Problem of evil, is this a satisfying answer?

[We Never Know]

What am I claiming... exactly ?

If you don't know if a god exists, how can you claim a god can or can't be omni anything?

 

[Koldo]

If you don't know if a god exists, how can you claim a god can or can't be omni anything?

Because I don't need to know if God exists to claim that an omnimax god is logically contradictory.

 

[We Never Know]

Because I don't need to know if God exists to claim that an omnimax god is logically contradictory.

And there you have it. You're making claims about something you have already admitted that you don't know.

 

[Koldo]

And there you have it. You're making claims about something you have already admitted that you don't know.

I don't know if God exists, but I know an omnimax god is logically contradictory.
It appears I am making claims about what I know then.

 

[We Never Know]

I don't know if God exists, but I know an omnimax god is logically contradictory.
It appears I am making claims about what I know then.

If you don't know if something exists, how is it logical to make claims about what you don't know. IOW, what logic are you using when you are asigning limits on something you admitted you don't even know exists.

 

[Koldo]

If you don't know if something exists, how is it logical to make claims about what you don't know. IOW, what logic are you using when you are asigning limits on something you admitted you don't even know exists.

I am using logic itself, the law of noncontradiction.
Consider this: Do you know if there is a hat in Mars ?
I don't either but we can still say: If there is a hat in Mars, it can't be both completely blue and completely green at the same time.
We can say it regardless of whether we know if any hat exists in Mars.

 

[We Never Know]

I am using logic itself, the law of noncontradiction.
Consider this: Do you know if there is a hat in Mars ?
I don't either but we can still say: If there is a hat in Mars, it can't be both completely blue and completely green at the same time.
We can say it regardless of whether we know if any hat exists in Mars.

A hat isn't supernatural. It's more like saying I don't know if fairy's exist but they have to be pink and can't be more than 5 inches tall.

If a god doesn't exist, it's illogical to assign limits on it because it doesn't exist.
If you don't know if a god exists, it's illogical to assign limits on it because if you don't even know if it exists, you can't know anything about it.

 

[Koldo]

A hat isn't supernatural. It's more like saying I don't know if fairy's exist but they have to be pink and can't be more than 5 inches tall.

Your analogy is not applicable.
I am talking about the law of noncontradiction: I don't know if fairies exist but they can't both be pink and not-pink at the same time and in the same sense.

If a god doesn't exist, it's illogical to assign limits on it because it doesn't exist.
If you don't know if a god exists, it's illogical to assign limits on it because if you don't even know if it exists, you can't know anything about it.

Do you mean it is illogical to apply logical limitations, such as the law of noncontradiction, to a supernatural being ?
Why ? How did you reach this conclusion ? If you can't justify why, you are merely employing special pleading.

 

[We Never Know]

Your analogy is not applicable.
I am talking about the law of noncontradiction: I don't know if fairies exist but they can't both be pink and not-pink at the same time and in the same sense.



Do you mean it is illogical to apply logical limitations, such as the law of noncontradiction, to a supernatural being ?
Why ? How did you reach this conclusion ? If you can't justify why, you are merely employing special pleading.

The law of contradictions applies to what we can comprehend, know, show, explain, etc. You cannot do any of that to the supernatural. You are trying to apply a law to something that we don't even know it exists or even understand. It's kind of like trying to apply the laws of physics to the pre-big bang. We can't because they break down.

 

[Koldo]

The law of contradictions applies to what we can comprehend, know, show, explain, etc. You cannot do any of that to the supernatural. You are trying to apply a law to something that we don't even know it exists or even understand. It's kind of like trying to apply the laws of physics to the pre-big bang. We can't because they break down.

The law of noncontradiction is not a law of physics, therefore your analogy is not applicable. It is rather an axiom used in logical reasoning.
Once again, can you show how you have reached the conclusion that it is not applicable to the supernatural ? You are merely clamining it is not without providing a justification, that is special pleading.

 

[We Never Know]

The law of noncontradiction is not a law of physics, therefore your analogy is not applicable. It is rather an axiom used in logical reasoning.
Once again, can you show how you have reached the conclusion that it is not applicable to the supernatural ? You are merely clamining it is not without providing a justification, that is special pleading.

Let's use your color/hat analogy.

Hats and color are real.
You've seen hats and color.
You probably have a favorite color and maybe even a favorite hat.
You know where color and hats are from.
With all that you are knowledgeable and can show, know, comprehend, study, etc all about hats and color. you can use the law here.

We can't know, show, comprehend, study, etc gods/the super natural. Anything said about gods is said so by mere opinion/belief/faith which can't be supported by evidence.
You are trying to support your opinion of super natural god's, which you already admitted you don't know about by mis-applying a law to something we know nothing about or even if it exists.

 

[Koldo]

Let's use your color/hat analogy.

Hats and color are real.
You've seen hats and color.
You probably have a favorite color and maybe even a favorite hat.
You know where color and hats are from.
With all that you are knowledgeable and can show, know, comprehend, study, etc all about hats and color. you can use the law here.

We can't know, show, comprehend, study, etc gods/the super natural. Anything said about gods is said so by mere opinion/belief/faith which can't be supported by evidence.
You are trying to support your opinion of super natural god's, which you already admitted you don't know about by mis-applying a law to something we know nothing about or even if it exists.

From where did you gather this absurd notion that we need to have seen hats and colors ( or any other thing ) to use the law of noncontradiction in propositions that involve them ? Source please ?

 

[We Never Know]

From where did you gather this absurd notion that we need to have seen hats and colors ( or any other thing ) to use the law of noncontradiction in propositions that involve them ? Source please ?

I've wasted more than enough time with you. Keep trying to support "your opinion" of god's by mis-applying a law. I think it's rather comical.

 

[Koldo]

I've wasted more than enough time with you. Keep trying to support "your opinion" of god's by mis-applying a law. I think it's rather comical.

I am still waiting for the source that will give some substance to your claim.
Feel free to message me once you remember where you have learned that the law of noncontradiction is only applicable to things we have seen.

 

[Road Warrior]

Well, he's not wrong....
Except another option is that this god exists, is omnipotent but not omnibenevolent.




I disagree. An omnipotent and omnibenevolent entity WOULD stop evil.

So if evil is allowed to continue then any of 3 options is possible:
- this god doesn't exist
- not omnipotent: this god can't / is unable to stop evil
- not omnibenevolent: this god can stop evil, but doesn't care to.




I didn't say it was.
In fact, I explicitly detached it from one another:

...a universe where suffering, pain and evil exists?

But you know what I would consider evil?
Having the ability to stop pain and suffering and then not doing it.

A tsunami that kills 300.000 is not "evil" - it's a phenomena of nature with people unfortunate enough to be in the way of it.

But having the ability to stop the tsunami, and thereby saving those 300k people, and not doing it -THAT would be evil.

Also, pain and suffering = result of evil.

Not that it can't be cause by other things.
But the result of evil is always some form of pain and/or suffering.

That's in fact what makes things evil.....................



Having said all that... as some other guy here wrote already, the "problem of evil" is also refered to sometimes as the "problem of suffering", since it essentially deals with the same thing.

No matter what caused the pain and suffering, IF you have the ability to remove pain/suffering, then you have a moral duty to do so.

So in a universe where an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists, suffering and pain should not. Since the omnipotent part makes it possible remove any and all forms of pain/suffering and the omnibenevolent part provides the motivation and duty to actually do so.

So, in a universe where a god exists AND where suffering and pain also exists, it would necessarily have to mean that:
- this god isn't omnipotent (he can't remove suffering/pain)
- this god is not omnibenevolent (he can but doesn't care to).
- this is neither omnibenevolent or omnipotent (he can't and even if he could, wouldn't care to)

These are all great atheist arguments but they are thinking that existence ends at death. Believers think death is just a step like graduating kindergarten. What does pain matter when considering eternity?

 

[We Never Know]

I am still waiting for the source that will give some substance to your claim.
Feel free to message me once you remember where you have learned that the law of noncontradiction is only applicable to things we have seen.

"the law of noncontradiction is only applicable to things we have seen" is your false claim being I never said that.

Bye bye now

 

[Road Warrior]

Pain in it self is not considered evil, maybe a natural evil. But I think for the most part when people talk about pain, its about inflicting it on others on purpose.

"Pain is weakness leaving the body". Pain is temporary. In the end, such people will kill the person and the pain goes away forever.

 

[Road Warrior]

Parents aren't projected as being "omnibenevolent, omnipotent beings".

But you are welcome to share with us all your argument on how for example a 5-year old dying from Leukemia after years of suffering and hospital beds, is analogous to having to go to school.............................



Is your analogy completely assanine? Yes. Yes, it is.

In the greater scheme of things, it is. Of course, Atheists think they only have one life to live and they are dead, dead, dead. Believers thinks it's just a step.

You are free to think all believers are asinine (note the spelling). I certainly think the angry young anarchist atheists on this forum are asinine.

 

[Koldo]

"the law of noncontradiction is only applicable to things we have seen" is your false claim being I never said that.

Bye bye now

Good bye. Please come back with a source for your claim.

 

[Koldo]

"Pain is weakness leaving the body". Pain is temporary. In the end, such people will kill the person and the pain goes away forever.

Whether suffering is temporary is absolutely irrelevant to the argument being made.