The Problem of Evil

[Kilgore Trout]

No the problem of evil is a fundamental misunderstanding of God and a flawed premise in attempting to disprove him.

Nope, that's not it. It's like I said the first time: The problem of evil is only a problem for people who believe in the existence of an all powerful, all loving god and who care about logical consistency. In reality, this describes very few people. I've never heard an atheist use this as an argument against the existence of gods in general, but I have heard many theists claim this about atheists. Of course, these types of mischaracterizations of atheists by theists are hardly a rare occurrence.

 

[LuisDantas]

Omnipotence is not an Abrahamic exclusive.

You are, of course, correct. I believe at least some Hindu faiths have an omnipotent God as well.

Far as I can tell, Pantheism and Deism (usually?) do not, though. That is all that I pointed out.

Its a concept that happens to be claimed by our God who is NOW quite popular. That was not always the case. And the fact that other beings have claimed this power, and have disappeared form the religious pantheon.

If we are talking about conceptions of some sort of omnipotent God (as opposed to actual beings), not all of them are gone and forgotten. Then again, it is unclear how many of them ever existed in the first place.

Truth be told, far as I can tell for most of history people rarely cared whether their gods where all-encompassing and all-powerful. It was perceived (correctly IMO) as a barely relevant detail, if even that.

Or maybe it is more accurate to tell that until very recently there was no practical difference between an omnipresent God and a regional one. It took the development of communications, transportation and anthropology (in the last 500 years or so, but most noticeably since the 19th century) for the challenges that the idea of an universal god brings to become apparent and truly relevant.

Like so many other ideas, it can be used constructively, and not so constructively as well.

You seem to have a particular grudge with Abrahamic faiths,

I don't know if it qualifies as a grudge. I just won't submit to their insistence that I must believe in their Gods.

Of course, quite a few practicioners are fair and wise people who don't waste time doing such demands. More power to them.

but its also equally clear that you don't really have a firm understanding of them either.

Try me.

 

[gree0232]

Nope, that's not it. It's like I said the first time: The problem of evil is only a problem for people who believe in the existence of an all powerful, all loving god and who care about logical consistency. In reality, this describes very few people. I've never heard an atheist use this as an argument against the existence of gods in general, but I have heard many theists claim this about atheists. Of course, these types of mischaracterizations of atheists by theists are hardly a rare occurrence.

It certainly does't seem to have had any impact on the practice of religion at all. Billions of people are both familiar with the Problem of Evil and quite happily religious.

This fanciful idea that the Problem of Evil somehow slays religion is a conclusion that exists in open defiance of the facts.

The only people who think this question bothers religious people are people who have already rejected religion. And the ending there? You claim its a problem for religion in the first sentence, and then switch to claiming that no atheist has ever used it as a proof? Not only is this fundamentally a contradiction, but ...

The Problem of Evil: Evidential Arguments from Evil

Problem of evil - Atheism

"The Problem of Evil is a strong argument against the concept of God accepted by some Christians, Jews and Muslims sometimes known as the omnimax god."

The term omnimax has been wholly adopted by K, and we can see where he got the idea can't we?

All Possible Worlds

Atheism 101: The Problem of Evil - Philadelphia atheism | Examiner.com

Problem of Evil flowchart (improved version which is easier to read) : atheism

That last there being, like this forum, just another place where atheists attempt to use this to disprove God. Its happened on EVERY forum that I have ever been on.

The idea that atheists are not attempting to disprove God is again, held in defiance of open observation and fact.

Worse? It appear to be wide spread in the atheist community as a result of indoctrination rather than independent thought. The 'belief' that its a solid proof handily trumping reality.

Which is why some atheists got quite angry with me when I mentioned that the proof is based on illogical ideas and cold never prove much of anything at all ... and the atheists on this forum are not the first to do so.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Only one can be the truth, correct?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It certainly does't seem to have had any impact on the practice of religion at all. Billions of people are both familiar with the Problem of Evil and quite happily religious.

Indeed. And for those who value and practice the rare skill of reading comprehension, they'll see that I said the problem of evil isn't a problem for people who don't care about logical consistenty. As most people are not concerned with it whatsoever (particularly people who ascribe to religious and magical beliefs), the problem of evil wouldn't be a problem for them.

 

[gree0232]

You are, of course, correct. I believe at least some Hindu faiths have an omnipotent God as well.

Far as I can tell, Pantheism and Deism (usually?) do not, though. That is all that I pointed out.

No, you singled out Abrahamic religion specifically, and that is after you burst into my initial soiree into the forum by pointedly telling me my God was OBVIOUSLY false ... while avoiding my claim that the 'omni whatever' is illogical and can never lead to an kind of logical certainty.

And what pray tell would you consider he force that created the universe? An INFINITE amount of energy packed into an INFINITELY small space? Interesting concept when we stop and think about omnipotence isn't it?

If we are talking about conceptions of some sort of omnipotent God (as opposed to actual beings), not all of them are gone and forgotten. Then again, it is unclear how many of them ever existed in the first place.

Truth be told, far as I can tell for most of history people rarely cared whether their gods where all-encompassing and all-powerful. It was perceived (correctly IMO) as a barely relevant detail, if even that.

Truth be told, most monotheists don't care one whit one way or another. We are force dot defend the premise because atheists seem to think that there is some magical disproof of God here. One would think that after 2500 years of not having any success with a certain train of thought ...

The truth of the matter is that omnipotence in practically useless to religious people, because even if God can do anything (and he can), he has placed practical limits on the use of that power.

It's a little like having nuclear weapons with all their power, and they haven't been a lick of help in ether Iraq or Afghanistan have they?

Raw power is not what it is cracked up to be. And I am pretty sure an omniscient God with omnipotent powers knows the practical utility necessitated by the exercise of raw power.

Or maybe it is more accurate to tell that until very recently there was no practical difference between an omnipresent God and a regional one. It took the development of communications, transportation and anthropology (in the last 500 years or so, but most noticeably since the 19th century) for the challenges that the idea of an universal god brings to become apparent and truly relevant.

Not form the problem of evil it doesn't, which existed 2000 years before then.

As I have stated several times, there are better proofs against God, which, although I disagree, I intellectually acknowledge the inductive tenability of the claims.

If all atheism was based solely on the problem of evil, a concept that requires the solving of circular logic, then atheism would have a serious problem on its hands.

Like so many other ideas, it can be used constructively, and not so constructively as well.

I am not sure how solving how an omnipotent being cannot do something he can do anyway is constructive?

I don't know if it qualifies as a grudge. I just won't submit to their insistence that I must believe in their Gods.

The grudge comes from our initial exchange an what appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of some of our basic concepts.

Of course, quite a few practicioners are fair and wise people who don't waste time doing such demands. More power to them.

Its rather hard NOT to respond to someone waltzing up and pointedly telling you that your God is OBVIOUSLY false. I am unsure how it is either unwise or a waste of time to ask, "Oh really? And why is that?"

Especially in a debate forum.

Try me.

Doing so now.

 

[gree0232]

Indeed. And for those who value and practice the rare skill of reading comprehension, they'll see that I said the problem of evil isn't a problem for people who don't care about logical consistenty. As most people are not concerned with it whatsoever (particularly people who ascribe to religious and magical beliefs), the problem of evil wouldn't be a problem for them.

So simple arrogance is your proof?

Billions of religious people are illiterate scum bags who cannot read or comprehend?

Once again, a belief held in open defiance of fact and seemingly born of simple prejudice.

Believe the problem of evil is compelling or I will insult you!

Seems like simple attempts at bullying too me, and I learned to stand up to and reject bullying when I was like 4.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So simple arrogance is your proof?

No, understanding what logical consistency is, and understanding that the existence of an all-powerful, all-loving god is logically inconsistent with the state of our universe. Therefore, either an all-powerful entity does not exist, or it isn't all-loving. It's not rocket science - just basic logic.

Billions of religious people are illiterate scum bags who cannot read or comprehend?

Well, the most recent estimates put the number of illiterate adults in the world at about 1 billion. However, I don't really see what this has to do with anything. I was talking about most people's indifference to logical consistency. Apparently, an indifference you share, along with that problem with reading comprehension I mentioned.

Once again, a belief held in open defiance of fact and seemingly born of simple prejudice.

Believe the problem of evil is compelling or I will insult you!

I fail to see how pointing out factual realities is insulting. If you don't want to be accused of lacking reading comprehension or being logically inconsistent, then it's simple enough to display otherwise.

Seems like simple attempts at bullying too me, and I learned to stand up to and reject bullying when I was like 4.

And I learned the basics of logic when I was like 4. I realize that is earlier than most people, yet there is no excuse for so many adults to still have never learned them.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, you singled out Abrahamic religion specifically,

Sure, if mentioning them as an example is singling them out.

and that is after you burst into my initial soiree into the forum by pointedly telling me my God was OBVIOUSLY false ...

Abraham's God? Yep. He sure is.

I am not sure why it bothers you so much, though.

No one is stopping you from disregarding my judgement, as is certainly your privilege. Just decide that I don't know what I am talking about and go on. I even agree; I do indeed lack the knowledge of that God Abraham and others speak of.

That is only a problem if someone makes a point of perceiving it as a problem. Otherwise it is just a disagreement about how real God is.

while avoiding my claim that the 'omni whatever' is illogical and can never lead to an kind of logical certainty.

I believe that is my argument, not yours. But in case I missed it or misunderstood you, feel free to reinstate it.

And what pray tell would you consider he force that created the universe?

"Hypothetical" seems as good a qualifier as any.

An INFINITE amount of energy packed into an INFINITELY small space? Interesting concept when we stop and think about omnipotence isn't it?

Not really, not for me anyway. I don't much care about cosmology, and I most certainly do not think of it as evidence for or against God.

Besides, I don't think it is particularly clear that there was such a scenario with the two infinites as you describe it, either.

In any case, that is hardly evidence for God, much less for the peculiar God of Abraham.

Truth be told, most monotheists don't care one whit one way or another. We are force dot defend the premise because atheists seem to think that there is some magical disproof of God here.

You are? How can that be? Even leaving aside how often that happens (if at all) or how justified it could be (no idea), how would that force you?

One would think that after 2500 years of not having any success with a certain train of thought ...

I don't even know who you are talking about here, so no comment.

The truth of the matter is that omnipotence in practically useless to religious people, because even if God can do anything (and he can), he has placed practical limits on the use of that power.

So you are saying that he either isn't omnipotent or chooses to act as if he were not? Okay, let's roll with it for a while.

It's a little like having nuclear weapons with all their power, and they haven't been a lick of help in ether Iraq or Afghanistan have they?

I wouldn't compare any kind of God with nuclear weapons, but if you say so.

Raw power is not what it is cracked up to be. And I am pretty sure an omniscient God with omnipotent powers knows the practical utility necessitated by the exercise of raw power.

Again, if you say so.

I hope you realize that this sure sounds like an argument against his existence. A convincing one at that.

Not form the problem of evil it doesn't, which existed 2000 years before then.

Most believers in an omnipotent God obviously don't particularly care about the problem of evil. Or maybe they have found some sort of answer that did not occur to me.

As I have stated several times, there are better proofs against God, which, although I disagree, I intellectually acknowledge the inductive tenability of the claims.

Be my guest then. I have no need to convince you.

If all atheism was based solely on the problem of evil,

It isn't.

a concept that requires the solving of circular logic, then atheism would have a serious problem on its hands.

Why?

I am not sure how solving how an omnipotent being cannot do something he can do anyway is constructive?

That? That is hardly important.

Belief in God, that however can be either constructive or destructive.

Sometimes we have to be armed to deal with those who think they know better than ourselves whether we should believe or not.

And as it turns out, some of them will reject sound arguments yet perhaps consider odd ones.

The grudge comes from our initial exchange an what appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of some of our basic concepts.

That is not how I remember it, but I will reserve judgment for now. Maybe we just began on the wrong foot.

Its rather hard NOT to respond to someone waltzing up and pointedly telling you that your God is OBVIOUSLY false.

Really? Doesn't your own belief deny the reality of so many others?

Why would it be a problems to be certain of the falsehood of someone's belief?

People can (and IMO should) simply disagree about whether God exists (or how obviously) and let go. It is no big deal (although I suppose it may sound like it is, being a belief about the Almighty and so). It really isn't.

I am unsure how it is either unwise or a waste of time to ask, "Oh really? And why is that?"

Especially in a debate forum.

Absolutely! Ask all you want. I just don't think you will find an answer that satisfies everyone. Not for such a strictly personal matter as belief in God.

Doing so now.

Keep going.

 

[cottage]

Actually, I have never stated that. Another poster is making the argument limiting it to logical possibilities.

Ah! Okay, my mistake then

In fact, just a short version.

Anything you decide and omnipotent being cannot do ... he can do it anyway.

You have correctly identified that as circular logic, but that is exactly the point with ANYTHING being possible and why I have routinely stated that what CAN be done and what God has said he will and will not do are two totally different things.

But then he is an illogical God!

That is a flawed logical proof.

It rests upon the assumption that omnipotent being possessing an illogical power must therefore themselves be illogical.

No, no, it does not! God is omnipotence, i.e. he is all powerful. It’s not something he ‘possesses’; it is his very nature as the Supreme Being, and if it’s in his nature and omnipotence is illogical then God is illogical. And in any case you agree with me on the point that God can do what he logically cannot do, and that is to say he is illogical by nature!

You know a lot of omnipotent begs upon which omnipotent beings there illogical nature rests upon? After all, just because I recognize insanity when I see it does not mean I am myself insane.

Its the classes misapplication of inductive logic.

All of the swans we have seen are white.
Therefore, all swans are white.

Have you ever seen any omnipotent being? Therefore, you base supernatural powers as the basis of logic or lack thereof? Isn't that an entirely faith based claim?

Well, that is all completely irrelevant! If God is the Supreme Being then there are no other omnipotent beings.

There are plenty of logical proof for an against God. The Problem of Evil is simply not one of them.

Would you attempt to make circular logic fit something needlessly? Or would you find a better proof? Especially when such proof exist?

There is absolutely no better proof against the existence of God, as represented by Classical Theism, than the Problem of Evil and the contradiction that is entailed, which is both logically and evidential demonstrated. Suffering cannot be denied; the evidence is anti-sceptical. The PoE troubles many people of faith, and with good cause, for it is the one very, very good reason for not believing in a worshipful God.

Apparently you don;t get it. As soon as you say he can't be something ... he can. Or he's not omnipotent. Therein lies the proverbial rub and why this proof is ultimately worthless and has been for thousands of years.

Why do atheists insist on putting stock in a failed proof that only demonstrate stye flaws of the 'Problem of Evil' and wind up with no bearing whatsoever on God?

Let me put it this way, if God is illogical, which he is on the assumption that he is outside of logic, and as I showed at the top of the page, then no logical arguments of any complexion can be made to an illogical God if they are evidently absurd in relation to reality. For as evil and suffering exist in reality it is logically and empirically false to say there is omnibenevolence present as an all merciful God acting as such in this very same reality.

Unless you are omniscient an know all facts, in order to disprove omnibenevolence.

s soon as you arrive at that aha moment of that is definitely not good, in kicks the circular logic. Its OMNIBENEVOLENT, and the best you can achieve is a perspective, without all the facts (unless you are omniscient) - and, if omnibenevolence is there, your perspective must need be false.

Again, engaging in circular reasoning is pretty much insane isn't it?

Which is why I wonder why ONLY atheists seem to put any stock whatsoever in this proof.

There is the argument from ignorance once again. I’m not omniscient and do not know all the facts, but like you I know one particular fact which is that pain and suffering exists. And suffering is a sensation and a perspective; we feel it and we observe it. So even if our perspective is false, whatever that means, and I dare you to try that approach with the parent of a terminally ill child, the fact that we suffer is not.

Perhaps, instead of claiming that the problem of evil has NEVER been answered, you might look at the millennia long answers from religion about evil and suffering.

Oh believe me, I have over several years. There numerous arguments from theodicy that wrestle with the problem, some are farcical bordering on the absurd, some are comical but none are successful or compelling because they cannot make a fact a non-fact.

Give me one argument from theologians or philosophers that attempts to answer he problem of suffering without trying to (A) justify its existence, (B) insulate God from its existence, (C) argue from ignorance, (D) limit or constrain God in some way, (E) pretend it doesn’t exist, (F) make it necessary for some good (direct contradiction), soul-making, (G) argue the Parent/child analogy, (H) claim it was due to the Fall, (I) argue it as a privation of ‘goodness’, (J) blame free will (and the evils God made possible), (K) invoke the Ying-Yang argument (false), (L) claim it’s an ‘error of the mortal mind’ (Xtian scientist).

And that’s to mention just a few off the top of my head.

Just about all of them by attempting to find an accommodation simply re-state and confirm the problem, i.e. the contradiction. All pretty desperate!

A proof that rests upon the ostrich of denying what clearly is happening is a weak argument indeed.

I’m sorry but if I understand you correctly that is plainly nonsense!

If suffering exists then no being is omnibenevolent. (If A then B) Suffering does exist, therefore no being is omnibenevolent. (A, therefore B)

We cannot deny A, but we can deny B with no self-contradiction.

And even if an omnipotent being sprang into existence tomorrow and ceased all suffering for evermore, the above proposition would still obtain, and henceforth the omnipotent being can never be omnibenevolent.

 

[gree0232]

No, understanding what logical consistency is, and understanding that the existence of an all-powerful, all-loving god is logically inconsistent with the state of our universe. Therefore, either an all-powerful entity does not exist, or it isn't all-loving. It's not rocket science - just basic logic.



Well, the most recent estimates put the number of illiterate adults in the world at about 1 billion. However, I don't really see what this has to do with anything. I was talking about most people's indifference to logical consistency. Apparently, an indifference you share, along with that problem with reading comprehension I mentioned.



I fail to see how pointing out factual realities is insulting. If you don't want to be accused of lacking reading comprehension or being logically inconsistent, then it's simple enough to display otherwise.



And I learned the basics of logic when I was like 4. I realize that is earlier than most people, yet there is no excuse for so many adults to still have never learned them.

Well, then please demonstrate how someone is being logically consistent by attempting to prove something with circular logic?

And when you assume based solely on a faith choice, on a forum that requires both reading and comprehension, that people are struggling with reading comprehension ... that is kind of insult.

Its a flight of fancy that serves little more than your own ego at the expense of others.

And if LOGIC is the standard, then kindle actually use it rather than claiming it as if hastily claiming something is logical somehow makes it logical rather than hastily emotional.

Try it.

The Problem of Evil disproves God by ... Claim

And do attempt to logically come up with something that has not already been part of the discussion.

Support.

The basis of logic.

You wankers are struggling with reading comprehension is not logical - especially on a forum that requires just that.

 

[gree0232]

Sure, if mentioning them as an example is singling them out.




Abraham's God? Yep. He sure is.

I am not sure why it bothers you so much, though.

No one is stopping you from disregarding my judgement, as is certainly your privilege. Just decide that I don't know what I am talking about and go on. I even agree; I do indeed lack the knowledge of that God Abraham and others speak of.

That is only a problem if someone makes a point of perceiving it as a problem. Otherwise it is just a disagreement about how real God is.




I believe that is my argument, not yours. But in case I missed it or misunderstood you, feel free to reinstate it.




"Hypothetical" seems as good a qualifier as any.




Not really, not for me anyway. I don't much care about cosmology, and I most certainly do not think of it as evidence for or against God.

Besides, I don't think it is particularly clear that there was such a scenario with the two infinites as you describe it, either.

In any case, that is hardly evidence for God, much less for the peculiar God of Abraham.




You are? How can that be? Even leaving aside how often that happens (if at all) or how justified it could be (no idea), how would that force you?




I don't even know who you are talking about here, so no comment.




So you are saying that he either isn't omnipotent or chooses to act as if he were not? Okay, let's roll with it for a while.




I wouldn't compare any kind of God with nuclear weapons, but if you say so.




Again, if you say so.

I hope you realize that this sure sounds like an argument against his existence. A convincing one at that.




Most believers in an omnipotent God obviously don't particularly care about the problem of evil. Or maybe they have found some sort of answer that did not occur to me.




Be my guest then. I have no need to convince you.




It isn't.



Why?




That? That is hardly important.

Belief in God, that however can be either constructive or destructive.

Sometimes we have to be armed to deal with those who think they know better than ourselves whether we should believe or not.

And as it turns out, some of them will reject sound arguments yet perhaps consider odd ones.





That is not how I remember it, but I will reserve judgment for now. Maybe we just began on the wrong foot.




Really? Doesn't your own belief deny the reality of so many others?

Why would it be a problems to be certain of the falsehood of someone's belief?

People can (and IMO should) simply disagree about whether God exists (or how obviously) and let go. It is no big deal (although I suppose it may sound like it is, being a belief about the Almighty and so). It really isn't.




Absolutely! Ask all you want. I just don't think you will find an answer that satisfies everyone. Not for such a strictly personal matter as belief in God.




Keep going.

Well, then, go ahead and disprove my God.

I am sure, thousands of years of religious debate have fully built this moment of anticipation for Luis to FINALLY end this debate and bring the world definitive and deductively provable proof that there is no God.

Go.

Can you tell that I am not frightened or worried at all? And that you are hardly the first atheist whom has 'threatened' my faith?

Logic lead me steadily away from atheism. I am sure it will for you as well, once you start using it ... and supporting your claim - where you will quickly realize that you cannot disprove God. The best you will be able to do is produce an inductive argument based on probability ... and it certainly will not justify the level of certainty that brought you to call out a perfect stranger and challenge his faith with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.

And that means ... what? about your level of certainty. Its not logical is it?

By all means, you have seen me write now. Do you think I am a dissembling moron with no education? With no intellect? Do you really think we ALL are? And yet for some reason I still believe in God? So do billions of others. Odd isn't it?

Please, share your 'proof' with us.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Try it.

The Problem of Evil disproves God by ... Claim

And do attempt to logically come up with something that has not already been part of the discussion.

Support.

The basis of logic.

You wankers are struggling with reading comprehension is not logical - especially on a forum that requires just that.

Once again. Slowly, this time, to account for your growing problem with reading comprehension.

I never said the problem of evil disproves the existence of god(s). Nor has anyone else in this thread. What it does show is that the existence of an all-powerful, all-loving god is logically inconsistent with the state of our universe. So, it is only a problem if a person is claiming that god is all-powerful, all-loving, and that person is concerned with being logically consistent. If you're not concerned with logical consistency, or if you are not claiming that god is all-powerful and all-loving, then the problem of evil isn't a problem for you at all.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

(K) invoke the Ying-Yang argument (false)

What do you mean by Yin-Yang argument.

 

[gree0232]

Once again. Slowly, this time, to account for your growing problem with reading comprehension.

I never said the problem of evil disproves the existence of god(s). Nor has anyone else in this thread. What it does show is that the existence of an all-powerful, all-loving god is logically inconsistent with the state of our universe. So, it is only a problem if a person is claiming that god is all-powerful, all-loving, and that person is concerned with being logically consistent. If you're not concerned with logical consistency, or if you are not claiming that god is all-powerful and all-loving, then the problem of evil isn't a problem for you at all.

Well, try reading comprehension then.

You stated that atheists, not you, and I rebutted by demonstrating that atheists DO, and in fact they doctrinate they very claim.

Now logic, at this point, should require you to actually spell out your claim rather than simply deny the claim attributed to you.

Logic can be quite clear ... if you use it. Rather than assume that the problem in comprehension is everyone else being a moron, rather than you not simply clearly spelling out what it is you claim.

Especially when the claim appears to just change when evidence is presented.

In fact, the entire premise of the OP is that the PoE does NOT disprove God, and for some reason you are disagreeing with those of us who are making that point.

Which again, calls into question WTH it is you are claiming.

This logic stuff is not hard ... if you use it.

Claim: ?????

Support: ?????

At this point, I cannot even tell what point you are trying to make other than, I don't want to be wrong - and be very condescending about it.

 

[cottage]

What do you mean by Yin-Yang argument.

The Yin-Yang Argument proposes necessary opposites, that there cannot be good without evil.

 

[idav]

At this point, I cannot even tell what point you are trying to make other than, I don't want to be wrong - and be very condescending about it.

An omnipotent being could also be Omni malevolent. Being all powerful there is no restriction to just being all lovey dovey. That's why it is inconsistent. The rest is semantics, my version of good is better than your version of good type thing.

 

[gree0232]

An omnipotent being could also be Omni malevolent. Being all powerful there is no restriction to just being all lovey dovey. That's why it is inconsistent. The rest is semantics, my version of good is better than your version of good type thing.

Yep, he certainly could be.

Its not a claim that God makes though.

But the same logical problem arises if you try to disprove an omni-malevolent being.

Anything you find that might be good? Well, you don't have omniscience, and that good thing you found is still bad anyway.

It works for perfect impotence as well. The ability to do absolutely NOTHING.

As soon as you think you found it doing something? It would still be doing nothing anyway.

These terms are not logical, they are circular.

So again, other than the faith that this will somehow disprove God? What value is there is seriously considering these concepts to disprove anything? Makes little sense doesn't it?

Honestly, who puts faith in circular logic?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

At this point, I cannot even tell what point you are trying to make other than, I don't want to be wrong - and be very condescending about it.

Yes, it is clear that you are unable to comprehend my posts, despite my very clear, and straightforward responses which communicate my meaning in an explicit and unambiguous fashion. I really don't know how to help you other than suggest you might take some courses which focus on English comprehension and usage. Even though I've already posted what I'm saying more than once, I suppose I can do it again in case you missed it the previous times:

The problem of evil is only a problem for people who believe in the existence of an all-powerful, all-loving god and who also care about being logically consistent. In reality, this describes very few people. I've never heard an atheist use the problem of evil as an argument against the existence of gods in general, but I have heard many theists claim this about atheists.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

The Yin-Yang Argument proposes necessary opposites, that there cannot be good without evil.

And how is that exactly false?