Today Mung claimed of TSZ that
I see mocking of Christianity, what I don’t see are arguments that Christianity is false.
As the regulars here (including Mung) know, this is bollocks. There have been many such arguments, and Mung has fled from a number of them.
I replied:
You see plenty of them [arguments against Christianity], but you’re in denial.
Want to test that hypothesis? Start a thread asking for arguments against Christianity. You’ll get an earful.
He got cold feet, so I am starting the thread for him. I’ll provide some arguments in the comments. Feel free to add your own or to cross-post or link to old OPs and comments, if you can’t be arsed to reinvent the wheel for Mung’s trollish sake.
Mung’s fellow Christians are welcome to come to his aid. He’ll need all the help he can get.
There is no evidence for there to be a preponderance of. You might as well claim that since the number of hypothetical bad tastes are “obviously” outnumbered by the hypothetical good tastes, that this is somehow “evidence” for a taste god. You somehow don’t notice that evil isn’t an objective term, that reasonable people disagree, that a hypothetical determination of evil acts is pulled purely ex rectum, and that 42 angels dance on a pinhead according to the evidence!
I’ve never quite understood this problem. My take is, stuff happens that people dislike, and some people propose a supernatural agency that is supposed to prevent this stuff, and since it happens anyway, that agency prevents it poorly. Or is the problem that, GIVEN such an entity, then what some people dislike isn’t “evil” at all, it’s just their personal misconception?
According to Paul, an entity (at the time unnamed) descended from the highest to the lowest levels of heaven (never all the way to earth), took on human form to trick Satan into killing him, so that he could be resurrected and returned to the top level as the messiah.
However, I understand that Christians don’t follow Paul’s teachings, but rather a composite of the writings of others. So we get to the REAL problem of evil, which is that proposing any sort of interested god is the entire source of the whole dispute. Eliminate that, and reality looks normal again.
I had been vaguely aware of the problem of evil, even purchased a few books on it. But as a Christian I never saw it as a particular cause for concern for me personally, as a Christian, for reasons already stated in this thread.
While I was aware of many of the OPs by keiths I found it difficult to take them seriously, because they lacked any serious argument.
But now we’re on the evidential problem of evil and I’d like to give a tip of the hat to keiths for finally motivating me to look further into the subject. Of course, that flies right in the face of the claim that Christians never challenge their beliefs or are afraid to do so. but that’s another of those claims that I tend to not take seriously because I don’t see how it applies to me personally.
According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Evidential Problem of Evil asks us to “put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God.” And once we do this, “it becomes unlikely, if not highly unlikely, that the world was created and is governed by an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good being.”
I’m serious. This is the argument that keiths is relying on. We need to “put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God.”
Mung, now:
Mung, then:
Your incompetence is spectacular, Mung.
keiths: Dog ate baby head. Evidence that God does not exist.
Mung: Dog did not eat baby head. Evidence that God does exist.
keiths: My argument requires that you put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God.
Mung: So your argument is a probabilistic argument only in the sense that it assigns a probability of zero to the existence of God.
keiths: You don’t understand my argument, you can’t possibly understand my argument, you’ll never understand my argument.
Mung: Sure. Whatever you say. You’re the logical one.
Mung:
I can’t tell if this is genuine stupidity or whether you’re just being a pedantic ass and pretending not to see the connection between omnibenevolence and the existence of the Christian God.
In either case: Yes, Mung you need to defeat the argument against God’s omnibenevolence.
You can’t, obviously.
And yet, in spite of my incompetence, or perhaps even because of my incompetence, I’ve managed to expose the vacuous nature of your argument.
Let me quote the IEP again:
FFS keiths, your argument is vacuous.
spank spank spank
just utter the safe word keiths
Mung,
I am not the IEP. I did not write those words. If you want to argue with the IEP, fine. If you want to argue with me, then you’ll have to address my argument, not the IEP’s.
FFS, indeed. What are you, a third-grader?
Flint,
Here’s how I explained it in an earlier thread:
I’m all that I need to be. Given that your arguments don’t rise above grade one I think that grade three is sufficient.
The IEP makes clear statements about the evidential problem. This is in clear contrast to your own failure to to do likewise. Given your failure to state your argument, I have to rely on other sources. So the author(s) of the IEP article failed to anticipate your argument.
I’d love to address your argument. What is your argument?
Look, Mung, all this discussion is accomplishing is to establish that you are
a) incompetent; and
b) dishonest.
But everyone knew that already. The coffin lid has long since been nailed shut, and any further banging is superfluous.
The more interesting question is whether intelligent Christians can come up with a viable defense against the evidential problem of evil, not whether you can. Given your performance in this thread, you also can’t be trusted as an interpreter of intelligent Christians, such as van Inwagen and Plantinga — plus it wouldn’t be fair to saddle them with you.
I’ll think about whether it’s worth it to engage you further on this topic — I have to admit that it’s been amusing to see you fume at your continued failure — but I’m leaning toward removing the incompetent middleman and dealing with the arguments of van Inwagen, Plantinga, etc., directly.
Was that ever in doubt?
Everyone?
keiths is once again reduced to flailing. The IEP article is clear. It’s not my fault that keiths is wrong.
It’s hilarious really.
That’s not my logic at all. I’m not saying that you should become a Christian because the logical problem of evil has been defeated. I’m saying you should look elsewhere if you what to make an argument that Christianity is false.
With these kinds of things all you can do is gather all the evidence you have and weigh it.
When it comes to the earth the evidential approach asks that we weigh sensory impressions against things like satellite imagery . The conclusion we come to will depend on the relative weight we give the competing evidences
When it comes to Christianity the evidential approach asks we weigh the presence of evil against the arguments for the Christian God’s existence. The conclusion we come to will depend on the relative weight we give the competing evidences.
We can never falsify an idea with this approach
however……….
We can make a logical argument that a Flat earth is false by pointing out that it is logically impossible to travel directly west and arrive at the place you started if the earth is flat and showing that such a thing is possible on the earth we inhabit.
Therefore we have demonstrated that a flat earth is false
Do you see the difference?
peace
Look, keiths, all this discussion is accomplishing is to establish that you are
a) incompetent; and
b) dishonest.
But everyone knew that already.
The alleged problem of evil has been dealt with for centuries. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Did you know that if you put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God, it becomes unlikely, if not highly unlikely, that the world was created and is governed by an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good being?
What kind of evidential argument does that make room for? Have I been giving atheists too much credit? Not that keiths is the IEP mind you.
By setting aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God?
It’s a simple question keiths. Are we allowed to include evidence that supports the existence of God or not?
for sure 😉
There are lots of atheists who are thoughtful some even post here.
Typically they are not the ones who beat their chest and crow about how they can prove that Christianity is false.
peace
The Flat Earth Society FAQ has an answer for that.
Is this the logical problem of a round earth or the evidential problem of a round earth?
I did not see an answer to the logical problem on that website. Maybe I’m missing something
peace
Patrick:
Interested readers may also want to listen to this recent interview with Flat-Earther Mark Sargent.
h/t Woodbine
If you have an answer to the logical problem of a round earth why not just post it here and save us some time wading through the irrelevant evidential noise.
peace
Mung,
Of course, doofus. A rational person will consider all of the available evidence when evaluating an evidential question.
And I’ll bet the author(s) of the IEP article would agree, and that you’ve simply misunderstood him/her/them, or are quote-mining in typical Mungian fashion.
What evidence do you have to offer in favor of the Christian God that outweighs the enormous negative evidence highlighted by the problem of evil?
What would count as evidence for the Christian God?
Please be specific
peace
You are the one making the argument you need to provide the evidence that you have and explain why it is outweighed by the existence of evil
I haven’t even heard you say what would count as evidence for you.
This evidential approach thingy is a lot more involved than you apparently understand
peace
fifth:
What are you babbling about? I think the earth is round, and my belief is based on — you guessed it — evidence.
It’s a probabilistic argument.
Scientific facts are merely empirical truths with extremely high probabilities. This is news to you?
Probably both. 🙂
You beat me to it, sort of. 🙂
But at times it seems we’re going in circles. I asked keiths this (what counts as evidence) up thread but don’t think he ever answered. I also gave him a specific example and asked him about it. At least we now now that we’re allowed to consider evidence for the existence of God and not just evidence that purports to be evidence against the existence of God. Progress, of a sort.
It would seem to follow, would it not, that I don’t have to make a response to each of his instances of an evil? Like, for example, why he thinks that each instance is an instance of evil.
Speaking of which, in at least one case his argument seems to be that in that particular case, it’s evil because no normal person would stand by and let it happen. So in my thinking, every normal person is evidence for the existence of God. 🙂
I didn’t see it either. I don’t think you missed anything. But I have problems with reading comprehension. So I could be answering a question you didn’t even ask. How would I know.
Sure. But we’re talking about you.
I offered a logical argument not an evidential one
Premise 1) if the earth was flat you could not travel due west and wind up where you started
Premise 2) On earth you can travel due west and wind up where you started
conclusion ) the earth is not flat.
It’s not probabilistic it’s definitive and certain
peace
IEP
I don’t really want to read more of the Flat Earth Society stuff because it’s possibly the only material I’ve found that’s more irrational than religious apologetics, but their argument appears to be that when you are traveling west, you’re actually following a circular path on a flat Earth that returns you to your starting point.
IEP (cont.):
Another question I don’t think keiths ever answered. Whether his evidence is objective evidence.
So the response is to claim that there is no such thing as due west? If so then we can modify the logical syllogism thusly
Premise 1) The relational concept of “west” exists
Premise 2) if the earth was flat you could not travel due west and wind up where you started
Premise 3) On earth you can travel due west and wind up where you started
conclusion ) the earth is not flat.
The argument still definitive and still certain. Nothing probabilistic at all
peace
Sure enough, Mung has been flailing away at a straw man. I skimmed the IEP article, and the author, Nick Trakakis, fully acknowledges the need to look at competing evidence for God’s existence as well as evidence against:
It’s unclear whether the strawmanizing was due to dishonesty on Mung’s part versus mere stupidity, but either way he got it completely wrong.
It’s a shame. Look at how close Mung was to orgasm:
Idiot.
fifth, having missed the point completely, is now off “proving” that the earth is not flat.
Dear God,
If you exist, please send some intelligent Christians who can actually demonstrate that fact.
Thanks,
keiths
In your worldview what would count as evidence for God’s existence?? Be specific
peace
Lots of things would count as evidence in favor of the existence of the Christian God.
Some examples:
1) Christians, and only Christians, run around bringing the dead back to life, simply by praying. No one else can do it.
2) All copies of the Q’uran, the Guru Granth Sahib, the Upanishads, etc., spontaneously combust, and the only scriptures left on earth are copies of the Christian Bible.
3) Every time someone tries to change a word of the Christian Bible, a lightning bolt comes down from heaven, restoring the text.
4) Christians produce a slew of mind-boggling answers to scientific, mathematical, and philosophical problems that have evaded solution for decades or centuries. No one else does anything remotely comparable. When asked how they come up with their answers, the Christians reply, “Jesus reveals them to us.”
Wouldn’t you agree that those would count as evidence on the “for” side of the ledger?
Premise 2 is false.
None of those would count as evidence for the Christian God. Most would directly contradict Scripture.
But it is enlightening to see that you are looking for exactly the wrong sort of evidence. With this approach it’s no wonder you are so confused
peace
elaborate please and I can modify the argument as needed
Are you talking about how the surface of a cylinder can roll back on itself?
I’m reasonably sure that is not the kind of flat the flat earthers have in mind
peace
keiths, in his skimming, fails to mention that the article actually says it more than once!
And I don’t even have to work at it!
fifth:
Bullshit.
But if you truly believe that, you’re welcome to get off your ass and actually supply some positive evidence, so that we can see how it stacks up against the overwhelming negative evidence highlighted by the problem of evil.
I sense that you’re a bit short on evidence, considering that you resort to presuppositionalism.
Those who have evidence for their beliefs are able to provide it. Those who don’t, presuppose.