The Problem of Evil

[gree0232]

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

I prefer the Hegelian dialectic.

It requires two valid thesis statements, a thesis and an antithesis.

Yin Yang merely postulates an opposite, but that is not necessarily true .. particularly of complex systems, etc. the debate is then between alternates rather than simple opposites.

The dialectic also requires through and developed reasoning to work, and that tends to produce better quality exploration.

 

[Willamena]

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).

I too would like to know what "the Ying-Yang (sic) argument (false)" is. But to answer your question: Leibniz (1996) demonstrates the difficulty of justifying the best possible world.

1) If God were all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. this world would be the best possible world.
2) This world is not the best possible world because of suffering.
3) Thus God is not all-powerful, all-knowing, etc.
​

1) "While we can think of certain token features of the world that in and of themselves might be better than they are, we do not know whether it is possible to create a better world lacking those features, because we can never be certain of the nature of the connections between the token events in question and other events in the world. If we could improve or eliminate the token event in question without otherwise changing the world, we might well have a better world. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing whether such a change to the token event would leave the world otherwise unchanged, or might instead make things, on balance, worse." (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-evil/)

 

[gree0232]

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.

And once again, you have made a claim and provided no evidence. As stated earlier, and since we are having comprehension discussions, lets examine this again.

The PoE is a problem for ... Christians and others of a similar faith.

Proof? Because you say so?

Observation? 2500 years of the PoE and religions that have the belief you claim are troubled are actually flourishing.

Plato asks the question to illicit thought, and for thousands of years the answers to the posed problem set have been sufficient and even affirming of faith (which atheist would know if they pursued the answers rather than just the atheist sites for indoctrination.)

So by all means, ACTUALLY demonstrate this problem? Because its not on evidence? Show how it makes us blest in fear ... but does not disprove, not that ... when it clearly is not.

Once again, logic and comprehension are standards. Simply claiming them, while actively violating them, doe snot make it so. If I claimed myself as a better person than you because I compared myself to Captain America and you to Paris Hilton ... that says far more about my arrogance than it does about the reality of LOGIC PROOF of the argument - its called an appeal to spite - its fallacious.

So when you walk around saying, "I am logical," and yet your claim is a half measure and totally lacks support (indeed in appears to be an appeal to nothing but your own expertise), and then attacking the comprehension of others while pointedly ignoring the points they make?

Just use logic.

Stop claiming it and just use it.

We are troubled, even though for thousands of years we clearly have not been troubled, why exactly?

Do you seriously think faith is challenged by circular logic?

I can assure you. It isn't.

BTW - I JUST provided you with six examples of atheists using the PoE as a disproof of God. To continue claiming that you have never seen it, is patently false.

 

[Koldo]

K, you are writing a lot and not really saying anything at all.

The question: how do you arrive at certainty when the problem set precludes certainty?

How does it preclude certainty?
From where do you get that?

Omnipotence: Anything conclusion wherein you state something cannot be done, can be done anyway.

Omniscience: Anything you think cannot be known, can be known anyway.

Omnipotence is the ability to do anything.
Omniscience is the ability to know anything.
We both agree on that.

Omnibenevolence: Anything you think is not good, is simply because you lack the full perspective of an omnibenevolent being. That bad thing is still good anyway.

Is suffering good in itself?
Consider a type of suffering that is not required to achieve anything at all. Is that suffering good? If yes, what do you mean by 'good'? What does the word 'good' means to you?

How do you disprove something that by definition cannot be disproven?

Its like trying to make 1+1=3.

No matter how much you scream it, reason with it, attempt to get around it, 1+1 will ALWAYS =2.

Being able to do ANYTHING, means being able to do ANYTHING. Be definition EVERYTHING can be done ... including violating the rules of logic.

Actually, no.

Typically, that doesn't include the ability to violate the rules of logic. Even though it has been proposed before.

But that's not important to the problem of evil. So let us not waste time on this. Unless you mean to say that you can't apply logic to god because of that.

God claims omnipotence - the ability to do anything.

He also claims wisdom. Boundaries.

And what God is NOT going to do is a bunch of whack *** stupid stuff in order to prove he is real to a bunch of atheists who will simply find an excuse to dismiss the whack *** stupid stuff anyway. THAT would be a real exercise in frivolity and absurdity.

The problem of evil is not about asking for proof that god exists.
I hope you realize that.

God can be anything. He chooses to be logical, reasonable, compassionate, etc. So stating that he COULD do something that he is not only tell what God has already told us - that he has made decisions about what he will and will not do.

How does that disprove God?

We are talking about a God that has reportedly made food, mana, rain down from heaven. That is pretty friggin' magical isn't it? Yet even then, God was clear that this was an exigent circumstance born of singular vulnerability and exceptional faith in God.

The proof came after the faith.

And that too is something God has been clear about.

I mean put it in context.

What happens when we, as young adults, start claiming our Dad is stupid and we know better? Does he lock us in a basement? Or does he tell us, "Fine, go make your own way in the world, and I will be here when you need me and are ready for my help."

Do we expect our parents to start magically pulling bread out of their ***** merely to prove to us that they are right? Or do they trust us to mature on our own? As God does us?

Again, Plato's question is meant to induce though, not provide answers. And the answers that question generates have sustained religions for millennia.

Its not asking the question that is the error, its assuming the question is the answer that is the error.

But, if god exists, he has locked us in a basement.
Except this basement is full of deadly traps.

 

[idav]

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?

It doesn't disprove god. It disproves a loving god because omnibenevolence is inconsistent with omnipotence and is inconsistent with the reality of evil in the world. If god is malevolent then this world starts to make a little more sense.

 

[Koldo]

Well, conceding a valid point is not ... contrary to what many atheists think ... 'losing'.

It necessary to move a debate along.

And I happen to agree with you that not getting needlessly bogged down in semantics is helpful to discussion.

I am unsure how you believe this means I agree with my opponent's conclusion?

Discussion is not a zero sum game, You can concede a valid point without losing an argument. In fact, if we pursue discussion from a zero sum approach ... we are letting pride, not logic, guide our thoughts. Correct?

I don't think this means you agree with your opponent's conclusion.
I was just saying that you shouldn't consider Jayhawker's post to be a support in any way to your position.

 

[Koldo]

While I have no problem with omniscience, I agree.The All in all or omnipresent is a sufficient description.

Perhaps to your version of god.
But what about others?

 

[gree0232]

How does it preclude certainty?
From where do you get that?

Circular logic preclude ANY definitive conclusion.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that it can?

Circular reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its by definition fallacious.

Please, explain your 'question'.

 

[gree0232]

Perhaps to your version of god.
But what about others?

Why not just stick the Christian God?

Is there any reason for semantics at this point after just having stated that they are unhelpful?

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, then, go ahead and disprove my God.

I did already, at least to my own satisfaction. If you disagree, fine. I have no problem with that, I just won't share your belief.

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.

So you noticed? I'm flattered.

Seriously now, I think you are taking some premises that I just don't share. I have ended the matter far as I am concerned. I have no expectations of convincing those who do not want to agree. I'm not quite that naive.

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?

I did not know that I was one of them at all. You must be reading my tone wrong or something.

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.

I can't disprove all conceptions of God. Nor do I need to. What is up with you and this insistence in challenging me to do that, anyway?

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.

Excuse me? At this point I must wonder if you are mistaking me with someone else.

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

No idea, son. You lost me there. I don't know what you are talking about.

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?

Yep. :yes: I do find Theism rather interesting. It is just so exotic. I would never have arrived at it on my own.

 

[fantome profane]

I have decided to start a thread to deal with just one aspect of the debate here.

Freewill, all or nothing?

 

[gree0232]

I did already, at least to my own satisfaction. If you disagree, fine. I have no problem with that, I just won't share your belief.




So you noticed? I'm flattered.

Seriously now, I think you are taking some premises that I just don't share. I have ended the matter far as I am concerned. I have no expectations of convincing those who do not want to agree. I'm not quite that naive.




I did not know that I was one of them at all. You must be reading my tone wrong or something.




I can't disprove all conceptions of God. Nor do I need to. What is up with you and this insistence in challenging me to do that, anyway?




Excuse me? At this point I must wonder if you are mistaking me with someone else.



No idea, son. You lost me there. I don't know what you are talking about.




Yep. :yes: I do find Theism rather interesting. It is just so exotic. I would never have arrived at it on my own.

Well, if your own satisfaction is absolutely nothing ... then that is hardly convincing is it?

You state that MY GOD, not your conception of it, was OBVIOUSLY false.

Simply stating that its proven to YOUR satisfaction is a fallacy.

After all, I could claim that gravity doesn't exist at all ... that General Relativity is just wrong ... to my satisfaction.

And we see the weakness inherent in such a claim.

Logic has standards. Claims must be supported, and the appeal to expertise (our own without any explanation) is a definable fallacy.

Again, I certainly did not force you to waltz up and declare my God OBVIOUSLY false.

You did that. Of your own free will.

I for one, having been challenged by such an overt and clarion statement, would love to see what drove you think that you were the most insightful man the world has ever produced ... capable of FINALLY, after 2,000 years, of falsifying Christianity.

Well, being a legend in your own mind is hardly being a legend in the mind of all others.

You actually need to convince others with your argument, not yourself.

So, lets see this argument that so firmly convinced you?

You are one of thousands of atheists that I have debated. All have failed before you who made that claim. You stand upon the spot light of your claim ... ready to end the millennia long debate.

So, let's see it? The proof?

Again, do I seem at all frightened? At all concerned?

And why should I be? I know the role of the Holy Spirit. I know that it has given me the proof I need, and KNOW you are wrong.

I await only the opportunity to prove it.

That however, requires you to support your claim. And that is something, despite the ostensibly OBVIOUS nature the claim, like rain being wet, is oddly absent?

Now why would that be?

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, if your own satisfaction is absolutely nothing ... then that is hardly convincing is it?

Pardon?

You state that MY GOD, not your conception of it, was OBVIOUSLY false.

Yep. It is.

Simply stating that its proven to YOUR satisfaction is a fallacy.

Hardly. It is god we are talking about, after all. He is outside the field where fallacies can exist.

After all, I could claim that gravity doesn't exist at all ... that General Relativity is just wrong ... to my satisfaction.

Good luck.

(...)

You are one of thousands of atheists that I have debated. All have failed before you who made that claim. You stand upon the spot light of your claim ... ready to end the millennia long debate.

If such is my destiny. Or something.

Gree, you are seriously mistaken about something here. I don't know quite what, but you are.

So, let's see it? The proof?

Again, do I seem at all frightened? At all concerned?

Yep. And I am surprised by that, since you have no reason to.

And why should I be? I know the role of the Holy Spirit. I know that it has given me the proof I need, and KNOW you are wrong.

Nope. Maybe you are even right in your beliefs. I wouldn't know. But on this you are simply misjudging me.

I await only the opportunity to prove it.

That however, requires you to support your claim. And that is something, despite the ostensibly OBVIOUS nature the claim, like rain being wet, is oddly absent?

Now why would that be?

Because you look at my claims and see something that isn't there, apparently.

 

[adi2d]

Jeese mr Spock. You are so logical. Could you now prove that your God is OBVIOUSLY the real deal?
As one of the many lurking searchers would love to see this proof

 

[gree0232]

Pardon?




Yep. It is.




Hardly. It is god we are talking about, after all. He is outside the field where fallacies can exist.




Good luck.



If such is my destiny. Or something.

Gree, you are seriously mistaken about something here. I don't know quite what, but you are.



Yep. And I am surprised by that, since you have no reason to.




Nope. Maybe you are even right in your beliefs. I wouldn't know. But on this you are simply misjudging me.




Because you look at my claims and see something that isn't there, apparently.

So? No proof?

Just excuses. Gotcha.

And here I was thinking FINALLY, the 2,000 year old debate would be solved.

Again, for some reason I wasn't worried in the slightest.

I must be a Prophet?

Or, perhaps?, the weakness of the OBVIOUS nature of the claim was self evident after debating thousand of atheists making the same claim.

Why indeed so so many atheists just ASSUME that they are OBVIOUSLY right? Why do they ASSUME, in defiance of easily observed reality, that we ar all morons who have been waiting for atheists to convince us ... through .. agh ... well ... er .. evidence? ... we'll eventually come up with ... er ... is it hot is here or just me? ... just me, eh? ... probably getting sick then ... what was the topic again ... whew! ... feeling delirious!

Being Christian, I acknowledge that the case for God is inductive, probability based, and requires (just like God states BTW) a leap of faith to be CERTAIN rather than just probable.

Its only atheists that assume that that the OBVIOUS nature of this is deductive, and that faith is bad ... even as they use faith because they have no deductive certainty.

I choose the stronger case.

Again, thanks to the Holy Spirit, I don't just logical know its the stronger case (which it is), I KNOW its the correct case.

You? Well, you have great excuses. Wonderfully creative. Pulitzer for creative literature and all ... just not proof, or logic.

 

[LuisDantas]

Pidgeon chess, then?

If that is what you want. Take care.

 

[gree0232]

Jeese mr Spock. You are so logical. Could you now prove that your God is OBVIOUSLY the real deal?
As one of the many lurking searchers would love to see this proof

The claim is that God is OBVIOUSLY false.

I have no burden to support his truth in such a claim.

Logic requires claims to be supported.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Shifting the burden of proof, as we see, is a logical fallacy.

The claim that God is OBVIOUSLY false requires atheists to support it.

It sure as **** does not require me to prove it, when heavily biased atheists will simply employ absurdity to reject any proof anyways.

That is why logic is a standard.

You support your claims.

I didn't state God was OBVIOUSLY real to **** on you atheists. I have in fact, pointedly said I understand the inductive tenability of atheism.

So ...

You must support YOUR claims. Or at least Luis and those who rushed to his rather indefensible defense at any rate.

Shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy. A Known Fallacy.

Back up your own claims atheists.

 

[gree0232]

Pidgeon chess, then?

If that is what you want. Take care.

Logical standards.

I simply want to back up the claim you arrogantly made to a perfect stranger.

My God is not real?

Because you have a silly excuse yo slink into retreat to maintain your silly faith choice?

So, my God is indeed NOT ... OBVIOUSLY .. false is he?

Of course apologizing would require yo to acknowledge fault.

So we get the fallacy of special pleading instead.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

"Humans are funny creatures and have a foolish aversion to being wrong. Rather than appreciate the benefits of being able to change one's mind through better understanding, many will invent ways to cling to old beliefs. One of the most common ways that people do this is to post-rationalize a reason why what they thought to be true must remain to be true. It's usually very easy to find a reason to believe something that suits us, and it requires integrity and genuine honesty with oneself to examine one's own beliefs and motivations without falling into the trap of justifying our existing ways of seeing ourselves and the world around us."

Again Luis, No one forced you to make that claim.

YOU, and no one else, walked around with a giant chip on your shoulder and someone finally took the bait (someone you arrogantly assumes was a newb to debate with atheists - mistake number one of many, correct?)

What now?

This was trap you DEMANDED be sprung.

OK, I walked into it?

Sitting here waiting the trap?

Ahem ...

... not seeing a trap.

But if you need a petty excuse to avoid having to acknowledge that the 'trap' for me was actually a trap for you?

Whatever floats your boat. Its your life. Excuses to maintain a view point are excuses of your choice.

 

[adi2d]

The claim is that God is OBVIOUSLY false.

I have no burden to support his truth in such a claim.

Logic requires claims to be supported.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Shifting the burden of proof, as we see, is a logical fallacy.

The claim that God is OBVIOUSLY false requires atheists to support it.

It sure as **** does not require me to prove it, when heavily biased atheists will simply employ absurdity to reject any proof anyways.

That is why logic is a standard.

You support your claims.

I didn't state God was OBVIOUSLY real to **** on you atheists. I have in fact, pointedly said I understand the inductive tenability of atheism.

So ...

You must support YOUR claims. Or at least Luis and those who rushed to his rather indefensible defense at any rate.

Shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy. A Known Fallacy.

Back up your own claims atheists.

Sorry I misunderstood. I thought you were anxious to prove your God was real

I'm not an atheist. Not sure why you felt the need to call me one

I have made no claim that I need to back up other than a couple posts on free will and an omni benevolant God. You didn't respond to them so I don't know what claims you are referring to

 

[gree0232]

Sorry I misunderstood. I thought you were anxious to prove your God was real

I'm not an atheist. Not sure why you felt the need to call me one

I have made no claim that I need to back up other than a couple posts on free will and an omni benevolant God. You didn't respond to them so I don't know what claims you are referring to

I thought the atheists who walked up and told me my God was OBVIOUSLY false were attempting to prove that claim?

You didn't?

Well, then step the hell out of the way and let those who did make that claim defend it and stop attempting to fallaciously shift the burden of proof onto me ... the guy that asked atheists to support the claim they have made several times on this thread. That they arrogantly shoved in my face.

You might even help out, rather than just be a bunch of fallacies, and state your opinion about NO GOD.

Is it obviously false or not? And since you are disagreeing, ostensibly, with your fellow atheists, perhaps you could explain to them why its NOT OBVIOUS ... as YOU appear to be claiming.

That would put you into agreement with I have claimed about this subject, and would NOT be making claims for others that they are not making and NOT fallaciously shifting the burden of proof.

you might also address the earlier discussion about how the concept of agnostic atheism, basely illogical, studiously rests upon atheists never doing what Luis and his supporters most definitely did ... and we'll see if an atheist offers that brain dead excuse up to try and diffuse this logical requirement - as predicted.

Either of those would seem to be the more honest approach.