Originally posted by DeepThoughtNo, it is not resolved because the argument also has as a premise that God is good, and that being good requires certain actions ie it must.
I think the point is resolved by the notion that just because I can do something doesn't mean I must do it - I don't think this changes when the subject is omnipotent.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116970
23 Jun 14
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemWith respect, what "most Christians believe" or what I believe are also irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not my complaints, as I've listed against the weak argument that "bad things happen therefore a good god does not exist" are valid. They are valid.
Most Christians believe God is omnipotent.
If there really was 'no other morally possible way' to achieve the greater good in EVERY case of suffering, then aren't you saying that we live in the best of all possible worlds? Do you really believe that? I certainly don't.
When dealing with a god who forsees the future, why are we content that every ...[text shortened]... mean the argument from evil is 'piss poor', but only that it doesn't apply to your type of god.
Let's take the first one: god may not be omnipotent. Wether or not god is omnipotent, or wether or not most Christians believe god is omnipotent is obviously irrelevant. All that is relative is the distinct possibility that god may not be omnipotent. Clearly this is a possibility and therefore the argument falls at it's first hurdle. It is as I said, a piss poor argument against the non existence of a god.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116970
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell then it's not an argument, it's a fabricated self serving premise isn't it. How can a premise which is trying to show that a good god cannot exist, stand on its own restrictions on the variables around which such a god may or may exist. It's weak. Ridiculously so.
The argument takes as a premise that God is omnipotent. If you say 'God is not omnipotent' then you are not contradicting the argument, but discussing a totally different scenario - the possible existence of a non-omnipotent God.
23 Jun 14
Originally posted by divegeesterAnd as I said, as you state it, it is a piss poor argument. However, as you state it, it is a strawman and that it is a piss poor argument in no way reflects badly on the argument put forward by LemonJello, or any self respecting logician who has made the argument from evil in the past.
It is as I said, a piss poor argument against the non existence of a god.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116970
23 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadThen lemon jello should have stated that the god he was talking about existed within a limiting constrict which insists that such a god must be omnipotent, and that in doing so he should acknowledge that making that restriction ensures that the dilemma is fullfilled. In doing this of course he undermines the argument because he is not permitting that god the freedom to exist as either omnipotent OR not omnipotent. Then from that I claim that it is self serving and that it is a flawed and week argument/premise.
For reference: Thread 158939
LemonJello clearly states:16. If God exists, then he is, by definition, an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.
He is talking about a God as defined above. If you are talking about a different God, then it will look like a piss poor argument to you, but that is only your failure to realise what the argument is about, not some fault with the argument itself.
23 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe point I was resolving was the one about God being in control. God can be omnipotent, but choose to take a laissez faire approach to the universe. I wasn't commenting on the God is Good premise.
No, it is not resolved because the argument also has as a premise that God is good, and that being good requires certain actions ie it must.
Besides, you have yet to demonstrate that the greater good comes from intervention.
Originally posted by divegeesterIt is only flawed if you incorrectly assume that its conclusion applies to your conception of God. Your claim that it is flawed is equivalent to saying: LemonJellos argument from evil fails to prove the non-existence of elephants. What a piss poor argument for the non-existence of elephants it is. The argument is flawed because it doesn't take into account the possibility that elephants have tusks.
I accept that it does, and content that for that reason primarily it is flawed.
23 Jun 14
Originally posted by divegeesterBut it IS relevant what god people actually believe in. It's central to the whole issue!
With respect, what "most Christians believe" or what I believe are also irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not my complaints, as I've listed against the weak argument that "bad things happen therefore a good god does not exist" are valid. They are valid.
Let's take the first one: god may not be omnipotent. Wether or not god is omnipotent, or w ...[text shortened]... at it's first hurdle. It is as I said, a piss poor argument against the non existence of a god.
No productive debate about an argument involving 'god' can occur unless both sides use the same meaning for 'god'.
Do you really think that one argument can be made to work against many different god-concepts? If so, of course you'll be disappointed.
Originally posted by divegeesterHe stated it right there in point 16 in clear English, which I have for your convenience quoted for you. What more can you ask for?
Then lemon jello should have stated that the god he was talking about existed within a limiting constrict which insists that such a god must be omnipotent, and that in doing so he should acknowledge that making that restriction ensures that the dilemma is fullfilled.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
23 Jun 14
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemIt is irrational to believe in any proposition for which there is insufficient evidence.
But it IS relevant what god people actually believe in. It's central to the whole issue!
No productive debate about an argument involving 'god' can occur unless both sides use the same meaning for 'god'.
Do you really think that one argument can be made to work against many different god-concepts? If so, of course you'll be disappointed.
There is insufficient evidence to justify belief in any reasonable god concept**.
It is thus irrational to believe in god/s.
There, I just made an argument against believing in any god. 😉 😛
**By 'reasonable god concept' I am not accepting 'the Sun' as a big ball of burning
plasma [as opposed to an anthropomorphised being] as a 'god'. Similarly I am not
accepting 'The Universe' as it is described by physics as being a 'god'. Also all attempts to
label my toothbrush to be a deity will also be rejected. In short I am accepting only god
concepts which propose something other [and sentient] from the ordinary everyday universe
around us. It should be noted that I have not yet met an actual believer whose god would
fail this test.
23 Jun 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou've already identified the problem with your own position. No matter what universal no-god argument you may make, they can get out of it if they change the definition of 'god'.
It is irrational to believe in any proposition for which there is insufficient evidence.
There is insufficient evidence to justify belief in any reasonable god concept**.
It is thus irrational to believe in god/s.
There, I just made an argument against believing in any god. 😉 😛
**By 'reasonable god concept' I am not accepting 'the ...[text shortened]... should be noted that I have not yet met an actual believer whose god would
fail this test.
23 Jun 14
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemYes, you are correct that it is fundamentally impossible to prove the non-existence of an undefined entity.
You've already identified the problem with your own position. No matter what universal no-god argument you may make, they can get out of it if they change the definition of 'god'.
But I think he has met your challenge in finding a single argument that works against many different god-concept - just not every possible god concept.