Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Problem of evil/suffering

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 9:53:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So I am thinking doing a debate on the "problem of evil" as Pro. More specifically what I have in mind is using unnecessary suffering to argue against the existence of a (tri) God.

(xyz) = some instance of suffering

So whats the problem ? Well I concede that it possible that xyz exists because........God allows it. End of argument with that concession ? no. I don't think so. Cause another possibility is that xyz exists without such a God allowing it, and claiming God "allowing" xyz is an rationilisation. I call these possibilities 1 and 2

So I have to justify that one possibility is more plausible that the other.

1) Either p1 or p2
2) More plausible not p1
C) Therefore more plausible p2

How would I justify 2) ? mainly by using occams razor. Also probably use the moral paralysis argument.
"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
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 10:09:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 9:53:03 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So I am thinking doing a debate on the "problem of evil" as Pro. More specifically what I have in mind is using unnecessary suffering to argue against the existence of a (tri) God.

(xyz) = some instance of suffering

So whats the problem ? Well I concede that it possible that xyz exists because........God allows it. End of argument with that concession ? no. I don't think so. Cause another possibility is that xyz exists without such a God allowing it, and claiming God "allowing" xyz is an rationilisation. I call these possibilities 1 and 2

So I have to justify that one possibility is more plausible that the other.

1) Either p1 or p2
2) More plausible not p1
C) Therefore more plausible p2

How would I justify 2) ? mainly by using occams razor. Also probably use the moral paralysis argument.

There's no difference between good and evil. They both came from the same tree which was meant to deceive ALL God's people during this first age.
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 12:29:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 9:53:03 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So I am thinking doing a debate on the "problem of evil" as Pro. More specifically what I have in mind is using unnecessary suffering to argue against the existence of a (tri) God.

(xyz) = some instance of suffering

So whats the problem ? Well I concede that it possible that xyz exists because........God allows it. End of argument with that concession ? no. I don't think so. Cause another possibility is that xyz exists without such a God allowing it, and claiming God "allowing" xyz is an rationilisation. I call these possibilities 1 and 2

So I have to justify that one possibility is more plausible that the other.

1) Either p1 or p2
2) More plausible not p1
C) Therefore more plausible p2

How would I justify 2) ? mainly by using occams razor. Also probably use the moral paralysis argument.

You've snuck a little cheat-sheet in there.

.....and claiming God "allowing" xyz is an rationilisation...

p2 seems to have two unrelated claims. Even if you demonstrated that, "xyz exists without such a God allowing it" does not necessarily mean it is a rationalization to claim He does.

Separate them and prove both.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 2:15:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Love your new signature, Ethan - contrary to psychology in its entirety, and to raise yourself above those who don't conform to your standards in a very self-righteous way. Ah, assertion - beautiful thing, isn't it? Couldn't have the notion floating around that people who do bad only do so because that's what the world made them. That'd put responsibility on me! and rob me of my feeling of superiority!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 6:58:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 1:36:47 PM, ethang5 wrote:
?

Not really interested in defending your beliefs eh?

I started a debate on this about a week ago, which is still in the debating period. As I said before..."So I am thinking doing a debate on the "problem of evil" as Pro. More specifically what I have in mind is using unnecessary suffering to argue against the existence of a (tri) God.".

FYI: You have zero debates. I look forward to seeing your first debate...
"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
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 9:32:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 2:15:13 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:

Love your new signature, Ethan - contrary to psychology in its entirety,...

lol, yes, you'd think so.

...and to raise yourself above those who don't conform to your standards in a very self-righteous way.

When I see a poster whose siggy or behavior I object to, I engage him and prove him wrong with the logic in my posts. Like I did you.

Ah, assertion - beautiful thing, isn't it? Couldn't have the notion floating around that people who do bad only do so because that's what the world made them. That'd put responsibility on me! and rob me of my feeling of superiority!

Perhaps we should have a forum for "what I think about (X) poster". While it is fun to hear the wealth of information you've been able to glean just from my siggy, I'm more interested in real debates on real topics of interest to all.

Oftentimes, people who feel inferior confuse that feeling in them with the idea that the other guy feel superior. Understandable mistake.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 1/7/2014 6:58:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/7/2014 1:36:47 PM, ethang5 wrote:

?

Not really interested in defending your beliefs eh?

I started a debate on this about a week ago, which is still in the debating period. As I said before..."So I am thinking doing a debate on the "problem of evil" as Pro. More specifically what I have in mind is using unnecessary suffering to argue against the existence of a (tri) God.".

FYI: You have zero debates. I look forward to seeing your first debate...

I have no debates because one must verify his address and the country in which I currently live is not in the list of countries provided. I have written the mod but as yet have not received a reply.

But you can also defend your claims here in the forum. This isn't the first thread where you've....ahem, declined to defend the flames you spit. (to be fair, you aren't the only atheist who has.)

Good luck on your debate.