Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
[youtube] God fails to cure baby of blindness
Options
Comments
-
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »And here I was thinking this discussion might actually go somewhere!
So far what I've taken away from this thread is:
- One very confusing opening post which the poster gave no indication of the point of the video.
- Another poster who engaged in an argument with themselves based upon what they think religious people would say.
- Another poster explains that the original poster was looking for people who are religious to argue with them.
- The OP comes back and demands to be argued with.
- You've come on and declared that you want me to have an epiphany.
- I say I'm fine thanks.
- You insist that I am labouring under some delusion, and when I inquire as to the basis for you holding this belief, you tell me I'm being silly.
I'm not sure what's going on any more!
Any more?0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Not really; if the hypothetical is the basis for the existence of the argument, then removing the basis for the argument removes the argument. If the hypothetical cannot be held to be true and unassailable throughout, there's no point in the argument.You can still hold to a hypothetical for the sake of argument while also stating that you don:t actually accept the hypothetical is true. That's kinda the point of a hypothetical isn't it?
Tut tut... that's more than a little unfair, I never said any of those things about his arguments! I said he gave his opinion of what some of those arguments might be, with suspiciously convenient rebuttals, though I'm not convinced any of them came close to a case for a substantive theodicy. Since Akrasia said they're the best arguments apologists can think of, I think it's up to Akrasia to demonstrate that they actually are arguments apologists think of, don't you?Can you point out where he's being unfair or misrepresenting anyone? Can you show how his summaries of the various arguments are not accurate to ones people propose? Can you detail a different stronger argument that he has not covered ? Can you explain how his rebuttals are incorrect? Can you propose your own argument? If not, why are you not convinced of either the presented arguments or their rebuttals?
Which has resulted in them presenting the arguments as they see them, and rebutting their own argument in their post. Arguably they appear to be expressing a preference for arguments they can't lose because no one is interested in participating with themBut people have explained why they prefer such arguments here over the christianity forum. Also they have explained how their experience shows that no believers are willing to address these arguments.
Theodicy itself relies on the assumed premise of a God.None of the counter arguments that Akarisa has purposed rely on there being no god. If any believe made a point that was entirely dependent on the assumed premise of a god, then this would indeed be pointed out as a flaw.
Because, as you've pointed out; "If any believe made a point that was entirely dependent on the assumed premise of a god, then this would indeed be pointed out as a flaw", and as I said, "Theodicy itself relies on the assumed premise of a God.".Again you are pretending as if a hypothetical discussion is impossible. Why?
Because you said Jack and I seem more interested in pointing out how smug everyone is; I obviously didn't know at the time I replied that smug and attention seeking sounded pretty much the same to you.Sounds pretty much the same really. Why exactly are you pointing this out?
I have to say I doubt it; Akrasia is already triumphantly dismissing his own points so I don't see how anyone else getting involved is much use.Would the discussion not be better served by addressing the points of the posts?0 -
-
-
Nevertheless, the discussion comes to a sudden halt once a participants points out that it cannot be demonstrated that Gotham is better off with the Batman, because there's no evidence for their existence.People have hypothetical arguments all the time. It can be argued quite thoroughly and verbosely whether or not Gotham City is better off with the Batman. Neither Gotham nor Batman exist, but that does not stop the discussions. It may raise the question of the ultimate point of them, but people ask what's the point a theology degrees too.
That you have seen Akrasias arguments presented before doesn't actually mean they're the arguments of apologists though, does it? Nor less that they are a case for a substantive theodicy. To know whether he's being unfair, I think he'd need to show us the originals.Given that I have seen all of these arguments presented before, I think that his summations are fair and accurate. They are just trimmed of the rhetoric and fluff usually accompanying them. Unless you, or someone else can show that he is being unfair...? Or perhaps present an argument that he didn't list...? You did not explain why you are unconvinced. Could you please detail this?
I'm unconvinced by his arguments in the first place because they seem, for want of a better term, half-arsed. For instance "Free will" in and of itself is not an argument; it's barely a statement. I'm unconvinced of his rebuttals because they're based on his arguments.
But if you find them convincing feel free to argue them
I'm not. A theodicy is a defence of God; it is entirely dependant on the premise that God exists. If it may be admitted that God does not exist, then there is no theodicy, as there is nothing to defend.You are misunderstanding me. I said that if a point is entirely dependant on the assumed premise, then it would be shown as such and why it is a fallacy. For example the argument "God is good. If god exists, therefore god is good. QED" Has the assumed premise that god is good. This would be pointed out and explained as such while still in the context of the hypothetical.
You'd have to take that up with Bristolscale7; he's the one who said he wanted a discussion about theodicy. He also seems to disagree as to what the most common arguments are.However this is a moot point as neither the arguments outlined, nor the rebuttals actually rely on these premises and can be discussed in the context of a hypothetical.
Oh I love actual discussions. People showing off how they can dismiss their own arguments though... it's not really a discussion, is it? A discussion of a theodicy presented by someone well versed in it with the assurance that it wouldn't simply be dead-ended by the existence of God might be interesting, but let's be honest, we've kept this thread going five pages now and no one has yet jumped in to proclaim the attractiveness of the Irenaean theodicy over other arguably less orthodox yet compellingly complex theodicies, like the degree of desirability of a conscious state theodicy. Nor do I think anyone is likely to; I suspect anyone truly interested in such things has no real reason to be interested in what an atheist might think about them.Are you interested in actual discussion or would you prefer to stick to pointing out how people are smug/attention seeking/whatever?0 -
But if the discussion is held as a hypothetical, like Akraisas rebuttals do, then it can be shown that the arguments fall apart and dont work in the context of the hypothetical. All such arguments do without need to rely on the fact that god doesnt exist.Nevertheless, the discussion comes to a sudden halt once a participants points out that it cannot be demonstrated that Gotham is better off with the Batman, because there's no evidence for their existence.
I have seen these arguments from apologists before. I wager you have heard similar as well. Further, many of them are just the easiest to think of.That you have seen Akrasias arguments presented before doesn't actually mean they're the arguments of apologists though, does it? Nor less that they are a case for a substantive theodicy. To know whether he's being unfair, I think he'd need to show us the originals.
Again, if you think that he is being unfair, you could show as much to start a discussion.
Again, as I said, he just cut off a lot of fluff and pomp. And this is just short hand for a very very common argument that you probably heard before.I'm unconvinced by his arguments in the first place because they seem, for want of a better term, half-arsed. For instance "Free will" in and of itself is not an argument; it's barely a statement.
Have you seen these arguments presented in a different, more complete and convincing way? If so, why not detail these?
Again, you could easily demonstrate the flaws in his arguments or address the rhetoric questions.I'm unconvinced of his rebuttals because they're based on his arguments.
But if you find them convincing feel free to argue them
You are. Purposefully I'm beginning to suspect.I'm not. A theodicy is a defence of God; it is entirely dependant on the premise that God exists. If it may be admitted that God does not exist, then there is no theodicy, as there is nothing to defend.
The problem of evil can be discussed as a hypothetical. It can fall down on it:s own merits before invoking gods existence. Similarly some people might try to use other flawed assumed premises and these cause be shown to be fallacious without invoking gods non-existence.
Experience of posters here, in the Christianity forum and elsewhere is that these issues raised by the problem of evil are either badly explained or ignored.
Have you ever seen a theodicy thats held up to scrutiny?0 -
Advertisement
-
Yourself and Jack seem more interested in pointing out how smug everyone is without actually offering anything of substance. Which is a shame.
You appear to have mistaken my confusion for an accusation that other posters were being smug. I never thought nor suggested any such thing of anyone else. I simply find the whole premise of this thread and the behaviour of some posters, quite bizarre. For example as I pointed out above, there's quite a list -
So far what I've taken away from this thread is:
- One very confusing opening post which the poster gave no indication of the point of the video.
- Another poster who engaged in an argument with themselves based upon what they think religious people would say.
- Another poster explains that the original poster was looking for people who are religious to argue with them.
- The OP comes back and demands to be argued with.
- You've come on and declared that you want me to have an epiphany.
- I say I'm fine thanks.
- You insist that I am labouring under some delusion, and when I inquire as to the basis for you holding this belief, you tell me I'm being silly.
I'm not sure what's going on any more!
In response to that, all I got was "Any more?"
I think that's enough to be going ahead with really. I'm just not sure what to make of it is all. I enjoy the Atheism and Agnosticism forum because it's the last place one would be expected to be more expressive about their personal religious beliefs, given the number of times it's been pointed out how annoying it is to people who are atheist when people who are religious express their personal religious beliefs.
Yet apparently, the OP demands that people who are religious should argue with them! I find that to be the behaviour of a martyr tbh, that they demand persecution. It's just not something I do, and I don't encourage such behaviour. It's the height of arrogance IMO. If the OP still wants to martyr themselves, there's the Christianity forum for that sort of behaviour.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »And here I was thinking this discussion might actually go somewhere!
So far what I've taken away from this thread is:
- One very confusing opening post which the poster gave no indication of the point of the video.
- Another poster who engaged in an argument with themselves based upon what they think religious people would say.
- Another poster explains that the original poster was looking for people who are religious to argue with them.
- The OP comes back and demands to be argued with.
- You've come on and declared that you want me to have an epiphany.
- I say I'm fine thanks.
- You insist that I am labouring under some delusion, and when I inquire as to the basis for you holding this belief, you tell me I'm being silly.
I'm not sure what's going on any more!
You left out the poster who spends his/her time strenuously defending his/her right to not hold any position at all, while criticising everyone else for theirs0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »You appear to have mistaken my confusion for an accusation that other posters were being smug. I never thought nor suggested any such thing of anyone else. I simply find the whole premise of this thread and the behaviour of some posters, quite bizarre. For example as I pointed out above, there's quite a list -
So far what I've taken away from this thread is:
- One very confusing opening post which the poster gave no indication of the point of the video.
- Another poster who engaged in an argument with themselves based upon what they think religious people would say.
- Another poster explains that the original poster was looking for people who are religious to argue with them.
- The OP comes back and demands to be argued with.
- You've come on and declared that you want me to have an epiphany.
- I say I'm fine thanks.
- You insist that I am labouring under some delusion, and when I inquire as to the basis for you holding this belief, you tell me I'm being silly.
I'm not sure what's going on any more!
In response to that, all I got was "Any more?"
I think that's enough to be going ahead with really. I'm just not sure what to make of it is all. I enjoy the Atheism and Agnosticism forum because it's the last place one would be expected to be more expressive about their personal religious beliefs, given the number of times it's been pointed out how annoying it is to people who are atheist when people who are religious express their personal religious beliefs.
Yet apparently, the OP demands that people who are religious should argue with them! I find that to be the behaviour of a martyr tbh, that they demand persecution. It's just not something I do, and I don't encourage such behaviour. It's the height of arrogance IMO. If the OP still wants to martyr themselves, there's the Christianity forum for that sort of behaviour.
Delusion one is your belief in god. Delusion two is your view of yourself as a humble man. Delusion three is that you think your posting history does not give an insight into your character. I know mine does and sometimes it can be an unpleasant mirror to look in. I give myself more free rein on the Internet to say what I really think. Is it being honest or am I being an arsėhole.
At times you seem to conveniently pick and chose what you understand and what you don't.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement