Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote: Yes, you defend this but, in all honesty, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Why?
Well, IF the atheist is using Christianity as a "moral background" then God and evil CAN and DO exist, and suffering is explained ( whether you care for or agree with the explanation is irrelevant).

Assuming there's no contradictions, which is of course what the atheist is looking to point out. I don't necessarily see any problem in supposed wrongdoings by God in the bible, but if enough evidence could be brought forth by the atheist showing how the bible is inconsistent with itself then of course that casts doubt.

If an atheist tries to make a MORAL argument against God it is not even logical. The only way to present the problem of evil is as a logical one, for example if the bible was full of major contradictions about the teachings of Jesus, would it really be convincing? You can replace "morality" with almost any other topic.

PaulSacramento wrote:IF the atheist doesn't use Christianity as a moral background then WHAT is he/she using to base their view that Suffering and God can't both exist?
The very notion of suffering requires a sense of "that ought not to be" and that requires a sense of morals ( what ought to be and what ought not to be).

I agree completely, if an atheist argues morals outside of Christianity it's plainly obvious it's a subjective, opinionated argument at best and invalid because of it.

domokunrox wrote: If they have a problem with the text, that's a separate issue.

No , that's the ONLY issue. What else but problems with proposed wrongdoings in the bible's TEXT would an atheist be able to use to form an argument?

domokunrox wrote: if God does not exist, do objective moral values and duties exist?
The question is NOT about the necessity of belief of God for objective morality, but rather about the necessity of the EXISTENCE of God for objective morality.
There really only is 3 options.
Either you believe you are a Boltzmann brain
Or NO objective morality exist (Nihilism, all is permitted)
Or objective morality exists

That's really cool and all but I'd like to know what exactly this is a reply to? I haven't disagreed with anything you just said in this thread

domokunrox wrote:I have a question in regards to your other question. The problem of evil (suffering is caused by evil)
Are you saying that its IMPOSSIBLE for God and evil (suffering) to both exist or is it just improbable for both to exist?
The optional question is, is the problem emotional and not an intellectual inquiry?

I don't think the problem of evil is a good one at all so uh niether. Once again I'd challenge you to read anything I've said in this thread, including my last reply to you

domokunrox wrote:
If they have a problem with the text, that's a separate issue.

No , that's the ONLY issue. What else but problems with proposed wrongdoings in the bible's TEXT would an atheist be able to use to form an argument?

True, Echo, but I think his point was that - to begin with if you do not think that what is written in the Bible is true, then why propose it is true and then conclude God is moral or not. There is a subtle difference here, this is not mathematics, where the numbers being solved have no bearing on the idea that whether those numbers are real or imaginary - but here the case is different. We are talking about writings that are called false, mythical, fairy tales, not reliable, man made fantasies. So if someone is to attack this writing regardless of the problem they have the text, the only logical conclusion is that they think it happened, otherwise the argument will have no affect, since it is already declared to be fantasy. but that begs the question as to why would you claim a text is pure fantasy and then challenge it on a historical backdrop, rendering it as reality. Perhaps, to show inconsistency, but that comes later. Truly if the fantasy text is inconsistent, it still shouldn't be a bother to build an argument on it - as long as it is false, man made or fantasy, the inconsistencies wouldn't matter. Because that may be attributed to the author. But again, the author in this case has only used his imagination. So whatever he wrote does not affect the problem of evil or God, and if so then the argument becomes null and void to begin with. I can't argue with you that Alexander the great was never born and then talk about how he murdered an entire city and I disgust that. See, I am contradicting my own self. In this way pointing out inconsistencies becomes trivial, since what is being inconsistent is never true to begin with.

But in the end you have to be consistent with logic and context, if it happened, it happened all the way, if not, then we can assume that bringing such an argument from the Bible (if you do not believe it ever happened) would be a logical fallacy. In this sense the proposed wrong doings of God can't happen because what is written is not reliable. And we have no way to know which parts are real and which are not. It forms a problem and one I am afraid can't be answered in a secular view point. The only answer would have to come from within the system, which is Christianity. But since it is already in question, the questioner would not be willing to accept the answer. Hence the atheist shouldn't even bother to debate this, as either he will be inconsistent with his own belief over trivial maters that do not matter or he will not be getting an answer he wants. In both cases, there is nothing good coming out of it. The argument either fails to provide an answer or becomes illogical.

Echoside wrote:No , that's the ONLY issue. What else but problems with proposed wrongdoings in the bible's TEXT would an atheist be able to use to form an argument?

The issue is that the atheist doesn't believe the bible. So, why does the atheist assume the bible is true to prove it is wrong, and as a result God does not exist? There is no logic there. I can prove God exists outside of the text with the moral argument.

Echoside wrote:That's really cool and all but I'd like to know what exactly this is a reply to? I haven't disagreed with anything you just said in this thread

You made these statements

Echoside wrote:Questioning the atheist moral background does nothing to his argument

and

Echoside wrote:One does not need to hold that morality exists at all

And I disagree. I can prove the existence of God in the moral argument I have provided you. Why don't you go ahead and answer the question or tell me which premise you don't agree with and why? You have an intellectual duty to do your part and tell me where you believe objective moral values and duties come from.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do no exist
2. Objective moral values do exist
3. Therefore, God exists

You NEED to have a response. Otherwise, God exists, and you should no longer identify yourself as an atheist.

Echoside wrote:I don't think the problem of evil is a good one at all so uh niether. Once again I'd challenge you to read anything I've said in this thread, including my last reply to you

Dude, really? How old are you? How can you not answer such a simple question? You don't think God and suffering in the world could co-exist, correct? I am simply asking you to EXPLAIN why? It is YOUR INTELLECTUAL DUTY to provide an explanation. You keep saying I haven't read anything in this thread, and I keep telling you I didn't need to in order to disagree with you on 2 things I quoted from you. Everyone else in this thread unfortunately cannot answer you. I can, so go ahead and begin to have this dialogue with me. It makes NO SENSE AT ALL to continue someone else's ideas. I don't do that.

domokunrox wrote: And I disagree. I can prove the existence of God in the moral argument I have provided you. Why don't you go ahead and answer the question or tell me which premise you don't agree with and why? You have an intellectual duty to do your part and tell me where you believe objective moral values and duties come from.

The moral argument is by no means a proof for the existence of God. Once again, can you give me any concrete evidence outside of "Don't you think it is REALLY wrong to X". I've not argued for objective morality at all in this thread, i'm saying the argument is LOGICAL in nature, not MORAL.

Also, I believe your second quote is taking me out of context. As I'm arguing for a LOGICAL respresentation as the problem of evil, there's no point for the challenger to Christianity to have a need for their own morality. A logical inconsistency is being attacked here, regardless of the nature of the subject being morality.

And lastly, please quote me where I said I believe objective moral values and duties exist

domokunrox wrote: You NEED to have a response. Otherwise, God exists, and you should no longer identify yourself as an atheist.

Not only is this statement fallacious, I'm pretty sure I've made it clear i'm not an atheist, and not a supporter of the problem of evil.

domokunrox wrote: Dude, really? How old are you? How can you not answer such a simple question? You don't think God and suffering in the world could co-exist, correct?

"Dude really, how old are you? How can you not read what is right in front of your face?" AT NO POINT IN THIS THREAD HAVE I SAID ANYTHING REMOTELY CLOSE TO THAT.
If you want to ignore what is written and keep up with the misrepresentation be my guest, but don't think I'll bother responding for much longer.

neo-x wrote: True, Echo, but I think his point was that - to begin with if you do not think that what is written in the Bible is true, then why propose it is true and then conclude God is
moral or not

Neo, an atheist uses the problem of evil as evidence as to why God isn't real. The argument comes first, then the conclusion that God doesn't exist, and the bible is flawed comes after. It's no different then any other argument that seeks to show an inconsistency with Christianitie's claims.

If I open the bible and am told by the bible itself standards of morality, etc. and that God is perfectly good and loving, and then within the very same book depictions of God as contradictory to this are told, then the integrity of the whole book is at risk. Like i've said, it's not the fact that the so called contradictory issues by an atheist are moral ones, the only thing that is relevant is that they indeed may be contradictions.

Using the context of the bible, etc. as defense I have no problems with. I think the problem of evil can rightly be exposed as false within this context. However, to attack the proponents concept of morality is going out of the realm of the argument itself. I just don't think it's an honest way to answer the question tell someone :

"Why do you care what God did, what notions of morality do you hold to that say this is wrong?"



If you have a better way to go about finding if things are true or not, I'd love to hear it. How else should I go about verifying any truth claim, if not by examining it's foundation for discrepancies?

Echoside wrote:

neo-x wrote: True, Echo, but I think his point was that - to begin with if you do not think that what is written in the Bible is true, then why propose it is true and then conclude God is
moral or not

Neo, an atheist uses the problem of evil as evidence as to why God isn't real. The argument comes first, then the conclusion that God doesn't exist, and the bible is flawed comes after. It's no different then any other argument that seeks to show an inconsistency with Christianitie's claims.

If I open the bible and am told by the bible itself standards of morality, etc. and that God is perfectly good and loving, and then within the very same book depictions of God as contradictory to this are told, then the integrity of the whole book is at risk. Like i've said, it's not the fact that the so called contradictory issues by an atheist are moral ones, the only thing that is relevant is that they indeed may be contradictions.

Using the context of the bible, etc. as defense I have no problems with. I think the problem of evil can rightly be exposed as false within this context. However, to attack the proponents concept of morality is going out of the realm of the argument itself. I just don't think it's an honest way to answer the question tell someone :

"Why do you care what God did, what notions of morality do you hold to that say this is wrong?"



If you have a better way to go about finding if things are true or not, I'd love to hear it. How else should I go about verifying any truth claim, if not by examining it's foundation for discrepancies?

I see what you're saying (FINALLY) and agree with you.

Byblos wrote: I see what you're saying (FINALLY) and agree with you.

Yea I don't know many people outside of this site who talk about these things, sorry if you get the "rough draft" sometimes

Neo, an atheist uses the problem of evil as evidence as to why God isn't real. The argument comes first, then the conclusion that God doesn't exist, and the bible is flawed comes after. It's no different then any other argument that seeks to show an inconsistency with Christianitie's claims.

I understand that Echo, I only wanted to say that such, as the problem of evil, does not even count as proof of anything. It is a problem with biased results on both sides. It is more of an opinion conflict rather than a problem which can be solved. If you are to try the problem in context - it can be solved, but if the context is rejected, and you try to solve it outside of context then there is a margin of error that we may be making. (For example shooting a man is wrong, but in context if he was a serial killer trying to kill someone and someone shot him, then it is more understandable).

So all in all, the problem of evil either concludes nothing or everything - depends which side you are on. It is a futile argument.

And it is not that simple, call me pushy for saying this. But no, the argument does not come first, first comes the logic that there is something evil, the realization that what happened was wrong. It has to come from OM otherwise by convenient morality (like Germans in ww2, who thought killing non-Aryans was a good thing, or the Aztec's who considered human sacrifices to be a pleasureful experience, tons of other examples, soviet Russia, china, etc ) we can not explain conclusively whether some action carried out by someone (in this case God) be wrong.

The argument comes second, when we already have the assumption that what happened was wrong and can be questioned. There is a difference, for the person who is in his subjective morality, the assumption that what happened is wrong, is not even present. In this case, the problem of evil, does not even remain a problem. For the questioner it does exist. So unless the questioner thinks that OM exists, there is no point in addressing the problem of evil - as we would be subjecting ourselves to our own morality which may conflict with the person in question. Unless there is a standard, it can not be judged, hence the futility, I talked about above.

You are partially right, the argument is logical rather than moral, but unfortunately and practically, it is tied with morality's roots and existence. The part that you do not agree on. If the standard is defined, yes, the problem of evil can be addressed, if not, then it is circular argumentation all the way.

neo-x wrote: And it is not that simple, call me pushy for saying this. But no, the argument does not come first, first comes the logic that there is something evil, the realization that what happened was wrong..

What exactly do you mean by this statement? That what happened was objectively wrong/evil? Or what happened was inconsistent with the teachings of Christianity?

It still feels like you are implying that actual indignation at what God has done is the only thing that can fuel this argument, just because some atheists commit the fallacy of believing in OM does not make the idea of the argument itself less valid.

It is not such an impossible idea that a man could look at the bible, read it, and say : Is what I'm reading about <insert issue here> really consistent with the rest of this book?

Echoside wrote:
Using the context of the bible, etc. as defense I have no problems with. I think the problem of evil can rightly be exposed as false within this context. However, to attack the proponents concept of morality is going out of the realm of the argument itself. I just don't think it's an honest way to answer the question tell someone :

It is only going outside the realm of the argument if the argument itself steers clear of morality. If that is clear, then the argument can be presented in an ‘honest’ fashion.

When using the bible to show that God, as depicted in the bible ( typically the OT) is a contridiction ( the acts attributed to God contridict the moral qualities attributed to God), we are treading a very interesting line.
Why?
Because we must profess to KNOW the CORRECT interpretation of the passages in the bible.
Now, taken into account that the bible has mulitple authors ( more a library of books than a single book), written in VARIOUS genres, for a people that lived 1000's of years ago, under the context and understanding of those times and AIMED at the understanding of THOSE people, well...
That in of itself is a huge issue, BUT we also have to add to it that, the bible is a progressive revelation and that it is NOT the ONLY way that God has chosen to reveal himself to Man.
Add to that, The bible is God's word in human words, written by Man and passed down over the generations, sometimes from an oral tradition, copied and re-copied and "interepreted" in places where the language context of one language may NOT have had an equal representation in another language.
What I am trying to say is that, one CAN'T make the claim that God is "contridictoty" based on selective bible passages IF there exist other valid interpretations of those passages that show no contridiction, nor can we state a contridiction exists UNLESS we some how KNOW that what God is said to have done was indeed DONE by God and...well...to be honest I can keep going but I think the point is made.
At least I hope it is.

PaulSacramento wrote:When using the bible to show that God, as depicted in the bible ( typically the OT) is a contridiction ( the acts attributed to God contridict the moral qualities attributed to God), we are treading a very interesting line.
Why?
Because we must profess to KNOW the CORRECT interpretation of the passages in the bible.
Now, taken into account that the bible has mulitple authors ( more a library of books than a single book), written in VARIOUS genres, for a people that lived 1000's of years ago, under the context and understanding of those times and AIMED at the understanding of THOSE people, well...
That in of itself is a huge issue, BUT we also have to add to it that, the bible is a progressive revelation and that it is NOT the ONLY way that God has chosen to reveal himself to Man.
Add to that, The bible is God's word in human words, written by Man and passed down over the generations, sometimes from an oral tradition, copied and re-copied and "interepreted" in places where the language context of one language may NOT have had an equal representation in another language.
What I am trying to say is that, one CAN'T make the claim that God is "contridictoty" based on selective bible passages IF there exist other valid interpretations of those passages that show no contridiction, nor can we state a contridiction exists UNLESS we some how KNOW that what God is said to have done was indeed DONE by God and...well...to be honest I can keep going but I think the point is made.
At least I hope it is.

This sounds like 'getting God off' on a technicality. The Bible is the inspired word of God, and we needn’t defend it in such a loose manner.

DannyM wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:When using the bible to show that God, as depicted in the bible ( typically the OT) is a contridiction ( the acts attributed to God contridict the moral qualities attributed to God), we are treading a very interesting line.
Why?
Because we must profess to KNOW the CORRECT interpretation of the passages in the bible.
Now, taken into account that the bible has mulitple authors ( more a library of books than a single book), written in VARIOUS genres, for a people that lived 1000's of years ago, under the context and understanding of those times and AIMED at the understanding of THOSE people, well...
That in of itself is a huge issue, BUT we also have to add to it that, the bible is a progressive revelation and that it is NOT the ONLY way that God has chosen to reveal himself to Man.
Add to that, The bible is God's word in human words, written by Man and passed down over the generations, sometimes from an oral tradition, copied and re-copied and "interepreted" in places where the language context of one language may NOT have had an equal representation in another language.
What I am trying to say is that, one CAN'T make the claim that God is "contridictoty" based on selective bible passages IF there exist other valid interpretations of those passages that show no contridiction, nor can we state a contridiction exists UNLESS we some how KNOW that what God is said to have done was indeed DONE by God and...well...to be honest I can keep going but I think the point is made.
At least I hope it is.

This sounds like 'getting God off' on a technicality. The Bible is the inspired word of God, and we needn’t defend it in such a loose manner.

IF all we have of know God by is the bible ( it isn't) then it must be scrutinized accordingly.
If we can know God via the bible AND the universe he created AND By His Word AND by the HS, then the writings of MAN must conform to how God is revealed in those ways too.
It is not getting God off on a "technicality" it is reconciling what was written about God by specific people FOR specific people in a SPECIFIC way, with what we KNOW about God in how he is revealed to US in the universe he created and his living Word, Jesus Christ.
Either way, it is far more involved than saying:
God can't be a God of love because he told the Hebrews to kill the Cannanites.

PaulSacramento wrote:IF all we have of know God by is the bible ( it isn't) then it must be scrutinized accordingly.
If we can know God via the bible AND the universe he created AND By His Word AND by the HS, then the writings of MAN must conform to how God is revealed in those ways too.
It is not getting God off on a "technicality" it is reconciling what was written about God by specific people FOR specific people in a SPECIFIC way, with what we KNOW about God in how he is revealed to US in the universe he created and his living Word, Jesus Christ.
Either way, it is far more involved than saying:
God can't be a God of love because he told the Hebrews to kill the Cannanites.

You know, I kind of agree. I think. But you don't judge the Bible by the world.

DannyM wrote: It is only going outside the realm of the argument if the argument itself steers clear of morality. If that is clear, then the argument can be presented in an ‘honest’ fashion.

Outside of the bear minimum which describes the supposed contradictions as "moral acts" then there's no reason for someone to argue further.

I agree, if someone tries to go beyond that into an actual debate about morality then the argument is no longer honest, or even coherent.


Paulsacramento, I agree that criticism must be carefully checked out before just throwing out accusations, but some of what you are saying seems to blend in with a defense of the argument anyways. I wouldn't deny the importance of context, differing authors, time periods, etc.

But at any rate, the initial objections to the argument are what struck me as off, and I think I've done all I can to explain them. As i've said before, I'm not a supporter of the argument, just wary of how it is sometimes responded to.