Your answer is also one generated by human cognition. If you are saying that all products of human cognition are faulty, then you and your arguments fall into that category. As such, they can be dismissed as easily as you dismiss mine- including the one in which you state human cognition is faulty. — Chany
Completely missing the point there: I do not accept that the human mind is so faulty to the point of inability to generate arguments. I am saying your stance is self-defeating. — Chany
There is a difference between leaving the possibility for error and claiming that something is unjustified — Chany
If you you do not trust the mind's ability to make sound judgments to any degree, then we are left in a permanent state of agnosticism on everything. — Chany
A thought, even a possibility, can shatter and transform us....Friedrich Nietzsche — TheMadFool
I think everybody, even non-philosophers, understands your point. So much so that it needn't be explicitly stated. — TheMadFool
Now that this avenue of attack is out of the way, please explain what is wrong with my argument regrading the failure of the child analogy — Chany
I'm trying to solve the problem of evil, in effect making god's existence compatible with evil. It all rests on the possibility that there's nothing impossible about us, our thinking, being wrong. — TheMadFool
I understand that global skepticism is impractical but look at the issue. It is of universal importance - what if there is a creator, a god? It would change everything: the way we conduct ourselves, the way we think, etc. Therefore, it is wise to entertain this doubt, this skepticism. In this case even the tiniest of possibilities is very significant. — TheMadFool
Given the hard facts above wouldn't it be utter hubris and foolish to boot to claim one can understand god's mind? — TheMadFool
The possibility has to be a reasonable one worth considering. — Chany
What you are effectively asking for is special pleading in the case of the existence of God — Chany
what is wrong with my analysis of the child analogy as faulty? — Chany
What would be the basis to even begin making any claims about a god's mind? Where are we getting any information about it from? — Terrapin Station
So maybe the evil is required for some greater good? — Mongrel
Yes, may be. — TheMadFool
The stakes are high in this one. The truth/falsity of god is crucial to what we value, how we live our lives. Doesn't this make it reasonable (your words) to reconsider the possibility no matter how small? — TheMadFool
You're committing the fallacy of accident. This is a special case and so must be given due respect. — TheMadFool
You haven't yet convinced me that I should ignore the simple possibility that we and our reason could be mistaken. — TheMadFool
But does my analogy refute the problem of evil? — TheMadFool
The problem of evil is that God is supposed to be simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
Saying God moves in mysterious ways solves the problem of evil if it means there is no evil. — Mongrel
I understand that global skepticism is impractical but look at the issue. It is of universal importance - what if there is a creator, a god? It would change everything: the way we conduct ourselves, the way we think, etc. Therefore, it is wise to entertain this doubt, this skepticism. In this case even the tiniest of possibilities is very significant. — TheMadFool
If the Lord moves in mysterious ways is presented for consideration as a solution to the problem of evil, I would assume that what's meant is that an evil action is a stepping stone to some greater good.Why would it mean that? If it's a mystery, then wouldn't that just mean that that's possible, but we don't know? — Sapientia
What would be the basis to even begin making any claims about a god's mind? Where are we getting any information about it from? — Terrapin Station
So you're giving up omnibenevolence because (as I think BC mentioned) evil is evil. I think I understand where you're coming from, it's just psychologically precarious to say "This evil is for a greater good" because that can feed a longing to rationalize your own evil actions. I think Wosret made that same point. I'm just chiming in. — Mongrel
My reply is that evil that cannot be prevented/avoided has divine purpose. Not all evil. Those which we can prevent/avoided should be prevented/avoided. God (if he exists) has empowered us enough to prevent some forms of evil but not all. — TheMadFool
unless it was revised to a wishy-washy sometimes it leads to a greater good. — Wosret
If the Lord moves in mysterious ways is presented for consideration as a solution to the problem of evil, I would assume that what's meant is that an evil action is a stepping stone to some greater good. — Mongrel
The way that would work out in practice is that some mother whose child was murdered by a policemen might be told that her grief is inappropriate because unbeknownst to her, it's all working out for the best. So that would solve the problem of evil because it would mean there is no such thing as evil. — Mongrel
No I'm not giving up on omnibenevolence. I'm giving up on human ability to comprehend god. — TheMadFool
So it becomes insignificant and impotent in this form. — Wosret
So, you're not giving up on omnibenevolence, but you're not committed to it either. Otherwise, that'd be inconsistent with your second sentence. — Sapientia
That's probably what he had in mind. — Sapientia
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.