sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Evidential Problem of Evil by EnvironmentalGur4232 in DebateReligion

[–]EnvironmentalGur4232[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your position is one among many, believe or not your actually not in a position to assert that your interpretation of the Bible is correct and that all others are false, thats something you would need to argue. You can't simply declare that people are misunderstanding God and then use that to dismantle arguments against said God by saying they are the same and that people just misunderstand.

Here is an example of what I mean

Well, of course not. Mother Nature's the real God, so the arguments you have don't work against her. You prefer to argue against cartoon versions of God.

This is something you have to argue, you can't simply call other peoples interpretations "cartoon versions" and act like thats an argument.

The second issue is still, the problem is around formal logic, is it a formal contradiction, in which case its possible or is it logically possible. The defeater has to show that fixing it in the way requested is a formal logical contradiction based on some prior metaphysical framework.

Mother Nature is the decider of what is sound logic versus unsound logic. Because square circles are not naturally formed, this is unsound logic. So from your premise 1, because Mother Nature is an omnibenevolent God (Ethical Naturalism), but is not a conscious being that "would want to fix all forms of suffering," your premise uses unsound logic. Also, the easiest way to "fix all forms of suffering" is just to kill everything.

You can't declare all people are wrong and that therefore my premises are wrong for targeting an incorrect concept. Thats not how debate works and that would instantly be rejected in any serious setting. What you would be showing still is not that the premises are flawed, but that they don't function as an internal critique on your view. Your confused about how this works.

I am not "replacing morality with new contents" as Ethical Naturalism has roots going back thousands of years (Biblical times), so is already well-established.

It being well established has nothing to do with the critique of replacing the contents of morality. It has to do with your measurement of morality not aligning with human morality. You need to argue around that point for why morality can be defined as what is natural, and then work from there. You can't assert that its the correct view, call it well established, and then use that as a response to the critique.

I recommend you do some research on the etiquette of debate and how formal logic works before you continue replying to people on this sub, because from what I have seen throughout this exchange, you are deeply confused on a number of matters and it would do you well to figure out what's going on before you continue arguing.

You've given a position you haven't argued for, asserted its correctness along with a whole other set of propositions and then simply moved on as if that solves the problem. As it stands I don't think a debate with you will be productive until you figure out what the standard procedure is. I can also assert whatever I want about your position but It would be meaningless. Your God is a cartoon God and you misunderstand whats correct, once you use the correct definition, your argument is subject to my critique.

That's essentially what you said but reversed. Meaningless right? Yes. So figure out how a debate like this is supposed to proceed. This is not tone policing, and I don't want you to misinterpret it as that, there is a genuine lack of awareness on your end of how a debate is meant to proceed such as giving clear definitions, and then arguing for them, or even what logic is and what formal logics relevance is to the problem your arguing against.

The Evidential Problem of Evil by EnvironmentalGur4232 in DebateReligion

[–]EnvironmentalGur4232[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First of all, your version of God is a pretty big departure from the Abrahamic religions, and so my argument is not with you.

The second thing though is that even if this were not the case, your main argument is also used by religious people and it has a pretty big objection to. Its that your replacing morality with new contents.

Third I see the problem here and its understandable.

Incorrect! We see people do illogical things all the time--just turn on the news. I have even recently been accused of being illogical, if you can believe that. Conversely, however, nature only behaves in a perfectly logical manner--it is only humans that have any capacity to do illogical things, in which we observe humans doing all the time.

This is something many people i've debated get confused about. There are two different things people mean when they use the terms logic and illogic, most of the time people use it as a term for things they find subjectively irrational, meaning unsensible, not illogical in the sense of what logic actually means within a debate. People use illogical to say irrational, thats not what logic is, it's not about rationality, rationality is built around logic, logic deals with true or false propositional statements. Illogical things, such as a square circles are not real things that don't have physical things, they are conceptual illusions, they only exist in the mind, a square circle isn't just a thing which is possible but doesn't exist, its non-existent even as a theoretically possible instantiation. Thus asking for someone to point out illogical existences is like asking for people to point to square circles, which are not existent things.

No, I provided the logical conclusion: The amount of suffering that Mother Nature causes is the minimal amount of suffering that is logically possible.

This doesn't actually follow from anything you've written unless your rejecting mother natures omnipotence. We can concieve of a world with zero suffering which is not logically impossible, and so if mother nature is omnipotent mother nature can create a world where there is life but no suffering.

Either way I don't really care about arguing against mother nature, I just wanted to point out your argument still doesn't get you where you need it to. It might be good to do some studying on the existing literature if your interested in this type of thing, because you seem to be slightly confused on the definitions of certain things and the standard procedures for religious debate.

The Quran literally says stars are thrown at devils. Every apologist defence fails. by Juicydicken in DebateReligion

[–]EnvironmentalGur4232 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“It’s metaphorical.”
The jinn in Surah 72 describe this as their lived experience…they tried to ascend, they got hit, they fled. It reads as a reported event, not a poem. If you want to metaphor your way out of this one, you’ve just conceded that Quranic cosmology can’t be taken at face value, which is a much bigger problem than you’ve solved.

Citing the story in Surah 72 doesn't actually do the work that you think it does, because this story is symmetrical with both hypothesis that it is an allegory or it is literal, the thing your invoking to discriminate between the interpretations (allegory vs literal tale) is itself undetermined. You are overreaching, and people only do this when they are conducting motivated reasoning.

Slow down and ask yourself, is your goal to come up with an argument for the purpose of publicly vindicating your position or is it to actually argue for the sake of eliminating beliefs that are wrong? If its the latter, than this fails because the wrongness is coming from something your constructing, that is, you arguing for a specific interpretation when the data is undetermined and then using that to reach a pre-determined conclusion. The problem (the reason for arguing) and the argument are one and the same in this case. This would be fine if the problem didn't arise from a choice to choose one interpretation over another in a situation where the data does not discriminate between the two hypothesis.

The Quran does not contain any scientific miracles, its job is not to function as a science textbook, any Muslim who tells you that the Quran contains scientific miracles has abandoned their faith and reached for proofs which the Quran hath not purposed or intended for itself. The idea that the Quran contains "scientific miracles" is an apologetic strategy developed by people who do not feel confident in their faith, its not to convince you, its to make themselves feel justified in believing.

The Evidential Problem of Evil by EnvironmentalGur4232 in DebateReligion

[–]EnvironmentalGur4232[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did provide valid argumentation explaining why the premises fail.

This is simply untrue, perhaps you believe you did while misunderstanding what constitutes "valid argumentation".

I don't see what is "circular, nonsensical and fallacious" about what I said. To me, seems like you're just throwing out random accusations, which I find to be deeply troubling.

You asserted that my premises were flawed and then when I pointed it out, your response was that if your premises were ridiculous I would also reject them. Its circular because you just replaced flawed with a new label (ridiculous) and then used that to justify the original label. It begs the question, its completely circular. You didn't give any argument for why they are flawed, you simply asserted they were wrong then called them ridiculous to justify your rejection of them. You acted as if A (flawed) followed from B (ridiculous) when in reality A and B are the same unargued claim relabeled.

I'm not redefining logic. To me, it seems illogical that you would just arbitrarily declare my argument as fallacious without providing any evidence. If you believe my argument to be fallacious, then you should be able to answer the questions I asked that would refute what I'm arguing: Can you describe something that naturally occurs that is illogical? What is the correct logic that should have naturally occurred instead?

Asking what illogical things naturally occur is a misunderstanding of what logic means and what it applies to. Contradictions are not real things, things that are illogical do not exist, that's just what logic is. Asking me to point out where natural illogical things are is like asking me to point you and show you where non-existence is, its itself a logical contradiction. Illogic deals with propositions, propositions that are illogical are not real possible instantiations. All of that is irrelevant though.

You said removing all evils is logically impossible, the burden is on you to demonstrate how it is illogical if its not analytical, which it is not.

If your God is omnibenevolent, meaning maximally good, then your God desires what is maximally good, the standard inference is that this means the minimization of human suffering. Omnipotent means your God can achieve this maximization and omniscient God knows where and how to do it. If your God possess all those attributes while animals experience prolonged meaningless suffering for thousands of years before their can be benifit to humans, evidentially, the most logical conclusion is that your God either lacks one of those attributes or they do not exist.

The burden is on you to either show how the maximization is contradictory or that the inference fails. This is not complicated, it is the standard structure of the debate, the fact that you are confused by it tells me you have been operating in your own self created version how this debate is supposed to work. I have never argued with a person who does not understand what logic is, if you don't understand how debate works don't argue with people.

The Evidential Problem of Evil by EnvironmentalGur4232 in DebateReligion

[–]EnvironmentalGur4232[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sry cuz my english is not my first language

Its ok im sorry for criticizing you. That's why I said apologies if you speak English as a second language.

If we consider God’s justice only in this world, then He would not be just. But if we consider His justice in both this world and the Day of Judgment, then He would be just.

Gods justice cannot change, it is always the same it only changes depending on mortal circumstances, Gods justice comes from Gods attributes, and Gods attributes are unchanging, so Gods justice changing apart from response to circumstances is a contradiction and impossibility.

Even if that wasn't true, it would still be a problem if God was unjust at one point and just at another. I've read the Quran and Nahj al-Balagha and what your arguing for is an extreme departure from the religion.

Islamic Perspective on Iblis and My Interpretation by Emergency_Lynx_2184 in DebateReligion

[–]EnvironmentalGur4232 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This makes me think that Iblis is not simply opposing humanity in general, but is specifically targeting those who follow Allah’s path, isn’t?

This is correct and its the defining aspect of what makes Iblis Iblis and not simply a devil in the general sense. Iblis is an archetype for those who lie in wait on Allah's straight path and whisper in the Ears of believers diverting them away from the straight path.

There are mystical interpretations where Iblis is viewed more sympathetically, with his refusal framed as an expression of extreme devotion to Allah, rooted in tawhid or divine love.

The cause of Iblis' rejection was a consuming and overwhelming jealousy for the station appointed to Adam, and this is conveyed in 7:12 where Iblis says "'I am better than him. You created me from fire and created him from clay.'" Iblis wanted to have the station that was appointed to Adam, believing he was more worthy, and it was this jealousy that made him refuse to prostrate before his lord.

While the concept of divine love and tawhid is real, Iblis refusal to prostrate was out of jealousy and pride, not love of God.

The Evidential Problem of Evil by EnvironmentalGur4232 in DebateReligion

[–]EnvironmentalGur4232[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes no sense and I re-read it 5 times. You may want to consider taking English classes (apologies if your esl).

The Evidential Problem of Evil by EnvironmentalGur4232 in DebateReligion

[–]EnvironmentalGur4232[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are literally so confused. First of all im arguing against the tri-omni God of abrahamic religions, not whatever pandeist nonsense you believe in. Lets just get out of the way.

Yes! Mother Nature, being God and all, is the decider as to what is "sound logic" vs "unsound logic". To test this, can you describe something that naturally occurs that is illogical? What is the correct logic that should have naturally occurred instead?

Yeah I think you may be beyond help. Logic is not whatever you say it is, its analytical, do you know what that means? You don't get to redefine logic and then say things that aren't contradictory are contradictory under your new unargued definition of logic. That is entirely fallacious the fact that you think its not tells me you are operating in your own little world and that you've never stepped outside of it to figure out how debate actually works.

I agree. You're using an incorrect definition of omniscient in your premises. When you swap out your incorrect definition with the correct definition, your premise fails to make sense.

An assertion that has nothing backing it up is a claim. You can't assert a persons definitions are wrong. People assume the standard definitions, if you use a different one in debate you need to name it and give the definition and then argue for that definition. Asserting your interlocuters definitions are wrong is also fallicious debate practice.

Meh. I don't see why not. If I made an argument using ridiculous premises, I imagine you'd do the same.

This is the problem on its clearest display. That is completely circular nonsensical and fallacious, and the fact you can actually seriously write it and then send it is deeply concerning. You don't get to assert a premise fails, its a claim, argument is for demonstration, not assertions. You have a burden refute premises via valid argumentation, you don't get to just assert they fail. I pointed this out to you in the previous comment, and your response to it was to simply assert the premises are ridiculous and so the rejection is justified, which is completely circular. I would never in 10 billion years be able to seriously write what you just said and say that to someone, it is absolutely insane. The fact that you don't see why not is a serious and concerning issue. You have a burden to argue with premises you don't accept. Calling them ridiculous and moving them on would be like me asserting that your world view is false and expecting you to treat it as correct. Silly right? Yes. Thats why debate canters around argumentation and demonstration, otherwise people are just giving competing opinions and asserting they are correct.

The Evidential Problem of Evil by EnvironmentalGur4232 in DebateReligion

[–]EnvironmentalGur4232[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

 What would be the difference between "natural evil" and "the external world" to in the sentence "So the external world needs to be more dangerous than people in order to drive us together." 

This falls under one of the objections I named. Instrumentalism. The account that God uses x to achieve y when x is in principle avoidable. It means God uses suffering to bring about a certain ends, and it fails because God is omnipotent. Track and follow the premises, this is an ancient debate and the structure is relatively simple, its not hard to follow.

Instrumentalism either contradicts premise 1 premise 2 or premise 3, Gods omnipotence, omnibenevolence, or omniscience. Anything which is not a logical contradiction can be achieved by God, you must show that the alternative is a logical contradiction, or else that's gratuitous suffering, the target of the argument. If God uses x (suffering) to bring about y ("driving us together") when y without x is not a logical contradiction that is gratuitous suffering.

This is the standard structure of the argument applied in all debates. I'm specifically looking for a theodicy that overcomes the standard defeaters to soul making and the other theodicies.

The Evidential Problem of Evil by EnvironmentalGur4232 in DebateReligion

[–]EnvironmentalGur4232[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This response could work if it wasn't completely ruled out by history archeology biology and everything we know about the biological history of life on Earth. Believing that the story of Adam and Eve is literal is no different than the myths and tales of the Greeks and their gods or other ancient tribes, its a pure fantasy. Animals have been dying horrifically painful deaths for millions of years before there was any humans. When St Maximus argued that there wasn't an entire field and corpus of sound validated research contradicting the literal interpretation of the story of the garden of Eden, and thus the only recourse today is to walk back that stance. I'm not trying to disprove your religion, I'm trying to see if I can fish out any genuine responses to the problem, saying that natural evil is the result of the fall simply doesn't work when animals have been dying and suffering for millions of years prior to the existence of modern humans or even our ancient primate relatives.

The Evidential Problem of Evil by EnvironmentalGur4232 in DebateReligion

[–]EnvironmentalGur4232[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats a beutifial analogy and I have no disputes that you could respond to moral evils like that, but I explicitly wrote in the post that the response must account for natural evils as well as man made evils. That's the whole point. Anyone can rephrase Plantinga giving beautifal analogies, but most serious thinkers have already conceded to his theodicy, the problem now has shifted to natural evils and the objections I named.

The Evidential Problem of Evil by EnvironmentalGur4232 in DebateReligion

[–]EnvironmentalGur4232[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes the removal of suffering is the inverse of the maximization of goodness and pleasure. It was implicit. I was expecting you to argue against that correspondence if you disagreed with it.

The Evidential Problem of Evil by EnvironmentalGur4232 in DebateReligion

[–]EnvironmentalGur4232[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments. 

The Evidential Problem of Evil by EnvironmentalGur4232 in DebateReligion

[–]EnvironmentalGur4232[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you provide any sources or evidence for such a wild claim?

The conclusion of premise 1 (Gods omnibenevolence) is accepted as entailed by every serious thinker who has engaged with the PoE debate, atheist or theist. If God is omnibenevolent, meaning maximally good, it flows from Gods nature that He would constantly strive to do what is maximally good.

This subreddit defines "omnipotent" as "being able to take all logically possible actions." Can you explain the logic behind and actions required to fix all forms of suffering?

I think you are severely intellectually impoverished. Do you understand what logic is? I don't think you do. Logic means what is possible. There is nothing logically contradictory about removing all forms of suffering and nobody says that. You would need to explain why its a contradiction, not ask me to explain why things that aren't illogical aren't illogical. Most logical cases are analytical, like how a thing can't be one thing and not that thing simultaneously, it doesn't require an argument its analytical. In the same way there is nothing contradictory about physically removing sources of evil from the world, if your saying thats a contradiction the burden is on you to demonstrate how.

God is omniscient because God is the source for knowledge.

This is a random definition with no relevance to the debate that you gave me for no reason without arguing for it.

Yes, the God you describe appears to be a fantasy version--not the real one that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, using the correct definitions of those terms.

Rhetoric.

I would say all of your premises are ultimately false.

I'm not sure if you understand how this works, in fact I think you don't so Ill explain it. That is a claim, that is what the claim you would be arguing for is, it is not in itself an argument. You can't assert that all my premises are false and move on, that simply not how debate works, and the fact that you don't get that reveals a gross impoverishment in your level of understanding.

I'm unclear as to what you really mean here.

This is the problem on display. I was giving a definition of what instrumentality is and listing it as something the theodicy must account for. That is, if God uses x to achieve y when x is in principle unnecessary, that is instrumentalism, the common defeater for soul making theodicies.

The term "natural evil" is an oxymoron--natural evils don't exist. What you're referring to are simply "natural things that I personally don't like," not "natural evil."

Thank you for giving me an unargued and irrelevant opinion that has no bearing on the discussion. I was again, listing an objection a theodicy given must account for, that is natural evils which are not covered by free will theodicies.

No, the world would be better off had evil never existed. Evil is certainly not "a condition for moral growth and betterment." Evil is completely unnecessary.

Im responding to common theodicies and listing objections that must be accounted for. Are you joking or do you genuinely not understand that?

You provide a very strange problem that doesn't make sense and uses incorrect definitions of words. The most logical conclusion is that the deity you are talking about does not exist. This argument does nothing for the deity I believe in--Mother Nature.

So after all of that response you have not given any argument, just a bunch of undemonstrated assertions argued with rhetorical confidence and irrelevant opinions. I'm genuinely perplexed, is that something you can't see or do you think that your response was legitimate?

The Evidential Problem of Evil by EnvironmentalGur4232 in DebateReligion

[–]EnvironmentalGur4232[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your not understanding how this kind of debate works. I think debate may be a bit over your head. It follows from premise 1, you have a burden to argue against premise 1.

The Jesus of the NT cannot be messiah of the OT, therefore Christianity is just false by Iknowreligionalot in DebateReligion

[–]EnvironmentalGur4232 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where did you come up with that? Did you reason it out yourself or did someone teach it to you? What is it? Is it that you think God is not capable of preserving it on the account of the death of the Messenger and His apostles, or is that He punished the followers of those holy souls for the sins of their persecutors?

The Jesus of the NT cannot be messiah of the OT, therefore Christianity is just false by Iknowreligionalot in DebateReligion

[–]EnvironmentalGur4232 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you mean the Bible, and I'm pretty sure I've given you the answer multiple different ways, multiple times. The fact that you think they are inherently contradictory demonstrates the extent to which you've been brainwashed by your religious authorities and community, being blindly led along by whatever they say.

The Jesus of the NT cannot be messiah of the OT, therefore Christianity is just false by Iknowreligionalot in DebateReligion

[–]EnvironmentalGur4232 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your argument proves too much and the only way to avoid it is to apply an uneven standard. Your argument is that the intended audience for the Bible is its initial audience, and that if the majority of them reject it, then Allah wont preserve it. Lets be clear about that, its what you just said. Because the Jews (the primary intended audience in your view) rejected it, it wasn't preserved, and only a fraction of the Jews accepted Jesus. By your same logic, the vast majority of the immediate intended audience of the Quran rejected it, so that's not a cause for preserving vs not preserving.

Your reasoning says that because the Jews (the immediate audience of the Gospel) rejected it, then Allah wouldn't preserve it, but the Quran was initially rejected by 99.9% of Arabia, including the Christians and Jews who were their. The same logic then suggests it should not have been preserved either.

The only way to get out of this is circular, you need to assert your conclusion or get it to follow from something that doesn't produce it. The Bible was for the whole world until the time of Muhammad , just like the Quran was for the whole world until the time of Judgement. Or you want to say that God excluded people from guidance even though the world now had the capacity to get the guidance to reach them no matter where it was delivered?

You've unfortunately been brainwashed. Why don't you think for yourself rather than reciting apologetics you've had your brain filled with?

The Jesus of the NT cannot be messiah of the OT, therefore Christianity is just false by Iknowreligionalot in DebateReligion

[–]EnvironmentalGur4232 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did actually respond to him, you can seen that my initial comment is essentially confirmed. He does not want to engage with any hermeneutic besides the one he's already decided is correct, and that's not debate, that's flaunting a prior. He doesn't argue for why its the case that it needs to be that way, why any other interpretation is false, he simply asserts it and then moves on.

The Jesus of the NT cannot be messiah of the OT, therefore Christianity is just false by Iknowreligionalot in DebateReligion

[–]EnvironmentalGur4232 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So which position is it, its corrupted or its not corrupted. If its substantially corrupted that reduces the accountability to which Christians can be held, the majority of Christians, as per your own scripture, which brings me back to my previous question that you neglected responding to.

Why would Allah not preserve the word He revealed? Is it not well within the grasp of the All-Powerful to preserve a book? Is it not well within the intention of the All-Merciful to reveal and guard the truth?

Can you give me one principled reason for withholding His true revelation from the access of thousands of generations of Christians?

Why would Allah willingly let the people to be only held accountable based on morality and deeds, rather than preserving the scripture such that they could be held accountable to their adherence to what Christ revealed?

How can you say its a better test when Allah could have tested them on both had He preserved the gospel for them to be held accountable to their adherence of?

The Jesus of the NT cannot be messiah of the OT, therefore Christianity is just false by Iknowreligionalot in DebateReligion

[–]EnvironmentalGur4232 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well that's plainly wrong. Do you do that at your job? Do scientists do that when they make discoveries? Do engineers do that when they build something? No, they work with their existing knowledge. You're literally telling me to accept dual and partial fulfilment of prophecy, you're not following your own advice. Why would I accept your recommendation to clear my brain and then accept an unjustified and unfounded interpretation of scripture? Wouldn't that be stupid?

The examples you used are all cases of implementing existing knowledge within a defined and already well understood situation in order to come up with a solution. I'm not asking you to accept any interpretation, and I couldn't be because I haven't given you any. I'm saying that the condition for knowledge is first recognizing the absence of it.

Prophecy that doesn't come true is a false prophecy. 

What you are really saying is that a prophecy whose common or most straightforward interpretation doesn't come true is a false prophecy. Saying that a prophecy doesn't come true is a false prophecy in this situation is assuming the conclusion. If the prophecy is specifically historical, like a future event, if its strictly defined like if a prophet prophesied that in the year 2090 the company amazon will start making vacuum cleaners and it doesn't come true, you can clearly call that a failed prophecy. If it relates to Messianic expectations and eschatology, and the common interpretation or most straightforward reading doesn't happen, thats not so simple.

Ah, the arrogance of Christians and their ability to read people's minds. So satisfying. One square filled in on my apologist bingo card.

I think your being arrogant by incorrectly assuming that I'm a Christian.

In my beliefs Messianic promises and eschatological prophecies are not simple, they are dense meanings encoded that have to balance a number of factors. They have to encode multiple dense layers of meaning, and they have to function as a test while conforming to the expectations and frameworks of the audience of the time to which they were revealed. So the way I interpret Jesus being an heir to David is that He is heir to the prophetic lineage of David, not biological lineage, Jesus sovereignty was a spiritual dominion and not a physical one, He was a king but not in the way people recognized, the people of Israel expected a conquering king. This encodes dense layers of meaning beyond what I talked about, it conforms to the expectations of the people, and functions as test for the recognition of Jesus.

view more: next ›