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

B_77: " What objective moral standard, apart from men, arbitrates the morality invented by Nazis as being evil?" Ahhh, the Golden Rule? I'm pretty sure that moral standard was invented by men. I know the Greeks had it long before Jesus was born. (Jesus liked it too!) That rule seems pretty objective to me. Would YOU want to be gassed and burned? I know I wouldn't. I'm pretty sure the Jews didn't. In fact, we arbitrate the morality of the Nazis as being BAD because they did needless things to others that they didn't want done to themselves. That's why we arbitrate so much of Christian morality as being BAD. If we were alive during The Flood, most of us would NOT want to drown or see our loved ones drown. (Did you ever notice that "They were all irredeemably bad" is the exact reason Hitler gave for killing the Jews? How come you never list Hitler as a Christian? After all, he was raised Catholic, he was a former altar boy and he dreamed of becoming a priest when he was a youth. Plus, he was still in the Church's good graces when he put a bullet through his brain. Maybe committing suicide was the sin that tipped the balance?) Or how about Pharaoh's peasants, How do you think they felt when "At midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the first-born of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the first-born of the cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where one was not dead." Do you think all those Peasants wanted their oldest child to die? And WHY did they have to die? It's not as if a Peasant had any influence on what the Pharaoh decided after all. And how about those Captives in the Dungeon? They certainly didn't have any influence on Pharaoh's decisions. Why did God kill their children? Of course, Pharaoh didn't really have much of a choice, did he? As Exodus 11:9 says, "Then the Lord said to Moses, “Pharaoh will not listen to you; that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt.” 10 Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh; and THE LORD HARDENED PHARAOH'S HEART, and he did not let the people of Israel go out of his land." It's strange, but I don't remember the nice ladies in Sunday School mentioning the many times when Pharaoh decided to let the people go and God then hardened his heart for him when they taught us about the miraculous Exodus from Pharaoh's power. But I'm sure if you can just explain how the things I've described above can be justified by the Golden Rule, then we can cover some more of Christianity's bad morals. I think the reason Christians enjoy talking about Morality so much is because they've had to talk about it for the last 2000 years and their Jewish forefathers for an additional thousand. During this time, they've NEVER been able to justify half the Bible via the Golden Rule, but they've gotten very good at muddying the debate with bogus claims like "absolute" morality. 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.MatSpirit_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

LT “You asked for a definition; I gave you one. End of story. I urge you to move forward and make a point.” Amen, he asked you answered. Vividvividbleau_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
01:22 PM
1
01
22
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.“ And this claim has been addressed by EDTA in 33 as well as by BA and KF. No use in ploughing old ground. Vividvividbleau_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
01:20 PM
1
01
20
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?” Do you have a definition of good? Vividvividbleau_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

@LarTanner If Jerry wants dictionary definitions wouldn’t the smart thing be to consult dictionary websites instead of asking random people on the Internet?Jim Thibodeau_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

@47 LarTanner:
I assume you have been reading these posts, and responding to them, using the human invention called a “computer” and accessing another human invention, the “website.”
- computers and websites are physical/ can be documented/ touched/ recorded - morality can not. It is an abstract . Do you really thought it would be that easy?Truthfreedom_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

LarTanner, the comparison to intelligently designed physical artifacts fails. What objective moral standard, apart from men, arbitrates the morality invented by Nazis as being evil? Without some objective moral standard apart from men, you simply have no way to differentiate different systems of ethics that were subjectively 'invented' by different men as being either morally better or morally worse. It is all subjective and illusory without some objective moral standard to judge by. As CS Lewis asked, 'what was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
bornagain77_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 at 46: Human inventions are not necessarily illusory. I assume you have been reading these posts, and responding to them, using the human invention called a "computer" and accessing another human invention, the "website."LarTanner_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

LarTanner at 45
"Bornagain77 at 43 says “At the heart of LarTanner’s irrational claim that morality must be illusory… LT: .”This claim has not been made by me."
LarTanner at 26:
(b) For an atheist, the problem of evil is that morality is ultimately human invention, no matter how effective laws, reasoning, teachings, norms, and values are in a practical sense.
If morality is a human invention it is, by definition, not objective but subjective and illusory.bornagain77_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

I admit I am amused. * Bornagain77 at 43 says "At the heart of LarTanner’s irrational claim that morality must be illusory...." This claim has not been made by me. * Jerry at 44 says "Try making it into a dictionary definition that all can agree to and not point to a long website." This is moving the goalposts. You asked for a definition; I gave you one. End of story. I urge you to move forward and make a point.LarTanner_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

I refer you to “The Concept of Evil
Try making it into a dictionary definition that all can agree to and not point to a long website. I maintain it doesn't exist. Prove me wrong. I have been asking this same question on this site for over 12 years and no one has stepped up. I have asked it other places with the same responses. Generally what you get is unwanted unpleasant circumstances or the equivalent. And these unpleasant circumstances can be ordered in unpleasantness. See my comment about stuttering and brain tumor in a child above.jerry_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

At the heart of LarTanner's irrational claim that morality must be illusory is his materialistic belief that consciousness itself is merely an emergent property of the material realm, In short, LarTanner holds that materialism is true. The direct implications of holding material particles to be the 'true' reality is that mind itself, (and therefore all properties of mind, such as morality), are held to be secondary and/or illusory in LarTanner's definition of reality, i.e. materialism. There are two devastating problems with LarTanner's belief in materialism. First and foremost, materialism has now been falsified by advances in quantum mechanics. For example,
Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism (v2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE
The second devastating problem for materialism is philosophical, Namely, any definition of reality that we may put forth first requires that we must be first conscious of reality. The is no definition of reality that has ever been put forth that was not first derived from the conscious mind of some man. Unconscious rocks, and dead men, simply don't form hypothesis and/or definitions about reality. As Eugene Wigner put it, "our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied."
“The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the external world could be denied—though it is not very practical to do so. In the words of Niels Bohr, “The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation.” In view of all this, one may well wonder how materialism, the doctrine that “life could be explained by sophisticated combinations of physical and chemical laws,” could so long be accepted by the majority of scientists." – Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, pp 167-177.
To deny the primacy of consciousness in any definition of reality that we may put forth is simply, philosophically, insane:
"In any philosophy of reality that is not ultimately self-defeating or internally contradictory, mind – unlabeled as anything else, matter or spiritual – must be primary. What is “matter” and what is “conceptual” and what is “spiritual” can only be organized from mind. Mind controls what is perceived, how it is perceived, and how those percepts are labeled and organized. Mind must be postulated as the unobserved observer, the uncaused cause simply to avoid a self-negating, self-conflicting worldview. It is the necessary postulate of all necessary postulates, because nothing else can come first. To say anything else comes first requires mind to consider and argue that case and then believe it to be true, demonstrating that without mind, you could not believe that mind is not primary in the first place." - William J. Murray He goes toe-to-toe with science big wigs… and so far he’s undefeated. - interview Dr. Bernardo Kastrup: You see we always start from the fact that we are conscious. Consciousness is the only carrier of reality and existence that we can know. Everything else is abstraction; [they] are inferences we make from consciousness. http://www.skeptiko.com/274-bernardo-kastrup-why-our-culture-is-materialistic/
Thus as far as philosophy and empirical science are concerned, LarTanner's materialism is falsified, (regardless of whether LarTanner himself ever accepts those falsifications from science and philosophy) A few more quotes from some of the founders of quantum mechanics:
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Max Planck “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Planck (1858–1947), one of the primary founders of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931 “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334. “I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.” Werner Heisenberg - As quoted in The New York Times Book Review (March 8, 1992). - "Uncertainty," David C. Cassidy's biography of my father, Werner Heisenberg
Supplemental note:
How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f0hL3Nrdas
Verse:
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
bornagain77_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

Responses to responses: * Jerry at 38 says, "Why don’t you define evil since you use it a lot." Jerry, I refer you to "The Concept of Evil" at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil. I trust the definition provided here will suffice for you. * Bornagain77 at 39 believes I am hand-waving off the "devastating problems for atheists in their denial of the reality of morality." Bornagain77 further wants to know what, exactly, an atheist means by "reality." My response now is to remind Jerry and Bornagain77 that the OP is about whether the problem of evil is more a problem for an atheist or a theist. I am showing that it appears to be much more a problem for an Abrahamic theist. To your strange insistence here on defining terms, I say, "Ah, you think definitions are your ally. But you merely adopted them; I was born in them, molded by them [. . .] Definitions betray you, because they belong to me!" * Truthfreedom at 40 makes a riddle whose answer must surely be "Jesus." * John_a_designer at 41 proposes the matter rests, first, on the declaration that "Evil exists," which is naturally consistent with a non-theist position--i.e., “morality is ultimately human invention.” Perhaps, though, some believe inventions do not exist. John_a_designer also poses the question, "What are you (or we) going to do about it [i.e., evil, which exists]"? John_a_designer concludes, rightly, that "To recognize (evil) and do nothing about it is immoral." Hence, a great many theists in every generation cry, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" I would say this nails the case for the problem of evil being more a problem for the Abrahamic theist.LarTanner_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Very simply the issue here can be defined by a two word proposition and a question.
Evil exists. What are you (or we) going to do about it?
Whether you can explain why evil exists is frankly irrelevant. To deny it exists is irrational. To recognize and do nothing about it is immoral.john_a_designer_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

What is the difference between: - a schizophrenic that says the government is controlling him with a microchip implanted in his brain and - a naturalist that says he is controlled by his neuronal chemistry? Truthfreedom_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

Lar Tanner at 37 (if he is a real person and not a neuronal illusion), basically hands waves off the devastating problems for atheists in their denial of the reality of morality. Typical non-response! Jerry, Instead of asking him to define evil, (although certainly a good question), I would instead, or in addition, ask him to define what he, as an atheist, exactly means by 'reality'!
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM
bornagain77_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

Tracking responses to my earlier summary comparing the impact of the problem of evil.
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?jerry_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Tracking responses to my earlier summary comparing the impact of the problem of evil. (1) Some claimed the problem of evil was not a problem for Abrahamic theism. * "The existence of evil [. . . ] is actually an argument for the existence of God." This rejoinder mis-understands the claim, which is that the problem of evil undermines the argument for God's absolute goodness, lovingness, and omnipotence. * "Plantinga’s free-will defense [. . .] allows us to effectively address the problem." The free-will defense, by its existence, shows how serious a problem the problem of evil has been through the centuries; it also fails to solve the problem because (a) it only defers the problem; (b) it is subject to the paradox of free will, undermines the defense; (c) it seems inconsistent with the notion of divine simplicity; and (d) it relies on a multiverse, which is often strongly objected to on this site. (2) Some attempted to maintain that the problem of evil presented an issue for a non-theist: * “By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil.” No, there is no granting, and no need to grant, there is any such objective, moral standard. As was said before in plain language and syntax: "morality is ultimately human invention." * Nothing else of import to the argument was provided.LarTanner_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Naturalism holds the key to end the problem of evil. Just characterize the neurochemicals and structures of 'evilness' located in the brain and block/ remove them. With your unlimited, god-like powers, it should be incredibly easy. What is stopping your un-stoppable science?Truthfreedom_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

LarTanner at 26 states:
Trying to parse out the arguments: (a) For a theist, the problem of evil is that it fatally undermines the idea of an all-good, all-loving, all -powerful deity. (b) For an atheist, the problem of evil is that morality is ultimately human invention, no matter how effective laws, reasoning, teachings, norms, and values are in a practical sense.
As to (a) and to add to what has already been stated in response to (a)
(a) For a theist, the problem of evil is that it fatally undermines the idea of an all-good, all-loving, all -powerful deity.
As has already been pointed out in this thread, the problem of evil, or more properly the existence of evil, does not 'fatally' undermine the fact that God is all Good, all loving, and all powerful simply because number 1, the existence of evil in and of itself presupposes the existence of a perfectly good moral standard that has been departed from. As CS Lewis stated,
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
And as David Woods put it, "By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil."
Responding to the Argument From Evil: Three Approaches for the Theist - By David Wood Excerpt: Interestingly enough, proponents of AE grant this premise in the course of their argument. By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil. Amazingly, then, even as atheists make their case against the existence of God, they actually help us prove that God exists!,,, https://www.namb.net/apologetics/responding-to-the-argument-from-evil-three-approaches-for-the-theist
And as Michael Egnor put it, "Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,"
The Universe Reflects a Mind - Michael Egnor - February 28, 2018 Excerpt: Goff argues that a Mind is manifest in the natural world, but he discounts the existence of God because of the problem of evil. Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/
Number 2, the atheist's presupposition that God has no good reason for allowing evil to exist in this universe is simply false. As Ed Feser pointed out, "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."
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/
And indeed the existence of evil in this universe allowed God to bring about the much greater good of Jesus's victory over death. Exactly how was the greatest miracle ever witnessed on the face of earth, namely the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, possible if God did not first allow the evil of death to exist? If death did not first exist then clearly Jesus's 'much greater good' of His victory over death simply would never have been possible.
The evidence for the Shroud's authenticity keeps growing. (Timeline of facts) - November 08, 2019 What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know - Myra Adams and Russ Breault https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ
As James Stewart stated, “He (Jesus) did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.”
“It is a glorious phrase of the New Testament, that ‘he led captivity captive.’ The very triumphs of His foes, it means, he used for their defeat. He compelled their dark achievements to sub-serve his end, not theirs. They nailed him to the tree, not knowing that by that very act they were bringing the world to his feet. They gave him a cross, not guessing that he would make it a throne. They flung him outside the gates to die, not knowing that in that very moment they were lifting up all the gates of the universe, to let the King of Glory come in. They thought to root out his doctrines, not understanding that they were implanting imperishably in the hearts of men the very name they intended to destroy. They thought they had defeated God with His back (to) the wall, pinned and helpless and defeated: they did not know that it was God Himself who had tracked them down. He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.” - James Stewart (1896–1990) was a minister of the Church of Scotland
Thus the atheist's argument that an all loving God would not allow evil in this universe falls apart. God has very good reasons for allowing evil to exist in this universe. And that fact is abundantly testified to by Jesus's resurrection itself. Likewise Christians themselves are also encouraged to 'not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.'
Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
And indeed there are eternal rewards promised for those who overcome evil with good,
MATTHEW 25:31-40 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, "I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.”
So again. the atheist's presupposition that God has no good reason for allowing evil to exist in this universe falls apart. Indeed, the entirety of Christianity presupposes that God has very good reasons for allowing evil to exist so as to bring about a much greater good. Now to point (b) of LarTanner's post at 26:
(b) For an atheist, the problem of evil is that morality is ultimately human invention, no matter how effective laws, reasoning, teachings, norms, and values are in a practical sense.
The fact that morality itself is subjective and illusory under atheistic premises is just the beginning of 'illusory' problems for atheists. Not only is morality illusory, but everything else turns out to be illusory under atheistic premises, (things that everyone, including atheists, consider to be concrete and real). Although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Thus again, the problem of evil is a far, far, greater problem for atheists than it is for theists. The problem of evil is simply devastating to atheistic presuppositions no matter which line of argumentation one may wish to invoke to try to make the argument work.
Proverbs 21:30 There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the LORD.
bornagain77_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

LT, I am surprised that you are that out of date; Plantinga's work is ab0out fifty years old now and decisively defeats the core, logical problem of evil. Let me clip a skeletal summary:
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.
KFkairosfocus_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

LarTanner @ 26, >(a) For a theist, the problem of evil is that it fatally undermines the idea of an all-good, all-loving, all -powerful deity. Only if you can define "good" and "loving" in a philosophically-rigorous way. Please give it a try. This is the problem with these arguments against God: they assume that he has one attribute (or a few related ones) in an infinite quantity. Then they reason from that point alone. But if God is more complex than a single attribute taken in infinite quantity, then the logic falls apart. 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.EDTA_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Lar Tanner:
(a) For a theist, the problem of evil is that it fatally undermines the idea of an all-good, all-loving, all -powerful deity.
That's nonsense. For those who practice Judaism, Christianity or Islam, evil is a given. It is how it is dealt with that they are judged.ET_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

After which Voltaire wrote “Candide”
I once posted here about Voltaire and "Candide" which was written to undermine Leibniz's "Best of All Possible Worlds" concept. By the way I highly recommend people visit Lisbon when the world gets sane again. And a must is the church whose roof collapsed. It is still there and now a museum. It is in the upper city and has a beautiful view from outside. See https://www.flickr.com/photos/govert1970/46073777084 I maintain that one has to understand why ours is the best of all possible worlds and things like the Lisbon earthquake are necessary to make it so. I get a lot of push back on this but believe it is an essential concept for a meaningful world.jerry_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

“The day that changed the world was November 1st 1755 or the day of the Lisbon earthquake” After which Voltaire wrote “Candide” Vividvividbleau_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

Vividbleau I got interested in the concept of "evil" from readings in evolutionary biology. The day that changed the world was November 1st 1755 or the day of the Lisbon earthquake. People asked how could there be a God who let so many people die in a natural event. Especially as the churches in Lisbon were full that day which is a holy day in the Catholic religion. There then was a movement amongst philosophers to say that God didn't cause this but the world was governed by forces set up billions of years ago and natural forces were just playing out. This event was about a hundred years after Newton's work. Then some took the presence of natural forces to mean that there was no need for a God. Life and the biological world was seen as a refutation and then came Darwin. Part of the argument against God was the theodicy argument that pointed to natural evil as evidence that God does not exist. Atheism then started to thrive. Given that I believed in the Judeo Christian God, I started to examine the issue. What I found was that no one could define the concept of "evil" in any coherent way even though we including myself use the term all the time. I then looked at what was being called evil and found out it generally meant unpleasant or undesirable things happening to people. And these unpleasant things could be put on a scale from mildly unpleasant to extremely unpleasant. For example, a mildly undesirable thing would be stuttering while an extremely unpleasant thing would be a seven year old little girl having a brain tumor that keeps her in constant pain. You can certainly think of less undesirable things than stuttering or much worse things than what happened to the little girl. Who by the way was real. She died after a year of lots of pain. But all these unpleasant things are finite compared to the loss of salvation. I have probably posted 50+ times here on this topic since 2007 when I. commented on Francesco Ayala's book on evolution which reference the Lisbon earthquake. The term "evil" is so ingrained into our culture and vocabulary that we do not think just what it means. But I found it helpful to question it. When you do, the whole theodicy argument falls apart.jerry_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

Vividbleau
In your life is there anything good in a moral sense?
Again "good" needs a definition. But using the term in its normal sense. Suppose I say I feel "good." We all seem. to understand what is meant as we have all felt at times a state that we would call good. The four hormones that make up DOSE, Dopamine, Oxytocin, Serotonin and Endorphins contribute to this feeling. But using the term in its moral sense it usually means something that leads to a desired objective or state hopefully with no harm to others. For example, education or training leads to the ability to sustain oneself in life with the ability to help others such as family members and friends. Also in a moral sense, something is good if it helps lead to the ultimate "Good" which for a Christian is salvation.
if there is no evil there is no good
My definition of evil is eternal separation from God Who is considered the ultimate good or the Good. I will now comment on the common use of the term "evil." It could take a book. And I happen to disagree with nearly everyone who has written on the topic. But I will be brief.jerry_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Lar, I don’t agree that the problem of evil is fatal for the theist. Only if good exists does evil become a problem. The presence of evil is an argument for the existence of good. The existence of good must be accounted for and the theist has an explanation for that accounting the atheist does not. The existence of evil as crazy as it sounds is actually an argument for the existence of God. Vividvividbleau_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Trying to parse out the arguments: (a) For a theist, the problem of evil is that it fatally undermines the idea of an all-good, all-loving, all -powerful deity. (b) For an atheist, the problem of evil is that morality is ultimately human invention, no matter how effective laws, reasoning, teachings, norms, and values are in a practical sense.LarTanner_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Sev “No, evil is not a problem for atheists.” In some sense that is true, since there is no evil, thus there is no good, for the atheist other than personal preference then what’s the problem you keep bringing up about all the evil God is responsible for? How can you argue that something that does not exist is an argument against anything really? Vividvividbleau_{April 4, 2020
April
04
Apr
4
04
2020
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply