Arguments Against God

[FireDragon76]

Many narratives are based on fact, and other narratives are based on fiction (imagination).

For Theravadan Buddhists, the core question isn't about an affirmation of life (like most religions), but rather on the cessation of suffering and the establishment of the unending bliss.

You see those things in opposition to each other, which is yet another illusion of the religious impulse. It's a false dichotomy or dualism.

 

[ananda]

You see those things in opposition to each other, which is yet another illusion of the religious impulse. It's a false dichotomy or dualism.

Dualism is an important teaching in the suttas.

We do see & teach dualism in the affirmation of life (within samsara) vs. the cessation of suffering (nibbana).

 

[FireDragon76]

Dualism is an important teaching in the suttas.

We do see & teach dualism in the affirmation of life (within samsara) vs. the cessation of suffering (nibbana).

But those aren't independent, substantive realities in themselves (samsara and nirvana). Reality is perspectival, not dualistic.

 

[ananda]

But those aren't independent, substantive realities in themselves (samsara and nirvana). Reality is perspectival, not dualistic.

It's a dualistic perspective.

 

[Moral Orel]

@Moral Orel for example let’s just look at the evidential problem of evil. It goes something like this...

1. Gratuitous evil exists
2. A good God would not allow gratuitous evil to exist
3. Therefore a good God does not exist

The problem is in premise (1). It has some hidden assumptions:

1. Some evil appears gratuitous (it appears to be pointless and to have no good reason)
2. Evil that appears gratuitous is in fact gratuitous
3. Therefore gratuitous evil exists

Premise (2) is false or at least not argued for. Isn’t it possible that God has a good explanation for all evil that we are not aware of? Of course it’s possible. And if that’s possible, there is no problem of evil.

I would argue that all evil is gratuitous when reality is crafted and designed by an omnipotent being.

Perfection is best, right? God is perfect, and He's the best. So creating anything that isn't perfect, is less than optimal. God could create other perfect beings, He chose not to, therefore any evil is gratuitous.

 

[Tree of Life]

I would argue that all evil is gratuitous when reality is crafted and designed by an omnipotent being.

Perfection is best, right? God is perfect, and He's the best. So creating anything that isn't perfect, is less than optimal. God could create other perfect beings, He chose not to, therefore any evil is gratuitous.

Is it possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil that we are not aware of?

 

[Moral Orel]

Is it possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil that we are not aware of?

Is perfect better than not perfect?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

It’s not necessary that we know God’s reasons - only that it is possible that God has reasons. After all, we are defending against atheology - an argument claiming to demonstrate that God does not exist. All we are showing is that the argument is not successful.

That doesn't really make sense. Of course it's necessary for you to know the reasons, otherwise how can you defend God against the charge of allowing evil to exist? Just because there may be evidence that wins the argument, it does not mean you have won the argument.

Think of it like this:
"True, m'lud, my client was caught red-handed having stabbed his ex-wife to death following an argument between them; and true, both the argument and the stabbing were observed by several credible witnesses, two of whom recorded the incidents on video. But how can anyone say that my client did not have good reasons for doing what he did, that would lead to the court exonerating him? Since there is always the possibility that such reasons may exist, my client must be found innocent."

Also, the Argument from Evil is not necessarily an argument for the non-existence of God; just for the non-existence of an all-good God. An easy answer to the argument from evil would be that God allows some evil because He is not all good Himself. Of course, that isn't what Christians believe, but I just thought it worth pointing out.

 

[Tree of Life]

Is perfect better than not perfect?

You’re not answering the question.

 

[Tree of Life]

That doesn't really make sense. Of course it's necessary for you to know the reasons, otherwise how can you defend God against the charge of allowing evil to exist? Just because there may be evidence that wins the argument, it does not mean you have won the argument.

Again, I am not demonstrating that a good God does exist. I am simply defending against the argument that he does not exist. If it is possible that he has a good reason to permit evil, then the argument from evil does not succeed.

 

[Moral Orel]

You’re not answering the question.

I asked my question first and you didn't engage it at all:

Perfection is best, right?

So, is perfect better than not perfect?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm teaching an apologetics course at our church and one of our lessons will be dealing with arguments against the existence of God. For the atheists and agnostics, what are the arguments against God's existence that are the most compelling to you? Just a brief description of the arguments will suffice.

Thanks

I don't think there are really arguments against the existence of gods any more than there are arguments against the existence of Bigfoot.

We haven't seen any reliable evidence for Bigfoot, and there's no good reason to believe there is one.

The same is true of gods.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Again, I am not demonstrating that a good God does exist. I am simply defending against the argument that he does not exist. If it is possible that he has a good reason to permit evil, then the argument from evil does not succeed.

But you're not defending against it. You're not even saying that you have a defence but reserve it. You're saying that such a defence may exist, though you don't know what it is. If that is all you have to say, then the argument from evil does succeed.

 

[Tree of Life]

But you're not defending against it. You're not even saying that you have a defence but reserve it. You're saying that such a defence may exist, though you don't know what it is. If that is all you have to say, then the argument from evil does succeed.

This is the last time I will try to explain the problem of evil and then I’ll just leave you to your own devices. There are two versions - the logical problem and the evidential problem. The logical problem claims to demonstrate that the idea of God and the idea of evil cannot logically coexist. It has been widely acknowledged to be unsuccessful. The evidential problem is stronger and it’s what we are dealing with here. The evidential problem seeks to demonstrate that given the amount of evil and the amount of gratuitous evil in the world that God probably does not exist. The evidential problem goes like this:

1. Gratuitous evil exists.
2. A good God would not allow gratuitous evil to exist.
3. Therefore a good God does not exist.

The argument is unsuccessful because we do not know - and cannot prove - that premise 1 is correct: that gratuitous evil exists. It is possible that God has a good reason for all evil and we are not aware of it. Since premise 1 is not proven, we need not accept it and the argument fails.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

This is the last time I will try to explain the problem of evil and then I’ll just leave you to your own devices.

That's a shame. I feel we're just starting to get somewhere.

The evidential problem goes like this:
1. Gratuitous evil exists.
2. A good God would not allow gratuitous evil to exist.
3. Therefore a good God does not exist.

Okay. Let's examine that.

The argument is unsuccessful because we do not know - and cannot prove - that premise 1 is correct: that gratuitous evil exists. It is possible that God has a good reason for all evil and we are not aware of it.

But in making this defence, you are essentially sabotaging your own religion. If God's reasons for allowing evil are unknown, then you cannot claim that God is good, as - by your own admission - you do not know what His motives are.
In order to defend God against the charge of evil you have, paradoxically, forfeited the claim that He is good. To claim that God is good, and then say that He has unknown reasons for allowing evil is a logically inconsistent position.
Therefore, the Argument from Evil succeeds, because Christians have abandoned their defence of God and conceded it.

 

[Tree of Life]

To claim that God is good, and then say that He has unknown reasons for allowing evil is a logically inconsistent position.

Could you show how this is logically inconsistent? We can imagine a good parent having good reasons for allowing what appears to be gratuitous evil to occur. Making kids eat broccoli or get a flu shot might appear to be gratuitous evil from the child’s point of view. But the parent could have good reasons for subjecting the child to this that the child is not aware of. I see no logical reason why God could not have a morally sufficient reason for permitting evil.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Could you show how this is logically inconsistent? We can imagine a good parent having good reasons for allowing what appears to be gratuitous evil to occur. Making kids eat broccoli or get a flu shot might appear to be gratuitous evil from the child’s point of view. But the parent could have good reasons for subjecting the child to this that the child is not aware of. I see no logical reason why God could not have a morally sufficient reason for permitting evil.

All true. But, as a Christian, you believe that God is good. And, in attempting to rebut the argument from evil, you have used the defence that "we cannot know what God's motives are." These two are mutually exclusive. You cannot say that a person is good while admitting you do not know what their motives are.
In your example, you clearly state that the parent does have a good reason, and can say what it is. But, faced with the argument from evil, you are unable to show that God is good and, therefore, have just abandoned the claim that He is.

 

[FireDragon76]

All true. But, as a Christian, you believe that God is good. And, in attempting to rebut the argument from evil, you have used the defence that "we cannot know what God's motives are." These two are mutually exclusive. You cannot say that a person is good while admitting you do not know what their motives are.
In your example, you clearly state that the parent does have a good reason, and can say what it is. But, faced with the argument from evil, you are unable to show that God is good and, therefore, have just abandoned the claim that He is.

What if the statement "God is good" is only true by way of analogy?

Of course, this assumes that we will be willing to consider analogy valid. Not all Protestants or skeptics would assent.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

What if the statement "God is good" is only true by way of analogy?

How do you mean?

 

[Tree of Life]

All true. But, as a Christian, you believe that God is good. And, in attempting to rebut the argument from evil, you have used the defence that "we cannot know what God's motives are."

No I am not saying that God’s reasons are unknowable. I’m saying that it’s possible that God has morally sufficient reasons even if we do not know them.

These two are mutually exclusive. You cannot say that a person is good while admitting you do not know what their motives are.

There’s nothing contradictory in believing that a person is good and also not knowing their reasons for action. We don’t need an omniscient, exhaustive knowledge of all a persons deeds, motives, and reasons in order to believe they are good. Otherwise we could never believe that anyone is good.

In your example, you clearly state that the parent does have a good reason, and can say what it is. But, faced with the argument from evil, you are unable to show that God is good and, therefore, have just abandoned the claim that He is.

If I must be able to explain God’s specific reasons for absolutely everything that occurs throughout history in order to show that he is good, then I cannot show that he is good. I simply lack that staggering knowledge. I would think one would have to be God himself in order to fulfill that criterion. But I also disagree that this is a reasonable requirement in order to believe or show that God is good.