Commentary on Heywood and epronovost on the Problem of evil
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-10-2015, 01:55 AM
Commentary on Heywood and epronovost on the Problem of evil
(06-10-2015 01:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-09-2015 01:31 PM)epronovost Wrote:  ....There is no «good» circumstances for an anthropomorphic, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being that cares about humanity to allow or generate extreme pain, hopelessness, despair, terror, oppression, etc. thus, its existence is impossible in our reality where there is extreme pain, hopelessness, despair, terror, oppression, etc. ....

How do you define omnipotent and omniscient? When I think of an omnipotent/omniscient God I think of one that can do all that is logically possible and know all that is knowable. Somethings, even for God are unknowable or not doable. God cannot create a being with free will and the capacity to do evil and know that being will not do evil until that being is created and allowed to act. It is really a halting problem which has been proved to be unsolvable by Alan Turing. If you are unfamiliar with halting problems watch this 8 minute video. It basically shows that the existence of a computer which can solve halting problem cannot exist. Watch it and instead of computer replace it with a god and is shows that even God cannot solve halting problems.





Basically, this world was created with beings that have free will and have the capacity to do evil. God could not know if the beings would do evil until those being were created and allowed to act. The existence of such a priori knowledge is logically impossible. If that a priori knowledge is logically impossible then God cannot be blamed for not acting upon it.

Under which rules of logic?

(didn't realize this was boxing ring)

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2015, 05:12 AM
RE: Commentary on Heywood and epronovost on the Problem of evil
Quote: God could not know if the beings would do evil until those being were created and allowed to act.

So god is obviously not omniscient, and he's a dumb-ass. Putting a tree in a place where his creations could easily access it and then letting them know where it's at and to never eat from it.

What could go wrong? Laughat

At what point is it acknowledged that the goofballs that wrote this myth didn't have a clue?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2015, 05:48 AM
RE: Commentary on Heywood and epronovost on the Problem of evil
There's a really easy solution to this.

God is a sadistic asshole.

Everyone agreed? Alright, meeting adjured!

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
07-10-2015, 01:16 AM
RE: Commentary on Heywood and epronovost on the Problem of evil
(07-10-2015 01:04 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(06-10-2015 04:28 PM)epronovost Wrote:  The epicurean formulation of the Problem of evil is designed to show a contradiction in a popular definition of a God which is an anthropomorphic, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being that cares about humanity. Does this definition makes sense? Of course not! That's what Epicurus was trying to demonstrate in the first place with a moral argument. Is it the only reason it doesn't make sense? Of course not! There is dozens of arguments against that type of God that attack other aspects. You have just presented another one. In no way does it affect the Problem of evil for both state the exact same thing in two different fashion.

Epicurus had in his argument, either stated outright or implied the following premise:

An Omnibenevolent God would want to prevent all evils.

How do you justify that premise?


Holy fuck. Facepalm

Once again, Blowjob has the reading comprehension of a retarded pet rock.


be·nev·o·lent
- Well meaning and kindly.
synonyms: kind, kindly, kindhearted, big-hearted, good-natured, good, benign, compassionate, caring, altruistic, humanitarian, philanthropic


So a being with limitless power, limitless knowledge, and a limitless desire to do good/be kind, would not have created a universe which 'needless suffering' is a thing. Hell, given unlimited knowledge and power, even 'needed suffering' becomes an oxymoron; as any being incapable of making a universe without suffering is either lacks the power or knowledge to do so, and thus is not omnipotent or omniscient. A being that was omnibenevolent and also had the power and knowledge to make their desires come true, this is not the universe we should expect to see.

So the original paradox still holds true. Either this deity lacks the power to make their benevolent desires a reality, they lack the knowledge to do so effectively, or they simply lack the desire to be benevolent. Either this deity is impotent, incompetent, or apathetic; make your choice, and choose wisely. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
07-10-2015, 01:51 AM
RE: Commentary on Heywood and epronovost on the Problem of evil
(07-10-2015 01:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(07-10-2015 01:04 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Epicurus had in his argument, either stated outright or implied the following premise:

An Omnibenevolent God would want to prevent all evils.

How do you justify that premise?


Holy fuck. Facepalm

Once again, Blowjob has the reading comprehension of a retarded pet rock.


be·nev·o·lent
- Well meaning and kindly.
synonyms: kind, kindly, kindhearted, big-hearted, good-natured, good, benign, compassionate, caring, altruistic, humanitarian, philanthropic


So a being with limitless power, limitless knowledge, and a limitless desire to do good/be kind, would not have created a universe which 'needless suffering' is a thing. Hell, given unlimited knowledge and power, even 'needed suffering' becomes an oxymoron; as any being incapable of making a universe without suffering is either lacks the power or knowledge to do so, and thus is not omnipotent or omniscient. A being that was omnibenevolent and also had the power and knowledge to make their desires come true, this is not the universe we should expect to see.

So the original paradox still holds true. Either this deity lacks the power to make their benevolent desires a reality, they lack the knowledge to do so effectively, or they simply lack the desire to be benevolent. Either this deity is impotent, incompetent, or apathetic; make your choice, and choose wisely. Drinking Beverage

That's just the way that type of loose personal God theories come out with people. They just negate the essence of what the terms mean in so what they believe their god already is. So that's all the term means in their view. You weaken the standards then make some claim that benevolence, some even omni-benevolence exists with it.

At least someone like KC just doesn't believe in benevolence.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
07-10-2015, 06:04 AM (This post was last modified: 07-10-2015 06:15 AM by epronovost.)
RE: Commentary on Heywood and epronovost on the Problem of evil
(07-10-2015 01:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(07-10-2015 01:04 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Epicurus had in his argument, either stated outright or implied the following premise:

An Omnibenevolent God would want to prevent all evils.

How do you justify that premise?


Holy fuck. Facepalm

Once again, Blowjob has the reading comprehension of a retarded pet rock.


be·nev·o·lent
- Well meaning and kindly.
synonyms: kind, kindly, kindhearted, big-hearted, good-natured, good, benign, compassionate, caring, altruistic, humanitarian, philanthropic


So a being with limitless power, limitless knowledge, and a limitless desire to do good/be kind, would not have created a universe which 'needless suffering' is a thing. Hell, given unlimited knowledge and power, even 'needed suffering' becomes an oxymoron; as any being incapable of making a universe without suffering is either lacks the power or knowledge to do so, and thus is not omnipotent or omniscient. A being that was omnibenevolent and also had the power and knowledge to make their desires come true, this is not the universe we should expect to see.

So the original paradox still holds true. Either this deity lacks the power to make their benevolent desires a reality, they lack the knowledge to do so effectively, or they simply lack the desire to be benevolent. Either this deity is impotent, incompetent, or apathetic; make your choice, and choose wisely. Drinking Beverage

I must admit it's pretty complicated to explain him that since that would be admitting he was wrong and the Problem of evil is indeed showing a contradiction and a good argument against a specific kind of God. You will also notice that if he interveens all the time, he is making his creation puppets which might be considered evil (a bit less according to our pyramid of needs though). Thus a an anthropomorphic, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being that cares about humanity is always stuck with such a problem, even outside of our reality (but that's not really pertinent to my debate with Heywood).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
08-10-2015, 07:02 AM
RE: Commentary on Heywood and epronovost on the Problem of evil
(07-10-2015 01:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Hell, given unlimited knowledge and power, even 'needed suffering' becomes an oxymoron; as any being incapable of making a universe without suffering is either lacks the power or knowledge to do so, and thus is not omnipotent or omniscient.

There is never a clear path to where any kind of suffering makes sense, it's all tossed to the mysterious god excuse.

Why does a child get cancer and die in pain? Adherence to some sort of master plan?

Why do animals kill and eat other animals? Why do they get diseases and die?

Show me this plan and how this is necessary to achieve a specific goal, help me understand why THAT particular plan is the best plan possible, because maybe I shouldn't seek treatment for the cancer that would foul up the "perfect plan". Surely at some point in this grand master plan it all fits together and makes perfect sense.

It only starts to make sense when you remove god from the equation.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
08-10-2015, 05:50 PM
RE: Commentary on Heywood and epronovost on the Problem of evil
(06-10-2015 01:55 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Under which rules of logic?

He doesn't seem to realize that there are many different ones.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: