Eric Metaxas on the unlikelihood of our existence

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 9, 2014

Fine tuning, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Further to: Anything to get rid of fine tuning:

“Reason and science compels us to see what previous generations could not: that our existence is an outrageous and astonishing miracle, one so startlingly and perhaps so disturbingly miraculous that it makes any miracle like the parting of the Red Sea pale in such insignificance that it almost becomes unworthy of our consideration, as though it were something done easily by a child, half-asleep. It is something to which the most truly human response is some combination of terror and wonder, of ancient awe, and childhood joy.” Eric Metaxas – Miracles – pages 55-56

See also:Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

Comments

Keith, If avoiding the creation of sinners destroys the design goal of creation as a whole, then the only way god can avoid creating sinners is by abandoning the design goal. Just because you can imagine god doing something doesn't mean it can actually be done.William J Murray_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Keith said:
But as I just explained, a standard omniGod can use his omniscience to avoid creating sinners.
"A standard omniGod"?? Another case where keith mistakes what he imagines for what is actually possible by relying on his premise of a magically omnipotent God.William J Murray_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

WJM
The problem with the commodity of good is that the kind of contextual relationship that is necessary for it to be identifiable as such relies solely on the existence of an experiential dichotomous counterpart – like light and dark, up and down, health and illness. If there is no down, “up” cannot be conceived. If there is no illness, “health” is not a meaningful concept. Light is meaningless without dark, and without evil, “good” cannot be understood.
CS Lewis said it the best......
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”
Andre_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Keith said at 331:
That’s as silly as saying that “1+1=2? cannot be true unless somewhere else “1+1? doesn’t equal “2?. Or that God couldn’t create giraffes with long necks unless giraffes didn’t have long necks at some other time and place.
Keith apparently is immune to basic logic, and is again substituting "anything keith can imagine" for an necessary element in an argument. "not-A" doesn't mean that everything which is not-A must exist, or the exact opposite of not-A must exist, but rather that something that is not-A must exist contectually to even begin to imagine A. To imagine a giraffe with a long neck, it must have some sort of context that is not "giraffe with a long neck". Giraffe must be an identifiable animal in fact or at least fiction that can be imagined as opposed to some other creature; a "long neck" must be an identifiable commodity as opposed to a short arm or a short leg; etc. 1+1=2 is identifiable as a correct mathematical expression as opposed to an incorrect mathematical expression or as opposed to the color-combination statement "red + blue = purple".
Even if that were correct (and it isn’t), it wouldn’t mean that God would have to create a world in which “not-A” is true. To create a bicycle with round wheels it isn’t necessary to create one whose wheels aren’t round.
No, but there must be non-bicycle something around, and non-round something around, and non-wheel something around in order for those characteristics to be available to even imagine. The problem with the commodity of good is that the kind of contextual relationship that is necessary for it to be identifiable as such relies solely on the existence of an experiential dichotomous counterpart - like light and dark, up and down, health and illness. If there is no down, "up" cannot be conceived. If there is no illness, "health" is not a meaningful concept. Light is meaningless without dark, and without evil, "good" cannot be understood.William J Murray_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

WJM: One view is that all of this is nothing more than a kind of holographic entertainment system god is using to enjoy infinite perspectives of experience through, and that all experience is agreed to in advance regardless of how painful or tragic it appears from this level. Thus, “evil” is a fiction used solely for the purpose of generating literary plots and interests.
This is very close to my view. Cheersmike1962_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

I can not recommend this enough but I urge atheists and theists alike to familiarize themselves with CS Lewis's Man or Rabbit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9fR1vSxNEQAndre_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Jerad said:
I am not trying to ‘have it’ one way or another. I am asking someone with whom I disagree how they make sense of things I see in the world that make no sense to me. It seems very difficult for him to address a particular situation.
It's difficult to answer some questions that appear simple yet rely on entirely erroneous fundamental assumptions and are ignorant of a large body of information required before even the erroneous nature of the assumptions can be understood, much lese the logical problems posed by the rhetorical questions themselves. KF supplied this at 356 & 359. I think you must actually understand the theological concepts of good, love, justice, free will, etc. he (and others here) employ before you can begin to understand how trivial and even nonsensical such "why would god let this happen" type questions are to begin with. But, one cannot hope to move beyond mere "why doesn't god act like I imagine he should" questions without first understanding why such a protestation is nonsensical in the first place and an irrelevant objection in the second place.
I am trying to understand how theism comes to it’s conclusions when I see so much horror and destruction and killing. Talking about some objective moral good is fine but it doesn’t explain why some things happen.
It doesn't explain through the lends of how you would prefer it be explained, but that is not the lens through which it can be explained. The first step is conceding that without an objective good and a god to ground it, there is no reason for you to object to the "horror and destruction and killing" on moral grounds in the second place. The second step is a necessary inference from that (and other) necessary axiomatic position(s) - that if such evil exists, the only explanation is that it is an aspect of existence that is necessitated by the whole nature of existence, given all the other factors involved, such as free will and other binding aspects of god's nature (and thus the nature of anything it creates). The third step is to examine those axioms to see how they intersect and form a necessary existential matrix requiring the existence of evil.
You can’t have heaven without hell? What’s the difference then between our physical, earthly existence where the good and the bad exist side-by-side and heaven and hell where they are separated? Maybe we are in hell now. Maybe there’s so much evil because we have already failed the worthiness test and so we are suffering for our sins. Is that possible?
Those are all interesting questions worthy of philosophical consideration. It took me years of reading and introspective study and observing the world as objectively as possible to come to what is still an evolving theological outlook on existence and experience. It's not my view that god punishes anyone, but rather that people by their own acts which violate conscience put themselves and others in spiritual harm's way, much like a hiker puts himself in harm's way, and others as well, if he ignores gravity or basic common sense. Rules, laws, and consequences are necessary aspects of any comprehensible system, whether they are physical or spiritual in nature. An existent, individuated being must exist somewhere a something, with something else and somewhere else being actual commodities. As individuals we must exist somewhere and others must be distinguishable from us. For existence and our choices to matter, there must be distinguishable ramifications between real options. You want an explanation for some X event, but in order to understand the explanation and be satisfied with it you must be able to see the whole context of what is necessary and what the consequences are for the event for everyone even remotely involved, in this life and beyond. We cannot see all of this, but we can accept it in principle based on a carefully reasoned theism. We can understand that, in principle, evil must exist for our existence and choices to matter. IMO, god cannot "intervene" in any meaningful sense of the term because god is the substance the entire construct is made of. There's nothing else in existence and no "space" for anything else to exist in. What we see as evil is an aspect of god and experience that is necessary. Evil occurs, and because of this, as StehenB has already pointed out, the opportunity exists for individuals with free will to make choices - choices to intervene, to endure courageously as an example to others, to help, to change for the better - and also to do nothing, turn away, dismiss it, make some rationalization, harden their heart, desensitize their conscience, etc. This creation is an opportunity for free will, individuated entities to create the story of their life, as StephenB said above - to grow into virtuousness, into courage, and into love - through a context that provides meaningful and significant opportunity to do so. I don't like to say that evil "serves a purpose", but rather that evil, and harm, are necessary aspects of any system where things like goodness and virtue are even recognizable, much less actionable and rewarding. What is it like from the victim's perspective? Have you ever been a victim? I have. From my perspective, such events are opportunities, in this life or beyond, to learn, grow, or build virtue and good character in a way that actually matters beyond subjective posturing and ad hoc rationalizations. At such times, victims often have the opportunity to become heroic, to offer a guiding example for the rest of is, to be inspirational. Take for example Flight 93. This is heroism and self-sacrifice of so profound a nature that just thinking about it is inspirational and emotionally moving. Yet it occurred in the context of horrendous evil. Could it such heroic virtue have been actioned in some other kind of circumstance? Certainly not without losing the characteristic of standing up against evil no matter what it costs you. Keith seems to think that god can just magically instill such qualities in us, that they do not have to be earned. I think they have to be earned in some real, existential way.
After years and years and years of asking and waiting and reading the Bible I still haven’t heard situations like what happened at that Pakistani school explained or rationalised. I don’t see any sense in it at all.
I've never read the Bible. It seems you are committed against the explanations offered here by KF and StehenB above. I've given you an "in principle" explanation that generally agrees with theirs. All of this turns on how you are prepared to go forward. There are other theistic perspectives that would refer to karma and other such explanations for such "evils", which have largely different concepts of god and what we are experiencing. One view is that all of this is nothing more than a kind of holographic entertainment system god is using to enjoy infinite perspectives of experience through, and that all experience is agreed to in advance regardless of how painful or tragic it appears from this level. Thus, "evil" is a fiction used solely for the purpose of generating literary plots and interests. The point is, it is the nature of your perspective that is disallowing a satisfactory conceptualization of god wrt the evil you see in the world; it is not theism itself that is lacking.William J Murray_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Jerad It is through pain and suffering that God displayed his glory to us, there is no bigger way to express one's love for another than laying down your life for them. That is what God did for you on the cross, He redeemed you. Isaiah 1:18 " "Come now, let us settle the matter," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool." You where not born to live a cosy life, you have been born to bear witness to the glory of God, That is the purpose for which you have been created.Andre_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

keith:
Mapou:
This is a strawman. There is a fourth option: d) God is perfectly loving but he cannot separate the yin from the yang.
That isn’t a fourth option. It falls under (b).
No. It solves the problem of evil and suffering. God can perfectly stop evil and suffering from happening if he wanted to but to do so would not complete our initiation/training. We are gods (conscious agents) in training. We must experience both the yin and the yang, pain and joy. Otherwise, we can know neither. Notez bien: Opposites are ONE. Furthermore, ONLY opposites are ONE.Mapou_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

Jerad,
Box: You can find VJTorley’s explanation here.

Jerad: Interesting but I was asking KF.
My mistake. I did not realize that KF is the one and only source for you.Box_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Jerad
So, what do you think? IF the children killed in Pakistan or Sandy Hook are in heaven then will they still be traumatised?
No, they won't be.
I can’t understand how they can see love and caring when I see pain and suffering, some of it perpetrated by people of faith. It just doesn’t add up for me.
I think I offered you one means of understanding that.
It’s all very well and good to have some overarching, feel-good philosophy but can you bring it down to specific events and understand them?
As I mentioned, I think people of faith don't expect to understand all the mysteries of life here in an existence on earth that is temporary. We "see through a glass darkly". Time is very short, even if you live for 100 years. But if "then", meaning and understanding of these mysteries are revealed to an overwhelming extent, then it makes a huge difference.
Can you make sense of the things that happen when you believe there is a purpose?
You didn't comment on what I offered already so I'm not sure if I should explain that again in a different manner.Silver Asiatic_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

Box #501
You can find VJTorley’s explanation here.
Interesting but I was asking KF. I still don't see how to rationalise an all-knowing and loving god with one that then had to form a new covenant or pushed Abraham into almost killing his son or wanted tribute in form of thousands of foreskins, or thinks it's okay for the beings he loves to torture and maim and abuse and kill each other. Perhaps it's just me but I can't see a way where all the data makes sense with some theological viewpoints.Jerad_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

ks, So - Black Knight it is. @473: Of course the Wind logic is bad logic. It is also a good analogy, because like your "logic", it makes bad assumptions, leaves out other factors, and comes to invalid conclusions. Thanks for agreeing with the analogy. @475: Okay, so you are accepting the theists assertion that evil exists, but denying the theists' assertion that the existence of said evil is man's responsibility, consistent with God's Nature, which is Holy and Just. Gee, cherry-picking beliefs, no wonder you think you win. Strike 1. You get the 4 possibilities correct (I suppose technically you could add a 5th, God is neither all-powerful or perfectly loving). God is perfectly loving and all-powerful. Your problem lies in a) the unfounded assertion that "because evil exists, God can't be #1", and b) a faulty definition of "perfectly loving". Strike 2. Your "thorny question" is circular (not to mention completely ignoring theological thought on the difference between God's "perfect" will and God's "allowed" will). If God is all-powerful, then by definition the # of people who died at Auschwitz is the exact # of people who needed to die, and the # of people who died in the 2004 tsunami is the # who needed to die. If He isn't, then the #'s could be "wrong". Strike 3. For your 40yrs of joy/suffering question - Of course there is a difference - in one case I get (some of) what I deserve, in the other I don't. Neither negates or diminishes the Love, and the logic is only valid if you can show the God didn't have a reason for which path you actually did follow. If I got the 40yrs of joy, God had a reason. Same with pain. See Strike 3 above. Strike 4. @479: There's a qualitative difference between forgiveness granted in the afterlife and lack of consequences for actions here on earth. God does not tell us everything that occurs after death, although the Bible indicates that the rewards we receive and cast at His feet are related to our actions in life, which may or may not have relevance to Justice served. You cannot know what Justice awaits next, or what it looks like. Therefore, forgiveness here != forgiveness there. Strike 5. Re Robot Slaves: Your logic that God could create only those people who would never choose to sin is sophomoric. This goes in the "languages aren't intelligently designed" pile of stupid evolutionist tricks. It can be condensed down into a single instance of "God should have created Adam as a person who would have chosen NOT to eat the apple". Of course, if God by definition creates someone He knew WOULDN'T sin, He in effect makes that choice for them. So they didn't really have free will. You are trying to equate foreknowledge with responsibility, but if you give God the responsibility for man's choice, it then becomes NOT man's choice. In your equation, who is responsible? If your answer isn't "man", then man does not have free will. Strike 6. Re Value of Faith: No evidence of God would equal "blindly believing" - Romans is very clear that Creation is sufficient evidence to those who will see. "Who needs faith?" makes it clear that you've left your supposed "I'm just using what theists believe" position (see Strike 1 above), as the Bible is very clear on the value of Faith to God. You are again imposing YOUR views on God. Strike 7. God didn't "[wipe] out 220,000 people in a single tsunami" - nature, as a consequence of man's sin, did. If you accept a faulty premise (man's sin isn't responsible for cursed nature and the consequences thereof), of course you come to a faulty conclusion. Strike 8. "My argument is an evidential one" - that's ridiculous - the evidence merely says that bad things happen. "Evidence" cannot come to a metaphysical conclusion, and logic is only sufficient where complete knowledge of all factors are available. Since, by definition, you cannot comprehend God, or His motivations, and have selected a limited # of factors to build in to your "logic" (just like the wind analogy), your conclusion cannot be logical, or "evidential". Strike 9. Congratulations. You've managed 3 outs in two at-bats. Your arguments always seem to come down to "here's my set of unfounded premises - if you question them you're wrong and I win". As KF has pointed out (repeatedly, ad nauseam, above), your argument really goes completely off the rails in Strike 6. I suggest you read his linked articles addressing the problem of the existence of evil, instead of covering your ears and eyes and yelling "la, la, la, I can't hear you" at the top of your lungs.drc466_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

Evil is subjective! LOL! I wonder how do we test that Keith's version of evil is more true than mine? What is the benchmark we're using for measuring evil? Thanks for the good laugh Keith S, if you're the best that atheism has to offer, then atheism is not in good hands......Andre_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

keiths:

Phin: God’s answer is still the same: Who are you to question me?
I’m not questioning God. I’m questioning you.
Right. You don't want to question God, you just expect me to. Got it.
You believe in a perfectly loving, all-powerful God. How do you answer my two questions?
I already answered them, but I'll rephrase to help you out. I am not qualified to evaluate the Evaluator. I am not qualified to judge the Judge. As I explained:
Phin: The moment you put yourself in a position to evaluate God and His choices, you’ve already seriously misunderstood who He is and who you are. You’ve already displayed a shocking lack of humility. You’ve already completely underestimated His power and knowledge. You’ve already vastly overestimated your ability to comprehend. You’ve already tried to take on the role of God, and you simply are not even close to being qualified.
I'm sorry if the above confused you, but to make things perfectly clear, I consider myself in the same boat as everyone else.
keiths: If your answer is “I don’t know” or “God works in mysterious ways”, then I have a third question for you:
Not quite. My answer is that the questions are fundamentally flawed. Any concept of a God who is worthy of the label, by definition, transcends human experience and understanding to the point that it is utter nonsense to suppose that a human is capable of even beginning to evaluate God's reasons, motives, or methods. For your questions to even make sense, you have to assume a god who is not God. I do not believe in a god who is not God, and don't feel any need to defend the beliefs of those who do.
3. Why do you continue to believe in a perfectly loving, all-powerful God when there are much better explanations available?
That's not a follow-up question, it's a follow-up assumption. And in typical keiths form, it is a follow-up assumption that has already been addressed, and, even more typically, ignored. But perhaps I missed where you provided better explanations for the origin of these? - Matter - Physics - Time - Universal Constants - Information - Life - Consciousness - Logic - Morality Or better explanations for these? - Fulfilled prophecy - Eyewitness accounts concerning the man, Jesus - The internal experience of a spiritual and moral reality - The testimony of those whose lives have been transformed (e.g. John Newton) Until someone actually demonstrates that there are better explanations (instead of merely assuming or asserting), is it truly unreasonable for someone to suppose that God might be the best explanation for the above?Phinehas_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

SA #502
If not, then this would have a major impact on your concerns, I would think.
So, what do you think? IF the children killed in Pakistan or Sandy Hook are in heaven then will they still be traumatised? I don't have concerns. I have questions of people of faith and how they rationalise the world.
As above, if yes, and if happiness was increased far beyond the previous life – and great meaning and purpose was revealed for the pain, fear and suffering, then this also would have a huge impact on your questions and concerns.
I'm interested in how theists evaluate events in the world. How do they explain the whys of some occurrences. I KNOW what I think but I don't understand how they think based on what I hear them say about life the universe and everything. I can't understand how they can see love and caring when I see pain and suffering, some of it perpetrated by people of faith. It just doesn't add up for me. It's all very well and good to have some overarching, feel-good philosophy but can you bring it down to specific events and understand them? Can you make sense of the things that happen when you believe there is a purpose?Jerad_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

Jerad - just quickly ...
Do you think some of them would be emotionally traumatised after what they went through even if they are in heaven?
If not, then this would have a major impact on your concerns, I would think.
Do you think all that pain and fear and suffering just disappears after you die?
As above, if yes, and if happiness was increased far beyond the previous life - and great meaning and purpose was revealed for the pain, fear and suffering, then this also would have a huge impact on your questions and concerns.Silver Asiatic_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

Jerad: I’m assuming KF HAS a rational theistic view and therefore he (and you) should be able to explain some events in those terms.
You can find VJTorley's explanation here.Box_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

WJM #496
If morality is a subjective commodity, so what if God allows what you or keith subjectively consider to be “evil”? “What is moral”, under subjectivism, is arbited by those with the power (one way or another) to make it so, and thus whatever god said is moral would be the final arbiter of morality – even if one day god said X was moral, and the next day god said X was not moral.
I was trying to figure out what perspective KF's ideological framework gave him regarding some events. I'm trying to figure out how the world makes sense to him. I am not arguing about whether or not there is an objective moral truth.
But, as KF is attempting to point out to you, your (and Keith’s) argument depends upon the rhetorical, emotionally manipulative use of examples that you employ as if they are universal, objective evils that even God is bound to prevent if possible.
Barry has used that technique several times trying to get people who disagree with him to accept that there is an objective morality. I'm sure you remember some of those discussions.
You cannot have it both ways; if you hold morality is subjective, then you have no valid logical complaint against god for what we see in the world. God would just be imposing its subjective moral code on us. However, if you hold that morality is objective, then you must concede god – of some sort – exists, even if you find its moral system objectionable.
I am not trying to 'have it' one way or another. I am asking someone with whom I disagree how they make sense of things I see in the world that make no sense to me. It seems very difficult for him to address a particular situation.
So, at this point, unless morality (what is good) is an objective, immutable aspect of god, atheists have nothing to complain about and no logical argument to make – all they have is emotional manipulation against a certain specific concept of god. If all you want to do is rattle a few specific Judeo-Christian cages and employ rhetoric calibrated to upset them, big deal. It doesn’t appear to me that you or keith have the capacity to make a case against theism beyond emotional pleading rooted in nothing more than what either of you imagine is possible for god to do.
I am not trying to make a case against theism. I am trying to understand how theism comes to it's conclusions when I see so much horror and destruction and killing. Talking about some objective moral good is fine but it doesn't explain why some things happen.
Fundamentally, it is simply not logically possible to generate an identifiable X into existence without an identifiable “not-X” also existent as a contextual grounding for the existence of X. Any “X” cannot even be imagined without the capacity to imagine “not-X”, in some way, that makes X an identifiable, imaginable thing. For “good” to be made manifest as an identifiable commodity, “not-good” must also be manifest as contextual grounding. Otherwise, we couldn’t even conceptualize “good” or any other X.
So . . . you can't have good without evil. You can't have heaven without hell? What's the difference then between our physical, earthly existence where the good and the bad exist side-by-side and heaven and hell where they are separated? Maybe we are in hell now. Maybe there's so much evil because we have already failed the worthiness test and so we are suffering for our sins. Is that possible?
Once one begins with the foundation that morality is necessarily rooted in an objective source, then one can begin forming a rational theism that accounts for what we actually observe in the world. Instead of letting evil and injustice push us into atheistic, subjective-morality nihilism that we cannot even live as if true, we can use those observations as a means to build a better conceptualization of a theistic existence.
Sigh. That's why I'm asking the questions I'm asking!! I'm assuming KF HAS a rational theistic view and therefore he (and you) should be able to explain some events in those terms.
As KF has been trying to point out, this is not an easy, sound-bite course that can be covered in a few posts on a blog. It takes a commitment of time and effort to go beyond the rhetorical; it’s not a course most atheists are willing to embark on because, frankly, they already consider it a waste of time. You don’t even understand how to form a cogent theological question; your questions (and Keith’s) are rhetorical pot-shots intended to excite emotional passions.
After years and years and years of asking and waiting and reading the Bible I still haven't heard situations like what happened at that Pakistani school explained or rationalised. I don't see any sense in it at all.Jerad_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Joe #494
Actually the question is childish and boring. We don’t live in a perfect world and I wouldn’t want to.
Is heaven a perfect world?
How could we be properly judged unless we were duly tried? How could we show we belong in Heaven if we never had to do anything that demonstrated we deserved it?
Do you think it's fair/moral/acceptable to judge children based on how they respond when a gunman shoots their friends and starts their teacher on fire? What about the children who are locked into closets, sold into slavery, beaten, sexually abused. Are they being tested to see if they're worthy?
I say all those children are now in Heaven
Do you think some of them would be emotionally traumatised after what they went through even if they are in heaven? Do you think all that pain and fear and suffering just disappears after you die? And, what if they're not all in heaven? Where are the unbaptised ones? The Hindu ones? The Muslim ones? The Zoroastrian ones? The Sikh ones? The Buddhist ones? The Jain ones? The Shintu ones? Children all over the world are killed every day by acts of evil perpetrated by adults. And what about the survivors? The ones who witnessed their companions and teachers being brutally murdered? If your daughter had been at that school would you think it was a test of her worthiness?Jerad_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

WJM
How brave I considered myself! How relentlessly committed to the truth, even if it led to existential nihilism! How stupid all those believers were, how afraid! None of which would actually mean anything in an atheistic universe. Who was I posturing for? What benefit did it reap me to internally alienate myself from others so? What was the point if, in the end, it mattered not one bit?
That was very insightful. You were alienating yourself and annihilating any meaning for yourself to be a hero - to prove something. But then you wondered a great question: "Who was I posturing for?" That says a lot. Would it be wrong to suggest that you were posturing for God? Maybe a defiance against him? Or maybe not - but you were looking for an audience to cheer and praise you. (Maybe that explains the strange attraction atheists have for this site?) But it's ironic that your whole life would still have no meaning, purpose or value - whether you were right about God or not. I guess some believe they're doing a work of 'liberation' for people from bad-religion. But, if so, a true liberation would make more sense to improve religious belief rather than to destroy it all with atheism.Silver Asiatic_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

Joe
Are our opponents the most simple-minded people on Earth? What if all of those children are now in Heaven?
This part always seems to be missing from the arguments. Discussions about evil in this world assume that life and pleasure on earth are the highest values possible. Therefore, when someone is deprived of life here, that's the greatest evil and there is nothing more. You can't really argue about theism while taking an atheistic perspective. If you want to ask "Why did God ...?" you have to assume and argue from the whole concept of theism at the same time. You can't say simultaneously: "Why does God do [whatever] and also God doesn't exist and there is no heaven or afterlife." Again, atheists -- if you want to discuss what a world created by a loving God is like, that's great. But you have to also accept, temporarily at least, what God's plans for humanity are, and those plans include heaven.Silver Asiatic_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

Jerad, If morality is a subjective commodity, so what if God allows what you or keith subjectively consider to be "evil"? "What is moral", under subjectivism, is arbited by those with the power (one way or another) to make it so, and thus whatever god said is moral would be the final arbiter of morality - even if one day god said X was moral, and the next day god said X was not moral. But, as KF is attempting to point out to you, your (and Keith's) argument depends upon the rhetorical, emotionally manipulative use of examples that you employ as if they are universal, objective evils that even God is bound to prevent if possible. You cannot have it both ways; if you hold morality is subjective, then you have no valid logical complaint against god for what we see in the world. God would just be imposing its subjective moral code on us. However, if you hold that morality is objective, then you must concede god - of some sort - exists, even if you find its moral system objectionable. So, at this point, unless morality (what is good) is an objective, immutable aspect of god, atheists have nothing to complain about and no logical argument to make - all they have is emotional manipulation against a certain specific concept of god. If all you want to do is rattle a few specific Judeo-Christian cages and employ rhetoric calibrated to upset them, big deal. It doesn't appear to me that you or keith have the capacity to make a case against theism beyond emotional pleading rooted in nothing more than what either of you imagine is possible for god to do. I submit that just because you and Keith might imagine that God can create an existence where evil things do not happen doesn't mean that it is actually possible for God to do so. "Omnipotent" doesn't mean god can do anything imaginable; it just means god can do anything actually possible. Fundamentally, it is simply not logically possible to generate an identifiable X into existence without an identifiable "not-X" also existent as a contextual grounding for the existence of X. Any "X" cannot even be imagined without the capacity to imagine "not-X", in some way, that makes X an identifiable, imaginable thing. For "good" to be made manifest as an identifiable commodity, "not-good" must also be manifest as contextual grounding. Otherwise, we couldn't even conceptualize "good" or any other X. What is possible to create/do becomes more and more constrictive as more and more necessary elements are added to the mix and must be accounted for in the design. Given certain necessary elements to a design, some things that would otherwise be possible might not be. For instance, if an aquarium must fit in a certain space; it might not be possible to put a certain number of fish, or certain kind of fish, in the tank and have a viable environment simply because of space restrictions. Sure, you could do it if you build a different tank in a different location; but not in that tank, and that location. Also, I submit that both you and Keith are assuming we live in a certain kind of existence - again, useful for emotional pleading to upset certain specific perspectives, but utterly impotent against other theistic conceptualizations of existence. If one wishes to seriously consider theism, one must be able to set aside the easy, manipulative rhetoric and look inside to comprehend that the moral outrage one feels against certain theistic ideas must emanate from an objective source or else it is entirely hypocritical and nonsensical. Unless your moral right and obligations stem from something more substantive than how you feel, you have no more "right", or "obligation", to stop an evil act than the other person has to commit it. You're just two wolves involved in a might-makes-right struggle for a piece of meat. Each of you calling the other "evil", each of you calling yourselves "good", for no purpose other than to justify whatever you feel like doing. To consider subjective morality anything else is hypocrisy, and to consider "might makes right" a valid form of morality is simply unacceptable. Objective morality is a necessity or else you're just a savage deluding yourself. Once one begins with the foundation that morality is necessarily rooted in an objective source, then one can begin forming a rational theism that accounts for what we actually observe in the world. Instead of letting evil and injustice push us into atheistic, subjective-morality nihilism that we cannot even live as if true, we can use those observations as a means to build a better conceptualization of a theistic existence. As KF has been trying to point out, this is not an easy, sound-bite course that can be covered in a few posts on a blog. It takes a commitment of time and effort to go beyond the rhetorical; it's not a course most atheists are willing to embark on because, frankly, they already consider it a waste of time. You don't even understand how to form a cogent theological question; your questions (and Keith's) are rhetorical pot-shots intended to excite emotional passions. I was just such an atheist for many years. I was raised with the kind of cartoonish theism keith and others of his ilk keep attacking. It's an easy target (I'm talking about the superficial kind of Christianity many grew up with at local Sunday Schools). I attacked it relentlessly for many years. I realized I was largely tilting at windmills for my own sense of personal heroism, my own self-aggrandizing narrative. How brave I considered myself! How relentlessly committed to the truth, even if it led to existential nihilism! How stupid all those believers were, how afraid! None of which would actually mean anything in an atheistic universe. Who was I posturing for? What benefit did it reap me to internally alienate myself from others so? What was the point if, in the end, it mattered not one bit?William J Murray_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

The fact that evil is subjective doesn’t prevent us from condemning it.
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA If evil is subjective then you don't know if you are condemning the right thing. IOW you could be totally wrong in what you condemn. And you are totally wrong about evil, pain and suffering, all of which are necessary in a physical world in which we are to be judged by our actions. But obviously that is too much for a simpleton like you to understand.Joe_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

No, but surely it is reasonable to ask how a kind and loving creator would have considered such an event?
Actually the question is childish and boring. We don't live in a perfect world and I wouldn't want to. How could we be properly judged unless we were duly tried? How could we show we belong in Heaven if we never had to do anything that demonstrated we deserved it? I say all those children are now in Heaven. Also islanders and other animals heard the warning of the 2004 tsunami. The people who died obviously didn't heed the warning.Joe_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT}

If you have an answer as to how a loving, caring creator could condone behaviour such as that as exhibited in Northern Pakistan today then present it.
Are our opponents the most simple-minded people on Earth? What if all of those children are now in Heaven?Joe_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT}

KeithS said, If you don’t like those questions, there are new ones every day. I say, Different questions same answer. Luke 13:1-9. You might not like the answer but please don't pretend one has not been given. and it was given 2,000 years ago peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

I think this conversation has been very valuable. It should now be clear that those with sympathies for ID often have radically different ideas about the characteristics of the designer depending on their background and understanding of special revelation. Yet these vast disagreements don't in any way inhibit our ability to infer design in nature. The only ones with any issue in that regard are those who must rule out design from the get go. We can conclude two things from this 1) ID is definitely not some secret conspiracy by a particular religious group ie evangelicals. 2) ID is completely compatible with any worldview except one that has a vested interest in denying the existence of any designer whatsoever. peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT}

Keith #470: Think, StephenB. You are jumping to unsupported conclusions again.
I have tried to find the correct English term for what I felt reading this sentence. "Vicarious shame" may come close.
Keith #475: It leads to thorny questions like the ones I posed to Box earlier in the thread (...)
Which I answered in #404. Keith posted some follow-up questions in #409, which I answered in #413.Box_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

KF #488
Jerad, I am not going to waste time going in circles. You have had a significant response taking time I did not really have to spare and I ask you to attend to it again.
If you don't want to clarify your beliefs that's up to you. But don't expect people to understand your point of view if you won't take the time to spell it out. And don't accuse others of walking away from questions if you're going to do the same.Jerad_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 19 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply