Evidence for God from Science

Echoside wrote:

Byblos wrote: So please define suffering outside of those parameters outlined by PaulSacramento.

I'm sure the Bible speaks for itself in terms of morality

Are you being sarcastic? I really can't tell because if this was an attempt at answering then I'm not following.

Byblos wrote:

Echoside wrote:

Byblos wrote: So please define suffering outside of those parameters outlined by PaulSacramento.

I'm sure the Bible speaks for itself in terms of morality

Are you being sarcastic? I really can't tell because if this was an attempt at answering then I'm not following.

Your initial question didn't make any sense. Any parameters of morality outside of Christianity have no bearing on the argument.

Echoside wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:For someone to have issues with suffering they must have a reason to believe suffering to be what?
Unjust? Unfair? Incorrect?
Where would that view come from?

The argument itself has no presumptions of what morality should be other than what Christianity outlines. One does not need to have issues with suffering to make the argument.

If suffering is an issue, why is it an issue?
Do you feel that we ought NOT to suffer? that suffering is somehow wrong? and if so, why do you feel that way?

Echoside wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Echoside wrote:

Byblos wrote: So please define suffering outside of those parameters outlined by PaulSacramento.

I'm sure the Bible speaks for itself in terms of morality

Are you being sarcastic? I really can't tell because if this was an attempt at answering then I'm not following.

Your initial question didn't make any sense. Any parameters of morality outside of Christianity have no bearing on the argument.

So you weren't being sarcastic, you were simply attacking a strawman. I didn't ask you anything about morality, I asked you to define suffering without resorting to morality. If anything I am taking morality out of the equation and asking you to define suffering from that angle.

PaulSacramento wrote: If suffering is an issue, why is it an issue?
Do you feel that we ought NOT to suffer? that suffering is somehow wrong? and if so, why do you feel that way?

Unwarranted suffering would probably be the issue. And that leads up to morality in the context of the argument.

Byblos wrote:
So you weren't being sarcastic, you were simply attacking a strawman. I didn't ask you anything about morality, I asked you to define suffering without resorting to morality. If anything I am taking morality out of the equation and asking you to define suffering from that angle.

Suffering's relation to morality is the whole point of the argument. Taking it out of the equation and attempting to pin it on the atheist as to why suffering is wrong without a standard to hold it to does nothing to undermine the argument, which attacks the consistency of Christian theology and real world application. Proponents of the argument do not need to define suffering, it is the Christian's definition that matters.

Echoside wrote:

Byblos wrote:So you weren't being sarcastic, you were simply attacking a strawman. I didn't ask you anything about morality, I asked you to define suffering without resorting to morality. If anything I am taking morality out of the equation and asking you to define suffering from that angle.

Suffering's relation to morality is the whole point of the argument. Taking it out of the equation and attempting to pin it on the atheist as to why suffering is wrong without a standard to hold it to does nothing to undermine the argument, which attacks the consistency of Christian theology and real world application. Proponents of the argument do not need to define suffering, it is the Christian's definition that matters.

I have no idea what that means.

Here's what you said:

Echoside wrote:I disagree, the argument for suffering does not need to make a case for morality in order to show how a belief system is inconsistent with it's own interpretation.

This is your claim. I'm asking you to show how this is true.

Byblos wrote: Here's what you said:

Echoside wrote:I disagree, the argument for suffering does not need to make a case for morality in order to show how a belief system is inconsistent with it's own interpretation.

This is your claim. I'm asking you to show how this is true.

I honestly have no idea how to make it more clear. It's not really a claim, just a logical fact.

I may not have the answer to a complex math problem , for example, but I can certainly point out how another proposed solution is false.

Echoside wrote:

Byblos wrote: Here's what you said:

Echoside wrote:I disagree, the argument for suffering does not need to make a case for morality in order to show how a belief system is inconsistent with it's own interpretation.

This is your claim. I'm asking you to show how this is true.

I honestly have no idea how to make it more clear. It's not really a claim, just a logical fact.

I may not have the answer to a complex math problem , for example, but I can certainly point out how another proposed solution is false.

If it's a logical fact surely you can construct a syllogism to show its validity and truthfulness. But whatever ...

Echoside wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: If suffering is an issue, why is it an issue?
Do you feel that we ought NOT to suffer? that suffering is somehow wrong? and if so, why do you feel that way?

Unwarranted suffering would probably be the issue. And that leads up to morality in the context of the argument.

Byblos wrote:
So you weren't being sarcastic, you were simply attacking a strawman. I didn't ask you anything about morality, I asked you to define suffering without resorting to morality. If anything I am taking morality out of the equation and asking you to define suffering from that angle.

Suffering's relation to morality is the whole point of the argument. Taking it out of the equation and attempting to pin it on the atheist as to why suffering is wrong without a standard to hold it to does nothing to undermine the argument, which attacks the consistency of Christian theology and real world application. Proponents of the argument do not need to define suffering, it is the Christian's definition that matters.

Well, Christianity doesn't see a "conflict" with suffering and morality, not only do we have the argument of free will ( Some choose to inflict suffering on others and even themselves),w e also have the argument that suffering CAN serve a purpose, be it to drive people to help others or to bring people together, etc.
But it seems that you are asking can there be a moral justification for suffering, not just any suffering but "unwarranted" suffering?
That is your issue, correct?
I am not sure what "unwarranted suffering" is, but I assume you mean when "innocents" suffer? or one a person suffers for "no fault of their own" ?

PaulSacramento wrote: not only do we have the argument of free will ( Some choose to inflict suffering on others and even themselves),we also have the argument that suffering CAN serve a purpose, be it to drive people to help others or to bring people together, etc.

my point exactly.

PaulSacramento wrote:But it seems that you are asking can there be a moral justification for suffering, not just any suffering but "unwarranted" suffering?
That is your issue, correct?
I am not sure what "unwarranted suffering" is, but I assume you mean when "innocents" suffer? or one a person suffers for "no fault of their own" ?

Nope I have no issues whatsoever with biblical reconciliation of apparent wrongdoings by God.



Again let us examine what you have said

PaulSacramento wrote: And that is the issue isn't it?
To make a case for suffering one must make a case for it existing and why it exists, which brings us to the issue of morals and an absolute morals.
And Darwinisim doesn't answer that issue, it actually goes against it in many aspects ( evolution is silent on the matter of morals).

For anyone to have to believe in suffering and have issues with it's existence, one must accept that there is something wrong with suffering and if that is the case, why and why do we believe that it is so?

The atheist does not need to make a case for suffering/morality/etc. on his own terms, it is not the atheist's worldview that is being challenged here. I am by no means a supporter of the "problem of evil" variants, but the question is best answered by things like what you've said before. Free will, etc. Going on the offensive and challenging the atheist's views on morals does nothing to the argument itself.

The atheist does not need to make a case for suffering/morality/etc. on his own terms, it is not the atheist's worldview that is being challenged here. I am by no means a supporter of the "problem of evil" variants, but the question is best answered by things like what you've said before. Free will, etc. Going on the offensive and challenging the atheist's views on morals does nothing to the argument itself.

When an atheist brings up the issue of suffering as a counter to God's existence then, indeed, the atheist MUST make a case to WHY God existing and suffering existing somehow "cancel" each other out.
The problem of evil is NOT a Christian worldview since for a Christian evil isn't a "problem" and is explained in various ways, as is suffering.
The issue seems to be that IF God exists and IF God is ominpotent, then he CAN and SHOULD "get rid" of evil and/or suffering and is he doesn't that means his is "dispicable" or he is NOT omnipotent or he doesn't exist, right?
isn't that how the argument generally goes?

BUT to even GET there, we must admit that we are JUDGING God and with what basis are we judging God?
Morals of course.
So the question must be asked and answered:
On what moral grounds is evil or suffering or God's lack of "fixing those problems", Wrong?

PaulSacramento wrote:
When an atheist brings up the issue of suffering as a counter to God's existence then, indeed, the atheist MUST make a case to WHY God existing and suffering existing somehow "cancel" each other out.

Yes, using Christian terms. This is a key difference that needs to be addressed.

PaulSacramento wrote:The problem of evil is NOT a Christian worldview since for a Christian evil isn't a "problem" and is explained in various ways, as is suffering.
The issue seems to be that IF God exists and IF God is ominpotent, then he CAN and SHOULD "get rid" of evil and/or suffering and is he doesn't that means he doesn't exist, right?
isn't that how the argument generally goes?

Yes, but you have to understand the Christian worldview is under attack here, so the atheist seeks to test the validity of Christian teachings with the qualities of God advocated like "omnipotence" as you stated. The atheist is of course arguing that if the two don't logically fit together than God doesn't exist.

PaulSacramento wrote: BUT to even GET there, we must admit that we are JUDGING God and with what basis are we judging God?
Morals of course.
So the question must be asked and answered:
On what moral grounds is evil or suffering or God's lack of "fixing those problems", Wrong?

Christianities morals, specifically. Using a different set of morals to evaluate the validity of Christianity is absurd. The question is entirely irrelevant, demanding another system of morality when it is your system that is being checked for inconsistencies is simply avoiding the question.

Yes, but you have to understand the Christian worldview is under attack here, so the atheist seeks to test the validity of Christian teachings with the qualities of God advocated like "omnipotence" as you stated. The atheist is of course arguing that if the two don't logically fit together than God doesn't exist.

The atheist argument is invalid because the Christian viewpoint, that as you say is under attack here, says that God may indeed have a reason for suffering, as such, God being omnipotent and suffering existing do indeed logically fit together.
God's omnipotents is defined by God doing anything the is logicaly possible for God, God can't make a round square or a married bachelor for example, but that in no way dimenishes his omnipotence.

Christianities morals, specifically. Using a different set of morals to evaluate the validity of Christianity is absurd. The question is entirely irrelevant, demanding another system of morality when it is your system that is being checked for inconsistencies is simply avoiding the question.

If I read you correctly, you are evaluating Christian morals based on Christian morals, correct?

PaulSacramento wrote:If I read you correctly, you are evaluating Christian morals based on Christian morals, correct?

That's exactly the problem, we STILL don't know what he's arguing.

What is unwarranted suffering? Example.

Christianities morals, specifically. Using a different set of morals to evaluate the validity of Christianity is absurd.

Maybe you should tell that to the atheist. It seems you are proposing a challenge to believers that is actually a problem for the atheist.