Don't ask me about the vomiting feces stuff, as God (if he exists). I can't think of anything good in that either, but I'm not so prideful to think that there can't be anything good about it just because I can't think of it.

Quote from: BalbinusThat's not actually correct, disbelief in the existence of god falls within the dictionariy definition of atheism.  Agnosticism is a belief that the existence or otherwise of god is essentially unnowable.  Both the OED and I think Websters support this.

That said, I really don't want to get into dictionary definitions and I am happy to use your terms, I just rather objected to an implication I didn't speak English when I am using a perfectly standard usage of the term.

Sorry, I was going by the dictionary definitions we've been using since this discussion started: namely that

faith = belief without proof
atheism = belief that God does not exist

Yes there are all sorts of shades of grey in atheism, primarily (IMO) because some people just don't want to call themselves agnostics so they call themselves soft atheistists. But those shades aren't what's being discussed here, Akrasia's claims that 1) strong atheism of the "god ain't real" sort aren't faith based because there's some sort of proof and 2) the Problem of Evil proves that the Judeo-christian God doesn't exist.

If you want to expand the discussion by all mean do, although a new thread might be best to avoid diluting this thread.

Quote from: James McMurrayWhat, no purgatory?

As whether you were saved or not, what if you ask forgiveness while being burned or buried alive, thus becoming saved? What if you already were saved but would mostly likely fall from grace soon, and the early death saved you from an eternity of Hell? What if your suffering were brought about because of choices you made, so God stepped back and let it happen because his omnibenevolence includes the idea that a GM shouldn't fudge the dice rolls and shouldn't force his plot on the players?

I personally have no idea what benefits that child may or may not experience from a slow muddy grave. But then again I a) have no idea what sorts of things got hrough someone's head when they're dying that might be beneficial, and b) am not God.

And has it occured to you that perhaps there are more "good things" that can happen then just "dies and goes to heaven?" I know I've got just a tiny little mortal brain and I can think of lots of good things beyond that just in therapy-oriented thought processes alone. Who knows how many good things an honest to Himself deity could brainstorm out in a minute or two.

Purgatory is merely heaven's waiting room, though I suppose a few years shaved off the wait would have value.

I posited a child to get round the being saved while dying bit, though I do take your point about being saved from later sins which is a good one.

On the other benefits, if I'm dead the only possible benefits to me going forward are necessarily post-mortem, what else are you considering?

I'm a bit tied up for a moment James, but those were good points and I'll give them further thought.  That said, I haven't been attacking people here, that was other posters, so let's try not to be too aggressive with one another.  Comments about whether I have possibly considered something aren't really helpful.

Quote from: James McMurraySorry, I was going by the dictionary definitions we've been using since this discussion started: namely that

faith = belief without proof
atheism = belief that God does not exist

Yes there are all sorts of shades of grey in atheism, primarily (IMO) because some people just don't want to call themselves agnostics so they call themselves soft atheistists. But those shades aren't what's being discussed here, Akrasia's claims that 1) strong atheism of the "god ain't real" sort aren't faith based because there's some sort of proof and 2) the Problem of Evil proves that the Judeo-christian God doesn't exist.

If you want to expand the discussion by all mean do, although a new thread might be best to avoid diluting this thread.

Ah, my mistake, no worries about the expansion.  I'm fine to go with those definitions, teaches me not to skim really seeing as how I missed that.

To be honest, there were some really circular discussions earlier in this thread that I rather skipped over in the interests of protecting my remaining brain cells.

Quote from: James McMurrayDon't ask me about the vomiting feces stuff, as God (if he exists). I can't think of anything good in that either, but I'm not so prideful to think that there can't be anything good about it just because I can't think of it.

That's why I was saying at that point it becomes a matter of faith, one has (if one so chooses) faith that god does indeed have a purpose to this that is beyond our understanding.  In the absence of that faith, one is left with the reality of the suffering alone.

James, I think if we were down the pub we'd find we had little between us actually, sometimes online posts rather exaggerate differences.  I wonder if we have not widely disimillar views and are merely placing our emphases in different places.

QuoteOn the other benefits, if I'm dead the only possible benefits to me going forward are necessarily post-mortem, what else are you considering?

Why does it matter if they're pre- or post-mortem?

Quote]That said, I haven't been attacking people here, that was other posters, so let's try not to be too aggressive with one another. Comments about whether I have possibly considered something aren't really helpful.

Sorry, that's just my style. It's not meant as an attack, it's just the way the words come out. I'll see what I can do to rein it in some.

QuoteTo be honest, there were some really circular discussions earlier in this thread that I rather skipped over in the interests of protecting my remaining brain cells.

What, you mean the 6 (or was it more) pages of "yuh-huh" ... "nuh-uh" ... "yuh-huh"?

QuoteThat's why I was saying at that point it becomes a matter of faith, one has (if one so chooses) faith that god does indeed have a purpose to this that is beyond our understanding. In the absence of that faith, one is left with the reality of the suffering alone.

Well, it looks like we're starting our own circular back-and-forth. Or at least this is the sticking point that started the last one. I'll say this and then we may just have to agree to disagree. Your stance seems to be:

1) If you believe God has a plan then you believe it and the Problem of Evil falls apart. This would be the theist's response to the Problem of Evil.

2) If you don't believe that you're left with the idea that suffering exists so this particular flavor of god can't. This is the atheist's response.

My stance is:

1) The theist says "God has a plan."

2) The atheist (as used in this thread) says "I don't believe in god so suffering disproves him."

3) The agnostic says I don't believe in God, but neither do I disbelieve. If he does exist I can see where he may have a plan, therefor the Problem of Evil is neither refutable nor provable.

QuoteJames, I think if we were down the pub we'd find we had little between us actually, sometimes online posts rather exaggerate differences. I wonder if we have not widely disimillar views and are merely placing our emphases in different places.

Probably. I'll tell you what, you buy the drinks and I'll believe whatever you want me to believe about the PoE, at least until I'm sober.

Quote from: James McMurray2) The atheist (as used in this thread) says "I don't believe in god so suffering disproves him."

Hm, put like that that isn't correct.  The problem of evil doesn't disprove god, it is simply a (IMO convincing) challenge to the deist hypothesis.  A challenge though ain't proof, it's simply evidence to the contrary.

I would put 2 as "I don't believe in god, and one reason why I don't is that I find the concept of god raises the POE as a challenge to be addressed but the problem of POE goes away once we cease to posit this type of god".  That isn't though the argument that was being made earlier in this thread.

So yeah, that 2 is wrong.  To me the POE is relevant because I find it more persuasive to simply explain evil by reference to the world not being set up to be nice to us, and I find that much more likely than the world in fact being a good place but in ways we can't quite grasp.  It's a question of probability and how convincing we find the evidence, which isn't quite a matter of faith as a matter of making a judgement and accepting that one may be wrong.

In my judgement, the evidence for this kind of god is poor and unconvincing, while in my judgement the evidence that there is no such god is pretty good.  That's not so much faith as simply forming a view on the basis of the information available to me.  All that said, I may of course be wrong just as I may be wrong in any judgement I make.

As used in this thread it has been claimed that (partly) due to the problem of evil belief in the nonexistence of God does not require faith. Since faith is belief without proof, nonfaith would be belief with proof, ergo PoE is being offered as proof.

Quote from: BalbinusBecause Christianity posits a binary afterlife, either you go to heaven or you don't.

That's another point that's unsettling to me.  Not all Christians even share the same views.  Throwing in the other monotheistic religions muddies the water even more.  Talk to a Jehovah's Witness even for a small amount of time and you'll find they discredit many traditional teachings.  I know they don't believe in a heaven and will discuss for hours why Jehovah allows suffering in "this system of things".  The Mormons go a step further.  I'm not an expert on any of these religions but the argument just seems to be too broad for me to get a lot of mileage out of it.

Quote from: James McMurrayAs used in this thread it has been claimed that (partly) due to the problem of evil belief in the nonexistence of God does not require faith. Since faith is belief without proof, nonfaith would be belief with proof, ergo PoE is being offered as proof.

When applied to the specific ideas for which it is meant, proof is exactly what PoE is, at least according to the definition of "proof" which you provided.

Quote from: James McMurrayproof     /pruf/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[proof] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.   evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

(Emphasis added by me for clarity)

If that means "evidence sufficient for anyone to believe" then the fact that the human circulatory system is so freakin' complex is "proof" that God exists, after all it's sufficient evidence for some people.

I take a more stringent view of the definition. You of course are free to decide what is sufficient evidence for you.

Quote from: James McMurrayIf that means "evidence sufficient for anyone to believe" then the fact that the human circulatory system is so freakin' complex is "proof" that God exists, after all it's sufficient evidence for some people.

I take a more stringent view of the definition. You of course are free to decide what is sufficient evidence for you.

I am well aware that I am free to decide any damn thing I want. I was simply pointing out that the definition of the word which you provided allows for the PoE to be used as proof in the non-existence of god for those who are inclined to see it that way. If that's not the part of the definition you are using, perhaps you should be more specific.

Other related arguements can be found here as well. Interesting stuff.

For proof: if one holds up an object and says "this is proof" and the people one is trying to convince say "no it isn't because of X"** then it has failed as proof. It might be proof for the person who believes in it, but it is not proof for the argument in general. Further, if an argument is being held up as proof but the responses of "what about X, Y, and Z" cannot be answered, that argument is not proof. I'm using proof as an empirical term, not a subjective one. If all we care about is subjective proof then we might as well stop now because every true believer and unbeliever has something that they accept as proof.*

The link: There's nothing there about the Problem of Evil that I could see. Was there a specific one you wanted to discuss? I will say that none of that is new to me, although it's been years since I've thought about religious philosophy as much as I have in the last week of this thread. I'm more than happy to talk more though, the whole experience is really getting the old juices flowing.

We should probably start another thread though, as this one is pretty tightly focused and diluting that would be a disservice to those engaged in it. Normally I wouldn't give a rat's ass, but I actually like this thread.

* And yes, I'm aware that everything is subjective, but when we elect to have a discussion (about anything) we start with certain shared experiences (i.e. reality) taken as a basis for that discussion. For instance, if I use the word door in a point I'm making, I feel certain that everone I'm talking to knows what a door is. They may think of different types (revolving, sliding, swivel-hinged, etc.) but the general idea of a door is known to everyone and if I need to be more specific I can be.

But now I'm rambling about something that probably didn't even need to be said, so I'll stop.

** Assuming X makes sense of course. Disbelieving in the pencil someone hands you because Elton John soothes you wouldn't qualify.

Quote from: James McMurrayFor proof: if one holds up an object and says "this is proof" and the people one is trying to convince say "no it isn't because of ___" then it has failed as proof. It might be proof for the person who believes in it, but it is not proof for the argument in general. Further, if an argument is being held up as proof but the responses of "what about X, Y, and Z" cannot be answered, that argument is not proof. I'm using proof as an empirical term, not a subjective one. If all we care about is subjective proof then we might as well stop now because every true believer and unbeliever has something that they accept as proof.*

There, that's much better. Now I know specifically what you mean. I would still also like to point out that the definition of proof still allows for Akrasia to say accurately that PoE "proves" satisfactorily that the idea of god argued against by PoE can't exist logically.

QuoteThe link: There's nothing there about the Problem of Evil that I could see. Was there a specific one you wanted to discuss? I will say that none of that is new to me, although it's been years since I've thought about religious philosophy as much as I have in the last week of this thread. I'm more than happy to talk more though, the whole experience is really getting the old juices flowing.

No, Russell doesn't talk about PoE per se in that link, I just thought it was related (kinda) and interesting. The fact that it isn't directly related is why I didn't quote or anything, but just provided the link for any who might be interested (as I am) in this kind of discussion.

QuoteWe should probably start another thread though, as this one is pretty tightly focused and diluting that would be a disservice to those engaged in it. Normally I wouldn't give a rat's ass, but I actually like this thread.

I agree. Same here.

Quote* And yes, I'm aware that everything is subjective, but when we elect to have a discussion (about anything) we start with certain shared experiences (i.e. reality) taken as a basis for that discussion. For instance, if I use the word door in a point I'm making, I feel certain that everone I'm talking to knows what a door is. They may think of different types (revolving, sliding, swivel-hinged, etc.) but the general idea of a door is known to everyone and if I need to be more specific I can be.

But now I'm rambling about something that probably didn't even need to be said, so I'll stop.

True, but unless I missed it, you had never specifically said that your usage of "proof" didn't include all facets of the definition contained in the link you provided. A number of other terms have not been defined very well, causing me to feel some posters to this thread have been talking past and around one another. Among them are "belief", "faith", "good" (including benevolence), and indirectly (and perhaps imprecisely) "infinite" (in the form of the suffix "omni-").

As an aside, tonight is game night for me, so I won't be around the forum to post further until after midnight EST. I have greatly enjoyed this thread so far, rock on ya'all.

Great, you win the semantics argument. Wanna cookie?

To all and sundry: please be advised that when I use the word "proof" in this thread I will be referring to my definition here. In short, I'm talking about an objective proof, not a subjective one.