How do I turn the table on atheists?

[atheistgirl]

[Best wishes on your on-going word game activities.

Oh dear.

sigh

My post related directly to points you made.

I didnt find your response, such as it was, credible nor does it deal with the specific questions I asked. Your link to Aquinas didnt address the question either - it also brings up infinite regression etc but I would refer you back to the unanswered question earlier - even IF one allows for a maker, designer, first mover … there is no logical step that I can see to get from there, to YOUR christian God. Why does the first mover, the designer HAVE to be the God of Christianity?

Anyhow, never mind, please dont take any more of your precious time to clarify further.

Honestly!

Sarah X
[/quote]

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I know full well where youre trying to take this.

You can’t run away forever. Sooner or later you gonna have to stop for a breather, and will be there again annoying you with the truth.

 

[atheistgirl]

and will be there again annoying you with the truth.

Who’s truth?

 

[StrawberryJam]

You can’t run away forever. Sooner or later you gonna have to stop for a breather, and will be there again annoying you with the truth.

Hello Mind over Matter number 2,

Your sincere thoughtful warnings noted, you have not established a single premise other than you will annoy, though the truthiness you claim to possess is lacking.

 

[Bobber90]

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

I think Tom Honey is ‘consumed’ with doubts it is reasonable to have, especially in the immediate face of such suffering. Given that he has devoted his life to Christianity, I do not think he is a generally doubting person, and that’s why his concern for humanity, above an easy resolution of the problem, is very powerful.

 

[Bobber90]

It is not a magical word that solves all problems!

It explains the diversity and complexity of life, which is quite important!

Truth and order are interdependent

How so? Can you not make a true statement about disorder?

Rationality presupposes that truth is valuable! Rationality is valuable because it enables us to grasp the truth.

Reason does not presuppose anything! If rationality is necessary for the formulation of meaningful statements which can be true, then, as I have already mentioned, both truth and rationality are valuable for evolutionary reasons.

A statement presupposes an author of the statement.

Indeed, so clearly some things are presupposed, but nothing quite so grand as you seemed to be saying.

Many forms of life interact with the environment successfully without understanding or valuing truth. So it is not necessary for survival or reproduction.

Yes, this is a good point. However, I would reluctantly broaden out the concept of truth to be the correspondence between the meaning of any conception of reality, and reality itself. This could include non-conscious physiological feedback and sensory data. I think that is consistent with the essence of the definition of truth, but am reluctant to broaden the concept because we do not yet agree on the human terms. For a snail, we can still say that evolution makes it value truth, in that it can sense light, and presumably it non-consciously associates light with open space. If it wants to hide from a bird, (let’s say), it would not choose to head to the light if it valued truth.

http://stresstopower.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/snail-240.jpg

 

[Bobber90]

You have not told me why its truly wrong. What you have said amounts to utility disguised as morality. You are saying that it is not in your particular taste, or that you do not like the consequences. Why should somebody feel guilty for not buying from you on the basis of your beliefs? Why is it truly wrong. I am not asking you what flavor ice-cream you like.

Disgust, harm, counter-utility and a rational desire to avoid/discourage/punish: what more do you think morality requires?

Even if we were to say that “God will punish you! For you have offended against God!” then all we are saying is the above, but with a really powerful overlord to back us up. Even that doesn’t stop people…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bobber90,

We are very close on this item …

The difference lies with an understanding of ‘doubt’ - that Tom Honey seems to demonstrate.

First of all, this mass disaster with the tremendous loss of life was experienced by the entire world. I think most saw this as a terrible evil and prayers to God for the relief of these poor people and their lands was an almost universal activity. The question, “Why did God do (or allow) this?” is a common experience. Ultimately, there is no satisfying answer that we can have presented (or, to present) and the matter is resolved … like solving for ‘x’ in algebra.

What we see is people being greatly concerned about - not only these victims of the disaster - but, their previously ‘unshaken’ view of God. Wonderment, concern, sadness and even elements of confusion all shake our ‘tree’ of faith - some are weakened by the event and some are strengthened. But, these are not doubts! An example of a doubt is someone telling you they just drew a ‘square circle’, and you say, “I doubt that”. What you are really saying is, “I do not believe you. This is simply an impossibility and you are not telling me the truth!” That is a doubt.

Tom Honey was visibly uncomfortable in his position of speaker of his own personal doubts about God - especially, given his experience of comforting the pain of others. None of us have the ‘satisfying answer’ for evil except that God, for His Own reasons, has permitted it. or those who do not believe in God - they ultimately have the same answer as they have for everything else - “It just happens - no plan, no direction, chaos!” And this may be a reasonable way to divide both groups: how do we comprehend evil.

I submit that those with doubts about God, especially when they are confronting evil and its aftermath do not have many options. One with doubts can bite down on a ‘bullet’ of agnosticism or atheism to ease the pain that will, at least for most, fade from memory. Those with faith in God know that God is stronger than any evil and this mass disaster experience - even as painful as it is - fits into His Divine Will. For some reason Tom Honey is not at this point and while he thinks he should be, the reality is that he isn’t and these doubts are disturbing. No easy answer for any of us… but Tom Honey needs our prayers.

God bless

I think Tom Honey is ‘consumed’ with doubts it is reasonable to have, especially in the immediate face of such suffering. Given that he has devoted his life to Christianity, I do not think he is a generally doubting person, and that’s why his concern for humanity, above an easy resolution of the problem, is very powerful.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I’m not sure, I’ve never claimed that. As I said in my last reply, “These definitions aren’t meant to posit their definiendum as existents.” You’re not committed to the existence of unicorns just because you propose a definition of what unicorns are. All my argument says is that we’d expect to observe IE if atheism is true. It doesn’t say whether we do observe IE, or whether atheism is true.

We’re justified in believing some event E is an inscrutable evil/suffering if (i) E is an instance of evil/suffering, and (ii) you know of nothing which would morally justify E’s occurrence.

It means to be ignorant of any greater good for the sake of which the evil could be justifiably permitted.

The reason you must accept (2) is unrelated to whether the notion of justification in inscrutable evil is developed. It’s simply because you must reject (2)'s antecedent. Since (2) is a material conditional, it’s only false if its antecedent is true and its consequent is false, otherwise it’s true.

I already answered your quarrel with whether it needs to be shown that inscrutable evil is absolutely inscrutable by clarifying the definition of inscrutable evil above. This clarification also addresses your concern about an infinite being.

This doesn’t make sense to me because my argument is a hypothetical syllogism. That means that all of my premises are conditionals.

The claim that inscrutable evil is evidence for atheism is distinct from the claim that there actually exists inscrutable evil. My argument bears significant weight for the former claim, in fact, it’s a full out proof. The next step would be to identify inscrutable evils.

Unfortunately, you have no epistemological warrant to establish what constitutes inscrutable evil and unjustified evil. That was purpose of my rhetorical questions. Further, your argument doesn’t necessarily establish inscrutable evil is evidence for atheism. It could be construed as evidence for other positions. The syllogism you propose appears to be tautological. Additionally, a hypothesis is not a proof or even evidence. Without an epistemological basis for various evils, your argument is simply a declaration rather than evidence.

You’ve established observations of inscrutable evil from an anthropological standpoint but attempted to apply it to a universal. This seems to be a form of a negative argument, which isn’t very compelling.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Hello Mind over Matter number 2,

Your sincere thoughtful warnings noted, you have not established a single premise other than you will annoy, though the truthiness you claim to possess is lacking.

If that were true you would be able to demonstrate the fact beyond an assertion.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Disgust, harm, counter-utility and a rational desire to avoid/discourage/punish: what more do you think morality requires?

None of these things tell me that not buying from you, for what ever reason, would be immoral. It just tells me that you would like people to treat you as if you truly had value. That is irrational if you don’t truly have value, even if its beneficial to indulge in that irrationality.

Even if we were to say that “God will punish you! For you have offended against God!” then all we are saying is the above, but with a really powerful overlord to back us up. Even that doesn’t stop people…

This is not the argument that I am defending. Can you please stick to my argument and keep your straw-men to yourself.

 

[Perplexity]

Unfortunately, you have no epistemological warrant to establish what constitutes inscrutable evil and unjustified evil. That was purpose of my rhetorical questions. Further, your argument doesn’t necessarily establish inscrutable evil is evidence for atheism. It could be construed as evidence for other positions. The syllogism you propose appears to be tautological. Additionally, a hypothesis is not a proof or even evidence. Without an epistemological basis for various evils, your argument is simply a declaration rather than evidence.

You’ve established observations of inscrutable evil from an anthropological standpoint but attempted to apply it to a universal. This seems to be a form of a negative argument, which isn’t very compelling.

I’m very confused by your responses. It seems your objections are based on misunderstandings of (i) definitions, (ii) Bayes’ theorem, and (iii) logic. For now, let me just address the first two:

(i) definitions:

All my definitions do is give arbitrary names to things. You clearly have the idea of an evil obtaining for which we know of no moral justification for. It doesn’t matter whether one actually exists, or whether either of us believe one does. All I’m doing is saying let’s call that inscrutable evil. We don’t have to, we can call it any name we like. I’ve chosen inscrutable evil since it kind of makes sense to do so. Neither of us are thereby committed to that evil’s existence. Inscrutable evil is widely discussed in philosophy of religion, it’s very strange to me that you’re questioning this part of the argument.

(ii) Bayes’ theorem:

What does it mean to say something is evidence for a hypothesis? As I (and tons of others) understand it, it just means the following: E is evidence for H if H is more probable given E than it would otherwise be. This is formalized as: P(H|E&K) > P(H|K), which translates as ‘The probability of H given E and our background knowledge is greater than the probability of H given our background knowledge.’

So, inscrutable evil is evidence for atheism if atheism is more probable given inscrutable evil than it would otherwise be.

In Bayesianism, there’s something known as the relevance condition/criterion. It tells that we can know that P(H|E&K) > P(H|K) if we know that P(E|H&K) > P(E|~H&K).

So, all I need to do to prove that inscrutable evil is evidence for atheism is show that inscrutable evil is more probable on atheism than on theism.

If hypothesis 1 entails E, and hypothesis 2 doesn’t, then P(E|H1&K) > P(E|H2&K). This is because an entailing relation results in the highest degree of probability, whereas the failure to entail results in a weaker degree of probability.

Since my argument proves that atheism entails inscrutable evil, but theism doesn’t, it follows necessarily that inscrutable evil is evidence for atheism. Again, this doesn’t mean there is any inscrutable evil. But, if there is, it’s evidence for atheism.

Now, you might say my argument fails to show that atheism entails inscrutable evil, but I hope you’ll concede that if my hypothetical syllogism is sound, then inscrutable evil would be evidence for atheism.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

So, inscrutable evil is evidence for atheism if atheism is more probable given inscrutable evil than it would otherwise be.

But you have to understand what evil is first, before you can say that its more probable if atheism is true.

 

[atheistgirl]

None of these things tell me that not buying from you, for what ever reason, would be immoral.

Are things only immoral if the church or God say it’s immoral?

 

[karebear92]

Are things only immoral if the church or God say it’s immoral?

Well, it’s more or less that God is morality: in that anything against Him or His will is immoral and everything following Him or His will is moral. The church cannot determine morality. They can only clarify it

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Are things only immoral if the church or God say it’s immoral?

You are again avoiding the argument. Its irrelevant where I think morality comes from. I am asking you why you think its true.

No true Christian has ever said that morality is true simply because a being says it is. In fact they are fundamentally against this line thinking since it leads to relativism. If you bother to educate yourself beyond the pro-atheist books that promise to save you from the guilt of denying God, you would see that all statements about moral truth refers to Gods intrinsic objective nature, and Gods “word” or “law” is simply an expression of that nature. To be aware of good, is to be aware of that nature we call God. God is the act of reality in which we participate and express our essences. Thus our being is subject and dependent upon the nature and rule of Gods existential act. Gods nature is objective love. Thus any action by a creature that is selfish, is by definition acting against the objective nature of love that we call God. The Catholic church believes that are in possession of a divine revelation from that nature we call God.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Now, you might say my argument fails to show that atheism entails inscrutable evil, but I hope you’ll concede that if my hypothetical syllogism is sound, then inscrutable evil would be evidence for atheism.

I think perhaps you misunderstand the nature of my objections. I’ve asked for a compelling case (e.g. proof) but what your present is a hypothesis based on assertions that are without warrant. Without addressing the epistemic questions posed by evil, you merely assert a condition of evil (that may or may not exist) as evidence. Further, your hypothesis apparently fails to demonstrate reasonsonably that inscrutable evil is necessarily proof of atheism. Whether your position is logically sound, tautological or otherwise, it doesn’t stand as compelling warrant.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I think perhaps you misunderstand the nature of my objections. I’ve asked for a compelling case (e.g. proof) but what your present is a hypothesis based on assertions that are without warrant. Without addressing the epistemic questions posed by evil, you merely assert a condition of evil (that may or may not exist) as evidence. Further, your hypothesis apparently fails to demonstrate reasonsonably that inscrutable evil is necessarily proof of atheism. Whether your position is logically sound, tautological or otherwise, it doesn’t stand as compelling warrant.

I forgot to thank you for your participation on this thread:thumbsup:.

God-bless

 

[atheistgirl]

Thus any action by a creature that is selfish, is by definition acting against the objective nature of love that we call God. The Catholic church believes that are in possession of a divine revelation from that nature we call God.

Isnt it interesting that you and I have come to the same conclusion about discriminating against people, you, because you think discriminating violates something of God’s nature in people, and me, because it simply hurts, belittles, insults and denies the underlying worth and value in all human beings. I find that curious. I appeal to reason, you appeal to what you believe is something of God’s nature and we both come to the same conclusion.

If you did not know anything about God, or His nature, would you not be able to work out by yourself that descriminating against people is wrong, or murdering, or raping or cheating on your spouse, or stealing?

 

[Perplexity]

I think perhaps you misunderstand the nature of my objections. I’ve asked for a compelling case (e.g. proof) but what your present is a hypothesis based on assertions that are without warrant. Without addressing the epistemic questions posed by evil, you merely assert a condition of evil (that may or may not exist) as evidence. Further, your hypothesis apparently fails to demonstrate reasonsonably that inscrutable evil is necessarily proof of atheism. Whether your position is logically sound, tautological or otherwise, it doesn’t stand as compelling warrant.

I apologize but I really don’t understand these objections.

You say I presented a hypothesis based on unwarranted assertions, but the only hypotheses I’m aware of in my argument are atheism and theism, neither of which are “presented”, much less presented upon any assertions.

As far as whether inscrutable evil is proof of atheism: there are two kinds of probabilistic arguments. The first is a C-inductive argument. This kind of argument is such that its premises make the conclusion more probable than it was. The second is a P-inductive argument. This kind of argument is such that its premises make the conclusion probable.

For now, I’m content to proffer a C-inductive argument. This can take its place in a cumulative case for atheism in which multiple C-inductive arguments are proposed to make a P-inductive argument. However, I do think this argument alone can be a P-inductive argument. All I’d need to show is that inscrutable evil is reaaally improbable on theism, and I could prove atheism. But, it doesn’t seem like we’re making near enough progress to get to that point yet.

I’ll take this opportunity to address what I take to be a misunderstanding on your part of logic.

(iii) logic:

Are you familiar with material conditionals? These are the kind of conditional statements my argument employs. They have distinctive truth-conditions: if their antecedent is true and consequent false, the conditional is false, otherwise it’s true. You deny the antecedents of both of my material conditionals, and therefore, re their truth-conditions, you must accept them as true.

An argument is logically valid if when its premises are true, its conclusion must also be true. An argument possesses validity by virtue of the form it takes (roughly, the structure its premises have). Hypothetical Syllogism is such a form:

1. If p, then q.
2. If q, then r.
3. Therefore, if p, then r.

Since my argument takes this valid form and you must accept the premises as true, you must accept the conclusion as true. There’s simply no way to get around this.