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: »Sorry, I realised you edited your post while I was writing mine. Yes I have difficulty with comprehension, but no, I think you're being unfair to suggest that I only hear what suits me and reply to an inner monologue. I didn't decline anything though either self-righteously or otherwise because I wasn't aware of the opportunity you were giving me.
Your lack of awareness seems to be a theme . Worth investigating? More so than the self effacing facade you would prefer.0 -
Mark Tapley wrote: »I'm afraid in my view this is debatable. You view posts through the haze of your own inner monologue making coherent conversation impossible. Are you being purposefully obtuse or has there been an infusion of porridge in the old grey matter?
I'm genuinely not being purposely obtuse here, I can't stand when people actually do that, so I'm really trying here. There's been no infusion of anything or no trying to be smart on my part. I'm just very confused about the whole thread or even the purpose of the thread because we have people answering questions that nobody asked, and atheists proselyting... it's like reality took a step out for a while and normal A&A service will resume shortly.0 -
Mark Tapley wrote: »Your lack of awareness seems to be a theme . Worth investigating? More so than the self effacing facade you would prefer.
I had to look up the meaning of self effacing facade as I figured it probably wasn't a compliment, but what you might perceive as a lack of self awareness has been investigated and the admission that I have difficulty with comprehension wasn't meant to be self effacing, I was genuinely actually being completely honest with you -
http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057533376/1/#post98001802
I prefer to try and at least maintain the illusion that it is irrelevant. Because I don't like having to admit that sometimes I really don't have a bloody clue what someone is saying or trying to say!0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I had to look up the meaning of self effacing facade as I figured it probably wasn't a compliment, but what you might perceive as a lack of self awareness has been investigated and the admission that I have difficulty with comprehension wasn't meant to be self effacing, I was genuinely actually being completely honest with you -
http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057533376/1/#post98001802
I prefer to try and at least maintain the illusion that it is irrelevant. Because I don't like having to admit that sometimes I really don't have a bloody clue what someone is saying or trying to say!
Sorry Jack . I can be a bit of a smartarse at times . I enjoy language and it's intricacies and I have given you a hard time for no good reason other than my own prejudices. I hope you will accept that I have learned another lesson. I have said that reading my own posts sometimes makes me rethink my approach as I am not so direct in person . I think should behave online as I do in person. My apology is sincere Jack . I am sure we will disagree in the future and I will try to convince you that Pastafarianism is where it's at.0 -
Finally, some engagement Firstly I find it hard to believe that you don't know what i mean when i referenced 'free will', but in more detail, it is the argument that God doesn't intervene to prevent harm to innocents because it would violate someone's free will.Alvin Plantinga is a famous proponent of this defence of god but it ignores the 'natural evil' There are plenty of examples where god could intervene to prevent harm and suffering without violating anyone's free will. God could easily divert that proton released in that supernova that causes a mutation in the DNA in the egg that causes the baby to be born blind without affecting anyone's free will. If he is all powerful and knowing, then is capable of making this happen, so the contradiction is that he chooses not to, and this conflicts with his 'all loving' nature.Please can you put forward a defence for why god allows/causes this to happenAre you a pre-suppositionalist by any chance?0
-
Advertisement
-
You have misinterpreted again.
He was giving a list of separate possible solutions to the problem of evil and a deity. Several of them where ones often proposed by apologists. One of those was one that he felt was a better explanation.Did any of the believer arguments or counters beyond the final one rely on the existence or non-existence of god?These arguments are pretty evident to anyone who spends any time listening to apologists. I'm convinced to my satisfaction that they are fair but terse summations of the vast majority of arguments. If you would like to explain why they are wrong or unfair, or you want to propose a different, more convincing argument that was not mentioned... Otherwise, I'm not convinced your objection is anything more than pedantry.Again, a deliberate misunderstanding.
I am saying, and have said clearly, that it is possible to have a discussion on theodicy with the hypothetical assumption that god exists. And that all such arguments that purport to reconcile a loving all powerful god with natural evil all fail on their own merits without having to evoke god's nonexistence.Akrasia's post does a good job of demonstrating this by illustrating how it happens to common theist arguments . Have you ever seen a theodicy that's held up to scrutiny?Why do you say that? Your own experience?0 -
Your 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 -
In fairness, he offered no such distinction between them, and I suspect the second last is equally unlikely to be put forward by a Christian.
Do you really think that someone was presenting that last argument as the argument of a believer...?And I'm saying (and I thought I said clearly) that such a discussion has no value when the hypothetical assumption it's based on may be dismissed simply by virtue of the forum in which it takes place.
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.Because Christian philosophy is more likely to be engaged in by Christians? And any Christian posting in A&A can tell from a cursory glance that the foundations of their arguments are not exempt from scrutiny in any discussion, whereas in Christianity they are, and they can safely proceed with debating the nuances of the philosophical position.
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.
Nothing 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.
In my experience it is because most Christians that have thought about it have either failed to reconcile evil with god, or did, but realise how their reasoning leads to a very undesirable outcome for god. So they avoid the topic or abandon it quickly when they realise how it sounds.
So again, Have you ever seen a theodicy that has held up to scrutiny?0 -
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...?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.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.Nothing 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.So again, Have you ever seen a theodicy that has held up to scrutiny?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
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
-
You said "Free Will" and your only reference was "I've watched dozens if not hundreds of debates with apologists and the best arguments they can think of are either". I'm not inclinded to infer what Free Will argument you may be putting forward; unlike yourself I prefer to only provide only the one side of a discussion.So... is "Free will does not explain congenital birth defects, at least not the free will of the baby. Perhaps you could argue that humans increase the risk of birth defects because of pollution or unhealthy lifestyles, but that's begging the question. It is ludicrous to suggest that every birth defect was caused by a free choice by a human somewhere down the chain. We know that cosmic rays from exploding stars in distant galaxies can damage our DNA and cause mutations. How is such a random event the fault of any human (to give just one example). But even if we grant that initial premise, that human free will is somehow a cause for disease or congenital deformities, it's still an innocent person who suffers from the free choice of others. Nobody can argue that the foetus makes any choice that can cause it's own disease/deformity.. By our own moral standards, it is immoral to punish innocent people for the decisions of others. " a rebuttal of Alvins argument? I haven't read either Alvins arguments or yours, I'm just wondering if I start am I going to find your rebuttal doesn't actually address the specific points of his argument?
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.Why? I never said God allows or causes it to happen.
Nope. Are you?0 -
And any Christian posting in A&A can tell from a cursory glance that the foundations of their arguments are not exempt from scrutiny in any discussion, whereas in Christianity they are, and they can safely proceed with debating the nuances of the philosophical position.
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.
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.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 -
Join Date:Posts: 26393
Your 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.
Indeed,
Thats why the likes of TED Talks tend to be 18min long. The same talk by Absolam would likely be 5 hours.0 -
Akrasia,
There's a post by absolam somewhere above where absolam states that the logical contradiction between an all-knowing, all-powerful, benevolent deity and the existence of evil is "apparent." Absolam's such a tease. However, this does indicate absolam's school of thought. 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.0 -
Just say right,someone was going to a place of worship right,you know what I mean like.
So on their way to the church,fairy tree,mosque or temple they find someone in trouble say like you know like hurt or like something like.
Anyhow if they help that injured person like you know like.
Would that be like a divine intervention or pot luck,or just you found an injured party and helped them out like you know like ???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 -
Bristolscale7 wrote: »Akrasia,
There's a post by absolam somewhere above where absolam states that the logical contradiction between an all-knowing, all-powerful, benevolent deity and the existence of evil is "apparent." Absolam's such a tease. However, this does indicate absolam's school of thought. 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.
I took that to mean that it only appears that it's contradictory, not that he accepts that there actually is a contradiction. I think he was trying to set up a difference between the way things appear versus the way they are, which is fine, if you then go on to explain why appearances were deceptive. Methinks he would go on a 'how can you know for sure' defence that gets nobody anywhere.
It's hard to know though because he is not very clear on what his own positions are.0 -
Stealthfins wrote: »Just say right,someone was going to a place of worship right,you know what I mean like.
So on their way to the church,fairy tree,mosque or temple they find someone in trouble say like you know like hurt or like something like.
Anyhow if they help that injured person like you know like.
Would that be like a divine intervention or pot luck,or just you found an injured party and helped them out like you know like ???
It doesn't require the existence of a deity/fairy for someone to hold an event to worship/celebrate one. People organise and attend events according to their own interests.
So unless the fairy or the deity itself directly organised and called for people to attend the event directly and without the need for human proxies to perform the tasks, then the fact that a person was on his way to this event and encountered the injured party requires absolutely no divine intervention what so ever.0 -
Advertisement
-
One 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! ):
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 -
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.
The "pick two" idea. Good and all knowing but not all powerful. Good and all powerful but not all knowing. All knowing and all powerful but not good. And so on. Solves the problem instantly but as you point out, it's incompatible with christian beliefs.0 -
Akrasia wrote: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.
Some of the pagans in the Burren accept that the nature God is unforgiving and **** happens.
Is that more acceptable than an all loving God ?0 -
Stealthfins wrote: »Some of the pagans in the Burren accept that the nature God is unforgiving and **** happens.
Is that more acceptable than an all loving God ?
It avoids a glaring contradiction found in Christianity. It also allows pagans to avoid the cognitive dissonance that affects christians.0 -
Stealthfins wrote: »Some of the pagans in the Burren accept that the nature God is unforgiving and **** happens.
Is that more acceptable than an all loving God ?
MrP0 -
Bristolscale7 wrote:It avoids a glaring contradiction found in Christianity. It also allows pagans to avoid the cognitive dissonance that affects christians.
After all our ancestor's were instinctively pagans and in modern day language they were more willing to accept nature and life and death as it is.
Christianity isn't around as long as paganism.
In some rural part's of Ireland there's still pagan traditions and piseogs.0 -
Stealthfins wrote: »Some of the pagans in the Burren accept that the nature God is unforgiving and **** happens.
Is that more acceptable than an all loving God ?
It solves some problems and raises others.
For me, I tend to believe in what the best available evidence points to. If there was strong evidence of divine intervention, either malevolent or benevolent, then I would be more inclined to believe in some kind of divine entity
It's easy to invent a religion that can not be proven wrong. You just give it properties that do not contradict one another, and then say it is powerful enough to completely hide all evidence of itself. (or you define it in such a way that everything is evidence for it, which is equally as meaningless)
The christian tradition fails by giving their god properties that are logically inconsistent, but the fact that it has been such a successful tradition, means that maybe logical consistency is not a requirement for the spread of a religion, maybe the promises and threats attached to the faith are enough to outweigh the logical deficit for enough people that it gains foothold and therefore legitimacy by the strength of the institutions of the church.
Logical consistency is a requirement for truth, but truth is not a requirement for a successful religion, especially one that extols the virtues of 'mystery'.0 -
-
You haven't provided any side of the discussion. You've evaded providing any argument at every possible opportunityMore 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...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.I 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.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.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.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
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement