So firstly here is a quote from my post, added to illustrate that I predicted your response, and you did precisely what I had said you would, tried to justify the presence of suffering as necessary, even though I pointed out this doesn't address the paradox of theodicy.
The next rationalisation is usually to assert that some suffering is necessary, but of course whilst that is true in reality, it would not be true for a hypothetical deity with literally limitless power, as
@Subduction Zone pointed out, with all the omnis.
In the context of the thread - maybe - BUT not in my scenario!
In my scenario - there is a reason God is choosing not to intervene.
Well of course failing to solve theodicy most apologists rationalise this paradox, nonetheless the paradox remains.
When there is a valid reason - your context, your claim and your demand are all nullified!
Well the fact you have decided your rationalisation is a valid answer doesn't make it so, there is a reason theodicy has remained unsolved for millennia. These are not my demands btw, theodicy existed before Christianity.
Like I said earlier - God's kingdom is like an ocean and if he has a valid reason then an all "omni" God can choose not to be "omnipresent" in a space equivalent to one single drop and have his angels run the affairs.
Yes I read it, a very poor argument since it involves choosing to allow ubiquitous suffering, and thus doesn't remotely address theodicy at all.
you won't accept that because you may demand to know the reason for God's noninvolvement with clear-cut evidence!
Well it's clear your claim is an unevidenced rationalisation of course, but for the sake of argument lets say it were true, it doesn't solve theodicy at all, as again you have just imagined a scenario where a deity that
chooses to allow ubiquitous suffering.
Wrong premise and thus wrong conclusion!
Like I said - just because God is all knowing, all powerful and all good - does not require him to be actively involved in all day to day affairs
Of course it would, if such a deity allowed suffering it could easily prevent, then it is paradoxical to claim it is omni-benevolent. This is what theodicy has been trying to address for millennia.
Can we demand more? Can we demand answers and protection?
We are in a debate forum? Demanding answers would seem to be entirely the point.
After failing now we need to do better by "believing" without "empirical evidence".
Circular reasoning fallacy is always the result when you start by assuming your conclusion in your first premise. However this is again irrelevant to the paradox within theodicy.
Anyhow the only way to explain why a God with limitless knowledge, power and goodness can still decide to allow suffering etc. - was to point out a few things. I know it was unnecessary because you are only seeking empirical evidence and what I wrote sounds like hypothesis! But evidence is out there. If you seek it you may find it!
Theodicy is a paradox, your claims here fail to solve that paradox, the fact you have demonstrated no evidence for the claims is irrelevant to that.
You are quoting Epicurus, so obviously his words makes sense to you. So, you do accept "word of mouth" when it suits your logic. I think he was only trying to change the belief in the quality of God and not negate it entirely!
Epicurus was presenting an argument, it makes no claims, only scrutinises a belief, and then infers a rational conclusion.
Anyhow, Epicurus logic was flawed! IMO
God can prevent Evil if he so chooses. Evil is a byproduct of temptation. Temptations creates a need and curiosity and greed and suspicion and when you can't get what you were tempted for - it creates desperation and that leads to rash and extreme behavior etc. etc. and thus evil is created.
Evil is a subjective perception, and this doesn't represent any flaw in Epicurus's argument at all. Since the argument addresses the paradox in some people's conception of a deity, not the fallibility of one species of evolved primates. Which would be irrelevant to characteristics like omnipotence omniscience and omnibenevolence.
So, God can take away the reason for temptations by fulfilling all our needs but why should he do so if we don't deserve it?
You seem to be missing the point again. You're trying to rationalise why such a deity would choose to allow suffering, but that isn't relevant, as it doesn't solve theodicy. It's a paradox, it likely has no rational solution.
Anyhow, remember - you are thinking with your human prospective.
As are you, we cannot do otherwise, however the paradox remains, and as such makes the concept an irrational one, as it violates the law of non contradiction.
You are not looking from God's prospective.
It doesn't matter, what is being addressed is a specific concept of a deity, that some people imagine exists, and in a world with ubiquitous suffering this creates a paradox, you can't rationalise this away. Though of course I am under no obligation to indulge subjective beliefs others hold, in order to rationalise this paradox.
However, I believe anyone who decides to ignore God and his directives while alive - will willingly forfeit their position in God's immediate kingdom after transitioning out if this existence. They will fail the test and thus there won't be any need for their presence there any longer. IMO. What else can you do with such rejects?
Maybe a deity is testing us to wheedle out the most gullible? I doubt it, but anyone can imagine unevidenced scenarios and pick one they like. Though again this does absolutely nothing to address the paradox of theodicy.
what is your position? How do you explain "suffering"?
In what sense? That suffering exists is manifest. Given species evolution and natural mechanisms like natural selection are insentient unguided process, why would suffering need an explanation?
Obviously it seems you don't accept anything without evidence. So, for lack of evidence - do you reject God as well? In that case - can you explain where the consciousness came from?
Well this is whataboutism of course, not having a contrary explanation to a belief doesn't lend that belief any credence. Though it is a fact that human consciousness is only ever present when there is a functioning human brain, when that physical brain dies that consciousness disappears forever in every single case.
So, do you feel your position is better than a theists' position from any major religion? It seems you feel evidence is on your side and so you feel to counter your opponent by comparing their belief in a creator with examples such as mermaids and unicorns! Bravo!
I don't know what you mean by better here? Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any deity or deities, thus it no more requires evidence than your lack of belief in Santa Claus. If these analogous comparisons bother you, you might want to consider why beyond hurt pride?
Anyhow, continue with what comes naturally to you. Continue demanding evidence!
I demand nothing, a claim incurs a burden of proof, and beliefs are the affirmation of a claim. When asserted publicly in a debate forum, I'm not sure what result you expect beyond debate?
Like I said earlier - (in the mean time) be prepared to fade away into your nothingness
when it's time! I know that is the only useful suggestion you can receive from this entire post!
It is about as useless a suggestion as one could imagine, when offered to someone who lends the belief in imaginary posthumous torture chambers no credence whatsoever. This lame threat has always made me smile tbh, as while some do seem to relish this prospect, it has always struck me as a particularly vapid threat, and speaks volumes about the many claims so many theists make that their religion is a religion of love. It seems religions have a tendency to make otherwise good people believe or accept deeply pernicious ideas, even relish the prospect, a little sad really. Though of course some theists don't do this, or at least manage not to show it.
