Further Proof there is No God

[_asbestosman]

asbestosman, why do you find those hypotheticals less compelling than the hypothetical that the creator embodies all that is good and just?

Personal experience. God is praiseworthy once you get to know Him.

I should have phrased this differently. What I meant was, is there any non-faith-based reason for thinking that goodness is a "non-negotiable, universal requirement for godhood"?

Yes.

While I find personal experience most compelling, I wouldn't want to state that there are no non-faith-based reasons for thinking that God must be good.

Furthermore, I'm not really sure that there are non-faith-based reasons for anything. The Lectures on Faith seems to indicate that without faith we can't really do anything.

[_Tiktaalik]

Personal experience. God is praiseworthy once you get to know Him.

The Greeks who had personal experience with Ares or Hermes found them praiseworthy too... but perhaps not because they were the embodiment of goodness.

I should have phrased this differently. What I meant was, is there any non-faith-based reason for thinking that goodness is a "non-negotiable, universal requirement for godhood"?

Yes.

While I find personal experience most compelling, I wouldn't want to state that there are no non-faith-based reasons for thinking that God must be good.

Then please help me out, because I'm unable to see the logical necessity.

Furthermore, I'm not really sure that there are non-faith-based reasons for anything. The Lectures on Faith seems to indicate that without faith we can't really do anything.

Yes, the fact that I sit down on a chair without a second thought is an act of "faith", but isn't that a little cliché to point out? "Faith" in that sense is necessary to accomplish anything at all in life, but at what point does it cease to be useful in furthering our knowledge of the world? Is it useful all the way up to the point of structuring our lives around the dictates of god for whom there's no real evidence?

People want to believe that their god is good and just because its appealling and comforting to believe so, but there really is not much evidence that this is the case (as pointed out by John Larsen's OP) and so people are left to claim that he MUST be good, and that we must simply take it on faith that his ways are higher than ours: we'll understand how good he truly is when we see the bigger picture.

Frankly, if my chairs vanished from under me 50% of the time and sent me crashing to the floor, I'd stop putting my faith in the fact that they MUST be reliable sitting devices and that it's merely my inability to comprehend the concept of "sitting" that's stopping me from seeing their true ass-sustaining goodness.

Edited to fix quotes.

[_asbestosman]

The Greeks who had personal experience with Ares or Hermes found them praiseworthy too... but perhaps not because they were the embodiment of goodness.

He is praiseworthy in a moral sense when you get to know Him.

While I find personal experience most compelling, I wouldn't want to state that there are no non-faith-based reasons for thinking that God must be good.

Then please help me out, because I'm unable to see the logical necessity.

I'm not sure I think it's a logical necessity so much as observation of how things are. Why is the speed of light in a vacuum always 299,792,458 meters per second? I don't know whether there's a logical necessity behind that fact. All I know is that such is the observed fact according to the laws of the universe. It is, in fact, a universal law and seems to be some sort of necessity for light.

Yes, the fact that I sit down on a chair without a second thought is an act of "faith", but isn't that a little cliché to point out?

You're the one asking me to separate faith from logic. I'm telling you why I don't think that's possible.

Is it useful all the way up to the point of structuring our lives around the dictates of god for whom there's no real evidence?

I find there is real evidence for God. On the other board, I recently started a thread about Zero Knowledge Proofs and faith. I believe that one can know God without being able to prove it to other people and I believe that Zero Knowledge Proofs offer an example of how that might be possible.

[_asbestosman]

It seems like you have a higher standard for dictators than for God.

I don't.

I also realize that the game is stacked against me. If I make the usual excuses for God, then I'm a monster because (according to the game's rules) I'd have to let an evil dictator off the hook as well. That would make me a monster.

Sorry if I don't feel like playing a game that's stacked against me. In fact I was mostly trying to shed light on that problem in an earlier post when I mentioned the word monster.

Personally I think tha the 12 officers story doesn't quite apply to God. I have my reasons, but I refuse to play a rigged game. The best I'll do is acknowledge that if a mortal like you or I refused to help someone avoid suffering, I'd find that despicable.

Also, how much can a person believe all this "God has a higher perspective" stuff, and still be able to make any sense of the statement "God is good"? What does it mean to say that "God is good" if it's impossible for us to judge His actions?

What if it means that we don't always understand God's reasoning, but we know Him well enough to know that He's truly doing things in the best possible manner--one that will grant the most happiness in the end? Talk about dictators duping us in a similar way all you want, but ultimately I think everything comes down to a combination of faith and reason.

[_EAllusion]

If you define God as necessarily perfectly good, then one must recognize that a being referred to as God, such as the God of the Bible, need not be God in this abstract sense.

As a second point, part of "getting to know God" is to know all the ostensible evidence of his/her/it/they 's tremendous evil we have before us if said being were to exist. One hopes that Ab isn't the type to claim we can't understand God's mysterious ways when evidence against God's goodness is before him, but also at the same time claims that he can understand God's ways to the extent that things count in favor of his goodness. That's just special pleading.

[Analytics]

That's just special pleading.

When you rig the game against believers, there's not much left is there? I'd be a monster if I said I thought it was okay for God to let us suffer for any of the reasons the 12 officers give whether individually or collectively since the game's rules clearly demonstrate that such reasoning wouldn't be very noble if applied to a mere mortal.

So what could be different about God? Could differences matter? I think they could. For a different and non-parallel example, consider what we think of a man asking probing questions to a teenage girl about her sexual activity. Terrible, isn't it? What if that man is a police officer trying to obtain good evidence to put a rapist behing bars? Context is important. Again, I don't claim that this is directly transferrable to God, but I do think that something of that nature plays a role in why the 12 officers parable fails for me.

[_JohnStuartMill]

It seems like you have a higher standard for dictators than for God.

I don't.

I also realize that the game is stacked against me. If I make the usual excuses for God, then I'm a monster because (according to the game's rules) I'd have to let an evil dictator off the hook as well. That would make me a monster.

Sorry if I don't feel like playing a game that's stacked against me. In fact I was mostly trying to shed light on that problem in an earlier post when I mentioned the word monster.

What do you mean, the game is stacked against you? There are no premises assumed in the Argument from Evil that believers in God don't accept. Saying the game is stacked against you is essentially an admission that your position has no merit.

Personally I think tha the 12 officers story doesn't quite apply to God. I have my reasons, but I refuse to play a rigged game. The best I'll do is acknowledge that if a mortal like you or I refused to help someone avoid suffering, I'd find that despicable.

Again, how is the game "rigged", exactly?

What if it means that we don't always understand God's reasoning, but we know Him well enough to know that He's truly doing things in the best possible manner--one that will grant the most happiness in the end?

Then you have to take the position that all the apparently bad things in the world are actually good things. You have to say that Hurricane Katrina was a good thing. You have to say that the Southeast Asian tsunami was a good thing. You have to say that unspeakably painful incurable diseases are a good thing. You have to say that animal homosexuality is a good thing, interestingly enough.

In my view, if all these are "good" things, then that word no longer has any meaning.

Talk about dictators duping us in a similar way all you want, but ultimately I think everything comes down to a combination of faith and reason.

The two are mutually exclusive. If you retreating to faith as a justification, it's only because your reason is getting the "wrong" answer. (Reread that last sentence, and examine it with your spiritual life in mind, and be really honest with yourself as to whether or not it's true.) Don't you think it's pathetic that you're willing to give up your agency of thought whenever it conflicts with the supernaturalism your parents inculcated you with?

[_asbestosman]

There are no premises assumed in the Argument from Evil that believers in God don't accept.

The game that is stacked against me is the 12 officers parable. I don't think it applies to God and I hinted as to why.

Then you have to take the position that all the apparently bad things in the world are actually good things. You have to say that Hurricane Katrina was a good thing. You have to say that the Southeast Asian tsunami was a good thing. You have to say that unspeakably painful incurable diseases are a good thing.

Just think of what a monster I'd be if I do. I can see the 12 officers parable proving it too.

You have to say that animal homosexuality is a good thing, interestingly enough.

Interestingly enough, it doesn't bother me. You might have tried using animal infanticide as a harder example for me.

In my view, if all these are "good" things, then that word no longer has any meaning.

If the circumstances are as you imagine or as you likely imagine that I imagine, I'd even agree.

The two are mutually exclusive.

No they aren't. Aren't assertions fun? Neither of us has done anything to show who's right about faith vs reaon--well, unless you look at my earlier conversation with Tiktaalik.

Don't you think it's pathetic that you're willing to give up your agency of thought whenever it conflicts with the supernaturalism your parents inculcated you with?

That would be pathetic. Good thing I don't do that.

[_harmony]

Frankly, if my chairs vanished from under me 50% of the time and sent me crashing to the floor, I'd stop putting my faith in the fact that they MUST be reliable sitting devices and that it's merely my inability to comprehend the concept of "sitting" that's stopping me from seeing their true ass-sustaining goodness.

Finally! Someone who can adequately explain why I always check the toilet seat prior to sitting down.

[_asbestosman]

Finally! Someone who can adequately explain why I always check the toilet seat prior to sitting down.

Oh ye of little faith.