Total Posts:144|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

People who use the PoE to argue against..

GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 10:38:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
@ People who use the Problem of Evil argument to try to prove that God does not exist:

Why do you use this argument? If something bad happens, then isn't it that God allows things to happen, not because He cannot stop it? If you say that He is malevolent because He chooses not to do something, then wouldn't you be saying that you claim that God could not possibly have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil things to occur? I'd like to ask you, how could you know that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil things to occur? As a certain DDO user once said, to claim that God could not possibly have a morally sound reason for allowing bad things to occur is to claim omniscience yourself.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 10:57:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh, so we must abandon sense altogether and serve the evil god who's very pro murder himself let alone what the world is like? Hmmm... nope. I'ma go with another God, no eternal torment and to account for determinism please. No evil, but doubts, fears and mistakes. Reincarnation is a nice idea, all of us in this together trying to achieve harmony. No hell, a possibility of true heaven. I mean, your God is half Heaven half Hell. That's what you worship. Half Hell. And all because you read a thousand year old book.

There is no justification as good of an existence that is half Hell. That existence will always just be chaos... might as well be no God only for where you want to end up.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 10:58:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Tell me: are the shrieks of the damned audible in Heaven? or is it a sort of blissful ignorance you live in up there?
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 11:04:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 10:38:49 AM, GOP wrote:
@ People who use the Problem of Evil argument to try to prove that God does not exist:

Why do you use this argument? If something bad happens, then isn't it that God allows things to happen, not because He cannot stop it? If you say that He is malevolent because He chooses not to do something, then wouldn't you be saying that you claim that God could not possibly have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil things to occur? I'd like to ask you, how could you know that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil things to occur? As a certain DDO user once said, to claim that God could not possibly have a morally sound reason for allowing bad things to occur is to claim omniscience yourself.
Are your god's morals objective? Are your god's morals absolute?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 11:08:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let alone that the religious proclaim man inherently evil and in need of God to save them...... pawning off responsibility for your actions on someone else much? Your religion is evil; you have been tricked by the devil.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 11:17:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 10:38:49 AM, GOP wrote:
@ People who use the Problem of Evil argument to try to prove that God does not exist:

Why do you use this argument? If something bad happens, then isn't it that God allows things to happen, not because He cannot stop it? If you say that He is malevolent because He chooses not to do something, then wouldn't you be saying that you claim that God could not possibly have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil things to occur? I'd like to ask you, how could you know that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil things to occur? As a certain DDO user once said, to claim that God could not possibly have a morally sound reason for allowing bad things to occur is to claim omniscience yourself.

The final statement is assuming the PoE is wholly deductive, and omniscience is required for knowledge, both being false. The latter claim means that any knowledge claim requires omniscience (the same logic says "to claim that apples fall down on Earth is to claim omniscience yourself", or "to claim that you can read English is to claim omniscience yourself"). Furthermore, it becomes actually quite funny in the conclusions: "To claim that I am evil is to claim omniscience itself." It becomes ludicrous and untenable to hold that standard. I can claim to know, beyond reasonable doubt, a certain ethical system is correct, Situation Ethics for example, and claim that God's action is not ethical within said ethical system. Therefore, God is not morally perfect.

Secondly, the argument has inductive forms. For example, to reform Dostoevsky:

P1 - The harm done by the death and pain of innocent newborn babies is unique in the depth and gravity of the evil of its existence.
P2 - The natural world seems to give very clear examples of innocent newborn babies suffering and dying in their droves.
P3 - If God, allows an immoral act to occur (or actively creates the conditions for evil to take place, or etc.), then God himself is immoral.
C1 - Therefore God's actions are immoral.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 11:34:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 10:38:49 AM, GOP wrote:
@ People who use the Problem of Evil argument to try to prove that God does not exist:

Why do you use this argument? If something bad happens, then isn't it that God allows things to happen, not because He cannot stop it? If you say that He is malevolent because He chooses not to do something, then wouldn't you be saying that you claim that God could not possibly have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil things to occur? I'd like to ask you, how could you know that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil things to occur? As a certain DDO user once said, to claim that God could not possibly have a morally sound reason for allowing bad things to occur is to claim omniscience yourself.

Most people don't use the logical PoE anymore, they use the evidential PoE. Thus, even if it is possible for God to have morally sufficient reasons, the argument still goes through. Regardless, the PoE fails to objectively show the Christian God does not exist because one could just claim that God is good but not omnibenevolent, or really powerful but not omnipotent. Different people interpret scripture in different ways. It is simply not true that every Christian believes in a tri-omni God. What are we really disproving with the PoE? The most strictly defined God? That shows very little really. Even if the PoE worked, the Christian could just say "Well, maybe God is not omnibenevolent, maybe he can do whatever the f*ck he wants". There is nothing in scripture which defines God as omnibenevolent.

The evidential PoE shows that some strictly defined God probably doesn't exist. Well whoopty f*cking do.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 11:37:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you define me as an extremely good person, and I rape someone or smash a baby's skull in for fun. Does that mean I don't exist? I could still exist no matter how you define me. This is why I don't believe the PoE actually shows God does not exist.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 11:43:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It does, however, force theists to justify their position and their beliefs.

The Tri-Omni God, for example, is often used to justify the whole "Morality is what God says it is" argument. It's an absurd argument, that can be attacked on multiple fronts, but I think the PoE is an effective attack on at least part of that nonsense.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 11:51:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 11:43:31 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
It does, however, force theists to justify their position and their beliefs.

The Tri-Omni God, for example, is often used to justify the whole "Morality is what God says it is" argument. It's an absurd argument, that can be attacked on multiple fronts, but I think the PoE is an effective attack on at least part of that nonsense.

But the theist is not necessarily bound by that nonsense. Richard Swinburne for instance believes that moral truths are necessary truths that are true whether God exists or not. Not all theists are divine command theorist like Craig. There are many different types of Christians. They can define God however they want, as long as it does not contradict scripture (there is nothing in the Bible which claims God is omnibenevolent, and even the obvious verses of omnipotence can be explained away). As long their belief that Jesus rose from the dead isn't harmed, I'm not sure what the PoE really does.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 11:53:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
An argument for Atheism would be to prove that mental states cannot exist before matter. Something like that would destroy theism. However, simply tearing down a strictly defined God which could just be redefined slightly is no win for Strong Atheism in my opinion.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 11:57:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have encountered theists who have no problem with God not being omnibevevlent, and actually argue from scripture that he could not be! "Omnibenevolent? I am not sure about that. My God is a good and loving God, but also a vengeful and jealous God." one Christian told me.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 12:08:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 11:57:26 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I have encountered theists who have no problem with God not being omnibevevlent, and actually argue from scripture that he could not be! "Omnibenevolent? I am not sure about that. My God is a good and loving God, but also a vengeful and jealous God." one Christian told me.
Yes well he couldn't be any of those things and be omniscient. He would need to make a decision (choice) in his self proclaimed paradigm of "IT IS".
An omniscient entity has no past. present or future, it only has "IT IS"
It can't even decide to create anything because in it's paradigm "IT IS"
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 12:14:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 10:38:49 AM, GOP wrote:
@ People who use the Problem of Evil argument to try to prove that God does not exist:

Why do you use this argument? If something bad happens, then isn't it that God allows things to happen, not because He cannot stop it? If you say that He is malevolent because He chooses not to do something, then wouldn't you be saying that you claim that God could not possibly have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil things to occur? I'd like to ask you, how could you know that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil things to occur? As a certain DDO user once said, to claim that God could not possibly have a morally sound reason for allowing bad things to occur is to claim omniscience yourself.

Then we're no longer talking about a tri-omni God. The definitions of God set forth do not give any room for some reason. It's like saying, the source of colors is blue and not blue, then claiming there's a possibility that it's not a contradiction.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 12:18:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 11:57:26 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I have encountered theists who have no problem with God not being omnibevevlent, and actually argue from scripture that he could not be! "Omnibenevolent? I am not sure about that. My God is a good and loving God, but also a vengeful and jealous God." one Christian told me.

The bible never says God is "all loving" but it does imply it. 1 John 4:8 "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

One could still make an argument against Christianity.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 12:22:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 12:18:21 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 7/3/2013 11:57:26 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I have encountered theists who have no problem with God not being omnibevevlent, and actually argue from scripture that he could not be! "Omnibenevolent? I am not sure about that. My God is a good and loving God, but also a vengeful and jealous God." one Christian told me.

The bible never says God is "all loving" but it does imply it. 1 John 4:8 "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

One could still make an argument against Christianity.

Can one not love indefinitely and yet still punish and teach?

Your parents love you but that doesn't mean they treat you with kid gloves and let you do whatever you want.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 12:25:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 12:22:44 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/3/2013 12:18:21 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 7/3/2013 11:57:26 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I have encountered theists who have no problem with God not being omnibevevlent, and actually argue from scripture that he could not be! "Omnibenevolent? I am not sure about that. My God is a good and loving God, but also a vengeful and jealous God." one Christian told me.

The bible never says God is "all loving" but it does imply it. 1 John 4:8 "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

One could still make an argument against Christianity.

Can one not love indefinitely and yet still punish and teach?

Your parents love you but that doesn't mean they treat you with kid gloves and let you do whatever you want.

Doesn't respond to natural disasters/needless suffering.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 12:27:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 12:25:53 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 7/3/2013 12:22:44 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/3/2013 12:18:21 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 7/3/2013 11:57:26 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I have encountered theists who have no problem with God not being omnibevevlent, and actually argue from scripture that he could not be! "Omnibenevolent? I am not sure about that. My God is a good and loving God, but also a vengeful and jealous God." one Christian told me.

The bible never says God is "all loving" but it does imply it. 1 John 4:8 "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

One could still make an argument against Christianity.

Can one not love indefinitely and yet still punish and teach?

Your parents love you but that doesn't mean they treat you with kid gloves and let you do whatever you want.

Doesn't respond to natural disasters/needless suffering.

I don't believe God is behind natural disasters. Nor do I believe in needless suffering. In my belief, God created the system, weather, tectonics, disease etc. for reasons of his own way back in the beginning and hasn't touched it since. Hurricanes occur in the system but God only created the system not the hurricane.

And I believe all things happen for a reason. Suffering included. I can't see the mind of God nor do I know his ultimate goal or plan.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 12:35:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 12:27:47 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/3/2013 12:25:53 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 7/3/2013 12:22:44 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/3/2013 12:18:21 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 7/3/2013 11:57:26 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I have encountered theists who have no problem with God not being omnibevevlent, and actually argue from scripture that he could not be! "Omnibenevolent? I am not sure about that. My God is a good and loving God, but also a vengeful and jealous God." one Christian told me.

The bible never says God is "all loving" but it does imply it. 1 John 4:8 "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

One could still make an argument against Christianity.

Can one not love indefinitely and yet still punish and teach?

Your parents love you but that doesn't mean they treat you with kid gloves and let you do whatever you want.

Doesn't respond to natural disasters/needless suffering.

I don't believe God is behind natural disasters. Nor do I believe in needless suffering. In my belief, God created the system, weather, tectonics, disease etc. for reasons of his own way back in the beginning and hasn't touched it since. Hurricanes occur in the system but God only created the system not the hurricane.

And I believe all things happen for a reason. Suffering included. I can't see the mind of God nor do I know his ultimate goal or plan.

When he created these things did he know what would happen?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 12:46:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 12:27:47 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/3/2013 12:25:53 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 7/3/2013 12:22:44 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/3/2013 12:18:21 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 7/3/2013 11:57:26 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I have encountered theists who have no problem with God not being omnibevevlent, and actually argue from scripture that he could not be! "Omnibenevolent? I am not sure about that. My God is a good and loving God, but also a vengeful and jealous God." one Christian told me.

The bible never says God is "all loving" but it does imply it. 1 John 4:8 "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

One could still make an argument against Christianity.

Can one not love indefinitely and yet still punish and teach?

Your parents love you but that doesn't mean they treat you with kid gloves and let you do whatever you want.

Doesn't respond to natural disasters/needless suffering.

I don't believe God is behind natural disasters. Nor do I believe in needless suffering. In my belief, God created the system, weather, tectonics, disease etc. for reasons of his own way back in the beginning and hasn't touched it since. Hurricanes occur in the system but God only created the system not the hurricane.

Except you laid out a causal chain that directly links God to natural disasters.

And I believe all things happen for a reason. Suffering included. I can't see the mind of God nor do I know his ultimate goal or plan.

Do you think it's consistent to feign fallibility in regards to the reasoning behind God's actions while simultaneously claiming to know that it has benevolent of justified rationale behind those actions?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 12:57:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 10:38:49 AM, GOP wrote:
@ People who use the Problem of Evil argument to try to prove that God does not exist:

It only proves that a certain type of god doesn't exist; and it only proves that if evil exist.

Why do you use this argument?

Because it's bulletproof: If evil exists, then there are no gods who have the power and the knowledge and the will to prevent evil. There's no way around that.

If something bad happens, then isn't it that God allows things to happen, not because He cannot stop it?

There are five relevant responses to the PoE:
1. God isn't really omnipotent.
2. God isn't really omniscient.
3. God isn't really omnibenevolent.
4. Evil doesn't exist.
5. Logic sucks.

You reject #1, so (assuming you stipulate that evil exists and that your belief is logical) you must be suggesting that god is less-than-omniscient and/or less-than-omnibenevolent.

If you say that He is malevolent

Malevolent is different. He can be mostly benevolent; he just can't be perfectly benevolent. (That is, if he is omnipotent and omniscient, and if evil exists.)

because He chooses not to do something, then wouldn't you be saying that you claim that God could not possibly have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil things to occur?

Here's what we're saying: If there were a god with the power and knowledge to prevent evil, and he also had the will to prevent evil, then there would be no evil.

I'd like to ask you, how could you know that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil things to occur?

We don't have a clue what you mean by that. Are you suggesting that god is a Satan worshiper, and that he therefore has a morality which precludes his being omnibenevolent? The PoE doesn't really care why god isn't omnibenevolent. It just points out that, if he is omnipotent and omniscient, and if evil exists, then god is not omnibenevolent.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 1:05:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 11:51:26 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/3/2013 11:43:31 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
It does, however, force theists to justify their position and their beliefs.

The Tri-Omni God, for example, is often used to justify the whole "Morality is what God says it is" argument. It's an absurd argument, that can be attacked on multiple fronts, but I think the PoE is an effective attack on at least part of that nonsense.

But the theist is not necessarily bound by that nonsense.

They are inasmuch as they defend it. You're right that they're free to change their argument, and when they do, the PoE will cease being as sound.

It still would have validity in questioning the rationality of WORSHIPPING or FOLLOWING a deity who does not prevent evil (if he's not powerful enough, why bother, if he's not good enough, why bother, etc.)

Richard Swinburne for instance believes that moral truths are necessary truths that are true whether God exists or not. Not all theists are divine command theorist like Craig. There are many different types of Christians. They can define God however they want, as long as it does not contradict scripture (there is nothing in the Bible which claims God is omnibenevolent, and even the obvious verses of omnipotence can be explained away). As long their belief that Jesus rose from the dead isn't harmed, I'm not sure what the PoE really does.

It attacks a thesis that some find to be central. If they modify it so that it's not central, it still leaves the door open for asking why they bother worshipping a deity who's either not powerful enough to stop evil or doesn't care enough to do so.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Siege
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 1:07:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 10:58:06 AM, benevolent wrote:
Tell me: are the shrieks of the damned audible in Heaven? or is it a sort of blissful ignorance you live in up there?

The interpretation of hell is also largely up to your denomination and your personal beliefs. There are those who believe hell is a fire pit to punish sinners. There are those who belief it doesn't exist.

I personally believe that it isn't a place, but a term to describe an absence from God.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 1:11:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 1:07:12 PM, Siege wrote:
At 7/3/2013 10:58:06 AM, benevolent wrote:
Tell me: are the shrieks of the damned audible in Heaven? or is it a sort of blissful ignorance you live in up there?

The interpretation of hell is also largely up to your denomination and your personal beliefs. There are those who believe hell is a fire pit to punish sinners. There are those who belief it doesn't exist.

I personally believe that it isn't a place, but a term to describe an absence from God.

Is it unpleasant? If so, even if it's not on fire, does it change the central thesis of the problem of eternal punishment for temporal crimes?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 2:01:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I actually don't think it's necessary for the PoE to explain what is meant by the terms "moral" or "non-moral", or to acknowledge anything else about them except that they're categorical negations of one another: P or ~P. Nothing in P belongs to ~P, and "immorality" (whatever that may be), is in ~P. Just treat the terms as blind signifiers and the contradiction still obtains.

Consequently, a PoE argument doesn't even need to make an existence claim about any particular "evil" in the world; just leave that assertion to the theist and the argument will be no weaker for it.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 2:03:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 1:07:12 PM, Siege wrote:
At 7/3/2013 10:58:06 AM, benevolent wrote:
Tell me: are the shrieks of the damned audible in Heaven? or is it a sort of blissful ignorance you live in up there?

The interpretation of hell is also largely up to your denomination and your personal beliefs. There are those who believe hell is a fire pit to punish sinners. There are those who belief it doesn't exist.

I personally believe that it isn't a place, but a term to describe an absence from God.

So you think you're not so absurd as the others in your belief then? That point is actually largely trivial I think. I only made it to outline the absurdity of some people's beliefs to them. The real monstrosity of religion lies in its organisation. If you think your denomination is not so bad, you're wrong: it gives speed to the next, and the next, and the next. And then history repeats itself and we have the Crusades again. You would think you would only need your heart to know God.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 2:14:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 2:03:19 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 7/3/2013 1:07:12 PM, Siege wrote:
At 7/3/2013 10:58:06 AM, benevolent wrote:
Tell me: are the shrieks of the damned audible in Heaven? or is it a sort of blissful ignorance you live in up there?

The interpretation of hell is also largely up to your denomination and your personal beliefs. There are those who believe hell is a fire pit to punish sinners. There are those who belief it doesn't exist.

I personally believe that it isn't a place, but a term to describe an absence from God.

So you think you're not so absurd as the others in your belief then? That point is actually largely trivial I think. I only made it to outline the absurdity of some people's beliefs to them. The real monstrosity of religion lies in its organisation. If you think your denomination is not so bad, you're wrong: it gives speed to the next, and the next, and the next. And then history repeats itself and we have the Crusades again. You would think you would only need your heart to know God.

Even still, your God is a murderer no doubt... let it be knowledge of the damned and gone then that should plague Heaven.
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 2:59:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sometimes I talk about Evil when I am discussing religion with my peers, but I don't think that the PoE is a convincing argument against God. After all, God doesn't have to be kind or care by default. His characteristics are only known to us through religious text. I'm pretty sure that nobody has verifiable first hand knowledge of God's character.

I typed out a really long passage but I deleted it because I felt like I was rambling.

Anyway, I use the PoE as a sort of segway into morality.
My thought process goes as follows.
1. The PoE implies that humanity recognizes morality.
2. If objective morality exists, and is conveyed through religion; then logically determining which set of morals is objectively most moral is near impossible.
3. Choosing any particular religion's objective moral values as correct is a subjective choice.

In a room full of five people each person says they are the only one telling the truth and that anyone else who claims to tell the truth is a liar. You will never know the actual validity of any of their statements. If you choose to believe one person it must therefore be a choice made on emotion, chance, or whim. The same experiment was performed four more times with four different testers. Each tester chose a different person as the objective truth teller.

If one's choice in this situation is based solely on emotion, chance, or whim then all of the testers were equally justified in their decision. And because there was no unanimous single choice, that choice must therefore have been determined subjectively through emotion chance or whim at the personal level.

So what I am left with is a world filled with subjectively objective choices. The validity of each I can never know since there is nothing to objectively compare it against. Put in my position, would you want to make such an important decision with such little information?

Obviously this conclusion makes no claims about the existence of God or the actual validity of any particular religion, but it's questions like these that lead me to believe that there is no tri-omni God, no personal God, no interfering God, no obviously true church, and no obligation to choose one to follow.

I want to believe just as much as the next guy. It would make things a hell of a lot easier on me. If anyone wants to tell me a good way to decide which religion is most true then I am all ears, but at this point I'm just not willing to jump to conclusions without the proper knowledge.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 3:20:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 11:34:56 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/3/2013 10:38:49 AM, GOP wrote:
@ People who use the Problem of Evil argument to try to prove that God does not exist:

Why do you use this argument? If something bad happens, then isn't it that God allows things to happen, not because He cannot stop it? If you say that He is malevolent because He chooses not to do something, then wouldn't you be saying that you claim that God could not possibly have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil things to occur? I'd like to ask you, how could you know that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil things to occur? As a certain DDO user once said, to claim that God could not possibly have a morally sound reason for allowing bad things to occur is to claim omniscience yourself.

Most people don't use the logical PoE anymore, they use the evidential PoE. Thus, even if it is possible for God to have morally sufficient reasons, the argument still goes through. Regardless, the PoE fails to objectively show the Christian God does not exist because one could just claim that God is good but not omnibenevolent, or really powerful but not omnipotent. Different people interpret scripture in different ways. It is simply not true that every Christian believes in a tri-omni God. What are we really disproving with the PoE? The most strictly defined God? That shows very little really. Even if the PoE worked, the Christian could just say "Well, maybe God is not omnibenevolent, maybe he can do whatever the f*ck he wants". There is nothing in scripture which defines God as omnibenevolent.

The evidential PoE shows that some strictly defined God probably doesn't exist. Well whoopty f*cking do.

Meh, I don't agree this is much of a limitation for the PoE, primarily because most of the academic discussion about God does seem to revolve around a specific God concept (maximally perfect).

If Christians generally felt the need to degrade God's wholly good nature, for example, I think it's plausible this would be exclusively down to the PoE. The religious texts point isn't the same. People generally think of and defend their conception of God as all-good, even if they come to some radical departures over the meaning of the term, "good".

On a slightly tangential point, I've always been puzzled by atheists who are either hesitant with or actually hostile to the PoE. I just don't get the mindset.