Atheous

[Perplexity]

As per a request from a different thread, here is a general outline of one of the strongest arguments for atheism I know of.

Before getting into the argument, it’s necessary that I go over a little Bayes’ theorem first.

Bayes’ theorem is a method by which we can discern how probable a position is, given some piece of evidence.

The probability I’m speaking about is a numerical representation of your degree of confidence that a proposition is true or false. We represent our highest degree by 1.0, our epistemic indifference with 0.5 and our least degree with 0.0. This is a subjective thing, but that’s not a problem: we numerically represent subjective things like pain without worrying about the subjectivity. i.e., ‘How much pain do you feel on a scale of 1-10?’ etc.

So, the theorem asks us to discern which numbers we’ll represent our confidence with in certain propositions, it takes these numbers, plugs them into a formula, and calculates the probability we want, namely, how probable a position is given some piece of evidence.

I’ll explain which propositions the formula needs us to discern first, and some notation we’ll need:

H stands for [Hypothesis]. Hypothesis here just means the position we’re discerning the probability of. It could be ‘I like toast’ or ‘It’s cold’ etc.

Our background knowledge is all the things we know and believe, it’s represented as K, or sometimes B.

E is used to represent some proposed evidence. So, perhaps I take my pleasure derived from eating toast to be evidence [E] for the hypothesis [H] that ‘I like toast.’

E must always be ‘cut out from’ K, i.e., K stands for all your knowledge and beliefs minus whatever E is.

P stands for ‘the probability’ and | stands for ‘given.’

So, P(H|E&K) means ‘the probability of H given E and K.’ P(E|H&K) stands for the probability of E given H and K.

Now, on to the relevant probabilities.

There are the prior probabilities (or priors for short). These are how probable a hypothesis is given your background knowledge alone. They’re represented as ‘P(H|K).’ So, the probability that I ate recently [H], given that I feel full [a piece of knowledge in K] is quite high.

The posterior probability (or posterior for short) is how probable a hypothesis is given the proposed evidence and your background knowledge. It’s represented as P(H|E&K).

Finally, you’ve got the likelihood term: P(E|H&K) which is just how likely E is, given H and K. Does supposing H lead us to expect E? Or, would E be surprising given H?

Bayes’ theorem, then, is the following:

P(H|E&K) = [P(H|K) * P(E|H&K)] / [P(H|K) * P(E|H&K)] + [P(~H|K) * P(E|~H&K)]

Now, ‘[P(H|K) * P(E|H&K)] + [P(~H|K) * P(E|~H&K)]’ is P(E|K). So sometimes, the theorem simplifies and says: P(H|E&K) = P(H|K) * P(E|H&K) / P(E|K).

Here’s what it could look like in practice:

Suppose H = It’s cold, ~H = It’s not cold, and E = I’m shivering.

Suppose the following probabilities:

P(H|K)=0.8

P(~H|K)=0.2

P(E|H&K)=0.9

P(E|~H&K)=0.3

Bayes’ theorem takes these and plugs them in as follows:

P(H|E&K) = [0.8 * 0.9] / [0.8 * 0.9] + [0.2 * 0.3] = 0.92.

 

[Perplexity]

The Argument

Step 1:

I’m going to attempt to show that the following argument is a sound deductive argument (logically valid with true premises)

1. If atheism is true, then unjustified suffering occurs.
2. If unjustified suffering occurs, then inscrutable suffering occurs.
3. Therefore, if atheism is true, then inscrutable suffering occurs.

An instance of suffering is inscrutable for S if S knows of no moral justification for it. So, some instance of suffering may be inscrutable to you even though you believe God has some (albeit unknown) justification for it. Note, this conclusion doesn’t say atheism is true or that inscrutable suffering actually occurs.

Now, an argument is logically valid if when its premises are true its conclusion must be true. The above argument takes the form of Hypothetical Syllogism. That form is logically valid. Therefore, if you want to reject (3), you must reject either (1) or (2).

(1) and (2) are material conditionals which means they’re only false if their antecedent is true and their consequent is false. So, in order to reject (3) you must show that the antecedent is true and the consequent false of either (1) or (2).

But, as a theist you must say the antecedents of both (1) and (2) are false. Therefore, by the very truth-conditions of material conditionals, you must accept (1) and (2) as true. So, you must also accept (3).

The Ramsey Test allows us to discern the probability of a conditional taking the form “if p then q” by translating it as “P(q|p)” which reads as ‘the probability of q given p.’

The probability of any sound deductive argument’s conclusion is 1.0. So, the probability that inscrutable suffering occurs given atheism is 1.0.

Step 2:

On a standard definition of evidence in philosophy of religion and science, some proposed evidence, E, for a hypothesis H, counts as evidence for H if and only if H is more probable given E than it is without it. So, inscrutable suffering is evidence for atheism iff atheism is more probable supposing inscrutable suffering than without doing so.

This definition of evidence formalizes as ‘P(H|E&K)>P(H|K)’ which reads as 'the probability of [hypothesis] given [proposed evidence] and [background knowledge] is greater than the probability of [hypothesis] given [background knowledge].

So, E counts as evidence for H iff P(H|E&K)>P(H|K).

We can discern whether P(H|E&K)>P(H|K) by something known as the relevance criterion. This criterion tells us that if E is more probable on H and K than on its contradiction, ~H, then P(H|E&K)>P(H|K). The probability of E given H and K symbolizes as ‘P(E|H&K)’.

So, all I need to do to show that inscrutable suffering is evidence for atheism is to show that the probability of inscrutable suffering is greater on atheism than on theism.

Given Step 1, the probability of inscrutable suffering given atheism is the highest: 1.0. Therefore, I need only show that the probability of inscrutable suffering on theism is less than 1.0. Since theism doesn’t entail it, the probability of inscrutable suffering on theism is less than 1.0.

So, Step 2 establishes that inscrutable suffering is evidence for atheism. Note, I’m still not saying any inscrutable suffering occurs. I’m simply saying the probability of atheism given inscrutable suffering is greater than the probability of atheism.

Assuming I’ve succeeded this far, is inscrutable suffering enough evidence to overrule theism? Well, here’s where Bayes’ theorem comes in. This last question is whether P(atheism | inscrutable suffering & background knowledge) is greater than P(theism | inscrutable suffering & background knowledge). My last post explained how you can figure this out.

Step 3:

If you think the probability of theism given your background knowledge is higher than 0.75 and the probability of inscrutable suffering given theism is higher than 0.4 then this will not be enough evidence.

What I seek to show in this step is that the probability of inscrutable suffering given theism is quite low. The result is that the only way this isn’t enough evidence is if your prior for theism is incredibly high. Consequently, this argument would suffice to prove that atheism is more probable than thesim given inscrutable suffering for most people, myself included.

Assume, momentarily, that God exists. He hasn’t created anything etc. we’re just assuming that exists. Would you be surprised then, if he went and created reality such that it contained inscrutable suffering? I would!

In one sense I wouldn’t know what to expect Almighty God to create…he could do anything! In another sense, and consequently, the more specificity of God’s actions, the more I’d be surprised. i.e., perhaps I’d expect God to create anything more than I’d expect him to create turkeys. So, God would have to create sentient beings, and have these beings suffer, and have it such that their suffering was inscrutable! That’s uber specific, so we should be very surprised by this. I’d say we should numerically represent our surprise with something like 0.3. It follows by Bayes’ theorem that unless P(theism | background knowledge) is crazy high, atheism is more probable than theism, given inscrutable suffering. But should we “give” inscrutable suffering?

Final Step:

Look to the actual world and see if there is any inscrutable suffering, conclude appropriately.

Now, this is just a sketch of the argument to give you the gist of it, but I think this is a promising means to ensuring the argument isn’t misunderstood.

 

[Trishie]

We can argue all we want, but in the end the God of all Creation will be there resplendent and eternal.

Holy God, we do not grasp how awesome and incomprehensible are Your truths. We mistake our conceptions regarding You as the essence of the reality that they fail to encapsulate. Human Reason cannot make sense of God becoming subject to obedience, humility, selflessness and suffering, in love for His creatures! Thus, while we seek You, we are required to trust as little children.

We can only suspect a flicker of the magnitude of this God through His Creation of a stunningly vast universe containing massive expanding galaxies in an immensity of space. Yet, God of such greatness, You also create the fragile intricacy of tiny insects and the worlds of microscopic lifeforms in their intrinsic perfection! Holy God, open our minds and hearts to the supreme greatness and the sublime mystery of Your works!

From our tiny planet, so important to us but insignificant amongst the countless orbits of the universe, we dare to say ‘our God’ and ‘our Father’ in contemplating the Creator of all these marvels and capable of unknown wonders inconceivable to us. Perhaps the greatest wonder, however, is the love and mercy You show to Your human creatures on this planet, Earth!

All things are held in being in continuous creation within You. Yet, to our knowledge, only human creatures dare to sin. You require of us a life of charity and justice, of prayer and self-denial, of trust and faithfulness during our earthly existence—in promise of everlasting union with the everlasting I AM WHO AM, which is Yourself. Slow to trust, we are reluctant to accept sacred Your dream and plan for us as individuals and as community. The choice to reject or accept is ours.

The Angels, whom You created before us, also faced a choice to love and honour God or to serve themselves. Two-thirds obeyed God and now dwell with You in glory and delight. To the rebellious remainder, punishment was swift. Doubtless, You gave these glorious creatures generous opportunity to fulfil their radiant destiny!

Perhaps other life forms will, or have, faced such choices, for ‘there are many rooms’ in Your heavenly kingdom. If hidden amongst the planets in the myriad galaxies of Your immense Creation, You should choose to form creatures other than the Angels and humanity, I pray that they will serve You better, and that where they fail, Your mercy will be deep and embracing.

Yet many people habitually accept Your revelations and promises with spasmodic attention or with vague complacency. Before so great a God, the purest human zeal and the highest knowledge and goodness are as nothing. How intense should be our gratitude before the wonder of our relation to You. How great our repentance should be before the arrogance of neglecting our Creator’s laws and astonishing mercy! Holy God please lead us through awareness, repentance and rebirth into continuing spontaneity of response to Your creative love!

So that we in our unworthiness may be saved and made whole, through Your mercy the seeming-impossible occurs. The eternal Son of God enters the limitations of created time and matter. He assumes fully our humanity, while also retaining His infinite divinity. With His humble, obedient life as human being, He bridges the immeasurably vast difference between God and creature for all humankind!

In our disobedience and ingratitude, our God, You have not destroyed us, but have become for us—a defenceless infant…a humble labourer…a man murdered by Your chosen people. You have become for all time, food to be assimilated into the functions of the human body and soul of mere creatures, devout and lukewarm alike. You have become bread to be tabernacled in centuries of neglect before multitudes of unbelievers and of apathetic followers…cherished only by Your true friends. Yet even these have not lived without offence against You, excepting one pure woman, chosen as Mother—for the Son did not enter our nature in resplendence as a magnificent adult. Rather, the Father humbly, through an Angel, sought permission of the sinless young virgin to accept Him as a helpless embryo!

What is this humility, this faith, this patience, this obedience, this compassion that You show us, infinite God! We are proud, stubborn, untrusting and wayward, yet Your mercy remains open to endless human insult, for within time it is always subject to our personal acceptance or rejection. Repeatedly, You reiterate Your love and mercy in our hearts and through other persons. You reiterate them through Scripture and ministry of the Church, source of grace, sacrament and wisdom established by the Son to fulfil His promise to remain always with us.

Our God, who are You who so loves His ungrateful, ignorant, unworthy creatures! Behold the humility of eternal, infinite God, to love and desire us who are enmeshed in egoism that alienates us from each other and You! We begin to suspect the smallness of our vision, the confusion of our understanding, and the flawed nature of our enthroned Reason, with its inability to cope with these unfathomable, paradoxical truths.

Should we, in contemplating such things, wonder at human suffering! We begin to appreciate Jesus’ warning that unless one becomes as a little child one cannot enter God. We also begin to understand some of the causes of difficulties within our human condition, of the conflicts and miseries of our world, and of the corruption of our society in social and personal injustice and discord.

continued

 

[Trishie]

• continued*

We may regret or resent these global difficulties and evils, and our personal sufferings. We seek to evade them and to avoid discipline of our sensuality and materialism that bind us from the Spirit of God in our lives. We cling to our bonds although we are created for the freedom of eternal union with You our almighty Creator, despite the redeeming anguish, love, humility and submission of God incarnate in His forging of our bridge to You.

Yet should we not welcome that where You permit, we are tested in faith, labour and suffering to loosen excessive attachment to our limited mortal existence! Our need of You is often diverted into search for material satisfaction that increases our frustration and confirms our failure to love others and You truly.

When we choose against God, we curtail the working of Your grace in our lives. This choice draws disaster upon us in the form of injustice, intolerance, loneliness, immorality and war. If we then resent and blame You, we mock ourselves, because You owe us nothing, but offer all. Should it surprise us that sin brings retribution? Should we wonder why we endure natural disasters, when we betray the Creator of all things?

We are often aggrieved at the suffering of innocents, but answer lies in the racked body of the sinless Saviour. Jesus hangs dying in grief and pain to expiate the offences of all human persons for our eternal salvation. Through Jesus, lead us into childlike faith and cheerful daily acceptance of our vocations with their satisfactions and their difficulties. Give us the spirit of the child whom You wish each to be as we say, “Here I am. Your will be done in and through me. Through Your Son, lead me beyond myself, beyond all created things, into Your infinite, loving self, in union with the communion of saints.”

Our God, as the consecrated bread is the infinite Son of God, yet is brittle, mutable wafer, so let me be one in You despite my frailty and unworthiness. Great God, Creator of all things, thank You for Your gifts of creation and existence, and for the mercy that restores Creation and eternal blessedness to Your difficult human creatures.

Have mercy, our God, for our limited understanding, our misconceptions, our pride and our self-doubts, along with the stark realities and sufferings of this world, frequently lead many of us to falter in faith or to abandon it completely.
We believe Lord God. Please increase our faith.

 

[Trishie]

Meditation on eternity and conversion

Eternal God, we cannot view existence in concepts other than in time or its cessation. The prospect of eternity seems always mysterious, sometimes unreal and occasionally alienating—unless we base our contemplation of eternal happiness in childlike trust alone.

Please strengthen our faith, for we may confuse our inability to comprehend Your realities, as absence of the realities themselves. Then, embroiled in the occupations and joys of our lives, or discouraged in life’s disappointments and losses, we may come to trust only in temporal reality.

When we live only in the present reality, we cannot believe in our Creator as loving Parent, as Redeemer, or as guiding Spirit, with intimate relevance to our individual lives. Yet it appears even to the goldfish in his bowl, that his observation and response to his environment and experience is absolute. Clearly, he also is mistaken.

In abandoning faith, we betray our souls that long for union in Your love. We lose true joy, love and liberty in faith—receiving a stone, a scorpion, a snake, instead of living Bread and Water. Give us faith to penetrate confusion that envelops even some dedicated souls. Only Your gentle, loving mercy can make us the little children of Your Kingdom that Jesus knows we must be.

Our God, the wonder and beauty of Your Creation, from the universe itself to some exquisitely simple life form, may lead the astonished mind to You, yet also away. Our perceptions are fallible and subjective even in the summit of scientific and poetic response, and may be guided by whim, personality, or circumstance. Let us cherish Your works and cease to abuse them at a physical, technological, or spiritual level. Let them serve to give us appropriate recreation and wholeness as individuals who are both body and spirit.

God, we do not want to remain separate from You. Please fortify our faith so that trials become impetus for our growth. You love and educate us tenderly and patiently, however wounded, disobedient and impatient we are. Even chosen souls may dilute Your truths or limit Your offered gifts of service. Please grant healing and endurance so we may share the richness of Your love with many others.

Yours are the thoughts and ways of almighty God who creates in slow evolution. Your Spirit’s action is often indiscernible in our lives and in the lives of others. You nevertheless use each moment of effort and peace, of faltering and repentance, together with each act of mercy and faith, to mould each willing soul to Your intended image of it. We place our whole existence, with our sinfulness and failures, our gifts and achievements, into Your care.

If we drift from Your ways, however deep our error, please restore us quickly through Your indwelling Spirit, with the teachings of Jesus, His merciful forgiveness, and the encouragement of others. Preserve us from rejecting You through unbalanced devotion or attachment. Grant us genuine prayer and conversion despite temptations that assail us.

God, please give us faith to accept mysteries beyond human experience and reason. Give us hope that endures beyond repeated crises and losses, and love that continues to live in a broken heart. Let us experience Your love for us, and grant others to find Your loving-kindness in us. Silence our distractions and anxieties. Overcome in us the tyrannies of sin, temptation and addiction. Lead us into the way and truth of Your divine Son, who took upon Himself our nature and raised it to Your life that we may become Your children beside Him.

Please fill us with overwhelming desire for Your loving will. We trust and hope in the promise of Your Son—that those who hunger for Your life will be filled. By His promise, we know that the Spirit will transform us, preparing us for the communion of Saints and Angels in fulfilment of Your will. Eternal God, grant us to respond fully to Your will, in the name and Spirit of Your Son.

“The actions of every creature are before Him, there is no hiding from His eyes; His gaze stretches from eternity to eternity, and nothing can astonish Him. You must not say, ‘What is this? Why is that?’ All things have been created for their proper functions.” [Ecclesiasticus 39:19-26]

 

[ThereWasADream]

Your theorem is riddled with false premises/assumptions. This is basically the problem of pain and I’m a bit bored of the problem of pain as it’s been hashed out and rehashed more times than I can remember, so I’ll let someone else pick them out for me.

The biggest laugh in here is that you basically try to get us to accept atheism as true before we try to “prove” God’s existence. Funny, considering how often atheists cry that we’re doing the opposite.

 

[Perplexity]

Your theorem is riddled with false premises/assumptions. This is basically the problem of pain and I’m a bit bored of the problem of pain as it’s been hashed out and rehashed more times than I can remember, so I’ll let someone else pick them out for me.

The biggest laugh in here is that you basically try to get us to accept atheism as true before we try to “prove” God’s existence. Funny, considering how often atheists cry that we’re doing the opposite.

I can’t discern any objections here.

This argument differs in key areas from older versions of the problem of pain. For starters it’s not about pain, it’s about inscrutable pain. This topic is far too important to blur distinctions. Secondly, it actually proves that inscrutable pain is evidence for atheism, whereas other versions allow the theist to wriggle out of that. The only way to reject the proposition that inscrutable suffering is evidence for atheism is to deny logic. Doesn’t seem like much a dilemma Finally it leads, almost inevitably, to the conclusion that this evidence is sufficient to establish atheism. As calculated as this is, there is very little grey area.

 

[inocente]

I’m going to attempt to show that the following argument is a sound deductive argument (logically valid with true premises)

1. If atheism is true, then unjustified suffering occurs.

Your judgment of the rightness or wrongness of suffering depends on your system of morality, so you first need to prove that your morals are objective and absolute, otherwise “unjustified suffering” is merely your value judgement.

 

[empther]

I all comes down to this.

Perplexity and his fellow atheists don’t mention:
-human intelligence
-human loyalty to family, friends, country, and the world at large
-human esthetics
-human imagination
-human creativity

Nature alone cannot be the cause of these human attributes. They are created by God.

We will now hear reams and reams of meaningless bluster from the King of Quibblers, Perplexity.

Take it way, your highness. :extrahappy::whackadoo:

 

[Perplexity]

Your judgment of the rightness or wrongness of suffering depends on your system of morality, so you first need to prove that your morals are objective and absolute, otherwise “unjustified suffering” is merely your value judgement.

In general I’d agree with this.

But, an analysis of what ‘unjustified suffering’ means, morally, would not change the fact that the theist must deny the antecedent of (1). (1) is a material conditional which means it’s only false if its antecedent is true and its consequent is false. Since the theist must reject (1)'s antecedent, he must accept (1) as true.

Now, the unjustified suffering I have in mind would be suffering caused by natural disasters etc. On atheism, there is nothing which could justify such suffering, on any moral theory. Whereas on theism, God is in control of the universe, and these disasters only occur because he permits them to for the sake of some greater good. I don’t think it matters what moral theory you adopt, given atheism, the suffering wrought by non-sentient forces isn’t the kind of thing which could be justified.

 

[Perplexity]

I all comes down to this.

Perplexity and his fellow atheists don’t mention:
-human intelligence
-human loyalty to family, friends, country, and the world at large
-human esthetics
-human imagination
-human creativity

Nature alone cannot be the cause of these human attributes. They are created by God.

We will now hear reams and reams of meaningless bluster from the King of Quibblers, Perplexity.

Take it way, your highness. :extrahappy::whackadoo:

I’m going to have to ignore you unless you can contribute to this discussion, otherwise we’re just wasting space. I mean read your post again and ask yourself what that has to do with my argument.

 

[empther]

ask yourself what that has to do with my argument.

Ask yourself what your argument has to do with human beings.

 

[inocente]

On atheism, there is nothing which could justify such suffering, on any moral theory. Whereas on theism, God is in control of the universe, and these disasters only occur because he permits them to for the sake of some greater good. I don’t think it matters what moral theory you adopt, given atheism, the suffering wrought by non-sentient forces isn’t the kind of thing which could be justified.

I think you can’t get away from value judgments here. For instance two atheists may disagree about whether suffering is unjustified where people foolishly ignored warnings about living beneath an active volcano in an earthquake zone. And a theist may not believe in natural evil or that her god has to comply with what she thinks is good. Imho your argument could only possibly work for atheists and theists who happily behave according to your expectations, but that doesn’t seem overly compelling or useful.

 

[Perplexity]

bump

 

[tonyrey]

Now, the unjustified suffering I have in mind would be suffering caused by natural disasters etc. On atheism, there is nothing which could justify such suffering, on any moral theory.

You have ignored the fact that in an amoral universe the question of justified or unjustified suffering doesn’t even arise. Things just happen for no reason or purpose.

Whereas on theism, God is in control of the universe, and these disasters only occur because he permits them to for the sake of some greater good.

It doesn’t follow that God is in direct control of the universe - as David Hume realised.

I don’t think it matters what moral theory you adopt, given atheism, the suffering wrought by non-sentient forces isn’t the kind of thing which could be justified.

Given atheism, all moral theories are arbitrary…

 

[Perplexity]

tonyrey: Let’s suppose that morality is arbitrary and the universe is amoral on atheism. As a theist, you still have to deny the antecedents of both (1) and (2), and therefore must accept (3). As I proved, inscrutable suffering is therefore evidence for atheism. etc. etc.

I don’t mean to agree with you though, (and I think most moral philosophers would disagree with you); but, for now, I can just grant what you’ve said.

I’m quite surprised that this argument has received virtually no attention yet. To me (and I might just be being presumptuous here) the silence is a concession.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey: Let’s suppose that morality is arbitrary and the universe is amoral on atheism. As a theist, you still have to deny the antecedents of both (1) and (2), and therefore must accept (3). As I proved, inscrutable suffering is therefore evidence for atheism. etc. etc.

I don’t mean to agree with you though, (and I think most moral philosophers would disagree with you); but, for now, I can just grant what you’ve said.

I’m quite surprised that this argument has received virtually no attention yet. To me (and I might just be being presumptuous here) the silence is a concession.

First of all you need to explain precisely what you mean by “unjustified” suffering - which assumes that justification is a meaningful term in an amoral universe.

 

[tdgesq]

I don’t see the issue with denying the consequent of (1).

 

[Perplexity]

First of all you need to explain precisely what you mean by “unjustified” suffering - which assumes that justification is a meaningful term in an amoral universe.

“Justification” is more of a variable here. The phrase “morally justified” takes on different senses depending on the moral machinery that is being plugged into it. Take any moral theory’s account of when something is morally justified and plug that in. The result is the same. Moral theories are concerned with the actions of moral agents. Natural disasters aren’t moral agents, so the suffering they induce isn’t the kind of thing that can be morally justified, on atheism. That is, on atheism, saying the suffering caused by a Hurricane is morally justified makes about as much sense as saying the rain caused by the clouds is morally justified.

 

[JDaniel]

In general I’d agree with this.

But, an analysis of what ‘unjustified suffering’ means, morally, would not change the fact that the theist must deny the antecedent of (1). (1) is a material conditional which means it’s only false if its antecedent is true and its consequent is false. Since the theist must reject (1)'s antecedent, he must accept (1) as true.

Now, the unjustified suffering I have in mind would be suffering caused by natural disasters etc. On atheism, there is nothing which could justify such suffering, on any moral theory. Whereas on theism, God is in control of the universe, and these disasters only occur because he permits them to for the sake of some greater good. I don’t think it matters what moral theory you adopt, given atheism, the suffering wrought by non-sentient forces isn’t the kind of thing which could be justified.

Perplexity:

So, you presuppose “atheism,” which is that which you are arguing the coming into existence of. Would it not be better to say, that “there are indifferent people, in the world, that might be swayed by their lack of knowledge, or probability of obtainment of sufficient knowledge (of justifications), that might cause them to reject the existence of any all good creator?” OK. But, upon receipt of sufficient knowledge, i.e., justification(s), then it is safe to assume a greater probability of their return to theism. Right? And, if the person in the prior state (of knowledge privation) refuses to “hear” the justification(s), he can be said to have accepted his position purely on the bias of his presupposition(s). He is, in effect, shutting off knowledge, i.e., “K.”

What are one or two of those “natural disasters, etc.,” that might engender “atheism,” as you state? You said, “On atheism, there is nothing which could justify such suffering, on any moral theory.” Surely you must see that that statement lets another of your presupposition cats out of the bag? Furthermore, it goes on to exhibit a firm reticence to listen to any (justifications). Does that spell out “reasonable atheism” to you?

On the chance that the over-anthropomorphizing of ‘pain and suffering’ might engender a tendency to “doubt” (in some), there is, as can be easily seen from reality, a greater chance that it won’t. Why? Could it be because most people will seek knowledge and “listen,” and more importantly, grasp what they learn?

Then you say, “I don’t think it matters what moral theory you adopt, given atheism, the suffering wrought by non-sentient forces isn’t the kind of thing which could be justified.” This indicates, for all intents and purposes, that their minds are closed shut! Period. This gives even more assurance that the conclusion (the existence of atheism) is presupposed.

Your proposition is bad because it pro-actively ignores from consideration some of the most important considerations, including any possibility of attainment of such considerations. In conversation, that is typically known as “close-mindedness.”

God bless,
jd