The atheists best argument?

[goout]

1. (definition) An entity is omnibenevolent if and only if it desires what is most good for us
2. (definition) Something is evil if and only if it is not good for us.
3. (contra-positive of 2) If something is good for us, then it is not evil.
4. (conclusion) An entity is omnibenevolent if and only if it desires things that are not evil for us.

1. An entity that can create everything that exists must be love, because love is a creative outpouring of the self, or a willing of the good. Creation is good. Human beings are created to participate in that good, and to know it (him).
2. Evil is a deprivation of that good. Or a lack of it.
   3)If something is good for us then it is not evil.
3. Because an entity is omnibenevolent, it wills the good for us.

 

[goout]

That’s not the kind of poll he was talking about. You’re envisioning a poll that’s like “should we dispose of jews? (y/n)” He was talking about polls that measure well-being and life satisfaction, which would then be combined with other measures (e.g. life expectancy) to create a “human prosperity” index. Such an index would provide an objective basis for morality.

Let’s simply quote the post for clarity, which seems to be on the verge of disappearing here. Here is the relevant section:

Broadly speaking I’d say that moral actions are those that allow humans to live and prosper and immoral are those actions that do not. I evaluate actions by looking at statistics, polls and other empirical data. Societies prosper when all humans have some basic rights: individual autonomy, property rights and a lot of other stuff. Societies where those rights are not respected generally tend to do much worse compared to societies where those rights are respected. Without respect for property, there can be no trade, no economy and then it will be very hard to get the stuff necessary to improve one’s life.

Your sentiments are admirably in line with good moral evaluation. But you base them on “statistics, polls, and other empirical data”.
That is not moral evaluation. It is popular opinion and numbers. In short, it amounts to force propelled by popular sentiment and utilitarianism (humans as numbers).
It has no objective standard with which to evaluate.

Do you stand by this or did you misspeak?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

1. An entity that can create everything that exists must be love, because love is a creative outpouring of the self, or a willing of the good. Creation is good. Human beings are created to participate in that good, and to know it (him).
2. Evil is a deprivation of that good. Or a lack of it.
   3)If something is good for us then it is not evil.
3. Because an entity is omnibenevolent, it wills the good for us.

…Did you write that backwards? Or do you think that your hodgepodge of assertions in #1 is a reasonable premise that requires no further argumentation?

Do you think it is a normal thing to conclude an argument by having it depend on a term (omnibenevolent) that you have not used in any of your premises?

Do you realize that your use of OR in the definition of love disqualifies you from saying that an entity which is love must will what is good for us?

Do you realize that Catholic theology says that God created everything out of nothing and if you say that God created everything out of himself then you are not in agreement with Catholic teaching?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Your sentiments are admirably in line with good moral evaluation. But you base them on “statistics, polls, and other empirical data”.
That is not moral evaluation. It is popular opinion and numbers. In short, it amounts to force propelled by popular sentiment and utilitarianism (humans as numbers).
It has no objective standard with which to evaluate.

Do you stand by this or did you misspeak?

I can understand why you would read his post that way, but as you can see, he has clarified his earlier statement and indicated that I was correct.

 

[Cheiron]

Let’s simply quote the post for clarity, which seems to be on the verge of disappearing here. Here is the relevant section:

Your sentiments are admirably in line with good moral evaluation. But you base them on “statistics, polls, and other empirical data”.
That is not moral evaluation. It is popular opinion and numbers. In short, it amounts to force propelled by popular sentiment and utilitarianism (humans as numbers).
It has no objective standard with which to evaluate.

Do you stand by this or did you misspeak?

Yes, I stand by the words I said, but because you want to focus on that, I would like to clarify it better. The key phrase is ofcourse “other empirical data”. Perhaps there is data that I use, but can’t think of right now. With statistical data I mean indicators that measure the succes of a society. Literacy rate for example. With polls I mean polls about happiness, safety and financial security. With regard to the prosperity index: I’m not saying that the country that is highest on the list is also the most moral one. Or that every policy in that country is moral. I do think that the countries on top often have morally better public policy in general. Most countries at the top are capitalist societies with a social safety net for the poor. This economic system leads to more happiness and well-being than a completely capitalist or completely communist economic system. So it’s the more moral one. And ofcourse I also use reason.

You might notice I’m sometimes vague. That’s because this isn’t an exact science. I must also stress that this is not the position of all humanists. Some people at my local humanist association think I pay too much attention to the outcome of moral dilemma’s and have too little consideration for the sometimes questionable motives that lead to a good moral outcome.

 

[Cheiron]

Let’s simply quote the post for clarity, which seems to be on the verge of disappearing here. Here is the relevant section:

Your sentiments are admirably in line with good moral evaluation. But you base them on “statistics, polls, and other empirical data”.
That is not moral evaluation. It is popular opinion and numbers. In short, it amounts to force propelled by popular sentiment and utilitarianism (humans as numbers).
It has no objective standard with which to evaluate.

Do you stand by this or did you misspeak?

I must add that I don’t see humans as numbers. Or that everything is permitted in pursuing the greatest well-being for the greatest number of people. That would violate the basic human rights I talked about earlier. And such violations lead to a more dangerous and anxious society. And ofcourse I disagree that it’s not objective. And even if it were subjective, it’s still better than a God who arbitrarily decides what’s moral and what isn’t.

 

[Wesrock]

1. (definition) An entity is omnibenevolent if and only if it always desires what is most good for each one of us
2. (definition) Something is evil if and only if it is not good for us.
3. (contra-positive of 2) If something is good for us, then it is not evil.
4. (conclusion) An entity is omnibenevolent if and only if it desires things that are not evil for us.

Yes… (though I’d say the God would take joy in the realization of the fullness of being within his creations) but it does not follow that it necessarily must then create your version of Utopia.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The key difference between science and religion is that science learns more over time. We get closer and closer to understanding the nature of life and matter; science is extremely adept at learning more. Religious believers, on the other hand, have precisely the same evidence in hand that they did 2,000 years ago (or 60 years ago, if you’re a Scientologist).

So I would say the scientific atheist then has a “better chance” and finding the truth.

Only if the scientific atheist has the better or correct starting assumptions or premises, otherwise it is completely a shot in the dark whether the initial assumptions are the requisite ones.

If the theist begins with true revelations which have been revealed by the omniscient and omnibenevolent God precisely to assist humans beings on the right road, then you are completely wrong.

Theists would be starting on the right path from the get go, scientific atheists wouldn’t even know if the path they are on leads in the right direction let alone being the right path. They would have to follow it a distance to even get a sense about the path irtself to say nothing of the destination, which they wouldn’t have a clue about to begin with.

If God is the revealer of those theological principles then presumably he would know their intent and their efficacy.

The difference is between being alone in the dark having no clue where you are going and being provided with a light pointing in the direction which leads down the path in the direction which leads where we ought to go.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This seems to be contradictory to the rest of your post. You seem to be asserting that human actions affect God’s potency and omniscience.

Perhaps I misspoke. Rather than “easier” let’s say that our good moral choices will lead us to the final good in a much more timely manner rather than requiring of God to fix “broken” choices that take us down unnecessarily circuitous routes towards the prescribed end.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Its fine if you want to say that God is super different and the source of goodness. But if you want to argue that those things mean that something like “child abuse” might actually be a net good in the world, then you are not so much saying “we don’t understand God” as you are saying “we don’t actually know which things are good or evil.”

Well, no actually, “those things” don’t mean that child abuse might actually be a net good, those things mean that child abuse might be a permissible evil which the omniscient, omnipotent God can do something with to bring about good. There is no direct inference from permissible to, therefore, good.

If I burn my hand on a stove and thereby learn that stoves are dangerously hot, the burning isn’t a “good” thing, but it was a means to a good end. That doesn’t mean I couldn’t have learned the lesson in a different way without the suffering, but it does mean I didn’t – but the good still occurred as a result. Perhaps learning the lesson may have prevented an even worse outcome sometime down the road if I didn’t happen to learn it in a timely manner with relatively minor injuries.

Now remember when we compare temporal to eternal outcomes, the temporal evils will always and necessarily be less evil than the eternal ones. Therefore, suffering temporary evils which prevent or possibly prevent (assuming the lesson doesn’t take, given free will) means those will be relatively minor compared to eternal negative consequences.

The problem is that in this age we discount eternality completely and therefore only count temporal evils as grave. Perhaps that is an error of significant consequence which we do not properly take into account?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I was not doing any wondering. I was explicitly saying that there are things we are capable of willing, but incapable of actualizing (e.g. personal flight, or turning into a bird.) I was asserting that such restrictions do not detract from our free will. I was furthermore asserting that God could have created similar impediments to actualizing evil in the world without detracting from our free will.

That would depend upon the point of having free will to begin with. If it is with respect to forming good moral agents capable of making choices for the “good,” then arbitrary capabilities like whether to fly or walk or swim are not critical or relevant towards the end of forming moral beings. The crucial capabilities would have to be those which determine whether good is chosen over evil not on how the determinations are made in a technical sense.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

These “problem of evil” jousts on the internet never seem to end do they?

Is nature “omnibenevolent?” Does that even make sense to ask? For me, God is the same. God is no more or less “good” than nature. In nature, horrible and disgusting things happen on the regular. Nature is also full of beauty. We are part of nature. We are both beautiful and horrible. There is no separation, in my opinion at least.

I don’t believe there is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient god standing outside the universe watching children being abused and doing absolutely nothing. No such god exists, I agree with our atheist brothers and sisters.

Instead, I believe God is everywhere. He is empowering the abuser and suffering inside the abused. Why? Why all this churn, pain, and suffering?

Only God knows. Maybe we’ll figure it out someday, but I don’t think anyone has, at least to my knowledge.

Now…that said, my question for the apologists defending the traditional concept of God:

What state of affairs would have to obtain for you to conclude that God is not in fact omnibenevolent?

For instance, what if God simply decided not to send Jesus, and let the world spin on for countless thousands of years, allowing trillions of human beings to be born and die in original sin, and thus spend eternity in endless, relentless torment? Would God still be omnibenevolent in that case? If so, can you think of a possible universe or state of affairs where God could be affirmed as anything less than “omnibenevolent?”

 

[Bradski]

Only if the scientific atheist has the better or correct starting assumptions or premises.

What on earth does ‘scientific atheist’ mean? Is that a scientist who carries on looking for answers rather than accepting supernatural ones? When does the theist Christian stop?

The problem is that in this age we discount eternality completely and therefore only count temporal evils as grave. Perhaps that is an error of significant consequence which we do not properly take into account?

Well, yeah. We do, don’t we. As opposed to telling the murdered child’s mother that ‘it’s all for the best’. Which is your entire argument in one soulless phrase.

Right, but only if God gives us the power to have not-evil and does not impose it on us by force.

So if a parent sees a child harming an animal, you would say that to preserve the child’s free will, you must not prevent the harm being caused. You can’t force him to stop.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What on earth does ‘scientific atheist’ mean? Is that a scientist who carries on looking for answers rather than accepting supernatural ones?

I dunno for sure Brad. I would suggest you ask Strydersroom, but it appears he has left the building.

So I would say the scientific atheist then has a “better chance” and finding the truth.

I wouldn’t want to be accused of putting words into the mouths of others, again.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Well, no actually, “those things” don’t mean that child abuse might actually be a net good, those things mean that child abuse might be a permissible evil which the omniscient, omnipotent God can do something with to bring about good. There is no direct inference from permissible to, therefore, good.

I mean, it sounds like you’re agreeing with me. There are only a handful of possibilities:

1. Child abuse is eventually good for the child (through God’s intervention or otherwise.)
2. Child abuse is eventually good for some greater plan (through God’s intervention or otherwise.)
3. Child abuse is never good for the child and it is never good for some greater plan.

If I burn my hand on a stove and thereby learn that stoves are dangerously hot, the burning isn’t a “good” thing, but it was a means to a good end. That doesn’t mean I couldn’t have learned the lesson in a different way without the suffering, but it does mean I didn’t – but the good still occurred as a result. Perhaps learning the lesson may have prevented an even worse outcome sometime down the road if I didn’t happen to learn it in a timely manner with relatively minor injuries.

Saying something like that would be fine, if there was literally no other way that you could learn about the dangers of hot stoves. Or if you couldn’t imagine a world whose stoves wouldn’t burn people. And you could be assured that the net benefit of the lesson you learned outweighed the suffering involved in a minor burn.

The point is that of course we can imagine better ways to learn, worlds safer stoves, and worlds where the hand-burning lesson would simply not ever be needed in the future. Now you will no doubt find that far fetched, but we are literally talking about omnipotence here

Now remember when we compare temporal to eternal outcomes, the temporal evils will always and necessarily be less evil than the eternal ones. Therefore, suffering temporary evils which prevent or possibly prevent (assuming the lesson doesn’t take, given free will) means those will be relatively minor compared to eternal negative consequences.

The problem is that in this age we discount eternality completely and therefore only count temporal evils as grave. Perhaps that is an error of significant consequence which we do not properly take into account?

I’m glad you brought that up. If it were the case that God would compensate people for the evil they experienced while on earth, (and reward them eternally on top of that), then indeed the problem of evil might be solved. Of course, we would still ask why God didn’t just reward people without requiring them to suffer first, but as you point out, an eternal reward makes temporary sufferings look like a rounding error.

But that’s not what happens, at least not in any mainstream Christian religion. A significant chunk of humanity is not going to be rewarded, but instead punished for eternity. If we’re fair, and weigh an eternal punishment as heavily as we weighed the eternal reward, then we would have to say that the evil represented by eternal punishment outweighs any temporary goodness that person may have experienced in their earthly life. Indeed an eternal punishment would represent the least good thing that could happen to someone. But for some reason God created the rules with the knowledge that people will suffer that fate. God cannot be benevolent towards those people because he was the one who built the system which allowed this least good thing to happen to them.

Now here you will say “but free will!” I think that the good of free will can possibly offset some temporary evil, but it cannot outweigh eternal evil.

 

[Bradski]

I dunno for sure Brad. I would suggest you ask Strydersroom, but it appears he has left the building.

If you had said that a ‘scientific atheist’ is one that tries to…

‘get closer and closer to understanding the nature of life and matter’

…then not surprisingly, I would have agreed with you. Notwithstanding that I dislike the term in any case. It’s like saying ‘a Christian Chemist’. I see no connection in doing science and one’s religious beliefs.

And it does seem that Stryder has indeed left the building. Which comes as a surprise. Seemed a nice guy.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, yeah. We do, don’t we. As opposed to telling the murdered child’s mother that ‘it’s all for the best’. Which is your entire argument in one soulless phrase.

I don’t recall claiming it was all for the best.

I think you’ve been watching too much Godspell.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=39tXfUm80Bc

The argument is that whatever happens God will redeem it in a deep and profound way, including honoring the suffering of the child’s mother in a deep and profound way. He will transform the suffering not into a “pleasantry” but in a way that writes the depth of the suffering into the fabric of existence. The suffering will made eternally meaningful and profound in a way that pleasant, frivolous, and painless superficialities can never be.

That isn’t the same as “Buck up, it’s all for the best.”

It is more analogous to the way a soul-wrenching drama is more profoundly moving and meaningful than a light comedy where nothing serious ever happens, nothing is lost, the theme is superficial and has no power to captivate. Merely because human pain and suffering occurs does not make the experience one to be avoided at any cost.

It is far better to love and be heartbroken than to live a shallow life where nothing important or grave is ever on the line. The difference is between engaging completely with the people around us where loss can be profoundly costly or living life on the surface with no skin in the game.

Love can be profoundly painful, and meaningful on that account, in a way that ease, comfort and hedonism can never be.

Your portrayal of the argument as soulless is itself soulless precisely because it points at the pain rather than beyond it to the reality that renders the painful experience significant rather than meaningless.

What makes the mother’s loss so painful in the first place?

 

[Peter_Plato]

If it were the case that God would compensate people for the evil they experienced while on earth, (and reward them eternally on top of that), then indeed the problem of evil might be solved. Of course, we would still ask why God didn’t just reward people without requiring them to suffer first, but as you point out, an eternal reward makes temporary sufferings look like a rounding error.

Why is compensation the only alternative?

Is it not possible that God could – using pain and suffering – carve out of shallow beings a far deeper being capable of experiencing existence at a far deeper and more profound way?

It may not be a question of trading pleasures for pains until one is fully compensated for pains suffered, by some corresponding measure of frivolous pleasures, until the balance sheet has been closed.

Perhaps what God is doing is using the suffering and joys experienced in this life to carve into every human person a profound and deep capacity to exist at undreamed-of levels.

The assumption you make is that pain or suffering are themselves evil. I am not clear that that is anywhere near the complete story. I would say what is more evil is shutting down the capacity to live fully.

Now, it might be true that suffering abuse can do that to a person, but on the other hand if the person is not merely left to their own resources but is in the hands of God who can use the experience to carve profoundly into the heart of the person in such a way as to make them far more capable of living at a profound level, then the abuse has not caused an evil outcome with respect to the victim, although it had the potential to.

The abuse has, however, been the result of evil gripping the abuser by not permitting him to see the depth and beauty of the life and person of the one abused. Now, again, it may be that God could use the abusive act to transform the abuser by the experience of causing suffering such that the abuser begins to be confronted at a deeper level by the good of the other in light of the darkness of his act. Again, no guarantee, but God can potentially use the act to help the abuser recognize the good at a deeper level as a result of seeing it in contrast to the evil he has perpetrated.

Once again, the paradigm of trading goods may not be an adequate one to depict what is going on. Rather it is more like a painter using light and dark to create a painting (the individual person or soul) or a sculptor using pain and pleasure to carve into the human soul the meaningful topography which will define its uniqueness.

This would mean that real evil or good, in the end, is not the achievement of some overall balance of pleasure over pain, as hedonists or utilitarians would have us believe, but that human persons never achieve the depth of being that we are designed for. Love would be the motive and courage the means by which we transform ourselves under the guidance of God’s grace into profound beings worthy of eternal existence. Not being so transformed but continuing to live shallow or unfulfilled lives could, more properly, be called “evil.”

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Why is compensation the only alternative?

Is it not possible that God could – using pain and suffering – carve out of shallow beings a far deeper being capable of experiencing existence at a far deeper and more profound way?

Sure. I meant compensation in a very broad and general sense. If that compensation is “experiences that can be more deeply appreciated by virtue of their past sufferings” that’s fine. Either way, it would fall under this category:

1. Child abuse is eventually good for the child (through God’s intervention or otherwise.)

 

[Peter_Plato]

Saying something like that would be fine, if there was literally no other way that you could learn about the dangers of hot stoves. Or if you couldn’t imagine a world whose stoves wouldn’t burn people. And you could be assured that the net benefit of the lesson you learned outweighed the suffering involved in a minor burn.

The point is that of course we can imagine better ways to learn, worlds safer stoves, and worlds where the hand-burning lesson would simply not ever be needed in the future.

Perhaps it isn’t about learning, but, rather, about becoming. What we are made into rather than what we know.

That being the case, then for some transformations to occur, perhaps there is only a very specific series of unique steps in the process which God has laid out in the very individual life that we live including all the unique aspects that are the “properties” of it – the people, the places, the things, the events, the timing, the sequence, etc., such that God’s omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence orders the world within which you live specifically for you to become what you are meant to be, provided you cooperate with the grace that will make it possible for you to become the person you are intended to be from eternity.