D&D Religion's "Ask an Atheist/Agnostic" Thread

So you expect Mevidek to explain God's entire plan just by looking at a miniscule part of it

Jolly good, you can do the same by telling me what painting this is from then, seeing as you expect him to do the same.

He's the one who made the claim about evil serving a greater good. I didn't pull it from nowhere. I was merely examining the logical consequences of his claims. If he can't explain whether God's overall plan is good or not*, he should have just said. So your post should be directed towards him instead of me.

*A strange claim for a Christian, tbh, but I'll play along

But you're asking him to explain something which follows (for a Christian) as a point of logic but is also logically inexplainable. You are simply asking him to tell you what painting it is while zoomed in on the image, an impossibility.

But you're asking him to explain something which follows (for a Christian) as a point of logic but is also logically inexplainable.

You are simply asking him to tell you what painting it is while zoomed in on the image, an impossibility.

lol.


Are you gentlemen really so unsubtle that you cannot understand what I am saying. If it is thus then I shall explain it to you. You both argue for the point of suffering on the assumption that God exists so you can in turn remove Him from the equation. So let us look at the two points of logic. If God exists then it logically follows (in line with the great Philosophers and Theologians of the Church) that He allows suffering to happen for a greater good; this is logic point number one. Now, the second item I was refering to (which it is logically impossible to explain in a here and now context) is why the suffering is happening at this very second. For what specific reasons. If you can't understand the difference there then there is little point engaging you.



But he claims he knows what the painting is! He claims the universe is a test where evil serves a greater good. You're again directing the analogy at the wrong person. mevidek is asking US to believe he knows what the picture is when all we can see is a zoomed-in part. I'm happy to say that we aren't in a position to make big claims about what the picture is, and so should shut up about it. But Christianity doesn't; it tries to make big claims about the picture based on what we see in our small, zoomed-in area of it. You seem to be arguing against Christianity.

I'm not sure you've thought this through much.

[Are you gentlemen really so unsubtle that you cannot understand what I am saying. If it is thus then I shall explain it to you. You both argue for the point of suffering on the assumption that God exists so you can in turn remove Him from the equation. So let us look at the two points of logic. If God exists then it logically follows (in line with the great Philosophers and Theologians of the Church) that He allows suffering to happen for a greater good; this is logic point number one. Now, the second item I was refering to (which it is logically impossible to explain in a here and now context) is why the suffering is happening at this very second. For what specific reasons. If you can't understand the difference there then there is little point engaging you.

I'll pass on the ad hom thanks. You appear to be mistaking rigour for a lack of subtlety.

So from your logic point number one Kolya's original argument is sound. The holocaust should logically be considered desirable. But it isn't, there is a contradiction, because you all agree that the holocaust was not a desirable turn of events.

The fact that you can't resolve the paradox there is just another reason why religion makes no sense to the non-religious. You have to have faith that the paradoxes associated with free will and omibenevolence will somehow resolve themselves.

You both argue for the point of suffering on the assumption that God exists so you can in turn remove Him from the equation.

No, he doesn't claim to understand what the painting is at all. He claims to know its eventual outcome but not the here and now details.

Where? You originally quoted an argument of mine (which had the conclusion that the holocaust should be valued and desired); I asked medevik if he believed it sound. I don't know what post of mine you're referring to now.

I was merely showing the ridiculousness of you asking him to state it in specifics. Unless he's got a time machine it simply can't be done. I note I'm still waiting for an answer on that painting as well.

Where's this second analogy? Perhaps a better word would have been the totality of the painting.

I am merely stating that if God exists (which boths sides of the argument are assuming) then it logically follows he allows evil to happen for a greater good. Now, what the specific goods are I, and no one else, would claim to know. A simple difference really.

And I wasn't actually addressing that part of Kolya's argument but seeing as you request me to I shall. His argument falls apart as there is no paradox of any kind. The Holocaust is not desirable as it causes evil. However it was allowed to happen for two goods. The greater eternal good and (this is the important thing) free will of the induviduals carrying it out. Now if condition one can be met then condition two doesn't have to be undermined (as it does in some cases).

What's more you have a remarkably silly view of death when looking at it from a theistic perspective. If God exists, and He's the Christian God, then those victams would go to Heaven anyway!

You seem to be willfully forgetting the free will part. God wants no sin. However because He has given us freewill he will allow us to cause evil unless no eventual greater good can be obtained through it.

You seem to be willfully forgetting the free will part. God wants no sin. However because He has given us freewill he will allow us to cause evil unless no eventual greater good can be obtained through it.

If the universe is deterministic then there is no free will, if it isn't deterministic then god cannot guarantee whether or not a greater good will ever come about. There's a whole other host of paradoxes that you can entail once you throw free will into the mix.

Not at all and you're committing the cardinal sin again. Trying to view the whole painting through a narrow lense. I don't fully understand how a painter creates beauty, there's no science involved, there's no formula, yet it certainly happens.

Cool. What about the host of things that are bad that AREN'T caused by the process of free will, which also afflict things without supposedly 'true' free will (Animals). Diseases, plagues, calamities etc.

It's nice to know that the application of logic is now considered a cardinal sin. I take it you have no counter to the problems of free will, determinism and omnipotence and other than to refer me to some >1500 year old text.

I have countered but there is a degree of subjectivity that cannot be over come. You'll disagree with me but quite frankly, just because I know of what you'll say or do, and thus put it in as part of a massive plan, does not mean that you don't have free will. And what this 1,500 year old text is I have no idea.

EDIT: And seeing as you love being 'logical', please tell me what this painting is:

I was just reading your response to Ocassus on the questions of Epicurius, it's very unsatisfying. If you could demonstrate that god had prevented evil happening to somebody you would demonstrate god, but you can do neither, you assume that god did something without justification. Evil coming from the rejection of god is similarly bad, because it's circular, it assumes god is not malevolent in order to make plausible that god is not malevolent.