The atheists best argument?

[Ruqx]

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.

Moreover, even if we knew ahead of time that a child abuse is about to happen, we do not have the wherewithal to interfere and prevent it.

 

[Cheiron]

Moreover, even if we knew ahead of time that a child abuse is about to happen, we do not have the wherewithal to interfere and prevent it.

That is often true too, but not always. For example, if I were staying in a hotel and I knew a child was being abused a few rooms down the hallway, I will try to interfere and stop the crime. I’m not going to wait for the police to arrive.

 

[Bradski]

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?

I think we are talking of evil as meaning suffering. Whether it is caused intentionally (which most people would describe as evil) or caused by unfortunate happenstance (a bush fire or tsunami).

One might assume that there were no bush fires or tsunamis prior to the fall. God had these ‘on hold’ I guess. Or the world was such that they couldn’t exist.

Then that business with the apple and God says to Himself: ‘OKaaaaay. You wanted knowledge? Well, get a load of this’. And He flicks the switch marked ‘Suffering’ and all of a sudden, animals are eating each other, dying of disease, drowning, getting burnt.

And all of it, apparently, for the best? Well, it sounds like a punishment to me.

 

[thinkandmull]

Contrary to what some Catholics are saying, God can allow the sinner to use his free will and yet He can still prevent the innocent from being hurt. However, the hurt of the innocent can be turned into a greater good. PROVE OTHERWISE

 

[thinkandmull]

If God could have created a better world without suffering He would have done it. However, a better world is were suffering is turned into joy. That is reality

 

[Tomdstone]

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

I thought that all of humanity on earth was in the presence of divine love?

 

[Tomdstone]

If God could have created a better world without suffering He would have done it. However, a better world is were suffering is turned into joy. That is reality

Your saying that suffering is turned into joy is a nice thought, but unsupported by the real horrific conditions faced on earth by the unfortunate. Your thoughts of joy might be dispelled if you were ;present or if you read something about how people have been brutally tortured by others.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Blaming God for our sins is really not rational. If God prevented all suffering by interfering with our every intended evil act, we would in effect not be free. We would have no choice but to do what God had programmed us to do … exclusively good acts.

I suspect there are really very few atheists who believe in free will, so they are comfortable criticizing a God who we believe gives it to us.

But since they don’t believe in God, they have to conclude that it’s Nature, not God, who permits terrible cruelties, and ultimately the instigators of such cruelties, if they are not caught, will never suffer recrimination either in this life or in the next.

For the atheist who turns to crime and is not caught, this is a win-win situation … or so he thinks.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Blaming God for our sins is really not rational. If God prevented all suffering by interfering with our every intended evil act, we would in effect not be free. We would have no choice but to do what God had programmed us to do … exclusively good acts.

That is a non-sequitur. Sure, we might say that there is some sense in which we are not free if God always thwarted some set of decisions. But when you say “we would have no choice” you are not using freedom in the same way as before.

For example, lets say that whenever a person decided to fly by jumping off a building and willing themselves to fly, God would cause them to not fly and instead accelerate towards the ground at a rate of 32 ft/s^2. Would that make people less free? Obviously not, people could still jump off buildings and will themselves to fly, they would simply not succeed at flying. In the same way, there are all sorts of schemes by which God could prevent the evil decisions people make from actually impacting the world in a negative way, while still allowing them to make the evil decision. Just as we can’t bring flight into the world through the force of will alone, we might be prevented from bringing evil into the world through the force of will alone. Not only would that make the world a better place by preventing us from experiencing the evil others would impose upon us, it would dis-incentivize people from choosing evil in the first place (just as very few people attempt to fly off of buildings.)

So in the above example, there is a sense in which God would make us not free to disobey the “accelerate to the ground” rule just by willing it. However, we clearly still have a choice, we can try to disobey, even if we won’t succeed.

 

[thinkandmull]

Blaming God for our sins is really not rational. If God prevented all suffering by interfering with our every intended evil act, we would in effect not be free. We would have no choice but to do what God had programmed us to do … exclusively good acts.

I suspect there are really very few atheists who believe in free will, so they are comfortable criticizing a God who we believe gives it to us.

But since they don’t believe in God, they have to conclude that it’s Nature, not God, who permits terrible cruelties, and ultimately the instigators of such cruelties, if they are not caught, will never suffer recrimination either in this life or in the next.

For the atheist who turns to crime and is not caught, this is a win-win situation … or so he thinks.

You are missing the point that God could allow sin in the will but not let the innocent be hurt. The only explanation is that pain can be turned into greater joy. The atheists think this can’t be done, but only time can tell, not there limited horizons

 

[inocente]

Inocente, if you look to your conscience and then understand from there that God is above us, you can then realize that God does not have to act as humans act. He acts for a greater good

Many children will know that the slogan “for the greater good” is used by the evil wizard Gellert Grindelwald in the Harry Potter books to justify his moral atrocities.

Please look to your conscience and provide an example of where children ought to be sexually abused for a greater good.

 

[inocente]

inocente;14120284:

goout;14118530:

I’m not sure how you could possible make that inference from my post. I’ll just restate it.
I’m addressing the problem of evil in the presence of an omnipotent and all loving God. Why does evil still exist. My post addresses the relationship between God and man. God respects free will. The abuser does not. Generally speaking, human beings abuse free will.

Please see post #384.

I think you’ve sprung a similar logic trap - if God is all-good and God respects free-will, then to be good we ought to follow God’s all-good example and also respect the free-will of the child abuser. But we don’t, every normal person does the exact opposite and violates the free-will of the abuser, because we have far more respect for the free-will of the abused child.

Therefore either the claim that God is all-good is disproved, or else we’re evil when we violate the free-will of the abuser in stopping child abuse.Please observe:
You are making an assertion that I did not make. Reread my last post to you.

Your assertion was that “God respects free-will”, and I replied that’s not true because by not acting, God doesn’t respect the free-will of the child, whose free-will is against being abused.

 

[inocente]

Logic, I would never claim to be my forte.

From what you say above, I would conclude that you do not believe that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolence.
Another possibility is that you know logic to be a bunch of hogwash, where it leads away from reality.
it can do this obviously if the premises or ideas do not coincide with the truth, the atheist’s dilemma.
Even where individual ideas are specifically correct, the whole may not be fully represented as they are brought together in the argument, possibly your problem.
The blind men trying to conclude what is an elephant will never get there unless somehow its reality is revealed.
Is your goal here to make fun of philosophers who think themselves brilliant?

At any rate, whatever is going on, I would direct you to the Catechism and welcome you to participate in the church.

Then I’ll direct you to the Catechism :

CCC 50 By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works…

But no one has yet provided an argument by natural reason for why an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God permits children to be sexually abused.

CCC 50 continues …But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation. Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

But nothing in revelation tells us that children ought to be abused as part of “his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men”.

 

[inocente]

You are being a bit disingenuous here because the way in which God would work to stop child abuse – in the hearts of those with a proclivity, inclination or will to do so – means that we would never hear about the incidents that God has successfully stopped, would we?

You appear to have downgraded omnipotence to a whisper.

*I mean the actual cases of child abuse might be relatively and vanishingly small when compared to all the people who might potentially commit child abuse. It isn’t like everyone is going to 'fess up to having such tendencies if they were dissuaded by some small act of God from doing so. Most would plead the fifth, in terms of culpable desire, I would expect. And the ones who chose to ignore God’s influence to the contrary, have a lot at stake by hiding the fact that they were shutting down the shouting voice of God within them. *

Your conviction that normal adults ever fantasize about abusing children is weird.

Christ was crucified in an egregious manner. He suffered “physical, emotional and spiritual scars.” God took “no action,” in the sense you infer. He could have easily stopped it. Why didn’t he?

Err, Christ is God.

Actually, if we are to follow his example, like Christ (God) did by becoming fully human and suffering the indignity and pain of the crucifixion, we ought to fully become one with the abused child, so that we fully become aware of the pain and humility suffered by the child. Perhaps by entering fully into that suffering we would be fully able to empathize and never permit another evil thought to enter our minds again. Perhaps simply by becoming FULLY one with the rejected, scorned, victimized, tortured, abused victims as Christ did, we would never ever permit evil to enter our hearts again.

Now that’s a very strange argument. Children ought to be sexually abused for our benefit? No one needs to suffer, God already died on the cross to become FULLY one with all of us. He didn’t fail, He doesn’t need to use children as objects to keep repeating the message, as if Christ didn’t suffer enough.

*Perpetrators of abuse often have been abused themselves, but the difference is that they took that affront to their dignity as intolerable and have reacted to by attacking others and perpetrating the same. The real evil is what happens to the hearts, minds and wills of those who suffer evil – the manner in which evil is contagious and spawns itself by infecting those touched by it. The antidote is Christ, the One who has the power to suffer evil but not be infected, not be changed by it. If the abused child and the abuser had known about the antidote, perhaps neither would have been affected by it. *

If that’s true then the proportion of Christians who abuse children would be a lot less than for other faiths and atheists. Please provide the evidence.

What you have missed is that what God does to the abused child is to share himself FULLY with that child. The child has everything – the Creator and Sustainer of all that is within him. The power to overcome the influence of the evil of abuse. The pervert on the other hand has lost everything. Which of the two is in a worse-off and more perilous condition? The perpetrator has the disease (evil) wrecking its damage to his person and will, the victim has suffered physical and psychological injury. The question is whether the victim will permit the injury to infect the core of his spirit and will.

You appear to be suggesting that Christians ought to abuse their children so they gain the power to overcome evil .

We are entirely free to fall for bad logic.

Indeed.

 

[tonyrey]

Then I’ll direct you to the Catechism :

CCC 50 By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works…

But no one has yet provided an argument by natural reason for why an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God permits children to be sexually abused.

CCC 50 continues …But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation. Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

But nothing in revelation tells us that children ought to be abused as part of “his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men”.

NB:

%between%

18 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!
8 “If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire.

10 “Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven. 11 For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.

 

[inocente]

The reason that the “logic trap” has you persuaded is because you misunderstand one of the basic principles of logic and justice: Treat like things alike with respect to the ways in which they are alike.

Humans are not omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. That means what human beings are held accountable for are not the same as what God is to be. The reverse is also true. God is not to be held accountable for what humans are in all cases. There is an infinite gulf between the capacities and, therefore, the accountabilities of humans and those of God.

The logic does not lead to an inference that humans should act like God in all cases, nor that God should act as humans in all cases, only with respect to the ways humans and God are alike. Since there is an infinite gulf between them, there is no automatic assumption that God need act precisely as humans do in all cases.

Your argument is weak since it relies upon an equivalency that doesn’t exist and you haven’t made the case that it does, just assumed it.

Morally speaking, God has responsibilities that humans do not and humans have responsibilities that God does not, even though some may be held in common. God gives life and takes it. Humans do not give life in the same sense – as authors of it – therefore we do not have a moral right to take it as we determine precisely because we lack the wherewithal to know the full repercussions of giving and taking life - we lack omniscience. A huge and relevant difference between humans and God. Ergo, not the same accountability.

Convolution. Please provide an example of where God morally determines that a child ought to be sexually abused. Then please explain why that is moral for God and immoral for us. Then please explain how, if any of that was true, God could possibly be our source of morality.

 

[o_mlly]

…
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.

That you are not totally knowing does not mean you are totally unknowing. You could know and help prevent child abuse if only you willed to do so. Isn’t that exactly what you demand of our God?

Your excuse is similar to the marketer who tells his superiors, “If I could just find the customers, I’d tell them about the product.” He is no marketer at all and should be summarily fired. The job is to find the customers.

Here’s your chance to either join, volunteer and/or donate to prevent child abuse:
ispcan.org/. Perhaps God sent us you to help prevent child abuse.

 

[tonyrey]

18 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come

 

[Aloysium]

Then I’ll direct you to the Catechism :

CCC 50 By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works…

But no one has yet provided an argument by natural reason for why an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God permits children to be sexually abused.

CCC 50 continues …But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation. Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

But nothing in revelation tells us that children ought to be abused as part of “his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men”.

I understood what you believe the first time you wrote it; I provided you with my reply. To pursue this is to go in circles. Good day.

 

[goout]

Convolution. Please provide an example of where God morally determines that a child ought to be sexually abused.

Why would an all loving God do that? It’s not in God’s nature to will evil.
big
Evil happens because we abuse free will. Not sure what you are misunderstanding.

Then please explain why that is moral for God and immoral for us. Then please explain how, if any of that was true, God could possibly be our source of morality.

God is the source of morality because God is the good. Morality is the evaluation of human acts. It seems you envision morality as a God in itself.