Problem of Evil Argument Conclusion versus a "lack of belief".

[Davian]

Hard atheism (positive belief that there is no God) is a truth claim - it is a claim about metaphysics, but still a truth claim. Soft atheism (I see no reason to believe in a God, so I don't) is not.

Indeed, but I do not see a need for the "soft" qualifier. I do think he should have been more explicit in what he meant. WLC is often observed to make the same mistake.

 

[Joshua260]

What is there to investigate? Is there objective evidence for the existence of gods? Can it be presented in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis?

The Resurrection is a falsifiable event.

Atheism is not a truth claim.

That's exactly what the conclusion of the problem of evil argument is...a truth claim about the nonexistence of God (God A in my example).

Putting aside for the moment the quality and robustness of said arguments and "evidence", belief is not a conscious choice.

Of course it is. People chose who to believe every day in court trials.

Can those those you speak of freely change that belief? Can they flip back and forth at will?

The jurors in the OJ trial chose to disbelieve the ample blood evidence.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

The Resurrection is a falsifiable event.

Well, it would be if it happened tomorrow and there were people there to officially record what happened. In reality, it's not.

 

[TillICollapse]

The Resurrection is a falsifiable event.

How could it be falsified ?

 

[Joshua260]

Jeremy was a fan of WLC. So was Elioenai26. I understand his suspicion.

So? I've told him several times that I am not but he keeps pestering me about it.

How is that in the "same manner"? Court systems are well documented, and observable. Provisions are made (sometimes in a limited capacity ) for citizens to view the proceedings in person, or on television. Evidence is presented and cross-examined by scientific experts.

How am I am I to objectively differentiate this "Holy Spirit" from your imagination?

You misunderstand. I was not proposing the witness of the Holy Spirit as objective evidence. The witness of the Holy Spirit is not for nonbelievers, but for believers. Going back to my example of the crime case, the question I was posing was whether you (the accused) should accept it as truth (for yourself) that you committed a crime even thought you clearly know you did not. I was not talking about providing evidence for someone else. I think the question posed was would I still believe in God even if all my evidence was shown to be questionable.

"...plenty...".

Yes, that's right.

Why should I not dismiss this as a product of your imagination?

Again, I believe the question posed to me was would I still believe, not you.

 

[Joshua260]

Well, it would be if it happened tomorrow and there were people there to officially record what happened. In reality, it's not.

So nothing in the past is falsifiable? Why would you treat the Resurrection any different than other historical events?

 

[Joshua260]

How could it be falsified ?

Well, there's lots of multiple attestations (Christian and non-Christian) to the crucifixion of Christ, the conversion of Paul and James the skeptic, the empty tomb, and the sincerity of the apostles that they had seen the risen Christ and willing to testify to it under threat of death. Maybe you could find some reputable documents that refute these things, or maybe somebody provided some reputable documentation that someone had discovered the body of Jesus. Just find some good documentation to refute all I've just listed and that might prove the Resurrection to be a false claim. Good luck wid dat!

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So nothing in the past is falsifiable?

"Falsifiable" is the wrong word. But we can sensibly talk about whether some things in the past are verifiable. And some are, and some aren't.

Is the Normal invasion of England in 1066 verifiable? Yep. There's mountains of evidence to support this claim, not least that English Kings spoke French for the next 400 years.

Were the Princes in the Tower murdered by Richard III? Nope, though it's highly likely they were. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower

Why would you treat the Resurrection any different than other historical events?

It's not a reliably documented historical event. In fact, it's more than likely not a historical event at all, along with the rest of the narrative story of the gospels. That story predates the time Jesus was supposed to be alive. How many other "historical events" existed in the form of mythological stories before they actually happened?

The Bible is not a historically-reliable source. It mentions some people known to have existed (e.g. Herod) and some places that exist and some events that happened. But it also contains a large amount of pre-existing mythology and fantastical stories that have no other evidence to support them and I see no reason why a rational person should treat them as historical events.

In my opinion, the most likely "true history" of early Christianity is that it was invented by the Flavian Roman emperors in the late 1st century: http://www.fargonasphere.com/piso/

 

[Joshua260]

Indeed, but I do not see a need for the "soft" qualifier. I do think he should have been more explicit in what he meant. WLC is often observed to make the same mistake.

I think the conclusion of the problem of evil argument I presented was pretty clear as a "hard" atheistic statement. See below:

"Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist."

Since it sounds like you now accept that this is a truth claim (as UndercoverElephant explained), maybe you an see now why I implied in my OP that the conclusion of the problem of evil argument as presented contradicts the softer "lack of belief" stance. So if you claim to hold to a "lack of belief" you cannot concur with the conclusion of the problem of evil argument.

 

[TillICollapse]

Well, there's lots of multiple attestations (Christian and non-Christian) to the crucifixion of Christ, the conversion of Paul and James the skeptic, the empty tomb, and the sincerity of the apostles that they had seen the risen Christ and willing to testify to it under threat of death. Maybe you could find some reputable documents that refute these things, or maybe somebody provided some reputable documentation that someone had discovered the body of Jesus. Just find some good documentation to refute all I've just listed and that might prove the Resurrection to be a false claim. Good luck wid dat!

Do you believe Elvis never died, or perhaps that Tupac came back from the dead ? We have lots of eye witness accounts concerning Elvis over the years. Plus we had B.I.G's prophecy concerning Tupac, and then after Tupac's death new tracks of his came out. Is this evidence that Tupac came back from the dead and is still working ?

Finding eye-witness accounts credible or not is one thing ... falsifying what they are describing or attempting to describe is another.

I would say that Jesus appearing and showing that He resurrected to back your own claim may help your case. Is Jesus going to appear to back your own claim and testify on your behalf to show that He is still around today ?

 

[Joshua260]

"Falsifiable" is the wrong word. But we can sensibly talk about whether some things in the past are verifiable. And some are, and some aren't.

Is the Normal invasion of England in 1066 verifiable? Yep. There's mountains of evidence to support this claim, not least that English Kings spoke French for the next 400 years.

And there is also multiple documents from Christian and non-Christian (even opposing) sources that testify tot he Resurrection story.

It's not a reliably documented historical event. In fact, it's more than likely not a historical event at all, along with the rest of the narrative story of the gospels. That story predates the time Jesus was supposed to be alive. How many other "historical events" existed in the form of mythological stories before they actually happened?

This is just a "just so" statement with no credible support.

The Bible is not a historically-reliable source. It mentions some people known to have existed (e.g. Herod) and some places that exist and some events that happened. But it also contains a large amount of pre-existing mythology and fantastical stories that have no other evidence to support them and I see no reason why a rational person should treat them as historical events.

Actually, archeologists have found the bible to be an extremely reliable historical source. Not all the bible is literal. There is prose and stories in there as well. Everyone knows that.

In my opinion, the most likely "true history" of early Christianity is that it was invented by the Flavian Roman emperors in the late 1st century: http://www.fargonasphere.com/piso/

Sorry, I got to laugh at this suggestion. So the Roman empire successfully engineered a massive conspiracy with thousands and thousands of New Testament copies scattered all over the known world and not one document survives to dispute your conspiracy theory? Not to mention you ignore documents from other non-Roman sources.

 

[Joshua260]

Do you believe Elvis never died, or perhaps that Tupac came back from the dead ? We have lots of eye witness accounts concerning Elvis over the years. Plus we had B.I.G's prophecy concerning Tupac, and then after Tupac's death new tracks of his came out. Is this evidence that Tupac came back from the dead and is still working ?

Finding eye-witness accounts credible or not is one thing ... falsifying what they are describing or attempting to describe is another.

I would say that Jesus appearing and showing that He resurrected to back your own claim may help your case. Is Jesus going to appear to back your own claim and testify on your behalf to show that He is still around today ?

Just a quick reply here because I have to go. You response demonstrates that you have a naïve understanding of the evidence supporting the Resurrection. I suggest that you go and educate yourself a little bit more on this subject.

BTW, we're off-topic. The Resurrection is one of my favorite subjects, but the evidence is quite extensive and takes time to review and I did not want to get into that subject in this thread. How about answering my OP instead? So may atheists seem to be sidestepping it.

 

[TillICollapse]

Just a quick reply here because I have to go. You response demonstrates that you have a naïve understanding of the evidence supporting the Resurrection. I suggest that you go and educate yourself a little bit more on this subject.

Referencing scriptures and such do not typically do much for me. I prefer practical, here and now demonstration. I also consider eye-witness testimony from the source (i.e. if you claim to have seen Jesus yourself). I'm not typically interested in historical accounts to *prove* something such as whether or not Yeshua actually came back from the dead and has appeared to men over the centuries since. I would want to see for myself, rather than just hear about what happened to someone a couple of thousand years ago. Have you ever seen Yeshua/Jesus/etc ? Is He going to appear to back your claim now ? Again, I'd typically rather see for myself than have you reference ancient accounts. I will however hear your own account if you have seen Him personally.

BTW, we're off-topic. The Resurrection is one of my favorite subjects, but the evidence is quite extensive and takes time to review and I did not want to get into that subject in this thread. How about answering my OP instead? So may atheists seem to be sidestepping it.

I believe I already addressed in another thread why I didn't care to respond to the OP. And you don't have to get into the extensive evidence. If you have an apple, show the apple. Jesus appearing would suffice.

 

[Davian]

The Resurrection is a falsifiable event.

I gather you are not familiar with the concept of falsifiability.

That's exactly what the conclusion of the problem of evil argument is...a truth claim about the nonexistence of God (God A in my example).

No, atheism is not exactly that.

Of course it is. People chose who to believe every day in court trials.


The jurors in the OJ trial chose to disbelieve the ample blood evidence.

I asked, can those those you speak of freely change that belief? Can they flip back and forth at will?

 

[Davian]

So? I've told him several times that I am not but he keeps pestering me about it.

Understood, but I hope you don't mind this little formality: Have you posted on this site under the username of Elioenai26?

You misunderstand. I was not proposing the witness of the Holy Spirit as objective evidence.

But that is what the blood evidence is in the court case you referenced, is it not?

The witness of the Holy Spirit is not for nonbelievers, but for believers.

Circular reasoning. Got it.

Going back to my example of the crime case, the question I was posing was whether you (the accused) should accept it as truth (for yourself) that you committed a crime even thought you clearly know you did not.

I would need more information. What I "know", as in human mind/memory, is a demonstrably fallible thing.

I was not talking about providing evidence for someone else. I think the question posed was would I still believe in God even if all my evidence was shown to be questionable.

If all of my evidence was shown to be questionable, I would question, and perhaps abandon my position, as I have in the past. Are you infallible?

Yes, that's right.

Yeah, right. lol.

Again, I believe the question posed to me was would I still believe, not you.

That question was not in reference to your earlier post, and still stands: Why should I not dismiss this "Holy Ghost" as a product of your imagination?

 

[Davian]

I think the conclusion of the problem of evil argument I presented was pretty clear as a "hard" atheistic statement.

It was not clear as you had phrased it. Pretend that you are in a philosophy forum, for the purposes of semantics.

See below:

"Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist."

Since it sounds like you now accept that this is a truth claim (as UndercoverElephant explained),

I do in the context that UE used it, but not how you used it.

maybe you an see now why I implied in my OP that the conclusion of the problem of evil argument as presented contradicts the softer "lack of belief" stance. So if you claim to hold to a "lack of belief" you cannot concur with the conclusion of the problem of evil argument.

I do not see any contradiction. One can hold a position of disbelief in gods in general, while coming to a conclusion that a particular god, as defined, is only a character in a book.

Perhaps you should spend more time demonstrating the existence of your particular deity (if you can) and less time obsessing about those that lack belief in it. The former will deal with the latter.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You misunderstand. I was not proposing the witness of the Holy Spirit as objective evidence. The witness of the Holy Spirit is not for nonbelievers, but for believers. Going back to my example of the crime case, the question I was posing was whether you (the accused) should accept it as truth (for yourself) that you committed a crime even thought you clearly know you did not. I was not talking about providing evidence for someone else. I think the question posed was would I still believe in God even if all my evidence was shown to be questionable.

Are you saying that you would never reconsider your beliefs, even if overwhelming evidence suggested that you should? In what sense is that reasonable?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And there is also multiple documents from Christian and non-Christian (even opposing) sources that testify tot he Resurrection story.

Sorry, but this isn't even worthy of serious debate. The Bible is a religious text, not a historical document. The overwhelming majority of it has no corroborating evidence whatsoever, and that's without taking into account the fact that some of it is supernatural.

Sorry, I got to laugh at this suggestion.

Laugh all you like. You think the Bible is a historical text and that the resurrection is a historical fact. Seven day creationists also laugh at people who understand evolution. They may think this portrays confidence, but it actually just makes them look extremely silly.

So the Roman empire successfully engineered a massive conspiracy with thousands and thousands of New Testament copies scattered all over the known world and not one document survives to dispute your conspiracy theory?

You've just demonstrated that your understanding of the true history of Christianity is just about non-existent. What we call "The New Testament" didn't come into existence until the first councill of Nicea in 325 AD. The Flavians ruled the Roman Empire between 69 and 96 AD.

In short, you haven't got the faintest idea what you are talking about, in terms of actual history. To be fair though, neither have 90% of the other Christians I've ever discussed this with. Unfortunately they tend to approach this topic with a pre-concieved, and very firmly held idea that the New Testament is a historical document. In reality it is nothing of the sort, and has a complex and fascinating history of its own, as do the stories it contains.

If you were remotely interested in finding out the truth, I'd be happy to talk to you at length, but if you're like most Christians then all you are actually interested in is finding ways to continue believing the nonsense version you currently believe.

God is Truth. You should not be scared of it.

 

[Joshua260]

I believe I already addressed in another thread why I didn't care to respond to the OP.

So another atheist who refuses to answer my OP. Ok. Noted.

 

[TillICollapse]

So another atheist who refuses to answer my OP. Ok. Noted.

If you think you are backing people into corners or some such, you may want to think again. Whatever you are concluding as happening from some of your interactions here, may not actually be true of reality. As I recall, I told you in another thread something along the lines that I didn't respond because some things were not well defined, etc. You attempted to define them a bit more here, but they are still vague imo, specifically "omnibenevolence".

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.

I'll speak to the first premise, and I'll use a lot of "if's". If omnipotent means "capable of any and all power and ability", I don't see where that also entails an entity which has such an attribute MUST use such power and ability in specific ways. If omniscient means "has all knowledge of all things" then that also doesn't entail that such a being which has omniscience has to use such knowledge in specific ways. And what is good to one person, may be evil to another. So out of those three omni's, "omnibenevolence" is arguably one of the more subjective concepts. Also I noticed omnipresence was missing from the equations, although in some contexts I suppose it could be inferred from omnipotent and omniscient.

So having said all of that ... I don't see where certain perspectives on such concepts would also mean they necessarily had to be acted upon in a manner in which we expect them to be. That is to say, IF a being had those attributes, I don't see why they would necessarily have to use their power/knowledge in specific ways. If you want to say the omnibenevolence attribute is the kicker which makes such a being "have to" stamp out evil so that good may exist, I still see it becoming subjective. Some phenomena we may have much more of a consensus on what is "evil" than others, but I don't see how we would have 100% consensus at all points on what is good or evil, all things considered. Thus, I could see "evil" existing along with a being who could have such qualities ... but that is loosely defining such qualities, as well as not even defining what is meant by "god" in totality apart from those qualities. So it's still all very vague to me. Almost near non-sense levels. I get the idea of the first premise ... but attempting to apply it realistically and practically it falls apart into mostly meaninglessness imo.