Evil Schmevil

[CTD]

How, for example, is our loving, forgiving God inferior to the scoffer's non-loving, non-forgiving god?

I think you misunderstand the argument's presumptions from the side of nonbelief. Skeptics don't believe in God,

Everyone knows and understands, even yourself.

They presuppose your God exists, or did you miss that part?

See?

The claim from the argument is that it appears that God is not loving or forgiving by evidence of the evil in the world, when god, while not compelled, is hardly free of responsibility for managing the world it created in some sense.

Well the goal is to make it appear as if there is a problem, obviously. The problem with the ''problem'' is that there isn't.

A skeptic could just as easily say that we don't need God in the equation and thus your accusation is pointless, since there is no God that the skeptic believes in for you to criticize.

...And go about his business pretending to believe his version of reality, without bothering to concoct absurdities like the so-called ''problem of evil''.

The legitimate problem of suffering might occasionally suffice for an unbeliever's apologetic, but the false ''problem'' claiming to be logical (yet appealing purely to emotion) is an evangelical device.

 

[CTD]

On the contrary, I maintained temporary evil can never suffice to create a logical problem.

If there existed a god. If there doesn't exist a god, then there logically isn't a problem. The issue is people claiming there is a god with no evidence and with arguments to the contrary unanswered.

Again you lose track of what's being discussed? I don't know how you intend to make progress at this rate. My position's available for review; yours has yet to become clear. You oppose, and you desire evil to be a sufficient logical reason to reject God. That much we understand.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

No it doesn't. Even in scoffer philosophy the importance of contrast is stressed, sometimes to the exclusion of knowing anything. Remembering the suffering might well enhance the pleasant experience which follows. Who appreciates warmth more: he who has been cold, or he who has always been comfortable? Permanently? Is there some reason to think God cannot heal something? Talk about whopping presumptions! You know better than what you believe God thinks? Care to prove this?

I don't deny that suffering can enhance the pleasure which would follow, but there is such a thing as suffering that is excessive, and you seem to want to deny that. I never said permanently, but eternal existence would have psychological implications I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

I don't claim to know better than God if it exists, but if anything God has a inhuman or superhuman perspective, so there's a problem of actual experience from the God you tend to describe, something beyond humanity and therefore not capable of understanding humans. Can you prove God understands humans through a philosophical argument or just through your scriptures?

Well the context seemed misleading, and you just got don trying to lade upon me the views of ''theologists'' and whatnot. You seem indecisive. Superficial, and logically without merit. You might also decide whether you're appealing to logic or emotion at some point. I'm prepared to deal with either, and I can follow if you want to dance back and forth. Logically there is no reason to suppose a man might not learn and profit from things he does not initially understand, or even a lesson it takes an entire lifetime to complete. Emotionally the prospect of the latter may seem unappealing.

You seem to presume that I am unwilling to acquiese to your position on a philosophical level, which isn't true.

One can appeal to a form of logic which involves emotional situations, without ceasing to follow the rules of logic.

''God intervening would somehow remove God of its power''? I have no idea why you suppose such a suggestion can be projected upon me. I suggest you review what I've actually said. There is no rush. If you are sleepy or intoxicated or something, you might get some rest.

I didn't say it was representative of you, I merely proposed it. If I am wrong, correct me without being condescending. And I resent that you would suggest I am intoxicated merely because I disagree with you in any way and am somehow fitting into a stereotypical atheist mold. I don't drink, possibly like yourself as well, but not for religious reasons. I just don't feel I need it. Are we in agreement about that, perhaps?

You persist in trying to change the terms. 'Ethical sense' will serve you no better than 'good', and the lack there of will serve you no better than 'evil'.

I did not use ethical sense as a replacement for good, you are trying to contend what I say with no evidence thereof and blatant misunderstanding of what I'm saying.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Everyone knows and understands, even yourself.

See?

Knowing and understanding within a hypothetical argument about the believer's perspective and understanding from your own perspective as a nonbeliever are not the same thing. That you conflate them betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about philosophical arguments about theism

Well the goal is to make it appear as if there is a problem, obviously. The problem with the ''problem'' is that there isn't.

Problem of suffering is really the issue here. That you continue to paint every atheist as advocating the problem of evil argument is disingenous to the contrary examples we've presented.


...

And go about his business pretending to believe his version of reality, without bothering to concoct absurdities like the so-called ''problem of evil''.

You're confusing someone who is an apatheist with someone who's an atheist who actually sees some genuine issue with people believing in unjustified things like God's benevolence in the face of the reality of suffering in the world.

The legitimate problem of suffering might occasionally suffice for an unbeliever's apologetic, but the false ''problem'' claiming to be logical (yet appealing purely to emotion) is an evangelical device.

Not emotion, but logic. If God is inconsistent with its own qualities, it stands to reason God is not worth believing in. This isn't about appealing to emotion as the proof, but incidentally getting into an emotional issue of suffering. The suffering itself is not what serves to defend the argument, but the logic put forth about the coherence of a benevolent God creating a world where such suffering exists. You seem to misunderstand what appealing to emotion implies.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Again you lose track of what's being discussed? I don't know how you intend to make progress at this rate. My position's available for review; yours has yet to become clear. You oppose, and you desire evil to be a sufficient logical reason to reject God. That much we understand.

Your assessment is incorrect. I do not consider evil as the sufficient reason to reject God, because I'm not one to reject something that has no coherent merit apart from presuppositional apologetics to begin with. God is not a coherent term, quite fragmented in fact theologically, so that's my primary reason for not believing in any sense. There are far more reasons to "reject" your god than the evil in the world, and the ignostic position is just the tip of the iceberg.

Evil is a problem in and of itself that people struggle with even as atheists, so in all fairness, the criticism is not solely against Christians, but anyone who is complacent to let evil go as if it's just something we have to accept instead of trying to solve the problems of the world.

And I fail to seehow you dancing aroundphilosophical theism has clarified anything about your own theology and position about God except perhaps the vague notion that God is benevolent even when allowing suffering for a greater good that it could conceivably accomplish without causing its creations to suffer unduly. In short that evil is still consistent with a God that intervenes when it wants and lets evil pass by when it is convenient to its Xanatos Gambit.

 

[CTD]

They presuppose your God exists, or did you miss that part? The observation is that God's existence by these standards is nonsensical when you compare it to the evident reality we can see around us. They don't need to prove premises that are alleged by other theists in philosophical discussion.

They certainly do if anyone outside of the discussion is to be compelled to accept them! There is not get-out-of-proof-free card.

If you want to try to phrase a response to the argument or counter arguments of some form or another, you'd either have to resort to theology, which isn't philosophical, but rhetorical, or you'd have to try to formulate YOUR god in philosophical terms, so it would therefore conform to philosophical rigor.

I don't need your advice on how to proceed. I doubt anyone does. You might do well to get around to my argument at some point.

Can you prove it's presented frequently by philosophers as opposed to people who aren't philosophers of that caliber?

Can you assign me a burden of proof merely by asking a question? Somehow I doubt it.[/quote]Oh now it's all on me! Great trick. I must remember it sometime.

People presenting forms of the argument don't equate to those who are potentially much more familiar with the arguments and those presented by theists of equal philosophical caliber.

If you reject the philosophical theists' definition, just say it, don't denigrate them by condescending as if they're inferior to you in some way.

Whose definition? Whose? I reject the scoffer's misdefinition. I also reject your attempt to put words in my mouth. I was very clear about what I reject and why, and I don't care what ''authority'' you imagine you can produce, the definition of 'good' which a scoffer must presuppose is bogus. It is obviously bogus, and it is trivial to dismiss it.

Christianity and philosophical theism are not the same thing, so don't try comparing them.

Suggestion doesn't hold the power you suppose. You're the one bringing up this and that and the other thing. My position doesn't even get addressed.

Philosophers who are Christians would tend to take that route, since, unlike you, they realize that Christianity is a matter of faith and not arguments, whereas philosophical theism requires establishing an argument according to rules of logic, not simply asserting things with scriptural basis.



There are multiple problems alleged in each argument. one is logical consistency of God's concept as related to good and evil, the other is whether that concept makes sense even if we accept the basic premises as true. There was no effort to impress you, since logic is not about popularity, it's about consistency to the rules.

So what's any of that? If you can bring a version of the ''problem'' that stands up, let's see it. Logical or emotional, both fail.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

They certainly do if anyone outside of the discussion is to be compelled to accept them! There is not get-out-of-proof-free card.

I never said it was. Hypothetical arguments only imply you understand the other person's position as they adequately or inadequately explain it. Misunderstandings are not solely the fault of one person or the other, it's a shared responsibility when you're in a dialogue.

I don't need your advice on how to proceed. I doubt anyone does. You might do well to get around to my argument at some point.

You haven't made anything but a claim without evidence. Not all atheists believe this and you haven't even tried to rebut the argument by attacking the false premise. You insist that there's only one form, when even a cursory glance at a wikipedia page could demonstrate there are at least two forms. The fact that you deny it means you either simply didn't know or you're being willfully ignorant to try to skew the discussion your way, which won't fly.

Can you assign me a burden of proof merely by asking a question? Somehow I doubt it.

I can establish a burden of proof when you make a claim, which you have, implicitly. There are multiple formulations of the evidential problem of evil, which you seem to want to deny just because they aren't self evident enough for you.

Oh now it's all on me! Great trick. I must remember it sometime. Whose definition? Whose? I reject the scoffer's misdefinition. I also reject your attempt to put words in my mouth. I was very clear about what I reject and why, and I don't care what ''authority'' you imagine you can produce, the definition of 'good' which a scoffer must presuppose is bogus. It is obviously bogus, and it is trivial to dismiss it.

I would agree it is trivial to dismiss it, but I'd disagree that just because someone disagrees with you, that their definitions are automatically wrong. You haven't established any reason why, especially because you haven't even defended your own definition of good and why it's superior. Apart from the issues of compulsion, which one might admit are too myopic, you haven't even said why your definition of evil is more compelling. Nothing is obvious in an argument except to someone who refuses to look outside their own perspective.

Suggestion doesn't hold the power you suppose. You're the one bringing up this and that and the other thing. My position doesn't even get addressed.

You haven't made your position sufficiently evident, which is the problem. All you claim is that atheists misunderstand your idea of good and evil, which you haven't even enumerated.

So what's any of that? If you can bring a version of the ''problem'' that stands up, let's see it. Logical or emotional, both fail.

The two versions I enumerated were logical and evidential, neither of which rely on pathos rhetoric. You have consistently failed to defend this claim, only presuming it is true as if everyone sees the same way as you.

If you cannot defend that claim, this discussion is over, as you are apparently incapable of even establishing and defending the position you supposedly have enumerated, but evidently have failed to sufficiently accomplish.

I have brought up the evidential example, two in fact, and you rejected them without anything more than a rejection of the premises as not fitting into your personal views about God. If this is about faith, then you've already made the discussion moot, since I can't contend that your beliefs are wrong, you hold them by your own volition. If you won't discuss this philosophically, you aren't discussing this philosophical issue period, you are injecting theology and flawed meta-ethics into it to discredit it.

 

[CTD]

You're confusing a legitimate problem Christians and others acknowledge with a scoffer non-problem. Suffering as a genuine issue to be dealt with in earnest - not in a logic-defying, mocking manner.

That was mocking? You have an odd definition of mocking. And you'll have to show me where the question is ''logic defying''...

Any ''problem of evil'' or ''problem of suffering'' which exists to lead people away from truth is a mockery. The context does not support your interpretation that I said your post itself was mocking.

I said you had confused two problems. Clearly the legitimate problem of suffering is not the topic here. There is no debunk involved in the legitimate issue, rather honest people attempt to find solutions.

Sooooo, are you suggesting that the problem of suffering can be solved by saying that ''god works in mysterious ways''?

But we see you are indeed here to mock, so what's your beef?

If so, then I think the most you can say is...

I've said what I have to say about the scoffers' non-problem, and I suggest you address my words rather than attempting to stuff stupid ones of your own composition into my mouth. Of course I am not assuming my advice is welcome, nor do I expect it to be followed.

but not using a definition of "loving" that corresponds to what humans understand as loving. And at that point the word becomes meaningless and it's silly to use the word at all in reference to your god.

So you want to alter things by talking of 'love' instead of 'good'? I don't have to conform to terms you introduce just because you introduce them. Love is a subset of good. Everything still applies. Return to the OP and see how much that'll help you. The pathetic scoffer god doesn't love; the Living God does. It's plain as it can be.

 

[CTD]

Ugh, nevermind. I'll let ToHoldNothing handle this.

I don't object. You might request he get around to ''handling it'' sometime withing his first 200,000 words, lest everyone lose interest. I'd suggest it myself, but I doubt he'd comply.

 

[CTD]

Your assessment is incorrect. I do not consider evil as the sufficient reason to reject God,

And yet here you are to champion the cherished argument. Funny how things work out...

Evil is a problem in and of itself that people struggle with even as atheists, so in all fairness, the criticism is not solely against Christians, but anyone who is complacent to let evil go as if it's just something we have to accept instead of trying to solve the problems of the world.

Switching now the legitimate issue? I'm not here to discuss serious matters with just any vandal who chances along. If you want to have such a discussion with me, you need to demonstrate sincere concern. Should you choose to start at this point, I'll advise you you're starting in a fairly deep hole.

And I fail to seehow you dancing aroundphilosophical theism has clarified anything about your own theology and position about God except perhaps the vague notion that God is benevolent even when allowing suffering for a greater good that it could conceivably accomplish without causing its creations to suffer unduly. In short that evil is still consistent with a God that intervenes when it wants and lets evil pass by when it is convenient to its Xanatos Gambit.

My position's still the same. You're the one dancing around here, there, and everywhere trying to draw attention. The OP isn't going anywhere; folks can still read it and see for themselves what's come after. I'm not terribly afraid you'll be engaging my argument. I'm certainly not afraid of the consequences if you don't.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Ugh, nevermind. I'll let ToHoldNothing handle this.

Problem is, CTD does not believe I'm handling this very well. I'm certainly not representative of philosophy or ethics, but more a general philosopher of religion, I'd say. I'm flattered, but by no means have I done much to make headway so far.

 

[CTD]

Oh now it's all on me! Great trick. I must remember it sometime. Whose definition? Whose? I reject the scoffer's misdefinition. I also reject your attempt to put words in my mouth. I was very clear about what I reject and why, and I don't care what ''authority'' you imagine you can produce, the definition of 'good' which a scoffer must presuppose is bogus. It is obviously bogus, and it is trivial to dismiss it.

I would agree it is trivial to dismiss it, but I'd disagree that just because someone disagrees with you, that their definitions are automatically wrong.

Not what I have done. In the OP I explained at length the deficiencies of the scoffer misdefinition. That boat's done sailed.

You haven't established any reason why, especially because you haven't even defended your own definition of good and why it's superior.

No, only spent paragraphs tackling it. Perhaps you've forgotten after so much dancing, but my words are still there ...waiting ...and waiting ...and waiting.

If you won't discuss this philosophically, you aren't discussing this philosophical issue period, you are injecting theology and flawed meta-ethics into it to discredit it.

My, isn't someone full of false dichotomies! Where is the substance behind your restrictions? Why may not a discussion be philosophical? How can one fail to be?

Does any of this gin up an excuse? Can what I said be dismissed, and valid ''problems of evil'' imagined to exist now, thanks to such mumbo-jumbo?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

And yet here you are to champion the cherished argument. Funny how things work out...

More misunderstanding through a medium you seem to be somewhat unfamiliar at reading between the lines of. I am not championing this argument, I am criticizing your misguided critique of what you believe to be the argument, when in fact, you willfully ignore that there are divergent forms of the argument, going back as far as the quote about whether God is willing to prevent evil, but unable, able, but not willing, or neither, attributed to Epicurus, but supposedly actually coming from Sextus Empiricus, I believe.

Switching now the legitimate issue? I'm not here to discuss serious matters with just any vandal who chances along. If you want to have such a discussion with me, you need to demonstrate sincere concern. Should you choose to start at this point, I'll advise you you're starting in a fairly deep hole.

I resent you calling me a vandal, as I have been doing nothing but attempting construct, not destroy.

And I did not intend to start some discussion about whether you are culpable or God, or anyone else, in accepting the existence of evil when you could prevent it. I'm saying you seem to forget that the problem extends beyond atheology.

My position's still the same. You're the one dancing around here, there, and everywhere trying to draw attention. The OP isn't going anywhere; folks can still read it and see for themselves what's come after. I'm not terribly afraid you'll be engaging my argument. I'm certainly not afraid of the consequences if you don't.

No one accused you of cowardice, but only willful ignorance at best. I'm not dancing around, I'm merely noncommittant because I prefer to focus on evil as a problem instead of criticizing the negligence of some supposed God that may or may not exist.

As an apatheist and a pragmatist, I'd much prefer to remove myself from this discussion, since you seem intent on proving atheists wrong instead of engaging them on the issue in a fair manner. You continually put words in our mouths, generalize atheists as all trumpeting the same arguments and otherwise condescend as if you are inevitably correct and we atheists just have to bow to your authority in the end when we bend our knee to God.

Overall,this argument is going nowhere, because you refuse to even try to see things from the perspective of a nonbeliever but seem to insist that we are willfully blind or trying to incite chaos to avoid the real issues. While that might be the case for some, it is not true of the whole. Your compositional fallacy is pretty clear to even someone who hasn't finished a basic logic course (myself included), so with that in mind, I wash my hands of this until you acquiese to some civil philosophical dialogue.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Not what I have done. In the OP I explained at length the deficiencies of the scoffer misdefinition. That boat's done sailed.

One misdefinition does not entail the entire community adhering to that misdefinition.

No, only spent paragraphs tackling it. Perhaps you've forgotten after so much dancing, but my words are still there ...waiting ...and waiting ...and waiting.

Perhaps it'd be better to focus on the present. You apparently were tackling it as an esoteric sophist, so perhaps you'd like to explain it in a way this ignorant unbeliever can understand. Why is your God not culpable and more importantly, how is YOUR definition of GOOD and EVIL superior to other definitions?

My, isn't someone full of false dichotomies! Where is the substance behind your restrictions? Why may not a discussion be philosophical? How can one fail to be?

Your diction is awkward. You seem to be asking why a discussion has to be philosophical or what qualifies a discussion as being philosophical. If you're asking the former, it is because this is a philosophical issue. If you ask the latter, one can establish some basic parameters for making a discussion not rhetorical, but logical.

One can fail to be philosophical by resorting to use of authority both parties do not agree is sufficient, for one thing, such as you going back to Christian orthodoxy to prove your claims about God instead of positing some basic philosophical theistic entity called God.

Does any of this gin up an excuse? Can what I said be dismissed, and valid ''problems of evil'' imagined to exist now, thanks to such mumbo-jumbo?

Your arguments can be dismissed on the grounds they are either missing the point or are attacking positions that those in the discussion do not hold, either of which would indicate you are neither paying attention nor care to reach some equitable end to our civil disagreement, but only wish to talk down to me and tell me how I'm so wrong, even though I've told you time and time again that I do not agree strictly with the argument you claim is typical of all atheists. I'm not a typical atheist, nor do I use that term commonly, as I've tried to make clear.

 

[CTD]

The two versions I enumerated were logical and evidential, neither of which rely on pathos rhetoric. You have consistently failed to defend this claim, only presuming it is true as if everyone sees the same way as you.

That's not what you said when you presented them.

Here's a few arguments based on an evidential problem of evil. This is distinct from the logical problem of evil ...

A wrong conception of 'good' is required even to obtain the premises, every single one of which is a statement of opinion.

A version by William L. Rowe:

1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
3. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.[2]

Another by Paul Draper:

1. Gratuitous evils exist.
2. The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism.
3. Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists.[13]

 

[CTD]

One misdefinition does not entail the entire community adhering to that misdefinition.

So? Who said it does? It is the nature of such arguments. ''God is good'' is always going to be a true statement unless one alters the meaning of one of the terms. ''Problem of evil'' arguments are thus confined to a very narrow set of options. Although the language employed to distract can vary widely, the strategy cannot.

We see that the ''better'' god conceived to contrast against God does not show mercy, does not demonstrate love, does not forgive.

As Paul Draper, one of your chosen authors puts it, ''if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils.''

Opposition to truth results in absurdity. People only need realize what they're seeing right in front of their eyes.

 

[CTD]

Perhaps it'd be better to focus on the present. You apparently were tackling it as an esoteric sophist, so perhaps you'd like to explain it in a way this ignorant unbeliever can understand. Why is your God not culpable and more importantly, how is YOUR definition of GOOD and EVIL superior to other definitions?

I don't require any special definition of 'good' or 'evil' to show that scofferdom's definitions fail. This I have done, and it's too late to undo it.

 

[CTD]

I resent you calling me a vandal, as I have been doing nothing but attempting construct, not destroy.

...By painting me continually, and perpetually omitting to discuss the topic.

Paint:

More misunderstanding through a medium you seem to be somewhat unfamiliar at reading between the lines of.

Paint:

I'm saying you seem to forget that the problem extends beyond atheology.

Paint:

As an apatheist and a pragmatist, I'd much prefer to remove myself from this discussion, since you seem intent on proving atheists wrong instead of engaging them on the issue in a fair manner. You continually put words in our mouths, generalize atheists as all trumpeting the same arguments and otherwise condescend as if you are inevitably correct and we atheists just have to bow to your authority in the end when we bend our knee to God.

Paint:

Overall,this argument is going nowhere, because you refuse to even try to see things from the perspective of a nonbeliever but seem to insist that we are willfully blind or trying to incite chaos to avoid the real issues. While that might be the case for some, it is not true of the whole.

And that's just from the one post. From the start you came in - not to discuss but to paint and divert.

The OP seems to think that the problem of evil argument suggests that good is defined as a compulsory opposition to evil, when in fact, the argument at its core simply notes that God being both all powerful and all loving seems to be contradictory in not using its power to negate unnecessary evil that is purely suffering for suffering's sake in some sadistic manner.

Equivocating and painting, right from the word go.

Nary a step the whole time in the direction of legitimate discussion. ''You don't understand'' - as if anyone was ever born so! The silly argument's presented all over the place, deliberately targeting the lowest common denominator types.

''Problem of evil'' fails. It fails this way, that way, and every which way. It deserves no respect, no consideration. From the get-go it says ''I know better than God.'' That's a clue!!! That's pretty deep into impossible right there, and that's just the start.

It needs to be treated justly, and I advocate confronting its only strength: appeal to emotion, rather than focusing on the dry defective logic.

 

[quatona]

Advocates of the problem of evil have definitions backwards. They define 'good' as simply and exclusively ''opposition to evil''.

Do they?

Of course we know the truth of the matter: Evil is properly defined as ''opposition to good".

Is it?

 

[The Nihilist]

Problem is, CTD does not believe I'm handling this very well. I'm certainly not representative of philosophy or ethics, but more a general philosopher of religion, I'd say. I'm flattered, but by no means have I done much to make headway so far.

He's uncooperative, defensive, and contemptuous. Better you than me