(December 12, 2013 at 7:19 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: There's no need for you or I to even talk about what we do to help the world, you don't have to justify yourself to me nor me to you.

This is it, right here.

Without a God, this will always be the out.

Thank you.

(December 12, 2013 at 11:04 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote:

(December 12, 2013 at 7:19 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: There's no need for you or I to even talk about what we do to help the world, you don't have to justify yourself to me nor me to you.

This is it, right here.

Without a God, this will always be the out.

Thank you.

If you can make a case for me to disclose what I do with my money and what charities I'm involved in, I will. But you haven't. You just avoided the entire discussion and asked me if I've fed a starving boy. When whether I have or not does not contribute anything to your side of the argument, which I've tried again and again to spell out for you so at this point I don't know if you're being dense or dishonest.

But your last remark is really stupid because you think god exists and yet I'm still not required to justify myself to a stranger on the internet. And everyone would only need to justify their actions to themselves, the difference being atheist do not have an imaginary voice talking to them about their own moral values. I have yet to see a christian abide to a biblical teaching when it isn't already part of their moral values. I've yet to see a homophobic xtian become tolerant because the bible says love everyone and I've yet to see a tolerant xtian become homophobic because the bible say being gay is a sin. Same goes with divorce, money issues, and shit like that.

If you do not have an argument to make, walk off instead of making personal attacks at things you literally know nothing about.

(December 12, 2013 at 7:08 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Side-step

Your response to that was, I agree.

Quote:Maximally-knowing means he understands things you don't.

So is this one. And, if we don't understand his motives, how can you call those motives good?

He should understand ways to do what he needs to do without the introduction of suffering. If he does, then the only necessary reason for suffering to exist is that God enjoys suffering.

The price you pay for giving your god omnimax attributes is that he is to blame for every flaw of his own creation. There is no excusing or justifying even the tiniest bit of misery in a universe created by a being who has total control over everything, except for that being's love of misery. There is literally no other logical explanation.

I've had this conversation enough times to know that it can only eventually end with you telling me that God can do what he wants because might makes right.

(December 13, 2013 at 1:29 am)Ryantology Wrote: There is no excusing or justifying even the tiniest bit of misery in a universe created by a being who has total control over everything...

That is your error. God does not control your choices. You do.

(December 13, 2013 at 9:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(December 13, 2013 at 1:29 am)Ryantology Wrote: There is no excusing or justifying even the tiniest bit of misery in a universe created by a being who has total control over everything...

That is your error. God does not control your choices. You do.

"Sorry, kid. You made your bed, now you've got to lie in it. Don't blame God for the choices you made."

(December 10, 2013 at 11:22 am)Freedom of thought Wrote:

---

Hello, I am new to the forum, it's been a while since I've been in a theological discussion (after being banned off 'reasonable faith' for making someone butthurt by using sarcasm on someone who literally thought the devil was causing all the atheists to behave as they do), and I also don't believe in... Thor, Apolo, Krishna, Zeus, you get the point.

But people seems to get alittle rustled when I pick on the Judeo christian god, like it's special god (aka, special pleading), then ask me to justify my disbelief.

---

I often point out that the problem of evil is a good reason to not believe, but an even more often apologetic's sentence is thrown out: "God has morally sufficient reasons to permit evil".

What problem with evil, you need to explain this before you make the assumption that this problem is a reason not to believe in God. You've thrown out a thought to dismiss God and never gave any kind of reason that there's are problem with evil. So as I see it the statement," God has morally sufficient reason to allow evil."

Fot Wrote:I don't know about any of you, but I think this answer is truly a cop out. It's a rephrase of "god works in mysterious ways".

No it's not, the statement "God works in mysterious ways" is an explanation of why God does things we do not understand. The statement "God has morally sufficient reason to allow evil" is a statement made from knowledge. The reason lies within the pages of scripture.

Fot Wrote:And the 'mysteriousness' is the fact we can never know the mind of god,

Just exactly how do you reason we can't know the mind of God, why do you think He gave use the Bible. It's true we can't know the complete mind of an omniscient and omnipotent God, our minds would not be able to comprehend that kind or amount of knowledge.

Fot Wrote:and he 'probably' has good reasons why he gives babies aids, and aborts even more children every day.

Where did you get your information that God gives babies AIDS, last I checked it was the irresponsibility of the parents that caused the babies to contract this disease. Again where did you get your information that God aborts children, if you're talking about miscarriages that's a physical problem with the mother or fetus. By your stance on believing God causes abortions and you believe He is evil in doing so, I take it you're... no it would mean by necessity you are against abortion. Good to hear that.

Fot Wrote:They argue that "you'd have to be omniscient to say if god doesn't have morally sufficient reasons.

They who, seems you're speaking for some unknow persons. We have scripture to determine that God has morally sufficient reason to allow evil. You are trying to turn your reasoning on Christians, to support your ideas, that's dishonest at best. Christians know they can go to scripture to find out God's thoughts on evil and why it exists and is necessary.

Fot Wrote:If we changed on thing about the current system of the Earth, we wouldn't be able to tell if the overall suffering decreased or increased overall!". This is basically an appeal to mystery and the unknown, and the response itself is adhoc (I won't explain that here, but Richard Carrier used Bayes theorem on god, which actually made an all good god statistically impossible when theists gave that excuse, an evil god is much more probably, talking in the millions of times more probable).

You are trying to make philosophy a truth, when it's only a persons idea that can't be proven. You also have changed the subject of the original OP of evil to suffering. What makes you believe the two go hand in hand, why is suffering evil, you believe in a naturalistic world where evil and suffering are not the same.
Evil: causing or threatening harm or distress; wicked.
Suffer: to feel of endure pain --- suffering: pain, misery, hardship
The organism that causes malaria does not try to cause harm or distress, without the intention to cause there is no evil. Evil is an intentional thing not accidental or a result of sickness or misfortune.

Fot Wrote:To win this is actually very simple, I can get us to agnosticism in a few seconds, here is what my reply would be:

You'd have to be omniscient to know if god DOES have morally sufficient reasons!

This is the very reasoning you were trying to apply to Christians to satisfy your need to win an argument, winning is what you care about, when learning should be the goal.

Fot Wrote:The question of whether god has morally sufficient reasons is UNKNOWN, so therefore you are unjustified in proposing a god. Also, as the proposer of this god, you have failed to meet the burden of proof.

The burden of proof you believe Christians do not have is in reality found in scriptures, so the reasons are known and by your reasoning God is real. You apparently do not know the scriptures and at best you've only read through the Bible without any real study.

Fot Wrote:It is not me who has to prove god has insufficient reasons, but for you to prove god does have sufficient reasons. You've just proposed an unknown filler "god has x", we don't know what 'x' is. This is simply ad hoc excuse making for Jesus.

I'm not sure why you used Jesus in this statement but, I would think it's out of ignorance. No one was asking you to prove God has reason to allow suffering, the Christian is willing to do so. It's within the pages of scripture, we do not have to go any farther than the scriptures to determine God's reasons, being the Bible is about God.

Fot Wrote:But I want to go further than that, and shoulder the burden. So, we need to evaluate the sentence: "Is there unnecessary suffering in the world?" all I have to do is provide ONE example, and if there is unnecessary suffering, god cannot logically exist, as it is a contradiction.

You are not shouldering any thing, all you're doing is dancing around the real subject by equating evil with suffering. The subject you brought was evil not suffering. God does allow both and has real and righteous reasons to do so. We actually should be glad He does, the only other option is total destruction by the power of a God who hates sin. Now to challenge your suffering of man, why is it necessary to eliminate God because man brings suffering upon himself? What reason do you have to believe God can't allow suffering or evil for that matter?

Fot Wrote:I think the answer is pretty obvious to everyone: Yes! There is unnecessary suffering. Lets give one example: Malaria. So, does malaria have to exist? No. If we removed it tomorrow, would overall people be in a state of less suffering? Yes. So it logically follows that because malaria exists, god cannot logically exist, as he has the power to personally intervene, but does not.

That's pretty much a lame notion you have, again why is it God can't exist if malaria and the suffering it brings exists. Where does it say God must eliminate suffering for disease, how is that in any remote way logical? Why does God have to eliminate suffering, because you think that's the way He should work, you are saying God exists for my needs and desires, yet He being my creator means nothing if he doesn't serve me as I desire. Seems to me you're the one trying to be a god of omniscient power to make such a statement.

Fot Wrote:The only way theists can now hold their positions is by maintaining: "Removing malaria would not decrease suffering, as we can never the know the large scale consequences of stopping one thing in a large system" which is about logically inconsistent as "Jonny removing his hand from a hot stove will not decrease his pain, as we can never know the large scale consequences of stopping one small thing in a large system". It's pretty obvious that if you remove something that causes suffering, it will reduce suffering, well generally.

The best thing Jonny could remove is his stupidity and not put his hand on the stove. Removing malaria may or may not decrease suffering, we can not know this, malaria exist and that is what we have to deal with. Christians do not need to claim anything for or against suffering, God told Adam that suffering would always be a part of man's life, this suffering god allows because of the sin we have in our lives.

Fot Wrote:God has no morally sufficient reasons for permitting suffering/evil, as this evil is ultimately pointless and causes overall more suffering, which is completely needless and obviously leads to no ultimate good.

You have failed to shoulder the burden of proof as you said you would do, you have not shown why evil or suffering are pointless, God says in His word they have purpose, I've not seen your rebuttal of what God has said.

Fot Wrote:Atheists: Winning the argument since 33 AD.

Atheist were at a loss on how to disregard God in AD 33 and have not made any progress over 2000 years.

GC

The problem here is that the definitions of "evil" implied here beg the question. It is assumed that all man's sufferings are intrinsically evil simply because they are unpleasant, and that a good God could not allow them. This viewpoint only make sense from the perspective that there is no God, and that we're talking only about human ideas which do/don't make sense to humans.

Let's look at parenthood. I sometimes inflict suffering on my children. I some times give them free reign to make mistakes, or force them to follow my will. It is in my nature both to have them follow me to some degree, and for them to blossom and discover their own natures to some degree. I COULD mold my children almost completely-- brain washing, draconic punishments, a program of LSD to reform their little brains.

But I don't do that. Letting them experience some suffering is necessary for them to develop in the manner in which I want them to-- as individual entities separate from my own whims. If they ignore my advice, or take a wrong turn, things could turn out very badly for them. But it's hard to argue that even mortal risk on their parts makes the liberty I give them evil rather than good.

(December 17, 2013 at 4:25 am)bennyboy Wrote: The problem here is that the definitions of "evil" implied here beg the question. It is assumed that all man's sufferings are intrinsically evil simply because they are unpleasant, and that a good God could not allow them. This viewpoint only make sense from the perspective that there is no God, and that we're talking only about human ideas which do/don't make sense to humans.

Let's look at parenthood. I sometimes inflict suffering on my children. I some times give them free reign to make mistakes, or force them to follow my will. It is in my nature both to have them follow me to some degree, and for them to blossom and discover their own natures to some degree. I COULD mold my children almost completely-- brain washing, draconic punishments, a program of LSD to reform their little brains.

But I don't do that. Letting them experience some suffering is necessary for them to develop in the manner in which I want them to-- as individual entities separate from my own whims. If they ignore my advice, or take a wrong turn, things could turn out very badly for them. But it's hard to argue that even mortal risk on their parts makes the liberty I give them evil rather than good.

Can I amputate your limbs and set you on fire?

(December 17, 2013 at 5:44 am)feeling Wrote:

(December 17, 2013 at 4:25 am)bennyboy Wrote: The problem here is that the definitions of "evil" implied here beg the question. It is assumed that all man's sufferings are intrinsically evil simply because they are unpleasant, and that a good God could not allow them. This viewpoint only make sense from the perspective that there is no God, and that we're talking only about human ideas which do/don't make sense to humans.

Let's look at parenthood. I sometimes inflict suffering on my children. I some times give them free reign to make mistakes, or force them to follow my will. It is in my nature both to have them follow me to some degree, and for them to blossom and discover their own natures to some degree. I COULD mold my children almost completely-- brain washing, draconic punishments, a program of LSD to reform their little brains.

But I don't do that. Letting them experience some suffering is necessary for them to develop in the manner in which I want them to-- as individual entities separate from my own whims. If they ignore my advice, or take a wrong turn, things could turn out very badly for them. But it's hard to argue that even mortal risk on their parts makes the liberty I give them evil rather than good.

Can I amputate your limbs and set you on fire?

I'd prefer you didn't. That sounds like a very unpleasant experience.

@Benny The main problem is that your example of a human parent ignores all of the limits humans have, bith as children and as adults. A being with omnipotence and omniscience has no such limits, so treating it as if it did is a sort of equivoation.

Also, if by evil you mean suffering, then it isn't question-begging to say God, if he exists, allows for suffering. After all, you're just defining what you mean by the term.