Quote from: John MorrowAnd who are the people who shouldn't be reproducing?

Hmmm, how about people who've abused or neglected children? Or how about people who've used drugs or alcohol during pregnancy and messed up their babies? How about people with habitual violent criminal records?

Those'd be good choices, AFAIC.

Quote from: Dominus NoxHmmm, how about people who've abused or neglected children? Or how about people who've used drugs or alcohol during pregnancy and messed up their babies? How about people with habitual violent criminal records?

Are you going to prohibit them from having children?  Is it irresponsible, cruel, and even sadistic to let them have children since we can stop them?

But that's a side question.  I'm talking about everyone.  

If God is irresponsible, cruel, and even sadistic to put people on a planet like this, aren't parents equally irresponsible, cruel, and even sadistic for bringing children into the world?

Quote from: SigmundI had a good friend who had spent all his adult life in the hell of abusing drugs and alcohol. He ended up in a rehab, and struggled with every fiber of his being to break free of this addiction. He finally succeeded, and was clean for a little bit of time when he was diagnosed with cancer, and within 6 months was dead. The sad part is, this is one of the least tragic of the many tragic stories I have personally witnessed relating to the suffering of addiction. If these tragedies are all part of "the plan", then I want no part of it.

God's plan is to give zoe (spiritual life) and give it abunantly. That 'gift' is purchased by the blood of Christ and freely offered to all people. There is not, never was and never shall be any person for whom Christ did not give his life. It is Dogma that 'no one is saved outside of the Catholic Church' but    CCC 847
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
   Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. It's tragic that your friend only enjoyed his freedom for a short while, but he was right to struggle for it none the less.   No one in the world can change Truth. What we can do and should do is to seek truth and to serve it when we have found it. The real conflict is the inner conflict. Beyond armies of occupation and the hecatombs of extermination camps, there are two irreconcilable enemies in the depth of every soul: good and evil, sin and love. And what use are the victories on the battlefield if we ourselves are defeated in our innermost personal selves?

- Saint Maximilian Kolbe (patron saint of addicts)

I think that the people who want to debate the ethics of childbearing should start a new thread.

It's somewhat tangential to the main topic of this one (as parents are limited mortals, not God), and this thread is already too damn long.

Quote from: AkrasiaWell, I'm not sure what 'omnipotence' could mean other than 'all powerful'.  It's clear that Aquinas (and pretty much any Christian thinker that I'm aware of) is committed to the view that God is indeed 'all powerful'.  There are problems with the concept, obviously, and exactly what it involves can be debated (e.g. most Christians don't think that God could have selected different 'logical truths', whereas Descartes and most Muslims do think this).  As for 'benevolence', that is supposed to follow straightforwardly from God's goodness (and the fact that 'God is Love', etc.).

Ok, just so we're clear that 'omnipotence' is more nuanced than 'all + power' and 'love' more nuanced than 'no suffering.'

QuoteI'm familiar with the doctrine of 'divine simplicity'.  I don't see how it any way renders the POE argument ineffective...

(It's not an attack on the PoE. I mentioned 'divine simplicity' to exclude the case where God creates a conjoined-twin clone of himself. I suppose I should also mention his perfect unity to exclude the case where he creates an army of clones.)

Quote...or why the question you pose above is the only natural one that follows.  Or, more precisely, why the above question wouldn't be supplemented by a critical thinker with: 'Given that God created something other than Himself, why did He choose to create something so horribly imperfect and filled with suffering?'

That's the point: they could. Every other formulation of the PoE is a member of the superset "why would God create anything at all, knowing that his creations must be separate from and less perfect than himself?"

QuoteWell, beauty aside, only 7 percent of leading scientists believe in a 'personal god':http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

But beauty was my point and if you had read about Erdos you would have seen he wasn't exactly orthodox. (His pet name for God was S.F. - supreme fascist!) Still despite his antagonism towards God, he found it useful to speak of beauty and truth almost interchangeably.

QuoteI do think that atheism is 'well justified' -- or certainly far better justified than any alternative view.   (However, even if I only thought that it was slightly more likely that atheism was true than theism, a belief in atheism would still be comparatively justified.)

The POE argument can be formulated as either a deductive argument or an inductive one, as explained here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

For a discussion of one inductive version of the POE argument, check out:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-evi.htm

Yes, I saw those earlier, but the inductive arguments all contain a step that goes from "nothing that we know of" to "so it's probably not true."

QuoteFor Aquinas, we can know things (including things about God) through both reason and revelation.  Things we can know through reason alone include the fact that there is a God (a perfect being).  However, we can only know that God is the Christian God by means of revelation.  By definition, things we can 'know' by revelation are things that we should believe in it, but for which we cannot provide a rational justification (although they must be compatible with reason).

Well said.

QuoteSo faith concerns things beyond the scope of rational justification. This doesn't seem like a controversial view about faith.  Moreover, it doesn't rule out the possibility that one might instead decide to conform one's beliefs to what reason can justify (and hold those beliefs as strongly as the available justifications), and refrain from believing anything on the basis of 'faith' (as the atheist endeavours to do).

That's unsurprising to me because from a Christian standpoint people DECIDE to believe (or not) as a free choice. Either they follow their conscience (revelation) or make a shipwreck of their faith. (Again, that's the Christian viewpoint. YMMV) What I personaly found surprising is your claim that you have found such a strong rational justification for atheism that intellectual honesty requires you to be an Atheist. But, if you actualy decided of your own free will to be an Atheist (by choosing to ignore your concience/revelation) then that fits into my worldview. (I.e. it's not outside my philosophy)
:shakespeare:

Quote from: John MorrowAnd who are the people who shouldn't be reproducing?

The people who 1) aren't ready for children and/or 2) can't support children.

Quote from: AkrasiaI think that the people who want to debate the ethics of childbearing should start a new thread.

It's somewhat tangential to the main topic of this one (as parents are limited mortals, not God), and this thread is already too damn long.

Why? Afraid it'll interfere with iteration 32 of:

Dead Guy B said statement A, proving that benevolence means no suffereing
Nuh-uh!
Dead Guy A said statement Q, proving that God doesn't exist
Bull!
Dead Guy C said statement D, proving that I ramble too much about dead people
I agree!

Nobody is saying anything new here. Perhaps if they were having a seperate topic mght be worthwhile, but as it is a slight change of pace would only save this thread from circling around itself in a perpetual orbit of bigwordisms.

Quote from: James McMurray... Why?  ... Nobody is saying anything new here...

I agree that not much new has been introduced into this thread lately (I keep contributing because, well, I started it, and because I just can't let some things go).

But that seems all the more reason to start a new thread.  Just let this one fade away.  It's already a monstrosity.

Also, there might be some people who would be interested in the 'ethics of childbearing' topic but who won't even know that it's being discussed here because it is buried on page 44 of this thing.

Point taken.

Quote from: malleus arianorum… Every other formulation of the PoE is a member of the superset "why would God create anything at all, knowing that his creations must be separate from and less perfect than himself?" …

Well I don’t see how this escapes the basic challenge posed by the POE argument at all.

Quote from: malleus arianorum…
 … he found it useful to speak of beauty and truth almost interchangeably.

Well, okay, whatever.    Nothing really rides on this, as far as I can tell, and I’ll happily concede that many mathematicians find mathematical truths ‘beautiful’.

Quote from: malleus arianorum…
 Yes, I saw those earlier, but the inductive arguments all contain a step that goes from "nothing that we know of" to "so it's probably not true."

I’m not sure what you mean by this.  The ‘step’ (i.e. conclusion) of inductive versions of the POE is the result of assessing the likelihood that a deity that corresponds to the traditional monotheistic one could exist.  Inductive versions of the POE argument hold that, based on the available evidence, we have very good reasons to think that such an entity does not exist (just as, analogously, we have very good reasons to think that phlogiston doesn’t exist, or that the sun doesn’t go around the earth, etc.).  It’s not simply denying a proposition (‘the Christian God exists’) because there’s no evidence to support its truth (although, ceteris paribus, that is a good reason not to believe a proposition), but rather we have positive evidence (and arguments) for thinking that that proposition is false.   (So obviously I disagree with Aquinas that the ‘truths of revelation’ are compatible with what reason can show.)

Quote from: malleus arianorum…
What I personaly found surprising is your claim that you have found such a strong rational justification for atheism that intellectual honesty requires you to be an Atheist. But, if you actualy decided of your own free will to be an Atheist (by choosing to ignore your concience/revelation) then that fits into my worldview…

What is it to ‘choose’ to believe something?  Could I ‘choose’ to believe that astrology is a good guide to my future, or that invisible pixies constantly fly about me, or that Thor and Loki really exist, and that thunder is caused by their battles in the skies?  Could I ‘choose’ to believe these things even though all of these things would be absurd things to believe?  Could I choose to believe that the earth is flat, or torturing innocent children is morally praiseworthy?

I think one ought to believe what can be justified (and to the extent that it can be justified).  If I guide myself on the basis of that fundamental norm, I am not ‘free’ to believe in astrology, pixies, Thor and Loki … or the Christian God.  I am not free to believe these things because it would be irrational to do so.  Really, I find the Christian God to be (at best) marginally more plausible than Odin or Zeus.  (In this respect, I agree with Thomas Jefferson, who once remarked that someday the myth of the virgin birth would be viewed to be as plausible as the myth of Athena leaping fully armed from the head of Zeus. Or something to that effect – I can find the correct quote if you’re interested.)

What is frustrating about (at least many) religious people is that they try to limit their beliefs to what can be rationally justified in many aspects of their lives (e.g. they take medicine when sick, they believe that the earth is round, etc.), but when it comes to religious claims, their epistemic standards for believing something drop away.  

Finally, I didn’t ‘ignore my conscience/revelation’ in coming to the conclusion that atheism was the most rationally justified metaphysical worldview available.  My conscience is fine – indeed, I would have ignored my conscience had I chosen to believe something that reason tells me is extremely unlikely to be true.  As for ‘revelation’ I’ve never experienced it, let alone ignored it, if by ‘revelation’ you mean some kind of supernatural experience.

Quote from: fonkaygarryHoly fuck, people.  Do any of you actually play RPGs or have you just decided to jack off here instead of in the bathroom?

Go read another thread if you don't like it bitch.

Quote from: AkrasiaI think that the people who want to debate the ethics of childbearing should start a new thread.

I wasn't debating the ethics of childbearing, per se.  I was using the ethics of childbearing to illustrate the ethics of creating people and bringing them into an imperfect and often cruel world, and whether such an act was inherently irresponsible, cruel, and even sadistic, which is the charge being leveled at God for doing pretty much the exact same thing.  If it is really irresponsible, cruel, and even sadistic for God to put people into a world like this, then it should be equally irresponsible, cruel, and even sadistic for parents to do the same, and I'm trying to see if anyone will take ownership of that claim.

Quote from: AkrasiaCould I 'choose' to believe that astrology is a good guide to my future, or that invisible pixies constantly fly about me, or that Thor and Loki really exist, and that thunder is caused by their battles in the skies?  Could I 'choose' to believe these things even though all of these things would be absurd things to believe?  Could I choose to believe that the earth is flat, or torturing innocent children is morally praiseworthy?

Would any of these things make your life or the lives of the people around you any better?

Quote from: John MorrowI wasn't debating the ethics of childbearing, per se.  I was using the ethics of childbearing to illustrate the ethics of creating people and bringing them into an imperfect and often cruel world, and whether such an act was inherently irresponsible, cruel, and even sadistic, which is the charge being leveled at God for doing pretty much the exact same thing.  If it is really irresponsible, cruel, and even sadistic for God to put people into a world like this, then it should be equally irresponsible, cruel, and even sadistic for parents to do the same, and I'm trying to see if anyone will take ownership of that claim.

I think that you misunderstand the POE argument (any version).  It holds, very roughly, that there is far too much suffering in the world for God to be omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent (however, he might be two of these things).

This does not mean that everyone in the world lives bad lives or suffers to the extent that they would be better off not existing at all.  It doesn't even require that most people do!  Rather, all the POE argument requires is that the amount of suffering that clearly does exist is incompatible with a loving, all-powerful deity.

Independent of the biological drive to reproduce, presumably parents hope that their children will live 'good' lives, and the fact that some people indeed do suggests that this hope isn't always unwarranted.  

In short, your analogy doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonWould any of these things make your life or the lives of the people around you any better?

I think people live better lives when they hold true beliefs (or strive to hold true beliefs) even if that doesn't make them as 'happy' as they otherwise would be.  Sure I might be happier if I believed that every attractive woman I met really liked me, but that would be a false belief (certainly based on the available evidence).  And I certainly couldn't 'choose' to believe it in order to be happy, anymore than I could 'choose' to believe that astrology is a reliable guide to my future (even though lots of people seem to 'like' astrology and 'take comfort' from it).

Quote from: AkrasiaI think people live better lives when they hold true beliefs (or strive to hold true beliefs) even if that doesn't make them as 'happy' as they otherwise would be.

And that I think highlights the differences here. Personally, I'd rather be happy and convinced I'm right with a harmless delusion (like a false religion) then right and miserable. YMMV.