Refuting Battleground God

[Cresh13]

Hey guys. A few friends came over to my house today and one of them showed us this website that supposedly disproved God. This website was referred to my friend by his college professor in critical thinking who I assume is an atheist. Now I remember reading the objections to most of these questions a long time ago. However, I’ve stopped reading Catholic books and blogs for a while now because of games and other distractions so my memory is really rusty. Can anyone help me debunk them, especially “direct hit number one” which centers around the problem of natural evil (This is the only problem among the 4 direct hits that I’ve never seen a satisfying rebuttal on).

philosophersnet.com/games/god.php

I’ll post the “direct hits” over here for those who do not have the time to take the test. However, nothing beats going through the real thing.

*Direct Hit 1

You answered True to questions 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8; and False to Question 11.

These answers generated the following response:

You’ve taken a direct hit! You have claimed that God exists, that she knows about suffering, wants to reduce it and can reduce it. But now you say you don’t think that there is any higher purpose which explains why people die horribly of painful diseases. Why then does God allow it? Surely, a God which knows about, wants to stop and can stop suffering would put an end to pointless suffering.

Direct Hit 2

You answered True to questions 2 and 3, and False to Question 12.

These answers generated the following response:

You’ve just taken a direct hit! You claimed earlier that there is no basis for morality if God does not exist. But now you say that if God does exist, she cannot make what is sinful good and vice-versa. But if this is true, it means that God cannot be the basis of morality. If God were the basis of morality, then she could decide what is good and what is bad. The fact that you think that God cannot do this shows that things must be right or wrong independently of what God decides. In other words, God chooses what is right because it is right; things are not right just because God chooses them.

Direct Hit 3

You answered True to questions 10 and 14.

These answers generated the following response:

You’ve just taken a direct hit! Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

Direct Hit 4

You answered True to questions 3 and 5, and False to Question 16.

These answers generated the following response:

You’ve just taken a direct hit! You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most theologians, but contrary to your earlier answer - that God’s freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything.*

 

[Pugsly]

I played that game safely through a dozen questions then they said I had to reject my answers or be hit…The makers of the game said that evolutionary theory was a “consensus” in the scientific community therefore my rejection of the previously poorly worded question proved I was living a lie.

Anyone who claims to think logically…then states that science is based on consensus opinion or voting…is a fool.

Now…as for the BIG QUESTION…why does God allow suffering and pain to be part of our existence? How could a loving God…be so seemingly unloving? How could an all powerful God be so cruel?

The …Catholic Answer is that we live in a fallen world because of the sin of our representative…Adam. God made a world of limited good–holding back evil possibilities…except for one small, unburdensome preference regarding the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Our representative (Adam) plunged our race into a world of sin and death…until God took on our flesh (through Jesus His Son) and became our new Representative before Divine Justice.
Now, here's the short answer....pain and suffering is who we are......and God allows it to allow us to be saved through Jesus who overcame this world of suffering.

 

[PietroPaolo]

There really is only one argument against the existence of God, the problem of evil (hit number one above). And I’ve never read a more challenging version of this toughest of objections to the existence of God than as stated by Thomas Aquinas, who goes on to completely refute it. From the First Part of the Summa:
St.ThomasAquinas:

Article 3. Whether God exists?

Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word “God” means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): “Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.” This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Turn the tables on your friend. Ask him how he explains the existence of evil without the existence of God (he can’t). Why? For evil to exist there must be some absolute standard of goodness to objectively define evil. This absolute standard of goodness is what men call God. Without God, all morality can only be relative (subjective), but if morality is only relative (subjective) then evil doesn’t exist (what we call evil is really just things we don’t happen to like - making the Holocaust morally equivalent to the existence of brownies with nuts - both things I don’t like, but are not objectively evil). But evil does exist, therefore God must exist as well.

All of which brings us to Hit # 2, which rests on a false premise, i.e. that God must be able to make evil good and good evil for God to be the source of morality. God is by nature all good, therefore what is good flows immediately (not arbitrarily) from His nature. God can do all things that can be done, but even God cannot do self-contradictory acts, not because he lacks the power or freedom to do so, but because self-contradictory acts are not really acts at all, they are linguistic confusions. God cannot make evil good any more than he can make a 3 sided square, not b/c he lacks power, but b/c squares have four sides, if it is a three sided enclosed plane figure, we have a triangle not a square. In other words, our ability to speak in jibberish does not limit the power of God. (This also answers Hit # 4).

Next up, Hit # 3. The problem here is comparing God (who is transcendent) with the Loch Ness Monster (a creature in nature). The evidence for the existence of God is accessible through reason (see Aquinas for his famous 5 ways). We can know (not just believe) that God exists through deductive reason (i.e. we have abundant evidence for the existence of God). The same isn’t true of the Loch Ness Monster. The problem for the atheist isn’t that he has to demonstrate the non-existence of a possibly non-existent creature (an unfair burden), but must demonstrate the existence of anything at all without a first cause (which is what we call God). He cannot do so.

Overall, the Hits are juvenile and easy refuted. These are the intellectual equivalent of “Can God make a stone so heavy he can’t lift it” (answer: This is a self-contradictory act, see above).

Pax.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Can anyone help me debunk them, especially “direct hit number one” which centers around the problem of natural evil (This is the only problem among the 4 direct hits that I’ve never seen a satisfying rebuttal on) . . .

*Direct Hit 1

You answered True to questions 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8; and False to Question 11.

These answers generated the following response:

You’ve taken a direct hit! You have claimed that God exists, that she knows about suffering, wants to reduce it and can reduce it. But now you say you don’t think that there is any higher purpose which explains why people die horribly of painful diseases. Why then does God allow it? Surely, a God which knows about, wants to stop and can stop suffering would put an end to pointless suffering . . . *

:twocents:

“Hit 1” is a problem for people who believe this world is it. In this one life, no matter how long it is, there you are at the end, it all having happened in a flash. Whatever money, power, fame, pleasure one worked to accumulate, it’s all gone. The pursuit of those transient, seemingly good ends is a source of suffering.

A bigger problem than dealing with acute pain (which can be managed) at death, is handling chronic suffering, whether it is pain, loss, humiliation, poverty, physical or mental illness, I can assure you that for people in these circumstances, religion is a major source of strength, courage, happiness and what is of true value. It is made quite clear in the beatitudes; these afflictions are actually blessings that bring us into a state of transcendence and closer to God.

 

[valekhai]

:twocents:

“Hit 1” is a problem for people who believe this world is it. In this one life, no matter how long it is, there you are at the end, it all having happened in a flash. Whatever money, power, fame, pleasure one worked to accumulate, it’s all gone. The pursuit of those transient, seemingly good ends is a source of suffering.

A bigger problem than dealing with acute pain (which can be managed) at death, is handling chronic suffering, whether it is pain, loss, humiliation, poverty, physical or mental illness, I can assure you that for people in these circumstances, religion is a major source of strength, courage, happiness and what is of true value. It is made quite clear in the beatitudes; these afflictions are actually blessings that bring us into a state of transcendence and closer to God.

By saying that “these afflictions are actually blessings,” you’re saying that there could be a higher purpose to someone suffering and dying from a disease. The OP had given an answer saying that he didn’t think there was a higher purpose, which raised a potential conflict from earlier answers.

 

[MPat]

Hey guys. A few friends came over to my house today and one of them showed us this website that supposedly disproved God. This website was referred to my friend by his college professor in critical thinking who I assume is an atheist. Now I remember reading the objections to most of these questions a long time ago. However, I’ve stopped reading Catholic books and blogs for a while now because of games and other distractions so my memory is really rusty. Can anyone help me debunk them, especially “direct hit number one” which centers around the problem of natural evil (This is the only problem among the 4 direct hits that I’ve never seen a satisfying rebuttal on).

philosophersnet.com/games/god.php

I’ll post the “direct hits” over here for those who do not have the time to take the test. However, nothing beats going through the real thing.

*Direct Hit 1

You answered True to questions 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8; and False to Question 11.

These answers generated the following response:

You’ve taken a direct hit! You have claimed that God exists, that she knows about suffering, wants to reduce it and can reduce it. But now you say you don’t think that there is any higher purpose which explains why people die horribly of painful diseases. Why then does God allow it? Surely, a God which knows about, wants to stop and can stop suffering would put an end to pointless suffering.

Direct Hit 2

You answered True to questions 2 and 3, and False to Question 12.

These answers generated the following response:

You’ve just taken a direct hit! You claimed earlier that there is no basis for morality if God does not exist. But now you say that if God does exist, she cannot make what is sinful good and vice-versa. But if this is true, it means that God cannot be the basis of morality. If God were the basis of morality, then she could decide what is good and what is bad. The fact that you think that God cannot do this shows that things must be right or wrong independently of what God decides. In other words, God chooses what is right because it is right; things are not right just because God chooses them.

Direct Hit 3

You answered True to questions 10 and 14.

These answers generated the following response:

You’ve just taken a direct hit! Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

Direct Hit 4

You answered True to questions 3 and 5, and False to Question 16.

These answers generated the following response:

You’ve just taken a direct hit! You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most theologians, but contrary to your earlier answer - that God’s freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything.*

Actually, this “game” doesn’t “disprove God”. Some questions are ambiguous, but it is possible to pass everything without a “direct hit” or “biting a bullet”. In fact, the statistics page after the “test” says: “8.19% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.”.

Looks like you have answered that God “is free to” do “anything”. Now, this question is ambiguous: is a contradiction an “anything”? But it looks like this “game” does include contradictions in “anything”, thus the correct answer was “False” (it’s the third question, I think - the one mentioned in most of your “direct hits”).

 

[Aloysium]

By saying that “these afflictions are actually blessings,” you’re saying that there could be a higher purpose to someone suffering and dying from a disease. The OP had given an answer saying that he didn’t think there was a higher purpose, which raised a potential conflict from earlier answers.

I have to do something about this ADDH, or learn to read.