Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Introductory post from an atheist

WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 5:01:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hello all. I'm an atheist with a bachelor's degree in philosophy; my specialized field was philosophy of religion. It's been a while since I've done scholarly work, but circumstance finally led me to this site where I can sharpen my argument and rhetorical skills, so to speak.

Historically, my particular focus has been the argument from evil. If anyone would like to challenge me on that topic or on a particular theist argument, I'd be happy to consider it for the sake of getting my feet wet. :-)
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 7:06:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 5:01:58 AM, WriterDave wrote:
Hello all. I'm an atheist with a bachelor's degree in philosophy; my specialized field was philosophy of religion. It's been a while since I've done scholarly work, but circumstance finally led me to this site where I can sharpen my argument and rhetorical skills, so to speak.

Historically, my particular focus has been the argument from evil. If anyone would like to challenge me on that topic or on a particular theist argument, I'd be happy to consider it for the sake of getting my feet wet. :-)

Challenge popculturepooka.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 7:21:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 5:01:58 AM, WriterDave wrote:
Hello all. I'm an atheist with a bachelor's degree in philosophy; my specialized field was philosophy of religion. It's been a while since I've done scholarly work, but circumstance finally led me to this site where I can sharpen my argument and rhetorical skills, so to speak.

Historically, my particular focus has been the argument from evil. If anyone would like to challenge me on that topic or on a particular theist argument, I'd be happy to consider it for the sake of getting my feet wet. :-)

No thanks, I would like to hear how it is you did "Scholarly work" while an undergrad. I would be happy to discuss for am agreed premise because I think your position is probably not so much based on reason as on your perception of someone elses definition of "a god".
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 8:56:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hey, Dave. Welcome to DDO.

What are your conclusions about the PoE?

I think the LPoE is bulletproof, and the EPoE is vaguer and less interesting. I understand that most people think the EPoE is stronger, because the LPoE is supposed to have been refuted.

In my experience, though, the LPoE never fails, and, seeing that, bystanders tend to come around.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 9:00:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Welcome to DDO, hopefully you'll be able to contribute well.

Just one thing to warn you about, you will be challenged greatly by people here, and expect to back up your arguments.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 9:03:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:21:07 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/5/2012 5:01:58 AM, WriterDave wrote:
Hello all. I'm an atheist with a bachelor's degree in philosophy; my specialized field was philosophy of religion. It's been a while since I've done scholarly work, but circumstance finally led me to this site where I can sharpen my argument and rhetorical skills, so to speak.

Historically, my particular focus has been the argument from evil. If anyone would like to challenge me on that topic or on a particular theist argument, I'd be happy to consider it for the sake of getting my feet wet. :-)

No thanks, I would like to hear how it is you did "Scholarly work" while an undergrad.

You don't have to be a jerk, he probably just meant 'scholastic'.

I would be happy to discuss for am agreed premise because I think your position is probably not so much based on reason as on your perception of someone elses definition of "a god".
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 9:12:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 9:03:05 AM, nonentity wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:21:07 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/5/2012 5:01:58 AM, WriterDave wrote:
Hello all. I'm an atheist with a bachelor's degree in philosophy; my specialized field was philosophy of religion. It's been a while since I've done scholarly work, but circumstance finally led me to this site where I can sharpen my argument and rhetorical skills, so to speak.

Historically, my particular focus has been the argument from evil. If anyone would like to challenge me on that topic or on a particular theist argument, I'd be happy to consider it for the sake of getting my feet wet. :-)

No thanks, I would like to hear how it is you did "Scholarly work" while an undergrad.

You don't have to be a jerk, he probably just meant 'scholastic'.

If I understand the difference between the two words correctly, then yes, I did mean to say scholastic. But scholarly is also close to correct; my senior thesis on AE was peer reviewed by the faculty at my college, and there was discussion of my trying to get it published. Additionally, after Michael Martin's colleague saw it online, he invited me to Boston to give a talk on the subject. Nothing ever came of either of these due to my personal circumstances -- and, as I said, it was a long time ago.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 9:20:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 8:56:13 AM, wiploc wrote:
Hey, Dave. Welcome to DDO.

What are your conclusions about the PoE?

I think the LPoE is bulletproof, and the EPoE is vaguer and less interesting. I understand that most people think the EPoE is stronger, because the LPoE is supposed to have been refuted.

In my experience, though, the LPoE never fails, and, seeing that, bystanders tend to come around.

My historical focus has also been on the EPoE, simply because the supposed death of the LPoE dominated the attitude in my undergrad years and in my independent work afterward. I recall your defending the LPoE on the IIDB boards, and I recall that most Christians evaded the point by saying that their god was not the "tri-omni" god that you were discussing -- frankly, if you had made an effort to tie it in to the mainstream concept of the Christian god, I would have been more impressed. FWIW, I otherwise agree that your defense of LPoE is airtight -- I simply prefer a different approach. :)
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 10:04:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Welcome to the site. Speaking as one of the more frequent debaters of this topic, (and the problem of evil in particular), there's definitely some excellent discussions to be had. I'll look forward to seeing some of your debates.

Here's hoping you'll help address the balance somewhat between theism and atheism. Theism does seem to be better represented on this site, with most of the best debaters on this topic being Christians.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 10:17:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 9:12:51 AM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/5/2012 9:03:05 AM, nonentity wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:21:07 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/5/2012 5:01:58 AM, WriterDave wrote:
Hello all. I'm an atheist with a bachelor's degree in philosophy; my specialized field was philosophy of religion. It's been a while since I've done scholarly work, but circumstance finally led me to this site where I can sharpen my argument and rhetorical skills, so to speak.

Historically, my particular focus has been the argument from evil. If anyone would like to challenge me on that topic or on a particular theist argument, I'd be happy to consider it for the sake of getting my feet wet. :-)

No thanks, I would like to hear how it is you did "Scholarly work" while an undergrad.

You don't have to be a jerk, he probably just meant 'scholastic'.

If I understand the difference between the two words correctly, then yes, I did mean to say scholastic. But scholarly is also close to correct; my senior thesis on AE was peer reviewed by the faculty at my college, and there was discussion of my trying to get it published. Additionally, after Michael Martin's colleague saw it online, he invited me to Boston to give a talk on the subject. Nothing ever came of either of these due to my personal circumstances -- and, as I said, it was a long time ago.

I see, well published and peer reviewed are two different things, but maybe it is a question of institution and time.

So, what are your thoughts on the absence of a core curriculum of liberal arts in most degree programs?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 10:30:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 5:01:58 AM, WriterDave wrote:
Hello all. I'm an atheist with a bachelor's degree in philosophy; my specialized field was philosophy of religion. It's been a while since I've done scholarly work, but circumstance finally led me to this site where I can sharpen my argument and rhetorical skills, so to speak.

Historically, my particular focus has been the argument from evil. If anyone would like to challenge me on that topic or on a particular theist argument, I'd be happy to consider it for the sake of getting my feet wet. :-)

Summarize your argument.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 11:45:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 10:17:03 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/5/2012 9:12:51 AM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/5/2012 9:03:05 AM, nonentity wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:21:07 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/5/2012 5:01:58 AM, WriterDave wrote:
Hello all. I'm an atheist with a bachelor's degree in philosophy; my specialized field was philosophy of religion. It's been a while since I've done scholarly work, but circumstance finally led me to this site where I can sharpen my argument and rhetorical skills, so to speak.

Historically, my particular focus has been the argument from evil. If anyone would like to challenge me on that topic or on a particular theist argument, I'd be happy to consider it for the sake of getting my feet wet. :-)

No thanks, I would like to hear how it is you did "Scholarly work" while an undergrad.

You don't have to be a jerk, he probably just meant 'scholastic'.

If I understand the difference between the two words correctly, then yes, I did mean to say scholastic. But scholarly is also close to correct; my senior thesis on AE was peer reviewed by the faculty at my college, and there was discussion of my trying to get it published. Additionally, after Michael Martin's colleague saw it online, he invited me to Boston to give a talk on the subject. Nothing ever came of either of these due to my personal circumstances -- and, as I said, it was a long time ago.

I see, well published and peer reviewed are two different things, but maybe it is a question of institution and time.

So, what are your thoughts on the absence of a core curriculum of liberal arts in most degree programs?

I'm not well enough informed about that issue to have an opinion at present.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 11:47:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 10:30:29 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/5/2012 5:01:58 AM, WriterDave wrote:
Hello all. I'm an atheist with a bachelor's degree in philosophy; my specialized field was philosophy of religion. It's been a while since I've done scholarly work, but circumstance finally led me to this site where I can sharpen my argument and rhetorical skills, so to speak.

Historically, my particular focus has been the argument from evil. If anyone would like to challenge me on that topic or on a particular theist argument, I'd be happy to consider it for the sake of getting my feet wet. :-)

Summarize your argument.

If God exists, gratuitous evil does not exist. Gratuitous evil exists. Therefore, God does not exist.

>:D
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 12:22:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 8:56:13 AM, wiploc wrote:
Hey, Dave. Welcome to DDO.

What are your conclusions about the PoE?

I think the LPoE is bulletproof, and the EPoE is vaguer and less interesting. I understand that most people think the EPoE is stronger, because the LPoE is supposed to have been refuted.

In my experience, though, the LPoE never fails, and, seeing that, bystanders tend to come around.

What's L in LPoE? I don't know these arguments although I may have used them intuitively without realising?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 12:45:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 12:22:07 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
At 3/5/2012 8:56:13 AM, wiploc wrote:
Hey, Dave. Welcome to DDO.

What are your conclusions about the PoE?

I think the LPoE is bulletproof, and the EPoE is vaguer and less interesting. I understand that most people think the EPoE is stronger, because the LPoE is supposed to have been refuted.

In my experience, though, the LPoE never fails, and, seeing that, bystanders tend to come around.

What's L in LPoE? I don't know these arguments although I may have used them intuitively without realising?

L and E are logical and evidentiary, i believe.
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 12:48:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 12:45:18 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/5/2012 12:22:07 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
At 3/5/2012 8:56:13 AM, wiploc wrote:
Hey, Dave. Welcome to DDO.

What are your conclusions about the PoE?

I think the LPoE is bulletproof, and the EPoE is vaguer and less interesting. I understand that most people think the EPoE is stronger, because the LPoE is supposed to have been refuted.

In my experience, though, the LPoE never fails, and, seeing that, bystanders tend to come around.

What's L in LPoE? I don't know these arguments although I may have used them intuitively without realising?

L and E are logical and evidentiary, i believe.

Cheers for that. Now I need to find the devil in the detail.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 3:50:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 12:48:21 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
Cheers for that. Now I need to find the devil in the detail.

You've seen the EPoE:
If God exists, gratuitous evil does not exist. Gratuitous evil exists.
Therefore, God does not exist.
though I usually see it more like this:

P1: If god exists, then gratuitous evil does not exist.
P2: Probably, gratuitous evil exists.
C: Therefore, probably, god does not exist.

That's why it's called "evidential." We're looking around at the world, gathering evidence, and concluding that we could probably get by with less pain. The EPoE is inductive and probabilistic.

The LPoE is deductive, not probabilistic:

P1: If god exists, then evil doesn't exist at all.
P2: Some evil does exist.
C: Therefore, god does not exist.

The LPoE is so clean and absolute (no "probably" on me) that I'm guessing people weren't much interested in the EPoE until Plantinga popularized his version of the free will defense. Because the FWD is inexplicably taken to be plausible, many people fall back to the EPoE. Sort of a second line of defense.

Since the free will defense doesn't work (it depends on equivocation) I stick with the LPoE.

Please note that the OP was asked to summarize his EPoE. I'm not happy with the summary of my LPoE that I gave, above, and he's probably not happy with the above summaries of the EPoE either. They are summaries.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 6:30:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 3:50:26 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 3/5/2012 12:48:21 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
Cheers for that. Now I need to find the devil in the detail.

You've seen the EPoE:
If God exists, gratuitous evil does not exist. Gratuitous evil exists.
Therefore, God does not exist.
though I usually see it more like this:

P1: If god exists, then gratuitous evil does not exist.
P2: Probably, gratuitous evil exists.
C: Therefore, probably, god does not exist.

That's why it's called "evidential." We're looking around at the world, gathering evidence, and concluding that we could probably get by with less pain. The EPoE is inductive and probabilistic.

The LPoE is deductive, not probabilistic:

P1: If god exists, then evil doesn't exist at all.
P2: Some evil does exist.
C: Therefore, god does not exist.

The LPoE is so clean and absolute (no "probably" on me) that I'm guessing people weren't much interested in the EPoE until Plantinga popularized his version of the free will defense. Because the FWD is inexplicably taken to be plausible, many people fall back to the EPoE. Sort of a second line of defense.

Can you rule out even the remote possibility that God has sufficient moral reason for allowing evil ? If not........

1) It is possible that God has sufficient moral reason to allow evil to exist
2) Evil exists
C) Therefore the existence of evil is logically compatible with the existence of God

Lpoe defeated.

Note: Possible doesn't mean plausible.


Since the free will defense doesn't work (it depends on equivocation) I stick with the LPoE.

Please note that the OP was asked to summarize his EPoE. I'm not happy with the summary of my LPoE that I gave, above, and he's probably not happy with the above summaries of the EPoE either. They are summaries.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 6:48:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 6:30:17 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/5/2012 3:50:26 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 3/5/2012 12:48:21 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
Cheers for that. Now I need to find the devil in the detail.

You've seen the EPoE:
If God exists, gratuitous evil does not exist. Gratuitous evil exists.
Therefore, God does not exist.
though I usually see it more like this:

P1: If god exists, then gratuitous evil does not exist.
P2: Probably, gratuitous evil exists.
C: Therefore, probably, god does not exist.

That's why it's called "evidential." We're looking around at the world, gathering evidence, and concluding that we could probably get by with less pain. The EPoE is inductive and probabilistic.

The LPoE is deductive, not probabilistic:

P1: If god exists, then evil doesn't exist at all.
P2: Some evil does exist.
C: Therefore, god does not exist.

The LPoE is so clean and absolute (no "probably" on me) that I'm guessing people weren't much interested in the EPoE until Plantinga popularized his version of the free will defense. Because the FWD is inexplicably taken to be plausible, many people fall back to the EPoE. Sort of a second line of defense.

Can you rule out even the remote possibility that God has sufficient moral reason for allowing evil ? If not........

1) It is possible that God has sufficient moral reason to allow evil to exist
2) Evil exists
C) Therefore the existence of evil is logically compatible with the existence of God

Lpoe defeated.

Note: Possible doesn't mean plausible.


Since the free will defense doesn't work (it depends on equivocation) I stick with the LPoE.

Please note that the OP was asked to summarize his EPoE. I'm not happy with the summary of my LPoE that I gave, above, and he's probably not happy with the above summaries of the EPoE either. They are summaries.

To the OP, welcome. I'm close to a BA in philosophy and I know we have a few other philosophy BAs here.

I would run ePOE every time, and I've never doubted the existence of gratutious evil. I would be shocked to hear a theist say that all evil is necessary. I realize that good can come from some evil, but certainly there is evil above and beyond that. I could never be at peace with a God who created a world where all this evil is apparently "necessary" - whatever that means - even if it is part of a divine plan. "All evil is necessary" is ridiculously emotionally unsatisfying.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 6:58:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The problem is that the LPoE is too easily evaded by claiming that that's not the Christian God. Not because it can't be shown that the Christian God doesn't have the tri-omni characteristics, but because Wiploc doesn't do that -- his response is invariably along the lines of, "Well if the Christian God isn't the tri-omni god, then tell that to your fellow Christians! I've proven what I've set out to prove." Which is true. But also, as I've previously stated, not very interesting.

It can be made interesting by establishing in the framework of the argument that tri-omni god = Christian god, but you'd have to step outside the bounds of logical argumentation to establish that, I think. Hence my preference for the EPoE.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 7:01:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 6:30:17 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:


Can you rule out even the remote possibility that God has sufficient moral reason for allowing evil ? If not........

1) It is possible that God has sufficient moral reason to allow evil to exist
2) Evil exists
C) Therefore the existence of evil is logically compatible with the existence of God

Lpoe defeated.

Note: Possible doesn't mean plausible.


If the tri-omni god cannot bring about both the state of affairs called for by that "sufficient moral reason" and the absence of evil, then he is not omnipotent.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 7:16:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:01:36 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/5/2012 6:30:17 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:


Can you rule out even the remote possibility that God has sufficient moral reason for allowing evil ? If not........

1) It is possible that God has sufficient moral reason to allow evil to exist
2) Evil exists
C) Therefore the existence of evil is logically compatible with the existence of God

Lpoe defeated.

Note: Possible doesn't mean plausible.


If the tri-omni god cannot bring about both the state of affairs called for by that "sufficient moral reason" and the absence of evil, then he is not omnipotent.


You assume that evil serves no purpose if God exists. You also asume that sionce evil exists that God isn't able to abolish it, because thats what you and i would do.

Your logic is based off what you think God ought to do. This has little to do with whether or not he actually exists.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 7:21:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:01:36 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/5/2012 6:30:17 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:


Can you rule out even the remote possibility that God has sufficient moral reason for allowing evil ? If not........

1) It is possible that God has sufficient moral reason to allow evil to exist
2) Evil exists
C) Therefore the existence of evil is logically compatible with the existence of God

Lpoe defeated.

Note: Possible doesn't mean plausible.


If the tri-omni god cannot bring about both the state of affairs called for by that "sufficient moral reason" and the absence of evil, then he is not omnipotent.

I assume by omnipotent we are not including the ability to do logical contradictions, othe wise God exists and doesn't exist are both true and this argument is pointless.

As such, the moral sufficient reason/s could be that the state of affairs called for is not logically compatible with removing the evil that exists. Until proven other wise, the fact that evil is not removed or stopped doesn't prove that God does not exist.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 7:55:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:16:47 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:01:36 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/5/2012 6:30:17 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:


Can you rule out even the remote possibility that God has sufficient moral reason for allowing evil ? If not........

1) It is possible that God has sufficient moral reason to allow evil to exist
2) Evil exists
C) Therefore the existence of evil is logically compatible with the existence of God

Lpoe defeated.

Note: Possible doesn't mean plausible.


If the tri-omni god cannot bring about both the state of affairs called for by that "sufficient moral reason" and the absence of evil, then he is not omnipotent.


You assume that evil serves no purpose if God exists. You also asume that sionce evil exists that God isn't able to abolish it, because thats what you and i would do.

Your logic is based off what you think God ought to do. This has little to do with whether or not he actually exists.

If God can't bring about both the absence of evil and the purpose that he wants to be served by it, then he is not omnipotent.

I don't assume that since evil exists God isn't able to abolish it; I assume that since evil exists God doesn't.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 7:57:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:21:17 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:01:36 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/5/2012 6:30:17 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:


Can you rule out even the remote possibility that God has sufficient moral reason for allowing evil ? If not........

1) It is possible that God has sufficient moral reason to allow evil to exist
2) Evil exists
C) Therefore the existence of evil is logically compatible with the existence of God

Lpoe defeated.

Note: Possible doesn't mean plausible.


If the tri-omni god cannot bring about both the state of affairs called for by that "sufficient moral reason" and the absence of evil, then he is not omnipotent.

I assume by omnipotent we are not including the ability to do logical contradictions, othe wise God exists and doesn't exist are both true and this argument is pointless.

As such, the moral sufficient reason/s could be that the state of affairs called for is not logically compatible with removing the evil that exists. Until proven other wise, the fact that evil is not removed or stopped doesn't prove that God does not exist.

The only state of affairs that is not logically compatible with the absence of evil is the presence of evil. If God desires the latter, he is not omnibenevolent.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 8:03:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:21:17 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:01:36 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/5/2012 6:30:17 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:


Can you rule out even the remote possibility that God has sufficient moral reason for allowing evil ? If not........

1) It is possible that God has sufficient moral reason to allow evil to exist
2) Evil exists
C) Therefore the existence of evil is logically compatible with the existence of God

Lpoe defeated.

Note: Possible doesn't mean plausible.


If the tri-omni god cannot bring about both the state of affairs called for by that "sufficient moral reason" and the absence of evil, then he is not omnipotent.

I assume by omnipotent we are not including the ability to do logical contradictions, othe wise God exists and doesn't exist are both true and this argument is pointless.

As such, the moral sufficient reason/s could be that the state of affairs called for is not logically compatible with removing the evil that exists. Until proven other wise, the fact that evil is not removed or stopped doesn't prove that God does not exist.

Damn Illegal you put together a nice argument, its a wonder why you aren't a theist ;)
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 8:08:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 9:20:25 AM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/5/2012 8:56:13 AM, wiploc wrote:
Hey, Dave. Welcome to DDO.

What are your conclusions about the PoE?

I think the LPoE is bulletproof, and the EPoE is vaguer and less interesting. I understand that most people think the EPoE is stronger, because the LPoE is supposed to have been refuted.

In my experience, though, the LPoE never fails, and, seeing that, bystanders tend to come around.

My historical focus has also been on the EPoE, simply because the supposed death of the LPoE dominated the attitude in my undergrad years and in my independent work afterward. I recall your defending the LPoE on the IIDB boards, and I recall that most Christians evaded the point by saying that their god was not the "tri-omni" god that you were discussing -- frankly, if you had made an effort to tie it in to the mainstream concept of the Christian god, I would have been more impressed. FWIW, I otherwise agree that your defense of LPoE is airtight -- I simply prefer a different approach. :)

I've always been curious:

How is it that God qualifies as not condoning/creating gratiutious violence while at the same time not only enabling but actively deciding to wipe out every human being save a single family?

The same applies to wiping out newborns of Egyptian non-royalty whose crime was nothing other than being subjects of the king (whose heart was purposefully hardened so he would reject Moses).
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 8:19:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 8:03:08 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:21:17 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:01:36 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/5/2012 6:30:17 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:


Can you rule out even the remote possibility that God has sufficient moral reason for allowing evil ? If not........

1) It is possible that God has sufficient moral reason to allow evil to exist
2) Evil exists
C) Therefore the existence of evil is logically compatible with the existence of God

Lpoe defeated.

Note: Possible doesn't mean plausible.


If the tri-omni god cannot bring about both the state of affairs called for by that "sufficient moral reason" and the absence of evil, then he is not omnipotent.

I assume by omnipotent we are not including the ability to do logical contradictions, othe wise God exists and doesn't exist are both true and this argument is pointless.

As such, the moral sufficient reason/s could be that the state of affairs called for is not logically compatible with removing the evil that exists. Until proven other wise, the fact that evil is not removed or stopped doesn't prove that God does not exist.

Damn Illegal you put together a nice argument, its a wonder why you aren't a theist ;)

Its a nice argument in the sense it only shows a logical compatibility, but so what, you know what else is logical compatible, aliens that kidnapp people, of course you will never see them, ya know, since they have their super technology like cloaking devices. Hey you can't prove they don't exist.

Point is, there is possibility, then there is plausibility. Possibilities come cheap.

Now try and show that the reason that evil exists like the baby that just got blown around a few km's by a tornado (and later died) is because a tri-omni God exists and choose to allow it to happen is more plausible than say the reason a tri-omni God didn't do anything because a tri-omni God doesn't exist............well good luck, you will need it.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2012 8:35:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/5/2012 7:55:52 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:16:47 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 3/5/2012 7:01:36 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/5/2012 6:30:17 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:


Can you rule out even the remote possibility that God has sufficient moral reason for allowing evil ? If not........

1) It is possible that God has sufficient moral reason to allow evil to exist
2) Evil exists
C) Therefore the existence of evil is logically compatible with the existence of God

Lpoe defeated.

Note: Possible doesn't mean plausible.


If the tri-omni god cannot bring about both the state of affairs called for by that "sufficient moral reason" and the absence of evil, then he is not omnipotent.


You assume that evil serves no purpose if God exists. You also asume that sionce evil exists that God isn't able to abolish it, because thats what you and i would do.

Your logic is based off what you think God ought to do. This has little to do with whether or not he actually exists.

If God can't bring about both the absence of evil and the purpose that he wants to be served by it, then he is not omnipotent.

Once again you assume that he cannot, and ignore the possibility that evil and his purpose still intersect, and that is the way he would have it. He can do all of the above - but what your misunderstanding, is that the only purpose that matters, is the purpose of the creator, if he exists. that is not lack of omnipotence it is our lack of understanding.

I don't assume that since evil exists God isn't able to abolish it; I assume that since evil exists God doesn't.

Well this is another problem for the atheist all together. Evil in the sense you are describing seems absolute. So then you have an idea of Absolute good. If there are any of these things, there must be an outside authority, which established them to be so. If not, you will only lead youself to - things are evil because they are evil.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.