The problem of evil

[Age]

If it is useless, don't eat meat. To me it is solid.

IF your "justification" is as 'solid' as you say and BELIEVE it is, then WHY do you stop at only SOME animals?

I think it is partly cultural and partly habitual.

Your response here does NOT logically follow my question.

That was you to ask for killing humans when the subject was eating meat?

Your sentence here does NOT make sense in english.

Didn't you ask about killing humans?

Just because I ask you clarifying questions, this does NOT mean that your responses WILL make sense.

I am talking about cows, sheep, goats, etc.

You WERE talking about 'domesticated animals' BEFORE.

Yes, but we don't eat dogs and cats in here.

So OFF TOPIC, AGAIN.

We will see.


To you everything that others say is stupid.

Here is ANOTHER COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Wrong, and Incorrect ASSUMPTION and CLAIM of yours.

That is very true.

I KNOW, what I said is VERY True.

What you SAID, however, IS COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

Just check your reading which is full of humiliation and insults.

Just TRY and PRESENT just ONE humiliation OR insult.

You will NOT be ABLE TO FIND ONE ACTUAL EXAMPLE. Let alone the ABSURD CLAIM; EVERYTHING I SAY.

I am not talking about dogs and cats.

That, ONCE AGAIN, does NOT answer the ACTUAL QUESTION THAT I POSED TO YOU, HERE.

Perhaps they change their mind when they suffer enough.

OFF TOPIC, and just MORE DEFLECTION, AGAIN.

I don't think so.

I KNOW SO, and it is CLEARLY PROVED in your writings SO.

[Astro Cat]

It is difficult as a new poster to jump into a thread that's some 13 pages long, so forgive me if I retread any ground.

I generally think that the PoE is best posed in terms of a problem of "suffering," and to carefully craft our reductio ad absurdum with choice definitions of what we mean when we set the premises for the type of God the argument is aimed at. This way we don't have to define "evil," though we do often still have to define what we mean by "omnibenevolence" which usually finds its way in there as a premise.

[puto]

Astro Cat, fallacies of relevance had turned this into an ad hominem claim rather than the argument itself. Tu quoque (I steal from by boss because he has underpaid me for years) argument. Justifying bad behavior and wrong actions were argued. The whole things was appeal to authority when you knew names were brought up, and works not cited from the board posters. The whole argument from evil argument is an absence or privation of good. When you define Evil: The moral order and willfully against it. "It is not God, I do not accept," Dostoevsky grumbled, "But the world he has created." Evil is to bad what wicked is to immoral.

[bahman]

It is difficult as a new poster to jump into a thread that's some 13 pages long, so forgive me if I retread any ground.

I generally think that the PoE is best posed in terms of a problem of "suffering," and to carefully craft our reductio ad absurdum with choice definitions of what we mean when we set the premises for the type of God the argument is aimed at. This way we don't have to define "evil," though we do often still have to define what we mean by "omnibenevolence" which usually finds its way in there as a premise.

Evil is what God prohibits. Omnibenevolence is defined as perfect or unlimited goodness where good is the opposite of evil simply what God allows.