I wonder if the OP is correct on this one. Is the simple ''innatness'' of homosexuality truly used to justify it?

If yes then the OP is right - pedophilia too should be given the nod of approval. Either that or homosexuality is bad.

That said I feel drawing a comparison based solely on ''innateness'', therein claiming the lack of free choice on one's sexuality, is not the complete picture.

Homosexuality is innate. Therefore, by the OP's logic, comparing it to pedophilia, we should disapprove of it.
Homosexuality is innate. Therefore, comparing it this time to heterosexuality, it should get the nod of approval.

It seems that arguments based solely on innateness cut both ways. It can be used to justify and also to refute.

So ''innatness'' is not a good paramter of comparison for homosexuality issues. It leads to a contradiction.

My neighbor fell in love with my wife. Question, was it you?! :-O

There is also another class of gods that wasn't considered in the banner: an omnitemporal god - you can't exist in the past, present or future if you're timeless — NukeyFox

If you're saying I didn't think of it you're right. However, others have meditated on the issue and I believe there's a paradox or two in that assumption. Personally, I think it doesn't vitiate my theory that ''a'' god will exist in the future.

If the universe created god X and then god X created the universe, who started it all? If god X is the pinnacle of (objective) morality and existence, then how are we judging morality already without our 'measuring unit'? — NukeyFox

A circularity that doesn't affect my theory as my god is a future god. It didn't create this universe. It would be right to say the universe creates god. However once born it could create other universes.

Morality is a work in progress. I see no well defined end to the debates but suppose we do figure it all out in the future.

You see a big hurdle I am facing is to see myself as purely an object. If I am able to see myself as fully an object then yes, given this object is in good health it will still continue to exist for the near future.

However most people fully or partly see themselves as a soul or thinking thing just like Descartes. From this very natural viewpoint then is there any reason to suppose I will continue to exist? — Ephrium

Oh ok. The soul. The general conception of this term seems to be that
1. It is eternal
2. It is the real you
Doesn't 1 answer your question for you or do you have another definition of soul?

If you use something so alien and unnatural like just treat "you" as a mere body to explain there wont be many branches of philosophy such as philosophy of mind or phenomenology — Ephrium

You're right it does seem odd to equate person with just the body. But that's because of religion - it has influenced us so much for so long, to say nothing of the fact that it plays on our fears and insecurities. Personally I do think there's some element of truth in believing that ALL is not physical.

First let me see if I understand your argument:

You're using the fact that we can imagine as proof of the physical world. According to you we can only imagine things or combinations of attributes of those things that exist in the physical world. You provide an illustrative analogy in the blind man who, having never experienced vision, cannot even imagine the concept of color.

So, what you're saying is:

1. It is not possible to imagine things that don't exist in the physical world
2. If the physical world did not exist then it is possible to imagine things that don't exist in the physical world (IOW: If it is not possible to imagine things that don't exist in the physical world then the physical world exists)
Therefore,
3. The physical world exists

My question is how do you know premise 1 is true? Yes, your analogy of the blind man is good but I have doubts about whether it conclusively proves its point.

1. ''It is not possible to imagine things that don't exist in the physical world'' needs to be restated to reflect the truth of the matter. An examination of the statement reveals that an implicit assumption, unwarranted, is being made in the statement viz. the physical world exists.

For me the correct truthful statement is ''it is not possible to imagine things that have not been perceived''. This is accurate as it deletes the unwarranted assumption ''the existence physical world''.

Now we can review your argument again:

1. It is not possible to imagine things that have not been perceived
2. If it is not possible to imagine things that have not been perceived then the physical world exists
Therefore,
3. The physical world exists

We can now see that 1 is true but 2 is dubious as there's a possibility that our perceptions could be mentally generated, having no real physical correlate.

What reason or justification is there for us to know we will still continue existing for the next day, if any

For instance, how do I know I will still exist tomorrow? — Ephrium

Well, given that we've continued to exist in the past, one is in good health, and there's no strong evidence to believe the contrary, it is likely that we will exist tomorrow.

This fundamental question which seems seldom raised should affect many of our decisions. If there is reason to believe I will not be existing tomorrow I may give up doing anything and just sleep instead of, say, going to work to get more money. Based on what do we know we will still continue to exist — Ephrium

We may not need such an immediate threat of nonexistence to behave in ways you suggest (''I may give up doing anything and just sleep instead of, say, going to work to get more money.''). The certainty of death and the meaninglessness of life (the two may be related) are, to many, sufficient to warrant such a ''giving up''.

Okay, but that means that there could nevertheless be an extremely good reason for believing that God doesn't exist because evil exists; and that argument would be an argument from evil. — Sapientia

I agree.

Father Richard Rohr needs religion but does religion need father Richard Rohr?

This also seems to be a decent argument for antinatalism - if I'm not morally allowed to tell people whether or not their lives are personally worth living, then surely nobody is allowed to force someone to live a life they may or may not feel is personally worth living. Of course, this is kind of a mask for the more fundamental issue, the disvalue of suffering, the same disvalue that I just said potentially isn't objectively shown to be of disvalue. Confusing. — darthbarracuda

What I'd focus on is the unknowable nature of the problem. We don't know how a person will evaluate his own life. Will he think it enjoyable and flourish or will he think it painful and suffer?

Another relevant point is that generally?? a rational?? assessment reveals that suffering exceeds happiness in our world.

The combination of the above two facts?? result in pessimism and anti-natalism.

However, going back to the first problem, the problem of the unknown nature of a person's evaluation of his own life, we really aren't justified in opting for the negative i.e. we don't have good reasons to think someone will take life as painful and suffering is unbearable. Why? Because observational evidence clearly shows that people, in general, value life and they make every effort to live and enjoy.

Imagine a mundane situation (to clarify my point concerning anti-natalism). You're having a party and thinking of people to invite for the occasion. You have no problem drawing up a list of friends to invite except in the case of Mr. X. He's an introvert, shy and socially inept. How would you decide with regard to Mr. X?

One option would be not to invite him at all. You think it'd just be boring and difficult for X to be at the party.

The other option is you invite X just in case he might have fun AND if he doesn't like it he can leave as and when he chooses.

Which of the two seems reasonable? I think the latter option (invite) is the better because X gets the benefit of the doubt. Plus he can always leave if he doesn't like it.

There's no need for someone putting forward an argument from evil to be committed to a version which doesn't allow for fallibility. — Sapientia

That's all I'm asking for. Evil does not necessitate the nonexistence of god.

So, no such thing as a fallacy then?

So, there's no such thing as fallacious reasoning then?!

If MadFool is attacking any problem of evil other than the logical problem, then their analogy is, at best, highly questionable. If MadFool is attacking the logical problem of evil, they are attacking the strongest form and are honestly not showing much, as a) I do not need to show something is logically impossible in order to claim it does not exist, b) logical possibility is the weakest form of evidence, considering it simply means the idea is coherent and internally consistent, and c) to my understanding, most people, including the original author of the argument, Mackie, already admit the argument is flawed, so refuting it is a moot point only useful in a teaching setting. — Chany

I accept your criticism. However, one point I want to get across. What is relevant or important depends on the circumstances. The strong problem of evil argument has a strong conclusion viz. God DOES NOT exist. Given this is so, even the slightest possibility of being wrong counts.

I didn't say that that's what you're proposing. I said that that's what you'd be forced to do for sake of consistency. I didn't think that you'd find that logical consequence acceptable, but that's what it is. — Sapientia

A child may choose to accept parts of a parent's personality and reject/modify others. She has no logical obligation to accept everything the parent does/says.

I already know what your argument is. Why repeat it? That doesn't address my criticism. — Sapientia

Read on. I'm responding to your criticism.

As Chany has explained, your interpretation is uncharitable, since it is a considerably weaker version of the argument. — Sapientia

The problem of evil argument I'm concerned with:
1. Either god doesn't exist or evil doesn't exist
2. Evil exists
Therefore,
3. God doesn't exist
It has the strongest conclusion: certain denial of god's existence. If you have another problem of evil argument in mind please post it.
What I want to point out is that this is a false dilemma and presented through my analogy a third alternative viz. we misunderstand or don't understand god's will. Evil could very well be for the greater good just as an adult might discipline a child in a way that causes the child to suffer.

Then you (and others) said I was contradicting myself viz. that I was making god both incomprehensible and comprehensible at the same time. To this I replied that, as in my analogy, a child may understand part of an adult's personality while remaining ignorant of the rest. There is no contradiction there.

I have summarized our discussion so far.

So you're saying physics, as we know it, is sufficient but not necessary for life? If you are, I agree.

However, what do you make of the other posters, who seem to be anti-reductionism? Do you think there's more to life and the universe than equations and theories?

It's not special pleading, it's just reality, a statement of fact — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps I commit the fallacy of accident.

1. define Ariel as a maximally grrreat mermaid
2. Ariel would be grrreater if not just fictional
3. therefore Ariel must be real, since otherwise 1 is contradicted — jorndoe

1. Ariel is the maximally great mermaid
2. If Ariel does not exist then Ariel is not the maximally great mermaid
Therefore,
3. Ariel exists

A clearer rendition follows:

1. Ariel is the maximally great mermaid
2. If Ariel is the maximally great mermaid then Ariel exists
Therefore,
3. Ariel exists

Perfect! Even Bertrand Russel gave his seal of approval exclaiming "Great God in Boots!—the ontological argument is sound!"

However...

1. X is a maximally great argument that proves Ariel doesn't exist
2. If X is a maximally great argument that proves Ariel doesn't exist then X exists
Therefore,
3. X exists
4. If X exists then Ariel doesn't exist
Therefore,
5. Ariel doesn't exist

why is it insulting to tell someone their life is not worth living to their face, but not insulting to say everyone's lives are not worth living? — darthbarracuda

Perhaps the answer is more psychological than philosophical. People don't like to be singled out for abuse. That's how they'd take it if told in the face that their lives weren't worth living. However, a general statement dilutes the impact of the point being made. How and why I'm not sure. Perhaps there's safety in numbers. Perhaps there's an absence of the implication of a personal defect in a general statement. Come to think of it, it's quite a selfish and mean thought to be comforted by the equal or greater misery of others who form the ''brotherhood of suffering''.

Also it seems to me that philosophy doesn't have answer, at least an objective and universal one, to the question ''what is the meaning of life?'' The sorrow of this realization is compounded by the undeniable suffering that pervades all categories of experience. Therefore an accusation that all life is not worth living seems, prima facie, reasonable.

However, this doesn't result in mass suicide or chaos. It should, rationally thinking so. The explanation for this paradoxical living lies in itself - there is no objective meaning to life. Although this is a big blow to heart and mind it also opens up the possibility of finding a personal fulfilling, enjoyable subjective meaning to life. As an added bonus we also, despite the suffering that is real and unavoidable, find moments of happiness, no matter how fleeting how small, that make us feel our lives worth living.

Beyond a certain point, there is a lot of stuff that just isn't explainable--given what we know, and given what we don't know — Bitter Crank

I agree. However, science, in its principles and methodology, is reductionist by your definition. In addition to say life(I'm assuming you have that in mind) is not explicable in terms of science is special pleading. It is not me (I have the whole of science backing me up from atoms to the universe itself) who has to explain. Rather it is you and others who believe there's something extra, something inexplicable, something mysterious going on who have to do the explaining - why is life and other things you have in mind inexplicable in terms of science?


That said, I can imagine n number of ways in which our universe could be different, radically so, to the extent that it could effortlessly upend our current understanding: atoms may not really exist, god may exist, reincarnation could be true, telepathy could be possible, etc.

So, although I think science is on the right track I also keep an open mind.

Our current best theory of life is Neo-Dawinism. It is a theory of replicators subject to variation and selection. Where's the physics in that? — tom

Chemistry?

They're made by human beings as well, creative expressions of human language. — Metaphysician Undercover

:-O

If our understanding of morality is as unreliable as you suggest, then you would have no reliable comparison to make here. You'd be forced to completely scrap our human understanding of morality, so you wouldn't even be able to make that analogy in the first place — Sapientia

I'm not proposing such radical measures as ''scrap our human understanding of morality''. I only suggest caution. A child latches onto what he understands about his parents and defers his analysis of what he doesn't understand. Likewise we too can do the same.

This is beside the point though. I'm not affirming god's existence, nor am I denying it. I only want to test the soundness of the problem of evil and so far it doesn't look as good as it's made out to be.

You'd need something more than mere possibility to go by here. — Sapientia

As I said I'm only questioning the soundness of the problem of evil argument. It doesn't look good because it ignores a very important possibility that we've misunderstood or don't understand god. This mere possibility is a real possibility as I've demonstrated countless number of times with my child-adult analogy.

Robots, iPhones, etc., work on principles known to human beings, and applied by human beings. — Metaphysician Undercover

But, mind you, not made by humans.

Living beings work on (as of yet) unknown principles. — Metaphysician Undercover

Agreed

In order to explain life you need to invoke at least replicators subject to variation and selection, and I don't think these concepts can be reduced to physics. Also a rather detailed history has to be invoked in order to explain present day biodiversity, and a great deal of that history will involve behaviour, which again cannot be expressed in terms of physics. — tom

Doesn't science explain all physical phenomena? Why does life get a special status. We've been using science (biology and medicine) to understand life and look how much progress we've made.

Yes. Complexity is more than a nothing but. My bed is made of wood, but I do not sleep in a tree. — unenlightened

Yet one may fall off from both a bed and a tree. Gravity doesn't discriminate.

There needs to be a bit more discrimination before you can compare life forms to robots. — Marchesk

DNA, RNA, proteins are molecules that follow chemical principles.

Muscle, bone, joints follow physics principles

I don't see why you take an issue here?

Of course there's a difference between a robot and living things. Living things are far more complex than the robots of today. However, in the finaly analysis, life is naught but a complex chemical reaction. Am I wrong?

I can't speak for you, but I am as different from a robot as a fish is from an iPhones. — Bitter Crank

The principles we (robots, fish, iPhones, humans) work on e.g. the laws of physics and chemistry are same. The difference I believe is that of degree not of kind.

Therefore, I do see a future where robots become/simulate humans very well, to the effect that we become indistinguishable.

It's incomprehensible, the word is essentially meaningless — dukkha

''Incomprehensible'' doesn't imply meaniglessness. Perhaps there's a meaning that we can't understand.

But it appears to me like you want it both ways. As in, "god has x nature (exists, is omnipotent, non-evil, what have you), while at the same time, "gods nature is incomprehensible to humans". — dukkha

My main point is that there's a possibility that we haven't yet understood god. The omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent (OOO) god is compatible with evil via the simple and real chance that we haven't understood god's will/message. Does a child understand why she won't be getting ice cream for dessert? She doesn't. It's painful and yet there's a greater good in the parent's actions.

Of course one can say that suffering is disproportionate to the message conveyed. When a young child is tortured, raped and killed we have great difficulty in understanding what greater good might be served. This, prima facie, appears to be a valid objection. At this point emotion kicks in and our empathy and pity for the sufferer gets the better of us and we hastily conclude that the amount of suffering in the world just doesn't tally with god. Since emotion is involved, and any logic book says, we must be cautious and still remain sufficiently aloof to be able to make a good judgment.

That said, extremeness of suffering, while painful and sad to behold, doesn't eliminate the possibility of we having not understood/misunderstood god and god's will. All it does, so far as rationality is concerned, is evoke deep emotions that obscures the truth.

As to your accusation that I want it ''both ways''...
Firstly, there's no logical contradiction in it. As I said before, an OOO god is compatible with evil solely on the basis that we've misunderstood or have not yet understood god's will. Nothing more, nothing less. Just as a child may know certain character-traits of its parents while being oblivious to other features of the parent's personality.

There is a disgustingly abhorrent amount of suffering in this world, and I simply can't perform the mental gymnastics required to believe that an all powerful being (benevolent) being couldn't EASILY resolve. At the risk of sounding antagonistic, this "it's all for some obscure greater good so it's not REALLY that bad" strikes me a wishy washy self-comforting delusional nonsense. Forming this belief is like a child reaching for his blanket - it's a comforting feeling, but not particularly mature. — dukkha

Notice how you use the terms ''disgustingly'', ''abhorrent''. It's natural. Please read my response above.

And how different are we from robots?

God made us in his image.

We make robots in our image.

I don't think we're looking for a physical companion as much as an intellectual stand-in with whom we can strike a decent conversation.

All you might have done is refute the logical problem of evil (which I do not think you have done since you are not addressing that particular argument). — Chany

Can you be specific. Which version of the POE haven't I considered?

Funny how you seem to be suggesting that you know nothing, yet you also claim to understand God to a significant extent. — Sapientia

How does ''maybe we're wrong about god'' become ''i understand god to a significant extent''?

Either you know shit about God or you're like a monkey and don't know shit. You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind and keep it that way unless you concede. If you know shit about God, then you should go back and answer my request to clearly state what it is that you know and how you know it, rather than evade it. And you should also stop contradicting yourself or making misleading statements by saying things like you can't understand God. — Sapientia

''I know one thing; that I know nothing'': Socrates (2500 years ago).

Your comments are too fast, too many. I focussed on the key points in your argument.

What I'm basically saying is there's a possibility that the problem of evil, as a refutation of god, commits the black/white fallacy (either god is not ommipotent or god is not omnibenevolent). There's a third possibility viz. we don't understand or worse, we've misunderstood, god.

And there's a sort of hidden premise in virtually every argument, which is the assumption that we're being rational, and I've explained why that assumption is required. — Sapientia

Consider this: No amount of monkey rationality will help the monkey to understand geometry.

ignorance doesn't really resolve the problem — Sapientia

Ignorance creates a problem; a problem for the problem of evil argument.

and that we are fallible. — Sapientia

Please extend the same courtesy to my position.

you actually meant that we can understand God to a significant extent, just not completely at the current time, and with some difficulty, and with the possibility of error — Sapientia

Yes, that's my stand.

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." : Richard Feynman (physicist)

Thanks.

What is the difference between ''true events'' and ''actual events''?

"I like hockey more than football"

Can you clarify

It, rather, claims that gratuitous evil, if it exists, creates massive problems for the existence of God — Chany

Exactly. And I've shown that this is not the case.

Again, read the link I provided: it does not try to hold itself up to the standard of being infallible and definitive. — Chany

That works for me.

The emphasis is on reasonable doubt. — Chany

I agree. I find it reasonable to question the import of the problem of evil.

I'm exploring possibilities.