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.
That there is 'no morally sufficient reason for this evil' is a conclusion based on the morality that we have developed,
Yet again, how do you figure? And notice that this isn't the same as recognizing something evil as something evil (which I would agree we seem to have a moral sense with which to do). I'm wondering if you can actually justify the premise that god couldn't have morally sufficient reason for permitting a given evil. Because without justification of that premise, the problem of evil argument remains a failure.
Quote:
That there is morally sufficient reason for the evil' is without a scrap of support and is a bald assertion that you do knot know and for which you can adduce no support.
Again, they're both assertions and I see no reason to favor one over the other. But it's important to realize that in order to point out the failing of the problem of evil argument I don't have to make the opposite claim. I only have to play the skeptic, and that's all I'm doing.
Quote:
The adage of 'the burned hand teaches best', has some point. But there are many evils that are repeated, are gross overkill and seem to have no useful lesson.
And some of the evils in this world might not come with a useful lesson but instead have some other justification we cannot predict. We know this happens in our own individual lives, where something we think is bad happens but then later we're glad it did.
Quote:
Disbelief makes the most sense, based on the evidence.
Yet again, how do you figure? And notice that this isn't the same as recognizing something evil as something evil (which I would agree we seem to have a moral sense with which to do). I'm wondering if you can actually justify the premise that god couldn't have morally sufficient reason for permitting a given evil. Because without justification of that premise, the problem of evil argument remains a failure.
I have already done it - several times; that you cannot give an explanation of how this could be good, but can only argue that we can't entirely rule out some inexplicable reason invalidates the claim as having any credibility
Quote:
Again, they're both assertions and I see no reason to favor one over the other. But it's important to realize that in order to point out the failing of the problem of evil argument I don't have to make the opposite claim. I only have to play the skeptic, and that's all I'm doing.
That merely proves you inability to reason soundly and your theistic mindset - for all that you proclaimed your disbelief in any god on the forum. That the weight of the (moral) evidence favours us, and you have nothing but an unexplained undisprovable carries no weight with you means that your logic is unsound. And you do have to make a valid case for your claim -if you want to convince anyone else. We don't care what you believe - you are the one trying to persuade others that the problem of evil is not a valid argument.
Quote:
And some of the evils in this world might not come with a useful lesson but instead have some other justification we cannot predict. We know this happens in our own individual lives, where something we think is bad happens but then later we're glad it did.
That is true - but that is the humanist argument. That, provided you don't end up in the gutter oir dead, it's all for the best'. No god needed. YOU are the one who has to show that a god was behind it, especially when one does end up in the gutter or dead, and you have to claim that 'it's all good in some incomprehensible way that only God knows'.
Quote:
What evidence? You haven't given any yet.
Are you kidding? I've not only given plenty, but you've conceded that it's valid evidence (or so i recall) but argued that there could be some unknown reason to invalidate it all.
I never claimed that a god exists, so obviously I would not need to prove it, lol. And now you're saying that the problem of evil's key premise has been supported? How? Where? I want to see your argument for concluding that god couldn't have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil/suffering. Not more posturing. I want the argument.
I never claimed that a god exists, so obviously I would not need to prove it, lol. And now you're saying that the problem of evil's key premise has been supported? How? Where? I want to see your argument for concluding that god couldn't have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil/suffering. Not more posturing. I want the argument.
Your beliefs or not are neither here not there; it is enough that you are arguing for the god -claim and using a theistic mindset, too, whatever you actually believe or not.
I have already given the case for the problem of evil. Indeed I recall that you accepted that there was a perception of evil in the world and I argue that nothing like divine intervention to ameliorate this has been demonstrated. That you didn't attempt to show that there was suggests that you know that this is a non -starter. Your entire case has been based on an explained and undisprovable possibility that it all makes sense in some way that we can't understand. The way this fails is that it is not going to persuade those who are bothered by the problem of evil and that some theists may accept it as a valid explanation doesn't matter. Theism has to make a valid case and 'well, maybe it makes sense to God' is not it.
I recall that you accepted that there was a perception of evil in the world
Correct, but that's only half of the argument. We need the other premise to get from "There's evil in the world" to "There is no god"/"If there's a god, he's not all-loving", something of that sort.
Quote:
and I argue that nothing like divine intervention to ameliorate this has been demonstrated.
What are we looking for? For the evil to be prevented, stopped, what?
Quote:
Your entire case has been based on an explained and undisprovable possibility that it all makes sense in some way that we can't understand.
It remains a possibility until the argument in question gives us some reason to think otherwise. Once more, it's shifting the burden of proof to say "God is wrong to do x" and then challenge anyone who says "I'm not convinced" to then prove that god might be right to do x.
Quote:
The way this fails is that it is not going to persuade those who are bothered by the problem of evil
That's not a logical failing, but a rhetorical one.
Correct, but that's only half of the argument. We need the other premise to get from "There's evil in the world" to "There is no god"/"If there's a god, he's not all-loving", something of that sort.
What are we looking for? For the evil to be prevented, stopped, what?
It remains a possibility until the argument in question gives us some reason to think otherwise. Once more, it's shifting the burden of proof to say "God is wrong to do x" and then challenge anyone who says "I'm not convinced" to then prove that god might be right to do x.
That's not a logical failing, but a rhetorical one.
I mean look vic ... its as clear as a bell.
You are debating a person that thinks he is "saving" people by teaching to "attack everything religion says." His goal is not to form the most reasonable belief possible, his goal is to spread the central dogma of "anti god." "so that we are incarcerated (aka indoctrinated)into "stop, hide, change all wording, to stop anything god because they know whats best for us." Its exactly the same as fundy think theist.
This is not an honest debate vic, they are not out to form the most reasonable claim. They get to just whip out "I am not convinced" like that in away way means its meaningful in this particular debate. I pointed out to them that when they whip out "I am not convinced", when the debate is so clearly one sided that they do exactly what Fundy theist are doing. And it adds nothing to the debate past making themselves feel better. Just like fundy theist.
As you have seen, that's when the name calling starts and every tact is deployed to minimize the more valid claim because it doesn't help their religion of anti-god. But you are more patient than me. This particular debate is over, but like with the Fundy theist, we have to pretend the less valid claim is anything but less valid.
They can't, or they knowingly ignore, the stronger defense of it can't just do what it wants or we wouldn't see some the the horrific things we see as a far more reasonable stance. and thy deploy is weaker argument of evil god.
Both "There is morally sufficient reason for this evil" and "There is no morally sufficient reason for this evil" are claims.
Now they ARE claims? Why are you changing the argument when you wish?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
And neither have any more probability than the other, or at least you haven't been able to show that your claim is more probable.
Because we can try and think of different reasons for evil, and they do not logically make sense. Which increases the probability there are no reasons. Whereas you have not even attempted to give one opposite claim. So the balance of probability moves to where the evidence is. So no, it is not 50/50.
Now they ARE claims? Why are you changing the argument when you wish?
I never said either of those statement weren't claims...? Maybe you should quote where you think I contradicted myself, unless Arach's right and you're not really interested in understanding.
Quote:
Because we can try and think of different reasons for evil, and they do not logically make sense.
Give me an illustration of what you mean. What does this process of "trying to think of different reasons for evil" look like?
I never said either of those statement weren't claims...? Maybe you should quote where you think I contradicted myself, unless Arach's right and you're not really interested in understanding.
Give me an illustration of what you mean. What does this process of "trying to think of different reasons for evil" look like?
Because they specifically said that it doesn't make sense. That is, again, a claim. I'm just trying to understand how he's getting from point A to point B.
Quote:
You haven't done so on your end.
Correct, because I didn't make a claim that it does/doesn't make sense.
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.
