If God wants to destroy evil...

[Zarathustra]

God created everything that has been, is, and is going to be in existence. He created the Earth and the Heavens. He created the Lake of Fire in which he casts sinners. He created Good, and He created evil. Does not the old adage says "I have created you, and so can I destroy you"?

If God wanted to, couldn't He, in theory, destroy evil with no need for the battle of the apocalypse?

[harvey1]

Hey,

Put it this way. When we have the technology ourselves to stop tsunamis, in 2020 say, and we are about to use it to stop a horrible impending tsunami, will you leap forth and say "wait! You're about to cause a horrible paradox, I'm sure!" If not, why are you sure it would have been "paradoxical" in the 2004 case for God to stop? It looks for all the world like the only reason you're so sure is that the other alternative would be to give up on the existence of an all-powerful, all-good being. I urge you to look honestly at that possiblity and see whether you have some reason to believe such implausible things independent of the very claim that is at stake.

No, it would not be paradoxial for humans to stop a tsunami, just like it is not paradoxial for humans to catch petty thiefs on video cameras. However, there are physical constraints for God to do so, and doing so beyond the stretch of allowable interpretation becomes a logical constraint. This is why God is not constantly intervening in our world saving us from every ill and fall.

In the same sense that Piccard, Spock, Kirk, and Data have omnipotence over our world.

There is no sense where they have omnipotence! They can't change c (though they can go faster, somehow!), or travel from any point in the universe to any other in under a millisecond, or collapse entire galaxies at once, or countless other things. Again, this colorful story is beside the point.

If a few assumptions are there, they are omnipotent. For example, there is not necessarily a constraint to prevent them from changing any one particular (physically constrained) event (versus logical constrained event which they can't do anything about). They are weakly omnipotent if the compromises they make are such that they still exert their overall will in the world and the events that they really want to control they can control. For example, let's say that it becomes important to stop Lefty before he pickpockets Righty's pocket, then this one event can be stopped using their advanced technology if they are willing to allow other crimes go unpunished. They are all-powerful in any one application of their power, and all-powerful in the overall application of their power (e.g., to bring ultimate justice to crime), but they are not all-powerful in the everyday sense where they just do all the things that they would like to do to clean up the world.

You may not consider such time travellers as all-powerful, but if you were in trouble and there was one place to turn for help, those would be the guys you would approach because the one intervention they make could be the one that you need for them to make. Hence, they are all-powerful to you personally.

Now, possibly, this has changed the whole debate in terms of the meaning of this one term. If so, then I guess we're done. I never had in my mind that God was unlimited to do what God wants as many times as God would want to do something. I've always believed throughout these debates (and throughout my life) that God holds back on 99.999...9% of the things God would like to do for a greater purpose. That does not void out God's omnipotence in my view. God is omnipotent because God can in any one case affect a physical situation to accomplish God's will (assuming it is not a pure logical constraint). The tsunami 2004 was a choice of allowing that one tsunami over countless others. Had God seen the 2004 tsunami as that one event to prevent from happening, then God could have (conceptually) stopped that tsunami. However, and this is the part you never get, the physical constrained interpretation was stretched to the point that God had to make a decision. God had to allow one of the thousands of natural disasters that needed to occur; because the interpretation of physical constraint that God was under had been stretched too far. So, God choose the 2004 tsunami to be allowed to happen versus some other natural disaster that could also have satisfied the interpretation of the same physical constraint. Perhaps the other major tsunami that God didn't choose to be allowed to happen (but which would have satisfied the stretched intepretation of the physical constraint) was the North American tsunami that wiped out millions on the Eastern coast of the U.S. (this tsunami wiped out 0.5 million people in Manhattan alone and eventually caused a nuclear war with India, but that's another story...). The other tsunami that God could have selected so that it was allowed to happen was the one that hit California. This one was even far worse. It knocked out 15 million people all along the California coastal cities in the summer of 2004. That was a real nasty one.

Of course, thank God, none of these tsunamis happened. God elected to avoid those tsunamis which would have satisfied the interpretation of the physical constraint (that was stretched to the breaking point), and instead allowed the much smaller and far less devasting tsunami that actually happened in December, 2004 in Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere.

The time-travel paradoxes provide plausible examples of powers that one logically couldn't have. But stopping a tsunami is not one of those, as we've agreed, so this example seems totally beside the point.

It's not besides the point. The reason that a time-traveller has paradoxes is because there are inconsistencies in the stream of physical events. Similarly, the reason why God faces paradox issues is because the time of the future has already been determined/completed. It's done. There is no way that this future can be any different because it is what has already happened from God's perspective. It's occurrence is logically prior to our existence. There's the beginning of the world and the end of the world, those two events are logically prior to any event that happens in the middle. Therefore, whatever can connect the beginning with the end is what logically must connect the beginning to the end. God is Doc Brown in Back to the Future I where the two power cords must be plugged into each other so that Marty can get to the future so there's no time paradox and destroy the entire universe. The power cables are a tight fit, God has to use all of the divine omnipotent power to make them work. It means allowing a vast amount of evil to make them fit because that's what it takes to connect the beginning of time with the end of time. These are already finished times, so there's absolutely no choice for God but to allow tremendous evil. God absolutely must allow tremendous evil. This is the physical constraint. The only question now is what evil must be allowed. Fortunately, it's not a matter of strict determinism. God as the omniscient interpreter in all of this, gets to decide what fulfills those physical constraint interpretations and what doesn't. In other words, God gets to decide the way to make the cables fit, and that's what God does. God makes the cables fit using the best interpretations of the physical situations present on earth (and elsewhere) to make them fit. Just like the time traveller, God must choose this path very carefully, and so God does.

Put it this way: on your usage, my plant could be "omnipotent", even though it doesn't have the powers we humans have (like locomotion).

Your plant does not connect the beginning and end of time with the least amount of pain and suffering as possible in the process. Perhaps, if God didn't care about evil, God's job would be so much easier. "Tsunami in New York killing millions?" Okay, by me. I just work here. "Hitler overtakes the U.S. in 1950?" So what. "U.S. and Soviet Union have a full scale nuclear war in 1960?" I'm really going to enjoy this one. No. None of that happens because God cares very much about reducing the evil in this world. God wants our help to reduce the evil because we are not constrained by paradox, so God works through human beings to further the divine will in the world.

Here you go! Now you claim that God decided to let that tsunami go because it was for the (net) best. Why are you so sure of this? How do you know that God had to let at least one tsunami go last year? Do you simply infer this from your antecedent assumption that God is all-good and all-powerful? If so, that's cheating! If not, you must have independent grounds for thinking that the tsunami was the best (net) thing that could have happened. Why think that?!

Because I see how easily interpretation comes into being a major issue when mathematical constraints are in conflict as they would need to be applied in our world. If I can see it from simple examples, imagine how difficult it is for God who has an infinite number of logico-mathematical structures that need interpretation and consideration. God must interpret these constraints and decide how to move forward without impacting the needed timeflow from the beginning to the end. This is why God is the Alpha and Omega. God connects these two realms and makes all things new and wipes every tear away. God finds the way to do that with the maximum good while accomplishing this unavoidable conclusion.

That's all I have time for...

[spetey]

Hi folks!

If this was the only thing I had to go on then I would have to agree with you as the evidence would seem overwhelming. While I do not assume that God MUST BE all-good and all-powerful, I have very good reason to believe that god is very powerful and very good.

Really? What good reason is this? What reason might you have other than the way the world is and the amount of evil in it?

Imagine the Hitler Freak says "oh, sure, if the Holocaust and WWII were all I'd have to go on, I'd have to say Hitler was evil. But I have good reason to think Hitler was really good after all." Wouldn't you be curious to hear what that reason is? Similarly, I'd like to know why you think God is all-good and all-powerful (not just a little of each) given disasters like the tsunami.

My own experience is of such overwhelming significance that I do not merely believe that there is a God but I know there is a God. That you will not believe this is a certainty, as previous to enforced acceptance of this undeniable fact I was as staunch an atheist as ever could be met. I would not believe anything of the sort could possibly be true but the fact remains that I am now a theist despite the fact that no amount of persuasion could alter my previous position.

This is very curious. You say that no reasons could alter your position. Does this mean you believe on faith (ie without regard to reasons)? If so, I think you should defend that policy. I argue here that faith is impermissable, and even Harvey agrees with me on that point!

Then if the argument is not a proof it should not be claimed to be. I use the same definition of proof as that commonly accepted by most. The evidence must be irrefutable. The same level of proof that I myself required before coming to my own belief.

Again, it depends on what your standard for proof is--there is no one "commonly accepted" standard. Put it this way: do you think we have "proof" that there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn? Do you believe there is no such IPU? It seems to me we have good reason to believe there is no IPU, even though we have no deductive proof from a priori principles. Similarly, we have good reason (like tsunamis) to think there is no all-good, all-powerful being.

As I know that there is such a being that could in theory be both of these things I see no reason to disbelieve at all.

This begs the question. You "know" that there is an all-good all-powerful God, and that's how you respond to my argument that there couldn't be such. How do you know? What reason do you have? To respond to my reasons against this claim with "well I just know ..." is to hold a claim by faith and not by reason.

I find it difficult to take seriously the conclusions of those who forward an opinion on something they have no knowledge of whatsoever.

Again you beg the question. What makes you so sure I'm the one with no knowledge on this matter? After all, I can give reasons to support my belief.

Is it rational to believe what I am told by those, who by their own admission, have no knowledge or those who say they have knowledge. No, I think it far more rational to weigh the evidence for myself and come to my own conclusions.

I am not an agnostic. I claim to have knowledge: I claim to know that there is no God. I support this position with reasons. And I of course agree that you should weigh the evidence for yourself and come to your own conclusions. I'd just like some sign that your belief is really based on evidence. I have provided evidence that there is no all-good, all-powerful God. What is your evidence for this position? If you only have evidence against, do you think your beliefs are based on evidence when you continue believing for anyway?

Give me more than an argument that holds no water and I will give it the appropriate consideration. The argument, as it is, does not even pass the first test. It is based on assumptions that can not be logically substantiated.

Here again you merely state that my argument is bad. What exactly is bad about it? How do you respond to it? At least one of the three claims central to my argument is false. I think it's (3). What reason do you have to throw out (1) or (2) instead? Remember: "I just know I'm right" and "your argument doesn't hold water" are not themselves actually responses. You are aiming to give an argument of some kind for your position. A racist can also simply say "I just know my race is superior" and "your argument for equal rights doesn't hold water". What a racist can't do is provide good arguments for his position.

(To be clear: I'm not accusing you of being a racist or anything like that. But I am, honestly, accusing you of being a dogmatist--of being someone who forms beliefs not based on reason.)

The first two premises cannot be shown to be true. Why for example would any evil have to be absolutely the minimum necessary, I find this premise alone quite absurd. How you reach this conclusion is beyond any logic that I have ever used. To argue that my kicking the dog would contribute to such a minimum requirement is just plain daft.

Here you simply say that my first premise is "absurd". But you don't seem to understand the premise. It is of conditional form. It says if there is an all-good, all-powerful entity, then the amount of evil in the world is minimal; the only evil that exists is strictly necessary (impossible to do without). Now: what's wrong about that premise?

The second premise is absolutely unverifiable. It is as if it has been grabbed out of the ether and accepted at face value.

I claim that the tsunami was evil and that the world would have been better off without it (it wasn't for some greater good and thus necessary). You really don't think this is a plausible claim? You think most people would agree that the tsunami was a wonderful thing that helped the world? You think most people hope for more tsunamis in the future?

You persist with the argument that the POE means that there is no all-powerful, all-good God. Why do you believe that an all-good God would intervene in the natural evolution of the planet? I am a good person (I like to think) but I don't get up at midnight every night so that I can mow all my neighbours lawns to save them the trouble. You seem to equate being all-good with being some kind of slave.

It's really simple. Suppose, for example, you found out some human caused that tsunami. Would you say that human was all-good and probably had some higher purpose?

You are good I'm sure, but you're not all-good and all-powerful, and so you don't mow others' lawns. If you were much more powerful--able to stop the tsunami, say--wouldn't you have? An all-good and all-powerful being does not drown 350,000 innocents. I think that should be fairly obvious.

Before we go further answer me these 3 questions:

1. Was the scenario I previously gave possible for an all-powerful god to achieve?
2. Would it be possible for the previous scenario to be acceptable to an all-good god given that there was no net bad but only net good and that such action would create greater harmony in the "real" spiritual world where things really mattered?
3. Would the world that was inhabited for a brief time require that there is a minimum level of evil (set by God) or would it be more in line with the promise given by the God to allow unrestricted (yet still without danger of harm) access to the world and free choice by those inhabiting it?

I don't know to what "scenario" you're referring. And free will is a can of worms I'd rather avoid--that's why I picked the tsunami. The tsunami was clearly not the result of anyone's free will. (Of course I think the free will defense doesn't work either, but that's a much more complicated argument, and we're having enough trouble agreeing to this much simpler argument. And after all, I need only one clear-cut example of unnecessary evil to make my point, so the whole free will issue is completely unnecessary.)


spetey

[Curious]

Hello again.

Really? What good reason is this? What reason might you have other than the way the world is and the amount of evil in it?

Personal, subjective experience. I admit that to you this is not evidence but to me it is. How would one explain such a thing as spiritual gnosis given the limitations of the written word. I completely understand your scepticism regarding this. If you were to accept it I would be disappointed.

Similarly, I'd like to know why you think God is all-good and all-powerful (not just a little of each) given disasters like the tsunami.

I have stated on more than one occasion that I do not believe God is all-good or all-powerful. My position is one of agnosticism concerning this point. I also do not believe that God is not these things. I am unable to discount either possibility at this juncture.

This is very curious. You say that no reasons could alter your position. Does this mean you believe on faith (ie without regard to reasons)? If so, I think you should defend that policy. I argue here that faith is impermissable, and even Harvey agrees with me on that point!

No amount of persuasion could alter my position. I mean cajolment or reasoning by those who are so eminent in this field. My own experience and ultimate realisation is another matter.

Do you believe there is no such IPU? It seems to me we have good reason to believe there is no IPU, even though we have no deductive proof from a priori principles. Similarly, we have good reason (like tsunamis) to think there is no all-good, all-powerful being.

But unlike the IPU, where I have no good reason to believe it does exist, I have good reason to believe that God does.

You "know" that there is an all-good all-powerful God, and that's how you respond to my argument that there couldn't be such. How do you know? What reason do you have? To respond to my reasons against this claim with "well I just know ..." is to hold a claim by faith and not by reason.

As I said I don't know that there is an all-good, all-powerful God. I do know that there is a God though. If I was to suffer a pain I would know I had a pain but I would be unable to prove to you what type of pain it was. You might not even believe I had such a pain but this does not mean that I did not. It is true that pain might cause a measurable physiological response but this is not the case with all pain or with all people. This does not mean that the pain does not exist just because the experience of the pain is purely subjective in nature.

What makes you so sure I'm the one with no knowledge on this matter? After all, I can give reasons to support my belief.

Because if you had such knowledge your position would be drastically different.

I am not an agnostic. I claim to have knowledge: I claim to know that there is no God. I support this position with reasons.

Yes you would come under the group of people who claim to have knowledge but do not. As I said, I would prefer to weigh the evidence from both sides and come to my own conclusions.

Here again you merely state that my argument is bad. What exactly is bad about it? How do you respond to it? At least one of the three claims central to my argument is false. I think it's (3). What reason do you have to throw out (1) or (2) instead? Remember: "I just know I'm right" and "your argument doesn't hold water" are not themselves actually responses. You are aiming to give an argument of some kind for your position. A racist can also simply say "I just know my race is superior" and "your argument for equal rights doesn't hold water". What a racist can't do is provide good arguments for his position.
(To be clear: I'm not accusing you of being a racist or anything like that. But I am, honestly, accusing you of being a dogmatist--of being someone who forms beliefs not based on reason.)

This is not the case at all. I give the reasons why the arguments you forward are not substantive. This argument is concerning the limitations of a (in your mind) non-existent god. I say that God does exist. You put the argument that God (if God exists) cannot be all-good and all-powerful based on the argument you forward. I say that your argument is unsound and give good reasons why the original assumptions cannot be taken as certainties and therefore all conclusions based on the reasoning from these uncertainties is also not a certainty and therefore proves nothing. You yourself agree that the argument does not prove such a thing but is evidence supporting your position. If there is uncertainty regarding the original premise then the evidence is not really evidence at all. I could quite easily state that:

1. God made all things.
2. Things exist
3. Therefore God exists

Now this is evidence that God exists isn't it? Of course not, because the original premise of the argument cannot be shown to be true. You say that you don't need to show that your premise is true. Well if you want it to be used as evidence then I am afraid you do.

It's really simple. Suppose, for example, you found out some human caused that tsunami. Would you say that human was all-good and probably had some higher purpose?

Are you saying here that you know that God made the tsunami?

You are good I'm sure, but you're not all-good and all-powerful, and so you don't mow others' lawns. If you were much more powerful--able to stop the tsunami, say--wouldn't you have? An all-good and all-powerful being does not drown 350,000 innocents. I think that should be fairly obvious.

But you are attributing these deaths to God. The tsunami caused the deaths and as far as I am aware there is no evidence that God actually caused the tsunami or the people to live directly in it's path. It seems here that to show God is not all-good and all-powerful you must prove the existence of God and show a direct causal link.Good luck!

I don't know to what "scenario" you're referring. And free will is a can of worms I'd rather avoid--that's why I picked the tsunami. The tsunami was clearly not the result of anyone's free will. (Of course I think the free will defense doesn't work either, but that's a much more complicated argument, and we're having enough trouble agreeing to this much simpler argument. And after all, I need only one clear-cut example of unnecessary evil to make my point, so the whole free will issue is completely unnecessary.)

I was refering to my post of several pages ago which was a purely hypothetical scenario used to prove a logical inconsistency. You say that you need to prove only one unnecessary evil but as I have previously mentioned, the existence of evil in the world does not reflect on the level of goodness of something that is neither the world nor contains the world as a subset of itself. Also the ability to ascertain what such a necessary level of evil might be is completely beyond your ability to calculate.

[harvey1]

I argue here that faith is impermissable, and even Harvey agrees with me on that point!

Just as a clarification on this point, I argue that one should have reasons for their beliefs. I don't rule out the subjective experience, but I would stress the importance of aesthetic or intuitive reasons for a belief. In addition, I think that cogent reasons, i.e., reasons that are stateable and arguable, are important. They need not be your own reasons to believe something, but it is important that those reasons are respectable and come from good sources.

[spetey]

Hi Curious,

I'm sorta sorry to hear you say that you have "personal, subjective" evidence that you can't share, and that no amount of rational persuasion could alter your view. That seems to put you in an odd position with respect to this forum for debate, since by your own confession you can't share your own reasons, and refuse to be amenable to others'. What brings you to this forum then, I wonder, if not to provide and ponder such (shareable) reasons to believe?

I recognize that it's possible to have good subjective evidence that is difficult to share with others (the example of being in pain is good). For example, if while alone one day I heard a voice that could tell me verifiable things I didn't already believe, and could predict and apparently cause quick weather changes and such, and if this voice claimed to be the God of Abraham, I think I would have good reason to believe in God then, even though it would be hard to expect others to believe this reason or share it. Is that your position? Were you visited personally by such a voice? If not, I'm curious about the "personal, subjective" evidence, and your interpretation of it. After all, many people have claimed to have such "personal, subjective" evidence for Zeus's existence, or racism, or any of a number of different positions that are difficult to back up with public reasons. So, as you understand, it is somewhat suspect--though again, I recognize it's possible you've had evidence of the type those claiming to have evidence for Zeus or racism don't have.


spetey

[Curious]

Hi Curious,

I'm sorta sorry to hear you say that you have "personal, subjective" evidence that you can't share, and that no amount of rational persuasion could alter your view. That seems to put you in an odd position with respect to this forum for debate, since by your own confession you can't share your own reasons, and refuse to be amenable to others'. What brings you to this forum then, I wonder, if not to provide and ponder such (shareable) reasons to believe?

I recognize that it's possible to have good subjective evidence that is difficult to share with others (the example of being in pain is good). For example, if while alone one day I heard a voice that could tell me verifiable things I didn't already believe, and could predict and apparently cause quick weather changes and such, and if this voice claimed to be the God of Abraham, I think I would have good reason to believe in God then, even though it would be hard to expect others to believe this reason or share it. Is that your position? Were you visited personally by such a voice? If not, I'm curious about the "personal, subjective" evidence, and your interpretation of it. After all, many people have claimed to have such "personal, subjective" evidence for Zeus's existence, or racism, or any of a number of different positions that are difficult to back up with public reasons. So, as you understand, it is somewhat suspect--though again, I recognize it's possible you've had evidence of the type those claiming to have evidence for Zeus or racism don't have.


spetey

I am perfectly amenable to the reasoning of others and would be delighted if you could show me how, by any rational method which is beyond refutation, I might learn more about the qualities of God or even His non-existence. If you did then I would be able to rid myself of this overwhelming certainty of what would prove to be (if in fact this diid happen)an act of self deception. I don't think this likely though given the previous arguments.
You seem to wish to redirect the line of questioning towards the rationale concerning my own beliefs rather than the current question of whether or not the previously aforementioned argument was any real evidence as to the existence, or characteristic limitations, of God. If I wished to talk spiritual experience then I should not debate with atheists. I will offer reasons that the atheist cannot argue with on philosophical grounds but use the atheist's tool of choice. If you were to offer me an argument in mathematics and I returned the argument with one of flower arranging then the argument would mean nothing to either of us. I honestly can't see the relevance of my own beliefs concerning the current topic. Does the argument offer any real evidence other than a gut feeling or doesn't it? If we look at the argument we see that is does not hold up to even the briefest scrutiny. How on earth could I analyse or debate the validity of such an argument by reference to my own personal experience?
You seem to think that I should come to this forum and espouse the virtues of my own particular philosophical position but this would be a recipe for disaster. If people come to decry the existence of God then I am perfectly entitled to point out the deficiencies in the arguments used. Would it be better if I said "Shut up, you are lying, it is true, it says so in the bible" and perhaps give one more example of a theist's inability to listen to reason, or is it more productive to listen to the argument, weigh it accordingly, and point out any apparent weaknesses or inconsistencies. If people are capable of false belief then they are also capable of false disbelief. If an atheist gives false reasons for disbelieving, then it is only responsible to point this out in exactly the same way as it would be responsible to point out the obvious deceptions of a deranged cult leader. Let people make up their own minds by all means, but let them have accurate information first so they can make the correct choice. I could give imperfect explanations of subjective experience of course but it is pointless as I do not disagree with your argument on spiritual grounds but on logical ones.

[spetey]

Hullo again!

I am perfectly amenable to the reasoning of others ...

Hmn. This statement seems to contradict what you said in your immediately previous post:

No amount of persuasion could alter my position. I mean cajolment or reasoning by those who are so eminent in this field. My own experience and ultimate realisation is another matter.

Here you certainly seem to say that you could not change your mind according to the reasons of others. This seems to contradict your current claim that you are "perfectly amenable to the reasoning of others." Perhaps you could explain this apparent contradiction? Might you ever change your mind according to reasons others give you, or no? If no, what are you doing here?

... and would be delighted if you could show me how, by any rational method which is beyond refutation, I might learn more about the qualities of God or even His non-existence.

I rehearsed my argument here (that one was just for you--I have stated it several times before that). I believe this argument is good--indeed, "beyond refutation". You could of course show me wrong by refuting it.

If we look at the argument we see that is does not hold up to even the briefest scrutiny.

Again you simply state that my argument is no good. What exactly is wrong with it? A racist can also respond to arguments for the equality of races by just asserting that "those arguments for equality of races don't hold up to even the briefest scrutiny!" What a racist can't do is actually give a good response to the arguments for the equality of races.

If people come to decry the existence of God then I am perfectly entitled to point out the deficiencies in the arguments used.

Of course. So please, I ask again: point out the deficiency in my argument. Merely saying it is deficient does not gain you any ground in a debate where we try to give actual reasons for our positions. You should only be confident that my argument is refutable if you actually have a refutation.


spetey

[harvey1]

I rehearsed my argument here (that one was just for you--I have stated it several times before that). I believe this argument is good--indeed, "beyond refutation". You could of course show me wrong by refuting it.

I'm surprised you would say that Spetey, I thought it was well understood by now that your argument has been defeated by my own. To this date you have not shown a contradiction in my argument. If you cannot do so, then it is not wise for you to make that falsified statement.

[Cathar1950]

spetey wrote:

Here you certainly seem to say that you could not change your mind according to the reasons of others. This seems to contradict your current claim that you are "perfectly amenable to the reasoning of others." Perhaps you could explain this apparent contradiction? Might you ever change your mind according to reasons others give you, or no? If no, what are you doing here?

Curious is here for my pleasure.
I Change my mind for all kinds of reasons. Ask me something today and two days later after thinking about the subject. I may give a totaly different answer. I am like that. Not everyones reasoning is logical or coherent.
that doesn't mean they don't or can't belive. Some times when I beat my brother in chess it is because I lack reason in my plays. It drives him nuts as well as my son. But I win. Not very often of course.
I don't see any problems with your reasoning. I tend to belive that we are made up of all kinds of non-rational ideas and behavior. i don't prefer it.
I question what any one means when they talk about God. All loving is not biblical if your looking at the whole bible. I see no reason to do that anyway. All powerful doesn't make any sense for an unmoved mover.
All seeing does it include the future. Is it something God seens or creates?
There are times when i see a good argument but feel something is wrong and can't place my fingers on it. Later it may come to me.
I enjoy these debates and discussions because I get to think about the stuff and other people are enjoying it also. Some times I get a little frustrated at the preaching but after 40 years in church you get use to it and some what tolerant. The best sermons are the ones I disagree with.
One of my pasters kept giving the same sermon over the years and i always argued with him. He felt jesus was rejected by God on the cross because he had all the sins of the world on him. I think that is crazy and he was quoting the 22 Psalm, a song of victory. He(they) died for our sins. can be found in 4 Maccabees some place.

If there is an all-good, all-powerful being, then the only evil that exists is absolutely necessary.

Unnecessary evil exists, like the tsunami that took hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.

There is an all-good, all-powerful being.

I have no problem with this argument. But maybe God used the Tsunami to make the world spin faster so he could shorten the last days and make a prophesy fulfilled. The 1000' s of dead are just going back to him anyway. Yes it can become twisted. Or maybe he killed all those people with an act of God because later they were going to wear scarlet or eat pork and he didn't want them to. It could go on and on but the point his a good reasonable argument is not always persuasive and a poor one can be. Let's say I am being racked and I am told to belive something . persuasive yet invalid. What is it I like to say, It is ok to use fallacies and poor logic just don't get caught but try to catch the other guy.

[harvey1]

Curious,

I would like to add to the discrepancy here:

I will offer reasons that the atheist cannot argue with on philosophical grounds but use the atheist's tool of choice.

This seems to suggest that you think theism is more rational than atheism using the same evidence that an atheist would admit. On the other hand:

I believe atheism is more rational because it is purely rational. It sees the data, analyses it and categorises it.

So, which is it? Is atheism arguing an irrational position because they cannot argue based on philosophical grounds or is the atheist position much more rational than the theist using the tools of choice admitted by an atheist? It seems to contradict.