Of course you do but if you insist let's go through it anyway, the second one first:smiley wrote:I am not sure what you mean. They're obviously not the "same". It's an analogy.Byblos wrote: You do realize those are not the same propositions, right?
With this proposition it would be rather obvious if there were a giant pink elephant in the room for it to be visible, right? So to deny the giant pink elephant is to deny the obvious or to deny objectivity.smiley wrote:If there was a giant pink elephant floating in my room, I would be able to see it.
This proposition, on the other hand, is ascribing a position to God that is itself denied in everything we know about God (whether we believe he exists or not). In other words, even if one does not believe in God one can firmly say that if one did believe in God and if one did believe that the bible is the inspired word of this God then based on these writings one can honestly say that God never intended for the world to be perfect, and suffering is consistent with an imperfect world. So you see, your analogy fails miserably.smiley wrote:If there is a God, then (he argues), we would not expect to see as much suffering in the world.
But I am curious though, why you would make an analogy of denying the obvious as equitable to denying the existence of God because there is suffering in the world. Care to elaborate on that a little for us?