Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Problem of Evil - Reducio Formulation

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 7:39:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am pretty much completely against typical problem of evil arguments, including the evidential problem of evil arguments because it requires demonstrating the existance of evil with realism, which is a problem for someone who is an anti-realist who thinks realism is unsound.

While atheists can make the typical arguments for the existance of evil, I see it as both futile, and unnecessary. Since the problem of evil is a very specialised argument anyway, it is only targeted at specific notions of God (tri omni), with a specific notion of evil. Because it's specific to only a few religions (Christianity/Islam/Etc.) then only the religion's internal consistency needs to be attacked.

As such...

1. Religion X is true (assumption)
2. If religion X is true, then God exists
3. If religion X is true, then evil exists
4. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
5. God exists (1&2)
6. Evil exists (1&3)
7. Evil does not exist (4&5)
8. Evil exists & evil does not exist (6&7) contradiction. 1 is false

Thus, ipwhile being more modest, it only requires that the atheist point out to the religious person that they are committed to believing evil exists because of their religious framework (a Christian that argues evil doesn't exist has a lot of circles to make square in their Bibles), thus the only premise that is desputable is P4, from which the standard PoE dialogue comes into play (since oremise 4 is a standard oremise in any PoE argument)

Thus, it is not necessary to personally accept moral realism to make such arguments in a valid and sound manner.
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 7:50:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 7:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am pretty much completely against typical problem of evil arguments, including the evidential problem of evil arguments because it requires demonstrating the existance of evil with realism, which is a problem for someone who is an anti-realist who thinks realism is unsound.

While atheists can make the typical arguments for the existance of evil, I see it as both futile, and unnecessary. Since the problem of evil is a very specialised argument anyway, it is only targeted at specific notions of God (tri omni), with a specific notion of evil. Because it's specific to only a few religions (Christianity/Islam/Etc.) then only the religion's internal consistency needs to be attacked.

As such...

1. Religion X is true (assumption)
2. If religion X is true, then God exists
3. If religion X is true, then evil exists
4. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
5. God exists (1&2)
6. Evil exists (1&3)
7. Evil does not exist (4&5)
8. Evil exists & evil does not exist (6&7) contradiction. 1 is false

Thus, ipwhile being more modest, it only requires that the atheist point out to the religious person that they are committed to believing evil exists because of their religious framework (a Christian that argues evil doesn't exist has a lot of circles to make square in their Bibles), thus the only premise that is desputable is P4, from which the standard PoE dialogue comes into play (since oremise 4 is a standard oremise in any PoE argument)

Thus, it is not necessary to personally accept moral realism to make such arguments in a valid and sound manner.

How is number 4 logical? Why cant evil and God exist? I do not know a single religious person who believes in god but does not believe in evil.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 7:56:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 7:50:38 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am pretty much completely against typical problem of evil arguments, including the evidential problem of evil arguments because it requires demonstrating the existance of evil with realism, which is a problem for someone who is an anti-realist who thinks realism is unsound.

While atheists can make the typical arguments for the existance of evil, I see it as both futile, and unnecessary. Since the problem of evil is a very specialised argument anyway, it is only targeted at specific notions of God (tri omni), with a specific notion of evil. Because it's specific to only a few religions (Christianity/Islam/Etc.) then only the religion's internal consistency needs to be attacked.

As such...

1. Religion X is true (assumption)
2. If religion X is true, then God exists
3. If religion X is true, then evil exists
4. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
5. God exists (1&2)
6. Evil exists (1&3)
7. Evil does not exist (4&5)
8. Evil exists & evil does not exist (6&7) contradiction. 1 is false

Thus, ipwhile being more modest, it only requires that the atheist point out to the religious person that they are committed to believing evil exists because of their religious framework (a Christian that argues evil doesn't exist has a lot of circles to make square in their Bibles), thus the only premise that is desputable is P4, from which the standard PoE dialogue comes into play (since oremise 4 is a standard oremise in any PoE argument)

Thus, it is not necessary to personally accept moral realism to make such arguments in a valid and sound manner.

How is number 4 logical? Why cant evil and God exist? I do not know a single religious person who believes in god but does not believe in evil.

Yes, it's a standard bone of contention (which I already mentioned). Usually it's defended in a brute deductive manner. God is all good and all powerful, thus he would be both willing (and committed to, by his nature) and able to create a perfect world with nothing but good. A God that does not do with at cannot be all-good since that would intentionally cause less-optimal good, which violates the definition of "all-good".
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 9:33:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 7:56:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:50:38 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am pretty much completely against typical problem of evil arguments, including the evidential problem of evil arguments because it requires demonstrating the existance of evil with realism, which is a problem for someone who is an anti-realist who thinks realism is unsound.

While atheists can make the typical arguments for the existance of evil, I see it as both futile, and unnecessary. Since the problem of evil is a very specialised argument anyway, it is only targeted at specific notions of God (tri omni), with a specific notion of evil. Because it's specific to only a few religions (Christianity/Islam/Etc.) then only the religion's internal consistency needs to be attacked.

As such...

1. Religion X is true (assumption)
2. If religion X is true, then God exists
3. If religion X is true, then evil exists
4. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
5. God exists (1&2)
6. Evil exists (1&3)
7. Evil does not exist (4&5)
8. Evil exists & evil does not exist (6&7) contradiction. 1 is false

Thus, ipwhile being more modest, it only requires that the atheist point out to the religious person that they are committed to believing evil exists because of their religious framework (a Christian that argues evil doesn't exist has a lot of circles to make square in their Bibles), thus the only premise that is desputable is P4, from which the standard PoE dialogue comes into play (since oremise 4 is a standard oremise in any PoE argument)

Thus, it is not necessary to personally accept moral realism to make such arguments in a valid and sound manner.

How is number 4 logical? Why cant evil and God exist? I do not know a single religious person who believes in god but does not believe in evil.

Yes, it's a standard bone of contention (which I already mentioned). Usually it's defended in a brute deductive manner. God is all good and all powerful, thus he would be both willing (and committed to, by his nature) and able to create a perfect world with nothing but good. A God that does not do with at cannot be all-good since that would intentionally cause less-optimal good, which violates the definition of "all-good".

If god was only good then God would not be omnipotent. God is the sum of all Good and Evil.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 9:50:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 9:33:01 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:56:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:50:38 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am pretty much completely against typical problem of evil arguments, including the evidential problem of evil arguments because it requires demonstrating the existance of evil with realism, which is a problem for someone who is an anti-realist who thinks realism is unsound.

While atheists can make the typical arguments for the existance of evil, I see it as both futile, and unnecessary. Since the problem of evil is a very specialised argument anyway, it is only targeted at specific notions of God (tri omni), with a specific notion of evil. Because it's specific to only a few religions (Christianity/Islam/Etc.) then only the religion's internal consistency needs to be attacked.

As such...

1. Religion X is true (assumption)
2. If religion X is true, then God exists
3. If religion X is true, then evil exists
4. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
5. God exists (1&2)
6. Evil exists (1&3)
7. Evil does not exist (4&5)
8. Evil exists & evil does not exist (6&7) contradiction. 1 is false

Thus, ipwhile being more modest, it only requires that the atheist point out to the religious person that they are committed to believing evil exists because of their religious framework (a Christian that argues evil doesn't exist has a lot of circles to make square in their Bibles), thus the only premise that is desputable is P4, from which the standard PoE dialogue comes into play (since oremise 4 is a standard oremise in any PoE argument)

Thus, it is not necessary to personally accept moral realism to make such arguments in a valid and sound manner.

How is number 4 logical? Why cant evil and God exist? I do not know a single religious person who believes in god but does not believe in evil.

Yes, it's a standard bone of contention (which I already mentioned). Usually it's defended in a brute deductive manner. God is all good and all powerful, thus he would be both willing (and committed to, by his nature) and able to create a perfect world with nothing but good. A God that does not do with at cannot be all-good since that would intentionally cause less-optimal good, which violates the definition of "all-good".

If god was only good then God would not be omnipotent. God is the sum of all Good and Evil.

I think you mean he would not be omnibenevolent. (instead of omnipotent)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 4:09:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 7:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am pretty much completely against typical problem of evil arguments, including the evidential problem of evil arguments because it requires demonstrating the existance of evil with realism, which is a problem for someone who is an anti-realist who thinks realism is unsound.

While atheists can make the typical arguments for the existance of evil, I see it as both futile, and unnecessary. Since the problem of evil is a very specialised argument anyway, it is only targeted at specific notions of God (tri omni), with a specific notion of evil. Because it's specific to only a few religions (Christianity/Islam/Etc.) then only the religion's internal consistency needs to be attacked.

As such...

1. Religion X is true (assumption)
2. If religion X is true, then God exists
3. If religion X is true, then evil exists
4. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
5. God exists (1&2)
6. Evil exists (1&3)
7. Evil does not exist (4&5)
8. Evil exists & evil does not exist (6&7) contradiction. 1 is false

Thus, ipwhile being more modest, it only requires that the atheist point out to the religious person that they are committed to believing evil exists because of their religious framework (a Christian that argues evil doesn't exist has a lot of circles to make square in their Bibles), thus the only premise that is desputable is P4, from which the standard PoE dialogue comes into play (since oremise 4 is a standard oremise in any PoE argument)

Thus, it is not necessary to personally accept moral realism to make such arguments in a valid and sound manner.

You are imposing the same test to Islam. unlike christainity there is no contradiction in Islam, evil is part of reality and God created both good and evil to test us.

67:2
[He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of you is best in deed - and He is the Exalted in Might, the Forgiving -

2:155
And We will surely test you with something of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good tidings to the patient,

2:214
Or do you think that you will enter Paradise while such [trial] has not yet come to you as came to those who passed on before you? They were touched by poverty and hardship and were shaken until [even their] messenger and those who believed with him said,"When is the help of Allah ?" Unquestionably, the help of Allah is near.

25:20
Do men think that they will be left alone on saying "We believe" and that they will not be tested? We did test those before them, and Allah will certainly know those who are true from those who are false.

anyway there are many verses adressing the problem of evil... but in the end for every hardship there is hope....

2:286
On no soul doth Allah Place a burden greater than it can bear. It gets every good that it earns, and it suffers every ill that it earns.

94:5-6
For indeed, with hardship [will be] ease.Indeed, with hardship [will be] ease.
Never fart near dog
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 4:29:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Equivocation fallacy abuse in order to justify #4. What you seem to be talking about is gratuitous evil. Furthermore, oversimplification is used as God also have other maximized attributes, particularly being all-just and all-wise.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 5:16:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 4:09:33 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am pretty much completely against typical problem of evil arguments, including the evidential problem of evil arguments because it requires demonstrating the existance of evil with realism, which is a problem for someone who is an anti-realist who thinks realism is unsound.

While atheists can make the typical arguments for the existance of evil, I see it as both futile, and unnecessary. Since the problem of evil is a very specialised argument anyway, it is only targeted at specific notions of God (tri omni), with a specific notion of evil. Because it's specific to only a few religions (Christianity/Islam/Etc.) then only the religion's internal consistency needs to be attacked.

As such...

1. Religion X is true (assumption)
2. If religion X is true, then God exists
3. If religion X is true, then evil exists
4. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
5. God exists (1&2)
6. Evil exists (1&3)
7. Evil does not exist (4&5)
8. Evil exists & evil does not exist (6&7) contradiction. 1 is false

Thus, ipwhile being more modest, it only requires that the atheist point out to the religious person that they are committed to believing evil exists because of their religious framework (a Christian that argues evil doesn't exist has a lot of circles to make square in their Bibles), thus the only premise that is desputable is P4, from which the standard PoE dialogue comes into play (since oremise 4 is a standard oremise in any PoE argument)

Thus, it is not necessary to personally accept moral realism to make such arguments in a valid and sound manner.

You are imposing the same test to Islam. unlike christainity there is no contradiction in Islam, evil is part of reality and God created both good and evil to test us.

67:2
[He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of you is best in deed - and He is the Exalted in Might, the Forgiving -

2:155
And We will surely test you with something of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good tidings to the patient,

2:214
Or do you think that you will enter Paradise while such [trial] has not yet come to you as came to those who passed on before you? They were touched by poverty and hardship and were shaken until [even their] messenger and those who believed with him said,"When is the help of Allah ?" Unquestionably, the help of Allah is near.

25:20
Do men think that they will be left alone on saying "We believe" and that they will not be tested? We did test those before them, and Allah will certainly know those who are true from those who are false.

anyway there are many verses adressing the problem of evil... but in the end for every hardship there is hope....

2:286
On no soul doth Allah Place a burden greater than it can bear. It gets every good that it earns, and it suffers every ill that it earns.

94:5-6
For indeed, with hardship [will be] ease.Indeed, with hardship [will be] ease.

Then Allah is not benevolent, but malevolent.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 5:20:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 4:29:14 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Equivocation fallacy abuse in order to justify #4.

Show me where I equivocate.

What you seem to be talking about is gratuitous evil.

Did you even look at the Argumemt? Gratuitous evil is completely irrelevant.

Furthermore, oversimplification is used as God also have other maximized attributes, particularly being all-just and all-wise.

That would just mean the cinch of God is incoherent/internally contradictory. God is either all good or he is not. If he has another attribute which means he cannot be all good, then the concept of God is already logically absurd.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 5:22:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 9:33:01 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:56:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:50:38 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am pretty much completely against typical problem of evil arguments, including the evidential problem of evil arguments because it requires demonstrating the existance of evil with realism, which is a problem for someone who is an anti-realist who thinks realism is unsound.

While atheists can make the typical arguments for the existance of evil, I see it as both futile, and unnecessary. Since the problem of evil is a very specialised argument anyway, it is only targeted at specific notions of God (tri omni), with a specific notion of evil. Because it's specific to only a few religions (Christianity/Islam/Etc.) then only the religion's internal consistency needs to be attacked.

As such...

1. Religion X is true (assumption)
2. If religion X is true, then God exists
3. If religion X is true, then evil exists
4. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
5. God exists (1&2)
6. Evil exists (1&3)
7. Evil does not exist (4&5)
8. Evil exists & evil does not exist (6&7) contradiction. 1 is false

Thus, ipwhile being more modest, it only requires that the atheist point out to the religious person that they are committed to believing evil exists because of their religious framework (a Christian that argues evil doesn't exist has a lot of circles to make square in their Bibles), thus the only premise that is desputable is P4, from which the standard PoE dialogue comes into play (since oremise 4 is a standard oremise in any PoE argument)

Thus, it is not necessary to personally accept moral realism to make such arguments in a valid and sound manner.

How is number 4 logical? Why cant evil and God exist? I do not know a single religious person who believes in god but does not believe in evil.

Yes, it's a standard bone of contention (which I already mentioned). Usually it's defended in a brute deductive manner. God is all good and all powerful, thus he would be both willing (and committed to, by his nature) and able to create a perfect world with nothing but good. A God that does not do with at cannot be all-good since that would intentionally cause less-optimal good, which violates the definition of "all-good".

If god was only good then God would not be omnipotent. God is the sum of all Good and Evil.

Then God is internally contradictory. God must be both all good and omnipotent otherwise the definition is incoherent. Thus, if omnipotence makes being all good impossible, then God is logically impossible.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 5:45:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 5:16:47 AM, Envisage wrote:
Then Allah is not benevolent, but malevolent.

- No, neither. Why must God be either Good or Evil?!!! You're imposing a human character on God, which is completely unacceptable in Islam. Why must a rock be good or evil?!! Why must God either care or not care?! God in Islam is disjoint from His creation, i.e. there is nothing in common between God & all else, in other words: God is strictly not-not-God.

- Plus, your assumption raises the same exact problem, if God is malevolent, then why is there Good?!

- Besides, there is no such thing as true Evil & true Good in Islam, an evil at one time can be good at another time, or the opposite, or an event according to someone it's good, & according to another it's evil:
> the Prophet said: "Allah Most High said: "I am as my servant thinks of me, if he think good of me, then that is what he gets, is he the thinks bad of me, then that is what he gets".

=> You're making the mistake of forcing the Christian doctrine into Islam! It doesn't work like that.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 5:50:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 5:45:34 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/19/2015 5:16:47 AM, Envisage wrote:
Then Allah is not benevolent, but malevolent.

- No, neither. Why must God be either Good or Evil?!!! You're imposing a human character on God, which is completely unacceptable in Islam. Why must a rock be good or evil?!! Why must God either care or not care?! God in Islam is disjoint from His creation, i.e. there is nothing in common between God & all else, in other words: God is strictly not-not-God.

Then the PoE doesn't apply to your version of God, since your God is not all-good.

- Plus, your assumption raises the same exact problem, if God is malevolent, then why is there Good?!

It doesn't matter, the argument is a reducio ad absurdum, other options are irrelevant to it's logical validity.

- Besides, there is no such thing as true Evil & true Good in Islam, an evil at one time can be good at another time, or the opposite, or an event according to someone it's good, & according to another it's evil:
> the Prophet said: "Allah Most High said: "I am as my servant thinks of me, if he think good of me, then that is what he gets, is he the thinks bad of me, then that is what he gets".

=> You're making the mistake of forcing the Christian doctrine into Islam! It doesn't work like that.

If Allah isn't all-good, then I see no reason to worship him even if he did exist, lol. Why would I worship a rock? It isn't good or evil either. Nor should one listen to Allah for moral advice.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 6:09:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 5:50:15 AM, Envisage wrote:
If Allah isn't all-good, then I see no reason to worship him even if he did exist, lol. Why would I worship a rock? It isn't good or evil either. Nor should one listen to Allah for moral advice.

- Again, you are immersed in the Christian paradigm, you know Christianity is not the only Religion in the World?!

- This whole sentence makes absolutely no sense in an Islamic perspective, you're starting from a Christian premise & extrapolating on an Islamic notion!!!
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 6:13:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 6:09:17 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/19/2015 5:50:15 AM, Envisage wrote:
If Allah isn't all-good, then I see no reason to worship him even if he did exist, lol. Why would I worship a rock? It isn't good or evil either. Nor should one listen to Allah for moral advice.

- Again, you are immersed in the Christian paradigm, you know Christianity is not the only Religion in the World?!

My arguments apply to any God. You do realise that 90% o the time I don't argue against christian definition of God, right? I am always arguing against a minimalistic God. Also you do realise I am an atheist right? So I exist outside of any paradigm.

- This whole sentence makes absolutely no sense in an Islamic perspective, you're starting from a Christian premise & extrapolating on an Islamic notion!!!

Lol, you still haven't addressed my point. Simply appealing to incredulity only cedes that you don't have an argument. Why would I put moral stock into Allah, I.e. Listen to what he says about how to live morally, such as when not to kill, when not to steal, etc. if Allah himself is as you say - amoral.

It makes no sense from a logical perspective.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 6:26:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 6:13:16 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/19/2015 6:09:17 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/19/2015 5:50:15 AM, Envisage wrote:
If Allah isn't all-good, then I see no reason to worship him even if he did exist, lol. Why would I worship a rock? It isn't good or evil either. Nor should one listen to Allah for moral advice.

- Again, you are immersed in the Christian paradigm, you know Christianity is not the only Religion in the World?!

My arguments apply to any God. You do realise that 90% o the time I don't argue against christian definition of God, right? I am always arguing against a minimalistic God. Also you do realise I am an atheist right? So I exist outside of any paradigm.

- This whole sentence makes absolutely no sense in an Islamic perspective, you're starting from a Christian premise & extrapolating on an Islamic notion!!!

Lol, you still haven't addressed my point. Simply appealing to incredulity only cedes that you don't have an argument. Why would I put moral stock into Allah, I.e. Listen to what he says about how to live morally, such as when not to kill, when not to steal, etc. if Allah himself is as you say - amoral.

It makes no sense from a logical perspective.

- Let me put it this way, if Allah says go kill everybody (that's not the case but just hypothetically) it would the same as if Allah says kill nobody. In Islam there is NO stigma associated with God & Evil, exactly as there is NO stigma associated with God & Good.

- Plus, what God prescribes, is, by definition, Moral (so to speak) even if it's killing everybody. In Islam, God is Right no matter what He does, & God does whatever He pleases, He's God, who's to judge?!!!
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 7:14:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 9:50:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:33:01 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:56:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:50:38 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am pretty much completely against typical problem of evil arguments, including the evidential problem of evil arguments because it requires demonstrating the existance of evil with realism, which is a problem for someone who is an anti-realist who thinks realism is unsound.

While atheists can make the typical arguments for the existance of evil, I see it as both futile, and unnecessary. Since the problem of evil is a very specialised argument anyway, it is only targeted at specific notions of God (tri omni), with a specific notion of evil. Because it's specific to only a few religions (Christianity/Islam/Etc.) then only the religion's internal consistency needs to be attacked.

As such...

1. Religion X is true (assumption)
2. If religion X is true, then God exists
3. If religion X is true, then evil exists
4. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
5. God exists (1&2)
6. Evil exists (1&3)
7. Evil does not exist (4&5)
8. Evil exists & evil does not exist (6&7) contradiction. 1 is false

Thus, ipwhile being more modest, it only requires that the atheist point out to the religious person that they are committed to believing evil exists because of their religious framework (a Christian that argues evil doesn't exist has a lot of circles to make square in their Bibles), thus the only premise that is desputable is P4, from which the standard PoE dialogue comes into play (since oremise 4 is a standard oremise in any PoE argument)

Thus, it is not necessary to personally accept moral realism to make such arguments in a valid and sound manner.

How is number 4 logical? Why cant evil and God exist? I do not know a single religious person who believes in god but does not believe in evil.

Yes, it's a standard bone of contention (which I already mentioned). Usually it's defended in a brute deductive manner. God is all good and all powerful, thus he would be both willing (and committed to, by his nature) and able to create a perfect world with nothing but good. A God that does not do with at cannot be all-good since that would intentionally cause less-optimal good, which violates the definition of "all-good".

If god was only good then God would not be omnipotent. God is the sum of all Good and Evil.

I think you mean he would not be omnibenevolent. (instead of omnipotent)

No I mean omnipotent which means all powerful. God must have the power to do evil or he is not omnipotent.
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 7:18:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 5:22:32 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:33:01 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:56:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:50:38 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am pretty much completely against typical problem of evil arguments, including the evidential problem of evil arguments because it requires demonstrating the existance of evil with realism, which is a problem for someone who is an anti-realist who thinks realism is unsound.

While atheists can make the typical arguments for the existance of evil, I see it as both futile, and unnecessary. Since the problem of evil is a very specialised argument anyway, it is only targeted at specific notions of God (tri omni), with a specific notion of evil. Because it's specific to only a few religions (Christianity/Islam/Etc.) then only the religion's internal consistency needs to be attacked.

As such...

1. Religion X is true (assumption)
2. If religion X is true, then God exists
3. If religion X is true, then evil exists
4. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
5. God exists (1&2)
6. Evil exists (1&3)
7. Evil does not exist (4&5)
8. Evil exists & evil does not exist (6&7) contradiction. 1 is false

Thus, ipwhile being more modest, it only requires that the atheist point out to the religious person that they are committed to believing evil exists because of their religious framework (a Christian that argues evil doesn't exist has a lot of circles to make square in their Bibles), thus the only premise that is desputable is P4, from which the standard PoE dialogue comes into play (since oremise 4 is a standard oremise in any PoE argument)

Thus, it is not necessary to personally accept moral realism to make such arguments in a valid and sound manner.

How is number 4 logical? Why cant evil and God exist? I do not know a single religious person who believes in god but does not believe in evil.

Yes, it's a standard bone of contention (which I already mentioned). Usually it's defended in a brute deductive manner. God is all good and all powerful, thus he would be both willing (and committed to, by his nature) and able to create a perfect world with nothing but good. A God that does not do with at cannot be all-good since that would intentionally cause less-optimal good, which violates the definition of "all-good".

If god was only good then God would not be omnipotent. God is the sum of all Good and Evil.

Then God is internally contradictory. God must be both all good and omnipotent otherwise the definition is incoherent. Thus, if omnipotence makes being all good impossible, then God is logically impossible.

Think of good as a bucket of salt and evil as a bucket of pepper. They coexist and god is the sum of both. Good does not cross out evil.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 7:55:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 7:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am pretty much completely against typical problem of evil arguments, including the evidential problem of evil arguments because it requires demonstrating the existance of evil with realism, which is a problem for someone who is an anti-realist who thinks realism is unsound.

While atheists can make the typical arguments for the existance of evil, I see it as both futile, and unnecessary. Since the problem of evil is a very specialised argument anyway, it is only targeted at specific notions of God (tri omni), with a specific notion of evil. Because it's specific to only a few religions (Christianity/Islam/Etc.) then only the religion's internal consistency needs to be attacked.

As such...

1. Religion X is true (assumption)
2. If religion X is true, then God exists
3. If religion X is true, then evil exists
4. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
5. God exists (1&2)
6. Evil exists (1&3)
7. Evil does not exist (4&5)
8. Evil exists & evil does not exist (6&7) contradiction. 1 is false

Thus, ipwhile being more modest, it only requires that the atheist point out to the religious person that they are committed to believing evil exists because of their religious framework (a Christian that argues evil doesn't exist has a lot of circles to make square in their Bibles), thus the only premise that is desputable is P4, from which the standard PoE dialogue comes into play (since oremise 4 is a standard oremise in any PoE argument)

Thus, it is not necessary to personally accept moral realism to make such arguments in a valid and sound manner.

Isaiah 45
7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Deuteronomy 32
39: "`See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.

Psalm 92
5: How great are thy works, O LORD! Thy thoughts are very deep!
6: The dull man cannot know, the stupid cannot understand this:
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 8:02:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 7:14:52 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:50:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:33:01 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:56:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:50:38 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am pretty much completely against typical problem of evil arguments, including the evidential problem of evil arguments because it requires demonstrating the existance of evil with realism, which is a problem for someone who is an anti-realist who thinks realism is unsound.

While atheists can make the typical arguments for the existance of evil, I see it as both futile, and unnecessary. Since the problem of evil is a very specialised argument anyway, it is only targeted at specific notions of God (tri omni), with a specific notion of evil. Because it's specific to only a few religions (Christianity/Islam/Etc.) then only the religion's internal consistency needs to be attacked.

As such...

1. Religion X is true (assumption)
2. If religion X is true, then God exists
3. If religion X is true, then evil exists
4. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
5. God exists (1&2)
6. Evil exists (1&3)
7. Evil does not exist (4&5)
8. Evil exists & evil does not exist (6&7) contradiction. 1 is false

Thus, ipwhile being more modest, it only requires that the atheist point out to the religious person that they are committed to believing evil exists because of their religious framework (a Christian that argues evil doesn't exist has a lot of circles to make square in their Bibles), thus the only premise that is desputable is P4, from which the standard PoE dialogue comes into play (since oremise 4 is a standard oremise in any PoE argument)

Thus, it is not necessary to personally accept moral realism to make such arguments in a valid and sound manner.

How is number 4 logical? Why cant evil and God exist? I do not know a single religious person who believes in god but does not believe in evil.

Yes, it's a standard bone of contention (which I already mentioned). Usually it's defended in a brute deductive manner. God is all good and all powerful, thus he would be both willing (and committed to, by his nature) and able to create a perfect world with nothing but good. A God that does not do with at cannot be all-good since that would intentionally cause less-optimal good, which violates the definition of "all-good".

If god was only good then God would not be omnipotent. God is the sum of all Good and Evil.

I think you mean he would not be omnibenevolent. (instead of omnipotent)

No I mean omnipotent which means all powerful. God must have the power to do evil or he is not omnipotent.

Okay. However, if he can do evil, then he would not be omnibenevolent, right?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 8:48:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 8:02:26 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:14:52 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:50:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:33:01 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:56:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:50:38 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am pretty much completely against typical problem of evil arguments, including the evidential problem of evil arguments because it requires demonstrating the existance of evil with realism, which is a problem for someone who is an anti-realist who thinks realism is unsound.

While atheists can make the typical arguments for the existance of evil, I see it as both futile, and unnecessary. Since the problem of evil is a very specialised argument anyway, it is only targeted at specific notions of God (tri omni), with a specific notion of evil. Because it's specific to only a few religions (Christianity/Islam/Etc.) then only the religion's internal consistency needs to be attacked.

As such...

1. Religion X is true (assumption)
2. If religion X is true, then God exists
3. If religion X is true, then evil exists
4. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
5. God exists (1&2)
6. Evil exists (1&3)
7. Evil does not exist (4&5)
8. Evil exists & evil does not exist (6&7) contradiction. 1 is false

Thus, ipwhile being more modest, it only requires that the atheist point out to the religious person that they are committed to believing evil exists because of their religious framework (a Christian that argues evil doesn't exist has a lot of circles to make square in their Bibles), thus the only premise that is desputable is P4, from which the standard PoE dialogue comes into play (since oremise 4 is a standard oremise in any PoE argument)

Thus, it is not necessary to personally accept moral realism to make such arguments in a valid and sound manner.

How is number 4 logical? Why cant evil and God exist? I do not know a single religious person who believes in god but does not believe in evil.

Yes, it's a standard bone of contention (which I already mentioned). Usually it's defended in a brute deductive manner. God is all good and all powerful, thus he would be both willing (and committed to, by his nature) and able to create a perfect world with nothing but good. A God that does not do with at cannot be all-good since that would intentionally cause less-optimal good, which violates the definition of "all-good".

If god was only good then God would not be omnipotent. God is the sum of all Good and Evil.

I think you mean he would not be omnibenevolent. (instead of omnipotent)

No I mean omnipotent which means all powerful. God must have the power to do evil or he is not omnipotent.

Okay. However, if he can do evil, then he would not be omnibenevolent, right?

Wrong, but it's a matter of how you look at the word. Benevolent means to do good. Omni means "all". So an Omnibenevolent god does all the good in the world. This does not mean he does not also do all the evil. Then again, it's not really our place to judge gods choices as good or evil.

If you believe in the bible, it is obvious God uses evil to discipline people.

God, not chance, decides what happens in human affairs (Proverbs 16:33; compared with Jonah 1:7).

He uses heathen nations to accomplish the disciplining of His disobedient people (Isaiah 5:26; Amos 3:9-11; 6:14; Habakkuk 1:12).

Sometimes God sees to it that the worst of people are allowed to be exalted so that they may fulfil His purposes without their knowing it (Isaiah 10:5, Isaiah 10:7).

He uses even the enemies of His people to discipline them in their disobedience (Judges 2:14-15, Judges 2:21-23; Judges 2:3:12).

So as you can see God is not a saint that only does good, he is a teacher that uses his entire tool kit to get the job done.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 9:23:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 8:48:05 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:02:26 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:14:52 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:50:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:33:01 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:56:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:50:38 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am pretty much completely against typical problem of evil arguments, including the evidential problem of evil arguments because it requires demonstrating the existance of evil with realism, which is a problem for someone who is an anti-realist who thinks realism is unsound.

While atheists can make the typical arguments for the existance of evil, I see it as both futile, and unnecessary. Since the problem of evil is a very specialised argument anyway, it is only targeted at specific notions of God (tri omni), with a specific notion of evil. Because it's specific to only a few religions (Christianity/Islam/Etc.) then only the religion's internal consistency needs to be attacked.

As such...

1. Religion X is true (assumption)
2. If religion X is true, then God exists
3. If religion X is true, then evil exists
4. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
5. God exists (1&2)
6. Evil exists (1&3)
7. Evil does not exist (4&5)
8. Evil exists & evil does not exist (6&7) contradiction. 1 is false

Thus, ipwhile being more modest, it only requires that the atheist point out to the religious person that they are committed to believing evil exists because of their religious framework (a Christian that argues evil doesn't exist has a lot of circles to make square in their Bibles), thus the only premise that is desputable is P4, from which the standard PoE dialogue comes into play (since oremise 4 is a standard oremise in any PoE argument)

Thus, it is not necessary to personally accept moral realism to make such arguments in a valid and sound manner.

How is number 4 logical? Why cant evil and God exist? I do not know a single religious person who believes in god but does not believe in evil.

Yes, it's a standard bone of contention (which I already mentioned). Usually it's defended in a brute deductive manner. God is all good and all powerful, thus he would be both willing (and committed to, by his nature) and able to create a perfect world with nothing but good. A God that does not do with at cannot be all-good since that would intentionally cause less-optimal good, which violates the definition of "all-good".

If god was only good then God would not be omnipotent. God is the sum of all Good and Evil.

I think you mean he would not be omnibenevolent. (instead of omnipotent)

No I mean omnipotent which means all powerful. God must have the power to do evil or he is not omnipotent.

Okay. However, if he can do evil, then he would not be omnibenevolent, right?

Wrong, but it's a matter of how you look at the word. Benevolent means to do good. Omni means "all". So an Omnibenevolent god does all the good in the world. This does not mean he does not also do all the evil. Then again, it's not really our place to judge gods choices as good or evil.

We're going to disagree on this. Benevolent does not mean 'to do good' and it is not a verb. Someone who is benevolent (adjective) might do good, but that would be because of their nature, and not because of the actions themselves.

I have never seen omnibenevolent refer to anything other than 'all-loving, or infinitely good'. It is an adjective describing the nature of god, and again, not the actions of god. That being said, it sounds to me as if you're saying god is omnibenevolent AND omnimalevolent, and that makes no sense.

If you believe in the bible, it is obvious God uses evil to discipline people.

God, not chance, decides what happens in human affairs (Proverbs 16:33; compared with Jonah 1:7).

He uses heathen nations to accomplish the disciplining of His disobedient people (Isaiah 5:26; Amos 3:9-11; 6:14; Habakkuk 1:12).

Sometimes God sees to it that the worst of people are allowed to be exalted so that they may fulfil His purposes without their knowing it (Isaiah 10:5, Isaiah 10:7).

He uses even the enemies of His people to discipline them in their disobedience (Judges 2:14-15, Judges 2:21-23; Judges 2:3:12).

So as you can see God is not a saint that only does good, he is a teacher that uses his entire tool kit to get the job done.

I agree, according to the Bible, Yahweh does immoral (evil) things according to his own rules.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 9:29:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 8:48:05 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:02:26 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:14:52 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:50:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:33:01 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:56:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:50:38 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am pretty much completely against typical problem of evil arguments, including the evidential problem of evil arguments because it requires demonstrating the existance of evil with realism, which is a problem for someone who is an anti-realist who thinks realism is unsound.

While atheists can make the typical arguments for the existance of evil, I see it as both futile, and unnecessary. Since the problem of evil is a very specialised argument anyway, it is only targeted at specific notions of God (tri omni), with a specific notion of evil. Because it's specific to only a few religions (Christianity/Islam/Etc.) then only the religion's internal consistency needs to be attacked.

As such...

1. Religion X is true (assumption)
2. If religion X is true, then God exists
3. If religion X is true, then evil exists
4. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
5. God exists (1&2)
6. Evil exists (1&3)
7. Evil does not exist (4&5)
8. Evil exists & evil does not exist (6&7) contradiction. 1 is false

Thus, ipwhile being more modest, it only requires that the atheist point out to the religious person that they are committed to believing evil exists because of their religious framework (a Christian that argues evil doesn't exist has a lot of circles to make square in their Bibles), thus the only premise that is desputable is P4, from which the standard PoE dialogue comes into play (since oremise 4 is a standard oremise in any PoE argument)

Thus, it is not necessary to personally accept moral realism to make such arguments in a valid and sound manner.

How is number 4 logical? Why cant evil and God exist? I do not know a single religious person who believes in god but does not believe in evil.

Yes, it's a standard bone of contention (which I already mentioned). Usually it's defended in a brute deductive manner. God is all good and all powerful, thus he would be both willing (and committed to, by his nature) and able to create a perfect world with nothing but good. A God that does not do with at cannot be all-good since that would intentionally cause less-optimal good, which violates the definition of "all-good".

If god was only good then God would not be omnipotent. God is the sum of all Good and Evil.

I think you mean he would not be omnibenevolent. (instead of omnipotent)

No I mean omnipotent which means all powerful. God must have the power to do evil or he is not omnipotent.

Okay. However, if he can do evil, then he would not be omnibenevolent, right?

Wrong, but it's a matter of how you look at the word. Benevolent means to do good. Omni means "all". So an Omnibenevolent god does all the good in the world. This does not mean he does not also do all the evil. Then again, it's not really our place to judge gods choices as good or evil.

If you believe in the bible, it is obvious God uses evil to discipline people.

God, not chance, decides what happens in human affairs (Proverbs 16:33; compared with Jonah 1:7).

He uses heathen nations to accomplish the disciplining of His disobedient people (Isaiah 5:26; Amos 3:9-11; 6:14; Habakkuk 1:12).

Sometimes God sees to it that the worst of people are allowed to be exalted so that they may fulfil His purposes without their knowing it (Isaiah 10:5, Isaiah 10:7).

He uses even the enemies of His people to discipline them in their disobedience (Judges 2:14-15, Judges 2:21-23; Judges 2:3:12).

So as you can see God is not a saint that only does good, he is a teacher that uses his entire tool kit to get the job done.

OK, explain then why God allows evil to happen to people who have done no wrong or at least nothing of any real significance? Why do babies get beaten and killed? Why do children get abused physically, sexually, and emotionally? If that's your God's way of 'discipline', it sucks and so does he.
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 10:11:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 9:23:20 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:48:05 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:02:26 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:14:52 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:50:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:33:01 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:56:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:50:38 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am pretty much completely against typical problem of evil arguments, including the evidential problem of evil arguments because it requires demonstrating the existance of evil with realism, which is a problem for someone who is an anti-realist who thinks realism is unsound.

While atheists can make the typical arguments for the existance of evil, I see it as both futile, and unnecessary. Since the problem of evil is a very specialised argument anyway, it is only targeted at specific notions of God (tri omni), with a specific notion of evil. Because it's specific to only a few religions (Christianity/Islam/Etc.) then only the religion's internal consistency needs to be attacked.

As such...

1. Religion X is true (assumption)
2. If religion X is true, then God exists
3. If religion X is true, then evil exists
4. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
5. God exists (1&2)
6. Evil exists (1&3)
7. Evil does not exist (4&5)
8. Evil exists & evil does not exist (6&7) contradiction. 1 is false

Thus, ipwhile being more modest, it only requires that the atheist point out to the religious person that they are committed to believing evil exists because of their religious framework (a Christian that argues evil doesn't exist has a lot of circles to make square in their Bibles), thus the only premise that is desputable is P4, from which the standard PoE dialogue comes into play (since oremise 4 is a standard oremise in any PoE argument)

Thus, it is not necessary to personally accept moral realism to make such arguments in a valid and sound manner.

How is number 4 logical? Why cant evil and God exist? I do not know a single religious person who believes in god but does not believe in evil.

Yes, it's a standard bone of contention (which I already mentioned). Usually it's defended in a brute deductive manner. God is all good and all powerful, thus he would be both willing (and committed to, by his nature) and able to create a perfect world with nothing but good. A God that does not do with at cannot be all-good since that would intentionally cause less-optimal good, which violates the definition of "all-good".

If god was only good then God would not be omnipotent. God is the sum of all Good and Evil.

I think you mean he would not be omnibenevolent. (instead of omnipotent)

No I mean omnipotent which means all powerful. God must have the power to do evil or he is not omnipotent.

Okay. However, if he can do evil, then he would not be omnibenevolent, right?

Wrong, but it's a matter of how you look at the word. Benevolent means to do good. Omni means "all". So an Omnibenevolent god does all the good in the world. This does not mean he does not also do all the evil. Then again, it's not really our place to judge gods choices as good or evil.

We're going to disagree on this. Benevolent does not mean 'to do good' and it is not a verb. Someone who is benevolent (adjective) might do good, but that would be because of their nature, and not because of the actions themselves.

I have never seen omnibenevolent refer to anything other than 'all-loving, or infinitely good'. It is an adjective describing the nature of god, and again, not the actions of god. That being said, it sounds to me as if you're saying god is omnibenevolent AND omnimalevolent, and that makes no sense.

If you believe in the bible, it is obvious God uses evil to discipline people.

God, not chance, decides what happens in human affairs (Proverbs 16:33; compared with Jonah 1:7).

He uses heathen nations to accomplish the disciplining of His disobedient people (Isaiah 5:26; Amos 3:9-11; 6:14; Habakkuk 1:12).

Sometimes God sees to it that the worst of people are allowed to be exalted so that they may fulfil His purposes without their knowing it (Isaiah 10:5, Isaiah 10:7).

He uses even the enemies of His people to discipline them in their disobedience (Judges 2:14-15, Judges 2:21-23; Judges 2:3:12).

So as you can see God is not a saint that only does good, he is a teacher that uses his entire tool kit to get the job done.

I agree, according to the Bible, Yahweh does immoral (evil) things according to his own rules.

Here is the definition of benevolent.
adjective
1. characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings:
a benevolent attitude; her benevolent smile.
2. desiring to help others; charitable:
gifts from several benevolent alumni.
3. intended for benefits rather than profit:
a benevolent institution.

To be omni anything does not mean to be only that. It means to be all of that. If you think of Good and evil as two sides of a coin, god is the entire coin.
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 10:19:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 9:29:55 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:48:05 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:02:26 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:14:52 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:50:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:33:01 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:56:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:50:38 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am pretty much completely against typical problem of evil arguments, including the evidential problem of evil arguments because it requires demonstrating the existance of evil with realism, which is a problem for someone who is an anti-realist who thinks realism is unsound.

While atheists can make the typical arguments for the existance of evil, I see it as both futile, and unnecessary. Since the problem of evil is a very specialised argument anyway, it is only targeted at specific notions of God (tri omni), with a specific notion of evil. Because it's specific to only a few religions (Christianity/Islam/Etc.) then only the religion's internal consistency needs to be attacked.

As such...

1. Religion X is true (assumption)
2. If religion X is true, then God exists
3. If religion X is true, then evil exists
4. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
5. God exists (1&2)
6. Evil exists (1&3)
7. Evil does not exist (4&5)
8. Evil exists & evil does not exist (6&7) contradiction. 1 is false

Thus, ipwhile being more modest, it only requires that the atheist point out to the religious person that they are committed to believing evil exists because of their religious framework (a Christian that argues evil doesn't exist has a lot of circles to make square in their Bibles), thus the only premise that is desputable is P4, from which the standard PoE dialogue comes into play (since oremise 4 is a standard oremise in any PoE argument)

Thus, it is not necessary to personally accept moral realism to make such arguments in a valid and sound manner.

How is number 4 logical? Why cant evil and God exist? I do not know a single religious person who believes in god but does not believe in evil.

Yes, it's a standard bone of contention (which I already mentioned). Usually it's defended in a brute deductive manner. God is all good and all powerful, thus he would be both willing (and committed to, by his nature) and able to create a perfect world with nothing but good. A God that does not do with at cannot be all-good since that would intentionally cause less-optimal good, which violates the definition of "all-good".

If god was only good then God would not be omnipotent. God is the sum of all Good and Evil.

I think you mean he would not be omnibenevolent. (instead of omnipotent)

No I mean omnipotent which means all powerful. God must have the power to do evil or he is not omnipotent.

Okay. However, if he can do evil, then he would not be omnibenevolent, right?

Wrong, but it's a matter of how you look at the word. Benevolent means to do good. Omni means "all". So an Omnibenevolent god does all the good in the world. This does not mean he does not also do all the evil. Then again, it's not really our place to judge gods choices as good or evil.

If you believe in the bible, it is obvious God uses evil to discipline people.

God, not chance, decides what happens in human affairs (Proverbs 16:33; compared with Jonah 1:7).

He uses heathen nations to accomplish the disciplining of His disobedient people (Isaiah 5:26; Amos 3:9-11; 6:14; Habakkuk 1:12).

Sometimes God sees to it that the worst of people are allowed to be exalted so that they may fulfil His purposes without their knowing it (Isaiah 10:5, Isaiah 10:7).

He uses even the enemies of His people to discipline them in their disobedience (Judges 2:14-15, Judges 2:21-23; Judges 2:3:12).

So as you can see God is not a saint that only does good, he is a teacher that uses his entire tool kit to get the job done.

OK, explain then why God allows evil to happen to people who have done no wrong or at least nothing of any real significance? Why do babies get beaten and killed? Why do children get abused physically, sexually, and emotionally? If that's your God's way of 'discipline', it sucks and so does he.

First, I am not christian, or of any religion. That is a tough question but the best way i can answer it is that hell does exist right here on earth as does heaven. I tend to believe in some sense of Karma and that it follows you from life to life, but I would never use it to justify the atrocities you mention.

The nature of god is to be all things, look out into the world and you can see Gods nature. If you do not like it, maybe you are looking in the wrong places.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 10:27:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 10:19:15 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/19/2015 9:29:55 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:48:05 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:02:26 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:14:52 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:50:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:33:01 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:56:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:50:38 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am pretty much completely against typical problem of evil arguments, including the evidential problem of evil arguments because it requires demonstrating the existance of evil with realism, which is a problem for someone who is an anti-realist who thinks realism is unsound.

While atheists can make the typical arguments for the existance of evil, I see it as both futile, and unnecessary. Since the problem of evil is a very specialised argument anyway, it is only targeted at specific notions of God (tri omni), with a specific notion of evil. Because it's specific to only a few religions (Christianity/Islam/Etc.) then only the religion's internal consistency needs to be attacked.

As such...

1. Religion X is true (assumption)
2. If religion X is true, then God exists
3. If religion X is true, then evil exists
4. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
5. God exists (1&2)
6. Evil exists (1&3)
7. Evil does not exist (4&5)
8. Evil exists & evil does not exist (6&7) contradiction. 1 is false

Thus, ipwhile being more modest, it only requires that the atheist point out to the religious person that they are committed to believing evil exists because of their religious framework (a Christian that argues evil doesn't exist has a lot of circles to make square in their Bibles), thus the only premise that is desputable is P4, from which the standard PoE dialogue comes into play (since oremise 4 is a standard oremise in any PoE argument)

Thus, it is not necessary to personally accept moral realism to make such arguments in a valid and sound manner.

How is number 4 logical? Why cant evil and God exist? I do not know a single religious person who believes in god but does not believe in evil.

Yes, it's a standard bone of contention (which I already mentioned). Usually it's defended in a brute deductive manner. God is all good and all powerful, thus he would be both willing (and committed to, by his nature) and able to create a perfect world with nothing but good. A God that does not do with at cannot be all-good since that would intentionally cause less-optimal good, which violates the definition of "all-good".

If god was only good then God would not be omnipotent. God is the sum of all Good and Evil.

I think you mean he would not be omnibenevolent. (instead of omnipotent)

No I mean omnipotent which means all powerful. God must have the power to do evil or he is not omnipotent.

Okay. However, if he can do evil, then he would not be omnibenevolent, right?

Wrong, but it's a matter of how you look at the word. Benevolent means to do good. Omni means "all". So an Omnibenevolent god does all the good in the world. This does not mean he does not also do all the evil. Then again, it's not really our place to judge gods choices as good or evil.

If you believe in the bible, it is obvious God uses evil to discipline people.

God, not chance, decides what happens in human affairs (Proverbs 16:33; compared with Jonah 1:7).

He uses heathen nations to accomplish the disciplining of His disobedient people (Isaiah 5:26; Amos 3:9-11; 6:14; Habakkuk 1:12).

Sometimes God sees to it that the worst of people are allowed to be exalted so that they may fulfil His purposes without their knowing it (Isaiah 10:5, Isaiah 10:7).

He uses even the enemies of His people to discipline them in their disobedience (Judges 2:14-15, Judges 2:21-23; Judges 2:3:12).

So as you can see God is not a saint that only does good, he is a teacher that uses his entire tool kit to get the job done.

OK, explain then why God allows evil to happen to people who have done no wrong or at least nothing of any real significance? Why do babies get beaten and killed? Why do children get abused physically, sexually, and emotionally? If that's your God's way of 'discipline', it sucks and so does he.

First, I am not christian, or of any religion. That is a tough question but the best way i can answer it is that hell does exist right here on earth as does heaven. I tend to believe in some sense of Karma and that it follows you from life to life, but I would never use it to justify the atrocities you mention.

The nature of god is to be all things, look out into the world and you can see Gods nature. If you do not like it, maybe you are looking in the wrong places.

I don't selectively see what I want to, I've seen too much to just ignore the bad stuff. Obviously you don't believe in the bible or you would not have that karma idea, since it's nowhere mentioned. The simple fact is that if God exists and he is truly Alpha and Omega, he's a sadistic piece of bodily waste a millions of time over. For every blessing he supposedly bestows on his chosen, he visits 10 curses on those less favored. Nothing about that is holy or good. If he existed I would revile him at every turn and dare him to show himself and justify his actions. Oh, and don't say 'who are you to judge God?'. If he were real, I"d be one of his children and I despise absentee fathers and have the blackest hate in existence for abusive fathers. That's the relationship most believers have with their God.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 10:32:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 10:11:27 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/19/2015 9:23:20 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:48:05 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:02:26 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:14:52 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:50:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:33:01 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:56:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:50:38 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am pretty much completely against typical problem of evil arguments, including the evidential problem of evil arguments because it requires demonstrating the existance of evil with realism, which is a problem for someone who is an anti-realist who thinks realism is unsound.

While atheists can make the typical arguments for the existance of evil, I see it as both futile, and unnecessary. Since the problem of evil is a very specialised argument anyway, it is only targeted at specific notions of God (tri omni), with a specific notion of evil. Because it's specific to only a few religions (Christianity/Islam/Etc.) then only the religion's internal consistency needs to be attacked.

As such...

1. Religion X is true (assumption)
2. If religion X is true, then God exists
3. If religion X is true, then evil exists
4. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
5. God exists (1&2)
6. Evil exists (1&3)
7. Evil does not exist (4&5)
8. Evil exists & evil does not exist (6&7) contradiction. 1 is false

Thus, ipwhile being more modest, it only requires that the atheist point out to the religious person that they are committed to believing evil exists because of their religious framework (a Christian that argues evil doesn't exist has a lot of circles to make square in their Bibles), thus the only premise that is desputable is P4, from which the standard PoE dialogue comes into play (since oremise 4 is a standard oremise in any PoE argument)

Thus, it is not necessary to personally accept moral realism to make such arguments in a valid and sound manner.

How is number 4 logical? Why cant evil and God exist? I do not know a single religious person who believes in god but does not believe in evil.

Yes, it's a standard bone of contention (which I already mentioned). Usually it's defended in a brute deductive manner. God is all good and all powerful, thus he would be both willing (and committed to, by his nature) and able to create a perfect world with nothing but good. A God that does not do with at cannot be all-good since that would intentionally cause less-optimal good, which violates the definition of "all-good".

If god was only good then God would not be omnipotent. God is the sum of all Good and Evil.

I think you mean he would not be omnibenevolent. (instead of omnipotent)

No I mean omnipotent which means all powerful. God must have the power to do evil or he is not omnipotent.

Okay. However, if he can do evil, then he would not be omnibenevolent, right?

Wrong, but it's a matter of how you look at the word. Benevolent means to do good. Omni means "all". So an Omnibenevolent god does all the good in the world. This does not mean he does not also do all the evil. Then again, it's not really our place to judge gods choices as good or evil.

We're going to disagree on this. Benevolent does not mean 'to do good' and it is not a verb. Someone who is benevolent (adjective) might do good, but that would be because of their nature, and not because of the actions themselves.

I have never seen omnibenevolent refer to anything other than 'all-loving, or infinitely good'. It is an adjective describing the nature of god, and again, not the actions of god. That being said, it sounds to me as if you're saying god is omnibenevolent AND omnimalevolent, and that makes no sense.

If you believe in the bible, it is obvious God uses evil to discipline people.

God, not chance, decides what happens in human affairs (Proverbs 16:33; compared with Jonah 1:7).

He uses heathen nations to accomplish the disciplining of His disobedient people (Isaiah 5:26; Amos 3:9-11; 6:14; Habakkuk 1:12).

Sometimes God sees to it that the worst of people are allowed to be exalted so that they may fulfil His purposes without their knowing it (Isaiah 10:5, Isaiah 10:7).

He uses even the enemies of His people to discipline them in their disobedience (Judges 2:14-15, Judges 2:21-23; Judges 2:3:12).

So as you can see God is not a saint that only does good, he is a teacher that uses his entire tool kit to get the job done.

I agree, according to the Bible, Yahweh does immoral (evil) things according to his own rules.

Here is the definition of benevolent.
adjective
1. characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings:
a benevolent attitude; her benevolent smile.
2. desiring to help others; charitable:
gifts from several benevolent alumni.
3. intended for benefits rather than profit:
a benevolent institution.

To be omni anything does not mean to be only that. It means to be all of that. If you think of Good and evil as two sides of a coin, god is the entire coin.

The problem arises when you apply benevolent AND malevolent to a single being. It is incoherent. Their nature can only one or the other, not both.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 10:39:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 10:32:02 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/19/2015 10:11:27 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/19/2015 9:23:20 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:48:05 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:02:26 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:14:52 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:50:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:33:01 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:56:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:50:38 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am pretty much completely against typical problem of evil arguments, including the evidential problem of evil arguments because it requires demonstrating the existance of evil with realism, which is a problem for someone who is an anti-realist who thinks realism is unsound.

While atheists can make the typical arguments for the existance of evil, I see it as both futile, and unnecessary. Since the problem of evil is a very specialised argument anyway, it is only targeted at specific notions of God (tri omni), with a specific notion of evil. Because it's specific to only a few religions (Christianity/Islam/Etc.) then only the religion's internal consistency needs to be attacked.

As such...

1. Religion X is true (assumption)
2. If religion X is true, then God exists
3. If religion X is true, then evil exists
4. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
5. God exists (1&2)
6. Evil exists (1&3)
7. Evil does not exist (4&5)
8. Evil exists & evil does not exist (6&7) contradiction. 1 is false

Thus, ipwhile being more modest, it only requires that the atheist point out to the religious person that they are committed to believing evil exists because of their religious framework (a Christian that argues evil doesn't exist has a lot of circles to make square in their Bibles), thus the only premise that is desputable is P4, from which the standard PoE dialogue comes into play (since oremise 4 is a standard oremise in any PoE argument)

Thus, it is not necessary to personally accept moral realism to make such arguments in a valid and sound manner.

How is number 4 logical? Why cant evil and God exist? I do not know a single religious person who believes in god but does not believe in evil.

Yes, it's a standard bone of contention (which I already mentioned). Usually it's defended in a brute deductive manner. God is all good and all powerful, thus he would be both willing (and committed to, by his nature) and able to create a perfect world with nothing but good. A God that does not do with at cannot be all-good since that would intentionally cause less-optimal good, which violates the definition of "all-good".

If god was only good then God would not be omnipotent. God is the sum of all Good and Evil.

I think you mean he would not be omnibenevolent. (instead of omnipotent)

No I mean omnipotent which means all powerful. God must have the power to do evil or he is not omnipotent.

Okay. However, if he can do evil, then he would not be omnibenevolent, right?

Wrong, but it's a matter of how you look at the word. Benevolent means to do good. Omni means "all". So an Omnibenevolent god does all the good in the world. This does not mean he does not also do all the evil. Then again, it's not really our place to judge gods choices as good or evil.

We're going to disagree on this. Benevolent does not mean 'to do good' and it is not a verb. Someone who is benevolent (adjective) might do good, but that would be because of their nature, and not because of the actions themselves.

I have never seen omnibenevolent refer to anything other than 'all-loving, or infinitely good'. It is an adjective describing the nature of god, and again, not the actions of god. That being said, it sounds to me as if you're saying god is omnibenevolent AND omnimalevolent, and that makes no sense.

If you believe in the bible, it is obvious God uses evil to discipline people.

God, not chance, decides what happens in human affairs (Proverbs 16:33; compared with Jonah 1:7).

He uses heathen nations to accomplish the disciplining of His disobedient people (Isaiah 5:26; Amos 3:9-11; 6:14; Habakkuk 1:12).

Sometimes God sees to it that the worst of people are allowed to be exalted so that they may fulfil His purposes without their knowing it (Isaiah 10:5, Isaiah 10:7).

He uses even the enemies of His people to discipline them in their disobedience (Judges 2:14-15, Judges 2:21-23; Judges 2:3:12).

So as you can see God is not a saint that only does good, he is a teacher that uses his entire tool kit to get the job done.

I agree, according to the Bible, Yahweh does immoral (evil) things according to his own rules.

Here is the definition of benevolent.
adjective
1. characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings:
a benevolent attitude; her benevolent smile.
2. desiring to help others; charitable:
gifts from several benevolent alumni.
3. intended for benefits rather than profit:
a benevolent institution.

To be omni anything does not mean to be only that. It means to be all of that. If you think of Good and evil as two sides of a coin, god is the entire coin.

The problem arises when you apply benevolent AND malevolent to a single being. It is incoherent. Their nature can only one or the other, not both.

All you have to do to know that good and bad can coexist within one being is look at humans. There is no incoherence, maybe just a lack of understanding.
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 10:44:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 10:27:26 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/19/2015 10:19:15 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/19/2015 9:29:55 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:48:05 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:02:26 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:14:52 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:50:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:33:01 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:56:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:50:38 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am pretty much completely against typical problem of evil arguments, including the evidential problem of evil arguments because it requires demonstrating the existance of evil with realism, which is a problem for someone who is an anti-realist who thinks realism is unsound.

While atheists can make the typical arguments for the existance of evil, I see it as both futile, and unnecessary. Since the problem of evil is a very specialised argument anyway, it is only targeted at specific notions of God (tri omni), with a specific notion of evil. Because it's specific to only a few religions (Christianity/Islam/Etc.) then only the religion's internal consistency needs to be attacked.

As such...

1. Religion X is true (assumption)
2. If religion X is true, then God exists
3. If religion X is true, then evil exists
4. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
5. God exists (1&2)
6. Evil exists (1&3)
7. Evil does not exist (4&5)
8. Evil exists & evil does not exist (6&7) contradiction. 1 is false

Thus, ipwhile being more modest, it only requires that the atheist point out to the religious person that they are committed to believing evil exists because of their religious framework (a Christian that argues evil doesn't exist has a lot of circles to make square in their Bibles), thus the only premise that is desputable is P4, from which the standard PoE dialogue comes into play (since oremise 4 is a standard oremise in any PoE argument)

Thus, it is not necessary to personally accept moral realism to make such arguments in a valid and sound manner.

How is number 4 logical? Why cant evil and God exist? I do not know a single religious person who believes in god but does not believe in evil.

Yes, it's a standard bone of contention (which I already mentioned). Usually it's defended in a brute deductive manner. God is all good and all powerful, thus he would be both willing (and committed to, by his nature) and able to create a perfect world with nothing but good. A God that does not do with at cannot be all-good since that would intentionally cause less-optimal good, which violates the definition of "all-good".

If god was only good then God would not be omnipotent. God is the sum of all Good and Evil.

I think you mean he would not be omnibenevolent. (instead of omnipotent)

No I mean omnipotent which means all powerful. God must have the power to do evil or he is not omnipotent.

Okay. However, if he can do evil, then he would not be omnibenevolent, right?

Wrong, but it's a matter of how you look at the word. Benevolent means to do good. Omni means "all". So an Omnibenevolent god does all the good in the world. This does not mean he does not also do all the evil. Then again, it's not really our place to judge gods choices as good or evil.

If you believe in the bible, it is obvious God uses evil to discipline people.

God, not chance, decides what happens in human affairs (Proverbs 16:33; compared with Jonah 1:7).

He uses heathen nations to accomplish the disciplining of His disobedient people (Isaiah 5:26; Amos 3:9-11; 6:14; Habakkuk 1:12).

Sometimes God sees to it that the worst of people are allowed to be exalted so that they may fulfil His purposes without their knowing it (Isaiah 10:5, Isaiah 10:7).

He uses even the enemies of His people to discipline them in their disobedience (Judges 2:14-15, Judges 2:21-23; Judges 2:3:12).

So as you can see God is not a saint that only does good, he is a teacher that uses his entire tool kit to get the job done.

OK, explain then why God allows evil to happen to people who have done no wrong or at least nothing of any real significance? Why do babies get beaten and killed? Why do children get abused physically, sexually, and emotionally? If that's your God's way of 'discipline', it sucks and so does he.

First, I am not christian, or of any religion. That is a tough question but the best way i can answer it is that hell does exist right here on earth as does heaven. I tend to believe in some sense of Karma and that it follows you from life to life, but I would never use it to justify the atrocities you mention.

The nature of god is to be all things, look out into the world and you can see Gods nature. If you do not like it, maybe you are looking in the wrong places.

I don't selectively see what I want to, I've seen too much to just ignore the bad stuff. Obviously you don't believe in the bible or you would not have that karma idea, since it's nowhere mentioned. The simple fact is that if God exists and he is truly Alpha and Omega, he's a sadistic piece of bodily waste a millions of time over. For every blessing he supposedly bestows on his chosen, he visits 10 curses on those less favored. Nothing about that is holy or good. If he existed I would revile him at every turn and dare him to show himself and justify his actions. Oh, and don't say 'who are you to judge God?'. If he were real, I"d be one of his children and I despise absentee fathers and have the blackest hate in existence for abusive fathers. That's the relationship most believers have with their God.

I would say that if we tallied up all the good things and all the bad things in this world we would see a whole lot more good than bad. Unfortunately the media shows the outliers, the bad stuff. The fact is that most people live a life that is more good than evil. Also evil is only in the mind of men. If we struck humans from this planet and left everything else would there still be evil? Is a predator in the wild evil? Most would say no, but if the predator is a man, now that is considered evil.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 10:44:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 10:19:15 AM, drpiek wrote:

The nature of god is to be all things, look out into the world and you can see Gods nature. If you do not like it, maybe you are looking in the wrong places.

Not like it? Where do you get that silly notion? Perhaps, YOU are the one who doesn't like the fact nature doesn't reveal any gods, quite the contrary, nature shows us it has evolved entirely on it's own with only the physical laws affecting it.

If we're looking in the wrong places, where do you suggest we look?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 10:56:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 10:44:18 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/19/2015 10:27:26 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/19/2015 10:19:15 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/19/2015 9:29:55 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:48:05 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/19/2015 8:02:26 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:14:52 AM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:50:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/18/2015 9:33:01 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:56:54 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:50:38 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/18/2015 7:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
I am pretty much completely against typical problem of evil arguments, including the evidential problem of evil arguments because it requires demonstrating the existance of evil with realism, which is a problem for someone who is an anti-realist who thinks realism is unsound.

While atheists can make the typical arguments for the existance of evil, I see it as both futile, and unnecessary. Since the problem of evil is a very specialised argument anyway, it is only targeted at specific notions of God (tri omni), with a specific notion of evil. Because it's specific to only a few religions (Christianity/Islam/Etc.) then only the religion's internal consistency needs to be attacked.

As such...

1. Religion X is true (assumption)
2. If religion X is true, then God exists
3. If religion X is true, then evil exists
4. If God exists, then evil cannot exist
5. God exists (1&2)
6. Evil exists (1&3)
7. Evil does not exist (4&5)
8. Evil exists & evil does not exist (6&7) contradiction. 1 is false

Thus, ipwhile being more modest, it only requires that the atheist point out to the religious person that they are committed to believing evil exists because of their religious framework (a Christian that argues evil doesn't exist has a lot of circles to make square in their Bibles), thus the only premise that is desputable is P4, from which the standard PoE dialogue comes into play (since oremise 4 is a standard oremise in any PoE argument)

Thus, it is not necessary to personally accept moral realism to make such arguments in a valid and sound manner.

How is number 4 logical? Why cant evil and God exist? I do not know a single religious person who believes in god but does not believe in evil.

Yes, it's a standard bone of contention (which I already mentioned). Usually it's defended in a brute deductive manner. God is all good and all powerful, thus he would be both willing (and committed to, by his nature) and able to create a perfect world with nothing but good. A God that does not do with at cannot be all-good since that would intentionally cause less-optimal good, which violates the definition of "all-good".

If god was only good then God would not be omnipotent. God is the sum of all Good and Evil.

I think you mean he would not be omnibenevolent. (instead of omnipotent)

No I mean omnipotent which means all powerful. God must have the power to do evil or he is not omnipotent.

Okay. However, if he can do evil, then he would not be omnibenevolent, right?

Wrong, but it's a matter of how you look at the word. Benevolent means to do good. Omni means "all". So an Omnibenevolent god does all the good in the world. This does not mean he does not also do all the evil. Then again, it's not really our place to judge gods choices as good or evil.

If you believe in the bible, it is obvious God uses evil to discipline people.

God, not chance, decides what happens in human affairs (Proverbs 16:33; compared with Jonah 1:7).

He uses heathen nations to accomplish the disciplining of His disobedient people (Isaiah 5:26; Amos 3:9-11; 6:14; Habakkuk 1:12).

Sometimes God sees to it that the worst of people are allowed to be exalted so that they may fulfil His purposes without their knowing it (Isaiah 10:5, Isaiah 10:7).

He uses even the enemies of His people to discipline them in their disobedience (Judges 2:14-15, Judges 2:21-23; Judges 2:3:12).

So as you can see God is not a saint that only does good, he is a teacher that uses his entire tool kit to get the job done.

OK, explain then why God allows evil to happen to people who have done no wrong or at least nothing of any real significance? Why do babies get beaten and killed? Why do children get abused physically, sexually, and emotionally? If that's your God's way of 'discipline', it sucks and so does he.

First, I am not christian, or of any religion. That is a tough question but the best way i can answer it is that hell does exist right here on earth as does heaven. I tend to believe in some sense of Karma and that it follows you from life to life, but I would never use it to justify the atrocities you mention.

The nature of god is to be all things, look out into the world and you can see Gods nature. If you do not like it, maybe you are looking in the wrong places.

I don't selectively see what I want to, I've seen too much to just ignore the bad stuff. Obviously you don't believe in the bible or you would not have that karma idea, since it's nowhere mentioned. The simple fact is that if God exists and he is truly Alpha and Omega, he's a sadistic piece of bodily waste a millions of time over. For every blessing he supposedly bestows on his chosen, he visits 10 curses on those less favored. Nothing about that is holy or good. If he existed I would revile him at every turn and dare him to show himself and justify his actions. Oh, and don't say 'who are you to judge God?'. If he were real, I"d be one of his children and I despise absentee fathers and have the blackest hate in existence for abusive fathers. That's the relationship most believers have with their God.

I would say that if we tallied up all the good things and all the bad things in this world we would see a whole lot more good than bad. Unfortunately the media shows the outliers, the bad stuff. The fact is that most people live a life that is more good than evil. Also evil is only in the mind of men. If we struck humans from this planet and left everything else would there still be evil? Is a predator in the wild evil? Most would say no, but if the predator is a man, now that is considered evil.

False analogy. A predator kills to eat and survive. Men kill for greed, revenge, and some just for the pleasure of the kill. Evil requires sapience, awareness of self as an individual entity and awareness of other self-aware and intelligent entities.

Have you ever even looked at all the starving people in the world? Hell, one in five children in THIS country don't know where their next meal is coming from. Have you ever seen the look on the face of an abused child, the bewilderment, the confusion, wondering what he or she did wrong? Get a real look a things and tell me your supposed God is anything but a jerk, if he truly exists. Personally, I'd be ashamed to show my face too, if I were him. Fortunately he's nothing more then the invention of a primitive people to ignorant to know why things happened and desperate to find a way to protect