Problem of Evil Debate?

lobawad · **#41** by **lobawad** » May 29, 2013 8:09 am

Here is what I think of the "Problem of Evil": rationalizing horrible suffering is a form of complicity in its infliction.

andrewk · **#42** by **andrewk** » May 29, 2013 10:10 pm

That's interesting Mick. I think of that as the 'God moves in mysterious ways' (His wonders to perform) defence. I'd completely forgotten about that one, as public discussion of the issue, at least on the internet, seems to gravitate around the Augustinian theodicy.

It's strange I should forget the mysterious ways move because, although it may not be used so much in public debate, it appears very commonly in clerics trying to comfort the bereaved (at least on telly and in literature - I haven't been around a cleric other than socially for many years now so my recent experience is very limited),

It would be quite a different debate going down that track.

I realise I'm talking to myself here anyway, as you're away on holiday. I hope it's a good one.

theropod · **#43** by **theropod** » May 29, 2013 10:31 pm

Mick,

After my PM to you I have kept my word and not posted to the forum in a little over a week (I think). I apologize for my rude remarks in another of your threads.

Now, if this "God" created everything that exists in this universe he also created the evil that exists in the world, indeed the universe. Not only that but this supreme entity would have done this stupid thing knowing full well what said evil would do to his "perfect" creation. If this was supposedly a part of a supreme plan there can be no way to defend the creation of evil without embracing that evil as a part of the creator. To worship such an entity is to practice the love of evil. Can't have it both ways. Either this "God" created evil along with everything else, with full foreknowledge of the outcome, there was an imperfect creation from the start or there was no creation or creator.

No, I won't debate this shit because it's fucking stupid.

RS

Cito di Pense · **#44** by **Cito di Pense** » May 30, 2013 4:12 am

andrewk wrote:That's interesting Mick. I think of that as the 'God moves in mysterious ways' (His wonders to perform) defence. I'd completely forgotten about that one, as public discussion of the issue, at least on the internet, seems to gravitate around the Augustinian theodicy.

How soon we forget...

Cito di Pense wrote:Well, Mick, God works in mysterious ways, including those of making the argument from evil unsound. Because God works in mysterious ways, we cannot say that His nonexistence is entailed by the PoE. Another way of saying this is that interpreting anything God does as evil involves a mistake. And fuck that shit.

theropod wrote:
Now, if this "God" created everything that exists in this universe he also created the evil that exists in the world, indeed the universe. Not only that but this supreme entity would have done this stupid thing knowing full well what said evil would do to his "perfect" creation. If this was supposedly a part of a supreme plan there can be no way to defend the creation of evil without embracing that evil as a part of the creator. To worship such an entity is to practice the love of evil. Can't have it both ways. Either this "God" created evil along with everything else, with full foreknowledge of the outcome, there was an imperfect creation from the start or there was no creation or creator.

BT;DT

Cito di Pense wrote:Otherwise, this sort of challenge simply waves a red flag in front of anyone who still thinks that theology consists of formal arguments. One reason this is silly is because the debate itself begins with the premise that God exists AND evil exists. For you to argue successfully that the argument from evil is unsound, the upshot will be either that one or the other premise is false or that God's ways are so mysterious that entailment cannot be shown. If you go by the first method, we know which premise you will find to be false....

So pretty please, Mick, if you want to challenge anyone to a debate about the PoE, give us your formal acceptance of the premise that evil exists, so that we can begin to investigate whether or not it entails that God does not exist. Perhaps entailed by that premise will be the conclusion that demons exist. I won't argue with anyone who requires that demons exist. It's up to you to offer an argument that demons are not entailed by the existence of evil.

So, argument by Mick boils down to convincing you of two things:

1) Evil does not exist
2) You'd understand that if you understood that God works in mysterious ways

Belief in God involves a certain amount of acceptance that God made things the way they are and we do not question that. God created Arrakis to train the faithful.

What's truly weird is that one human lifetime is far too short to develop the kind of experience necessary to accept it. In effect, the kind of faith in God implied by Mick's position is a gormless recitation of one's acceptance, but without the actual acceptance. Who would otherwise debate the problem of evil? This is why we refer to proselytisation as duplicitous.

andrewk · **#45** by **andrewk** » May 30, 2013 5:32 am

Cito di Pense wrote:How soon we forget...

What can I say? I'm getting old. :oops:

Now where did I put that Zimmer frame?

Cito di Pense · **#46** by **Cito di Pense** » May 30, 2013 6:03 am

andrewk wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:How soon we forget...
What can I say? I'm getting old.
Now where did I put that Zimmer frame?

It's not exactly that you forgot; Mick forgot that I'd already pointed out that he'd limited himself to the mysterious ways argument, and you responded to his gormless recitation before I could, because your time zone gave you a head start. Skeptics have to know apologetics better than believers do. Mick just hasn't accepted this, yet.

People don't stop believing because they can't resolve the PoE. They stop believing because they realise apologetics is nothing but gormless recitation. I have no quarrel with anyone who simply admits his desire to have faith is an emotional, rather than an intellectual, attachment. That doesn't make apologetics less risible.

Thomas Eshuis · **#47** by **Thomas Eshuis** » May 30, 2013 7:36 am

Mick wrote:That I'd be arguing that God exists should be good bait for many, but note that I'll be arguing as a Thomist. Science, while great, won't help you here. If you're down for attacking any cosmological argument, then this might be for you, but I wont be using anything of science.

Just want to give you a helpful tip; just because you decide to rely on philsophy alone and not science, doesn't make you arguments suddenly invincible to scientific rebuttal.

Cito di Pense · **#48** by **Cito di Pense** » May 30, 2013 8:57 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Mick wrote:That I'd be arguing that God exists should be good bait for many, but note that I'll be arguing as a Thomist. Science, while great, won't help you here. If you're down for attacking any cosmological argument, then this might be for you, but I wont be using anything of science.

Just want to give you a helpful tip; just because you decide to rely on philsophy alone and not science, doesn't make you arguments suddenly invincible to scientific rebuttal.

A recently-revived thread is relevant, here.

redwhine · **#49** by **redwhine** » May 30, 2013 10:53 am

Shrunk wrote:Hey, everyone. Let's leave something to be debated in the debate itself.

There will be a debate, right? That's what this thread is about.

I'd rather see a debate about which end of a boiled egg one should crack open; the round end, or the pointy one.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/L ... ersTravels

After many incidents (mainly getting entangled in a holy war over which end to open a hard-boiled egg), he escapes on a raft, returning to England.

theropod · **#50** by **theropod** » May 30, 2013 4:40 pm

I'll accept that debate and end it here. The end with the expansion chamber should always be cracked frirst. If we are talking about reptile eggs I suggest a sharp knife be employed. If we're talking about insect eggs I can't comment. Perhaps Cali can address that aspect of boiled egg comsumption prtocol. I don't think fish eggs would do well with boiling unlesss included in a soup or broth.

:-)

RS

virphen · **#51** by **virphen** » May 30, 2013 10:44 pm

Boiling eggs is so barbaric and inlizarde.

Mick · **#52** by **Mick** » Jun 02, 2013 8:49 pm

Greetings from Jamaica.

I wouldn't call it a mysterious ways defence, it is just an affirmation of trust that evil is no good reason to disbelief in God given the positive arguments we have for His existence. That is more than just saying'god works in mysterious ways!'

And I see no reason to this science could muster the slightest rebutter on my fav cosmological arguments. Two very different fields on enquiry here.

stijndeloose · **#53** by **stijndeloose** » Jun 02, 2013 8:52 pm

The cosmological argument isn't about enquiry.

andrewk · **#54** by **andrewk** » Jun 02, 2013 11:43 pm

Mick wrote:And I see no reason to this science could muster the slightest rebutter on my fav cosmological arguments. Two very different fields on enquiry here.

You typed that sentence on an iphone didn't you?

Forget the problem of evil. I consider the existence of iphones, texting, and probably mobile communication in general, a far more persuasive argument for the non-existence of God. How could a loving God allow the sort of grammar and ugly abbreviations that those devices produce, to exist in his perfect creation?

scott1328 · **#55** by **scott1328** » Jun 03, 2013 12:03 am

andrewk wrote:
Mick wrote:And I see no reason to this science could muster the slightest rebutter on my fav cosmological arguments. Two very different fields on enquiry here.
You typed that sentence on an iphone didn't you?

Forget the problem of evil. I consider the existence of iphones, texting, and probably mobile communication in general, a far more persuasive argument for the non-existence of God. How could a loving God allow the sort of grammar and ugly abbreviations that those devices produce, to exist in his perfect creation?

Srsly?

Cito di Pense · **#56** by **Cito di Pense** » Jun 03, 2013 5:06 am

Mick wrote: it is just an affirmation of trust that evil is no good reason to disbelief in God given the positive arguments we have for His existence

All which only goes to show that faith is not defeated by argument, because there is faith that the positive arguments for God's existence have not been defeated. Circular argument is circular. :crazy:

"Evil cannot be conquered in the world... It can only be resisted within oneself." - Master Po

Ihavenofingerprints · **#57** by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Jun 03, 2013 5:16 am

stijndeloose wrote:The cosmological argument isn't about enquiry.

That would make a good debate. "what technological advances stem from the discovery that the cosmological argument is sound, and true?"

stijndeloose · **#58** by **stijndeloose** » Jun 03, 2013 5:33 am

It'd be short. :lol:

Mick · **#59** by **Mick** » Jun 17, 2013 10:35 pm

I would also debate something like this:

Catholicism's criticism of homosexual sex is not bigotted

Oldskeptic · **#60** by **Oldskeptic** » Jun 18, 2013 1:04 am

Mick wrote:I would also debate something like this:

Catholicism's criticism of homosexual sex is not bigotted

Oh for fuck sake, not only can't you spell "bigoted" correctly, you have no understanding of the definition of the word.

Problem of Evil Debate?

Re: Problem of Evil Debate?

Re: Problem of Evil Debate?

Re: Problem of Evil Debate?

Re: Problem of Evil Debate?

Re: Problem of Evil Debate?

Re: Problem of Evil Debate?

Re: Problem of Evil Debate?

Re: Problem of Evil Debate?

Re: Problem of Evil Debate?

Re: Problem of Evil Debate?

Re: Problem of Evil Debate?

Re: Problem of Evil Debate?

Re: Problem of Evil Debate?

Re: Problem of Evil Debate?

Re: Problem of Evil Debate?

Re: Problem of Evil Debate?

Re: Problem of Evil Debate?

Re: Problem of Evil Debate?

Re: Problem of Evil Debate?

Re: Problem of Evil Debate?

Who is online