public hermit 41 said:
Amoranemix 40 said:
[22] 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 ?
[23] It is reasonable to assume that some instances of apparent gratuitous evil aren't, but all of them ? There is no compelling evidence to support that.
[24] 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.
[22] 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.
Since you failed to answer the questions, I will answer them for you :
No, you do not know an argument for an omnimax god that is not weaker than the PoE argument presented by Rowe.
No, there are weaker arguments for an omnimax god that you do not dismiss.
Hence, the best evidence we have about whether an omnimax god exists, undermines its existence.
Hence, you are biased in favour of evidence for an omnimax god and biased against evidence against it. That mindset is not conducive to reaching dependable conclusions about reality in general and an omnimax god in particular.
public hermit 41 said:
[24] 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,[25] which is tantamount to asserting that one knows all the possible reasons God might have and none of them are sufficient.[26] 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?[27] Are there gratuitous evils or no?[28] 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?
[24] I agree you were arguing that or something like that. I do not know what you are confident in, but that you do not see such reason seems plausible.
[25] That is not what it states. The evil being gratuitous means that there is no justification or compensation for the evil, not that there is no reason for it and even less so that there could be no reason for it.
[26] It is much easier to come up with reasons that are insufficient than reasons that are.
[27] You may have noticed that I have used that argument several times already to support conclusions that are inconvenient to Cristians. Here I have used a stronger version.
Which is what ? Do you dispute my argument and thereby the argument skeptical theists use against Rowe ?
[28] My position hasn't changed from post 24, where I stated that there is probably gratuituous evil and I know that by gathering information about information about the world, including via interaction with Christians. I even believe it is very probable. You on the other hand provided no reason to believe that God has good reason for allowing evil.
Can one know anything ? If so, how ?
public hermit 41 said:
Amoranemix 40 said:
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).
You have failed to provide support for your claim that one needs to know God exists in order to reason about him. You have also failed to support your claim that in order to use Hulk in an analogy, one needs to have certain similarities with him. It is therefore reasonable to assume that these claims merely reflect your personal opinion and not reality.
public hermit 41 said:
Amoranemix 40 said:
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.[30] But, if (as you say) God may have reasons for allowing evil then said evil is no longer gratuitous.[31] 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.[32]
[30] Just improbable ? Your objection to the argument has until now been based on the interpretation that the argument relied on the second premise being certain. Since that is not the case, the conclusion is not certain, which according to you was reasonable ground for dismissing the argument altogether.
[31] I disagree. Evil that has a (bad) reason may still be gratuitous.
[32] Even i I were to argue that, I don't see how that would constitute a rejection of the first premise.
public hermit 41 said:
Amoranemix 40 said:
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.[33]
Whether something is viable depends on what it is meant to be used for. If the goal is to promote god-belief, then it is indeed viable. If the goal is to learn about reality, then it is unlikely to be viable. Hence, on top of being the simplest, the skeptics explanation is also viable.
[33] You phrased that incorrectly. When referring to a hypothetical situation you should use the conditional tense. Otherwise people could misunderstand that I actually claim one should know all the reasons why God does x.
public hermit 41 said:
Amoranemix 40 said:
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?
My position still hasn't changed. Like I said in post 30 : “Premise two is also probably true, but that doesn't mean I can prove it.”
public hermit 41 said:
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,[34] 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.[35] So, the theist who dogmatically believes is not the one needing to prove anything.[36]
Perhaps some atheists have faith that if there could be good reasons for an omnimax god to allow all the existing evil, someone would come up with them. If these atheists were to dismiss evidence to the contrary (that as far as I know, does not exist), their beliefs would probably also be dogmatic.
[34] A wise decision of the skeptical theist, as presenting the evidence to support her belief would allow comparison.
[35] Suppose someone presents an argument that relies on the premise that Donald Trump is a human president. Suppose I dislike the conclusion of that argument. I notice that Donald Trump might be an alien imposter. After all, we humans can't possibly know what aliens can or would do. Hence, the premise is questionable. Is the onus on the adherents of that argument to prove that Donald Trump is human ?
[36] Perhaps not in this instance, but theists make many claims and they are bad at supporting them and hopeless at proving them, even though I don't hold them to such high standards. If there were an argument that strong for the existence of Yahweh, I would probably be Christian.
public hermit 41 said:
Amoranemix 40 said:
They wouldn't rejecting the second premise for that reason alone. They probably also want to believe God is omnibenevolent.
So?
So they are doing more then simply admitting they are not in an epistemic position to know God's reasons.
public hermit 41 said:
Amoranemix 40 said:
[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.
[27] I was disputing your claim. In addition, Rowe's argument is trying to demonstrate an attribute of reality.
[28] You are mistaken. That claim is related to the second premise.
public hermit 41 said:
Amoranemix 40 said:
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.
What part of my clarification have you failed understand ?
public hermit 41 said:
Amoranemix 40 said:
[32] If God exists, no. What about you ? [Are you in an epistemic position to know all God's thoughts and reasons?]
Like I said, we agree.
You already admitted your beliefs are dogmatic, so why evade the question ?
public hermit 41 said:
Amoranemix 40 said:
[33] That depends on how high you place the bar, how strict you are in evaluation of premises and deductions for arguments for an omnimax god as well. 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. I have asked you for an argument for comparison. We shall see how that goes.
That is why it is called "faith."[34] You may not like that, but most theists worth their salt are very candid about this.[35] 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.
[34] All right. Hence, no matter how bad Rowe's PoE argument may be, it remains true that the skeptical theist's belief in an omnimax god is not rationally tenable.
[35] That is debatable, but I agree that if skeptical theists are claiming ''We believe an omnimax god exists. The evidence does not support it, but we believe it anyway.” and then an atheist responds that he can disprove that belief with the Rowe's PoE argument, the theist could rightfully expect support the second premise.
public hermit 41 said:
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.
I am rarely getting consistency from Christians when debating them. Maybe the atheist is too.
It is probably possible to provide some support by trying to exclude reasons God might have by taking advantage of the limitation posed on those reasons by the requirement of omnibenevolence.
