ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 26th July 2020, 05:53 AM   #121
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,781
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
The spirit world teaches that God created a perfect system that promotes our spiritual evolution. he set it into motion then stepped back and left the system to run its course. He does not meddle or intervene, as the system is going to work itself out over time. All the seeming injustices and cruelties will eventually be overcome and everything will be resolved over countless ages.

As humans we look at life's imperfections from a worms eye view. But our immortal spirit goes on though countless incarnations until achieving perfection.
So some people get cancer and die, but their spirit rises from the body and goes on. Like throwing off an old coat and putting on a new one. From the spirits point of view the death is a mercy. The next lifetime will probably be better, and compensate for an early death in our present incarnation.
So do you truly believe that the world was made for us? Why does the system perfect for our spiritual evolution require parasitic wasps?

When children are beaten to death or ravaged by fatal disease, earnest theists declare that God has taken them into his loving arms, but we never hear them, beforehand, pray for this to happen. Why not?
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 06:16 AM   #122
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,721
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Serious question: if theists use a different definition for "omnipotence" than atheists, how can theists and atheists argue over any logical arguments that use the term "omnipotence"? What's the best way forward?
Dropping the whole subject because it's pretty much the most completely pointless & irrelevant topic that people still bring up in modern theological conversations.
Delvo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 06:46 AM   #123
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 17,120
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Cold reason tells me you are making stuff up...
So the difference is that Loss Leader made up the dragon mythos himself, but you're repeating things made up by others, which makes your claims true.

Congratulations! You've discovered the difference between fringe cults and religions.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 07:17 AM   #124
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 17,120
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
All the seeming injustices and cruelties will eventually be overcome and everything will be resolved over countless ages.
So why does the fact that a three-year-old was gang-raped and decapitated make you so uncomfortable that you admonish Darat for even bringing it up?


Quote:
So some people get cancer and die, but their spirit rises from the body and goes on. Like throwing off an old coat and putting on a new one. From the spirits point of view the death is a mercy. The next lifetime will probably be better, and compensate for an early death in our present incarnation.
So it's a good thing that that three-year-old died so horribly. Wonderful news! Victory gin for everyone!
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 07:27 AM   #125
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,911
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Yes, but I don't see it as so vague as to be useless. "What is possible" in terms of a logical argument is sharp enough to use, at least in logical arguments. How that reflects the real world is a different issue.
Well it certainly leaves it wide open what is possible, and what is not. Can God end suffering? If he is omnibenevolent, he would have done so. Accordingly, we must conclude that ending suffering is not possible. And so on. A very nice "Get out of jail"-card. And I bet that whenever it suits you, God's "maximal" power can do stuff that we would normally think is impossible.

Quote:
One of my favorite jokes runs like this:

A man wins a 1st place prize sporting trophy. At the ceremony he goes up to the stage and says: "Thank you Jesus for this victory! Without Jesus I wouldn't have won."

The 2nd place winner then goes up after him and says: "Well, I guess I would have won if it wasn't for Jesus."

Very good
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 07:28 AM   #126
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,781
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
....



So it's a good thing that that three-year-old died so horribly. Wonderful news! Victory gin for everyone!
I'm sure God has a special place in his heart for the savvy parents who knew enough to pray for this, instead of the usual prayers for the opposite. Oh please God, don't just rape him, behead him so he gets an extra smooch from Jesus.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 07:47 AM   #127
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,779
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
I'm not a Christian (though I'm an omi-theist), and I believe that the Bible is nothing but a collection of old books. (I also believe that they are part of humanity's collective heirloom, like all ancient writings and materials that are left with us, but that's not relevant to this discussion I think.)

I'm rather fond of the "do not kill" one. Some of the others are "meh" though. How about you? Which ones do you accept and which do you reject? And why?
Ah. If the buybull is BS, whence your theism? From "beyond the horizon of the formless" or some such.

Oddly, as an atheist, I accept the only five Jesus endorsed. I bet you have no clue which and why. And even then, those five predate the bible anyway. But you don't know that either.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 07:51 AM   #128
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,779
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
On your earlier interesting question about "power": Looking at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/
Omnipotence is maximal power... in recent philosophical discussion, omnipotence has been analyzed in terms of the power to bring about certain possible states of affairs...

Power should be distinguished from ability. Power is ability plus opportunity: a being which has maximal ability but which is prevented by circumstances from exercising those abilities would not be omnipotent. Nothing could prevent an omnipotent agent from exercising its powers, if it were to endeavor to do so.
So I'd define "power" as "the ability plus opportunity to bring about certain possible states of affairs", and "omnipotence" as "maximal power".

On your question above: I think that to do anything requires "power", including squaring a circle. So that seems to me to be self-evident. Does that make sense? What do you think?
Following the WLC script, I see. It is his script and even he fails at it.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 07:55 AM   #129
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,779
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Cold reason tells me you are making stuff up about dragons, but what I have said has filtered down to me through actually attending many trance lectures by well known mediums.
Cold reason tells me you are making stuff up about spiritualism. I care nothing that you were suckered by others. It adds nothing to the truth value of your claims.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 09:02 AM   #130
RedStapler
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
In fact, to illustrate how much an irrelevant pseudo-intellectual derail it is, consider the following analogy, which is more or less a recurring discussion on some gaming boards:

Alice: "The exaggerated depth blur in ENB is annoying and unrealistic anyway."
Bob: "Depth blur is realistic. You shouldn't be able to focus and see a castle clearly at half a mile away."
Alice: "If that's the case for you, it just means you need glasses. A healthy human eye focuses at infinity when relaxed. I mean, unless you're short sighted, you can see the MOON clearly, which is a lot farther away than that castle."

At this point Carl could butt into the talk with such issues as 'define infinity', or even 'how can you focus at infinity in a finite sized universe', or 'does that account for gravity lensing, if you want it to actually focus at infinity?'

But that's irrelevant for what was actually discussed, namely a castle less than 1 mile away. For the problem of whether a human should always see that one blurry as heck, the limits of the observable universe are of exactly ZERO consequence.

For all practical purposes, here infinity only needs to mean: "more than you'll ever need."

And that is exactly the level of pseudo-intellectual derail we see in this thread: what's debated are some edge cases that are WAAHAAAHAAAAY outside the domain of what's needed for the actual problem.
Perfect summary of this thread.
RedStapler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 02:00 PM   #131
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Oddly, as an atheist, I accept the only five Jesus endorsed. I bet you have no clue which and why. And even then, those five predate the bible anyway. But you don't know that either.
No, I don't know about it at all, and it sounds interesting. I love reading about all that stuff. If you have a link to where I can read about it further, it would be great if you could share it. Thanks!
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 02:03 PM   #132
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,779
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
No, I don't know about it at all, and it sounds interesting. I love reading about all that stuff. If you have a link to where I can read about it further, it would be great if you could share it. Thanks!
Share it? Read the bible, that is what it says.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 02:15 PM   #133
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,779
Are you claiming that you have no access to any bible?

Are you claiming the bible is wrong/

Do you support slavery?

Do you support human sacrifice?

Do you support genocide?

Do you support rape?

Think carefully.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 03:00 PM   #134
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Share it? Read the bible, that is what it says.
You wrote "I accept the only five Jesus endorsed". I don't know where in the Bible Jesus only endorsed five of the 10 commandments. If Jesus only endorsed five, that would be fascinating. Thanks!

Last edited by GDon; 26th July 2020 at 03:06 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 03:03 PM   #135
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Are you claiming that you have no access to any bible? Nope.

Are you claiming the bible is wrong/ Nope. Just that it isn't the Word of God. It's a wonderful old time capsule of ancient beliefs. It's interesting what people used to think, since it helps tell us where we come from.

Do you support slavery? Nope.

Do you support human sacrifice? Nope.

Do you support genocide? Nope.

Do you support rape? Nope.

Think carefully. Nope. Oops!
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 03:31 PM   #136
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,779
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
You wrote "I accept the only five Jesus endorsed". I don't know where in the Bible Jesus only endorsed five of the 10 commandments. If Jesus only endorsed five, that would be fascinating. Thanks!
Read your book of magic. I cant read it on your behalf. Your problem now is that you are slowly coming to the understanding that I have read the risible tome several times and you have not.

You can pretend all you like that the magic book is unavailable to you. Everyone else knows that to be false.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 03:42 PM   #137
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Can God end suffering? If he is omnibenevolent, he would have done so.
Would He, though? I'm not so sure. Take the following: I've read many times where people say "That was the hardest time of my life, but I'm glad that I went through it. If I had to do it all over again, I would."

I think the idea that "suffering brings rewards" is one that no-one disputes.

There are two obvious rejoinders:

1. "What about that tsunami that killed a quarter of a million people? What rewards did that bring?" and similar atrocities. And of course, I can't explain that.

2. "If God is omni-max, then he could have created a world where no suffering is possible", which I believe has been logically refuted for reasons already given earlier in this thread.

The answer is that, based on anecdotal experience, some suffering can bring benefits, and some suffering is perfectly consistent with the idea of an omni-max God, which seems to be a mainstream opinion within the world of philosophy at the moment (with caveats).

So can God end all suffering? "If he is omnibenevolent, he would have done so" is not valid, since some suffering may be necessary. So the question is really "Can God end unnecessary suffering?"

But how can any atheist point to some suffering and say it is "unnecessary"? How does that get proven? Yes, I know: the theist will invoke "God moves in mysterious ways" and that answers nothing. But where is the burden of proof?

If the atheist is making the positive claim that there is unnecessary suffering in the world, then the burden of proof lies on them, not on the theist. Personally I would invoke Hitchen's Razor at this point. Otherwise the atheist is making what appears to be an emotional argument rather than a logical one. And we need to be careful at that point, since emotions can easily swamp logic.

Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
And I bet that whenever it suits you, God's "maximal" power can do stuff that we would normally think is impossible.
IF maximal power can't achieve something, then an omnipotent God can't do it. (Note the conditional "IF"!) Sounds logical to me. What do you think?

Last edited by GDon; 26th July 2020 at 03:54 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 03:44 PM   #138
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Read your book of magic. I cant read it on your behalf. Your problem now is that you are slowly coming to the understanding that I have read the risible tome several times and you have not.

You can pretend all you like that the magic book is unavailable to you. Everyone else knows that to be false.
Fair enough.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 05:46 PM   #139
jrhowell
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida
Posts: 678
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
If the atheist is making the positive claim that there is unnecessary suffering in the world, then the burden of proof lies on them, not on the theist.
Theists need any suffering that occurs to be necessary in order to explain why a compassionate God has not done away with it. The burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that.
jrhowell is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 05:54 PM   #140
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 67,929
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
I think the idea that "suffering brings rewards" is one that no-one disputes.
I dispute it.

Suffering brings suffering. Rewards can be brought despite the suffering, but the idea that the rewards are brought because of suffering makes me doubt the value of those rewards.
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 06:11 PM   #141
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,472
Has anyone asked which five Jesus endorsed?
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 07:17 PM   #142
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,781
I think the idea that suffering brings rewards is baloney. Of course, as always in the lives of human beings, some suffering can bring some rewards. It often can, because people are good at that kind of thing when they have a chance. But it seems obvious enough that unless you presume a corrective afterlife, plenty of suffering does not bring any rewards. We like to inspire ourselves with the brave souls who have turned misfortune into gold. They often represent the best of our humanity, but they are not among the countless millions who have been gunned down into the ditches they just dug, or starved, or burned or lay screaming in the battlefield as they bled. Nor are they among the countless unheralded victims of abuse, want and torture who went on to insanity or drink, or just shambled out of our sight.

If there is no unnecessary misfortune in the world, then how comes it that mankind can eliminate misfortunes in the world without incurring the wrath of God? I know, as the old folk song goes, that you should never swat a fly*, but should we also bring back smallpox? God made that too, right?

*
Because he may have another fly. Oh, he may sit with her and sigh: Sigh the way I do with you...."
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 08:45 PM   #143
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I dispute it.

Suffering brings suffering. Rewards can be brought despite the suffering, but the idea that the rewards are brought because of suffering makes me doubt the value of those rewards.
Ok, interesting. The idea that some people value the suffering in their lives due to what it has brought them seems to be well established, including with examples in my own life. So I disagree.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 08:53 PM   #144
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I think the idea that suffering brings rewards is baloney. Of course, as always in the lives of human beings, some suffering can bring some rewards. It often can...
Isn't that contradictory as it stands? I think I understand your point: that some suffering can bring rewards doesn't mean that ALL suffering brings rewards. If that's what you mean, then I agree. There is a class of suffering I call "unnecessary suffering", which by definition brings no rewards.

But I'm talking about the principle of "suffering can bring rewards", so would like to be clear on how this is stated.

Originally Posted by bruto View Post
We like to inspire ourselves with the brave souls who have turned misfortune into gold. They often represent the best of our humanity, but they are not among the countless millions who have been gunned down into the ditches they just dug, or starved, or burned or lay screaming in the battlefield as they bled. Nor are they among the countless unheralded victims of abuse, want and torture who went on to insanity or drink, or just shambled out of our sight.

If there is no unnecessary misfortune in the world, then how comes it that mankind can eliminate misfortunes in the world without incurring the wrath of God? I know, as the old folk song goes, that you should never swat a fly*, but should we also bring back smallpox? God made that too, right?
Okay, but... what's the answer?

Should we bring back smallpox? If there is some benefit in doing so, wouldn't we bring back smallpox? (What that benefit is, I have no idea. It is the principle I am talking about.)
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 08:55 PM   #145
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
Has anyone asked which five Jesus endorsed?
Yes, I'd be interested in knowing that also.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 08:56 PM   #146
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 67,929
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Ok, interesting. The idea that some people value the suffering in their lives due to what it has brought them seems to be well established, including with examples in my own life. So I disagree.
You are certainly free to do so. I don't believe that your suffering in and of itself produced the rewards that you attribute to it. You are not rewarded purely because you suffered. Pain can be only pain. It's what you do despite the pain that matters.
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 09:01 PM   #147
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
Theists need any suffering that occurs to be necessary in order to explain why a compassionate God has not done away with it. The burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that.
I think theists have already done so, as I wrote earlier in this thread. That is, the logical problem of evil is generally considered answered:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_...e-will_defense
According to Chad Meister, professor of philosophy at Bethel College, most philosophers accept Plantinga's free-will defense and thus see the logical problem of evil as having been sufficiently rebutted.[17] Robert Adams says that "it is fair to say that Plantinga has solved this problem. That is, he has argued convincingly for the consistency of God and evil."[18] William Alston has said that "Plantinga ... has established the possibility that God could not actualize a world containing free creatures that always do the right thing."[19] William L. Rowe has written "granted incompatibilism, there is a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God", referring to Plantinga's argument.[20]
There are objections and implications for such a solution, but assuming it holds up, it does explain why a compassionate God has not done away with suffering. The empirical problem of evil -- explaining the evil in the real world -- is probably unresolvable in this world.

Last edited by GDon; 26th July 2020 at 09:08 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 09:06 PM   #148
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
You are certainly free to do so. I don't believe that your suffering in and of itself produced the rewards that you attribute to it. You are not rewarded purely because you suffered. Pain can be only pain. It's what you do despite the pain that matters.
Physical exercise to get stronger? Stress through study? A horror time with my first long-term girlfriend? All these things resulted in improvements for me. These are all fairly low-grade examples of suffering, but illustrate the principle.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 09:09 PM   #149
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 67,929
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Physical exercise to get stronger? Stress through study? A horror time with my first long-term girlfriend? All these things resulted in improvements for me. These are all fairly low-grade examples of suffering, but illustrate the principle.
That's not suffering at all. Temporary inconveniences at best.

What benefit is there to a child suffering through leukaemia and dying at six years old?
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 09:33 PM   #150
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
That's not suffering at all. Temporary inconveniences at best.
But you'll agree that I improved because of these inconveniences. So those are consistent with an omni-God? When does it rise to a level of suffering? Pain? Death?

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
What benefit is there to a child suffering through leukaemia and dying at six years old?
I don't know. Do you believe that God can't get benefit, in this life or the next, to a child suffering through leukaemia and dying at six years old? Can you lay out the logic for that please?

I hope we can avoid the argument via emotion fallacy here, and stick to logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones ("argument from passion") is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.[1] This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.

Last edited by GDon; 26th July 2020 at 09:40 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 10:15 PM   #151
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 67,929
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Do you believe that God can't get benefit, in this life or the next, to a child suffering through leukaemia and dying at six years old? Can you lay out the logic for that please?
I think that if God benefits from suffering and dying, then God is a horrific and evil entity and should be abhorred.
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 10:22 PM   #152
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,781
It looks as if we're going around in circles.

So sure, if you start with the presumption that there's a god, and that this god can and does fix suffering post facto, then sure, I guess you believe things happen according to divine rules. There's no evidence of this, but if you believe it, then you believe it.

But I don't see any evidence that this occurs. I don't see any evidence that, even if there were a god, there's an afterlife correction for the hardships of life. We bundle the idea of a god with the idea of benevolence, but they're separate.

I find it odd that the argument for emotion is used against the simple idea that there's no evidence for a god, or for that god fixing suffering or for the necessitiy of suffering in the first place, but not for the wishful thinking that says there might be. Everything in the design of life suggests that suffering is part of it. From its very beginnings, life has been tenuous and brutal. If a god designed the world that design was what we see, not what we wish for.

If it's true that suffering is a creation of a god and that that god creates only what is necessary or good, then would it not be a sin to eradicate a disease such as smallpox that is caused by a living organism created by the god?

You ask me for an answer, but my answer, I would have thought, was understood: I conclude that there is no god and that suffering, though inherent in life itself and inevitable, is not in any moral or spiritual sense necessary. It's up to a theist to sort out how the destruction of a part of creation can be justified.

We're still left with the anomaly of the religious fervently praying for something to happen and then joyously thanking the lord for not doing it.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 10:30 PM   #153
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,884
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
But you'll agree that I improved because of these inconveniences. So those are consistent with an omni-God? When does it rise to a level of suffering? Pain? Death?
When applied by His followers such as the RC church's prime bitch, Mother Teresa.
Although she had 517 missions in 100 countries at the time of her death, the study found that hardly anyone who came seeking medical care found it there. Doctors observed unhygienic, “even unfit,” conditions, inadequate food, and no painkillers — not for lack of funding, in which Mother Theresa’s world-famous order was swimming, but what the study authors call her “particular conception of suffering and death.”

There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering,” Mother Teresa once told the unamused Christopher Hitchens.
The ******* sainted this vicious bitch for ***** sake.

THIS is the suffering your God expects from His followers - mostly meted out on the weak, young, defenceless and already suffering.

The only person who gained from their suffering was her - in accolades from her handlers and in her and the churches hoarding of lucre.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald

Last edited by EHocking; 26th July 2020 at 10:34 PM.
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 10:30 PM   #154
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I think that if God benefits from suffering and dying, then God is a horrific and evil entity and should be abhorred.
But why? As I said, it seems to be more of an argument by emotion rather than a logical one. There is no logic to that position, IF the benefit from the suffering and the dying is some kind of greater good. IF that is the case, how is that being horrific and evil?
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 10:33 PM   #155
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 67,929
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
But why? As I said, it seems to be more of an argument by emotion rather than a logical one. There is no logic to that position, IF the benefit from the suffering and the dying is some kind of greater good. IF that is the case, how is that being horrific and evil?
Because the greater good is to god, not to the people suffering. It's selfish. It's exactly the same as torturing a puppy to death for no reason other than because you enjoy it.

And for the record, suffering is an emotional subject. You can't get away from that.
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 10:49 PM   #156
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
It looks as if we're going around in circles.

So sure, if you start with the presumption that there's a god, and that this god can and does fix suffering post facto, then sure, I guess you believe things happen according to divine rules. There's no evidence of this, but if you believe it, then you believe it.
Exactly so. It is a logically valid position, based on the presumption of there being a god. But despite it being valid, it provides no evidence for the existence of that god. The successful resolution to the theodicy problem by theism does not provide evidence that God exists.

Originally Posted by bruto View Post
But I don't see any evidence that this occurs. I don't see any evidence that, even if there were a god, there's an afterlife correction for the hardships of life.
True enough.

Originally Posted by bruto View Post
We bundle the idea of a god with the idea of benevolence, but they're separate.
In fact, the definition for omni-God (capital "G") is: omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. A being which is only one or two of those things would not be God, according to that definition. All the arguments in this particular thread apply to that omni-God.

Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I find it odd that the argument for emotion is used against the simple idea that there's no evidence for a god, or for that god fixing suffering or for the necessitiy of suffering in the first place, but not for the wishful thinking that says there might be.
But you are right! That is an argument for emotion on the theist side.

Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Everything in the design of life suggests that suffering is part of it. From its very beginnings, life has been tenuous and brutal. If a god designed the world that design was what we see, not what we wish for.

If it's true that suffering is a creation of a god and that that god creates only what is necessary or good, then would it not be a sin to eradicate a disease such as smallpox that is caused by a living organism created by the god?
But that's just it: asking a question does not provide an answer. We don't build logical arguments using questions. So what is the answer? Here is your question again:

If it's true that suffering is a creation of a god and that that god creates only what is necessary or good, then would it not be a sin to eradicate a disease such as smallpox that is caused by a living organism created by the god?

Answering "there is no god" is no more an answer to that question, than answering "God can do anything" or "God's mysterious ways!"

Originally Posted by bruto View Post
You ask me for an answer, but my answer, I would have thought, was understood: I conclude that there is no god and that suffering, though inherent in life itself and inevitable, is not in any moral or spiritual sense necessary.
In all seriousness: your answer may well be true, but it is not relevant to the particular question that you posed, since that question presupposes the existence of some kind of god. And that is part of the reason why we go around in circles.

Originally Posted by bruto View Post
It's up to a theist to sort out how the destruction of a part of creation can be justified.
Agreed.

Last edited by GDon; 26th July 2020 at 10:59 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 10:56 PM   #157
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Because the greater good is to god, not to the people suffering. It's selfish. It's exactly the same as torturing a puppy to death for no reason other than because you enjoy it.
For that analogy to work, then the torturing must lead to a greater good. I'm sure you don't think that yourself.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
And for the record, suffering is an emotional subject. You can't get away from that.
I know, and I sympathise. I'm hoping to keep this as a logical discussion, if possible.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 11:08 PM   #158
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 67,929
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
For that analogy to work, then the torturing must lead to a greater good. I'm sure you don't think that yourself.
It doesn't. Nor does God torturing people (which is pretty much the definition of suffering if you accept that God causes it) leads to a greater good.

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
I know, and I sympathise. I'm hoping to keep this as a logical discussion, if possible.
That's a pretty futile effort if you ask me. Accept that it is an emotional subject, and deal with your emotions.
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2020, 12:18 AM   #159
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Nor does God torturing people (which is pretty much the definition of suffering if you accept that God causes it) leads to a greater good.
But how do you know that, such that you can make such a positive claim? That's the question. (It's similar to if a theist said "it always leads to a greater good." I would ask the theist how they knew.) Is there a logical argument behind your comment? Is it a guess? Is it a feeling?

Last edited by GDon; 27th July 2020 at 01:19 AM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2020, 12:26 AM   #160
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,805
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
In fact, the definition for omni-God (capital "G") is: omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. A being which is only one or two of those things would not be God, according to that definition. All the arguments in this particular thread apply to that omni-God.
Yes, and it's a problem because that particular god is logically impossible. But theists could easily solve that problem. All they have to do is admit they were wrong about their god being omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. How can they do that? Simply by taking into account the impossibility of it when interpreting their sacred texts.

The Bible for example has numerous passages suggesting that God is neither omnipotent, nor omniscient or omnibenevolent. Jews and Christians could just accept that, and take the rest as being hyperbole etc. After all the Bible was written by men, so why should everything they wrote be the literal truth? Many insist that it is, but what basis do they have for believing that? Not faith in God, but faith in men.

If only theists would see their texts for what they are - collections of writings by men who almost certainly didn't get everything right - they might have a concept of a god which is at least within the bounds of logical argument.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 27th July 2020 at 12:27 AM.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:03 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.