Total Posts:233|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Problems with the Problem of Evil

neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 6:04:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have watched, for years now, the larger atheist community, not individual atheists, attach themselves to the Problem of Evil with great gusto. There is that AHA! moment where they prove suffering exists and believe they have us. Yet I find myself continuously wondering why so many atheists think this is no effective as a proof?

#1 - The question statement is older than Jesus. Its older than Islam. Despite the pre-existence of the metaphorical question, these religions have thrived. The question would be why? If the Problem of Evil is so damning to a benevolent God, then why is not undermining the religions whose benevolence is central?

As you can see, the POE has been around and answered many times in history.

http://www.quodlibet.net...

Yet as I scan the forum, I cannot find a single atheist addressing this apparent dichotomy. If the proof is so convincing, then why hasn't it been convincing?

#2 - Absurdity. As a discussion point, the POE makes sense. It'll get people thinking about the claims and get them seeking resolution. As a logical proof or logically disproven proof, its simply not logical feasible. Its a bit like asking pie to be stated to the final decimal place. It simply cannot be done.

Can, by definition, an omnipotent being do anything? Yes. Would that include violating the rules of logic? Yes. How then do you use logic to disprove something that by its nature can violate logic at will?

The same goes for omni benevolence. If you think you have found something not benevolent, its still benevolent anyway - just in a way you don't understand.

I suppose that is something of knock on the claims of my faith, but the reality is Christians spend very little time pondering the finite portion of omni-whatever, and simply accept that our God is Creator, and as seen through his Son Jesus Christ, is a a loving God. To us, attempting to spin the Creator of Jesus and his message and somehow malicious is like attempting to make up into down.

#3 - Perhaps most damning to the atheist position is what it avoids. As we see above, the POE has been answered by religion many times over. I am, as I scan the forum again, I cannot find a single atheist taking an honest stab at the rebuttal position.

"As long as humans make mistakes, there will be suffering. If we could just take back that one decision or action that caused so much suffering. Oh, if we could eliminate one tiny mistake. But we can"t. As long as nature is what it is, it will manifest itself as both Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. We will be blessed both with rain for our crops and cursed with typhoons that flood, destroy and kill. As long as we are physical and subject to breaking down and wearing out, sickness and death will come upon us.

Decent people will often suffer, and those who do terrible evils will often prosper. Jesus Christ pointed this out when he said that the rain falls on both the "righteous and the unrighteous" (Matthew 5:45).

Consider what the world would look like if it could be fair as we want it to be fair. No accidents could happen, no criminal act could occur, no natural disaster could affect us. That kind of world would have no logic. The natural laws that govern cause and effect would have to be different in every circumstance.

Would God stop carelessness and irresponsibility? Would he stop everyone from being hurt, from coming down with illnesses and diseases? What about death? Would God abolish death? He"d have to, if sorrow and suffering were to be eliminated.

During our entire lives we would be like babies, always under the interventionist eyes of our spiritual parent, God. No longer would we be free to choose, allowed to consider possible courses of action and to carry through on our choices."

http://www.gci.org...

That is the gist of it right there, and for human life to have meaning, there must be suffering. Strife. Struggle. Sometimes that will be unfair.

Therein, however, lies the death knell of the atheistic 'proof'. If suffering is necessary, indeed critical, then proving suffering ... proves God. What we are left with is an acknowledgement that suffering is needed, but attempting to arbitrarily place a point at which suffering becomes ... too much? Its the same logical problem. That point could be argued arbitrarily indefinitely. Once you get into that arbitrary point, the larger Christian proof remains - we humans cannot define where that point is, but we know our God does not condone unnecessary suffering and that admits all the pain his will, rather than our limited understanding, hold sway.

In conclusion, although valuable as a discussion point, the POE does nothing to actually disprove God. As we delve into suffering itself, we come to appreciate what it is God is doing for US. Rather than weaken the case for Christ, it strengthens it immeasurably.

Indeed, IMHO, that is why, despite the pre-existence of the POE, the major religions that followed have been the most successful the world has ever seen. Creation is an act of tremendous love and sacrifice. Ask any mother. Sacrifice and selflessness are simply not represented accurately in and evil and uncaring God. The atheist attempts to use the POE to disprove God appear to be little more than trying to make light into dark. The POE is an invaluable talking point to focus discussion, but when actual discussion of suffering happens ... we see the true nature of God.

That is why the POE is so singularly unsuccessful. I cannot fathom why so many atheists think the POE is an intellectual gold mine?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 10:34:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 6:04:50 AM, neutral wrote:

As you can see, the POE has been around and answered many times in history.

http://www.quodlibet.net...


have you ever considered the possiblity that these answers aren't good? It's not a matter of the quanity of answers; it's a matter of the quality of them.



Can, by definition, an omnipotent being do anything? Yes. Would that include violating the rules of logic? Yes.

No.

""His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. There is no limit to His power.

If you choose to say, 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prifex to them the two other words, 'God can.'

It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."

C.S. Lewis conforms with the vast majority of Christian tradition in saying this. You are an outlier.

How then do you use logic to disprove something that by its nature can violate logic at will?


You realize you make nonsense of all your talk about God as soon as you say he can violate logic right? Because, according to you, God canNOT violate logic and CAN violate logic at the same time in the same sense. You can't say anything meaningful about God, then. Is God omnibenevolent? No. And Yes. At the same time in the same sense.



I suppose that is something of knock on the claims of my faith, but the reality is Christians spend very little time pondering the finite portion of omni-whatever, and simply accept that our God is Creator, and as seen through his Son Jesus Christ, is a a loving God. To us, attempting to spin the Creator of Jesus and his message and somehow malicious is like attempting to make up into down.


Well, according to you, up can be made into down. Because God can violate logic.

#3 - Perhaps most damning to the atheist position is what it avoids. As we see above, the POE has been answered by religion many times over. I am, as I scan the forum again, I cannot find a single atheist taking an honest stab at the rebuttal position.


Try debating unitedandy.

Therein, however, lies the death knell of the atheistic 'proof'. If suffering is necessary, indeed critical, then proving suffering ... proves God. What we are left with is an acknowledgement that suffering is needed, but attempting to arbitrarily place a point at which suffering becomes ... too much? Its the same logical problem. That point could be argued arbitrarily indefinitely. Once you get into that arbitrary point, the larger Christian proof remains - we humans cannot define where that point is, but we know our God does not condone unnecessary suffering and that admits all the pain his will, rather than our limited understanding, hold sway.


No atheist argues that ALL suffering is unneccessary - only there are particular instances of gratuitious suffering. What's was the reason why a little girl had to be raped and murdered?

"This poor child of five was subjected to every possible torture by those cultivated parents. They beat her, thrashed her, kicked her for no reason till her body was one bruise. Then, they went to greater refinements of cruelty- shut her up all night in the cold and frost in a privy, and because she didn"t ask to be taken up at night (as though a child of five sleeping its angelic, sound sleep could be trained to wake and ask), they smeared her face and filled her mouth with excrement, and it was her mother, her mother did this. And that mother could sleep, hearing the poor child"s groans! Can you understand why a little creature, who can"t even understand what"s done to her, should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and the cold, and weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her? Do you understand that, friend and brother, you pious and humble novice? Do you understand why this infamy must be and is permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much? Why, the whole world of knowledge is not worth that child"s prayer to dear, kind God"! I say nothing of the sufferings of grown-up people, they have eaten the apple, damn them, and the devil take them all! But these little ones! I am making you suffer, Alyosha, you are not yourself. I"ll leave off if you like.""

"Listen! If all must suffer to pay for the eternal harmony, what have children to do with it, tell me, please? It"s beyond all comprehension why they should suffer, and why they should pay for the harmony. Why should they, too, furnish material to enrich the soil for the harmony of the future? I understand solidarity in sin among men. I understand solidarity in retribution, too; but there can be no such solidarity with children. And if it is really true that they must share responsibility for all their fathers" crimes, such a truth is not of this world and is beyond my comprehension. Some jester will say, perhaps, that the child would have grown up and have sinned, but you see he didn"t grow up, he was torn to pieces by the dogs, at eight years old. Oh, Alyosha, I am not blaspheming! I understand, of course, what an upheaval of the universe it will be when everything in heaven and earth blends in one hymn of praise and everything that lives and has lived cries aloud: "Thou art just, O Lord, for Thy ways are revealed." When the mother embraces the fiend who threw her child to the dogs, and all three cry aloud with tears, "Thou art just, O Lord!" then, of course, the crown of knowledge will be reached and all will be made clear. But what pulls me up here is that I can"t accept that harmony. And while I am on earth, I make haste to take my own measures. You see, Alyosha, perhaps it really may happen that if I live to that moment, or rise again to see it, I, too, perhaps, may cry aloud with the rest, looking at the mother embracing the child"s torturer, "Thou art just, O Lord!" but I don"t want to cry aloud then. While there is still time, I hasten to protect myself, and so I renounce the higher harmony altogether. It"s not worth the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its unexpiated tears to "dear, kind God"! It"s not worth it, because those tears are unatoned for.
"

"Tell me yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature- that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance- and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth."
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 11:39:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 10:34:41 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/16/2014 6:04:50 AM, neutral wrote:

As you can see, the POE has been around and answered many times in history.

http://www.quodlibet.net...


have you ever considered the possiblity that these answers aren't good? It's not a matter of the quanity of answers; it's a matter of the quality of them.

No offense, but if they weren't good it would be up to the atheist side to demonstrate that, correct?

The divergence between the effectiveness of the argument and the reality of benevolent faiths is apparent. Perhaps the atheist faith in the POE is the problem? Which, having read both, Created this thread,





No.

""His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. There is no limit to His power.

As soon as we put a limit on omnipotence, its not omnipotent.

I am assuming you are not providing a link for a reason?


If you choose to say, 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prifex to them the two other words, 'God can.'

Which is exactly the point.

http://dialecticonline.wordpress.com...

The incoherence of omnipotence is not a original or unchristian thought, which is, typically not addressed. Quoting Lewis, in brief while ignoring his larger volume on the Problem of Pain - which provides a fuller picture in line with other parts of the proof.

Cherry picking?

C.S. Lewis conforms with the vast majority of Christian tradition in saying this. You are an outlier.

That is an appeal to bandwagon. Lewis is good, but not God. This is not a new concern regarding omni-whatevers.



You realize you make nonsense of all your talk about God as soon as you say he can violate logic right? Because, according to you, God canNOT violate logic and CAN violate logic at the same time in the same sense. You can't say anything meaningful about God, then. Is God omnibenevolent? No. And Yes. At the same time in the same sense.

Please address my actual argument.






Well, according to you, up can be made into down. Because God can violate logic.

According to omnipotence, yes.

If you prove that its not so, its not omnipotence. Would God do so? Different question than can. You must prove he can't. And you can't.


#3 - Perhaps most damning to the atheist position is what it avoids. As we see above, the POE has been answered by religion many times over. I am, as I scan the forum again, I cannot find a single atheist taking an honest stab at the rebuttal position.


Try debating unite dandy.

He is free to show up, but if you step up, then the burden falls on you.



No atheist argues that ALL suffering is unneccessary - only there are particular instances of gratuitious suffering. What's was the reason why a little girl had to be raped and murdered?

So define the arbitrary point where it becomes too much? Because free will exists. So if we stop the little girl from being raped ... should we also not stop death in car accidents? At what point should we limit and/or eliminate man's ability to analyze choices and make them?

Enslave man - if you will. Please define it. Then figure out how you do so without violating the rules of logical consequences and upending the laws of nature - which a logical God will not do. Even if he can. Because it fundamentally alters the WHOLE of existence.

If you think logic disproves, then logic beckons a solution - and cannot find one.

"

"Tell me yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature- that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance- and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth.

Please read God's Plan of Salvation. There is a eternal perspective in God's Plan, where happiness is not the point. The point of existence is to learn. Do you understand what caused the fall of man? It was partaking of the fruit of Good and Evil. That we MAY KNOW good from evil. An in this world we experience the reality of good AND evil.

I think grace and honor is not cringing before our Creator and blaming him for the actions of men, It is recognizing evil for what it is and vanquishing it.

Tell me, in the ultimate disprove of your position, you believe in no God, and those conditions still exist. Man caused those conditions from his choices. And the lesson in this world is that such evil created by men can be undone by men. God granted us the choice, and will not remove it simply because those not even effected by gross injustice blame him for it.

Again, the entire thing is a giant appeal to emotion rather than a logical proof. Why would anyone believe a fallacy over God?

Really, the questions asked here remain unaddressed:

#1 - Why is the argument so ineffective?

#2 - How does it actually address theological positions or philosophical positions vice omnipotence? None are actually rebutted here, neither Lewis nor Aquinas.

#3 - And how do we set the arbitrary point without undermining the very logic of the disproof itself?

Simple, and avoided, so long as man makes mistakes, there will be suffering. You would remove man's ability to make mistakes and learn. That brother, is slavery. It is the equivalent of saying we should do away with the criminal justice system because it sometimes locks up innocent men. For the most part, man handles his free will with aplomb and grace. Grievous injustice can bring out that in man which is most honorable: his intrinsic and unalienable desire for justice. A desire found root in the US Constitution.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 12:15:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 6:04:50 AM, neutral wrote:
I have watched, for years now, the larger atheist community, not individual atheists, attach themselves to the Problem of Evil with great gusto. There is that AHA! moment where they prove suffering exists and believe they have us. Yet I find myself continuously wondering why so many atheists think this is no effective as a proof?

#1 - The question statement is older than Jesus. Its older than Islam. Despite the pre-existence of the metaphorical question, these religions have thrived. The question would be why? If the Problem of Evil is so damning to a benevolent God, then why is not undermining the religions whose benevolence is central?

As you can see, the POE has been around and answered many times in history.

http://www.quodlibet.net...

Yet as I scan the forum, I cannot find a single atheist addressing this apparent dichotomy. If the proof is so convincing, then why hasn't it been convincing?


#2 - Absurdity. As a discussion point, the POE makes sense. It'll get people thinking about the claims and get them seeking resolution. As a logical proof or logically disproven proof, its simply not logical feasible. Its a bit like asking pie to be stated to the final decimal place. It simply cannot be done.

Can, by definition, an omnipotent being do anything? Yes. Would that include violating the rules of logic? Yes. How then do you use logic to disprove something that by its nature can violate logic at will?

The same goes for omni benevolence. If you think you have found something not benevolent, its still benevolent anyway - just in a way you don't understand.

I suppose that is something of knock on the claims of my faith, but the reality is Christians spend very little time pondering the finite portion of omni-whatever, and simply accept that our God is Creator, and as seen through his Son Jesus Christ, is a a loving God. To us, attempting to spin the Creator of Jesus and his message and somehow malicious is like attempting to make up into down.

#3 - Perhaps most damning to the atheist position is what it avoids. As we see above, the POE has been answered by religion many times over. I am, as I scan the forum again, I cannot find a single atheist taking an honest stab at the rebuttal position.

"As long as humans make mistakes, there will be suffering. If we could just take back that one decision or action that caused so much suffering. Oh, if we could eliminate one tiny mistake. But we can"t. As long as nature is what it is, it will manifest itself as both Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. We will be blessed both with rain for our crops and cursed with typhoons that flood, destroy and kill. As long as we are physical and subject to breaking down and wearing out, sickness and death will come upon us.

Decent people will often suffer, and those who do terrible evils will often prosper. Jesus Christ pointed this out when he said that the rain falls on both the "righteous and the unrighteous" (Matthew 5:45).

Consider what the world would look like if it could be fair as we want it to be fair. No accidents could happen, no criminal act could occur, no natural disaster could affect us. That kind of world would have no logic. The natural laws that govern cause and effect would have to be different in every circumstance.

Would God stop carelessness and irresponsibility? Would he stop everyone from being hurt, from coming down with illnesses and diseases? What about death? Would God abolish death? He"d have to, if sorrow and suffering were to be eliminated.

During our entire lives we would be like babies, always under the interventionist eyes of our spiritual parent, God. No longer would we be free to choose, allowed to consider possible courses of action and to carry through on our choices."

http://www.gci.org...

That is the gist of it right there, and for human life to have meaning, there must be suffering. Strife. Struggle. Sometimes that will be unfair.

Therein, however, lies the death knell of the atheistic 'proof'. If suffering is necessary, indeed critical, then proving suffering ... proves God. What we are left with is an acknowledgement that suffering is needed, but attempting to arbitrarily place a point at which suffering becomes ... too much? Its the same logical problem. That point could be argued arbitrarily indefinitely. Once you get into that arbitrary point, the larger Christian proof remains - we humans cannot define where that point is, but we know our God does not condone unnecessary suffering and that admits all the pain his will, rather than our limited understanding, hold sway.

In conclusion, although valuable as a discussion point, the POE does nothing to actually disprove God. As we delve into suffering itself, we come to appreciate what it is God is doing for US. Rather than weaken the case for Christ, it strengthens it immeasurably.

Indeed, IMHO, that is why, despite the pre-existence of the POE, the major religions that followed have been the most successful the world has ever seen. Creation is an act of tremendous love and sacrifice. Ask any mother. Sacrifice and selflessness are simply not represented accurately in and evil and uncaring God. The atheist attempts to use the POE to disprove God appear to be little more than trying to make light into dark. The POE is an invaluable talking point to focus discussion, but when actual discussion of suffering happens ... we see the true nature of God.

That is why the POE is so singularly unsuccessful. I cannot fathom why so many atheists think the POE is an intellectual gold mine?

How could a Christian know a God if everything appeared good to them?

There is a reason God created the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" as a very strong delusion to keep His people deceived during this first age. I can explain it to you if you ask me for this knowledge.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 1:24:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 6:04:50 AM, neutral wrote:
I have watched, for years now, the larger atheist community, not individual atheists, attach themselves to the Problem of Evil with great gusto. There is that AHA! moment where they prove suffering exists and believe they have us. Yet I find myself continuously wondering why so many atheists think this is no effective as a proof?

#1 - The question statement is older than Jesus. Its older than Islam. Despite the pre-existence of the metaphorical question, these religions have thrived. The question would be why? If the Problem of Evil is so damning to a benevolent God, then why is not undermining the religions whose benevolence is central?

As you can see, the POE has been around and answered many times in history.

http://www.quodlibet.net...

Yet as I scan the forum, I cannot find a single atheist addressing this apparent dichotomy. If the proof is so convincing, then why hasn't it been convincing?

Human beings aren't logical creatures and are more often "convinced" by logical fallacious such as appeal to emotion and cognitive biases such as confirmation bias. If tricking people into believing things illogically wasn't a viable option, then we'd have no reason to enumerate logical fallacies and point them out. The dichotomy exists because what is truth is not necessarily what is convincing.

That says, plenty of people question the existence of god based on the evil that persists in the world.



#2 - Absurdity. As a discussion point, the POE makes sense. It'll get people thinking about the claims and get them seeking resolution. As a logical proof or logically disproven proof, its simply not logical feasible. Its a bit like asking pie to be stated to the final decimal place. It simply cannot be done.

Can, by definition, an omnipotent being do anything? Yes. Would that include violating the rules of logic? Yes. How then do you use logic to disprove something that by its nature can violate logic at will?

The same goes for omni benevolence. If you think you have found something not benevolent, its still benevolent anyway - just in a way you don't understand.

Then you've missed the point of the PoE. In defining God as omnibenevolent, god is being defined as good in a way we understand.


I suppose that is something of knock on the claims of my faith, but the reality is Christians spend very little time pondering the finite portion of omni-whatever, and simply accept that our God is Creator, and as seen through his Son Jesus Christ, is a a loving God. To us, attempting to spin the Creator of Jesus and his message and somehow malicious is like attempting to make up into down.

#3 - Perhaps most damning to the atheist position is what it avoids. As we see above, the POE has been answered by religion many times over. I am, as I scan the forum again, I cannot find a single atheist taking an honest stab at the rebuttal position.

"As long as humans make mistakes, there will be suffering. If we could just take back that one decision or action that caused so much suffering. Oh, if we could eliminate one tiny mistake. But we can"t. As long as nature is what it is, it will manifest itself as both Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. We will be blessed both with rain for our crops and cursed with typhoons that flood, destroy and kill. As long as we are physical and subject to breaking down and wearing out, sickness and death will come upon us.

Decent people will often suffer, and those who do terrible evils will often prosper. Jesus Christ pointed this out when he said that the rain falls on both the "righteous and the unrighteous" (Matthew 5:45).

Consider what the world would look like if it could be fair as we want it to be fair. No accidents could happen, no criminal act could occur, no natural disaster could affect us. That kind of world would have no logic. The natural laws that govern cause and effect would have to be different in every circumstance.

Would God stop carelessness and irresponsibility? Would he stop everyone from being hurt, from coming down with illnesses and diseases? What about death? Would God abolish death? He"d have to, if sorrow and suffering were to be eliminated.

During our entire lives we would be like babies, always under the interventionist eyes of our spiritual parent, God. No longer would we be free to choose, allowed to consider possible courses of action and to carry through on our choices."

http://www.gci.org...

That is the gist of it right there, and for human life to have meaning, there must be suffering. Strife. Struggle. Sometimes that will be unfair.

I don't see this as a rebuttal. You are presuming that suffering is better than the alternative but you haven't justified that position.

You say: During our entire lives we would be like babies, always under the interventionist eyes of our spiritual parent, God. No longer would we be free to choose, allowed to consider possible courses of action and to carry through on our choices.

I say: GOOD! I choose that. Where do I sign up? You're telling me that, to eliminate pain and suffering, to destroy rape, murder, genocide, cancer, harlequin babies, child pornography, all I have to do is give up my free will? Ok. I choose that.

You just assume that one is better than the other and think that's the end of the conversation. Such hubris. What's ironic is that, despite the enormously unjustified high pedastal you put Free Will on, you ignore the fact that God never gave us a choice in that matter. God thrust Free Will upon us. If choice is so important, then give us the only choice that matters: the ability to choose whether or not we want Free Will.

I'd happily give up Free Will (which i'm not even sure exists) if it eliminated suffering. You wouldn't? You want to see people die just so you can choose McDonalds over Burger King?


Therein, however, lies the death knell of the atheistic 'proof'. If suffering is necessary, indeed critical, then proving suffering ... proves God. What we are left with is an acknowledgement that suffering is needed, but attempting to arbitrarily place a point at which suffering becomes ... too much? Its the same logical problem. That point could be argued arbitrarily indefinitely. Once you get into that arbitrary point, the larger Christian proof remains - we humans cannot define where that point is, but we know our God does not condone unnecessary suffering and that admits all the pain his will, rather than our limited understanding, hold sway.

You didn't prove that suffering is necessary.


In conclusion, although valuable as a discussion point, the POE does nothing to actually disprove God. As we delve into suffering itself, we come to appreciate what it is God is doing for US. Rather than weaken the case for Christ, it strengthens it immeasurably.

Indeed, IMHO, that is why, despite the pre-existence of the POE, the major religions that followed have been the most successful the world has ever seen. Creation is an act of tremendous love and sacrifice. Ask any mother. Sacrifice and selflessness are simply not represented accurately in and evil and uncaring God. The atheist attempts to use the POE to disprove God appear to be little more than trying to make light into dark. The POE is an invaluable talking point to focus discussion, but when actual discussion of suffering happens ... we see the true nature of God.

That is why the POE is so singularly unsuccessful. I cannot fathom why so many atheists think the POE is an intellectual gold mine?

Because it has stood the test of time.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 1:29:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am happy to debate a Christian on the PoE, I have a reworked version of the argument I want to test out.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 1:44:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 1:24:42 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

Human beings aren't logical creatures and are more often "convinced" by logical fallacious such as appeal to emotion and cognitive biases such as confirmation bias. If tricking people into believing things illogically wasn't a viable option, then we'd have no reason to enumerate logical fallacies and point them out. The dichotomy exists because what is truth is not necessarily what is convincing.

That says, plenty of people question the existence of god based on the evil that persists in the world.

Then why are the two largest religions in the world ... there? Obviously atheists find this convincing ... but ... plenty disagree. At the end, it clearly does not disprove God. Why the divergence?





Then you've missed the point of the PoE. In defining God as omnibenevolent, god is being defined as good in a way we understand.

And thus we cannot disprove it can we? Which makes the proof ... ineffective. which is kind of the point.

Again, its a great discussion point, but its a terrible proof.


I don't see this as a rebuttal. You are presuming that suffering is better than the alternative but you haven't justified that position.

Yep, freedom with consequences is better than slavery. Again, I would hope that the gist of your case is not resting on someone needing to prove that slavery is bad?


You say: During our entire lives we would be like babies, always under the interventionist eyes of our spiritual parent, God. No longer would we be free to choose, allowed to consider possible courses of action and to carry through on our choices.

I say: GOOD! I choose that. Where do I sign up? You're telling me that, to eliminate pain and suffering, to destroy rape, murder, genocide, cancer, harlequin babies, child pornography, all I have to do is give up my free will? Ok. I choose that.

Do you? You cannot do ANYTHING that would violate the laws of God. No fornication, so when that hot a** blonde makes a pass at you ... whoops ... fornication is bad. She's hot but crazy and you cannot marry her as a result ... so ...

God creates none of those things, and indeed, without knowing Good from Evil, you would not even know that bad things were there. You could not die.

Again, you give us an appeal to emotion, but man has long struggled against the shackles of slavery, to the point where they are willing to murder to be free of it.

Your case smacks of emotion rather than logic. Therein lies the rub. A logical disproof cannot rest of a personal incredulity, that YOU would give up ... you would also give up the ability to be injured when you fell. The ability to be lazy or sloth. You could not differentiate yourself from peers through work ethic, because no one could choose to be lazy.

And the very logical unraveling of the world is the result. To begin a logical proof by relying on a fundamental rejection of logic is a massive fail.

My position is logical because I demand illogic?


You just assume that one is better than the other and think that's the end of the conversation. Such hubris. What's ironic is that, despite the enormously unjustified high pedastal you put Free Will on, you ignore the fact that God never gave us a choice in that matter. God thrust Free Will upon us. If choice is so important, then give us the only choice that matters: the ability to choose whether or not we want Free Will.

ROFL - you are lecturing about hubris while demanding the unearned wisdom of God himself in the choice?

Again, this is an appeal to emotion, and frankly spite. Logic is absent here. Nor is the reality of religious position actually addressed - again. Its just SUFFERING BAD ... me no likely suffering.

Well, neither do we. But we do seem to enjoy living in a world where we are free to analyze and make decisions in freedom, and of having logical and understanding, indeed predictable, measures in response to the stimuli of our choices.

Well, suffering happens? So to does the choice to do something more than blest about it and blame a God you do not even believe in for it.

There is something irrational about a proof that leaves a God responsible for things when atheists do not believe in God.

No God - suffering still exists. What now? Touche, eh?


I'd happily give up Free Will (which i'm not even sure exists) if it eliminated suffering. You wouldn't? You want to see people die just so you can choose McDonalds over Burger King?

Again, another vacuous appeal to emotion. Logic this is not.





You didn't prove that suffering is necessary.

It is if you value logic. But again, please read above, absurd arguments are recognized quite easily. You are making one now.

Because it has stood the test of time.

Its been resurrected by modern atheists, but it pre-dates the major religions is supposedly disproves, has been addressed BY THEM, and these religions continue to expand and get larger anyway.

Your claim is a post hoc.

I don;t doubt that atheists find it effective, but it seems far more about confirmation bias than actual analysis of effect in the argumentation. In fact, at the very end of railing against suffering ... you still have suffering to deal with - and the POE offers nothing whatsoever save what religion has already stated - OUR failings produced this and OUR humanity can fix this.

No magical being, precisely because he is logical, will intervene and upend the entire concept of consequence for us. Yet we can pray, and through the Holy Spirit we can receive guidance about what WE should do about it.

You atheists? Are on your own. At some point railing against a fairy tale becomes a rather absurd solution to the problem of suffering. And you are still going to suffer.
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 2:03:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 6:04:50 AM, neutral wrote:

#3 - Perhaps most damning to the atheist position is what it avoids.

Therein, however, lies the death knell of the atheistic 'proof'. If suffering is necessary, indeed critical, then proving suffering ... proves God. What we are left with is an acknowledgement that suffering is needed, but attempting to arbitrarily place a point at which suffering becomes ... too much? Its the same logical problem. That point could be argued arbitrarily indefinitely. Once you get into that arbitrary point, the larger Christian proof remains - we humans cannot define where that point is, but we know our God does not condone unnecessary suffering and that admits all the pain his will, rather than our limited understanding, hold sway.

I'll just respond to this one. This seemed to be your best point for the problem with POE.

So I agree that some amount of "suffering" is necessary. Obviously we evolved pain receptors for a reason... so we wouldn't leave our foot in the fire and forget about it.

I have a pretty simple way to define your arbitrary point of minimum suffering, which is kind of what you were getting at. If suffering has a purpose, then it's necessary. If it has no purpose, it's unnecessary. A child/baby with terminal cancer seems to be an unnecessary by-product of evolution and cell reproduction. I would think if there were an all powerful god, he wouldn't have let the baby get cancer. I can see the reason, and so can you, for cells reproducing themselves. But for a baby to have cancer.... I don't see the purpose.

So can you come up with a reason why god would in particular, inflict a baby with painful and incurable cancer? ("God works in mysterious ways" doesn't count :)
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 2:17:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 2:03:10 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/16/2014 6:04:50 AM, neutral wrote:

#3 - Perhaps most damning to the atheist position is what it avoids.

Therein, however, lies the death knell of the atheistic 'proof'. If suffering is necessary, indeed critical, then proving suffering ... proves God. What we are left with is an acknowledgement that suffering is needed, but attempting to arbitrarily place a point at which suffering becomes ... too much? Its the same logical problem. That point could be argued arbitrarily indefinitely. Once you get into that arbitrary point, the larger Christian proof remains - we humans cannot define where that point is, but we know our God does not condone unnecessary suffering and that admits all the pain his will, rather than our limited understanding, hold sway.

I'll just respond to this one. This seemed to be your best point for the problem with POE.

So I agree that some amount of "suffering" is necessary. Obviously we evolved pain receptors for a reason... so we wouldn't leave our foot in the fire and forget about it.

I have a pretty simple way to define your arbitrary point of minimum suffering, which is kind of what you were getting at. If suffering has a purpose, then it's necessary. If it has no purpose, it's unnecessary. A child/baby with terminal cancer seems to be an unnecessary by-product of evolution and cell reproduction. I would think if there were an all powerful god, he wouldn't have let the baby get cancer. I can see the reason, and so can you, for cells reproducing themselves. But for a baby to have cancer.... I don't see the purpose.

So can you come up with a reason why god would in particular, inflict a baby with painful and incurable cancer? ("God works in mysterious ways" doesn't count :)

Seems to be ... and thereon lies the rub. We emerge from a biological process and there are things that we can do to differentiate ourselves. Tell me, is someone who eats healthy, is clean, exercises, maintains balance, etc. are they to be rewarded for that? Or is slovenliness, laziness, filth, squalor, and gluttony to be eliminated. One of the effects of choosing the later is that, over time, the effects of the natural environment will inevitably bring the consequences of choice.

So when you advocate removal of the processes because they sometimes claim the innocent along the guilty? That God will not do. He will not upend the entire logical system simply to avoid criticism from atheists - which seems an awfully petty way to view God.

The point is inherently arbitrary, and the really illogical portion is the manner by which that arbitrary point is set and enforced. If we values the rules and dictates of logic, things are as they must be.

On another point, there is an aspect of this that atheists miss entirely: the POE is the same argument that Satan made regarding men. That he would allow us all to come here without choice, which would allow ALL of us to return to Heavenly Father because none would sin. None would be lost to evil.

Seems tempting until you stop and think about what you lose. Logic. Compassion. Forgiveness.

For religious people, the POE is directly in our gospel - and has been rejected by the almighty himself. It is one of the reasons I raised the point about the failure of atheists to adequately consider the religious position.

Its not like we are unaware of it, its right there as the most compelling rebuttal to God's Plan from Satan himself. Convincing enough that 1/3 of the host of heaven fell for it.

So really, when I state that this is not a terribly convincing element to Christian, particularly well grounded Christians ... its not coming out of right field. Its coming right out of our doctrine.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 2:18:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 1:29:02 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am happy to debate a Christian on the PoE, I have a reworked version of the argument I want to test out.

Envy:
You actually surprised me here. Its not often you see someone dealt a set back who goes back and strengthens his case.

Take it for what its worth, but that post earns a tip of the hat.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 3:05:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 1:44:53 PM, neutral wrote:
At 6/16/2014 1:24:42 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:


That says, plenty of people question the existence of god based on the evil that persists in the world.

Then why are the two largest religions in the world ... there? Obviously atheists find this convincing ... but ... plenty disagree. At the end, it clearly does not disprove God. Why the divergence?

"Human beings aren't logical creatures and are more often "convinced" by logical fallacious such as appeal to emotion and cognitive biases such as confirmation bias. If tricking people into believing things illogically wasn't a viable option, then we'd have no reason to enumerate logical fallacies and point them out. The dichotomy exists because what is truth is not necessarily what is convincing."

Then you've missed the point of the PoE. In defining God as omnibenevolent, god is being defined as good in a way we understand.

And thus we cannot disprove it can we? Which makes the proof ... ineffective. which is kind of the point.

Again, its a great discussion point, but its a terrible proof.

I don't understand this judgement. Part of the proof is that God is good in our judgement. The proof demonstrates that either he is not or some other aspect of god (his existence, his power, his knowledge) must also be false.

I don't see this as a rebuttal. You are presuming that suffering is better than the alternative but you haven't justified that position.

Yep, freedom with consequences is better than slavery. Again, I would hope that the gist of your case is not resting on someone needing to prove that slavery is bad?

In this context, yes, it is. If slavery is what you want to call it, sure.

You say: During our entire lives we would be like babies, always under the interventionist eyes of our spiritual parent, God. No longer would we be free to choose, allowed to consider possible courses of action and to carry through on our choices.

I say: GOOD! I choose that. Where do I sign up? You're telling me that, to eliminate pain and suffering, to destroy rape, murder, genocide, cancer, harlequin babies, child pornography, all I have to do is give up my free will? Ok. I choose that.

Do you? You cannot do ANYTHING that would violate the laws of God. No fornication, so when that hot a** blonde makes a pass at you ... whoops ... fornication is bad. She's hot but crazy and you cannot marry her as a result ... so ...

Ok. I choose that. You make it sound as if I'd be tortured by desires on which I can't act, but you seem to have missed the point that the outcome is an end to all suffering. You can't logically say that a consequence of no suffering is that I suffer.

God creates none of those things, and indeed, without knowing Good from Evil, you would not even know that bad things were there. You could not die.

Ok. I chose that.

Again, you give us an appeal to emotion, but man has long struggled against the shackles of slavery, to the point where they are willing to murder to be free of it.

I don't think what we are talking about is comparable to the human institution of slavery.

Your case smacks of emotion rather than logic. Therein lies the rub. A logical disproof cannot rest of a personal incredulity, that YOU would give up ...

I think you've lost track of what's going on here. You've assumed that the existence of suffering is necessarily better than the loss of Free Will as if we all agree on that point. I'm demonstrating that, no, we don't all agree on that point. You'll have to demonstrate it.

you would also give up the ability to be injured when you fell. The ability to be lazy or sloth. You could not differentiate yourself from peers through work ethic, because no one could choose to be lazy.

Ok. I choose that. You keep thinking that you're going to depict some scenario that is worse than the sum of all human suffering. So far you've failed miraculously, but I encourage you to keep trying. Come at me, bro. There is literally no consequence of the eliminating of all suffering that is worse than the existence of all suffering.

And the very logical unraveling of the world is the result. To begin a logical proof by relying on a fundamental rejection of logic is a massive fail.

My position is logical because I demand illogic?

This is gibberish. How does eliminating suffering eliminate logic?

You just assume that one is better than the other and think that's the end of the conversation. Such hubris. What's ironic is that, despite the enormously unjustified high pedastal you put Free Will on, you ignore the fact that God never gave us a choice in that matter. God thrust Free Will upon us. If choice is so important, then give us the only choice that matters: the ability to choose whether or not we want Free Will.

ROFL - you are lecturing about hubris while demanding the unearned wisdom of God himself in the choice?

I'm demanding nothing. I'm simply noting the paradox in stating that our ability to choose is the most important than there is when we've been denied the ability to choose "choice" in the first place.

Again, this is an appeal to emotion, and frankly spite. Logic is absent here. Nor is the reality of religious position actually addressed - again. Its just SUFFERING BAD ... me no likely suffering.

Yes, a premise of the PoE is that suffering is bad.
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 3:05:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 2:17:00 PM, neutral wrote:
At 6/16/2014 2:03:10 PM, BradK wrote:
At 6/16/2014 6:04:50 AM, neutral wrote:

#3 - Perhaps most damning to the atheist position is what it avoids.

Therein, however, lies the death knell of the atheistic 'proof'. If suffering is necessary, indeed critical, then proving suffering ... proves God. What we are left with is an acknowledgement that suffering is needed, but attempting to arbitrarily place a point at which suffering becomes ... too much? Its the same logical problem. That point could be argued arbitrarily indefinitely. Once you get into that arbitrary point, the larger Christian proof remains - we humans cannot define where that point is, but we know our God does not condone unnecessary suffering and that admits all the pain his will, rather than our limited understanding, hold sway.

I'll just respond to this one. This seemed to be your best point for the problem with POE.

So I agree that some amount of "suffering" is necessary. Obviously we evolved pain receptors for a reason... so we wouldn't leave our foot in the fire and forget about it.

I have a pretty simple way to define your arbitrary point of minimum suffering, which is kind of what you were getting at. If suffering has a purpose, then it's necessary. If it has no purpose, it's unnecessary. A child/baby with terminal cancer seems to be an unnecessary by-product of evolution and cell reproduction. I would think if there were an all powerful god, he wouldn't have let the baby get cancer. I can see the reason, and so can you, for cells reproducing themselves. But for a baby to have cancer.... I don't see the purpose.

So can you come up with a reason why god would in particular, inflict a baby with painful and incurable cancer? ("God works in mysterious ways" doesn't count :)

Seems to be ... and thereon lies the rub. We emerge from a biological process and there are things that we can do to differentiate ourselves. Tell me, is someone who eats healthy, is clean, exercises, maintains balance, etc. are they to be rewarded for that? Or is slovenliness, laziness, filth, squalor, and gluttony to be eliminated. One of the effects of choosing the later is that, over time, the effects of the natural environment will inevitably bring the consequences of choice.

So when you advocate removal of the processes because they sometimes claim the innocent along the guilty? That God will not do. He will not upend the entire logical system simply to avoid criticism from atheists - which seems an awfully petty way to view God.

The point is inherently arbitrary, and the really illogical portion is the manner by which that arbitrary point is set and enforced. If we values the rules and dictates of logic, things are as they must be.

On another point, there is an aspect of this that atheists miss entirely: the POE is the same argument that Satan made regarding men. That he would allow us all to come here without choice, which would allow ALL of us to return to Heavenly Father because none would sin. None would be lost to evil.

Seems tempting until you stop and think about what you lose. Logic. Compassion. Forgiveness.

For religious people, the POE is directly in our gospel - and has been rejected by the almighty himself. It is one of the reasons I raised the point about the failure of atheists to adequately consider the religious position.

Its not like we are unaware of it, its right there as the most compelling rebuttal to God's Plan from Satan himself. Convincing enough that 1/3 of the host of heaven fell for it.

So really, when I state that this is not a terribly convincing element to Christian, particularly well grounded Christians ... its not coming out of right field. Its coming right out of our doctrine.

Ok, so you say that the baby with cancer is NOT innocent. Why?
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 3:07:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 6:04:50 AM, neutral wrote:
I have watched, for years now, the larger atheist community, not individual atheists, attach themselves to the Problem of Evil with great gusto.

Personally I think the whole "problem" is ignorant. Bible clearly tells that in the beginning people wanted to know good and evil like God and therefore we were sent to this world. Here we can learn what those mean as people wanted. This is just lesson for us. Those who love more good than evil have opportunity to go back to true life.

"Most assuredly I tell you, he who hears my word, and believes him who sent me, has eternal life, and doesn't come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Most assuredly, I tell you, the hour comes, and now is, when the dead will hear the Son of God's voice; and those who hear will live.
John 5:24-25
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 3:09:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, neither do we. But we do seem to enjoy living in a world where we are free to analyze and make decisions in freedom, and of having logical and understanding, indeed predictable, measures in response to the stimuli of our choices.

I enjoy living in this world too. I'd enjoy living in a world without suffering better.

Well, suffering happens? So to does the choice to do something more than blest about it and blame a God you do not even believe in for it.

There is something irrational about a proof that leaves a God responsible for things when atheists do not believe in God.

No God - suffering still exists. What now? Touche, eh?

You've gone off the rails, this has nothing to do with the PoE.

I'd happily give up Free Will (which i'm not even sure exists) if it eliminated suffering. You wouldn't? You want to see people die just so you can choose McDonalds over Burger King?

Again, another vacuous appeal to emotion. Logic this is not.

Again you've forgotten what's going on here. You made a statement that assumes everyone would choose Free Will over no suffering. I'm demonstrating that this is false.

You didn't prove that suffering is necessary.

It is if you value logic.

Ok, you're really good at stating this, now let's get to the proving part.

But again, please read above, absurd arguments are recognized quite easily. You are making one now.

Because it has stood the test of time.

Its been resurrected by modern atheists, but it pre-dates the major religions is supposedly disproves, has been addressed BY THEM, and these religions continue to expand and get larger anyway.

Your claim is a post hoc.

As is yours. You imply that the argument fails because there still exists theists yet ignoring that this logic also means all its rebuttals fail because there still exist atheists. Round and round we go.

I don;t doubt that atheists find it effective, but it seems far more about confirmation bias than actual analysis of effect in the argumentation. In fact, at the very end of railing against suffering ... you still have suffering to deal with - and the POE offers nothing whatsoever save what religion has already stated - OUR failings produced this and OUR humanity can fix this.

PoE isn't about fixing suffering. Who told you that it was?

No magical being, precisely because he is logical, will intervene and upend the entire concept of consequence for us. Yet we can pray, and through the Holy Spirit we can receive guidance about what WE should do about it.

Which is a stupidly inefficient way to go about that.

You atheists? Are on your own. At some point railing against a fairy tale becomes a rather absurd solution to the problem of suffering. And you are still going to suffer.

...

Uh, what? Who told you that the point of PoE was a solution to the problem of suffering? Find whoever told you that and punch them in the face because they're making you look like a fool.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 1:10:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 3:05:38 PM, BradK wrote:

Ok, so you say that the baby with cancer is NOT innocent. Why?

a. It is innocent.

b. How do you save the baby from cancer without preventing chain smoking, fast food eating, general defilers of their body from having consequences as well?

Again, this is an appeal to emotion, not an actual thought out logical position. Consequences sometimes effect the innocent as well as the guilty. The day you put limits on the will of man, his ability to analyze and make decisions, you simply beg the question of why any suffering at there at all.

Its why we don't base our decisions of exceptions or emotional appeals to emotion.

Its why we don't, or at least shouldn't, allow hyperbolic rushes to fallacy to guide our position.

Again, on individual levels, God sometimes does intervene to eliminate cancer in specific individuals:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com...

Why not everyone else?

Well, it again goes back to the point that atheists avoid. Suffering happens, and in some cases we can clearly and clarionly see the need for it. In others we cannot. So we can either trust in God that there is a larger purpose to this, which we find in God's Plan of Salvation, or we can bleat about it, blaming God for the death of babies with cancer, and do absolutely nothing about babies dying from cancer.

I think that pretty much sums up what is wrong with the modern argumentation of atheism reference God - it seems to be grand hyperbole. Cancerous babies, slavery, genoicide, rape, are all common atheistic claims. Somehow atheists keep making God the reason for these things, when, as everyone can plainly see, the culprit is man.

Cancerous babies you say? Well, when our Nation devotes 6-700 billion dollars a year to weapons and warfare rather than cancer research? Why indeed do we still have cancerous babies?

Consequence is one the reasons we must have uninterrupted consequences for our actions.

The upshot? As an atheist, instead of flaccidly railing against God about cancerous babies, I suggest you write your Congressman with your ethical concerns. You could even organize a group to begin political advocacy to realign our Nations resources in a more humane manner. If you do not do that, then I end this argument exactly where I began: its just a fallacious appeal to emotion.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 1:37:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 1:10:13 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:05:38 PM, BradK wrote:

Ok, so you say that the baby with cancer is NOT innocent. Why?

a. It is innocent.

b. How do you save the baby from cancer without preventing chain smoking, fast food eating, general defilers of their body from having consequences as well?

Again, this is an appeal to emotion, not an actual thought out logical position. Consequences sometimes effect the innocent as well as the guilty. The day you put limits on the will of man, his ability to analyze and make decisions, you simply beg the question of why any suffering at there at all.

Its why we don't base our decisions of exceptions or emotional appeals to emotion.

Its why we don't, or at least shouldn't, allow hyperbolic rushes to fallacy to guide our position.

Again, on individual levels, God sometimes does intervene to eliminate cancer in specific individuals:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com...

Why not everyone else?

Well, it again goes back to the point that atheists avoid. Suffering happens, and in some cases we can clearly and clarionly see the need for it. In others we cannot. So we can either trust in God that there is a larger purpose to this, which we find in God's Plan of Salvation, or we can bleat about it, blaming God for the death of babies with cancer, and do absolutely nothing about babies dying from cancer.

I think that pretty much sums up what is wrong with the modern argumentation of atheism reference God - it seems to be grand hyperbole. Cancerous babies, slavery, genoicide, rape, are all common atheistic claims. Somehow atheists keep making God the reason for these things, when, as everyone can plainly see, the culprit is man.

Cancerous babies you say? Well, when our Nation devotes 6-700 billion dollars a year to weapons and warfare rather than cancer research? Why indeed do we still have cancerous babies?

Consequence is one the reasons we must have uninterrupted consequences for our actions.

The upshot? As an atheist, instead of flaccidly railing against God about cancerous babies, I suggest you write your Congressman with your ethical concerns. You could even organize a group to begin political advocacy to realign our Nations resources in a more humane manner. If you do not do that, then I end this argument exactly where I began: its just a fallacious appeal to emotion.

What Neutral you so crazy! Atheist and Theist joining together to stop man made suffering?!

Then the only suffering left would be non-gratuitous. The Atheist would lose their "best" or most effective converting argument?

Surely that can not happen.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 3:36:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 6:04:50 AM, neutral wrote:
During our entire lives we would be like babies, always under the interventionist eyes of our spiritual parent, God. No longer would we be free to choose, allowed to consider possible courses of action and to carry through on our choices."
IF you truly believe YOU have the ability to ' choose ' then why do YOU choose to remain a malignant sinner?
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 3:39:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 1:37:01 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 1:10:13 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:05:38 PM, BradK wrote:

Ok, so you say that the baby with cancer is NOT innocent. Why?

a. It is innocent.

b. How do you save the baby from cancer without preventing chain smoking, fast food eating, general defilers of their body from having consequences as well?

Again, this is an appeal to emotion, not an actual thought out logical position. Consequences sometimes effect the innocent as well as the guilty. The day you put limits on the will of man, his ability to analyze and make decisions, you simply beg the question of why any suffering at there at all.

Its why we don't base our decisions of exceptions or emotional appeals to emotion.

Its why we don't, or at least shouldn't, allow hyperbolic rushes to fallacy to guide our position.

Again, on individual levels, God sometimes does intervene to eliminate cancer in specific individuals:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com...

Why not everyone else?

Well, it again goes back to the point that atheists avoid. Suffering happens, and in some cases we can clearly and clarionly see the need for it. In others we cannot. So we can either trust in God that there is a larger purpose to this, which we find in God's Plan of Salvation, or we can bleat about it, blaming God for the death of babies with cancer, and do absolutely nothing about babies dying from cancer.

I think that pretty much sums up what is wrong with the modern argumentation of atheism reference God - it seems to be grand hyperbole. Cancerous babies, slavery, genoicide, rape, are all common atheistic claims. Somehow atheists keep making God the reason for these things, when, as everyone can plainly see, the culprit is man.

Cancerous babies you say? Well, when our Nation devotes 6-700 billion dollars a year to weapons and warfare rather than cancer research? Why indeed do we still have cancerous babies?

Consequence is one the reasons we must have uninterrupted consequences for our actions.

The upshot? As an atheist, instead of flaccidly railing against God about cancerous babies, I suggest you write your Congressman with your ethical concerns. You could even organize a group to begin political advocacy to realign our Nations resources in a more humane manner. If you do not do that, then I end this argument exactly where I began: its just a fallacious appeal to emotion.

What Neutral you so crazy! Atheist and Theist joining together to stop man made suffering?!

Then the only suffering left would be non-gratuitous. The Atheist would lose their "best" or most effective converting argument?

Surely that can not happen.

Yeah just leave it to dog, he's done a bang up job so far.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 7:30:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 3:09:31 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Well, neither do we. But we do seem to enjoy living in a world where we are free to analyze and make decisions in freedom, and of having logical and understanding, indeed predictable, measures in response to the stimuli of our choices.

I enjoy living in this world too. I'd enjoy living in a world without suffering better.


Then make that case.

Make the case that you would noyt like to be able to differentiate yourself from peers based on interest or merit? I mean getting a bad grade in class can be depressing and induce extreme confidence issues. That should act as a wake up call and spur you to action, or to find another interest.

Can't happen in a world without suffering.

No sick days.

No vacation, because why would you need to recharge yoru batteries is there are no consequences to over work?

How then to do you prioritize your competing demands, family, social life, work, rest ... is there are no negative consequencesto getting that out of whack? Which by the way requires perfect knowledge to be in perfect balance - does humanit have that?

If the point of all this is to learn and gorw as beings both physical and spiritual, then by all means makethe case for slavery rather than choice.

Again, the biggest problem with this argument it reduced atheists in the end to people who both reject suffering and do nothing whatsoever about suffering. Well, religious people reject needless suffering as well, but we don't blame God for it, we bame man for it and we expect man, as God does, to fix his own mistakes.

Man was given dominion over the earth. Stewardship of it is our responsibility.

I fail entirely to see any lessons in stewardship, or anytheing else, derived from atheists blaming a God they do not believe in. Its like blaming an invisible spoon for the bruise on your arm. It makes no sense. And when the biggest disproof atheists drop requires God to be failing rather than man? Even as its clearly men raping and misaligning resources? That is a horrible proof.
Jingram994
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 7:38:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 11:39:41 AM, neutral wrote:
No offense, but if they weren't good it would be up to the atheist side to demonstrate that, correct?

The divergence between the effectiveness of the argument and the reality of benevolent faiths is apparent. Perhaps the atheist faith in the POE is the problem? Which, having read both, Created this thread,

Right. That's what the PoE itself handily addresses. The argument itself has been proven to be a valid one millions of times. No offense, but if it wasn't good it would be up to the theist side to demonstrate that, correct?

As soon as we put a limit on omnipotence, its not omnipotent.

I am assuming you are not providing a link for a reason?

Because it isn't necessary? This has been pointed out before; omnipotence is only 'infinite power', not 'power with no limitations whatsoever'; there's no magical buzzword that lets someone with it to do things that you just can't do even with that (infinite) amount of power. A literal, absolutely nonsensical absurdity *remains* a literal, absolutely nonsensical absurdity even if we prefix 'an omnipotent Goddidit'. You can't make it so that blue is red and red is yellow, whilst both ALSO remain their original colors with no change whatsoever; that is an essential logical contradiction. Please explain how they can both be true at once. Using logical contradictions in your own answer is a very quick way to tune people in to the fact that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and are simply trying to justify nonsense with more nonsense.

Which is exactly the point.

http://dialecticonline.wordpress.com...

The incoherence of omnipotence is not a original or unchristian thought, which is, typically not addressed. Quoting Lewis, in brief while ignoring his larger volume on the Problem of Pain - which provides a fuller picture in line with other parts of the proof.

Right. Omnipotence is INCOHERENT as a complete 'thing' unto itself. I disagree that the argument re. the 'unliftable' stone is valid. IF God is omniscient in YOUR definition of the term, then the 'essentially unliftable' stone is liftable by God, despite there being no such action. This obviously renders the stone not ACTUALLY *essentially* unliftable, as it *has* been lifted; so God has not then managed to create a stone that he cannot lift. You can't have it both ways. The argument destroys itself if we take even the smallest step back to look at it.

Please address my actual argument.

I do believe that is addressing your argument. If logical absurdities and inconsistencies can just be ignored because God, then all of what he stated is applicable to your argument.

According to omnipotence, yes.

If you prove that its not so, its not omnipotence. Would God do so? Different question than can. You must prove he can't. And you can't.

The question in this instance is actually CAN God do so? Remember that omnipotence is 'infinite power', not 'I can do what I want and there aren't even logical or conceptual limitations on my power'; you have to actually be capable of applying that power to do the action in question. Omnipotence isn't just cosmic YOLOSWAG.
And the answer is that, if it is not a logically valid action (ie. NO SUCH ACTION; N/A; ACTION DOES NOT EXIST; 404) then no, God can't 'do' an action that isn't a 'real thing'. God cannot oiqjqiu319805yw0th, because that isn't a 'thing'. Please prove that he can. Remember that it is *positive* arguments that hold BoP, not negative ones/refutations of positive ones.

So define the arbitrary point where it becomes too much? Because free will exists. So if we stop the little girl from being raped ... should we also not stop death in car accidents? At what point should we limit and/or eliminate man's ability to analyze choices and make them?

The PoE addresses the issue of Gratuitous and/or unnecessary suffering. ANY amount of suffering that is not strictly NEEDED is 'too much'. If it is not immoral for God to refuse to stop unborn fetuses from developing cancer/addictions/whatever, then why is it immoral for us to do nothing and just let sh*t happen? It is not strictly NEEDED for God to *allow* children to suffer the deleterious effects of starving, given that none of them CHOSE to starve, to 'preserve' free will. There's *no* contradiction there. Yes, it IS immoral to let people choose to harm or violate the rights of others; that's why we have laws, police and human rights. Why is the 'free will' of violent criminal perpetrators more important than the 'free will' of their victims? How does just physically stopping people from butchering others 'hurt' freedom of choice?

Enslave man - if you will. Please define it. Then figure out how you do so without violating the rules of logical consequences and upending the laws of nature - which a logical God will not do. Even if he can. Because it fundamentally alters the WHOLE of existence.

I thought God could do whatever he wanted, logic or no. Which is it?

If you think logic disproves, then logic beckons a solution - and cannot find one.

Easy; omnipotent God, with ability to do what he wants within logical laws, just plain physically stops people from suffering deleterious effects as a result of the choices of others, or natural occurrences not the result of any choice. Done.

Please read God's Plan of Salvation. There is a eternal perspective in God's Plan, where happiness is not the point. The point of existence is to learn. Do you understand what caused the fall of man? It was partaking of the fruit of Good and Evil. That we MAY KNOW good from evil. An in this world we experience the reality of good AND evil.

Do you understand the difference between history and fable? Do you know if 'man' actually ever 'fell' at all? Do you know what the 'point' of knowing good from evil even is? Do you seriously imagine that people have to actually suffer horrifically and die, as a result of both the choices of others and natural circumstance, for us to understand that it is wrong? Most people have never seen *real* suffering, yet still understand that.

I think grace and honor is not cringing before our Creator and blaming him for the actions of men, It is recognizing evil for what it is and vanquishing it.

The PoE addresses the issue of why this Creator doesn't actually do sh*t to help out, assuming he knows, cares and has the ability to do so. OUR OWN position, stance and ability is not relevant, so long as gratuitous and/or unnecessary suffering still happens.
Jingram994
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 7:46:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 11:39:41 AM, neutral wrote:
Tell me, in the ultimate disprove of your position, you believe in no God, and those conditions still exist. Man caused those conditions from his choices. And the lesson in this world is that such evil created by men can be undone by men. God granted us the choice, and will not remove it simply because those not even effected by gross injustice blame him for it.

And what of natural evil? Why do people need to die in landslides or hurricanes to preserve free will? Why does HIV have to be a 'thing' to keep our freedom to choose?
And then what of the apparent contradictions in 'human' evil? Why must God allow those who deliberately and maliciously take free will from others (ie. rapists who stalk, rape and murder their victims while allowing no possibility of escape; free will REQUIRES the existence of meaningful alternative choices, this other person's choice takes away all but one possibility for the victim) to be able to do so to preserve 'free will'? Why is the 'free will' of the perpetrators more important than the 'free will' of their victims?
From an atheist perspective, if God doesn't exist then the PoE isn't relevant or applicable; it applies SPECIFICALLY to a capital-G ('three omni's) God. If God doesn't exist and the universe is entirely natural, then evil happens because sh*t happens. If God exists, it can ONLY happen if he ALLOWS it to happen, for whatever reason. That's what the PoE addresses.

Again, the entire thing is a giant appeal to emotion rather than a logical proof. Why would anyone believe a fallacy over God?

Why would anyone believe in God?
The core premise of the PoE is that gratuitous and/or unnecessary suffering is immoral. That's a rational base for the argument, not an appeal to emotion. Do you disagree with the core premise? Why?

#1 - Why is the argument so ineffective?

It's not, it's just that fundamentalists and brainwashed morons keep ignoring it, pretending it doesn't apply and acting as though they can just ignore it because God. There's a reason people still use it; because it *still works* and is still just as applicable as when it was first thought of.

#2 - How does it actually address theological positions or philosophical positions vice omnipotence? None are actually rebutted here, neither Lewis nor Aquinas.

It's a base-level argument, attacking the very root of the issue. Digging your fortifications deeper doesn't suddenly invalidate it just because, so it's hardly as though it 'needs' to address specific theological positions or arguments. On the contrary, specific theological positions and arguments need to address IT.

#3 - And how do we set the arbitrary point without undermining the very logic of the disproof itself?

The 'point' is ANY amount of suffering greater than the BARE MINIMUM that is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for free will to still be a 'thing'. That's hardly 'arbitrary'. I also don't see how physically stopping suffering necessarily negates free will. If it does, then how is it that we don't 'negate' free will every time we prevent suffering?

Simple, and avoided, so long as man makes mistakes, there will be suffering. You would remove man's ability to make mistakes and learn. That brother, is slavery. It is the equivalent of saying we should do away with the criminal justice system because it sometimes locks up innocent men. For the most part, man handles his free will with aplomb and grace. Grievous injustice can bring out that in man which is most honorable: his intrinsic and unalienable desire for justice. A desire found root in the US Constitution.

Or, you know, just be omnipotent and physically stop people from being harmed from things that are not a result of their own choices. You know, like we can expect to be the case if an omnipotent and benevolent God existed. If it's immoral for us to stand by and do nothing while people that we could have helped with no risk of harm to ourselves suffer, why is God not held to the same standard? Why must 'make mistakes and learn' so often = 'innocent people gratuitously suffering and dying as a result of the choices of OTHERS, or entirely natural circumstances, in the process never actually making any mistakes or learning anything themselves'?
You will also note that free-willed human reactions to the existence of evil and suffering in reality aren't actually relevant to the PoE, so I can't imagine why you've thought to include them.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 8:01:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 3:39:56 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/18/2014 1:37:01 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 1:10:13 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:05:38 PM, BradK wrote:

Ok, so you say that the baby with cancer is NOT innocent. Why?

a. It is innocent.

b. How do you save the baby from cancer without preventing chain smoking, fast food eating, general defilers of their body from having consequences as well?

Again, this is an appeal to emotion, not an actual thought out logical position. Consequences sometimes effect the innocent as well as the guilty. The day you put limits on the will of man, his ability to analyze and make decisions, you simply beg the question of why any suffering at there at all.

Its why we don't base our decisions of exceptions or emotional appeals to emotion.

Its why we don't, or at least shouldn't, allow hyperbolic rushes to fallacy to guide our position.

Again, on individual levels, God sometimes does intervene to eliminate cancer in specific individuals:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com...

Why not everyone else?

Well, it again goes back to the point that atheists avoid. Suffering happens, and in some cases we can clearly and clarionly see the need for it. In others we cannot. So we can either trust in God that there is a larger purpose to this, which we find in God's Plan of Salvation, or we can bleat about it, blaming God for the death of babies with cancer, and do absolutely nothing about babies dying from cancer.

I think that pretty much sums up what is wrong with the modern argumentation of atheism reference God - it seems to be grand hyperbole. Cancerous babies, slavery, genoicide, rape, are all common atheistic claims. Somehow atheists keep making God the reason for these things, when, as everyone can plainly see, the culprit is man.

Cancerous babies you say? Well, when our Nation devotes 6-700 billion dollars a year to weapons and warfare rather than cancer research? Why indeed do we still have cancerous babies?

Consequence is one the reasons we must have uninterrupted consequences for our actions.

The upshot? As an atheist, instead of flaccidly railing against God about cancerous babies, I suggest you write your Congressman with your ethical concerns. You could even organize a group to begin political advocacy to realign our Nations resources in a more humane manner. If you do not do that, then I end this argument exactly where I began: its just a fallacious appeal to emotion.

What Neutral you so crazy! Atheist and Theist joining together to stop man made suffering?!

Then the only suffering left would be non-gratuitous. The Atheist would lose their "best" or most effective converting argument?

Surely that can not happen.

Yeah just leave it to dog, he's done a bang up job so far.

You don't even read the posts do you. Just rotate through the same 20 bare assertions?

If you had bothered to understand WHAT was being said you would see that the suffering was man-made and that God gave us free-will, which comes with the good and the bad.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 8:47:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 7:38:57 AM, Jingram994 wrote:


Right. That's what the PoE itself handily addresses. The argument itself has been proven to be a valid one millions of times. No offense, but if it wasn't good it would be up to the theist side to demonstrate that, correct?

That is a statement of faith directly countered by two points:

#1 - the major religions that this 'disproves' are thriving.

#2 - The POE is in our doctrine and it is directly countered and disproven.

It seem to reassure atheists, but it does little to actually address theological statements about suffering - which is why, IMHO, it fails.

I am assuming you are not providing a link for a reason?

The links are in the OP. Additionally, if you demand links, you may want to be backing up your claims, like the success of the argument, with links of your own.

Its quite annoying when someone demands something already provided.


Because it isn't necessary? This has been pointed out before; omnipotence is only 'infinite power', not 'power with no limitations whatsoever'; there's no magical buzzword that lets someone with it to do things that you just can't do even with that (infinite) amount of power. A literal, absolutely nonsensical absurdity *remains* a literal, absolutely nonsensical absurdity even if we prefix 'an omnipotent Goddidit'. You can't make it so that blue is red and red is yellow, whilst both ALSO remain their original colors with no change whatsoever; that is an essential logical contradiction. Please explain how they can both be true at once. Using logical contradictions in your own answer is a very quick way to tune people in to the fact that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and are simply trying to justify nonsense with more nonsense.

You mean an infinite amount of power like we see pop up in the Big Bang? And infamtasimally small space filled with how much energy? Yeah, I think that rather th perfectly demonstrates what we are talking about.

It also has aboslutely nothing to do with the POE or the claim of omnipotence.

It can do ANYTHING. By definition. So when you add a limitation, you are removing omnipotence. You get stuck in a circular argument indefinitely. That prevents this from being a 'disproof'. You cannot disprove circular reasoning. If you add a limitation in order to disprove, omnipotence can still do it.

Right. Omnipotence is INCOHERENT as a complete 'thing' unto itself. I disagree that the argument re. the 'unliftable' stone is valid. IF God is omniscient in YOUR definition of the term, then the 'essentially unliftable' stone is liftable by God, despite there being no such action. This obviously renders the stone not ACTUALLY *essentially* unliftable, as it *has* been lifted; so God has not then managed to create a stone that he cannot lift. You can't have it both ways. The argument destroys itself if we take even the smallest step back to look at it.

That is your opinion, not the philosophy.

So again, if we have a logical proof, it should not be a pick up game of finding a reason to reject what you are shown. It should stand alone.

This 'rejection' does not. Its a post hoc qualification.

I do believe that is addressing your argument. If logical absurdities and inconsistencies can just be ignored because God, then all of what he stated is applicable to your argument.

Again, please indicate what an omnipotent being CANNOT do, not what he WILL NOT DO.

Again, the gist of your argument is that God is illogical because he is not picking and chgoosing to remove consequences in a way that YOU like. It is fundamentally illogical to demand the removal of consequences in a way that defies logic and conforms to the individual atheists tolerance level for ethical suffering.

That is a position of absurdity, and you will have as much luck setting that position as you will finding something an omniotent being CANNOT do.


If you prove that its not so, its not omnipotence. Would God do so? Different question than can. You must prove he can't. And you can't.

No, you prove that he may not be doing so. He has allowed natural processes to continue without interrupting man's dominion. Can he? Yep, see OT.

And the answer is that, if it is not a logically valid action (ie. NO SUCH ACTION; N/A; ACTION DOES NOT EXIST; 404) then no, God can't 'do' an action that isn't a 'real thing'. God cannot oiqjqiu319805yw0th, because that isn't a 'thing'. Please prove that he can. Remember that it is *positive* arguments that hold BoP, not negative ones/refutations of positive ones.

Its your argument atheist, you have the burden to support it. You are actively attempting to disprove the Christian God and you think this is it. Fallaciously shifting the BOP is ... wrong.


The PoE addresses the issue of Gratuitous and/or unnecessary suffering. ANY amount of suffering that is not strictly NEEDED is 'too much'.

Go ahead and define that - then give us a logical mechanism for enforcement.

Go.

No rape? OK, I agree. So how dowe do that? Does you brain just magically shift from it? If you are in coitis and the girl changes her mind are you thrown across the room violently?

Good Luck.




I thought God could do whatever he wanted, logic or no. Which is it?

Can vs. Will. Again. When you fail to address apoint and get it wrong deliberately? Strawman.

Again, that is a problem for the POE.


Easy; omnipotent God, with ability to do what he wants within logical laws, just plain physically stops people from suffering deleterious effects as a result of the choices of others, or natural occurrences not the result of any choice. Done.

If he does whatever he wants, he violates the laws of logic. Which and omnipotent being CAN do, but will not do.

So if naturalitisc causes have diseases that are partis of biological processes that are nominally healthy and required, then disease will corrupt those who don;t take care of themselves or have another vulnerabity. Should God just remove bacteria and virus? Cause the collapse of the eco-system?

That would be logical?





Do you understand the difference between history and fable?

Apparently you do not. You are attempting to disprove religion. We already know you don;t believe in God, but if you are disproving the religious claims you actually have to address them.

Oterwise, all you are doing is stating your opinion. Which we already know. That means the POE is for atheists, not us.




The PoE addresses the issue of why this Creator doesn't actually do sh*t to help out, assuming he knows, cares and has the ability to do so. OUR OWN position, stance and ability is not relevant, so long as gratuitous and/or unnecessary suffering still happens.

He does. He simply doesn't do it on demand for you - that is an entirely different problem set and why I provided a list of documented scientific miracles. Which are, of course, not tied to God but something else.

Se we have a LOT of denial, but no cogent case being made to demonstrate suffering that God SHOULD be changing. Because if he does, he upends the rules of logical cosequences.

The case is yours to make, and it fails badly preciselybecause it becomes a litany of atheistic propoganda rather than a rebuttal or disproof of the actual religious claim.

Please review the OP, where the criticism is laid out. Your are disproving OUR position. That is what the POE is aimed at - and atheists cannot even get the religious pooistion right enough to disprove.

It might be why the religions are growing rather than shrinking.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 9:13:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 7:30:02 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:09:31 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Well, neither do we. But we do seem to enjoy living in a world where we are free to analyze and make decisions in freedom, and of having logical and understanding, indeed predictable, measures in response to the stimuli of our choices.

I enjoy living in this world too. I'd enjoy living in a world without suffering better.


Then make that case.

Make the case that you would noyt like to be able to differentiate yourself from peers based on interest or merit? I mean getting a bad grade in class can be depressing and induce extreme confidence issues. That should act as a wake up call and spur you to action, or to find another interest.

Can't happen in a world without suffering.

No sick days.

No vacation, because why would you need to recharge yoru batteries is there are no consequences to over work?

How then to do you prioritize your competing demands, family, social life, work, rest ... is there are no negative consequencesto getting that out of whack? Which by the way requires perfect knowledge to be in perfect balance - does humanit have that?

If the point of all this is to learn and gorw as beings both physical and spiritual, then by all means makethe case for slavery rather than choice.

No suffering.
That's the case.

Again, the biggest problem with this argument it reduced atheists in the end to people who both reject suffering and do nothing whatsoever about suffering. Well, religious people reject needless suffering as well, but we don't blame God for it, we bame man for it and we expect man, as God does, to fix his own mistakes.

Man was given dominion over the earth. Stewardship of it is our responsibility.

I fail entirely to see any lessons in stewardship, or anytheing else, derived from atheists blaming a God they do not believe in. Its like blaming an invisible spoon for the bruise on your arm. It makes no sense. And when the biggest disproof atheists drop requires God to be failing rather than man? Even as its clearly men raping and misaligning resources? That is a horrible proof.

You seem to have forgotten that you're the one trying to rebut the PoE by making a case *for* suffering.

So now it's your turn to make your case.
Amoranemix
Posts: 521
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 9:52:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Usually I respond to just about everything on topic I disagree with, but since neutral has a habit of dodging arguments and challenges and making plenty of bald assertions, as he again demonstrates in this thread, I won't.

Neutral is claiming that there are weak versions of the PoE and attacking those. The PoE is like a burning bush that Christians would like to put out, but they can't, because if they get close, it burns. So they seek out another bush that doesn't burn and then claim victory.

My version of the PoE against a maximally great being (MGB) claims the following :
- Evidence inductively disproves an MGB.
- If evidence is rejected, then any belief about God is just speculation.
The above implies that belief in the existence of an MGB is not any more warranted than the belief in any other fantasy.

neutral 1
#1 - The question statement is older than Jesus. Its older than Islam. Despite the pre-existence of the metaphorical question, these religions have thrived. The question would be why? If the Problem of Evil is so damning to a benevolent God, then why is not undermining the religions whose benevolence is central?
Why some religions thrive has little to do with the PoE.
People usually find it uncomfortable to have inconsistencies in their worldview. Accepting the PoE as a good argument against their god, would create such an inconsistency.

neutral 1
http://www.quodlibet.net...
Yet as I scan the forum, I cannot find a single atheist addressing this apparent dichotomy. If the proof is so convincing, then why hasn't it been convincing?
I assume you are talking about an argument of evil being a privation. I already won a debate about that on another forum.
Why are you asking sceptics why Christians and Muslims don't find a good argument against their God convincing ?

neutral 1
Can, by definition, an omnipotent being do anything? Yes. Would that include violating the rules of logic? Yes. How then do you use logic to disprove something that by its nature can violate logic at will?
Can God create a square circle ?

neutral 1
#3 - Perhaps most damning to the atheist position is what it avoids. As we see above, the POE has been answered by religion many times over. I am, as I scan the forum again, I cannot find a single atheist taking an honest stab at the rebuttal position.
I am not aware of any answer that hasn't been challenged already. In addition, most answers consist of explanations as to why and how God is evil, which doesn't solve the problem.
Apparently you are not looking for challenges to the answers for the PoE, because despite my low post count I already offered some.

neutral 1
During our entire lives we would be like babies, always under the interventionist eyes of our spiritual parent, God. No longer would we be free to choose, allowed to consider possible courses of action and to carry through on our choices."
Can you prove that ?

neutral 1
In conclusion, although valuable as a discussion point, the POE does nothing to actually disprove God.[1] As we delve into suffering itself, we come to appreciate what it is God is doing for US. Rather than weaken the case for Christ, it strengthens it immeasurably.[2]
[1] Maybe not the version of the atheists from the planet Zog, but mine does.
[2] On the contrary. Rather than strengthen the case for Christ, the PoE weakens it immensely.

neutral 3
So define the arbitrary point where it becomes too much? Because free will exists. So if we stop the little girl from being raped ... should we also not stop death in car accidents? At what point should we limit and/or eliminate man's ability to analyze choices and make them?
You provided an example of how Christians avoid the PoE. The little girl being tortured is the burning bush. It is too hot, so let's talk about something else in stead, like car accidents. That is a method for Christians to hang on to their beliefs : avoid arguments that disprove them.

neutral 3
Tell me, in the ultimate disprove of your position, you believe in no God, and those conditions still exist. Man caused those conditions from his choices. And the lesson in this world is that such evil created by men can be undone by men. God granted us the choice, and will not remove it simply because those not even effected by gross injustice blame him for it.
The above is a typical example of a Christian explaining why and how God is evil. However, an evil god, by whatever means and for whatever reason he may be evil, is not an MGB.

neutral 3
#3 - And how do we set the arbitrary point without undermining the very logic of the disproof itself?
I didn't answer that question because I don't see it's relevance and don't know the answer.

neutral 3
Simple, and avoided, so long as man makes mistakes, there will be suffering. You would remove man's ability to make mistakes and learn. That brother, is slavery. It is the equivalent of saying we should do away with the criminal justice system because it sometimes locks up innocent men.
How is the police stopping criminals from committing crimes slavery ?

neutral 7
There is something irrational about a proof that leaves a God responsible for things when atheists do not believe in God.
No God - suffering still exists. What now? Touche, eh?
You have made that argument before. I think you are wise enough to understand why it is fallacious. What do you think ?

BradK 8
So can you [neutral] come up with a reason why god would in particular, inflict a baby with painful and incurable cancer? ("God works in mysterious ways" doesn't count :)
No, he cannot.

neutral 15
Why not everyone else?
Well, it again goes back to the point that atheists avoid.[3] Suffering happens, and in some cases we can clearly and clarionly see the need for it. In others we cannot. So we can either trust in God that there is a larger purpose to this, which we find in God's Plan of Salvation, or we can bleat about it, blaming God for the death of babies with cancer, and do absolutely nothing about babies dying from cancer.[4]
[3] What is that point atheists avoid ?
[4] Another example of a Christian avoiding the hot burning bush of God's responsibility. Let's talk about human responsibility in stead. Hopefully no one notices it is a red herring.

Mhykiel 16
"What Neutral you so crazy! Atheist and Theist joining together to stop man made suffering?!
Then the only suffering left would be non-gratuitous. The Atheist would lose their "best" or most effective converting argument?
Hopefully everyone forgot that non-man-made suffering also exists.

- Jingram994 21
Right. That's what the PoE itself handily addresses. The argument itself has been proven to be a valid one millions of times. No offense, but if it wasn't good it would be up to the theist side to demonstrate that, correct?
- neutral 24
That is a statement of faith directly countered by two points:
#1 - the major religions that this 'disproves' are thriving.
#2 - The POE is in our doctrine and it is directly countered and disproven.
These points seem to reassure theists, but do little to actually address the challenges to the answers for the PoE - which is why, IMHO, they fail.

- neutral 3
I am assuming you are not providing a link for a reason?
neutral 24
The links are in the OP. Additionally, if you demand links, you may want to be backing up your claims, like the success of the argument, with links of your own.
- Its quite annoying when someone demands something already provided.
Why would people who talk to themselves believe a fairy that has already been disproven ?

neutral 24
Its your argument atheist, you have the burden to support it. You are actively attempting to disprove the Christian God and you think this is it. Fallaciously shifting the BOP is ... wrong.
Your fallacy of choice is shifting the burden of proof.
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 10:51:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 8:01:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 3:39:56 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/18/2014 1:37:01 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 1:10:13 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:05:38 PM, BradK wrote:

Ok, so you say that the baby with cancer is NOT innocent. Why?

a. It is innocent.

b. How do you save the baby from cancer without preventing chain smoking, fast food eating, general defilers of their body from having consequences as well?

Again, this is an appeal to emotion, not an actual thought out logical position. Consequences sometimes effect the innocent as well as the guilty. The day you put limits on the will of man, his ability to analyze and make decisions, you simply beg the question of why any suffering at there at all.

Its why we don't base our decisions of exceptions or emotional appeals to emotion.

Its why we don't, or at least shouldn't, allow hyperbolic rushes to fallacy to guide our position.

Again, on individual levels, God sometimes does intervene to eliminate cancer in specific individuals:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com...

Why not everyone else?

Well, it again goes back to the point that atheists avoid. Suffering happens, and in some cases we can clearly and clarionly see the need for it. In others we cannot. So we can either trust in God that there is a larger purpose to this, which we find in God's Plan of Salvation, or we can bleat about it, blaming God for the death of babies with cancer, and do absolutely nothing about babies dying from cancer.

I think that pretty much sums up what is wrong with the modern argumentation of atheism reference God - it seems to be grand hyperbole. Cancerous babies, slavery, genoicide, rape, are all common atheistic claims. Somehow atheists keep making God the reason for these things, when, as everyone can plainly see, the culprit is man.

Cancerous babies you say? Well, when our Nation devotes 6-700 billion dollars a year to weapons and warfare rather than cancer research? Why indeed do we still have cancerous babies?

Consequence is one the reasons we must have uninterrupted consequences for our actions.

The upshot? As an atheist, instead of flaccidly railing against God about cancerous babies, I suggest you write your Congressman with your ethical concerns. You could even organize a group to begin political advocacy to realign our Nations resources in a more humane manner. If you do not do that, then I end this argument exactly where I began: its just a fallacious appeal to emotion.

What Neutral you so crazy! Atheist and Theist joining together to stop man made suffering?!

Then the only suffering left would be non-gratuitous. The Atheist would lose their "best" or most effective converting argument?

Surely that can not happen.

Yeah just leave it to dog, he's done a bang up job so far.

You don't even read the posts do you. Just rotate through the same 20 bare assertions?

If you had bothered to understand WHAT was being said you would see that the suffering was man-made and that God gave us free-will, which comes with the good and the bad.
I don't even read the posts. According to you, LOOK.
What Neutral you so crazy! Atheist and Theist joining together to stop man made suffering?!

Then the only suffering left would be non-gratuitous. The Atheist would lose their "best" or most effective converting argument?

Surely that can not happen.

And my response.
Yeah just leave it to dog, he's done a bang up job so far.

Your insane hatred is destroying you.

Life is for living.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 1:23:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 9:13:45 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/18/2014 7:30:02 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:09:31 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Well, neither do we. But we do seem to enjoy living in a world where we are free to analyze and make decisions in freedom, and of having logical and understanding, indeed predictable, measures in response to the stimuli of our choices.

I enjoy living in this world too. I'd enjoy living in a world without suffering better.


Then make that case.

Make the case that you would noyt like to be able to differentiate yourself from peers based on interest or merit? I mean getting a bad grade in class can be depressing and induce extreme confidence issues. That should act as a wake up call and spur you to action, or to find another interest.

Can't happen in a world without suffering.

No sick days.

No vacation, because why would you need to recharge yoru batteries is there are no consequences to over work?

How then to do you prioritize your competing demands, family, social life, work, rest ... is there are no negative consequencesto getting that out of whack? Which by the way requires perfect knowledge to be in perfect balance - does humanit have that?

If the point of all this is to learn and gorw as beings both physical and spiritual, then by all means makethe case for slavery rather than choice.

No suffering.
That's the case.

Again, the biggest problem with this argument it reduced atheists in the end to people who both reject suffering and do nothing whatsoever about suffering. Well, religious people reject needless suffering as well, but we don't blame God for it, we bame man for it and we expect man, as God does, to fix his own mistakes.

Man was given dominion over the earth. Stewardship of it is our responsibility.

I fail entirely to see any lessons in stewardship, or anytheing else, derived from atheists blaming a God they do not believe in. Its like blaming an invisible spoon for the bruise on your arm. It makes no sense. And when the biggest disproof atheists drop requires God to be failing rather than man? Even as its clearly men raping and misaligning resources? That is a horrible proof.

You seem to have forgotten that you're the one trying to rebut the PoE by making a case *for* suffering.

So now it's your turn to make your case.

The case is made.

Your case is no suffering ... which violates all the rules of logic and consequence. Your logical proof is anything but.

The POE is YOUR attempt to convince us that Christianity is wrong.

Right now, it looks like consequence. No suffering!

That is a slogan, not a case.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 1:32:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 1:23:29 PM, neutral wrote:
At 6/18/2014 9:13:45 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/18/2014 7:30:02 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:09:31 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Well, neither do we. But we do seem to enjoy living in a world where we are free to analyze and make decisions in freedom, and of having logical and understanding, indeed predictable, measures in response to the stimuli of our choices.

I enjoy living in this world too. I'd enjoy living in a world without suffering better.


Then make that case.

Make the case that you would noyt like to be able to differentiate yourself from peers based on interest or merit? I mean getting a bad grade in class can be depressing and induce extreme confidence issues. That should act as a wake up call and spur you to action, or to find another interest.

Can't happen in a world without suffering.

No sick days.

No vacation, because why would you need to recharge yoru batteries is there are no consequences to over work?

How then to do you prioritize your competing demands, family, social life, work, rest ... is there are no negative consequencesto getting that out of whack? Which by the way requires perfect knowledge to be in perfect balance - does humanit have that?

If the point of all this is to learn and gorw as beings both physical and spiritual, then by all means makethe case for slavery rather than choice.

No suffering.
That's the case.

Again, the biggest problem with this argument it reduced atheists in the end to people who both reject suffering and do nothing whatsoever about suffering. Well, religious people reject needless suffering as well, but we don't blame God for it, we bame man for it and we expect man, as God does, to fix his own mistakes.

Man was given dominion over the earth. Stewardship of it is our responsibility.

I fail entirely to see any lessons in stewardship, or anytheing else, derived from atheists blaming a God they do not believe in. Its like blaming an invisible spoon for the bruise on your arm. It makes no sense. And when the biggest disproof atheists drop requires God to be failing rather than man? Even as its clearly men raping and misaligning resources? That is a horrible proof.

You seem to have forgotten that you're the one trying to rebut the PoE by making a case *for* suffering.

So now it's your turn to make your case.

The case is made.

Your case is no suffering ... which violates all the rules of logic and consequence. Your logical proof is anything but.

The POE is YOUR attempt to convince us that Christianity is wrong.

Right now, it looks like consequence. No suffering!

That is a slogan, not a case.

The PoE proves the non existence of your god, newt.
It doesn't prove the non existence of evil.

Cos after all your god created evil because he is luuuuuuuuuurrrrrve.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 1:40:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 1:23:29 PM, neutral wrote:
At 6/18/2014 9:13:45 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/18/2014 7:30:02 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:09:31 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Well, neither do we. But we do seem to enjoy living in a world where we are free to analyze and make decisions in freedom, and of having logical and understanding, indeed predictable, measures in response to the stimuli of our choices.

I enjoy living in this world too. I'd enjoy living in a world without suffering better.


Then make that case.

Make the case that you would noyt like to be able to differentiate yourself from peers based on interest or merit? I mean getting a bad grade in class can be depressing and induce extreme confidence issues. That should act as a wake up call and spur you to action, or to find another interest.

Can't happen in a world without suffering.

No sick days.

No vacation, because why would you need to recharge yoru batteries is there are no consequences to over work?

How then to do you prioritize your competing demands, family, social life, work, rest ... is there are no negative consequencesto getting that out of whack? Which by the way requires perfect knowledge to be in perfect balance - does humanit have that?

If the point of all this is to learn and gorw as beings both physical and spiritual, then by all means makethe case for slavery rather than choice.

No suffering.
That's the case.

Again, the biggest problem with this argument it reduced atheists in the end to people who both reject suffering and do nothing whatsoever about suffering. Well, religious people reject needless suffering as well, but we don't blame God for it, we bame man for it and we expect man, as God does, to fix his own mistakes.

Man was given dominion over the earth. Stewardship of it is our responsibility.

I fail entirely to see any lessons in stewardship, or anytheing else, derived from atheists blaming a God they do not believe in. Its like blaming an invisible spoon for the bruise on your arm. It makes no sense. And when the biggest disproof atheists drop requires God to be failing rather than man? Even as its clearly men raping and misaligning resources? That is a horrible proof.

You seem to have forgotten that you're the one trying to rebut the PoE by making a case *for* suffering.

So now it's your turn to make your case.

The case is made.

You made no case. You're just asserting that being able to make a choice is worth the consequences of suffering. Your original post relied on universal agreement to that concept. All I've been doing is illustrating that there is no universal agreement to that, so you're going to have to do more than merely assert it.


Your case is no suffering ... which violates all the rules of logic and consequence. Your logical proof is anything but.

The only case I'm making is that not everyone agrees that free will is worth the consequence of suffering, so if you're going to make that claim, you're going to have to back it up.


The POE is YOUR attempt to convince us that Christianity is wrong.

No it isn't. Again, you're confusing logic with being convincing. It's a logically valid argument. There's no question to that. You seem to have an issue with the premise that an all-good God would attempt to eliminate suffering, but I'm still waiting for you to back that up.


Right now, it looks like consequence. No suffering!

That is a slogan, not a case.

I'm sorry you don't agree that suffering is bad.