Taking the fight to the real issue

Post Reply New Topic

"
Those who do not believe will do the kinds of things we have seen here,"

Include in the list loading the dice by defining terms and setting rules of engagement ["prove God exists without adducing evidence not verifiable by materialistic science".

On the problem of evil:

Passing lightly over the frequently observed statements from the atheists that evil is not an absolute but culturally or individually defined [since I disagree it would be wrong to lean on these]:

Do we HAVE a firm and shared definition of evil? One that can be quantified and qualified so that around the world Evil research programs will show consensus enough to build a peer reviewed journal?

Or is evil what I - or U or A or B or whovever - consider negatively impacts me or someone for whom I have sympathy?

If the latter, the "problem of Evil" is, I fear, a non-problem. How many will label my parents evil because in 1950 I was spanked for thwacking my sister, or because my sister never got a pony for Christmas? We considered ourselves negatively impacted. let me tell you. My mother for special offenses occasionally applied a hairbrush, and when my oh so very quiet father took on the discipline - the shock value was worse than the punishment.

Thing is, at least for JudeoChristian believers, the existence of evil is not an issue. That is an atheist problem. David rants about his miseries and his enemies with the best of us - but he come back to realizing God is in charge.

We are in - or if you prefer, it is no nevermind to me, we are - physical protoplasmic bodies in an entropy afflicted universe. If the goldfish tank is not to be filled with scum death is necessary, and to avoid premature death we need sensitive nerves, and the job of nerves is to feel pain, and death is not click-the-switch easy, some suggest not even for trees, though I do not know that as fact.

So before we decree a Problem of Evil, let us first DEFINE evil, then show that the vil so defined is not a necessary concomitant of existence in this universe, and then show [using please ONLY data available to materialistic science] the said evil is not analogous to the nasty taste of Aspergum - which my evil spanking parents SAID was supposed to make me better.

Say - I'm still here. Maybe that horrid aspergum DID make me better.

91, you should probably keep up with "modern science" if you're going to say crap like this.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/11/29/have-physicists-found-echoes-from-before-the-big-bang/

i know, i know. i'm so "closed minded" to be trampling on your "science doesn't know everything, therefore my particular brand of magic is obviously true" stance.

There have been lots of attempts to knock off the standard model. So far no theory has manged to overturn the consensus. Also if you had cared to read the statement I previously made, you would have noticed that the reference I used posited an absolute beginning for this or any other universe, through which ours spawned. The concept of an eternal universe has been utterly smashed by modern cosmology and it is highly unlikely to be restored to its former place.




Alvin Plantinga has already shown God and Evil not be logically incompatible. As to the assertion that evil disproves teleology; I cannot hold to that, since the amount of evil in no way effects the amount of teleological evidence.

I probably went a bit far in my last post AG, if I offended you, you have my apologies.

GPS is part of daily life. GPS transponders are found in millions of cars, trucks and airplanes.

String Theory has virtually no practical impact. It is "just a theory" at this point supported by little or no empirical evidence. This has caused some physicists to throw up their hands in disgust with string theory. See the book: -The Trouble With Physics- by Lee Smolin for example. Smolin used to do research in String theory, M-theory and quantum loop gravitation but he seems to have given up on String theory.

ruveyn

For my ancestors in 1350 +/- 23 the potato was not part of daily life. I repeat, GPS is not part of my daily life or my daily car, no matter how many millions.

Whatever. I am sure another example could be found with a little effort.

I read Smolin's book - some fascinating stuff there, not least for me the parallels between String Theory in Physics and TG in linguistics.

The physics of it - I leave to the physicists. Atoms or quarks or strings, I still cannot do the SciFi thing and phase my particles so as to walk through a wall - but then by the same token I don't fall through the floor to the core.

My body is fine with Newton.

In any case, it is safe to say [UNLESS science and art do sell out or get repossessed, to cross reference THAT discussion] that in 50 years physics will look quite different. A science that does not make itself obsolete periodically is not trying.

Maybe by then I will have GPS [I will ask to be buried with a unit so I can know where I go].

Ruveyn - I repeat, GPS does not touch the core of my point.

No, Plantinga showed that Mackie's argument failed, not that God and evil were logically compatible. There are still on-going arguments and modifications to arguments. In fact, there was an argument by a philosopher named Nathan Hanna that held to the logical problem of evil based upon something called moral luck.


I didn't make any assertion like that in this thread, however, I'd disagree. The reason I'd disagree is that "evil" can be seen as a design error, so a large number of design errors can impact how we view the idea of design, making it more or less plausible. If there are a lot of egregious design errors, then we end up with solid evidence that despite whatever oddity we have found, the oddity suggesting design, designers of the sort imagined are implausible.

I have read this argument, the issues is premise 7. It supposes a world exists in which God, free will and evil could exist without it being logically contradictory that the level of evil existed. This argument is based on Mackies supposition that such a world exists. The problem being is that Mackie and through this, they are taking on an unsustainable burden of proof. Based on his own argument Mackie and Hanna would have to demonstrate that such a world could exist without being logically incompatible. Essentially they are presupposing this contention to be solved.




The issue I have with this position is that it is making a probability judgment in isolation. You are essentially attempting to judge the problem of evil within only its own context; let me demonstrate how this is flawed. Suppose Joe is a student at the University of Colorado. Now suppose that we are informed that 95% of University of Colorado students ski. Relative to this information it is highly probable that Joe skis. But then suppose we also learn that Joe is an amputee and that 95% of amputees at the University of Colorado do not ski. Suddenly the probability of Joe’s being a skier has diminished drastically. Similarly, if all you consider for background information is the evil in the world, then it’s hardly surprising that God’s existence appears improbable relative to that. But that’s not the real question. The real question is whether God’s existence is improbable relative to the total evidence available. I’m persuaded that when you consider the total evidence, then God’s existence is quite probable. If one derives the possibility of God though any of the arguments I have put forward, the ontological argument I posted essentially ‘parks the car’ making God’s existence all but a certainty.

The other issue with the problem of evil is the moral argument for God. To judge a whole universe full of evil to be evil one presupposes the existence of truly objective moral values and then essentially proves the existence of God.

The same nonsense has been refused many times in this thread. The universe has a finite past dose not imply there exists a time where the universe does not exist. The universe does not have a cause.

Only the so called 'rational Christians' who are desperate to find _anything_ to strengthen there wish to believe would think such sloppy 'arguments' are sound.

The logical failure of your position is that you are confusing time beginning to exist, with time having a beginning point. There can be no first point in time, no more than there can be no smallest fraction. The argument you are making is quite absurd, since you are using temporal language to describe which is, according to the standard model, a non-temporal situation.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument makes the case that the universe began to exist and that everything that begins to exist has a cause and that the universe therefor has a cause.

Take: entity e and time t,

e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact.

From clauses (i) and (ii), you can see that in order for e to begin to exist there is no need for there to be a time prior to t at which e does not exist. To dismiss the need for the universe to have a cause for existence, the arguer would have to put forward the contention that the universe exists out of necessity and no serious cosmologist would agree with that statement, failing that the contention falls under Schopenhauer's taxicab fallacy.

I think that Hanna's use of "possible" really just means logically possible. I don't think that his notion of logically possible is flawed though, as unless one holds to the "best of all possible worlds" theology, then one must accept premise 7. Frankly, the notion that this world is the best of all possible worlds is one that I find at this point rather absurd, as ANY person having ANY idea of an improvement would debunk the "best of all possible worlds", and I think a lot of us, in our complaining have many things we would want to be better. I even think that Christian scripture itself suggests that a better world exists.



Are you kidding???? You think the ontological argument works? If you start with the first premise as it is possible that God does not exist in a particular world, then it proves God's non-existence using the exact same logical structure. That's not a sound argument at proving anything or even suggesting anything to anybody. We have no reason starting out to say that God's non-existence in a particular world is less possible than God's existence in a particular world.

I recognize your concern about Bayesian reasoning, however, the evils of the world are so absurd that I would have to say that I think that God is either impossible(given the facts of this world) or so downright improbable that it is no longer worth speaking of. After all, Plantinga's defense relies on free will, an attribute that I do not think exists. I object to many other of the theodicies and defenses as well, seeing them as either very improbable or impossible. I mean, I see the evidence for the teleological argument as possibly the result of some unknown theory, but too much of a mystery in the mechanics of it to say "God must have done this", but I see the horrors of the world as being so... pointless that I find the notion that a being who had reason to tolerate this is just not a reasonable possibility. (even further, as I stated, I find most existing theories of God's existence relatively absurd. I think that most people wouldn't even care much about the idea "God exists" without those theories though.)

If having a finite past is your definition of having a beginning, then how do you define cause? Based on what do you assert everything have a beginning have a cause?

Well no, its not so logically easy as that. The free will argument holds that God must have morally sufficient reasons to permit the level of evil in the world. This world would be the best of all possible worlds, based on those reasons. In order to disprove this contention one must have decisively identified those reasons. Then having done that, one would have to demonstrate that an improvement on such a thing is logically feasible (a human being also cannot identify the total outcome of a decision, see chaos theory, since they are not maximally great). Hence, my stating that Hanna has willingly taken on a burden of proof he cannot meet.



If however, you wanted to state that, if God does not exist in this world, then he exists in no world, you could make that argument. However, like Hanna you would be doing what no atheist ever really wants to do; directly taking on the burden of proving that God does not indeed exist in this world to the point of zero probability. This is well beyond present science and logic; therefore, like Hanna, you would be taking on a burden of proof you could not meet. A theist using the ontological argument or the free will defense only has to think of the logically possible in order to achieve success in line with the logic of the argument. Hanna has created an argument where the burden is totally on himself, in a way he cannot prove.

Look at the negation of what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting that things can come into existence, uncaused out of nothing? In the previous discussion the issue of quantum particles was addressed also. If what you are insinuating is true, then why doesn't everything that begins to exist come from nothing; are you worried that horse, having appeared from nothing, is not in the other room of your house defiling your carpet?

The problem is that Hanna's argument is based upon moral luck. Even if God has reasons to allow evil, he is still morally blameworthy for a degree of evil, as he is still responsible for the product, and the product is less good than it could be.

As for demonstrating an improvement is feasible, I am not really sure that an outright argument is required. Basically, you are arguing skeptical theism against Hanna, yes? Skeptical theism NOT being Plantinga but rather Steven Wykstra. The problem with skeptical theism being that if we accept the idea in regards to our moral knowledge, we end up losing the ability to judge the morality of actions, as well, the idea is mostly one of possibility, but our basic intuitions still don't suggest this is probable. (Sort of like how a butterfly causing massive weather pattern changes isn't probable.) Finally, given that a number of atheists believe they really CAN imagine a better world than this world, I'd actually say that more proof is required against the atheists. (particularly given that even Christian theology seems to suggest that a better world was possible)


I already presented the argument.

1'. It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist.
2'. If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world.
3'. If a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world, then it does not exist in every possible world.
4'. If a maximally great being does not exist in every possible world, then it does not exist in the actual world.
5'. If a maximally great being does not exist in the actual world, then a maximally great being does not exist.
6'. Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist.

So, if it is possible that God does not exist, then God does not exist. Why should I regard the possibility of God not existing to be less likely than the possibility of God existing? I am an atheist, I can clearly imagine that a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world.

This argument is just as valid as Plantinga's, as it is just a reworking of the same logic in Plantinga's argument. I basically just changed ONE premise and got this as a conclusion. I presented another counter-argument, the argument for a maximally evil being, an evil God, which by the same logic driving Plantinga's argument still is valid. In fact, Plantinga's argumentative form is basically this structure: (which was shamelessly stolen from wikipedia)

1) It is proposed that a being X exists in all possible worlds.
2) X is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that exists in all possible worlds. (Premise)
3) Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that X exists.
4) Therefore, it is necessarily true that X exists. (By S5)
5) Therefore, X exists.

The argumentative structure used can be used for A LOT of different things, not all of which are compatible with the existence of a monotheistic God, and a number of which are probably very absurd things to hold as existent. So, the argument fails. There is nothing more to say than that the argument fails.

As for atheists not wanting to make the probability of God existing in this world 0? That's just ridiculous. There is a book anthology edited by Michael Martin with arguments that attempt to do exactly that. http://www.amazon.com/Impossibility-God ... 1591021200

A number of arguments are based upon incompatible attributes, or attributes that by their nature lead to logical impossibility.

Hanna is making a logical argument against the existence of God. He is saying that the "probability of God existing is 0 if all of my premises are true".

Well, I don’t think you have addressed my argument in any substantive way. Since you are still making a probability judgment in isolation. I have already detailed how a single piece of information can change the entire scope of the outcome, with my Joe the skier analogy. You now seem to be trying to argue in isolation to my points, since I am not arguing Skeptical theism but rather simply addressing the burden of proof that Hanna has taken on for himself. To prove Hanna’s argument wrong one only need think of a moral reason that could justify the level of evil in the world. The reason could be anything, even absurd but the fact that we can all imagine a reason that would explain the level of evil proves that God and evil are logically compatible.

Let me demonstrate for you. In the Christian world view, one reason that the problem of evil seems so puzzling is that we tend to think that if God exists, then His goal for human life is happiness in this world. God’s role is to provide comfortable environment for His human pets. But on the Christian view this is false. We are not God’s pets, and man’s end is not happiness in this world, but the knowledge of God, which will ultimately bring true and everlasting human fulfillment. Many evils occur in life which maybe utterly pointless with respect to the goal of producing human happiness in this world, but they may not be unjustified with respect to producing the knowledge of God. Innocent human suffering provides an occasion for deeper dependency and trust in God, either on the part of the sufferer or those around him.

As further evidence that what you are arguing is unsustainable, you are essentially stating that one can reliably imagine a world in which, suffering could be lower, happiness could be higher and more people would come to know God; there is no way that you could prove this argument logically.

The fact that we can imagine a better world, in which we would be happier, works in fact as a justification of the Christian world-view. Rather than submit to and worship God, people rebel against God and go their own way and so find themselves alienated from God, morally guilty before Him, and groping in spiritual darkness, pursuing false gods of their own making. The terrible human evils in the world are testimony to man’s depravity in this state of spiritual alienation from God. The Christian is not surprised at the human evil in the world; on the contrary, he expects it. The Bible says that God has given mankind over to the sin it has chosen; He does not interfere to stop it, but lets human depravity run its course. This only serves to heighten mankind’s moral responsibility before God, as well as our wickedness and our need of forgiveness and moral cleansing.

Further, In the Christian view, this life is not all there is. Jesus promised eternal life to all who place their trust in him as their Savior and Lord. In the afterlife God will reward those who have borne their suffering in courage and trust with an eternal life of unspeakable joy. The apostle Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament, lived a life of incredible suffering. Yet he wrote, “We do not lose heart. For this slight, momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, because we look not to the things that are seen, but to the things that are unseen, for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal” (II Cor. 4:16-18). Paul imagines a scale, as it were, in which all the sufferings of this life are placed on one side, while on the other side is placed the glory that God will bestow on his children in heaven. The weight of glory is so great that it is literally beyond comparison with the suffering. Moreover, the longer we spend in eternity the more the sufferings of this life shrink toward an infinitesimal moment. That’s why Paul could call them “a slight and momentary affliction”—they were simply overwhelmed by the ocean of divine eternity and joy which God lavishes on those who trust Him.

Essentially, to know God, the source of infinite goodness and love, is an incomparable good, the fulfillment of human existence. The sufferings of this life cannot even be compared to it. Thus, the person who knows God, no matter what he suffers, no matter how awful his pain, can still say, “God is good to me,” simply by virtue of the fact that he knows God, an incomparable good.




Your logic fails at premise 2. The possibility is being extrapolated as certainty (the opposite can be done, since possibility can be extrapolated into certainty across multiple worlds into certainty, the opposite cannot, please see my evolution argument to prove this) into every possible world, rendering the argument logically broken. There are many such attempts to disprove the ontological argument, all of those essentially underestimate the power of the logic involved. The only ontological argument that argue that God does not exist must start with a first premise of 1) It is logically and mathematically true that there is no possibility that God does not exist in our world. Most serious atheist thinkers don't like taking this on (also Martins Arguments concede the possibility of a God, he just argues that it cannot be the western conception of God, which is highly subjective). That is why we always hear the popular chime that 'science cannot prove a negative).