Vocal atheists often get accused of being "blissfully ignorant" of sophisticated arguments for God's existence . These arguments, we are told, put religious belief on a sound rational footing. However, we are never told exactly what these sophisticated arguments are.
A while back I did a couple of blogs (here and here on these "sophisticated" arguments as outlined in an article by evangelical apologist William Lane Craig. I did not think too much of them.
I had intended to do a few more blogs on them to finish with the arguments that he presented. However, Craig's article gave the minimal backbone of the argument. I was afraid that perhaps I could not grasp the subtility of the arguments from that bare description. So I have since read several books on Christian apologetics and theology. These books have caused me to change my mind.
As I read these books I found myself getting surprisingly angry. I had to stop and try and figure out exactly why that was. The arguments were much WORSE than I thought they were. But was that any reason to get angry about it? I was trained as a scientist. In science, as Nobel-prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman noted, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
We are taught that if we get a result too much to our liking then we are obligated to double-, triple-, and possibly quadruple-check to make sure that it is correct. And THAT is when the results are to our liking. What about when the results aren't to our liking? Then unless there is an obvious error or the results don't make any sense whatsoever for or against our hypothesis, we are obligated to change our hypothesis ... no matter how cherished that hypothesis is. To us those are the rules of the game. They are necessary rules. They make it much less likely that we will go off track and if we happen to already be off track, more likely that we will get back on it without going so far afield that the track is lost forever.
The reason I was getting angry was because these "sophisticated" arguments don't play by the rules. The "sophistication" that lay within these arguments, in fact, seemed to guaranteed that one will fool himself; one will go off-track; one will go so far afield that the track is lost forever.
OK, so the arguments were bad. But perhaps it doesn't matter. Perhaps Christianity is a belief that gives some people solace and others direction in life and does minimal harm otherwise. As I read these books I became more and more convinced that this is not the case. While undoubtedly Christianity does give some people comfort and some people DO find motivation to improve their lives from it, real harm is being done as well. There are real problems that we face in this world and having such an erroneous belief is preventing us from solving them and in some cases causing them.
So instead of doing a few more blogs to cover Craig's list of arguments, I hope do an extended series of blogs dedicated to analyzing the rational basis for Christianity. I hope to average about one a week. That way I can take the time to continue reading and still give an in-depth analysis on all major arguments. It is my goal to make all these arguments understandable. It is only by doing that I have a chance of demonstrating the vacuity of arguments that many readers are likely to passionately want to be true. It is also the only way to substantiate my assertion that Christianity is doing real harm by leading us so far off-track.
Cheers,
DB
I've nothing to add for now, but I do want to keep an eye on this thread.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
I hope to average about one a week. That way I can take the time to continue reading and still give an in-depth analysis on all major arguments.
One a week!? Geeze. With work, and all the research and writing I have with just 2 of my classes, and going to classes, I'll be lucky if I have time to read blogs once a week. :-P
Good luck! I look forward to reading them. :-)
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
... that can achieved with little effort?
I hope to average about one a week. That way I can take the time to continue reading and still give an in-depth analysis on all major arguments.
One a week!? Geeze. With work, and all the research and writing I have with just 2 of my classes, and going to classes, I'll be lucky if I have time to read blogs once a week. :-P
Good luck! I look forward to reading them. :-)
It is a goal. I hope to achieve it.
Thanks,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Ditto Blackout
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Josh McDowell's 'Evidence for Christianity' seemed to cover all the bases - I recommend that one if you haven't seen it already. Its shiny, new, and fat like a telephone book full of flimsy logic and sleight of mind. I understand why you're pissed, and I feel that. Have at em!
Josh McDowell's 'Evidence for Christianity' seemed to cover all the bases - I recommend that one if you haven't seen it already. Its shiny, new, and fat like a telephone book full of flimsy logic and sleight of mind. I understand why you're pissed, and I feel that. Have at em!
I have read McDowell's EVIDENCE THAT DEMAND A VERDICT. That was quite a while ago. I thought it too ridiculous to respond to at the time. I don't plan to use him much at all (although I will discuss the LORD, LIAR, LUNATIC TRILEMMA, but that was originated by CS Lewis and amplified by Peter Kreeft) since not that many people use McDowell as an example of the sophisticated arguments for Christianity and I don't want to go out and buy his book again.
I plan to use the arguments of people like Lewis, Kreeft, Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, and others whom ARE given credit as being proponents of these sophisticated arguments. But I may also delve into the cesspool of arguments given by Lee Strobel (since I do own one of his books and he does reference some prominent evangelical scholars). I suspect I will also be forced to address some of the classical arguments by Aquinas and Augustine as well.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Your argument seems to be based on the premise that something must be rationalized and logical to be right or true, but somethings in life are better looked at differently. Love is irrational. Trusting can be illogical. Telling the truth isn't always rational. Sharing your writing with strangers who are likely to disagree is illogical. But most people would agree that at least some of these irrational, illogical things have their place, and are right/true things to do at least some of the time.
"Live above money; put your heart in front of you and follow it."
Unknown
Your argument seems to be based on the premise that something must be rationalized and logical to be right or true, but somethings in life are better looked at differently. Love is irrational. Trusting can be illogical. Telling the truth isn't always rational. Sharing your writing with strangers who are likely to disagree is illogical. But most people would agree that at least some of these irrational, illogical things have their place, and are right/true things to do at least some of the time.
(1) It is VERY RATIONAL to love. One is unlikely to receive love without giving it. A person who loves and receives love does better than a person who doesn't.
(2) So long as you have reason to trust, there is nothing illogical about it.
(3) I hope my writing expresses views that challenge a person's core beliefs. That is a good thing. There is nothing illogical about it.
(4) Telling the truth is ALMOST always rational. Only under very special conditions is it rational to lie.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Rationality is, among other things, a framework that helps you judge probabilities and optimal solutions. Under certain conditions (love, trust, belief, etc) its best advice may be to use intuition. But without the rational framework, what stops you from making terrible decisions when intuition fails (as it frequently does in love, trust, and belief)? How can people with mutually exclusive intuitions learn what's true? How can an individual with mutually exclusive intuitions (i.e. any human being) learn what's true? Rationality equals the set of reliable truthseeking methods, and in that sense it does equal truth.
Beagle seems concerned with people who misunderstand how rationality works, reach absurd conclusions, and try to persuade the public.
Having been the target of the passion (anger) that you bring to this subject I find your insight here encouraging.
Self examination may help reveal the source of that anger, though outside analysis is often the only way. It is difficult if not impossible for most of us to find our own favorite faults. You should continue to look when you feel this anger. The cop-out is to blame the person/idea that angers you for your own irrational emotionality.
Love the truth.
What source are you going to use to argue against Christianity? I suppose Jesus himself would be asking too much?
"Every happening, great and small, is a parable whereby God speaks to us, and the art of life is to get the message."
Malcolm Muggeridge
Having been the target of the passion (anger) that you bring to this subject I find your insight here encouraging.
I was wondering how long it would take you to put in your inane comments. You should perhaps do some introspection of your own. Ask yourself why it is that people get angry at you. Ask yourself why it is that when they specifically tell you, ... it is because of your dishonest argumentation; you go off on tangents; you intentionally misrepresent what is said; and you ignore criticisms of your response ... that you make no mention of it here.
Self examination may help reveal the source of that anger, though outside analysis is often the only way. It is difficult if not impossible for most of us to find our own favorite faults. You should continue to look when you feel this anger. The cop-out is to blame the person/idea that angers you for your own irrational emotionality.
Everyone is responsible for ones own actions. But anger is an emotion that has evolved for a purpose. There is nothing wrong in expressing that too.
Love the truth.
Boom! There goes another irony meter.
What source are you going to use to argue against Christianity? I suppose Jesus himself would be asking too much?
There are going to be numerous blogs on this subject. I'll try and cover everything. Jesus cannot be used as a source since he is dead and not saying anything. If you mean the teachings of Jesus, then perhaps you could do a blog and tell us exactly what those are. I'll be willing to bet that you wont come up with much of anything that people agree on. I plan to show why that is.
Cheers,
DB
"Every happening, great and small, is a parable whereby God speaks to us, and the art of life is to get the message."
Malcolm Muggeridge
[/quote]
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
"But anger is an emotion that has evolved for a purpose."
Was that purpose to allow us to think more clearly?
---
"I'll try and cover everything. Jesus cannot be used as a source since he is dead and not saying anything."
The live sources of Christianity are only able to offer their own personal opinions on what Jesus meant. Even when those become institutionalized by a really really big church they are not Christianity.
---
"If you mean the teachings of Jesus, then perhaps you could do a blog and tell us exactly what those are."
About half of my blogs are exactly that. Though they are also just my understanding of those teachings.
---
I suffered from anger on a few subjects myself as a young man. Like you I often misdirected it toward individuals. Strangely, or not, I was also an atheist at the time.
I found this mantra to be helpful:
"If you are mad, you’re wrong."
Why that is so...would make a nice blog, I'll work on it.
GOD IS A MYTH OLDER THAN MAN
There are no rational arguments for xtianity, nor are there any for any religion. All religionis are faith based, in order for you to have faith you must accept certain lies/distortions/myths as truth. ONLY once you accept these blatant deceptions as truth can you start beleiving. This is why you cannot have a rational discussion about religion with any believer.....they are not based in fact and logic but are firmly rooted in belief and fantasy!
Some (particularly evangelical) believers are full of "rational" "arguments" for their beliefs. To a public untrained in critical thinking, those blatant deceptions look reasonable enough. Their goal may only be to lower your skeptical defenses so belief can take root in a more credulous state of mind. Rational discussion is how you prove them wrong.
How exactly is God older than man if man invented Him? I haven't seen any chimp churches.
While I wholeheartedly agree with your arguments, I must note that rationality, as one earlier comment had stated, doesn't equal truth. But I do also feel that truth has some basis in the empirical. An earlier example was love. Love is based on attraction... Most definitely a provable statement and one with many studies dedicated to it. But as also noted is that it is irrational, but only after the initial attraction. Perhaps the solution is that truth is a mixture of both evidence and irrationality. The human mind has long been studied in an attempt to understand human intelligence. All experiments to delve deeper than anatomy of major landmarks have failed, not because of lack of trying or initialtive, but because of lack of understanding the subtle architecture of the brain. Something a human is unable to perceive, which means it is illogical. Empirical methods have tried and failed to analyze the brain, Perhaps it is a truth that we as humans must accept: there are some truths that we will never understand. That itself, is illogical to us as humans.
I've been looking through your Evaluating Christianity blogs, and of the various approaches you've taken to attacking the religion, one I didn't see was evaluating arguments from "pure reason." The best example of this is probably St. Thomas Aquinas (who by content and reference actually includes Aristotle as well) who used reason to logically prove the existence of God and define God's major attributes. (He, of course, saw no contradiction between what you call the omnimax and the biblical god.) I was just curious if you'd read his arguments or those like him and what your response was.
--
"Let's eat Mama!" or "Let's eat, Mama!"
Punctuation: It Saves Lives.
...and Thomas Aquinas falls prey to the same basic logical fallacy that discredits all religious apologia. In essence, Aquinas relies on the curcular assumption of the existence of "god" as both the premise AND the conclusion of his arguments. Furthermore, many of Aquinas' arguments are based upon premises which are demonstrably false in light of the finding of modern physics (and especially quantum mechanics). Aquinas' arguments work very well, IF you assume that the premises of his various syllogisms are actually true. The evidence, however, does not support many of his assumptions.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Patriotic Atheism
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
this project has come to a complete standstill. I hope to continue it someday, but at the moment I have very little time to devote to it, or to almost any blogging.
(1) First, let me address your comment that Aquinas saw no contradiction between an omnimax god and the biblical god.
Here is the logic of my argument from unnecessary suffering that I think effectively rules out the existence of an omnimax God.
(1) By "omnimax" I mean a god that is:
(a) omnipotent: powerful enough to do anything that is logically possible to do
(b) omniscience: knowledgeable enough to know anything that is logically possible to know.
and, (c) omnibenevolent: wishing the best possible for his created beings in his created universe.
(2) By "unnecessary suffering" I mean:
(a) Suffering that does not lead to some type of higher good, or
(b) Suffering that goes beyond the minimal amount of suffering required to achieve whatever higher good that was achieved.
(3) If God is omniscient, then he knows that unnecessary suffering exists.
(4) If God is omnipotent then he could prevent that unnecessary suffering.
(5) If God is omnibenevolent then he would want to prevent that unnecessary suffering.
(6) If 3, 4, and 5 then there would be no unnecessary suffering.
(7) There is unnecessary suffering.
(8) Therefore, an omnimax God cannot exist.
Granting the definitions then the only possible objection to the argument would be a denial that unnecessary suffering exists. But to claim that requires you to argue that not only does all suffering lead to a higher good, that higher good could not have been achieved by ANY less suffering. Considering all the suffering, not only human but animal as well, this argument is ridiculous. Thus, I think it is impossible to logically maintain that an omnimax God exists.
(2) Considering the argument from reason.
The argument from reason I am familar with is derived not from Aquinas but from CS Lewis. Lewis is a iconical figure amongst Christian apologists. They seem to think he is among the greatest thinkers of all time. I am singularly unimpressed.
Here is his description of his argument from reason:
Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.
But this is a a silly argument. While nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking, it DID evolve so that it assumed that very purpose. Evolution is an algorithmic process, and algorithmic processes can produce things that have the appearance of purpose. My brain is the product of natural selection. Those changes in the DNA that produced changes in development that led to increased reproductive success were retained while those that decreased reproductive success were eliminated and those that didn't affect reproductive success constituted the variation that natural selection would work on when the organism faced different selection pressures due to an alteration in the environment.
It should come as no surprise that alterations that improve an organism's thinking would be selected for and soon dominate in the population's gene pool. So with natural selection we have just as much right to trust our reasoning as Lewis has to trust it if it were "God-given". More so if you include the possibility that God is malevolent or incompetent.
But ... wait a second. What if God is perfect? Then shouldn't we be more inclined to trust our reasoning than if it came about by a natural process like natural selection which is just a fancy way of saying "trial and ERROR"?? Actually, I would say that our reason should be better than it actually is. If our reason was put there by a perfect God then it shouldn't lead us astray at all. But there are times when we simply cannot trust our reason.
Take a look at this picture:
Reason tells you, you are seeing a bunch of spirals. However, go to the bottom of the picture and follow that bottom "spiral" that is within the border of the picture around. You will come back to the same place you started. You won't go into the center the way you would if it were an actual spiral. These are circles not spirals. The shading and the background are fooling you.
Evolution gave you a brain to recognize patterns. But this pattern is intentionally misleading and you don't naturally recognize it. Such deceptions are not going to be selected for. They do not occur in nature. But an omnipotent God could (some would say SHOULD) give you a brain that would do so.
Alvin Plantinga, another Christian apologist that seems to have a sterling reputation amongst Christians (again, I am singularly unimpressed) uses a variant of Lewis' argument from reason to reject naturalistic evolution
Plantinga says that what natural selection is interested in is adaptive behaviors that lead to reproductive success. He says that this is different than "belief". Natural selection would just as easily lead a person to believe something that is wrong as to believe something that is right so long as the wrong belief led to an adaptive behavior. Thus, he says that the probability that our reasoning is reliable is low if naturalism (the natural world is all there is) and modern evolutionary theory is correct.
But this is silly. It seems to me that Plantinga thinks every behavior from picking your teeth to adding 354,782 to 515,323 is controlled by its own gene. That is not the case. What is under genetic control is almost certainly the developmental pattern forms our brain. Our brain then figures out what course of behavior to do in response to any given situation. The brain does so by LEARNING. Thus, picking your teeth and adding numbers derive from the same set of genes. Given that, it if the brain learns something false it is VERY likely that will cost the individual at least part of his reproductive fitness. Thus, what is adaptive is that the brain learn correctly. Thus, contra Plantinga, it is not so improbable that we can trust our reasoning given naturalism and the modern evolutionary theory.
(3) Concerning Aquinas
From what I remember of Aquinas' arguments for God's existence are the 5 ways arguments:
(1) The first mover.
(2) The first cause
(3) The first existence
(4) The St. Anselm-like perfect attribute argument.
(5) The argument from purpose
He thought those arguments were REASON to believe in God's existence. Is this what you meant in your comment?
If so, the first three arguments all boil down to the cosmological argument which I think I have dealt with in my blogs. I'm pretty sure I discussed St. Alselm's argument. The argument from purpose ... everything aims to an ultimate goal ... er, what goal is that?
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
You assume that God only knows as little as you do to reach the level of not understanding WHY some suffering exists which you have. If you were omniscient also then this might be a valid argument, since you are not it isn't.
"(3) If God is omniscient, then he knows that unnecessary suffering exists."
in other words God KNOWS why every type suffering is necessary, while some suffering is beyond your understanding.
FAITH allows a person to trust God and love reality AS IT IS even when it does not serve your own greedy self interest.
Your argument presumes a superior FANTASY WORLD is possible. Have fun there.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
First, in the interest of full disclosure, I have very little respect for chillbill. I have found him to be less than honest. BUT, I have absolutely no respect for this assinine defense that chillbill AND OTHERS try to give to this argument. I find this argument the height of intellectual cowardice. It is a refusal to examine the problem in the face of reason. I hope to effectively not only convey my disgust for this intellectual cowardice, I also hope to convey the REASONS I think it is intellectual cowardice.
You assume that God only knows as little as you do to reach the level of not understanding WHY some suffering exists which you have. If you were omniscient also then this might be a valid argument, since you are not it isn't.
LOL. You are trying to take me to task for assuming that at least some of the suffering around us is unnecessary. You don't even have the guts to realize that your assumption is that every instance of suffering leads to a greater good that could not have been achieved in some other way involving less suffering. Have fun trying to justify that assumption.
... Except you are too gutless to even try that. Instead you are going to say that you don't understand it but you can't rule out that there might be. Well considering the suffering that goes on in this world ... the vast majority of which leads to NO apparant greater good ... then if one is unwilling to see that at least some of it MUST be unnecessary then one is unwilling to see ANYTHING that might contradict your opinion -- another gutless act.
One doesn't have to be omniscient to see that at least some suffering is unnecessary. one only has to be reasonable. And conversely, if one cannot see that at least some suffering is unnecessary, one is not reasonable. That, I think, is self-evident. I also think it is self-evident where you fall.
"(3) If God is omniscient, then he knows that unnecessary suffering exists."
in other words God KNOWS why every type suffering is necessary, while some suffering is beyond your understanding.
Instead of trying to interpret what I say, why don't you actually read it? And then after you read it, why don't you actually think about it instead of coming up with such a ridiculous question-begging response?
Those "other words" assumes an omnimax God ... the exact question the we were addressing. And from any reasonable perspective ... the argument rules that out.
FAITH allows a person to trust God and love reality AS IT IS even when it does not serve your own greedy self interest.
And what evidence do you have that an omnimax God exists? You don't have any. Yet here you are asserting in the face of OBVIOUS evidence to the contrary that an omnimax God doesn't exist that he does. Your "FAITH" is preventing you from seeing "reality AS IT IS". You are in love with an illusion because it suits YOUR self-interest.
Finally, nowhere in my argument is there any indication that it would be in my self-interest if an omnimax God doesn't exist. In fact, if an omnimax God did exist then the world should be a much better place. It would be in my "greedy" self interest for him to exist. It is only in the interest of reasonableness to assume he doesn't.
[quote=chillbill]Your argument presumes a superior FANTASY WORLD is possible. Have fun there.
Here, I'll give you an example of NOT being a gutless wonder. You propose a challenge of coming up with a superior world to the one we have now. OK, I'll accept the challenge.
Guess what ... it is EASY. How about a world where Harlequin icthyosis:
didn't exist. All it would take is for God to allow a different sperm cell to fertilize an egg. Compared to curing cancer, that seems like an easy thing to do. An omnimax God should be able to do that. That way many thousands of parents over centuries would not have had to see their deformed offspring die of electrolyte imbalance ... a VERY painful death.
That would OBVIOUSLY be a better world.
Or how about this ... Have Farrah Fawcett die without feeling that last pang of pain. I don't think that would have undermined anyone's respect for her bravely suffering through her ordeal. I think everyone would have been just as inspired, and she would have felt a little less pain. That too would be an OBVIOUSLY better world.
But a gutless wonder might protest ... "You don't know that! There might be something you don't understand that says otherwise".
Well OK, I'll bite. WHAT CAN IT POSSIBLY BE THAT I (or even you) DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT COULD MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE ONLY BECAUSE THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF BABIES HAVE DIED MISERABLE DEATHS? WHAT CAN IT POSSIBLY BE THAT I (or even you) DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT MAKES THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE ONLY BECAUSE FARRAH FAWCETT HAD THAT ONE LAST PANG OF PAIN?
If you can't even come up with a candidate then you are admitting that to the best knowledge you have there is no REASONABLE candidate. If you persist in claiming that there must be one, then you are not only gutless. Even worse, you are a pitiless asshole. If all suffering is for the best then why even try to ameliorate any of it? Good luck living in THAT world.
Come on, if you are going to argue then instead of doing your normal pissing and moaning about other people being greedy, get some intestinal fortitude and actually try to address the seriousness of your argument. If all the suffering that goes on is the minimal amount of suffering needed to make the world the best place ... in other words -- eliminating ANY suffering in the past would have made the world a worse place ... then with all the suffering that goes on every day throughout the world that greater good should be pretty damned obvious, shouldn't it? Tell us why eliminating a tsunami that killed 180,000 plus, or a cyclone that killed 350,000 plus, or an earthquake that killed 50,000 plus would have made the world a worse place than it is now.
You're not even going to try, are you? .... Gutless.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
"You are trying to take me to task for assuming that at least some of the suffering around us is unnecessary. You don't even have the guts to realize that your assumption is that every instance of suffering leads to a greater good that could not have been achieved in some other way involving less suffering. Have fun trying to justify that assumption."
Actually my assumption is that reality IS as it IS. What part of that do you disagree with? That reality includes things that are quite marvelous, such as life, beauty, pleasure and joy. It also includes suffering. The unprovable assumption is that ANY alternative reality exists, or is even possible, except IMAGINARY ones. That assumption is the one you pretend is evidence for your case.
---
"(3) If God is omniscient, then he knows that unnecessary suffering exists."
So God is allowed to be called omniscient, only if he agrees with your opinion of unnecessary suffering? What if you are just plain wrong? Certainly you have offered no proof that any life can exist at all absent of suffering. In the REAL WORLD that I am referring to the two are inseparable. Please provide an example of life without suffering to demonstrate how a God as smart as you are could have done it.
---
"Finally, nowhere in my argument is there any indication that it would be in my self-interest if an omnimax God doesn't exist. In fact, if an omnimax God did exist then the world should be a much better place. It would be in my "greedy" self interest for him to exist. It is only in the interest of reasonableness to assume he doesn't."
Your 'self-interest' in this argument is clearly involved in fulfilling the bloated ego that is capable of stating that omniscience is equivalent to agreeing with your opinion (previous quote). Reasonableness is an interesting way to describe an opinion that is based on imaginary fantasy as yours is.
At the risk of throwing more jewelry in the path of a pig...The kingdom of God is a SPIRITUAL kingdom. The thoughts, attitudes and perceptions (all spiritual things) that each of us brings to the reality before our eyes creates the world we experience.
Instead of being 'reasonable' you are trying to prove a negative. Any student of logic knows how hard that is. If you start with unreasoned certainty that you are right, you will foolishly fail to see the holes in your own logic. Your knowledge is only a tiny fragment of truth, and some things that you have been taught are wrong.
Omniscience is exactly right in all details past, present, and future. If you consider the only possible way to store that data you might see that it is only possible in one way. Can you tell me what way that is?
---
"Harlequin icthyosis[sic]"
Harlequin ichthyosis is a favorite of yours isn't it? Your example is one of many problems faced by living things, though a particularly unattractive one, the question of why living things have flaws and diseases is the more generalized version of this example. I see that you think that life can exist without disease, and unfavorable mutations. If it is in fact possible (other than in some fantasy you have) please explain how.
I only have one version of reality that I am familiar with. In my version life is inseparable from risk, and pain. EVERY child is in horrible distress at the moment that they draw their first breath. Each life is doomed to end in death. Pain is a side effect of the same nervous system that feels pleasure. Run me through some detail of how that alternative of yours would work.
---
"Or how about this ... Have Farrah Fawcett die without feeling that last pang of pain. I don't think that would have undermined anyone's respect for her bravely suffering through her ordeal. I think everyone would have been just as inspired, and she would have felt a little less pain. That too would be an OBVIOUSLY better world."
If I am reading this correctly, you would rather have her slip away into a pain killer induced heart failure as Michael Jackson apparently did? She certainly had that choice available to her, so I believe she chose to FEEL alive as long as she could.
It is far from obvious which choice MJ or FF of how to die was the better one, even though one was certainly less physically painful.
---
"If you can't even come up with a candidate then you are admitting that to the best knowledge you have there is no REASONABLE candidate. If you persist in claiming that there must be one, then you are not only gutless. Even worse, you are a pitiless asshole. If all suffering is for the best then why even try to ameliorate any of it? Good luck living in THAT world."
'Candidate' for what? Some 'good' that is caused by each example of suffering you can bring up? You are not being very clear in your meaning, as is usually the case with those that feel the need to express themselves with profanity.
I do not make it my business to presume to know everything, or to find an excuse for every 'bad' thing. I am thankful when I face prosperity and adversity. Only a child (of ANY age) allows pain and death to prevent them from living life. Adults do what they can to help, even when that means killing a fatally wounded animal to end its' suffering. Thankful for life even though it comes as it does, instead of how your childish fantasy wishes it would.
---
"Tell us why eliminating a tsunami that killed 180,000 plus, or a cyclone that killed 350,000 plus, or an earthquake that killed 50,000 plus would have made the world a worse place than it is now."
Close your eyes, suck up some more smoke from that bong, and imagine that world without risk and consequence. Maybe you can live a drug addled life on painkillers as Michael Jackson did for the rest of your days, I prefer to live and love life in this real world even though it will certainly kill me.
Maybe that is "gutless" to someone with your fertile imagination of how things ought to be. You will never drown if you don't go swimming, you cannot be in an an automobile accident if you don't get in the car, you will never feel "that last pang of pain" if you drug yourself to sleep before it happens.
Which is gutless?
Loving life, or fearing death.
Facing this harsh but fantastic reality, or fantasizing about a better one that doesn't exist.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
Let's begin with your title:
An Icky picture doesn't make your 'rational' fantasy real.
What fantasy is that? That unnecessary suffering exists?? [sarcasm]Yeah, that's a fantasy alright[/sarcasm].
Labelling the question a "fantasy" doesn't make your argument any good ... especially considering that to anybody who actually thinks about it OBVIOUSLY isn't a fantasy. Unnecessary suffering obviously exists.
"You are trying to take me to task for assuming that at least some of the suffering around us is unnecessary. You don't even have the guts to realize that your assumption is that every instance of suffering leads to a greater good that could not have been achieved in some other way involving less suffering. Have fun trying to justify that assumption."
Actually my assumption is that reality IS as it IS. What part of that do you disagree with? That reality includes things that are quite marvelous, such as life, beauty, pleasure and joy. It also includes suffering. The unprovable assumption is that ANY alternative reality exists, or is even possible, except IMAGINARY ones. That assumption is the one you pretend is evidence for your case.
This is pathetic. In case you have forgotten what we are talking about, let me refresh you again. You are claiming that unnecessary suffering DOESN'T EXIST. If it doesn't exist then EVERY SINGLE INCIDENT OF SUFFERING MUST lead to some higher good than could not have been achieved by less suffering. If you can't accept that statement then you have conceded unnecessary suffering exists.
Thus what you claim is your assumption is MEANINGLESS to this conversation. Look up at the preceding paragraph again. The assumption one MUST hold to assume that unnecessary suffering doesn't exist is ... let's say it together ... EVERY SINGLE INCIDENT OF SUFFERING MUST lead to some higher good that could not have been achieved by less suffering.
Now, I realize that a gutless wonder would not like to have to defend that statement. For one thing, it can't really be defended. I also realize that a gutless wonder would try to shift the focus to something that is off-topic. Well ... Gee, sure looks like what you tried to do, isn't it?
"(3) If God is omniscient, then he knows that unnecessary suffering exists."
So God is allowed to be called omniscient, only if he agrees with your opinion of unnecessary suffering? What if you are just plain wrong? Certainly you have offered no proof that any life can exist at all absent of suffering. In the REAL WORLD that I am referring to the two are inseparable. Please provide an example of life without suffering to demonstrate how a God as smart as you are could have done it.
(1) Concerning omniscience: WRONG Dipstick. Go back and look at the definition I gave for omniscient. It means "knowing everything that is logically possible to be known" Unless you are going to claim that it isn't logically possible to be known that unnecessary suffering exists, then God must know that it exists. Hell, everybody (except possibly a person who willfully denies it [chillbill]) knows unnecessary suffering exists. It is obvious that it does.
(2) Concerning "absent of suffering": Geez Louise!! Are you a complete moron or what? The argument says nothing about absence of suffering. It says UNNECESSARY SUFFERING. Let's go over it again ... NECESSARY SUFFERING is defined as suffering that leads to a higher good that could not have been achieved by less suffering. UNNECESSARY SUFFERING then is suffering that leads to no higher good, or suffering beyond the minimal amount needed to achieve whatever higher good was achieved.
(3) Concerning providing "an example of life without suffering": Another moronic demand. I have never claimed to omnimax. All I have to do is provide an example where life with LESS suffering than there is now exists. I DID THAT ALREADY.
"Finally, nowhere in my argument is there any indication that it would be in my self-interest if an omnimax God doesn't exist. In fact, if an omnimax God did exist then the world should be a much better place. It would be in my "greedy" self interest for him to exist. It is only in the interest of reasonableness to assume he doesn't."
Your 'self-interest' in this argument is clearly involved in fulfilling the bloated ego that is capable of stating that omniscience is equivalent to agreeing with your opinion (previous quote). Reasonableness is an interesting way to describe an opinion that is based on imaginary fantasy as yours is.
[sarcasm]Yeah right[/sarcasm] That coming from a complete asshole who either can't understand written English, is squirming to get out of a stupid argument he got himself into, or actually believes that every single incident of suffering leads to some higher good that could not be achieved by less suffering.
At the risk of throwing more jewelry in the path of a pig...The kingdom of God is a SPIRITUAL kingdom. The thoughts, attitudes and perceptions (all spiritual things) that each of us brings to the reality before our eyes creates the world we experience.
[sarcasm]Yeah right[/sarcasm].
Instead of being 'reasonable' you are trying to prove a negative. Any student of logic knows how hard that is. If you start with unreasoned certainty that you are right, you will foolishly fail to see the holes in your own logic. Your knowledge is only a tiny fragment of truth, and some things that you have been taught are wrong.
OK then gutless wonder ... If I am wrong then take the challenge. Go up to someone who just lost a child to a horrible accident and say, "It is good your child died this way, if it hadn't happened the world would have been a worse place than it is now."
I might agree that the world is a better place when your nose become flattened.
Omniscience is exactly right in all details past, present, and future. If you consider the only possible way to store that data you might see that it is only possible in one way. Can you tell me what way that is?
Listen fuckwad ... YOU are telling me MY ARGUMENT is wrong. The operative phrase here is MY ARGUMENT. In MY ARGUMENT I get to set the definitions. In MY ARGUMENT omniscience is "knowing everything that is logically possible to be known". Do you understand?
If you want to make an argument with different definitions then go write your own blog. But if you are going to argue that I'm wrong then argue about what I actually say. ... Except you are too much of a gutless wonder to do that, aren't you?
"Harlequin icthyosis[sic]"
Harlequin ichthyosis is a favorite of yours isn't it? Your example is one of many problems faced by living things, though a particularly unattractive one, the question of why living things have flaws and diseases is the more generalized version of this example. I see that you think that life can exist without disease, and unfavorable mutations. If it is in fact possible (other than in some fantasy you have) please explain how.
If this question is for real then you really are a moron!! Look at what you are responding to. With respect to Harlequin Ichthyosis here is how to do it:
... All it would take is for God to allow a different sperm cell to fertilize an egg. Compared to curing cancer, that seems like an easy thing to do.
What part of that do you NOT understand?
I only have one version of reality that I am familiar with. In my version life is inseparable from risk, and pain. EVERY child is in horrible distress at the moment that they draw their first breath. Each life is doomed to end in death. Pain is a side effect of the same nervous system that feels pleasure. Run me through some detail of how that alternative of yours would work.
Well gee, chillbill. The child would only feel pain when it led to some higher good that could not be achieved by less pain. What part of that do you not understand?
"Or how about this ... Have Farrah Fawcett die without feeling that last pang of pain. I don't think that would have undermined anyone's respect for her bravely suffering through her ordeal. I think everyone would have been just as inspired, and she would have felt a little less pain. That too would be an OBVIOUSLY better world."
If I am reading this correctly, you would rather have her slip away into a pain killer induced heart failure as Michael Jackson apparently did? She certainly had that choice available to her, so I believe she chose to FEEL alive as long as she could.
Well, here is a different alternative for you. How about God intervening to prevent that last pang of pain? Could he NOT do that? IF that is the case, then God is not omnipotent, is he? Or did that last pang of pain lead to some higher good that could not have been achieved by less pain? If that is so, then what? Wont even try that question, will you? That is why you are a gutless wonder.
It is far from obvious which choice MJ or FF of how to die was the better one, even though one was certainly less physically painful.
Yeah, well that is a false dichotomy, isn't it?
"If you can't even come up with a candidate then you are admitting that to the best knowledge you have there is no REASONABLE candidate. If you persist in claiming that there must be one, then you are not only gutless. Even worse, you are a pitiless asshole. If all suffering is for the best then why even try to ameliorate any of it? Good luck living in THAT world."
'Candidate' for what? Some 'good' that is caused by each example of suffering you can bring up? You are not being very clear in your meaning, as is usually the case with those that feel the need to express themselves with profanity.
I am being VERY clear. You are either being stupid or evasive. In order for there to NOT be unnecessary suffering, EVERY SINGLE INCIDENT OF SUFFERING MUST LEAD TO SOME HIGHER GOOD THAT COULD NOT BE ACHIEVED BY LESS SUFFERING. If as you are implying these examples are not REALLY unnecessary suffering. What is the higher good that could not be achieved with less suffering? Not willing to even consider that question, are you?
Your refusal to even consider the consequences of your argument is contemptible. What I am expressing is my contempt.
I do not make it my business to presume to know everything, or to find an excuse for every 'bad' thing. I am thankful when I face prosperity and adversity. Only a child (of ANY age) allows pain and death to prevent them from living life. Adults do what they can to help, even when that means killing a fatally wounded animal to end its' suffering. Thankful for life even though it comes as it does, instead of how your childish fantasy wishes it would.
Yet you presume to know that (1) God exists, (2) Unnecessary suffering doesn't exist, (3) God is omnimax. AND You presume to know it against what appears to be obvious evidence to the contrary. AND instead of addressing the obvious evidence to the contrary, you are babbling irrelevancies like the gutless wonder you are.
You are so pathetic that you don't even realize the "childish fantasy" you are accusing me of holding, is the "childish fantasy" in which an omnimax God actually existed. You dingbat ... I am arguing that it is a "childish fantasy".
"Tell us why eliminating a tsunami that killed 180,000 plus, or a cyclone that killed 350,000 plus, or an earthquake that killed 50,000 plus would have made the world a worse place than it is now."
Close your eyes, suck up some more smoke from that bong, and imagine that world without risk and consequence. Maybe you can live a drug addled life on painkillers as Michael Jackson did for the rest of your days, I prefer to live and love life in this real world even though it will certainly kill me.
This is so stupid! Tell me why you think it would be that eliminating a particular tsunami, a particular cyclone, a particular earthquake, would be a "world without risk and consequence". It doesn't does it? Only a moron or someone who is intentionally misrepresenting what I said otherwise would say that.
Show me anywhere where I even implied that a drug addled life on painkillers is a good world? Can't do it, can you? Only a moron or someone who is intentionally misrepresenting what I said would say that.
Perhaps it is you who has been using the bong, dillweed.
Maybe that is "gutless" to someone with your fertile imagination of how things ought to be. You will never drown if you don't go swimming, you cannot be in an an automobile accident if you don't get in the car, you will never feel "that last pang of pain" if you drug yourself to sleep before it happens.
Which is gutless?
Loving life, or fearing death.
Facing this harsh but fantastic reality, or fantasizing about a better one that doesn't exist.
What is gutless is refusing to address an argument you object to on its terms. What is gutless is attacking an argument that was never made instead. What is gutless is a refusal to realize that there is suffering that the world be better off without. An estimated 5,000,000 people starve to death each year worldwide. What possible higher good is achieved there? What is gutless is not facing questions like that. What is gutless is the pretension that you are bravely facing the perils of life when you are avoiding its realities. What is gutless is accusing others of harboring YOUR fantasy when in actuality what they are arguing is that it is a fantasy. What is gutless is you.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
You must have noticed that they removed the 'flag this post' button.
----
"You are claiming that unnecessary suffering DOESN'T EXIST. If it doesn't exist then EVERY SINGLE INCIDENT OF SUFFERING MUST lead to some higher good than could not have been achieved by less suffering. If you can't accept that statement then you have conceded unnecessary suffering exists."
Every single incident of suffering is a UNAVOIDABLE part of the REAL world.
They are only avoidable in your fantasy world, which may seem real to you, but no one but YOU can see it.
---
"... EVERY SINGLE INCIDENT OF SUFFERING MUST lead to some higher good that could not have been achieved by less suffering.
Now, I realize that a gutless wonder would not like to have to defend that statement. For one thing, it can't really be defended. "
We agree, in order to prove the position you wish to force on me, EVERY single one of the endless inconveniences present in the world would have to be individually addressed. Only a moron would fall for that or propose that a failure to do so demonstrated anything meaningful.
---
"You are claiming that unnecessary suffering DOESN'T EXIST. If it doesn't exist then EVERY SINGLE INCIDENT OF SUFFERING MUST lead to some higher good than could not have been achieved by less suffering."
All of the suffering in the real world is required by real circumstances. What kind of idiot thinks otherwise? The 'higher good' you seem to be missing is actual existence. Real life is better than any of your 'perfect' imaginary worlds where there is no suffering, and incidentally no life of any actual kind.
---
"Let's go over it again ... NECESSARY SUFFERING is defined as suffering that leads to a higher good that could not have been achieved by less suffering. UNNECESSARY SUFFERING then is suffering that leads to no higher good, or suffering beyond the minimal amount needed to achieve whatever higher good was achieved."
What would be the reason that this 'UNNECESSARY SUFFERING' you refer to happens? Could it be that it MUST happen based on actual circumstances?
---
"... All it would take is for God to allow a different sperm cell to fertilize an egg. Compared to curing cancer, that seems like an easy thing to do....What part of that do you NOT understand?"
I see the needed change to avoid all genetic defects and unfavorable mutations (the general case not just one specific) as a change that obviously would eliminate all human and animal life as we know it IN THE REAL WORLD.
Perhaps the fundamental flaw in our discussion is which God we are each referring to. You seem set on discussing a supernatural God that makes fantasy worlds where consistent reality is not a requirement. I am only interested in discussing the real God that made our actual world. This is the God that IS nature, That knows everything because it is all a part of her, and is omnipotent because natural laws are his laws. You could disprove thousands of your fantasy Gods, and not impress me in the least.
---
"How about God intervening to prevent that last pang of pain? Could he NOT do that? IF that is the case, then God is not omnipotent, is he? Or did that last pang of pain lead to some higher good that could not have been achieved by less pain? If that is so, then what?"
This case the higher good is called free will.
---
"Yet you presume to know that (1) God exists, (2) Unnecessary suffering doesn't exist, (3) God is omnimax. AND You presume to know it against what appears to be obvious evidence to the contrary."
You appear to think that you are so 'obviously' right that you only need fantasy scenarios as evidence. I accept points 1 and 2 as I have already said. Point three involves a very intricate position on the motives and unknowable nature of God, so I'll have to pass, unless you can somehow define the quality absent any of the make believe you have relied upon thus far.
Once you realize that you are referring to the creator of 100 billion galaxies it becomes obvious that the priorities of a single human are not always the same as Gods'.
---
"Tell me why you think it would be that eliminating a particular tsunami, a particular cyclone, a particular earthquake, would be a "world without risk and consequence". It doesn't does it?"
You could only believe in a God that obeyed you?
A death is not a tragedy as you appear to believe. From an objective perspective it is an inevitability. How does rearranging any specific death benefit the universe?
---
"Show me anywhere where I even implied that a drug addled life on painkillers is a good world?"
Haven't you said a merciful God would end several specific cases of suffering? Wouldn't a consistent God therefor end all suffering? Along with suffering you lose pleasure and all other feeling, in this real world. We humans have been given all we need to reach the nirvana of pain free existence you seem to see as superior. All manner of pain killers and hallucinogens are out there for you to avoid the sensory perceptions you find so horrible and 'unnecessary'. Have fun, just don't insist the rest of us retreat from life along with you.
---
"An estimated 5,000,000 people starve to death each year worldwide. What possible higher good is achieved there?"
You are about as bright as a fence post.
If you survive starvation by eating all you can handle, as most Americans do, your most likely form of death will be a heart attack. If you survive cancer, disease, tsunami, earthquake, fire, and flood you wither away of old age and die anyway.
Each life begins and ends. To satisfy you all forms of death would have to be eliminated. In the real world the only way to avoid death is to not live.
"One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever."
- Ecclesiastes 1.4
... insults are so deserved.
I think it is more than clear that you either cannot or will not defend your assertion that the argument from unnecessary AS I MADE IT, has any flaw what-so-ever.
You are quickly becoming a waste of electrons, deserving only a "chillbill alert" response in the future. But I will use this opportunity to review some of your more egregious claims.
Every single incident of suffering is a UNAVOIDABLE part of the REAL world.
What chillbill says here is either true or false. I think almost everybody here would recognize it as false with respect to this argument. Not everything HAD to happen the way it did. Plenty of things could have intervened. If it is false then it is cannot be an argument against the argument from unnecessary suffering (or anything else for that matter).
But for the sake of argument, let's suppose it is true. Then God is absolutely powerless. He can't possibly act within this world because everything that is going to happen is unavoidable. Thus, God isn't omnipotent and therefore not omnimax. So even if chillbill's blather were true, it is not an argument against the argument from unnecessary suffering ... it is an argument for unnecessary suffering.
We agree, in order to prove the position you wish to force on me, EVERY single one of the endless inconveniences present in the world would have to be individually addressed. Only a moron would fall for that or propose that a failure to do so demonstrated anything meaningful.
Er ... so far I have only asked chillbill to try and address just a few. If he can address a few, then we should be able to come up with principles that would address the many. So far he has addressed NONE. In a little bit he will reply to some, but his reply makes no sense -- so I can't count that.
All of the suffering in the real world is required by real circumstances. What kind of idiot thinks otherwise? The 'higher good' you seem to be missing is actual existence. Real life is better than any of your 'perfect' imaginary worlds where there is no suffering, and incidentally no life of any actual kind.
(1) The kind of idiot that thinks that all suffering is NOT required is me ... and everybody else who tries to make the world a better place.
What kind of idiot thinks that "actual existence" requires Harlequin Ichthyosis (see picture above). As best as I can tell, only chillbill.
(2) As I have ALWAYS said the argument from unnecessary suffering does not require a world free of all suffering ... chillbill is just making that up ... only free of all suffering beyond the minimal amount needed to achieve whatever higher good the suffering is supposed to achieve. Do I know what that is? Absolutely not! But what I do know beyond reasonable doubt is that with all the suffering that goes on in the world and the fact that there doesn't appear to be ANY higher good that comes from the vast majority of it; at least some of that suffering must be unnecessary.
What would be the reason that this 'UNNECESSARY SUFFERING' you refer to happens? Could it be that it MUST happen based on actual circumstances?
It DID happen based on actual circumstances, but that doesn't mean that it MUST have happened. BEFORE it happened circumstances could have been different in which case it wouldn't have happened. Now how could those circumstances have been different? One way is an omnimax God knowing what was going to happen could have intervened to prevent it from happening. He obviously didn't. Why not? Was he not able to? Then he isn't omnipotent and therefore not omnimax? Did he not know the consequences that were going to happen? Then he isn't omniscient and therefore not omnimax. Did he know the bad consequences and have the power to prevent it but chose not to? Then he is not omnibenevolent, and therefore not omnimax.
Chillbill statement above is meaningless with respect to the argument from unnecessary suffering.
"... All it would take is for God to allow a different sperm cell to fertilize an egg. Compared to curing cancer, that seems like an easy thing to do....What part of that do you NOT understand?"
I see the needed change to avoid all genetic defects and unfavorable mutations (the general case not just one specific) as a change that obviously would eliminate all human and animal life as we know it IN THE REAL WORLD.
Perhaps the fundamental flaw in our discussion is which God we are each referring to. You seem set on discussing a supernatural God that makes fantasy worlds where consistent reality is not a requirement. I am only interested in discussing the real God that made our actual world. This is the God that IS nature, That knows everything because it is all a part of her, and is omnipotent because natural laws are his laws. You could disprove thousands of your fantasy Gods, and not impress me in the least.
(1) The argument isn't saying that ALL mutations must be avoided. What the question is asking is why can't this one (Harlequin Ichthyosis) be avoided. Is God unable to? He is not omnimax. Did he not know it would lead to a situation in which thousands upon thousands of babies would die horrible deaths? He is not omniscient. He knew the consequences and was able to prevent it but chose not to? He is not omnibenevolent. In any case, he is not omnimax.
(2) Now chillbill can argue that at least some harmful mutations are necessary for the world ... perhaps to appreciate how good we really have it. I personally don't buy it, but for the argument from unnecessary suffering to hold, all it takes is for us to be able to achieve that greater good without that particular event of suffering. I think I can appreciate how good I have it by comparing my situation with that of ... say a child blind from birth. Hey, goal achieved with less suffering.
(3) Saying "God is nature" is meaningless as well with regard to this discussion. Nature doesn't "know" anything (it doesn't have its own independent conciousness to know anything). Nature cannot do everything that is logically possible to do. Nature doesn't have the best interests of the life within it in mind. Nature isn't omnimax. So the argument from unnecessary suffering holds.
(4) Saying "God is nature" is useless in any discussion. Use the term "God" in that way only confuses things. Most people's idea of God is different than that. Why not use the term "NATURE" instead. People will be more likely to understand what you mean. The reason that chillbill doesn't do it is because if people actually understand what he is saying they will quickly realize it is pretty much bullshit.
"How about God intervening to prevent that last pang of pain? Could he NOT do that? IF that is the case, then God is not omnipotent, is he? Or did that last pang of pain lead to some higher good that could not have been achieved by less pain? If that is so, then what?"
This case the higher good is called free will.
Here chillbill actually tries to come up with a "higher good". But it is such an incredibly stupid answer, I can't find it within myself to give him any credit for it. What was being referred to was Farrah Fawcett's last pang of pain before she died. Chillbill is saying that last pang of pain preserved her free will. ... [sarcasm]Yep, boy howdy, she willed herself that last pang of pain. I'm sure she was thinking "If only I could feel some more pain, I could die happy." If God had intervened in such a way that would have prevented it, she would have been deprived of the joy of that last bit of pain"[/sarcasm]
Who is it that lives in a fantasy world?
"Yet you presume to know that (1) God exists, (2) Unnecessary suffering doesn't exist, (3) God is omnimax. AND You presume to know it against what appears to be obvious evidence to the contrary."
You appear to think that you are so 'obviously' right that you only need fantasy scenarios as evidence. I accept points 1 and 2 as I have already said. Point three involves a very intricate position on the motives and unknowable nature of God, so I'll have to pass, unless you can somehow define the quality absent any of the make believe you have relied upon thus far.
Once you realize that you are referring to the creator of 100 billion galaxies it becomes obvious that the priorities of a single human are not always the same as Gods'.
(1) The whole point of his being here is that he is claiming the argument from unnecessary suffering is wrong. The point of that argument is that an omnimax god cannot exist. If doesn't believe God is omnimax the WTF is here for anyway?
(2) An omnimax God has been defined for him is MANY places, yet he is still claiming he doesn't understand. Here it is again:
An omnimax God is one who is:
(A) Omnipotent -- able to do anything that is logically possible to do
(B) Omniscient -- knows everything that is logically possible to know
(C) Omnibenevolent -- has the best interests of each individual life within creation at heart.
(3) If God's priorities don't include that of EVERY individual then he by definition isn't omnibenevolent. The argument from unnecessary suffering holds. In that case what chillbill needs to justify is how God goes about prioritizing different individuals.
(4) God is only the creator of 100 billion + galaxies if he exists. If God isn't omnimax then he is flawed. If he is flawed then it is possible (likely?) that he doesn't exist at all.
"Tell me why you think it would be that eliminating a particular tsunami, a particular cyclone, a particular earthquake, would be a "world without risk and consequence". It doesn't does it?"
You could only believe in a God that obeyed you?
A death is not a tragedy as you appear to believe. From an objective perspective it is an inevitability. How does rearranging any specific death benefit the universe?
(1) I can believe in any "God" for which there is evidence for. I just haven't found any evidence for any being deserving of the name "God" yet.
(2) The argument from unnecessary suffering does NOT demand that God obey me. It demands that an omnimax God BE omnimax.
(3) By "rearranging [a] specific death" a being capable of feeling the pains associated with unnecessary suffering would not have to feel it. THAT by itself is enough to make the universe a better place ... unless you don't care about it. In which case you aren't omnibenevolent and you aren't omnimax.
"Show me anywhere where I even implied that a drug addled life on painkillers is a good world?"
Haven't you said a merciful God would end several specific cases of suffering? Wouldn't a consistent God therefor end all suffering? Along with suffering you lose pleasure and all other feeling, in this real world. We humans have been given all we need to reach the nirvana of pain free existence you seem to see as superior. All manner of pain killers and hallucinogens are out there for you to avoid the sensory perceptions you find so horrible and 'unnecessary'. Have fun, just don't insist the rest of us retreat from life along with you.
(1) It would only be consistent with an OMNIMAX God to eliminate all suffering beyond the minimal amount needed to achieve a higher good. It would be inconsistent with an omnimax God to eliminate suffering that leads to a higher good that could not be achieved with less suffering. How many times does one have to say this?
(2) Evidently chillbill thinks that if Jeffrey Dahmer's victims hadn't been butchered and eaten, we would not able to feel pleasure and other feelings. I beg to differ.
(3) In my initial response to this subthread I said that one of the reasons I do not like chillbill is that he is dishonest. Here is another instance of that. Chillbill says, "All manner of pain killers and hallucinogens are out there for you to avoid the sensory perceptions you find so horrible and 'unnecessary'". Erm ... the "sensory perceptions" I find horrible are ones that cause suffering. That means painful ones. The ones I find "unnecessary" (as defined in the argument from unnecessary suffering) are the painful ones that do not lead to higher good that couldn't have been achieved with less suffering. By use of the generalized term chillbill would like for you to think that I mean ALL sensory perceptions. That is one case of dishonesty.
He also wants you to think that the argument is implying that the way to avoid the unpleasant sensations is by using "pain killers and hallucinogens". That too is dishonest. The argument says that if God is omnimax then he should intervene himself to prevent instances of suffering beyond the minimum amount necessary to achieve a higher good. I don't think an omnimax God should necessarily become a drug pusher. I would think that he could manipulate one's nervous system without drugs. Compared to curing cancer that should be easy to do.
Finally, chillbill includes the term 'hallucinogens" with "pain killers" to imply that in all cases the use of such drugs is a bad thing. This is the third instance of dishonesty in one paragraph. I'll bet that even chillbill himself has taken a tylenol or an aspirin for a headache. If he has had a cavity filled by a dentist then he has almost certainly had a "pain killer" like xylocaine. If so then he is the ultimate hypocrite. If not, then is he seriously advocating that one not use analgesics for such procedures??
"An estimated 5,000,000 people starve to death each year worldwide. What possible higher good is achieved there?"
You are about as bright as a fence post.
If you survive starvation by eating all you can handle, as most Americans do, your most likely form of death will be a heart attack. If you survive cancer, disease, tsunami, earthquake, fire, and flood you wither away of old age and die anyway.
Each life begins and ends. To satisfy you all forms of death would have to be eliminated. In the real world the only way to avoid death is to not live.
(1) Notice that chillbill is calling me stupid here. I'm making no complaint of that. Lord knows (intentional irony) that I think he has made a number of stupid remarks himself which I have not been hesitant to call him on. So if he thinks that what I said was stupid ... fine. The reason I bring it up at all is that it is a little hypocritical in a post entitled "Insults are SO rational".
(2) Every time I have called chillbill on a stupid remark, I have tried to explain why it is that I think it is stupid. If we hold chillbill to the same standard then the reason I am "about as bright as a fence post" is because the reason 5,000,000 dying per year of starvation is NOT unnecessary suffering is because otherwise they would have died of a heart attack from OVEReating.
With that note, I'll leave it to the reader, if there are any left, to determine who has presented an argument worthy of a fence post.
I think it is obvious that chillbill has no substantive response to the argument from unnecessary suffering. If anybody actually reads what he has to say and thinks he makes a point worthy of response, please give me a "heads up" about it. Otherwise, I'll not waste any more of your or my time with this subthread.
Thanks,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
"Not everything HAD to happen the way it did. Plenty of things could have intervened."
Once we are talking about past events they did have to happen as they did. If there HAD been any significant intervention then those events would have occurred differently. Saying they coulda, shoulda, woulda is as meaningless as any other fantasy.
---
"Then God is absolutely powerless. He can't possibly act within this world because everything that is going to happen is unavoidable."
Notice the change from past events to future ones? The perspective you and I share is one of the present moment. Past events are fixed, and future ones are uncertain. This perception is the only one available to us, but not necessarily the only one available to God.
Once again you are attempting to argue against one 'God in a box' or 'straw God' instead of making any argument that actually pertains to a Universe Creator, or 'Alpha and Omega' that describes itself as "I am." Thus creating a fantasy world, complete with fantasy God.
---
"Er ... so far I have only asked chillbill to try and address just a few. If he can address a few, then we should be able to come up with principles that would address the many."
I skipped the ruse of any specific pain, and went straight to the broader principles. Saved a few electrons.
---
"(1) The kind of idiot that thinks that all suffering is NOT required is me ... and everybody else who tries to make the world a better place."
And how are you going to make the world a better place without CHANGING ACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES?
"(2) As I have ALWAYS said the argument from unnecessary suffering does not require a world free of all suffering ... chillbill is just making that up ... only free of all suffering beyond the minimal amount needed to achieve whatever higher good the suffering is supposed to achieve. Do I know what that is? Absolutely not! But what I do know beyond reasonable doubt is that with all the suffering that goes on in the world and the fact that there doesn't appear to be ANY higher good that comes from the vast majority of it; at least some of that suffering must be unnecessary."
Which is it? "Do I know what that is? Absolutely not!" "I do know beyond reasonable doubt...at least some of that suffering must be unnecessary."
It seems that a small amount of understanding allows you to accept the need for a small amount of suffering, and you are in denial that absolute knowledge might explain the need for all of it. I am forced to conclude that you think the tiny fragment of knowledge you posses is MUCH CLOSER to all knowledge than it is or possibly could be.
If your "I do know beyond reasonable doubt" is composed of anything other than a overly large ego please provide the rational behind it.
---
"Now how could those circumstances have been different? One way is an omnimax God knowing what was going to happen could have intervened to prevent it from happening. He obviously didn't. Why not? Was he not able to? Then he isn't omnipotent and therefore not omnimax? Did he not know the consequences that were going to happen? Then he isn't omniscient and therefore not omnimax. Did he know the bad consequences and have the power to prevent it but chose not to? Then he is not omnibenevolent, and therefore not omnimax."
Very good! This is much closer to a complete line of reasoning. I can agree, and follow it right down to the last line. This is where you once again ASSUME that there is no reason simply because you do not see one.
If omnibenevolent was a Humanist term then benevolence would be defined solely in terms of the results that applied to humans. Obviously it is an absolute term. The world as it is allows humans to exist, perceive, make free choices, adapt and learn, and unfortunately in the case of this discussion sometimes think that all they see is all there is. Fortunately it also allows SOME people to conceptually understand that they see only a fragment of existence.
---
"(2) Now chillbill can argue that at least some harmful mutations are necessary for the world ... perhaps to appreciate how good we really have it. I personally don't buy it, but for the argument from unnecessary suffering to hold, all it takes is for us to be able to achieve that greater good without that particular event of suffering. I think I can appreciate how good I have it by comparing my situation with that of ... say a child blind from birth. Hey, goal achieved with less suffering."
Perhaps the role of mutations in the evolution of life would be worthy of your consideration. Without them you might not "have it" at all let alone need to "appreciate how good we really have it."
On a humorous note though also quite serious: The mutated gene that causes ichthyosis, or a variant, may one day allow mankind to persist beyond the 'human extinction' that you feel global warming is about to cause. Certainly many seemingly random and 'unnecessary' mutations have had this role in the past.
---
"(3) Saying "God is nature" is meaningless as well with regard to this discussion. Nature doesn't "know" anything (it doesn't have its own independent conciousness to know anything). Nature cannot do everything that is logically possible to do. Nature doesn't have the best interests of the life within it in mind. Nature isn't omnimax. So the argument from unnecessary suffering holds."
Wow! We can really find a few FUNDAMENTAL differences here.
1) "Nature doesn't "know" anything (it doesn't have its own independent conciousness to know anything). "
Tiny components of nature, such as you, obviously do 'know' many things. These tiny components also share this knowledge in many ways, thus acting as a communal intelligence. This sharing of knowledge is so common that it appears to be universal among all creatures with any discernible intelligence. In the higher creatures this communal intelligence actually creates individual members of far greater intelligence than could have developed absent it.
That much we can be certain of based on very limited observations. What is uncertain is just how far these communal aspects of intelligence extend. Although some eight pound brains THINK they are the highest order of intelligence that exists they base this ridiculous assumption on nothing more than egotistical wishes to think they are superior.
2) "Nature cannot do everything that is logically possible to do."
I think it can. Give me examples of logically possible things that occur outside nature.
3) "Nature doesn't have the best interests of the life within it in mind."
I agree that if you accept the (baseless) assumption of a mindless nature this may be true on that criteria alone, but even then it is questionable. Nature gives EVERY form of life everything that it needs to survive. Within nature there is constant competition and often one life survives at the expense of another, but I should not have to point out to a biologist and Darwin biographer that this 'Tough Love' is 'necessary' and is the mechanism that has made advanced forms of life possible.
---
"Saying "God is nature" is useless in any discussion. Use the term "God" in that way only confuses things. Most people's idea of God is different than that. Why not use the term "NATURE" instead."
Both terms God and Nature carry assumptions with them. The earliest concept of Gods were forces of nature Fire, Wind, Sky, Lightning, Fertility, etc. Later these gods were given names, and stories that personified their traits became myths. Eventually the leaders of these pantheons evolved to be seen as a single deity or God of creation which encompassed all forces of nature. At least one such was actually called Mother Nature.
Eventually 'Natural Philosophy' evolved into science and the term Nature began to carry the assumption of impersonal mechanistic forces. This obviously ignores a very significant aspect of nature, Intelligence.
God is largely unknowable to creatures as small scale as Humans. To begin with an assumption that God must work outside of nature, ie be supernatural, is a straw man fallacy. Which is all your entire argument here consists of. You first define God as outside existence then declare after a few circular steps that he must not exist. Basically Atheist apologetics, nothing more. Certainly not logic.
---
"(C) Omnibenevolent -- has the best interests of each individual life within creation at heart."
As I said before this is an intricate concept that would obviously need to be defined quite extensively. For instance what occurs in the case that you and the chicken you want to eat have opposite 'best interests' at some point?
You obviously see this flaw:
"In that case what chillbill needs to justify is how God goes about prioritizing different individuals."
Unlike you, questions such as these exceed my pay grade.
---
"(4) God is only the creator of 100 billion + galaxies if he exists. If God isn't omnimax then he is flawed. If he is flawed then it is possible (likely?) that he doesn't exist at all."
I must have missed the meeting where they appointed you as the sole judge of Gods flaws.
---
"(3) By "rearranging [a] specific death" a being capable of feeling the pains associated with unnecessary suffering would not have to feel it. THAT by itself is enough to make the universe a better place ... unless you don't care about it. In which case you aren't omnibenevolent and you aren't omnimax."
Since each and every life includes pain and death every bit of it would have to be changed.
Once again we arrive back in your fantasy world with your fantasy God. No life as we know it is like this, why do you insist on fantasy over reality. By the simple virtue of being the real world is better.
---
"Chillbill says, "All manner of pain killers and hallucinogens are out there for you to avoid the sensory perceptions you find so horrible and 'unnecessary'". Erm ... the "sensory perceptions" I find horrible are ones that cause suffering. That means painful ones. The ones I find "unnecessary" (as defined in the argument from unnecessary suffering) are the painful ones that do not lead to higher good that couldn't have been achieved with less suffering. By use of the generalized term chillbill would like for you to think that I mean ALL sensory perceptions."
In the real world the same nerves feel both pleasure and pain. I can't say it any more honestly. If you know otherwise describe how you are going to re engineer our neurons to make it otherwise, or explain how it is in fact not so.
---
"Compared to curing cancer that should be easy to do."
What's up with this? You keep saying it in reference to every order you wish to give God. You do realize that cancer is already better than 50% cured.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
Chillbill is often an internet troll. He has shown himself to be much less than honest. A favored technique of his is to take small snippets of a post out of context and lie about it. Any reader would be well advised to verify the context of any quote and the validity of any reply used by chillbill. Should a reader do so and find something of value needing a response please post a reply below. Otherwise I'll not waste my time.
Thank you,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France