Refuting "the problem of evil"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-09-2014, 09:26 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(02-09-2014 08:16 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 03:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  Once you start defining god as everything, then the concept is so dilute as to be meaningless.

I see little practical difference between pantheism and atheism. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Maybe not, but there is a world of difference in vantage point.

Pantheists can't stare down the void. They refuse to even see it. 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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
02-09-2014, 11:22 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(02-09-2014 09:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 06:15 PM)phil.a Wrote:  Chas, I am going to hold you to your own standards here and respectfully request that you stop being so presumptuous. Ask me what I mean, don't presume you know and stop speaking on behalf of me.

Phil

Except I haven't done either of those.
I conclude from your cosmic godwoo that you are not an atheist, and I quoted you making a silly generalization about atheists and showed you were wrong.

Chas, in your previous post you made 2 truth claims about me: 1/ that I am not an atheist and 2/ that I don't have evidence for my ideas. Unless you are omniscient, you aren't in a position to make these claims except by presumption. Are you omniscient Chas?

I made no generalisation about atheists because I limited my comment by saying it was a "common" atheist conception. Unless you happen to be the sum total of all atheists everywhere, having you yourself as an exception to my comment does not invalidate my comment. So no, you didn't show me that I was "wrong", you showed me something else.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes phil.a's post
02-09-2014, 11:31 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(02-09-2014 11:22 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 09:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  Except I haven't done either of those.
I conclude from your cosmic godwoo that you are not an atheist, and I quoted you making a silly generalization about atheists and showed you were wrong.

Chas, in your previous post you made 2 truth claims about me: 1/ that I am not an atheist and 2/ that I don't have evidence for my ideas. Unless you are omniscient, you aren't in a position to make these claims except by presumption. Are you omniscient Chas?

I made no generalisation about atheists because I limited my comment by saying it was a "common" atheist conception. Unless you happen to be the sum total of all atheists everywhere, having you yourself as an exception to my comment does not invalidate my comment. So no, you didn't show me that I was "wrong", you showed me something else.

Phil

Well, you sure as hell don't appear to be a skeptic.

"I made no generalisation about atheists because I limited my comment by saying it was a "common" atheist conception."

That is exactly what a generalization is, when you attribute a conception to be 'common' to 'atheists'. Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
02-09-2014, 11:55 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(02-09-2014 11:31 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Well, you sure as hell don't appear to be a skeptic.

"I made no generalisation about atheists because I limited my comment by saying it was a "common" atheist conception."

That is exactly what a generalization is, when you attribute a conception to be 'common' to 'atheists'. Facepalm


A false generalisation would be the turning of a few specific instances into a universal, e.g. "black men have big dicks" is a false generalisation because actually - some have small dicks.

However, if i said that "it's common that black men have big dicks" then actually that's no longer a false generalisation. It's true - because, on average, black guys have bigger dicks than other races.

[Image: penssize.png]

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes phil.a's post
03-09-2014, 12:18 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(02-09-2014 11:55 PM)phil.a Wrote:  A false generalisation would be the turning of a few specific instances into a universal, e.g. "black men have big dicks" is a false generalisation because actually - some have small dicks.

However, if i said that "it's common that black men have big dicks" then actually that's no longer a false generalisation. It's true - because, on average, black guys have bigger dicks than other races.

[Image: penssize.png]

Phil

I approve of this graph

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
03-09-2014, 01:45 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(02-09-2014 11:55 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 11:31 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Well, you sure as hell don't appear to be a skeptic.

"I made no generalisation about atheists because I limited my comment by saying it was a "common" atheist conception."

That is exactly what a generalization is, when you attribute a conception to be 'common' to 'atheists'. Facepalm


A false generalisation would be the turning of a few specific instances into a universal, e.g. "black men have big dicks" is a false generalisation because actually - some have small dicks.

However, if i said that "it's common that black men have big dicks" then actually that's no longer a false generalisation. It's true - because, on average, black guys have bigger dicks than other races.

[Image: penssize.png]

Phil


Dude, read your fucking quote again. You claimed you hadn't made a generalization, not that you hadn't made a false one. You simply did make a generalization, false or not. This backtracking about 'false generalizations' misses the point entirely. Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
03-09-2014, 06:21 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(02-09-2014 11:22 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 09:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  Except I haven't done either of those.
I conclude from your cosmic godwoo that you are not an atheist, and I quoted you making a silly generalization about atheists and showed you were wrong.

Chas, in your previous post you made 2 truth claims about me: 1/ that I am not an atheist and 2/ that I don't have evidence for my ideas. Unless you are omniscient, you aren't in a position to make these claims except by presumption. Are you omniscient Chas?

I made no generalisation about atheists because I limited my comment by saying it was a "common" atheist conception. Unless you happen to be the sum total of all atheists everywhere, having you yourself as an exception to my comment does not invalidate my comment. So no, you didn't show me that I was "wrong", you showed me something else.

Phil

I also conclude that your reading comprehension is not so hot.

The phrase "I conclude from ..." introduces a statement about my beliefs based on the evidence available. It is not a truth claim about you.

You haven't presented evidence for the existence of a pantheistic god thingy.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-09-2014, 07:32 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(02-09-2014 02:03 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 01:42 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The idea of the Classical God is a well established concept and what the actual proposal of the problem of evil is addressing. The omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent idea of god.

If those aren't the god attributes you place onto god, you are moving into a different discussion.

I think I might have covered this one earlier on this thread in a bit more detail, but in summary:

If it's taken as a given that "god" is everything that is, e.g. god is everything that is actual.

Then, god is "everywhere" (at least, everywhere that's actual) - e.g. omnipresent.

If god is "everywhere", and if consciousness is an aspect of god (it must be, since we are an aspect of reality and we have it) - then god is omniscient, in the sense that everything that's meaningfully happening is happening in some sort of awareness somewhere. It's a distributed consciousness (I don't know what's happening in your awareness and vice versa) but considering consciousness itself as an absolute, then wherever something is in awareness, it's actually "in awareness" in an absolute sense.

I think it's a mistake to assume "omniscient" means the awareness occurs in a single mind-like structure that mirrors ours, I think that's anthropomorphising god. Insofar as "god" is aware of your personal corner of reality, his awareness and your awareness are one and the same. You literally are god, holding down that particular corner of 4D space-time.

Omnipotent is similar to the omniscient argument. Since god is everything, everything that happens is happening due to "the will of god".

Phil



You mentioned this in the past, but you never followed up any of a couple posters contrasts or questions to what you infer from that. You still haven't really answered if any of those traits are the God you are talking about or if your symbolic god that is beauty-truth-goodness is separate.

The issue I see right here, that I saw before in your argument about Omnipresent is you LIMIT it. I wonder why, must be because it fits the argument you try to make. Unless you can provide any basis that Omnipresence is conceptually usually LIMITED to anything that is real, then it's not worth continuing onward with that point. Saying that the Omnis are only what is something real, is weakening their positions. They are supposed to represent the power in all that ever was, all that is, and all that will be real or not... otherwise they aren't truly the power they describe.

"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
03-09-2014, 08:17 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(03-09-2014 06:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  I also conclude that your reading comprehension is not so hot.

The phrase "I conclude from ..." introduces a statement about my beliefs based on the evidence available. It is not a truth claim about you.

You haven't presented evidence for the existence of a pantheistic god thingy.

I spot one straw man argument, and one red herring argument in there.

Let's leave it at that though. I can at least see that you have modified your position into something reasonable.

Thanks,

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2014, 09:27 AM (This post was last modified: 03-09-2014 09:45 AM by phil.a.)
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(03-09-2014 07:32 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You mentioned this in the past, but you never followed up any of a couple posters contrasts or questions to what you infer from that. You still haven't really answered if any of those traits are the God you are talking about or if your symbolic god that is beauty-truth-goodness is separate.

Ok, well here's my position. I have made a set of reality observations, those are briefly summarised in terms of the beauty/goodness/truth spiral of emergent complexity previously mentioned. Having made those observations, I then found that the truth claims of the world's religions could be meaningfully framed in terms of that. Because it seems to provide a good fit and makes sense of otherwise impenetrably obscure religious claims, I am choosing to take the position that my mapping is a reasonable mapping.

I would not generally choose to make the classical "god" claims of the B/G/T spiral of emergence simply because they seem rather superfluous - of course Truth, or the laws of physics are "omnipresent", we rational thinkers take that as a given (even though that probably did in fact need to be taught to us at some point in our childhood)

However I do notice that If I do limit myself to what is real, those classical "god" claims do actually fit with what I am saying.

Quote:The issue I see right here, that I saw before in your argument about Omnipresent is you LIMIT it. I wonder why, must be because it fits the argument you try to make. Unless you can provide any basis that Omnipresence is conceptually usually LIMITED to anything that is real, then it's not worth continuing onward with that point. Saying that the Omnis are only what is something real, is weakening their positions. They are supposed to represent the power in all that ever was, all that is, and all that will be real or not... otherwise they aren't truly the power they describe.

Granted, I do limit it but I think that it's reasonable to limit it to reality. Eg if someone told me they can fly, I'd assume this means they have a pilot's licence, not that they are capable of levitation that denies the laws of physics. I might be wrong in my assumption, but it always seems most reasonable to me to assume that when someone speaks, they are in fact speaking about reality in some way (even if sometimes, quite an obscure way).

My opinion is that religious truth claims are little more than a way of communicating the idea that the cosmos (and it's principle of creation) can be considered as a system which has an overall coherence to it. And that much of the complexity of this system is necessarily (due to our small and finite brains), somewhat out of sight to us. I think the truth claims of science are nothing more than a timely update to pre-rational religious claims, detailing as they do (with the laws of physics and the theory of evolution) the way that reality is a system.

If however you think it's unreasonable to assume the classical definitions of "god" are limited to actual reality, then I'd take a different position on it. If we decide they are making unreal claims about actual reality, then I'd say they don't point to anything actual, and by that definition, their "god" does not therefore exist.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes phil.a's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: