Help with a God debate

[Gospel_of_Chaos]

Gospel

**I guess I’m not seeing it the way you are. I mean, we are witnessing changes in the society we live in. The things that people believe in today are not the same things that people believed in 15, 30, or 50 years ago. **

What does 15, 39, or 50 years have to do with anything?

If thirty years from now people start to believe in slavery, does that make slavery moral?

I was talking to this man to see what he thought about Saint Thomas’s 5 ways. When I was discussing that God is the standard for morals (good, evil, measurement), he responded that he didn’t believe in the theory because morals are constantly changing within society.

We can see that within our own country, and I’m pretty sure that the cannibals in Africa don’t know that what they are doing is a very bad sin, lol.

 

[snarflemike]

I’m sorry, but you don’t correctly see his view point. The reason he doesn’t believe in God is because he can’t even imagine (and nobody should be able to) a God with unlimited power that just sits idle while so much evil is in the world.

That’s a totally unwarranted supposition. Who is to say it wasn’t God who put the medical vocation into the heart of the child who went on to become a surgeon and saved the person with heart disease? Etc, etc, etc.

And I have yet to hear a logical answer that responds to why God can’t just make it all better like we know he has the power to do.

What would such a world look like? Nobody ever answers that question. No suffering, not even a stubbed toe? Eat nothing but cotton candy and stay healthy? Death is terrible, so no death? (hmmm, what about those aborted babies?) We can’t ever harm somebody else, physically or mentally or emotionally, nor can we help anybody else (because that would imply that they lacked something). So we just live forever on this earth, unable to either harm others or make others happy. Is this the atheist-created-God paradise that we are supposed to yearn for?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Gospel
**
We can see that within our own country, and I’m pretty sure that the cannibals in Africa don’t know that what they are doing is a very bad sin, lol.**

Yes, I suppose even an abortionist can persuade himself that he is doing God’s work.

Do cannibals in Africa kill their own unborn children?

---

 

[balto]

I’m sorry, but you don’t correctly see his view point. The reason he doesn’t believe in God is because he can’t even imagine (and nobody should be able to) a God with unlimited power that just sits idle while so much evil is in the world. And I have yet to hear a logical answer that responds to why God can’t just make it all better like we know he has the power to do.

I understand his argument as it is a very common critique of Christianity, however my response still holds. He can’t claim that God is evil and then say that morality is subjective and remain logically consistent. I understand why this problem would trouble you though since you believe God is objectively good and wonder why evil is allowed to occur. Like the other posters said, if God erased all evil, He would have also erased all good, because in order for good to exist it has to be better than something else. Likewise, no suffering and pain means no happiness and joy. Ultimately there’s no eternal love since we would have no power to receive it if we can’t reject it.

I guess I’ll just have to ask him “Why didn’t you stop Hitler?” when I make it into his kingdom.

And He’ll tell you “I did stop Hitler. Were you asleep in history class?” If your atheist friend is right that God does not exist, explain why Hitler would have been stopped at all. Why would it even matter? Sure people could say he was evil but that’s just their opinion, and what difference does it make if all those people die horrific deaths? We’re all going to end up dead and have our atoms scattered across the cosmos someday anyway so who cares if we die now or later? It’s not like any of this will matter when we’re dead anyway, so let’s just eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. Best to just stay out of Hitler’s way unless he’s threatening us personally. Without God’s existence we wouldn’t even be able to condemn Hitler let alone garner the strength to stand up to him. Does this help at all?

 

[ccmnxc]

And I have yet to hear a logical answer that responds to why God can’t just make it all better like we know he has the power to do.

I hope you don’t mind that I just copy and paste something I have written before:
(3) Addressing the Problem of Evil and Suffering:
By far the most common argument against the existence of the Christian God would be the Problem of Evil and Suffering. It basically attack the idea the God is all-loving. Now, there are generally three prongs of this argument that must be hurdled:

1. The logical problem of evil and suffering
2. The evidential problem of evil and suffering
3. The emotional problem of evil and suffering
   In my opinion, 1 is the easiest to conquer while 3 is the most difficult. The logical problem of evil is generally formulated as follows:
4. Evil and suffering is logically incompatible with the Christian God, meaning if suffering and evil (S&E) existed, then God would not be
   a. all-powerful
   b. all-knowing
   c. all loving
   or d. a mixture of some or all of them.
5. Suffering and evil exist.
6. Therefore, an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving deity does not exist.

There are a couple major flaws with this problem. First of all, unless one is omniscient, one cannot know what the outcome of a certain event might be, meaning, there might be proper reason for an instance of suffering that we cannot foresee. It is simply too difficult to know if suffering right now might bring about a greater benefit later. There is a (small) personal one for me. I was in Washington D.C. on a school trip. It was our last day, and we were visiting the Air and Space Museum. After awhile, we left to go to our last museum of the day. About half-way there, I realize that my wallet is missing, which worries me horribly. After a little while, a teacher and I head back to the Air and Space Museum to find my wallet. Luckily, we were able to get it back at the security desk. As we were leaving the building, my eyes come across a Lamborghini across the street. This was a time in my life when I was a huge fan of luxury sports cars. Amazingly enough, the gentleman was standing outside talking, and allowing people to sit in his car and take photos. I was ecstatic. I had my photo taken (which now resides on the wall in my bedroom) and then went back to meet up with the group. This was simply one example. This invalidates premise (1). There are a couple other objections, but they can be found in response to the evidential problem of evil:

1. The more evil and suffering there is in the world, the smaller the chance of there being a God (as described in the logical problem of evil).
2. There is A LOT of evil and suffering in the world.
3. Therefore, it is very unlikely that the Christian God exists.

Now, there are several ways one can go about attacking this. First off, one of God’s main desires is to bring us closer to Him and make us dependent on Him. Suffering is one of the things that makes it easier. I know for me, personally, that it is far easier to pray to God and be dependent on Him if things are going wrong or there is something I need. Also, it seems that the poor and lowly, those we tend to associate the most with suffering, tend to be the most generous and pious, which speaks to how suffering can actually strengthen one’s spirit. Also, suffering can be a means of testing somebody. Not, in my opinion, a very strong point, but it doesn’t hurt. Also, with regards to evil, we have free-will to make good or bad choices. Furthermore, a corollary point to that is that if one believes in actual evil, the give credence to the axiological (moral) argument. It goes something like this:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
   If someone is using evil, not as their opinion, but as an absolute, it sets an objective standard for morality, which supports premise two. As far as premise one, I have never seen a non-arbitrary reason that morality is objective with God that doesn’t also presupposed intrinsic value without God. However, this is a corollary, not a major point.

Finally, there is the emotional problem of evil. It is difficult for two reasons. One, people seem to have much more difficulty dropping things with emotional connections. Second, if an apologist is faced with a “Why did God let X happen” question, they probably don’t have enough info to provide a pleasing answer. The best that can be done in these situations is to pray for the person, remind them of your and God’s love, and assist them in their time of trouble.

 

[hansard]

…Of course, for the atheist, if they were God they would say “yes” to everyone and everything. I wonder how long it would take them to realize that “yes” isn’t always the best answer?

…I’ve yet to hear an atheist position that has any meat to it; it’s all emotion.

Why is “no” the best answer? Why is “no” the best answer to saving a child, healing a sick person, averting an earthquake or whatever human disaster you care to name? We cower behind the “God is testing us” defence, which renders us impotent, when we should simply admit that stuff happens, a lot of it is bad, and no god is controlling it.

Regarding emotion: I’ve never heard a religious person argue from any perspective other than blind faith, combined with a reliance on ancient texts which prove nothing.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

The logical fallacy is present from the get go on this argument; an attempt to personify something (God the Father) that is inherently non-human. Once this fallacy is allowed to slip through, it is easy to question why our now humanized God the Father isn’t behaving like a 21st century social activist and making the world perfect. I know how easy it is to slip into this mode of thinking, I was once there myself.

Of course God the Father isn’t something we can understand. Scripture tells us this straight out.

John 14

• 6 Jesus said to him,** “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.** 7** If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him.”**

8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves.*

Matthew 11

25 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; 26 yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will.[g] 27 All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

In short, we know God through Christ. And likewise, any attempts to question the motivations behind God’s actions or inactions must be viewed through the example of the Son.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The logical fallacy is present from the get go on this argument; an attempt to personify something (God the Father) that is inherently non-human.

Yes, I’ve heard that referred to as a flaw before. There are also Christian groups that perpetuate the view of God as some one that is human using as support verses such as “we are made in his image” (and so on). This was brought up earlier in this thread, but there are many god-concepts that people put forth and it may be necessary to identify the god-concept that is used in Catholicism to this individual for the sake of discussion and filtering out god-concepts that he may have picked up from other Christian groups.

Of course God the Father isn’t something we can understand.

Because of this I wonder if it is appropriate to use the word “father” at all since with many that will infer attributes that it sounds like you are saying are not applicable.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

Yes, I’ve heard that referred to as a flaw before. There are also Christian groups that perpetuate the view of God as some one that is human using as support verses such as “we are made in his image” (and so on). This was brought up earlier in this thread, but there are many god-concepts that people put forth and it may be necessary to identify the god-concept that is used in Catholicism to this individual for the sake of discussion and filtering out god-concepts that he may have picked up from other Christian groups.

Because of this I wonder if it is appropriate to use the word “father” at all since with many that will infer attributes that it sounds like you are saying are not applicable.

We must use words to even attempt the discussion, knowing full well their meaning is only partially communicating the ideas at issue. As humans, we are limited in this way.

I can’t speak for any other Christian groups and their idea of God. If I am not representing an authentic Catholic view point on this issue, I am sure those more knowledgeable than myself in interpreting the Scripture I presented will chime in.

Regardless, what I posted is my understanding, speaking as someone who has asked the identical question, and found the answer - learn about Christ to understand the nature of God.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

learn about Christ to understand the nature of God.



Indeed, since we were made in his image and likeness.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

We must use words to even attempt the discussion, knowing full well their meaning is only partially communicating the ideas at issue. As humans, we are limited in this way.

I agree. This in part causes me to question which attributes of the concept of “father” are being communicated when one refers to God as “our Father in heaven” and what attributes are intended to be communicated. If there’s a gap between the two then some other phrase may have the utility of transmitting less misunderstanding or carrying less “baggage.”

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

I agree. This in part causes me to question which attributes of the concept of “father” are being communicated when one refers to God as “our Father in heaven” and what attributes are intended to be communicated. If there’s a gap between the two then some other phrase may have the utility of transmitting less misunderstanding or carrying less “baggage.”

Jesus referred to one part of what Christians call the Trinity as “Father.” That is why we use this term. It is a familiar identification which brings us spiritually closer to this part of God. We feel that through Christ, we too can call God, Our Father.

Outside of our belief system, I can see how this becomes very confusing very fast. Heck, inside our belief system the terminology can bog you down. God is three in one, but people often use “God” to refer to “the Father” and Jesus, Christ, or Our Lord, to refer to “the Son” even though both could rightly just be called “God.” I won’t even go into the Holy Spirit.

Terminology aside, there seems to be a deeper discussion taking place and I will reiterate the fallacy takes place at the point at which we try to personify God the Father rather than using Christ as our example of the Divine made flesh for our sake.

 

[snarflemike]

Why is “no” the best answer? Why is “no” the best answer to saving a child, healing a sick person, averting an earthquake or whatever human disaster you care to name? We cower behind the “God is testing us” defence, which renders us impotent, when we should simply admit that stuff happens, a lot of it is bad, and no god is controlling it.

It is up to you to show that a God who permitted in this life no suffering of any kind (physical, mental, emotional), including of course no death, would be better for us. Have you ever given such a world serious thought? I have, and it is hell.

Regarding emotion: I’ve never heard a religious person argue from any perspective other than blind faith, combined with a reliance on ancient texts which prove nothing.

Obviously I can’t say you’re wrong, since I don’t know your experiences, but I doubt this. You’d have to define “blind” faith, for one thing, and prove how you know their faith was blind. Or you could just get started reading Aquinas. Are you seeking out answers, or just content to find fault?

 

[josh987654321]

Why is “no” the best answer? Why is “no” the best answer to saving a child, healing a sick person, averting an earthquake or whatever human disaster you care to name? We cower behind the “God is testing us” defence, which renders us impotent, when we should simply admit that stuff happens, a lot of it is bad, and no god is controlling it.

Regarding emotion: I’ve never heard a religious person argue from any perspective other than blind faith, combined with a reliance on ancient texts which prove nothing.

Please read this here - catholic.com/blog/jon-sorensen/the-evidence-is-on-our-side

This is an extract from the short book - From Sini To Calvary - found here - loveandmercy.org/Eng-FSC-Reg.pdf

If u’d like more, the books are listed on my profile page, free to read online in pdf. They all have the official Catholic IMPRIMATUR

IMPRIMATUR
is Latin for “Let It Be Printed” When a Roman Catholic Bishop grants his “Imprimatur” to a printed work, he assures the reader that nothing therein is contrary to Catholic Faith or Morals. This Imprimatur is not given lightly, but only after a thorough review process. All books offered on this site have been granted the Imprimatur.

1. Suddenly hundreds of Angels appeared around the whole scene. In a united, perfectly synchronized movement, they all prostrated themselves to adore Jesus, each one with hands together and in silence, while their brilliant faces reflected a profound sorrow. His tongue and lips were very dry and pasty. Once again His voice acquired a tired nuance, as if it were difficult to speak to me. And He said: “Contemplate this scene, My beloved, and learn that My own cannot march through life without a cross.

1. “Go and tell the world what you are learning and, if they want to silence you, shout even louder. Do this for the sake of the power of the love that unites you to Me, which is as united as these two pieces of wood that form an instrument of salvation for all of humanity.

1. “Tell the consecrated souls that the cross that they wear, is not only to adorn their chests or identify them superficially with Me. First they must gird themselves with the cross and learn to “make themselves comfortable” on it instead of running away from it. Tell them they cannot long for Tabor, if they have not first passed through Golgotha. It is here on the Cross where they will learn charity, humility, poverty of spirit and temperance in all acts of their lives.

1. **“Assure them that I give proof and testimony that, the devil can be easily defeated from the experience of the cross. Contemplate Me: I am a true Man, in whom the flesh manifests its limitations, and true God, in demonstrating the relentless force of Agape Love. **

1. **“Pray for those who do not know of sufferings, for it is certain that they are not among My own…Observe these two condemned ones who flank Me **(He is talking about the two other men who were crucified on the right and left of him) and meditate on the ways that men carry their crosses.

8)** “Some carry it with rage, with bitterness, amidst much grief. He who carries a cross in similar circumstances and with those sentiments, carries for sure a cross, which has no sense because instead of drawing him closer, it pushes him away from Me. Usually that is the cross of those who refuse to understand the meaning of suffering, which takes on supernatural dimensions. That is the cross of the thief at My left, it is the cross which will always be heavy and will never be able to redeem.**

1. “Dismas, on My right, accepts his cross with resignation and even with dignity; he assumes it at first because he has no other recourse. But suddenly, when he recognizes Me and knows that I Am the Son of God, he accepts that cross, acknowledging himself as a sinner, and asking that through it, Mercy remembers him.

10)** “Finally, you have Me here in front of you, embracing My redeeming Cross to teach all of you to carry yours. I invite you to be co-redeemers with Me, making reparation for your own sins and those of all mankind. Know that this way of carrying the cross is reflected in your conduct, when before you are difficulties and pains and through them you draw closer to Me and you profit from them to give testimony before men. When you embrace your cross, you can feel that the only thing you desire is strength, because the thirst for souls consumes you.”**

IMPRIMATUR
The reading of the book “From Sinai to Calvary” charts a beautiful itinerary for a brand new spiritual growth. I find nothing contrary to Sacred Scripture, or to the doctrine of the Church in its contents. I find only concepts and principles, which can help the interior enrichment of the faithful. For this reason I grant my Imprimatur, asking our Creator for His special blessings upon each reader.

San Vicente, El Salvador, February 9, 2004 [Sealed and signed]
Mons. José Oscar Barahona C.
Bishop of San Vicente
El Salvador, Central America

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[SoylentGreen]

The long quote of Einstein would be what the atheist referred to above by the thread started would call a fallacious appeal to authority. Because Einstein said it case closed, the atheist argument is debunked. The atheist would laugh at this. It’s surprising to hear such a fallacy being promoted as an attempt to help a theist respond to the valid criticism of an atheist.

The argument from evil cannot be defeated by such a fallacious appeal to authority, even if the authority happened to be a young Albert Einstein.

 

[polytropos]

The long quote of Einstein would be what the atheist referred to above by the thread started would call a fallacious appeal to authority. Because Einstein said it case closed, the atheist argument is debunked. The atheist would laugh at this. It’s surprising to hear such a fallacy being promoted as an attempt to help a theist respond to the valid criticism of an atheist.

The argument from evil cannot be defeated by such a fallacious appeal to authority, even if the authority happened to be a young Albert Einstein.

The post in question was not a fallacious appeal to authority. You could exclude the line with Einstein’s name and it would make the same point, that from common experience “things” like cold and darkness seem to exist, but physics demonstrates that they do not ontologically exist.

So it is not a fallacious appeal to authority. What are the actual flaws in such an argument? Well, in itself, it does not demonstrate that evil, likewise, just seems to exist but does not actually exist. As in the case of cold and darkness, that would have to be separately demonstrated for the argument to hold. (It claims that evil is an absence of God’s love in the hearts of men, which, while I would agree, would not convince a nonbeliever that evil does not “exist.”)

The story is also almost certainly apocryphal. The student certainly was not Albert Einstein, and it’s just about certain that the story didn’t happen to anyone. There are tons of “arrogant, closed-minded, dogmatic college professor” parables out there, and they all follow the same form despite being very implausible.

It would still be an argument even if it it were not written in parable form, but probably not a very good one. It basically challenges the proposition “evil exists” by saying “evil could, like cold and darkness, not actually exist ontologically.” So that is why it doesn’t fully refute the argument from evil.

 

[SoylentGreen]

The post in question was not a fallacious appeal to authority. You could exclude the line with Einstein’s name and it would make the same point, that from common experience “things” like cold and darkness seem to exist, but physics demonstrates that they do not ontologically exist.

Thanks for the clarification. Point well made.

 

[wanstronian]

I certainly wish that atheists could come up with something new instead of trotting out the same old argument time and time again.

It basically comes down to “If I was God, I would _______ and everything and everyone would be great.”

You’ve genuinely never heard all the other arguments? Where have you been? Or is that, ironically, you don’t want to hear the other arguments?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

wanstronian
**
You’ve genuinely never heard all the other arguments? Where have you been? Or is that, ironically, you don’t want to hear the other arguments? **

Give us what you think is the single best argument against the existence of God.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

wanstronian
Give us what you think is the single best argument against the existence of God.

1. God created the Universe.
2. The Universe is defined as ‘everything that exists’.
3. In order to create the Universe, God must exist as a separate entity to it.
4. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.