The Morality of God

[stringmusic]

So, by your own argument, God is able, but he choses not to because it's not in his will. Therefore his will is for people to suffer and he is malevolent.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ignoring-a-common-cause.html

I think the simplicity of the argument is what makes it so true, there is no need to dig deeper.

Simplicity doesn't have any bearing on whether an argument is true or not. When other logical and reasonable scenario's can be introduced into an idea such as the one you quoted, they should be.

 

[swampstalker24]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ignoring-a-common-cause.html




Simplicity doesn't have any bearing on whether an argument is true or not. When other logical and reasonable scenario's can be introduced into an idea such as the one you quoted, they should be.

So, what is the logical and reasonable scenaris you speak of, besides "Its not in his will"?

 

[stringmusic]

So, what is the logical and reasonable scenaris you speak of, besides "Its not in his will"?

That humans are allowed to choose between good and evil, and most of them choose evil, which is why we see evil. If God takes away evil, He also takes away our choice, by definition, the relationship that God wants with us must come with a choice, else there is no relationship.

 

[swampstalker24]

That humans are allowed to choose between good and evil, and most of them choose evil, which is why we see evil. If God takes away evil, He also takes away our choice, by definition, the relationship that God wants with us must come with a choice, else there is no relationship.

Can a person choose good, with out choosing God?

 

[bullethead]

That's not an assertion, it's a rational opinion. Note the key words "could" and "possibly".

And I don't think Dr. Craig would have much of a problem giving some examples of how this could happen, he didn't because that was not the point of the discussion.

The point was "we don't know" if things have ripple effects that do not manifest themselves until many years later, and that is a problem for the atheist making the assertion that God is not real based on the fact that pain and suffering happen.

Ripple effects happen without a God.
Craig is saying that things beyond our comprehension are allowed to happen now for a greater good later. He is making it sound like God can see the greater good in a tragedy so he lets it happen, then 300 years in the future something could take place that ultimately is because of the tragedy 300 years earlier.
Doesn't sit well with the free will and predestination arguments.

 

[bullethead]

No

It's not in His will.

He is able, but it's not in His will.

Because humans are evil.

He is able, but it's not in His will.

This has been posted in here many times, while on the surface it looks like a pursuasive argument, but once one starts to dig a little deeper into it there's not much there. All the scenario's are not given, the writer simply takes biased questions that support the agenda of writing it in the first place.

Do you think it is not "his will" or do you know it is not "his will" and if you know that please share with us just how to came to have this inside knowledge.

 

[stringmusic]

Can a person choose good, with out choosing God?

No. At least not something that is inherently good.

Yes, a person can do something that man sees as "good" but without being justified by God it is not really good.

 

[stringmusic]

Ripple effects happen without a God.
Craig is saying that things beyond our comprehension are allowed to happen now for a greater good later. He is making it sound like God can see the greater good in a tragedy so he lets it happen, then 300 years in the future something could take place that ultimately is because of the tragedy 300 years earlier.
Doesn't sit well with the free will and predestination arguments.

I don't think anybody is contending that ripple effects can't happen without God.

Dr. Craig is making the assertion that without omniscience, an atheist is making a mistake by stating that the existence of evil in the world is evidence that God does not exist.

 

[stringmusic]

Do you think it is not "his will" or do you know it is not "his will" and if you know that please share with us just how to came to have this inside knowledge.

I know it's not God's will, because if it was, the nature of suffering and pain would be different.

 

[swampstalker24]

So, did God create evil? And if so, why?


I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

—Isaiah 45:7

 

[stringmusic]

So, did God create evil?

Yes.....

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

—Isaiah 45:7

And if so, why?

If there were no evil, would we have a choice to deny God?

 

[SemperFiDawg]

I just watched the video in the OP and one of the things that occurred to me is something I've notice on here though its not as bad here. His disbelief in God goes much deeper than a simple rejection of the evidence on an objective level as say a juror would have in a court case or a mathematician would have in rejecting a theorem. His rejection is venomous. Its blatantly obvious that he holds an indignant disgust for anyone who doesn't agree with him. Just a side observation.

 

[atlashunter]

Atlas,

Sam Harris brings up a very traditional objection for belief in God, the problem of evil; but does so eloquently. Speaking with all emotional reactions aside, I don’t believe this objection is capable of demonstrating that God does not exist or that he is impudent. To say it is impossible or improbable for God to have morally sufficient reasons for suffering is quite the claim. It’s a claim that, in my humble opinion, can only use the emotional reaction to suffering to persuade. Intellectually, no one can state as fact “God has no morally sufficient reason to allow suffering”. Standing on the ground watching tracks switch and redirect trains, one can hardly see the big picture. But standing in front of the vast circuit board with lights showing all the trains racing in different directions, one could see the bigger picture more clearly. In the case of human history, we have a vast inconceivable array of events interconnected with one another. It seems presumptuous to claim emphatically that suffering will not be redeemed in some way.

This is the hope and belief of the Christian; that in the end even after death, justice will be done. On the other hand, without God, it’s just tough luck. Without the existence of God, there is only suffering, death, and then oblivion for these children.
Here’s a short 4 minute video response to the problem of evil from my favorite philosopher.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_ps36TV_vI&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EcdXA1dVgb7-C0lXtp6LFp4&index=2

In case you’re interested, he debated Sam Harris at the University of Notre Dame back in 2011.

A couple points. First I agree the problem of evil isn't a proof that god doesn't exist. It is a very good argument against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good god. As Epicurus points out, it could be there is a god that is impotent. Or there could be an evil god. Or maybe there simply is no god at all. That is the simplest explanation for the world we live in.

Second, it is one heck of an assumption to believe that god only allows the death of innocent people when he has some higher purpose, especially when you consider the scale of the suffering that Harris points out. Millions of kids suffering and dying year after year but it's ok because it's all part of god's plan? Is that moral for a being that as an omnipotent is capable of achieving the same end without the suffering? I'd say it isn't. Harris is right. It's tiresome and it's morally reprehensible. And I'm not buying that any believers really think it either. If they did then they should welcome death at every turn. God is in control right? If he be for you who can be against you? So why bother fighting disease? Why bother locking up murderers for doing gods work? Who knows the mind of god and since he permitted it to happen we should assume he has some higher purpose that exceeds our ability to comprehend.

One last point. If there is a god that permits a reality with both good and evil by choice why should it be assumed that the evil allowances are the mysterious side of god? The same reality could be reconciled by positing an evil god that permits good for some greater unexplained evil purpose.

 

[atlashunter]

Yes.....



If there were no evil, would we have a choice to deny God?

If god is incapable of offering that choice in the absence of evil that means he isn't omnipotent.

Besides, who says that choice even matters to god? I see no reason to think it does. People in heaven won't have that choice will they?

 

[ddd-shooter]

One thing strikes me here.
Christians say the world is in a terrible mess (both physically and spiritually) and it ought not be so.

Naturalists say the world is exactly what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. We are simply "dancing to our DNA" in an environment that is hostile.
For a naturalist to claim the world is "bad" or "evil" is to interject something foreign into his world view; that is, a notion that exists outside of scientific proof.

 

[atlashunter]

One thing strikes me here.
Christians say the world is in a terrible mess (both physically and spiritually) and it ought not be so.

Naturalists say the world is exactly what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. We are simply "dancing to our DNA" in an environment that is hostile.
For a naturalist to claim the world is "bad" or "evil" is to interject something foreign into his world view; that is, a notion that exists outside of scientific proof.

I'm not sure I follow your point.

 

[ddd-shooter]

If god is incapable of offering that choice in the absence of evil that means he isn't omnipotent.

Besides, who says that choice even matters to god? I see no reason to think it does. People in heaven won't have that choice will they?

I would say that would be tantamount to asking God to draw a square circle and then pointing out how he isn't all powerful because he couldn't.

I would argue that for there to be a choice for me to Love God, then there would have had to be someone else on whom I could place my love.

People in heaven make their selection for eternity here.

 

[ddd-shooter]

I'm not sure I follow your point.

Christians say the world is not as it should be.
A naturalist says the world is exactly what it is. No standards can be applied to what we observe. It simply is what it is.

 

[atlashunter]

I would say that would be tantamount to asking God to draw a square circle and then pointing out how he isn't all powerful because he couldn't.

That would be impossible by definition. There is no such conflict by definition in what we are talking about. You would have to make the case that there is some good which could not possibly be achieved except by some prior evil. This defense against the problem of evil really is just a case of special pleading. We can't explain the evil so let's just assume that it is for some ultimately good purpose. Why should anyone make that assumption?

People in heaven make their selection for eternity here.

You know how many people have died before being born or reaching an age at which a choice could be made over the course of human history?

 

[atlashunter]

Christians say the world is not as it should be.
A naturalist says the world is exactly what it is. No standards can be applied to what we observe. It simply is what it is.

Yes, nature simply is what it is. Good and evil are human constructs.