Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-12-2014, 08:31 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(08-12-2014 08:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(08-12-2014 08:09 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Yep, the commonly accepted definition of benevolence is violated by this deity,

You keep asserting it's the commonly accepted definition, but it's not. It's the accepted definition by those who argue for the problem of evil, who are a minority. The common understanding of benevolence isn't negated by the existence of pointless suffering.

But even so, what is the argument, that the theist is wrong to refer to God as benevolent, because of improper grammar?

So is your definition of benevolence that if suffering serves a higher good that it can remain as an overall benevolence? Explain.....

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
08-12-2014, 08:34 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
The solution to the problem of evil ultimately boils down to the notion that the world is optimally evil. It has the right amount of evil for some (generally unknown and unstated) purpose that is good enough for the god. This boils down to making benevolence a meaningless statement. God is good enough for its own purposes and does not deliver a form of benevolence that humanity recognises. It is not benevolence, but in fact it is "might makes right". The problem of evil is solved by removing omnibenevolence from the list of propositions.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Hafnof's post
08-12-2014, 08:37 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(08-12-2014 08:34 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  The solution to the problem of evil ultimately boils down to the notion that the world is optimally evil. It has the right amount of evil for some (generally unknown and unstated) purpose that is good enough for the god. This boils down to making benevolence a meaningless statement. God is good enough for its own purposes and does not deliver a form of benevolence that humanity recognises. It is not benevolence, but in fact it is "might makes right". The problem of evil is solved by removing omnibenevolence from the list of propositions.

Or dishonestly redefining benevolence to include pointless suffering and unspeakable horror. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
08-12-2014, 08:38 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(08-12-2014 08:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(08-12-2014 08:09 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Yep, the commonly accepted definition of benevolence is violated by this deity,

You keep asserting it's the commonly accepted definition, but it's not. It's the accepted definition by those who argue for the problem of evil, who are a minority. The common understanding of benevolence isn't negated by the existence of pointless suffering.

But even so, what is the argument, that the theist is wrong to refer to God as benevolent, because of improper grammar?

Perhaps concede that your god is evil?

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
08-12-2014, 08:43 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(08-12-2014 07:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yet, if you take a very liberal and very conservative perspective there likely will be quite a number of distinctions between each model, such as one might view a model citizen as one who is a patriot, respects and is subservient to authority, served in the military, stands for the pledge, etc... Or in other words the model citizen for a conservative will likely lean more to the right, than a liberal's model citizen.

Nice try. But essentially they both understand the CENTRAL meaning of the term.

(08-12-2014 07:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And yet, the general understanding of omnibenvolence doesn't get negated by the existence of evil, or suffering in the world. It's only a minority, such as yourself who disagree with this understanding.

Really ? So you say. Did you take a poll ? Let's see it. It does get negated by anyone who does not above all, NEED to keep cognitive dissonance at bay.

(08-12-2014 07:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Ah yes, that's sort of the problem right. At least you somewhat seem to understand that issue with the problem of evil, is that it requires an appeal to absolute moral values. And not just that, but that the standard painted by the critics here, is a reflection of that absolute standard. The atheist often finds himself in a tricky predicament arguing against the existence of God, while appealing to his existence.

Wrong. Would YOU say it's "evil" to beat a disobedient child to death ? To stone an adulteress ? If you say "no" then it's PROOF that your idiot deity has no absolute moral imperatives. They were BOTH approved of (supposedly) by him, in the OT, and CHANGED. It's not "tricky" at all. It's called a "thought experiment". "IF a loving deity were to exist", is not appealing to the existence of a god. Nice try again. You really have swallowed the indoctrination. We are not idiots here, even though obviously that's the level you're used to dealing with.


(08-12-2014 07:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I haven't done any contortions, in fact I merely pointed out something that should be quite obvious, a difference in definitions among believers and certain atheists on what benevolence requires. I haven't rejected any competing evidence for any actual dissonance to take place. I merely rejected the personal preferences, the flavor of the day, of my opponents.

The fact that you can excuse and try explain away the suffering of children, (which you have in no way even attempted yet), and try to make it consistent with a loving deity, just shows how utterly bankrupt your cult's rationalizations of Reality is.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
08-12-2014, 09:06 AM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2014 09:09 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(08-12-2014 08:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  Or dishonestly redefining benevolence to include pointless suffering and unspeakable horror. Drinking Beverage

So the the entire foundation of the problem of evil, is an argument for improper grammar?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2014, 09:21 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
Fuck. Dodgy

So relieved I have no presupposed bullshit interfering in my ideology; I get so much reality done. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kim's post
08-12-2014, 09:26 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(08-12-2014 08:43 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The fact that you can excuse and try explain away the suffering of children, (which you have in no way even attempted yet), and try to make it consistent with a loving deity, just shows how utterly bankrupt your cult's rationalizations of Reality is.

I don't even have to make excuses or explain away suffering children. The argument when made by an atheists can be dismantled with ease without even getting to that point. In fact even the most crudest of theists do this with ease, causing the unbelievers to trip all over himself repeatedly. It's a game an atheists loses before the match even started, where they are left to whine on the bench after being defeated, secretly wishing for a God they don't believe in.

Of course the argument would be different if it was one between believers, christian or otherwise, but it's a silly one to have with moral relativist.

At this point, the best argument anyone has, is to argue for improper grammar, lol.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2014, 10:25 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(08-12-2014 08:31 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  So is your definition of benevolence that if suffering serves a higher good that it can remain as an overall benevolence? Explain.....

Maybe, maybe not.

At the end of the day if you're an atheist, someone who subscribes to moral relativism, it doesn't even matter. I could propose whatever i wanted as a higher good, and you wouldn't be able to argue that isn't one, because your incapable of creating such a hierarchy, that doesn't amount to anything more than your particular flavor of the day.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2014, 10:31 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(08-12-2014 09:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So the the entire foundation of the problem of evil, is an argument for improper grammar?

No, the foundation of the problem of evil is quite solid for anybody not completely blinded by "faith". Redefining words to eviscerate their meaning in order to pretend that the problem doesn't exist only works for theists.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: