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

[Joshua260]

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

I've explained this as well as I can. It's unfortunate that you do not seem to comprehend properly what I am saying.

 

[Joshua260]

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.

The only way I remember you "addressing" it is by mischaracterizing my question. That's why I clarified it in this thread (just to address your concerns) and then encouraged you to reply here. Although you have commented several times in this thread, you have consistently ignored answering the OP. I thought I might show you how easy it is to respond. Observe:

1. Is the argument I provided was sound or unsound?
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?

Answer: The argument is unsound.

Whew! That was exhausting!

 

[Joshua260]

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

Let me know when you are done trolling.

Not trolling. Just wondering if you will ever actually answer the OP.

(btw, I'm actually ok with it if you really don't want to answer. Silence speaks volumes!)

 

[Joshua260]

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?

Sure it's reasonable to question. But in order to explain why I have confidence in it, I will have to respond in a narrative.

I did not have the witness of the Holy Spirit when I first started researching the claims of Christianity. I was very much the skeptic and after much research came to the conclusion that the Gospel message was more probably true than not. So I asked for forgiveness of my sins and asked Jesus to come into my life and be my Lord and Savior. As promised, he sent the Holy Spirit to come and dwell within me.

So many non-Christians may claim to have some spiritual guidance (and maybe so, but not necessarily the Holy Spirit). However, when I look at those other faiths, none of them come even close to having the wealth of philosophical argument and evidences that support a reasonable belief in the Christian god. Therefore, in order for me to decide not to trust my sense that the Holy Spirit guides me, one would have to show demonstrable evidence that the Christian God does not exist, but so far, no attempts have come even close to succeeding in that endeavor.

 

[Joshua260]

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

Lol! That's funny. Actually, I was quite the skeptic!

 

[TillICollapse]

Sure it's reasonable to question. But in order to explain why I have confidence in it, I will have to respond in a narrative.

I did not have the witness of the Holy Spirit when I first started researching the claims of Christianity. I was very much the skeptic and after much research came to the conclusion that the Gospel message was more probably true than not. So I asked for forgiveness of my sins and asked Jesus to come into my life and be my Lord and Savior. As promised, he sent the Holy Spirit to come and dwell within me.

So many non-Christians may claim to have some spiritual guidance (and maybe so, but not necessarily the Holy Spirit). However, when I look at those other faiths, none of them come even close to having the wealth of philosophical argument and evidences that support a reasonable belief in the Christian god. Therefore, in order for me to decide not to trust my sense that the Holy Spirit guides me, one would have to show demonstrable evidence that the Christian God does not exist, but so far, no attempts have come even close to succeeding in that endeavor.

What happened to you that made you think the Holy Spirit came and dwelt within you ? I'd like the details if you'll write them out.

I've heard atheists express that sentiment before.

Smack talking and "I'm smarter than you are," come in many forms and extend beyond atheist/theist concepts. It's quite common for believers to talk down to unbelievers, or assume things falsely about them, as you have done in this thread for example.

So I'll take it you are addressing a caricature that is in your mind, hoping someone will come along who fits the mold you are looking for. If you want to have actual conversations with people, that's not always the best way to go about doing it: projecting a stereotype onto them to see if it sticks. This often speaks volumes about the one doing the projecting ...

 

[Joshua260]

What happened to you that made you think the Holy Spirit came and dwelt within you ? I'd like the details if you'll write them out.

Smack talking and "I'm smarter than you are," come in many forms and extend beyond atheist/theist concepts. It's quite common for believers to talk down to unbelievers, or assume things falsely about them, as you have done in this thread for example.

So I'll take it you are addressing a caricature that is in your mind, hoping someone will come along who fits the mold you are looking for. If you want to have actual conversations with people, that's not always the best way to go about doing it: projecting a stereotype onto them to see if it sticks. This often speaks volumes about the one doing the projecting ...

I'm not really interested in continuing this subject here because I don't want to detract from my goal of getting responders to stay on topic and answer the OP.

 

[Davian]

I've explained this as well as I can. It's unfortunate that you do not seem to comprehend properly what I am saying.

Of course. The blame for your inability to explain yourself lies with me.

 

[Davian]

Not trolling.

The bit I quoted was definitely trolling.

Just wondering if you will ever actually answer the OP.

(btw, I'm actually ok with it if you really don't want to answer. Silence speaks volumes!)

As do the false dilemmas and loaded questions used in the OP.

 

[Joshua260]

The bit I quoted was definitely trolling.

As do the false dilemmas and loaded questions used in the OP.

It's a straight forward (two) question(s) worded to remove all ambiguity for those that expressed concerns about when I addressed it in the other thread. I really don't care if you refuse to answer. It's more important to me that you realize why you refuse to answer.

 

[KCfromNC]

Not trolling. Just wondering if you will ever actually answer the OP.

Post 156 handles it pretty well.

 

[JGG]

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.

Here's the best answer I can give you:

The key words we're dealing with - omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent - are words which represent concepts which I cannot comprehend. As a result, the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god is already nonsensical to me, and I cannot believe it.

If you are asking me if I believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god is less possible than a god who is omnipotent and omniscient while also omnimalevolent, I would be forced to say that I think both are about equally likely.

 

[Joshua260]

Post 156 handles it pretty well.

Except he never actually said whether the argument presented in the OP was sound or unsound, which was the question I posed.

 

[Joshua260]

s

Here's the best answer I can give you:

The key words we're dealing with - omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent - are words which represent concepts which I cannot comprehend. As a result, the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god is already nonsensical to me, and I cannot believe it.

If you are asking me if I believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god is less possible than a god who is omnipotent and omniscient while also omnimalevolent, I would be forced to say that I think both are about equally likely.

So may people have been getting into all the weeds of the premises. All I'm interested in is the question I asked in the OP, which is whether or not the argument was sound or unsound. If one replied that the argument was sound, then I was interested in whether the responder knew that God A did not exist, or whether they simply believed that God A did not exist. So many people are making this harder than it needs to be.

 

[JGG]

s

So may people have been getting into all the weeds of the premises. All I'm interested in is the question I asked in the OP, which is whether or not the argument was sound or unsound. If one replied that the argument was sound, then I was interested in whether the responder knew that God A did not exist, or whether they simply believed that God A did not exist. So many people are making this harder than it needs to be.

I would suggest unsound. The concept of omnipotence alone is incomprehensible. How do I create a sound argument of any kind with an incomprehensible concept in one of the premises?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sure it's reasonable to question. But in order to explain why I have confidence in it, I will have to respond in a narrative.

I did not have the witness of the Holy Spirit when I first started researching the claims of Christianity. I was very much the skeptic and after much research came to the conclusion that the Gospel message was more probably true than not. So I asked for forgiveness of my sins and asked Jesus to come into my life and be my Lord and Savior. As promised, he sent the Holy Spirit to come and dwell within me.

So many non-Christians may claim to have some spiritual guidance (and maybe so, but not necessarily the Holy Spirit). However, when I look at those other faiths, none of them come even close to having the wealth of philosophical argument and evidences that support a reasonable belief in the Christian god. Therefore, in order for me to decide not to trust my sense that the Holy Spirit guides me, one would have to show demonstrable evidence that the Christian God does not exist, but so far, no attempts have come even close to succeeding in that endeavor.

People of different religions often report their own spiritual guidance, or "inner witness," reinforcing their theological commitments. They also claim that, in their view, a stronger case can be made for those commitments. Given this, what makes you think that your own "inner witness" is more reliable than that of someone of a different religion who feels just as strongly about his theological commitments as you do about yours?

 

[Davian]

It's a straight forward (two) question(s) worded to remove all ambiguity for those that expressed concerns about when I addressed it in the other thread. I really don't care if you refuse to answer. It's more important to me that you realize why you refuse to answer.

Tell me, Mr. Myn Reeder, why did I refuse to answer in the manner that you allude to?

 

[Joshua260]

People of different religions often report their own spiritual guidance, or "inner witness," reinforcing their theological commitments. They also claim that, in their view, a stronger case can be made for those commitments. Given this, what makes you think that your own "inner witness" is more reliable than that of someone of a different religion who feels just as strongly about his theological commitments as you do about yours?

As I explained to tillicollapse, I'd rather not get sidetracked from my goal in this thread, which is to get atheists such as yourself to one day answer my OP. Is ther any chance that could ever happen?

 

[Joshua260]

Tell me, Mr. Myn Reeder, why did I refuse to answer in the manner that you allude to?

Only you know the answer to that question. I've given you several chances, and even provided an example. Look, I'll show you my answer again: "The argument in the OP is unsound". See? It's really not that difficult.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As I explained to tillicollapse, I'd rather not get sidetracked from my goal in this thread, which is to get atheists such as yourself to one day answer my OP. Is ther any chance that could ever happen?

I already answered it, as you recall, via private message. I already indicated that you could reproduce my response here, if you were so inclined, but that I have no interest in traversing ground that has already been covered. For the record, I think Davian did a good job summarising the most salient point.