Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You keep making that claim, but as of yet haven't provided any explanation as to how it could be true. What's more, you have ignored several attempts to show why it cannot be true.

So why don't you get on with it and explain how a god can be omnipotent AND omniscient AND omnibenevolent and allow evil to exist.

"You keep making that claim, but as of yet haven't provided any explanation as to how it could be true."

The statement, 'the fact that suffering exists is not a logical rationale for the nonexistence of an omnipowerful God', doesn't need to be proven. It is the atheist that makes the claim that "if an omnipowerful God exists He would end suffering, therefore an omnipowerful God does not exist". I'm simply saying that that statement is illogical.

"What's more, you have ignored several attempts to show why it cannot be true."

Why what cannot be true?


I will not 'get on with it' until this point is resolved and a consensus is reached that my statement, 'the fact that suffering exists is not a logical rationale for the nonexistence of an omnipowerful God', is validated.

Are you an atheist now?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"You keep making that claim, but as of yet haven't provided any explanation as to how it could be true."

The statement, 'the fact that suffering exists is not a logical rationale for the nonexistence of an omnipowerful God', doesn't need to be proven. It is the atheist that makes the claim that "if an omnipowerful God exists He would end suf ...[text shortened]... e nonexistence of an omnipowerful God', is validated.

Are you an atheist now?[/b]

I'm still an atheist.
And I'm not really sure what your point is. I agree with you - the argument against evil isn't good enough and begs a fairly simple question: why does a god have to do anything at all, such as end all evil?
But so what?
Do you really think the atheist position is that different to yours?
You hold you belief, despite arguments against it.
I would suggest that an honest atheist would probably do the same - were any arguments against it forthcoming.
Do you have any?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"You keep making that claim, but as of yet haven't provided any explanation as to how it could be true."

The statement, 'the fact that suffering exists is not a logical rationale for the nonexistence of an omnipowerful God', doesn't need to be proven. It is the atheist that makes the claim that "if an omnipowerful God exists He would end suf e nonexistence of an omnipowerful God', is validated.

Are you an atheist now?[/b]

as I suggested (albeit indirectly) in my last response to you josephw, before doward waded in with his, ahem... dazzling insight; atheists don't make any such claims about an "omnipowerful god" and the existence of evil we make claims about an "omnipowerful", omniscient, AND most importantly omnibenevolent God . and the existence of evil.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]
I will not 'get on with it' until this point is resolved and a consensus is reached that my statement, 'the fact that suffering exists is not a logical rationale for the nonexistence of an omnipowerful God', is validated.

So the buck stops here I guess.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
So the buck stops here I guess.

I'm looking forward to josephw v. hinduism

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"You keep making that claim, but as of yet haven't provided any explanation as to how it could be true."

The statement, 'the fact that suffering exists is not a logical rationale for the nonexistence of an omnipowerful God', doesn't need to be proven. It is the atheist that makes the claim that "if an omnipowerful God exists He would end suf ...[text shortened]... e nonexistence of an omnipowerful God', is validated.

Are you an atheist now?[/b]

Good luck on getting a consensus, but can I validate your statement? After all, the only attribute you mention is being omnipowerful. The only statement that would contradict that is one that states or implies the opposite.

Let's try this.

Premises:
1. God created the entire world.
2. God could have chosen to create the world to be free of suffering.
3. Everything God does is morally best.
4. This world has suffering.

Ergo,

5. In creating this world, that has suffering, God did what is morally best.

It can all be worded differently, but I don't see why people who agree to examine the logical implication of the premises 1 through 4 would shy away from the conclusion 5. It's not the end of inquiry on the problem, but it gets to the next step, which is better IMO than being stuck.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"You keep making that claim, but as of yet haven't provided any explanation as to how it could be true."

The statement, 'the fact that suffering exists is not a logical rationale for the nonexistence of an omnipowerful God', doesn't need to be proven. It is the atheist that makes the claim that "if an omnipowerful God exists He would end suf e nonexistence of an omnipowerful God', is validated.

Are you an atheist now?[/b]

So far as I can tell, no one is arguing that a god that is omnipotent AND omniscient would necessarly not allow evil to exist. Certainly not Rwingett or Agerg or me. The issue is with a god that is given the attributes of being omnipotent AND omniscient AND omnibenevolent. Do you understand this point?

I argue on the side of truth.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
So far as I can tell, no one is arguing that a god that is omnipotent AND omniscient would necessarly not allow evil to exist. Certainly not Rwingett or Agerg or me. The issue is with a god that is given the attributes of being omnipotent AND omniscient AND omnibenevolent. Do you understand this point?

I argue on the side of truth.

What if a world with some evil is on the whole, morally superior to a world with no evil?

One could say that omnipotence should be able to get around this but the better term than omnipotence would be, having maximal potency.

(I'm not arguing as a theist.)

Originally posted by JS357
What if a world with some evil is on the whole, morally superior to a world with no evil?

It would be very hard to explain how that is possible especially for specific examples.

Of course, one solution is to do what theists often resort to and that is redefine 'moral' to be 'whatever God does'. Problem solved. But if we don't do this, then we are forced to stick with what we generally agree is 'morally good'.

But whichever route is taken, the next question is:
If we are unable to know the far reaching moral consequences of events today, then we are incapable of judging moral decisions ourselves - and potentially even conclude that since God has created a world in which a high percentage of children die in child birth, that it is morally acceptable to kill children in child birth - or at least the morality of the action is unknown.

Originally posted by JS357
What if a world with some evil is on the whole, morally superior to a world with no evil?

One could say that omnipotence should be able to get around this but the better term than omnipotence would be, having maximal potency.

(I'm not arguing as a theist.)

Can you elaborate on this? Seems almost like you're looking along the lines of redefining omnibenvolent and/or omnipotence as something less than absolute.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It would be very hard to explain how that is possible especially for specific examples.

Of course, one solution is to do what theists often resort to and that is redefine 'moral' to be 'whatever God does'. Problem solved. But if we don't do this, then we are forced to stick with what we generally agree is 'morally good'.

But whichever route is take ...[text shortened]... able to kill children in child birth - or at least the morality of the action is unknown.

If we are unable to know the far reaching moral consequences of events today, then we are incapable of judging moral decisions ourselves - and potentially even conclude that since God has created a world in which a high percentage of children die in child birth, that it is morally acceptable to kill children in child birth - or at least the morality of the action is unknown.
It can further be argued, if we assume "God" is maximally benevolent, and one succeeds in murdering a child (as some people have) then, in the grand scheme of things, their success at killing the child was a morally superior action (so "God" allowed it) than failure to kill said child (else if it was judged by "God" to be a morally inferior action in the grand scheme of things, then to be consistent with being omnibenevolent this god should have intervened) - presumably more people would go to heaven or become "closer to God" or something! 😕

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Can you elaborate on this? Seems almost like you're looking along the lines of redefining omnibenvolent and/or omnipotence as something less than absolute.

I don't mean to do that. Suppose a world with some evil is better than a world with none, due to some greater good that the evil makes possible, and we don't see it that way. God, being good, will choose to create the world with that evil, and we won't get it. For example, how can humans strive to overcome evil, if there is no evil? (Supposing that the striving is a greater good.) Of course then we get into the issue of who gets to decide whether the so-called greater good is good enough.

Maximally powerful means that God can't overcome this linkage. But I'm ok with the omni words.

Originally posted by JS357
I don't mean to do that. Suppose a world with some evil is better than a world with none, due to some greater good that the evil makes possible, and we don't see it that way. God, being good, will choose to create the world with that evil, and we won't get it. For example, how can humans strive to overcome evil, if there is no evil? (Supposing that the strivin ...[text shortened]... mally powerful means that God can't overcome this linkage. But I'm ok with the omni words.

Suppose a world with some evil is better than a world with none, due to some greater good that the evil makes possible, and we don't see it that way.

Wouldn't making this "greater good that evil makes possible" possible without necessitating evil be an even greater good?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b] Suppose a world with some evil is better than a world with none, due to some greater good that the evil makes possible, and we don't see it that way.

Wouldn't making this "greater good that evil makes possible" possible without necessitating evil be an even greater good?[/b]

I just want to make sure that the argument from evil is not the construction of a straw man argument.

Presumably, like most people who do theology, we assume that even an omnipotent god would be limited to doing what it is logically possible to do. If we don't allow this, we are not arguing about the god of modern Western theology but are instead arguing about a straw man.

So in order to successfully defend the proposition that an omni-god exists while admitting the existence of evil, the defender only has to show a reason that the nonexistence of evil could be logically impossible. One route is to say that the greatest good is served by everything god does or allows, and if an example is needed, one greater good could be that the actual overcoming of a particular evil by humans -- encountering an evil, ameliorating it, learning how to prevent it, preventing it, and ideally, eliminating that evil from the world -- is seen by the god, even if not by all of us, as a greater good. It is logically impossible for this greater good to be served if there are no instances of that evil.

If we cannot fathom how a greater good is satisfied by the incredible evil that exists, that is a problem to be solved, but is the existence of THAT problem sufficient to destroy the defense?

Someone could say, OK, but god could have left out the one greatest evil that exists. Yes, but if god did that, the same thing could be said about the then-greatest evil, until there was no evil. Then the greater good could not be served. So here we are, in this world, with the challenge to serve the greater good.

I welcome the identification of holes in this defense.

Originally posted by josephw
Atheists and agnostics only please.

I'd like to develop the topic or subject in the following quotes a little bit more. It seems to be a point of contention with those who don't believe in the existence of God, that if the God theists claim exists has omni-powers, then why are conditions on earth so bad.

Leaving aside the idea that the conditions tha ...[text shortened]... r existence and the existence of 'suffering'.

How am I doing so far?

I said; "Why do you think you associate suffering with the existence of God? Assuming there is no God, does that alleviate suffering? But if there is a Creator/God, is He then the cause of suffering?"

You said; "I associate suffering, in this thread, with the claim your god is maximally benevolent - nothing more. I do not assert it is the cause (at least directly, for it can be argued your god is the cause of it's continuation given he could terminate such suffering immediately)".

Above you say that 'suffering' and the claim of a 'maximally benevolent God' are incompatible do to the fact that if such a being existed 'it' would intervene and end suffering.

It is true. If such a being as a God with omni-powers exists He should end suffering. He will. (Whatever I have to say further on this point will have to wait, as it would take up more space and time than I want to devote to it now)


I said "If I read you correctly, this is your issue; That it is claimed that there is a "GOD" who is the most supreme being imaginable. That the existence of such a being is inconsistent with the fact of the existence of unspeakable suffering."

You said "Yes, you read correctly here."

Good! I hope you read me correctly as well.

I would insist that it is the God of the Bible we debate this issue over, and specifically as I perceive who the God of the Bible is regarding His nature and attributes in relation to the fact of our existence and the existence of 'suffering'.

Let's get back on track if possible.

I started this thread in the hope of convincing those who believe that the existence of an omnipowerful God and the existence of suffering is irreconcilable, and that because suffering exists and continues that an omnipowerful God does not exist, because if an omnipowerful God did exist He would end suffering, therefore God does not exist.

Because 'suffering exists and continues' is not a logical rationale for the nonexistence of God.

Do you concede this point? Yes or no.