Comments on the Wood-Loftus Debate on Evil
I'm going to announce during Saturday's debate with David Wood on the problem of evil that if anyone wants to comment on it they can do so here. While I don't know if anyone will, this space is still being made available in advance of what I will announce. I'll take a look at any comments when I get back.
36 comments:
There isn't going to be a live feed for this, is there?
Here are my own shots at solving the problem. I don't claim all that much for them, except that I think they exhibit some degree of thought and that they're not lightweight, breezy attempts at solutions. The latter debate I consider one of the best I have had with anyone: Christian or atheist (I wonder if Mike is still around on the Internet these days?):
Christian Replies to the Argument From Evil (Free Will Defense): Is God Malevolent, Weak, or Non-Existent Because of the Existence of Evil and Suffering?
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ124.HTM
Can God be Blamed for the Nazi Holocaust? Reflections on the "Problem of Evil" and Human Free Will
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/06/can-god-be-blamed-for-nazi-holocaust.html
Dialogue With an Atheist on the "Problem of Good" and the Nature of Meaningfulness in Atheism (The Flip Side of the Problem of Evil Argument Against Christianity)
(vs. Mike Hardie)
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ542.HTM
These constitute one Christian attempt to grapple with the problem. I am more than willing to defend my points of view and even to admit that I have no answer in particulars if that is the case (or to retract particulars if that is required, too).
Best wishes to both sides in the debate, and let it be a fair fight!
Dave Armstrong
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
John, It might have been handy to have had some slides to show. Consider for instance the organisms pictured in the online article, "Organisms that Look Designed" written by Allan Glenn:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Organisms.cfm
(Allan ended his article with a link to an article by me, "Why We Believe in a Designer.")
Sadly, Allan died last November at age 20, after struggling his whole life with Cystic Fibrosis. His moving final memoir, written in expectation of his death, remains online at Skeptic Wiki:
http://www.skepticwiki.org/
Just add his name to the search engine to find his wiki entry there. A brave, talented, and loving lad.
God is God, and you're not. Who's to say that suffering is not part of God's overreaching plan?
Who is to say that suffering is not part of Satan's overreaching plan?
does evil/suffering/pain/wrongs really exist (to the atheist)[?]
I've nothing to do, so I'll bite the bait.
I won't speak for other atheists, but I do not believe that 'wrong' or 'right' exists. They're ideas or concepts that help us survive. As a naturalist, I see that we have no purpose. The universe does not mean anything. There isn’t an ultimate goal. In fact, there isn't meaning in anything. One day the sun will expand and will absorb the earth.
Yet, on a smaller scale, it's self-evident that humans all suffer from the moment of birth until the day we die. And since humans try to avoid pain and suffering, it's fair to say that any attempt to relieve this pain is 'good'. People suffer less. Any attempt to hurt others that do not wish to be hurt is 'bad'. We can make a purpose to our existence, and for some, it’s to alleviate the pain and suffering of others directly, and others seek to do so indirectly.
You don't need revelation to act 'good' or 'bad'. And tying them to suffering and pain is a mistake. Really, the dichotomy between 'good' or 'bad' is fairly strange. There is no ultimate evil or supernatural goodness. There are just a whole lot of people suffering. We've evolved as a social species that experiences empathy. In a small part of my brain tucked away somewhere, I literally do feel your pain, and wish to help.
But there are those that are willing to paint everything as massive battles between righteous dudes and sinful bastards. Because of this, a lot more pain and suffering occur. In the world today, it seems that you practically need the good ole boy's personal 'revelation' when you bomb another country, or blow yourself to smithereens, or kidnap a kid and rape her. Millions of people will never be slaves to logic and reason, and will attempt to be ‘right’ or ‘true’ by hurting, killing, or silencing others by force.
I do believe in God, and above I was speaking as one who has comprehended not believing in God (as I spent most of my life not following any religious system faithfully).
But where does your god get you, Chuck? Since I could find no writings of your own, I'll presume that you're a Christian. After all, you've come to Debunking Christianity. Here's some short answers that most Christians will have trouble with. Us atheists need not answer them because they do not contradict with atheism, but they do with Christianity. While atheism may be depressing for some, it's better than following a contradictory lie that makes you feel good.
[1] When earthquakes occur, or children are hacked to pieces, where is your god? If he's absent, then he's not omnipotent or all-good.
[2] Then is it free will? That must be why people act so horribly to each other. Yet, how much choice does the baby born with Down's Syndrome have? If we're given free will by this being, and I believed in him, I'd pray every day that he'd take our free will away. Anything to stop the powerful from oppressing the weak.
[3] So then is it that we all 'have a purpose'? When truly horrible things happen to people that do not deserve to suffer, is your god behind this? If that's so, stop revering a monster. If this guy's all-powerful, then he's nothing more than a little boy with a magnifying glass standing over his ant colony. The child that gets run over by a speeding car had a purpose in being violently crushed to death under the wheel of a hummer? I think not.
In any case, Christianity has just devalued life. We're either robots following a master plan, there's a purpose to every horrible thing happening, or we've just blamed the baby for bad genes. If you believe in god, then anything is then permissable.
David Ferrel,
Begging the question doesn't make God any more real, or the problem of evil any more solved.
Who is to say that God isn't telling me to kill you because you are going to apostasize and lead many people away from God, just like the rationale provided to justify the slaughter of the Canaanites (men, women, children, animals, etc)...
So what criterion do you use to establish that slavery is wrong?
Stealing the virgin girls of your enemies after you slaughter their fathers and brothers and taking them into your bed as your wife?
Certainly, you would have a hard time arguing those things are wrong from the Bible's perspective.
What "standard" makes those things wrong in your worldview?
Chuck,
Let's call the world as it is E.
The absolute absence of disease, starvation, physical agony, mental illness...etc., can be defined as "objective standard zero" (OSZ) -- all of these things can be clinically and physically diagnosed and observed. We can hook up someone in agony to a machine which monitors brain activity and see the pain's effect on the brain. In that sense, it isn't just a subjective perception on the part of the person in pain.
Now, let's take OSZ and ask you a question -- do you agree or disagree that, for the sake of those afflicated, OSZ is better than E?
How do you arrive at such a conclusion? Is there anything in the Bible that leads you to conclude that people who are starving to death, or with mental illness would be better off in OSZ?
If God supposedly has a "greater good" and this is why we have E and not OSZ, then we should consider two points:
1) possibly the most evil aspect of E is that we are left ignorant and in the dark as to what the greater good is.
That is, when you take your child to the dentist, and he experiences pain, but you know that it is for a greater good, you can tell him s[ecifically why -- that he had a cavity that had to be drilled out, etc.
2) more importantly, if God can accomplish OSZ, but chooses E, it isn't out of necessity like you taking your kid to the dentist.
Imagine that you have the power to either a) snap your fingers; or b) drill his tooth...but either one accomplishes the "greater good" of fixing his teeth. You would have to be malevolent to choose b. But this is exactly what theists contend when they say that God chose E over OSZ, because an omnipotent God can accomplish anything it wants via OSZ just as easily as it can E.
Thus, the problem of evil renders the existence of a good God wholly unbelievable.
A mad scientist (sorry about the stereotype all you non-mad scientists) creates a virus and unleashes it on the world. Millions die in pain; others live blinded and disfigured. What is our moral judgment of the mad-scientist’s action?
God creates smallpox. Millions die in pain; others live blinded and disfigured. What is our moral judgment of God’s action?
Rich,
Is there a chance that beyond our current understanding even horrible things have meaning, purpose?
Well, is there any reason for you to think that? Is there any good reason, any evidence, that leads you to conclude that days of child rape, followed by being buried alive (think Jessica Lunsford), has a purpose/meaning behind it?
And if it does, is there any reason to think that this "purpose/meaning" somehow justifies the evil?
And, if that is true, could God not have accomplished the same purpose/meaning without the evil?
If God is all-powerful and all-good, then the answer is, definitionally, that God has to...or else "all-good" is as meaningless a term as 'gpweodiejwwdpq' is.
So a baby certainly doesn't have a choice to be born with disease but do parents have choices to make that effect what happens to a baby? Smoking, drinking, drugs? Being born with a disease isn't an act of free will, free will is the ability to choose for ourselves how we act. Connecting free will to a baby "choosing" to be born with downs syndrome is not at all what free will is. Choice A- drinking alcohol while you pregnant, choice B- not drinking while your pregnant, The free will is the choice made, fetal alcohol syndrome is the result of a bad chopice made by the parent, not the choice of the baby born with it.
What an incredibly lame excuse this is. Since when are birth defects solely caused by drinking, smoking or other such harmful activities performed by the mother during pregnancy? Sometimes germ cells simply divide incorrectly, and you end up with too many chromosomes (just as an example). What "free will choice" is the cause there?
Dave Armstrong, I skimmed through the essays on your Blog and what I saw what that you simply do not understand the problem. I saw no interaction with David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion on this, and that only takes you up to the 18th century.
Christian philosopher Dr. James F. Sennett has said: “By far the most important objection to the faith is the so-called problem of evil – the alleged incompatibility between the existence or extent of evil in the world and the existence of God. I tell my philosophy of religion students that, if they are Christians and the problem of evil does not keep them up at night, then they don’t understand it.”
Dave, YOU don't understand the problem. Sorry to tell you this.
Chuck: The basic question is does "evil", "suffering", "pain" really exist such that it can be defined as "wrong" or "bad", if it does what exactly is it? Human natural perceptions, divine moral code, any other categories?
The word evil is used to talk about two things: 1) suffering, and 2) a conclusion about that suffering which claims suffering is evil. That there is suffering (1) is a hard cold fact. How one concludes that suffering is evil (2) is varied and depends on other beliefs one has. You must think that there is no evil (2) in the end, since it all works out for the good by God. I think suffering is bad because it hurts people. When I hurt I object to it even more. And I have every right to object when I or people I know are harmed, since I'm part of this world too. And through this process of objecting to evil (2) the evolution of species continues because I am part of that struggle.
If death, killing, earthquakes, dead magled pets are "wrong" - its us as humans that define them that way.
And what reason can you give me that I cannot object to evil (1) and conclude that it hurts (2)?
I guess in Hitlers universe - the greatest thing he did "wrong" -was letting jet plane technology and nuclear theory slip through his fingers.
You remind me of theists who argue I cannot be thankful on Thanksgiving Day too. I can and I am. I'm thankful for life, for being lucky to live in America, for health, and for being lucky enough to find a good wife.
I have a whole section in my book devoted to the question, "What is Life Without God?" that if you really want a detailed answer to this question you should get. What I was arguing for is that if God exists then he did wrong for allowing Hitler to kill and kill and kill. In the natural world something must be killed so that some other carnivore can eat. This is the world your God set up. That makes him worse than Hitler by a long long shot. Hitler's Germany was a Christian nation and all you can do is to ask about Hitler from my perspective? My conclusion (2) is that Hitler did wrong because he killed people, and I value people because I'm a person. I have sympathy for people who suffer like that under such a dictator. I would've stopped Hitler if I could, but your God did nothing. That makes my moral code better than your God's moral code, because he let Hitler kill and kill and kill. You say my moral code is subjectively chosen? Well then, where does your God's moral code come from?
Can anyone comment on the actual debate which took place this weekend?
Rich,
You are sick.
Free wiil [sic] is not a result but the choice before a result.
What free will did the child have to be born without arms or legs and a malformed brain? What free will is that? He is denied everything from the moment of birth. He is not free to do anything but drool.
If you allow for genetic predispositions to fall outside of 'free will', then your god is intentionally tampering with how we will act when he plays Kinex with our genetic code. [ID'ers back me up on this one for all the wrong reasons. After all, how can their god act on our development as a species but in a genetic way?] If he isn't, and is instead an arms-distance away from our world, then he is not all-powerful.
So now your god is directly responsible for billions of deaths and undue suffering. Every baby that dies from a genetic defect - in fact every person that suffers or dies from a problem with their genes, is due to your god.
And if 'free will' is the freedom to drink yourself into a stupor, then give birth to a retard, then there is no god. If you allow this to happen with the claim of 'free will', then anything is permissible.
Hi John,
>Dave Armstrong, I skimmed through the essays on your Blog and what I saw what that you simply do not understand the problem.
You can't determine that by skimming long papers on such a weighty topic. The least you could do is show me what you claim I don't understand: educate the ignorant and get them up to speed.
>I saw no interaction with David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion on this, and that only takes you up to the 18th century.
Hume believed in a deity of some sort (though not the Christian God), so whatever he concluded about evil did not, obviously, make him an atheist (and that is far closer to my position than to yours). Many people seem not to know this, but there it is. See my paper:
Was Skeptical Philosopher David Hume an Atheist?
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ515.HTM
>Christian philosopher Dr. James F. Sennett has said: “By far the most important objection to the faith is the so-called problem of evil – the alleged incompatibility between the existence or extent of evil in the world and the existence of God. I tell my philosophy of religion students that, if they are Christians and the problem of evil does not keep them up at night, then they don’t understand it.”
I agree completely, which is why I made a very similar comment on this blog recently. Just three days ago, I wrote in a thread under one of your posts:
"I think I glanced at your deconversion. Wasn't the problem of evil key? I consider that the most serious objection to Christianity (though, not, of course, fatal at all, as you'd expect). So while I could still quibble with that, it would be in an entirely different league from the sort of shallow stuff that usually constitutes reasons for deconversions.
"You know how that goes: there are reasons that one disagrees with, while considering them highly respectable and serious and worthy of attention, and others which are downright frivolous and trivial or plainly fallacious."
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/#c116008376649507454
Obviously, you missed that, or you wouldn't quote my own belief back to me. And so your next statement becomes literally, nonsensical, since you thought that I would disagree with what Sennett said, but I do not; therefore, you are the one who doesn't understand MY position on this (whatever you think of its merits). And of course, understanding of opposing positions is fundamental to any decent dialogue.
>Dave, YOU don't understand the problem. Sorry to tell you this.
See the above remarks. I'm willing to interact with anyone who wants to show me where my reasoning went astray in my long paper on the subject. If you decline, that's fine. Perhaps someone else would be willing to do so.
I find it humorous, too, that I cited very long passages from St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. If I don't understand the problem, then neither do they, so that the result would be two of the very greatest thinkers in Christian history don't have a clue about the problem of evil; only atheists do. Or else they understood the problem but I didn't, even though I cited them in agreement. That brings us back to the logical nonsense of me agreeing with and citing people who understand the problem, yet I supposedly do not.
Right. I think you need to give it another try. I couldn't care else whether you want to dialogue with me on this subject (or any other) or not (I manage to find many dialogue partners; no problem); but I would expect of you something better than this flimsy sort of response and misrepresentation of the position of Christian opponents.
I'll be dealing with your deconversion story (as much as I can find online), and when I do that, I won't misrepresent or breezily dismiss what you believe. But if you misunderstand Christian doctrine (as almost inevitably happens in any such cases that I have examined), I will certainly point that out.
In any event, I won't approach your writing with this silly attitude of "I skimmed your [long, involved] papers and you just don't get it, so I won't spend any time giving you the courtesy of showing you why you don't understand the problem; instead I'll quote Christian philosophers to you who say exactly what you said in a comment under a post of mine three days ago -- as if you would disagree with them."
LOL C'mon; certainly you're capable of much better than that . . . and if you aren't, then hopefully someone on this blog is. I started out here in high hopes that good dialogue could be had! I haven't given up yet . . .
Dave Armstrong
Rich,
I retract my statement. You are not sick. My mistake. You are just ignorant.
I never said this was free will!! In fact I said the same thing you did in different words which aren't being understood, which is probably my own fault.
A child being born with a birth defect is not the free will of the child and I never said it was, furthermore it is a wrong example to use against free will because it's not an exercise of free will at all.
Exactly. Stop thinking about the mother that went on a drinking binge. Think about the baby. Every baby born with a genetic defect has no free will. None. Every child that is raped by a priest has no free will. None. There is no choice to make.
"If you allow for genetic predispositions to fall outside of 'free will', then your god is intentionally tampering with how we will act when he plays Kinex with our genetic code."
Whose free will are we talking about here? Where exactly is my free will exhibited within the realm of genetic predispositions?
Exactly. People born with genetic problems, or those that contract diseases, or those that get leukemia and die at the age of nine have no free will. They cannot choose to get AIDS or leukemia or malaria or be born with low quantities of bone marrow. There is no choice. We have no free will. It is a caveat used by many to explain the problem of evil.
How does this mean there is no God? We are able to make choices for ourselves, we also have consequences of each choice, and sometimes it affects more than just ourself [sic].
Your god is behind the scenes, tapering with our genetic code, is he not? He’s in control of the whole fucking universe! Isn’t he there in every cancer cell and every quadriplegic’s broken spinal cord? Your god chooses what happens, and knows what will happen. Where is the free will when a baby is shot in the head, or your mother falls down the stairs?
Yeah, God allows you to make wrong choices all the time, He never intended to control our every action.
Now your god is allowing these atrocities to happen? How do you know he never intended to control everything? He’s all-powerful. He can’t just give up his power, otherwise he isn’t all-powerful, and is then only semi-powerful. He’s practically enabling these diabolical actions to take place. He is nothing more than a demon that allows horrible things to happen to innocent people, and deserves no submission from you or me.
You haven't noticed that God does permit anything to happen? But who ever said you can escape the consequences of bad choices?
What are you saying?
This is why Christ had to attone [sic] for our sins, othertwise [sic] everysingle [sic] person ever born on this planet would be doomed to an eternity of suffering.
Mithras died so that my sins could be absolved. So did Krishna. So did Ronald Reagan. Your statement does not make any sense, and has as much validity as me claiming that orange juice is a gift from Elvis.
Just because no one has an answer for why there are genetic birth defects doesn't mean there isn't one.
There is an answer: Once upon a time… we evolved, and through copulation and combination of our genes present in a sperm and an egg, we get small variations in the genes that are passed on. Sometimes an environmental factor such as a virus or germ may change the code, or a subdominant gene may be expressed through chance [about 1/4th of the time]. This repeats for a very, very, very long time. And that’s why we have genetic birth defects. The end.
All of those that die at birth and young age are sent back to God, automatically saved and returned to heaven. No judgement [sic] for they died in innocence.
Then what of the retard with an IQ of a carrot? He lives to the age of fifty, then keels over. What of the sick man that cannot leave his room without endangering his health because his body's immune system cannot combat germs? Do they get a free pass too? And if they don't, are they denied access to heaven because they happened to live in a country with enough scientific knowledge to save their lives minutes after they're born?
I keep thinking I'll learn how to debate effectively but I feel like its a loosing battle.
Go and read the opposition’s writings. Understand what they mean. Learn to hold two thoughts in your head, weigh the options, and understand the other side. Don't evangelize. We don't like that. And don't make appeals to authority that we do not agree with.
Dave Armstrong, I did notice your comment about evil, but even though you said this doesn't mean you understand the depth of the problem. I was in a hurry at the time I skimmed through your papers. I'll look them over again. But anyone who attempts to deal with the problem of evil who mainly uses Augustine and Aquinas isn't caught up to speed on the whole debate since Hume. And anyone today who wants to comment on the debate who doesn't take into consideration William Rowe's, Paul Draper's, Michael Martin's, Quentin Smith's, Bruce Russell's and Theodore Drange's arguments still doesn't understand the problem.
When my debate transcript and video are made available you'll see a glimpse of what the problem really is all about. I had so much more to share if needed, too. Until then I wish you well. You're a bright thinker, and I look forward to dialoguing with you on this issue in the future. And dialogue on this issue I will. But do me the favor first in reading up on the modern debates, okay?...that is, if you haven't already.
Dialogue it is then! Forget my deconversion story. I know what you'll say about science and Genesis 1-11, since you've already written about that.
Rich,
I do believe that you are ignorant of the issues surrounding free will and the problem of evil.
really? the priest doesn't have a choice to make? The child again drunken tune had no choice but the priest certainly did yes?
So a priest can choose between sodomizing a child or not? Then, is the child is nothing more than a test to him? Is it some part of a morality play where the priest can choose to be tempted or restrain himself? When he chooses to molest the child, does the child get a say in it, or does your god stay away, allowing this to continue? If your god allows this, then it is immoral, and should be shunned. If he cannot stop this from happening, he is not all-powerful, and not worthy of worship.
Another bad example of free will. This is another case where we have none because there isn't a choice to make.
Your god certainly has the will to stop all of this pain and suffering. Why doesn’t he?
"Where is the free will when a baby is shot in the head"
The one doing the shooting? You keep looking for free will where none can exsist [sic] and say "see we have no free will." You look to the free will of a baby that is shoot [sic] and say he has none but skip right over the shooter and his responsibility.
But what of the baby? The baby has no free will, as you admit. So is it a tool employed by your god so that the shooter can enter heaven or descend into hell? What of the baby? What of the baby?
A price had to be paid for the sins all would commit, this meets justice, Christ did that so we don't have to.
Why couldn’t your god just go POOF! And make all our sins disappear? He can do that, right? Why must he kill a guy to absolve mankind of an imaginary black mark on us?
Could I say the same of any god that ‘died for our sins’? Anubus died for me. Eingana stuck a hole in her ass so that we could all live. We should all obey Quetzalcoatl because I say so. Jumala is the best and greatest godl!
Good desciption [sic] of why we have birth defects by the way, I meant why God would tamper with our genes and allow birth defects.
Because otherwise, no god can have any influence in our development. If a god is to direct our path, what other way should he do so than through DNA? If he does not direct our path, then he is absent from our world. Many Christians are convinced that the only evidence for the existence of their god is the detail of our DNA.
Besides, if there is a god that’s all-good and all-powerful, I’m wondering why he doesn’t tamper with our genes to eliminate harmful mutations.
Thats not the problem I meant it is me learning how to effectivly [sic] present my side, not understand yours.
To present an argument that can be convincing, you must understand what we believe, and why. You do not believe in Allah's existence, do you? Why don't you believe that Allah or Ganesh exists?
If you don't want appeals to an authority you don't believe in the don't debate about it. I'm not evangelizing, if that's your impression of me then sorry.
This isn't a debate. It's a conversation. If you wanted to debate, I would be interested in what we were to debate, but would be hesitant.
Whenever you say that Jesus died for us, that is preaching. Atheists do not believe in gods because we see no evidence for them.
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm ignorant(thanks), sick, or preaching. How do I take theside [sic] of religion without sounding preachy?
I've met many learned Christians. When I say 'ignorant', it is not an insult on your intelligence. You need some schooling if you're in the mood to debate.
I’m not sure you can stop 'preacher mode'. Divest yourself from Christianity and argue on purely theistic grounds? Argue for the existence of a god, then once you've made your argument, give evidence that your god exists? It's your call.
>Dave Armstrong, I did notice your comment about evil, but even though you said this doesn't mean you understand the depth of the problem.
Even if that is true (which I deny), you give me no reason why you think this is the case.
>I was in a hurry at the time I skimmed through your papers. I'll look them over again.
Thank you.
>But anyone who attempts to deal with the problem of evil who mainly uses Augustine and Aquinas isn't caught up to speed on the whole debate since Hume.
I didn't primarily use them. Above I made the point that if you want to play the "ignorance" game, you'll have to include Aquinas and Augustine and I don't think many people will buy an interpretation that they were ignoramuses, no matter what period they happened to live in.
>And anyone today who wants to comment on the debate who doesn't take into consideration William Rowe's, Paul Draper's, Michael Martin's, Quentin Smith's, Bruce Russell's and Theodore Drange's arguments still doesn't understand the problem.
This is irrational. One doesn't have to read all the philosophers to have any intelligent comment at all on a topic. That is simply academic elitism, and I don't play that game. I'm not an academic and don't claim to be. I'm a Christian apologist. But to say not only that soneone can't have a constructive, decent dialogue on a topic unless they've read a, b, c, d, etc. but that they can't even comprehend the depth of the problem of proposed difficulty, is sheer nonsense.
Granted, the more one reads on anything, the better prepared and informed they will be, but you aren't just saying that: you make out that reading these guys is an absolute requirement to even have the discussion or be regarded as a worthy dialogue partner/opponent.
In effect, then, this reduces to: either one has to know all the ins and outs of philosophical minutiae or else one can't sensibly discuss the problem of evil at all. I vehemently deny this. I may not know all the intricacies of all these arguments as well as you do (freely granted), but that doesn't mean I can't spot a flaw in the arguments that I can read and comprehend as well as anyone else. Since I am a Socratic in method, that's mainly what I do, anyway.
Even Alvin Plantinga thinks it is perfectly reasonable and rational for a Christian to hold certain beliefs without knowing all the ins and outs of the current philosophical discussion. And he is no slouch, as I have heard many atheists agree. He opposes academic elitism and snobbery, as I do.
As for Ted Drange, I have debated that man, and to be frank, I was not impressed. See:
Dialogue With an Atheist Philosophy Professor on the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God's Existence and its Possible Alternatives
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ261.HTM
Dialogue on the Argument From Non-Belief (ANB) as a Proposed Disproof of God's Existence (vs. Steve Conifer & Dr. Ted Drange)
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ541.HTM
Refutation of Atheists' Alleged Biblical "Contradictions" Concerning Salvation and Supposed Annihilationism and Universalism
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ303.HTM
>When my debate transcript and video are made available you'll see a glimpse of what the problem really is all about.
I see. So being a Christian apologist and having regarded the problem as a very serious and worthy objection for 25 years isn't sufficient to have any inkling of the depth of the problem. I have to see your video to get a glimpse of how ignorant I really am.
>I had so much more to share if needed, too.
I'm sure you did. So did I when I wrote my papers.
>Until then I wish you well. You're a bright thinker, and I look forward to dialoguing with you on this issue in the future.
Not if the requirement is to read a bunch of atheists first. If you want to discuss one such paper by one of these guys, great. I'd be happy to do that, anytime. I'd even gladly read, say, long online articles by each of these folks (but not books). And I would reply to them unless I felt that it was too philosophically technical and out of my reach in that sense.
>And dialogue on this issue I will. But do me the favor first in reading up on the modern debates, okay?...that is, if you haven't already.
I've read plenty on the topic. One can always read more. I don't have unlimited time to devote to one topic. The apologist (esp. the Catholic apologist) has many many issues to write about and defend. You can wait till I read the books you think I should read if you like. In the meantime, I will start responding to comments I find here. If you want to counter-respond, fine; if not, fine. It's of little concern to me. I dialogue with whoever is willing to do so, and I critique whatever I think is worthwhile to critique, whether the person is willing or able to reply back or not. Usually people can't defend their own viewpoints; that's been my experience.
>Dialogue it is then! Forget my deconversion story. I know what you'll say about science and Genesis 1-11, since you've already written about that.
Then I'll skip that part and deal with others, but it will be dealt with (esp. after the ridiculous, intellectually triumphalistic remarks you made about it that I saw cited at Steve Hays' site).
Dave Armstrong
Thanks for quoting me in part, Frank. Too bad you missed what 'wrong' and 'right' were defined as. Words have more than one definition. But I'm sure you knew that.
In this case, it was a minor discussion on morality, where 'right' and 'wrong' were spoken in the same breath as 'evil'. There is no battle between the forces of good and evil. There is no good that we can observe, and you probably disagree with many on which is good and which is bad. It is not an argument for moral relativism, as you'd be happy to claim, but only that someone as selfish as you could think that the universe actually cares what we think.
Misrepresenting what I said can only mean that you did not read what I wrote, and instead went mining for a quote to gobble on while you hobble back to your lair.
Some ideas are correct while others are false. I hope you'd agree: 2 + 2 does not equal 5, aliens do not abduct people, the sky is not magenta, and unicorns, trolls, and Allah do not exist.
If only you'd realize that your god does not exist. You must be as thick as tar.
Dave Armstrong, then you will be outgunned from the get go. Read what you want to, then when the debate is available we'll dialogue. Okay? I'll look forward to it.
Frank,
Thank you for your observation on my choice of words. If I could go back and edit them to reflect what I meant, I would do so. Yet, I cannot.
But then again, LOL, is morality a right or wrong idea to you?
Perhaps restate this, Frank?
Are you saying that morality as a concept of right or wrong is a right or wrong thing? We are a moral species. We claim that things are good and others are evil, that some things are better than others. That doesn't make it good or bad. It's something we do.
Are you saying that some moral pronouncements are better than others? If that were so, I'd love to hear them, and your reasons why you believe so.
drunken tune wrote:
>Here's some short answers that most Christians will have trouble with. Us atheists need not answer them because they do not contradict with atheism,
Well, you have plenty of your own to deal; with, so I wouldn't wish more upon you.
>but they do with Christianity.
According to you . . .
>While atheism may be depressing for some,
It should be for all, but people have a great capacity to make meaning where there should ultimately be none, given their presuppositions. One sees the dichotomy in your own comments.
>it's better than following a contradictory lie that makes you feel good.
I agree with the concept expressed here; but deny that it applies to Christianity rather than atheism.
>[1] When earthquakes occur, or children are hacked to pieces, where is your god?
Being hacked to pieces and slowly murdered on the cross.
>If he's absent, then he's not omnipotent or all-good.
Obviously, He was willing to take on the suffering that many of us have to endure. He is there with any victim who calls out to Him (even if they don't), but it doesn't necessarily follow that He should prevent all suffering.
This is what I delved into, in my long paper on the problem of evil. The atheist casually assumes that God should intervene in every tragic situation and use the miraculous to do so, without stopping to consider what this would entail: what sort of weird world (in terms of the natural order) that would require.
I made the point that atheists are extremely reluctant to allow any divine intervention in matters of nature and will despise even theistic evolutionary attempts to do so in any way, shape, or form, yet if we switch over to this discussion on evil, all of a sudden, if God doesn't do thousands of miracles per second, then He is either bad or not there at all.
I make the argument (too involved to briefly summarize) that there is, therefore, some necessity for the world being the way it is, and that God is bound to the laws of logic, insofar as natural disaster and natural evil occurs. It is unreasonable to assume that He must perform millions of miracles so we never suffer at all. Other evil is clearly a result of man's inhumanity to man, and it is foolish to blame God for it. We have the capacity to eliminate much of that.
>[2] Then is it free will? That must be why people act so horribly to each other.
The presence of free will makes it possible that it will be abused, yes. We bel;ieve that HGod thought it better to allow free will and the evil that can result, rather than make robots who can do no other than what they do. God made it possible for you to be so free that He even allows you to believe foolish things like denying that He exists. That's extremely tolerant, isn't it? It would be like me saying, "hey, you can believe whatever you want, even that I don't exist." And He is the one Who created you; without Whom you wouldn't be here at all.
>Yet, how much choice does the baby born with Down's Syndrome have?
That is not explained by free will, but rather, by the nature of the natural world, which will (properly examined and thought through) entail such things (in this instance, because genetics is not an absolutely perfect system). C.S. Lewis wrote:
"We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this abuse of free will by His creatures at every moment: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults. But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void . . . All matter in the neighbourhood of a wicked man would be liable to undergo unpredictable altertaions. That God can and does, on occasions, modify the behaviour of matter and produce what we call miracles, is part of the Christian faith; but the very conception of a common, and therefore, stable, world, demands that these occasions should be extremely rare . . .
". . . fixed laws, consequences unfolding by causal necessity, the whole natural order, are at once the limits within which their common life is confined and also the sole condition under which any such life is possible."
(The Problem of Pain, New York: Macmillan, 1962 [originally 1940], 33-34)
>If we're given free will by this being, and I believed in him, I'd pray every day that he'd take our free will away. Anything to stop the powerful from oppressing the weak.
He obviously thought differently, and He (being omniscient) knows better than we do, why the world is the way it is. This was essentially the perspective of the Book of Job. It makes a lot of sense, if one presupposes for the sake of argument, the theistic God. If He does exist and is all-knowing, then who are we to try to second-guess Him, no matter how perplexing we may think the world is?
>[3] So then is it that we all 'have a purpose'?
Indeed.
>When truly horrible things happen to people that do not deserve to suffer, is your god behind this?
He allows the evil to happen for a higher purpose (often so high we cannot comprehend it). He was certainly behind the crucifixion. That had the utmost purpose, even though the thing itself was horrendous evil. God (the Father) took it and made it the means for the salvation of mankind. He used the intended evil for good.
>If that's so, stop revering a monster. If this guy's all-powerful, then he's nothing more than a little boy with a magnifying glass standing over his ant colony.
But you still have to establish your assumed premise that God must necessarily intervene in every tragedy, or cease to be good or all-powerful. You seem to be unable to comprehend how a theistic world could contain suffering or that much suffering could be the result result of 1) natural laws of nature, and 2) malicious human free will.
The truly amazing thing to explain is how heroism and goodness and human love, of a selfless character, and good qualities in cultures at large, continue to exist, in such a meaningless universe.
For example, there was a ton of sufering in World War II, yet it could have been prevented if Germany had not been allowed to build up its military and install a fascist regime (ditto for Japan). So that evil (itself allowed by man's stupidity and failure of foresight) caused tremendous suffering, yet at the same time there was opportunity for great, wonderful, selfless acts of love, in oder to alleviate the suffering brought on by human idiocy and blindness.
And the fact remains that the bad guys were beaten. The world was not entirely meaningless and hopeless. The evil people were beaten and their plans thwarted. I could just as well say that God caused that to happen in His larger plan, rather than irrationally blame God for the origins of that tragic conflict, when it was man's fault for not preventing it. You look at all the bad things and blame God without cause, but one can also look at hoew God used the evil to bring about good, in many specific instances and overall.
>The child that gets run over by a speeding car had a purpose in being violently crushed to death under the wheel of a hummer? I think not.
In and of itself, it does appear meaningless, senseless, and outrageous, I admit. It certainly is in atheism, because this life is all there is. But when there is an eternal life ahead of us, tragic events like this are not the be-all and end-all. God can even use such horrors to bring about good. The parents can be a witness of hope, when all would be looking to them to be crushed under the weight of agony and sorrow. It's not humanly possible to endure such suffering, but it is possible by God's grace. And that can be a witness whicvh can bring about the salvation of many, which would be a wonderful thing brought about by the bad, hence giving it meaning it would not have by itself.
In fact, my wife knows a couple who had a young child who was behind their car, when the father backed up and crushed him to death. I can't even begin to imagine what that would have been like. I could not endure that on my own; I couldn't even start. I would want to kill myself on the spot.
But this poor couple survived and gave the glory to God. They didn't lose faith. They didn't become atheists like so many of you, for far lesser reasons. And that is because we Christians believe there is a purpose and meaning to everything, no matter how incomprehensible to us, and there is another world coming, where all will be made right and just, and suffering will cease.
>In any case, Christianity has just devalued life.
Not at all; it is ultimately meaningless atheism which does that. Life has the highest meaning in the Christian worldview, which encompasses suffering and transcends it, even though it is very difficult for us to comprehend.
>We're either robots following a master plan, there's a purpose to every horrible thing happening,
It's not an intrinsic purpose, but a purpose insofar as God can use tragedy brought on by evil or the natural world, to bring about a higher good. I gave two examples above. But the existence of free will of necessity entails suffering, because free beings really can rebel and cause untold suffering.
>or we've just blamed the baby for bad genes.
Of course we don't blame the baby.
>If you believe in god, then anything is then permissable.
Quite the contrary; God is the only sensible ground for a system of absolute ethics; otherwise everything is arbitrary and relativistic. That's why by far the greatest evils have been perpetrated by cultures who rejected Christianity and put man in the driver's seat (Nazi Germany, Maoist China; Leninist and Stalinist Russia, etc.)
Now we slaughter children in their mother's wombs at a 4000 a day rate. Is that God's fault, too, or a result of human beings playing God? Yet for some reason I hear precious little protest about that in all these ghastly scenarios meant to "disprove" God. You mention a child being run over, but not having its brains sucked out upon emerging from the womb or being torn limb from limb. Is that God's fault, or the "doctor's" who does it, and the society which permits such monstrosities to be legalized and called "good"? Is that a result of Christianity or of secularism and the worship of unbridled sex without responsibility, which involves butchering children that inevitably result from unhindered, amoral sexuality?
Dave Armstrong
John W. Loftus wrote, with regard to the ubiquitous Hitler connection:
>I have a whole section in my book devoted to the question, "What is Life Without God?" that if you really want a detailed answer to this question you should get. What I was arguing for is that if God exists then he did wrong for allowing Hitler to kill and kill and kill.
Hitler is either "allowed" by necessity of human free will or else we have no free will. God obviously thought free will was preferable to being automatons. But in this instance, clearly, we could have prevented what happened.
>In the natural world something must be killed so that some other carnivore can eat. This is the world your God set up.
That is the animal world. If you want to directly compare that world with human beings, and make us merely an evolutionary development of it (i.e., in a completely naturalistic sense; I am not condemning theistic evolution), then you have huge problems of your own, since how can you argue that cannibalism is more wrong for human beings than for animals (especially in a eat-anything-to-survive environment, such as the famous Donner party)? Atheists will play games and make out that people are qualitatively different, but this is nonsensical within your paradigm, which has man evolving directly from this same animal kingdom, wherein survival of the fittest is the natural order of things.
Thus, e.g., eugenics was justified by the Nazis and folks like Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood (who got a lot of her racist ideas from the Nazis) on evolutionary grounds. The real difficulties, then, lie on your side. You have to differentiate men from the animals, in order to have any rational system of ethics, but you have no basis to do so. Christianity, on the other hand, can easily make the distinction, based on the notion of a soul, which makes human beings quite different from the animals; also the fact that man is made in God's image. The supernatural, non-material fact of a soul makes the qualitative difference
>That makes him worse than Hitler by a long long shot.
Really? I don't see how:
1) God allows free will.
2) Free will entails the possibility of rebellion and evil.
3) Hitler ushered in one such massive societal rebellion against civilization and evil campaign.
4) God is to blame for Hitler's evil because He allowed free will.
5) Man isn't to blame for Hitler's evil, even though he had the capacity to prevent it altogether.
This is irrational. It makes no more sense to blame God for the evil choices of creatures he created free than it does to blame a good parent for sins of a child of his or her own volition, committed after the parent trusted the child to be responsible with its freedom. You can't blame one being for the sins of another; at some point there is individual responsibility. That's why it is ridiculous to blame God for Hitler.
But even if that made any sense, why do you atheists not give God any credit for all the good which comes from free will? If you want to hold Him accountable for all the bad things that men do to each other, or the natural events that can hardly be otherwise in a sensible, orderly universe, then how come you never give Him any credit for anything?
>Hitler's Germany was a Christian nation and all you can do is to ask about Hitler from my perspective?
The people may have been, but the regime was not, by any stretch of the imagination. It was a grotesque mixture of corrupted romanticism, paganism, and occultism. The Final Solution was not justified on Christian grounds.
>My conclusion (2) is that Hitler did wrong because he killed people, and I value people because I'm a person.
Good for you. It ain't rocket science.
>I have sympathy for people who suffer like that under such a dictator. I would've stopped Hitler if I could, but your God did nothing.
If He stopped Hitler by the miraculous and abrogation of his free will, then we would have a world where no one was free, and every bad, evil thing is immediately prevented: precisely the sort of world which is the utter opposite of what atheists argue must be the case in terms of naturalistic science. If you don't allow the slightest intervention of God in the natural world (intelligent design, etc.) then why do you demand it when it comes to the problem of evil? So in the realm of science, you argue that God can't exist, period, simply because the natural world is what it is (i.e., assumed as a matter of unproven naturalistic dogma), and allows no supernatural, yet in order for God to be "allowed" to exist where suffering abounds, He must intervene constantly and never cease or else you will mock Him as nonexistent or a weakling or a monster, worse than Hitler, etc. And somehow these utterly contradictory scenarios coexist in one brain and one intellectual conglomeration. And we're supposed to be impressed by such literal nonsense?
>That makes my moral code better than your God's moral code, because he let Hitler kill and kill and kill.
No; men did that. They allowed it to start up in the first place. Then one can blame German people who refused to stand up against the evil when it came to their country, because it cost them something. We've far surpassed the German people in our sins of omission, because we sit idly by in America today while 4400 children a day are slaughtered. We call it "choice" or "sexual freedom" or "expedience" or "a career."
But how is it any better for that to take place in our abortuaries than it was for Nazi atrocities to occur in concentration camps? Hitler killed six million Jews. Legal child-killing in America has now taken 44 million lives in the most hideous fashion. Again: is that God's fault, or man's, for allowing it to take place while doing nothing? Or is a tiny human life of less value than a grown Jewish person's life? One unfortunate group was murdered because of ethnicity and religion; the other because of the sin of being small, helpless, and yet unborn. I see no difference. But lots of people do. So spare me your sanctimonious tripe about Hitler and this supposedly having something to do with the morality of God, while most atheists (and some half of Christians also) wink at abortion and pretend it is not the abominable evil and outrage that it is.
>You say my moral code is subjectively chosen? Well then, where does your God's moral code come from?
It's eternal. Therefore, it "comes from" nothing. It always existed in God. God is Love. Yours is certainly subjective because you can't create an absolute larger than yourself and applicable to all, no matter how hard you try. That has to come from a Being Who transcends creation and mankind itself.
Dave Armstrong
drunken logic, er tune, wrote:
>Your god is behind the scenes, tapering with our genetic code, is he not? He’s in control of the whole . . . universe! Isn’t he there in every cancer cell and every quadriplegic’s broken spinal cord? Your god chooses what happens, and knows what will happen. Where is the free will when a baby is shot in the head, or your mother falls down the stairs?
. . . Now your god is allowing these atrocities to happen? How do you know he never intended to control everything? He’s all-powerful. He can’t just give up his power, otherwise he isn’t all-powerful, and is then only semi-powerful. He’s practically enabling these diabolical actions to take place. He is nothing more than a demon that allows horrible things to happen to innocent people, and deserves no submission from you or me.
Wow; you're getting awfully angry at a nonexistent thing. I don't spend my time getting into a lather about how unjust the man in the moon made of green cheese is or what a rascally scoundrel Darth Vader or Dracula is. Funny that you would do that with a mere fairy-tale known as "god."
I always say that a radical feminist is someone who hates men yet tries her hardest to be exactly like them in almost all respects. You know: the identifying with the oppressor routine.
It is now clearly the time and place to define the irrationally angry atheist:
One who hates and gets all worked up against the "god" who doesn't exist, and who desires to be the exact opposite of the imaginary being whose imaginary qualities he simultaneously vainly imagines and detests.
Man! Talk about an irrational and absurd complex . . .
Dave Armstrong
drunken tune makes my argument for me:
>There is an answer: Once upon a time… we evolved, and through copulation and combination of our genes present in a sperm and an egg, we get small variations in the genes that are passed on. Sometimes an environmental factor such as a virus or germ may change the code, or a subdominant gene may be expressed through chance [about 1/4th of the time]. This repeats for a very, very, very long time. And that’s why we have genetic birth defects. The end.
Precisely! This is my argument. Lots of suffering comes from the natural world and what can result from it. It is unreasonable to absolutely demand that God must supersede all such instances in a supernatural way or else we all-wise human beings (not - unlike the imaginary "god" - known for our evil deeds at all) will reject Him and pretend He isn't even there. It makes much more sense to accept the natural world as it is and accept that things such as mutations and falling off of cliffs and drowning and fever epidemics will occur and that this casts no doubt on God's goodness because there is a sense in which it cannot be otherwise. God made the natural world what it is. The laws of science and logic alike apply to it. Sometimes bad things will happen there. Lots of good stuff happens too. I love sunsets, swimming, mushrooms, and making love to my wife.
All natural stuff; all very good. But every good thing can be corrupted and "evil." If I get too close to that pretty orange-red-peach sunset sun, I'll burn (I mean totally burn, not just get sunburn, but the latter is suffering, too). If I don't watch where my head is, and how long, when I swim, I'll drown. If I eat a poisonous mushroom, it'll kill me. And sex (the same exact physical act) can be rape as well as the most beautiful expression of male-female interpersonal oneness and love. It's all the natural world.
I used to love to play strikeout, where you throw a rubber ball against a brick wall with a strike zone chalked on it and have a one-on-one baseball dual (I still play with my sons, in fact, and I still hit and pitch very good at age 48). That's pretty natural stuff too. Bats are kind of hard, and mafia hit men have used them to kill people. A guy (Ray Chapman) was killed in 1920 after being struck by a pitch in the major leagues. I had loads of fun playing that game. But the natural world being what it is, and kids being what they are (I was 10 or 11), one day I climbed up this place over a set of stairs, at the school where we played strikeout, to get a ball that someone hit up there.
I was about 20 feet off the ground, and had to go up to another level. So I put some little pieces of brick that were laying there, to step on, in order to climb up to the higher part. I was right on the edge, though, and the little pile collapsed, sending me to the concrete sidewalk below. So the same place that provided so much fun now became quite the opposite. Fortunately, I fainted on the way down and they say that is what saved me. I wound up with a concussion and a sprained wrist: not even a broken bone.
Was that God's fault, or was it mine for sheer stupidity? Is God supposed to wipe out every child's curiosity and adventurous spirit and devil-may-care attitude of invulnerabilty and carefree bliss because some will be killed by it? I don't think so, because that is part of what it means to be a child. It's easy to say "God should make every child never do stupid stuff so they won't get hurt." But think of a world like that:
You want to play baseball? Now you can't because some kid may let a bat fly after he swings and hit another kid and crush his skull. Okay; better not play then, and God is evil or ain't there at all because He allows such things. What can God do to make it better? Well, He can make bats mushy and soft. Alright, fine. But how can you hit a ball now? You can't. So it becomes impossible because to eliminate all suffering, God must make stuff soft so no bad thing can ever happen.
So the atheist may say, "naw; God only has to turn the bat to mush if it is about to hit someone and hurt them." Alright, so now if we grant that God must do that to be good and retain His omnipotence and existence and be given lip service by atheists, we have to allow the miraculous. Yet atheists fight tooth and nail against miracles as the most implausible, unprovable thing imaginable. Why, they violate the natural law, and this can never happen! And everyone knows that! But now they must happen all over the place so that God can be a good guy and exist after all?
The sheer absurdity of this ridiculous demand is its own refutation. Therefore I accept the contrary: for the natural world to sensibly exist, and for miracles to be rare rather than mundane and perpetually occurring, there must be the possibility of bad things happening in that same natural world. And when they do, it is not rational (let alone fair) to blame God for such tragedies. Based on the reductio ad absurdum above, I reject such a scenario on entirely logical grounds.
Dave Armstrong: Hitler is either "allowed" by necessity of human free will or else we have no free will.
John: This is a false dichotomy. Didn't God harden Pharoah's heart?
Dave: If you want to directly compare that world with human beings, and make us merely an evolutionary development of it (i.e., in a completely naturalistic sense; I am not condemning theistic evolution), then you have huge problems of your own, since how can you argue that cannibalism is more wrong for human beings than for animals (especially in a eat-anything-to-survive environment, such as the famous Donner party)? Atheists will play games and make out that people are qualitatively different, but this is nonsensical within your paradigm, which has man evolving directly from this same animal kingdom, wherein survival of the fittest is the natural order of things.
John: This is irrelevant to the theistic problem of evil. It's a red herring, for it sidetracks the problem of why God set up predation in the natural world. We could deal with this issues, if you want to do so sometime, but let's stick to the issue at hand. Why didn't God make us vegetarians? There are naturally existing vegetarian animals.
John: That makes him worse than Hitler by a long long shot.
Dave: Really? I don't see how:
1) God allows free will.
2) Free will entails the possibility of rebellion and evil.
3) Hitler ushered in one such massive societal rebellion against civilization and evil campaign.
4) God is to blame for Hitler's evil because He allowed free will.
5) Man isn't to blame for Hitler's evil, even though he had the capacity to prevent it altogether.
John: Could God have given Hitler a heart attack and end the war? If so, he could've stopped a thousand Hitlers.
Dave: This is irrational. It makes no more sense to blame God for the evil choices of creatures he created free than it does to blame a good parent for sins of a child of his or her own volition, committed after the parent trusted the child to be responsible with its freedom. You can't blame one being for the sins of another; at some point there is individual responsibility. That's why it is ridiculous to blame God for Hitler.
John: If a mother gave a two-year old a razor blade she would be held culpable. And if she sat by and did nothing while my older brother beat me to death she could be considered an accomplice.
Dave: But even if that made any sense, why do you atheists not give God any credit for all the good which comes from free will? If you want to hold Him accountable for all the bad things that men do to each other, or the natural events that can hardly be otherwise in a sensible, orderly universe, then how come you never give Him any credit for anything?
John: Because there is so much unalleviated suffering in the world we just don't think there is a God.
John Hitler's Germany was a Christian nation and all you can do is to ask about Hitler from my perspective?
Dave The people may have been, but the regime was not, by any stretch of the imagination. It was a grotesque mixture of corrupted romanticism, paganism, and occultism. The Final Solution was not justified on Christian grounds.
John: So I suppose American slavery was not justified on CHristian grounds either? Who speaks for Christianity? You? Based upon hindsight?
Dave: If He stopped Hitler by the miraculous and abrogation of his free will, then we would have a world where no one was free, and every bad, evil thing is immediately prevented
John: False dichotomy. You've just got to stop thinking in terms of extremes and clear black and whites here. God clearly directed free willed creatures in the Bible, it's claimed, so why not do something about the horrendus evils which lead atheists to say he doesn't exist if God wants us to believe? God makes your task harder and harder all of the time. I don't envy your task here. But God could avert these trageties, if for no other reason to help you out in explaining why evil exists.
John You say my moral code is subjectively chosen? Well then, where does your God's moral code come from?
Dave: It's eternal. Therefore, it "comes from" nothing. It always existed in God. God is Love. Yours is certainly subjective because you can't create an absolute larger than yourself and applicable to all, no matter how hard you try. That has to come from a Being Who transcends creation and mankind itself.
Then check my argument out here.
Dave Armstrong,
Thanks for joining the conversation. If only you had something to add to it.
”Here's some short answers that most Christians will have trouble with... but they do with Christianity.”
According to you . . .
One of the greatest issues that Christian apologetics attempts to address is the problem of evil. So, according to leading Christian apologists, it is a very big problem. There are hundreds of books from atheist and Christian alike trying to grapple with the problem. Many Christians have lost their faith because they saw the problem of evil as a nail in the coffin of insane religious belief. It’s fine if you put your blinders on. I don’t mind. Just don’t dismiss me because you think it’s a non-issue.
"When earthquakes occur, or children are hacked to pieces, where is your god?"
Being hacked to pieces and slowly murdered on the cross.
What a worthless statement. Be glib all you want, but some of us are interested in debate - not offhand comments. Your god has all the power and incentive to stop earthquakes, but he does not. Either there is an entirely natural explanation of it, or there is some other kind. The natural one is coherent, while the super-duper-natural one is not. Is it a sign of divine displeasure? What god sanctions an earthquake?
...it doesn't necessarily follow that He should prevent all suffering.
Is he all-good, or not? If he’s all-good, he should intervene in every instance. He has the power and will to do so. If he isn’t all-good, then he is nothing more than a brute.
The atheist casually assumes that God should intervene in every tragic situation and use the miraculous to do so, without stopping to consider what this would entail: what sort of weird world (in terms of the natural order) that would require.
You attack the atheist without addressing the issue.
Just because you cannot comprehend it, doesn’t mean that your god couldn't do it. Isn’t that what Christians claim all the time? He can do whatever he want, and “weird world” or not, it makes no difference to him. I'm agreeing with the theist, then following to the natural conclusion. You just might not like it. He could give us all wings tomorrow, or make the moon talk, or anything else. He can do it, can’t he?
I made the point that atheists are extremely reluctant to allow any divine intervention in matters of nature and will despise even theistic evolutionary attempts to do so in any way, shape, or form, yet if we switch over to this discussion on evil, all of a sudden, if God doesn't do thousands of miracles per second, then He is either bad or not there at all.
Nice blanket label on us atheists. Attack the idea, not the person. It’s the sin that’s bad, not the sinner. Isn’t that what you’re supposed to say?
I want your god to reveal himself. Let’s hold a thought experiment: your god has said in the NT that he will present evidence to all that asks for it. I do not believe in god, so I ask that in a show of power, your god present himself. So help me, may I be stricken down by a thunderbolt.
If we allow your god to tamper with our genes, thus agreeing with ID, we then must go once again to the problem of evil – namely harmful mutations he has all the power to prevent. If he is messing around with our genes, he must be directly responsible for, or at least doesn’t mind, every single child born with a genetic disorder.
In fact, I argue consistently for your god to present himself. No god has taken me up on the challenge yet. Perhaps if you pray hard enough, he might pop in for a chat.
I make the argument (too involved to briefly summarize) that there is, therefore, some necessity for the world being the way it is, and that God is bound to the laws of logic, insofar as natural disaster and natural evil occurs.
How is preventing a natural disaster breaking a law of logic? Your god can do whatever he wants, right?
The presence of free will makes it possible that it will be abused, yes. We bel;ieve [sic] that HGod [sic] thought it better to allow free will and the evil that can result, rather than make robots who can do no other than what they do. God made it possible for you to be so free that He even allows you to believe foolish things like denying that He exists. That's extremely tolerant, isn't it? It would be like me saying, "hey, you can believe whatever you want, even that I don't exist."
And for questioning something, I am deserving of hellfire. Pretty tolerant, ain’t it?
Why would an all-good god want me to burn in hell? He should know exactly what would turn me to theism, or the clutches of Christianity. All I ask for is the evidence to save my soul. You should be jumping at this opportunity.
” All matter in the neighbourhood of a wicked man would be liable to undergo unpredictable altertaions. That God can and does, on occasions, modify the behaviour of matter and produce what we call miracles, is part of the Christian faith; but the very conception of a common, and therefore, stable, world, demands that these occasions should be extremely rare . . .”
Why should they be rare? The existence of a god would neither dictate that miracles would occur quite frequently or once a blue moon.
He obviously thought differently, and He (being omniscient) knows better than we do, why the world is the way it is. This was essentially the perspective of the Book of Job. It makes a lot of sense, if one presupposes for the sake of argument, the theistic God. If He does exist and is all-knowing, then who are we to try to second-guess Him, no matter how perplexing we may think the world is?
Oh, so I shouldn’t ask questions. Ok.
Wait a minute! I couldn’t help but wonder why your god is correct, and the Islamic god is wrong. If I was to presume “the theistic god”, I can only conclude that the world is the way it is because a deity said so. Nothing more.
I hope I haven’t fallen out of your favor by thinking. I guess I shouldn’t ask questions.
He allows the evil to happen for a higher purpose (often so high we cannot comprehend it). He was certainly behind the crucifixion. That had the utmost purpose, even though the thing itself was horrendous evil. God (the Father) took it and made it the means for the salvation of mankind. He used the intended evil for good.
So where’s the free will for the Roman soldiers? Is your god guiding them along like actors in a play? He was, after all, "certainly behind the crucifixion."
You seem to be unable to comprehend how a theistic world could contain suffering or that much suffering could be the result result of 1) natural laws of nature...
If your god is all-powerful, he could change the laws of nature. He could make gravity less to stop a fall. He’s performed miracles, stopped the sun in the sky, and raised the dead. He can do all these things, but he can’t stop a rape?
”The child that gets run over by a speeding car had a purpose in being violently crushed to death under the wheel of a hummer? I think not.”
In and of itself, it does appear meaningless, senseless, and outrageous, I admit. It certainly is in atheism, because this life is all there is. But when there is an eternal life ahead of us, tragic events like this are not the be-all and end-all.
You have just devalued the child’s life. That is horrible to do so. Life is meaningless to a Christian. All that matters, as you say, is “an eternal life ahead of us”. You have devalued existence. Now that is depressing. As you point out, "It certainly is in atheism, because this life is all there is." Wouldn't this make life much more important? We have only one life to live, so we try to help others because it helps, not because it gets you into heaven. The Christian is selfish and cares only about the imaginary life after while the atheist cares about this life and others.
God can even use such horrors to bring about good.
So your god can direct the actions of the parents, but can not prevent the ball from bouncing into the middle of the street? Pretty bizarre.
And that can be a witness whicvh [sic] can bring about the salvation of many, which would be a wonderful thing brought about by the bad, hence giving it meaning it would not have by itself.
To give the death of a child run over by a car ‘meaning’ is a despicable act. The worst act can be cast aside for a positive meaning. You have just made the death of a child worthless.
Is the death of a fetus good because the mother may grow up to witness to others, which can bring about the salvation of many, which would be a wonderful thing brought about the bad, hence giving it meaning it would not have by itself?
If a child’s death is permissible, so is abortion. Any action is permissible. Bill Donohue said that the tsunami disaster in Southeast Asia was the “poor Asian people[‘s] gift to the world,” so it mustn’t have been that bad. Cardinal O’Connor called the Holocaust the Jewish “gift” to the world. Everything is now a gift from Jesus, and we should be thankfull that we got melanoma.
[W]e Christians believe there is a purpose and meaning to everything, no matter how incomprehensible to us, and there is another world coming, where all will be made right and just, and suffering will cease.
Is there purpose to abortion? Can there be a silver lining found under each act? Cannot the child that survives the hurricane dedicate her life to her god, therefore giving the hurricane meaning? Cannot the woman that has an abortion dedicate her life to the name of Jesus, thus giving the abortion meaning?
Not at all; it is ultimately meaningless atheism which does that. Life has the highest meaning in the Christian worldview, which encompasses suffering and transcends it, even though it is very difficult for us to comprehend.
It must be very difficult for you to understand. You’ve caught your feet on the carpet enough for one night.
But the existence of free will of necessity entails suffering, because free beings really can rebel and cause untold suffering.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Is that a result of Christianity or of secularism and the worship of unbridled sex without responsibility, which involves butchering children that inevitably result from unhindered, amoral sexuality?
???
Wow; you're getting awfully angry at a nonexistent thing. I don't spend my time getting into a lather about how unjust the man in the moon made of green cheese is or what a rascally scoundrel Darth Vader or Dracula is. Funny that you would do that with a mere fairy-tale known as "god."
I guess someone doesn’t get hyperbole. I’m not angry with any god. I don’t even think they exist. I am angry, however, that millions of people have a disease of the mind that allows them to justify every action with the three magic words: “God says so.” That’s why I’m angry.
You want to play baseball? Now you can't because some kid may let a bat fly after he swings and hit another kid and crush his skull. Okay; better not play then, and God is evil or ain't there at all because He allows such things. What can God do to make it better? Well, He can make bats mushy and soft. Alright, fine. But how can you hit a ball now? You can't. So it becomes impossible because to eliminate all suffering, God must make stuff soft so no bad thing can ever happen.
If he can do it, why doesn’t he? He must not be all-good, because an all-powerful, omniscient being that is all-good would want to stop evil, and would be able to do so.
Yet atheists fight tooth and nail against miracles as the most implausible, unprovable thing imaginable. Why, they violate the natural law, and this can never happen! And everyone knows that! But now they must happen all over the place so that God can be a good guy and exist after all?
I want the miracles to start happening left and right! Let the miracles start raining down from heaven like manna. That would be the perfect way the convert every last atheist on this planet - that is, if you can prove that it is your god that’s performing the miracles.
Hi drunken tune,
>Dave Armstrong, Thanks for joining the conversation. If only you had something to add to it.
That's interesting. So you want to spend a considerable amount of time (judging from the length of your reply) dealing with someone who in fact has "nothing" to add to the conversation (and commencing with an insult). Why in the world should anyone spend time engaging in philosophical discussion with "nothing"? Is not your time more valuable to you than that?
On the other hand, though I may strongly disagree with someone, and even think they are irrational, I see no need to say that they add nothing to a discussion, as if they are not even thoughtful and reflective, whether or nor illogically so. That's how I approach Christian-atheist discussion (obviously unlike yourself). You poison the well from the outset in two serious ways (see my next comment).
DT (old comment, henceforth, noted by "DT"): ”Here's some short answers that most Christians will have trouble with... but they do with Christianity.”
DA (old comment, henceforth noted by "DA"): According to you . . .
>One of the greatest issues that Christian apologetics attempts to address is the problem of evil. So, according to leading Christian apologists, it is a very big problem. There are hundreds of books from atheist and Christian alike trying to grapple with the problem. Many Christians have lost their faith because they saw the problem of evil as a nail in the coffin of insane religious belief. It’s fine if you put your blinders on. I don’t mind. Just don’t dismiss me because you think it’s a non-issue.
LOL You prove here, two things:
1) You fail to read comments in context (at least in this instance).
2) You failed to read my recent comments on this very thread, above, which contradict your ridiculous claim (at least you have a ready excuse here: you could say you didn't read my earlier comments).
Let's start with #1: first. Let me give the reader your entire comment, without the middle section deleted:
"Here's some short answers that most Christians will have trouble with. Us atheists need not answer them because they do not contradict with [sic] atheism, but they do with Christianity."
And so I replied:
"According to you."
So what is it that I am denying? Quite obviously, that the various dilemmas you propose along the lines of the problem of evil, contradict Christianity. That is how the logic and grammar of your statement (despite its technically incorrect grammar: the proper phrase is "conflict with", not "contradict with") and my reply inexorably function.
So I have denied that the problem of evil contradicts Christianity. That is an entirely different proposition from maintaining (as you vainly imagine that I did) that I supposedly "think it’s a non-issue." That's simply not true (the very opposite of the truth). How many times must I deny this on this blog? I've already done it three times now.
First I wrote on 6 October 2006, on this blog, replying to John Loftus:
"I think I glanced at your deconversion. Wasn't the problem of evil key? I consider that the most serious objection to Christianity (though, not, of course, fatal at all, as you'd expect). So while I could still quibble with that, it would be in an entirely different league from the sort of shallow stuff that usually constitutes reasons for deconversions.
"You know how that goes: there are reasons that one disagrees with, while considering them highly respectable and serious and worthy of attention, and others which are downright frivolous and trivial or plainly fallacious."
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/#c116008376649507454
Despite that, John cited back to me (on 9 October 2006, in this very same thread; just scroll up) Christian philosopher James F. Sennett:
"By far the most important objection to the faith is the so-called problem of evil – the alleged incompatibility between the existence or extent of evil in the world and the existence of God. I tell my philosophy of religion students that, if they are Christians and the problem of evil does not keep them up at night, then they don’t understand it."
I replied: "I agree completely."
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/#c116041955887653518
What parts of the words "agree" or "completely" (especially when conjoined) do you not understand?
And then I reiterated it in another comment on 9 October 2006; also in this same thread (somewhat disdainfully and sarcastically):
"So being a Christian apologist and having regarded the problem as a very serious and worthy objection for 25 years isn't sufficient to have any inkling of the depth of the problem."
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/#c116043400188344894
So can we put this idiotic portrayal of what I supposedly deny or don't have a clue about, to rest yet? First John wanted to make out that I was so ignorant that no sensible dialogue was even possible (since softened some, but not sufficiently). Then you come along with more sanctimonious, equally irrelevant lectures and say that I don't think the problem of evil is a problem at all. It's getting downright goofy in here. One truly wonders if you guys understand the English language or if you think I am simply lying through my teeth when I give you my report of my own long-held opinion.
I just want to have a good dialogue, but it is wrecked by this kind of nonsense and gross misrepresentation of opposing views.
DT: "When earthquakes occur, or children are hacked to pieces, where is your god?"
DA: Being hacked to pieces and slowly murdered on the cross.
>What a worthless statement.
Quite the contrary; from the Christian perspective, it has all the worth and relevance to this discussion, in the world. You are critiquing the Christian view, and its supposed internal inconsistencies, so I responded (surprise!) from a Christian perspective. What you think of the cross is perfectly irrelevant to whether my reply is sensible from within my own paradigm that you are critiquing.
>Be glib all you want, but some of us are interested in debate - not offhand comments.
It's not "offhand" in any sense of the word. If you imnply that the Christian God cares little about the suffering of His creatures, we reply that He not only does care, but that He is willing to suffer horribly Himself. That is tremendously significant. If you care so much about debate, then why have you begun with three straight insults: all illogical and misguided?
The question at hand is whether God must stop all eveil or else cease to exist, or be not-omnipotent, or not all-loving. I deny this. But to do so does not imply in the least that a Christian doesn't struggle with particular acts of evil or minimize them. It just doesn't add up to a rejection of God and Christianity.
>Your god has all the power and incentive to stop earthquakes, but he does not. Either there is an entirely natural explanation of it, or there is some other kind. The natural one is coherent, while the super-duper-natural one is not.
I have given a reply as to natural evil in my thus-far longest paper on the subject (and summarized in somne depth in my last installment). I argued precisely from the natural world and what it should plausibly be expected to be like, even if God created and oversees it.
>Is it a sign of divine displeasure? What god sanctions an earthquake?
One need not make that equation at all. It doesn't follow. If God created the natural world and set these processes in motion, which include earthquakes, etc., it doesn't follow that He approves of every individual instance of suffering as a result of the nature of this natural world, nor that He is obliged to intervene with a miracle in every such case.
The natural world is what it is. Unless the miraculous becomes the status quo at all times (which I think is implausible, and so does the atheist, when not arguing about this topic) with endless miracles, the natural world will entail suffering.
DA: ...it doesn't necessarily follow that He should prevent all suffering.
>Is he all-good, or not?
He is.
>If he’s all-good, he should intervene in every instance.
That doesn't follow. Nor can it even follow as a logical necessity, given free will, nor does omnipotence itself even necessarily allow God to do so, as Alvin Plantinga decisely
proved in his famous Free Will Defense. Philosophers generally no longer claim that the argument either 1) disproves God's existence or 2) establishes a formal contradiction between the propositions:
A) God is all-good.
B) God is all-powerful.
C) Evil exists.
All you can do, then, logically, in light of this current consensus in philosophy of religion, is to argue that it is improbable or implausible that God would do thus-and-so. But that is a far, far different ballgame. That is weighed down by a host of presuppositions which are all themselves open to serious question and doubt. My primary concern as an apologist (as was Plantinga's as a theistic philosopher) is to show that the problem of evil does not make Christian belief inexorably self-contradictory or irrational, or (in your charitable, charming terms) "insane."
Plantinga has already achieved that goal within the realm of the philosophical world, as is generally acknowledged, even by atheists. So I don't have to (even if I could; of course I would be unable as a non-philosopher). But old atheist habits dies hard, don't they? And my concern is not with atheist emotionalism and disdain of God and Christianity, but with logic and rationality. On that score, you guys failed in your attempt to "prove" that God (or a good and/or all-powerful God) doesn't exist because of the problem of evil.
>He has the power and will to do so. If he isn’t all-good, then he is nothing more than a brute.
That doesn't follow, based on the reasoning of Plantinga's now classic free will defense.
DA: The atheist casually assumes that God should intervene in every tragic situation and use the miraculous to do so, without stopping to consider what this would entail: what sort of weird world (in terms of the natural order) that would require.
>You attack the atheist without addressing the issue.
No; I disagree with the atheist by bringing to bear the deeper, more involved aspects of the issue that they fail to address. I always do that. I'm a Socratic (and Socrates was no Christian, last time I checked). I will always question and examine the premises of my opponent and challenge them to consider the deeper implications of their own argumentation.
You can misrepresent my method if you wish, but you'll just end up looking foolish. Be my guest. I've been through this routine with atheists a dozen times: someone on a list or board assumes I am an ignoramus, until a few exchanges, whereupon he changes his tune to avoid further embarrassment. In several cases in past exchanges with atheists, I eventually gained the respect of atheists who started out exactly as you are doing: judgmentally trying to make out that I am a dope with the IQ of a pencil eraser. Be my guest. Fair-minded people can see through that.
>Just because you cannot comprehend it, doesn’t mean that your god couldn't do it.
Even an omnipotent God is subject to limitations insofar as He allows His creatures to truly be free, and therefore potentially counter His will, up to and including evil.
>Isn’t that what Christians claim all the time? He can do whatever he want, and “weird world” or not, it makes no difference to him.
Omnipotence means being able to do whatever is logically possible; not anything whatsoever. This is commonly understood by philosophers, and not arguable. God cannot, e.g., make a square circle, or make 2 + 2 = 5, or make Himself not exist, or make you exist and not exist at the same time, or make two brothers both be an only child. Likewise, He cannot create a world where, necessarily, free will precludes evil. And that is true, even given His omnipotence.
>I'm agreeing with the theist, then following to the natural conclusion. You just might not like it. He could give us all wings tomorrow, or make the moon talk, or anything else. He can do it, can’t he?
He can do what is logically possible. The moon could conceivably "talk," I suppose, but not by the laws of nature as we currently understand them. That's as implausible as (to use a Plantinga example) Henry Kissinger swimming the Atlantic. Is God not omnipotent because Kissinger cannot do that? No; that's just a limitation of human bodies that follows from physiology.
You haven't adequately thought through what either free will or omnipotence entail. I don't say this to insult you (as you repeatedly do to me) but simply as my reply. I appeal to Plantinga, and his much more involved argument.
I plan to present an abridged version of it later today or tomorrow, which I urge anyone to read, due to its high importance in the world of philosophy, regarding this topic. I don't require you to read a dozen people (as John thinks I must do to intelligently discuss this); I simply recommend reading an abridged version of one highly-significant argument, which I am willing to spend many hours typing up, for your convenience.
DA: I made the point that atheists are extremely reluctant to allow any divine intervention in matters of nature and will despise even theistic evolutionary attempts to do so in any way, shape, or form, yet if we switch over to this discussion on evil, all of a sudden, if God doesn't do thousands of miracles per second, then He is either bad or not there at all.
>Nice blanket label on us atheists.
Is it? I've yet to meet an atheist who will argue that it is plausible or logical in the realm of the natural world, for God to constantly, continually intervene with miracles and the supernatural. You disagree? Okay; please direct me to even one such atheist, let alone many, as you make ouy. If you can't produce even one, then you have no basis for accusing me of improperly labelling or generalizing in this respect.
>Attack the idea, not the person.
That's precisely what I was doing. The reasoning is as follows:
1. Atheists don't reason like this (i.e., that God should continually intervene in or contravene natural law) at all, when it comes to the natural world, cosmology, evolutionary discussions, etc.
2. But they want to switch their position and demand that God should do all that, when it comes to discussion of the problem of evil.
Ergo, which is it? Is it plausible to assert a dichotomous hypothetical theistic universe where God can't or shouldn't intervene at all in matters of creation or DNA or evolution or intelligent design, whereas He should interevene all the time to prevent every evil imaginable?
I say it is not, and I contend that this is an internal contradiction in ther atheist approach to God, when arguing that He doesn't exist. I doubt that this is an original idea of mine, but I did come up with it without reading it in any philosopher, that I recall. I'd be interested to learn if someone else has made a similar argument.
In any event, it is not attacking people at all. Generalizations based on profoundly repetitive firsthand experience are not "personal attacks" by any stretch of the imagination.
>It’s the sin that’s bad, not the sinner. Isn’t that what you’re supposed to say?
Yes it is. I'm the last person to say that atheists are necessarily "bad" people. I'm not a Calvinist (who tend to say that); I'm a Catholic. I've written papers (on my website right now) expressly denying that atheists must be bad people just because they are atheists. So you can stop that approach right now. It'll get nowhere with me. I oppose atheist arguments, not the persons as persons, supposedly wicked and evil, and so forth. I can't read anyone's heart or know their motivations. I ain't God.
>I want your god to reveal himself.
Great; that's a good start.
>Let’s hold a thought experiment: your god has said in the NT that he will present evidence to all that asks for it. I do not believe in god, so I ask that in a show of power, your god present himself.
The same God also revealed that He often refuses to give a sign if the purpose is as some sort of "test." He wants you to have faith in Him without some absolute proof, just as you have "faith" (i.e., assent without absolute proof) in any number of things that you don't fully understand. So, e.g., Jesus appeared to "Doubting Thomas" after His resurrection, to "prove Himself." Yet at the same time, He said, "Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe" (John 20:29). There is more than enough evidence out there to make belief rational. But God will not be tested in the way that you seem to demand. This is a common biblical motif.
>So help me, may I be stricken down by a thunderbolt.
If that's what it takes, then so be it (provided you survive the experience). God could possiblyy do that, but He probably won't, because He wants you to exercise faith without the necessity of oceans parting and people being raised from the dead. We know that some people won't even be convinced by those miracles, anyway. Unbelief is often stronger than the most obvious miracle.
>If we allow your god to tamper with our genes, thus agreeing with ID,
See, this illustreates the internal contradiction in your outlook. Why do you call it "tampering", if indeed God does do this (note: I am not asserting that He does or not)? You assume from the outset that He shouldn't do so; that it is inherently improper. Yet out of the other side of your mouth, when you argue the problem of evil, you want God to change His generally "non-interventionist method" and appear ina gerat and mighty miracle just so little old you can now believe in Him. Why the difference? why do you demand the supernatural over here (PoE) and deny it with great vehemence over there (ID, etc.)?
>we then must go once again to the problem of evil – namely harmful mutations he has all the power to prevent.
I see; so in He intervenes positively in creative acts or supervision, He is "tampering," but if He doesn't prevent a mutation, this proves His character as immediately suspect and not good. The universe as I construe it is far more plausible, I think: God usually doesn't directly intervene. He created the universe and the presence of free will in sentient creatures, within it. Sometimes He intervenes with the miraculous, but this is a rare exception to the rule. This applies both to the "spiritual" realm (people having a religious conversion, remarkable answered prayer such as a healing, etc.), and to the natural world. But your (and the general atheist) position involves an irrational dichotomy that I find utterly implausible.
>If he is messing around with our genes,
See the improper value judgment again?: "messing around"? Why is that such a bad thing, if God chose to do that? If indeed He is the Creator, why is it so implausible that He could supervise His creationin some fashion? I don;t have this all worked out; my own views on creation are in flux and I am actually an agnostic as to actual process, But every Christian believes that God is creator and that He is inexorably "in" all creation in some sense, whether He chose to use evolution as His usual method or direct creation, in some instances. What all Christians deny is that God should be utterly separated from the natural world. We deny scientific materialism. methodological naturalism is fine in the laboratory and at the theoretical level, but not philosophically.
>he must be directly responsible for, or at least doesn’t mind, every single child born with a genetic disorder.
The natural world is as it is. If we don't have order in it, including calamities, then it would be a chaotic world that would make no sense, and arguably, even free will would be impossible. We would all be completely determined in our actions. Evil might be precluded in such a world, but good also would be, and that is the central issue: What is God willing to allow in order to being about the possibility of good and love and virtue and the freedom that is necessary for all to exist? What is it that even He cannot prevent, in a universe with true freedom of action?
>In fact, I argue consistently for your god to present himself. No god has taken me up on the challenge yet. Perhaps if you pray hard enough, he might pop in for a chat.
Chances are, He won't, because of your manifest attitude of extreme skepticism, and borderline mockery. That is not how God, according to the Bible and Christian experience and thought, operates. There are always exceptions, but I wouldn't expect that to occur at all.
DA: I make the argument (too involved to briefly summarize) that there is, therefore, some necessity for the world being the way it is, and that God is bound to the laws of logic, insofar as natural disaster and natural evil occurs.
>How is preventing a natural disaster breaking a law of logic?
It doesn't necessarily break any law of logic. God could intervene whenever He chose to do so. We believe He has in fact, on occasion done so. What I am denying is the claim that He must do so, and in virtually all such scenarios, or else the conclusion is that He is bad or weak or not there. You simply have not proven that these things hold true. I have tried to make an argument that there is some (to us, mysterious) sense of the natural world having to be the way it is, and thus entailing suffering, by its very nature. God can then make great good come from suffering, in many different ways.
>Your god can do whatever he wants, right?
Whatever is logically possible, as far as that goes. That doesn't mean He has to do whatever is possible, as if He were determined in His actions, also. Nor does it mean that He is bound to our paltry human considerations of what He MUST do or not do. Clearly, an omniscient, eternal being is so vastly different from what we are that it is pretty foolish for us to try to second-guess what this Being should or shouldn't do. Christians believe on many grounds that He is, however, a benevolent Being. The problem of evil, difficult though it is, doesn't cause us to dount that, because we have many other evidences, suggesting He is good.
DA: The presence of free will makes it possible that it will be abused, yes. We believe that God thought it better to allow free will and the evil that can result, rather than make robots who can do no other than what they do. God made it possible for you to be so free that He even allows you to believe foolish things like denying that He exists. That's extremely tolerant, isn't it? It would be like me saying, "hey, you can believe whatever you want, even that I don't exist."
DT: And for questioning something, I am deserving of hellfire.
Who said that? No intelligent Christian that I know of. You'll be based on what you know, not what you don't know. If you know there is a God and reject Him, you will end upo in hell by default, as your own choice. If you truly don't know that He exists, and God decides that the conditions and environments that you moved in were sufficiently problematic, so that you had warrant for your disbelief, from your own limited perspective, then there is hope that you can be saved trough ignorance and due to mitigating circumstances. That is why it is heartening to me to see a great deal of ignorance and irrationality in atheist circles. That gives me hope that many of you will be saved. I don't see sheer rebellion as much as profound disinformation and lack of knowledge and wisdom. And I see the attitudes that I run across myself, as a Christian apologist. If an atheist approaches an apologist, who represents the Christian faith,in an arrogant or mocking manner, chances are, that is how he approaches God, or the philosohical questions surrounding God, too. He is not seriously considering the Christian argument. But if that is not the case, I would argue (abstractly, from a purely philosophical perspective), that he shouldn't bother at all with Christians or God, and simply go about his life and his business, doing his thing, whatever it is, free and full of bliss.
Yet you guys are here arguing with Christians all the time. If you didn't have the slightest suspicion that we may be right and you wrong, then rationally-speaking, you shouldn't bother with us at all. This blog shouldn't exist. But it does. And people like you spend time answering ignoramuses like me. Why? There is something there; some remote glimpse of a possible world where God exists, with all that flows from that.
>Pretty tolerant, ain’t it?
I have shown that your caricature of how someone may wind up in hell does not accurately portray either God as we know Him or the Christian position.
>Why would an all-good god want me to burn in hell?
He doesn't. I deny your premise.
>He should know exactly what would turn me to theism, or the clutches of Christianity.
He does. How do you know that it won't take many many years? God knows everythng. He knows what would convert you, and you will have an adequate chance to believe or reject Him. It may take some tragedy 30 years from now that will break through your non-belief. There are millions of possibilities. But it is irrational to require Him to appear RIGHT NOW so that you can believe in Him. That's a n utterly simplistic view of the universe, not a thoughtful, reflective, adult approach to the possibility of theism and/or Christianity.
>All I ask for is the evidence to save my soul. You should be jumping at this opportunity.
I am. I'm here arguing. Whether I do so to your satisfaction is not my concern (just as whether God does what He does to your satisfaction is any of His concern: how could He possibly please 5 billion people and however many millions of atheists there are, with all your irrational demands?). You can decide to continue with me if you see some spark of truth or possible, potential truth in what I say, or not. But in any event, I am not who wold convert you; that is God's job, and involves your free will. I can't change that; only He can and you can, in the end. I'm just here making my arguments, and I have tons of matrial on my blog and website (http://socrates58.blogspot.com/), if you or anyone else is interested.
[C.S. Lewis] "All matter in the neighbourhood of a wicked man would be liable to undergo unpredictable altertaions. That God can and does, on occasions, modify the behaviour of matter and produce what we call miracles, is part of the Christian faith; but the very conception of a common, and therefore, stable, world, demands that these occasions should be extremely rare . . ."
>Why should they be rare?
Why should God's intervention in creation itself be rare or nonexistent? Why is this opposed at every turn in discussions of evolution or ID? Why is it disallowed? Clearly, because some theory or grand outlook has precluded it. That's exactly what we are asserting here: we clai that it is sensible for God to allow the natural world to be what it is, without intervening at every turn.
>The existence of a god would neither dictate that miracles would occur quite frequently or once a blue moon.
That's right. But you in effect irrationally demand both scenarios simultaneously; that's what I am driving at. It's oe way to turn the tables on the problem of evil argument. "The problem of good" is another. I've done both.
DA: He obviously thought differently, and He (being omniscient) knows better than we do, why the world is the way it is. This was essentially the perspective of the Book of Job. It makes a lot of sense, if one presupposes for the sake of argument, the theistic God. If He does exist and is all-knowing, then who are we to try to second-guess Him, no matter how perplexing we may think the world is?
>Oh, so I shouldn’t ask questions. Ok.
To say that we shouldn't second-guess God is quite different from saying we shouldn't question or have any doubts and questions at all. This is what Job is driving at. It is the tomfoolery of a creature who knows that God is Who He is, questioning all these things, from a position of vast, incomprehensible intellectual inferiority. It's like a two-year-old questioning Einstein.
Now, again, this doesn't preclude any agony or thought or befuddlement on our part. It presupposes it and goes on to a deeper level. The point of Job was not that Job shouldn't suffer and wonder what the hell was going on. Quite the opposite: God assumed that as perfectly natural, but objected to God using his suffering (however profound, and it was) to cause him to "curse God and die" (as his wife and friends: the proverbial "Job's comforters" - suggested).
In other words, the problem of evil is not great enough to warrant disbelieving in God, or even beleiving that He doesn't have some greater purpose in mind, that we simply can't comprehend. That is the specific meaning behind my comment about "second-guessing." The Book of Job deals with this question in a dramatic, narrative, pre-philosophical and pre-scientific fashion. Alvin Plantinga disposed of it with brilliant philosophical method. Two ways to skin a cat . . .
>Wait a minute! I couldn’t help but wonder why your god is correct, and the Islamic god is wrong.
That involves a ton of apologetics, and is, of course, far beyond our purview here.
>If I was to presume “the theistic god”, I can only conclude that the world is the way it is because a deity said so. Nothing more.
Not if free will is taken into account.
>I hope I haven’t fallen out of your favor by thinking. I guess I shouldn’t ask questions.
If you ask them, I'll answer them to the best of my ability. I won't mock and belittle you, as you do me. That's quite Christian: endure mockery and insult and continue to try to act in a considerate, loving fashion by providing some halfway decent answers from a Christian perspective. By God's grace (it sure ain't on my own power), may I always do so.
The Bible tells us that anyone we meet is like encountering Jesus Himself ("if you do it [provide charity or aid, etc.] to the least of these, you do it to me"). Mother Teresa had a funny saying (recounted by Malcolm Muggeridge): if soeone perturbed and annoyed her, she would call them "Jesus in rather distressing disguise." That's how you are! God teaches me patience and longsuffering in dealing with mocking types like you. But you won't stop me. Do you think you are the first atheist who has dealt with me in this manner? You ain't the first and you won't be the last. It has no bearing on how I reply. I'm here to communicate Christian truth, as I understand and believe it in faith, in complete harmony with reason.
DA: He allows the evil to happen for a higher purpose (often so high we cannot comprehend it). He was certainly behind the crucifixion. That had the utmost purpose, even though the thing itself was horrendous evil. God (the Father) took it and made it the means for the salvation of mankind. He used the intended evil for good.
>So where’s the free will for the Roman soldiers?
They acted freely in ignorance. How were they to know what they were doing? They were just following orders.
>Is your god guiding them along like actors in a play?
He allowed the evil as He often does. In this instance, He brought about a tremendous good as a result of evil intentions (of those responsible for murdering - unjustly executing - Jesus).
>He was, after all, "certainly behind the crucifixion."
In the sense of allowing the evil for His greater purposes, but not direct causation.
DA: You seem to be unable to comprehend how a theistic world could contain suffering or that much suffering could be the result of 1) natural laws of nature...
>If your god is all-powerful, he could change the laws of nature.
He could. And He could also make them exactly as they are. I don't see how the laws of nature somehow disprove God's goodness because people sometimes get harmed by them.
>He could make gravity less to stop a fall. He’s performed miracles, stopped the sun in the sky, and raised the dead. He can do all these things, but he can’t stop a rape?
He could do lots of things. But because of free will, lots of bad things become possible.
DT: ”The child that gets run over by a speeding car had a purpose in being violently crushed to death under the wheel of a hummer? I think not.”
DA: In and of itself, it does appear meaningless, senseless, and outrageous, I admit. It certainly is in atheism, because this life is all there is. But when there is an eternal life ahead of us, tragic events like this are not the be-all and end-all.
>You have just devalued the child’s life.
I don't see how. I simply said that there can be a greater meaning in even the most horrible things, and that the child has eternal life. The child's existence didn't end then, as in atheism. Imagine the senseless slaughter of abortion from an atheist perspective: now the child is not only deprived of an eternal life (because there is none), but even of this life, which is all he or she had. And this is thought to be perfectly rational, moral behavior.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn is thankful to God for his time spent in the Gulag because it brought him to God. Corrie Ten Boom's sister (I forget her name) felt the same in the Nazi concentration camps: that they had a purpose, however incomprehensible to us. So did Corrie (that was the subject of a movie, The Hiding Place). They didn't blame God for that. Why should they? Men did those horrors, not God.
>That is horrible to do so.
Yeah, it would be, but I didn't do it. What is horrible is for you to imply that I did.
>Life is meaningless to a Christian.
Is that so? You could have fooled me.
>All that matters, as you say, is “an eternal life ahead of us”.
I didn't say that was all that mattered. I wrote, rather: "when there is an eternal life ahead of us, tragic events like this are not the be-all and end-all." No Chriostian can disagree with that. Not even an atheist could disagree. All you have to do is change the initial "when" to "if" and you must agree to this, even as an atheist. It is a point about perspective.
But to make that point has nothing to do with how valuable this life is or isn't; only to note that the perspective on the evil event shortening that poor child's life can be seen in a profoundly different light, whern one believes that it is not the "end" of the child altogether.
So, niced try to caricature and twist what I said into some idiotic, stereotypical "pie-in-the-sky" scenario. It is not at all, and if you were thinking sensibly in interacting with me and accurately portraying what I argue, yo would see that without it having to be pointed out to you.
>You have devalued existence.
Right. Of course I did no such thing. But nice try.
>Now that is depressing. As you point out, "It certainly is in atheism, because this life is all there is." Wouldn't this make life much more important?
In the sense of it being all there is, yes. So, then, why do most atheists think abortion is fine and dandy? You may deny (on illogical, unscientific grounds) the the baby slaughtered is not yet a person or a human being, but you can't deny that it WILL be, if just given enough time. So you have still deprived it of the only life it would ever have, in your viewpoint. this is as monstrous an evil as I can imagine, and it is undertaken by torture and murder of the most defenseless creature.
>We have only one life to live, so we try to help others because it helps, not because it gets you into heaven.
That's what we do, too, than you. Because God is good, He will reward us in heaven one day, but our motivation is simply to love others and show them the way to God so they can get to heaven one day too. It's illogical, of course, to argue that the Christian can only be motivated by heavenly rewards, simply because we believe in heaven. You have not proven that in the least. You simply assert it, because it is one of those old saws that play real well in atheist circles. But I'm not interested in empty rhetoric; I am interested in reason.
>The Christian is selfish and cares only about the imaginary life after while the atheist cares about this life and others.
See my previous comment.
DA: God can even use such horrors to bring about good.
>So your god can direct the actions of the parents, but can not prevent the ball from bouncing into the middle of the street? Pretty bizarre.
I appeal back to my argument from the regularity of nature and the implausibility of the opposite state of affairs.
DA: And that can be a witness which can bring about the salvation of many, which would be a wonderful thing brought about by the bad, hence giving it meaning it would not have by itself.
>To give the death of a child run over by a car ‘meaning’ is a despicable act.
Not at all. I'm not saying that the thing is good in and of itself, or even meaningful from our human perspective. Heavens no. I'm trying to look at it unemotionally from the standpoint of reason and philosophy (something you seem unable or unwilling to do, due to the high;y emotionally-charged nature of the topic, that bothers everyone).
To say that God can use some unspeakable horror and bring some good out of it is not to devalue the victim of the horror in the least.
>The worst act can be cast aside for a positive meaning.
Who's casting aside?
>You have just made the death of a child worthless.
Not at all. You are the one doing that, because in your world, such a horrific tragedy has no conceivable purpose. There is no eternal life. The child was just depriced of the only life it had. There is no way to balance the scales of unjust happenings and make it better for the child in another world. There is no God to bring anything at all good from it. Those things are what make the act senseless and the child's life senseless, not Christian belief. You are in the world of nihilism, not I.
You can lie about our perspective on these things if you wish but it won't solve your existential problem or prevent the despair you ought to be in if you really, truly contemplated the ultimately meaningless world that you position entails.
>Is the death of a fetus good because the mother may grow up to witness to others, which can bring about the salvation of many, which would be a wonderful thing brought about the bad, hence giving it meaning it would not have by itself?
The act itself remains evil. Do yo support legal abortion? God can use it, as He does any evil. The mother involved (and pro-lifers generally don't find the mothers responsible, but rather, the doctors, and those who "persuade" her to do this terrible act) may later give testimony that this choice was wrong, and help women to not have an abortion, or talk about the side effects which are ignored, etc. So good could come out of that.
>If a child’s death is permissible, so is abortion.
Abortion is the willful taking of an innocent human life. It's murder. An accident with a car is not that. Apples and oranges.
>Any action is permissible.
In atheism consistently thought through, yes.
>Bill Donohue said that the tsunami disaster in Southeast Asia was the “poor Asian people[‘s] gift to the world,” so it mustn’t have been that bad.
I'd have to see the context of his remarks. Seeing how you have repeatedly run roughshod over the context of my own remarks, I don't trust you to accurately report what some opponent of yours said.
>Cardinal O’Connor called the Holocaust the Jewish “gift” to the world.
Ditto.
>Everything is now a gift from Jesus, and we should be thankfull that we got melanoma.
God can use any tragedy and bring good out of it.
DA: [W]e Christians believe there is a purpose and meaning to everything, no matter how incomprehensible to us, and there is another world coming, where all will be made right and just, and suffering will cease.
>Is there purpose to abortion?
Not in and of itself. It is a senseless outrage against justice and the very notion of defending the most innocent and helpless among us. That is pagan morality as well as Christian. In fact, when I was in one of my court trials after being arrested for blocking clinic doors, I stated in court that pro-life is not specifically Christian; it is based on the pagan Hippocratic Oath from ancient Greece, which also precluded it.
>Can there be a silver lining found under each act? Cannot the child that survives the hurricane dedicate her life to her god, therefore giving the hurricane meaning? Cannot the woman that has an abortion dedicate her life to the name of Jesus, thus giving the abortion meaning?
That's how God can use those things, yes.
DA: Not at all; it is ultimately meaningless atheism which does that. Life has the highest meaning in the Christian worldview, which encompasses suffering and transcends it, even though it is very difficult for us to comprehend.
>It must be very difficult for you to understand. You’ve caught your feet on the carpet enough for one night.
It's difficult for everyone to understand. But being illogical and insulting and mocking, and butchering context and caricaturing one's opponent and making them out to be imbeciles does not accomplish anything constructive, that I can see.
Don't forget, you atheists are "witnesses" to the superiority of your own belief-system, just as we Christians are to ours. If someone on the fence sees your constant insults and shoddy argumentation, this does not bode well for the purpose of this blog or your own mission and purpose in discussing these things, whatever it is.
So I wouldn't be so smug about your freely offered insults. Fairminded people can see through all that and see that your recourse to it suggests that you lack rational replies or that you may very well be a miserable person, to have to treat others so.
That may or may not be due to atheism, of course, but what you are doing does not exactly make atheist appealing to those on the fence. Who wants to believe something if its adherents are known as mockers and boors in discussion?
DA: But the existence of free will of necessity entails suffering, because free beings really can rebel and cause untold suffering.
DT: That makes no sense whatsoever.
If not to you, I trust it will to others working through the difficulty.
That's the wonder of the Internet. It ain't just me and you. Others are reading this too.
DA: Wow; you're getting awfully angry at a nonexistent thing. I don't spend my time getting into a lather about how unjust the man in the moon made of green cheese is or what a rascally scoundrel Darth Vader or Dracula is. Funny that you would do that with a mere fairy-tale known as "god."
>I guess someone doesn’t get hyperbole.
I don't get irrationality either, or why someone has a need to misrepresent an opposing argument.
>I’m not angry with any god.
Of course not; who would ever get that impression?
>I don’t even think they exist. I am angry, however, that millions of people have a disease of the mind that allows them to justify every action with the three magic words: “God says so.” That’s why I’m angry.
Then you are in for a miserable life. First of all, it shouldn't concern you. Let the ignorant be ignorant and go on with your life. If fantasies make others happy, then all you should think is that this is their way of dealing withn the meaningless universe and slogging through somehow. You have your own way (heaven knows what that is).
Secondly, of course this is yet another gross caricature of how Christian theology and philosophy deal with these matters. Why am I not surprised? Of course many individual Christians can be found who will say all sorts of stupid things. But I am interested in the best of Christian (and atheist) thought, not the worst. And you should be too.
DA: You want to play baseball? Now you can't because some kid may let a bat fly after he swings and hit another kid and crush his skull. Okay; better not play then, and God is evil or ain't there at all because He allows such things. What can God do to make it better? Well, He can make bats mushy and soft. Alright, fine. But how can you hit a ball now? You can't. So it becomes impossible because to eliminate all suffering, God must make stuff soft so no bad thing can ever happen.
>If he can do it, why doesn’t he?
Dealt with above and elsewehere.
>He must not be all-good, because an all-powerful, omniscient being that is all-good would want to stop evil, and would be able to do so.
That doesn't follow, per Plantinga's dismantling of it. Take it up with him. Then we'll see who is over his head.
DA: Yet atheists fight tooth and nail against miracles as the most implausible, unprovable thing imaginable. Why, they violate the natural law, and this can never happen! And everyone knows that! But now they must happen all over the place so that God can be a good guy and exist after all?
>I want the miracles to start happening left and right! Let the miracles start raining down from heaven like manna. That would be the perfect way the convert every last atheist on this planet - that is, if you can prove that it is your god that’s performing the miracles.
Not at all, because profound disbelief (where it exists) is not affected even by miracles. There have been plenty of documented miracles, and you guys deny every one of them. So what makes you think massive miracles will cause you to act any differently?
You know down deep that there is a God whether you ssee a single miracle, because He has put this knowledge within you and it is discerned just by being human. You need no miracle to ascertain that. But you can be led astray by all sorts of bad reasoning.
Dave Armstrong
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
Dave,
In your mention of Craig's "defeat" of the logical problem of evil, I thought I'd quote what a friend of mine said in response to it:
"Roughly speaking, yes, that's true. [that Craig solved the logical problem of evil] However, this achievement is not as impressive as it sounds. Let's put it this way: if we understand "the logical problem of evil" in the requisite way, it becomes an *extremely* narrowly defined problem, so that the fact that it can be gotten around is no indication at all that there isn't, yet, an enormous problem of evil. The "logical problem" is solved if one can come up with just *some* logically possible situation in which God exists and evil exists. It need not be at all plausible or believable. And given this restriction of the goal of the theist here, it's not all that impressive that he meets that goal. "
I would say that believing that God found it more valuable to introduce a free will and the attendant suffering and pain (some which would be ETERNAL by your worldview), rather than create nothing at all, and just exist in its own perfect state, is quite implausible.
i) An all-good, all-powerful Being would not set in motion a course of events which would bring about evil, pain, and eternal suffering and sorrow
versus
ii) An all-good, all-powerful Being created human free moral agency
iii) free will (even if granted that it exists, somehow, along with God's sovereignty) is somehow commensurate with the cost of (i)
Simply put, the premises you hold are not as strong as those I hold.
I responded to John Loftus in a thread now at the top of the blog, because this one is so long:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/#c116061399725118104
Sticky glue,
I didn't sauy Craig did it, but Plantinga. He disposed of the classical, Humean objection. it is quite an accomplishment fot any philosopher to solve such a major, vaunted objection.
This is impressive in that it makes it impossible for the atheist to say (as, e.g., Daniel Morgan naively does) that PoE absolutely proves that God doesn't exist.
Arguments from plausibility are notoriously subjective. All the Christian has to do with those is endlessly poke holes in the proposed premises. That's as easyt as pie, and one of my favorite things to do as an amateur philosopher / apologist / Socratic. It's vastly different from having an airtight logical argument, where the ground rules are agreed-upon by all.
>I would say that believing that God found it more valuable to introduce a free will and the attendant suffering and pain (some which would be ETERNAL by your worldview),
God doesn't cause the eternal punishment; rebellious creatures who have every chance to avoid such a fate, do. So hell can't be blamed on God either. This only works against the Calvinist positions, because it posits absolute double predestination.
We Catholics only believe in predestination to salvation (and even that not without significant cooperation on the saved person's part in a non-Pelagian sense).
>rather than create nothing at all, and just exist in its own perfect state, is quite implausible.
So you claim that non-existence is better than free existence because of evil. It's good that you exist to write that sentence, though, isn't it?
You would personally prefer to non-exist rather than exist?
>i) An all-good, all-powerful Being would not set in motion a course of events which would bring about evil, pain, and eternal suffering and sorrow
He would if the n=benefits and goodness of the possibility of freewilled creatures doing good outweighed it.
>versus
ii) An all-good, all-powerful Being created human free moral agency
iii) free will (even if granted that it exists, somehow, along with God's sovereignty) is somehow commensurate with the cost of (i)
Simply put, the premises you hold are not as strong as those I hold.
You don't know all the things that God knows. You don't believe in eternal life. But clearly, with that as a reality, suffering takes on an entirely different perspective: almost making it insignicant from thje perspective of the long view, just as earth is in light of the immensity of the universe.
After 1000 trillion trillion trillion years in heaven (actually eternity is out of time, but whatever) who will care about their suffering on earth, way back, no matter how horrible?
It's all a matter of perspective: divine vs. human / eternal vs. the dinky, tiny time we live on earth.
So our view is not implausible at all, if one accepts all of it. It only becomes implausible when you start tossing things out such as eternity and the fact that finite minds are in no position to cavalierly judge omniscient minds.
Dave Armstrong
This one was unusually long because I answered point-by-point, as is my wont, and another guy was doing that, too. But most comments are relatively short.
This is impressive in that it makes it impossible for the atheist to say (as, e.g., Daniel Morgan naively does) that PoE absolutely proves that God doesn't exist.
I'm not saying that Danny did or didn't say this. But, do you have a source quote?
After 1000 trillion trillion trillion years in heaven (actually eternity is out of time, but whatever) who will care about their suffering on earth, way back, no matter how horrible?
Let's see...how about an analogy?
"Honey, but the fact that I allow some people to beat you to a pulp on our wedding night doesn't matter at all! We're going to have a happy life together for another 80 whole years! What's 5 minutes of pain next to the rest of the 42 million we will spend together? I allowed that, sure, but it isn't wrong in contrast to all the good that I'll give you one day!"
...
"What, you ask, 'how will you know that the rest of this will be more happy?' Well, dear, just trust me."
...
"What, you ask 'how can i be trusted with a virtual endless number of minutes if this is how i allow you to be treated for five of them...?' Uh, well..."
Dave, can you make it "your wont" to always put the quotes of others in either italics or quote marks so that we can distinguish what they wrote from what you did?
Hi Scott,
Nice to meet you! I enjoyed watching you play basketball.
ME: "This is impressive in that it makes it impossible for the atheist to say (as, e.g., Daniel Morgan naively does) that PoE absolutely proves that God doesn't exist."
I'm not saying that Danny did or didn't say this. But, do you have a source quote?
Sure: in his post on presuppositionalism:
On Sept. 26, I asked Prof. Witmer if he would talk to our group, and we discussed possible topics a bit before he decided to talk about CPS at our meeting 9. I have now made the abstract of the talk, and the full-text (.pdf) of his presentation available online. Please download and feel free to comment on his arguments and major points. I especially enjoyed his presentation of a "conditional PoE", wherein he argues that either there are moral facts or there aren't, but either way, the PoE shows that God does not exist.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/10/christian-presuppositionalism-general.html
I see now that there is some possible ambiguity: is the last clause (starting with "but either way . . .") his own opinion, or a report of Prof. Witmer's? I would say it is reasonable to interpret it as his own, either as his sole intended meaning, or else, alternately, that he was referring to the professor's view, with strongly implied agreement, based on how he presents it.
In any event, Daniel can clarify for us if he thinks that PoE "shows that God does not exist" (contra the current philosophical consensus, almost across the board, as I understand it).
I believe he made a similar statement on my blog, but I could be wrong. I'd have to look that one up.
Again, you greatly misunderstand my meaning about perspective from the standpoint of eternity. This doesn't justify any sin or wrongdong whatsoever. What eternity does is make the "sting" of suffering and unjust misery and atrocities, etc. less. It doesn't lessen the wrongness of horror of them. The atheist, by contrast, only has this life, so obviously, sin and suffering and evil take on immeasurably more significance and are accordingly that much more troublesome. But sionce the critique is of the Christian view, the perspective of eternity and eternal life in blissful happiness cannot be ignored and excluded from the discussion. You can't have it both ways. If you wish to criticize the Christian worldview you have to incorporate all of its relevant aspects, not revert to the atheist worldview (i.e., "this life is all there is") wherever it is convenient or packs an emotional punch.
So, nice try, but your "reasoning" neither applies to my particular argument, nor to the larger Christian apologetic re: suffering. Any Christian who would actually reason in the fashion you caricatured should be locked up in either a jail or a rubber room.
You guys can keep twisting and caricaturing legitimate Christian arguments if you wish, but that just shows that you aren't approaching discussion in an objective manner, and that poor discussion ethics and extreme emotionalism may have more of an effect on what you say than you realize.
Dave, can you make it "your wont" to always put the quotes of others in either italics or quote marks so that we can distinguish what they wrote from what you did?
Sure. See, I'm already starting! Somewhere way back when, I got into the habit of using ">" before other's words. That was the status quo on several lists or boards I have been on, so it became an entrenched habit. On my blog and website I use color coding to make it immediately apparent who is writing, in dialogues.
Dave Armstrong
Following up on my last post with some more relevant info. regarding the question I was asked:
Daniel Morgan wrote on my blog, on 10-6-06:
"It is just that the arguments for atheism (or arguments against God's existence, if you prefer) seem to be absolutely airtight."
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/davearmstrong/115982677193844187/#116298
He links "arguments for atheism" to this page (his own):
"Misc. Arguments For Atheism"
http://grove.ufl.edu/~dmorgan/Articles/atheism/arguments%20for%20atheism.htm
This is connected to his main website, as you can see:
http://grove.ufl.edu/~dmorgan/
On this page is included "The Problem of Evil." Here is his entire section:
The problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God with the existence of a world full of evil and suffering. If God is omniscient then he knows how to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering. If God is omnipotent then he is able to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering. If God is benevolent then he wants to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering. But if God knows how to, is able to and wants to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering, then why does he not do so? The simplest answer is that God does not do so because he does not exist. This is by far the most popular argument for atheism.
Excellent. Then the "by far the most popular argument for atheism" has now been demolished (by Alvin Plantinga), insofar as it supposedly proves God's nonexistence.
Even J.L. Mackie admitted that (". . . we can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another." -- The Miracle of Theism, Oxford Univ. Press, 1982, p. 154).
Now, I don't fault Daniel for being unaware of this now 30-odd year development in philosophy of religion (which started before he was even born). I certainly am not up on all the goings-on in philosophy (not even in religious matters) either (though it would be great fun if only I had the time).
But since he has made it a goal of his to critique theism, it would be good for him to become aware of this, so as to avoid overly-triumphalistic statements in the future, such as this one, which can easily be dismantled.
Daniel sanctions even more naive, absurd comments on the same page; e.g.:
"A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible."
(under "The Freewill Argument")
And:
"A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible."
(under "All-good God knowingly creates future suffering")
FROM: "Why the Christian God is Impossible", by Chad Docterman
"Impossible" is a very strong word in philosophy. I would suggest that Daniel Morgan give the matter a great deal more thought before launching off into dogmatic pronouncements. One can allow for the overly-zealous folly of the recent convert to some extent, but c'mon, let's try to exercise at least some semblance of moderation and common sense.
Dave Armstrong
You don't know all the things that God knows.
And neither do you, punk. So stop acting like you’ve got a monopoly on truth, Davey.
He obviously thought differently, and He (being omniscient) knows better than we do, why the world is the way it is. ... It is the tomfoolery of a creature who knows that God is Who He is, questioning all these things, from a position of vast, incomprehensible intellectual inferiority. It's like a two-year-old questioning Einstein.
Ah. So how do you know what Einstein thinks? You’re talking of relativity, but all you understand is basic algebra. For all we know, he could do anything. In fact, since we’re stuck on middle-school math,
we have no idea what he could or couldn’t do.
He is everything unknown. Don’t claim that you have an inkling of knowledge about your god I don’t have. We’re in the same lifeboat together, and for all you know I’m going to heaven because I dared to question your god’s existence, and you’re going to hell for being an obedient slave, Davey.
Clearly, an omniscient, eternal being is so vastly different from what we are that it is pretty foolish for us to try to second-guess what this Being should or shouldn't do.
"The universe as I construe it is far more plausible, I think: God usually doesn't directly intervene."
"God could possiblyy [sic] do that, but He probably won't, because He wants you to exercise faith without the necessity of oceans parting and people being raised from the dead."
Agreed. It's pretty foolish to try and second-guess the guy. So please, stop doing so. We just don’t know. I think I’m beginning to get the hang of it. A being that is really omniscient and eternal, not just a game in logic you play on your free time, could do all sorts of things we don’t know about or understand in any way. He could follow logic, or just make it up on the spot. It’s his will, Davey, so get used to it. Get outside of your comfort zone and let your imagination run wild.
Why should God's intervention in creation itself be rare or nonexistent? Why is this opposed at every turn in discussions of evolution or ID? Why is it disallowed? Clearly, because some theory or grand outlook has precluded it.
We don’t know about it, so since it isn’t really making sense, there must be another theory we can stack on top so that it makes sense. Good idea. I like your thinking. He can do frickin’ magic, Davey!
That is weighed down by a host of presuppositions which are all themselves open to serious question and doubt.
Such as the existence of your god? Is he open to serious questions or doubt? He’s a big pile of them all rolled into one. For the sake of time, if we’re to trim the fat and throw out the problem of evil, you still haven’t given any evidence that your god exists. I want to be converted, so hit me with your best shot.
I’m open to anything, and I’ve decided that the only true god is mine. He can kick the ever-loving shit out of your god, Davey.
...it doesn't follow that He approves of every individual instance of suffering as a result of the nature of this natural world, nor that He is obliged to intervene with a miracle in every such case.
And are you able to discern which is what your god interferes in? Does he tamper – excuse me – influence our genetic code, but not prevent avalanches? How do you know that he isn’t a demon, or that he’s one of many gods, Davey?
Does he enable avalanches by de facto creating all the necessary components for avalanches to occur? How can we know, since we’re mere ants to him? He could do whatever he wanted to [according to you, since he follows logic], but couldn’t he change logic? Is logic outside of your god? It’s not outside of mine. My god is superior to yours, Davey.
He intervenes with the miraculous, but this is a rare exception to the rule. This applies both to the "spiritual" realm (people having a religious conversion, remarkable answered prayer such as a healing, etc.), and to the natural world.
You don’t honestly believe that prayer works. God told me so.
Even an omnipotent God is subject to limitations insofar as He allows His creatures to truly be free, and therefore potentially counter His will, up to and including evil.
How do you know this? It sounds like you’re stacking turtles and making more presuppositions on the qualities of your god.
Don’t make claims for your god when you have no idea what he is. Your belief in your god is coherent, but this gives no evidence for or against the existence of the god you describe, punk.
You can misrepresent my method if you wish, but you'll just end up looking foolish.
Your method is just fine. It just doesn’t prove the existence of any god.
You have a good deal of your mind partitioned off from rational introspection. It has internal logic, just the same as the logic inside of the man who is convinced that he is Napoleon.
Yet, I wish to believe in the existence of your god. I’ll be your poster boy for conversion. Hit me with the truth.
Post a Comment