Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Show me how an entity which is benign would allow its creations to suffer when suffering would be completely unnecessary because that deity could just as easily get what it wants without suffering.
There exists no "really good". So while my desire is for everyone to have the same qualifications of "good" as I have, I realize that can't be the case. I will say that I have a hard time fathoming someone's definition of "good" that includes the allowance of preventable suffering...
Why do I have to? If we don't have an anthropocentric universe, it's not even important.
But, if we did have an anthropocentric universe, I would say it would be logically impossible to have the true depths of good without the existence of evil for a period of time.
No, I don´t make that claim, I don´t employ the logic you are describing here, and nothing in my previous posts indicates that I would. So don´t make up stuff for me, please. Try to address what I said.Not compelling, there are conceptual issues, namely, the fact we cannot prove He exists.
However, if I were to employ your own faulty logic, God by necessity exists, because you presume God must be evil or incompetent because it exists.
Well, by that logic, because existence exists, then God must exists.
Do you really want to make that claim?
Interestingly, the very Holy Book of those who claim that such a being exist consists to a large degree of statements as to what this being consider good, evil, or benevolent.Well, if we contrive properties of made up beings, we still have to address the definitions we use. What is "good" for example. Must it be good for everything that exists, including humans, excluding humans? Can we demonstrate that this is even necessary?
You better avoid superimposing your beliefs on mine. I don´t think there is anything profoundly wrong in the universe. I am merely addressing the concept that an omni creator god exists who at the same time tells us there is something profoundly wrong in the universe.I think deep down, the PoE is ignorant emotionalism. People know deep down in their gut, without regard to logic, that there is something profoundly wrong in the universe. Something is wrong. I would agree, and just like you, I cannot prove that my opinion on it is true.
I would appreciate it if you could manage to address my posts (instead of talking to me as "you guys". Thank you.However, you guys want to claim you have logic on your side when in reality you have a bunch of questionable definitions and premises being flung about.
I didn´t say you have to. As far as I am concerned, you don´t have to do anything. It´s just that you claimed you did.1. I don't have to, I am not looking to make a positive claim.
Could you - just so there´s some flesh to you statements - be so kind and tell me what you exactly you are referring to when talking about "my presumptions"?2. I can't prove it, it would be just as baseless as your presumptions.
So, in your theology, Christianity doesn´t teach that humanity is fallen and in need of salvation? Ok, I guess that´s a discussion between you and your fellow Christians.What you say here doesn't make any sense and betrays your ignorance of what Christianity actually teaches.
Nothing is impossible for an omnipotent deity, it could make it happen.
And since when does it have to center around humanity to be important?
Well, perhaps you have a hard time "fathoming" something, but it does not make that certain something true or false. Because I am not the highest of all possible beings, I cannot provide you a conceptually perfect definition of what is good and what is not. SO, I don't think I or anyone else is qualified enough to make an argument such as the PoE.
Try to address what I said.
Interestingly, the very Holy Book of those who claim that such a being exist consists...
...to a large degree of statements as to what this being consider good, evil, or benevolent.
If, however, you want to argue from the position that we don´t know what is "good" we must consider the existence of a god irrelevant for any moral/ethical discussion.
You just said you don't have an objective definition of what is "good" now you're backtracking.You better avoid superimposing your beliefs on mine.
I was speaking in the third person, and wasn't necessarily including you, but if you think everything is the way it should be, that's fine. But, then, that means there is no PoE either.I don´t think there is anything profoundly wrong in the universe.
I didn´t say you have to. As far as I am concerned, you don´t have to do anything. It´s just that you claimed you did.
Could you - just so there´s some flesh to you statements - be so kind and tell me what you exactly you are referring to when talking about "my presumptions"?
Talking to and about "people" again?
No, you misunderstand. In Christian theology, the fact that God ordains evil is taken for granted. And it is logically consistent within the Christian worldview to have God ordain evil, but not be evil in of Himself. Again, you don't have to agree with this at all, but to debate Christian theology you must have some understanding of it. I am not here to assert that it is true.So, in your theology, Christianity doesn´t teach that humanity is fallen and in need of salvation? Ok, I guess that´s a discussion between you and your fellow Christians.
So, can He make something black both black and white at the same time so it can be both completely black and completely white?
Because human moral evil might not be the correct measure of goodness any more where electrons are locate in the valence rings of an atom has much to do with anything.
What we can objectively say is that if a god can prevent suffering and does not, then this god most desires suffering. And I'm not sure that's a god that I can get behind...
Oh, and I'm the highest of all possible beings, so everyone should probably just listen to me...
Again, you you need to prove that the complete absence of suffering is better than the complete lack thereof.
At least your actual argument shined through...
So to you, suffering isn't evil?... There is a nice optical illusion that can make black dots, when lined up flash white, so even a human could do the black and white task you asked for.
Only if the complete absence of pain is at all times better than the existence of pain and the results of it.Being in pain isn't evil?
If there is no basis of what is evil in the eyes of a deity, how are you supposed to know if you sin or not?
If you base your faith on a religious text, which gives some indication of some basic acts that are considered evil as a foundation of the religion, you can't disregard it.
Almost. Benevolence is possible, but we may be radically "misdefining" it.The idea of complete benevolence requires that there be a distinction, that something can be good or bad. If you argue that good and evil are too subjective to distinguish at all, you essentially make complete benevolence impossible...
Your badly worded sentence aside
Yeah, everybody I asked said they would be better off without suffering.
It's a positive assertion on your behalf, you would have to substantiate it with evidence.That's not an argument, that's a statement of fact. Do you perhaps have some sort of rebuttal to this?
For starters, it´s the observation that a certain theology posits that God calls certain things "evil", that God - in creating stuff - isn´t under any given conditions (but actually creates those conditions) and that God created those very things that he tells us are "evil".How is the argument of evil anything more than the observation of evil's presence and then crediting it to the nature of the Creator?
Yes, I guess that´s what omnibenevolence would mean."What is "good" for example. Must it be good for everything that exists, including humans, excluding humans?
Well, I was under the impression that Christianity was circled around the idea of good and evil. If, however, it´s true that Christianity can´t contribute anything to the moral discussion, oh well....Can we demonstrate that this is even necessary?"
Ok, so you can´t conclusively define what´s good and evil, in Christianity. I´ll keep that in mind.The Scripture presumes that God defines what is good and evil. But again, unless we can define what is good, you can't discount that notion any more than I can discount yours.
Don't include me with that. Or my friend who lost his job, ahd a heart attack, and is very thankful that he did. Or tons of real world examples that don't fit in your black and white view of the universe.
It's a positive assertion on your behalf, you would have to substantiate it with evidence.
You were arguing with me in another thread that certain things are impossible for God, like reconciling certain biblical inconsistencies regarding the number of people in the tomb.Nothing is impossible for an omnipotent deity, it could make it happen.
Why are you bringing up paradoxes which make omnipotence impossible, when you are the one arguing for the existence of an omnipotent god?
Absorbing and reflecting all light completely would be contradictory.
You are defeating yourself for me, I don't even like to bring those paradoxes up because they end intellectual discussions very quickly.
You were arguing with me in another thread that certain things are impossible for God, like reconciling certain biblical inconsistencies regarding the number of people in the tomb.
I guess I have no problem amending my statement to say that a god that could prevent suffering but does not, for those that do not want it, can't be "good" according to the qualifications that we intersubjectively tend to hold.
I can also say that if a god creates a world without suffering, then none of its inhabitants would be able to desire it. This would have the effects of alleviating the potential suffering for those that would not wish it, and removing the pain of not receiving it for those that would wish it, due to ignorance.
I fulfill all the qualifications of the word "highest" in the argument.
Okay, but those who don't want it, how do we know that they really know what is best, or that it is not better that they suffer so someone else should benefit?
I am not understanding this anthropocentirc argument, why are the opinions of individuals binding on the entire nature of existence?
I'm sure there are others that are even more stoned.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?