Why God allows evil

[Skreeper]

Ever heard of Pascal's Wager?

Pascal's Wager, the worst argument for believing in God ever invented. That's probably why most apologists stay far away from that one.

 

[Skreeper]

Thanks for the reply on point.

I don't think "We just don't know" really addresses my challenge. And I don't think that it proves "straw man."

I do think that science postulates that all things have a beginning... that's why the Big Bang is offered as an explanation to the beginning of the universe. Does anyone suggest that matter is eternal? Has always existed? That fails the second law of thermodynamics because, with endless time past, that law demands that equilibrium will have been reached.

So the fact remains that all this "stuff" had to come from somewhere. My representation of the belief that there was once nothing, and then there was everything is still apt... even if the suggestions/theories of how it happened may differ.

The first law of Thermodynamics demands that matter cannot be created or destroyed. While the second law guarantees equilibrium within a closed system. These two laws are literally at odds with one another when considering the origin of the universe...

• 1st Law - Energy/Matter cannot be created or destroyed. There can be no beginning.
• 2nd Law - Because there's not yet equilibrium, there must be a beginning.

In a naturalist perspective, there's no logical reconciliation of these two laws... because it (the universe) is a closed system.

The only thing that can reconcile these two laws is the postulate that there must have been an agent outside of the closed system acting upon it.

Whatever atheists do believe about the origin of the universe, It's worth noting that it's still a matter of "faith." And the whole point of my original post was that it is more reasonable and consistent with the laws of physics to believe in that "Outside Agent" than it is to deny that Agent exists.

Just inventing an "outside agent" doesn't solve anything though.

Where did this outside agent come from?
How can an "agent" even exist outside of space and time?
Does this agent have consciousness? If yes, how is that supposed to work? All known forms of consciousness require something physical.

There are more problems of course but as I see it invoking some outside agent adds more problems than it solves.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Atheism means to not believe in god(s). Nothing else.

Yes... despite all reason and the implications of scientific discovery... they refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a God.

That takes a LOT of blind faith.

Sorry... I just don't have that much faith. I prefer a faith that's based on reason.

And for the record... have you noticed how many times I've quoted the Bible to support my position on the science of origins? Yeah... not once. Notice how much I've used reason and scientific knowledge? Yeah... every time.

Atheists love to point to "science" as providing the evidence that we don't need a God to explain the universe. But the fact is just the opposite... the universe requires a God to explain it... from a scientific perspective alone!

And to maintain the notion that there is no God forces the atheist to deny the science.

Still, not one atheist has offered a scientifically plausible alternative to my assertions about what Atheists believe. I made those claims because literally, there are no other alternatives as to what Atheists can believe... and that's why not a one of the--yourself included--has offered an alternative representation of Atheist beliefs to my supposed "straw man."

 

[holo]

Whatever atheists do believe about the origin of the universe, It's worth noting that it's still a matter of "faith." And the whole point of my original post was that it is more reasonable and consistent with the laws of physics to believe in that "Outside Agent" than it is to deny that Agent exists.

Maybe, but it's at least as much a leap of faith to assume that this "outside agent" = God.

I think it's important that we realize that our brains simply aren't wired to grasp things that are extremely small or extremely big. Neither are we wired to comprehend things like extra dimensions - as far as I know, there probably are more dimensions than the three we can perceive, but it's literally impossible for us to understand. We have a tendency to dismiss things we can't understand. If you assume the universe was made for mankind, it's not surprising if you think we should therefore be able to understand it. If however the universe created us, rather than being created for us, it's only reasonable that we can't understand reality completely. I mean, being able to understand quantum mechanics wouldn't help you much in the stone age.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Just inventing an "outside agent" doesn't solve anything though.

Where did this outside agent come from?
How can an "agent" even exist outside of space and time?
Does this agent have consciousness? If yes, how is that supposed to work? All known forms of consciousness require something physical.

The posit of an "outside agent" is simply the suggestion from the evidence itself. It doesn't prove consciousness. It doesn't prove anything about the nature of that Agent. It sure suggests intelligence... and it suggests power (in order to create or influence the entire universe), but the conflict of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics requires an outside agent of some kind in order to be resolved. That's all.

But as soon as we posit something outside of the "closed system" of the universe, we cannot assume that that "thing" is also subject to the same laws that govern the closed system. So, we can't know for sure that outside of our universe's closed system that consciousness requires something physical. We can't presume that that Agent had a beginning. We can't even assume that time itself exists outside of this universe.

Scientific inquiry only works within our closed system. Science has never claimed to work outside of it, so any science-based argument about the nature of anything outside of the material universe is completely unscientific. That's not an intellectual cop-out... it's just a logical conclusion. It's what science itself demands.

There are more problems of course but as I see it invoking some outside agent adds more problems than it solves.

Does it add more problems than it solves? Perhaps. It certainly creates a lot of new questions that we can't answer--and have no means to discover answers to.

But that's par for the course in scientific inquiry, isn't it? The more we learn, the more we realize we still have to learn.

To be sure, the fact that an answer creates new problems that we can't solve does not mean that the answer is false. Especially when every other answer is scientifically implausible.

 

[HitchSlap]

I predict that not a single one of the Atheist here will honestly respond to this challenge.

I predict that you won’t present an honest challenge.

Speaking of strikes, this might be your third - and on only three pitches.

 

[holo]

Yes... despite all reason and the implications of scientific discovery... they refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a God.

I rarely see atheist refusing to acknowledge the possibility of a God, it's just that they happen not to believe there is one.

That takes a LOT of blind faith.

No, it's a lack of faith. Sure, one can look at the universe and make the assumption that there is a "god", whatever that word even means. But it is an assumption, not the only possible conclusion.

Atheists love to point to "science" as providing the evidence that we don't need a God to explain the universe. But the fact is just the opposite... the universe requires a God to explain it... from a scientific perspective alone!

I don't agree that the universe requires a creator. We simply don't know enough about what happened "before" the big bang to conclude with such a thing. There are so many things about reality we can't even comprehend, we're like monkeys watching a TV program trying to figure out who invented the camera. It's almost guaranteed that we'll never figure it out, and even if we do, we won't actually understand it.

Still, not one atheist has offered a scientifically plausible alternative to my assertions about what Atheists believe.

That's because the sentence "what atheists believe" is completely meaningless. The only thing you can assume about an atheist is that he doesn't believe in God. He may believe in Santa, multiverses, communism or whatever. But you can't know any of that just because he doesn't happen to believe in god(s).

I made those claims because literally, there are no other alternatives as to what Atheists can believe... and that's why not a one of the--yourself included--has offered an alternative representation of Atheist beliefs to my supposed "straw man."

Here's the "alternate" representation, or rather the representation about what atheists believe: not in god(s).

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Whatever atheists do believe about the origin of the universe, It's worth noting that it's still a matter of "faith." And the whole point of my original post was that it is more reasonable and consistent with the laws of physics to believe in that "Outside Agent" than it is to deny that Agent exists.

Maybe...,

Wow... an acknowledgement that my argument at least makes some sense! Thanks.

but it's at least as much a leap of faith to assume that this "outside agent" = God.

No... that's just a matter of defining the terms. If we decide to label this "Outside Agent" as "God," we can do so... by simply saying that "God" is that Outside Agent.

Now... I think what you really meant is that it is a matter of faith (perhaps not so much a "leap" as you think...) to assert that the "Outside Agent" God is in fact the "Christian" God.

Determining that is very much outside the scope of our discussion here.

I think it's important that we realize that our brains simply aren't wired to grasp things that are extremely small or extremely big. Neither are we wired to comprehend things like extra dimensions - as far as I know, there probably are more dimensions than the three we can perceive, but it's literally impossible for us to understand. We have a tendency to dismiss things we can't understand. If you assume the universe was made for mankind, it's not surprising if you think we should therefore be able to understand it. If however the universe created us, rather than being created for us, it's only reasonable that we can't understand reality completely. I mean, being able to understand quantum mechanics wouldn't help you much in the stone age.

You have labeled yourself as a "former Christian." From that I assume you have some knowledge of Christian teaching and the Bible.

You are absolutely right about our brains not being wired to fully grasp big/small/extra-dimensional/etc.

You are also right in your implication that we would want to understand our universe. But I disagree that if the universe was made for mankind, that we should be able to understand it fully.

Consider Proverbs 25:2 - "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter."

To me, this means that people/societies ("kings") will always seek greater knowledge... and that's the way it's supposed to be. But the first half of that verse implies that no matter how much we "search out," we're going to find that there's even more we do not yet understand... yet more that is "concealed."

In other words, the Bible supports and encourages scientific inquiry. It also promises that the more we learn, the more we'll realize we still don't know... which is exactly what has happened.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

I predict that you won’t present an honest challenge.

Speaking of strikes, this might be your third - and on only three pitches.

The challenge is really simple...

Give me an explanation of the 4 issues I raised that are consistent with Atheist belief (no god) and science.

Anything dishonest about that?

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Yes... despite all reason and the implications of scientific discovery... they refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a God.

That takes a LOT of blind faith.

No, it's a lack of faith. Sure, one can look at the universe and make the assumption that there is a "god", whatever that word even means. But it is an assumption, not the only possible conclusion.

"Faith" is not a word that only applies to believing in the supernatural. It means that a person believes something beyond just the evidence.

The evidence is the same for everyone. The interpretation of the evidence varies drastically. The conclusions based upon those interpretations... whichever way that go... are a matter of faith... for everyone.

And because different interpretations are sound or unsound based upon logic and reason, we can suggest that some interpretations are more reasonable than others... so we can also conclude that some "faith" is more reasonable than others.

I'm contending that the belief in a God is more reasonable than a belief in "No God"... because it is more consistent with the scientific data.

And while you've not been insulting and contentious as others have (thanks!), you still have not offered the smallest evidence that believing in "no god" is more reasonable--scientifically--than theism.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Pascal's Wager, the worst argument for believing in God ever invented. That's probably why most apologists stay far away from that one.

You'll notice that I have not employed it... it's actually not about science or about apologetics at all... more about one's personal philosophy...

But I am very curious to know why you thinks it's the "worst argument" for believing in God. Care to explain?

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes... despite all reason and the implications of scientific discovery... they refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a God.

That takes a LOT of blind faith.

Sorry... I just don't have that much faith. I prefer a faith that's based on reason.

And for the record... have you noticed how many times I've quoted the Bible to support my position on the science of origins? Yeah... not once. Notice how much I've used reason and scientific knowledge? Yeah... every time.

Atheists love to point to "science" as providing the evidence that we don't need a God to explain the universe. But the fact is just the opposite... the universe requires a God to explain it... from a scientific perspective alone!

And to maintain the notion that there is no God forces the atheist to deny the science.

Still, not one atheist has offered a scientifically plausible alternative to my assertions about what Atheists believe. I made those claims because literally, there are no other alternatives as to what Atheists can believe... and that's why not a one of the--yourself included--has offered an alternative representation of Atheist beliefs to my supposed "straw man."

Science does not adress god(s) as they per definition is metaphysical. Science only deal with physical reality.

As such science does not support or disprove god(s) as that is not part of science at all.

Really, have you no knowledge in science or theology?

 

[HitchSlap]

The challenge is really simple...

Give me an explanation of the 4 issues I raised that are consistent with Atheist belief (no god) and science.*

Anything dishonest about that?

Yep. Telling someone how to respond is dishonest.

*bolding mine

 

[HitchSlap]

But I am very curious to know why you thinks it's the "worst argument" for believing in God. Care to explain?

The premise of P'W can be applied to any belief system, and in no way is evidence for the claim.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Science does not adress god(s) as they per definition is metaphysical. Science only deal with physical reality.

As such science does not support or disprove god(s) as that is not part of science at all.

Wow! I agree 100% with what you said here.

And this is why it is totally unreasonable for anyone to claim "science" and "reason" as their basis for discovering truth, and to also declare than they don't believe in a God.

Yep. Telling someone how to respond is dishonest.

*bolding mine

Not "how to respond"... just the parameters of the debate.

Nothing dishonest about that.

What's dishonest is attempting again and again to give some excuse or another for why an atheist doesn't have to have a reasonable or scientific position on the origin of the universe.

 

[VirOptimus]

Wow! I agree 100% with what you said here.

And this is why it is totally unreasonable for anyone to claim "science" and "reason" as their basis for discovering truth, and to also declare than they don't believe in a God.

Not "how to respond"... just the parameters of the debate.

Nothing dishonest about that.

What's dishonest is attempting again and again to give some excuse or another for why an atheist doesn't have to have a reasonable or scientific position on the origin of the universe.

The why do you mix metaphysics with physics?

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

The premise of P'W can be applied to any belief system, and in no way is evidence for the claim.

Right. In no way is it evidence.

That's not what the "wager" is about at all...

So, if you've heard people use it as "evidence" for believing in God, whoever used it as evidence was misguided.

But if someone says, "better to err on the side of caution," they have it right... that's what PW means.

PW actually affirms that it is inherently impossible to "prove" the existence of God one way or the other (which is why it is not "evidence"). But it also suggests that having a position on that question is not an option that we should be playing with...

If God is, then you lose everything if you ignore Him.

If God is not, then you lose little if you believe in error.

Caution would suggest that you don't take the chance of presuming that He is not.

 

[Tinker Grey]

And this is why it is totally unreasonable for anyone to claim "science" and "reason" as their basis for discovering truth, and to also declare than they don't believe in a God.

Really? It's not possible to not yet have discovered a god?

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

The why do you mix metaphysics with physics?

Because science itself is not the only measure or source of truth. Science does suggest that the metaphysical may have a role (the "Outside Agent"), but as soon as the possibility of the metaphysical is identified, science is now powerless to provide any additional information about it.

The assumption that the material is all there is... is deeply flawed. So... the metaphysical is not out of place in this discussion... particularly since I've made the case that science itself infers its existence.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Really? It's not possible to not yet have discovered a god?

I don't follow your question...