Evidence

[Enai de a lukal]

Not for the existence of God, no. Here's a quick recap- all deductive arguments for the existence of God, such as the ontological argument, the modal ontological argument, or the causal/cosmological argument, are either invalid or question-begging.

Worse, the theological conception of God presented by Christian writers is contradictory and incoherent. It includes pairs of properties which exclude one another, such as eternality and omnipotence, necessity and omnipotence, transcendence and existence, and others.

And the final nail in the coffin is that, since we don't arbitrarily add entities to our ontology, or start with an ontology pre-populated with an infinite number of entities which we must rule out, to posit the existence of God requires presenting some data, some evidence, which is uniquely accounted for by God. Since God is described, by the Bible as well as the entire Christian tradition, as having done this or that (i.e. in the world), there is certain necessary evidence, evidence which could not fail to obtain if Christianity is true, the absence of which necessarily constitutes evidence of absence.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

But that’s the argument from ignorance once again.

No the argument from ignorance is you with your finite knowledge ASSUMING that a being with infinite knowledge and moral goodness doesn't have a morally sufficient reason to allow suffering.

What we can certainly say about suffering is that it is cruel.

This is silly...so the guy that has a herpes breakout, he is suffering. If his suffering is cruel, who is responsible for the cruelty? God, or the man that had unprotected sex?

Now there is nothing contradictory in a Supreme Being making people suffer or being the author of wretchedness and misery for whatever reason; for the reason, that is to say the justification, is quite beside the point. The contradiction is where suffering takes place in the face of an all benevolent God.

Well I need to know specifically what kind of suffering you are talking about, because as I mentioned above, the man that has an STD outbreak is suffering, but it was because of his own actions. If you are talking about suffering in general, then your position is clearly false because as I mentioned previously, most things that cause us to suffer are the result of our own poor actions, and the other things that we suffer from that are beyond our control, God may have morally sufficient reasons for allowing such, although we may not be able to see it.

There is either suffering or there is no suffering, and there is either an all benevolent God or there is not. If you accept there is suffering then you must logically accept the conclusion, which is that God is less than all benevolent.

If God has a morally sufficient reason why he is allowing suffering, why should I accept the conclusion that he is less than all benevolent? People learn from suffering, and people can draw closer to God through suffering. There are many things people can learn from suffering..things that they may have only learned by suffering. And if I can think of these things, so can God.

It seems that he does, according to your arguments. For by your own admission he is a poor workman, whose very own creation is able to challenge and defy him.

I’ve never said nor implied that God is a poor workman, so where you get this “by your own admission” stuff, I don’t know.

And the free will defence is farcical for we have a supposedly omniscient being that punishes his creation for transgressions that he knew would occur.

So if I am omniscient and I know my son will drink and drive and he will crash into a light pole, harming no one but himself, I am wrong for punishing him despite me knowing what will occur??

And worse still he punishes the innocent, too!

Does he?

Human imperfection doesn’t present a logical problem and cannot be used to justify evil in the world; the distinction is seen in ‘John Smith is a murderer’ and God is a murderer’. John Smith can be benevolent towards his fellow men, or he can do evil, but if God the Creator is all benevolent then he cannot be sometimes all benevolent or never all benevolent.

Well apparently your definition of benevolence and God’s definition of benevolence are two different things. I will go with God’s definition.

Indeed no! But what wrong choices has eighteen-month infant done to deserve being punished with cancer?

From a Christian perspective we walk by faith, and faith is knowing that God is in control of everything. We accept that we may not have the answer to every question, but God does have the answer to every question and if God has the POWER to prevent a eighteen-month infant from getting cancer, but he allows it to occur, then there must be a reason why. God cannot and will guarantee our happiness 100% of the time.

Suffering is a feature of our world and parents have no option but to deal with it the best they can. The parents brought about the existence of the child via God and the parents themselves were caused by God and are essentially no different from their offspring in that respect. They too are finite, temporal, error-prone creatures. Therefore the parents cannot be held directly responsible for the child’s every action. But it is clearly mistaken to say an omnipotent God had no option but to create the world as we know it. For if God is the Absolutely Necessary Being then neither suffering nor the world itself exist necessarily but purely by his will alone. And if God was under no compunction to create the world then by the same argument we see that suffering is wholly unnecessary and unwarranted.

According to Christian theology, God cannot make a wrong decision. So if his decision is to allow a child (or otherwise) to suffer…that is the right decision. Just because you in your finite and limited knowledge don’t know or understand why God doesn’t act when YOU want him to act doesn’t mean that God is anything less than what he is said to be, and that is morally perfect. God’s ways are higher than our ways, and his thoughts are higher than our thoughts. God isn’t here to meet your expectations; you are here to meet his.

Suffering in order to overcome suffering! I’m sorry but that is sophistical in every way.
An infant suffering with leukaemia is born innocent into the world, and the inhabitants of a village are swept away in a tsunami. Are you really saying that is the work of an omnipotent, all sufficient and benevolent God and done for beneficent purposes?

Cot, no where in the bible does God guarantee our happiness. Bad things happen, get over it. Abraham was about to kill his son because God told him to. Abraham didn’t ask questions, he just did it because he understood that God will never tell him to do anything wrong. He placed his faith and God and understood that if God told him to do it, it must be the right thing to do. If God is allowing an infant to suffer in ANY WAY, it must be the right thing to do.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

To those of you who deny evolution for the idea that the earth is less than 10k years old...how do you explain us being able to see the light from stars Millions of light years away?

 

[adi2d]

Cot, no where in the bible does God guarantee our happiness. Bad things happen, get over it. Abraham was about to kill his son because God told him to. Abraham didn’t ask questions, he just did it because he understood that God will never tell him to do anything wrong. He placed his faith and God and understood that if God told him to do it, it must be the right thing to do. If God is allowing an infant to suffer in ANY WAY, it must be the right thing to do. [/QUOTE]


This is the part that I can't get my head around. I can't see how an infant suffering and dieing could ever be the right thing. The baby cant choose God and it seems to be pushing people away from believing in a benevolent God.

Just one of my personal stumbling blocks on my path. Babies not suffering would be evidence(remember the topic of this thread) but alas they do suffer and die

 

[Thief]

To those of you who deny evolution for the idea that the earth is less than 10k years old...how do you explain us being able to see the light from stars Millions of light years away?

The earth could be a creation more recent....
and we have telescopes.

Not that I believe the earth is more recent.
Just saying.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The earth could be a creation more recent....
and we have telescopes.

Not that I believe the earth is more recent.
Just saying.

Do you understand the nature of light? Light travels at a fixed rate. For us to see light from a source that is millions of light years away it must have been from MILLIONS of years ago. Telescopes are irrelevant.

 

[Thief]

Do you understand the nature of light? Light travels at a fixed rate. For us to see light from a source that is millions of light years away it must have been from MILLIONS of years ago. Telescopes are irrelevant.

But the earth could be a more recent event. (not that I believe it)

And without telescopes we might still be thinking the stars above were candles held steadfast by angels.

Calculation of distance would be difficult as well.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But the earth could be a more recent event. (not that I believe it)

And without telescopes we might still be thinking the stars above were candles held steadfast by angels.

Calculation of distance would be difficult as well.

If you don't think that then you have no rebuttle.

The second part makes no sense.

Calculation...is well within parameters. We KNOW for a fact that the light of some of the stars we see are millions of light years away ergo they were burning millions of years ago. A lot longer than 6 thousand years. We know this as indisputable fact.

 

[cottage]

No the argument from ignorance is you with your finite knowledge ASSUMING that a being with infinite knowledge and moral goodness doesn't have a morally sufficient reason to allow suffering.

You are utterly wrong on this! I can assume that he does have a moral reason and still the contradiction stands unassailed. God could have reasons justifiable in every respect according his own standard, whatever that might be, and it isn’t required of me to question those reasons or even to be aware of them in order to state the contradiction. You understand full well was is meant by the term ‘omnibenevolence’, which means the complete absence of any harm, pain or suffering so you are attempting to argue fallaciously on what is very plainly a false prospectus.

This is silly...so the guy that has a herpes breakout, he is suffering. If his suffering is cruel, who is responsible for the cruelty? God, or the man that had unprotected sex?

Suffering is cruel because it is not necessary. Herpes and cancer need not exist; that they do, according to your beliefs, is because God wills it to be so.

Well I need to know specifically what kind of suffering you are talking about, because as I mentioned above, the man that has an STD outbreak is suffering, but it was because of his own actions. If you are talking about suffering in general, then your position is clearly false because as I mentioned previously, most things that cause us to suffer are the result of our own poor actions, and the other things that we suffer from that are beyond our control, God may have morally sufficient reasons for allowing such, although we may not be able to see it.

All suffering is cruel because of the pain, anguish, and distress, howsoever or by whomever it is inflicted. There aren’t categories of suffering that let God of the hook, since nothing occurs that is not the omniscient God’s will.

If God has a morally sufficient reason why he is allowing suffering, why should I accept the conclusion that he is less than all benevolent? People learn from suffering, and people can draw closer to God through suffering. There are many things people can learn from suffering..things that they may have only learned by suffering. And if I can think of these things, so can God.

You have to accept the conclusion that God is less than all benevolent because it is self-evident. And that is why the dilemma is called The Problem of Evil and why there have been numerous theolodical responses by theologians over the centuries attempting to answer the problem; some have been very creative, comical even, and all fail due to the same one thing that cannot be denied without self-contradiction – ie the evidence that we see all around us and experience ourselves. And the argument you refer to is one of the poorest responses, ie where St Irenaeus said that evil was necessary for good, a soul-making process by which humans could grow and learn. That apologetic simply restates and confirms the problem, for it declares that God makes suffering a necessary condition for self improvement, and that conclusively demonstrates intention, for suffering it isn’t logically necessary; and if there is a requirement for lesser suffering, in order to grow and learn and avoid a greater suffering, then that is to say a God means for us to suffer.

I’ve never said nor implied that God is a poor workman, so where you get this “by your own admission” stuff, I don’t know.

I wasn't saying that literally in word-for-word terms, but self-evidently where Almighty God, the Supreme Being, is usurped by his own creation despite his supposed divine will then he demonstrates weakness or is a poor artificer.

 

[cottage]

So if I am omniscient and I know my son will drink and drive and he will crash into a light pole, harming no one but himself, I am wrong for punishing him despite me knowing what will occur??

Nope, not wrong at all. But if you were also omnibenevolent and omnipotent then there would be no possibility of that event occurring in the first place.

Does he?

Yes, he does! If you disagree then explain to me why a newborn child must suffer?

Well apparently your definition of benevolence and God’s definition of benevolence are two different things. I will go with God’s definition.

That’s okay. What you say actually makes sense. So what you refer to as ‘God’s benevolence’, whatever that might be, is wholly different from the general understanding of the term. But we know what God is not: caring, compassionate, considerate, charitable, kind, loving and protective.

From a Christian perspective we walk by faith, and faith is knowing that God is in control of everything. We accept that we may not have the answer to every question, but God does have the answer to every question and if God has the POWER to prevent a eighteen-month infant from getting cancer, but he allows it to occur, then there must be a reason why. God cannot and will guarantee our happiness 100% of the time.

That last sentence says it for me!
And once again it doesn’t matter in the least whether he has a good reason for making an eighteen-month infant suffer – just say those words aloud. Justification does not overturn a logical contradiction.

According to Christian theology, God cannot make a wrong decision. So if his decision is to allow a child (or otherwise) to suffer…that is the right decision. Just because you in your finite and limited knowledge don’t know or understand why God doesn’t act when YOU want him to act doesn’t mean that God is anything less than what he is said to be, and that is morally perfect. God’s ways are higher than our ways, and his thoughts are higher than our thoughts. God isn’t here to meet your expectations; you are here to meet his.

Seem to have to keep going over the same ground here. God, an omnipotent being, can make whatever decision he deems to be the correct one. That’s not a problem because I’m not posing a moral question here. The problem, for you, is how to extract God from the contradiction, which you know cannot be done. God’s ways may be higher than ours but he, like us, is still subject to the laws of logic. He is either all benevolent or he is not. And the plain fact of the matter is that suffering exists, which means God is not all benevolent.

Cot, no where in the bible does God guarantee our happiness. Bad things happen, get over it. Abraham was about to kill his son because God told him to. Abraham didn’t ask questions, he just did it because he understood that God will never tell him to do anything wrong. He placed his faith and God and understood that if God told him to do it, it must be the right thing to do. If God is allowing an infant to suffer in ANY WAY, it must be the right thing to do.

It’s no use quoting scripture at me as I reject it as nothing more than a doctrinal belief. And for the umpteenth time you are perfectly entitled to believe in the dogma that you’ve described, but it doesn’t alter the facts and the contradiction that arises. Your saying ‘God does not guarantee our happiness’ is the clearest statement that God is not all benevolent; so now you’ll be contradicting yourself if you maintain against all the evidence and your own words that he is.

 

[Thief]

If you don't think that then you have no rebuttle.

The second part makes no sense.

Calculation...is well within parameters. We KNOW for a fact that the light of some of the stars we see are millions of light years away ergo they were burning millions of years ago. A lot longer than 6 thousand years. We know this as indisputable fact.

And we know it for cause of telescopes.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

This is the part that I can't get my head around. I can't see how an infant suffering and dieing could ever be the right thing. The baby cant choose God and it seems to be pushing people away from believing in a benevolent God.

Just one of my personal stumbling blocks on my path. Babies not suffering would be evidence(remember the topic of this thread) but alas they do suffer and die

Indeed, there is no good way around it. We can come up with plenty of examples of absolutely unnecessary, pointless, gratuitous suffering- such as that in small children- the existence of which is logically inconsistent with the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God. The attempted answers to the PoE are always ************** attempts to justify the existence of evil, but they all fall short of the mark. The only way out of the knot is to either A. deny the existence of suffering, no small task since we can see it everywhere we look, every single day, or B. relinquish either the existence of God or at least one of the "tri-omni" attributes.

 

[idav]

Indeed, there is no good way around it. We can come up with plenty of examples of absolutely unnecessary, pointless, gratuitous suffering- such as that in small children- the existence of which is logically inconsistent with the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God. The attempted answers to the PoE are always ************** attempts to justify the existence of evil, but they all fall short of the mark. The only way out of the knot is to either A. deny the existence of suffering, no small task since we can see it everywhere we look, every single day, or B. relinquish either the existence of God or at least one of the "tri-omni" attributes.

How about not applying what we think is suffering to god. Maybe we are akin to silly children complaining for arbitrary things that we cause ourselves to a great extent. All knowing allows the knower to know that the pleasure we manage to find will cause suffering somewhere else without us being aware. Suffering is a result of being able to feel pleasure.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

How about not applying what we think is suffering to god.

This is tantamount to conceding that God is not all-powerful, then.

Suffering is a result of being able to feel pleasure.

Maybe, maybe not. At the very least this needs substantiation, and I'm not sure that it really helps with the PoE anyways.
***

And seriously, we can't even say "*****" on this site? What about if we're talking about a donkey? Talk about unnecessary and excessive censorship...

 

[idav]

This is tantamount to conceding that God is not all-powerful, then.

Not really, what is suffering to an all powerful being? Does having a bad day mean god doesn't love you or does an all powerful being need to hold our hands at every turn so that we can be coddled and kept away from harm? How are kids supposed to learn if they think the world is all pretty and fluffy all the time?

 

[cottage]

Not really, what is suffering to an all powerful being? Does having a bad day mean god doesn't love you or does an all powerful being need to hold our hands at every turn so that we can be coddled and kept away from harm? How are kids supposed to learn if they think the world is all pretty and fluffy all the time?

The Problem of Evil (also known as the Inconsistent Triad). In simple terms there cannot exist evil and a benevolent, omnipotent God.

And the problem may also be expressed, as ‘evil exists because’:

1) God can do nothing to prevent it occurring.

2) God is not aware that it is occurring

3) God doesn’t intervene in the occurrence

A direct contradiction is implied in each of the three examples: The first is not compatible with God’s omnipotence. The second is not compatible with God’s supposed omnipresence and omniscience (although, omnipresence and omniscience are generally considered a part of omnipotence). And the third is not compatible with the concept of a loving God.

If it is said that God, the Supreme Being, is the omnipotent creator who causes and conserves everything existent, then he cannot be other than what he is, that is to say he cannot be without power and he cannot fail to be the creator. So we accept (on those terms) that the notion of a Supreme Being, as the cause of our contingent existence, is logically possible. But now, in addition to those necessary attributes mentioned above, we add the terms ‘benevolent’ and/or ‘loving.’ The first thing we notice here is that ‘benevolence’ and ‘loving’ are simply arbitrary add-ons. No contradiction is involved if it is said that ‘God is the creator’, but the existence of evil demonstrates that it is self-contradictory to state that ‘God the creator is all loving’. The second thing to say is that evil exists not just as a concept, but also as a matter of fact. Therefore it is the evidential fact of evil, not how or why it is manifested, that is in question if there is a supposed omnipotent God of love and benevolence.

 

[idav]

The Problem of Evil (also known as the Inconsistent Triad). In simple terms there cannot exist evil and a benevolent, omnipotent God.

And the problem may also be expressed, as ‘evil exists because’:

1) God can do nothing to prevent it occurring.

2) God is not aware that it is occurring

3) God doesn’t intervene in the occurrence

A direct contradiction is implied in each of the three examples: The first is not compatible with God’s omnipotence. The second is not compatible with God’s supposed omnipresence and omniscience (although, omnipresence and omniscience are generally considered a part of omnipotence). And the third is not compatible with the concept of a loving God.

If it is said that God, the Supreme Being, is the omnipotent creator who causes and conserves everything existent, then he cannot be other than what he is, that is to say he cannot be without power and he cannot fail to be the creator. So we accept (on those terms) that the notion of a Supreme Being, as the cause of our contingent existence, is logically possible. But now, in addition to those necessary attributes mentioned above, we add the terms ‘benevolent’ and/or ‘loving.’ The first thing we notice here is that ‘benevolence’ and ‘loving’ are simply arbitrary add-ons. No contradiction is involved if it is said that ‘God is the creator’, but the existence of evil demonstrates that it is self-contradictory to state that ‘God the creator is all loving’. The second thing to say is that evil exists not just as a concept, but also as a matter of fact. Therefore it is the evidential fact of evil, not how or why it is manifested, that is in question if there is a supposed omnipotent God of love and benevolence.

Since god would be the all knowing being, not us, then it is safe to assume that only God would know if he were really being benevolent or not. We may not see the big picture and what we think will help could harm us in the long run. We can't assume this isn't the best of all worlds without more knowledge.

 

[adi2d]

Not really, what is suffering to an all powerful being? Does having a bad day mean god doesn't love you or does an all powerful being need to hold our hands at every turn so that we can be coddled and kept away from harm? How are kids supposed to learn if they think the world is all pretty and fluffy all the time?

We aren't talking about suffering with a bad hair day. We are talking about a baby born suffering and then dieing. No joy in the little ones life just suffering and death.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Since god would be the all knowing being, not us, then it is safe to assume that only God would know if he were really being benevolent or not. We may not see the big picture and what we think will help could harm us in the long run. We can't assume this isn't the best of all worlds without more knowledge.

Well the thing is that as an omnipotent being God can easily create an existence where suffering is just not necessary (what heaven is supposed to be like), but also preserve free will. So this existence at least seems to contradict a loving God, because there is suffering that under Gods omnipotence is not necessary. Saying that it might be part of a plan limits omnipotence and starts delving towards sadism. Especially when you notice good and bad happens indiscriminately to people.

 

[idav]

We aren't talking about suffering with a bad hair day. We are talking about a baby born suffering and then dieing. No joy in the little ones life just suffering and death.

Good thing suffering is a bad dream and death is an illusion.

Well the thing is that as an omnipotent being God can easily create an existence where suffering is just not necessary (what heaven is supposed to be like), but also preserve free will. So this existence at least seems to contradict a loving God, because there is suffering that under Gods omnipotence is not necessary. Saying that it might be part of a plan limits omnipotence and starts delving towards sadism. Especially when you notice good and bad happens indiscriminately to people.

A world without suffering would be a world without pleasure. We feel pleasure when we are healthy and when our cells start to die we feel suffering but this is a constant daily thing for organisms. Death never has full grasp as long as there are organisms still flourishing with life.

The very idea of pleasure is our cells perceiving something without going to the extremes which causes suffering. For example when you stroke your skin it is pleasant but if you scratch to hard it is painful. Pain is an extreme threshold of perception so without perception there would be no pleasure or pain. However all this is merely a manifestation of being in the material world which needs to be escaped in order to escape the cycle of suffering.