Evidence for God from Science

@Jlay: as I told you on the other thread, my view is that all evil is caused by Satan and other demons. Free will, and its irrevocable nature, is why God must tolerate them for some time. It's called the "warafe" theodicy, and it has a great deal of biblical support.

@Canuckster:

I am suggesting that anyone who makes ludicrous assumptions about my childhood, religious beliefs, questions my salvation, and acts like a mentallly insecure 10 year-old, based on the fact I engaged in polite discourse about somone else's view even after I presented several feasible alternatives, is ignorant, incompetent and intellectually dishonest.

smiley wrote:And just in case some ignorant, incompetent, intellectually dishonest individual pops up and accuses me of attacking Christianity or whatever, I'll be happy to lay out the theodicy that I think makes sense if I am asked to.

jlay wrote:I'm asking.

Perhaps another thread might be good for that one? I'm kinda curious as well, but would make more sense to leave this thread uncluttered with tangents.

Byblos wrote:First a question: by what standard do you declare something or someone evil?

I wouldn't say "evil", necessarily. But hey, here goes. This is only personal opinion btw; other atheists might have similar views on morality or completely different views. We're not a homogenous group with a central doctrine beyond "don't believe in god". Also, this is the condensed version.

Meaning and purpose only exist when there's a thinking being that sees significance in things and has intentions. Without god, the universe has no built-in, pre-set meaning or purpose. It's just a bunch of matter and energy squiggling around, and nobody's cares if it squiggles one way or another unless it affects them. Supernova in a galaxy far, far away? Much bigger event than burning my Mac 'n Cheese, but it's completely neutral and meaningless if nobody around cares. Thus, all meaning derives from the squiggles with the capacity to see significance in things and have intentions (i.e. you, me, any other thinking being).

All significance and purpose, in the end, is about happiness/unhappiness. You shouldn't hit people. Why? Because it hurts them. Why is hurting them bad? Because hurting makes people unhappy. Why is unhappiness bad? Because it just fundamentally is. I don't mean this in an overarching, moral sense; I mean that we're built so that we seek out happiness/pleasure/fullfilment/good stuff for ourselves and those we care about, and try to avoid unhappiness/bad stuff for them too. This means that all meaning in the universe boils down to a rather simple conclusion: Try to get the most happiness out of life.

Stepping aside from my personal morality play, any moral system in which exploding appendixes are undesirable (or any other thing that happens in the universe) still invalidates an Omni^3 deity. If you believe that any moral system has to come from an Omni^3 deity, then you still have that problem. You end up with a god that created objective morals, has to follow them, and doesn't. Which is a paradox, so the universe explodes and Shroedinger's cat meows that it can haz cheezburgers that might or might not be ketchup-only.

smiley wrote:I am very confident that it is the argument that because, supposedly, the problem of evil presupposes that an objective moral standard exists, and morality cannot exists without God, it therefore follows that God must exist.

And it's not a very good argument at all. Because if the theist really insists, you can call it simply the "problem of suffering". It is an argument attempting to show an internal incosistency in the theist's beliefs, it does not require the skeptic to assume that objective evil exists.

We can go this route (suffering) also if happycynic wishes but this reminds me of a story of this guy who went into a barbershop to get a haircut and was having a conversation with the barber about why there is so much pain and suffering in the world. The barber said well you know that's why I don't believe in any god. Look at how much poverty we have, how many people are homeless or sick and ain't no god doing anything about it. The guy felt bad but he didn't want to debate the guy so he left. On the way out he sees this homeless guy with dirty long hair and immediately runs back into the barbershop and tells the barber, look this guy has long hair, that is proof that barbers don't exit. The barber says of course we exist, after all here I am, the problem is guys with long hair just don't want to come to me.





Smiley,

Do you believe in God and resurrection of Christ? Please do not post anything else until you answer the question. All other posts will be deleted.

Byblos,
Moderator.

Byblos wrote: On the way out he sees this homeless guy with dirty long hair and immediately runs back into the barbershop and tells the barber, look this guy has long hair, that is proof that barbers don't exit. The barber says of course we exist, after all here I am, the problem is guys with long hair just don't want to come to me.

A snappy retort, but no cigar. Ungroomed hobos aren't proof that barbers don't exist--but it is proof that barbers with the ability and obligation to give everyone haircuts don't exist. Similarily, the problem of evil isn't proof that God doesn't exist--merely proof that a God with the ability and obligation to end suffering doesn't exist.

Why do you guys keep questioning whether Smiley is a Christian? That is really getting old.

Byblos, I am extremely offended that you would give such an ultimatum.

Smiley. I agree with that as well. So, I guess you see conflict in many of the other explanations given for evil and suffering. That still doesn't tell me why you feel they are all incompatible with that argument? I'm not sure what the source of evil has to do with how it is measured?

merely proof that a God with the ability and obligation to end suffering doesn't exist.

How so?

happycynic wrote:

Byblos wrote: On the way out he sees this homeless guy with dirty long hair and immediately runs back into the barbershop and tells the barber, look this guy has long hair, that is proof that barbers don't exit. The barber says of course we exist, after all here I am, the problem is guys with long hair just don't want to come to me.

A snappy retort, but no cigar. Ungroomed hobos aren't proof that barbers don't exist--but it is proof that barbers with the ability and obligation to give everyone haircuts don't exist. Similarily, the problem of evil isn't proof that God doesn't exist--merely proof that a God with the ability and obligation to end suffering doesn't exist.

So either God exists according to your set of personal standards or he doesn't exist at all, is that it?

jlay wrote:Why do you guys keep questioning whether Smiley is a Christian? That is really getting old.

Byblos, I am extremely offended that you would give such an ultimatum.

Smiley. I agree with that as well. So, I guess you see conflict in many of the other explanations given for evil and suffering. That still doesn't tell me why you feel they are all incompatible with that argument? I'm not sure what the source of evil has to do with how it is measured?

merely proof that a God with the ability and obligation to end suffering doesn't exist.

How so?

I am doing no such thing and I am offended at your offense. You are not privy to certain things so I would politely suggest that you stay out of it. Thank you.

Byblos wrote:So either God exists according to your set of personal standards or he doesn't exist at all, is that it?

Well, I'm stuck using my own set of personal standards cuz I don't really have anyone else's to go on. If I did, then that would become my new set of standards and I'd be right back to square one (using my own personal standards). but that's not really a big problem, because the net is cast wide enough to include the majority of personal standards. Like I said before: as long as exploding organs are a problem, or child rape or infants losing limbs in earthquakes, then there's a problem with an Omni^3 deity.

jlay wrote:

merely proof that a God with the ability and obligation to end suffering doesn't exist.

How so?

See my first post on the topic; that's where I outline all my reasoning. I'm just assuming you didn't go through it (understandable, I often do the same cuz I don't feel like going through all the back-log of a thread I just hopped onto), otherwise you'd have a more specific objection to my logic.

happycynic wrote:

Byblos wrote:So either God exists according to your set of personal standards or he doesn't exist at all, is that it?

Well, I'm stuck using my own set of personal standards cuz I don't really have anyone else's to go on. If I did, then that would become my new set of standards and I'd be right back to square one (using my own personal standards). but that's not really a big problem, because the net is cast wide enough to include the majority of personal standards. Like I said before: as long as exploding organs are a problem, or child rape or infants losing limbs in earthquakes, then there's a problem with an Omni^3 deity.

So the only way to see evil is through the prism of your own personal standard. And given that personal standards differ from one person to the next, then so does the definition of evil. I presume you would agree with that, correct?

Byblos wrote:So the only way to see evil is through the prism of your own personal standard. And given that personal standards differ from one person to the next, then so does the definition of evil. I presume you would agree with that, correct?

Eh... kinda. I agree that we can only see evil through our personal standards. I also believe that there is "objective evil" as outlined in my earlier post (or objective this-stuff-isn't-good-and-should-be-avoided, but hey, tuh-may-toe, tuh-mah-toe). I don't expect others to necessarily agree with my personal standard, but on the other hand there's quite a bit of overlap between individual's personal standards. I think we all agree that kicking grandma is a bad idea, for example, even if our reason for coming to that conclusion are vastly different. There are a couple good reasons for this overlap which I could get into, but that might be a tangent for another time. Hopefully that clears things up

happycynic wrote:

Byblos wrote:So the only way to see evil is through the prism of your own personal standard. And given that personal standards differ from one person to the next, then so does the definition of evil. I presume you would agree with that, correct?

Eh... kinda. I agree that we can only see evil through our personal standards. I also believe that there is "objective evil" as outlined in my earlier post (or objective this-stuff-isn't-good-and-should-be-avoided, but hey, tuh-may-toe, tuh-mah-toe). I don't expect others to necessarily agree with my personal standard, but on the other hand there's quite a bit of overlap between individual's personal standards. I think we all agree that kicking grandma is a bad idea, for example, even if our reason for coming to that conclusion are vastly different. There are a couple good reasons for this overlap which I could get into, but that might be a tangent for another time. Hopefully that clears things up

I'm sorry but I'm a simple man, I do not understand this at all. Is there or isn't there objective evil? If there is, how do you determine if something is evil and what happens when 2 or more people disagree on what objective evil is as they inevitably will?

Objective evil: Yes. I believe there is stuff that, objectively, shouldn't happen. Stuff we'd be better off without. see my references to exploding organs. I'm not sure I would call it evil, but it's basically the same thing.

Is it evil?: Bad stuff makes more unhappiness than happiness. Good stuff makes more happiness than unhappiness.

When two disagree: One of them is wrong. I think that I'm right and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, naturally. But for the problem of evil, you don't need to agree on everything; agreeing that a certain thing is bad--be it exploding appendixes, hangnails, war, or earthquakes--is enough. For most of the things you think are evil, I woudl agree with you on, even though we have different reasons for thinking that they're evil.

Basic Utilitarianism.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Basic Utilitarianism.

Pretty much.

happycynic wrote:Objective evil: Yes. I believe there is stuff that, objectively, shouldn't happen. Stuff we'd be better off without. see my references to exploding organs. I'm not sure I would call it evil, but it's basically the same thing.

Is it evil?: Bad stuff makes more unhappiness than happiness. Good stuff makes more happiness than unhappiness.

When two disagree: One of them is wrong. I think that I'm right and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, naturally. But for the problem of evil, you don't need to agree on everything; agreeing that a certain thing is bad--be it exploding appendixes, hangnails, war, or earthquakes--is enough. For most of the things you think are evil, I woudl agree with you on, even though we have different reasons for thinking that they're evil.

Well let's see if you agree or not. A man believes his ultimate happiness lies in fulfilling every carnal desire he could possibly think of, including having sex with 5 year old girls. Is he wrong?