Perhaps you should be more rigorous with your research when berating others? Platinga's resolution to the problem of evil was a resolution to charges of logical inconsistency by means of proposing a possible way in which god and evil could co-exist. His resolution was to the criticism of inconsistency, not the problem of evil itself. Do I get to invoke consensus now.....?

Jackass.

(August 30, 2012 at 4:02 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Go google your own citations. I'm not your tutor. You ain't payin' me. I don't waste my time with people who question well-known developments.

I did google it, and could not find a reputable source that backed your claim. I did find claims that "some" and "many" philosophers consider it a closed issue, but not the "broad" consensus that you claim.

(August 30, 2012 at 4:02 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: If you're going to approach unsourced, unattributed positions with skepticism

Fixed that for you.

(August 30, 2012 at 3:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(August 30, 2012 at 2:34 am)idunno Wrote: After reading around a bit, I want to make something clear. I'm not here to prove the existence of God, I'll leave that to other theists. As I stated in my response to whateverist, I'm here to clarify Christianity a when I can. If you don't like this, you can simply ignore me.

Fantastic, another one. The last time somebody opened with this line it all went downhill from there.

To be fair, there's really no other direction it can go.

(August 30, 2012 at 4:11 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Perhaps you should be more rigorous with your research when berating others? Platinga's resolution to the problem of evil was a resolution to charges of logical inconsistency by means of proposing a possible way in which god and evil could co-exist. His resolution was to the criticism of inconsistency, not the problem of evil itself. Do I get to invoke consensus now.....?

Jackass.

Finally! Some two bit poindexter who knows what a search engine looks like. I was beginning to think all you wannabes could manage was chanting mantras and spewing non sequiturs. But enough about your pitiful existence, let's point out how you are wrong.

Firstly, Plantinga's resolution defeated the logical problem of evil. The charge of inconsistency WAS the logical problem. For the simpleton, the argument can be summarized as: "Given God's properties, how can God coexist with evil?" Plantinga showed that God can coexist with evil, and thus defeated the logical problem of evil. Now the logical problem isn't the only problem of evil. There is also the probabalistic rendering of the problem. It's much weaker. It doesn't say "God doesn't exist", so much as "It's unlikely that God exists."

So yes, Rhythm managed to get something right in his dribbling stream of incoherencies: Every version of the problem of evil is not defeated. Only the logical problem of evil is. This isn't very good news, because the logical problem of evil was long considered THE problem of evil. It was also the most powerful of all PoE arguments out there. Which means we really have to shore up the evidential, or probabilistic argument to defeat Christians.

Some day I'll probably start a thread explaining the argument, how it works, and how you can use it to defeat Christians in debates.

Until then, Rhythm, go ahead and give me a foot rub.

(August 29, 2012 at 5:44 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(August 29, 2012 at 11:52 am)idunno Wrote: I'll keep that in mind Napoleon, thank you.

Also keep in mind dat youse wrong, ya got dat?

You ain't gonna convert us! Neverrrrrrrrr!

You're a bit of a fucking tit, aren't you?

I suppose this is a good place to ask about proper Netiquette here. If you were going to ignore someone, do you tell them or just do it?

(August 30, 2012 at 4:19 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(August 30, 2012 at 4:02 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Go google your own citations. I'm not your tutor. You ain't payin' me. I don't waste my time with people who question well-known developments.

I did google it, and could not find a reputable source that backed your claim. I did find claims that "some" and "many" philosophers consider it a closed issue, but not the "broad" consensus that you claim.

(August 30, 2012 at 4:02 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: If you're going to approach unsourced, unattributed positions with skepticism

Fixed that for you.

How come your special needs amico Rhythm here managed to google it and figure out what the hell the PoE argument was and how Plantinga knocked it out, but you can't manage to get any search results? Here you go. Read up. http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/

If you are confused about any complicated terms, like "theodicy", or "libertarian free will", "omnipotence", "problem", "evil", "of", just let me know. Or let rhythm, or idunno or anyone else here who is familiar with the subject, know.

But read the whole thing first. I don't wanna hear any more stupid questions from youse.

Oh, now we want to make qualifiers to our statements do we? Probably for the best, lest we end up looking like an ass.....

(August 30, 2012 at 5:21 pm)idunno Wrote: I suppose this is a good place to ask about proper Netiquette here. If you were going to ignore someone, do you tell them or just do it?

It depends. Often it's rather like praying for someone; no point in doing it if you don't let everyone know about it.

(August 30, 2012 at 5:22 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I don't wanna hear any more stupid questions from youse.

I don't want to see you using stupid slang language all the time, but each to their own.