(February 26, 2014 at 7:23 pm)discipulus Wrote: 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.

Right, it is an argument against the creator God of theodicy: omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. The world we live in has a lot of suffering in it. An omnibenevolent God would want there to be less suffering. An omniscient God would know how to reduce suffering. An omnipotent God would be able to reduce suffering. At least one of the legs of theodicy needs to be sawed down to account for the real world. The sport is in seeing which leg the believer will pick. Drich throws out omnibenebolence entirely, for instance.

If it were me, I'd knock omnipotence and omniscience down to 'ultra-powerful' and 'ultra-wise'. That gives us a God doing the best it can in a vast universe where we're probably not the only ones who need miracles rather than an omnipotent tyrant. And it probably doesn't care if we worship it, because it is silly to care if lesser beings worship you.

But if that description applies to the God you believe in, congratulations on having a nicer God than some people, and one that doesn't contradict what we find in nature, but there's still no good reason to think that it's real.

(February 27, 2014 at 11:48 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: If it were me, I'd knock omnipotence and omniscience down to 'ultra-powerful' and 'ultra-wise'. That gives us a God doing the best it can in a vast universe where we're probably not the only ones who need miracles rather than an omnipotent tyrant. And it probably doesn't care if we worship it, because it is silly to care if lesser beings worship you.

I've pointed out before that it is those omni-qualities that make the Problem of Evil problematic. Call God imperfect but trying to improve and everything changes. You can see the development from the angry, irrational God of the OT to the somewhat more empathetic and conciliatory God of the NT. You'd have a god who matures relative to his followers, and that would be a god that makes a lot more sense. It would do nothing to address the problems stemming from the total absence of any evidence that the god exists, but it would certainly offer a reasonable way to invalidate the Problem of Evil.

(February 26, 2014 at 11:44 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(February 26, 2014 at 9:48 pm)discipulus Wrote: 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.

I try not to make assumptions. I do so out of respect. For in the past I have been charged on numerous occassions by atheists of making assumptions when speaking with them. So I refrain from doing so. Now you are telling me to make assumptions. Since more atheists have accused me of doing wrong when making assumptions than those that have told me I should, I refrain.

If this is a problem for you then I suggest you speak with your fellow atheists who have something against me making assumptions and come to some sort of consensus.

Until then, I will try not to assume anything.

---

If you all would like me to address the so called problem of evil I will be happy to. One of you needs to type up the argument and present it in a clear and concise fashion in a new thread and I will do my best to engage it.

(February 27, 2014 at 12:37 pm)discipulus Wrote: I try not to make assumptions. I do so out of respect. For in the past I have been charged on numerous occassions by atheists of making assumptions when speaking with them. So I refrain from doing so. Now you are telling me to make assumptions. Since more atheists have accused me of doing wrong when making assumptions than those that have told me I should, I refrain.

If this is a problem for you then I suggest you speak with your fellow atheists who have something against me making assumptions and come to some sort of consensus.

Until then, I will try not to assume anything.

I can see how this could be an issue for you. How about this: state your assumption, and then address the issue at hand! You are spending so much time doing this word dance, one can only assume that you have nothing to say. It is perfectly rational, for example, for you to quibble over words like "invalid" and "contradictory" to your heart's content, state that you are assuming he meant "contradictory," and then move on.

But, instead, any time there is a point you don't want to address, you quibble and hope that the thread takes another bent. It's sad, really.

Two lines of text isn't concise enough, I suppose.

You make a new thread, if you want a new thread for it. I see no reason you can't address it right here, especially when this forum has probably a hundred threads about that topic already. And spare me the crap. Even if I misused the word, the explanation of my point makes it obvious that I wasn't addressing the form of the argument.

(February 27, 2014 at 12:32 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(February 27, 2014 at 11:48 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: If it were me, I'd knock omnipotence and omniscience down to 'ultra-powerful' and 'ultra-wise'. That gives us a God doing the best it can in a vast universe where we're probably not the only ones who need miracles rather than an omnipotent tyrant. And it probably doesn't care if we worship it, because it is silly to care if lesser beings worship you.

I've pointed out before that it is those omni-qualities that make the Problem of Evil problematic. Call God imperfect but trying to improve and everything changes. You can see the development from the angry, irrational God of the OT to the somewhat more empathetic and conciliatory God of the NT. You'd have a god who matures relative to his followers, and that would be a god that makes a lot more sense. It would do nothing to address the problems stemming from the total absence of any evidence that the god exists, but it would certainly offer a reasonable way to invalidate the Problem of Evil.

Process theology never has made much sense to me. Nor do the majority of Christian apologists try to slide out of the problem by positing that God changes or becomes more empathetic as time passes. The issue of evil and suffering must be dealt with head on with sincerity, honesty, and sound reasoning. If Christians believe the God of the Bible exists then the issue of the existence of evil and suffering must be dealt with.

Because one thing is not in doubt....evil and suffering are a reality. Christians cannot avoid it by saying it is an illusion like several other worldviews maintain.

(February 27, 2014 at 1:05 pm)discipulus Wrote: The issue of evil and suffering must be dealt with head on with sincerity, honesty, and sound reasoning. If Christians believe the God of the Bible exists then the issue of the existence of evil and suffering must be dealt with.

I agree, so why do you keep avoiding it?

(February 27, 2014 at 1:13 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: I agree, so why do you keep avoiding it?

Because he is not done posturing, ruffling up his feathers, and doing nothing more than acting smug. His thing with D_P on the other thread where he is constantly trying to "clear things up" and "come to a consensus" is actually pretty funny. "Let's debate, I like how concise and terse your arguments are. But first, let's clear some things up. But the things we're clearing up are going to change six to eight times before they change again."

discipulus are u an atheist yet?? I have the party favors ready!!!

(February 27, 2014 at 1:13 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(February 27, 2014 at 1:05 pm)discipulus Wrote: The issue of evil and suffering must be dealt with head on with sincerity, honesty, and sound reasoning. If Christians believe the God of the Bible exists then the issue of the existence of evil and suffering must be dealt with.

I agree, so why do you keep avoiding it?

I am not. On the contrary, I already gave the invitation to discuss it. It is in a previous post of mine. Did you see it?

---

(February 27, 2014 at 1:34 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(February 27, 2014 at 1:13 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: I agree, so why do you keep avoiding it?

Because he is not done posturing, ruffling up his feathers, and doing nothing more than acting smug. His thing with D_P on the other thread where he is constantly trying to "clear things up" and "come to a consensus" is actually pretty funny. "Let's debate, I like how concise and terse your arguments are. But first, let's clear some things up. But the things we're clearing up are going to change six to eight times before they change again."

Before I debate with someone I like to establish a common ground with them from which we can work. I find this always to be beneficial to both myself and my debate partner.