The Problem of Evil

[CynthiaCypher]

It is. But you made both of us speak pointlessly since you didn't even agree with a common ground for debate in the first place.

What common ground? The strawman that atheist created? Here is some news for you...not every theist believes that God is omnibenevolent. And since you have deigned to use the Argument from Evil as proof against theism period, so you have to contend with these theist also.

 

[cottage]

Logically absurd? Let me clue you in about the world we live, everyone of us, and I mean every living being on this planet needs to eat. And when us creatures eat, we usually need to eat other organisms. And usually when we eat these organisms, they are killed somewhere during the process and some of thsoe organism that get killed during this process have highly complex nervous systems, so they suffer in the process.

So yes not only does the greater good i.e life depend upon the suffering of the few, life depends on the suffering of the many. These are the cold hard facts, not a logical absurdity.

You're thinking and the thinking of your compatriots in this arguement that it should be otherwise is the logical absurdity.

I’m quite aware of the basic science and the reality of what is necessary to survive. But while the killing of animals for food might sustain us I don’t for a minute believe that amounts to achieving a ‘greater good’ in any moral sense. Rather, we are simply doing what we need to do in order to survive. And in any case that doesn’t answer the question of human suffering.

In relative terms it can be said to be ‘good’ to cut off the hand of a man who is trapped in revolving farm machinery, which would otherwise drag him into the mechanism causing his death. So, yes, minor or lesser suffering is frequently used to alleviate an even greater suffering, but that only serves to confirm the problem, which is that great suffering exists. And as there is no logical necessity to compel God to create suffering it follows that there is no contradiction in God creating a world without it. But a contradiction is implied if an argument is made from the converse position. Therefore to argue for suffering, at any level, in order to introduce what we perceive as ‘good’ is just begging the question.

 

[adi2d]

You want God to intervene and take chance and uncertainty out of equation. That is not only unreasonable but absurd.

Without murder and rape there would be no uncertainty? That seems unreasonable and absurd

I didn't say I wanted God to do anything. I simply saw a way for us to have free will and not have the evil that murder and rape brings to our world

Do you believe that God intervenes in our lives?

 

[Koldo]

What common ground? The strawman that atheist created?

The premises of the problem of evil.

Here is some news for you...not every theist believes that God is omnibenevolent.

I know that very well.
It doesn't apply to a god that cares more about something other than maximizing the well-being that exists.

And since you have deigned to use the Argument from Evil as proof against theism period, so you have to contend with these theist also.

Proof against theism?
When did i say that the problem of evil is proof against theism?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I am not trying to figure out God, this is about the Problem of Evil, it has to do with an argument that certain people make.

I'd have to see certain people's argument in order to comment. There is no problem of evil for me, since I don't believe in a conscious Being whom we label as 'God'.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Do you believe that God intervenes in our lives?

I have already said I believe God intervenes very little, subtly, mostly through human agency and without breaking the laws of physics.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I’m quite aware of the basic science and the reality of what is necessary to survive. But while the killing of animals for food might sustain us I don’t for a minute believe that amounts to achieving a ‘greater good’ in any moral sense. Rather, we are simply doing what we need to do in order to survive. And in any case that doesn’t answer the question of human suffering.

In relative terms it can be said to be ‘good’ to cut off the hand of a man who is trapped in revolving farm machinery, which would otherwise drag him into the mechanism causing his death. So, yes, minor or lesser suffering is frequently used to alleviate an even greater suffering, but that only serves to confirm the problem, which is that great suffering exists. And as there is no logical necessity to compel God to create suffering it follows that there is no contradiction in God creating a world without it. But a contradiction is implied if an argument is made from the converse position. Therefore to argue for suffering, at any level, in order to introduce what we perceive as ‘good’ is just begging the question.

Well maybe God is more of a utilitarian than a moralist?

Maybe life itself is the greatest and highest good.

We live in a physical universe, animals such as ourselves are just as much subject to the laws of energy conversion as any other thing is. When we eat, things both die and suffer. Without that death, without that suffering we would starve to death.

There are no animals exempt from the laws of physics, not even humans.

 

[cottage]

Well maybe God is more of a utilitarian than a moralist?

Maybe life itself is the greatest and highest good.

We live in a physical universe, animals such as ourselves are just as much subject to the laws of energy conversion as any other thing is. When we eat, things both die and suffer. Without that death, without that suffering we would starve to death.

There are no animals exempt from the laws of physics, not even humans.

But aren't you saying it is your God that put these physical laws in place? And if he is the omnipotent creator then these physical laws could have been otherwise. But I have to admit that if God is a utilitarian deity as you suggest, rather than a moral being, then there is certainly no contradiction; for what we have in general experience is entirely consistent with that view.

 

[Koldo]

But aren't you saying it is your God that put these physical laws in place? And if he is the omnipotent creator then these physical laws could have been otherwise. But I have to admit that if God is a utilitarian deity as you suggest, rather than a moral being, then there is certainly no contradiction; for what we have in general experience is entirely consistent with that view.

I don't follow.
What do you mean by 'utilitarian deity'?

 

[gree0232]

Either the concept of God is intelligible and explicable, or it is not. But if it is not then it follows that every argument you make to God is outside the bounds of logic. Therefore your statement ‘an omnipotent being can do anything’ becomes ‘No omnipotent being can do anything’, to give just one example; and there is no contradiction since on that account the Aristotelian laws of thought no longer apply, and even the term ‘omnipotent’ itself is derived of meaning. But we cannot deny what we are all agreed upon, which is that evil and suffering exists. And hence ‘There is no omnibenevolent being’ is inductively true notwithstanding any objection as a special plea to the irrational.

Are you attempting to make a case? Or merely reject something so that you can adhere to your belief that the Problem of Evil somehow disproves God?

Omnipotence has nothing to do with the definition of God does it? It has to do with the concept of omnipotence. The ability to anything - and logically, that means ANYTHING.

It the conundrum you waltzed into without actually challenging what you thought. That, "AHA, I have you now," in which atheists think they have us? You don't. Anything you think CAN be done can indeed be done. Anything you think can't be do, CAN be done anyway.

Inanity is not a illogical term, but is a state where rational exploration makes little sense and yields no results ... and is a bit pointless.

Seriously, have you ever tried to reason with an insane person? Something like, dude, that wall is yellow! No, its not ... its baseball!

Omnipotence merely describes what a defined God CAN do not what he WILL DO.

And scripture is very clear - God CAN do anything, he WILL DO only some things.

So again, what are you attempting to prove? That God is NOT doing some of the things he states he will not do? Well ... that is not exactly a strong disproof of God is it?

Which is exactly the point Cynthia makes IN THE OP.

With respect I see a circular argument there, where the conclusion is the same as the opening premise. It is also an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). Omnibenevolence is neither logcally demonstrable nor empirically evident. It is not true in any sense.

You'd be correct, they are circular logic. Which is why applying logical reasoning to them is pointless. Which is kind of the point I have been making for 24 hours now. Are you agreeing with me?

Its not an argument from ignorance, we know what omnipotence is: the ability to do ANYTHING.

Omnibenevolance may rock your mind, but if its true ... your mind being rocked by something that YOU think is wrong that actually isn't?

Welcome to the Problem of Infinity - where you can infinitely waste time attempting to find something that an omni-whatever cannot do ... and then having to conclude he can do it anyway.

Its why Cynthia, in the OP, states that this does not disprove God. Millennia of argument about the problem of evil has done what to disprove God? Nothing.

So, please explain, why do atheists think this disproves God when simply accepted on faith? Have you ever seen someone loose their faith because of the Problem of Evil? Particularly when our faith is littered with explanation for suffering that atheists, in this very discussion, are having to concede the necessity of?

So, exactly how does this disprove God? And as we acknowledge that its circular logic now? You tell me what it means to have the infinite exercise of power? Boundless power with no limitations?

How does that disprove God?

Simply put, it doesn't.

 

[gree0232]

Can you choose to fly at this moment?
I mean, literally, without the use of anything else other than your own body.

Perhaps you could say: yes. But still you wouldn't be able to fly at will regardless.

So, to say that we have free will means that free will doesn't depend on us being able to make certain choices, such as being able to fly at will.

Being unable to fly is a shortcoming of our bodies. What if being unable to rape or murder was also a shortcoming of our bodies? Think about it.

But more to the point of this post, what is wrong with god not letting humans ( as we are ) make certain choices? Humans do that to each other all the time. Why is it acceptable for humans to do it to themselves but not acceptable if god does it?

Ummm ... why do I need to be able to fly to prove that God and not me is omnipotent?

Additionally, your previous post is rapidly careening toward absurdity. When people make points and support them, you cannot simply reject them by asking why it has to be that way. That pretty much tells us that all your are doing is being contrarian.

So, support your own question.

Why is promiscuity BETTER or EQUAL to committed, healthy, and loving relationships? Why SHOULD anonymous sex with strangers, rather than loving relationships and families, have the same consequences?

Its pretty self evident that they don't.

Simply asking why that is ... isn't proof that it is not.

So, once again, atheists, you have to prove your claims. If your claim is that all forms of sexuality should be equal and not have consequences ... well, tell that to Catherine the Great (at least the rumors of her unseemly demise at any rate).

 

[gree0232]

But aren't you saying it is your God that put these physical laws in place? And if he is the omnipotent creator then these physical laws could have been otherwise. But I have to admit that if God is a utilitarian deity as you suggest, rather than a moral being, then there is certainly no contradiction; for what we have in general experience is entirely consistent with that view.

Oh? There is neither good nor evil now?

So the rape/tortures I captured were post moral?

The guys I found rebuilding homes after a battle were also post moral?

Charity and rape are now the same thing?

And what is entirely absent your claim there is what matters about good and evil - choice.

Right back to freewill aren't we? And whether granting it is good or bad? Evil or Moral.

So far, I see no case being made that its 'correct' to deny choice to everyone because some will abuse it.

Indeed, women in the 1950's were ostensibly less sexualized and suffered sexual abuse (particularly rape) than they do now (especially after the sexual revolution).

So, because porn is now addictive, because sexual violence is increasing, should be bar Marissa Myers from being a CEO because giving her that opportunity takes her out of the house where we can no longer protect her?

That is your conundrum.

How this disproves God? No friggin' idea.

 

[Koldo]

Ummm ... why do I need to be able to fly to prove that God and not me is omnipotent?

You missed the point. Completely.

You are unable to fly, and yet you have free will.
You are unable to do something, and yet you have free will.
That was the point.

Additionally, your previous post is rapidly careening toward absurdity. When people make points and support them, you cannot simply reject them by asking why it has to be that way. That pretty much tells us that all your are doing is being contrarian.

So, support your own question.

Why is promiscuity BETTER or EQUAL to committed, healthy, and loving relationships? Why SHOULD anonymous sex with strangers, rather than loving relationships and families, have the same consequences?

When did you support any of these things? You lost me here.

On my view, "promiscuity" is not wrong at all.
Imagine I told you that looking at a cloudy sky is wrong. You would be baffled at my statement since you wouldn't see any reason to think there is anything wrong with looking at a cloudy sky. Consider that I also haven't told you why looking at a cloudy sky is wrong. I am in a similar situation here. I have no idea what is wrong with being promiscuous in itself.

I never said they should have the same consequences. I see no reason as to why they should have bad consequences, such as STDs. That's what I said.

Its pretty self evident that they don't.

Simply asking why that is ... isn't proof that it is not.

So, once again, atheists, you have to prove your claims. If your claim is that all forms of sexuality should be equal and not have consequences ... well, tell that to Catherine the Great (at least the rumors of her unseemly demise at any rate).

It is not proof that is not. You are correct.
But the same applies to merely claiming that something is wrong.
It is not a proof either.

Please, entertain me: What is my claim?

 

[Willamena]

You are unable to fly, and yet you have free will.
You are unable to do something, and yet you have free will.
That was the point.

Free will needn't allow impossibilities.

Nothing need allow that.

 

[Koldo]

Free will needn't allow impossibilities.

Nothing need allow that.

Correct, once again.
Which is not a problem at all.
That's actually my point.

 

[Willamena]

Correct, once again.
Which is not a problem at all.
That's actually my point.

That god gives preference to reality, yes.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Atheism is not simply the rejection of a claim. That is particularly so when someone states, openly, that there is OBVIOUSLY no God.

Yes, atheism IS simply the rejection of a claim.
That is what atheism is, you constantly stating otherwise doesn't make it so.

the claim that there is OBVIOUSLY no god, yes, that is ALSO a claim.
That is not atheism. That is anti-theism.
Stop mixing the two just to argue.

If someone makes the claim that there is no god, yes, they have to back it up.
Them having to back it up Does NOT take away the fact that you STILL have to back up your claim that there is obviously a god.
Which I haven't seen you do yet.
I just see you mislabeling atheism, then incorrectly yelling about how atheists haven't met their burden of proof, while absolutely ignoring your own.

So, lets get your proof while we're at it, shall we?

And don't complain about having to wait on a lack of evidence from atheists, while staunchly refusing to give evidence of your own.

As to Ravi, J Warner and the list of other apologetics, one second..
since you are asking me to refute arguments that you haven't even personally put out, I'm going to scan your response for the arguments against Dawkins, Hitchens, Krauss,
Matt Dillahunty and the like which I'm sure you've already covered....


.....

.....

nope, nothing.
nor is there any reason I would expect you to, because I haven't put there arguments forth, and to ask you to would be a hypocritical, cheap move.

And I did list of multiple reasons that I don't believe in a god, and you not only completely ignored them, you are right back to "atheists don't give reasons!"

and really, as an ex-atheist, you were aghast at how you found you USED to treat people??
You are one of the rudest, thin skinned, aggressive people I've spoken to on this forum.
You ignore what people say,
when asked for your position, instead you just list authors with thousands of pages of works and say "reject all these works, with references" without even making your own argument.
You constantly misuse the term atheist
You complain about other peoples lack of evidence, in an attempt to try to hide the fact that you have given none.
You complain about other people doing unforgivably rude things, like someone telling you there is obviously no god, while you were being kind enough to simply inform them politely that THERE OBVIOUSLY IS A GOD, YOU HEATHEN!


Had you actually even mentioned any of the reasons that I already gave, as to why I'm an atheist, or even gave your own argument, in stead of just listing off apologetics, and expecting me to refute every one while you sat back and did nothing.

You are simply a rude hypocrite..
If this is you "better" after you've levt atheism, then I'm glad you did, if you feel like you're a better person.
But I'd hate to see what you used to be.

Now just give me your evidence of an obvious god, please, and we'll see where this goes.

 

[gree0232]

You missed the point. Completely.

You are unable to fly, and yet you have free will.
You are unable to do something, and yet you have free will.
That was the point.

Oh no, I got the point.

Free will is no omnipotence.

I have free will NOT omnipotence.

That is kind of the point your are missing.

Really, the two concepts convey different meanings for a reason.

Again, are we looking to reject, or are we making a case that drives us to a conclusion?

Christians have long acknowledged that having free will doesn't grant us magical powers. Are you making some point here that is going to disprove God? Or, again, are you simply avoiding having to concede a point?

On my view, "promiscuity" is not wrong at all.
Imagine I told you that looking at a cloudy sky is wrong. You would be baffled at my statement since you wouldn't see any reason to think there is anything wrong with looking at a cloudy sky. Consider that I also haven't told you why looking at a cloudy sky is wrong. I am in a similar situation here. I have no idea what is wrong with being promiscuous in itself.

I never said they should have the same consequences. I see no reason as to why they should have bad consequences, such as STDs. That's what I said.

Well, the sky has absolutely nothing to do with promiscuity does it? Are you again, simply avoiding the concession of a valid point?

You claimed that people should have prefect health, that changes in heath and diseases are wrong!! Evil gosh darn it.

The rebuttal is that we make choices that effect our health in positive or negative ways. That is as it should be.

The choice to be an anonymous park whore is not the same choice as the decision to be a committed and loving spouse is it? Different choices bring DIFFERENT consequences don't they?

And they should.

Yet you don't want to concede that point? And we have to discuss the sky now?

Again, are you making a case or merely being contrarian? After all the goal here is to attempt to convince OTHERS isn't it?

STD's and the sky isn't terribly convincing as an argument. In fact, its kinda wonkish.

 

[gree0232]

Yes, atheism IS simply the rejection of a claim.
That is what atheism is, you constantly stating otherwise doesn't make it so.

the claim that there is OBVIOUSLY no god, yes, that is ALSO a claim.
That is not atheism. That is anti-theism.
Stop mixing the two just to argue.

If someone makes the claim that there is no god, yes, they have to back it up.
Them having to back it up Does NOT take away the fact that you STILL have to back up your claim that there is obviously a god.
Which I haven't seen you do yet.
I just see you mislabeling atheism, then incorrectly yelling about how atheists haven't met their burden of proof, while absolutely ignoring your own.

So, lets get your proof while we're at it, shall we?

And don't complain about having to wait on a lack of evidence from atheists, while staunchly refusing to give evidence of your own.

As to Ravi, J Warner and the list of other apologetics, one second..
since you are asking me to refute arguments that you haven't even personally put out, I'm going to scan your response for the arguments against Dawkins, Hitchens, Krauss,
Matt Dillahunty and the like which I'm sure you've already covered....


.....

.....

nope, nothing.
nor is there any reason I would expect you to, because I haven't put there arguments forth, and to ask you to would be a hypocritical, cheap move.

And I did list of multiple reasons that I don't believe in a god, and you not only completely ignored them, you are right back to "atheists don't give reasons!"

and really, as an ex-atheist, you were aghast at how you found you USED to treat people??
You are one of the rudest, thin skinned, aggressive people I've spoken to on this forum.
You ignore what people say,
when asked for your position, instead you just list authors with thousands of pages of works and say "reject all these works, with references" without even making your own argument.
You constantly misuse the term atheist
You complain about other peoples lack of evidence, in an attempt to try to hide the fact that you have given none.
You complain about other people doing unforgivably rude things, like someone telling you there is obviously no god, while you were being kind enough to simply inform them politely that THERE OBVIOUSLY IS A GOD, YOU HEATHEN!


Had you actually even mentioned any of the reasons that I already gave, as to why I'm an atheist, or even gave your own argument, in stead of just listing off apologetics, and expecting me to refute every one while you sat back and did nothing.

You are simply a rude hypocrite..
If this is you "better" after you've levt atheism, then I'm glad you did, if you feel like you're a better person.
But I'd hate to see what you used to be.

Now just give me your evidence of an obvious god, please, and we'll see where this goes.

And yet it was an atheist who made the claim. Its an atheist who called the demand for proof to support the stated clam uncivil rather than a logical requirement.

Its an atheist who came up with the irrational BS of agnostic atheism. Really, Christians didn't make up this nonsense and force you atheists to accept it just so we could embarrass you when we subsequently annihilate it.

Its an atheist who is launching into a personal smear to hypocritically call someone a hypocrite. From a single sentence and avoiding of all else.

Your atheism is subject to study, examination, and criticism. That there is a lot to criticize? Well, seems like you should have studied up more assiduously before becoming an atheist then.

That fact that atheism, particularly modern, militant atheism, has so many flaws isn't to be avoided because its adherents think all criticism of the IDEA is a personal attack.

That is called an appeal to spite. Its fallacious.

It would be ONE MORE valid criticism of modern atheism's narrative.

Criticism remains valid, even when you cry about it.

And again, atheists need not behave in this emotionalized victimhood mentality. Indeed, most do not. Why atheists tolerate this kind of behavior? Allow it to define their faith rather than reject charlatans the way Christians disavow the Westboro Baptist church is ... not really comprehensible to me.

BTW - the claim of agnostic atheism is that it rejects the claim of Christianity. That implies that you have familiarized yourself with the subject matter and supporting material. The idea that I have to explain the basic concepts AFTER you arrived at the conclusion is a statement that requires time travel in order for your claim to have merit.

You rejected Christianity BEFORE you ever met me.

That is the claim.

Apologetics has been around for thousands of years.

Thus these claims should have been examined, and you are free to provide the list of works you did reject, and explain why you rejected them.

If you cannot?

Well, that means you rejected something for no reason at all. And that is basely illogical isn't it.

Time travel ... we reject Christianity because of time travel and you have to tell us why YOU believe so we can use absurdity to reject it anyway. Classic argument from ignorance.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Apologetics has been around for thousands of years.

Yeah, but you hardcore atheists never seem to do much good with it. You should probably practice.