What is the purpose of life? (page 22)

Landy

I know of no logical way to exclude this possibility, therefore I do not think the God of the Bible has been disproved.

I know of no logical way to exclude this possibility, therefore I do not think the existence of unicorns has been disproved.

I know of no logical way to exclude this possibility, therefore I do not think the existence of werewolves has been disproved.

I know of no logical way to exclude this possibility, therefore I do not think the existence of lepricorns has been disproved.

Is the penny dropping yet?

For someone who likes philosophy you seem spectacularly ignorant of Russell's teapot.

slimboyfat

What I said:

I know of no logical way to exclude this possibility, [a solution to the problem of evil we don't understand] therefore I do not think the God of the Bible has been disproved.

What Cofty said in the earlier thread he quoted:

It is my opinion that natural evil proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the god of christians, the god of Jesus does not exist.

Cofty in this thread:

WMy argument is not that suffering is incompatible with the existence of god.

Who is guilty of misrepresentation? I knew that your claimed "proof" only extended to the God of the Bible, that's why I worded my response in exactly those terms, confining it to the "Christian God" and the "God of the Bible".

So have you changed your mind, and no longer think the problem of evil disproves the God of the Bible? Or if you stand by the claim, that the Christian God is disproved, then how do you answer my question above?

slimboyfat

I know of no logical way to exclude this possibility, therefore I do not think the existence of unicorns has been disproved.

This is a poor response because it is the atheist argument which is making the presumption in this case. What is being claimed here is that the inability of humans to find a solution to the problem of evil therefore disproves the existence of the God of the Bible. When actually there are two reasonable explanations for humans not finding a solution to any given problem:

1. No solution exists.

2. A solution exists but we have not yet, or may never find it.

It is only husbris, or wishful thinking, that says 1 must be true and 2 cannot be the explanation.

Unless you know some good reason why 1 must be true and 2 can definitely be discounted.

I am curious if there are any good arguments for this.

cofty

Natural evil proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the god of Jesus does not exist.

Events such as the Asian tsunami are incompatible with other things that christians claim to know about god. All attempts to explain god's actions result in a story that is internally contradictory.

Your solution seems to be to dishonestly pretend that the contradiction is a divine mystery that actually supports belief. It is inane drivel.

It's on a par with your claim that "god does not exist therefore he exists", your claim that the perspective of worms is as valid regarding the shape of planet earth as that of an astronaut, and your belief that rocks are conscious.

You don't do rational debate, you indulge in mental masturbation.

It is unworthy of my time and attention.

slimboyfat

Plus it does seem very odd claim that the God of the Bible does not exist because of suffering, when the Bible itself says that God's ways cannot be understood by humans,

If the Bible taught that God is understandable to humans, then the argument about the incompatibility of goodness and almightiness would make sense. But the Bible does not say we can understand the mind of God, it does not say that we can understand his ways, it does not say we can inquire of God about why he has done something and get a satisfactory answer. On the contrary the Bible says that 1) we cannot understand the mind of God 2) we cannot understand his ways and 3) we should not expect him to give an account of his actions. Given that's what the Bible says about God, it makes little sense to say that the problem of suffering disproves the God of the Bible. The Bible often states that God is inscrutable. The problem of suffering therefore does not disprove in the inscrutable God of the Bible.

You may say that the God of the Bible is undesirable or not worthy of attention, and give reasons for that view. But what doesn't make sense is to say that suffering is incompatible with the God of the Bible.

John_Mann

If that is supposed to be an excuse for god then it is a pathetic one.

Not a theodicy but a defence.

Your god has been murdering millions of humans with tsunamis for thousands of years. Long before detection was possible.

Besides the implications of guilty this is a good point.

I can only say that we have faith in heavenly bliss to those who died by horrendous evil.

The problem of evil is very hard to contemplate.

cofty

SBF - You're wrong.

The entire message of the NT is that Jesus came to make god known to humans, to show in word and action what it means that god is love.

Reality proves that Jesus - if he lived - was as deluded about god as anybody.

Viviane

This is a poor response because it is the atheist argument which is making the presumption in this case

SBF, stop lying, please. It really is ridiculous watching do your best to "get one" on cofty, atheist, the educated, the reasoned and rational and the critical thinker.

You've misrepresented every single argument you've talked about, Cofty's, every philosophy you've brought up and whined when it was shown beyond a shadow of a doubt you were misrepresenting things you claimed you were quoting.

It's becoming quite pathetic at this point.

cofty

You've misrepresented every single argument you've talked about

I could not agree more.

I really enjoy being challenged with thoughtful evidence-based arguments. I have often been made to think more carefully about things by others on this forum.

I can honestly say SBF that you have never given me a moment's pause ever. You only care about point-scoring.

I care about the substance of conversations like this one. I have no patience left for your nonsense.

slimboyfat

Events such as the Asian tsunami are incompatible with other things that christians claim to know about god. All attempts to explain god's actions result in a story that is internally contradictory.

If the Bible said that God was comprehensible to humans you would have a point, but it doesn't. It teaches the opposite. The Bible at various points says that God is:

1. Righteous and good.

2. All powerful.

3. Not comprehensible to the human mind.

So the fact that we cannot find a reasonable answer to the problem of suffering does not disprove the God of the Bible, it affirms his inscrutability as stated in the Bible. You are only looking at the fact that God is good and almighty when formulating your argument, and excluding the equally strong description of God in the Bible as inscrutable or incomprehensible to humans.

What is the purpose of life?

Share this