You guys have a wonderful weblog planning here, KIU!...

http://lostprophyt.blogspot.com/2009/10/simple-qu...

The results are pretty predictable: He did everything BUT answer the question. Enjoy, and discuss!

Therefore, it is not an additional assumption to the two already given. Rather, it is a conclusion that necessarily follows from them.

I understand your point, and I agree entirely in one sense -- if I am assuming something that the person I'm talking with does not also assume -- that's a recipe for miscommunication.

However, I am flatly disagreeing with your assessment that most Christians do not agree with the statement: God allows suffering.

Mostly because they believe that 1. God has the power to stop suffering , and 2. that suffering exists.

Those two statements lead to "God allows suffering" in a relatively straightforward fashion.

Now, people who worship God tend to think of justifications that God has or might have for allowing suffering -- some higher good, free will, etc., but you are the first person that I've come across that has tried to deny that "God allows suffering" -- or to claim that it is not widely held that He does.

> You're honestly claiming that "God allows suffering" is an assumption without merit?

Wait a minute - you've moved from discussing the logical structure of the argument and how to best create discussion to the argument itself.

It's not whether the assumption has merit - the question of God and evil *is* the question - rather the problem comes as you've assumed it when talking to someone who likely won't share your assumption - that's a receipe for miscommunication between two people; I've assumed based on your article you're trying to avoid that. That's it.

If you're tying to have open discussion, you should qualify your assumptions, which is why Q1 is better - it cuts to the heart of the issue in the most direct manner possible, without side issues not necessarily relating to the problem of evil.

> "Why do you worship a God who is so limited in power that He cannot stop the suffering of the world?"

Same problems arise (God is limited, he can't/won't stop suffering,etc). My *only* point so far is if you want to discuss, don't make assumptions the other party won't likely agree with - get to the heart of the discussion. If you want to discuss God and evil, do it. If you want to get an answer to the power of God, get it.

I'm not making any judgments on the *merits* of your issue.

Is the root of the issue God and Evil, or not? If it is, don't bother with side issues, if it's not and you really want to discuss the power of God, do that.

Since Christians and atheists have such differing experiences and beliefs, is it not better to keep it as simple and direct as possible?

It's not *my* position to "just win the argument' - if winning is the only goal, that's a different tactic (you can win without discussion and get discussion without winning). If you're trained in logic you know it's quite possible to win a debate, but lose the possibility of open discussion and exchange of ideas. Thus the question becomes - *why* are you asking? To get an answer for yourself? To win the debate? To start discussion? To attack beliefs? Or something else?

If the goal is conversation, and specifically the problem of Evil, Question one will do that better, because it avoids the logical problem of question two, which likely many people won't notice, but won't know how to handle either - Q1 is simpler and more direct question, and when dealing with diverse hot-button topics like religion/atheism, do we agree the more direct the better?

Likely similar to yourself, I've run across mainly two different types of people - those that want an open discussion and exchange of ideas, and those with ad-hominem attacks and "winning" without regards to discussion, but enjoy calling names and so forth. So without passing judgment on any motives or reasons, which path do you want?

If the goal is to win the debate, I'd use question two as it's likely to "trip" people similarly to the "when did you stop beating your wife situation". You'll win, but that's it. If someone does understand the logic, you'll arrive at question one anyway, as it's the root of the issue - the problem of evil.

If the goal is discussion, I'd use question one, as it's more direct.

The root of the issue is does God allow suffering? Why or why not?

That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Look, God is either powerful enough to stop all suffering in the world, or He is not.

If He is powerful enough AND there is suffering in the world, then God allows suffering.

If God does not allow suffering, then either He is not powerful enough or there is not suffering in the world.

Since you think this assumption is false/worthy of correction, you must think that God does not allow suffering? And it appears that you admit the existence of suffering. Ok, then God is not powerful enough to stop the suffering in the world.

Fine. I change my question: "Why do you worship a God who is so limited in power that He cannot stop the suffering of the world?"

In the hypothetical religious discussion above, it is extremely unlikely that the atheist secular humanist is asking, "Why does God allow suffering?" in an effort to really answer that question. Rather, the atheist is using it as a rhetorical device to force the theist to think about the Problem of Evil. The relationship you pose to the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?", is a disanalogy. While it is indeed, strictly speaking, an unargued conclusion to propose that God allows suffering, the argument is fairly stock and straightforward, and most people engaging in a religious discussion have heard it before. If they haven't, it can be easily fleshed out. This is the way conversation works. People very, very rarely highlight all the steps to their conclusion in a formal logical proof when talking about their beliefs, or anything else for that matter.

To be quite honest, the only "huge logical error" I noticed is your glaring assumption that no one who poses a question this way (or at least, the author of this blog post) has any training in logic. That's, at best, reflective of your total misunderstanding of at least one side of the discussion here, and at worst, just a thinly veiled ad hominem attack from someone who's only been on the other side oh-so-many times. But hey, what do I expect? This isn't about conversation with you, or honestly modifying the beliefs of others, is it? It's about who "[wi]ll win the argument", which is nothing more than a quasi-logical pissing contest, which in turn is exactly what I think this post is partly trying to avert.