Someone debate me

[Mister Agenda]

It takes time. Let him debate, let him vent his frustration against what he fears (leaving his religion), let him try to prove he is being rational...

It takes years sometimes. You have to give people time.

I don't think it's possible for a presuppositionalist to ever become rational on the topic their presupposing. It's a rabbithole that doesn't allow escape. I'd like to be wrong about that, but although I've met many former theists and am one, I've never met a former presuppositionalist, no matter what flavor of Christianity or Islam they espoused. Once you buy that presupposing something is actually an argument, you've given up any tools that would have allowed you to reason your way out of it.

[Mystic]

It takes time. Let him debate, let him vent his frustration against what he fears (leaving his religion), let him try to prove he is being rational...

It takes years sometimes. You have to give people time.

I don't think it's possible for a presuppositionalist to ever become rational on the topic their presupposing. It's a rabbithole that doesn't allow escape. I'd like to be wrong about that, but although I've met many former theists and am one, I've never met a former presuppositionalist, no matter what flavor of Christianity or Islam they espoused. Once you buy that presupposing something is actually an argument, you've given up any tools that would have allowed you to reason your way out of it.

Hmm...but doesn't this negate free-will? Can't we always chose to be more rational?

Why do we blame people for their irrationality, if they have no way to chose to become rational?

[Mister Agenda]

A presuppositionalist has used whatever free will they have to abandon reason altogether. It's like jumping into a hole. Just because free will got you into it doesn't mean free wil will get you out of it.

I've never encountered a brand of argumentation more bankrupt.

Note: I read the debate and did not see presuppostionalism there, so there's that. Jeff has stated he does not agree with presuppositionalism, at this point I am inclined to think I should have investigated further before coming to my conclusion.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Why do we blame people for their irrationality, if they have no way to chose to become rational?

I don't. My position is that human beings are innately and predominantly irrational.

(see my signature)

[Anomalocaris]

Hmm...but doesn't this negate free-will? Can't we always chose to be more rational?

There is no free will. All will is precisely determined to follow just one course regardless of the perceived degrees of freedom present. We imagine free will because the determinant controling which course is to be followed by you or someone else is often inscrutable to you, and we operated within the psychological preconception, possibly with physiological causes, that will without clearly seen determinants has no determinant other than will itself.

Why do we blame people for their irrationality, if they have no way to chose to become rational?

We don't blame them. But we act like we blame them so as to better nullify them.

[Cinjin]

You two little mini superhero types should join forces and become some kind of fantastic duo.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

There is no free will

Positive claim,proof please.

Intuitively,I tend to agree, but can't prove it.

[Jeffonthenet]

And given that it is hundred of years down the road, it is easy to imagine another event causing much less suffering accomplishing the same thing.

This relies upon the question, what is the goal being accomplished, and what is necessary to achieve that goal? If the ultimate goal of all life for God is to make the greatest amount of free creatures to enjoy God to the greatest degree and glorify Him for the longest amount of time, then all sorts of things can be necessary. For example, consider the following possible scenario. God is perfect in Holiness. For one to dwell in the presence of God, one must achieve perfect holiness. If God were to create free creatures to be in His presence forever, this would mean that they would have to be perfectly Holy as perfect holiness is incompatible with sin. And if God were to create them free, then they would have the freedom to sin. When they sin, they necessarily suffering must be in the world or God would be unjust to not punish sin. Consider also the fact that an omniscient being would know all truths and comprehend everything past and present in an instant. In such a scenario, it seems hard to believe that you could know that God couldn't have a reason for allowing suffering to occur, especially when it seems that there are possible scenarios in which He could have a reason for suffering to occur.

---

Speaking of unnecessary suffering... have you guys watched this particular movie, blood diamond?

lol

---

The problem of evil is emotional. When we see diseases, we wish they were all cured. When we see cancer, we want to be cured. When we see mental illness, we want it to be cured. When we see poverty we want to be eradicated.

We emotionally are against all suffering. We want it gone. And if we had the power to make it go away, we would, wouldn't we?

Yet God doesn't do this. Hence, we feel there is something wrong here.

As much as we may justify it with words, we emotionally agree with the problem of evil.

The argument maybe an argument from ignorance, none the less, it's emotionally convincing.

If we had a magic wand in our hand, we would make all suffering go away? Most of us would say yes, almost all of us, would say yes. Wisdom, greater good, etc, we really don't care for that.

This is why the argument is so strong. We are already emotionally convinced.

I think you make some powerful points. However, it is the case that not in all instances would I use my magic wand to cure all suffering. From personal experience I can tell you that if I had not experienced suffering in my life, I would be a very selfish person. My suffering humbled me, and led me to realize how I should not judge others (not that I still don't struggle with this to a degree).

[genkaus]

This relies upon the question, what is the goal being accomplished, and what is necessary to achieve that goal?

And since you cannot even establish the existence of such a goal, much less determine what is necessary for it, the entire position is unjustified.

If the ultimate goal of all life for God is to make the greatest amount of free creatures to enjoy God to the greatest degree and glorify Him for the longest amount of time, then all sorts of things can be necessary.

And a lot of suffering would still be unnecessary.

For example, consider the following possible scenario.

*snicker*

Possible. Yeah, right.

God is perfect in Holiness. For one to dwell in the presence of God, one must achieve perfect holiness. If God were to create free creatures to be in His presence forever, this would mean that they would have to be perfectly Holy as perfect holiness is incompatible with sin. And if God were to create them free, then they would have the freedom to sin. When they sin, they necessarily suffering must be in the world or God would be unjust to not punish sin. Consider also the fact that an omniscient being would know all truths and comprehend everything past and present in an instant. In such a scenario, it seems hard to believe that you could know that God couldn't have a reason for allowing suffering to occur, especially when it seems that there are possible scenarios in which He could have a reason for suffering to occur.

So much bullshit packed in one paragraph that it all stinks to high heaven. This by itself has the potential to derail the whole topic if we go into the bullshit of omniscience vs free-will and your god's convoluted idea of justice. So, I'll just stick to the following points.

1. The position you are trying to justify is that "no suffering is unnecessary" or that "all suffering is necessary". So far, all you have given are empty hypothetical scenarios showing.

2. According to the latest one, if suffering is the consequence of sin, then anytime the innocents suffer, that suffering is unnecessary.

Finally, is it common Christian apologetic practice to simply ignore arguments that you cannot respond to? Is it common to see a bunch of arguments, all of which go against your position and then pick the easiest one to counter and pretend none of the others ever existed? Can anyone tell me the name of this fallacy.

[Mister Agenda]

You two little mini superhero types should join forces and become some kind of fantastic duo.

Speaking of mini superheroes, it might be instructive to consider a fictional mini god, like Superman. Although Superman is much more powerful than any human, he is much less (infinitely less?) omniscient and omnipotent than Yahweh is supposed to be. Clearly, the world would have less suffering with Superman in it, as long as the bad guys of the DC pantheon aren't also present. Superman might face a dilemma in balancing his good deeds against the concern that humanity might become too dependent on him to rescue them, like being more careless in construction and pollution and security, and not solving problems they could tackle without him. That is, he could be concerned about stunting humanity's potential and being a moral hazard. So he might do less than he's capable of, prioritizing things like saving the village over capping the volcano or stopping the bombing but not the bomb factories. He would have to strike a balance, using his best (not omniscient but highly aware) judgement.

It seems clear that Superman would be acting immorally if he did not try to prevent some of the suffering that is in his power to stop, but he could be acting morally in not preventing ALL of the suffering that is in his power to stop.

In my opinion, answering the PoE while preserving theodicy, requires this sort of answer: that God is preventing all the suffering he can, consistent with not preventing so much suffering that it stifles our moral development or needed free will or some other highly-important good.

I think this is a very hard case to make, given the amount of suffering that seems so pointless. Superman would be a monster if he let children die by inches as they're slowly crushed by rubble after an earthquake, surely no matter his other concerns, he would save them, even if he didn't intervene in more rapid accidental deaths of children, or at least put them out of their misery.