Could A Good God Permit So Much Suffering?

[Into the Night]

I agree.
Why the mathematical laws and constants of physics exist and where they come from is a philosophical question.

Nope. A natural constant in any law of physics is simply there to convert the relation to our units of measurement.

We can describe how the Higgs field makes the existence of atomic matter possible. But we can't explain why the Higgs field exists, and where it comes from.

So?

 

[Into the Night]

Yes it does. It's the faith of physical materialism.

Atheism has no faith. The term 'physical materialism' is redundant. Buzzword fallacy.

 

[Cypress]

Nope. A natural constant in any law of physics is simply there to convert the relation to our units of measurement.

So?

Anytime you claim I am wrong, I know I'm on the right track.

I'll be worried if I ever end up on the same side as you.

 

[Cypress]

Atheism has no faith. The term 'physical materialism' is redundant. Buzzword fallacy.

You obviously have not watched any of the numerous podcasts and debates of professional atheists available on youtube.

To a man and woman, their faith is materialism and physical reductionism.
They believe we are meat robots dancing to the tune of genes, and they believe that all of reality and existence can be explained by the motion of electrons and subatomic particles.

 

[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

god has repeatedly demonstrated his wrath.

and has even apologized with new covenants.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. One's religion is not because of any rational basis.

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.

Attempting to PROVE a religion True is the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

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.

 

[Into the Night]

Complexity and function in the case of single eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells, and free will, sentience, conscience, and moral agency in sentient organisms.

The whole reason philosophy, psychology, and genetics exist as fields of scholarship is because people universally recognize a profound distinction between inert chemicals and complex biological life.

Random words. No apparent coherency. Mindless babble is saying nothing. This kind of BS only shows how illiterate you are.

 

[Into the Night]

Loch Ness monster and Big Foot are based largely on well known hoaxes and fabrications, not on logical deduction.

Nothing about either the Loch Ness monster or Big Foot violate any logic, even if they are hoaxes.

The cosmological argument and the teleological argument are based on reasonably sound and rational logical deductions, even if there is debate about how compelling they are.

Random words ignored.

Your claim was that religious belief is irrational.

Yes, he made that claim. It is incorrect. Religious belief is completely rational and does not defy any logic at all.

 

[Into the Night]

It absolutely is. You just need to learn what "irrational" means.

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.

ALL religions are based on the Argument of Faith. That is simply a circular argument. By itself that is not a fallacy, and so is reasonable.
If you try to PROVE a religion True, you have left reason and have committed the Circular Argument fallacy.

It is not possible to prove any scientific or nonscientific theory True.

Religions are based on nonscientific theories, which are circular arguments, or arguments of faith, by nature.

 

[Into the Night]

First, Kant is an idiot. However, Kant argues that existence is NOT a predicate.

Mere existence may or may not be a predicate, depending on the use of that item.

Example: the presence of oxygen in the air is a predicate to your ability to breath (the conclusion).

Second, the 'ontological argument' was already shown to be bad logic by Aristotle. To exist is not proof of exist by necessity.

It is by necessity. The equation is ?A->A. This is also known as the proof of identity.
If something exists, it is proof that it exists.

 

[Into the Night]

Nothing you wrote explains how inert chemicals spontaneously create cells, and how cells go to sentience, conscience, free will, moral agency.

Again, this is why I had to step back from atheism. It's too big a leap of faith for me to just wave a wand and just say that human consciousness and experience is just the result of the motion of electrons.

Atheism makes no such claim of belief. Atheism is not a religion.

 

[Into the Night]

You obviously have not watched any of the numerous podcasts and debates of professional atheists available on youtube.

Atheism is not a profession. Atheism is not YouTube. Atheism is not a religion. It does not require any faith since it makes no claim of faith (it presents no circular argument).

To a man and woman, their faith is materialism and physical reductionism.

Random words ignored.

They believe we are meat robots dancing to the tune of genes, and they believe that all of reality and existence can be explained by the motion of electrons and subatomic particles.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. You only get to speak for you.
Remaining random words ignored.

 

[Into the Night]

god has repeatedly demonstrated his wrath.

and has even apologized with new covenants.

God apologizes?? To do so would be to admit to an error. He therefore would not be God. The Bible describes God to be perfect.

 

[Into the Night]

So it sounds like in the absence of a clear direct line from individual carbon atoms to full-fledged llama you would propose....what?

To hold a belief in the Theory of Abiogenesis also tends to hold to the belief of the Theory of Evolution (that present day life evolved from 'more primitive' forms). This question has already been answered by believers of Abiogenesis.

Think about something like RNA. RNA is not DNA but it can function very much like it in terms of transcription and copying.

DNA is copied to an RNA form in a cell to create a molecule for that cell, since RNA drives the molecule manufacturing machinery in a cell.
DNA is more resilient than RNA, since it structure is a more stable one.

I think we'd both agree those are key functions of life. But that transcription is nothing more amazing than lining up hydrogen bonds. That's it. RNA codes for proteins by basically being a "negative" of a given protein. The protein is built up of amino acids which are SELECTED by whether they will "stick" via hydrogen bonds to one of the bases on the RNA molecule. Literally nothing more than just matching.

There are few problems with that oversimplification.

The relevant strand to construct that molecule has to be selected from the entire strand of DNA to make that RNA snippet. There is no known mechanism for how that happens.

Cells respond to various triggers. There is no known mechanism for how that happens or how it causes a cell to manufacture a particular molecule or perform some other function. Even the triggers are largely unknown (oh, a few are, but it's really groping in the dark here!).

A cell is as complex as a city. We know almost nothing about it. The little we do know is rising to a tad above zero.

 

[Into the Night]

I think all natural laws can, eventually, be explained.

Redundant, Sybil. A theory of science by itself IS an explanation.

Why they exist is a different matter.

Someone came up with the theory. It's really pretty simple, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

Anytime you claim I am wrong, I know I'm on the right track.

Bulverism fallacy. Attempted proof by Stone.

I'll be worried if I ever end up on the same side as you.

There is no 'side', in a theory of science, Sybil.

 

[Based Chad]

To hold a belief in the Theory of Abiogenesis also tends to hold to the belief of the Theory of Evolution (that present day life evolved from 'more primitive' forms). This question has already been answered by believers of Abiogenesis.

DNA is copied to an RNA form in a cell to create a molecule for that cell, since RNA drives the molecule manufacturing machinery in a cell.
DNA is more resilient than RNA, since it structure is a more stable one.

There are few problems with that oversimplification.

The relevant strand to construct that molecule has to be selected from the entire strand of DNA to make that RNA snippet. There is no known mechanism for how that happens.

Cells respond to various triggers. There is no known mechanism for how that happens or how it causes a cell to manufacture a particular molecule or perform some other function. Even the triggers are largely unknown (oh, a few are, but it's really groping in the dark here!).

A cell is as complex as a city. We know almost nothing about it. The little we do know is rising to a tad above zero.

even the way a muscle contraction works is still just a theory.

 

[Based Chad]

You obviously have not watched any of the numerous podcasts and debates of professional atheists available on youtube.

To a man and woman, their faith is materialism and physical reductionism.
They believe we are meat robots dancing to the tune of genes, and they believe that all of reality and existence can be explained by the motion of electrons and subatomic particles.

and it's very stupid.

and leaves most important topics unaddressed.

really its just to empower spergy deep state genocide scientists to also pervert our morality.

 

[Into the Night]

and it's very stupid.

and leaves most important topics unaddressed.

really its just to empower spergy deep state genocide scientists to also pervert our morality.

Random words. No apparent coherency. Go learn English.

 

[Based Chad]

Random words. No apparent coherency. Go learn English.

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