Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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'.

It seems though that intelligent and conscious beings such as ourselves have derived much in knowledge and wisdom  and enjoyment from the unfolding history of the universe. Before you predictably go on about the universe not being made for us we act as the consciousness of the universe so thanks to conscious beings the universe knows and rejoices in itself.

You are wrong to belittle it as you do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

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?

If you are going to consider anything you shouldn't use caricatures.I think it 's called straw manning.
God promises that death shall not exist nor will anything prey on anything again in the nexr life. All ills and injuries will be healed.

As I have said God is responsible for things existing. If you think that it was wrong to do that then you are surely a supporter of non existence.

I don't think you should just shut up about suffering but you know by now I am going to give you short  and unsympathetic shrift.
I suggest you take it up with God. I believe as an agnostic, you have leeway to try that.

[jeremyp]

It seems though that intelligent and conscious beings such as ourselves have derived much in knowledge and wisdom  and enjoyment from the unfolding history of the universe. Before you predictably go on about the universe not being made for us we act as the consciousness of the universe so thanks to conscious beings the universe knows and rejoices in itself.

You are wrong to belittle it as you do.

This is again the fallacy of composition. Just because some things in the Universe are conscious does not mean the Universe itself is conscious.

[Outrider]

Giving things existence is where the evil is.

Did you decide not to read what I wrote? I expressly said that just the fact of creating a physics would not constitute evil, selecting a particular physics which results in unnecessary suffering would.

I'm not sure there is any unanimity on that one.

There's not even one person claiming that, there's just you and a scarecrow out on a hill, tilting at windmills.

You could argue that wellbeing is dependent on creation but in your scheme you seem to have declared well being as an evil.

Is English not your first language?

The second point is an "If I were God I'd have done... argument".

It arguably could be rearranged as one, I suppose.

My counter argument is that your new physics would be horrendous.

You say that, but I'm quite good a physics. And, more importantly, if I were God and omnipotent and omniscient I wouldn't have to rely on systematic, unguided processes - I have complete understanding and infinite capacity, and I can constantly monitor reality and do magic miracles to avoid suffering. If I can't find a suffering-free physics, I'm not beholden to using physics, because I have magic miracles at my disposal.

Within the framework of 'god' there is no excuse for creating people only to make them suffer.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

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"?

This is incoherent. It’s not about whether there’s “sufficient” good, but rather about why there’s any bad at all if you buy into the notion of a god of the omnis. Your get out of jail free card is that, no matter how “bad” we might consider something to be, there could be a bigger contextual picture in which “god knows best” so it’s not really bad after all according to this supposed god’s bigger scheme.

Aside from asking why this god couldn’t arrange things such that we’d still be happy without all the suffering, it makes discussion of the “problem of evil” impossible because you can just throw “big picture, big picture” at the problem as if that resolves it.     

The simpler answer of course is that unnecessary suffering is just what you’d expect to see if you didn’t interpose a (supposedly good) god at all, but that’s Ockham’s razor for you. 

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.

“Big picture! Big picture!”

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.

See above. If you want to argue that, say, a god giving brain cancer to babies isn’t necessarily an “evil” act because it could be part of a larger scheme of overall net goodness, that’s what you’re doing.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If you are going to consider anything you shouldn't use caricatures.I think it 's called straw manning.

What caricature, and as the resident king of the straw man you’re on very thin ice there I’d have thought.
 

God promises that death shall not exist nor will anything prey on anything again in the nexr life. All ills and injuries will be healed.

I’ll take your word for that being the story (leaving aside your casual reification fallacy) but even if we take the story at face value, then why? Why inflict all the pain and suffering in this life, then do away with it in a supposed next life?

As I have said God is responsible for things existing. If you think that it was wrong to do that then you are surely a supporter of non existence.

Incoherent gibberish. What I’m a supporter of is, say, babies not dying of brain cancer when someone could make it otherwise. Why aren’t you?

I don't think you should just shut up about suffering but you know by now I am going to give you short  and unsympathetic shrift.

Can I suggest that bringing a water pistol to a knife fight probably isn’t a good idea? What makes you think you’re even capable of giving “short and unsympathetic shrift” when you’re so out of your depth?

I suggest you take it up with God. I believe as an agnostic, you have leeway to try that.

And still you don’t understand the meaning of the term “agnostic” despite all the times it’s been explained to you? Really?

Oh, and I’d say more ignostic than agnostic by the way. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is again the fallacy of composition. Just because some things in the Universe are conscious does not mean the Universe itself is conscious.

It’s possible the fallacy of composition but I would rather be wrong on this than in the Your shoes insisting that the universe is a single necessary entity and yet here suggesting it is merely a collection of parts.

Of course not all the universe is conscious just as not all of your body is conscious. We cannot say then as a whole the universe is totally unconscious.

In terms of Russell’s use of the fallacy. He should have known that anything dependent on parts cannot be necessary.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

This is incoherent. It’s not about whether there’s “sufficient” good, but rather about why there’s any bad at all if you buy into the notion of a god of the omnis. Your get out of jail free card is that, no matter how “bad” we might consider something to be, there could be a bigger contextual picture in which “god knows best” so it’s not really bad after all according to this supposed god’s bigger scheme.

Aside from asking why this god couldn’t arrange things such that we’d still be happy without all the suffering, it makes discussion of the “problem of evil” impossible because you can just throw “big picture, big picture” at the problem as if that resolves it.     

The simpler answer of course is that unnecessary suffering is just what you’d expect to see if you didn’t interpose a (supposedly good) god at all, but that’s Ockham’s razor for you.

No -your response is incoherent. The simpler answer is of course clearly from experience there are lots of things we don't know or can't explain. Given it's a fact we don't know what we don't know, it is possible there is a bigger picture. Of course, if there is a bigger picture, what that bigger picture is probably won't be a god of the omnis - as the god of the omnis is probably just a human interpretation and characterisation based on limited human understanding and conceptualisation, but it's a representation of an idea of a bigger picture. You not liking the answer doesn't make it incoherent.

See above. If you want to argue that, say, a god giving brain cancer to babies isn’t necessarily an “evil” act because it could be part of a larger scheme of overall net goodness, that’s what you’re doing.

Again - stop misrepresenting me. I actually said it could be an "evil" act but that god can still be considered good. Why are you finding it so hard to comprehend this sentence?

Let me try to make it clearer for you. The world we live in has lots of suffering. I decide to have children even though I know they will suffer lots of pain and hardships. I even let my children suffer pain and hardship when I have the power to intervene to relieve them of some of their pain and hardship because I think there is a bigger picture. I do lots of good stuff in the meantime. My children resent / hate me for not intervening when I could have. My children may well think that I am "evil" and hey you might think I am "evil". Oh well.

I don't think that makes me "evil". Who decides?

[jeremyp]

It’s possible the fallacy of composition but I would rather be wrong on this

You may not be wrong. The Universe may be conscious. All I am saying is the argument you used to reach that conclusion is fallacious.

than in the Your shoes insisting that the universe is a single necessary entity and yet here suggesting it is merely a collection of parts.

I'm not insisting that the Universe is a single necessary entity. Ad, of course, many things can be considered both a single entry and a collection of parts.

Of course not all the universe is conscious

How do you now that? My opinion is that you are correct, but you can't know it.

In terms of Russell’s use of the fallacy. He should have known that anything dependent on parts cannot be necessary.

Your god has parts. Is it not necessary then?

[jeremyp]

A thought that has just occurred to me:

How can Christians be sure that God is good?

If God were evil, then Christians could be being tricked by it into believing God is good. How would they know the difference?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Did you decide not to read what I wrote? I expressly said that just the fact of creating a physics would not constitute evil, selecting a particular physics which results in unnecessary suffering would.

But we are back to who decides what is necessary suffering or immoral suffering. Surely the entity which has maximal knowledge. Those suggesting other physics would be better need to make their case although I suspect such physics would collapse into irrationality and chaos even before we consider the moral implications.
There's not even one person claiming that, there's just you and a scarecrow out on a hill, tilting at windmills.

You say that, but I'm quite good a physics. And, more importantly, if I were God and omnipotent and omniscient I wouldn't have to rely on systematic, unguided processes - I have complete understanding and infinite capacity, and I can constantly monitor reality and do magic miracles to avoid suffering. If I can't find a suffering-free physics, I'm not beholden to using physics, because I have magic miracles at my disposal.

I think you rather overestimate yourself and your proneness to unintended consequences. You have though brought up another complaint that God doesn’t intervene enough. They of course mean that God should be rescinding his laws quite frequently. That demand is the equivalent of wanting a different physics.

Within the framework of 'god' there is no excuse for creating people only to make them suffer.

O.

God didn’t create people only to make them suffer.
Prior to the fall people were in perfect unbroken communion with God and would have enjoyed that through suffering and through everything until they came through to the next life.

After the fall there is introduced distrust, disbelieve, separation, fear and suspicion and perceived pointlessness then becomes the lot of humanity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You may not be wrong. The Universe may be conscious. All I am saying is the argument you used to reach that conclusion is fallacious.
I'm not insisting that the Universe is a single necessary entity. Ad, of course, many things can be considered both a single entry and a collection of parts.
How do you now that? My opinion is that you are correct, but you can't know it.
Your god has parts. Is it not necessary then?

God is not assembled because there would have to be an assembler. You can’t escape the ultimate entity Jeremy. I still dispute your claim that God has parts. In any case the physical universe has contingent parts. We are still waiting for the necessary component....as well as a concrete actual infinty.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A thought that has just occurred to me:

How can Christians be sure that God is good?

Through their encounters and relationship with God

If God were evil, then Christians could be being tricked by it into believing God is good. How would they know the difference?

Their recognition of Good and evil is enhanced. They are regenerated. I would say Good becomes a reality rather than a vague concept, a sense of completion or having crossed the line into the kingdom and wholeness, a sense of love and being loved, of being on the way, of truth and life.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

No -your response is incoherent. The simpler answer is of course clearly from experience there are lots of things we don't know or can't explain. Given it's a fact we don't know what we don't know, it is possible there is a bigger picture.

Oh dear. Of course it’s possible there’s a bigger picture, and of course in all likelihood what we don’t know we don’t know vastly outweighs what we (believe) we do know. So what though? Should we just stay under the duvet and claim no knowledge of anything because we could be wrong, or should we proceed as if our knowledge beliefs are "true enough" until and unless they’re shown to be wrong?

Your mistake here is to elide the possibility of a bigger picture in which, say, babies dying of brain cancer is part of an overall net good, into a probability that that actually is the case. Doesn’t work though – I could turn a “could be” into an “is” about any other area of knowledge at all, and thereby lay waste to anything.               

Of course, if there is a bigger picture, what that bigger picture is probably won't be a god of the omnis - as the god of the omnis is probably just a human interpretation and characterisation based on limited human understanding and conceptualisation, but it's a representation of an idea of a bigger picture. You not liking the answer doesn't make it incoherent.

Nice straw man. You were incoherent not because I didn’t “like” your answer, but because you lurched into the notion “of “sufficient good” when the question was about why there’d be any bad if you subscribe to a god of the omnis.   

Again - stop misrepresenting me. I actually said it could be an "evil" act but that god can still be considered good. Why are you finding it so hard to comprehend this sentence?

Because it’s just a repetition of the same casuistry. Try to explain why a god of the omnis that gives brain cancer to babies could still be “considered good” without collapsing again into eliding a big picture “could be” into a big picture “is”.

You can dance round this all you like but you’re still stuck with the intellectual bankruptcy of the “god moves in mysterious ways” get out of jail free card.     

Let me try to make it clearer for you. The world we live in has lots of suffering. I decide to have children even though I know they will suffer lots of pain and hardships. I even let my children suffer pain and hardship when I have the power to intervene to relieve them of some of their pain and hardship because I think there is a bigger picture. I do lots of good stuff in the meantime. My children resent / hate me for not intervening when I could have. My children may well think that I am "evil" and hey you might think I am "evil". Oh well.

I don't think that makes me "evil". Who decides?

Unless you claim also to be a god of the omnis that’s a false analogy.

Has that made it clearer for you? 

[jeremyp]

God is not assembled because there would have to be an assembler.

That's a circular argument. Your claim that God cannot have distinct parts because that would require an "assembler" is identical to your false claim that at necessary entity cannot have parts.

You can’t escape the ultimate entity Jeremy.

I don't claim that there is or isn't an "ultimate" entity.

In any case the physical universe has contingent parts. We are still waiting for the necessary component....

Wait a minute. You are now claiming that the parts of the Universe are contingent on the Universe and also that the Universe is contingent on its parts. I thought you didn't believe in circular chains of dependencies.

as well as a concrete actual infinty.

That's for the other thread.

[jeremyp]

Through their encounters and relationship with GodTheir recognition of Good and evil is enhanced. They are regenerated. I would say Good becomes a reality rather than a vague concept, a sense of completion or having crossed the line into the kingdom and wholeness, a sense of love and being loved, of being on the way, of truth and life.

Yes but if Evil God was all powerful, it would have the capability to trick you into believing God was good and the your ability to differentiate the two was enhanced. Everything you talk about here cold have been fraudulently instilled into you by Evil God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What caricature, and as the resident king of the straw man you’re on very thin ice there I’d have thought.

Bowdlerising the Christian description of God into the God of torture.

 
I’ll take your word for that being the story (leaving aside your casual reification fallacy) but even if we take the story at face value, then why? Why inflict all the pain and suffering in this life, then do away with it in a supposed next life?

Pain is a trait for the survival of physical organisms. Human pain has an extra dimension acting as a spur to physical prevention and cure and spiritual and moral reformation. Torture is an ego satisfying abuse of pain.

What I’m a supporter of is, say, babies not dying of brain cancer when someone could make it otherwise. Why aren’t you?

What I am is a supporter of Babies not dying of brain cancer or weaponising them in my personal antitheistic crusade.

Oh, and I’d say more ignostic than agnostic by the way.

Really? I’d say you were more non-stick than gnostic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes but if Evil God was all powerful, it would have the capability to trick you into believing God was good and the your ability to differentiate the two was enhanced. Everything you talk about here cold have been fraudulently instilled into you by Evil God.

Can an evil God exist? Are we seeing a universe of maximal evil? Would we have a rational universe or chaos? I can sort of feel an evil small g God might be evil. But big G?

[jeremyp]

Can an evil God exist?

Can a good God exist?

Are we seeing a universe of maximal evil?

Are we seeing a Universe of maximal good?

Would we have a rational universe or chaos? I can sort of feel an evil small g God might be evil. But big G?

Why would evil be equivalent to chaos?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Oh dear. Of course it’s possible there’s a bigger picture, and of course in all likelihood what we don’t know we don’t know vastly outweighs what we (believe) we do know. So what though? Should we just stay under the duvet and claim no knowledge of anything because we could be wrong, or should we proceed as if our knowledge beliefs are "true enough" until and unless they’re shown to be wrong?

Your mistake here is to elide the possibility of a bigger picture in which, say, babies dying of brain cancer is part of an overall net good, into a probability that that actually is the case. Doesn’t work though – I could turn a “could be” into an “is” about any other area of knowledge at all, and thereby lay waste to anything.

I did not mention probability regarding babies dying of brain cancer being part of an overall net good, so again you are misrepresenting me. I said from my perspective I see an overall net good so despite also seeing babies dying of brain cancer, I perceive a net good.

You still have not answered my question - who gets to decide if there is an overall net good or net bad?

Nice straw man. You were incoherent not because I didn’t “like” your answer, but because you lurched into the notion “of “sufficient good” when the question was about why there’d be any bad if you subscribe to a god of the omnis.

You are still incoherent. Why shouldn't there be any bad if you subscribe to a god of the omnis. You are incorrect again - I didn't lurch into anything - I responded to Gordon's reference to Stephen Law's point that conceded that there could be some suffering and god could still be 'good' - who gets to decide how much suffering is 'some'?

And you still haven't answered my question - who gets to decide if there is an overall net good or net bad?

Because it’s just a repetition of the same casuistry. Try to explain why a god of the omnis that gives brain cancer to babies could still be “considered good” without collapsing again into eliding a big picture “could be” into a big picture “is”.

And you're still asserting casuistry without demonstrating it. It remains a "could be" and not an "is". The "big picture" regarding god is a belief based on faith, which is based on personal experience of human social interaction and moral values where the "big picture" seems to feature in every day life e.g. having children even though they will experience pain and suffering. You haven't demonstrated why it is casuistry to look at the "big picture" in relation to moral values - you just asserted it?

You can dance round this all you like but you’re still stuck with the intellectual bankruptcy of the “god moves in mysterious ways” get out of jail free card.

I don't think it's mysterious that there could be a bigger picture. And you can dance around it all you like but you still haven't answered the question - who gets to decide if there is sufficient good?

Unless you claim also to be a god of the omnis that’s a false analogy.

Has that made it clearer for you?

Nope - I don't need to be a god of the omnis. It's not a false analogy - it's an example of creating people and not intervening and why I could have reasons for not intervening - and you still haven't answered the question - who gets to decide whether I am "good" or "evil" in this scenario, or if a god is "good" or "evil"?

[Alan Burns]

A book riddled with contradictions and containing zero reasoning or evidence.

You cannot dismiss the evidence in the Christian bible so blatantly.

Yes, the four Gospels do have numerous contradictions.  Such contradictions are what you would expect to find in four separate compilations of eye witness accounts of events which actually took place.  Such contradictions would not be present in man made attempts to portray the fictitious, idealised versions claimed by many non believers.   The perceived contradictions do not detract from the profound, world changing message which forms the foundation of our modern civilised culture.  Do you honestly believe that our modern society could be founded on a book containing zero reasoning and evidence?

[Gordon]

You cannot dismiss the evidence in the Christian bible so blatantly.

Yes, the four Gospels do have numerous contradictions.  Such contradictions are what you would expect to find in four separate compilations of eye witness accounts of events which actually took place.  Such contradictions would not be present in man made attempts to portray the fictitious, idealised versions claimed by many non believers.   The perceived contradictions do not detract from the profound, world changing message which forms the foundation of our modern civilised culture.  Do you honestly believe that our modern society could be founded on a book containing zero reasoning and evidence?

You have an ability to pack so much fallacious nonsense in so few words: every sentence is fallacious in one way or another but I can't be bothered to highlight them all since there is no point - you never learn, and keep repeating the same old theobollocks.

As regards your opening sentence - it is trivially easy to dismiss the Christian Bible as anything other than a snapshot of religious superstitions and associated anecdotes dating from antiquity.

[jeremyp]

You cannot dismiss the evidence in the Christian bible so blatantly.

Yes he can.

Yes, the four Gospels do have numerous contradictions.  Such contradictions are what you would expect to find in four separate compilations of eye witness accounts of events which actually took place.

That's absolutely true. However, you apologists never seem to grasp why it is that eye witness accounts are often contradictory. The reason is that eye witness accounts are unreliable. Your entire argument here is

- the gospel accounts are unreliable
- therefore they are real eye witness accounts
- therefore the gospel accounts are reliable.

That would be risible even if you weren't also claiming the Bible is divinely inspired.

Such contradictions would not be present in man made attempts to portray the fictitious, idealised versions claimed by many non believers.

Yes they would if there was only one fictitious idealised version that was transmitted separately to each author by oral means. As it is, it's almost certain that Matthew and Luke copied large parts of Mark into their accounts and yet, even here they frequently made changes to suit their purpose. If even a direct copy can be unreliable, what hope is there for an oral tradition across thirty or forty years?

 

The perceived contradictions do not detract from the profound, world changing message which forms the foundation of our modern civilised culture.

The profound message that you shouldn't insult God's prophet if you don't want to be eaten by a bear? 

Do you honestly believe that our modern society could be founded on a book containing zero reasoning and evidence?

It's not though. I'd say our modern society owes more to the principles discovered and documented during the Enlightenment period.

Also I wouldn't agree that there is zero evidence in the Bible. If you examine it carefully, there is plenty of good evidence in it that much of what the gospels say about Jesus is made up and/or lifted from the Old Testament.

[Maeght]

You cannot dismiss the evidence in the Christian bible so blatantly.

Yes, the four Gospels do have numerous contradictions.  Such contradictions are what you would expect to find in four separate compilations of eye witness accounts of events which actually took place.  Such contradictions would not be present in man made attempts to portray the fictitious, idealised versions claimed by many non believers.   The perceived contradictions do not detract from the profound, world changing message which forms the foundation of our modern civilised culture.  Do you honestly believe that our modern society could be founded on a book containing zero reasoning and evidence?

They would be what you would expect from different compilations made later on putting together stories passed on orally amongst different communities.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes he can.

That's absolutely true. However, you apologists never seem to grasp why it is that eye witness accounts are often contradictory. The reason is that eye witness accounts are unreliable. Your entire argument here is

- the gospel accounts are unreliable
- therefore they are real eye witness accounts
- therefore the gospel accounts are reliable.

That would be risible even if you weren't also claiming the Bible is divinely inspired.

Yes they would if there was only one fictitious idealised version that was transmitted separately to each author by oral means. As it is, it's almost certain that Matthew and Luke copied large parts of Mark into their accounts and yet, even here they frequently made changes to suit their purpose. If even a direct copy can be unreliable, what hope is there for an oral tradition across thirty or forty years?

 The profound message that you shouldn't insult God's prophet if you don't want to be eaten by a bear?  It's not though. I'd say our modern society owes more to the principles discovered and documented during the Enlightenment period.

Also I wouldn't agree that there is zero evidence in the Bible. If you examine it carefully, there is plenty of good evidence in it that much of what the gospels say about Jesus is made up and/or lifted from the Old Testament.

Jeremy considers a tome that is still discussed thousands of years after completion and spots a bear.