(July 19, 2012 at 2:22 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: If you find the classical argument of suffering strong, then that's fine, I find it to be ok, but not strong. This version of the argument is actually very strong. However, it's also not a knock out argument because it appeals to ignorance. The premises seem to be true, but for all we know, premise 2 is not.
So you'll just give up this point? I had thought you believed the old argument to be lacking, so much so that you even said it had been debunked. I never really expected you to simply give up on it, much less ignore all my points.
Anyway, I too feel that the newer argument is stronger even than its predecessor. Appeal to ignorance? No, I don't think so.
It simply put a torch to the fact that there is currently no understood way that a benevolent God can exist. That is, the argument is currently unrefutable, so, for all intents and purposes, it can be said that the argument is true.
It is undeniably true that no perfectly moral creator God exists. That is evident. There can be no creator God whose creation contains natural and orchestrated moral abhorrences. The two don't coincide.
My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true.
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
