If there were no God

[catholic1seeks]

The answer isn’t “they’re only animals.” Rather, there is something categorically different from the suffering of humans and of animals, especially the vast majority of animals.

But disregard that, if you want. I’m still waiting for the reason why physical pain and death is somehow contrary to God’s existence, or the goodness of God.

 

[laylow]

I really would like to have a conversation with the guy who made that video. It would be quite interesting. But that will not happen. So, all I can do is answer to your remarks. You say “ IF an omniscient being has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil…” and thereby lies the problem. The “ IF ” gives the game away. Who says that God has a “morally sufficient reason for allowing evil”? That is the very question which is being disputed. You cannot use the “premise” - God is all good, so everything that he does or permits - by definition - is good and loving? God is NOT loving and caring - by definition. God’s love and caring is something that needs to be substantiated, not just presented as an axiom. The pain and suffering in this existence in not just a “measurement error” - and to say that IF ONLY we would be privy to the explanation, we would see how wrong we are.

What you would need to do is: “take any random suffering (I suggest the Holocaust and a random Earthquake) and show that it actually was a ‘blessing in disguise’, that not even God - with his omnipotence could have prevented that suffering, while also keeping that ‘greater good’ that it was alleged to bring forth”. Obviously you cannot do that. And God is silent. As such we rely on the duck principle . God does not LOOK like a loving and caring entity, God does not ACT like a loving and caring entity, therefore the conclusion is: God IS NOT a loving and caring entity.

As for the title, it could not have been further away from the truth. The creator is always responsible for the well being of his creation. To bring forth a feeling being, fully knowing that this being will be exposed to some random and gratuitous suffering is the epitome of cruelty.

Concerning the starving children, we cannot be held responsible for those events that are outside our power to control. We have no power over the weather, we cannot prevent deluges or droughts, we cannot prevent diseases that kill the crop. A very small percentage of the suffering can be placed on our doorstep.

This is very well articulated. I continue to await the answer myself…

 

[catholic1seeks]

Uhhhh that’s not Catholic or historic Christian teaching, even if it is expressed by Christians throughout the centuries (after all, without certain data that was inaccessible to them, they weren’t granted certain restrictions regarding how they interpreted Genesis).

As the image of the garden expresses, the garden is not equivalent to the entire creation. There is no assumption that all of creation was without death and pain. Rather, the point is that humans were not meant to experience death. And that’s what Catholic (and Orthodox) teaching says: That without God’s special grace, humans would die as part of creation. Basil the Great, over 1500 years ago saw that death was natural for animals. So did Aquinas.

Indeed, some Christians believe that the Fall introduced physical evils (earthquakes, death, and so on), including animal death, into creation. But I don’t believe that, and the Catholic Church doesn’t officially teach that.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I don’t believe this, and the Catholic Church does not officially teach this. Ancient saints and church fathers also didn’t always speak in this way. St Basil the Great said that death was part of animal nature from the beginning, for example.

However, I still want to know why physical pain and death are somehow evidence against God’s existence, or his goodness.

 

[catholic1seeks]

All of creation is related. Biological evolution shows this well. The natural state for humans, like animals, is to experience pain and even death.

But the point of the garden story (and official Catholic teaching) is that humans are not merely physical entities but have been lifted up with a transcendent quality. We are not owed everlasting life, but it fits our trans-physical nature. We are made in the “image of God,” as it were.

You don’t have to believe that humans are transcendent (more than matter). Buy you really ought to get the story right. Or else you go off of strawmen arguments, and the dialogue can’t go anywhere…

 

[ProdglArchitect]

If God exists as Catholics believe He does, then He literally suffered and die for our sins, despite the fact we constantly reject Him.

The argument presented doesn’t hold water, not even in light of our limited capacity for knowledge. Consider a parent disciplining their child. Often, when the parent disciplines their child, the child doesn’t understand why. They don’t see a good reason for it and they don’t see what good will come it. All they see if that their parent is doing something to them that they don’t like. That doesn’t make the parent wrong to disciple, it just means that the child’s scope of knowledge is such that he cannot see the good in it.

In terms of knowledge and understanding, in comparison to God we are less than children, far, far less. It is like comparing the knowledge of a single-celled organism to the collective whole of human understanding, and even that falls far short of portraying the actual gap.

You do not have to like the answer, you do not have to accept the answer, but that does not make the answer wrong.

As for God seeming not to care; you can see His caring in His followers. We feed the hungry, care for the sick, the widows, the imprisoned. We strive to look after those who cannot look after themselves. This is a uniquely Christian trait. This behavior is unheard of in pre-Christian Pagan societies.

 

[catholic1seeks]

@Sophia

I really would like to have a conversation with the guy who made that video. It would be quite interesting. But that will not happen. So, all I can do is answer to your remarks. You say “ IF an omniscient being has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil…” and thereby lies the problem. The “ IF ” gives the game away. Who says that God has a “morally sufficient reason for allowing evil”? That is the very question which is being disputed. You cannot use the “premise” - God is all good, so everything that he does or permits - by definition - is good and loving? God is NOT loving and caring - by definition. God’s love and caring is something that needs to be substantiated, not just presented as an axiom. The pain and suffering in this existence in not just a “measurement error” - and to say that IF ONLY we would be privy to the explanation, we would see how wrong we are.

But then the atheist needs to show why any particular evil somehow prevents God from bringing out a greater good.

A Christian says that God can bring out a greater good from any evil because there are prior reasons, after establishing God’s existence, to show that he is goodness itself (if one is unwilling to fit that into the definition into “God”).

(1) Philosophical reasoning – what the nature of “good” means, and if God is pure actuality, then he cannot be restricted in his qualities
(2) Revelation. Look to Christ. Much of your dilemma is a mix of assuming both atheistic and Christian perspectives at the same time. However, if you stay with the entire Christian context in mind, then EVERY human suffering in this life will not be left alone: This world is not all there is.

 

[laylow]

He literally suffered and die for our sins, despite the fact we constantly reject Him.

Mere child’s play compared to eternal suffering.

The argument presented doesn’t hold water, not even in light of our limited capacity for knowledge. Consider a parent disciplining their child. Often, when the parent disciplines their child, the child doesn’t understand why. They don’t see a good reason for it and they don’t see what good will come it. All they see if that their parent is doing something to them that they don’t like. That doesn’t make the parent wrong ti disciple, it just means that the child’s scope of knowledge is such that he cannot see the good in it.

The parent disciplines for the future betterment of the child. The child does not understand, so the child condemns the action. Only when the child sees the result do they decide if it was appropriate or not. Other bystanders (grandparents, uncles, aunts, friends of the family, etc.) do not condemn the actions of the parent because they have seen past incidences where such action is proven to be beneficial to a child. We are not offered that benefit.

In terms of knowledge and understanding, in comparison to God we are less than children, far, far less. It is like comparing the knowledge of a single-celled organism to the collective whole of human understanding, and even that falls far short of portraying the actual gap.

Then why do religions claim they know the correct actions we are to take to be good people? Maybe I should just follow the actions of our creator and start killing people and giving them diseases, etc. We can’t understand his actions so how can be understand his requirements?

You do not have to like the answer, you do not have to accept the answer, but that does not make the answer wrong.

By that logic, I could make up any answer and say it may not be wrong.

As for God seeming not to care; you can see His caring in His followers. We feed the hungry, care for the sick, the widows, the imprisoned. We strive to look after those who cannot look after themselves. This is a uniquely Christian trait. This behavior is unheard of in pre-Christian Pagan societies.

There are plenty of nonbelievers that do those very things every single day.

 

[PickyPicky]

However, I still want to know why physical pain and death are somehow evidence against God’s existence, or his goodness.

If He is omnipotent, could create any universe He chooses, but chooses instead to create one that is full of suffering, one that as far as animal life is concerned actually runs on suffering, that works for me as evidence against His goodness.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Mere child’s play compared to eternal suffering.

Only for those who chose it. You cannot blame God for our choices.

The parent disciplines for the future betterment of the child. The child does not understand, so the condemn the action. Only when the child sees the result do they decide if it was appropriate or not. Other bystanders (grandparents, uncles, aunts, friends of the family, etc.) do not condemn the actions of the parent because they have seen past incidences where such action is proven to be beneficial to a child. We are not offered that benefit.

I disagree. We can look on the whole of human history and see how troubles have lead to benefit. Societal strife and destruction which ultimately leads to renewal and growth. Even from the greatest of evils, such as the holocaust, we see the development of universal declarations on human rights. The issue you have is that we cannot see them in our time-scale. We will not necessarily see how our own difficulties lead us to something better.

Once again, our limited scope does not mean that they won’t, it just means that we don’t see the benefit, like the child.

Then why do religions claim they know the correct actions we are to take to be good people? Maybe I should just follow the actions of our creator and start killing people and giving them diseases, etc. We can’t understand his actions so how can be understand his requirements?

For the same reason that the child does what his parents say is right to do. The ten commandments are an excellent basis for a moral life.

As for the question of God killing, that is His prerogative. He is the author of life, we are not. What’s more is that those things occurred as a result of grave offense against God. It is not wrong for God to punish the sinner, or the society of sinners, any more than it is wrong for a parent to discipline a disobedient child.

By that logic, I could make up any answer and say it may not be wrong.

Sure, you can make up anything you like; but unless it coheres with reality, it will be wrong and you will only be deluding yourself and those who follow you.

There are plenty of nonbelievers that do those very things every single day.

That is because, for all that they might like to reject it, they still live in a world predominately ordered on Christian values and principles. Their understanding of right and wrong, what is good and what is bad, is still heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian ideology. This is specifically why I referenced pre-Christian Pagan societies. They represent a world completely devoid of the influence of Christianity; and the concept of charity was utterly foreign to them. We know this to be the case because of how Pagan writers discussed the notion of charity. It is clear from their writings that it was something new and foreign to their world. Something which they mocked, and later sought to imitate when it became clear that this charity was leading former Pagans to embrace Christianity.

 

[laylow]

Only for those who chose it. You cannot blame God for our choices.

I don’t see any blame being placed by my statement.

I disagree. We can look on the whole of human history and see how troubles have lead to benefit…

Once again, our limited scope does not mean that they won’t, it just means that we don’t see the benefit, like the child.

I cannot see how a starving child, who suffers beyond our capabilities leads to renewal and growth.

For the same reason that the child does what his parents say is right to do.

No, the parent learned from experience.

The ten commandments are an excellent basis for a moral life.

How can we know. We cannot understand God, remember, you just said that.

As for the question of God killing, that is His prerogative. He is the author of life, we are not. What’s more is that those things occurred as a result of grave offense against God.

Totalitarianism at its best.

It is not wrong for God to punish the sinner, or the society of sinners, any more than it is wrong for a parent to discipline a disobedient child.

You just said God doesn’t punish anyone and now he does? Having a consistent message would be helpful. And I have no problem with discipline, as long as it is proportional.

Sure, you can make up anything you like; but unless it coheres with reality, it will be wrong and you will only be deluding yourself and those who follow you.

Which is exactly what religion does. The way they portray “God” is an abomination to him if he does exist.

That is because, for all that they might like to reject it, they still live in a world predominately ordered on Christian values and principles. Their understanding of right and wrong, what is good and what is bad, is still heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian ideology…

That is quite an egocentric view, since the world is only about 31% christian. There are many immoral teaching of christianity, such as love your neighbor as yourself, etc.

In reality, the nonbeliever cannot prove that God does not exist and the believer cannot prove he does. What we are left with is to organize society in a way that helps the most people. Everyone should be allowed to believe what they want, as long as it doesn’t infringe. Determining that last bit is going to take trial and error and discussion. My motto continues to be, let’s just drop all of these childish absurdities of fanatical superstition and get on to working on solutions for solving the issues that plague our world.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I cannot see how a starving child, who suffers beyond our capabilities leads to renewal and growth.

The point is that your inability to see good doesn’t mean that there is no good. Perhaps that particular child’s suffering is what mobilizes another person to act, and that person is able to help one or two or more children who are suffering. You would never know that this side of eternity, but something good did come from that suffering

No, the parent learned from experience.

God does not need to learn from experience, He knows because He is the source of all that is good. The parents in your example are inferior to God because they have the capacity to have learned incorrectly.

How can we know…

Because we can see the impact that living by them has on ourselves an on society at large. We do not need to be able to fully understand God to see the positive influence living by His statutes has on our lives. I do not need to see the cells healing my body to know that the medicine is working.

Totalitarianism at its best.

How so? Offenses generate repercussions. It is not totalitarianism to enact those repercussions once earned. If I harm another, I should not be surprised when I am made to account for that harm. It is not unjust for someone to be held accountable for their actions.

You just said God doesn’t punish anyone and now he does? … And I have no problem with discipline, as long as it is proportional.

I said no such thing.

As for proportionality, when we are dealing with offense against God the proportionality is infinite. God is infinite goodness, and so any offense against Him is of infinite gravity and deserving of infinite punishment. Anything less than this is an act of mercy.

Which is exactly what religion does. The way they portray “God” is an abomination to him if he does exist.

That is your opinion.

That is quite an egocentric view, since the world is only about 31% christian.
There are many immoral teaching of christianity, such as love your neighbor as yourself, etc.

It is not an egocentric statement if it’s true, and history indicates that it is true.

I’m just going to assume you made a typo, because I cannot conceive of how anyone could consider loving their neighbor to be immoral.

…clipped for length

What you’re suggesting is apathy to the question of our origin, our nature, and our purpose. No thanks.

You assume that these things are fanciful superstitions when, despite how much you’d like to reject it, they are the underlying basis for your belief that we should help the less fortunate. Without our “fanciful superstitions” you would still live in a world where regard for the unfortunate is mocked; where it is so foreign to our understanding of human nature that it is only initially considered as a cheap ploy to win back converts. (see Hostile Witnesses by Gary Michuta for further information on this.)

 

[laylow]

The point is that your inability to see good doesn’t mean that there is no good. Perhaps that particular child’s suffering is what mobilizes another person to act, and that person is able to help one or two or more children who are suffering. You would never know that this side of eternity, but something good did come from that suffering

1. So would it be moral to abort a baby that is guaranteed to have birth defects that will cause perpetual suffering to the person born and also their caretaker or would your inability to see the good mean for you that this is immoral?
2. If something good does come out of it, wouldn’t you think that would be something the church would have insight on? Seems like a majorly important aspect of a religion. With all of the worthless info in the bible, this would have been a handy addition.

God does not need to learn from experience, He knows because He is the source of all that is good. The parents in your example are inferior to God because they have the capacity to have learned incorrectly.

God could share his experience so his people know.

ecause we can see the impact that living by them has on ourselves an on society at large. We do not need to be able to fully understand God to see the positive influence living by His statutes has on our lives. I do not need to see the cells healing my body to know that the medicine is working.

And that impact is that a child starves to death every 5 seconds in our world…

How so? Offenses generate repercussions. … It is not unjust for someone to be held accountable for their actions.

As long as the punishment is fair. In this case, it is clearly not.

As for proportionality, when we are dealing with offense against God the proportionality is infinite. God is infinite goodness, and so any offense against Him is of infinite gravity and deserving of infinite punishment. Anything less than this is an act of mercy.

Only a brainwashed mind could resolve that an all-loving being goes from forgiving everyone, to allowing infinite punishment. It is so clearly made up, it couldn’t be anymore obvious.

I’m just going to assume you made a typo, because I cannot conceive of how anyone could consider loving their neighbor to be immoral.

It was a typo, I’m sorry. I meant loving your enemy. That is an immoral proposition.

You assume that these things are fanciful superstitions when, despite how much you’d like to reject it, they are the underlying basis for your belief that we should help the less fortunate. Without our “fanciful superstitions” you would still live in a world…

doesn’t logically follow. I can treat people good without a reward or punishment after I die. If that is the only reason to do it, it’s not moral anyway.

 

[Gorgias]

There really isn’t an absolute moral code.

Not to be a pain in the neck, but you realize you just posited an absolute moral code there, don’t you?

 

[Sophia]

If God exists as Catholics believe He does, then He literally suffered and die for our sins, despite the fact we constantly reject Him.

That explains nothing. It makes no sense that causing some serious suffering to someone innocent (Jesus) would be necessary as a “redemption” for the misdeeds of others. Where is “justice” in that?

Punishing the wrongdoers - proportionally! - would make some sense, if there would be no better solution. By the way, the punishment cannot be proportional to the status of the “victim” (God, in this case). The goddess of Justice is depicted wearing a blindfold to indicate that only the act matters, but not the person to committed the act, or the person who was the target of the act.

Of course there is the proverb: “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure”. And it shows that preventing “evil” actions is much better than allowing them and punishing them. Let me add: “and to HELL with the free will of psychopaths”.

This is a uniquely Christian trait. This behavior is unheard of in pre-Christian Pagan societies.

This is so incorrect that it is not even “wrong”. Mutual empathy is not even a human trait, there are many animals who exhibit altruistic behavior. Elephants are usual examples.

 

[Sophia]

Not to be a pain in the neck, but you realize you just posited an absolute moral code there, don’t you?

No that is not a “moral code”, it just a generic observation about the lack of absolutes in the field of ethics. There is nothing “moral” or “immoral” about it. It is strictly “amoral”. And remember, “baldness is NOT a hairstyle”.

Maybe someone will benefit from an addition. It is a bad idea to confuse “ethics” with “meta-ethics”. The expression “there is no absolute moral code” is a meta-ethical proposition.

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

Someone should make a poll so we can see who is winning.

 

[Sophia]

I meant loving your enemy. That is an immoral proposition.

Let me disagree. It is not immoral, merely stupid.

 

[laylow]

Let me disagree. It is not immoral, merely stupid

Well, that too.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

There really isn’t an absolute moral code.

Not to be a pain in the neck, but you realize you just posited an absolute moral code there, don’t you?

Not really no. A lack of an absolute moral code does not itself constitute a moral code.