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

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. KFkairosfocus_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT}

Re KS: KS seems to forget that over the course of weeks he has consistently shown selective hyperskepticism, the fallacy of the ideologically indoctrinated closed mind, disrespect for attempts at genuine dialogue and the like. He has shown himself to be only here to push talking points rather than seriously discuss. I have put the pivotal matter to him for hundreds of posts, and linked significant materials which he has refused to bother to read with any seriousness. Just this morning, I pointed him to some concrete cases [I believe six] that should more than adequately show how the principles that are foundational apply to the sort of cases he deploys for rhetorical effect, and he predictably refuses to think through from the perspective of humans being able to love, think, reason, choose and act for themselves. Just for one instance, when a culture resorts to the sort of litigiousness that makes people hesitate to act as good neighbours lest they be bankrupted and destroyed in reputation [I recall my uncle warning me on the case of a woman at a bus stop when he was a student in the US who had slipped in snow, and when he began to respond as a Jamaican would to try to help her up, others warned him that he could easily be subjected to either the cry "rape" or the suit for damages if there were injuries . . . ], there are consequences when there is an accident: they have been conditioned only to call for the professionals with insurance. When those show up, it may be too late -- unlike decades ago, where I recall reading in Reader's Digest of a man commended for going into a car with an accident and fire, to try to rescue its occupant. Enough has been said for the reasonable person, and enough resources have been linked onwards for further reading, and to further entertain trollish misbehaviour and Alinskyite resort to mockery, ridicule, personalisation and polarisation, is pointless. KFkairosfocus_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT}

KF #485
Jerad, I have already given enough for you to work through the implications of yet another case of abuse of our capabilities, sometimes done by taking the name of God in vain — misusing the name of God — while despoiling those who are made in the image of God.
I don't think I did either of those two things but I'm not going to rehash that. But I do wonder why you take such offence when people ask you questions that you find difficult or uncomfortable to answer. And some of those 'made in the image of God' are killers and rapists and abusers.
The matter pivots on moral government, and our capability to love, think for ourselves, and reason and decide for ourselves. Which points to the foundational IS that grounds OUGHT. If we then choose to abuse that gift of responsibility and ability to do much good, that is our fault, not that of the one who gave us the gift and opportunities aplenty to turn from wrong-doing.
But there are conflicting OUGHTS! Clearly. How do you decide which one is correct? The Taliban fighters are equally operating out of an OUGHT. The Catholics who perpetrated the Waldensian crusade had an OUGHT which was supported by the Papacy of the time. Surely they thought they were not only right but had the blessing of the Holy See, considered to be the highest material authority on Christian matters. Again, I'm trying to figure out your framework. Let me ask you a couple of questions: If you had several children and they were abusing and torturing each other in your name would you, as a loving father, allow that to continue? If you heard of another parent who stood by while their own children murdered each other would you consider them a good parent?
If we wish to imagine that God’s patience in the face of our folly is his fault, or if we tax him with the crime of making us able to love, think and reason and decide for ourselves, that in itself speaks volumes, and not in our favour.
I'm not doing that. I'm asking you how YOU explain and think about certain things. You can't just dodge the questions by pretending that we are somehow trying to damage your sacred beliefs. You are welcome to believe whatever you like as far as I am concerned (as long as you don't overly impose those beliefs on others). But I do not understand your belief structure/framework. It doesn't make sense to me. So I am asking you to explain aspects of it so I can get a better understanding.Jerad_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT}

Jerad, I have already given enough for you to work through the implications of yet another case of abuse of our capabilities, sometimes done by taking the name of God in vain -- misusing the name of God -- while despoiling those who are made in the image of God. The matter pivots on moral government, and our capability to love, think for ourselves, and reason and decide for ourselves. Which points to the foundational IS that grounds OUGHT. If we then choose to abuse that gift of responsibility and ability to do much good, that is our fault, not that of the one who gave us the gift and opportunities aplenty to turn from wrong-doing. If we wish to imagine that God's patience in the face of our folly is his fault, or if we tax him with the crime of making us able to love, think and reason and decide for ourselves, that in itself speaks volumes, and not in our favour. KFkairosfocus_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT}

Onlookers, the rhetorical games continue. I simply repeat the challenge that to address evils, one must go to the foundational issues. Which, KS has plainly refused to do for several hundred posts now. That speaks sad volumes on where such an exercise would point, and on the question of why he refuses to go there. There is a patent insistent refusal to do so, and the implications of that must be recognised. KF PS, Just to being that back to focus, as has been highlighted ever since 125: >>>>>>>>>>>> The exchanges since about 120 above would be funny if they were not so sadly revealing of what has been going on. I note:
KS, 157 etc: I’ll be surprised if you can do it. I’ve never met an omnitheist who could give a plausible answer to the problem of evil.
But of course, he so assumes that he is lord of the matter that he obviously did not bother to make acquaintance of a linked 101 summary of a major, even epochal answer to the problem of evil, that has been on record for some 40 years now. One that moved off the table the logical form of the problem, and put the inductive form in due proportion suitable for answering through Judaeo-Christian, redemptive theism. Where, the existential form is pastoral in nature and is also addressed by way of a video dealing with rape. In addition, KS has -- now, sadly predictably -- dodged the underlying issue that the reality and objectionableness of evil point precisely to the need for an IS capable of grounding OUGHT. And, indeed, are evidence pointing to God. And, oh yes, those who would indict Christendom, or at least those troubled by arguments from the evils of theistic cultures, might find here on helpful. So, now, let us roll the tape on what KS obviously refused to pay attention to before running on with his drumbeat of long since sell-by date talking points: ______________ >>125 kairosfocus December 12, 2014 at 2:54 pm F/N: Those who struggle with the problem of evil and seek a reasonable worldview level answer (as opposed to those simply playing talking point games), may find here a first help. I note, that evolutionary materialism first faces a problem of a basis to ground objection to evil, as a manifestation of the IS-OUGHT gap and the need for a world foundational IS capable of sustaining the weight of ought. Cutting to the chase scene, there is only one serious candidate, the inherently good creator-God, a necessary and maximally great being. Boethius — awaiting unjust execution [--> and notice, the pivotal significance of another unjust execution at the heart of the Christian Gospel, and the answer it provides to evils . . . ] — aptly put the matter:
“If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?”
If you doubt the force of that, consider this from Dawkins:
Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose. We humans have purpose on the brain. We find it difficult to look at anything without wondering what it is “for,” what the motive for it or the purpose behind it might be. The desire to see purpose everywhere is natural in an animal that lives surrounded by machines, works of art, tools and other designed artifacts – an animal whose waking thoughts are dominated by its own goals and aims . . . . In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. ["God's Utility Function," Sci Am 1995.]
So, KS et al have a choice: ground the reality and objectionable nature of evil, requiring an IS that grounds OUGHT, or else stand exposed as playing with the pain of the suffering in order to push a world view and agenda that cannot even soundly ground OUGHT. KF PS: Notice, too, the continued pattern I highlighted earlier as to how threads are pulled off track — this one SHOULD be on a scientific issue, fine tuning, and there is a different thread that was set up for issues such as this.>> ______________ I predict, on track record, that KS will again ignore or pretzel-twist the matter into a strawman caricature. Let us hope that, at length, he will finally prove such wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>kairosfocus_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT}

keith s @ 482, I hope no one says those children didn't follow the 'right God'Me_Think_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT}

KF, If you don't like those questions, there are new ones every day. Today's versions: God allowed those children in Peshawar to be gunned down at school because ________. God allowed those teachers to be burned alive because ______. Fill in the blanks. And if you can't, or won't, then summon the minimal integrity required to acknowledge it.keith s_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, The questions await. Are you still too ashamed to answer?keith s_{December 17, 2014
December
12
Dec
17
17
2014
12:04 AM
12
12
04
AM
PDT}

keiths:
The world makes so much more sense if a) God isn’t perfectly loving; or b) God isn’t all-powerful; or c) God doesn’t exist at all.
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).keith s_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

drc466,
To turn the question around: say a man is caught torturing and murdering. You are all-powerful in your town. You are perfectly loving. Being all-powerful and perfectly loving, you pronounce to the entire town, including the victims’ parents, spouses, children, friends, etc., that you have decided not to punish the man in any way – after all, you love him in spite of his terrible crimes. What about justice? Holiness? Are you being loving to the victims’ families? Have you removed the incentive not to do evil, since there are no consequences?
Don't forget, this is exactly what the Christian God supposedly does. A heinous serial murderer repents and accepts Jesus on his deathbed and the next thing you know, he's enjoying an eternity of bliss in heaven. No punishment.
Or maybe you think God should’ve just created perfect people in a perfect environment who never would sin, and where no ill effects would harm them.
What's wrong with that?
Then what of Faith and Freedom to choose? Is it loving to create Robot Slaves?
Apparently you haven't been following the thread. I've addressed that several times. An omniGod can prevent evil without thwarting free will:
Before God creates a person, he uses his omniscience to look ahead and ask whether that person will commit murder. If the answer is no, he proceeds. If the answer is yes, he refrains from creating that person and creates someone else instead — someone he knows will not become a murderer. He hasn’t changed anyone’s nature. Each person is completely free, and yet no one commits murder, because they all freely choose not to. If theists try to argue that by refraining from creating someone, God would be denying that person’s free will, then they put themselves in a bind — because that means that God is already denying free will to the gazillions of possible persons he never creates.
Of course, this also works for any other kind of evil God wants to prevent. Why doesn’t he do it?
drc466:
Supposedly, you value Faith in your people, and their ability to believe in something they cannot see,
Why would I value that? I would much rather have people think and evaluate the evidence to the best of their ability. Blindly believing in me would not be a desirable thing.
but if you step in and publicly announce yourself by stopping any and all “bad things”, is there really room for faith?
Who needs faith? I would much rather have people appreciate me for what I actually am, rather than what they blindly believe me to be.
So, sure, ks, let’s throw out Holiness, and Justice, and Teaching, and Faith, and just stomp all over our Creation with the Jack-boots of Power and Love. Is that the kind of God you’re looking for?
The jackboots of love? Isn't that what we have now, according to you, with your supposedly perfectly loving God wiping out 220,000 people in a single tsunami, giving them no warning?
Look, I’m not saying that the problem of the existence of evil isn’t difficult to understand.
It's a huge problem for omnitheists, but there is a simple solution: follow the evidence. Your omniGod doesn't fit the evidence, so find a better hypothesis All three of these are better hypotheses: a) God is not perfectly loving; b) God is not all-powerful; c) God does not exist.
But saying “tsunami, therefore no God” is an emotional argument, not a logical one, and not a scientific one.
My argument is an evidential one. Your hypothesis -- that God is omnibenevolent, omnisicient, and omnipotent -- fits the evidence poorly. The other three hypotheses are superior. Why cling to an inferior hypothesis? Be brave and follow the evidence where it leads.keith s_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT}

KF #476
With all due respect, why are you taking part in the rhetorical game of accusing God instead of taking responsibility, starting with oneself? It seems to me that too many consistently refuse to address the first steps and get them right, so it becomes no wonder that thereafter, things get more and more off track.
I'm not accusing God of anything. I'm trying to understand your faith in the face of hideously evil behaviour on the part of others of faith. I am trying to understand how such events fit into your framework of explanation. I am trying to see any sense or plan in it. I'm trying to understand how you rectify a loving and compassionate god when over 130 children are gunned down in cold blood (and a teacher was lit on fire).
You are angry at evils, good.
Who wouldn't be? I'm interested in what you think the explanation of it is. You say we don't love each other enough. That we need to ground ourselves in an OUGHT. Well, the Taliban fighters who slaughtered tens of innocent people have their own version of OUGHT which is why they were driven to do what they did. And the Christians who killed and burned other Christians in the Waldensian and Albigensian crusades in Europe had an OUGHT that they subscribed to. They believed they were RIGHT. I can understand a god that lets people make mistakes which they then pay for. But I cannot understand why others have to pay with their fear and terror and lives because someone has a different OUGHT.
After many centuries of back and forth debate, there is but one serious candidate, the inherently good Creator-God, a necessary and maximally great being. The moral governor of the cosmos.
I'm sure the Taliban fighters would agree with you. And yet, the evil continues. And not just in Pakistan. In Australia. And Pennsylvania. It goes on and on and on. Some of it perpetrated by those well versed in an OUGHT. I don't understand a father god that lets his 'children' abuse each other so much. I don't understand the point of that. I don't understand why the pain and the suffering has to go on and on and on and on. And I don't see that any OUGHTS have had much of an effect. Christians, Muslims, Jews, HIndus have all shown themselves capable of holding their holy writs in one hand and a sword/axe/rifle/machinegun in the other. Hundreds of years of OUGHTS haven't stopped it.Jerad_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT}

Re KS: >>>>>>>>>> The exchanges since about 120 above would be funny if they were not so sadly revealing of what has been going on. I note:
KS, 157 etc: I’ll be surprised if you can do it. I’ve never met an omnitheist who could give a plausible answer to the problem of evil.
But of course, he so assumes that he is lord of the matter that he obviously did not bother to make acquaintance of a linked 101 summary of a major, even epochal answer to the problem of evil, that has been on record for some 40 years now. One that moved off the table the logical form of the problem, and put the inductive form in due proportion suitable for answering through Judaeo-Christian, redemptive theism. Where, the existential form is pastoral in nature and is also addressed by way of a video dealing with rape. In addition, KS has -- now, sadly predictably -- dodged the underlying issue that the reality and objectionableness of evil point precisely to the need for an IS capable of grounding OUGHT. And, indeed, are evidence pointing to God. And, oh yes, those who would indict Christendom, or at least those troubled by arguments from the evils of theistic cultures, might find here on helpful. So, now, let us roll the tape on what KS obviously refused to pay attention to before running on with his drumbeat of long since sell-by date talking points: ______________ >>125 kairosfocus December 12, 2014 at 2:54 pm F/N: Those who struggle with the problem of evil and seek a reasonable worldview level answer (as opposed to those simply playing talking point games), may find here a first help. I note, that evolutionary materialism first faces a problem of a basis to ground objection to evil, as a manifestation of the IS-OUGHT gap and the need for a world foundational IS capable of sustaining the weight of ought. Cutting to the chase scene, there is only one serious candidate, the inherently good creator-God, a necessary and maximally great being. Boethius — awaiting unjust execution [--> and notice, the pivotal significance of another unjust execution at the heart of the Christian Gospel, and the answer it provides to evils . . . ] — aptly put the matter:
“If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?”
If you doubt the force of that, consider this from Dawkins:
Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose. We humans have purpose on the brain. We find it difficult to look at anything without wondering what it is “for,” what the motive for it or the purpose behind it might be. The desire to see purpose everywhere is natural in an animal that lives surrounded by machines, works of art, tools and other designed artifacts – an animal whose waking thoughts are dominated by its own goals and aims . . . . In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. ["God's Utility Function," Sci Am 1995.]
So, KS et al have a choice: ground the reality and objectionable nature of evil, requiring an IS that grounds OUGHT, or else stand exposed as playing with the pain of the suffering in order to push a world view and agenda that cannot even soundly ground OUGHT. KF PS: Notice, too, the continued pattern I highlighted earlier as to how threads are pulled off track — this one SHOULD be on a scientific issue, fine tuning, and there is a different thread that was set up for issues such as this.>> ______________ I predict, on track record, that KS will again ignore or pretzel-twist the matter into a strawman caricature. Let us hope that, at length, he will finally prove such wrong. >>>>>>>>>> And of course, KS would find the just above to Jerad, helpful, if he wishes at length to deal with the root matter on the merits. KFkairosfocus_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT}

Jerad, With all due respect, why are you taking part in the rhetorical game of accusing God instead of taking responsibility, starting with oneself? It seems to me that too many consistently refuse to address the first steps and get them right, so it becomes no wonder that thereafter, things get more and more off track. You are angry at evils, good. Now, is evil real and objectionable, or is this just a temper tantrum like a spoilt child refusing to eat veggies as they are distasteful to one used to too much sugar? If evil is real and objectionable, it points straight to the issue of OUGHT, evil is what ought not to be, a frustration, perversion, privation of the good out of proper purpose and dignity. It is wrong to kidnap, torture and sexually abuse then murder a young child on his way home from school to his parents. It self-evidently ought not to be. And the one who did this, by the very fact of concealment knows better than he did; and knows that if he were spotted, others would know they were to do something about it. There is a world of issues in there, cf here on for a bit of an overview, as I have been pointing out for hundreds of comments, and notice that not one objector has taken time to seriously interact with. (That in itself speaks volumes on what seems to be really going on.) If evil is real and objectionable, OUGHT is real, we are under moral government. Which, is connected directly to our being able to love, think, reason and choose for ourselves responsibly. The man who murdered that child had a real choice to treat the child with respect and neighbour love, but willfully chose instead to pander to his perverted lusts, and ended up a murderer. That pattern extends to any number of cases you have put up or wish to put up. None of them addresses seriously the grounding issue, though they may feel emotionally satisfying to the one angry at God for the crime of making us able to love, think, reason and choose for ourselves responsibly. So that, some of us choose to abuse that capability, twisting aside into self love at the expense of neighbour. Such, may even feel that to throw out such cases again and again is a rhetorical advantage, all the while such are ducking and dodging the underlying pivotal issues. Coming back on focus. If ought is real, ever since Hume we have known that we need to bridge the gap, IS-OUGHT. And, that this can only happen at world-foundation level. That is, there must be an IS that properly grounds OUGHT, a root source of moral authority that is at the basis for reality. After many centuries of back and forth debate, there is but one serious candidate, the inherently good Creator-God, a necessary and maximally great being. The moral governor of the cosmos. The alternatives, as rule, come down to might and manipulation make 'right' and 'truth,' etc. A monstrous doctrine with a chaotic and bloody history that should give us all pause. In short, the reality and objectionableness of evils point to our being under moral government thence to the moral governor of the cosmos. Which conclusion, many do not wish to face. That's reality, a simple and short summary of centuries of back-forth on debate points. Here is Boethius' summary of the matter in the 500's, while facing unjust execution on a false accusation:
If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?
We celebrate or enjoy the good, and find the evil repulsive (save, it seems when we hope to gain an advantage by indulging in it). That's a big clue. And tied to it, is the fact that people can be taken in by lies and Plato's Cave shadow shows, becoming blind to the evils they hope to benefit from. So when a Christian couple in Pakistan are in debt slavery, and are accused of destroying a few verses of a Quran used in magic rituals, which they probably could not read, they were accused of "blasphemy" by out of control neighbours who hate Christians for many reasons that will not stand serious scrutiny. They ask their master for permission to flee to save their lives, and he refuses, putting money ahead of life. The couple are pounced upon, beaten and literally burned alive, the woman being pregnant. Somehow, the murderous, mad crowd refuses to recognise that the biggest blasphemy against God involved, is the murder of those made in his image. Our neighbours. Oh yes, even poor Christians descended from so-called untouchables. And, like unto it, when someone can turn a dispute over a goat into an accusation that a fellow labourer, Asia Bibi, should not drink the same water as Muslims then accuse her of blasphemy under an unjust and oppressive law, beat her and drag her to area leaders who demand her soul as the price of her life, that too was wrong. It is wrong that she was unjustly sentenced to hang on a foolish charge of blasphemy under an unjust law and is confined in a cell that is destroying her health even as her family suffers along with her. Yes, the madness of refusing to exercise the ability we have to love neighbour as self, is plain. And yes, it is fun to raise rhetorical dilemmas and the like, dragging women caught in adultery to pose what you imagine is an unanswerable set of talking points. Jesus' reply then speaks to us today: if you are guiltless, throw the first stone. None could. And, none can. And, he turned to the woman and said to her, where are your accusers? There are none. Neither do I condemn you, go, leave your life of sin. So, that is where we all stand today. Under moral government, and capable of loving, thinking, reasoning and choosing for ourselves to do the right thing. With God's help. But too often, we instead choose to be a part of the problem because we perceive some advantage in frustrating, perverting, stunting the good, twisting it aside into what we term evil. With natural evils, we live in a world where to be able to choose, we need to have a reliable, predictable order of reality; which means that int eh course of such events, there are inevitable hazards and things that flow from these. And, we are responsible to act aright, individually and collectively. For instance, I am sitting on deposits from massive energy release volcanic eruptions of the past connected to earth's tectonic processes that create land. In eh 1930's there were rumblings and two significant studies. We were warned of the trends and possibilities. For a generation, such sat on shelves, largely forgotten and not understood. In the 1960's, as there had been in the 1930's and the 1890's, there were more rumbles. More studies on shelves. In the 1980's, there were conferences, plans, even simulation exercises of evacuations, and a major UN-funded study on hazard mapping. That study has a nine point, two page executive summary I have now seen, once it was released to the public long after the events. Or, more properly, after it was put in the reference section back room of the local public library where if you knew you could ask to see it under supervision. If those two pages and nine points had been read, circulated and heeded, it would have made a major difference In 1992, just on time, teh mountain started to rumble, and that continued for three years, with regional monitoring ramping up. I even put my 6th form Physics students on the programme, which led to several of them doing advanced studies in volcanology etc. In 1995, phreatic then dome building eruptions began, and the debates, confusions and controversies. Let's just say it is hard to face the possibilities of disasters collectively, when people's interests lie in investments at risk. I and others were literally threatened for being obsessed with visions of disaster, panicking the public, and even being subversives. That included being blamed for giving the public, videotaped warning during a public meeting that played a part in the commission of inquiry when people died, and which found HMG and GoM to have contributory, negligent responsibility for the deaths of fourteen identified individuals killed in the fatal pyroclastic flows of June 25th 1997. (Subversive no 1, who I supported then and now, is now premier of the country. We face the daunting task to try to pull together solutions to the disasters and consequences of blunders we warned against.) In short, if we are willing to face our responsibilities, it is not too hard to see how we abuse our God-given ability to love (especially, love our neighbour as ourselves), think, reason, and act with prudence by making right choices. And, it is then oh so convenient to blame God for the crime of making us able to love, choose, think and reason aright. Instead, of facing the reality in our own souls, and doing something about it that we know or should know is our duty:
Rom 2:6 [God] will render to every man according to his works [justly, as his deeds deserve]: 7 To those who by patient persistence in well-doing [[b]springing from piety] seek [unseen but sure] glory and honor and [[c]the eternal blessedness of] immortality, He will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and self-willed and disobedient to the Truth but responsive to wickedness, there will be indignation and wrath . . . . 14 When Gentiles who have not the [divine] Law do instinctively what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, since they do not have the Law. 15 They show that the essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts and are operating there, with which their consciences (sense of right and wrong) also bear witness; and their [moral] [e]decisions (their arguments of reason, their condemning or approving [f]thoughts) will accuse or perhaps defend and excuse [them] 16 On that day when, as my Gospel proclaims, God by Jesus Christ will judge men in regard to [g]the things which they conceal (their hidden thoughts). Rom 13:8 Keep out of debt and owe no man anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor [who practices loving others] has fulfilled the Law [relating to one’s fellowmen, meeting all its requirements]. 9 The commandments, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet (have an evil desire), and any other commandment, are summed up in the single command, You shall love your neighbor as [you do] yourself. 10 Love does no wrong to one’s neighbor [it never hurts anybody]. Therefore love meets all the requirements and is the fulfilling of the Law. [AMP]
Or, if you want to, we can look at how John Locke, in grounding what we see today as modern liberty and democracy, in Ch 2 of his second treatise on Civl Govt cites canon Richard Hooker form his Ecclesiastical polity:
. . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8, also alluding to Justinian's Corpus Juris Civlis, which appeals tot much the same in its built-in textbook of law:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80]
Perhaps, we can pause, and think again. KFkairosfocus_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT}

drc466:
Let’s just throw out a few things missing from your “Logic”: 1) It assumes that your definition of evil matches God’s.
No, it doesn't depend on my definition of evil at all. I am not a theist. I explained this earlier in the thread:
Theists, Most of you are making the same mistake. It doesn’t matter whether I think that evil exists (I do, but I don’t think that it is objective evil). What matters is what you, as theists, believe. As long as 1) you believe in an omniGod; 2) you believe that God is good according to some standard of good and evil; and 3) you believe that the world is full of evil by that same standard; …then you face the problem of evil. Why does God allow so much evil and suffering?
drc466:
2) It assumes that God has no other traits that might factor in, besides power/love.
Incorrect. No matter what other traits a God has, the following possibilities are still exhaustive: 1. God is perfectly loving and all-powerful. 2. God is not perfectly loving. 3. God is not all-powerful. 4. God does not exist. For example, suppose that God is perfectly loving, all-powerful, and loves beetles. In that case, he falls into category 1.
3) It assumes that the result of the evil act is undeserved. 4) It assumes that the result of the evil act will not forestall some even greater evil.
No. You can always attempt to argue that God allows evil for the sake of some greater good. The problem is that you need to make that case for all of the evil and suffering in the world. It leads to thorny questions like the ones I posed to Box earlier in the thread:
Assuming that suffering is actually necessary, then how much of it is needed? Did every single one of those people need to die at Auschwitz? If one less had died would the project have failed? How do you know? If only 150,000 people had died in the 2004 tsunami, instead of 220,000+, would God’s purposes have been thwarted? How do you know?
drc466:
5) It assumes that what comes after life has no potential to outweigh what occurred in life.
Suppose you have a choice between a) 40 years of happiness and joy, followed by a peaceful death, and an eternity of bliss. b) 40 years of unspeakable agony, followed by a terrifying death, and an eternity of bliss. Would you shrug and say "It makes no difference. They're exactly the same."? Of course not. We all know that a) is better than b).
6) It assumes that the result of the evil act will not work for a greater good than if the evil act hadn’t occurred.
See my response to your #3 and #4.keith s_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

Keith Meister, why do you ignore my comment at 439 where I refute your crap? Grow some gonads, man.Mapou_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

drc466,
This is terrible logic. Reminds me of your horrible ONH argument.
Yes, the one that you and your fellow IDers couldn't refute. That must have seemed horrible to you.
This is like saying: Fact: There are buildings standing. Therefore, either: a) Wind isn’t strong enough to blow down a building; or b) Wind doesn’t last long enough to blow down a building; or c) Wind doesn’t exist.
Slow down, drc466. You're making silly mistakes. The logic isn't the same at all. First, the fact that some buildings are still standing does not mean that all buildings are still standing. Second, the fact that the wind hasn't blown down building X does not mean that the wind can never be strong enough to blow down building X. Third, wind that is strong enough or lasts long enough to blow down building X may not be strong enough or last long enough to blow down building Y. Your analogy is a mess. By contrast, the options I offered actually make sense: 1. If the omnitheists are correct, then God is both perfectly loving and all-powerful. However, the evidence is against this. If #1 does not hold, then you have to negate at least one of the three: perfectly loving, all-powerful, God. Negating them gives you my three overlapping, exhaustive options: a) God isn’t all-powerful; or b) God isn’t perfectly loving; or c) God doesn’t exist. It isn't hard, but you do need to think a little.keith s_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

Mung, today:
keiths. can’t define rape. can’t define evil. can’t say why rape is evil or even that rape is evil. pathetic.
Mung, two years ago:
Your problem, among other things, is that you don’t pay attention and you make things up. I never argued that God allows rape because He values free will. If I were to make some sort of assertion, it would be that God allows rape because there’s nothing evil about it. So now what? You need to define rape, and make an argument as to why rape is evil. You’ve done neither. You have no argument. [Emphasis added]
keith s_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT}

keiths, to Mung:
That’s right. I don’t regard newborn babies as evil little Hitlers. Convenient? No. Sensible.
StephenB:
So what? Your mindless moral subjectivism prevents you from condemning such a perverse philosophy.
Where did you get that odd idea? The fact that evil is subjective doesn't prevent us from condemning it. PS I'm relieved to hear that you regard fifthmonarchyman's statement as "perverse".keith s_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
Oh, so your standard is to accept the majority position on moral issues, is it?
No. My standard is to follow my conscience. Think, StephenB. You are jumping to unsupported conclusions again.keith s_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

keith s, The problem, ks, is that you are unable to open your mind to see the other side. I bet you're terrible at presenting a devil's argument. Stay away from debate team.
a) God isn’t all-powerful; or b) God isn’t perfectly loving; or c) God doesn’t exist.
This is terrible logic. Reminds me of your horrible ONH argument. This is like saying: Fact: There are buildings standing. Therefore, either: a) Wind isn't strong enough to blow down a building; or b) Wind doesn't last long enough to blow down a building; or c) Wind doesn't exist. Let's just throw out a few things missing from your "Logic": 1) It assumes that your definition of evil matches God's. 2) It assumes that God has no other traits that might factor in, besides power/love. 3) It assumes that the result of the evil act is undeserved. 4) It assumes that the result of the evil act will not forestall some even greater evil. 5) It assumes that what comes after life has no potential to outweigh what occurred in life. 6) It assumes that the result of the evil act will not work for a greater good than if the evil act hadn't occurred. Etc., etc. To turn the question around: say a man is caught torturing and murdering. You are all-powerful in your town. You are perfectly loving. Being all-powerful and perfectly loving, you pronounce to the entire town, including the victims' parents, spouses, children, friends, etc., that you have decided not to punish the man in any way - after all, you love him in spite of his terrible crimes. What about justice? Holiness? Are you being loving to the victims' families? Have you removed the incentive not to do evil, since there are no consequences? Or maybe you think God should've just created perfect people in a perfect environment who never would sin, and where no ill effects would harm them. Then what of Faith and Freedom to choose? Is it loving to create Robot Slaves? Supposedly, you value Faith in your people, and their ability to believe in something they cannot see, and their free will - but if you step in and publicly announce yourself by stopping any and all "bad things", is there really room for faith? Aren't you just slapping them in the face with your existence? So, sure, ks, let's throw out Holiness, and Justice, and Teaching, and Faith, and just stomp all over our Creation with the Jack-boots of Power and Love. Is that the kind of God you're looking for? Look, I'm not saying that the problem of the existence of evil isn't difficult to understand. Especially if you or someone you love is the recipient of other man's, or cursed nature's, evil. I would never seek to minimize someone's pain, or heartache. But saying "tsunami, therefore no God" is an emotional argument, not a logical one, and not a scientific one. Feel free to Black Knight on this one, too, ks, just don't expect to win any converts.drc466_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT}

Keiths
And I’m not looking for an aesthetically pleasing solution — I’m looking for one that is morally acceptable to the majority of people who, unlike you, do not regard newborn babies as “evil rebels who would do worse than Hitler if they had the chance”.
Oh, so your standard is to accept the majority position on moral issues, is it? Is that why you you embrace the minority position of amoral materialism/atheism? No wonder you don't answer questions. Every time you actually try to say something, you get crushed.
That’s right. I don’t regard newborn babies as evil little Hitlers. Convenient? No. Sensible.
So what? Your mindless moral subjectivism prevents you from condemning such a perverse philosophy. So don't carry on as if characterizing babies as little Hitlers is a problem for you. As you keep telling us, evil is "subjective." Remember?StephenB_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

keiths. can't define rape. can't define evil. can't say why rape is evil or even that rape is evil. pathetic.Mung_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

keiths includes himself in that majority and in the same post accuses me of quote mining him for claiming that he includes himself in that majority. Go figure. Are all atheists nutso?Mung_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

keiths @ 464:
Mung quote mined me twice (#456, #463), apparently thinking I wouldn’t notice.
Sharp as a tack you are, keiths. Far be it from me to think I could get anything past you. Mung @ 402 (quoting keiths):
And I’m not looking for an aesthetically pleasing solution — I’m looking for one that is morally acceptable to the majority of people...
So there you are. Caught in yet another outright lie. keiths sets himself as judge of what is morally acceptable. Hilarious. keiths sets himself as judge of what is morally acceptable to the majority of people. Also Hilarious. I'm at a loss as to why keiths thinks this constitutes quote mining or even why I OUGHT NOT have quoted him in the way I did. keiths, the morally superior moral subjectivist, who lacks any objective way of demonstrating his moral superiority. But he does try hard (even if he can't count to three).Mung_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

Mung quote mined me twice (#456, #463), apparently thinking I wouldn't notice. The actual quote:
And I’m not looking for an aesthetically pleasing solution — I’m looking for one that is morally acceptable to the majority of people who, unlike you, do not regard newborn babies as “evil rebels who would do worse than Hitler if they had the chance”.
Mung:
Of course, keiths finds himself to be in that majority, somehow. How convenient.
That's right. I don't regard newborn babies as evil little Hitlers. Convenient? No. Sensible.keith s_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I don't think keiths is deserving of his own DDD. I see him as employing DDD #4. https://uncommondescent.com/ddd/darwinian-debating-devices-6-desperate-distractions/ His bombs" against ID were total duds so he decided to attack Christians. Perhaps that's a sub-genre of DDD 4. I sort of envision keiths as a bystander at the cross asking if he could drive another nail into Jesus "just for fun." After all, at the time, it probably seemed to be the morally popular thing to do. keiths:
And I’m not looking for an aesthetically pleasing solution — I’m looking for one that is morally acceptable to the majority of people…
Of course, keiths finds himself to be in that majority, somehow. How convenient.Mung_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

The world is infused with evil events, sez keiths. Follow the evidence where it leads, sez keiths. The evidence leads to no god, sez keiths. Odd. Why doesn't the evidence lead to an evil god? keiths has the conclusion he wants, so the evidence leads to the conclusion he wants. Anyone surprised?Mung_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

Mung
Is it just me, or is keiths confused about just what the question is?
You have nailed it. The name of the game is to keep changing the question so that the context will change along with it. Then, when the answers reflect the changing context, you juxtapose two of them and call it a contradiction, hoping to discredit your adversary. Could anyone possibly be that intellectually challenged, you may ask? Oh, yes. Believe it. I call this the Asinine Adhominem--Darwinist Debate Tactic #20. What do you think? Can I improve on that?StephenB_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

lol @ keiths Mung: Your problem, among other things, is that you don’t pay attention and you make things up. See, even back then keiths was a liar. Some things never change. Mung: You need to define rape, and make an argument as to why rape is evil. You’ve done neither. You have no argument. See, even back then keiths refused to define the terms he was using nor managed to connect them into a coherent argument. Some things never change. keiths didn't have an argument then and he still doesn't have one now. Some things never change. keiths has a rather odd habit of trying to support one failed argument by trotting out another failed argument he's made in the past. Some things never change.Mung_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

KEiths
You see, those infants and children deserved to die, because they didn’t make sure that a multinational consortium installed a tsunami warning system in time for the 2004 tsunami.
This is another good example of how Keiths, the mythomaniac, misrepresents others' arguments. There is no reason to respond to it since he will lie about the response. Remarkable!StephenB_{December 16, 2014
December
12
Dec
16
16
2014
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 19 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply