Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

The EPOE Vs. Skeptical Theism

SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 4:13:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Evidential Problem Of Evil (as proposed by WriterDave our debate)

P1) No good state of affairs that we know of is such that God, by bringing it about, is morally justified in permitting E1 and E2.

Therefore, probably:

P2) No good state of affairs is such that God, by bringing it about, is morally justified in permitting E1 and E2.

Therefore, probably:

C) God does not exist.

Now, a defense to this sort of argument, as William Lane Craig generally responds with, goes along the lines of "Given our limited knowledge, we are simply not in a good position to determine whether P2 is correct or not".

A more in depth form of skeptical theism as proposed by Contradiction in his debate with FourTrouble [1] goes as follows:

"P1 [in this case, P2] is epistemically inscrutable. Probabilities are always relative to some background evidence. What such evidence is Con refering to? The only way he could justify is if he were to show that it is unlikely that God would have morally sufficient reasons for permitting such evil. But it is unclear how he can do this. If I asked you to assess the probability of an elephant being on a football field, you could give an accurate assessment. However, if I asked you to assess the probability of there being a flea in the same field, you could not give an accurate probability assessment because of your epistemic limitations."

Also, as William Lane Craig argued in his debate with Stephen Law, if gratuitous evil exists then objective moral values exist. If objective moral values exist then God exists.

Now, the only con I can think of to this sort of argumentation is that it doesn't really give us an explanation of the evil in the world. While a theist could argue that most of the evil in the world is the result of free will, it does seem that there are at least some unnecessary evil in the world. Other then that, I don't really see any flaws with this response.

I'm interesting what atheists rebuttals to this are.

[1] http://www.debate.org...
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Thrasymachus
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 12:15:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
In order:

1) So far, the skeptical attack is just an assertion that our faculties are limited with respect to God justifying reasons. Yet why believe this? If we take ourselves to have pretty good access to the moral realm in general, then there seems little reason to suppose that all the apparently gratuitous evil is no evidence at all for gratuitous evil. There's also a general principle of credulity ("if it appears that X, probably X"), which provides at least prima facie support for the evidential premise. Theist needs to provide some positive case as to why we should conclude our faculties are actually limited.

(Relatedly). There's also the problem of reductio (see Sehon, Almeida & Nagasawa, amongst many others). If we really think that we have no insight into God justifying reasons, then we suffer moral paralysis: sure, it might appear to us that kicking the beggar on the street is a very bad thing, but (for all we know, apparently), there might be great goods beyond our ken realized by so doing, and (given skeptical theism), the fact something appears to be unjustifiable is no evidence whatsoever for thinking it is. Same again for any other moral belief we want to hold. So skeptical Theist needs to show selective toxicity with respect to the sort of evidence used in the ePoE and that it doesn't cut our everyday normative practice, and there's no obvious non-contrived way of doing that.

2) The Moral argument rejoinder isn't sceptical theism, but it isn't used in the literature around ePoE because it just horribly misunderstands the dialectic. Atheist isn't committed to moral realism to make the argument - firstly because you can cash it out in pain or value-neutral forms (ePoNastySuffering, etc.), and secondly because the ePoE can just be an evidential reductio: either moral values exist or they don't, the latter horn means god cannot possibly exist, the former horn means the ePoE is live.

HTH.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 7:34:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have to agree a lot with Thrasymachus.

I'd just add:

1. Erosion of Christianity - It seems to me that if one takes the attitude that God's actions are immediately beyond one's ken, Christianity itself implodes. Take a bunch of apologetic claims:

God raised Jesus from the dead

God finetuned/created the universe

and so on. The Christian not only can't make such claims, they have kicked the ladder away from even anything more than a generic God, as Bill Rowe points out, as claiming these things are, by their own reckoning, beyond their ken to know.They are doomed to either generic theism or contrive away out of a sceptical mire of their own making.

2. Epistemic consistency - WLC uses this response, usually with reference to the Butterfly effect. It seems to me however no one actually believes this. For example, suppose someone suggests that poke my eye out with scissors, and that doing so may lead to a huge upturn in fortunes, at least for all I know. Would anyone do so? No.

The reason is that we see the deleterious consequences such an action would have in the short-term (loss of sight, tremendous pain and so on). We could also rationally infer that the consequences of such an action have huge longer term costs as well (as well as the continuing existence of short-term problems, we may develop problems in light of the consequences - depression, or perhaps even danger crossing the road, infection or whatever).

What has this got to do with evil? Well, for any evil e, we know the short term consequences, and we can rationally infer longer term consequences in many cases. The point is this - when we know these things, it puts a massive burden on those who would suggest that evils are accounted for to show this.

To go back to the analogy, would you let someone poke your eye out merely in the hope that for all you know, it may make your life better in the long run? No, of course not. You'd want (at the very least) some sort of strong justification to override the massive foreseeable suffering you would expect to endure. I think the exact same thing is true for the PoE. Until I am given strong justification to override the massive suffering we all know exists, I think it rational to conclude no such good exists. Denying that this is so seems not only manifestly irrational, but wholly at odds with the way sceptical theists themselves behave.

For the sceptical theist, all I would ask is:

on what basis would you refuse to gouge your eye out with scissors that is not immediately transferable to the crucial premise of the PoE?

3. There's also the evil God challenge response, but I'm not sure if I'd ever use it myself, so I'll just mention it, rather than defend it here.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 7:49:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"we have no insight into God's justifying reasons"

Do you have any insight whatever to any of my justifying reasons for anything, your friends'? By the very nature of the case, "insight" is internal to the Knower.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 8:15:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
if one takes the attitude that God's actions are immediately beyond one's ken, Christianity itself implodes.

Apologists don't deduce from God's desires the argument from fine-tuning, or from historical facts explain the facts by the proposition, "God raised Christ from the dead" simply because of God's desires which are internal to him.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 8:24:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
But what the EPoE does, is presume that if God existed, he would gear his purposes for free creatures to experience more happiness then not.

But on Christianity, God's purposes for humanity (as revealed in Christ) isn't happiness, it's personal knowledge of him by aquaintence. If that's right, then it's no suprise for the Christian that there is unspeakable evil in the world since humanity in its freedom has chosen to become unspeakably evil.

It's faith for us, that God's purpose for us is knowledge of him, yes- but it's a reasonable faith. One that has a large existential preference.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 8:40:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 8:15:38 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
if one takes the attitude that God's actions are immediately beyond one's ken, Christianity itself implodes.

Apologists don't deduce from God's desires the argument from fine-tuning, or from historical facts explain the facts by the proposition, "God raised Christ from the dead" simply because of God's desires which are internal to him.

When they these things, apologists are explaining some eventuality by God's action (creating a universe, raising Jesus and so on). I can't see how one could divorces this from God's desire to do these things, even if the desires themselves are mysterious (causally, etc). Presumably, God wills to do these things, and if this is the case, we have the same problem - trying to know things about an omniscient being that ST has deemed beyond our ken.

The move from ST to Christianity therefore seems wholly unwarranted by the logic provided by the theist themselves.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 8:49:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 8:24:04 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
But what the EPoE does, is presume that if God existed, he would gear his purposes for free creatures to experience more happiness then not.

But on Christianity, God's purposes for humanity (as revealed in Christ) isn't happiness, it's personal knowledge of him by aquaintence. If that's right, then it's no suprise for the Christian that there is unspeakable evil in the world since humanity in its freedom has chosen to become unspeakably evil.

It's faith for us, that God's purpose for us is knowledge of him, yes- but it's a reasonable faith. One that has a large existential preference.

I should mention if one takes the ST approach, then this response doesn't even get off the ground.

But on its own merit, I still think it's tremendously weak. For one, the minor premise in the PoE (that God would prevent gratuitous evil) seems necessarily true. Secondly, we're not talking about God preserving happiness, we are talking about God preventing mass genocide, torture, rape, starvation, disease, etc. In fact, the vast majority of suffering has nothing to do with free-will, so removing things like ebola would not take away free-will in the slightest. There's a whole raft of other problems as well.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:01:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 8:40:05 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:15:38 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
if one takes the attitude that God's actions are immediately beyond one's ken, Christianity itself implodes.

Apologists don't deduce from God's desires the argument from fine-tuning, or from historical facts explain the facts by the proposition, "God raised Christ from the dead" simply because of God's desires which are internal to him.

When they these things, apologists are explaining some eventuality by God's action (creating a universe, raising Jesus and so on). I can't see how one could divorces this from God's desire to do these things,

Actions are external to the knower, & so observable to other knowers.
Desires are internal to the knower, & so not observable to other knowers.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:07:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 8:49:17 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:24:04 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
But what the EPoE does, is presume that if God existed, he would gear his purposes for free creatures to experience more happiness then not.

But on Christianity, God's purposes for humanity (as revealed in Christ) isn't happiness, it's personal knowledge of him by aquaintence. If that's right, then it's no suprise for the Christian that there is unspeakable evil in the world since humanity in its freedom has chosen to become unspeakably evil.

It's faith for us, that God's purpose for us is knowledge of him, yes- but it's a reasonable faith. One that has a large existential preference.

I should mention if one takes the ST approach, then this response doesn't even get off the ground.

But on its own merit, I still think it's tremendously weak. For one, the minor premise in the PoE (that God would prevent gratuitous evil) seems necessarily true. Secondly, we're not talking about God preserving happiness, we are talking about God preventing mass genocide, torture, rape, starvation, disease, etc. In fact, the vast majority of suffering has nothing to do with free-will, so removing things like ebola would not take away free-will in the slightest. There's a whole raft of other problems as well.

I'm aware of the raft. I've been swimming upstream in it myself... But again, it's all contingent upon what God aims at maximizing. If God aims at maximizing not only a prior commitment not to interfere with free will, but also our free ability to progress medical science beyond a physical reliance of God, then I see the only problem that remains is an emotional one.

But emotionally, suppose God wasn't concerned so much about our physical ailments, but is more concerned about out spiritual ailments. It may well be the case that the former instigates the latter.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:13:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
*At least often instigates the latter: It's been my experience that only when certain people are facing near death or intense suffering do they finally consider God.

And if a qualitatively infinite reality exists, & it's possible to enjoy him forever, then I'm sure I would go through ebola a million million times just to know God.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:32:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I honestly think pain's a simpliciter, Andy. It compels a person to choose God or spurn him forever.

Think about the poor man in Miami recently who literally got his face eaten off by a raged person under the influence of bath salts. Now God didn't do that, another different (very different) free agent did.

Say if you were the victim, think about the pure panic of waking up the next morning in your hospital bed. The intimate encounter you now have of the realization: "I no longer have a face" ... the then pain comes.

The question of God will undoubtably & almost certainly come up throughout the course of such a realization. First it'll hit a few- 'what's the meaning of this, why was this done to me' type questions, then perhaps followed by a 'if there is a God, I want nothing to do with him' or maybe a 'God, I desire you more now than ever' (I should hope that'd be my choice in such a horrific state).

I think it's obvious that most if not some people don't have to go through such an event until they realize the bankrupcy of this fallen world & of themselves, & acknowledge their desire for a qualitatively infinite reality that is God.

God didn't choose to chew that man's face, another person did. But what that person meant for evil, perhaps God will use for good.

But to say that 'perhaps' is necessarily false, is to immediately adopt an enourmous burden of proof with which it doesn't seem you can bear. Look at chaos theory, we simply don't stand in such a good epistemic position either way friend.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 10:28:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 9:01:02 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:40:05 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:15:38 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
if one takes the attitude that God's actions are immediately beyond one's ken, Christianity itself implodes.

Apologists don't deduce from God's desires the argument from fine-tuning, or from historical facts explain the facts by the proposition, "God raised Christ from the dead" simply because of God's desires which are internal to him.

When they these things, apologists are explaining some eventuality by God's action (creating a universe, raising Jesus and so on). I can't see how one could divorces this from God's desire to do these things,

Actions are external to the knower, & so observable to other knowers.
Desires are internal to the knower, & so not observable to other knowers.

Either way, if God exists, he permits these things. They are actualised because God desires them to be. To deny such seems either to rob God of His perfect nature, or to imply a being without free-will.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 10:37:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 10:28:23 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 5/31/2012 9:01:02 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:40:05 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:15:38 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
if one takes the attitude that God's actions are immediately beyond one's ken, Christianity itself implodes.

Apologists don't deduce from God's desires the argument from fine-tuning, or from historical facts explain the facts by the proposition, "God raised Christ from the dead" simply because of God's desires which are internal to him.

When they these things, apologists are explaining some eventuality by God's action (creating a universe, raising Jesus and so on). I can't see how one could divorces this from God's desire to do these things,

Actions are external to the knower, & so observable to other knowers.
Desires are internal to the knower, & so not observable to other knowers.

Either way, if God exists, he permits these things. They are actualised because God desires them to be. To deny such seems either to rob God of His perfect nature, or to imply a being without free-will.

If God exists, at best we know that he permits evil, we don't know that he wills it. Insofar as the proposition, "God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil" is even possible, then it follows that any PoE argument is useless.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 10:41:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
RA,

There's a lot I've left on the table, as I don't really want to pre-empt my response if we get to a debate about the topic, but I'll just say this.

Gratuitous evil (or arguably even the appearance of it) is undoubtedly a huge factor in nonbelief. The problem of evil is recognised, I think, by almost everybody (critics and supporters alike) as the main factor in causing atheistic belief. If God's aim is for us to know Him, surely either removing such evil or explaining it satisfactorily would undoubtedly bring more people to Him. I know in my own case, if I thought the PoE could be solved or even adequately undercut, I'd be vastly more receptive to belief in God, and Christianity in particular.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 10:43:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 10:37:21 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 5/31/2012 10:28:23 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 5/31/2012 9:01:02 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:40:05 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:15:38 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
if one takes the attitude that God's actions are immediately beyond one's ken, Christianity itself implodes.

Apologists don't deduce from God's desires the argument from fine-tuning, or from historical facts explain the facts by the proposition, "God raised Christ from the dead" simply because of God's desires which are internal to him.

When they these things, apologists are explaining some eventuality by God's action (creating a universe, raising Jesus and so on). I can't see how one could divorces this from God's desire to do these things,

Actions are external to the knower, & so observable to other knowers.
Desires are internal to the knower, & so not observable to other knowers.

Either way, if God exists, he permits these things. They are actualised because God desires them to be. To deny such seems either to rob God of His perfect nature, or to imply a being without free-will.

If God exists, at best we know that he permits evil, we don't know that he wills it. Insofar as the proposition, "God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil" is even possible, then it follows that any PoE argument is useless.

For the Logical PoE, I would agree. But as regards the evidential version, it's widely recognised this response must be much more rigorous.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 10:59:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 10:41:11 AM, unitedandy wrote:
RA,

There's a lot I've left on the table, as I don't really want to pre-empt my response if we get to a debate about the topic, but I'll just say this.

Fair enough.

Gratuitous evil (or arguably even the appearance of it) is undoubtedly a huge factor in nonbelief.

Agreed. But I'd rather say perhaps "belief of ~God" ... a tree has non-belief. When thinking persons are confronted with the question of God & the meaning of their pain, etc. Then they either choose God or ~God.

The problem of evil is recognised, I think, by almost everybody (critics and supporters alike) as the main factor in causing atheistic belief.

Agreed.

If God's aim is for us to know Him, surely either removing such evil or explaining it satisfactorily would undoubtedly bring more people to Him.

Knowledge by aquaintence. Much like how a son knows his father... not just 'belief about.'

2 options,

a) Remove evil = remove freedom
b) Explain evil = what theologians & philosophers have been doing for a while now

I know in my own case, if I thought the PoE could be solved or even adequately undercut, I'd be vastly more receptive to belief in God, and Christianity in particular.

The logical PoE has been solved. Which is why we see the retreat to your evidential PoE, which can go either way at best. (Grant that the logical PoE was a much stronger claim).

But why Christianity? That would be the worst religion to follow if you think the life of a Christian is a bowl of cherries haha!
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 11:28:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 10:59:05 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 5/31/2012 10:41:11 AM, unitedandy wrote:
RA,

There's a lot I've left on the table, as I don't really want to pre-empt my response if we get to a debate about the topic, but I'll just say this.

Fair enough.

Gratuitous evil (or arguably even the appearance of it) is undoubtedly a huge factor in nonbelief.

Agreed. But I'd rather say perhaps "belief of ~God" ... a tree has non-belief. When thinking persons are confronted with the question of God & the meaning of their pain, etc. Then they either choose God or ~God.

The problem of evil is recognised, I think, by almost everybody (critics and supporters alike) as the main factor in causing atheistic belief.

Agreed.

If God's aim is for us to know Him, surely either removing such evil or explaining it satisfactorily would undoubtedly bring more people to Him.

Knowledge by aquaintence. Much like how a son knows his father... not just 'belief about.'

2 options,

a) Remove evil = remove freedom
b) Explain evil = what theologians & philosophers have been doing for a while now

Okay, but this accepts that gratuitous evil must be explained (which is almost the universal position, but one which you seemed to be denying initially).

Whether such evil is gratuitous or not is what determines the efficacy of the PoE.

I know in my own case, if I thought the PoE could be solved or even adequately undercut, I'd be vastly more receptive to belief in God, and Christianity in particular.

The logical PoE has been solved. Which is why we see the retreat to your evidential PoE, which can go either way at best. (Grant that the logical PoE was a much stronger claim).

I wouldn't really see it as a retreat, though I take your point that LPoE would disprove God, while at best the EPoE will only provide evidence against the existence of God. Given the nature of the problem however, the evidence we're talking about (even just taking suffering alone) would be pretty overwhelming.

But why Christianity? That would be the worst religion to follow if you think the life of a Christian is a bowl of cherries haha!

Believe it or not, I've got a lot of time for Christianity, and some Christian philosophers in particular easily stand out as making a strong case for Christianity. I was also brought up as a Christian.

But it would be a very liberal Christianity if I ever did convert (universalism, Pro gay marriage, etc).
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 12:49:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

2 options,

a) Remove evil = remove freedom
b) Explain evil = what theologians & philosophers have been doing for a while now

Okay, but this accepts that gratuitous evil must be explained (which is almost the universal position, but one which you seemed to be denying initially).

Yes but first the case must be put forth that the evil is actually gratuitous. That's the problem right there. I don't think either one of us can show that the evil in the world is more than what God would allow if he existed.

Whether such evil is gratuitous or not is what determines the efficacy of the PoE.

Agreed, I look forward to your case but I've only seen the efficacy lie in an appeal to emotion myself.

I know in my own case, if I thought the PoE could be solved or even adequately undercut, I'd be vastly more receptive to belief in God, and Christianity in particular.

The logical PoE has been solved. Which is why we see the retreat to your evidential PoE, which can go either way at best. (Grant that the logical PoE was a much stronger claim).

I wouldn't really see it as a retreat, though I take your point that LPoE would disprove God, while at best the EPoE will only provide evidence against the existence of God. Given the nature of the problem however, the evidence we're talking about (even just taking suffering alone) would be pretty overwhelming.

Yup, but again the BoP is on you to show if such evil is actually gratuitous without an appeal to emotion.

The LPoE = God is impossible.
The EPoE = God is improbable.

But why Christianity? That would be the worst religion to follow if you think the life of a Christian is a bowl of cherries haha!

Believe it or not, I've got a lot of time for Christianity, and some Christian philosophers in particular easily stand out as making a strong case for Christianity. I was also brought up as a Christian.

If you don't mind me asking, what do you mean that you have a lot of time for Christianity? Also, is it the PoE / Hiddeness that made made you apostasize?

But it would be a very liberal Christianity if I ever did convert (universalism, Pro gay marriage, etc).

For the record I'm not trying to convert you or anything, just interested in making sure Christianity is reasonable but with a large preference. That said I'm pro-gay marriage & the only reason I reject universalism is because of God revealed in Christ.

The bulk of my personal apologia involves the historicity of Christ & a defense of Christian Particularism if you or anyone is ever interested in a future discussion there.

My best friend is a universalist (actually they're some of the nicest people) and we discuss the matter all the time.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 1:37:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For the record I'm not trying to convert you or anything, just interested in making sure Christianity is reasonable but with a large preference. That said I'm pro-gay marriage & the only reason I reject universalism is because of God revealed in Christ.


I'm not sure why that would present a problem for all universalists. It might be a worry for pluralist, john hick type universalists but it's certanly not for robin parry type universalists.

The bulk of my personal apologia involves the historicity of Christ & a defense of Christian Particularism if you or anyone is ever interested in a future discussion there.

My best friend is a universalist (actually they're some of the nicest people) and we discuss the matter all the time.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 1:41:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 12:49:42 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

2 options,

a) Remove evil = remove freedom
b) Explain evil = what theologians & philosophers have been doing for a while now

Okay, but this accepts that gratuitous evil must be explained (which is almost the universal position, but one which you seemed to be denying initially).

Yes but first the case must be put forth that the evil is actually gratuitous. That's the problem right there. I don't think either one of us can show that the evil in the world is more than what God would allow if he existed.

Whether such evil is gratuitous or not is what determines the efficacy of the PoE.

Agreed, I look forward to your case but I've only seen the efficacy lie in an appeal to emotion myself.

I know in my own case, if I thought the PoE could be solved or even adequately undercut, I'd be vastly more receptive to belief in God, and Christianity in particular.

The logical PoE has been solved. Which is why we see the retreat to your evidential PoE, which can go either way at best. (Grant that the logical PoE was a much stronger claim).

I wouldn't really see it as a retreat, though I take your point that LPoE would disprove God, while at best the EPoE will only provide evidence against the existence of God. Given the nature of the problem however, the evidence we're talking about (even just taking suffering alone) would be pretty overwhelming.

Yup, but again the BoP is on you to show if such evil is actually gratuitous without an appeal to emotion.

Yep, but I'm pretty sure I can justify it.

The LPoE = God is impossible.
The EPoE = God is improbable.

But why Christianity? That would be the worst religion to follow if you think the life of a Christian is a bowl of cherries haha!

Believe it or not, I've got a lot of time for Christianity, and some Christian philosophers in particular easily stand out as making a strong case for Christianity. I was also brought up as a Christian.

If you don't mind me asking, what do you mean that you have a lot of time for Christianity? Also, is it the PoE / Hiddeness that made made you apostasize?

It just means that I'm open to considering it seriously, and that I hold to friendly atheism.

PoE/Hiddeness wasn't the first reason. The God delusion was pretty much the first time I really got an interest in God, I'm sorry to say.

But it would be a very liberal Christianity if I ever did convert (universalism, Pro gay marriage, etc).

For the record I'm not trying to convert you or anything, just interested in making sure Christianity is reasonable but with a large preference. That said I'm pro-gay marriage & the only reason I reject universalism is because of God revealed in Christ.

The bulk of my personal apologia involves the historicity of Christ & a defense of Christian Particularism if you or anyone is ever interested in a future discussion there.

My best friend is a universalist (actually they're some of the nicest people) and we discuss the matter all the time.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 2:04:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 1:37:48 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
For the record I'm not trying to convert you or anything, just interested in making sure Christianity is reasonable but with a large preference. That said I'm pro-gay marriage & the only reason I reject universalism is because of God revealed in Christ.


I'm not sure why that would present a problem for all universalists. It might be a worry for pluralist, john hick type universalists but it's certanly not for robin parry type universalists.


Parry seems to base his universalism starting from the writing's of Origen. I affirm the writings of much closer sources to Christ, Paul, Apostles, etc.

Regardless, Parry's universalism leaves little room for freedom to choose God. This and their doctrine against immortality apart from God, (otherwise called hell) is seems anti-Christian & pro-determinism / fatalism.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 3:23:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 2:04:19 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 5/31/2012 1:37:48 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
For the record I'm not trying to convert you or anything, just interested in making sure Christianity is reasonable but with a large preference. That said I'm pro-gay marriage & the only reason I reject universalism is because of God revealed in Christ.


I'm not sure why that would present a problem for all universalists. It might be a worry for pluralist, john hick type universalists but it's certanly not for robin parry type universalists.



Parry seems to base his universalism starting from the writing's of Origen. I affirm the writings of much closer sources to Christ, Paul, Apostles, etc.


sources like? And he really doesn't really "base" his unversalism starting from origen....he starts from scripture like most other biblical theologians...

Regardless, Parry's universalism leaves little room for freedom to choose God.

This and their doctrine against immortality apart from God, (otherwise called hell) is seems anti-Christian & pro-determinism / fatalism.

Anti-christian? Really? I'm not sure about that one especially since the biblical evidence for immortality away from God isn't as strong as usually supposed.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 5:09:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Parry seems to base his universalism starting from the writing's of Origen. I affirm the writings of much closer sources to Christ, Paul, Apostles, etc.


sources like? And he really doesn't really "base" his unversalism starting from origen....he starts from scripture like most other biblical theologians...

Regardless, Parry's universalism leaves little room for freedom to choose God.

This and their doctrine against immortality apart from God, (otherwise called hell) is seems anti-Christian & pro-determinism / fatalism.

Anti-christian? Really? I'm not sure about that one especially since the biblical evidence for immortality away from God isn't as strong as usually supposed.

First, the nap I just took was flipping amazing. I win today solely because of that. I probably won't sleep at all tonight but when I'm on a scottish death bed many years from now I'll look back & think: they may take our sleep, but they'll never take OUR FREEEDDOOMM!!!!

Second, the whole point of Christianity is salvation found in Christ Jesus & him alone. I defy you, sir PCP, to show me an exegesis where Christ ever implied that this wasn't the case.

Third, speak more on how Christian universalism is compatible with what CS lewis called 'mere Christianity'? If you will?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 6:53:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 5:09:51 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Parry seems to base his universalism starting from the writing's of Origen. I affirm the writings of much closer sources to Christ, Paul, Apostles, etc.


sources like? And he really doesn't really "base" his unversalism starting from origen....he starts from scripture like most other biblical theologians...

Regardless, Parry's universalism leaves little room for freedom to choose God.

This and their doctrine against immortality apart from God, (otherwise called hell) is seems anti-Christian & pro-determinism / fatalism.

Anti-christian? Really? I'm not sure about that one especially since the biblical evidence for immortality away from God isn't as strong as usually supposed.

First, the nap I just took was flipping amazing. I win today solely because of that. I probably won't sleep at all tonight but when I'm on a scottish death bed many years from now I'll look back & think: they may take our sleep, but they'll never take OUR FREEEDDOOMM!!!!

Second, the whole point of Christianity is salvation found in Christ Jesus & him alone. I defy you, sir PCP, to show me an exegesis where Christ ever implied that this wasn't the case.


Woah, woah, woah. Let's go back for a second. I'm talking about Robin Parry type Christian universalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

That type of universalism doesn't deny that salvation can only be found in Christ Jesus and him alone.

Third, speak more on how Christian universalism is compatible with what CS lewis called 'mere Christianity'? If you will?

Can you explain what you mean a little bit more? Do you mean basic propositions/doctrines that all Christians can/should affirm?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 7:11:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 6:53:55 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 5/31/2012 5:09:51 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Parry seems to base his universalism starting from the writing's of Origen. I affirm the writings of much closer sources to Christ, Paul, Apostles, etc.


sources like? And he really doesn't really "base" his unversalism starting from origen....he starts from scripture like most other biblical theologians...

Regardless, Parry's universalism leaves little room for freedom to choose God.

This and their doctrine against immortality apart from God, (otherwise called hell) is seems anti-Christian & pro-determinism / fatalism.

Anti-christian? Really? I'm not sure about that one especially since the biblical evidence for immortality away from God isn't as strong as usually supposed.

First, the nap I just took was flipping amazing. I win today solely because of that. I probably won't sleep at all tonight but when I'm on a scottish death bed many years from now I'll look back & think: they may take our sleep, but they'll never take OUR FREEEDDOOMM!!!!

Second, the whole point of Christianity is salvation found in Christ Jesus & him alone. I defy you, sir PCP, to show me an exegesis where Christ ever implied that this wasn't the case.


Woah, woah, woah. Let's go back for a second. I'm talking about Robin Parry type Christian universalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

That type of universalism doesn't deny that salvation can only be found in Christ Jesus and him alone.

Third, speak more on how Christian universalism is compatible with what CS lewis called 'mere Christianity'? If you will?

Can you explain what you mean a little bit more? Do you mean basic propositions/doctrines that all Christians can/should affirm?

Loosely, yes.