Further Proof there is No God

[_EAllusion]

What you keep referring to as a "game" I would instead refer to "logic" or, perhaps, "reason."

[_asbestosman]

What you keep referring to as a "game" I would instead refer to "logic" or, perhaps, "reason."

And I might also refer to it as "prejudice".

The problem with your your "logic" or "reason" as I see it is that it only serves to convince you that you're right. It remains wholly unconvincing to me because I feel it is an invalid analogy. It's not that God has no standard by which He can be judged, but rather that I'm sure that yours doesn't apply. I believe that God does not delight in wanton suffering, but I don't expect you to find my current notions to be acceptable or convincing. Ever. That's what your "logic" or "reason" dictates. Ultimately we are at an impass.

I think it possible that there's really no point in further discussion. Did you learn anything new about a believer's point of view, or did it merely confirm what you suspected about us? I woudln't say it's been wholly wasted for me. If nothing else, I believe it has caused me to reflect a bit more on my understanding and experience with God.

[_EAllusion]

The problem with your your "logic" or "reason" as I see it is that it only serves to convince you that you're right.

I think you have the order backwards. I think what I do because I think it reasonable, I don't think it reasonable because it is a prior position I hold. There are atheological arguments I don't buy, and I feel no special commitment to the EAE.

It remains wholly unconvincing to me because I feel it is an invalid analogy.

The argument from evil isn't intended as an analogical argument. It's not analogy to be invalid or not. If you are really saying something like, "God can't be judged on human standards" here, then that applies to goodness just as much as badness. And if you only allow the former but not the latter without any compelling basis, that is rather blatant special pleading. Call that a game, but what you are calling a game is, again, fairly straightforward logical analysis. If it doesn't make sense to say it is unlikely a good God exists where good is defined in coherent way that comports with our understanding of what it means to be good or bad then it also shouldn't make sense to say there is a good God. And that's important, because the goodness of God - in human terms - is a core claim of most religious viewpoints. It also is a claim that often underwrites other claims, such as God not being a liar. After all, it is only by our simple, limited human terms that we think wanton lying is something a good being does not do. Maybe according to morality from a different, higher perspective that's not true, but then calling an entity "good" in that mysterious sense provides zero content for us as to how such an entity will act. You could then replace the word "good" with the word "flibbaleflabble" and be saying just as much.

If you are referring specifically to the 12 officers parable, it's meant just as a device to let readers think about their theodicies and defenses and whether they actually excuse as they think they do. It should cause people to reflect on their own understanding of what it means to be good and bad and whether if God were to behave or be excused in the manner their defenses dictate, if that would comport with that understanding.

I believe that God does not delight in wanton suffering, but I don't expect you to find my current notions to be acceptable or convincing. Ever. That's what your "logic" or "reason" dictates. Ultimately we are at an impass.

I'm not suggesting God delights in anything. I'm simply stating that 1) a perfectly benevolent being would prevent pointless (morally unjustified) suffering from happening and 2) it appears likely there exists at least some pointless suffering. To the extent that it is likely some pointless suffering exists, that counts as evidence against the existence of a God who is perfectly good and would have the knowledge and power to stop it.

I think it possible that there's really no point in further discussion. Did you learn anything new about a believer's point of view, or did it merely confirm what you suspected about us?

There are lots of different "believers point of views" out there. I don't need to suspect anything, as I'm intimately aware of many of them and have interacted with the most contemporary theological writing on the subject. For what it is worth, you'll find most of the theodicies referenced in that parable are thought of by even most theologians as tepid or woefully inadequate and would accept what you call a "game" as a good reason not to rely on them.

Being a believer in God doesn't require one to accept every dumb argument that comes down in God's favor. At the end of Mark Vuletic's 12 Officers piece, he makes a point that bears repeating here:

I have found that religious believers are often conditioned to accept trite solutions to the problem of suffering, and that it is all but impossible to shake that conditioning through dry analysis. The temptation to offer to an entity a moral blank check simply because it sports a nametag with "God" written on it, is overwhelming in our theistic culture. Hence, this attempt to make the point through a medium as far removed from dry analysis as possible.

That's what he's going for there.

[_asbestosman]

For what it is worth, you'll find most of the theodicies referenced in that parable are thought of by even most theologians as tepid or woefully inadequate and would accept what you call a "game" as a good reason not to rely on them.

I find the explanations to be woefully inadequate, but I find my personal experience with God to be more than sufficient. Unfortunately I do not believe that such an experience is transferrable, nor would I expect you to take my word for it. In fact I might call you evil if you did.

I also realize that I am not a theologan--at least in the sense of having any degree of skill in that area. What I do know is that my own personal reasons for believing in God and His moral goodness are not adequately explained away by any atheist positions I have read. Every one of them has been woefully inadequate to explain my personal experience with God--at least to me. I'm sure they're adequate to some.

Being a believer in God doesn't require one to accept every dumb argument that comes down in God's favor. At the end of Mark Vuletic's 12 Officers piece, he makes a point that bears repeating here:

I have found that religious believers are often conditioned to accept trite solutions to the problem of suffering, and that it is all but impossible to shake that conditioning through dry analysis. The temptation to offer to an entity a moral blank check simply because it sports a nametag with "God" written on it, is overwhelming in our theistic culture. Hence, this attempt to make the point through a medium as far removed from dry analysis as possible.

That's what he's going for there.

I suppose that´s a noble enough goal. I reiterate though that I do not consider it to adquately explain away my experience with God and my confidence in His moral goodness. Now of course God is all smart and could trick me. He could be the ultimate con-man, but I find that proposition to be even less likely than the proposition that my mother didn´t love me (and I'm sure she did and does).

[_EAllusion]

I find the explanations to be woefully inadequate, but I find my personal experience with God to be more than sufficient. Unfortunately I do not believe that such an experience is transferrable, nor would I expect you to take my word for it. In fact I might call you evil if you did.

Ok. Let's put this in a box and label it "reasons I have to think a perfectly benevolent God exists."

All I'm saying here is that we also have good reason to think at least some pointless suffering exists. Let's put that in a box and call it "reasons I have to think a perfectly benevolent God does not exist."

Now you might argue that the contents of box 1 outweigh the contents of box 2. Ok. Let's bracket that belief for a moment. What you also appear to be disputing in this thread is that the evidential argument evil is sound at all. In fact, you seem to dismiss its rationale as a "game." Heck, you've even dismissed criticism of most of the common responses to that argument. That's what I, and I imagine some others, are taking issue with.

Now of course God is all smart and could trick me. He could be the ultimate con-man, but I find that proposition to be even less likely than the proposition that my mother didn´t love me (and I'm sure she did and does).

To the extent you have legitimate reasons to think your mother loves you, and I think you do, I don't think those kind of reasons transfer over to the benevolence (in a coherent human sense) of God. I don't even think they transfer over to the existence of any sort of God. So I think this would be a great example of an analogy that isn't carrying much of the load for you.

[_Some Schmo]

I think the only way I could ever go back to some kind of god belief is if I were to think of it in terms of "manufacturer vs owner." The creator of the universe is in the business of making universes, but how they're actually run is up to the dude who buys them.

It's like a car owner: some car owners treat their cars really well, while others drive them into the ground. I think our owner is some dumb, irresponsible teenager who really shouldn't have a license in the first place. That would explain the wonder of the universe while accounting for evil simultaneously.

[_Roger Morrison]

And I from my perspective would always condemn it because it is impossible for me to accept what I see as pointless or inexcusable suffering just as I would always condemn a dictator who tried to justify his atrocities even if said dictator claimed he was perfectly moral and had a higher perspective.

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

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?

Sort-of makes the point: There is not a God as taught in scripture. Jesus sensed that when he told the Jew's religious hiearchy, "You do not know God!"

For which he was executed...one of countless--for speaking the truth...

This no-God-state IS a difficult one to acknowledge for believers on most levels. For with no God, it is hard to imagine Heaven, where God is said to live, and there from rules the Universe and human affairs...

It is easy to imagine ancient, ignorant primitives believing in such an entity. But it is difficult to undersand modern, educated--beyond secondary school--humanity believing in that self-same God of the past, and the promises of another Heavenly existance... And/or EXALTATION and all that implies for Mormons... Whence cometh emancipation from this captiviting darkness?
Roger
*
*

[_Calculus Crusader]

Sort-of makes the point: There is not a God as taught in scripture. Jesus sensed that when he told the Jew's religious hiearchy, "You do not know God!"

Don't pretend that your bald assertions have Jesus' imprimatur.

For which he was executed...one of countless--for speaking the truth...

This no-God-state IS a difficult one to acknowledge for believers on most levels. For with no God, it is hard to imagine Heaven, where God is said to live, and there from rules the Universe and human affairs...

It is easy to imagine ancient, ignorant primitives believing in such an entity. But it is difficult to undersand modern, educated--beyond secondary school--humanity believing in that self-same God of the past, and the promises of another Heavenly existance... And/or EXALTATION and all that implies for Mormons... Whence cometh emancipation from this captiviting darkness?
Roger
*
*

Once again, Roger Morrison has confused his pretense of learning with evolved sensibilities.

[_Roger Morrison]

From Calculus Crusader:

Roger Morrison wrote:
Sort-of makes the point: There is not a God as taught in scripture. Jesus sensed that when he told the Jew's religious hiearchy, "You do not know God!"


Don't pretend that your bald assertions have Jesus' imprimatur.

"Pretend" what? That Jesus didn't tell them, that if they knew God, they would know him? Or that Jesus did not dispute with Scribes et al calling them hypocrites, whited selpulcures.

It seems obvious that Jesus and the officials of the Church they had in common, did not agree on the disposition of God. Jesus introduced the New God with Two New Commandments. He up set not only the tables in the Temple, but of greater consequence the sacrificial industry under the exclusive franchise of Aaron's tribe...

Roger Morrison wrote:
For which he was executed...one of countless--for speaking the truth...

This no-God-state IS a difficult one to acknowledge for believers on most levels. For with no God, it is hard to imagine Heaven, where God is said to live, and there from rules the Universe and human affairs...

It is easy to imagine ancient, ignorant primitives believing in such an entity. But it is difficult to undersand modern, educated--beyond secondary school--humanity believing in that self-same God of the past, and the promises of another Heavenly existance... And/or EXALTATION and all that implies for Mormons... Whence cometh emancipation from this captiviting darkness?
Roger



Once again, Roger Morrison has confused his pretense of learning with evolved sensibilities.

C.C. I'm not sure that I understand your above sentence. Will you please explain what you mean?
Respectfully, Roger
*
*

[_JAK]

I think the only way I could ever go back to some kind of god belief is if I were to think of it in terms of "manufacturer vs owner." The creator of the universe is in the business of making universes, but how they're actually run is up to the dude who buys them.

It's like a car owner: some car owners treat their cars really well, while others drive them into the ground. I think our owner is some dumb, irresponsible teenager who really shouldn't have a license in the first place. That would explain the wonder of the universe while accounting for evil simultaneously.

Some Schmo,

While there is no evidence for gods (previously) or for God as some presently claim, the issue of “evil” and “wonder of the universe” as you mention is a matter of perception. What may be a “wonder” to one may be ho hum to another. I recall the first time I marveled at the scope and breadth of the Grand Canyon, a 10 year-old whom I did not know and who was looking at the same view remarked: “Yeah, just a big hole in the ground.” While he didn’t see it as “evil,” neither did he see it as a “wonder.”

Dick Cheney saw and still sees Guantanamo Bay as a good thing while most of the rest of the world sees it as a place where the US government systematically tortured prisoners. While it could hardly be characterized as a “wonder of the universe,” it could be characterized as “evil.” Yet the Bush administration saw it as good, necessary, and in the national interest of the US.

Embryonic stem cell research is seen by many as medical science which could open a “wonder of the universe” in a cure for such dread diseases as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s that afflict many. Others see such research as “evil.”

Understand this is not an objection to your observation, but rather it is an extension to probe perception regarding the divergent views on what is a glimpse into a better future and what is an exercise in “evil.”

JAK