Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But this just leads us back to the question of what evidence should we expect. Remember, the hypothetical response to "Might as well believe in Santa" was that he would've been shot by now, had he existed. I think that's correct unless we add something to Santa's story just for the sake of this argument. But when it comes to theism, what evidence should we expect to have if god is real? We can't say that he doesn't exist because no one's shot him (obviously), so what can we say? That's the question.
Again, I agree that there is evil in the world but not that we've reason to believe that no god is doing something about it. We don't have reason to believe either way on that. For every person who thinks nothing is being done about the evil in the world, there's another who believes in karma. Or, if by "nothing is being done about it", you mean that no god is removing it, then the question comes back to "How do we conclude that god, if he exists, should remove it at any given time?"
Right, so the point is that this argument doesn't disprove the existence of god because there could be a god who has morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering/evil.
There may or may not be a plan. There may or may not be a god. Those are separate questions. My only point is that the problem of evil argument doesn't get us anywhere in determining that.
No more/less than the problem of evil argument itself starts with that assumption. We're speaking conditionally, the whole way through.
There is no evidence against. You just keep asserting that there is.
And makes equally good sense if there is one. At least on any religion that doesn't claim the world is perfect as is.
I've made no claim that god exists/probably exists. So no, the burden of proof isn't on me. But anyone trying to push through the problem of evil argument, has a burden of proof to support its premises.
Surely not. With respect to the problem of evil, I'm not tasking you with proving there's no god (although if you're an anti-theist you need to justify that by showing that theism is at least probably false). I'm tasking you with proving that if an omnipotent god exists that allows evil/suffering, then that god is malevolent. That he can't have good reasons for doing so.
I don't. Unless you equate "Godfaith -head" with "logical mind"?
This kind of reasoning seems beyond his reach because he does NOT even seem to see the unsupported and unsupportable premises he is relying on as "Givens." I am absolutely convinced by now that he truly does NOT see it AT ALL. That makes penetrating his "No God" default even more difficult than penetrating what Trout calls the fundamentalists' Fundashielld Of Deliberate Ignorance.
This kind of reasoning seems beyond his reach because he does NOT even seem to see the unsupported and unsupportable premises he is relying on as "Givens." I am absolutely convinced by now that he truly does NOT see it AT ALL. That makes penetrating his "No God" default even more difficult than penetrating what Trout calls the fundamentalists' Fundashielld Of Deliberate Ignorance.
Yes. Namely that an omnipotent god, if he exists, should "do something" about the suffering/evil in the world. And just what that "something" is.
But this just leads us back to the question of what evidence should we expect. Remember, the hypothetical response to "Might as well believe in Santa" was that he would've been shot by now, had he existed. I think that's correct, unless we add something to Santa's story just for the sake of this argument. But when it comes to theism, what evidence should we expect to have if god is real? We can't say that he doesn't exist because no one's shot him (obviously), so what can we say? That's the question.
This all duplicates a post I answered just now. And I already debunked the 'shoot Santa' argument by saying that the nature of 'Santa' can be changed, just as is done for gods. Don't you recall we did this one?
Quote:
Again, I agree that there is evil in the world but not that we've reason to believe that no god is doing something about it. We don't have reason to believe either way on that. For every person who thinks nothing is being done about the evil in the world, there's another who believes in karma. Or, if by "nothing is being done about it", you mean that no god is removing it, then the question comes back to "How do we conclude that god, if he exists, should remove it at any given time?"
You also conceded that nothing appears to be done about it by a god. If you can't adduce evidence that this IS being done, the way it appears is the evidence.
Quote:
Right, so the point is that this argument doesn't disprove the existence of god because there could be a god who has morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering/evil.
Of course. It isn't intended to disprove a god. It is intended to be a good reason to disbelieve the claim that there is one - as there is no credible evidence for it. Does this get through to you at last? God is the claim. disbelief of the claim is not the claim. The burden of proof is on the claimant.
Quote:
There may or may not be a plan. There may or may not be a god. Those are separate questions. My only point is that the problem of evil argument doesn't get us anywhere in determining that.
It isn't intended to. It is intended to give a reason to doubt the God -claim. A Plan which has no shred of supportive evidence does nothing to validate the god -claim.
Quote:
No more/less than the problem of evil argument itself starts with that assumption. We're speaking conditionally, the whole way through.
It is addressing the claim, yes. Whether in your case it is merely a 'devil's advocate' argument or a real assumption on your part, is for you to tell us. If it isn't the latter, I fail to see why you argue as though it is.
Quote:
There is no evidence against. You just keep asserting that there is.
Yes there is - you have agreed it - unless you can adduce some persuasive evidence of a god's intervention in ameliorating the evil in the world.
Quote:
And makes equally good sense if there is one. At least on any religion that doesn't claim the world is perfect as is.
Of course, both arguments will work, but which best matches the world the way it is, without having to add (in violation of the principle of parsimony) a claim of a Plan for which there is no scrap of evidence in order to explain away this Evidence?
Quote:
I've made no claim that god exists/probably exists. So no, the burden of proof isn't on me. But anyone trying to push through the problem of evil argument, has a burden of proof to support its premises.
No. Ok so you are not claiming a god. But as above and in my other post on this argument you keep banging away at, the problem of evil is not to disprove a god, but refute the god - claim. The disbelief side is not making the claim. If you are not making the claim, your argument collapses anyway.
Quote:
Surely not. With respect to the problem of evil, I'm not tasking you with proving there's no god (although if you're an anti-theist you need to justify that by showing that theism is at least probably false). I'm tasking you with proving that if an omnipotent god exists that allows evil/suffering, then that god is malevolent. That he can't have good reasons for doing so.
Those are two separate claims that you charge me with. As I have said so many times before - I can't disprove a divine Plan - I can show that there is no scrap of evidence to support one - and thus the evidence of the way the world looks means that 'no god' is the logically simplest explanation, and thus, the logically preferable.
We already did the reasonable expectation that a god given morality would reflect the morality the god holds (given humans doing it less well). Given malevonence in term of the morality we have, a god that says 'do as I say, not as I do' is morally lacking to start with.
Quote:
I don't. Unless you equate "Godfaith -head" with "logical mind"?
Quite clearly you are not thinking with a logical mind as your arguments only work (in your thinking) IF you assume a god to start with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
This kind of reasoning seems beyond his reach because he does NOT even seem to see the unsupported and unsupportable premises he is relying on as "Givens." I am absolutely convinced by now that he truly does NOT see it AT ALL. That makes penetrating his "No God" default even more difficult than penetrating what Trout calls the fundamentalists' Fundashielld Of Deliberate Ignorance.
Again, rather than yourself undertaking to show that I was wrong in my countering Vic's arguments, you hover around hoping that Vic will do it for you. I'm beginning to think that Vic is far smarter and more honest than you as he argues hard and fair - well, sometimes - but a Theist -based mindset skews the logic, that's all.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-04-2019 at 10:39 AM..
This kind of reasoning seems beyond his reach because he does NOT even seem to see the unsupported and unsupportable premises he is relying on as "Givens." I am absolutely convinced by now that he truly does NOT see it AT ALL. That makes penetrating his "No God" default even more difficult than penetrating what Trout calls the fundamentalists' Fundashielld Of Deliberate Ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Yes. Namely that an omnipotent god, if he exists, should "do something" about the suffering/evil in the world. And just what that "something" is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Again, rather than yourself undertaking to show that I was wrong in my countering Vic's arguments, you hover around hoping that Vic will do it for you. I'm beginning to think that Vic is far smarter and more honest than you as he argues hard and fair - well, sometimes - but a Theist -based mindset skews the logic, that's all.
You are oblivious to the impact that your unsupported and unsupportable premises have on the logic you pretend to rely on. You need a serious course in logic, Arq, because your little bit of knowledge is just enough to confuse you. You take as "Given" things that you cannot legitimately take as "Given" but you seem completely unaware of why you can't. It seems hopeless.
trans knows the argument 'the problem of evil" is weak. You guys keep thinking that he is in this game for the same reasons we are. His first, and last, statement isn't how valid a particular claim is.
His first and last statement is "Is this helping me in my crusade against religious people." If it is, he supports it. if it isn't, he deny's it.
Its that simple. that's all his logic is.
thinking "suffering" proves a god or no god is absolutely nonsensical. "suffering" showing that a god is pure evil is just silly.
what suffering does show is that religious people have some of the traits of the universe wrong.
Again, rather than yourself undertaking to show that I was wrong in my countering Vic's arguments, you hover around hoping that Vic will do it for you. I'm beginning to think that Vic is far smarter and more honest than you as he argues hard and fair - well, sometimes - but a Theist -based mindset skews the logic, that's all.
why are saying this again when its clearly not true? It was said and you choose to ignore it. a few times. If something is all powerful it made us the way it wants. and here we are. it may know why there has to be suffering and we don't.
thats all that is claimed.
because little trans' feelings are hurt and wants a fairy tale isn't a requirement in evaluating a claim.
Again, rather than yourself undertaking to show that I was wrong in my countering Vic's arguments, you hover around hoping that Vic will do it for you. I'm beginning to think that Vic is far smarter and more honest than you as he argues hard and fair - well, sometimes - but a Theist -based mindset skews the logic, that's all.
and i was thinking ... I know, I know, thats dangerous to your ideology. Its why your type of people build walls around your people, to keep the thinkers in.
an alternative is not fighting them using weaker arguments like "the problem of evil". there is two many holes in it. keep to the clearly less valid claims and atheist stronger arguments.
We basically say, use the evidence and observation to form beliefs. using anti-religion/god is not the most valid base claim. "the problem with evil" means there is a "problem of love"
But you know this trans. You willfully have bought into the indoctrination the the dogmatic statement of belief about god ... "It doesn't matter what the logic/observations say ... fight believers, at every, and all claims."
again, the alternative is using more valid base claims (axioms) to compare claims to to try and get some sense of relative validity.
He doesn't hurt me at all by his kneejerk projections of his own crummy thinking onto me, nor his childish mocking and sneering. That only hurts his credibility here - and that of anyone who applauds his posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
why are saying this again when its clearly not true? It was said and you choose to ignore it. a few times. If something is all powerful it made us the way it wants. and here we are. it may know why there has to be suffering and we don't.
thats all that is claimed.
because little trans' feelings are hurt and wants a fairy tale isn't a requirement in evaluating a claim.
So you latched onto Vic's argument? I'm hoping that Vic is honest enough (I believe that he is smart enough) to see that the lack of any evidence of a god doing anything about the evil in the world is good reason to reject the claim that there is an (intervening) god. That 'there could be some reason', is a get -out without any support. It may work for Vic, but it does not make his case convincing to those who do not credit the god -claim.
It's all about who has the burden of proof and that depends on who is making the claim. The god -claim is the claim. The 'no valid evidence for a god' is the refutation - not that it is false, but that there is no reason to believe that it is true. It is not a 'no God' claim.
If you are -as you both say - atheists, learn this.
It's all about who has the burden of proof and that depends on who is making the claim. The god -claim is the claim. The 'no valid evidence for a god' is the refutation - not that it is false, but that there is no reason to believe that it is true. It is not a 'no God' claim.
If you are -as you both say - atheists, learn this.
NEITHER has the burden of proof because nobody is making a claim - just believing. What about this do you NOT see. YOU are the one wanting it to be a claim because you want your version to be the default but you do not and cannot support it. It remains "we do not know."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
