The Problem of Evil

[Willamena]

Do you mean that we couldn't possibly have the power to do that?
I disagree.

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

 

[gree0232]

I NEVER asked you why you can't choose to fly.



I NEVER said that diseases are evil.

I request that you quote me where I said both of those things.
If you can't, then I require you to at least properly apologize for completely misrepresenting what I have said.



An omnimax god does not exist, because it entails a logic contradiction.

How about you simply clarify the point about diseases that you WERE apparently trying to make.

I realize, particularly in light of your claim that we should be able to fly on choice, that you atheists think we have all kinds of divine magic including the ability to read minds ... but honestly, we can't.

So instead of just screaming that you are being misunderstood, you could try clarifying what it is you meant?

As in: THAT is NOT what I meant!!!! (We may even tolerate the exceptional emotionalism here, if ...) Followed by, I actually meant THIS!!!

The claim that one has been serially understood coupled with the refusal to clarify the point would seem to indicate a desire to simply retract a statement without having to acknowledge it was wrong. As in, I am not wrong ... yeah ... I am a victim!

Well, most atheists are quite rational, and I would hope you have the ability to simply clarify a point if you believe its been misunderstood?

A not uncivil or unreasonable request is it?

 

[Koldo]

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

If it is imaginable, it is possible.

 

[Koldo]

How about you simply clarify the point about diseases that you WERE apparently trying to make.

I realize, particularly in light of your claim that we should be able to fly on choice, that you atheists think we have all kinds of divine magic including the ability to read minds ... but honestly, we can't.

No no no no...
How can someone completely misunderstand what I have said?

So instead of just screaming that you are being misunderstood, you could try clarifying what it is you meant?

As in: THAT is NOT what I meant!!!! (We may even tolerate the exceptional emotionalism here, if ...) Followed by, I actually meant THIS!!!

I keep explaining what I meant, but you keeping misrepresenting it.

The claim that one has been serially understood coupled with the refusal to clarify the point would seem to indicate a desire to simply retract a statement rather than acknowledge it was wrong. As in, I am not wrong ... yeah ... I am a victim!

Well, most atheists are quite rational, and I would hope you have the ability to simply clarify a point if you believe its been misunderstood?

A not uncivil or unreasonable request is it?

I don't even know where to begin since you didn't understand ANYTHING AT ALL.

I will try once again. This is my last try.

I will stick to the main part of the post, point by point:

1) You are unable to fly.

2) You have free will.

3) You can have free will, even though you can't fly.

4) God can make it so you can't murder, just like you can't fly.

5) You still have free will if God makes it so you can't murder.

6) It is possible for God to create a world where no murder exists but free will does.

 

[gree0232]

No no no no...
How can someone completely misunderstand what I have said?



I keep explaining what I meant, but you keeping misrepresenting it.

Umm ... I just asked you to explain it. Telling me you have, when clearly you have not and indeed are not, would be a dodge.

It again, informs my opinion that you are merely attempting to retract the statement without acknowledging that you made an a error.

This would be far simpler if you simply stated what you meant.

I don't even know where to begin since you didn't understand ANYTHING AT ALL.

Right religious people are too stupid to understand anything at all ... gotcha.

I will stick to the main part of the post, point by point:

1) You are unable to fly.

2) You have free will.

3) You can have free will, even though you can't fly.

4) God can make it so you can't murder, just like you can't fly.

5) You still have free will if God makes it so you can't murder.

6) It is possible for God to create a world where no murder exists but free will does.

Nothing in there has a thing to do with diseases brother.

What exactly are you explaining?

I will stick to the main part of the post, point by point:

1) You are unable to fly.

2) You have free will.

3) You can have free will, even though you can't fly.

4) God can make it so you can't murder, just like you can't fly.

I can't fly because my body lacks he physical attributes required to fly of my own volition - as we continually tell you, we are designed to be human ... not omnipotent or birds.

I retain the ability to pick up a rock and smash your head in ... because that is something that my physicality allows me to do - and I CAN choose not to do that or to do that.

Ergo, not having the ability to do something is NOT the same thing as having something you DO HAVE THE ABILITY to do blocked.

5) You still have free will if God makes it so you can't murder.

No, actually, you don't.

6) It is possible for God to create a world where no murder exists but free will does.

Only if God designs a world where the inhabitants are blobs of jello with the inability to move or otherwise interact with each other.

THAT was an exceptionally weak proof ...

It is also a proof that has nothing to do with diseases.

 

[Willamena]

If it is imaginable, it is possible.

Not in any reasonable sense. If you're pursuing logic then what is possible is actual in another context. It's possible that I could be an accountant: other people are accountants. No one though is flying by the power of will.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I am not interested in your personal views on religion.

I am interested in why agnostic atheism would even have the pretense of logic or rationality?

I have explained why it is not - repeatedly.

Why is it rational?

No offense, and I am sure your personal reasons for being atheist are quite compelling, they just aren't relevant to the logical basis of agnostic atheism ... or the lack thereof.

Agnostic atheism is an illogical framework. IMHO, extremely so. So much so that I have a difficult time seeing why anyone would ascribe to it. So much so that when I apply the rules and standards of logic to it ... it implodes.

Again, not sure what your personal views on atheism have to do with the logical basis of agnostic atheism ... which is an ideology that is ascribed to by more than you.

Claim: Agnostic atheism is logical.

Because: ... I haven't the foggiest, and neither apparently do agnostic atheists.

Simply.
Because the claim I'm rejecting has not been proven to be logical.
And when asked repeatedly to show why you find god obvious, you've cried victimization, you've cried other people crying victimization, you've asked me to refute every apologist ever, without doing the same yourself for other religions, and again, you've still failed to show why your claim is logical.

There is, simply put, nothing illogical about dismissing an illogical claim.

You have redefined atheism to straw man it, you have insulted, claimed insult, and moved goal posts faster than a trucking company, and you have still failed to show why your claim is logical.

So please, for my rejection of any claim to be illogical, prove the claim is logical.

Or explain to me this new definition of obvious you have.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Not in any reasonable sense. If you're pursuing logic then what is possible is actual in another context. It's possible that I could be an accountant: other people are accountants. No one though is flying by the power of will.

I second this! Our inability to fly has nothing to do with our volition. Koldo is arguing a dead end.

 

[Koldo]

Right religious people are too stupid to understand anything at all ... gotcha.

Once again you misrepresent me.

Nothing in there has a thing to do with diseases brother.

What exactly are you explaining?

I am explaining that a world without murder is possible for god to create, without restraining free will at all.

I can't fly because my body lacks he physical attributes required to fly of my own volition - as we continually tell you, we are designed to be human ... not omnipotent or birds.

I retain the ability to pick up a rock and smash your head in ... because that is something that my physicality allows me to do - and I CAN choose not to do that or to do that.

Ergo, not having the ability to do something is NOT the same thing as having something you DO HAVE THE ABILITY to do blocked.

This can be solved by merely making our bodies invulnerable to harm, for example. In other words, if you were to throw a rock at someone, the rock would shatter and cause no harm. Problem solved.

 

[Koldo]

Not in any reasonable sense. If you're pursuing logic then what is possible is actual in another context. It's possible that I could be an accountant: other people are accountants. No one though is flying by the power of will.

Do you mean god lacks the power to make people fly at will?
Do you mean if god never did something in the past, he is unable to do it?

We are talking about god. And about what god can accomplish with his power.

 

[gree0232]

Simply.
Because the claim I'm rejecting has not been proven to be logical.
And when asked repeatedly to show why you find god obvious, you've cried victimization, you've cried other people crying victimization, you've asked me to refute every apologist ever, without doing the same yourself for other religions, and again, you've still failed to show why your claim is logical.

There is, simply put, nothing illogical about dismissing an illogical claim.

You have redefined atheism to straw man it, you have insulted, claimed insult, and moved goal posts faster than a trucking company, and you have still failed to show why your claim is logical.

So please, for my rejection of any claim to be illogical, prove the claim is logical.

Or explain to me this new definition of obvious you have.

I think you need to review what inductive logic is then.

Inductive logic is a case based on probability. That is what atheism is too.

So if you are saying, CLAIMING, that you found something illogical then you should be abel to ...

... explain why its illogical.

Simply stating that you found it to be illogical is the claim, not the proof or explanation.

And again, I don't need to explain why 'I' find Christianity convincing, you have ALREADY rejected Christianity for ... some reason? ALREADY FOUND IT illogical ... for some reason.

Logic requires BOTH a claim and support ... claims without support can be dismissed without explanation.

Furthermore, simply stating that you find something to be illogical, while pointedly avoiding the reasoning behind that conclusion, is absurdity at some point.

Let me demonstrate:

A: The sky is blue.
B: Well, I find that illogical and put no stock in it.

Why?

A: 1+1=2
B: Well, I find that illogical and put no stock in it.

A: I love my wife
B: Well, I find that illogical and put no stock in it.

A: I believe that black holes are real, even if we cannot fly up and touch them.
B: Well, I find that illogical and put no stock in it.

A: Martians are green.
B: Well, I find that illogical and put no stock in it.

As you can see, regardless of the logical strength or lack thereof of the claim, the dismissive excuse can be used to reject anything no matter how solid the claim may be.

That is an exercise in simple absurdity.

If you find something illogical ... you should be able to explain WHY you reached the conclusion that it was illogical. If you cannot? Well ...

And again, when we reach this point, we get the 'things atheists reject' and what we find are vulgar caricatures of real religion ... so what pst atheists reject, ala Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al. is a bunch of straw men.

What Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al did by explaining there reasoning is open it up to examination and criticism, and in doing so ... many of their claims have been roundly rebutted and exposed as hyperbole ... not science.

There is legitimate fear in many atheists in doing this, because, as we see, when the pretense of atheism rests upon the illogic of religion ... and we find that religious people actually have rational reasons for their beliefs? rational reasons to reject our conclusions?

That is dangerous ground for many atheists, if not atheism itself.

Again, atheism is a valid inductive argument. Its one of many inductive arguments about God, and is, IMHO, weaker than several cases made in support of God. Nevertheless, I acknowledge the evidenced based assessment of man atheists is, at the very least, logically tenable and I respect HONEST atheists decision to disagree ... even if I find the case less compelling.

What I do not respect is agnostic atheism, which is not valid in a logical sense at all. Its not even an acceptable inductive case.

Its just an excuse for atheists who often treat religious people like crap to avoid having to examine evidence or otherwise explain their derisive opinion about religion ... at which point, I firmly believe, many atheists would be quite embarrassed about the way the treat people for ... the crime of having a different opinion based on an inductive argument that is, at least, tenably valid.

It is a feeling I firmly believe in because its exactly how I felt when I had to acknowledge the reality of inductive logic and faith ... or lack thereof.

Logic has a simple rule: claims require support.

So once again, as simply as I can state this, if you found something illogical ... that reasoning should be explainable.

And I would hope that the reasoning that lead you to find religion illogical rests upon something that is actually representative of religion ... and not something where a religious person would seek immediately to correct the errored presentation of his faith.

 

[Koldo]

I second this! Our inability to fly has nothing to do with our volition. Koldo is arguing a dead end.

I am afraid you are completely clueless.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Once again you misrepresent me.



I am explaining that a world without murder is possible for god to create, without restraining free will at all.

Please explain how this would be possible without violating volition?

This can be solved by merely making our bodies invulnerable to harm, for example. In other words, if you were to throw a rock at someone, the rock would shatter and cause no harm. Problem solved.

So you're saying God should alter the laws of physics and turn us all into living diamond people?

You just keep getting more and more absurd. First you said God should've granted us the ability not to eat, now he should've have made us harder than diamond.

 

[Koldo]

Please explain how this would be possible without violating volition?

So you're saying God should alter the laws of physics and turn us all into living diamond people?

You just keep getting more and more absurd. First you said God should've granted us the ability not to eat, now he should've have made us harder than diamond.

What is absurd about it?
Being particularly different than our current world is absurd in your view?
Is that it?

Either it has to be similar to our current world, or it is deemed as absurd.
Do you have anything meaningful to add? Or is that all you can come up with?

 

[adi2d]

I am afraid you are completely clueless.

Not clueless. Just trolling

 

[gree0232]

Please explain how this would be possible without violating volition?





So you're saying God should alter the laws of physics and turn us all into living diamond people?

You just keep getting more and more absurd. First you said God should've granted us the ability not to eat, now he should've have made us harder than diamond.

No, No Cynthia ... I am afraid you have it all wrong.

God is supposed to make us into immoveable blobs of jello that cannot interact with anything in the environment which would preclude us from strangling each other, pulling a trigger (much less manufacture a gun!), or hurling blunt objects at each other ... thus preventing murder.

Accidents are still permitted you see ... something could still accentually fall on us and kill us ... accidents are not evil as was explained ... and if we are harder than diamonds than we would not be killed by these things and that would ALSO prevent accidents rather than just murder ...

... you see?

 

[gree0232]

What is absurd about it?
Being particularly different than our current world is absurd in your view?
Is that it?

Either it has to be similar to our current world, or it is deemed as absurd.
Do you have anything meaningful to add? Or is that all you can come up with?

Somewhere I would wager there is a point to be made about how this proves o disproves God?

 

[Koldo]

Somewhere I would wager there is a point to be made about how this proves o disproves God?

Since it is possible for god to make us invulnerable to harm in a manner that we would still have free will, and that he doesn't do that, then he is not omnibenevolent.

This disproves an omnimax god.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

How can I possibly reject such a logical, well written claim as "I don't have to make a claim"

I'm totally sold, you silver tongued devil.
Once again, you completely fail to make a claim.
honestly, to you, I don't even have the rejection if a claim, because you refuse to make one..
Other than your claim that god is obvious.
So, as that is the only claim you've made, in multiple posts, I will respond to that I've.

Claim, god is obvious.
Since you won't define god, I'll just go with "obvious" to start.

easily perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent.

I do not consider god to be obvious, clear, self evident or easily perceived.
The multitude of people who claim they understand god, and can't agree on him show how un clear he is.
I do not perceive him, and he is not self evident to me.your claim is rejected.

Go back to shirking your burden of proof, I'm giving up on asking you to your claim, as stated you won't do it.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

What is absurd about it?
Being particularly different than our current world is absurd in your view?
Is that it?

Either it has to be similar to our current world, or it is deemed as absurd.
Do you have anything meaningful to add? Or is that all you can come up with?

It is absurd and just patently ridiculous because what you are proposing violates the damn laws of physics that govern are world. Please explain to us how God is going to turn us into diamond people without altering the laws of physics.