The Argument From Evil Explained

_{Barry Arrington
August 28, 2018

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Many times we hear about the “argument from evil” as a knock-down argument for the non-existence of God. For those of you who are not familiar with the argument, I will explain it. It goes like this:

All good arguments depend on the precise, clear and unambiguous use of language. The argument from evil is no exception. It obviously demands an exacting definition of the word “evil.” Richard Dawkins, the world’s most famous atheist, says the universe has “no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” If he is right and there is no evil, that might seem like a problem for an argument from, well, evil. But it is not. Dawkins means there is no objective transcendent morality. Stuff just happens for no reason and it is neither good nor evil in the sense of “conforming to an objective moral code” since there is no objective moral code. But that does not mean we cannot nevertheless employ the word “evil” in a way that is useful for our argument. We just have to define the word to mean “that which I do not subjectively prefer” or more loosely “icky stuff I don’t like.”

Now that we have the definitional issue out of the way, we can go on to the argument. It is a simple augment really. It amounts to the following syllogism that any child can understand:

Major Premise: If God exists, he would prevent evil (remember our definition “icky stuff I don’t like) from happening.

Minor Premise: Icky stuff I don’t like happens all the time.

Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

QED

Comments

In regards to General Relativity overturning the Copernican Principle, Einstein himself stated that, The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems].”
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.” Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.);
Fred Hoyle and George Ellis add their considerable weight here, in regards to General Relativity overturning the Copernican Principle, in these following two quotes:
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentrism and geokineticism] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view…. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.” Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973. “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” – George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55
As Einstein himself noted, there simply is no experimental test that can be performed that can prove that the earth is not the center of the universe:
“We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.,,, If all the objects in space were removed save one, then no one could say whether that one remaining object was at rest or hurtling through the void at 100,000 miles per second” Historian Lincoln Barnett – “The Universe and Dr. Einstein” – pg 73 (contains a foreword by Albert Einstein) “One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K’ [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K’ [the Earth], whereby K’ [the Earth] is treated as being at rest.” –Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, “On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation”, Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921
Even Stephen Hawking himself, who claimed that we are just chemical scum on an insignificant planet, stated that it is not true that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong,,, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.”
“So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest. Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.” Stephen Hawking – The Grand Design – page 39 – 2010
In fact, in the 4-Dimensional space-time of Einstein's General Relativity, it is left completely open for whomever is making a model of the universe to decide for themselves what is to be considered central in the universe:
How Einstein Revealed the Universe’s Strange “Nonlocality” – George Musser | Oct 20, 2015 Excerpt: Under most circumstances, we can ignore this nonlocality. You can designate some available chunk of matter as a reference point and use it to anchor a coordinate grid. You can, to the chagrin of Santa Barbarans, take Los Angeles as the center of the universe and define every other place with respect to it. In this framework, you can go about your business in blissful ignorance of space’s fundamental inability to demarcate locations.,, In short, Einstein’s theory is nonlocal in a more subtle and insidious way than Newton’s theory of gravity was. Newtonian gravity acted at a distance, but at least it operated within a framework of absolute space. Einsteinian gravity has no such element of wizardry; its effects ripple through the universe at the speed of light. Yet it demolishes the framework, violating locality in what was, for Einstein, its most basic sense: the stipulation that all things have a location. General relativity confounds our intuitive picture of space as a kind of container in which material objects reside and forces us to search for an entirely new conception of place. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality/
Even individual people can be considered central in the universe in the four-dimensional space-time of General Relativity,,,
You Technically Are the Center of the Universe – May 2016 Excerpt: (due to the 1 in 10^120 finely tuned expansion of the 4-D space-time of General Relativity) no matter where you stand, it will appear that everything in the universe is expanding around you. So the center of the universe is technically — everywhere. The moment you pick a frame of reference, that point becomes the center of the universe. Here’s another way to think about it: The sphere of space we can see around us is the visible universe. We’re looking at the light from stars that’s traveled millions or billions of years to reach us. When we reach the 13.8 billion-light-year point, we’re seeing the universe just moments after the Big Bang happened. But someone standing on another planet, a few light-years to the right, would see a different sphere of the universe. It’s sort of like lighting a match in the middle of a dark room: Your observable universe is the sphere of the room that the light illuminates. But someone standing in a different spot in the room will be able to see a different sphere. So technically, we are all standing at the center of our own observable universes. https://mic.com/articles/144214/you-technically-are-the-center-of-the-universe-thanks-to-a-wacky-physics-quirk
,,, Moreover, when Einstein first formulated both Special and General relativity, he gave a hypothetical observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe.
Introduction to special relativity Excerpt: Einstein's approach was based on thought experiments, calculations, and the principle of relativity, which is the notion that all physical laws should appear the same (that is, take the same basic form) to all inertial observers.,,, Each observer has a distinct "frame of reference" in which velocities are measured,,,, - per wikipedia The happiest thought of my life. Excerpt: In 1920 Einstein commented that a thought came into his mind when writing the above-mentioned paper he called it “the happiest thought of my life”: “The gravitational field has only a relative existence… Because for an observer freely falling from the roof of a house – at least in his immediate surroundings – there exists no gravitational field.” http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node85.html
Whereas, on the other hand, in Quantum Mechanics it is the measurement itself that gives each observer a privileged frame of reference in the universe. As the following researcher commented, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness – May 27, 2015 Excerpt: Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering. http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-theory-weirdness.html
Moreover Steven Weinberg himself, an atheist, noted that in quantum mechanics, in what is termed 'the instrumentalist approach’, humans are brought into the laws of physics at the most fundamental level instead of humans being a result of the laws of physics as Darwinists had falsely imagined us to be.
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11 Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,, Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/
Because of such evidence as this from quantum mechanics, Richard Conn Henry, who is Professor of Physics at John Hopkins University, stated this “It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe.”
“It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe. And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial, and have fears and agonies that are very similar to the fears and agonies that Copernicus and Galileo went through with their perturbations of society.” - Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics – John Hopkins University http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/quantum.enigma.html
Moreover, on top of the overturning of the Copernican principle by the CMBR, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, in the following video physicist Neil Turok states that we live in the middle, or at the geometric mean, between the largest scale in physics and the smallest scale in physics:
“So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].” – Neil Turok as quoted at the 14:40 minute mark The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything – Neil Turok Public Lecture – video (12:00 minute mark, we live in the geometric mean, i.e. the middle, of the universe) https://youtu.be/f1x9lgX8GaE?t=715
And here is a picture that gets his point across very clearly:
The Scale: 10^-35m to 10^-5m to 10^25m – picture http://www.timeone.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Robbert-Dijkgraaf-Planck-scale.jpg
Thus, besides the CMBR, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity overturning of the Copernican principle, the centrality of life in the universe is also established by yet another fairly impressive angle in physics in which life is found to be at 'the geometric mean' or quote unquote 'the middle' of the universe. In conclusion, atheistic materialism, via Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, has no hope of ever providing any kind of 'context' for anything, not even for the smallest particle. Whereas on the other hand, the Christian Theist is literally swimming in scientific evidence that our lives have real "context".bornagain77_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

At 30 Deputy Dog states:
"Meaning is always about context. If the entire cosmos is the context, then our lives have little meaning."
It is funny that a atheistic materialist, i.e. a Darwinist, would appeal to context. Atheistic Materialism simply does not do context. As the following article which extended Godel's Incompleteness Theorem to physics stated, "even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour".,,, The researchers further commented that their findings "challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description."
Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics - December 9, 2015 Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,, It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, "We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s," added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. "So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description." http://phys.org/news/2015-12-quantum-physics-problem-unsolvable-godel.html
Thus that renders ANY appeal to any sort of 'context' invalid for the atheistic materialist. To put it even more simply, “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”.
Gödel's incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel (ref. on cite), halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”. Cf., Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010) @ 15-6
And as Godel himself pointed out in the following quote, a soul or a mind is necessary in order to provide "context" for material particles. i.e. to be 'outside the circle'
“In materialism all elements behave the same. It is mysterious to think of them as spread out and automatically united. For something to be a whole, it has to have an additional object, say, a soul or a mind.” Kurt Gödel – Hao Wang’s supplemental biography of Gödel, A Logical Journey, MIT Press, 1996. [9.4.12]
And as Pastor Joe Boot stated in the following video,
"If you have no God, then you have no design plan for the universe. You have no preexisting structure to the universe.,, As the ancient Greeks held, like Democritus and others, the universe is flux. It's just matter in motion. Now on that basis all you are confronted with is innumerable brute facts that are unrelated pieces of data. They have no meaningful connection to each other because there is no overall structure. There's no design plan. It's like my kids do 'join the dots' puzzles. It's just dots, but when you join the dots there is a structure, and a picture emerges. Well, the atheists is without that (final picture). There is no preestablished pattern (to connect the facts given atheism)." - Pastor Joe Boot - Defending the Christian Faith – video - 13:20 minute mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqE5_ZOAnKo
It is also interesting to note that Atheists will often try to claim that our lives have no real meaning or purpose by referring to the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity. Specifically, the 'principle of mediocrity' assumes that nothing is special about humanity's situation
Copernican principle Excerpt: In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, is an alternative name of the mediocrity principle,,, stating that humans (the Earth, or the Solar system) are not privileged observers of the universe.[1] Named for Copernican heliocentrism, it is a working assumption that arises from a modified cosmological extension of Copernicus's argument of a moving Earth.[2] In some sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle Carl Sagan coined the term 'principle of mediocrity' to refer to the idea that scientists should assume that nothing is special about humanity's situation Mediocrity principle Excerpt: The (Mediocrity) principle has been taken to suggest that there is nothing very unusual about the evolution of the Solar System, Earth's history, the evolution of biological complexity, human evolution, or any one nation. It is a heuristic in the vein of the Copernican principle, and is sometimes used as a philosophical statement about the place of humanity. The idea is to assume mediocrity, rather than starting with the assumption that a phenomenon is special, privileged, exceptional, or even superior.[2][3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle
Stephen Hawking, via the Copernican Principle and/or The Principle of Mediocrity, once stated “The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can’t believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.,,,”
“The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can’t believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.,,,” – Stephen Hawking – 1995 TV show, Reality on the Rocks: Beyond Our Ken,
And yet, despite the fact that practically everybody, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican principle, and by default “The Principle of Mediocrity', are unquestionably true, the plain fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principle has now been overturned by reference to the Cosmic Background Radiation, to General Relativity and to Quantum Mechanics. First off, there are now found to be 'anomalies' in the Cosmic Background Radiation that strangely line up with the earth and solar system.
What Is Evil About The Axis Of Evil? - February 17, 2015 The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation contains small temperature fluctuations. When these temperature fluctuations are analyzed using image processing techniques (specifically spherical harmonics), they indicate a special direction in space, or, in a sense, an axis through the universe. This axis is correlated back to us, and causes many difficulties for the current big bang and standard cosmology theories. What has been discovered is shocking. Two scientists, Kate Land and João Magueijo, in a paper in 2005 describing the axis, dubbed it the “Axis of Evil” because of the damage it does to current theories, and (tongue in cheek) as a response to George Bush’ Axis of Evil speech regarding Iraq, Iran and, North Korea. (Youtube clip on site) In the above video, Max Tegmark describes in a simplified way how spherical harmonics analysis decomposes the small temperature fluctuations into more averaged and spatially arranged temperature components, known as multipoles. The “Axis of Evil” correlates to the earth’s ecliptic and equinoxes, and this represents a very unusual and unexpected special direction in space, a direct challenge to the Copernican Principle. http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/evil-axis-evil/
At the 13:55 minute mark of this following video, Max Tegmark, an atheist who specializes in this area of study, finally admits, post Planck 2013, that the CMBR anomalies do indeed line up with the earth and solar system
"Thoughtcrime: The Conspiracy to Stop The Principle" - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0eVUSDy_rO0#t=832
And here is a animated video clip that explains these CMBR "anomalies" very clearly:
Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw
Of related note:
Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? - Ashok K. Singal - May 17, 2013 Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the eclipticcite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropiescite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sourcescite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth's rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon. http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134
bornagain77_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

That's right. As I said before, even if we accept omnipotence, how in the world (literally) do we know it is omni-benevolent? If Bob can't know what such a being would do (including even caring what human beings do), how do Barry, kf, ET, Plantinga etc know? Where does their privileged knowledge come from?jdk_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Barry @65: "...Bob cannot really know for certain what a perfectly omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent God would do, Such knowledge is above his pay grade. If Bob cannot really know for certain what God would do, how can he make an argument that utterly depends upon such certain knowledge? ...Major Premise: If God exists, I imagine he would dislike the same icky stuff I dislike and prevent the icky stuff I dislike from happening. Minor Premise: Icky stuff I don’t like happens all the time. Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist." I say fair enough, with regards to your conclusion about Bob. Nobody can know what a mysterious Omni-God does. It's beyond human comprehension. But then, same for you and everyone else: there is no basis on which to judge this Omni-God about anything; there is no earth bound evidence, including our own feelings about any event, that could possibly demonstrate or falsify it's existence.mike1962_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

Bobby:
I’m imagining that God would not like the icky stuff which He has said is evil.
Right and that is how we are judged- did we do the icky stuff God said is evil? How did we respond to it when it was in our presence?
In addition, if one there is a perfectly omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent God, would one not expect that god to use their infinite power to be omni-benevolent?
So Bobby thinks God is beholden to our definitions and our conceptions. How old are you Bobby, 4? In a perfect world we wouldn't learn and grow. We could not be judged- it would be a shamET_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

Barry @ 65 -
Major Premise: If God exists, I imagine he would dislike the same icky stuff I dislike and prevent the icky stuff I dislike from happening.
No, Barry. I'm imagining that God would not like the icky stuff which He has said is evil. I'm judging God by his standards, not mine. In addition, if one there is a perfectly omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent God, would one not expect that god to use their infinite power to be omni-benevolent?Bob O'H_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

OK daves- it is a dumb argument against the free will defense. It doesn't even followET_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

In comment 48 Bob O’H weighs in with a common variation on the argument from evil. Bob’s argument does not meet the challenge of the OP. It merely smuggles the subjective basis of the argument in through back door. Let’s see how. I assume that Bob will be the first to admit that he is not God. It follows that Bob cannot really know for certain what a perfectly omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent God would do. Such knowledge is above his pay grade. If Bob cannot really know for certain what God would do, how can he make an argument that utterly depends upon such certain knowledge? Simple. Bob assumes that if God exists, he would behave in a way Bob prefers. Bob has smuggled in his subjective preferences by attributing his own subjective preferences to God. Here is how the argument looks when we prevent this back-door smuggling: Major Premise: If God exists, I imagine he would dislike the same icky stuff I dislike and prevent the icky stuff I dislike from happening. Minor Premise: Icky stuff I don’t like happens all the time. Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.Barry Arrington_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

ET,
Really? I say it’s the dumbest argument against free will that I have ever read. It doesn’t even follow.
You should slow down a bit---it's not an argument against free will.daveS_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

daves:
This whole argument takes place under the assumption that God is all-powerful.
It's supposed to be a non-intervention scenario so that we can be judged by how we respond to adversity.ET_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

daves:
Yes, I think that your point #2 is a strong argument against the free will defense.
Really? I say it's the dumbest argument against free will that I have ever read. It doesn't even follow.
My question is, why does God save lives one or a few at a time, while (on occasion, such as the Holocaust) stepping in to save millions?
You do realize that dead people get a chance to enter Heaven and be done with the mess on Earth, right? You do realize that our time here is very limited anyway, right?ET_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

ET,
How do you know?
This whole argument takes place under the assumption that God is all-powerful. Without that assumption, the entire issue disappears.daveS_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

Deputy Dog:
If the entire cosmos is the context, then our lives have little meaning.
That is your uneducated opinion, anyway. But hey, go ahead and try to make your case- I challenge you to do so. You will find that is going to be much harder than your emotional outbursts.ET_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H,
In KF’ post that he links to, there are a couple of explanations: 1. God has to let bad things happen, in order to stop worse things. Apparently God is not omnipotent enough to stop the worse things 2. God has to give people free will, so will not intervene to stop evil. Although apparently if people deny other people their free will (e.g. by killing them), then God’s OK with that. The other problem with the free will defense is the Old Testament, where God often intervenes, for a variety of reasons. Including to stop evil (e.g. Sodom & Gomorah).
Yes, I think that your point #2 is a strong argument against the free will defense. I'm sure we can cite a number of cases where God is claimed to have protected someone by thwarting someone else's free will. The pastor John Hagee testifies that in 1971 he was approached by a man while he was preaching in church. The man pulled out a gun and announced he was going to shoot Hagee (from about 8 feet away). He fired six times, but every shot missed, which is remarkable given the size of Hagee. Hagee says he believes that angels protected him by deflecting the bullets. This would obviously be an example of God intervening to save a person, if not technically interfering with his free will. My question is, why does God save lives one or a few at a time, while declining (on occasion, such as the Holocaust) to step in to save millions?daveS_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

daves:
He could have done that as well.
How do you know?
In fact, many people will say that a loved one survived an accident or illness because God intervened. And that their prayers made a difference.
And others curse at God for taking a loved one before the alleged right time. Many have turned against religion because of evilET_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Jack:
All people reach their moral convictions and decisions in the same way as I have very briefly implied: from a combination of common biological and psychological capabilities and tendencies, cultural upbringing, and mature, rational consideration. (One might google Kohlberg’s theory of moral development about this.)
Umm those tendencies are because of the Intelligent Design of humans. Rational consideration? Given what you accept as scientific that doesn't apply to you. Again, if we have chimps for ancestors then morality is whatever we want it to be. Want to eat babies? That's OK- chimps eat monkey babies. The point is, Jack, that you don't have a scientific explanation for our existence. And the only way you could possibly be right is if evolutionism is right. However evolutionism is not even wrong.ET_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

Bobby:
In KF’ post that he links to, there are a couple of explanations:
That's it- just a couple? I bet you are wrong about that
God has to let bad things happen, in order to stop worse things. Apparently God is not omnipotent enough to stop the worse things
Or God just allows things to take their course as we mostly or totally caused it.
2. God has to give people free will, so will not intervene to stop evil. Although apparently if people deny other people their free will (e.g. by killing them), then God’s OK with that.
God didn't have to do so but did. And people choose to kill other people- it is all part of what God intended so our resolve in justice can be tested. That way we can be judged. And the people who get shot and killed have a chance to get into Heaven, which is the Prize we live for anyway.
The other problem with the free will defense is the Old Testament, where God often intervenes, for a variety of reasons. Including to stop evil (e.g. Sodom & Gomorah).
How is that a problem,? Just baldly asserting it is doesn't cut it.ET_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Bobby:
The point being, God is the omnipotent being who gets to define of Good and Evil (and Richard Dawkins isn’t God*), but then won’t stop what he has defined as Evil.
Right, an "argument" from total ignorance.ET_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Bob at 48. You are missing the point. Whether the concept of evil is inserted into the argument as "icky stuff I don't like" or "icky stuff I imagine a God I admire would not like," the essential point remains the same.Barry Arrington_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

re 49, re Plantinga theistic beliefs:
4. God is omni-benevolent – all-good
This may not be true: in fact given the evidence, it doesn't appear to me to be a supported assumption. Thus the "problem of evil" disappears.jdk_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

Moreover, Immanuel Kant’s requirement for the moral argument to be considered valid was that influences could arise from outside space-time. He considered it a major weakness in the moral argument that such influences could not be empirically established. Dr Suarez explains Immanuel Kant’s empirical requirement for the moral argument to be considered valid in this following video, and shows that Kant’s empirical requirement for the moral argument has now been experimentally met in quantum mechanics:
God, Immanuel Kant, Richard Dawkins, and the Quantum - Antoine Suarez - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQOwMX4bCqk
And although, Dr. Suarez certainly makes a compelling case that Kant's criteria has been met for validating the moral argument for God, the physical reality of objective morality can be even more firmly established with empirical evidence than Dr. Suarez had apparently realized in the video. Indeed, we find much empirical evidence to support the Christian's claim that morality is indeed objectively real. For instance, the following studies actually show that our moral intuition itself transcends space and time: Specifically, in the following study, they found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared
Quantum Consciousness – Time Flies Backwards? – Stuart Hameroff MD Excerpt: Dean Radin and Dick Bierman have performed a number of experiments of emotional response in human subjects. The subjects view a computer screen on which appear (at randomly varying intervals) a series of images, some of which are emotionally neutral, and some of which are highly emotional (violent, sexual….). In Radin and Bierman’s early studies, skin conductance of a finger was used to measure physiological response They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared! Recently Professor Bierman (University of Amsterdam) repeated these experiments with subjects in an fMRI brain imager and found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Moreover he looked at raw data from other laboratories and found similar emotional responses before stimuli appeared. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/TimeFlies.html
And in the following meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010, the researchers found that your body can anticipate morally troubling situations between two and 10 seconds before it happens
Can Your Body Sense Future Events Without Any External Clue? (meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010) - (Oct. 22, 2012) Excerpt: "A person playing a video game at work while wearing headphones, for example, can't hear when his or her boss is coming around the corner. But our analysis suggests that if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes between two and 10 seconds beforehand,,, This phenomenon is sometimes called "presentiment," as in "sensing the future," but Mossbridge said she and other researchers are not sure whether people are really sensing the future. "I like to call the phenomenon 'anomalous anticipatory activity,'" she said. "The phenomenon is anomalous, some scientists argue, because we can't explain it using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense. It's anticipatory because it seems to predict future physiological changes in response to an important event without any known clues, and it's an activity because it consists of changes in the cardiopulmonary, skin and nervous systems." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121022145342.htm
Thus, Kant’s criteria for accepting the validity of the moral argument has now been met on two levels. First, it has been met by showing that there are indeed influences arising from outside space-time as he had stipulated, and secondly, and more importantly, it has been more specifically met by showing that the human body possesses moral intuitions that transcend space and time. Moreover, in the preceding paper one of the researchers remarked that 'we can't explain (the anticipatory activity of the body) using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense.'… And, exactly as she thought, quantum biological findings do indeed shed light how it might be possible for the body to anticipate morally troubling situations before they happen. In fact, as this following video shows,,
Darwinian Materialism vs Quantum Biology - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHdD2Am1g5Y
,,,findings in quantum biology go much further and gives us strong physical evidence that humans possess a transcendent component to their being on the molecular level that is not reducible to materialistic explanations. That is to say, quantum biology gives us fairly compelling evidence for a 'soul' that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies.
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
That is a brief overview of some of the scientific evidence supporting the reality of objective morality. Several more lines of evidence are gone over in the following videos.
Morality: Objective and Real or Subjective and Illusory? - video https://youtu.be/BnrrIvz8mSE Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqUxBSbFhog
In conclusion, the atheist himself testifies to the reality of objective morality in that he himself is not able to live his life consistently in his stated belief that morality is not objectively real. Moreover, physical evidence itself, from several different lines of scientific inquiry, testifies to the reality of objective morality. Thus, the atheist's claim that morality is not objectively real is empirically falsified. Too bad that atheist's constantly ignore the scientific evidence when it directly contradicts how they personally prefer, and imagine, the world to be. Of supplemental philosophical note to the 'argument from evil'
This Theologian Has An Answer To Atheists’ Claims That Evil Disproves God - Jan, 2018 Excerpt: In “The Last Superstition: A Refutation Of The New Atheism,” Feser, echoing Thomas Aquinas, notes that the first premise of the problem of evil is “simply false, or at least unjustifiable.” According to Feser, there is no reason to believe that the Christian God, being all-good and all-powerful, would prevent suffering on this earth if out of suffering he could bring about a good that is far greater than any that would have existed otherwise. If God is infinite in power, knowledge, goodness, etc., then of course he could bring about such a good. Feser demonstrates his reasoning with an analogy. A parent may allow his child a small amount of suffering in frustration, sacrifice of time, and minor pain when learning to play the violin, in order to bring about the good of establishing proficiency. This is not to say that such minimal suffering is in any way comparable to the horrors that have gone on in this world. But the joy of establishing proficiency with a violin is not in any way comparable to the good that God promises to bring to the world. In Christian theology, this good is referred to as the Beatific Vision: the ultimate, direct self-communication of God to the individual. In other words, perfect salvation or Heaven. Feser describes the Beatific Vision as a joy so great that even the most terrible horror imaginable “pales in insignificance before the beatific vision.” As Saint Paul once said, “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.” Your Argument Assumes Its Conclusion I can already see the disciples of the Four Horsemen readying their keyboards, opening a copy of Dawkins’ “The God Delusion,” and preparing their response. An atheist may claim that he cannot possibly imagine anything in the next life that could possibly outweigh the Holocaust, children’s suffering, or any other instance of significant suffering in this world. According to Feser, this response is precisely the reason he states that the problem of evil is “worthless” as an objection to arguments in favor of the existence of the Christian God. The problem is that the only way the atheist can claim that nothing could outweigh the most significant suffering on earth is if he supposes that God does not exist and therefore there is no Beatific Vision. But he cannot presume that God does not exist in the premise of an argument that aims to prove the conclusion that God does not exist. By doing so, he is begging the question, or arguing in a circle, and therefore does not prove anything at all. As Feser goes on to demonstrate, the atheist is essentially stating: “There is no God, because look at all this suffering that no good could possibly outweigh. How do I know there’s no good that could outweigh it? Oh, because there is no God.” http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/03/theologian-answer-new-atheists-claims-existence-evil-disproves-gods/
bornagain77_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT}

Since UD tries to focus on science from time to time, let's look at what type of scientific evidence supports the Christian's claim that morality is objectively real. Perhaps the most compelling piece of evidence comes from the fact that Atheists themselves are unable to live their lives consistently as if objective morality did not really exist. As the following author stated, "Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath."
The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt: ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3
In the following article Nancy Pearcey lists many leading atheists who concede that it would be impossible to live as if they had no moral agency,
Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way.,,, When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html
Dawkins himself admitted that it would be 'intolerable' for him to live his life as if atheistic materialism were actually true
Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html
In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.
Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
Moreover, the 'psychopathic' characteristic inherent to the atheistic/materialistic philosophy, when they try to deny the reality of objective morality, (and deny the reality of God and their own soul as well), is born out empirically. That is to say that people who do not believe in a mind/soul tend to be more psychopathic than the majority of normal people who do believe in a mind/soul.
A scientific case for conceptual dualism: The problem of consciousness and the opposing domains hypothesis. - Anthony I. Jack - 2013 Excerpt page 18: we predicted that psychopaths would not be able to perceive the problem of consciousness.,, In a series of five experiments (Jack, in preparation), we found a highly replicable and robust negative correlation (r~-0.34) between belief in dualism and the primary psychopathic trait of callous affect7. Page 24: Clearly these findings fit well with the hypothesis (Robbins and Jack, 2006) that psychopaths can’t see the problem of consciousness8. Taking these finding together with other work on dehumanization and the anti-social effects of denying the soul and free will, they present a powerful picture. When we see persons, that is, when we see others as fellow humans, then our percept is of something essentially non-physical nature. This feature of our psychology appears to be relevant to a number of other philosophical issues, including the tension between utilitarian principles and deontological concerns about harming persons (Jack et al., accepted), the question of whether God exists (Jack et al., under review-b), and the problem of free will9. http://tonyjack.org/files/2013%20Jack%20A%20scientific%20case%20for%20conceptual%20dualism%20%281%29.pdf
bornagain77_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT}

BO'H: I point out to you that ability to love and ability to be rational require genuine freedom, so that we can act opposite to such things. For example, highly intelligent and educated people paid to teach high level rationality or to render policy counsel, too often choose to pursue the selfish, agenda-driven, irrational or even civilisation-suicidal. But if we are free we are just that, free. There is no possible world in which moral good is possible where moral evil is not also possible -- and moral good opens a world of good that is not otherwise possible. Or, perhaps you wish to deny the premise of freedom, on which stands denial of responsible rationality, leading straight over the cliff into civilisational suicide. Resemblance to a train wreck of a once great and once Christian civilisation (all the reformation struggles and sins of Christendom notwithstanding) is not coincidental. KFkairosfocus_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT}

BO'H: Perhaps, this from my long since linked 101 (summarising Plantinga) may pass your muster and may give a little missing context. I am astonished, frankly, to see that this dead issue seems to be taken seriously in some quarters still, 40 years after it was definitively laid to rest:
Plantinga's free-will defense, in a skeletal form, allows us to effectively address the problem. For, it is claimed that the following set of theistic beliefs embed an unresolvable contradiction: 1. God exists 2. God is omnipotent – all powerful 3. God is omniscient – all-knowing 4. God is omni-benevolent – all-good 5. God created the world 6. The world contains evil To do so, there is an implicit claim that, (2a) if he exists, God is omnipotent and so capable of -- but obviously does not eliminate -- evil. So, at least one of 2 – 5 should be surrendered. But all of these claims are central to the notion of God, so it is held that the problem is actually 1. Therefore, NOT-1: God does not exist. However, it has been pointed out by Plantinga and others that: 2a is not consistent with what theists actually believe: if the elimination of some evil would lead to a worse evil, or prevent the emergence of a greater good, then God might have a good reason to permit some evil in the cosmos. Specifically, what if “many evils result from human free will or from the fact that our universe operates under natural laws or from the fact that humans exist in a setting that fosters soul-making . . . [and that such a world] contains more good than a world that does not” ? In this case, Theists propose that 2a should be revised: 2b: “A good, omnipotent God will eliminate evil as far as he can without either losing a greater good or bringing about a greater evil.” But, once this is done, the alleged contradiction collapses. Further, Alvin Plantinga – through his free will defense -- was able to show that the theistic set is actually consistent. He did this by augmenting the set with a further proposition that is logically possible (as opposed to seeming plausible to one who may be committed to another worldview) and which makes the consistency clear. That proposition, skeletally, is 5a: “God created a world (potentially) containing evil; and has a good reason for doing so.” Propositions 1, 2b, 3, 4, and 5a are plainly consistent, and entail 6. The essence of that defense is: “A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures . . . God can create free creatures, but he can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For . . . then they aren’t significantly free after all . . . He could only have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.” [NB: This assumes that moral good reflects the power of choice: if we are merely robots carrying out programs, then we cannot actually love, be truthful, etc.] [From: Clark, Kelley James. Return to Reason. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 69 – 70, citing Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil, (Eerdmans, 1974), p. 30.] Nor is the possible world known as heaven a good counter-example. For, heaven would exist as a world in which the results of choices made to live by the truth in love across a lifetime have culminated in their eternal reward. This we may see from an argument made by the apostle Paul: Rom 2:6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 78 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [NIV] Anticipating the onward response that in at least some possible worlds, there are free creatures, all of whom freely do what is right, Plantinga asserts a further possibility: trans-world depravity. That is, in all worlds God could create in which a certain person, say Gordon, exists; then that person would have freely gone wrong at least once. And, what if it is further possible that this holds for every class of created, morally capable being? (Then, there would be no possible worlds in which moral good is possible but in which moral evil would not in fact occur. So the benefit of moral good would entail that the world would contain transworld depraved creatures.) Moreover, Plantinga proposes that there is a possible state of affairs in which God and natural evil can exist. For instance, if all natural evils are the result of the actions of significantly free creatures such as Satan and his minions, then since it is logically possible that God could not have created a world with a greater balance of good over evil if it did not contain such creatures, God and natural evil are compatible. At this point, albeit grudgingly, leading atheologians (Such as Mackie and Williams) concede that the deductive form of the problem of evil stands overturned. Thus, a new question is put on the table. It is: But what if the world seems to contain too much evil, and evil that is apparently pointless, i.e. gratuitous? First, the greater good “absorbs” at least some of the evils. To this, the Christian Theist further responds that there are goods in the world that are left out of the account so far; especially, that the fall of mankind led to the greatest good of all: that God loved the world and gave his Son, setting in motion the programme of redemption as a supreme good that absorbs all evils. That is, it is rational for a Christian to believe there are no un-absorbed evils, even though the a-theologian may beg to differ with the Christian’s beliefs. However, it should be noted that there is an existential or pastoral form of the problem of evil (as we saw above): where the overwhelming force of evil and pain brings us to doubt God. To that, no mere rational argument will suffice; for it is a life-challenge we face, as did Job. And, as a perusal of Job 23:1 – 7, 38:1 – 7, 40:1 – 8, 42:1 – 6, God may be more interested in exposing our underlying motives and calling for willingness to trust him even where we cannot trace him, than in satisfying our queries and rebutting our pained accusations. That is, it is at least possible that God is primarily in the business of soul-making. Where then does the problem of evil stand today? On balance, it is rational to believe that God exists, but obviously there are many deep, even painful questions to which we have no answers. And, those who choose to believe in God will have a radically different evaluation of evil than those who reject him. We may now carry this forward, to briefly address the vexed problem of the fairly common attempt to reduce morality to subjective or otherwise relative perceptions imposed by persuasion or force. For this, it is perhaps best to start with a very concrete case, one which is unfortunately not just theoretical: ASSERTION: it is self-evidently wrong, bad and evil to kidnap, torture, sexually violate and murder a young child. Likewise, by corollary: if we come across such a case in progress, it is our duty to try to intervene to save the child from such a monster. Almost all people will agree that such a case is horrible, and to be deplored. So also, they will agree that a duty of rescue obtains, or at least succor for someone left half dead. Thus, we see the significance of the Good Samaritan as a paradigm of neighbourliness across racial, religious, political and other dividing-lines or even outright enmity . . .
I suggest, the yardstick self-evident moral truth just above will allow us to draw out much. For example:
We may elaborate on Paul, Locke, Hooker and Aristotle, laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles; for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people -- that is, they are arguably self-evident (thus, warranted and objective) moral truths; not just optional opinions. So also, it is not only possible to (a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also (b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law. For instance: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. (This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.) 2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. (That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity.) 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do. 6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. If a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT -- so that IS and OUGHT are inextricably fused at that level, it fails decisively.*) 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare; usurping the sword of justice to impose a ruthless policy agenda in fundamental breach of that civil peace which must ever pivot on manifest justice. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. (In Aristotle's terms as cited by Hooker: "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 .") Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly. (NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting -- again -- nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation -- or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.) 12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil. _________________ * F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia. But, widespread or even general acknowledgement of many or most of the above as more or less useful rules of conduct is not the same as to further acknowledge that the sort of wrong we are contemplating is bindingly, objectively, universally something that OUGHT not to be done. And indeed, many will boldly assert today that it cannot be proved that it is absurd to reject the notion that core moral principles are objective and universally binding. Indeed an actual argument made is oh, how can you PROVE that such a list of truths is coherent? (My reply was, after several rounds: "truths must all be so together, a key point of a coherent world: on distinct identity the triple first principles obtain and so no x is both A and not-A, and so too no two truths x and y can be such that y = NOT-x. In this context, each of the 12 being in turn directly credibly true on grounds of patent absurdities on attempted denial, they are immediately credibly coherent. Next, it so happens that the principles are in fact linked together in a chain so they are mutually supportive and relevant, in fact framing the basis for moral principles in governance." The onward question was absolute certainty regarding coherence, to which I responded that not even Mathematics -- the logical study of structure and quantity -- post Godel is absolutely certain, and that the relevant degree of certainty is moral, where I would be confidently willing to cast the weight of my soul on the above, and would be prepared to bet the future of civilisation on them. [Indeed, whatever moral view we take, we are casting the weight of our souls and the future of civilisation on it. The ethical component of our worldviews is awesomely momentous.]) So in the view of too many today, we are left to the feelings of revulsion and the community consensus backed up by police and courts on this. Not so. Compare a fish, that we lure to bite on a hook, then land, kill and eat for lunch without compunction. And even for those who object, they will do so by extension of the protective sense we have about say the young child -- not the other way around. But, unless there is a material difference between a young child and a fish, that sense of wrong is frankly delusional, it is just a disguised preference, one that we are simply willing to back up with force. So, already, once we let radical relativism and subjectivism loose, we are looking at the absurdity and chaos of the nihilist abyss, might (and manipulation) makes for 'right.' Oops. At the pivot of the skeptical objections to objective moral truth, notwithstanding persistent reduction to absurdity, is the pose that since we may err and since famously there are disagreements on morality, we can reduce moral feelings to subjective perceptions tastes and preferences, dismissing any and all claims of objectivity much less self evidence. So, the objector triumphantly announces: there is an unbridgeable IS-OUGHT gap, game over. Not so fast, as there is no better reason to imagine that we live in a moral Plato’s Cave world, than that we live in a physical or intellectual Plato’s Cave world. That is, we consider the imagined world of Plato where the denizens, having been imprisoned from childhood, all imagine that the shadow shows portrayed for their benefit are reality. Until, one is loosed, sees the apparatus of manipulation, then is led outside and learns of the reality that is there to be discovered. Then he tries to rescue his fellows, only to be ridiculed and attacked: Video: Where, again, let us understand how worldviews shape community life: Now, the skeptical question is, do we live in such a delusional world (maybe in another form such as the brains in vats or the Matrix's pods . . . ), and can we reliably tell the difference? The best answer to such is, that such a scenario implies general delusion and the general un-trustworthiness of our senses and reasoning powers. So, it undercuts itself in a turtles all the way down chain of possible delusions -- an infinite regress of Plato's cave delusions. Common good sense then tells us that the skeptic has caught himself up in his own web, his argument is self referentially incoherent.
KFkairosfocus_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT}

Barry, I think you've mis-stated the argument from evil. I think a better formulation would be:
Major Premise: If God exists, he would prevent evil (our new definition “icky stuff He don’t like) from happening. Minor Premise: Icky stuff I don’t like happens all the time. Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist. QED
The point being, God is the omnipotent being who gets to define of Good and Evil (and Richard Dawkins isn't God*), but then won't stop what he has defined as Evil. * that mantle belongs to David AttenboroughBob O'H_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PDT}

daveS @ 6 -
I’m told that God sometimes intervenes to protect people from harm (such as if they fall off a ladder). Isn’t it reasonable to ask whether God could have intervened differently to produce a better outcome to Nazi Germany?
In KF' post that he links to, there are a couple of explanations: 1. God has to let bad things happen, in order to stop worse things. Apparently God is not omnipotent enough to stop the worse things 2. God has to give people free will, so will not intervene to stop evil. Although apparently if people deny other people their free will (e.g. by killing them), then God's OK with that. The other problem with the free will defense is the Old Testament, where God often intervenes, for a variety of reasons. Including to stop evil (e.g. Sodom & Gomorah).Bob O'H_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT}

F/N: A certain Wm A Dembski helps us put the problem in its joint problem of GOOD AND EVIL context, by way of citing Boethius in his Consolation of philosophy -- written, while awaiting execution on trumped up charges:
In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” Boethius contrasts the problem that evil poses for theism with the problem that good poses for atheism. The problem of good does not receive nearly as much attention as the problem evil, but it is the more basic problem. That’s because evil always presupposes a good that has been subverted. All our words for evil make this plain: the New Testament word for sin (Greek hamartia) presupposes a target that’s been missed; deviation presupposes a way (Latin via) from which we’ve departed; injustice presupposes justice; etc. So let’s ask, who’s got the worse problem, the theist or the atheist? Start with the theist. God is the source of all being and purpose. Given God’s existence, what sense does it make to deny God’s goodness? None . . . . The problem of evil still confronts theists, though not as a logical or philosophical problem, but instead as a psychological and existential one [as was addressed above] . . . . The problem of good as it faces the atheist is this: nature, which is nuts-and-bolts reality for the atheist, has no values and thus can offer no grounding for good and evil. As nineteenth century freethinker Robert Green Ingersoll used to say, “In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments. There are consequences.” More recently, Richard Dawkins made the same point: “The universe 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 blind pitiless indifference.” ["Prepared Remarks for the Dembski-Hitchens Debate," Uncommon Descent Blog, Nov 22, 2010]
This is the core of the issue, and it sets up the decisive discussion in Plantinga. Which, I notice, objectors studiously avoiding. KFkairosfocus_{August 29, 2018
August
08
Aug
29
29
2018
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT}

JDK, ET is right in 36 above, and I will cite a classic statement on the point:
Rom 2:14 When Gentiles, who do not have the Law [since it was given only to Jews], do [c]instinctively the things the Law requires [guided only by their conscience], they are a law to themselves, though they do not have the Law. 15 They show that the [d]essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts; and their conscience [their sense of right and wrong, their moral choices] bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or perhaps defending them 16 on that day when, [e]as my gospel proclaims, God will judge the secrets [all the hidden thoughts and concealed sins] of men through Christ Jesus. [AMP]
Of course, the Apostle here also points to perhaps the most powerful answer to the problem of evil of all and similarly evidence for the reality of God. I cite the C1 core testimony, with relevant dates and places (cf. here on historical authenticity):
C. AD 50: Ac. 17:22 So Paul, standing in the center of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I observe [with every turn I make throughout the city] that you are very religious and devout in all respects. 23 Now as I was going along and carefully looking at your objects of worship, I came to an altar with this inscription: ‘TO AN [d]UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you already worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who created the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He [e]served by human hands, as though He needed anything, because it is He who gives to all [people] life and breath and all things. 26 And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their lands and territories. 27 This was so that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grasp for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. 28 For in Him we live and move and exist [that is, in Him we actually have our being], as even some of [f]your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ 29 So then, being God’s children, we should not think that the Divine Nature (deity) is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination or skill of man. 30 Therefore God overlooked and disregarded the former ages of ignorance; but now He commands all people everywhere to repent [that is, to change their old way of thinking, to regret their past sins, and to seek God’s purpose for their lives], 31 because He has set a day when He will judge the inhabited world in righteousness by a Man whom He has appointed and destined for that task, and He has provided credible proof to everyone by raising Him from the dead.” [--> with 500+ eyewitnesses] [AMP]
and,
c. AD 55, reporting a c 35 - 38 AD formal summary of the 500 (with c 20 leading witnesses named or directly implied at a time when that constituted painting a target on one's back -- the storm would break in the mid 60's with a false accusation of treasonous arson): 1 Cor 15:3 For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received,
-- that Christ died for our sins -- according to [that which] the Scriptures [foretold] [cf. esp Isa 52:13 - 53:12], 4 and -- that He was buried, and -- that He was [bodily] raised on the third day -- according to [that which] the Scriptures [foretold], 5 and -- that He appeared
to Cephas (Peter), then to the [a]Twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, the majority of whom are still alive, but some have fallen asleep [in death]. 7 Then He was seen by James, then by all the apostles, 8 and last of all, as to one [b]untimely (prematurely, traumatically) born, He appeared to me also . . . 11 So whether it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed and trusted in and relied on with confidence. [AMP]
That is, we here have authentic C1 testimony reduced to writing and passed down to us at fearsome cost. God is real and answers evils in the real world, first by coming among us and taking its full force into himself, fulfilling 700 year old prophecies and thus demonstrating his power over the future, life and death. Ultimately, that resurrection power manifested to the 500 is the point of test. For us, as it is adequate warrant that we do or should know and respond appropriately to. And, it is a sign authenticating another prophecy, that there is an ordained day when the ultimate Grand Court will sit. With the same risen one on the Judge's bench. To him, shall we all account. KFkairosfocus_{August 28, 2018
August
08
Aug
28
28
2018
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT}

I have asked this question so many times and to this point have not yet received an attempt at an answer by anyone who does not believe God made us, but believes we are a product of evolution.If all we are is a product of evolution how can someones desire to help old ladies across the street be good while his brothers desire to steal old ladies money be evil, seeing that these desire both come from brains which are just a product of evolution.So if all our wants and desires are just a product of evolution how can they be deemed good or evil and not just the desires we happened to get.Marfin_{August 28, 2018
August
08
Aug
28
28
2018
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT}

When I was growing up my parents got to know a doctor who worked with the poor in Bangladesh-- a so-called medical missionary. One incident that occurred during this man’s life has always stood out to me. It happened in the late 1960’s, when I was in high school. The clinic this doctor was working out of for some reason just got overwhelmed with Bengali’s seeking medical treatment (some had very serious conditions.) He and his staff had no choice but to turn people away knowing that many of them would die. It was during this period that Dr. K. had a massive heart attack. His friends said the circumstances literally broke his heart. However, miraculously, he didn’t die. His staff was somehow able to save his life. They then had him flown to Europe where he underwent surgery and then began rehabilitation. I remember having a discussion with some of the adults at our church after a special prayer meeting we had for Dr. K. One of the questions I heard them asking was, what was he going to do next? It seemed obvious to all of us that he couldn’t go back to his work. But after he recovered that’s what he did. That’s what he had to do. That was his calling. Three points: First, a lot of atheists use the so called argument from evil to argue against the existence of God, but they then turn a blind eye to the suffering around them. This man believed in God and that is what motivated him to do something about the suffering in the world. Who’s the hypocrite? It appears to me that atheist uses the so-called argument from evil as an excuse to do nothing about what they term “evil.” Second, if more people like Dr. K. existed we would be able to mitigate a lot more of the suffering that exists in the world. But if mitigating suffering is not really (objectively) good then why would anyone be obligated to do anything about it? And finally, if there is no such thing a moral truth* (objective moral values and obligations) as many atheists argue then Dr. K. was no more moral than Hugh Hefner who at the time was advancing the hedonistic playboy philosophy. According to atheistic materialism there is absolutely no moral difference between Hugh Hefner and Dr. K. They just made different freewill moral choices (ironically, using free will that the materialists say is just an illusion.) In fact from that perspective Dr. K. was a fool. He should have set up his medical practice here in the U.S. where he could have made a lot more money and enjoyed life a lot more. (*Of course, if there are no objective values and obligations then there is no real evil-- thus there is no problem of evil. Maybe that’s what the atheists are really arguing.)john_a_designer_{August 28, 2018
August
08
Aug
28
28
2018
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply