The atheists best argument?

[Bradski]

Ah, I see. Child abuse is necessary. I hadn’t realised.

 

[thinkandmull]

Ah, I see. Child abuse is necessary. I hadn’t realised.

For greater goods, yes. You think its just a brute horrible fact. We say God can’t alter reality

 

[Peter_Plato]

I was simply explaining the “us” in the definition that confused you:
Omnibenevolent means that “us” does not simply refer to some abstract bag of humanity, but rather each individual equally.

You had previously made a long post detailing why God would distribute his benevolence unequally between an abuser and child. I was explaining that omnibenevolence does not allow that. If my understanding of Catholic theology is correct, it doesn’t allow that either.

I don’t recall “detailing why God would distribute his benevolence unequally between an abuser and child.” God’s benevolence would be equal in the sense of providing what is needed by both for their well-being.

To make a simple analogy: assume two people. One has no food and is starving. The other has an adequate amount or abundance of food. Would you be distributing food “unequally” by giving to the one who has none, but not to the other?

Perhaps. But is there an unequal distribution of food, overall? I don’t think so.

Now if God is ultimately responsible for the entire food supply, then either God “unequally” distributes food to begin with since not everyone has the same amount of resources, or something else is going on.

I would suppose that benevolence is not based so much on equality as in everyone having everything the same, but rather on justice or each having his or her due. That would depend upon need rather than on strict equalization of benefits.

If you give a rich man $5 and the same to a poor, starving fellow, you are treating them equally, but are you treating them justly? Now think of the perpetrator of abuse as the starving fellow with regard to being starved of or lacking in goodness. Should God give $5 equally to the abused and abuser or “more” to the one starved of goodness? Should he treat them both equally or treat them justly? Equal distribution or just distribution? You might be surprised by what Catholic theology says.

 

[Tomdstone]

Because not being inclined to sin is no guarantee that we will not sin.

Think Adam and Eve.

People in heaven have free will, and yet from the discussion they will not generally reject God and choose to go to hell. Since God is all good and all loving, could it have been possible to create man with free will on earth and yet not choose evil as is the case in heaven? Or would that have been impossible to do?

 

[Tomdstone]

Ah, I see. Child abuse is necessary. I hadn’t realised.

I did not realize this either. The general atheist argument is that an all loving, all merciful and all powerful God might find some way to avoid this evil and other evils. Of course, some religions say that the power of God is limited to some extent, even though it may be to a small extent. AFAIK, Catholics, for example, would hold that God cannot create a triangle in Euclidean geometry which has the sum of the angles equal to 154 degrees. Maybe there is some analogous contradiction in not allowing evil but allowing free will, although it is a puzzle as to how there could be free will in heaven, but no evil and no sin?

 

[Aloysium]

One can understand heaven as a loving relationship between creation and its maker. To get to heaven, what is required of us is a surrender of the will to God. Whereas the Angels chose at the moment of their creation whether or not they would serve God, we do so in time. The past-present-future that defines our existence is the reality of our free will. What we have done is set in stone and what we will do is to be determined by us in its proper time. The present moment is where everything happens, where we participate in our creation. We will live our lives as we chose. That life lived is the kernel from which our existence in the eternal is born. It all boils down to a choice. How does one create someone with the capacity of choice but without the capacity for choice. At the end of our lives we will be done creating our lives out of what we have been given. Free will In heaven is is aligned with God’s. We have given it over to Him during the course, up until the very end of our lives. Perhaps animals who act instinctively cannot but do God’s will to live and surrender to one another as parts of the natural world, the circle of life. We are something different, both angelic and animal, in time, yet eternal.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I did not realize this either. The general atheist argument is that an all loving, all merciful and all powerful God might find some way to avoid this evil and other evils. Of course, some religions say that the power of God is limited to some extent, even though it may be to a small extent. AFAIK, Catholics, for example, would hold that God cannot create a triangle in Euclidean geometry which has the sum of the angles equal to 154 degrees. Maybe there is some analogous contradiction in not allowing evil but allowing free will, although it is a puzzle as to how there could be free will in heaven, but no evil and no sin?

Does God have free will, Tom?

Can he do evil?

Can he sin?

In Heaven, God is All in All.

God’s freedom is perfect. His omniscience and omnipotence makes it such that he is completely free of all constraints. He does what he wills completely untrammeled and unrestricted by anything outside or beyond him.

Again, God has perfectly free will, but can he do evil? Can he sin?

Careful how you answer.

I wouldn’t think any of us ought to rely upon the little we know to make absolute determinations about what we don’t know.

 

[o_mlly]

I would like to answer this question, since I did blame God for complicitness in evil two or three pages back.

I think you are only partially correct. God is complicit in moral evil but rather than blame we ought praise Him for His complicity. Rather than leave us to the evil effects of our immoral acts, God does act. Being omnipotent, God will bring a greater good out of evil every time.

CCC# 311 Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil. He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it:

For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.

God, being omnibenevolent, also allows His creatures to judge Him. In justice, ought we not withhold our judgement until the play is over?

My first response is to point out that this is a tue quoque fallacy. My lack of action does not excuse God’s culpability in this matter. Secondly, I don’t have the capabilities that God presumably has. If I knew where and when a child was being abused, I would immediately alert the police. In fact, I could be arrested for complicity if I fail to report the crime. God, being omniscient, does know these things and does nothing, despite His omnipotence. A prosecutor would have a field day with God in the dock.

God sent His Son who gave all for the redemption of mankind. You have some capabilities that go beyond, “If I knew …then I would tell someone else.” Have you given your all towards preventing child abuse or succoring the victims of child abuse? If not, get busy and stop blaming God.

 

[o_mlly]

Not really, because Eve wanted to disobey and try out the forbidden fruit.

Yes, really. Re-read the Genesis story and the doctrine of Original Sin. Unless, of course, you knew Eve and she told you she was already inclined to sin before the Fall.

 

[Cheiron]

I think you are only partially correct. God is complicit in moral evil but rather than blame we ought praise Him for His complicity. Rather than leave us to the evil effects of our immoral acts, God does act. Being omnipotent, God will bring a greater good out of evil every time.

CCC# 311 Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil. He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it:

For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.

God, being omnibenevolent, also allows His creatures to judge Him. In justice, ought we not withhold our judgement until the play is over?

No.

God sent His Son who gave all for the redemption of mankind. You have some capabilities that go beyond, “If I knew …then I would tell someone else.” Have you given your all towards preventing child abuse or succoring the victims of child abuse? If not, get busy and stop blaming God.

This isn’t about preventing child abuse, this is about allowing it to happen. Unlike God, (if He exists) I have never allowed child abuse to happen. That’s the difference between God and me.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . This isn’t about preventing child abuse, this is about allowing it to happen. Unlike God, (if He exists) I have never allowed child abuse to happen. That’s the difference between God and me.

You cannot possibly be reading people’s replies. I shouldn’t bother but maybe you will take this as a challenge to listen, reread what has been said in various ways, pointing to the truth.

I would say that allowing children to starve is a form of abuse. That is something you definitely know exists. Had you been confronted with that level of human misery, you would not be speaking as you do. The worst mealtime grace I have heard thanked God for the food on the table and asked that he provide it to “the poor people”. Not to deny that we at the table were blessed, but to put it onto God, a result of the societal organization of the bounty He has provided, seemed to be something to be ashamed of. I’m pretty sure those congregated were not asking Him to crush consumerist society. When one sees something that needs be done, one acts or one doesn’t. What you are projecting onto God is yourself.

Do good because it is good and you will know Him.

 

[tonyrey]

Ah, I see. Child abuse is necessary. I hadn’t realised.

Child abuse is indeed inevitable unless you prefer all of us to be zombies incapable of making our own choices and decisions about what to believe, how to live and who to love - and aware that Big Brother is carefully observing us every second of the day and night…

Is it reasonable to expect to have everything for nothing or is there is a price to pay for every advantage we have - and the more valuable it is the higher the price?

1. If you had been a victim of child abuse would you vote for universal leucotomy to ensure no one else suffered the same fate? If not why not?
2. Would you abstain from reproduction to exclude the possibility that the child would be sexually abused? If not why not?

 

[Peter_Plato]

No.

This isn’t about preventing child abuse, this is about allowing it to happen. Unlike God, (if He exists) I have never allowed child abuse to happen. That’s the difference between God and me.

So you are morally and intellectually superior to the omniscient and omnibenevolent God?

Actually, the difference is that you claiming to never have allowed child abuse is insignificant with regard to stopping child abuse. God could, I suppose, rain down fire from the sky on all child abusers before they try anything but he may have a far more effective plan over the long term.

The problem is that you as a temporal being with a rather “fast food” taste for morality cannot see the big picture but gain a sense of satisfaction from preening your moral feathers and virtue signaling. Neither did you bring all things into being nor do you have a vested interest in the welfare of every one of them, even the ones you dismiss as lost causes. You can pick sides and favorites because it is no skin off your teeth if some lose.

The imago Dei, God himself is killed within each person who sins. Now really put yourself, your entire self, into the child abuser and then go ahead and write him off. God made himself man and permitted himself to be crucified to demonstrate what happens, precisely, every time we sin mortally – we wantonly murder the image of God within ourselves. But God wills to resurrect himself in us regardless of what we have done. You, ostensively, have nothing to lose when you write off an abuser or sinners of other kinds. God, on the other hand does, which is why he doesn’t use the quick and dirty solution you might advocate…

 

[o_mlly]

…
This isn’t about preventing child abuse, this is about allowing it to happen. Unlike God, (if He exists) I have never allowed child abuse to happen. That’s the difference between God and me.

Well, that a difference between God and you. There certainly are other differences.

On this issue, your logic lacks coherence. “Preventing” and “allowing” are antonyms. Therefore, the negation of one render them synonyms. So if this is “not about preventing” then it is about “allowing.” You make a distinction between God and you that does not exist. So, again I ask: What have you done to prevent child abuse? If nothing then I submit you hold yourself to a lower standard than you impose on your God? That is unjust.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I don’t recall “detailing why God would distribute his benevolence unequally between an abuser and child.” God’s benevolence would be equal in the sense of providing what is needed by both for their well-being.

To make a simple analogy: assume two people. One has no food and is starving. The other has an adequate amount or abundance of food. Would you be distributing food “unequally” by giving to the one who has none, but not to the other?

Perhaps. But is there an unequal distribution of food, overall? I don’t think so.

Now if God is ultimately responsible for the entire food supply, then either God “unequally” distributes food to begin with since not everyone has the same amount of resources, or something else is going on.

I would suppose that benevolence is not based so much on equality as in everyone having everything the same, but rather on justice or each having his or her due. That would depend upon need rather than on strict equalization of benefits.

If you give a rich man $5 and the same to a poor, starving fellow, you are treating them equally, but are you treating them justly? Now think of the perpetrator of abuse as the starving fellow with regard to being starved of or lacking in goodness. Should God give $5 equally to the abused and abuser or “more” to the one starved of goodness? Should he treat them both equally or treat them justly? Equal distribution or just distribution? You might be surprised by what Catholic theology says.

So we were talking about child abuse. And you are now telling me

God’s benevolence would be equal in the sense of providing what is needed by both for their well-being.

I.e. that allowing the child to be abused is providing what is needed for the child’s well being. I.e. that allowing the abuser to carry out the abuse is what is best for the abuser.

This is the problem with the “there isn’t really any evil” response to the problem of evil. You open yourself up to Voltaire’s ridicule, that “in the best of all possible worlds, everything is for the best.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

So we were talking about child abuse. And you are now telling meI.e. that allowing the child to be abused is providing what is needed for the child’s well being. I.e. that allowing the abuser to carry out the abuse is what is best for the abuser.

This is the problem with the “there isn’t really any evil” response to the problem of evil. You open yourself up to Voltaire’s ridicule, that “in the best of all possible worlds, everything is for the best.”

Actually, I am not “telling” you that, you are interpreting me as claiming that.

The best of all possible worlds is one where autonomous beings are free to experience the best of all possible worlds.

The possibility of experiencing the best of all possible worlds positively requires autonomous beings that transcend the possible world in order to experience it.

Transcendence requires autonomous free will – the fundamental ability to initiate novel causal sequences and not merely be caused by something not oneself.

Ergo, the best of all possible worlds requires free will.

Free will entails some autonomous agents will cause and/or experience suffering.

The best of all possible worlds is one where free agency rather than mere serial causation is in effect.

Free agency is worth the cost of suffering in order for those so willing to become fully autonomous but responsible moral agents.

The best of all possible worlds does not require or need children to be abused, but permits, at least temporarily the possibility of it occurring.

The best of all possible worlds does not obtain all at once, due to the nature of autonomous moral agency being acquired by new moral agents.

In the end, however, the best of all possible worlds will be one where free agency AND eternal bliss obtain for those who have shown themselves worthy of living in and experiencing the best of all possible worlds.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Free will entails some autonomous agents will cause and/or experience suffering.

Free will entails no such thing. It sounds like you are making the argument I cautioned about earlier:

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.

I will also note that you are attempting to replace the word “evil” with the word “suffering.” Its fine by me if you want to treat those two things as interchangeable, but I will not allow you to make that replacement here, and then later argue that “well suffering isn’t really the same thing as evil.” If we do treat them as interchangeable, it will be because you agreed that they were the same thing.

In the end, however, the best of all possible worlds will be one where free agency AND eternal bliss obtain for those who have shown themselves worthy of living in and experiencing the best of all possible worlds.

So you are saying that this isn’t the best of all possible worlds after all? Which means the problem of evil is still on?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Free agency is worth the cost of suffering in order for those so willing to become fully autonomous but responsible moral agents.

The best of all possible worlds does not require or need children to be abused, but permits, at least temporarily the possibility of it occurring.

Note that, in order to make this argument, you have to change the definition of benevolent in the way that I described earlier:

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.

In other words, “the best of all possible worlds” is no longer the same thing as “what is best for us-as-individuals.” It may be (and you seem to be asserting) that it is what is best for some people, but not for others.

 

[Cheiron]

You cannot possibly be reading people’s replies. I shouldn’t bother but maybe you will take this as a challenge to listen, reread what has been said in various ways, pointing to the truth.

I would say that allowing children to starve is a form of abuse. That is something you definitely know exists. Had you been confronted with that level of human misery, you would not be speaking as you do. The worst mealtime grace I have heard thanked God for the food on the table and asked that he provide it to “the poor people”. Not to deny that we at the table were blessed, but to put it onto God, a result of the societal organization of the bounty He has provided, seemed to be something to be ashamed of. I’m pretty sure those congregated were not asking Him to crush consumerist society. When one sees something that needs be done, one acts or one doesn’t. What you are projecting onto God is yourself.

Do good because it is good and you will know Him.

I do read people’s replies, except if a thread has gone on for like, 40 or 50 pages. Then I mostly skim them.

It seems to me that if we can’t blame God for the bad stuff, then neither can we give Him credit for the good things. I said on the first page that I don’t think the argument from evil is the atheist’s best argument, because it’s only an argument against omnibenevolence. If you believe in a God that is indifferent to suffering and/or is not able to relieve suffering, then the problem is solved. All I can say then is that I have doubts about praising such a God and then I have to move to a different argument.

So you are morally and intellectually superior to the omniscient and omnibenevolent God?

No, I deny there is such a God.

Actually, the difference is that you claiming to never have allowed child abuse is insignificant with regard to stopping child abuse. God could, I suppose, rain down fire from the sky on all child abusers before they try anything but he may have a far more effective plan over the long term.

I don’t think He has such a plan. Some child abusers have died without ever serving jail time.

The problem is that you as a temporal being with a rather “fast food” taste for morality cannot see the big picture but gain a sense of satisfaction from preening your moral feathers and virtue signaling. Neither did you bring all things into being nor do you have a vested interest in the welfare of every one of them, even the ones you dismiss as lost causes. You can pick sides and favorites because it is no skin off your teeth if some lose.

If I can’t see the bigger picture because I’m a temporal being , then I’m pretty sure you can’t see it either. Or perhaps you can, and then I would like to know how you know this.

The imago Dei, God himself is killed within each person who sins. Now really put yourself, your entire self, into the child abuser and then go ahead and write him off. God made himself man and permitted himself to be crucified to demonstrate what happens, precisely, every time we sin mortally – we wantonly murder the image of God within ourselves. But God wills to resurrect himself in us regardless of what we have done. You, ostensively, have nothing to lose when you write off an abuser or sinners of other kinds. God, on the other hand does, which is why he doesn’t use the quick and dirty solution you might advocate…

I know too little about theology to understand what this means.

Well, that a difference between God and you. There certainly are other differences.

On this issue, your logic lacks coherence. “Preventing” and “allowing” are antonyms. Therefore, the negation of one render them synonyms. So if this is “not about preventing” then it is about “allowing.” You make a distinction between God and you that does not exist. So, again I ask: What have you done to prevent child abuse? If nothing then I submit you hold yourself to a lower standard than you impose on your God? That is unjust.

You’re right and I should have expressed myself more clearly. English is not my native language, as you may have noticed. I think I wrote “complicitness” somewhere instead of “complicity.” I’ll try again.

What have I done? Nothing. Does that mean I hold myself to a lower standard? Not at all. Why not? Because the difference is that I don’t know when and where child abuse happens and God does. This difference in knowledge is very important. God, due to His omniscience, knows the exact address where children are being abused. If I had such information, I would immediately call the police. In fact, not reporting it is in itself a crime. I checked that with the criminal law in my country.

 

[tonyrey]

I did not realize this either. The general atheist argument is that an all loving, all merciful and all powerful God might find some way to avoid this evil and other evils. Of course, some religions say that the power of God is limited to some extent, even though it may be to a small extent. AFAIK, Catholics, for example, would hold that God cannot create a triangle in Euclidean geometry which has the sum of the angles equal to 154 degrees. Maybe there is some analogous contradiction in not allowing evil but allowing free will, although it is a puzzle as to how there could be free will in heaven, but no evil and no sin?

What would be a puzzle is how anyone could sin in the presence of divine Love…