If there were no God

  • Thread starter Thread starter clarkgamble1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
catholic1seeks said:
But the Christian has no problem. It’s about consistency. Once God’s existence is established, then certain things follow. It’s the atheist in this case who is claiming certain specific (physical) evil counts as evidence against God.
Click to expand...
No atheist claims it is evidence, but it is obviously a lack of evidence. Why is the default assumption that a supreme being exists?
 
It is your job to take each and every “seemingly” evil event and show that it was actually a blessing in disguise.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not my job…

It’s the atheist saying that physical evil counts against God…
 
That is the point. You cannot establish God’s existence or God’s “nature”. All you can do is observe the physical existence, here and now, and you can try to extrapolate from your observation. And it definitely does NOT point to a loving, caring God.
Click to expand...
I think otherwise, and I think the philosophical proofs are rather solid for the existence of an unrestricted, united, and simple actuality that is existence itself and cause of all else that exists.
 
Last edited:
Ha, yeah, only until you don’t, then it’s “Ah we are just stupid humble humans, we cannot know God.”
Click to expand...
Well obviously there has to be a point at which we don’t. Finite vs. Infinite.
 
Last edited:
Huh? Pretend for a moment you found the philosophical proofs for God convincing. Well then, we’d agree that we’d at least know that much about God (i.e., what those metaphysical demonstrations provide).
 
If you think that the existence of physical evils – even arbitrary ones without any greater good – is compatible with this definition of God:

The eternal act of existence itself, that is entirely simple, trans-physical, and intelligent

Then that is a good start.

For then it’s only a matter of one more attribute, i.e., God’s goodness. And if the former can be shown to be true, and if the latter (goodness) can also be shown to be true as a separate attribute with its own argument, then it follows physical evils cannot count against God.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
Well there ya go. Now to decide, if it’s even knowable, which of you is wrong? If this theoretical god sets the rules by definition, then you can guess how I’ll vote.
Click to expand...
It’s not a question of whether this omnipotent God would act in a way I would like. As I say, if He exists He hasn’t.

The question was whether the evidence from creation suggests that this omnipotent God is ultimate goodness.

As to whether pain is bad, that’s not the point; the question is whether designing pain into a constructed system is bad. And it is. If I were to set up a dairy farm where as livestock reached the end of its natural life it was torn apart by a pack of dogs, that would be (illegal and) immoral. An omnipotent absolutely good God would not meet only a lesser standard of behaviour.
 
catholic1seeks said:
Huh? Pretend for a moment you found the philosophical proofs for God convincing. Well then, we’d agree that we’d at least know that much about God (i.e., what those metaphysical demonstrations provide).
Click to expand...
God is defined in many different ways by different people and cultures. Up until the last 2 to 3 thousand earth years, most peoples believe in multiple gods (if they believed at all).
 
The God of classical theism in Western thought has actually remained quite consistent from both pagan philosophy up through Jewish, Christian, and Muslim thought.
 
I also recognize these books for participants and readers of this thread:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

And also this by Ed Feser:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
If I were to set up a dairy farm where as livestock reached the end of its natural life it was torn apart by a pack of dogs, that would be (illegal and) immoral.
Click to expand...
How so?

If there is no God, what is morality?
As to whether pain is bad, that’s not the point; the question is whether designing pain into a constructed system is bad.
Click to expand...
Actually, that is the point. If pain is not in itself bad, then “designing pain into a constructed system” cannot also be bad – at least, not under the same sense of the word “bad.” Pain could very well serve a purpose, and indeed, it does. Even IF pain were bad, unless you can show how God would derive his eternal, intelligent, and perfect plan from an alternative Universe, then you have failed to show how pain or “designing pain into a system” is wrong, evil, or contrary to the definition of God.
 
Last edited:
I was not arguing that there is no God.
catholic1seeks said:
Actually, that is the point. If pain is not in itself bad, then “designing pain into a constructed system” cannot also be bad – at least, not under the same sense of the word “bad.”
Click to expand...
Whether pain is always bad or not, designing a system reliant on pain is not absolutely good.
 
catholic1seeks said:
It is your job to take each and every “seemingly” evil event and show that it was actually a blessing in disguise.
Click to expand...
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back the truck up a little here. The atheist is most definately not saying that evil is a black mark for God. The atheist doesn’t believe that God exists. And this might seem a pedantic point but the black mark is given to the person who says that his God is goodness Himself where there is zero evidence in the real world that this proposed deity gives a rat’s buttocks for the entities that inhabit it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
The God of classical theism in Western thought has actually remained quite consistent from both pagan philosophy up through Jewish, Christian, and Muslim thought.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…so polytheism and monotheism are basically the same then?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top