Problem of evil solved

[burningquestion14]

The rudimentary forms of life, if they had a brain to think, would much rather wish 'not to be' than 'to be' in such meaningless drudgery of existence.

I have often thought that an amoeba that divides asexually, if it had thoughts, would think, "I have an unfathomable amount of time to exist. I am my offspring! I am immortal! Hazzah!" Just a thought.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

It is things like this that makes me thing that being religious makes you retarded. I really didn't want to star of as confrontational, I understand that it is only human to make mistakes, and I do hope that you take something from this. But the argument is so bad, so out of touch with reality or any logical sense, that no one could have possibly take it seriously if not for the blind and misguided commitment to religious dogma.
The problem of evil is a simple observation of the real world that strikes at the heart of the trinity of properties that it is attributed to God, namely omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. Omnibenevolence being the perfect drive to eradicate all forms of suffering, if we couple that with the ability and know how, if such a being were to exist then no suffering should. Period. This refutation does not aim to descredit the property of omnibenelovence in particular, but to force the theist to throw out at least one of the properties of the omni trinity if they are to account for suffering. Although the "problem of evil" is called a "problem", is actually a bullet proof refutation for which there can be no possible solution given the observation suffering does indeed exist. The only way to save this, is if the theist were to demonstrate that suffering doesn't actually exist, that suffering is nothing more than an illusion, fortunately most theists don't go that low in the denial of reality (and unfortunatly more than zero still do).
To put it into another perspective, let's say that the reason for suffering is X, then I would ask, "couldn't there be X without suffering?" if the answer is yes, then out goes omnibenevolence, if the answer is no then out goes omnipotence.
So, if you claim to have a solution to the problem of evil which doesn't deny the existence of suffering and does not contravene any of the omni trinity properties associated to God, then you can know for certain that it is absolute crap even before hearing it.
This should be sufficient to throw it in the bin even before addressing the actual arguments (which as you will see takes allot less effort to do).

Now let's play close attention to the actual argument. And the actual argument is, "God couldn't do away with suffering or else we couldn't experience bliss or conscience". And whit this the theist has shot himself in the foot as he actually picks one of the alternatives presented by the problem of evil while at the same time still denying that the problem of evil is a threat to his world view. Namely the theists has presented as an argument an example of what God couldn't do (get rid of suffering and still have conscious and bliss) and thus depriving it of its omnipotence.

And in a paragraph, the argument rests in a pile of rubble.
And this without pointing other problems, like the fact granting conscious and bliss is a secondary priority when it comes to properties attributed to your God when it compares to the elimination of suffering bit embodied by the omnibenevolence aspect. Or the fact that a large number of the population of the world is born into gratuitous misery and strife, knowing only suffering and misery without ever experiencing bliss, while other people are born with a silver spoon in hand and never knows misery. Thus making the argument not only a logical flop, it is a flop that goes against what we know about life.
And with this, you can abandon all hope of every recovering this argument, and notice the amount of text and effort required to do so.

 

[Breur9991]

It is things like this that makes me thing that being religious makes you retarded. I really didn't want to star of as confrontational, I understand that it is only human to make mistakes, and I do hope that you take something from this. But the argument is so bad, so out of touch with reality or any logical sense, that no one could have possibly take it seriously if not for the blind and misguided commitment to religious dogma.
The problem of evil is a simple observation of the real world that strikes at the heart of the trinity of properties that it is attributed to God, namely omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. Omnibenevolence being the perfect drive to eradicate all forms of suffering, if we couple that with the ability and know how, if such a being were to exist then no suffering should. Period. This refutation does not aim to descredit the property of omnibenelovence in particular, but to force the theist to throw out at least one of the properties of the omni trinity if they are to account for suffering. Although the "problem of evil" is called a "problem", is actually a bullet proof refutation for which there can be no possible solution given the observation suffering does indeed exist. The only way to save this, is if the theist were to demonstrate that suffering doesn't actually exist, that suffering is nothing more than an illusion, fortunately most theists don't go that low in the denial of reality (and unfortunatly more than zero still do).
To put it into another perspective, let's say that the reason for suffering is X, then I would ask, "couldn't there be X without suffering?" if the answer is yes, then out goes omnibenevolence, if the answer is no then out goes omnipotence.
So, if you claim to have a solution to the problem of evil which doesn't deny the existence of suffering and does not contravene any of the omni trinity properties associated to God, then you can know for certain that it is absolute crap even before hearing it.
This should be sufficient to throw it in the bin even before addressing the actual arguments (which as you will see takes allot less effort to do).

Now let's play close attention to the actual argument. And the actual argument is, "God couldn't do away with suffering or else we couldn't experience bliss or conscience". And whit this the theist has shot himself in the foot as he actually picks one of the alternatives presented by the problem of evil while at the same time still denying that the problem of evil is a threat to his world view. Namely the theists has presented as an argument an example of what God couldn't do (get rid of suffering and still have conscious and bliss) and thus depriving it of its omnipotence.

And in a paragraph, the argument rests in a pile of rubble.
And this without pointing other problems, like the fact granting conscious and bliss is a secondary priority when it comes to properties attributed to your God when it compares to the elimination of suffering bit embodied by the omnibenevolence aspect. Or the fact that a large number of the population of the world is born into gratuitous misery and strife, knowing only suffering and misery without ever experiencing bliss, while other people are born with a silver spoon in hand and never knows misery. Thus making the argument not only a logical flop, it is a flop that goes against what we know about life.
And with this, you can abandon all hope of every recovering this argument, and notice the amount of text and effort required to do so.

Thanks for actually addressing the key argument.

 

[Deleted member 619]

The problem of evil was solved yonks ago.

The POE is an argument against an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity. Since omnipotence is impossible, and omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive (with due caveats already stated), where's the problem?

There can be no deity to solve the problem of evil and, since evil itself rests upon the existence of a deity, the entire argument is fucked.

Frankly, the real problem is that people don't see through this intellectually challenged bollocks.