Could A Good God Permit So Much Suffering?

[Based Chad]

As J. L. Mackie (1955, 200) formulated the so-called logical problem of evil:

God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists. There seems to be some contradiction between these three propositions, so that if any two of them were true the third would be false. But at the same time all three are essential parts of most theological positions: the theologian, it seems, at once must and cannot consistently adhere to all three.

Could A Good God Permit So Much Suffering? A Debate

As J. L. Mackie (1955, 200) formulated the so-called logical problem of evil: God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists. There seems to...

ndpr.nd.edu

but more importantly, why do women pretend they're not whores?

 

[Into the Night]

you'll get the jist of reading soon enough, little tadpole.

It's not my fault you don't understand English, NoName.

 

[IBDaMann]

Religion by itself is rational. All religion is based on an initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. The circular argument, also called the Argument of Faith, is NOT a fallacy. It is not a paradox. It is completely rational.

Your sentiment is spot on, but your terminology is not. Religion is irrational, which does not mean that it is wrong or that it is somehow overly emotional. It simply means that it does not have a rational basis, i.e. no science or math, but rather a circular argument. Again, this does not make it wrong, it simply precludes a rational basis.

I totally understand the hesitation to refer to a religion as "irrational" because of the popular/common connotation that comes with that word, but in this case, "irrational" simply refers to the underlying basis, saying that it is not science (or math). You cannot demonstrate your underlying circular argument. Of course, you don't have to, but no one's religion has an underlying rational basis.

Attempting to PROVE a religion True is the circular argument fallacy.

Yes, but there is a huge difference between someone engaged in a fallacy (which is not what I am claiming) and someone simply without a rational basis for his belief (which is the case when it comes to religion). Your religion, for example, simply is what it is, and it is not falsifiable, ergo it is not rational.

Examples of such fundamentalism are of course the Church of Global Warming, the Church of the Ozone Hole, the Church of No God, the Church of Green, etc.

These religions are like Christianity in that they are not rational, but unlike Christianity, they are riddled with fallacies.

 

[IBDaMann]

The word 'rational' first entered the English lexicon around the late 1300's. Stemming from Latin 'rationalis', it means something belonging to reason or is reasonable. The prefix ir- negates the meaning.

Yes.

ALL religions are based on the Argument of Faith.

Exactly, not based on any demonstrable combination of science and math.

That is simply a circular argument.

You are totally correct, i.e. a circular argument and not a rational argument of science and math.

By itself that is not a fallacy, and so is reasonable.

It is not a fallacy, correct. You don't get to declare any circular argument as rational; science and math make that declaration.

 

[Into the Night]

Your sentiment is spot on, but your terminology is not.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

Religion is irrational,

It is completely rational.

which does not mean that it is wrong or that it is somehow overly emotional.

Irrelevant.

It simply means that it does not have a rational basis,

Yes it does. It violates nothing in logic.

i.e. no science or math,

There is more to the world than science and math.

but rather a circular argument.

By itself that is not a fallacy. It is rational on that basis.

Again, this does not make it wrong, it simply precludes a rational basis.

A circular argument by itself is not a fallacy. It is rational to make circular arguments. Indeed, every theory begins so, even theories of science.

I totally understand the hesitation to refer to a religion as "irrational" because of the popular/common connotation that comes with that word, but in this case, "irrational" simply refers to the underlying basis, saying that it is not science (or math). You cannot demonstrate your underlying circular argument. Of course, you don't have to, but no one's religion has an underlying rational basis.

Yes it does.

Yes, but there is a huge difference between someone engaged in a fallacy (which is not what I am claiming)

That therefore makes it rational.

and someone simply without a rational basis for his belief (which is the case when it comes to religion). Your religion, for example, simply is what it is, and it is not falsifiable, ergo it is not rational.

It is rational. Being a falsifiable theory is not required for any theory to be rational.

These religions are like Christianity in that they are not rational,

Religions are rational.

but unlike Christianity, they are riddled with fallacies.

What religion are you speaking of? What fallacies?

 

[Into the Night]

Yes.


Exactly, not based on any demonstrable combination of science and math.


You are totally correct, i.e. a circular argument and not a rational argument of science and math.


It is not a fallacy, correct. You don't get to declare any circular argument as rational; science and math make that declaration.

A circular argument by itself is not a fallacy, and is completely rational.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes.


Exactly, not based on any demonstrable combination of science and math.


You are totally correct, i.e. a circular argument and not a rational argument of science and math.


It is not a fallacy, correct. You don't get to declare any circular argument as rational; science and math make that declaration.

No, they don't. LOGIC makes that determination. If it's not a fallacy, it's rational.

 

[IBDaMann]

No, they don't. LOGIC makes that determination.

Incorrect. A circular argument is valid but is not rational.

 

[Based Chad]

Your sentiment is spot on, but your terminology is not. Religion is irrational, which does not mean that it is wrong or that it is somehow overly emotional. It simply means that it does not have a rational basis, i.e. no science or math, but rather a circular argument. Again, this does not make it wrong, it simply precludes a rational basis.

I totally understand the hesitation to refer to a religion as "irrational" because of the popular/common connotation that comes with that word, but in this case, "irrational" simply refers to the underlying basis, saying that it is not science (or math). You cannot demonstrate your underlying circular argument. Of course, you don't have to, but no one's religion has an underlying rational basis.


Yes, but there is a huge difference between someone engaged in a fallacy (which is not what I am claiming) and someone simply without a rational basis for his belief (which is the case when it comes to religion). Your religion, for example, simply is what it is, and it is not falsifiable, ergo it is not rational.


These religions are like Christianity in that they are not rational, but unlike Christianity, they are riddled with fallacies.

there is a rational basis for it though.

it's a way to convince people of things but for a different reason than the real reason,

ask me more questions if you don't understand this amazing truth bomb.

morality and cooperation are smarter and better for us all, but you can't tell this to dumb hominids who are stuck in their primordial hate and violence frames.