The God Delusion

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Yep. That sure answered his question. When in doubt, abuse.

His question was answered thoroughly by telerion before he even asked it.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
His question was answered thoroughly by telerion before he even asked it.

You could've just said that.

In any case, I think the point dj2 is trying to make is this -- it's easy enough to assert a universal negation when dealing with analytic statements ("There exist no married bachelors", "There exists no rational number q such that q=sqrt(2)" ); but how does one do that with a synthetic statement that requires empirical verification?

Originally posted by Starrman
Stop changing the subject to avoid confronting the issue at hand.

Where did I change the subject? I had answered his question. You gave absolutely no input on my answer to the problem of Evil.

If you don't have answers to my questions, the least you can do is admit it.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Would you care to demonstrate how the presence of much natural evil in the world is incompatible with an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God?

And another question, as the second premise assumes the existence of 'evil', would you care to demonstrate how an atheist differentiates between 'good' and 'evil'?

If you are looking for a thoughtful, well-articulated response to these (and related) questions, you are asking the wrong person. He repeatedly dodges the issues germane to the argument, or exhibits inconsistency in thinking... all the while insisting the theistic viewpoint is the one which crumbles under scrutiny.

Sad, really.

Originally posted by rwingett
I think the Problem of Evil is a very persuasive piece of evidence. I know there are many theodicies that try to explain how the presence of evil in the world may be compatible with the presence of god. I think the answers are generally inadequate, but in the end I don't think anything can be 'proven' either way. Which is why I am not a strong atheist.

I have no intention of being dragged into yet another interminable squabble over the POE.

I think the Problem of Evil is a very persuasive piece of evidence.

Really? And you have given no input on my answer to the question of Evil?

I know there are many theodicies that try to explain how the presence of evil in the world may be compatible with the presence of god.

So you are going to say nothing about the answer I gave you?

I think the answers are generally inadequate, but in the end I don't think anything can be 'proven' either way.

So you don't think my explanation on the problem of evil is adequate, but you cannot say why?

Which is why I am not a strong atheist.

I presume you must be a weak atheist then? If so, how do you explain the existence of Evil?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You are possibly the most ignorant person on this site. You should supplement your Sunday School learning with additional education.

And as you are probably one of the most educated people on this site, would you care to explain how it is possible to make an absolute negation with a synthetic statement that requires empirical verification, without the possession of absolute knowledge?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If you are looking for a thoughtful, well-articulated response to these (and related) questions, you are asking the wrong person. He repeatedly dodges the issues germane to the argument, or exhibits inconsistency in thinking... all the while insisting the theistic viewpoint is the one which crumbles under scrutiny.

Sad, really.

Really sad.

Originally posted by dj2becker
And as you are probably one of the most educated people on this site, would you care to explain how it is possible to make an absolute negation with a synthetic statement that requires empirical verification, without the possession of absolute knowledge?

Do you believe it is possible to make an absolute claim that is not a negation?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]I think the Problem of Evil is a very persuasive piece of evidence.

Really? And you have given no input on my answer to the question of Evil?

I know there are many theodicies that try to explain how the presence of evil in the world may be compatible with the presence of god.

So you are going to say nothing about the answer I gave y ...[text shortened]...
I presume you must be a weak atheist then? If so, how do you explain the existence of Evil?[/b]

If you think you have solved the Problem of Evil then you do not really understand the problem. Everything I have to say on the problem can be summed up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil#Formalized_arguments

You can try to cobble together your own semi-literate responses, or you can borrow the ones here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil#Criticisms_and_responses

I will be section 3 from Wikipedia's article on the PoE and you can be section 4. This will save us the time of having to madly type posts past each other for all eternity. So our ensuing argument will look like this:

rw: Section 3.

dj: Section 4.

rw: Section 3!

dj: Section 4!

rw: SECTION 3!!!

dj: SECTION 4!!!

etc.

You see how simple that was? I just saved us days of rattling off mind-numbing posts. And we accomplished the exact same thing.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I have extensively dealt with the Problem of Evil in one of the other threads. You did not respond to anything I said. Let me quote it for you:

""If God is to both preserve freedom and defeat evil, then this is the best way to do it. Freedom is preserved in that each person makes his own free choice to determine his destiny. Evil is overcome in that, on has given us the family unit to bring stability to society, (e.g. Proverbs 22:15; 23:13)."

dj's Cut and Paste: 3. An omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. God does not need to defeat evil immediately.

Actually he would need to not create conditions where it could exist at all. Otherwise, he ain't omnibenevolent (or omnipotent; your choice).

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you believe it is possible to make an absolute claim that is not a negation?

I can make the absolute claim that there are little green men that live in the universe.

This absolute statement would also be a negation.

All I need as evidence to back up my claim is one little green man that lives in the universe.

In order to do this I do not need to possess absolute knowledge.

On the other hand if you were to make the claim that there are no little green men that live in the universe, you need to have abslolute knowledge of the universe.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I can make the absolute claim that there are little green men that live in the universe.

This absolute statement would also be a negation.

All I need as evidence to back up my claim is one little green man that lives in the universe.

In order to do this I do not need to possess absolute knowledge.

On the other hand if you were to make the c ...[text shortened]... ittle green men that live in the universe, you need to have abslolute knowledge of the universe.

Truly pitiful.

Originally posted by dj2becker


All I need as evidence to back up my claim is one little green man that lives in the universe.

OK. So suppose you see the green man and make the claim, which you think there is no problem with.

Now, the claim "There are green men in our universe" is logically equivalent to "There does not exist a universe which is both ours and which does not contain green men." But this is a negation, a claim of non-existence.

Thus, I have transformed your legitimate claim into a negation which you think cannot be legitimate. So, which is it? Is absolute knowledge really necessary to make a claim of non-existence?

Originally posted by no1marauder
dj's Cut and Paste: 3. An omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. God does not need to defeat evil immediately.

Actually he would need to not create conditions where it could exist at all. Otherwise, he ain't omnibenevolent (or omnipotent; your choice).

Wow I see it's actually on the web. I would have saved a lot of time doing a c&p instead of typing in out of the book.

http://www.ldolphin.org/evil.html

Actually he would need to not create conditions where it could exist at all.

Sure. If he created us as robots. But we are humans with free will.

"Some people wonder why God couldn't have created man in such a way that he would never sin, thus avoiding evil altogether. The fact is, such a scenario would mean that man is no longer truly man. He would no longer have the capacity to make choices and to freely love. This scenario would require that God create robots who act only in programmed ways -- like one of those chatty dolls where you pull a string on its back and it says, "I love you."[8] Paul Little notes that with such a doll "there would never be any hot words, never any conflict, never anything said or done that would make you sad! But who would want that? There would never be any love, either. Love is voluntary. God could have made us like robots, but we would have ceased to be men. God apparently thought it worth the risk of creating us as we are."

Paul E. Little, KNOW WHY YOU BELIEVE (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975), p. 81.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Wow I see it's actually on the web. I would have saved a lot of time doing a c&p instead of typing in out of the book.

http://www.ldolphin.org/evil.html

[b]Actually he would need to not create conditions where it could exist at all.

Sure. If he created us as robots. But we are humans with free will.

"Some people wonder why God couldn't ha aul E. Little, KNOW WHY YOU BELIEVE (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975), p. 81.[/b]

Thus your God is not omnibenevolent ("all good"😉. QED. He prefers the existence of evil to other conditions that He alone had control over.

EDIT: I won't respond to another cut and paste; put your arguments in your own words like everybody else here does.