SatanLucy

"I have a Nokia...It's at least 10 years old, and does exactly what I need it to do...Phone or text"

Yeah, but this depends on what you want for phone to do. I usually want a lot because I am greedy and I dont believe in moderation.

Biggest problem with inductive reasoning is a huge leap of faith from specific to absolute.

It works in a way of "ok, so far everywhere we observed, A was true, so A is true everywhere, even where we didn't observe"

The leap of faith happens because despite the fact that induction holds true in areas which were observed, assuming it holds true in non-observed areas is simply impossible to conclude.

So using induction to prove an absolute claim is logically impossible no matter what.

The best example of failed induction is relativity of time. If you merely observed Earth, you could conclude a clock works just about same everywhere, with some small insignificant differences of time mismatch. If you observed parts of universe with different gravity and properties than Earth, you would come to an entirely opposite conclusion. Clock would show not just small mismatch, but an hour on Earth and an hour elsewhere would not be close to same. Hence, relativity of time which showed that time measuring instruments are actually not consistent in all areas in universe.

This same applies to gravity. While Earth's gravity remains true on Earth, it does not remain true anywhere else. Induction pretty much fails any time when observed area and non-observed area could mismatch.

We didn't observe even 1% of things in this universe alone, so basing absolute claims on 1% of area which we observed is a serious leap of faith.

Problem with induction is always going to be that as long as induction isn't based on observing everything there is, making a claim about everything there is will always be leap of faith.

Induction actually has two problems which science could never effectively solve:

1. Observing one area to make absolute claim about all areas

2. Observing one time to make absolute claim about all time

2 is actually pretty funny. You can never prove that what you observed to be true today will still be true tomorrow. Science proves things in present moment, but future moment represents a gap which induction cannot cover.

Nuclear energy is sure fun. I never really understood people who want more coal. I think humans have already polluted this planet enough.

It's why I wish I was born 3000 years ago. At least I would breathe in clean air.

Praise God for that.

Votes are not moderated on that debate, so nothing will happen even if I report them. I expected them to vote that way, especially grateful.

And as far as I can tell, it does exactly the same as the old one.

That's not my case. This laptop I ordered has 2x more RAM, better graphic card, and also dual channel RAM. It means video games run a lot better on it.

Nice. I am still waiting to get my delivery.

When all natural solutions fail, one should rely on magical warfare as the only remaining option.

Me know what men like in women. Boobs is one of them

Men want women to be stupid, naive and obedient things. this is why they historically denied women of education.

the biggest problem of modern causation theory is in this claim:

"Everything needs a cause"

the obvious problem with this is, if each thing needs a cause, and each cause needs another cause, the causation chain is never realized to begin with.

Sort of like: A needs B. B needs C. C needs D... and so on to infinity. the condition for A to exist is the existence of infinite causation chain, but that infinite chain cannot itself be realized because it also needs a cause, creating unsolvable problem where each dependent thing depends on another dependent thing. the chain never enables its own existence no matter what. If cause enables existence, and cause also needs its existence enabled, there is nothing in this chain which ever enables anything to exist, because no thing in chain even has its existence enabled to begin with.

Some tried solving this with circular causation, such as "A causes B, B causes A".

However, this too is absurd for same reason. All causes in this chain are themselves dependent just like in infinite causation chain. If each thing only exists if another exists, there is nothing which determines if this chain will even exist or not.

So people reached for what is left, and thats uncaused cause.

However, uncaused cause has its own problems. First there is the infinite past regress problem, where something which is uncaused and eternal also has eternal (infinite) past. Problem with eternal (infinite) past is that it makes it impossible to reach present moment. Another problem with uncaused cause is impossibility of explaining its existence. there is simply no possible natural way to explain how something exists without a reason.

the only thing which doesnt need reason to exist is "nothingness", but how did that gave birth to "something"?

It seems that all natural explanations for existence are pretty much exhausted. there is simply no way to explain how or why "existence" as a whole even happened. No answer fits.

the only answer which is left is supernatural, because simply, reality cannot explain its own existence without falling into circular logic. Anything which is part of reality, being used to explain reality, ends up being circular explanation. this means the only non-circular explanation can be something above reality.

But men today are declaring they are women when there is no biological justification for the claim. As a result, women are being injured, both physically and emotionally. What justifies those injuries so a man, who could not compete and win with other men, can usurp roles and compete, and win, pretending to be a woman?

there is a difference between biological woman and trans woman. Obviously, I dont think trans women entering some of woman's sports does any good even to trans community. Most trans women dont even compete in sports, so its pretty much a point which can be conceded.

I mean, no one is really arguing for that, not even therians and furries, and therians identify as animals. Well, sort of.

I ordered a new laptop with 16 GB ram and 4 GB graphics Nvidia.

It only costs 140$, so it's a good enough deal.

My current laptop only has 8gb ram. It served me well, but it can't run a lot of games properly, and most of new good games are just requiring more than 8gb ram, and I got tired of not being able to play 60% of games I wanna play.

I am not sure if this new laptop will be able to play Vampire masquerade bloodlines 2, cuz that's super demanding game, but given that game disappointed most players, I am probably not at a great loss if I can't play it.

My current laptop also can't run games like Witcher 2 much good. I mean, the gameplay is not smooth. When you have lag, it ruins experience.

Also, when I play Smite 1, the laptop overheats a lot and I sometimes get lag in middle of game, which is important because it's an online game and having bad fps in multiplayer loses battles. I used to fix this by setting maximum processor rate at 90%, but it's not a complete fix.

Also, I can't run Smite 2 at all on my current laptop. Any game which requires min 8gb ram can't really run good on laptop with 8gb RAM. It just doesn't work, and lag is severe, because my current laptop has a very old graphic card too.

I also have games like star wars battlefront which I wanna try. I also wanna try Genshin Impact and Where winds meet on laptop. Gameplay on phone isn't that interesting, even if Where winds meet is probably among best games on smartphone, along with Zenless Zone Zero.

Yes plz vote. We only need 3 more votes to start next round. Doesn't matter who it will be to cast those 3 votes, but someone has to cast them. If you divide work on 3 people, each just needs to cast 1 vote.

Hmmm, are you not referring to a creator god? If so, he can create no evil and still be good to all he creates

True, but this was a different concept. Often found in religions like Taoism. Christians have similar reference in Bible, that God is good to evil people too, it just doesn't make as much sense with concept of hell.

Thank you for an interesting debate.

About your "Albert Einstein" example (I am not sure if that's Albert Einstein or meme), there are people who try to argue that evil doesn't exist.

I remember Bones had a debate on problem of evil, and opponent made an argument that evil is mind dependant, thus subjective, thus doesn't exist.

Bones did counter that by saying same argument applies to good.

I get that there are arguments for why evil doesn't actually exist, however, the problem is that symmetry argument often applies same to good.

Savant is right. You gotta vote for your opinion to count. I mean, our side probably wins anyway, but more votes are most welcome.

I'd say humans have better intuitions about what they themselves should do than about God.

No, without knowledge on what exactly counts as pure motivation, humans have no any chance of ever being certain in the first place.

That's a normative claim, not part of Christianity.

If you want to divorce Christianity from causation chain, fine, but that merely makes it incoherent.

The basis of all punishments is that the one causing X is responsible for X, and thus gets punished for X.

That doesn't mean the suffering is a punishment for something, it's an effect of the Fall.

Suffering is evil regardless, and I don't see why Omnibenevolent God had to make countless animals suffer.

I said people are inherently evil by nature and disposed to make bad choices, not that they are being punished for a specific choice.

If they are not being punished for a choice, then they are being punished for something which isn't their choice. Take your pick.

No, he's punishing them for being intrinsically evil, which isn't the same thing.

It is. You defined evil as not having pure motivations. So he is punishing them for having bad motivations. And if they are not creating bad motivations, then he is punishing people for something they didn't even do.

If God created people differently they wouldn't be "them" in the first place.

So? Does God need to create 10 billion different Hitlers just so that each Hitler can be it's own version of Hitler?

If people exist they can attempt to at least become more virtuous, but there is none of that if they don't exist.

With omniscience, no. God already knows which people are going to be evil and suffer forever. Their creation is pointless to everyone. It achieves nothing other than increasing amount of evil in the world.

If your Omnibenevolent God somehow manages to create infinite evil, then he is logically no different to evil God. Good motivation which creates infinite amount of evil is no different from bad motivation. There is nothing which can even describe such motivation as good.

My issue is more with the fact that God punishes people for evil.

there are arguments for omnibenevolent being creating evil because being believed even evil deserves to live and experience joy, because omnibenevolent being is good to all, not just to those who are good.

But such does not apply to Christian God. thats more of Pagan concept.

I'd say we just don't know which should take precedence when which makes it pretty difficult to judge God's actions.

By same logic, makes it difficult to judge our own actions, thus set up for failure.

Virtue ethics isn't denying causation exists, it's making different normative claims about the causation.

In terms of responsibility, causation chain tracks responsibility to God no matter what. Creating bad motivations because good motivations tell you to, is still creating bad motivations. It makes God responsible for the very evil he seeks to punish. If God punishes X, he also ought to punish those responsible for X, and that happens to be him.

We have some idea of the guiding principles the Christian God uses

We actually dont. Even if we ignore all the obvious issues in the Bible, such as that creation story contradicts entire known science, and that global flood never happened, and that Earth is not 6000 years old, we actually still are left with bunch of unresolved moral issues. Bible tells people to kill witches, gays, adultresses, trans, those who dishonor their parents...ect. Some parts of Bible are so extreme that no one follows them. On the other hand, Bible says to not resist an evildoer and to just turn the other cheek, and then says to actually not stone a specific woman. there are bunch of contradictive commands in Bible, to multiply and populate the Earth or to be virgin... and so on. Bible isnt clear on any moral issue whatsoever. there are even debates on what parts of Bible arent supposed to be followed, because apparently, its impossible to follow it all.

With animals it's not a punishment

It is. Animals experience suffering.

I don't think this is addressing my argument, which is that people are intrinsically disposed to make evil decisions when given the opportunity

Your argument was that free will serves as justification for punishment. However, many who never got any informed choice ever are punished and experience suffering. So God is punishing people for something they didnt even choose, not that anyone even chose to have bad intentions when its not even possible to determine what good intentions are.

I disagree with P2. I think the evil motivations are an inevitable side effect of creating free will.

No, they are an inevitable side effect of creating free will which leans to evil motivations. God could have created only free will which has good motivations. If he couldnt and if all free will naturally goes to motivations God considers evil, then God is again setting up all people for failure, and this is especially when we account for the fact that God is misinforming people as well.

Also, P2 says "creating evil motivations = deserves punishment".

God is punishing people because they are creating evil motivations. But God is also creating evil motivations. So he must punish himself. God is even causing people to create evil motivations, so any punishment for X must by causation chain be led to the one responsible for it, and God is responsible for greatest number of evil motivations.

Being motivated solely by justice/empathy instead of selfishness.

Being motivated by justice isnt same as being motivated by empathy. One can have one without another easily, and having both makes it impossible to determine what to do when they come in conflict.

God created people who did evil. So he indirectly caused it to exist, but that's not the same thing as doing evil himself under virtue ethics

If virtue ethics deny causation chain, that merely makes virtue ethics incoherent. You cant even judge people without a causation chain to begin with.

Because he has a mix of different good motivations

this is incoherent moral framework. You cannot have two moral principles without a third one which decides which of previous two are chosen when in conflict. Further, it would make God evil by at least one of his own principles no matter what.

As for infants and animals being evil, God didnt even give them intelligence to be able to decide, so punishing them for something they didnt choose negates free will argument as well. And this argument also extends to all insane and very low IQ people. No free will there at all. Well, a more interesting argument is that free will is impossible without omniscience to begin with. Because no one even knows for certainty what good motivations are, God is setting people up for failure from start and thus makes any choice on the matter impossible to begin with.

And as I said before, free will doesnt beat causation chain.

Just so we arent running around in circles, I will make short argument, and you tell me which premise do you disagree with.

P1. God = creating evil motivations

P2. creating evil motivations = deserves punishment

C. God = deserves punishment.

I will repeat this question because I am not getting a clear answer. You said you want to base your argument on virtue ethics, those being based on pure motivations.

What are pure motivations?

No, this is circular reasoning. If God's motivations are purely punishing evil, and he does that, then his motivations are pure, and he's not evil, so he doesn't have to punish himself. If I'm reading your argument correctly, it's that God is evil for not punishing himself, which he needs to do cause he's evil. That's begging the question.

If God's motivations are punishing evil, then that begs the question on what evil is, and did God create it.

If God created evil, he did evil, so he must punish himself to punish evil.

If pure good is merely "punishing evil", then creating evil doesn't fall under that definition. If you say "God needs to create evil to punish evil", that would actually mean God needs to maximize evil to enable greatest amount of evil being punished. The end result is infinite amount of evil. It doesn't get more evil than that.

But we also see evil which is not instantly punished, so God fails that goal too.

Further, God is punishing children, infants, animals...ect. You would have to label all these as evil to support your argument.

As I said, on virtue ethics, enabling someone else to make a non-justified choice can be justified.

I didnt say it cant be justified sometimes. Your position here isnt "it sometimes can be justified".

Your position here is that God is always, in all instances, justified in enabling something unjustified, and that everything "unjustified" which exists is actually at same time somehow justified to exist from God's point of view.

My position is simply that God is responsible for all evil, and that does make him evil because he causes more evil than any single person.

Further, if we define good as "reducing evil", then God creating all evil has only increased evil.

If we define evil as "causing suffering", God caused all suffering.

Free will which causes evil isnt good either, so creating that is evil.

As for "greater good", motivations and actions are both judged by how much evil and good they cause. If each of them in this world causes more good than evil, then evil motivations dont exist and Bible is again incorrect. If some of them cause more evil than good, God created them so he bears responsibility.

Again, you havent said what counts as "good motivations". If its effort to reduce evil, God failed there. If its punishing evil, God needs to punish himself because his actions contain evil. If its maximizing good, God could have maximized good by creating people who are more good.

So what are God's motivations again?

Enabling a bad motivation can be justified; having a bad motivation isn't

God causes people to have bad motivations, so he is enabling something which isnt justified.

the only way enabling bad motivation can be justified is if that bad motivation results in greater good, but if bad motivations always resulted in greater good, they would no longer be bad motivations but path to good.

If motivation is judged based on how much good it leads to, then its not a bad motivation if it results in more good.

If people are bad for causing bad motivations, then God is bad too for causing bad motivations.

God = Created people

People = created bad motivations

God = created bad motivations

If people are bad for creating bad motivations, so is God.

Your argument is basically:

"God = created bad motivations = had good reasons to create bad motivations"

But this doesnt actually escape responsibility for creating bad motivations, and only makes things worse because any evil person can just say he is causing suffering for good reasons which God has.

If God created evil for good reasons, he has still merely increased amount of evil in existence, and destroyed "all-good".

And as for producing more good, not all actions in the world result in more good. If that were true, there would be no "bad actions". Same for motivations. If all motivations were actually causing "more good", they would no longer be bad motivations but good motivations.

Or if it's the Christian God, because he is actually motivated by justice?

there is no justice in creating evil people and then punishing them for evil, because the fault for existence of evil tracks back to creator.

We could discss a non-all-good God, but then we aren't talking about the Christian God anymore.

Christian God claims to be all good, so I am fine with discussing "all good". As for more good than bad, that is debatable too, not all actions in the world cause more good than evil.

That wasn't my framework, you are oversimplifying it. I said God is justified in enabling suffering, not that humans are.

You didnt challenge that God enabled all suffering, even enabled humans to enable suffering. So if humans arent justified in enabling suffering, it means God also enabled something which isnt justified, as God enables everything, so either everything is justified or God enabled something unjustified.

Because their motivations are morally relevant

the problem is that you are doing circular reasoning. You start with a premise that God's motivations are pure, but gave no standard to what makes motivations pure. So you started with premise which is actually the topic.

As for motivations being morally relevant, if there is such thing as a bad motivation, God created it, making him responsible for existence of bad motivations.

No, it could be selfish reasons, or personal satisfaction from seeing suffering, as opposed to justice.

the problem with this is that God also wants for people to suffer for no other reason than his own. the only difference is that when God does it, you call it justice.

But a robot doesn't have free will. This comparison doesn't work.

Free will changes nothing in the equation. If you made robot with free will which you knew would go around killing people, the responsibility would still be with you for killings which happen. Free will doesnt magically break causation chain, not when there is omniscience.

Satan was created by God as an angel. But he got too ambitious and wanted to become the leader in heaven.

God knew that would happen, so an easier way would be to just not create Satan.

No, because human motivations are not fully pure. If you arrest criminals because you enjoy kidnapping and seeing people suffer, then you could still be a bad person even though a good person arresting the criminals could be justified.

this comparison doesnt really work in framework of "all suffering is justified".

You cannot blame any individual for suffering they cause, or label any suffering as evil, if you think all suffering is justified punishment done by God.

If God wants for person A to cause suffering to person B, I dont see why person A would be considered evil for doing what God wants for person A to do.

Motivations dont work either, because as it was mentioned before, God caused those too.

the same dichotomy which applies to actions, applies to motivations as well. God enabled all evil motivations. And what makes a motivation evil? If its because it causes suffering, well you already argued all people are evil and deserve to suffer, so which standard makes motivation evil?

"Indirectly though which is not the same thing."

the causation chain doesnt stop just because its indirect. If you made a robot which you knew would go around killing people, responsibility would be on you because causation chain leads to you. Maybe you would not be directly killing people, but indirectly counts just as much, if not more because you would be trying to cause evil while dodging responsibility.

Satan was created by God, for some reason.

In Christianity, God has a duty to punish sin. So evil people suffering is justice based on the motivations of the entity causing said suffering, in fact much less than they deserve.

the problem with this is, again, it makes all suffering justified. If person kills another person, and God enabled that, is it justified punishment? If all suffering is justified punishment, then no action is evil and no person does any evil action.

Again, responsibility for a thing has different implications depending on who is doing the thing and what their motivations are.

If God has a motivation to cause / enable evil and create evil urges, and evil motivations, then God's motivations themselves are evil or at the very least contain evil, both contradicting Christian and muslim versions of God.

You can judge evil actions by the motivations for them.

Not if there are no evil actions. If all suffering is justified, no one is causing any unjustified suffering.

Causing something indirectly has different implications depending on the motivations for doing so.

Not when God is the one also creating motivations. Evil caused by God will always be greater than evil caused by a single person, because God causes evil of all evil persons, not just one.

Person comes to God and asks "Am I evil?" and God says "yes". Person asks "Did you create me?" God answers "Yes". Person answers "So you created evil".

I've already addressed this with the analogy of detectives getting criminals to snitch.

Analogy doesn't work because snitching results in good (harm prevented). God enabling all evil doesn't reduce evil, it increases it.

A more proper analogy would be detectives helping criminals commit crime. That's what God does.

God enables evil actions is not the same as saying God is evil.

No, but God enabling all evil actions is. It makes him responsible for all evil which occurs.

God creating people who have impure motivations is not the same as having impure motivations. It's like saying God creates people who aren't all knowing therefore God can't be all knowing.

This comparison doesn't really work, because while God can create someone weaker than him, he cannot create someone more evil than him. This is because causing evil makes someone responsible for that evil. If it were not so, there would be nothing to judge evil actions by. And God causes all evil, directly or indirectly.