The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ssadi
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

God, the argument of unnecessary suffering

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
ssadi
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/26/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,159 times Debate No: 85565
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (34)
Votes (1)

 

Illegalcombatant

Pro

[The Debate]

I as Pro will seek to provide argument to support the proposition that God (as defined) does not exist is more likely true than false with a focus on suffering.

Definitions

God - An omniscient, omnipotent, loving, morally perfect*, supernatural, personal being.

* Morally perfect = It is understood that morally perfect here means that God in it's actions & non actions could not of possibly done any different to get a better outcome.

Unnecessary suffering = suffering which is not logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.

Necessary suffering = suffering which is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.

First round is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in the first round.

No new arguments in the last round

Any questions or problems ? Feel free to bring them up in the comments section before accepting the debate so we can have a chance to reach agreement before starting the debate.
ssadi

Con

I accept.

BoP is on Pro.

I as Con will seek to refute Pro's "arguments to support the proposition that God doesn't exist is more likely true than false with a focus on suffering".

I would like to thank Pro for instigating this important and interesting debate.

I hope this debate will be fruitful and wish Pro best of luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I thank ssadi from now on referred to as Con for accepting the debate.

God exists vs God does not exist & occams razor

Occams Razor is explained as such..."Occam's razor is a scientific/philosophical principle which states that one should never make more assumptions than the minimum necessary to explain something; or, if you don't have explicit evidence to believe that something is true, then you should not. The "razor" is used to "shave off" the unnecessary bits of a solution.

Consider even just a general outline of some of the things that have and will continue to cause pain, suffering, injury, disability, despair and even death to humanity. War, disease, malaria, ebola, the plague, earthquakes, tornadoes, various cancers, alzheimer's, rape, torture, drowning, struck by lighting and even the more hardly news worthy item of death by choking on a chicken bone.

Sam Harris points out...."9 million children die every year before they reach the age of five...That's 24 thousand a day, a thousand an hour 17 or so a minute. That means before I can get to the end of this sentence some few children likely will have died in terror and agony" [2]

Consider the following two propositions which are both compatible with the data.

H1) God exists, yet choose not to stop those things from happening.

H2) No God exists, as such no such decision making took place from such a God.

Seeing that H1 requires more assumptions than H2, occams razor enjoins us to go with H2, that being No God exists and no such decision making took place.

God and unnecessary suffering

Consider the following argument........

P1) If God exists, then unnecessary suffering does not exist
P2) More likely, unnecessary suffering does exist
C) Therefore more likely God does not exist

P1) If God exists, then unnecessary suffering does not exist

Recall that unnecessary suffering is defined as..."suffering which is not logically necessary for an adequately compensating good."

Christian philosopher Daniel Howard Snyder remarks, "on the face of it, the idea that God may well permit gratuitous evil is absurd. After all, if God can get what He wants without permitting some particular horror (or anything comparably bad), why on earth would He permit it?" [3]

Denying P1) leads to the absurdity that it could be possible if God exists, the all powerful, all knowing, morally perfect God allowed say a child to have cancer, knowing full well that the suffering and death produced from having that cancer either will not lead to any greater good nor was necessary to achieve a greater good, in other words, pointless.

P2) More likely, unnecessary suffering does exist

The following are given to support of P2)

Non conceivable

William Rowe argues as such... "In light of our experience and knowledge, of the variety and scale of human and animal suffering in our world, the idea that none of this suffering could have been prevented by an omnipotent being without thereby losing some greater good or permitting an evil at least as bad seems an extraordinary, absurd idea, quite beyond our belief."" [4]

Presupposing unnecessary suffering or moral paralysis

Consider the following scenario. In a small town in the past few months a few children have gone missing. After investigating for a while police and towns folk surround an isolated cabin in the woods. After going into the cabin they find a man with the dead bodies of the children. The man confesses to the kidnap and murder of the children. But the man says, you people will let me go and after you release me I will attempt to kidnap and kill another child.

The people are shocked, this man is clearly insane. The man says hang on, isn't it true that God exists ? And isn't it true that God allowed me to do what I did ? and isn't it true that God would of only allowed me to do what I did if it would result in a greater good ?

So he argues, release me, and if God allows me to kidnap again and kill again at least take comfort that God allowed it for another greater good, for if he allows it, it must be the case.

Now the people don't release him, they are not crazy, but something bothers them, where was the error in his logic ?

If we did believe that all suffering that happens was necessary for achieving a greater good it would lead to moral paralysis as we would not seek to prevent suffering least we prevent the greater good that was dependent on said suffering.

Every time we stop or seek to prevent some suffering like stopping a child rape or giving medical treatment we do so on the assumption that such suffering is unnecessary or at least more likely to be unnecessary and thus by preventing such suffering we are not eliminating a greater good. But this only makes sense if you operate on the presupposition that unnecessary suffering does exist.

Leading to even more absurdity

If we were to operate on the suffering only happens cause God is allowing it for a greater good we could at least logically advocate for a doctrine of create more suffering. Kill, rape, torture would be the motto and the more of it the better.

Of course we won't.............well most of us won't advocate such a thing, cause once again we presuppose that at least some of that suffering would not be necessary for achieving greater goods.

Divine Silence

Consider what Austin Dacey says...."A loving father who must bring their daughter to the hospital to have a painful medical treatment will explain the reasons why he does what he does. If she can't understand the reasons he will at least make sure she feels his presence and comfort and receive some assurance that there is a reason even though she can't see it right now. So there is every reason to think we especially should be aware of any justification reasons that God has. What we in fact find is that many of those who go under go terrible anguish such as holocaust survivors report feeling totally abandoned by God in their time of need. Of course many victims of disease, starvation, natural disaster die very young, having never ever believed in him" [5]

This gives us another reason to believe that the suffering is probably unnecessary.

Closing Remarks

I look forward to Cons reply.

Sources

[1] http://rationalwiki.org...

[2] https://www.youtube.com...

[3] Howard-Snyder, Daniel, and Frances Howard-Snyder. 1999. "Is Theism Compatible with Gratuitous Evil?" American Philosophical Quarterly 36: 115-29.

[4] Rowe, William, The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism, American Philosophical Quarterly 16: 335-41.

[5] https://www.youtube.com...
ssadi

Con

I thank Pro for posting their arguments in R2.



INTRODUCTION



He” will sometimes be used as a generalization for both “she” and “he”.



I will introduce four more definitions that are not incompatible with any definitions given in R1 by Pro; God is also Wise (i.e., He does things for a reason/wisdom), Just, the Creator and the Ruler of everything.



Please note that this topic is very complicated and I believe (and will give some examples to show) that we have to consider some other factors in order to make a fair judgment.



REBUTTALS



God and unnecessary suffering



P1: If God exists, then unnecessary suffering does not exist

P2: More likely, unnecessary suffering exists

C: Therefore more likely God does not exist



P1: If God exists, then unnecessary suffering does not exist



Unnecessary vs. Necessary



Many actions are unnecessary if only the moment at which that action takes place or even a future of some years is considered. For example, planting trees, educating children (for parents), studying for about 15-16 years (end of undergraduate education), investments etc. etc. Note that there are different kinds of great sufferings (mental, physical, economical etc.) in doing the abovementioned actions for those who willingly do them. Then suddenly each of them becomes necessary when further future is considered, when; the trees start giving fruits, children start helping their parents and provide their own needs by themselves after successfully graduating and finding good jobs, investments start giving positive results etc. etc., respectively. As you see, the factor considered here is further future. If one doesn’t consider it, all the above actions become unnecessary and they all become necessary when this factor is considered for each of them.



Similarly, if we only consider the life until death, there are many unnecessary sufferings, I admit! But if we consider the afterlife, where suffered people (even animals according to Islam) are given opportunities for revenge (i.e., taking back what once was taken from them) or things that make them very happy and satisfied, so that they don’t regret any suffering came to them; then none of those sufferings remain unnecessary anymore.

Remember definitions given in R1 for unnecessary and necessary suffering!

This assumption of afterlife is completely reasonable, possible, and compatible for God who is Omniscient, Just, loving, morally perfect, and Omnipotent!



Prevention



P1 is assumed to be true, because if God (as defined in R1) exists, then He would prevent unnecessary sufferings. Preventing a suffering is not always the only good (i.e., necessary) thing to be done. Sometimes sufferings give rise to better results, at least, worthy of those sufferings. The above examples can be considered here. In addition, there are some goods that can only be gained by undergoing some sufferings e.g., training, studying, thinking, working etc.. Remember: “No pain, no gain!”[1]



Q: God is Omnipotent and He can give those gains without any pain.

A: Although He can, giving equal gain both to those who deserve it and to those who don’t is not reasonably fair.



Q: God is Omniscient, he knows who deserves something and who doesn’t, no need for Him to test them.

A: Although He knows and there is no need for Him to test them, people may not know and they may need to be tested to be convinced about what they really deserve. For God not to give people things they don’t deserve just because He knows they don’t deserve it is less reasonable thing to be done than doing so after testing them. Because people may object and think that they actually deserve those things. Therefore, letting them show what they really deserve and then giving them those things is a more reasonable/wiser way. This way those people who don’t receive a gain won’t object that they were treated unjustly. Note that afterlife also should be considered here!



In short, only not preventing a suffering from happening doesn’t necessarily make that suffering unnecessary.



=>These refute P1.



P2: More likely, unnecessary suffering exists



As I said before, I admit that suffering exists. Let’s see if any of them is unnecessary.



When we look at the examples given by Pro, we can see that he considers death as the biggest suffering. As explained under rebuttal to P1, when afterlife is considered, death is no more an unnecessary suffering. But still I would like to concentrate more on this premise, because it contains many emotional sides, such as the examples provided by Pro, to which materials discussed above are not sufficient to be emotionally, not factually, convincing. Note that no unnecessary sufferings exist when afterlife is considered.



Q: God is loving and morally perfect, how can He let such sufferings to happen?

A: What would you think of a man who cuts or makes another person to cut a hand of his son when his son hasn’t done anything bad? A loving and morally good or a bad father? Bad, isn’t it? But what if in his son’s hand was gangrene? A loving, patient, and morally good father, isn’t it? As it is seen, an action can be good or bad depending on some other factors such as conditions and reasons. Therefore, preventing a suffering may sometimes give result to bigger sufferings.



Let’s compare illnesses and dying people, especially children, with above example/analogy.



Illnesses



Would it be better if there were no illnesses at all? For me, yes! But what about doctors? By not preventing illnesses, God provides sustenance to millions of doctors and other personnel of hospitals. Would anyone give money to doctors if they didn’t become ill? God makes others give money willingly/unwillingly to doctors by sending them illnesses. There are also other factors that make doctors give money to others etc.



Q: They wouldn’t become doctors etc., if there were no illnesses.

A: What would they become then?



-Teachers? Studying is also a suffering. What if God prevented studying?

-Policemen? Crimes are also pains and sufferings for others. What if crimes were prevented directly by God?

-Etc? Etc. Etc?



Death



Would it be better if nobody died? If nobody died, then we wouldn’t find a place to stand. Overpopulation, limited resources, looking after your grand-grand-grand-…-fathers/mothers, becoming so weak that you can do nothing at all are only some issues that we would have to deal with. When we consider these issues, we understand how necessary death is. However, an afterlife with no death is a complete solution to problem of death of this life.



Q: OK, death is important. But God is Omnipotent; he could make death without any illness or any painful cause.

A: We hope we will live longer, if we pay attention to accidents, dangerous things etc. and this way we can get flavor from our life. Otherwise the idea of dying any moment would not let us truly get flavor from anything. Just imagine that our death comes with no prior cause. Illnesses or other causes may be considered as warnings of death.



Death of Children



If afterlife was a place with no suffering and pain for good people, at least for not-bad-ones, then death of children (who are at least not-bad-ones) would mean that they will be away from all the sufferings and pains of this life.

If God is Just, then He will resurrect dead people, in order not to make their sufferings unnecessary. And it is not difficult at all for Him to create afterlife / resurrect dead people, since He is Omnipotent. Then He will surely create afterlife, since He is Omnipotent, loving and morally perfect.



In short, when an afterlife is considered, there would be no unnecessary sufferings in this world.



=> These are sufficient to refute P2!



RESULT: Since P1 and P2 are refuted, then C: More likely God does not exist is refuted!



CONCLUSION



The materials I provided above are sufficient to show that Pro’s arguments in R2 don’t establish the proposition that “God (as defined) does not exist is more likely true than false”.



I look forward to Pro’s reply.

Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I thank ssadi for their reply.

God exists vs God does not exist & occams razor

Recall the following two options that are compatible with the data referred to in the previous round...

H1) God exists, yet choose not to stop those things from happening.

H2) No God exists, as such no such decision making took place from such a God.

Seeing that H1 requires more assumptions than H2, occams razor enjoins us to go with H2, that being No God exists and no such decision making took place.

I didn't pick up anything from Con that argued against occams razor.

God and unnecessary suffering

P1) If God exists, then unnecessary suffering does not exist
P2) More likely, unnecessary suffering does exist
C) Therefore more likely God does not exist

P1) If God exists, then unnecessary suffering does not exist

Con did seem to agree here, the main point they make here is that we should factor in the future. That's fine but I add a caveat, it's always possible to refer to the mere logical possibility of something, in this case that God allows x,y,z for some unknown to us greater good that would not of other wise happened in the future.

But the mere logical possibility does not give us any reason to believe it is true or even more likely true than false.

Counters against P2: More likely, unnecessary suffering exists

Heaven/after life

Putting aside questions whether heaven or an after life exists, even if we grant the existence of such how does that help Cons case here ? Con never really explained, just asserts that heaven some how makes all those previous sufferings necessary.

I think it gets worse, I think heaven creates even more problems for Con. You end up creating some frame work where in this world/life God has to allow suffering because it is necessary for a greater good but in another world/life doesn't allow those things and presumably there is no loss of greater goods. In order to reconcile this frame work of two very different worlds requires all sorts of ad hocness to make it work and thus more and more unlikely to be true.

The medical analogy, gangrene hand

Consider Cons medical analogy, in the analogy a persons hand is cut off because of gangrene, the implication being this was justified cause it stops a worse outcome. This analogy fails as do so many others as a justification for God, because God could prevent the gangrene or cure the gangrene without having to resort to loss of hand.

The reason we may cut off a hand is because that is the best we could do, due to our limitations. Limitations that don't apply to an all powerful, all knowing, supernatural agent.

Economic justification

Consider where Con argues..."By not preventing illnesses, God provides sustenance to millions of doctors and other personnel of hospitals. Would anyone give money to doctors if they didn"t become ill? God makes others give money willingly/unwillingly to doctors by sending them illnesses. There are also other factors that make doctors give money to others etc.

Q: They wouldn"t become doctors etc., if there were no illnesses.

A: What would they become then?"

Well then the more illness, the more need for doctors = better for the economy ? this is risible.

Cons argument also seems to play into the broken glass fallacy explained as such..."In Bastiat's tale, a man's son breaks a pane of glass, meaning the man will have to pay to replace it. The onlookers consider the situation and decide that the boy has actually done the community a service because his father will have to pay the glazier (window repair man) to replace the broken pane. The glazier will then presumably spend the extra money on something else, jump-starting the local economy. (For related reading, see Economics Basics.)

The onlookers come to believe that breaking windows stimulates the economy, but Bastiat points out that further analysis exposes the fallacy. By breaking the window, the man's son has reduced his father's disposable income, meaning his father will not be able purchase new shoes or some other luxury good. Thus, the broken window might help the glazier, but at the same time, it robs other industries and reduces the amount being spent on other goods." [1]

Arguments in support of P2: More likely, unnecessary suffering exists

Non conceivable

Presupposing unnecessary suffering or moral paralysis

Recall how I argued when we seek to stop various sufferings, we do so on the presupposition that by preventing the suffering in question, it will not or at least more likely will not prevent a greater good, other wise we would not seek to prevent the suffering in the first place.

Con didn't seem to dispute this, as such consistency of presupposing the existence of unnecessary suffering gives us another reason to believe why it's more likely to be the case.

Leading to even more absurdity

Also recall that..."If we were to operate on the suffering only happens cause God is allowing it for a greater good we could at least logically advocate for a doctrine of create more suffering. Kill, rape, torture would be the motto and the more of it the better.

Of course we won't.............well most of us won't advocate such a thing, cause once again we presuppose that at least some of that suffering would not be necessary for achieving greater goods."

Con didn't seem to dispute this.

Divine Silence

Also recall the lack of comfort and understanding from God when people go through anguish. Yet another reason to believe the suffering is unnecessary.

Con didn't challenge on this point.

Closing Remarks

I claim the various arguments to support that unnecessary suffering exists is more likely true have gone untouched, and Cons counters have shown to be flawed.

Sources

[1] http://www.investopedia.com...
ssadi

Con

ssadi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I would remind Con as per rules no new arguments in the last round.
ssadi

Con

I am terribly sorry for FF!

I almost finished preparing my arguments, but, unfortunately, due to an unexpected personal issue I was unable to submit them! I wish it didn’t happen, but such things may happen sometimes! I really apologize for it..

* - important!


I will summarize/readdress the main points of our already-presented arguments,
without providing any new/additional argument.


BOP

**Pro tries to show that unnecessary suffering more likely exists to establish his proposition that God more likely doesn’t exist.

**In this case I, as Con, try to show that those sufferings are more likely not unnecessary (i.e., not bad), which would automatically refute Pro’s arguments. Even if those sufferings are necessary (i.e., good) is another topic (e.g., they may be neither bad nor good, but neutral).


NOTE 1

*Direct quotations and paraphrases etc. from our previous arguments will be italic.

Pro / I: “…” - means what Pro / I wrote in direct quotation.

Pro / I: - means what Pro / I meant (paraphrase, summary etc. of our statements)

**CORRECTIONS

1) I: “=>These refute P1.”
-> Correction:=>These refute P1.

2) I:RESULT: Since P1 and P2 are refuted, then C … is refuted!”
-> Correction:RESULT: Since P2 is refuted, then C … is refuted!”


OVERALL SUMMARY

Occams razor

Pro:“…Occam’s Razor … states that one should never make more assumptions than the minimum necessary to explain something…”

Pro: “Seeing that H1 requires more assumptions than H2, occams razor enjoins us to go with H2.”

How does that follow?

Pro (only paraphrased):Occam’s Razor states that if more assumptions are necessary, then you should make.

***In addition, if you want to know what Occam’s razor is really about, then please check a more reliable source than RationalWiki (Pro’s source). I hope, at least, voters will do that before they vote.


God and unnecessary suffering

I: If “God who is Omniscient, Just, loving, morally perfect, and Omnipotent” exists, then the existence “of [an] afterlife is completely reasonable, possible, and compatible.” And when an “afterlife, where suffered people (even animals according to Islam) are given opportunities for revenge (i.e., taking back what once was taken from them) or things that make them very happy and satisfied, so that they don’t regret any suffering came to them” is considered, “then none of those sufferings remain unnecessary anymore.”

NOTE 2: Let […] denote the above statements for another use below.

NOTE 3: This is the reason for the 1st correction above!

Pro: “…the main point [Con] make[s] here is that we should factor in the future. That's fine but I add a caveat, it's always possible to refer to the mere logical possibility of something, in this case that God allows x,y,z for some unknown to us greater good that would not of other wise happened in the future.

In other words, Pro: It is always possible that an afterlife exists (in future), which may result for that there remained no unnecessary suffering anymore, when God exists.

****In other words, Pro: since this possibility is always possible if God exists, then it is never possible to prove P2.

Pro: “But the mere logical possibility does not give us any reason to believe it is true or even more likely true than false.”

And vice versa! Note that according to BOP, Pro has to show that this possibility doesn’t exist!

In addition, Pro: “… it's always possibleto refer to the mere logical possibility of something…”

In addition, I: “This assumption of afterlife is completely reasonable, possible, and compatible for God who is Omniscient (knows everything, including suffering and how that feels), Just, loving, morally perfect, and Omnipotent!”


CONCLUSION 1

Since Pro admitted that when God (as defined) exists, then it is always possible that an afterlife (not necessarily heaven or hell) exists in future and I demonstrated that if an afterlife exists then it is impossible to show that sufferings are unnecessary. So, it means that P2 is already refuted, refuting his conclusion in his deduction argument.

Therefore, Pro lost the debate (in Arguments)!

Pro claims in R3 that I didn’t dispute some of his arguments. Let’s see if the materials I provided really refuted his arguments or not.


Heaven/after life

Pro: … even if we grant the existence of [afterlife] how does that help Cons case here ? Con never really explained, just asserts that heaven some how makes all those previous sufferings necessary.”

I: […](please refer to NOTE 2 above for […])

Pro: I think it gets worse, I think heaven creates even more problems for Con. You end up creating some frame work where in this world/life God has to allow suffering because it is necessary for a greater good.”

**My arguments talk about the condition of I: “suffered people (even animals according to Islam)” and“for good people, at least for not-bad-ones” etc., not in general. In other words, my arguments argue that I (summary of my arguments):when an afterlife is considered, then those sufferings are not absolutely bad (thus not unnecessary), even if they were not good.


The medical analogy, gangrene hand

Pro: This analogy fails because God could prevent … or cure the gangrene without … loss of hand.”

I: “…[an]afterlife, where [sufferers] are given … things that make them very happy and satisfied (e.g., their lost hands in a life better than this one), so that they don’t regret any suffering came to them.”

Pro:“The reason we may cut off a hand is because that is the best we could do…”

I:God can resurrect him/her after dead and give a fully-functional body (including hands) in another life maybe much better than this one.


Economic justification

Pro: Well then the more illness, the more need for doctors = better for the economy ? this is risible.”

Whose economy?

I: “Would it be better if there were no illnesses at all?”

As you can see, my argument is about a condition with no illness at all, not about more illness which is a different topic.


Presupposing unnecessary suffering or moral paralysis

Pro: A child kidnapper and killer “argues, release me, and if God allows me to kidnap again and kill again at least take comfort that God allowed it for another greater good, for if he allows it, it must be the case” after he is found and caught by police and town’s folk.

Ironic!

I: God is also … the Creator and the Ruler of everything (e.g., police and their opportunities, human mind etc).”


Leading to even more absurdity

Pro: If we were to operate on the suffering only happens cause God is allowing it for a greater good…”

I: …not necessarily for a general/universal greater good (obviously not for those who cause sufferings), but at least for sufferers.


Divine Silence

Pro (R2): “A loving father who must bring their daughter to the hospital to have a painful medical treatmentwill explain the reasons why he does what he does. If she can't understand the reasons he will at least make sure she feels his presence and comfort and receive some assurance that there is a reason even though she can't see it right now.”

Pro (R3): “Yet another reason to believe the suffering is unnecessary.”

In other words Pro’s analogy is as follows, Pro: If the father didn’t show understanding and comfort by not explaining the reasons for that painful medical treatment and not being present in hospital during the treatment, then it would give us a reason to believe that the suffering (of their daughter due to medical treatment) is unnecessary.

Pro (R3): “Con didn't challenge on this point.”

He may be right, sorry!


CONCLUSION

I (R2):The materials I provided in [R2 were] sufficient to show that Pro’s arguments in R2 don’t establish [their] proposition…”

Please note that all of what I wrote in italic were direct quotations, paraphrases or summaries of what was already-presented in previous Rs by Pro and me (you can check them). I didn’t introduce any new/additional argument other than what was presented before, so no violation of rules!

I thank Pro for instigating and participating in this debate. I also thank the voters in advance.


Vote Con please!

Debate Round No. 4
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
Visit the following link for symbols:

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
See example 3 in the following link for a similar mathematical case:

http://www.personal.kent.edu...

NOTE

W04;: "For all..."
W07;: "There exists..."

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
Let me disprove your premise P': "More likely unnecessary suffering exists", when the existence of God (as defined) is assumed, using the method of "Proof by Contradiction".

P1: Assume that P': "More likely unnecessary suffering exists" is always true when the existence of God (as defined) is assumed.
P2: There exists a case where P' is not true (a contradiction to assumption in P1, this needs to be shown).
C: There is no reason to believe that the assumption in P1 is true. On the contrary, more likely the assumption in P1 is false when the existence of God (as defined) is assumed.

P2

If the God who is Omniscient, loving, morally perfect, and Just exists, then it is reasonable, completely possible, compatible and necessary for Him to create an afterlife which sufficiently compensates any suffering, hence no suffering remains unnecessary anymore (for detailed information refer to my arguments in R2). And there is nothing that can prevent Him from doing so, since He is Omnipotent. There are reasonable and necessary reasons to believe that He creates such an afterlife, since He is loving, morally perfect and Just. Then it is more likely that He will create such an afterlife (for detailed explanation please refer to my arguments in R2).

Since it is more likely that P2 is true, then it is more likely that the assumption in P1 is false, hence a contradiction. Therefore, C is true!
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
Shortly, you have to show with certainty that P3 is true for ALL POSSIBLE CASES. I showed you that you cannot be certain that P3 is true when God (as defined) exists because he can create an afterlife which can refute P3. And you admitted that God can indeed create such an afterlife, i.e., an afterlife is a possible consequence when P1 is considered. Therefore, you didn't prove P3 for all consequences that were assumed and planned to be refuted. Hence you conclusion doesn't follow!

Do you need more clarification?
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
Actually your first premise can be divided into two premises as follows:

P1: Assume that God (as defined) exists
P2: Then unnecessary suffering should not exist (Follows from P1 because the definition of God necessitates it)
P3: More likely unnecessary suffering exists (This needs to be proven)
C: Since P3 contradicts P2 (when proven), then P1 is false.

To prove something (i.e., More likely God doesn't exist) by contradiction, we assume that what we want to prove is not true (i.e., P1), and then show that the consequences of this (P2) are not possible (P3)."

"Key to all mathematics is the notion of proof." And to prove something (P3 in your case) "We wish to be able to say with absolute certainty that a property (P3) holds for all numbers or ALL CASES, not just those we've tried, and not just because it sounds convincing or would be quite nice if it were so."
http://nrich.maths.org...
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
The method you used in your deduction argument is called as "Proof by contradiction".

"To prove something by contradiction, we assume that what we want to prove is not true, and then show that the consequences of this are not possible. That is, the consequences contradict either what we have just assumed, or something we already know to be true (or, indeed, both) - we call this a contradiction."
http://nrich.maths.org...

I am just showing that the creation of an afterlife is a very reasonable, possible and necessary for such a God, hence A POSSIBLE AND REASONABLE AND NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF YOUR ASSUMPTION.. The BOP is on you to show that this consequence is not possible for your argument to work, because you are using the method of contradiction and that is what you have to do when you use this method. And you didn't disprove this consequence, on the contrary you said it is a mere possibility, hence a possibility that you didn't disprove and you will never be able to disprove.

The BOP is on you to disprove this consequence because this is a consequence in your assumption that you are trying to show a contradiction to conclude the opposite!
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
For God nothing is late.. He is supernatural (above natural laws, hence not bound to spacetime). And dying is not a problem if He can resurrect the dead.. The evidence is that we assumed that He is omnipotent. And He will more likely create such an afterlife. The evidence is that He is Just, loving, morally perfect and omniscient. There is no reason to think that He won't create such an afterlife. And His attributes (as assumed) are more than just reasons to consider the existence of an afterlife.

To make an analogy between two things, not all aspects have to match. Only a particular similarity is enough.. The rest can be contradictory. That doesn't invalidate the analogy.

My analogy is made for the following coclusion only:
If God hasn't done something until today, it never means that He won't do that or a better one tomorrow. I don't have BOP to prove this, I am just showing that this case is highly reasonable, possible etc. when such a God exists. And my argument for this is that the attributes of such a God necesitates it.

It is you who has to show why an all-powerful God won't create such an afterlife. I am asking why? You are saying that because we don't know even that happens. I am arguing that not knowing something doesn't mean that it won't happen.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 1 year ago
Illegalcombatant
That's not my argument, it your analogy.

And like most if not all analogies for God in this area they fail, because God as defined doesn't have the limitations like the police do.

Police collecting evidence and trying to find out who else is involved doesn't even remotely apply to an all powerful, all knowing entity.
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
I don't argue that an afterlife exists, but I argue that it more likely exists if we assume God as defined exists.

It was your claim and your definition. Your arguments may work if we ASSUME that God will not create an afterlife. But for such a God it is reaonable, completely possible and necessary to create such an afterlife, why should we assume that He won't create it?

Your argument is as follows:

There was a crime where someone was murdered. It is the responsibility of police etc. to find the criminal(s). One month jas passed and since they haven't caught the criminal(s), then more likely the police department doesn't exist or is not doing their job.

My point is that you cannot be certain of that. They can catch them after 35 days. There are many reasons why they are not catching the crimina(s) for a month, for example they may be following the criminal(s) to find out who else is involved and who helps them and is collecting evidences agaist them as well so that they didn't object that they are not guilty.

You are saying that since we don't knpw if this is the case, then more likely the police is not doing their jpb or they don't exist.

Non-sequitur!
Posted by Illegalcombatant 1 year ago
Illegalcombatant
If your going to argue for an after life then that burden is on you , not me.

To be blunt, the heaven story is just something some one can tell themselves to make them feel a bit better, imagine a brighter future...............this does NOTHING to show in anyway that the various sufferings referenced in the debate were necessary, eg logical necessary for an adequate compensating good.

That's why I didn't really bother fighting your heaven exists claim, cause even if granted it doesn't negate the arguments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by CodingSource 1 year ago
CodingSource
Illegalcombatantssadi
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con in the last round has refuted all Pro's arguments.