The atheists best argument?

[Bradski]

An atheist will argue that miracles can’t happen and therefore any historical documents which include miracles cannot be used to support religious claims. So, for example, (and Bart Ehrman argues this,) the miracle claims about Jesus were made up later by the Gospel writers because miraculous claims could not have been made during the time Jesus was alive.

Ehrman seems to forget completely, that if Jesus were God he could perform any miracle and likely would to instil in his followers motives of credibility. So, if Jesus were God, miracles could be expected and the Gospels could well have been accurate accounts.

Theists can only be called “slippery” if atheists are presumed to be right. If theists are right, then it is the atheists who are being slippery.

The difference, however, is that historical accounts do exist and were passed down from people (theists) who lived at the time. “Should these be taken for what they purport to be?” is the crucial question.

I smell straw…

When was the last time you posted a link to a quote, Peter? Well, maybe it was quite recentl, but you are not exactly unknown for weasel worded comments such as ‘it could be said…Ehrman suggests thar…one could envisage…’.

That Ehrman could claim that miracles couldn’t have been performed by Jesus as He was human and therefore can’t have been divine is almost as nonsensical as you suggesting that he claimed it in the first place.

Read what Ehrman actually said about miracles and see if there is any connection, however tenuous, with what you claim he said.

“I am decidedly not saying that Jesus was not raised from the dead. I’m not saying the tomb was not empty. I’m not saying that he did not appear to his disciples and ascend into heaven. Believers believe that all these things are true. But they do not believe them because of historical evidence. They take the Christian claims on faith, not on the basis of proof. There can be no proof.” strangenotions.com/bart-ehrman-benedict-xvi-and-the-bible-on-the-question-of-miracles/

An eminently reasonable position, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[tonyrey]

I smell straw…

When was the last time you posted a link to a quote, Peter? Well, maybe it was quite recentl, but you are not exactly unknown for weasel worded comments such as ‘it could be said…Ehrman suggests thar…one could envisage…’.

That Ehrman could claim that miracles couldn’t have been performed by Jesus as He was human and therefore can’t have been divine is almost as nonsensical as you suggesting that he claimed it in the first place.

Read what Ehrman actually said about miracles and see if there is any connection, however tenuous, with what you claim he said.

“I am decidedly not saying that Jesus was not raised from the dead. I’m not saying the tomb was not empty. I’m not saying that he did not appear to his disciples and ascend into heaven. Believers believe that all these things are true. But they do not believe them because of historical evidence. They take the Christian claims on faith, not on the basis of proof. There can be no proof.” strangenotions.com/bart-ehrman-benedict-xvi-and-the-bible-on-the-question-of-miracles/

An eminently reasonable position, wouldn’t you agree?

It’s not reasonable at all in view of the absurdity of materialism which completely rejects the very possibility of supernatural events even though the power of the mind is indisputable in so many aspects of life.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Faith of course being found in the relationship with the beloved. There is no “proof” possible nor required in the reality of one’s existence. Atheists have no argument; they admittedly do not know and choose not to pursue the truth to where it is found.

 

[Aloysium]

It’s not reasonable at all in view of the absurdity of materialism which completely rejects the very possibility of supernatural events even though the power of the mind is indisputable in so many aspects of life.

:twocents:

The power of the mind (the rational soul) is indisputable not only in the very reality of “materialism” but in its being integral to the cleaving of the whole of creation into such phenomena as frames of reference and the observation of wholes such as atoms and animate beings. The universe in its holistic unity includes minds, which create an intersection of time and eternity, aka - here and now, the miracle of one’s existence in the moment.

But these words fall flat entering into other worlds, sapped of their meaning, sounding like so much jibberish.

One cannot expect anything else when “love”, which touches the core of existence, where all is one in God’s eternal act of creation, the ocean of compassion that holds us all, is reduced to mere emotion. The willful transformation of all that is Divine into the mundane is a choice, a very bad habit actually. If we try, through His grace, if it is His will, if it makes us more loving persons, we may find that we can lift ourselves up from our bootstraps and touch the heavens.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As you correctly observe, the problem of evil isn’t an argument against all possible gods. It is an argument against omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent ones.

No, it isn’t even that. God can be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent and still be tolerant of evil, both moral and natural. You don’t get to set the conditions that define God.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

No, it isn’t even that. God can be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent and still be tolerant of evil, both moral and natural. You don’t get to set the conditions that define God.

I mean, in a philosophical debate, you absolutely do. All you’re saying is that your conception of God’s omnibenevolence is different than the one laid out in the problem of evil.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

It could only be an argument against "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent ones” if we human beings had the capacity to understand all of reality from the perspective of the "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent” Being.

We don’t, so the argument cannot provide the most basic conditions under which we would know with certainty that it has to be true.

I’ve always been disappointed when theists make that argument. It is usually made in the kind of praise-language that lets you know philosophy time is over, and we’re now into statement-of-faith territory. The proper argument is this:

There can be reasons why an omni/omni/omnibenevolent being would allow evil, but we can’t know what the reasons are.

I don’t believe that claim can be true. I believe that making this claim is equivalent to denying that evil exists. Specifically, if we take the definition of omnibenevolence to be “always wills what is good for us” and omnipotence to be “power and will are one” then the above claim is equivalent to saying that “there are reasons why evil is actually good for us.” In other words, there is a reason why the things we perceive to be evil are not actually evil. Evil doesn’t actually exist! It’s just an honest mistake on our part.

Now, one way we might try to avoid this conclusion is by saying that the “reasons why” take some “higher view” of things, that there is a big picture that God is painting which is made better through our experience of evil. But this is to re-define omnibenevolence. God no longer wants what is best for us God wants what is best for his big picture.

I would argue that it is the atheists who are being slippery by introducing “stand-in” gods into the conception of God.

Take this example:

An atheist will argue that miracles can’t happen and therefore any historical documents which include miracles cannot be used to support religious claims. So, for example, (and Bart Ehrman argues this,) the miracle claims about Jesus were made up later by the Gospel writers because miraculous claims could not have been made during the time Jesus was alive. They had to come later as Jesus became a legendary figure when no living witnesses were left to contend the miracle claims. Claims about Jesus being divine, in other words, HAD to be legendary rather than eye witness accounts because human beings don’t perform miracles. Ergo Jesus couldn’t be God Incarnate.

What Ehrman seems to be missing is that if Jesus were God Incarnate then he would have the "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent “ resources available to him to perform miracles.

So the argument that Ehrman proposes is basically begging the question: Jesus couldn’t be God because humans (like Jesus) can’t perform miracles; which means any claims to that effect can simply be dismissed. But why can’t Jesus perform miracles, if Jesus is God?

This is an example of an atheist being ”slippery” and substituting his atheistic view of what God can or cannot do into the argument from the beginning.

Ehrman seems to forget completely, that if Jesus were God he could perform any miracle and likely would to instil in his followers motives of credibility. So, if Jesus were God, miracles could be expected and the Gospels could well have been accurate accounts.

Theists can only be called “slippery” if atheists are presumed to be right. If theists are right, then it is the atheists who are being slippery.

The difference, however, is that historical accounts do exist and were passed down from people (theists) who lived at the time. “Should these be taken for what they purport to be?” is the crucial question. The atheist has nada except doubt or skepticism, but those are only negative claims and not arguments, since they always stealthily slip from atheistic premises into claiming to draw atheistic conclusions, which were, in fact, only presumed to begin with. :tsktsk:

Me on “assuming things aren’t supernatural”:

Sure, but it is possible to mistake natural events for supernatural ones, or supernatural events for natural ones. For example, primitive people might mistake alien technology for supernatural power. No one here is assuming their experiences aren’t supernatural, they are assuming that the probability of actual supernatural experiences is incredibly low. Of course the “God did it” explanation of events IS a possible explanation. “Aliens did it” is another possible explanation. “The whole thing was invented by humans” is a possible explanation.

The issue here is that non-theists think that the “God” explanation is about as likely as the “aliens” explanation, and so they would require very strong evidence to believe the “God” explanation. There is barely enough evidence to believe that the players in the NT actually existed at all, let alone that the stories they told or were attributed to them are correct. We reject contemporary accounts of alien events from sincere, reliable people like this, so why do we accept the accounts of supernatural events from people 2000 years ago when we’re not even sure which of them existed?

 

[goout]

I’ve always been disappointed when theists make that argument. It is usually made in the kind of praise-language that lets you know philosophy time is over, and we’re now into statement-of-faith territory. The proper argument is this:

There can be reasons why an omni/omni/omnibenevolent being would allow evil, but we can’t know what the reasons are.

We can know what the reason is, by using our reason.
God reveals as love. Love is God’s identity and his essence.
Love wills the good of another. It is not an emotion as was asserted by another poster. It is a movement of the will that desires a response from the beloved.
And you will automatically object to this as a statement of faith. But nonetheless, it is a statement that observes a reality. You choose not to accept that reality but it is there nonetheless.

We know that love respects the other person. So although love might be omnipotent, it will not force itself onto others against free will. Love is capable of forcing itself, but it’s not love’s nature to force. We know this by reason and common sense, in that it is not good to rape.

So love respects choices. Evil is not some thing of power in itself, it is the freely chosen absence of good. We choose to reject the good.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I mean, in a philosophical debate, you absolutely do. All you’re saying is that your conception of God’s omnibenevolence is different than the one laid out in the problem of evil.

If you want to set the conditions, why wouldn’t I too set the conditions?

An omnibenevolent God can permit moral and natural evil.

We may not understand why he does so without arguing that his omnibenevolence is thereby nullified.

The problem of evil is a not a problem that we can declare to be a mark against God without ourselves being omniscient enough to peek behind the curtain and see precisely why God tolerates evil. We certainly are not omniscient, though some might think they are.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

It’s not reasonable at all in view of the absurdity of materialism which completely rejects the very possibility of supernatural events even though the power of the mind is indisputable in so many aspects of life.

LOL, atheistic physcialism is NOT the only reasonable alternative to the various Christianities. False dichotomy.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

We can know what the reason is, by using our reason.
God reveals as love. Love is God’s identity and his essence.
Love wills the good of another. It is not an emotion as was asserted by another poster. It is a movement of the will that desires a response from the beloved.
And you will automatically object to this as a statement of faith. But nonetheless, it is a statement that observes a reality. You choose not to accept that reality but it is there nonetheless.

We know that love respects the other person. So although love might be omnipotent, it will not force itself onto others against free will. Love is capable of forcing itself, but it’s not love’s nature to force. We know this by reason and common sense, in that it is not good to rape.

So love respects choices. Evil is not some thing of power in itself, it is the freely chosen absence of good. We choose to reject the good.

This is another disappointing argument I encounter frequently. We can have free will AND God can smite people the instant they choose evil. Since he is omniscient, he can smite people BEFORE they choose evil, because he knows that they WILL chose evil. Causing us to die or cease to exist is not a violation of free will, unless you think we freely will ourselves into existence in the first place.

You can deny this, but you will essentially be abandoning omniscience as it is typically understood.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

If you want to set the conditions, why wouldn’t I too set the conditions?

An omnibenevolent God can permit moral and natural evil.

We may not understand why he does so without arguing that his omnibenevolence is thereby nullified.

The problem of evil is a not a problem that we can declare to be a mark against God without ourselves being omniscient enough to peek behind the curtain and see precisely why God tolerates evil. We certainly are not omniscient, though some might think they are.

Are you asking me how to do philosophy? It certainly seems that way.

So lets look at your statement:

An omnibenevolent God can permit moral and natural evil.

That is a fine conclusion, but it’s not a definition of terms. If you were trying to actually make that conclusion, you would first need to define what benevolence is. If you actually were trying to define omnibenevolence, you need to be more explicit. Are you saying that a God is omnibenevolent if and only if he permits moral and natural evil? Are you saying that a God is omnibenevolent if and only if he is able to permit moral and natural evil?

To really understand, you’ll have to explicitly define “omnibenevolent.” The definition given in the problem of evil is typically something along the lines of: “an entity is omnibenevolent if and only if it always wills what is good/best for us.”

 

[goout]

This is another disappointing argument I encounter frequently. We can have free will AND God can smite people the instant they choose evil. Since he is omniscient, he can smite people BEFORE they choose evil, because he knows that they WILL chose evil. Causing us to die or cease to exist is not a violation of free will, unless you think we freely will ourselves into existence in the first place.

You can deny this, but you will essentially be abandoning omniscience as it is typically understood.

You’d have to also understand the concept of original sin here.
The key concept is that human beings live in communion with one another, and the good of one is the good of all, just as the ill will and poor choices of one affects all negatively.
Death and suffering are a realities of the human condition, just as faith hope and love are.

These things should be obvious.
If you have children then you know that your love of a son or daughter does not entail shielding them away from the world, building a protective cocoon around them to keep them away from suffering.
That results in a person who is stunted and unable to love, because love does not shield a person from the realities of life.
Love allows a person to live life in all it’s fullness, good and bad.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

To really understand, you’ll have to explicitly define “omnibenevolent.” The definition given in the problem of evil is typically something along the lines of: “an entity is omnibenevolent if and only if it always wills what is good/best for us.”

If one knows Latin, “omnibenevolent” pretty much defines itself, but I’ll accept your definition with the proviso that we are not omniscient and therefore cannot know whether for God omnibenevolence precludes the tolerance of moral and natural evil.

I think God “always wills what is good/best for us,” but I don’t think we can tell God what is always good and best for us, and we cannot demand that life be a bouquet of roses. It’s up for God to decide what to do about the evils that befall us.

Saint Augustine said that God permits evil that good may come of it. The New Orleans flood was a natural evil. While many died or were impoverished by the flood, we lean from natural catastrophes how to prevent future ones, and that knowledge can not only be local but go world wide. An epidemic can take many lives, but the science of medicine can take the sting out of future epidemics. Men can die of syphilis, but other men can find a cure for it. The Earth may be dying a natural death, but scientists may discover another habitable planet and the means to get there.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You’d have to also understand the concept of original sin here.
The key concept is that human beings live in communion with one another, and the good of one is the good of all, just as the ill will and poor choices of one affects all negatively.
Death and suffering are a realities of the human condition, just as faith hope and love are.

These things should be obvious.
If you have children then you know that your love of a son or daughter does not entail shielding them away from the world, building a protective cocoon around them to keep them away from suffering.
That results in a person who is stunted and unable to love, because love does not shield a person from the realities of life.
Love allows a person to live life in all it’s fullness, good and bad.

Is this even an argument? Original sin is just one more example of an evil God could have prevented, e.g. by moving the snake someplace else. There is no “outside world” for God to protect us from, because God has complete control over the world. What you’re doing is a mild attempt to suggest that there is no evil because any hardships we face are actually good for us.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

If one knows Latin, “omnibenevolent” pretty much defines itself, but I’ll accept your definition with the proviso that we are not omniscient and therefore cannot know whether for God omnibenevolence precludes the tolerance of moral and natural evil.

I think God “always wills what is good/best for us,” but I don’t think we can tell God what is always good and best for us, and we cannot demand that life be a bouquet of roses. It’s up for God to decide what to do about the evils that befall us.

Saint Augustine said that God permits evil that good may come of it. The New Orleans flood was a natural evil. While many died or were impoverished by the flood, we lean from natural catastrophes how to prevent future ones, and that knowledge can not only be local but go world wide. An epidemic can take many lives, but the science of medicine can take the sting out of future epidemics. Men can die of syphilis, but other men can find a cure for it. The Earth may be dying a natural death, but scientists may discover another habitable planet and the means to get there.

Your position sounds reasonable if you can be assured that you’re not one of the ones getting flooded or diseased, or otherwise tortured.
As I just said:

I’ve always been disappointed when theists make that argument. It is usually made in the kind of praise-language that lets you know philosophy time is over, and we’re now into statement-of-faith territory. The proper argument is this:

There can be reasons why an omni/omni/omnibenevolent being would allow evil, but we can’t know what the reasons are.

I don’t believe that claim can be true. I believe that making this claim is equivalent to denying that evil exists. Specifically, if we take the definition of omnibenevolence to be “always wills what is good for us” and omnipotence to be “power and will are one” then the above claim is equivalent to saying that “there are reasons why evil is actually good for us.” In other words, there is a reason why the things we perceive to be evil are not actually evil. Evil doesn’t actually exist! It’s just an honest mistake on our part.

Now, one way we might try to avoid this conclusion is by saying that the “reasons why” take some “higher view” of things, that there is a big picture that God is painting which is made better through our experience of evil. But this is to re-define omnibenevolence. God no longer wants what is best for us God wants what is best for his big picture.

 

[goout]

Is this even an argument?

What kind of a question is that?

Original sin is just one more example of an evil God could have prevented, e.g. by moving the snake someplace else. There is no “outside world” for God to protect us from, because God has complete control over the world. What you’re doing is a mild attempt to suggest that there is no evil because any hardships we face are actually good for us.

You misunderstand the point. You envision God as an abuser of omnipotence who forcibly removes free will from human beings, so that they cannot choose against him and so suffer.
God does not control a person’s free will. That would be abuse.

Don’t you know that intuitively from the relationships you are part of?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

What kind of a question is that?

You misunderstand the point. You envision God as an abuser of omnipotence who forcibly removes free will from human beings, so that they cannot choose against him and so suffer.
God does not control a person’s free will. That would be abuse.

Don’t you know that intuitively from the relationships you are part of?

No. No one has said that. If I stated otherwise please point out exactly where. Now perhaps you are suggesting:

It is logically impossible to create a world which contains free will, but does not contain evil.

If you really are making that case, be aware that it has troubling implications. For example, if God were to make a universe in which exactly one free will decision was made, then that decision would necessarily be evil.

 

[Bradski]

God does not control a person’s free will. That would be abuse.

Don’t you know that intuitively from the relationships you are part of?

So your daughter wants to stay out all night. Is it abuse if you restrict her free will to prevent her from coming to harm?

If you are a parent then you would know that a great deal of your time is preventing your children from exercising their free will. It seems like a good idea for those with a fair knowledge of what is likely to happen.

 

[goout]

So your daughter wants to stay out all night. Is it abuse if you restrict her free will to prevent her from coming to harm?

If you are a parent then you would know that a great deal of your time is preventing your children from exercising their free will. It seems like a good idea for those with a fair knowledge of what is likely to happen.

That’s absolutely not true. No good parent spends any amount of time preventing a child from exercising free will. We do spend time forming conscience when it is not fully developed so that it might guide the will.

Can you see the difference between your guidance scenario above and the abuse of a person which shields them from the exercise of free will and the potential harm that may result.

Surely you are not suggesting it is good to lock a child in the house til death to prevent suffering. (yea, it really is absurd, but it wasn’t mine it is yours…)