(August 29, 2012 at 2:56 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: If you are saying that the existence of God is incompatible with suffering, it is not me making the claim I must defend, it is you.
No, you are the one saying that existence of a benevolent god is compatible with suffering, so you are the one making the claim which you must defend.
(August 29, 2012 at 2:56 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: How could you possibly know such a thing with any degree of certainty?
I see suffering and I see no need for it. That's how.
(August 29, 2012 at 2:56 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: It is impossible that God exists? How do you know? Could you share your reasoning with me?
Your specific god - yes. Because he is logically impossible.
(August 29, 2012 at 2:56 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: The best response to the problem of evil is probably free will, so if you cannot talk about that, you are completely ignoring the strongest rebuttals to your position.
No, I'm simply ignoring the problem of free-will circa your god's omniscience.
(August 29, 2012 at 2:56 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: Not true. I should know better than anyone what I am defending. I am maintaining a negative case against people who claim to know that God cannot exist because of suffering.
You abandoned your negative position the moment you were given examples of unnecessary suffering and started to make positive - though hypothetical - case for how it might be necessary.
(August 29, 2012 at 2:56 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: I could respond a few ways. It could be, as Augustine supposed, that no one is innocent. It could also be that since life is entirely a gift, no one has the right to complain to God about suffering as they should rather thank Him for creating them and giving them life and breath.
1. Those incapable of understanding their actions and their consequences are innocent.
2. Whether or not a "gift" is to be thankfully received or not would depend upon the gift itself. Something that would bring only pain and suffering cannot be conceivably called a "gift".
3. The so called "gift" of life cannot be called a gift because a gift always requires a recipient which doesn't exist in this case when it is given.
(August 29, 2012 at 2:56 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: I've quoted everything you said and responded. Perhaps you are just frustrated that reason is not on your side.
No you haven't. From this post - http://atheistforums.org/thread-13854-po...#pid327594 - you responded only to one out of my five arguments. If you are going to lie, atleast try to be a little smart about it.
