Old Question -- Any New Answers?

[Arizona_Mike]

There’s an interesting new book out by the economist Bryan Caplan, “Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids.” It’s not a religious book at all, Caplan simply argues from a statistical basis that the fears most people have about having children are misplaced, that having kids is less work and more fun than you might think, and that being a parent makes good sense from an economic perspective. If you’re a new parent, or thinking about being a new parent, it might be worth a read and will probably allay some of your fears, although I don’t agree with the author on everything.

One of the points Caplan makes is that while we worry about bringing a child into this world,

What’s funny about these doubts is that virtually no one feels that it was unfair for their parents to have them. While we waste a lot of time blaming our parents for our problems, almost no one tells himself: “My parents were wrong to have me. They should be ashamed of themselves.”

The more specific the doubts, the weirder they sound. Many prospective parents fret, “It’s not fair to have a child when we’re having trouble making ends meet,” or “It’s not fair to have a child out of loneliness.” Can you imagine someone saying, “My whole life has been a mistake because I grew up poor,” or “My parents had me out of loneliness.” These are flimsy reasons to regret your own existence. If they wouldn’t come close to convincing you that your life was a mistake, aren’t they equally flimsy reasons against passing the gift of life along to someone else?

Almost everyone – children of flawed parents included – is glad to be alive. The upshot is that, contrary to popular worries, almost anyone who decides to reproduce is doing the child a favor. Fretting about “fairness” is looking a gift horse in the mouth. No one asks to be born, but almost everyone would if they could.

…In the graphic novel “It’s a Bird,” a writer named Steve shows how Huntington’s disease, a dreadful hereditary condition, has haunted his family. He finally realizes that his father doesn’t want to admit to himself that he might have doomed his own children…simply by having them.” Steve finally tells his dad to forget his regrets: “I’d rather have known my family, and fallen in love with Lisa, and written my stories, and then come down with Huntington’s…if that turns out to be my fate…than not to have lived, and missed all that.”
I can’t argue that there aren’t people who live under horrible conditions that don’t think about ending their own life, or that don’t hope that the end will come quickly. It is a fact that all the pain and suffering, and more, that most of us feel throughout a long life may be condensed into the short life of one who is least equipped to deal with it. I remain convinced, however, that a short and painful life, or even a long and painful life, is better than no existence at all.One wonders, too, what the atheist answer to this is. I don’t think they have one, except perhaps rigorous gene surveillance, abortion, and mandated eugenics. Some have called for the euthanasia of the deformed after birth (like the old pagan Roman law that mandated that the paterfamilias of a household kill any child born with a deformity.) “Bioethicist” Peter Singer, who holds an endowed chair at Princeton, argues that it is ethical to kill elders with cognitive impairments as well as newborns with birth defects, from the Utilitarian perspective which is shared by many “New” Atheists. Somehow, I don’t see that as an answer.

 

[Equites_Christi]

For those who believe scripture, does Malchus in the Gospel of John answer the question?

 

[shoe]

For those who believe scripture, does Malchus in the Gospel of John answer the question?

Yes, I believe Jesus’ restoring Malchus’ severed ear does answer the question. And Jesus also healed many people with leprosy, and the characteristics of leprosy indicate the restoring of lost parts of the body.

 

[razredge]

I do not.
The difference though is that this does not lead me to claim that it does not happen or has not happened.
I do not consider a lack of evidence to be evidence of abscence.

Well, I think the fact that such an event has claimed to have happened at most once, is pretty convincing that it is indeed evidence of absence and not absence of evidence.

The question here proposes a premise that God isn’t really there because a certain type of miracle has not been recorded. This is evidenced by the first 3 responses in the thread.
This is ridiculous reasoning as it proposes that God MUST do something.
God is free to act as he wishes, it is not our place to demand anything of him.

Not necessarily, you can believe that God is not a genie who intervenes in the natural order to perform miracles as I do - along with other Catholics/Christians.

Do not make up stuff or lie, rezedge.

I may be wrong but I haven’t heard that Calanda has been approved by the Vatican in the same way Lourdes and Fatima are? Has it? Or has it only be approved at the regional level? Happy to accept that I was mistaken if that is the case.

Read what I wrote; “find your hard-nosed skepticism over Calanda on the one hand and your childlike faith in accepting what* the skpteoid says*

 

[tonyrey]

My objection does not depend on ‘everyone being convinced’ - if the atheist reporter of an avowedly secular and anti-Catholic newspaper turned up just so he could write about the failure of any miracle to eventuate and ridicule superstitious peasants but went home a believer - as did happen.

Then THAT is a case of God performing a coercive miracle - You will have to revise your definition of ‘coercive miracle’ to be something like ’ a miracle which everyone who has heard about it accepts’

A belated reply!The conversion of one or several individuals doesn’t make a miracle coercive. It would have to compel all normal people who witness the event to believe.

BTW I believe the miracles at Lourdes and Fatima did occur.

 

[razredge]

A belated reply!The conversion of one or several individuals doesn’t make a miracle coercive. It would have to compel all normal people who witness the event to believe.

BTW I believe the miracles at Lourdes and Fatima did occur.

Again, you misunderstand my point - I am saying that for a miracle to be coercive a non-believer or even a Catholic skeptical of miracles has to be converted to belief in the miracle. As long as that occurs the miracle is coercive to its witnesses regardless of the number of witnesses who believe that the miracle did or did not occur.

As it has coerced a former non-believer/skeptic to believe.

 

[tonyrey]

Again, you misunderstand my point - I am saying that for a miracle to be coercive a non-believer or even a Catholic skeptical of miracles has to be converted to belief in the miracle. As long as that occurs the miracle is coercive to its witnesses regardless of the number of witnesses who believe that the miracle did or did not occur.

As it has coerced a former non-believer/skeptic to believe.

You gave the impression that all the eye-witnesses were compelled to believe - and presumably everyone would have believed if they had been there…

 

[razredge]

You gave the impression that all the eye-witnesses were compelled to believe - and presumably everyone would have believed if they had been there…

No I didn’t, please quote me if you believe otherwise.

I quite clearly said:

They were not coercive to those who weren’t present - but they most definitely were to the eyewitnesses! Such as the atheist journalists who were compelled to belief and converted following the ‘Miracle of the Sun’ at Fatima.

and

Myobjection does not depend on ‘everyone being convinced’ - if the atheist reporter of an avowedly secular and anti-Catholic newspaper turned up just so he could write about the failure of any miracle to eventuate and ridicule superstitious peasants but went home a believer - as did happen.

Then THAT is a case of God performing a coercive miracle

 

[William_of_Ware]

Not necessarily, you can believe that God is not a genie who intervenes in the natural order to perform miracles as I do - along with other Catholics/Christians.

1-No god is no genie and we’re not supporting that crude caricature you have in mind. you on the other hand do have a backwards, 18th century image of god as a watchmaker that does not or cannot interfere with his “watch”. how do we know that? The highlighted part gives you away.

2- whomever these Catholics/Christians are, they are every bit as ignorant of the fundamentals of Catholic catechism as you’re. So God does not interfere with the natural order? Forget the resurrection, incarnation and many other miracles.

In what meaningful sense can you possibly call yourself Catholic?

I may be wrong but I haven’t heard that Calanda has been approved by the Vatican in the same way Lourdes and Fatima are? Has it? Or has it only be approved at the regional level? Happy to accept that I was mistaken if that is the case.

:tsktsk: Nice bluff, razedge.

You previously said that the church did not approve Calanda, full stop. Now you’re changing your tune to the effect that it was not approved beyond the regional level. Come with a better red-herring next time.

So the position towards supernatural/paranormal events such as alien abductions and miracles, shouldn’t be one of skepticism? If not, my point is valid since any reasonable person would be skepticial towards a paranormal account and be more inclined to accept a decent skeptical explanation of the events.

:tsktsk: Another red-herring. I criticized you for naively and credulously accepting what the skeptoid article says despite the flaws people like ArizonaMike have pointed out. Now you’re changing the subject and hoping no one will notice the sleight of hand.

But, hey, I’ll address your red-herring head on. No, just because you find something unlikely does not entail that it not happen. Just because something is factually unlikely does not entail that it did not happen and more importantly if god exist he can bring about any state of affairs that can be conceived.

And I certainly don’t believe it on faith - it just seems to me that the Skeptoid article raises issues with the traditional account and offers a plausible naturalistic explanation.

And you’re still defending that hack article.

It is not circular reasoning in the slightest - i’m simply saying that if we have only one example of questionable veracity of a particular class of events, then it is perfectly reasonable to believe that it is more likely that the sole occurrence did not actually happen rather than it did. Especially when we are dealing with a paranormal event which requires much higher standards of proof.

good news for you, there is another claim of amputees being healed. youtube.com/watch?v=lyGiUP4IXfc

Wether you find it believable or not is beside the point, you asked for more examples so there you have it.

Also, thanks for telling us that having the inquisition investigating a miracle throughout a year, and having the testimony of of dozens of witnesses constitutes “questionable veracity.”

Again, all this talk of whether god did or does perform miracle x is irrelevant to begin with. Either god exists and can perform miracles or god does not exist.

What makes you think an omnipotent being does not or cannot perform miracles?

 

[James224]

So sorry… you have to answer that for yourself. The so called “problem of evil” is the ultimate thorn in the side of Christianity. No one has ever presented a viable argument, and never will. All the attempted responses are weak, dumb, pitiful cop-outs. Here is a collection of them: enjoy…

The Atheistic/Secularistic Worldview cannot explain evil or suffering. The existence of evil and suffering in the world doesn’t disprove the existence of God. To accomplish anything worthwhile in this world requires some suffering. Of course, I’m not talking about the major sufferings but, nevertheless, suffering is involved. Everyone has to make sacrifices to get a degree in college, etc. If God exists then obviously He allows suffering for a greater good although we won’t fully comprehend it in this world. If there is a God, the rewards in the next world would vastly outweigh the greatest suffering in this world. Suffering is often necessary to bring us to faith in Him so we can have those rewards in the next world.

I would like to hear your reasons for evil and suffering in this world.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Originally Posted by Luvya
So sorry… you have to answer that for yourself. The so called “problem of evil” is the ultimate thorn in the side of Christianity. No one has ever presented a viable argument, and never will. All the attempted responses are weak, dumb, pitiful cop-outs. Here is a collection of them: enjoy…

See posts 146 through 158.

 

[Luvya]

See posts 146 through 158.

Well, you sure said a lot there. I am not going to go and answer every point you make (though it would be fun), but I am going to reflect on a few things. Your conclusion was:

“I acknowledge God’s omnibeneficence in my creation, and in the creation of all things I hold dear – Family, friends, the universe, values, His Church. Even if I haven’t been given the knowledge or capacity to understand all His reasons for why things happen the way they do, I extend reasoned trust to him and his ultimate goodness, which is my definition of Faith. God is not obligated to explain Himself to me (as St. Paul said, the clay has no right to judge the potter). Christ’s commands to me (and his example) are sufficient to deal with the problem of suffering.”

What you say here is your profession of “faith” - which is antithetical to reason - no matter what the church says. You admit that you do not have the capacity and the knowledge to understand the “why”-s and “wherefore”-s. You pick and choose some “good stuff” (family, friends…) and quietly sweep the bad things under the rug. Therefore your proclaimed trust is not “reasoned”, it is based on “cherry picking”, it is simply blind trust - which, of course, I do not have.

You say that God is not obligated to explain it to you. However, he is obligated to explain it to me (or empower any of his followers to do the explanation), because I do not respect “raw power”, I only respect reason. The “clay example” is exactly what I reject. It simply says that God is powerful, we are weak, and therefore whatever God does is right and proper - in other words: “might makes right”. No, my friend, it does not follow.

Might does not make right - as far as I am concerned. If you would extend that maxim to become a global principle, you would have to condone all the “bad stuff” that humans do each other, they would also be unquestionable. I am sure you do not wish to do that. If you declare that “might does not make right - except for God”, then you commit an old fallacy called “special pleading”.

Let me reflect back to the beginning of your posts, where you say that by “hypothetically positing God, the atheist must also accept the idea of afterlife”, and failing to do that would be a logical error. Agreed! We do need to look at the “full picture”. Now, it seems to me that you wish to argue along the lines that the “good stuff” in the afterlife retroactively justifies those instances of suffering which cannot be rationally explained. Of course that would be nonsense. If a father unjustly punishes his child, it cannot be retroactively “validated” by giving a lollipop to the kid.

But there is a much more serious problem here, too. Benevolence (coupled with justice) cannot tolerate unjust events, if that event could be prevented. And even if there is an afterlife, no one dares to say that everyone will “compensated” there. As a matter of fact, according to Jesus only a handful will make it into heaven, and the rest will not. Moreover, none of the animals’ suffering will be “compensated”. So dragging the “afterlife” into the picture does not help your case at all.

 

[Luvya]

The Atheistic/Secularistic Worldview cannot explain evil or suffering.

What is there to explain? As the old syaing goes: “sh*t happens”. And the Universe - since it is not a conscious being - does not care.

The existence of evil and suffering in the world doesn’t disprove the existence of God.

Of course not. It merely disproves that God is “omniscient” and “omnipotent” and “omnibenevolent”. These traits cannot be reconciled with the existence of gratuitous evil. If you wish to argue that there is no gratuitous evil, you need to be explain EACH and EVERY “seemingly gratuitous” suffering and show how PRECISELY those sufferings bring forth some “greater” good and also show that if the suffering would have been just one iota less, then the “good” would not have materialized.

To accomplish anything worthwhile in this world requires some suffering. Of course, I’m not talking about the major sufferings but, nevertheless, suffering is involved. Everyone has to make sacrifices to get a degree in college, etc. If God exists then obviously He allows suffering for a greater good although we won’t fully comprehend it in this world. If there is a God, the rewards in the next world would vastly outweigh the greatest suffering in this world. Suffering is often necessary to bring us to faith in Him so we can have those rewards in the next world.

A whole lot of nonsense. What kind of reward can those animals look forward to, who perish in a random wildfire? The possible answer: “maybe there is something we do not know about” would be just a usual claptrap of trying to explain away the unexplainable.

 

[shoe]

So the position towards supernatural/paranormal events such as alien abductions and miracles, shouldn’t be one of skepticism? If not, my point is valid since any reasonable person would be skepticial towards a paranormal account and be more inclined to accept a decent skeptical explanation of the events.

I don’t think anyone in the entire history of mankind has ever been able to provide evidence that God has never caused a limb, organ, or body part to regenerate. Therefore, to say the world has no evidence that any amputee has ever been healed is almost like a person saying, “since I’ve never seen evidence that chipmunks have ever called my backyard their home, it is therefore perfectly reasonable for me to believe that chipmunks have never in history lived there.”

 

[Luvya]

I don’t think anyone in the entire history of mankind has ever been able to provide evidence that God has never caused a limb, organ, or body part to regenerate.

Listen, everybody: “The poster wishes to see evidence for something that has not happened.”. How quaint. No one has ever seen the lack of footprints made by little green men either. Or experienced the lack of leprechauns. Or heard the lack of noise made by the fairies. And these people actually think that they are rational. Evidence for the lack of something??? Sheeesh!

Therefore, to say the world has no evidence that any amputee has ever been healed is almost like a person saying, “since I’ve never seen evidence that chipmunks have ever called my backyard their home, it is therefore perfectly reasonable for me to believe that chipmunks have never in history lived there.”

Actually, substitute “chipmunks” with huge alien spacecraft, and your little analogy would start to make sense. And you really should attempt to be precise, and thus you should say “since no one has ever seen seen a GIANT ALIEN SPACECRAFT in the backyard their home, it is therefore perfectly reasonable for us to believe that NO GIANT ALIEN SPACECRAFT has ever in history landed there.” Yep, guess what, it is perfectly reasonable to doubt it.

Many a times I have seen this ludicrous argument: “absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence”. It most certainly is, and it is a very compelling evidence. What the saying should be: “absence of PROOF is not a PROOF of absence”. Now that would be true…

 

[shoe]

Listen, everybody: “The poster wishes to see evidence for something that has not happened.”. How quaint. No one has ever seen the lack of footprints made by little green men either. Or experienced the lack of leprechauns. Or heard the lack of noise made by the fairies. And these people actually think that they are rational. Evidence for the lack of something??? Sheeesh!

Actually, substitute “chipmunks” with huge alien spacecraft, and your little analogy would start to make sense. And you really should attempt to be precise, and thus you should say “since no one has ever seen seen a GIANT ALIEN SPACECRAFT in the backyard their home, it is therefore perfectly reasonable for us to believe that NO GIANT ALIEN SPACECRAFT has ever in history landed there.” Yep, guess what, it is perfectly reasonable to doubt it.

Many a times I have seen this ludicrous argument: “absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence”. It most certainly is, and it is a very compelling evidence. What the saying should be: “absence of PROOF is not a PROOF of absence”. Now that would be true…

Unlike chipmunks, though, your giant alien spacecrafts parked in a typical family’s backyard have been philosophically proven to be completely at variance with logical reasoning for the simple reason that they are self-determining relative to, and contingent on, the collection of interrelated information that is basically available to every giant alien spacecraft devotee under the sun.

Getting back to reality:
We also have the eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ restoring Malchus’ severed ear, healing people with leprosy, and restoring a man’s withered hand. We also have eyewitness testimony to Jesus’ raising the dead, which would seem to be a somewhat more difficult thing to do than restoring body parts.

 

[Luvya]

Unlike chipmunks, though, your giant alien spacecrafts parked in a typical family’s backyard have been philosophically proven to be completely at variance with logical reasoning for the simple reason that they are self-determining relative to, and contingent on, the collection of interrelated information that is basically available to every giant alien spacecraft devotee under the sun.

Philosophically “proven”? Wow.

Getting back to reality:
We also have the eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ restoring Malchus’ severed ear, healing people with leprosy, and restoring a man’s withered hand. We also have eyewitness testimony to Jesus’ raising the dead, which would seem to be a somewhat more difficult thing to do than restoring body parts.

Testimony? Eyewitnesses? Do you have a taped deposition about their “testimony”? You know what is the value of “hearsay evidence”? It ain’t worth more than the job of the Vice President.

And what about the “evidence of something NOT happening”? That sure opens up some new horizons in gullibility. Let’s see: “no one has ever seen the destruction of the document showing the ownership for the Brooklyn Bridge, therefore the guy who claims such ownership should be taken seriously”… I claim it and offer it to you at a reasonable price. Are you willing to buy it? It is quite cheap. As Barnum and Bailey said, “a sucker is born (again!) every minute”.

 

[William_of_Ware]

Of course not. It merely disproves that God is “omniscient” and “omnipotent” and “omnibenevolent”. These traits cannot be reconciled with the existence of gratuitous evil. If you wish to argue that there is no gratuitous evil, you need to be explain EACH and EVERY “seemingly gratuitous” suffering and show how PRECISELY those sufferings bring forth some “greater” good and also show that if the suffering would have been just one iota less, then the “good” would not have materialized.

Is there a reason as to why we ought accept to your nonsensical idea that we ought investigate EACH and EVERY “seeminly gratuitous” suffering and show PRECISELY the suffering bring forth some “greater good” other than your (un)impressive authority?

Let us suppose, for sake of the argument, that there are cases of pointless or gratuitous suffering. You still need to establish that god is under an obligation to act in any way in order to show he’s morally responsible. Before you waste our time saying god is benevolent and ought to act some way or another we’ll let you know you’re just jumping from is to ought and begging the question.

Second, evil is just the privation of some being or some good. You need to establish that an universe without evil is possible. Since we already know that the idea of a perfect word is incoherent you might find very slight difficulty in stablishing that an universe without evil is possible.

 

[shoe]

Testimony? Eyewitnesses? Do you have a taped deposition about their “testimony”? You know what is the value of “hearsay evidence”? It ain’t worth more than the job of the Vice President.

Although a person may not like the evidence of the eyewitness testimony of Jesus’ restoring people to health and wholeness while He walked upon the earth, that certainly doesn’t invalidate the evidence. Eyewitness testimony is completely valid evidence in any court of law.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=Luvya;8345790]
Philosophically “proven”? Wow.

Testimony? Eyewitnesses? Do you have a taped deposition about their “testimony”? You know what is the value of “hearsay evidence”? It ain’t worth more than the job of the Vice President.

So by your word no testamony prior to the invention of voice and vidio records is acceptable? Written testemony is not to be believed? That really narrows down What we can accept.

And what about the “evidence of something NOT happening”? That sure opens up some new horizons in gullibility. Let’s see: “no one has ever seen the destruction of the document showing the ownership for the Brooklyn Bridge, therefore the guy who claims such ownership should be taken seriously”… I claim it and offer it to you at a reasonable price. Are you willing to buy it? It is quite cheap. As Barnum and Bailey said, “a sucker is born (again!) every minute”. Ah, but we do have documentation that the Brooklyn bridge is publicly held and not privately held and therefore not up to being sold by an individual. As for the quote for Mr. barnum you may want to take a look at your own beliefs and see were that maybe applied.