Problem of Evil Argument Conclusion versus a "lack of belief".

[Joshua260]

Understood, but I hope you don't mind this little formality: Have you posted on this site under the username of Elioenai26?

I have already said hat I am not who you or Archaeopteryx think. My name is Joshua. I have only posted under than name. I'm not sure about this specific forum, but I think it is against the rules to accuse one of pretending to be something other than what they say.

But that is what the blood evidence is in the court case you referenced, is it not?

that is not relevant to this part of the conversation concerning the witness of the Holy Spirit.

Circular reasoning. Got it.

This comment proves that you misunderstand.

I would need more information. What I "know", as in human mind/memory, is a demonstrably fallible thing.

So you would actually accept that you were guilty even though you knew you were innocent. That's laughable!

If all of my evidence was shown to be questionable, I would question, and perhaps abandon my position, as I have in the past. Are you infallible?

Again, this shows you do not understand. No one said there was evidence to the contrary. I'm saying that even if the evidence was not compelling, I would still trust my personal experience dealing with the Holy Spirit. I can certainly understand how you will never understand this, seeing as you are not saved.

That question was not in reference to your earlier post, and still stands: Why should I not dismiss this "Holy Ghost" as a product of your imagination?

Again, this is evidence to me, not for you. You can dismiss it all you want. The Witness of the Holy Spirit is for believers, not for unbelievers.

 

[Joshua260]

It was not clear as you had phrased it. Pretend that you are in a philosophy forum, for the purposes of semantics.

I do in the context that UE used it, but not how you used it.

I do not see any contradiction. One can hold a position of disbelief in gods in general, while coming to a conclusion that a particular god, as defined, is only a character in a book.

Perhaps you should spend more time demonstrating the existence of your particular deity (if you can) and less time obsessing about those that lack belief in it. The former will deal with the latter.

You really are not getting this. In the OP, I specified a list of possible gods and then showed how the Problem of Evil argument specifically rules a god or even multiple gods with specific qualities. God A in my list was the only one that qualified as being ruled out. Why don't you spend some time carefully reading my OP and then answer the questions? Or are you going to refuse to answer also?

 

[Joshua260]

Are you saying that you would never reconsider your beliefs, even if overwhelming evidence suggested that you should? In what sense is that reasonable?

Well, that's a slightly different question. I will clarify: if the evidence I provided was insufficient to show God existed, I would still have the witness of the Holy Spirit (and that is testimony for me, not for others). However, if evidence was provided that was sufficient to show God did not exist, then that would be worth considering.

 

[Joshua260]

Are you saying that you would never reconsider your beliefs, even if overwhelming evidence suggested that you should? In what sense is that reasonable?

After all this, you're still going to refuse to answer my OP? I've never seen an atheist work so hard to avoid answering an OP.

 

[Joshua260]

Sorry, but this isn't even worthy of serious debate. The Bible is a religious text, not a historical document. The overwhelming majority of it has no corroborating evidence whatsoever, and that's without taking into account the fact that some of it is supernatural.



Laugh all you like. You think the Bible is a historical text and that the resurrection is a historical fact. Seven day creationists also laugh at people who understand evolution. They may think this portrays confidence, but it actually just makes them look extremely silly.



You've just demonstrated that your understanding of the true history of Christianity is just about non-existent. What we call "The New Testament" didn't come into existence until the first councill of Nicea in 325 AD. The Flavians ruled the Roman Empire between 69 and 96 AD.

In short, you haven't got the faintest idea what you are talking about, in terms of actual history. To be fair though, neither have 90% of the other Christians I've ever discussed this with. Unfortunately they tend to approach this topic with a pre-concieved, and very firmly held idea that the New Testament is a historical document. In reality it is nothing of the sort, and has a complex and fascinating history of its own, as do the stories it contains.

If you were remotely interested in finding out the truth, I'd be happy to talk to you at length, but if you're like most Christians then all you are actually interested in is finding ways to continue believing the nonsense version you currently believe.

God is Truth. You should not be scared of it.

Totally disagree my friend. I have done extensive research on this subject and you are demonstrating a real lack of knowledge in this area. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Joshua260]

If you think you are backing people into corners or some such, you may want to think again. Whatever you are concluding as happening from some of your interactions here, may not actually be true of reality. As I recall, I told you in another thread something along the lines that I didn't respond because some things were not well defined, etc. You attempted to define them a bit more here, but they are still vague imo, specifically "omnibenevolence".

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.

I'll speak to the first premise, and I'll use a lot of "if's". If omnipotent means "capable of any and all power and ability", I don't see where that also entails an entity which has such an attribute MUST use such power and ability in specific ways. If omniscient means "has all knowledge of all things" then that also doesn't entail that such a being which has omniscience has to use such knowledge in specific ways. And what is good to one person, may be evil to another. So out of those three omni's, "omnibenevolence" is arguably one of the more subjective concepts. Also I noticed omnipresence was missing from the equations, although in some contexts I suppose it could be inferred from omnipotent and omniscient.

So having said all of that ... I don't see where certain perspectives on such concepts would also mean they necessarily had to be acted upon in a manner in which we expect them to be. That is to say, IF a being had those attributes, I don't see why they would necessarily have to use their power/knowledge in specific ways. If you want to say the omnibenevolence attribute is the kicker which makes such a being "have to" stamp out evil so that good may exist, I still see it becoming subjective. Some phenomena we may have much more of a consensus on what is "evil" than others, but I don't see how we would have 100% consensus at all points on what is good or evil, all things considered. Thus, I could see "evil" existing along with a being who could have such qualities ... but that is loosely defining such qualities, as well as not even defining what is meant by "god" in totality apart from those qualities. So it's still all very vague to me. Almost near non-sense levels. I get the idea of the first premise ... but attempting to apply it realistically and practically it falls apart into mostly meaninglessness imo.

I'm just looking for an atheist to answer my OP instead of sidestep it. Thoughtful answer, though you didn't answer my OP very clearly. But it sounds like you are saying that the problem of evil argument presented my OP is unsound and in that case, that's all I was looking for. Thanks for responding.

 

[Davian]

I have already said hat I am not who you or Archaeopteryx think. My name is Joshua. I have only posted under than name. I'm not sure about this specific forum, but I think it is against the rules to accuse one of pretending to be something other than what they say.

Not that I am aware of.

that is not relevant to this part of the conversation concerning the witness of the Holy Spirit.

You made it relevant when you used the phrase "in the same manner..."

This comment proves that you misunderstand.

You inability to clear this up proves otherwise.

So you would actually accept that you were guilty even though you knew you were innocent. That's laughable!

I am not infallible. Are you? Are you immune to the following?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_the_mall_technique

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases

Again, this shows you do not understand. No one said there was evidence to the contrary. I'm saying that even if the evidence was not compelling, I would still trust my personal experience dealing with the Holy Spirit.

Are you infallible?

I can certainly understand how you will never understand this, seeing as you are not saved.

Knock Knock

• Davian
• Jan 1, 2015

Again, this is evidence to me, not for you. You can dismiss it all you want. The Witness of the Holy Spirit is for believers, not for unbelievers.

And, back to the power of circular reasoning.

 

[Davian]

You really are not getting this. In the OP, I specified a list of possible gods and then showed how the Problem of Evil argument specifically rules a god or even multiple gods with specific qualities. God A in my list was the only one that qualified as being ruled out. Why don't you spend some time carefully reading my OP and then answer the questions? Or are you going to refuse to answer also?

I did answer it. That my response was not tailored for your false dilemmas and presuppositions is not my concern. The "problem of evil" has zero consideration in my disbelief of gods.

 

[Joshua260]

Joshua: "So you would actually accept that you were guilty even though you knew you were innocent. That's laughable!"

I am not infallible. Are you? Are you immune to the following?

Wow. I'll try to review it slowly...so pay close attention.
I was asked if it was found that the evidence I provide to unbelievers was found to be questionable would I change my belief. I said no, and the reason is because I have the witness of the Holy Spirit which testifies to the truth of Christianity...to me. So even if I could not convince you, I would still remain convinced.

Then Archaeopteryx asked would I change my belief "even if overwhelming evidence suggested that should?". That changes the situation. If someone found sufficient evidence to suggest that God did not exist, then the reasonable thing for me to do would be to question whether I am really sensing the promptings of the Holy Spirit, or am I just deluding myself.

The whole question revolves around what would make me change my belief...not yours. Comprende?

 

[Joshua260]

I did answer it. That my response was not tailored for your false dilemmas and presuppositions is not my concern. The "problem of evil" has zero consideration in my disbelief of gods.

All I asked was:
1. whether the argument I provided was sound or unsound. (hint: all you have to do is choose one or the other)
2. If the answer to q1 was "yes" (meaning sound), do you profess to know that God A does not exist or just believe that God A does not exist.(hint: all you have to do is choose one or the other)

These are relatively simple questions that I would think that atheists (since they claim to be so much smarter than Christians) should be able to answer fairly easily. Would you care to take another shot at it?

 

[TillICollapse]

All I asked was:
1. whether the argument I provided was sound or unsound. (hint: all you have to do is choose one or the other)
2. If the answer to q1 was "yes" (meaning sound), do you profess to know that God A does not exist or just believe that God A does not exist.(hint: all you have to do is choose one or the other)

These are relatively simple questions that I would think that atheists (since they claim to be so much smarter than Christians) should be able to answer fairly easily. Would you care to take another shot at it?

Which atheist on this board specifically claimed to be much smarter than Christians ? Or are you saying all atheists claim this ?

 

[Davian]

All I asked was:
1. whether the argument I provided was sound or unsound. (hint: all you have to do is choose one or the other)
2. If the answer to q1 was "yes" (meaning sound), do you profess to know that God A does not exist or just believe that God A does not exist.(hint: all you have to do is choose one or the other)

These are relatively simple questions that I would think that atheists (since they claim to be so much smarter than Christians) should be able to answer fairly easily. Would you care to take another shot at it?

"...they claim to be so much smarter than Christians"?

Let me know when you are done trolling.

 

[Davian]

Wow. I'll try to review it slowly...so pay close attention.
I was asked if it was found that the evidence I provide to unbelievers was found to be questionable would I change my belief. I said no, and the reason is because I have the witness of the Holy Spirit which testifies to the truth of Christianity...to me. So even if I could not convince you, I would still remain convinced.

Then Archaeopteryx asked would I change my belief "even if overwhelming evidence suggested that should?". That changes the situation. If someone found sufficient evidence to suggest that God did not exist, then the reasonable thing for me to do would be to question whether I am really sensing the promptings of the Holy Spirit, or am I just deluding myself.

The whole question revolves around what would make me change my belief...not yours. Comprende?

So you are infallible. Why the need to discuss anything then?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

After all this, you're still going to refuse to answer my OP? I've never seen an atheist work so hard to avoid answering an OP.

I have already answered it via private message. I have no interest in covering the same ground again. If you want, you may reproduce what I have communicated to you via private message.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, that's a slightly different question. I will clarify: if the evidence I provided was insufficient to show God existed, I would still have the witness of the Holy Spirit (and that is testimony for me, not for others). However, if evidence was provided that was sufficient to show God did not exist, then that would be worth considering.

Wow. I'll try to review it slowly...so pay close attention.
I was asked if it was found that the evidence I provide to unbelievers was found to be questionable would I change my belief. I said no, and the reason is because I have the witness of the Holy Spirit which testifies to the truth of Christianity...to me. So even if I could not convince you, I would still remain convinced.

Then Archaeopteryx asked would I change my belief "even if overwhelming evidence suggested that should?". That changes the situation. If someone found sufficient evidence to suggest that God did not exist, then the reasonable thing for me to do would be to question whether I am really sensing the promptings of the Holy Spirit, or am I just deluding myself.

The whole question revolves around what would make me change my belief...not yours. Comprende?

Many people claim to sense the promptings of God in their hearts, and this prompting often reinforces theological commitments that differ, often significantly, from your own. Seeing as you know this, is it unreasonable to question whether this "inner witness" is as reliable as it feels?

 

[Wryetui]

That argument would be better without the "for our salvation" bit.

Humans, with the best will in the world, are continually faced with difficult moral dilemmas. Sometimes your only choice is between two things that are both evil, and all you can do is decide which is the lesser. Why should it be any different for God? It's the same world, after all.

An example: 40 years ago China was facing a population nightmare. The decision-makers in that country had already lived through one terrible episode of mass-starvation, and they knew that if something major wasn't done to halt population growth, that it was guaranteed to happen again. So they chose to implement a one-child policy, which had to be enforced, and that meant, among other things, forced late abortions on people flouting the rules. Not nice at all, but not as bad as mass-starvation.

This is the way the world is. Maybe even God can't make it any other way.

Yes, this is how the world is, but because of us, and because our bad desires in our hearts. Did God create the nuclear bomb? Did God create the law of the only child in China making parents leave their daughters in the street? Did God create Auschwitz? Of course not. God can do everything, but He doesn't want to, because which would be the useful thing in it? Right, no people would be suffering because of the Holocaust, but if God interceeds, what would be useful in that? The bad desires, the hate, that would still exist in those humans heart, nothing changed. God lets this things happen so we can see how wicked sin made us and how evil we are, and we should change and turn to God, trust me, God takes care of the innocent, of the children, of the mothers, of the old people who died in the hands of the "humans"...

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Totally disagree my friend. I have done extensive research on this subject and you are demonstrating a real lack of knowledge in this area. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

You've done lots of research and ended up concluding that the new testament is a historically accurate document?

Then you did your research very poorly, probably by choosing sources that already agreed with what you believe.

I repeat: you do not have the faintest idea what you are talking about, and what you believe is a load of nonsense.

The narrative stories in the New Testament predate the 1st century by several centuries, and are a well-established astro-theological "mystery-mythology". The gospels were not written until the second half of the 1st century, and they were not written by eye-witnesses to any of the events they supposedly describe. There weren't just four, but countless others, all with different versions of events, some of them very different. At the same time, there were multiple "sayings gospels", which only contained sayings, and no story at all. No mention of any virgin birth or resurrection, just some sayings, attributed to nobody specific.

I could go on, but I am well aware that it is a complete waste of time. You've decided to believe on a load of fantastical nonsense, and nothing at all will make you see sense.

This is why a lot of atheists have no respect for Christians. There is a much more interesting, and, at the end, much more spiritually enlightening version of what happened. It's called "the truth". But no, you prefer the version for little children who aren't able to cope with the adult version.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes, this is how the world is, but because of us, and because our bad desires in our hearts.

But look at the example I gave: the Bible says "Go forth and multiply", and Christianity has long been opposed to birth control. The "which is the lesser evil" problem confronting the Chinese wasn't cause by "bad desires". It was caused by too many people having too many children and there not being enough resources to feed them all.

Did God create the law of the only child in China making parents leave their daughters in the street?

I wasn't blaming God for the problems China faced (and many parts of the world still face). I was just questioning whether it makes sense to blame "human sin" or "bad desire". If I was going to point fingers, then I might repeat that God supposedly told humans to go forth and multiply, when perhaps he should have added "but don't do so to the point where the Earth can no longer support you", but I don't think that would be appropriate either. Is it not possible that nobody is to blame for these things? That it is just the way things are?

God can do everything

I think even God is limited to only being able to do what is logically possible.

 

[Wryetui]

I think even God is limited to only being able to do what is logically possible.

Like resurrecting from the dead or splitting the Red Sea in two?

 

[Joshua260]

Which atheist on this board specifically claimed to be much smarter than Christians ? Or are you saying all atheists claim this ?

I've heard atheists express that sentiment before.