@wiploc

Logically possible propositions are propositions that have no contradictions in them. It is the broadest category of possibility that a proposition can fall into. While it does provide assurance that the conclusion might be true, it does not provide assurance that it is true.

An example: "It is logically possible that I am in Paris" is perfectly true. However, I am not.

In a logical argument, first we check to see if there are any contradictions in the premises and that the conclusion follows from the premises. The PoE argument is logically possible in the broad sense. There are no logical contradictions in the statement. All that gets you is that it may be true.

1. An all-powerful (omnipotent) God could prevent evil from existing in the world.
   
2. An all-knowing (omniscient) God would know that there was evil in the world.
   
3. An all-good (omnibenevolent) God would wish to prevent evil from existing in the world.
   
4. There is evil in the world.
   
5. Therefore God does not exist. 
   

Next, you have to fend off all defeaters (challenges) that might make a premise or the conclusion false. There are opposing defeaters where you argue that a premise is incompatible with another belief that is thought to be true. There are also undercutting defeaters that if true cast doubt on a premise. A defeater for my example above would be that I am really present in New Jersey and I cannot be in two place at the same time.

Plantinga proposes that when you compare the broadly logically possible world God could make with a real one, for every decision that a person made in the possible world, he could very well made a different one in the actual world (free will and all). That would be an opposing defeater for #1.

You could offer defeater defeaters until you iron out every possible objection. Only if the PoE argument is defended against all defeaters would it be considered a "successful argument".

(June 10, 2016 at 4:24 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(June 10, 2016 at 3:28 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't think Steve's point is to try to give you evidence/proof that God exists, merely explaining why he thinks the God he believes in doesn't show Himself, and why the God he believes in doesn't contradict the existence of evil.

Well, sure, but those explanations also have to be valid to hold any weight, and just appealing to another portion of the narrative doesn't do that. It might convince him, and it might convince you, but in this respect, that's not hard, since you're already invested. That doesn't prevent us from pointing out the problems with the arguments being made, nor in responding to Steve's claims regarding the circularity of the responses he's getting, which is what I was doing.

Quote:None of us can know for sure why He makes that choice, but Steve has already given his theories (which are also the widely accepted theories in Christianity) in the past several pages.

As for why we believe what we believe, I think that is a topic for a different thread. This one isn't meant to be some sort of "proof" to you guys that God exists.

I guess my problem is that why a person believes what they believe is way more important than the content of the beliefs themselves. With respect, talk is cheap, and discussing the content of your beliefs divorced from why you believe it is little more than particularly cheap talk, because without knowing why we have no way of assessing how good the belief actually is. I don't consider "why?" to be a different topic, I consider it an integral part of propping up the "what?" as something that merits serious consideration.

If there is no proof of God that can be shown in the first place, then obviously there is no proof that evil and our God can co exist. So that's not the attempt here.  

Again, the point of this thread is simply to explain our own understanding. How we can reconcile the 2. Not to convince you to believe in God or to believe the same thing. If you're simply looking for us to give you proof of God, you won't find that here, or anywhere else I'm afraid.    

We are a people of hope. Some of us have logical reasons for believing in God, others have been lucky enough to actually experience something supernatural which to us, has served as evidence. But as far as proof of God's existence, like proof that birds can fly or something, we have none. We can only hope that He does exist. If someone wants to know how we reconcile our belief in Him with things like evil and His ambiguity, we can explain how we see it, and that is what Steve is doing here. But we can't give proof.

There is no problem of evil because there is no claim in the Bible that God is omnibenevolent.  I mean, shit, he's killed more innocent people than Hitler.

This benevolent God business is a pulpit invention, an apologetic assertion, a Christian catchphrase. Ultimately it's fan fiction, like how some believe they will become an angel in heaven. In Christian theology, God is tautologically "good" but he is nowhere near benevolent.

Problem solved.

deleted. Will rewrite later.

(June 10, 2016 at 3:21 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(June 8, 2016 at 8:32 pm)wiploc Wrote: Here you are assuming that god is not omnipotent.  If a god is too weak to have free will without suffering, he is not omnipotent.

If god and free will exist then that god is not omnipotent as it doesn't have power over all things, suffering existing or not.

God choice not to violate free will in no way comes close to undercutting the concept of omnipotence. That would be like you saying because I choose not to lift my arm I don't have power over my body.

(June 10, 2016 at 3:28 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(June 10, 2016 at 3:25 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: What we believe is that He does have the power to take away our free will but chooses not to.

And why does he make that choice? Why so inconsistently, too, since our free will only seems to matter on Earth, and not one jot once we die? For that matter, how do you know this at all? It really does just seem like an argument of convenience, rather than anything based in verifiable observations.

Because free will is valued more highly than just about anything else (with the exception of knowledge of God). For one, without free will, we would not have love.

CL,

He's not simply sharing his views, he's arguing a point and strawmaned the shit out of an assumed atheist position in the OP by intentionally ignoring what that response is in reply to. The 'just sharing' defense is bullshit. If how I choose to reply in turn is too much for your fragile sensibilities then ignore me. I won't stand by in an open forum and passively accept the blatant rationalizations and twisted logic required to conclude that a deity that wipes out almost all of existence out of spite isn't an evil prick.

The entire charade smacks of Stockholm syndrome and shouldn't be taken seriously. There really are only two solutions to Euthyphro's dilemma: 1. God doesn't exist or 2. Drop the omni-benevolent/ultimate good fantasy and admit your God is sometimes an evil prick as clearly demonstrated in your most cherished text.

This is also another case where people assume we haven't heard this tripe before. Even if Steve was 'just sharing', it isn't anymore reasonable simply because of someone's personal conviction on the matter.

I also think you don't understand what I mean by 'grow up'. I don't give a flying fuck what you believe and your particular beliefs don't make you childish; it's your insistence and expectation that this is to be taken seriously that is similar to a child's expectation that others take seriously the claim. The expectation is preposterous.

(June 10, 2016 at 9:23 pm)Cato Wrote: CL,

He's not simply sharing his views, he's arguing a point and strawmaned the shit out of an assumed atheist position in the OP by intentionally ignoring what that response is in reply to. The 'just sharing' defense is bullshit. If how I choose to reply in turn is too much for your fragile sensibilities then ignore me. I won't stand by in an open forum and passively accept the blatant rationalizations and twisted logic required to conclude that a deity that wipes out almost all of existence out of spite isn't an evil prick.

The entire charade smacks of Stockholm syndrome and shouldn't be taken seriously. There really are only two solutions to Euthyphro's dilemma: 1. God doesn't exist or 2. Drop the omni-benevolent/ultimate good fantasy and admit your God is sometimes an evil prick as clearly demonstrated in your most cherished text.

This is also another case where people assume we haven't heard this tripe before. Even if Steve was 'just sharing', it isn't anymore reasonable simply because of someone's personal conviction on the matter.

I also think you don't understand what I mean by 'grow up'. I don't give a flying fuck what you believe and your particular beliefs don't make you childish; it's your insistence and expectation that this is to be taken seriously that is similar to a child's expectation that others take seriously the claim. The expectation is preposterous.

Considering I know atheists don't believe in God, I don't expect them to either change their minds or take anything I say about God seriously. So no, I'm not insisting on those things. But if they are asking questions about our views, and we answer, I do expect them not to be jerks about it. You're coming off extremely hostile. If you think Steve was making a straw in his OP, then perhaps address that. All you did really was just come on and make a short post about Christians needing to get over themselves and grow up.   

The "problem of evil" is a question that gets asked all the time. Steve made a post to explain his views on it, open up dialogue and address any objections. If you're not interested in hearing about it, I would recommend not participating in the thread.

(June 10, 2016 at 3:21 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(June 8, 2016 at 8:32 pm)wiploc Wrote: Here you are assuming that god is not omnipotent.  If a god is too weak to have free will without suffering, he is not omnipotent.

If god and free will exist then that god is not omnipotent as it doesn't have power over all things, suffering existing or not.

That doesn't make sense to me.  Does the fact that you have authority over your kids mean that they don't have any free will?

(June 10, 2016 at 4:46 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: There is no problem of evil

Sure there is.  

An omnipotent god would have the power to prevent all evil.
An omniscient god would know how to prevent all evil.  
An omnibenevolent god would choose to prevent all evil.  
Therefore, a tri-omni god would prevent all evil.  
Therefore, if evil exists, tri-omni gods do not exist.  

That's a logical relationship.  It has a name.  It is called "The Problem of Evil."  

Quote:because there is no claim in the Bible that God is omnibenevolent.

Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong.  Actually, I assume you're wrong, because whenever the bible says one thing over here, it'll say something else over there.  But, hey, let's stipulate that you're right:  The bible doesn't claim god is omnipotent.  

I don't see how that's relevant.  A lot of Christians believe their god is omnipotent, and that he's omnisicient, and that he's omnibenevolent, and that he coexists with evil.  Those Christians are wrong.  

How do we know they're wrong?  The PoE.  

Quote:In Christian theology, God is tautologically "good" but he is nowhere near benevolent.

To be benevolent is to desire good.  

Quote:Problem solved.

The PoE is already a solution.  It is a logical proof that you cannot logically believe in a tri-omni god who coexists with evil.