Bennito_bh t1_iwjads1 wrote on November 16, 2022 at 1:18 AM

Reply to comment by baileyjn8 in The Solution of Evil by baileyjn8

We don’t disprove things though. You cannot disprove the existence of a flawless pink teapot floating in the asteroid belt, but that doesn’t mean anything. The burden of proof is not on the ‘legions of heathen internet trolls’, it is on those claiming a positive - ie the existence of benevolent deity. The PoE provides people like yourself the opportunity to answer its question. Nothing more.

baileyjn8 OP t1_iwk4dcr wrote on November 16, 2022 at 5:33 AM

This has nothing to do with the failure of the problem of evil to disprove the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. You are aware that’s what the problem of evil is, right? It’s an effort to disprove God. It fails.

Bennito_bh t1_iwk6hwy wrote on November 16, 2022 at 5:56 AM

Oh boy.

iiioiia t1_iwlsn8l wrote on November 16, 2022 at 4:17 PM

> The burden of proof is not on the ‘legions of heathen internet trolls’, it is on those claiming a positive - ie the existence of benevolent deity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) > > > > The burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position. > > > > Shifting the burden of proof: One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.

It's interesting how the mind executes "logic" depending on the topic of discussion.

Bennito_bh t1_iwlz9ah wrote on November 16, 2022 at 5:02 PM

PoE: There is an extraordinary amount of evil and suffering in the world. How can that fact be reconciled with the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent deity?

OP: We don’t know the reason there is evil, but we can assume it is necessary. You must prove it isn’t necessary or I’m right.

See how that works?

iiioiia t1_iwm3tgn wrote on November 16, 2022 at 5:33 PM

> See how that works?

How you avoided the content of my comment? Yes, I do see how that works. One might think discussions in a philosophy subreddit might be above this, but one would be regularly disappointed.

EDIT: yet another pseudo-philosopher can't substantiate their claims so drops some snark and blocks the user so they can't reply. Maybe if mods did something about this this subreddit would become smarter over time.

> I responded directly to the content of your comment.

No, you did not.

> You are trying to apply something to one side of the conversation while ignoring what would happen if it were applied to both sides equally.

No, this is your imagination.

> This convo is going nowhere, but only because you are stopping it.

Says the person who blocked me so I can't reply to his comment.

Bennito_bh t1_iwm5qca wrote on November 16, 2022 at 5:46 PM

I responded directly to the content of your comment. You are trying to apply something to one side of the conversation while ignoring what would happen if it were applied to both sides equally.

This convo is going nowhere, but only because you are stopping it.