Evil Schmevil

[CTD]

I fear I have been guilty of a little projection. When I pointed out that this contention is a claim to know better than God, I figured my brethren would see the significance as I see it. This may not be the case, and so I shall stress the danger in encouraging scoffers to repeat this ''problem''. If you love them, how can you encourage such blasphemy? They need to be dissuaded. The ''problem'' is stupid as all get-out; why pretend it has merit?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Any ''problem of evil'' or ''problem of suffering'' which exists to lead people away from truth is a mockery.

That would only apply if you can give overwhelming evidence for whatever "truth" you're talking about. Non-believers can use the same (useless) argument against theists. It's pointless in either case.

The context does not support your interpretation that I said your post itself was mocking.

Of course it does. But moving on...

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.

I'm not confusing anything. Saying "the problem of suffering" instead of "the problem of evil" still questions an omnipotent god's love in the same way, but dispenses with loaded language. Language that I see you're nitpicking, which proves my point nicely...

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

You've been a jerk to ToHoldNothing throughout the thread and you're whining about me being mocking? Nice...

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.

When I say:

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

I am, of course, referring to the universal "you". I didn't mean that you specifically had to specifically say something. I'll keep my sentence structure simpler for you in the future so there's no misunderstanding. And it does seem like you're suggesting a "mysterious" god when you say:

I doubt one can find a Christian who hasn't struggled to understand God's purposes at some time or another. This is not at all the same as arrogantly insisting ''I know better than 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.

I'm altering the argument, as I've already said, to try and keep from using words that people can nitpick. I realize that this might bother you since you seem to be taking great joy in muddying the waters.

Love is a subset of good. Everything still applies. Return to the OP and see how much that'll help you.

The OP doesn't address my argument at all. Here, I'll restate:

It's illogical to think that a loving, omnipotent god would create a universe in which any suffering occurs.

It's not necessary to have suffering to "appreciate" good because appreciation in that sense logically wouldn't be a part of the human condition. It's not necessary to have suffering to make non-suffering "better" because non-suffering is sufficient in and of itself. And the idea that some gift from god in the future "cancels out" the suffering we have now is silly and pointless. Here's a simple equation for you:

(a life without suffering) + (eternity in a blissful afterlife) > (a life with suffering) + (eternity in a blissful afterlife)

The pathetic scoffer god doesn't love; the Living God does.

Meaningless statement.

It's plain as it can be.

Meaningless assertion.

 

[CTD]

I'm not confusing anything. Saying ''the problem of suffering'' instead of ''the problem of evil'' still questions an omnipotent god's love in the same way, but dispenses with loaded language. Language that I see you're nitpicking, which proves my point nicely...

I have explained the existence of the legitimate problem already. If you're just going to ignore me, why not ignore the whole thread?

The real problem of suffering is not about second-guessing God, or playing any silly games. People who are suffering or who have suffered want to understand why. They are honestly seeking an answer to an honest question.

You've been a jerk to ToHoldNothing throughout the thread and you're whining about me being mocking? Nice...

Please... Your words don't hurt outside of scoffer dreams.

The OP doesn't address my argument at all. Here, I'll restate:

What argument? All you posted before was a question.

It's illogical to think that a loving, omnipotent god would create a universe in which any suffering occurs.

It's not necessary to have suffering to ''appreciate'' good because appreciation in that sense logically wouldn't be a part of the human condition.

Self-contradictory.

It's not necessary to have suffering to make non-suffering ''better'' because non-suffering is sufficient in and of itself.

''Sufficient'' isn't the issue. You haven't even addressed the issue - just denied it. Probably deny all the burdens of proof too, but I doubt anyone cares.

And the idea that some gift from god in the future ''cancels out'' the suffering we have now is silly and pointless. Here's a simple equation for you:

(a life without suffering) + (eternity in a blissful afterlife) > (a life with suffering) + (eternity in a blissful afterlife)


Meaningless statement.

The pathetic scoffer god you present is exactly the same. An unmerciful, non-forgiving god is always going to be inferior, no matter how indirectly you attempt to weasel him into the picture. The Living God remains obviously superior.

My work has done been done. You have circumvented zero.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

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.

On the contrary, you do need a definition of good and evil. I never claimed it had to be special, but simply a counter to the "scoffer" definition. That's a simple request.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

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

And that's just from the one post. From the start you came in - not to discuss but to paint and divert.
Equivocating and painting, right from the word go.

I am not unwilling to be corrected, but you have a responsibility to actually point out where I was wrong in these "paintings" and "equivocations". If you just assume I'll understand, you neglect your own claim that we are all born ignorant.

And I was discussing the topic, you seem to think this topic is solely built on the parameters you limited it to, when that's not the case. There's more to this than you seem to want to recognize.

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.

Like I said, there are two versions of the problem of evil and neither resorts to pathos rhetoric, if you even understand that term to begin with. The two problems are: 1) That the existence of evil and God's omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence are incompatible and 2) That it is unlikely that God exists even given the initial claims of God's nature, considering we can explain natural evils without invoking God, as well as human evils.

''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.

No one is making judgments about God, because that would assume this is an argument for dystheism, but it is simply an observation that there is a contradiction of God's characteristics with the state of the world or that it is unlikely and unnecessary to believe in God in order to explain or confront the evils in the world, since we can explain them in other ways that don't invoke God.

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

Who are you to claim the logic is defective when you refuse to even confront the logical problem of evil? Here it is formulated in one example

1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

A great deal of the problem is that you thinkyou know what the problem of evil consists in, but refuse to consider that you might be wrong when the evidence is presented right in front of you that you are mistaken. There are no appeals to emotion here, for that would assume that the emotional response to the argument proves it, when that is not the case in any form of the argument, but an accidental association with people's dispositions.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

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

If this is anything what a child or teenager is like, I'm beginning to think I won't have the patience alone to handle such an endeavor without a wife to temper me.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I fear I have been guilty of a little projection. When I pointed out that this contention is a claim to know better than God, I figured my brethren would see the significance as I see it. This may not be the case, and so I shall stress the danger in encouraging scoffers to repeat this ''problem''. If you love them, how can you encourage such blasphemy? They need to be dissuaded. The ''problem'' is stupid as all get-out; why pretend it has merit?

Problem is, you're the only one of your "brethren" discussing this.

I love humanity, but blasphemy is not my concern. That's where you seem to be continually missing the point. We don't share common ground there because we both don't agree whether blasphemy as a concept even has merit.

The problem of evil/suffering has merit in that it confronts two issues, among others, of the hypothetical existence of God and whether it is contradictory or even necessary as an explanation for evil

 

[CTD]

On the contrary, you do need a definition of good and evil. I never claimed it had to be special, but simply a counter to the ''scoffer'' definition. That's a simple request.

Here's a simple denial.

 

[CTD]

Problem is, you're the only one of your ''brethren'' discussing this.

Another problem that can't be logically demonstrated?

 

[CTD]

Who are you to claim the logic is defective when you refuse to even confront the logical problem of evil? Here it is formulated in one example

1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

A great deal of the problem is that you thinkyou know what the problem of evil consists in, but refuse to consider that you might be wrong when the evidence is presented right in front of you that you are mistaken. There are no appeals to emotion here, for that would assume that the emotional response to the argument proves it, when that is not the case in any form of the argument, but an accidental association with people's dispositions.

And nobody's supposed to figure out what happens when the scoffer definition of 'good' isn't employed? Try it with any reasonable definition and it's toast. The words of men cannot compel God to cease existing.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Here's a simple denial.

So you basically have rendered this discussion pointless. All the more reason I am slowly removing myself from even continuing this conversation.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Another problem that can't be logically demonstrated?

By all means point out where I missed a fellow Christian chiming in on this thread. Then I'll retract the previous statement.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

And nobody's supposed to figure out what happens when the scoffer definition of 'good' isn't employed? Try it with any reasonable definition and it's toast. The words of men cannot compel God to cease existing.

You have failed as of yet to present what you think is a better definition of good, but then, that's your biggest failing. When you presume your beliefs are right without defense, that's when you get into the realm of faith, beliefs without either evidence or support.

No one is saying that just because human words are used that God ceases to exist, but the logic employed in these arguments at the very least renders God's existence unlikely. No one's making absolute claims here except yourself, it would seem. And therein is where the biggest problem lies, a lack of perspective.

 

[CTD]

Another problem that can't be logically demonstrated?

By all means point out where I missed a fellow Christian chiming in on this thread. Then I'll retract the previous statement.

You maintain there is somehow a problem for me. No problem has been logically demonstrated.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

There is a problem if you say that you and your brethren are involved and yet you're the only one here. That is the problem I'm referring to, I thought I made that clear enough, perhaps I didn't.

Here is your quote, perhaps you could explain what you meant by brethren in this statement

When I pointed out that this contention is a claim to know better than God, I figured my brethren would see the significance as I see it.

 

[CTD]

You have failed as of yet to present what you think is a better definition of good, but then, that's your biggest failing. When you presume your beliefs are right without defense, that's when you get into the realm of faith, beliefs without either evidence or support.

No one is saying that just because human words are used that God ceases to exist, but the logic employed in these arguments at the very least renders God's existence unlikely.

So now you capitalize the 'G' in your straw god? The scoffer god is not God - not even close. The scoffer god you call 'good' never forgives, never demonstrates mercy or love. He has no compassion, never weeps, never redeems. To call him ''better'' is an act that seems difficult to accurately describe within the rules of this site. (Suggestions are welcome.)

No one's making absolute claims here except yourself, it would seem. And therein is where the biggest problem lies, a lack of perspective.

I see absolute claims left and right in your posts. Not really curious how you'd redefine 'absolute', not really interested in chasing you around until you come up with something substantial, either. Rather than repeating and rephrasing the ''problem'', you need to contend with the content of the OP - what I said, not who I am or who you think you can paint me to be.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

So now you capitalize the 'G' in your straw god? The scoffer god is not God - not even close. The scoffer god you call 'good' never forgives, never demonstrates mercy or love. He has no compassion, never weeps, never redeems. To call him ''better'' is an act that seems difficult to accurately describe within the rules of this site. (Suggestions are welcome.)

What you believe God to be theologically is irrelevant to a philosophical argument. there has to be some agreed upon idea about what God is. The fact that you disagree means you really have no issue with the argument beyond the other issue which is separate from the exact target of the problem of evil, which is God's coherence or probability of existence. If you want to debate good and evil, that would require you to start a topic about that instead of attacking an argument whose basic idea about God you don't even agree with.

I see absolute claims left and right in your posts. Not really curious how you'd redefine 'absolute', not really interested in chasing you around until you come up with something substantial, either. Rather than repeating and rephrasing the ''problem'', you need to contend with the content of the OP - what I said, not who I am or who you think you can paint me to be.

Perhaps you have a skewed idea of absolute yourself. By all means point out some of my so called absolute claims.

The content of the OP is not related to the problem of evil except as you slant the argument to be about, which it is not. If you disagree with the God concept presented, contend with that, not the issues of good or evil that are adjacent to the God concept. If you would fix that problem, I think you'd reasonably fix the problem of incorrect definition of evil you're obsessed with.

 

[CTD]

There is a problem if you say that you and your brethren are involved and yet you're the only one here. That is the problem I'm referring to, I thought I made that clear enough, perhaps I didn't.

Here is your quote, perhaps you could explain what you meant by brethren in this statement

You can assume none of my brethren are reading? So what? Where's the logic in that?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Perhaps you meant something else by "brethren", but if you meant other Christians, I believe there are no other Christians talking, so you'd be referring to people that...aren't there, as if I was referring to other atheists talking in a thread where only me and Christians were talking back and forth, for example. Therein lies the problem.

 

[The Paul]

The opening post doesn't address the problem of evil at all. It just sort of fires non-sequitur in every direction.

The problem of evil is usually explained something like this:

Many theists claim the existence of a god that is "omnibenevolent" and "omnipotent." Both terms are a bit watery but we can generally agree that "omnibenevolent" means, at least, that the god in question loves everyone and "omnipotent" means, at least, that the god in question can perform any task or make real any state which is logically possible.

Now most of those same people can agree that if you love someone, you would not allow them to suffer unnecessarily if it is reasonably within your power to prevent it. For instance, you might subject your child to a vaccination. This will cause them fear and pain, but is necessary to protect them from further suffering. You would not, however, simply stick needles in the child's arm to no purpose.

If you could simply wave a magic want and render your child immune to all disease you wouldn't subject them to traditional vaccinations. That would be the same as sticking needles in them for no purpose.

If we are suggesting the existence of an omnipotent being who loves us... that would have certain consequences. I will grant we might still suffer bumps and bruises and difficulties at work and school and so on, that these trials ultimately make us much happier.

But we would never find ourselves murdered or raped, or dying slowly in the dark after being buried by an earthquake, or with our mental faculties slowly being eroded by a progressive neurological illness. No person who loves us would allow that if it was in their power to prevent it, and everything is within the power of an omnipotent being.

Now note I mostly describe suffering here, not evil. The problem of evil is sometimes renamed the "the problem of suffering" as that is what we are really discussing, and sometimes called "the problem of evil" for historical/traditional reasons. Both terms refer to the same principle.

Finally, the point of the problem of evil is not that "I am smarter than God" or "I could do better," (even though if I were omnipotent I'm pretty sure I could.)

The point is that if you claim the existence of an all-powerful all-loving god then this is not some woo-ey distant spiritual light indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist at all. That is a very manifest god that comes with very obvious consequences. Those consequences are not observed. The god described does not exist.

Sure it sounds emotional but it doesn't have to be.

X is a being that will not allow Y
Y is evil.

If X then not Y.
Y.
Therefore not X.

The opening post complains about the definitions of good and evil and makes the case that good is not limited to opposition to evil, and can exist independently from evil.

That has nothing to do with the problem of evil as typically described.