Questions for the pixelated poster who knows he'd be a more moral god than the One in Whom I believe, at least with regard to one and only one subject

The Pixie

Well-known member
I don't think God created the world yesterday (not least because I don't think he exists), and don't generally believe the word was created yesterday (and reject all comparable sceptical scenarios). I think these scenarios are extremely unlikely.
What is the probability of that? You say it is "extremely unlikely", so you must have some way to determine the probability, right?

Otherwise, you are in the same situation as me.
 

Lucian

Active member
What is the probability of that? You say it is "extremely unlikely"...
The answer to your question is right here.
...so you must have some way to determine the probability, right?
I've no idea why you would think this would follow, but admittedly I'm not fully clear on what you mean.
Otherwise, you are in the same situation as me.
No, insofar as I don't endorse the contradiction you've adopted hitherto, namely "in each we case we have insufficient data to determine probability, and yet in each case I think we can still say what is likely".

I note that the pertinent question in my prior post was omitted.
 
Last edited:

The Pixie

Well-known member
The answer to your question is right here.
Where?

I've no idea why you would think this would follow, but admittedly I'm not fully clear on what you mean.
You are claiming it is "extremely unlikely", therefore you must have a way to determine the probability.

"If we can't assess the probability, then you can't say what's likely on the evidence."

Your words, not mine. Personally, I have no problem saying it is extremely unlikely, even though we cannot properly access the probability.

No, insofar as I don't endorse the contradiction you've adopted hitherto, namely "in each we case we have insufficient data to determine probability, and yet in each case I think we can still say what is likely".
So then you can tell me how you determined it is "extremely unlikely" God created the universe two days ago, right?

I note that the pertinent question in my prior post was omitted.
I will get to that, once we have established how you assess the probability for God creating the universe two days ago. To me, the two situations are the same in this respect.

Edited to add: I should make clear that the scenario I am talking about is God creating the universe recently, rather than at a specific time. I appreciate you could argue that God could have created the universe at any point in the last decade, say, and the probability of that being at a specific moment on Friday is very small. The scenario I am discussing is God creating the universe recently, and giving us false memories, etc.
 
Last edited:

Lucian

Active member
I will get to that, once we have established how you assess the probability for God creating the universe two days ago. To me, the two situations are the same in this respect.
But that's the topic of the discussion (the problem of evil), so I'm going to need to see more justification for pursuing further a (rather tedious), not obviously related, digression than "the two situations are the same in this [what?] respect".

What does my assessment of the probability that radical scepticism is false have to do with your assertion that "it is likely there is no good reason for an all-powerful, perfectly good god to allow kids to die of cancer"? And why is exploring the former a precondition for you explaining how you arrived at the latter? Help me out!
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
But that's the topic of the discussion (the problem of evil), so I'm going to need to see more justification for pursuing further a (rather tedious), not obviously related, digression than "the two situations are the same in this [what?] respect".

What does my assessment of the probability that radical scepticism is false have to do with your assertion that "it is likely there is no good reason for an all-powerful, perfectly good god to allow kids to die of cancer"? And why is exploring the former a precondition for you explaining how you arrived at the latter? Help me out!
As far as I can see, we are both in the same situation; me with my claim that there is no reason for God not to prevent childhood cancer and you with your claim that God did not create the universe at some point in the last decade.

We both think our position is very likely, and yet neither of us have a good way to assess the probability.

That does not bother me. It seems to bother you when I do it, but not when you do it.
 

Lucian

Active member
As far as I can see, we are both in the same situation; me with my claim that there is no reason for God not to prevent childhood cancer and you with your claim that God did not create the universe at some point in the last decade.

We both think our position is very likely, and yet neither of us have a good way to assess the probability.
Okay: so your position is that it’s “likely there is no good reason for an all-powerful, perfectly good god to allow kids to die of cancer”, and when asked about why you think this, your reply is that you have no good way to assess the probability, but this just seems obvious to you (or similar).

I mean, that’s fine, as far as it goes, but it pretty much torpedoes the problem of evil as an atheological enterprise, which is to say it fails.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Okay: so your position is that it’s “likely there is no good reason for an all-powerful, perfectly good god to allow kids to die of cancer”, and when asked about why you think this, your reply is that you have no good way to assess the probability, but this just seems obvious to you (or similar).

I mean, that’s fine, as far as it goes, but it pretty much torpedoes the problem of evil as an atheological enterprise, which is to say it fails.
It fails to prove God does not exist, but it does make it very unlikely, even less likely than there is a good reason for an all-powerful, perfectly god god to allow children to die of cancer.

Which is pretty much what I said in my first post to you.
 

Lucian

Active member
It fails to prove God does not exist, but it does make it very unlikely, even less likely than there is a good reason for an all-powerful, perfectly god god to allow children to die of cancer.
No, it fails to do that, too, as you've expressed it. For you've admitted that while there's a problem to you, you can't show there's a problem to anybody else.
 

Furion

Well-known member
Hitler killed around six million Jews in the Holocaust over about five years. In 2018 - just one year
The rough estimate would be about 100 billion humans have died throughout history. That doesn't bode well for the current 7 billion.

I would think that in your God quest you might want to limit the amount of humans ever born. Let alone cats or rabbits. Will there still be snow in your special universe? I suppose I wouldn't need gloves because I would never get cold, or frostbite. It really sounds like you need to redo this universe. Too many complications.
See the figure above. Geeeeez you atheists always think so small.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
The rough estimate would be about 100 billion humans have died throughout history. That doesn't bode well for the current 7 billion.
What is your point? Do you think God should stop all suffering?

Christianity claims he can do that; in heaven there is no suffering or death. We know God could prevent suffering and death if he wanted to (and Christianity is true); he chooses not to.

He chooses to let a kid die of cancer every three minutes.

I would think that in your God quest you might want to limit the amount of humans ever born. Let alone cats or rabbits. Will there still be snow in your special universe? I suppose I wouldn't need gloves because I would never get cold, or frostbite. It really sounds like you need to redo this universe. Too many complications.
And yet Christianity claims all this is possible. It is odd your argument seems to be founded on the impossibility of heaven.

See the figure above. Geeeeez you atheists always think so small.
So your argument is that God is great because he is killing billions rather than millions? Can you talk me through your thinking here?
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
It fails to prove God does not exist, but it does make it very unlikely, even less likely than there is a good reason for an all-powerful, perfectly god god to allow children to die of cancer.

And yet I gave you an example in which a good reason could very well be, with regard to cancer in an adult, e.g. my wife. If your answer to that is disbelief in my personal experience, whether that disbelief be in the existence of God or in the truth of my reported experience, fine, but that hardly helps you case, based as it is on probability, unless all you have is your dime-a-dozen generic agnostic belief that there probably ain't no God. Or I guess you could say I'm probably lying.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
So your argument is that God is great because he is killing billions rather than millions?

So your argument is God is NOT great, since He didn't fix it so we could live forever in this screwed up world? Can you talk me through your thinking here?
 

Furion

Well-known member
What is your point? Do you think God should stop all suffering?
That's your idea I think, though you don't seem willing to explain it well.
Christianity claims he can do that;
You claiming something is worthless at this point, you can't defend what you've already claimed.
And yet Christianity claims all this is possible.
All I see is some argumentative atheist claiming things, you've proven nothing.

If you want to build a case of what scripture teaches, do that.

If you just want to claim things without proof, then continue on.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
And yet I gave you an example in which a good reason could very well be, with regard to cancer in an adult, e.g. my wife. If your answer to that is disbelief in my personal experience, whether that disbelief be in the existence of God or in the truth of my reported experience, fine, but that hardly helps you case, based as it is on probability, unless all you have is your dime-a-dozen generic agnostic belief that there probably ain't no God. Or I guess you could say I'm probably lying.
Without man's free will being involved? Like, "ZAP! Instant joy?" She us where "Christianity" claims that
So your argument is God is NOT great, since He didn't fix it so we could live forever in this screwed up world? Can you talk me through your thinking here?
Every time I reply to your posts, my post gets deleted. If you want to believe I screwed up, you go for it stiggy. I will not waste my time any further with you.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
That's your idea I think, though you don't seem willing to explain it well.
No I never said said.

I said God would stop childhood cancer, if he really exists, given he is all-good and all-powerful.

I earlier said:
Christianity claims he can do that; in heaven there is no suffering or death. We know God could prevent suffering and death if he wanted to (and Christianity is true); he chooses not to.
You claiming something is worthless at this point, you can't defend what you've already claimed.
Are you saying I am wrong about heaven? Do you believe there is suffering in heaven? Do you believe there is death in heaven?

Or is this another time you will disagree by insinuation, and then just play at evasion for the next dozen posts? Given you snipped the bit in bold above from the quote you were responding to makes me confident it is the latter. And that got dull fast. Go play on your own.
 

Furion

Well-known member
No I never said said.

I said God would stop childhood cancer, if he really exists, given he is all-good and all-powerful.
So where is your evidence for your claim?
Are you saying I am wrong about heaven?
What do you know of heaven? Where is your evidence?
Do you believe there is suffering in heaven? Do you believe there is death in heaven?

Or is this another time you will disagree by insinuation, and then just play at evasion for the next dozen posts? Given you snipped the bit in bold above from the quote you were responding to makes me confident it is the latter. And that got dull fast. Go play on your own.
Hey pal you make claims, support them.

You keep blabbering about what Christianity and God teach, I figure you can support what you claim. Will you?
 
Top