Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

I don't really like this kind of mealy mouthed apologetics. "Who'd to say what's good or bad? nuh nuh".

Let's think about the Southport incident, for example. You could argue that the eventual consequences were good because large parts of the country came together to face down the racists. However, three young girls had their lives cut short and others probably have life changing injuries. Couldn't God have found a better way?

Surely it's worse than that? If we say that good and evil aren't well defined enough to attribute evil to choosing to create child leukemia, then we can't say that anything is good or evil, and any deity cannot be judged as worthy or not of anything? It precludes any discussion of thr value of such a deity.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I don't really like this kind of mealy mouthed apologetics. "Who'd to say what's good or bad? nuh nuh".

Good for you. I, on the other hand, do like philosophical discussions. Guess we both have to tolerate all types on a Religion & Ethics forum - would be a boring discussion if we all thought the same.

Let's think about the Southport incident, for example. You could argue that the eventual consequences were good because large parts of the country came together to face down the racists. However, three young girls had their lives cut short and others probably have life changing injuries. Couldn't God have found a better way?

How should I know? From my perspective I would prefer it if no one died or suffered.

I am not arguing the eventual consequences were good and I hadn't even thought about what god could have done differently since I don't know.

I feel bad for the girls and their families as I keep imagining how I would have felt if I had lost one of my daughters at that age as I can remember how joyful and exuberant they were at that age - I listened on the radio to the letter written to Alice da Silva Aguair (a 9 year old victim) by her parents, which was read out at her funeral service. It was heart-breaking. The parents are described as Catholics but I have no idea how they feel about their faith and if it is of any comfort to them during this tragedy.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Surely it's worse than that? If we say that good and evil aren't well defined enough to attribute evil to choosing to create child leukemia, then we can't say that anything is good or evil, and any deity cannot be judged as worthy or not of anything? It precludes any discussion of thr value of such a deity.

Feel free to get in touch with Alice da Silva Aguair's parents to discuss whether their deity is worthy of worship - I hear they are Catholics. If the murder of their daughter is so evil that they think their deity is not worth worshipping, at least you'll have some feedback on how a couple of theists weigh up good and evil in relation to their deity and evaluate its worthiness to be worshipped.

[Nearly Sane]

Feel free to get in touch with Alice da Silva Aguair's parents to discuss whether their deity is worthy of worship - I hear they are Catholics. If the murder of their daughter is so evil that they think their deity is not worth worshipping, at least you'll have some feedback on how a couple of theists weigh up good and evil in relation to their deity and evaluate its worthiness to be worshipped.

Well, it's the logical outcome of your approach, so perhaps it's up to you to do that.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Well, it's the logical outcome of your approach, so perhaps it's up to you to do that.

You're the one who wants to have the discussion - who better to discuss it with than the parents of a recently murdered 9 year old girl. Off you go.

[jeremyp]

Good for you. I, on the other hand, do like philosophical discussions. Guess we both have to tolerate all types on a Religion & Ethics forum - would be a boring discussion if we all thought the same.
How should I know? From my perspective I would prefer it if no one died or suffered.

I am not arguing the eventual consequences were good

You were arguing that we can't tell if the murders were good or bad because the consequences are unforeseen and might be good or bad.

I'm going to go out on a limb and claim the murders were bad.

The crux of the argument on this thread is whether the Christian god could have intervened in a way that would get the good consequences without needing the bad ones. There are various ways to resolve the question. For example, you can claim (as I do) that the Christian god doesn't exist, or you could claim the Gods powers are not unrestricted (I used to believe this as a Christian), but many Christians think God is both all loving and all powerful. They have to do all kinds of gymnastics because such a god is inconsistent with the World as we observe it.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You were arguing that we can't tell if the murders were good or bad because the consequences are unforeseen and might be good or bad.

Where was I arguing that? From my perspective the murders are quite clearly bad. The only point I made is if it is possible to concede that a 'good god' could allow some suffering, it's up to the individual to evaluate if the bad in the world is outweighed by the good, and to evaluate therefore if the suffering in the world is too much to evaluate a god as 'good' and worthy of worship

I'm going to go out on a limb and claim the murders were bad.

I agree with you.

The crux of the argument on this thread is whether the Christian god could have intervened in a way that would get the good consequences without needing the bad ones. There are various ways to resolve the question. For example, you can claim (as I do) that the Christian god doesn't exist, or you could claim the Gods powers are not unrestricted (I used to believe this as a Christian), but many Christians think God is both all loving and all powerful. They have to do all kinds of gymnastics because such a god is inconsistent with the World as we observe it.

Should I leave it to a Christian to respond - since I am not a Christian? From an Islamic perspective I don't think the all-loving bit features too heavily other than 'love' is indicated by mercy/ forgiveness.

[Nearly Sane]

You're the one who wants to have the discussion - who better to discuss it with than the parents of a recently murdered 9 year old girl. Off you go.

You seem to be having the discussion as well. If you don't have the guts to stand behind the outcome of your position,  then it seems to me to undermine the position.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You seem to be having the discussion as well. If you don't have the guts to stand behind the outcome of your position,  then it seems to me to undermine the position.

Given the number of times you have got my position wrong on here or run away when asked to justify your position or conclusion about my position, I think you'd be better off brushing up on your comprehension skills and having another read of my posts before I bother to discuss this with you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because physics has consequences, and if you have perfect knowledge you are responsible for those consequences.

O.

Physics is critical to your being and wellbeing.

[Nearly Sane]

Physics is critical to your being and wellbeing.

And yet on the bloke swearing on a river thread you're arguing that intention is the important issue, so you're contradicting yourself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And yet on the bloke swearing on a river thread you're arguing that intention is the important issue, so you're contradicting yourself.

Outrider calls the creation of physics by God an evil act.
Since it would instead be critical to well being we have to probe outsider's blunt claim a bit deeper. Particularly IMV since the physical is morally neutral and you can't derive .oral evil scientifically. I don't think then moral evil qualifies as an emergent physical phenomena.

There must then be another story behind it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Gordon's argument seemed to be that some Christians have defined a 'good god' in a way that means the presence of suffering in this world negates the possibility of there being a 'good God'. I am not sure what definition of a 'good god' he is referring to but I made the general point that 'good' does not have the same meaning for everyone in every situation.

I did not claim that anything that happens can be good. My point was 'good' has a different meaning to an atheist compared to a theist that believes in a supernatural, omni, creator entity because of the spiritual aspect of their beliefs - e.g. spiritual development, justice, purpose, plan, an after-life etc.

A theist might therefore accept suffering for a spiritual purpose and still see god as good - because they see a point to the suffering e.g. spiritual development, tests of faith, the struggle caused by  good and bad, pain, loss etc - all of which can cause a theist's faith in god to increase.

Whereas an atheist would consider suffering as pointless. Obviously an atheist would not accept that an entity that allows suffering could be seen as 'good' as they have no belief in the spiritual in the religious sense of the word and have no experience of religious faith increasing despite suffering pain and loss.

None of this helps you. Unless there’s a baseline agreement on the meanings of “good”, “evil” etc then anything goes and any discussion about a supposed god’s role in them becomes impossible. It’s no use saying that some people will “accept suffering for spiritual purposes” because “spiritual purposes” just means whatever suits their beliefs – which leads for example to the moral bankruptcy of a William Lane Craig telling us that the massacre of babies done in his god’s name is just fine because they get to meet this god that much sooner.   

[Outrider]

Physics is critical to your being and wellbeing.

Well, no. If there were no physics there would be no me, and therefore no wellbeing to be concerned about.

However, within the context of an omniscient, omnipotent designer - 'A' physics is necessary, but selecting 'this' physics has consequences that lie upon the designer.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, no. If there were no physics there would be no me, and therefore no wellbeing to be concerned about.

However, within the context of an omniscient, omnipotent designer - 'A' physics is necessary, but selecting 'this' physics has consequences that lie upon the designer.

O.

Giving things existence is where the evil is.
I'm not sure there is any unanimity on that one. You could argue that wellbeing is dependent on creation but in your scheme you seem to have declared well being as an evil.


The second point is an "If I were God I'd have done... argument".
My counter argument is that your new physics would be horrendous.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

None of this helps you. Unless there’s a baseline agreement on the meanings of “good”, “evil” etc then anything goes and any discussion about a supposed god’s role in them becomes impossible. It’s no use saying that some people will “accept suffering for spiritual purposes” because “spiritual purposes” just means whatever suits their beliefs – which leads for example to the moral bankruptcy of a William Lane Craig telling us that the massacre of babies done in his god’s name is just fine because they get to meet this god that much sooner.

If you feel a discussion is impossible that's up to you. I am not sure what you mean by a baseline agreement on the meanings of 'good' and 'evil' - for example JP brought up the murders of the girls in Southport and we both agreed they were bad - so we seem to have a baseline agreement.

The issue under discussion is people who think allowing evil makes god evil therefore don't believe in god vs people who believe in a 'good' god that could allow evil.

For example, I suggested that they might see there is also great good in the world, and that I thought the awareness of the unpredictability and precariousness of life, an appreciation of its dangers and the potential for imminent pain and loss are some of the reasons people feel deeply for others, take huge risks, appreciate the joys and dream big - which then leads some people to a belief in the concept of a God. If you find it impossible to discuss that possibility - ok.

[jeremyp]

The issue under discussion is people who think allowing evil makes god evil therefore don't believe in god vs people who believe in a 'good' god that could allow evil.

Who thinks that? This looks like a straw man to me.

The problem of evil is only a problem if you believe (as some Christians do) that God is both all loving and all powerful. God could be all loving but not all powerful, in which case he can't end suffering or he could be indifferent to us and all powerful, in which case he doesn't care about our suffering.

Note that a mirror problem exists if we assume God is all evil and all powerful. Why is there good in the World?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Who thinks that? This looks like a straw man to me.

Gordon referenced one aspect of the Problem of Evil by referencing Stephen Law's argument - see Reply #51357 and Reply #51389 (pasted below) :

Not exactly - even if, for the purposes of discussion, it was conceded that a 'good God' would allow a degree of 'evil'(bad things and suffering) in order to contrast the 'good' then it should allow no more than the absolute minimum level of 'evil' required. Yet 'evil' (bad things and suffering) has been ubiquitous for time immemorial.

The problem of evil is only a problem if you believe (as some Christians do) that God is both all loving and all powerful. God could be all loving but not all powerful, in which case he can't end suffering or he could be indifferent to us and all powerful, in which case he doesn't care about our suffering.

Note that a mirror problem exists if we assume God is all evil and all powerful. Why is there good in the World?

The Christians who believe in an all-loving God will have to answer where the all-loving bit fits in.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

If you feel a discussion is impossible that's up to you.

It’s not that I feel it’s impossible, it’s that you make it so when you argue that terms like “good” and “bad” are entirely relative and so there’s no point in me arguing that a god has committed an “evil” act because someone else may think it’s a good act instead – WLC and his “killing babies is fine when they get to meet good sooner” for example.     

I am not sure what you mean by a baseline agreement on the meanings of 'good' and 'evil' - for example JP brought up the murders of the girls in Southport and we both agreed they were bad - so we seem to have a baseline agreement.

But your argument was that someone else may not – on “spiritual” grounds for example (whatever that means), so I can’t describe that act as “evil”. 

The issue under discussion is people who think allowing evil makes god evil therefore don't believe in god vs people who believe in a 'good' god that could allow evil.

But you tried to derail that by arguing that what’s “evil” is only in the eye of the beholder in any case, and the issue is not so much “allowing evil makes god evil therefore don't believe in god” as people thinking that – whether or not god is real – the omnibenevolence characteristic attached to a god story cannot also be true.   

For example, I suggested that they might see there is also great good in the world, and that I thought the awareness of the unpredictability and precariousness of life, an appreciation of its dangers and the potential for imminent pain and loss are some of the reasons people feel deeply for others, take huge risks, appreciate the joys and dream big - which then leads some people to a belief in the concept of a God.

That casuistry is just a verbose way of saying “god knows best”, “He moves in mysterious ways” etc as a means to explain away events any sane person would otherwise consider “evil” – babies dying of brain cancer for example – as part of a larger contextualising picture of overall goodness. It’s a get out of jail free card theists have tried over the millennia, but it still relies on killing off any meaningful discussion.     

If you find it impossible to discuss that possibility - ok.

You make it impossible – see above.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

VG,

It’s not that I feel it’s impossible, it’s that you make it so when you argue that terms like “good” and “bad” are entirely relative and so there’s no point in me arguing that a god has committed an “evil” act because someone else may think it’s a good act instead – WLC and his “killing babies is fine when they get to meet good sooner” for example.     

But your argument was that someone else may not – on “spiritual” grounds for example (whatever that means), so I can’t describe that act as “evil”. 

But you tried to derail that by arguing that what’s “evil” is only in the eye of the beholder in any case, and the issue is not so much “allowing evil makes god evil therefore don't believe in god” as people thinking that – whether or not god is real – the omnibenevolence characteristic attached to a god story cannot also be true.   

That casuistry is just a verbose way of saying “god knows best”, “He moves in mysterious ways” etc as a means to explain away events any sane person would otherwise consider “evil” – babies dying of brain cancer for example – as part of a larger contextualising picture of overall goodness. It’s a get out of jail free card theists have tried over the millennia, but it still relies on killing off any meaningful discussion.     

You make it impossible – see above.

If God is omniscient, then, er, he would know best.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

It’s not that I feel it’s impossible, it’s that you make it so when you argue that terms like “good” and “bad” are entirely relative and so there’s no point in me arguing that a god has committed an “evil” act because someone else may think it’s a good act instead – WLC and his “killing babies is fine when they get to meet good sooner” for example.     

But your argument was that someone else may not – on “spiritual” grounds for example (whatever that means), so I can’t describe that act as “evil”. 

I did not say there was no point in you arguing that a god has committed an "evil act" - you can argue it if you want, as much as I can argue that it is possible there is sufficient "good" to balance the "evil".

Who would you suggest decides if there is sufficient "good"?

By the way, I don't make it impossible for you to argue anything you want - if you have the capability to argue your case, give it go, if you don't, that's on you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If God is omniscient, then, er, he would know best.

Yes, and so ours not to reason why babies die needlessly in agony His wonders to perform then eh?

Can you see anything at all wrong with the line of reasoning "if it happens god wants it so, therefore it must be good"?

Anything? 

[Gordon]

If God is omniscient, then, er, he would know best.

Right - so it made sense for it to create numerous species over millions of years before our species turned up, throw in more than one mass extinction plus an asteroid (presumably part of the plan too): imagine all the prey/predator/natural disaster suffering over those millions of years before we turned up!

Not sure that 'God' (for the sake or argument) displays any basis to conclude 'knows best'.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

It’s not that I feel it’s impossible, it’s that you make it so when you argue that terms like “good” and “bad” are entirely relative and so there’s no point in me arguing that a god has committed an “evil” act because someone else may think it’s a good act instead – WLC and his “killing babies is fine when they get to meet good sooner” for example.     

But your argument was that someone else may not – on “spiritual” grounds for example (whatever that means), so I can’t describe that act as “evil”. 

But you tried to derail that by arguing that what’s “evil” is only in the eye of the beholder in any case, and the issue is not so much “allowing evil makes god evil therefore don't believe in god” as people thinking that – whether or not god is real – the omnibenevolence characteristic attached to a god story cannot also be true.   

That casuistry is just a verbose way of saying “god knows best”, “He moves in mysterious ways” etc as a means to explain away events any sane person would otherwise consider “evil” – babies dying of brain cancer for example – as part of a larger contextualising picture of overall goodness. It’s a get out of jail free card theists have tried over the millennia, but it still relies on killing off any meaningful discussion.     

You make it impossible – see above.

BHS- forgot to ask where you thought I argued that an "evil" act was "good"?

Can you quote it so I can have a look, otherwise you're misrepresenting me.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,


But you tried to derail that by arguing that what’s “evil” is only in the eye of the beholder in any case, and the issue is not so much “allowing evil makes god evil therefore don't believe in god” as people thinking that – whether or not god is real – the omnibenevolence characteristic attached to a god story cannot also be true.

Gordon introduced the idea that if it is conceded that some suffering is allowed, the 'bad' still outweighs the 'good' therefore god is not 'good' - he was referencing Stephen Law so I haven't derailed anything.

I just reversed the position and said that if some people think the 'good' outweighs the 'bad' then they would conclude god is 'good'. If "evil god" or "good god" in this scenario is not in the eye of the beholder then how are you proposing it be determined? If you don't have an answer for that - then your lack of an answer is what is preventing meaningful discussion.

The omnibenevolence I left to the Christians to decide as it was addressed to the Christians.

That casuistry is just a verbose way of saying “god knows best”, “He moves in mysterious ways” etc as a means to explain away events any sane person would otherwise consider “evil” – babies dying of brain cancer for example – as part of a larger contextualising picture of overall goodness. It’s a get out of jail free card theists have tried over the millennia, but it still relies on killing off any meaningful discussion.     

Rather than you just asserting casuistry and expecting people to take your word for it, why not try to demonstrate it in order for your assertion to not be dismissed.   

I have not suggested the event is "good". Babies dying of brain cancer is a "bad" event. I'm not even sure any Christian on here suggested it was a 'good' event since Gordon brought up the 'Problem of Evil'.

So we are agreed that there are some horribly bad events and acts.  So you can stop misrepresenting me by asserting that I said 'bad' events were 'good' events.

There are also amazingly good events and acts. Why does suggesting that a person can appreciate the good in life and also think it outweighs the bad prevent meaningful discussion?

If someone sees more 'good' than 'bad' why would they not see god as 'good', and why does seeing god as 'good' kill off any meaningful discussion but seeing god as 'evil' does not?

You didn't respond to my question - who gets to decide if the 'good' outweighs the 'bad'?