Afterlife and Pre-life

Arioch said:
@LG --

But empirical reasoning works, we have proof.
Click to expand...
But it doesn't, can't and won't work for transcendental claims (or any other claims that contextualize the very tools it uses to approach problems).

That's why citing it as sufficient to invalidate such claims is nothing more than blindly following whatever one feels is right.
 
lightgigantic said:
That's why citing it as sufficient to invalidate such claims is nothing more than blindly following whatever one feels is right.
Click to expand...

No it's not.

You can't prove to me that there is a God that cares about me anymore than I can prove to you that there is no God. But then again, it is not possible to prove a negative so the burden of proof lies at the hands of the one making the positive claim.
 
pluto2 said:
No it's not.

You can't prove to me that there is a God that cares about me anymore than I can prove to you that there is no God. But then again, it is not possible to prove a negative so the burden of proof lies at the hands of the one making the positive claim.
Click to expand...
it also depends on bringing the right tool to the job.

For instance citing the inability of a tape measure to evidence a claim of temperature invalidates it no more than citing an empirical shortcoming in coming to speed with a claim about god
 
spidergoat said:
What is your evidence that your problem is beyond evidence?
Click to expand...
I didn't say that.

I said that it was beyond the capacity of empiricism to ever hope to begin to approach.

Doing so simply makes it circular.

"If there was something beyond the mind and senses an investigation with the mind and senses would have revealed it by now"
 
@LG --

Alright, suppose for the moment that I grant that empirical science isn't the "right" tool for the job. What is the right tool for the job? And why does it work better than empirical science?
 
The problem of evil contradicts the existence of any God.

There are people starving to death in Africa and in other economically poor countries and God does nothing to help these people which means that God does not give a shit about human life and is probably an immoral God.
 
@pluto2 --

Not true, the problem of evil still allows for evil gods, uncaring gods, dead gods, and benevolent but powerless gods.
 
Arioch said:
@pluto2 --

Not true, the problem of evil still allows for evil gods, uncaring gods, dead gods, and benevolent but powerless gods.
Click to expand...

So what you are basically saying is that the defintion of what a "God" is is mostly subjective and that it can mean a lot of things to different people and that there is no proof that any objective, all-agreed upon God exists.
 
Last edited:
Arioch said:
@LG --

But empirical reasoning works, we have proof.
Click to expand...

lightgigantic said:
On the contrary, its nonsense to bring empiricism to the fore to answer the problem since it demands an answer that lies well outside what it could ever hope to tackle
Click to expand...

Arioch said:
@LG --

Alright, suppose for the moment that I grant that empirical science isn't the "right" tool for the job. What is the right tool for the job? And why does it work better than empirical science?
Click to expand...

Even ordinary empiricism "works" for claims that are sometimes considered "transcendental."
The crux of the matter is that one would have to be a very precise and consequent empiricist to realize this.
 
Arioch said:
Not true, the problem of evil still allows for evil gods, uncaring gods, dead gods, and benevolent but powerless gods.
Click to expand...

Only if we are grossly inconsistent and omit large areas of our experience and reasoning.
 
pluto2 said:
So what you are basically saying is that the defintion of what a "God" is is mostly subjective and that it can mean a lot of things to different people and that there is no proof that any objective, all-agreed upon God exists.
Click to expand...

Are you able to discern whether there is or isn't anything that is objective and all-agreed-upon?
 
In reality there are probably about as many definitions of "god" as there are theists.

@wynn --

Only if we are grossly inconsistent and omit large areas of our experience and reasoning.
Click to expand...

True, my list was hardly comprehensive. It was really only meant to show that the problem of evil is really only an argument against an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god, and it's one that theologians and philosophers still haven't come up with an adequate answer for.
 
Arioch said:
True, my list was hardly comprehensive. It was really only meant to show that the problem of evil is really only an argument against an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god, and it's one that theologians and philosophers still haven't come up with an adequate answer for.
Click to expand...

Of course they have:
Hindu answers to the problem of evil are different from most answers offered in Western philosophy, partly because the problem of evil within Hindu thought is differently structured than Western traditions, mainly Abrahamic traditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil_in_Hinduism
Click to expand...
 
@wynn --

The hindu gods and goddesses hardly meet the qualifiers I specified, and neither does the being that they(according to some hindus) emanate from. Neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent, thus your rebuttal is invalid.
 
@wynn --

Karma doesn't meet those qualifiers either. It's neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent, thus it can't be the god addressed by the problem of evil.

Remember that I never said that the problem of evil was a knockdown argument against all types of gods/forces/higher powers. I said that the problem of evil only addresses the existence of omnipotent and omnibenevolent gods. If one or both of those properties aren't present then the being in question isn't addressed by the problem.

How many more times are you going to make me reiterate this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top