How do I turn the table on atheists?

[atheistgirl]

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.

It’s interesting you picked this example. The skill of that pilot was just phenominal. But in the context of this discussion, you seem to be saying * the people lived, disaster averted, miracle, God is good. However, had that pilot not been so skilled cool and calm, and wrecked the plane on ditching it and everyone died, you would say * tragedy, seems unfair but remember God has his reasons and a greater evil may have been prevented by all those innocent people dying.

It’s kinda like a win win situation for God and believers.

Which in turn seems neither logical, reasonable, or fair.

Sarah x

 

[Perplexity]

Soldier Of God:

I think we’re talking past each other on the skeptical theism issue, so if it’s cool I’ll just take up your challenge “to make a compelling case that contradicts that position.”

But first,

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 understood you to be arguing the position you describe as my own reasoning It’s my position that we can have a grasp of God’s moral justifications and therefore know whether he has any with regards to instances of evil.

It is my claim that any instance of inscrutable evil/suffering (from now on IE) is evidence for atheism against theism. This isn’t to say these IE’s are mutually exclusive with theism, but that they’re improbable on theism, and highly probable on atheism.

Definitions:

D1: IE = an instance of suffering/evil for which we can think of no specific moral justification for.

D2: Unjustified evil = an instance of suffering/evil is unjustified when no moral justification for it obtains.

Argument step 1:

1. If atheism is true, then unjustified evils occur.
2. If unjustified evils occur, then inscrutable evils occur.
3. Therefore, if atheism is true, then inscrutable evils occur.

Premises (1)-(2) are material conditionals, which are false only if their antecedents are true and their consequents false. Because you must say the antecedents of (1) and (2) are false, you must accept both material conditionals as true. (per their truth-tables). Since the argument is logically valid (hypothetical syllogism) with true premises, you must accept the conclusion. (per definition of logical validity)

[for a deeper motivation of (1), consider the evils of natural disasters: there is absolutely nothing which could morally justify these on atheism, whereas theism can appeal to an omni-guy]

But, what does this mean? Well, the Ramsey test allows us to figure out the probability of a conditional (if p, then q) by formalizing it as follows:

P(q|p), which just means ‘the probability of q, given p.’

Since the probability of a sound argument’s conclusion is 1.0, we can say:

Where IE = Inscrutable evil, T = Theism, ~T = Atheism and K = our background knowledge

P(IE|~T&K)=1.0.

Argument step 2:

Theism does not entail the existence of inscrutable evil (in fact, I think it’s grossly improbable). Therefore, P(IE|T&K) < 1.0. It follows by the relevance condition that P(~T|IE&K) > P(~T|K), which is an instance of the bayesian definition for evidence: P(H|E&K) > P(H|K).

Note, I only mean to defend the claim that theism doesn’t entail IE. I don’t mean to defend the claim that it’s grossly improbable etc.

Conclusion:

So, I consider this proof that IE is evidence for atheism against theism. The strength of this evidence is a relative matter. For me, it bears considerable weight. Note, this argument doesn’t say whether IE actually exists. It just says if it does, then it’s evidence for atheism.

 

[tonyrey]

1. There is no basis for rational thinkers without a rational creator? I’m sure you’ve heard of evolution!

 

[atheistgirl]

All atheists have is the improbability of their position.

I was thinking a little bit more about that statement.

If I say:

Nothing created the Universe

The Universe has always existed

Would you say that is being irrational?

However, we can see the universe, we know it exists, we can measure it to a degree, and we can predict it’s behavior and understand how it operated.

Now, if I say:

Nothing created God

God has always existed

Would you say that is being irrational?

If not, why not?

It is fundamentally no different to the first statement.

Sarah x

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

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

The teaching for Catholics is that the morality of human acts depends on object, the end and circumstance, which has been divinely revealed. For a human being, a morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. Our finitude limits the extent and scope of our moral acts.

Your supposition presupposes God acts to commit evil. As for God, we cannot clearly determine what constitutes a moral act for Him because of his infinitude and lack of revelation. Nonetheless, by the Anselm definition of God, he cannot choose to do evil; there is no action on of evil His part.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Atheistgirl,

I reviewed the arguments you have presented and, quite honestly, after careful consideration, I came to the conclusion that there is nothing compelling in them. I really have tried to explain why - but, your insistance that a universe filled with patterns does not even imply a Master Pattern Maker does not logically follow.

As I understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics - things universally tend to break down (entropy) and not build up. If science holds the keys, then you must find the lock that they will fit. A thousand years ago science did not hold THE answer, today it does not hold THE answer - even though we are soooooooooooo much closer… and my guess is that a thousand years from today they still will not hold THE answer. This is speculation but based on the history of science. Now, what science has done - and done to its credit - is show us a portion of the universe and give us some ideas that it is so much bigger and filled with far more things than were first imagined. Science has also take us to the realm of the very, very small and showed the the incredible detail involved in living and non-living items. Few people can see such pictures and not be filled with a sense of awe and wonderment. But, there are those who kick the can down the road, and whistle that it just happened.

I listened to a cartoon video on atheism yesterday. Ultimately, this individual found the arguments of the theists lacking and devoid of real merit - they failed to convince him that theism is the correct way to go. I reflected on that for a while and came up with the idea that I would like to share - nonsense! It looks like everyone on this thread is at least 3 x 7 and capable of making up their own minds. The ultimate fallacy of atheism has been demonstrated over and over - some people believe there is a God and some don’t. But claiming there is no God is not the fault of a deficient theistic argument. There are truly those with a stiff-neck and refuse to move forward. Their cry is ‘Non serviam’ as a copy of that first act of disobedience. This is really not an act of intellect - but, rather of will.

Ultimately, the arguments presented in favor of atheism are just not logical and appear to be championed by those who truly wish to live in their own world as they have defined it. As I see it, to believe all this just happened and here we are - in spite of all we see - requires a lot farther leap of faith than I could ever hope to imagine.

God bless

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

 

[MindOverMatter2]

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.

What you don’t want to understand is that If its not logically impossible that a good God and evil can co-exist, then it is not self evident that any degree of evil is improbable given the existence of a good God since it has already been shown that its not impossible. If a good God can co-exist with evil, then i cannot say that a good God would not permit evil; i cannot expect that any degree of evil would be improbable or a contradiction to Gods existence. If you wish to claim that a higher degree of evil in the world makes the existence of a good God improbable, then you have to make a logical inference to why any particular degree of evil would be evidence to its improbability. Simply making up scenarios that do not reflect reality and asserting that your position is reasonable without showing why, will not help your case; and it simply leads me to think that you are a dishonest person.

This will be my last post unless you can present a reasonable argument that honestly addresses all my points, because i am tired of repeating an argument that you time and time again refuse to address on a rational basis. Emotions are not rational arguments. You cannot say that its possible for God to co-exist with evil and then say its improbable because you don’t like to suffer or see suffering. That doesn’t make sense. Either it is impossible or not.

 

[Perplexity]

What you don’t want to understand is that If its not logically impossible that a good God and evil can co-exist, then it is not self evident that any degree of evil is improbable given the existence of a good God since it has already been shown that its not impossible. If a good God can co-exist with evil, then i cannot say that a good God would not permit evil; i cannot expect that any degree of evil would be improbable or a contradiction to Gods existence. If you wish to claim that a higher degree of evil in the world makes the existence of a good God improbable, then you have to make a logical inference to why any particular degree of evil would be evidence to its improbability. Simply making up scenarios that do not reflect reality and asserting that your position is reasonable without showing why, will not help your case; and it simply leads me to think that you are a dishonest person.

This will be my last post unless you can present a reasonable argument that honestly addresses all my points, because i am tired of repeating an argument that you time and time again refuse to address on a rational basis. Emotions are not rational arguments. You cannot say that its possible for God to co-exist with evil and then say its improbable because you don’t like to suffer or see suffering. That doesn’t make sense. Either it is impossible or not.

I presented the case you’re asking for in post 282.

This discussion won’t be fruitful as you’ve already grown impatient and aren’t an able defender of the position I’m objecting to, so I’ll have to discontinue this dialogue.

Thanks for the chat anyways though.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Soldier Of God:
I think we’re talking past each other on the skeptical theism issue, so if it’s cool I’ll just take up your challenge “to make a compelling case that contradicts that position.”

I did not participate in the skeptical theism issue, ergo, I can appreciate your position.

Definitions:

D1: IE = an instance of suffering/evil for which we can think of no specific moral justification for.

D2: Unjustified evil = an instance of suffering/evil is unjustified when no moral justification for it obtains.

Argument step 1:

1. If atheism is true, then unjustified evils occur.
2. If unjustified evils occur, then inscrutable evils occur.
3. Therefore, if atheism is true, then inscrutable evils occur.

But, what does this mean? Well, the Ramsey test allows us to figure out the probability of a conditional (if p, then q) by formalizing it as follows:

P(q|p), which just means ‘the probability of q, given p.’

Since the probability of a sound argument’s conclusion is 1.0, we can say:

Where IE = Inscrutable evil, T = Theism, ~T = Atheism and K = our background knowledge

P(IE|~T&K)=1.0.

Argument step 2:

Theism does not entail the existence of inscrutable evil (in fact, I think it’s grossly improbable). Therefore, P(IE|T&K) < 1.0. It follows by the relevance condition that P(~T|IE&K) > P(~T|K), which is an instance of the bayesian definition for evidence: P(H|E&K) > P(H|K).

Note, I only mean to defend the claim that theism doesn’t entail IE. I don’t mean to defend the claim that it’s grossly improbable etc.

Conclusion:

So, I consider this proof that IE is evidence for atheism against theism. The strength of this evidence is a relative matter. For me, it bears considerable weight. Note, this argument doesn’t say whether IE actually exists. It just says if it does, then it’s evidence for atheism.

Unfortunately, your argument fails in several areas in my view.

Defining inscrutable evil as a lack of explanation as to why it may be morally justified is unwarranted. The definition does not entail that there isn’t a justification, but merely a lack of justification by human beings with finite capacity. You do not demonstrate why an infinite being would not be able to justify the existence of evil. Therefore, the definition of the existence inscrutable evil is not warranted.

Further, it would seem that if there is an infinite being, and an infinite being permits evil then it is not unjustified evil. Hence, the existence of unjustified evil is also unwarranted. Again, it does not follow that since humans are not able to justify evil, there cannot be a justification for that evil. It seems to me there is inadequate reasoning here. Hence, it is my view the definition of unjustified evil is not warranted.

Additionally, your conclusion is assumed implicitly in the premise, making the argument circular as there is a provisional presumption that atheism is true.

In my view, it can be argued the existence of evil is morally justifiable and is known by God, however, we are simply and currently unaware of the justification. It can be argued the fact God permits evil to exists justifies why it exists.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I presented the case you’re asking for in post 282.

This discussion won’t be fruitful as you’ve already grown impatient and aren’t an able defender of the position I’m objecting to, so I’ll have to discontinue this dialogue.

Thanks for the chat anyways though.

Just like i thought. Dishonest. You can thank yourself for that.

 

[theistgal]

atheistgirl, I would just like to say “hi” and point you to my username. It used to be “atheistgal” but when I became a theist I took out that first “a”.

To you and to those who are arguing with you, I’d just like to point out that, in my own experience, no one argued me into the faith, and in fact, it was theists arguing with me in forums like this who actually KEPT me from the faith for a long time.

Some of them used bad or way-overused apologetics, which I was easily able to refute (believe me, there are NO new arguments out there on either side!). Worse, some of them actually got angry with me when they saw that I was refuting them, and either dismissed me or responded with hostility. Naturally, that did NOT make me more sympathetic to their position!

What finally made me believe? A combination of things - events in my personal life, and people I met whose actions were more convincing than words. All of which little or nothing to do with anything I’d ever encountered in these endless online debates.

Bottom line is: the only Person who can really make you believe in God is - God. And I believe He will – but in His own time, and in His own way.

Meantime, the only thing I would ask you, atheistgirl, from a former “atheistgal”, is please don’t make the mistake I did of judging all of Christianity (or atheism, for that matter!) just by what you read about it online by its adherents, and especially not at a forum like this. Better to watch real people, people you admire and respect, and see how their beliefs (or lack thereof) affect their actions in life.

 

[karebear92]

atheistgirl, I would just like to say “hi” and point you to my username. It used to be “atheistgal” but when I became a theist I took out that first “a”.

To you and to those who are arguing with you, I’d just like to point out that, in my own experience, no one argued me into the faith, and in fact, it was theists arguing with me in forums like this who actually KEPT me from the faith for a long time.

Some of them used bad or way-overused apologetics, which I was easily able to refute (believe me, there are NO new arguments out there on either side!). Worse, some of them actually got angry with me when they saw that I was refuting them, and either dismissed me or responded with hostility. Naturally, that did NOT make me more sympathetic to their position!

What finally made me believe? A combination of things - events in my personal life, and people I met whose actions were more convincing than words. All of which little or nothing to do with anything I’d ever encountered in these endless online debates.

Bottom line is: the only Person who can really make you believe in God is - God. And I believe He will – but in His own time, and in His own way.

Meantime, the only thing I would ask you, atheistgirl, from a former “atheistgal”, is please don’t make the mistake I did of judging all of Christianity (or atheism, for that matter!) just by what you read about it online by its adherents, and especially not at a forum like this. Better to watch real people, people you admire and respect, and see how their beliefs (or lack thereof) affect their actions in life.

I kind of have to agree with this. The discussion Atheistgirl and I were having was cleared up by Saint Augustine quite some time ago. Do you see things from a different perspective now, Theistgal? And if so, do you think that the different perspectives is the major issue in an atheist accepting Catholicism or a Catholic becoming atheist?

 

[Perplexity]

Defining inscrutable evil as a lack of explanation as to why it may be morally justified is unwarranted. The definition does not entail that there isn’t a justification, but merely a lack of justification by human beings with finite capacity. You do not demonstrate why an infinite being would not be able to justify the existence of evil. Therefore, the definition of the existence inscrutable evil is not warranted.

Of course the definition of inscrutable evil doesn’t entail the evil is unjustified. That’s all inscrutable evil is: an instance of evil/suffering for which we can think of no moral justifications for. That doesn’t mean the evil is unjustified, just that it’s inscrutable.

Further, it would seem that if there is an infinite being, and an infinite being permits evil then it is not unjustified evil. Hence, the existence of unjustified evil is also unwarranted. Again, it does not follow that since humans are not able to justify evil, there cannot be a justification for that evil. It seems to me there is inadequate reasoning here. Hence, it is my view the definition of unjustified evil is not warranted.

My argument nowhere implies that “since humans are not able to justify evil, there cannot be a justification for that evil.” Neither does it say any unjustified evil exists. Note the argument is a hypothetical syllogism. As you, rightly as a theist, deny the existence of unjustified evil, you must accept the 2nd premise.

These definitions aren’t meant to posit their definiendum as existents. That’s why I said at the end: “Note, this argument doesn’t say whether IE actually exists. It just says if it does, then it’s evidence for atheism.”

Additionally, your conclusion is assumed implicitly in the premise, making the argument circular as there is a provisional presumption that atheism is true.

This charge of begging the question is too vague for me to respond in an interesting way.

In my view, it can be argued the existence of evil is morally justifiable and is known by God, however, we are simply and currently unaware of the justification. It can be argued the fact God permits evil to exists justifies why it exists.

You can say that some inscrutable evil IE is justified by God in unknown ways. That’s usually what the theist does, it doesn’t really mean much for my argument though.

 

[atheistgirl]

Meantime, the only thing I would ask you, atheistgirl, from a former “atheistgal”, is please don’t make the mistake I did of judging all of Christianity (or atheism, for that matter!) just by what you read about it online by its adherents, and especially not at a forum like this. Better to watch real people, people you admire and respect, and see how their beliefs (or lack thereof) affect their actions in life.

Pleased to say Hi to you Theistgal Cool play on the screen name

I know many people in real life - most of the people I do business with have a christian faith. Most are very good people.

Dont worry, Im not judging the relative merits of a belief in God based on what is said on an online forum

I have to say, I do enjoy this forum, and the people Ive engaged with have, for the most part, been very kind, friendly and charitable. I also have to say, its nice to find a forum I can state my beliefs in. A lot of people I do business with, assume, but have never asked or discussed with me, that I am a christian. Were they to find out I am an atheist, I know for a fact, a percentage of my customers would cease trading with me. This is simply appalling to me, but it is the reality of the world we are in right now.

I also know theres a lot of things I havent said on here - mainly out of respect for the forum and it’s purpose, because I could come across as being disrespectful to believers or worse, trying to undermine their faith, which is something I would never want to do. Ever.

I am very grateful to my catholic friends here for allowing me to drop in and out of discussions and I have to say, most here must be a credit to their faith.

Sarah x

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Were they to find out I am an atheist, I know for a fact, a percentage of my customers would cease trading with me. This is simply appalling to me,

Are you saying that were they to stop doing business with you on the account of you being an atheist that this would be truly immoral? If so, can you please explain why thats true.

 

[atheistgirl]

Are you saying that were they to stop doing business with you on the account of you being an atheist that this would be truly immoral? If so, can you please explain why thats true.

Yes, I believe it would. My company prides itself on the quality of our products and the quality of our customer service. People doing business with us should judge us on quality, level of service and price, and our equality of opportunity, ethical and environmental policies and NOT my personal belief or disbelief.

Sarah X

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Yes, I believe it would. My company prides itself on the quality of our products and the quality of our customer service. People doing business with us should judge us on quality, level of service and price, and our equality of opportunity, ethical and environmental policies and NOT my personal belief or disbelief.

Sarah X

If so, can you please explain why thats true.

 

[karebear92]

If so, can you please explain why thats true.

What exactly are you asking her to explain? Why she believes they would stop doing business with her or why it is immoral for them to judge her based on her belief? That would be like an atheist, Jew, Muslim, etc not buying something from you because you are Catholic.

 

[atheistgirl]

If so, can you please explain why thats true.

Can you explain why it would be ethical or moral for you to refuse to do business with me, for no other reason than my personal lack of belief in your God???

 

[atheistgirl]

What exactly are you asking her to explain? Why she believes they would stop doing business with her or why it is immoral for them to judge her based on her belief? That would be like an atheist, Jew, Muslim, etc not buying something from you because you are Catholic.

Quite.

Sarah X