Vividbleau: The Problem of Evil is More of a Problem for an Atheist than a Theist

_{Barry Arrington

April 3, 2020

Intelligent Design}

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

VB sums his chain of reasoning below. And very nicely done reasoning it is too. And then comes this: The problem of evil is more of a problem for the atheist than for the theist. He is right of course. But can anyone tell me why his is right. EVERYTHING THAT FOLLOWS IS VB’S:

I am somewhat of an obsessive compulsive after a few months I started to ask uncomfortable questions. I know what I experienced but the mind is a funny thing and I recognized hey you are basing your life on this belief which is a serious commitment maybe I am deceiving myself “Am I sure?” and of course I was not sure I needed more.
One of my strengths, and is always the case can be one of my greatest weakness, is that I have a very open mind, its not empty but open. I also think that to confront ones doubts one must face the opposition and their strongest arguments honestly and without distortion. Its a blessing and a curse because it is very tough to engage arguments that are contrary to what you believe. This is important, I recognize that I am not objective, I am guilty of observational bias, by recognizing this I recognize that I have to fight that and the way to do that is to expose oneself to ideas opposite of your own. I remember once on this site I mentioned that I was prone to observational bias and someone was surprised by that (it was not you) and I thought “are you kidding me”? Its a human condition.

It took many years but in a nutshell here is where I have landed.

Evidence is a plastic word and needs to be defined, here is how I prioritize evidence.
1) My starting point is where all of us start, and where many are ignorant that they start there, which is a set of unprovable assumptions, everyone has them. Everyone starts with metaphysics! I assume the reliability of mind.

2) Reason and its sister Logic is superior to experience. Logic cannot tell us what is but it can tell us what is NOT.

3) Because everything starts with metaphysics faith is not unreasonable, nor is fideism the same as faith.

4) Every worldview is a set of faith assumptions about the nature of things ie is a metaphysical belief.

5) Every worldview has difficulties.

6) To echo KF we should adopt the worldview that has the least number of difficulties.

As to the materialist, atheist, agnostic I GET IT. I understand why when we look over history, the pain and suffering that exists in our world, the evil and mayhem, atheism to me is a reasonable position but entails more difficulties than theism.

Here is my answer as a theist to the problem of evil, I don’t have one nor does anyone else, Jonathan Edwards, one of the greatest minds America has produced, spent his whole life contemplating this question and could not answer it. Those who appeal to the free will of man etc, just demonstrate to me that they don’t gasp the extent of the problem, I am laying it all out here and I know this will rankle some theists here but that’s a fact. As an aside I think the problem of evil is more a problem for the atheist than the theist

Comments

Jerry, You are right to highlight the significance of genuinely understanding a critical concept. The problem there, of course, is that in all the argumentation above, there is an implicit, inescapable appeal to intuitively known first duties of reason, to truth, to right reason, to prudence [so, warrant etc!], to sound conscience, to neighbour, to fairness and justice, etc. All of this points to the challenge of being governed by built in moral law, as significantly free, rational, responsible creatures. Thus, we face the gap between IS and OUGHT, which has deep implications for the root of reality and wellspring of worlds. For, on pain of ungrounded ought, these two must be bridged and inseparably fused in that root. Which, points where ever so many utterly refuse to go, to the point where some even preen themselves on proudly dismissing one of the best attested realities of C1 history. Namely, the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. (BTW, this is one of the marks of utterly irrational selective hyperskepticism, and how it reflects the folly of walking away from the cardinal virtue, prudence as charioteer of the rational soul.) Now, to bridge IS and OUGHT in that root of reality, we must face the implication that we have a built in morally tinged governing law, implying that there is a cosmic lawmaker at that root level. We need a root that is necessary in being (so, causally independent and eternal), capable of being wellspring of worlds (great power and skill) AND inherently good and utterly wise. Which means, purpose is built into reality's root. From that, we can see the relevance of the classic understanding of evil: the frustration, perversion or privation of what is, out of its proper end. For example, the mind's proper end is manifestly about
- wisdom, - soundness [so, truth and linked right reason and prudence], - right decision and action [so, moral government, sound conscience, neighbour, fairness and justice thence that civil peace of justice that duly balances rights, freedoms and responsibilities].
So to frustrate such through lies, entrenched error, refusal of sound thought, imprudence, crushing conscience, disregarding neighbour, fairness and justice etc is evil. Which, among other things, implies that selective hyperskepticism -- something that has become ever so clearly at work in the debates over HCQ etc as we face pandemic -- is evil. In that context, BA77 is quite right to highlight that to object to evil is to imply the problem of good. Evil is ultimately meaningless in any worldview that lacks a reality root capable of bridging IS and OUGHT, thus implying deep purpose in our existence and significant freedom morally governed through built in law. That is, the problem of evil is a manifestation of the IS-OUGHT gap and reflects the moral hazard of responsible, rational agency. It is in that context that Plantinga's defense makes solid sense. Notice, it is not a theodicy, an argument as to what is and thence to how God is justified [note the built in inescapable appeal to first duties], but instead exploits the power of possible worlds to identify that if a set of propositions are compossible in any one possible world, it is just that, coherent. So, once the theistic set id properly clarified, it is readily shown to be compossible thus coherent. The problem of evil in its formerly most powerful form, the logical, fails utterly. Fails, in a way that is instructive, pointing to a purpose for freedom. Namely, that a world with responsible freedom opens up a world of potential goods that overwhelm the evil that may well obtain transworld in any world with freedom. And immediately, we see that love, root of virtues, requires radical freedom. That which is of mechanical necessity and/or blind chance, exhaustively, cannot love. (Sci Fi fans can see this explored in Weber's Safehold series and Dahak series. Merlin Athrawes and Dahak are AI creatures and the reader is invited to see them as loving, relating, heroically brave creatures.) In this context, it is worth noting that on the strength of his philosophical contributions including this Defense, Plantinga became a President of the American Philosophical Association. We are not dealing with a nobody, with a lightweight argument. KFkairosfocus_{April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT}

BA77 and Truthfreedom Insects produce galls by injecting chemicals and eggs. They strike in the spring when the plant is growing and their secretions force the growing plant to form a gall. The plant is a VICTIM of the insect. This has been known at least since I was a boy. Lönnig even TELLS US THIS on page 14: “...there is now considerable evidence that gall development is largely controlled by genes of the galling insects and that galling indeed constitutes an adaptive manipulation of the hostphenotype" IF the plant was forming the gall by itself, for the benefit of the insect, then Darwin's theory would be in question. But since it is the insect exploiting the plant, it no more violates evolutionary theory than an insect feeding on a leaf. I repeat, Wikipedia knew what it was doing when it dropped Dr. Lönnig. The plant is being mugged by the invading insect and the insect is rebuilding the plant to suit the insect's purposes.MatSpirit_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT}

BA @ 75 So God said they were all bad (including babies) and he warned them and then he killed them. Kind of like Hitler and the Jews. No thanks.MatSpirit_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

Sorry I'm late getting back into the stream of things... LarTanner @ 37, >This rejoinder mis-understands the claim, which is that the problem of evil undermines the argument for God’s absolute goodness, lovingness, and omnipotence. I'm not aware that any theist understands God's goodness as being so absolute that he would wipe out all evil instantly, and thus it never would have existed. God has more qualities than just goodness. Yes, God's goodness is not absolute to the exclusion of every other attribute/goal/desire of God. This misunderstanding is repeated on the plato/standford page you link, where they say, "The problem of evil is the problem of accounting for evil in a world created by an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God. It seems that if the creator has these attributes, there would be no evil in the world. But there is evil in the world. Thus, there is reason to believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good creator does not exist." But as others have noted, the stanford philosophy page does not actually give a rigorous definition for evil, in the sense that particular acts can be clearly delineated as being good or evil. It _does_ support (by listing dozens of vague yet conflicting attempts at definitions) the contention here that there is no single agreed-upon definition that is useful enough to argue from. Just one example: "As Marcus Singer puts it “‘evil’ [in this sense] … is the worst possible term of opprobrium imaginable”. Not terribly helpful I'm afraid.. MattSpirit @ 56, >And [EDTA's] last answer is a classic: “Can anyone rigorously argue that God has no reasons for allowing evil to exist?..." That’s going to be pretty hard to do when the Christians say God is beyond human understanding. Bingo. That was my point. To try to argue that God doesn't exist based on the existence of evil is futile.EDTA_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

JVL at 57,
Something I find really interesting is how much of the Bible different people consider the literal truth. For example, many, many people these days would consider the story of Adam and Eve to be more allegory than historical truth. Noah and the flood .,,,,
So what? Why do you not appeal to the scientific evidence rather than to popular opinion? The actual scientific evidence, not an opinion poll, supports both a historical Adam and Eve as well as catastrophic Global flooding in the not too distant past. (Shoot Darwinists can't even explain where a single protein came from much less where humans came from!)
February 2020 – Falsification of the population genetics used by Darwinists and Theistic Evolutionists https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jon-garveys-new-book-argues-that-adam-was-one-among-many-early-humans/#comment-692463 February 2020, major anatomical and genetic differences between chimps and humans https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-texas-m-last-week-theistic-evolutionist-joshua-swamidass-vs-id-proponent-michael-behe/#comment-693556 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-texas-m-last-week-theistic-evolutionist-joshua-swamidass-vs-id-proponent-michael-behe/#comment-693590 Neo-Darwinism and the Big Bang of Man’s Origin – Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – February 25, 2020 Excerpt: “There is a popular image of human evolution that you’ll find all over the place, from the backs of cereal packets to the advertisement for expensive scientific equipment. On the left of the picture there’s an ape — …. On the right, a man … Between the two is a succession of figures that become ever more like humans … Our progress from ape to human looks so smooth, so tidy. It’s such a beguiling image that even the experts are loath to let it go. But it is an illusion.” – Bernard Wood, Bernard Wood, Professor of Human Origins at George Washington University, “Who are we?” New Scientist 176 2366: 44-47. 26 October 2002:,,, A Big Bang at Man’s Origin? To repeat the key points quoted above (from Darwinists themselves), we may emphasize that 1. “differences exist on an unusual scale” 2. “Homo sapiens appears […] distinctive and unprecedented” 3. “There is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became what we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.” 4. “…we evidently came by our unusual anatomical structure and capacities very recently.” 5. “…a convincing hypothesis for the origin of Homo remains elusive” 6. “[W]e should not expect to find a series of intermediate fossil forms with decreasingly divergent big toes and, at the same time, a decreasing number of apelike features and an increasing number of modern human features.” 7. “No gradual series of changes in earlier australopithecine populations clearly leads to the new species [Homo sapiens], and no australopithecine species is obviously transitional.” 8. “…early H. sapiens was significantly and dramatically different from earlier and penecontemporary [as well as coexisting] australopithecines in virtually every element of its skeleton and every remnant of its behavior.” 9. “Our interpretation is that the changes are sudden and interrelated,” “a genetic revolution.”,,, “…a rather minor structural innovation at the DNA level” appears to be, for all that can be known at present, a rather unsatisfactory proposal for a comparable origin of some 696 new features (out of 1065) which distinguish man from chimpanzees, 711 from orang, 680 from gorilla, 948 from Gibbon (Hylobathes), presupposing a similar magnitude of different anatomical and other features (“distinctive and unprecedented”) from his supposed animal ancestor, “our closest extinct kin,” not to speak of 15.6% differences on the DNA level between man and his alleged closest cousin, the chimpanzee, which means, in actual numbers, more than 450 million bp differences of the some 3 billion bp constituting the genomes overall.28,,, Almost any larger science museum around the globe presents a series of connecting links between extinct apes and humans such as Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus afarensis (“Lucy”), Ardipithecus ramidus, Orrorin tugensis and others. For a brief overview on such assumed links see Lönnig (2019).38 I include there a series of references to papers and books that do not simply presuppose evolution and neo-Darwinism as the final truth on the origin of species without any scientific alternative (as is common practice nowadays). Instead, these works critically discuss the relevant details, showing in depth the untenability of the evolutionary scenarios usually given to these would-be links generally put forward as indisputable scientific facts…. 98.5 Percent Human/Chimp DNA Identity? Although long disproved, the assertion that human and chimp DNA display approximately 98.5 percent identity is still forwarded in many papers and books. The present state of the art has been clearly articulated by Richard Buggs, Professor of Evolutionary Genomics at Queen Mary University of London. He asks, “What does the data say today in 2018, and how can it be described to the public in an adequate manner?” Key answer: “The total percentage of the human genome that I can know for sure has one-to-one orthology with the chimp genome is 84.4 percent” (“our minimum lower bound”)39, i.e., more than 450 million differences (15 percent of 3 billion bp = 450 million). https://evolutionnews.org/2020/02/neo-darwinism-and-the-big-bang-of-mans-origin/ Humanpast.net Excerpt: Worldwide, we know that the period of 14,000 to 13,000 years ago, which coincides with the peak of abundant monsoonal rains over India, was marked by violent oceanic flooding – in fact, the first of the three great episodes of global superfloods that dominated the meltdown of the Ice Age. The flooding was fed not merely by rain but by the cataclysmic synchronous collapse of large ice-masses on several different continents and by gigantic inundations of meltwater pouring down river systems into the oceans. (124) What happened, at around 13,000 years ago, was that the long period of uninterrupted warming that the world had just passed through (and that had greatly intensified, according to some studies, between 15,000 years ago and 13,000 years ago) was instantly brought to a halt – all at once, everywhere – by a global cold event known to palaeo climatologists as the ‘Younger Dryas’ or ‘Dryas III’. In many ways mysterious and unexplained, this was an almost unbelievably fast climatic reversion – from conditions that are calculated to have been warmer and wetter than today’s 13,000 years ago, to conditions that were colder and drier than those at the Last Glacial Maximum, not much more than a thousand years later. From that moment, around 12,800 years ago, it was as though an enchantment of ice had gripped the earth. In many areas that had been approaching terminal meltdown full glacial conditions were restored with breathtaking rapidity and all the gains that had been made since the LGM were simply stripped away…(124) A great, sudden extinction took place on the planet, perhaps as recently as 11,500 years ago (usually attributed to the end of that last ice age), in which hundreds of mammal and plant species disappeared from the face of the earth, driven into deep caverns and charred muck piles the world over. Modern science, with all its powers and prejudices, has been unable to adequately explain this event. (83) http://humanpast.net/environment/environment11k.htm Study: Deep beneath the earth, more water than in all the oceans combined - June 16, 2014 Excerpt: And it’s a good thing, too, Jacobsen told New Scientist: “We should be grateful for this deep reservoir. If it wasn’t there, it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountain tops would be the only land poking out.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/16/study-deep-beneath-north-america-theres-more-water-than-in-all-the-oceans-combined/ Genesis 7:11 "When Noah was 600 years old, on the seventeenth day of the second month, all the underground waters erupted from the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky." What does Genesis 7:11 mean? Excerpt: We are told that on that day all the fountains or springs of the great deep burst forth. The picture is of geyser spewing its contents into the sky, implying that a great underground ocean had existed and had been under some amount of pressure since the beginning of creation. In addition, the "windows of heaven" were opened. Great torrents of rain poured from the sky. https://www.bibleref.com/Genesis/7/Genesis-7-11.html
Let's do a little more comparison between the predictions of Theism when compared to the predictions of Atheistic Materialism Here are a few comparisons:
1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted space-time energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted space-time energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago. 2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence. 3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. - 4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) - 5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).- 6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (G. Gonzalez; Hugh Ross). - 7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geochemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photosynthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. - 8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. - 10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)– 12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the separation of human intelligence from animal intelligence ‘is one of degree and not of kind’ (C. Darwin). Theism predicted that we are made in the ‘image of God’- Despite an ‘explosion of research’ in this area over the last four decades, human beings alone are found to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities.’ (Tattersall; Schwartz). Moreover, both biological life and the universe itself are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis. 13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. - 14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening. 16. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule).
As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy (methodological naturalism), from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - In fact modern science is even very good at pointing us to Christianity as the solution to the much sought after 'theory of everything'
allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”. Here are a few posts where I lay out and defend some of the evidence for that claim: January 2020 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/welcome-to-the-brave-new-world-of-science/#comment-690569
Verse:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
bornagain77_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

Barry, define "good." Then tell us what the privation of it means. Then compare your definition with what the typical person believes the term evil means. If you use your definition and not use the word evil but the phrase,. "privation of the good" then you will end up with nonsensical arguments. Especially if you then substitute your definition of good in the phrase. This might be a good exercise to prove me wrong rather than asserting I don’t know what I am talking about.
That the atheist argument from evil for the non-existence of God is utterly incoherent.
I agree because evil as the atheists use the term is meaningless in the world created by the Judeo-Christian God. That is my point. But they think their version of evil does exists and will point to examples. So the standoff is to use logic to show that their definition is meaningless in the context of what the Christian God promise. That is what I am doing. I doubt your definition, which come from Augustine, will win many converts because it does not sync with the typical atheist’s use of the term. Or even many Christians. You may claim that neither will mine but answer my objections first. The acceleration of the existence of evil as proof that God does not exist came after the Lisbon earthquake because of the supposed senseless death and misery that occurred. We see it all the time to refer to senseless pain and suffering and even to one animal’s destruction of another. The theodicy argument breaks down because their version of evil is meaningless. But I doubt atheists would accept your definition of evil. So how can you claim that their argument is incoherent based on it. Do you have evidence that atheists use your definition?jerry_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

@70 Barry Arrington:
Because it is incoherent to argue that God does not exist on the basis that he does not arrange affairs to conform to one’s personal subjective preferences.
That's the issue with atheism. The core problem is: the-Universe-is-not-arranged-as-I-would-like-it-to-be-there-is-suffering-therefore-I-am-getting-angry-no-God. Kinda childish in my opinion.Truthfreedom_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

@76 Bornagain77:
Too funny, Matspirit at 71 is going to try to school Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – Senior Scientist Emeritus (Biologist) at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany – on Plant Galls.
When someone uses Wikipedia as their source of knowledge, you know they have nothing of substance to offer to any discussion.Truthfreedom_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

Too funny, Matspirit at 71 is going to try to school Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - Senior Scientist Emeritus (Biologist) at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany - on Plant Galls. Might I suggest that Matspirit actually read the paper before he tries to criticize it?
Plant Galls and Evolution - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - 7 September 2017 How More than Twelve Thousand1 Ugly Facts are Slaying a Beautiful Hypothesis: Darwinism2 (Page 4) Plant galls – a definition http://www.weloennig.de/PlantGalls.pdf
bornagain77_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit at 54, much like Dawkins did in "the God Delusion", from the position of 'blind, pitiless indifference' (Dawkins) no less, i.e. with no moral basis in which to make moral judgments,, morally rages against God for supposedly breaking 'the golden rule'. Yet God, being morally perfect, and being, well, God Allmighty, is more than justified in His actions.. In the great flood, and every instance similar to it, God warned people repeatedly, over a long period of time, to repent of their sins or they would be destroyed because of their sins. Yet they stubbornly refused to repent. The unrepentant sinful condition of man is discussed on the following site for several instances in the Bible.
Isn’t the God of the Old Testament Harsh, Brutal, and Downright Evil? - by Bodie Hodge on March 27, 2015 "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5) https://answersingenesis.org/who-is-god/isnt-the-god-of-the-old-testament-harsh-brutal-and-downright-evil/
Contrary to what Matspirit believes, God just does not willy nilly decide to destroy men. As Miroslav Volf noted, "God isn’t wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love.”
“My last resistance to the idea of God’s wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, the region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed and 3,000,000 displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalized beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Though I used to complain about the indecency of God’s wrath, I came to think that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn’t wrathful at the sight of the world’s evil. God isn’t wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love.” – Miroslav Volf – Croatian theologian https://books.google.com/books?id=BkwnAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA59
I wonder if MatSpirit (and Dawkins) would rage against God if God destroyed people who had repeatedly, and ruthlessly, sinned against Matspirit himself for years and years? Would not Matspirit feel that God was more than justified in destroying those who had so ruthlessly sinned against him personally for so long? Of course he would feel as such. It is called justice! The same justification holds for when God destroys men when the refuse to repent of their ruthless sins against Him after being repeatedly warned of the consequences for their sin. God, is just because of His holiness and great love, not in spite of it!bornagain77_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

Wow, what? Or is clueless cheerleading the best you can muster, Jim?ET_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

@matspirit Wow.Jim Thibodeau_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

Darwinian evolution doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing plants. There's a reason why evos are so desperate to ignore the evidence.ET_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

BA77 @ 11 And yet, directly contrary to Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species” or it would annihilate his theory, it is now known that ” “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.” Plant Galls and Evolution How More than Twelve Thousand1 Ugly Facts are Slaying a Beautiful Hypothesis: Darwinism2 Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – 7 September 2017 Excerpt: in the case of the galls, in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it. The galls are not ‘useful to the possessor’, the plants. There is no space for these phenomena in the world of “the selfish gene” (Dawkins). Moreover, the same conclusion appears to be true for thousands of angiosperm species producing deceptive flowers (in contrast to gall formations, now for the exclusive good of the plant species) – a topic which should be carefully treated in another paper. http://www.weloennig.de/PlantGalls.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall Insect galls are the highly distinctive plant structures formed by some herbivorous insects as their own microhabitats. They are plant tissue which is controlled by the insect. Galls act as both the habitat and food source for the maker of the gall. The interior of a gall can contain edible nutritious starch and other tissues. Some galls act as "physiologic sinks", concentrating resources in the gall from the surrounding plant parts.[3] Galls may also provide the insect with physical protection from predators.[4][5] Insect galls are usually induced by chemicals injected by the larvae of the insects into the plants, and possibly mechanical damage. After the galls are formed, the larvae develop inside until fully grown, when they leave. There's a reason Wikipedia dropped Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.MatSpirit_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

Jerry,
If you go to the post I linked to above by Barry a year and a half ago, he uses the term “icky stuff” as a surrogate for the term “evil.” Now Barry says that is sarcasm. And I am willing to accept it is but why doesn’t he define it.
You keep coming back to this post. It is astonishing that you appear not to understand the post for what it was. It demonstrated the very thing that Vivid has been arguing. That the atheist argument from evil for the non-existence of God is utterly incoherent. Why? Because it is incoherent to argue that God does not exist on the basis that he does not arrange affairs to conform to one's personal subjective preferences. And that is the only way an atheist can use the term "evil." You are wrong that I have not defined evil in the past. I define it exactly as Vivid has here: the privation of the good. Neither Vivid nor I came up with that definition. It is a fairly standard definition among those who think and write about such things. That you do not appear to know this demonstrates that you have never -- contrary to your claim -- studied the matter in any depth.
Most people actually mean “icky stuff” when they use the term “evil.”
That is close to how I defined the term while satirizing the atheist argument. I actually said that atheists define it as "icky stuff I don't like." That "I don't like" bit is important, because it is the point. Atheists must define evil -- to the extent contra Dawkins they say it exists at all -- in reference to their subjective preferences. Ironically, Dawkins can't keep his story straight on this. He is one of the world's most prolific moralizers -- which is ironic for a person who says evil does not exist.Barry Arrington_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

JVL With you I am not worried you are going to beat me over the head LOL I think it’s important that we distinguish between a theological position which I don’t expect anyone necessarily to agree with and the overall metaphysical question separate from my theological position. First I think that 99% of atheists/ agnostics as to the effects of their actions put many theists to shame. If good does not have a objective existence it does not exist thus since evil is its deprivation it does not exist either. I think if good exists objectively and like evil not a thing, it must exist in a non material realm, it must have adequate grounding. Now for the non theist do they love, are they concerned for others, are they horrified by the actions like the Holocaust , etc,my answers is YES YES YES. Now here is my theological explanation, because morality is written deep into our hearts, all of us, it is undeniable because it is not what one believes intellectually that tells the tale, it is how do we live. If our actions bely our intellectual world view then the problem rests in our worldview. Vividvividbleau_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

It is a mistake to confuse “effects” as the evil IMO.
But it is the "effects" that is used in the theodicy argument. Two types of unpleasant events happen in life. Here I am using a replacement of the word "evil" with the expression "unpleasant events." The ones cause by another actor or intelligence and the ones caused by the forces of nature which includes other species than humans. It is. the latter that is used in the theodicy argument to show God doesn't exist. It is because God allows unpleasant events and these events are not desired that He does not exist. Have to go. We are having dinner.jerry_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

Vividbleau: Evil cannot exist unless good exists, if there is no evil there is no good.“ What do you think Vividbleau . . . if there is a possibility that God doesn't exist can there still be good and evil? Don't worry, I'm not going to try and beat you over the head with the point, just curious. I am not convinced that is the one true evil, you need to back up a step, the why of the eternal deprivation Is the evil. Don't worry about my trivial comment. I'm really curious as to where you're going with the above question. This should be really interesting!!JVL_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Jerry If I may “There is actually one true evil if you believe in the Judeo/Christian God. That is the eternal deprivation of the presence of God. All else is trivial in comparison. Of course if you do not believe in the Judeo/Christian God evil is just icky stuff we do not like and a meaningless concept.” I am not convinced that is the one true evil, you need to back up a step, the why of the eternal deprivation Is the evil. Vividvividbleau_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

Jerry I’m not so sure we a very far apart in our thinking, from my post way back Vivid” I think the reason that evil is tough to define is because evil , like good, is not a thing, it is nothing having no independent substance. Evil is an action, activity if you will, of something that has being. Evil cannot exist unless good exists, if there is no evil there is no good.“ It is a mistake to confuse “effects” as the evil IMO. Vividvividbleau_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

Jerry: You apparently didn’t read the whole comment. And there are many definitions of the word “good.” Oh dear, many definitions of "good" . . . can we have a discussion about it then? I did read the whole comment and you only addressed the non-existence of God regarding the question of evil (yes, I did change that, sorry). So again . . . Do you think it's possible that God doesn't exist, the first question and then, if there is a possibility that God doesn't exist then how does that affect your definition . . . given that I assume you have felt love and affection and beauty and such in your life. Can those things happen without God? If evil is the 'eternal deprivation of God' then can there be any kind of good assuming the 'eternal deprivation of God'? Enjoy your dinner! (added later, obviously)JVL_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

how does that affect your definition?
You apparently didn't read the whole comment. And there are many definitions of the word "good."jerry_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

Jerry: I do define it by saying it is the “eternal deprivation of God.” Does that mean if God doesn't exist then all is evil? If God doesn't exist then you cannot love your spouse or your child or your dog? If God doesn't exist then there are no good deeds? Do you think it's possible that God doesn't exist and if so how does that affect your definition?JVL_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

Vivid I have been very clear and consistent in my thoughts on the concept of "evil." I do define it by saying it is the "eternal deprivation of God." I have done so in the past on several occasions. I have also said that there are no other useful definitions of the term. I am well aware that it is widely used and why it is used. But in all of these occasions, no one is able to define what they mean by the term they are using. Don't you think that is interesting? If you go to the post I linked to above by Barry a year and a half ago, he uses the term "icky stuff" as a surrogate for the term "evil." Now Barry says that is sarcasm. And I am willing to accept it is but why doesn't he define it. Most people actually mean "icky stuff" when they use the term "evil." This definition trivializes the concept but at the same time points out its weakness. Icky stuff is what we actually mean or some equivalent. There are lots of examples of icky stuff: the little girl in pain with the brain tumor, the holocaust, Black Death, Lisbon earthquake, mass shooting at Parkland HS, etc. Here is. what I said on the website 19 months ago.
Evil has been discussed on this site since its beginning. A quote pointing to the inability to define evil from over 10 years ago
We have discussed evil here many times and the same arguments seem to always come up. One of them is what is evil. There seemed to be a certain naivety as to what is truly evil.
There is actually one true evil if you believe in the Judeo/Christian God. That is the eternal deprivation of the presence of God. All else is trivial in comparison. Of course if you do not believe in the Judeo/Christian God evil is just icky stuff we do not like and a meaningless concept.
jerry_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

Jerry Yes you are right you did. Could you clear something up for me in #1 your PS stated that evil does not exist, then in 7 you gave a definition of evil, by your definition of evil does evil exist? I’m not looking for a fight I am honestly trying to understand your position Thanks Vividvividbleau_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Do you have a definition of good?
You asked that above. I gave an answer using the term in three different ways. There are other ways to use. the term. When asking for definitions, one has to provide the exact meaning of the word they are using. For example the word "run" has numerous definitions. Someone in my distant past used it as an example of an imprecise term with almost 100 definitions So one has to specify how they want a word to be used if they are going to discuss it. And by the way providing a website is not providing a definition. That is an admission that one does not have a definition. The website does not provide a definition. It is over 13,000 words long but no definition. Should I rest my case. I have been down this path before many times and have yet to find someone who will provide a definition of the word "evil." In order to have a discussion on a concept, one has to define it. Barry''s "icky stuff" is one sort of definition though he denies it is what he means but yet he fails to define the term. If you want to discuss "icky stuff" I am willing to do so. As I said most people define it as unpleasant circumstances or the equivalent. If one wants to use a similar definition, the I am willing to proceed. But I can tell you it will not lead to anywhere productive. So people will prefer to use the nebulous term instead. I have defined "evil." But I do not think it is what people want. They're more interested in icky stuff.jerry_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

JVL “Again, let’s consider how much we do agree on, morality wise, and then approach the points of contention with kindness and understanding. I’m going to try anyway.” Me too Vividvividbleau_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit: Atheists and other ordinary people, on the other hand, largely avoid wasting their time talking morality with somebody who honestly believes his God murders people in wholesale numbers and just content themselves with noting that they don’t meet the Golden Rule test. Something I find really interesting is how much of the Bible different people consider the literal truth. For example, many, many people these days would consider the story of Adam and Eve to be more allegory than historical truth. Noah and the flood . . . maybe the split is a bit different. Moses parting the Red Sea . . . uh . . . I have read some 'archaeological' investigations that claimed to have found Egyptian chariots under the waves so clearly some do consider that one absolutely true. Did the walls of Jericho come tumbling down? Maybe it was a timely earthquake? Or . . . Did Jonah really live inside a 'whale' for quite a while? Was Lot's wife really turned into a pillar of salt? There was a talking donkey in there somewhere as well wasn't there? I don't want to offend anyone but, for me, many of the Old Testament stories are powerful regardless of whether they actually happened. And I know a lot of Christians who don't need to prove that one guy built a big boat and saved humanity and all of animal kind (except the dinosaurs and the unicorns, ;-) ) for their faith to be strong. I have no problem with someone of strong faith who says: Yeah, some of those Old Testament stories are pretty horrific (the foreskins of Phillistines, yuck) but my faith does not depend on those things being true so I'm not going to defend them as such. I know some of you do take them as actual historical events and I'm not trying to offend you here. But I probably won't get too much involved in a discussion about that because I don't think that's where the real core of Christianity lies. Yes, I know, I was arguing about some of that stuff a few days ago on another thread but I've had a rethink and I'm not going to do that anymore. I think was is worth discussing, nicely, is the message and at least one event of the New Testament. The one event is clearly the resurrection since, without that, there ain't no Christianity. Leaving that aside there is still lots that can be talked about in a fair and friendly matter. The resurrection will always be tricky and so I think we should approach the topic with caution and as much grace as we can. Again, let's consider how much we do agree on, morality wise, and then approach the points of contention with kindness and understanding. I'm going to try anyway. Breaking news, the UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has been admitted to the hospital. I'm not a fan but that's not good. We live in interesting times.JVL_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

LT “This rejoinder mis-understands the claim, which is that the problem of evil undermines the argument for God’s absolute goodness, lovingness, and omnipotence.“ Vivid: And this claim has been addressed by EDTA in 33 as well as by BA and KF. No use in ploughing old ground. Ah....It's not enough to just "address" the question, you must actually explain it. EDTA just muddies the some more, in the Grand Christian Tradition. For instance: "Only if you can define “good” and “loving” in a philosophically-rigorous way. Please give it a try." The problem of evil does not undermine "the argument for God’s absolute goodness, lovingness, and omnipotence" until you first define "good" and "loving" to EDTA's satisfaction. Forget that Golden Rule stuff, we want rigorous definitions! And his last answer is a classic: "Can anyone rigorously argue that God has no reasons for allowing evil to exist? Be sure to include an explanation for how you know for certain what God’s reasons are for creating us." That's going to be pretty hard to do when the Christians say God is beyond human understanding and the atheists add, "because He doesn't exist." As for BA and KF, that gave me a little chuckle. Good luck plowing those rocky fields!MatSpirit_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

Jerry: Why don’t you define evil since you use it a lot. I maintain no one has a coherent definition of this term. Take a crack at it. Without a coherent definition, there can be no coherent discussion. Is the more interesting question – Why do people have long discussions over a term they cannot define? Perhaps because the term is used by theists and atheists alike in an ongoing spat about the existence of God it's difficult to define evil in a way that your 'opponent' won't either object to or use to score points against you. Besides, is it so rare or negative that we spend a lot of time dealing with terms that we find hard to nail down precisely? Do you love your spouse and children? What is love by the way? Is it just a hormonal response generated by a evolved function that makes us want to reproduce? Is it a reaction we have when we find someone who sees the world the way we do, has many of the same reactions we do, wants to do the same things we do? Is it because there is some inexplicable tie that we can feel but can't explain? We've all been in love but I bet we would all have different definitions of what love is. But we still talk about it; we know what someone means when they say they love their spouse, their mum, their children, even their dog (not sure about the cat though, I'm not sure that is a real thing . . . just kidding). Truthfreedom will no doubt make some sarky comment that the Darwinian view is that it's just chemicals sloshing around in a meat sack and has no meaning. But I'm more interested in making the point that we all use terms that we would find hard to define precisely and, generally, we know what each other is talking about. Is it really worthwhile arguing about what evil is? We might not even agree on whether some things are evil, that's pretty much a given. But we DO agree on many, many evil things. There's lots we can work together to eliminate. Slavery, child abuse, wife beating, husband beating, rape . . . no one wants to have those things happen to them or their loved ones and only a few broken individuals want them to happen to any human being. Instead of arguing about WHY someone thinks they are evil let's work, together, to eradicate them. The things we disagree on, let's discuss those as separate issues and see if we can at least agree on sensible ways forward. Sorry for the lecture, or as a vicar in England might say, the lesson. But I do think we spend too much time focusing on our differences instead of our common ground.JVL_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply