It's true that you can NOT disprove the existence of god, any god from Marduk to allah, but then again you can NOT disprove the flying spaghetti monster, the invisible pink unicorn, etc.

One of the things I like about aethiests is that they can't/don't claim that their actions are justified by some invisble magic giant, or that they can do ahything they want, then ask their invisible magic giant for forgiveness and suddenly it's all OK, and now the person who they wronged must forgive them "or else" on juddgement day. Yes, I've known religious people with that type of attitude, and  it really sucks.

Quote from: YamoWhy all this talk about the hypothetical properties of a diety when none of it is testable and falsafiable?

Well, if it were testable, then there wouldn't be so much to talk about. It's discussed, because discussion is all we can do about it.

Quote from: JimBobOzWell, if it were testable, then there wouldn't be so much to talk about.

If it was testable, it wouldn't be God.  "The Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao" and all that...

Quote from: James McMurrayRight, except for your acceptance of the problem of evil, which assumes the existence of evidence (God's knowable motives). That evidence is not only not present, it's not available via induction because all the evidence points the opposite direction…

This makes no sense.  What do you mean “all the evidence points the opposite direction”?

Anyhow, you keep harping on the notion that the ‘problem of evil’ argument requires complete knowledge of God’s mind (or motives, or whatever).

I’m sorry, but this is simply false.  I’ve taught this argument for many years to first year students at Stanford University and Trinity College, and they seem to grasp this fact after it is explained clearly a few times.  Why are you having such a hard time with it?

Look, I’ll try one more time.

The argument posits only the following:

1.  The established monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) all attribute certain attributes to God (aspects of God’s mind/plan that He has ‘deigned to explain’).

2.  Suffering exists.

That is it!

The reason why the ‘problem of evil’ is such a compelling argument -- an argument taken seriously by religious philosophers and theologians throughout the centuries -- is because it operates on the basis of the very same conception of God that they endorse.

Nobody -- seriously, James, nobody -- who has struggled with this argument, religious or anti-religious, has claimed that it requires complete knowledge of the mind of God.  

Quote from: James McMurrayPresumably we can understand those parts that He deigns to explain.

Quote from: James McMurray… you've yet to see the simple fact that the problem of evil requires assignment of motives to a being whose motives cannot be understood.

You’re contradicting yourself here.

Look, as I have explained many times already, the main monotheistic religions all claim that God HAS ‘deigned to explain’ some of his motives.

So sorry pal, you can’t have it both ways.  And the “problem of evil” argument works ONLY with those ‘motives’ that the main monotheistic religions all claim that God has revealed.

Quote from: James McMurraydo you want to change the topic to the validity of physics instead? I'll have to abstain from that particular topic, as otherwise I'll make a fool of myself pretty quickly.

You’ve already demonstrated a remarkable ignorance of basic logic, philosophy, and theology.  Why should you be shy of doing so with regard to physics as well?

(Yes, that was petty.  But I’m growing weary of your inability to understand basic logic.)

Quote from: James McMurrayIt's not?

The ‘problem of evil’ argument is a reductio ad absurdum.  The argument you wrote is not.

Quote from: James McMurrayBecause for the problem of evil to be a viable argument you have to be able to know what is nbest for everyone at all times.

You keep saying this.  And it keeps being FALSE. :rolleyes:

If this point made any sense, I can assure you that Aquinas, Al-Gazli, Leibniz, Maimonides, et al., would have made it already.  Sorry, James, but you're not smarter than those guys.

Quote from: RPGPunditAkrasia, let me mirror Spike's comments that I find it deeply annoying that you seem to be equating "I can poke holes into certain very specific christian theologies" to meaning "I can prove God doesn't exist!!". ...

And let me mirror my comment (already made many times):

Quote from: Akrasia... I agree that the 'problem of evil' argument is aimed at a very specific target, viz., the three main monotheistic religions (as traditionally understood).  Since atheism includes rejecting those religions, it makes sense that I, as an atheist, would want to explain why (i.e. what reasons I have) for rejecting Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

As for those other 'belief structures', tell me about them!    I'd be happy to critically evaluate those on a case-by-case basis.  A single argument (as I've been at pains to explain many times already) can only do so much.  Fortunately, so long as arguments are mutually consistent and compatible, there is no limit to the number of rational arguments we can make!

In short, your expectations for a single argument strike me as unrealistic.  But I'll happily critically evaluate whatever other 'belief structures' you like!

Edit: Anyhow, I'm happy to give you other arguments!  I've provided one downstream.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenNo.

Because you missed a premise:

2.5: An omnibenevolent entity would, by their very nature, view the removal of suffering as a greater priority than any side-effect of said removal.

And that's where the strongest counter-argument lies; that a necessary side-effect of removing suffering might also be to remove meaningful choice, and that an omnibenevolent entity might actually value the capacity for meaningful choice to be vastly more than the value for a humanity that does not suffer.

See C.S. Lewis in "The Problem of Pain" for a much better-phrased version of this argument.

Nice try Levi, but I already dealt with this argument when I explained why the "free will" defense does not provide an adequate refutation to the "problem of evil" argument.

In a nutshell, while the "free will" defense might help justify the necessity of "moral evil" (suffering caused by the free choices of individuals, and/or sufferieng necessary for the free choices of individuals), it cannot explain or justify the existence of "natural evil".

Quote from: James McMurraySource?

I can't be arsed to dig through my Aquinas books or track this down, but fortunately a useful link has already been provided:

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonSorry mate, but it is. This is a fairly good start.  If you want I can also dig up stuff from the Roman Catholic Catechism ...

Quote from: Spike... I just think that if you base your atheism purely on the rejection of a single faith it's a damned hollow atheism indeed...

I’ve already said a million times in this thread (okay, maybe only 3) that the ‘problem of evil’ argument is NOT the only argument why I am an atheist.  

I merely mentioned it as an example (one argument among many) to help illustrate why atheism requires no faith.

I could have also explained why, for example, the Buddhist conception of the self/soul is incoherent, why the Christian/Jewish/Islamic conception of omnipotence (‘If God can do anything, can He create a better God than Himself?’) is incoherent, and so forth.  

But given how badly the ‘problem of evil’ argument has been misunderstood or mangled in this thread, I’m somewhat relieved that I didn’t.  

Not to mention the fact that I just don’t have that much time to waste.  (But I do have some …

Quote from: SpikeWell, I've already named them, but I'll do it again….

Yeah, yeah, I’m well aware that there are other religions out there.  I was curious what, specifically were the beliefs you wanted me to address.  I had hoped that the reason for this would be obvious, given what I’ve explained about the nature of arguments.

Also, I find some of the comments that you make about particular religions (especially Islam) highly implausible, or at least subject to serious debate (your account of morality in Islam ultimately reduces to the rather pathetic resolution found in the book of Job -- “Might Makes Right” -- something Islamic philosophers like Ibn Tufayl found highly unsatisfactory).  But frankly, I just can’t be arsed to get into that here, since I think Islam is hopelessly implausible for too many reasons to even begin discussing here.

So anyhow, here is a pretty general argument.

We have two possible explanations for everything in universe:

1.  An explanation that relies on a purely naturalist ontology (i.e. an explanation that posits solely a ‘naturalistic’ or ‘physicalist’ metaphysics; nothing exists that cannot, ultimately, be explained by the ‘laws of nature’).

2. An explanation that combines a naturalist and supernaturalist ontology (i.e. an explanation that posits supernatural entities, such as God or gods, angels, souls, pixies, or whatever, in addition to everything else).

Do we have any reason for preferring 2 over 1?

Well, to make a long but pretty straightforward story short, no. Engaging in some basic, very general abductive reasoning, we can see that 1 is all we need.  So we have no reason to go around positing the existence of unicorns, pixies, or gods.  (Actually, a stronger argument exists that naturalist and supernaturalist explanations are fundamentally incompatible, but I won’t get into that here.)

Quote from: JimBobOzWell, if it were testable, then there wouldn't be so much to talk about. It's discussed, because discussion is all we can do about it.

That also seems to be true of string theory, but that shouldn't prevent us from using all the tools of reason at our disposal in evaluating the theory under consideration.

Quote from: James McMurrayEven Christian belief structures (the honest ones anyway) don't claim that God is omnibenevolent (at least not in the way that would require suffering be abolished). The idea that God allowed suffering (Christ on the cross) for a greater good (salvation of mankind) shows that He believes suffering to be necessary at times.

IF God is concerned with the 'greater good' he is benevolent -- and if He is concerned with the 'greater good' of everything, he is omnibenevolent.

But if He can not realise the 'greater good' without causing suffering (babies born with painful spinalcord disorders and then dying after a few weeks of intense agony; people dying slowing with cancer; etc.), then He's not omnipotent.

For crying out loud, you guys think that the 'problem of evil' argument is weak, but can't even make a point without contradicting yourselves!  No wonder you're having so many problems with basic logic.
:rolleyes:

Quote from: AkrasiaIF God is concerned with the 'greater good' he is benevolent -- and if He is concerned with the 'greater good' of everything, he is omnibenevolent.

But if He can not realise the 'greater good' without causing suffering (babies born with painful spinalcord disorders and then dying after a few weeks of intense agony; people dying slowing with cancer; etc.), then He's not omnipotent.

For crying out loud, you guys who think that the 'problem of evil' argument is weak, but can't even make a point without contradicting yourselves!  No wonder you're having so many problems with basic logic.
:rolleyes:

If you take a picture of a parent punishing a child and show it to a stranger with no context, the stranger will come to the conclusion that the parent is evil. The Parent is punishing the child for running in the road with out looking. The Child does not do so again, saving his life. The Parent's actions are good, but without understanding the context, the viewer cannot understand the situation.

For the goal of a greater good, God allows suffering.

Personally, I think the Omnibenevolent conclusion is unsupported. God did a fair amount of punishment, pain and destruction throughout the Old Testament.

In the end, you have a supernatural sky fairy that you can neither prove nor disprove. I am sorry you are so committed to disproving God but there is no way to do so definitively. The argument of evil, much like the argument of contradictions in the bible, are based on a desire to disprove God against a faith in God's existence. The argument with such people is futile even if it was sound.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltIf you take a picture of a parent punishing a child and show it to a stranger with no context, the stranger will come to the conclusion that the parent is evil. The Parent is punishing the child for running in the road with out looking. The Child does not do so again, saving his life. The Parent's actions are good, but without understanding the context, the viewer cannot understand the situation.

For the goal of a greater good, God allows suffering.

What part of omnipotence do you not understand? :confused:

If God is really 'all powerful', then He could accomplish his goals (viz. making sure that the Child does not make the same mistake again) without suffering.

Isn't that something that an all powerful creator could do?  If not, then he's not 'all powerful'!

Quote from: HinterWelt... Personally, I think the Omnibenevolent conclusion is unsupported. God did a fair amount of punishment, pain and destruction throughout the Old Testament...

Um, yeah.

The whole question is how this 'pain and destruction' is compatible with God's goodness -- which is asserted in both the OT & NT.

This whole line of discussion is somewhat ridiculous.  :rolleyes:

Feel free to ask you local rabbi, priest, imam, or reverend whether they think God is perfectly good.  

Quote from: HinterWeltI am sorry you are so committed to disproving God but there is no way to do so definitively.

I'm not trying to 'disprove' 'definitively' anything.

I'm trying to show that, sans faith, the most rational thing to believe is that there is no God (in the Christian/Jewish/Islamic sense).  

Quote from: HinterWeltThe argument with such people is futile even if it was sound.

A sound argument is, well, TRUE.  (All premises are true + valid argument = TRUTH.)

Given that there are people who still believe that the earth is flat, etc., I do not doubt that even sound argument can fail to convince.  

But people are often extremely stupid.  

Quote from: GunslingerAkrasia, I think my problem with the "argument of evil" is that it's an argument that exists in a philosophical vacuum.

Given that the most important Christian, Islamic, and Jewish philosophers for many centuries have considered this a very challenging argument against their religious convictions,  I don't think that it 'exists in a philosophical vacuum'.

It has been a part of those religious traditions for centuries.

Quote from: GunslingerScience has not proven or disproven the existence of a God.

Science has also not proven or disproven the existence of Zeus, Odin, or invisible pixies.

So what?  My argument has to do with rational belief in light of available evidence.

Quote from: GunslingerIt's hard for me to believe that a logical argument has proven the non-existence of a God when the Scientific Method which is an application of logic has not.  

Gunslinger, you're positing a contrast here that does not exist.

Do you consider string theory a 'scientific theory'?  Well, if you do, I have rather distressing news.  It cannot be verified by standard scientific methods.  Rather we must rely logic and rational principles to evaluate it.  

But ... the same is true of the scientific method itself.   :eek:

Quote from: GunslingerYou claim that atheism doesn't require faith...

No more than the scientific method!  


(Unlike Christianity, or Islam or... etc., which require belief despite, and often inspite, of  evidence)

The point, Akrasia, is that the religious answer to the "problem of evil" is provided by Augustine. Oh, and by Job...

You cannot know what is good or evil from god's point of view. God is beyond you.  Who the fuck are you to presume to know why?

You are saying that "omnipotent" and "omnibenevolent" mean that God should act the way you think he should, and that's no different than an ant thinking God should act the way the ant thinks he should. Or a worm. Or Nox.

Our capacity to understand is limited by our condition as human beings.

Hell, a MUCH better argument against Judeo-christianity than the "problem of evil" argument is the fact that in Judeo-christianity God acts all too human.

In any case, your choosing this as your personal Alamo is not looking well on you; you say you aren't but it still looks as though you're gloatingly arguing that by having disproven the Judeo-christian god (which you haven't, incidentally), you are somehow disproving God. Precisely the kind of attitude I was talking about when I talked about "fanatical atheists".

Its a pretty obvious example of irrationality to believe that you can somehow absolutely know that God does not exist.  Its what in certain circles is called "stupid atheism".  Its just as dogmatic as Christianity, and usually born of a deep-seated resentment to having had to go to Sunday school or not being allowed meat on friday, or having been spanked by a nun or fondled by a priest or something...

RPGPundit

Quote from: AkrasiaWhat part of omnipotence do you not understand? :confused:

If God is really 'all powerful', then He could accomplish his goals (viz. making sure that the Child does not make the same mistake again) without suffering.

Isn't that something that an all powerful creator could do?  If not, then he's not 'all powerful'!



Um, yeah.

The whole question is how this 'pain and destruction' is compatible with God's goodness -- which is asserted in both the OT & NT.

This whole line of discussion is somewhat ridiculous.  :rolleyes:

Feel free to ask you local rabbi, priest, imam, or reverend whether they think God is perfectly good.  



I'm not trying to 'disprove' 'definitively' anything.

I'm trying to show that, sans faith, the most rational thing to believe is that there is no God (in the Christian/Jewish/Islamic sense).  



A sound argument is, well, TRUE.  (All premises are true + valid argument = TRUTH.)

Given that there are people who still believe that the earth is flat, etc., I do not doubt that even sound argument can fail to convince.  

But people are often extremely stupid.  

Sigh. This is like arguing with a fundamentalist. All your premises are true to you. Your faith in these statements makes your argument correct.

Let me point out the base problem with and example from above.

You equate Good = Omnibenevolent. These are not equivalent. One can be good without be good without being Onmibenevolent. That term even bugs me. All Benevolent? If a creature is omnipotent and omniscient his motives are beyond our capabilities to understand. You obviously reject this line of reasoning.

So, without faith, the very concept of God is moot. So why the hell do you care? I have read this thread and the pathetic article and it has all left me rather cold. I do not believe in the Christian God nor do I care if others do. I do not need to validate my beliefs by disproving someone else's faith.

Sad.

Bill