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

[Conscious Z]

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.

I disagree -- I do think that those beliefs alone would cause a person to board a plane. If you take those beliefs away, they are certainly not getting on that plane. The relationship between belief and action is complex, and more than one philosopher (Jason Stanley and John Hawthorne are two) has argued that knowledge is the standard for action, but that the standard for such knowledge is sensitive to context. These sorts of deliberations -- deliberations about what action is warranted based on a given belief and its justification -- are common to daily life, but I do not see how "faith" is a unique example of this. For example, if I'm driving in my truck and the "low fuel" light comes on, and I know that I have twenty miles to my destination, I have the option of stopping to get gas or continuing to drive. My continuing to drive is a product of my beliefs about the low fuel light, my gas tank, my truck, etc. It has nothing to do with me "trusting" my truck to get me there. In fact, I don't even know that we can sensibly say that one can "trust" a truck.

So, I'm still not sure how exactly "faith" is different than belief.

That's why I doubt that those that say such things have actually studied the arguments and evidence for the Christian god sufficiently. But for those that have investigated the evidence and remained atheist, I suspect that some of them have made a conscious decision not to believe it...as in my example with the evidence against OJ and the jury actually deciding not to convict.

Beliefs are never a product of conscious decision. One cannot decide to believe anything.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So, I'm still not sure how exactly "faith" is different than belief.

Beliefs are justified in various ways - sometimes the justification is good, sometimes it is not so good. But faith, surely, has to be in some way unjustified in order for it to be faith. It is that unjustified element that makes it faith.

A lot of Christians have a rather odd approach to this. Their religion has always emphasised the importance of faith, but a large proportion of them dedicate a lot of time and effort into attempting to justify or prove what they believe, which would seem to indicate that, for them, faith is not enough.

Beliefs are never a product of conscious decision. One cannot decide to believe anything.

I agree.

 

[Chany]

God did not cause evil. So yes God does exist, hence why you are still alive today. Sin causes evil. Do you actually know the Ten Commandments? One says do not kill. Why would God command that if he was evil...?

I don't think you understand the argument. At all.

It claims that evil and the god of classical theism (the one found in traditional orthodox Christian and Muslim circles) are incompatible, either through logical contradiction (strong version) or through improbability to the point of disbelief (weak version). It claims that as long as evil (or gratuitous and unnecessary evil, for the weaker one) exists, then the god of classical theism cannot exist. It does not matter if God actually causes evil; he has the power and the knowledge to stop it, and he would, therefore, stop evil if he was truly all-loving.

You assume my life is dependent upon God for existence, which is not a proper assumption to make when discussing an argument about the existence of God. The existence of God seems tenuous at best.

 

[Joshua260]

God did not cause evil. So yes God does exist, hence why you are still alive today. Sin causes evil. Do you actually know the Ten Commandments? One says do not kill. Why would God command that if he was evil...?

Thanks for responding MissVeronica. I think you mistook me for an unbeliever and also misunderstood the point of the OP. I am a Christian and the point of my OP was to show how one cannot claim to hold to a "lack of belief" relating to a particular god while at the same time professing a belief that the same particular god does not exist (through the problem of evil argument presented in the OP). The former position is passive, while the second is an affirmative position.

I presented this question in another thread and some accused me of switching arguments midstream, saying that at one time I was talking about the Christian god, but then at another time I switched and started talking about theism in general. That is why I wrote this OP the way I did...laying out a set of gods to choose from (God A through God D) and then showing how the argument attempts to show that a specific god in that list (God A) does not exist. I've been waiting for those who had an issue before to address it in this thread, but they have been reluctant to do so.

 

[Joshua260]

A lot of Christians have a rather odd approach to this. Their religion has always emphasised the importance of faith, but a large proportion of them dedicate a lot of time and effort into attempting to justify or prove what they believe, which would seem to indicate that, for them, faith is not enough.

That's not quite right. We dedicate a lot of time and effort to demonstrate the reasonableness of our faith for the unbeliever's sake, not ours.

 

[Joshua260]

Beliefs are never a product of conscious decision. One cannot decide to believe anything.

I'm not so sure. Have you never heard of self-deception?
I took the time to provide a definition:
Self-deception: a process of denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, or importance of opposing evidence and logical argument.

 

[Inkfingers]

Unfortunately, I side-tracked a thread (sorry...I honestly didn't mean to) and it may have been one of the reasons it got closed. I was only asking a quick question, but I guess I hit a nerve and many atheists wanted to engage me. Therefore, I thought I would start a separate thread which interested parties could respond to.

So I'd like to define several possible gods:
God A: omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God B: not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God C: omnipotent, not omniscient, and omnibenevolent
God D: omnipotent, omniscient, and not omnibenevolent

So below is the problem of evil argument:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

It seems to me that the argument is specifically concluding that God A does not exist.

Question 1: Do you believe that the above argument is sound?

Question 2: If answer to #1 is "yes", then do you profess to know that God A does not exist or do you simply believe that God A does not exist?

edit: I had to correct my OP since growingsmaller so kindly pointed out that I used the wrong language. Therefore I changed Q1 from "valid" to "sound" in accordance with the below:

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.

1) Evil is the absence of good.

2) Finite beings cannot be perfectly good (because we cannot, by being finite, contain all goodness).

3) So we contain an incomplete goodness, and in that gap between incomplete goodness and perfect goodness is where evil (absence of good) lives.

Could an omnipotent being get around that? No. Because by nature no creature in the universe can be infinite (as then you would have to actually BE the universe in order to be infinite). So God cannot get around that (in the same way that God cannot make a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it).

Hence God is the three omnis AND evil exists.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

2) Finite beings cannot be perfectly good (because we cannot, by being finite, contain all goodness).

That doesn't work. You aren't any less good because you don't contain somebody-else's goodness.

If I said "finite spheres can't be perfectly spherical (because, being finite, they can't contain all sphericalness)", would it make sense?

Your premise implies that nothing finite can be perfectly anything, which is obviously not true.

 

[Inkfingers]

That doesn't work. You aren't any less good because you don't contain somebody-else's goodness.

If I said "finite spheres can't be perfectly spherical (because, being finite, they can't contain all sphericalness)", would it make sense?

Your premise implies that nothing finite can be perfectly anything, which is obviously not true.

No, my argument shows how a finite being cannot be infinitely good; so when evil is the absence of goodness, the gap between finite good and infinite good is where evil can dwell even in a universe run by a three-omni deity. It comes about from incomplete goodness in beings that can only ever be incompletely good.

 

[MissVeronica]

Thanks for responding MissVeronica. I think you mistook me for an unbeliever and also misunderstood the point of the OP. I am a Christian and the point of my OP was to show how one cannot claim to hold to a "lack of belief" relating to a particular god while at the same time professing a belief that the same particular god does not exist (through the problem of evil argument presented in the OP). The former position is passive, while the second is an affirmative position.

I presented this question in another thread and some accused me of switching arguments midstream, saying that at one time I was talking about the Christian god, but then at another time I switched and started talking about theism in general. That is why I wrote this OP the way I did...laying out a set of gods to choose from (God A through God D) and then showing how the argument attempts to show that a specific god in that list (God A) does not exist. I've been waiting for those who had an issue before to address it in this thread, but they have been reluctant to do so.

Oh hahahaha. Sorry I misunderstood I get it now, forgive me hahaha. Have a nice day and that's for responding. Some stuff on here is so annoying, next time I will read properly. God bless

 

[MissVeronica]

I don't think you understand the argument. At all.

It claims that evil and the god of classical theism (the one found in traditional orthodox Christian and Muslim circles) are incompatible, either through logical contradiction (strong version) or through improbability to the point of disbelief (weak version). It claims that as long as evil (or gratuitous and unnecessary evil, for the weaker one) exists, then the god of classical theism cannot exist. It does not matter if God actually causes evil; he has the power and the knowledge to stop it, and he would, therefore, stop evil if he was truly all-loving.

You assume my life is dependent upon God for existence, which is not a proper assumption to make when discussing an argument about the existence of God. The existence of God seems tenuous at best.

I do understand your argument but I'm not here to argue, but to simply say, why spend so much time trying to be intellectual when the simple fact is we are going to die, and while you are alive it would be better if you started thinking differently for yourself, rather than going with a bunch of intellect. Your soul and your family is not about intellect, but about why we die? And what happens after. If you don't believe then that's fine, but the fact that you are trying so hard to put your point accross means there is some doubt as to whether God exist or not., I'm not assuming anything, we just have to wait until your time comes and see who you call to then, but that time hasn't happened yet. Everyone of us has God living in us, but he also gave us free will. I'm not being hostile and I really don't want get to your intellectual argument. It's quite irrelevant. The point is instead of searching to disprove the bible search to prove it. Sometimes we feel that because we have always gone one way our pride will not let us change. But to be honest Pride always comes before a fall.
Another thing I have noticed. You mention God at lot in your argument why? He dosent exist.
Remeber you have said if God actually causes evil, he has the power to stop it.....etc..
I'm confused. As you also saying he dosent exist.
Finally, God will not stop evil because no one has asked him to, evil is the cause of sin, and unless someone repentance from sin, God will not step in, he doesn't hear the prayers of unbelievers. For eg. A little girl gets murdered. It's not because she sinned. It's because the murder sinned. The little girl automatically goes to heaven as she is an innocent. God wouldn't stop the murder because the murderer is not a christian.
Evil occurs because of sin simple. Have you noticed that true christians do not sin. In a real christian home you have a real marriage as both couples are walking in faith. A true christian will not sin, hence why there marriage last. There are no sexual disease, etc. please drop the hostility and thee intellect. As whether we rich or poor, clever or stupid, we only get 24 hours to change everyday. We take nothing with us and we die. Scientist still cannot explain that. You can't explain that... You are going to die. And if you are thinking yes but babies children die. Yes we still die. The bible says the wages of sin is death... In the beginning the world was perfect. It was man who caused sin to enter. We don't need to argue. But if you commit a serious crime you will be punished by a judge, you can't say it's because I didn't believe or I didn't know that law existed. You will be punished period. Same way the bible gives us commandments.. If you die and find out God does exist what will you say.. I didn't know the law was true. Same thing really.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

No, my argument shows how a finite being cannot be infinitely good

No it doesn't. You assume the difference between "finite good" and "infinite good" in a premise that nobody in their right mind would accept. Your argument is valid, but useless, because nobody who doesn't already agree with you will accept that premise. For an argument to be any use, you need people who disagree with your conclusion to find your premises acceptable.

 

[Inkfingers]

No it doesn't. You assume the difference between "finite good" and "infinite good" in a premise that nobody in their right mind would accept. Your argument is valid, but useless, because nobody who doesn't already agree with you will accept that premise. For an argument to be any use, you need people who disagree with your conclusion to find your premises acceptable.

Sorry, what?

 

[Davian]

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?

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?

That's why I said at least some of those who claim to have a lack of belief really have a faith in atheism.

Atheism is not a truth claim. Faith is not applicable.

I am speaking of those who have become familiar with the arguments and evidence, but have then chosen not to believe.

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

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.

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

 

[Davian]

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

"...plenty...".

lol.

Why would I need these when I have the Holy Spirit witnessing to me personally?

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

 

[Wryetui]

What if God lets the evil exist with a purpose, as He does right now, because this "evil" is needed for our salvation? Wouldn't that make Him as good as we should realise He is?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

What if God lets the evil exist with a purpose, as He does right now, because this "evil" is needed for our salvation? Wouldn't that make Him as good as we should realise He is?

That argument would be better without the "for our salvation" bit.

Humans, with the best will in the world, are continually faced with difficult moral dilemmas. Sometimes your only choice is between two things that are both evil, and all you can do is decide which is the lesser. Why should it be any different for God? It's the same world, after all.

An example: 40 years ago China was facing a population nightmare. The decision-makers in that country had already lived through one terrible episode of mass-starvation, and they knew that if something major wasn't done to halt population growth, that it was guaranteed to happen again. So they chose to implement a one-child policy, which had to be enforced, and that meant, among other things, forced late abortions on people flouting the rules. Not nice at all, but not as bad as mass-starvation.

This is the way the world is. Maybe even God can't make it any other way.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Atheism is not a truth claim.

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.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Sorry, what?

Syllogistic arguments (arguments that start with set of premises which are supposed to lead, logically, to a conclusion) are only useful if the people they are aimed at are likely to find the premises acceptable, but not be so sure (or actively disbelieve) the conclusion.

So, for example, if you want to come up with an argument that demonstrates the existence of God, you might choose to start it with a premise like:

"Premise 1: It says in the Bible that...."

It doesn't matter if your argument is valid (if the conclusion follows from the premises), because the argument is aimed at atheists, and atheists don't care what it says in the Bible, and they'll just reject the premise, and therefore reject the conclusion. So this is not much use.

But if, for example, you want to come up with an argument to convince a particular group of theists that, for example, God has perfect knowledge of the future, then starting with a similarly premise might be OK. That argument is aimed at theists, who cannot simply dimiss what it says in the Bible.

 

[Davian]

What if God lets the evil exist with a purpose, as He does right now, because this "evil" is needed for our salvation? Wouldn't that make Him as good as we should realise He is?