Question from an athiest: How would you respond?

[vz71]

How are they not the same? Tell me how the baby with anencephaly not an example of evil. I do evil and suffering are the same though.

You are mistaken, evil and suffering are not the same.

While evil does cause suffering, it does not follow that all suffering is caused by evil.

A baby born with some defect that prevents living much more then a few hours after birth is not an evil; it is a tragedy.

 

[ribozyme]

You are mistaken, evil and suffering are not the same.

While evil does cause suffering, it does not follow that all suffering is caused by evil.

A baby born with some defect that prevents living much more then a few hours after birth is not an evil; it is a tragedy.

Define “evil” and “tragedy” for me.

 

[vz71]

Define “evil” and “tragedy” for me.

Evil is perpetrated.
A tragedy is simply a set of circumstances.

A flood that kills many people is a tragedy.
A man on a killing spree is an evil.

It is the difference between a creature knowing moral right and wrong and choosing the wrong versus no one making the choice at all.

 

[ribozyme]

Evil is perpetrated.
A tragedy is simply a set of circumstances.

A flood that kills many people is a tragedy.
A man on a killing spree is an evil.

It is the difference between a creature knowing moral right and wrong and choosing the wrong versus no one making the choice at all.

I do not agree with your definition of “evil” but I’ll try to use in the argument.

If I remember correctly, I think Catholics divide sins being sins of “ommision” and “comission.” One question that I will ask to you is how could your definition makes “sins of ommision” not an act of evil? But, I think allowing an human suffering is an evil when you could easily prevent it (which is a sin of ommision). So why isn’t God guility of sins of ommision for not healing the fetus? It is not the parent’s fault or the fetus’ fault that such an event happened.

 

[vz71]

I do not agree with your definition of “evil” but I’ll try to use in the argument.

If I remember correctly, I think Catholics divide sins being sins of “ommision” and “comission.” One question that I will ask to you is how could your definition makes “sins of ommision” not an act of evil? But, I think allowing an human suffering is an evil when you could easily prevent it (which is a sin of ommision). So why isn’t God guility of sins of ommision for not healing the fetus? It is not the parent’s fault or the fetus’ fault that such an event happened.

It is not a sin to not heal someone.

 

[ribozyme]

It is not a sin to not heal someone.

Let’s say that an Olympic swimmer is out on a morning jog. She jogs by a river (with no current) and she hears a cry for help from a small child who is drowning. But she continues on her morning jog. My question to you is how come this is not a sin?

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

I appreciate your reply and I will say that you have illustrated your point lucidly. But I am curious about whether the argument from beauty gave rise to the multiverse and string theory. I believe you could support this assertion, but I am curious about the etiology of the multiverse hypothesis.

Thank you, and sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I only write in Internet forums once or twice a day; that gives me time for my own research and learning, and for mass, my family, and other things. I am amazed by the people that can send so many messages AND do all these other things. A gift from God!

In terms of the multiverse:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

In terms of cyclic universes, their being unlikely, see:
PJE Peebles, B Ratra - Reviews of Modern Physics, 2003 - APS

In terms of science being driven by beauty, see:
PAM Dirac - Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc, 1934
Where just by arguments of beauty of his equation, Dirac argues that there must be negative frequencies allowed in the results, and so there must be antiparticles. Antiparticles from beauty. Most people discounted this idea, until positrons were observed.

E Witten - Physical Review D, 1993
Or really any paper by Ed Witten, or almost any string theorist.

For an explanation of a methodology of this, and how it can give rise to new ideas, see “The Road to Reality” by Roger Penrose.

I hope this helps.

 

[vz71]

Let’s say that an Olympic swimmer is out on a morning jog. She jogs by a river (with no current) and she hears a cry for help from a small child who is drowning. But she continues on her morning jog. My question to you is how come this is not a sin?

In that instance, given the information we have, and assuming it to be all of the information there is, it is a sin not to help.

Key here being “Assuming it to be all the information there is”
There could be additional information there that we do not know that would play into the morality of the act.

 

[vz71]

I am amazed by the people that can send so many messages AND do all these other things. A gift from God!

It would be hard to consider it a gift. Unemployment is not fun.
My new job starts in a couple of weeks, but until then, I’m all here.
Accept for the occasional hour or two for appointments.

 

[mlchance]

I didn’t say that science will *always *be incapable of confirming or disconfirming God’s existence.

I didn’t say you did. Imagining what science may be able to accomplish at some point in the future is hardly relevant to the discussion at hand. I prefer to deal with the here and now, not imaginary futures.

I think that Turok and Steinhardt’s prosposal will eliminate the need for God’s role as creator of the universe…

How on earth could it do that? How ludicrous! If God is indeed the creator, then that fact cannot be eliminated. That’s magical thinking, and is very irrational.

No, it does not make evil disappear, but at least we do not have to explain why a benevolent God will allow the existence of evil.

That doesn’t get you anywhere. If God exists and is benevolent, and if evil exists, you cannot merely wave your hands and say you’re relieved of the burden of having to explain how those facts are reconciled. Again, that’s magical thinking, as if you’re just closing your eyes and wishing really, really hard in order to make a problem vanish.

It is very evident that your atheism is nothing but smoke and mirrors. You’ve not presented a single coherent reason or the tiniest shred of evidence to support your positions.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[john_doran]

I think that Turok and Steinhardt’s prosposal will eliminate the need for God’s role as creator of the universe…

well, for one thing it’s difficult to see how any cyclic models are compatible with any kind of positive vacuum density, which our best science seem to entail is exactly what the density of the vacuum is: positive.

but that is as may be: cyclic models still run smack into the problem that they all entail that an actually infinite amount of time has already elapsed, which is impossible.

 

[john_doran]

Let’s say that an Olympic swimmer is out on a morning jog. She jogs by a river (with no current) and she hears a cry for help from a small child who is drowning. But she continues on her morning jog. My question to you is how come this is not a sin?

…because there’s a terrorist who has told her that he has a bomb in the basement of the empire state building that he will detonate if she stops for any reason at all.

in short, if you believe in the utilitarian moral premise (i.e. that there is such a thing as the greatest good in any situation), then your swimmer would not only be blameless for not saving the drowning child, but she would be obliged not to save the child.

so. maybe god eliminates all the evil he can, and allows only those evils which would result in a net balance of evil.

 

[Nullasalus]

That doesn’t get you anywhere. If God exists and is benevolent, and if evil exists, you cannot merely wave your hands and say you’re relieved of the burden of having to explain how those facts are reconciled. Again, that’s magical thinking, as if you’re just closing your eyes and wishing really, really hard in order to make a problem vanish.

It is very evident that your atheism is nothing but smoke and mirrors. You’ve not presented a single coherent reason or the tiniest shred of evidence to support your positions.

– Mark L. Chance.

To be fair, I think ribo means that squaring away evil in the world alongside the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God is a problem. But if you assume there is no God (Or that this god is not omnipotent, omniscient, or totally benevolent), you’re no longer dealing with an apparent contradiction.

On the other hand, when people hang onto hard atheism - where human existence in both part and whole is meaningless, a thing of chance, etc - you run into the problem of good. Without objective moral truth and meaning, there’s no good or evil occuring whatsoever, though people can throw those terms around anyway.

vz71:

In that instance, given the information we have, and assuming it to be all of the information there is, it is a sin not to help.

Key here being “Assuming it to be all the information there is”
There could be additional information there that we do not know that would play into the morality of the act.

Well, if that olympic swimmer is walking by and decides not to help, and if the child dies, does that mean God had more information and the child’s death was likely part of a greater plan in some way?

Though, I never thought about the difference between tragedy and evil before. Thank you, that’s quite a concept - something I’ll have to think about.

 

[mlchance]

To be fair, I think ribo means that squaring away evil in the world alongside the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God is a problem.

Yes, I get that. What I also get is that the solution to the problem is to ignore any answer that doesn’t mean doing away with the premise that a benevolent God exists. It’s sort of like his earlier demand that accounts of the Resurrection from secular sources be provided. Those religious sources, no matter how reliable, must be ignored and discounted because otherwise the dogmatic insistence that there is no such as the supernatural would have be rigorously examined and possibly discarded.

IOW: I’ve never met a single atheist who, when all was said and done, wasn’t intellectually dishonest.

It’s all so boringly typical.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[visavismeyou]

There doesn’t necessarily need to be a god for a snowflake to exist. A snowflake gets its shape from the polar forces in water molecules caused by the position in which the hydrogen and oxygen atoms are set. Water molecules cannot magnetically bind in any other way, you can’t have hydrogen closer to other hydrogens than they are to an oxygen because of the polar forces. The shape of a water molecule cannot have any shape but one unless extra energy was put into it, in which case the bonds and snowflake will break. The point is, it can’t happen any other way, in any universe. People think that a god must have created all the equations and forces that govern our universe when, in fact, once you understand them and the math behind it, you realize it cannot happen any other way, god or not. So the mere structure, shape or function of things, order, is no evidence that a god exists.

I have not read all the responses to this post yet so I am sorry if I am iterating something already proposed; I am a little strapped for time. However, the argument of “It could not have happened any other way” is erred. First this displays a lack of imagination, but that is irrelevent. Second the theories of alternate dimension go on and on and are very interesting, although highly unplausable in my eyes. Third, and most importantly, if you consider yourself intelligently capable to conceive of the entirety of all of the universe and all the minute details which occurred over the past 15 billion years which led up to this moment where you and I are debating the shape of a snowflake, then you have severe issues with your self-image. None ought to feel they can conceive such things.

 

[ribozyme]

On the other hand, when people hang onto hard atheism - where human existence in both part and whole is meaningless, a thing of chance, etc - you run into the problem of good. Without objective moral truth and meaning, there’s no good or evil occuring whatsoever, though people can throw those terms around anyway.

I do think that is an interesting point and I thank you for bringing it up. It makes me think about whether one can have an objective basis for morality. As some have correctly pointed out here, saying that preventing human suffering does not provide such a foundation, but I do think it is a noble ideal. But under this system concepts like “suffering” are subjective concepts as they do require a conscious being (evil can only occur (to me atleast) when one could potentially experience the consequences of such evil.)

 

[buffalo]

Yes, I get that. What I also get is that the solution to the problem is to ignore any answer that doesn’t mean doing away with the premise that a benevolent God exists. It’s sort of like his earlier demand that accounts of the Resurrection from secular sources be provided. Those religious sources, no matter how reliable, must be ignored and discounted because otherwise the dogmatic insistence that there is no such as the supernatural would have be rigorously examined and possibly discarded.

IOW: I’ve never met a single atheist who, when all was said and done, wasn’t intellectually dishonest.

It’s all so boringly typical.

– Mark L. Chance.

The other thing atheists don’t understand is the Catholic meaning of omnipotence.

 

[ribozyme]

The other thing atheists don’t understand is the Catholic meaning of omnipotence.

Please define it, as I think that a benevolent God who is unable to rectify the world’s ills as “impotent.” Thank you.

 

[Nullasalus]

I do think that is an interesting point and I thank you for bringing it up. It makes me think about whether one can have an objective basis for morality. As some have correctly pointed out here, saying that preventing human suffering does not provide such a foundation, but I do think it is a noble ideal. But under this system concepts like “suffering” are subjective concepts as they do require a conscious being (evil can only occur (to me atleast) when one could potentially experience the consequences of such evil.)

Well, that’s the puzzle. One theme throughout humanity, regardless of civilization, area, location, seems rather united in the belief that there IS a right and wrong, a good and evil. They agree in many of the basics, though there’s obviously disagreement. Yet very few would disagree with the belief that there IS good and evil, right and wrong - I think Nietzche went down that road, arguing that every man is a god and the individual alone determines good and evil (What happened to him in his later years is pretty instructive, and forces yet another question to be asked about his own philosophies.)

For me, I believe that there is an objective truth, certainly a moral truth, in the universe - even if the specifics and context of every situation is different, and that ‘truth’ complicated. However, once I accept that there are these truths, then I can’t accept that everything in the universe is as it is due to chance. If it’s not chance, then it’s purposeful. And if purposeful, it has an agent behind it who has purpose.

I was speaking with a fairly recently converted, lifelong atheist. He told me, and I could not deny it, that regardless what they proclaim to believe intellectually, men and women have to act like dualists and moral objectivists, and on a certain level give credence to the ‘irrationality’ that we are moral agents, that there is a cause beyond our selves, and an end beyond our deaths. What people dismiss as ‘irrational’ has been the fundamental drive behind human existence, and may not be irrational after all.

 

[buffalo]

Please define it, as I think that a benevolent God who is unable to rectify the world’s ills as “impotent.” Thank you.

God is almighty. There are things God cannot do:

He cannot lie
He cannot sin
He cannot do anything that is contrary to His holy character
He cannot do what is impossible by definition

So om(name removed by moderator)otence does not mean He can do all things. Omnipotence means He cannot fail at what He sets out to do.