The problem of evil; is it evidence for God's nonexistence?

[firedragon]

It does disprove the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God

There you have input "omnipotent and omnibenevolent". that's your input, not mine. So it's not relevant to this thread.

 

[Koldo]

No it doesnt. Will cut and paste an old answer rather than typing out the same thing.

That can only prove he is holding the wrong view. Maximum. Just because you disprove someones position, that does not prove non-existence of God. It's not logical, and is already said in the OP.

But the wrong view of what?
Perhaps it is you who's calling God what is not God?

 

[Ella S.]

There you have input "omnipotent and omnibenevolent". that's your input, not mine. So it's not relevant to this thread.

Those specific qualities are the crux of what causes the Problem of Evil. You can't talk about the Problem of Evil without mentioning the qualities of omnipotence and omnibenevolence, because their conflict is what causes the Problem of Evil to begin with.

You mention the Problem of Evil both in this thread's title and body, and you ask if it is evidence for God's nonexistence.

I said that it is evidence for God's nonexistence, if God uses the above definition of the terms that are closely tied to the Problem of Evil.

I don't think you can just tell me that my posts are irrelevant to a thread when you don't like what I'm saying.

 

[firedragon]

Those specific qualities are the crux of what causes the Problem of Evil.

I understand what you are saying. But what you are not understanding is, it can only make a case that "God is not as you defined" to a theist who defines God as such. That's the only case this argument can do. It cannot posit itself as an attempt at proving God does not exist.

 

[firedragon]

But the wrong view of what?

God.

Perhaps it is you who's calling God what is not God?

I didn't call God anything in this thread. So, you see Koldo. You are trying to build a caricature I don't adhere to in this topic and the topic is not what you wish to build. What you are trying to do is a build a strawman to attack because that is what you are used to doing. Many people are.

This argument can never show up as an argument for the non-existence of God. It can only make an attempt at changing someone's definition of God. Thats the only thing it can attempt to do. So if you read the OP again, you are building an irrelevant topic.

 

[Stevicus]

I understand what you are saying. But what you are not understanding is, it can only make a case that "God is not as you defined" to a theist who defines God as such. That's the only case this argument can do. It cannot posit itself as an attempt at proving God does not exist.

No, it can't prove that "god" does not exist, and I think most of the respondents in this thread have said as much. In that sense, your OP was as obvious as saying "water is wet." But even when people are agreeing with the premise of your OP, you keep saying that it's irrelevant.

Are you just trying to play games, or what's your actual goal in starting this thread?

 

[firedragon]

No, it can't prove that "god" does not exist, and I think most of the respondents in this thread have said as much. In that sense, your OP was as obvious as saying "water is wet." But even when people are agreeing with the premise of your OP, you keep saying that it's irrelevant.

Are you just trying to play games, or what's your actual goal in starting this thread?

Thanks for your commentary.

No, it can't prove that "god" does not exist

Agreed.

 

[Link]

It is a very arbitrary, entirely unsupported belief.

Many Surahs offer different angles of proofs for hell in Quran. Some of them are very similar, and some arguments are distinct from one another. So it's very well supported.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, I'm going to be honest here and say that the Problem of Evil has been solved by theology for a long time, and they do this by arguing for constrained definitions of both all-powerful and all-good.

Theologians argue that it is better to have free will and suffer than no free will and not suffer, and that free will logically entails suffering, because "goodness" cannot exist unless it is a choice made over "evil."

They also posit that God cannot do incoherent or impossible things, like making a squared circle, but can do anything that is conceivable and coherent.

In this way, God is still both omnibenevolent and omnipotent in the way that theologians define those terms.

Yeah... I've heard people make these sorts of arguments, but they end up just replacing one problem for many others. For instance, if this universe is maximally good and anything better would involve a contradiction, then:

1. it would be not only futile but counter-productive for any human being to try to improve anything. Even if it might seem that feeding the hungry or fighting cancer might make things better, they won't. Charity is evil.

2. despite the point above, every action humans have ever done is perfectly morally neutral. Since the universe has been maximally good from when God created it until right now, nothing that anyone has ever done has "moved the needle" on the goodness of the universe up or down at all.

3. any punishment (by God or otherwise) would necessarily be unjust. Since it would be logically impossible for humans to do better (point #1) and since nothing humans have ever done is morally bad (point #2), punishing any person for anything they've ever done would be contrary to justice.

IMO, the claim that the Problem of Evil is "solved" because anything better than what we have would be impossible might help reassure a few unthinking Christians, but if we think about the implications of the claim for more than two minutes, we can see that it's deeply irrational and more than a little gaslighty.

 

[Link]

Does might make right?

No, but if might and right are combined, it's better not to argue and trick ourselves out of it right?

 

[LuisDantas]

Many Surahs offer different angles of proofs for hell in Quran. Some of them are very similar, and some arguments are distinct from one another. So it's very well supported.

Perhaps if you take for granted that the Qur'an is correct.

Otherwise, no.

 

[Stevicus]

Thanks for your commentary.



Agreed.

So, that's it? Nothing else?

 

[Link]

Perhaps if you take for granted that the Qur'an is correct.

Otherwise, no.

It has proofs regardless if Quran is true or not, these proofs are proven by reason. Hell is an independent belief. It's not require you to believe in Quran.

 

[firedragon]

So, that's it? Nothing else?

Yes. Unless you want me to say something else.

 

[Koldo]

God.



I didn't call God anything in this thread. So, you see Koldo. You are trying to build a caricature I don't adhere to in this topic and the topic is not what you wish to build. What you are trying to do is a build a strawman to attack because that is what you are used to doing. Many people are.

This argument can never show up as an argument for the non-existence of God. It can only make an attempt at changing someone's definition of God. Thats the only thing it can attempt to do. So if you read the OP again, you are building an irrelevant topic.

The argument disproves the existence of what the argument calls God. You are calling something else God when you say that it is wrong to call the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being as God. The argument doesn't intend to disprove the existence of things that other people (such as you) call God. The argument doesn't seek to change anyone's definition of God either, although that may happen when the theist that had the same definition as laid out in the argument can't find a solution to the logical problem, or the theist can also become an atheist.

 

[Koldo]

No, but if might and right are combined, it's better not to argue and trick ourselves out of it right?

But I don't agree he is right.

 

[firedragon]

The argument disproves the existence of what the argument calls God. You are calling something else God

You calling one definition of God, attacking that definition, does not prove the non-existence of God. No way.

Read the OP. It's already there. So whats gonna happen is repeating the same thing for pleasure. So I shall stop now. Thanks for engaging.

 

[LuisDantas]

It has proofs regardless if Quran is true or not, these proofs are proven by reason. Hell is an independent belief. It's not require you to believe in Quran.

I really don't see how that would work.

 

[Koldo]

You calling one definition of God, attacking that definition, does not prove the non-existence of God. No way.

As far as the argument is concerned, that's the only definition that matters though. Your criticism is applicable to every single argument ever: If the reader proceeds to use a different definition for any given term in any given argument than the one the speaker intended to be used the obvious consequence is that the argument won't lead to the intended conclusion.

As far as the argument goes, anything that is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent is not God. Whether you yourself call other things God has nothing to do with whether the conclusion of the argument is correct.

 

[firedragon]

As far as the argument is concerned, that's the only definition that matters though.

Still, for the 5th time maybe, it can only try to assert that "your idea of your God is wrong". That's all it can do.

Lets say someone believes his father is a great guy, and a patriot, but an outsider accuses his father is not a patriot, neither is he a great guy, all he can do is assert the idea this person has about his father is wrong. That's all.

Generally philosophical atheists (not like these internet missionary atheists) don't make the argument you are making. It's illogical, that's the reason.

Ciao.