Why do sceptics and atheists post on this and other (bible, quote)

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

It presupposes nothing of the kind.

So you're not saying that god should follow the same commands as we do? I guess I don't understand the objection then.

And you keep banging away at the same debunked arguments. What a god (by all reason) should be doing if it existed,

That's the whole question! It's only if god is doing something he shouldn't do (e.g., permitting evil/suffering he shouldn't permit) that the problem of evil argument works.

the impudent attempt at denial that the evils in the bible weren't evil at all,

Absolutely no one made that argument.

and the entire basis - a very unconvincing Undisprovable, (that it is really all Good, no matter how bad it looks)

Are you equivocating here? "It's all good" typically means "It's going to work out/going to be okay" despite the present situation not being good. I would certainly affirm that this could be the case, but not that it's "all good" in the sense that the bad we're both acknowledging the existence of isn't bad. Once again, the argument is not that evil doesn't exist or some such. It's a challenge to you to show that what evil does exist has no morally justifiable purpose.

Without showing that, the problem of evil argument can't get off the ground.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

So you're not saying that god should follow the same commands as we do? I guess I don't understand the objection then.

or perhaps we are using 'moral absolutism' in different ways. One way is an immutable non -relative morality handed down by God. The other is the idea that a relative human morality is unworkable, and the only reliable basis is if it was given us by a god, even if that is relative. That the morality given us by a god is the one we would expect the god to use to (especially if it is based on His nature), which is not quite either of the 'absolutism' argument.

That's the whole question! It's only if god is doing something he shouldn't do (e.g., permitting evil/suffering he shouldn't permit) that the problem of evil argument works.

Or not doing something that he should - according to the morality he supposedly gave us and we would expect he would follow, too. Anything other than that is not morality, but dictators' orders.

Absolutely no one made that argument.

I'm sure that you did, arguing that the treatment of the Canaanites wasn't wrong at all.

Are you equivocating here? "It's all good" typically means "It's going to work out/going to be okay" despite the present situation not being good. I would certainly affirm that this could be the case, but not that it's "all good" in the sense that the bad we're both acknowledging the existence of isn't bad. Once again, the argument is not that evil doesn't exist or some such. It's a challenge to you to show that what evil does exist has no morally justifiable purpose.

Without showing that, the problem of evil argument can't get off the ground.

I can't see why you are justified in slapping the 'equivocation' label onto the argument. Let me guess; because your argument is invalid (no explanation carries no weight), you slap a random fallacy - label on mine to pretend there is something wrong with it. Yes, I think that's what you are doing.

That said, you are agreeing with our argument but pretending that we are disagreeing with it. In fact I think that You are equivocating; 'It's all good' does not deny the evils that occur, but for an (unexplained) good reason that only God knows. And I think that you are shifting the burden of proof again.

Take natural disasters where (I may say) religious leaders had to come up with all manner of absurd, loathsome and vicious explanations which few would take seriously other than 'God can do as He likes' apologists. If you can't come up with some Good coming out of it beyond 'some unexplained good end, the problem of evil is a powerhouse and you have no effective counter.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

That the morality given us by a god is the one we would expect the god to use to (especially if it is based on His nature), which is not quite either of the 'absolutism' argument.

I can't think of another meaning for "We should expect god to use the same morality" than that it would be wrong for god to do anything it'd be wrong for us to do. But for the same reason it's sometimes wrong for you to do x but other times not (that it depends on the specific situation and consequences), it can be wrong for us to do x but not god. Moreso, in fact, because we don't know with certainty that what we're doing is for the best.

I'm sure that you did, arguing that the treatment of the Canaanites wasn't wrong at all.

Well that wasn't me arguing "that the evils in the bible weren't evil at all", that was me challenging the assertion that it was evil. You may label it evil, but that doesn't automatically mean we go with your claim over the theists'.

I can't see why you are justified in slapping the 'equivocation' label onto the argument. Let me guess; because your argument is invalid (no explanation carries no weight), you slap a random fallacy - label on mine to pretend there is something wrong with it.

No, I continued to explain exactly why I asked you (didn't just label it equivocation) if you were equivocating. "It's all good" typically means "It's going to work out/going to be okay" despite the present situation not being good. I would certainly affirm that this could be the case, but not that it's "all good" in the sense that the bad we're both acknowledging the existence of isn't bad.

Take natural disasters where (I may say) religious leaders had to come up with all manner of absurd, loathsome and vicious explanations which few would take seriously other than 'God can do as He likes' apologists.

Which doesn't get you guys off the hook concerning your assertions, just because they made claims or gave theories when they didn't have to...

If you can't come up with some Good coming out of it beyond 'some unexplained good end,

It's not up to me to support a claim I never made (i.e., "There is some good coming out of it" or "God does have morally sufficient reasons"), just because you refuse to admit that the key premise of the problem of evil argument (i.e., "God couldn't/probably couldn't have morally sufficient reasons") has no substantiation for it whatsoever. That is, again, shifting the burden of proof.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I can't think of another meaning for "We should expect god to use the same morality" than that it would be wrong for god to do anything it'd be wrong for us to do. But for the same reason it's sometimes wrong for you to do x but other times not (that it depends on the specific situation and consequences), it can be wrong for us to do x but not god. Moreso, in fact, because we don't know with certainty that what we're doing is for the best.

Correct. That's the whole point about moral relativism. Absolutism can mean either immutable law or something handed down by God (immutable or relative morality). The point has always been things done that cannot be justified in any way we can think of, even in moral relativism. We are left with the theory that a god is not there, doesn't intervene or is actually doing this stuff because of some postulated overriding good that can't be explained.

Well that wasn't me arguing "that the evils in the bible weren't evil at all", that was me challenging the assertion that it was evil. You may label it evil, but that doesn't automatically mean we go with your claim over the theists'.

Well, that looks like what I was saying. And we are back to a good case for that being evil and you simply denying it - not even suggesting that there was some overriding good in the end.

No, I continued to explain exactly why I asked you (didn't just label it equivocation) if you were equivocating. "It's all good" typically means "It's going to work out/going to be okay" despite the present situation not being good. I would certainly affirm that this could be the case, but not that it's "all good" in the sense that the bad we're both acknowledging the existence of isn't bad.

I wasn't equivocating. You found one and asked. I said it wasn't. Your argument that evil isn't evil at all (e.g the Canaanites) is a sideline. The point here is an overriding Good that excuses the evils; which you seem to accept.

Which doesn't get you guys off the hook concerning your assertions, just because they made claims or gave theories when they didn't have to...

We are not on the hook - you are. The problem of evil has been explained, and you have not been able to do a thing to get over it but bleat 'You can't prove there isn't some good behind it...' That does not get you off the hook.

It's not up to me to support a claim I never made (i.e., "There is some good coming out of it" or "God does have morally sufficient reasons"), just because you refuse to admit that the key premise of the problem of evil argument (i.e., "God couldn't/probably couldn't have morally sufficient reasons") has no substantiation for it whatsoever. That is, again, shifting the burden of proof.

What an absurd attempt to reverse the burden of proof. You made a claim for some unexplained Good justifying the evils of the world (1) That you weren't claiming it as true (just equally valid, at least - it's comng to something when you strawman your Own arguments) doesn't alter the fact that you have nothing to support it. The problem of evil on the other hand has everything supporting it and all you have is denial. Thus you try to pretend that we have something to prove. The whole world and how it is, is the evidence. I say again, the burden of proof is on you to validate some explanation. You have nothing, and now you have to cheat.

(1) and I can't see how that is not making the claims you say that you didn't make...though using different words and pretending that makes it a different argument is a familiar Theist ploy. The "That is not what I said" gambit. .

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

We are left with the theory that a god is not there, doesn't intervene or is actually doing this stuff because of some postulated overriding good that can't be explained.

Yeah...?

And we are back to a good case for that being evil and you simply denying it

You have to actually give the case though...

Your argument that evil isn't evil at all (e.g the Canaanites)

Again, that's not my argument. You're labeling it "evil" and then demanding that I just accept the label. But that's not how it works.

The point here is an overriding Good that excuses the evils; which you seem to accept.

I don't accept either claim; I just acknowledge that neither of you know or have any way of knowing.

The problem of evil on the other hand has everything supporting it

And yet, you still neglect to substantiate the key premise. We've still not heard a single argument for why we should think that any god which might exist couldn't have morally sufficient reasons for permitting suffering/evil.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Yeah...?



You have to actually give the case though...



Again, that's not my argument. You're labeling it "evil" and then demanding that I just accept the label. But that's not how it works.



I don't accept either claim; I just acknowledge that neither of you know or have any way of knowing.



And yet, you still neglect to substantiate the key premise. We've still not heard a single argument for why we should think that any god which might exist couldn't have morally sufficient reasons for permitting suffering/evil.

Total reversal of the burden of proof. Are you seriously telling me that people are incapable of identifying evil in the Bible and in the world? Of course they are - according to their morality, and you know it. Only impudent denial would demand validation. You slipped -once - and conceded that there was evil in the world. So you know it as well as we do.

Burden of proof on you to explain it away and make a God look plausible. You are on the hook.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Are you seriously telling me that people are incapable of identifying evil in the Bible and in the world?

Well it's certainly a fallible sense. But again, the main point is that even granting that x is evil, it doesn't mean that god is wrong to permit it to happen. And when it comes to god's commands, you're just asserting that these are evil; you're not actually giving a reason to think that.

You slipped -once - and conceded that there was evil in the world.

Lol, I intentionally granted that there is evil in the world, as that isn't the premise anyone is questioning.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Well it's certainly a fallible sense. But again, the main point is that even granting that x is evil, it doesn't mean that god is wrong to permit it to happen. And when it comes to god's commands, you're just asserting that these are evil; you're not actually giving a reason to think that.



Lol, I intentionally granted that there is evil in the world, as that isn't the premise anyone is questioning.

But if man's moral sense ifs fallible, it implies that it is human in origin and a god -given morality should not be so fallible, or a god that was there should tidy it up.

It would be too tedious to go all through an explanation of the good of humanity, reciprocity, judgement and empathy - all the things that underly morality, because you already accepted the existence of evil in the world and that is a moral assessment on your part. If you are implying that evil is evil unless god does it and then somehow it is good, because of some plan that nobody knows, you are back at your claim without weight, vs 'this is immoral', 'that cannot be the orders of a moral god', 'it is one more reason' (amongst many) to reject the Bible as anything but the inventions of men.'

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

But if man's moral sense ifs fallible, it implies that it is human in origin

By what rules of logic? I mean, again, it just seems like your whole argument is "We're not perfect/in a perfect world. Therefore god doesn't exist." It doesn't follow that if god exists, then things should be the way we want them to be. They would be the way they should be, definitely, but how are we determining that they aren't?

and a god -given morality should not be so fallible, or a god that was there should tidy it up.

That's the very conclusion you're supposed to be arguing for. But you just keep asserting it.

If you are implying that evil is evil unless god does it and then somehow it is good,

Surely not. I would instead say that a given action can be good/evil depending on many factors (hence all the harping I did on moral absolutism and how we really shouldn't be implying, even accidentally, that that's the correct view). And so god would be more likely to do what should be done, given infinite knowledge, whereas we can only hope that we're doing what's right.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

By what rules of logic? I mean, again, it just seems like your whole argument is "We're not perfect/in a perfect world. Therefore god doesn't exist." It doesn't follow that if god exists, then things should be the way we want them to be. They would be the way they should be, definitely, but how are we determining that they aren't?



That's the very conclusion you're supposed to be arguing for. But you just keep asserting it.



Surely not. I would instead say that a given action can be good/evil depending on many factors (hence all the harping I did on moral absolutism and how we really shouldn't be implying, even accidentally, that that's the correct view). And so god would be more likely to do what should be done, given infinite knowledge, whereas we can only hope that we're doing what's right.

I realy addressed this on the A/A thread, but it's the same. That our morality is not perfect is an argument that we devised it, not a god. But that's an aside; iif a god handed it to us, one would expect that the god's own morality should be like that, but better. If it is quite unlike it (and we argue that in Bible and in the way the world is allowed to work by a supposedly omnipotent being, it is quite unlike - and inferior - and you agreed with this to the extent that 'evil is in the world', though you attempted to excuse OT evils ordered by God) then we have a world where God is not doing what we would do - if we could - given a similarity.

The other argument is that, this is so, but the excuse for god is that there is a greater good that God knows and we don't and all this evil is somehow nullified by that postulated Ultimate Good, known only to God. This is undisprovable, but (I claim) not very convincing, shown by the numbers of believers (or former believers) who say that they have serious doubts because of the problem of Evil.

I'd say that it does work, and the Theist side have failed to come up with a convincing refutation, or even excuse.