I assume you mean your initial analogy, the bear doesn’t understand that the pain and suffering is for the greater good. We weren’t expecting a proof for God. We were expecting a theodicy. Why God permits, no demands, that all of life since the beginning has been dependent upon gratuitous pain and suffering. Your answer is that it is for the greater good.
I think the burden of proof is on you to say that the bear died for NO greater good. As far as I know, no atheist philosopher has come up with such a proof. Now if you don’t have one either, it seems to me like you are just going around in circles and taking the path of the blind faith that you so readily accuse the other person of.
I don’t think I explained my point clearly enough, although I did provide an example (that was ignored by R Daneel).Absolutely true; you must speak the language of those you want to convert - that is, if I wish to convert atheists - I must speak in terms that they understand ;; appealing to scriptures, threats and blind faith not only fail to win the argument - but also compound their opposition to theism.
If I want to convert someone, citing a scripture they do not believe will acheive nothing. If theists think before they speak, just because we believe something does not mean that the person we are trying to persuade does - in the same way that a Muslim or a Bhuddist citing scripture I would just shrug it off - an atheist will do the same with Catholic teaching. As R Daneel rightly says, we have to argue on the playing field of our opponent; using examples and proofs that are relevant and compelling to our opponent and not just ourselves.
I explained why I don’t agree in my latest post in this thread, but I’ll offer you this. If you want to take your own rule seriously, then when you argue with me, you should argue on my playing field, ok? That’s the only method I will accept from you (since that is your rule).
Atheism is perfectly compatible with irrationality. There is nothing within the concept of “God does not exist” that excludes irrationality.
I think you’re last comment, provides the answer to all the previous. In the atheistic view, it does not matter – because it cannot ultimately matter. What difference does it make? What one person claims as a “good” is “good for that person”.
In Catholic terms, this is hedonism. Pleasure is good, pain is bad. Of course, even atheists deny this in practice, since they accept pain as good for a greater purpose. Additionally, if pleasure was what determined the good of an action, then whatever causes the most pleasure, would be the greatest good.
On the contrary, the person who decided that one thing is “good” has placed himself in the role of God, making a judgement about actions that he cannot understand.
Slowlearner – thanks, and I agree with that and as you explained further. Exactly, “evil is assumed”. There will be a claim that “suffering is evil” but that must be measured against an ultimate purpose which is judged in the end. If there is no ultimate and the end is nothing, then pleasure is nothing, life is nothing and evil is nothing.
Excellent analysis. There is an appeal to the emotions to cloud the issue. But this appeal is irrational. Materialist atheism should not have any emotions at all regarding the various movements of nature.
I have encountered these consistent atheists before and I respect their view. They follow the logic and conclude that there is no evil.
I will point out that if there is no evil, as they claim, then there can be no rational opposition to the Holocaust.This is more of the emotionalism that substitutes for argument on atheistic websites. This clouds the issue and is irrational (as explained before).
Thanks for your honest answer, I respect it. You’re not alone in this view, many Christians are satisfied with this answer/explanation remaining a mystery.
The OP posted on the logical problem of evil, which is defended with the greater good argument (still waiting to hear exactly what that is), but the evidential problem of evil is of concern to many philosophers, theists and non-theists. I’m reading this book for the 3rd time now amazon.com/Evidential-Argument-Indiana-Philosophy-Religion/dp/0253210283
You’re using people with mental disorders to buttress your defense? Really?
You have some kind of knowledge that Nero was an atheist? Anyways, you’re using another psychopath to defend objective morality.I’m not sure which fallacy best suits this argument; I think hasty generalization fits. You’re using a small, biased sample, generalizing beyond the limits of the population.
I’m using atheism to buttress my defense, as I’ve made clear. If you want to consider atheism to be a mental disorder, that’s up to you. Again, “pleasure is good” and “pain is evil”.
I’ll start with the last word, “anyways” which seems the most appropriate since it indicates that the prior point was unnecessary or a non sequitur.
I’m using a human being who found pleasure and self-interest in something to illustrate the logical requirements of atheism. The terms “psychopath” and “mental illness” assume a norm for human behavior. But given that human behavior is merely the result of material and physical processes then the idea that there is a “norm” is illogical. The idea of a “norm” is evidence of ultimate purpose again – a contradiction in the atheistic view. Again, nature does not label matter or physical laws as normative or psychopathic. A meteorite falling to earth is not a “psychopath”. It’s a physical object following natural laws.
You’re seeking to put a label on something rather than provide a contrary argument.
Are you a moral skeptic?
And you think incorrectly. Suppose I would assert that there is a huge iceberg in the middle of the sun, and would demand you to “disprove it”. Could yo do that? To demand to prove a negative statement is a usual logical fallacy, frequently committed by theists, as your example clearly shows.
To believe in the existence of the above mentioned iceberg would be an example of “blind faith”. Not only there is no evidence for it, but elementary physics and common sense would make the existence of such an iceberg highly dubious, at best - as a matter of fact, impossible. This is the same for the asserted "greater good’. First, there is no evidence for it, and second, its existence is contradicted by everything we know. Thus the belief is “blind faith”, nothing else.
You misunderstood it. You don’t have to accept the opponent’s point of view, but you must use it as a working hypothesis. The arguments one brings up, should be founded on the opponent’s concepts. For example, you do not believe in the “Sola Scriptura”, but when you argue with a protestant, you should base all your arguments based on the “Sola Scriptura”. You should avoid arguing based on the Cathecism, on the Magisterium, on papal infallibility… It does not mean that you accept the Sola Scriptura as correct - but your arguments should be based upon it.
Yes, I am willing to accept them as a working hypothesis, and I am willing to argue based upon them. I am willing to show that the above mentioned hypotheses lead to nonsensical results. Your trouble starts when you wish to say that the corollaries of those teachings clearly contradict our actual observations. That is the time when you will start to resort to “blind faith”, demanding that your “working hypothesis” be accepted, when all the evidence points to the other direction. When that is also shown to be erroneous, then the final “trump card” is played: shouting down the opponent, saying “who are you to question God, you miserable, dirty, immoral heathen?”. And that is the time when you “win” the exchange, because one does not argue with such idiotic “arguments”. By the way the word “you” is not meant personally, it is meant in the general sense.
Yes, this is correct. Since atheism merely expresses a lack of belief in a “god” or “gods”, it allows all sorts of nonsensical beliefs. An atheist may believe in the Great Pumpkin.
Yes. So what?
Major error. That does not follow. For example, nature does not care, if someone lacks the belief in gravity, it will crush everyone who jumps off from a cliff.
Sheer nonsense. A “true” proposition is in accordance with the external reality, while a “lie” is intentionally distorting the truth. Where do you get this kind of BS?
Again incorrect. I am tired of explaining it for the thousandth time. Just look up how quantitative changes can lead to qualitative changes. Just look up emergent attributes. You think - incorrectly - that atheism is reductionism. And you are seriously wrong.
Only according to your lack of comprehension.
Just as a reminder, this is an argument about emotion. Christians often claim that God loves His creation, but when you read about the horrors R Daneel has related, what emotions do you feel? Anger? Disgust? Sadness? Does God feel these things too? If so, then his feelings are evidently insufficient to motivate him to take action. If not, then in what sense does he care about us? Either way, his so-called “love” seems pretty useless. Maybe we should just all be grateful he doesn’t smite us on a whim…
Well, it is true that it would be quite nice to have an afterlife, depending of course on what kind of an afterlife it would be.
Somehow hell does not look like a palatable option… But just because something “would be nice”, it is not a good idea to act as if it were true… would it? It would be nice to win a jackpot on the lottery, but should we base our existence on such an idea?