Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Heh i expected nothing less.
Complete denial of the obvious.
You can have unlimited power and not be able to break logic.
You cannot be able to do anything and not being able to break logic.
"I'm right, you're wrong. End of story. Moving on."
It doesn't matter anyway, both are claimed in the bible.
"2. Christians do say God can do everything,"
Agree, thanks for admitting that.
"but within a very logical context"
Disagree, you either can do anything or can't, there are no exceptions so if it is not a position you can hold, do not claim you are a christian. The problem is that Christians say it without thinking about the nonsense they are sprouting.
Trying to twist "what can do everything" mean will not help in a YES/NO claim.
If there are any exceptions then god can't do everything, therefore the bible is exaggerating and lying.
Plain and simple.
"3. The verses you brought up all have a context"
They surly do, but none of them claim that there are exceptions, they clearly mean that god can do everything.
"Matt 19:26
Context: Who can be saved, if no one is worthy?
Response: With God all things are possible."
Where does it say that there are exceptions?
ALL things are possible even saving the unworthy.
"There's nothing illogical about this statement."
Except that he can move a rock and not move it at the same time since "With God all things are possible."
Job 42:2
"I know you can do all things.... Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know"
"Nowhere does it even remotely hint at Him being able to create a rock so big he can both move it and not move it at the same time."
It is implied when job says "I know you can do all things" including to "create a rock so big he can both move it and not move it at the same time."
The problem is with the lack of exceptions on incredibly arrogant claims.
Ephesians 3:20:
"Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine"
I am sorry but I just happen to ask him to "create a rock so big he can both move it and not move it at the same time."
Your claim that the contexts somehow exonerates god from the ability to be able to do everything is just misplaced.
I showed you how even the context agrees with my conclusions.
My claim is not that god is can do everything but that Christianity claims it.
I know that god can and also can't do anything in the bible.
That is the contradictory nature of the bible after all :)
You just don't make sense to me, I'm sorry. You're determined to make this into a contradiction, and are willing to travel the distance. I can only wish you safe travels on your journey, good sir.
Maybe you just hit a hard wall we call the HARSH TRUTH.
If there was a wall there I didn't see it; and if it can't be seen odds are it's made out of some whimsy material you made up. Not the HARSH TRUTH.
I'm the one claiming that:
Everything is more likely to mean everything
while you are claiming that:
Everything does not mean Everything.
Any sane person can see that you did hit a wall and you didn't see it. :)
Everything does mean everything. My problem is with your usage of the word Omnipotence, so I want you to notice something. Omnipotence is an actual word found in a dictionary. It was thus constructed by someone, for who knows what reason. Maybe to describe God, maybe to describe something else. If there is a contradiction here, it is with the word omnipotence.
I personally don't see a contradiction, because I understand that the power to do anything, implies that the thing being done is an actual thing that can be done in the first place. But for you, everything includes things that are not things all like a square circle.
I think that you are a little bit arrogant when claiming that there are things that can't be done.
What makes you think you know everything to make such a claim?
And yes when you say you can do everything, there cannot be exceptions else you can't do everything. Simple
You can only do things which are possible = you can't do everything.
Once you put a single exception then automatically you cannot do everything.
That is why who claims that he knows everything and can do everything is ignored for being incredibly stupid.
Mainly because we do not know what everything IS yet.
Look how honest the bible claims would look like after adding your apologetic:
Ephesians 3:20:
"Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine"
========= "Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine", but ask him only things which "can be done in the first place."
(also arrogantly assuming that you know what can or can't be done)
Job 42:2
"I know you can do all things.... Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know"
========="I know you can do all things, except those you can't do..... Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know"
"Matt 19:26
With God all things are possible."
=========With God all things are possible except those which are not possible.
"I personally don't see a contradiction."
Well Christians are brainwashed to not see it, so I do not blame you.
I think people are purposely making this argument convoluted. It is actually very simple. If an all-knowing, all-powerful being was to allow the evil and suffering we see, could we consider it benevolent by even the loosest definition? Let us consider it in smaller terms, even.
Let us say we were walking along and saw a child playing in the street, there is a car coming and you KNEW with absolute certainty it would hit him, would you:
A. Do whatever is necessary, possibly risking yourself, and save the child.
B. Not do anything at all.
Most any of us would answer A, with the exception of a few sociopaths or narcissists. So why is it we appear to live in a universe with a god that chooses B, despite there being NO RISK to it, and we still consider it good or benevolent? It is nonsensical, either the god isn't as described(in which case we might as well dismiss it because we don't know anything about it), or it doesn't care(in which case we might as well dismiss it because it is a douchebag), or it doesn't exist. This stuff really isn't that hard, I know you want to try and turn it around, but it really can't be.
Here you bring up a great point, which I would have brought up myself if it wasn't because you said evil cannot exist in the first place.
So let's use your example for God.
God is walking along and saw a child playing in the street, there is a car coming and he KNEW with absolute certainty it would hit him, would He:
A. Do whatever is necessary, possibly risking yourself, and save the child.
B. Not do anything at all.
Answer: A.
How do I know? Because according to the Bible, this world is that child playing in the streets about to be hit by a car, and according to the Bible, God jumped in the way and died, so he can save us.
"So let's use your example for God."
Okay, lets, but remember that children are hit all the time by cars with the foreknowledge of god and he doesn't do anything to stop it. This, quite literally, means that if you answer anything but B you are being intentionally dishonest.
"God is walking along and saw a child playing in the street, there is a car coming and he KNEW with absolute certainty it would hit him, would He:
A. Do whatever is necessary, possibly risking yourself, and save the child.
B. Not do anything at all.
Answer: A."
...and there we go, children are hit every day worldwide without your god doing dick to save them, meaning that by your own admission your god cannot exist. Thank you for disproving the existence of your own deity, you have done all my work for me.
The continual debate validating or debunking a god bears no fruit for either camp. Both will still walk away believing or not believing because no measure of debate has a basis in fact. It's just plain tiresome at this point.
The motivation to square the existence of a god does not exist with believers. It never has. It never will. Faith does not need evidence to support its argument. Moreover, evidence is a strange bedfellow to a faith based system and therefore an illogical premise for its defense.
Yet...
Atheists demand that faith based systems present evidence for their beliefs.
In the above scenario for the argument for or against a god, theists have a better handle on logic. And yet, they don't need it.
Deep words. I take my hat off to you, sir.
John6B, I find it funny that you:
1) tell me my "argument doesn't simply have premises, it also contains a conditional". Then you tell me "the premise is a conditional"
2) tell me "So I find the problem with Premise 3 and the conclusion" then you tell me "Conclusion? There is no conclusion."
3) spend 8-10 messages demonstrating you don't understand how for formulate a formal proof/argument, then think you are going to instruct me on the matter...
1. Doesn't one of your premises contain a condition? I don't see what the problem is with pointing that out.
2. There is no conclusion. Therefore if you have one, by default there is a problem with the conclusion.
3. Let me bow down to you then, thou infallible master of philosophy.
I'm still waiting for you to either:
A) explain how my conclusion does not follow from my premises 1, 2, & 3.
B) retract your statement that there is a "problem with the conclusion",
Your conclusion does follow from Premises 1, 2, 3. It does not however follow from 4, obviously, since you stated that your conclusion was not based on 4.
We both already agreed there is a problem with the whole argument. So it really doesn't matter what you conclude or what premises your remove. Hence my statement: There is no conclusion.
That being said, my approach follows from your approach. You already concluded that 2 was the best option to remove since 4 was uncontroversial. So if you bring 4 into the mix instead of 2, then the conclusion you first drew was wrong. Which is fine, I'm not insulting your intelligence, I'm merely advancing the scenario.
The conclusion to draw from P 1,3, 4 is that God is not omnipotent. But since I'm clearly trying to prove that he is, and I'm not denying that evil exist, I began the attempt to make the argument that P3 is what's wrong in reality.
John6b - "The conclusion to draw from P 1,3, 4 is that God is not omnipotent."
That conclusion does not follow from 1, 3, & 4.
Premise 1: God exists
Premise 2...
Premise 3: An omni-benevolent being would not knowing allow evil to exist, if they had the power to stop it.
Premise 4: Evil exists.
Since P 1 isn't affected in this scenario I'll ignore it. Focus on 3 and 4:
3: An omni-benevolent being would not knowing allow evil to exist, if they had the power to stop it.
To simplify:
3. If He had the power to stop it, a good God would not allow evil to exist.
4. Evil exists.
Conclusion: Therefore he didn't have the power to stop it (omnipotence)
No. There are at least 3 possible cases (and permutations of those 3), and your conclusion needs to---at the very least---address them:
Case 1: God does not know about the evil (not omnipotent).
Case 2: God does not care about the evil (not omni-benevolent).
Case 3: God does not have the power to stop the evil (not omnipotence).
Isn't that a fallacy of some sort? Because good, knowing, and no evil are all part of the consequent..
1. My cat can eat, if a good cat doesn't let rats exist.
2 Rats exist
Conclusion: My cat cannot eat.
Why? Because we're trying to find out if my cat can eat, not if he's a good cat.
The problem of evil hinges on all three variables(omni-benevolence, omniscience, AND omnipotence), if you remove any single one, it is no longer a problem. If god doesn't know, doesn't care, OR can't do anything about it then the problem disappears from a logical perspective. As in your example, if your cat did not know that a rat existed in Singapore, that would not effect either his ability(to eat) or his goodness(benevolence). The problem is a trilemma, aimed at showing that any god that could exist could not possibly have all three properties. It is precisely the three properties in concert that would logically demand that evil and/or suffering would not exist.
I think this is the post that Nyarlathotep was talking to me about. I understand the problem of evil has those three variables. But that was not the reason I gave the example about the cat. Nyarlathotep didn't say:
1. God is all good, all powerful, all knowing.
2 An all good, all powerful, all knowing God wouldn't allow exists to exist.
3. Evil exists.
Conclusion: None. The god isn't good. The premises contradict. Which is what the problem of evil is trying to point out, right?
However Nyarlathorp said something different in Premise 3:
Premise 1:....
Premise 2: ....
Premise 3: An omni-benevolent being would not knowing allow evil to exist, if they had the power to stop it.
Premise 4: ....
So instead of making good, power, and knowledge all a condition of evil existing. He only made power the condition of evil existing.
So if evil exists, then he didn't have the power to stop it.
But he somehow finds my conclusion deceiving because he want the conclusion to include god wasnt good or didn't know. But the premise isn't set up that way. Hence my cat example to try and explain.
John6b - "An all good, all powerful, all knowing G̶o̶d̶ being wouldn't allow e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ evil to exist."
with the corrections, they are logically equivalent.
An omni-benevolent"good" being would not knowing(knowledge) allow evil to exist, if they had the power(Potency) to stop it.
It still has all three trademarks of the problem of evil. You can literally rephrase his exact premise as:
An omni-benevolent being, who had the knowledge that evil would transpire and the power to stop it, would not allow the evil to occur.
In all three it is ENTIRELY contingent on three factors:
It cares.
It knows.
It has the power.
Take any of these away and the problem disappears.
Now, you said that "he didn't have the power to stop it", which is enough to get rid of the dilemma. It also, however, voids most theistic conceptions of god by definition.
John6b- "Isn't that a fallacy of some sort? Because good, knowing, and no evil are all part of the consequent"
omni-benevolent and omnipotent are not part of the consequent!
Consider the following term coined by Orwell:
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of f̲a̲i̲l̲i̲n̲g̲ ̲t̲o̲ ̲p̲e̲r̲c̲e̲i̲v̲e̲ ̲l̲o̲g̲i̲c̲a̲l̲ ̲e̲r̲r̲o̲r̲s̲, of m̲i̲s̲u̲n̲d̲e̲r̲s̲t̲a̲n̲d̲i̲n̲g̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲s̲i̲m̲p̲l̲e̲s̲t̲ ̲a̲r̲g̲u̲m̲e̲n̲t̲s̲ if they are inimical to [the topic], and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
Now ask yourself the following question: why is it that you have to be drug---kicking and screaming---through even the simpelist of logic on this topic?
I've never heard of the term crimestop, but I'll do my best to work with what you presented.
Where have I crimestopped? If disagreeing with how you write your premises is crimestop then yeah I've been crimestopping. But the definition you gave of crimestop ncludes a fear of being heretical. This means that you think I'm disagreeing with you, because to agree with you somehow turns me into a heretic. How you could have made that leap is beyond me. You can replace the word God with Cat for all I care and it still won't change the fact that I can disagree.
That being said, I've openly agreed with you already based on plenty of things. On the contrary the conversation we are having now is completely due to you trying to find something to disagree with me on.
Now.
"Omni-benevolent and omnipotence are not part of the consequent!"
Really?
Omnipotence is obviously part of the antecedent, so you're right about that.
But omni-benevolence along with evil not existing and the knowledge of it are all part of the consequent of P3.
Travis has already explained it to you. But if you still can't see it, put it in standard form:
If A ∩ B ∩ C, → ¬D| A = omni-benevolence, B = omnipotence, C = omniscient, D = allow evil to exist
You've sincerely lost track of the conversation. Or maybe I have, since I'm replying to a number of people at the same time. Regardless, what you have just said has no direct attachment to my previous comments, and I know this because you pointed to Travis, and if I recall correctly the conversation I had with him focused on something completely different from the one I was having with you.
So I'm going to need you to assume I'm mentally retarded (which I'm sure you'll happily do), and explain yourself very clearly. Here's the premise we've been discussing, what are you trying to say about it?
"Premise 3: An omni-benevolent being would not knowing allow evil to exist, if they had the power to stop it."
That is exactly the premise I just formalized. And which Travis already explained here:
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/problem-evil?page=1#co...
Pages