x > 0 is perfectly compatible with x being the Ackermann function applied to Graham’s number, so that information can’t be enough. A premise to the effect that there probably is gratuitous evil would be enough, so it’s not the case that ‘nothing is enough’.
There’s nothing solipsistic about this stance. You’re just desperately flinging what you think are discrediting allegations around in the hope something sticks.
Denying the validity of all external evidence is solipsistic.
Good thing nobody’s doing that.
This may appear to be pedantry on the part of myself and Half_Man_Half_Wit, but recall my earlier argument that the additional premises are incompatible with traditional Christianity, and thus undermine the purpose of the evidentiary argument of evil to begin with. In the hell-world scenario, we need only assert that we can take this entity at its word when it says it is evil. But in the general argument, where our observations are real and not hypothetical, I suggested two hidden premises that could potentially contribute to a complete argument:
You can see how either of these are problematic, although both hold themselves out as common sense.
~Max
And there we are.
God could spend all day every day stuffing you with hot pokers and screaming in your face that he is evil and enjoys causing suffering. And, according to you (and @Half_Man_Half_Wit), not only would this not prove that God is not perfectly loving (which I might agree to in some kind of abstract, technical sense), but doesn’t even give us reason for doubt.
It’s some of the most batshit craziness I’ve ever encountered, even within the domain of theological arguments.
But you know what, if you think this works as a compelling solution to the problem of evil: go for it. I’m happy for you. If you’re both willing to swallow the argumentum ad absurdum there’s nothing more I can say to you.
And this is really all you have, is it. Whereas I have produced logical arguments and cites explicitly showing you wrong, all you have is incredulity and overblown rhetoric, combined with a fastidious avoidance of engaging with any point that contradicts you.
If what I’m arguing for actually were wrong, it should be trivial for you to point out where it fails. If you had any case to make, you wouldn’t just ignore every time I put up a cite explicitly contradicting you.
I think the only reasonable conclusion from this is that on some level, you must actually understand that you’re mistaken. If you genuinely believed your own narrative, there would be no harm in engaging with these arguments and cites. Yet despite repeated pleading on my part, you just refuse to do so, and hide behind the bluster of nothing but your own sense of incredulity, as if that were an actual argument, and then declare yourself the winner.
No, that’s exactly what is being done. The people trying to defend the tri-omni god are saying that no amount of evidence is a reason to doubt and that the literal word of god isn’t enough for them. They’ve wrapped a shell of denial of reality around themselves because reality is hostile to their beliefs. Reality says they are wrong, therefore reality is fake.
That’s solipsistic in all but name.
No. But all evidence must connect to some hypothesis. You have to have some structure of ‘if A, then B’. You just want to just jump straight to ‘…then B’, but the evidential case needs a premise to the effect that there is some amount of evil that exceeds what would be expected if there’s a tri-omni God, thus if there is such evil in the world, then we ought to lower our credence in the existence of that God. Otherwise, you’re just asserting ‘there is evil, therefore there is no God’ without giving any justification for why one should follow from the other.
This isn’t ignoring evidence, it’s merely using empirical reasoning correctly.
It’s called science and physics. There’s no indication of a god in the evidence, much less a tri-omni one. The tri-omni god is simply a baseless assertion that contradicts everything we know and is internally contradictory. It’s about as clearly wrong as anything can be.
Which is why its defenders have such a longstanding pattern of retreating into what amounts to solipsism to defend it.
The evidence in question is the existence of evil, which is supposed to be used as evidence against the existence of God. For it to do so, you need some premise connecting the two. Otherwise you’re just pointing at the pile of shit you produced and claiming ‘this massive turd disproves the existence of God’.
Within the context of this thread, and the hypothetical, it’s more like ‘observing God doing evil and saying he’s evil, gives us reason to doubt he’s all good’.
And for some reason you find this statement has a missing “connection”.
And if it were just me, you might have a case, although one still would hope you could actually lay out the logic behind it rather than just appealing to ‘obviousness’ or whatever it is you’re trying to do. But what I can’t figure out is how you’re so completely unfazed by even those cites you yourself brought to the table explicitly agreeing with me that a premise to the effect that some instance of evil is probably gratuitous is needed. Seriously, where do you take that confidence from? It would almost be admirable if it weren’t so utterly misplaced.
The claim is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, despite how easily the goalposts get moved back and forth. Not “God exists”. And the overwhelming amount of evil and suffering in the world (the latter of which keeps getting conveniently ignored by the believers) is strong evidence of such a God. Thus the solipsism of its defenders.
As already pointed out to you (but happy to do it again!), that’s the notion of God I’m presupposing, since no other one even leads to the problem of evil, so God exists = tri-omni God exists. And for evil to reduce the likelihood of such a God, it must exceed what’s to be expected if there was such a God. You can’t just point at a turd and claim that it disproves God, and then complain about ‘solipsism’ when people point out that actually, it doesn’t.
Which it does, overwhelmingly.
Ooh, a bald-faced assertion without even a token attempt at substantiation! And it’s got italics! Well now I’m convinced.
But seriously, how do you not see what a terrible argument this is? Any theist can counter it by just saying ‘no it doesn’t’ and appeal to the same standards of reasoning you do. More than that, actually, since you’re the one making the claim! You’re basically doing their job for them. I mean if that’s the standard of argument in ‘my’ camp, I’m starting to wonder if maybe the god-botherers don’t have something more going for them after all. Seriously, come on, this shit is too important for such sloppy reasoning! Hold yourself up to a higher standard—any standard! For fuck’s sake, do better!
I have the world as a substantiation. You are the one making a claim that is in direct contradiction to reality, not me.
Indeed you do, and all you know to do with it is just to point at it in blank incomprehension.
No? The world is filled with massive amounts of suffering and evil, but that “doesn’t count” since it shows the tri-omni god is nonsense. And that’s simply an unacceptable truth. Throwing out insults doesn’t change that.
No, it’s a perfectly trivial truth I readily agree with. You’re just not doing anything with it other than excitedly pointing at it. That does simply not an argument make. Both you and @Mijin simply ignore the need to actually make the case you’re trying to support. But I’ve run out of ways to explain this. I don’t have any hopes that quoting the IEP on the subject yet again will be of any help, or even draw any sort of comment, but just to keep myself halfway sane:
In evidential arguments, however, the evidence only probabilifies its conclusion, rather than conclusively verifying it. The probabilistic nature of such arguments manifests itself in the form of a premise to the effect that “It is probably the case that some instance (or type, or amount, or pattern) of evil E is gratuitous.” This probability judgment usually rests on the claim that, even after careful reflection, we can see no good reason for God’s permission of E. The inference from this claim to the judgment that there exists gratuitous evil is inductive in nature, and it is this inductive step that sets the evidential argument apart from the logical argument.
Without this, all your pointing at the horrors of the world simply doesn’t do anything. You need to make the case that ‘after careful reflection, we can see no good reason for God’s permission of E’. You need to make some case like Rowe’s Bambi or Sue-scenarios. Otherwise, you’re simply not making a coherent argument. After you’ve done that, that’s the point where one can enter into a discussion where you’ve at least got a seat at the table. But this whole ‘World horrible! God bad!’ logic simply is going to get you laughed out of the room.