibility of the spiritual and that because of that the Deity could have a much larger view than this mortal coil...

Let me repeat my earlier construction of the position
I have taken here:

1. There is a moral imperative to prevent suffering,
if one has the power to do so.

2. God has the power to prevent all suffering.

3. God has failed to prevent suffering billions of times

4. Therefore God has failed to do what is morally imperative.

The premise in #1 gives a general rule which should in my
opinion apply universally, in both the physical realm, and
in the spiritual, if the spiritual exists.

(Implicit in the argument, and an extension of it, is the absurdity
of chosing to believe in a morally corrupt diety, when there is
no necessity to.)

The soundness of a premise may be disputed. You dispute
mine simply by asserting the spiritual may not be judged
on the basis of its material consequences, your whale-ocean
“analogy” being in fact no such thing.

I may as effectively argue by simply asserting we can.

Suppose though, never mind God for a moment, what about Satan?
His first enticement was a physical act leading us to a physical act
of disobedience. Under your rules it seems we are not permitted to
judge the spiritual being Satan here on account of the physical nature
of the act.

Yes, I have pointed that out several times. It is my view that it could be a toss-up.

I do not believe you have.

Probable. More than possible can make something probable, it does not mean that it is a certainty...

OK, I’ll give you this.

However:

More likely than not is not the same thing as saying it is a surety... You are using that fallacious logic again and showing that your command of English itself is lacking.

Just a moment ago you said it was a toss-up.

Legitimate forms of argument can be used fallaciously as shown in my previous post to this one. The fallacy of the general rule used in reductio ad absurdum makes the entirety of the argument fallacious.....

True, but that is not what you said earlier.

I said: “Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate form of argument.”

You said: “No it isn't, it is a logical fallacy and therefore specifically not a legitimate form of argument”.

It would have been better to employ silence to concede
defeat rather than to try to weasel out by introducing a
qualification to a statement you meant earlier as an absolute.

Quoting whom?

Me.

Once again, probable... If something is more than possible, but not certain it is probable.

Just a moment ago you said it was a toss-up.

No, I am saying that it may be important to your growth. I have never told you to hoard away suffering, nor suggested that the Deity wishes you to.

What does it mean to “hoard away suffering”?

I have stated that the suffering now may, through growth, make it so you have less suffering in the future. Either on this realm or in the spiritual, and that this Being would have that view rather than the limited physical view.

You have have explicitly declined to define the
key word “growth”. It is fallacious to base an
argument on term which defies definition.

No, he is not allowed to employ fallacious reasoning within an argument using reductio ad absurdum.... (Fallacy of the General Rule...)

Nor should he be.