The Problem of Evil

[Resha Caner]

The difference between an electric company and god is that, by having electricity, you can actually tell if it provides you with a service or not pretty easily.

Likewise, I know what God has done for me.

 

[bhsmte]

Likewise, I know what God has done for me.

If you are convinced it was God, then I say fantastic. But, can you see why others can chalk this up to personal experiences, that only apply to you?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Likewise, I know what God has done for me.

But you can't follow that up and prove it. Technically, you can't know it for sure. You may think it is true, but reality doesn't really care about what either of us think. What is and isn't is independent of our own thoughts on the matter. Ultimately, we could argue about this forever, but it wouldn't really matter because no matter what we will not be sure of anything until we die, and perhaps even then we shall not truly know.

 

[Resha Caner]

But you can't follow that up and prove it. Technically, you can't know it for sure.

These are two very different statements. I absolutely know it for sure. However, you are right that I can't prove it to you - at least I probably couldn't based on what I assume you would ask for. But, I'll bet that by the very same criteria you wouldn't be able to prove to me what the special people in your life have done for you.

 

[PsychoSarah]

These are two very different statements. I absolutely know it for sure. However, you are right that I can't prove it to you - at least I probably couldn't based on what I assume you would ask for. But, I'll bet that by the very same criteria you wouldn't be able to prove to me what the special people in your life have done for you.

If you can't prove it to me, you can't really prove it to yourself either. If there was a god, its existence should be apparent without any text written by humans.

 

[Resha Caner]

If you can't prove it to me, you can't really prove it to yourself either. If there was a god, its existence should be apparent without any text written by humans.

Not true. I could offer other examples, but since I don't know what you think of the one I already gave, it wouldn't count for anything.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Not true. I could offer other examples, but since I don't know what you think of the one I already gave, it wouldn't count for anything.

Because if you can't prove only a god could possibly do it, then there is no reason to think one did.

The bible has nothing special about it that makes it superior to other religious texts. If it were written by a god, it would not have so many blatant and serious errors. Humans aren't even special in their intelligence; chimps can learn human language, you can actually have a grammatically decent conversation with one. I have no reason to see why an entire universe would be made for one, tiny insignificant species.

 

[Resha Caner]

Because if you can't prove only a god could possibly do it, then there is no reason to think one did.

That is a logical fallacy.

The bible has nothing special about it that makes it superior to other religious texts.

Nothing? Nothing at all distinguishes the Bible from other texts? So if one were to speak to someone in religious studies, or literature, or history, or political science, there would be nothing about the Bible that has had a unique or larger impact than other religions?

I'd be curious to know what standard you would set out for ranking religious texts.

If it were written by a god, it would not have so many blatant and serious errors. Humans aren't even special in their intelligence; chimps can learn human language, you can actually have a grammatically decent conversation with one. I have no reason to see why an entire universe would be made for one, tiny insignificant species.

The universe wasn't made for one tiny, insignificant species. You're really going to need to start substantiating what you say if we're going to have a discussion ... although at this point I need to ask: What are we discussing?

 

[PsychoSarah]

That is a logical fallacy.



Nothing? Nothing at all distinguishes the Bible from other texts? So if one were to speak to someone in religious studies, or literature, or history, or political science, there would be nothing about the Bible that has had a unique or larger impact than other religions?

I'd be curious to know what standard you would set out for ranking religious texts.



The universe wasn't made for one tiny, insignificant species. You're really going to need to start substantiating what you say if we're going to have a discussion ... although at this point I need to ask: What are we discussing?

Basically, how my brain prevents me from believing anything based in religion alone.

 

[Resha Caner]

Basically, how my brain prevents me from believing anything based in religion alone.

OK. I don't know that you've ever given a direct answer, but my position was that the "problem of evil" as I usually see it presented, is not a reason for unbelief. You seem to have tacitly agreed.

It basically comes down to you thinking you haven't met God. I can understand your reluctance to share personal experiences, so for the purposes of this conversation, I can only take it at face value: you haven't met God.

At that point, my standard example is to ask something like: Have you ever met Kim Jong Un?

 

[PsychoSarah]

OK. I don't know that you've ever given a direct answer, but my position was that the "problem of evil" as I usually see it presented, is not a reason for unbelief. You seem to have tacitly agreed.

It basically comes down to you thinking you haven't met God. I can understand your reluctance to share personal experiences, so for the purposes of this conversation, I can only take it at face value: you haven't met God.

At that point, my standard example is to ask something like: Have you ever met Kim Jong Un?

I don't need to personally meet god to believe it exists, I am not that dense. I just need to experience or see something which would be truly unarguably incapable of happening naturally or by human hands. An example I like to use is a book that anyone can read, not matter what language or level of literacy, a single time which, when opened, everyone understands.

It might not have to be so grand as that, but you get the gist.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I just need to experience or see something which would be truly unarguably incapable of happening naturally or by human hands......

There exists no such thing. Anything can be explained away by one unwilling to believe.

Case in point, the world you see everyday when you open your eyes.

To say that it owes its existence to nothing more than random natural processes acting on matter that somehow just came into existence out of nothing, from nothing, by nothing is literally worse than magic. For when a magician waves his wand over a hat and a rabbit jumps out, at least you have the magician, and the hat, and the wand.

To deny that this world is the handiwork of a Creator is to believe that everything just popped into existence without a cause from nothing, for nothing.

Yet people believe this.

 

[PsychoSarah]

There exists no such thing. Anything can be explained away by one unwilling to believe.

Case in point, the world you see everyday when you open your eyes.

To say that it owes its existence to nothing more than random natural processes acting on matter that somehow just came into existence out of nothing, from nothing, by nothing is literally worse than magic. For when a magician waves his wand over a hat and a rabbit jumps out, at least you have the magician, and the hat, and the wand.

To deny that this world is the handiwork of a Creator is to believe that everything just popped into existence without a cause from nothing, for nothing.

Yet people believe this.

I think you misunderstand; I definitely am not going out of my way to dismiss god. I dispise being atheist, because it means that the chances of an afterlife are very slim. Can you understand how the loss of a loved one must feel to someone who believes that, chances are, all that person was is gone forever, a fate one day you shall have as well? It is absolute dispair. No one wants to think there is nothing out there.

 

[bhsmte]

There exists no such thing. Anything can be explained away by one unwilling to believe.

Case in point, the world you see everyday when you open your eyes.

To say that it owes its existence to nothing more than random natural processes acting on matter that somehow just came into existence out of nothing, from nothing, by nothing is literally worse than magic. For when a magician waves his wand over a hat and a rabbit jumps out, at least you have the magician, and the hat, and the wand.

To deny that this world is the handiwork of a Creator is to believe that everything just popped into existence without a cause from nothing, for nothing.

Yet people believe this.

What you stated, is the best circumstancial case that a God may have initiated everything. This certainly is not hard evidence, as the universe may have been initiated without a supreme being.

Lastly, even if a God did initiate the universe and life, it does nothing to show whether that God was the christian God or personal God. The entity may have been a God that does not answer prayers and doea not align with the christian description. Looking at the realities of the world we live in, the non personal God makes much more sense, but still not likely IMO.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What you stated, is the best circumstancial case that a God may have initiated everything. This certainly is not hard evidence, as the universe may have been initiated without a supreme being.

Lastly, even if a God did initiate the universe and life, it does nothing to show whether that God was the christian God or personal God. The entity may have been a God that does not answer prayers and doea not align with the christian description. Looking at the realities of the world we live in, the non personal God makes much more sense, but still not likely IMO.

I can push that even further, and mention that even if there was a creator, that doesn't mean an afterlife exists or that humans matter in any significant way to this being.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I think you misunderstand; I definitely am not going out of my way to dismiss god. I dispise being atheist, because it means that the chances of an afterlife are very slim. Can you understand how the loss of a loved one must feel to someone who believes that, chances are, all that person was is gone forever, a fate one day you shall have as well? It is absolute dispair. No one wants to think there is nothing out there.

I agree atheism when taken to its logical conclusion ends in despair. It ends in nihilism.

And I do think that most people want there to be an afterlife of some sort.

Atheism which usually entails some sort of metaphysical naturalism is just patently absurd and that is why I was arguing that it requires one to believe something so improbable as to be virtually impossible.

 

[bhsmte]

I can push that even further, and mention that even if there was a creator, that doesn't mean an afterlife exists or that humans matter in any significant way to this being.

That is kinda my point with the possibility of a universal non personal God vs the description of the christian God. The universal God is one who does not involve himself with life on earth and this jives better with the realities we see.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

What you stated, is the best circumstancial case that a God may have initiated everything. This certainly is not hard evidence, as the universe may have been initiated without a supreme being.

Lastly, even if a God did initiate the universe and life, it does nothing to show whether that God was the christian God or personal God. The entity may have been a God that does not answer prayers and doea not align with the christian description. Looking at the realities of the world we live in, the non personal God makes much more sense, but still not likely IMO.

I am not making an argument for God at all.


I simply said that to believe that this cosmos with all of its beauty and grandeur and this life with all of its joys and wonders is simply the result of some natural processes acting on matter over a period of time and that it all came about as some kind of uncaused, unplanned, from nothing by nothing for nothing event is simply worse than believing in magic.

It does not cohere at all with our experiences as moral, feeling, rational sentient beings. It does not cohere with our deepest and most valued beliefs.

The only thing it has going for it is the undeniable fact that a very small fraction of the world's population who hold certain positions of influence in the academy are atheists. That is the only reason why it is not seen as a wishful thinking, make-believe, fairytale, and even then, with atheistic scientists continually talking about such nonsense as "something coming from nothing uncaused", most people simply dismiss it all as semantic gymnastics.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I agree atheism when taken to its logical conclusion ends in despair. It ends in nihilism.

And I do think that most people want there to be an afterlife of some sort.

Atheism which usually entails some sort of metaphysical naturalism is just patently absurd and that is why I was arguing that it requires one to believe something so improbable as to be virtually impossible.

What makes there being no god impossible? Humans once thought lightening could only be caused by a deity, but we now know that it is just charges jumping between storm clouds.

 

[bhsmte]

I am not making an argument for God at all.


I simply said that to believe that this cosmos with all of its beauty and grandeur and this life with all of its joys and wonders is simply the result of some natural processes acting on matter over a period of time and that it all came about as some kind of uncaused, unplanned, from nothing by nothing for nothing event is simply worse than believing in magic.

It does not cohere at all with our experiences as moral, feeling, rational sentient beings. It does not cohere with our deepest and most valued beliefs.

The only thing it has going for it is the undeniable fact that a very small fraction of the world's population who hold certain positions of influence in the academy are atheists. That is the only reason why it is not seen as a wishful thinking, make-believe, fairytale, and even then, with atheistic scientists continually talking about such nonsense as "something coming from nothing uncaused", most people simply dismiss it all as semantic gymnastics.

The universe and earth would not qualify as a perfect creation. There is plenty about the worl that are very unpleasent and some that is very pleasent. With 99% of all life on earth going extinct, the creation has flaws.

Tha academy? I dont follow you.