The atheists best argument?

[Peter_Plato]

When you are in heaven, do you have the power to commit a mortal sin or to do bad?

No, you will have the power to avoid all such and the intelligence and will to freely choose the good always.

Committing mortal sin doesn’t involve power, it is the lack of power – a fault – that would lead anyone to commit sin or do bad.

It would be like asking whether God has the power to sin. Why would he choose to? His omniscience and omnibenevolence would not lead him to do so and his omnipotence would prevent him from failing to live up to what omniscience and omnibenevolence determine.

In Heaven, we will freely will what God freely wills. It is a contradiction in terms to ask if we would have the power to commit sin because sin by its very nature transgresses what the all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good nature of God wills. Sin is only committed in weakness. It is a dysfunction of power and not power fully active and working.

 

[Ruqx]

At what point does “protective parent” become “overprotective parent?”

At which point does the “negligent parent” become “an abusive parent”? Better err on the side of caution.

If all you did was protect your child from all those dangers then you have only partially fulfilled your responsibilities as parent to that child. A complete parent recognizes that their responsibility is to form autonomous adults and competent moral agents who are able to make good moral choices, i.e., to curb evil and not merely avoid the fallout from it.

This only applies to human parents, not God.

There are parents who teach their children to use and respect guns properly. Merely because you kept your child away from guns does not mean you have completed your child’s formation. Sure, you may have protected them, but they would have no clue with regard to how to properly deal with dangerous situations if all you did was keep them away from all such situations.

The point again is: it is better not to have any guns at all. Ever, anywhere.

As far as you know.

As far as the church teaches. The beatific vision in the “best thing since sliced bread” .

If all you did was protect your children from morally challenging situations, then what you have formed are adults who don’t know how to successfully deal with morally challenging situations.

Morally challenging situations are the sign of an uncaring deity. What kind of “morally challenging” situations are in heaven?

Perhaps this was the point of the “tree of knowledge.” God completely left it up to the first humans to decide to what degree they would require further formation in dealing with moral evil.

Just like the negligent parent leaves a loaded gun for the child to decide what to do with it.

 

[Ruqx]

Then how did so many angels get thrust into hell by Michael the Archangel?

According to the church’s teaching the angels never enjoyed the “beatific vision”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

At which point does the “negligent parent” become “an abusive parent”? Better err on the side of caution.

Ever read Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics? Virtue is the “golden mean” between two vices. Between negligent and abusive is what it takes to become a good parent. You don’t prevent yourself falling off one side of the bicycle by falling on the other side. Well, actually… you do, but you don’t continue to ride the bike.

This only applies to human parents, not God.

Remember this retort when we get to the end of my reply to your post.

The point again is: it is better not to have any guns at all. Ever, anywhere.

The point is a silly one since it presumes you shouldn’t be at all perturbed by starving to death, getting eaten by bears and such or being captured/killed by invading barbarian armies.

As far as the church teaches. The beatific vision in the “best thing since sliced bread” .

Attaining the beatific vision is not a “free ride,” it requires becoming virtuous by sanctification.

Morally challenging situations are the sign of an uncaring deity. What kind of “morally challenging” situations are in heaven?

Won’t need to be because those who make it there will have been tried by all the “morally challenging situations” necessary to have been found truly worthy of heaven, purified by the refiner’s fire.

Just like the negligent parent leaves a loaded gun for the child to decide what to do with it.

As you said, “This only applies to human parents, not God.” This is why God made human parents and requires them to be responsible (rather than abusive or negligent) so that children will grow up to become responsible adults, I would suppose.

If human moral agency is to make any sense at all, it must presume that God delegates moral authority. You don’t seem to agree, but that just might be the source of your error.

 

[Tomdstone]

No, you will have the power to avoid all such and the intelligence and will to freely choose the good always…

So it is possible to create an environment where people have free will, but will always choose the good? An atheist might ask why wouldn’t an all merciful and all loving God want that for his creatures on earth?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

According to the church’s teaching the angels never enjoyed the “beatific vision”.

When you make a statement like this, it is always helpful to cite your source.

Where exactly did you see this statement? Can you provide the link?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

This just begs the question of WHY “our societies” agree that “child abduction and abuse is evil.” Essentially, you are saying the “consensus opinion of people” in societies AGREE because the “consensus opinion of people” in those societies agree. That would be a completely tautological argument.

The question then might be asked, “Why does the consensus of opinion of people in those societies tend towards viewing child abduction and abuse as evil?” AND “Is that consensus of opinion correct?” “How can we know that for sure?”

If you ask five friends for advice on an issue, you won’t take the consensus of their opinions as correct merely because it is the consensus opinion, do you? OR do you? Is it correct merely because it is the consensus?

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, no?

I’ve always thought the kind of discussion you’re trying to get into was just a red herring.

There are exactly two possibilities:

1. We are making the “problem of evil” argument from a religious perspective on evil.
2. We are making the “problem of evil” argument from an atheistic perspective on evil.

In neither case would we argue that evil doesn’t actually exist. According to religious definitions of evil, evil exists in the world. According to atheistic definitions of evil, evil exists in the world. Therefore, arguing about some hypothetical “validity” for these definitions is irrelevant to the “evil exists” premise of the argument.

What I think you should be doing is arguing that one of the definitions of evil does not constitute the kind of thing that an omnibenevolent being would protect people from. You may think that the argument you’re making will allow you to show that, but I do not believe that to be the case. Even if you demonstrate that a particular atheistic definition of evil is “invalid” according to your criteria,* the definition may still form a successful basis for making the problem of evil (e.g. by being a strict subset of whatever definition of evil you decide is “valid.”)

*where “your criteria” is something other than “its not the kind of thing an omnibenevolent being would protect us from”

 

[inocente]

This just begs the question of WHY “our societies” agree that “child abduction and abuse is evil.” Essentially, you are saying the “consensus opinion of people” in societies AGREE because the “consensus opinion of people” in those societies agree. That would be a completely tautological argument.

The question then might be asked, “Why does the consensus of opinion of people in those societies tend towards viewing child abduction and abuse as evil?” AND “Is that consensus of opinion correct?” “How can we know that for sure?”

It’s wrong because parents have a strong love for their children, and children a strong love for their parents, and the whole tribe feels a shared responsibility to protect children.

You’ve chosen one of the strongest most fundamental emotional responses we all share. It’s perhaps the strongest example against Lane Craig’s argument that we can’t be good without God (even without adding the complication of the Binding of Isaac).

 

[tonyrey]

It’s wrong because parents have a strong love for their children, and children a strong love for their parents, and the whole tribe feels a shared responsibility to protect children.

You’ve chosen one of the strongest most fundamental emotional responses we all share. It’s perhaps the strongest example against Lane Craig’s argument that we can’t be good without God (even without adding the complication of the Binding of Isaac).

There is a vast difference between a small tribe and a large nation where the value and significance of individuals diminishes considerably because many people have so many problems of their own they don’t have the time or opportunity to help others. In our secular society we are becoming dehumanised if we are to judge by the number of abortions, one parent families and both young and old living on their own. In the UK and elsewhere the rejection of refugees regardless of their age demonstrates how hardened people’s hearts have become. It seems that in many cases the more we possess the less likely we are to share…

 

[Peter_Plato]

It’s wrong because parents have a strong love for their children, and children a strong love for their parents, and the whole tribe feels a shared responsibility to protect children.

You’ve chosen one of the strongest most fundamental emotional responses we all share. It’s perhaps the strongest example against Lane Craig’s argument that we can’t be good without God (even without adding the complication of the Binding of Isaac).

So, care to explain why in modern western societies abortion (essentially, the abdication of that “strong love” for children of parents) has become a “right” granted by society upon women?

I would think this is one of the strongest most fundamental arguments demonstrating that when a society abandons God the supposed love that parents have for their children seems to evaporate away in a vapid mist of rationalization.

And please spare me the argument that a large portion of those who abort are self-identifying Christians. Most of those who abort would also claim they are upstanding moral agents with high ideals. Merely claiming such does not make it so. If you want to make the argument that just claiming oneself to be moral is sufficient to make you moral, then I would submit that your whole “can be good without God” claim likewise becomes both question-begging and tedious since the word “moral” has thereby been made vacuous. It merely means whatever anyone wishes it to mean. And the word “Christian” means whatever anyone wishes it to mean.

Whole societies can then become “moral without God” simply because “moral” means whatever those societies decide it means, just like being “Christian” means whatever those alleged “Christians” say it means. Both are made vacuous claims precisely because the words have been hollowed out – I would argue because of the absence of the living God in both instances. Humans have essentially made themselves into their own God, the ultimate moral authority, so in their minds “God” still exists and they remain “moral” despite the fact that the living God has been abandoned in both cases.

Which takes us back to “the consensus opinion of people” in societies AGREE because the “consensus opinion of people” in those societies agree, which remains a completely tautological argument, just like “I am Christian because I say I am a Christian” or “I am moral because I say I am moral” are empty and vacuous.

 

[tonyrey]

There is a vast difference between a small tribe and a large nation where the value and significance of individuals diminishes considerably because many people have so many problems of their own they don’t have the time or opportunity to help others. In our secular society we are becoming dehumanised if we are to judge by the number of abortions, one parent families and both young and old living on their own. In the UK and elsewhere the rejection of refugees regardless of their age demonstrates how hardened people’s hearts have become. It seems that in many cases the more we possess the less likely we are to share…

The gross injustice and inequality in the world also demonstrates how the deep-rooted lust for power and wealth also overcomes any concern or sense of responsibility for children or anyone else. Racism, nationalism and fanaticism are widespread and promoted by vested interests such as the arms industry which makes immense profits from warfare and bloodshed. I knew a driving instructor who rapidly became rich as the result of exporting arms to South Africa under apartheid regardless of UN sanctions. Nor is he a rare example of a person who lacks or suppresses “one of the strongest most fundamental emotional responses we all share”. One British philosopher and atheist, Professor CEM Joad, became a Christian because he realised that the diabolical evil in the world cannot have a natural explanation. There was nothing insane about the carefully planned methods the Nazis used to murder millions of men, women and children in cold blood over a period of several years. To dismiss such atrocities as the result of a sociopathic disease is a hopelessly inadequate explanation. They knew perfectly well that what they were doing was wrong and some brave individuals paid the penalty for disobeying orders.

The Final Solution was not a matter of massacre and wild destruction as other great crimes in history have been. It was the application of advanced modern science to evil ends. Anti-Semitism and all the talk about race were supposed to be scientific. Hence science was to be applied to racial ends and to produce a “pure” people. Chemists devised the most scientific forms of extermination. Doctors tortured the Jews for allegedly medical ends and ransacked the bodies. Skilled technicians built the death camps and perfected the incinerators. Even those who hesitated soon felt, as Oppenheimer said about the hydrogen bomb, that the problems of the final solution were beautifully sweet. Perhaps consciences were less tender in the general holocaust of war. At any rate no one in high places protested. German resources were diverted from war to the murder of innocent people. How many will never be known, perhaps four million, perhaps six. Far away in Russia a lone German sergeant called Anton Schmid systematically helped Jews to escape, until he was detected and shot. He was the good German of the Second World War.

AJP Taylor - The Second World War*
*

 

[tonyrey]

No, you will have the power to avoid all such and the intelligence and will to freely choose the good always…

Non sequitur. Free will transcends the environment. Otherwise it wouldn’t be free…

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve always thought the kind of discussion you’re trying to get into was just a red herring.

There are exactly two possibilities:

1. We are making the “problem of evil” argument from a religious perspective on evil.
2. We are making the “problem of evil” argument from an atheistic perspective on evil.

In neither case would we argue that evil doesn’t actually exist. According to religious definitions of evil, evil exists in the world. According to atheistic definitions of evil, evil exists in the world. Therefore, arguing about some hypothetical “validity” for these definitions is irrelevant to the “evil exists” premise of the argument.

What I think you should be doing is arguing that one of the definitions of evil does not constitute the kind of thing that an omnibenevolent being would protect people from. You may think that the argument you’re making will allow you to show that, but I do not believe that to be the case. Even if you demonstrate that a particular atheistic definition of evil is “invalid” according to your criteria,* the definition may still form a successful basis for making the problem of evil (e.g. by being a strict subset of whatever definition of evil you decide is “valid.”)

*where “your criteria” is something other than “its not the kind of thing an omnibenevolent being would protect us from”

Your objection overlooks the fact that the value of free will transcends every other consideration. It was an atheist, J.P.Sartre, who pointed out that we are not authentic persons until we commit ourselves. To do that we have to be capable of self-determination which violates the principle of the conservation of energy. It implies that we have supernatural power…

 

[Ruqx]

The point is a silly one since it presumes you shouldn’t be at all perturbed by starving to death, getting eaten by bears and such or being captured/killed by invading barbarian armies.

It presumes nothing of the kind. One little step to improve is much better than the status quo. The achievement to get rid of the black plague is not diminished by the fact that AIDS is still around.

Attaining the beatific vision is not a “free ride,” it requires becoming virtuous by sanctification.

Sez who? Last time I heard, God was sovereign, his actions cannot be limited by your imagination. Besides, children under the age of reason cannot be “virtuous”. And if they are baptized, they will also be free of the original sin, so they will be admitted to heaven - at least that is what the church teaches. So the conclusion is obvious and theologically correct. This “vale of tears” is not logically necessary, God could create everyone into heaven. And there is no rational reason why he does not.

As you said, “This only applies to human parents, not God.” This is why God made human parents and requires them to be responsible (rather than abusive or negligent) so that children will grow up to become responsible adults, I would suppose.

You might “suppose”, but that is neither here nor there. No human parent can be as good as God to help and raise children.

When you make a statement like this, it is always helpful to cite your source.

Where exactly did you see this statement? Can you provide the link?

Right here, on these boards, several times. Moreover, the angels are a different kind, they have no “true” free will.

Of course the situation is quite simple. God is supposed to exist outside of time, in a non-changing environment. Heaven is supposed to be where we will be united with God. Therefore we also shall be in an unchanging environment, where there are no decisions. It is supposed to be pure bliss.

Logic and reason are your friends.

 

[inocente]

There is a vast difference between a small tribe and a large nation where the value and significance of individuals diminishes considerably because many people have so many problems of their own they don’t have the time or opportunity to help others. In our secular society we are becoming dehumanised if we are to judge by the number of abortions, one parent families and both young and old living on their own. In the UK and elsewhere the rejection of refugees regardless of their age demonstrates how hardened people’s hearts have become. It seems that in many cases the more we possess the less likely we are to share…

I responded to a post about why “child abduction and abuse is evil”. The post wasn’t about any of the points you raise here.

The thread isn’t about ideologies, it’s about the problem of evil. Even in the dark picture you paint, all normal people in the UK know with absolute certainty that child abuse is wrong. They try to prevent it and end it wherever possible.

So the thread asks, why doesn’t God seem to share their abhorrence? After all, if God is all-knowing then he knows every time it happens. If he is all-good then he knows it is wrong. If he is all-powerful then he can stop it. Why then does God allow defenseless innocents to be abused? I don’t have a robust answer, like the OP I wish I did.

 

[inocente]

So, care to explain why in modern western societies abortion (essentially, the abdication of that “strong love” for children of parents) has become a “right” granted by society upon women?

I would think this is one of the strongest most fundamental arguments demonstrating that when a society abandons God the supposed love that parents have for their children seems to evaporate away in a vapid mist of rationalization.

And please spare me the argument that a large portion of those who abort are self-identifying Christians. Most of those who abort would also claim they are upstanding moral agents with high ideals. Merely claiming such does not make it so. If you want to make the argument that just claiming oneself to be moral is sufficient to make you moral, then I would submit that your whole “can be good without God” claim likewise becomes both question-begging and tedious since the word “moral” has thereby been made vacuous. It merely means whatever anyone wishes it to mean. And the word “Christian” means whatever anyone wishes it to mean.

Whole societies can then become “moral without God” simply because “moral” means whatever those societies decide it means, just like being “Christian” means whatever those alleged “Christians” say it means. Both are made vacuous claims precisely because the words have been hollowed out – I would argue because of the absence of the living God in both instances. Humans have essentially made themselves into their own God, the ultimate moral authority, so in their minds “God” still exists and they remain “moral” despite the fact that the living God has been abandoned in both cases.

Which takes us back to “the consensus opinion of people” in societies AGREE because the “consensus opinion of people” in those societies agree, which remains a completely tautological argument, just like “I am Christian because I say I am a Christian” or “I am moral because I say I am moral” are empty and vacuous.

I don’t agree that theistic societies are more moral. A secular society is a good defense against the excesses of Talibans and co.

All normal people share an abhorrence of child abuse, but it would seem all normal people don’t share an abhorrence of abortion. You talked about Christians so I looked for some statistics and am surprised to see that Catholic women in the USA are not less but more likely to have an abortion. - beliefnet.com/faiths/catholic/2001/01/the-catholic-abortion-paradox.aspx

Which came as a bit of a shock, although admittedly I know little of the subject. There seem to be a number of complicating factors, perhaps the explanation is in them.

But the post I responded to wasn’t about any of that, and nor is the OP. Child abuse is morally very simple and all normal people agree it is evil. So the OP asks why, if God is all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful, doesn’t he prevent it. I don’t know a good answer, but that’s what the OP asks, so the rest is off-topic.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Your objection overlooks the fact that the value of free will transcends every other consideration. It was an atheist, J.P.Sartre, who pointed out that we are not authentic persons until we commit ourselves. To do that we have to be capable of self-determination which violates the principle of the conservation of energy. It implies that we have supernatural power…

Why is this relevant to what I was talking about?
Me to Plato: It does not matter what color the car is.
You to me: You’ve just ignored the fact that the car is a V6!

I did mention the free will argument much earlier.

The ways of attacking the problem have essentially already been mentioned here:

2a. Evil can be reconciled with God because there is some greater good (e.g. the existence of free will) that requires evil to exist.

I personally think that 2a is weak argument, because it becomes difficult to maintain a consistent definition of evil. In other words, if there is some evil that actually makes the universe better, is it really an evil at all?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Right here, on these boards, several times. Moreover, the angels are a different kind, they have no “true” free will.

Of course the situation is quite simple. God is supposed to exist outside of time, in a non-changing environment. Heaven is supposed to be where we will be united with God. Therefore we also shall be in an unchanging environment, where there are no decisions. It is supposed to be pure bliss.

Logic and reason are your friends.

Scriptural revelation are also our friends. You don’t seem to have read the Bible. Hell is populated by devils, who are fallen angels, just as we are fallen humans. Why did they fall? God did not create them in hell. They chose to follow Satan, as Eve chose to follow the Serpent. That’s free will.

Are you saying neither angels nor men have free will?

In any case, your citation of authorities in this forum does not constitute legitimate authority for the truthfulness of statement you make. You need to cite either Scripture or the Catechism or the teachings of the popes and councils. You don’t bother to do this, so I’d say your grasp of logic and reason are tenuous at best, nil at worst.

 

[tonyrey]

I responded to a post about why “child abduction and abuse is evil”. The post wasn’t about any of the points you raise here.

The thread isn’t about ideologies, it’s about the problem of evil. Even in the dark picture you paint, all normal people in the UK know with absolute certainty that child abuse is wrong. They try to prevent it and end it wherever possible.

So the thread asks, why doesn’t God seem to share their abhorrence? After all, if God is all-knowing then he knows every time it happens. If he is all-good then he knows it is wrong. If he is all-powerful then he can stop it. Why then does God allow defenseless innocents to be abused? I don’t have a robust answer, like the OP I wish I did.

You stated with reference to child abduction:

"It’s wrong because parents have a strong love for their children, and children a strong love for their parents, and the whole tribe feels a shared responsibility to protect children.

You’ve chosen one of the strongest most fundamental emotional responses we all share. It’s perhaps the strongest example against Lane Craig’s argument that we can’t be good without God (even without adding the complication of the Binding of Isaac)."

Since you haven’t given a reason why it’s wrong and now state:

“All normal people in the UK **know **with absolute certainty that child abuse is wrong”

my post is entirely relevant. You still haven’t explained why child abuse is wrong if we exist by chance. An emotional response is not an adequate reason as far as strange freaks of nature are concerned… :dts:

 

[JapaneseKappa]

my post is entirely relevant. You still haven’t explained why child abuse is wrong if we exist by chance. An emotional response is not an adequate reason as far as strange freaks of nature are concerned… :dts:

Now you are the one attempting to prolong the use of the red herring I addressed earlier.

I’ve always thought the kind of discussion you’re trying to get into was just a red herring.

There are exactly two possibilities:

1. We are making the “problem of evil” argument from a religious perspective on evil.
2. We are making the “problem of evil” argument from an atheistic perspective on evil.

The “evil” in the problem of evil is allowed to be defined however the arguer wishes. You can disagree with their definition, but unless you are actually going to argue that you have a definition of evil which suggests that evil doesn’t exist, attempting to fight out that semantic disagreement here is just an attempt to distract people from the fact that you don’t have a good answer to the problem of evil.