How do I turn the table on atheists?

[MindOverMatter2]

1. In a Godless universe there is no basis for rationality because rationality is regarded as a product of non-rational forces.
2. Without order it is impossible to predict and arrive at the truth.
3. Truth presupposes that rationality is valuable; otherwise it would be ignored and truth would be an illusion!

Thats an okay argument. I will wait for your opponent to respond before deciding whether or not you deserve to be initiated in to our secret society of “super-intellects”(Echelon).

 

[vera_dicere]

Maybe I’m alone, but this atheist would rather debate.

This Catholic would like to debate too!

And while I think for one to convert, it will be faith that get’s whoever through that door, what opens that door might be a curiosity that is nudged by questions and answers raised in debate.

 

[tonyrey]

Thats an okay argument. I will wait for your opponent to respond before deciding whether or not you deserve to be initiated in to our secret society of “super-intellects”(Echelon).

I live with hope… +

 

[atheistgirl]

]

Abiogenesis is a very exciting field and awash with some really exciting theories. I believe in the next 20 to 100 years or so, scientists will indeed be able to fully explain, and even replicate, organic cellular life emerging from inorganic material.

 

[atheistgirl]

God does not cause suffering, people do; and suffering was never a part of God’s original plan for creation. The reason for suffering, as spelled out in the first three chapters of Genesis, is sin, which is not a very popular word these days. And everyone on earth has the potential of being physically or emotionally wounded by the effects of sin.

Thanks for your reply shoe (I love your sn ) but your answer is frought with problems for me. Firstly, sin, as I understand it, entered the world through the misbehavior of Adam and Eve. THEY were the ones that disobeyed God, not the child born with lukemia, the father shot dead by a gang, the teenager raped on her way to her saturday job! Why is the whole of mankind punished for the wrong of two people.

If I told you my eldest stole a box of cookies, but Im going to punish your youngest too, and then Im going to punish all your grandkids, what would you think

The next problem I have, as I understand it, is God saw all this, and decided there was none good, and decided to send the flood but save Noah and his family, as they were the only good ones - so why wasnt the slate wiped clean then if it all started over?

The next problem I have, is fine, God does not cause human suffering, humans do, so, lets leave out those killed by acts of nature (that God could save if He chose but doesnt ever seem to - witness all those killed in earthquakes and tsunamis) however, God does answer prayers, right?

Now, consider all the christian women raped over last 10 years. Tens of thousands. And every one of those women would have cried out to God for help. But the rapist still raped. Now, to me, that means either God chose not to answer those womens cries for help, and you have to wonder why God could allow such a vile evil act to be perpetrated on someone, or He chose not to interfer on the basis man has free will, in which case why say He answers prayers when He clearly wont interfer in mans free will. But that leaves an awful lot of innocent vulnerable people to the mercy of the wolves - and God is supposed to be a loving caring mercyful God.

Can you see the problems I have with this?

Sarah x

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Hi, Mystic Banana,

I having trouble understanding the technical terminology. Please clarify the following …

‘Ropey’ … as in …

Other _________________________bit dodgy

‘Trueseer’ … as in …
A actual ‘seer’ … or

I confess, some of the posts reminded me of Freshman year Philosophy … and that I got a student tattoo (right above ‘Mother’) that read: “I cram, therefore I am!”

God bless

What do you mean by Freshman?

a) A newborn baby
b) A male of the age of 18
c) A male who has just had a wash
d) Other________________

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Can you see the problems I have with this?

Sarah x

I have just started reading a book called “Evil And The God of love”. According to John hick, there are two Christian theodicies. One is Augustinian, and is the more popular. This is the one which relies purely upon the fall of Adam and eve as an explanation for why there is potential suffering in the world. But there is also another theodicy which is an Irenaean approach to evil. This is a “soul making” theodicy. In general it seems to suggest that potential suffering and evil is a necessary part of creating saints that can freely participate in Gods nature, without which there could be no such thing as a person as we understand it.

It seems like it could be a good book in that it takes a different approach to evil and actually disagrees with the Augustinian approach to evil.

 

[atheistgirl]

It seems like it could be a good book in that it takes a different approach to evil and actually disagrees with the Augustinian approach to evil.

I will add it to my amazon list But based on what youve said, I think I would still have problems with both of those views. Both actually seem immoral to me. To punish others for the sin of someone else, or to deliberately allow innocents to suffer to prove a point. Imagine a parent up on a charge of child cruelty. The court hears the details of the most horrific suffering imaginable that could be inflicted on a pure and innocent child, and then the parent takes the stand and says, I was just testing their metal to see if they were worthy of my love What do you think would happen Yet that seems to be the defence offered here

I’ll order the book and read it. Thats the fairest I can say.

Sarah x

 

[Mystic_Banana]

If objective truth is intrinsically an expression of reality, it cannot be an expression of nothing. If it cannot be an expression of nothing, then absolutely nothing cannot be true or real. This is the basis upon which the argument is stated.

Firstly, ontologically speaking, Nothingness does not exist as an object. It has no ontology or reality. It is a negation of an object; but it cannot be an object itself. Nothing means the absence of a possible contingent truth; it does not mean the existence of nothing. Any definition that goes beyond the negation of contingent possibilities, is meaningless.

Secondly, Objective truth by definition is true regardless of whether or not an observer is present to acknowledge that truth. Truth in its most fundamental sense is the fact of something having a reality or being real. It is existential truth. Truth is the reality of something (being) or is true because of the reality of something being ( * abstract truths, for example, such as 2+2 = 4, are true because reality or being is as such that this equation is true; it is not true by itself, or because of its self, or because of nothing*). There is no objective truth in absolutely nothing, for absolute nothingness is the absence of all objective truth; truth being the reality of something. To say that it is true that nothingness exists is to give it objectivity and thus reality. When you do that you are removing the intrinsic distinction between something and nothing. It is a contradiction to say that absolutely nothing (the absence of reality) is real. Absolutely nothing is the absence of all reality and thus all truth. In other words nothing doesn’t “exist”. Therefore absolutely nothing cannot exist. Therefore it is a contradiction to say that nothingness is true or could be true, just as much as it is a contradiction to say that a square is a triangle.

If a square triangle cannot exist as a truth, then neither can absolute nothingness exist as a truth. Truth and reality are two sides of the same coin, and in comparison to nothing in general they are the same thing. People have difficulty in this area because they take words such as reality, truth, and nothing for granted. When you have the nasty habit of objectifying nothing, its hard to see why it could not be true that absolutely nothing exists. But once you strictly adhere to the meaning and distinctions intrinsic to those terms and there ontological consequences, it becomes clear that unreality can never take place. There is always a necessary reality upon which contingent facts are based.

This is not semantics. I have merely demonstrated that once you exclude nothingness from the act of reality, it then follows necessarily that truth is either intrinsic to the act of reality or dependent upon it (as is in the case of contingent facts such as the existence of people or dinosaurs.)

If absolutely nothing existed, then it would be true that there were nothing in existence. This would be an objective truth, without observation, but since something obviously exists, this is not actually the case. However, it is conceivably a truth, and if it were then it would be so without (or rather, neccarily being the definition of being the absence of) being a state of being. Technically speaking, it is possible for nothing to exist.

Also, it is possible that nothing exist on a limited basis. There may be areas with literally nothing in them. In such locations, there would be absolutely nothing. In which case, even trhough there are somethings existing, there are also nothings, or locations where nothing is :hypno:

 

[JDaniel]

What do you mean by Freshman?

a) A newborn baby
b) A male of the age of 18
c) A male who has just had a wash
d) Other________________

Mystic:

Dry, I think.

jd

 

[atheistgirl]

If absolutely nothing existed, then it would be true that there were nothing in existence. This would be an objective truth, without observation, but since something obviously exists, this is not actually the case. However, it is conceivably a truth, and if it were then it would be so without (or rather, neccarily being the definition of being the absence of) being a state of being. Technically speaking, it is possible for nothing to exist. In other words, it is possible that nothing exist

Also, it is possible that nothing exist on a limited basis. There may be areas with literally nothing in them. In such locations, there would be absolutely nothing. In which case, even trhough there are somethings, there are also nothings :hypno:

I need to lie down

 

[MindOverMatter2]

However, it is conceivably a truth

There is no objective truth in nothing. So no, its not conceivably true.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

To punish others for the sin of someone else,

Who said that we are being punished for Adams sin? We may be suffering because of his sin, but we are not being blamed for his sin.

or to deliberately allow innocents to suffer to prove a point.

Who said that God is trying to prove a point?

Imagine a parent up on a charge of child cruelty. The court hears the details of the most horrific suffering imaginable that could be inflicted on a pure and innocent child, and then the parent takes the stand and says, I was just testing their metal to see if they were worthy of my love What do you think would happen Yet that seems to be the defence offered here

Well i am certainly not defending that. I am saying that potential suffering might be necessary in order for us to exist and freely move on to sainthood. If it is necessary, the question then follows,** does the good of our existence outweigh the potential evil that could occur**. And i suppose your answer to that will depend on how much you value the existence of humanity and whether or not you see their existence as ultimately a good thing despite the evil in the world.

I’ll order the book and read it. Thats the fairest I can say.

Sarah x

If you say so.

 

[atheistgirl]

Who said that we are being punished for Adams sin? We may be suffering because of his sin, but we are not being blamed for his sin.

If we are suffering, because of the sin of someone else, then that mounts to the same thing in my book. Would it be moral or good for me to cause suffering to someone for something that someone else did. Of course it wouldnt! How is this different. We are being punished, or suffering if you prefer, for something someone else did.

I am saying that potential suffering might be necessary in order for us to exist and freely move on to sainthood. If it is necessary, the question then follows

My question would be why is it necessary to suffer at all. Why does a loving, caring God, who we are told in the Bible answers prayers (this point is empahsised numerous times) appear not to answer the prayers of the innocent suffering. I am thinking specifically here about the horrific abuse of innocent little children, and women being raped. There are of course any number of sufferings that inflict all people, men, women and children - but the abuse and rape are two where the victims certainly cry out for it to stop. And certainly cry out to God to make it stop. If the arguement is that that particular suffering might be necessary for these people to move on to some kind of sainthood - well, Im sorry, but that’s just not comprehensible to me!

 

[atheistgirl]

If you say so.

I thought you were recommending the book to me. Never mind.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I thought you were recommending the book to me.

I am.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If we are suffering, because of the sin of someone else, then that mounts to the same thing in my book. Would it be moral or good for me to cause suffering to someone for something that someone else did. Of course it wouldnt! How is this different. We are being punished, or suffering if you prefer, for something someone else did.

You are speaking of a situation where suffering is not necessary and is caused for no reason. You do not know that suffering is not necessary and has no good reason. You are assuming there is no good reason for allowing humans to suffer. But have you never been in a situation or experienced a situation where it would be doing more harm than good by helping the situation? Tough love can certainly appear unloving sometimes; but maybe in some-cases God cannot act, because to do so would undermine a greater good. One should always act for the greater good. We are not in a position of knowledge to say that God isn’t acting for the greater good.

My question would be why is it necessary to suffer at all.

Read the book.

 

[atheistgirl]

Tough love can certainly appear unloving sometimes; but maybe in some-cases God cannot act, because to do so would undermine a greater good. One should always act for the greater good. We are not in a position of knowledge to say that God isn’t acting for the greater good.

What possible greater good is there in not preventing the rape of a woman, or the physical, emotional and sexual abuse of a little child

Imagine a big powerful man, on the scene of such a crime or abuse, who could easily stop it - but choses not to When questioned why, he says, well, who knows what greater good might come from that woman being raped, or that child being abused

This thread is about turning the table on atheists - answers that make sense would be a good starting point I think.

Read the book.

If you say so



Sarah x

 

[Perplexity]

What possible greater good is there in not preventing the rape of a woman, or the physical, emotional and sexual abuse of a little child

I think atheistgirl’s reaction is exactly right.

Inscrutable evil/suffering = an instance of evil/suffering for which we know of no moral justification for.

Unjustified evil/suffering = an instance of evil/suffering for which no moral justification exists.

The noseeum inference is the inference that some event E is an unjustified evil, from its being an instance of inscrutable evil.

She’s making the noseeum inference, and I think we should follow her in doing so.

The most popular reply is some brand of skeptical theism: Since we don’t have epistemic access to God’s moral justifications, we can’t say he doesn’t have any. For that reason, we’re not able to infer that any instance of evil is unjustified; it’s just as likely as not that God has a moral justification for it.

The problems with skeptical theism are legion. But, here’s one brilliant reply:

The observation of any event lowers the probability of skeptical theism, so long as its prior probability is less than 1 (a reasonable assumption, 1 being the highest degree of confidence, 0 being the least).

Take for instance…the death of Christopher Columbus. Our background knowledge makes it quite probable that Christopher Columbus died because of things like our knowledge of human physiology, the fact that Columbus lived centuries ago etc. So, on atheism it’s quite probable that Christopher Columbus died (since atheism doesn’t tweak with our background knowledge), I’d say 1.0.

But, on skeptical theism, you must introduce an omni-guy into the picture. The question arises, “Does God have morally good reason to prevent Columbus from dying, or is he morally obliged to preserve his life?” The skeptical theist is in an awkward position now. Who knows? He must say. God’s moral justifications are inscrutable to us. Therefore, it’s just as likely as not that God had morally good reasons for miraculously sustaining Columbus’ life, than that God didn’t. So, we can’t say whether Columbus died, given skeptical theism. That is, where Columbus’ death = C, Skeptical Theism = S, and Atheism = ~S:

P(C|S&K)=0.5, whereas P(C|~S&K)=1.0. It follows by the relevance criterion that P(~S|C&K) > P(~S|K). So, C is evidence for ~S against S. (And so forth for any observation)

Now, after you get P(S|E&K) you take that posterior and make it S’s prior in the next evaluation. So, suppose the following probabilities:

P(S)=0.99

P(~S)=0.01

P(W|S&K)=0.5

P(W|~S&K)=1.0

Plug these into Bayes’ theorem:

0.99 * 0.5 / [0.99 * 0.5] + [0.01 * 1.0] = 0.98

You take this posterior (0.98) and make it S’s prior in the next evaluation. As you can see, S’s posterior will eventually drop to near 0 (it just went from 0.99 to 0.98), considering the incredible amount of events we could and should evaluate. (Maintaining the same numbers above but adjusting the priors accordingly will give S a posterior of 0.96, this decrease will speed up).

The skeptical theist may reply that the relevant probability isn’t “0.5” but is inscrutable, hence no number can be assigned! (somewhere between 1-0.) But, the skeptical theist must generalize this idea to all observations, therefore the probability of anything at all given skeptical theism is inscrutable. So, there isn’t any evidence for anything. Super.

 

[karebear92]

What possible greater good is there in not preventing the rape of a woman, or the physical, emotional and sexual abuse of a little child

Imagine a big powerful man, on the scene of such a crime or abuse, who could easily stop it - but choses not to When questioned why, he says, well, who knows what greater good might come from that woman being raped, or that child being abused

This thread is about turning the table on atheists - answers that make sense would be a good starting point I think.

Sarah x

Sorry to jump into this discussion so late. I will admit that I have not read the entire thread and probably won’t have time to until tomorrow, so if I repeat something that has already been said, then I apologize.

God gives every human being a free will. God does not cause women to be raped but men have the free will to rape them, but it is sinful to do so. The same is true in the case of child molestation. If God were to prevent all suffering from the innocent, He would be limiting the free will of the guilty. He does not want innocent people to suffer, but it is not a consequence of His inaction but of the action of others. In almost every sin there is an innocent victim, so if God prevented cheating because it hurts the spouse, murder because it hurts the victim, contraception because it hurts the potential child, lying because it hurts the victim, rape because it hurts the victim, abuse because it hurts the victim etc., then there is absolutely no free will.

So to use your analogy, should a man take a child away because they have bad parents, sterilize women who will make bad mothers, run over and take a man’s cigarettes because they may cause him harm, outlaw alcohol because someone may drink and drive and kill and innocent passenger?
*
1984* by George Orwell would become a reality. The same is true with God. By preventing harm to others, and therefore limiting sin, He would be eliminating free will. So rather than loving us as humans, He would essentially be loving drones incapable of doing anything that isn’t His will.