Nicholai Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 It only looks "naive" if you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, the problem of evil argument only works when you take for granted that God is omnibenevolent. But fortunately, every theist accepts that God is omnibenevolent: Telling people how they perceive their god is something you can't do. Sure, you can say that according to Stanford they should think that, but in the end what your saying (that western theist is definitely reliant on the idea of an absolute, maximally great god) means nothing. No Christian/Muslim/Jew wants to deny that God is perfect, so the problem of evil argument works. I don't care about Zeus or Quetzalcoatl or whatever. I care about Western theism, and the problem of evil argument works wonderfully for that. How many people do you think will hold they view of a maximally great god rather than simply adapting for the discrepancy? What I'm saying is that an argument that people can easily make excuses for and adapt to isn't useful in discourse. Are you ready and willing to tell people that your definition of the god they believe in is more accurate than their own, and because of your definition their god can't exist? That's best case not useful in passing discussion as it will cause angry displays, worst case a conversation stopper. In an academic setting you would just be laughed at. Have you ever sat down and talked to people at your college (or a college) that major in religious studies how they account for the AFE? The Ontological arg., the teleological arg., etc? If they accept the internet-popularized arguments, like Slick's transcendental argument for God? The AFE is a stepping stone, and as far as the conversations I have had with people it's never convinced anyone of anything, just kind of pissed them off. Ask Snowey is he's convinced at all by the AFE, or if he even accepted a maximally good, morally perfect God in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) Telling people how they perceive their god is something you can't do. Sure, you can say that according to Stanford they should think that, but in the end what your saying (that western theist is definitely reliant on the idea of an absolute, maximally great god) means nothing. Lol no. I'm not telling you how people should define God. I'm telling you that every theist actually thinks that God is perfect. I'm not doing anything here at all. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy actually knows what is commonly accepted among religious people and what is not. This is how the academic world defines God, deal with it. If you want to educate yourself, read this article: http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/ How many people do you think will hold they view of a maximally great god rather than simply adapting for the discrepancy? All of them. They don't make excuses. They don't want to let go of the idea that God is perfect. That's what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says. In an academic setting you would just be laughed at. Lol are you serious? Arguments like mine are taken perfectly seriously in an academic setting. I found this while making the problem of evil argument (with natural disasters included) here on Serenes. Read this for more details: https://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/s/ssehon/pdf/sehon-skeptical-theism.pdf Do you have any idea what the academic setting is actually like, and which arguments work and which don't? It's clear that I know it way better than you do. Tbh I'm done replying to your posts because they are honestly completely clueless and ignorant. Edited June 12, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholai Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) Lol no. I'm not telling you how people should define God. I'm telling you that every theist actually thinks that God is perfect. Haha, what? Ok, you don't have to respond, because after that I question whether or not your conversations with theists last more than 5 minutes. btw every atheist hates puppies, source: I am an atheist that hates puppies, so all atheists must hate puppies too, clearly. I actually lol'd when you said Stanford dictates what everyone believes. Need to submit an article that says we cured cancer and solved world hunger too. "And it was done." Edited June 12, 2015 by Nicholai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) Haha, what? Ok, you don't have to respond, because after that I question whether or not your conversations with theists last more than 5 minutes. btw every atheist hates puppies, source: I am an atheist that hates puppies, so all atheists must hate puppies too, clearly. Almost every theist academician (religious studies, theology, philosophy people) thinks that God is omnibenevolent. Ok then, here's some sources to convince you that you're wrong: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts-god/ Theists largely agree that a maximally great person would be omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and all good. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/petitionary-prayer/ Historically, the most interesting philosophical puzzles concerning petitionary prayer have arisen in connection with the traditional monotheism shared by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. According to traditional monotheism, God is omniscient (knows everything that can be known), omnibenevolent (perfectly good), omnipotent (can do everything that is compatible with the other attributes mentioned above), impassible (unable to be affected by an outside source), immutable (unchanging), and free. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/#RelConGod If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. Btw, all of these articles were written by different experts. From religious websites: http://www.gotquestions.org/God-omnibenevolent.html When we say that God is omnibenevolent, we are saying that God is absolutely good and that no action or motive or thought or feeling or anything else about Him is not purely good. He is “all-good.” The Bible provides many testimonies of God’s goodness, including Jesus’ own, when He asserted that no one is truly good except God Himself Edited June 12, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholai Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I can understand if you have never spoken to a theist in your life why you might think that Stanford is the word of god (teehee), but that's not how it works. You proved yourself wrong here when you quoted "traditioinal" theism and the idea that theists "largely agree". That's everyone, then? I'm glad you can post several links to the same site, but that not only doesn't prove your assertion that "every western theist believes in the tri-omni god" but shows how broad your proof really extends on the topic. There are even posted refutations based on a tri-omni god... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 It would be hypothetically possible for an all powerful God to change peoples opinions of him so they think he is morally perfect when this is a lie. I am just throwing that idea out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) I can understand if you have never spoken to a theist in your life why you might think that Stanford is the word of god (teehee), but that's not how it works. You proved yourself wrong here when you quoted "traditioinal" theism and the idea that theists "largely agree". That's everyone, then? I'm glad you can post several links to the same site, but that not only doesn't prove your assertion that "every western theist believes in the tri-omni god" but shows how broad your proof really extends on the topic. There are even posted refutations based on a tri-omni god... The articles on Stanford were written by professional theists and/or philosophers of religion with PhDs. Atheists have talked and gotten opinions from professional theists too. I think I'd rather listen to them than you! What a silly debate this was tbh. It would be hypothetically possible for an all powerful God to change peoples opinions of him so they think he is morally perfect when this is a lie. I am just throwing that idea out there. Doesn't seem like he is though. I think God, if he exists, is an asshole. Why doesn't he change my mind right now? Edited June 12, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Espinosa Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 A person probing a deity for "perfection in morality" would imply that said person is already in possession of that "perfect morality" in order to measure that which is attributed to a deity. A god whose morality makes sense to a man would be a man-made god, an artificial construction and not any real subject. Sadly, this does limit approaching religions from the perspective logic; even still, more credible religious systems have refined inner logic within, which it helps to know before you want to investigate them for contradiction. If it's Christianity, then what phenomena exactly does it consider 'evil' and how does it view the God's role in the misdeeds carried out by humans or happening accidentally in nature? If you are imposing your views on Christians that is foreign to the tradition of their thought, there is no contradiction whatsoever there to be spoken of. Doesn't seem like he is though. I think God, if he exists, is an asshole. Why doesn't he change my mind right now? Can't speak for God at all, but I know I wouldn't try changing your mind on anything because it's likely a lost cause and also because of all the annoyance that would cause me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) A person probing a deity for "perfection in morality" would imply that said person is already in possession of that "perfect morality" in order to measure that which is attributed to a deity. A god whose morality makes sense to a man would be a man-made god, an artificial construction and not any real subject. This point (but much more eloquently written) is in the pdf article that I posted a bit ago: https://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/s/ssehon/pdf/sehon-skeptical-theism.pdf The analogy is clear: Looking around as best we can, many of us see no plausible reason that would justify God in having allowed Cyclone Nargis and the Sichuan earthquake to kill 200,000 people (The theodicists are the exception: they do claim to see, at least in rough outline, adequate reasons for God having done this. But, as I said, that is a topic for a different paper.) Wykstra claims that we should not reasonably expect to see the reason God had for allowing this disaster or others. When it comes to understanding God’s ways, we are like humble nearsighted folks glancing around a garage looking to see whether there are fleas. Or to take another of Wykstra’s analogies: “Imagine a doctor, squinting at a used hypodermic needle and seeing no germs, inferring that the needle does not appear to have any germs on it (that it is appears germless), and from this, that it does not have any germs on it (that it is germless)” And there is a great response to it: At the analogous point in the dialectic, when the card-watcher rightly concluded that she must be massively ignorant about the card game, she wisely declined to make judgments about which hand ought to win. Similarly, in accord with (I2), the skeptical theist should admit that she is massively ignorant about when agents should prevent or not prevent suffering, and she should not have any confidence whatsoever in the moral judgments she is inclined to make. Thus, if the theist takes seriously the claim that God has good reasons for allowing so much suffering, then the theist should be the victim of moral paralysis: she should have no confidence in her moral judgments; she should have no idea when to allow suffering and when not to allow it, and she should also be unwilling to make moral judgments concerning the actions of others. What do you make of this reply? Can't speak for God at all, but I know I wouldn't try changing your mind on anything because it's likely a lost cause and also because of all the annoyance that would cause me. Not a funny retort, since God is omnipotent, omniscient and you're not lol. Edited June 12, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magical CC Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) But to say or imply that religions are synonymous with indoctrination and belief in nonsense is disingenuous and not like to be taken well. You yourself even hinted at possibly recognizing religions are more than that when insisting you understand why somebody would be religious; like that it gives them a place to take refuge, that they were raised in the tradition and so on. If you understand that somebody might be religious for those reasons, then I'd assume you'd have accepted that religions aren't just cosmologies, they also contain value systems, and provide foundations for the construction of communities, and lend people specific opportunities to see meaning in their actions. (Not to say they're the only things with these capabilities and aspects, but it ought to be apparent why they're more than just a guy insisting that unicorns are a thing and you can't convince him otherwise so there.) I mean, I imagine it'd be pretty hard to find a person who believes in the existence and Divine power of Christ, the Christian god etc, but doesn't even nominally give the least bit of a shit about doing ANY of the things the bible says people are supposed to do, or about at least considering them important. I'd assume that believing in god, at least in the case of Christianity, kinda also means believing in believing what's supposedly god's word, too. (Translation quibbles notwithstanding.) Well said. But there is another reason why I dont get religious people. They believe in their gods, okay. But at the same time, they deny the existence of the other gods from other religions. Who give them the right to do that? It is even worse than my "slandering" words. My friend is a Christian, I took him to watch Prometheus, the movie about ancient aliens who gave life to us and dear, he's offended because of that ideal. He tried to convert me, even asked me to go to the church to listen to the priest but I told him jokingly that I have a god already and his name is Odin. The first words from his mouth were "But Odin is not real!". Should I chop him down because he dared to slander my god? The funniest religion debate I have ever heard is between 2 kids, one is Christian, one is Buddhist. They kept screaming "Jesus is more powerful!", "Buddha is more powerful!", "Jesus is immortal!", "Buddha can destroys evil!", ect. And all I did was smiling, they dont know that the true almighty god is Madoka Kaname. Okay, you are right, I will stop posting about religion in serious sub-box. I simply cannot take religion serious at all. Edited June 12, 2015 by Magical CC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholai Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 The articles on Stanford were written by professional theists and/or philosophers of religion with PhDs. Atheists have talked and gotten opinions from professional theists too. I think I'd rather listen to them than you! What a silly debate this was tbh. That's one website... again, you said all theists, then had to scurry back to "well most of them, idk". Stay in the kiddie pool w/ the AFE, you will only be perpetually looked down upon. Understand that you can't tell other people what they believe. A person probing a deity for "perfection in morality" would imply that said person is already in possession of that "perfect morality" in order to measure that which is attributed to a deity. A god whose morality makes sense to a man would be a man-made god, an artificial construction and not any real subject. You don't need to have perfect morality to judge other's moral actions. Remember than time you stole a cookie from the jar at home? Yea, now you aren't allowed to have opinions on the morality of the gulags. A deity than condemns millions to die of starvation, dehydration, disease, and genetic deformities as babies, young children, etc, is an immoral god. Whether this can be internally justified by your religion is one thing, but the reality remains that a god who would sit on the sidelines and watch this is a despicable creature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Doesn't seem like he is though. I think God, if he exists, is an asshole. Why doesn't he change my mind right now? Fair point. Again, I was just throwing it out there as some form of argument. They believe in their gods, okay. But at the same time, they deny the existence of the other gods from other religions. Who give them the right to do that? Well, the constitutions of most non theocratic nation states, for one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) That's one website... again, you said all theists, then had to scurry back to "well most of them, idk". Stay in the kiddie pool w/ the AFE, you will only be perpetually looked down upon. Understand that you can't tell other people what they believe This is probably the most silly debate I've seen on this website lol. I'm not telling anyone what to believe. I'm telling you that this is a fact: theists largely agree that God is omnipotent. Ok? Is that clear? Edited June 12, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholai Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 This is probably the most silly debate I've seen on this website lol. I'm not telling anyone what to believe. I'm telling you that this is a fact: theists largely agree that God is omnipotent. Ok? Is that clear? Might have been silly, but clearly it was necessary. Everyone thinks God is maximally great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Might have been silly, but clearly it was necessary. So what? It was a largely true generalization of what theists think. There's always a few exceptions, but I don't give a crap about them. Also, your original point was that the problem of evil argument was naive and wrong and whatever else. The fact that theists largely agree about God's omnibenevolence means that the problem of evil argument works, and that you were wrong. Debate over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholai Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 So what? It was a largely true generalization of what theists think. There's always a few exceptions, but I don't give a crap about them. Also, your original point was that the problem of evil argument was naive and wrong and whatever else. The fact that theists largely agree about God's omnibenevolence means that the problem of evil argument works, and that you were wrong. Debate over. I didn't say it was naive and wrong, I said it was naive to use it and think it would mean anything and wrong to assume that it's even a slightly good argument against the existence of a god. How about the basic cosmological argument against god? A quick Google and you get an argument applicable to every creator god. 1.) The universe is an infinite or beginningless series of physical causes and effects. 2.) An infinite series cannot have a creator or an initial uncaused cause. 3.) Therefore, the universe cannot have a creator or initial uncaused cause. 4.) Therefore, there cannot be a god. Based on the popular Kalam argument it uses it's tenets and ideas to attack the idea of something existing eternally/infinitely/before the universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) wrong to assume that it's even a slightly good argument against the existence of a god. And this is exactly where you're wrong. The problem of evil argument has thousands and thousands of philosophers with PhDs who take it seriously, and write articles on it like the one I showed you. So you're just wrong and you don't know anything about this topic at all. Do you know better than thousands and thousands of theists and philosophers of religion with PhDs who wrote those articles I showed you? You sound exactly like Makaze. You say academics would laugh at me, yet you reject the crapload of evidence that I showed you were academics use the very same ideas that I presented here. My advice to you is the same advice I gave to Makaze: read up on this topic. How about the basic cosmological argument against god? It's not basic at all lol. And it's also completely irrelevant to the topic at hand (problem of evil argument) if it's good or not. It requires a lot of training in metaphysics and science to be able to make a good, coherent argument in favor of or against it. You can read more about it here in section 5: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/ Edited June 12, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Espinosa Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 At the analogous point in the dialectic, when the card-watcher rightly concluded that she must be massively ignorant about the card game, she wisely declined to make judgments about which hand ought to win. Similarly, in accord with (I2), the skeptical theist should admit that she is massively ignorant about when agents should prevent or not prevent suffering, and she should not have any confidence whatsoever in the moral judgments she is inclined to make. Thus, if the theist takes seriously the claim that God has good reasons for allowing so much suffering, then the theist should be the victim of moral paralysis: she should have no confidence in her moral judgments; she should have no idea when to allow suffering and when not to allow it, and she should also be unwilling to make moral judgments concerning the actions of others. What do you make of this reply? Moral judgments can be difficult to make, generally speaking, whether the person is a theist or not, or happens to be a skeptic (towards knowledge). Perhaps theists are more likely to be concerned about all matters moral, but some of the atheists are such rampant moralists nowadays that you never know. I don't agree with the idea expressed in bold, no. It seems that if one is confident about resolving the problem of evil in the world (where I do think logic alone will not suffice), then that person will also be able to resolve moral issues of lesser topicality and complexity. Since one's thinking of God should affect one's thinking of fellow humans and the world quite directly (don't think there can be any denying of this), believing that it is not suffering that should be avoided first and foremost and that evil is in fact represented by something else will affect the person's more earthly moral decisions. Does the paper address any of this per chance (if you've had to read the whole thing)? I skimmed through it and my cheese detector really went off, such as when the writer solemnly referred to some Christians being stupid somewhere on the internet and somehow got homosexuality involved - seems like an ideological piece of work of subpar quality and dubious motivation at best. If you can save me the time having to read it, I'd appreciate it. Not a funny retort, since God is omnipotent, omniscient and you're not lol. I know! I'm a little upset you didn't find it funny though - if you don't think me omnifunny, then you certainly have no place among Espinosa's Witnesses! Also, I'm pretty sure the guy has been trolling you for ~2 pages. You can't normally be so cocky when you barely have a couple words of substance to add to a discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) Moral judgments can be difficult to make, generally speaking, whether the person is a theist or not Do you understand the argument? The point is that moral judgments shouldn't be merely difficult to make, but literally impossible. That is, when we say it's wrong for innocent children to be cooked and eaten, his claim is that we can't know that for sure. It seems that if one is confident about resolving the problem of evil in the world (where I do think logic alone will not suffice), then that person will also be able to resolve moral issues of lesser topicality and complexity Ok, you didn't understand his argument. His point is that theists can't resolve any kind of moral issue whatsoever. Does the paper address any of this per chance (if you've had to read the whole thing)? I skimmed through it and my cheese detector really went off, such as when the writer solemnly referred to some Christians being stupid somewhere on the internet and somehow got homosexuality involved - seems like an ideological piece of work of subpar quality and dubious motivation at best. If you can save me the time having to read it, I'd appreciate it. LOL the paper was published in an academic journal. The author is a tenured professor at Bowdoin (a top liberal arts college) and he has a PhD from Princeton, which, when he graduated, had the best philosophy department in the world. If your "cheese detector went off" it means you don't understand rational reasoning when you see it. Even religious people do, since it was published in that journal. http://philpapers.org/rec/SEHTPO Also, I'm pretty sure the guy has been trolling you for ~2 pages. He wasn't trolling. Do you know the first thing about trolling? It's actually meant to be funny and get an angry reaction out of someone. That's not what trolling is, it's just being silly. Edited June 12, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) I didn't finish reading your link yet, but I found this interesting. (9') If God knows about all of the evil and suffering in the world, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, is powerful enough to prevent it, and yet does not prevent it, he must not be perfectly good—unless he has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. (10') If God knows about all of the evil and suffering, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, wants to prevent it, and yet does not do so, he must not be all-powerful—unless he has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. (11') If God is powerful enough to prevent all of the evil and suffering, wants to do so, and yet does not, he must not know about all of the suffering or know how to eliminate or prevent it (that is, he must not be all-knowing)—unless he has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. (12') If evil and suffering exist, then either: a) God is not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good; or b) God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. For someone to prove that there is no God through the problem of evil, they need a positive claim that God doesn't have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. Can anyone answer this? Also, before I am called for shifting the burden of proof, I am not defending God's existance in this post as well. I mean to say that, as long as this blank is not filled (does God have a morally sufficient reason, or is one at least possible?), all claims are fallible and the discussion is definitely not over. Until it is properly answered, the existance or inexistance of God are both possible theories. Edited June 12, 2015 by Rapier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Espinosa Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Do you understand the argument? The point is that moral judgments shouldn't be merely difficult to make, but literally impossible. That is, when we say it's wrong for innocent children to be cooked and eaten, his claim is that we can't know that for sure. I did; have a look at my previous post where I said I can't agree with it. The author fails to understand, or rather consider, the whole set of views that would make God's (lack of) actions impossible to compare to those of a person, or any of the things, in spite of there being a relation between the two. Didn't you ask me what I thought of it? I told you precisely that. Ok, you didn't understand his argument. His point is that theists can't resolve any kind of moral issue whatsoever. Yeah, it was cute. LOL the paper was published in an academic journal. The author is a tenured professor at Bowdoin (a top liberal arts college) and he has a PhD from Princeton, which, when he graduated, had the best philosophy department in the world. If your "cheese detector went off" it means you don't understand rational reasoning when you see it. Even religious people do, since it was published in that journal. http://philpapers.org/rec/SEHTPO Not everything is right with academia, of today or any other time. It is not unprecedented for it to be exploited as a tool for shady ideological demagoguery. Not everything academia produces ought to be trusted with blind faith. I will treat your failure to address the question I posed as confirmation that the author is blissfully ignorant of the issues raised; precisely as assumed. No need to waste time reading the whole of it to find it, then. He wasn't trolling. Do you know the first thing about trolling? It's actually meant to be funny and get an angry reaction out of someone. That's not what trolling is, it's just being silly. That is usually the intended outcome; the guy is new and doesn't know you will behave in the same goofy way regardless of one's chosen level of discourse and content. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholai Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 And this is exactly where you're wrong. The problem of evil argument has thousands and thousands of philosophers with PhDs who take it seriously, and write articles on it like the one I showed you. So you're just wrong and you don't know anything about this topic at all. I've spent years on this topic... I don't know everything, but I know 5 years worth. I know enough that when I hear someone tell me thousands of philosophers with PhDs take it seriously red flags pop up left and right. Are you ready to substantiate that? I kind of have the feeling you're insecure about your position and want to pretend away the discussion. Also, you linked to the cosmological argument FOR the existence of God. I specified the Kalam variation because the logical procession I ctrl c/v'd uses one of the tenets of the traditional argument to disprove it. I know you're just looking up and linking things I'm saying from the same site because of this, lol. For someone to prove that there is no God through the problem of evil, they need a positive claim that God doesn't have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. Can anyone answer this? There's the divine command theory that leads to moral relativism and it answers the problem of evil/suffering absolutely at the cost of humans being able to know what morality is. There's also the idea that all suffering is a test and that those who didn't have a chance (those who died too early to understand, etc) will not be judged. This boils the argument down to whether or not it's moral for a God to test you, which most theists will accept. The problem of evil is so old and so run-down philosophically that they re-branded it to the problem of evil/suffering, or the problem of suffering, a long time ago. It's not really what people use when debating the topic unless they expressly know that the person they are speaking with accepts the tri-omni God idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) That's not the point. Chiki said he proved God doesn't exist through the problem of evil. I'm challenging him to prove there is no possible moral reason for God to allow evil to exist. If one can't be presented, God's inexistence is not proven. Also, it's silly how much he brings out "hey, these guys have PhDs, they're pros so they must know what they're talking about". This is a blatant appeal to authority. It doesn't mean shit whether they have a Demi-God Certificate signed by Thor Odinson himself (not the member), it doesn't make them right. Besides, some people with PhDs are fucking morrons or mediocre so-called intelectuals at best. People don't matter when analyzing arguments, content is the only thing that does, so everything else must be ignored. Edited June 12, 2015 by Rapier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholai Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 That's not the point. Chiki said he proved God doesn't exist through the problem of evil. I'm challenging him to prove there is no possible moral reason for God to allow evil to exist. If one can't be presented, God's inexistence is not proven. No no, I mean, divine command theory is one way to provide a moral reality for a tri-omni god to allow suffering. Divine command theory is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that an action's status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God. From the interweb. All one has to do is say that God fundamentally divines moral good and moral evil and that his commands are fundamentally good no matter what to resolve the issue. You can't prove there is no moral reason for God to allow evil to exist since there already exists a reason. Then again, it only works insofar as one is willing to concede their own morality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) I'm just gonna ignore Espinosa's post. I've spent years on this topic... I don't know everything, but I know 5 years worth. Really? What did you study? I know enough that when I hear someone tell me thousands of philosophers with PhDs take it seriously red flags pop up left and right. Are you ready to substantiate that? I kind of have the feeling you're insecure about your position and want to pretend away the discussion. http://philpapers.org/s/Problem%20of%20evil 1000+ papers published in academic journals found on the topic. That's at least a thousand, and I'm sure it's well above that. Seriously, what did you study? I'm going to have to be honest here, you have absolutely no knowledge on this topic, and yet you claim to have some. Please don't act as if you do. Maybe Espinosa was right and you are trolling. =_= Also, you linked to the cosmological argument FOR the existence of God. I know. If you read section 5 it discusses the infinite series stuff that you brought up. I'm challenging him to prove there is no possible moral reason for God to allow evil to exist. If one can't be presented, God's inexistence is not proven. There could be a moral reason for God to allow evil exist. Actually, that's exactly what the paper I linked talks about. You should read it since it's easy and accessible for anyone to read. https://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/s/ssehon/pdf/sehon-skeptical-theism.pdf But the problem with that argument is that (the argument that God does have moral reasons for evil to exist) is that, if true, it means that people have absolutely no ethical grounds to make any decision. For example, how can I know if it's wrong to kill my parents and eat them? Maybe God's more advanced morality would somehow justify it. That would lead to a complete disaster. Because of this disastrous consequence, it follows that God has no possible moral reason to allow evil to exist. Edited June 12, 2015 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.