No, because it begs the question.

You claim one cannot understand God's mind. Yet by saying so, you claim to understand an aspect of God's mind - it's apparent inability to be understood. — darthbarracuda

I can't understand what the problem is?

Perhaps some analogies will clarify:

I cannot understand Quantum physics (god).

I can't understand the theory of relativity (god).

I can't understand calculus (god).

In none of the above statements of fact (speaking for myself alone) will you conclude that NOT understanding is some form of understanding.

If so why are you accusing me of begging the question by claiming that not understanding god's mind is tantamount to understanding god's mind?

It doesn't prove anything definitively, it just shows that it's not entirely incoherent. — darthbarracuda

I agree.

I should ask, though, as you believe that God's mind is inscrutable, do you adhere to the notion that we cannot say what God's wishes and wants may be on any matter? — Arkady

Yes.

I'm not endorsing any religion. I'm only suggesting that caution is necessary in this matter.

Have you checked out Leibniz's solution? — Mongrel

No. Thanks

At the point rationality is completely thrown out the window, we can throw out the entirety of philosophy, science, and every other intellectual pursuit. — Chany

I'm not an extremist. At least not yet. Rationality has its uses and it is the most productive human tool ever. I just think its deficient in key respects when it comes to god.

Again, mere logical possibility is irrelevant to truth claims unless we are talking about deductive proofs (arguments that prove necessary truths or show logical contradictions and impossibilities). — Chany

Isn't the problem of evil (which I'm refuting) a deductive argument. If what you say is right (about the relevance of possibility in deduction) I'm on the right track.

Also to make matters clear let us take a legal example. Perhaps it'll drive the point home. A person is being charged with murder. It is then the prosecutor's solemn duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In other words there should not be a shadow of doubt that the accused committed the crime. Even the slightest possibility of innocence will affect the verdict. Our situation here is similar. I believe that the problem of evil leaves much room for doubt (on the nonexistence of god) because it elevates rationality (the judge) to that of an infallible authority which, you know, is wrong. To further elucidate my concerns about rationality we can take examples from quantum physics and even well known philosophical paradoxes - they are all instances of the inability of rationality to grasp these phenomena. And these are rather mundane matters compared to the mind of a god that can create a universe. How then can atheists be so confident, so dead sure, so definitive about god e.g. by relying on rationlity to deny god's existence. It perplexes me as it should you.

I have pointed out that the situation is not very analogous because a) the lack of ability of the parent to explain to the child is not present with God, b) the cognitive limitations that the person is supposed to have towards God should not be there without special reassurances from God about the very specific reasons he cannot reveal right now. — Chany

Your objections to my analogy are noted. They make sense to me. However my previous paragraph should suffice to answer your objections.

Christianity traditionally addresses evil with free will, by the way. — Terrapin Station

Of course that runs into the problem of evidently ''evil'' natural phenomena like quakes, hurricanes, fires, etc. Anyway, I don't want to go into that because my understanding of free will is not up to mark.

What is "the atheistic problem of evil"? — Terrapin Station

Isn't the problem of evil an atheistic argument in the sense that it refutes god's existence/greatness?

No. I'm just saying that if claims about a god's mind are solely based on what you're imagining, you're really just telling us about your own mind/your imagination. — Terrapin Station

I'm not claiming anything about god. I'm just playing on the chance that we may not have the right tools and/or our faculties may not be up to the task.
I feel the problem of evil is a good counter-argument to god. However, it is, at its heart, a rational argument and rationality itself has a rather shaky foundation. So the whole atheistic problem of evil becomes a self-defeating exercise.

Isn't it clear that that only provides evidence for claims about your own mind then? — Terrapin Station

Do you mean that other minds have a better, more complete understanding of the matter?

You're telling us something about what you imagine. Not what any putative gods are like. — Terrapin Station

All I want to say is rationality may be wrong about the whole god issue.

Ok

So after one gets half way, one continues on to the end. — Banno

But I'm summing the entire distance from A to B. The only difference is I'm moving a third of the distance now.

How do you explain that walking in thirds takes me only to the half-way point?

utilitarianism seeks the ultimate option that maximizes the overall happiness in society — musimusis

The assumption, given the words ''maximize'' and ''overall'' is that happiness can be quantified in a justified manner. This isn't the case. That even before we come to agree on what ''happiness'' has to do with morality.

Per utilitarianism good is what makes us happy. Its apparent simplicity and appeal to our subconscious instincts (''happy'') makes the idea sound reasonable. However I think the issue is far more complex than that. If good is only about happiness then a serial murderer on a killing spree is good since he's doing what makes him happy. This clearly shows there's more to being good than just happiness.

Another problem is the ''maximize'' and ''overall'' terms. It assumes we can quantify happiness in a meaningful practical way. I don't think that's possible. Also it commits the fallacy of appeal to majorit e.g. in ancient times the Carhthaginians performed child sacrifices and I'm willing to bet that the majority of Carthaginian folks thought the practice was at least acceptable. Yet child-sacrifice is unimaginable to modern sensibilities.

It's my hypothesis that morality is a rather novel meme that perhaps is only a few thousand years old. That's why morality is, at present and perhaps for a couple of thousand years ahead, engaged in the battle between ''what is'' and ''how it ought to be''. No surprise here. After all a cursory glance at nature shows that it is ''amoral'' - unconcerned by human concerns such as morality.

meaning any movement whatsover is impossible — Hanover

But we can move. We do it all the time.

We all know no belief system is ever air tight in all respects, so what is wrong with the atheist's perspective that there is no afterlife? How could it be false in a materialist sense? — intrapersona

To believe that there is no afterlife, as a failure of thinking, is equal in all respects to the belief that there is an afterlife. Both possess a certainty that is unwarranted.

To say that there is no afterlife is to put all your faith and trust in so-called materialistic philosophy. This is dangerous because it ignores ignorance. After all how much do we really know, stuck on a rock in a nondescript solar system floating around in an average galaxy in the vastness of space?

To say that there is an afterlife is to exaggerate on a mere possibility that there could be one; to blow things out of proportion; to take a possibility and turn it into a shaky truth/fact. If such a belief evidences anything it is our fear of the unknown and annihilation.

One problem with summation of the geometric sequence solution:

The half (1/2) is an arbitrary choice. I don't know if Zeno actually said ''half'' or not. Anyway the sum of the sequence 1/2, 1/4, 1/8,... IS 1.

However let us choose another fraction instead of half. Say one-third. That is to say before we reach from point A to pointB we have to reach one-third(1/3) of the way and before that 1/3 of 1/3 and so one.

The sum of 1/3, 1/9, 1/27, 1/81...sequence is NOT 1. It is half(1/2).

You can try that with other fractions too. The sum doesn't equal 1.

Therefore the paradox remains unresolved as far as math is concerned.

Too broad a definition?

Well, I think the domain of discussion is ''living things''. Does my definition make sense now?

I'm not referring to the deliberate and deceptive use of fallacies. Rabble rousers and sophists have employed dubious tactics using fallacies from times immemorial. In this regard the term fallacy is apt.

My concern is that so-called fallacies may not be real fallacies at all. Like in my example a deer may be saved by committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent thereby endorsing it as a valid type of reasoning.

No, rationality can't be irrational, since that'd be a contradiction in terms. — Sapientia

Yes

Obviously, you can't argue against rationality using rationality, because that'd be self-defeating, since it would necessarily amount to a performative contradiction. — Sapientia

Yes, you are right. However there's no contradiction as such. Simply a circularity: to evaluate rationality rationally you already endorse rationality. Implying therefore that rationality has no basis, no firm foundation. In other words rationality is irrational.
Why then are atheists presenting rational arguments e.g. ''the problem of evil'' and accusing theists of being irrational?

The simple fact that a branch bends towards the sun is not sufficient to prove the plant is conscious — Hanover

How do you define ''consciousness''?

For me something is conscious if said thing responds to its environment.

Once we decided arguments had limited scope we would rely less on them. — Andrew4Handel

And how do you come to that decision? You convince yourself through argument. Am I wrong?

If you can't comprehend the nature of God, then many of your claims relating to God in this discussion and others are unwarranted, — Sapientia

I'm only exploring the possibility of evil being compatible with god by questioning the authority of rationality. This I do because the atheistic approach to god is, to say the least, rational.

Atheists construct and present arguments that conclude by denying god's existence or diminishing god's greatness. In such behavior and certainty of claims there is an unseen, very important, extremely relevant assumption - that rationality is perfect and infallible.

It is this key assumption that I question. Isn't it fair ? Isn't it justified? Isn't it natural? The judge of rationality must be itself judged by the exact and stringent criteria that it imposes on others.

That's all I'm saying.

By the way, are you aware of how many times you've contradicted yourself in this discussion? On the one hand, you claim to be unable to comprehend god, and on the other hand, you make claims about the nature of god - sometimes implicitly (e.g. "evil that cannot be prevented or avoided has divine purpose") and other times explicitly (e.g. "God (if he exists) has empowered us enough to prevent some forms of evil, but not all"). Or have you just been playing devil's advocate? — Sapientia

I haven't contradicted myself. I only questioned the authority of rationality. You were there in the old philosophy forum. Surely you must remember how many times members expressed their fear of infallible authorities. I only ask you to extend the same care and caution towards rationality. Nothing more and nothing less.

If there's anything I've done it is put avery harsh and unforgiving judge (rationality) on trial. Isn't a judge fallible?

ok

Yes.

:) ok

So you believe space is infinitely divisible?

How do you know that?

Each step takes half the time of the previous step. There are an infinite number of steps, but they do not take forever. — Banno

You brought time into the picture. However that is really not the issue. If it is it is secondary. The key premise is the infinite divisibility of space. If space is indeed infinitely divivisble then motion would be truly impossible. Only after this is established can time enter the picture.

3. Zeno was wrong — Banno

I did conclude that Zeno started off with the wrong premise - that space is infinitely divisible.

Do arguments matter? — Andrew4Handel

I think they do. Otherwise why would you be arguing that it doesn't matter?

Yes, it suits my needs not to waste my time with someone who asks stupid questions that they should already know the answer to. Sorry. You'll have to find someone else. — Sapientia

Kindly shine the light of your knowledge and wisdom on me. I'd be grateful.

You're not so much following it, as questioning it to the point of ridiculousness — Sapientia

It was once ridiculous to say the earth is a sphere.

I think you have to draw the line somewhere. — Sapientia

Strawman. You draw the line where it suits your needs.

But if you can't answer that question yourself, then I'd rather not continue the discussion. — Sapientia

But I'm simply following your train of thought. Do you mean your thoughts and ideas are unworthy of discussion?

That is simply false. — tom

What do you mean?

I asked the question because that's the point where we parted ways. I thought we should look for some common ground from where to continue the discussion.

Let me repeat my question:

How do we distinguish a ''belief in something'' from the ''real thing''?

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

I'm keeping an open mind on the matter. I'm especially concerned with atheistic arguments which categorically deny the existence of god. There's an unwarranted surety about them that I find problematic. My opening post explains why.

So it becomes insignificant and impotent in this form. — Wosret

I'm only after the truth. If you think my train of thought leads to a bland or weak conclusion I accept these evaluations as your opinion on the matter.
Also, truth in and of itself is more potent, more significant, more relevant, more whathaveyou than anything else in this universe.

unless it was revised to a wishy-washy sometimes it leads to a greater good. — Wosret

You are free to make a value judgment on fact/truth as wishy-washy. However, it doesn't alter the truth/fact.

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

No I'm not giving up on omnibenevolence. I'm giving up on human ability to comprehend god.

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

For a being that can create the universe I only have my imagination to understand.

How do you distinguish fantasy from reality?