Same logic, different conclusions

[Unveiled Artist]

Some children die of cancer because God doesn't exist holds the same logic as saying God does exists because some children are healed from cancer.

It's assuming god somehow has a play in someone's health afairs whether he decides not to do anything to help children or he does.

1. How did you both draw either conclusion on whether god exist or not based on the child's health (dying or healing) alone?

2. When both statements follow the same logic and same god with the same characteristics,so how can either side be telling the truth?

3. How can you explain how either is true to a foreigner of christianity (thereby God) and how is one view more accurate than the other?

Assuming for min that the believer doesn't rely on any scripture to determine what others say god does. Instead, god can do whatever it wants.

 

[viole]

Children die of cancer because God doesn't exist holds the same logic as saying God does exists because some children are healed from cancer.

It's assuming god somehow has a play in someone's health afairs whether he decides not to do anything to help children or he does.

1. How did you both draw either conclusion on whether god exist or not based on the child's health (dying or healing) alone?

2. When both statements follow the same logic and same god with the same characteristics,so how can either side be telling the truth?

3. How can you explain how either is true to a foreigner of christianity (thereby God) and how is one view more accurate than the other?

Assuming for min that the believer doesn't rely on any scripture to determine what others say god does. Instead, god can do whatever it wants.

Not technically true, since the theist introduces an asymmetry in the form of benevolence and such.

If God is defined as benevolent, then saving kids from cancer can be ascribed to Him. On the other hand, if a child dies horribly of cancer, and God is defined as benevolent, then either it is a good a thing that kids die horribly of cancer (why crying then?), or that God does not exist. Out of simple logic.

Theist's call.

But I agree that if God would be totally amoral, then full symmetry would be established and our perceptions of what is good or bad, would have no bearing on God's existence.

Ciao

- viole

 

[HonestJoe]

Children die of cancer because God doesn't exist holds the same logic as saying God does exists because some children are healed from cancer.

It isn't an argument against the existence of any god in general but it is an argument against the existence of a particular kind of god that is commonly asserted to exist, such as in the claims that God intervenes to cure some people of terminal illnesses but not others in the exact same situation.

It largely boils down to the conflicts between the image of the being of love watching over and caring for all humanity and therefore would be perfectly capable of curing everyone and the anthropomorphised image of the jealous and angry god who only helps those who are willing to worship him and between the idea of gd being all-powerful and all-knowing yet somehow incapable of interfering with human free-will (expect when he apparently does).

 

[SalixIncendium]

What about “God does exist and doesn’t involve itself in worldly affairs”?

A child dying (or being healed) of cancer can be a product of causality.

If I drop a hammer from my hand, and it falls on my toe (or misses it), it’s because of causality, not because God.

 

[Brian2]

Children die of cancer because God doesn't exist holds the same logic as saying God does exists because some children are healed from cancer.

It's assuming god somehow has a play in someone's health afairs whether he decides not to do anything to help children or he does.

1. How did you both draw either conclusion on whether god exist or not based on the child's health (dying or healing) alone?

2. When both statements follow the same logic and same god with the same characteristics,so how can either side be telling the truth?

3. How can you explain how either is true to a foreigner of christianity (thereby God) and how is one view more accurate than the other?

Assuming for min that the believer doesn't rely on any scripture to determine what others say god does. Instead, god can do whatever it wants.

Some things are miracles and others are seen by faith.
God does not have to do anything for us. God chooses to when He chooses to and sometimes it is a miracle that He gives. At other times we see events through faith and whether it is a good or bad outcome we are to thank God.

 

[Kooky]

What about “God does exist and doesn’t involve itself in worldly affairs”?

A child dying (or being healed) of cancer can be a product of causality.

If I drop a hammer from my hand, and it falls on my toe (or misses it), it’s because of causality, not because God.

Sure, but that would leave us with the conclusion that God either isn't omnipotent (He/She/It/They can't intervene to end this suffering), isn't omnibenevolent (He/She/It/They doesn't/don't want to intervene, for whatever reason) or isn't omniscient (He/She/It/They has no knowledge of this suffering occurring).

 

[Left Coast]

Children die of cancer because God doesn't exist holds the same logic as saying God does exists because some children are healed from cancer.

It's assuming god somehow has a play in someone's health afairs whether he decides not to do anything to help children or he does.

1. How did you both draw either conclusion on whether god exist or not based on the child's health (dying or healing) alone?

2. When both statements follow the same logic and same god with the same characteristics,so how can either side be telling the truth?

3. How can you explain how either is true to a foreigner of christianity (thereby God) and how is one view more accurate than the other?

Assuming for min that the believer doesn't rely on any scripture to determine what others say god does. Instead, god can do whatever it wants.

The typical criticism is leveled at the notion of a God that is all-loving/all-benevolent and all-powerful. If we remove the all-loving part, then sure, it's not inherently problematic to imagine an all-powerful being exists who would not heal someone of cancer if she simply doesn't care about that person.

Healing stories don't demonstrate God's existence because people are healed of cancer for all kinds of reasons. If you want to point the finger at God, you'd need some kind of evidence of the mechanism of healing.

 

[Altfish]

Not technically true, since the theist introduces an asymmetry in the form of benevolence and such.

If God is defined as benevolent, then saving kids from cancer can be ascribed to Him. On the other hand, if a child dies horribly of cancer, and God is defined as benevolent, then either it is a good a thing that kids die horribly of cancer (why crying then?), or that God does not exist. Out of simple logic.

Theist's call.

But I agree that if God would be totally amoral, then full symmetry would be established and our perceptions of what is good or bad, would have no bearing on God's existence.

Ciao

- viole

This

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What about “God does exist and doesn’t involve itself in worldly affairs”?

A child dying (or being healed) of cancer can be a product of causality.

If I drop a hammer from my hand, and it falls on my toe (or misses it), it’s because of causality, not because God.

True, but in the OP its specifically talking of god.

So, if you drop the hammer and it hit your toe you could say god doesn't exist because he let you experience pain. If it misses your toe, you can say god does exist because you just missed being hurt. Existence of god in this case is dependent on what god does... pain he doesn't exist and pleasure he does.

Though both sides are on different sides of the same coin. So, how would I know in this analogy either would be because of god (whether he didn't stop the hammer or he just missed your foot) just by that scenario alone?

 

[Brian2]

Sure, but that would leave us with the conclusion that God either isn't omnipotent (He/She/It/They can't intervene to end this suffering), isn't omnibenevolent (He/She/It/They doesn't/don't want to intervene, for whatever reason) or isn't omniscient (He/She/It/They has no knowledge of this suffering occurring).

If you assume God has to help everyone like some cosmic superman then you may be right. But He does not have to and does not.
It is a matter of assumption on your part imo.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The typical criticism is leveled at the notion of a God that is all-loving/all-benevolent and all-powerful. If we remove the all-loving part, then sure, it's not inherently problematic to imagine an all-powerful being exists who would not heal someone of cancer if she simply doesn't care about that person.

Healing stories don't demonstrate God's existence because people are healed of cancer for all kinds of reasons. If you want to point the finger at God, you'd need some kind of evidence of the mechanism of healing.

Hmm. Most christians I come across feel that when someone is healed (especially during or after prayer), god had some part in the healing process if not totally. A lot of times people know god exist because of what god has done for them to support and validate their faith in god.

Do you believe an all loving and benevolent god helps to relieve human suffering (rather than sin)?

 

[Kooky]

If you assume God has to help everyone like some cosmic superman then you may be right. But He does not have to and does not.
It is a matter of assumption on your part imo.

Which contradicts the claim that He/She/It is omnibenevolent (i.e. benevolent and merciful towards all people), thus supporting my argument.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Some things are miracles and others are seen by faith.
God does not have to do anything for us. God chooses to when He chooses to and sometimes it is a miracle that He gives. At other times we see events through faith and whether it is a good or bad outcome we are to thank God.

How do you know this?

This would be the same as someone told me god is bad because of stuff in the bible...he has killed others... he is jealous, and he is angry ignores people who ignore him.

It's pretty much the same logic as god chooses the miracles he gives and other good stuff attributed to god.

Which has the better logic excluding that one is positive and the other is not?

 

[Left Coast]

Hmm. Most christians I come across feel that when someone is healed (especially during or after prayer), god had some part in the healing process if not totally. A lot of times people know god exist because of what god has done for them to support and validate their faith in god.

The question becomes, how did they determine God healed them?

Do you believe an all loving and benevolent god helps to relieve human suffering (rather than sin)?

No, I don't. I see no good evidence for such a being.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It isn't an argument against the existence of any god in general but it is an argument against the existence of a particular kind of god that is commonly asserted to exist, such as in the claims that God intervenes to cure some people of terminal illnesses but not others in the exact same situation.

It largely boils down to the conflicts between the image of the being of love watching over and caring for all humanity and therefore would be perfectly capable of curing everyone and the anthropomorphised image of the jealous and angry god who only helps those who are willing to worship him and between the idea of gd being all-powerful and all-knowing yet somehow incapable of interfering with human free-will (expect when he apparently does).

But then there are people who assume god doesn't exist (and states it) because of your latter paragraph. Then there's the opposite side, of course, that may work just as well.

Since they are both two sides of one coin, which one would be correct?

i.e. people sin but they are good hearted... while people are bad hearted yet sometimes they do good things.

So, the oxymoron can exist just one side sees it as a bad thing and the other good-based on their justifications.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The question becomes, how did they determine God healed them?



No, I don't. I see no good evidence for such a being.

Please tell me if I'm wrong, aren't you Catholic?

 

[Left Coast]

Please tell me if I'm wrong, aren't you Catholic?

I used to be. Not anymore. Although there are days I feel more Catholic than other days, haha.

So as to God: ask me tomorrow.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Some children die of cancer because God doesn't exist holds the same logic as saying God does exists because some children are healed from cancer.

Both feature the same logical fallacy: non sequitur. The conclusion, which may or might not be correct, doesn't follow from what preceded it.

Maybe it would be better to examine the position of the logically consistent skeptic. Here's a more valid treatment of the problem:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus - Greek philosopher, BC 341-270

Here is an argument that if there is a god, it isn't in the business of preventing human suffering:

"You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, 'When you're done, I'm going to punish you.' If I were in a situation where I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God." - Tracie Harris

The logically sound position is that their is no tri-omni god. There either is no god, or this god doesn't know we exist, or it is malevolent and allows or causes suffering, or it is aware of but indifferent to our needs, or it doesn't have the power to intervene - any logical possibility other than a tri-omni god as is claimed in Christian theology.

 

[sayak83]

Both feature the same logical fallacy: non sequitur. The conclusion, which may or might not be correct, doesn't follow from what preceded it.

Maybe it would be better to examine the position of the logically consistent skeptic. Here's a more valid treatment of the problem:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus - Greek philosopher, BC 341-270

Here is an argument that if there is a god, it isn't in the business of preventing human suffering:

"You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, 'When you're done, I'm going to punish you.' If I were in a situation where I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God." - Tracie Harris

The logically sound position is that their is no tri-omni god. There either is no god, or this god doesn't know we exist, or it is malevolent and allows or causes suffering, or it is aware of but indifferent to our needs, or it doesn't have the power to intervene - any logical possibility other than a tri-omni god as is claimed in Christian theology.

As far as I understand, theistic Hinduism also rejects the tri-omni God. Omnipotence is rejected. Though not sure if I am correct.

 

[Heyo]

Some children die of cancer because God doesn't exist holds the same logic as saying God does exists because some children are healed from cancer.

“If you want to converse with me, first define your terms.” - Voltaire

That is what both of these chains of reason lack. Both don't define what a god is.
That's a general problem. People imagine to know what the word means and imagine the interlocutor knows also and the definitions are identical.
The reality is that nobody seems to know what a god is when asked to come up with an exact definition. And those who do can't get anybody else to agree.