God, free will, and evil

[wanstronian]

If inaction is deliberate then it is certainly a cause. Much of the misery in the world is due to the negligence of those who can prevent it but do nothing.

Divine reprobation is not failure to act on the part of God but the result of the choice of evil. God did not create us for reprobation but for heaven! We do not reach heaven automatically: we have to obey His command to love others and not keep putting ourselves first. If we live **primarily **for our own pleasure and satisfaction we alienate others and become incapable of living with them - or with God.

Hell is simply a state of self-imposed isolation for which we alone are responsible. We are not condemned by God but by ourselves. As the Greeks realised, our vices incur their own punishment - just as our virtues bring their own reward. All is not fair in love and war but all is fair in the afterlife! Cosmic justice is at the heart of existence because nothing occurs by chance in the spiritual life. Every effort and sacrifice we make ennobles and sanctifies us whereas every weakness and failure to act degrades and corrupts us.

None of this can be attributed to God, except in the sense that He has shared His power of choice with us. He is ultimately responsible for everything that happens because He created everything but that is quite different from being directly responsible. He permits evil because if we are compelled to do only what is good we never have the opportunity to exercise our willpower, resist temptation, forgive those who sin against us, overcome evil and show what we are worth. “To err is human, to forgive divine”.

God does not create free will! It is one of His attributes. So He does not create sin. What he does is share His free will with us. In other words He shares His power of self-determination. We can even choose to reject Him and live entirely for ourselves.

God knows we may do this but if we do He does not cause our decision. The buck stops with us. We alone are responsible for what we choose and we cannot blame God or anyone else or say we were compelled to make that choice. There may be mitigating circumstances for some choices we make but if our choice is premeditated and deliberate we have no excuse for doing wrong. That is the legal presumption according to which every law court in the world functions. The onus is on the person who denies we are responsible for our choices to explain why we are not…

Just a parting remark - this is exactly the point I was making. You know all this how, exactly? You have made a whole heap of assertions for which you offer no substantiation. If you can’t explain how you know for certain what God’s intentions and attributes are, what hell is, and so on - then surely you are just buying into the mealy-mouthed exegesis invented by theists to explain away the obvious problems with the God concept?

On the face of it, a God that saves the undeserving from peril whilst allowing thousands of innocents to perish in natural disasters, cannot be a good God unless we can show, absolutely, positively and objectively, that either he has no choice (and what an implication that would have!) or that he has a motive for his action/inaction. In the absence of such evidence, to carry on believing that God is good is like taking the default position that a serial killer is justified in his actions. It’s utter nonsense. Invoking free will and the like is just arbitrary excuse-making - a thin veneer of pseudo-justification to mitigate the atrocities that God causes, or allows to happen.

So I repeat - how do you know that the assertions you make, are the truth? How could you possibly know? And if you can’t know, why do you pretend you do, if not purely to defend your faith?

 

[tonyrey]

If inaction is deliberate then it is certainly a cause. Much of the misery in the world is due to the negligence of those who can prevent it but do nothing.
*
Divine reprobation is not failure to act on the part of God but the result of the choice of evil. God did not create us for reprobation but for heaven! We do not reach heaven automatically: we have to obey His command to love others and not keep putting ourselves first. If we live **primarily ***

A vague attack which does not conceal your failure to refute my statements individually. If you can’t explain **how you know for certain **that we exist for no reason or purpose and truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love are merely human concepts your assertions are not only gratuitous but vacuous into the bargain!

On the face of it, a God that saves the undeserving from peril whilst allowing thousands of innocents to perish in natural disasters, cannot be a good God unless we can show, absolutely, positively and objectively, that either he has no choice (and what an implication that would have!) or that he has a motive for his action/inaction. In the absence of such evidence, to carry on believing that God is good is like taking the default position that a serial killer is justified in his actions. It’s utter nonsense. Invoking free will and the like is just arbitrary excuse-making - a thin veneer of pseudo-justification to mitigate the atrocities that God causes, or allows to happen.

It is ironic that you use terms like “undeserving”, “innocents” and “good” as evidence against God when in your scheme of** things they are merely words which express subjective opinions. I’m afraid they have no bearing on God’s goodness unless you recognise the objective reality of evil **- in your **amoral **universe…

So I repeat - how do you know that the assertions you make, are the truth? How could you possibly know? And if you can’t know, why do you pretend you do, if not purely to defend your faith?

How could you possibly know my statements are false?! At least I have given specific reasons why they are true whereas you attack them without explaining what you believe. For a start, do you believe in free will, good and evil? And how do they fit into a valueless, purposeless, mechanistic universe?

 

[wanstronian]

A vague attack which does not conceal your failure to refute my statements individually.

I haven’t tried to refute your statements individually, nor would I. I have no more solid evidence that you are wrong, than you have that you are right. I haven’t said that you’re wrong. That’s not the point. The point is you have made a whole bunch of assertions that you haven’t substantiated. Pointing out that I haven’t refuted your statements individually doesn’t magically make them right, as I’m sure you know.

Why can’t you ever justify your assertions? How many times have you and I been here, where I challenge you on an assertion, and you just duck and dive and never answer?

If you can’t explain **how you know for certain **that we exist for no reason or purpose and truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love are merely human concepts your assertions are not only gratuitous but vacuous into the bargain!

What assertions? I haven’t made any - I’ve just asked you questions about your assertions!

It is ironic that you use terms like “undeserving”, “innocents” and “good” as evidence against God when in your scheme of** things they are merely words which express subjective opinions. I’m afraid they have no bearing on God’s goodness unless you recognise the objective reality of evil **- in your **amoral **universe…

Whether they are subjective or not, they gain sufficient objectivity through mass agreement that they are good enough to make my point. Again you dodge my question, and attempt to draw attention away from the fact by attacking a straw man you have ascribed to me.

Would you disagree that, say, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes etc. are bad things, in terms of their effect on human life? What about murderers, rapists, paedophiles? Would you deny that they are evil, by whatever definition of the word you want to use?

So dismissing your weak and erroneous argument against the words I used, would you care to comment on the real points that I made?

How could you possibly know my statements are false?!

I don’t. That’s not the point, as you know. You have made several positive assertions, without offering any justification for their correctness. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just asking you how you know you are right. Do you have an answer?

At least I have given specific reasons why they are true whereas you attack them without explaining what you believe. For a start, do you believe in free will, good and evil? And how do they fit into a valueless, purposeless, mechanistic universe?

What you call reasons, most people would call opinion. I don’t deny you your opinion, I just wondered how you know your statements are the truth. If I chose to say, “God is evil, because he lets innocent people suffer when he has the power to save them,” then surely you would ask me to substantiate this claim. So why won’t you accept the necessity of substantiating your own?

I’m happy to start answering your questions to the best of my ability, if you’ll do me the courtesy of responding to mine.

 

[beng]

As I understand it is an internet wisdom to not feed trolls.

 

[wanstronian]

As I understand it is an internet wisdom to not feed trolls.

Clearly, to you a troll is anyone who disagrees with your point of view in a public forum.

If all you can do is sit on the sidelines and cat-call like a childish twit, then it is you who is the troll. So I shall take your advice and ignore you from now on.

Feel free to come back when you’ve thought of something worthwhile to say. I won’t hold my breath.

 

[tonyrey]

I haven’t tried to refute your statements individually, nor would I. I have no more solid evidence that you are wrong, than you have that you are right. I haven’t said that you’re wrong. The point is you have made a whole bunch of assertions that you haven’t substantiated. Pointing out that I haven’t refuted your statements individually doesn’t magically make them right, as I’m sure you know.

It doesn’t magically make them wrong either. If you cannot give one simple reason why they** may** be wrong you are not advancing the discussion one jot. You are virtually repeating “no” to no effect or purpose.

If you can’t explain how you know for certain that we exist for no reason or purpose and truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love are merely human concepts your assertions are not only gratuitous but vacuous into the bargain!

What assertions? I haven’t made any - I’ve just asked you questions about your assertions!

Your assertions are implicit in your questions…

It is ironic that you use terms like “undeserving”, “innocents” and “good” as evidence against God when in your scheme of things they are merely words which express subjective opinions. I’m afraid they have no bearing on God’s goodness unless you recognise the objective reality of evil - in your amoral universe…

Whether they are subjective or not, they gain sufficient objectivity through mass agreement that they are good enough to make my point.

Objectivity can hardly be gained by mass agreement - which is simply subjective opinion multiplied many times. As you have pointed out more than once, consensus proves nothing.

Nothing has any bearing on God’s goodness unless you accept the reality of objective evil. The content of what people think has no ontological significance **if **values exist only in the mind.

Would you disagree that, say, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes etc. are bad things, in terms of their effect on human life? What about murderers, rapists, paedophiles? Would you deny that they are evil, by whatever definition of the word you want to use?

I don’t disagree they are evil because I believe they are objectively evil and not merely a matter of opinion.

So dismissing your weak and erroneous argument against the words I used, would you care to comment on the real points that I made?

How can you have made any real points if you have not made any assertions? Confusion reigneth supreme!

How could you possibly know my statements are false?!

You have made several positive assertions, without offering any justification for their correctness. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just asking you how you know you are right. Do you have an answer?

I don’t **know **any more than you do. I believe my assertions are true for the reasons I have given, e.g :

The buck stops with us. We alone are responsible for what we choose and we cannot blame God or anyone else or say we were compelled to make that choice. There may be mitigating circumstances for some choices we make but if our choice is premeditated and deliberate we have no excuse for doing wrong. That is the legal presumption according to which every law court in the world functions. The onus is on the person who denies we are responsible for our choices to explain why we are not…

At least I have given specific reasons why they are true whereas you attack them without explaining what you believe. For a start, do you believe in free will, good and evil? And how do they fit into a valueless, purposeless, mechanistic universe?

What you call reasons, most people would call opinion.

One can describe any philosophical reason as an opinion. Give me one example of a statement about the nature of reality - and of persons in particular - that is not an opinion.

Your very statement “What you call reasons, most people would call opinion” is an opinion!

I don’t deny you your opinion, I just wondered how you know your statements are the truth. If I chose to say, “God is evil, because he lets innocent people suffer when he has the power to save them,” then surely you would ask me to substantiate this claim.

The fact is that you don’t claim to make any claims! You put yourself in an impregnable position because - as you have stated - you have not made any assertions. One can’t fight against a will-o’-the-wisp!

So why won’t you accept the necessity of substantiating your own?

I have done - as illustrated above. Isn’t the legal presumption according to which every law court in the world functions a good enough prima facie reason for belief in free will and responsibility?

Tell me which of the following statements you wish me to substantiate, bearing in mind that you would not ask me to do so unless you believe they are false:

1. If inaction is deliberate then it is certainly a cause.
2. Much of the misery in the world is due to the negligence of those who can prevent it but do nothing.
3. If we live primarily for our own pleasure and satisfaction we alienate others and become incapable of living with them
4. As the Greeks realised, our vices incur their own punishment - just as our virtues bring their own reward.
5. Every effort and sacrifice we make ennobles and sanctifies us whereas every weakness and failure to act degrades and corrupts us.
6. Free will and responsibility are illusions in a mechanistic universe.

The salient feature of your post is its negativity. You are not prepared to refute any of my statements, making it doubtful whether you can. You don’t realise that every attack presupposes a launching pad. You cannot present a rational argument if you are floating in thin air… I suspect you think you are right down to earth but are not prepared to admit it.

 

[wanstronian]

It doesn’t magically make them wrong either. If you cannot give one simple reason why they** may** be wrong you are not advancing the discussion one jot. You are virtually repeating “no” to no effect or purpose.

No, it doesn’t make them wrong. That’s not the point. If you assert that your cat can fly and nobody tries to refute it, does that mean your cat can fly?

Your assertions are implicit in your questions…

You may read motives into my questions, but that doesn’t make the questions invalid.

Objectivity can hardly be gained by mass agreement - which is simply subjective opinion multiplied many times. As you have pointed out more than once, consensus proves nothing.

My point, as if it needs making again, is that it is generally agreed what constitutes these concepts. The argument about moral subjectivity is irrelevant here - we agree on the meaning of these concepts and it is in the context of these agreed meanings that I made my comments.

Nothing has any bearing on God’s goodness unless you accept the reality of objective evil. The content of what people think has no ontological significance **if **values exist only in the mind.

Not clear what you’re saying here. I’m not interested in judging whether God is good. I asked some simple questions about how you know that what you say is the truth. I’m interested in discovering your substantiation for your assertions.

I don’t disagree they are evil because I believe they are objectively evil and not merely a matter of opinion.

Okay - we agree on what is evil, even if not on how we come to arrive at our concept. So can we get out of this rabbit hole?

How can you have made any real points if you have not made any assertions? Confusion reigneth supreme!

I’m sorry you have found this confusing. I see you have given me the opportunity to clarify which questions I would like you to answer, so see below.

I don’t **know **any more than you do. I believe my assertions are true for the reasons I have given, e.g :

I do not, for the purposes of this discussion, deny anything you say regarding free will. These are not the assertions I’m asking you to substantiate.

One can describe any philosophical reason as an opinion. Give me one example of a statement about the nature of reality - and of persons in particular - that is not an opinion.

Your very statement “What you call reasons, most people would call opinion” is an opinion!

Of course it is. But you gave “reasons why they are true.” Did you actually mean, “reasons which I, tonyrey, find convincing?”

The fact is that you don’t claim to make any claims! You put yourself in an impregnable position because - as you have stated - you have not made any assertions. One can’t fight against a will-o’-the-wisp!

I’m not asking for a fight. I’m simply asking how you know that your claims are true.

I have done - as illustrated above. Isn’t the legal presumption according to which every law court in the world functions a good enough prima facie reason for belief in free will and responsibility?

I’m not disputing the existence of free will here.

Tell me which of the following statements you wish me to substantiate, bearing in mind that you would not ask me to do so unless you believe they are false:

None of these. The specific claims I would you to substantiate are:

God did not create us for reprobation but for heaven!

How do you know this?

We do not reach heaven automatically: we have to obey his His command to love others and not keep putting ourselves first.

How do you know this?

[God] is ultimately responsible for everything that happens because He created everything…

How do you know this?

He permits evil because if we are compelled to do only what is good we never have the opportunity to exercise our willpower.

How do you know this?

[Free will] is one of [God’s] attributes.

How do you know this?

These are the questions I would like you to answer.

The salient feature of your post is its negativity. You are not prepared to refute any of my statements, making it doubtful whether you can. You don’t realise that every attack presupposes a launching pad. You cannot present a rational argument if you are floating in thin air… I suspect you think you are right down to earth but are not prepared to admit it.

I haven’t attacked you. I haven’t claimed I can refute you - in fact I thought I’d implied that I probably couldn’t. The claims you are making are predicated on the existence of God, and I can’t prove God doesn’t exist.

I’ve just asked you some questions. Will you answer them?

 

[tonyrey]

If you cannot give one simple reason why they may be wrong you are not advancing the discussion one jot.

Nobody believes a cat can fly whereas millions believe God exists. Why have so many sceptics tried to refute that belief and written books on the subject? According to your argument they are all misguided…

You may read motives into my questions, but that doesn’t make the questions invalid.

I didn’t say or imply they are invalid. I merely intimated that you wouldn’t ask them unless you are sceptical and believe in a Godless universe…

Objectivity can hardly be gained by mass agreement - which is simply subjective opinion multiplied many times. As you have pointed out more than once, consensus proves nothing.

My point, as if it needs making again, is that it is generally agreed what constitutes these concepts.

“concepts” is the key word. Concepts do not necessarily correspond to, and by themselves are uninformative about, objective reality.

The argument about moral subjectivity is irrelevant here - we agree on the meaning of these concepts and it is in the context of these agreed meanings that I made my comments.

We don’t agree on the meaning because for you evil is no more than a concept!

Nothing has any bearing on God’s goodness unless you accept the reality of objective evil. The content of what people think has no ontological significance if values exist only in the mind.

Not clear what you’re saying here. I’m not interested in judging whether God is good.

The fact that you have cited examples of natural and moral evil belies your words.

I do not, for the purposes of this discussion, deny anything you say regarding free will.

Then you have a formidable task accounting for its existence which - together with rationality and human rights - are substantial reasons for the truth of theism.

But you gave “reasons why they are true.” Did you actually mean, “reasons which I, tonyrey, find convincing?”

Not only I but countless millions down the centuries.

The fact is that you don’t claim to make any claims! You put yourself in an impregnable position because - as you have stated - you have not made any assertions. One can’t fight against a will-o’-the-wisp!

I’m not asking for a fight. I’m simply asking how you know that your claims are true.

following statements you wish me to substantiate, bearing in mind that you would not ask me to do so unless you believe they are false:

God did not create us for reprobation but for heaven!

How do you know this?

I** believe** the immense value of life is evidence of a loving Creator whereas you believe its value is imposed by most human beings.

We do not reach heaven automatically: we have to obey His command to love others and not keep putting ourselves first.
How do you know this?

I believe heaven is the most reasonable explanation of the purpose for which we have the capacity for unselfish love whereas you believe its value is imposed by most human beings and has no lasting significance.

God is ultimately responsible for everything that happens because He created everything…

How do you know this?

I believe the basic harmony and beauty of life are convincing evidence that it is designed whereas you believe life is merely an insignificant accident for which no one is responsible.

He permits evil because if we are compelled to do only good we never have the opportunity to exercise our willpower.

How do you know this?

Because we wouldn’t have to resist temptation! How could free will co-exist with moral compulsion?

[Free will]
is one of [God’s] attributes.

How do you know this?

I believe it because it is the most adequate explanation of our free will.

The salient feature of your post is its negativity. You are not prepared to refute any of my statements, making it doubtful whether you can. You don’t realise that every attack presupposes a launching pad. You cannot present a rational argument if you are floating in thin air… I suspect you think you are right down to earth but are not prepared to admit it.

I haven’t claimed I can refute you - in fact I thought I’d implied that I probably couldn’t. The claims you are making are predicated on the existence of God, and I can’t prove God doesn’t exist.

Then you should be an agnostic rather than an atheist.

 

[asker42]

I’m confused by the responses of Wanstronian he asserts that theists come up with responses to defend their faith, which I don’t disagree with, and then says that their answers that they couldn’t possibly know. Though, why does he take it that it is so obvious that the existence of evil and such, are such clear contradictions with the existence of God? He wants an argument that shows without a doubt that God is justified in permitting evil but then claims that no justification given could be valid, how does he know this? It could be that the existence of both God and evil is totally coherent but he claims presuppositionally that they obviously aren’t.

If he is skeptical about God existing then the existence of evil has nothing to do with it. A perfectly valid justification could be given but clearly that wouldn’t be adequate enough for him. We may not be able to convince him that God exists but this has nothing to do with him accepting the validity of an argument regarding God and His possibility. If evil didn’t exist would he believe in God? If so then why can’t there be a possible reason for God permitting evil? If God is possible and it is possible for both God and evil to exist then that is a possibility. Wanstronian hasn’t shown how that is an impossibility and claims that no argument could shown to be valid or invalid, while he claims that all are invalid in order to defend his agnostic position.

 

[tonyrey]

I haven’t claimed I can refute you - in fact I thought I’d implied that I probably couldn’t. The claims you are making are predicated on the existence of God, and I can’t prove God doesn’t exist.

These statements are in striking contrast with your previous post:

You’ve highlighted the inherent contradictions in the god concept, and the garbled attempts by other contributors to this thread, demonstrate the irreconcilability of these contradictions. I always smile when I see theists attempting to explain god’s inconsistencies away using confident assertions that they can’t possibly have any real knowledge of.

You can’t have it both ways - either god created all things, in which case he is ultimately responsible for all sin; or he didn’t, in which case he’s not all he’s cracked up to be. Attempting to explain away the horrors of the world by claiming it’s a side-effect of a free will necessary to worship god, exposes god as a narcissist for whom sycophantic and unquestioning worship is more important than basic justice. How can such a god be anything other than a vicious and self-serving tyrant, unworthy of worship?

… !

 

[wanstronian]

Nobody believes a cat can fly whereas millions believe God exists. Why have so many sceptics tried to refute that belief and written books on the subject? According to your argument they are all misguided…

Millions of people also used to believe that the earth was flat; that the sun went round the earth; that there were many gods; that thunder and lightning were signs of angry gods. The truth of a superstitious claim is not a product of the number of individuals who believe it.

I didn’t say or imply they are invalid. I merely intimated that you wouldn’t ask them unless you are sceptical and believe in a Godless universe…

Okay. Your observation doesn’t add to the discussion though.

“concepts” is the key word. Concepts do not necessarily correspond to, and by themselves are uninformative about, objective reality.

We don’t agree on the meaning because for you evil is no more than a concept!

For me, evil is the serious and intentional breach of a morality that has evolved as a result of our societal needs and interactions. But this is irrelevant - we agree that murder, rape and torture are evil, for example. In the context of the statements I made, that is all that is important.

The fact that you have cited examples of natural and moral evil belies your words.

No it doesn’t. What I’m interested in, as I have made clear several times already, is how you know what you claim to know about God’s nature. The clear repercussions of this question are obvious, however: If you don’t know, you merely believe, then your assertions are unfounded, and you are potentially defending the indefensible.

Then you have a formidable task accounting for its existence which - together with rationality and human rights - are substantial reasons for the truth of theism.

Grrr - how many times??? The point, which I have already made, is that I’m not discussing free will. I have my opinions on it, but that is not the purpose of my posts. I have a no more formidable task accounting for free will, than do those who think it was bequeathed by an inexplicable, supernatural, undetectable entity. Free will is irrelevant to the questions I have asked you to substantiate.

Not only I but countless millions down the centuries.

Already addressed. Millions of people believing in superstition don’t make it reality. But thanks for the clarity.

following statements you wish me to substantiate, bearing in mind that you would not ask me to do so unless you believe they are false:

I believe the immense value of life is evidence of a loving Creator whereas you believe its value is imposed by most human beings.

Yet this “loving Creator” apparently thinks nothing of killing millions of these “immensely valuable” people through disease, famine, spontaneous abortion, natural disasters?

I believe heaven is the most reasonable explanation of the purpose for which we have the capacity for unselfish love whereas you believe its value is imposed by most human beings and has no lasting significance.

How does unselfish love relate to heaven? What is heaven? How does “heaven” explain human purpose?

I believe the basic harmony and beauty of life are convincing evidence that it is designed whereas you believe life is merely an insignificant accident for which no one is responsible.

Do you think life could be any other way? If it were ugly and unharmonious, would that be evidence that it wasn’t designed? Do you think beauty is a subjective thing? How would you know?

Because we wouldn’t have to resist temptation! How could free will co-exist with moral compulsion?

No - I meant, how do you know that “God permits evil because of these things?” How do you know what his rationales are?

I believe it because it is the most adequate explanation of our free will.

How is it the most adequate? Do you mean, you find it the easiest answer to understand? I can’t see how it explains anything. Why did God give us free will? When? How? Did he give any animals free will? If so, which ones? If not, why not? You should know by now, that “God did it” explains precisely nothing.

Then you should be an agnostic rather than an atheist.

I am both. They are not mutually exclusive, as I’m surprised to learn you did not know.

These statements are in striking contrast with your previous post

Not in the slightest. The fact that I can’t prove that God doesn’t exist doesn’t mean that assertions such as those made by you and other theists, to explain away the clear contradiction between God’s alleged goodness and the reality of the Universe, are defensible. They are not - you have confirmed my suspicion that you don’t know how to reconcile a good god with an evil universe, you just choose to believe whatever’s necessary to maintain your dogged faith.

And that is absolutely your right. I just don’t think that contrived beliefs such as these should be stated as fact when attempting to answer questions such as those posed in the OP.

Even in the cosy self-congratulatory world of religious belief, I think that questions like this should be answered with intellectual honesty, not with unfounded assertions of knowledge of the unknowable.

But then, without the propagation of dogma, where would religion be?

 

[wanstronian]

I’m confused by the responses of Wanstronian he asserts that theists come up with responses to defend their faith, which I don’t disagree with, and then says that their answers that they couldn’t possibly know. Though, why does he take it that it is so obvious that the existence of evil and such, are such clear contradictions with the existence of God? He wants an argument that shows without a doubt that God is justified in permitting evil but then claims that no justification given could be valid, how does he know this? It could be that the existence of both God and evil is totally coherent but he claims presuppositionally that they obviously aren’t.

I think you’re missing the point. The existence of evil is not a contradiction with a Creator god, but it is a contradiction, in the absence of any evidence for his motivation, with the notion of a good God who is also omnipotent.

So the upshot of this is that, in my opinion, those who believe that God is benevolent are forced to invent reasons to square this benevolence with the reality of the world, which is that bad things happen to innocent people and good things happen to bad people. It might be that God exists and has exactly the rationale that such people claim. But they’re unable to substantiate how they know the mind of God, so any assertions they make in defence of God’s benevolence carry no real weight. In other words, they’re justifying their faith in the face of seemingly contradictory evidence, by inventing reasons why God isn’t actually responsible for all the evil in the world that he created and controls.

Google “twelve officers” for an apposite parable.

If he is skeptical about God existing then the existence of evil has nothing to do with it. A perfectly valid justification could be given but clearly that wouldn’t be adequate enough for him. We may not be able to convince him that God exists but this has nothing to do with him accepting the validity of an argument regarding God and His possibility. If evil didn’t exist would he believe in God?

I am skeptical about God, but that’s not the issue. The issue is that the excuses dreamed up by his believers to absolve him of his crimes, are devoid of substance.
The absence of evil wouldn’t magically make me believe in God, because the absence of evil doesn’t consitute the presence of evidence for God’s existence. It would just be the absence of evidence against his existence, or at least, against the existence of the lovely charming fella that Catholics say he is.

If so then why can’t there be a possible reason for God permitting evil? If God is possible and it is possible for both God and evil to exist then that is a possibility. Wanstronian hasn’t shown how that is an impossibility and claims that no argument could shown to be valid or invalid, while he claims that all are invalid in order to defend his agnostic position.

I’m not concerned with the possibility of God in this thread. I’ve made this clear all the way through the thread. My questions and comments are concerned with the validity of the claims made by theists to absolve God from the evil inherent in the world that he created.

If there is a God, then there is no evidence at all to suggest that he is anything other than disinterested and uninvolved with his creation.

 

[tonyrey]

The truth of a superstitious claim is not a product of the number of individuals who believe it.

It is far more superstitious to derive conscious, rational minds from inanimate matter.

Your observation doesn’t add to the discussion though.

The point is that you were claiming to be impartial…

For me, evil is the serious and intentional breach of a morality that has evolved as a result of our societal needs and interactions.

For me evil is not a breach of an evolved morality nor the result of societal needs and interactions. Murder, rape and torture are evil even when they are not recognised as evil.

But this is irrelevant - we agree that murder, rape and torture are evil, for example.

On the contrary the **origin of evil, the context in which it occurs and its consequences **are all important.

What I’m interested in… is how you know what you claim to know about God’s nature.

I claim to believe in God’s goodness and love for the reason I have given: the immense value of existence and particularly personal existence.

If you don’t know, you merely believe, then your assertions are unfounded, and you are potentially defending the indefensible.

Exactly the same argument applies to your belief in the power of inanimate matter.

I have a no more formidable task accounting for free will, than do those who think it was bequeathed by an inexplicable, supernatural, undetectable entity.

To derive free will from dust is far more astounding than from the Deity.

Millions of people believing in superstition don’t make it reality.

Such a consensus doesn’t make God a reality but the belief that we are created by God corresponds to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity in a way impossible for the superstition that we come from inanimate matter.

Yet this “loving Creator” apparently thinks nothing of killing millions of these “immensely valuable” people through disease, famine, spontaneous abortion, natural disasters?

Now you claim - inconsistently - to refute the existence of God!
“killing millions” suggests a wilful, unnecessary massacre and assuming it is possible to create a disease-free, famine-free, abortion-free, disaster-free world.

How does unselfish love relate to heaven?

It is a necessary condition of living in peace and harmony.

What is heaven?

Heaven is the fulfilment of our yearning for perfection.

How does “heaven” explain human purpose?

The purpose of life is fulfilment in truth, goodness, justice, beauty and love.

Do you think life could be any other way? If it were ugly and unharmonious, would that be evidence that it wasn’t designed?

Yes. If there were a preponderance of evil, ugliness, conflict and chaos it would point to its fortuitous origin.

Do you think beauty is a subjective thing? How would you know?

Beauty is objective because it does not cease to exist when it is not recognised. There are aesthetic principles such as the Golden Ratio which determine whether something is beautiful.

No - I meant, how do you know that “God permits evil because of these things?”

Because it is impossible to create an immensely complex universe in which there are countless beings pursuing different ends without conflict, interference, failure and frustration.

How do you know what his rationales are?

Because the immense value of life far outweighs its drawbacks.

Why did God give us free will?

So that we are capable of love.

When? How?

I’m not God!

Did he give any animals free will? If so, which ones? If not, why not?

No. It takes all sorts to make a world!

Then you should be an agnostic rather than an atheist.

I am both. They are not mutually exclusive, as I’m surprised to learn you did not know.

A-gnostic = no knowledge. A-theist = no God.

The fact that I can’t prove that God doesn’t exist doesn’t mean that assertions such as those made by you and other theists, to explain away the clear contradiction between God’s alleged goodness and the reality of the Universe, are defensible. They are not - you have confirmed my suspicion that you don’t know how to reconcile a good god with an evil universe, you just choose to believe whatever’s necessary to maintain your dogged faith.

Your suspicion is groundless! I am almost certainly more aware of all the objections raised against theism than you are, having specialised in the subject for many years. The term “dogged faith” is more applicable to those, whether theists or atheists, who hold to their views without having examined all the implications of their beliefs.

The contrast of “a good god” and “an evil universe” does not make sense in the light of your concept of morality. Murder, rape and torture are due to personal decisions. Disease, famine, spontaneous abortion and disasters are due to physical causes. Do you regard the laws of nature as evil?

Even in the cosy self-congratulatory world of religious belief, I think that questions like this should be answered with intellectual honesty, not with unfounded assertions of knowledge of the unknowable.

Your statement that there is a “clear contradiction between God’s alleged goodness and the reality of the Universe” savours of unwarranted dogmatism, a contrived physicalism, dubious intellectual honesty, a cosy self-congratulatory closed physical system and unfounded assertions of knowledge of the unknowable. Have you any experience of designing, creating and controlling universes? Can you present a detailed blueprint of a feasible system which meets your expectations?

But then, without the propagation of dogma, where would religion be?

The same question can be asked of Dawkins and company!

 

[wanstronian]

It is far more superstitious to derive conscious, rational minds from inanimate matter.

Another arbitrary assertion on your part - and an inaccurate one, because at least we can show that inanimate matter exists.

The point is that you were claiming to be impartial…

Where did I claim that?

For me evil is not a breach of an evolved morality nor the result of societal needs and interactions. Murder, rape and torture are evil even when they are not recognised as evil.

So if nobody recognised them as evil, they would still be evil? How would anybody know? Is eating meat evil? The animal surely isn’t treated fairly. If it isn’t evil, why not? who decides the rights of the animal?

On the contrary the **origin of evil, the context in which it occurs and its consequences **are all important.

I’m climbing out of your rabbit hole now, this is not relevant to the questions I have asked you.

I claim to believe in God’s goodness and love for the reason I have given: the immense value of existence and particularly personal existence.

Fine - that’s what I thought. You don’t know that what you are claiming as fact is actually fact, it’s just a way of reconciling your innate belief in a good and om(name removed by moderator)otent God, with the contradictory facts of reality.

Exactly the same argument applies to your belief in the power of inanimate matter.

Nor am I interested in Tu Quoque fallacies employed to draw attention away from your weak arguments.

To derive free will from dust is far more astounding than from the Deity.

Again, not true given that we can at least show that dust exists. “Occam’s razor” is a phrase that you bandy when it suits you, shame you don’t subscribe to it consistently.

Such a consensus doesn’t make God a reality but the belief that we are created by God corresponds to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity in a way impossible for the superstition that we come from inanimate matter.

Another arbitrary assertion, unencumbered by evidence.

Now you claim - inconsistently - to refute the existence of God!

How do you work that out? I don’t believe in God, but I can’t prove he doesn’t exist. However, that is irrelevant - all I’m doing is pointing out that the reality of the world is inconsistent with a good and omnipotent God - necessitating your (theists’) excuse-mongering on his behalf.

“killing millions” suggests a wilful, unnecessary massacre and assuming it is possible to create a disease-free, famine-free, abortion-free, disaster-free world.

Are you saying that God is not omnipotent? If so, you’ve demolished one of the main (although still pathetic) arguments for his existence!

It is a necessary condition of living in peace and harmony.

Okay… but I asked how it related to heaven…

Heaven is the fulfilment of our yearning for perfection.

Oh - so heaven isn’t a place, just a state of mind. How do we know when we’ve reached perfection?

The purpose of life is fulfilment in truth, goodness, justice, beauty and love.

Says who? All the evidence suggests that the temporal purpose of life is to reproduce. There is no evidence of any higher purpose to life.

Yes. If there were a preponderance of evil, ugliness, conflict and chaos it would point to its fortuitous origin.

How would we know? Are you starting to see how empty your argumentation is yet?

Beauty is objective because it does not cease to exist when it is not recognised. There are aesthetic principles such as the Golden Ratio which determine whether something is beautiful.

Ah, the Golden Ratio. A human axiom. You’re not being very convincing here.

Because it is impossible to create an immensely complex universe in which there are countless beings pursuing different ends without conflict, interference, failure and frustration.

So he doesn’t permit it, he just can’t stop it? So much for om(name removed by moderator)otence! Oh - and how do you know it’s impossible?

Because the immense value of life far outweighs its drawbacks.

No - I asked how you know what God’s rationales are. I didn’t ask for your personal opinion on the value of life.

So that we are capable of love.

You state this as if you know it for a fact. Presumably you just mean that it’s a tenet that fits with your underlying faith?

I’m not God!

No - but you seem to know an awful lot about him. I’m just wondering how you can make all these claims.

No. It takes all sorts to make a world!

No, he didn’t give animals free will? So when my dog gets up and goes for a sniff around the garden, he didn’t actually decide to do it? Yet when I get up and go for a walk by the river, it’s my free will allowing it? How can you tell the difference?

 

[wanstronian]

A-gnostic = no knowledge. A-theist = no God.

Exactly - no knowledge. That makes you an agnostic, just like me. You are a theist agnostic and I am an atheist agnostic. I don’t know whether God exists or not, and nor do you. It seems you have some reading to do, as you seem to think that agnosticism equates to “lack of opinion.”

Your suspicion is groundless! I am almost certainly more aware of all the objections raised against theism than you are, having specialised in the subject for many years. The term “dogged faith” is more applicable to those, whether theists or atheists, who hold to their views without having examined all the implications of their beliefs.

You definitely have some reading to do if you thing the argument from consequence trumps rational examination of evidence for the substantiation of a truth claim. My suspicion is well and truly confirmed! You have no substantiation at all for your ‘factual’ claims about a God you can know nothing about. Therefore you have some motivation for making the claims. The most obvious motivation stems from your underlying belief in a God that is good.

The contrast of “a good god” and “an evil universe” does not make sense in the light of your concept of morality. Murder, rape and torture are due to personal decisions. Disease, famine, spontaneous abortion and disasters are due to physical causes. Do you regard the laws of nature as evil?

Is this a last ditch attempt to unsettle the truth of my argument? It won’t work - I’m being completely consistent in my terminology. The OED includes natural disasters within the definition of ‘evil.’

Your usual game of semantic hi-jinks when you’ve lost another argument, is a bit tiresome.

Your statement that there is a “clear contradiction between God’s alleged goodness and the reality of the Universe” savours of unwarranted dogmatism, a contrived physicalism, dubious intellectual honesty, a cosy self-congratulatory closed physical system and unfounded assertions of knowledge of the unknowable.

You’d like to think so, but you have only to turn on the tv and watch the news to see the contradiction. Either God is indifferent, or he has a very complex set of rationales which we mere humans cannot possible know. Or, of course, God doesn’t even exist. Cue another application of Occam’s Razor…

Have you any experience of designing, creating and controlling universes?

No - what’s that got to do with it? I have no experience of designing web pages either, but I can tell a good one from a bad one.

Can you present a detailed blueprint of a feasible system which meets your expectations?

Well, I could if I was om(name removed by moderator)otent like God is alleged to be. Do you really think you’re presenting a good argument here?

The same question can be asked of Dawkins and company!

Would that be the dogma whereby they ask theists to cough up some evidence of their incredible claims, and theists repeatedly fail to do so? Is that the dogma you’re talking about? I can see why you dislike it, but to call it dogma is just etymologically incorrect. You have more reading to do.

And I have the answers to my questions, so thank you!

 

[tonyrey]

It is far more superstitious to derive conscious, rational minds from inanimate matter.

Can you show that your mind exists?

…you were claiming to be impartial…

Where did I claim that?

In your insistence that you cannot prove that God doesn’t exist.

Murder, rape and torture are evil even when they are not recognised as evil.

So if nobody recognised them as evil, they would still be evil?

Why not? Do facts depend on recognition?

How would anybody know?

Ignorance does not entail non-existence.

Is eating meat evil?

If eating meat were evil most forms of life would be evil!

The animal surely isn’t treated fairly. If it isn’t evil, why not?

Because all life depends on life. Minerals are hardly an adequate diet!

who decides the rights of the animal?

You are begging the question!

The origin of evil, context and consequences are all important.

… this is not relevant to the questions I asked you.

Why irrelevant when it is the topic for discussion?

I claim to believe in God’s goodness for the reason I have given: the immense value of existence.

You don’t know that what you are claiming as fact is actually fact…

Do you regard your existence as valueless?

Nor am I interested in Tu Quoque fallacies employed to draw attention away from your weak arguments.

You are illustrating the fact that your argument is as weak as mine! That is why I used it!

To derive free will from dust is far more astounding than from the Deity.

Again, not true given that we can at least show that dust exists.

Do you use dust to show that dust exists?

“Occam’s razor” is a phrase that you bandy when it suits you…

A vast multitude of atomic particles is somewhat less economical than one Being.

The belief that we are created by God corresponds to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity in a way impossible for the superstition that we come from inanimate matter.

Another arbitrary assertion…

Then the onus is on you to explain how the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are based on a mechanistic system.

I don’t believe in God, but I can’t prove he doesn’t exist.

You seem to believe you have:

Yet this “loving Creator” apparently thinks nothing of killing millions of these “immensely valuable” people through disease, famine, spontaneous abortion, natural disasters?

Are you saying that God is not omnipotent?

No. Eminent sceptics - like David Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion - agree that natural evil is inevitable in an orderly world.

It is a necessary condition of living in peace and harmony.

I asked how it related to heaven…

Heaven is the result of unnselfish love.

How do we know when we’ve reached perfection?

You won’t be negative!

The purpose of life is fulfilment in truth, goodness, justice, beauty and love.

All the evidence suggests that the temporal purpose of life is to reproduce.

Is that how you spend most of your time?

There is no evidence of any higher purpose to life.

Then why are you concerned with establishing the truth of materialism? That must be a lower purpose - not least because it dispenses with purpose altogether!

Yes. If there were a preponderance of evil, ugliness, conflict and chaos it would point to its fortuitous origin.

How would we know?

We wouldn’t be here to know!

Are you starting to see how empty your argumentation is yet?

I am continuing to see that you cannot refute my arguments…

Ah, the Golden Ratio. A human axiom.

The Golden Ratio is based on objective mathematical relations.

Because it is impossible to create an immensely complex universe in which there are countless beings pursuing different ends without conflict, interference, failure and frustration.

So he doesn’t permit it, he just can’t stop it?

Do you want your life to be cut short abruptly?

…how do you know it’s impossible?

Because no one has ever produced a blueprint of a world without those drawbacks.

I didn’t ask for your personal opinion on the value of life.

It is not my personal opinion but a fact verified by the existence of all human institutions.

So that we are capable of love.

You state this as if you know it for a fact.

Do you think we are incapable of love?

Presumably you just mean that it’s a tenet that fits with your underlying faith?

If so your rejection of love accounts for your faith in matter - and vice-versa!

I’m not God!

No - but you seem to know an awful lot about him. I’m just wondering how you can make all these claims.

In the same way that you implicitly attribute an awful lot to the blind Goddess.

So when my dog gets up and goes for a sniff around the garden, he didn’t actually decide to do it? Yet when I get up and go for a walk by the river, it’s my free will allowing it? How can you tell the difference?

Because you’re the one who usually decides what your dog will do!
BTW Your free will doesn’t allow. You use it to make your decisions - but not always…

 

[tonyrey]

A-gnostic = no knowledge. A-theist = no God.

The dogmatism of many of your statements is at odds with your claim that you don’t know whether God exists or not… Moreover “no God” rules out “lack of opinion.”

Your suspicion is groundless! I am almost certainly more aware of all the objections raised against theism than you are, having specialised in the subject for many years. The term “dogged faith” is more applicable to those, whether theists or atheists, who hold to their views without having examined all the implications of their beliefs.

You definitely have some reading to do if you thing the argument from consequence trumps rational examination of evidence for the substantiation of a truth claim.

A false deduction which you need to justify.

My suspicion is well and truly confirmed! You have no substantiation at all for your ‘factual’ claims about a God you can know nothing about.

You are the one who doggedly uses the term “know” when I explicitly state that “I believe”.

Therefore you have some motivation for making the claims. The most obvious motivation stems from your underlying belief in a God that is good.

Aha! You have now changed your tune to “belief”!

The contrast of “a good god” and “an evil universe” does not make sense in the light of your concept of morality. Murder, rape and torture are due to personal decisions.

Disease, famine, spontaneous abortion and disasters are due to natural causes. Do you regard the laws of nature as evil?

Is this a last ditch attempt to unsettle the truth of my argument? It won’t work - I’m being completely consistent in my terminology. The OED includes natural disasters within the definition of ‘evil.’

You overlook the generally accepted distinction between natural and moral evil.

Your statement that there is a “clear contradiction between God’s alleged goodness and the reality of the Universe” savours of unwarranted dogmatism, a contrived physicalism, dubious intellectual honesty, a cosy self-congratulatory closed physical system and unfounded assertions of knowledge of the unknowable.

Either God is indifferent, or he has a very complex set of rationales which we mere humans cannot possible know. Or, of course, God doesn’t even exist. Cue another application of Occam’s Razor…

A simplistic view of reality does not take into account the immense complexity of the interplay of natural laws.

Have you any experience of designing, creating and controlling universes?

I have no experience of designing web pages either, but I can tell a good one from a bad one.

The weakness of that comparison speaks for itself.

Can you present a detailed blueprint of a feasible system which meets your expectations?

Well, I could if I was om(name removed by moderator)otent like God is alleged to be. Do you really think you’re presenting a good argument here?

If you attempt to answer rather than evade you will soon discover the truth.

The same question can be asked of Dawkins and company!

Would that be the dogma whereby they ask theists to cough up some evidence of their incredible claims, and theists repeatedly fail to do so?

What about the incredible dogma of materialists who conjure up everything about of purposeless particles? It’s about time they explained how rational planning is obtained from a blind sequence of events…

 

[wanstronian]

Can you show that your mind exists?

Here we go again - when you can’t justify your assertions you resort to solipsism, as if this somehow proves you are right!

In your insistence that you cannot prove that God doesn’t exist.

How does that make me impartial??

Why not? Do facts depend on recognition?

When it comes to facts derived from human concepts, who knows?

Ignorance does not entail non-existence.

True. But that doesn’t answer my question. I’ll ask again: How would anybody know?

If eating meat were evil most forms of life would be evil!

Again, that doesn’t answer my question. Try harder.

Because all life depends on life. Minerals are hardly an adequate diet!

No, but there’s another option. It’s not just “Meat or stones.” So yet another question you haven’t answered.

You are begging the question!

No - just asking one. And you can’t answer it.

Why irrelevant when it is the topic for discussion?

As I said, It’s not relevant to the questions I asked you.

Do you regard your existence as valueless?

That’s irrelevant, and in fact the way you have selectively quoted my comment is typically disingenuous. The point, as you know, was that all these fact claims you make about God’s nature are not fact claims at all, they’re just your opinions. Hence, my comment: “You don’t know that what you are claiming as fact is actually fact.”

You are illustrating the fact that your argument is as weak as mine! That is why I used it!

I’m glad that you admit your argument is so weak. However, you consistently ignore one important thing. Matter can be proven to exist. If nothing else, that makes my position infinitely stronger than yours, as yours is predicated on the existence of a magic indetectable superman that can’t be distinguished from “nothing.”

Do you use dust to show that dust exists?

More valueless solipsism?

A vast multitude of atomic particles is somewhat less economical than one Being.

Yes - you clearly think that economy is purely a product of quantity. You really need to try and actually understand Occam’s Razor. Currently, every time you call upon it you do yourself a disservice.

Then the onus is on you to explain how the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are based on a mechanistic system.

We both know this isn’t true. Identifying that you’ve made an arbitrary assumption doesn’t magically put the onus on me to prove an alternative explanation. You’ve made the claim, it’s your responsibility to substantiate it. So add “Burden of Proof” to the list of concepts you don’t understand.

You seem to believe you have:

No - I just pointed out that if he does exist, the fact of reality does not correlate with him being both om(name removed by moderator)otent and good. Assuming he must be omnipotent if he’s God, then he’s not good, unless he has a very complex rationale for allowing bad things to happen to good people, and vice versa. It is just such a rationale that theists fabricate, without any actual knowledge whatsoever, to explain away the dichotomy.
What I have shown, is that in the absence of an (unobtainable) explanation, saying that God is good is no different from saying that a serial killer is also good.

No. Eminent sceptics - like David Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion - agree that natural evil is inevitable in an orderly world.

Sorry - I just can’t see how 250-year old philosophy carries any weight in describing the physical world.

Heaven is the result of unnselfish love.

You’re still not telling me what the connection is.

You won’t be negative!

Could you give me an answer that actually adds value, and maybe explains something?

Is that how you spend most of your time?

No, nor is it how any animal spends most of its time. Or plant, for that matter. You’re confusing the aim of life with the process of existence. You seem to get confused quite often, I think.

Then why are you concerned with establishing the truth of materialism? That must be a lower purpose - not least because it dispenses with purpose altogether.

Higher purpose - as in “God’s” purpose for life - has not been shown to exist. Personal, individual purpose, can be shown to exist. There is no reason to suppose that the latter is dependent on the former. Although I’m sure you’ll be tempted to ask me to prove where the latter does come from, I think you’re intelligent enough to know that the absence of a proven answer to that question does not automagically prove the existence of a higher purpose.

We wouldn’t be here to know!

So we only exist because the universe is beautiful, and because it’s beautiful, it must be designed? What amazing logic!

I am continuing to see that you cannot refute my arguments…

No - the God hypothesis cannot be refuted, because it’s been placed beyond the realm of investigation. Of course, for that very reason, neither can it be confirmed.
The ID argument however, is easily refuted - and has been, comprehensively and repeatedly.

The Golden Ratio is based on objective mathematical relations.

Well, I could invent the “Wanstronian Ratio,” and say that length must be exactly 4.5 times width. That’s equally based on “objective mathematical relations,” but that doesn’t make it an objective phenomenon.

 

[wanstronian]

Do you want your life to be cut short abruptly?

Not really. What’s that got to do with anything?

Because no one has ever produced a blueprint of a world without those drawbacks.

Okay, so by that rationale, powered flight is impossible, because at one point nobody had ever done it. But you’re still missing the point - God is reputed to be able to do ANYTHING. But now, he can’t design a world that he can’t control absolutely? So is God omnipotent, or impotent?

It is not my personal opinion but a fact verified by the existence of all human institutions.

That doesn’t change the fact that you’ve failed to answer the question I asked. Let me remind you: I asked how you know what God’s rationales are.

Do you think we are incapable of love?

Again you duck and dive. Have you ever been honest in an online debate? You never have been with me! Let me clarify the question for you: “How do you know that God gave us free will so that we could be capable of love?” How do you know that this was his motive?
I’m really not sure whether you’re deliberately avoiding all these questions, or whether you are genuinely unable to understand them.

If so your rejection of love accounts for your faith in matter - and vice-versa!

Valueless comment. I’ve never rejected the existence of love. I just want to know how you know it’s God’s rationale for giving us free will. And, for that matter, how you know that God gave us free will in the first place. These are questions that you still haven’t answered.

In the same way that you implicitly attribute an awful lot to the blind Goddess.

I don’t know what you’re talking about here. I don’t believe in any supernatural phenomena, including goddesses. Presumably this is your quirky way of phrasing your argument from ignorance, while at the same time trying to imply that I’m as irrational as you?

Because you’re the one who usually decides what your dog will do!

Are you serious? I don’t decide that he’s going to go and walk around the garden! The door is open all day, he comes and goes as he chooses.

BTW Your free will doesn’t allow. You use it to make your decisions - but not always…

Okay - it’s not relevant to the point though. You claim I have free will and my dog doesn’t, but you can’t explain the difference between what prompts him to walk around the garden, and what prompts me to do so.

The dogmatism of many of your statements is at odds with your claim that you don’t know whether God exists or not…

Please - go and read up on agnosticism. You clearly don’t understand it. Anybody who says they “know” that God doesn’t exist, is as stupid as somebody who says they “know” that he does.

Moreover “no God” rules out “lack of opinion.”

Exactly. I can be an agnostic and still hold an opinion.

A false deduction which you need to justify.

I don’t need to justify it, it’s common sense.
I can’t believe you’ve “specialised in the subject for many years” - there are so many concepts and principles that you demonstrably don’t understand!

You are the one who doggedly uses the term “know” when I explicitly state that “I believe”.

The point is, in your original post, you didn’t use the word believe. You made assertions stated as fact. I know that your assertions of God’s nature are things you believe rather than know - my point was to highlight the dogmatic way in which you present your beliefs.

Aha! You have now changed your tune to “belief”!

I haven’t changed anything at all! What on earth are you talking about? I know you believe what you say. But you have no evidence that what you believe is true. Yet that doesn’t stop you dogmatically stating it as such.

I’m genuinely at a loss to understand why you think I have “changed my tune!” I think you’ve confused yourself again.

You overlook the generally accepted distinction between natural and moral evil.

Which is entirely irrelevant in ascertaining whether an omnipotent God is also good.
However, this little sidetrack is irrelevant to the questions I asked, so I’ll leave it there.

A simplistic view of reality does not take into account the immense complexity of the interplay of natural laws.

Okay. It seems that your opinion is not that God is not good, but that he is not omnipotent. Is that true? Is he unable to control the natural laws he presumably created?

The weakness of that comparison speaks for itself.

You mean you have no rebuttal. I’m not surprised.

If you attempt to answer rather than evade you will soon discover the truth.

Boy, you’re really struggling here, aren’t you! You can’t answer my questions, so you’re resorting to meaningless rhetoric instead.

What about the incredible dogma of materialists who conjure up everything about of purposeless particles? It’s about time they explained how rational planning is obtained from a blind sequence of events…

Yes, yes - I’m well aware that the Argument from Ignorance is the best weapon in your arsenal. You’ve shown that time and time again. It’s just a shame you don’t realise what a poor argument it actually is.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you want your life to be cut short abruptly?

That is the only way to put an end to all conflict, interference, failure and frustration.

Because no one has ever produced a blueprint of a world without those drawbacks.

Okay, so by that rationale, powered flight is impossible, because at one point nobody had ever done it.

Another weak analogy! As if designing a world is comparable with designing an aeroplane…

But you’re still missing the point - God is reputed to be able to do ANYTHING. But now, he can’t design a world that he can’t control absolutely? So is God omnipotent, or impotent?

Omnipotence is not a carte blanche for absurdity or inconsistency. Can you suggest how the world can remain orderly if the laws of nature are constantly suspended?

It is not my personal opinion but a fact verified by the existence of all human institutions.

I asked how you know what God’s rationales are.

By using my intelligence…

Do you think we are incapable of love?

Again you duck and dive.

You obviously don’t know what love presupposes - or you don’t want to admit it!

“How do you know that God gave us free will so that we could be capable of love?” How do you know that this was his motive?

I believe it is because love happens to be more important than everything else. Can you suggest a greater priority?

I’ve never rejected the existence of love. I just want to know how you know it’s God’s rationale for giving us free will.

Let me repeat: I believe it is because love happens to be more important than everything else. Can you suggest a greater priority?

And, for that matter, how you know that God gave us free will in the first place?

I believe God gave us free will because it didn’t pop up out of the blue by chance!
What is your explanation?

I don’t believe in any supernatural phenomena, including goddesses.

You believe in the magical power of Chance - or blind physical Necessity - to produce everything - including yourself…

Presumably this is your quirky way of phrasing your argument from ignorance, while at the same time trying to imply that I’m as irrational as you?

It 's ironic that you believe your vaunted rationality is derived from irrational processes. Do you really believe that is an adequate explanation?

You claim I have free will and my dog doesn’t, but you can’t explain the difference between what prompts him to walk around the garden, and what prompts me to do so.

You mean you can’t explain because in your scheme of things human beings and dogs are fundamentally the same. You can choose to fulfil an obligation or act in accordance with a general principle whereas a dog cannot.

Anybody who says they “know” that God doesn’t exist, is as stupid as somebody who says they “know” that he does.

They aren’t so rare as you think.

I can be an agnostic and still hold an opinion.

“no God” is a categorical denial which implies certainty.

The point is, in your original post, you didn’t use the word believe. You made assertions stated as fact.

You are forgetting that my original post is a reply to a Catholic who is searching for an explanation of why God allows moral evil to happen but isn’t responsible for sin. I stated **what Catholics believe **and drew a logical conclusion:

1. Love is more important than anything else.
2. God gives us free will because without free will we are incapable of love.
3. Evil exists because we abuse the gift of free will.
4. God is justified in permitting evil because it would be a greater evil not to create anyone capable of love.

You overlook the generally accepted distinction between natural and moral evil.

Which is entirely irrelevant in ascertaining whether an omnipotent God is also good.

Irrelevant! You mean you find it inconvenient. Is a father responsible for his offspring’s crimes?

It seems that your opinion is not that God is not good, but that he is not omnipotent.

I have already pointed out that laws cease to be laws if they are constantly suspended.

You mean you have no rebuttal.

The comparison of a web page and a world are worth a laugh rather than a rebuttal!

You can’t answer my questions, so you’re resorting to meaningless rhetoric instead.

On the contrary. You are the one who is struggling and failed to answer my question.
Here it is again:

Can you present a detailed blueprint of a feasible system which meets your expectations?

What about the incredible dogma of materialists who conjure up everything about of purposeless particles? It’s about time they explained how rational planning is obtained from a blind sequence of events…

Yes, yes - I’m well aware that the Argument from Ignorance is the best weapon in your arsenal. You’ve shown that time and time again. It’s just a shame you don’t realise what a poor argument it actually is.

This is your standard reply when you are incapable of explaining something. You regard it as a virtue on your part and a vice on the part of your opponent. There doesn’t seem much you can explain!