The Problem of Evil

[gree0232]

huh..
trying to keep up with this.. but apparently I missed something.. If you would be so kind as to clarify, for this poor slow observer.
1. Where is his Ad hominem? It looks like he said (to paraphrase) - Since you're not going to listen to what I say, why waste my time
Where's him saying your god is fake, because you're flawed? Please point that out for me.
2.Where is he calling you ANYthing based solely on your views?
3. For the burden of proof fallacy, you stated "oh look, no proof there's no god" His response was "Oh look, no proof there's no Russell's Teapot" Why was it fine for you, but a fallacy for him? What is the nuance I'm missing?
4. For the "how to prove a negative" Atheists constantly use that, and it gets shot down by theists. give us a clear definition of god, OR let us use our own, I'm OK with that, but if you refuse to define your god, and we use our own definition, we just get "Oh, well that's not quite how MY god is, so you haven't disproven HIM yet"

And I'll add in, I'd like to see you destroy agnostic atheism, I'm curious to have my mind changed... go for it.

So, what do you think of the following exchange?

Atheist: Your God is OBVIOUSLY false!!!

Theist: Oh, and you base this on what? Why is it you believe everyone with a different faith choice is a friggin' moron deliberately and OBVIOUSLY avoiding facts and evidence?

Atheist: Oh ... my bad. I thought you were actually interested in discussion but see I have to dumb down my expectations to meet your clearly (equally clear apparently) inferior understanding of my supreme intellect.

Please feel free to explain to me how its:

A. A good idea to immediately attack someone's faith upon meeting them and then fail entirely to actually support the attack? Polite, civil? Conducive to an exchange of ideas? Or just retarded?

B. Feel free to explain how facilitating evidence is and ... ahem ... civil discussion, is fostered by implying people asking you to logically support a claim are stupid an unworthy?

C. Please, share with me how, after implying someone is stupid and obviously of ill intent, how dumping out a overt and vacuous fallacy is conducive to the original claim: that my God is OBVIOUSLY false?

God is not real because I am automatically stupid and because of a fallacy, eh?

Scary stuff atheists.

BTW - its pretty absurd to be talking to a Christian and then pretending that you need a clearer definition of God in order to engage. What you are really saying is, "Hi, I don't know a damb thing about your religion, but I reject it anyway ... as an adult, I have yet to educate myself about your faith and this whole God concept in your faith is foreign and incomprehensible to me!"

Well, shucks, ignorant criticism is terribly effective isn't it?

At least have the pretense to engage with the expectation that your debate opponent is human and has a brain. Really, as Christianity and its doctrine are hardly secret, I don't think atheists are actually struggling with the Christian concept of God. That smacks me as an excuse ... not valid criticism.

If your religion struggles with pride to the point that this simple act of civility is a struggle ... That may be something you want to handle with your own faith choice before you go lambasting the faith of others.

 

[gree0232]

Agnostic Atheism: The claim that no claim is being made and is supported by nothing which need nothing because ... magically ... no claim is being made.

You know that is? Nothing.

What lead you to conclude that there is no God? Nothing.

What lead to a conclusion? Nothing. You have no conclusion.

And yet Luis JUST made the overt claim that my God was OBVIOUSLY false? And now we retreat into agnostic atheism where we don;t actually make the claim that we just made ... despite the apparently OBVIOUS nature of the conclusions that is not being actually stated .. despite is oddly being stated anyway.

Now, the very basics of logic require a claim (which agnostic atheists are not apparently making) and support of some kind (which magically, the rules of logic simply do not require of atheists ... who get a fully proven default position based on nothing ... but the utter rejection of logic). Anything to maintain to silly blind faith choice I guess?

Atheism: Logic & Fallacies

You will note that is is an atheist site? And no where does it list an exception to the rules of logic or its requirements. Quite the opposite, the lack of this is reason to reject something.

More actual atheist reasoning:

"In reality, however, that rarely happens. Most of the time, those required to support their claims do offer something — and then what? At that point the burden of proof shifts to the defense. Those who do not accept the support offered must at the very least show just cause why that support is insufficient to warrant rational belief. This may involve nothing more than poking holes in what has been said (something defense attorneys often do), but it is often wise to construct a sound counter-argument which explains evidence better than the initial claim does (this is where the defense attorney mounts and actual case)."

Who has the Burden of Proof? Atheism vs. Theism

So, unless you are willing to actually make the claim that you are deep in the cups of ignorance and actually pretend that no Christian has ever tried to support his faith with an argument, that apologetics doesn't exist at all ... which is itself illogical ... then you have a logical problem.

You have nothing, supported by nothing, to avoid everything.

And what was it Hitchens said?

That without support can be rejected without explanation.

Nothing supported by nothing can be demised for no reason at all. Agnostic-atheism is nothing more than the rejection of logic by desperate people who refuse to acknowledge that their faith is not evidenced in the slightest. Its simply rationalization meant as a salve for intellectually addled. Nothing more.

And most atheists? Yeah, not agnostic atheists.

Atheists don't become agnostic atheists until they come to one of these forums and are asked to actually back up their silly nihilistic attacks of faith ... and having no justification or evidence upon which to explain the often simple rudeness ... they go running for the succor of an brain dead excuse in which no reasoning is required for their actions ... just everyone else's.

Its about the most worthless bit of reasoning I have ever seen ... and atheists need not behave like this ... indeed many do not.

that about what you are looking for?

By all means, lets see you lay you a supported logical position in which no claim supported by nothing is more valid than a claim supported by a strong, albeit inductive, case?

Or should I just claim to be an agnostic theist? And thus I am correct and have no burden of proof for God, which is OBVIOUSLY real, but not actually claimed and thus requiring no support?

No atheist would buy that, and neither does any intelligent person buy the overt excuses and unintellectual BS of agnostic atheism. A greater threat to rationalism, education, and simply reasoning has never before been devised by a religion - until now. thank you atheism.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

So, what do you think of the following exchange?

Atheist: Your God is OBVIOUSLY false!!!

Theist: Oh, and you base this on what? Why is it you believe everyone with a different faith choice is a friggin' moron deliberately and OBVIOUSLY avoiding facts and evidence?

Atheist: Oh ... my bad. I thought you were actually interested in discussion but see I have to dumb down my expectations to meet your clearly (equally clear apparently) inferior understanding of my supreme intellect.

And if you flip sides, it happens here just as often, and going back on the entire exchange between you two, I don't see him calling you an idiot. I see you asserting that he did a few times.. If you would be so kind as to point out where he actually did though..

The first exchange I see consists of this..

This.

Better yet, it is an argument against a certain approach to belief in God. Against relying too much on faith on his existence.

Followed by

How so?

Because there is no 'test' for God. All cases for and against God are, by definition, inductive. They are based on probability, and as such, to be incorporated as a conclusion from which we base our daily decisions about (i.e. tp pray or not) requires faith.
So why is your faith that there is no God somehow more sound than faith in God?
And why is your belief that not being a slave is an act of evil correct?

To

Not so for the Abrahamic God, which is demonstrably non-existent.
Because I can affort to be mistaken, for one. Perhaps even more important is that it does not demand others to pay the price for my beliefs.
What are you talking about here?

and your reply

Really? Fascinating.

Please show me this test to prove my God false and me a brazen idiot.

And you pay no price for belief in God kiddo, I am not even sure where or how you arrived at that conclusion ... which is oddly the same reality for your opinion that I believe in God in open defiance of fact.

Lay that out fro me, please.

As for the later, please review the posts. Suffering must be or we are slaves.

You seem to be calling yourself an idiot, or stupid, or a neanderthal for him, multiple times..
Where does HE actually do it?

Please feel free to explain to me how its:

A. A good idea to immediately attack someone's faith upon meeting them and then fail entirely to actually support the attack? Polite, civil? Conducive to an exchange of ideas? Or just retarded?

B. Feel free to explain how facilitating evidence is and ... ahem ... civil discussion, is fostered by implying people asking you to logically support a claim are stupid an unworthy?

C. Please, share with me how, after implying someone is stupid and obviously of ill intent, how dumping out a overt and vacuous fallacy is conducive to the original claim: that my God is OBVIOUSLY false?

God is not real because I am automatically stupid and because of a fallacy, eh?

Scary stuff atheists.

A. you seemed to take offence and jumped to the attack before anything horribly rude that I see him say, unless I am missing something, and I very well could be.

B. Can you honestly look back over your own posts, and say that was you facilitating civil discussion?
Religion is a touchy subject, and while it's easy to take offence, when none is meant, sometimes you just need to take a moment and breathe. You claim he's insulting you, calling you names, and berating you.. but i'm wondering if either there was a breakdown in communication, or perhaps a miscommunication? Because I simply don't see things get heated until later.

C. Again, I'm not sure I see the same implication that you do.
And the fallacy you claimed he used, with Russell's Tea Pot, again, he was only using it after you did... it was almost a direct quote with only a few words changed. Either it was a fallacy for all or for none.

BTW - its pretty absurd to be talking to a Christian and then pretending that you need a clearer definition of God in order to engage. What you are really saying is, "Hi, I don't know a damb thing about your religion, but I reject it anyway ... as an adult, I have yet to educate myself about your faith and this whole God concept in your faith is foreign and incomprehensible to me!"

Well, shucks, ignorant criticism is terribly effective isn't it?

Now this I DO disagree with.. There are so many religions, branches of a religion, and "personal gods" out there.. One person may say god is spiritual, one may say he's physical, but outside space, one may say he's immaterial, but omnipresent, and all three can be the same denomination , and just view god differently.
It really IS good to find out what the christian that your speaking to thinks of when they say god, because it really does mean something different for each person, especially when you get into debates where actual characteristics are to be considered.
We can't read your mind. So if we ask you questions about what you think god is, it isn't because we've never heard of christianity, or are mocking you, it's because we've sopken to enough different people to find out that, people are all different, and so are their beliefs.

At least have the pretense to engage with the expectation that your debate opponent is human and has a brain. Really, as Christianity and its doctrine are hardly secret, I don't think atheists are actually struggling with the Christian concept of God. That smacks me as an excuse ... not valid criticism.

If your religion struggles with pride to the point that this simple act of civility is a struggle ... That may be something you want to handle with your own faith choice before you go lambasting the faith of others.

And again, see above. Especially when you get into apologetics.. everyone has different feelings, and thoughts about god.
And if you feel I am "struggling with pride" because we're trying to ask you about your specific feelings, or you think that's somehow not civil of us, please feel free to express that, but please don't assume too much because of it, which is what it feels like you are doing, to me.

 

[gree0232]

And if you flip sides, it happens here just as often, and going back on the entire exchange between you two, I don't see him calling you an idiot. I see you asserting that he did a few times.. If you would be so kind as to point out where he actually did though..

The first exchange I see consists of this..

Followed by


To

and your reply


You seem to be calling yourself an idiot, or stupid, or a neanderthal for him, multiple times..
Where does HE actually do it?




A. you seemed to take offence and jumped to the attack before anything horribly rude that I see him say, unless I am missing something, and I very well could be.

B. Can you honestly look back over your own posts, and say that was you facilitating civil discussion?
Religion is a touchy subject, and while it's easy to take offence, when none is meant, sometimes you just need to take a moment and breathe. You claim he's insulting you, calling you names, and berating you.. but i'm wondering if either there was a breakdown in communication, or perhaps a miscommunication? Because I simply don't see things get heated until later.

C. Again, I'm not sure I see the same implication that you do.
And the fallacy you claimed he used, with Russell's Tea Pot, again, he was only using it after you did... it was almost a direct quote with only a few words changed. Either it was a fallacy for all or for none.




Now this I DO disagree with.. There are so many religions, branches of a religion, and "personal gods" out there.. One person may say god is spiritual, one may say he's physical, but outside space, one may say he's immaterial, but omnipresent, and all three can be the same denomination , and just view god differently.
It really IS good to find out what the christian that your speaking to thinks of when they say god, because it really does mean something different for each person, especially when you get into debates where actual characteristics are to be considered.
We can't read your mind. So if we ask you questions about what you think god is, it isn't because we've never heard of christianity, or are mocking you, it's because we've sopken to enough different people to find out that, people are all different, and so are their beliefs.




And again, see above. Especially when you get into apologetics.. everyone has different feelings, and thoughts about god.
And if you feel I am "struggling with pride" because we're trying to ask you about your specific feelings, or you think that's somehow not civil of us, please feel free to express that, but please don't assume too much because of it, which is what it feels like you are doing, to me.

Oh, my bad ... upon being called out because my God is OBVIOUSLY False ... the lack of civility in the exchange is merely my fault?

The evidence in support of the claim ... not being there is apparently not important.

What is important is for an extremely biased atheist to not see a lack of civility in one side but a total lack of civility in the other side ... and careen a discussion about evidence into an overt smear ... which is civil and necessary? Not simply biased.

And here is what Luis actually stated: (Which is curiously advent your diatribe despite the claim that you would examine the exchange? Biased much?)

Originally Posted by LuisDantas View Post
Ok, Gree. Sorry for failing to realize which level of communication you want earlier.

I won't lose a lot of time with you, because I now realize how little you value what you say and I will adjust my expectations accordingly.

So, that is the response to .. why do you believe my God is obviously false?

Obviously, the real issue here is the lack of civility from the guy with addled intellect.

Tell me, how much longer before you just resort to flame bait? Before you go screaming to the mods that someone criticized your precious atheism and that this is a personal attack?

I mean, I should apparently begin conversations with this forums atheists by saying, "You atheists are OBVIOUSLY wrong! And i best dumb down my expectations in ealing with you!"

Apparently I must, because merely rejecting that premise is deeming unpardonable uncivil by atheists.

Again, there is no God because we'll employ overt double standard and smear you unless you agree with us?

Atheism is best supported by naked attempts t bullying is it?

Oh, that criticism is uncivil? Then where o where is the evidence that my God, so civilly claimed as OBVIOUSLY false, at?

You atheists signed up for that ... support it by something more than a fallacious smear of a person you don;t even know but who just be flawed because he's christian and doesn't like the more militant aspects of modern atheism ... therefore, in accordance with our addled intellectual prejudice, we can just assume he is flawed ... and bigoted.

I mean I see this is science all the time ...

A: Black hole obviously exits you vacuous piece of flatuance!

B: They do not you crap eating space monkey!

I am sure the evidence for or against a black hole in that particular region would, in a civilized discussion at some point become more important that hypocritical incivility which is justified by claiming its actually others who are uncivil.

Really, as a Christian, it must be my addled neanderthal mind at play ... not the lack of claims and evidence to support them at all.

Perhaps we should examine the pride and the resulting bigotry of modern atheism? And how that retards the actually evidenced based discussion of religion? As simple civility is apparently important to atheists based on what you write?

Is it? Then please, lets see this evidence in support of the claim that I am OBVIOUSLY avoiding facts? Please, practice what you preach atheist. Apply your standards to your position.

 

[Koldo]

And what good would that accomplish?

Prevent harm?

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Agnostic Atheism: The claim that no claim is being made and is supported by nothing which need nothing because ... magically ... no claim is being made.

You know that is? Nothing.

I agree in as far as, as agnostic atheism goes, it is a nothing claim.
it isn't a claim. It is a response to a claim.

The claim is "A god exists"
my response is, "I don't believe that."
I am making no claim there. I don't claim no god exists, I stating that I have been told a go exists, and I do not believe the claim.
I am agnostic about the existence of gods, I go where the evidence points me, and as new evidence arrives, it will modify my stance one direction or the other.

What lead you to conclude that there is no God? Nothing.

You seem to get very angry when someone makes an incorrect assertion about what you believe, but I would like to point out that that is exactly what you aer doing here.

What lead to a conclusion? Nothing. You have no conclusion.

I was brought to my conclusion based off the lack of interaction of a god, lack of evidence of the presence of a god, and lack of any personal experience to the contrary.
I was brought to this decision based of talking to bible literalists, and disagreeing with them on some of the factual points they believed in.
I was brought to it by talking to more moderate believers, and their lack of being able to give an objective description of how to tell the "literal" parts of the bible from the "metaphoric," while they claimed some innate ability to do it, that was inconsistent with others that worshiped the same god, and all of them claiming to be correct, and able to tell exactly the message that god wanted to convey, while being both unable to explain how, or to even be consistent with each other, or in many cases, even consistent with themselves.
I was brought to it by being told claims I simply don't believe, and am unconvinced of, and a lack of evidence showing me that I am incorrect.

And yet Luis JUST made the overt claim that my God was OBVIOUSLY false? And now we retreat into agnostic atheism where we don;t actually make the claim that we just made ... despite the apparently OBVIOUS nature of the conclusions that is not being actually stated .. despite is oddly being stated anyway. [\QUOTE]
He did claim that the Abrahamic god that had the traits he specified could not exist. I agree.
Explain to him why he is wrong, or don't.
But all you seemed to do was take offence, and lash out.
Do you disagree that your god has the traits he mentioned?
Do you disagree with his argument?
All it seemed, to me, was you read what he said, then stated that you think he called you dumb, and got angry.

Now, the very basics of logic require a claim (which agnostic atheists are not apparently making) and support of some kind (which magically, the rules of logic simply do not require of atheists ... who get a fully proven default position based on nothing ... but the utter rejection of logic). Anything to maintain to silly blind faith choice I guess?

The basics of logic require a claim?
I don't really follow you.
There are claims, and either acceptance of a claim, or rejection of a claim.
Atheism isn't a fully proven position..
..it is the rejection of a claim.

Atheism: Logic & Fallacies

You will note that is is an atheist site? And no where does it list an exception to the rules of logic or its requirements. Quite the opposite, the lack of this is reason to reject something.

More actual atheist reasoning:

"In reality, however, that rarely happens. Most of the time, those required to support their claims do offer something — and then what? At that point the burden of proof shifts to the defense. Those who do not accept the support offered must at the very least show just cause why that support is insufficient to warrant rational belief. This may involve nothing more than poking holes in what has been said (something defense attorneys often do), but it is often wise to construct a sound counter-argument which explains evidence better than the initial claim does (this is where the defense attorney mounts and actual case)."

Who has the Burden of Proof? Atheism vs. Theism

So, unless you are willing to actually make the claim that you are deep in the cups of ignorance and actually pretend that no Christian has ever tried to support his faith with an argument, that apologetics doesn't exist at all ... which is itself illogical ... then you have a logical problem.

Ok, what claim did you make, that he refused to comment on?
Unless you're assuming that by saying "I'm a christian" an atheist is automatically required to go through the laundry list of all claims they've ever heard from others.
If I say I am an atheist, I don't have to back it up by destroying all apologetics ever... that's simply silly.

You have nothing, supported by nothing, to avoid everything.

And what was it Hitchens said?

That without support can be rejected without explanation.

Nothing supported by nothing can be demised for no reason at all. Agnostic-atheism is nothing more than the rejection of logic by desperate people who refuse to acknowledge that their faith is not evidenced in the slightest. Its simply rationalization meant as a salve for intellectually addled. Nothing more.

And most atheists? Yeah, not agnostic atheists.

Atheists don't become agnostic atheists until they come to one of these forums and are asked to actually back up their silly nihilistic attacks of faith ... and having no justification or evidence upon which to explain the often simple rudeness ... they go running for the succor of an brain dead excuse in which no reasoning is required for their actions ... just everyone else's.

Its about the most worthless bit of reasoning I have ever seen ... and atheists need not behave like this ... indeed many do not.

that about what you are looking for?

By all means, lets see you lay you a supported logical position in which no claim supported by nothing is more valid than a claim supported by a strong, albeit inductive, case?

Or should I just claim to be an agnostic theist? And thus I am correct and have no burden of proof for God, which is OBVIOUSLY real, but not actually claimed and thus requiring no support?

No atheist would buy that, and neither does any intelligent person buy the overt excuses and unintellectual BS of agnostic atheism. A greater threat to rationalism, education, and simply reasoning has never before been devised by a religion - until now. thank you atheism.

Again. I'm not making a claim, I'm rejecting one.
if you would like to make a claim, or an argument of logic, feel free, but I'm not going to assume an argument for you.

You COULD become an agnostic theist, and not really have to show any evidence for your belief, but following that up with how obvious god is would kind of negate the whole idea of doing that.

No offence, but perhaps it is time to take a small break..
You seem to be agitated, I am not nihilistic, nor often rude, nor brain dead, yet these are all adjectives you've used in this discussion alone.

 

[Koldo]

We do call him Heavenly Father ... so .. yes.

and why do you think God can make us grow WITHOUT exposing us to risks? Or, given the illogic of omnipotence, why WOULD he?

He gave us life, not slavery.

He's not going to do everything for us, or we are slaves. Comprende?

No, I don't.

Would you be a slave if you were immune to diseases?
If anything, we are slaves to our own limitations.

Do you think God can not make us grow without exposing us to ALL the risks we are currently exposed to? That shows a lack of power.

 

[Koldo]

Because if God just waved her hand and did that? What would we have learned? What value would it have if we didn't make an effort to grow out of it?

So, by this reasoning, there is no value in what god does.
Since god does not need to make any effort to do anything at all, and as he also can't learn anything new.
It is perfectly acceptable if what god does has no value at all, but it is not when it comes down to humans. For some odd reason.

CS Lewis once said that God isn't in the business to make us happy, God simply wants us to grow up, to become mature. To learn, to learn how to maturely love and to learn how to be maturely loved. And all that takes effort.

Here is another problem: If god can't make us into "perfect" beings, as in not in need of any growth, then god is not omnipotent.

Omnipotence entails the ability to do anything. Anything.

 

[fantome profane]

ROFL!!!

WOW, just WOW!

My God is fake because I am flawed as a human - which you know through the internet ... by magic! (and you somehow dismiss the magic of magic floating space tea posts, eh? Curious that).

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Cool , I am glad you are familiar with logical fallacies. Please look up "false dichotomy" and then talk to me about your freewill argument again. Please look at post #123 after you have thought about the "false dichotomy" fallacy.

 

[cottage]

well, as I explained earlier, omnipotence is not a logical premise is it? If something be definition can do anything, which nuclides violating logic, why would we seek to confine yo to logic knowing that it CAN violate logic ... because its omnipotent?

That very premise is illogical.

Its a bit like trying to qualify infinity to an accurate decimal point. It just isn't join to happen is it?

I’m sorry but that is wrong. ‘Omnipotence’ means that there are no bounds other than what is logically impossible. For example, God is God and he cannot change himself or become not-God. And if you believe it can violate logic then by that reasoning ‘God exists’ is meaningless, together with all arguments to that end.

So what exactly are we proving here? And why is this proof so near and dear to atheists when its very premise is illogical?

The demonstration is perfectly logical. A thing cannot be both P and not-P at the same time and in the same way. God is either all good, or he is not all good (law of excluded middle).

1) God and evil
2) God and no evil.

Since #1 is true (assume God exists), #2 must be false.

 

[cottage]

Once you have a world without pain and suffering, a world without evil, what other greater good could be achieved? There is nothing left. Everything is fixed, you're every need is now catered to you from above. You have nothing left to aspire to anymore, you have nothing to overcome.

What you want is The Brave New World, well I do not want to live in The Brave New World.

Like John Savage said: “But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin.”

Forgive me but I have to mention that the personal pronoun "I" appears rather frequently in the above. Surely it is the suffering of others that we ought to consider in the context of this debate and not how best we can achieve goals and personal satisfaction as individuals? And it seems to me that a supposed need for unspeakable suffering in order to progress as individuals must destroy any credence in arguments to a moral and worshipful God.

 

[gree0232]

I agree in as far as, as agnostic atheism goes, it is a nothing claim.
it isn't a claim. It is a response to a claim.

The claim is "A god exists"
my response is, "I don't believe that."
I am making no claim there. I don't claim no god exists, I stating that I have been told a go exists, and I do not believe the claim.
I am agnostic about the existence of gods, I go where the evidence points me, and as new evidence arrives, it will modify my stance one direction or the other.


You seem to get very angry when someone makes an incorrect assertion about what you believe, but I would like to point out that that is exactly what you aer doing here.


I was brought to my conclusion based off the lack of interaction of a god, lack of evidence of the presence of a god, and lack of any personal experience to the contrary.
I was brought to this decision based of talking to bible literalists, and disagreeing with them on some of the factual points they believed in.
I was brought to it by talking to more moderate believers, and their lack of being able to give an objective description of how to tell the "literal" parts of the bible from the "metaphoric," while they claimed some innate ability to do it, that was inconsistent with others that worshiped the same god, and all of them claiming to be correct, and able to tell exactly the message that god wanted to convey, while being both unable to explain how, or to even be consistent with each other, or in many cases, even consistent with themselves.
I was brought to it by being told claims I simply don't believe, and am unconvinced of, and a lack of evidence showing me that I am incorrect.

And yet Luis JUST made the overt claim that my God was OBVIOUSLY false? And now we retreat into agnostic atheism where we don;t actually make the claim that we just made ... despite the apparently OBVIOUS nature of the conclusions that is not being actually stated .. despite is oddly being stated anyway.


The basics of logic require a claim?
I don't really follow you.
There are claims, and either acceptance of a claim, or rejection of a claim.
Atheism isn't a fully proven position..
..it is the rejection of a claim.


Ok, what claim did you make, that he refused to comment on?
Unless you're assuming that by saying "I'm a christian" an atheist is automatically required to go through the laundry list of all claims they've ever heard from others.
If I say I am an atheist, I don't have to back it up by destroying all apologetics ever... that's simply silly.



Again. I'm not making a claim, I'm rejecting one.
if you would like to make a claim, or an argument of logic, feel free, but I'm not going to assume an argument for you.

You COULD become an agnostic theist, and not really have to show any evidence for your belief, but following that up with how obvious god is would kind of negate the whole idea of doing that.

No offence, but perhaps it is time to take a small break..
You seem to be agitated, I am not nihilistic, nor often rude, nor brain dead, yet these are all adjectives you've used in this discussion alone.

Atheism is not simply the rejection of a claim. That is particularly so when someone states, openly, that there is OBVIOUSLY no God.

The claim that there is OBVIOUSLY no God, is OBVIOUSLY a claim.

And as logic dictates, that is a claim that requires support - particularly as is so patently obvious that literally billions of people disagree.

And when the support is to call someone dumb and then drop an open fallacy ... that isn't exactly support for the case that there is OBVIOUSLY no God is there?

The sudden retreat to agnostic atheism? After such an open assault on the faith of billions of people is, at best, questionable if not outright dishonest. (I am sorry you don't like that criticism, but the faithful get very tired of being referred to an morons who reject facts (or slyly implied as such) with alarming regularity and then, when asking for support for the claims so that we can expose the prejudiced BS for what it is ... we suddenly find ourselves having to deal with the shrill illogical of atheism that stands as nothing more than a road block to facilitate the wanton abuse of religious people.

And that is exactly what walking up to a complete stranger and telling them, with no lack of certainty, that there is OBVIOUSLY no God.

If you pick a fight with such a statement, you cannot get your panties in a bunch when someone accepts the bait and asks you to support the position.

And when we suddenly have to deal with ... "Oh, I am not actually stating what I stated?" BS.

Its just dishonest. Period.

It also happens to be basely illogical.

So, lets make a few things clear, there are several atheists engaged in this discussion, and several them ARE making claims that require support. Several of them ARE being rude and uncivil. That you personally are not, does not mean that such criticism is not accurate for your peers does it?

It also does not change the fact that Agnostic atheism is flatly and plainly illogical - if not outright dishonest.

Now lets actually look at the claim.

Please tell me, with references to these volumes why you reject God.

#1 - Mere Christianity. Why is an argument from morality wrong? From a moral or philosophical stand point.

#2 - Please, enthrall us with your knowledge of Ravi Zarcharias, feel free to critique his coming to Christ from the East and his criticism of atheism that lead him staunchly away from atheism.

#3 - Share with us your rejection of J Warner Wallace, a homicide detective, who pursues the gospels from a detectives analytical view point and why your ... agh, no claim whatsoever trumps this?

#4 - Share with us hoe simple statistics are wrong? As there is a 1 x 10 to the 322 power (well beyond statistical impossibility) that life exists based on purely naturalistic causes from the Big Bang. Please explain why engineering, which would be the only way to make this outcome more probable, is just not there based on?

Well, there are several thousand more volumes of Apologetics that you are apparently familiar with and are simply rejecting ... all without explanation. Your rejection of the claim is that you have examined it to some degree of proficiency, and should thus be able to state:

A. I reject the claim of God because ...

B. I have seen these common trends in apologetics (which we Christians will instantly know are accurate or not) and evidenced by these best selling works which are widely used by Christians.

C. These works have the following flaws.

D. You might actually come up with a better explanation for the evidence contained in apologetic ... but that would require you acknowledging the logical need to support something ... and THAT agnostic atheism cannot do ... can it? Perfectly demonstrating the problem.

E. Thus we can reasonable conclude (acknowledging the inductive nature of the argument) that God is not real or rather improbable.

So you can clearly see how there SHOULD be something in chain of reasoning that leads you to reject a claim and actually form an opinion ... which agnostic atheists both are and ... agh ... are not doing.

Something should lead you to reject a claim.

Merely rejecting something without reasoning is ... absurdity.

reductio ad absurdum - definition and examples of reductio ad absurdum arguments

Indeed, I can claim the opposite and you would reject it immediately. I am now, and henceforth, merely rejecting the claims of atheists ... which means there is most likely a God you see.

A. I don;t have to list what arguments atheists make.

B. I don't have to explain why I reject them. And why others should too.

C. I can continue to claim that atheists are obviously wrong.

Do you accept that? Or do you intrinsically reject those statements when aimed at YOUR faith?

And we are right back where we started: the basic rules of logic

Your claim, if we can get you to acknowledge this, is that you reject the claims of Christianity. Obviously, SOMETHING should have lead you to reject them?

The problem here is that when we finally get past all the BS unintelliectualism, what we get are vulgar characterizations of our faith, straw men with little bearing on our actual faith, ala Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al., which form the basis of the rejection. A pointed and provably false narrative ... which is why so many atheists so doggedly hold onto the premise of agnostic atheism.

actually having support atheism with evidence is scary. And as a former atheist who attempted this? I was left aghast at how poorly I was treating people based on a premise that more arrogance than intellect. Atheism is, at best, just another inductive argument about God. Nothing more.

And in the mean time, here I am talking about the Problem of Evil, and I still have rude atheists waltzing up and telling me my God is OBVIOUSLY false! Then treating me like a retard when I ask them to support such a deliberately inflammatory claim.

Indeed, you ASKED me to destroy agnostic atheism, and when I do? I am being mean.

Well brother, there is nothing logical about agnostic atheism. Nothing. Its an excuse and nothing more. That you bought it? I am sorry. I cannot however afford respect to something that is little more than a shield and an excuse to validate or support the vacuous and mindless rabble of assaults on my faith.

It deserves to be exposed for the irrational excuse that it is - as you have asked me to do. So I do.

 

[gree0232]

No, I don't.

Would you be a slave if you were immune to diseases?
If anything, we are slaves to our own limitations.

Do you think God can not make us grow without exposing us to ALL the risks we are currently exposed to? That shows a lack of power.

Are diseases evil? I mean is catching a cold now worse than genocide?

Or are we really that petty that we think there is no God because ... viruses exist? Bacteria? Many of which are necessary for us to live and digest food! And yet sometimes our bodies interact with these things in ways that are sufferable.

And we appreciate good health how exactly? Its just there right? taken for granted and expectation?

So what happens when you shove your body full of salt, sugar and fat? Should you still have good health? Or should gluttony have consequences? And when our gluttony lowers our immune system response? What then?

Tell me, if we have promiscuous sex in parks with anonymous strangers should that be free of consequence? No STD's because good health is just ... required?

Right ... consequences are evil.

Are you seeing the problem with this line of thinking?

 

[gree0232]

Cool , I am glad you are familiar with logical fallacies. Please look up "false dichotomy" and then talk to me about your freewill argument again. Please look at post #123 after you have thought about the "false dichotomy" fallacy.

Oh? So there is an alternate to the A and B reality of either having free will or not?

Please explain these other choices ... like half free will ... you can make some choices but not others! Which means .. you don't have free will.

I think its interesting that most of the people who bring up false dichotomy don't really understand what it means.

Some propositions do have more than two possible outcomes. Some do not. For example, either 1+1=2 or it does not. Or a true or false statement is not a false dichotomy. Saying that you can only cut a carrot in half or not would be a false dichotomy.

Saying we either have free will or we do not? That is not a false dichotomy.

Feel free to explain what the other options are here?

Obviously, my religiously addled Neanderthal brain is just not up to the task.

Again, I find it necessary to point out the trend in atheism to make, and then utterly fail to support a claim.

The free will argument is a false dichotomy because ...

I realize you atheists think we posses all kinds of fantastical divine magic, but really, no Christian actively claims the ability to read minds. Really. All honest like and all. We honestly cannot simply read your mind to figure out how you arrived at a conclusion.

That is why claims require support.

 

[gree0232]

I’m sorry but that is wrong. ‘Omnipotence’ means that there are no bounds other than what is logically impossible. For example, God is God and he cannot change himself or become not-God. And if you believe it can violate logic then by that reasoning ‘God exists’ is meaningless, together with all arguments to that end.



The demonstration is perfectly logical. A thing cannot be both P and not-P at the same time and in the same way. God is either all good, or he is not all good (law of excluded middle).

1) God and evil
2) God and no evil.

Since #1 is true (assume God exists), #2 must be false.

So you are changing the definition so that you can apply logical boundaries to omnipotence?

Omnipotence is the ability to do anything - and that includes the ability to violate the rules of logic. As explained to Luis, from his own source no less, that is a possibility, even logically, within a logical framework.

Omnipotence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Again, an omnipotent being can do ANYTHING.

He can indeed make something so massive that he cannot lift it. He could then turn around and lift it anyway. Because BOTH things are possible. And omnipotent being can, by definition, do anything.

There is no definition of omnipotence that says omnipotence MUST be bounded by the rules of logic. That is something that atheists WANT, but that is not the logical reality of an illogical claim.

You are engaged in the attempt to use rationalism to discern the irrational. But the reality here is that a Creator God is apparently massive enough to Create the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, and the tat would include all the fundamental forces that govern our universe.

So we are talking about a power massive enough to set, and ostensible change, the fundamental forces of the universe. Do you think such a being could set the fundamental forces one way to achieve a result? And then change them to achieve a different one?

That is how massive the power of omnipotence is.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

 

[gree0232]

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.

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

Let see if you can wrap your mind around this one. As God creates universes, and exists outside these universe and yet interacts with them, could he, at the exact same time create two universes with two objects of the same mass, etc. and in one universe, it has fundamental forces that make it impossible to move the object (even for him) and in the other universe make it so easy a toddler could lift the object? Essentially at the same time he could both lift and not be able to lift the same object at the same time.

And that is the real problem here.

Omnipotence? As soon as you have an aha moment and find something God cannot do? Well, he can anyway. He's omnipotent.

Omniscience? As soon as find something he could not possibly know? Well, he knows it anyway, he's omniscient.

Omnibenevolent? As soon as you find something clearly bad? Its not bad anyway because there is a reason for it haven't yet discerned. He's onmibenevolent you see?

I really fail to see how atheists are going to arrive at any point of certainty when as soon as you achieve certainty it can all be violated anyway?

The real question isn't whether or not God can do something. Scripture is clear, he CAN do anything. Scripture is also clear that God is a God of order. There are things he states that he will and will not do. (Not that he can and cannot do).

The real question is not whether or not God can? Its about whether or not what he does and does not do makes sense.

And good health, for example, being largely a choice to exercise, control our diet, not licking tuberculosis infected rats for no particular reason, etc. should have consequences that reward better choices over poorer choices don't you think?

If we find ourselves diabetic because we eat burger king 4 times a day should there be some kind of suffering to induce you to eat some carrots?

And 'needless' suffering? Polio? Horrible. And yet seeing it drove some people to study it, understand it, and develop a vaccine for it. Same with AIDS, etc.

We are not promised freedom from suffering during our lives, rather the opposite; "If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us." (2 Timothy 2:12)

There is no God because what he states will and must happen is happening? Bit of a logical paradox there isn't it?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Oh, my bad ... upon being called out because my God is OBVIOUSLY False ... the lack of civility in the exchange is merely my fault?

Um.... yeah.

 

[cottage]

So you are changing the definition so that you can apply logical boundaries to omnipotence?

Omnipotence is the ability to do anything - and that includes the ability to violate the rules of logic. As explained to Luis, from his own source no less, that is a possibility, even logically, within a logical framework.

Omnipotence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Again, an omnipotent being can do ANYTHING.

He can indeed make something so massive that he cannot lift it. He could then turn around and lift it anyway. Because BOTH things are possible. And omnipotent being can, by definition, do anything.

There is no definition of omnipotence that says omnipotence MUST be bounded by the rules of logic. That is something that atheists WANT, but that is not the logical reality of an illogical claim.

You are engaged in the attempt to use rationalism to discern the irrational. But the reality here is that a Creator God is apparently massive enough to Create the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, and the tat would include all the fundamental forces that govern our universe.

So we are talking about a power massive enough to set, and ostensible change, the fundamental forces of the universe. Do you think such a being could set the fundamental forces one way to achieve a result? And then change them to achieve a different one?

That is how massive the power of omnipotence is.

Either the concept of God is intelligible and explicable, or it is not. But if it is not then it follows that every argument you make to God is outside the bounds of logic. Therefore your statement ‘an omnipotent being can do anything’ becomes ‘No omnipotent being can do anything’, to give just one example; and there is no contradiction since on that account the Aristotelian laws of thought no longer apply, and even the term ‘omnipotent’ itself is derived of meaning. But we cannot deny what we are all agreed upon, which is that evil and suffering exists. And hence ‘There is no omnibenevolent being’ is inductively true notwithstanding any objection as a special plea to the irrational.

 

[cottage]

Omnibenevolent? As soon as you find something clearly bad? Its not bad anyway because there is a reason for it haven't yet discerned. He's onmibenevolent you see?

With respect I see a circular argument there, where the conclusion is the same as the opening premise. It is also an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). Omnibenevolence is neither logcally demonstrable nor empirically evident. It is not true in any sense.