Answers to Atheistic arguments

[Jim E.]

The two do not need to be reconciled to begin with

Silly nonsense. Maybe I can take my losing lottery ticket. Walk right up to the cashier. And tell him my numbers don’t need to reconcile with the winning numbers. Just give me the money.

[Jim E.]

They are incredibly superficial

No. The fact is there is no answer to the problem. That means you are wrong. Just not enough of a man to admit it. But you are irritating enough to gain a response from me (for now).

[Tickle Me Goody]

No. The fact is there is no answer to the problem. That means you are wrong. Just not enough of a man to admit it. But you are irritating enough to gain a response from me (for now).

Philosophers and theologians have long ago dismissed that argument Jim. Try getting educated and come up with better ideas. (or just read the posts by JM and steadele)

According to your reasoning just about every religion in the world has a bunch of idiots for believers.

Or is it your simplistic ideas that are all wet?

Of course they are.

gg

[Jim E.]

Philosophers and theologians have long ago dismissed that argument Jim.

So you have learned to troll. Goodygoody for you. Here comes the bus. Goodygoody: Philosophers and theologians have long ago dismissed the argument that that is a bus. Here’s what a non-troll would do. Present some reasoning or an argument. Whatever, dude.

[Tickle Me Goody]

So you have learned to troll. Goodygoody for you. Here comes the bus. Goodygoody: Philosophers and theologians have long ago dismissed the argument that that is a bus. Here’s what a non-troll would do. Present some reasoning or an argument. Whatever, dude.

Hi Dude

Why not try one of the game threads? No thinking is required.

GG

[Jim E.]

Hi Dude

Why not try one of the game threads? No thinking is required.

GG

Why not try to violate as many forum rules as possible? Oh wait, you probably don’t want to risk that. Thanks for wasting everyone’s time, dude. Later troll.

[Tickle Me Goody]

You can’t reconcile a loving god and suffering.

As a "proof", this is ridiculous. Jim Eisele deserves no serious response to his notion that this constitutes any sort of a proof.


However, I would like to comment (but not to Jim) on the subject.

God and suffering is an interesting subject. I am a Stephen Minister in my church and we see a lot of misery of one form or another. What we find is that these trials tend to strengthen a person's faith in God rather than the opposite.

Interestingly enough the concern about suffering and a good God is usually directed at the suffering of another person. A classic example of this may be found in a C.S. Lewis' A Grief Observed. I highly recommend this as reading (but be prepared for a rocky ride).

Joni Eareckson Tada (http://www.throughtheroof.org/Joni%2...ckson_Tada.htm) once spoke at the church that I attend. She stated that she was happy about the accident that disabled her because it brought her closer to God.... the opposite of what most non-believers might expect.

I think that it is much like raising children. They always complain that we parents are not fair to them because we chose what is good for them rather than what their selfish little minds desire. So, I believe, it is with God. He is better qualified to judge.

So I offer these thoughts to other than Jim Eisele, who is fundamentally incapable of any logical thought processes.

GG


.

[C. D. Ward]

Philosophers and theologians have long ago dismissed that argument Jim. Try getting educated and come up with better ideas. (or just read the posts by JM and steadele)

Hold on a moment there. The logical problem of evil is all but dead, but the evidential problem lives on. It's been the subject of a lot of active work in the last few years, so it's not dead by a long shot. And the basic issue is still one of reconciling the existence of evil with a loving, omnipotent god, so your casual dismissal of the issue itself wouldn't seem to be warranted.

Daniel Howard-Snyder's "The Evidential Argument From Evil" is one of the best available works on the subject. With contributions from noted theist and non-theist philosophers (Plantinga, Swinburne, Adams, Rowe, etc), it's a pretty good demonstration that not all philosophers and theologians have dismissed the argument.

[Philosophickle]

Hold on a moment there. The logical problem of evil is all but dead, but the evidential problem lives on. It's been the subject of a lot of active work in the last few years, so it's not dead by a long shot. And the basic issue is still one of reconciling the existence of evil with a loving, omnipotent god, so your casual dismissal of the issue itself wouldn't seem to be warranted.

I agree with Ward here. Mostly everyone is the professional world admits that the logical PoE needs some controversial assumptions to work. I don't share his optimism about the evidential argument, respectfully. Let's take the most common conclusion of evidential arguments:

C) Probably, God does not exist.

What is that supposed to mean? Which Christians will drop their faith in light of this conclusion? I think that the probability of (C) is (and should be) directly compared to the following theistic belief:

C') God exists.

If you have good reasons, whatever they may be, to believe (C'), then (C) will have no influence on your metaphysic, nor should it. That's why I believe the evidential PoE needs to make important assumptions as well, which may vary according to argument.

[Carpedm9587]

I am still perplexed as to why JM stopped the sequence of proofs he was going to work through with JP and I.

[Ishmael]

I am still perplexed as to why JM stopped the sequence of proofs he was going to work through with JP and I.

Because he is a freaking idiot?

[Soundsurfr]

Prove me wrong. Get other opinions from this forum or any other source of logical expertise. I challenge you.

Dont think so.

Challenge not accepted. Duly noted.

[Tickle Me Goody]

Hold on a moment there. The logical problem of evil is all but dead, but the evidential problem lives on. It's been the subject of a lot of active work in the last few years, so it's not dead by a long shot. And the basic issue is still one of reconciling the existence of evil with a loving, omnipotent god, so your casual dismissal of the issue itself wouldn't seem to be warranted.

Daniel Howard-Snyder's "The Evidential Argument From Evil" is one of the best available works on the subject. With contributions from noted theist and non-theist philosophers (Plantinga, Swinburne, Adams, Rowe, etc), it's a pretty good demonstration that not all philosophers and theologians have dismissed the argument.

My apologies C.D.

I was referring to Eisele's ridiculous statement that he has constructed this as a "proof ... end of story".

Lewis' classical "Mere Christianity" starts out with that very issue. Lewis is one who attempts to develop that as a case for Christianity. What you say is quite correct. What Eisele said is rubbish.

GG

[John Powell]

I agree with Ward here. Mostly everyone is the professional world admits that the logical PoE needs some controversial assumptions to work. I don't share his optimism about the evidential argument, respectfully. Let's take the most common conclusion of evidential arguments:

C) Probably, God does not exist.

What is that supposed to mean?

POWELL:
That based on the evidence of that argument alone, assuming no other evidence were available, probably an omniGod does not exist.

Here's an example.

If a bag contains 9 red balls and 1 black ball then what's the probability that I pull out a black one? 1/10, yes? What if I look in the bag to pick out the black one? Oh, that changes the probability. For the first question one should say "otherwise identical" and "randomly" to indicate that there is no other relevant information that will affect the probability.

PHILOSOPHICKLE:
Which Christians will drop their faith in light of this conclusion?

POWELL:
Some might. The rest will figure that the other evidence they have reverses the overall probability in favor of existence.

PHILOSOPHICKLE:
I think that the probability of (C) is (and should be) directly compared to the following theistic belief:

C') God exists.

If you have good reasons, whatever they may be, to believe (C'), then (C) will have no influence on your metaphysic, nor should it.

POWELL:
It would be inconsistent for someone to both believe that probably God does not exist but God does exist.

If J believes that probably God exists then J believes God exists.

On the other hand,

If J believes that probably God does not exist then J believes that God does not exist.

PHILOSOPHICKLE:
That's why I believe the evidential PoE needs to make important assumptions as well, which may vary according to argument.

POWELL:
That might be.

John Powell

[Philosophickle]

POWELL:
That based on the evidence of that argument alone, assuming no other evidence were available, probably an omniGod does not exist.

Here's an example.

If a bag contains 9 red balls and 1 black ball then what's the probability that I pull out a black one? 1/10, yes? What if I look in the bag to pick out the black one? Oh, that changes the probability. For the first question one should say "otherwise identical" and "randomly" to indicate that there is no other relevant information that will affect the probability.

But this assumption [that no other evidence exists] is impractical. Most Christians believe that there are good reasons to believe that God exists. Even if there are no evidential arguments for the existence of God that an atheist would accept, it doesn't mean that there are no good reasons. It would seem that the only effective audience for the inductive PoE is already convinced that God does not exist.

POWELL:
Some might. The rest will figure that the other evidence they have reverses the overall probability in favor of existence.

In that case, consider the following:

If there exists superfluous cases of suffering/evil, then an omni-God does not exist.
There exists superfluous cases of suffering/evil.
Therefore, God does not exist.

I take this to be one of the more popular versions of the evidential PoE argument. But consider the reverse:

If an omni-God exists, then superfluous cases of suffering/evil do not exist.
God exists.
Therefore, superfluous cases of suffering/evil do not exist.

One must alter his probability of God's existence prior to the examination of the argument for it to work. Otherwise, we can simply defeat the argument using the revised version against superfluous evil.