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?

[Curious]

Hullo again!

I am perfectly amenable to the reasoning of others ...

Hmn. This statement seems to contradict what you said in your immediately previous post:

No amount of persuasion could alter my position. I mean cajolment or reasoning by those who are so eminent in this field. My own experience and ultimate realisation is another matter.

Here you certainly seem to say that you could not change your mind according to the reasons of others. This seems to contradict your current claim that you are "perfectly amenable to the reasoning of others." Perhaps you could explain this apparent contradiction? Might you ever change your mind according to reasons others give you, or no? If no, what are you doing here?

Try reading the sentences in context. No amount of reason COULD persuade me that there was a God. I did not come to my belief through the persuasion or reasoning of others but because of my own personal experiences. These experiences would have as little effect on you as they would have had on me if I myself had not experienced them personally. I see no reason to expect that you would be any less gullible than myself and so giving them would be of no benefit. If there were reasons sufficient to outweigh my present ones, I would be not only amenable but extremely grateful.

... and would be delighted if you could show me how, by any rational method which is beyond refutation, I might learn more about the qualities of God or even His non-existence.

I rehearsed my argument here (that one was just for you--I have stated it several times before that). I believe this argument is good--indeed, "beyond refutation". You could of course show me wrong by refuting it.

If we look at the argument we see that is does not hold up to even the briefest scrutiny.

Again you simply state that my argument is no good. What exactly is wrong with it? A racist can also respond to arguments for the equality of races by just asserting that "those arguments for equality of races don't hold up to even the briefest scrutiny!" What a racist can't do is actually give a good response to the arguments for the equality of races.

If people come to decry the existence of God then I am perfectly entitled to point out the deficiencies in the arguments used.

Of course. So please, I ask again: point out the deficiency in my argument. Merely saying it is deficient does not gain you any ground in a debate where we try to give actual reasons for our positions. You should only be confident that my argument is refutable if you actually have a refutation.

I have given reasons why such an argument is deficient. Every single point is a pure assumption that is neither provable nor measurable.
Show me:
1. Why the presence of evil (over and above the "necessary" amount) would prove that something else could not be all-good.
2. How you might calculate the amount of necessary evil to fulfil this requirement or how you might distinguish between a necessary evil and an unnecessary one.

Once you get past these two obstacles then we can discuss whether or not the conclusion that there is no God is actually based on valid reasoning or whether it is based on gut instinct. We are not discussing my beliefs or reasons to believe, we are discussing an argument that you forwarded to which I have raised valid objections so would you please address these issues. I am unsure whether you have simply missed my objections or are ignoring them.

[Curious]

Curious,

I would like to add to the discrepancy here:

I will offer reasons that the atheist cannot argue with on philosophical grounds but use the atheist's tool of choice.

This seems to suggest that you think theism is more rational than atheism using the same evidence that an atheist would admit. On the other hand:

I believe atheism is more rational because it is purely rational. It sees the data, analyses it and categorises it.

So, which is it? Is atheism arguing an irrational position because they cannot argue based on philosophical grounds or is the atheist position much more rational than the theist using the tools of choice admitted by an atheist? It seems to contradict.

What I am saying is that if an atheist forwards an argument that is claimed to be shown true by using logical reasoning then I will refute this argument using logical reasoning. As I said previously, there is little point arguing mathematics in terms of flower arranging.
Given the fact that the atheist view seems completely pre-occupied with objective measurement this suggests that it is more rational. On the other hand, the theist also takes subjective matters into consideration. Whether it is rational depends on the information you have or whether or not it is rational to include or exclude certain types of evidence. If you are bent on believing that the world is 6000 years old despite the massive evidence against it that would not be rational.

[Curious]

Curious is here for my pleasure.
I Change my mind for all kinds of reasons. Ask me something today and two days later after thinking about the subject. I may give a totaly different answer. I am like that. Not everyones reasoning is logical or coherent.
that doesn't mean they don't or can't belive. Some times when I beat my brother in chess it is because I lack reason in my plays. It drives him nuts as well as my son. But I win. Not very often of course.

Thanks for the support but you will see from my previous responses that there really is no contradiction at all. Perhaps I should choose my language more carefully to avoid such misunderstanding in future. I had assumed that my previous points would have been understood as written. Obviously if each sentence is taken individually then there is little chance of understanding a point that was made using multiple sentences. Context is important.

[harvey1]

Given the fact that the atheist view seems completely pre-occupied with objective measurement this suggests that it is more rational.

I'm a little slow and can't read between the lines, so you'll just have to spell it out for me. Is atheism more rational than theism or not? And, by that I mean if one is epistemically required to be an atheist over a theist given what information is available to us? My stance is certain. There's no way that epistemically the evidence favors an atheist. Not even close.

It seems you are conflicted on this issue since you say that your theism is in response to something that Spetey has no control over. This would suggest that you think Spetey is being more rational by being an atheist, and if so, then what is it that you can say to him that would get him to re-evaluate his position since you cannot share subjective experiences with him. Afterall, subjective experience is not something we can download into USB memory and plug it in into the other person's USB port.

[Curious]

Given the fact that the atheist view seems completely pre-occupied with objective measurement this suggests that it is more rational.

I'm a little slow and can't read between the lines, so you'll just have to spell it out for me. Is atheism more rational than theism or not? And, by that I mean if one is epistemically required to be an atheist over a theist given what information is available to us? My stance is certain. There's no way that epistemically the evidence favors an atheist. Not even close.

It seems you are conflicted on this issue since you say that your theism is in response to something that Spetey has no control over. This would suggest that you think Spetey is being more rational by being an atheist, and if so, then what is it that you can say to him that would get him to re-evaluate his position since you cannot share subjective experiences with him. Afterall, subjective experience is not something we can download into USB memory and plug it in into the other person's USB port.

Ok, I will spell it out since you ask. To an atheist, who has the universe broken into easily digested fragments of information, seeing everything as scientifically provable (despite our obvious limitations in this field) then, unless they are to discover overwhelming evidence to prove to the contrary, it would only be rational to believe that there was no God. If they found this evidence which proved to them that God did indeed exist then it would only be rational to believe. The only difference is that the individual would be in greater possession of the facts. If you were to believe in God for no reason other than it says to in a book, despite all the evidence against it, this would not be rational, particularly if it is proven that certain claims are not compatible with reality. Atheism is based almost entirely on what is provable. Theism, in general is based on faith rather than rationalism. Let's face it, if there was at least equal evidence pointing towards its veracity (scientifically speaking), there would be far less need for the emphasis on faith. Many theists do however show exceptionally good reasoning for their beliefs but as a generalisation I would say that overall, atheists show more rationality (when considering religion at least), but I believe it is only because they have insufficient evidence or fail to give any such evidence the weight it deserves. They might not have all the relevant facts but this does not mean they are any less rational because of it.
As I have said previously, no amount of persuasion is likely to alter Spetey's position, but why would I wish to? My only position is that I disagree with Spetey's analysis of the situation. If Spetey says "this proves that" and it does not, I am quite at liberty to ask why this shows it to be true. I have no interest in converting Spetey but if anybody wishes to convert to atheism, it would be preferable to have all the facts instead of being taken in by a flawed argument .

[harvey1]

...as a generalisation I would say that overall, atheists show more rationality (when considering religion at least), but I believe it is only because they have insufficient evidence or fail to give any such evidence the weight it deserves. They might not have all the relevant facts but this does not mean they are any less rational because of it.

So, do you believe that atheists are just unlucky because they don't get to experience the subjective experiences of theists? Had they been lucky like you (or maybe sometime in the future), the current irrational beliefs will then--at that time--appear to be more rational than what they currently believe?

As I have said previously, no amount of persuasion is likely to alter Spetey's position, but why would I wish to? My only position is that I disagree with Spetey's analysis of the situation.

Okay, this is where I'm confused. If Spetey is taking the more rational approach, as you say, then your disagreement with him is irrational from an negative-subjective-experiencer-of-God person, but would be in-line with rationality with a positive-subjective-experiencer-of-God-person, is that right? If so, then your arguments are predestined to be irrational to anyone else but the choir.

If Spetey says "this proves that" and it does not, I am quite at liberty to ask why this shows it to be true. I have no interest in converting Spetey but if anybody wishes to convert to atheism, it would be preferable to have all the facts instead of being taken in by a flawed argument .

However, if someone was going to convert to atheism, this would suggest they are a negative-subjective-experiencer-of-God-person, right? Wouldn't that mean that your arguments would be irrational? (At least to them?)

[Curious]

...as a generalisation I would say that overall, atheists show more rationality (when considering religion at least), but I believe it is only because they have insufficient evidence or fail to give any such evidence the weight it deserves. They might not have all the relevant facts but this does not mean they are any less rational because of it.

So, do you believe that atheists are just unlucky because they don't get to experience the subjective experiences of theists? Had they been lucky like you (or maybe sometime in the future), the current irrational beliefs will then--at that time--appear to be more rational than what they currently believe?

I don't think luck comes into it. Perhaps if in the future I find overwhelming evidence for the non-existence of God I might then decide to revert back to atheism.I know that I do not possess all the relevant facts so until that time I will draw my own conclusions with whatever evidence, for or against, is available to me. Needless to say, I don't believe this will happen anytime soon. I don't think though that my reasons for believing are necessarily an accurate reflection on the majority of theists. But what has this got to do with Spetey's argument that claims it disproves the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God?

As I have said previously, no amount of persuasion is likely to alter Spetey's position, but why would I wish to? My only position is that I disagree with Spetey's analysis of the situation.

Okay, this is where I'm confused. If Spetey is taking the more rational approach, as you say, then your disagreement with him is irrational from an negative-subjective-experiencer-of-God person, but would be in-line with rationality with a positive-subjective-experiencer-of-God-person, is that right? If so, then your arguments are predestined to be irrational to anyone else but the choir.

I don't say Spetey's reasoning is more rational than mine at all. I say that whatever subjective experience I might describe to him would not be HIS subjective experience and therefore it would carry no weight whatsoever. In fact, it is irrelevant who has come to the more rational decision concerning their belief or disbelief in God, as it is the Spetey's argument that I am disagreeing with not his philosophical perspective. Please try to read my posts more carefully so that you at least get the gist of what they actually say. It appears that you have become sidetracked and are confusing this thread for the one that is specifically concerning rationality. I would be more than happy to respond to any questions concerning this in the "is theism rational" debate but here it bears no relevance at all on whether Spetey's claim is sound.

If Spetey says "this proves that" and it does not, I am quite at liberty to ask why this shows it to be true. I have no interest in converting Spetey but if anybody wishes to convert to atheism, it would be preferable to have all the facts instead of being taken in by a flawed argument .

However, if someone was going to convert to atheism, this would suggest they are a negative-subjective-experiencer-of-God-person, right? Wouldn't that mean that your arguments would be irrational? (At least to them?)

How clever of you to be able to separate the theist population into two distinct groups. I am refering here mainly to those undecided individuals who might be swayed into joining a wierdo cult on the ravings of a lunatic or who might decide to become atheists on the basis of a flawed argument. My intention is not to show that the atheist position is wrong in principle, although obviously that is what I believe, but is only to show that the atheist attack on theism is not so clever after all. Try to disprove something using a reasoned argument and you must be prepared to show how this reasoning is correct. I have brought this up numerous times but have as yet seen no logical, rational reasoning that can arrive at a certainty from two uncertainties.

[harvey1]

It appears that you have become sidetracked and are confusing this thread for the one that is specifically concerning rationality. I would be more than happy to respond to any questions concerning this in the "is theism rational" debate but here it bears no relevance at all on whether Spetey's claim is sound.

It seems to me to be relevant since over there you say that atheism is more rational, and over here you say that theism is more rational. I'm trying to understand which is the case in your view. It just strikes me as odd that you would say that atheism is more rational despite that you see their #1 argument is based on "no logical, rational reasoning that can arrive at a certainty from two uncertainties."

[Cathar1950]

I am not taking sides or a stance. I can see a couple of points that are worthy of merit.
Curious wrote:

...as a generalisation I would say that overall, atheists show more rationality (when considering religion at least), but I believe it is only because they have insufficient evidence or fail to give any such evidence the weight it deserves. They might not have all the relevant facts but this does not mean they are any less rational because of it.

Here Curious in all humility states that over all atheist show more rationality considering religion. He admits to insufficient evidence. Maybe he fail to give some evidence the weight it deserves. He is open. An Athiest that holds his views for rational reasons does so because he is trying to be honest to his expierences and knowledge. Some of this is religions fault for teaching a faith that lacks reason and openness at least from my traditions. An Atheist is not nessarly anti-God or anti-Christian they just dont have reason to be belive in what is often a religion unfounded and unreasonable ideas and are so commited to their faith often based on a book of books leters and writings. I am not sure That man Theist belive in God( what ever that is going to be discribed). Some really belive in the Bible and therefor belive in Jesus and God. So they defend the Bible with with zeal. All for them hangs on it. The problem also lies in a very western understanding In the USA we tend to be very dogmatic and it is a good thing we have seperation of church and state.
I belive in reason But it is a tool and a very nessary tool for which we have evolved for our survival. It remains to be seen how it works. I belive this is true for the non-rational and the irrational. It is part of us we can not escape either but we can hold them in check. We are creative and flexable thank God and the universe.
Well I got to go eat. i am losing my train of thought. I will be back and see where I have to start over. Thanks

[Curious]

It appears that you have become sidetracked and are confusing this thread for the one that is specifically concerning rationality. I would be more than happy to respond to any questions concerning this in the "is theism rational" debate but here it bears no relevance at all on whether Spetey's claim is sound.

It seems to me to be relevant since over there you say that atheism is more rational, and over here you say that theism is more rational. I'm trying to understand which is the case in your view. It just strikes me as odd that you would say that atheism is more rational despite that you see their #1 argument is based on "no logical, rational reasoning that can arrive at a certainty from two uncertainties."

I don't seem to be doing a very good job of making myself understood. My apologies. The reason that I say "in general" atheism is more rational is that it sticks to a prescribed logical methodology. The atheist tends to see things with a purely physical eye while the theist might use the spiritual eye also.It's a little like looking at light and debating whether it is a particle or a wave, your conclusion really depends on how you look at it. It is true that absolute atheism might seem irrational if you believe that there are possibilities that have not been considered but if the atheist denies the existence of such possibilities(which is rational given the physical evidence) then their position is wholly rational. If the theist gives weight to spiritual or philosophical considerations, then that is thought of as irrational by the atheist, but to the theist this is completely rational. As I said before, both sides use different sets of data and much, if not all, of the theists additional data is thought of as no data at all by the atheist. The thing about rationality is that it cannot really be judged by another as the information difference between the two is immense. Atheists seem, on the whole, to be at least forming their own opinion based on the information that they have. This is rational. Many theists give far greater credence to hearsay and conjecture and choose to ignore the evidence that is plain to see with their own eyes.That strikes me as irrational.
BTW it is Spetey's argument that I was referring to when I said that it was not based on logical reasoning. My own opinions or arguments are not a reflection on the majority of theists so I wouldn't suggest that a single argument from Spetey would be a reflection on the majority of atheists.
If this really is the atheists number one argument then it really does illustrate the paucity of reasoning in the atheist community or perhaps it is only schoolchildren who seek to confound or rile the bible bashers with such ill-concieved displays of mental prowess. I don't believe it at all though as most atheists would hardly stop to consider such a question. The main reason for atheism is that the physical evidence does not point to the existence of God (as they see it) and not on any percieved logical contradiction of some half-baked argument.