I do the "G-d" thing because a lot of the arguments I tend to engage can border on "heresy" and "blasphemy" in the eyes of others.  I come from a VERY religious family and I was the religious trouble-maker, arguing all manner of things with parents, religious leaders, and the like, from a very young age.  I really DID engage in arguments with my father by which I attempted to prove that G-d didn't have a penis.  For me, it works, because it helps remind me that there is a fine line between making a religious argument and having a potty mouth for no useful reason.  So, while your argument is valid in a general sense, it is invalid in many individual instances.

I'm not the least bit "sorry" for what I've been through, which has been rather significant.  It's made me be the person I am today.  I can TELL people what I've been through, and a lot of them gasp, and some of them would rather not know the details, but my perceptions of the world around me, of human nature, human suffering, the "Universal Brotherhood of Man" -- these all come from what have been, in my lifetime, some really crappy experiences.  On the flip side, the opportunities for fully engaging the world all come from those crappy experiences.  I never thought sleeping in a rat infested house was going to be "enjoyable" (I'm an upper-middle class geek), and long since got past the need to be "poor", but having had that experience, other opportunities are available in ways they'd not be -- if I'd never done that.

It's been my experience that people for whom life has been "easy" tend not to get out all that much.  They might die a nice, peaceful death, but they seldom say "I've lived a full and rewarding life and I'm ready for an extended vacation."  My grandfather, the one I stood by while he died at my feet, had Malaria twice in his life.  He could have moved back to Canada (and stayed there) after the first time, but he didn't.  He went back to South America and did what he enjoyed doing.  When he retired from the clergy, he found other things to do, including the things that kept landing him back in the hospital.

So, the G-d you argue against -- the one that's supposed to be protecting me from everything "bad" or else He doesn't exist?  No thank-you.  I like the G-d I've got.  You keep the god you don't believe in, I'll stick with the one I do believe in.

I can see your point of view, even as I still find it a little silly. We have had others in here using exactly the same convention.

I still should point out that child-parent thing involves a clearly different word for 'respectful' reference.

Using Ywh or something similar would seem to make the distinctions you are referring to clearer to both sides.

Thank you for your arrogance.

I was paraphrasing, but that is a pretty standard claim of God's abilities according to Christians etc. So what is your definition of God?

I don't need to make an argument with every statement I make. The statement is just following from the "God made everything and can do everything" idea.

Of course I don't believe in God, but that is what we are talking about!!! I am not arguing about humanity you dolt!

You have a consistent lack of logic, so I doubt you could even hold a conversation with a todler.

You state that omnipotent does not include doing the logically impossible. Does this mean that you think creating the universe and everything in it out of nothingness is not logically impossible? What can't an omnipotent being do?

How about you tell us what you think God can and can't do then?

We are reading what you are writing, you are just not making any sense. If this is because your stance on God and his abilities differs from the Christian norm, then perhaps you should tell us what your opinion is instead of assuming that we know.

Plantinga's argument is bogus, it is basically what we have been discussing. Also if you put forward that argument here, it is your argument too. It is basically grasping at straws to justify your beliefs.

Once again, what has disease got to do with choice. What has birth defects, mental illness etc got to do with choice? Of course if somone is assaulting you they have a choice, but what choice do you have?

I think they were Jewish. Yahweh is explicitly described in my online dictionary as

"a form of the Hebrew name of God used in the Bible. The name came to be regarded by Jews ( c. 300 bc) as too sacred to be spoken, and the vowel sounds are uncertain.",

so I am a little surprised at your comment. It is certainly commonly understood as that by most people, and would be much clearer than "G-d".

I apologise. I was having a little dig, and I did not mean it to be as serious as it was taken.

The long answer is, I do not believe there is a definitive definition of God. HOWEVER, there are more accurate versions than others. For example, you wrote:

This is inaccurate. I can see where you are going with this, but it fails unfortunately. If A creates B and B creates C, does A create C? Using an analogy, If God created me and I painted the mona lisa, was God the creator of the Mona Lisa? No, of course not. Then presumably there are things that exist that God did not create.

Here again, if God created man and man sins, is God responsible for sin?

I guess this is your definition of omnipotence. For the purpose of this argument, omnipotence has to mean not capable of logical impossiblities. The reason is that if God were capable of LI - creating anything He wants - it undermines your position as well as mine. Your position is that God does not exist. But if God is capable of LI, then you are right and wrong at the same time, since existing and not existing at the same time is a logical impossibility - and one that God is completely capable of under this premise.

Correct. But anything more than this definition becomes problematic. Some would argue that if X knew Y's actions (Z) beforehand, it does not change the fact that Y has a choice to not do Z regardless of X's knowlegde of the fact (Z). This is the compatabalist view on determinism and free-will.

The idea is fundamentally flawed. You would have to address the argument that if A creates B and B creates C then A creates C. It is implicit in the argument that "creates" is a non-transitive relationship. As in the following case. If I am friends with you, and you are friends with bob, does that make me friends with Bob? "Are friends with", here, is also a non-transitive relationship. "Is older than" would be an example of a transitive relationship.

You see? I find this funny.

If creating something out of nothing is logically impossible, then you have done yourself a disservice, as what would the scientific explanation involve? If the energy that existed was eternal, then all I have to do to alleviate the pressure on the logical impossibility of something from nothing; is say that God created the universe out of Himself - just as the energy condensed the universe out of itself in the scientific explanation.

Now the more estute might say the above is an ad homenim (tu quoque). However, the question is problematic on both sides. Solving one solves the other. Since there is no way of knowing with any certainty whether something can come from nothing (scientifically or divinely), the question is in fact irrelevant.

Presumably the logically impossible.

Well, this is the point of Plantinga's argument. You indicate that you can swat Plantinga aside. Perhaps then, it is time for you to do some reasoning instead of having someone spell it all out for you so you can skim of the top without knowing the process by which you came to any given conclusion.

I apologise. It is not my opinion that matters. Through reasoning, we are trying to establish whether suffering contradicts God's nature. The argument, once again, is thus:

1. God is omnipotent

2. God is omniscient

3. God is omnibenevolent

---

4. Evil exists

This is a quarter of Plantnga's argument, that stems from a classical version:

1. God is all-powerful

2. God is all-good

---

3. Evil exists

The reason why it is inconsistent is that the combination of any two statements negates the third. IOW, If god is all powerful and all-good, then evil should not exist. If God is all powerful and evil exists, then God is not all-good. If God is all-good and evil exists, then God is not all powerful.

The reason why it fails (as Bob already pointed out), is because it is a non sequitur. The statements in the argument itself do not logically lead to the expected conclusion that evil should not exist. What is needed to bring out the contradiction is a set of definitions, which, when added to the argument produce a contradiction between God and the existence of Evil. As one sets about doing this, however, the contradiction does not arise.

I will put the argument up in full eventually. I will wait for any objections to what I have already written though, so as to be perfectly clear about the points in contention. If we cannot agree on some basic definitions, it is pointless continuing with the "suffering" debate, as the contention will be definitions, not the existence of evil.

Why?

This was in response to natural evil (rocks falling on the innocent, disease etc). It will come into play later. For now, it is not that important.

The only problem is premise number 3. What happens if the net position of this evil producing machine, from beginning to end, is marginally good? Say, for example that humans are entirely evil for the first five thousand years of the Earth's existence. But for the following five-thousnad-and-one years, were entirely good. Presumably then we have one year of good counting towards our existence. If God eliminated that 1 year of Good by not creating us in the first place, is God acting against his omnibeneovelence?

This assumes that every evil act has an equal and opposite good act. But some would argue that the small amount of good in humans actually outweighs the majority of bad.

Having reacquainted myself with the thread I know your position on this one.

Thats OK, I don't mind. To answer your question, no, I do not believe we are mostly bad. This strengthens my proposition that human existence is an overall good thing. Put another way, a world in which humans exist is better than a world in which they do not, even if it the net position of the world is evil. Why should the evil of some be used against the good of others? Presumably, God knows whether the world is better off with us in it or not.

Well, several issues spring to mind:

1. I can grant you that God created the "machine", but is it God's responsibility what that machine produces? G creates M, M creates E, is G responsible for E?

2. With regards to the sentence "God has created a machine (M) that produces both Good (G) and Evil (E)", I think a more accurate way of putting it is "G created M capable of both G and E".

3. Why would G triumph over E if M did not obtain? Are you saying M is entirely E?

4. How do you get to your conclusion given the above queries?

That is not my point. To make it simpler, imagine a universe with only two people in it. One is entirely Good (X), the other entirely bad (Y). Why should X not exist because of Y? Nowhere in your posts have you addressed this question.

You have not produced a coherent argument against point 3. Anything that produces significant amounts of harm ('evil'), that cannot be argued is an inevitable by-product of some action which ultimately leads to a good outcome which greatly outweighs the harm, like the pain of surgery to remove a serious cancer, is unnecessarily evil.

Good actions do not outweigh bad, unless those 'bad' actions are only causing unavoidable bad effects as a necessary part of a set of actions leading to an overall positive result.

Any unnecessary or avoidable evil is an argument against an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God., whatever else of a more positive nature may also happen.

The imperfect nature of humans is the responsibility of the Creator in the God scenario.

Since my internet is working again, I think I will jump in at this point for starters.

Jumbo - you're having fun I'm sure laying out this well worn defense of god's character.  I heard all of this while I was facing terrible suffering.  It struck me like a note painfully out of tune at the time.  At the time it was delivered (repeatedly), it seemed disingenuous and dismissive of what was happening to my family.  It still does.

You can say that suffering is not that important to your discussion.  That somehow if you prove god is not responsible or capable of removing some particular instances of evil, that he would 'logically' be removed of responsibility for every other objectionable thing that we encounter as humans by extension.  False I say.

As far as what god is capable and not capable of doing, there is certainly no theist consensus on what is possible for god.  It is not as cut and dried as you would like it to be.  I belonged to a church that believed in faith healing.  Many christians believe in the power of prayer to affect their physical well-being.  They believe in intercessory prayer.  You've led us through an entertaining but frustrating circumnavigation of lots of bushes.  There is no proof that prayer works in any objective tests.  There are certainly millions theists suffering and dying of horrible illnesses, even with modern scientific medicine.  Just as many as non-christians and non-theists. 

You put forward that we, as humanity, are all responsible for the fact that health problems plague us and children go hungry.  Money spent on churches, preachers and theologians could be going toward advances in medical care or feeding the hungry.  Then perhaps we would be able to solve so many of the world's ills that you say are not god's responsibility to solve but rather fall on the shoulders of humanity.  We could surely reduce the amount of gratuitous pain and suffering.  Perhaps preachers could be retrained as nurses or counselors within the medical field.  It would certainly contribute more to the well-being of humanity than is the current state of affairs.  Whether or not a god exists, wouldn't this be better?

Yes,  of course God would be responsible, assuming we're talking about an omnimax God, because God would have certainly known the consequences.  If I knowingly build and turn on a shoe-making machine and it starts producing shoes, am I not responsible for the fact that shoes are being produced?  If I create the machine and set it in motion, how do I escape responsibility for what is produced by it?

If God knew what the machine would do, then I think that the distinction is meaningless.

I don't understand how the question is relevant.  Whether there is, on balance, more good than evil or more evil than good is completely beside the point.  A wholly good God is not going to want to create any evil at all.

I think I've already made that clear.  I honestly don't see that your queries cause any trouble at all for my argument.

I have addressed it by explaining that it is irrelevant.

I was afraid I phrased that a little awkwardly, and you have misread it. Sorry.

I was trying to say that the pain inflicted as part of surgery, assuming anaesthetics are not available, is a necessary 'evil'.

I am more familiar with the pain of dental work, and I see absolutely no reason to experience any more of that than unavoidable, such as the initial pain of the injection.

There is certainly some surgery which would be out of the question without anaesthesia. 

It was not the best example, since the availability of anaesthetics confuses the issue.

I haven't read BNW, but while I understand there are clear reasons for having pain receptors, I can see no good reasons for experiencing extreme and unnecessary pain. It actually risks psychological damage.

I see no justification for the existence of  'evil', in the normal sense of the word. That statement does not depend on observing a universe with no 'evil'. We only have to compare different places, times and societies with different experiences of what we would classify as 'evil' to be able to draw conclusions. Your statement about Africa would imply that many forms of scientific testing cannot possibly lead to useful information because we cannot control every aspect of the test.

Of course, I understand that in the real universe, the blind forces of nature and evolution and change in general are going to sometimes lead to injury, pain, death and disease. Some of this is going to have positive effects in 'training' people to avoid some things and actions. I would tend to reserve the word 'evil' for things where the harm is large, and seems to have little or no positive aspect, especially if there appears to be some agency, a will, behind it.

Even much of the evil which 'teaches' us to avoid actions leading to such outcomes is only beneficial because that particular possibility of 'evil' outcome exists in the first place.

There surely is some evil where the negatives massively outweigh any positives. What is the net positive benefit of the suffering of the victims of the Holocaust and their families? I can imagine it serves as a reminder of the depths to which people can descend under certain conditions, but that is only a 'benefit' because we have that capability in the first place.

That the sale of jesus is conducted via endorphin rush but his defense taken quite out of the realm of the feelings that brewed him and conducted tortuously over impossible ground. 

Please some theist tell me whether I'm meant to be in love with jesus or am simply meant to believe he is a remote possibility, maybe, given the difficulty of arguing the non-existence of anything that's conceivable?

Who is this creature and what constitutes the actuality, the essence, of the 'faith'?

Is my relationship with jesus meant to be built on fallible, selfish, human love? Is love really the central pivot of the entire universe, and god its embodiment? Is the heart of god-ness as self serving as love can often be?

And if this personal relationship with jesus is taking place not on some equation-covered chalkboard in our heads, but in our mind's feeling centres, then surely it is subject to the rules of the brain structures and chemical balances that govern

feelings? If fortitude feels after long consideration there's no god and that god is a human concept without actual form or function, then that works perfectly well for me.

Feelings have a way of projecting truths the sub conscious has uncovered through a long, quiet process of sifting. 

And before you point your pistols of logic at me tell me - who is it that you theists love? An equation? A possibility? Or do you love, in your feeling places, the foot-bathing, god-man you believe died for you?

I don't think that is the point.  The point is if you were going to create an environment for your children to grow up in from (edit: from scratch), it would not include random and horrible ways to die or be maimed purely by chance.  Would it include challanges?  Yes.  Would it include consqequences?  Yes.  Would you let them make there own mistakes?  Yes.  Would you let them make fatal mistakes, if they really, really asked for it?  Possibly.  Would you let them make small mistakes that resulted in fatal consequences?  Probably not.  Would it include eye cancer because of genetic predisposition?  No.  Would you make a random sampling of your children be born with hideous birth defects that killed them slowly when they were toddlers?  No.

This is great if you are arguing for a deistic God who doesn't care about people.  It fails when arguing for a personal God who has an interest for an individual though.

Arguing that God is not responsible for the creations of his creations also abandons the idea of onmiscience.

  fortitude I am profoundly impressed by your counter-arguments and your reasoned responses.  Btw, I am an accidental atheist.  I was formerly a fundamental Christian who looked much too closely at my religion and I did not like what I saw.  The loss of my faith was not celebrated; my religious faith was my support system and I had inadvertently stripped myself of the very thing that had given me hope.   Objectivity does not always lead one to a desirable outcome.

  I am so glad that you have joined us. 

Also, Fortitude and others, very moving stories, thank you for sharing.

Also, this is the best thread I have seen on this forum so far.

For most people, the consequence for learning that god is either not completely benevelent or not all powerful is a gradually waning interest in god.   

Roasting in the lake of fire I doubt we would any of us agree with this statement, that an all loving heavenly father would logically give us a free choice in the face of so much complexity and confusion, with so much collateral damage guaranteed.

This is a future akin to an eternal holocaust.

A lobotimised all-good existence where we can do no wrong? Sounds a bit like heaven to me...

 Edit: Illiteracy

1. You miss the point.  It is not about freedom of choice.  Choice has nothing to do with childhood lukemia.  You keep ignoring or misinterpreting the point we are making.  See my response to Furry.

2/3. An omniscient, omnipotent God is responsible for what his creations do because they respond the way they do based on the initial conditions it created.  An omnipotent being could have created a world where the only evil happened as a direct result of personal choice...if that were the case, the system would be fair to some degree.  The fact that a persons subjective happiness is largely the results of random, unguided circumstance is why your result fails for a personal God.  Even if 99% of people had good, fair lives, 1% are going to have shitty, short, miserable lives simply because of their genetics or place of birth.  A benevolent God could not create a system where a human life could be spent on nothing but pain and misery through no fault of human action.  The fact that you did not understand what I meant does not mean I am using a strawman argument.  Maybe you need more wisdom?

4. Naturally we need wisdom to understand the overwhelming intellectual superiority of your position.  Your snide responses are letting your dogma peek out.  I have not seen a rational reason from you about why random, horrific suffering is a requirement for free will.  I accept that free will means consequences and so does everyone else here.  Again, see my response to furry, and again, if you let go of omni claims this is not an issue.  Maybe God just doesn't care about human suffering?  That would solve the dilemma handily.  Why would God care anyway?  In a universe as large as ours I imagine there are other things to spy on at least as interesting as human morality plays.

This has come up before...the simplest explanation is simply that God does not exist.  If you start with that idea, the only problem you have is where the universe came from and God does not help with that one anyway.  Let go of God and the universe actually makes sense, even if it is not a comforting reality.