Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That our morality is not perfect is an argument that we devised it, not a god.
I would differentiate between morality and the moral sense through which we detect it, and simply say there's no reason to demand/expect our senses (of any kind) to be made perfect on theism - particularly Christian theism. At least not until we leave this so-called "waiting room" and go to heaven.
Quote:
But that's an aside; iif a god handed it to us, one would expect that the god's own morality should be like that, but better.
Indeed, his moral sense would have to be better, because he's all-knowing, which is the whole point.
Quote:
If it is quite unlike it (and we argue that in Bible and in the way the world is allowed to work by a supposedly omnipotent being, it is quite unlike - and inferior - and you agreed with this to the extent that 'evil is in the world', though you attempted to excuse OT evils ordered by God) then we have a world where God is not doing what we would do - if we could - given a similarity.
I would definitely agree that if there's a god, he's not doing what we would do. But you've still not given a reason to think that what we would do is what should be done. And I agreed that there's evil in the world, but that is not to say that removing it (at least not yet, or never allowing it) is an actually higher - rather than a simply different - standard.
Quote:
The other argument is that, this is so, but the excuse for god is that there is a greater good that God knows and we don't and all this evil is somehow nullified by that postulated Ultimate Good, known only to God. This is undisprovable, but (I claim) not very convincing, shown by the numbers of believers (or former believers) who say that they have serious doubts because of the problem of Evil.
And I would say you need a whole lot more, than just a collection of Christians/former Christians who were swayed by a faulty argument (or the emotional version which isn't an argument at all but simply rhetoric).
I would differentiate between morality and the moral sense through which we detect it, and simply say there's no reason to demand/expect our senses (of any kind) to be made perfect on theism - particularly Christian theism. At least not until we leave this so-called "waiting room" and go to heaven.
A 'waiting -room' which is merely a faith - claim and has no evidential weight in the argument. We have to do the best we can with what we have, as for all the evidence tells us (aside from faith -claims) it is All that we have.
Quote:
Indeed, his moral sense would have to be better, because he's all-knowing, which is the whole point.
I would definitely agree that if there's a god, he's not doing what we would do. But you've still not given a reason to think that what we would do is what should be done. And I agreed that there's evil in the world, but that is not to say that removing it (at least not yet, or never allowing it) is an actually higher - rather than a simply different - standard.
Well, this is really the whole argument...all over again. On all evidence, there is evil in the world which (if we could) we would do something about with no effect on some 'greater good' that we can see. Yet nothing of the kind is done. The simplest conclusion is that there is no god there, whereas you argument that there is som good Purpose that we can't see is merely an excuse without explanation or support, and in fact, many do not buy that - or any of the other excuses.
Quote:
And I would say you need a whole lot more, than just a collection of Christians/former Christians who were swayed by a faulty argument (or the emotional version which isn't an argument at all but simply rhetoric).
Which is irrelevant, because the point is not what sways you, or not, but what sways them. They see it as a damn' valid argument and are not swayed by your empty dismissal of a valid argument as mere rhetoric and appeal to emotion.
And yet again..for an atheist who is merely arguing the counter case, you seem to be getting very emotionally involved in your dismissal.
There you go again. We're supposed to be assessing their doctrines as a whole, not editing some of them out to make arguments against their religion work. If we're going to suggest that the presence of x phenomena implies that Christianity isn't true, we can't be changing the characteristics of this religion for our convenience.
Quote:
On all evidence, there is evil in the world which (if we could) we would do something about with no effect on some 'greater good' that we can see.
So long as you aren't saying "There wouldn't be an adverse effect on a greater good", I agree. We would probably do things very differently. Now... should we? So as to say god should be doing it differently?
Quote:
The simplest conclusion is that there is no god there, whereas you argument that there is som good Purpose that we can't see is merely an excuse without explanation or support,
No, the simplest conclusion is that we do not know. And I did not say "There is some good purpose...", I said it's possible that there is, which means the problem of evil argument is incomplete. No one's been able to give a positive argument as to why we should think god couldn't have morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering/evil, even though this is a crucial premise if the argument's going to work.
No one's been able to give a positive argument as to why we should think god couldn't have morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering/evil, even though this is a crucial premise if the argument's going to work.
And you haven't suggested any even remotely probable or even speculative reason for an ultimate moral good to come out of such 'evil' acts.
Do you have one? You're the one that suggested the premise so one would think you have something in mind. No? If so, out with it.
If not, then that might just be why we mere mortals can't accept your "what if" speculation about it, because we can't either.
I used the word 'we' only because, at least so far, no one has .
And you haven't suggested any even remotely probable or even speculative reason for an ultimate moral good to come out of such 'evil' acts.
Do you have one? You're the one that suggested the premise so one would think you have something in mind. No? If so, out with it.
If not, then that might just be why we mere mortals can't accept your "what if" speculation about it, because we can't either.
I used the word 'we' only because, at least so far, no one has .
Again, I don't have to make a claim opposite the key premise (in the problem of evil argument). I would be making the same mistake. No, all I have to do is point out that the premise is not supported. There's no argument/evidence to substantiate "If god allows suffering, then he's malevolent, not all-loving, etc."
Again, I don't have to make a claim opposite the key premise (in the problem of evil argument). I would be making the same mistake. No, all I have to do is point out that the premise is not supported. There's no argument/evidence to substantiate "If god allows suffering, then he's malevolent, not all-loving, etc."
Speaking of the Biblical Christian god, this thread might explain it as well as anything. //www.city-data.com/forum/relig...n-abusive.html
You've gone further by bringing up the idea he may have some greater good in mind which you aren't supporting. Whether you agree that is a good argument or not, it is one.
One more than you've given for even bringing up such a premise.
Speaking of the Biblical Christian god, this thread might explain it as well as anything. //www.city-data.com/forum/relig...n-abusive.html
You've gone further by bringing up the idea he may have some greater good in mind which you aren't supporting. Whether you agree that is a good argument or not, it is one.
One more than you've given for even bringing up such a premise.
yes, it has been said. it is an argument. One that gets trounced in 5 seconds because a bad god and a good god are fairy tales. fairytales get trounced.
all that has been said is that its a weak argument for anybody with 1/2 a brain. That there are much better arguments.
"a greater good" is easy pickins. Good let stalin kill 50 million people because if he didn't, a greater evil could have come about. that we don't know of.
look at people that rise above abuse. The amazing lesson in resilience and overcoming that is taught.
We are back to the god of the gaps argument. The problem of evil does have an infinitesimal loophole, which is to say that as we do not have perfect knowledge, it is conceivable that we haven't thought of everything, and there may be a divinely good reason for child rape. After all, there may be a teacup in Earth's orbit on the other side of the sun.
Other than the fact that we do not know everything, it all seems to point to evil being a legitimate problem for Christianity.
I hope the christian god is comfortable hiding in that tiny gap.
Again, I don't have to make a claim opposite the key premise (in the problem of evil argument). I would be making the same mistake. No, all I have to do is point out that the premise is not supported. There's no argument/evidence to substantiate "If god allows suffering, then he's malevolent, not all-loving, etc."
vic, you are up against people that have have been indoctrinated into the belief that anything against "religion" must be encouraged at every turn no matter how valid or invalid. you are seeing that they don't care about how valid a claim is, or is not. only that anything they deem unworthy is put down.
a person with a 100 IQ can see the problem with evil means a problem with good. Pointing to "evil god" is a weak, second rate, line argument.
We are back to the god of the gaps argument. The problem of evil does have an infinitesimal loophole, which is to say that as we do not have perfect knowledge, it is conceivable that we haven't thought of everything, and there may be a divinely good reason for child rape. After all, there may be a teacup in Earth's orbit on the other side of the sun.
Other than the fact that we do not know everything, it all seems to point to evil being a legitimate problem for Christianity.
I hope the christian god is comfortable hiding in that tiny gap.
fish, your showing you lack of knowledge again.
god, in his love for creation, had to create what we see as it is. That if he stopped child rape he would have to stop everything.
maybe, god created every kind of universe that can be dreamed up by man. and we are just in this one. maybe we are in them all.
What I presented is a weak argument. the problem of evil is a weak argument.
you claim isn't any more valid than anybody's else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. On all evidence, there is evil in the world which (if we could) we would do something about with no effect on some 'greater good' that we can see. Yet nothing of the kind is done. The simplest conclusion is that there is no god there, whereas you argument that there is som good Purpose that we can't see is merely an excuse without explanation or support, and in fact, many do not buy that - or any of the other excuses.
