Page 4 of 12

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:21 am
by B. W.
Common Agnostic-Atheist objections
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.
Okay, let's get into the objections used by Agnostic and Atheist concerning suffering so let’s set the standard frame from their position summed up from the following articles:
(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
And this article sums up and frames the logic of their position:
(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
The flaw I find in Point Two is the authors comment:

… "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"...

His comment cuts both ways because the author is a human being, he is not omnipotent, and therefore cannot conjure up a completely painless solution about evil, defining what evil is, or curing it…

Basically the atheist position proves beyond doubt mankind as a whole is guilty of evil and twistedness and also that it, alone, cannot cure it.

In other words, they prove the words of Paul the Apostle true:

Romans 3:23 NKJV "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…"

Yet deny God based on their failure to be omnipotent in logic and actions...

Hmmm - would they be passing on their own shortfalls onto God who they deny exist?

Now here is a point to ponder: if God denied them their actions and logic, God would be proven absolutely unjust. Allowing the militant agnostic /atheist their actions and logic proves God is absolutely Just, first to himself and to them / us all second. Since God offers a cure that works through all things without violating the principles of His absolute justice to all intelligent moral beings, proves He is indeed also omnipotent.

So what cures do atheistic / agnostic societies pose to cure evil that are absolutely just to all?

Have they worked?

Let’s look at this point first…
-
-
-

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:42 am
by PaulSacramento
In my view, the evil argument is 100% subjective and most atheist know that, so they don't use it that much.
The suffering one is still used because it is an emotional one and those tend to be the best arguments for JUDGING God and if you can judge God, you can disbelief Him because you have brought him "down" to our level and hence, he is NOT God.

We have NO way to KNOW what God allows for suffering BUT in regards to "human induced" suffering, the question of free will becomes the most simplest and obvious answer, to be trult free to choose right and wrong, then one must be FREE to do/choose right and wrong and that means that some will do wrong and cause suffering.
This however does NOT answer the issue of "non human caused suffering).
Now, lets remove the human factor - humans living in an earth quake zone or hurricane area or tornado area, and as such being responsible for their own suffering- and see one vital issue:
WE as humans have ISSUE with suffering, even if it is the suffering of people we don't know and may even hate !
Why? why on earth should we even care?

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:10 am
by PaulSacramento
The issue of suffering is something that each believer must answer for themselves, its hard ( if even possible) to find a "fit all" answer to this question.
I know that I struggled with it for years.
What happened?
Speaking on a personal note and expressing my opinion and POV only.
I realized that suffering HAS a purpose, that God does indeed HAVE a purpose for suffering.
It is in suffering, (ours and more importantly the suffering of others) that Humans are TRULY most in God's image.
People starve half way across the world and we want to help and do all we can and we cry and suffer with them.
People die in an earthquake or a tsunami or some other natural disaster and we flock to rescue them and help them and comfort them and we suffer with them.
Sound familar?
A God that came to US and was with US and cried with US and suffered with US and even died with US.
We are truly human, truly human as were were created to be, when we suffer along others.
We rise to the occasion, our love shows no boundary, no limits, we give even when we can't give, we risk and even die for those that are suffering or maybe even dead already, just on the off chance that we can save ONE life.
Humans are at their highest level when we are suffering with others.
Why does God permit suffering?
So that we can fulfill what we were created for, what we are meant to do, what we feel best at doing: So that we can LOVE.

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 pm
by B. W.
What is difficult to discern from the suffering argument is by what criteria do atheist use to judge suffering as wrong or evil?
-
-
-

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:20 pm
by PaulSacramento
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?
-
-
-
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.

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:37 am
by B. W.
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.
Do you think their argument falls apart by basing what constitutes suffering on a moral premise which premise cannot be since there are no moral absolutes to base suffering on?

This would also apply to the definition of what Good is? Maybe reorienting a response to them that ask – are they really good might help defeat the God ain’t Good 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.
Here is a dilemma: A parent’s response to their teenage child’s antics of drunk driving, being caught in that act, arrested, and tossed in Jail. Is it best for the parent to immediately bail them out or let them stew there awhile?

That is one form of suffering…

Then there is another – Natural disasters types, catastrophic illnesses, accidents, etc…

There is also self inflicted suffering that people place on themselves due to rejection, abandonment, etc - those – I feel icky, I am no good, Everyone thinks bad of me that… kinds of self inflicted suffering. This would include alcohol and drug addiction too and its effects of causing suffering… as well as wars...

There is a difference in the suffering we create for ourselves and upon others because it is the human being that is the cause. Hence, does this kind of suffering indict humanity as not Good?

So the criteria of suffering need to be defined in such debates with militant agnostics, atheist, as well as the nominal secularist…

Does anyone have an idea or experience on how to frame the criteria?
-
-
-

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:12 am
by PaulSacramento
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.

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:21 am
by Beanybag
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)?

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:09 pm
by PaulSacramento
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)?
What about them?

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:16 am
by B. W.
John 16:33, "These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world." NASB

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:36 pm
by Butterfly
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?

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:29 pm
by RickD
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.

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:46 pm
by Danieltwotwenty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mhLntdrrz8

Problem of suffering and evil

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:10 pm
by Butterfly
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 too lost my father to cancer many years ago. He was deeply involved in the branch of Christianity that believed in positive confessions and claiming ones healing by standing on verses like Isa. 53:5 "by his stripes we are healed"...needless to say it didn't work. My mother was also taken by an illness a number of years later that had no cure, and received many prayers for her healing...all for naught. At the time I too resigned myself to the fact that their physical healing was not in Gods plan, even though I believed that it was totally within his power to heal them.

God not being subject to our "whims" has nothing to do with whether or not our sincere prayers for healing should not be answered. Would any loving parent withhold from their child medicine that would heal them? Of course not! So why should God? Especially when we read in the Bible how God desires for us to make our request known to him, and that he will answer our prayers. The truth of the matter is that as a general rule God does not answer prayer, and when people claim he does it is usually for minor requests like finding a lost set of keys.

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...
-
y@};-

Re: Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:20 pm
by neo-x
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...
Everyone has to die, your parents, mine, and us when our bodies fall away, there is no avoiding that. There is no ultimate healing of the body. God can not be biased, its not like he is going to have a winning side on election day. Injustice is a very big concept, death can not be seen as injustice, not always.