If there were no God

[PickyPicky]

But how is it the result of free moral agency?

I don’t see why that example of pain is “bad”. It simply “is”.

That’s a most astonishing statement. It is so free from any contact with what I would regard as morality that I can’t find any of the common ground that would enable me to reply to it.

 

[catholic1seeks]

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.

If God exists, and creation doesn’t have to exist, I’d say mere existence itself is point #1. We sound a bit whiny. I’m guessing most of the atheists posting here have rather comfortable lives in the West. Meanwhile, some of the most horrid conditions are also marked by intense faith in God. Think of the third world. The point is, if God exists, then every good thing is indeed from God. Even mere existence, even the favorite song you hear on the radio.

But also, point #2:

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

 

[Sophia]

No, you’re just trying to move the goalposts here…

The tooth decay as opposed to cancer was merely an example, to show that the pain - as a warning sign of an impending problem - is extremely poorly implemented. Not to mention that it is an inferior mechanism compared to the regeneration. Moreover, most of the pain humans experience has nothing to do with a “warning mechanism”.

Only to the uneducated. I say that as gently and sincerely as possible.
Fools derive truth from the “Duck Principle”.

What nonsense. Most of our responses to the outside world are fast, and we all rely on the duck principle. We don’t need to set up a hypothesis that a rabid dog with a foaming mouth is “really” something to be avoided. But even as a starting point of an analysis it is the best tool there is.

---

Then if you’re going to critique Catholic views, you should probably learn about them first so you actually know what you’re doing.

Well, I guess some retrospect is in order. I will just quote here.

Your words:

Pain is the result of free moral agency.

My reply:

SOME of it.

So you said:

To your audience here (CAF), it’s the source of ALL of it.

And my reply was:

I don’t believe you. Presumably you think about the “original sin”. That is not my problem. We, outsiders do distinguish between an earthquake (a “natural evil”) and armed robbery (a “moral evil”). If you consider them the same… well, that is just too bad.

And your reply was what I already quoted above. Sorry, you are hopeless. Not ALL pains are the result of some moral agency. Not every Catholic here of CAF believes this.

So you are WRONG on too many levels to even enumerate.

I find my power to do good to be quite sufficient.

Then your standard is too low. My powers to help others is much lower than I would like it to be.

 

[Sophia]

Unless that someone found the curtailing of moral agency to be a greater evil than the attack itself.

Yes, that WOULD be a valid argument. Unfortunately God is silent, and does not explain what were the advantages of the genocides. In the lack of explanation we use the “duck principle” as a HYPOTHESIS, and conclude that there is no valid reason to allow the evil to happen.

Looks like that you do not understand the “duck principle”. It goes: “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck then it is VERY PROBABLY a duck”. It might be that this "seemingly duck-like entity is not “really” a duck… just VERY MUCH like a duck. Are you happy now?

So now the onus is on YOU, to show us the benefit of allowing the Holocaust and allowing the tsunamis which mow down uncountable random people. To say that this “next-to-unlimited-free-will” is intrinsically good - regardless of the outcome - is untenable. Free will is good, if it is used correctly. Free will is bad when it is abused. Is this not obvious?

Oh? Allowing a thief to run past me is as bad as performing the theft itself?

It depends on the value of the theft. If the thief happened to take the final dosage of a life saving medication then it is very serious indeed. Allowing the terrorist to blow up a dirty bomb is exactly as bad as doing it yourself. And the law does NOT disagree.

 

[Sophia]

This isn’t an example of meta-anything, however.

Of course it is. There are several ethical systems, namely: “virtue ethics, consequentialist ethics, and deontological or duty-based ethics.” The point is that different people subscribe to different “schools” - therefore there is NO universal ethical system acceptable by everyone. This denial says nothing about the system that someone in particular happens to accept.

What you say is just another variant of “atheism is a religion”. Atheism is NOT a religion, just like “baldness is NOT a hair style”, or “health is not a disease, it is the LACK of a disease”. Just think about it.

It is when it defines a particular ethical system.

Which it does not. You need to show that the lack accepting any particular ethical system actually involves a set of rules which define an ethical system.

Both you and Vonsalza keep on repeating that what we say is not a “fact”, merely an “opinion”. Of course it is an opinion - just like what you keep on asserting. But we are willing to admit it, while you don’t.

If, in mathematics, I made a statement something like “there is absolutely no set of positive integers that contains a negative number”, then that is not a “meta-mathematical” statement, but a mathematical one.

All you did was come up with an incorrect example.

 

[Vonsalza]

The tooth decay as opposed to cancer was merely an example, to show that the pain - as a warning sign of an impending problem - is extremely poorly implemented.

And again, you don’t seem to be right about this. Lots of cancer can take years - even decades - to develop and kill you. An infection in your teeth needs weeks or months.

Your claim of poor implementation is just more pseudo-religious hand-waving.

Not to mention that it is an inferior mechanism compared to the regeneration. Moreover, most of the pain humans experience has nothing to do with a “warning mechanism”.

You’ve been shown to be clearly wrong here, but obviously you’re not letting rationalism interfere with your ideology.

What nonsense. Most of our responses to the outside world are fast, and we all rely on the duck principle.

Which is entirely different from the process of establishing facts, or “truth”.

Simply; you’re all over the place, here.

Well, I guess some retrospect is in order.

No. Some Aquinas is in order.

Then your standard is too low. My powers to help others is much lower than I would like it to be.

And more subjective hand-waving…

Yes, that WOULD be a valid argument. Unfortunately God is silent,

As such, the only empirical solution we can draw is “Dunno…”. But you don’t seem to let that fact hold you back.

In the lack of explanation we use the “duck principle” as a HYPOTHESIS, and conclude that there is no valid reason to allow the evil to happen.

The problem here, for the umpteenth time, is that the test you employ to jump from hypothesis to conclusion is nothing more than your own intuition. Which is different from my intuition. Which is different from the intuition of that guy over there…

So now the onus is on YOU, to show us the benefit of allowing the Holocaust…

No it isn’t. I didn’t assert that there was a benefit to the Holocaust. I just asserted that a god that values free moral agency above most other things would do little-to-nothing to stop it.

You just wish I needed to show that holocausts are beneficial in a way you subjectively accept (another impossible task as your appeal here is emotional, not rational).

It depends on the value of the theft. If the thief happened to take the final dosage of a life saving medication then it is very serious indeed. Allowing the terrorist to blow up a dirty bomb is exactly as bad as doing it yourself. And the law does NOT disagree.

Oh yes it does, you’re just in denial.

It’s why one man may be charged with the crime and his pal will be charged with aiding and abetting.

---

Your handle wouldn’t have been Vera_Ljuba once-upon-a-time here, would it?

 

[Gorgias]

therefore there is NO universal ethical system acceptable by everyone.

That wasn’t the claim, however. Let me refresh your memory:

There really isn’t an absolute moral code.

See? He’s not asserting that there’s no universal moral code – just that there is no moral code which is absolute. (That’s why your argument fails, here – you’re arguing a different case than that which is being discussed. )

Both you and Vonsalza keep on repeating that what we say is not a “fact”, merely an “opinion”. Of course it is an opinion - just like what you keep on asserting. But we are willing to admit it, while you don’t.

Gorgias:

Except that, when the claim is “there is no absolute …”, it’s a truth claim – not of ‘opinion’, but of ‘fact’.

All you did was come up with an incorrect example.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur…

 

[Sophia]

You’ve been shown to be clearly wrong here, but obviously you’re not letting rationalism interfere with your ideology.

Quote, please.

Which is entirely different from the process of establishing facts, or “truth”.

The first step is always using our senses. The next step is trusting what we have established using them. That is the duck principle.

No. Some Aquinas is in order.

In other words, I quoted your own words back to you, and you don’t like it. Not everyone here at CAF and elsewhere agrees that ALL suffering is due to human actions. Did Aquinas state that somewhere? I can’t really believe that Aquinas could have said something so far in the future.

No it isn’t. I didn’t assert that there was a benefit to the Holocaust. I just asserted that a god that values free moral agency above most other things would do little-to-nothing to stop it.

Uh-oh. What does “most other things” entail if genocide is A-OK with him? Genocide means nothing in the face of “free will”? Fortunately we do not have such a horrible value system. We (as humans) do not “value” the freedom of sociopaths and psychopath, we curtail them as much as we can. Ever heard of jails and prisons?

The point was that gratuitous pain and suffering is incompatible with a loving deity. From that principle it follows that you - as the self-proclaimed apologist - must establish that allowing the Holocaust was “better” than preventing it. At least try to be somewhat consistent in your arguments.

It’s why one man may be charged with the crime and his pal will be charged with aiding and abetting.

Depending on the circumstances. Also in the current legal system in the US. Allowing something (like the Holocaust) to happen that you could have prevented is equally despicable as doing it yourself.

Your handle wouldn’t have been Vera_Ljuba once-upon-a-time here, would it?

No. Why? I frequently use a public computer in our public library. And I log off every time, so that no one else can use my avatar.

 

[Sophia]

See? He’s not asserting that there’s no universal moral code – just that there is no moral code which is absolute. (That’s why your argument fails, here – you’re arguing a different case than that which is being discussed.

The discussion has progressed since that. The point is the difference between “ethics” and “meta-ethics”. And they are STILL not the same.

Are you aware of the plethora of ethical systems “out there”? I presented a few. Is “atheism a religion? is baldness a hairstyle? is health just another disease?” I suggest you print this out and put it above your computer, so I don’t have to repeat it all the time. I would appreciate your courtesy.

Except that, when the claim is “there is no absolute …”, it’s a truth claim – not of ‘opinion’, but of ‘fact’.

In that case just present an refutation. Purported but incorrect facts are easy to refute. Of course a “truth claim” can easily be “just an opinion”… just look into a mirror and say something.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Re toothache…

It’s only relatively recently that we could actually do anything about a bad tooth.

I have the understanding that extractions are nearly as old as the agriculture that largely necessitated them.

So everything looks exactly like it wasn’t designed (unless the designer is a sadist)

The assumption there is “I have an idea of what the designer would/should have otherwise done”, which is a little difficult for me to accept on face-value - especially from someone who doesn’t think such a designer exists.

Now I’ll accept “what I would have otherwise done”. But that’s not hardly the same thing.

How often do you disagree with the rationale of a spouse? But, for some reason, a disagreement about the perceived rationale of a creator gives support for the notion it isn’t there?

Come now…

Re the toothacbe (I can’t be bothered cutting and pasting - not easy on a tablet), you’re looking at a period that represents a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of human existence. We need to look at timescales when we were in our infancy. Agriculture is very, very recent in those terms.

And the default position is not ‘I have an idea of what a designer should be’. The default position is: ‘This is what it is’. All those with explanations please take a ticket.

 

[Sophia]

The assumption there is “I have an idea of what the designer would/should have otherwise done”, which is a little difficult for me to accept on face-value - especially from someone who doesn’t think such a designer exists.

The assumption is different. It is: “I have an idea of what a rational, all-knowing, all-powerful and all-benevolent designer would/should have otherwise done”. Whether one actually believes that there is such designer / creator - is irrelevant. It is just a thought experiment.

From the all-knowing aspect it follows that this hypothetical designer knows about the pain and suffering.
From the all-powerful aspect it follows that this hypothetical designer can remove all the pain and suffering, except those which would lead to a logical contradiction.
From the all-benevolent aspect it follows that gratuitous pain and suffering could not exist. Pain and suffering could exist if that pain would be logically necessary to achieve some specific greater good, which could not be achieved if that pain and suffering would be removed, or even lessened even a miniscule amount.

Of course you try to have your cake and eat it, too.

There are two, diametrically opposite defenses against the “problem of evil”. One is the “free will defense”, which says: “the (nearly) unlimited free will is so valuable in the eyes of the designer, that gratuitous evil is accepted as a corollary of the freedom”. The other one is the “greater good defense”, which says: “there are SEEMINGLY gratuitous evil events, but they are really not gratuitous, because they are logically necessary to bring forth that unspecified, nebulous greater good”.

Neither of them “works”. The unlimited free will is only valuable in the eyes of an evil or indifferent designer. The greater good defense is an empty proposition, UNLESS the apologist can establish that every piece of suffering is logically necessary to achieve that specified and “greater” good. Which leads to the necessity to have a valid and sound argument to establish both that “greater” good, AND that removing a miniscule amount of the suffering would jeopardize that “greater” good.

It is childishly simple to see that the amount or suffering shows a decline with every advancement of medical science.

So the apologist has no defense.

Moreover, it is also childishly simple to design a world without pain and suffering. Use heaven as a prototype.

 

[laylow]

I don’t see why that example of pain is “bad”. It simply “is”.

I guess Jesus’ death on the cross wasn’t that big of a deal then. The pain just ‘was.’ Not much of a sacrifice, since the pain he felt was not ‘bad.’

 

[Sophia]

I guess Jesus’ death on the cross wasn’t that big of a deal then. The pain just ‘was.’ Not much of a sacrifice, since the pain he felt was not ‘bad.’

Someone said a long time ago that Jesus’ death was just a temporary inconvenience. Its human equivalence would be a “bad hair day”.

 

[Vonsalza]

Quote, please.

If you’re too lazy to keep up, then I’m too lazy to spoon feed. I’m guessing 2 or 3 exchanges ago, above?

Absolutes are like swordsmen. You only need one exception/thrust to get through in order to kill it.

The first step is always using our senses. The next step is trusting what we have established using them. That is the duck principle.

It’s also “confirmation bias”…

The duck principle is mean by which you form a hypothesis. If you want to call the outcome “truth”, then more testing is needed. You know this.

In other words, I quoted your own words back to you, and you don’t like it. Not everyone here at CAF and elsewhere agrees that ALL suffering is due to human actions. Did Aquinas state that somewhere?

Yes, actually… thus why I raised the point that some Aquinas is in order. So rather than quoting my own words back to me, you’ve issued a dodge. Fair enough.

Uh-oh. What does “most other things” entail if genocide is A-OK with him?

Where did I say that genocide was A-OK to a possible god?

Despite your darnedest to move the goal-posts, here, you’re still stuck at the suggestion that perhaps the theoretical god values free moral agency more than the lives of its actors.

The point was that gratuitous pain and suffering is incompatible with a loving deity.

And, again, it’s only incompatible if the loving deity doesn’t place a higher value on the free moral agency than it does the possible negative outcomes of its enacting. You just don’t have an answer for that.

Depending on the circumstances.

Thank you for the rational concession.

No. Why?

He/she has presented all your arguments before in roughly the same way. They’ve been absent for awhile now.

 

[Vonsalza]

Re the toothacbe (I can’t be bothered cutting and pasting - not easy on a tablet), you’re looking at a period that represents a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of human existence. We need to look at timescales when we were in our infancy. Agriculture is very, very recent in those terms.

It’s our increased consumption of agricultural goods that made toothaches as common as they are. When we were on the “paleo” diet as a species, they were almost certainly a far more rare occurrence.

And the default position is not ‘I have an idea of what a designer should be’. The default position is: ‘This is what it is’. All those with explanations please take a ticket.

If you don’t take a presupposition of what the designer “ought”, then you have no basis on which to levy your critiques. All you can state is that “what is, is - whether there’s a god or not”.

That does nothing to tip the scales either for or against.

As you still present an argument, this mean there’s a disharmony between the defaults (this and yours).

 

[Vonsalza]

The assumption is different. It is: “I have an idea of what a rational, all-knowing, all-powerful and all-benevolent designer would/should have otherwise done”.

And what you consistently refuse to admit is that the theoretical god’s rational basis and your rational basis do not have to match. As I’ve pointed out above, my wife and I approach dcertain issues with different rationales. ON that basis, would you like to argue that she also does not exist? Or that I don’t exist?

From the all-benevolent aspect it follows that gratuitous pain and suffering could not exist.

If, and only if, the value of the “gratuitous pain and suffering” was greater to that god than the value of the existence of free moral agency.

Since you can’t measure any of that for comparison, the very very best you actually have is “Well, I disagree!!!” And fine with me.

There are two, diametrically opposite defenses against the “problem of evil”.

I’m tired of telling you this. There’s more than two. Stop trying to force a false dichotomy in order to suit your views.

Neither of them “works”.

Sure they do. You just don’t like the implications so you dismiss them as “not working” when all that’s really happened is you’ve just had another disagreement.

The unlimited free will…

Who’s referring to “unlimited free will”? Certainly not me.

I can’t spontaneously fly. Or buy a billion dollar island. My will is quite limited.

Maybe you need to use “free moral agency” and readjust your arguments to suit?

It is childishly simple to see that the amount or suffering shows a decline with every advancement of medical science.

It’s childishly simple to see that our advances in medical science and agriculture have spiked populations on this planet to a point where there’s many more people that suffer. You just don’t want to see the other side of the coin because your pseudo-religion ideologically blinds you to it.

Moreover, it is also childishly simple to design a world without pain and suffering. Use heaven as a prototype.

And annihilate moral agency in some way…

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I don’t see why that example of pain is “bad”. It simply “is”.

I guess Jesus’ death on the cross wasn’t that big of a deal then. The pain just ‘was.’ Not much of a sacrifice, since the pain he felt was not ‘bad.’

I would imagine that the value of Christ’s death lies in who it was that died and why. Not how painful the death was.

I’m certain there are people who suffered worse deaths than a man who was crucified and died over one afternoon. Some unlucky fellows have been recorded hanging on a cross for days before perishing.

If you gave me the choice between dying/dissolving from radiation burns over three weeks or crucifixion, I pick crucifixion.

 

[laylow]

I would imagine that the value of Christ’s death lies in who it was that died and why. Not how painful the death was.

I’m certain there are people who suffered worse deaths than a man who was crucified and died over one afternoon. Some unlucky fellows have been recorded hanging on a cross for days before perishing.

If you gave me the choice between dying/dissolving from radiation burns over three weeks or crucifixion, I pick crucifixion.

Yet, under most all Christian teaching, the Russian boy who tortuously died slowly from the radiation from Chernobyl, or the Japanese girl, who’s skin melted until she died in agony from the A-bomb, are now at the blink of beginning of their life (and death) sentence of roasting for all of eternity because they didn’t accept the crucified man from a few thousands of years prior, as their Lord and Savior. Sick, utterly sick.

 

[Vonsalza]

Yet, under most all Christian teaching, the Russian boy who tortuously died slowly from the radiation from Chernobyl, or the Japanese girl, who’s skin melted until she died in agony from the A-bomb, are now at the blink of beginning of their life (and death) sentence of roasting for all of eternity because they didn’t accept the crucified man from a few thousands of years prior, as their Lord and Savior. Sick, utterly sick.

I can’t answer for everyone and its unreasonable for anyone to ask that, but such is not the teaching of the Catholic Church which contains as many Christians as all other Christian sects put together. It teaches that while man is bound by the sacraments, God most certainly is not.

Judgement is God’s alone. That’s completely the end of that discussion, as far as I’m concerned.

There does appear to be a substantial disparity between what Christendom is in your mind and what it actually teaches. Just saying…

 

[Sophia]

Despite your darnedest to move the goal-posts, here, you’re still stuck at the suggestion that perhaps the theoretical god values free moral agency more than the lives of its actors.

That theoretical god (lower case!) is not the same as the Christian God (capitalized). If any agency (human or god or God) values “that nearly unlimited freedom” over the well-being of the victims, then the words we use to describe it are not the terms of endearment. Something like evil, horrible, despicable, sadistic… and so on. As opposed to “loving” and “caring” that the Christian God (capitalized) is supposed to be.

Where did I say that genocide was A-OK to a possible god?

It is included in your “maybe that hypothetical god (lower case!) values the free will more than the incredible pain and suffering of millions of Jews and others in the Holocaust”.

And annihilate moral agency in some way…

So in heaven we shall just change into mindless robots? Well, it would be worth it.

And what you consistently refuse to admit is that the theoretical god’s rational basis and your rational basis do not have to match. As I’ve pointed out above, my wife and I approach certain issues with different rationales.

This problem is easy to resolve. Expose everyone to their “medicine”. If you (or that lower case god) prefers the (nearly) unlimited freedom over the well-being of the victims, let’s expose you (and it) to the result of such preference. Let get a few Gestapo thugs equipped with all the equipment of torture, and see how fast you (or it) would change your (or its) preference.

If you have no problem with torturing others in the name of “free moral agency” let’s do the same to you.

The golden rule cuts both ways. “Do unto others as they prefer to do unto you”. Or “Do unto you what you prefer to do onto everyone else”. You would definitely deserve it - as a teaching process.