What is wrong with this argument against the existence of God?

[Ray_Ingles]

Yes; a creature, with perfect free will, and perfect reason (that is, reason “full of grace”, or fully akin to God’s)… So, if Adam and Eve had perfect reason and free will, it does not mean they were necessarily even close to being analogues to God. After all, they were limited. Like being Creative Mode Steve in Minecraft (except they couldn’t fly).

The question, of course, being… why not?

 

[polytropos]

You’ll note that I specifically quote C.S. Lewis as saying that “Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot.” So my response is taking Lewis at his word - since God has no possiblity of going wrong, then ergo God must not be free. If this is wrong, it’s C.S. Lewis who was wrong to state that in the first place.

God’s omnipotence makes him capable of anything; He does not go wrong because He has a good will as well as omnipotence. He is free to do anything but always chooses to do good.

Lewis was talking about the problem of evil, ie. is evil necessitated by the free will of man? In the theoretical world where man’s evil is blocked by an omnipotent God, is man’s will rendered unfree? In this case, man cannot go wrong because he is insufficiently potent, not because his will is good. That is why it is not analogical to the case with God. Man would not be free to choose anything.

 

[Ray_Ingles]

I, however, would seriously question this - I think that there is no perfect or maximally great world, and that worlds can always in some respect be made better. In light of this, either A5 is false, if we take A5 to refer to a universe which meets God’s standards in every possible respect, or A6 is false, if we take A5 to mean a world that meets God standards in general - for even though some, or even many, aspects of our world may not meet God’s standards, I see no reason to believe that our world in general, taking into account past, present and future, doesn’t.

There’s a difference between “less good” and “more terrible” though. Someone not doing as much good as they could is different from someone doing evil.

 

[Ray_Ingles]

Lewis was talking about the problem of evil, ie. is evil necessitated by the free will of man?

Heaven, or the time after Jesus comes back and everyone’s in glorified bodies, or whatever - eventually, Christians are supposed to be at a point where they never do evil - there’s no mourning or suffering or possibility of evil.

If free will of creatures of necessity means the possiblility of evil, then we can conclude that there will be no free will in heaven. If, on the other hand, we assume that people will have free will in heaven, then we must conclude that there’s no logical contradiction between having free will and not having the possibility to do evil.

I do go over that in the essay…

 

[polytropos]

I don’t know if that’s an accurate theological interpretation. Angels have free will - but because they are fully immaterial, there is nothing that would “change their mind,” so to speak. (Technically they would not be bound by time either, so “changing one’s mind” does not really have meaning.) Hence Satan’s rejection of God was free but permanent, because as an angel he did so with full knowledge and without the ability to change his mind. Perhaps when man gets to heaven he has made his free choice by responding to God in life.

 

[Pieman333272]

There’s a difference between “less good” and “more terrible” though. Someone not doing as much good as they could is different from someone doing evil.

That’s one meta-ethical way of viewing it. If you take evil to be the absence of good, however, the fact that there is no world that is perfectly good is equivalent to the fact that there is no world where evil cannot happen. Furthermore, nowhere in the argument is it indicated that God has done something evil. All that is stated is that he created a world which does not meet his standards in every respect - whether or not that is due to his creation of evil, the indirect creation of evil, his not creating more good, or the failure of some of his creation to do good is not stated by the argument.

 

[ColdComfort]

I believe the problematic assumption is number 6, because while currently the universe does not look the way - as far as we can tell - the way God wishes it to, God, being in eternity, sees the universe as a whole, and it pleases Him in the end (or else He would not have made it).

We cannot see the universe the way God sees it. We do not know how He sees the universe; we know how we see it. And we know, dimly, God’s vision, and our own, and that they do not match. But we do not see the past, present, and future altogether at the same time. If what we know about God is true, He does.

Therefore, although the universe is imperfect in the span of now, for God, it is perfect in the span of eternity.

At worst we can say this argument is inconclusive, because we cannot say what the world looks like to God.

This is quite correct. All arguments of this type fail because they assume that we/they can know what God would or would not do, know etc. Given the definition of God they argue against this is impossible. We have the knowledge and judgment appropriate to a being composed of soul and matter. How could we know what is perfect or if the world God created is or not perfect by reason alone?

*Job 38

1] Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind:
[2] "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
[3] Gird up your loins like a man,
I will question you, and you shall declare to me.
[4] "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
[5] Who determined its measurements – surely you know!*

Here Revelation and Reason are in agreement.

 

[ColdComfort]

On this page an argument is presented that the concept of God is incoherent (or at least inconsistant with our world) based on the existence of evil. I looked the page over and most of it seems powerful. The problem I see with it is that there might not be a possible world which meets all of God’s standards, thus refuting either assumption 5 or assumption 6. But even then the argument could be modified to ask why God doesn’t make a world that is more consistent with his standards, especially since he has motivation to do so. What is the flaw with this argument?

The other difficulty with these arguments, which seem to resonate with so many these days, is that they say nothing about the existence of God. This gentleman’s argument is merely conceptual. St. Thomas rejects the proofs of God’s existence that rely solely on a definition of God such as St. Anselm’s. That is why he says the existence of God is not self-evident. The same argument holds in reverse. If the argument was correct it might say something about the nature of God, if He existed, but it no way does it lead to the conclusion that God does not exist.

This is not unimportant. The whole world of spiritual realities, including God, remains open. If someone like this writer could be convinced of this then the conversation begins.

 

[ColdComfort]

On this page an argument is presented that the concept of God is incoherent (or at least inconsistant with our world) based on the existence of evil. I looked the page over and most of it seems powerful. The problem I see with it is that there might not be a possible world which meets all of God’s standards, thus refuting either assumption 5 or assumption 6. But even then the argument could be modified to ask why God doesn’t make a world that is more consistent with his standards, especially since he has motivation to do so. What is the flaw with this argument?

Third and last post. What religion is he talking about? Not the Catholic Faith surely. Our Lord suffered the humiliation of the flesh and was put to death after being tortured in a most cruel fashion. Our Faith says we will suffer. All of us in this life. Some in the next eternally.

 

[Ray_Ingles]

The other difficulty with these arguments, which seem to resonate with so many these days, is that they say nothing about the existence of God.

In the index to my atheism pages, I write: “I am generally what is called on the USENET newsgroup alt.atheism a ‘weak atheist’. That is to say, lacking any convincing evidence, I don’t believe in God(s). In general, I take the position of not(believe(God)) - not actively believing there is a God. Obviously I haven’t investigated every religion in detail, but lacking any convincing evidence, I return the Scottish verdict of “not proven”… On the other hand, of the religions I have investigated, I have specific reasons for rejecting them. In particular, for the traditional monotheistic religions (Judeo/Christian/Islamic conceptions of ‘God’), I believe them to be internally inconsistent and illogical. In these specific cases, I take the position of believe(not(God)) - I actively believe a God of those types does not exist.”

 

[Ray_Ingles]

This is quite correct. All arguments of this type fail because they assume that we/they can know what God would or would not do, know etc. Given the definition of God they argue against this is impossible. We have the knowledge and judgment appropriate to a being composed of soul and matter. How could we know what is perfect or if the world God created is or not perfect by reason alone?

Also from the essay:

But there’s a serious problem with this kind of ‘defense’. Essentially, the claim is that God is beyond comprehension, fundamentally beyond human understanding. But that boils down to ‘we can’t be sure of anything where God’s concerned’. I mean, if, by definition, God’s incomprehensible, then you can’t be at all sure that God’s really on your side.

People often try to draw the comparison between children and parents, and us and God. Children don’t always understand why they aren’t allowed to do certain things, or can’t have things they want. Kids have to trust that their parents are looking out for their welfare. Sadly, that’s not always the case. Abusive, malicious parents do exist, as I’ve pointed out. Assuming a God exists, how do we know It isn’t more like that than the kind, loving parents I wish every kid had? The rationalizations I’ve seen for the cruelty in the Old Testament strike me as sadly reminiscent of the rationalizations that victims of child abuse often engage in. “I’m bad so Daddy had to burn me…”

And perhaps ‘child and parent’ isn’t really that good an analogy. After all, optimally kids grow up to be full adults on an equal standing with their parents right? And that isn’t supposed to ever happen with us and God, right? We’d be much more akin to pets than children, really. Or maybe not even pets. What if God really is like a shepherd - down to the shearing and slaughtering, too? God’s allegedly beyond our comprehension, remember. How would we ever be able to tell if a God wanted to fool us?

 

[ColdComfort]

In the index to my atheism pages, I write: “I am generally what is called on the USENET newsgroup alt.atheism a ‘weak atheist’. That is to say, lacking any convincing evidence, I don’t believe in God(s). In general, I take the position of not(believe(God)) - not actively believing there is a God. Obviously I haven’t investigated every religion in detail, but lacking any convincing evidence, I return the Scottish verdict of “not proven”… On the other hand, of the religions I have investigated, I have specific reasons for rejecting them. In particular, for the traditional monotheistic religions (Judeo/Christian/Islamic conceptions of ‘God’), I believe them to be internally inconsistent and illogical. In these specific cases, I take the position of believe(not(God)) - I actively believe a God of those types does not exist.”

.

This is quickly turning into a banned or banable(?) thread. In any event, you are simply making a statement here. Your post doesn’t include any responsive argument to what I said.

 

[ColdComfort]

.

This is quickly turning into a banned or banable(?) thread. In any event, you are simply making a statement here. Your post doesn’t include any responsive argument to what I said.

My bad. Didn’t see your next post which I will read.

 

[Ray_Ingles]

.This is quickly turning into a banned or banable(?) thread. In any event, you are simply making a statement here. Your post doesn’t include any responsive argument to what I said.

Just to be clear, I was pointing out that the argument wasn’t meant to tackle any conceivable God, but is rather directed at the common monotheistic conceptions of God, that is to say the Judeo/Christian/Islamic ones.

 

[ColdComfort]

Also from the essay:

Referring to your last post. It is not the Catholic Faith that God is totally beyond our comprehension. Some of what He has revealed to us about His nature can be understood by the light of reason, some cannot. The argument in question says that God, as defined in the argument, does not exist because God by the definition which includes omniscience would not create an imperfect world.

One of my responses was that this does not lead to the conclusion that God does not exist even if the argument was valid. I think, with respect, that your quote from your essay demonstrates my point. How do we know God is not like this and so on. You are still on the plane of God’s essence not His existence. Your argument is perfectly consistent with Calvinism. God predestined individuals to Heaven or Hell we know not why. He also believed in the related doctrine of Total Depravity. Calvin was in error but he did not deny the existence of God.

My dear friend, I wish I could impress this point on you and others. All those things that seem to us to be imperfect or even evil about creation do not lead to the conclusion that God does not exist. Your argument, which I do not accept in any event, still leaves open the whole of spiritual realities including theism.

 

[Ray_Ingles]

Your argument, which I do not accept in any event, still leaves open the whole of spiritual realities including theism.

It’s perfectly consistent with a Lovecraftian ‘Creator’, which is precisely the point. If you go down the route of ‘God is (even partially) unknowable’, it’s like dividing by zero. At that point, God becomes indistinguishable from Cthulhu having a bit of fun. You have explicitly given up the ability to tell the difference.

 

[ColdComfort]

Just to be clear, I was pointing out that the argument wasn’t meant to tackle any conceivable God, but is rather directed at the common monotheistic conceptions of God, that is to say the Judeo/Christian/Islamic ones.

I’m writing while you’re posting. So I keep missing your clarifications. Sorry. So the argument is against the Catholic Faith and other Abrahamic Faiths but not some sort of other God. Perhaps you believe or could believe in Buddhism or polytheism? If that is the case then good. Up to a point for me of course but still good. The argument often goes something like this: 1) God would not allow suffering or create an imperfect world 2) the world is not perfect and there is suffering 3) materialism is true.

I know that that argument cannot be found anywhere but it seems to me to be implied in much of the common debate. If I misunderstood your position I apologize.

As for your argument refuting the Catholic Faith I will simply repeat what has already been said:

1. Catholics do not believe that God’s nature is totally beyond human comprehension. He has revealed it to us. Some of it we can understand some we can’t. On the specific point your argument raises we are in no position to know, by natural reason alone, that God has failed to create an imperfect world. Nor would we know what a perfect world would be like.
2. If suffering is evidence of imperfection then I can only repeat what I said before. Our Lord, that is God Himself, was tortured to death. The saints welcome suffering. The rest of us endure it.
3. Jesus refers to Himself as the Good Shepard and likens His father to a good parent. These are metaphors that only go so far. No good parent would cut his/her child off forever. God will to those who die without His friendship.
4. I believe creation is perfect and good. God has told us so and great Catholic thinkers tell me there are good reasons, apart from Revelation, for believing this to be true. But it seems perfection and goodness include suffering and the greatest possible tragedy imaginable : the eternal loss of perfect happiness.

 

[GospodiPomiluj]

What do you mean by “know”? I can study any single person, past or present, what they did… how they acted… what they said…who they associated with… and “know” them on an intellectual level. But I wouldn’t really “know” them. The only way I can “know” anyone truly is to have a relationship with them. You can try to find God in books or intellectual arguments and exercises, but you cannot ever “know” God this way, you can only get so far. But yes, you can fully “know” God.

 

[ColdComfort]

It’s perfectly consistent with a Lovecraftian ‘Creator’, which is precisely the point. If you go down the route of ‘God is (even partially) unknowable’, it’s like dividing by zero. At that point, God becomes indistinguishable from Cthulhu having a bit of fun. You have explicitly given up the ability to tell the difference.

Writing while you are posting again. I said understand not know. I know God is three persons in one substance. I do not understand it. In some cases we rely solely on revelation, the evidence for which is mainly historical, and in others on natural reason. In both cases we know but not always do we understand. Perhaps your argument is with a Deist and not a Catholic?

Even in science your point is not valid. I’m told that the larger part of the material universe is made up of dark matter. Physicists know it exists because of the effects it has on matter they can observe directly but they know little about it’s nature. Perhaps by next year they will know more. There is no contradiction in saying I understand something about this or that but not all.

 

[GospodiPomiluj]

It’s perfectly consistent with a Lovecraftian ‘Creator’, which is precisely the point. If you go down the route of ‘God is (even partially) unknowable’, it’s like dividing by zero. At that point, God becomes indistinguishable from Cthulhu having a bit of fun. You have explicitly given up the ability to tell the difference.

My fault, I should have quoted this in my last post. That is what I was responding to. It depends on what you mean by “know”. Even if we know any other human as much as any human can, we still don’t know their mind, their intentions, or their thoughts. So if that is the knowledge we are seeking, then we are all sort of “unknowable” just on a human to human level. But we do say that we “know” our mothers, fathers, sisters, wives, etc… The closer we are, the more we “know” them. I suppose that little French Carmelite “knew” God as much or more than any of us “know” our friends and family members.