The atheists best argument?

[o_mlly]

Because God is higher in rank He doesn’t have to report crime to the police? That doesn’t make sense to me. Everyone is obliged to report crime.

Why do people report evil doers to the authorities? To stop the evil. To right the wrong. God reports the evil doer to you. You are His authority to do good on earth. The question not answered in our exchange is: What do you do after God calls you?

Ofcourse we have to care about each other in the community.

If we care, are we not obliged to act?

So what God can and can’t do on earth is restrained by humans willing to cooperate?

What God wills to do on earth is to bring all men to salvation – to have all men choose freely to do His will. Yes, God’s will is temporarily restrained by those who reject God’s call to friendship. But I believe the “hound of heaven” is not easily rejected. Even now, He’s working on atheists through this forum.

We cannot love whom we do not know. We will not serve whom we do not love. To know, love and serve God is the summum bonum of human life. Note that as free agents, we must freely will to love God. We can will not to love God but we cannot will that the consequences of rejecting God do not follow. The consequences are evil. The consequence is child abuse. To end child abuse, choose God.

If humans do good things: God gets the credit. If humans do bad things, God has nothing to do with it.

You are now thinking Catholic.

If God can only do good, then it becomes meaningless to say that God is good. Because that means that God does whatever God does.

Whoops, let’s try that again in English. If God only does good then God is goodness itself. Further, only God is good. All goodness originates in His being. That means that whatever God does is good,

I’m glad to hear you say that God can’t call the police himself. That means He is not in breach of the criminal law. It does negate His omnipotence, to put it mildly. If He can’t even make a simple phone call, He is less able than humans. Why call such a being God at all.

While I would like to think that what I write makes you glad, I did not write “God can’t call the police himself.” One does not limit the actions of an omnipotent being. Remember, part of omnipotence is the power to withhold action as well as act.

 

[goout]

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.

Ok then. All is misunderstood and vague.

Let’s focus again.
By what objective standard do you evaluate morality, such that those who don’t share your benevolent views might still have a moral compass?

What is the standard, since your previously stated standards were not meant to be taken seriously?
If you don’t have an objective standard, then you have no moral evaluation.

 

[inocente]

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]

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?

I’ll ignore your attack if you don’t mind.

The above sentence, if you were a Catholic, would be a cause for concern. Since you are not and want to know, let’s look at the Catechism and see what the Church actually teaches.
In any case, it is good that what the Church says is important to your search. Let’s look at what she actually teaches so that we can both be edified, as well as anyone who is reading and wondering.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm

IV. THE MYSTERY OF CREATION

**God creates by wisdom and love
**
295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom.141 It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God’s free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness: "For you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created."142 Therefore the Psalmist exclaims: “O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all”; and "The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made."143

**God creates “out of nothing”
**
296 We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance.144 God creates freely “out of nothing”:145

If God had drawn the world from pre-existent matter, what would be so extraordinary in that? A human artisan makes from a given material whatever he wants, while God shows his power by starting from nothing to make all he wants.146
297 Scripture bears witness to faith in creation “out of nothing” as a truth full of promise and hope. Thus the mother of seven sons encourages them for martyrdom:

I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws. . . Look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being.147

 

[inocente]

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.

Sure. I was responding to another poster, not sure what you didn’t understand about his argument. I posted a separate response to you.

btw in your post #509, just above this one, why are you arguing with a quote with your name on it? Or have you too caught QMD (Quote Misattribution Syndrome)?

 

[inocente]

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.

Sure. I was responding to another poster, not sure what you didn’t understand about his argument. I posted a separate response to you.

btw in your post #509, just above this one, why are you arguing with a quote with your name on it? Or have you too caught QMS (Quote Misattribution Syndrome)?

 

[goout]

Sure. I was responding to another poster, not sure what you didn’t understand about his argument. I posted a separate response to you.

btw in your post #509, just above this one, why are you arguing with a quote with your name on it? Or have you too caught QMS (Quote Misattribution Syndrome)?

Ha. It’s a condition.
I’ve had it since birth and I embrace it as my normal self. Don’t try and change me.

 

[goout]

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

What is very telling in these discussions is there is no “problem of good”.

Every bit of suffering and evil demands an accountability from God, subject to our judgments and methods of accounting.
But does anyone put their god to the test for good? No. That side of the ledger is hoarded without accountability.

I’m waiting for the honest atheist to say:
“I exist from nothing and I breathe and eat and can move around. Life has so many good things, it can’t possible be the work of a God. It’s too good to be true. The fact that we have so many good things proves God can’t possibly exist”.

If you were consistent, you would put God to the test because life has pleasures, happiness, joy, love, faith. And none of it of your own making. All of it is a gift.

Where could it have come from, you who one moment did not exist, and now you do, from absolute nothingness? Why isn’t good a problem for you???

Very arbitrary and unreasonable. Whim-centered. Passion-centered.

 

[tonyrey]

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

We are but on earth we’re not always aware of the fact - in some cases never - whereas in heaven constantly as one might expect…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

What is very telling in these discussions is there is no “problem of good”.

Every bit of suffering and evil demands an accountability from God, subject to our judgments and methods of accounting.
But does anyone put their god to the test for good? No. That side of the ledger is hoarded without accountability.

I’m waiting for the honest atheist to say:
“I exist from nothing and I breathe and eat and can move around. Life has so many good things, it can’t possible be the work of a God. It’s too good to be true. The fact that we have so many good things proves God can’t possibly exist”.

If you were consistent, you would put God to the test because life has pleasures, happiness, joy, love, faith. And none of it of your own making. All of it is a gift.

Where could it have come from, you who one moment did not exist, and now you do, from absolute nothingness? Why isn’t good a problem for you???

Very arbitrary and unreasonable. Whim-centered. Passion-centered.

There would be a “problem of good” if the creator were claimed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and “omnimalevolent.” If that were the case, we’d have a hard time trying to explain the instances of good.

Religious believers already do give credit to God for goodness. Atheists don’t have a problem with goodness because it is claimed that God is all good. Goodness is precisely what we should expect from an omnipotent omniscient all-good God.

Just to be extra clear: the problem of evil doesn’t “prove” that God doesn’t exist, per se. However, it does give us good reason to suspect that traditional notions of God are misguided.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There would be a “problem of good” if the creator were claimed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and “omnimalevolent.” If that were the case, we’d have a hard time trying to explain the instances of good.

Religious believers already do give credit to God for goodness. Atheists don’t have a problem with goodness because it is claimed that God is all good. Goodness is precisely what we should expect from an omnipotent omniscient all-good God.

Just to be extra clear: the problem of evil doesn’t “prove” that God doesn’t exist, per se. However, it does give us good reason to suspect that traditional notions of God are misguided.

Whatever could omnimalevolent even possibly mean? Destructive to the point of destroying everything in its wake until nothing existed including itself? Seems a self-contradictory notion, no?

So if God is “the pure act of Being Itself,” then, presumably, not-God would be “the pure act of non-being, of non-existence, of nothingness, itself.”

Speaking of misguided.

 

[goout]

There would be a “problem of good” if the creator were claimed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and “omnimalevolent.” If that were the case, we’d have a hard time trying to explain the instances of good.

How does one have a hard time trying to explain instances of anything?
You exist, you live a life, you experience good and you experience the evil. Why is hard for you to explain either?
They are both part of human existence. A problem with one should cause a problem for both.

Religious believers already do give credit to God for goodness.

And how do you account for goodness, since you account for evil.

Atheists don’t have a problem with goodness because it is claimed that God is all good.

Why would an atheist put any stake in a claim about God. They don’t believe God exists. And so how does the atheist answer the problem of good if they reject the existence of God? That should be a problem if we are to be consistent.

Goodness is precisely what we should expect from an omnipotent omniscient all-good God.

…if you believe in God. If you don’t, then goodness should cause you a problem just like evil. Why does goodness exist!!!

Just to be extra clear: the problem of evil doesn’t “prove” that God doesn’t exist, per se. However, it does give us good reason to suspect that traditional notions of God are misguided.

Ah, understood.
We can’t prove God doesn’t exist, but mulling over the problem of evil gives us cause to be suspicious about God.
Perhaps you see the problem.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Whatever could omnimalevolent even possibly mean? Destructive to the point of destroying everything in its wake until nothing existed including itself? Seems a self-contradictory notion, no?

So if God is “the pure act of Being Itself,” then, presumably, not-God would be “the pure act of non-being, of non-existence, of nothingness, itself.”

Speaking of misguided.

Whatever could “omnibenevolent” mean lol? Good is whatever God is? Seems tautological, no?

 

[Cheiron]

Ok then. All is misunderstood and vague.

Let’s focus again.
By what objective standard do you evaluate morality, such that those who don’t share your benevolent views might still have a moral compass?

What is the standard, since your previously stated standards were not meant to be taken seriously?
If you don’t have an objective standard, then you have no moral evaluation.

You misunderstood me so completely that I doubt I can convince you now. I will give it one last shot and then I give up.

I didn’t say that you shouldn’t take me seriously. I said my standards are facts about the causes of happiness. Behaviour that leads to well-being = morally good and behaviour that causes misery = morally bad. Now, I said this approach isn’t an exact science. I don’t know all the facts and I can’t foresee all the consequences of my actions. It may turn out that what I deem moral happens to be profoundly immoral. But this imprecision doesn’t mean it’s completely useless. It means sometimes I act morally and sometimes I make mistakes and act immorally. Also, because I base my evaluation on facts, it’s an objective moral standard.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

How does one have a hard time trying to explain instances of anything?
You exist, you live a life, you experience good and you experience the evil. Why is hard for you to explain either?
They are both part of human existence. A problem with one should cause a problem for both.

Right, I personally don’t have a problem accounting for either evil or good, because I don’t claim that God is separate and omnibenevolent. Que sera, sera

Traditional theists have the problem. Atheists don’t have to explain either good or evil because neither concept is ultimate or cosmic the way it is for theists.

And how do you account for goodness, since you account for evil.

Why would an atheist put any stake in a claim about God. They don’t believe God exists. And so how does the atheist answer the problem of good if they reject the existence of God? That should be a problem if we are to be consistent.

…if you believe in God. If you don’t, then goodness should cause you a problem just like evil. Why does goodness exist!!!

Ah, understood.
We can’t prove God doesn’t exist, but mulling over the problem of evil gives us cause to be suspicious about God.
Perhaps you see the problem.

The irony here is that the theists in this thread have spent considerable resources showing that atheists don’t really believe in good and evil as cosmic realities, and precisely when it is convenient for this to answer your question, you want to try to show that they really do believe in goodness. Lol.

Personally, I don’t know why there is any goodness, just like I don’t know why there is any evil. Only God knows, in my opinion.

Mulling over the problem of evil gives us cause to doubt certain ideas about God, yes. The problem of evil isn’t an attack on God, but upon certain ideas about God.

 

[goout]

You misunderstood me so completely that I doubt I can convince you now. I will give it one last shot and then I give up.

Ummm, it’s hard to claim you were misunderstood when the words you said were quoted a couple times and directly addressed.
Then we get into games about the meaning of words, which is a sign of…

I didn’t say that you shouldn’t take me seriously. I said my standards are facts about the causes of happiness. Behaviour that leads to well-being = morally good and behaviour that causes misery = morally bad. Now, I said this approach isn’t an exact science. I don’t know all the facts and I can’t foresee all the consequences of my actions. It may turn out that what I deem moral happens to be profoundly immoral. But this imprecision doesn’t mean it’s completely useless. It means sometimes I act morally and sometimes I make mistakes and act immorally. Also, because I base my evaluation on facts, it’s an objective moral standard.

Can you be just a bit more specific about your standards moral evaluation?
You previously said popular opinion, stats…etc…are the standards for moral eval.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Whatever could “omnibenevolent” mean lol? Good is whatever God is? Seems tautological, no?

God is fundamentally the pure act of Being itself. What it means “To Be” at its most basic and fundamental ground. That is not “tautological,” it is essential.

Now, admittedly, that might appear “tautological” from the standpoint of we who do not view reality from the point of view of Being Itself, although perhaps we might come close to seeing through the apparent tautology when we self-identify as I am who I am.

A third party may view that statement as a tautology but to the one who says it there is not much more that need be said, since to objectify self by ‘defining’ or ‘demonstrating’ to another is simply to misclassify what it means to be a subject by making it an object, thus stripping subjectivity of all its essential reality by attempting to make an object of it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Right, I personally don’t have a problem accounting for either evil or good, because I don’t claim that God is separate and omnibenevolent. Que sera, sera

If God is neither separate nor omnibenevolent, then neither good nor evil actually exist. All you have left is what just is – and that is neither evil nor good. That entails morality is a delusion. I don’t think you can hold that position consistently, since you will at some point be compelled to characterize acts such as murder, rape, torture, abuse, lying, fraud as acts which are more than just discomforting to you, but wrong or evil in themselves because they contravene what ought to be.

You wouldn’t be able to make a case that things really OUGHT to be a certain way to be better (and neither would the atheist) without some transcendent source of value that is more than just que sera, sera, a phrase which presents a whimsical facade, but doesn’t support any substantial ethical system whatsoever.

Again, you might pretend that is okay with you, but that pose-ition will crumble at the first hint of injustice, which positively presumes that things really ought to be a certain way to make any moral claims on others.

I don’t suppose you would excuse the actions of the driver of the truck in Nice with que sera, sera on the grounds that you don’t need to account for either good or evil, because things just are.

On the other hand, stranger things are believed. For example, by the driver of the truck who supposes that running over women and children is a “good” thing. You just don’t think of it as either good or evil, just what is.

Speaking of tautology, isn’t “it is what it is” a tautology? The question is, “Should it be?”

 

[tonyrey]

…Also, because I base my evaluation on facts, it’s an objective moral standard.

It’s subjective because it’s your evaluation! It’s not an objective moral standard at all because it doesn’t apply to everyone…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Also, because I base my evaluation on facts, it’s an objective moral standard.

AND it’s a case of the ‘is-ought fallacy’ or ‘fact-value distinction.’

You can’t base your “evaluation” on facts, you have to base it on values, which presuppose that there is a way that things ought to be as distinct from the way things are. Now it may be that, like a broken clock, the way things are aligns with the way things ought to be, but you can’t merely assert that the way things are are the way they ought to be MERELY because they are.

Which is why G.E. Moore called the failure to make the distinction between “is” and “ought” an instance of the naturalistic fallacy.

In your case, you claim that “it’s a fact” amounts to sufficient grounds for the conclusion that because it is a fact it must be the “objective moral standard,” that it is, and ought to be, the 'objective moral standard MERELY because it is a fact. :nope:

In essence, you are collapsing the difference between is and ought by simply asserting that no difference exists and, thereafter, pretending they are the same as a matter of fact.

As an aside, where did you “rational rats” get your training in logic?