- Aug 20, 2019
- 10,988
- 12,079
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Do you know any non-weaker argument for an omnimax god than this one is against it ? If so, please present it. If not, do you dismiss all the argments in support of an omnimax god ?
I am aware of a couple main PoE arguments. If you would like to create a thread in regards to one other than this, I will take a look at it.
That you cannot see something does not imply it does not exist. Perhaps you have not thought it through or perhaps you don't want to see it.
I was arguing that I see no reason why a finite, limited being could know the mind of God. I am confident in this assertion simply because a finite mind cannot know all that is known by an omniscient Mind. Do you disagree?
The second premise asserts that there are evils for which God could have no good reason, which is tantamount to asserting that one knows all the possible reasons God might have and none of them are sufficient. When you say, "That you cannot see something does not imply it does not exists" you are using the same argument the skeptical theist is using against Rowe (see "noseeum" inference in the OP). So, which is it? Are there gratuitous evils or no? If there are, then show how you know that. If you respond that there might be, then you are no longer in line with Rowe's argument, which is fine. I already stated that I am no longer assuming you are committed to it. And yet, you keep responding, so maybe you are?
You seem to be saying that we can debate reason and debate about Hulk because of the similarity Hulk has with us. I don't see why that would need to be the case and neither do Christians, for they reason, debate and draw conclusions about God like there is no tomorrow.
Your opinion about how some Christians might misemploy an analogy is irrelevant to this argument. And, yes, an analogy is a comparison between things that are comparable (similar) in some significant aspect(s).
If one assumes God exists, then it is reasonable to believe that he may have reasons for allowing evil.
Then you are not in agreement with Rowe. Rowe is presenting an evidential PoE, which argues that the presence of gratuitous evil is such that it makes the existence of God improbable. But, if (as you say) God may have reasons for allowing evil then said evil is no longer gratuitous. Obviously, if you are going to argue God's reasons for allowing such evil is that God does not care, then you have rejected the first premise and are still not in line with Rowe's argument.
The simplest explanation for why such evicence is not publically available is that it doesn't exist
Assuming God exists (which is what Rowe's argument assumes as the antecedent of the 1st premise), then one viable explanation for why we don't know God's reasons is that God has reasons we are not aware of, i.e. in our ignorance there are just some things we don't know. Again, for a skeptic, like yourself, to claim one should know all the reasons for why God does x is odd.
Skeptical theists who believe in an omnimax god are dogmatic, for they hold on to the belief of God's omnibenevolence despite evidence to the contrary, namely the gratuitous evil.
1) Now that you say you have evidence for the existence of gratuitous evil, I must take it you are now in support of the second premise? Please, do me a favor before we go any further. Do you hold to premise #2 or no?
2) The skeptical theist is dogmatic in that she believes (i.e. has faith) that God exists and that God is tri-omni. You may disagree with her belief, but she is not the one presenting evidence and an argument to the contrary, the atheist is. That means, the onus of proof in this scenario is the atheist who claims to have a proof. If the atheist presents an argument against what the theist believes, and within said argument the theist raises a question about a premise (i.e. in this case premise 2), then it is on the atheist to show that God cannot have reasons for the evil that occurs. So, the theist who dogmatically believes is not the one needing to prove anything.
In this argument that Rowe presents, he is the one upon whom the onus of proof rests. Why? Because he is the one setting out to prove something.
They wouldn't rejecting the second premise for that reason alone. They probably also want to believe God is omnibenevolent.
So?
[27] It only makes sense if what one is interested in what people believe in stead of in reality. The attributes of a real god do not depend of what people associate with the divine. Only te attributes of an invented god do.
[28] Indeed. To my knowledge, no one has yet been able to come up with an explanation able to reconcile the evidence with the hypothesis on an omnimax god.
These statements have nothing to do with Rowe's argument.
I hope I have made it clear that the problems are easy to mend.
You haven't made anything clear. I'm not even sure if you support Rowe's argument or not, which is what this thread is about.
Agreed. The absense of an omnimax god is the best hypothesis we have so far, but in order to make that a fact we would need additional evidence. The problem is that if one extends the possible worlds to the supernatural, evidence is hard to interpret, as there always might be an alternative explanation. That would make it almost impossible to say anthing sensible with reasonable degree of certainty about deities. That doesn't stop Christians though, who keep making claims about God, oblivous to the fact that they might be wrong, and that's an euphemism.
You must be responding to a different thread. Please see the OP.
If God exists, no. What about you ?
Like I said, we agree.
I am afraid that if one is consistently so strict, that one wouldn't be able to say anything about such god with reasonable certainty.
That is why it is called "faith." You may not like that, but most theists worth their salt are very candid about this. I, for one, am certainly not presenting proofs for God's existence or for God's attributes. I willingly admit that I am a person of faith when it comes to God.
It is the atheist who is presenting an argument to prove God's non-existence. And, it is the atheist who, in presenting a proof, is implicitly demanding strict consistency. So, the atheist can't now complain if he or she is held to the strict limitations being used in their own proof.
Last edited:
Upvote
0