Who's left?

[_Some Schmo]

I suppose it's too much to ask, but could someone explain in a Reader's Digest format what evil exists that isn't in some way connected to man? Because I don't see the weather, animal behavior, the presence of poisonous plants, etc to be evil. I think evil is manmade and man-supported.

If you think evil is man-made, then why ask? You've already determined a narrow definition for evil so that you can give your god a pass.

[_Res Ipsa]

Brad -

That's why Plantinga proposes a scenario where earthquakes are caused by agents. This doesn't have to be likely. It could be infinitesimally unlikely. It just has to be logically possible. You have to remember that people used to routinely argue that omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence together is logically inconsistent with the existence of the evils we see in the universe much in the same way that a shape being a square is inconsistent with it also being a circle. Plantinga's argument just shows a way where these two facts can be logically consistent. While there are holdouts, it is widely considered to be a successful argument by theist and nontheist alike.

Thanks EA. I do have to keep reminding myself that we are talking about logical possibility. But to make his argument with respect to natural disasters work, doesn't he have to modify the definition of omnipotent beyond the carving out of logical impossibilities? Doesn't he have to modify the definition of omnipotent to now read something like: "the power to do anything logically possible, except prevent agents from causing natural disasters? Unless it is logically impossible for god to prevent the natural disasters, however they are caused, I'm not seeing how he's escaped the logical impossibility argument.

[_mentalgymnast]

This has been, for me, the most difficult conversation to keep up with since I've participated on this board and yet the most stimulating/interesting that I've tried to keep up with. Thanks to Darth, EAllusion, and Gadianton for the education in some of the philosophical underpinnings for non-theistic belief. Within the realms of religious belief one can only go so far before defaulting to faith/testimony. Intellectually, for the average "Joe", which I would consider myself to be, there's a point at which it is difficult to go up against the intellectual arguments against the God of the prophets and Latter-Day restoration. As believers we then look to our spiritual life, our scriptures, our experiences, our studies (such as they my be from person to person), our observations made through the scientific findings of the day, and our own instincts, to choose our belief trajectory.

When it comes to creator/God belief and dovetailing that belief with the problem of evil, the greatest minds have tried wrestle with the problems associated with this difficult dilemma. I'm not one of those greatest minds , but I enjoy the conversation. The civility demonstrated during this conversation has been refreshing. If anything, I've been somewhat, "holier than thou" at times. Anyway, within the limits of my scope of intellectual development and theological understanding that's about as far as I can go with this conversation without becoming somewhat repetitive or preachy, and I'd just as we'll not get any more preachy than I already have.

I do have one more question that would help me understand you guys better. So, if you're non-theistic and also not nihilists, and yet have some form of god (?)"belief", what is that belief?

Regards,
MG

[_Res Ipsa]

This has been, for me, the most difficult conversation to keep up with since I've participated on this board and yet the most stimulating/interesting that I've tried to keep up with. Thanks to Darth, EAllusion, and Gadianton for the education in some of the philosophical underpinnings for non-theistic belief. Within the realms of religious belief one can only go so far before defaulting to faith/testimony. Intellectually, for the average "Joe", which I would consider myself to be, there's a point at which it is difficult to go up against the intellectual arguments against the God of the prophets and Latter-Day restoration. As believers we then look to our spiritual life, our scriptures, our experiences, our studies (such as they my be from person to person), our observations made through the scientific findings of the day, and our own instincts, to choose our belief trajectory.

When it comes to creator/God belief and dovetailing that belief with the problem of evil, the greatest minds have tried wrestle with the problems associated with this difficult dilemma. I'm not one of those greatest minds , but I enjoy the conversation. The civility demonstrated during this conversation has been refreshing. If anything, I've been somewhat, "holier than thou" at times. Anyway, within the limits of my scope of intellectual development and theological understanding that's about as far as I can go with this conversation without becoming somewhat repetitive or preachy, and I'd just as we'll not get any more preachy than I already have.

I do have one more question that would help me understand you guys better. So, if you're non-theistic and also not nihilists, and yet have some form of god (?)"belief", what is that belief?

Regards,
MG

What works for me is to dive into these kinds of issues for a while, thrash around, post until I get tired of looking like an idiot, then take a long breather and let it all sink in. Then take another run at it in a month or two (or year or two).

[_Some Schmo]

I do have one more question that would help me understand you guys better. So, if you're non-theistic and also not nihilists, and yet have some form of god (?)"belief", what is that belief?

Nihilism is defined as the "rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless." While I do reject all religion, I don't necessarily reject all religious principles (the golden rule is pretty good, for instance. Not killing is pretty decent advice too) and I certainly don't reject moral principles, depending on how you define morality (I don't think it's immoral, for instance, for people to have gay sex).

I also don't think life is meaningless. That's crazy-talk. I don't think there's some great, absolute meaning to it all; rather, meaning is a construct born in the minds of human beings. Since we create meaning, there is certainly meaning. We can't communicate without it.

The point, I think, is that you seem to have conflated issues of morality and meaning with ideas about the divine. That's your major misunderstanding, in my opinion. Morality and meaning, like all abstract concepts, are human inventions (or, more accurately, adaptations). There is no singular morality, or singular meaning; otherwise, everyone would agree on those things.

[_EAllusion]

I suppose it's too much to ask, but could someone explain in a Reader's Digest format what evil exists that isn't in some way connected to man? Because I don't see the weather, animal behavior, the presence of poisonous plants, etc to be evil. I think evil is manmade and man-supported.

Letting or causing suffering to happen when you are aware of it, have the power to stop it, and without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse, is evil. So when an earthquake causes suffering that is a problem for the assertion that God exists.

The problem of evil used to sometimes be called the problem of pain. "Pain" is too narrow, because there are kinds of suffering that aren't physical or emotional pain that are morally significant, but using that title might help clarify things for you. No one is morally blaming an earthquake. They are describing the pain that it causes to be a natural evil. Natural evil in this sense means a source of suffering that isn't caused by people's actions.

[_harmony]

I suppose it's too much to ask, but could someone explain in a Reader's Digest format what evil exists that isn't in some way connected to man? Because I don't see the weather, animal behavior, the presence of poisonous plants, etc to be evil. I think evil is manmade and man-supported.

Letting or causing suffering to happen when you are aware of it, have the power to stop it, and without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse, is evil. So when an earthquake causes suffering that is a problem for the assertion that God exists.

The problem of evil used to sometimes be called the problem of pain. "Pain" is too narrow, because there are kinds of suffering that aren't physical or emotional pain that are morally significant, but using that title might help clarify things for you. No one is morally blaming an earthquake. They are describing the pain that it causes to be a natural evil. Natural evil in this sense means a source of suffering that isn't caused by people's actions.

But you are giving your definition of evil, which may or may not be God's definition of evil (assuming God exists). So your whole argument seems kinda manmade to me.

If you thought the world was supposed to be pain free or suffering free or disaster free, I think you came to the wrong place. Pain, suffering, loss, disasters, all of that is just part of the world. Why would anyone expect anything different?

[_EAllusion]

But you are giving your definition of evil, which may or may not be God's definition of evil (assuming God exists). So your whole argument seems kinda manmade to me.

We've had this conversation before. If our conceptualization of what is good and bad is utterly foreign to talking about God, then you cannot claim God is benevolent and have that claim mean anything. Therefore, you cannot assert God as this uber powerful, knowing, and good being exists. Therefore the argument from evil made its point. Belief in God, at least the good kind, is unwarranted.

There is no ordinary sense of benevolent that does not entail preventing suffering at no cost to yourself when you know about it, can, and doing so will not thwart a greater good or cause a greater harm. A contentless assertion of benevolence is gibberish. You might as well declare God as having the property of flibberflarb. It doesn't tell us anything.

Pain, suffering, loss, disasters, all of that is just part of the world. Why would anyone expect anything different?

I don't expect anything different. But then again, I don't believe in God so I have no reason to expect anything else. You might be trying to employ crude version of what is called the Expectations Defense. Basically, it argues that because your religion says that if God exists these horrible things are bound to happen, it's therefore not inconsistent with your religion when they do. The gist of where this argument goes wrong is that it equivocates the abstract definition of God as omnimax with a god that is not. I'll post a substantive rebuttal of that argument later.

[_Gadianton]

I do have one more question that would help me understand you guys better. So, if you're non-theistic and also not nihilists, and yet have some form of god (?)"belief", what is that belief?

I don't have any beliefs in god.

Here's another question for you, as a response to the grain of your question:

Is God good because he's God, or is he God because he's so good?

If God is good by definition, then goodness is arbitrary.

If there is an external standard for what is good, then we don't necessarily need God.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

necrotizing fasciitis

This ought to put an end to the question of God and morality.

- Doc