Wiploc

I'll maybe agree with you on the should have, but as for the others, it's easy to style the PoE so the relevance is blatant:

> 1. If god could prevent suffering, and
> 2. If god would prevent suffering if he could, and etc.

It comes down to this: if a tri-omni god existed, we wouldn't suffer.



So he's not omnibenevolent.

Of course you can get around that by redefining omnibenevolent to mean something like, "wouldn't hurt us unless he wanted to," or "wouldn't hurt us unless liked seeing us squirm," or even, "hurtful," but you can't expect communicate effectively when you distort a word like that.

You can even still call yourself a Christian though you worship a god who hurts people and can't do everything he wants to; I certainly don't have standing to tell Christians what to believe. But I do think it is a disingenuous time-waster for you to call your god omnipotent and omnibenevolent.





Hey, people who say god's top priority is preventing our suffering are wrong. That's all I tried to prove. And you agree with me; I don't see why you are arguing.

I defined "evil" in the traditional way. Your god fits the definition. Fits it perfectly. He is the archetype, the essence, of evil. Do you have another useful and meaningful definition of the word, one which doesn't describe god? If so, I'd like to hear it.

crc

NonContradiction

Let's assume that at one time only God existed and that He wanted to create a world. Now, He has a choice between creating an imperfect or perfect world, doesn't He? Is there anything to prevent Him from creating both? So let's say, for the sake of argument, that He creates both. Now, let's say that He wants to create human beings to inhabit these worlds, which He has just created. Can He create them in both worlds simultaneously? Since the laws of logic won't allow the same human beings to be in a perfect and imperfect world simultaneously, He has to create them in one or the other. Now, if He creates them in the perfect world, then the existence of the imperfect world becomes pointless, whereas the opposite isn't true. If He creates them in the imperfect world, then the existence of the perfect world doesn't become pointless. Just a little thought experiment. Is God evil for having wanted to create an imperfect and perfect world? You decide.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by NonContradiction :

It is morally better to make the imperfect world free of gratuitous suffering than to allow there to be gratuitous suffering in the imperfect world. So God obviously isn't morally perfect.

By the way, I'm eagerly awaiting your response to my post on page 5.

rainbow walking

Originally posted by rainbow walking
I would describe it as a viscious cycle. The affect derived from the initial indulgence leads to over-indulgence which leads to addiction which leads to further indulgence. But by the time it reaches the addiction stage it can be described as over-indulgence or addiction. Either one would apply.


Philo: Ok, but I think your argument just self-destructed.

rw: Why do you think that?


rw: Yes, it isn't written in stone that everyone who indulges in addictive substances will become addicted. It also isn't written in stobe that every addict will die from his addiction or continue to feed it for the duration of his life. It can be willfully circumvented...which is a good thing.



Philo: This appears to be fatal to your assertion that addiction is necessary to prevent us from over-indulging.

rw: Where did I say addiction was "necessary"?


rw: But then there's the case of crack babies to contend with.

Philo: And this certainly kills it.

rw: Why do you say that?

Philosoft

Because your argument is entirely different now. Your original argument had nothing at all to do with a "vicious cycle."

I thought you were defending the existence of addiction. Is it your contention that some addiction is necessary and some is superfluous?
Because a crack baby is a demonstrable instance of unnecessary addiction.

rainbow walking

philo: Because your argument is entirely different now. Your original argument had nothing at all to do with a "vicious cycle."



rw: Viscious cycle is just an interpretation of the argument.

philo: I thought you were defending the existence of addiction. Is it your contention that some addiction is necessary and some is superfluous?

rw: I've never contended either one.

philo: Because a crack baby is a demonstrable instance of unnecessary addiction.

rw:Yes, brought on by the unnecessary acts of a negligent mother.

Philosoft

Then what exactly is your argument?
Okay, but what is the purpose of a crack baby in the context of the PoE?

wizwoz

NonContradiction, many thanks for the clarification.
If X were innate, yes is my answer to your question.
If God could not arrange for X to be innate then there is the thorny problem of omni-max / PoE
Even for God to enter preliminary mitigation for non omnipotence, he would needed to have made X so, in my view.

....... God wants three things:

1) For you to experience pain and suffering, whether it appears to be necessary or unnecessary is irrelevant.
Cruel Coward allows / causes gratuitous torture to the child

2) For you to have patience.
Child must endure without complaining

3) For you to be rewarded for your patience.
Cruel Coward's friends promise the child a (uncertain) reward when it dies.

Your task is to argue that God is evil, if He does exist, for wanting those three things.
I don't think that is the task either, however is the above anywhere near ? If not, how is Cruel Coward not evil from 1) alone, nevermind sadistic, or do we need to define evil?

NonContradiction

Okay, so we agree that God doesn't have to prevent pain and suffering if He is Omnibenevolent. We are not speaking of prevention here, but rather minimization. Now the question becomes whether or not God minimizes pain and suffering, and I would say yes. Look at the advances in medicines and drugs, look at the advancements in surgery with anasthetics, look at the diseases that have been wiped out because of vaccinations. I think that you get the picture. Does the question now become one of God not minimizing the pain and suffering of people as much as you think he should? How do you know when there is too much or too little suffering in the world? Do you have a sufferometer?

NonContradiction

Okay, so we agree that God can be Omnibenevolent and not prevent pain and suffering. We are talking about minimizing pain and suffering rather than preventing. The question now becomes whether or not God wants to minimize pain and suffering? I would say yes, and the evidence of that is the fact that surgeries are now performed without the patient feeling any pain whatsoever. We have antibiotics to fight bacterial infections. We have vaccinations that have completely wiped out some diseases. I think that you get the picture.

Does the question now become one of whether or not God is minimizing as much pain as you think He should? How do you know when there is too little or too much pain and suffering in the world? Do you have a sufferometer?