Submitted by baileyjn8 t3_yw817y in philosophy
Ok_Meat_8322 t1_iwiy7om wrote
Reply to comment by baileyjn8 in The Solution of Evil by baileyjn8
So in other words, the only version of the problem of evil you're familiar with/are attempting to resolve is the one that philosophers don't actually talk about anymore?
This makes your "not having read much more than their Hitchens book" comment rather unfortunate (and amusing).
baileyjn8 OP t1_iwk4pti wrote
After reading the Stanford article linked, I understand this to be a completely different issue than the one I’m addressing, and yes, it’s ridiculous on its face and throughout.
Ok_Meat_8322 t1_iwmyhvy wrote
>and yes, it’s ridiculous on its face and throughout.
What exactly is "it" referring to here?
baileyjn8 OP t1_iwnauaj wrote
The inductive presentation of the problem of evil. Like, the existence of evil doesn't disprove God, as my article shows, but the existence of a LOT of evil is supposed to PROBABLY disprove God? Like, how stupid can you be? And notice all of the assumptions made in that Stanford link. There's just so much evil and no use for evil! Well, my post demonstrates that there is a use for evil.
It, the inductive presentation of the problem of evil, is just so stupid. It reduces the logical analysis of the issue to a tantrum. Like, evil doesn't disprove God, so let's just whine.
Ok_Meat_8322 t1_ix5uh3t wrote
This is sort of impressive; literally every single sentence in your post is the opposite of what is the case.
The inductive PoE is evidently not "stupid", since hitherto not a single apologist or theologian has been able to refute or rebut it- you yourself failed to even attempt to raise a single substantive objection to it. If it were stupid, you would (hopefully) be able to at least attempt a substantive counter. If neither you nor any professional apologist are unable to rebut a "stupid" argument, what does that say about your intelligence (spoiler; nothing good)?
Nor did you manage to show that "there is a use for evil", in a relevant sense, as it pertains to a tri-omni deity. And indeed, the inductive version of the argument circumvents the single effective counterargument against the traditional deductive version- the logical possibility that God could have a sufficient justification for allowing gratuitous suffering, even if we can't imagine what it could be.
So indeed, this "stupid" argument remains undefeated, and succeeds in establishing the non-existence of a tri-omni deity to a high degree of probability. Oops, eh? Live and learn, I guess.
baileyjn8 OP t1_ix736h6 wrote
Of course I rebutted it. Anyone who rebuts the problem of evil has rebutted the inductive problem of evil.
And don’t contradict yourself. Gratuitous suffering is a synonym for unjustified suffering.
Bennito_bh t1_iwj8t24 wrote
Honestly he lost me at ‘legions of heathen internet trolls’.
I’m here for philosophy, not blind dogma.
Ok_Meat_8322 t1_iwmxumk wrote
they definitely seem to be lacking in the self-awareness/sense of irony department
baileyjn8 OP t1_iwmjqj3 wrote
You actually come off kind of like a heathen internet troll, TBH.
Bennito_bh t1_iwmpcyy wrote
Sounds like you apply that label to most people.
I actually self-identify as a heathen, but I only moonlight as a troll.
baileyjn8 OP t1_iwna533 wrote
Most people on the internet, yeah, but that doesn't mean I'm not meticulously discriminating. It means that the internet population is what it is.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments