Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

Any suspension of the laws of physics, I would argue , is so rare that it has a specialised terminology. It strikes me that atheist commentators would have God suspending physics in all kinds of peculiar and contradictory circumstances leading to an unreliable and unreasonable universe, in order to satisfy their own definition of goodness.

As ever you seem confused - I think you'll find that atheists tend to treat notions of 'God' as being nonsensical and that the 'laws of physics', as best we understand them within current knowledge limits, don't get 'suspended': they are fairly reliable.

In other words, God, for some atheists, isn’t interventionist enough.

In case you hadn't ever noticed: atheists don't think that there is a 'God' at all.
 

I think we have to deal with the problems of the terms all good and all loving. There are some for whom all good means the eolimination of any suffering whatsoever. Personally alarm bells go off when people put all good, an immeasurable, in with the same category as something like all knowing or all powerful. I prefer the term maximally good, maximally powerful so we are left with the question would any other physics or level and type of divine intervention be any more good than the world we have? Given the promises of God including the certainty and coherence of God’ laws of nature, I would say this is as good a God as it is possible to have. As for evil. That is the privation of good.

Then I suggest you read up on 'The Problem of Evil', worry less about physics, and explain why "the certainty and coherence of God’ laws of nature" require that some children die of cancer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As ever you seem confused - I think you'll find that atheists tend to treat notions of 'God' as being nonsensical and that the 'laws of physics', as best we understand them within current knowledge limits, don't get 'suspended': they are fairly reliable.

In case you hadn't ever noticed: atheists don't think that there is a 'God' at all.
 
Then I suggest you read up on 'The Problem of Evil', worry less about physics, and explain why "the certainty and coherence of God’ laws of nature" require that some children die of cancer.

This strikes me as a retreat from discussion. The goodness or otherwise of God is not, it seems to me, Primarily atheist discussion and you have reverted IMO to the old “Oh, well, I don’t believe in it anyway”.

The discussion we were having was God cannot be all good and all loving or even God is the God of Killing and torture discuss.

You also asked me to solve the so called problem of evil only to immediately fall back on Oh I don’t believe in it anyway.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It seems then that your conception of 'God' is more of a personal idea, where stories about it are illustrative of various approaches to navigating one's way through life, where 'God' for you doesn't actively interact with what passes for reality as you live it on a daily basis.

I don't know about other theists but I have no way of detecting and demonstrating whether God is actively interacting with what passes for my reality, so I don't make any claims about it.

I believe in a god that has the power to intervene and I believe such a god intervenes but I have no way of knowing how or demonstrating it so I figure there is no point worrying about it. I experience what I consider to be positive effects or outcomes in my emotional state and life experiences to holding my belief that there is a spiritual plan and purpose in my life attributable to a supernatural entity, in relation to any feelings of pain/ pleasure/ spiritual thoughts I experience. Presumably that is why I have not lost that belief.

I think the experiences each person has is individual to them and not something I would presume to have the capability to explain. If I experience pleasure or pain, after my initial reaction I tend to try to figure out what tools and resources (including emotional resources) I have available to deal with the issue and what I can learn from the experience. I don't have an answer for why it happened to me but based on my beliefs I trust that there is some deeper meaning to be learned - which is what I would refer to as the spiritual aspect of my life.

This is very different to the 'God of the Omnis' that some Christian tend to expound - such as Alan's thoughts about each of us having our very own slice of 'God' constantly operating in our daily lives and thinking (his 'soul' notion).

Yeah I don't over-complicate it. I have a brain - it interprets inputs and thinks about abstract ideas. The interpretation and thinking produces beliefs and decisions based on my nature/ nurture which determine the choices I make, how I feel etc.

Some of those inputs that go into my perceptions/ interpretations and decision-making process and choices would be my beliefs and feelings formed by reading the Quran (which Muslims believe is a message from god) both in Arabic and the English translation and pondering on the ideas expressed in the English translation, or pondering on philosophical ideas put forward by other people who have studied Islam or philosophy or by talking to people. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

This strikes me as a retreat from discussion. The goodness or otherwise of God is not, it seems to me, Primarily atheist discussion and you have reverted IMO to the old “Oh, well, I don’t believe in it anyway”.

The discussion we were having was God cannot be all good and all loving or even God is the God of Killing and torture discuss.

You also asked me to solve the so called problem of evil only to immediately fall back on Oh I don’t believe in it anyway.

Not really sure what point Gordon or any other atheist is trying to make about the problem of evil.

Let's assume that the point trying to be made here is that if theists believe in a god that is omnipotent so has the ability to cure a child with cancer, and they also believe in a god that is "omnibenevolent", then no such god can exist because the only possible interpretation of "onmibenevolent" has to be curing children with cancer if you have the power to do it. That's one way of looking at the meaning of "onmibenevolent", but given it's an abstract concept, it's not the only interpretation of "onmibenevolent" - not sure what you think the Christian take is on it?

From my understanding of the English meaning of the Arabic used in the Quran, the equivalent there in describing Allah is "Ar-Rahman" and "Ar-Raheem". Obviously as the Quran is poetry it's an illustration or idea about a god in poetic terms for people to understand the philosophical concept. 

"Ar-Rahman" means "the most merciful" and the linguistic structure in Arabic indicates the mercy is happening in the present rather than that the mercy is continuous for all-time.

"Ar-Raheem" linguistically implies the attribute or capacity for perpetual mercy but not necessarily that the mercy is happening in the present. 

I don't take the view from the above Arabic descriptions of Allah, that there are any undertakings or promises that I or anyone else never has any pain or problems. I think how we deal with problems and pain (ours and that of other people) can change who we are and our moral values and so has an intellectual / emotional /"spiritual" effect that could have substantial value - how substantial depends on the person - some people may not think the intellectual/ emotional/ "spiritual" aspect of consciousness has as much value as the physical.

I don't take the view that if Allah does not take away everyone's pain and problems, such a god is not worth praying to. But that's up to the individual to decide whether or not prayer benefits them.

Will wait for an atheist to clarify what "the problem of evil" means to them.

[Maeght]

For me it is more about the lines theists say such as God is Love and God being all loving etc. What is loving about letting people suffer if they don't have to?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

For me it is more about the lines theists say such as God is Love and God being all loving etc. What is loving about letting people suffer if they don't have to?

Yes- agreed some/ many people might not consider that to be consistent with the attribute of love.

I don't think there is an objective or even universally agreed definition of what constitutes "love" and what doesn't. So it would be up to the individual to think about the word and define it for themselves. In Islam forgiveness for your mistakes and imperfections seems to be a sign that you are loved. Not sure about the Christian / Hindu/ Jewish etc concepts of love in the religious sense.

[Maeght]

Yes- agreed some/ many people might not consider that to be consistent with the attribute of love.

I don't think there is an objective or even universally agreed definition of what constitutes "love" and what doesn't. So it would be up to the individual to think about the word and define it for themselves. In Islam forgiveness for your mistakes and imperfections seems to be a sign that you are loved. Not sure about the Christian / Hindu/ Jewish etc concepts of love in the religious sense.

Would any definition of love include allowing someone to suffer when it could be stopped?

[Gordon]

One aspect of the 'Problem of Evil' was noted by Stephen Law (in the Philosophy Bites Podcast), Here 'evil' refers to 'bad things and suffering' that may be natural or moral (e.g volcanoes or immoral conduct). The theodicy (e.g. excuse) that has been offered by Christians that allows them to rationalise 'bad things' where there is an 'omni-God' is that 'evil' is required in order to contrast with the 'good', and since (they say) 'free will' is allowed by 'God' then doing 'evil' must be an option for us humans, although that doesn't deal with the occurrence of natural disasters.

Law made the point that even if it were to be conceded that 'God' must allow 'evil' so occur so as to highlight the 'good' then there should be no more suffering than the absolute minimum needed to highlight all the 'good' going on - but 'suffering' appears to be ubiquitous; for example in prey/predator behaviours that are largely unobserved.

For me the 'Problem of Evil' is enough to dispense with the notion of a 'good God', as recent events and events throughout history confirm. I think Robert Burns put it rather well.

Many and sharp the numerous ills
Inwoven with our frame;
More pointed still, we make ourselves
Regret, remorse and shame;
And man, whose heaven-erected face
The smiles of love adorn,
Man's inhumanity to man,
Makes countless thousands mourn.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Would any definition of love include allowing someone to suffer when it could be stopped?

Yes I think so - as a small example I let my kids suffer so they learn to handle their own problems and learn coping skills.

As an aside I told my husband and kids if I have an illness that requires huge sums of money to treat, maybe privately or abroad, to not bother trying to fund it. If they don’t try to fund it eg by mortgaging our home / liquidating assets/ getting loans I won’t take that as a sign they don’t love me. I know they love me - they don’t need to prove it by solving my problem.

[Maeght]

Yes I think so - as a small example I let my kids suffer so they learn to handle their own problems and learn coping skills.

As an aside I told my husband and kids if I have an illness that requires huge sums of money to treat, maybe privately or abroad, to not bother trying to fund it. If they don’t try to fund it eg by mortgaging our home / liquidating assets/ getting loans I won’t take that as a sign they don’t love me. I know they love me - they don’t need to prove it by solving my problem.

I think you are using the word suffer differently there. We are talking about pain and death not struggling with day to day problems.

[ekim]

Would any definition of love include allowing someone to suffer when it could be stopped?

The mystical element in religions may see 'love' as being the experience or inner feeling of being 'at one' and to 'enter' this entails surrendering 'self' - centredness for inner 'love' centredness, often symbolised by the heart.  Actions proceed from this rather than from mental considerations.  This is possibly what the 'Good Samaritan' story is about.  The Samaritans were despised by the Jewish community and despite this the Samaritan acted in a loving manner whereas The Jewish priest acted according to his doctrine and 'passed on the other side of the road'.  'Atonement' and 'communion' are perhaps words used to describe this aspiration towards 'God' as 'Love'.  One of the problems with religions seems to be that they often forge a 'community' , but directly somebody calls himself a Muslim, Christian, Hindu, communist, etc., a mind forged divisiveness rather than unity seems to follow.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

One aspect of the 'Problem of Evil' was noted by Stephen Law (in the Philosophy Bites Podcast), Here 'evil' refers to 'bad things and suffering' that may be natural or moral (e.g volcanoes or immoral conduct). The theodicy (e.g. excuse) that has been offered by Christians that allows them to rationalise 'bad things' where there is an 'omni-God' is that 'evil' is required in order to contrast with the 'good', and since (they say) 'free will' is allowed by 'God' then doing 'evil' must be an option for us humans, although that doesn't deal with the occurrence of natural disasters.

Law made the point that even if it were to be conceded that 'God' must allow 'evil' so occur so as to highlight the 'good' then there should be no more suffering than the absolute minimum needed to highlight all the 'good' going on - but 'suffering' appears to be ubiquitous; for example in prey/predator behaviours that are largely unobserved.

For me the 'Problem of Evil' is enough to dispense with the notion of a 'good God', as recent events and events throughout history confirm. I think Robert Burns put it rather well.

My interpretation of the ideas in Islam on this point is that good and bad is required because intellectually / emotionally/ morally we are in a struggle to overcome aspects of ourselves eg instincts / intentions / responses / behaviour in order to try to respond to problems better/ act better/ be better/ based on our individual understanding of ethics or right and wrong - whether in response to natural disasters or man-made problems. Without problems, pain and suffering there would not be a struggle or need to change or the same intellectual and emotional development.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think you are using the word suffer differently there. We are talking about pain and death not struggling with day to day problems.

Pain and death are day to day problems of a different magnitude to other day to day problems. Everything dies or is finite /not eternal to make room for new things.

I don’t feel that someone letting me be in pain or die means they don’t love - depends on the reason they let me be in pain or die. But I can comprehend that others may feel differently about it.

[torridon]

Pain and death are day to day problems of a different magnitude to other day to day problems. Everything dies or is finite /not eternal to make room for new things.

I don’t feel that someone letting me be in pain or die means they don’t love - depends on the reason they let me be in pain or die. But I can comprehend that others may feel differently about it.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" - Aristotle

[Gordon]

My interpretation of the ideas in Islam on this point is that good and bad is required because intellectually / emotionally/ morally we are in a struggle to overcome aspects of ourselves eg instincts / intentions / responses / behaviour in order to try to respond to problems better/ act better/ be better/ based on our individual understanding of ethics or right and wrong - whether in response to natural disasters or man-made problems. Without problems, pain and suffering there would not be a struggle or need to change or the same intellectual and emotional development.

I agree that dealing with both adversity and opportunity can be character building, as is accepting responsibility and being altruistic in support of others and in working to contribute to society and community at large - it's just that I don't think theism is an essential requirement for that outlook even though I recognise that some (but not all) of what theism promotes does perhaps have general application, albeit minus the theology.

However, there is the other side of the the coin whereby religious traditions and authorities that have an overt social influence in some areas can also have, in my view, a negative impact: the influence of religion on US politics and it's judiciary and the limitations imposed on girls and women in some parts of the world are reprehensible examples, especially if those promoting them are convinced they know what 'God' wants because that is what they think their old books say.

I try to be 'good' but I feel I don't need 'God' in my efforts - but for those who believe in an interventionist 'omni/good God' I think the 'Problem of Evil' is a stumbling block no matter how much they try to rationalise their beliefs. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One aspect of the 'Problem of Evil' was noted by Stephen Law (in the Philosophy Bites Podcast), Here 'evil' refers to 'bad things and suffering' that may be natural or moral (e.g volcanoes or immoral conduct). The theodicy (e.g. excuse) that has been offered by Christians that allows them to rationalise 'bad things' where there is an 'omni-God' is that 'evil' is required in order to contrast with the 'good', and since (they say) 'free will' is allowed by 'God' then doing 'evil' must be an option for us humans, although that doesn't deal with the occurrence of natural disasters.

Law made the point that even if it were to be conceded that 'God' must allow 'evil' so occur so as to highlight the 'good' then there should be no more suffering than the absolute minimum needed to highlight all the 'good' going on - but 'suffering' appears to be ubiquitous; for example in prey/predator behaviours that are largely unobserved.

For me the 'Problem of Evil' is enough to dispense with the notion of a 'good God', as recent events and events throughout history confirm. I think Robert Burns put it rather well.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LNXk3uhN9Ws&pp=ygUNTGF3cyBldmlsIGdvZA%3D%3D

This is a rebuttal of Law’s paper, “The Evil God challenge”.

[Gordon]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LNXk3uhN9Ws&pp=ygUNTGF3cyBldmlsIGdvZA%3D%3D

This is a rebuttal of Law’s paper, “The Evil God challenge”.

Had a look - it's just more Christian apologetics from a Catholic perspective (hence the 'Catholic Answers' logo).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really sure what point Gordon or any other atheist is trying to make about the problem of evil.

Immediately I think, surely evil is evidence of good and there must be an ultimate good.An actual evil, also, doesn’t seem to be the stuff of the normal moral irrealism of atheists.

Let's assume that the point trying to be made here is that if theists believe in a god that is omnipotent so has the ability to cure a child with cancer, and they also believe in a god that is "omnibenevolent", then no such god can exist because the only possible interpretation of "onmibenevolent" has to be curing children with cancer if you have the power to do it. That's one way of looking at the meaning of "onmibenevolent", but given it's an abstract concept, it's not the only interpretation of "onmibenevolent" - not sure what you think the Christian take is on it?

I think that’s a fair breakdown. The line seems to be that because God allows evil he is not maximally benevolent or he lacks the potency he is attributed.To me, saying that if God was omnipotent he would have to do something seems contradictory and saying I am more moral than God particularly when we don’t know all the consequences of our choices and the weird universes arising from the notion of oneself holding the divine power seems wrong.

From my understanding of the English meaning of the Arabic used in the Quran, the equivalent there in describing Allah is "Ar-Rahman" and "Ar-Raheem". Obviously as the Quran is poetry it's an illustration or idea about a god in poetic terms for people to understand the philosophical concept. 

"Ar-Rahman" means "the most merciful" and the linguistic structure in Arabic indicates the mercy is happening in the present rather than that the mercy is continuous for all-time.

"Ar-Raheem" linguistically implies the attribute or capacity for perpetual mercy but not necessarily that the mercy is happening in the present. 

I thought mercy is to do with justice but substituting mercy with the idea of benefit works for me,sort of, as in benefits from God to man now(common grace) and other benefits deferred.

I don't take the view from the above Arabic descriptions of Allah, that there are any undertakings or promises that I or anyone else never has any pain or problems. I think how we deal with problems and pain (ours and that of other people) can change who we are and our moral values and so has an intellectual / emotional /"spiritual" effect that could have substantial value - how substantial depends on the person - some people may not think the intellectual/ emotional/ "spiritual" aspect of consciousness has as much value as the physical.

I don't take the view that if Allah does not take away everyone's pain and problems, such a god is not worth praying to. But that's up to the individual to decide whether or not prayer benefits them.

Will wait for an atheist to clarify what "the problem of evil" means to them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Had a look - it's just more Christian apologetics from a Catholic perspective (hence the 'Catholic Answers' logo).

You can’t have taken a proper look since. Much of the refutation comes from agnostics and an atheist. Where do you think they go wrong, Gordon?

[Gordon]

I thought they spent far to much time banging on about why 'God', and leaving aside the obvious begging the question element, couldn't possibly be evil. Then they mentioned that old duffer Lewis more than once: not good sign. They also showed a partial quote from Law is which he was obviously having fun with the fallacious Ontological Argument to show that a supremely malignant 'God' must exist - and I don't think they even twigged that.

Good laugh on a Monday morning though, but RC theobollocks all the same: that it ends with Augustine rather gives the game away.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought they spent far to much time banging on about why 'God', and leaving aside the obvious begging the question element, couldn't possibly be evil. Then they mentioned that old duffer Lewis more than once: not good sign. They also showed a partial quote from Law is which he was obviously having fun with the fallacious Ontological Argument to show that a supremely malignant 'God' must exist - and I don't think they even twigged that.

Good laugh on a Monday morning though, but RC theobollocks all the same: that it ends with Augustine rather gives the game away.

All sorts wrong here and in your last post which seemed to be a genetic fallacy. No begging of the question since the terms good and evil were defined in the rebuttal. “Old duffer Lewis” is an ad hominem.

 Not sure what you mean by law having fun with a fallacious cosmological argument to show a supremely malignant god and I think Alex O’connor, the atheist philosopher rather concludes that assuming moral realism is true, and it’s on that the challenge is based, The challenge must be wrong just about wraps it up for Laws and an evil God cannot match up to the attributes attributed to the term God meaning good and evil are not symetrical.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I agree that dealing with both adversity and opportunity can be character building, as is accepting responsibility and being altruistic in support of others and in working to contribute to society and community at large - it's just that I don't think theism is an essential requirement for that outlook even though I recognise that some (but not all) of what theism promotes does perhaps have general application, albeit minus the theology.

Agreed - I don't think theism is essential either - I managed just fine as an atheist.

However, there is the other side of the the coin whereby religious traditions and authorities that have an overt social influence in some areas can also have, in my view, a negative impact: the influence of religion on US politics and it's judiciary and the limitations imposed on girls and women in some parts of the world are reprehensible examples, especially if those promoting them are convinced they know what 'God' wants because that is what they think their old books say.

Agreed - but that is a human issue because with or without theism some people carry out reprehensible policies and behaviours in the name of abstract concepts e.g. political ideology or nationalistic self-interest or patriotism or racism or just plain greed for power, land, resources. Many of those people may claim they are doing so because they know what is best for their family/ community/ nation.

I try to be 'good' but I feel I don't need 'God' in my efforts - but for those who believe in an interventionist 'omni/good God' I think the 'Problem of Evil' is a stumbling block no matter how much they try to rationalise their beliefs.

I think the 'Problem of Evil' could also be seen as an interesting point for an theist to ponder on as well as test of faith.

I think whether it is a stumbling block depends on the individual - different people have different perspectives on defining 'good' depending on the situation. I think 'good' in relation to the rest of a theist's beliefs about a higher entity and spiritual development could be defined differently from 'good' in relation to a neighbour/ friend/ parent/ child and therefore the 'Problem of Evil' might not necessarily be the stumbling block it is for you, based on your definition of 'good'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One aspect of the 'Problem of Evil' was noted by Stephen Law (in the Philosophy Bites Podcast), Here 'evil' refers to 'bad things and suffering' that may be natural or moral (e.g volcanoes or immoral conduct).

One wonders how he can categorise the two together since volcanoes are physics chemical phenomena (amoral) and morality is not described by physics or chemistry

The theodicy (e.g. excuse) that has been offered by Christians that allows them to rationalise 'bad things' where there is an 'omni-God' is that 'evil' is required in order to contrast with the 'good',

I don’t know any Christians saying that. They would say evil, is parasitic on good or evil is the absence of good but never good depends on evil or evil is necessary

and since (they say) 'free will' is allowed by 'God' then doing 'evil' must be an option for us humans, although that doesn't deal with the occurrence of natural disasters.

Because human evil and natural disaster are not the same.

Law made the point that even if it were to be conceded that 'God' must allow 'evil' so occur so as to highlight the 'good' then there should be no more suffering than the absolute minimum needed to highlight all the 'good' going on - but 'suffering' appears to be ubiquitous; for example in prey/predator behaviours that are largely unobserved.

For me the 'Problem of Evil' is enough to dispense with the notion of a 'good God', as recent events and events throughout history confirm. I think Robert Burns put it rather well.
[/quote]

[Outrider]

One wonders how he can categorise the two together since volcanoes are physics chemical phenomena (amoral) and morality is not described by physics or chemistry

For people, who have no even indirect control over the geophysical processes, you can't. For an omnipotent deity that either designed the process, or chooses not to intervene, or both, that restriction doesn't apply.

I don’t know any Christians saying that.

I don't know how common it is in the 'Christian on the street' - I suspect a large number of them don't think about those sorts of things very much at all - but amongst the people undertaking apologetics it's not a rare tack.

They would say evil, is parasitic on good or evil is the absence of good but never good depends on evil or evil is necessary

Which opens up the question 'why does God allow it?' if it's not necessary.

Because human evil and natural disaster are not the same.

To humans. no. To a God, who is arguably responsible for both, though... We are what we are made, as much as volcanoes are what they are made.

O.

[Gordon]

All sorts wrong here and in your last post which seemed to be a genetic fallacy. No begging of the question since the terms good and evil were defined in the rebuttal. “Old duffer Lewis” is an ad hominem.

Nope - not the genetic fallacy, since I did listen to the vid and I have read some of Lewis' apologism. I'd say that the presumption they had about 'God not being evil rather presupposed that 'God' has been demonstrated to exist other than in the minds of its fans.

Not sure what you mean by law having fun with a fallacious cosmological argument to show a supremely malignant god and I think Alex O’connor, the atheist philosopher rather concludes that assuming moral realism is true, and it’s on that the challenge is based,

I never mentioned the cosmological argument: you're confusing arguments. You'll need to elaborate more on this chap and the relevance of his take on moral realism.

The challenge must be wrong just about wraps it up for Laws and an evil God cannot match up to the attributes attributed to the term God meaning good and evil are not symetrical.

Law is not claiming an 'evil God' exists: do pay attention.