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?

[Cathar1950]

It is possible That they are both irrational and wrong.lol
I prefer to call some ideas non-rational. Like feeling and intuition, junk like that.
I would think anything could and should be argued on rational philosophical grounds. The idea of Argue seems to require it unless you mean a fist fight or war.
I would find it hard to argue either position on a purely Philosophical rational position. The data is just not there to be conclusive for either side.
We can look at faulty reason but at some point the premises will come into question and be debated. What I find so fun about these debates is that we learn. Our ideas are up for consideration and ridicule if need be.
It seems that persuasion is the goal often for Theism. Where Atheism doesn't really have anything to prove. It is hard to prove something doesn't exist. But when we come to God it is hard by our definitions to prove God exist. Being God is suppose to be spirit and all. Where do we get a spirit tester Ghost busters or something? I find the philosophical idea of God often doesn't seem to be the biblical God. At least it doesn't cover all that is said about such a being. It is like a battle between Plato and the Bible's anthropomorphic accounts that have changed over time from many different writers and communities. I often see atheism as a protest to an unworkable view of God.

[harvey1]

I would find it hard to argue either position on a purely Philosophical rational position. The data is just not there to be conclusive for either side.

I realize we disagree here, but it seems to me that atheism is not an epistemically responsible position to hold. I think you paid close attention to this debate here. How is it possible to think of material atheism as being reasonable? It seems to me that it is obviously wrong. How could it be otherwise?

We can look at faulty reason but at some point the premises will come into question and be debated. What I find so fun about these debates is that we learn. Our ideas are up for consideration and ridicule if need be. It seems that persuasion is the goal often for Theism. Where Atheism doesn't really have anything to prove.

I have a hard time believing that atheists are really being genuine when they say they don't believe in God. I have a hard time in not thinking that they are just in their own personal struggle with God. This view only gets reinforced when I see atheists not give answers for their belief but still post as if the reasons against their view were never presented. It strikes me as being in denial. So, coming from my perspective, I see atheists as wanting others to believe they live by reasons, but as soon as reasons are shown to favor God, they give no respect to reasons. Then you see agnosticism being promoted. It drives me batty to be honest.

It is hard to prove something doesn't exist. But when we come to God it is hard by our definitions to prove God exist. Being God is suppose to be spirit and all. Where do we get a spirit tester Ghost busters or something? I find the philosophical idea of God often doesn't seem to be the biblical God. At least it doesn't cover all that is said about such a being. It is like a battle between Plato and the Bible's anthropomorphic accounts that have changed over time from many different writers and communities. I often see atheism as a protest to an unworkable view of God.

Yes, but if that view is correct, then what about all the other philosophies that people still believe even though they have been argued from the beginning of time. For example, many atheists believe that there are such things as objects, right? However, this is not all clear that we know of one type of object that exists. Chairs are composed of atoms. Atoms are composed of nuclei. Nuclei are composed of quarks. Quarks are composed of.... Yet, you don't see atheists responding to theist comments that there are atoms. They don't mention IPUs and the like. It's inconsistent in their response. Why? That's why it's hard for me to believe this is an intellectual issue versus some kind of personal vendetta. The truth be told, most everything we say is wrong. Few of us even have the expertise to say something in the manner that an expert in that belief would say it, and even if we do, there's a ton of other experts that would disagree with us even if we said "correctly" in terms of how that belief is currently held to be possible. So, it just seems to me that atheists have had a puppy or two run over in the past.

I wish I could sugar-coat this so that it didn't offend anyone, but sometimes you just gotta say it the way you see it.

[QED]

I realize we disagree here, but it seems to me that atheism is not an epistemically responsible position to hold. I think you paid close attention to this debate here. How is it possible to think of material atheism as being reasonable? It seems to me that it is obviously wrong. How could it be otherwise?

Some of us paying attention to that thread have serious doubts as to the validity of the question you raised. That's how it could be otherwise. Iim looking forward to returning to that topic when I have enough time to do it justice.

I have a hard time believing that atheists are really being genuine when they say they don't believe in God. I have a hard time in not thinking that they are just in their own personal struggle with God.

You better believe it. God is not a threat. Period. Put it this way, if the Christian God was for real, then maybe... the plot is so twisty that pretty much anything could happen, but it is all too contrived, too anthropomorphic, too gothic to be true. The whole thing has the unmistakable clumsy human thumb-print all over it. So it has absolutely no resonance for me other than being a historical curiosity.

Now, where you ply most of your trade, in the realm of metaphysics, then we get to territory where you claim god resides. This frequently surfaces in sterile phrases like 'god is physics' which are labels or interpretations. Just like Bro Dave thinks that because I say evolution has a 'goal' he takes this in a way to mean that something somewhere is moving things towards this goal -- like a human would. In this case there's no threat, just another curiosity that some people want to put a human face to what otherwise seems to be a perfectly autonomous system minding its own business.

I wish I could sugar-coat this so that it didn't offend anyone, but sometimes you just gotta say it the way you see it.

No worries. We're all just describing what we see to each other.

[harvey1]

Some of us paying attention to that thread have serious doubts as to the validity of the question you raised. That's how it could be otherwise. Iim looking forward to returning to that topic when I have enough time to do it justice.

That's fine. The main issue that I would ask of you is that you take seriously that you can be wrong about your atheism. Don't take it for granted that you are right. If you encounter something that you don't have absolutely any conceptual way that it can be explained, don't chalk that up to it being an invalid question. Chalk it up to your beliefs being wrong. Afterall, that's why beliefs are considered wrong, they either give spurious results or they are just unable to produce anything rationally conceivable (e.g., each microcosm of a second the universe recreates itself from the previous microcosm of a second...).

You better believe it. God is not a threat. Period. Put it this way, if the Christian God was for real, then maybe... the plot is so twisty that pretty much anything could happen, but it is all too contrived, too anthropomorphic, too gothic to be true. The whole thing has the unmistakable clumsy human thumb-print all over it. So it has absolutely no resonance for me other than being a historical curiosity.

But, give up your atheism once you cannot provide an answer to the issues I have raised. Then things change. You will undergo a paradigm shift in your thinking, and then what you currently consider contrived will require more open-minded review than what you have given. But, first things first. Do the intellectually honest thing and surrender your atheism. Once you do that, other possibilities open up.

[Cathar1950]

How is it possible to think of material atheism as being reasonable? It seems to me that it is obviously wrong. How could it be otherwise?

If it were so obvious there would be no argument.
I am not sure if we can even get to a definition of God that alone show convincing evidence.

I have a hard time believing that atheists are really being genuine when they say they don't believe in God. I have a hard time in not thinking that they are just in their own personal struggle with God.

This might be projecting your own commitment and belief that you belive is correct unto others as an inability to see the others point or question.
Of course it would make sense to you or you would belive otherwise. I think they are genuine in their disbelief. Some would like to belive. Some are reacting to some pretty abhorent ideas and actions. I have no doubt that the concept of God has gone thru many changes and development. It is still murky and disbelief seems to be a legitimate response. I could not make a commitment to Atheism due to my intuition, hopes, dreams and sense of wonder. I belive in People. I see the universe as interrelated and whole with many facets.
I also was raised in a culture and family that has influenced my judgement and experiences. That doesn't mean I am right or my beliefs are well founded. If I had to depend on the Bible I would give it up all together. Jesus doesn't provide prof for the existance of God. It is already implied in Christian faith or belief.

I see atheists as wanting others to believe they live by reasons, but as soon as reasons are shown to favor God, they give no respect to reasons. Then you see agnosticism being promoted. It drives me batty to be honest.

I have not seen reasons in favor of belief in God. Reason itself maybe as close to a concept of God as we can get, along and sympathy and beauty.
Agnosticism seems to be a very honest response. In that they just don't know as opposed to gnosticism that is knowledge pass down or to others.
I would think that any revelation unless it is a personal experience(a solid bases of knowledge but also suspect due to culture and such) would fit in this category. This is ignoring the dualistic nature of some gnostic thought. Which I belive is perfectly understandable given the vague and contriditory nature of the Bible and it's adherents. Hell were all a little batty or we wouldn't even be discussing it.

The truth be told, most everything we say is wrong. Few of us even have the expertise to say something in the manner that an expert in that belief would say it, and even if we do, there's a ton of other experts that would disagree with us even if we said "correctly" in terms of how that belief is currently held to be possible. So, it just seems to me that atheists have had a puppy or two run over in the past.

I had puppies die, two sisters, a brother, a dad and many others. It didn't make me disbelieve in God. It does make you question the traditional views and definitions. Job was being told that it was his fault and it was his sins that gave him all his woes. The book was reworked from a very old middle eastern tale to address this biblical view of divine justice being the cause of suffering.
I belive Atheists have a legitimate complaint, as well as the Theists have their reasons for believing.

[Cathar1950]

I am not speaking for QED he can do a fine job already.
I am not convinced of you reasons. And I am at least a Theist of sorts.
My view of Jesus is much to Jewish to be Christian. I supect some pagan influence as well as Paul. But I am not persuaded by the OT it is an invention. I am not against Invention this one has been refined over the many years and is still ruff.
harvey1 wrote:

The main issue that I would ask of you is that you take seriously that you can be wrong about your atheism. Don't take it for granted that you are right. If you encounter something that you don't have absolutely any conceptual way that it can be explained, don't chalk that up to it being an invalid question. Chalk it up to your beliefs being wrong.

Is this something you could do with your beliefs?

But, give up your atheism once you cannot provide an answer to the issues I have raised. Then things change. You will undergo a paradigm shift in your thinking, and then what you currently consider contrived will require more open-minded review than what you have given. But, first things first. Do the intellectually honest thing and surrender your atheism. Once you do that, other possibilities open up.

Again is this something you can do? What your asking for smacks of indoctrination and brainwashing. You may provide answers you can accept but that dosn't mean they have to be true and belived by others.

[harvey1]

If it were so obvious there would be no argument.
I am not sure if we can even get to a definition of God that alone show convincing evidence.

Intelligent and well-educated people argue about the obvious all the time. Philosophers argue whether there is a past, whether we are brains in a vat. That's not to put that kind of thinking down, but c'mon, some things need to be considered obvious otherwise it pulls into question what words could even mean if we were to reject certain beliefs.

This might be projecting your own commitment and belief that you belive is correct unto others as an inability to see the others point or question.

Yes, I can agree to that. However, I listen very carefully for a rational response. I may not always agree with the response as being reasonable, but if the response is at least rational, then I'm willing to say that such and such a belief is minimally rational. Yet, I'm seeing that once you get to a certain point, the response is just not there. That's why I conclude that atheism is generally not what it is presented as being (i.e., as a rational account). If it were, then once you dig a few inches we wouldn't be seeing the empty responses coming back.

I could not make a commitment to Atheism due to my intuition, hopes, dreams and sense of wonder. I belive in People. I see the universe as interrelated and whole with many facets.

I think that is a genuine reason to believe, but it is purely aesthetic. I cannot buy into the notion that one should believe anything solely for aesthetic reasons. For example, Kaku drives me nuts because he talks about the aesthetics of string theory as if it is a better theory than anything we have because of its aesthetics. I don't like that kind of talk. I think that all things being equal, aesthetics do tilt the balance of a scale heavily toward the belief in question. However, if the rationality for a belief is not in itself compelling, then I need more. Now, I would say that meaning is more important than aesthetics. So, if you have meaning and aesthetics, that's getting there, but I still can't accept living a perfectly meaningful and aesthetically pleasing life, but being wrong. You need cogent reasons to believe something. If you don't have those reasons, then it seems that any belief becomes suspect. Don't get me wrong, I might believe something solely for its meaning (e.g., my dear departed uncle loved me), or solely for its aesthetics (e.g., Mozart was unequaled in his creative genius during his time), but on areas of philosophical or scientific belief (etc.), I need cogent reasons to believe those things.

I have not seen reasons in favor of belief in God. Reason itself maybe as close to a concept of God as we can get, along and sympathy and beauty.

When I hear that I can't even imagine what you consider a convincing reason. To be honest, just doing some review on how solar wind clears out the debris of planets is fascinating in its own right. Here is this perfectly naturally developing system and just as the system is reaching maturity, it blows the debris away and a next stage of evolution becomes possible. Now, I think information such as this the atheists have gone completely numb. You know, if you listen to enough miraculous events, eventually you will yawn with excitement. This is what atheism has become. They flippantly look past the miracles of the universe, and just suppose that we wouldn't be here if that random process didn't occur or there must be many worlds where such things don't happen, but this is not valid reasoning. Yes, those reasons can be explanations to some phenomena, but to apply them globally and wontenly as they do, is not valid.

Agnosticism seems to be a very honest response. In that they just don't know as opposed to gnosticism that is knowledge pass down or to others.

I disagree. Agnosticism is often caught up in the game of exploiting any lack of knowledge for the purpose of denying that we have knowledge. I think that backfires on you once you realize that you need to acknowledge that you have knowledge about much more general things. I always used to read Carl Sagan, and I was completely flummoxed on how he would state something as knowledge that required a great deal more claim to knowledge than the certainty that a theist often claims. I see this error repeated very frequently with many agnostics.

I had puppies die, two sisters, a brother, a dad and many others. It didn't make me disbelieve in God. It does make you question the traditional views and definitions. Job was being told that it was his fault and it was his sins that gave him all his woes. The book was reworked from a very old middle eastern tale to address this biblical view of divine justice being the cause of suffering. I belive Atheists have a legitimate complaint, as well as the Theists have their reasons for believing.

The only legitimate complaint that atheists have is the problem of evil (this subject matter). That complaint is based on our lacking knowledge, so it is very suspect right from the start. However, I will acknowledge that it is a subject matter that theists must give full weight to the atheist arguments. Almost every other atheist belief borders on being ludicrous if you ask me. The whole causation thing that we're talking about in the other sub-forum is beyond ludicrous in my opinion. Intelligent people just don't need to be talking about such silly things. It's admit the fact and move on. Unfortunately, dead puppies have a way of keeping such ludicrousness alive.

[QED]

The only legitimate complaint that atheists have is the problem of evil (this subject matter). That complaint is based on our lacking knowledge, so it is very suspect right from the start...

...The whole causation thing that we're talking about in the other sub-forum is beyond ludicrous in my opinion. Intelligent people just don't need to be talking about such silly things. It's admit the fact and move on. Unfortunately, dead puppies have a way of keeping such ludicrousness alive.

Here you've highlighted the very problem that I have with your question of causation. A lack of knowledge about time allows you to construct an issue in exactly the same way you claim a lack of knowledge about gods reasons for permitting evil allows us to question his existence.

Intelligent people do need to talk about such things when we have no firm understanding of what time actually is. You can say things like "Admit the fact [that it is god who clocks the universe] and move on" but your haste for everyone to swallow this without question is suspicious in the extreme.

[harvey1]

Here you've highlighted the very problem that I have with your question of causation. A lack of knowledge about time allows you to construct an issue in exactly the same way you claim a lack of knowledge about gods reasons for permitting evil allows us to question his existence.

It's not the same issue. It was a similar issue back before Spetey gave up on the argument that God necessarily does not exist. If you remember, he gave up not too long after The Happy Humanist was the first atheist to point out that his argument was not strong enough to support this conclusion. Soon after that, Spetey offered a probablistic argument that God does not exist based on what information we do have. This, I believe, is Spetey's current position after losing on the logical necessary argument. Which, incidentally, is where the PoE argument stands right now. It is a debate about whether God is probablistic given the PoE.

Well, with regard to the material causation argument, I still think it is a necessary conclusion that causation is not possible. If, you are able, you might be able to push me to a probablistic conclusion just like I pushed Spetey to a probablistic conclusion, but that still doesn't mean you are out of the woods (anymore than I'm out of the woods with Spetey with regard to a probablistic denial of God due to the PoE).

The probablistic argument, btw, must be taken very seriously. It's not good enough for me to say to Spetey (as Curious is doing), that geez we don't know much about it, so our beliefs have to be true. That's the opposite conclusion that one ought to come to even in face of our lack of knowledge. At best, we can only conclude that the preponderance of other evidence says that we have good reason to deny the probablistic argument, and this is what most theists claim. Curious' argument is odd because he says that atheism is more rational than theism, but defends against the probablistic argument against God because we don't have enough knowledge. In that situation, one would have to go with the probablistic argument against God since there is no other compelling reason not to (since he believes atheism is more rational than theism, but believes theism anyway).

In addition, I'm agnostic to the view that theist philosophers can just cite the overwhelming reasons for God, and therefore think the probablistic argument against God with regard to the PoE is satisfied. I'm not sure that is good enough. It seems to me that one needs to show conceptually how a probablistic argument can fail without being an unreasonable argument. If you can show one reasonable exception, then there might be hundreds or thousands of other reasonable exceptions that are hidden from our view. That's why I haven't just spoke the theistic company line with Spetey and said, "well, I have good reason to believe God exists, and we just don't know much about this subject." I agree with Spetey that I must do more than that. Now, that doesn't mean that I must go to the point of a philosophical theory that is undeniable or even something that everyone would naturally agree makes sense. I just need to show conceptually how a probablistic argument can fail, and if it's without contradiction and based on satisfactory standards of reasoning, I think that criteria has been met. This is how a probablistic argument against something is properly defeated, I think.

Given the above, I argue that the argument for material atheism is not able to defend against the necessary argument I constructed, and therefore materialism cannot be true. On top of that, the probablistic argument would still need to be contended with as I must contend with Spetey on the probablistic argument of the PoE.

Intelligent people do need to talk about such things when we have no firm understanding of what time actually is. You can say things like "Admit the fact [that it is god who clocks the universe] and move on" but your haste for everyone to swallow this without question is suspicious in the extreme.

Indeed the topic needs to be discussed, but once it is shown that an argument rules out a view, rationality requires that we give up on the belief. This is true of a probablistic-based argument, and it is especially true of a necessary-based argument. Unfortunately, I can't get you to see that. For me, that means that you aren't on the right track in how you consider such things.

[Cathar1950]

harvey1 wrote:

Indeed the topic needs to be discussed, but once it is shown that an argument rules out a view, rationality requires that we give up on the belief. This is true of a probablistic-based argument, and it is especially true of a necessary-based argument. Unfortunately, I can't get you to see that. For me, that means that you aren't on the right track in how you consider such things.

The point is he dosn't see that because it is not persusive to him.
Your arguments have not ruled out his view. He thinks his have ruled out yours are you willing to give up on your beliefs?