I think I found the answer

[david_friol_1]

I would have thought this was quite a valid question, though, given that one of the main defences against the philosophical argument from evil is the idea that God has some ultimate plan for good that could only be realised by allowing vast evil - despite the fact that omnipotence, which is also generally ascribed to the Judeo-Christian God, implies that this god can do anything logically possible with no effort and at no opportunity cost. It’s hard to see where there’s a logical contradiction in bringing about great good without first allowing or requiring great evil.

Be that as it may, my purpose in commenting wasn’t to go over old and well-trodden ground with the problem of evil. I note the “correct from the Catholic view” clause, which is significant in terms of tackling any debate about religion. Now, of course I appreciate that it’s necessary to have at least a working knowledge of one’s opponent’s position in order to effectively engage in an argument, but my experience has been that in discussing matters of belief and disbelief, in practice this is often a fairly one-sided demand. The unbeliever is often called out for “misrepresenting” the believer’s points, and not considering things from the “correct” Catholic/Methodist/Calvinist/Pentecostal/whatever perspective.

This one-sidedness isn’t really all that surprising, since there’s no one, “correct” atheist perspective beyond mere disbelief in gods. However, one can’t help wondering if the real accusation being levelled here is of insufficient suspension of disbelief. If a person’s beliefs have implications beyond what that person is permitted to consider because of their religious doctrines, then of course accepting the beliefs is contingent on taking the “correct” perspective - ie: one that doesn’t consider all the logical possibilities (or impossibilities) arising from a given article of faith. This is the point behind John Loftus’s outsider test for faith - if one examines the content of any given religion without the mental restrictions imposed by that particular religion, one will see clearly which parts of it make sense and which don’t. It’s like inviting an impartial mediator into a deteriorating relationship - the mediator sees clearly from an outsider’s perspective.

Hey Sair
Thanks for the points you made I appreciate them very much but I’m afraid that you may have come in on the last stretch. You see I’ve been responding to Spocks entire list of questions for some time now due to a remark he made previous and over the course of my examining his questions and some of the responses that he posted it was beginning to become painfully clear that he would at times say things like "What “good” can come out of them which even he could not achieve with all his “omnipotence”? for his own reasons. I was continuously trying to get Spock to see that he should at least write in a way so that I did not have to correct his false assertions of which this comment was just one in a long list before you came in to the picture. The reason this is a false assertion is because if there exists a being who is omnipotent (which means all powerful)then how could he not bring good out of evil. And one more point it was Spock who invented his own principle which he calls “The Spock principle” and threatened to point out to anyone, as he himself stated, when they were in “violation of the Spock principle” (bold was in original statement) So I was merely showing him his own “violations” of his own “principle”.
The only point I’ll add for you to consider is the debate between Dinesh D’Souza and John Loftus titled “Does the Christian God Exist?”. I would like to give John the benefit of the doubt as he may have been having a bad day… but YIKES!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIlnEGxFCGc
God bless you and your family!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Now, I am pretty sure you will turn the question around, and say that atheists are in the same boat. I cannot speak for other atheists (hopefully they will chip in), but I can speak for myself. If it would turn out that I am incorrect, I would be very surprised, but that would be a pleasant surprise. After all, who wants to die (as long as we are healthy, of course)? Wouldn’t it be great to see our departed loved ones? So the idea that I might be wrong about my beliefs (or lack of them) is not threatening in the least. I would be glad to be wrong. I would be happy, if God would explain why are those horrible evils necessary. What “good” can come out of them which even he could not achieve with all his “omnipotence”?

Any idea how could this problem be resolved? I don’t see a solution.

First, whatever the problem is, I believe there is a solution. The solution may not be one of the possible options we are considering in advance at any given time.

Second, what is the problem you would like to resolve. I’m an engineer and I think I need to fix everything, but first you have to be specific about what you want fixed and what you consider success.

So what is the main issue you would like to address first? Is the problem that you would like to believe in God but just can’t honestly say you do at this time? Is the problem that you need to know why God allows evil, when he can just take it away? Are there other questions you have for this thread that are more important.

I’ll just pick the second one and make a few remarks, to let you know how I’m seeing this.

First, let’s look at some basic values, dualistic or not. Would you really like to live in a world where there is no evil? I’ve thought about it some and I think it would be boring and meaningless, day after day, doing the same thing, never a challenge, never a mess to clean up, no responsibilities, nobody depending on you, etc.

So God (or nature as you prefer) gave man Free Will, or at least an pretty convincing illusion of free will.

It’s like the matrix, take the red pill or the blue pill. One will take you back to an artificial blah lifestyle where you will basically continue doing what everybody’s been doing with no progress, no real challenges. The other will expose you to realities you never could have imagined had you not opted for this freedom and desire to know what’s real and what isn’t.

Man (Neo) chose to break free of his mental chains and opt for the real world, with all its messy truth, over a comfortable life in the matrix.

How can you have light without dark? If it was never dark, you wouldn’t even think to appreciate when you have light.

Who doesn’t ever want a misunderstanding? How can we ever feel the wonder of kiss-and-make-up? That is the theme of a Bible story called “the prodigal son.”

Who has ever felt abandoned, and then later felt loved? Was the love better because it contrasted with the abandoned feelings?

In the Bible, Jesus talks about a woman who has sinned, but it showing him love. He forgives her sins, and explains that the more sins of hers are forgiven, the more she loves. He also gives a parable for another angle on the same truth, about two debtors, one who owed a great deal and one who owed a little. If both debts were forgiven, who will love the person who forgave him the most? The answer was, the one whose greater debt was forgiven.

So the way I see it, God really didn’t “punish” Adam and Eve by kicking them out of the garden. Adam and Eve wanted out. They wanted to be needed. They wanted to experience imperfection and brotherhood among sinners. Etc. They wanted to know what God knew, and feel what God feels.

So instead of the tree of life, where they would exist in a peaceful but meaningless existence for all eternity to be God’s little pets or something, they opted for knowledge.

Trouble is, the snake didn’t happen to mention that knowledge without love is worthless. So they are going to have to learn this “love” the hard way. it can’t be described in terms a “knowledge accumulator” can understand. Otherwise people who are very advanced in academics wouldn’t act like such dorks. Just kidding, there are of course exceptions.

I have so much more to say. I want to rest my case for now, so as not to try to force it down your throat all at once.

Here’s my engineering goal: I propose we create a model of human life that works whether you are atheist or Christian, based on truths that transcend the description of them by a belief system. If you’re with that, and believe we can do it, then we can have spiritual unity even with different beliefs.

Truth be told, I can never keep myself from doubting God from time to time. That’s why I had to develop a way of thinking that works for me and gives meaning to my life, no matter whether I’m right or wrong at any given time.

For starters, it’s all about love. Religions are specific about what they mean by love, but nobody says an atheist cannot have a well-formed conscience.

If I truly believe in God, then I trust the Holy Spirit to take care of the both of us, and if you are “supposed” to come to belief in an all-powerful God, then God, through His Spirit, will see that your life leads to that discovery.

Peace always,
Alan

 

[Gregory_I]

SPocl, how is it rational to believe in effects without a potentially greater cause?

Now, if one effect of our cause that is thus unnamed is the development of individual personhood, then it follows that individual person hood must be latent in our cause, just as leaves and bark and twigs are latent in a seed.

So, if the cause of all things is capable of producing that which is rational and can actually seek to qualify its own existence and debate about order, and differentiate order from Chaos, does it not stand to reason that the thing that caused us is at least potentially equivalent to us if not greater?

THe Human mind and heart recognizes intrinsically the value of the individual human over other aspects of creation. No other parts of creation do that. I do not refer to the instinct of self-preservation, I refer to the fact that a mother would sell her dominion over a whole nation to ransom one of her children. We recognize instictually the greater value of human life over other modes of existence and life.

If we do this, and if it is latent in us to be willing to love and to sacrifice and to persevere and to seek, then how much more is that which was our cause?

No effect is greater than its cause.

We are the effects.

THerefore, explain the cause.

 

[samiam1611]

**
IMO, religions are much like theories for any field. You go with the one that fits the evidence best. If none do that, you throw them all out and keep looking-or not.**

That’s a very intelligent thing to say. It shows you lack the arrogance that many religious people have, that is, they are so convinced theirs’ is right! I like that you recognize all religions are just theories, not fact, and it’s a statement that displays your respect for everyone’s beliefs - including disbeliefs. :clapping:

Here is one of my favorite atheist arguments. I found this quote ages ago and do not know who wrote it. Some philosopher I think. A paraphrase of it is in the Wikipedia article “Existence of God.” It’s not a perfect argument - I’m sure y’all can poke holes in it. But it is still a pretty good one in my opinion.
We begin by defining “God” as a being who is, among other things, omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (all-good). Now, if God is all-good, then he desires that there be no evil. If he is all-knowing, then he knows that there is evil (and arguably knew that there would be evil even before there was any). And if he is all-powerful, then he can eradicate any evil (and could even have prevented it before it had a chance to occur). Hence, if there were a God, there would be no evil. But there is evil. Therefore, God does not exist.
I hesitate to post something where arguments against it are not really that hard to come up with (such as, if your definition of God is different than the one here, the whole quote is pretty much worthless). But its relevance to this particular thread is too great for me to not post it.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

That’s a very intelligent thing to say. It shows you lack the arrogance that many religious people have, that is, they are so convinced theirs’ is right! I like that you recognize all religions are just theories, not fact, and it’s a statement that displays your respect for everyone’s beliefs - including disbeliefs. :clapping:

Thank you. I know you didn’t direct this toward me, but this is something I try to get across to “watch out, Catholic coming” types who think they must self-disclose as a Catholic right up front in any social situation, and since I don’t like to act “Catholic” in public, that I must be embarrassed to be a part of the Church.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not ashamed at all, nor do I consider as a matter of pride, that I am a “practicing Catholic.” I just have a different “style” of approaching people with contrasting beliefs.

So I hear you, as far as the respect part. I don’t have to agree with you to show you respect. In fact, if we fail to show love and respect, that means we must not know how to use the very product we are trying to peddle. After all, what type of endorsement is it for Christianity if I come across arrogant, condescending, closed minded, and without love or respect?

I wish to shower atheists (along with anybody else) with love, love that transcends belief systems but is not afraid to call on those belief systems to speak when it is advantageous. What I find is, the more desperate I am to have somebody listen and understand what I have to say, the more I will telegraph that to them and come across as pushy, arrogant, condescending, or in other ways that actually reduce the chance of being heard. When I try to serve the other person on their terms, I don’t raise as many defensive shields. St. Francis said, “pray always; when necessary, use words.”

So for Lent this year I’m trying something radical – I gave up my need to be right on any given issue. I have failed miserably, but I have had some interesting effects from it, and very positive I might add. For the first time, people who are adamantly opposed to my point of view – including and especially other Catholics – are understanding me. Even though they cannot agree with me, they at least try to reword their statements to avoid the logical problems that I find in them. Good Christians have been at intellectual loggerheads over things that probably don’t matter much to God, since long before Martin Luther – when in fact they all have the same alleged goal: unity with God and other people, through Christ.

Now I ask you some random questions to try to “trick” you into imagining a world with a God. My question is, if there were suddenly a God – or if you suddenly found out there has been one since some time ago, what sort of things do you think would be pleasing to him? What things would he not care about? What would it feel like to be God and see this or that happening in your creation? If you were omnipotent, what would you do, specifically, about any or all of the evil in the world. If you want, you can destroy everything and start from scratch, or you can work with the world starting the way it is now. Your choice.

Note that I saw a T-shirt some time back that said, “as you are reading this, I am in control of your mind for three seconds.”

We begin by defining “God” as a being who is, among other things, omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (all-good). Now, if God is all-good, then he desires that there be no evil. If he is all-knowing, then he knows that there is evil (and arguably knew that there would be evil even before there was any). And if he is all-powerful, then he can eradicate any evil (and could even have prevented it before it had a chance to occur). Hence, if there were a God, there would be no evil. But there is evil. Therefore, God does not exist.

Your argument is interesting, but I don’t wish to let you down in the poking holes area.

OK, we are using human logic to ascertain what God would be like, if he actually did exist.

If God is, in fact, all knowing, then hopefully He knows something we don’t, and has a mind that can go beyond our human imaginations. If that’s not true, then I’m more God than God.

So basically I see your construction as an interesting scenario that could spawn several interesting discussions about things such as “if it is evil does it mean God wished it never happened?”

But any construct of God is purely in our limited imaginations, so we can no more expect our logic to hold up under extreme conditions that God is certain to encounter, than Newtonian physics without relativity to extend it, would be capable of predicting how things behave when they move at nearly light speed.

It’s kind of like the cover of Jethro Tull’s Aqualung album:
Aqualung album cover:

In the beginning Man created God;
and in the image of Man
created he him.

And Man gave unto God a multitude of
names,that he might be Lord of all
the earth when it was suited to Man

And on the seven millionth
day Man rested and did lean
heavily on his God and saw that
it was good.

Now, I could use this argument to promote atheist beliefs that God is just made up, or I can turn it around against the argument you have cited, alleging that we cannot make those assumptions about God, so we really cannot justify our conclusion that there is no God.

Does that make any sense?

Alan