Mornin' folks. Just checkin' the forum before breakfast. Checkin' for recent developments. Y'know, that kinda...
Oh my lord! What have you done?!

Oh, I thought I clicked my link to rationalskepticism.org as I usually do this time of day; guess I didn't.

Anyway - for those who actually go by the argument in the OP: enjoy your shackled, but wondrous and blissful eternity in Heaven, I suppose. Or can God suddenly give you your cake and let you eat it too once you're there?

And as has been mentioned; earth quakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, blizzards, volcanoes, droughts, lightning, mud slides, asteroid impacts, viruses, tumors, parasites... it goes on... are not caused by man's actions, free or not.

The 'demon' defense there is... well, I can't say what I think about that on this forum. OK - can I say 'disingenuous' without getting in trouble?

AtheismIsIrrational wrote:

Scar wrote:

AtheismIsIrrational wrote:

Scar wrote:

He wanted to create free moral creatures.

Why can't a all-powerful, all-loving god create free moral creatures without creating demons?

I don't know. Maybe God wanted to have other free creatures beside men?

You don't know? Maybe? You seemed really sure last night.
That Plantiga fella seems really sure too. I mean he just casually states these type of things like fact. Send him an email. I'm sure he knows.

John P. M. wrote:
The 'demon' defense there is... well, I can't say what I think about that on this forum. OK - can I say 'disingenuous' without getting in trouble?

I should think 'fucktarded numbskullery' would also be acceptable. Demons. For the love of Hera's tits! It's like having a conversation with someone from the Medieval period. All those centuries of violent oppression and abuse, particularly of women and the powerless, because of the foolish credence in evil spirits manipulating people - all those horrific tortures and barbaric deaths, and here's this guy talking about them as if they're factual entities. Ignorance may be bliss, but it's also dangerous.

What's the bet he also believe in witches... and that witches actually can cast dark, evil magic?

chairman bill wrote:

AtheismIsIrrational wrote:... Atheism cannot provide an objective reason why the God of the Old Testament is evil.

Of course atheism can't do this - atheism is just an absence of belief in god(s). However, Odin tells me that killing a nation's babies is a fucking twisted, cuntish act, far below what any self-respecting god would do. And he should know, 'cos he's the top god (unless you can prove otherwise*). But according to the bible, your pissant godling told 'his people' to completely destroy the Canaanites, and leave not even a woman or child alive when they killed the followers of king Og of Bashan. He told them to slaughter every man, woman & child of Jericho. When they fought the Midianites, God told them to kill all the men, and through Moses, to kill all the male children, and enslave the women who were virgins, but kill the rest. Then there were the people of Ai, all of whom were killed at God's command. All of them. Men, women & children.

I vaguely recall that there was a case claimed in the buybull where the god was unable to carry out a similar action against one tribal group because they were armed with iron chariots. If this is true then It seems that buybull god's level of omnipotence is somewhat less than cracked up to be.

John P. M. wrote:Oh, I thought I clicked my link to rationalskepticism.org as I usually do this time of day; guess I didn't.

Anyway - for those who actually go by the argument in the OP: enjoy your shackled, but wondrous and blissful eternity in Heaven, I suppose. Or can God suddenly give you your cake and let you eat it too once you're there?

If free will is supposed to be good then I presume it must exist in heaven. So either evil must exist in heaven or else there is no valid reason for it to be required on Earth. The bible story god is also reported directly interfering with the free will of a particular Egyptian leader on several occasions, so it can't be all that important to the god as described.

Come one guys, don't be mean to the youngling.

Is that a whiff of blue socks I smell?

This thread should have been about nitpicking definitions from the very beginning.

Someone once said, or I might have read it somewhere on the back of a newspaper or something, that the existence of God and the existence of evil are strictly logically incompatible. No matter what retarded mental contortions and fatuous, near incomprehensible speculations you come up, no matter how ludicrous the defence, there is simply no way to put God and evil together without running into a logical contradiction. It's like trying to show that 2 + 2 = 20.

But Plantinga, possibly the cleverest man in the 20th century did a tour-de-france of intellectual brilliance. He managed to demonstrate that this view was mistaken. It is possible to come up with something sufficiently retarded that you can make the existence of God strictly logically compatible with evil.

The response to this is then to talk, not of the Logical Problem of Evil, but about the Evidential Problem of Evil, but you atheists probably didn't know this because you didn't have teh brains.

What is the definition of evil?

VazScep wrote:This thread should have been about nitpicking definitions from the very beginning.

Someone once said, or I might have read it somewhere on the back of a newspaper or something, that the existence of God and the existence of evil are strictly logically incompatible. No matter what retarded mental contortions and fatuous, near incomprehensible speculations you come up, no matter how ludicrous the defence, there is simply no way to put God and evil together without running into a logical contradiction. It's like trying to show that 2 + 2 = 20.

But Plantinga, possibly the cleverest man in the 20th century did a tour-de-france of intellectual brilliance. He managed to demonstrate that this view was mistaken. It is possible to come up with something sufficiently retarded that you can make the existence of God strictly logically compatible with evil.

The response to this is then to talk, not of the Logical Problem of Evil, but about the Evidential Problem of Evil, but you atheists probably didn't know this because you didn't have teh brains.

You read this on the back of a newspaper?
The back of most newspapers has sports news.
The existence of evil mentioned on the back page?
Was it an article about Manchester United? Or Celtic/Rangers rivalry?

But then you mention 'tour-de-france'.
So that must be it then, it must have been an article about dodgy goings on in the world of bicycle racing.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CTPLUcQAjk[/youtube]

DaveScriv wrote:But then you mention 'tour-de-france'.
So that must be it then, it must have been an article about dodgy goings on in the world of bicycle racing.

Louis Armstrong completed the tour-de-france even with brain cancer and no wheels. Therefore, God exists.

VazScep wrote:

DaveScriv wrote:But then you mention 'tour-de-france'.
So that must be it then, it must have been an article about dodgy goings on in the world of bicycle racing.

Louis Armstrong completed the tour-de-france even with brain cancer and no wheels. Therefore, God exists.

I thought he was the guy who played the trumpet without using his lips?

AtheismIsIrrational wrote:A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all.

More valuable by what metric? How is 'value', being judged here? For that matter, how are 'good' and 'evil' defined? Moreover, how are you defining freedom?

Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely.

Not omnipotent, then? Surely an omnipotent entity could find a way to get around this by, oh, I don't know, not being bound by logic? The problem then arises, though, that any attempt to employ logic to argue for him is futile, because logic doesn't apply. You end up in a never-ending circle of rationalisations to the point that magic man disappears up his own arsehole.

To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil;

Still waiting on those definitions, without which this entire line of apologetic is worthless. Frankly, the whiff of objective morality here is overwhelming, while the reasoning employed is decidedly underwhelming. A lovely bit of question begging.

and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so.

More powers he doesn't possess. Is there anything this allegedly omnipotent entity can do?

As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom;

If it's the exercise of freedom, how is it wrong? By what metric do you arrive at this conclusion?

this is the source of moral evil.

Evidence?

The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good. - Alvin Plantinga

If this is all part of your celestial peeping-tom's plan, who are you to decide that what they've done constitutes 'going wrong'?

This is the problem with listening to apologetic fuckwits like Plantinga, as opposed to actually thinking. Thing is, the problem of evil has been solved with absolutely no need for all this intellectually-challenged wibbling; the solution to the problem of evil is that the entity that this moron is failing to defend simply doesn't exist.

What's wrong with the free will defense?

Omniscience. Next?

No, please. Tell me what's wrong?

See above.

I don't see any flaws with his refutation

Textbook argumentum ad ignorantiam.

and why don't you think he's a great theologian?

Because there's no such thing.

I'm not omniscient.

Neither is your cosmic curtain-twitcher, or at least not if you want to defend free will.

Natural evil is via demons and he wants to test us.

Evidence for these entities?

No, it's for YOU to prove that demons don't exist. It explains why there is natural evil.

I have a three-foot penis. Prove me wrong.

Unless, you can prove why demons are illogical or evidence that don't exist.

Do you have evidence that I don't have a three-foot penis? Thing is, a three-foot penis is perfectly logical, after all, blue whales have penises on the order of three metres, so nothing illogical about a three-footer.

It can explain why there is natural evil without hurting God's all-lovingness.

First you must establish that natural evil actually exists, and since evil is predicated on the existence of your magic man, you have to present evidence that this entity also exists. Are you beginning to see how this works?

I'll say it for a third time

Ah, argumentum ad nauseum. how's that working out for you?

It's a philosophical justification of why there could be evil.

Nope, it's an exercise in mental masturbation, and provides no justification for the existence of anything. Indeed, philosophy in and of itself is incapable of any such justification without first establishing the truth of its premises, in this case the existence of the entities in question, namely god, demons, and evil.

I quite don't understand your analogy.

Quelle surprise. The analogy shows that the reasoning behind your repeated request for evidence that these entities don't exist is fallacious, because it shifts the burden of proof, unsuccessfully, I might add.

You can't compare the two!!! One is physical while the other is metaphysical.

I suggest you go and look up the word 'metaphysical', because...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk[/youtube]

The ontological argument proves why God would have to be all-loving.

Errr, no. The ontological argument proves that morons will go to great lengths to defend their fuckwittery. It's a thoroughly fatuous argument, rooted in the idea that an existent entity is greater than a non-existent entity. This is easily refuted without even going to the bother of showing the invalidity of the argument (although it is invalid) by pointing out that a non-existent creator is necessarily greater than an existent creator, as it has to overcome the barrier of non-existence to create. Of course, that's a piss-poor argument, but only as piss-poor as the argument it stands in refutation of.

When you get deep into the modal logic that Plantinga employs,it's actually trivial to show that it has circular reasoning embedded in the main premise of the argument. Actually understanding the logic is a great help.

You're physical and not metaphysical, hence you're not God.

1. You're physical
2. The requirements of being God is to be metaphysical
C: You're not God

Really? Firstly, how do you know that your interlocutor is physical? Secondly, on what basis do you assert that god is required to be metaphysical? Is this true of all gods? Finally, you really need to go and learn what 'metaphysical' means. Being metaphysical doesn't preclude being physical. Metaphysics deals with existence. I can exist both physically and metaphysically. All this means is that my physical existence is true existence. In other words, my physical existence is not illusory, but constitutes actual existence beyond what is observed.

Jesus is God in the physical form.

Making him both physical and metaphysical, demonstrating my point and refuting yours. Way to hoist yourself on your own petard.

He wanted to create free moral creatures.

On what basis do you assert this? Frankly, this diminishes your deity, because if your deity has desires, he isn't omnipotent. Of course, an omnipotent entity is a logical impossibility anyway, but don't let that get in the way of your fatuous apologetics.

It's just an explanation why. It proves that God isn't illogical.

Except that your magic man is about as illogical as it's possible to be. He has been imbued with mutually exclusive and absurd attributes, not to mention the most absurd, incoherent bit, namely the creation of all existence, which would require that he actually exists, nullifying the idea that he created existence. This is an inescapable paradox. The only way to defend your deity is to assert that he is immune to logic, in which case any attempt to employ logic to defend his alleged existence is futile.

Calilasseia fails to understand that she is using logical positivism (scientism) to defend her position.

Calilasseia at least understands what the gender signifier in his profile means. That aside, he is not defending a position, he is providing evidence that your position is not in accord with what is observed.

Where is the scientific evidence that minds other than your own exist?

Where is the scientific evidence that they don't?

It's a philosophical justification. It PROVIDES why an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving God to allow evil. It doesn't have to be true. Philosophy is much more different than science.

You've hit the nail on the head, and demonstrated why philosophy alone is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of anything. Indeed, this latest sentence contains all that is required to categorically demonstrate that this entity cannot possibly exist, because omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive. Can your magic man do anything that he didn't know he'd do? If he can, then he isn't omniscient. If not, then he isn't omnipotent.

Also, why are people judging God's morality? On what objective basis can you judge God? None.

Simple. I am more moral than your deity. I wouldn't lock my children in the basement for eternity for not loving me.

Atheism cannot provide an objective reason why the God of the Old Testament is evil.

No, because that would require that evil objectively exists, which is problematic, to say the least, not least because the existence of evil is predicated on the existence of your magic man, an entity that is merely asserted to exist. However, we can apply reasonably objective standards to show that your astral knob-jockey is a thoroughly nasty bit of work. Amalekites, anyone?

I don't think my justifications for believing in God are good.

I'll be back tomorrow. I need some time alone.

Let us know if we can help.

I should address this before I'm off to bed. "Philosophy is dead" is a philosophical statement itself!

Context is everything. When that statement was erected, the context was that of addressing questions of existence, which were traditionally the realm of philosophers. However, it has been demonstrated (not least above in this post) that philosophy is ill-equipped to deal with such questions. In this sense, it is very much dead. It is still a useful tool, as long as you remember that its value is in teaching one how to think. As soon as you allow it to tell you what to think, you're doing it wrong.

There is no God.

First rational thesis we've heard from OP

"He wants to test us" - If he's omniscient, then he already knows the results before the test begins.
"Evil comes from demons" - and who created those, again?
"In order for free will to mean anything, evil must exist." - sounds like free will is a pretty evil invention, then. Who created free will again?

The hubris required to pretend that an all powerful being sets rules for you to follow and then cares whether or not you'll follow them is mind-boggling.