The problem of evil

[Archaeopteryx]

Science takes just as much faith, if not more faith, than believing in God.

No it doesn't.

Science does not even come close to answering all of the questions that it claims to have answered and it has still put forward its theories as absolute, indisputable fact.

If science cannot answer some difficult question, it doesn't follow that religion can.

Your choice. In that view however, every single one of us can say the same. Even someone like Hitler or Stalin could say this. And if such a view is correct, then such people have done absolutely nothing wrong. They were living their lives the way they believed was right, so it must have been right, because what is right or wrong is of course, in your view, up to each person individually. And don't forget, Hitler and his Nazis thought they were doing humanity and our species a huge favour by creating a "master race."

Morality is about wellbeing, which is objective. Hitler's actions had real objective consequences for people's wellbeing. What should worry you more is how easily Hitler could have justified his actions by appealing to "God's will." In fact, he did exactly that, stating in Mein Kampf, "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."

No, if God is real, He is the creator of everything and the righteous judge of everyone. If God is real, His standards are the true ones that exist far and above us as creation. If God is real, He is truth and He, as the One who created all of us and all we see, gets to say what is truly good, and what is not. It would not in that case be up to our subjective and differing opinions.

Enter Euthyphro: is it good because God says so, or does God say so because it is good?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Science does not always readily admit when it could be wrong or is limited.

Yes it does! Have you read a scientific paper? There's usually a portion where the authors reflect on the limitations of their study and consider ways to overcome them. Scientists are usually cautious when discussing the conclusions drawn from their work because they recognise that any reckless inferences are easily detected by other scientists.

It claims to have indisputable evidence as to the origin of life and the universe for example, and yet the very nature of science requires that something is reproducible and verifiable in a study or experiment.

Rubbish! You're thinking of religion, not science. Religion claims to know the answers to these questions. Science acknowledges that they are questions that we don't know the answers to and are therefore worthwhile investigating.

Yet, when science makes claims about the origin of life, the earth and the universe, it is making claims about things FAR beyond its reach.

These questions are not beyond the reach of science at all: they are the province of biology, chemistry, geology, and astrophysics.

It is absolutely true. If there is no objective standard, than there is no basic morality to hold to. Rather, in a completely subjective world, anything goes. I understand why you don't like that reality, but it is true nonetheless.

This is a non sequitur. If morality is subjective, it doesn't necessarily follow that "anything goes." You are conflating ethical subjectivism with moral relativism or nihilism. The subjectivist isn't committed to saying "anything goes," morally speaking. All the subjectivist says is that moral propositions are subjective (i.e., they are about states of mind).

God creating us has absolute bearing on the true and objective reality of good and bad. God and His character are the absolute standard of right and wrong. He's God, not us.

What makes God's say-so moral?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Do you know without a shadow of a doubt that there is no God? Can you prove it?

Beginning at 6:37:

Do you know without a shadow of a doubt that the universe was created by nothing, from nothing, for absolutely no reason? Can you prove it?

Or absurd like the idea that something (everything) came from nothing.

Who says that the universe was created "from nothing"? If you are doctrinally committed to creatio ex nihilo, then that would be you.

If you do not know or cannot prove it, you have to have "faith" in science and your own understanding to believe it. To believe in the scientific "theories" on the origins of the universe requires "faith".

We acknowledge that we don't know how the universe came to be, and that this question is worthwhile pursuing. In what way does that require faith?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I didn't say science isn't trying to figure out ANYTHING anymore, I said that there are certain things they have already claimed are absolute fact, and they present these claims as indisputable truth in multiple places in the public arena, every single day. You really need to read what I've written more carefully.

When a claim is tested repeatedly and the overwhelming preponderance of evidence indicates that it is very likely to be true, a scientist is justified in presenting it as such. As I said earlier, scientists are usually cautious in the claims that they are make. This is particularly the case when the claim being tested has only limited support from only a few studies. However, when the claim is rigorously tested and widely supported, why should the scientist be overly cautious in presenting it as most likely to be true?

You alluded to museums earlier, which is interesting because museums tend to present such claims. The latest research, by contrast, is found in journal articles, and is couched in cautious language as the claims are still being debated among scientists. However, museums don't tend to present "the latest research." They may allude to "ongoing debates," but by and large, museums focus on what has already been widely accepted.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media often does a poor job of presenting the "latest research" as "settled science," and (in the US at least) presenting "settled science" as an "ongoing controversy in the scientific community." One often finds poorly written articles that imply, for example, the discovery of a "cure for Alzheimer's disease," even though the scientists never used the word "cure" and the original study was conducted on rats. Such articles are abundant and can cause a great deal of confusion. John Oliver recently discussed this issue on Last Week Tonight:

 

[Hikarifuru]

Actually, true and honest science does not "dismiss" God. True and honest science admits that God, if He exists, is beyond the reach and study of science. Science can neither prove nor disprove God. So, I don't know what reasoning you're using to dismiss God, but it's not science.

A regard for science would not equally dismiss the need for science, a regard for logic would not in turn dismiss the need for logic. Does that make sense?

It's like using a logical principle to prove that logical principle isn't true. If you regard science and logical rules to be important, you don't then somehow arrive at a place of not needing those rules. This is why you can't actually have a logical reason to no longer need logic. Either your reason wasn't true or you didn't actually prove what you claim to.

You can't use science to establish the existence of something that is outside all of science, that argument turns in on itself. The reason people think you can do this is because they are simply committed to belief in this god existing in the first place. I do not know how I exist but I know gods are not scientific or logical so I do not believe in them.

 

[Hikarifuru]

Have I backed you into a corner? Why are you avoiding the question? Answer the question, what is the difference between "murdering" and "killing"?

I was demonstrating why your question was not relevant to my point. I was demonstrating why the acts in question are murderous, because they would be murders.

 

[Hikarifuru]

Or absurd like the idea that something (everything) came from nothing.

I don't know how I exist but presenting one illogical belief and demanding that I believe it does not make your admittedly illogical belief more reasonable. I stop at I don't know, you accept having illogical beliefs simply because you need them.

 

[Hikarifuru]

Your problem is with God, not with me or anyone else. One day you can take that up with Him.

Well yes, if this god was real I would indeed have a problem with him. But do you understand that psychopaths feel like something is right or wrong depending on who says to do it?

If a person couldn't have morals without god or without their previous objective reasoning that would make them a sociopath.
If a person feels like something is right or wrong depending on who said it that they displaying psychopathic tendencies?

If I object to your god sending a rapist to rape my child and then you tell me to go take it up with god because he's god... well then you're the one without a moral system of your own and you're the dangerous one.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Let me make myself more clear.

I never stated I could prove a God doesn't exist.

I stated based on the evidence, I have no reason to believe a God exists.

In regards to the claims of Christianity, I could not longer reconcile this theology, based on not being able to reconcile it with well evidenced reality.

Furthermore, I never stated I relied on science to not believe a God exists and science has nothing to say about whether a God exists or not. My conclusion is simple; no evidence to support this belief.

A quick question for you; could you be mistaken about whether a God exists?

The Messianic Manic said it best (from 1:22 onward): "I don't attempt to show that god doesn't exist. I simply try to explain why I am not convinced that god exists."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Faith, is based on trust with a lack of knowledge or understanding. You trust that in time, science will "fill the gaps".

No, we hope that through continued inquiry we may be able to alleviate our ignorance and expand our understanding of how things work.

 

[Hikarifuru]

And the "big bang theory "is logical even though it goes against the scientific laws of thermodynamics and physics? I guess if you want to disbelieve God enough scientific laws can be thrown out the window...huh?

I'm simply saying that god isn't logical... you making caims that other things aren't logical wouldn't change that. You're not actually presenting that your belief is reasonable or true, you're demanding that people stop caring.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The problem that I have with science and those who uphold it as the absolute answer to everything, is that such a view is arrogant. None of us have all of the answers to everything, and yet science has made absolute claims of truth on things it hasn't even come CLOSE to proving.

But we aren't claiming that science has given us all the answers. There are many things we do not know, which is why we continue investigating.

There are so many holes in scientific theories, but somehow trusting a scientific theory filled with holes and inadequate explanations takes less faith then believing in God. This makes absolutely no sense.

Religionists posit Goddidit as an explanation for many phenomena. But they have not shown that this adequately explains anything. It doesn't advance our understanding any further than "we don't know."

We ALL take things on faith. The only way we wouldn't need to is if we had every answer for every question out there, and we don't.

As I noted earlier, in the religious sense, faith means believing irrespective of how well grounded the belief is, and maintaining belief even if the preponderance of evidence stands opposed to that belief. Saying "I don't know" when one genuinely does not know is not an example of faith being exercised. It's being intellectually honest with one's self.

 

[amariselle]

I would have thought that a religious person might understand a little Latin. Go and research the word 'science' and tell me what you find as its root.

I am not talking about its root meaning, I am talking about the field of study and what science actually IS and what it DOES.

 

[amariselle]

So do those who interpret it as justifying their hate.

And many Christians care about that too.

 

[amariselle]

I don't know how I exist but presenting one illogical belief and demanding that I believe it does not make your admittedly illogical belief more reasonable. I stop at I don't know, you accept having illogical beliefs simply because you need them.

I don't demand you believe anything. Believe whatever you want.

 

[amariselle]

Well yes, if this god was real I would indeed have a problem with him. But do you understand that psychopaths feel like something is right or wrong depending on who says to do it?

I guess we are all psychopaths then. That definition includes every single person who has ever lived at one point or another.

If a person couldn't have morals without god or without their previous objective reasoning that would make them a sociopath.
If a person feels like something is right or wrong depending on who said it that they displaying psychopathic tendencies?

Resorting to insults and derogatory labeling again. Classy.

If I object to your god sending a rapist to rape my child and then you tell me to go take it up with god because he's god... well then you're the one without a moral system of your own and you're the dangerous one.

Wow, what an absurd hypothetical situation. Don't worry, it will never happen. I don't know what God you're talking about, but it's not "my God."

On the other hand, people choose to rape other people all the time. But, once again, if morality is entirely subjective, then all they need to say is that it felt right to them, and if it did, they did nothing wrong.

 

[amariselle]

I'm simply saying that god isn't logical... you making caims that other things aren't logical wouldn't change that. You're not actually presenting that your belief is reasonable or true, you're demanding that people stop caring.

No, defending your own particular beliefs when they are being attacked is not demanding that others believe as you do.

If you interpret such defense of our beliefs as demands, then you are reading into the situation things that were never said.

 

[Hikarifuru]

I don't demand you believe anything. Believe whatever you want.

Actually you are, you've been insisting from the start that non-believers believe other illogical things, even when we say we don't you just say we have to because it's the only alternative you know for your belief. You aren't trying to show that your belief is reasonable, you're trying to make people stop caring.

 

[Hikarifuru]

No, defending your own particular beliefs when they are being attacked is not demanding that others believe as you do.

If you interpret such defense of our beliefs as demands, then you are reading into the situation things that were never said.

Saying that your belief is illogical is not an attack... The only reason we started talking about science is because you asked me why humans with subjective morality would care about things like guilt and forgiveness and I said its because of evolutionary biology and then you claimed that science wasn't valid... then we said it was and that we have no reason to believe in an illogical god and your response has only been attempts to claim that our beliefs aren't logical either... as if that would somehow make an illogical being logical.

 

[amariselle]

Actually you are, you've been insisting from the start that non-believers believe other illogical things, even when we say we don't you just say we have to because it's the only alternative you know for your belief. You aren't trying to show that your belief is reasonable, you're trying to make people stop caring.

If that is what you think, you are reading into what I have been saying things I NEVER said.

I could just as easily make the same accusations against you. But explaining your viewpoint does not mean that you are demanding that someone else agree with you.

I have never once demanded that you believe in God, not once.