QuoteThis makes no sense. What do you mean “all the evidence points the opposite direction”?

We're using the Bible as "evidence" right? You've pointed to it several times. In the bible there is ample evidence that God (either Old or New Testament) does not negate suffering in all it's forms. Therefore either he is not omnibenevolent, or (and here's the part you constantly ignore) his benevolence is such that he knows that sometimes suffering is better than no suffering, not unlike the surgeon who cuts because he has to.

Quote1. The established monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) all attribute certain attributes to God (aspects of God’s mind/plan that He has ‘deigned to explain’).

2. Suffering exists.

That is it!

If you're so blinded by your belief in the argument that you can't see the possibilility that suffering may sometimes be a benefit, or at least better than the alternative in the long run then I beg you to please stop teaching logic.

Quotecomplete knowledge of the mind of God.

Right, it doesn't require complete knowledge of the mind of God. It does however require that we know with certainty that suffering is all bad, all the time. Without a view into the lives that come after this one there's no way to know if suffering now works out to a better existence later.

QuoteAnd the “problem of evil” argument works ONLY with those ‘motives’ that the main monotheistic religions all claim that God has revealed.

Yes, if we accept that his motive is omnibenevolence, then we know his motive. But we still don't know that suffering is all bad, all the time.

Quote(Yes, that was petty. But I’m growing weary of your inability to understand basic logic.)

I understand the logic. I'm not disagreeing with the logic. I'm simply pointing out that one of the premises (suffering should be removed) cannot be proven without more knowledge than we've got right now.

QuoteIf this point made any sense, I can assure you that Aquinas, Al-Gazli, Leibniz, Maimonides, et al., would have made it already. Sorry, James, but you're not smarter than those guys.

I'd have to disagree then. If they were so "smart" they'd realize that sometimes suffering is a necessary thing. By the way, since we're talking logic, let's try to avoid fallacious arguments from authority please. Honestly, you teach this stuff and yet you engage in petty ad hominem attacks and arguments from authority. Really, you should consider resigning if that's the sort of "logical" arguments you encourage.

QuoteI'm trying to show that, sans faith, the most rational thing to believe is that there is no God (in the Christian/Jewish/Islamic sense).

So we've tossed out the dictionary again? Remeber that little bit about belief without proof being faith? If you can't prove ti, it's faith. So you both ignore the English language and engage in logical fallacies while maintaining a supposedly logical debate? Honestly, please consider not passing this sort of behavior on to your students.

Quoteyou need to read James' sophomoric posts on this same topic

More Ad hominems? And you teach at Stanford? What's your name so I can ensure my children never sign up for one of your classes.

QuoteThe whole point of the problem of evil is that, given what we know about the world and what the main monotheistic religions tell us about God, a loving God does not look likely to be on the cards.

Wait... Now we've gone from "cannot possibly be" to "doesn't look likely"? Why the waffling?

Quotead hominem crap. When you have to resort to this, you should know that your position is weak

This statement, coupled with your own ad hominem attacks, looks pretty damning. :lol:

Quote from: RPGPunditSo you can do just fine at what you have admitted to doing, which is defining it in human terms, and expressing that, as a human being, you are unhappy with how god's alleged omnibenevolence manifests in the world, but that is a HUMAN definition of a HUMAN problem. Its a good way of saying you're pissed at god, not a good way of saying "god can't possibly exist". Not even in the judeo-christian viewpoint.

Yeah, yeah ...:rolleyes:

I thought that I had already addressed this.  (Probably I had, but you didn't bother to read it.  Oh well.)

I'm going to simplify things massively now ...

The argument proceeds in the following way (this is crude; more nuance can be found in my earlier posts, or is not worth this forum).  Indulge me, if you will ...

Two claims:

1.  God claims to be ultimately lovin' (The Catholic Church, most Potestant Groups, and my local Rabbi -- who claims that Maimonides was the man -- all claim this to be true).

2.  We appear to have a whole lot of hurt going on.

Now, there are five (logically incompatible, but not inexhaustible, for you logic sophomores out there) possibilities:

a. God is full of love, and the death of babies with spinalcord disorders, innocents suffering due to cancer, and animals dying due to disease over countless eons, is just part of his big-ass loving plan, but we just cannot comprehend it now (Faith).

b. God is full of love, and the death of babies with spinalcord disorders, innocents suffering due to cancer, and (etc.), is because God is loving, but just especially competent (i.e. not omnipotent!).

c. God is full of love, and the death of babies with spinalcord disorders, innocents suffering due to cancer, and (etc.), is because God is loving, but just especially knowledgeable (he isn't aware of everything). (i.e. Not omniscient)

d. God is a ... bad dad.   And the death of babies with spinalcord disorders, innocents suffering due to cancer, and (etc.), is because God is powerful and omniscient, but he is doesn't give a shit.

e. People claim: "God is full of love, and the death of babies with spinalcord disorders, innocents suffering due to cancer, and animals dying due to disease over countless eons, is just part of his big-ass loving plan, but we just cannot comprehend it now", but that's bullshit.    There is no God.  It's just a myth.

Confusion reigns?   What is right?

Well, the atheist claims (e), the traditional theist (a.), and various heretics b-d.  

Based on empirical evidence, (e.) looks pretty good.  But the atheist isn't fanatical about it!

Yeah, because a fanatic would argue for 13 pages about something.

But at least it looks like you're now admitting that there are other possibilities. Now all we need is for you to swap over to the English language and call a faith a faith rather than hiding behind the misdirection of "justified belief."

But at least we know you're not a fanatic, as you've dropped the "it can't exist" attitude and switched to "it doesn't look likely." It's a step.

Quote from: James McMurray..  Therefore either he is not omnibenevolent, or (and here's the part you constantly ignore) his benevolence is such that he knows that sometimes suffering is better than no suffering, not unlike the surgeon who cuts because he has to.

So he is omnibenevolent, but not omnipotent.

(Since if he was omnipotent, He could change things so that there was no suffering – your very metaphor illuminates His lack of power!).

A surgeon who cares about minimising human suffering, and promoting life, would always like to do so as far as is within her/his power.  An omnipotent God faces no such barriers!

Quote from: James McMurray..
If you're so blinded by your belief in the argument that you can't see the possibilility that suffering may sometimes be a benefit, or at least better than the alternative in the long run then I beg you to please stop teaching logic.

Oh, I definitely understand that suffering might sometimes lead to a benefit.

I fail to see – as a matter of logic – how that could possibly be a concern for an omnipotent Being.

But for me, yes, quite so.  Indeed, my students understand the need of suffering for the sake of greater benefit everytime they attend my class.

Quote from: James McMurray..
It does however require that we know with certainty that suffering is all bad, all the time.

Piffle.  All that the argument needs is the awareness that innocent suffering needs some kind of justification.  

Yes, yes, FAITH can overcome that problem – as my Christian friends assure me.  

But FAITH is precisely what I, as an atheist, reject.  Which is why the suffering of innocents bothers me.  I can see no rational reason for it.  

Sure there might be some 'master plan' for children starving to death, or dying of aids.  But until God comes down and explains to me why this is all such a cunning endeavour, reason compels me to think that either there is no God or that he's a royal arse.  (And given that the former belief involves no positing of silly supernatural entities, I may as well swing that way!)

Quote from: James McMurray..
Yes, if we accept that his motive is omnibenevolence, then we know his motive. But we still don't know that suffering is all bad, all the time.

Quite right.  That's called 'faith'.

And that's what atheism rejects.

Quote from: James McMurray..
I understand the logic. I'm not disagreeing with the logic. I'm simply pointing out that one of the premises (suffering should be removed) cannot be proven without more knowledge than we've got right now.

Should the theory of gravity be rejected?  No, because the evidence points to it likely being true (though we do not know why).

Likewise for the fact that the existence of a Loving God looks likely to be false given the widespread existence of innocent suffering.  

Quote from: James McMurray...  I beg you to please stop teaching logic...

Hmm...

Let me be clear: I use the argument as a useful instructional tool.  Most of my students disagree with the argument, but discussing why they do is the best thing of all – they come to understand formal arguments.

I in no way 'force' my religious views on them.   They amaze me with their own wisdom.  

And the ones who are the most thankful are the religious ones.  They are thankful for the challenge.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'd have to disagree then. If they were so "smart" they'd realize that sometimes suffering is a necessary thing.  

You're quite right.  They did realise that suffering was sometimes a necessary thing.

What they rejected -- and what you don't seem to understand (although they did) -- was that an infinitley powerful GOD should deem it necessary to make them suffer.

Quote from: James McMurrayBy the way, since we're talking logic, let's try to avoid fallacious arguments from authority please.

Actually, an 'argument from authoritey' is not necessarily fallacious.  Indeed, they are usually quite legitimate (e.g. when your physics teacher tells you that E=Mc2 before you know what that means ...).

My only reason for mentioning the philosophers and theologians who had already been engaged in this debate was to reinforce the point that the argument was not as 'stupid' as you seemed to think (since I was doing such an admittedly piss poor job in my own right ).
 

Quote from: James McMurrayReally, you should consider resigning if that's the sort of "logical" arguments you encourage.

With my amazing teaching evaluations?  (No sarcasm here, sir!)

Nahhh ... I know I'm doing a good job.

Quote from: James McMurray...  I can ensure my children never sign up for one of your classes.
 

 [Snarky comment deleted]

We're going around in circles. You seem to feel that you understand the infinite enough to know that suffering is always and forever a bad thing. I certainly can't prove it to be wrong any more than you can prove it to be true. So by all means stick with the argument you feel best explains what we see in the world. At least you admit that it's not a certainly, merely what's "most likely."

But again, unless it's a certainty, if you believe in it, you're operating under the English definition of faith. We can agree to use a different definition here, but that won't change the way the language works.

Unless you've got something new to say I think we're done here, as I certainly don't have anything else to add, and I'm getting tired of being insulted by and pointing out the fallacies of someone who is supposedly a professor of these things. I personally don't believe you are, and your refusal to provide a name only enforces that belief. I guess I just find it hard to believe a prestigious university would hire someone that mangles logic that way. But maybe I was spoiled by my university's logic professors (I took it twice, once as part of Philosophy and once with a mathematical focus as part of Computer Science).

Quote from: AkrasiaYour grasp of logic, Bill.

Excuse me. Did I piss in your cornflakes?

Let me clear something up for you. I do not believe in the sky fairy either. That said, I do not need to preach (and you are preaching) about how everyone is wrong just to make my beliefs valid. My view on the world and the universe is large enough to allow other people to believe as they wish. You call people who do not believe as you do stupid. That is sad.

Now, other have explained your faulty logic to great lengths but you dismiss them much as a fundamentalist does. You drive for absolutes the way a young person would; i.e. if something is not y it must be definitively z. Dealing in absolutes is no way to view the world.

Finally, simply put, you have a very simple view of love. I love my son. I punish my son and sometimes allow him to cause himself pain so he will learn. If I , a mortal man, can do this, couldn't it be possible that an omnipotent god could. That is the simplest counter to your argument and I have not seen you refute it to my satisfaction.

Good day and happy new year.

Bill

Quote from: James McMurray... But again, unless it's a certainty, if you believe in it, you're operating under the English definition of faith. We can agree to use a different definition here, but that won't change the way the language works...

No, no, no.

I use English quite well, mon ami.

As do my Christian friends.  They seem to understand that 'water = H2O' while acknowledging that it is not a mtter of 'faith'.

Likewise, they discuss 'string theory' without thinking that it involves 'faith'.

Belief is not the same thing as faith.  Belief is inductive.  Nothing is 'a certaintly'.

The fact that you even speak in terms of 'certainty' shows an amusing naivity.

Quote from: James McMurray... I personally don't believe you are, and your refusal to provide a name only enforces that belief. I guess I just find it hard to believe a prestigious university would hire someone that mangles logic that way. But maybe I was spoiled by my university's logic professors (I took it twice, once as part of Philosophy and once with a mathematical focus as part of Computer Science).

I've never mangled logic.

And I've sent you a PM with ... well ... my information.  (Although that shouldn't have been  hard to track down by anyone who reads my sig!)!

Needless to, my credentials are legitimate!  :pundit:

LOL! Yes, you use English perfectly well, except that that point where you ignore the dictionary definition of the word "faith" in favor of your chosen definition which doesn't endanger your supposed faithlessness.

Either

a) You don't accept the problem of evil as proof that a certain type of God does not exist,

b) You have proof that from a divine perspective suffering is the greatest possible evil and must be gotten rid of in any and all instances of suffering, or

c) You don't have proof, but you believe in the problem of evil anyway. And, since belief without proof = faith, you have faith.

Inductive, deductive, abductive, none of it matters without a proven foundation. Either you've got proof, you've got uncertainty, or you've got faith. That is, if you're speaking the English language.

You claimed that ad hominem attacks were proof that your stance is weak. You made ad hominem attacks. By your own admission then, your stance is weak. Or is that logic not good enough for you? LOL

As for water = H2O requiring faith, it actually does. You need faith in scientists unless you've actually seen the proof with your own eyes. It's a fairly easy faith to have, because science and it's practitioners agree pretty strongly across the board on it, and folks put a lot of stock into what they say, but that doesn't change the fact that it does require a tiny amount of faith. In this case it's faith in other people, not faith in a deity.

Quote from: HinterWeltExcuse me. Did I piss in your cornflakes?

I hope not.  Sorry about that.

(What are cornflakes?)

Quote from: HinterWeltLet me clear something up for you. I do not believe in the sky fairy either. That said, I do not need to preach (and you are preaching) about how everyone is wrong just to make my beliefs valid.

Ummm…  

Do you believe that the world is round?  Then you have rendered ‘invalid’ (actually, ‘false’) the beliefs of the people who though it was flat.

Is that ‘preaching’?   Even when most people don’t believe you?

Do you believe that the earth goes around the sun?  Well, gosh darn, certain folk are (or were) going to be desperately disappointed …

What about evolution?  Is that just one view among many?  Should we teach creationism as well?

Do you believe that women are morally equal to men, and entitled to basic human rights?  If you do, well, you calling certain views ‘invalid’.  

(That is, unless you think it’s just ‘okay’ for them to cut off their daughters’ clitorises.  Okay that was unfair... .)

Quote from: HinterWeltYou call people who do not believe as you do stupid. That is sad.

No, no no.

Some of my best friends disagree with me.  And they are, if anything, smarter than me.

But I will no have any of your wholly thinking that ‘we can all believe both x and no-x’.  That is rubbish.

Quote from: HinterWeltNow, other have explained your faulty logic to great lengths but you dismiss them much as a fundamentalist does.

Um, no.  I’m still waiting for the good arguments.

Quote from: HinterWeltYou drive for absolutes the way a young person would; i.e. if something is not y it must be definitively z. Dealing in absolutes is no way to view the world.

Hmmm… for some reason it seems to make the computers work, get men on the moon, underpin logic, etc.

I think I’ll stick with logic, merci.  

Quote from: HinterWeltIf I , a mortal man, can do this, couldn't it be possible that an omnipotent god could. That is the simplest counter to your argument and I have not seen you refute it to my satisfaction. .

Why couldn’t an omnipotent and omniscient God deal with the small stuff.  I can understand your frustration as a father.  But you’re not GOD. .

Quote from: HinterWeltGood day and happy new year.

Bill

Likewise, Bill.  I’m sorry if I angered you.

Quote from: AkrasiaI hope not.  Sorry about that.

(What are cornflakes?)



Ummm...  

Do you believe that the world is round?  Then you have rendered 'invalid' (actually, 'false') the beliefs of the people who though it was flat.

Is that 'preaching'?   Even when most people don't believe you?

Do you believe that the earth goes around the sun?  Well, gosh darn, certain folk are (or were) going to be desperately disappointed ...

What about evolution?  Is that just one view among many?  Should we teach creationism as well?

Do you believe that women are morally equal to men, and entitled to basic human rights?  If you do, well, you calling certain views 'invalid'.  

(That is, unless you think it's just 'okay' for them to cut off their daughters' clitorises.  Okay that was unfair... .)



No, no no.

Some of my best friends disagree with me.  And they are, if anything, smarter than me.

But I will no have any of your wholly thinking that 'we can all believe both x and no-x'.  That is rubbish.



Um, no.  I'm still waiting for the good arguments.



Hmmm... for some reason it seems to make the computers work, get men on the moon, underpin logic, etc.

I think I'll stick with logic, merci.  



Why couldn't an omnipotent and omniscient God deal with the small stuff.  I can understand your frustration as a father.  But you're not GOD. .



Likewise, Bill.  I'm sorry if I angered you.

You did not anger me except offering the minor offense of calling me stupid.

Science is one thing, metaphysics another and life yet another. They overlap but to attempt to define one with another in entirety is misleading. You are stating matters of philosophy, which is often a subjective matter, in absolutes.

Let me rephrase my counter argument. What does it matter if God exists?

If he does, in the Judeo-Christian sense, you are damned to Hell. End of story.

If he does not (and you are an atheist) you get the smug satisfaction of dying right and ending your existence.

Corollary to you being correct: You may attempt to convert those of the faith to your beliefs. To what purpose? If you are not a religion, you are taking from them and providing nothing in return. They had hope of an eternal afterlife and now, assuming you convince them, you give them the grim reality of a life of suffering ending in non-existence.

Now, you could argue that for the sake of Truth you have done them a service by opening their eyes to the "real" world as Akrasia sees it but it seems a grim world. Filled with suffering and no hope of getting out of it alive.

Thus, in very similar logic, I have negated the whole point of this thread and it bings into non-existence.

So, despite my no believing in the Sky Fairy and his errant hippy son, I respect that others may choose to live a life with different outlooks on their existence. As long as they do not force me to view the world the same way, I am good with it.

So, if you do not want to believe in the Sky Fairy, go for it. Just do not call me stupid if I choose to be tolerant.

Thank you and have a good day,
Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltYou did not anger me except offering the minor offense of calling me stupid...

My apologies for calling you stupid!

Quote from: HinterWeltSky Fairy and his errant hippy son

Thank you and have a good day,
Bill

You realise, referring to God and JC this way in and of itself could be construed as intolerant, disrespectful, and condescending? Not that it bothers me any, I don't believe in the Sky Fairy or have any need for the "salvation" his errant hippy son offers either... just thought I'd point it out

Hey Akrasia, did you see my post? It looks like it went up as you were ytping a reply elsewhere.