The problem of evil

[William]

Q: Is the statement "Then there is "The problem of evil"" one of fact or conjecture? [science or opinion] In realty, does such a problem actually exist?

The problem of evil refers to the challenge of reconciling belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God, with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. eta:{SOURCE}

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #70]

The Problem of Evil is based on the assumption that a Creator created the Universe. Otherwise, it would not be called "The Problem of Evil".

SO my "IF" is in relation to that.

Your argument about the supposed default [there are no gods] would signify that an atheist need not use "The Problem of Evil" as an argument against the idea of a creator-god.

Which is the point of the OPQ, since it is certainly the case that those calling themselves 'atheists' do indeed have this argument in their collection of debunking devices, and are observed using said argument in an oft querulous manner.

Re use of the word "IF" see post #2 where an atheist uses this to formulate "The Problem of Evil"

1.If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6.If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

Helpful Suggestion;
While you are at it, perhaps have a think about why you overlooked this...

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #70]

The Problem of Evil is based on the assumption that a Creator created the Universe. Otherwise, it would not be called "The Problem of Evil".

SO my "IF" is in relation to that.

Your argument about the supposed default [there are no gods] would signify that an atheist need not use "The Problem of Evil" as an argument against the idea of a creator-god.

Which is the point of the OPQ, since it is certainly the case that those calling themselves 'atheists' do indeed have this argument in their collection of debunking devices, and are observed using said argument in an oft querulous manner.

Re use of the word "IF" see post #2 where an atheist uses this to formulate "The Problem of Evil"

1.If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6.If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

Helpful Suggestion;
While you are at it, perhaps have a think about why you overlooked this...

No. You see, evaluation of any hypothesis always starts with "Suppose (for sake of argument) the hypothesis was true, then..." (e.g the problem of evil would be a valid problem). It does not mean that the hypothesis is accepted as true or even valid. That's what "Suppose, for the sake of argument.." is all about.

You syllogism or chain of argument is sorta ok, yes. The idea is that the claim for Biblegod (remember there is no reason why a postulated creator should be that god, in particular) that it is good and perfect is contradicted by the evidence of the Bible which shows it to be an appalling beast. The claim becomes incoherent and arguably, false. Bible apologists know this, since they try to excuse or deny these deeds.

NT doesn't get over the problem because the whole question of Christianity (heaven and hell) is immoral and illogical. 'That god cannot exist' is a valid conclusion of the problem of evil, which is where you ended up, though rather skipping the argument. Yes, 'that god cannot be the real Creator, if there is one, assuming it cares about humans morals.' is the conclusion of the problem of evil and is valid and the reason why half the deconverts deconvert, according to the stories.

Helpful suggestion, while you were at it, perhaps you should have considered why, after I've explained to you the illogic af Godfaith - based reasoning, you still think that "If" is a valid proposition.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #72]

Unfortunately you wandered away from the OPQ in order to argue as you have been. In that, you are not arguing about what I am saying in my posts, but what you think I am saying in my posts. [see Strawman argument for more details re that].

________________________
OPQ: Is the statement "Then there is "The problem of evil"" one of fact or conjecture? [science or opinion] In realty, does such a problem actually exist?
________________________

In relation to your opinion about the biblical idea of God, whether your argument has merit or not, it is beside the point re the OPQ.

[At least you appear to agree that IF the Universe is a creation, this in itself does not provide evidence that any creator-God who created the Universe would therefore be "Evil".]

"The problem of Evil" is based upon an opinion about one notion of a Creator-God and does not apply to all notions of Creator-Gods equally.

The statement "then there is the problem of evil" is conjecture based upon one idea of a Creator-God but in reality, no such problem exists, even that there are other ideas of Creator-Gods.

Which is to say;

If the Universe is a creation, then "the problem of evil" is no argument against a Creator-God existing.

If the Universe is NOT a creation, then "the problem of evil" is likewise, a pointless argument.

Picking ones favored 'default setting' is down to being an atheist or a theist and neither are any better than the other for answering the question regarding the possibility we exist within a created environment we call "reality".

If anything, those positions simply muddy the water.

If we are experiencing a Created Reality/Reality Simulation et al, "the problem of evil" has no relevance to that.

IF it is your intent as an atheist to focus upon only one idea of a Creator-God and only upon those things you believe are evil in relation to that idea of a Creator-God, THEN - of course you can declare that there is "the problem of evil" yet this still does not show that the expression is true or show that such a problem actually exists [which is the OPQ] but that whole process is constructed of straw-manning from to go-get...

[oldbadger]

Humans knew that even without the 10 commandments. They also know that it is ok to kill those who ask for it, and they didn't need the Bible to exemplify that. The conclusion is that the Bible was written by humans like any other, the moral codes are the same as other humans (aside putting religious Authority at the top) and the god of the Bible was made in the human image, not the other way around.

Absolutely!..... the bible and the laws of Moses were all written by humans, and an amazing 'piece' of legislation they were back then.

Those laws were written to bring about a strong, growing, secure, safe, healthy and cohesive people, and breaking them could damage that... sin led to sickness, insecurity, etc..... and then somebody sells the idea that busting a cherry=picked few of these could cause everlasting agony...for eternity........ and humans fell for it....

[oldbadger]

1.If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6.If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

[/quote]

That list above William........ It's good, but people want easy messages. Stand-up comedians can speak a single sentence about some illogical or daft condition and a whole crowd can see it and be laughing in seconds.

Is there a way to deliver the above points in one sentence, for instant recognition and immediate response?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #72]

Unfortunately you wandered away from the OPQ in order to argue as you have been. In that, you are not arguing about what I am saying in my posts, but what you think I am saying in my posts. [see Strawman argument for more details re that].

________________________
OPQ: Is the statement "Then there is "The problem of evil"" one of fact or conjecture? [science or opinion] In realty, does such a problem actually exist?
________________________

In relation to your opinion about the biblical idea of God, whether your argument has merit or not, it is beside the point re the OPQ.

[At least you appear to agree that IF the Universe is a creation, this in itself does not provide evidence that any creator-God who created the Universe would therefore be "Evil".]

"The problem of Evil" is based upon an opinion about one notion of a Creator-God and does not apply to all notions of Creator-Gods equally.

The statement "then there is the problem of evil" is conjecture based upon one idea of a Creator-God but in reality, no such problem exists, even that there are other ideas of Creator-Gods.

Which is to say;

If the Universe is a creation, then "the problem of evil" is no argument against a Creator-God existing.

If the Universe is NOT a creation, then "the problem of evil" is likewise, a pointless argument.

Picking ones favored 'default setting' is down to being an atheist or a theist and neither are any better than the other for answering the question regarding the possibility we exist within a created environment we call "reality".

If anything, those positions simply muddy the water.

If we are experiencing a Created Reality/Reality Simulation et al, "the problem of evil" has no relevance to that.

IF it is your intent as an atheist to focus upon only one idea of a Creator-God and only upon those things you believe are evil in relation to that idea of a Creator-God, THEN - of course you can declare that there is "the problem of evil" yet this still does not show that the expression is true or show that such a problem actually exists [which is the OPQ] but that whole process is constructed of straw-manning from to go-get...

Yes. The problem of evil is specific to Biblegod. It may relate to other gods of other religions. Sortagod or Deist - god is another discussion because Biblegod is of course about the Bible and the religion.

Deist -god really is outside of the discussion. Which is why First cause arguments (such as Kalam) are irrelevant (as well as usually being illogical). Even if one can make a case for a creator, that does not (without the leap of Faith) get us to the Bible and Christianity, and organized religion is the Problem, not an intelligent creator that apparently doesn't care whether we live or die. Just like the natural universe, come to think of it.

[William]

1.If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6.If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

That list above William........ It's good, but people want easy messages. Stand-up comedians can speak a single sentence about some illogical or daft condition and a whole crowd can see it and be laughing in seconds.

Is there a way to deliver the above points in one sentence, for instant recognition and immediate response?

The list above is silly oldbadger.

Like atheism and theism are silly.

[oldbadger]

Yes. The problem of evil is specific to Biblegod. It may relate to other gods of other religions. Sortagod or Deist - god is another discussion because Biblegod is of course about the Bible and the religion.

I love those titles, Biblegod and Sortagod........ just sayin'.......

[oldbadger]

The list above is silly oldbadger.

Like atheism and theism are silly.

Well...... Yabbut...... I think that non-theism is a close relative to common-sense.
And theism leaves common-sense behind, imo.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. The problem of evil is specific to Biblegod. It may relate to other gods of other religions. Sortagod or Deist - god is another discussion because Biblegod is of course about the Bible and the religion.

I love those titles, Biblegod and Sortagod........ just sayin'.......

They have a point. The god of the Bible (setting aside Jesus supposed to be God or dickers about Elohim and Jehovah), makes it clear what god I'm talking about. And the point that Kalam or First cause only leads to a creative entity of some sort, and not (necessarily) to any particular god, leads to the supposition that Deists and irreligious Theists do not think of the god of the Bible, but some other sort of god, not a religion - related one, which is where 'Sortagod' came from.

To which you can add the choice of possible gods or religion or indeed the cherry picking of religious Lego to build the preferred belief - edifice: "God-U-like'..

The list above is silly oldbadger.

Like atheism and theism are silly.

Well...... Yabbut...... I think that non-theism is a close relative to common-sense.
And theism leaves common-sense behind, imo.

I agree. I disagree that atheism is 'silly'. It is (like natural materialism) on evidence the default -state. Theism is not 'silly' either. Though it is certainly illogical. But it can't be taken lightly either.