How do you attempt to rationalise with the completely irrational?

[seer]

sometimes the law is amended to say "contradictory propositions cannot both be true 'at the same time and in the same sense.

Your claim has nothing to do with the law of non-contradiction.

What are you talking about? You just said that the laws of logic necessarily do not hold universally or may not be absolute.

[Ronson]

Would logical truths still be valid even if the universe did not exist?

Truth? Yes. Logical truths? I couldn't guess.

[seer]

Truth? Yes. Logical truths? I couldn't guess.

Not even in the mind of God?

[Ronson]

Not even in the mind of God?

Well, again, since I'm arguing that "logic" is how people interpret nature, or reality, then it doesn't apply to God. He has no need to interpret what He creates.

[seer]

Well, again, since I'm arguing that "logic" is how people interpret nature, or reality, then it doesn't apply to God. He has no need to interpret what He creates.

No but he needs to be rational to create an intelligible universe, that is why we can interpret creation. It all goes back to God...

[whag]

When I tried to do so, you reverted to "It's literally called the problem of natural evil, whether or not you consider it as such."

So when I strayed from the "problem of evil" you admonish me, but when I try to stick to it, under the Christian paradigm, you want to go outside for your replies. Damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

This is a waste of my time. You already conceded that the problem of evil is not a problem form the Christian point of view.

[Watermelon]

So if the law of non-contradiction is not absolute then what you just wrote about could possibly mean its opposite. Most science would fail, and the laws of logic do not beak down at quantum level.




That means it would be subject to change.

Everything breaks down at the quantum level.

[seer]

Everything breaks down at the quantum level.

You don't know that the the law of non-contradiction breaks down at that level, I suspect that we just don't know enough about the quantum world. If it does break down science would be impossible.

[MaxVel]

That is not a premise. That is merely you stating your opinion.

That response shows that you are not at all up to date with current thinking on the problem of evil, and thus not to be taken seriously on it as a topic. You're arguing a position that even atheists abandoned as undefensible quite some time ago. As several people have already pointed out. Leonhard and seer are correct, Epicurus' formulation is defeated by the premise seer (and others) put forward. The attempt at constructing a contradiction fails because there is an alternative possibility: that God has morally justifiable reasons for allowing evil.

More sophisticated thinkers have moved on to probabilistic versions of the argument (IOW, that the amount of evil makes it less likely that an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God exists). You should do the same.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That response shows that you are not at all up to date with current thinking on the problem of evil, and thus not to be taken seriously on it as a topic. You're arguing a position that even atheists abandoned as undefensible quite some time ago. As several people have already pointed out. Leonhard and seer are correct, Epicurus' formulation is defeated by the premise seer (and others) put forward. The attempt at constructing a contradiction fails because there is an alternative possibility: that God has morally justifiable reasons for allowing evil.

More sophisticated thinkers have moved on to probabilistic versions of the argument (IOW, that the amount of evil makes it less likely that an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God exists). You should do the same.

Plantinga and others have put forward their own philosophical arguments.

I do not know from whence the following originates but it holds true. Philosophy is questions that may never answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.

[seer]

Plantinga and others have put forward their own philosophical arguments.

I do not know from whence the following originates but it holds true. Philosophy is questions that may never answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.

What the hell are you talking about? Religious answers are questioned all the time - you have been doing it right here...

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Of course it is a premise, even if you don't call it a premise.

A premise is generally accepted to be a statement within an argument that provides evidence or reasons to form a conclusion. Your comment does none of that.

Furthermore, your third statement does not logically follow on from the two previous statements because we do not know what this greater eternal good might be, we can only surmise. I would also add that your employment of auxiliary verbs indicates a degree of uncertainty.

[seer]

A premise is generally accepted to be a statement within an argument that provides evidence or reasons to form a conclusion. Your comment does none of that.

Furthermore, your third statement does not logically follow on from the two previous statements because we do not know what this greater eternal good might be, we can only surmise. I would also add that your employment of auxiliary verbs indicates a degree of uncertainty.

Like I said, I don't are whether you agree that it is a premise or not, it completely undermines Epicurus' logical argument. And my point does not depend on what the greater good actually is (though I did offer some ideas) as long as it is a logical possibility, which it is. I really thought you were brighter than this...

[Watermelon]

You don't know that the the law of non-contradiction breaks down at that level, I suspect that we just don't know enough about the quantum world. If it does break down science would be impossible.

Electrons can be spinning clockwise and counter clockwise at the same time. Is that not a contradiction?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Like I said, I don't are whether you agree that it is a premise or not, it completely undermines Epicurus' logical argument. And my point does not depend on what the greater good actually is (though I did offer some ideas) as long as it is a logical possibility, which it is. I really thought you were brighter than this...

Ad hominem duly noted. If you cannot continue without resorting to personal attacks [this is not your first attempt to patronise] it seems pointless to continue attempting an exchange with someone who has demonstrated their inability to be both dispassionate and objective.