The Connecticut Catholic bishops have issued a dire warning to the faithful that a proposal to lift the statute of limitations for victims of Church abuse to sue would threaten their very religion, putting “all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk,” .
The Bishops warned that the right to sue “would undermine the mission of the Catholic Church in Connecticut, threatening our parishes, our schools, and our Catholic Charities.”
Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to sue the Church.
The bill has some novel provisions. For example, anyone older than 48 who makes a sex abuse claim against the church would need to join an existing claim filed by someone 48 or younger. Older claimants would need to show substantial proof that they were abused. That itself raises some questions about the disparate treatment given victims. I have never seen such a provision in legislation.
For the full story, click here
Everyone knows that 4 and 4 is 4 de 4, so the correct answer to your apparent disagreement is exactly that 44. You see how easy that is.
I know this to be true as I got me 12 years of schooling. I went through the 6th grade twice.
Bdaman 1, April 14, 2010 at 7:57 am
Would you guys leave goneville alone already. He is left to defend himself all alone on this thread.
***********************************
Thanks Bdaman but when I need a rodeo clown I’ll let you know.
Byron 1, April 14, 2010 at 8:26 am
as stated above the choice is to declare Epicuru’s god(s) malevolent and a pussy. He was probably making sacrifices to Zeus.
So the other option is to address Gyges’s contention in terms of Epicurus and his ideas and historical location without arguing from a Christian perspective. When in Athens do as the Athenians.
*********************************
So its no choice.
Either agree with Gyges argument that the reason God does not interfere with human events is because he doesn’t exist, or adopt one of the definitions within the confines of Epicurus.
So now you too have become an “opinion Nazi”.
I can have no other opinions other than the ones you lay out for me.
Well tough if you don’t like it. Because I did offer a different opinion, and it doesn’t fall in line with the limited parameters I was provided to work with via Epicurus’ reasoning.
So if you don’t like the answers then my advice is don’t ask the questions.
But don’t tell me I can only offer opinions based on YOUR reasoning, or reasoning you found online.
I’ll do my own reasoning thank you, or select from the reasoning I choose to. When I need you to do my thinking for me I’ll let you know.
Byron 1, April 14, 2010 at 7:53 am
The problem is that 4+4 = 8 is not debatable and is known through reason and the principles of mathematics.
***************************************
Nope. We’re obviously not learning yet.
Ok. I’ll try for the 20 millionth time.
No Byron, there is no problem. Its not meant to be a calculation here Einstein. Its meant to be an ANALOGY.
Which part of the “sum is unimportant” were you not able to wrap your head around? Its an analogy. It doesn’t matter what the sum is. Its not meant to indicate a determinable quantitative sum. Just like I explained to you yesterday.
It analogizes a THEORETICAL OPINION.
Not a quantitative verifiable sum.
For the sake of your struggle here, lets say 4+4=8 never enters the equation. Lets say MY solution was 4+4=212.
Ok?
The point was that Slarti and Gyges were offering me THEIR sums. Not mine. Get it?
Its not meant to “prove” anything. We were speaking theoretically. Last I checked, neither Gyges nor Slarti were able to call any Gods down from their thrones to prove their points. And their limited logic opinions presented by one lone Greek philosopher does not constitute the sum of all knowledge.
So I offered one, alternative possibility that is supported in the New Testament. That’s all. So it doesn’t matter what 4 plus 4 actually equals. Because WE DON’T KNOW in this analogy. We’re guessing. Reasoning. Speculating. Theorizing. Discussing.
So 4 plus 4 could equal to me 2094. It doesn’t matter. The analogy analogizes their pigeonholing me into THEIR opinions.
Not my own.
There is no “sum” here. There’s only opinions.
Byron 1, April 14, 2010 at 7:46 am
goneville:
“Ok, enough. Your bluff is called.
Point to the statement where I said I have “faith that God exists”.
I’ll be waiting for that.”
So you are telling me you dont believe in God?
**********************************************
Its like talking to a brick wall. For some reason the atheists cannot discuss this without first pigeonholing anyone who won’t unilaterally declare “there is no god” with them, as a “believer”.
Well, get over it. I repeatedly made it clear I had “no god in this fight” and I stated that.
Pounding that concept into your thick cranium however has only taken 3 days.
Congratulations Luke.
You’ve just taken your first step into a larger world.
The sky is kinda dark today, oh wait, I got my sunglasses on 🙂
Buddha,
For some the sky is a different color everyday. Some call them flash backs, some take trips and never return and others the lights are on but nobody is home, then others the elevator never went to the top to begin with. Then as you are aware some are not aware playing solitaire til dawn with a deck of 51 is a losing proposition.
goneville:
“And Slarti is still trying to sell that argument, forcing me to either declare there is no God, or call him malevolent or a pussy.
What sort of choice is that?”
as stated above the choice is to declare Epicuru’s god(s) malevolent and a pussy. He was probably making sacrifices to Zeus.
So the other option is to address Gyges’s contention in terms of Epicurus and his ideas and historical location without arguing from a Christian perspective. When in Athens do as the Athenians.
Yeah! Faith always gets a pass from logic around here! (rolls eyes at badtroll)
Leave them believers alone! (stamps feet in mock disgust)
Seriously, bdaman. How long have you been posting here? Did you suddenly wake up and find the sky a different color today or something? Assertions of any sort get challenged here. Boo hoo. I’m pretty sure the “stop picking on so and so” thing isn’t going to work. No one is saying don’t believe what you like. Believe the universe is the thin layer of caramel coating some giant flan that rides carried atop the head of a noble if somewhat flatulent wildebeest. No one here is going to stop you. But if you assert it as fact, no one gets a walk on that around here and you should know that by now.
Would you guys leave goneville alone already. He is left to defend himself all alone on this thread. The first time he and Mespo got into it, I and Mike S. came to his defense. I believe in God. I stated to Mespo at that time, God has worked for me and he can work for you but it’s his time clock and it’s your free will to clock in or clock out. Either you do or you don’t, it’s as simple as that. No need to defend your position.
goneville:
“I wasn’t GIVEN an option to choose an alternative position.
I had to pick from one of the 3 positions “prepared for me”.
Are we learning yet?”
The problem is that 4+4 = 8 is not debatable and is known through reason and the principles of mathematics. God on the other hand must be taken on faith no matter what your argument it comes down to faith. There is no way to prove the existence of God, at least none that I know of, so you accept or you dont.
You could still argue Epicuru’s points from his knowledge without getting into the Christian God. Wasnt Epicurus most likely an atheist or a polytheist? Based on the time he live.
goneville:
“Ok, enough. Your bluff is called.
Point to the statement where I said I have “faith that God exists”.
I’ll be waiting for that.”
So you are telling me you dont believe in God?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzetqYev_AI&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
5) If God is able to prevent evil but not willing to prevent evil then God is malevolent.
You said this is false – if you had just answered the questions implicit in Epicurus’ quote, Gyges would have probably happily debated you on this issue (and I suspect he would have torn your arguments apart). The whole point of presenting the logical argument was to figure out that this was your key assertion so that everyone didn’t waste all of this time.
****************************************
Torn my arguments apart ay?
Well guess we won’t know because he was too busy running from them. Like you.
My arguments simple. I presented it repeatedly. When were you planning on addressing it? How many comments does it take, for a PHD in math to actually get around to addressing the answers he’s already been given?
Well, never let it be said that I did not give you every opportunity to address my comments, so I will once more, for the gee, I don’t know, something like the 27th thousandth time or something? ….I will go ahead and restate my positions, again with regards to “number 5”. (Your number 5 that is, it was asked and answered before you even entered the discussion, you just conveniently keep ignoring the answer provided).
First, I cannot comprehend some beyond this world God of spoogy spindly goop that floats in some ethereal netherworld or something, so for the sake of simplicity I reduce him to the status of a man. A really powerful man no doubt, but a man. After all it says we were made in his image in both the Jewish and Christian bible so we’re probably safe theorizing there.
That’s just figurative of course and you’re free to see him or not see him or her, whatever anyway you want.., so don’t get all crazy on me.
Now that that’s out of the way, your query.
“If God is able to prevent evil but not willing to prevent evil then God is malevolent.”
Yesterday I presented dozens of scenarios in which we have the opportunity to prevent evil, and yet do not. A response was that we were not gods, but we do have power in many instances, which makes us sort of like mini gods to the ones we have power over. Like the poor for example. I presented dozens of real life situations where we as mini gods, could have prevented evils, accidents, injuries, deaths, ruin, etc.
You’ve chosen to ignore all of them, even though I’ve reprinted them repeatedly. So now its your turn. I’m tired of you playing me by coming back time and time again and asking me to restate my arguments without ever addressing the ones I’ve already made. You’re lazy. Scroll up if you can’t read them. I’m not reposting them or resummarizing them again until you bother to do your homework. Go look where I showed all sorts of scenarios where we COULD prevent evil, but don’t. Every day of our lives. YOUR life. So if we can logically conclude that there are plenty of valid situations where people just don’t prevent evil, yet are not considered “malevolent” then we can conclude that the same could be true for a God.
Not IS true. But could be. Which is how I presented it.
Now feel free to present your logic how he couldn’t be, but you’d also need to explain why puny man , us, could do something he could not.
Which is why I reduce him to a man to make the supposition.
Because if a man can do it then it is a foregone conclusion that an omnipotent being could.
This is also pretty trivial (since you were never going to argue that God was both unwilling and unable to prevent evil). A wise person would have either admitted this to be true or dismissed it as unimportant (since your argument supposes its premise is false).
*******************************
I did argue it.
I said that there was another alternative. Unlike you I don’t need to disprove or discredit my opponents positions to offer another possibility to consider.
Which is all I did.
And rather than consider that possibility Gyges walked out, and you spent a day ignoring that possibility that I presented and instead keep focusing on what Gyges meant and trying to force me to frame my arguments within the confines of your apparent new spiritual leader, Epicurus.
Well I won’t. So get over it.
You want to debate me? Fine. Then debate the possible alternative I presented.
Explain why the reasoning its illogical or why you don’t like it or whatever the hell you want to say about it. But stop trying to force me into adopting your narrow minded framework based on the tunnel vision of Epicurus.
The possibility I presented you with does not fit within the framework you presented. It presents the idea that God is more like a parent who’s kids are grown up, and on their own.
It does not require Epicurus’ attacks on the character of a God who will not be Epicurus’ personal bodyguard and own private Santa Claus. It defines God in an easy to understand role, of the absentee vineyard owner as defined in the New Testament.
Deal with that position defined for you yesterday afternoon right after lunch. Something you’ve been pussyfooting around for over a day.
Let Gyges frame his own positions, and when I see Epicurus I’ll ask him what he thinks. In the meantime lets see if that PHD in Math and your naturally superior logic skills permit you to actually address the argument that you’ve been avoiding since it was made.
In the language of Epicurus the questions (and your answers – near as I could tell) were:
1) Is God willing to prevent evil?
You said no.
2) Is God able to prevent evil?
You said yes.
3) Is there evil in the world?
You said yes.
4) If God is willing to prevent evil but not able to prevent evil then God is not omnipotent.
You said the statement is false (since this statement is pretty clearly true, this is an indication that you don’t understand the logic of Epicurus.
****************************************
First. Why are you rewriting my answers for me to fit your argument, when I gave you my answers and you could just reprint them?
Explain that.
Secondly why are you again forcing me into the confines of Epicurus’ opinions when I already offered an ALTERNATIVE opinion?
Can you explain that?
I presented a completely different supposition, based on what Jesus taught in the New Testament.
It does not FIT the positions of Epicurus, who concludes God is either evil, absent or impotent.
So again, here you go again. Demanding that I frame my argument by YOUR standards.
I won’t. So forget it. Go take a long walk off a short pier or something, but stop demanding I adopt the conclusions of Epicurus.
I don’t agree with them, so why would I adopt them.
And I don’t need to disprove them, because we’re talking theology here and they are not presented as FACT, merely opinions and suppositions.
And they are limited to Epicurus’ suppositions and opinions of God, not some provable fact that can “disproved”.
So for someone who likes to brag about his degree and logical superiority you sure are dense when it comes to understanding that philosophical opinions are not matters to be “disproved”.
Gyges picked a Greek Philosopher (theres a few more you know) out of a hat and said here, here’s the only possible logic you can use to define God. As if Epicurus were the only human to ever speculate on the matter.
He tossed it out there like suddenly the only way I could offer any opinion was to become a follower of either Gyges or Epicurus.
So please, enough of your ignorant nonsense.
You want to debate my position? Fine. Debate it. But stop rewriting my words and arguing to me about what Gyges meant.
Argue your own points and let Gyges argue his.
Slartibartfast 1, April 14, 2010 at 3:22 am
goneville,
No one demanded that you choose between 3 restricted choices, we asked you to respond to a logical argument (and you clearly do not understand logic).
******************************************
Wuit lying and lecturing others on logic.
You boldly and unabashedly demanded I frame my any input within the confines of YOUR reasoning.
Here’s what you said since you’re choosing to rewrite history at this late hour.
****************************************************
Slartibartfast 1, April 13, 2010 at 3:34 am
goneville,
What Gyges is doing by putting this logic out there is to force you to define your argument.
First, you have to either accept or reject each of these logical statements – if you reject any of them, then you are forced to give an argument as to why the statement you reject is false to which Gyges can respond with a counter argument (presumably aided by his knowledge of Epicurus).
If you accept all of these statements then you are constrained in the characteristics that you can assign to God
*******************************************
I gave Gyges a 4th scenario, and instead of discussing that 4th scenario with me, you’re instead rehashing your tired, inane lunacy from last night and IGNORING my actual position.
And not just ignoring it but lying by acting as if I did not offer one. Even though I just got through reposting AND resummarizing it for you since you choose to merrily skip over it as you rewrite history.
Just like you did last night.
So enough already. Give it up. I’m sick of your nonsense. If you want to discuss my actual POSITION, then discuss it.
But quit coming at me like the blog police, trying to lecture me on logic when you don’t know your own ass from a hole in the ground. You’re lying. I did counter his argument and you wasted the entire night pretending that I did not.
I GAVE HIM AN ALTERNATIVE.
That you can’t discuss it is your problem but quit lying and pretending I did not.
Slartibartfast 1, April 14, 2010 at 3:22 am
goneville,
No one demanded that you choose between 3 restricted choices, we asked you to respond to a logical argument (and you clearly do not understand logic). Essentially, you were asked 7 independent true/false or yes/no questions to try and provide a framework in which to discuss the issue and you’ve been having a hissy fit about it ever since. If you are counting you were offered 128 different choices in a way that didn’t force you to do anything but declare what your position was
**************************************
I don’t care if it was a thousand different options.
None of them were mine.
So I gave you my answer and you are once more lying about it pretending I did not.
So my advice to you is if you don’t like the answers then don’t ask the questions.
goneville,
No one demanded that you choose between 3 restricted choices, we asked you to respond to a logical argument (and you clearly do not understand logic). Essentially, you were asked 7 independent true/false or yes/no questions to try and provide a framework in which to discuss the issue and you’ve been having a hissy fit about it ever since. If you are counting you were offered 128 different choices in a way that didn’t force you to do anything but declare what your position was (or rather what position you were arguing – Gyges made it perfectly clear that he was not inferring that it was your position, just the position that you were advocating). In the language of Epicurus the questions (and your answers – near as I could tell) were:
1) Is God willing to prevent evil?
You said no.
2) Is God able to prevent evil?
You said yes.
3) Is there evil in the world?
You said yes.
4) If God is willing to prevent evil but not able to prevent evil then God is not omnipotent.
You said the statement is false (since this statement is pretty clearly true, this is an indication that you don’t understand the logic of Epicurus – if God is omnipotent and willing to prevent evil then there cannot be evil in the world since God has the power and desire to prevent it, thus you cannot hold this statement false and answer yes to statement 3 – that’s basically what #6 is about).
5) If God is able to prevent evil but not willing to prevent evil then God is malevolent.
You said this is false – if you had just answered the questions implicit in Epicurus’ quote, Gyges would have probably happily debated you on this issue (and I suspect he would have torn your arguments apart). The whole point of presenting the logical argument was to figure out that this was your key assertion so that everyone didn’t waste all of this time.
6) If God is willing to prevent evil and able to prevent evil then there shouldn’t be any evil in the world.
Again, this is just pointing out that if God wants to do something and God can do something then it doesn’t make sense that he hasn’t done it. Why you wouldn’t admit that something this trivial is true and move on is beyond me.
7) If God is neither willing to prevent evil nor able to prevent evil, then he doesn’t deserve to be called a God.
This is also pretty trivial (since you were never going to argue that God was both unwilling and unable to prevent evil). A wise person would have either admitted this to be true or dismissed it as unimportant (since your argument supposes its premise is false).
The whole point of logic (both this particular argument and logical arguments in general) is to provide a formal framework to allow for a more nuanced debate. This site is full of LAWYERS all of whom are trained in logic and likely understand this stuff so well that it is like breathing to them (Gyges is not a lawyer, but he certainly understands logic). I on the other hand have been trained as a mathematician – my instinct is to make the logical formalism explicit in order to reduce the argument down to assumptions and simple logical statements that are easily evaluated or debated (this is how you prove things mathematically). Logical mistakes or a misunderstanding of logic grates on me like fingernails on a blackboard, so when I saw that you clearly did not understand the logical argument that you were being presented, I tried to explain it to you. Because it is hard for me to understand why you just don’t see the logic of Epicurus’ argument clearly, I have obviously had a hard time communicating it to you (I had the same problem teaching remedial algebra when I was a grad student). In any case, quit your whining, already. If you want to debate whether or not statement #5 is true, just ask me and I will respond to the argument you posted. If not, fine – I wont respond. But don’t act like anyone has done anything other than attempt to have a rational debate in the context of a simple, logical framework.
“Should a wise man utter vain knowledge, and fill his belly with the east wind?
Should he reason with unprofitable talk? or with speeches wherewith he can do no good?
Yea, thou castest off fear, and restrainest prayer before God.
For thy mouth uttereth thine iniquity, and thou choosest the tongue of the crafty.
Thine own mouth condemneth thee, and not I, yea, thine own lips testify against thee.
Art thou the first man that was born? or wast thou made before the hills?
Hast thou heard the secret of God? and dost thou restrain wisdom to thyself?
What knowest thou, that we know not? what understandest thou, which is not in us?
With us are both the grayheaded and very aged men, much elder than thy father.
Are the consolations of God small with thee? is there any secret thing with thee?
Why doth thine heart carry thee away? and what do thy eyes wink at,
That thou turnest thy spirit against God, and lettest such words go out of thy mouth?”
JOB 15:2-13 KJV