Same logic, different conclusions

[Unveiled Artist]

“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.

Which kinda makes proving god existing kind of mute.

 

[Regiomontanus]

It's assuming god somehow has a play in someone's health afairs...

Invalid assumption.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Invalid assumption.

because....

 

[Regiomontanus]

because....

The Holocaust
Childhood leukemia
...
...
...

What annoys me a bit about these threads (on bad things happening) is than no one mentions uncertainty. We do not live in a deterministic universe, but rather one governed by law and chance. And chance can lead to bad things but is central overall to the process of how the universe unfolds. In my opinion.

 

[Valjean]

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.

You just made this premise up. Noöne's proposed that anything happens because God doesn't exist.

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.

"It's assuming God...."
Nobody who believes God doesn't exist assumes this.This presumed God-axiom is your own invention.

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

Nobody drew such a conclusion. This is your own hypothetical.

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

There are not two sides. Nobody blames a child's death on the absence of God. It's an imaginary premise.

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?

There's nothing to explain. The 'death from no God' thing is something you just pulled out of a hat.

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.

-- and therefore...?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You just made this premise up. Noöne's proposed that anything happens because God doesn't exist.
"It's assuming God...."
Nobody who believes God doesn't exist assumes this.This presumed God-axiom is your own invention.
Nobody drew such a conclusion. This is your own hypothetical.
There are not two sides. Nobody blames a child's death on the absence of God. It's an imaginary premise.
There's nothing to explain. The 'death from no God' thing is something you just pulled out of a hat.
-- and therefore...?

You could have presented your opinion in a non-sarcastic way. It lends better responses and much more productive ones.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The Holocaust
Childhood leukemia
...
...
...

What annoys me a bit about these threads (on bad things happening) is than no one mentions uncertainty. We do not live in a deterministic universe, but rather one governed by law and chance. And chance can lead to bad things but is central overall to the process of how the universe unfolds. In my opinion.

I think some threads as well as mine rather people go off what's written in the OP and draw conclusions and answers from there. In all questions and posts there are X facts and things people disagree with... for example, someone can present a god-question and an RFer would say "but I don't believe in god, so I can't answer the question because …." It doesn't add value to the OP because of that.

In this case, there is no determinant. There is, of course, just as there are people who say they don't believe in god but then believe in something that functions like the concept of god... so, questions can be flexible but it makes the OP pointless when replies are focused on the X uncertainty factor and not whats presented as is.

I'm not one for disclaimers unless they are within the thread, but I think that's why people put disclaimers at the top of their threads for this very reason.

 

[HonestJoe]

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.

Supporting existence of a specifically defined god would require specific evidence. In the absence of definitive evidence for any of the many proposed or potential gods, it can only make sense to operate on the default basis that none exist. Declaring that a specific god (any kind of god) definitively doesn't exist would require specific evidence too, but that isn't the same thing.

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

We're not talking about people, we're talking about God - an infinite being existing beyond time and space, all-powerful and all-knowing. It makes zero sense to apply any kind of human emotions, thoughts or actions to them. That's why there is this unresolved conflict between that kind of definition of gods and the anthropomorphisation of them for religious purposes. How could God be good or bad if God is everything?

 

[Valjean]

You could have presented your opinion in a non-sarcastic way. It lends better responses and much more productive ones.

Apologies if I offended, but my objection stands. You invented a non-existent premise, then based an argument on it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Apologies if I offended, but my objection stands. You invented a non-existent premise, then based an argument on it.

I've heard it many times both on RF and in person (more on internet, though). I just put it all in one sentence.

The first, the idea some people say when they don't believe god exist (with christian backgrounds) is if he did, he would have been much more kind and benevolent as christians say he is. By that phrase (and on this thread too), they are comparing god's character with what he would "supposed" to do if he would have aligned with his character. In that respect, some say god does not exist because if he did, we would not have children dying (and other reasons they list).

Another very very common flip is christians say god exist because they have seen god work in their lives, work in others lives, what they call miracles, healing (like my co-worker on her missionary trip), and so forth.

I don't know if you've encountered these premises but you can find it all over RF and the latter in every christian and church sermon.

Believers would say god exist because he does X in people's lives and their own. Many people who says god does not exist because he neglected to do X (as christians say god should do). While there are many other arguments, they are both two sides on the same coin cause it assumes in both cases god has some influence on people whether he chooses not to heal some children or those that are healed christians say god has played a part in their healing.

How did not parties (those who formed either argument) come to their argument only on whether god is absent in healing the child or have a role in that child's healing?

 

[SomeRandom]

A whole lot of assumptions are being made. You know what they say about assuming?

 

[SalixIncendium]

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).

Yep.

 

[stvdv]

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

Correction, "some" theists.

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.

I do not define God as "benevolent". Never even heard of the word, until 3 years ago on RF

 

[blü 2]

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.

I've never heard the argument that someone died (of cancer or anything else) BECAUSE God doesn't exist. How can non-existence (of itself, not as an influential thought in someone's head) be a cause?

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.

I've never understood how an all-powerful, all-knowing God who is also BENEVOLENT can sit on [his] hands and watch a child drown or as you say, die of cancer, when one snap of those omnipotent fingers would effortlessly fix the matter.

But then, if God is indeed all-powerful and all-knowing, then evil / bad things can only exist because [he] wills evil / bad things. There is no other possibility, as is acknowledged in

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.​

 

[Kooky]

I do not define God as "benevolent". Never even heard of the word, since 3 years ago on RF

Yea, the idea of a merciful or benevolent god seems more like a feature of Abrahamic religion.

 

[Clara Tea]

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 affairs 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.

Hypothetically, we could say that a murderer is bad if he also raped his victim. Could we say that he is good if he murdered his victim but didn't rape them?

You are trying to make God good for saving kids with cancer, but it is assumed that the all-powerful and all-knowing God should prevent suffering if it is within his power to do so. So, it is normal to cure, but cruel not to cure.

 

[Brian2]

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

It would be great to be in paradise now and not have to experience any suffering. But now is now and there is suffering and we don't know what the best thing is that this omni God should do,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,even if we think we do.
The issues are more complex than your simplistic argument makes out and God asks us to trust Him instead of turning on Him for all the evil and suffering in the world.

 

[Brian2]

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?

I trust God and believe He knows more than I do and is Love as the Bible tells us.

 

[Jainarayan]

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

You are correct. Hinduism doesn't posit a God that, while He is all-powerful, He is not all-controlling.

Suffering and the Problem of Evil
This article is pretty in-depth. Problem of evil in Hinduism - Wikipedia

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I trust God and believe He knows more than I do and is Love as the Bible tells us.

I've always been confused over this language.

How do you know "he knows?"

Or when one says jesus loves them...I haven't read jesus saying he loves people in the bible, no?

Or he takes care of me...or watches over me. Or God told me it's okay. You're safe.

I can see you're repeating what the bible says verbatim but not everything christians say see verbatim.