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.
It's more than that. It's not enough to just say what you would want god to do; you'd have to show that god should do it, and that's where the entire problem of evil argument fails.
You are grasping at straws. On the basis of the morality that, if it does not emanate from God, one wonders why it doesn't, what is allowed to happen is evil. What we would want (expect) god to do, vs. what God should do, is a semantic difference that makes no difference. You are clutching at straws in hopes to make a strawman.
Quote:
In terms of being convinced that he exists/is intervening, or in terms of saying that not intervening in such a way means he's doing something wrong? I obviously have no issue with not being convinced of the former. But it doesn't amount to an argument for the latter, which is the failure of the argument we've been discussing.
You are still missing the point, though it's been discussed often enough and betrays the Theistic mindset yet again. The argument is not that God is evil (except in the Bible - which we think is myth, anyway) but the lack of action implies that no god is there. All the evidence of a world with evil argues that, and you only have 'well, perhaps there's some good reason..'
Quote:
Well which is it? If it's just a moral code we've "developed" (which doesn't even sound like objective morality at this point, but that would negate the entire argument), then the question remains: How do you figure god is wrong in not doing things our way? If it's instead a moral code given to us by this god, then his omniscience would remain a very relevant factor. And that's because, unless we subscribe to absolutism, he could know of a certain action's consequences whereas we might not.
How can you be so muddled? If it's a moral code that we developed, which on evidence it is, and that it isn't objective does not 'negate' anything. No more than science not knowing everything negates science - it is the best (indeed the only) method we have. IF however, a god gave us a morality, Absolute or relative, one would expect Him to use it. If not either our morality is not moral, or his morality is not. Appeal to omniscience is (as I said elsewhere) an appeal to an unvalidated claim in order to support another unvalidated claim - that God could have some overriding good reason for allowing evil.
To restate the problem, while that can't be disproved, that there is no god there, makes far more sense, and does not multiply logical entities..
Quote:
In terms of convincing us that it's true, sure. But the argument is about finding inconsistencies between these doctrines and the evil we see in the world. Only problem is, no such inconsistencies have been shown.
Why do you keep on with these irrelevant strawman arguments. The point about the Omis of the dude was that they are claims without any support - not that there is any inconsistency between them.
Quote:
Out of what? What's the problem?
That a god couldn't know for sure that it knew everything, because if there was something it didn't know, it wouldn't know that it didn't.
Quote:
Christianity is not a person. So no, it doesn't use any arguments. But supposing that some Christians have said "God says it's moral, therefore it is", it would depend on what they mean by that, whether it's valid or invalid. They could simply mean that morality is a matter of objective fact and an omniscient being would know such facts. Therefore what it "thinks" about morality is actually known.
Oh don't be ridiculous. Christianity as a body of apologetics uses arguments. It doesn't have to be a person. You are scrabbling for cheap, irrelevant points, however you can get them
Quote:
But perhaps you're just making a comment on divine moral theory in general. I'm not sure what your objection is, or even what you're referring to here.
Now you are pretending to be fatuously obtuse. You are trying to tell me that you are unfamiliar with the very common Christian 'argument from morality'. Pretending as I say, as the red herring of trying to drag me onto a discussion of divine moral theory (Theology is of little interest to me) shows that you are being crafty.
Quote:
Obviously not. I don't know of anyone who said it was.
Nobody did. Which is why it was a crafty irrelevance for you to bring it up. I merely said that it was irrelevant.
Quote:
No, it comes down to "Where is this mysterious evidence you keep hinting at?"
Everywhere. And you have already accepted that it is. There is evil in the world. That's the evidence. Have you completely lost the plot or are you talking at random?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-08-2019 at 06:18 AM..
You are grasping at straws. On the basis of the morality that, if it does not emanate from God, one wonders why it doesn't, what is allowed to happen is evil. What we would want (expect) god to do, vs. what God should do, is a semantic difference that makes no difference. You are clutching at straws in hopes to make a strawman.
You're STILL not answering the question! Why should we think that god should do it differently? How do we know it's wrong for god to allow suffering?
Quote:
The argument is not that God is evil (except in the Bible - which we think is myth, anyway)
How do you determine that what god commanded in the bible is immoral then?
Quote:
but the lack of action implies that no god is there.
That, again, does not follow. All that follows is that a god who does what we want him to do doesn't exist.
Quote:
If it's a moral code that we developed, which on evidence it is, and that it isn't objective does not 'negate' anything.
It very obviously does. If there is no objective right or wrong, then you can't judge anyone as being objectively wrong (much less an omniscient god).
Quote:
IF however, a god gave us a morality, Absolute or relative, one would expect Him to use it.
This is not addressing my point, that for the same reason it's okay for you and I to do certain things in certain circumstances but not others, it would be okay for god to do certain things we cannot.
Quote:
Appeal to omniscience is (as I said elsewhere) an appeal to an unvalidated claim
No, it's just taking the whole story into consideration. The aim of the problem of evil argument is to show inconsistencies in the doctrines Christians hold (specifically his being omnipotent and all-loving while evil exists in the world). But in light of one of those doctrines, it fails. Only way to evade that, apparently, is to whine about how we can use omniscience to justify god's actions.
Quote:
There is evil in the world. That's the evidence.
That is obviously only one part of the problem of evil argument. From there, you still have all your work ahead of you, to show that god couldn't have morally sufficient reasons to permit said evil.
You are grasping at straws. On the basis of the morality that, if it does not emanate from God, one wonders why it doesn't, what is allowed to happen is evil. What we would want (expect) god to do, vs. what God should do, is a semantic difference that makes no difference. You are clutching at straws in hopes to make a strawman.
You are still missing the point, though it's been discussed often enough and betrays the Theistic mindset yet again. The argument is not that God is evil (except in the Bible - which we think is myth, anyway) but the lack of action implies that no god is there. All the evidence of a world with evil argues that, and you only have 'well, perhaps there's some good reason..'
How can you be so muddled? If it's a moral code that we developed, which on evidence it is, and that it isn't objective does not 'negate' anything. No more than science not knowing everything negates science - it is the best (indeed the only) method we have. IF however, a god gave us a morality, Absolute or relative, one would expect Him to use it. If not either our morality is not moral, or his morality is not. Appeal to omniscience is (as I said elsewhere) an appeal to an unvalidated claim in order to support another unvalidated claim - that God could have some overriding good reason for allowing evil.
To restate the problem, while that can't be disproved, that there is no god there, makes far more sense, and does not multiply logical entities..
Why do you keep on with these irrelevant strawman arguments. The point about the Omis of the dude was that they are claims without any support - not that there is any inconsistency between them.
That a god couldn't know for sure that it knew everything, because if there was something it didn't know, it wouldn't know that it didn't.
Oh don't be ridiculous. Christianity as a body of apologetics uses arguments. It doesn't have to be a person. You are scrabbling for cheap, irrelevant points, however you can get them
Now you are pretending to be fatuously obtuse. You are trying to tell me that you are unfamiliar with the very common Christian 'argument from morality'. Pretending as I say, as the red herring of trying to drag me onto a discussion of divine moral theory (Theology is of little interest to me) shows that you are being crafty.
Nobody did. Which is why it was a crafty irrelevance for you to bring it up. I merely said that it was irrelevant.
Everywhere. And you have already accepted that it is. There is evil in the world. That's the evidence. Have you completely lost the plot or are you talking at random?
Kudos bro! You certainly have more patience than me.
Their philosophical elevators seem to skip several floors.
You are the one with true patience, Vic. It is impossible for them to arrive at the points you are making when their elevators skip those floors. I prefer to believe that is the problem rather than accept that they are unwilling to go there. I have had to make similar interpretations about the apparent obtuseness about certain scientific matters.
It's obvious to me that the Bible is the work of flawed men. The so called man of god, king David, wrote in the psalms something to this effect... happy is he who dashes your babies head against the rocks... the god of the Bible Yahweh is not a loving mericiful god. God orders the death of non Israelite men women and children, just so the Israelites can steal other people's land. That's why I don't get people who say America has to return to biblical values and Christian values. What values???
You're STILL not answering the question! Why should we think that god should do it differently? How do we know it's wrong for god to allow suffering?
How do you determine that what god commanded in the bible is immoral then?
That, again, does not follow. All that follows is that a god who does what we want him to do doesn't exist.
It very obviously does. If there is no objective right or wrong, then you can't judge anyone as being objectively wrong (much less an omniscient god).
This is not addressing my point, that for the same reason it's okay for you and I to do certain things in certain circumstances but not others, it would be okay for god to do certain things we cannot.
No, it's just taking the whole story into consideration. The aim of the problem of evil argument is to show inconsistencies in the doctrines Christians hold (specifically his being omnipotent and all-loving while evil exists in the world). But in light of one of those doctrines, it fails. Only way to evade that, apparently, is to whine about how we can use omniscience to justify god's actions.
That is obviously only one part of the problem of evil argument. From there, you still have all your work ahead of you, to show that god couldn't have morally sufficient reasons to permit said evil.
Somehow I overlooked this post, and Vic is long gone. Or so i suppose. In any case it's simply ignoring what I posted.
On all reason, a god that gave us a moral code should have based it on what it considers morals. Therefore to so something opposed to that makes that god immoral. So much for Biblegod.
A non -Bible -god which is supposed to intervene should also employ its own morality - not ours - and if our morality says that it is immoral to allow evils to happen (and Vic, despite his attempts to dismiss any 'evil' in the world, had to accept that there was - according to morality of ANY worth, not to mention ignoring God's morality as given to us and pretending I am imposing human morals on God) then, having been given by a gad - it should be an evil that it allows to happen knowing that it could and should do something about it.
Vuc knows this very well as Christianity tries to answer this by having God's hand tied by 'Free Will', which is essentially a claim that having any good reason to think there is a god there other than Faith would somehow imperil their chances of being saved, as well as having to field this excuse of 'it's all good, because it's part of God's plan'. Not even Nazi -apologists are so immoral as to claim that the Holocaust was ultimately good because it was all part of God's plan - they try to deny that it happened. Only Christian apologists -like Vic. use 'do (or allow) evil that good may (ultimately) come of it'.
Their philosophical elevators seem to skip several floors.
You are the one with true patience, Vic. It is impossible for them to arrive at the points you are making when their elevators skip those floors. I prefer to believe that is the problem rather than accept that they are unwilling to go there. I have had to make similar interpretations about the apparent obtuseness about certain scientific matters.
What 'floors' are we skipping, Mystic? The only one skipping floos of logical and evidential points, slotted in bit by bit, is you. And I would bet that I know which floor you are zooming to, skipping all the intervening ones - Faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Kudos bro! You certainly have more patience than me.
Continuous references to science and philosophy but complete refusal to take any of it to those forums.
Yet all it is is his philosophy that he tries to back up with "maybe someday proven" science.
Continuous references to science and philosophy but complete refusal to take any of it to those forums.
Yet all it is is his philosophy that he tries to back up with "maybe someday proven" science.
We atheists faced with questions that we can't answer get accused of that, too.
However, 'Don't know' is not (despite what the believers think because of an A priori Godfaith) handing the win to God, but to disbelief, until we do know.
And that's aside from the fact that what we do come to know, despite the faithful trying to fiddle the science from everything from Biblical archaeology to I/C, has answered question after question and never in favour of a god -claim.
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.
