The Problem of Evil

[Jayhawker Soule]

God can do anything. (And I have already written about the absurdity of attempting to prove a fallacious claim like that false.) It's not a testable or falsifiable claim.

:biglaugh:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I've yet to encounter anyone who argues against the "problem of evil" who seems to have an actual grasp on what "omnipotent" means and entails. I find that this is usually the root of their confusion about why omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and the state of our world are logically incompatible.

 

[Koldo]

That would require some kind of logical proof one way or another ... unfortunately ...

So ... we are at the claim anything for any reason stage are you?

Like the silly claim that people STRUGGLE with the concept of circular logic?

This is when we are at atheist baseball stage. Anything you throw at them? They will find any old excuse to completely ignore it. The confused cacophony can be amusing.

But then, I assume you have some goal other than simply writing the opposite of anything a Christian writes? Some point to make? Some claim to support?

Or are you simply assuming that most people don;t care about logical proofs because you don't?

Most people who debate care about logical proofs.

And as most atheists are all about being superior rationalists ... suddenly not caring about logical proofs sound rather astounding - especially as the pretense, if not the reality, of the PoE is supposedly logic.

So, you only really replied to two sentences on that post? Is that all?
Nothing else?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've yet to encounter anyone who argues against the "problem of evil" who seems to have an actual grasp on what "omnipotent" means and entails. I find that this is usually the root of their confusion about why omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and the state of our world are logically incompatible.

The map is not the territory and too often we find ourselves dealing with vagabonds without a GPS.

 

[adi2d]

Yep.

God can do anything. (And I have already written about the absurdity of attempting to prove a fallacious claim like that false.) It's not a testable or falsifiable claim.

What matter is what God claims he will and will not do.

For example, if he's omnipotent, then one suggestive proof would be looking for things, ostensibly caused by God, that would imply great and extraordinary power.

There are plenty of documented miracles out there.

CADRE Comments: Scientifically Documented Miracles

Indeed, the very act of creation implies fallaciously impossibility as well. How do you pack an infinite amount of something into an infinitely small space for example? And then have it explode and create a universe?

Its the same logical problem set.

How much energy can you put in a space that is infinite in size? An infinite amount. So no matter how big the number you imagine ... its still more than that.

Interesting that we find this problem in Creation isn't it?

You say all this because you are a member of the Westboro Baptist Church

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The map is not the territory and too often we find ourselves dealing with vagabonds without a GPS.

Perhaps we could at least start handing out compasses at the door?

 

[LuisDantas]

Yep.

God can do anything. (And I have already written about the absurdity of attempting to prove a fallacious claim like that false.) It's not a testable or falsifiable claim.

Yep, but if you accept such a premise, then you will have a hard time finding fault in the atheistic take on the matter.

What matter is what God claims he will and will not do.

From a non-believer perspective, it also matters why he will or will not do it, and how much logic can be found in that.

Without a very good argument on those matters, it ends up becoming just yet another evidence for God as a human-created fiction.

 

[Koldo]

I've yet to encounter anyone who argues against the "problem of evil" who seems to have an actual grasp on what "omnipotent" means and entails. I find that this is usually the root of their confusion about why omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and the state of our world are logically incompatible.

Most people I have come across that barely know about the problem of evil, tend to limit their god's power in some way, even though they are not really aware that they are doing it. A need to undergo an elaborated process to achieve a goal being a particularly common example.

 

[gree0232]

I've yet to encounter anyone who argues against the "problem of evil" who seems to have an actual grasp on what "omnipotent" means and entails. I find that this is usually the root of their confusion about why omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and the state of our world are logically incompatible.

So you think circular logic proves that statement?

I think your problem is a simple one of pride.

You neither want to be wrong, and you want to be better than Christians.

A few dozen words as a postulate is better than the collected works of all hman religion.

I find the root of the confusion with atheists on this one is allowing pride to take better purchase than simple logic.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Most people I have come across that barely know about the problem of evil, tend to limit their god's power in some way, even though they are not really aware that they are doing it. A need to undergo an elaborated process to achieve a goal being a particularly common example.

Exactly. Omnipotence entails no logical limitations to what can be performed.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I've yet to encounter anyone who argues against the "problem of evil" who seems to have an actual grasp on what "omnipotent" means and entails. I find that this is usually the root of their confusion about why omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and the state of our world are logically incompatible.

Different God-concept hold different meanings for what such terms has omnipotent. What I mean by omnipotent would differ greatly from what a Baptist would say it means.

 

[Koldo]

So you think circular logic proves that statement?

I think your problem is a simple one of pride.

You neither want to be wrong, and you want to be better than Christians.

A few dozen words as a postulate is better than the collected works of all hman religion.

I find the root of the confusion with atheists on this one is allowing pride to take better purchase than simple logic.

I think you are the one with a problem of pride.
I have already asked you explain what you understand by 'circular reasoning'.
Because apparently, you don't really comprehend what that means.

But you insist on not wanting to talk about that.

 

[gree0232]

Yep, but if you accept such a premise, then you will have a hard time finding fault in the atheistic take on the matter.

I have no problem with the question and the resulting examination of suffering. Its why Plato asked the question.

I have loads of issues with atheists thinking this process proves much of anything about God - most definitely to any degree of certainty.

As I said, the examination of suffering and consequence actually winds up affirming the faithful rather than de-converting them.

In fact, every atheist in this thread, when we actually start discussing suffering and consequences ... avoid the discussion.

Its why we have atheists like KT simply assuming that people who disagree with him are illogical.

From a non-believer perspective, it also matters why he will or will not do it, and how much logic can be found in that.

Without a very good argument on those matters, it ends up becoming just yet another evidence for God as a human-created fiction.

And the basis of many contemporary works of Apologetics is aimed directly at that premise: that those things that we can take on faith (at least from God), can be examined, and inevitably found true.

For very over simplified for brevity's sake example: God says he will not commit adultery because its the right thing to do, but you are free to try it out for yourself.

Now, having been an adult for a while, and deployed, I have seen a butt load of adultery. I have never seen anything good come out of adultery, and the pain it inflicts on a spouse is unimaginable. Those who do it mindless of consequences are obliviots.

But being oblivious to the consequences of your actions tends to bring its own consequences in due time ...

 

[gree0232]

I think you are the one with a problem of pride.
I have already asked you explain what you understand by 'circular reasoning'.
Because apparently, you don't really comprehend what that means.

But you insist on not wanting to talk about that.

Agh, the I know you are but what am I defense? No way a pride problem would say that?

You COULD simply be making and supporting a claim?

Instead you are all over the place.

I'd ask you to honestly consider the belief that everyone who disagrees with you just doesn't understand logic - or circular logic - and offer up how such a gross and obvious bit of prejudiced generalization is anything BUT pride at work?

Right, it applies to the argument, but since the people making the argument are people - it must be an insult ... so respond in kind. Which again ... sortta demonstrates pride.

As does the ready resort to attacking the person when confronted with the reality that you aren't actually making any points at all?

Its called the fallacy of 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."

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

I am getting frustrated with this argument, its not because I have weak argument that is being pressed or that I am not making any points ... its because my opponent is flawed ... yeah, yeah ... that's the ticket.

Pretty standard post rationalization, correct?

So we have the investigation of a fallacious concept now fully supported by fallacious reasoning?

Excellent work atheists, you are rocking the **** out the PoE proof!

 

[LuisDantas]

I have no problem with the question and the resulting examination of suffering. Its why Plato asked the question.

I have loads of issues with atheists thinking this process proves much of anything about God - most definitely to any degree of certainty.

Uh, why?

You can't fault atheists for being atheists, nor for using logical analysis on claims about God.

As I said, the examination of suffering and consequence actually winds up affirming the faithful rather than de-converting them.

In fact, every atheist in this thread, when we actually start discussing suffering and consequences ... avoid the discussion.

Except that we do not.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Agh, the I know you are but what am I defense? No way a pride problem would say that?

You COULD simply be making and supporting a claim?

Instead you are all over the place.

I'd ask you to honestly consider the belief that everyone who disagrees with you just doesn't understand logic - or circular logic - and offer up how such a gross and obvious bit of prejudiced generalization is anything BUT pride at work?

Right, it applies to the argument, but since the people making the argument are people - it must be an insult ... so respond in kind. Which again ... sortta demonstrates pride.

As does the ready resort to attacking the person when confronted with the reality that you aren't actually making any points at all?

Its called the fallacy of 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."

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

I am getting frustrated with this argument, its not because I have weak argument that is being pressed or that I am not making any points ... its because my opponent is flawed ... yeah, yeah ... that's the ticket.

Pretty standard post rationalization, correct?

So we have the investigation of a fallacious concept now fully supported by fallacious reasoning?

Excellent work atheists, you are rocking the **** out the PoE proof!

And you actually think that your erratic and reactive ramblings are somehow supporting your argument (whatever it is that your argument is actually supposed to be)?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Different God-concept hold different meanings for what such terms has omnipotent. What I mean by omnipotent would differ greatly from what a Baptist would say it means.

Yeah, I'm referring to what the concept of omnipotence would actually entail and still be able to be meaningfully referred to as omnipotence.

 

[gree0232]

Uh, why?

You can't fault atheists for being atheists, nor for using logical analysis on claims about God.

I CAN fault them for failing to recognize how circular logic is neither valid logic or logically able to prove much of anything.

Except that we do not.

Oh, you see a lot of discussion about suffering going on? Because the discussion about disease and war that went on yesterday seems to have dried up in favor of ... not that, correct?

Ethical problem sets are not exactly the comfort zone for most atheists. They are messy. The defy clean standards like logic or science. they are often uncertain in context.

And yet that is one of the reasons I appreciate, of all things, the Old Testament. Atheists tend to see the 'Evil Bible' and nothing more, but what they miss, and after fighting in two wars and several other little thingys not quite war, I have come to really appreciate the bravery of the Israelites to put their struggles and triumphs of the line as a proof of the principles of God.

Its literally, here is what happened when we followed ... and here is what happened when we disobeyed. In all its messy glory.

 

[gree0232]

And you actually think that your erratic and reactive ramblings are somehow supporting your argument (whatever it is that your argument is actually supposed to be)?

Well, it s better than just being a ****** now isn't it?

I mean someone should at least be ATTEMPTING to make and support a claim .. rather than make up a definition of something and then crap on people for the inability to read his mind which somehow makes them illogical.

Great way to start an argument: Heh stupid people, MY definition of the subject ... pay no attention to standard definitions or the ones relevant to your faith that I am disproving ...

Which would seem to indicate that your argument is meant basically for you isn't it?

Arguments are supposed to at least have the pretense of convincing OTHERS.

 

[LuisDantas]

I CAN fault them for failing to recognize how circular logic is neither valid logic or logically able to prove much of anything.

You can try.

Of course, it just won't fly, since you are talking nonsense.