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

[Archaeopteryx]

It's not my place to question why you chose one insurance over another.

But it is your place to evaluate the claims different companies make in order to persuade you to purchase their product. You do this regularly, and not just when buying or selling. Someone claims that vaccines cause cancer or that homeopathy cures AIDS. It's "not your place" to examine whether their claims are credible?

 

[GillDouglas]

Someone who cares enough about whether those claims are true, perhaps?

But you seem only to care about one claim, the claim of Christianity.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

"Christianity is abitrary" Well the bible is the basis of Christianity and you'll find it very straight forward and not to contradict. I don't think you should treat denominations of Christianity like different religions because fundamentally they each have a backbone (Christ) whereas other religions use different God's.

That claim is also abitrary at best, and arguably plain wrong. Judaism, rather obviously "uses the same God", as does Islam. And if you choose a different "backbone" then you can bring all religions under the same banner - or at least some interpretations of all religions. That shared "backbone" is mysticism. Christian mystics, Jewish mystics, Islamic mystics, Hindu mystics, Buddhist mystics...they'll tell you that they're all speaking of the same truth - the same "God".

 

[GillDouglas]

But it is your place to evaluate the claims different companies make in order to persuade you to purchase their product. You do this regularly, and not just when buying or selling. Someone claims that vaccines cause cancer or that homeopathy cures AIDS. It's "not your place" to examine whether their claims are credible?

You don't think in my thirty years of unbelief that I wasn't exposed to other religions? I disregarded them all the same.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But you seem only to care about one claim, the claim of Christianity.

No, that's not true. I care about all sorts of claims. Some I care about more than others. If you claim to have $50 in your pocket, I don't particularly care whether you're telling the truth or not. If you claim to have stolen the Mona Lisa, I do care about whether that claim is true. I also care about pseudoscientific claims because these can potentially cause harm. If you claim to be able to cure cancer using crystals or "miracle water," I care enough to ask you to support that claim with evidence. I would be skeptical, but open to the possibility that your healing powers are genuine. You would just need to be able to show that they are.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You don't think in my thirty years of unbelief that I wasn't exposed to other religions? I disregarded them all the same.

So you admit that it is your place to examine such claims?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That claim is also abitrary at best, and arguably plain wrong. Judaism, rather obviously "uses the same God", as does Islam. And if you choose a different "backbone" then you can bring all religions under the same banner - or at least some interpretations of all religions. That shared "backbone" is mysticism. Christian mystics, Jewish mystics, Islamic mystics, Hindu mystics, Buddhist mystics...they'll tell you that they're all speaking of the same truth - the same "God".

And superstition.

 

[Messy]

Unfortunately, I side-tracked a thread (sorry...I honestly didn't mean to) and it may have been one of the reasons it got closed. I was only asking a quick question, but I guess I hit a nerve and many atheists wanted to engage me. Therefore, I thought I would start a separate thread which interested parties could respond to.

So I'd like to define several possible gods:
God A: omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God B: not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God C: omnipotent, not omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God D: omnipotent, omniscient, and not omnibenevolent

So below is the problem of evil argument:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

It seems to me that the argument is specifically concluding that God A does not exist.

Question 1: Do you believe that the above argument is sound?

Question 2: If answer to #1 is "yes", then do you profess to know that God A does not exist or do you simply believe that God A does not exist?

edit: I had to correct my OP since growingsmaller so kindly pointed out that I used the wrong language. Therefore I changed Q1 from "valid" to "sound" in accordance with the below:

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.

God A does not exist, because 1 Timothy says He wants everyone saved but not everyone wants Him and not everyone wants to pray or lay their life down and do the works of Jesus. He is restricted by the free will of His creation.
God B is the one I believe in.
And I believe He's omniscient now but first He was like Adam, without knowledge of good and evil and couldn't know that one angel would rebel.

 

[GillDouglas]

No, that's not true. I care about all sorts of claims. Some I care about more than others. If you claim to have $50 in your pocket, I don't particularly care whether you're telling the truth or not. If you claim to have stolen the Mona Lisa, I do care about whether that claim is true. I also care about pseudoscientific claims because these can potentially cause harm. If you claim to be able to cure cancer using crystals or "miracle water," I care enough to ask you to support that claim with evidence. I would be skeptical, but open to the possibility that your healing powers are genuine. You would just need to be able to show that they are.

So are you open, but skeptical to what I believe to be true about God? How can I show you my belief?

 

[GillDouglas]

So you admit that it is your place to examine such claims?

Not at this point in my life, no. I have a different perspective than I did before.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So are you open, but skeptical to what I believe to be true about God?

Yes. I could be wrong; I'm not infallible.

How can I show you my belief?

With evidence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not at this point in my life, no. I have a different perspective than I did before.

You didn't answer my previous question: if someone claims that vaccines cause cancer or that homeopathy cures AIDS, is it "not your place" to examine whether these claims are credible? If not, why not?

 

[GillDouglas]

You didn't answer my previous question: if someone claims that vaccines cause cancer or that homeopathy cures AIDS, is it "not your place" to examine whether these claims are credible? If not, why not?

Well first those claims would have to have relevance for me to consider examining them if I felt so inclined, and secondly they're only claims. What I believe to be true is not a claim.

 

[GillDouglas]

Yes. I could be wrong; I'm not infallible.


With evidence.

Show me evidence of what you believe, then we'll talk.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Show me evidence of what you believe, then we'll talk.

What I believe about what?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well first those claims would have to have relevance for me to consider examining them if I felt so inclined, and secondly they're only claims. What I believe to be true is not a claim.

What is it, if not a claim about reality; about what is?

 

[Joshua260]

Have you properly investigated the Zoroastrian claim properly? If not, then would you not agree that your claim to be Christian is in fact just faith in a-Zoroastrianism? Seems that's exactly what you're doing here with atheists, and it makes as little sense in this example as it does in yours.

No I haven't, but that's not the point of what I said. The evidence supporting the existence of Santa Claus is in no way even comparable to the evidence that supports the existence of the Christian god. Whoever makes such comparisons is either just terribly misinformed or just being plain facetious. That's why I doubt that those that say such things have actually studied the arguments and evidence for the Christian god sufficiently. But for those that have investigated the evidence and remained atheist, I suspect that some of them have made a conscious decision not to believe it...as in my example with the evidence against OJ and the jury actually deciding not to convict.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No I haven't, but that's not the point of what I said. The evidence supporting the existence of Santa Claus is in no way even comparable to the evidence that supports the existence of the Christian god. Whoever makes such comparisons is either just terribly misinformed or just being plain facetious. That's why I doubt that those that say such things have actually studied the arguments and evidence for the Christian god sufficiently. But for those that have investigated the evidence and remained atheist, I suspect that some of them have made a conscious decision not to believe it...as in my example with the evidence against OJ and the jury actually deciding not to convict.

Even if you are correct about that last point, it seems you have no grounds to fault them. Their "inner witness" may be telling them that you're wrong.

 

[Conscious Z]

I can't see how it is possible, unless consciousness only appeared right at the end of the evolutionary process. If you believe most animals are conscious (and I do), then it seems to me inevitable that "survival of the fittest" requires a lot non-survival, and therefore a lot of suffering.

I think it is the only way it could have been done. The suffering is unavoidable.

It is not a necessary fact that animals had to be conscious or that evolution had to go the way it did. It is very easy to imagine a world in which all animals are vegans or only humans are conscious.

 

[MissVeronica]

Unfortunately, I side-tracked a thread (sorry...I honestly didn't mean to) and it may have been one of the reasons it got closed. I was only asking a quick question, but I guess I hit a nerve and many atheists wanted to engage me. Therefore, I thought I would start a separate thread which interested parties could respond to.

So I'd like to define several possible gods:
God A: omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God B: not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God C: omnipotent, not omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God D: omnipotent, omniscient, and not omnibenevolent

So below is the problem of evil argument:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

It seems to me that the argument is specifically concluding that God A does not exist.

Question 1: Do you believe that the above argument is sound?

Question 2: If answer to #1 is "yes", then do you profess to know that God A does not exist or do you simply believe that God A does not exist?

edit: I had to correct my OP since growingsmaller so kindly pointed out that I used the wrong language. Therefore I changed Q1 from "valid" to "sound" in accordance with the below:

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.

God did not cause evil. So yes God does exist, hence why you are still alive today. Sin causes evil. Do you actually know the Ten Commandments? One says do not kill. Why would God command that if he was evil...?