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

[Conscious Z]

These things have nothing to do with humans, so they can't have anything to do with humans having free will.

Yes, that is the argument I am making. Perhaps I should have clarified: The "free will" argument is often put forth as an one possible reason for why evil may exist in the world despite a three-trait god also existing. There are also other "goods," such as humans coming to know god due to suffering, that are suggested as explanations for why certain natural events cause suffering. All of these arguments fall into the "greater good" category. Every greater good argument I have heard, however, involves humans in some way. However, there was certainly suffering in the world before humans came on the scene, which calls into question whether a greater good has in fact been produced by all suffering.

Do you think evolution by natural selection is possible without the existence of suffering of conscious beings?

Yes, without a doubt.

 

[Joshua260]

I certainly appreciate all the responses so far. I do not hold a degree in philosophy like others on this thread, but the little bit I understand about formal logic leads me to believe that the syllogism of the OP is constructed properly and is not affirming the consequent. I think it is a valid argument but unsound because premise one is a non sequitur.

I any case, just a reminder here that the point of the thread is to test the claim of those that profess to hold a "lack of belief" relating to God A in the list of possible gods supplied in the OP. It is my contention that if one believes the conclusion that God A does not exist, then that same person cannot at the same time profess to hold to a "lack of belief" in relation to God A. The former is an affirmative belief stance while the latter is a passive belief stance.

 

[Conscious Z]

It is my contention that if one believes the conclusion that God A does not exist, then that same person cannot at the same time profess to hold to a "lack of belief" in relation to God A. The former is an affirmative belief stance while the latter is a passive belief stance.

Yes, certainly. I am not sure many will believe the conclusion that God A does not exist based on the OP's argument, however. If one is merely a "lack of belief" person, he or she probably does not think any of the arguments against the existence of god are particularly strong.

I suspect, however, that the whole "lack of belief" thing is really just a sidestep to a position that is easier to defend. In practice, I think most atheists actually believe there is no god. They may be reluctant to say such a thing because they erroneously think that such a position commits them to the claim that they know there is no god, but that is of course not the case.

 

[Joshua260]

I suspect, however, that the whole "lack of belief" thing is really just a sidestep to a position that is easier to defend. In practice, I think most atheists actually believe there is no god. They may be reluctant to say such a thing because they erroneously think that such a position commits them to the claim that they know there is no god, but that is of course not the case.

Could be. My own opinion is that (at least some of) those who claim a to have a "lack a belief" are reluctant to admit that what they really have is a faith in atheism. I think they are aware of things like the cosmological arguments, the design argument, the moral argument, and various Christian evidences that might make them wonder if a god exists, but they make the conscious decision to discount all those arguments and evidences and decide to put their trust in the belief that there is no god. But they can't admit that it's a faith because they think that faith is "believing in what you know ain't so" and that's what they think Christians do. Of course, Christians would disagree with that. Our definition of faith is putting one's trust in something which one has good reason to believe is true. Ours is not blind faith, but a reasonable faith.

 

[Conscious Z]

Could be. My own opinion is that (at least some of) those who claim a to have a "lack a belief" are reluctant to admit that what they really have is a faith in atheism. I think they are aware of things like the cosmological arguments, the design argument, the moral argument, and various Christian evidences that might make them wonder if a god exists, but they make the conscious decision to discount all those arguments and evidences and decide to put their trust in the belief that there is no god. But they can't admit that it's a faith because they think that faith is "believing in what you know ain't so" and that's what they think Christians do. Of course, Christians would disagree with that. Our definition of faith is putting one's trust in something which one has good reason to believe is true. Ours is not blind faith, but a reasonable faith.

How, then, is "faith" any different than "belief"? I believe things if I think I have good reason. How is "faith" different from that?

This is off-topic, so I'm not going to continue on that track for long, but I've always wondered why theists use the phrase "I have faith in god" rather than simply "I believe in god" if "faith" is essentially synonymous with "belief."

 

[Joshua260]

How, then, is "faith" any different than "belief"? I believe things if I think I have good reason. How is "faith" different from that?

This is off-topic, so I'm not going to continue on that track for long, but I've always wondered why theists use the phrase "I have faith in god" rather than simply "I believe in god" if "faith" is essentially synonymous with "belief."

Yes, we're veering a little bit.

Good question, and I think this is a good way to describe the difference.
"Faith is belief...with legs on it".

 

[Conscious Z]

Yes, we're veering a little bit.

Good question, and I think this is a good way to describe the difference.
"Faith is belief...with legs on it".

You're going to have to clarify....that doesn't make sense to me. My belief motivates me to act, so I don't see how that is a unique feature of faith.

 

[Joshua260]

You're going to have to clarify....that doesn't make sense to me. My belief motivates me to act, so I don't see how that is a unique feature of faith.

do you think that all people always act on their beliefs? it seems to me that sometimes people can believe something, but not quite enough to put their trust (faith) in it. I may believe that I remembered to set the alarm for the morning, but after a few minutes of thinking about it, I may get up and check just once more. But if my faith (trust) in my memory is strong enough, I would trust my belief that I set the alarm is in fact correct.

 

[Conscious Z]

do you think that all people always act on their beliefs? it seems to me that sometimes people can believe something, but not quite enough to put their trust (faith) in it. I may believe that I remembered to set the alarm for the morning, but after a few minutes of thinking about it, I may get up and check just once more. But if my faith (trust) in my memory is strong enough, I would trust my belief that I set the alarm is in fact correct.

Of course they don't always act on their beliefs, but the fact that they at least sometimes act on their beliefs is sufficient here. You are suggesting that deciding to act is essentially what faith is, but people decide to act all the time based simply upon a belief. So, if my belief that it is raining compels me to grab an umbrella, how is that different from faith?

 

[Chany]

The problem with the logical problem of evil as a purely is that all it takes is one counter example to defeat it. No matter how contrived and stupid the counter example, so long as it is logically valid, the logical problem of evil fails. The biggest one I've heard is that all natural evil is caused by the free will of lesser supernatural agents, so God, in respect of free will, must allow natural evil, as it is all personal evil. Now, this does not make sense with Christianity, but, from a logical point of view, there is nothing wrong with this. I feel that the response runs into problems, namely in that I don't accept free will and I do not think it is worth saving necessarily even if it is there. However, given the argument, there may be some problems.

The probabilistic problem of evil, however, is a much different story.

 

[Chany]

Hi Conscious Z



These things have nothing to do with humans, so they can't have anything to do with humans having free will.

Do you think evolution by natural selection is possible without the existence of suffering of conscious beings?

I also have an argument, based on science, about natural disasters, but I'd like to explore the evolution/suffering probem first.

regards...

UE

When discussing an agent creating the world, all logical possibilities are opened up. It is completely possible for God to skip all of these steps in favor of another logically possible method of creation.

The notion of non-humans amounting for anything is a rather recent occurrence in modern times (some of the pre-Socratics, for example, thought of animals as having worth, but these were largely ignored). I think that this addition will probably be one of the more important issues in the problem of evil in the next decade or so.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Do you think evolution by natural selection is possible without the existence of suffering of conscious beings?

Yes, without a doubt.

I can't see how it is possible, unless consciousness only appeared right at the end of the evolutionary process. If you believe most animals are conscious (and I do), then it seems to me inevitable that "survival of the fittest" requires a lot non-survival, and therefore a lot of suffering.

I think it is the only way it could have been done. The suffering is unavoidable.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Could be. My own opinion is that (at least some of) those who claim a to have a "lack a belief" are reluctant to admit that what they really have is a faith in atheism. I think they are aware of things like the cosmological arguments, the design argument, the moral argument, and various Christian evidences that might make them wonder if a god exists, but they make the conscious decision to discount all those arguments and evidences and decide to put their trust in the belief that there is no god.

Nah. I was an atheist for a very long time, and I've had plenty of interaction with them on line (I used to be the forum admin for Richard Dawkins). Most atheists see belief in a God - or any supernatural phenomena - as being in the same category of children who believe in Santa Claus. They don't even wonder if God exists. They are, on the whole, pretty sure that no God exists. In fact quite a lot of them see agnosticism as a cop-out. They think it is almost as bad as theism.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

When discussing an agent creating the world, all logical possibilities are opened up. It is completely possible for God to skip all of these steps in favor of another logically possible method of creation.

How can you know that? How can you know what methods of creation were options for God? I think there is a strong case to argue that some sort of "theistic evolution" could be possible, whereas outright "instant creation by fiat" is not. The biological world is a very complex system. Maybe it had to "be evolved", for want of better terminology.

I'm not an atheist, but I think it is impossible to deny that evolution happened, whether or not there was a supernatural component to it.

The notion of non-humans amounting for anything is a rather recent occurrence in modern times (some of the pre-Socratics, for example, thought of animals as having worth, but these were largely ignored). I think that this addition will probably be one of the more important issues in the problem of evil in the next decade or so.

Just because historically something has been thought, it doesn't make it true. For most of human history, people had no idea of, for example, the size of the universe.

 

[Joshua260]

Of course they don't always act on their beliefs, but the fact that they at least sometimes act on their beliefs is sufficient here. You are suggesting that deciding to act is essentially what faith is, but people decide to act all the time based simply upon a belief. So, if my belief that it is raining compels me to grab an umbrella, how is that different from faith?

You trust(or have faith in) that the umbrella will keep the rain off you. Some things are easier to believe than others. But your response above I think is proving my point...that when people act on their beliefs, they are putting their trust (faith) in them. The typical Christian definition of faith is "putting your trust in something in which you have good reason to believe is true". Let's go to an extreme example: Some people are deathly afraid of flying...they may believe that they are getting ready to board an aircraft for which the airline has a good reputation, and they may believe that the pilot is well experienced, but those beliefs alone will not cause that person to board the plane. Rather, the person in question must decide to trust what he has good reason to believe is true...he must put his faith in the airline and in the pilot.

 

[Joshua260]

Nah. I was an atheist for a very long time, and I've had plenty of interaction with them on line (I used to be the forum admin for Richard Dawkins). Most atheists see belief in a God - or any supernatural phenomena - as being in the same category of children who believe in Santa Claus. They don't even wonder if God exists. They are, on the whole, pretty sure that no God exists. In fact quite a lot of them see agnosticism as a cop-out. They think it is almost as bad as theism.

But wouldn't you think that those who put God in the same category as Santa Claus are guilty of not having really having investigated the Christian claim properly? That's why I said at least some of those who claim to have a lack of belief really have a faith in atheism. I am speaking of those who have become familiar with the arguments and evidence, but have then chosen not to believe. Think of all of the blood evidence in the OJ Simpson trial...yet, many consciously choose to disbelieve the evidence. Those people have chosen to believe that OJ was not guilty.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You trust(or have faith in) that the umbrella will keep the rain off you. Some things are easier to believe than others. But your response above I think is proving my point...that when people act on their beliefs, they are putting their trust (faith) in them. The typical Christian definition of faith is "putting your trust in something in which you have good reason to believe is true". Let's go to an extreme example: Some people are deathly afraid of flying...they may know that they are getting ready to board an aircraft for which the airline has a good reputation, and they may know that the pilot is well experienced, but those beliefs alone will not cause that person to board the plane. Rather, the person in question must decide to trust what he has good reason to believe is true...he must put his faith in the airline and in the pilot.

That sort of 'faith' in synonymous with confidence. The level of confidence may or may not be warranted. 'Faith,' in the religious sense, often means something much more. It often entails absolute commitment to a set of doctrines, regardless of whether there is reason sufficient to warrant that level of commitment.

 

[Joshua260]

That sort of 'faith' in synonymous with confidence. The level of confidence may or may not be warranted. 'Faith,' in the religious sense, often means something much more. It often entails absolute commitment, regardless of whether there is reason sufficient to warrant that level of commitment.

That's simply not true. We've talked about this before. Please do not tell Christians what we mean by faith. You may think that we do not have sufficient reasons to believe in what we do, but we think we do. No Christian I know professes to hold to a blind faith. That is simply a caricature that atheists posit. Ours is not a blind faith, but a reasonable faith.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's simply not true. We've talked about this before.

Have we? I don't recall having this discussion with Joshua260. I do recall having this discussion with Jeremy E Walker, however.

Please do not tell Christians what we mean by faith.

I'm not. I'm basing this on statements made by Christian apologists, such as William Lane Craig.

You may think that we do not have sufficient reasons to believe in what we do, but we think we do. No Christian I know professes to hold to a blind faith. That is simply a caricature that atheists posit. Ours is not a blind faith, but a reasonable faith.

Let's test this claim. If all your purported reasons for believing in the major claims of Christianity were shown to be inadequate, would remain committed to those claims, and why?

 

[Joshua260]

Have we? I don't recall having this discussion with Joshua260. I do recall having this discussion with Jeremy E Walker, however.

If not, I apologize. I was pretty sure it was you.
I am not Jeremy. You seem to be taking on a tone on accusation (in here and in private messages with me) and I will not take it for too much longer before I report you for harassment.

I'm not. I'm basing this on statements made by Christian apologists, such as William Lane Craig.

Craig has plainly defined faith many times as "putting your trust in something in which you have good reason to believe is true."

Let's test this claim. If all your purported reasons for believing in the major claims of Christianity were shown to be inadequate, would remain committed to those claims, and why?

Good question. I'm going to have to say no because I believe that I have the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Craig gives an example of this. Suppose that you were taken to trial and so much evidence was built up against you saying that you committed a murder, yet you have personal knowledge that you did not commit the crime (supposedly like OJ Simpson)...would you then be obligated to believe all of the evidence against you, and admit your guilt? Of course not. In the same manner, I believe that the Holy Spirit witnesses to me about the truth of Christianity. But that does not negate the fact that we still have plenty of philosophical arguments and Christian evidences to support a reasonable belief in the Christian god, and those really are more for your benefit than mine. Why would I need these when I have the Holy Spirit witnessing to me personally?