63 replies to this topic

[MysticKnight]

Jebreil, on 03 July 2012 - 06:29 AM, said:

For intelligent humans, scripture, moral advice and religious guidance are there to teach in a kind manner - as well as the gift of intellect.
And there is pain, when the kind counsel is ignored.

What about humans whom didn't have access to a divine revelation?

[Belial]

Jebreil, on 03 July 2012 - 06:29 AM, said:

Belial

I just read this now:



For dumb creatures, apart from instinct, pain is all that can deter them.

For intelligent humans, scripture, moral advice and religious guidance are there to teach in a kind manner - as well as the gift of intellect.
And there is pain, when the kind counsel is ignored.

Its still not the ideal design.  Ill rephrase, and say, arguably, its still not the ideal design.  Your point is fine, but neither of us could do a very good job of supporting either position simply due to our ignorance of the subject.

Edited by Belial, 03 July 2012 - 05:12 PM.

[Quisant]

What would be interesting to know is If God doesn't need to suffer to know good from evil, why do we have to suffer?

[Belial]

Jebreil, on 04 July 2012 - 08:06 PM, said:

Belial

For it to be arguably so, you would have to argue it.

On a lighter note, welcome to the concept of an antinomy.

Well, i have argued it. Thats what this whole topic has been about . Conflict and disagreement isnt so easily made on concepts that are well understood.

Hence why, I had previously mentioned "neither of us could do a very good job of supporting either position simply due to our ignorance of the subject."

Edited by Belial, 04 July 2012 - 08:42 PM.

[Belial]

Jebreil, on 04 July 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

Belial

I haven't seen the argument.


-------

Despite the antinomies, a religious person still has the logical upper hand.

The religious belief:
1. it is plausible to believe this world has a good design and that some very small details are due to our ignorance - and that
2. God is good and all-powerful, therefore this world has a good design.
--->
therefore this world has a good design.

Thus, they reason the point through 2 different routes.

------

The Problem-maker of Evil would sum up his belief:
it is plausible to believe this world has a weak design - and so God is not good or God is not all-powerful.

------

Yet, the religious person has already proven via other means that God is good and all-powerful. Thus, with this point established, via modus tollens, the non-religious argument is broken and so when it comes to the antinomies, logical preference is wholly given to religion.

Im sorry, i dont know what you mean. To a religious person, perhaps theyd believe that they had proven this God exists and is all good and powerful.  Though, at this point in time, i wouldnt agree.  I'm not sure if this is one of those concepts, in which it doesnt matter if people disagree, as long as they believe it themselves. Or...I just dont understand where you are coming from.

Edited by Belial, 04 July 2012 - 09:17 PM.

[Belial]

Jebreil, on 04 July 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

Belial

It means that the Problem of Evil argues "if p then q", hoping to convince the faithful. The faithful, due to their faith, already believes in "not-q and not-p".

"p or not-p" is an example of an antinomy where the evidence is not so great, but we can solve which is logically preferable by looking at how they relate to other beliefs.

The faithful already asserts a proof for "not-q". This entails the belief in not-p, which proves his side of the antinomy.

The Problem of Evil cannot assert a proof for p or q, therefore, they cannot establish their point.

Thus, between Religion and the Problem of Evil, logic would put the weight on Religion.

Would you also say that the faithful could not assert proof for not-q? Of do you believe that their faith is enough?

Edited by Belial, 04 July 2012 - 09:28 PM.

[Belial]

Jebreil, on 04 July 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

Belial

The faithful asserts proof for not-q. Faith might be enough, if you mean by it something more than just a hunch or guess or delusion or dream. If you mean by faith any of these things, then faith is not enough, and "q or not-q" also falls into an antinomy of sorts, and neither can be established.

Religion has a lot of theologians and philosophers and mystics who have undertaken proofs for "not-q". It is a small step from that to dismissing the entire effort behind the Problem of Evil argument.

Alright. Then i suppose we are back to where we started, until these philosophers and mystics provide their ideas.

[Belial]

Jebreil, on 05 July 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

Belial

You'd have to go read their books/articles/papers. The majority are dead now.

I am sure the original founders are dead. Though i would think there are people who have taken on their ideas, that would provide them in todays time.  I'll have a look around.