General Chat / The logical and emotional problem of evil.

Let's hear it for the Holy Ghost, people. Jesus and God get all the fucking credit.

@ RMM: Aside from your straw man, I think you've misunderstood the argument here. I'm not doing religious science here. I'm not presuppose God exists or forming a god of the gaps type argument. Both premise 1, and premise 2, are religiously neutral statements that can be found in any textbook on astronomy and philosophy. So if you are going to deny the conclusion of the argument, you need to either say premise 1, or premise 2 are false. It's not enough to say, "we don't know". There is unbelievably remarkable evidence for the beginning of the universe! I'll share some of this with you later this week. It's been a busy week so I'll have to keep my responses short.

I'm sorry you feel that way about religion RMM. Perhaps if I were to list all of the positive things they do you might change your opinion and see the negatives as the exception rather than the norm. But aside from that, I'm sorry to tell you that religion is far from "backing up towards a cliff". Christianity is still a religion of 2.5 billion people today. Not only that, but it is growing tremendously in places like China, India and South Africa. Furthermore, in the philosophical arena, it is greatly growing again as well.

@ AvanineCommuter: This particular argument doesn't prove a particular god exists. This is simply an argument for the existence of God. So your question is quite right. This is but one part in a serious of arguments that lead to an argument for the God of the Bible.

We have seen no good reason or evidence for the truth of the claim "God does exist." Thus, the Atheist is completely justified in their experience that God does not exist.

Well, for that to be true, you'd have to start off by disproving my first argument. Unless, and until you can do that, we have seen good evidence for the existence of God.

Moreover, this argument is just silly MA (I'd imagine you weren't being serious, rather just trying to make people laugh). For how can an absence of an experience of a thing be positive evidence against the thing? Suppose a close relative of mine died before I was old enough to remember her. Thus, I would have an absence of an experience that she ever loved me! But does it follow that therefore she didn't love me (or that she didn't exist)? Of course not! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So even in the absence of any evidence for the existence of God, the Atheist is STILL not justified in claiming that God does not exist. You need to give us some positive evidence for that claim (if that is what you really believe).



I'll do my best to find time to post more information in support of those two premises later this week.

your "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument is perfectly valid. but that and your bible is pretty much the only real evidence you have. "it could be right" and "it says so here. in this book. written over hundreds of years. in several different countries. by several different authors."

whereas open any high level science book and you will be met with piles and piles of evidence. solid, good old evidence.

your "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument is perfectly valid. but that and your bible is pretty much the only real evidence you have. "it could be right" and "it says so here. in this book. written over hundreds of years. in several different countries. by several different authors."

whereas open any high level science book and you will be met with piles and piles of evidence. solid, good old evidence.

Completely agreed. Why are we to take this book as "fact" without much of its scriptures cited by scientific evidence?

and no, IceKnight. We have not seen good evidence for the existence of God. Perhaps YOU have, but you haven't shown us any and I don't know of any myself.

Well, for that to be true, you'd have to start off by disproving my first argument. Unless, and until you can do that, we have seen good evidence for the existence of God.

Moreover, this argument is just silly MA (I'd imagine you weren't being serious, rather just trying to make people laugh). For how can an absence of an experience of a thing be positive evidence against the thing? Suppose a close relative of mine died before I was old enough to remember her. Thus, I would have an absence of an experience that she ever loved me! But does it follow that therefore she didn't love me (or that she didn't exist)? Of course not! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So even in the absence of any evidence for the existence of God, the Atheist is STILL not justified in claiming that God does not exist. You need to give us some positive evidence for that claim (if that is what you really believe).



I'll do my best to find time to post more information in support of those two premises later this week.

True, I am a silly goose. But no, I was not being silly. You're absolutely correctthat you wouldn't be able to prove your relative didn't love you, but you wouldn't be able to prove that she did, either. Your claim that there is a God is as equally valid and invalid that there isn't one. You choose to believe. I choose not to.

Point of the argument aside, your tactics are a little off base. This isn't a formal debate. By that, I mean to say that you don't win simply because the opposing party fails to defeat your claim, especially in cases where there is more than one correct answer. For an extreme example, you could argue that the next time you flip a coin, it will be heads, and I would be unable to defeat that argument. That doesn't mean that the next toss will land heads--it just means you won a pointless debate.

I realize that I am just entering this topic and I am getting off topic, but judging by the title, the concept of evil is very simple by my philosophical views:

Evil is no more than a widely accepted opinion and varies. For instance, most people wouldn't consider swatting and smashing an annoying insect to be evil, but killing a cat or dog would generally be considered evil in most belifs. In modern times, it is widely accepted that killing another human being is evil, heck, punching or even harassing another person is considered wrong, yet people kill others out of greed, anger, and some sick morons have even done it out of thrill or boredom.

Another concept that is considered extremely evil would be cannibalism, which is deemed as an extremely sick and disgusting act in which even imagining it makes some feel sick, yet some cultures have commited such acts without problem, actually believing that it was righteous.

Religion and evil...
Religion is a very controversial concept itself, and was used to understand the world better before contemporary times. Religion supposedly protected from evil, yet generally caused evil in examples ranging from scandal to prosecution to war to genocide. Then again, religion has prevented poverty and generated many great and peaceful people to help others in need. I understand that there are extremists, but those are rare and are in every religion and culture. It is the fault of the people and not the deity (real or not) in which destruction is caused.

Does it really matter if god(s) really exist(s)? In my opinion the point of a religion is to help others regain hope to realize that there will be always someone or something there for them to help. It all depends on the person.

Can an inanimate object be evil?
Another controversial (but less) topic would be firearms. What is a firearm? It is a tool that is usually used for killing? As an inanimate object, is it evil or is it a tool? In the hands, it depends on what it is used for. Firearms kill, but then again, hitting your head on a hard object unintentionally can kill also, so does that mean that anything with any potential to inflict harm is evil? Is the car in my driveway evil? Is sporting equipment evil? Is the chair I'm sitting on evil? In my opinion, something that is evil has to be sentient being with full emotion, not a collection of once living or never living raw materials.

Evil in nature
Well, I understand that everyone has different morals, and some religions don't allow eating of meat. I understand and respect that, but I have met up with Christians and Atheists that believe it is wrong to eat animals. Is it wrong, or natural as part of the food web. We can construct tools for a reason, and in that way, we are at the top. Animals kill other animals in excruciating ways. Larger carnivores mutilate and tear apart their prey without remorse (unlike most criminals), yet people describe it as nature and are told to leave predation alone. It appears to me also that it depends on the treatment of animals, therefore hunting (killing the animal personally and quickly) seems a lot less cruel and evil in the long run than farming and agriculture.

Conclusion
Evil is an opinion that varies. In summary, it is when an extremely intelligent and sentient being willingly inflicts harm or directs negative energy on any object or living creature of any significance that is cared for by another being in which perception of the level of evil depends on the being and their opinion/intelligence.

Christianity is what is right for some people(me) then whoop de doo that's great. I believe god does exist not because I have a christian missionary/ministry for a father. He did not raise us to be Christians because most of the times when children are mostly forced into a religion from birth they truly do not believe in their given. It's when they are adults and out of their parent's grip that they choose if they want a religion.

You're an atheist? Okay. I might convince you to come to church or convince you that god exists but I won't force or pressure you. But a simple no will deter me, might I try again very much later on? Yes. But if you refuse then I won't really take it any farther than that.

I chose to be a christian. I might not act like it sometimes but really god kept me from screwing up a LOT. And i do mean a LOT. Christianity is mental disorder? Thinking that all religion is shit, poison and a "mental disorder" is your opinion and a lot of opinions of atheists.

That baffles me, Christianity motivates you to do good, is it that we believe in a higher being absolute and the creator? That we can just believe without any solid real proof? If you take that solid proof theory a step farther it also applies to science, no? Yes certain chemicals react to each other and to some people that is "proof" that things proclaimed as science as facts are true. The miracles that we've read in the bible are like the chemicals reacting but it might be less visible. Such as saving a person's life by pure absolute "luck", that might be god and that might not be god. There's no proof. There's also no proof that the explanations explaining the reactive behavior of chemicals are true. Sure there might be years of research and further proof that lets you believe the explanations, but what if those are false?

Nothing in the world, except things like flipping a coin and knowing it will land, are certain.

There might be a god or there might not be one. The historical documents that explain Jesus's and the Bible's origins and existence might be fake. Christianity might be fake. As I already have said, nothing is certain right?

We believe what we want to believe in whether or not if it isthat it's certain or not.

I believe that a god exists. I believe in Christianity, but my beliefs might or might not be true. Just like atheism might be totally right or totally wrong.

Basically as I think I'm not getting anywhere with this argument (I'm not good at all at intellectual arguments) what I want to get across is that if there is a christian god then then i've believed the right thing and I might enjoy the fruits of heaven depending on my future yet-to-be determined actions. If there is no god and there is no afterlife, at least I've kept from straying far from the the expectations and rules set by society and although I might've believed in just a fairy tale the fairy tale helped me to stay on track with my life. Getting an education, quitting smoking, not drinking, any illegal activities etc...

First, reasons to believe the first premise is true.

1)It is an obvious first principle of metaphysics. Being does NOT come from non-being. Something, does not come from nothing. Atheist themselves recognize this truth. For example, David Hume wrote to John Stewart, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause. I only maintain that our certainty of the falsehood of that proposition proceeded neither from intuition or demonstration, but from another source." In fact, should such a principle be accepted, it would destroy science.

2) It becomes inexplicable why just anything and everything doesn't pop into being.

"The Atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen gives the following illustration. “Suppose you suddenly hear a loud ‘BANG!!!’ and you ask me, ‘what made that bang?!’ And I replay ‘nothing… it just happened.’” He says, “You wouldn’t accept that! In fact, you would find my reply quite unintelligible.” And I would argue and agree that indeed, it really is quite unintelligible to believe that being can come from absolute non-being.

As Dr. Craig states in his book "On Guard" on page 77:

But if an individual does believe that it is possible, than they would have to explain why anything and everything just doesn't pop into being. Why don't root beer, Eskimo villages, and movies pop into being from nothing? "What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can't be anything about nothingness that favors universes, because nothingness has no properties. Neither can anything constrain nothingness for there isn't anything to be constrained."

3) In the case of the universe, prior to the Big Bang, there wasn't even the potentiality of the existence of the universe. The principle of causality is a universally verified, and never falsified, principle of empirical science. Thus providing us one of the strongest inductive arguments we all encounter on a daily basis.

True, I am a silly goose. But no, I was not being silly. You're absolutely correctthat you wouldn't be able to prove your relative didn't love you, but you wouldn't be able to prove that she did, either. Your claim that there is a God is as equally valid and invalid that there isn't one. You choose to believe. I choose not to.

Point of the argument aside, your tactics are a little off base. This isn't a formal debate. By that, I mean to say that you don't win simply because the opposing party fails to defeat your claim, especially in cases where there is more than one correct answer. For an extreme example, you could argue that the next time you flip a coin, it will be heads, and I would be unable to defeat that argument. That doesn't mean that the next toss will land heads--it just means you won a pointless debate.

The problem here MA is that in the case of your statement, you are providing an absence of evidence as evidence of absence (which we both agree is false). But in the case of the Christian Theist, we aren't presupposing an absence of evidence as evidence. Rather, a positive statement of experience. The experience that the Christian has of the Holy Spirit on a daily basis is positive evidence for them that God exists, NOT a "you don't know God doesn't exist so therefore He exists." It's not an absence of evidence like your claim, rather it is positive evidence. For your claim is this: "I have an experience of God not existing (aka, an experience of non-experience)."

I understand what you are saying MA, but the analogy really is quite misunderstood. This because whether an argument is true or not is not dependent upon chance, but upon whether the argument is valid and its premises are more plausibly true than false. So unless the argument can be shown to be false, it follows logically an inescapably that God exists.

Completely agreed. Why are we to take this book as "fact" without much of its scriptures cited by scientific evidence?

and no, IceKnight. We have not seen good evidence for the existence of God. Perhaps YOU have, but you haven't shown us any and I don't know of any myself.

This is a quite separate discussion Avanine, but I will mention it later so I don't want you to think that I have ignored you. The documents in the Bible can be historically verified.
Take a look at the Cosmological Argument I just posted. This is the first evidence for the existence of God.

would you say it is logical to say that a wave becomes a particle when left unobserved? yet this is what quantum physics suggests. we aren't just banging shit together, here, iceknight. the big bang theory has some contributing evidence towards it. some stuff which must have slipped god's mind when he wrote the bible.

First, reasons to believe the first premise is true.

1)It is an obvious first principle of metaphysics. Being does NOT come from non-being. Something, does not come from nothing. Atheist themselves recognize this truth. For example, David Hume wrote to John Stewart, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause. I only maintain that our certainty of the falsehood of that proposition proceeded neither from intuition or demonstration, but from another source." In fact, should such a principle be accepted, it would destroy science.

The fact that you didn't witness the beginning or don't know the reason behind it doesn't lend itself to any reason at all. In fact, the only possible solution is that you don't know anything at all about it.

Should your principle be accepted, it might destroy the big bang theory, though there's enough evidence to support it at this point that there's a reason it's the leading theory.

2) It becomes inexplicable why just anything and everything doesn't pop into being.

"The Atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen gives the following illustration. “Suppose you suddenly hear a loud ‘BANG!!!’ and you ask me, ‘what made that bang?!’ And I replay ‘nothing… it just happened.’” He says, “You wouldn’t accept that! In fact, you would find my reply quite unintelligible.” And I would argue and agree that indeed, it really is quite unintelligible to believe that being can come from absolute non-being.

As Dr. Craig states in his book "On Guard" on page 77:

But if an individual does believe that it is possible, than they would have to explain why anything and everything just doesn't pop into being. Why don't root beer, Eskimo villages, and movies pop into being from nothing? "What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can't be anything about nothingness that favors universes, because nothingness has no properties. Neither can anything constrain nothingness for there isn't anything to be constrained."

This is the same point you just made. If you don't know the answer, you look for it. In the case of root beer, movie theaters, and Eskimo villages, the answer has already been found, and so they make sense. The loud bang? If you don't know and don't accept the answer, you'll find it if you look hard enough. Or maybe you won't. The point being that if you don't, "It just was" isn't an explanation, but an admittance that you don't fucking know. It doesn't make sense to tack on an explanation such as a divine source, because then you'd have to attribute something to its origin, too.

3) In the case of the universe, prior to the Big Bang, there wasn't even the potentiality of the existence of the universe. The principle of causality is a universally verified, and never falsified, principle of empirical science. Thus providing us one of the strongest inductive arguments we all encounter on a daily basis.

Citation needed.

You're also making a lot of assumptions, like that there was nothing present before the big bang, something that's not possible for us to verify.

The problem here MA is that in the case of your statement, you are providing an absence of evidence as evidence of absence (which we both agree is false). But in the case of the Christian Theist, we aren't presupposing an absence of evidence as evidence. Rather, a positive statement of experience. The experience that the Christian has of the Holy Spirit on a daily basis is positive evidence for them that God exists, NOT a "you don't know God doesn't exist so therefore He exists." It's not an absence of evidence like your claim, rather it is positive evidence. For your claim is this: "I have an experience of God not existing (aka, an experience of non-experience)."

I understand what you are saying MA, but the analogy really is quite misunderstood. This because whether an argument is true or not is not dependent upon chance, but upon whether the argument is valid and its premises are more plausibly true than false. So unless the argument can be shown to be false, it follows logically an inescapably that God exists.

You had me up until the very last sentence. You just argued why I'm not allowed to logically state that if you can't prove something false, then it is correct, and then asserted the same thing.

I have a positive experience of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Disprove me.

3) In the case of the universe, prior to the Big Bang, there wasn't even the potentiality of the existence of the universe. The principle of causality is a universally verified, and never falsified, principle of empirical science. Thus providing us one of the strongest inductive arguments we all encounter on a daily basis.

Forget it guys. This is a direct quote from the Watchtower, the Jehovah's Witness indoctrination program. The fact that the guy is spreading this shit is reason enough to believe he never looked for a discussion, only for a soapbox to preach from. I don't see why anyone would do him that favor.

ah hah, it makes sense now. Thanks Verti.

Also IceKnight, I am not questioning an existence of a god but rather the existence of YOUR God. I know this is a separate discussion from what you and MA are having, so it doesn't need to go any further.

The fact that you didn't witness the beginning or don't know the reason behind it doesn't lend itself to any reason at all. In fact, the only possible solution is that you don't know anything at all about it.

Should your principle be accepted, it might destroy the big bang theory, though there's enough evidence to support it at this point that there's a reason it's the leading theory.

I don't deny the Big Bang Theory. But your statement on the causal principle is just special pleading for Atheism.

This is the same point you just made. If you don't know the answer, you look for it. In the case of root beer, movie theaters, and Eskimo villages, the answer has already been found, and so they make sense. The loud bang? If you don't know and don't accept the answer, you'll find it if you look hard enough. Or maybe you won't. The point being that if you don't, "It just was" isn't an explanation, but an admittance that you don't fucking know. It doesn't make sense to tack on an explanation such as a divine source, because then you'd have to attribute something to its origin, too.

There can not be an infinite regress of causes. The first cause must necessarily be uncaused. Which is traditionally what the Theist has always said about God. God doesn't need a cause because He has just always exsited. The universe hasn't.

You're also making a lot of assumptions, like that there was nothing present before the big bang, something that's not possible for us to verify.

It sure is, I'll post support for the 2nd Premise later next week probably. That will be the next moment I will have time.

You had me up until the very last sentence. You just argued why I'm not allowed to logically state that if you can't prove something false, then it is correct, and then asserted the same thing.

I have a positive experience of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Disprove me.

I think the confusion we are having here is that you aren't following what I said closely enough. This isn't an argument to prove to you that God exists. This is a subjective argument for the individual to hold a rational belief in God solely apart from there being any arguments for His existence.

That's fine if you have an experience of the FSM. That may be good evidence for you to believe in him, but it's not evidence for me to believe in him. This is of course all things being equal. Now I don't think that is the case, but that's irrelevant right now. The fact is, unless there is some overriding defeater for the Christian to doubt their experience in God, they are more than justified in believing in their experience. Now if they want to SHOW that God exists, than they would need arguments like the one I posted.

Forget it guys. This is a direct quote from the Watchtower, the Jehovah's Witness indoctrination program. The fact that the guy is spreading this shit is reason enough to believe he never looked for a discussion, only for a soapbox to preach from. I don't see why anyone would do him that favor.

I'm not surprised that they have it there, as such an argument would benefit their beliefs. The fact is, this argument comes from Dr. William Lane Craig, a Christian Theist, and can be found in his debates, transcripts, and books (where I've been quoting from). I've been debating them for so long I just know them by heart .

Simply put, this is just an Ad Hominem attack. By trying to attack my credibility in no way discredits the argument. So if you'd like to think that you are attacking my credibility that's fine, but the argument still stands. The fact is, unless there is a question or response that I can't immediately copy and paste an answer to, I am going to paste the answer to save me time on typing as I see many of the same questions. Google isn't a secret Verti . As MA stated, this isn't an accademic paper so I don't have to worry about plagiarism .




Btw guys, thank you for all your past help in the "ask the experts" forum. You all are very helpful and knowledgeable of the game!

I'm not surprised that they have it there, as such an argument would benefit their beliefs. The fact is, this argument comes from Dr. William Lane Craig, a Christian Theist, and can be found in his debates, transcripts, and books (where I've been quoting from). I've been debating them for so long I just know them by heart .

Simply put, this is just an Ad Hominem attack. By trying to attack my credibility in no way discredits the argument. So if you'd like to think that you are attacking my credibility that's fine, but the argument still stands. The fact is, unless there is a question or response that I can't immediately copy and paste an answer to, I am going to paste the answer to save me time on typing as I see many of the same questions. Google isn't a secret Verti . As MA stated, this isn't an accademic paper so I don't have to worry about plagiarism .

You're quoting a professor in philosophy on the matter of the Big Bang theory. I don't have to ruin your credibility for you, really.

There is only one big question that this topic seems to raise....why is MA wasting his time on this?

^^ scientists are only a little bit better qualified to talk on such matters though.

You're quoting a professor in philosophy on the matter of the Big Bang theory. I don't have to ruin your credibility for you, really.

You're engaging in a debate without being a professional debater. You just ruined your credibility.

Never mind the fact that we have been discussing metaphysics, not cosmology, with the 1st premise . You strike me as a very irrational person when it comes to talking about arguments for the existence of God. Why? Because unlike MA, SSSamy, and others, you have yet to provide any discussion on the topic and have instead resorted to committing Ad Hominem attacks and being defensive. I'd appreciate it if you would either join the conversation or stop.

You're engaging in a debate without being a professional debater.

I'm not being paid to do this, I'm fairly certain neither are you. Nowhere did we agree upon any rules for it; it was never a formal debate to begin with.

You strike me as a very irrational person when it comes to talking about arguments for the existence of God. Why? Because unlike MA, SSSamy, and others, you have yet to provide any discussion on the topic and have instead resorted to committing Ad Hominem attacks and being defensive.

You can stop using caps whenever you use Latin, it's unnecessary and just makes it seem like you found some fancy words. And considering that you believe something exists until proven otherwise, I'd very strongly suggest you rethink your usage of the word 'irrational'.

I'd appreciate it if you would either join the conversation or stop.

Actually, I've been following this thread waiting for you to participate in the discussion. All you have done so far, is evade the issue, and only apply certain self-invented standards whenever they're in your favour; it doesn't work that way.

You claim that if I could not disprove God, but you say he's there, that proves his existence. You claim that there could've been no initial matter that just was there to trigger the Big Bang, but there could've been a God all along. In fact, you go as far as to label it 'evidence' when it is not verifiable in any form. This is the core of your entire argument so far, and it's flawed. You haven't bothered to refute a single point so far, all you have is this 'evidence' that only convinces me you've spent very little time actually trying to understand the scientific method.


Get off the preaching chair, start discussing, and stop claiming others don't, then I might take you seriously.

OK, who's got OCD? I'm curious as to how many times Ice has used the term "Ad Hominem" in this thread but I don't have the patience to read through the whole thing and count them all.

ctrl+f ad hominem

5, although seems more due to excessive use fo quotes.