What are your major objections to belief?

[spiltteeth]

I understand agnosticism, some people saying there is no good argument for God one way or another, but atheism needs a justification I think.

What made people here choose atheism, and what are peoples major critiques of belief on God? It seems some have a moral outrage towards belief, also I've heard people say it's a kind of duty to fight against belief in God.

What's the dilio?

[bcbm]

not all atheists are compelled to attack belief at every opportunity.

[Holden Caulfield]

Atheism doesn't require an explanation, Religion requires an explantion.
If I assert I have an all powerful invisible friend you would not believe me, yet I am supposed to treat your 'God' as something other than this?

I don't debate the existence of the easter bunny and I don't debate the existence of God.

Religion has moved the goal posts so many times (on what it believes), has twisted for obvious reasons over the centuaries (purgutory, the pope, Christs divinity etc), has had concept after concept disproved (evolution, heaven, centrality of earth).

It has justified bullshit things about the all powerful and benevolant nature of your "God" with argments of 'free will', does a parent give its child free will to run into a road, to eat glass, to play with fire?

The bible is all bullshit as well, the Herod stroy is from the tale of Gilgamesh as is the Ark story, the Christian church built on Judaistic trends, in the same way Judaism can be seen as building upon Zoastranism. It is just stories.

People give special rights to religion as a no go area, so in my seminars when a bigot denounces homosexuality its wrong, but when a person of faith does it its not as bad.

I am confirmed into the Protestant Faith, my Mother forced me into it, she feared for my soul. She believed in God until she watched both her parents die slowly with dimentia.

To go back to my origional point, the burden of proof is on you. If you disagree my invisible friend says I'm right and you are wrong and seen as you have no evidence to disprove him or his divinity you cannot win the argument.

[Invincible Summer]

If one believes in a all-powerful, benevolent force, then does one also believe Superman is a real person? Evidently, religious people think not. But what makes Superman any different from any other religious figure (e.g. Jesus), and his comic books different from the Bible or any other "holy book?" I can say that the Silver Surfer protects me, but you'd say I'm lying and that he is just a comic book character. Well the same can be said about pretty much any other religious person.

To believe in something as outlandish as an omnipotent, omnipresent God that "watches over us" and cannot be proven to exist, yet disbelieve in the existence of Superman or the Silver Surfer is silly and hypocritical.

[spiltteeth]

If one believes in a all-powerful, benevolent force, then does one also believe Superman is a real person? Evidently, religious people think not. But what makes Superman any different from any other religious figure (e.g. Jesus), and his comic books different from the Bible or any other "holy book?" I can say that the Silver Surfer protects me, but you'd say I'm lying and that he is just a comic book character. Well the same can be said about pretty much any other religious person.

To believe in something as outlandish as an omnipotent, omnipresent God that "watches over us" and cannot be proven to exist, yet disbelieve in the existence of Superman or the Silver Surfer is silly and hypocritical.

The difference, obviously, is that the existence for God has many arguments, none of which might be compelling to you of course.

I know of none for superman etc, also it seems it'd be impossible to construct one.

[spiltteeth]

Holden Caulfield;1569904]Atheism doesn't require an explanation, Religion requires an explantion.
If I assert I have an all powerful invisible friend you would not believe me, yet I am supposed to treat your 'God' as something other than this?

I'd be an agnostic, wait for your argument/explanation.


I don't debate the existence of the easter bunny and I don't debate the existence of God.

Religion has moved the goal posts so many times (on what it believes), has twisted for obvious reasons over the centuaries (purgutory, the pope, Christs divinity etc), has had concept after concept disproved (evolution, heaven, centrality of earth).

That is true, many postmodernists have robbed religion of its essence.


It has justified bullshit things about the all powerful and benevolant nature of your "God" with argments of 'free will', does a parent give its child free will to run into a road, to eat glass, to play with fire?

The moral argument. Even if God existed, he's be an asshole.


The bible is all bullshit as well, the Herod stroy is from the tale of Gilgamesh as is the Ark story, the Christian church built on Judaistic trends, in the same way Judaism can be seen as building upon Zoastranism. It is just stories.

People give special rights to religion as a no go area, so in my seminars when a bigot denounces homosexuality its wrong, but when a person of faith does it its not as bad.

That seems unfair.


I am confirmed into the Protestant Faith, my Mother forced me into it, she feared for my soul. She believed in God until she watched both her parents die slowly with dimentia.

To go back to my origional point, the burden of proof is on you. If you disagree my invisible friend says I'm right and you are wrong and seen as you have no evidence to disprove him or his divinity you cannot win the argument.

I don't know what argument yr talking about, but I understand yr objections, thanks.

[Decolonize The Left]

I understand agnosticism, some people saying there is no good argument for God one way or another, but atheism needs a justification I think.

Atheism's justification is history. 99.9% of all supernatural, mystical, and religious beliefs have been proved wrong. No reason to think the current ones somehow got it right.

Atheism's justification is reason. It makes sense to believe in evolution because there is scientific evidence to that point. It makes sense to believe in the big bang theory because it's the most logically consistent theory given all other scientific knowledge.

Atheism's justification is simplicity. No need to explain crazy things existing without evidence but with stories.


What made people here choose atheism, and what are peoples major critiques of belief on God?

Atheism makes sense. Just like putting your pants on one leg at a time makes sense, and opening doors using the door handle rather than prying it open with your teeth makes sense.

Critiques of the belief in god are numerous.


It seems some have a moral outrage towards belief, also I've heard people say it's a kind of duty to fight against belief in God.

What's the dilio?

These people are anti-theists not atheists. An atheist believes there is no god. An anti-theist believes there is no god and that religion is positively harmful to society.

- August

[Holden Caulfield]

That is true, many postmodernists have robbed religion of its essence.
Religion has no essence its just what people said to keep them in check before we had science. The enlightenment happened for a reason at the time it did. Jews dont eat shelfish and pork, no refrigiarators and a poor sanitation system. etc etc etc


The moral argument. Even if God existed, he's be an asshole.
Its not a moral argument, its a deconstruction of what you say. If your god is X & Y if i can disprove he is then it weakens your assertion. It has nothing to do with morality. If i say my invisible friend is blind but can see it weakens my assertion in the same way.



That seems unfair.
Why?

I don't mean to sound combatitive, I have a few religious class mates I talk to in uni Im not anti-theist per-se. Its just all bullshit, my class mate who's father is a pastor said I should meet him because she cannot defend her own views. Her family also supports Urbie in Columbia and is against abortion, she wont own up to homophobia but she is. It's all bullshit. but please lets dicsuss it.

[spiltteeth]

AugustWest;1569981]Atheism's justification is history. 99.9% of all supernatural, mystical, and religious beliefs have been proved wrong. No reason to think the current ones somehow got it right.

Well, I'm an orthodox Christian, we're pretty dogmatic, so I'm not aware of any of my beliefs being proved wrong. Perhaps from ignorance?


Atheism's justification is reason. It makes sense to believe in evolution because there is scientific evidence to that point. It makes sense to believe in the big bang theory because it's the most logically consistent theory given all other scientific knowledge.

Actually, evolution and the big bang are the major reasons for my belief in God!

The big bang:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect.

This thing kind of sounds like God -to me.

Evolution :the physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10 (100) would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe's expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10(120). Roger Penrose has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 to the 10 (123). Penrose comments, "I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010 (123)." And it's not just each constant or quantity which must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

Anyway, I'd say the most reasonable conclusion could be set forth :

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.


Atheism's justification is simplicity. No need to explain crazy things existing without evidence but with stories.

I agree with you there.


Atheism makes sense. Just like putting your pants on one leg at a time makes sense, and opening doors using the door handle rather than prying it open with your teeth makes sense.

Critiques of the belief in god are numerous.

I've never heard one thats compelling, but I may not know alot of them.


These people are anti-theists not atheists. An atheist believes there is no god. An anti-theist believes there is no god and that religion is positively harmful to society.

- August
Thanks for the distinction.

[spiltteeth]

Religion has no essence its just what people said to keep them in check before we had science. The enlightenment happened for a reason at the time it did. Jews dont eat shelfish and pork, no refrigiarators and a poor sanitation system. etc etc etc


Its not a moral argument, its a deconstruction of what you say. If your god is X & Y if i can disprove he is then it weakens your assertion. It has nothing to do with morality. If i say my invisible friend is blind but can see it weakens my assertion in the same way.



Why?

I don't mean to sound combatitive, I have a few religious class mates I talk to in uni Im not anti-theist per-se. Its just all bullshit, my class mate who's father is a pastor said I should meet him because she cannot defend her own views. Her family also supports Urbie in Columbia and is against abortion, she wont own up to homophobia but she is. It's all bullshit. but please lets dicsuss it.

I meant what you described seemed unfair, I was agreeing with you.
Also, obviously, I think the assertion God is good is justified, but I can understand your view point.

[Holden Caulfield]

Well, I'm an orthodox Christian, we're pretty dogmatic, so I'm not aware of any of my beliefs being proved wrong. Perhaps from ignorance?



Most of it, I'm not aware of the finer details or Orthodox Eastern Christianity but I'm sure myself or perhaps August could tear holes in it.


Therefore, the universe has a cause.
God must have come from somewhere, so there must be a super god? Or a godfather perhaps? Your argument is not only unfounded, its illogical.



2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

It is down darwinism and massive time scales (as for the improbability how many planets are their in existence?). Look at the works of Darwin, althought flawed, or look at the physiology of a Whale. Why does a whale have back legs still, in its skeleton? Why do humans have a coxis. Was god just bored? Or is it a test, like fossils.... Look at a Girraffe, or any animal and see things to prove evolution.

Why is the 'good god' concept justified?

[spiltteeth]

Holden Caulfield;1569998]Most of it, I'm not aware of the finer details or Orthodox Eastern Christianity but I'm sure myself or perhaps August could tear holes in it.

It's similar to Catholicism, without all the changes and politics.


God must have come from somewhere, so there must be a super god? Or a godfather perhaps? Your argument is not only unfounded, its illogical.


God is beginingless, so he doesn't need a cause. Now let me ask you a question, where did the universe come from? Since we know it did in fact begin to exist...


It is down darwinism and massive time scales (as for the improbability how many planets are their in existence?). Look at the works of Darwin, althought flawed, or look at the physiology of a Whale. Why does a whale have back legs still, in its skeleton? Why do humans have a coxis. Was god just bored? Or is it a test, like fossils.... Look at a Girraffe, or any animal and see things to prove evolution.

I believe in evolution. I don't see why all the mass extinctions etc can't be seen as being somehow necessary to create the conditions for humans to exist, that everything played a role, even though the chances are astronomically absurd that they are due to chance.
But the odds against the universe's being life-permitting are so incomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced. Look at the statistics I've posted - they are mind boggling staggering! Even though there will be a huge number of life-permitting universes lying within the cosmic landscape, nevertheless the number of life-permitting worlds will be unfathomably tiny compared to the entire landscape, so that the existence of a life-permitting universe is fantastically improbable. Students or laymen who blithely assert, "It could have happened by chance!" simply have no conception of the fantastic precision of the fine-tuning requisite for life. They would never embrace such a hypothesis in any other area of their lives—for example, in order to explain how there came to be overnight a car in one's driveway.


Why is the 'good god' concept justified?

God is good. We can choose an eternal bliss with him, he forgave us for being assholes, sacrificed his own son etc what's the objection?

[Holden Caulfield]

It's similar to Catholicism, without all the changes and politics.


the very fact it exists as a seperate trend is down to politics



God is beginingless, so he doesn't need a cause. Now let me ask you a question, where did the universe come from? Since we know it did in fact begin to exist
I don't know, i don't know about nor can I comprehend the universe, science can do its best and we will learn more and more. No I don't know the secrets of the universe but that as an argument for god is the same as an argument for thunder as Thor riding a chariot across the sky. I admit ignorance, I dont have to have answer to everything. I'ld rather admit ignorance than say its magic.



God is good. We can choose an eternal bliss with him, he forgave us for being assholes, sacrificed his own son etc what's the objection?

I wasn't an arsehole, and do some deserve forgivness? I disagree. But thats not important. You cannot prove he sacrificed his own son, look up Arianism. You cannot prove heaven. You cannot prove he forgave 'us'.

It comes down to you making assertions when you are required to make proof of your claims. Otherwise I can make assertions about my 'invisible friend who is blind but can see' who forgave us of our sins and invented jelly as a reward to humanity. You cannot disprove it, it has the exact same validity as your argument.

Why God anyways, why not Zeus, why not Odin, why Orthodox, why not Protestantism, Catholcism, Islam.

[spiltteeth]

the very fact it exists as a seperate trend is down to politics

I don't know, i don't know about nor can I comprehend the universe, science can do its best and we will learn more and more. No I don't know the secrets of the universe but that as an argument for god is the same as an argument for thunder as Thor riding a chariot across the sky. I admit ignorance, I dont have to have answer to everything. I'ld rather admit ignorance than say its magic.


I wasn't an arsehole, and do some deserve forgivness? I disagree. But thats not important. You cannot prove he sacrificed his own son, look up Arianism. You cannot prove heaven. You cannot prove he forgave 'us'.

It comes down to you making assertions when you are required to make proof of your claims. Otherwise I can make assertions about my 'invisible friend who is blind but can see' who forgave us of our sins and invented jelly as a reward to humanity. You cannot disprove it, it has the exact same validity as your argument.

Why God anyways, why not Zeus, why not Odin, why Orthodox, why not Protestantism, Catholcism, Islam.

Obviously, I can't prove what created the universe. Plenty of explanation for phenomenon is based on rationality.

We know the universe began.
We know things that begin have a cause.
We know (logic dictates, unless you do not believe in logic), whatever it was that created the universe, necessarily must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being.

Unless you disagree with logic, you must concede at least this much.

Further, I think it is reasonable, not necessary, that this thing be personal,for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect.

So a belief, to be logical, must have evidence or a compelling argument (or a serious of compelling arguments)

This is merely one, of many, arguments to say that my belief in God is more reasonable then your non-belief.

Your claim about your invisible friend, so far, has no arguments, so it does not have "the exact same validity as your argument."
It is not logically consistent, there are no compelling arguments, and third, it contradicts some of my other beliefs (thunder has a scientific explanation that is more reasonable/probable than Thor)

Orthodox christianity is the only belief system where I can lead a meaningful life, where I can hold logically consistent beliefs, and has various compelling arguments to support it.

I can answer for my beliefs, logically .

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

There is one argument for atheism. This is an analytic argument known as the problem of evil. Despite what some will have you believe, it's irrefutable.

The other thing is that agnosticism confuses how language actually operates. We don't say "I don't know if I will get hit by lightning tomorrow" or "I don't know if Santa Claus is real." We say we known.

Agnosticism implies that synthetic facts - observations - exist as certainties. Anything that makes a claim about the nonexistence about a synthetic claim - black apples growing on purple trees, Santa Claus - can essentially never prove their claim.

It's ridiculous to assume uncertainty because of data fluctuations. We don't claim uncertainty about the nature of coins because, in theory, we could have got 50% by accident when coins actually result in 99% tails when flipped over infinity.

We make judgments based on available data. To say one is agnostic is devoid of "common sense" with respect to how we use language. It's the equivalent of being "uncertain" of the existence of Santa Claus.

The issue here is that we don't treat Santa Claus the same. This whole issue is a hidden attempt by religious folk or (agnostics who hope God exists) to give religion more legitimacy. God is "neutral" but Santa Claus is not. Simply false.

Some agnostics want to treat Santa Claus the same. These people are just not pragmatic people. They're caught up in their own little metaphysical worlds. Metaphysics belongs in metaphysics. Talk about agnosticism as a metaphysical position - not a commonsense linguistic position.

Few atheists deny (with the exception of God defined in the problem of evil) that God "could exist." Agnostics and atheists differ in how they utilize language. Quite simply, atheists utilize language consistently. I've never met an agnostic who applies agnosticism completely, just as I've never met an ethical relativist who acts like an ethical relativist.

Agnosticism was m

[spiltteeth]

There is one argument for atheism. This is an analytic argument known as the problem of evil. Despite what some will have you believe, it's irrefutable.

The other thing is that agnosticism confuses how language actually operates. We don't say "I don't know if I will get hit by lightning tomorrow" or "I don't know if Santa Claus is real." We say we known.

Agnosticism implies that synthetic facts - observations - exist as certainties. Anything that makes a claim about the nonexistence about a synthetic claim - black apples growing on purple trees, Santa Claus - can essentially never prove their claim.

It's ridiculous to assume uncertainty because of data fluctuations. We don't claim uncertainty about the nature of coins because, in theory, we could have got 50% by accident when coins actually result in 99% tails when flipped over infinity.

We make judgments based on available data. To say one is agnostic is devoid of "common sense" with respect to how we use language. It's the equivalent of being "uncertain" of the existence of Santa Claus.

The issue here is that we don't treat Santa Claus the same. This whole issue is a hidden attempt by religious folk or (agnostics who hope God exists) to give religion more legitimacy. God is "neutral" but Santa Claus is not. Simply false.

Some agnostics want to treat Santa Claus the same. These people are just not pragmatic people. They're caught up in their own little metaphysical worlds. Metaphysics belongs in metaphysics. Talk about agnosticism as a metaphysical position - not a commonsense linguistic position.

Few atheists deny (with the exception of God defined in the problem of evil) that God "could exist." Agnostics and atheists differ in how they utilize language. Quite simply, atheists utilize language consistently. I've never met an agnostic who applies agnosticism completely, just as I've never met an ethical relativist who acts like an ethical relativist.

Agnosticism was m

That was very interesting, thank you.

However, I must challenge you about :


There is one argument for atheism. This is an analytic argument known as the problem of evil. Despite what some will have you believe, it's irrefutable.

I wonder if I could refute it? Will you tell me what it is?
If this is the only good argument for atheism, and it is refutable, I think it is then more reasonable to have a belief in God then not. What do you think?

[bcbm]

We know the universe began.

do we?

[spiltteeth]

do we?

Yes. Both as a scientific fact - the big bang theory, and as a logical necessity.

[bcbm]

Yes. Both as a scientific fact - the big bang theory, and as a logical necessity.

the big bang theory, as i understand it, posits that the universe as we know it expanded from an initial point that was extremely dense, but i don't think it suggests that point simply sprang into existence. that is to say, do we really know how long the universe existed as a single point? and why is it logical to accept that the universe must have had a beginning, but that whatever created it must not have? i think the safest bet is to say "we don't know" and continue to seek evidence to prove the current models that exist instead of inserting unprovable elements into the mix. and what our current models suggest is that the universe never began and will never end.

[9]

the big bang theory, as i understand it, posits that the universe as we know it expanded from an initial point that was extremely dense, but i don't think it suggests that point simply sprang into existence. that is to say, do we really know how long the universe existed as a single point? and why is it logical to accept that the universe must have had a beginning, but that whatever created it must not have? i think the safest bet is to say "we don't know" and continue to seek evidence to prove the current models that exist instead of inserting unprovable elements into the mix. and what our current models suggest is that the universe never began and will never end.

This may be wrong, but I remember once seeing a show that posited that 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000 years in the future, the universe would be at a stage where "protons will have decayed and black holes will have almost completely evaporated. Only the byproducts of these processes remain: mostly neutrinos, electrons, positrons, and photons of enormous wavelengths. For all intents and purposes, the universe as we know it will have come to an end".

[bcbm]

This may be wrong, but I remember once seeing a show that posited that 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000 years in the future, the universe would be at a stage where "protons will have decayed and black holes will have almost completely evaporated. Only the byproducts of these processes remain: mostly neutrinos, electrons, positrons, and photons of enormous wavelengths. For all intents and purposes, the universe as we know it will have come to an end".the key words there are "as we know it." the problem in trying to understand the universe from humanity's viewpoint is that we're obsessed with beginnings and endings and have a difficult time comprehending infinity. so while in this dimension we may be able to posit a "beginning" and "end" for the universe, in reality there is probably infinity in either direction.

[9]

the key words there are "as we know it." the problem in trying to understand the universe from humanity's viewpoint is that we're obsessed with beginnings and endings and have a difficult time comprehending infinity. so while in this dimension we may be able to posit a "beginning" and "end" for the universe, in reality there is probably infinity in either direction.

As anything knows it, if that scenario pans out. In which case, the universe will be incapable completely of sustaining life. I'm not interested in "beginnings" or "endings" or "infinity", for that matter. I just think it's interesting.

[bcbm]

yes, i wasn't trying to be dismissive or anything. it is interesting... i love learning about these kind of things. i was just pointing out it isn't really an "end" in the sense we're discussing here.

[Aeval]

This may be wrong, but I remember once seeing a show that posited that 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000 years in the future, the universe would be at a stage where "protons will have decayed and black holes will have almost completely evaporated. Only the byproducts of these processes remain: mostly neutrinos, electrons, positrons, and photons of enormous wavelengths. For all intents and purposes, the universe as we know it will have come to an end".

Isn't one of the other possible outcomes, depending on the amount of matter and energy in the universe, that the Universe reaches a certain point of expansion and then starts collapsing in on itself until it becomes basically what the big bang came from? Because this would imply the universe could keep expanding and retracting for infinity, thus no beginning, thus no 'creator'. I also always wondered, as 'God' has put so much effort into the universe as a whole (you have to admit, it's pretty awesome in general), why his book focuses so much on earth, a planet revolving round a pretty average sun on the outer edge of a not particularly exciting galaxy.

As to why atheist and not agnostic; yea, if you told me that you had an über powerful imaginary friend I might first be agnostic and ask you to provide proof, but if after a few thousand years you'd still failed to provide anything substantial I reckon it would be fair to move into the realm of not believing you.

[spiltteeth]

the big bang theory, as i understand it, posits that the universe as we know it expanded from an initial point that was extremely dense, but i don't think it suggests that point simply sprang into existence. that is to say, do we really know how long the universe existed as a single point? and why is it logical to accept that the universe must have had a beginning, but that whatever created it must not have? i think the safest bet is to say "we don't know" and continue to seek evidence to prove the current models that exist instead of inserting unprovable elements into the mix. and what our current models suggest is that the universe never began and will never end.

No, I'm afraid this is incorrect, for a number of logical, as well as scientific, reasons. The best thing is not to say 'we don't know' since we have overwhelming evidence.

There are probably philosophical objections too, but I'm interested in truth, not academic intellectualizing.

First the mathematical impossibilities

If the universe never had a beginning, that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of the twentieth century, states,


The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.

But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can't go back forever; rather the universe must have begun to exist.

This conclusion has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics. We now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning about 13 billion years ago in a cataclysmic event known as the Big Bang. What makes the Big Bang so startling is that it represents the origin of the universe from literally nothing. For all matter and energy, even physical space and time themselves, came into being at the Big Bang. As the physicist P. C. W. Davies explains,


the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science . . . is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization . . . upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing.

As for the other comrades objection, about the 'oscillating universe theory' of course, alternative theories have been crafted over the years to try to avoid this absolute beginning, but none of these theories has commended itself to the scientific community as more plausible than the Big Bang theory. In fact, in 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin pulls no punches:


It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.

HOWEVER, even if you, for some reason, do not believe in the big bang theory, and do not believe in mathematical logic, there is still other scientific evidence that the Universe began, -

the Second Law of Thermodynamics states systems have the tendency to pass from a more ordered to a less ordered state, in other words, all systems have the tendency to pass from a state of lower entropy into a state of higher entropy.
Indeed, as another comrade pointed out, the universe is eternal, but will suffer a 'heat death'. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states the universe as a whole will eventually come to a state of equilibrium and suffer heat death. But this apparently firm projection raised an even deeper question: if, given sufficient time, the universe will suffer heat death, then why, if it has existed forever, is it not now in a state of heat death? If in a finite amount of time the universe will inevitably come to equilibrium, from which no significant further change is physically possible, then it should already be at equilibrium by now, if it has existed for infinite time. Like a ticking clock, it should by now have run down. Since it has not yet run down, this implies, in the words of Richard Schlegel, "In some way the universe must have been wound up."

P. C. W. Davies reports,


Today, few cosmologists doubt that the universe, at least as we know it, did have an origin at a finite moment in the past. The alternative - that the universe has always existed in one form or another—runs into a rather basic paradox. The sun and stars cannot keep burning forever: sooner or later they will run out of fuel and die.

The same is true of all irreversible physical processes; the stock of energy available in the universe to drive them is finite, and cannot last for eternity. This is an example of the so-called second law of thermodynamics, which, applied to the entire cosmos, predicts that it is stuck on a one-way slide of degeneration and decay towards a final state of maximum entropy, or disorder. As this final state has not yet been reached, it follows that the universe cannot have existed for an infinite time.

Davies concludes, "The universe can't have existed forever. We know there must have been an absolute beginning a finite time ago."

So, you would need to say you do not believe in the Big Bang model, the second law of theordynamics, or math to say you do not believe the universe began. In which case I'd say you are not interested in the truth.

[spiltteeth]

Isn't one of the other possible outcomes, depending on the amount of matter and energy in the universe, that the Universe reaches a certain point of expansion and then starts collapsing in on itself until it becomes basically what the big bang came from? Because this would imply the universe could keep expanding and retracting for infinity, thus no beginning, thus no 'creator'. I also always wondered, as 'God' has put so much effort into the universe as a whole (you have to admit, it's pretty awesome in general), why his book focuses so much on earth, a planet revolving round a pretty average sun on the outer edge of a not particularly exciting galaxy.

As to why atheist and not agnostic; yea, if you told me that you had an über powerful imaginary friend I might first be agnostic and ask you to provide proof, but if after a few thousand years you'd still failed to provide anything substantial I reckon it would be fair to move into the realm of not believing you.


Well, as I say, there are no compelling arguments for the existence of yr imaginary friend, there are many for God.
For instance, 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Given the truth of the two premises, the conclusion necessarily follows.

As for the 'Ocilating universe theory' the two originators have abandoned it because it is untenable.
Basically, The ability of the universe to oscillate is dependent upon a certain critical mass. This critical mass is required to slow the expansion of the universe and force a contraction. If this total mass is not present, which seems likely, then the universe will continue to expand into eternity. Even if there were enough mass to cause the universe, the result of that collapse would be a "Big Crunch" as opposed to another Big Bang.
The reason that the universe would not "bounce" if it were to contract is that the universe is extremely inefficient (entropic). In fact, the universe is so inefficient that the bounce resulting from the collapse of the universe would be only 0.00000001% of the original Big Bang (see table above). Such a small "bounce" would result in an almost immediate re-collapse of the universe into one giant black hole for the rest of eternity.

Ironically, Hawkings even commented that this theory sees so desperate, that he thinks the people who were trying to make it work were doing so for psychological reasons to avoid the implications of the Big Bang!

[spiltteeth]

the big bang theory, as i understand it, posits that the universe as we know it expanded from an initial point that was extremely dense, but i don't think it suggests that point simply sprang into existence. that is to say, do we really know how long the universe existed as a single point? and why is it logical to accept that the universe must have had a beginning, but that whatever created it must not have? i think the safest bet is to say "we don't know" and continue to seek evidence to prove the current models that exist instead of inserting unprovable elements into the mix. and what our current models suggest is that the universe never began and will never end.

I'm not sure how a singularity would stay in a static state, this seems logically absurd.

But from the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe.
It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

These are all logical necessities.

I mean, if whatever created the universe had a beginning, how could that be before time even existed? And in that case, then IT would need a cause, since it began to exist.

[bcbm]

i'm going to be honest and say that this is out of my league but it seems most of your explanations overlook m-theory.

[spiltteeth]

i'm going to be honest and say that this is out of my league but it seems most of your explanations overlook m-theory.

Well, it's over my head too! Thats why I believe scientists. I actually haven't studied fossil evidence, I just assume all those scientists aren't in a conspiracy lying about evolution.

However, its simple common sense. Forget the science. Everyone that begins has a cause. Don't you believe this? Do you honestly live yr life as if things can just magically pop into existence? Do you sincerely believe a raging tiger can just pop into existence in yr living room?

None of these are MY theories.

And how does anything these scientists said contradict m-theory? I don't understand yr objection.
I am really baffled by this, since the evidence for the beginning of the universe far, far, far outweighs the evidence for m-theory. But, what is the contradiction?

It seems you just don't wanna believe it, even after its been scientifically, mathematically, and rationally proven! Do you put all yr beliefs to this test? Surly you can't believe in evolution if the mere statement 'the universe began to exist' is too much for you! I really think yr being unfair to the truth.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Doesn't the second law of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems? Do we know that the universe is a closed system?

[spiltteeth]

Doesn't the second law of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems? Do we know that the universe is a closed system?

Yes, by its very definition, nothing exists outside of it.

For the scientific minded, P. J. Zwart describes it:


according to the second law the whole universe must eventually reach a state of maximum entropy. It will then be in thermodynamical equilibrium; everywhere the situation will be exactly the same, with the same composition, the same temperature, the same pressure etc., etc. There will be no objects any more, but the universe will consist of one vast gas of uniform composition. Because it is in complete equilibrium, absolutely nothing will happen any more. The only way in which a process can begin in a system in equilibrium is through an action from the outside, but an action from the outside is of course impossible if the system in question is the whole universe. So in this future state of maximal entropy, the universe would be in absolute rest and complete darkness, and nothing could disturb the dead silence. Even if there would by chance occur a small deviation from the state of absolute equalization it would of itself rapidly vanish again. Because almost all energy would have been degraded, i.e. converted into kinetic energy of the existing particles (heat), this supposedly future state of the universe, which will also be its last state, is called the heat death of the universe.

[bcbm]

However, its simple common sense. Forget the science. Everyone that begins has a cause. Don't you believe this? Do you honestly live yr life as if things can just magically pop into existence? Do you sincerely believe a raging tiger can just pop into existence in yr living room?

and, again, while i am acknowledging that our universe has a beginning in this dimension, i think there is still a lot of ongoing research being done to determine what happened before the big bang and how the big bang even occurred. but most of what i've read on the subject suggests some sort of infinite universe, universe being used here to describe all dimensions.


And how does anything these scientists said contradict m-theory? I don't understand yr objection.

m-theory has developed some ideas about what was occurring before the big bang and how the big bang may have been sparked, as i understand it.


I am really baffled by this, since the evidence for the beginning of the universe far, far, far outweighs the evidence for m-theory. But, what is the contradiction?

m-theory posits an infinite universe? as for evidence, i believe m-theory matches will all of our current models of the universe. again, this is all a bit out of my league; even a lot of the basics of m-theory confuse me.


It seems you just don't wanna believe it, even after its been scientifically, mathematically, and rationally proven!

i don't agree it has been.

[spiltteeth]

bcbm;1570519]and, again, while i am acknowledging that our universe has a beginning in this dimension, i think there is still a lot of ongoing research being done to determine what happened before the big bang and how the big bang even occurred. but most of what i've read on the subject suggests some sort of infinite universe, universe being used here to describe all dimensions.

An eternal universe, never ending, it still has a beginning.


m-theory has developed some ideas about what was occurring before the big bang and how the big bang may have been sparked, as i understand it.

That's not my understanding at all. It has no evidence, nor would it be able to say how it ever could posit evidence, plus it's use of infinite number theory to equate time with space would necessarily make it non-sensical conceptually, plus its not even complete enough to be called a theory proper, so I find it odd you have so much faith in it.
BUT all that doesn't even matter, it doesn't do away with any of the problems. What caused the 'big splat' then that caused the big bang? etc

What are these things that you find so convincing?


m-theory posits an infinite universe? as for evidence, i believe m-theory matches will all of our current models of the universe. again, this is all a bit out of my league; even a lot of the basics of m-theory confuse me.

How does it posit an infinite universe? Eternal yes, infinitely expanding yes, but it still has a beginning.


i don't agree it has been.

Which of these do you disagree with?

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

If you agree with the above, you are logically compelled to conclude
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

SInce the universe had a cause, whatever it was that created the universe, necessarily must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being.
HOW this thing did those things, even if m-theory explains ALL of it, still it does not contradict these necessary properties.

So I am still lost as to how m-theory does, or even could, contradict my claim - logically, evidentially, or mathematically.

It sounds like yr using m-theory like some believers - "uh God did it. We can't understand now, but it will be revealed."

So, to sum up. You believe in something for which there is no evidence, you don't really understand, as far as we can tell it can never be proven- only ever be a theory, must necessarily be conceptually meaningless (even tho it is mathematically meaningful), and isn't even a complete theory, a half theory....but people who believe God created the universe are unjustified?
?

[Pogue]

No, I'm afraid this is incorrect, for a number of logical, as well as scientific, reasons. The best thing is not to say 'we don't know' since we have overwhelming evidence.

There are probably philosophical objections too, but I'm interested in truth, not academic intellectualizing.

First the mathematical impossibilities

If the universe never had a beginning, that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of the twentieth century, states,



But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can't go back forever; rather the universe must have begun to exist.

This conclusion has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics. We now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning about 13 billion years ago in a cataclysmic event known as the Big Bang. What makes the Big Bang so startling is that it represents the origin of the universe from literally nothing. For all matter and energy, even physical space and time themselves, came into being at the Big Bang. As the physicist P. C. W. Davies explains,



As for the other comrades objection, about the 'oscillating universe theory' of course, alternative theories have been crafted over the years to try to avoid this absolute beginning, but none of these theories has commended itself to the scientific community as more plausible than the Big Bang theory. In fact, in 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin pulls no punches:



HOWEVER, even if you, for some reason, do not believe in the big bang theory, and do not believe in mathematical logic, there is still other scientific evidence that the Universe began, -

the Second Law of Thermodynamics states systems have the tendency to pass from a more ordered to a less ordered state, in other words, all systems have the tendency to pass from a state of lower entropy into a state of higher entropy.
Indeed, as another comrade pointed out, the universe is eternal, but will suffer a 'heat death'. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states the universe as a whole will eventually come to a state of equilibrium and suffer heat death. But this apparently firm projection raised an even deeper question: if, given sufficient time, the universe will suffer heat death, then why, if it has existed forever, is it not now in a state of heat death? If in a finite amount of time the universe will inevitably come to equilibrium, from which no significant further change is physically possible, then it should already be at equilibrium by now, if it has existed for infinite time. Like a ticking clock, it should by now have run down. Since it has not yet run down, this implies, in the words of Richard Schlegel, "In some way the universe must have been wound up."

P. C. W. Davies reports,



So, you would need to say you do not believe in the Big Bang model, the second law of theordynamics, or math to say you do not believe the universe began. In which case I'd say you are not interested in the truth.

You argue that there could be no such thing as infinity then talk about an infinite God.

[spiltteeth]

You argue that there could be no such thing as infinity then talk about an infinite God.

No, I argue for an eternal God.

[9]

Isn't one of the other possible outcomes, depending on the amount of matter and energy in the universe, that the Universe reaches a certain point of expansion and then starts collapsing in on itself until it becomes basically what the big bang came from? Because this would imply the universe could keep expanding and retracting for infinity, thus no beginning, thus no 'creator'. I also always wondered, as 'God' has put so much effort into the universe as a whole (you have to admit, it's pretty awesome in general), why his book focuses so much on earth, a planet revolving round a pretty average sun on the outer edge of a not particularly exciting galaxy. I have no idea about that theory, I have not heard of it, but that certainly doesn't mean it doesn't exist. As to the rest of your comment, I am an atheist, so you are preaching to the choir. But I will assume it was directed at spiltteeth.



As to why atheist and not agnostic; yea, if you told me that you had an über powerful imaginary friend I might first be agnostic and ask you to provide proof, but if after a few thousand years you'd still failed to provide anything substantial I reckon it would be fair to move into the realm of not believing you.
Hah, if somebody told me that, I'd take them to the doctor and get them some Haldol ASAP.

[spiltteeth]

I'd like to expand on m-theory though. I don't understand why you think m-theory is more probable then an intelligent being designing the universe.

M-Theory says the physical universe must be 11-dimensional, but why the universe should possess just that number of dimensions is not addressed by the theory. Moreover, M-Theory fails to predict uniquely the values of the constants of nature. It turns out that string theory allows a “cosmic landscape” of around 10(500) different universes governed by the present laws of nature but with different values of the physical constants. Moreover, even though there may be a huge number of possible universes lying within the life-permitting region of the cosmic landscape, nevertheless that life-permitting region will be unfathomably tiny compared to the entire landscape, so that the existence of a life-permitting universe is fantastically improbable. Indeed, given the number of constants that require fine-tuning, it is far from clear that 10(500) possible universes is enough to guarantee that even one life-permitting world will appear by chance in the landscape!

All this has been said with respect to the constants alone; there is still nothing to explain the arbitrary quantities put in as boundary conditions. The extraordinarily low entropy condition of the early universe would be a good example of an arbitrary quantity which seems to have just been put in at the creation as an initial condition. There is no reason to think that showing every constant and quantity to be physically necessary is anything more than a pipe-dream.

This is the “multiple universe” hypothesis mentioned by Carrier. The multiple universe hypothesis is essentially an effort on the part of partisans of chance to multiply their probabilistic resources in order to reduce the improbability of the occurrence of fine-tuning. (The more spins of the roulette wheel, the better the chances of your number coming up!) The very fact that otherwise sober scientists must resort to such a remarkable hypothesis is a sort of backhanded compliment to the design hypothesis. It shows that the fine-tuning does cry out for explanation. But is the multiple universe hypothesis as plausible as the design hypothesis?

Why preferr the multiple universe hypothesis? For we have no experience whatsoever of other universes—the multiple universe hypothesis is a bold venture in metaphysical cosmology. Our familiarity with our universe does nothing to warrant the appeal to other universes as familiar entities—at least not more so than the design hypothesis. For while we are likewise not familiar with designers of universes, we certainly are familiar with minds and the products of intelligent design, so that the appeal to a designer as the best explanation of the fine-tuning is an appeal to a familiar explanatory entity. Indeed, theists have sometimes been accused of anthropomorphism in this regard!

Moreover, while we have no evidence of the existence of multiple universes, we do have independent reasons for believing in the existence of an ultramundane designer of the universe, namely, the other arguments for the existence of God.

Finally, Carrier is mistaken when he opines that we cannot know that multiple universes do not exist and therefore agnosticism is the only justified conclusion. (Interesting to compare this conclusion with the frequent atheist claim that in the absence of evidence for God we should conclude that God does not exist! Do you see the inconsistency?) He is unaware of the potentially lethal objections to the multiple universe hypothesis that have been lodged by physicists like Roger Penrose of Oxford University (The Road to Reality). Simply stated, if our universe is but one member of an infinite world ensemble of randomly varying universes, then it is overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than that which we in fact observe.

Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. The odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by random collisions of particles is, on the other hand, about 1:1010(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1010(123). Penrose calls it “chicken feed” by comparison! So if our universe were but one member of a collection of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. Observable universes like that are much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but one random member of an ensemble of worlds.

Or again, if our universe is but one random member of a world ensemble, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiple universe hypothesis. Penrose concludes that multiple universe explanations are so “impotent” that it is actually “misconceived” to appeal to them to explain the special features of the universe.

Since the alternative of chance stands or falls with the multiple universe hypothesis, that alternative is seen to be very implausible. It therefore seems that the fine-tuning of the universe is plausibly due neither to physical necessity nor to chance. It follows that the fine-tuning is therefore due to design, unless the design hypothesis can be shown to be even more implausible than its competitors.

[spiltteeth]

I have no idea about that theory, I have not heard of it, but that certainly doesn't mean it doesn't exist. As to the rest of your comment, I am an atheist, so you are preaching to the choir. But I will assume it was directed at spiltteeth.


Hah, if somebody told me that, I'd take them to the doctor and get them some Haldol ASAP.

Yea, if someone said they believed other minds existed, even though there's no proof I'd say they're crazy. Since there's no proof, it's obvious only I exist.

Also, there's tons of compelling arguments for the existence of God, we'er talking about one right now.

[9]

Yea, if someone said they believed other minds existed, even though there's no proof I'd say they're crazy. Since there's no proof, it's obvious only I exist.

Right, well when I'm in the supermarket talking to God and I can reach out and physically touch "Him", maybe I will be more compelled to take this analogy seriously.

Also, there's tons of compelling arguments for the existence of God, we'er talking about one right now.

Yes, and I spent a couple years already thinking it was an important task to convince religious people that religion was bullshit; I know longer care about such things, and I certainly don't want to spend my time on revleft arguing over them.

[spiltteeth]

Right, well when I'm in the supermarket talking to God and I can reach out and physically touch "Him", maybe I will be more compelled to take this analogy seriously.


Yes, and I spent a couple years already thinking it was an important task to convince religious people that religion was bullshit; I know longer care about such things, and I certainly don't want to spend my time on revleft arguing over them.

Yea, thats what certain fundies still say about certain atomic particles. Can't see'm than they don't exist.

I have no desire to convince anyone anything, I want to know the truth.
For this, I use rationality. You use your sense of touch. I think my way is less bizarre, but whatever.

[Holden Caulfield]

Yes, and I spent a couple years already thinking it was an important task to convince religious people that religion was bullshit; I know longer care about such things, and I certainly don't want to spend my time on revleft arguing over them.

I agree with you. they are, and no offence to S who is a good guy, slimey bastards.
I think I beat your argument in my other posts but there is always one more thing with religious people, always one more abstract argument that is unfounded and that cannot undo what has already been said.

I used to be agressively arguing against god all the time but I cant be fucked anymore

[spiltteeth]

I didn't mean to insult anyone. Sorry if I came off like a dick.

I try to avoid philosophy and academics, cuz you can pretty much say anything.
I just stick to logic.

Although it does embarrass me when religious folk's arguments become absurdly complicated, abstract, and unfalsifiable, and then at some point they merely say "Well, I don't know. It's impossible for man to know everything, it's a mystery" etc

But I do genuinely care about truth, and want to know things about evolution and the universe.
-peace

[Holden Caulfield]

you didnt come off like a dick, don't worry comrade.
you are one of the good ones i suppose

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

That was very interesting, thank you.

However, I must challenge you about :



I wonder if I could refute it? Will you tell me what it is?
If this is the only good argument for atheism, and it is refutable, I think it is then more reasonable to have a belief in God then not. What do you think?



If a perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.

If you Wikipedia this, you will see some "supposed" escapes from the argument. However, most of them are poor in my view. The most popular escape is the "free will" argument.

Before I get into too much of an assault on the different arguments for it, I'll let you attempt to to go against it with an argument you feel is legitimate. That way I am not arguing against every argument you "might" support. I don't have unlimited time.

Also, depending on the form of the argument, it's strength depends entirely on the definition of the word "perfect" and the definition of "omnipotent."

Atheists tend to use the definitions in the strongest sense because Christians do. They only try to change the definition to a weaker form to deal with this argument, then go back to their old definition (inconsistent).

Here God is "perfect," and he is without any flaws. In the other form, God is omnipotent (a paradox itself) and can do "anything."

[spiltteeth]

If a perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.

If you Wikipedia this, you will see some "supposed" escapes from the argument. However, most of them are poor in my view. The most popular escape is the "free will" argument.

Before I get into too much of an assault on the different arguments for it, I'll let you attempt to to go against it with an argument you feel is legitimate. That way I am not arguing against every argument you "might" support. I don't have unlimited time.

Also, depending on the form of the argument, it's strength depends entirely on the definition of the word "perfect" and the definition of "omnipotent."

Atheists tend to use the definitions in the strongest sense because Christians do. They only try to change the definition to a weaker form to deal with this argument, then go back to their old definition (inconsistent).

Here God is "perfect," and he is without any flaws. In the other form, God is omnipotent (a paradox itself) and can do "anything."

Hmmmm. That does seem damaging. And since your a super star in training I'm gonna tread lightly.

Well, I'm no philosopher, but I guess yr saying the free will defense don't cut it with you, so I'll just describe things from the Christian side and you can let me know what you think.

The Christian faith entails doctrines that increase the probability of the co-existence of God and evil. In so doing, these doctrines decrease any improbability of God’s existence thought to issue from the existence of evil. Let me mention four:

a. The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God. 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. Of course, whether God's purpose is achieved through our suffering will depend on our response. Do we respond with anger and bitterness toward God, or do we turn to Him in faith for strength to endure?

b. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose. 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.

c. The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life. 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.

d. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good. 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.

These four Christian doctrines greatly reduce any improbability which evil would seem to throw on the existence of God.

Relative to the full scope of the evidence, God’s existence is probable. Probabilities are relative to what background information you consider. For example, 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.

Let me mention three pieces of evidence:

1. God provides the best explanation of why the universe exists instead of nothing. Have you ever asked yourself why anything at all exists? Where it all came from ? Typically, atheists have said that the universe is eternal and uncased. But discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics during the last 80 years have rendered this improbable. According to the Big Bang model of the universe, all matter and energy, indeed, physical space and time themselves, came into being at a point about 13.5 billion years ago. Prior to that point, the universe simply did not exist. Therefore, the Big Bang model requires the creation of the universe from nothing.

Now this tends to be very embarrassing for the atheist. Quentin Smith, an atheist philosopher, writes,


The response of atheists and agnostics to this development has been comparatively weak, indeed almost invisible. An uncomfortable silence seems to be the rule when the issue arises among non-believers . . . . The reason for the embarrassment of non-theists is not hard to find. Anthony Kenny suggests it in this statement: ‘A proponent of [the Big Bang] theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the matter of the universe came from nothing and by nothing.’

No such difficulty confronts the Christian theist, since the big Bang theory only confirms what he has always believed: that in the beginning God created the universe. Now I put it to you: which is more plausible: that the Christian theist is right or that the universe popped into being uncaused out of nothing?

2. God provides the best explanation of the complex order in the universe. During the last 40 years, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the big bang itself. We now know that life-prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than any life-permitting universe like ours. How much more probable?

The answer is that the chances that the universe should be life-permitting are so infinitesimal as to be incomprehensible and incalculable. For example, a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10(100) would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The so-called cosmological constant "lambda" which drives the inflationary expansion of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe’s expansion is fine-tuned to around one part in 10(120). Oxford physicist Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe’s special low entropy condition, on which our lives depend, having arisen sheerly by chance is at least as small as about one part in 10 to the 10(123). Penrose comments,
“I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 10 to the 10(123). ” There are multiple quantities and constants which must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. And it’s not just each quantity which must be exquisitely fine-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

There is no physical reason why these constants and quantities should possess the values they do. The one-time agnostic physicist Paul Davies comments,
“Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact.” Similarly, Fred Hoyle remarks,
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics.” Robert Jastrow, the former head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, calls this the most powerful evidence for the existence of God even to come out of science.

The view that Christian theists have always held, that there is an intelligent designer of the universe, seems to make much more sense than the atheistic view that the universe, when it popped into being uncaused out of nothing, just happened to be by chance fine-tuned to an incomprehensible precision for the existence of intelligent life.

3. Objective moral values in the world. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Many theists and atheists alike concur on this point. For example, philosopher of science Michael Ruse explains,


Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.

HOWEVER - The question here is not: “Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?” I’m not claiming that we must. Nor is the question: “Can we recognizeobjective moral values without believing in God?” I think that we can.

Rather the question is: “If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?” Like Ruse, I don’t see any reason to think that in the absence of God, the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens is objective. After all, if there is no God, then what’s so special about human beings? They’re just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. On the atheistic view, some action, say, rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of human development has become taboo; but that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really wrong. On the atheistic view, there’s nothing really wrong with your raping someone. Thus, without God there is no absolute right and wrong which imposes itself on our conscience.

But the problem is that objective values do exist, and deep down we all know it. There’s no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world. Actions like rape, cruelty, and child abuse aren’t just socially unacceptable behavior—they’re moral abominations. Some things are really wrong.

Thus, paradoxically, evil actually serves to establish the existence of God. For if objective values cannot exist without God and objective values do exist—as is evident from the reality of evil—, then it follows inescapably that God exists. Thus, although evil in one sense calls into question God’s existence, in a more fundamental sense it demonstrates God’s existence, since evil could not exist without God.

For Christians God is not a distant Creator or impersonal ground of being, but a loving Father who shares our sufferings and hurts with us. Prof. Plantinga has written,


As the Christian sees things, God does not stand idly by, coolly observing the suffering of His creatures. He enters into and shares our suffering. He endures the anguish of seeing his son, the second person of the Trinity, consigned to the bitterly cruel and shameful death of the cross. Christ was prepared to endure the agonies of hell itself . . . in order to overcome sin, and death, and the evils that afflict our world, and to confer on us a life more glorious that we can imagine. He was prepared to suffer on our behalf, to accept suffering of which we can form no conception.

When we comprehend Christ's sacrifice and His love for us, this puts the problem of evil in an entirely different perspective.
So paradoxically, even though the problem of evil is the greatest objection to the existence of God, at the end of the day God is the only solution to the problem of evil. If God does not exist, then we are lost without hope in a life filled with gratuitous and unredeemed suffering. God is the final answer to the problem of evil, for He redeems us from evil and takes us into the everlasting joy of an incommensurable good, fellowship with Himself.

[spiltteeth]

If a perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.

If you Wikipedia this, you will see some "supposed" escapes from the argument. However, most of them are poor in my view. The most popular escape is the "free will" argument.

Before I get into too much of an assault on the different arguments for it, I'll let you attempt to to go against it with an argument you feel is legitimate. That way I am not arguing against every argument you "might" support. I don't have unlimited time.

Also, depending on the form of the argument, it's strength depends entirely on the definition of the word "perfect" and the definition of "omnipotent."

Atheists tend to use the definitions in the strongest sense because Christians do. They only try to change the definition to a weaker form to deal with this argument, then go back to their old definition (inconsistent).

Here God is "perfect," and he is without any flaws. In the other form, God is omnipotent (a paradox itself) and can do "anything."

Just for fun, I can't resist taking this head on.
I would say a world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.
So, even though God is omnipotent, it is possible that it was not in his power to create a world containing moral good but no moral evil; therefore, there is no logical inconsistency involved when God, although wholly good, creates a world of free creatures who chose to do evil.

If you want to get technical, here is a summary of Plantinga's argument, I don't really know what his definition of 'omnipotent' is, but I assume its based on the oooooollld Anslem definition, or something like it, ie :

a being is omnipotent if it has every power which it is logically possible to posses.

So God can't do the logically impossible, make 2+2=5, or make a circle square etc, and could not logically actualize certain worlds.

Here's an informal proof.
Imagine a situation S in which Curley is free to take, or to refuse, a bribe. Suppose God wants Curley freely to refrain from taking the bribe in S. The most he could do to bring this about would be to make Curley free in S. Can God get what he wants? That depends on which of the following propositions is true. (Note that one of them must be true, and the other false,)

(t) If Curley were free in S, then Curley would take the bribe.
(r) If Curley were free in S, then Curley would not take the bribe.

(Terminological note: (t) and (r) are among Curley's "counterfactuals of freedom.")

If (t) is true and God makes Curley free in S, then Curley will take the bribe and God won't get what he wants. Only if (r) is true will Curley do what God wants him to do.
Now let Wt be a possible world in which God makes Curley free in S and Curley freely takes the bribe. And let Wr be a world in which in which God makes Curley free in S and Curley freely refuses the bribe. If (t) is true, then God cannot actualize Wr. If, on the other hand, (r) is true, then God cannot actualize Wt. Since either (t) or (r) must be true, it follows that God can't actualize one or the other of these worlds--there is at least one possible world which he cannot actualize.

Are you familiar with TWD ("transworld depravity")?
For each possible person, and for each situation in which that person might exist and be free, there is a complete set of true conditional propositions (like (t) and (r)) about what that person would do if she were free in that situation. We will call these a person's "counterfactuals of freedom."
Now the sad truth about Curley may be this: His counterfactuals of freedom are such that in no matter what situation God places him, if God gives him morally significant freedom in that situation, he would freely do at least one wrong action. He doesn't have to. Curley is free, after all. But God knows that he would. Curley suffers from TWD.

Of course, there are possible worlds in which Curley is significantly free and never goes wrong. But God can't actualize those worlds without Curley's help, and Curley's counterfactuals of freedom are such that God knows that such help is not going to be forthcoming. Paradoxically, it might be that only Curley can do what's required to actualize one of those worlds.

Now, the problem is to show that the following propositions are logically consistent.
(1) God exists--and is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good.

(2) There is evil in the world.

Plantinga supposes we can do this by finding a proposition implicit in the free will defense that is consistent with (1), and together with (1) entails (2). Now we can see what that proposition is. Here it is:

(3) God actualized a world in which there are free creatures who produce some moral goodness; AND all possible persons suffer from TWD, so that God could not have actualized a world in which there were free creatures who produced moral goodness and no moral evil.
It's possible that both (1) and (3) are true. Together they entail (2). it follows that (2) is consistent with (1).

Now, you may ask why God doesn't just make different counterfactuals of freedom true?
Because then they wouldn't be counterfactuals of freedom. For God to fix your counteractuals of freedom for you would be tantamount to making do what he prefers.
God is stuck with the counterfactuals of freedom that happen (as a matter of contingent fact) to be true.

Does that mean that God isn't omnipotent?
Not at all. If the counterfactuals of freedom have a truth value at all, then for each possible person some complete set of counterfactuals must be true. Whichever set that is, no one, no matter how powerful, can make a completely different set of counterfacutals of freedom true.
What about the amount of moral evil in the world?
For all we know, the counterfactuals of freedom could be such that the actual world contains a better overall balance of moral good and evil than that of any of the other worlds that God could have actualized. It's at least logically possible that this is the case.
Of course, there are much better possible worlds--ones with free creatures who never go wrong. But it's at least logically possible that the counterfactuals of freedom are such that God couldn't actualize any of those.

Anyway, it sounds good to me. What do you think?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Yea, thats what certain fundies still say about certain atomic particles. Can't see'm than they don't exist.

I have no desire to convince anyone anything, I want to know the truth.
For this, I use rationality. You use your sense of touch. I think my way is less bizarre, but whatever.

I don't understand how belief in god is based on rationality. There is nothing to prove god exists so the rational line would be to not believe in god, there is no proof he exists, there is no reason to suggest he exists.

[spiltteeth]

I don't understand how belief in god is based on rationality. There is nothing to prove god exists so the rational line would be to not believe in god, there is no proof he exists, there is no reason to suggest he exists.

Well, I would argue that God is a basic belief.

But, there is compelling arguments that God exists. I mention 3 in post # 45 above which noone has answered for, so ther's PLENTY of reason to think He exists.

Also no-one, even you, bases his beliefs just on evidence.

You can believe in something rationally with no proof, as I suspect you do in several things.

No one has ever been able to offer proofs for the existence of other persons/other minds, inductive beliefs (e.g., that the sun will rise in the future), or the reality of the past (perhaps, as Bertrand Russell cloyingly puzzled, we were created five minutes ago with our memories intact) that satisfy classical requirements for proof. So, according to your criteria, belief in the past and inductive beliefs about the future are irrational. This list could be extended indefinitely.

In most cases we must rely on our intellectual equipment to produce beliefs in the appropriate circumstances, without evidence or argument. For example, we simply find ourselves believing in other persons. A person is a center of self-conscious thoughts and feelings and first-person experience. While we can see a human face or a body, we can’t see another’s thoughts or feelings. Consider a person, Emily, whose leg is poked with a needle. We can see Emily recoil and her face screw up, and we can hear her yelp. So we can see Emily’s pain-behavior, but we cannot see her pain. The experience of pain is just the sort of inner experience that is typical of persons. For all we can know from Emily’s pain-behavior might be automatic with no inner life at all. Or, for all we know, Emily might be a person just like us with the characteristic interior life and experience of persons. The point is, you can’t tell, just from Emily’s pain behavior, if she has any inner experience of pain. So you can’t tell by the things to which you have evidential access if Emily is a person. No one has ever been able to develop a successful argument to prove that there are other persons. Maybe there are no other minds -only I exist etc So, to you, it would not be reasonable to believe in the existence of other persons. But surely there are other persons whose existence it is reasonable to accept. Similar problems arise concerning beliefs in the past, the future, and the external world. No justification-conferring inference is or could be involved.

Granting that a great many of our important beliefs are non-inferential, could one reasonably find oneself believing in God without hard evidence?
Plus it's rationally justified, Logically consistent, supported, probable, according to science and logic so....

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

a. The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God. 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. Of course, whether God's purpose is achieved through our suffering will depend on our response. Do we respond with anger and bitterness toward God, or do we turn to Him in faith for strength to endure?

The chief purpose of life is the knowledge of God? That might be true. However, it doesn't eliminate the worry that God is evil. Someone who promotes knowledge of God, for instance, can be clearly evil. Take the stereotypical image of a corrupt religious figure. If we can imagine an evil person promoting "knowledge of God," what it means to be evil must be something distinct from "knowledge of God."

The second part I will address as follows. The argument is not strong enough on its own because it needs free will to go further. Otherwise, God can make us (by virtue of being human) necessarily love him, trust him, know him, etc. He can do this all while granting us happiness. What does the allowance of suffering give us that, given God's power, he couldn't have done without suffering?



b. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose. 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.

I'm a bit of a bad scholar of the Bible. This seems to be a "statement." What is the argument underlying it? It seems like I could give the same response as before. Why does God need suffering to accomplish anything?


c. The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life. 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.

I read a chapter of "The Brothers Karamazov" that dealt with this particular issue. I've written a 3 page paper on it that I can post later if you like. However, there are two issues here.

1. Does eternal happiness make up for suffering? Some people would say no. I am undecided.
2. Does eternal happiness justify the existence of suffering? This I will say, is the most important issue. I don't think it does.

Why does eternal happiness require suffering to exist?


d. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good. 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.


There are plenty of miserable Christians. Could we say they simply "do not know God?" What about people who report being happier after renouncing God? Or clinical depression? If a devout priest is struck by an illness that makes him miserable, how is he to say "knowledge of God" is good? How is it helping?

Again, how does "knowledge of God" allow suffering to be justifiable?


1. God provides the best explanation of why the universe exists instead of nothing. Have you ever asked yourself why anything at all exists? Where it all came from ? Typically, atheists have said that the universe is eternal and uncased. But discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics during the last 80 years have rendered this improbable. According to the Big Bang model of the universe, all matter and energy, indeed, physical space and time themselves, came into being at a point about 13.5 billion years ago. Prior to that point, the universe simply did not exist. Therefore, the Big Bang model requires the creation of the universe from nothing.

God is more complex than the universe, it is presumed. By creating God, you make things even more difficult. How did God exist?


Now this tends to be very embarrassing for the atheist. Quentin Smith, an atheist philosopher, writes,

No such difficulty confronts the Christian theist, since the big Bang theory only confirms what he has always believed: that in the beginning God created the universe. Now I put it to you: which is more plausible: that the Christian theist is right or that the universe popped into being uncaused out of nothing?

Infinite regress is a problem for practically every philosopher, religious or not.


2. God provides the best explanation of the complex order in the universe. During the last 40 years, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the big bang itself. We now know that life-prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than any life-permitting universe like ours. How much more probable?

The answer is that the chances that the universe should be life-permitting are so infinitesimal as to be incomprehensible and incalculable. For example, a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10(100) would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The so-called cosmological constant "lambda" which drives the inflationary expansion of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe’s expansion is fine-tuned to around one part in 10(120). Oxford physicist Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe’s special low entropy condition, on which our lives depend, having arisen sheerly by chance is at least as small as about one part in 10 to the 10(123). Penrose comments, There are multiple quantities and constants which must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. And it’s not just each quantity which must be exquisitely fine-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

There is no physical reason why these constants and quantities should possess the values they do. The one-time agnostic physicist Paul Davies comments, Similarly, Fred Hoyle remarks, Robert Jastrow, the former head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, calls this the most powerful evidence for the existence of God even to come out of science.

The view that Christian theists have always held, that there is an intelligent designer of the universe, seems to make much more sense than the atheistic view that the universe, when it popped into being uncaused out of nothing, just happened to be by chance fine-tuned to an incomprehensible precision for the existence of intelligent life.

I'm running out of time at the moment. My apologies for being lazy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument#Formal_objections_and_counte rarguments


3. Objective moral values in the world. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Many theists and atheists alike concur on this point. For example, philosopher of science Michael Ruse explains,

HOWEVER - The question here is not: “Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?” I’m not claiming that we must. Nor is the question: “Can we recognizeobjective moral values without believing in God?” I think that we can.

Rather the question is: “If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?” Like Ruse, I don’t see any reason to think that in the absence of God, the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens is objective. After all, if there is no God, then what’s so special about human beings? They’re just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. On the atheistic view, some action, say, rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of human development has become taboo; but that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really wrong. On the atheistic view, there’s nothing really wrong with your raping someone. Thus, without God there is no absolute right and wrong which imposes itself on our conscience.

But the problem is that objective values do exist, and deep down we all know it. There’s no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world. Actions like rape, cruelty, and child abuse aren’t just socially unacceptable behavior—they’re moral abominations. Some things are really wrong.

Objective values might not exist. If they do, though, utilitarian ethical theories and other ethical theories can be atheistic. Utilitarianism is probably the strongest example, though.

[spiltteeth]

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor;1571404]The chief purpose of life is the knowledge of God? That might be true. However, it doesn't eliminate the worry that God is evil.

No it doesn't.


Someone who promotes knowledge of God, for instance, can be clearly evil. Take the stereotypical image of a corrupt religious figure. If we can imagine an evil person promoting "knowledge of God," what it means to be evil must be something distinct from "knowledge of God."

Uh, promoting knowledge of God is different than actual knowledge of God.


The second part I will address as follows. The argument is not strong enough on its own because it needs free will to go further. Otherwise, God can make us (by virtue of being human) necessarily love him, trust him, know him, etc.

Yes, the argument is not strong enough on its own, it is a cumulative argument. Christians believe God has given us freewill. And obviously if one is compelled to love then it is not love, this is a logical impossibility, to love presupposes freewill.


He can do this all while granting us happiness. What does the allowance of suffering give us that, given God's power, he couldn't have done without suffering?

But as I said, granting us happiness is not the point. Suffering is necessary for freewill, which is a greater good.


I'm a bit of a bad scholar of the Bible. This seems to be a "statement." What is the argument underlying it? It seems like I could give the same response as before. Why does God need suffering to accomplish anything?

I believe I offered a proof in post 46.


I read a chapter of "The Brothers Karamazov" that dealt with this particular issue. I've written a 3 page paper on it that I can post later if you like. However, there are two issues here.

1. Does eternal happiness make up for suffering? Some people would say no. I am undecided.
2. Does eternal happiness justify the existence of suffering? This I will say, is the most important issue. I don't think it does.

Why does eternal happiness require suffering to exist?

Because true happiness requires freewill, but, as I've already said, happiness is not the point at all.


There are plenty of miserable Christians. Could we say they simply "do not know God?" What about people who report being happier after renouncing God? Or clinical depression? If a devout priest is struck by an illness that makes him miserable, how is he to say "knowledge of God" is good? How is it helping?

Yes, you can say they are not in contact with God. A person who has known God can never renounce Him. It's like saying "I renounce my belief in mars!" It can't be done. BUT AGAIN, as I said in the first thing, happiness is NOT the point, one can still suffer and say God is good, as I explained.


Again, how does "knowledge of God" allow suffering to be justifiable?

Knowledge of God does not justify it, as I say, it lessens its significance.


God is more complex than the universe, it is presumed. By creating God, you make things even more difficult. How did God exist?

Funny, most say God is simpler than the universe! But God is beginningless, so logically He doesn't need a cause. So, how does the universe exist?


Infinite regress is a problem for practically every philosopher, religious or not.

It's a problem for scientists and every person with a brain whose interested in Truth. So, how do you suggest it can be solved without recourse to God?


I'm running out of time at the moment. My apologies for being lazy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument#Formal_objections_and_counte rarguments

None of those objections apply to what I wrote.


Objective values might not exist. If they do, though, utilitarian ethical theories and other ethical theories can be atheistic. Utilitarianism is probably the strongest example, though.

Noone has ever lived logically consistent with utilitarian ethics. In fact, it's an absurd way to live. And they are not objective.
I'm reminded of Bertrand Russell, who fought for social causes, but said he found the fact that he believed in his morals to be "fantastic" and was surprised by them, also he admitted he couldn't find any reason to be committed to them.
Francis Shaffer uses the metaphor as if there were 2 stories in a house, and atheists/materialists just randomly jump to the top one to grab metaphysical justifications for which there beliefs provide no support.

So, I have refuted entirely the 'evil argument' both in this and post 46.

[bcbm]

i don't really feel like going into this any further but this


M-Theory says the physical universe must be 11-dimensional, but why the universe should possess just that number of dimensions is not addressed by the theory.is just plain wrong. previous string theories basically come to the need for ten dimensions because of their equations and all appeared to be correct. they were then unified via the work of witten, though its important to note that m-theory is still being developed.

[Nwoye]

sorry i'm a bit late but i wanted to add something.


The big bang:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
We can't extract the concept of causality from the physical realities of this universe and apply it elsewhere, ie to the creation of this universe. What I'm saying is the notion of causality is a product of this universe, so we can't apply it to an event outside of this universe (this universe's creation). How do we know that causality existed before this universe did? Even further, how do we know that time existed before this universe did? If we're arguing about what happened "before this universe" then we're using language which presupposes the existence of time as a non-spatial continuum. But time might just be a product of this universe, making it impossible to apply to situations outside said circumstances.

Also, Hume destroyed this argument several hundred years ago. How can we possibly conclude that something like the universe has a first cause or beginning? We derive knowledge of a phenomenon based on our experience of that phenomenon, meaning if we have no experience of something, the only way to derive knowledge of it is through a) assumption or b) analogy. Both of these are pretty faulty in this situation. When you assume something you make an ass out of me, and when you derive knowledge based off of analogy the validity of the knowledge becomes lower and lower based on the strength of the analogy. Surely comparing the universe to watches (the watchmaker argument) or any other earthly phenomenon is not a very strong analogy.

[JohannGE]

... atheism needs a justification I think.

I don't feel any obligation to justify reliance on reason.


...What made people here choose atheism,

Reason.


...what are peoples major critiques of belief on God?

Damage to society and individuals.

[spiltteeth]

i don't really feel like going into this any further but this

is just plain wrong. previous string theories basically come to the need for ten dimensions because of their equations and all appeared to be correct. they were then unified via the work of witten, though its important to note that m-theory is still being developed.

I don't see what's wrong with this.
M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions are identified. Because the dimensionality exceeds the dimensionality of five superstring theories in 10 dimensions, it is believed that the 11-dimensional theory unifies all string theories (and supersedes them).

There's no objective reason 11 dimensions are needed, so it's still incredibly mind-boggling that the 11 dimension insanely fine tuned that would be necessary for us to exist just happened to exist.

Anyway, it in no way solves any problems I've posited.

If you sincerely believe things can just pop into existence, which technically may be true if quantum theory pans out,(even though the chances are absurdly improbable that such a thing would happen let alone the entire universe and most physicists, as I've quoted, consider m-theory fatally flawed) and a tiger may really just pop into yr living room, thats fine.

I claim my belief is more rational and more probable and is supported by more science and mathematics and logic than yr belief.

And I find it ironic and unfair that people bring up the big-bang to prove there atheism, and when it is shown it proves the probability of God they just then abandon their belief in science, math, and logic !
Which says to me they are not interested in truth, only in confirming their predjudeses.

[spiltteeth]

I don't feel any obligation to justify reliance on reason.



Reason.



Damage to society and individuals.

So you justify your atheism by recourse to reason, but will not justify your reliance on reason?
Uh....what?

[bcbm]

And I find it ironic and unfair that people bring up the big-bang to prove there atheism, and when it is shown it proves the probability of God they just then abandon their belief in science, math, and logic !

i didn't abandon anything. as i have repeatedly said, all of this is well out of my league and i would have to look into it a lot more before coming to any conclusion.

[spiltteeth]

Organized Confusion;1571781]sorry i'm a bit late but i wanted to add something.


We can't extract the concept of causality from the physical realities of this universe and apply it elsewhere, ie to the creation of this universe. What I'm saying is the notion of causality is a product of this universe, so we can't apply it to an event outside of this universe (this universe's creation).

Right. Same as the future. We can't say the sun will rise tomorrow based just on the past. So I assume anyone who believes the sun will rise tomorrow will be considered irrational by you. The principal of causality is NOT applied outside the universe, as it cannot be.


How do we know that causality existed before this universe did?

If you believe in math or science or logic, you know it could not.


Even further, how do we know that time existed before this universe did?

Again, I believe in science, math, and logic, so I know time did not exist before the big bang.


If we're arguing about what happened "before this universe" then we're using language which presupposes the existence of time as a non-spatial continuum. But time might just be a product of this universe, making it impossible to apply to situations outside said circumstances.

Well, again, according to science, math, and logic, there was no time before the universe, nor could there be, therefore it is, in fact, impossible to talk about 'situations'; whatever existed before had to be in a timeless state of perfect stasis, anything else is a logical impossibility.


Also, Hume destroyed this argument several hundred years ago. How can we possibly conclude that something like the universe has a first cause or beginning? We derive knowledge of a phenomenon based on our experience of that phenomenon, meaning if we have no experience of something, the only way to derive knowledge of it is through a) assumption or b) analogy. Both of these are pretty faulty in this situation. When you assume something you make an ass out of me, and when you derive knowledge based off of analogy the validity of the knowledge becomes lower and lower based on the strength of the analogy. Surely comparing the universe to watches (the watchmaker argument) or any other earthly phenomenon is not a very strong analogy.

I think Hume has been utterly discredited by reformed epistemology, but I'm making no philosophical argument.

How can we know the universe has a beginning? It's a scientific fact. Obviously not in Hume's day, but in ours.

I've gone over it a bit in this thread, but the main reasons for thinking the universe had a beginning are 1) the big bang model and 2) the second law of thermodynamics

Let me know and I'll briefly explain these 2. There are also mathematical and logical reasons as well.

This knowledge is based on mathematical models and observable phenomena.

SINCE we know the universe began, we know it had to have a cause. Since we know all things which have a beginning have a cause, we must ask, what caused the universe?

[Nwoye]

Right. Same as the future. We can't say the sun will rise tomorrow based just on the past. So I assume anyone who believes the sun will rise tomorrow will be considered irrational by you. The principal of causality is NOT applied outside the universe, as it cannot be.

If you believe in math or science or logic, you know it could not.

Again, I believe in science, math, and logic, so I know time did not exist before the big bang.
... wait what?


Well, again, according to science, math, and logic, there was no time before the universe, nor could there be, therefore it is, in fact, impossible to talk about 'situations'; whatever existed before had to be in a timeless state of perfect stasis, anything else is a logical impossibility.
or the notion of anything being "before" the universe is kind of silly.


How can we know the universe has a beginning? It's a scientific fact. Obviously not in Hume's day, but in ours.

I've gone over it a bit in this thread, but the main reasons for thinking the universe had a beginning are 1) the big bang model and 2) the second law of thermodynamics

Let me know and I'll briefly explain these 2. There are also mathematical and logical reasons as well.
I know I missed the rest of the thread but I would appreciate it if you could expand on the second one.

[spiltteeth]

i didn't abandon anything. as i have repeatedly said, all of this is well out of my league and i would have to look into it a lot more before coming to any conclusion.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean you. Someone here brought up the Big bang as evidence for atheism.
And like I say, I understand people being agnostic, not knowing, but not people being atheist.
Also, it seems inescapable, at this point of time, my belief is more probable than the atheist one, that's all.
And before you came to the conclusion that it was probably infinity in either direction, which isn't true.
It just seems odd to appeal to another theory that has less evidence, is rejected by most scientists, is less mathematically probable, and still does not answer my argument, since ultimately it ends at the same condumdrum, as I've explained.
I find it unreasonable to prefer m-theory based on what we know.
People wait their whole lives for a scientific certainty. Bertraund Russel said his quest was to prove 1+1=2. But I think people really looking for truth must take a stand at some point, especially in this case .
But this is just ONE argument for God, out of about 30. So I don't except any reasonable person to say, "hey yr right! Time to go pray!" But when you look at ALL the arguments - I mention 3 in post 46- it seems wildly untenable to be an atheist, and logically more probable that theists are correct.

But it makes a tremendous difference whether God exists. Therefore, even if the evidence for and against the existence of God were absolutely equal, the rational thing to do, I think, is to believe in Him.

But, in fact, I don't think the evidence is absolutely equal. I think there are good reasons to believe in God.

[spiltteeth]

... wait what?


or the notion of anything being "before" the universe is kind of silly.


I know I missed the rest of the thread but I would appreciate it if you could expand on the second one.

Well, first the notion of anything happening - any movement etc- before the universe is silliness. Gods creation would have to happen precisely at the time of the big bang. not before.

Sure, I'll expand, tho I should mention all this stuffs over my head, so I defer to smart type scientists,

If the universe never had a beginning, that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of the twentieth century, states,


The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.

But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can't go back forever; rather the universe must have begun to exist.

David Hume's famous remark that he "never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without cause."

Therefore, we are led to reject the possibility of a completed infinite sequence of events because its implications are openly false. Once again, according to David Hume: "an infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man whose judgment is not corrupted, instead of being improved, by the sciences, would ever be able to admit of it."


This conclusion has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics. In one of the most startling developments of modern science, we now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning about 13 billion years ago in a cataclysmic event known as the Big Bang. What makes the Big Bang so startling is that it represents the origin of the universe from literally nothing. For all matter and energy, even physical space and time themselves, came into being at the Big Bang. As the physicist P. C. W. Davies explains,
"the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science . . . is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization . . . upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing."

Of course, alternative theories have been crafted over the years to try to avoid this absolute beginning, but none of these theories has commended itself to the scientific community as more plausible than the Big Bang theory. In fact, in 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin pulls no punches:


It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.

That problem was nicely captured by Anthony Kenny of Oxford University. He writes, "A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing." But surely that doesn't make sense! Out of nothing, nothing comes. So why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states systems have the tendency to pass from a more ordered to a less ordered state, in other words, all systems have the tendency to pass from a state of lower entropy into a state of higher entropy.
Indeed, as another comrade pointed out, the universe is eternal, but will suffer a 'heat death'. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states the universe as a whole will eventually come to a state of equilibrium and suffer heat death. But this apparently firm projection raised an even deeper question: if, given sufficient time, the universe will suffer heat death, then why, if it has existed forever, is it not now in a state of heat death? If in a finite amount of time the universe will inevitably come to equilibrium, from which no significant further change is physically possible, then it should already be at equilibrium by now, if it has existed for infinite time. Like a ticking clock, it should by now have run down. Since it has not yet run down, this implies, in the words of Richard Schlegel, "In some way the universe must have been wound up."

P. C. W. Davies reports,


Today, few cosmologists doubt that the universe, at least as we know it, did have an origin at a finite moment in the past. The alternative - that the universe has always existed in one form or another—runs into a rather basic paradox. The sun and stars cannot keep burning forever: sooner or later they will run out of fuel and die.

The same is true of all irreversible physical processes; the stock of energy available in the universe to drive them is finite, and cannot last for eternity. This is an example of the so-called second law of thermodynamics, which, applied to the entire cosmos, predicts that it is stuck on a one-way slide of degeneration and decay towards a final state of maximum entropy, or disorder. As this final state has not yet been reached, it follows that the universe cannot have existed for an infinite time.

Davies concludes, "The universe can't have existed forever. We know there must have been an absolute beginning a finite time ago."
So, you would need to say you do not believe in the Big Bang model, the second law of theordynamics, or math to say you do not believe the universe began.

The argument follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Given the truth of the two premises, the conclusion necessarily follows.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

[mikelepore]

Now let me ask you a question, where did the universe come from?

Concern about that question is a rhetorical device that religious people raise ONLY in debates with atheists. This is because, even if God is the answer to that question, there's no way ever to get beyond that sentence to anything more specific. All it would leave the believer with is the use of the word God to mean whatever mysterious agency created the universe, and about which nothing more can possibly be said. The entire religious doctrine could be taught in less than one minute.

In fact, there are virtually no religious people who define God that way -- as whatever created the universe. Instead, religious people define God with a long list of highly specific attributes: God is a human-like mind who has many likes and dislikes, someone who wants people to go into specific buildings on specific holidays for the purpose of reciting specific phrases and hearing specific music, the author of behavioral rules ranging from morals to dress to diet, someone who occasionally intervenes in human history to help one side or the other win wars or sports competitions or to help students pass exams, the producer of eternal souls and angels, someone who presides over the act of swearing an oath, etc.

When religious people want to have some ammunition in debates with atheists, they adopt the most elementary definition of God: whatever created the universe. Then, as soon as the atheist has gone around the corner, they go back to defining the word God in terms of the most intricate details, none of which can possibly arise from the concept of the initialization of the universe, and which are irrelevant to it.

[spiltteeth]

Concern about that question is a rhetorical device that religious people raise ONLY in debates with atheists. This is because, even if God is the answer to that question, there's no way ever to get beyond that sentence to anything more specific. All it would leave the believer with is the use of the word God to mean whatever mysterious agency created the universe, and about which nothing more can possibly be said. The entire religious doctrine could be taught in less than one minute.

In fact, there are virtually no religious people who define God that way -- as whatever created the universe. Instead, religious people define God with a long list of highly specific attributes: God is a human-like mind who has many likes and dislikes, someone who wants people to go into specific buildings on specific holidays for the purpose of reciting specific phrases and hearing specific music, the author of behavioral rules ranging from morals to dress to diet, someone who occasionally intervenes in human history to help one side or the other win wars or sports competitions or to help students pass exams, the producer of eternal souls and angels, someone who presides over the act of swearing an oath, etc.

When religious people want to have some ammunition in debates with atheists, they adopt the most elementary definition of God: whatever created the universe. Then, as soon as the atheist has gone around the corner, they go back to defining the word God in terms of the most intricate details, none of which can possibly arise from the concept of the initialization of the universe, and which are irrelevant to it.

I know what your talking about. It's frustrating to me as well when people's definitions of God become absurdly abstract.

However, whatever started the universe, as I've written, there are some things we can reasonably deduce about it.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect.

I happen to be an Orthodox Christian, so I believe God is: eternal, holy, perfect, all-loving, present everywhere, the Creator, the Source and Giver of life, the Source of virtues, a Trinity, just and therefore Judge;

The cosmological argument is merely one of a bunch, so to justify other attributes I would appeal to other things.

But even with just this one, we've established some reasonably probable attributes of whatever it is that created the universe : personal, uncaused, changeless, eternal, and immaterial.
It seems that this cause is also enormously powerful (if not omnipotent) and intelligent (if not omniscient) based on the fact that it brought a complex, ordered and fine-tuned universe, such as ours, into existence.
Further evidence that the Creator of our universe is a conscious and intelligent being comes from the complexity, order and fine-tuning of our cosmos, which means it is reasonable that He might have some special concern for us.
A pretty close definition of what most theist's mean when they say 'God.'

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'll try and respond to earlier posts later this week. I've been quite busy/lazy.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Yes, the argument is not strong enough on its own, it is a cumulative argument. Christians believe God has given us freewill. And obviously if one is compelled to love then it is not love, this is a logical impossibility, to love presupposes freewill.

How is this true at all? Are you not compelled to love by reasons? You love someone because of X. Either love is "magical fancy stuff" or people are compelled to love.



But as I said, granting us happiness is not the point. Suffering is necessary for freewill, which is a greater good.

You're using a nonstandard definition of evil as "not knowing God." That's kind of outside the argument, here. Evil is typically defined as "suffering" or, at least, "unnecessary suffering."

Perhaps you are arguing that free will is worth suffering for (why?) and that it is necessary for free will that suffering exist (why?)



Because true happiness requires freewill, but, as I've already said, happiness is not the point at all.


Again, we are talking about evil, about happiness. Redefining the terms to escape the argument isn't actually escaping it. It's like if I said, I can prove 1+1=4. Then I tell you 1 is defined as 2. Therefore, 1+1=4. That's not addressing the real argument here. Why does suffering need to exist? What "greater good" is being promoted by suffering. You've suggested knowledge of God. What good does that provide? Nothing that is tangible, really.

Why does a world where people achieve "knowledge of God" justify the God allowing the holocaust to happen? It doesn't. You need "more, much more." Furthermore, why can't God create "knowledge of God" without suffering. It seems quite evident he could implant the knowledge.


Funny, most say God is simpler than the universe! But God is beginningless, so logically He doesn't need a cause. So, how does the universe exist?

The universe exists. How does the universe exist? How does it not? Both are difficult question. I could give you a theory about a chocolate rainbow creating the universe. It doesn't mean there is any evidence for the view. Even if there were, it's a ridiculous view. It's better to ask a scientist about these things.


It's a problem for scientists and every person with a brain whose interested in Truth. So, how do you suggest it can be solved without recourse to God?

I don't know. Your mistake is thinking it is solved "with" recourse to God. It isn't. People just say "God did it," without asking "how," "when," and "how does God exist, who is he, et cetera. These questions are even more difficult than the questions we started with.


None of those objections apply to what I wrote.

They apply directly. People are utilizing that exact argument to justify the existence of God when, in fact, the argument is flawed.



Noone has ever lived logically consistent with utilitarian ethics. In fact, it's an absurd way to live. And they are not objective.
I'm reminded of Bertrand Russell, who fought for social causes, but said he found the fact that he believed in his morals to be "fantastic" and was surprised by them, also he admitted he couldn't find any reason to be committed to them.
Francis Shaffer uses the metaphor as if there were 2 stories in a house, and atheists/materialists just randomly jump to the top one to grab metaphysical justifications for which there beliefs provide no support.

It's not the job of ethics to be easy. Maybe people find utilitarian ethics hard. I don't see anyone who lived consistently according to any ethical theory. Even if they did, utilitarian ethics may be right and simply demand a lot of people.


If you want to get technical, here is a summary of Plantinga's argument, I don't really know what his definition of 'omnipotent' is, but I assume its based on the oooooollld Anslem definition, or something like it, ie :a being is omnipotent if it has every power which it is logically possible to posses.

That makes things much easier, though some Christians concede he can do the logically impossible.


Here's an informal proof.
Imagine a situation S in which Curley is free to take, or to refuse, a bribe. Suppose God wants Curley freely to refrain from taking the bribe in S. The most he could do to bring this about would be to make Curley free in S. Can God get what he wants? That depends on which of the following propositions is true. (Note that one of them must be true, and the other false,)

(t) If Curley were free in S, then Curley would take the bribe.
(r) If Curley were free in S, then Curley would not take the bribe.

(Terminological note: (t) and (r) are among Curley's "counterfactuals of freedom.")

Fair enough so far.


If (t) is true and God makes Curley free in S, then Curley will take the bribe and God won't get what he wants. Only if (r) is true will Curley do what God wants him to do.
Now let Wt be a possible world in which God makes Curley free in S and Curley freely takes the bribe. And let Wr be a world in which in which God makes Curley free in S and Curley freely refuses the bribe. If (t) is true, then God cannot actualize Wr. If, on the other hand, (r) is true, then God cannot actualize Wt. Since either (t) or (r) must be true, it follows that God can't actualize one or the other of these worlds--there is at least one possible world which he cannot actualize.

Possible worlds, alright.


Are you familiar with TWD ("transworld depravity")?
For each possible person, and for each situation in which that person might exist and be free, there is a complete set of true conditional propositions (like (t) and (r)) about what that person would do if she were free in that situation. We will call these a person's "counterfactuals of freedom."
Now the sad truth about Curley may be this: His counterfactuals of freedom are such that in no matter what situation God places him, if God gives him morally significant freedom in that situation, he would freely do at least one wrong action. He doesn't have to. Curley is free, after all. But God knows that he would. Curley suffers from TWD.

Just quoting basically so everything goes together, here.


Of course, there are possible worlds in which Curley is significantly free and never goes wrong. But God can't actualize those worlds without Curley's help, and Curley's counterfactuals of freedom are such that God knows that such help is not going to be forthcoming. Paradoxically, it might be that only Curley can do what's required to actualize one of those worlds.


So God makes a being capable of choice X or choice Y, and it's up to them to make a decision. Fair enough so far.

Now, the problem is to show that the following propositions are logically consistent.
(1) God exists--and is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good.

(2) There is evil in the world.

Plantinga supposes we can do this by finding a proposition implicit in the free will defense that is consistent with (1), and together with (1) entails (2). Now we can see what that proposition is. Here it is:

(3) God actualized a world in which there are free creatures who produce some moral goodness; AND all possible persons suffer from TWD, so that God could not have actualized a world in which there were free creatures who produced moral goodness and no moral evil.
It's possible that both (1) and (3) are true. Together they entail (2). it follows that (2) is consistent with (1).


This is the most common defense, I would say, though he puts it in better words. There are a few issues.

1. This opens up a determinism / free will debate. If free will does not exist, obviously the argument is in trouble.

2. God knows the choices people will make ahead of time. That means people are arranged/made in such a way that they make choices for predictable reasons. That means God knows what they are going to choose "even though it's freely chosen." If we can say it's freely chosen, that is.

What does this mean? Simply put, God rolls 60/40 odds (let's say) and 60% of people are good, evening things out. So God is a gambler and a utilitarian. This seems problematic for stereotypical Christianity. However, if you only want to solve the problem of evil, it might be acceptable.

3. This is an objection by Mackie and others. If compatabilism is true, it seems like God could easily have made man "free" to "always choose to be good." What is freedom, exactly, as defined in this argument?

4. People choose "freely" based on avaliable options. Therefore, why aren't we living in a plastic bubble. Why does the universe have "evil" options at all? Why can't we be free to choice between desirable options?

[Il Medico]

However, its simple common sense. Forget the science. Everyone that begins has a cause. Don't you believe this?

Currently we can explain up until a fraction of a second of when this Universe started to expand. Before that we just don't know. Now if we say, "we can't yet explain where the infinitely small point that was this Universe came from" why would anyone want to further complicate the matter by say "Thus, an all mighty deity created it, but we don't know where that deity came from and can't prove that deity even exist". Why take the unnecessary step?

Now back to matters of why I don't believe in God. One, this God (the christian god) is claimed to be all powerful and all loving. Yet he promises eternal damnation to those who do not believe in him. If this hold true, then God is not a benevolent God, but rather petty and malevolent. Any God like that is no better than his supposed creations and not worthy of my worship. While if this God is all loving then there can be no hell, if there is no hell then why bother ignoring reason? If he is all loving, then he'll forgive me for using the mind he gave me to come to the rational conclusion that he does not exist. There is basically a choice when it comes to religion, either you can choose to believe the unprovable things it holds to be true or you can choose not to believe such things. In my opinion both are valid choices. I don't care if you believe in an invisible flying sky man as long as your standing with me against capitalism. I do, however, wish that other atheist comrades would stop attacking religious comrades for their choice to believe.

[mikelepore]

Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect.

I think scientists don't really understand what they're talking about when they say that the universe and time itself had a beginning, but to me that leaves the alternative answer being "nobody knows." Maybe in another thousand years people will know the answer. Why don't you take "nobody knows" as the answer? That answer isn't satisfying, but being unsatisfying doesn't make a proposition false, and being satisfying doesn't make a proposition true.

Instead you refer to a source of creation that is "personal." Think of how such a word is actually used; for example, my wife says that a dog for a pet has personality, while a fish for a pet doesn't have a personality. What's the pattern? It seems to be that a being is said to have a personality when its brain has a neocortex. I don't know God can be "personal" without having a brain, and, moreover, a mammal's brain, that is, one with a neocortex.

Even if personhood for God is granted, I don't see how personhood could gets us any closer to having an answer to the logical problem of how a timeless and changeless God could make a decision when to wait before creating the universe and when to stop waiting and create it now.

***

As for God being "loving" -- I'm so very far from drawing that conclusion. The creatures that he made to populate the world always have to be in panic and on the run, because they live by clawing, stinging or biting each other to death and then devouring each other. And, just to make it interesting, the one being devoured feels a lot of pain. I would expect a loving God to come up with a somewhat better design than that.

[mikelepore]

This is my opinion about the "free will" problem as it pertains to belief in God.

Let's assume that we have free will, whatever that is. (The concept is poorly defined.)

It's our frequent experience that we get six people together in a room and not one of them is a murderer. However, it's not our experience that we can get six _billion_ people together in a world and not one of them is a murderer. This presents a logical problem because the difference between six and six billion is merely quantitative. How does free will result in a recurring numerical pattern? On the contrary, it's a probabilistic system that results in a recurring numerical pattern. But a being with free will can't contain a probability generator, because there's nothing "free" about having a roulette wheel as the basis of the determination of one's personality.

A second problem is that the numerical pattern in our behavior contradicts the idea of an all-powerful God. It's not plausible that an all-powerful God is able to give us free will in such a way that you can easily get six people together and none chooses to be a murderer, and yet, at the same time, God is unable to give us free will in such a way that we get six _billion_ people together and none chooses to be a murderer. An all-powerful God wouldn't be limited by such a small obstacle as a quantitative difference between two numbers.

Therefore, the religious claim that evil behavior exists because we have free will is not a reasonable explanation, because the phenomenon that has to be explained is quantitative, and the supposed explanation doesn't address this.

[spiltteeth]

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor;1573922]How is this true at all? Are you not compelled to love by reasons? You love someone because of X. Either love is "magical fancy stuff" or people are compelled to love.

I'm sorry I meant externally compelled. So if God 'forced' me to Love it would not be real love, just as if someone put a gun to your head and forced you to love it would not be real love. Love presupposes free choice.


You're using a nonstandard definition of evil as "not knowing God." That's kind of outside the argument, here. Evil is typically defined as "suffering" or, at least, "unnecessary suffering."

No, I'm not defining evil that way, just pointing out that what some people consider evil a Christian would not.


Perhaps you are arguing that free will is worth suffering for (why?) and that it is necessary for free will that suffering exist (why?)

As I have already pointed out, I gave you an entire proof in post #46.



Again, we are talking about evil, about happiness. Redefining the terms to escape the argument isn't actually escaping it. It's like if I said, I can prove 1+1=4. Then I tell you 1 is defined as 2. Therefore, 1+1=4. That's not addressing the real argument here. Why does suffering need to exist? What "greater good" is being promoted by suffering. You've suggested knowledge of God. What good does that provide? Nothing that is tangible, really.

I'm not redining the terms. If we are talking about a CHRISTIAN world veiw, then as I say, Christians do not see happiness as the highest good, or even what life is about. So getting tangible things like cars or money is not the greatest good for a christian.

As to why suffering may necessarily need to exist, again, I've provided an entire proof in post #46.


Why does a world where people achieve "knowledge of God" justify the God allowing the holocaust to happen? It doesn't. You need "more, much more." Furthermore, why can't God create "knowledge of God" without suffering. It seems quite evident he could implant the knowledge.

Of course I need much more.


The universe exists. How does the universe exist? How does it not? Both are difficult question. I could give you a theory about a chocolate rainbow creating the universe. It doesn't mean there is any evidence for the view. Even if there were, it's a ridiculous view. It's better to ask a scientist about these things.

Yes, science upholds the theory of God. That is, God is the most probable answer for the universe existing.


I don't know. Your mistake is thinking it is solved "with" recourse to God. It isn't. People just say "God did it," without asking "how," "when," and "how does God exist, who is he, et cetera. These questions are even more difficult than the questions we started with.

It is the most probable answer.


They apply directly. People are utilizing that exact argument to justify the existence of God when, in fact, the argument is flawed.



It's not the job of ethics to be easy. Maybe people find utilitarian ethics hard. I don't see anyone who lived consistently according to any ethical theory. Even if they did, utilitarian ethics may be right and simply demand a lot of people.



That makes things much easier, though some Christians concede he can do the logically impossible.

I'm not familiar with many that do.



Fair enough so far.



Possible worlds, alright.



Just quoting basically so everything goes together, here.






This is the most common defense, I would say, though he puts it in better words. There are a few issues.

1. This opens up a determinism / free will debate. If free will does not exist, obviously the argument is in trouble.

This is true. However, Christians believe in free will.


2. God knows the choices people will make ahead of time. That means people are arranged/made in such a way that they make choices for predictable reasons. That means God knows what they are going to choose "even though it's freely chosen." If we can say it's freely chosen, that is.

What does this mean? Simply put, God rolls 60/40 odds (let's say) and 60% of people are good, evening things out. So God is a gambler and a utilitarian. This seems problematic for stereotypical Christianity. However, if you only want to solve the problem of evil, it might be acceptable.

There is an argument against this, but as you say, the problem of evil is all this is about. But if yr curious I'll let you know.


3. This is an objection by Mackie and others. If compatabilism is true, it seems like God could easily have made man "free" to "always choose to be good." What is freedom, exactly, as defined in this argument?

4. People choose "freely" based on available options. Therefore, why aren't we living in a plastic bubble. Why does the universe have "evil" options at all? Why can't we be free to choice between desirable options?

I really think the proof shows how it might reasonably be possible that God could not create a universe where we are free to always choose good, or be free of evil IF he created us with free will. In fact, I believe Mackie accepted this argument.

Perhaps if I explain it differently, and simply.

"Mackie’s triad":

1. God is all-powerful.

2. God is wholly good.

3. Evil exists.

These three are thought to be logically inconsistent. This means one cannot affirm - simultaneously - the truth of all three statements.

Mackie adds some explanatory rules to make the inconsistency more obvious. Mackie believes that:

iv. A good being would always stop evil from happening. This means that a good being always eliminates evil as far as it can.

v. An all-powerful being is able to stop evil from happening. It can do anything. There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do.

With these two explanatory rules added, Mackie thinks the logical inconsistency is obvious. Thus, for Mackie, to believe in the existence of God is positively irrational (= illogical).

Mackie's argument can be put in the form of what is called a logically "inconsistent triad". In this argument form, three propositions are inconsistent with each other such that one cannot hold all three at the same time without holding a contradiction. Holding such a contradiction would be like believing that:

a. This object is round.

b. This object is square.

It’s impossible to consistently or rationally believe both of these at the same time. Thus Mackie's argument from the problem of evil is an argument that seeks to demonstrate that the traditional theistic definition of God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil. It concludes that God cannot possibly exist if evil exists. Mackie argues that the theist cannot rationally believe in God's existence given the existence of evil.

Now NO ONE ACCEPTS THIS ARGUMENT AS A PROOF OF GOD’S NON-EXISTENCE TODAY. WHY NOT?

The decisive refutation was given by Alvin Plantinga.

To refute this all Plantinga needs to show is that it is possible to affirm (1), (2), and (3) together.

Here it is.

Plantinga argues there are possible worlds which God cannot actualize. His argument has to do with what are called “counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.” A counterfactual statement is an “If… then…” statement. An “If… then…” statement is a hypothetical statement.
Such as: “If A… then B…” Because the statement is hypothetical, there is a “counter” statement to it which says: “If A… then not-B…” ONLY ONE of these statements can be true. (In modal logic counterfactual statements are about possible worlds.)

Some “If… then…” statements are about creaturely freedom. E.g., “If John is faced with choice A, he will choose B.” Or, “If John is faced with choice A, he will not choose B.” These statements are about creaturely free will. Only one of them can be true. They cannot both be true.

Logically, it's possible that God has "counterfactual knowledge." If God has counterfactual knowledge then God knows with certainty the actual, contingent truth-value of all counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. This does not entail that God has, however, control whatsoever over the truth-value of these counterfactuals. This is because it is possible that persons have free will. On this view God does not control our choices. Here’s an example.

Suppose God wants John to freely refrain from taking a bribe. God will not control John’s choice, because John has free will. All God can do is give John free will.

So, one of the following propositions is true. But only one can be true. If one is true, the other is necessarily false.

c) If John has free will, then John will take the bribe.

d) If John is free, then John will not take the bribe.

If (c) is true, then John will take the bribe and God won’t get what he wants. Only if (d) is true will John do what God wants him to do.

So, we have two possible worlds. One possible world is where (c) is true. Another possible world is where (d) is true. But if (c) is true, then God cannot actualize a possible world in which (d) is true. This is because (c) and (d) are “counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.” (CCFs) Only one of them can be true. Depending on which one is true, it means that the counter-proposition is false.
Therefore there is at least one possible world which God cannot actualize. Therefore God cannot actualize all possible worlds.

Remember, God knows the truth-value of all CCFs. God knows what John will do. But John has free will, so it does not mean that God controls or determines what John will do. Because God knows whether (c) is true or (d) is true, God cannot actualize a possible world where the counterfactual of either (c) or (d) is true.

Plantinga then argues that it is possible that every creature suffers in fact from transworld depravity. So, although there are possible worlds where creatures are free but commit no moral evil, these were not feasible worlds for God to actualize, since the truth-values of the relevant counterfactuals of freedom were not under His control. Because it is logically possible that God has given creaturely agents free will, has counterfactual, and transwordl depravity exists, then God cannot create a possible world where things work out just as he wants.
Therefore Mackie's triad does not present us with three logically incompatible statements. It is possible to affirm: 1) God is all-powerful; 2) God is all-loving; 3) evil exists.

[spiltteeth]

The Doctor;1573962]Currently we can explain up until a fraction of a second of when this Universe started to expand. Before that we just don't know. Now if we say, "we can't yet explain where the infinitely small point that was this Universe came from" why would anyone want to further complicate the matter by say "Thus, an all mighty deity created it, but we don't know where that deity came from and can't prove that deity even exist". Why take the unnecessary step?

I see what yr saying. However, I'm merely saying God is the most probable explanation, based on math, cosmology, astrophysics, and logic.


Now back to matters of why I don't believe in God. One, this God (the christian god) is claimed to be all powerful and all loving. Yet he promises eternal damnation to those who do not believe in him. If this hold true, then God is not a benevolent God, but rather petty and malevolent. Any God like that is no better than his supposed creations and not worthy of my worship. While if this God is all loving then there can be no hell, if there is no hell then why bother ignoring reason? If he is all loving, then he'll forgive me for using the mind he gave me to come to the rational conclusion that he does not exist. There is basically a choice when it comes to religion, either you can choose to believe the unprovable things it holds to be true or you can choose not to believe such things. In my opinion both are valid choices. I don't care if you believe in an invisible flying sky man as long as your standing with me against capitalism. I do, however, wish that other atheist comrades would stop attacking religious comrades for their choice to believe.

I agree. Truly such a God would be despicable. But, maybe you'll let me explain what my church has taught about hell, and which the original church taught up until 1000 ad.

The idea that God is an angry figure who sends those He condemns to a place called Hell, where they spend eternity in torment separated from His presence, is missing from the Bible and unknown in the early church. While Heaven and Hell are decidedly real, they are experiential conditions rather than physical places. This is not the way traditional Western Christianity, Roman Catholic or Protestant, has envisioned the afterlife. In Western thought Hell is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet this concept occurs nowhere in the Bible

While there is no question that according to the scriptures there is torment and "gnashing of teeth" for the wicked, and glorification for the righteous, and that this judgment comes from God, these destinies are not separate destinations. The Bible indicates that everyone comes before God in the next life, and it is because of being in God's presence that they either suffer eternally, or experience eternal joy. In other words, both the joy of heaven, and the torment of judgment, is caused by being eternally in the presence of the God. If one examines what the early Church Fathers wrote about "hell" and the afterlife, it will be seen that they too understood that there is no place called hell, and that both paradise and torment came from being in God's presence in the afterlife.

When you examine what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and what most Protestants believe about the afterlife, and compare that with the scriptures and early Church beliefs, you find large disparities. You will also find their innovative doctrines were not drawn from the Bible or historic Church doctrine, but rather from the mythology of the Middle Ages, juridical concepts, and enlightenment rationalizations, all alien to early Christian thought.
There is no "place" of torment, The "place" is actually a condition of either punishment ("hell") or paradise ("heaven") depending on how you experience the presence of God.
Experiencing God's presence in glory or in torment, as Paradise or as Punishment, is the heaven and hell of the Bible.

[spiltteeth]

mikelepore;1573993]I think scientists don't really understand what they're talking about when they say that the universe and time itself had a beginning, but to me that leaves the alternative answer being "nobody knows." Maybe in another thousand years people will know the answer. Why don't you take "nobody knows" as the answer? That answer isn't satisfying, but being unsatisfying doesn't make a proposition false, and being satisfying doesn't make a proposition true.

I hear you. But I really do think we know a great deal about the universe. And at this time God is the most probable answer.
Part of the reason I don't pick the 'just don't know' is because the answer is so terribly important. And I can't wait a thousand years!

Maybe evolution will be proven wrong, or expanded upon. But for now it makes up my world view. And there's good reason to believe we may come up with theories, but never come up with testable ways to determine what caused the big bang, since that data is beyond us, so in any case we likely will always have to conjecture.

But even so, this is only ONE reason I think the cause was God.

Consider the fact that the chances that the universe should be life-permitting are so infinitesimal as to be incomprehensible and incalculable.

For example, Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball.

P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least.
He also estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10(100) would have prevented a life-permitting universe.
There are a number of such quantities and constants present in the big bang which must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. So improbability is multiplied by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

There is no physical reason why these constants and quantities should possess the values they do. The former agnostic physicist Paul Davies comments, “Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact.”
Similarly, Fred Hoyle remarks, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics.”


Instead you refer to a source of creation that is "personal." Think of how such a word is actually used; for example, my wife says that a dog for a pet has personality, while a fish for a pet doesn't have a personality. What's the pattern? It seems to be that a being is said to have a personality when its brain has a neocortex. I don't know God can be "personal" without having a brain, and, moreover, a mammal's brain, that is, one with a neocortex.

Well, I argue personal because I can't think of another theory with better explanatory power.

However, I would argue minds are not material things, from PLantinga. Wait! Don't think I'm crazy.
Actually it is complicated, but Plantinga imagines a scenario in which, within a very short period of time, while he is reading the paper, all of the parts of his body are replaced by duplicates and the originals are destroyed. Plantinga holds that he would survive such a procedure, although his body would not; thus he concludes that he is not identical to his body.


Even if personhood for God is granted, I don't see how personhood could gets us any closer to having an answer to the logical problem of how a timeless and changeless God could make a decision when to wait before creating the universe and when to stop waiting and create it now.

Well, before the big bang thee was no time, so the concept of 'waiting' really wouldn't apply.

***


As for God being "loving" -- I'm so very far from drawing that conclusion. The creatures that he made to populate the world always have to be in panic and on the run, because they live by clawing, stinging or biting each other to death and then devouring each other. And, just to make it interesting, the one being devoured feels a lot of pain. I would expect a loving God to come up with a somewhat better design than that.

Well, in another post above, I posit a proof that it may not have been logically possible for God to create a world with less 'evil' without also severely limiting our free-will and the amount of 'good' that exists.
Plus this design forces us to form communities and rely on each other, forces us to make friendships. The Triune God IS community himself!
But, for a Christian, this is all just a tiny fraction of existence, compared to an eternity of bliss, so thats all offset by this belief to a degree.

[spiltteeth]

This is my opinion about the "free will" problem as it pertains to belief in God.

Let's assume that we have free will, whatever that is. (The concept is poorly defined.)

It's our frequent experience that we get six people together in a room and not one of them is a murderer. However, it's not our experience that we can get six _billion_ people together in a world and not one of them is a murderer. This presents a logical problem because the difference between six and six billion is merely quantitative. How does free will result in a recurring numerical pattern? On the contrary, it's a probabilistic system that results in a recurring numerical pattern. But a being with free will can't contain a probability generator, because there's nothing "free" about having a roulette wheel as the basis of the determination of one's personality.

A second problem is that the numerical pattern in our behavior contradicts the idea of an all-powerful God. It's not plausible that an all-powerful God is able to give us free will in such a way that you can easily get six people together and none chooses to be a murderer, and yet, at the same time, God is unable to give us free will in such a way that we get six _billion_ people together and none chooses to be a murderer. An all-powerful God wouldn't be limited by such a small obstacle as a quantitative difference between two numbers.

Therefore, the religious claim that evil behavior exists because we have free will is not a reasonable explanation, because the phenomenon that has to be explained is quantitative, and the supposed explanation doesn't address this.

So, you holds that
1. God is the omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good creator of the world
is improbable or unlikely with respect to
2. There are 10E+13 turps of evil
(where the turp is the basic unit of evil).

Suppose we stipulate, for purposes of argument, that (1) is, in fact, improbable on (2). Let's agree that it is unlikely, given the existence of 10E+13 turps of evil, that the world has been created by a God who is perfect in power, knowledge and goodness.

What is supposed to follow from that? How is that to be construed as an objection to theistic belief? How does the objector's argument go from
there? It doesn't follow, of course, that theism is false. Nor does it follow that one who accepts both (1) and (2) (and let's add, recognizes that (1) is improbable with respect to (2)) has an irrational system of beliefs or is in any way guilty of noetic impropriety; obviously there might be pairs of propositions A and B, such that we know both A and B, despite the fact that A is improbable on B.
I might know, for example, both that Feike is a Frisian and 9 out of 10 Frisians can't swim, and also that Feike can swim; then I am obviously within my intellectual rights in accepting both these propositions, even though the latter is improbable with respect to the former. So even if it were a fact that (1) is improbable with respect to (2), that fact, so far, wouldn't be of much consequence. How, therefore, can this objection be developed?
Presumably what you mean to hold is that (1) is improbable, not just on (2) but on some appropriate body of total evidence- perhaps all the evidence the theist has, or perhaps the body of evidence he is rationally obliged to have. You, or any objector, must be supposing that the theist has a relevant body of total evidence here, a body of evidence that includes (2); and his claim is that (1) is improbable with respect to this relevant body of total evidence. Suppose we say that T is the relevant body of total evidence for a given theist T; and suppose we agree that a brief is rationally acceptable for him only if it is not improbable with respect to T. Now what sorts of propositions are to be found in T?
Perhaps the propositions he knows to be true, or perhaps the largest subset of his beliefs that he can rationally accept without evidence from other propositions, or perhaps the propositions he knows immediately-knows, but does not know on the basis of other propositions. However exactly we characterize this set T, the question I mean to press is this: why can't belief in God be itself a member of T? Perhaps for the theist-for many
theists, at any rate-belief in God is a member of T. Perhaps the theist has a right to start from belief in God, taking that proposition to be one of the ones probability with respect to which determines the rational propriety of other beliefs he holds.
But if so, then the Christian philosopher is entirely within his rights in starting from belief in God to his philosophizing. He has a right to take the existence of God for granted and go on from there in his philosophical work-just as other philosophers take for granted the existence of the past, say, or of other persons, or the basic claims of contemporary physics.

[Il Medico]

I agree. Truly such a God would be despicable. But, maybe you'll let me explain what my church has taught about hell, and which the original church taught up until 1000 ad.

The idea that God is an angry figure who sends those He condemns to a place called Hell, where they spend eternity in torment separated from His presence, is missing from the Bible and unknown in the early church. While Heaven and Hell are decidedly real, they are experiential conditions rather than physical places. This is not the way traditional Western Christianity, Roman Catholic or Protestant, has envisioned the afterlife. In Western thought Hell is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet this concept occurs nowhere in the Bible

While there is no question that according to the scriptures there is torment and "gnashing of teeth" for the wicked, and glorification for the righteous, and that this judgment comes from God, these destinies are not separate destinations. The Bible indicates that everyone comes before God in the next life, and it is because of being in God's presence that they either suffer eternally, or experience eternal joy. In other words, both the joy of heaven, and the torment of judgment, is caused by being eternally in the presence of the God. If one examines what the early Church Fathers wrote about "hell" and the afterlife, it will be seen that they too understood that there is no place called hell, and that both paradise and torment came from being in God's presence in the afterlife.

When you examine what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and what most Protestants believe about the afterlife, and compare that with the scriptures and early Church beliefs, you find large disparities. You will also find their innovative doctrines were not drawn from the Bible or historic Church doctrine, but rather from the mythology of the Middle Ages, juridical concepts, and enlightenment rationalizations, all alien to early Christian thought.
There is no "place" of torment, The "place" is actually a condition of either punishment ("hell") or paradise ("heaven") depending on how you experience the presence of God.
Experiencing God's presence in glory or in torment, as Paradise or as Punishment, is the heaven and hell of the Bible.
Thank you, it is a rare indulgence to get a taste of the details of Orthodox Theology. It has always been fun for me to learn more about Mythology and theology as it is a rather enjoyable mental exercise to entertain such ideas. Orthodox theology seems to have it's own ideas about hell, however, to claim that they are unadulterated and straight from the bible is a stretch. The original concept of Hell (not called hell then by the way, but I can't remember the Hebrew word) is eternal separation from God for the sinful and communion with God for the righteous. So yes, yours is closer to the original concept, but not quite it. Then again, this is the same book which condones slavery and demands homosexuals be stoned to death. So I wouldn't be jumping up down because your faith more closely follows it than Catholicism or Protestantism.

[spiltteeth]

Thank you, it is a rare indulgence to get a taste of the details of Orthodox Theology. It has always been fun for me to learn more about Mythology and theology as it is a rather enjoyable mental exercise to entertain such ideas. Orthodox theology seems to have it's own ideas about hell, however, to claim that they are unadulterated and straight from the bible is a stretch. The original concept of Hell (not called hell then by the way, but I can't remember the Hebrew word) is eternal separation from God for the sinful and communion with God for the righteous. So yes, yours is closer to the original concept, but not quite it. Then again, this is the same book which condones slavery and demands homosexuals be stoned to death. So I wouldn't be jumping up down because your faith more closely follows it than Catholicism or Protestantism.

Well, I notice your location is Hell, so maybe you know better!
But seriously, God is everywhere; I believe it's separation from God's love, His 'presence' in this sense.

As for the rest, the Orthodox have interpreted the bible consistently for 2000 years and in all that time no priest or saint has suggested the stoning of gay people or slavery. How can one explain this? It's in the Bible.
I think the best solution is that you are not interrupting these passages the same way as the Orthodox have, even from the beginning. (for instance, the OT is always interpreted in light of certain things, such as the revelation of Christ. So a person who doesn't relate all the OT passages to Christ's revelation might indeed interpret such passages to condone stoning etc This is not a new interpretation of the Bible to be more politically correct or bow down to science, it has always been interpreted thus)

[Il Medico]

Well, I notice your location is Hell, so maybe you know better!
But seriously, God is everywhere; I believe it's separation from God's love, His 'presence' in this sense.

As for the rest, the Orthodox have interpreted the bible consistently for 2000 years and in all that time no priest or saint has suggested the stoning of gay people or slavery. How can one explain this? It's in the Bible.
I think the best solution is that you are not interrupting these passages the same way as the Orthodox have, even from the beginning. (for instance, the OT is always interpreted in light of certain things, such as the revelation of Christ. So a person who doesn't relate all the OT passages to Christ's revelation might indeed interpret such passages to condone stoning etc This is not a new interpretation of the Bible to be more politically correct or bow down to science, it has always been interpreted thus)
I think it would behoove Christians to drop the old testament entirely. The explanation that you have to interpret the brutal passages in the old testament though the revelation of Christ just never jived with me. (That is not exclusive to Orthodox Christians, I was thought it as well when going through the Theological studies required to get reconciliation (Catholic). I later taught it to young children when I taught Sunday School [begrudgingly I may add as I never believed this explanation in the first place]). However, the fact that God goes from a vengeful god of Justice to an all loving god of peace who would sacrifice himself to save humanity is a bit of a problem (if you don't ignore that fact or interpret it as you described). The Earliest Christian recognized this and the first Bible did not include the old testament. The problem with this is that his Jewish followers claimed he was the Jewish Messiah predicted in the scriptures, so saying that the God of the Old Testament is not the same God as Jesus was out of the question, hence the compromise of "through the revelation of Christ" (aka Jesus coming changes everything)

[spiltteeth]

I think it would behoove Christians to drop the old testament entirely. The explanation that you have to interpret the brutal passages in the old testament though the revelation of Christ just never jived with me. (That is not exclusive to Orthodox Christians, I was thought it as well when going through the Theological studies required to get reconciliation (Catholic). I later taught it to young children when I taught Sunday School [begrudgingly I may add as I never believed this explanation in the first place]). However, the fact that God goes from a vengeful god of Justice to an all loving god of peace who would sacrifice himself to save humanity is a bit of a problem (if you don't ignore that fact or interpret it as you described). The Earliest Christian recognized this and the first Bible did not include the old testament. The problem with this is that his Jewish followers claimed he was the Jewish Messiah predicted in the scriptures, so saying that the God of the Old Testament is not the same God as Jesus was out of the question, hence the compromise of "through the revelation of Christ" (aka Jesus coming changes everything)

That's a reasonable opinion. Of course us Christians really do believe 'Jesus changed everything!'

It's funny, I once heard a disgruntled Catholic sunday school teacher trying to explain the OT and NT lose his temper and just yell, "God gave people a million chances, tried yelling at them and punishing them and then finally gave the fuck up and figured we'd never change so he just decided to forgive us for being such war-mongering assholes!"

[Il Medico]

That's a reasonable opinion. Of course us Christians really do believe 'Jesus changed everything!' I know I was one for quite a while you know. ;) I really have no problem understanding where your coming from, but just because I understand your point of view doesn't mean I have to agree.


It's funny, I once heard a disgruntled Catholic sunday school teacher trying to explain the OT and NT lose his temper and just yell, "God gave people a million chances, tried yelling at them and punishing them and then finally gave the fuck up and figured we'd never change so he just decided to forgive us for being such war-mongering assholes!"
I taught middle schoolers (6th grade) so I am sure I yelled and screamed like that quite often.:lol:

[Rosa Provokateur]

I understand agnosticism, some people saying there is no good argument for God one way or another, but atheism needs a justification I think.

What made people here choose atheism, and what are peoples major critiques of belief on God? It seems some have a moral outrage towards belief, also I've heard people say it's a kind of duty to fight against belief in God.

What's the dilio?

http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/philosoraptor_on_atheism.jpg

[RHIZOMES]

Well, I'm an orthodox Christian, we're pretty dogmatic, so I'm not aware of any of my beliefs being proved wrong. Perhaps from ignorance?

Read Genesis and then right after read The Origin of the Species back to back.

And most arguments of Genesis being metaphorical only really popped up after the arrival Darwinism. It's a common trick of religion, when something is proven wrong just say it's "metaphorical". :rolleyes:


Actually, evolution and the big bang are the major reasons for my belief in God!

Okay, but that doesn't explain the Christianity. You're conflating pro-existence of a God arguments with Christianity being the truth arguments. There is no proof that Christianity is anything more than a social construct, and there is numerous historical proofs of Christian beliefs being modified from their original intent or just plain completely made up. Christianity has been a tool for social control ever since the time of Constantine. So yeah being a Christian communist is a bit of a contradiction imho.

You're just arguing about the existence of "a" God. Not the "Christian" God. Your logical arguments about the beginning of the universe, I think they're pretty sound/comprehensive, but I don't think you can apply that same in-depth analysis to explain to me the whole Jesus concept, which I find completely ludicrous.

God suddenly changes his mind about how he treats humanity (just 2000 years ago in a history spanning hundreds of thousands of years), and then not only that, instead of just forgiving us and leaving it at that, he has to produce a son (who is also him) which he drafts some woman into giving birth to like she has nothing better to do and then make him/himself (lol) get crucified, and only people who accept that he forgave us by willingly executing himself go to heaven, and the people who don't believe it, rightfully so since it's completely illogical and unproven, burn eternity in hell. I mean, from my logical analysis of this, it just sounds like a charismatic religious nut who got himself executed for stirring up a ruckus and then his zealous followers constructed this entire mythology around it. And then Paul came in later and added his own bits in. And then the Council of Nicaea 200 years later to determine which books to exclude from the "official" Bible. It was all because those particular books were just the most theologically true right? :rolleyes:

[JohannGE]

So you justify your atheism by recourse to reason, but will not justify your reliance on reason?
Uh....what?


Not sure what your criticism is.

As I said, I don't consider it should be necessary to justify the formation of opinion based on a reasoned consideration of the available facts. It seems so obvious to me , but...

What other method should I use?

Following the course of blind faith would (and does) lead us to believe any sort of nonsense that might be peddled. I think that is more than enough justification for recourse to reason over blind faith.

[spiltteeth]

Not sure what your criticism is.

As I said, I don't consider it should be necessary to justify the formation of opinion based on a reasoned consideration of the available facts. It seems so obvious to me , but...

What other method should I use?

Following the course of blind faith would (and does) lead us to believe any sort of nonsense that might be peddled. I think that is more than enough justification for recourse to reason over blind faith.

But this whole thread I've had recourse to reason and science. There is plenty of compelling arguments for the existence of God based on the facts, as I've pointed out this whole thread.
I think the evidence is on the theists side, as I've been arguing.

[spiltteeth]

Arizona Bay;1574194]Read Genesis and then right after read The Origin of the Species back to back.

And most arguments of Genesis being metaphorical only really popped up after the arrival Darwinism. It's a common trick of religion, when something is proven wrong just say it's "metaphorical". :rolleyes:

I really do appreciate what yr saying. Many Christians just keep backtracking to reformulate their beliefs in the light if science.
However, the Orthodox Church, the 3rd largest Christianity, has never done that. We've always interpreted the bible consistently, and never believed in talking snakes etc

Here, however, are two quotes from typical priests of Orthodox Christianity, Fr. Andrew Anglorus and Fr. Stephen Freeman:


…lack[ing] a Patristic understanding of the Scriptures…they do not understand the Scriptures spiritually, ascetically, allegorically, poetically, but only literally. We call such an understanding 'fundamentalist'.


Genesis, properly read, is not a science text book. It is about Christ and reveals Him as the very meaning and purpose of creation - as well as explicating His Pascha. If you don’t see that when you read the first chapter of Genesis, then no one ever taught you how to read Scripture as the primitive Church read Scripture….Scripture functions as a verbal icon - and like an icon requires an understanding of its spiritual grammar to see it correctly

Nor is this simply a way for modern Christians to excuse obviously unscientific biblical passages. St. Maximus the Confessor, living in 500-600 A.D. wrote, “Ignorance, in other words, Hades, dominates those who understand Scripture in a fleshly (literal) way”


Okay, but that doesn't explain the Christianity. You're conflating pro-existence of a God arguments with Christianity being the truth arguments.

No, I personally am Christian, and I did defend the belief in a Christian God who is good, but as I said in an earlier post, I'm only saying I really feel atheism is unjustified when you look at the total evidence.
I understand agnosticism - although I disagree with it, and I do understand someone not being specifically Christian; this thread is just about people who don't believe in God period.


There is no proof that Christianity is anything more than a social construct, and there is numerous historical proofs of Christian beliefs being modified from their original intent or just plain completely made up.

I STRONGLY disagree with this. In fact the historical proofs U]absolutely[/U] prove the opposite. We have original manuscripts, the small changes are usually repetion or spelling. And as I say, the Orthodox have had the same consistent unchanged beliefs for 2000 yrs.


Christianity has been a tool for social control ever since the time of Constantine. So yeah being a Christian communist is a bit of a contradiction imho.

Sadly, Christianity has indeed been often, and even mostly, a social control. But also occasionally a force to overthrow the ruling class. From the early church, to the levelers, anabaptists, protestants, to today's Liberation Theology in Latin America and Desmond Tu-tu fighting for gay rights and against oppression in Africa.


You're just arguing about the existence of "a" God. Not the "Christian" God. Your logical arguments about the beginning of the universe, I think they're pretty sound/comprehensive, but I don't think you can apply that same in-depth analysis to explain to me the whole Jesus concept, which I find completely ludicrous.

You're right. But I do think I could give you a somewhat similar analysis on Christ, as a geologist examines past evidence, I can point to much historical evidence, at least.


God suddenly changes his mind about how he treats humanity (just 2000 years ago in a history spanning hundreds of thousands of years), and then not only that, instead of just forgiving us and leaving it at that, he has to produce a son (who is also him) which he drafts some woman into giving birth to like she has nothing better to do and then make him/himself (lol) get crucified, and only people who accept that he forgave us by willingly executing himself go to heaven, and the people who don't believe it, rightfully so since it's completely illogical and unproven, burn eternity in hell. I mean, from my logical analysis of this, it just sounds like a charismatic religious nut who got himself executed for stirring up a ruckus and then his zealous followers constructed this entire mythology around it. And then Paul came in later and added his own bits in. And then the Council of Nicaea 200 years later to determine which books to exclude from the "official" Bible. It was all because those particular books were just the most theologically true right? :rolleyes:

Well, when you put it like that....it just sounds silly!

But, if someone starts a thread just on Christianity I'll defend it in depth.
First, above I describe to the good Doctor the Orthodox version of Hell, which is quite different from the medieval version.
I don't think God changed his mind, I think he was preparing humanity for the final revelation.
Perhaps yr familiar with Zorastarism, or Mithra. Very similar to Christ in some ways, kind of as if God was gradually revealing himself moire and more.
Plus if Christ had lived a 1000 yrs before, the historical evidence might've been in bad shape.
Christianity is unique in that lives and dies by the historical evidence, which I find quite strong.
Also, I don't think Mary minded being 'drafted' she could certainly brag to all the other mothers - "Oh, yr son's a doctor...that's nice...my Son redeemed all of humanity...(mumbling) kind of makes your kid look like a pussy..."
And at Nicea there was an overwhelming consensus of which books to keep, they were kept because they represented the different communities experience of Christ. Ones where the writers injected philosophy, or were trying to make political points, etc were rejected.

Now I'm not saying the whole thing doesn't sound improbable, I'm saying it's historically supported, logically consistent, and can be personally experienced through the church and Holy Spirit.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'm sorry I meant externally compelled. So if God 'forced' me to Love it would not be real love, just as if someone put a gun to your head and forced you to love it would not be real love. Love presupposes free choice.

Free choice, again, is some "mystical thing." You're essentially saying you have to love for "no reason." Choices always have "reasons." God could have made reason compel someone to belief. Free will is also not important. Only happiness is.



As I have already pointed out, I gave you an entire proof in post #46.

The proof was not adequate.



Yes, science upholds the theory of God. That is, God is the most probable answer for the universe existing.

Scientists are more likely to be atheists than most people. Scientist does not support God. You are factually mistaken here.



Now NO ONE ACCEPTS THIS ARGUMENT AS A PROOF OF GOD’S NON-EXISTENCE TODAY. WHY NOT?

The decisive refutation was given by Alvin Plantinga.


I already addressed plenty of inconsistencies in Platinga's argument (it makes God a utilitarian, for one). Furthermore, Mackie's argument is different. It says God could make humans free and necessarily happy and loving God. It combines free will and determinism.

Alvin Platinga's argument is hardly a decisive refutation. I study philosophy. It has never came up in a single philosophy course I've taken, and the problem of evil regularly comes up. Platinga's argument (which has enterned common Christian discourse) as an example of poor philosophical reasoning in entry level philosophy courses.

That being said, he "could" be completely right. Arguments of authority are simply not legitimate. People do agree with the problem of evil. That means nothing. Those people could all be wrong. Similarly, if every single person in existence agreed with Platinga, they could still be mistaken.

Maybe if you attach your somehow incompatabilist view of free will, limited omnipotence of God, et cetera, to the argument, you have "some grounds" for escaping it. However, your argument isn't completely without defending free will as incompatabilist (which I would disagree with, as would many others).

So if "free will" as defined by Platinga is true, his argument "might" be valid. I'm still not 100% sure it would be. That being said, I am fairly confident his argument makes God a utilitarian. This position seems quite incompatible with mainstream Christian doctrine. But if you aren't concerned with that, maybe it is satisficatory.

I suspect the response would be that free will makes God not responsible. However, free will is so often talked about in such mystical ways it's hard for any opposing argumenter to even comprehend how to approach your argument. It's the equivalent of saying "God exists because of fairies."

Well maybe that's true. But give me a comprehensive and logical explanation of what fairies are and how they operate. They maybe I can accept the premises of the argument.

In other words, it "may" be a valid argument (I'm not 100% sure.) However, I fail to see how it can be "sound" until an adequate account of what free will is, and how it operates, is presented.

[spiltteeth]

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor;1574908]Free choice, again, is some "mystical thing." You're essentially saying you have to love for "no reason." Choices always have "reasons." God could have made reason compel someone to belief. Free will is also not important. Only happiness is.

No. Not at all. You can't be EXTERNALLY compelled, or forced, to love. It has to come from the subjects will, not anothers will.

It is important to me that I am not a robot, that I have free will.

We are discussing if a Christian could be warranted to believe hat God is good, and a Christian believes in free will.

And neither I, nor Christians, believe happiness to be the end all of life.


The proof was not adequate.

I'm afraid your going to have to be more specific than that! Where did it err?


Scientists are more likely to be atheists than most people. Scientist does not support God. You are factually mistaken here.

More scientists are theists than atheist in America and England.

However, I'll argue that science does indeed support it, on at least 2 counts.

1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe.

If the universe never had a beginning, that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of the twentieth century, states,


The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.

But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can't go back forever; rather the universe must have begun to exist.

This conclusion has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics. In one of the most startling developments of modern science, we now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning about 13 billion years ago in a cataclysmic event known as the Big Bang. What makes the Big Bang so startling is that it represents the origin of the universe from literally nothing. For all matter and energy, even physical space and time themselves, came into being at the Big Bang. As the physicist P. C. W. Davies explains,
"the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science . . . is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization . . . upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing."

Of course, alternative theories have been crafted over the years to try to avoid this absolute beginning, but none of these theories has commended itself to the scientific community as more plausible than the Big Bang theory. In fact, in 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin pulls no punches:


It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.

That problem was nicely captured by Anthony Kenny of Oxford University. He writes,
"A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing." But surely that doesn't make sense! Out of nothing, nothing comes. So why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being.

We can summarize our argument thus far as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Given the truth of the two premises, the conclusion necessarily follows.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water's freezing is the temperature's being below 0˚ Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0˚ from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. So if the cause is permanently present, then the effect should be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

2. God makes sense of the the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

During the last 40 years or so, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the Big Bang itself. Scientists once believed that whatever the initial conditions of the universe, eventually intelligent life might evolve. But we now know that our existence is balanced on a knife's edge. The existence of intelligent life depends upon a conspiracy of initial conditions which must be fine-tuned to a degree that is literally incomprehensible and incalculable.

This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the gravitational constant. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants. Second, in addition to these constants there are certain arbitrary quantities which are just put in as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe. Now all of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by a hair's breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed and life would not exist.

For example, the physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10 (100) would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe's expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10 (120). Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 10 (123). Penrose comments,
"I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 10 10 (123)." And it's not just each constant or quantity which must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

Now there are three possibilities for explaining the presence of this remarkable fine-tuning of the universe: physical necessity, chance, or design. The first alternative holds that there is some unknown Theory of Everything (T.O.E.) which would explain the way the universe is. It had to be that way, and there was really no chance or little chance of the universe's not being life-permitting. By contrast, the second alternative states that the fine-tuning is due entirely to chance. It's just an accident that the universe is life-permitting, and we're the lucky beneficiaries. The third alternative rejects both of these accounts in favor of an intelligent Mind behind the cosmos, who designed the universe to permit life. Which of these alternatives is the most plausible?

The first alternative seems extraordinarily implausible. There is just no physical reason why these constants and quantities should have the values they do. As P. C. W. Davies states,


Even if the laws of physics were unique, it doesn't follow that the physical universe itself is unique. . . . the laws of physics must be augmented by cosmic initial conditions. . . . There is nothing in present ideas about 'laws of initial conditions' remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics would imply uniqueness. Far from it. . . .
. . . it seems, then, that the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise.

We can summarize this second argument as follows:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.


I already addressed plenty of inconsistencies in Platinga's argument (it makes God a utilitarian, for one). Furthermore, Mackie's argument is different. It says God could make humans free and necessarily happy and loving God. It combines free will and determinism.

I actually quoted Mackie's argument in the 2nd presentation, and showed that it does not make God a "utilitarian."


Alvin Platinga's argument is hardly a decisive refutation. I study philosophy. It has never came up in a single philosophy course I've taken, and the problem of evil regularly comes up. Platinga's argument (which has enterned common Christian discourse) as an example of poor philosophical reasoning in entry level philosophy courses.

Oh? Can you please point to the poor reasoning?

Actually, Most (not all) philosophers accept Plantinga's free will defence and thus see the logical problem of evil as having been sufficiently rebutted.

Robert Adams says that
"it is fair to say that Plantinga has solved this problem. That is, he has argued convincingly for the consistency of [God and evil]."

William Alston has said that
"Plantinga [...] has established the possibility that God could not actualize a world containing free creatures that always do the right thing."

William L. Rowe has written
"granted incompatibilism, there is a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God"


That being said, he "could" be completely right. Arguments of authority are simply not legitimate. People do agree with the problem of evil. That means nothing. Those people could all be wrong. Similarly, if every single person in existence agreed with Platinga, they could still be mistaken.

They could, however, the proposition is that it is indeed possible that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free creatures who never choose evil. Furthermore, it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures.


Maybe if you attach your somehow incompatabilist view of free will, limited omnipotence of God, et cetera, to the argument, you have "some grounds" for escaping it. However, your argument isn't completely without defending free will as incompatabilist (which I would disagree with, as would many others).

Again, the argument is mainly leveled at Christians, and for over 1000 yrs they have defined God in an incompatabilst manner.


So if "free will" as defined by Platinga is true, his argument "might" be valid. I'm still not 100% sure it would be. That being said, I am fairly confident his argument makes God a utilitarian. This position seems quite incompatible with mainstream Christian doctrine. But if you aren't concerned with that, maybe it is satisficatory.

First is argument is either true or not; and I contend it is true, that is is logically possible etc

It does not make God a utilitarian. I AM concerned with mainstream Christian doctrine, although I am Orthodox, and God has been described thus AT LEAST since Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033 – 21 April 1109


I suspect the response would be that free will makes God not responsible. However, free will is so often talked about in such mystical ways it's hard for any opposing argumenter to even comprehend how to approach your argument. It's the equivalent of saying "God exists because of fairies."

The argument accepts the same premise as Mackie's. I'm not aware of any problems concerning how free will is defined. The subject freely wills things without being externally compelled.
I don't understand the problem? How he does it, as long as its not externally compelled, does not effect the argument at all.


Well maybe that's true. But give me a comprehensive and logical explanation of what fairies are and how they operate. They maybe I can accept the premises of the argument.

I don't know about fairies, but the argument accepts the SAME premise of free-will that Mackie uses, so I am lost as to the objection.


In other words, it "may" be a valid argument (I'm not 100% sure.) However, I fail to see how it can be "sound" until an adequate account of what free will is, and how it operates, is presented.

Beyond what the common understanding of free-will is, as long as God is not externally compelling one, I don't see how it impacts the argument in any way.
Christians believe in free-will, and pretty much everyone knows what it means, nor am I aware of that ever being an objection, but please explain it to me.

[mikelepore]

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.


How does a person become an expert on the extent of "physical necessity"?

Compared to the scientific knowledge that people will have in another million years, we are ignorant little ants. We have no idea what "physical necessity" is.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

No. Not at all. You can't be EXTERNALLY compelled, or forced, to love. It has to come from the subjects will, not anothers will.If you're not compelled how to you choose anything? For no reason? Don't you make choices for reasons? Reasons that compel you to make a choice?


It is important to me that I am not a robot, that I have free will.Why?



I'm afraid your going to have to be more specific than that! Where did it err?A person can freely choice something and necessarily have to make that choice. The argument needs to explain freedom to be "sound." The entire argument relies on the notion of freedom, which is not explained in any adequate fashion.


More scientists are theists than atheist in America and England.I mean scientists are more likely to be atheists than non-scientists. Therefore, it appears to suggest that science makes people support atheism (or atheism is more likely to support science). Either one seems somewhat troubling for the conclusion that science supports faith. If it did, we might expect scientists to be more likely to be religious than non-religious people. At best, I'd say you can argue science is neutral. It's certainly not promoting belief in God. If it did, we would see belief in God skyrocket amongst scientists.


However, I'll argue that science does indeed support it, on at least 2 counts.Evolutionary theorists often argue the opposite. I'm not going to go through every random scientist trying to justify their belief. For every thing like that, there are arguments for the contrary. The issue is that science can either explain things without God, or it tries to explain things in the future.



I actually quoted Mackie's argument in the 2nd presentation, and showed that it does not make God a "utilitarian."I think I am missing something. You said God choices to allow multiple worlds to exist, even though he knows some people will make choices that cause evil. He is judging a "more good" world to justify a world with some evil. He allows people to exist knowing they will do evil things. This makes him a utilitarian.


Oh? Can you please point to the poor reasoning?Free will is some "mystical" thing, for one, that isn't explained in a way that allows an opponent to really understand or critique the argument properly. Secondly, it is not entirely clear why determinism is false, for one, or why it cannot go alongside free will. AKA, why didn't God make humans free and always make good choices.



Actually, Most (not all) philosophers accept Plantinga's free will defence and thus see the logical problem of evil as having been sufficiently rebutted.The actually argument makes God capable of doing contradictory things, the impossible. Nobody actually tries to defend that. Platinga uses a different definition of omnipotence that not all Christians use. Even with his definition, I'm skeptical about its popularity. Though you could be right, given that Christians will usually accept anything that suits their beliefs and most people (including philosophers) are Christian, I suspect.



They could, however, the proposition is that it is indeed possible that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free creatures who never choose evil. Furthermore, it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures.Why is a free worth with creatures who never choose evil impossible? Why is incompatabilism and free will right?


The argument accepts the same premise as Mackie's. I'm not aware of any problems concerning how free will is defined. The subject freely wills things without being externally compelled.
I don't understand the problem? How he does it, as long as its not externally compelled, does not effect the argument at all.He is externally compelled, but that doesn't make his choices not free. All choices happen for "reasons" rather than out of thin air. This reasons compel people to make choices. Who they are allows them to select the reason (freely) that most appeals to them.



I don't know about fairies, but the argument accepts the SAME premise of free-will that Mackie uses, so I am lost as to the objection.The general idea here is that free will is not adequately explained in the argument. To replace the word free will with "fairies" you would get the same argument. Until free will is explained in detail, it's difficult to take the argument seriously.



Christians believe in free-will, and pretty much everyone knows what it means, nor am I aware of that ever being an objection, but please explain it to me.The idea is this, basically. If something happens, or a person makes a choice, why did they make that choice? Answer: for a reason. What caused the reason? It was "who they are, the person they are" selecting an external influence that is most compatible with their person.

I like chocolate ice cream. That is who I am. If given a choice between different flavors, I will choose chocolate. Who I am, a lover of chocolate ice cream, is fixed. However, I still "freely choose" to select that ice cream. Nothing is stopping me from selecting another flavor. I am simply a person who wants to select chocolate.

Similarly, I am a person who would not like to torture a baby. Given the options, I would likely never choose to do it. Why? I was made a person who would not do such a thing, by nature. You might say God. How am I actually free given that I will only make one choice?

Simply put, it is the fact that I "can" make another choice that makes me free, under this account. This is "supposedly" how you could make someone never commit evil and still "freely choose" certain things.

I'm not good at explaining this view. I'm better at explaining hard determinism, which is another objection to God being just.

[spiltteeth]

How does a person become an expert on the extent of "physical necessity"?

Compared to the scientific knowledge that people will have in another million years, we are ignorant little ants. We have no idea what "physical necessity" is.

You're absolutely right. I guess I'm just going by what we know today, and also, I don't have a million years!

I do also hear this argument with fundamentalist Christians, whom I try to convince evolution is a fact (or at least is the most probable explanation with the facts we have now) and they simply say, "science is always changing it's theories, we really don't know, in a hundred years we'll be saying something else etc"

I have to say I do find it unfair that many atheists (not you personally) will point to science to support their beliefs, but when a theist does it, all of a sudden science becomes very suspect.

[spiltteeth]

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor;1575371]If you're not compelled how to you choose anything? For no reason? Don't you make choices for reasons? Reasons that compel you to make a choice?

Well, I made the word capitalized in my last post- EXTERNALLY - compelled.


Why?

I guess I just see freedom as a good thing, A being is greater the more capability it has.


A person can freely choice something and necessarily have to make that choice. The argument needs to explain freedom to be "sound." The entire argument relies on the notion of freedom, which is not explained in any adequate fashion.

For the argument to work, it must only be logically possible for free will to exist, furthermore Christians believe in free will.

The literal definition of free will :
The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

Also, I'll embolden another significant point,
A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all.


I mean scientists are more likely to be atheists than non-scientists. Therefore, it appears to suggest that science makes people support atheism (or atheism is more likely to support science). Either one seems somewhat troubling for the conclusion that science supports faith. If it did, we might expect scientists to be more likely to be religious than non-religious people. At best, I'd say you can argue science is neutral. It's certainly not promoting belief in God. If it did, we would see belief in God skyrocket amongst scientists.

Obviously science is neutral, its conclusions, as I've argued, make theism a more probable explanation for said events than atheism.


Evolutionary theorists often argue the opposite. I'm not going to go through every random scientist trying to justify their belief. For every thing like that, there are arguments for the contrary. The issue is that science can either explain things without God, or it tries to explain things in the future.

Of course, some theories are better explanations than others. I argued theism is a better (has more explanatory power etc) than atheism.


I think I am missing something. You said God choices to allow multiple worlds to exist, even though he knows some people will make choices that cause evil. He is judging a "more good" world to justify a world with some evil. He allows people to exist knowing they will do evil things. This makes him a utilitarian.

I think this is misrepresenting the argument, I'll once again summon up the argument :
A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.


Free will is some "mystical" thing, for one, that isn't explained in a way that allows an opponent to really understand or critique the argument properly. Secondly, it is not entirely clear why determinism is false, for one, or why it cannot go alongside free will. AKA, why didn't God make humans free and always make good choices.

The whole crux of the argument deals with this, I'll repeat


So why doesn't God just make different counterfactuals of freedom true?
Because then they wouldn't be counterfactuals of freedom. For God to fix your counteractuals of freedom for you would be tantamount to making do what he prefers.
God is stuck with the counterfactuals of freedom that happen (as a matter of contingent fact) to be true.

Central to the Free Will Defense is the claim that God, though omnipotent, could not have actualized just any possible world he pleased.

By “freedom,” he means freedom in the way the word is normally understood, and that precludes any kind of determinism.
It is logically possible that there are no possible free creatures who would in fact freely act sinlessly in any circumstances in which God could create them.


The actually argument makes God capable of doing contradictory things, the impossible. Nobody actually tries to defend that. Platinga uses a different definition of omnipotence that not all Christians use. Even with his definition, I'm skeptical about its popularity. Though you could be right, given that Christians will usually accept anything that suits their beliefs and most people (including philosophers) are Christian, I suspect.

Well, as I say, the idea is over a thousand yrs old at least, hardly a passing fad.


Why is a free worth with creatures who never choose evil impossible? Why is incompatabilism and free will right?

He is externally compelled, but that doesn't make his choices not free. All choices happen for "reasons" rather than out of thin air. This reasons compel people to make choices. Who they are allows them to select the reason (freely) that most appeals to them.

The general idea here is that free will is not adequately explained in the argument. To replace the word free will with "fairies" you would get the same argument. Until free will is explained in detail, it's difficult to take the argument seriously.

The idea is this, basically. If something happens, or a person makes a choice, why did they make that choice? Answer: for a reason. What caused the reason? It was "who they are, the person they are" selecting an external influence that is most compatible with their person.

I like chocolate ice cream. That is who I am. If given a choice between different flavors, I will choose chocolate. Who I am, a lover of chocolate ice cream, is fixed. However, I still "freely choose" to select that ice cream. Nothing is stopping me from selecting another flavor. I am simply a person who wants to select chocolate.

Similarly, I am a person who would not like to torture a baby. Given the options, I would likely never choose to do it. Why? I was made a person who would not do such a thing, by nature. You might say God. How am I actually free given that I will only make one choice?

Simply put, it is the fact that I "can" make another choice that makes me free, under this account. This is "supposedly" how you could make someone never commit evil and still "freely choose" certain things.

I'm not good at explaining this view. I'm better at explaining hard determinism, which is another objection to God being just.

What is relevant to the Free Will Defense is the idea of being free with respect to an action. If a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform that action and free to refrain from performing it; no antecedent conditions and/or causal laws determine that he will perform the action, or that he won’t.
It is within his power, at the time in question, to take or perform the action and within his power to refrain from it. Freedom so conceived is not to be confused with unpredictability.
You might be able to predict what you will do in a given situation even if you are free, in that situation, to do something else. If I know you well, I may be able to predict what action you will take in response to a certain set of conditions; it does not follow that you are not free with respect to that action.
The freedom here is not contingent upon anything else; the freedom to do or not to do something rests entirely with the doer.
The free will defense is only really concerned with actions that involve issues that are morally significant. Plantinga writes,
“an action is morally significant, for a given person, if it would be wrong for him to perform the action but right to refrain, or vice versa. Keeping a promise, for example, would ordinarily be morally significant for a person, as would refusing induction into the army. On the other hand, having Cheerios for breakfast (instead of Wheaties) would not normally be morally significant."
So it's not so much concerned with everyday, mundane actions, but only those acts that have moral importance, which is what so much of the problem of evil question turns upon; why do humans choose to do things that have disastrous moral, or spiritual consequences? In short, why do they do evil?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Well, I made the word capitalized in my last post- EXTERNALLY - compelled.


You seem to have a very awkward definition of externally compelled. What is being compelled? If I am God, and I make a person who will always choose to be good, I've externally compelled them? Yet if I make someone who is compelled to eat, I haven't? I'm talking about "who you are." Before you exist to even be qualified as someone who can be compelled, why not make you "good?"



I guess I just see freedom as a good thing, A being is greater the more capability it has.

But what does it contribute to anything, with respect to the happiness of the being? If you're happy, you're happy. Freedom doesn't seem to be necessary for a being at all.


For the argument to work, it must only be logically possible for free will to exist, furthermore Christians believe in free will.


Obviously science is neutral, its conclusions, as I've argued, make theism a more probable explanation for said events than atheism.

I'm not a scientist so I'm not going to have a scientific debate here. All I know is a considerable amount of scientists I'm aware of would staunchly object to that statement.


Of course, some theories are better explanations than others. I argued theism is a better (has more explanatory power etc) than atheism.

Explanatory power, sure. But as I said, you open up even more questions than we began with (about the nature of God). It seems pointless to solve questions with answers that create more complicated questions - at least when we can avoid it with things like evolutionary theory.

Also, determinism has far more explanatory power than free will, as I see it, so it's interesting that you seem to side with the non-explanatory view in that case. Everything happens for a reason (determinism) seems to make more sense than (people choose it) which is the scientific equivalent of saying (magic did it). That is, unless free will is explained in a scientific manner.


I think this is misrepresenting the argument, I'll once again summon up the argument :
A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.


He is rolling the dice on evil. Why would anyone but a utilitarian allow pleasure to occur simply because the odds of evil happening are uncertain. If I allow people to exist, as God, knowing that harm might come to others, I'm rolling the dice on pleasure. How is that avoiding a utilitarian label simply because it's by chance that the harm will occur?


By “freedom,” he means freedom in the way the word is normally understood, and that precludes any kind of determinism.
It is logically possible that there are no possible free creatures who would in fact freely act sinlessly in any circumstances in which God could create them.

Free isn't normally understood. People can explain what it is, but they rarely explain how it operates. You have essentially said below (if I am reading correctly):

1. We can predict all the choices people will make.
2. Those choices are still free.

Platinga's defense only works (as Mackie pointed out) if you are an incompatabilist about free will. And if you are an incompatabilist about free will, it's still difficult to explain how God operates as anything but a dice playing utilitarian, so to speak.

Even the scientists are always talking about God/the universe playing dice. If I was a women and had a child willingly, knowing they might cause harm, raised them properly, and they did, I had that child as a utilitarian.

You can't excuse God from anything simply because he gave people choice. He still rolled the dice on other people suffering (presumably for the satisfaction of others). Similarly, the mother of a serial killer can't legitimately claim no moral responsibility simply because the killer was free. They have to argue that they did everything they could to raise the child properly.

God clearly hasn't done everything he can to guide free beings. If he can't even "guide" us, we should be complaining when anyone suggests anything to us because it's an infringement upon free will.

This concept seems very inexplicable to me. I don't know what it's doing (while I know how friction, gravity, etc work). How does it operate as a phenomenon?

[spiltteeth]

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor;1578333]You seem to have a very awkward definition of externally compelled. What is being compelled? If I am God, and I make a person who will always choose to be good, I've externally compelled them? Yet if I make someone who is compelled to eat, I haven't? I'm talking about "who you are." Before you exist to even be qualified as someone who can be compelled, why not make you "good?"

Again, the argument is that it is logically possible God COULD NOT make a world where everyone freely chose to be good.


But what does it contribute to anything, with respect to the happiness of the being? If you're happy, you're happy. Freedom doesn't seem to be necessary for a being at all.

Again, Christians don't see happiness as the highest goal, your making a moral judgement that it is best to be happy, yet obviously objective moral judgments can't be made if God doesn't exist.


I'm not a scientist so I'm not going to have a scientific debate here. All I know is a considerable amount of scientists I'm aware of would staunchly object to that statement.

Ask them their ground for objection. I'd be curious.


Explanatory power, sure. But as I said, you open up even more questions than we began with (about the nature of God). It seems pointless to solve questions with answers that create more complicated questions - at least when we can avoid it with things like evolutionary theory.

You might not be aware, but nearly every theory that answers a question yield a plethora of other unanswered questions, as has the theory of evolution -which itself has created many unanswered questions.

Just like the theory of atoms. Then the next question - what the hell makes up atoms? But scientists did not throw out the theory! They came up the electrons - which brought up its own unanswered questions etc


Also, determinism has far more explanatory power than free will, as I see it, so it's interesting that you seem to side with the non-explanatory view in that case. Everything happens for a reason (determinism) seems to make more sense than (people choose it) which is the scientific equivalent of saying (magic did it). That is, unless free will is explained in a scientific manner.

But people choose things for reasons. In fact, how would God predict the future if this weren't true?

And actually, when you look at the total evidence - the universe being just one - it is likely that God exists, and that He has special concern for us.
If God exists objective morals exist, so I do believe everything happens for a reason, but do not draw your conclusions.


He is rolling the dice on evil. Why would anyone but a utilitarian allow pleasure to occur simply because the odds of evil happening are uncertain. If I allow people to exist, as God, knowing that harm might come to others, I'm rolling the dice on pleasure. How is that avoiding a utilitarian label simply because it's by chance that the harm will occur?


I'm getting the idea you are a sensualist by yr constant moral reasoning of pleasure and happiness.

Your assuming God sees pleasure as the highest good, and as I say, He does not.
Your moral reasoning does not apply to God, I'll give you a Christian world view :

First problem with Unitarianism is the focus on outcomes. An action is not good just because its outcome is good. The Bible says that “man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). God is not as concerned with outcomes as He is with the intentions of our hearts. Good actions with bad intentions do not pass muster with God. Now, obviously, we cannot see the intentions of others. We are not even capable of completely discerning our own intentions. But that does not excuse us because we all have to come before God and give an account of our actions.

A second problem with Utilitarianism is its focus on pleasure as opposed to what is truly good. Pleasure is a human definition of good and as such can be very subjective. What is pleasurable to one may not be pleasurable to another. According the Bible, God is the definition of good (Psalm 86:5; 119:68), and since God does not change (James 1:17), the definition of good does not change either; it is objective, not subjective. It does not fluctuate with the passing trends of human desire or the passage of time. Furthermore, by equating good with pleasure, there is the risk of defining good as simply the satisfaction of our base, fleshly desires. As is evidenced with people who succumb to this type of lifestyle—hedonism—the more one indulges in a pleasure, the more one has to indulge to achieve the same stimulation. An example of this is drug addicts who progressively experiment with stronger and stronger drugs.

A third problem with Utilitarianism is the avoidance of pain. Not all pain is bad or evil. It’s not that pain in and of itself is good, but it can lead to good. The history of humanity is the history of learning from mistakes. As many say, failure is the best teacher. No one is advocating that we should actively seek out pain. But to say that all pain is evil and to be avoided is naïve. God is more interested in our holiness than our happiness. His exhortation to His people is for us to be holy as He is holy (Leviticus 11:44; 1 Peter 1:15-16). The Bible also says that we are to count it all joy when we face trials of all kinds (James 1:2-4), not because the trials are joyful, but because they lead to greater perseverance and faithfulness.

All in all, the philosophy of Utilitarianism is focused on making this life as pain-free as possible for as many people as possible. On the surface, that seems like an admirable goal. Who would not want to relieve the suffering of people throughout the world? Yet the Bible tells us that there is more to existence than just this life on earth. If all we are living for is to maximize pleasure in this life, the bigger picture is being missed. Jesus told us that he who lives for this life will be greatly disappointed (Matthew 6:19). The Apostle Paul says the troubles of this life will not compare to the glory we will receive in eternity (2 Corinthians 4:17). The things of this life are transient and temporary (v. 18). Our focus should be on maximizing our glory in heaven, not our life on earth.


Free isn't normally understood. People can explain what it is, but they rarely explain how it operates. You have essentially said below (if I am reading correctly):

1. We can predict all the choices people will make.
2. Those choices are still free.

Platinga's defense only works (as Mackie pointed out) if you are an incompatabilist about free will. And if you are an incompatabilist about free will, it's still difficult to explain how God operates as anything but a dice playing utilitarian, so to speak.

I really don't see the dice playing utilitarian analogy at all.


Even the scientists are always talking about God/the universe playing dice. If I was a women and had a child willingly, knowing they might cause harm, raised them properly, and they did, I had that child as a utilitarian.

Every parent has a child thus. I still don't see how a utilitarian interpretation is forced upon them. Perhaps ask your parents.


You can't excuse God from anything simply because he gave people choice.

Just giving people choice obviously, as I keep saying, does not "excuse" God.


He still rolled the dice on other people suffering (presumably for the satisfaction of others). Similarly, the mother of a serial killer can't legitimately claim no moral responsibility simply because the killer was free. They have to argue that they did everything they could to raise the child properly.

First, you really feel your parents must answer for your crimes? If you get busted for weed they ought also be jailed? Interesting.

I actually don't think you understand the argument since the entire argument is to say that it is logically possible God could NOT have made a universe with less evil.
I've put it 4 different ways, I'm afraid my resources are taxed.


God clearly hasn't done everything he can to guide free beings. If he can't even "guide" us, we should be complaining when anyone suggests anything to us because it's an infringement upon free will.

What makes you say this?*What more could he have done?
We are all born with a belief in God in our noetic structure, He sacrificed His son, the Holy Spirit guides all who invites Him into their lives, there's books and prophets and saints, He reveals himself in Nature, and goodness, you can have a personal relationship with Him, there are churches, he's already forgiven us all, there's an eternity of bliss for those that choose it, cosmology, astrophysics, biology, evolution all support His existence, AND you can STILL choose not to believe for God has given evidence sufficiently clear for those with an open heart, but sufficiently vague as not to compel those whose hearts are closed.


This concept seems very inexplicable to me. I don't know what it's doing (while I know how friction, gravity, etc work). How does it operate as a phenomenon?

Which concept - free will?
Your argument that God cannot be omnipotent and good is not a scientific hypothesis, and neither is my answer; but if you did not believe in free will why would you even answer this post - clearly both of us are not free to choose our beliefs, so you can;t blame someone for, say, believing rape is OK and raping a loved one etc

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I think I'm too much into the idea that pleasure is the highest good for us to agree. I've kind of lost patience for this debate (not with you, I appreciate the posts). Perhaps we could agree to disagree? I find myself feeling a bit annoyed for not being to keep up with the discussions (and a bit tired of the subject matter).

I guess we could some up this as follows perhaps:

1. I agree that you can resolve the problem if to be evil means something other than "cause pain where it could be avoided." However, I'd never agree to define evil in other terms (I think this is an a posteriori necessary truth that evil corresponds to causing unnecessary pain).

If you do define evil that way, I agree that the contradiction can be resolved, but I think it makes God a utilitarian. You deny this, but this is because you have an entirely different view on free will and determinism than I do. And frankly, I'm not sure I think that few is possible (partially because I don't understand what it is).

If you want to discuss utilitarianism, pleasure and pain, consequentialism, or free will, I'd be quite interested in discussing them on the philosophy forums. However, I've kind of exhausted my interest in God for the moment. I'm dealing with this exact topic in my Political Theory class at the moment.

Thanks for the discussion though. Of course, if your not satisfied with agreeing to disagree, I can continue. It will just be sporadic when I get the time or interest to respond. It's not your fault, again, it's just a topic my interest tends to waver about.

[spiltteeth]

I think I'm too much into the idea that pleasure is the highest good for us to agree. I've kind of lost patience for this debate (not with you, I appreciate the posts). Perhaps we could agree to disagree? I find myself feeling a bit annoyed for not being to keep up with the discussions (and a bit tired of the subject matter).

I guess we could some up this as follows perhaps:

1. I agree that you can resolve the problem if to be evil means something other than "cause pain where it could be avoided." However, I'd never agree to define evil in other terms (I think this is an a posteriori necessary truth that evil corresponds to causing unnecessary pain).

If you do define evil that way, I agree that the contradiction can be resolved, but I think it makes God a utilitarian. You deny this, but this is because you have an entirely different view on free will and determinism than I do. And frankly, I'm not sure I think that few is possible (partially because I don't understand what it is).

If you want to discuss utilitarianism, pleasure and pain, consequentialism, or free will, I'd be quite interested in discussing them on the philosophy forums. However, I've kind of exhausted my interest in God for the moment. I'm dealing with this exact topic in my Political Theory class at the moment.

Thanks for the discussion though. Of course, if your not satisfied with agreeing to disagree, I can continue. It will just be sporadic when I get the time or interest to respond. It's not your fault, again, it's just a topic my interest tends to waver about.

No, thats all good. I really appreciate the maturity and good grace you've brought into this, and indeed I've found myself more deeply thinking about the nature of God and free-will, which I wouldn't have unless you pointed them out.
I'm going to get deeper into some of the other issues you've brought up, since I don't have a really able grip on them yet.
Anyway, thanks so much, I think you pointed out the weak points pretty well, and I'll definitely think on them.
Thanks.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Religion and the belief in god says that im it and there is nothing else so dont doubt me or think of anything else. When you believe in god and evolution then you are just pulling wool over one's eye. To undermine one part of the bible is to undermine the whole book and underminding the idea of a christian god. To think that something created us just downplays the truth and beauty of the reality. And it makes no sense that something out there exists b/c what created it and then what created the thing that created god and so on and so forth.

[Kronos]

What I object to is the traditional notion that a spiritual substance survives the death of the body. Even granting that this actually happens, there would be no significant difference between the kind of experiences you would have as a 'spirit' and the kind of experiences you would have as a person. There you would be (wherever spirits hang out), doing whatever spirits do. Excuse me while I call CNN.

Now if you want to get into some Monism/Eternal Recurrence, I'm game, but Platonic metaphysics is dead.

[danyboy27]

i oppose to religion beccause its a form of intellectual slavery

[welshboy]

Apologies if somebody has already gone over these points.


I understand agnosticism, some people saying there is no good argument for God one way or another, but atheism needs a justification I think.
Atheism is a LACK of a belief. It's theism and agnosticism that require the explanation.
Theism is required to explain WHY there is a sky daddy and agnosticism is required to explain why there MAY BE a sky daddy.


What made people here choose atheism,
Rationality, education, not being brought up to be credulous, healthy skepticism, the lulz?


and what are peoples major critiques of belief on God?
There is no rational basis for it. Observation of the universe leads one to conclude that there is no god and if there is he's a retard, the appendix, HELLO!


It seems some have a moral outrage towards belief, also I've heard people say it's a kind of duty to fight against belief in God.
Belief that ones actions are justified, nay ORDAINED, by a higher power gives people carte blanche to commit the most heinous of acts. This should be opposed.

[welshboy]

Aw hell, any excuse to use this picture.
http://www.dailyawesome.com/images/atheists1.jpg

[danyboy27]

my turn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTD6UNOR4N4&feature=related