The Problem of Evil

[Kilgore Trout]

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 ...

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.

OTHERS need to have enough reading comprehension in order to understand and respond relevantly to anything I've said. It's quite difficult to convince people who have problems parsing what you write.

 

[gree0232]

You can try.

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

ROFL!

That was actually kinda funny.

In point of principle I am trying and it does appear that its about as effective as talking nonsense.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yep, I get that same vibe.

Then again, I just don't see how you can convince us that our logic is circular. Probably because it is not.

 

[gree0232]

OTHERS need to have enough reading comprehension in order to understand and respond relevantly to anything I've said. It's quite difficult to convince people who have problems parsing what you write.

So we are back to reading comprehension problems again?

Grow up.

Try supporting a claim that you are actually making. Then there might be something to comprehend.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So we are back to reading comprehension problems again?

I didn't see any point in this thread when it wasn't a problem.

 

[gree0232]

Yep, I get that same vibe.

Then again, I just don't see how you can convince us that our logic is circular. Probably because it is not.

Well, fell free to explain how its not?

Omnipotence, for example, is the ability to ANYTHING.

So anything your proof finds, for example, that CANNOT be done, can be done anyway .. or its not omnipotence.

Ergo, if God is not doing something, is it because he CAN'T or WON'T?

However do you work your way logically through that problem set to any degree of certainty?

You can't.

No more than you can figure out how much energy is in an infinite amount. No matter how big the figure, its still more.

Same logical problem with the poof, correct?

 

[gree0232]

I didn't see any point in this thread when it wasn't a problem.

That's because you are being an arrogant *** hat.

Please stop the personal smears and just get on with whatever weak claim your just made up definition was going to make.

I'll happily poke holes it shortly thereafter ... because I'm already a flaming jerk so why not?

 

[LuisDantas]

So your claim is that god is omnipotent, yet also a *******?

Fine, believe in that if you will. I was assuming that you would rather not.

I would advise you to stop wasting your time attempting to convince us that we are using circular logic, though.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Omnipotence, for example, is the ability to ANYTHING.

Ergo, if God is not doing something, is it because he CAN'T or WON'T?

Exactly. Omnipotence says what god can do: anything. Omnibenevolence says what god will do: only things that are kind, good, and loving.

So the fact that there are things in the universe which are not kind, good, and or loving, it means god either CAN'T or WON'T create a universe which is only kind, good, and loving. Therefore, god is either not omnipotent, not omnibenevolent, or nonexistent.

 

[gree0232]

So your claim is that god is omnipotent, yet also a *******?

Fine, believe in that if you will. I was assuming that you would rather not.

I would advise you to stop wasting your time attempting to convince us that we are using circular logic, though.

I would advise you to start at least attempting to convince me, or anyone else, that you are not using circular logic.

I just gave you the perfect opportunity and, "Aw shucks, we are not!" is not a particularly strong proof or explanation is it?

Again, you atheists have to back up your claims too you know?


Why do you think the PoE has been so spectacularly unsuccessful in undermining religion if its so strong?

But we are so OBVIOUSLY wrong correct? So show us? Its ostensibly quite easy.

 

[Straw Dog]

An interesting aside is that the argument from the problem of evil was wrongly attributed to the Ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus. It was more likely constructed by the school of Skepticism. Epicurus held that the Gods were highly developed material beings abiding in a state of perfect tranquility. Suffering is a relatively human issue that the transcendent deities were unconcerned about. They served as ideals rather than as guides or creators.

 

[gree0232]

Exactly. Omnipotence says what god can do: anything. Omnibenevolence says what god will do: only things that are kind, good, and loving.

So the fact that there are things in the universe which are not kind, good, and or loving, it means god either CAN'T or WON'T create a universe which is only kind, good, and loving. Therefore, god is either not omnipotent, not omnibenevolent, or nonexistent.

And as stated earlier, many times in fact, omnibenevolence requires omniscience to disprove.

Unless you know all the angles and contexts you can only offer your opinion that it is bad, and if omnibenevolence is there ... its still good anyway.

That problem of circular reasoning.

All your hypothetical needs to be disproven is a hypothetical about how it might possibly be good.

Then what? Your hypothetical without support automatically trumps the hypothetical without support that disagrees? We cannot know with any degree of certainty unless we are omniscient. Are you? Am I? So what exactly do we 'prove' with this?

The premises cannot be proven or falsified, and one the basic premise of logic is that something is either true or false. A whole lot of maybe's lead exactly no where.

 

[Koldo]

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!

Once again, you refuse to do what I have asked.
A lot of people who disagree with me understand logic very well. But you don't seem to understand the meaning of 'circular reasoning'.
And you insist on using that term.

Why don't we clarify this point before moving to the next one? Why are you so unwilling to get into it?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And as stated earlier, many times in fact, omnibenevolence requires omniscience to disprove.

Unless you know all the angles and contexts you can only offer your opinion that it is bad, and if omnibenevolence is there ... its still good anyway.

Wrong. You only need to understand what the definition of benevolence is. The fact that nonbenevolence exists in a universe created by an omnipotent god means that that god is either not omnipotent, not omnibenevolent, or simply doesn't exist.

That problem of circular reasoning.

All your hypothetical needs to be disproven is a hypothetical about how it might possibly be good.

No. Your argument relies on redefining things that aren't good as good. If your arugment relies on suffering, pain, and misery being part of benevolence, then the idea of an omnibenevolent god loses all relevance and meaning. There would be no difference between an omnibenevolent god, an uninvolved god, or a nonexistence god.

Then what? Your hypothetical without support automatically trumps the hypothetical that disagrees? We cannot know with any degree of certainty unless we are omniscient. Are you? Am I? so what exactly do we 'prove' for this?

I don't need to be omniscient to know what benevolence means, nor what all-benevolent means, nor what all-powerful means. Your insistence that pain, misery, and suffering could be hypothetically good isn't compatible with what benevolence actually is.

The premises cannot be proven or falsified, and one the basic premise of logic is that something is either true or false. A whole lot of maybe's lead exactly no where.

The existence of god, or whatever its attributes may be, is completely unprovable and unfalsifiable, so of course we cannot know, assuming such an entity even exists, what its motivations, goals, or perspective might be. However, we do know what benevolence is, and that it does not include the unnecessary infliction of pain, misery, and suffering. If such things are necessary in some way, then they belie god's omnipotence. If such things are not necessary, then they belie god's omnibenevolence.

At the end of the day, your argument relies on changing the definition of benevolence in order to be compatible with the idea of an omnipotent, omnibenevlent god with a universe that clearly contains much that isn't benevolent.

 

[gree0232]

Once again, you refuse to do what I have asked.
A lot of people who disagree with me understand logic very well. But you don't seem to understand the meaning of 'circular reasoning'.
And you insist on using that term.

Why don't we clarify this point before moving to the next one? Why are you so unwilling to get into it?

I quoted it for you. Gave you a proof of it.

Its not a difficult concept.

Your are simply engaging in an appeal to spite K.

And how would you appreciate someone insisting that you are struggling with the alphabet?

Would you think that would be a valid criticism? Or someone just insulting you?

If I furthered it up with, "Gee K, lots of people that disagree with me understand the alphabet just fine ... YOU though, seem to be struggling."

So, you recognize that as an insult? Me? I must be really stupid because I neither recognize or understand circular logic or when I am being insulted.

The pride issue K.

If you think its not circular logic, prove it.

If its as obvious as you think. Prove it.

Prove how you solve, that cannot be done, yes it can anyway.

Circular reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as paradoxical thinking[1] or circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. However, the argument is useless because the conclusion is one of the premises. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted.[3] Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning

Omnipotence means ANYTHING is possible ... therefore it is!!!

And it begins with:

Anything is possible.

You can't do that!

Yes I can, ANYTHING is possible!

OB:

All that I do is good because I am OB.

Well that is bad.

No its not, its actually good for whatever reason because I am OB.

Its CLASSIC circular logic.

To insult someone while being wrong? That's just douchey.

 

[gree0232]

Wrong. You only need to understand what the definition of benevolence is. The fact that nonbenevolence exists in a universe created by an omnipotent god means that that god is either not omnipotent, not omnibenevolent, or simply doesn't exist.



No. Your argument relies on redefining things that aren't good as good. If your arugment relies on suffering, pain, and misery being part of benevolence, then the idea of an omnibenevolent god loses all relevance and meaning. There would be no difference between an omnibenevolent god, an uninvolved god, or a nonexistence god.



I don't need to be omniscient to know what benevolence means, nor what all-benevolent means, nor what all-powerful means. Your insistence that pain, misery, and suffering could be hypothetically good isn't compatible with what benevolence actually is.



The existence of god, or whatever its attributes may be, is completely unprovable and unfalsifiable, so of course we cannot know, assuming such an entity even exists, what its motivations, goals, or perspective might be. However, we do know what benevolence is, and that it does not include the unnecessary infliction of pain, misery, and suffering. If such things are necessary in some way, then they belie god's omnipotence. If such things are not necessary, then they belie god's omnibenevolence.

At the end of the day, your argument relies on changing the definition of benevolence in order to be compatible with the idea of an omnipotent, omnibenevlent god with a universe that clearly contains much that isn't benevolent.

And how do YOU understand the dimension enough to disprove OB?

Would benevolence be the greater good? Or the good of the few?

The definition: the quality of being well meaning; kindness.

So, when you state, "...so of course we cannot know, assuming such an entity even exists, what its motivations, goals, or perspective might be," how can you possibly conclude that the thing causes more harm than good?

The answer is, you can't.

All you can do is say, "From my limited perspective that seems bad."

And here is the long standing religious response to suffering:

Why Does God Allow Tragedy and Suffering? | Bible Gateway Blog

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1975/04/what-is-the-purpose-of-suffering?lang=eng

Test and Suffering | The Justice of God | Books on Islam and Muslims | Al-Islam.org

A Buddhist View of Suffering - Peter Morrell

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/pastoral/events/Hindu_painsuffering.pdf

As you can see, every major religion on earth provided answers to suffering.

So this claim that somehow suffering disproves God?

It demonstrates little more than how little atheists know about religion.

Indeed, the problem of falsifying OB defined:

"What seems to be a tragedy (and a cause for suffering) may from an eternal perspective be a blessing and a cause for rejoicing."

How DO YOU disprove that?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And how do YOU understand the dimension enough to disprove OB?

Would benevolence be the greater good? Or the good of the few?

There would be no limits on the benevolence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent entity, so if such an entity existed, there would be absolute benevolence for all - by definition.

So, when you state, "...so of course we cannot know, assuming such an entity even exists, what its motivations, goals, or perspective might be," how can you possibly conclude that the thing causes more harm than good?

The answer is, you can't.

All you can do is say, "From my limited perspective that seems bad."

Right, and a god might actually have created people in order to experience their suffering. This god might define such a motivation as "good." However, as I already stated, this relies on redefining what benevolence and good mean. These are human concepts with human definitions. If we're talking about something that is omnibenevolent from a human standpoint, then it is necessarily reliant on the human concept of what benevolence is.

By saying that whatever a god does is benevolent, even if it doesn't correspond to what people think of a benevolence, then you're simply redefining the term, and opening up a "good" god to things like genocide, murder, torture, pain, and suffering as being "good," just by virtue that god thinks they are good.

And here is the lag standing religious response to suffering:

Why Does God Allow Tragedy and Suffering? | Bible Gateway Blog

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1975/04/what-is-the-purpose-of-suffering?lang=eng

Test and Suffering | The Justice of God | Books on Islam and Muslims | Al-Islam.org

A Buddhist View of Suffering - Peter Morrell

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/pastoral/events/Hindu_painsuffering.pdf

As you can see, every major religion on earth provided answers to suffering.

Yes, and I'm familiar with the usual responses, all of which fall short of logical consistency.

So this claim that somehow suffering disproves God?

As I stated several times already (for those with reading comprhension), it doesn't disprove god in general. What it does prove is the logical incompatibility of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god with our unviverse. A solid position which still has not been meaningfully challenged.

It demonstrates little more than how little atheists know about religion.

It demonstrates more how little theists know (or care) about logical consistency when it comes to their concepts of religion and deity.

Indeed, the problem of falsifying OB defined:

"What seems to be a tragedy (and a cause for suffering) may from an eternal perspective be a blessing and a cause for rejoicing."

How DO YOU disprove that?

I don't need to disprove it. All I need to prove is that there is suffering, pain, and misery in this world, and how this is logically incompatible with the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. If you want to argue that what god does is necessarily good just because god does it that's fine. But, the state of our universe would then imply that god finds all manner of horrible things good, and thus any claims about its benevolence are terribly misguided.

 

[Koldo]

If you think its not circular logic, prove it.

If its as obvious as you think. Prove it.

Are you aware of the concept of 'burden of proof'?
Since you made a claim you also have to back it up.
You can't just pass the burden to me to prove that your statement is wrong.

Prove how you solve, that cannot be done, yes it can anyway.

Circular reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as paradoxical thinking[1] or circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. However, the argument is useless because the conclusion is one of the premises. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted.[3] Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning

I don't want a quote from wikipedia.
I want you to use your own words to tell me what is circular reasoning.
I have specified that I want you to use your own words before a couple of times before.

Omnipotence means ANYTHING is possible ... therefore it is!!!

And it begins with:

Anything is possible.

You can't do that!

Yes I can, ANYTHING is possible!

Why do you keep telling me this?
I have already agreed with it.

OB:

All that I do is good because I am OB.

Well that is bad.

No its not, its actually good for whatever reason because I am OB.

I will ask you the same question again since you refused to answer the last time: Is suffering in itself a good thing? If you get nothing out of it, is suferring good? If yes, what do you understand by the word 'good'? What does it mean to you?

Its CLASSIC circular logic.

To insult someone while being wrong? That's just douchey.

The problem is: It is not circular logic.
That's sad and funny, but you really believe on that.

 

[gree0232]

There would be no limits on the benevolence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent entity, so if such an entity existed, there would be absolute benevolence for all - by definition.



Right, and a god might actually have created people in order to experience their suffering. This god might define such a motivation as "good." However, as I already stated, this relies on redefining what benevolence and good mean. These are human concepts with human definitions. If we're talking about something that is omnibenevolent from a human standpoint, then it is necessarily reliant on the human concept of what benevolence is.

By saying that whatever a god does is benevolent, even if it doesn't correspond to what people think of a benevolence, then you're simply redefining the term, and opening up a "good" god to things like genocide, murder, torture, pain, and suffering as being "good," just by virtue that god thinks they are good.



Yes, and I'm familiar with the usual responses, all of which fall short of logical consistency.



As I stated several times already (for those with reading comprhension), it doesn't disprove god in general. What it does prove is the logical incompatibility of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god with our unviverse. A solid position which still has not been meaningfully challenged.



It demonstrates more how little theists know (or care) about logical consistency when it comes to their concepts of religion and deity.



I don't need to disprove it. All I need to prove is that there is suffering, pain, and misery in this world, and how this is logically incompatible with the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. If you want to argue that what god does is necessarily good just because god does it that's fine. But, the state of our universe would then imply that god finds all manner of horrible things good, and thus any claims about its benevolence are terribly misguided.

And if the pan and suffering you see are actually benefits from an eternal perspective? Then they are an act of benevolence.

In order to convince a religious person, that is what you have to prove.

You can't change the parameters in the middle, I didn't and not saying its good merely because 'God' does it.

I am saying, from a perspective beyond our limited understanding it may very well be.

And when we look at God's Plan of Salvation, that the intent is to be here to learn and grow, to face consequences and see and find truth for ourselves?

Suffering is needed for there to be consequences.

And at face value, a moment of suffering to facilitate an eternity of understanding is a tremendous act of benevolence.

Take the biggest one ... death, murder. Suffering right? Not from an eternal perspective, because you are not dead ... and you have returned to a state of being with heavenly father and suffer no more. Is allowing murder thus malevolent?

As I said, there is a reason the PoE hasn't has much effect in millennia.

You think suffering disproves religion ... religion has long dealt with suffering. There is a logical expectation there that adherents of the PoE don't seem to understand.

And the tops out of, "Well, if its just good because God did it ..." would seem to indicate that you don't even want to understand the religious position enough to be able to able to rebut it.

There are better proofs of atheism than the PoE - by a long margin.

The PoE was around a long time before atheism began its uptick. I would wager the arguments that began that uptick probably have a little more merit to them than this one.

As a former atheist who HAS studied them? I'd wager you pennies to dollars that is the case.

It is those arguments, and not the PoE, that lead me to conclude that inductively, thought I disagree, atheism is at least a tenable inductive argument.

BTW - If someone want someone to honestly engage with you, then simply dismissing the main claims of five major religions with the guffaw of "yeah its illogical because i say so," is not helpful.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't want a quote from wikipedia.
I want you to use your own words to tell me what is circular reasoning.
I have specified that I want you to use your own words before a couple of times before.

I find it virtually impossible to get any debater to stop and define his terms in his own words.

Yet that is the essence of creating a coherent worldview, I think. The one who's not afraid to do it is almost always the better debater.