Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Notes on the Problem of Evil

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 3 posts ] 
Notes on the Problem of Evil
Author Message
Blog of ReasonHelperUser avatarPosts: 240Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:28 pmLocation: League of Reason

Post Notes on the Problem of Evil

Sun Jan 10, 2016 2:49 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3333Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Notes on the Problem of Evil

Laurens wrote:This is the problem of evil. If God exists—no matter how you look at it—the existence of pain and suffering in the world is preventable. The only reason it can persist is if God is not loving, or if God is impotent. This conclusion is true regardless of whether or not we include human free will. In my opinion this is the strongest argument against theism. If anybody thinks that I have made any mistakes in my case, has any criticism, or wishes to rebut anything I’ve said feel free to post in the comment thread.

[Emphasis added.]


I would strongly disagree with you. This is only a problem for theists that posit their deity as loving, all-powerful, and engaged with humanity. In that case, that would work for most of the Abrahamic faiths, but even within the Abrahamic faiths there are those that posit that Yahweh has turned his back on humanity and will not intervene until the end times. Beyond that, there are several brands of theism that posit their deities as not being all loving, or having several roughly equally powerful deities with only a few of those deities actually caring about humanity and fewer actually loving it. As an example, this argument does nothing against a deistic deity or anything against the pantheon of the Hindu. Your definition of a deity seems tailored to try and only address the Abrahamic faiths and excluding other things humanity has called deities for millennia.

Thus, in my opinion, this is actually one of the weakest arguments against theism, since it only rejects a specific deity. At any point, if a theist says their deity is not all-powerful, not loving, or temporarily allowing humanity to suffer, this argument falls flat.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:19 pm
YIM WWW
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2950Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Notes on the Problem of Evil

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Laurens wrote:This is the problem of evil. If God exists—no matter how you look at it—the existence of pain and suffering in the world is preventable. The only reason it can persist is if God is not loving, or if God is impotent. This conclusion is true regardless of whether or not we include human free will. In my opinion this is the strongest argument against theism. If anybody thinks that I have made any mistakes in my case, has any criticism, or wishes to rebut anything I’ve said feel free to post in the comment thread.

[Emphasis added.]


I would strongly disagree with you. This is only a problem for theists that posit their deity as loving, all-powerful, and engaged with humanity. In that case, that would work for most of the Abrahamic faiths, but even within the Abrahamic faiths there are those that posit that Yahweh has turned his back on humanity and will not intervene until the end times. Beyond that, there are several brands of theism that posit their deities as not being all loving, or having several roughly equally powerful deities with only a few of those deities actually caring about humanity and fewer actually loving it. As an example, this argument does nothing against a deistic deity or anything against the pantheon of the Hindu. Your definition of a deity seems tailored to try and only address the Abrahamic faiths and excluding other things humanity has called deities for millennia.

Thus, in my opinion, this is actually one of the weakest arguments against theism, since it only rejects a specific deity. At any point, if a theist says their deity is not all-powerful, not loving, or temporarily allowing humanity to suffer, this argument falls flat.


Duly noted. I actually agree with you. I just worded it wrongly I should have been more specific, I shall edit it to make it clearer.
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Sun Jan 10, 2016 8:00 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 3 posts ] 
Return to Blog of Reason

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
cron