Originally posted by JS357he made an assertion that bares directly on the weight of his argument. he must prove what he said, or least make a reasonable explanation of why he believes that.
That could start with an exploration of the concept of free will. What is will, and what is free will free of, exactly? The immediate, apparently obvious answers need examination. It's not so easy.
Originally posted by DowardBut he can be selective as to whom he delivers that explanation. You would, based on experience, be a poor candidate since you are notorious for obfuscating a discussion and avoiding direct questions which challenge your position.
he made an assertion that bares directly on the weight of his argument. he must prove what he said, or least make a reasonable explanation of why he believes that.
Originally posted by Agergyes yes yes, mean old Doward throws a monkey wrench in the works, for shame. Too bad your ability at debate doesn't match your ability at whining.
But he can be selective as to whom he delivers that explanation. You would, based on experience, be a poor candidate since you are notorious for obfuscating a discussion and avoiding direct questions which challenge your position.
Originally posted by DowardTo be honest doward I have little reason, based on your behaviour in the discussions you and I have had so far, to trust your evaluation of my or any other poster's ability at debating. The point about free-will/omniscience[1] is fairly obvious when one considers, in detail (and you hate detail), what these terms actually mean.
yes yes yes, mean old Doward throws a monkey wrench in the works, for shame. Too bad your ability at debate doesn't match your ability at whining.
------------------------------------------------------------
1) Assuming (quite justified in your case) that we refer to libertarian free will
Originally posted by DowardI said:
you have pointed out nothing.
Many of the challenges we face, we do not triumph over.
your response was
Many of the challenges we face, we have not triumph over yet.
To which I pointed out that there are some challenges that you will never triumph over.
Close your eyes and cover your ears if you like but lie to my face and I will call you on it.
Originally posted by twhitehead
I said:Many of the challenges we face, we do not triumph over.
your response wasMany of the challenges we face, we have not triumph over [b]yet.
To which I pointed out that there are some challenges that you will never triumph over.
Close your eyes and cover your ears if you like but lie to my face and I will call you on it.[/b]Not only have you oversimplified my response, you have failed miserabley to understand the most basic concepts of the human condition.
There are two tacks we can take here. We can talk about individuals who strive to overcome. The fact that I have lost chess games in the past is irrelevant. Every lost chess game is an opportunity to refine my skills and impetus to redouble my efforts (well maybe not for me but for others). If I become the worlds premier chess player, then those defeats actually become part of my triumph. Get the picture?
The second tack is that humanity is a collective. We are the sum total of all people who have ever existed. Far fewer people (as a % ) die of childhood diseases and malnutrition than they did 100 years ago. When Jonas Salk cured Polio, there were many attempts at finding a cure, but only one succesful one.
Thomas Edison said this: "I have not failed 1,000 times. I have
successfully discovered 1,000 ways to NOT make a light bulb."
you have pointed out nothing and have wasted valuable time that people of intellect could be using to actually discuss this topic
Originally posted by AgergI see, if I agree with you, then I am an intelligent fellow. If I disagree and hold you to a higher standard of debate, then I obfuscate and am vague.
To be honest doward I have little reason, based on your behaviour in the discussions you and I have had so far, to trust your evaluation of my or any other poster's ability at debating. The point about free-will/omniscience[1] is fairly obvious when one considers, in detail (and you hate detail), what these terms actually mean.
--------------------- ...[text shortened]... ------------
1) Assuming (quite justified in your case) that we refer to libertarian free will
We went round and round with this. First you accuse me of being too vague then of being too specific. Of course you only accuse me of that when I directly contradict your position. You form poorly worded hypotheses that can in no way be held universally true, and then get pissed when someone points out the absurdities or inconsistancies of your premis.
I have soundly drubbed you on more than one occasion without ever turning to theology or making reference to biblical texts and you accuse me of being a narrow minded theist (you and others). Who's really narrow minded hmmm?
Originally posted by DowardWrong, you impute onto to the thinking of others your own miscomprehension of an argument and then attempt to steer the discussion away from the actual issue using your own confusion as a basis for rejecting the premises of an argument. (see my last response in the "Greatest Conceivable Being???" ) thread.
I see, if I agree with you, then I am an intelligent fellow. If I disagree and hold you to a higher standard of debate, then I obfuscate and am vague.
We went round and round with this. First you accuse me of being too vague then of being too specific. Of course you only accuse me of that when I directly contradict your position. You form poorly worded hy ...[text shortened]... ou accuse me of being a narrow minded theist (you and others). Who's really narrow minded hmmm?
You then dance around as though you've slain a dragon with your shining wit when you've merely demonstrated that you didn't understand. You're also incredibly reluctant to address any points which might undermine your position; preferring instead to insert a vague answer to some different question and assert the opposition is a crapola debater.
Originally posted by DowardI don't recall any occasion on which you 'soundly drubbed' Agerg in debate - perhaps you could remind us bystanders of the thread number(s)?
I see, if I agree with you, then I am an intelligent fellow. If I disagree and hold you to a higher standard of debate, then I obfuscate and am vague.
We went round and round with this. First you accuse me of being too vague then of being too specific. Of course you only accuse me of that when I directly contradict your position. You form poorly worded hy ...[text shortened]... ou accuse me of being a narrow minded theist (you and others). Who's really narrow minded hmmm?
Why have you guys hijacked my thread?
I said atheists and agnostics only. Please.
Now I have to sort through the morass to get this thing back on track.
I'm serious. 😉 Don't anybody move until I make my post(s) in reply to those this thread is addressed to. Now I'm going back to sleep. 😴 When I wake up order better be established or I'll get real mean! 😠😛
amannion
"Perhaps, but you still need to justify why the all powerful god allows evil to exist."
Not perhaps. The question, up to this point, isn't about why God allows evil to exist. The question is about how an omni-powerful God can exist while evil continues. rwingett seems to think that since evil exists a perfect God cannot.
My point is that just because evil continues to exist, that does not make a logical reason why an omni-powerful God cannot exists simultaneously. The fact that evil exists is not evidence that a omnipowerful God does not.
(I seriously hope to get to the why)
twhitehead
"Well the logical conclusion is based on the belief that there is no rational explanation for an omni God allowing evil to exist. Hence if you provide a rational explanation you disprove the claim."
Again, as I said to amannion, this debate has not progressed to the point where we are considering why God allows evil to exist. We are simply trying to establish the idea that both an omnipowerful God and evil can exist simultaneously, and that just because evil exists, that does not preclude the existence of God. That's as far as we've gotten.
rwingett
"I'm afraid you'll have to demonstrate how evil can coexist with a "flawless" god. Just asking me to consider it isn't good enough because I am at a loss as how to reconcile the contradiction between them. Unless you can successfully demonstrate otherwise, I'm afraid I have no choice but to go with the assumption that evil and god cannot exist simultaneously."
I'm afraid I don't have to demonstrate how evil can coexist with a flawless God because, for one thing, God and evil do not 'coexist'.
Please, pray tell, how it is that you see a contradiction between the existence of a 'flawless' God and the existence of evil?
If I didn't know better rwingett, I'd swear you're trying to obfuscate simple logic.
I'll say it again. The fact of the existence of evil(suffering, unspeakable horror in the lives of countless millions) is not a logical rationale for the non existence of a omnipowerful God.
Agerg
"Furthermore you are implicitly assuming that if there be a god then it necessarily follows it be an omni-god - this also is not justified (and far less justified than my first contention)."
It's not an assumption Agerg. Besides, that is not what is being debated thus far even though everyone seems intent on throwing me of track.(Now I'm assuming)
I'll repeat. It is not logical to draw the conclusion that an omnipowerful God does not exist because of the fact that evil does.
JS357
"Having read thru the first 15 posts on this thread, is it agreed by all that evil and suffering exist and/or happen?"
So far no one has denied that fact.
Can we come to a consensus that the fact of the existence of evil is not a logical rationale for the non existence of an omnipowerful God?
Originally posted by josephwFrom what I can tell, you don't really understand the crux of rwingett's point.
amannion
[b]"Perhaps, but you still need to justify why the all powerful god allows evil to exist."
Not perhaps. The question, up to this point, isn't about why God allows evil to exist. The question is about how an omni-powerful God can exist while evil continues. rwingett seems to think that since evil exists a perfect God cannot.
logical rationale for the non existence of an omnipowerful God?[/b]
Here's a summary:
"If a god exists, and if he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then there should be no evil in the world. The fact that there is evil in the world means that god must necessarily lack one (or more) of the 'omni' attributes...The fact that evil exists indicates that either god does not exist, or that he is flawed, [i.e., he is not omnipotent or not omniscient or not omnibenevolent."
Your portrayal of rwingett's point is not correct. Hope the above helps to clarify.
How can evil exist with a god that is omnipotent AND omniscient AND omnibenevolent?
Originally posted by josephw"Furthermore you are implicitly assuming that if there be a god then it necessarily follows it be an omni-god - this also is not justified (and far less justified than my first contention)."
amannion
[b]"Perhaps, but you still need to justify why the all powerful god allows evil to exist."
Not perhaps. The question, up to this point, isn't about why God allows evil to exist. The question is about how an omni-powerful God can exist while evil continues. rwingett seems to think that since evil exists a perfect God cannot.
logical rationale for the non existence of an omnipowerful God?[/b]
It's not an assumption Agerg. Besides, that is not what is being debated thus far even though everyone seems intent on throwing me of track.(Now I'm assuming)
If omnipowerful does not include omnibenevolence then I agree, on the other hand, if it *does* include omnibenevolence then it *is* logical to say this particular notion of god is inconsistent with evil. As per the thread which gave to yours here, we need only look for at least one example where your god could have been more benevolent with respect to some nasty situation and we're done.
Now the standard theistic response is a general argument that the lord works in mysterious ways, he knows best, we cannot calculate how things would be worse for us were he to act differently, and so on...
I find that a simple response to this is to
a) Choose a particular type of scenario - a brutal, and painful murder.
b) Choose a particular type of person X being murdered - an atheist! We know from standard theistic doctrines that either this person is fated to have an eternal death or shall burn in hell forever.
c) Consider a form of intervention that does not negatively affect any other human.
From (a) we know that a lack of intervention on the part of your god leads to the gruesome and very painful physical death of some person in (b). Moreover, the argument that your god can see that things would be better for this human without its intervention is rendered moot by the fact that he either dies eternally or burns in hell eternally.
Thus the question remains as to which is kinder (attending to (c) above):
i) Person X gets murdered, and your god intervenes to make the physical death swift and painless[1] before whatever non-advanategeous fate awaits him after death.
ii) Person X gets murdered, and is not spared by your god from the excrutiating pain, agony, and torment prior to his physical death; and then goes on to whatever non-advanategeous fate awaits him after death.
--------------------------------------------------------
1) and we can suppose your god may animate the lifeless body so it appears to the murderer that he is is successful in causing extreme suffering (to preempt any argument that the murderer may feel less compelled to avoid murdering others in future if they appear to die without suffering.)