Answering Atheists

[firedragon]

So you don't believe rape or murder or anything else like that is evil? hmmm

I think you should clarify what she means. The Hindu philosophy has a very different idea about these things like evil and good. That dividing line is not so simple.

Just clarify.

 

[Magical Wand]

How does "abrahamic religions" differ from "classical theism" if I may ask?

Abrahamic religions can be understood as being in accordance with the definition of classical theism. Quote from wiki: "Classical theism is a form of monotheism. Whereas most monotheists agree that God is, at minimum, all-knowing, all-powerful, and completely good..."

 

[Aupmanyav]

Allowing suffering for a permanently lasting freedom from corruption, seems pretty moral to me.

Not to me. The better alternative would have been no suffering before or after (though I do not believe in any 'after').

 

[firedragon]

Abrahamic religions can be understood as being in accordance with the definition of classical theism. Quote from wiki: "Classical theism is a form of monotheism. Whereas most monotheists agree that God is, at minimum, all-knowing, all-powerful, and completely good..."

So you didnt mean to say abrahamic religions are different to classical theism!

Clarified. Thanks.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you didnt mean to say abrahamic religions are different to classical theism!

Clarified. Thanks.

I don't know where this fits in:
God, concepts of - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[jonathan180iq]

I find it amusing when theists presume to speak for Atheists without actually talking to them... We're right here. Ask us what we actually think.

None of the OP's points are Atheistic contentions that I've ever encountered. I actually find they have more in common with people simply questioning their own faith. They're contentions about the nature or character of a god, from a particular group of theists... But I digress.

An Atheist's contention might be, say, something like this: "I find the very idea of deities to be ridiculous. Can you give me one good reason why I should even stop to consider the existence of your magic invisible sky person?"

 

[Aupmanyav]

So you don't believe rape or murder or anything else like that is evil? hmmm

I think you should clarify what she means. The Hindu philosophy has a very different idea about these things like evil and good. That dividing line is not so simple.

Are you talking of things perceived or things as they are? As an Advatist Hindu (a believer in non-duality) and a strong atheist, I believe in two realities. What we perceive is a story created by our mind. This is a truth at a different level of reality. At the absolute level, there are only atoms and molecules, forces and energy. In that (absolute reality), there are no people, no rapes or murders.
Firedragon, the dividing line is very clear. Perception and actual.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I think you just demonstrated @KAT-KAT's point.

Sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain.

 

[nPeace]

That is specifically not an atheist argument. It is the definition of God presented by some monotheists (quite commonly in the contemporary western world). The problem of evil is one of the challenges to the idea of any being having all three of those defined characteristics. In my opinion, it tends to get caught up in too much theological debate when it isn't really a theological issue at all, just a logical one.

The OP does not say the argument is specific to Atheists. Nor does the title.
Answering Atheists arguments, refers to just that - answering Atheist's arguments.
It does not mean that Atheists created the argument, and incorporated it into an anthem. It just means Atheists use it, and they do.
They are Atheists right, not something else, when they do.

If God is omnipotent, anything God wanted to be would just be. If God is perfect, everything God created (therefore everything that exists) must be perfect.

Just be? Do you mean like magic, as we see on television... "Abrakadabra" "BRAM!".. that sort of thing?

Or do you mean like the Bible describes... where God worked, and progressively brought things to be?
If you mean the later. I agree... and that is just how it is. God is working to have his will be.
Jesus said his father keeps working up till now.

Unfortunately, some persons think that what they want, should be... at the snap of a finger.
We live in a fast passed world, and that's what we see, but God is not like that. He does things in his time, at at his pace, because it that his will might be... not ours.
(2 Peter 3:9) . . .Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.
(2 Peter 3:3, 4)

If something exists that isn't perfect, it would be logically impossible for there to be a perfect God that created everything. Either God created the imperfect thing (and so God isn't perfect) or something else created it (and so God isn't omnipotent).

Is that argument logical?
Let's consider it.
Perfect, I am going to assume, means, in this case, something out of line with what a perfect God wants.
Is it fair to assume that something cannot become defective on the part of another, other than the maker?

For example, a manufacture makes the perfect vehicle, and puts it on the market.
Someone purchases the vehicle. Takes it home, and does not follow the directions provided by the manufacturer. They are also reckless and careless with its use.
It results in problems.
Is the manufacturer to blame? Did he make an imperfect product, or did it become imperfect due to its misuse?

Some mistakenly think that perfection means, not subject to defect, but that view is not within line of the use of the term "perfect".
Perfect is relative.
The only absolute perfect one, or perfection is outside the universe - God.
He determines perfection, just as the manufacturer does with his products.

The manufacturer will say, "This one is perfect. This is not," and he will scrap the imperfect one, or make it better, because it does not meet his standard of what perfect is.
Likewise the creator. Perfection is relative to him. It's perfect to him, if it meets his standard.

So while the first man and woman were perfect when God created them. Their perfection was conditional. They were subject to defect if they failed to listen and obey.
That is what resulted from their disobedience.

(Deuteronomy 32:5) . . .They are the ones who have acted corruptly. They are not his children, the defect is their own.. . .

The specific definition of God provided here is self-contradictory. That doesn't necessarily mean no God exists, only that this definition is flawed.

Not if it was possible to have "lasting freedom from corruption" without the suffering (and with omnipotence, that must be possible). The only reason we would have suffering would be because God wanted us to have suffering. But how could unnecessary suffering be moral?

Think of it this way...
You commit murder. You are sentenced to die, based on the law, which is expected to be carried out, to serve justice.
Because of what you did, your six small children will suffer, as you were their only bread winner.

Should the law decide that you not be executed for your heinous crime, or should they execute you, and serve justice.... Even if it means that they and others can offer to help your children?
Now, please answer that with fairness, and not be biased because you are the one involved, and you want to get off the hook.

According to the Bible. Adam sinned, a sin deserving of death. God did not go against his standards of justice, and righteousness, by reversing the death penalty, even though Adam's sin brought suffering on all his children.

However, he offers help to Adam's children, in order to relieve them of their suffering, and grant them the glorious freedom of the children of God. Romans 8:18-25

Spoiler

(Romans 5:15-19)
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if by one man’s trespass many died, how much more did the undeserved kindness of God and his free gift by the undeserved kindness of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to many! Also, it is not the same with the free gift as with the way things worked through the one man who sinned. For the judgment after one trespass was condemnation, but the gift after many trespasses was a declaration of righteousness. For if by the trespass of the one man death ruled as king through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of the undeserved kindness and of the free gift of righteousness rule as kings in life through the one person, Jesus Christ! So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, so too through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is their being declared righteous for life. For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one person many will be made righteous.

Is that not moral?
What do you think. Is the law to blame for your children suffering, because they executed you?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I think you should clarify what she means. The Hindu philosophy has a very different idea about these things like evil and good. That dividing line is not so simple.

Just clarify.

I can't clarify what someone else means when it makes no sense to me. Surely she doesn't mean someone can commit rape or incest or murder and it is not evil to do so.

 

[Koldo]

Just be? Do you mean like magic, as we see on television... "Abrakadabra" "BRAM!".. that sort of thing?

Or do you mean like the Bible describes... where God worked, and progressively brought things to be?
If you mean the later. I agree... and that is just how it is. God is working to have his will be.
Jesus said his father keeps working up till now.

Unfortunately, some persons think that what they want, should be... at the snap of a finger.
We live in a fast passed world, and that's what we see, but God is not like that. He does things in his time, at at his pace, because it that his will might be... not ours.

Would you say that God can not do something like 'Abrakadabra' ?
Then he wouldn't be omnipotent, for omnipotence entails the utmost power.
Think of it like this: Who is more powerful, a being that does Abrakadabra or a being that needs to wait thousands of years to get what he wants?

 

[nPeace]

If you don't believe in evil, then the Epicurean Paradox doesn't really apply to your beliefs. It's mostly in relation to claims by people saying that god is both maximally powerful and good but still allows evil to exist.

People who say they don't believe in evil, I don't believe are stating their beliefs accurately.
If someone breaks someone's house, kidnaps and rapes a child. Tortures and kills it... to the Hindu, I ask, is that evil? What is it, if not evil? (I believe Hindus differ in beliefs, because i spoke to a Hindu, who believes that's evil)

However, I think they would be more accurate in saying, evil is determined by the person. So for example, one person may view a particular act as evil, but another may not. Somewhat like people today view morals.
So they do not believe is an "absolute" or standard of evil.

That seems more of an accurate concept to me.

 

[firedragon]

Are you talking of things perceived or things as they are? As an Advatist Hindu (a believer in non-duality) and a strong atheist, I believe in two realities. What we perceive is a story created by our mind. This is a truth at a different level of reality. At the absolute level, there are only atoms and molecules, forces and energy. In that (absolute reality), there are no people, no rapes or murders.
Firedragon, the dividing line is very clear. Perception and actual.

Is that an explanation of Evil and Good? No its not.

 

[firedragon]

I can't clarify what someone else means when it makes no sense to me. Surely she doesn't mean someone can commit rape or incest or murder and it is not evil to do so.

I didnt ask you to clarify TrueBeliever. I asked you to clarify from her. I may have said it wrong.

 

[AlexanderG]

Allowing suffering for a permanently lasting freedom from corruption, seems pretty moral to me.
How can that not be moral?
It would actually be evidence too of one who is all knowing, all wise and all powerful. Isn't it?

Because it would be more moral to simply create freedom from corruption, without suffering. Something plus suffering is less moral than the something alone. If a situation can be morally improved upon, then it is not morally perfect.

It may come down to how you define "morally perfect," but I've never heard a convincing argument that such a definition could include needless suffering.

 

[AlexanderG]

My primary objection would probably be to premise 4. If 'evil' is read to mean 'imperfection', then a pretty strong argument can be made that imperfection is necessary in order for life to be most perfect (or perfected).

What I mean by that rather paradoxical statement is this:

If a person never knows fear, he or she could never know courage.

If people never knew suffering, people would never know compassion.

So one might argue that a truly good and truly loving God might intentionally throw eternal souls out of heavenly bliss into human avatars in a sort of transitory video game environment so that they might fully develop as persons, so that they might come to know what the human virtues mean.

The problem with your argument is that it is entirely ad hoc, and it can be used to give equal, identical weight to the notion that this theistic god is evil. A god that introduces imperfections of "goodness" in order to achieve a greater evil. Either explanation sufficiently explains the state of affairs we see in the world, and both are ad hoc speculation. For example:

If a person never knows hope, they could never know true despair.

If people never felt comfort, they could never fully suffer in agony.

If people never felt love, they could never feel bereavement.

"So one might argue that a truly evil and truly hateful God might intentionally throw eternal souls out of heavenly misery into human avatars in a sort of transitory video game environment so that they might fully develop as persons, so that they might come to know what human suffering and degradation mean."

 

[Revoltingest]

One of the Atheists argument is as follows :-

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

Premise #1 doesn't apply to all religious views of gods.
Premise #5 is a bad assumption. What we call "evil"
could play some role we simply don't not fathomable
by mere humans.
God's existence isn't disproven.

 

[nPeace]

And what should a moral person do when they encounter suffering in this world? What should a moral person do if they encounter a hungry child, or a sick or injured child?

Should they allow suffering as this perfect benevolent God does?

If allowing suffering is the moral thing to do then obviously that is what a moral person should do. Right?

I think the dad who takes his bawling, tearful child to get an injection to protect it from some disease is morally upright.
I think the dad who allows his child to get an operation, though painful, and the child will have to face that pain for weeks or months, is morally upright.
What about you?

God is not oblivious to the pain of hungry children. I think of the pain of hungry people, when I am hungry, and don't hurry to eat.
God knows the pain better than I do.
Should God end the world now? Should he panic, and say, I can't take this suffering? Where would that leave you, or millions?
(2 Peter 3:9) . . .Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.
That sound quite moral, doesn't it?

No. God is patient. Unlike us, he does not panic. Unlike us, his hands are not tied, so that he can't do what we can't.

Spoiler

(Matthew 11:4-6)
In reply Jesus said to them: “Go and report to John what you are hearing and seeing: The blind are now seeing and the lame are walking, the lepers are being cleansed and the deaf are hearing, the dead are being raised up and the poor are being told the good news. Happy is the one who finds no cause for stumbling in me.”

Unlike us, God knows what is best, and he does what is best... in his own time, and way.
When we see the whole picture, we understand. When we see pieces of the situation, we judge it based on limited facts.
It's good to consider all the facts. That helps a lot.

Thus, not only is God morally upright, but he is loving, just, and wise... not to mention, we will all see his power... in most cases, in a way we wish we didn't. However, the righteous one will be blessed by that power... according to the Bible.

 

[nPeace]

Probably, but haven't you ever ridden you favorite roller coaster more than once? Or watch your favorite movie again?

Yeah. Especially do you enjoy it more, when you are seeing different things, which you might not have paid attention to before.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain.

Evil is in itself a loaded concept. Different cultures, religions, and even people have different concepts of "desirable and undesirable" from each other - some with something close to your idea of good and evil, some have something else entirely.

Everyone can agree that the examples you provide are horrendous, but to attribute something as "evil" is to give it extra meaning, just like "sin." Sin and evil only applies to folks who believe in sin and evil as concepts, and applies little value to those who don't. Do you see the value in Dharma? How about Frith? If you don't believe in those ideas, maybe apply that notion to those who do believe those things and look at your idea of what good and evil are.