Ion

Well luvluv,

my posts here did say that "...we could dismiss the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being with a trifling effort of our intellect." -'trifling effort' since the Biblical definition of this 'being' is contradictory at the level of the trivial-, didn't they?

Wiploc

There are five possible moves that Christians can make in response to the Problem of Evil:

1. God isn't that smart.
2. God isn't that powerful.
3. God isn't that good.
4. We don't suffer.
5. Logic is the wrong playing field.

The first three amount to conceding that the SCG (Standard Christian God, he who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good) doesn't exist. The forth one is just linguistic obscurantism. The fifth one admits that there is no logical reason to believe in the traditional Christian god.

Most gods can't be disproven, but the SCG is obviously false if logic works. If logic doesn't work, then we don't know *anything*, including whether there is a god. If you make any assertions at all (for instance: "The notion that you can disprove the existence of God through a five line argument is an infantile fantasy") then you are assuming logic works. And if logic works, then the SCG doesn't exist.
crc

beyelzu

i would just like to point out that a complete unwillingness to do something is the same as an inability to do something. thus if god chooses to limit himself then he is limited.

example, you have a gun and threaten to shoot an intruder in your home, while it may appear to that intruder that you have the power to kill him by pulling the trigor, if you are completely unwilling to do so then you do not have that power.

thus god by giving humans free will has made himself no longer omnipotent.

conversely, if it turns out that god is not really unwilling to control mankind's actions and is still omnipotent, then he knowingly allows evil to be perpetuated and is thus evil.

furthermore, a quick read of "in search of schroedingers cat" can prove that the universe is completely subjective in regards to an individual electron and if this is so, if reality is subjective then there is no prime observer, no omnipotent, omniscient god

Defiant Heretic

That sounds a lot like the riddle of Epicurus
Just noticed your post count. Welcome to the IIDB.

beyelzu

i have never hear of the riddle of epicurus. the argument i just presented is the one that i thought of myself, which helped me throw off the shackles of christianity. and thanks for the welcome. i must admit that i do love the secular web.

i just read my post and realized how obnoxious it sounded. let me add thank you for telling me the riddle of epicurus it is much more succint than my personal argument. but my original argument does closely resemble which actually is cool. after all, there is nothing new under the sun.

luvluv

Dr. Rick:

I know that I made a pretty good showing of why that's not the case, and even were I to doubt my own abilities matt ballman absolutely hit that one out of the park on a thread involving both you and Thomas Metcalf. So I'm wondering why you are still parading that argument out here like we have never discussed it? If you have a response to the specific debunking of the argument presented by me or mattballman I'm sure we'd both like to hear it. Otherwise why start all of these problem of evil arguments from square one?

For instance, mattballman made an excellent defense from the standpoint of salvation recipients. In order to prove the existence of excessive evil, the atheologian would have to prove that as many, or more, salvation recipients would result from a world with less suffering. This is obviously impossible.

I would love to hear your response to this, since I don't recall either you or Thomas Metcalf responding to this line of reasoning.

Defiant Heretic

Well, if we keep in mind that we're talking about the same god that created Hell, it begs the question of why he doesn't "save" people from it simply by not sending them there anymore.

There's your unjustified suffering. Salvation wouldn't even be necessary if he hadn't created this ultimate suffering.

seebs

I am not convinced that Hell is a "created place". I don't think people are "sent" there, either. Basically, I see it as like the feeling I get if I do something that cuts me off from one of my friends, and I know I'm doing it. It's an awful feeling; feeling like that for eternity would be close enough to the stuff about "Hell" for me to accept it as an explanation.

Defiant Heretic

But you couldn't really be condemned or saved from a hell like that. It's just a state of mind, and would be subject to change. The argument I'm refuting seems to present a more literal hell, and so that is what I'm attacking.

Philosoft

What does this mean for a being who doesn't acknowledge the existence of the "friend"? Does the being in question receive revealed knowledge at some point that the "friend" does, in fact exist, is the irreproachable personality as claimed, and will be inaccessible for eternity? Seems a tad sadistic and unnecessary, if you ask me.