I agree there are weak arguments some atheists put forward that annoy me. However, the Epicurean Paradox is not one of them. It calls into question the way the world is compared to how it should be if a perfect being exists. In other words, it attempts to demonstrate a contradiction in a certain worldview, which is hardly a bad argument style.

(April 5, 2014 at 4:07 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: I agree there are weak arguments some atheists put forward that annoy me. However, the Epicurean Paradox is not one of them. It calls into question the way the world is compared to how it should be if a perfect being exists. In other words, it attempts to demonstrate a contradiction in a certain worldview, which is hardly a bad argument style.

It calls into question the way the world is compared to the way it should be if the vision of a perfect being assumed by some imperfect beings exists.

(April 5, 2014 at 4:59 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: It's a funny thing. When I was a Christian I got pissed off because of weak Christian arguments. Since I started thinking of myself as an atheist, I'm sort of the other way around.

There have been a few "gods a meanie" type threads recently. Has that ever worked?

If you believe in you probably believe that he defines morality. In which case any argument that god acts / has acted in an immoral, or evil, way is De facto flawed. The epicurean paradox has been mentioned a lot. From the perspective of a good christian, this falls to the same logical fallacy as the origin argument falls to atheists.

The argument is basically, " we don't know how the universe, therefore God" . It fails because the logical position knowing that the universe clearly exists, is simply "we don't know how the universe". Accepted ignorance is the logical position.

Now put yourself in a theists shoes for a second. Pretend that you accept as absolute truth the existence of a benevolent God. Now plug in one of the "meanie" arguments. "god is a meanie therefore God can't be good." The logical position for the theist to take then simply "God appears to be a meanie, obviously I don't understand the situation well enough". After all once you've accepted as truth that God is the infinite creator of the universe, how much sense does it make for me, with my limited squashy biological brain, with its 4 dimensional limitations and it's tiny window on the world, and it's very limited information to think I know better than God.

Really, the suffering argument is as weak for the theist as the ultimate origin argument is to the atheist.

The first thing to know is that the Biblical God character is a composite of all of the Assyrian/Babylonian/Persian emperors who ruled the Middle East. That's why the God character comes across as a nutjob.

The second thing to know is that humans adopt the moral codes and behavioral habits of their direct rulers and other influential people, such as religious leaders and even actors.

In the case of the Bible we have billions of people following the crap the Moses character spewed out. Others like what the Jesus character supposedly said. In the Islamic world people followed what an early 7th Century illiterate desert Arab supposedly said about how they should live their lives.

The bottom line is that most Westerners are incapable of imagining a deity other than the one Middle East Jews cooked up thousands of years ago to describe their rulers. So even if a person rejects that deity it's still the one he thinks about when he thinks about a god entity.

Religion is the most concrete example of the power of brainwashing there is. Even the ex-commie Putin is claiming to be a Christian God believer.

But the contradiction is only between the atheist view of God and the world as is. There is no contradiction between the theist view of God and the world as is. Your statement above would, suggest, be more accurate as

It calls into question the way the world is compared to how We think it should be if a perfect being exists.

That introduces two potential weak links, our view of what a perfect world would be and God. A theist will pretty much always decide that our view of the perfect world which is wrong rather than God.

It's a fantastic argument to reinforce an atheists beliefs but damn all use to challenge a Christian's. Which is what it's for isn't it?

Peace

It's not an absolute perfect argument. But it does make one think and although is an argument from ignorance, is a strong argument against God in my opinion. How do we justify suffering in the world. It's easy to say God is above our understanding, but at the end, we will think about it. What would a good moral being do? Would he allow suffering to the extent it exists in the world today? And for what purpose?

(April 5, 2014 at 4:27 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: But the contradiction is only between the atheist view of God and the world as is. There is no contradiction between the theist view of God and the world as is. Your statement above would, suggest, be more accurate as

It calls into question the way the world is compared to how We think it should be if a perfect being exists.

That introduces two potential weak links, our view of what a perfect world would be and God. A theist will pretty much always decide that our view of the perfect world which is wrong rather than God.

It's a fantastic argument to reinforce an atheists beliefs but damn all use to challenge a Christian's. Which is what it's for isn't it?

I don't think even christians think the world is perfect.
Children wouldn't die from hunger in a perfect world.

(April 5, 2014 at 4:32 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Peace

It's not an absolute perfect argument. But it does make one think and although is an argument from ignorance, is a strong argument against God in my opinion. How do we justify suffering in the world. It's easy to say God is above our understanding, but at the end, we will think about it. What would a good moral being do? Would he allow suffering to the extent it exists in the world today? And for what purpose?

Well, that really is the question isn't it?

The "god works in mysterious ways" answer is really nothing more than a cop-out for sloppy reasoning, as you say.

(April 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(April 5, 2014 at 4:07 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: I agree there are weak arguments some atheists put forward that annoy me. However, the Epicurean Paradox is not one of them. It calls into question the way the world is compared to how it should be if a perfect being exists. In other words, it attempts to demonstrate a contradiction in a certain worldview, which is hardly a bad argument style.

It calls into question the way the world is compared to the way it should be if the vision of a perfect being assumed by some imperfect beings exists.

Somewhat semantic I think. Am I to assume you are appealing to some form of greater good? I do understand the appeal of this but reject it for numerous reasons. I am sure you are aware of the inherent problem in this line of reasoning, as what now is our duty to prevent evil if it is part of some divine plan? We also start down the road of questioning free will in that if god has a greater good, then he has a plan, then we necessarily don't have free will, etc ...simplistic but I think you get the point.

(April 5, 2014 at 4:39 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Well, that really is the question isn't it?

The "god works in mysterious ways" answer is really nothing more than a cop-out for sloppy reasoning, as you say.

God wanted to make a more complete revelation of himself. This is explained in context of the PoE in Romans 9, and is easily extendable to the PoS.

There is some versions I made that adds to the issue of the argument of evil, I don't know if the philosophical intellectual world is all too aware of them.

One of them goes along the lines of:

Suffering is either good or evil for humanity.
If we should want to stop it, then it is evil.
We should want to stop it.
Therefore it's evil for humanity.

Another:

Suffering is either good or evil for humanity.
If it is good for humanity, we should not want to stop it.
We should want to stop it.
Therefore it's not good for humanity.

Also:

If God doesn't want to stop suffering, so shouldn't we.
We should want to stop suffering for humanity.
Therefore God should want to stop suffering for humanity.