Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:...The biggest issue has been and quite probably, always will be the issue of suffering and an omnipotent God. Most have already abandoned the "evil" issue since they realize that without God there is on quantifier for 'evil". But suffering, especially of innocents, is always the big one.

While some "lower" atheist still try to go with the "Jesus myths" and such, that these have been discredited even by Ehrman, has pretty much put a nail in that coffin and are not used by the "higher" atheists.

The "rational" atheist tries to make it clear that there is NO proof that God exists and while there MAY be evidence of "something", that evidence is NOT proof and most certainly nor evidence FOR God per say.

(Point One) Evidential Arguments from Evil

The argument from evil (or problem of evil) is the argument that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God would not allow any—or certain kinds of—evil or suffering to occur. Unlike the logical argument from evil, which holds that the existence of God (so defined) is logically incompatible with some known fact about evil, the evidential (or probabilistic) argument from evil contends that some known fact about evil is evidence against the existence of God. For instance, one version of the argument contends that the biological role of pain and pleasure is much more likely on naturalism than theism (e.g., Paul Draper).

Other versions of the evidential argument concede that God could have a morally sufficient reason for allowing certain evils to occur—e.g., to ensure that some greater good is achieved as a consequence of an evil. However, proponents add, God would only allow as much evil or suffering as is absolutely necessary in order to achieve greater goods. But when we look at the world around us, we find prevalent instances of apparently gratuitous evil—pointless evils from which no greater good seems to result. According to proponents, the existence of apparently gratuitous evil provides strong evidence that God (as traditionally defined) does not exist (e.g., William Rowe).

For thousands of years theologians and philosophers have developed elaborate theodicies—responses to the argument from evil which retain belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God. According to the unknown purpose defense (UPD), God allows apparently pointless suffering for some reason that we can't comprehend. The free will defense (FWD) maintains that God has to allow the existence of some evil in order to preserve human free will (e.g., Alvin Plantinga, Robert Adams). Finally, the soul-making theodicy (SMT) contends that God allows some evil because it builds positive character in the victims or in others which outweighs the negative value of the evil itself (e.g., John Hick).

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... /evil.html

(Point Two) A Bear, A Trap, A Hunter, And God

The idea here is that God must allow some short term suffering in order to achieve a greater good. The analogy employed by professor Kreeft involves a hunter who is trying to free a bear from a trap, but cannot because the bear is liable to react violently, incorrectly perceiving the hunter as a threat. The hunter must therefore use tranquilizer darts and the like, which also would seem to the bear as harmful, in order to achieve what is ultimately best for the bear, i.e. freedom from the trap. The analogy is, of course, Hunter = God, Bear = Human (pp. 31-2).

Problems:

For starters, if God is omnipotent, couldn't he still achieve the long term good without the short term suffering? If he cannot, he is not omnipotent. To suggest that there are things God absolutely cannot do, is to suggest that there are laws which operate over and above God, that even He can't transcend. I have no problem with this, but most Christians, including Kreeft, do. Thus the analogy is a false one, because no matter how sophisticated a human being might appear to a bear, the human is not omnipotent and therefore cannot conjure up a completely painless solution to the bear's plight, whereas God, if he is indeed omnipotent, could achieve good without the suffering. This is but one of many reasons such attempts at answering this objection fail.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... /obj1.html

B. W. wrote:What is difficult to discern from the suffering argument is by what criteria do atheist use to judge suffering as wrong or evil?
-
-
-

PaulSacramento wrote: Most don't judge suffering as evil but they do judge God as evil for allowing suffering to happen and judge God as "not good" for allowing suffering when, being God, He can stop it. Of course, they play that "If God does exist but allows suffering when he can stop it, he is "not good" ( at least less good than humans because we would stop it if we could, presumably) and if he is good and CAN'T stop it then he is NOT God" card.

PaulSacramento wrote: The argument falls apart when you can show that God CAN have reasons for both evil and suffering AND still be good, whether THEY agree with such a premise is irrelevant because it’s not about agreement but about showing a plausible possibility as to why God allows such things.

PaulSacramento wrote:Well, I think that how you did is fine:
Self inflicted suffering
Suffering due to natural disaters
Suffering due to man's violent nature ( wars, murders, etc)

The thing is, once you do that, a smart atheist will see what you are doing ( compartmentalizing) and he knows that in this regard, the issue of suffering becomes subjective and he wants to maintain it objective because if it is subjective it is on US but if it stays objective, it remains on God.

When it is subjective the proof falls on the atheist - how does one prove that an earthquake is evil or that earthquakes don't have to exist? One can't.
But one can most certianly show that people living in an earthquake zone are responsible for what happens to themselves in an earthquake.

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Well, I think that how you did is fine:
Self inflicted suffering
Suffering due to natural disaters
Suffering due to man's violent nature ( wars, murders, etc)

The thing is, once you do that, a smart atheist will see what you are doing ( compartmentalizing) and he knows that in this regard, the issue of suffering becomes subjective and he wants to maintain it objective because if it is subjective it is on US but if it stays objective, it remains on God.

When it is subjective the proof falls on the atheist - how does one prove that an earthquake is evil or that earthquakes don't have to exist? One can't.
But one can most certianly show that people living in an earthquake zone are responsible for what happens to themselves in an earthquake.

What about simple existential lamentation or depression? Suffering need not have a cause. And then, what of suffering that is directly caused by God (events in the bible)?

PaulSacramento wrote: Most don't judge suffering as evil but they do judge God as evil for allowing suffering to happen and judge God as "not good" for allowing suffering when, being God, He can stop it.
Of course, they play that "If God does exist but allows suffering when he can stop it, he is "not good" ( at least less good than humans because we would stop it if we could, presumably) and if he is good and CAN'T stop it then he is NOT God" card.
The argument falls apart when you can show that God CAN have reasons for both evil and suffering AND still be good, whether THEY agree with such a premiss is irrelevant because its not about agreement but about showing a plausible possibility as to why God allows such things.

Butterfly wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: Most don't judge suffering as evil but they do judge God as evil for allowing suffering to happen and judge God as "not good" for allowing suffering when, being God, He can stop it.
Of course, they play that "If God does exist but allows suffering when he can stop it, he is "not good" ( at least less good than humans because we would stop it if we could, presumably) and if he is good and CAN'T stop it then he is NOT God" card.
The argument falls apart when you can show that God CAN have reasons for both evil and suffering AND still be good, whether THEY agree with such a premiss is irrelevant because its not about agreement but about showing a plausible possibility as to why God allows such things.

What reason would you give to explain why God allows the suffering of sick children whose parents plead for a healing. Why doesn't God answer their prayers, when the Bible clearly says one only need ask in the name of Jesus?

RickD wrote:

Butterfly wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: Most don't judge suffering as evil but they do judge God as evil for allowing suffering to happen and judge God as "not good" for allowing suffering when, being God, He can stop it.
Of course, they play that "If God does exist but allows suffering when he can stop it, he is "not good" ( at least less good than humans because we would stop it if we could, presumably) and if he is good and CAN'T stop it then he is NOT God" card.
The argument falls apart when you can show that God CAN have reasons for both evil and suffering AND still be good, whether THEY agree with such a premiss is irrelevant because its not about agreement but about showing a plausible possibility as to why God allows such things.

What reason would you give to explain why God allows the suffering of sick children whose parents plead for a healing. Why doesn't God answer their prayers, when the Bible clearly says one only need ask in the name of Jesus?

Rose, first, the suffering of children is probably the worst thing I can think of. Nothing hurts me more than to see or hear about a child in pain. And, I can try to understand what a parent who has a sick, dying child feels like when they pray, and there's no healing. When my Dad was dying a few years back, we prayed for his healing. My Dad died. It wasn't God's will for him to be physically healed. Can I explain why some people are healed, and others arent? Other than it was God's will and His plan, no, I can't. I don't think it's accurate to say that God is a genie, and whatever we ask of Him will be done. God is not subject to our whims. Just because God doesn't heal all sick children, that doesn't mean God doesn't hurt when children suffer.

I know that the needless suffering I see around me is not proof that God doesn't exist, and that is why I didn't loose my faith when my parents weren't healed. It wasn't until I was able to see the biased nature of the Bible God that my faith began to erode. When I asked the tough question: How can a just god be biased? And know that to be biased implies injustice which is not perfect...