Evidence for God from Science

Hey everyone. It's great to be back here since I had a rather long departure. For the most part, things are going well. However I was going to ask you all about some new (or new to me) philosophical arguments from atheists. I've run into three of them and here they are...

1. The argument from unbelief
2. The argument from horrific suffering
3. The argument from gratuitous suffering

Let's see, I mostly want to know if you all have seen these and if so do you know any good responses to them?

Also, for arguments 2 and 3, would the common responses for the general arguments against God's existence from pain and suffering also apply to these? I mean regardless of the adjectives isn't pain and suffering pain and suffering? I mean can the same response apply if it is general suffering, horrific, gratuitous, fluffy, silly, chocolate, 34.972, bugs bunny, or cowabunga suffering?!

Anyways, I look forward to the discussion. Thanks and God bless.

Could you elaborate more on what you mean by those three arguements please.

Silvertusk,

Let's see I believe these arguments are from atheist philosopher J.L. Schellenberg here are some links I found

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_i ... 9495273054

http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/t ... ce-of-god/

Arguement for non belief.

If God wanted everyone to believe in him by demonstrating in your face 100% proofs - then people would have no choice but to beleive. Does not mean that they will love and worship him though. Even the demons believe in God. God gives us enough evidence that it is our choice to then seek him - and through that act of seeking him then you learn to trust and love God. It is all about the relationship and the freewill of humans. Remember that in the Old Testament - God showed himself directly to the Israelites and even after that revelation they still turned from God.

To be honest I think the Arguement from non belief is one of the weakest athiestic arguements I have ever heard.

God Bless

Silvertusk

The "Gratuitous Suffering" page is interesting. They try to define the term but I'm still not exactly sure what they mean. All they refer to is temporal suffering (I would think if they really wanted to make this argument they'd talk about hell or something). It makes their first premise incorrect. An all-loving God's first goal is not the removal of all suffering. An all-loving God's first goal is... love. And since no suffering in this life lasts for longer than this life, it's much more often used as a tool than treated as something to be avoided.

I guess I don't see how this argument is any different than the normal 'anti-suffering' argument. I'm not sure why one finite amount of suffering is different than another.

I don't see the use in differentiating between different forms of suffering really, they usually come down to the same basic "problem of evil" or "problem of pain"... the question that is probably addressed more than any other.

I've heard of the first one before, and I just don't buy it at all. I'd agree that its one of the weakest arguments I've seen.

Thank you all for your responses. I'm very glad that you all are not taken back by any of these and that you all agree with my assessment that the responses for the origional problem of evil would effectivley answer these other versions of the problem of evil. Thanks again.

Evil? what is this "evil" that you speak of?
From what evolutionary branch did this "evil" come from?
Is this "evil" part of the universe? of the animal kingdom ?

Suffering? what is that?
What is this notion of "suffering"? how does one reconcile it with natural selection and survival of the fittest and the propegation of the best and most dominant selfish genes into the future gene pool?

You can't even begin to discuss suffering without first smuggling in morality, and the inherent value of life.

I do like the concept of cowabunga suffering.

jlay wrote:You can't even begin to discuss suffering without first smuggling in morality, and the inherent value of life.

I do like the concept of cowabunga suffering.

And that is the issue isn't it?
To make a case for suffering one must make a case for it existing and why it exists, which brings us to the issue of morals and an absolute morals.
And Darwinisim doesn't answer that issue, it actually goes against it in many aspects ( evolution is silent on the matter of morals).

For anyone to have to believe in suffering and have issues with it's existence, one must accept that there is something wrong with suffering and if that is the case, why and why do we believe that it is so?

PaulSacramento wrote:

jlay wrote:You can't even begin to discuss suffering without first smuggling in morality, and the inherent value of life.

I do like the concept of cowabunga suffering.

And that is the issue isn't it?
To make a case for suffering one must make a case for it existing and why it exists, which brings us to the issue of morals and an absolute morals.
And Darwinisim doesn't answer that issue, it actually goes against it in many aspects ( evolution is silent on the matter of morals).

For anyone to have to believe in suffering and have issues with it's existence, one must accept that there is something wrong with suffering and if that is the case, why and why do we believe that it is so?

I disagree, the argument for suffering does not need to make a case for morality in order to show how a belief system is inconsistent with it's own interpretation.

Echoside wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

jlay wrote:You can't even begin to discuss suffering without first smuggling in morality, and the inherent value of life.

I do like the concept of cowabunga suffering.

And that is the issue isn't it?
To make a case for suffering one must make a case for it existing and why it exists, which brings us to the issue of morals and an absolute morals.
And Darwinisim doesn't answer that issue, it actually goes against it in many aspects ( evolution is silent on the matter of morals).

For anyone to have to believe in suffering and have issues with it's existence, one must accept that there is something wrong with suffering and if that is the case, why and why do we believe that it is so?

I disagree, the argument for suffering does not need to make a case for morality in order to show how a belief system is inconsistent with it's own interpretation.

For someone to have issues with suffering they must have a reason to believe suffering to be what?
Unjust? Unfair? Incorrect?
Where would that view come from?

PaulSacramento wrote:For someone to have issues with suffering they must have a reason to believe suffering to be what?
Unjust? Unfair? Incorrect?
Where would that view come from?

The argument itself has no presumptions of what morality should be other than what Christianity outlines. One does not need to have issues with suffering to make the argument.

Echoside wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:For someone to have issues with suffering they must have a reason to believe suffering to be what?
Unjust? Unfair? Incorrect?
Where would that view come from?

The argument itself has no presumptions of what morality should be other than what Christianity outlines. One does not need to have issues with suffering to make the argument.

So please define suffering outside of those parameters outlined by PaulSacramento.

Byblos wrote: So please define suffering outside of those parameters outlined by PaulSacramento.

I'm sure the Bible speaks for itself in terms of morality