Did God made any mistake ?

[Trailblazer]

You are arguing against my definition without realizing. I will say it this way: If a being exists and doesn't eradicate evil it is not God.

Whatever it is, it is NOT God. Omnipotence is NOT sufficient to be God. That's because God is also omnibenevolent, as an essential part of his nature, which entails preventing all evil.

What you have are personal opinions, and nothing more.

If you state those as assertions, that is another argument from ignorance because there is no way to prove that God would prevent evil if God existed. I am sure many atheists on this forum would agree with me because atheists are generally good at logic, but I would love to hear from any atheists who agree with you.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

 

[Koldo]

What you have are personal opinions, and nothing more.

If you state those as assertions, that is another argument from ignorance because there is no way to prove that God would prevent evil if God existed. I am sure many atheists on this forum would agree with me because atheists are generally good at logic, but I would love to hear from any atheists who agree with you.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

Definitions, in themselves, are not sufficient to estabilish an argument from ignorance.

Do you understand the role of definitions in arguments? What is the difference between asserting something and defining something?

 

[Trailblazer]

Definitions, in themselves, are not sufficient to estabilish an argument from ignorance.

Do you understand the role of definitions in arguments? What is the difference between asserting something and defining something?

I see you, like other atheists I know, play the deflection game.
Can't you respond to what I said? It was very straightforward.

What you have is an argument from ignorance because you are saying that your proposition -- that the existence of evil is contradictory to God's utmost desire: our well-beings and therefore, the existence of evil (that which is contrary to our well-beings) is proof that God doesn't exist -- is true because it has not yet been proven false. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove your proposition be either true or false.

 

[chinu]

And so what?
He didn't regret them becoming wicked. He regretted creating them. You can only regret your own actions.
To regret something is to wish you hadn't done something. If God wished he hadn't created humans, how was it not a mistake?

He regret becoming wicked.

I already gave you child and parent example.
I suggest to go and interview some old-age parents,
You will understand yourself.

 

[Koldo]

He regret becoming wicked.

I already gave you child and parent example.
I suggest to go and interview some old-age parents,
You will understand yourself.

He regretted creating them because they turned wicked. He regretted his own action because of what humans became.

 

[Koldo]

I see you, like other atheists I know, play the deflection game.
Can't you respond to what I said? It was very straightforward.

What you have is an argument from ignorance because you are saying that your proposition -- that the existence of evil is contradictory to God's utmost desire: our well-beings and therefore, the existence of evil (that which is contrary to our well-beings) is proof that God doesn't exist -- is true because it has not yet been proven false. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove your proposition be either true or false.

I was trying to get at it from a different angle, but here it is:

I am not saying my proposition is true because it has not been proven false. I am saying it is true because it can not be false, as long as you stick to my definitions.

My argument is the equivalent to stating that there is no married bachelor, one term contradicts the other. Likewise, evil contradicts God.

 

[Trailblazer]

He regretted creating them because they turned wicked. He regretted his own action because of what humans became.

That is an anthropomorphism based upon what men wrote about God in the Old Testament.
God did not regret creating man.
God cannot have any regrets because God cannot make any mistakes because God is infallible.

 

[Trailblazer]

I was trying to get at it from a different angle, but here it is:

I am not saying my proposition is true because it has not been proven false. I am saying it is true because it can not be false, as long as you stick to my definitions.

You mean as long as I stick to your premises, premises which have not been proven true.
You still don't get it do you?
You cannot say it cannot be false unless you can prove it is true.
You cannot prove it is true, therefore it could be false.

My argument is the equivalent to stating that there is no married bachelor, one term contradicts the other. Likewise, evil contradicts God.

No, it is not equivalent to that. That evil contradicts God is only a personal opinion of yours, not a fact. That a bachelor cannot be married is a fact because bachelors by definition cannot be married. But God by definition could allow evil in the world, unless you can prove otherwise.

That is God existed there would be no evil in the world is an argument from ignorance, because it can never be proven true or false, and there are other possibilities (3 and 4).

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

 

[Koldo]

That is an anthropomorphism based upon what men wrote about God in the Old Testament.
God did not regret creating man.
God cannot have any regrets because God cannot make any mistakes because God is infallible.

Well... It is a matter of interpretation.

 

[Koldo]

You mean as long as I stick to your premises, premises which have not been proven true.
You still don't get it do you?
You cannot say it cannot be false unless you can prove it is true.
You cannot prove it is true, therefore it could be false.


No, it is not equivalent to that. That evil contradicts God is only a personal opinion of yours, not a fact. That a bachelor cannot be married is a fact because bachelors by definition cannot be married. But God by definition could allow evil in the world, unless you can prove otherwise.

I will stop you right here.
If you say that God by definition could allow evil, you are not using my definition. Per my definition, God could NOT allow evil. This is why I have been saying that your disagreement is over my definition.

If you don't use my definition for God, it is obvious my argument won't work. It is not intended to work like that.

I suggest you read about stipulative and precising definitions before we continue this conversation. Get back to me after that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well... It is a matter of interpretation.

True, but it is also a matter of whether you believe God actually said what was recorded in the OT.

 

[Trailblazer]

I will stop you right here.
If you say that God by definition could allow evil, you are not using my definition. Per my definition, God could NOT allow evil. This is why I have been saying that your disagreement is over my definition.

If you don't use my definition for God, it is obvious my argument won't work. It is not intended to work like that.

If you define God as an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being and say God could not allow evil, you are still making an argument from ignorance, because you cannot know what a omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being can allow.

An omnipotent God can allow anything He wants to allow.

 

[Koldo]

True, but it is also a matter of whether you believe God actually said what was recorded in the OT.

The text presents it as if he did.

 

[Koldo]

If you define God as an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being and say God could not allow evil, you are still making an argument from ignorance, because you cannot know what a omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being can allow.

An omnipotent God can allow anything He wants to allow.

Before I proceed: Do you agree that merely defining a term and using this term, as I define it, in an argument doesn't constitute, by itself, an argument from ignorance?

 

[Trailblazer]

Before I proceed: Do you agree that merely defining a term and using this term, as I define it, in an argument doesn't constitute, by itself, an argument from ignorance?

No, not by itself.

 

[Koldo]

No, not by itself.

Great!
What I am saying is that the definition of omnibenevolence entails doing whatever is necessary to prevent evil.
If you say otherwise, you are disputing my definition. Do you dispute my definition?

 

[Trailblazer]

Great!
What I am saying is that the definition of omnibenevolence entails doing whatever is necessary to prevent evil.
If you say otherwise, you are disputing my definition. Do you dispute my definition?

I dispute your definition because it implies that an omnibenevolent God would do whatever is necessary to prevent evil.

 

[Koldo]

I dispute your definition because it implies that an omnibenevolent God would do whatever is necessary to prevent evil.

Ok. But, do you agree that if you were to accept my definition, my argument would indeed lead to the conclusion that God doesn't exist?

 

[Trailblazer]

Ok. But, do you agree that if you were to accept my definition, my argument would indeed lead to the conclusion that God doesn't exist?

Yes, because it would logically follow.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, because it would logically follow.

Great!
Then, like I have said: your disagreement is strictly about my definition. You are free to use a different definition. My argument intends to cover only my own.