Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John A. Broussard · 11-01-2005, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

Since there is a God and there is suffering and we know God does not like suffering and we know suffering at least helps the development of Godly type love for some human, then suffering must be required for developing Godly love in at least some humans. I can personally realize the results of suffering in my own life, and know what I witnessed in others lives and Godly love has developed when allowed to develop by the individual.

So you are saying that your all-powerful, all-benevolent god can't develop godly love in at least some humans without causing human beings to suffer.

Am I reading you correctly?

Thank you.

EnterTheBowser · 11-01-2005, 01:34 PM

Let me state the basic argument from evil.

A: We see immense suffeirng
B: If there were a loving, omnipotent God, then unless suffering were somehow necessary to some other purpose, then God would do something about all the suffering.
C: It seems pretty clear that there's no purpose that is logically inextricable from suffering - especially for an omnipotent being who created human nature
D: We can pretty much conclude that there isn't a loving, omnipotent God.

Bling's response, in which he attacks part C:
A: There is a God loving, omnipotent God
B: We see immense suffering
C: Therefore suffering is logically inextricable from some other purpose, since otherwise God would stop all that suffering.

I hate to say it... but this is a rather obvious logical fallacy. Let me compare it to a similar situation:

Two scientists are in a lab, doing science. One scientist says, "Alright, my theory predicts that this experiment will have outcome A." The other says, "Nah, it's going to be B, according to my theory." So they do the experiment, and B is the result. The second scientist says "See, you were wrong." The first scientist replies, "No, obviously the experiment is wrong somewhere. I know my theory is true, and so the result B must be experimental error." And so the first scientist says, "Alright, let's do some more experiments," and years later and after all sorts of experiments regarding the first scientist's theory have consistently falsified it, he continues to assert "No, obviously there's some flaw in all these experiments, because I know my theory is true."

I hope that makes it even more blindingly obvious than it already is that there's a serious problem with bling's rebuttal.

bling · 11-01-2005, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

So you are saying that your all-powerful, all-benevolent god can't develop godly love in at least some humans without causing human beings to suffer.

Am I reading you correctly?

Thank you.

Yes

bling · 11-01-2005, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnterTheBowser

Let me state the basic argument from evil.

A: We see immense suffeirng
B: If there were a loving, omnipotent God, then unless suffering were somehow necessary to some other purpose, then God would do something about all the suffering.
C: It seems pretty clear that there's no purpose that is logically inextricable from suffering - especially for an omnipotent being who created human nature
D: We can pretty much conclude that there isn't a loving, omnipotent God.

Bling's response, in which he attacks part C:
A: There is a God loving, omnipotent God
B: We see immense suffering
C: Therefore suffering is logically inextricable from some other purpose, since otherwise God would stop all that suffering.

I hate to say it... but this is a rather obvious logical fallacy. Let me compare it to a similar situation:

Two scientists are in a lab, doing science. One scientist says, "Alright, my theory predicts that this experiment will have outcome A." The other says, "Nah, it's going to be B, according to my theory." So they do the experiment, and B is the result. The second scientist says "See, you were wrong." The first scientist replies, "No, obviously the experiment is wrong somewhere. I know my theory is true, and so the result B must be experimental error." And so the first scientist says, "Alright, let's do some more experiments," and years later and after all sorts of experiments regarding the first scientist's theory have consistently falsified it, he continues to assert "No, obviously there's some flaw in all these experiments, because I know my theory is true."

I hope that makes it even more blindingly obvious than it already is that there's a serious problem with bling's rebuttal.

I am not trying to say there must be a God, because there is suffering. I am saying suffering has a purpose, so it can not be used to show there is no God. That purpose (Godly love in humans) explains most of the human/ God relationship.
If you have lived long enough, you should have seen or heard of some good at some time coming out of tragedies, the reason good does not come out of all tragedies are good and potentially good people, don’t step up to the opportunity.

John A. Broussard · 11-01-2005, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard
So you are saying that your all-powerful, all-benevolent god can't develop godly love in at least some humans without causing human beings to suffer.

Am I reading you correctly?

Thank you.

bling:

Quote:

Yes

Thank you for your very prompt answer.

Since you say that "your all-powerful, all-benevolent god can't develop godly love in at least some humans without causing human beings to suffer," would you please explain how your god could be all-powerful if your god "can't develop godly love in at least some humans without causing human beings to suffer."

Thank you.

John A. Broussard · 11-01-2005, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

If you have lived long enough, you should have seen or heard of some good at some time coming out of tragedies,

While you are at it, maybe you can explain why your god needed those tragedies in order to provide "some good."

Again, thank you.

EnterTheBowser · 11-01-2005, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

I am not trying to say there must be a God, because there is suffering. I am saying suffering has a purpose, so it can not be used to show there is no God. That purpose (Godly love in humans) explains most of the human/ God relationship.

If you have lived long enough, you should have seen or heard of some good at some time coming out of tragedies, the reason good does not come out of all tragedies are good and potentially good people, don’t step up to the opportunity.

First I want to clarify: whether or not suffering has a purpose is irrelevant. Even if it has some purpose, an ALL POWERFUL god could have found some other way to achieve that purpose without suffering - if it were a loving god.

Furthermore, your argument as to why suffering is logically necessary for some purpose rests on the premise that God exists... which is a bit of a problem.

bling · 11-02-2005, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

bling:

Thank you for your very prompt answer.

Since you say that "your all-powerful, all-benevolent god can't develop godly love in at least some humans without causing human beings to suffer," would you please explain how your god could be all-powerful if your god "can't develop godly love in at least some humans without causing human beings to suffer."

Thank you.

All power does not mean to me, can do all things. God’s love controls His power, all power is God’s, but he can allow others to have some control over some power to develop over all love, He can not do things against His nature like sin, and he can not make a stone so large He can not move it. If you consider these factors and maybe some others as showing God by your definition to not be all powerful then, we can use your definition and say God is not all powerful. By giving humans free will and the power to use their free will, in order to develop Godly love, then God actually limited some of His ability. I just don’t see how you make something that will make a personal choice, that they are personally responsible for making, to be unselfish and not be selfish, without allowing the being themselves to make the choice. If God makes it for them then by definition it is not their choice.

bling · 11-02-2005, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

While you are at it, maybe you can explain why your god needed those tragedies in order to provide "some good."

Again, thank you.

God does not need those tragedies I do. God is providing those tragedies through Satan to me, so I can develop God like love. He has been very generous with opportunities and I would appreciate your help, in fact I think some are for you. Pain, suffering, hardship and loss has helped me be like Christ and let God work through me to do some wonderful things that I do not see how they could have been done any other way and still develop Godly love in me.

bling · 11-02-2005, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnterTheBowser

First I want to clarify: whether or not suffering has a purpose is irrelevant. Even if it has some purpose, an ALL POWERFUL god could have found some other way to achieve that purpose without suffering - if it were a loving god.

Furthermore, your argument as to why suffering is logically necessary for some purpose rests on the premise that God exists... which is a bit of a problem.

All power does not mean to me, can do all things. God’s love controls His power, all power is God’s, but he can allow others to have some control over some power to develop over all love, He can not do things against His nature like sin, and he can not make a stone so large He can not move it. If you consider these factors and maybe some others as showing God by your definition to not be all powerful then, we can use your definition and say God is not all powerful. By giving humans free will and the power to use their free will, in order to develop Godly love, then God actually limited some of His ability. I just don’t see how you make something that will make a personal choice, that they are personally responsible for making, to be unselfish and not be selfish, without allowing the being themselves to make the choice. If God makes it for them then by definition it is not their choice.

God does not need those tragedies I do. God is providing those tragedies through Satan to me, so I can develop God like love. He has been very generous with opportunities and I would appreciate your help, in fact I think some are for you. Pain, suffering, hardship and loss has helped me be like Christ and let God work through me to do some wonderful things that I do not see how they could have been done any other way and still develop Godly love in me.

These answers should work.
As far as assuming a god to saying tragedies are necessary, I have know all my life there was a God, but I have also seen the effect in my life and others that occur by helping the needy unselfishly. The results are the same with or without a God.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-01-2005, 01:34 PM	#32
EnterTheBowser Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,021	Let me state the basic argument from evil. A: We see immense suffeirng B: If there were a loving, omnipotent God, then unless suffering were somehow necessary to some other purpose, then God would do something about all the suffering. C: It seems pretty clear that there's no purpose that is logically inextricable from suffering - especially for an omnipotent being who created human nature D: We can pretty much conclude that there isn't a loving, omnipotent God. Bling's response, in which he attacks part C: A: There is a God loving, omnipotent God B: We see immense suffering C: Therefore suffering is logically inextricable from some other purpose, since otherwise God would stop all that suffering. I hate to say it... but this is a rather obvious logical fallacy. Let me compare it to a similar situation: Two scientists are in a lab, doing science. One scientist says, "Alright, my theory predicts that this experiment will have outcome A." The other says, "Nah, it's going to be B, according to my theory." So they do the experiment, and B is the result. The second scientist says "See, you were wrong." The first scientist replies, "No, obviously the experiment is wrong somewhere. I know my theory is true, and so the result B must be experimental error." And so the first scientist says, "Alright, let's do some more experiments," and years later and after all sorts of experiments regarding the first scientist's theory have consistently falsified it, he continues to assert "No, obviously there's some flaw in all these experiments, because I know my theory is true." I hope that makes it even more blindingly obvious than it already is that there's a serious problem with bling's rebuttal.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.