Special Pleading and the PoE (Part 3)

[Koldo]

You are trying to backpedal out of what you originally tried to argue.

Let's go back to your first question to me in post #105:

What did I originally try to argue?
You have quoted a question and not an argument.

You were responding to and quoting post #63, in which, I outlined a logical Bible based conclusion of why we don't have to conclude God created, intended for, or is responsible for death being in the world.

Therefore, you are specifically trying to take issue with the Biblical worldview that I am presenting. Not some other worldview. But the worldview I specifically am presenting at this time.

I responded by pointing out the false and unproven premises that underlaid your question.

You tried to argue with it unsuccessfully.

I demonstrated for you why the original Biblical worldview I presented was a Biblically, logically, and theologically consistent way to understand God and creation as not responsible for death.

You haven't been able to dispute that.

Perhaps you don't understand this but your claim that I haven't been able to dispute your position is not going to win you any points on this conversation.

I should have made myself clear from the start: I am not interested if your perspective is biblically accurate. The problem of evil is much more of a philosophical matter than anything else. If you can present a solution that is not biblically accurate I will still accept your solution.

I agree when you say I can not state that God wanted death to enter the world, but I still haven't seen any proper explanation as to why he wouldn't be responsible since he is omnipotent, meaning powerful enough to prevent it from happening.

I didn't skip over anything - you simply failed to read past the second sentence to discover how physical death factors in.

I will repost it for you to read:

An alternative possibility:
-God is the source of life.
-Death is defined as being separated from God.
-God creates mankind to be abiding with Him.
-God gives mankind free will to choose whether or not to be with God.
-Sin is rebellion to God's instructions.
-God's instructions are a reflection of God's character and nature.
-God cannot lie and is unchanging. He cannot violate who He is or change who He is.
-That is why God cannot do something contradictory like call evil good or a lie truth. To do so would be to lie and violate his nature, which is impossible for Him.
-Therefore, sin breaks relationship with God by creating a disharmony and disunity between God's nature and man's nature so that man can no longer abide with God.
-God designed a world without desiring, intending, or requiring man to sin and enter into the realm of death set apart from God's life.
-Man therefore has free choice to reject God's life.
-The natural consequence of rejecting God's life is to experience death.
-This consequence cannot be avoided if man is to have true free will.
-It doesn't mean God created death. It means death is unavoidable consequence of simply rejecting who God is and what He has to give you.
-It would be a logical impossibility for God to give life to someone who rejected Him because He is the only source of life. That would be God forcing Himself on someone which would violate free will.
-God can't change Himself to accommodate your rebellious ways because that would violate who He is, which He cannot do.
-Therefore, if you aren't willing to be conformed to God's nature you can't abide with Him. And if you can't abide with Him then you can't access His life. And there is no other way for you to have life because He is the only source of it.

And I am not going to read past the second line once again for a simple reason: If you don't define death as a biological process at the start, your conclusion will not be logically consistent with death being a biological process. Either that or you don't actually use your terms as you define them. In both cases you would need to fix your definition.

 

[Rise]

What did I originally try to argue?
You have quoted a question and not an argument.

You seem to have a recurring problem with not seeing things in posts.

I can explain it again for you in another way:

I pointed out why the premises that underpinned your question were false or baseless.

You tried to argue with it.

You originally tried to argue in support of the premises behind your question being valid and true.

You were proven wrong, which is why you're now trying to backpedal and pretend your premises don't need to be consistent with the worldview you are trying to question.

Perhaps you don't understand this but your claim that I haven't been able to dispute your position is not going to win you any points on this conversation.

Your definition of "winning points' is not relevant to proving or disproving what is true.

The fact remains that your assertion was proven wrong. Your assertion that it's logically impossible for God to not be responsible for death.

You cannot refute that I gave a valid alternative explanation for how death could be in the world without God being responsible for it.

And since you were explicitly responding to my Bible based argument about what God could have done or not done, we can only logically assume you are choosing to take issue with "God" as He is defined by the Bible.

Otherwise you are committing a strawman fallacy by trying to question the Biblical worldview I am presenting by demanding I use your definition of God to defend my conclusions with - but you have never given any reason why I should need to use your definition of God instead of the Biblical definition of God which I originally made my arguments with.

Which is beside the fact that you haven't even given us any definition for God that would differ from what the Bible says.

That's why what you're doing amounts to backpedaling. You're trying to pretend you have a different definition of God from me that would allow your conclusion to be true - but you have never given any logical reason why that would even be the case. You have shown no difference in your definition of God and what the Bible defines as God.

I should have made myself clear from the start: I am not interested if your perspective is biblically accurate. The problem of evil is much more of a philosophical matter than anything else. If you can present a solution that is not biblically accurate I will still accept your solution.

Whether or not you care about the Biblical accuracy of what I have proposed is not relevant to the fact that your claim has been refuted.

You tried to claim there could be no other logical possibility for how death came into existence other than what you claimed.

I disproved your claim by giving an alternative viable possibility.

You haven't been able to refute or show any fault with my alternative possibility.

Therefore your claim stands refuted.

That's why you are now trying to backpedal to avoid having to admit you were wrong.

I agree when you say I can not state that God wanted death to enter the world, but I still haven't seen any proper explanation as to why he wouldn't be responsible since he is omnipotent, meaning powerful enough to prevent it from happening.

Logical fallacy, "Deliberate Ignorance"

You haven't seen it because you have explicitly refused to read where I explained how it could be.
Even though I explicitly told you where the answer could be found in my post.

And I am not going to read past the second line once again for a simple reason: If you don't define death as a biological process at the start, your conclusion will not be logically consistent with death being a biological process. Either that or you don't actually use your terms as you define them. In both cases you would need to fix your definition.

Logical fallacies:
"Strawman",
"Deliberate Ignorance",
"The Pout",
"Argument by Assertion",
"Argument by repetition",
"Failure of the Burden of Rejoinder".

I already disproved your claim that I supposedly failed to offer an adequate alternative by pointing out that my definition of death was never only defined as just separation from God, but that separation from God is what results in physical death.

I also disproved your claim that you don't need to read the post by pointing out where the rest of that post specifically disproved your false strawman claim about what I argued.

You are guilty of the strawman fallacy for misrepresenting what I argued.

And you are guilty of the deliberate ignorance fallacy for refusing to read where your strawman is disproven.

You are guilty of argument by repetition and assertion by merely repeating your original fallacious strawman even though I refuted it

Not content with that level of guilt, you compound it by engaging in the fallacy of the pout where you demand your fallacious and illogical conditions be met before you're willing to continue logical debate.

Which ultimately results in you failing to meet your burden of rejoinder.

I have given valid arguments you have not given a valid counter argument to.
You ignored those counter arguments and went into an argument by repetition repeating your refuted arguments about why you don't think you need to give a valid counter argument.

Thus, you have failed to meet your burden of rejoinder.
If you are unwilling or unable to meet your burden of rejoinder then you have tacitly conceded the debate because you are unwilling to meet the requirements by which a debate is had.

 

[Koldo]

You seem to have a recurring problem with not seeing things in posts.

I can explain it again for you in another way:

I pointed out why the premises that underpinned your question were false or baseless.

You tried to argue with it.

You originally tried to argue in support of the premises behind your question being valid and true.

You were proven wrong, which is why you're now trying to backpedal and pretend your premises don't need to be consistent with the worldview you are trying to question.

I still see no quote to my original argument.
Where is it? Do you understand the difference between a question and an argument?

Your definition of "winning points' is not relevant to proving or disproving what is true.

The fact remains that your assertion was proven wrong. Your assertion that it's logically impossible for God to not be responsible for death.

You cannot refute that I gave a valid alternative explanation for how death could be in the world without God being responsible for it.

I have seen no valid alternative being provided so far. That's merely your claim.

And since you were explicitly responding to my Bible based argument about what God could have done or not done, we can only logically assume you are choosing to take issue with "God" as He is defined by the Bible.

Otherwise you are committing a strawman fallacy by trying to question the Biblical worldview I am presenting by demanding I use your definition of God to defend my conclusions with - but you have never given any reason why I should need to use your definition of God instead of the Biblical definition of God which I originally made my arguments with.

Which is beside the fact that you haven't even given us any definition for God that would differ from what the Bible says.

That's why what you're doing amounts to backpedaling. You're trying to pretend you have a different definition of God from me that would allow your conclusion to be true - but you have never given any logical reason why that would even be the case. You have shown no difference in your definition of God and what the Bible defines as God.

This topic's title refers to the PoE.
Just so we are on the same page: What's the PoE and who is God in the PoE?

Whether or not you care about the Biblical accuracy of what I have proposed is not relevant to the fact that your claim has been refuted.

You tried to claim there could be no other logical possibility for how death came into existence other than what you claimed.

I have seen no refutation.

I disproved your claim by giving an alternative viable possibility.

You haven't been able to refute or show any fault with my alternative possibility.

Therefore your claim stands refuted.

That's why you are now trying to backpedal to avoid having to admit you were wrong.

I am not back pedaling out of anything.
My argument remains the same for years.

Logical fallacy, "Deliberate Ignorance"

You haven't seen it because you have explicitly refused to read where I explained how it could be.
Even though I explicitly told you where the answer could be found in my post.

Logical fallacies:
"Strawman",
"Deliberate Ignorance",
"The Pout",
"Argument by Assertion",
"Argument by repetition",
"Failure of the Burden of Rejoinder".

I already disproved your claim that I supposedly failed to offer an adequate alternative by pointing out that my definition of death was never only defined as just separation from God, but that separation from God is what results in physical death.

I also disproved your claim that you don't need to read the post by pointing out where the rest of that post specifically disproved your false strawman claim about what I argued.

You are guilty of the strawman fallacy for misrepresenting what I argued.

And you are guilty of the deliberate ignorance fallacy for refusing to read where your strawman is disproven.

You are guilty of argument by repetition and assertion by merely repeating your original fallacious strawman even though I refuted it

Not content with that level of guilt, you compound it by engaging in the fallacy of the pout where you demand your fallacious and illogical conditions be met before you're willing to continue logical debate.

Which ultimately results in you failing to meet your burden of rejoinder.

I have given valid arguments you have not given a valid counter argument to.
You ignored those counter arguments and went into an argument by repetition repeating your refuted arguments about why you don't think you need to give a valid counter argument.

Thus, you have failed to meet your burden of rejoinder.
If you are unwilling or unable to meet your burden of rejoinder then you have tacitly conceded the debate because you are unwilling to meet the requirements by which a debate is had.

Too much talk, but no fix to your definition. I see no progress. I am afraid I am not going to concede anything at this time. Why are you so obsessed with winning? What's the matter?

 

[Rise]

I still see no quote to my original argument.
Where is it? Do you understand the difference between a question and an argument?

Logical fallacy, "deliberate ignorance" or "appeal to personal incredulity"

I outlined already what argument you originally made in what you quoted.
Ignoring it's existence doesn't mean it's not there.
And claiming you don't see/understand it doesn't mean it's not true.

You seem to have a recurring problem with not seeing things in posts.

I can explain it again for you in another way:

I pointed out why the premises that underpinned your question were false or baseless.

You tried to argue with it.

You originally tried to argue in support of the premises behind your question being valid and true.

You were proven wrong, which is why you're now trying to backpedal and pretend your premises don't need to be consistent with the worldview you are trying to question.

You aren't even trying to claim that anything I said here is false or inaccurate.

Unless you are trying to dispute that my retelling of what happened is not accurate, there would be no logical necessity for me to pull out all your exact quotes to establish this is in fact what happened.

Are you trying to claim my description of what you tried to argue is not true, and therefore in need of direct quote to prove to you what you tried to argue?

I can certainly do that, but there's no logical need unless you're willing to say you don't believe what I said is an accurate retelling of what you tried to argue.

I have seen no valid alternative being provided so far. That's merely your claim

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion" and "appeal to personal incredulity."

You have given no logical reason why my alternative would not be valid.
Merely asserting it is true doesn't make it true just because you assert it is so.

Your inability to understand the logic of an argument also doesn't mean it's invalid or untrue. You cannot point to any logical fault in the alternative situation I outlined.

I have seen no refutation

Logical fallacy, "deliberate ignorance" or "appeal to personal incredulity"

Willfully ignoring my arguments that refute your position doesn't mean they aren't there.
Saying you don't understand how they do refute you also doesn't mean they don't. You can't give any logical reason why they don't.

Your unwillingness to modify your fallacy of deliberate ignorance to read my arguments that disprove your position constitutes the fallacy of males fides - arguing in bad faith. Knowingly doing something you know is fallacious.

By definition the moment you start arguing in bad faith you have conceded the debate by refusing to engage in what is required to have a debate.

I am not back pedaling out of anything.
My argument remains the same for years.

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".
Merely asserting that they aren't valid or true doesn't make it true just because you assert it is so.
I gave logical reasons why you were back pedaling. You haven't refuted those reasons. Therefore they still stand.

This topic's title refers to the PoE.

Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.
You have given no logical reason why the title of the thread would make any argument I have given untrue or invalid.

Just so we are on the same page: What's the PoE and who is God in the PoE?

Logical fallacy, avoiding the issue.
You have established no logical connection to why establishing these definitions at this time would have any relevance to dealing with refuting my arguments or defending your fallacious claims.

You are currently arguing in bad faith and failing your burden of rejoinder - neither of which goes away by a redefinition of those terms.

And both of which constitute a concession of the debate on your part if you cannot correct them.

Too much talk, but no fix to your definition. I see no progress. I am afraid I am not going to concede anything at this time. Why are you so obsessed with winning? What's the matter?

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.

I gave 6 reasons why your response was a fallacy. You haven't refuted the truth of that.

Therefore your argument stands refuted.

By being unwilling to offer a valid counter argument you fail to meet your burden of rejoinder.

If you cannot fulfill your burden of rejoinder then you tacitly concede the debate by being unwilling to do what is necessary to actually have a debate.

 

[Koldo]

Logical fallacy, "deliberate ignorance" or "appeal to personal incredulity"

I outlined already what argument you originally made in what you quoted.
Ignoring it's existence doesn't mean it's not there.
And claiming you don't see/understand it doesn't mean it's not true.



You aren't even trying to claim that anything I said here is false or inaccurate.

Unless you are trying to dispute that my retelling of what happened is not accurate, there would be no logical necessity for me to pull out all your exact quotes to establish this is in fact what happened.

Are you trying to claim my description of what you tried to argue is not true, and therefore in need of direct quote to prove to you what you tried to argue?

I can certainly do that, but there's no logical need unless you're willing to say you don't believe what I said is an accurate retelling of what you tried to argue.



Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion" and "appeal to personal incredulity."

You have given no logical reason why my alternative would not be valid.
Merely asserting it is true doesn't make it true just because you assert it is so.

Your inability to understand the logic of an argument also doesn't mean it's invalid or untrue. You cannot point to any logical fault in the alternative situation I outlined.



Logical fallacy, "deliberate ignorance" or "appeal to personal incredulity"

Willfully ignoring my arguments that refute your position doesn't mean they aren't there.
Saying you don't understand how they do refute you also doesn't mean they don't. You can't give any logical reason why they don't.

Your unwillingness to modify your fallacy of deliberate ignorance to read my arguments that disprove your position constitutes the fallacy of males fides - arguing in bad faith. Knowingly doing something you know is fallacious.

By definition the moment you start arguing in bad faith you have conceded the debate by refusing to engage in what is required to have a debate.



Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".
Merely asserting that they aren't valid or true doesn't make it true just because you assert it is so.
I gave logical reasons why you were back pedaling. You haven't refuted those reasons. Therefore they still stand.



Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.
You have given no logical reason why the title of the thread would make any argument I have given untrue or invalid.



Logical fallacy, avoiding the issue.
You have established no logical connection to why establishing these definitions at this time would have any relevance to dealing with refuting my arguments or defending your fallacious claims.

You are currently arguing in bad faith and failing your burden of rejoinder - neither of which goes away by a redefinition of those terms.

And both of which constitute a concession of the debate on your part if you cannot correct them.



Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.

I gave 6 reasons why your response was a fallacy. You haven't refuted the truth of that.

Therefore your argument stands refuted.

By being unwilling to offer a valid counter argument you fail to meet your burden of rejoinder.

If you cannot fulfill your burden of rejoinder then you tacitly concede the debate by being unwilling to do what is necessary to actually have a debate.

I am not going to reply to every single bullet coming out of this shotgun. I will stick to the main points:

1) There is no argument in my first quote, only a question. An argument involves premises and conclusion(s).

2) You have not presented a valid alternative because your alternative involves using a distinct definition for death. I have already told you to fix it before we continue but you haven't done so far.

3) If we don't align terminology we will be talking past each other. Getting absolutely nowhere. I am completely unaware of anyone formulating the PoE in a way that revolves around separation from God. Therefore if you start your argument by treating something that is not the problem as if it were the problem, you are not talking about anything that relates to my argument.

4) You keep claiming that you have refuted my argument or that I haven't refuted yours. None of which is conducive of a fruitful debate.

5) Please read about the PoE before further engaging on this topic.

 

[Rise]

Isn’t it rather ironic that Christians are all reading the same Bible yet they do not agree about what will happen to them when they die? Logically speaking, what that means is that the scripture has to have more than one interpretation.

Logical fallacies, "appeal to disagreement" and "non sequitur".

The first is one I had to coin because it's so common on this forum: It is fallacious logic to claim that just because there is not unanimous agreement on an issue that must mean that the truth cannot be logically established.

There are people in western countries today that sincerely believe the earth is flat. The mere fact that not everyone agrees the earth is round does not logically prove that it's impossible to know what the shape of the earth is or that all beliefs about the shape of the earth are equally true.

That is also why you have committed the non sequitur fallacy - your conclusion doesn't follow logically from your premises.

There is no logical connection between the idea that people disagree on what truth is and the idea that the truth is unknowable or that multiple truths exist.

Do you think that only you have the correct interpretation? If so why?

I gave you multiple posts full of Scriptures and logical reasons why my conclusions about the Bible should be regarded as accurate, and why your beliefs aren't consistent with the Bible.

You haven't attempted to deal with any of them.

Why are you right and the other Christians such as the Christian who wrote what I posted from the book Heaven and Hell wrong?

421. When the body is no longer able to perform the bodily functions in the natural world that correspond to the spirit’s thoughts and affections, which the spirit has from the spiritual world, man is said to die. This takes place when the respiration of the lungs and the beatings of the heart cease. But the man does not die; he is merely separated from the bodily part that was of use to him in the world, while the man himself continues to live. It is said that the man himself continues to live since man is not a man because of his body but because of his spirit, for it is the spirit that thinks in man, and thought with affection is what constitutes man. Evidently, then, the death of man is merely his passing from one world into another. And this is why in the Word in its internal sense “death” signifies resurrection and continuation of life. Heaven and Hell, p. 351

It depends on whether or not there is other information in that book which fills in the missing details.

What is chiefly lacking in the particular section you quote is any mention of separation from God being a possibility or the torment that accompanies separation from God in hell.

That is why I quoted Scripture which points out those aspects.

The quote you gave makes death sound like a benign transition at worst or even a positive rebirth for everyone at best.

Hell is not a geographical location; it is a state of the soul that is separated from God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that hell is a geographical location, an actual fiery pit. The lake of fire is just an allegory for the horrendous suffering one will endure if they are separated from God.

Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.

Whether or not hell is a geographical location is not relevant to any of the points I've tried to make in this thread, nor relevant to what I was trying to point out with those Scriptures.

The quote I posted as noted above is completely consistent with what Paul says in the Bible.

Our physical bodies will die and we will be raised as spiritual bodies. Paul says that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God and that means they cannot exist in heaven. When Paul says these dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever, he is referring to the spiritual world (heaven), which will last forever.

Paul said that there are two different kinds of bodies:

--- The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies.

--- For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.

Paul says that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of God is in Heaven. When Paul says these dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever, he is referring to the spiritual world (Heaven), which will last forever. Our physical bodies will die and we will be raised (resurrected) as spiritual bodies that will be suited to go to Heaven and last forever. That is where every believer goes when they die, Heaven. There are absolutely no scriptures that say we will be resurrected in physical bodies and live forever on earth.

1 Corinthians 15:40-54 New Living Translation

40 There are also bodies in the heavens and bodies on the earth. The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies.

44 They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.

50 What I am saying, dear brothers and sisters, is that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever.

51 But let me reveal to you a wonderful secret. We will not all die, but we will all be transformed!

54 Then, when our dying bodies have been transformed into bodies that will never die,[c] this Scripture will be fulfilled: “Death is swallowed up in victory.[d]

Read full chapter

Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.

Although I could refute your claims about what the Scripture say about the nature of the resurrection there would be no logical need to do so for the purposes of this thread – because the nature of the resurrection is not relevant to proving any previous claims you have made about death and sin. Nor is it relevant to refuting anything I have argued.

 

[Rise]

I am not going to reply to every single bullet coming out of this shotgun. I will stick to the main points:

1) There is no argument in my first quote, only a question. An argument involves premises and conclusion(s).

Logical fallacy, deliberate ignorance, irrelevant conclusion, and strawman.

I already explained to you where your arguments entered into the equation when you tried to defend the premise behind your question as being true.

By ignoring what I already argued, you are committing not just the fallacy of deliberate ignorance but committing the strawman fallacy by falsely pretending I am taking issue with your question instead of your defense of the premises behind your question. Which then makes your statement a fallacy of irrelevant conclusion because even if it's true it's not relevant to what you are trying to refute.

You are also losing sight of the purpose for which I originally quoted your question: Which was to establish the context under which your question was asked.

I quoted your first question about God to show that you were questioning my explanation of the Biblical God with a question directed at that particular viewpoint.

Therefore, you have no logical basis for demanding I must conform my definition of God to yours when you are the one trying to pose questions or challenges to my Biblical worldview.

That is where you tried to backpedal because when it became clear that you could not expose any contradiction in my Biblical worldview you tried to pretend you were only talking about your personal definition of God which supposedly is different from mine and supposedly would make your premises valid.

But even that was also a fallacy. Because you have given no reasons for why your differing view of God would make your premises valid.
And you have given no specifics about how your definition of God would even differ from mine.
And no reason why we would have to assume your view of God must be regarded as true for the purposes of this debate.

2) You have not presented a valid alternative because your alternative involves using a distinct definition for death. I have already told you to fix it before we continue but you haven't done so far.

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.

I gave 6 reasons why your response was a fallacy. You haven't refuted the truth of that.

Therefore your argument stands refuted.

By being unwilling to offer a valid counter argument you fail to meet your burden of rejoinder.

If you cannot fulfill your burden of rejoinder then you tacitly concede the debate by being unwilling to do what is necessary to have a debate.

3) If we don't align terminology we will be talking past each other. Getting absolutely nowhere.

Logical fallacy, deliberate ignorance.

I already pointed out why my definition of death still involves physical death.

You don't refute my argument by simply choosing to be ignorant of it and refuse to read it.

You have failed to meet your burden of rejoinder by refusing to offer counter arguments to my refutation of your arguments.

If you are unwilling to meet your burden of rejoinder you tacitly concede the debate by being unwilling to meet the requirements of having a debate.

If you are unable to meet your burden of rejoinder, as in having no ability to offer a valid counter argument, then by definition you lose the debate.

The later is mostly likely true, which is why you are turning to a flurry of fallacies to try to obscure the fact that you don't have a valid counter argument but you don't want to have to admit it.

I am completely unaware of anyone formulating the PoE in a way that revolves around separation from God.

Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.

You have established no logical reason why "separation from God" being in the equation would invalidate anything I have argued here as being a valid answer to "the problem of evil".

Therefore if you start your argument by treating something that is not the problem as if it were the problem, you are not talking about anything that relates to my argument.

Logical fallacies: deliberate ignorance, strawman, mala fides, and avoiding the issue.

You cannot logically establish why a different definition of POE would prevent your arguments from being refuted because you admit to engaging in a mala fides deliberate ignorance of refusing to read what your opponent has actually argued.

Therefore,you are merely trying to avoid having to present a valid counter argument to my arguments by avoiding the issue with an irrelevant question.

You cannot logically demand a definition for PoE when you cannot show why it would logically change anything. Which you cannot do if you can't even first read your opponent's arguments behind their conclusion.

5) Please read about the PoE before further engaging on this topic.

Logical fallacy, ad hominem.

You cannot give any logical reasons, quoting anything I've said, that would demonstrate any lack of understanding on my part about what the PoE is.

Therefore, your baseless assertion to that effect constitutes nothing but a mere ad hominem fallacy to distract from the fact that you cannot logically support your claims or refute my arguments.

4) You keep claiming that you have refuted my argument or that I haven't refuted yours. None of which is conducive of a fruitful debate.

Your claim is demonstrably false.
You cannot quote anywhere that I only claimed your argument was refuted. I outlined specific logical arguments for why it was refuted in multiple previous posts and you ignored it all. Such as post #162.

The fact that you have no counter argument to those arguments is why you have committed the logical fallacy of failure to meet the burden of rejoinder.

The burden of rejoinder requires you to provide a counter argument to my arguments unless you want to concede that my arguments were true.

Your unwillingness to meet your burden of rejoinder is why you have tacitly conceded the debate.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am not going to reply to every single bullet coming out of this shotgun.

All those bullets are attempts at obfuscation and deflection.

Obfuscation

the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=obfuscation+mean

Deflection

What is the meaning for deflection?

1 : a turning aside or off course : deviation. 2 : the departure of an indicator or pointer from the zero reading on the scale of an instrument.
Deflection | Definition of Deflection by Merriam-Webster

Deflecting is a psychological defense mechanism that people use to take the blame off of themselves. When they are deflecting, they are trying to make themselves feel less bad for their wrongdoings. This likely happens due to past experiences of being in trouble for things.Jul 15, 2020
What Is Deflection? Psychology Explains This Defense ...

 

[Trailblazer]

There is no logical connection between the idea that people disagree on what truth is and the idea that the truth is unknowable or that multiple truths exist.

My point still stands.

Christians are all reading the same Bible yet they do not agree about what will happen to them when they die. Logically speaking, what that means is that the scripture has to have more than one interpretation. The logical conclusion is that your interpretation of the Bible could be incorrect.

I gave you multiple posts full of Scriptures and logical reasons why my conclusions about the Bible should be regarded as accurate, and why your beliefs aren't consistent with the Bible.

You haven't attempted to deal with any of them.

Your conclusions cannot be accurate unless your interpretation and thus your understanding of the Bible is correct.
I asked: Do you think that only you have the correct interpretation? If so why? You did not answer.

I have not had time to deal with all those posts and I don't think I will have time.

It depends on whether or not there is other information in that book which fills in the missing details.

What is chiefly lacking in the particular section you quote is any mention of separation from God being a possibility or the torment that accompanies separation from God in hell.

That is why I quoted Scripture which points out those aspects.

The quote you gave makes death sound like a benign transition at worst or even a positive rebirth for everyone at best.

That was simply one excerpt from the book entitled Heaven and Hell. If you read the book in its entirety it covers both Heaven and Hell. I am not saying I agree with the author regarding his depictions of Heaven and Hell, but I think he is in the right ball park.

That quote was not intended to cover all the possibilities of what could happen to people when they die, it was only referring 'the resurrection and continuation of life' and explaining what that means. Clearly, the transition will not be the same for everyone. Baha'u'llah explained that in many of His scriptures but the following excerpt from a longer tablet gets right to the point.

“Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. It is the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him. If it be faithful to God, it will reflect His light, and will, eventually, return unto Him. If it fail, however, in its allegiance to its Creator, it will become a victim to self and passion, and will, in the end, sink in their depths...”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 158-159

Heaven: If it be faithful to God, it will reflect His light, and will, eventually, return unto Him.

Hell: If it fail in its allegiance to its Creator, it will become a victim to self and passion, and will, in the end, sink in their depths.

Although I could refute your claims about what the Scripture say about the nature of the resurrection there would be no logical need to do so for the purposes of this thread – because the nature of the resurrection is not relevant to proving any previous claims you have made about death and sin. Nor is it relevant to refuting anything I have argued.

I do not have time to go back and read all the posts you posted and try to figure out what your main points are.
If you want to be concise and explain what previous claims you think I have made about death and sin and why you think they are incorrect, and then explain concisely what you believe about death and sin I will try to respond. That is all I can do with the limited time I have available.

 

[Rise]

My point still stands.

Christians are all reading the same Bible yet they do not agree about what will happen to them when they die. Logically speaking, what that means is that the scripture has to have more than one interpretation. The logical conclusion is that your interpretation of the Bible could be incorrect.

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.
Your argument was refuted when I showed logically why you were engaging in fallacious logic.
Your argument doesn't stop being refuted (ie the definition of "continuing to stand") merely because you repeat your original argument and ignore that which refuted it.

The only way your argument can be regarded as continuing to stand is if you are able to offer a logically valid counter argument to demonstrate why what you argued was not the fallacy of appeal to disagreement or a nonsequitur.

Your conclusions cannot be accurate unless your interpretation and thus your understanding of the Bible is correct.

I asked: Do you think that only you have the correct interpretation? If so why? You did not answer.

Logical fallacy, "argument by repetition".

I already answered your question in the previous post. Repeating your question as though I have not already answered it, without giving any reason for why my answer should not be regarded as logically sufficient, makes you guilty of the fallacy of repetition.

Your unwillingness to read where I have given supporting logical reasons and evidence for why we should believe my conclusions about the Bible are true doesn't prove that I have not given support for my conclusions.

And repeating your question, as though it has not already been answered, doesn't prove it hasn't been answered just because you repeat your question.

Reminder: Posts #103 and 104. To that I will also add #153 and 154.

I have not had time to deal with all those posts and I don't think I will have time.

Logical fallacy, "deliberate ignorance".

Your unwillingness to read the posts which give support for my conclusions does not prove my conclusions are without support

You have no logical grounds to argue with my conclusions if you are unwilling or unable to read the logical arguments and evidence I have given for my conclusions.

That was simply one excerpt from the book entitled Heaven and Hell. If you read the book in its entirety it covers both Heaven and Hell. I am not saying I agree with the author regarding his depictions of Heaven and Hell, but I think he is in the right ball park.

That quote was not intended to cover all the possibilities of what could happen to people when they die, it was only referring 'the resurrection and continuation of life' and explaining what that means. Clearly, the transition will not be the same for everyone.

It is possible I made an error in assuming the book was trying to say things it wasn't based on just the paragraph you quoted. I can't be sure because I haven't read it. But I concede it is a possibility.

Since it ultimately doesn't matter with regards to proving your original claims or defending any of my arguments about the Bible, there's no need for me to read the book to determine whether or not that is the case. So I am fine simply conceding that is a possibility as it is ultimately not relevant either way.

I do not have time to go back and read all the posts you posted and try to figure out what your main points are.

If you don't have time to read what I argued then you logically don't have time to respond to what I argued.

Logically you cannot respond to something you are completely ignorant of. So why are you trying to?

If you want to be concise and explain what previous claims you think I have made about death and sin and why you think they are incorrect, and then explain concisely what you believe about death and sin I will try to respond. That is all I can do with the limited time I have available.

Logical fallacy, shifting the burden of proof.

Post #80.
You were the one who first tried to claim what I said about the Bible was not true.
You gave no evidence or logical reasons for why we should believe your claim is true.

The onus is on you as the one making the claim to meet the logical requirement of the "burden of proof" for you claim. Meaning; you must support your claim with logical arguments and evidence to establish why we should believe your claim is supposedly true.

All you did was give us the fallacy of argument by assertion and appeal to authority by claiming it's true because your religious leader says it's true.

You cannot prove your claims in Post 80 are true by using what the Bible actually says.

 

[Koldo]

Logical fallacy, deliberate ignorance, irrelevant conclusion, and strawman.

I already explained to you where your arguments entered into the equation when you tried to defend the premise behind your question as being true.

By ignoring what I already argued, you are committing not just the fallacy of deliberate ignorance but committing the strawman fallacy by falsely pretending I am taking issue with your question instead of your defense of the premises behind your question. Which then makes your statement a fallacy of irrelevant conclusion because even if it's true it's not relevant to what you are trying to refute.

You are also losing sight of the purpose for which I originally quoted your question: Which was to establish the context under which your question was asked.

I quoted your first question about God to show that you were questioning my explanation of the Biblical God with a question directed at that particular viewpoint.

Therefore, you have no logical basis for demanding I must conform my definition of God to yours when you are the one trying to pose questions or challenges to my Biblical worldview.

That is where you tried to backpedal because when it became clear that you could not expose any contradiction in my Biblical worldview you tried to pretend you were only talking about your personal definition of God which supposedly is different from mine and supposedly would make your premises valid.

But even that was also a fallacy. Because you have given no reasons for why your differing view of God would make your premises valid.
And you have given no specifics about how your definition of God would even differ from mine.
And no reason why we would have to assume your view of God must be regarded as true for the purposes of this debate.



Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.

I gave 6 reasons why your response was a fallacy. You haven't refuted the truth of that.

Therefore your argument stands refuted.

By being unwilling to offer a valid counter argument you fail to meet your burden of rejoinder.

If you cannot fulfill your burden of rejoinder then you tacitly concede the debate by being unwilling to do what is necessary to have a debate.




Logical fallacy, deliberate ignorance.

I already pointed out why my definition of death still involves physical death.

You don't refute my argument by simply choosing to be ignorant of it and refuse to read it.

You have failed to meet your burden of rejoinder by refusing to offer counter arguments to my refutation of your arguments.

If you are unwilling to meet your burden of rejoinder you tacitly concede the debate by being unwilling to meet the requirements of having a debate.

If you are unable to meet your burden of rejoinder, as in having no ability to offer a valid counter argument, then by definition you lose the debate.

The later is mostly likely true, which is why you are turning to a flurry of fallacies to try to obscure the fact that you don't have a valid counter argument but you don't want to have to admit it.



Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.

You have established no logical reason why "separation from God" being in the equation would invalidate anything I have argued here as being a valid answer to "the problem of evil".



Logical fallacies: deliberate ignorance, strawman, mala fides, and avoiding the issue.

You cannot logically establish why a different definition of POE would prevent your arguments from being refuted because you admit to engaging in a mala fides deliberate ignorance of refusing to read what your opponent has actually argued.

Therefore,you are merely trying to avoid having to present a valid counter argument to my arguments by avoiding the issue with an irrelevant question.

You cannot logically demand a definition for PoE when you cannot show why it would logically change anything. Which you cannot do if you can't even first read your opponent's arguments behind their conclusion.



Logical fallacy, ad hominem.

You cannot give any logical reasons, quoting anything I've said, that would demonstrate any lack of understanding on my part about what the PoE is.

Therefore, your baseless assertion to that effect constitutes nothing but a mere ad hominem fallacy to distract from the fact that you cannot logically support your claims or refute my arguments.




Your claim is demonstrably false.
You cannot quote anywhere that I only claimed your argument was refuted. I outlined specific logical arguments for why it was refuted in multiple previous posts and you ignored it all. Such as post #162.

The fact that you have no counter argument to those arguments is why you have committed the logical fallacy of failure to meet the burden of rejoinder.

The burden of rejoinder requires you to provide a counter argument to my arguments unless you want to concede that my arguments were true.

Your unwillingness to meet your burden of rejoinder is why you have tacitly conceded the debate.

You don't understand the context of the entire conversation this topic is all about, do you?

I should have noticed before since you had mentioned death, rather than evil and suffering.

If you truly want to understand where I am coming from you should read about the PoE.

 

[Trailblazer]

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.
Your argument was refuted when I showed logically why you were engaging in fallacious logic.
Your argument doesn't stop being refuted (ie the definition of "continuing to stand") merely because you repeat your original argument and ignore that which refuted it.

The only way your argument can be regarded as continuing to stand is if you are able to offer a logically valid counter argument to demonstrate why what you argued was not the fallacy of appeal to disagreement or a nonsequitur.

Logical fallacy, "argument by repetition".

I already answered your question in the previous post. Repeating your question as though I have not already answered it, without giving any reason for why my answer should not be regarded as logically sufficient, makes you guilty of the fallacy of repetition.

Your unwillingness to read where I have given supporting logical reasons and evidence for why we should believe my conclusions about the Bible are true doesn't prove that I have not given support for my conclusions.

And repeating your question, as though it has not already been answered, doesn't prove it hasn't been answered just because you repeat your question.

Reminder: Posts #103 and 104. To that I will also add #153 and 154.

Logical fallacy, "deliberate ignorance".

Your unwillingness to read the posts which give support for my conclusions does not prove my conclusions are without support

You have no logical grounds to argue with my conclusions if you are unwilling or unable to read the logical arguments and evidence I have given for my conclusions.

It is possible I made an error in assuming the book was trying to say things it wasn't based on just the paragraph you quoted. I can't be sure because I haven't read it. But I concede it is a possibility.

Since it ultimately doesn't matter with regards to proving your original claims or defending any of my arguments about the Bible, there's no need for me to read the book to determine whether or not that is the case. So I am fine simply conceding that is a possibility as it is ultimately not relevant either way.

If you don't have time to read what I argued then you logically don't have time to respond to what I argued.

Logically you cannot respond to something you are completely ignorant of. So why are you trying to?

Logical fallacy, shifting the burden of proof.

Post #80.
You were the one who first tried to claim what I said about the Bible was not true.
You gave no evidence or logical reasons for why we should believe your claim is true.

The onus is on you as the one making the claim to meet the logical requirement of the "burden of proof" for you claim. Meaning; you must support your claim with logical arguments and evidence to establish why we should believe your claim is supposedly true.

All you did was give us the fallacy of argument by assertion and appeal to authority by claiming it's true because your religious leader says it's true.

You cannot prove your claims in Post 80 are true by using what the Bible actually says.

I am not going to read any more of your posts unless you stop throwing out fallacies in an attempt to obfuscate and deflect.
It is your choice. I do not have the time to play games so you will have to find someone else to play with.

You are not going to prove that your religious beliefs are true by using logic coupled with YOUR interpretation of the Bible, you just believe you can.

"You cannot prove your claims in Post 80 are true by using what the Bible actually says."

No, the Bible does not tell us any of that. Christians who have misinterpreted the Bible came up with the false doctrines like original sin tell us that.

If anyone wants to step up to bat and show me where the Bible 'tells us that' I will be more than happy to explain what I believe the Bible really tells us, i.e. what the Bible verses really mean. I consider this a very serious matter because of the all-pervasive effect these false beliefs have had upon millions and millions of people. This is the worst crime that Christianity has ever perpetrated upon an unsuspecting humanity. And now Jesus is supposed to save everyone from that original sin, the sin that Jesus never even knew about, but the only people who will be saved are those who are willing to believe in the Church doctrines. The rest of the people in the world, 67% of the world population, will be going to hell.

#80 Trailblazer, Wednesday at 11:30 PM

I said: If anyone wants to step up to bat and show me where the Bible 'tells us that' I will be more than happy to explain what I believe the Bible really tells us, i.e. what the Bible verses really mean.

Thus far you have not stepped up to bat. All you have done is throw out logical fallacies.

"The onus is on you as the one making the claim to meet the logical requirement of the "burden of proof" for you claim. Meaning; you must support your claim with logical arguments and evidence to establish why we should believe your claim is supposedly true."

I am making no claims so I have no burden of proof. You are the one who is making the CLAIMS about sin and death, and saying that the Bible supports your claims, so the burden is upon you to show that the Bible supports your claims.

The Bible does not SAY anything because it does not talk. People read the verses and interpret them and assign meanings to the verses. You are no more qualified than I am to interpret the Bible and assign meanings to the verses.

I asked you to summarize your argument in a concise fashion and tell me why you think I was wrong in what I originally said about sin and death and summarize your beliefs. You have chosen not to do so.

 

[Meow Mix]

Yes. True. And this ability was "broken" once we chose to have our own understanding of "good" and "bad".

That would not be how senses work, though.

How would you define Moral?

Are you asking me personally or are you asking within the confines of the argument, because these are different things. Personally I'm a moral noncognitivist, I think moral beliefs are a special type of preference belief that relate to suffering. Within the argument, many theists are moral realists, so the argument mostly works within that framework.

But that's exactly the philosophical idea behind the first "sin".
The story of Eden depicts a state of "perfection". This means that life and balance of existence were not flawed.
Once "Adam" chose to "break" this perfection, it caused a whole different set of laws.
If at this point "God" would cancel the freedom of choice, the whole point of our existence would have become obsolete.
Most atheists (as Myself a few years back) find it hard to understand how much "power" we have.
It is a misconception to think that Theists (although some do) "Throw" their responsibility to God.
It is the other way around. The amount of responsibility you realize you have is a very scary thing to understand.
As we advance scientifically, we slowly understand how much damage or good the human species can cause to earth and the universe.

Leukemia is a consequence.
Same as any other disease.
The existence of these diseases is a consequence of a very ancient path taken.
I am sure that in the future, once we have a better understanding of our health, leukemia will be just another small thing.
I can assure you that the number of cancerous diseases was not that high 1000 years ago.

So fat, any discovery and observation that we made, demonstrated that every living thing is trying its best to survive.
Many (99%~) of those failed. But without a doubt, all species didn't go extinct because they "chose" to terminate their existence.

I don't buy this idea that humans brought leukemia into the world, though. Humans don't have that power. You argue that the "laws changed," but that's not because humans did this.

God is culpable for how physics work, not humans. So the argument still obtains.

I Do See
A world without a need for pain sounds like Heaven
The "pain" was introduced to us by choice (not personal, rather collective), as a consequence of our selections.
The same goes for any misery or sadness we experience in our life (once again, not personal, rather collective selections).
We can solve world hunger in a few weeks... yet we are still not willing to accept the fact that we are all one collective and not really single entites.

None of this helps to resolve the problem of suffering, though. An omnipotent/omniscient being could do away with all this suffering effortlessly by definition: it wouldn't even be difficult to perform a tremendous undertaking.

 

[Meow Mix]

Given that God is deistic your premises would seem to be flawed. Death is no ordinary event and the laws of Physics do not apply to it as one might expect of an everyday event. In such an event God actually reaches out to the person in question only if thy are in a particular state of awareness while still alive. You miserably fail to comprehend this simple fact. Repeatedly. When a person dies they enter into a dimension where God resides. Or consciousness.

If by "God is deistic," you mean God is not omnibenevolent or not concerned with human suffering, then the Problem of Evil does not apply because it depends on its premises.

I am not sure what you mean by "Death is no ordinary event and the laws of physics do not apply to it," can you expound on that? You can be technical in any explanation you give (I'm an astrophysics grad student), so don't be shy about giving specifics.

 

[Rise]

You don't understand the context of the entire conversation this topic is all about, do you?

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and deliberate ignorance.
You cannot give any logical arguments or evidence that would demonstrate you have reason to believe I supposedly don't understand the context of the entire conversation.
Merely asserting it doesn't make it true just because you assert it.

You have also established no logical connection with why or how your arguments would cease to be refuted if I supposedly had a different understanding of the context of the conversation.

Which makes you guilty of an additional fallacy of argument by assertion by implying your arguments aren't refuted, by reason of me supposedly not understanding context, but you have given no evidence or reasons why we should believe your claim is true.
Merely asserting it is true doesn't prove it is tue just because you assert it.

This ties in with your logical fallacy of deliberate ignorance. You have no basis to claim I don't understand the context when you admitted to refusing to read my arguments. You cannot logically make any claims about what I do or don't understand when you refuse to read my arguments which would be the only wa you could determine such a fact.

I should have noticed before since you had mentioned death, rather than evil and suffering.

Logical fallacy, deliberate ignorance.

The alternative model I outlined includes evil, suffering, and physical death in it.

You simply don't acknowledge it does because you refuse to read where it mentions that.

But your refusal to read the argument doesn't make it untrue just because you refuse to read it.

If you truly want to understand where I am coming from you should read about the PoE.

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition and dliberate ignorance.

I already refuted your claim in a previous post that you have reason to believe I supposedly don't understand the PoE, and why you had no reason to think that your arguments would cease to be refuted by your claim of me supposedly not understanding the POE.

Repeating your refuted argument doesn't make it stop being refuted just because you repeat it.


This ties in with your fallacy of deliberate ignorance because you have no basis from which to accuse me of not understanding the POE when you refuse to read my arguments. You have no way of knowing what I do or don't understand without reading my arguments.

So any claims you presume to make about what I am arguing are fallacious on their face because you can't make logically make accurate determinations about that which you refuse to read.


Which makes you guilty of the logical fallacy of mala fides - arguing in bad faith.
You cannot, in good faith, argue honestly about someone's position if you refuse to even read it to know what they are arguing.

You are intellectually dishonest, not interested in the truth, because you are content to make fallacious claims about a post you've never even read and then have the gall to insist your baseless claims are true as though you think you're a psychic who can make determinations about what a post is saying without reading it.

 

[Koldo]

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and deliberate ignorance.
You cannot give any logical arguments or evidence that would demonstrate you have reason to believe I supposedly don't understand the context of the entire conversation.
Merely asserting it doesn't make it true just because you assert it.

You have also established no logical connection with why or how your arguments would cease to be refuted if I supposedly had a different understanding of the context of the conversation.

Which makes you guilty of an additional fallacy of argument by assertion by implying your arguments aren't refuted, by reason of me supposedly not understanding context, but you have given no evidence or reasons why we should believe your claim is true.
Merely asserting it is true doesn't prove it is tue just because you assert it.

This ties in with your logical fallacy of deliberate ignorance. You have no basis to claim I don't understand the context when you admitted to refusing to read my arguments. You cannot logically make any claims about what I do or don't understand when you refuse to read my arguments which would be the only wa you could determine such a fact.



Logical fallacy, deliberate ignorance.

The alternative model I outlined includes evil, suffering, and physical death in it.

You simply don't acknowledge it does because you refuse to read where it mentions that.

But your refusal to read the argument doesn't make it untrue just because you refuse to read it.


Logical fallacy, argument by repetition and dliberate ignorance.

I already refuted your claim in a previous post that you have reason to believe I supposedly don't understand the PoE, and why you had no reason to think that your arguments would cease to be refuted by your claim of me supposedly not understanding the POE.

Repeating your refuted argument doesn't make it stop being refuted just because you repeat it.


This ties in with your fallacy of deliberate ignorance because you have no basis from which to accuse me of not understanding the POE when you refuse to read my arguments. You have no way of knowing what I do or don't understand without reading my arguments.

So any claims you presume to make about what I am arguing are fallacious on their face because you can't make logically make accurate determinations about that which you refuse to read.


Which makes you guilty of the logical fallacy of mala fides - arguing in bad faith.
You cannot, in good faith, argue honestly about someone's position if you refuse to even read it to know what they are arguing.

You are intellectually dishonest, not interested in the truth, because you are content to make fallacious claims about a post you've never even read and then have the gall to insist your baseless claims are true as though you think you're a psychic who can make determinations about what a post is saying without reading it.

Wordy.

Are you going to properly adjust your definition so we can move ahead or are you not?

 

[Meow Mix]

One of the issues I should point out with your original post was that you did not establish what theological viewpoint of God you were trying to show a contradiction with.

Without identifying what theological viewpoint you are trying to show is in contradiction it renders any argument you give null unless you can provide a frame of reference to determine if your conclusion could be true or not. (Ie. You need to identify exactly what belief system you're trying to show is supposedly in contradiction).

I assume from the context of what you are talking about that you are taking issue with God as seen in the Christian Bible.

Therefore I am approaching this from the perspective that your complaints about the Christian idea of God need to be consistent with what the Bible actually says about God.

Otherwise you’re in a strawman fallacy where you’re claiming Christians need to believe things about God that aren’t actually required of them to believe based on what the Bible says about God.

But if you're going to try to expose contradictions in what Christians believe then you need to be able to deal what they actually believe.

And that is where you get into logical trouble by inventing ideas about what you think are the constraints upon God and his acts of creation and his involvement in the world - Ideas which Christians don't necessarily belief and aren’t required by the Bible to believe.

If Christians don't believe what you assert they do then you can't show a contradiction with what they believe.

The Problem of Evil obtains given the observation of preventable suffering in the world and the premises that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (understood to mean something like never malevolent, concerned with suffering of sapient creatures without fail, etc.) The Problem isn't specific to any particular faith; just to any concept where each of the premises are held to be true. If the glove fits, then one has to work out how to wear it.

Starting from the premise that the Bible is true, we can conclude it is true that God gives mankind the genuine free choice between whether to embrace God or sin. Which is another way of saying right or wrong, good or evil.

There is nothing about free will that necessitates the existence of physical suffering, though: you would be free whether or not you're able to stub your toe; but you would not be free if you're unable to insult a friend and ruin your friendship. Later on we discuss physical vs. emotional suffering: physical suffering isn't necessary for free will, emotional suffering is.

You are trying to defend your original unproven presumptions by using more unproven presumptions.
Premise 1: Leukemia doesn't need to exist.
Premise 2: Emotional pain needs to exist.
Premise 3: God needs to create a world where emotional pain exists or is possible.
Premise 4: God doesn't need to create a world where physical pain exists or is possible.
Premise 5: God created the world with the intent for emotional pain to be part of the design.
Premise 6: God created the world with the intent for physical pain to be part of the design.

We’ll go over why these premises are either untrue or unnecessary as I respond to other parts of your post.

These weren't unspoken actually: these are all defended openly throughout the PoE series I've been writing (this is over three posts, though, so it's understandable that it's a little spread out).

There is no logical connection between the two concepts you are trying to link.

It is perfectly possible for God to give people the choice to reject Him without actually wanting or requiring them to do so.

Let's look at what I said, which was: "In terms of the physical rules and laws of the universe and while preserving (P), what God wants is the same as what God allows." Emphasis added.

Humans don't have power over what physics exist in the universe, they only have the power to use physics for technologies. Whatever physics exist are there by God's will given the premises, and so must be by God's intent. (Even if we argue that physics which allow for leukemia are a punishment for sin, punishments are still exacted intentionally: it would still be God's intention that physics work out that way).

If you want to argue that humans have the power to literally change the universe's physics on their own without God's help, I'm going to doubt that claim and we might be at an impasse. Why wouldn't humans have that power any more, for instance? What is the mechanism for this power (and would God not be responsible for the existence of this mechanism)?

You are basing your premise on unproven assumptions. Assumptions which the Bible says are false.

Your assumption: That leukemia is the natural consequence of the physics of how the universe was built.

And that assumption is built upon many other assumptions, including:
1. That nothing has ever changed about creation to make leukemia exist where previously it was impossible to exist.
2. That if something was changed, it would have to be God making the change because it’s what he wants.

But the Bible tells us those assumptions are false.

As I already showed with the previous Scriptures: God created a world where man was not subject to death or disease and we see that God never wanted man to have to go through that.

Which takes us back to your original argument: The reason we don’t feel good about being subject to these things is because God doesn’t feel good about us being subject to them either, because it was never god’s desire or intention that we be subject to them. Which is why He entered into His creation to save us from it.

It feels like this is abandoning omnipotence as a premise. An omnipotent wouldn't require a means to an end like the whole notion of having to "enter creation to save us." It doesn't logically add up. Maybe it is the case that the Christian deity isn't the philosopher's definition of omnipotent (which is to have the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs), and that would be okay (and it would resolve the Problem of Evil).

Your attempt to differentiate the two is based on unproven assumptions that aren’t consistent with what the Bible shows us.

You are assuming there is no logical requirement for physical suffering to exist if God is going to honor free will.

But this is based on an assumption about what the nature of death and suffering is that is not consistent with what the Bible shows us.

There are other possible explanations for this, which means there is no reason for you to assume your conclusions are the only right premise.

For instance, we could say:
God has given us the choice to freely be connected to Him or not. Since He is the source of everything, to disconnect from God has natural consequences.

Consequences which don’t necessarily require God to do anything negative to someone. But merely by consequence of them choosing to disconnect from the source of life do they start to experience the effects of God honoring their desire to disconnect from life.

This doesn't make any sense, though. Leukemia and physics are very specific things. You're speaking vaguely of "disconnecting from God" having "consequences," but something determines what those consequences are. If you're saying it's humans, then I've already commented on this above when I asked what the mechanism is and why you ascribe humans this kind of power. Whatever mechanism there is, God, as the creator, is culpable for the existence of the mechanism. As an omnipotent being, God could have created a world in which people didn't want to "connect with God" (or whatever this vagueness means) and still didn't have physical suffering because either God is omnipotent and controls the physics of the universe (and so the Problem exists) or God does not have power over the physics of the universe (and so isn't omnipotent, and so the Problem is avoided).

 

[Meow Mix]

Who says man is governed only by physical laws?

You assume man is because you ascribe to the philosophy of materialism.

No, I am not an ontological materialist. When I said that finite creatures are bounded by laws, I mean logical limitations as much as anything else; also mathematical limitations (math is really just extended logic anyway). Whatever humans are capable of (they are not omnipotent, so they have some metaphysical limits of power for instance) is governed by something: be it simple logical limitations of what they are, or perhaps by God if one exists in creating them a certain way with certain limitations.

If you want to talk about minds, consider that I have values like altruism and empathy: harm somebody in front of me and I'm going to feel very upset about it, and I can't control this fact even if I for some reason tried to: I follow my limitations, I am limited to being altruistic and empathetic beyond my own control. We have limits, this is what I was saying; bounds in which we operate. I'm going to snip through some stuff responding to ontological materialism since that was never the claim.

Your position is based on a few unproven presumptions:

1. The assumption that God could create a world in which people could sin and have it not result in death.
2. The assumption sin resulting in death is the result of some kind of physical law that God created.
3. The assumption that death is a punishment meted out for the original sin.

But you can’t logically prove your assumptions have to be true.

What is the mechanism for "sin" resulting in death? Are you saying this mechanism is beyond God's power? I am more than willing to just grant that the Christian deity may not be omnipotent and so avoid the Problem of Evil, that would be fine; any deity can avoid the Problem of Evil by simply dropping one of the premises. That has always been the case.

There are other valid ways of explaining the situation that don’t require your assumptions.

Your assumptions come out of other assumptions you have about what the nature of death and sin is. Assumptions which aren’t consistent with the Bible.

Biblically, “death” is to be separated from God. That’s how death is defined. (2 Thessalonians 1:9, Numbers 15:31) That is why God said Adam would die on the day he disobeyed God. He became separated from God. Physical death could be said to merely be an outworking of the natural consequence of being separated from God who is the source of life (Genesis 2:7, Deuteronomy 30:20, John 1:1-4).

This has the feel of a deepity to it (something that sounds deep at first glance, but is just so much noncognitive nonsense when digested). If "separation from God" causes death, what is the mechanism? Why isn't it instant, where is "life" (whatever that vaguely means if we're not talking about literal biology) coming from them? This is just speaking in mystical bits that sound like they're meaningful, but they're not.

Besides, there are still some very serious problems ethically with this whole notion. If a child tells a parent "I hate you, I'm running away," the parent is still culpable for the suffering the child experiences if they actually manage to get out the door and into danger. This whole argument that human children "choose" (somehow by nature of some aggregate choice, whatever that means) to suffer horribly and then die is just not one that I'm willing to bite without a lot less nebulousness; and I don't think anyone should accept it without a lot more clarity either.

Sin is defined as disobedience to God’s command (ie. Lawlessness). 1 John 3:4 Romans 3:20,
God’s law is what is righteous - Psalm 119:172.
Righteousness is by definition that which is right as opposed to that which is wrong.
Rightness (objectively what is moral) can logically only be defined by what intent was behind the mind of the designer when he created something.
Therefore, another way of saying something is sin is to say it is that which goes against God’s intention and design for us.

Children rebel against their parents all the time, and parents don't boil them alive or something in response. Non-malevolent parents will try to help children understand whatever issue is causing the divide, and keep the children safe in the meanwhile.

Sin creates disunity that separates us from God because He cannot violate who He is by allowing something contrary to his nature to be united to Him. (John 15, Isaiah 59:2, Joshua 7:11-12, Poverbs 8:36)

God doesn’t change and doesn’t lie (Malachi 3:6, Numbers 23:19, James 1:17, Hebrew 13:8, Romans 11:29, Hebrews 6:18). God therefore cannot violate who He is by changing Himself to accommodate being united to man who has chosen to rebel against God’s ways. Nor can God lie by doing something which would be a contradiction (like calling evil good, or vise versa).

This seems like more deepity type stuff: what does it mean to be "united to Him?" In what way, is there a mechanism for this? Is God vulnerable to finite beings? Many arrows in the Christian worldview appear to be pointing away from omnipotence as a premise.

Romans 3:23. All have sinned. Which is why all are separated from God without accepting the intervention of Christ on their behalf. (John 14:6)

Your are falsely assuming that God could create a world in which you could have all the benefits of life and love without having the only source of life and love that exists - but that would be a logical contradiction.

How am I, a nontheist, experiencing life and love if I'm separated? Is the mechanism of this separation supposed to be on some kind of sliding scale? Why does a child with leukemia experience so much less life and love than someone like Hitler? None of this makes any sense on even a cursory examination; not just in a cognitive way (as in, understanding what it's even supposed to mean) but on a mechanistic level if we throw our arms up and pretend it has meaning, it still doesn't make much sense.

And if God were to force you to accept the life and love He offers you then it would be a violation of your free will to choose to reject Him.

What does it take to "accept" life and love? Mere belief, such as by being convinced it's all real (and somehow makes cognitive sense)? If that's it, then an omnipotent and omniscient God could provide each person with what they need to know to make an informed decision. Informed decisions don't violate free will. If something else, please explain.

Your reasoning is fallacious.
The fact that one choice is bad and another is good doesn't change the fact that you still have a genuine choice about which one you want.

You might not think it's fair and you might not like it but that doesn't mean it's not a genuine free choice that you get to make.

You also have the choice to jump off a cliff or not when you walk near it - it doesn't logically cease to be a choice available to you simply because you don't find one of the options disagreeable to your desires.

The context here is that I was saying a choice doesn't have to be between a good thing and a bad thing to be a free choice: there is no reason for any choice to have to result in physical suffering to retain free will; as we could have free will without any physical suffering.

You have no logical basis for claiming such an action would be malevolent.

Yes there is. If my goal is for someone to have free will, I do not have to include physical suffering to attain that goal: so if I do include physical suffering anyway, I have introduced preventable suffering. That's evidence of malevolence.

 

[Rise]

I am not going to read any more of your posts unless you stop throwing out fallacies in an attempt to obfuscate and deflect.

It is your choice. I do not have the time to play games so you will have to find someone else to play with.

There are many fatal flaws in your response:

1. You don't understand how logic works.
A logically invalid argument can't be used to support a conclusion.

If you say "Gravity causes things to fall down because I had soup for dinner", nobody is required to accept your statement as a logically valid argument to prove your conclusion is true because it is the logical fallacy of nonsequitur.

You aren't entitled to have your illogical nonsense statements regarded as true just because you wish them to be, without being able to logically justify why they must be regarded as true.

You aren't entitled to logically dismiss all the ironclad evidence we have to prove the earth is a sphere just because you can find someone who thinks the earth is flat.

Likewise, you aren't entitled to dismiss overwhelming logical and Scriptural evidence of what the Bible says merely on the basis that you can find someone who thinks otherwise.

It s a logical fallacy of nonsequitur. Your conclusions don't follow logically from your premises.

2. You cannot show any error with the fallacies I have pointed out.
Which means your logic was invalid and fallacious.

Since you have committed those fallacies, then the burden is on you to fix your invalid arguments so they become valid.

You are not entitled to make invalid fallacious arguments and then have people treat them as though they are logically valid statements of truth.


3. Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You cannot give any logical reasons to prove your assertion is true that I am supposedly obfuscating or deflecting by pointing out that your argument are blatantly fallacious and invalid.

Your assertion is not proven true just because you assert it is.


4. Logical fallacy, "the pout".
You are committing this fallacy by rejecting reasoned dialogue as a possibility.


5. Logical fallacy, failure of the burden of rejoinder.
The burden of rejoinder is on you to offer a valid counter argument to my arguments. Otherwise my arguments stand unrefuted by you. And those arguments refuted your claims.

So therefore your claims stand refuted unless you can offer a counter argument to defend them.

You are not going to prove that your religious beliefs are true by using logic coupled with YOUR interpretation of the Bible, you just believe you can.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely asserting that I cannot prove my conclusions about the Bible are true by using the Bible and logic doesn't make your claim true just because you assert it is.
You have given no logical reasons why we would believe your claim is true.

"You cannot prove your claims in Post 80 are true by using what the Bible actually says."

No, the Bible does not tell us any of that. .

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
I gave you four posts full of logical arguments and scriptural evidence which establish that my original conclusion about what the Bible says is true.
Posts 103, 104, 153, and 154.

You don't have any grounds for claiming the Bible doesn't say that, or that Christians are misinterpreting the Bible, unless you can refute the arguments and evidence I presented.

If you aren't willing or able to do that then you don't have the logical right to make claims to the contrary.

You are guilty of merely asserting the opposite is true without being willing or able to logically prove why it would be.

Christians who have misinterpreted the Bible came up with the false doctrines like original sin tell us that

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion, and failure to meet your burden of proof.

You have not given a single logical argument or Scriptural evidence to support your claim that original sin is a misinterpretation of the Bible.

The onus is on you as the one making the claim to provide proof of your claim.

 

[Rise]

I said: If anyone wants to step up to bat and show me where the Bible 'tells us that' I will be more than happy to explain what I believe the Bible really tells us, i.e. what the Bible verses really mean.

Thus far you have not stepped up to bat. All you have done is throw out logical fallacies.

You are the one who is making the CLAIMS about sin and death, and saying that the Bible supports your claims, so the burden is upon you to show that the Bible supports your claims

I asked you to summarize your argument in a concise fashion and tell me why you think I was wrong in what I originally said about sin and death and summarize your beliefs. You have chosen not to do so.

There are many fatal errors in your statement.

1. I already did that. Posts 103, 104, 153, 154. You aren't willing or able to refute them.


2. Logical fallacy, shifting the burden of proof.

You were the one who made the claim in post 80 that I supposedly made assertions about what the Bible really said about original sin which aren't true.

The burden of proof is on you to give reasons why your claim should be regarded as true.


3. Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.

I already pointed out why you were false to make that claim in a previous post. Repeating your refuted claim doesn't make it true just because you repeat it.


4. Logical fallacy, deliberate ignorance.

You are choosing to ignore the posts I gave you which provide the Biblical evidence and logic for my conclusions.
Willfully choosing to ignore them doesn't mean they don't exist.

You are engaging in intellectual dishonesty by continuing to practice deliberate ignorance even though I have pointed out the error in your claim.


5. Logical fallacy, appeal to laziness.
One I had to coin for this forum as well.

The fact that you don't want to take the time to look at the arguments and evidence I gave in those four posts to establish my conclusion is true, does not absolve you of the logical requirement to do so if you want to try to dispute what I have argued.

6. Logical fallacy, failure of the burden of rejoinder.

If you are not willing to look at my arguments and deal with them then you have failed your burden of rejoinder and tacitly conceded the debate by being unwilling to meet the basic requirements of a debate.

I consider this a very serious matter because of the all-pervasive effect these false beliefs have had upon millions and millions of people. This is the worst crime that Christianity has ever perpetrated upon an unsuspecting humanity. And now Jesus is supposed to save everyone from that original sin, the sin that Jesus never even knew about, but the only people who will be saved are those who are willing to believe in the Church doctrines. The rest of the people in the world, 67% of the world population, will be going to hell.

Not serious enough, apparently, to be able to use proper logic and Biblical evidence in order to demonstrate why your claims should be believed to be true.

But what you claimed in post 80 isn't supported by the Bible anyway, so you'll never be able to use logic or Biblical evidence to support your claim no matter how seriously you try to take it.

You simply can't prove that which isn't true.

That's why the only thing you have to offer us is the fallacious appeal to the authority of your religious leader, whose opinion about what the Bible supposedly says must be true even if it directly contradicts what the Bible says.

The Bible does not SAY anything because it does not talk. People read the verses and interpret them and assign meanings to the verses. You are no more qualified than I am to interpret the Bible and assign meanings to the verses.

Your premise is fallacious.
Your premise is the false idea that the truth of what the Bible says is determined by who is more "qualified" to pronounce what the Bible says is true.

That is an illogical and fallacious appeal to authority.

If you say the Bible says Jesus was a pink elephant, and I say the Bible says Jesus was a Jewish man, logic and evidence will tel us which one of these claims is true.

It doesn't become true to say that Jesus was a pink elephant just because your religious authority says it is so.

"The onus is on you as the one making the claim to meet the logical requirement of the "burden of proof" for you claim. Meaning; you must support your claim with logical arguments and evidence to establish why we should believe your claim is supposedly true."

I am making no claims so I have no burden of proof.

You just made a claim right there.
You claimed to be making no claims.
But you haven't refuted the arguments I gave which showed why you were making claims that require proof.

Merely asserting it doesn't make it true just because you assert it.

You have failed to meet your burden of rejoinder by being unable to offer a counter argument for why you supposedly don't have a burden of proof.

We can even go back to your first claims:

The Bible tells us God created the world without death and many of the corrupting effects that later came in through Adam's sin.
It also tells us that God will one day eradicate sin and it's effects, removing death and the corrupting effects of sin upon the world and mankind - Which again shows you what God's true will and design is.

No, the Bible does not tell us any of that. Christians who have misinterpreted the Bible came up with the false doctrines like original sin tell us that.

If anyone wants to step up to bat and show me where the Bible 'tells us that' I will be more than happy to explain what I believe the Bible really tells us, i.e. what the Bible verses really mean. I consider this a very serious matter because of the all-pervasive effect these false beliefs have had upon millions and millions of people. This is the worst crime that Christianity has ever perpetrated upon an unsuspecting humanity. And now Jesus is supposed to save everyone from that original sin, the sin that Jesus never even knew about, but the only people who will be saved are those who are willing to believe in the Church doctrines. The rest of the people in the world, 67% of the world population, will be going to hell.

Your claims:
1. That the Bible tells us none of what I said.

Which would men you are claiming the Bible does not say:
a) God created the world without death
b) Death and corruption came in through Adam's sin.
c) God will one day remove sin, death, and corruption from the world.
d) That "c" reflects God's true design an intent.

2. That Christians have misinterpreted the Bible.

3. That original sin is a false doctrine.

4. Jesus did not come to save us from original sin.

5. Jesus did not know about original sin.

6. That the only people who will be saved are those who believe in the church doctrines.

7. That you can tell us what the Bible verses "really" mean.


#6 is a strawman fallacy I never argued for, by the way. To say you are saved by faith in Jesus is not the same as saying you are saved by faith in a particular church doctrine (assuming that doctrine doesn't cause you to violate what would be necessary to have saving faith). But to simply say "church doctrine" could mean anything, including insignificance disputes over minor details.


Right there we have some burdens you are required to prove:
1. Why you can supposedly show from the Bible that original sin is a false doctrine. The fact that you believe you can claim it is a false doctrine implies you know what the Scriptural basis for it is already, and therefore are prepared to refute why it is false.
2. Any example where Christians have misinterpreted the Bible points A to D or on the issue of original sin. You must be able to provide an example because if you claim Christians are misinterpreting the Bible then that implies you know what Biblical verses they are using. If you don't know what verses they are using to support their conclusions then you are incapable of being able to judge whether or not what they believe is actually in error according to the Bible.


Since I have given you the verses that I based my conclusions on in posts 103,104,153, and 154, the burden of proof and burden of rejoinder is on you to do the following

1. Why the Bible supposedly forces you to conclude something other than what I did, using logically valid reasons and evidence.
2. Why I have supposedly misinterpreted any of those verses, using logically valid reasons.
3. What the "real" meaning of those verses supposedly is and what logical/evidential basis you have for claiming your meaning is true.


"I don't have enough time" doesn't absolve you of your logical burdens and requirements.
You can simply concede if you don't have enough time or desire to defend our original claims.
What you can't do, is refuse to concede but then go around continuing to merely assert you are right when you aren't willing to prove it.