Personally, I think the absence of evidence argument is the most cogent.
Then there are pretty good arguments whose only defect is too narrow focus on refuting a particular religion. That might not even be a defect, depending on context.
I think the worst I ever saw was this guy on ChristianForums who made a huge list of miracles that were physically impossible, as evidence that they must not have happened.
Like, I genuinely do not think he understood how much "this seems impossible" is baked into describing something as a "miracle".
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Another lament of this type is the fact that XYZ beloved person is dead and Henry Kissinger/Donald Trump/*insert hated person* is alive is proof that there is no God.
Although I suppose you could consider that as a facetious version of the problem of evil, it's obviously not meant as a serious argument.
Sufficiently persistent absence of evidence makes for a very plausible inference of absence, if not absolute proof. That is for when the definition of "God" gets a little fuzzy.
However when it comes to the various deities actually believed in by believers, positive proof is easier.
Sufficiently persistent absence of evidence makes for a very plausible inference of absence, if not absolute proof. That is for when the definition of "God" gets a little fuzzy.
However when it comes to the various deities actually believed in by believers, positive proof is easier.
or rather, would be.
For the most part, most reasonable men are left with something akin to "Fuck if I know. "
And, in that moment, we are probably as close to God as we ever will be.
__________________
“Logic is a defined process for going wrong with Confidence and certainty.” —CF Kettering
Although I suppose you could consider that as a facetious version of the problem of evil, it's obviously not meant as a serious argument.
Is the problem of evil an argument for atheism? Is it similar to the problem of pain that states a loving God would never allow atrocities and unthinkable circumstances?
__________________
What are sleeping dreams but so much garbage?~ Glen’s homophobic newsletter
... a loving God would never allow atrocities and unthinkable circumstances?
Made me think of nature, the planet, and having just watched Life (narrated by Morgan Freeman), nobody who knows anything about nature and the nature of the Universe, would ever consider there is a loving God.
Of any kind.
__________________
"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, "Is it reasonable?""
... a loving God would never allow atrocities and unthinkable circumstances?
Made me think of nature, the planet, and having just watched Life (narrated by Morgan Freeman), nobody who knows anything about nature and the nature of the Universe, would ever consider there is a loving God.
Of any kind.
Maybe people can fathom the idea of things in the Universe being beyond all control and sometimes inconceivable things happen in a non forgiving Universe that they, well, can forgive. As opposed to the perception of an all loving God being in control of all but yet takes a back seat to human suffering?
Idk, that isn’t my belief at all but I know it’s a common one.
__________________
What are sleeping dreams but so much garbage?~ Glen’s homophobic newsletter
Personally, I think the absence of evidence argument is the most cogent.
Then there are pretty good arguments whose only defect is too narrow focus on refuting a particular religion. That might not even be a defect, depending on context.
... Rapinoe went down in the sixth minute as OL Reign lost to Gotham FC ...
Gotham fans might take this as proof God is on their side.
I read that Megan Rapinoe headline and just assumed she was using the name of the Lord in vain but not serious about it. I see now that she was and also she was.
I wish a reporter would have asked her if she’d prayed to God before her Achilles tendon was damaged.
__________________
What are sleeping dreams but so much garbage?~ Glen’s homophobic newsletter
An omniscient and omnipotent God would have known, since before Rapinoe was born, exactly how and when Rapinoe's injury would occur. Furthermore, he would know whether or not she would pray, and whether or not those prayers would be answered.
Omniscience means knowing everything. If you want an omniscient God, then you can't have free will - that God already knows all your future actions, right up to the moment you die, and he knows everything about all the people yet to be born too.
Although I suppose you could consider that as a facetious version of the problem of evil, it's obviously not meant as a serious argument.
Is the problem of evil an argument for atheism? Is it similar to the problem of pain that states a loving God would never allow atrocities and unthinkable circumstances?
I don't think the problem of pain is a distinct argument, I'm not sure what the distinction would be given your description of it. There are different formulations of the problem of evil that focus on different types of evil, often in response to various theodicies (theistic responses to the problem of evil) - I recall reading one argument in college that focused on minor pains such as papercuts that undermine the argument that evil is there in order to enable higher virtues such as heroism - the argument being that there is no heroism in responding to a papercut, it does not inculcate higher virtues, it just hurts, so it can't be that all evil is there to enable greater virtues (I don't know that this one is particularly persuasive as one could argue that while there is no great virtue in responding to a papercut well, it could help one build up one's ability to respond to greater evils).
Regardless, most theistic philosophers (Christians ones, at least) do think the problem of evil requires some sort of response, as far as I know, and the form of response tends to have knock on effects on other areas of theology.
The terms "problem of evil" and "problem of pain" are so far as I know synonyms, just people describe it slightly differently. Same argument, though.
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
An omniscient and omnipotent God would have known, since before Rapinoe was born, exactly how and when Rapinoe's injury would occur. Furthermore, he would know whether or not she would pray, and whether or not those prayers would be answered.
Omniscience means knowing everything. If you want an omniscient God, then you can't have free will - that God already knows all your future actions, right up to the moment you die, and he knows everything about all the people yet to be born too.
Is that an argument for atheism?
__________________
What are sleeping dreams but so much garbage?~ Glen’s homophobic newsletter
Regardless, most theistic philosophers (Christians ones, at least) do think the problem of evil requires some sort of response, as far as I know, and the form of response tends to have knock on effects on other areas of theology.
This is confusing to me because Christianity as a whole is made up of many factions. For want of a better word, and how can there be one response to the problem of evil that addresses each of these differing Christian views?
__________________
What are sleeping dreams but so much garbage?~ Glen’s homophobic newsletter
Christians don't all have the same response to the Problem of Evil, that's how.
Some subscribe to Divine Command Theory, some argue that free will removes God's responsibility for evil while being enough of a good thing to outweigh the evil it creates (this response is not the most compatible with Calvinist-style election, hence how I said it has implications for other aspects of theology).
But regardless of that, they have an explanation for why evil exists, mostly. Some do pick the cop out of saying that "God's ways are not our ways" and we can't comprehend why evil exists. Presumably it thus has some explanation other than the ones usually proffered, but of course, when you start relying on the incomprehensibility of God, you also open up the possibility that God is evil and you simply are unable to comprehend that fact, or that your theology is all completely incorrect and you're unable to comprehend why. It does not resolve any questions, but rather leads to an abandonment of reason and leaves you relying on "well, I believe in the Bible because I have faith."
Which is fine, but not very convincing to others, because the claim is then that you don't actually understand the thing you're arguing for and leaves a Christian without any basis to argue that Christianity has more evidence supporting it than any other theistic religion.
An omniscient and omnipotent God would have known, since before Rapinoe was born, exactly how and when Rapinoe's injury would occur. Furthermore, he would know whether or not she would pray, and whether or not those prayers would be answered.
Omniscience means knowing everything. If you want an omniscient God, then you can't have free will - that God already knows all your future actions, right up to the moment you die, and he knows everything about all the people yet to be born too.
Is that an argument for atheism?
No. It's just trying to get people to realize what omniscience really means.
You can have an omniscient God, or you can have free will, but you can't have both.
Some Christians try to argue that their God is omniscient AND that he gave free will to humans: that is a logical impossibility.
I don't think anyone would argue that knowing a thing after it happens makes it non-free.
Our usual intuition informs us that, if two things are causally connected, they have to have some third common cause, or the one that happens first has to cause the second... but I think that if you include the future in "omniscience", that this also admits the alternative answer that time is just completely broken. The knowledge is determined by the events, the same as it would be for anyone else's knowledge about events, it just happens out of order because apparently deities do not respect linear time.
But the inexorability of "what happens" and "what is known about that happening" being the same doesn't imply that what happens is determined by what's known, and indeed, I think usually it's the other way around; the knowledge is determined by the reality.
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
(Personally, I'm not, or at least I think the compatibilist changes the definition of free will such that it no longer works as a response to the PoE. I find a lot of definitions of free will given in response to the PoE to be incoherent anyway...)
Hello fellow atheists. Worst argument EVAR.
"
Re: Hello fellow atheists. Worst argument EVAR.
Linear Mode
