Answering Atheists

[nPeace]

I am a global skeptic. The wise thing to do in our tradition back to Socrates is to admit when we don't know.
And to understand that this applies to us all:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras.
Measure is about good and bad and what matters and what doesn't.

So I don't know about good and bad, I state what I subjectively believe.

Thanks for sharing, but that does not answer my question.
Perhaps you just felt like making a claim, but have no basis for it?

 

[Sheldon]

Like you,
Epicurus assumed he has all the facts. You both don't.

I can't speak for Epicurus. unlike you, but I have not assumed that, at all. IN fact I'm pretty sure I specified this was an argument against a deity that possessed those attributes to show the contradictory nature of such a deity.

Place the comment in the hypothetical, rather that separating and isolating it. Maybe then it will make sense.

What has that to do with you comparing fallible humans to omniscient and omnipotent deities?

God does not exclude his wisdom, to act powerfully.
They all work together, in harmony.

What has this unevidenced straw man to do with the example I offered? The example I gave and that Epicurus's argument addresses is a deity whose attributes contradict the reality of ubiquitous suffering, that bare claim addresses neither Epicurus's argument or my post.

Wrong. I explained. Look at it a second time, see if you understand.
If you don't, I'll make it as elementary as possible.

Your explanation didn't address it, just make a string of unevidenced assertions about a deity that didn't address the problem of theodicy in the context I had offered, and amount to a begging the question fallacy.

Like a skilled soccer player,

Oh dear, are soccer players omniscient or omnipotent? These analogies are too facile to have any relevance. I don't care what you believe about any deity in this context either as they have no relevance, as the argument was addressing a hypothetical deity that possessed those specific characteristics, maybe if you look up omnipotent and omniscient it will help you understand?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thanks for sharing, but that does not answer my question.
Perhaps you just felt like making a claim, but have no basis for it?

Yeah, for justification we have Agrippa's trilemma. I am sure you have solved that one, so there is a Nobel Prize in that, since you could prove God even to the atheists.

 

[Sheldon]

I don't know where you got that, or where you are forming these opinions from.

I may have misread this, in which case I apologise of course.

We can commend all the persons that stop at line 3 (Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?), and takes a humble attitude, rather than prideful arrogance, and we do, because many have, and continue to ask the question.,, Is God both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? ...and they get the answer, which is quite satisfactory.

I hope Epicurus was one of those.

 

[nPeace]

I can't speak for Epicurus. unlike you, but I have not assumed that, at all. IN fact I'm pretty sure I specified this was an argument against a deity that possessed those attributes to show the contradictory nature of such a deity.



What has that to do with you comparing fallible humans to omniscient and omnipotent deities?



What has this unevidenced straw man to do with the example I offered? The example I gave and that Epicurus's argument addresses is a deity whose attributes contradict the reality of ubiquitous suffering, that bare claim addresses neither Epicurus's argument or my post.


Your explanation didn't address it, just make a string of unevidenced assertions about a deity that didn't address the problem of theodicy, and amount a begging the question fallacy.


Oh dear, are soccer players omniscient or omnipotent? These analogies are too facile to have any relevance. I don't care what you believe about any deity in this context either as they have no relevance, as the argument was addressing a hypothetical deity that possessed those specific characteristics, maybe if you look up omnipotent and omniscient it will help you understand?

So in a nutshell, you are only interested in a deity that is both omniscient and omnipotent, but don't care about anything else of that deity's nature.
My apologies. I thought you had in mind the deity mentioned in the Bible. Forgive me, we are on two differnt pages. I was not discussing the deity you have in mind. Sorry.

 

[nPeace]

Yeah, for justification we have Agrippa's trilemma. I am sure you have solved that one, so there is a Nobel Prize in that, since you could prove God even to the atheists.

There is a thread... in fact more than one, that is currently looking at that evidence, if you are interested. I can direct you to them if you like.

 

[nPeace]

I may have misread this, in which case I apologise of course.

What did you get from it, can I ask?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is a thread... in fact more than one, that is currently looking at that evidence, if you are interested. I can direct you to them if you like.

No, just write it down and submit it to enough scientific and philosophical sites, that you have solved Agrippa's trilemma.

 

[nPeace]

No, just write it down and submit it to enough scientific and philosophical sites, that you have solved Agrippa's trilemma.

That would mean that I do not accept what you do... that the wise admit the limits of human knowledge, because then I would be saying that they know everything, and I have to go to them in all things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That would mean that I do not accept what you do... that the wise admit the limits of human knowledge, because then I would be saying that they know everything, and I have to go to them in all things.

So you won't tell to the world that you have solved a 2000 years problem? Okay.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you won't tell to the world that you have solved a 2000 years problem? Okay.

One will always get odd answers from those that believe in the world champion hide and go seek winner.

 

[Sheldon]

So in a nutshell, you are only interested in a deity that is both omniscient and omnipotent,

Well in this context that is what my post was addressing.

but don't care about anything else of that deity's nature.

Well I am an atheist, so I don't believe in any deity or deities, and unless objective evidence can be demsonrate for a deity, and of course for any attributes assigned them, then my objection is hypothetical and rational as it was here.

I thought you had in mind the deity mentioned in the Bible.

Not necessarily, as theists hold wildly differing beliefs in the deity depicted in the bible.

 

[nPeace]

So you won't tell to the world that you have solved a 2000 years problem? Okay.

Not me. I haven't done anything. It's a collective number that has been doing so for over a century... and yes, we do tell the world. We proclaim it far and wide, even when it falls on deaf ears... and we will be doing so until the work is done.
Have you not heard? I'm surely not to blame for that.

 

[Sheldon]

Not me. I haven't done anything. It's a collective number that has been doing so for over a century... and yes, we do tell the world. We proclaim it far and wide, even when it falls on deaf ears... and we will be doing so until the work is done.
Have you not heard? I'm surely not to blame for that.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about theodicy, and if you think you've solved that, then you should let the Pope and the RCC know, I imagine they'd be very interested. I'll keep an eye on The Catholic Herald to see if they confirm your hubris.

 

[nPeace]

I'm pretty sure he was talking about theodicy, and if you think you've solved that, then you should let the Pope and the RCC know, I imagine they'd be very interested. I'll keep an eye on The Catholic Herald to see if they confirm your hubris.

Are you Christian, or Atheist?
If the later, then the hubris is not at my end, because you should be silent on matters you are clueless about.
If the former, then you should know that there are those who are followers of Jesus Christ, and there are those who claim to be.
Those who can't tell the difference, cannot be followers of Christ. It's written in the Bible.
To be ignorant of that, and claim to not be, is again, not hubris on this end.

 

[Sheldon]

Are you Christian, or Atheist?

It's in my profile...

If the later, then the hubris is not at my end, because you should be silent on matters you are clueless about.

If you understood a simple sentence you'd see how asinine that claim is, as I made no claim about theodicy, the hubris of you calming to have solved a theological dilemma that theologians have struggled with for millennia, is self evident.

Your hubris was a puzzle, but now I see you don't even understand theodicy even at it's most basic level, less so.

 

[Sheldon]

There is a thread... in fact more than one, that is currently looking at that evidence, if you are interested. I can direct you to them if you like.

Please link any thread on here that contains any objective evidence for any deity...in fact just post what you think is the most compelling evidence you have for any deity, why waste time and energy claiming it exists or linking it.

 

[nPeace]

Please link any thread on here that contains any objective evidence for any deity...in fact just post what you think is the most compelling evidence you have for any deity, why waste time and energy claiming it exists or linking it.

Please explain what objective evidence is. I ask because people tend to define things differently.
Do you accept this definition?
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Or do you have a different one?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please explain what objective evidence is. I ask because people tend to define things differently.
Do you accept this definition?
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Or do you have a different one?

Quibbling about the definition of "objective evidence" rather than just providing evidence does not strike me as something that someone with strong evidence would do.

 

[nPeace]

Quibbling about the definition of "objective evidence" rather than just providing evidence does not strike me as something that someone with strong evidence would do.

That's your opinion. What does that have to do with anything?