Atheistforums.com

The problem of evil is used a lot as an argument against god. I find this surprising. The argument is weak because it requires specific points to be true.

Problem of evil formulated:
A: God X is real
P1) God X says that Y is evil
P2) God X is All-Powerful
P3) God X is All-Knowing
P4) God X is All-Loving
P5) Y exists
C1) P1-P5 entails a contradiction
C2) A is false

Replace God X with any specific god where P1-P5 remains true about that god, then that god cannot exist.

It does not work on the majority of possible gods. Too many points have to be true about the god you are talking about in order for the argument to work. It does nothing against a god that is not all loving. Nothing against a god that is not all knowing. Nothing against a god that is not all powerful. Nothing against a god that does not find anything evil.

It is, overall, a weak argument.

I think this argument is intended to target the Xtian god rather than the Greek ones. You're right that it doesn't work well against the latter, but it wasn't meant to.

It depends on where you are going with the argument. If you are debating on if the bible should be a source or reference for morals or a similar arguent, then bringing up how malicious the xtian god is, is a pretty good tactic.


It doesn't necessarily debunk anything though.... the continuity errors and observable evidence that contradict what is claimed by bible thumpers do that

It has it's uses, not logically but persuasively it's fine  :eyes:

I think it's a good argument, yes.

The fact that there even exist parasites and natural disasters is good argument against at least the benevolence/competence of a creator god. If a believer submits to the Problem of Evil, they've pretty much amputated much of the reasons for even believing in a god.

I think it's thought provoking, and it presents a question that needs to be asked.  I have been perplexed by the question since I was a child, but I had the following counter arguments drilled into my psyche:  1.  We cannot understand God's motives.  2. We should not question God.  3. God works in mysterious ways.

I don't think the argument from evil is all that good.  It's irrelevant to the more important issue, which is to prove the existence of God.  Theists must provide this proof or their belief is unfounded.  It is their burden of proof.  We should just leave it there. 

We should not allow them to shove the burden of proof on us.  This is what happens with the problem of evil.  We assume the burden of proof and offer evidence that "God does not exist" using the problem of evil argument.  There is no point in me having to defend a position "God does not exist" when it's not even a position I hold.  My position is, and has been since I was ten years old, that there is no evidence or reason to believe in God; Nothing more.  I don't need to prove he doesn't exist.  I'm simply waiting for proof that he does.

Still, the problem of evil is a good question.  But you will never get a logical answer to the question from a theist.  They simply launch themselves into spur of the moment apologetics and illogical descriptions of the nature of their god.

I have found that the problem of evil does not disprove the generic "god," but it disproves quite reasonably the Christian "God." I use it in various forms all the time in my poetry, to disprove the notion of divine intervention.

I think this particular argument is meant to debunk a theistic (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism) type of god, which is usually considered to have certain attributes. If a god doesn't have all of those attributes then it is not a theistic god, but can be some other type of lesser deity.

It's a bad argument because it assumes God exists, which assumes the premise is true for the argument.  A good argument requires the premises to be true by both parties. Any argument for God, or not is bad, and why it is foolish to debate Gods existence, or not, because right off the bat His existence is assumed without any reliable evidence to support it.   Solitary

The fact that Christians have had to form an entire field (called "theodicy") to counter the argument, and yet have failed to counter it, shows it's a strong argument, at least where Biblegod is concerned.

QuoteA good argument requires the premises to be true by both parties.

Considering the above quote is true in formal logic, how can it be a good argument? Solitary

Quote from: Solitary on February 13, 2015, 10:32:00 AM
It's a bad argument because it assumes God exists, which assumes the premise is true for the argument.  A good argument requires the premises to be true by both parties. Any argument for God, or not is bad, and why it is foolish to debate Gods existence, or not, because right off the bat His existence is assumed without any reliable evidence to support it.   Solitary

This is one of those things that has been nagging at me, but I haven't been able to articulate it as well as you did.  There's something unsettling about assuming a god, and then attempting to go about disproving it.  Why assume such a thing?  Sounds like something a bored philosophy major would do, just to create a mental problem to masturbate over.

And if you are going to go out of your way to make unfounded assumptions to disprove, then why not assume there is a god, and additionally assume that evil serves god's purpose in ways we cannot fathom?

To me the problem of evil doesn't disprove god.  It only questions why god allows evil or makes me wonder why god lacks the wherewithal to stop it.  And those questions themselves beg the existence of god.

Sometimes in an effort to communicate with Christians, we make flights from reality to have something to discuss around.  But this approaches what seems to resemble nonsense.  I get an uncomfortable feeling that logic is being compromised when we allow for nonsense assumptions, but I could be missing something. 

No  you're not, you just haven't open your mind so far your brain fell out. Solitary

Some Christians I know, cite "miracles" in their own lives as a reason they believe. They think God intervenes in the world. I find that senseless tragedies, especially what I call anti-miracles, demonstrate pretty well that he does not.

I think this poem makes the point well, albeit sarcastically:

"Impotent Omnipotent"
http://www.solomonzorn.com/impotent-omnipotent.html

Evil to us is just another human construct. The world " should it have a conscience" would consider each human death, no matter the veracity of the method, a very good thing.

The problem of evil is a problem if it is posited that the God under discussion is good.

Assume that the identity of God is Eris.  What does it follow from that?

Quote from: Solitary on February 13, 2015, 10:32:00 AM
It's a bad argument because it assumes God exists, which assumes the premise is true for the argument.

There are a lot of mathematical proofs that assume something is true, but by going on to show that this assumption leads to a contradiction, it proves it's false.

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

Quote from: Atheon on February 14, 2015, 03:30:26 AM
There are a lot of mathematical proofs that assume something is true, but by going on to show that this assumption leads to a contradiction, it proves it's false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

I think this is true for most all logic.  An argument needs a first premise that is assumed to be true.  From that point on, each premise follows without assumptions or the logic fails.  But that first statement is often an assumption.  So prudence is required when beginning the process of logic.  It is a bit of a pitfall.

The problem of evil, not only begins with an assumption (and let's face it, it's a wild assumption for which there is no way it can be tested for validity), but it turns on following assumptions that are also untestable.  For example, one such assumption is that if God is good, he would not allow evil.  Who says this is true?  In addition, it assumes that if God is all powerful and opposes evil, he would stop it.  Who says?  In fact, theists apologize for such contradictions by saying God works in mysterious ways.  He chooses not to stop evil for reasons we cannot understand. 

Positing a God is not a simple "God exists" premise, as atheists assume it is.  The first premise is also loaded with caveats, far too many to include in the opening statement.  In addition, new caveats are created during the process of argumentation when needed.  Normally logic rejects such caveats, but one of the caveats in the original God assumption, is that every contradiction will be cancelled by a manufactured caveat when needed.  In fact, we could introduce a caveat that no caveats are needed, because God does not allow himself to be questioned or verified.  When we posit a God out of thin air, we are playing a theist game, a game with no rules.

Does this violate rules of logic?  Yes, of course it does, but by playing the game, we enter the world of "theist logic", which glorifies doctrine and gibberish as  higher forms of human intelligence.

Actually, the problem of evil, does not enter into my atheism.  I don't believe a god exists, because there is no evidence for one.  It has little to do with unnecessary  contradictions of his nature (whatever said god's nature might be).  Sure, those contradictions are glaring and can be contemplated, but they are unnecessary as far as atheism is concerned.  Why go there?

Theists have posited a god.  The burden of proof ends there.  They must prove it.  It does not fall on atheists to deny it.

The concept of evil in the bible really is an easy way to show up the pure hypocrisy of Christians.

If you were to ask the average christian what they think of, lets say a report about a mass killing by one insane man, or the killing of dozens of children by chemical warfare, how would they respond? I'd more then assume they would respond like any normal person would, that its evil, that its a hideous act, and even go as far to say the person who committed these acts would be judged by god and burn in hell.

Yet we know full well that god, by Christians own teachings, by their own sacred works, does not give a shit about the safety or well being of children, he will gladly kill countless children just to teach someone a lesson, like the plagues of egypt, or killing the children of sinners.

Heres some choice quotes infact

Quote  And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed.  Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died.  (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)

Quote   Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword.  Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes.  Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes.  For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off.  The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows.  They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.  (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

Quote"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked.  Show no mercy; have no pity!  Kill them all â€" old and young, girls and women and little children.  But do not touch anyone with the mark.  Begin your task right here at the Temple."  So they began by killing the seventy leaders.  "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded.  "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill!  Go!"  So they went throughout the city and did as they were told."  (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

If god were real, he'd be the most evil fucker ever to exist. but he isn't real, the words we're seeing it come from the minds of savages from thousands of years ago with no moral compass and who thought it was ok murder the children of your enemies in cold blood, and then write stories about it as if it came from a voice in their head.

Infact if anyone else wants the reference for this and many other verses showing the evils in the bible, here.
http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

Quote from: Munch on February 14, 2015, 07:30:07 AM
If god were real, he'd be the most evil fucker ever to exist. but he isn't real, the words we're seeing it come from the minds of savages from thousands of years ago with no moral compass and who thought it was ok murder the children of your enemies in cold blood, and then write stories about it as if it came from a voice in their head.

Infact if anyone else wants the reference for this and many other verses showing the evils in the bible, here.
http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

That seems to be the most plausible explanation for what seems like a book of contradictions, tales of magic, miracles, and fairy tales.  I would leave it at that.  I pondered God's existence for many years, and as I matured and became exposed to more and more knowledge, I began to reject the supernatural and occult.  I'm at a point now where someone or some group is going to have to present their case in a logical format if they want me to buy it.

Quote from: SGOS on February 14, 2015, 07:40:28 AM
That seems to be the most plausible explanation for what seems like a book of contradictions, tales of magic, miracles, and fairy tales.  I would leave it at that.  I pondered God's existence for many years, and as I matured and became exposed to more and more knowledge, I began to reject the supernatural and occult.  I'm at a point now where someone or some group is going to have to present their case in a logical format if they want me to buy it.

I don't like to think of it like being on a pedestal, but I do have this feeling of how, like yourself, for many years I slowly questioned the existence of magic and fairy tales and gods, going from someone who thought there must be angels and demons because so many say so, to questioning what they said with 'well, if there are angels, why do so many children die of cancer or aids' to year by year questioning everything until arriving where I am today. And now, when I see full grown men and woman, older then me even, still believing in these fairy tale myths of magics and sky daddies, I just feel more elevated in my standing that I questioned everything, while they just stopped questioning and conformed to the myth. 
I feel like how a psychiatrist must feel when hearing the words of mentally unwell people in institutions, only its on mass from thousands.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 11, 2015, 06:45:54 PM
I have found that the problem of evil does not disprove the generic "god," but it disproves quite reasonably the Christian "God." I use it in various forms all the time in my poetry, to disprove the notion of divine intervention.

Love your site! Thanks!  Good poetry.  I also got a good laugh with your cartoons. Solitary

Thanks, Solitary! I get surprisingly little feedback on it,either positive or negative. I'm glad you enjoyed it!

The crux of the matter revolves around the definition of the word 'evil".  What, exactly, is 'evil'?  Is there an act that is considered by all as evil?  Murder, rape, incest, killing, arson, thievery, stealing, etc, all have elements of 'point of view'.  What is your point of view?  The word must be defined in such a way that both parties to the argument agree is an accurate definition of the word.  I don't know of a universal evil--do you?

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 15, 2015, 12:34:38 PMThe crux of the matter revolves around the definition of the word 'evil".  What, exactly, is 'evil'?

Typically, evil is defined as malicious (deliberate) harm.  This distinguishes it from "natural evil", natural disasters and predation - as well as human accidents, which can be no less injurious but which are not motivated by a conscious desire to harm.  From this definition, it's hard to claim that a God that tortures people for all eternity is not evil.

All the fatal diseases of history.

Quote from: Hydra009 on February 15, 2015, 01:27:46 PM
Typically, evil is defined as malicious (deliberate) harm.  This distinguishes it from "natural evil", natural disasters and predation - as well as human accidents, which can be no less injurious but which are not motivated by a conscious desire to harm.  From this definition, it's hard to claim that a God that tortures people for all eternity is not evil.

Once again, what is meant by malicious harm?  I daresay that my dad and his friends meant malicious harm to the Germans they fought in WWII.  They would have maliciously killed as many as their trigger finger would have allowed--and with great thought and planning behind it.  I don't think that makes them evil.  Does that even make them murderers?   

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 15, 2015, 04:55:58 PM
Once again, what is meant by malicious harm?  I daresay that my dad and his friends meant malicious harm to the Germans they fought in WWII.  They would have maliciously killed as many as their trigger finger would have allowed--and with great thought and planning behind it.  I don't think that makes them evil.  Does that even make them murderers?

Rationalization can do wonders. I see it as revenge killing, avenged but none the less evil. Your relatives are not "Evil," but they are malevolent in the sense they have committed evil.

There is a possibility of having different evils diverging from this, such as the Christian "Seven Deadly Sins".

Just giving my two cents into the matter.

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 15, 2015, 04:55:58 PM
Once again, what is meant by malicious harm?  I daresay that my dad and his friends meant malicious harm to the Germans they fought in WWII.  They would have maliciously killed as many as their trigger finger would have allowed--and with great thought and planning behind it.  I don't think that makes them evil.  Does that even make them murderers?

Well, I never said it was a perfect definition.  And yes, there's lots of moral gray areas where moral wrongness is difficult to determine.  But all that is pretty irrelevant to what we're discussing, divine wrath causing death (and worse) on such a scale that makes Hitler look like an underachiever.  I may not be able to completely delineate evil, but I can certainly recognize the epitome of it.

Quote from: dtq123 on February 15, 2015, 09:51:48 PM
Rationalization can do wonders. I see it as revenge killing, avenged but none the less evil. Your relatives are not "Evil," but they are malevolent in the sense they have committed evil.

There is a possibility of having different evils diverging from this, such as the Christian "Seven Deadly Sins".

Just giving my two cents into the matter.

Interesting.  I suppose you are correct that if you consider killing in a war to be evil, then my relatives and friends, were evil.  So, is all killing evil to you?  Where do you draw the line?

Quote from: Hydra009 on February 15, 2015, 11:39:48 PM
Well, I never said it was a perfect definition.  And yes, there's lots of moral gray areas where moral wrongness is difficult to determine.  But all that is pretty irrelevant to what we're discussing, divine wrath causing death (and worse) on such a scale that makes Hitler look like an underachiever.  I may not be able to completely delineate evil, but I can certainly recognize the epitome of it.

Oh, I'm not arguing that the christian god is not evil--it/he would be under any definition one could come up with.  And it can be extremely frustrating to get a christian to see that, or even willing to look at it closely.  But my point is that when a religious person asks --do you believe that evil exist?--they have their own preconceived notion of what that 'evil' is.  But try to get them to explain what, exactly, that is, can be like pulling teeth.  And in order to come to any kind of agreement on the subject, the term has to be defined in a way that is acceptable to each other.  Otherwise they will just be talking past each other and may as well be having the discussion with a mirror.

Yeah, the religious conception of evil is infinitely worse, ranging from evil existing as its own supernatural force (Team Evil, lol) to evil as disobeying God (as can be expected from an authoritarian mindset).  It goes without saying that these are purely theoretical constructs with little bearing on humans' daily lives.  The rubber never hits the road, so to speak.

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 16, 2015, 10:57:53 AM
Interesting.  I suppose you are correct that if you consider killing in a war to be evil, then my relatives and friends, were evil.  So, is all killing evil to you?  Where do you draw the line?

I found the definition Hydra gave quite workable, so I modified it into my morals a bit.

There is no line as far as I can tell. Every thief, rationalizes to make them seem good in their own eyes.

I forgot if Socrates or Plato said this, but I agree that no one does evil on purpose. Rationalization warps the minds of many, causing evil.

Quote from: dtq123 on February 16, 2015, 11:44:16 AM
I found the definition Hydra gave quite workable, so I modified it into my morals a bit.

There is no line as far as I can tell. Every thief, rationalizes to make them seem good in their own eyes.

I forgot if Socrates or Plato said this, but I agree that no one does evil on purpose. Rationalization warps the minds of many, causing evil.

That looks good on paper.  But you really do not think that killing is ever anything but evil?  Self defense?  Defending your home and/or loved ones? 

I have known people who do 'evil' (or so they called it) and don't hide it--they proclaimed it and said they would do it again.

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 16, 2015, 02:05:19 PM
That looks good on paper.  But you really do not think that killing is ever anything but evil?  Self defense?  Defending your home and/or loved ones? 

I have known people who do 'evil' (or so they called it) and don't hide it--they proclaimed it and said they would do it again.

Death is something that we should avoid at all costs, or so they say.

As I said, people rationalize. I simply believe harming others is not good, but acceptable at times due to rationalizations.

We lie to ourselves to say that killing is good. In reality we just remove the greater evil.

Moral evil is the weaker of the two as an argument. Natural evil is a stronger case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_evil

There is a whole branch of apologetics that deals with the Problem of Evil. It's called Theodicy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

Quote from: dtq123 on February 16, 2015, 02:41:21 PM
Death is something that we should avoid at all costs, or so they say.

As I said, people rationalize. I simply believe harming others is not good, but acceptable at times due to rationalizations.

We lie to ourselves to say that killing is good. In reality we just remove the greater evil.

I can't agree.  I think that in some situations killing may be unavoidable.  Let's say a crazy guy breaks into your home, and you have a way of killing this guy.  But you don't, and a loved one dies because of it.  Did you not cause a death by inaction?  In real life these lines can be quite blurry.  Say I have an incurable disease and wish to end my life rather than wait for the 'natural'  (whatever that really means), end.  Is that to be avoided at all costs?  Why? 

While I do not accept killing as acceptable in most situations, I do not say it is 'good'--ever.  But it can be necessary. 

And of course we rationalize--everybody does.  It is inescapable.  We all understand the universe as experienced through our own lens.  And we apply reasons to act as we do.  If we did not, then we would simply find a spot and stay there doing nothing.  You rationalize everything you do--as do I and everybody else.  When one uses 'rationalization' as a way to escape naming the 'ultimate' or a 'universal' evil, then that is simply rationalizing a way of not answering.  And so, I ask again--can you name one 'universal' evil?

Solomon, I agree that natural evil is a compelling argument against 'god'.  As is birth defects, malfunctions of the body or mind--in fact, I'd say that 'nature' itself is a total refutation of all of the major 'gods' of this world.  Nature is based on the taking of life.  One cannot escape it.  In order for me to life, I must kill.  Even if I go full on veggie eater, all the vegs I could eat were alive.  Human life is predicated upon killing and death--that is simply the nature of our world.  Not all life is so.  Plants live off the energy of the sun, or the chemicals of undersea vents.  They don't need to kill.  Why would a sane 'god' create such a situation?  That 'god' could have easily made life based on the energy of the sun.  But it/he didn't.  That, to me, is the ultimate evil.

Solomon--BTW, I've meant to say before--I've been to your site and enjoyed your writings.  I especially enjoyed "The Joke Is On You." and "The Nature of Nature."  Very good!  Thanks.

Thanks, Mike.

I think moral evil, as with anything moral, is a judgement call. It's based on a sensibility that is evolved in slightly different ways in different people, then altered by experience in whatever ways that may take. I don't see any way to codify it, or simplify it, that fits every situation.

But the majority of us must have sufficient similarities in our definitions, because for the most part, we function together pretty smoothly. Murdering an innocent in cold blood is pretty universally condemned. And the vast majority of us never actually even witness a murder first hand, let alone are we victims. We can usually walk down the street safely because most people, regardless of their religion, wont rob or kill us.

But the conscience can be desensitized to killing, and the brain can be trained to accept all kinds of things as good and evil.

So, what is evil? It depends on the details. It can't be quantified in any absolute sense.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 16, 2015, 08:52:54 PM
Thanks, Mike.

I think moral evil, as with anything moral, is a judgement call. It's based on a sensibility that is evolved in slightly different ways in different people, then altered by experience in whatever ways that may take. I don't see any way to codify it, or simplify it, that fits every situation.

But the majority of us must have sufficient similarities in our definitions, because for the most part, we function together pretty smoothly. Murdering an innocent in cold blood is pretty universally condemned. And the vast majority of us never actually even witness a murder first hand, let alone are we victims. We can usually walk down the street safely because most people, regardless of their religion, wont rob or kill us.

But the conscience can be desensitized to killing, and the brain can be trained to accept all kinds of things as good and evil.

So, what is evil? It depends on the details. It can't be quantified in any absolute sense.

You are welcome--keep up your good work.

I agree with you about evil.  It is sort of like porno--hard to define but easy to spot.  In fact, I don't even like the word 'evil'--is it the same as 'bad', or is it a super bad?  What is most important is to try to nail down a definition about it when one talks about it.  As an everyday operating system I sort of mix the 'first do no harm' idea with the Golden Rule. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 16, 2015, 06:44:41 PM
And so, I ask again--can you name one 'universal' evil?

Cheating?

Seriously, I can't think of any other evil that could do the job.

And spare the rebuttal. I know it doesn't work  :eyes:

The problem of evil is a problem specific to Christians. Christians believe that events happen for a reason, that God is in control and that God loves people. If God is in control and God loves people then why do children get cancer? Why would a loving God put a child in constant excruciating pain? What purpose could that serve and is His purpose worth the suffering of an innocent child?

"God works in mysterious ways" or "it's God's will" isn't a very satisfying answer when your child is crying out in pain. It must be quite upsetting to believe that God is intentionally making your child suffer, that He could perform a miracle but chooses not to.

Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 17, 2015, 09:54:21 AM
The problem of evil is a problem specific for Christians. Christians believe that events happen for a reason, the God is in control and that God loves people. If God is in control and God loves people then why do children get cancer? Why would a loving God put a child in constant excruciating pain? What purpose could that serve and is His purpose worth the suffering of an innocent child?

"God works in mysterious ways" or "it's God's will" isn't a very satisfying answer when your child is crying out in pain. It must be quite upsetting to believe that God is intentionally making your child suffer, that He could perform a miracle but choses not to.

Quite agree.  And that alone should make any reasonable person question any god out there. 

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 13, 2015, 07:05:38 PM
Some Christians I know, cite "miracles" in their own lives as a reason they believe. They think God intervenes in the world. I find that senseless tragedies, especially what I call anti-miracles, demonstrate pretty well that he does not.

I think this poem makes the point well, albeit sarcastically:

"Impotent Omnipotent"
http://www.solomonzorn.com/impotent-omnipotent.html

"God is only faking non-existence." I'll take that notion to my grave. Thanks.

Quote from: undercoverbrother on March 02, 2015, 07:07:48 AM
"God is only faking non-existence." I'll take that notion to my grave. Thanks.

There's a line in a Woody Allen movie, "God does not play dice with the universe.  He plays hide and seek."

Quote from: SGOS on March 02, 2015, 07:53:25 AM
There's a line in a Woody Allen movie, "God does not play dice with the universe.  He plays hide and seek."

I missed that movie, but I do love that quote!!

Quote from: SGOS on March 02, 2015, 07:53:25 AM
There's a line in a Woody Allen movie, "God does not play dice with the universe.  He plays hide and seek."

You should enjoy this one:

"Hide and Seek"
http://www.solomonzorn.com/hide-and-seek.html

Samson is a "hero" but for what? He killed thousands due to him losing a tunic over a bad riddle? Wow.

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 02, 2015, 08:42:20 AM
I missed that movie, but I do love that quote!!

I think it was from Play it Again Sam.

Quote from: SGOS on March 03, 2015, 06:37:37 PM
I think it was from Play it Again Sam.

I'll have to check it out.

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 03, 2015, 07:29:03 PM
I'll have to check it out.

It's just a line Woody mentions in passing.  It might be in response to a random comment on the radio where someone repeats the famous Einstein quote.  The movie is about your typical Woody Allen neurotic that has this imaginary ongoing dialog with Humphrey Bogart, who coaches him on relating to women.  It's typical early Allen comedy.  I have watched the movie several times, but Woody Allen is not everyone's cup of tea.

I accidentally voted the wrong way in the poll. I misread what it said. Can I vote again, please? Thanks everybody.

Quote from: SNP1 on December 30, 2014, 07:03:13 PM
The problem of evil is used a lot as an argument against god. I find this surprising. The argument is weak because it requires specific points to be true.

Problem of evil formulated:
A: God X is real
P1) God X says that Y is evil
P2) God X is All-Powerful
P3) God X is All-Knowing
P4) God X is All-Loving
P5) Y exists
C1) P1-P5 entails a contradiction
C2) A is false

Replace God X with any specific god where P1-P5 remains true about that god, then that god cannot exist.

It does not work on the majority of possible gods. Too many points have to be true about the god you are talking about in order for the argument to work. It does nothing against a god that is not all loving. Nothing against a god that is not all knowing. Nothing against a god that is not all powerful. Nothing against a god that does not find anything evil.

It is, overall, a weak argument.

This is true - it's only valid against certain theistic concepts of god.

It doesn't apply to deism at all, for example.

Take your made up crap, replace the god you are trying to defend, replace it with Allah or Yahweh or Vishnu or Thor or Apollo, and see if your made up crap still makes sense to you.

QuoteIt does not work on the majority of possible gods. Too many points have to be true about the god you are talking about in order for the argument to work. It does nothing against a god that is not all loving. Nothing against a god that is not all knowing. Nothing against a god that is not all powerful. Nothing against a god that does not find anything evil.

The majority of POSSIBLE gods is irrelevant. The specific BELIEVED-IN god is all that is relevant to any particular argument. It is a case by case basis, but usually it is a good argument.

It targets the gods in which the most theists actually believe.

The POE is a specialized argument. While it first came about with the Greeks, it wasn't sharpened until JL Mackie came about. It is an argument focused on the traditional theistic God. That would be like saying an argument against the divinity of Jesus Christ does not work against Vishnu. NO SHIT.

Quote from: SNP1 on December 30, 2014, 07:03:13 PM
The problem of evil is used a lot as an argument against god. I find this surprising. The argument is weak because it requires specific points to be true.

Problem of evil formulated:
A: God X is real
P1) God X says that Y is evil
P2) God X is All-Powerful
P3) God X is All-Knowing
P4) God X is All-Loving
P5) Y exists
C1) P1-P5 entails a contradiction
C2) A is false

Replace God X with any specific god where P1-P5 remains true about that god, then that god cannot exist.

It does not work on the majority of possible gods. Too many points have to be true about the god you are talking about in order for the argument to work. It does nothing against a god that is not all loving. Nothing against a god that is not all knowing. Nothing against a god that is not all powerful. Nothing against a god that does not find anything evil.

It is, overall, a weak argument.

Problem of Evil doesn't work against Deism either. Because a Deistic God is not necessarily "omnipotent".

Quote from: SNP1 on December 30, 2014, 07:03:13 PM
The problem of evil is used a lot as an argument against god. I find this surprising. The argument is weak because it requires specific points to be true.

Problem of evil formulated:
A: God X is real
P1) God X says that Y is evil
P2) God X is All-Powerful
P3) God X is All-Knowing
P4) God X is All-Loving
P5) Y exists
C1) P1-P5 entails a contradiction
C2) A is false

Replace God X with any specific god where P1-P5 remains true about that god, then that god cannot exist.

It does not work on the majority of possible gods. Too many points have to be true about the god you are talking about in order for the argument to work. It does nothing against a god that is not all loving. Nothing against a god that is not all knowing. Nothing against a god that is not all powerful. Nothing against a god that does not find anything evil.

It is, overall, a weak argument.

You have to consider that an All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Loving God might want evil to exist, for whatever reasons, and so the conclusion C2 does not follow. The syllogism is badly constructed and therefore its conclusion is invalid.

I specifically reject P4 ... therefore God X may be real or not, based on P5.  The Bible god is far more interesting than the paragon the Greek theologians constructed.  The Bible G-d would agree with A and P1, and reject P2 thru P4, and then accept P5 ... and then tell you to shut up.  A bit like a Bedouin dad who is dealing with a know it all shepherd son (they are very young, like 6-12 years old).  Jacob was like that ... no wonder Esau couldn't stand him.  Joseph was like that ... no wonder they sold him to slavers.

Quote from: aitm on February 13, 2015, 08:19:53 PM
Evil to us is just another human construct.

You know the concept of color is just another human concept, So does that mean that "red" does not exist? I yet for anyone to prove to me that numbers such as 7 are real...I never seen a 7 dancing in the streets or anything...7 is just a human concept, therefore 7 must not exist.

Quote from: CrucifyCindy on September 10, 2015, 06:25:38 PM
You know the concept of color is just another human concept, So does that mean that "red" does not exist? I yet for anyone to prove to me that numbers such as 7 are real...I never seen a 7 dancing in the streets or anything...7 is just a human concept, therefore 7 must not exist.

well, red, like any color is simply what the eye perceived the color as. Same thing with the sun, we perceive it as a yellow star, when its actually white, but looks yellow because of the atmosphere.

That is why some aspects of observation are considered secondary ... because they are subjective.  As mentioned before, primary aspects of observation, aren't ordinary observable, except by special effort ... for example measuring the weight of something.  But weight is subjective too (because of variation in the gravity force) but inertial mass is both measurable and objective.  If you want to be really objective, visit the National Bureau of Weights and Standards.  The overall science is called Metrology.

About concepts ... in some sense they exist, though I would agree that all of them are subjective ... which puts the ultimate kibosh on objectivity ... but we can ignore that for now.  What I find disturbing isn't the kind of existence concepts have, but that some particularly nasty concepts exist at all ;-(

Quote from: Munch on September 10, 2015, 07:37:22 PM
well, red, like any color is simply what the eye perceived the color as. Same thing with the sun, we perceive it as a yellow star, when its actually white, but looks yellow because of the atmosphere.

You know what? The sun is a human concept too.

See, Mrs Helios told her husband, don't give our son Phaeton, keys to the solar chariot!

Quote from: SNP1 on December 30, 2014, 07:03:13 PM
The problem of evil is used a lot as an argument against god. I find this surprising. The argument is weak because it requires specific points to be true.

Problem of evil formulated:
A: God X is real
P1) God X says that Y is evil
P2) God X is All-Powerful
P3) God X is All-Knowing
P4) God X is All-Loving
P5) Y exists
C1) P1-P5 entails a contradiction
C2) A is false

Replace God X with any specific god where P1-P5 remains true about that god, then that god cannot exist.

It does not work on the majority of possible gods. Too many points have to be true about the god you are talking about in order for the argument to work. It does nothing against a god that is not all loving. Nothing against a god that is not all knowing. Nothing against a god that is not all powerful. Nothing against a god that does not find anything evil.

It is, overall, a weak argument.

C2 is a non sequitur if you really look at it