There are a couple of Christians, a husband and wife team that share an account (smarterthantheaveragebear [STAB]) who have been making quite a few ignorant statements about atheism and evolution - - two subjects that are of interest to me.
They have already derailed two or three blogs with their inane replies and I do not wish to contribute to the further derailment so I instead I will create new ones addressing some of these statements. In fact, I already have written several blogs that detail some of the pertinent evidence in favor of evolution at the expense of creationism and Intelligent Design. I have left links to those blogs at the end of this one.
Before I address specific points I want to make clear that I am not using an ad hominem attack when I call STAB ignorant. Ignorance is not something to be ashamed of. Everybody is ignorant about most things. All ignorance means is that there is something of which the person is unaware. Ignorance is curable. All it takes is to become aware of and understand the facts.
However, there is a type of ignorance that one SHOULD be ashamed of - - willful ignorance. Willful ignorance comes from two sources - - (1) active denial of well-established facts, and (2) a refusal to consider facts that conflict with one’s conclusions. After reading the responses of STAB I suspect willful ignorance, but I could be wrong (and I hope I am).
The first ignorant statement I would like to address in this blog is this one: “… I ask anyone here "atheist", "evolutionist" or "pagan" to provide me with empirical proof that there is no GOD”.
This is an argument that is made by many theists. They seem to take a great deal of comfort in this argument. The only reason I can see to take comfort in such an argument is that one has not thought much about it.
The strength of the argument lies in two rather disreputable areas - - (1) the unclear meanings of “proof” and “God”; and (2) the idea that if you can’t absolutely disprove something then it is perfectly reasonable to believe it is true. Let me take the second one first.
No one can disprove that there he/she is being followed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). One may say that they do not see the FSM following them. But the FSM is invisible so this doesn’t disprove it. Suppose someone uses the best technology known to man and shows that no physical matter or energy follows them. So what? The FSM is immaterial, so that doesn’t disprove it either. So NO ONE can say with absolute certainty that the FSM is not following them. Does that mean that it is reasonable to believe that you are being followed by the FSM? Of course not. The reason is that even though you can’t disprove it, you have no evidence that (1) a FSM exists; or (2) a FSM is following you. Thus, when it comes to claims of immaterial things doing magical stuff the test of reasonableness is NOT whether or not one can rule it out to absolute certainty. The test of reasonableness lies in the evidence that such an entity exists and is doing what one claims it does.
The other source of strength of the argument lies in the use of not clearly defined words. The first word I want to address is “prove”. What does STAB mean by “prove”? Does STAB mean that we must empirically show to absolute certainty that God doesn’t exist? If that is what they mean then they may have well have asked us to show them a square circle or a married bachelor. By definition, empirical means cannot show anything to absolute certainty.
This requires some explaining. There are two types of reasoning that we commonly use to assess the truth of a proposition - - (1) DEDUCTIVE reasoning; and (2) INDUCTIVE reasoning.
Deductive reasoning involves the formal rules of logic. It CAN determine the truth of things to absolute certainty – - if we can be assured of the truth of the premises upon which the reasoning is based. The classical example is:
Premise 1: All men are mortal
Premise 2: Socrates is a man
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
If we can be assured of the truth of Premise 1 and Premise 2, then we know with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that our conclusion is correct.
Inductive reasoning, on the other hand, cannot assure us of absolute certainty. And it is inductive reasoning that is the basis of the scientific method and thus the basis of empiricism. Let’s see how it works.
The scientific method has several steps. (1) We make observations (empiricism) of some phenomenon. (2) We then make an hypothesis that explains our observations. (3) We examine the logical consequences of the hypothesis and develop a test of the hypothesis. (4) We perform the test (more observations/more empiricism). (5) We modify our hypothesis if necessary. (6) We go back to step 3 and continue over again.
If we continue this process long enough we eventually get enough evidence that fits in with our most recent hypothesis showing that it is reasonable to believe our hypothesis to be true. But at no time does the evidence reach absolute certainty. There is always the chance that future tests will reveal a flaw in the theory that will force a further reevaluation.
So while deductive reasoning gives us certainty, it is inductive reasoning that has led to almost all of our progress in science. So if STAB is asking for science for absolute certainty, they are asking science for something that it cannot give. Thus, the standard should not be absolute proof - - it should be reasonableness.
The second word that is poorly defined is “God”. If STAB means by “God” an entity putatively able to create the universe, then we cannot possibly rule it out. There is nothing there to check. God could have any characteristic what-so-ever. Perhaps, God is a pimple-faced transdimensional high-school geek that made the universe in a class project in computer modelling. Perhaps, God is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or perhaps God made the universe but since that time has not interfered with its natural development at all. But that is not what most theists mean by “God”. Most theist think their God has characteristics in addition to being able to make the universe. Most Christian theists think that among the characteristics their God has in addition to being able to make the universe are (1) OMNISCIENCE - - knowing everything that it is logically possible to know; (2) OMNIPOTENCE - - having the ability to do everything that is logically possible to do; and (3) OMNIBENEVOLENCE - - wanting the best for the people and other organisms he created. I call a God with these characteristics an OMNIMAX God.
If we use REASONABLENESS as the criterion then I think there are arguments that rule out the existence of an omnimax God. I will devote the rest of this blog to one such argument - - the Argument from Unnecessary Suffering.
The first step is to define what is meant by unnecessary suffering. Unnecessary suffering is defined as any suffering beyond the absolute minimal amount needed to achieve some higher good.
With that in mind let’s look at the logic of the Argument from Unnecessary Suffering.
PREMISES:
(1) If God is omniscient then God knows unnecessary suffering exists.
(2) If God is omnipotent then God can prevent unnecessary suffering.
(3) If God is omnibenevolent then God wants to prevent unnecessary suffering.
(4) Unnecessary suffering still exists.
CONCLUSION:
An omnimax God cannot exist.
This part of the argument is deductive reasoning. It is based on the rules of logic and is unassailable. That means that if the premises are true then the conclusion is without a doubt true. Premises 1, 2, and 3 follow straight-forwardly from the definitions of omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Thus, they are true by definition. Premise 4 is the only premise that is subject to debate. It is here that inductive reasoning must be used. And remember … the standard for inductive reasoning is reasonableness.
I have two arguments that unnecessary suffering does indeed exist. They are the arguments from a specific example, and the argument from the sheer amount of suffering. Let’s begin with the specific example - - Harlequin Fetus Syndrome.
The disturbing picture above shows a newborn baby suffering from Harlequin Fetus Syndrome (HFS). HFS is a genetic disease caused by a mutation in the ABCA12 gene. It appears to be transmitted as an autosomal recessive manner. It occurs about once in every 300,000 live births. A baby born with HFS has abnormally thick skin. The skin does allow proper bending at joints. It also contracts and splits into the massive scale-like patches you can see above.
As the skin contracts the mucus membranes in areas such as the mouth and under the eyelids becomes exposed. The baby is unable to mold his mouth properly to suck on either the mother’s breast or from a bottle. As a result it is difficult for the baby to maintain its electrolyte balance. HFS babies rarely survive more than a month of birth. Death commonly results from infection through the split skin, dehydration, or because skin constriction prevents them from breathing. No matter which way the death should be quite painful.
There are presently over 6 billion people alive in the world. Ignoring the one ones that have died we would expect 20,000 babies to have been born with HFS. That would be a minimal amount born over the last 100 years. Since humans have been around for 160,000 to 200,000 years even with the lower populations in the past, an estimate of those 20,000 babies comprising 1% over the total number is VERY conservative. That would mean that as a lower limit, at least 2,000,000 HFS babies have been born. That represents a lot of suffering. What higher purpose could possibly justify that suffering?
These are newborn babies. They can not have done anything themselves that justifies such suffering. They do not become better people after having gone through such suffering because they all die. So it cannot be that their suffering is (1) deserved due to a sin they themselves have committed, or (2) is offset because of some greater good they receive because they went through the suffering.
Do they, then, suffer because of the sins of another? Or does someone else receive a greater good due to their suffering? Neither of these two options are morally acceptable. Furthermore, in the absence of any candidate for a greater good to the contrary, it is unreasonable to think that any unspecified greater good could not have been achieved more directly and in a manner that would have resulted in less overall suffering.
The second empirical argument that unnecessary suffering exists involves the total amount of suffering in this world. The only way to get around the logic of the Argument from Unnecessary Suffering is to claim that EVERY BIT OF SUFFERING LEADS TO A HIGHER GOOD THAT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED BY LESS SUFFERING. This is a very high standard that any apologist must meet.
There is a HUGE amount of suffering that goes on in this world. There is not a person (or organism) who hasn’t been affected by it. Much of the suffering comes through no fault of sufferer. Examples range from natural disasters like the Indonesian tsunami, earthquakes and hurricanes to injustices such as the Holocaust and genocides to inadvertent acts as seemingly insignificant as unknowingly crushing the abdomen of an ant on the sidewalk. In order for the argument from unnecessary suffering to fail ALL OF THIS MUST BE OFFSET BY A GREATER GOOD. That is a huge amount of good. It is unreasonable to think that such a huge amount would go unnoticed or not be traceable to events mentioned. This is even more so since for almost all cases mentioned above no one has come up with a single reasonable candidate for such a good.
Thus, it is not only reasonable to believe that there is unnecessary suffering in this world, it is UNREASONABLE to not believe it. And thus, an omnimax God cannot exist.
So what is the apologist’s response to this argument? I have found three common responses. (1) The apologist rephrases the argument to claim that it is the argument from evil. He then says that argument has been dismissed in the past and deserves no more consideration. This, however, is an example of willful ignorance. (a) The argument from unnecessary suffering is not the argument from evil. No one is claiming that genetic diseases, natural disasters, inadvertent acts, etc. are evil. What makes an act evil is the intent behind the act. In the vast majority of the cases there is no intent behind the act. (b) Apologists who reject the argument from evil do so on the basis of free-will. God values free-will so highly that he cannot over-ride another’s intent to do evil. It should be noted that most thinking philosophers reject this apology, but even more importantly for the argument from unnecessary suffering … it does not apply. God would not need to infringe upon anyone’s free-will to prevent HFS. Since it is an autosomal recessive genetic disease all that he would need to do to prevent it, is to prevent that particular sperm from fertilizing that particular egg. That is a feat that seems childishly simple compared to curing someone of cancer, or being able to read one’s thoughts.
(2) The apologist even in the face of the evidence above maintains that unnecessary suffering does not exist. He NEVER tries to argue away specific examples, instead he claims that God is ineffable and that we cannot possibly know as much as him therefore there is a hidden good that underlies every instance of suffering. Again this is willful ignorance. The apologist dismisses established evidence in favor of what we cannot know. He does so not on any evidence … in fact he has de facto conceded that not only is there not any to support his claim, looking for any evidence to support his claim is useless.
(3) The apologist says, “Fine, God isn’t omnimax, just super-duper powerful. Nowhere in the bible does God claim to be omnimax so it isn’t a problem. I still believe in him anyway”. This too is willful ignorance in that the apologist refuses to think about the consequences of that conclusion.
If God is not omniscient, then he too is ignorant of some things. Is he unable to tell that a baby will be born with HFS? But to determine that only requires knowledge of the DNA structure of the ABCA12 gene. That requires being able to detect the nucleotide sequence of a certain piece of DNA in the egg and the sperm. Compare to this to God knowing what you are thinking. To know that God must know the strength and state of excitation of hundreds of millions of synapses in all areas of the brain. Knowing the linear nucleotide sequence of a certain area of the genome is child’s play compared to that. If God is ignorant of your DNA structure, he should be ignorant of your thoughts as well.
If God is not omnipotent, then he is weak. Can God not prevent HFS? That means he is incapable of giving a particular sperm cell a nudge at the right time to prevent it from fertilizing that particular egg. If he cannot do this then curing any diseases is beyond him too.
If God is not omnibenevolent, then he is mean-spirited at times. Does he not care that babies get HFS? If this is so then what type of God is being worshipping? He certainly doesn’t deserve to be worshipped.
So if God is not omnimax then God is flawed, and given the way the world is … he is flawed badly. My personal opinion is that his biggest flaw is that he doesn’t exist at all.
Cheers,
Darwin’s Beagle
Links to previous blogs I have done that outline some of the evidence for modern evolutionary theory:
http://www.progressiveu.org/190000-modern-evolutionary-theory-versus-int...
http://www.progressiveu.org/190000-modern-evolutionary-theory-versus-int...
http://www.progressiveu.org/151101-modern-evolutionary-theory-versus-int...
http://www.progressiveu.org/184956-modern-evolutionary-theory-versus-int...
http://www.progressiveu.org/152714-the-cambrian-explosion-part-1
http://www.progressiveu.org/185137-the-cambrian-explosion-part-2
I nominate Darwin's Beagle president of ProgressiveU, no, of the world, no, of the multiverse. fantastic post!!
I can add a comment, from a more epistemic perspective:
There is a tremendous multitude of things you could believe in that are strange and unreasonable--and impossible to disprove. One of them is that a Flying Spaghetti Monster which created the universe is following you. That a penguin named Baxter lives alone on a remote planet in a foreign universe is another. A Matrix-like situation is yet another. Finally, another famous one is the Omphalos hypothesis, which proposes that God has been re-creating the universe every week or every ten minutes, with evidence of experience and time already in place--such as memories, erosion, and tree growth rings.
None of these ideas are impossible to disprove--and thus on a logical par with a belief in God and Christianity. So it would seem appropriate and logically consistent for a Theist to not dismiss the above proposals, and even to live by them as he does Christianity.
If it's appropriate to accept one unfalsifiable hypothesis, then where do you draw the line before accepting more? What makes one more acceptable than another? Which one do you choose to base your life on?
Since Theism and Christianity are logical near-equivalents to a nearly limitless number of other un-disprovable ideas, then to completely base one's life--from your moral codes to modes of thought to choices of company and appropriate sources of bliss--on something so arbitrary, illusory, and such a product of a culture's mindless inertia, is a high intellectual crime. It is senseless and arbitrary. It is wrong.
I blame culture.
Michael Allen Yarbrough (PBUH)
Omphalos Hypothesis aka Last Thursdayism
More Unfalsifiable ideas/religions
Thanks for your reply,
As an aside, Omphalos is a Greek term that means "belly button". The theory was first proposed by Philip Henry Gosse in 1857. Gosse wanted to harmonize all the evidence for an old earth with the biblical chronology which said that the earth was about 6,000 years old.
There was a popular question along the lines of "which came first -- the chicken or the egg?" ... "Did Adam have a belly button?"
The question, of course, was only meant to stimulate thought. There was no definitive answer to it. But Gosse decided he could answer it. His answer was that Adam did have a belly button.
His reasoning was that Adam wasn't created as a newborn baby. He was created as an adult. Therefore God created with the appearance of age. If he did that then of course, Adam would have a belly button. And if Adam had a belly button then God created the whole world with the appearance of age. Thus, it should come as little wonder that the earth should appear to be millions or billions of years old when in actuality it was only 6,000 as the bible suggests.
Gosse was roundly criticized but none were so harsh in their criticism as were the devout Christians. They called Gosse a blasphemer and ostracized him. The reason was they felt that Gosse was calling God a liar. If those fossils that appeared to be very old were not the product of a global flood then they must never have really existed and God just placed them there to throw us off track.
The irony is that among young-earth creationists there is a small but growing movement to resurrect his ideas.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
...to the relentless force of your dispassionat logic, DB. I must admit that I sometimes take a little too much pleasure in my deconstruction of the theist position, but your method of responding is by far the more effective.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I do enjoy trying to dissecet the core beliefs out of religious babble and addressing those with logical arguments. That is where I think I am the most effective, but I don't know that I am any more effective than you. I have felt like your comments to numerous babblings have been on-point and complete enough to save me the effort of responding myself. I have enjoyed reading them, and I thank you for it.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
Whats the value in tearing apart others' beliefs when you could be forming your own; there is no end to beliefs, will you destroy them all?
"Have good trust in yourself -- not in the One that you think you should be, but in the One that you are"
- Maezumi Roshi
I see the error of my ways
Er... no I don't
(1) I doubt if I have made a single dent in STAB's beliefs. STAB is willfully ignorant. You can't destroy the beliefs of the willfully ignorant.
(2) The right way to build a belief system of your own is to test it against competing belief systems. The only way to do that is evaluate other's belief systems.
(3) Since I cannot destroy any beliefs, I guess I can't destroy them all. But I will, however, discard from personal utilization every belief system that fails the test of rationality.
(4) Do you waste YOUR time posting inane posts like this often?
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
I am in awe of your logical abilities and the way in which you apply them to deconstruct ignorant people's madnesses.
You, DB, are a champion of rationality and I applaud you.
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)
are illogical when applied to the ignoble aspiration.
"Have good trust in yourself -- not in the One that you think you should be, but in the One that you are"
- Maezumi Roshi
I want to thank everyone for their comments here so far. But there is one person who hasn't seemed to find this particular blog ... the person whose ignorance inspired it, smarterthantheaveragebear. This is surprising since STAB has found a number of my other blogs, and seems to love to leave inappropriate replies there. STAB does this even though I have left several links to this particular blog saying that such responses would be much more appropriate here. If I were suspicious of motives -- heaven forbid -- I might think that STAB is intent on trying to derail that thread.
No matter ... Here is what I am going to do. I am going to repost STAB's comment here ... word for word.
On Friday 6/20/2007 at 8:02pm smarterthantheaveragebear posted the following post:
======
Your View Sickens Me
First of all, if you are atheist, why do you work so hard to disprove the Christian God and not the many other pagan gods and goddesses as well. Or is it your opinion that these other religions and gods need no disproving?
Lots of people swear and say, "Jesus!" when their plane is going down, but you never hear anyone saying, "Oh, Buddah!" Funny. Just something to think about.
Another thing I find highly offensive is spreading lies that have no foundation other than your ignorant biases towards spiritual things, especially God of whom you know nothing about.
Your statement, "This is bullshit of course. I have had no problem finding meaning and purpose without God. And when I ask the religious fundamentalists making these claims what the purpose is that God gives us, I get either silence or a pathetic answer like, “to praise God”. If God made us to praise him, he is one pathetic sky-gremlin suffering from a case of severe low self-esteem."
Funny, I heard that God's purpose for creating us is because He was making a family for Himself. He wanted a family to love just like humans feel a need to have a family to love. Is that so difficult to understand? I guess it would be for someone as full as bitter bile and hatred as you.
Truly, I find you worthy of utter contempt not only for your blasphemies but also bc you are trying to convince others that your lies are truth. In a sense you are acting as satan himself. Even satan has followers but that doesn't mean squat except they will partake of the same hell as he will.
"Put your faith completely in Jesus Christ, not in any man or any movement."
~ Robert L. Sumner
=====
This post was a reply to a blog that proposes a way that anyone, theist or atheist, can use to find meaning and purpose in life. No where in that post is there any argument against God's existence.
You can read the blog here:
http://www.progressiveu.org/021802-finding-meaning-and-purpose-in-life
I have moved STAB's response here and will respond to it below.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
STAB==
Your View Sickens Me
DB=
I can assure you the feeling is mutual. You have argued that killing all Egyptian first-borns is something your loving God would do because he is a just God.
That is absolutely disgusting.
STAB==
First of all, if you are atheist, why do you work so hard to disprove the Christian God and not the many other pagan gods and goddesses as well. Or is it your opinion that these other religions and gods need no disproving?
DB=
(1) What do you mean by "disprove"? If you mean to rule out to absolute certainty, then that is something I have already conceded cannot be done. If you mean show that something is unreasonable to believe, then ... yes, I have presented numerous arguments that I think rule out your type of Christian God.
(2) There is no "Christian God". There is a whole bunch of them. Yours is different from that of most other Christians. I think that others would be happy to attest to that. Especially since yours is particularly heinous. In the very post in which you acknowledged that God killed the Egyptian first-borns you called him a "loving" God. You have so far refused to answer the question of whether or not you believe God actually killed every living thing except 8 humans and two of every "kind" of animal (or in some places 14 of the clean ones). Extrapolating from other things you have written, I highly suspect you do.
If so, then your Christian God is the worst mass murderer in history. He would make Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and any other historical person you may want to mention look like saints. The bible does not even ascribe anything so heinous to Satan himself. Yet you would still see that as a "loving" act.
(3) There are many reasons I concentrate on the Christian God. The main one is that I live in a country dominated by Christians. It is the God I know the most about.
However, go back to #2 above and read what I wrote. While your Christian God is not the God of the majority of Christians, he is the God of a sizeable minority. And I want to do my part to prevent anyone from becoming as fucked-up-beyond-belief as you are. That is a significant motivation, thank you for it.
STAB==
Lots of people swear and say, "Jesus!" when their plane is going down, but you never hear anyone saying, "Oh, Buddah!" Funny. Just something to think about.
DB=
I don't know. I suspect that if the plane was filled with Buddhists the would be much more likely to say "Oh, Buddha!" than "Oh, Jesus".
STAB==
Another thing I find highly offensive is spreading lies that have no foundation other than your ignorant biases towards spiritual things, especially God of whom you know nothing about.
DB=
Then you should quit doing it. ... D'Oh! I get it now. You are talking about me.
I will let others judge who is the more ignorant of us. As for any offense ... too bad. Unlike you I post reasons to believe what I believe. You posts threats of eternal damnation. I find my way much less offensive.
STAB==
Your statement, "This is bullshit of course. I have had no problem finding meaning and purpose without God. And when I ask the religious fundamentalists making these claims what the purpose is that God gives us, I get either silence or a pathetic answer like, “to praise God”. If God made us to praise him, he is one pathetic sky-gremlin suffering from a case of severe low self-esteem."
Funny, I heard that God's purpose for creating us is because He was making a family for Himself. He wanted a family to love just like humans feel a need to have a family to love. Is that so difficult to understand? I guess it would be for someone as full as bitter bile and hatred as you.
DB=
OH, GOODY. Another proposed "purpose" for us to examine. Just to show you that your God is not the only Christian God here is a link to a blog I did looking at another fundamentalist's putative "God's purpose":
http://www.progressiveu.org/230259-putting-a-religious-fundamentalists-b...
He didn't do so well, lets see how well you do:
You say that God's purpose in making us was to make a family for him to love.
Let's see, I LOVE my family. What does that mean? Well for one thing it means I spend time with them. I show myself. I do things physically with them. God doesn't do that. Why not?
If God wants us to be a family, why make us on Earth? Why not make us in heaven where his "house" is? Why is he hidden? Why does he give us message that no one agrees on as to its exact meaning? Why do sincere people who claim to receive revelations from God have so often different revelations. What makes one devote her life to the poor and starving in India and another drag his congregation to South America and commit suicide with poisoned Kool-Aid?
If God wanted a family to love, he is fulfilling his purpose in an incredibly inept way.
STAB==
Truly, I find you worthy of utter contempt not only for your blasphemies but also bc you are trying to convince others that your lies are truth. In a sense you are acting as satan himself. Even satan has followers but that doesn't mean squat except they will partake of the same hell as he will.
DB=
If there is anybody in this world that I would WANT to have contempt for me, then it would be one who displays your type of contemptible morals, does not have the integrity to respond in an honest manner, and eskews reason in favor of willful ignorance. So thanks.
As for satan ... that is another god that doesn't exist either.
As for hell ... If heaven is populated by people like you and God wants to send me to hell, then I'll be your roommate. But I highly suspect we'll both be worm-feasts ... only I highly suspect I will leave behind more people who are sorry to see me go.
STAB==
"Put your faith completely in Jesus Christ, not in any man or any movement."
~ Robert L. Sumner
DB=
Drop faith ... invest in reason. Then you'll be less likely to fall for the scams of evil men and movements and more likely to be influenced by the many truly good people who are out there.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
--
Oh, by the way, you still haven't responded to the blog above about your ignorance and meeting your challenge for showing evidence that rules out the reasonablity of an omnimax God.
---
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
Poisoning the well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.
Ad hominim - Attacking the individual instead of the argument.
Just want to point out that your tactics of ad hominim (saying I am stupid and my husband is stupid) in no way gives you an upper-hand in this debate. You are stooping to desperate measures to defend your ideas/position.
Even if the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God of Christianity does not exist, that does not mean that there is no God at all. We cannot fully comprehend God, therefore we cannot be completely sure that He possesses or does not possess certain qualities (such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence). Thus, any argument that attacks these qualities in an attempt to disprove the existence of God is ultimately irrelevant, since we do not know if God has these qualities or not. However, I believe in the Christian God, so my arguments will defend the existence of the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God of Christianity; however I cannot waste time on those who are fools(def. below) since I prefer not to waste time:
Fools respond with hostility and anger or with laughter and ridicule (Proverbs 29:9). When people react emotionally to the truth, either angrily or scornfully, they are fools. A merely ignorant person expresses puzzlement or confusion; the fool, even after misunderstandings have been clearly addressed, continues to mock, scorn, or attack the truth as something he considers stupid or evil or both.
SUFFERING IS ANOTHER CLASSIC QUESTION
1. The question implies that if a good God exists, then evil shouldn't because God, being all powerful, should stop it.
2. We need to ask and answer two questions. First, what is evil? It is that which is against God. It is anything morally bad or wrong. It is injurious, depraved, wicked. Some acceptable examples might be murder, rape, stealing, lying, and cheating. Second, if we want God to stop evil, do we want Him to stop all evil, or just some of it? In other words, if just some of it, then why? If He were to stop only part of the evil, then we would still be asking the question, "Why is there evil in the world?"
Let's suppose that someone was about to commit murder. God would have to stop him, maybe whisper in his ear, or if that didn't work, do something a little more drastic, like have something fall on him, or stop his heart, or make his hands suddenly fall off. Anyway, God would have to do something.
What if somebody wanted to steal? God would have to stop him too, right? Undoubtedly, God's imagination would permit a more practical method than I have suggested, but the end results would be the same.
What about lying? If someone were to tell a lie, then to be consistent wouldn't you want God right there to stop that person from lying? After all, He couldn't let any evil occur, could He?
Let's take it a step further. Suppose someone thought something evil. Then, of course, God would have to step in and prevent him from thinking anything bad at all, right? The end result would be that God could not allow anyone to think freely. Since everyone thinks, and no one thinks only pure thoughts, God would be pretty busy, and we wouldn't be able to think. Anyway, at what point do we stop - at the murder level, stealing level, lying level, or thinking level? As your question implies, if you want God to stop evil, you would have to be consistent and want Him to do it everywhere all the time, not just pick and choose. It wouldn't work.
Evil is in this world partly because we give it its place but ultimately because God, in His sovereignty, permits it and keeps it under His control.
Then you might say, "Couldn't He just make us perfect and that way we wouldn't sin?" He already did that. He made a perfect angel, Satan, but he sinned. He made a perfect man, Adam, and he sinned. He made a perfect woman, Eve, and she sinned. God knows what He is doing. He made us the way we are for a purpose. We don't fully understand that purpose, but He does.
3. God is sovereign; He has the right to do as He wishes. He has the right to permit evil for accomplishing His ultimate will. How can He do that? Simple, look at the Cross. It was by evil means that men lied and crucified Jesus. Yet God in His infinite wisdom used this evil for good. It was on the Cross that Jesus bore our sins in His body (1 Peter. 2:24) and it is because of the Cross that we have forgiveness of sins.
4. Consider the biblical example of Joseph in the Old Testament. He was sold into slavery by his brothers. Though they meant it for evil, God meant it for good (Gen. 50:20). God is so great that nothing happens without His permission, and in that permission His ultimate plan unfolds. In His plan He is able to use for good what man intends for evil. God is in control.
http://www.carm.org/40_objections/40-4.htm#_1_31
"Put your faith completely in Jesus Christ, not in any man or any movement."
~ Robert L. Sumner
STAB, it's okay. this entire hellish time I have been posturing, praise him, as an atheist so that I might gain the trust of the Great Satan, who calls himself Darwin's Beagle, so that he might, by the grace of the Lord, give me his address.
We have been communicating via PM, and Oh, I now have it, friend (As I expected, it's some cesspool of sin in NEW JERSEY!). And as we speak, our servants of the Lord, some ragheads I picked up near the freeway--said they were in some Kurtish Pride Gang and had some experience roughin folks up--whatever, I know I can trust those Italians, I saw it on the Godfather--are on their way to The Great Satan's House to deliver unto DB what he deserveths:
Toothpaste in his hair while he sleeps. Then sharpie moustaches and funny doodles all over his face. Then a cruel, relentless tickle fight--that's right, by His Grace they won't stop even after he's crying that he's lost his breath. Followed by some Indian Rug Burns, and some momma jokes. Laxative in their Coca Cola. Leave some of those nifty little new testaments behind. (I would do it myself but in the morning I have to teach vacation bible school to grade schoolers.)
the non believer, the vile, despicable cur, will learn the wrath of an outraged, indignant, and righteous Lord. Together StaB, we shall inherit the earth's wind.
godspeed ragheads, godspeed.
Michael Allen Yarbrough (PBUH)
I thought that must be you. The toothpaste turned out to be from China and no telling what type of poisoning I've undergone. I nearly rubbed my face raw trying to get those sharpie doodles off my face.
But you have messed with the wrong person, mister. We, here at the Evil Atheist Conspiracy (EAC) have resources you can only imagine. For years we hav been carefully developing and inserting "sleeper squads" into religious institutions of all types.
Soon, some day when you least expect it ... perhaps at your next prayer meeting ... BAM! ... the wedgie from HELL.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
How DARE you reveal the secret name of our Master and the EAC! Oh, the fires shall burn for thee betrayer!
SCIENCE DAMN YOU!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*snickers*
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
percviale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
(1) In the OP there was no ad hominem given. I did call you ignorant, but I also went out of my way to point out that all of us are ignorant about something. Ignorance is not a fault. WILLFUL IGNORANCE, however, is a fault. I specifically said that I could not be sure if your ignorance was willful or not but I suspected it was. And that is the first instance in which you have shown me to be a prophet.
(2) In my OP I said that there were three commn responses that theist give to the argument from unnecessary suffering. You just gave two of them. That is the second and third times you have shown me out to be a prophet.
(2a) You first use the "Fine, God is not omnimax. I believe in him anyway". To quote from my OP (since you apparently missed it).
... This too is willful ignorance in that the apologist refuses to think about the consequences of that conclusion.
If God is not omniscient, then he too is ignorant of some things. Is he unable to tell that a baby will be born with HFS? But to determine that only requires knowledge of the DNA structure of the ABCA12 gene. That requires being able to detect the nucleotide sequence of a certain piece of DNA in the egg and the sperm. Compare to this to God knowing what you are thinking. To know that God must know the strength and state of excitation of hundreds of millions of synapses in all areas of the brain. Knowing the linear nucleotide sequence of a certain area of the genome is child’s play compared to that. If God is ignorant of your DNA structure, he should be ignorant of your thoughts as well.
If God is not omnipotent, then he is weak. Can God not prevent HFS? That means he is incapable of giving a particular sperm cell a nudge at the right time to prevent it from fertilizing that particular egg. If he cannot do this then curing any diseases is beyond him too.
If God is not omnibenevolent, then he is mean-spirited at times. Does he not care that babies get HFS? If this is so then what type of God is being worshipping? He certainly doesn’t deserve to be worshipped.
So if God is not omnimax then God is flawed, and given the way the world is … he is flawed badly...
====
(2b) You next try to redefine my argument as the argument from evil. Here is the appropriate part from my OP (again since you seemed to have missed it)
=====
This, however, is an example of willful ignorance. (a) The argument from unnecessary suffering is not the argument from evil. No one is claiming that genetic diseases, natural disasters, inadvertent acts, etc. are evil. What makes an act evil is the intent behind the act. In the vast majority of the cases there is no intent behind the act. (b) Apologists who reject the argument from evil do so on the basis of free-will. God values free-will so highly that he cannot over-ride another’s intent to do evil. It should be noted that most thinking philosophers reject this apology, but even more importantly for the argument from unnecessary suffering … it does not apply. God would not need to infringe upon anyone’s free-will to prevent HFS. Since it is an autosomal recessive genetic disease all that he would need to do to prevent it, is to prevent that particular sperm from fertilizing that particular egg. That is a feat that seems childishly simple compared to curing someone of cancer, or being able to read one’s thoughts.
=====
Now perhaps, you may want to address the REAL argument. But I doubt it.
(3) You complained about ad hominem arguments then you hypocritically imply that I am a fool. I'll let others judge the accuracy of your implication. But I do have this to say:
If you are right and I am wrong and your God exists then I'll try to save YOU a nice spot on the shore of the Lake of Fire in Hell.
Matthew 5:22b
..., But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Er ... it was your buddy, Jesus, who said that.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
Dear smarterthantheaveragebear,
I know Darwin’s Beagle personally. I assure you he is not a “as full as bitter bile and hatred” person. Never has been. I have know him as long as he has been alive. He is friendly, fun loving, trusting and a loving father and husband.
You, on the other hand, do sound bitter and, if not full of hatred, easily provoked in that direction. If being a Christian causes you to attack others who challenge your belief system with such rude and unreasonable vehemence you should be dissatisfied with such a belief system. If you ever do become dissatisfied with your belief system you could do worse than adopt some of the guidelines suggested by DB.
I think you miss DB’s points. I am afraid you are willingly ignoring his points. For example you go to some length to discuss evil. DB has already presented an argument that pretty convincingly demonstrates that unnecessary evil exists. You do not respond to his argument you seem to claim that any evil that exists is OK, apparently, because god wouldn’t let unnecessary evil exist. But you don’t address the example of Harlequin Fetus Syndrome (HFS). Until you do address some of the specific examples brought up by DB you loose the argument.
DB has been specific in his deconstruction of the argument for a omnimax god. He even precludes your argument for a “smarter than we can ever understand” god when he notes that ” The apologist even in the face of the evidence above maintains that unnecessary suffering does not exist. He NEVER tries to argue away specific examples, instead he claims that God is ineffable and that we cannot possibly know as much as him…”. Your argument tends to fall into the lines DB has already predicted and destroyed. This makes your comments that “Another thing I find highly offensive is spreading lies that have no foundation other than your ignorant biases towards spiritual things, especially God of whom you know nothing about.” Seem pretty hollow, since DB not only seems to know his argument he knows your argument better than and before you do.
As our pappy used to say “come on, straighten up and fly right” before you make more of a fool of yourself.
I hope you can, and do, read this as constructive criticism.
It is obvious your tactics of fishing seem to be working to earn you points for the scholarship you are seeking here; but your end does not justify the means...
DarwinBeagle denies any concessions to smarterthataveragebear when it is clear that the points have been well refuted to his blog. \
This is not an uncommonly known device. Smarterthantheaverargebear is wasting time here obvious to ALL. No one cares what the bear says; they just use for points.
"Have good trust in yourself -- not in the One that you think you should be, but in the One that you are"
- Maezumi Roshi
A fool looks for dung where the cow never browsed.
The lion does not turn around when a small dog barks.
The infinite is in the finite of every instant.
I was giving more credit than credit was due and thinking it was a fair blog; NOT!!!
I did get a laugh out of the jokes though.
OFF TO ANOTHER BLOGSITE FOR ME!!! THANKS ZEN10 FOR YOUR INSIGHT!!!
"Put your faith completely in Jesus Christ, not in any man or any movement."
~ Robert L. Sumner
Thanks again venerable master ...
Only I'm not involved in the scholarship hunt. I am 56 years old and my school days are over. I publish on average a blog per week. And I only post on limited subjects. That's not the way to win the scholarship.
So perhaps, you should reevaluate as to what is so "obvious".
If you would actually check into the real world you would see that there is a sizeable number of people who believe heinous things along the same lines of STAB. If you were to look at the right side of the screen under the WHO'S ONLINE section, you would find that a lot of guests (unregistered users) browse the site (1538 as I type this). That is a lot of browsing. Furthermore, my posts have generally gotten a fair number of reads. They have also been some useful comments. Unfortunately, yours have yet to rise to that level. But keep trying.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
1) By unnessecary suffering, I would assume that you are referring to pain. All suffering causes pain, and it is the pain that makes suffering evil. You have asserted without rigorous proof (or any proof at all) that pain is evil.
I would argue that pain rather than being an evil is in fact a good. If I stick my hand into a fire, and I do not feel any pain I am going to severly hurt my hand. The pain I feel saves me from hurting myself even more.
At least we must agree that some kinds of suffering (pain) God can allow and be OMNIMAX (to use your terminology).
The pain just enumerated I a going to define as natural pain, or pain that keeps us safe. When we are hungry we eat, and when we are thirsty we drink etc.
The next of pain or suffering would be suffering inflicted by one human being onto another human being. This pain or suffering I will call man-made. This type of suffering God could stop, but it would require that either (1) God take away man's free will, or (2) God destroy the committer of evil.
If God took away man's free will, man could no longer choose God, and therefore God would be forcing his will on man. God could create a being that does nothing but His will at all times, but that being would not be choosing God.
God could also smite everyone that commits evil, but then the evildoers would not be able to repent and turn back to God.
Next I will discuss Unnessecary Natural Pain. This is pain caused by natural catastrophes, genetic malfunctioning, disease, etc. This pain is unnessecary not because it causes suffering without purpose, but because it did not come into existence until man sinned.
There are two arguments that I would like to present.
1) Before man sinned, the world did not contain any of these unnessecary natural pains. But once man made that choice the world fell into disorder. Take Global Warming. Its advocates argue that man's emmissions are drowning polar bears, melting icecaps, and causing more hurricanes and increasing their intensity (which is a patently false claim). Now, if emmissions can cause all of that, what can a more concrete and absolute choice (choosing evil over God) due to the world?
2) Once man sinned suffering became necessary to prod people towards God. If there was no suffering, why would man seek God? His appetities are often stronger than his inclination towards God, and if in his life he finds that he does not need God, then why would he seek God?
A man who is suddenly stricken with cancer is more likely to seek God than a man who has known no suffering. Perhaps, having a child born with HFS is the only way that that child's parents will ever seek God.
No evil is done unto the child, as when he or she dies she will probably reach heaven (there are some who would dispute this), and she has participated in bringing her parents back to God. She was God's instrument for that effect, and she served her God given purpose.
Even if her parents are God-fearing that does not make her suffering meaningless. God is all-powerfull; he could take that suffering and use it to turn other men towards him. Suffering is redemptive.
Is there another way? Perhaps, but this is the best way. If I obey God and suffer little, sure I give glory to God and I help others come to him, but if I obey God and Suffer greatly, than I give God much more.
Back to the child with HFS. God did not cause her to have HFS, but he allowed her to have it for His greater glory. You have compared God to a Gremlin, but this is not the case. Paraphrasing Pope Benidict XVI in his book Jesus of Nazereth I would offer this.
Job (the biblical character) suffers greatly. So much so that his wife asks him to "curse God and die." Job,however stays true to God till the end. To understand this, we should look at why Job suffers.
The devil tells God that his servant would not be faithful to Him if Job suffered. Job stays faithfull, and his suffering in effect justifies man. Man would follow his creator through thick and thin, because he loves his creator.
If following God means freedom from suffering than what glory is in that? Suffering makes our journey to God one of love and not of benefit.
Back to the HFS child. There is no reason why God could not have asked the child beforehand if she would bear such punishment. God is after all Omnimax, as you would like to say.
Q.E.D.
Ransom==
1) By unnessecary suffering, I would assume that you are referring to pain. All suffering causes pain, and it is the pain that makes suffering evil. You have asserted without rigorous proof (or any proof at all) that pain is evil.
DB=
There is no reason for you to assume anything. I clearly defined unnecessary suffering. You seem to have missed it. Here it is again:
"The first step is to define what is meant by unnecessary suffering. Unnecessary suffering is defined as any suffering beyond the absolute minimal amount needed to achieve some higher good."
The second thing you seem to have missed is that I have specifically said that this is NOT the argument from evil. Here is what I said about that:
"(a) The argument from unnecessary suffering is not the argument from evil. No one is claiming that genetic diseases, natural disasters, inadvertent acts, etc. are evil. What makes an act evil is the intent behind the act. In the vast majority of the cases there is no intent behind the act."
I did not claim that suffering or even pain is evil. Two misreadings in your first paragraph. Doesn't bode well.
Ransom==
I would argue that pain rather than being an evil is in fact a good. If I stick my hand into a fire, and I do not feel any pain I am going to severly hurt my hand. The pain I feel saves me from hurting myself even more.
DB=
Here is the problem you have with respect to the argument from unnecessary suffering. You need to show that ALL sufferig leads to some higher good that could not have been achieved by less suffering. If there is ANY suffering that does not lead to some higher good or suffering beyond the minimal amount necessary to achieve that higher good, then unnecessary suffering exists ... there is simply no way around that.
You seem to be implying that the higher good to suffering caused by sticking one's hand into fire is that it prevents one from suffering further damage. But that is a very specific case, what about intractable pain from terminal cancer. A recognized medical procedure for such a condition is spinothalamic tractotomy where the tracts that convey painful information is cut in the spinal cord thus interupting it before it ever reaches consciousness. People are very grateful to be relieved of the pain ... especially since THAT pain does not prevent further damage. The damage will mount anyway.
What about certain disease processes where non-noxious stimuli cause pain. One such condition is called Tic Doulereaux. Non-noxious stimuli such as a puff of air that you or me would hardly notice can cause excruciating pain on the part of the sufferer. Again this pain does not prevent further damage. No damage would have occurred anyway.
So the best you have done with your example is show that SOME suffering leads to a higher good. But no one had EVER denied that.
Ransom==
At least we must agree that some kinds of suffering (pain) God can allow and be OMNIMAX (to use your terminology).
DB=
Duh! The argument explicitly says that so long as God limits suffering to that which achieves a higher good that could not have been achieved with less suffering then he could be Omnimax. Go back and read it again. This time try to understand it.
Ransom==
The pain just enumerated I a going to define as natural pain, or pain that keeps us safe. When we are hungry we eat, and when we are thirsty we drink etc.
DB=
Even for this type of pain you have NOT ruled out unnecessary suffering. To do so you would have to show that in EVERY instance the amount of hunger pains a person feels is the minimal amount needed to motivate him to eat ... in EVERY instance the thirst one feels is the minimal amount needed to motivate the person to drink. I believe ANY reasonable person thinking of all instances that have undoubtedly happened would realize that unnecessary suffering exists here too.
Ransom==
The next of pain or suffering would be suffering inflicted by one human being onto another human being. This pain or suffering I will call man-made. This type of suffering God could stop, but it would require that either (1) God take away man's free will, or (2) God destroy the committer of evil.
DB=
I HATE it when theists try to bring up the free-will argument. They make statements just like you did. The validity of such statements can NEVER be properly analyzed because free will is never defined. Thus, the strength of the argument is that it cannot be analyzed.
What do you mean by free will? Do you mean that a person has the option to make any possible decision regarding anything? If you do then free will does not exist. For instance, suppose I want to believe that I can literally jump over the moon. OK ... I trying my best to REALLY believe that. But I can't. I know things that make it impossible to believe it. I do not have the free will to believe it.
Do you mean by free will that a person has the ability to choose a response from a certain range of responses? If so then certainly within the range of logical possibilities for God to have made people such that the only range of responses they would consider are morally appropriate ones. Then God could have limited human-on-human evil and still have humans with free will.
Ransom==
If God took away man's free will, man could no longer choose God, and therefore God would be forcing his will on man. God could create a being that does nothing but His will at all times, but that being would not be choosing God.
DB=
If God left us with only morally appropriate choices then we would still be free to accept or reject God. For instance, I think the ONLY moral choice is to reject a God-of-the-bible even if he were to actually exist. Any God that would kill off every living thing except 8 people and pairs of "kinds" as stated in Genesis is a God that has abrogated any right to be worshipped. He deserves nothing but universal condemnation.
Ransom==
God could also smite everyone that commits evil, but then the evildoers would not be able to repent and turn back to God.
DB=
Or one may argue that an omnipotent being could TEACH evil people the value of doing morally appropriate acts. But he doesn't do that, does he?
Ransom==
Next I will discuss Unnessecary Natural Pain. This is pain caused by natural catastrophes, genetic malfunctioning, disease, etc. This pain is unnessecary not because it causes suffering without purpose, but because it did not come into existence until man sinned.
DB=
PULLEASE, not the original sin argument. If ANYONE actually believes the Adam and Eve story is historically accurate then they NEED to learn something of prehistory.
Ransom==
There are two arguments that I would like to present.
1) Before man sinned, the world did not contain any of these unnessecary natural pains. But once man made that choice the world fell into disorder. Take Global Warming. Its advocates argue that man's emmissions are drowning polar bears, melting icecaps, and causing more hurricanes and increasing their intensity (which is a patently false claim). Now, if emmissions can cause all of that, what can a more concrete and absolute choice (choosing evil over God) due to the world?
DB=
65 million years ago an asteroid came and smacked the shit out of the earth. All dinosaurs died because of it. They suffered. ... Let's see rounded off to the nearest million years that was 65,000,000 years before Homo sapiens arrived in this world.
Ransom==
2) Once man sinned suffering became necessary to prod people towards God. If there was no suffering, why would man seek God? His appetities are often stronger than his inclination towards God, and if in his life he finds that he does not need God, then why would he seek God?
DB=
Another classic example of the truly stultifying effect religious beliefs can have on SOME people. Your argument is a non-sequitur.
God could have made humans with an inate desire to find him. He could have taught each and everyone of us personally (he's omnipotent for crissakes). There are innumerable things God could have done other than smacking the shit out the earth with random asteroids, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, genetic diseasses, etc.
Ransom==
A man who is suddenly stricken with cancer is more likely to seek God than a man who has known no suffering. Perhaps, having a child born with HFS is the only way that that child's parents will ever seek God.
DB=
But he is much less like to know God's will than one that God personally instructs in his will.
Do you know what commonly happens to families in cases like HFS? The common thing is for the parents to blame themselves and each other. Divorces are common. A HELL of a lot more common that people finding God. IF God wanted to be found then he could achieve that goal by stopping hiding himself with a LOT less suffering than happens due to HFS babies.
Ransom==
No evil is done unto the child, as when he or she dies she will probably reach heaven (there are some who would dispute this), and she has participated in bringing her parents back to God. She was God's instrument for that effect, and she served her God given purpose.
DB=
I suspect that more parents are led to atheism than to theism from HFS. My reasoning is as so: More people are theists than are atheists so it is much more likely that the baby will be born to parents who are already theistic. At least some of those parents will be so horrified by the event that the thought will occur to them no God interested in our welfare would allow such a horrible thing as that to happen. This will lead them to the road of atheism.
So if God is using HFS to bring people to him, he is a fool.
Ransom==
Even if her parents are God-fearing that does not make her suffering meaningless. God is all-powerfull; he could take that suffering and use it to turn other men towards him. Suffering is redemptive.
DB=
Any God who would allow such suffering in a newborn baby and expect that to bring others to him for his mercy is an idiot.
Ransom==
Is there another way? Perhaps, but this is the best way. If I obey God and suffer little, sure I give glory to God and I help others come to him, but if I obey God and Suffer greatly, than I give God much more.
DB=
Let's look at this scenario. A man is out with his child for a walk in the woods. He sees a steel clamp trap and sees that his child is about to step in it. He could easily (1) move the trap out of the way himself, (2) warn the child of the trap, or (3) let the child step into the trap causing him to forever walk with a painful limp. You are essentially saying that the parent who does #3 is the one that deserves more worship on the part of his child. I don't think so.
Ransom==
Back to the child with HFS. God did not cause her to have HFS, but he allowed her to have it for His greater glory. You have compared God to a Gremlin, but this is not the case. Paraphrasing Pope Benidict XVI in his book Jesus of Nazereth I would offer this.
DB=
The father above didn't force the kid into the steel trap, he just allowed when he could have easily prevented it.
Ransom==
Job (the biblical character) suffers greatly. So much so that his wife asks him to "curse God and die." Job,however stays true to God till the end. To understand this, we should look at why Job suffers.
DB=
Job suffered because God was an incredible asshole. God and Satan make a bet, Satan says that if God allows him to put Job through all sorts of shit then Job will turn away and God says "Go ahead, give it your best shot". The equivalent thing is for a some guy to tell your father, "Sure, your boy Ransom loves you now. But let me torture the little shit and I will get him to say he hates your guts" and then your father says, "Go ahead, give it your best shot". If your father did that, he would be an incredible asshole. Same thing for God.
Ransom==
The devil tells God that his servant would not be faithful to Him if Job suffered. Job stays faithfull, and his suffering in effect justifies man. Man would follow his creator through thick and thin, because he loves his creator.
DB=
By allowing such things the creator forfeits any right to be loved.
Ransom==
If following God means freedom from suffering than what glory is in that? Suffering makes our journey to God one of love and not of benefit.
DB=
If loving someone means that you have a right to expect that person not to beat the shit out of you, then what glory is that? Suffering makes our journey together one of love and not of benefit.
The two arguments are mutually stupid.
Ransom==
Back to the HFS child. There is no reason why God could not have asked the child beforehand if she would bear such punishment. God is after all Omnimax, as you would like to say.
Q.E.D.
DB=
OK, suppose I ask you if you bear a severe beating, then if you agree is it still OK for me to beat you? I don't think so.
God could not be omnibenevolent and do that. If he is not omnibenevolent, he is not omnimax. Q.E.D
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
Job suffered because God was an incredible asshole. God and Satan make a bet, Satan says that if God allows him to put Job through all sorts of shit then Job will turn away and God says "Go ahead, give it your best shot".
Job was probably written by Moses to prove a point (something like... if things get really bad, you have to move on and accept it, because things could always be worse, and will likely get better... or something. I can't remember the phrasing we used). Thus, even if you believe in the Bible, it is likely that Job never existed. Just saying.
~C
Visit my blog: www.progressiveu.org/blog/mvenus929
Read the news: www.progressiveu.org/news
(1) No one knows who the author of Job was, but it wasn't Moses. In actuality, Moses as a biblically-accurate historical character never existed.
(2) Job is the bible's attempt at theodicy. Theodicy is the harmonization of the Problem of Evil, or another way of phrasing it is, "Why do bad things happen to good people". Job actually give very disturbing answer to that question.
The answer that Job gives is ... bad things happen to good people because God can allow it if he wants to. He doesn't need a reason. His justification for allowing it is simply that he is God.
To me that is unacceptable.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
Are the only usefull comments ones full of flattery?
Q.E.D.
and if I believed in your religion, then I would have to point out that if the Bible was written by God then it should be no big secret why there is unnecessary pain and suffering: do you want to know what it is??? okay, here it is:
ADAM AND EVE MESSED UP AND NOW IT IS PAYDAY. KIDS ARE GOING TO HURT WHEN SPANKED. REALLY BAD, TOO. GOD ISN'T MESSING AROUND; HE WANTS PEOPLE TO LEARN FROM THEIR ERRORS AND NEVER EVER FORGET THEM. Anyway it seems harsh but the author of the bible is always punishing somebody. Adam and Eve messed up, they rebelled, they were traitors, they committed mutiny, and now the whole human race pays for it. The whole human race also gets redeemed or bought back by the price payed in blood on the cross.
Christians blame the DEVIL for all the evil. But isn't it the creator himself that is punishing everyone like it also says in the bible? And which one of those statements is true, anyway, is it satan or god who is doing all the bad stuff: I keep hearing both from the very same people; CRAZY!!! I wish someone would explain this I'd like to hear it.
"In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool."
Lord Chesterfield
"The doors of wisdom are never shut."
Benjamin Franklin
****"3) If God is omnibenevolent then God wants to prevent unnecessary suffering.
(4) Unnecessary suffering still exists.
CONCLUSION:
An omnimax God cannot exist."
Ok here my question though. I want my son to get his wife back that took off with some dude in Spain. I have the power to get her back for him but I haven't done it YET. Doesn't mean that I can't. I haven't done it because if I did she would just take off again.
If God exists and wanted to stop unnecessary sufferiing because hes omnibenevolent does that mean he should have done it already...what if it is like my situation and he(God) doesn't do anything about it yet for a reason?
Anyway, I would like a better explanation for the #4 point on Darwinsbegal blog post and the conclusion; I see this being flawed. Even though I have to say I think I know what he means I dont think the reasoning is good.
Wait a minute heres another question.
****"God would not need to infringe upon anyone’s free-will to prevent HFS. "
Okay, NOw according to what they say, God cant interfere on this earth because it belongs to humans so humans have to ask him to prevent HFS when they pray. Supposedly this is our earth not his and we just have a lease on it for a specific period of time; after that; times up and it goes back to God again and he can do whatever he wants after that. Now I've heard this said lots of times by Christians and I would like to ask any Christian here if this is really true or not and if so where does the Bible say so?
"In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool."
Lord Chesterfield
"The doors of wisdom are never shut."
Benjamin Franklin
trophy==
Anyway, I would like a better explanation for the #4 point on Darwinsbegal blog post and the conclusion; I see this being flawed. Even though I have to say I think I know what he means I dont think the reasoning is good.
DB=
What problem do you have with the arguments from a specific example and the argument from the total amount of suffering as being inadequate to substantiate premise 4, Unnecessary suffering exists?
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
****"(4) Unnecessary suffering still exists."
****"DB=
What problem do you have with the arguments from a specific example and the argument from the total amount of suffering as being inadequate to substantiate premise 4, Unnecessary suffering exists?"
The baby disease is a perfect situation where a lot of suffering happens in the world for no reason or unnecessary suffering. I thing this is true. Why should a baby suffer anyway all he did was get born here, right?
What is inadequate I will try to explain but dont know how to go about it exactly. What I am wondering is about what Christians and all kinds of religious whack jobs say about this; they say that there god has not stopped suffering yet but he is going to. So when you say still in number four you are giving them a loop-hole is what i guess it would be called. It give them a way out of the reason theres no god. They always say that there will be suffering in this world but not in heaven. Remember? For them there is no one who isnt going to suffer here on earth because this is not heaven and heaven is the only place they think they wont have to suffer.
unnecessary suffering STILL exists is dependent on still(or in other words, if some god existed who was able to do all kinds of wonderful things, then maybe he should have never allowed any suffering in the first place even if people did rebel against him and if such a god exists isnt it possible he could be holding out on mankind and letting man experience suffering so he wont screw up next time or some other reason. I would like to see an air-tight closure on #4; maybe take the word still out because that means there is still a chance suffering could be eliminated if a god existed, true? Who wants that sort of ugly thought popping up and giving those crazies (religious nutsos) any leverage. They might strap a bomb around little kids or something next who knows. Somebody needs to stomp out these whackos. Only good air-tight reasoning like this will do it.
"In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool."
Lord Chesterfield
"The doors of wisdom are never shut."
Benjamin Franklin
You still have not shown why it is that the arguments from a specific example and from the sheer amount of suffering are insufficient evidence to show that unnecessary suffering exists.
You seem to be caught up in the word "still". I used that to emphasize that unnecessary suffering exists and inconsistent with an omnimax God. I think I used it appropriately.
You say that using the word "still" suggests that sometime in the future God may eliminate it. In the words of the world famous philosopher, Yogi Berra, "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future". As for my argument goes, I don't have to. So long as unnecessary suffering exists, an omnimax God cannot exist.
The very best that could be said is that IF every bit of unnecessary suffering is eliminated in the future then there may well be a God who has BECOME omnimax. And as far as I am concerned, if it could be shown that every instance of suffering in the world led to some higher good that could not have been obtained through less suffering, then I would be willing to admit that my belief concerning God's non-existence was wrong and I would congratulate him on his developing his omnimax characteristics.
But forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Thats not what I said.
I am just a regular guy not a brainiack and maybe im just not saying this right.
This omnimax god argument doesnt stand up to the test.
If God exists, He has to be what you call omnimax now.
Just because your dad doesnt whip your ass dont mean he cant do it. Just because a billionaire can give his kid a race car doesn't mean he has to do it when the kid wants it.
Maybe somebody will comprehend what im getting at.
If you understood what I mean then you could fix this.
"In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool."
Lord Chesterfield
"The doors of wisdom are never shut."
Benjamin Franklin
You are missing out on what it means to be omnimax. You seem to be thinking it is just being omnipotent -- having the power to do anything that is logically possible to do. But it also includes omniscience -- knowing everything that is logically possible to be known, and omnibenevolent -- wanting the best for everyone and everything.
God could be omnipotent and that would still not make him omnimax. So IF he did have the power to stop unnecessary suffering but doesn't, then why not? Either he didn't know about it, in which case he is not omniscient; or he didn't care to stop it, in which case he isn't omnibenevolent. In any case, he wouldn't be omnimax.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
You right that he should stop suffering right now if he exist. Better yet there should have never been any suffering at all.
Omnimax is when there is a god who is what you say, omnipotent -- having the power to do anything that is logically possible to do. But it also includes omniscience -- knowing everything that is logically possible to be known, and omnibenevolent -- wanting the best for everyone and everything.
What if someone says God is omnimax and is allowing suffering and pain to teach us all a big lesson? And that this God is going to send people to heaven so no more suffering happens.
God could be omnipotent and that would still not make him omnimax. So IF he did have the power to stop unnecessary suffering but doesn't, then why not? Either he didn't know about it, in which case he is not omniscient; or he didn't care to stop it, in which case he isn't omnibenevolent. In any case, he wouldn't be omnimax.
Yes, true he could be omnipotentand not omnimax. why not? stop suffering? maybe as a horrendous bad punishment(overkill) Maybe he knows about it and lets it happen to punish us. Maybe he is omnibenevolent and we just dont agree right now since punishment is not something we enjoy. But this bothers me. If there was God then why would the punishment last so damn long? That would be like killing a person for stealing a apple. Each one of us has to live on this earth and suffer. Sometimes I think that baby has it better than someone who has to live threr whole life here and either work themselves to death or suffer lack due to hunger or disease, pain, and all. Sometimes it seems better not to be born at all than have to live like we do and die. it sucks
"In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool."
Lord Chesterfield
"The doors of wisdom are never shut."
Benjamin Franklin
trophy==
What if someone says God is omnimax and is allowing suffering and pain to teach us all a big lesson? And that this God is going to send people to heaven so no more suffering happens.
DB=
Then I would say exactly what I did say already --
Considering all the suffering that lesson would have to be VERY BIG. What was this thing we were supposed to have learned? Could it have been achieved with less suffering? If you can't come up with any candidates for the BIG LESSON and then claiming that it may very well exist anyway is willful ignorance.
trophy==
Sometimes I think that baby has it better than someone who has to live threr whole life here and either work themselves to death or suffer lack due to hunger or disease, pain, and all. Sometimes it seems better not to be born at all than have to live like we do and die. it sucks
DB=
Sorry you feel that way. I have found that the relationships I have with my family, my friends, coworkers, and the other people I interact make my life worthwhile and meaningful. I'm glad I've lived to the ripe old age of 56 so far. I hope to go on for quite a while longer.
I know it is hard at times to make a meaningful life for yourself, I have written a blog on a technique that I think is useful in finding out what is truly important to you and giving you a framework for striving for it. I wish I could take credit for it, but in reality it was developed by Steven R. Covey in his book THE 7 HABITS OF HIGHLY EFFECTIVE PEOPLE. Here is a link to my blog:
http://www.progressiveu.org/021802-finding-meaning-and-purpose-in-life
Here is a link to Dr. Covey's book:
http://www.amazon.com/Habits-Highly-Effective-People/dp/0743269519/ref=p...
It may or it may not help, but I would encourage you to give it a try.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I am not one of the willfully ignorant religious people. I am not in to that lifestyle and the only reason I even know what the ones who are in that lifestyle say is because they are at work and in other places I have to go and hear them talk.
Plus its fun to watch them and laugh at them with my buddies I have to admit. But I know that they believe in a god and they dont think it is odd that there is suffering.
Anyway I am glad that you are content in life. I am not. I had my son taken away from me when he was onlyfour by a really mean b. of a female who ran off with someone else. Then she ran off on him and took his kids. And then she did it to a third man. She's now on number 4. She stole everything I ever had and then lied on me and made life miserable. Long story. I have terrible health due to back surgery, and other surgeries and I wake up in the morning feeling like a belt across my stomach and stiff and sore and I only 45 myself. Anyway, I not looking for any sympathy just telling why my life sucks. I also work so hard no time left for life. My familly is all screwed up; divorce, disease, death, and really I just exist not live anymore. I wish there was some magic pill for the messed up life.
I haven't had the priviledge of special relationships that make my life worth living either like you. My coworkers are too busy fighting there own problems to worry about mine, my family is mostly gone now from death, etc. Anyway I thought at one point life was good but have serious doubts about that now.
"In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool."
Lord Chesterfield
"The doors of wisdom are never shut."
Benjamin Franklin
Being happy is a choice, and is not dependent on your level of hardship.
“We enjoy warmth because we have been cold. We appreciate light because we have been in darkness. By the same token, we can experience joy because we have known sadness.”
- David Weatherford
So this will be brief because It's late, I'm tired (plus i just read your blog and most of these posts so yeah)
So one of your main arguments was that God can't be "omnimax" as you put it because of suffering...this assumes that suffering is inherently bad, which I'm not sure I agree with. I've had some shit in my life that I wouldn't wish on plenty of people I don't like, but it's made me who I am today and I wouldn't give back those experiences for the world. I think they've made me stronger and helped me to realize a piece of truth that I believe to be vital--all of this is very clearly not about me.
I often find myself stuck in a sort of limbo between what most people would call "religious" and "secular"...I think the average person just likes to categorize people cause you can manage complicated things easier in this way of thinking mentally. I am a pretty spiritual person. I was raised Christian, but would have a hell of a time feeling at home now in any congregation I've come across pretty much ever. I generally hangout with roommates/ whoever I feel is on the same honest quest for truth and understanding the mysteries of the universe as I am (or maybe just wants to buy me a beer and have fun...whatever works :) I still think Jesus was who he said he was, and can I empirically prove that? No, that's the point, it has to be free choice belief or else it's not love...but the stuff that he taught has and will continue to change my life daily in a better way than i could ever come up with.
I also think that there's no reason why I should be afraid of what can be empirically proven by science (most notably, parts of the theory of evolution...I haven't read your other blogs, which I intend to, but as far as biology classes, etc. through which I've been most directly made aware of information like that, they don't really disprove the existence of God or even necessarily contradict scripture.) In any case, if something is empirically proven...that's cool I have no problem with that because according to the Bible God is also truth, so, yeah.
anyways. I guess that will be all for now. I'd love to hear your response (or anyone's) as you see some of my dilemma and I'm sure some other people out there can sympathize.
In conclusion I thought you had said "Most theists think God has their characteristics in addition to being able to make the universe" whereas you actually said something different but I had a nice long lol to myself because yes, that is very true.
I appreciated the post. would love to discourse
He was talking about unnecessary suffering, not just suffering. I don't think anyone would disagree that some people just need to suffer (criminals, if nothing else), but why would a child that's just been born need to suffer? What could possibly be gained from it? That's the question he's asking. At least, as I understand it.
~C
Visit my blog: www.progressiveu.org/blog/mvenus929
Read the news: www.progressiveu.org/news
(1) The argument is the argument from UNNECESSARY suffering. As such it does allow for suffering that leads to something beneficial so long as the benefit is obtained with the least amount of suffering possible.
The argument says that even allowing for that possibility, there are (a) examples of suffering that do not lead to any beneficial outcome, and (b) so much suffering that it is unreasonable to believe that whatever benefit could not have been achieved with less suffering.
(2) When you say that you "still think Jesus was who he said he was", what you actually mean is that you still think Jesus is the Jesus of your interpretation of the biblical Gospels.
I doubt seriously if we will agree on the reliablility of the biblical gospels.
(3) There are most certainly ways to harmonize God with the findings of science. Many people I admire and respect in science do just that. Having said that, I must also add that I do not see this ability to harmonize their religious beliefs as a good thing. I frankly don't understand it.
These are people that in EVERY OTHER AREA of their life, they use rational critical thinking skills. But with respect to religion, they throw it out the window. Instead they use logic that they wouldn't accept in the worst of their students. They seem to intentionally ignore logical ramifications. They promote ad hoc rationalizations as obvious truths. I find this totally at odds with everything else that they do.
I think taken as a whole the evidence is overwhelming that no God that one would normally recognize as a God exists.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Two brief thoughts (based on the same thing)
The argument of unneccessary suffering seems to me to be based on the observers point of view. It assumes that you have the ability to see the good outcome of the suffering, or can comprehend it. I disagree...There are plenty of times that something that would have seemed like unneccessary suffering to an individual would contribute to a historical legacy--something that finally leads to the revolution for change or finding the cure for something like the medical condition you mentioned.
I also think that the assumption that everything can be rationally understood is not true. Even in the more objective disciplines like mathematics and physics, empirical truth can't really be nailed down (my blog about mathematical reality sort of relates to this. I don't know how to do the cool link thing like you or I would :)...There is nothing that a human can actually fully absolutely know. That's the difference between spirituality and rationalism. Now I've only ever been me, so I can't say what you see, but I am a creature of the two worlds. I understand empirical logic, and I love it...but perhaps a larger part of me lives somewhere deeper that is unexplainable. I do not understand it except that I belong to it.
I also doubt seriously that we would agree on the reliability of the biblical gospels...that's ok. I do know, however, that we are both human beings living at the same time in this crazy universe. Nobody gets it, really, but we can still talk about it...fair enough? Cool.
sure i'll talk with you again...peace
kaitlynn
k8l==
The argument of unneccessary suffering seems to me to be based on the observers point of view. It assumes that you have the ability to see the good outcome of the suffering, or can comprehend it. I disagree...There are plenty of times that something that would have seemed like unneccessary suffering to an individual would contribute to a historical legacy--something that finally leads to the revolution for change or finding the cure for something like the medical condition you mentioned.
DB=
Sigh ... you are not addressing the argument. You are trying to make it into a different argument that you can respond to.
Unnecessary suffering is ANY suffering beyond the minimal amount necessary to achieve a higher good. If you are going to address the argument you MUST address it on its own terms, not on some characteristic that YOU make up.
Let's look at your supposed higher good for HFS, that it leads to cure. HFS is a genetic disease. A cure for HFS would only mean that there is no more suffering from HFS. While that would be a very GOOD thing, are you going to seriously tell me that EVERY SINGLE HFS case in the history of humanity, even the ones that we don't know about, was necessary to inspire someone to come up with cure?
Suppose it leads to a technique that will allow us to cure ALL genetic diseases. Why could not a genetic disease that cause less suffering than HFS have inspired the technique?
The argument says that once you ask these hard questions then the any putative "higher good" no longer appears to be a reasonable candidate.
(2) I don't understand your reference to "the assumption that everything can be rationally understood". Let's assume that everything cannot be rationally understood; then what do you suggest we do? ... Try to irrationally understand them? ... Give up and not try?
(3) As to inserting links:
http://www.web-source.net/html_codes_chart.htm
That is one way to do it. I like to use the "anchor" html code that you can see in the above link. I use the command:
A HREF="URL" message /A
with the "greater than" and "less than" signs in the appropriate spots as shown in the link.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France