Rebuttal: Karlo Broussard's False "A God-Bathed World" argument

[Scowler]

I’m confused. This is exactly the argument against the problem of evil. But you are arguing the problem of evil is a real problem?

It is the perennial thorn in the side of Christianity. It is the strongest argument against the Christian God. Next to the “silentium Dei”, the silence of God. Actually, it is only ONE of the attempted defenses for the “problem of evil”. There are others - equally impotent.

To be clear, you agree suffering can be necessary for a greater good?

Theoretically, it can be. I cannot rule it out on purely logical ground. Practically, I have never seen an example, where God’s alleged omnipotence is insufficient to deal with the suffering and STILL achieve that “greater good”.

The greater good would be the salvation of more souls through suffering.

That is a good start. But you need to bring up some argument that suffering is NECESSARY for salvation. That without suffering there can be NO salvation. And even lessening the suffering would make salvation impossible. After all, God’s omnipotence could simply create everyone directly into heaven. The funny thing is that according to the apologists, this is what God actually desires. To say that there is something that God “desires”, which is also in the best interest of everyone (what could be better than the beatific vision?) and God STILL does not do it, simply describes God as a lunatic, or an idiot.

You are asking me to be God. But more importantly the only way you could object is if you are God. Only an omniscient creature could know that any particular suffering won’t result in a greater good.

Not at all. We do NOT need omniscience. It is sufficient to have evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. We can never have omniscience, but that does not stop us from bringing a “verdict” based upon the available evidence. We do it in every courtroom.

 

[ethereality]

Which member is he? And, by what authority do you declare him to be “false”?

I don’t know if he’s responded here. I’m not making an appeal to authority: I’m giving a reasoned argument. Please try to read more carefully, or to read more classic literature in general to build up your mind’s contextual-interpretive (‘critical thinking’) faculty.

 

[ethereality]

What is gratuitous suffering and how do you know any suffering is gratuitous?

Please spend more time researching this topic. The main idea is that we don’t see any good coming from some suffering, and God refuses to tell us, and God does not comfort us. So we are tempted to despair, because the Bible and Church teaching is that God comforts us, ‘dwells with us’, etc.

You need a God to condemn God with the problem of evil.

I am surprised to see you make this logical fallacy. Do we need a teapot orbiting Saturn before we can present evidence that it’s not there? No. You’re confusing a hypothesis with an axiom just as Scowler discussed with MPat.

No, the Kalam argument posits a beginning of time.

Okay, thanks, you’re right. Premise 2: The universe began to exist. It’s the proof for this premise that is fallacious.

 

[ethereality]

If there is a logically necessary suffering, then there is no problem. Omnipotence means that God can eliminate any and all sufferings, except the ones that are logically necessary. No matter how hard I tried I could not come up with an example. A suffering that is beyond the power of God to eliminate. I have never seen anyone else who could come up with an example. Maybe you can? I am patient.

I’m not sure what you’re asking here. Are you wanting an example of logically necessary suffering, or justified gratuitous suffering?

I think I see logically necessary suffering: It’s summarized in the observation, “Vice is its own punishment, pleasure its own reward.” To try to put forward an argument:

1. God created an ordered universe where people have the power of free will.
2. It follows that actions have ordered consequences.
3. To exercise free will, agents must be able to achieve consequences that are within their power.

It then follows that logically necessary suffering can result. If you want to burn your hand, you can place it in fire and it will burn. Drinking alcohol excessively leads to hangovers. Fornicate enough and you’ll get an STD or crisis pregnancy. For most evil, suffering logically follows. These are examples of logically necessary suffering.

My problem, though – I suppose I should now address exnihilo – is when God chooses not to heal us. For example, parents mutilate the genitals of their children, which still regularly occurs to male babies in the United States through a practice conflated with Biblical circumcision, for example. It’s logically necessary for the child to suffer the consequences of the genital mutilation, but I don’t see that it’s logically necessary that God refuse to heal after prayer until death. When the child grows to understand reality, and prays to be healed, at that point it seems to me to go from logically necessary suffering to gratuitous (unnecessary) suffering if God refuses to heal.

However, Corrie ten Boom has a good anecdote about apparently gratuitous suffering in the book /The Hiding Place/, ghost-written by two who interviewed her. The point is that God may not explain why we suffer because we’e not capable of understanding it in this mode of existence, in this spacetime; but, if we are changed after death, or if at death we move into a different mode of existence, we may be able to understand it. (Her example was wanting to carry some burden as a child; her father refused; as an adult she understood why, and saw how as a child she couldn’t see from an adult’s perspective.) You’re right, if we only say this, it’s “begging the question” to defeat the problem of evil. However, as Jimmy Akin pointed out, if we know that God loves us, then, combining that fact with this observation, it does successfully answer the objection to point out that God likely has a reason that we don’t understand. (In other words, rather than say, “God has a good reason because God has a good reason,” we are instead saying, “God has a good reason because God loves us.” Of course, you must show or learn elsewhere that God does indeed love us.)

 

[ethereality]

And unless you can explain why what would be ultimately an arbitrary line over which suffering is bad is in fact bad then you have no claim against God due to the existence of suffering.

As another example (see my previous posts), Joni Tada dived into a shallow lake and broke her neck – about 50 years ago. It’s logically necessary that she suffer the consequences of her action for her free will to be exercised, but I don’t see that it’s logically necessary that she suffer until death. Rather, when she has the faith to be healed, and prays with faith, she should be healed, or else it becomes gratuitous suffering. In her case, I can only speculate that God wants her to join the catholic faith and be healed through the Eucharist, whereas she “has stubbornly denied the truths of the Catholic Church, cutting herself off from the graces God provides in the sacraments, and remained Protestant” – but this is speculation. (Or is it the Holy Spirit or my guardian angel giving me insight or private revelation? How do you tell?) I did email her organization asking whether she’d considered joining the catholic faith and might be healed through receiving the Eucharist, as I recall, but the responder ignored my question, giving me a generic reply.

 

[ethereality]

The greater good would be the salvation of more souls through suffering.

This really should be a separate thread … Why does God want us to suffer before He’d give sufficient grace for sinners to repent? That sounds like Jean Calvin’s sadism (a la “the Father poured out his wrath on the Son”), not the Father Jesus teaches us about. (I’ve never understood how or why others are helped through our suffering.)

 

[Scowler]

I’m not sure what you’re asking here. Are you wanting an example of logically necessary suffering, or justified gratuitous suffering?

I would like to see an example of some suffering, which will lead to some greater good, and which suffering cannot be eliminated or even lessened without losing that greater good. Something that even God’s omnipotence cannot “conquer”. That is it.

Mind you, this deals with the “greater good” defense, and NOT with the “free will” defense. They are two different attempts to reconcile the existing pain and suffering with God’s purported “goodness”.

 

[MPat]

1. I’m not “stabbing him in the back”: I’m saying it to his face, publicly, here.
2. It’s not an accusation: I’ve demonstrated it to be true.
3. I checked his website previously and he provided no means to contact him, only information to book him for public speaking.
4. I called “Catholic Answers Live”, and ‘unfortunately they didn’t have time to get to me’, yet he chose to leave the room and have the operator disconnect me, rather than speak with me privately off-the-air.
5. I commented on his articles in the old website system but he has ignored them.
6. We did email. He sent me one reply to an email I’d written Catholic Answers which likewise misunderstood and failed to engage my points, again relying on an overly-simplistic conception of reality. (As I recall, I pointed out problems in his reply, explaining why he was incorrect, and he did not reply again.)

Sorry, but it looks like it has to be said: who exactly do you think you are!?

By what right do you make a claim on his time?

Did he promise you to discuss the matter in some detailed way? Doesn’t look like that.

Did you pay for the privilege to have such discussion? Doesn’t look like that.

Did some authority give you such a right? Doesn’t look like that.

Were you especially polite? Doesn’t look like that (given how you act in this discussion).

Did you argue well, offer good arguments, or at least cunning sophistry? Unfortunately, all your bragging notwithstanding, that seems to be pretty unlikely. After all, in this thread you somehow managed to do so badly that now you try to wiggle out after claiming not to know that Moon is not made of green cheese…

Speaking of which, let’s compare:

Let’s see… You refuse to know that Moon is not made of green cheese and brag about your rationality, while looking down on others. And you also claim to know that per accidens causal series you gave is completely sufficient.

MPat, you have misrepresented both of my positions. Rather, there is no
evidence to support a green cheese moon, nor have you given any evidence
that the series I gave is an insufficient explanation.

As one can see, I was making no claim about any evidence, only about what you claim to know. And you didn’t make any other claim about knowledge here. Thus, we can see that my summary made you feel uncomfortable, but you can’t even contradict it substantially.

No, they are not. You believe that “entertaining a hypothesis” is the same as accepting it axiomatically.

I was saying that you and ethereality were arguing similarly.

 

[ethereality]

MPat, I’m sorry that you don’t fully understand everything that you read, but I don’t see that I can help you with that. You are correct that I do not know that the moon isn’t made of green cheese, but I have a strong belief that it isn’t. Contrary to your suppositions (no, I was never ‘uncomfortable’), it is not ridiculous to admit not knowing what you haven’t experienced. There is a distinction between knowledge and belief. I don’t know that my parents are my biological parents, for example, but I have a strong belief that they are, and no reason to doubt it. A belief is no less consequential or important simply by virtue of not being knowledge.

The rest of your thoughts about my disagreement with Karlo are rather inconsequential. I don’t have to be someone special to point out that he’s wrong on the Internet, any more than people who criticize politicians, and I never claimed he had an obligation to respond to me. This thread isn’t even “about him”: It’s mainly to help those being misled by him (and to seek clarification if I am mistaken), not to “get some response from him” as you seem to think.

 

[Scowler]

You are correct that I do not know that the moon isn’t made of green cheese, but I have a strong belief that it isn’t.

Your words are much too soft. All the available physical evidence, which is beyond ANY doubt, not just any reasonable doubt affirm that the Moon is NOT made of “green cheese”, not even any cheese. To doubt our senses - and their extensions - is totally unfounded. How could one doubt their senses? By applying these senses to repudiate what they tell us? That would just as nonsensical as any other type of solipsism.

 

[ethereality]

I would like to see an example of some suffering, which will lead to some greater good, and which suffering cannot be eliminated or even lessened without losing that greater good. Something that even God’s omnipotence cannot “conquer”. That is it.

Mind you, this deals with the “greater good” defense

Well, again (and I do think you should start a new thread for this!), the ‘greater good’ defense’s success depends on first already knowing that God loves us, etc. That’s why an example is not needed. Of course, if we didn’t have this knowledge, we would need more proof as you seek, but that’s a different version of the argument.

You’ve put so many constraints on what you want to see that I think it would require absolute knowledge, i.e. to see all reality ‘as God sees it’, which I think can only happen at the General Judgment or in heaven after death. Without having this absolute knowledge, you can always respond with a “what if” hypothetical rebuttal, and any example proffered would likewise be tentative.

To give an example to illustrate, suppose a parent loses a child and in response starts a charity. That charity helps many people and the parent wouldn’t have started it otherwise, whereas that child would have grown up to be a selfish loser (taking resources without contributing to society), or a rapist, murderer, or the next Hitler, etc.

We don’t have the vantage point needed to see if the good is in fact greater than what good would have been without the suffering, because we would need to know what would have been. We also would need to know every consequence of our actions, whereas, clearly, we don’t even know what happens with the stranger we pass by who we smile at (i.e. whom we greet) who does or doesn’t smile back.

So I think your only paths to progress with this ‘greater good’ defense are to a) learn that God loves us apart from this argument, and b) wait until the end of time (or rather, be actively doing good until we die…).

 

[ethereality]

All the available physical evidence, which is beyond ANY doubt, not just any reasonable doubt affirm that the Moon is NOT made of “green cheese”, not even any cheese. To doubt our senses - and their extensions - is totally unfounded. How could one doubt their senses?

Of course you’re right, that’s why we – who haven’t been to the moon or worked at NASA – have the strong belief that it’s not cheese, and I’m not suggesting we doubt our senses. My point was rather that, as someone unaffiliated with NASA who’s never even met an astronaut, much less been to the moon, all that I know about the moon is based on what I see of it (relying on senses), and all that I believe about the moon is based on what I am told of it (by educators, NASA, astronauts).

But I suppose we can in fact call this knowledge, not belief, since knowledge is, by definition, true, justified belief that is unreasonable to deny: And the common narrative about the moon being made of powdery dirt is so well-established (and apparently justified and true) that it is unreasonable to deny, so it does rise to the level of knowledge.

My problem with saying we have knowledge about God, then, is that it does not appear to be as well-established or justified. To my knowledge, the Vatican won’t even submit their miracle cases to be published as case studies in English peer-reviewed journals. They just insist that we trust them and a remote, anonymous “panel of experts” when they declare that there is no possible physical explanation.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I’m seeing a lot of circular arguments against Broussard on this. Then again, it is CAF.

 

[ethereality]

I’m surprised to see you say this, because from 72 comments his name is rarely mentioned nor he discussed. The posts have focused on the linked article and various subtopics.

 

[Scowler]

Well, again (and I do think you should start a new thread for this!), the ‘greater good’ defense’s success depends on first already knowing that God loves us, etc. That’s why an example is not needed. Of course, if we didn’t have this knowledge, we would need more proof as you seek, but that’s a different version of the argument.

To be more precise, if one does not accept this assumption - and it is NOT - then the examples are necessary. There is no evidence that God “loves” us, but there is overwhelming evidence that God does NOT love us.

To give an example to illustrate, suppose a parent loses a child and in response starts a charity. That charity helps many people and the parent wouldn’t have started it otherwise, whereas that child would have grown up to be a selfish loser (taking resources without contributing to society), or a rapist, murderer, or the next Hitler, etc.

You need to give some argument that the parent would NOT start that charity, if that child would not have been lost. Many charities have been started and upheld without having children lost.

So I think your only paths to progress with this ‘greater good’ defense are to a) learn that God loves us apart from this argument, and b) wait until the end of time (or rather, be actively doing good until we die…).

The same applies to any incident where we do not have absolute, 100%, Cartesian certainty which we NEVER have. For us it is sufficient to have evidence beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[ethereality]

Scowler, I am not sure about your closing comment’s meaning, but the rest
of your response I think is already addressed by what I wrote (about
needing to know every possible detail to be able to verify that the outcome
is better and otherwise impossible).

 

[MPat]

The rest of your thoughts about my disagreement with Karlo are rather inconsequential. I don’t have to be someone special to point out that he’s wrong on the Internet, any more than people who criticize politicians, and I never claimed he had an obligation to respond to me. This thread isn’t even “about him”: It’s mainly to help those being misled by him (and to seek clarification if I am mistaken), not to “get some response from him” as you seem to think.

In that case you should avoid saying things like these:

Please stop giving Catholic Answers money to enable Karlo Broussard to continue confusing people with false philosophy.

1. I called “Catholic Answers Live”, and ‘unfortunately they didn’t have time to get to me’, yet he chose to leave the room and have the operator disconnect me, rather than speak with me privately off-the-air.
2. I commented on his articles in the old website system but he has ignored them.
3. We did email. He sent me one reply to an email I’d written Catholic Answers which likewise misunderstood and failed to engage my points, again relying on an overly-simplistic conception of reality. (As I recall, I pointed out problems in his reply, explaining why he was incorrect, and he did not reply again.)

If you keep saying things like that, the discussion becomes about him personally, and his supposed slight against you. And in order for such lack of response to count as a slight, you’d better be someone much more than a random anonymous user on Internet.

Perhaps you should soften your words a little?

MPat, I’m sorry that you don’t fully understand everything that you read, but I don’t see that I can help you with that. You are correct that I do not know that the moon isn’t made of green cheese, but I have a strong belief that it isn’t. Contrary to your suppositions (no, I was never ‘uncomfortable’), it is not ridiculous to admit not knowing what you haven’t experienced. There is a distinction between knowledge and belief.

Let’s look at other things you keep saying:

If ‘existence’ is all we’re talking about, then my “per accidens” explanation is all that is needed to account for the tree’s existence, and we’re done. Karlo’s wrong. QED

Here you end up claiming knowledge (“I believe it is all that is needed” won’t do the work). Well, how do you know those things? The evidence for them is inevitably weaker than for Moon not being made of green cheese.

By the way, you did notice when Scowler made a similar, um, mistake:

Well, again (and I do think you should start a new thread for this!), the ‘greater good’ defense’s success depends on first already knowing that God loves us, etc. That’s why an example is not needed.

Yes, he is demanding that his position would be accepted as true without reservation unless he is forced to admit that it has been disproved (can mere words achieve that?).

 

[ethereality]

I disagree with your interpretation of what you’re quoting and I think you
are missing context for it. I won’t explain why because you keep
misunderstanding what I write.

However, I agree with you that the comment about not giving Catholic
Answers money was specifically involving him, because he frequently
publishes false or unsound arguments, but still this is not a personal
dispute. I have never met him, bear him no ill will, wish him well, etc.

 

[MPat]

I disagree with your interpretation of what you’re quoting and I think you
are missing context for it.

“I disagree with your interpretation”? That sounds as if we were discussing words of someone else. But I quoted your words. You should know what you wanted to say, if not what you ended up saying.

And if you ended up saying something other than what you wanted, you are free to try again as many times, as you need. There is no dishonour in that.

I won’t explain why because you keep
misunderstanding what I write.

Naturally, you are free to refuse to spend your time on this.

Yet, you keep talking as if others can’t just say “You are just not good at understanding things, thus we shall not condescend to explain them to you.”:

That gets to the point: Broussard must give us some reason for thinking the atoms themselves are not enough to account for the tree’s existence. I’m tired of repeating myself.

And, of course, I’d say that if you were actually interested in finding truth, discussing things with someone who does not understand you unless you express yourself precisely would be valuable. When you are not precise, self-contradictions can easily hide.

After all, Plato’s dialogues consist mostly of this service being provided by Socrates…

But then, I guess you did not come here to learn something…

 

[ethereality]

MPat, you have posted many times but still haven’t clarified Broussard’s
argument, particularly why the tree being made of atoms from the seed and
soil is not a sufficient explanation for the tree’s existence.