How do I turn the table on atheists?

[tqualey]

Hi, ThinkingSapien,

I offered genuine and thoughtful definitions and explanations of words with multiple sub-links for further information.

I watched the video you offered. The speaker goes to great lengths to explain his position - so it is really more a personal testimonial on why he is a non-theist. Taken as a whole it really offered very little in the way of an explanation - except theists had not done an adequate job in convincing him of their position. God is apparently in the same class as faries, leprechauns and ancient mythology.

Your assumption that others reading the words that I have provided a definition for will not read the definitions and therefor not come to the same conclusion is totally gratitutious here is an opportunity to offer either corrections or modifications to what I have done, or to offer you own, and you offer a cartoon video by some guy who claims that theists have failed him. Seriously, what kind of nonsense is this?

The argument you present is that we must have words defined. When legitimate definitions are offered you balk and claim that others may not understand them. If this were really the case, all argumentation would fail because of a lack of acceptable terms. Do you really want to discuss this matter or just play word games?

Seriously, if you ‘god concept’ is so difficult to define, how is it you want to discuss it with others? Either come up with your own source for legitimate terms, discuss what I have presented or just drop this word game.

God bless

I read through the first part of each page. Having read them I will assume that when ever you use these words you are referring to the meanings as described in those pages. But at the same time when I write I recognize that those reading my words may not apply those same definitions or the ones I have in mind. My stance could also be labeled differently based on the god concept that one is applying. The definitions at the links you provided seemed to be biased towards a specific god concept and much of how it describes “atheism” is more similar to what I understand to be “antitheism.”

A summary of my understanding of some of these words can be found here youtu.be/S-BQVmvulmQ?t=20s (video)

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Hi, I watched the video you offered. The speaker goes to great lengths to explain his position

He does, which is why I thought his efforts in defining terms could be employed to communicate how I understand these terms.

Your assumption that others reading the words that I have provided a definition for will not read the definitions and therefor not come to the same conclusion is totally gratitutious…

Actually my reoccurring experience is that there have been disagreements from being differing interpretations of words. It’s often resulted in some one disagreeing with their perception of what another person was trying to communicate, which can be different from what the person was trying to communicate. It’s also why I don’t have a religious label by my name in my profile.

here is an opportunity to offer either corrections or modifications to what I have done

I think most of our interaction has been centered on elaboration and clarification and trying to provide further clarification when I either recognize adjustments are needed or when clarification is request. I explicitly make known that that I would assume the meanings provided in the pages you referenced to be the meanings you intend when you use those words. I also stated my position, that “I don’t hold belief in any gods.”

or to offer you own, and you offer a cartoon video by some guy who claims that theists have failed him.

Sounds like you think differently of the video than I did. The definitions that the student provided in his slides are consistent with my usage of the words and I thought the context in which they were enveloped reduced the chance for ambiguity. I’ve shared the video with family members and close friends also.

Seriously, what kind of nonsense is this?

I didn’t find it nonsensical.
But okay.

The argument you present is that we must have words defined.

I was pointing out there were multiple interpretations for a sentence based on which definition of the word was being used. “Satisfying” was the first of such words encountered. Neither one of the definitions for satisfying that I mentioned could be ruled out from context. Rather than make a guess or attempting to go down the pathway of both definitions I pointed out the ambiguity.

When legitimate definitions are offered you balk and claim that others may not understand them.

I’ve not balked. I’ve made known that when you use those words I’ll refer to the sources that you’ve provided. I also provided some more information on my position and pointed out where I thought phrases were not fitting to my disposition. Most of our interaction has been from elaboration and clarification.

For example, I found the following two phrases from your messages to be opportunities for providing further comments or correcting what I thought were misunderstandings of my position or words.

“removing God would allow”
“maintain your current position as an atheist”
"You appear not to care about anything. "
“to know that there is One God Who sent His”

If this were really the case, all argumentation would fail because of a lack of acceptable terms.

I think you may believe I am trying to raise arguments where I am not

Do you really want to discuss this matter or just play word games?

I’m not playing word games. You’ll find that here in the philosophy sub-forum there’s a great deal of discussion on qualifying what one means.

Seriously, if you ‘god concept’ is so difficult to define, how is it you want to discuss it with others?

I’m talking about the beliefs of another when ever I’m talking about god concepts (remember I hold no beliefs of any gods), and I’ve found that the properties that they attribute to their god concepts can vary.

Either come up with your own source for legitimate terms, discuss what I have presented or just drop this word game.

As mentioned, the attributes applied to various god concepts vary. Even when I use the name of a specific god there are differing views of the attributes of that god. I earlier mentioned a few relevant attributes for the types of beings that were not a part of an explanation, “invasive supernatural being.” This includes gods such as Allah, Yahweh, and other supernatural concepts such as angels and ghost. Referring to Sarah X’s comments, she qualified the relevant properties for what she was describing is loving, omnipotent, and so on.

I avoid the tendency to use the word “God” alone because by itself it’s ambiguous. As a radical example I’m sure one of my Hindu coworkers doesn’t mean the same thing when using the word “God” as does one of my Christian coworkers. If you want me to refer you to another resource that discusses the meanings of some of the earlier mentioned words then I refer you to Wikipedia. More specifically see “Agnostic Atheism”, Strong Atheism, or the different types of theism or antitheism and ignosticism.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Atheistgirl,

OK, let us see what we have here…

I dont think youve ‘‘proved’’ a master plan maker by simply stating you observe a pattern in things

That is not exactly what I said. Patterns abound throughout all of nature. Our very ability to know and utilize knowledge is based on learning the replication that are seen in patterns. This is true when we look at the Chemical Periodic Table - and how a Russian chemist was able to predict the elements that would be found and where they would be located on the table. This is true when two English biologists were able to identify DNA through the pattern of the double-helix. This is true when Newton developed the Law of Universal Gravitatin - that is still used in calculating planet mass, and trajectories. Form the cell structure of plants to the cell structure of humans - we see patterns that continue to reproduce - because there is fossil evidence to support the idea of patterns remaining in existence.

There are anomilies in nature, e.g., two-headed calves, people with six fingers, insects with curled wings when the wings should be straight, etc. The important idea is not that there are variations from the established pattern - but that these variations happen very infrequently contrasted with our common experience that most calves have but one head, most people have five fingers on each hand and most winged insects do not have curled wings. So, if we do not argue about the existence of patterns, we must look at how they have come to be.

If there are patterns, then there must be a Master Pattern Maker. And, the reason for this is that matter does not spontaneously develop complexity by itself. There must be a Cause or a Pattern Maker. To argue that things are ‘just that way’ and there is no Pattern Maker because things just repeat - truly makes no sense. There is nothing else that does this - establish an order and then keep it going - independently. There is the proof - accepting it is up to you.

I think all youve done is say there is a pattern, so there must be a pattern maker. That doesnt necessarily follow, BUT, even if it did, your making a monumental and unsupported leap to go from pattern maker, to your God.

Let’s say it does follow (after all, with patterns littering the landscape - there must be Someone responsible for this! ) Well would you like me to make less of a leap and call this Pattern Maker “Geppetto” in honor of his famous wooden toy ‘Pinocchio’? Since we now agree that there is a Pattern Maker - and look at all the people who fit this pattern: 2 arms, legs, eyes, ears, a trunk, head with one nose and some with a disposition to get on CAF… Seriously, simply transitioning over from the Master Pattern Maker to God is not a leap at all - Who do you think could design the universe with all of these patterns?

It could be any other number of Gods of the other major religions that ALSO claim their God is the supreme pattern maker.

Actually, this is an excellent point! And, for two reasons… I personally think it is a major positive change to move from atheist to polytheist. Honest. And, the second reason is that the Catholic Church teaches that the unaided human mind can come to a knowledge that God exists.Here is a link you may find helpful: peterkreeft.com/topics/gods-existence.htm But, this is as far as the mind can go. We can not know from our own reasoning abilities that God is Love, that He sent His Son to die on a cross for us and that He wants us to freely chose to be with Him for all eternity in Heaven.

I could take what you say, on face value, and replace the word God with Super Intelligent Interstellar being from the planet Zog. Assuming the truth of a pattern maker does not logically lead me then to a personal, caring, triune God. Just that a pattern maker exists. No more than that.

I will take whatever I can get! If you like ‘Zog’, then that is fine with me - it is a major step from atheist, to polytheist and now to montheist! This is really quite an accomplishment. You can spend your time working out the details of this change - but, please be advised. ‘Zog’ makes demands on you! Most people would understand this better with the idea that following Christ really represents a change from just following our own pleasure interests. I believe that Pi is an irrational number - but, this does not change the way I conduct my life. Believing that Christ is the Second Person in the Blessed Trinity and He suffered and died for the sins of all - now that be a behavior changing event.

God bless

 

[Bobber90]

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!

1. There is no basis for rational thinkers without a rational creator? I’m sure you’ve heard of evolution!
2. Without order it is impossible to predict (and then confirm) truth. Yes, I agree that seems right. But we can have truth without order - we can make a true statement in ignorance of its truth. Knowledge seems to require a degree of order.
3. Truth does not presuppose that rationality is valuable. Truth is a property of a statement, and for a statement to have the property of truth, nothing is presupposed or implied, but merely it is necessary that the statement bears an accurate correspondence with reality. This correspondence is socially and evolutionarily valuable, as creatures that are to survive and reproduce must be able to interact with the environment successfully, and this requires valuing truth.

 

[Bobber90]

@atheistgirl and Co.,

Re: God and Evil

Here is a TED talk by an Anglican about his reactions to the tsumani in South Asia in 2004. It is on the question of how a loving God could have done this. I have great respect for this man’s humanity

ted.com/talks/tom_honey_on_god_and_the_tsunami.html

 

[atheistgirl]

OK, let us see what we have here…:

Lol - you’re enthusiasm is very touching But just so we make sure we stay on the same page, I did not, and do not agree, there is a pattern maker. Complexity arises from simplicity through th evolutionary processes that are well defined and understood. For me, there is no need to introduce pantheism or monothrism into the equation. I completely understand our forfathers need to do so, because of the derth in their knowledge and understanding, and when you look, you find they asked exactly the same questions: How did we get here, how could everything look so regular and patterned, how does night follow day ad infinitum, what makes it rain etc etc etc … and the only solution they could come up with, given our predisposition to see agency is it must be outside forces. These forces became gods, stories were told to fill in the gaps and offer some kind of understandable explanation to our primitive ancestors and so it went on - every culture developing their own creation story and myths.

But we now understand things so much better.

So, lest you get a tad over-excited, this is where I firmly stand. Evidence based truths

No pantheism, polytheism, polyester, nylon, deism or monotheism

Things can appear to be designed, appear to have a purpose, but as we all know, apprearances can be deceptive

If a god or God did make everything, of course the next question is where did God come from, who made Him The faith based answer is - He always was, and always will be.

For me, sorry, the just doesnt make any sense.

I suppose the bottom line in all of this, is there comes a point when you have to suspend logic and evidence and simply go by faith. And I’m just not that kind of person. My little and limitied logical brain (Dont you DARE!!!..) just wont let me!

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

@atheistgirl and Co.,

Re: God and Evil

Here is a TED talk by an Anglican about his reactions to the tsumani in South Asia in 2004. It is on the question of how a loving God could have done this. I have great respect for this man’s humanity

ted.com/talks/tom_honey_on_god_and_the_tsunami.html

I listened to that. After 20 minutes, the best he can say is, ‘‘we dont know’’. Which I guess is at least honest.

I was also a bit confused about his ‘‘theology’’. He didnt sound very conventional, but then my knowledge about such things is very lacking. He seemed at some stages to be suggesting there couldnt be a personal God but rather ‘‘god’’ as a concept the is within everything. I may have misundertood.

Regardless - thanks for sharing. But it did show me as a religious leader, he had no answers.

Sarah x

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Atheistgirl,

I think I see your point…

So there are a couple of adjustments that I must make in light of your argument.

The very first one is that - in response to this thread - one can not turn the tables on an atheists who simply refuses to acknowledge anything that compromises atheism. Really, that is the name of that tune!

Secondly, all of the arguments - especially the reality of patterns that just happen WITHOUT a Designer or Pattern Maker are so obviously true, I just do not know how I missed the logic you presented.

So, my argument is that God just exists. Period.

Yeah, forget this nonsense about Creation actually springing from a Creator,or all of these causes coming from a First Cause - or all of these annoying patterns cluttering up the ‘logic’ of atheism. All of this just encumbers the real issue that by simply digging in one’s heels and saying, ‘This is what I believe and nothing is going to change this’ everything is resolved. Now, what makes this a lot easier from my perspective, is that the arguments prevously used are still valid - but they can sit on the shelf for a while. Maybe this is the real tabel turning experience - to adopt the argumenttive practice of the atheist and simply reject all that has been presented. The down side is that such an approach does not enhance dialogue - ah, but, the up-side is that pretense is removed.

My guess is that there may come a day when at least some atheists will become really concerned about just denying that things were brought into being by the Omnipotent God - and all of this complexity just didn’t happen. But, this is only for some… there are others, like British poet William Ernest Henley, who will whine about God;s non-existence and then commit suicide. For those who are lurking on this thread, I think there is at least a chance they will actually examine the arguments used. If man can lead a purpose driven life - and all of creation can show purpose and patterns and incredible complexity - could all of this happen without a Creator? Of course not! The real challenge to the atheist is to continue saying “NO” until their last breath - it is probably a good idea to start whisteling a lttle louder… just in case…LOL

If you simply dismiss the arguments presented with, ‘this is what is and this is all I will acknowledge’, then there really isn’t anything further I can do.

God bless

Lol - you’re enthusiasm is very touching But just so we make sure we stay on the same page, I did not, and do not agree, there is a pattern maker. Complexity arises from simplicity through th evolutionary processes that are well defined and understood. For me, there is no need to introduce pantheism or monothrism into the equation. I completely understand our forfathers need to do so, because of the derth in their knowledge and understanding, and when you look, you find they asked exactly the same questions: How did we get here, how could everything look so regular and patterned, how does night follow day ad infinitum, what makes it rain etc etc etc … and the only solution they could come up with, given our predisposition to see agency is it must be outside forces. These forces became gods, stories were told to fill in the gaps and offer some kind of understandable explanation to our primitive ancestors and so it went on - every culture developing their own creation story and myths.

But we now understand things so much better.

So, lest you get a tad over-excited, this is where I firmly stand. Evidence based truths

No pantheism, polytheism, polyester, nylon, deism or monotheism

Things can appear to be designed, appear to have a purpose, but as we all know, apprearances can be deceptive

If a god or God did make everything, of course the next question is where did God come from, who made Him The faith based answer is - He always was, and always will be.

For me, sorry, the just doesnt make any sense.

I suppose the bottom line in all of this, is there comes a point when you have to suspend logic and evidence and simply go by faith. And I’m just not that kind of person. My little and limitied logical brain (Dont you DARE!!!..) just wont let me!

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

If you simply dismiss the arguments presented with, ‘this is what is and this is all I will acknowledge’, then there really isn’t anything further I can do.

Youre quite wrong there. I did dismiss the arguements you presented, but only after considering them, and I came to the conclusion I did not see anything compelling in them. I tried to explain why. I gave as an example even if I did accept there was a pattern and a purpose, it doesnt not logically follow that the originator of that pattern or purpose is either a god, the God, any god, or is even remotely interested - much less the Personal prevealed God of Christianity.

I also highlighted to you, everything starts of simple, and complexity grows from there. The explanations for the patterns see in nature are well understood by evolutionary biologists.

I also said we are predisposed to see agency, where there is none - so its easy to see how we can say there are patterns and purposes, when in fact we are slimply looking at random processes.

I am here having the conversation - I would have hoped it could have been taken on good part I have not got my heals dug in, nor dismiss other peoples points out of hand, without reflection - otherwise it would be pretty hard to have a decent connversation. Im just saying the arguements present so far as regarding so called ‘‘turning the tables’’ to me, personally, are either not very logical, better explaned by evolutionary processes, require a leap of faith, or all of the above.

Sarah x

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

@atheistgirl and Co.,

Re: God and Evil

Here is a TED talk by an Anglican about his reactions to the tsumani in South Asia in 2004. It is on the question of how a loving God could have done this. I have great respect for this man’s humanity

ted.com/talks/tom_honey_on_god_and_the_tsunami.html

Why is God responsbile for a tsunami? It’s the result of seismicity of the Earth’s crust, an unavoidable phenomena that follows from entropic thermodynamic principles intrinsic to a finite planetary mass.

 

[Perplexity]

This happens when you don’t read my argument properly; you end up making a straw-man of what i said.

Why you responded to my post on skeptical theism with this argument is what confused me. I was just having a go at skeptical theism (the most popular theist response to the PoE). But, since it seems that ship has sailed, I’ll turn my attention to your argument.

Also you keep on ignoring the variable that sometimes it can be harmful to prevent evil if you include the fact that freewill is an objective good that ought to be preserved. If man can only have heaven by choosing freely then it follows that freedom is the greatest good, and since God is heaven, God cannot undermine that Good. Therefore the existence of evil in the world is highly probable given freewill.

First, having to appeal to specific forms of theism (i.e., Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc.) to answer the PoE strongly undermines theism. Unless you can demonstrate that the bare-theistic God exists (the one philosophers quibble over), it’s highly implausible that you’ll be able to show the Christian God exists (or Jewish/Islamic etc.). So, if no defense/theodicy is available for bare-theism, this punctures the case for God, since your specific-theistic theodicy only works if you can get to that form of theism from bare-theism. (which the PoE aims to take off the table)

Second, supposing that free-will is crazy awesome, is it the case that God wouldn’t override it in certain circumstances? I find that idea highly implausible. Imagine your teenage son is about to commit suicide by flinging himself into a bonfire. Which is better? Respect his free-will and allow himself to commit this excruciating atrocity, or prevent him? I pray you say the latter. In fact I suspect you’d look down on any parent who allowed their child to harm themselves like this.

If it is not logically impossible for God to permit the existence of evil and be good at the same time, then estimating the probability that he would or would not permit it becomes meaningless, because no matter what it is never wrong for God to permit the existence of evil. You are making the argument that it is improbable that God would have a good reason not to act. But since you cannot show that it is logically impossible for evil and a good God to co-exist, you have to give reference to that which would make it improbable. Otherwise it is an arbitrary improbability.

I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood the evidential problems of evil. Nothing really interesting follows from the fact that God’s existence and the existence of evil are logically possible. That just means both are able to be real without violating any laws of logic. But, does that mean a world in which all the inhabitants are created immediately in a state of torture and misery, and are sustained in this state for 500 years at which point they’re obliterated, is just as likely as not given God’s existence? Absolutely not. It’s reasonable to say such evil is strongly improbable given God’s existence even though evil isn’t per se incompatible with his existence. We’d expect a perfectly loving being to behave like one.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bobber90,

This link was very interesting and truly tinged with a profound sadness. This Anglican priest is truly struggling with personal doubts. I guess the basic problem is that no one can explain evil especially as it expresses itself in a mass disaster like this tsumani. Incendental to this problem is this priest’s apparent abandonment of real Hope - there is no hope in doubt and ultimately it turns in on itself and simply consumes the doubter. This man appears consumed.

So, if the presence of evil causes doubt about God’s existence, how do we address the presence of goodness? Seriously, we really can not have it both ways and be consistent.

God bless

@atheistgirl and Co.,

Re: God and Evil

Here is a TED talk by an Anglican about his reactions to the tsumani in South Asia in 2004. It is on the question of how a loving God could have done this. I have great respect for this man’s humanity

ted.com/talks/tom_honey_on_god_and_the_tsunami.html

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Imagine your teenage son is about to commit suicide by flinging himself into a bonfire. Which is better? Respect his free-will and allow himself to commit this excruciating atrocity, or prevent him? I pray you say the latter. In fact I suspect you’d look down on any parent who allowed their child to harm themselves like this.

I don’t find this reasoning very compelling. Given the parent has a finite amount of information and understanding to work with, saving their child would be a reasonable response. However, to apply a finite beings reaction to and to presume an infinite being should do likewise does not clearly follow.

I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood the evidential problems of evil. Nothing really interesting follows from the fact that God’s existence and the existence of evil are logically possible. That just means both are able to be real without violating any laws of logic. But, does that mean a world in which all the inhabitants are created immediately in a state of torture and misery, and are sustained in this state for 500 years at which point they’re obliterated, is just as likely as not given God’s existence? Absolutely not. It’s reasonable to say such evil is strongly improbable given God’s existence even though evil isn’t per se incompatible with his existence. We’d expect a perfectly loving being to behave like one.

Again, the problem is that you are applying a finite beings response to an infinite being. The presumption is that since evil exists, there is morally no sufficient reasons for God to permit evil. Overriding good itself can justify the existence of evil.

 

[Perplexity]

I don’t find this reasoning very compelling. Given the parent has a finite amount of information and understanding to work with, saving their child would be a reasonable response. However, to apply a finite beings reaction to and to presume an infinite being should do likewise does not clearly follow.

I’m not sure why the infinity of God would change things. Perhaps it would, but that it would doesn’t seem to clearly follow. However, if because of God’s infinitude it’s not clear that he should be expected to behave similarly to finite moral agents, then I don’t think proposed defenses/theodicies bear any significant weight. That’s because if we take the divide between creature and creator (which it seems you’re suggesting) seriously, then defenses and theodicies are just as speculative as the idea that God would behave similarly to us.

I’d say we can imagine beings greater than ourselves, and use them as models to discern behavior. For instance, rather than God, think of an alien who’s far more advanced than humans. Would you think that being morally justified in allowing a young’n to commit suicide by tossing himself into a bonfire? I certainly wouldn’t.

Again, the problem is that you are applying a finite beings response to an infinite being. The presumption is that since evil exists, there is morally no sufficient reasons for God to permit evil. Overriding good itself can justify the existence of evil.

In an earlier post, I demonstrated why skeptical theism isn’t an option. However, if we are to take it seriously, then we can’t take defenses/theodicies seriously either.

To clarify though, I don’t mean to suggest that the existence of any evil strongly implies that God has morally insufficient reasons for permitting it. To show that God probably doesn’t have morally sufficient reasons for permitting an evil, I’d attempt to justify a noseeum inference from the evil’s inscrutability to its unjustifiability.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Soldier of God,

I am going to guess that the majority of readers of this thread have flown in a commercial jet within the past 5 years. As part of the pre-take-off procedures, a film is run concerning aircraft safety, and part of that film involves how the passenger with a small child is to respond to a sudden decrease in cabin pressure. The oxygen masks fall down from the ceiling in front of each seat - now here is where the directed action takes place.

The adult puts their mask on first AND THEN places the mask on the child because there is no guarantee that the child will cooperate with the procedure and if the adult does not put their mask on first, the adult may pass out - along with the child. The argument of ‘saving the child first’ is mere theory.

The reality of the situation is that multiple people may be saved if the saver analyzes the situation and determines the best course of action. Classic situations where it is the man given the choice of saving his wife or mother-in-law are more for late night comedy routines. God can do all things - and this situation has been presented for you to respond. Some people respond well, while others don’t. The good news is that those who responded poorly may have learned from their experience and can respond well in a new experience. Sometimes there is no second chance.

Here is a real success story: msnbc.msn.com/id/28678669/ns/us_news-life/t/ny-jet-crash-called-miracle-hudson/ But, they all do not turn out like this.

God bless

I don’t find this reasoning very compelling. Given the parent has a finite amount of information and understanding to work with, saving their child would be a reasonable response. However, to apply a finite beings reaction to and to presume an infinite being should do likewise does not clearly follow.

Again, the problem is that you are applying a finite beings response to an infinite being. The presumption is that since evil exists, there is morally no sufficient reasons for God to permit evil. Overriding good itself can justify the existence of evil.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I’m not sure why the infinity of God would change things.

Ostensibly, humans are quite limited in scope. For instance, we are constrained by time and space in our consciousness of reality. We would not be fully aware of all the ramifications of actions, perhaps extending decades into the future. To extend your example, if the child that is prevented from terminating their own goes become spree killer and detonates a bomb killing hundred of innocent bystanders, would a parent (armed with this knowledge) choose to save their offspring?

However, if because of God’s infinitude it’s not clear that he should be expected to behave similarly to finite moral agents, then I don’t think proposed defenses/theodicies bear any significant weight. That’s because if we take the divide between creature and creator (which it seems you’re suggesting) seriously, then defenses and theodicies are just as speculative as the idea that God would behave similarly to us.

Your reasoning does not follow. There is nothing speculative that an inifinite being with foreknowledge would act differently than finite beings. For instance, if I was aware what the winning numbers would be for a future lottery, it would be completely illogical for me to chose alternate numbers if I intended to win the draw. My behaviour would be different.

I’d say we can imagine beings greater than ourselves, and use them as models to discern behavior. For instance, rather than God, think of an alien who’s far more advanced than humans. Would you think that being morally justified in allowing a young’n to commit suicide by tossing himself into a bonfire? I certainly wouldn’t.

An advanced alien is still constrained and finite like a human, hence, presuming the behaviour is reflective of a infinite intelligence simply is without merit.

To show that God probably doesn’t have morally sufficient reasons for permitting an evil, I’d attempt to justify a noseeum inference from the evil’s inscrutability to its unjustifiability.

This basically means you *cannot *do it… You would have to clearly demonstrate God cannot have good reasons to permit evil.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Here is a real success story: msnbc.msn.com/id/28678669/ns/us_news-life/t/ny-jet-crash-called-miracle-hudson/ But, they all do not turn out like this.

God bless

Thank you for the link. God bless you as well.

 

[Perplexity]

Ostensibly, humans are quite limited in scope. For instance, we are constrained by time and space in our consciousness of reality. Logically, we would not be fully aware of the ramifications of certain actions, perhaps extending decades into the future. To extend your suicide example, if the child that is prevented from terminating their own goes become spree killer and detonates a bomb killing hundred of innocent bystanders, would a parent (armed with this knowledge) choose to save their offspring?

This kind of reasoning seems quite violent to the common human moral enterprise. For instance, let’s take your extension of my suicide example along with your implied purpose: the parent’s action of saving their child is objectively wrong. Generalized, we can have no way of knowing whether our actions are really right or wrong because unforeseen events might very well change the moral status of our action. Naturally, at this point, you may want to understand moral justification in terms of our culpability, knowledge etc. rather than the objective effects the action may entail. But then, there goes your defense of God. (i.e., you can’t appeal to objective effects anymore).

I want to emphasize though, no one should take skeptical theism seriously. I demonstrated this in a previous post on this thread.

I believe your reasoning does not follow. There is nothing speculative that an inifinite being with foreknowledge would act differently than finite beings. For instance, if I was aware what the winning numbers would be for a future lottery, it would be completely illogical for me to chose alternate numbers if I intended to win the draw.

If God’s infinitude implies that his moral justifications are beyond our ken, then claiming God has such and such a moral justification is to also say his moral justifications aren’t beyond our ken. So, it seems like you’re wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

For example, you couldn’t say with confidence that God doesn’t have morally sufficient reason in lying to you when saying ‘If you believe in the son of Man you shall have eternal life.’ To say otherwise is to say God’s infinity isn’t an obstacle in discerning his moral behavior.

An advanced alien is still constrained and finte like a human, hence, presuming the behaviour is reflective of a infinite intelligence simply is without merit.

Once skeptical theism is off the table, using models like this is extremely useful in gauging God’s expected moral behavior. The finitude etc. isn’t that problematic once skeptical theism is out of the way. Besides, your defenses and theodicies are claiming to understand God’s moral behavior. But, you’re just finite. So, if we take your arguments seriously, they’ll backfire.

This basically means you *cannot *do it… You would have to clearly demonstrate God cannot have good reasons to permit evil.

I’m not sure anyone could show that God cannot have moral justifications in certain instances. I’m only interested in showing that God probably doesn’t. So appeal to possibility etc. would be pointless.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

This kind of reasoning seems quite violent to the common human moral enterprise. For instance, let’s take your extension of my suicide example along with your implied purpose: the parent’s action of saving their child is objectively wrong.

You’ve missed the point. It’s not to show that saving their child is objectively wrong but to illustrate why evil may be permitted. To provide an overriding good.

Generalized, we can have no way of knowing whether our actions are really right or wrong because unforeseen events might very well change the moral status of our action. Naturally, at this point, you may want to understand moral justification in terms of our culpability, knowledge etc. rather than the objective effects the action may entail. But then, there goes your defense of God. (i.e., you can’t appeal to objective effects anymore).

It seems we are back again to applying a finite perspective to an infinite one. Moral objectivity applies to an infinite. If there an overriding good that is achieved then we are morally justified in our actions. Your argument about appealing to objective effects in finite perspectives doesn’t seem to follow your argument.

If God’s infinitude implies that his moral justifications are beyond our ken, then claiming God has such and such a moral justification is to also say his moral justifications aren’t beyond our ken. So, it seems like you’re wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

This appears to be a strawman argument. The position is that a benevolent, infinite being can appear to permit evil for an overriding good, not about having it both ways regarding our comprehension of the moral perspective of an infinite being.

For example, you couldn’t say with confidence that God doesn’t have morally sufficient reason in lying to you when saying ‘If you believe in the son of Man you shall have eternal life.’ To say otherwise is to say God’s infinity isn’t an obstacle in discerning his moral behavior.

As a finite being, I am not able to unequivocally say what is a lie. However, your example doesn’t make a case for anything other than the fact I (as a finite being) cannot be certain of the veracity or ultimate truth of things.

Once skeptical theism is off the table, using models like this is extremely useful in gauging God’s expected moral behavior. The finitude etc. isn’t that problematic once skeptical theism is out of the way. Besides, your defenses and theodicies are claiming to understand God’s moral behavior. But, you’re just finite. So, if we take your arguments seriously, they’ll backfire.

You’re making a number of vague allusions here without making a concrete position and present another strawman. I do not claim an understanding of moral behaviour of an infinite being. I understand the limits of human perspective.

Further, I can simply dismiss your arguments with your own reasoning by stating that since you are finite, we cannot take your arguments as being with warrant with regards to an infinite being, evil and incumbent moral actions.

I’m not sure anyone could show that God cannot have moral justifications in certain instances. I’m only interested in showing that God probably doesn’t. So appeal to possibility etc. would be pointless.

Our objective is to merely show that the existance of an instance of evil and benevolence within an infinite being is not mutually exclusive. If you are able to make a compelling case that contradicts that position, then do so. I would interested in hearing it.

 

[atheistgirl]

You’ve missed the point. It’s not to show that saving their child is objectively wrong but to illustrate why evil may be permitted. To provide an overriding good…

I thought it was not permissable to do an evil action with the intention of doing a longer term good. Im not expressing that very well, but Im sure Ive read here somewhere that the teaching of the church is that an immoral action is not excused even if the intention was to achieve a greater good? If so, why would in not be permissible for humans, but would be permissible for God, who, it is said, is the objective moral law giver?

Sarah x