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
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
On that we'll have to agree to disagree, for my part I like to think my prose is more revelatory than obfuscatory. Short jokes are great, though the build up and release of a well paced long joke ought not to be dismissedYour points are frequently veiled in so much obfuscatory prose and densely worded argumentation, that it's often close to impossible to figure out what these points might possibly be, let alone what, in fact, they are.
Thoughts, sentences and posts - like jokes - work best when they're short and to the point.
0 -
-
I really don't think Akrasia was presenting any of it as the arguments of believers; I think he was presenting his own little tirade dressed up as a facsimile of bits of arguments of believers mixed up with his own opinions on them.And this is why I believe you deliberately misunderstand things. Do you really think that someone was presenting that last argument as the argument of a believer...?
Actually, I was saying if we treat the existence of God as hypothetically true, the discussion is no longer relevant to the A&A forum, and that if the hypothetical cannot be held to be true and unassailable throughout, there's no point in the argument.No. You've been saying that such a discussion is impossible. I agree that such a discussion might ultimately be as valuable as a discussion about the morality of Batman. However you not finding value in that discussion doesn't mean that noone can find value in it.
Still, I'm sure if someone does find value in the argument as you say, they'll offer their opinion.
I'm not convinced Akrasias rebuttals even countered the points he made, never mind actual theodicies, but I didn't say it couldn't be done here, I said I suspect there's more engagement to be had on the subject in a forum that doesn't reject the very foundation of the argument.Again, this can be done here also. That's what hypotheticals are for. All of the points that Akrisa mentioned can be discussion in the context of a hypothetical and he showed that they can be countered in that hypothetical.
I think I'll reserve judgement on that until I see someone demonstrate that all theodicies fall apart, and how they go about itNothing stopping Christians from discussing that in the context of the hypothetical. Atheists don't need to point out the non-existence of god to show that all theodicies fall apart. Your explanation doesn't hold water.
If there is one that doesn't, should it mean that none do?So again, Have you ever seen a theodicy that has held up to scrutiny?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Maybe; like I said I'll wait til someone actually presents one before I decide how easily it can be shown it falls apart. The we can move on to 'all'.So "no" then. If you'd like to present a theodicy you think can hold up or is otherwise unfairly presented previously, then it can be easily shown how it either falls apart or only works for a monstrous god. 0 -
-
-
Maybe; like I said I'll wait til someone actually presents one before I decide how easily it can be shown it falls apart. The we can move on to 'all'.
If an atheist presents a theodicy for discussion, you'll probably respond to the presentation by saying that the atheist merely provided a straw man version or that he choose the weakest of an infinite selection of arguments in order to easily defeat it.
It is not up to atheists to present arguments in favour of god. If you think there are good theodicy arguments, then you need to present one that you agree with. If you can not find one that you agree with, then you lost the debate and should concede the point. You can do this by admitting that you have not researched it thoroughly enough, and admit that you do not know. If you genuinely care about the truth, you might even commit to do some research and come back later with an example of a theodicy that you're prepared to defend.
The problem is that theists are often either unable or unwilling to support their own position, that sometimes Atheists need to step in and play devils advocate for the purpose of discussion.
You're contributions on this thread are a shining example of trying to talk to someone who refuses to defend his/her own position, while simply dismissing the other side of the debate without even the courtesy of debunking their arguments
It's the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting LA LA LA I'm Not Listening LA LA LA"0 -
-
-
-
Bristolscale7 wrote: »However, I'd probably avoid taking the bait from absolam: the feigned ignorance about the free will theodicy argument shows what you're in for if you try to engage.
Could the same not be said though of your own stance?
It's just very confusing because the way I would see it, an atheist looking to discuss theodicy arguments on the premise I suppose that "God didn't do it!", seems to me like an attempt to bait theists, when the atheist really isn't all that invested in the existence of God (or gods) in the first place.
If an atheist isn't really invested in an argument they don't support anyway, then that is as Akrasia points out - playing Devil's advocate. I find the Devil's own argument on theodicy is quite an interesting one (or Al Pacino at least!
):
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
It certainly explains a lotOne eyed Jack wrote: »Could the same not be said though of your own stance?
It's just very confusing because the way I would see it, an atheist looking to discuss theodicy arguments on the premise I suppose that "God didn't do it!", seems to me like an attempt to bait theists, when the atheist really isn't all that invested in the existence of God (or gods) in the first place.
If an atheist isn't really invested in an argument they don't support anyway, then that is as Akrasia points out - playing Devil's advocate. I find the Devil's own argument on theodicy is quite an interesting one (or Al Pacino at least!): But it's also raises the old question about how the devil could have more power than an omnipotent being, and why god would allow the existence of a malevolent entity unless he himself had malevolent intent.
Theists could avoid the whole theodicy debate if they admitted that their god wasn't all good and that he is actually a complete arsehole a lot of the time.. But that would be a different god to the one they claim to believe in.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I think I may have argued that it's not a worthwhile discussion...You haven't provided any side of the discussion. You've evaded providing any argument at every possible opportunity
In fairness, you started out by providing both argument and rebuttal, but in this case I'm actually asking if your rebuttal was a rebuttal of Alvins argument, since your rebuttal was to your nebulous "Free Will" argument, and you later asserted that Alvin Plantinga is a famous proponent of this defence of god, so I'm wondering if this is the argument you were rebutting. Was it?More evasion, but this time, you're explicitly asking me to rebut my own argument, even after all your admonishments to me for arguing both sides of the debate...
I have to admit, I can't find where you said that many Christian apologists say that God won't intervene to protect innocent people because it would violate free will, because free will is more valuable than the suffering of individuals, but maybe it was inferred when you said "Free Will"?All I said was that many Christian apologists say that God won't intervene to protect innocent people because it would violate free will, because free will is more valuable than the suffering of individuals. And the obvious response to this, is that divine interventions are possible that have zero impact on free will. As per my example of the inanimate proton damaging the DNA of a human gamete with which will later on result in huge suffering of innocents but could be avoided by the tiniest change to a quantum scale object. In other words, the bare minimum level of interference.
And I thought I was clear about my feelings.... still, I haven't asked anyone to represent me so I think I'm free to take issue with it. As for how you think things reflect on me; don't worryI know. Your strategy seems to be to say nothing about your own beliefs and then just deny that others are representing you fairly. You might think it's clever, but it's transparent and it doesn't reflect well on you as a contributor.
Indeed, it's exactly that sort of thing that I think would dissuade a Christian poster from discussing theodicy on A&A. Thank you for making the point.That's a bit like someone avoiding the building and construction forum because they keep telling them that building a house out of paper mache and glitter won't last the first rain shower.
Well... a theodicy isn't an argument for God, really, it's a defense of God, which obviously depends on the fact that God exists.If your argument for god relies on assuming that god exists, then it's no wonder you can't convince people who don't already believe in god.
Well, in fairness, your own post looked pretty much like that, you have to admit. I have a feeling anyone who felt a theodicy was defensible would do a more comprehensive or at least compelling job of presenting it.If an atheist presents a theodicy for discussion, you'll probably respond to the presentation by saying that the atheist merely provided a straw man version or that he choose the weakest of an infinite selection of arguments in order to easily defeat it.
And yet you did. Poorly, but still.. you did.It is not up to atheists to present arguments in favour of god.
I'm afraid you have a different idea of the purpose of our conversation than I do. I'll be interested to see a theodicy presented by someone who believes it's defensible; I've no interest in finding one. You obviously are interested in at least finding something in them that you can use to demonstrate your ability to defeat Christian argument, my feeling is you're not demonstrating anything unless you're discussing it with someone who has set forth and is prepared to defend the position.If you think there are good theodicy arguments, then you need to present one that you agree with. If you can not find one that you agree with, then you lost the debate and should concede the point. You can do this by admitting that you have not researched it thoroughly enough, and admit that you do not know. If you genuinely care about the truth, you might even commit to do some research and come back later with an example of a theodicy that you're prepared to defend.
So... now you do think it's up to atheists to present arguments in favour of god? That was a quick reversal!The problem is that theists are often either unable or unwilling to support their own position, that sometimes Atheists need to step in and play devils advocate for the purpose of discussion.
That's good to know, thanks.You're contributions on this thread are a shining example of trying to talk to someone who refuses to defend his/her own position, while simply dismissing the other side of the debate without even the courtesy of debunking their arguments. It's the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting LA LA LA I'm Not Listening LA LA LA"0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement