Confessional

Quote: FrGamble

It is a fundamental argument and a good one. Why would an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing God permit evil to exist? It is not logical of course or rational, but it is a powerful emotional argument.

It is a fundamental argument and a good one. Why would an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing God permit evil to exist?

>> It is not logical of course
It is perfectly logical.
>> or rational,
Nothing about it seems depraved or absurd or irrelevant, perfectly rational.

>> but it is a powerful emotional argument.
ONLY the graphics are emotional, the mere text is in no way emotional at all.
Any more than why is the ocean salty or the sky blue the casino owner rich.

Quote: Fleastiff

the sky blue the casino owner rich.

Craps is a religion

Quote: Fleastiff

It is a fundamental argument and a good one. Why would an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing God permit evil to exist?

>> It is not logical of course
It is perfectly logical.
>> or rational,
Nothing about it seems depraved or absurd or irrelevant, perfectly rational.

It's not logical or rational because the conclusion doesn't follow the premises. The existence of evil does not necessarily mean that God is not Omni anything.

Quote: Evenbob

I would
also accept god if I stumbled across him.
Still waiting.

You see statements like this one go against your rabid and foolish claim that there is definitely no God. You are not being consistent. I can't remember how often you have boldly proclaimed for no reason at all and without any evidence that there is no God, that He is nothing but a fairly tale. Yet now you say you would accept God if you stumbled across Him? Make up your mind, are you an agnostic or an atheist.

Quote: FrGamble

You see statements like this one go against your rabid and foolish claim that there is definitely no God. .

Surely they teach irony in seminary. I was being ironic:

'deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result.'

Example of irony: The Titanic was 100% unsinkable, yet sank on it's maiden voyage.

Another example: An atheist saying he will hunt for god when he believes god does not exist.

Quote: Fleastiff

It is a fundamental argument and a good one. Why would an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing God permit evil to exist?

>> It is not logical of course
It is perfectly logical.
>> or rational,
Nothing about it seems depraved or absurd or irrelevant, perfectly rational.

>> but it is a powerful emotional argument.
ONLY the graphics are emotional, the mere text is in no way emotional at all.
Any more than why is the ocean salty or the sky blue the casino owner rich.

I lack a good analogy for describing the effort of pointing out logical inconsistenies in religious beliefs.

If you have an all-knowing god, can you have free will? They tell us yes.
In heaven, you are incapable of sin because you are in the presence of god, but again you still have free will, even though you now lack any desire to sin.
Why do we need the free will to sin on earth, but not in heaven?
How is being in the presence of god in heaven different from being in the presense of god on earth? Isn't he everpresent? Are there places where god is less present or absent entirely?
Why, if it is possible to have a place where we have free will and no desire to sin, that we do not have that on earth?
Why do some people think that the lack of a promise of eternal reward through heaven, such as posited by the theory of reincarnation, rob one of hope by thinking that you will be reliving the hell that is this earth over and over again?
Why do they think god's perfect creations are so awful?
Can god make mistakes? Can an all-knowing all-powerful being who sees the future as he sees the past make a mistake, be surprised, or take some action that he regrets?
No, the "problem of evil" is a perfectly logical and rational question when contemplating the existence of god.

A logical conclusion you can draw from these inconsistencies, why god does this or not this, is that there is no god, at least no god as conceived of and written down by humans. This is logical and philosophical evidence.

Quote: FrGamble

You have nothing, no evidence, no logic, or reason behind your ridiculous claims and so you must resort to begging the question or exploiting our emotions to arrive at your conclusion.

This has been driving me crazy for months, but I've never been able to parse the idea down into a clean, easily digestible idea. And I still haven't lol. But it needs be said, so I suppose I'll just wade in.

In short, the analogies used in these arguments are, in my opinion and what I aim to address here, completely faulty. I provide the next argument for your consideration.

See, we talk about this like a legal case, and I've no problem with that. They're similar, it's a good analogy. But this is the way I see it...

What we're discussing is a "case". We know "something happened" as evidenced by us existing. It's much like a court case where we know "something happened" as evidenced by a dead body or pile of drugs. The question we aim to answer is the who/what/how.

In this analogy, you, Mr Preacher Man, are the prosecutor. It is your claim that this "something that happened" has an answer, and your answer is Catholicism. And, exactly like the prosecutor, the onus is on YOU to provide evidence to its truth.

Everyone with me? Everyone agree? I'm glad that you do.

Where this analogy completely falls off the rails is the repeated challenge for Team Atheist to supply their evidence.

My argument is that Team Atheist is not the prosecutor. They cannot be. In keeping with the analogy, Team A is the jury.

We have no evidence because we bring no case. What we are is an unmoved jury. We have heard cases; the Catholicism case, the Buddhism case, the Scientology case, and in all these cases, we, the jury, have no had the evidence to convict. That's it.

Would Team Atheist agree with this? That's how I feel, anyways. Every time I hear "Where's your evidence", it's like a dental pick on my spine. It just grates so bad, because it's just so incorrect. It'd be like issuing a "not guilty" verdict and having the prosecutor challenge you to supply who really dunnit, and if we couldn't, then we must convict. S#$% just don't work that way.

Does this make sense? Can anyone poke holes in my argument?

Quote: Face

Does this make sense?

It makes perfect sense.

It's not effingly obvious that a) the universe was created, b) there is some sort of deity of any kind, c) any miracles ever happened anywhere.

Therefore any claims to any of the above require proof. A refusal to believe base don absent or insufficient evidence does not require proof that these things are not so.

Quote: Face

TWe have no evidence because we bring no case. What we are is an unmoved jury. We have heard cases; the Catholicism case, the Buddhism case, the Scientology case, and in all these cases, we, the jury, have no had the evidence to convict. That's it.

Reading your analogy, it reminds me of these political contests where one or the other will get up and wave their trained hands or make fists or point a finger to raise or lower the emotions of the audience with the cadence of their speech. The pols and the priests have similar business models, and they all want your money. So they can do whats best for me.
How can you not love that?

Quote:

Can anyone poke holes in my argument?

I can't poke holes but I can poke fun, how would that work?

Quote: Face

Does this make sense? Can anyone poke holes in my argument?

I agree, except Buddhism has no god in
their religion. It's more about living the
right way and being in harmony with life.

Christians always ask atheists to prove there
is no god because they know they can't.
How do you prove a negative. The very
question will confuse some atheists and
have them floundering around feeling worried
that they might be wrong because they
can't prove god doesn't exist. This delights the
Christians and they think it makes their case. It
doesn't because they're just floundering around
too, with no real evidence.