Q: do you, Christian, claim that God exists, rather than you believe that he exists?

[Ryantology]

The Problem of Evil doesn't posit that God doesn't exist. It posits that, if he does, he is evil. The character of the Christian god can only get around this by arbitrarily redefining good and evil, rendering such concepts entirely meaningless. It follows that, if you endorse that evil, you share in it.

[Whateverist]

I'm not ruling on the validity of your knowledge at all. I'm saying that my knowledge is just as valid as yours. We're constantly berated on here that our knowledge is invalid. I wouldn't accuse you of that, but you must appreciate, and I think you do by this role reversal, that we must complain at the injustice of that accusation made towards us. We justify it and offer reason for scrutiny. Sadly the majority still deny us the right to state our position without deriding it.

Frankly that's what I suspected. But when you copy the sorts of response you deplore in order to make a point it does get a little confusing sometimes. I can appreciate why you feel the impulse to do so. I get that by nature you are not really so pushy. Sorry if I was a dick about your playing the dick to make a point. (WTF did I just say?)

---

Serious question? If ur a Christian why come to this forum?

Well you know, it isn't the AthiestsOnlyForums.org. If it were, it would be ever so much more dull. Remember, Christians don't actually have cooties, well, maybe the fundamentalists do.

---

The reasoning is that the existence of evil and suffering in the world are incompatible with the existence of God. Since evil and suffering exist, it follows that God does not.

This is what I consider to be the most powerful positive argument a non-theist can use against the existence of God.

Are you familiar with this argument?

Really? I would have thought not already feeling that He must exist in combination with not being able to see any indication that He does, would be the best reason not to believe.

[discipulus]

Really? I would have thought not already feeling that He must exist in combination with not being able to see any indication that He does, would be the best reason not to believe.

No non-theist that I am aware of makes use of the reasons you mention when debating the existence of God in a formal, academic setting i.e. a university.

A good many non-theists who actually debate the issue in academic settings utilize the "Problem of Evil" argument because it is viewed to be the most persuasive positive argument against the existence of God. A good many theists even admit that the argument is powerful because of its existential element.

That is why I said what I said.

---

The Problem of Evil doesn't posit that God doesn't exist. It posits that, if he does, he is evil. The character of the Christian god can only get around this by arbitrarily redefining good and evil, rendering such concepts entirely meaningless. It follows that, if you endorse that evil, you share in it.

The problem of evil argument posits that evil and suffering could not exist if God existed and possessed the attributes traditionally ascribed to him in western philosophy. One of those attributes being omnibenevolence.

[Ryantology]

The problem of evil argument posits that evil and suffering could not exist if God existed and possessed the attributes traditionally ascribed to him in western philosophy. One of those attributes being omnibenevolence.

The problem of evil posits that evil and suffering can only exist in a universe created by an omnipotent/omniscient god if that god either intentionally designed it that way, or if that god is neglectful. A good and attentive god with omnimax qualities (in terms of power and knowledge, not benevolence) is logically invalid if our universe is his creation.

[Whateverist]

Really? I would have thought not already feeling that He must exist in combination with not being able to see any indication that He does, would be the best reason not to believe.

No non-theist that I am aware of makes use of the reasons you mention when debating the existence of God in a formal, academic setting i.e. a university.

That's probably because I'm not arguing that God doesn't exist. I have every reason to believe He exists in your subjective experience and that of many others who make the same claim. I certainly have no evidence to say any of you are wrong. However, my best attempt at understanding this phenomenon is that the God you experience is not what you think it is. What I feel a great deal more certain of is that the bible is altogether irrelevant to the question of God's existence.

[discipulus]

No non-theist that I am aware of makes use of the reasons you mention when debating the existence of God in a formal, academic setting i.e. a university.

That's probably because I'm not arguing that God doesn't exist. I have every reason to believe He exists in your subjective experience and that of many others who make the same claim. I certainly have no evidence to say any of you are wrong. However, my best attempt at understanding this phenomenon is that the God you experience is not what you think it is. What I feel a great deal more certain of is that the bible is altogether irrelevant to the question of God's existence.

Oh ok. I understand you. Thanks for clearing it up for me.

---

The problem of evil argument posits that evil and suffering could not exist if God existed and possessed the attributes traditionally ascribed to him in western philosophy. One of those attributes being omnibenevolence.

The problem of evil posits that evil and suffering can only exist in a universe created by an omnipotent/omniscient god if that god either intentionally designed it that way, or if that god is neglectful. A good and attentive god with omnimax qualities (in terms of power and knowledge, not benevolence) is logically invalid if our universe is his creation.

How is it logically invalid? I think you are using the wrong word when you use "invalid". Validity speaks to an arguments form. I think you may mean to say "contradictory".

[SteelCurtain]

How is it logically invalid? I think you are using the wrong word when you use "invalid". Validity speaks to an arguments form. I think you may mean to say "contradictory".

This is such a perfect representation of your refusal to address anything. You clearly understand him. He clearly stated his point. But instead of providing a counter point, you are attacking his word choice? Do you really just not have an answer?

Let's try this from now on. When you have an issue with the specific wording of someone's post, just make an assumption. It seems like we'd waste a lot less time if we were correcting your understanding of us than you clarifying every other word in an attempt to not address the topic.

[Esquilax]

And I'd still like to know about this evidence, Disc. If you don't mind.

[max-greece]

I thought to myself. What kind of God would invent something like this?

Then I realised - no God would come up with something so pointlessly horrific - therefore, there is no God.

From that moment on its all just fallen into place.

It is horrible and sad that human beings suffer from diseases like this. I can think of other even more horrific diseases than this. So I sympathize with you on this. Cancer comes to mind. My great-grandfather died of prostate cancer and it was very painful for him. I cannot imagine how he must have suffered.

If this is why you are an atheist then I respect this.

You state that: "No God would come up with something so pointlessly horrific, therefore no God exists."

Your argument against God is what is commonly referred to as "The Problem of Evil."

The reasoning is that the existence of evil and suffering in the world are incompatible with the existence of God. Since evil and suffering exist, it follows that God does not.

This is what I consider to be the most powerful positive argument a non-theist can use against the existence of God.

Are you familiar with this argument?

Yes, I am familiar with the argument. You are almost there in what drove me to atheism but not quite- the problem is I don't know if I can explain it exactly.

Its the pointlessness of so much of the suffering of animals and people that gets me. I'm not sure I would label diseases or parasites as evil - but I have to seriously question the mind that came up with them.

To me, now, this is not an argument for atheism alone. It is an argument for maltheism. I only reject the latter on the basis that I just don't buy the idea that a creator God of any form made this universe for us and is even aware we exist. If such an entity as the one that created the universe were aware of us somehow I can't see that he would care one way or another - even at a species level, let alone an individual 24/7 monitoring level.

Frankly - I don't even see mankind as the likeliest life-form of choice for the creator. I could easily see that were there a God he created the universe for single celled life and we are a by-product of no significance.

Before you dismiss that idea consider the following:

Single celled life has been around, just on this planet for something over 4 billion years. That is almost a 1/3rd of the age of the Universe itself.

If we do ever conquer space and do ever find life bearing planets we will find single celled life. We are much less likely to find multicellular life.

It is quite possible that single celled life is actually common throughout the galaxy and even the universe at large.

Multicellular will be much rarer. Intelligent multicellular rarer still.

Gotta say - looks like he did it for the amoeba after all.

[Ryantology]

The problem of evil posits that evil and suffering can only exist in a universe created by an omnipotent/omniscient god if that god either intentionally designed it that way, or if that god is neglectful. A good and attentive god with omnimax qualities (in terms of power and knowledge, not benevolence) is logically invalid if our universe is his creation.

How is it logically invalid? I think you are using the wrong word when you use "invalid". Validity speaks to an arguments form. I think you may mean to say "contradictory".

If you have time to be a pedant, you have time to address the point.