Falsifiability of Probability

We discuss logics all around, including contradiction logics if one so wishes.

Moderator: Aetixintro

Post Reply
User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Falsifiability of Probability

Post #1

Post by Purple Knight »

Question for debate: Does anyone disagree with this as a principle? And if so, why?

Actual Falsifiability: If I say all swans are black, I must say I am wrong if I find a white swan.
This is generally accepted as true. If something can never be disproven, the fact that it isn't disproven ceases to have meaning.

My proposal:
Falsifiability of Probability: If I say that finding a swan makes it more likely to find water, I must say that not finding a swan makes it less likely to find water.
I'm proposing this because, if you say that both finding a swan and not finding a swan positively indicate water, then what you are actually saying is that the presence of a swan is irrelevant; water is irregardlessly positively indicated. This ruins your original case that the swan is what indicates the presence of water.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Falsifiability of Probability

Post #2

Post by Difflugia »

Purple Knight wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 5:03 pmFalsifiability of Probability: If I say that finding a swan makes it more likely to find water, I must say that not finding a swan makes it less likely to find water.
Yes. That's the essence of statistical analysis.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Falsifiability of Probability

Post #3

Post by Purple Knight »

Difflugia wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 2:58 pm
Purple Knight wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 5:03 pmFalsifiability of Probability: If I say that finding a swan makes it more likely to find water, I must say that not finding a swan makes it less likely to find water.
Yes. That's the essence of statistical analysis.
That's why I say that both of these topics present something unfalsifiable.
DaveD49 wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 5:51 pm Topic for Debate: DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING BEING EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?

The exact fine-tuning of all the scientific laws and the universal constants.
Category: Mathematics and Science
DaveD49 wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 1:46 pmIf God is good, why is there evil, suffering and death?
In the first instance I am on the atheist side and in the second I am on the theist side, and for the same reason.

I don't believe you can even ask the question.

In the first instance, to say, god is more likely because of the laws of the universe, you must say god is less likely in chaos.

In the second instance, to say god is less likely if suffering exists, you would have to say, god is more likely if suffering does not exist.

And how can we say that latter thing when we can't even conceptualise what it would be like? We can't conceive what it would be like for the laws of nature to not exist or be extremely different, and we can't conceive of life without suffering. Personally I don't even think we'd even be conscious without suffering. We learn by the things that cause us to suffer to avoid those things. Without suffering there is no learning, and without learning how can there be consciousness? So I call these both cases where the question itself is unaskable, because we can't see the other side of the scales. We go toward the carrot, yes, but only because the stick poked us. If we weren't suffering hunger we wouldn't bother.

It's like asking, "O God, if you really love us, why have you made bald people?!" And that's a decent question. But asking why are there bald people if everybody was bald... we wouldn't even know what we were asking. It might still be a good question but we have no way of knowing that.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: Falsifiability of Probability

Post #4

Post by alexxcJRO »

Purple Knight wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:27 pm
In the first instance I am on the atheist side and in the second I am on the theist side, and for the same reason.

I don't believe you can even ask the question.

In the first instance, to say, god is more likely because of the laws of the universe, you must say god is less likely in chaos.

In the second instance, to say god is less likely if suffering exists, you would have to say, god is more likely if suffering does not exist.

And how can we say that latter thing when we can't even conceptualise what it would be like? We can't conceive what it would be like for the laws of nature to not exist or be extremely different, and we can't conceive of life without suffering. Personally I don't even think we'd even be conscious without suffering. We learn by the things that cause us to suffer to avoid those things. Without suffering there is no learning, and without learning how can there be consciousness? So I call these both cases where the question itself is unaskable, because we can't see the other side of the scales. We go toward the carrot, yes, but only because the stick poked us. If we weren't suffering hunger we wouldn't bother.

It's like asking, "O God, if you really love us, why have you made bald people?!" And that's a decent question. But asking why are there bald people if everybody was bald... we wouldn't even know what we were asking. It might still be a good question but we have no way of knowing that.

Dear sir,

The argument is not all suffering points to non-existence of god.

Is the great instances of suffering/gratuitous suffering like a small child suffering from Stevens-Johnson syndrome (which involves immense suffering and incredible pain as skin is sheds off, all their existence is very limited being mostly immobilized in a bed) or non-human animals suffering greatly in natural disasters indiscriminately(from forest fires, tsunamis, asteroid impacts) coexisting with a omni-perfect being which wants our well being and loves all equally.
Surely that's illogical and contradictory.

Q: Surely we can conceive life without great instances of suffering/gratuitous suffering, no?

Great instances of suffering/gratuitous suffering does not debunk all gods. Can coexist greatly with a indifferent deist like god.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Falsifiability of Probability

Post #5

Post by Purple Knight »

alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2023 2:57 am
Purple Knight wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:27 pm
In the first instance I am on the atheist side and in the second I am on the theist side, and for the same reason.

I don't believe you can even ask the question.

In the first instance, to say, god is more likely because of the laws of the universe, you must say god is less likely in chaos.

In the second instance, to say god is less likely if suffering exists, you would have to say, god is more likely if suffering does not exist.

And how can we say that latter thing when we can't even conceptualise what it would be like? We can't conceive what it would be like for the laws of nature to not exist or be extremely different, and we can't conceive of life without suffering. Personally I don't even think we'd even be conscious without suffering. We learn by the things that cause us to suffer to avoid those things. Without suffering there is no learning, and without learning how can there be consciousness? So I call these both cases where the question itself is unaskable, because we can't see the other side of the scales. We go toward the carrot, yes, but only because the stick poked us. If we weren't suffering hunger we wouldn't bother.

It's like asking, "O God, if you really love us, why have you made bald people?!" And that's a decent question. But asking why are there bald people if everybody was bald... we wouldn't even know what we were asking. It might still be a good question but we have no way of knowing that.

Dear sir,

The argument is not all suffering points to non-existence of god.

Is the great instances of suffering/gratuitous suffering like a small child suffering from Stevens-Johnson syndrome (which involves immense suffering and incredible pain as skin is sheds off, all their existence is very limited being mostly immobilized in a bed) or non-human animals suffering greatly in natural disasters indiscriminately(from forest fires, tsunamis, asteroid impacts) coexisting with a omni-perfect being which wants our well being and loves all equally.
Surely that's illogical and contradictory.

Q: Surely we can conceive life without great instances of suffering/gratuitous suffering, no?

Great instances of suffering/gratuitous suffering does not debunk all gods. Can coexist greatly with a indifferent deist like god.
Here's the problem with the "great suffering" case and it's not that it's bad. It's like the bald people case. It might be good.

But we have no way of knowing it's good.

Imagine I put you in the driver's set. You are now God. So you eliminate the worst thing. No more Steven-Johnson syndrome. Gone. Poof. Meat now grows on trees. No more forest fires, tsunamis, things like that. Now, every time someone stubs their toe, that's the worst thing. That's the thing we're down here arguing, no, there's no God, because of this very worst thing. We could still have suffering and not have that thing.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: Falsifiability of Probability

Post #6

Post by alexxcJRO »

Purple Knight wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 4:19 pm Here's the problem with the "great suffering" case and it's not that it's bad. It's like the bald people case. It might be good.

But we have no way of knowing it's good.
1.
Q: So you are saying it might be a good thing that is not in fact gratuitous suffering. That it might have a purpose or a usefulness?

Q: How could a genetic disease which happens because of random mutation be a good thing?

Free will objection does not work.

2.
With this kind of logic all kinds of atrocities can be justified. Hitler had a very benevolent greater good in mind.

Imagine being in a hell like dimension suffering all kinds of physical and psychological suffering and thinking God is benevolent but must have a greater good in mind.
10 millions of year pass. God is benevolent but must have a greater good in mind. 10 billions of years pass. God is benevolent but must have a greater good in mind. 10 trillions years pass.

Q: At what point does malevolence and evil come into mind?

3. Poor humans inventing pain medication, all kinds of cures and medicines.
Doing all kinds of evils.

Pity the omnibenevolent, omnipotent God who wants our well being does not feel the need to tell us of this mysterious greater good.
Still does not work. I am sorry.
Purple Knight wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 4:19 pm Imagine I put you in the driver's set. You are now God. So you eliminate the worst thing. No more Steven-Johnson syndrome. Gone. Poof. Meat now grows on trees. No more forest fires, tsunamis, things like that. Now, every time someone stubs their toe, that's the worst thing. That's the thing we're down here arguing, no, there's no God, because of this very worst thing. We could still have suffering and not have that thing.
I don't get this point.

Q: Are you saying God might have already eliminated countless possible more greater suffering already? It cannot do it anymore? This is the maximum he can do?

Q: Or that it is pointless ? No matter how much it does remove? Sentient beings will always complain?
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Falsifiability of Probability

Post #7

Post by Purple Knight »

alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 1:52 am
Purple Knight wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 4:19 pm Here's the problem with the "great suffering" case and it's not that it's bad. It's like the bald people case. It might be good.

But we have no way of knowing it's good.
1.
Q: So you are saying it might be a good thing that is not in fact gratuitous suffering. That it might have a purpose or a usefulness?

Q: How could a genetic disease which happens because of random mutation be a good thing?

Free will objection does not work.
I know. Free will doesn't account for genetic disease. I'm not saying a horrible genetic disease isn't gratuitous suffering. It might be. But since we only know the greatest suffering we know, and that will always be the worst thing, that will always be the thing that shouldn't exist if there's a fair and kind god, we have no way of knowing it's excessive or not.

It might be excessive. It also might not be. We can't know.

Some suffering is necessary because we won't go to the carrot without the stick of hunger poking us. We won't learn what a carrot is, what anything is or does, and we won't be conscious. I admit, however, that horrible genetic disease seems not to be necessary at all to this process.

If I were a believer I'd say we are supposed to take our destiny in our own hands after we delivered it from the raw brutality of nature, and use eugenics. But I'm not, so I won't. The fact remains that if we don't use eugenics, we'll all be suffering a lot more than we are now, and we sort of brought it on ourselves. It definitely doesn't justify why the inaction of genetically healthy people is worthy of bringing suffering on unrelated others, though. Seems like bad universe design.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 1:52 am2.
With this kind of logic all kinds of atrocities can be justified. Hitler had a very benevolent greater good in mind.

Imagine being in a hell like dimension suffering all kinds of physical and psychological suffering and thinking God is benevolent but must have a greater good in mind.
10 millions of year pass. God is benevolent but must have a greater good in mind. 10 billions of years pass. God is benevolent but must have a greater good in mind. 10 trillions years pass.

Q: At what point does malevolence and evil come into mind?
Immediately if you've got any sense. In fact I argue that the Christian God is almost certainly a liar and a villain. Whether we can rule out a benevolent designer god based on suffering is another matter. Because we don't know what no suffering would be like, we can't compare.
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 1:52 am
Purple Knight wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 4:19 pm Imagine I put you in the driver's set. You are now God. So you eliminate the worst thing. No more Steven-Johnson syndrome. Gone. Poof. Meat now grows on trees. No more forest fires, tsunamis, things like that. Now, every time someone stubs their toe, that's the worst thing. That's the thing we're down here arguing, no, there's no God, because of this very worst thing. We could still have suffering and not have that thing.
I don't get this point.

Q: Are you saying God might have already eliminated countless possible more greater suffering already? It cannot do it anymore? This is the maximum he can do?

Q: Or that it is pointless ? No matter how much it does remove? Sentient beings will always complain?
I think "sentient beings will always complain" is the closest to my point. The worst thing is always the worst thing. So you might be right, we might not need horrible genetic disease or AIDS or leprosy, but if you are right there's no way to know that, because somewhere there's a universe without our universe's worst thing and there, you're complaining about a stubbed toe. How awful it is. We might do just fine with mosquito bites and minor cuts and bruises, but stubbed toes hurt way worse.

If we go on removing the worst thing, we will eventually remove all suffering and then we won't be conscious.

I think it'd be easier trying to understand why the argument from order, is a bad argument for the existence for god, and apply that reason to the argument from suffering. Our universe seems orderly and laws seem to exist, but we have no pure chaos to compare it to, so the argument from order might actually be good, but we have no way of knowing so.

If you say, a universe of order means god is more likely, you must say, a universe without order means god is less likely. But since we can't even conceive of a universe of pure chaos, what it would be like, we can't say that.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: Falsifiability of Probability

Post #8

Post by alexxcJRO »

Purple Knight wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 3:55 pm I know. Free will doesn't account for genetic disease. I'm not saying a horrible genetic disease isn't gratuitous suffering. It might be. But since we only know the greatest suffering we know, and that will always be the worst thing, that will always be the thing that shouldn't exist if there's a fair and kind god, we have no way of knowing it's excessive or not.
It might be excessive. It also might not be. We can't know.
Immediately if you've got any sense. In fact I argue that the Christian God is almost certainly a liar and a villain.
Dear sir I was not talking of Yahweh. The concept is illogical and clearly therefore non-existent.

You found your self after death in another dimension and you suffer greatly unimaginable physical suffering and psychological suffering: you are being tortured by a psychopath being who is worse then Ted Bundy or Luis Garavito. Tortures likes being Boiled alive, rat torture, gridiron, scaphism, skinning looks like child play.

You suffer greatly at the hand of this psychopath for 1 million years. You say: God is omni-benevolent but must have a greater good in mind.

After 1 million years you get sick of a terrible disease that makes the worst genetic diseases: cystic fibrosis, fatal familial insomnia, epidermolysis bullosa like child play. You suffer for another 1 million years.
You say: God is omni-benevolent but must have a greater good in mind.

Q: At what point does excessiveness, malevolence and evil come into mind?

This logic is broken for it posits that no matter the greatness of suffering will never point to malevolence and evil.

I contend that making excuses for greater evils as not being gratuitous because of possible greater goods which are unknown clearly points to malevolence and evil because:

The existence of these great evils is accompanied by a rather clear deafening silence. Points to non-existence or malevolence.

"Poor humans inventing pain medication, all kinds of cures and medicines.
Doing all kinds of evils in a attempt to alleviate suffering and make it less.
Pity the omnibenevolent, omnipotent God who wants our well being does not feel the need to tell us of this mysterious greater good."


Also its very telling how great evil always encompass notions of greater good. Communism, totalitarianism, fascism, police state.



Purple Knight wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 3:55 pm
Some suffering is necessary because we won't go to the carrot without the stick of hunger poking us. We won't learn what a carrot is, what anything is or does, and we won't be conscious. I admit, however, that horrible genetic disease seems not to be necessary at all to this process.
If I were a believer I'd say we are supposed to take our destiny in our own hands after we delivered it from the raw brutality of nature, and use eugenics. But I'm not, so I won't. The fact remains that if we don't use eugenics, we'll all be suffering a lot more than we are now, and we sort of brought it on ourselves. It definitely doesn't justify why the inaction of genetically healthy people is worthy of bringing suffering on unrelated others, though. Seems like bad universe design.
Whether we can rule out a benevolent designer god based on suffering is another matter. Because we don't know what no suffering would be like, we can't compare.
Q: Really we cannot imagine a world where equality is a thing and indiscriminate suffering is not a thing?

Not where we have some psychopath(born this way) who has inflicted great suffering to others, who lives a fairly good life free of suffering and dies painlessly of old age during sleep.

While some other innocent: non-moral agents->poor souls suffer all their lives greatly at the hands of random natural disasters, randomly generated diseases.

I say that the fact that great good exists with great evil and some beings witness the good lives of others beings while they suffer and live unimaginable horrible lives is good evidence for the non-existence of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God who wants our well being.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Falsifiability of Probability

Post #9

Post by Purple Knight »

alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Dec 02, 2023 2:39 am Q: At what point does excessiveness, malevolence and evil come into mind?
Immediately. But the question is whether we can know for sure it's excessive. We can guess, and some of the things you described make it (in my mind) a good guess. But we need some suffering to even be conscious, and because the worst thing will always seem excessive, no matter how much suffering we find ourselves in, it's hard to say how much suffering is necessary and how much is not.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Dec 02, 2023 2:39 amThis logic is broken for it posits that no matter the greatness of suffering will never point to malevolence and evil.
It does point to malevolence and evil. But it doesn't prove it. And yes, I'm familiar with most of those Familial fatal insomnia is particularly chilling. At an age after most people reproduce (thus having already passed it on unknowingly) people with the condition lose the ability to go to sleep... and die.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Dec 02, 2023 2:39 amI contend that making excuses for greater evils as not being gratuitous because of possible greater goods which are unknown clearly points to malevolence and evil because:

The existence of these great evils is accompanied by a rather clear deafening silence. Points to non-existence or malevolence.
I'm not making that case at all. In fact, the existence of great goods also points to malevolence because it inspires want and jealousy. I'm just saying, "There is suffering, therefore god doesn't exist," is a bad argument. It's bad for the same reason, "There is order in the universe, therefore god exists," is bad: We have no basis for comparison. "There is extreme, probably unnecessary suffering," is better, but it's still not proof, because we have no basis for comparison. And if we did, and we had a universe without familial fatal insomnia, we'd be pointing to the next worst thing. And it'd be turtles all the way down until there was no suffering and we weren't conscious.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Dec 02, 2023 2:39 amQ: Really we cannot imagine a world where equality is a thing and indiscriminate suffering is not a thing?

Not where we have some psychopath (born this way) who has inflicted great suffering to others, who lives a fairly good life free of suffering and dies painlessly of old age during sleep.

While some other innocent: non-moral agents->poor souls suffer all their lives greatly at the hands of random natural disasters, randomly generated diseases.

I say that the fact that great good exists with great evil and some beings witness the good lives of others beings while they suffer and live unimaginable horrible lives is good evidence for the non-existence of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God who wants our well being.
And I say we need a basis for comparison.

What I will say about pointing toward malevolence is that if god does exist, it is more likely he is cruel than kind. It's just, we can't take a snapshot of our cruddy universe, compare it to nothing, and conclude there's no possibility of a kind god. We'd need more than one universe to look at this question objectively. Just like if you see a pond with swans in it, but you've never seen anything but a pond, it's true that water more likely goes with swans than land, but you've never seen land, so you can't say so.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: Falsifiability of Probability

Post #10

Post by alexxcJRO »

Purple Knight wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2023 9:04 pm
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Dec 02, 2023 2:39 am Q: At what point does excessiveness, malevolence and evil come into mind?
Immediately. But the question is whether we can know for sure it's excessive. We can guess, and some of the things you described make it (in my mind) a good guess. But we need some suffering to even be conscious, and because the worst thing will always seem excessive, no matter how much suffering we find ourselves in, it's hard to say how much suffering is necessary and how much is not.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Dec 02, 2023 2:39 amThis logic is broken for it posits that no matter the greatness of suffering will never point to malevolence and evil.
It does point to malevolence and evil. But it doesn't prove it. And yes, I'm familiar with most of those Familial fatal insomnia is particularly chilling. At an age after most people reproduce (thus having already passed it on unknowingly) people with the condition lose the ability to go to sleep... and die.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Dec 02, 2023 2:39 amI contend that making excuses for greater evils as not being gratuitous because of possible greater goods which are unknown clearly points to malevolence and evil because:

The existence of these great evils is accompanied by a rather clear deafening silence. Points to non-existence or malevolence.
I'm not making that case at all. In fact, the existence of great goods also points to malevolence because it inspires want and jealousy. I'm just saying, "There is suffering, therefore god doesn't exist," is a bad argument. It's bad for the same reason, "There is order in the universe, therefore god exists," is bad: We have no basis for comparison. "There is extreme, probably unnecessary suffering," is better, but it's still not proof, because we have no basis for comparison. And if we did, and we had a universe without familial fatal insomnia, we'd be pointing to the next worst thing. And it'd be turtles all the way down until there was no suffering and we weren't conscious.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sat Dec 02, 2023 2:39 amQ: Really we cannot imagine a world where equality is a thing and indiscriminate suffering is not a thing?

Not where we have some psychopath (born this way) who has inflicted great suffering to others, who lives a fairly good life free of suffering and dies painlessly of old age during sleep.

While some other innocent: non-moral agents->poor souls suffer all their lives greatly at the hands of random natural disasters, randomly generated diseases.

I say that the fact that great good exists with great evil and some beings witness the good lives of others beings while they suffer and live unimaginable horrible lives is good evidence for the non-existence of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God who wants our well being.
And I say we need a basis for comparison.

What I will say about pointing toward malevolence is that if god does exist, it is more likely he is cruel than kind. It's just, we can't take a snapshot of our cruddy universe, compare it to nothing, and conclude there's no possibility of a kind god. We'd need more than one universe to look at this question objectively. Just like if you see a pond with swans in it, but you've never seen anything but a pond, it's true that water more likely goes with swans than land, but you've never seen land, so you can't say so.
But sir I am not talking of all gods. Deists, malevolent, indifferent ones.
I am only talking of the personal, omni-benevolent that wants our well being.

Your saying we cannot know that things we deem evil, unnecessary and not in our personal and collective well being are in fact like this. They may be present for our well being.
But we try personally and collectively to diminish these evils as much as we can. We already have done so with great success.

Yet if they may be present in fact for our well being why does this personal, omni-benevolent that wants our well being does not stop us or warn us.
It does not happen because it does not exist.
Clearly the reality debunks this God no matter how one frames it.

Clearly randomly generated evils-suffering are not not necessary to exist therefore are gratuitous evils/suffering no matter how much you keep want to dodge it.
Show me how randomly generated evils-suffering are not gratuitous.
Its irrelevant if we would complain about it. There is no point for it to exist.



Q: What do you mean when you say a kind or good God?
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Post Reply