Why do sceptics and atheists post on this and other (salvation, best)
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.
Vic is arguing that when atheists make an argument, we must then prove there are no counter arguments.
Not once did I say that, no.
Quote:
But if atheists knew of any counter arguments, they would not (or should not) make the claim in the first place.
I don't think that's true, either. A counter argument is hardly necessarily a successful refutation, after all. I'm sure there's a counter argument for pretty much any statement, no matter how true it might be.
Quote:
This is just a way to avoid making any counter arguments himself (the usual practice),
The counterargument against the problem of evil just is pointing out that its premises are not substantiated. Now, maybe your complaint is really that I haven't offered any positive arguments for the opposite of those premises, but I'm under no obligation to do so since I didn't make a claim.
And you should be familiar with this concept! How many times have we been asked to prove that god doesn't exist because we said "I don't believe god exists"?
Quote:
because Vic then has to argue there may be some moral justification for Hitler and the holocaust, for example. And Vic certainly does not want to go there.
I've already said that god (if he/she/it exists) could have morally sufficient reasons for such things. So you already have the rhetorical point-making kit at your disposal! Don't wait! Get to scoring those points, friend! Might I suggest posting pictures of those who suffered in the holocaust? That's bound to double your points right there
Quote:
And you seem to miss where Vic has refuted his initial position, that atheists using the problem of evil argument are being illogical.
Probably because I didn't do that... They are being illogical! Very.
Quote:
But if Vic can not demonstrate there are no possible justifications for evil, then it is possible there are none, and therefore the problem of evil is logically sound.
That would be true only if the problem of evil's conclusion were "It's possible that god has no morally sufficient reasons". But it obviously has higher aspirations than that
TL;DR - The problem of evil argument fails because it relies on the premise that an all-powerful and loving god couldn't have or probably doesn't have morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering/evil.
TL;DR - The problem of evil argument fails because it relies on the premise that an all-powerful and loving god couldn't have or probably doesn't have morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering/evil.
Perhaps you can pull out of your imagination a sample or two of what a morally sufficient reason might be?
Perhaps you can pull out of your imagination a sample or two of what a morally sufficient reason might be?
This is still missing the point by a mile (which is that this isn't my burden of proof to bear). But as a general comment, if we exist eternally as per Christian doctrine, placing the emphasis on our time on Earth would be the height of irrationality. Whatever good might come from a temporary suffering would last forever. This calls the already unfounded assumption that god must be wrong into more question a literal infinite number of times over!
there are two lines of logic. One stating that the christian god can't be all loving if it allows suffering and the other is if there is a god it would know more than we do.
It appears, due to the suffering, that there may be a limit or that we know far less than needed. That's why this line of logic fails in proving this particular god.
there are two lines of logic. One stating that the christian god can't be all loving if it allows suffering and the other is if there is a god it would know more than we do.
It appears, due to the suffering, that there may be a limit or that we know far less than needed. That's why this line of logic fails in proving this particular god.
at best, when the skin melts away and we see what we were, heaven will be a place where people will "love" us until we can "love' ourselves.
minum, one can not know "love" without 'hate'. despite what people would like to believe, monism means there would be truly no experiences. there would be no choices. there wouldn't even be the illusion of free will. there would be nothing.
is "something" happening just so "nothing" happens? yeah, maybe.
could an all perfect thing do these things? yeah, watch oswald episodes. But even then, some people would say "a broken roller blade wheel would be undue suffering'
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.
