Conversation with atheist

[Randy_Carson]

Hi,

I have many friends who don’t believe in religion (especially Christianity), and they often question me on Church’s view on things.

The most common “attack” that I am getting is, “If God is good, why is God letting all the violence to take place in this world?” and I am finding myself trying to defend God by saying “well the violence is the result of abuse of our own free will, and God is good because he made us to be free”.

But my response, apparently, is not so effective because some do say that “since God is good, he would only allow things that result in good - but no good thing can come out of such violence, and God is just playing around, using our free will as an excuse. Don’t you guys believe that if God doesn’t will some events, then it won’t happen? If so, why doesn’t he simply “not wanting” the violence?”

…? what can I say to this? In brief, I have two questions:

1. Do we Catholics believe that if God does not will some events, then those events certainly do not take place in this universe? (need confirmation from Catechism experts)
2. How can I explain why it is a good thing that God made us as a free being (freedom is good, but I am not exactly sure why freedom is good)?

Thank you,

Do you love God?

No.

Wouldn’t God consider loving Him better than not loving Him?

I suppose so.

Should God force you to love Him?

That wouldn’t be very fair.

Then allowing you to choose not to love Him is better than forcing you to love Him?

Yes.

So, God can allow you to not love Him - a less good thing - in order to allow a greater good - your free will to choose.

+++

Now, the part in red above is the core of the problem. How does your friend KNOW that no good thing can come out of the violence when your friend is not omniscient and does not have eternity in mind when he or she makes such a statement?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Randy Carson:

Do you love God?

No.

Wouldn’t God consider loving Him better than not loving Him?

I suppose so.

Should God force you to love Him?

That wouldn’t be very fair.

Then allowing you to choose not to love Him is better than forcing you to love Him?

Yes.

So, God can allow you to not love Him - a less good thing - in order to allow a greater good - your free will to choose.

Not a good analysis. Here comes my take on it:

Q: Do you love God?
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: Because he gave me no reason to love him. Not even a clear cut sign that he actually exists. So what is there to “love”?
Q: Should God force you to love Him?
A: How so? Love is a natural response to good treatment. There is no “force” is treating someone with compassion.
Q: Then allowing you to choose not to love Him is better than forcing you to love Him?
A: I did not “choose” not to “love” him. Love is not a matter of choice.
Q: Then allowing you to choose not to love Him is better than forcing you to love Him?
A: There is nothing good about unresticted freedom to commit murder, rape, pillage. Let me ask a question now: “what the heck do you mean by the word “love” here”? Is it a synonym for veneration, adoration?
Randy Carson:

Now, the part in red above is the core of the problem. How does your friend KNOW that no good thing can come out of the violence when your friend is not omniscient and does not have eternity in mind when he or she makes such a statement?

This kind of “reasoning” could be applied to anything and everything. If you really believed that then you would be unable to make any value judgment about anything at all. But you do not adhere to this principle. Why should your opponent do it, if you don’t? And we all use the same wonderful method: the duck principle. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck, then it is a duck and not an octopus. So, when everything is considered and it looks that there is nothing good can come out of something, then the only rational conclusion is that there is nothing good that might come out of it. But if you have a the necessary information what kind of “good” came out of allowing a monster to kidnap, rape, torture and kill a little girl; by all means, please share it with us. We can hardly wait.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not a good analysis. Here comes my take on it:

Q: Do you love God?
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: Because he gave me no reason to love him. Not even a clear cut sign that he actually exists. So what is there to “love”?

A reasonable insertion but not essential to my original argument.

Q: Should God force you to love Him?

A: How so? Love is a natural response to good treatment. There is no “force” is treating someone with compassion.

If he is God, then He could easily have made you so that you have no choice BUT to love him. The fact that you don’t know “How” He might do this is not essential to my original argument.

Q: Then allowing you to choose not to love Him is better than forcing you to love Him?
A: I did not “choose” not to “love” him. Love is not a matter of choice.

Completely incorrect. Love, my friend, is an act of the WILL. If you disagree, then I’m guessing you are young, or have never been married for a very long time.

Q: Then allowing you to choose not to love Him is better than forcing you to love Him?

A: There is nothing good about unresticted freedom to commit murder, rape, pillage. Let me ask a question now: “what the heck do you mean by the word “love” here”? Is it a synonym for veneration, adoration?

There is EVERYTHING good about the freedom to “murder, rape, pillage”, etc., and the good manifests itself in NOT DOING SO even though you could if you wanted to. The person who can’t steal and doesn’t has done nothing noteworthy. The person who could steal and chooses not to has acted in a praiseworthy manner.

This kind of “reasoning” could be applied to anything and everything. If you really believed that then you would be unable to make any value judgment about anything at all. But you do not adhere to this principle. Why should your opponent do it, if you don’t? And we all use the same wonderful method: the duck principle. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck, then it is a duck and not an octopus. So, when everything is considered and it looks that there is nothing good can come out of something, then the only rational conclusion is that there is nothing good that might come out of it. But if you have a the necessary information what kind of “good” came out of allowing a monster to kidnap, rape, torture and kill a little girl; by all means, please share it with us. We can hardly wait.

Well, okay. But only because you asked out of a genuine desire to learn from the answer.

But first…a reality check.

Why Evil and Suffering Don’t Disprove God (Condensed)
by Brandon Vogt
strangenotions.com/why-evil-and-suffering-dont-disprove-god/

"Christians have consistently pointed out that because of God’s unique, metaphysical position, beyond space and time, he can have morally justifiable reasons to allow certain acts of pain and suffering—reasons that we’re just not privy to. Just as we allow our children to experience darkness and hurt sometimes when we know it will bring about a greater good, God could have good reasons to permit apparently heinous acts. (Note: I’m not arguing here that God necessarily does have good reasons in any specific case, only that there’s no logical reason why he couldn’t have good reasons to permit evils in general, reasons we’re just not aware of.)

"…There is no logical contradiction between an all-loving, all-powerful God who permits evil in the world. To deny this, an atheist would HAVE to show definitively that God could NOT have morally justifiable reasons for permitting evil in any circumstance. And since we’re in no position to judge whether God has such reasons, the existence of evil (i.e., pain, suffering, abuse, etc.) simply does not pose a strong argument against God’s existence.

"[The atheist making this argument] attempts to shift the burden of proof onto theists, challenging them to disprove his argument against God, instead of assuming the burden himself—instead of marshaling his own evidence in support of his own claims.

“But the theist is under no such responsibility. If [the atheist] claims that the existence of evil is logically or evidentially incompatible with God’s existence, he needs to show why. It won’t suffice simply to demand that theists show how God and evil co-exist. To say it another way, it’s fallacious to make a positive claim and then demand others disprove your claim—you have to provide evidence yourself! This is precisely why atheists won’t allow Christians to say, ‘God exists! And if you don’t agree, you have to show why he doesn’t exist!’”

 

[truetofaith]

Not a good analysis. Here comes my take on it:

Q: Do you love God?
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: Because he gave me no reason to love him. Not even a clear cut sign that he actually exists. So what is there to “love”?
Q: Should God force you to love Him?
A: How so? Love is a natural response to good treatment. There is no “force” is treating someone with compassion.
Q: Then allowing you to choose not to love Him is better than forcing you to love Him?
A: I did not “choose” not to “love” him. Love is not a matter of choice.
Q: Then allowing you to choose not to love Him is better than forcing you to love Him?
A: There is nothing good about unresticted freedom to commit murder, rape, pillage. Let me ask a question now: “what the heck do you mean by the word “love” here”? Is it a synonym for veneration, adoration?

This kind of “reasoning” could be applied to anything and everything. If you really believed that then you would be unable to make any value judgment about anything at all. But you do not adhere to this principle. Why should your opponent do it, if you don’t? And we all use the same wonderful method: the duck principle. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck, then it is a duck and not an octopus. So, when everything is considered and it looks that there is nothing good can come out of something, then the only rational conclusion is that there is nothing good that might come out of it. But if you have a the necessary information what kind of “good” came out of allowing a monster to kidnap, rape, torture and kill a little girl; by all means, please share it with us. We can hardly wait.

You confuse an issue with too many words & detours …

Adam & Eve had plenty reason to Love & Obey God. He created them, put them in a beautiful garden, made everything easy for them…but gave them one command , “not to touch the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil.”
They knew that their choice would affect all of their descendants…but they blew it!

 

[Randy_Carson]

You confuse an issue with too many words & detours …

Adam & Eve had plenty reason to Love & Obey God. He created them, put them in a beautiful garden, made everything easy for them…but gave them one command , “not to touch the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil.”
They knew that their choice would affect all of their descendants…but they blew it!

Free will. And the desire to be like God.

Both still present among us today.

 

[josh987654321]

Not a good analysis. Here comes my take on it:

Okay, I hope you don’t mind if I attempt to reply to this,

Q: Do you love God?
A: No.

Okay.

Q: Why not?
A: Because he gave me no reason to love him.

Sacred Heart of Jesus - St Margaret-Mary Alacoque

http://s15.postimg.org/uc0cy5a0r/st_margaretmary2.jpg

Jesus to St Margaret-Mary Alacoque -

**"Behold this Heart which has loved men so much that it has spared nothing, even to exhausting **(Crucifixion) and consuming itself (Last Supper, Eucharist) in order to testify to them it’s love."

Jesus to St Faustina

**“If My death has not convinced you of My love, what will?” **(Diary, 580)

Not even a clear cut sign that he actually exists.

Please, look outside for a second, have a look at the beauty and complexity of nature, there is no way that this happened by mere chance or whatever. It is so clearly designed (obviously there are things that have gone wrong with it from the Christian perspective due to the fall, but nevertheless, it clearly and unmistakably has the signature of ‘design’ left on it).

That is why when the evolutionist wishes to try and explain it away with neo Darwinian evolution, I believe the following from G.K. Chesterton is very apt.
G.K. Chesterton:

Modern Histories of mankind begin with the word evolution and with a rather wordy exposition of evolution. There is something smooth and gradual about the word and even the idea. As a matter of fact it is not, touching these primary things, a very practical word or a very profitable idea. Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. This notion of something smooth and slow, like the ascent of a slope, is a great part of the illusion. It is an illogicality as well as an illusion; for slowness has really nothing to do with the question. An event is not any more intrinsically intelligible or unintelligible because of the pace at which it moves. But evolution really is mistaken for explanation. It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand everything else.

“Some truths are so obvious only experts can deny them.” C.S. Lewis.

So what is there to “love”?

May I ask, have you read the Gospels before? (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John)

Q: Should God force you to love Him?
A: How so? Love is a natural response to good treatment. There is no “force” in treating someone with compassion.

What do you think of a parents ‘unconditional love’ for their children? it seems such a thing is not possible if love is only a natural response to good treatment.
"Romans 5:6-8:

6 While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man—though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die. 8 But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

Q: Then allowing you to choose not to love Him is better than forcing you to love Him?
A: I did not “choose” not to “love” him. Love is not a matter of choice.

It depends on what you know or believe about God. If you don’t know much about God, then I would imagine you would be ‘neutral’ on the matter of loving or not loving, if you say that you don’t love God, i.e. hate, than that would have to be on something you have learned or believe about God, probably from the natural world and personal past experiences, in which case I would say that if your judging God by the world, by how men treat other men etc than remember that Christ was no friend of this world, as the world rejected Him and had Him crucified.

Q: Then allowing you to choose not to love Him is better than forcing you to love Him?
A: There is nothing good about unresticted freedom to commit murder, rape, pillage.

There is nothing good about freedom to sin, whether they be big or little (you are only focusing on the big sins). In which case, God would have to limit our freedom as well, to completely eliminate it so that we would be perfect and perfectly void of any choice in the matter. And when we have no choice, than it isn’t love, as there is nothing good about hearing ‘I love you’ from someone who doesn’t have a choice in saying it or not.

Let me ask a question now: “what the heck do you mean by the word “love” here”? Is it a synonym for veneration, adoration?

The Love of Agape. The unconditional love that parents can have for their children.

[Shortened] But if you have a the necessary information what kind of “good” came out of allowing a monster to kidnap, rape, torture and kill a little girl; by all means, please share it with us. We can hardly wait.

What kind of “good” came out of allowing several monsters kidnap, scourge, abuse, torture and crucify Jesus?; by all means, please share it with us. We can hardly wait.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Randy Carson:

Completely incorrect. Love, my friend, is an act of the WILL. If you disagree, then I’m guessing you are young, or have never been married for a very long time.

Your guess is wrong in every respect. Just like the definition of “love”. I can go and kick someone’s butt, and it would be an “act of will”, but in my eyes it is not “love”. The word “love” has many meanings.
Randy Carson:

There is EVERYTHING good about the freedom to “murder, rape, pillage”, etc., and the good manifests itself in NOT DOING SO even though you could if you wanted to. The person who can’t steal and doesn’t has done nothing noteworthy. The person who could steal and chooses not to has acted in a praiseworthy manner.

I don’t consider a “praiseworthy” action to be superior to the “simply” useful or beneficial one. By the way, according to Christian belief God is incapable of committing evil, so he is not “praiseworthy”.

---

Josh987654321:

Please, look outside for a second, have a look at the beauty and complexity of nature, there is no way that this happened by mere chance or whatever. It is so clearly designed (obviously there are things that have gone wrong with it from the Christian perspective due to the fall, but nevertheless, it clearly and unmistakably has the signature of ‘design’ left on it).

This is called “argument from incredulity”. Sorry, does not wash. There is order in nature, but order does not presuppose “design”. By the way, a good designer would make sure that his creation cannot go “wrong”. In the Christian belief system the world did not go “wrong” on its own, it was actively cursed by God.

 

[SonOfMan]

Adam & Eve by disobeying God brought all the evil down on the human race. Don’t blame God…He warned them.

Dont you think its time an all loving God got over that original sin thing yet and stopped holding that grudge against us? I think the human race has endured enough suffering of the worst kinds for the past several thousand years to get the point that Adam and Eve messed up. But please dont take it out on the rest of us; we weren’t there!

 

[ptisme]

Hi catholic0913

Okay

I believe that is a good answer.

I hope the following will help -

Yes. Everything that happens is either directly willed by God (ordained) or permitted by Him with His permissive Will.

Hopefully the above quote from C.S. Lewis will help, also there is a 2014 movie out called ‘The Giver’ I don’t know if you have heard of it or not, but it explores this very well imho. It gives them a glimpse of the utopia that your friends speak of I believe.

I would also like to share the following posts that I believe may also help -

Post 1 - forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12381359&postcount=11
Post 2 - forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12381361&postcount=12

I hope this has helped.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

That excerpt from CS Lewis is worth its weight in gold! Thank you

 

[ptisme]

The people you’re talking to have brought up a problem that is older than Christianity itself. Personally, I think that the position that they have taken is fairly weak, logically, and perfectly satisfactory solutions have already been proposed in this thread.

A more complex question would be why there are what some people call “natural evils” in the world - natural disasters, for example. These are things which humans consider to be evil, since they bring death and suffering to us. If a truly good God created the world, then why are these so-called evils present in the world?

I bring this question up not to change the subject, but because I can easily see it arising in the conversation that the OP is describing. I’m still trying to come up with a good solution to it myself, but perhaps someone else has an answer.

see the quote by CS Lewis in response number 2

 

[Michael_Francis]

**Note: Effective yesterday (5/13/15) Atheism is no longer a banned topic.

Be advised that all posts must still comply with the rules and guidelines found in this link.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/sign0011.gif**

 

[truetofaith]

Dont you think its time an all loving God got over that original sin thing yet and stopped holding that grudge against us? I think the human race has endured enough suffering of the worst kinds for the past several thousand years to get the point that Adam and Eve messed up. But please dont take it out on the rest of us; we weren’t there!

You’re making God look like a spoiled brat…Jesus ( Son of God ) came to earth & died for all of mankind because of Adam & Eve.

When they ate the forbidden fruit, they set the wheels in motion for all humanity…couldn’t do it over…just like a driver pulling out in front of a mac truck…no turning back!

 

[Pallas_Athene]

You’re making God look like a spoiled brat.

You are mistaken, my friend. It is the Bible that describes God as a “spoiled brat”. Don’t forget that the alleged disobedience “prodded” God to curse all his creation - not just the ones who actually disobeyed, but all the others and their progeny, too. A simple disobedience has no physical results, but it might result to make the command-giver “upset” and react in an irrational manner. We are not talking about a scenario where someone jumps off a high cliff, and then the law of gravity takes over and repercussion will inevitably follow.

Just contemplate a human parent who “commands” his child not to take a candy from a plate which is readily accessible to him. The child disobeys, and the parent curses the child, disowns him and chases out from his house. Would you not consider this “overreacting”? I would. But as usual, your mileage may vary.

 

[truetofaith]

You are mistaken, my friend. It is the Bible that describes God as a “spoiled brat”. Don’t forget that the alleged disobedience “prodded” God to curse all his creation - not just the ones who actually disobeyed, but all the others and their progeny, too. A simple disobedience has no physical results, but it might result to make the command-giver “upset” and react in an irrational manner. We are not talking about a scenario where someone jumps off a high cliff, and then the law of gravity takes over and repercussion will inevitably follow.

Just contemplate a human parent who “commands” his child not to take a candy from a plate which is readily accessible to him. The child disobeys, and the parent curses the child, disowns him and chases out from his house. Would you not consider this “overreacting”? I would. But as usual, your mileage may vary.

The consequence of their sin was exactly like the law of gravity! That’s why God said everything was for them to enjoy, except that one tree which would cause them to die. He didn’t trick them, He told them what would happen…the devil, lied & tricked them.

 

[Magdalenaa]

The people you’re talking to have brought up a problem that is older than Christianity itself. Personally, I think that the position that they have taken is fairly weak, logically, and perfectly satisfactory solutions have already been proposed in this thread.

A more complex question would be why there are what some people call “natural evils” in the world - natural disasters, for example. These are things which humans consider to be evil, since they bring death and suffering to us. If a truly good God created the world, then why are these so-called evils present in the world?

I bring this question up not to change the subject, but because I can easily see it arising in the conversation that the OP is describing. I’m still trying to come up with a good solution to it myself, but perhaps someone else has an answer.

I think the problem of “natural evils” is the only strong argument atheists have. Not even the fact that we do evil is a potent argument in my view as that can be easily explained with free will.

The best counter-arguments I heard regarding natural evils are basically two. One is that when our fall happened, nature fell as well. The entire material world, if you will, fell along with us. Secondly, God allows that natural evils for our own good and turns them into opportunities for his outpouring of graces.

If one reads the beatitudes, one can see how virtuous the blessed are. Blessed are the persecuted, the pure in heart, the poor in spirit, those who mourn, etc.
If we lived in a perfect world where no catastrophe happened, there was no poverty, no strife, no war, no hunger, no diseases, how could we even become virtuous at all?
If there were no poor people on earth, how could we become charitable?
If there was no war, how could we become courageous?
If there was no suffering, how could we be compassionate of others?

God wants us with Him and only virtuous are the treasures of heaven. Those are the only thing we will take to eternity. Nothing else enters.

If the world was so perfect now, why would we long for heaven?

Remember who the king of this world is. We need to long for the next one. Natural disasters, natural evils will be seen like a night in an uncomfortable hotel as St. Theresa put it, from the perspective of heaven.

Well, I just wanted to share with you what I think are some good arguments for the problem of “natural evil”. I am open to learning more as I think that is the strongest argument atheists have. Well that one and the problem of suffering from those natural evils.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

The consequence of their sin was exactly like the law of gravity! That’s why God said everything was for them to enjoy, except that one tree which would cause them to die. He didn’t trick them, He told them what would happen…the devil, lied & tricked them.

God still imposed the punishments. It’s not as though he was powerless over the whole matter. It’s what God decided was ‘just’ for our actions: a lifetime of suffering, death, and the possibility of an eternity of suffering. He is omnipotent and omniscient. It amazes me sometimes how people in some instances so willingly neuter God of his ultimate power, and then laud it the next moment if it benefits the theology. At least be consistent.

 

[SonOfMan]

Truet, you make it seem like God is all powerless when it comes to original sin. God can do anything, even change the consequences of A&E’s decision.

According to believers in miracles, since when was God bound by earthly laws, like gravity? Youre being inconsistent with your depiction of what God can do.

 

[icamhif]

Being helpful and kind cannot be dependent upon a possible murder.

No, but the possibility of being unhelpful or unkind in any way gives love more value.

 

[tskrobacz]

Hi,

I have many friends who don’t believe in religion (especially Christianity), and they often question me on Church’s view on things.

The most common “attack” that I am getting is, “If God is good, why is God letting all the violence to take place in this world?” and I am finding myself trying to defend God by saying “well the violence is the result of abuse of our own free will, and God is good because he made us to be free”.

But my response, apparently, is not so effective because some do say that “since God is good, he would only allow things that result in good - but no good thing can come out of such violence, and God is just playing around, using our free will as an excuse. Don’t you guys believe that if God doesn’t will some events, then it won’t happen? If so, why doesn’t he simply “not wanting” the violence?”

…? what can I say to this? In brief, I have two questions:

1. Do we Catholics believe that if God does not will some events, then those events certainly do not take place in this universe? (need confirmation from Catechism experts)
2. How can I explain why it is a good thing that God made us as a free being (freedom is good, but I am not exactly sure why freedom is good)?

Thank you,

Freedom is good when our desires are God’s desires. When we choose our own (EGO) desires instead then we fall away from God and Evil is not only possible, but inevitable.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

icamhif:

No, but the possibility of being unhelpful or unkind in any way gives love more value.

But in this case you already have enough free will to choose between being kind and helpful or not being kind and helpful. And simply not being kind and helpful is worlds apart from torturing, maiming or slaughtering others. The number one problem when discussing the “free will” is that many people simply forget that most of our actions are neutral, neither good nor evil, as such we have sufficient “free will” if we can choose among morally neutral actions. To bad that no matter how frequently this is pointed out, they never learn.

Of course being kind and helpful only matters on the psychological level. Whether the doctor performs an operation on you because it is required by his Hippocratic oath, or if the genuinely cares about you makes no difference on the efficacy of the procedure itself. However, there is an extra advantage for the patient if he sees the signs of genuine caring. But there is no difference between real, genuine caring and correctly simulated (or emulated) caring. The outer signs are the same, and the patent has no access to the internal thought processes of the doctor. So a properly designed and an manufactured “robot” doctor would be exactly as efficient in performing the procedures as the human one, and the “caring” procedure would be there as well.

So what is the advantage of “free will”? None!