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.
I am not lying. and quite frankly you accusing me of it is embarrassing. The strawman you keep bring up is totally an avoidance tactic by you.
no, vic is clearly saying that it is possible for a god thing to intentionally or unintentionally cause suffering and that suffering be the best thing for us. It is possible for a loving god to have to do things in a certain way so the universe or out come is achieved. Its that simple ... and its true. Just because you say it can't be true is quite meaningless because it counters observation. so they say its all loving and you say it all hating. youre both wrong. now what?
He is not saying "not to bring up counter claims." he is saying that the atheists counter claims has holes in it. and he is right.
OK, then you clearly do not understand what William Lane Craig, sorry, Vic is arguing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Hitler is an easy argument. You may not like the argument and you probably can't process an argument because of some emotional reason. But its easy. and your emotional attachment to your line of thinking isn't the whole picture. A god thing could have easy put a hilter on earth knowing full well that end game had to be achieved. In the exact same manor we may give someone a heart transplant knowing we buy them some time.
Excellent. If it is an easy argument, please justify why Hitler and the holocaust may have been morally justifiable. Remember, the problem of evil is talking about an all powerful god, so this god can do anything to solve any problem, yet chose to allow great suffering.
Let me quote you again - "As I've said numerous times, all of these can be reconciled if god were to have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil to exist. And no one's been able to show that god couldn't have such reasons, especially not here".
So you want atheists to verify whether a god would have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil to exist or not instead of the religious putting forward a credible rebuttal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
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.
Nor are the premises refuted. So you can not make the claim of the argument being illogical, only that it may be illogical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
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
And maybe a god would not have morally sufficient reasons for such things. this is not about point scoring, this is about you not being able to substantiate your claims (which I would bet money on are also the claims of William Lane Craig). But points for the attempt at well poisoning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Probably because I didn't do that... They are being illogical! Very.
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!
Because an all powerful yet loving god could not think of a better solution than to hurt people who, according to Christian doctrine, will then be sent to hell (because they did not have the chance to repent)?
You are not thinking your argument through to it's end conclusion, Vic.
OK, then you clearly do not understand what William Lane Craig, sorry, Vic is arguing.
Excellent. If it is an easy argument, please justify why Hitler and the holocaust may have been morally justifiable. Remember, the problem of evil is talking about an all powerful god, so this god can do anything to solve any problem, yet chose to allow great suffering.
if you are locking us into a christian god ... no, I can't. it would have us in the Oswald cartoon series with brain wipes every couple of days.
Let me quote you again - "As I've said numerous times, all of these can be reconciled if god were to have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil to exist. And no one's been able to show that god couldn't have such reasons, especially not here".
Correct.
Quote:
So you want atheists
Right off the bat, no. Atheists in general are under no obligation to support the problem of evil argument's weak premises. Only those who use it or allude to it so as to imply that it makes theism untenable would have that burden of proof.
Quote:
to verify whether a god would have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil to exist or not
That is the entire key to their argument, so yes, of course! Otherwise, they should abandon the problem of evil argument when they realize this problem.
Quote:
instead of the religious putting forward a credible rebuttal.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence. In this case, the Christian need only reject the premise that god couldn't have/probably doesn't have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil/suffering in the world. No argument's been given in favor of the premise, however, so why should they put any more effort into the discussion than the anti-theist? They shouldn't.
Quote:
Nor are the premises refuted. So you can not make the claim of the argument being illogical, only that it may be illogical.
No, it's a textbook example of an argument being illogical when a premise therein is just asserted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Because an all powerful yet loving god could not think of a better solution than to hurt people who, according to Christian doctrine, will then be sent to hell (because they did not have the chance to repent)?
Well first off, I don't support the hell doctrine at all. So if I were to become convinced that this god existed, I'd join the 25% who subscribe to Universalism for moral, logical, and even biblical reasons. Second, Christians typically hold that everyone gets "a chance". And third, yes, I think it's possible that even an omnipotent being could be "limited" in terms of arranging the world so that everyone came to salvation on their own. It's been argued as "It's logically impossible to make someone freely do something", and I'm inclined to agree with that reasoning.
Oh for Pete's sake! All the Omni's are human creations in an effort to define a being WORTHY of being our God. They are nothing more than that - human hubris writ large!
Oh for Pete's sake! All the Omni's are human creations in an effort to define a being WORTHY of being our God. They are nothing more than that - human hubris writ large!
I'm replying to Vic's comment that omnipotence can be limited. That doesn't make sense.
Try to calm down. Take two wafers with some grape juice, go to bed, and call us in the morning.
I'm replying to Vic's comment that omnipotence can be limited. That doesn't make sense.
It does if you read further instead of taking it out of context. I went on to talk of how making someone freely do something is logically impossible. God's omnipotence would only be contradicted if there was some power he lacked, but there is no such power as the ability to do what's logically absurd.
Or, if you want to insist that god's omnipotence entails the ability to do the logically impossible, the theist can always respond with "Very well. God exists even though this argument proves he doesn't, since he can do the logically impossible".
It does if you read further instead of taking it out of context. I went on to talk of how making someone freely do something is logically impossible. God's omnipotence would only be contradicted if there was some power he lacked, but there is no such power as the ability to do what's logically absurd.
Or, if you want to insist that god's omnipotence entails the ability to do the logically impossible, the theist can always respond with "Very well. God exists even though this argument proves he doesn't, since he can do the logically impossible".
What is the generally accepted meaning of omnipotence?
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.
