|
Post by unkleE on Jan 9, 2016 21:03:42 GMT
I'd suggest we could do without the autonomy of diseases, hurricanes, and so on. Yeah, I'd agree. But that's not what we have. So each of us has to decide whether we think that observation is sufficient to undermine the significant evidence that God exists and cares about us. I have a lot of sympathy with anyone who thinks the suffering in the world shows there can be no God, but my view is that we can only call the suffering "bad" if we assume an objective moral standard, and we can only get that if there is a God. So even the terrible suffering in the world points in a perverse way to God. So I think God must exist and I think the life of Jesus indicates I should trust him despite the suffering. And so I do. What do you think?
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Jan 9, 2016 22:40:37 GMT
I think that it's sufficient reason for disbelief, although far from the only one. Do we really need an objective moral standard for that? It's not as if diseases or hurricanes are moral agents. It's just "bad" as in "harmful". As to whether we can only get an objective moral standard from a god, that should probably be made into a new thread if we want to discuss that. If the suffering in the world points to God, what ''wouldn't''? Do you believe that God is all good? If so, what justifies allowing the suffering? I believe that the very fact people need an all-good God points to the fact there is none. For if there were, they would not need it-their problems would be solved. P. S. Has anyone checked out my other thread? It's also related to this issue. jameshannam.proboards.com/thread/1441/human-instincts-original-sin
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jan 10, 2016 11:24:25 GMT
I think that it's sufficient reason for disbelief, although far from the only one. I can respect that. How would the argument go? 1. There are harmful things in the world. 2. God would not do harmful things. 3. Therefore there's no God. How would you establish #2 without an objective ethic that says harmful is bad? Yes. I don't know. It bothers me. How would that argument go? 1. People need an all-good God. 2. But if God existed, all people's problems would be solved. 3. All problems are not solved 4. Therefore there is no God. I'm afraid I can't see any justification for either premise #1 or #2, nor any reason to think #4 follow logically from 1-3. Can you set out the argument better?
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jan 10, 2016 15:05:39 GMT
Supposing that with paradise we mean an endless but temporal universe without suffering and degradation, I can't see that forever staying that way with the laws of thermodynamics freely operating in absence of God's intervention. So either way (whether God intervenes with those laws in operation or the laws don't apply) it wouldn't be a thermodynamically closed system and therefore it wouldn't be methodologically naturalistic. I can see it working with a 'static' heaven, but I don't think that the conventional belief about heaven being the general afterlife is biblical. I think that it's sufficient reason for disbelief, although far from the only one. I am sympathetic to this line of thought, but I also believe that methodological naturalism is a mixed package deal that includes both good and bad. Volcanism and earthquakes are linked to plate tectonics, which despite the disasters that follow from it also is to be indispensable for abiogenesis and the evolution of multicellular life, or so I have been led to believe. My own evaluation is that the universe is net good, but I can't deny that this also depends on out relatively comfortable way of life in the modern West. In an impersonal sense, our universe is both 'hostile' to us but extraordinarily conducive to life as well. I hadn't, but I will read it. How would that argument go? 1. People need an all-good God. 2. But if God existed, all people's problems would be solved. 3. All problems are not solved 4. Therefore there is no God. I'm afraid I can't see any justification for either premise #1 or #2, nor any reason to think #4 follow logically from 1-3. Can you set out the argument better? I don't think I understand your second argument. Surely 4 follows from 2 and 3 and the only dispute is why premise(s 1 and) 2 would be true?
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Jan 10, 2016 19:38:48 GMT
The first argument would go something like this: 1. There is suffering in the world. 2. An all-good and all powerful god would not allow this. 3. Therefore such a god does not exist.
This leaves it open for other gods which do not fit that criteria. More like this:
1. People need an all-good, all-powerful god (the second criteria is key) to exist. 2. Yet if such a god existed, those problems which afflict them would be solved. 3. All problems are not solved. 4. Therefore such a god does not exist.
Note once again this only applies to the very specific god described here. As to justification, this seems to be the kind of god most people do believe in. It seems wholly inconsistent with such a god's attributes to allow the massive suffering we see. The last premises flow from that.
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Jan 10, 2016 20:05:02 GMT
Ignorantia: I'm certainly not positing that a paradise would have to be natural in that sense. I assume it wouldn't, actually. Otherwise it likely wouldn't work at all. My understanding has been (going from the Book of Revelation, which gets into detail) is that the saved will dwell in a New Jerusalem and New Earth. I'm curious what you mean by heaven being the general afterlife is not a Biblical idea.
I think you may be confusing methodological and metaphysical naturalism here, though that's a minor issue. While abiogenesis and evolution might require these, my point is that an all-good creator could surely make things without such negative side-effects. As for the universe, I don't think it's extraordinarily conducive to life, given how that most of it appears to be uninhabited (while acknowledging how little of it we can actually see). One astrophysicist quipped that it appears to be designed for black holes, for there are many more than inhabitable planets.
P.S. I'm not figuring out how to quote people on here. Any tips?
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jan 10, 2016 20:25:33 GMT
The first argument would go something like this: 1. There is suffering in the world. 2. An all-good and all powerful god would not allow this. 3. Therefore such a god does not exist. But what meaning does "all-good" have if there is no objective ethics? Why would you think God would solve everyone's problems? A good parent doesn't solve all their children's problems. A good teacher doesn't solve all their pupil's problems. We can say that A God who solves everyone's problems doesn't exist, but that doesn't get us very far, because i don't know anyone who believes in that God. I agree that it seems inconsistent, but I'm saying that "seems" is based, in most people's minds, on an objective ethic. I don't see how you can get to where you want to go without saying that suffering is truly evil. And I don't see how any naturalist can say that with confidence and justification. My conclusion is that when we combine the moral argument with the argument from evil, the two kind of cancel each other out. Suffering is truly evil but it creates a dilemma for us all. The christian cannot explain how the suffering occurs, and the naturalist cannot explain why it is evil. And since there are many other reasons and arguments suggesting God exists, I think God is by far the better explanation, even though it leaves suffering unexplained.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jan 10, 2016 20:31:08 GMT
I don't think I understand your second argument. Surely 4 follows from 2 and 3 and the only dispute is why premise(s 1 and) 2 would be true? Well my thought was that #1 seems totally irrelevant as well as unjustified, and even wrong. Yet it seems to lead to #2 in the way mcc1789 phrased his original argument, so that makes #2 doubtful too. If we omit #1 than I agree 2-4 becomes logical, but depends on the doubtful #2.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jan 10, 2016 20:37:13 GMT
P.S. I'm not figuring out how to quote people on here. Any tips? I work in BBCode mode. I select "Quote" (the button above and to the right of the comment I wish to quote) to quote the entire comment, and then edit the tags so that I get the quotes I want. Usually I cut the final quote tag and paste it into the end of the first section I want to quote - that means the first time I quote I have the details of the person I'm quoting. After that, I just highlight the text I want to quote and use the quote button just above the text box. I begin my comment on the same line as the quote so that I don't leave a large gap under the quote. After I'm done I go into Preview mode to check it all looks OK. It takes a little trouble, but it works for me. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jan 10, 2016 20:44:59 GMT
Ignorantia: I'm certainly not positing that a paradise would have to be natural in that sense. I assume it wouldn't, actually. Otherwise it likely wouldn't work at all. Don't worry, I didn't get the impression that you were. My understanding has been (going from the Book of Revelation, which gets into detail) is that the saved will dwell in a New Jerusalem and New Earth. I'm curious what you mean by heaven being the general afterlife is not a Biblical idea. The NT notion is that most people remain dead after dying until there is a general resurrection of the dead. The only exception is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in the gospel of Luke, whose author was almost certainly a gentile Christian. I think you may be confusing methodological and metaphysical naturalism here, though that's a minor issue. I'm not sure what made you think this, but in all instances of "methodological naturalism" in my previous post I deliberately mentioned it as either implying or not excluding the existence of God. So I'm unsure to what you refer. While abiogenesis and evolution might require these, my point is that an all-good creator could surely make things without such negative side-effects. As for the universe, I don't think it's extraordinarily conducive to life, given how that most of it appears to be uninhabited (while acknowledging how little of it we can actually see). One astrophysicist quipped that it appears to be designed for black holes, for there are many more than inhabitable planets. My hunch is that you are indeed right about the possibility. However, I am not sure that this is possible given the mechanism of methodological naturalism. The alternative appears to consist of various degrees of increasing intervention. Imagine a world in which the world has been created in more or less the state we live in now, so the Earth's crust can be a lot thicker, there are no continental plates and no earthquakes or volcanoes. Then it would either be obviously created or be constructed to appear to have developed more naturally. So there would either be a massive singularity inaccessible to rational analysis and reduction or our rational faculties would be deceived. In those cases, the reason with which we have been endowed is limited, perhaps more and more as more natural evil is eliminated. It is valid to question whether that consistency of reason is worth all the suffering in the world, but I think a lot is at stake either way. We don't have to agree about how extraordinary biophilic our universe is, but I recommend you to read up on cosmological fine-tuning (not on the 'biological fine-tuning' that ID advocates). P.S. I'm not figuring out how to quote people on here. Any tips? Generally things work out fine when you use the quote button. Make sure that you begin each quote - or virtually any piece of forum code beside the horizontal rule - with an opening tag [...] and end with a closing tag [/...]. You can also quote multiple posts by clicking on the cogwheel and clicking on "Select post". Simply select multiple posts and then click "Reply" on the bottom of the page. You can see how the current code will work out by clicking on "Preview" while you are creating a post. You can even edit in preview mode, and if you change back to the BBcode your changes from the preview are still in place.
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Feb 12, 2016 19:05:29 GMT
Gnostics taught that the material world was evil. A counterargument by orthodox Christians I have seen is to cite Genesis 1:31 "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." Yet this was before the Fall, which it is said tainted not only human beings but all things. You have to be careful in how you articulate Gnostic Christian myths as compared to their beliefs on reality.
Note how what you understand goes against what the Gnostic Jesus archetype taught.
Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you. [Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."
As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.
Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be or an ugly and imperfect world?
Candide. "It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”
That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, given all the conditions at hand. That is an irrefutable statement.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOGEyBeoBGM&feature=player_embedded
Gnostic beliefs aside. You should also remember that the Christian theology is designed to enslave us to it and is not like the Jewish original thinking on Eden which was designed to free us from religion.
The Jews wrote Eden as man's elevation while Christianity reversed that wisdom to a fall. There is also more money to be made if people think they need help to get back up.
dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/20/comparative-theodicy/
Regards DL
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Feb 13, 2016 19:42:57 GMT
I'd suggest we could do without the autonomy of diseases, hurricanes, and so on. How do you know? God's answer to Job was basically "Job, you don't know squat". Job didn't know about the behind-the-scenes spiritual interaction, and he never COULD have. Similarly, we humans can ASSERT that the history (and future) of the universe would have been better if it had been set up in such a way as to avoid disease or hurricanes, but we can't DEMONSTRATE it. This isn't wild, baseless speculation on my part, by the way. I've seen plenty instances of good ideas with unexpected bad consequences, and the older I get the more I see. I've also seen plenty of bad things happen that generated an unforseen good (Job, Joseph, the crucifixion of Jesus...). We humans simply aren't in the epistimological position to have ANY judgement on these things, much less to pronounce God a monster for letting things happen that we don't like. To be honest, this is why the problem of evil simply doesn't bother me at all these days! EDIT - ah, I seem to have joined in a thread zombie resurrected by GB. Sorry about that...
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Feb 13, 2016 20:13:44 GMT
No, we can't know for sure, but saying God is all-good, all-powerful and all-wise demands an explanation. The answer in Job isn't really an answer so much as "shut up, that's why." Sure, it's possible God has very good reasons, but simply saying that tells us nothing. I disagree that we're not in a position to have an opinion on any of this. If that were the case, no one could judge God to be good either. Unless we're going to simply have a tautology of "God is good because he's good, no matter what" some judgment must come into play. That's where observing which conditions exist in the universe and then making some inferences based on that happens.
I'm glad the thread has been revived actually.
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Feb 15, 2016 23:53:45 GMT
No, we can't know for sure, but saying God is all-good, all-powerful and all-wise demands an explanation. The answer in Job isn't really an answer so much as "shut up, that's why." Sure, it's possible God has very good reasons, but simply saying that tells us nothing. I disagree that we're not in a position to have an opinion on any of this. If that were the case, no one could judge God to be good either. Unless we're going to simply have a tautology of "God is good because he's good, no matter what" some judgment must come into play. That's where observing which conditions exist in the universe and then making some inferences based on that happens. I'm glad the thread has been revived actually. It is rather hard for a believer to say that God is good when looking at Job 2;3 where God himself admits to being moved by Satan to destroy without a cause.
That is God himself admitting to be a sinner and evil.
That statement, as well as biblical reality, if we can say that of a book of myths, makes it irrefutable and true.
Regards DL
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Feb 16, 2016 0:09:40 GMT
Yes, I always found the Book of Job to be the worst part in the Bible, unlike those who find it comforting. There is another part where it's said God creates evil too (Isaiah 45:7). Granted we have to acknowledge the possible translation issue here, and "evil" appears to mean "all bad things". However, that's pretty telling to me. I also don't think the Hebrew people had the idea of God being an "all-good" being originally.
|
|