A Philosophically Informed Perspective, by Justin Vacula
In a recent debate with popular Christian apologist William Lane Craig, philosopher Stephen Law — arguing against the motion that [the Christian] God exists — presented an ingenious gambit known as ‘the evidential problem of good.’ Law’s argument raises two main concerns. If belief in an all-evil god is rendered irrational by the presence of joy and happiness in the world, why isn’t belief in an all-good god rendered irrational by the presence of egregious suffering in the world? If belief in an all-evil god is very unreasonable, why should belief in an all-good good be much more reasonable?
The gambit Law presented in his debate with Craig traces back to a Spring 2005 piece written by Law that was published in “Think” titled “The God of Eth.” Law notes that the traditional arguments for God reveal nothing about his moral character and the argument known as the problem of evil – “if God is all-powerful and all-good, why is there so much suffering in the world” – seems to cast tremendous doubt on belief in an all-good god. Religious thinkers have resorted to “the free will solution” (suffering is a consequence of God giving us free will), “the character-building solution” (suffering can lead us to be compassionate), the “some good require evils” solution (some goods that exist require suffering to exist), and the “mystery card” solution (we can’t know the reasons God has for allowing evil) and Law believes these defenses profoundly fail [as, of course, do other atheists].
Law then presents an imaginary debate in an imaginary universe whose members largely believe in an all-evil god. Throughout the debate, the believer in an all-evil god uses the traditional defenses theists use to defend the all-good god, albeit ‘mirrored’ in a way. For example, a defender of the all-evil god argues “Good in the universe exists because all-evil god gave persons free will; “by giving us free-will, God can be sure we will agonize endlessly about what we should do. […] We end up torturing ourselves. The exquisitely evil irony of it all!” The defender of the all-evil God, in addition, plays the mystery card [similar to theists who defend an all-good god], “True, I may not be able to account for every last drop of good in the world. But remember that we are dealing here with the mind of God. Who are you to suppose you can understand the mind of an infinitely intelligent and knowledgeable being? Isn’t it arrogant of you to suppose that you can figure out God’s master plan?”
Ironically (or not), when Law presented these ideas in his debate with William Lane Craig, Craig ‘played the mystery card’ stating that we are simply not in a position to say that an all-good God [who is also all-knowing and all-powerful] could not have reasons for allowing evil in this world. Law responded, later in the debate saying something similar to, “Who are you know the mind of an all-evil god” clearly showing the absurdity of Craig’s “mystery card.” Law, on his blog, noted “…that STILL doesn’t help Craig at all, so far as explaining why it’s more reasonable to believe in a good god rather than an evil god (the latter belief being absurd). The point is this: whether or not Craig plays the sceptical card, he’s still left having to explain why belief in his good god is very significantly more reasonable than the obviously absurd belief that there’s an evil god. […] Craig failed to explain why belief in his good god is significantly more reasonable than the absurd belief that there’s an evil god.”
Law’s ideas were so hard-hitting that someone who believes that Craig won every debate he has ever participated in admitted that Craig lost the debate with Stephen Law. This person formulates Law’s argument which perhaps other atheists, including you, can use in future discussions with theists: “(1) There is just as much evidence from the goodness/evil of the world that the creator god is evil, as there is that the creator god is good. (2) We are justified in believing that evidence of goodness in the world demonstrates that there is not an evil creator god. (3) Therefore, we are equally justified in believing that the evidence of evil in the world demonstrates that there is not a good creator god.”
Law ends his “Think” article saying, “…belief in an evil god clearly remains downright silly. But then why isn’t belief in a good God also silly? Aren’t we justified in rejecting belief in a good God for the same very good reason that we are justified in rejecting belief in an evil God? If the problem of good is fatal to belief in an evil God (which it clearly is), why isn’t the problem of evil similarly fatal to belief in a good God? That’s the question the theist needs to answer.” The question still stands…and William Lane Craig has failed to adequately address it.
While atheists obviously believe that belief in any gods is irrational – and while some feel that religious belief is so ridiculous that it should only be ridiculed – it should be important for atheists to understand why theism is an irrational position and, for those who are able and willing to do so, present intelligent counter-objections to theism. Atheists, like Law, with a background in philosophy can often do a great service by presenting an intellectual defense for fellow atheists and we would do good to learn from them instead of simply outright dismissing religious belief without providing effective arguments and informed rebuttals. While I detest gangster rap music, nothing seems worse to me than atheists ‘losing’ debates with theists. Don’t be a victim because you weren’t prepared.
Take time to listen to this great debate. I could not possibly cover the entire debate in this post – and did not intend to – so enjoy Law’s refutation of Craig’s arguments.
—————
Justin Vacula, author and owner of justinvacula.com — a blog about atheism, theism, philosophy, and much more — is an active outspoken atheist in Northeastern Pennsylvania who is the co-organizer, spokesperson, and board member of the Northeastern Pennsylvania Freethought Society, a secular discussion and activist group of non-theists. Justin received a large amount of media attention in his 2009 church/state battle in Northeastern Pennsylvania and graduated from King’s College in Pennsylvania with degrees in Philosophy and Psychology in addition to receiving a distinguished award in Philosophy and a minor in Professional Writing. He regularly publishes articles for Examiner.com as the ‘Scranton Atheism Examiner’ in addition to authoring blog posts.
Tags: AMERICAN ATHEISTS, Christianity, Craig, Debate, God, Law, Philosophy, Religion
While I like your article, I would suggest that, if you want people to take your articles seriously, you would perform some basic review-and-edit before going to press. This article is filled with typos, which, as much as I enjoyed it, I couldn’t help but think that it ranks more among the hastily-prepared Facebook posts than among the reasonable, rational publications of a respected organization. No hard feelings. I completely support American Atheists’ cause and I hope you take this only as the constructive criticism it’s meant to be. Cheers!
Where are all these typoes?
If you have to ask where all the “typoes” are, there is a problem. Look the up the spelling. There are numerous errors in the article. A very evident one in the very first paragraph. Find it yourself.
This is a typical example of how an organization allows low quality writting to be posted and represent its point of view. This was my first visit to this site and it does no represent well.
Scott, since several days have passed since your post and there is no sign of correction, I have to conlcude that they do not expect such respect for their content and or ideas.
In general, I like Justin’s log. As to errors, I do my best to pick apart anything I read. To that end, I did find, with a couple of readings some minor errors. However, in one quick read of the greeneconomics post above, I easily find many. “Writting” and “no” in place of what should apparently be “not” in the second, two-line paragraph, and “conlcude” in the third, single-sentence “paragraph” jump out. You have a higher rate of error going than the person you presume to critique, undermining your own credibility.
To that end, I suggest doing a better job of making your critique. Second, I view Justin’s article as a good jumping-off point for a very worthwhile conversation. So, keeping in mind the imperfect nature of conversation, respect one another and focus more on the ideas expressed in order to improve our critical thinking and logical arguments. Respectfully, Jim.
I don’t understand why it is absurd to believe in an all evil god. It does not seem absurd to me at all.
It’s not absurd to believe in ANY kind of God. The question is, does it benefit us to do so?
theotherjimmyolson,
For the same reason it’s absurd to believe in any god. But, I agree with you. Belief in an evil god is no more absurd than a good god. In fact a couple of billion people believe in at least one of each.
Satan is an evil god.
Those who say Satan is not a god but believe in both God and Satan are missing a key point of their own religion. God does not get rid of Satan. Why not? Probably because the two are of roughly equal power. So, God cannot get rid of Satan, making them both gods.
Christianity is not monotheism.
Of course, since neither of these gods exists, God cannot get rid of Satan because God does not exist and Satan does not exist.
J.G.K.
Yes. It is absurd to believe in ANY kind of god. And, it doesn’t matter whether it benefits us to do so.
Zorastrianism is a belief in two gods, good and evil. Maybe you can hook up with them. The problem with god at all is there is no evidence of any such god, good or evil.
I totally agree and alot people don’t want to admit there is no evidence for a god
ken,
A lot of people don’t understand the concept of evidence, especially as it applies to questions about our physical universe. An important point here, that I usually forget to make too, is that we’re discussing scientific evidence, not courtroom evidence, not logic, just hard scientific evidence.
One time, when I have clarified this, I was told off for the fact that you can’t have a theological discussion by demanding hard scientific evidence. I agree. But, we’re not arguing theology, which right in the subject starts from the assumption that there is a god worthy of study, or even philosophy.
We’re talking about a physical property of the universe.
Is there or is there not any hard scientific evidence to even hint at the possibility that there may be one or more gods in or ruling over our universe? No. Do our laws of physics need to include exceptions for when one or more gods intervene and temporarily suspend the laws of physics? No.
I wrote this in a reply to Christ B, but you also speak of no evidence for god. Explain to me this evidence, because I am intrigued.
It seems your argument is this:
1. If matter exists, then there cannot be a god.
2. Matter exists.
3. Therefore, god cannot exist.
I could agree with your deductible argument, if premise one could be proved true. However, the premise cannot be shown to be true. Consequently, it cannot be proved that to believe in a god is irrational, stupid, or unreasonable.
“but you also speak of no evidence for god. Explain to me this evidence, because I am intrigued.”
He said that there is *no evidence for god*. Therefore there is no evidence to show.
“It seems your argument is this:”
He never made an argument for or against the existence of God. He simply made a statement about the lack of evidence for the existence of a God.
“I could agree with your deductible argument, if premise one could be proved true.”
You posed this argument yourself…
“However, the premise cannot be shown to be true.”
True, you can’t really prove the negative claim that “X does not exist” or that “X does not cause or have a hand in Y”. For instance, you can’t prove that aliens or big foot don’t exist or that fairies don’t help flowers bloom. Though it can’t be proven that aliens and big foot absolutely don’t exist, lack of credible evidence to support that they do exist means there’s no real reason to believe that they do. They *might* exist and might have a hand in things, but there’s not really a reason to believe they do.
“Consequently, it cannot be proved that to believe in a god is irrational, stupid, or unreasonable.”
That would depend on the claim and one’s reasons for believing in God. While believing that a God exists isn’t necessarily irrational, stupid, and/or unreasonable depending on the reasoning and argument, believing that God made the Earth flat or that prayer is more effective in curing disease than medicine is rather irrational, stupid, and unreasonable. Anything from God to big foot to aliens might possibly exist, and so arguing for the existence of something isn’t totally unfounded depending on the reasons and arguments, but using the concept of God to argue against what is proven to be true is quite irrational, stupid, and unreasonable.
Raymond,
Fair enough, he did not make an explicit argument for or against the existence of God. Nevertheless, he did make a claim that there is “no evidence for the existence of God.” Hopefully we can agree that there is either A) evidence for the existence of a God or B) evidence for the non-existence of a God; to say that A is not true one must adhere to B. Chris denies A, and so he accepts B. However, does the evidence being interpreted, i.e., the entire cosmos and everything in it, lead to B? In order to say yes to this, Chris must show an argument for B; he only provided us with the conclusion of B. If he were to give an argument, then it must be the one I provided. Here is why:
1)There are clear signs of intelligence in the cosmos, as the intelligent design theory has shown us.
2)It cannot be absolutely concluded that because there is evil in the world there cannot be a God; Christian theists, e.g., William Lane Craig, have shown this not to be the case.
3)Simply because theories in science, e.g., the big bang, have gladly explained the universe to be 14-15 billions years old does not rule out the existence of a God; the Kalam Cosmological argument willingly accepts the big bang. I would argue here that it is irrational and unreasonable to say that the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old, like many Christian theists proclaim; their interpretation of Genesis is poor.
4)Simply because God Himself is not visibly seen does not rule out His existence; Christians claim that God has been seen in Jesus the Christ, the third person of the trinity.
Because of visible intelligence in the cosmos, evil and the existence of a God not being in contradiction, the acceptance of the big bang theory and the unnecessary requirement for God to be physically visible, position B cannot be held with much certainty; it is not a strong proclamation.
Moreover, I am glad you admit the possibility of the existence of a God, for I also admit to the possibility of God not existing. However, it is highly improbable for God to not exist. If He doesn’t exist, then matter is self-existent, and this doesn’t seem highly probable. Also, position A seems, in light of the four statements from above, more reasonable and rational than position B.
I’m sure I have not provided a sufficient reply to your words, but I am curious to what you think.
JDG
“To say that A is not true one must adhere to B. Chris denies A, and so he accepts B.”
This is a false dichotomy because one can either adhere to choice A, to choice B, or to neither choice. Choosing not to adhere to either choice which would mean they believe that there is no evidence for both for and against the existence of God.
This brings me back to a point I made earlier. You can’t really prove the negative claim that “X does not exist”. There’s no credible evidence that aliens exist; however, that does NOT mean that there is evidence that aliens don’t exist. There is no evidence either way and so I choose not to believe that aliens exist until someone proves that they do. Choosing to adhere to choice A or B would make one a gnostic theist or gnostic atheist. Choosing to adhere to neither would make one an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.
“1)There are clear signs of intelligence in the cosmos, as the intelligent design theory has shown us.”
Ignoring that Intelligent design is a theory that’s not widely accepted…there’s not really another cosmos out there, with or without signs of intelligence, to compare ours to so I’m not really sure how one would be able to tell that there are signs of intelligence in the cosmos we live in. It should be noted that evolution says nothing about God and that a person can believe in both at the same time.
“2)It cannot be absolutely concluded that because there is evil in the world there cannot be a God; Christian theists, e.g., William Lane Craig, have shown this not to be the case.”
True. Justin Vacula’s argument about the “problem of evil/good” wasn’t against the existence of God. His argument was against William Lane Craig’s concept of the Christian God which would be the Christian God. Evil and God could co-exist, but having an Omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God is inconsistent with the existence of evil.
“3)theories in science…does not rule out the existence of a God”
True. Science does not speak about God at all. One could believe in what Science tells us about the natural world and in the existence of a God at the same time.
“4)Simply because God Himself is not visibly seen does not rule out His existence”
He doesn’t necessarily have to be physically seen, but some sort of distinctive proof of his existence would be nice…Now just because a person doesn’t see any evidence that something exists doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but it does mean that there’s not really reason to believe it does.
“Christians claim that God has been seen in Jesus the Christ, the third person of the trinity.”
Not really a lot of evidence for the existence of a biblical or even a historical Jesus…
“Because of…position B cannot be held with much certainty; it is not a strong proclamation.”
Proving position B is near impossible, but does not make Position A any more likely as I stated above.
JDG, you state, ” I would argue here that it is irrational and unreasonable to say that the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old…” And it seems you do not believe the mythological tale of Genesis happened as written. I must ask the logical question which no Christian has yet provided an answer. If the absurd tale of Adam & Eve never happened, and the apple was never eaten; then original sin never happened. If original sin never happened, then Jesus serves no purpose, is not needed, is rendered meaningless and irrelevant. The entire Christian faith hinges upon this ridiculous myth and folds like a house of cards as a result. Even Paul states in his epistles how crucial the resurrection is to the Christian religion and proclaims if it were proven untrue, then Christianity is dead.
Well if Jesus’ 1 and only reason for having to enter this play is admittedly (even by Chritians), “irrational and unreasonable”; then there is no more argument. The game is over. It is all a sham. How can any christian continue in the faith. A logical person admits the obvious and concedes the loss. So what is your excuse? Are you a Deist? If not, then how do you defend this?
JDG,
You actually said, “1)There are clear signs of intelligence in the cosmos, as the intelligent design theory has shown us.”
Really? Such as? What are your clear signs? Remember, the standard to which we will hold your answers is that of scientific evidence, not logic, not a court of law. What scientific evidence can you present that one or more gods exist?
And, how did your intelligent designer get here? It seems to me an intelligence capable of creating universes such as ours at the rate of one a week requires even greater explanation than the universe itself. Would we not then need to postulate an intelligent designer designer and an intelligent designer designer designer and an intelligent designer designer designer designer and ….
And, if we are intelligently designed by some perfect creator, how do you explain the flaws in our design?
* Our retinas are backward. The rods and cones face the backs of our eyes, not the light. This causes us to see a reflected image that the brain must invert to correct. Further, the nerve of each rod and cone faces into the eye. Therefore, in order to get the signal to our brains, we each have a blind spot in each eye.
How is this a good design? Why do squid and octopi not have such flaws in their eyes? Does your God prefer squid to humans?
* Human testicles start out life way up in the chest (a vestige from our fish ancestors) and need to drop down to our scrota later in life. This opens up a cavity in the body making men prone to hernias. Why do our testicles not start out in our scrota? Wouldn’t that be a better design?
* Other mammals have nice straight vertebra, and hence no back problems, we (due to our evolutionary history) have a curved spine to allow a species evolved from knuckle walking ancestors to balance on two legs while walking. Would not an intelligent designer have found a way to design us as bipedal from the start rather than kluging our backs in this way leaving us prone to back and neck pain?
Look at the history of the world and the wars and all the suffering.There is no evidence of a benevolant god.Look at the holocaust;people were praying to no avail. how could a loving or even caring god exist–no evidence!
Ken,
It is not necessarily true that if an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God exists than that God would prevent evil; thus, you cannot establish an inconsistency with the existence of a wholly good God and evil. Christian theists have offered reasonable responses to the problem of evil, e.g., the free will defense. I will admit that evil is a problem for Christian theists. However, to use the problem of evil to say there is no God is not a good argument. The problem may show there to be no good God, but it does not show there to be no God at all. Furthermore, to be an Atheist you must admit there to be no evil; evil is just some subjective, relative idea, and it is only a product of matter. To even use the terms “evil” and “good” is inconsistent, if one is an Atheist.
JDG
JDG, your posts are so loaded with incorrect assumptions and fallacies. Why is it an atheist cannot know good from evil? Atheism is merely not believing in any god(s). It has nothing to do with morals and right and wrong. Do not be ridiculous with your generalizations. Reason and history show how man evolved both biologically and intellectually without some moral guidance from an invisible skyman. If you and the Jesusites believe that your God is the moral authority for all to follow, then why do we not still own slaves, why do we not stone to death those who blaspheme, or use the lords name in vain, or work on the sabboth, or commtt adultery? Why do we have women’s rights? Is it because God came down and decreed all these things? Absolutly not Jdg. It is due to mans own intellect and reason and knowing these things are evil and wrong and making laws to right these wrongs accepted and created by primitive, barbaric man.
Now argue that. Argue from the truth about your God. How do you claim moral authority from such a viscious, evil and murdering God and expect us who know the truth to allow you to make such a bogus statement?
JDC:
Stop using the “Straw Man” fallacy it makes you look foolish. The argument your trying to use is: Argument from authority:
X holds that A is true
X is a legitimate expert on the subject.
The consensus of experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there’s a presumption that A is true.
Better example:
The Pope say’s the Bible is true
The Pope is an expert on the Bible
Therefore the Bible is True
When did I use argument from authority?
You never made an argument from authority in the same way that JohnHobe never stated that he believed that the “existence of matter disproves God”. I think richunix was trying to be ironic by posing a straw-man on you in the same way that you posed the straw-man on JohnHobe.
2 things we’re overlooking here:
1) How can many of the same people who play the “mysterious mind of God” card make very specific claims about precisely what God wants them to do, including dietary, meditative, sexual, sacrificial, clothing, cultural and ritualistic practices, and detailed anthropomorphic motive-driven historical narratives? Shouldn’t anyone who plays the mystery card be expelled from their religion and declared a deist? The mystery card contradicts religion, unless applied inconsistently – which is unjustified. If you can’t comprehend any cohesive explanation of God’s motives, don’t tell me you have a personal relationship.
2) Why do smart, capable, and sane people maintain beliefs that are inconsistent with both evidence and reason? If a million literate adults form a religion that worships Santa Claus (equal probability as God, after all), does it make more sense to debate them or to study this psychological / sociological phenomenon? Are we debating a psychological quirk, like arguing to a person with an elevator phobia that elevators are safe?
Chris B,
I think you ask some good questions for theists to consider. How can one claim to know certain things about God, then claim to not know certain things about God? And shouldn’t anyone who plays the mystery card be expelled from their religion and declared a deist? As a Christian I would like to engage in a good discussion about these questions because I do think you raise some good questions.
Anyone’s claims to understand what God wants them to do in regards to dietary, meditative, sexual, sacrificial, clothing, cultural and ritualistic practices is rooted in their understanding that information has been given in regards to those practices. When someone plays the “mystery card”, they are simply claiming that they do not know of any revelation regarding that question. There is nothing wrong with playing the “mystery card” if God has not revealed answers to questions we might have. However, to your point, for a Christian to play the “mystery card” because they don’t understand their beliefs well is a horrible reason to play that card.
But, not knowing all God’s motives is not an argument against a claimed relationship with God. For all knowledge about motives must come from the one with the motives. If someone doesn’t tell me their motives I can only make guesses. This is true with all relationships. If my wife is angry with me and I don’t know why, the only way I will ever know is if she tells me. If she doesn’t tell me that doesn’t mean I don’t have a relationship with her.
Now, if someone claims to have revelation from God, then whether that revelation is true or not is up for debate along with a revealing of the evidence or lack thereof.
In regards to your first question in section 2), those answers will have to come with a longer discussion with a person who believes in God. I’m not sure if I fit your criteria of smart, capable, or sane. I may just be a psychological quirk staying away from the safe elevator, or you might be getting on an elevator disconnected to the shaft. There’s only one way to find out, inspect the elevator and all that connects to it and see where the evidence points. I will argue that there is sufficient evidence which points to God. This may be where I get on the “crazy train” but I’ve never had a reasonable discussion with an open minded atheist and I would very much like to understand your side better.
Good reply zagtiger, here’s my counter:
First, I’m sympathetic to this argument because as you’ve stated it, it mirrors the “god of the gaps” problem in science. As transitional fossils are found linking animal 1 with animal 3 via animal 2, for example, creationists often demand more fossils showing a link between 1 and 2 and also between 2 and 3. When those are found, there are even more, smaller gaps that they demand explanation for, as if the predictive power of the underlying theory hadn’t just been demonstrated multiple times.
Is my demand for a coherent explanation of god’s motives similar to the position of those who won’t believe scientific findings until there is a “theory of everything?”
One difference is that the scientists laboring away to gather as much data as possible have a plan for how they will come up with a cohesive explanation for how things work or worked. The plan is to carefully gather tons of data, carefully analyze it, compare the results against predictive and falsifiable hypotheses, check for consistency with other evidence, and have others review and criticize the conclusions. Religion lacks a similarly feasible plan to obtain an understanding of their hypothesized god’s motives, and thousands of years of intense effort have yielded little more than a bunch of inconsistent opinions based on little more than intuition. The scientists will make progress because they’re using a method that works. Religion will continue to not make progress because it uses a method that never has worked, and never could.
Another difference is that the scientists are typically comparing two or more competing hypotheses, either of which are logically and empirically consistent and possible based on the currently known information. For religion, none of the hypotheses for god’s motives are logically and empirically consistent in the first place, which is where the “mystery card” comes in. The problem of evil is just one example. There’s also the problem of free will vs. an all knowing god. The problem of how/why an omnipotent being could possibly have any unmet need, Law’s gambit, Why god would hide, Etc.
What are we left with when we can’t even put together an internally consistent narrative that answers all these questions in a way that is consistent with observation? We have no hypothesis. I think that should be our first clue that we’re on the wrong track, and I think we went wrong at the part where we assume the existence of god. I don’t think the “mystery card” is a cover for evidence not yet gathered. I think it’s a cover for a lack of even one consistent hypothesis.
Chris B,
It is accepted that using the “mysterious mind of God” as a reply to atheism is insufficient, and it is an argument no theist should use.
But there are a few points/questions you brought forth that must be addressed: 1) “The mystery card contradicts religion, unless applied inconsistently – which is unjustified.” 2) “Why do smart, capable, and sane people maintain beliefs that are inconsistent with both evidence and reason?” and 3) “…does it make more sense to debate them [the literate adults who formed their own religion] or to study this psychological/sociological phenomenon?”
Within the first point you attempt to show contradiction and inconsistency, while failing to understand/admit the contradictions and inconsistent claims made by atheists on repeated occasions. “Atheism…implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter” (borrowed from the definition given on this website). If atheism is true and all that exists is matter, then there cannot be objective truth; I hope we can agree on this point. However, this would prove to be contradictory: while saying, “There is no objective truth,” one is using an objective claim to make this statement. The objective claim cannot be made, if the notion of no objective truth is to be upheld. Moreover, trying to convince the majority population, who claim to be theists, of the truth that there is no god would also be inconsistent and contradictory to this very claim of no objective truth. According to atheism, if a man believes that there is a god, then his belief is a product of matter. Likewise, if a man believes that there is no god, then his belief is a product of matter as well. Both are right and just for atheism, because “An atheist…must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it, and enjoy it” (once again, taken from the definition provided on this website). If believing in a god accomplishes this task for a person, then so be it; an atheist, by the definition they cling to, should not refute such a decision, because there is no objective truth and no such thing as an ultimate “proper, rational way of thinking.” Therefore, if an atheist attempts to even argue for “truth,” then he/she is contradicting their own definition.
In point two you speak of “evidence.” What is this apparent evidence that shows there cannot be a god? It seems your argument is this:
1. If matter exists, then there cannot be a god.
2. Matter exists.
3. Therefore, god cannot exist.
I could agree with your deductible argument, if premise one could be proved true. However, the premise cannot be shown to be true. Consequently, it cannot be proved that to believe in a god is irrational, stupid, or unreasonable.
Lastly, you ask a proper question in point three. While holding to atheism, it doesn’t make sense to debate these “irrational/outdated” people; it is only proper to study why matter has produced in them a different line of reasoning. Also, your elevator analogy is not a good one. If someone has only been on an elevator once in his/her life, and during that experience the elevator cable snapped, then they would be just in fearing elevators. However, if someone claims that elevators do not exist, then can we rightly label them “irrational/unreasonable.”
I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make with this statement:
>>If atheism is true and all that exists is matter, then there cannot be objective truth; I hope we can agree on this point.<<
I don't agree with this at all. What does atheism have to do with objective truth? If anything, it would seem that atheism leads one to a concept of *more* objectivity than religion.
Could you please clarify what you mean?
Thanks
tbone54,
You are right, I should have explained what I meant by objective truth. I was referring to morality, because it is the issue of morality that has influenced this LONG list of replies; evil in the world has supposedly shown there to be no evidence for the existence of a god.
If atheism is true, then thinking is the product of matter (to borrow from this website). Furthermore, men’s way of thinking, which is a product of matter, leads men to decide what is good and right for subduing life and enjoying it. However, matter has not produced robotic machines that think in perfect harmony; it has produced free-thinking individuals with different thought processes. Thus, men have different ways of thinking about what is good and right for subduing life and enjoying it; e.g., one man might think giving money to the poor is a correct path for enjoying life, while another man might think killing others in cold-blood murder is a correct path for enjoying life. But an atheist cannot say that one is right and the other is wrong, because each man’s thinking process is only a product of matter. Moreover, an atheist cannot say that there is evil in the world. What they say is evil to them might be good to someone else for the purpose of subduing life and enjoying it.
I only bring up morality, because it seems that atheists are attempting to use morality to show no evidence for a god. Evil in the world is a problem for Christian theists, but the problem of evil doesn’t seem to be a very good argument for there to be no god in general.
Does this help or have I failed again? :)
JDG
Matter isn’t just a lump of clay: there are granular differences, & compounded simplicity.
There is only matter, unless you can prove otherwise. Can you?
Attempting & succeeding. There are guidelines set in all the holy books – if there is indeed a parent to everyone, what parent sets up their children to fail? Not good ones, that’s for sure.
& yes, morality matters. & matter can have morality: we’re made of matter, & we’re moral.
You treat morality as if it’s the province of something else entirely. The existence of abstract concepts is no proof of anything, except that they are the product of matter.
Miserably. Your patter about matter matters little: it resolves nothing. Having morality & abstract thought simply means that they exist, although not on a physical level.
Don’t get a chubby yet: if our species were wiped out tomorrow, these would be gone too.
That’s not the argument, & it’s stupid.
YOU PROVE this ‘gawd’ exists. Evidence only. Your ‘bibble’ is excluded as evidence, as it is shot full of crap.
Don’t agree. I’m an objectivist, not a subjectivist, so I can’t reply to your argument against atheistic subjectivism. I don’t even know any atheist subjectivists. I do think the passage should have included time, space, & energy, if that helps :)
The burden of proof rests on those who make extraordinary claims. It is impractical and error-prone to start from the position that all claims are true until disproven because to do so would necessarily involve believing multiple, contradictory falsehoods at some point and because there are too many possible claims to evaluate in a lifetime (also see John Locke or David Hume). If someone declares a belief in an invisible, flying unicorn that hides beneath a mountain, must you dig up the entire mountain before declaring that belief to be “irrational, stupid, or unreasonable”? No, and I’m right there with you on that. Maintaining a position of skepticism until evidence proves otherwise is already our default in every aspect of life except religion.
The fear would still be irrational because elevator collapses are extraordinarily rare, and the event did not increase the likelihood of more collapses. The fear would be explainable as a result of psychological trauma, but not rational.
People like Craig don’t want to face the facts that is no god,they have blinders,Look at all the needless suffering in the world and it is not freewill,innocent children die by the millions,the genocides,human trafficing,serial killers,etc.etc,Icould go on.
Ken,
Why do you care that there are innocent children dying by the millions, the genocides, human trafficking, and serial killers? Everything should be, if you are a “true” atheist, regarded as a product of matter. The purpose of life is to simply find your “own way.” Therefore, if someone wants to beat a child, rape a girl,or cause millions to die,then they are just in doing so; everything is relative, and whatever brings someone happiness should be acted out. Also, all the “needless” sufferings you suggested are brought forth by men/women choosing to do something, i.e., all your examples are products of man’s freewill.
You are confusing “atheism” with “immorality”. You don’t need any belief in god to have a moral system that recognizes all the arocities you list as evil.
And for that matter, what about evils that exist that can not be attributed to any human agent’s “free will”? Earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, disease?
How do you account for these?
Fair enough, “You don’t need any belief in god to have a moral system that recognizes all the atrocities you list as evil.” But holding to atheistic beliefs, you cannot say that your idea of what is evil or not is right (see reply above).
Some natural “disasters” are a result of human free will, e.g., the dust bowl. However, some, if not most, seem to not be. A Christian theist would reply that the Earth has become subject to bondage and decay as a result of sin, but I will not go there.
I will, on the other hand, say that many natural occurrences like those you listed can serve a purpose for the Earth and the habitation of life on the Earth. But even if they did not, are they really “evil”? Just because man happens to be “in the way” of these natural occurrences doesn’t make them evil; e.g., just because a man places himself in the middle of the street and eventually gets hit by a car doesn’t make cars “evil” does it? Just because we build cities in an area where we know there is a high probability that there will be an earthquake, tsunami, etc. doesn’t make those natural events evil does it?
JDG
where is the evidence god does exist
You just got owned ken. Aren’t you a little ashamed you had to resort to “where is the evidence god does exist”?
It’s like saying “I know you are, but what am I”.
Proof positive you got nothing.
It’s a valid question, which none of you clowns seem to be able to answer.
No, because there’s a HUGE difference in both concept & context.
Obviously you’re not bright enough to see that.
Jeez, JDG, how insulting. Why do I need some supernatural nonsense to care about other human beings?
We’re not all moral relativists. & obviously you don’t know the meaning of the term, or you wouldn’t be bandying it about in such a matter.
Stupidest fucking argument ever. We ‘choose’ eye worms in the eyes of children? We ‘chose’ all this crap because some talking snake gulled a couple centuries ago? You realize what a cop-out that is? Children are raped (by priests no less), starve to death in the streets, & even in Rio, because this ‘life is so sacred’, cops shoot little kids because there’s way too fucking many of them? We ‘chose’ the holocaust?
Free will should be multiple choice, not a false dichotomy.
Awww…you’re pretty.
You just don’t seem to get it. You can spout pseudointellectual nonsense on a website or in a small company of friends, but you never seem to catch on that to the majority of people out there you just seem like a arrogant ass trying to cover insecurities by bashing on religion.
Typically this is where I get called a “troll” because I choose to not get into bullshit theoretical arguements where the winner is the one that uses the most adjectives and the longest words.
As you scramble backwards falling over yourself and setting up strawmen the same tired out comment comes up. “Prove there is a God.”
Prove there isn’t.
This is a distraction from work. In the overall scheme of things no one really cares how good of an arguement you can type. If it weren’t for the internet most people wouldn’t want to hear what you say. There are more important things in life.
Some day you will look back and realize how much time you wasted in a crusade to debunk religion. It’s good for both sides to have these forums though, because there is no place in the outside world for either of you.
Negate that point for me by walking into a bar and saying these things.
This is the part where you either call me dumb or unread.
I’m also a guy, so it’s creepy for you to say that.
I’m not the theist on an atheist site. So wrong.
WOW – what, you call the psychic hotline for that info? Armchair psychiatrists are a dime a dozen.
I don’t care what people think, I care that people should think.
You get called a troll because you come in where you’re not wanted, & repeat everything every other theist who’s popped by in the last few years.
Now put up some evidence or sod off.
A. Please demonstrate where strawmen were employed: your street cred is no good around here, &
B. Onus falls on the believer. You make the extravagant claim? Prove it. AND
C. From context, you don’t know what a strawman is.
Then go back to work.
I’m even better in person.
That’s supposed to chasten me? You’re on this site on the internet, & nobody really gives two hoots what you think.
Is there? Freeing people from an abject primitive barbaric anachronism is less important?
I’m 53 – so spare me the elder statesman bullshit.
Know what? Fuck you. I have these conversations regularly in realtime. If someone knocks on my door, or accosts me on the street, I tell them I’m an atheist. But it’s not about me: it’s about the truth.
SURPRISE! I have.
Oh wait – you thought I was some gangly teeny-bopper w/a big mouth & bad attitude, isolated from the world & had no friends.
Thus far, you’ve been consistently wrong.
Nice try. Typical narcissistic mind game. Set yourself up to be right if I do, & establish some sort of rapport when I don’t.
You’re misled, & you’ve read mostly garbage.
See my first reply to tbone54. I’m not saying you need a “supernatural nonsense to care about other human beings.” But I am saying that if others don’t care about humaniy and others choose to rape others or kill in cold-blood, than you cannot say their act is evil; their thinking in doing so is merely a product of matter, just as atheism holds to.
Also, the victims in the events/acts you have listed didn’t choose that to happen; but the perpetrators did, e.g., some chose for the holocaust to take place. Moreover, I SAID that the needless sufferings KEN brought forward were a product of man’s free will. See both my replies to tbone54.
JDG
You’re inferring it, in an attempt to appear philosophical.
& yet surprisingly, religious folk seem to have continued to do this throughout history.
No, their act IS evil, as it isn’t in the best interest of the species.
Again, we’re not all moral relativists.
So someone else’s ‘free will’ overrode other people’s ‘free will’? Then there is no free will.
How interesting then, that no divine intervention came forth when it went too far.
Distinct impression that all this is off your cuff, rather than objective research w/the supernatural crap subtracted.
Why do we care? Because being a decent human being involves actually caring about others, not just going through the motions because we expect a payoff.
Now there is a reply I can respect.
You give egoless answers that make sense without feeling the need to belittle a person for their beliefs.
Without religion there is still the pressure of society to be a good person. The person that does good and cares for his fellow man for personal gratification is few and far between. Religion is a far harsher form of control than society and truly more unforgiving.
Excuse me, but YOU claimed you ‘owned’ ken when he asked you for the evidence of your ‘gawd’.
You need to check for motes in your eye.
To Chris B and ICYB,
I believe life to be a series of choices. I believe a few wise people, somewhere back in the infancy of our civilization, established the various myths we refer to as religion to help govern our primitive urges and decision-making. I further believe, as did Carlin, that religion has no place in the lives of thinking individuals. Therein lies the rub.
If all of the primitive religious beliefs were ripped away, I wonder how well the still primitive minds would govern themselves. Would we rely on the “efficiency” of our legal system to govern us? If I no longer have to worry about the wrath of any higher power, then all I have to concern myself with is the probability of being caught. If the penalty isn’t too severe, I might care little about even that.
I would like to think that people could remove myth from their lives and make smart choices. But then I observe greed, self-interest, laziness, etc., and I wonder.
I am in a relationship with someone who has read the bible 13 times, which is rare among Christians. Many professed can’t name all the books, let alone form sound arguments for their beliefs. Being raised in a very conservative Christian home, I was one of these beings. It has taken me years of sometimes accidental and sometimes sought discoveries, to bring me to the position of agnosticism, leaning toward aetheism. When I speak with her on the topic, knowing how people hold on to their prejudices, knowing that it took me years while somewhat looking for truth, that I question the ability of those indoctrinated to ever change. As Bertrand Russell said, “Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so.”
JDG,
In reading your post, I am reminded of George Carlin’s quip “I like it when a lot of people die.” while a rather caustic bit of humour, the view seems to suggest humans are something of an arrogant blight on this earth. Arrogant, as we have only been here a relatively short time to seem so smug, and something of a blight when you consider the destructive choices we make are beyond the scope of any other member of the animal kingdom. When you consider that life is a series of choices, and that humans (generally) persist in making poor choices, one might wonder why we should care when a number are in some way eradicated. We personally want to live on, but this is, of course, a matter of self-interest.
In all of life, there are checks and balances that we seem to feel do not pertain to us. Disease, predation, etc. are population checks in nature, though we have found ways to vaccinate against many diseases, ameliorate the effects of others, while still other technologies make it safe for us to live on and multiply, to the expense of other life on this planet. (Watch Daniel Quinn’s “Food Production and Population Growth”)
Let me know your thoughts, that I might learn and challenge those around me to make better choices.
God was evil, vengeful, fiery, burning, hot, explosive, loud, trembling, high, covered in ash clouds, etc….and he did fire out fiery darts of brimstone, that is made of sulphar….
Yes, god was a volcano. Sorry atheists. There is no more need in debating the ins and outs of god’s character. God had no character.
http://ohmyvolcano.blogspot.com
JDG: Regardless of a “true”atheist or not,my nature causes me to care about the suffering of my fellow human beings. Thanks to the care and concern of past atheists there is freedom from slavery,women’s rights and labor rights. “all suffering is caused by ignorance.”
“Needless suffering” does not have to be if society is educated and people’s choices reflect that. There is no indication of man’s “free will” when there are serial killers and criminals;only individual with faulty wireing.
I enjoyed the reply and good point: “‘Needless suffering’ does not have to be if society is educated and people’s choices reflect that.
“While I detest gangster rap music, nothing seems worse to me than atheists ‘losing’ debates with theists. Don’t be a victim because you weren’t prepared.”
Yes, there is nothing worse than losing an arguement of opinion…
I wish I had the time to waste debating a topic that will only be truly proven when we die. Perhaps a fresh subject could be which is the best ice cream flavor?
Neither side can truly prove anything about the existence/nonexistence of a higher power. I could make a fortune making buttons that say “I’m right” and selling them to you end of the spectrum nut jobs.
Reducing the discussion to a difference of opinion is pathetic.
So Krysty, how much time do you spend preparing for battle against the churchies? You wouldn’t want to be shunned and outcast from your fellow atheists for losing a debate. “Nothing seems worse.” Having your arm caught in a picker, erectile dysfunction, children with cancer…no comparison to getting schooled by a churchy.
You are the ones that give the rational atheists a bad name. You’re like the Fred Phelps of atheism.
It’s not a discussion to you. It is a ridiculous attempt to make yourself feel better at the cost of others.
Don’t worry. I’ll get bored with picking on you and move on to a scientology forum next.
Just in response to your little pick apart internet debate strategy…
I’m sure your little “realtime” conversations involve you recycling loudly the same little witty responses that you probably drop in regular rotation. And as for being better in person, I doubt it. If you wandered too far from your circle of yes men most people would tell you to shut the fuck up.
So you don’t believe in God? Fine. I’m not going to tell you that you’ll burn in hell for it. I’m sure your life sucks enough with all the hate you’re carrying. I’m not here to argue an opinion. I’m here because I like to make fun of the pompous arrogant ass atheist crowd, which actually only seems to be made up of you.
Don’t say you care that people should think. The only thing you care about is that people think like YOU. You are organized religion packaged in an angry middle age whose life doesn’t have a purpose unless there is something to rage against.
Sugarpie, I’m going to pray for you to get laid. You won’t see 54 with all that anger. You may have to help shave your beard and drop a couple pounds but I’ll see if I can’t get God to throw you a bone.
It’s called fisking. It’s a methodology to prevent contextomy. Oh, but you don’t know that either, do yo?
No, still not a sycophant. & this blogging helps me flesh out my dialogue. Which I engage in regularly, with theists mostly, since I’m outnumbered.
Ya know what? I’m a big guy, & a martial arts expert, so most people hold their water like that. I don’t hang w/other atheists. I have good friends who are xtian, who know exactly where I stand.
Oh, but wait. I’m an atheist. That means I’m an automatic liar, no?
No.
Good. Because I would listen in the biblical sense. That is, I wouldn’t believe a word of it.
WOW – you really don’t know me at all. So who the fuck are you to judge me? Really? I don’t hate you. I make an effort not to hate anyone.
Your opinions (which have vanished mysteriously in acrimony) are predominantly stupid however. If you can’t tell there’s a difference between you & your opinions, then you need to work on it.
Good. Neither am I. I’m only here to provide an informed opinion, something you seem to lack.
How wonderfully Christian of you.
More reading comprehension failure. What about Raymond? Ken? Buckeye?
It is all I really care about. I school ignorant religious people regularly here.
You must’ve got your psychiatric degree from Sears. I’d get a refund.
Atheists aren’t really organized. & I have plenty of other hobbies too.
Wow, what verse from the bible is that from?
Nothing fails like prayer – which means it won’t happen.
You’re mistaking temperament with style. I don’t suffer fools gladly. But they don’t raise the blood pressure.
You got a batphone you can call him on? Good. Give him a ring, tell him to kiss my ass.
Oh wait – there’s no such critter, so all you do is talk to yourself.
Dearest ICYB,
Have you even bothered to count all the ad hominems in your writing? You really should STOP. There are two reasons why a writer would end a sentence with the word “stop” written entirely in capital letters STOP. The first is if the writer were writing a telegram, a coded message sent through an electrical wire STOP. In a telegram, the word “stop” in all capital letters is the code for the end of a sentence STOP. But there is another reason why a writer would end a sentence with “stop” written entirely in capital letters, and that is to warn readers that the blog comment they are reading is so full of ad hominems that if they they have begun reading it, the best thing to do would be to stop STOP.
Rationally yours, etc.
Nice 1, latinatheist.
It occurred to me just recently (because I tend to gloss over personal attacks), that for someone who accuses others of being so insecure they have to elevate themselves via insults, ICYB sure seems to be heavily vested in the behavior himself.
The double standards that the religious apply to the world. SIGH.
Icyb, although you claim on another article on this site that you are not religious and on this one you are essentially railing against arrogant ass atheists. You portray yourself as not having a dog in this fight but your posts obviously show that to be a disingenuous position.
Your posts lack any substance nor contribute to the argument. They are personal attacks on those whose postions and logic you cannot combat. Your posts remind all of us of the creationist ilk who, once they realized they could not counter or refute evolution; began to attack Darwin in hopes of by belittling the man, somehow that could tarnish the truth and facts. Creationists have even refused to call evolution by its name and have resorted to referring to it as darwinism. Those who cannot win the argument generally attack the person in a desperate failed last attempt. You have proven this to be true. Have fun with the scientologists. At least you will have something in common……..a complete and utter lack of reason, logic and common sense.
you can call me Kryst.
Not much – it’s not a battle, really. Sometimes people need to hear the other side. The rational ones, I mean.
Wrong again. I’ve lost a few on this blog, to OTHER ATHEISTS. Of course you wouldn’t know that…you don’t bother doing the research, you just make a few guesses, & flail wildly.
When that day comes, I’ll let you know.
Wrong again. Never get tired of being wrong, do you? I’ve defended xtians on this blog. & jews, & muslims.
I notice you squirming out of answering anything, & attacking me personally. Nice.
Really, I’m more concerned w/reality. This isn’t about me or you. You think it is, but most religious narcissists take the same tack. Try to personalize the discussion, or make it about personality. It’s not.
YAWN. Hopefully you’ll get tired of being pwned, & move on. You are starting to get boring.
Wow. You just called yourself a martial arts expert… I mean, who does that? If thats you in the picture there really is nothing left to say. How do possibly make fun of a 53 year old guy with a fucking ponytail that calls tai chai a martial art?
Yeah, I’m trolling but only because I stumbled across this site and found your nerdy ass. I actually showed your post about being a big guy and a martial arts expert to some of the girls in my office. I did tell them that you’re pretty good at argueing and seemed intelligent but it just couldn’t negate the overall douchiness of someone that tries but fails to be a clone of Coach the dragon slayer from Survivor.
You win. I can’t pick on you anymore after all that. Heres your tiny section of the internet back. Get a haircut or a different picture. Guys that actually are big will never take you serious.
I’m a martial arts expert! I think I peed a little.
Tai Chi Chuan translates as Grand Ultimate Fist, & it’s a powerful MA – but you never bother doing research prior to mouthing off?
I’m willing to bet you’d not say that to my face in a bar, bucko.
Somehow, I’m starting to think you’re pulling my leg, & it was probable some 5th graders @ recess.
I have no idea who that is, & don’t care.
I might suggest you get some maturity, but that’s something you earn & learn, not purchase at the mall.
They sell products in Safeway to help w/those problems.
Anyways, we’re gonna miss you, little Moral Orel.
There’s something in Philosophy called the principle of charity which means that one should read what one has to say in the most charitable way possible in order to most accurately interpret what is being said (because people are generally not really making crazy assertions, are usually intelligent, etc). It is most unreasonable to believe that I believe that atheists losing debates is the worst event imaginable. I was being hyperbolic.
JDG, you are so confused and brainwashed in the cult that you cannot even see the complete inanity of your statement. You have been brainwashed from day one from your religion and your argument proves it. Your religion and all those who preach it, have told you you are scum, you are evil and you are a perpetual sinner. What does that say about your God and religion? Are you a criminal? Are you a rapist? Are you a murderer? Are you a piece of shit? Of course you are not. However, by your logic you just posted you believe that you are not all those things because some imaginary being in the sky would disapprove. Is God and his teachings the real reason why you are not a raging criminal? Of course not. You are able to distinguish right from wrong and good from evil. Use some freaking common sense and unshackle those ridiculous beliefs of your religion’s moral authority because it is as non existant as the magic man in the sky.
Finally, all those terrible events you claim are due to mans free will, each and everyone of those horrible acts was done by, endorsed by and approved by YOUR GOD. Read the flippin bible for crying out loud people. So JDG you need not worry about God’s disapproval for committing any such heinous acts; as He clearly endorses them.
I agree JDG is brainwashed and delusional believing in a fictitious god without proof. Just words in a book.
Thank you for proving to me there isn’t a God. I wish I could be enlightened to a place outside of this “brainwashed” state, but you too haven’t proven your case. It is true that both atheists and theists cannot say with fact that their view is correct, but theists seem to have probability on their side.
Also, I never said what religion I am and I have read the Bible; there’s a difference, however, of understanding its content and merely reading its words.
JDG
No – this is the negative proof fallacy. None of us have to prove the non-existence of this deity: it is completely your onus to prove it exists.
Until the positive is given, the negative is implied.
So much for the level playing field. You take the high road, but you gotta walk up the mountain too.
ICBY and zagtiger0406 are actually the SAME person – sock puppeting is most definitely frowned upon, & this person is now banned.
But the IP addresses were the same – & you can’t change latitude & longitude.
Now sod off somewhere you’re wanted.
JDG There’s no proof for god, Here are two points to ponder: 1. Humans will never have the cognitive capacity to directly understand anything with infinite powers or qualities. 2. Humans will never have intellectual reasons to indirectly demonstrate the existence of anything with infinite powers or qualities. 3. There are only two kinds of proofs for god:direct understanding or indirect demonstrations
The bible can be proved to be falliable because of the many contradictions and failed prophecies,log on the annotated skeptics bible it will give much information about how the bible isn’t divine at all. Christians can “hope” all they want,but that is no evidence of truth or fact. The bible is nothing but illogical statements about life. Does “divine authority” tell you to kill your children if they disobey and tell you to have slaves? Or treat women as second class citizens? That does not sound divine or logical in this day and age. What about “god is love” versus “vengance is mine says the lord”….multitude of oxymorons!
Hi. Sorry to be off-topic but I’ve had a eurika moment and need to get a debate going.
I believe the Ark of the Covenant is housed in the Kaaba in Mecca and was originally found my muslims in a cave in Mount Sinai, which I also believe was in Saudi. This would explain the origins of Islam and the loss of the Ark.
Please keep watching my blog for more updates…http://ohmyvolcano.blogspot.com
Thanks,
Fog.
JDG, What happen did a cat get your tongue
I would argue that the response to Law’s gambit is found in what has been made Psalm 19:1. The evil we recognize on earth is derived from the will of man. Outside of man we see a wholly good creation. To posit that a wholly evil god created a waterfall and an ocean and a sunset is pretty ridiculous.
“the response to Law’s gambit is found in what has been made Psalm 19:1.”
Before you can use bible passages as justification, you have to prove that what the bible says is true and that the way in which you interpret the bible is correct. Especially since the bible you are using as justification contains passages that contradict your argument that God creates only good things – Colossians 1:16 and Isaiah 45:7 for example say that God created *all things, both good and evil.*
“The evil we recognize on earth is derived from the will of man.”
3 points.
(1) The will of man managed to corrupt the all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good Christian God’s creation?
(2) If God is omniscient how can man have any sort of free will to change things? If God is omniscient then he knew what would happen when he created things ahead of time and allowed it to happen; thus, he fully intended for and created the evil that is “derived from man”.
(3) Again, this assumes both the Bible and the specific way you interpret the bible to be correct and true. How do you know that God is all good and that he created only good things? How do you know that the bible is true? How do you know that God is the Christian God and not the God of another religion or a deist God who created things, *both good and evil*? And how do you know that God exists? Until these questions are addressed, there’s no reason for me or anyone else to believe that the God who exists is specifically the Christian God and that he created specifically only good things in the specific way that you believe him to have created things.
“Outside of man we see a wholly good creation.”
Satan and demons are evil but they are not human; therefore, outside of man there is not a wholly good creation.
“To posit that a wholly evil god created a waterfall and an ocean and a sunset is pretty ridiculous.”
And it’s equally ridiculous to posit that a wholly good and all powerful God created and allows for the presence of disease causing bacteria, natural disasters, satan, and birth defects.
Law’s argument was NOT that god is an all-evil God. His argument was that the argument for an all-good God is JUST as poor, flawed, and ridiculous as the argument for an all-evil God. His argument was that there’s no reason to believe that either an all-good OR an all-evil God exists.
Raymond, I appreciate the time you put into that response. Let me say a few things in order by your responses.
You said, “Before you can use bible passages as justification, you have to prove that what the bible says is true and that the way in which you interpret the bible is correct.” LOL, is that in a rule book somewhere? Something tells me you won’t be convinced by my best efforts. Besides, why am I on trial? I was talking about Law.
My argument was not from Scripture, but from creation. I merely tacked the passage on for good measure. Regarding Isaiah 45:7, God’s hand in giving Cyrus wealth or taking his wealth away has nothing to do with the issue. We might as well save time and agree to disagree on the interpretation of Colossians.
In response to your three numbered points:
1. Sort of. Man succumbing to his own desires led him down a pathway that had prescribed consequences. God enacted those consequences.
2. Good question. I’ve argued the same thing against some friends of mine. There is a difference between foreknowledge and predestination. That he knew does not define his intentions. The existence of the evil is a known quantity that did not stop him from creating. This tells me that the end result was worth the sacrifice of the evil that he knew would come.
3. Again, why am I on trial? I could ask you the same questions. I think the earth and the cosmos give both of us good reason to question life and its origins. I find it enjoyable.
Moving on.. but we don’t SEE Satan and demons. I said “outside of what we see”. And that is my argument against Law. We see goodness in the inanimate world.
I think I have understood what he is saying, but you may show me otherwise. It is plausible that a good and loving God created the world with free will being responsible for evil. It is not, in my opinion, plausible that an evil God created waterfalls and unicorns. Who or what would be the scapegoat for the goodness?
““Before you can use bible passages as justification, you have to prove that what the bible says is true and that the way in which you interpret the bible is correct.” LOL, is that in a rule book somewhere?”
Sorry, I used the words “justification” instead of “credible evidence”… That did make it mean something different than what I had meant…
“Man succumbing to his own desires led him down a pathway that had prescribed consequences. God enacted those consequences.”
So Mans’ desires did not really corrupt God’s plan; rather, man’s desires set off a chain of events God had already set/planned? Kind of like saying, the cliff was always there and a person falling off is the result of them stepping/being pushed over the edge?
“There is a difference between foreknowledge and predestination…This tells me that the end result was worth the sacrifice of the evil that he knew would come.”
This reminded me of the ideas in Milton’s “Paradise Lost”, an interesting read. It also unfortunately reminded me of the question “Does the end justify the means”?
“That he knew does not define his intentions.”
I’m of the position that knowing full-well that something will happen and having the power to stop it, or at least change it, and doing nothing to make it better makes a person at least some-what guilty because indecision is a decision in and of itself.
“The existence of the evil is a known quantity that did not stop him from creating.”
It was my understanding that from the Christian perspective there was nothing but God before God decided to create everything. That there was no universe, good, or evil until he created. And so God created evil, not in spite of evil. Of course I’m only human, so I could very likely be looking at this wrong…
“I could ask you the same questions.”
Then to answer those questions in order…I don’t, based on historical and scientific evidence we can see what is and what is not historically true to the best of our current knowledge, I don’t, I don’t.
“I think the earth and the cosmos give both of us good reason to question life and its origins. I find it enjoyable.”
I agree, It is quite interesting and enjoyable to question those things.
“Moving on.. but we don’t SEE Satan and demons.”
Ahh…I thought you we’re referring to all of God’s creations not just the ones we can see…my bad
“We see goodness in the inanimate world.”
There’s definitely immense beauty in the inanimate world. Not something that could be considered morally good or anything like that, but definitely pretty and interesting to look at and explore. There’s also lots of horrific dangers, but I guess that shows more the frailty of man and the power of nature.
“It is plausible that a good and loving God created the world with free will being responsible for evil.
I can’t help but question how an omniscient God can allow free will when he would know ahead of time every choice, action, and result that will ever occur from before we are born to the end of our lives and after our deaths. Whether or not it’s plausible for a God to create such a world would depend on how you define God. A God that is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and all-good is inconsistent with this idea.
“It is not, in my opinion, plausible that an evil God created waterfalls and unicorns. Who or what would be the scapegoat for the goodness?”
All the apologetic replies to the problem of evil can easily be flipped around. Here are three examples:
(1) The natural beauty of waterfalls and unicorns exists so that we may more deeply appreciate the ugliness around us.
(2) God gave people free will to do good deeds, which in turn allows them to torment each other in ways that beings programmed to do only evil couldn’t.
(3) Why does good exist? Who can claim to understand the mind of an infinitely evil God?
From what I could tell, Law’s argument is that if the existence of evil in a universe that also contains some good does not point to an infinitely evil God, then how can the existence of good in a universe that also contains some evil point to the existence of an infinitely good God?
You said, “So Mans’ desires did not really corrupt God’s plan; rather, man’s desires set off a chain of events God had already set/planned? Kind of like saying, the cliff was always there and a person falling off is the result of them stepping/being pushed over the edge?”
Why do I feel like your laying a trap for me?
You said, “This reminded me of the ideas in Milton’s “Paradise Lost”, an interesting read. It also unfortunately reminded me of the question “Does the end justify the means”?”
I don’t know how to respond… why is that unfortunate?
You said, “‘That he knew does not define his intentions.’
I’m of the position that knowing full-well that something will happen and having the power to stop it, or at least change it, and doing nothing to make it better makes a person at least some-what guilty because indecision is a decision in and of itself.”
I think that’s a reasonable position, but I don’t think it describes the biblical position because of the part about “doing nothing to make it better…” I don’t think that fairly characterizes how God revealed himself in Scripture.
You said, “It was my understanding that from the Christian perspective there was nothing but God before God decided to create everything. That there was no universe, good, or evil until he created. And so God created evil, not in spite of evil. Of course I’m only human, so I could very likely be looking at this wrong…”
My sentence was poorly worded. I was talking about the existence of evil in the mind of God as he foreknew it. My position, as a Christian, is that God did not create evil. He created beings designed to be in relationship with Him, just as He was already in relationship within the Godhead (or trinity). A relational being requires freedom. Giving a being volition requires the possibility of rejection. This is the price of relationship.
You said, “’I could ask you the same questions.’
Then to answer those questions in order…I don’t, based on historical and scientific evidence we can see what is and what is not historically true to the best of our current knowledge, I don’t, I don’t.”
:) I could have guessed your answer to those questions. I meant that I could have reorganized them in them in such a way as to propose the same quandary to you, such as: How do you know that there is no God? How do you know for sure that the Bible is not correct, isn’t it possible that you are misinterpreting it? On what basis do your subscribe to the theory that matter creates itself? There is no evidence for that…
You said, “There’s definitely immense beauty in the inanimate world. Not something that could be considered morally good or anything like that, but definitely pretty and interesting to look at and explore.”
If they are a gift from a creator then I would say they are good ones. I would not expect an all evil god to have presented them to me. If you’re right, and there is not a God, then I agree, they are morally neutral.
You said, “I can’t help but question how an omniscient God can allow free will when he would know ahead of time every choice, action, and result that will ever occur from before we are born to the end of our lives and after our deaths. Whether or not it’s plausible for a God to create such a world would depend on how you define God. A God that is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and all-good is inconsistent with this idea.”
Why? I can offer my daughter an ice cream cone knowing full well that she will accept. Her acceptance is still free will.
You said, “All the apologetic replies to the problem of evil can easily be flipped around. Here are three examples:
(1) The natural beauty of waterfalls and unicorns exists so that we may more deeply appreciate the ugliness around us.
I follow this reversal, but appreciation of ugliness is absurd.
(2) God gave people free will to do good deeds, which in turn allows them to torment each other in ways that beings programmed to do only evil couldn’t.
I don’t follow this reversal. Theists would say (at least this theist) free will exists so that we can be in genuine relationship with God. What is the reverse of that?
(3) Why does good exist? Who can claim to understand the mind of an infinitely evil God?”
LOL, I try never to say that to an atheist. It’s evasive and cowardly. To another theist, it’s a different story. I will say this, there is no proof for God, but there are reasonable evidences for Him and for Christian teachings. Take resurrection for example. I think there are evidences for it all over creation: sleep, sickness followed by health, seeds – they first die before they turn into full grown plants, night turns to day, winter turns to spring, etc. I think that the salvation offered in Christianity being through faith more closely matches what we experience in life, because there is no proof. I will not win this debate in your mind and convince you with evidence just like Craig will not win over Law or vice-versa. There is a tension. Our positions make sense in each of our minds, but they are founded in our hearts. I believe it has always been that way.
You said “From what I could tell, Law’s argument is that if the existence of evil in a universe that also contains some good does not point to an infinitely evil God, then how can the existence of good in a universe that also contains some evil point to the existence of an infinitely good God?”
I think the best response to Law is to look at the vast majority of creation, the things that are inanimate and ask yourself, “is this the sort of thing I would expect a good God to make or an evil god to make? It seems obvious to me. But as we both know, I’m biased.
“Why do I feel like your laying a trap for me?”
You had said that “Man succumbing to his own desires led him down a pathway that had prescribed consequences” and walking off a cliff and then falling was the best example of an action and it’s prescribed consequence that I could think of, so I wanted to see if I understood your position correctly. I suppose if you answered yes I could have asked why God put a cliff there or something along those lines, but I don’t see how that’s a trap… It would have been a poor one at the very least.
“I don’t know how to respond… why is that unfortunate?”
I should have clarified…”Does the end justify the means” is a much longer philosophical and ethical debate. And quite frankly, a God who is omniscient and omnipotent could achieve whatever ends he wants through whatever means he wants. It’s fully within that God’s power to use the best and most moral means to get the best and most moral end. Though I am looking at it from only a meager human perspective, I can’t say that I really agree that the end, heaven and hell, truly justify the means, what a person goes through and how a person acts on Earth.
“A relational being requires freedom. Giving a being volition requires the possibility of rejection. This is the price of relationship.”
By that definition of how evil came about, evil is a by-product of man’s relationship with God; however, I don’t necessarily see how having or not having a relationship with God is an evil thing. I see Good and evil as describing the morality of actions such as cheering up a sad friend, stealing money, killing innocents, and helping the poor and needy. As such, I don’t really understand how having a relationship with God or not having a relationship with God is moral or immoral, good or evil… If a God is real and does in fact reward and punish humans, I would hope that that God would care more about the morality of a person and how he acted during life than what religion he was apart of and how fervently he worshipped.
“How do you know that there is no God?
I don’t. In the same way that I don’t know if there are aliens, fairies, or big-foots. I don’t see evidence that points to the existence of any of those things, so I don’t believe in them. If evidence comes along later for anything I don’t believe in, then I will evaluate and consider the evidence and adjust my position and beliefs accordingly.
“How do you know for sure that the Bible is not correct, isn’t it possible that you are misinterpreting it?”
I know based on historical and scientific evidence that the bible is far from inerrant, but I also know from historical and scientific evidence that the bible is correct about some things as well. Because the bible has been shown to not be inerrant, Individual claims in the bible should be treated as individual claims. It’s possible that I may be misinterpreting different parts and claims of the bible, and if I am, then I hope that it is corrected sooner rather than later.
“On what basis do your subscribe to the theory that matter creates itself? There is no evidence for that”
True, that is a hypothesis and not a proven scientific theory or fact. There’s also the hypothesis that matter has always existed and that we live in a constantly recycling universe; however, I don’t really ascribe to either of those beliefs. My answer is simply I don’t know how the universe came into existence. If you hold a box with a toy truck inside and ask me if it is red or blue, then my answer would have to be I don’t know. I can make a guess, but I have no supporting evidence or proof to support whether I think the toy truck is red, blue, or neither color. While I can make a guess as to how things came to be, because I don’t really see any evidence either way my best and most honest answer would be “I don’t know”.
“If they are a gift from a creator then I would say they are good ones.”
I’d have to say that an inanimate gift itself, even if it was from God, is neutral. What makes the gift good or bad is how it is used. If a man makes a car as a gift for his son, is the car good or evil? If the son uses this car to pick up his little sister, to run errands for his family, and to drive to school, then he is ultimately using the car for good purposes and the car is a blessing. On the other hand, if the son takes the car drag racing and kills a bunch of people with it, then the car was used for bad purposes and is a curse. In the same way, if God gave man all of his other creations, then whether those other creations are good or evil would depend on whether man uses them for good purposes such as making medicines and homes or bad purposes such as making weapons and poisons.
“Why? I can offer my daughter an ice cream cone knowing full well that she will accept. Her acceptance is still free will.”
This is a good example of how predicting how someone will act doesn’t take free-will away. This differs, however, from an omniscient creator who does not predict, but creates and knows everything that will ever happen by creating things in the specific way that he created them. Such a creator would know how the specific way he created their genetic code would influence their preferences and choices, he would know every experience they would go through and why, what they would learn from those experiences, how those experiences affect their choices, and how every action and every result of every action that his creations would perform would affect others. This would mean that the future is predictable and immutable and that our actions are predetermined.
Furthermore, if God has perfect knowledge of what will happen without his intervention, and his intervention is guaranteed to bring about a different result, then God has absolute control over what will happen. By refusing to intervene, God has effectively chosen the course of action.
While thinking about God’s omnisciency, a question suddenly struck me. “Does God’s omniscient also apply to himself as well”? If God is omniscient, then he knows what he will do, and must inevitably do what he already knows he will do – Kind of like Dr. Manhattan from “Watchmen”. That’s an extremely odd situation…
“I follow this reversal, but appreciation of ugliness is absurd.”
True, haha…I suppose if a person appreciated ugly things then the ugly things would actually be beautiful to that person.
“I don’t follow this reversal. Theists would say (at least this theist) free will exists so that we can be in genuine relationship with God. What is the reverse of that?”
This is a defense of the idea of free will, not a defense of the problem of good or evil. Because of that there’s no need to reverse this in defense of a purely good or a purely evil God.
“I will say this, there is no proof for God, but there are reasonable evidences for Him and for Christian teachings.”
And I will have to say that I haven’t seen the evidence for either – yet, at the very least.
“I think that the salvation offered in Christianity being through faith more closely matches what we experience in life, because there is no proof.”
And if you are happy through Christianity then more power to you. Religions and beliefs – (as well as lack of religions and beliefs) – are fine as long as they aren’t forced on others.
“Our positions make sense in each of our minds, but they are founded in our hearts. I believe it has always been that way.”
Perhaps, but people can always hope that they can change the minds of other or that others may cause a change in their own minds.
“Is this the sort of thing I would expect a good God to make or an evil god to make? It seems obvious to me.”
When I look at the world, I don’t think that either a purely good God or a purely bad God made everything. If a God does exist, then I expect from what I see that it would be a God that’s neither purely good or evil. I’m more a yin-yang kind of guy. I would hope that the God would be more good than evil, but I’m rather skeptical of a purely good or evil God.
“But as we both know, I’m biased.”
Everyones biased anyways. In any case, I thank you for sharing your views.
All that is necessary, as it seems to me, to convince any reasonable person that the Bible is simply and purely of human invention — of barbarian invention — is to read it. Read it as you would any other book think of it as you would of any other; get the bandage of reverence from your eyes; drive from your heart the phantom of fear; push from the throne of your brain the coiled form of superstition — then read the Holy Bible, and you will be amazed that you ever, for one moment, supposed a being of infinite wisdom goodness and purity, to be the author of such ignorance and of such atrocity.
Our ancestors not only had their god-factories, but they made devils as well. These devils were generally disgraced and fallen gods. Some had headed unsuccessful revolts; some had been caught sweetly reclining in the shadowy folds of some fleecy cloud, kissing the wife of the god of gods. These devils generally sympathized with man. There is in regard to them a most wonderful fact: In nearly all the theologies mythologies and religions, the devils have been much more humane and merciful than the gods. No devil ever gave one of his generals an order to kill children and to rip open the bodies of pregnant women. Such barbarities were always ordered by the good gods. The pestilences were sent by the most merciful gods The frightful famine, during which the dying child with pallid lips sucked the withered bosom of a dead mother, was sent by the loving gods. No devil was ever charged with such fiendish brutality.
The old, the young, the beautiful and the helpless were remorsely devoured by the shoreless sea. This, the most fearful tragedy that the imagination of ignorant priests ever conceived, was the act, not of a devil, but of a god, so-called, whom men ignorantly worship unto this day. What a stain such an act would leave upon the character of a devil! One of the prophets of one of these gods, having in his power a captured king hewed him in pieces in the sight of all the people. Was ever any imp of any devil guilty of such savagery?
Robert Igersoll – 1892
Raymond,
Thanks for the discourse. I appreciate the nature and mood of your responses.
Unfortunately, there are far too many isolated discussions going on within each post for me to give adequate replies to each. I think we have both admitted to a level of uncertainty on some issues and it demonstrates a search and yearning for truth and justice within us. I know for me, one of the best examples of this is when I watch a competitive basketball game in which I have a vested interest. In these competitions when the referee makes a poor call or misses an obvious one I come unglued (I have a bit of a temper). I hate injustice. I think we all do at differing degrees, but we all do. The hard thing is seeing it within our own life. I like to find it in others, but often I forget to even look for it within my own actions and within my own heart. But just because i don’t look, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
You said, “By that definition of how evil came about, evil is a by-product of man’s relationship with God; however, I don’t necessarily see how having or not having a relationship with God is an evil thing. I see Good and evil as describing the morality of actions such as cheering up a sad friend, stealing money, killing innocents, and helping the poor and needy. As such, I don’t really understand how having a relationship with God or not having a relationship with God is moral or immoral, good or evil… If a God is real and does in fact reward and punish humans, I would hope that that God would care more about the morality of a person and how he acted during life than what religion he was apart of and how fervently he worshipped.
I think this section probably demonstrates the widest gap in our thinking. There are clearly others, but in my view they are peripheral to this one. Relationships require a number of things to operate properly. Trust, commitment, communication, etc. I don’t know if your married, but if you are, imagine trying to add a second wife to your home. The commitment to the first wife is automatically nullified by your desire to add a second. This will not sit well with the first. Commitment entails monogamy, patience, dedication, etc. So the relationship has requirements. But I’m putting the cart before the horse…
The thing about the relationship with God is that He has instigated a relationship with man. When we disregard it or ignore it that is “high treason” and that is what makes it immoral.
All men are immoral. Including Christians. Our teaching isn’t that the church is full of wonderfully moral people (even though that’s the prevailing idea), but that we praise the One who is. Christians are not rewarded for fervent worship; we are rewarded with the ability to engage in it once we see the heart of our own injustice measured up against the Christ.
Unfortunately, there are far too many isolated discussions going on within each post for me to give adequate replies to each.
True…mostly my fault. Haha.
“It demonstrates a search and yearning for truth and justice within us.”
Learning and experiencing new things is what makes life so interesting after all.
“The hard thing is seeing it within our own life. I like to find it in others, but often I forget to even look for it within my own actions and within my own heart. But just because i don’t look, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.”
True. One of the most common things that people overlook is how they act in their own lives.
“Relationships require a number of things to operate properly: Trust, commitment, communication.. patience, dedication, etc.”
True. But having a relationship is not necessarily a moral or immoral thing. An orphan not having a relationship with his parents is sad, but not immoral. I’m of the position that morality is about whether something is right or wrong, not about whether you believe in something or not or have a relationship with something or not.
“I don’t know if your married, but if you are, imagine trying to add a second wife to your home. The commitment to the first wife is automatically nullified by your desire to add a second. This will not sit well with the first. The commitment to the first wife is automatically nullified by your desire to add a second. This will not sit well with the first. Commitment entails monogamy…”
I believe they did a show about Polygamy and adding on more wives that was called “Big Love”. While I don’t have experience with polygamy, and am much more into monogamy myself, the existence of polygamists leads me to believe that commitment does not necessarily entail monogamy.
“The thing about the relationship with God is that He has instigated a relationship with man. When we disregard it or ignore it that is “high treason” and that is what makes it immoral.”
I understand that from a Christian standpoint it is wrong to reject a relationship with God. What I don’t understand is why it is immoral. Is it because rejecting a relationship with God in general is immoral or that God has decreed rejecting a relationship with him is immoral or some other point that I’m missing altogether?
“All men are immoral.”
While it is true that all people do immoral things and have immoral thoughts at times, I think that in general people are more moral than immoral and that because of that people can live collectively in society and work together. While there may be bumps, sometimes HUGE bumps, in the road, man still manages to work together.
“Our teaching isn’t that the church is full of wonderfully moral people”
I know that this is true in a great many churches. While there are some extremists who preach that Christians are the best and only moral people, there are also humble Christians who recognize that they aren’t perfect and are merely trying to lead as good and moral a life as they can.
“but that we praise the One who is.”
There are a great many who argue that the Biblical God is far from moral.
“we see the heart of our own injustice measured up against the Christ.”
The general idea of God, at least the Christian God, is that he is a being that is perfect and all-good in every way. Undoubtedly, all people fall short of the concept of perfection in knowledge, power, and moral goodness. I’d have to say that there are likely to be very very few people that think they are as perfect as a God would be and that most people strive to improve and better themselves. Though perhaps I am a bit too optimistic when it comes to human nature, I’d like to think that most people are simply trying to do their best and live as good and as best a life that they can.
Good responses. Here is one I’d like to respond to. You said, “I understand that from a Christian standpoint it is wrong to reject a relationship with God. What I don’t understand is why it is immoral. Is it because rejecting a relationship with God in general is immoral or that God has decreed rejecting a relationship with him is immoral or some other point that I’m missing altogether?”
My short answer comes from an understanding that God as creator and sustainer of the earth created us for a purpose and a reason. By denying him we deny his purposes and strive for our own. It is saying that you are more important than him.
Kind of like polygamy. Man cannot serve two masters.:) By serving one we neglect the other as of lesser importance.
“My short answer comes from an understanding that God as creator and sustainer of the earth created us for a purpose and a reason.”
This still doesn’t say why disobeying God’s orders or not having a relationship with God is immoral. Are you saying that it is immoral to disobey God because he is the the creator and sustainer of Earth? And that it is immoral to not have a relationship with him because he is the creator and sustainer? I apologize if I’ve misunderstood, but to me this sounds a lot like, “You have to love, obey, and believe in God because he made you”.
“By denying him we deny his purposes and strive for our own.”
The Christian God is identified as being omniscient; because of this, even before God would have started creating the universe, he would have already known how every individual person would act and what each individual person would do during their lifetime. If God is omniscient and created everything for his own purposes and reasons, then it is inevitable that everything we do, think, and believe already goes to God’s plan. If God is omniscient then everything, every tiny detail of our lives, is already predetermined because God already knew from the very beginning how everything would play out.
Even if one were to ignore the fact that nothing could go against and deny an omniscient God’s plans and purposes, from what I can see, disobeying God shows nothing about morality. All disobeying God shows is that you don’t want to do what the God has ordered. Whether what God wants is moral or immoral is another topic altogether. To me, what makes an action moral or immoral, right or wrong, is the how the action affects others. Helping children learn and grow into good responsible adults who positively contribute to society and the world is obviously moral, while the avoidable killing of innocent children is obviously immoral. This is because of how these respective actions impact the children, their families, societies future, and the world as a whole. If God were to order a person to slaughter young innocent babies and they denied that request, then I would have to argue that the people made a moral choice; on the other hand, if the person had slaughtered the babies as ordered, then I would have to say that they performed an immoral action regardless of whether or not God had ordered it.
Buckeyenonbeliever,This is true because I read the bible for years only seeing what I wanted to see,but when I read the bible with an inquirying mind, I saw the bible what it really is, a work of fiction; totally erroneous full of hate and atrocities and contradictions. The bible is a horrible book which I threw in the garbage for it turned me into an atheist and now I am very happy person with a wonderful happy marriage thanks to reason.
In order to defeat the common Christian position it would seem that you must defeat the tenants for which the belief is based upon. Sure you could create an imaginery universe in which there are supposed “mirrored” results for an all-evil God but that is just it. That universe is an imaginary one. While you would most likely claim that Christianity is an imaginery belief to begin with (even calling the whole argument silly), since you are trying to show that there is not a good Creator, much more any Creator, would it not be better to argue for an actual univers? It seems that atheists are not burdened with expaining evil because. in some way, it just is because there is no God to relate it to. Yet, they still have to account for the problem of evil. To make claim that there is evil supposes that it has a nature that needs to be understood as well. Furthermore, if the claim is for objective evil then there is an objective good since evil is a perversion of good things. While the main thrust of the argument is to show that there is not a good God it does seem silly to argue using an all evil God. What’s the point? Is it just to prove existence or not? How then you resolve the problem? Trying to logically make God disappear will not restore goodness to the world. I think the argument is misguided since it is to prove that God is not good while the focus should be on why man is so evil for it is man that does evil. In history even it has been shown that some wickedness was a pursuit of good that went wrong. There is a moral law. I don’t think its a very strong argument to begin with to try and defeat the all-evil God by showing goodness and joy for the simple counter-argument is there. However, it does seem that there is stronger evidence for a theistic position because it accounts for the origin of goodness and the origin of evil giving proper diligence to both God and man respectively. Evil is an issue of man, not God. To question a God who is omnipotent and all-powerful is to make claim to a higher reason. I’m sure the entire world is curious to your response to all of life’s questions at that point.
“In order to defeat the common Christian position it would seem that you must defeat the tenants for which the belief is based upon.”
It would seem that in order to defeat the tenants for which the belief is based on, you would first have to prove that those tenants are sound.
“Sure you could create an imaginery universe in which there are supposed “mirrored” results for an all-evil God but that is just it. That universe is an imaginary one.”
And you can assume that God exists or that God is all-good without evidence or proof, but those are just baseless assumption.
“While you would most likely claim that Christianity is an imaginery belief to begin with since you are trying to show that there is not a good Creator, much more any Creator, would it not be better to argue for an actual univers?”
The point of Law’s argument was not to refute the existence of a God. But to refute the existence of specifically Craig’s idea of God.
“It seems that atheists are not burdened with expaining evil because. in some way, it just is because there is no God to relate it to.”
This assumes that God is a purely good figure to whom evil can be related to. In the first place what God does or does not want is not necessarily moral or immoral. It is simply something that the God wants.
“Yet, they still have to account for the problem of evil. To make claim that there is evil supposes that it has a nature that needs to be understood as well.”
From my understanding of what you’ve said thus far, your idea of what is evil is whatever God says it is. By the humanist definition, one of many different secular philosophies and viewpoints on morality, evil is any action or lack of action that causes an harm to the life, health, happiness, and/or quality of humans or society. There are many other secular philosophies and views on morality as well.
“While the main thrust of the argument is to show that there is not a good God it does seem silly to argue using an all evil God. What’s the point? Is it just to prove existence or not? How then you resolve the problem?”
As stated above, the primary purpose of Law’s argument was to refute Craig’s idea of God. Which included the characteristic of “All-good”. Thus, for the purposes of Law’s argument, refuting the existence of a God was not necessary. All he had to refute was a single key characteristic of Craig’s idea of God
“Trying to logically make God disappear will not restore goodness to the world.
And asserting that God is real does not make him real. Nor does anyone logically attempt to “make God disappear”. What they do is logically show that specific claims and logical arguments for God are unfounded and illogical.
“it does seem that there is stronger evidence for a theistic position because it accounts for the origin of goodness and the origin of evil giving proper diligence to both God and man respectively.”
Please present and point out the evidence. Furthermore, You assert that the origin of goodness and evil comes from God and Man respectively, however if I were to replace the word God with the word Fairies or aliens, then the origin of goodness is still accounted for and the claim is equally as valid.
“I think the argument is misguided since it is to prove that God is not good while the focus should be on why man is so evil for it is man that does evil…Evil is an issue of man, not God. To question a God who is omnipotent and all-powerful is to make claim to a higher reason. I’m sure the entire world is curious to your response to all of life’s questions at that point.”
Several points
(1) This assumes the existence of God and that all good comes from God. Both of which are unproven…
(2) How do you know what God thinks is good or evil? Your claiming to be able to correctly understand what the higher reason thinks and wants?
(3) In the Bible, God openly commands murder and rape as well as slavery, sexism, and genocide. Is all of this morally good merely because God says so? Is anything ok as long as long as God condones it?
(4) If you claim that God is good because his nature is good, where does God’s nature come from? If God created it himself, then what is good or bad is merely what God whims and can be changed whenever he decides to change his nature. If God did not create his own nature, then the morality in God’s nature is inherent in some way and thus God is not truly the author of what is good and what is evil.
(5) Life’s questions are worked on and answered as they come along. To think that one should know the answers to all of life’s questions immediately on the spot is to claim that someone has absolute knowledge. Claiming absolute knowledge is more a religious characteristic than an atheist characteristic.
Currentbaptist says: “Evil is an issue of man not God. To question a God who is omnipotent and all-powerful is to make claim to a higher reason.”
So your god:
1. Murders all the people of the world including men, women and innocent children save noah and his righteous clan.
2. Appoints a known and proven murderer (Moses) as his chosen one to lead his people.
3. Hardens pharoahs heart (nice free will) so god can inflict numerous tortures and plagues on him and his people to prove his sadistic point.
4. Kills the pharoahs army by drowning them.
5. Kills all the people of sodom n gomorrah including children
6. Kills some israelites for worshipping the golden calf BEFORE this commandment was revealed
7. Commands the israelites to commit genocide to countless tribes and makes sure his message is clear by stating to spare none, not man, not woman nor suckling child; not old nor young.
I could go on and on and on, but the point is made; there is no possible way any sane or logical human being could justify or consider any of these heinous acts of your god as good. Evil is an issue of man, not god? Please give it a rest. NO religionist has a leg to stand on spewing this type of bullshit. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
This is yet another statement you should be both embarrassed and ashamed you posted. You are too freakin stupid and brainwashed to even waste another second on.
I would like to present an oppositional argument against the strategy used by Stephen Law alluding to the impossibility for the existence of the all-good-God that Christianity favors. Hence, I would also argue in favor of the impossibility for an all-evil-god to exist. However, first, I want to define the concept of evil so that it may clear up the notions that we will be fundamentally addressing. Such definitions will clarify the impossibility for evil to be found as emerging from the intrinsically good God of the Bible. Finally, after concluding that total goodness is the very essence of God, I would like to touch on the sources of evil and how the God of the Bible has provided answers to oppose them and defeat them.
What is evil? Let us first state what it does to be able to define it by its concluding characteristics. Evil “frustrates human goods as goods benefitting the nonhuman world. . . The avoidable suffering of both man and beast is evil.” Evil is, therefore, defined by its diversity of expressions; it can be divided by types and instances which are generally summarized in the following two categories: natural evil and human evil.
Natural evil can be defined as the uncontrollable and disastrous behavior of nature causing such things as: tornadoes, earthquakes, tidal waves, hurricanes, etc. Diseases and deformity are also part of this category simply because they do not find their origin in human actions, but rather, they correspond to the aggressive behavior that nature occasionally displays.
Human evil, on the other hand, emanates from human behavior; whether it is using “a knife or a bomb, a pen or even the tongue.” Humans become instruments of evil when they tell lies, murder, and steal. Furthermore, humans can be the recipients of evil as they can also be lied to, killed or stolen from.” The extent of human evil reaches the point of cruelty at times. In fact, any man or woman can conceive evil in their hearts even if the chance for it to be exteriorized is null. These are intentional evils; however, unintentional evils exist as well. Examples of unintentional evil are: natural death, accidental injury caused while driving, flying, or riding horses, medical mishaps and more. All of these types of evil may find their origin in human negligence, but the consequential “harm that comes from them is not caused intentionally.”
What is exactly the problem of evil? Epicurus, the classical thinker, defined it with these words:
“God either wishes to take away evils and he is unable, or he is able and unwilling; or he is neither willing nor able, or he is both willing and able.”
Then he tries each possibility which in fact helps one understand with more clarity the essence of the issue under the Christian presupposition of the irrefutable existence of God.
1. If god is willing and is unable, he is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God.
2. If he is able and unwilling, he is envious [meaning: evil], which is equally at variance with God.
3. If he is neither willing nor able he is both envious [meaning: evil] and feeble, and therefore not God.
4. If he is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils or why does he not remove them?
The fourth premise is the only one that is fully validated in Christianity; it is also the only one that separates God from evil respecting, therefore, the essence of God which is total goodness. This final and conclusive statement serves to rebuttal the hypothesis exposed by Stephen Law as he alluded to the impossibility for the existence of the all-good-God that Christianity favors. And in conclusion, this last premise formulates the right questions concerning both the real sources of evil, and it also formulates the need to understand the reasoning behind the lack of immediate action against evil from God.
The following line of reasoning is crucial to understand the Christian position on the matter; positions which I am favoring in my argument. I will use an excerpt from Douglas Groothuis’ argumentative work against atheistic positions. It will serve as the basis from which I will draw the essence of my rebuttal against Stephen Law’s argument.
“Atheism is not burdened with attempts to explain evil in relation to God. Evil, for them, just exists in a godless world. The problem of God vanishes for them. However, in fact, the “problem does not so vanish for two main reasons: for an atheist to speak of the problem of evil, the atheist must believe that objective evil exists.” To justify this claim, this person needs to adequately explain the existence and nature of evil. In order for objective evil to exist, objective goodness must exist as well, and good must exist in a more fundamental way. This is because evil is a corruption or twisting of the good. Evil does not exist in and of itself. In the words of C. S. Lewis, one can say, then, that “no one does evil simply because he or she takes it to be evil.” The badness of an action “consists in pursuing [good things] by the wrong method, or in the wrong way, or too much.”Therefore, even if the person who is doing so may be ‘desperately wicked,’ that “wickedness, when you examine it, turns out to be the pursuit of some good in the wrong way.”
In other words, “evil is the privation of the good; it is parasitic on the good, and not a substance in and of itself.” “While a person or an event may be truly evil (the evil is not illusory), that evil could not have existed without an antecedent and original good.” That original good is found in objective evil which in fact is found only in God. “Objective moral goodness, therefore, is best explained by the character of a creator God who made the universe good and gave humans the capacity to recognize the good as such.” However, man trying to achieve his selfish purpose often takes the initiative to twist what is originally made good from God and corrupts it.
The previous definitions bluntly assert that God is the source of goodness, and that he cannot and therefore will not originate evil from himself simply because his essence is goodness, or better, his essence is “objective goodness.”
Now, two questions remained to be answer: where are the real sources of evil? ,and how can one understand the reasoning behind the lack of immediate action against evil from God?
The Bible clearly states concrete answers for those questions. First, as mentioned before, evil can emanate from humans and nature. Now, someone might ask if God is good and nothing he does is evil, how is it that the humans he created are able to perform evil? The Bible affirms that man was created good and that by acting in disobedience to God, evil emerged. Let us remember that evil is the corruption or twisting of the good. Man disobeyed God’s will, rebel against him, and therefore, he corrupted the good of his human essence making him subjected to the evil nature which from then on dwelled in him. Hence there is a close connection existing between evil and sin. Evil is the willful disobedience and corruption of the good that characterizes God’s will; and sin is the consequence that clings to the disobedient perpetrator. Sin is the sting; evil is the conflictive rebellious action.
Now, what is most important to emphasize is the fact that God has provided a way to be cleansed from the consecuence of evil; He has provided a way to blot out sin. Therefore, the Bible does provide the main method and action God made available in order to confront evil. He had established that the wages or consequences of sin were death. Therefore, only death could satisfied justice and provide a payment and solution to the stain of sin. This payment and substitutionary atonement was satisfied by Jesus Christ as when he died on the cross. His death satisfied justice and provided the necessary payment due because of human sin. However, His atonement and the forgiveness of sins derived from His wonderful action, can only be enjoyed through faith in Him, His sacrifice and His resurrection. Whoever believes in him shall not perish but will have eternal life (accomplished only through the forgiveness of sins).
Now, a different question may come to the scenario: “if he has already dealt with evil by putting his son on the cross, why are men still suffering the consequences of evil?” First, evil remains a prominent factor of life because humanity, as a whole, has not come to honestly believe in Jesus and his substitutionary atonement. And secondly, God has allowed time so that many more come to the knowledge and faith in His son. In the mean time, both humans and nature will continue to suffer the consequences of sin and evil. Nature itself was also affected by sin and evil, hence its evil reactions which I have explained before. However, the Bible asserts that there will be a time in which God will cause all evil so cease. He himself will reign on the earth through the person of His son Jesus. Jesus, who resurrected from the dead, will one day return and re-establish the perfect order that was corrupted by the consequences of sin.
In conclusion, whether you atheist believe or not, Christianity does provide an answer to the problem of evil. In fact, it also provides the reasons and sources of evil; and additionally, it provides a wonderful solution. This solution is found in the person of Jesus Christ.
I think you missed the boat entirely: THERE’S NOBODY UP THERE.
Um…what do you call satan then?
(It means what you want it to mean, is what you’re saying.)
Oh goody – you’re going to bandy about a book that NOBODY here (besides you wankers) accepts as any authority whatsoever. What a refreshing change!
/sarcasm off
Not having them about might just be a good step.
Slinging some Groothius, ey?
Not happy w/simple plagiarism, ey?
Actually, this is a standard religionist misquote:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
- Epicurus
‘Irrefutable’? Them’s fighting words, bub. Too bad they ain’t yours.
Yeah, another jackass who doesn’t understand his own fairy tales.
Hey, your myth declared himself ‘a jealous god’. So I call bullshit.
He’s still not there. Nobody is.
Presuppositionalist nonsense.
WTF? Are you kidding? That’s not an answer. That’s a cut-’n-paste apologetic non-answer.
You (or Goofius) can dance around & repeat yourselves exhaustively, but no point has been proven AT ALL.
Oh please. That was anything but definitive. It was a meaningless tautology.
You mean your NON-argument.
So…you swipe his garbage w/out attribution, but attribute other shit to him? Nice.
That’s right, we’re not burdened w/anything of the sort.
Or gods. Or goddesses. Or any other supernatural folderol.
True, but not absolutely.
It’s been explained. No supernatural critters need apply.
& objective gray areas exist as well. Typical false dichotomies are being posited here.
It’s specific to the species.
Oh yeah, ’cause nobody here’s EVER heard this crap. Oh wait – yes we have.
I’m pretty sure Ramirez reveled in it. So do most psychos.
This still DOES NOT prove the supernatural.
Blah, blah, blah – ‘the road to hell is paved w/good intentions.’ Yeesh, got any more flowery rhetoric that states the effin’ obvious?
Gonna skip to the meat of it:
Who doesn’t exist.
WOW – you don’t get out much, do you? Have you taken a purely objective look @ the mess around you? Obviously not.
Setting up your children to fail from the get-go. Yeah, real sound parenting there. (rolls eyes)
HAHAHAHA! oh, quit fronting. Book of Job? Noah’s Ark? Are you kidding me?
It’s real easy: NOBODY’S UP THERE.
I refuse the authority of your book, which leaves you in a sticky wick.
We die anyways, so that’s no help. No solution either.
So, he came down among us, & sacrificed himself to himself to correct a mistake he made?
Jesus never existed either.
Horse manure.
Yeah yeah, John 3:16. As if nobody’s heard that crap before either.
& it’s all a pack of lies. Unprovable, unfalsifiable. Unrepeatable. It’s destitute crap, utter sophistry. Your book is wrong on every level: that alone makes all this useless.
“Humans become instruments of evil when they tell lies, murder, and steal. Furthermore, humans can be the recipients of evil as they can also be lied to, killed or stolen from.”
Lying and stealing are not necessarily evil. For example: Lying – Was lying to protect run-away slaves on the underground railroad or Jews in Nazi Germany evil? Stealing – Is Robin Hood an immoral character for stealing from the rich despite giving the money to the poor?
“To justify this claim, this person needs to adequately explain the existence and nature of evil.”
Their are already several secular philosophies that delve into and explain the nature of evil. Humanism is one I find particularly interesting.
“The extent of human evil reaches the point of cruelty at times…In the words of C. S. Lewis, one can say, then, that “no one does evil simply because he or she takes it to be evil Therefore, even if the person who is doing so may be ‘desperately wicked,’ that “wickedness, when you examine it, turns out to be the pursuit of some good in the wrong way…While a person or an event may be truly evil…Let us remember that evil is the corruption or twisting of the good.”
These statements are contradictory. Cruelty is defined as “callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering”. Are you saying that Human evil can be intentional because a person can enjoy doing evil or that evil is unintentional because no one means to do evil? Are you saying that people can be truly evil or that upon examining people that you think are evil the examiner will find that the evil person was really in the pursuit of good in some way?
“However, man trying to achieve his selfish purpose often takes the initiative to twist what is originally made good from God and corrupts it.”
If God is omniscient then he KNEW that the way he made man would lead him to disobey him. He knew this and thus knowingly created evil. He could have made man differently, without the by-product of evil, but chose not to.
“The previous definitions bluntly assert that God is the source of goodness, and that he cannot and therefore will not originate evil from himself simply because his essence is goodness, or better, his essence is “objective goodness.””
I find that saying that Christian God is the “original good” who is free from evil in every way is rather contradictory to his actions in the Bible because he commands and supports evil on many occasions. For example he commands and supported – genocide, the institution of slavery, rape, murder, etc.
“The Bible clearly states concrete answers for those questions.”
I’d have to say that the answers in the Tanak and Quran to those two questions are about as “concrete” as the ones in the Bible…
“Now, someone might ask if God is good and nothing he does is evil, how is it that the humans he created are able to perform evil? The Bible affirms that man was created good and that by acting in disobedience to God, evil emerged.”
So the bible is saying that Man had faulty wiring? Faulty wiring comes from mistakes in creating something…
“Man disobeyed God’s will, rebel against him, and therefore, he corrupted the good of his human essence making him subjected to the evil nature which from then on dwelled in him…Sin is the sting; evil is the conflictive rebellious action.”
Then are you saying that it is right to punish the son for the sins of his father? Or in our cases, that it is right to punish distant descendants for the sins of an ancestor that occurred thousands of years ago?
“Therefore, the Bible does provide the main method and action God made available in order to confront evil. He had established that the wages or consequences of sin were death.”
Earlier you said that “natural death” is an “unintentional evil”. God created and instituted an evil to fight an evil? I’m only human, but it seems to me that two wrongs don’t make a right and two evils don’t make something good.
“His death satisfied justice and provided the necessary payment due because of human sin. However, His atonement and the forgiveness of sins derived from His wonderful action, can only be enjoyed through faith in Him, His sacrifice and His resurrection. Whoever believes in him shall not perish but will have eternal life.”
So it’s not forgiveness, but conditional forgiveness. Reminds me of the “Mob Boss God” comparison by Matt Dillahunty. God can save you, but you have to worship him first. And if you don’t then he’ll break your legs and have you tortured for eternity in hell or simply end your existence forever. It doesn’t sound too all-good…
“accomplished only through the forgiveness of sins.”
God is all powerful and can do whatever he wants. It seems like something all powerful could have forgiven in a much simpler, less bloody and less threatening way.
“First, evil remains a prominent factor of life because humanity, as a whole, has not come to honestly believe in Jesus and his substitutionary atonement.”
Then I fail to see why bad things happen to good people who also happen to believe earnestly in Jesus.
“And secondly, God has allowed time so that many more come to the knowledge and faith in His son.”
If God had provided conclusive proof for the existence of Jesus as a historical person and proof for existence of the biblical Jesus who performed miracles, this statement would make more sense. It seems downright cruel and lazy to not do so and then punish people who don’t believe because they either don’t see the evidence or were born into another faith.
“In the mean time, both humans and nature will continue to suffer the consequences of sin and evil. Nature itself was also affected by sin and evil, hence its evil reactions which I have explained before.”
…Why does God punish everything and everyone for the original sins of two people? That does not make any sense. If Allan commits a crime, should his brother Bill be punished for the crime as well? Should Allan’s descendants be punished? Should Allan’s house, car, and all the property he owns be set ablaze and destroyed? NO! The only person and thing that should receive punishment for the crime is the perpetrator of the crime, Allan.
“However, the Bible asserts that there will be a time in which God will cause all evil so cease.”
So you are saying he could fix everything but is simply biding his time… That he is willing and able to fix everything, but that he’s got more on his schedule…
“Jesus, who resurrected from the dead, will one day return and re-establish the perfect order that was corrupted by the consequences of sin.”
It would have been nicer if he had done it the first time…
“In conclusion, whether you atheist believe or not, Christianity does provide an answer to the problem of evil. In fact, it also provides the reasons and sources of evil; and additionally, it provides a wonderful solution. This solution is found in the person of Jesus Christ.”
The answer that you say the bible proposes is not really a good answer that makes any sense whatsoever.
(1) It scapegoats man as the source of evil for the mistakes God made in creating things.
(2) Furthermore, God punishes everything and anything and not just the perpetrator of the crime for the crime which is not just or rational.
(3) I fail to see how not believing in Jesus is an immoral action that’s worth condemning and why God would sacrifice Jesus to save people if it could only save people if they believe in Jesus. The all-powerful God couldn’t have fixed things in an easier, less-bloody, and more noticeable way that saves most, if not all, people?
(4) You also say that God could come at any time but is merely biding his time in order to get more people to worship him which could be better achieved by his providing evidence that either he or Jesus exist. It doesn’t make sense to want people to believe in you but then not provide evidence for your existence because they have to believe in you through “faith”. All that means is that God is condemning people born into other faiths and people who examine evidence to hell, and that only the lucky that have been born into Christian families or Christian areas and never question what they believe have a chance of salvation. That does not sound all-good to me. That sounds immoral and irrational.
It seems that this argument assumes that good and evil are mutually exclusive to morality and in turn reliant to the existence of a god. Explain why moral issues are not able to be defined by society and not religion? The absence of a god will not in turn cause all of civilization to collapse in on itself. Many religions have come and gone that defined right or wrong but within the transitions between them the morality has basically remained. It has changed and progressed with time but that is due to innovations by man, not god, that have affected our perception of the world. Just one example is the advent of ever efficient machines that finally led to the uselessness of slaves to get work done. Far reaching conclusions to try and tie together an ever dwindling argument for an antiquated belief system is at best, laughable. As eloquently this post was it lack perspective on reality. We can focus in on certain substance within arguments but please maintain the scope of what is being discussed.
Buckeyenonbeliever you certainly made your points clear to these theists but they are too brainwashed to see it,how pathetic these people are. You know this fictitous bible very well,of course it is about a fictitous god.
Ken, all one has to do is actually read the frickin bible to see how evil their god truly is. Problem is most christians are only taught or preached to from what I call the miller lite version, the N.T. I had a born again christian actually tell me that when he is talking to young people or agnostics he tells them to read the gospel of John to show how the word is god. This, he says is all that a christian needs, god is love.
When asked about the O.T. he states that it is only good for a history lesson. This is the mindsight we deal with, refusal by christians to deal with the horrific, bigoted, mysoginist, evil and demented side of their god. They need yahweh to get their jesus, but seem to wash their hands and turn a blind eye to him when it no longer suits their purpose.
This is the position they are forced to take when they let Paul take over the religion and establish his rules. Paul is their religious get out of jail free card. Many of the jews of that time I believe were tired of all the rigid laws, dietary regulations and the simple fact that they believed their god had forsaken them. That tends to happen when you believe in an imaginary skyman. Just read what paul’s letters require for salvation. Gone are all the dietary laws, gone are the laws of yahweh and the old testament. Gone also is the belief that yahweh was to restore the israelites to their promised land.
And what do we find in place of all these old rigid dogmas? All one has to do now is believe in jesus and you will be saved and spend your time in heaven. Do you need to do any good works to be saved? No says paul and the christians. Do you have to be accountable for your actions? No says paul and the christians. Believe in jesus and ALL your sins will be forgiven. Take two people and list in one column all the good and positive things a person can do in life such as, being a good person to friends, family and fellow man. A good husband,wife, father or mother; donate and voluteer to charities and try and make the world a better place by being a good and honest citizen. In the second column list all the worst things you can think of that a person can do such as steal, physically abuse, rape and murder people. Now most rational, clear minded and non delusional people would say that column 1 represents the good and moral person and if there were some magical heaven, surely this person would be eligible to go there. By the same token, column 2 represents all that we loathe and abhor in humanity and if such a place as hell existed, certainly this person would go there. Well lo and behold we have the “great” religion of love and mercy known as christianity which says hold up a second, not so fast. Did the person you label as “good” believe in jesus? No? Well then he is banished to hell for eternal damnation. And this person you label as “evil”, did he believe in jesus? Actually, yes he did. Well my friend this person will ascend to heaven and live in eternal happiness with our lord and savior.
Now tell me that this is not THE most ridiculous, scurilous, evil and freakin heinous system of justice the world has ever had the displeasure of being subjected to.
Does God Exist – An interesting conversation between a Science professor and his students
http://goldensilt.blogspot.com/2011/12/does-god-exist-interesting-conversation.html
That’s idiotic. No wait: it’s fucking stupid is what it is. Science doesn’t have the same problems. Asking someone if they’ve seen evolution happen is the same moronic crap the creationists use. Evolution is fact: faith is fiction. Nobody teaches we came from a monkey – we share a common ancestor. Darkness is NOT the absence of anything: nothing is the absence of anything. Darkness is the absence of light.
I don’t care who had this conversation – both participants were morons.
This story has already been debunked as an urban legend. It’s posted on over 600 sites and has classic elements of an urban legend. For example…
(1) In many cases the poster swears this is a true story.
(2) The pages either make no mention of what particular school this took place at, or what the name of the professor is or give different names of the school and professor that conflict with the other posts of this same story.
(3) Many of the minor details change subtly with each retelling. There are also several different endings to the story. In this particular version, the student sits down amidst pandemonium. In some versions the professor rushes out of the room in embarrassment. One version concludes “… The student got an A in the class.” Another has the professor go crazy and rush the student, only to die of a stroke.
(4) Every character in the story is a caricature, starkly contrasting “Good, persecuted student” and “Evil professor”.
It’s an obvious urban legend. An interesting read, but it also falls apart once dissected because…
Science does prove that the professor has a brain, or are you saying that the facts that every human or animal body that has ever been dissected and analyzed has always had a brain, that countless experiments have demonstrated that the brain controls an organism’s ability to move and speak and reason, and that an animal with a damaged brain becomes an inanimate mass of carbon aren’t proof that the scientists is a living and breathing human being with a brain?
Furthermore, evolution has been tried, proven, and witnessed in laboratories.
Hi everyone.
Just wondering about something that I hope all of you can help me with. When I was young, I was taught that there was no such thing as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Sasquatch, vampires, or aliens from another planet. My parents couldn’t prove to me that any of these things were real, so therefore they did not exist. Yet, from time to time we watched scary monster movies, or Santa movies like Miracle on 34th Street. I couldn’t understand then, and I can’t understand today, how people who don’t believe in certain things, like Santa Claus or God, would spend so much time speaking of things they claim not to believe in. In my opinion, when you only have a short time on this planet, why would any of us spend one second discussing or watching something that you believe isn’t real?
When someone spends so much time claiming they don’t believe in God, it actually makes it look like perhaps they really do believe, as it has consumed their thoughts enough for them to spend valuable time writing blogs, creating websites, holding conferences, etc. Why? I surely didn’t waste my time looking into Big Foot over the years, or spending hours debating his nonexistence with those who believe that Big Foot exists! It DOESN’T make any logical or intellectual sense. Of course, actions do speak louder than words, and to me it looks as though many who posts to this site, and sites like it, vehemently arguing that God can’t exist, may actually believe more than they want to admit.
I read a post today that suggested that talking with theists is akin to dealing with children. Perhaps she is right, for the scripture states that we should inherit the Kingdom of Heaven like that of a small child.
I also wonder why any post that questions atheism is removed from this site? If your convictions that God does not exist have enough strength, why is that posts to this blog suggesting that your beliefs are wrong, are removed? Again, perhaps your time spent dwelling on this subject reveals that your theophobia may be a sign that you really do believe.
The reason these folks spend so much time on the subject is because there is a VAST amount of evidence that contradicts what is stated in all of the “holy” books (the biblical Genesis is especially amusing to me) and they are outnumbered by brainwashed religionists who think that because their holy book says it, it MUST be true. It takes a lot of time to try and present unbiased, outside facts to someone who has been conditioned into believing and not reasoning. I imagine it’s frustrating having to present and repeat these facts over and over to a group of people who outnumber you and usually try and and get you to “believe” as well.
And i’m sorry to say that your position –
vehemently arguing against the existence of god = actually believing in god
-is pretty ridiculous.
To me, if the bible is the 100% accurate word of god (which it would have to be), then all it should take is ONE logical fallacy or proven contradictory fact to prove it untrue. Otherwise, it’s either false or that god is a deceiver. And there are PLENTY to choose from. Read and research. Or read any of the blogs on this site.
Well I don’t have anyone dictating the laws and direction of my country under the assumption that Big Foot or Santa Claus exists. I don’t have anyone telling me what kind of person I am, or where I’ll end up after death, because I don’t believe in Big Foot or Santa Claus. Because I see more things wrong with religion than correct, and see not only my rights as well as others trampled upon because of a christian agenda, I then deem it necessary to disagree and argue my case against the facts surrounding a belief in a higher power.
The predominant religion in the USA is christianity and those who follow it are the ones in power making illogical decisions based on their beliefs. When those decisions infringe on the views of those who believe something different, atheism or another religion, then I take offense.
Your assumptions that just because we voice a concern over god doesn’t make us closet christians. If we believed at all, in any way, the logical thing to do would to play along with christianity “just in case.” I don’t believe in any thought of god or gods because the claims have no substance and cannot be proven in a logical way.
Now your comment that we should inherit the kingdom like a kid, following a belief blindly, without question, has time and time again proved to be dangerous. Not only with religion (especially christianity) but with dictators, kings, and even general politics. Your following a person’s “idea” on how things should be and not the consensus of accepted facts. This has led to mass killings and devastating practices.
So to respond to your final comment that fear of theism is a sign that I may actually believe, don’t be ridiculous. First off, it is not a fear it is a disagreement and belief that all religions, current and past, are rooted in myth and should be perceived as myth. God is not real therefore does not dictate anything in existence.
Jaharp26, I agree with you for I was raised in a bible believing home but there was no questioning the bible just believe.I was the only one in my family who began to use critical thought on the bible and discover there no reality in the scriptures it is all fiction.
OK, help me out here. Seems to me that the best one can do philosophically regarding the existence of God is agnosticism, since one cannot prove a negative, i.e., there is no rational way to disprove the existence of a god. This is not a defense of religion at all but I think a reasonable person would have to concede that there is a finite probability that there is what would by our standards be a diety out there somewhere. Do atheists deny the possibility that there may be a culture out there somewhere that is infinitely more advanced than us? I sometimes think atheism and religion are just two sides of the same worn coin. Seems that reason might lie somewhere in between, no? I do not believe that we can know, with any degree of certainty, whether a god does or does not exist. How do atheists define god, anyway? Responses greatly appreciated.
Let’s dispense w/the niceties – philosophy & religion are NOT remotely on the same playing field. Philosophy explores the ontological significance of our existence: religion only pretends to have answers.
& no, I don’t need to disprove it. Onus is on the believer.
A. the word is ‘deity’ not ‘diety’, &
B. ‘concede’ is too tricksy – is it possible? There’s a thin astronomically small chance something that ridiculously narcissistic as a ‘gawd’ is out there.
Don’t be ludicrous. Do you have evidence? Solid evidence? If you do, I’m up for looking at it. If you don’t, idle speculation isn’t even remotely close to being philosophical.
Yes, in the same way my NOT collecting coins makes me a numismatist.
No.
What anyone believes is irrelevant. This is an appeal to ignorance. You have evidence? No? Then why should I entertain an ignorant, morally bankrupt concept like this ‘gawd’ character?
Have you tried looking it up in the dictionary?
God is the English name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.
Yeah well you sound like Yet Another One of those Stealth Evangelists, the folks who bombard this site trying to milk a concession of any sort from the resident atheists, & then try to worm the ‘idea’ of ‘gawd’ into people’s skulls via use of logical fallacies that religious folks do so love to use.
RandyK,
Let’s start out a little farther back. We’re discussing the existence or non-existence of one or more gods in our universe or, if you prefer, outside it and ruling over it. Any god(s) who just put things in motion and left or died is not worthy of discussion since she/he/they are no longer relevant.
So, we’re looking into a physical property of the universe.
Philosophy is the wrong subject for this. This is a scientific inquiry. As such, in order for there to be any reason to give credence to the god(s) hypothesis, there would have to be some hard, physical, scientific evidence.
There is none.
Therefore, at least some of us atheists, simply fail to consider the hypothesis. When a shred of evidence is found for the god(s) hypothesis, it will get all the consideration it deserves. At present, the amount of consideration such a hypothesis deserves is exactly the same amount of consideration we give to the existence of fire-breathing dragons, i.e. none.
As for how atheists define god, we look in a dictionary, same as for any other word.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god
A universe in which such a creature existed would be demonstrably different than the one in which we live. Laws of physics would occasionally be suspended as one or more gods intervened. As yet, no such exceptions to the laws of physics have been observed.
To Randy k; 12/24/11 @ am 1:18
So Randy, your preference to this predicament’s to give the answer of, agnosticism?
Only because you say you can’t prove a negative, or to say, there’s no way to disprove the existence of gods?
Sir., you’re the one trying to persuade everyone here how your invented story’s true, only because you said so, & without any creditable evidence brought forth for confirmation. Correct?
Since that’s the case, then you’ve already dispoven your own story & aren’t to be taken seriously on such matters. Sorry.
Probability of a deity out there somewhere?
No. If there is, then provide the evidence, please?
An advanced civilization?
Yes.
A civilization of gods?
No. For no civilization would be around that long.
Let’s keep on the topic, please?
You’re supposed to be on the supposition of gods, not the Q continuum.
Religion & atheism are the same?
No. And you’ve illustrated nothing to say otherwise.
Define gods?
0
I don’t believe in synthetic religions.
Well. Hope I’ve helped you, & have a good year.
Erebus
For the John 3:16 mythers, here is your true god:
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth
7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man
7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry and, died. 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive and they that were with him in the ark
Genesis 6:7 / 7:4 / 7:21 – 7:23…………. Bible verses you will not see any religionist quote, wear on their t-shirt or paint on their eye black.
Law’s argument is entirely unconvincing. Its fundamental inaccuracy lies in the ethics the reader must adopt to be a part of Law’s scenario. Law states that man defines good and evil, thus man’s definition of good and evil in the Good-God universe is the same as in the Evil-God universe… i.e. in the good universe, murder is morally evil, in the evil universe; man still considers murder morally evil but the Evil-God does not. However, I would argue, a fundamental tennent of faith is that God is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil (ethics) thus in the evil universe murder would in fact be good, and thus the evil-God would in fact be a Good-God based upon his morals. To introduce an outside observer which further qualifies which God’s morals are good and which are evil makes the observer (philosopher/reader) God, then reiterating the skeptic’s initial question (why do evil things happen in a universe — multiverse? — created by a Good God) makes even less sense as an argument against God.
To answer the inevitable antagonistic response: “disproving this argument does not prove God”; I will mention the fundamental tenants of science to which most athiests would point to as the source of their reasoned disbelief in God. Science is based upon two stipulations, 1) Natural phenomenon have natural explanations, 2) an explanation of a natural phenomenon can never be proven true rather it can only be disproven if observations are made to contradict the explanation (e.g. Scientific theory). Applying this logic to the philosophy of religion (or atheism): by your own logic, nice try ; )
There are those who do not or will not condemn the evil genocide perpetrated on innocent men, women and children by Hitler. Moreover, these people wish to indoctrinate their children to ‘raise up’ a new generation in these beliefs to return to the old ways of their leader who they worship. These people are known as fascists, neo-nazi’s and sociopaths.
There are also those who do not or will not condemn the evil genocide perpetrated on innocent men, women and children by God. Moreover, these people wish to indoctrinate their children to ‘raise up’ a new generation in these beliefs to return to the old ways of their leader who they worship. These people are known as Jews, Christians and Muslims.
And then there are those who do not make any distinction between the two groups listed above and see both as morally repugnant and dangerous. Moreover, these people wish to educate their children to use reason, logic and commonsense to ensure genocide, racism, bigotry, misogyny and hatred are not part of their belief systems. These people are known as humanists, nonbelievers and atheists.
You may label me as a humanist, secularist, atheist and even godless if you wish. I will wear that badge with honor and with head held high. For if being labeled as such means that I will call evil that which demands the moniker, and never shirk from this responsibility as a human being; then I am okay with my place and my label in the world.
Can you say the same?
Buckeyenonbeliever,
I strongly agree with most of what you have said and applaud the message.
However, I have an issue with your analogy that will probably take me many words to express.
There is a reason for Godwin’s Law (which you escape by not being the first to mention Hitler or the nazis on this thread). Here’s a link in case anyone is unfamiliar with this ancient rule of net debating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
The reason is that the holocaust was truly a unique event in history. Though Hitler was only the second largest mass murderer in history, second to Stalin, there was an element of institutional cruelty unmatched even by the crusades, inquisitions, and other ethnic cleansings of the world. Gas coming out of showers, ovens, forcing children to choose which parent will be shot before their eyes, medical experiments such as how many sterilizations can be performed during specified times, how many times the bones of 3 year olds can be be broken before they will not heal as compared with 3 month olds, and others are simply beyond compare.
Any comparison to the holocaust is potentially insulting to the remaining survivors and family members of the victims of this particular event as the actual holocaust is inherently made to seem less severe by any comparison to any other event in human history.
Second, Hitler was a particularly odd case. The Catholic church treated him as a Catholic in good standing right up to his death. While only half of his 12 million victims were Jewish, there is no hint that the population of the countries he occupied were 50% Jewish. Couple this statistic with the yellow star requirement and the bulk of his rhetoric and there is no doubt that he preferentially targeted Jews. Further, he was writing his own bible to remove the Jewish influence in the existing bible.
That said, he also made some very derogatory remarks about the church. So, it is by no means clear whether his was a case of religious killing or killing based on the ideology of fascism. Religion certainly played at least some part.
So, for future arguments, I would say to keep the argument you have made but select someone other than Hitler for your example of a case of non-religious genocide. You might try replacing him with Stalin or Pol Pot, both of whom killed for the ideology of Communism. But, whoever you choose as your non-religious mass-murderer, please pick someone other than Hitler.
Thanks. And thanks for otherwise making an excellent point.
All arguments are only as sound as the initial assumption they are based upon. C-delta conductor states: “ a fundamental tenement of faith is that God is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil…” Therefore he concludes that Laws argument is invalid because he a human is declaring what is good and what is evil. BUT who tells us what God’s intentions are? Why other humans of course. Some declare the Bible is “Gods word” and tells us what God’s intentions are. YET it is full of contradictions, errors and has been used to justify what most sane people would agree are terrible atrocities, from rape, to genocide, slavery, to total destruction of all living things. Then you have to ask is it God’s word as revealed in the Bible, in the Koran, in the Upanishads, in the Tao teh Ching, in the writings of Greek philosophers or modern humanists? For a human to declare one is and others aren’t Gods word is a matter of belief not fact and no basis for a sound argument or proof.
To Blair Scott, Krystalline Apostate, Ken, Misanthropic Scott, Buckeye nonbeliever, Latin atheist gal,
& anyone else it may concern or cares to read this:
Like many atheists, I sometimes feel very alone, meaningless, without purpose, because where I live atheists are few & far between.
I stumbled upon this site & had seen the wonderful intellectuals lighting the postings with (clear facts ) making your cases with intense convictions towards the opposition, & I must say you know your stuff.
I mean, wow!
The way in which some would through in the gauntlet & the comradeship that ensued ensured any with their incontestable book a quick & memorable defeat.
I don’t have the level of education that everyone here has, as I’m a little slow, but it doesn’t keep me from trying.
However, I can never except someone that cloaks themselves under pretence with three words so no one can question them as Humphrey did.
So please forgive me? I feel as if I have a family now & was only concerned with helping my family members.
It was never my intention to harm any one of my fellow ((Atheists, Anti-theists, & if I’ve done that in any way, then I hope you’ll except my most sincerest apologies, & I’m at your mercy.
Your friend, the hound from Hades
Cerberus
Cerberus,
I don’t officially have anything to do with this site, other than that I read and comment on it. But, for my part, welcome you old dog!
I’m glad you’re finding ways to connect here. I often feel very bad for atheists living in the highly god-infested portions of the country. We can certainly make you feel less alone knowing that there are so many atheists around. The ones who comment on blogs are likely only a very small subset.
I’ve been lucky working as a programmer in New York City. NYC has a reasonable number of atheists and agnostics. Programming as a profession also seems to specifically select for it, being a profession that requires logical thought. So, I’ve been very lucky to generally be able to express my opinions even in the work place. Or, perhaps I’m just a loud, boorish, and opinionated asshole. Or, more likely both are true.
I do understand that most atheists are not so lucky. It’s one of the reasons I blog. My hope is to improve the memepool and increase tolerance.
However, regarding feeling meaningless and without purpose, I will say that atheism for me is a very empowering viewpoint. I do not rely on the external validation of an imaginary friend in the sky to give my life meaning.
My life has exactly the meaning I choose to give it.
Read that again. It’s one of the things I truly love about my personal relationship with reality. I get to choose what meaning my life has. I get to fill my life as I choose. It may be harder to embrace your atheism in the god-infested backwaters of this once great non-nation. But, if you do so, I think you will find your life more meaningful than many around you. Yours will be the meaning associated with being a free human being (or free three-headed dog, if you prefer) rather than an enslaved sheep.
As for your education level, I’d say two things. First, I highly doubt the atheists on this site will judge you on education rather than critical thinking, which is strangely not taught in schools. Second, if you feel you want to learn more, schooling is not required.
Much can be learned from independent reading.
There are also a great many science books out there now that are written for a general audience (i.e. lay people like me). I have some of them listed on my books page on my own blog. I’m sure there are many others. My local library will order books that it does not keep in stock, by request. You may want to look into how the selection is at your own local library and ask whether they will order books for you. Ours even has a way to order the book online, be notified by email when it arrives, then I just pick it up. This can save a lot of money over buying a large quantity of books.
I would suggest starting with either Gould (almost anything) or Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker may be better than God Delusion) for evolution and possibly Hawking’s Brief History of Time for a physics overview up to and including relativity and quantum mechanics.
http://misanthropicscott.wordpress.com/books/
Of course, that reading suggestion is only if you want to feel more educated. If you’re happy where you are, that’s fine too. You’ve already got better critical and veridical thinking skills than most.
Of course, the most important thing really is that you are not alone in non-belief. There are many of us out there. And, atheism has a rich history that predates Christianity, though possibly not Judaism.
Dear Cerberus,
Your insights are much appreciated and valued…No atheists where I live either but I’ve learned to appreciate the natives until they begin to cannibalize…I live in a tiny Texas town where I was told that if I joined the local Baptist church and the gun club and was seen chatting at the VFW Post, I could become sheriff notwithstanding a Hispanic last name and the naturalization papers. Well, five years of hollering in a Baptist choir earned me an awful fight with a groping deacon which ended up with someone getting kicked in the shins (the deacon) and someone getting kicked out of the church (me—not the first time I’ve been removed from or left a religious organization/cult). I’m still in the gun club but I found out that I’d never be elected sheriff so I gave meaning to my life by becoming a school teacher/school librarian which in these parts are jobs filled by glorious church ladies: my 24/7 colleagues…Yes, there’s a Hell but they’ve learned right quick that they’ll never win a puking contest with a buzzard… I enjoy reading this blog because the only time I interact with other atheists is when I go to Austin or during summer vacation when I leave the U.S. with my daughter. I hope you keep posting here where no one bites and there’s no censorship. Peace, :-)
P.S. What Misanthropic Scott said about libraries is very important…also ask about their electronic resources, you’ll be surprised at what you can find.
Dear Misanthropic Scott, and Latin atheist gal:
I’m 46 & living in a small town in WV
Believe me when I say that I think you two are so inspirational I thank you so much for your kind words, you’ve no idea how happy you’ve made me feel.
& if I’d any way in doing so, I’d hug you both! ;)
Latin atheist gal :
To have been through what you have, & still pick yourself up, brush yourself off, move on to become a teacher, & the information you contribute to the site is a wonderful testament to your character, & truly inspiring.
You are indeed a beautiful gem my friend & never forget that.
I don’t know you personally, but from what I’ve been reading I wouldn’t say you’re a buzzard.
You have a very beautiful & intellectual mind.
That’s if it’s okay for me to say that, as wouldn’t want you & beat the hell out of me too.
Peace my friend
& now to the Misanthropic principal:
Thanks kind sir, I needed that.
Why this old dog’s feeling much happier now!
Wag tail.
I’ve taken your advice, as you were right about the meaning of life & what we choose to make of it.
& I’m going to order those two books you’ve recommended.
Although I’ve studied some on evolution, relativity, quantum machanics, & particle physics, but I don’t know the full aspects of those topics yet.
With that being said, I do think the universe is very fascinating, beauty & complexities of it, the wonder of stars & how they fuse atoms to make different elements.
Truly amazing.
How four hydrogen atoms make one helium atom.
Two hydrogen atoms are explled in the form of energy, & the other fuse to form the helium atom, by gravity alone is truly astounding.
This all makes the universe our true mother because without it the earth would never be possible.
I’d love to discuss the topic of (black holes) with you sometime.
Perhaps when I can make the time & log into your blog, we can discuss the matter?
Your insight in that topic would be most appreciated.
Oh, & atheism predates both Christianity, & Judaism, simply because we’re born with it.
To give you an example on the subject at hand I’ll state just the facts.
I was three &already asking my mother guestions about God, for which she couldn’t provide me any real answers.
& for questioning her book, & her god, I got a slap in the face.
It comes down to this.
As a child, you look for your parents for guidance & will except their information as literal truth.
so when they take you to their church, & you learn their religion the same as you would in any school.
What does that imply?
It implies that you were conditioned, that religion was absent from you, so you’re a born atheist.
And no gods need apply.
Well. I’ll leave you both now, & again,, I thank you so much for your kind words as it was truly meaningful, &appreciated greatly.
Your old hound, & best friend
Cerberus
bravo,
Ps. I’ll be back!