If God wants to destroy evil...

[Zarathustra]

God created everything that has been, is, and is going to be in existence. He created the Earth and the Heavens. He created the Lake of Fire in which he casts sinners. He created Good, and He created evil. Does not the old adage says "I have created you, and so can I destroy you"?

If God wanted to, couldn't He, in theory, destroy evil with no need for the battle of the apocalypse?

[spetey]

Hello again!

Harvey, as is often the case, I'll trim here by responding only to what I think is important. If there are other things that you think are important that you think I must respond to, let me know.

I gave an 18-point summary of my position, and you responded (incorrectly) to only one point.

Oh yes, in this post. This is one of those things I skipped out of charity to you, since although it was nonsensical (what does Tarskian satisfaction have to do with cosmology?!), it also didn't seem to have any argument to do with the existence of evil, so I thought I could safely skip it.

If you look back and stand by the whole thing as an argument--instead of, say, wild speculation--then we can go over it with a fine-toothed comb together. Do you stand by that argument? Is that your final draft?

As for tsunamis and paradoxes and such, you leave some key questions unanswered:

• You claim that God had to permit the tsunami in order to prevent some worse paradox. What paradox do you have in mind here?
• How did the tsunami prevent this paradox?
• What makes it a "real" paradox (like killing your grandfather) rather than an "unreal" (?) paradox (like "this sentence is false")?
• Why are real paradoxes a worse evil than unreal ones?
• Why are real paradoxes worse than the drowning of many children?

Modifying when and how tsunamies occur is certainly possible by a God, however what we don't know is what it takes for there to be an exception to the laws of physics.

Right. We don't know. It might be easy. It could be done for the water to wine. Why do you assume that God couldn't do it in the tsunami case? Because you have an antecedent belief that God is good, and you rely on this belief--the very thing you're trying to prove?

If a paradox happens where God violates natural law (i.e., supernaturalism), then in such a case, God would be violating mathematical law, and mathematical law is a necessitated law of the world.

Even supposing that omnipotence does not extend to necessities like mathematics (which indeed any theodicist has to suppose, if the claim is that some evil is necessary), in what way would preventing the tsunami lead to "violating a mathematical law"? God could have simply made the crust of the earth more stable, or made the material at the plates' fissures more amenable to smooth interaction, or made the interaction take place in a safe location, or ... I mean, tons of things. How would this violate mathematical law? God can surely do the kinds of things I can do, but on a bigger scale. Like maybe if I were strong enough and fast enough and could hold my breath long enough (and could withstand the pressure, and knew the earthquake was coming, and so on), I could have eased tension in the fissure myself with the right tools and materials, without violating any laws of physics. Why couldn't God have done that?

Perhaps you can see why I did not see this "argument" convincing. It just begs the question: you claim God had to permit that tsunami in order to prevent something far worse (namely, some paradox). But there seems to be no ground for this claim. It seems to spring from your antecedent belief that God would only permit it if it were for the best. But that is just the question at issue.

There is very good ground for this claim. We have mathematical structures that show that randomness and design exist in a delicate balance. Change the digits of pi in a manner that brings a pattern, and you affect all the entire structure of mathematics--paradoxical results.

Fine, let's agree God can't change math. Still, I would think for God to have at least some normal powers of any kind, God can interfere in the physical world. I mean heck, I can interfere in the physical world by moving something from one place to another. I don't break any mathematical laws when I do that. Surely God has at least those powers, right? You seem to claim that the tsunami was just as necessary as the digits of pi. But I don't see why you think that. What about short-circuits that burn houses down? Those could be humanly preventable (had they known, say) by just wrapping more tape around the wires, or something. Why aren't they God-preventable? Why would God have to violate the very laws of mathematics to do something any human could do in a few minutes?

God was able to save them, however that would cause worse results elsewhere, and therefore God allowed evil to happen to prevent even worse results. Of course, you are critical to this, but you are not God. You have no clue as to the challenges of bringing about a happy world and therefore any criticisms are made in complete ignorance (and arrogance and self-righteousness since it is extremely arrogant and self-righteous to assume that our limited perspective is suitable to judge God's actions).

Here you assume God is all-good and therefore God had a reason (which is mysterious to us and self-righteous to ask about). But you see, this is what's in question. You cannot assume what you are trying to prove. The tsunami looks for all the world like an evil thing, a terrible thing to permit to happen.

Look: suppose some human guy knew about the tsunami early, and knew it was going to kill hundreds of thousands, and could have warned them all in time, but he just didn't. If I heard this, I would claim this guy is a moral monster. And first of all, that seems at least on the face of it a reasonable claim, doesn't it? On the face of it, it looks like anyone who permits such a terrible tragedy is not a very good person. Now it's possible, of course, that this guy had great reasons, and that he was really a good guy after all. So someone might try to defend this guy in the face of this outcome, just as you are trying to defend God in the face of apparent evil. But in so doing, it doesn't count to just assume that this guy was a hero, and had his good reasons, and that he was trying to prevent some worse evil by not telling people. I would have to hear a reason to think that he was trying to do good after all.

Is this a confession on your part that you are not attempting to give reasons for your view? Reasons are the kind of thing that might convince someone who doesn't already believe.

No. I think you don't buy into good reasons because it is not what you want to believe.

No, it's the other way around. I believe according to reasons, or at least I try to. You have not given me reason to think that God is good. You trust that God permitted the tsunami in order to prevent something worse. But this trust does not stand as a reason for me, and so my belief is not swayed.

That's fine, and I've already come to accept that you want to be an atheist.

You keep subtly accusing me of the wishful thinking fallacy. (I can't help thinking it's psychological projection.) And I keep telling you: what I want has nothing to do with my reasons to believe. I do not antecedently want to be an atheist. I am an atheist because the best reasons I see compel me so.

However, I'm not exactly sure of what the point of these discussions are if you a) don't buy into good reasons, b) don't want to be a theist. If you don't want to be a theist, then I shouldn't be trying to convince you of being one. I'm happy for you if you are content in your life. That's all I could ever want for someone. My concern, though, is that you are not happy as an atheist. But, you insist you are happy, right?

I do buy into good reasons, which is why I'm an atheist. I have yet to see reason to think otherwise from you. I see a lot of appeal to trust that God is saving us from the dreaded "real" paradoxes by drowning children, and occasional non sequitur appeal to Tarskian semantics, but nothing I can yet call a reason. Give me an argument with premises and a conclusion.

As for whether I want to be a theist, or am happy as an atheist: again, that has nothing to do with it. But yes, I'm at least as happy now as an atheist as I was as a Christian.

Again: what reason do you have for supposing that the tsunami was necessary in order to prevent something worse? (And if it is necessary, how come there aren't more tsunamis? Should we be trying to instigate some of our own, to help God out?)


spetey

[spetey]

Hey Bro Dave!

1) As mentioned, there are no provable absolutes. What that means is, you or I may have deep convictions based on personal experiences, but those are not proofs to anyone but ourselves. Science, like religion, is based on assumptions and observations. All “proofs” are relative to something else, and are therefore not absolute.
2) If you don’t mind, I am going to skip the childish stuff about racism

I do mind, because that's very much to the point. You seem to want to claim that gee, we just have our own faiths, no one can prove anything to anyone else, any belief is as good as another, and so on. I want to know: do you stand by that when it comes to racism, sadism, and so on? Do you think that's just another faith and it's always okay to rely on faith? Or do you think that those are bad belief systems? Myself, I think they are bad belief systems, because I can give good reasons against them. I think if there are reasons against a belief, then you shouldn't believe it. The Problem of Evil provides a reason not to believe in an all-good, all-powerful God. What is your response to this reason? If you don't have one, then I want to hear why your faith is okay, but not faith in racism or whatever.

Faith does not need defending. Scientist have faith that their relative observations, over a very limited time span, are representative of all observations taken or not, past or future.

Maybe we have to have "faith" in things like induction from past observations. But the thing about induction is, everyone agrees it's a reason. It's not controversial. So it seems at least relatively safe to appeal to this as a reason, since it will sway people. You don't have to convince anyone to induct. But in the case of God, not everyone agrees, and there are good reasons against the view. So here, faith is inappropriate. It does not provide a reason to believe in your position.

The use of children suffering, is simply a ploy you like, because it raises emotions, which obscure logic.

Again, as before: I agree that often talking about children is an emotional distraction. Here, though, it is relevant: we are talking about evil and why it's permitted. So I give examples of the evil that are difficult to reconcile with an all-good, all-loving God. If God is good then there should be an explanation for every scrap of evil, including cases like children drowning. So: where is the explanation?

Evil is a relative, not an absolute. It depends entirely on the observer whether something is “evil” or not.

Hmn. So there are no observer-independent facts about what's good? If someone drowns an innocent child in cold blood, that's only evil relative to the observer? It's not "evil-period"?

Actually I think I'm reasoning dispassionately. It's you who seem to feel that how you want the universe to be has something to do with reasons to believe the universe is that way.

And how does that differ from your position on the way you see the universe; i.e. subjectively relative to what you put your faith in?

It differs in that I'm presenting arguments and reason that don't have to do with how I want the world to be. Here, again, is the argument (in smaller form):

1. If an all-good, all-powerful entity exists, there would be no unnecessary evil.
2. The drowning of thousands of innocent children is an unnecessary evil.
3. Therefore no all-good, all-powerful entity exists.

Now where, in that, did I appeal to faith? Where did I appeal to how I want things to be?

Your insistence that the existence of “evil” disproves a loving God, is based on your definition of “evil”, and the limitations you then ascribe to God.

So do you claim that the children drowning is good? Or that there is no such thing as evil, really? You would be indifferent, tomorrow, between drowning in horrible pain and agony and having a sunny picnic, since one's as good as the other?

I wouldn’t believe in the god you describe either. It is a straw man of your own creation.

Again, I'm not describing some other God--I don't think there is a (all-good, all-powerful) God, because of the obvious presence of unnecessary evil.

God, is quite outside your or my ability to understand as a totality.

Here you just appeal to faith--you say in effect "I don't know why God permitted that horrible thing, but I just believe that God is good anyway." But can you see how your trust does not give me a reason to believe in this God?

(Atheists can still explore spirituality and the wonders of nature and love through organizations like the Unitarian Universalists)

Fascinating! I was a Unitarian Universalist for a while, and in fact still enjoy attending occasionally.

I'm glad to hear it. A fine organization that does not require supernatural beliefs to participate. You surely met some quite reasonable and pleasant atheists there. Did you think their lives were hollow and without meaning?

To believe in God because you sure hope there is a God, and because you fear life would be "unsatisfying" without a God, a mere "empty vessel", is to commit the wishful thinking fallacy.

Ascribing “fear” as my motivation for making up God, is silly and inaccurate. You have no way of knowing what my relationship with Father brings me. You are left guessing, and doing a very poor job of it as well I might add. Have you asked yourself why you need to ridicule anyone who claims such a relationship?

I don't mean to ridicule your belief. I do, of course, think you are mistaken to believe in God. But I don't mean to be disrespectful. I was making what I thought was an informed guess that you believe in God at least partly because you want there to be a God. I based this guess on comments like this next one from your last thread:

If you feel “complete” relying only on a mechanistic existence, it is your choice. I do not.

Here is another place you seem to suggest that you feel incomplete without a God, and that you consider this as a reason to believe--to "choose" to say that God exists. That's why I guessed that you believed because you felt God gave you meaning. I was trying to point out that this is not a good reason to believe, as I argue here.

We all get to choose; I’ll take wide screen, 3-D and Technicolor, thank you…

No, on this kind of thing we don't get to choose. Some things just are independent of how we want them. We don't get to choose whether the earth is flat or not. We don't get to choose what the sum of 2 and 2 is. And we don't get to choose whether there's a God or not. Either there is or there isn't, and we have to consider reasons to believe that are independent of our "choice" on the matter. I think there are good reasons not to believe, and I have given some of them here (namely, the presence of evil). I have yet to see why you believe there is such a God.


spetey

[hannahjoy]

The Happy Humanist wrote:

And just how did I show my sinful nature lying in my crib? Or do you not accept that the stain of sin exists from birth? And if you don't fully understand it, then how do you (meaning Christians in general) expect us to accept it? If this is some kind of contract that I've been made a party to without my consent, informed or otherwise, I have the right to at least fully understand it. Otherwise, I am perfectly within my rights to reject it.

You're the one who brought it up, not me. I have always focused on the sins you knowingly commit. There is not a great deal of teaching in the Bible about it, that's why I don't fully understand it. While I believe it, I'm much more concerned about willful sin.
You can reject it. You can ask Christ to cleanse you from every sin.

I could lead an exemplary life, I could feed more hungry than Mother Teresa, I could resist all temptation to do evil.

You haven't and you couldn't. That's what you need to be concerned about.

There was never any argument on my part that you would vote as you believe. Of course you have that right. My problem is with why you believe what you believe, and how your beliefs may be blinding you to what is truly good and proper. In a democratic society, you have the right to vote your beliefs...and I have the right to challenge those beliefs as being inimical to the progress of humanity. After all, if your beliefs take sway in our political system, but turn out to be wrong, you will have needlessly caused great harm to millions - gay couples, unwed mothers, potential stem cell recipients, Terry Schiavo, etc.

There was never any argument on my part that you would vote as you believe. Of course you have that right. My problem is that you believe what you believe, and how your beliefs may be blinding you to what is truly good and proper. In a democratic society, you have the right to vote your beliefs...and I have the right to challenge those beliefs as being damning to the immortal souls of millions of human beings. After all, if your beliefs take sway in our political system, but turn out to be wrong, you will have needlessly caused great harm to millions - homosexuals, abortionists, aborted babies, Terry Schiavo, and anyone else turned away from God by your influence and the influence of others like you.

What are these motives for my belief that you have problems with?

Let's talk slavery.

1. Do you, Hannah, believe that slavery is wrong?
2. Do you believe that it has always been wrong?
3. Do you acknowledge that God, through his Bible, failed to communicate the wrongness of slavery to his followers? That, in fact, he made every appearance of condoning it?
4. Do you acknowledge that humanity came to see the wrongness of slavery of its own accord, quite apart from any Biblical admonitions (of which there were none)?
5. Assuming you answered "Yes" to all the above, please tell us, in light of your highlighted statement: How could humanity come to perceive a moral truth that its Creator, the reputed "source of all Goodness," was blind to?

Let's not talk slavery. Don't assume I will answer according to popular opinion, but it's not an issue I'm going to debate with you. Humanity has never come to perceive a moral truth God was blind to.

Do you not see the danger in this moral exclusionism? I've made this point elsewhere - you have decided to follow God, and have decided that he is incapable of doing wrong. Therefore, everything he does is right, no matter how wrong it seems. There is no way out for you! You could conceivably be following a demonic force that was banished from another universe and that has set itself up as "the Creator", but since you have abdicated your moral judgement, you would have no way of discerning the ruse! If I'm wrong, show me a way out - show me how you could conceivably objectively determine that such a being is truly Good.

I have not abdicated my moral judgement. The Bible teaches that we were created with consciences, and that our consciences were distorted by the Fall. That fits perfectly with what I see around me. We do have consciences, very similar ones, and yet with deep divides over certain issues. It's not hard to see that there must be flaws in each of us, and I turn to the only one Who can set them right. I could just assume that my conscience was always right, and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, but I have no reason to assume that. If our consciences were infallible guides to morality, we would never disagree.

The default position is not non-existence - God's existence can be observed in nature if you have the eyes to see it.

Unfortunately he appears to have withheld this special vision from certain of us.

No, He hasn't. The only thing keeping you from seeing is your own unwillingness.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

More to the point, if you were in a court of law, you might convince a jury that the "order" and "beauty" we perceive in nature is the product of a willed creation by a deity, but you would then be stuck with proving that the creating force is your particular deity - as opposed to, say, Quetzalcoatl, the Invisible Pink Unicorn - or <gasp> Murray! Why? Because you have no right to assume that the default position is any one particular deity. Many deities lay claim to creating the universe...why yours?

General revelation isn't enough - special revelation is necessary. When I turn to that special revelation, I find it fits with everything I see around me.

spetey wrote:

Hannahjoy, we are not assuming God does not exist. We are instead providing reasons for this claim.

Laws are not made on this forum, and even if they were, you obviously haven't persuaded many of us yet. Even assuming you could, in the end, convince every one of us, you still have a lot of work ahead of you. In the meantime, we need laws. Why should they be based on your beliefs, when the majority of the voters still disagree with you?

This is just one "proof" (argument) that there is no God. If you are reasonable, that means you try to believe according to reasons. So when presented with these reasons to believe there is no God, you should either respond to this reason and show why it's wrong, or else change your belief.

A vote is a big responsibility, and it is irresponsible to vote on things that you believe without reason.

I have a third choice - if I find your arguments unconvincing, I can just reject them and go on my way . Don't worry, I don't vote or believe without reason.

If God exists, God is all-good and all-powerful.
If something all-good and all-powerful exists, there would be no evil, or only evil that is absolutely necessary (that is, this would be the "best of all possible worlds").
Lots of unnecessary evil exists, like those children who drowned in a tsunami.
Therefore there is no God.

The only evil that is unnecessary is sin. Everything else, i.e. "bad things" happening, is necessary given the presence of sin. Exactly why God allows sin, I don't know. No doubt it has something to do with giving us the ability to choose. There is enough in the Bible that I can understand that I am willing to accept what I can't. I would submit that anyone who is unwilling to give up sin has no right to question God for allowing it.

I'm sure you'd like to forget the children who died in the tsunami. It's a common reaction for those who believe in God to try just to forget the evil that's around, as though that somehow made it more reasonable to believe. Myself, I don't just "forget" things that happen to conflict with my previous worldview.

Why do you assume these things conflict with my previous world-view? (I realize you weren't addressing me, but I'm obviously included in the "those who believe in God".) I grew up in a land of earthquakes (Japan). When I was 12, an earthquake woke me up early one morning (not uncommon), only this time we discovered later that earthquake had killed 2000 people in a city not far from us - and that's a fairly small number of death compared to many earthquakes. I'm sure I had heard of Pompeii before then, and of course many other accidents and natural disasters. I don't think it's healthy to dwell on those things too much, but I certainly don't try to "forget" them because they conflict with my world-view - they've always been part of my world-view, even essential to it.

When I can see that God has done and is doing everything He has promised, I see no reason not to believe Him, and trust Him for the future.

Hannah Joy

[spetey]

Hannahjoy, we are not assuming God does not exist. We are instead providing reasons for this claim.

Laws are not made on this forum, and even if they were, you obviously haven't persuaded many of us yet. Even assuming you could, in the end, convince every one of us, you still have a lot of work ahead of you. In the meantime, we need laws. Why should they be based on your beliefs, when the majority of the voters still disagree with you?

Laws are not made on this forum, but as you point out, they are made in part as a result of our voting, and our voting is determined in part by our religious stance. So (quite indirectly) laws are influenced in places like this forum. I think every little bit helps. The more people I can get to think about religious beliefs here, the better.

And I think the laws should be based on (many of) my beliefs because I can give good reasons for (many of) them. I think they should not be based on positions that don't withstand the test of reason. And I think the majority of voters can be wrong. Once upon a time, the majority of people (in Europe anyway) thought the earth was flat. This didn't make it right. Of course I respect that each voter is entitled to her opinion. But I also think it's important to discuss these opinions and make sure they're good ones.

This is just one "proof" (argument) that there is no God. If you are reasonable, that means you try to believe according to reasons. So when presented with these reasons to believe there is no God, you should either respond to this reason and show why it's wrong, or else change your belief.

A vote is a big responsibility, and it is irresponsible to vote on things that you believe without reason.

I have a third choice - if I find your arguments unconvincing, I can just reject them and go on my way .

Of course that's an option. But of course racists, for example, have the same option. We could give them reasons not to be racist, and they could just "reject them and go on [their] way", continuing to vote in a dangerous way, without giving reasons for their position. But of course I think that just dismissing an argument without reasoned response like that is a bad thing to do.

Don't worry, I don't vote or believe without reason.

Good! That's excellent. Can I hear your reason for believing in an all-powerful, all-good God despite the presence of excess, unnecessary evil? (You start to give such reasons below, but as you can see, I need to hear more.)

The only evil that is unnecessary is sin. Everything else, i.e. "bad things" happening, is necessary given the presence of sin.

So why was that tsunami, in particular, necessary, given the existence of human sin? It seems totally unrelated.

When I can see that God has done and is doing everything He has promised, I see no reason not to believe Him, and trust Him for the future.

How do you "see" that? I was living in Japan during the Kobe earthquake--is that the one you speak of? (I felt it way off in Yamaguchi prefecture!) Because of things like that tsunami or the Kobe earthquake, it doesn't look to me like there is an all-good, all-powerful God out there. It looks to me like things just happen naturally.


spetey

[stevencarrwork]

When I can see that God has done and is doing everything He has promised, I see no reason not to believe Him, and trust Him for the future.

Hannah Joy

God promised he would not send a Flood to destroy the world.

It is true that the tsunami did not kill everybody.

God would appear to be a lawyer, finding loopholes in his promises.

[Bro Dave]

Wow, turn my back for one minute, and my thread grows to 15 pages?

Bro Dave, would you mind clarifying something for me? It seems like you are saying that God is infinite and perfect, correct (I could be wrong, to be honest, I haven't read the entire thread)? If so, how does he partake in our growth?

I'll probably be back with more questions/points/etc after I read some more

Zarathustra ,good to hear from you again!
Yes, that is indeed what I am saying; God, the First Source and Center is both infinite and perfect. This is a wonderful question you have asked, because it come to the very crux of why there IS a Universe. While our finite minds will never begin to fathom God as infinite, we have this Universe bridge that brings us into personal contact with the Personal aspect of God, interfacing with us as our Father. God shares a pre-personal fragment of himself with each of his children, and is therefore, “closer than our breath”. It is this Father Fragment, that we eventually fuse with, and this is what allows us to “become perfect even as I AM is perfect”. Our Father Fragment is always there, whispering in that still small voice, “this is the way”. But, never does He overrule our free will choices that we make, good or “bad”. He shares our journey here, and, when we move on into first set of “heavens”, He will continue along with us, until typically about the 5th heaven world, we and He become one.

That is the short version, but pretty exciting, don’t you think?

Bro Dave

[Bro Dave]

I do mind, because that's very much to the point. You seem to want to claim that gee, we just have our own faiths, no one can prove anything to anyone else, any belief is as good as another, and so on. I want to know: do you stand by that when it comes to racism, sadism, and so on? Do you think that's just another faith and it's always okay to rely on faith? Or do you think that those are bad belief systems? Myself, I think they are bad belief systems, because I can give good reasons against them. I think if there are reasons against a belief, then you shouldn't believe it. The Problem of Evil provides a reason not to believe in an all-good, all-powerful God. What is your response to this reason? If you don't have one, then I want to hear why your faith is okay, but not faith in racism or whatever.

You have entirely missed the point. What I’ve said, is that there are no PROVABLE absolutes. I never said there are no PREFERABLE belief systems. Clearly, an imperfect universe is going to contain a lot of imperfect beliefs. Since you are completely “at sea” when I comes to allowing a personal interface with God, there is no way for you to understand the real nature of Good, and relative nature evil.

Bro Dave wrote:
Faith does not need defending. Scientist have faith that their relative observations, over a very limited time span, are representative of all observations taken or not, past or future.

Maybe we have to have "faith" in things like induction from past observations. But the thing about induction is, everyone agrees it's a reason. It's not controversial. So it seems at least relatively safe to appeal to this as a reason, since it will sway people. You don't have to convince anyone to induct. But in the case of God, not everyone agrees, and there are good reasons against the view. So here, faith is inappropriate. It does not provide a reason to believe in your position.

Once more; NOTHING is provable to another person. It reside within each individual to be persuaded by intellect, observation and experience.

Bro Dave wrote:
The use of children suffering, is simply a ploy you like, because it raises emotions, which obscure logic.

Again, as before: I agree that often talking about children is an emotional distraction. Here, though, it is relevant: we are talking about evil and why it's permitted. So I give examples of the evil that are difficult to reconcile with an all-good, all-loving God. If God is good then there should be an explanation for every scrap of evil, including cases like children drowning. So: where is the explanation?

The problem is that your conceptual model is too small. We are, at best, “virus’”, on a speck of space dust, with just the elementary stirrings of intelligence. Your attempt to project absolute evil onto the creator of the Universe, (which itself well beyond you comprehension) is at least laughable, if not insanely arrogant!

Bro Dave wrote:
Evil is a relative, not an absolute. It depends entirely on the observer whether something is “evil” or not.

Hmn. So there are no observer-independent facts about what's good? If someone drowns an innocent child in cold blood, that's only evil relative to the observer? It's not "evil-period"?

My point was, that each observer make judgments on “evilness”. Since you are so completely hung up on the killing of children, what about the Korean woman who smothered her baby? Was she “evil”. Oh, did I mention she was on a bus loaded with folks trying to escape being executed, and they had pulled into a ravine at night when the detected solders approaching. The baby started crying, and the mother had to put her hand over its mouth, eventually suffocating it. “evil Mom?” You choose. Evil is all bound up in imperfection, and intent. It is not so simple as you make it.

Bro Dave wrote:
spetey wrote:
Actually I think I'm reasoning dispassionately. It's you who seem to feel that how you want the universe to be has something to do with reasons to believe the universe is that way.
And how does that differ from your position on the way you see the universe; i.e. subjectively relative to what you put your faith in?

It differs in that I'm presenting arguments and reason that don't have to do with how I want the world to be. Here, again, is the argument (in smaller form):

1. If an all-good, all-powerful entity exists, there would be no unnecessary evil.
2. The drowning of thousands of innocent children is an unnecessary evil.
3. Therefore no all-good, all-powerful entity exists.

Now where, in that, did I appeal to faith? Where did I appeal to how I want things to be?

You are trapped in an intellectual box, from which you have no desire to escape. Your insistence on wearing emotional blinders prevents you from seeing beyond what you believe is an absolute argument against God. You are stuck there, but I have no reason to continue to argue with what I see as pointless. [/quote]

Bro Dave wrote:
Your insistence that the existence of “evil” disproves a loving God, is based on your definition of “evil”, and the limitations you then ascribe to God.

So do you claim that the children drowning is good? Or that there is no such thing as evil, really? You would be indifferent, tomorrow, between drowning in horrible pain and agony and having a sunny picnic, since one's as good as the other?

What I find unbearable, is your continued use of emotion, in what one would hope to be an intellectual exchange. If you have not understood me by now, there is little hope that will change.

Bro Dave wrote:
I wouldn’t believe in the god you describe either. It is a straw man of your own creation.

Again, I'm not describing some other God--I don't think there is a (all-good, all-powerful) God, because of the obvious presence of unnecessary evil.

Your free will choice is to make those characterizations and judgments as you see them. Being wrong is an important part of the journey from imperfection to wisdom, and eventually enlightenment.

Bro Dave wrote:
God, is quite outside your or my ability to understand as a totality.

Here you just appeal to faith--you say in effect "I don't know why God permitted that horrible thing, but I just believe that God is good anyway." But can you see how your trust does not give me a reason to believe in this God?

I make no appeal to faith or anything else. Not my job! I am stating my understanding. accept it or not, your choice.

spetey

(Atheists can still explore spirituality and the wonders of nature and love through organizations like the Unitarian Universalists)
Fascinating! I was a Unitarian Universalist for a while, and in fact still enjoy attending occasionally.

I'm glad to hear it. A fine organization that does not require supernatural beliefs to participate. You surely met some quite reasonable and pleasant atheists there. Did you think their lives were hollow and without meaning?

Not entirely, they tended to be a little “better than most” because they were “above” the typical pedestrian intellect. But, on the whole interesting folks, with good intentions.

spetey wrote:
To believe in God because you sure hope there is a God, and because you fear life would be "unsatisfying" without a God, a mere "empty vessel", is to commit the wishful thinking fallacy.

Bro Dave wrote;
Ascribing “fear” as my motivation for making up God, is silly and inaccurate. You have no way of knowing what my relationship with Father brings me. You are left guessing, and doing a very poor job of it as well I might add. Have you asked yourself why you need to ridicule anyone who claims such a relationship?

I don't mean to ridicule your belief. I do, of course, think you are mistaken to believe in God. But I don't mean to be disrespectful. I was making what I thought was an informed guess that you believe in God at least partly because you want there to be a God. I based this guess on comments like this next one from your last thread:

Bro Dave wrote:
If you feel “complete” relying only on a mechanistic existence, it is your choice. I do not.

spetey:
Here is another place you seem to suggest that you feel incomplete without a God, and that you consider this as a reason to believe--to "choose" to say that God exists. That's why I guessed that you believed because you felt God gave you meaning. I was trying to point out that this is not a good reason to believe, as I argue here.

Bro Dave wrote
How, may I inquire, can you possible decide what is and what is not a good reason for ME to believe something? The experience of finding God within yourself, is highly personal, and entirely subjective to anyone else. I am not requiring that you believe, or even that you too experience God. He does not require that, so why would I?

Bro Dave wrote:
We all get to choose; I’ll take wide screen, 3-D and Technicolor, thank you…

No, on this kind of thing we don't get to choose. Some things just are independent of how we want them. We don't get to choose whether the earth is flat or not. We don't get to choose what the sum of 2 and 2 is. And we don't get to choose whether there's a God or not. Either there is or there isn't, and we have to consider reasons to believe that are independent of our "choice" on the matter. I think there are good reasons not to believe, and I have given some of them here (namely, the presence of evil). I have yet to see why you believe there is such a God.
spetey

Gee, my bad; What was I thinking allowing the joy of knowing God to cloud my vision, and to make me glad for the relationship. You lead the way with out God, immersed in what seem to be evil everywhere, and no end in sight… Just don’t be too shocked if no one cares to follow.

Bro Dave

[spetey]

Hello again!

You have entirely missed the point. What I’ve said, is that there are no PROVABLE absolutes. I never said there are no PREFERABLE belief systems.

Good. So it sounds like you think there are preferable belief systems; some beliefs (like that 2+2=4, the earth is round, and so on) are better than others (that 2+2=5, the earth is flat, and so on). This is very good, and a big relief to me, that you agree some beliefs are preferable to others.

Now, this is important: how can you tell which belief systems are better than others? Because some people think the belief "there is a God" is better than the belief "there is no God", and others think the opposite! So we have to try to figure out which one is better, because whichever one is better is very important. My proposal is: we look for reasons. I think a belief system is better to the extent there are good reasons for it and no good reasons against it. Do you agree with this method? Or do you have another way to tell which belief systems are good?

Your attempt to project absolute evil onto the creator of the Universe, (which itself well beyond you comprehension) is at least laughable, if not insanely arrogant!

Bro Dave, this has been a consistent misunderstanding between us, so let me be as clear as I can: I do not think there is a God of any kind, good or evil. I am not saying there is an evil God. I am saying there is no God at all. One reason I think there is no God is that God is supposed to be all-good and all-powerful, but if there were such a God there would be no unnecessary evil.

Evil is a relative, not an absolute. It depends entirely on the observer whether something is “evil” or not.

Hmn. So there are no observer-independent facts about what's good? If someone drowns an innocent child in cold blood, that's only evil relative to the observer? It's not "evil-period"?

My point was, that each observer make judgments on “evilness”. Since you are so completely hung up on the killing of children, what about the Korean woman who smothered her baby? Was she “evil”. Oh, did I mention she was on a bus loaded with folks trying to escape being executed, and they had pulled into a ravine at night when the detected solders approaching. The baby started crying, and the mother had to put her hand over its mouth, eventually suffocating it. “evil Mom?” You choose.

No, I don't choose--there is a fact about whether what she did was wrong. As you give me the scenario, that is not an evil mom, though it does sound like a mom forced into doing a lesser of many bad things. Now, here's another circumstance: a mother, perfectly cogent, who smothers her baby just for kicks and giggles, with no other extenuating circumstances. Bad thing to happen? Yes. Bad only in the eye of the beholder? No. It is just plain bad to suffocate an infant for fun. Right?

Here, again, is the argument (in smaller form):

1. If an all-good, all-powerful entity exists, there would be no unnecessary evil.
2. The drowning of thousands of innocent children is an unnecessary evil.
3. Therefore no all-good, all-powerful entity exists.

Now where, in that, did I appeal to faith? Where did I appeal to how I want things to be?

You are trapped in an intellectual box, from which you have no desire to escape. Your insistence on wearing emotional blinders prevents you from seeing beyond what you believe is an absolute argument against God.

Wait, is that argument overly emotional? Or is it overly intellectual? Or both? What, specifically, is wrong with the argument? When you say I'm "trappend in an intellectual box", it sounds to me like you are saying this: "oh you think about these things and try to give reasons, poor soul--how trapped you are; you should be free of such reasoning, like me." I don't think believing without reasons is any kind of freedom. From where I'm standing, it looks to me like you're the one trapped in a dogma. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe you have reasons for your view. If so, I'd like to hear them.

Your free will choice is to make those characterizations and judgments as you see them. Being wrong is an important part of the journey from imperfection to wisdom, and eventually enlightenment.

Here it sounds like you think it's good to be wrong. Of course I agree that in order to make a journey toward better beliefs you have to start out with non-ideal ones. But you don't think it's good in-itself to be wrong, do you? Presumably you don't believe that 2+2=5 and that the world is flat, just because there are no reasons for those claims either, and you don't want to be "trapped in an intellectual box".

God, is quite outside your or my ability to understand as a totality.

Here you just appeal to faith--you say in effect "I don't know why God permitted that horrible thing, but I just believe that God is good anyway." But can you see how your trust does not give me a reason to believe in this God?

I make no appeal to faith or anything else. Not my job! I am stating my understanding. accept it or not, your choice.

I'm very glad to hear that you're not appealing to faith. That's very good. That means you have reasons for your belief in an all-good, all-powerful God despite the presence of excess evil. I would like to hear those reasons.

Gee, my bad; What was I thinking allowing the joy of knowing God to cloud my vision, and to make me glad for the relationship.

Bro Dave, honestly, I don't want to rob you of any joy. And I can see how from your perspective it looks like the world is more bleak without belief in a God. But I can assure you, it isn't. You can still be grateful and loving and full of awe and all those things. You don't have to believe in supernatural, contradictory things to have these benefits in life. I honestly think you will be better off and more happy in this life if you don't keep thinking about a nonexistent afterlife. Honestly, I would not be outspoken about my atheism if I thought it was bad for people.

But most importantly, it's important to see that whether you want there to be a God has no effect on whether there is a God. You need reasons independent of your wanting.


spetey

[Bro Dave]

spetey

Bro Dave, honestly, I don't want to rob you of any joy. And I can see how from your perspective it looks like the world is more bleak without belief in a God. But I can assure you, it isn't. You can still be grateful and loving and full of awe and all those things. You don't have to believe in supernatural, contradictory things to have these benefits in life. I honestly think you will be better off and more happy in this life if you don't keep thinking about a nonexistent afterlife. Honestly, I would not be outspoken about my atheism if I thought it was bad for people.

But most importantly, it's important to see that whether you want there to be a God has no effect on whether there is a God. You need reasons independent of your wanting.


spetey

My "wanting" or not "wanting" there to be a God, seems imply that all our exchanges have been for nothing. I personally have a relationship with God. You, cannot accept than, and are compelled to characterize it as delusional. Fine. That really does not matter to me, or to God for that matter. In the end, each of us decides for ourselves what is "reasonable" and what is not. For that matter, how do you know you are being llogical? What tool do you bring to bear to figure that out???



Bro Dave

[spetey]

In the end, each of us decides for ourselves what is "reasonable" and what is not. For that matter, how do you know you are being illogical? What tool do you bring to bear to figure that out???

That's a good question. When I have doubt about some belief, I try to think about it as carefully as I can. I try to articulate what reasons I have for holding it or not holding it. I try to avoid known mistakes in reasoning, such as "wishful thinking". I try to apply inference rules like those of logic--rules of thinking that I endorse independently of their content, so that I can try to control for bias. What are your tools? This is a good thing to talk about at this stage, perhaps.

If you just feel it's too hopeless to continue this discussion with me, then I would be sorry to hear that. I am very likely to continue to insist on hearing reasons for beliefs, and I know not everyone is comfortable with that. (But I think this forum is a great place to expand one's comfort zone in that arena!)


spetey