|
|
Post by Vodmeister on May 13, 2014 6:08:20 GMT 5
General Definition of a Theistic God:
Omnipotent = All Powerful
Omniscient = All Knowing
Omnipresent = Everywhere
Omnibenevolent = All Good
The argument against the existence of a typical theistic God can be summarized as following:
1. If an OOOO God exists, excessive evil would not exist in the world.
A - A God that is omniscient and omnipresent would know when and where evil is occurring.
B - A God who is omnipotent is unquestionably capable of stopping evil from happening.
C - An omnibenevolent God would have the motivation and desire to stop excessive evil.
2. Evil does exist in excessive quantities.
This premise is quite undeniable, whether you are a theist or an atheist. Natural disasters, horrible disease, you name it.
3. Therefore, a typical theistic God does not exist.
According to deductive reasoning, if the two premises are factual and logical, then the conclusion follows inescapably that an OOOO God cannot exist in our world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on May 13, 2014 6:08:44 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on May 13, 2014 17:03:17 GMT 5
A bible hardliner would have an answer for this. Apart from the Book of Job (where the suffering was for strengthening his faith), there are a lot of verses which defend a revenging God (with the fall of man being the reason). I am at the moment trying to find some apologetic answers which don't use Genesis as an argument. The other argument I could find is "we don't know". The Book of Job is probably the best solution they were able to provide (but one how much strengthening the faith can justify).
I believe we should take terrorism or rape out of the discussion though because they are man-made and Christians believe in freedom for the people. I am not saying all evil is man-made, I just wanted to say that I would rather focus on things where people have no influence, like horrible diseases.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on May 13, 2014 21:24:44 GMT 5
I changed the typical examples of evils from man-made to out of human control evils.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on May 14, 2014 21:14:37 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Feb 23, 2015 8:26:08 GMT 5
I know that Craig is the master of making absurd statements sound reasonable and reasonable statements sound absurd with his Philosophy, but the clip below made my eyes drop out of my skull. www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUMzYA3XSEcMost Christians agree that not all parts of the Bible are factually true or up for literate interpretation, but to hear supposedly one of the most respected theist apologists make statements like the one above is... mind-blowing. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 23, 2015 20:36:43 GMT 5
This is so ironic when remembering what people like him think of abortion…
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 24, 2015 22:08:40 GMT 5
The bottom line for me is that a theistic god is either a logical contradiction (^), or the kind of god I would not want to exist (making arbitrary rules about what’s a sin, killing thousands of people for not obeying, punishing people for sins they have not even comitted yet etc.).
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 25, 2015 19:13:56 GMT 5
Well, a theistic God is not necessarily the same as a Christian God. From what I understood, it mostly refers to an anthropogenic and perfect God.
Looking at Vod's definition, the concept of sin is not necessary here.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on May 9, 2016 3:56:43 GMT 5
I thought I could revive this, as I've read a bit on Alvin Plantinga on Wikipedia who is described by scholars as the guy who buried the logical problem of evil: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga%27s_free_will_defensePlantinga argues that God could not have created a better possible world, as there is always a conflict between free will and goodness in the world. The summary of the defense:You may ask how this is relevant to the thread, as Vodmeister specified natural evils in the OP. Plantinga thinks free will can explain them as well, as God apparently needs to value the free will of evil spirits as well (for whatever reason, maybe he really loves his principles). The defense has to main propositions: 1. There are possible worlds that even an omnipotent being can not actualize. 2. A world with morally free creatures producing only moral good is such a world. I disagree with the first one. Isn't heaven said to be a world with free will that is free of evil? As such, the problem of evil can be reformulated this way: P1 If an OOOO God exists, humans should have been created in the best possible world. P2 Heaven is a better possible world than the actual one. C1 Therefore, no OOOO God exists. So, that was my input. Now some food for the others: 1. Evil as evidence for God: P1 If evil does exist, objective moral values and duties exist (otherwise, what defines evil?). P2 If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. C1 Therefore, if God does not exist, evil does not exist. P3 Evil exists. C2 Therefore, God exists. This is a rather odd argument, so I better show where I heard this: youtu.be/vg7p1BjP2dA?t=1h13m43s2. Falldidit Popular among fundamentalists. Adam and Eve sinned, humans (and animals) must be punished. |
|
|
|
Post by Life on May 3, 2017 23:00:47 GMT 5
Earth represents a perfect environment to test the morality and behavior of humans on individual basis.
Take a look at the wildlife: you can see animals killing other animals for different reasons.
Take a look at the environment: it destroys lives at times.
Darker aspects notwithstanding, we can notice positivity in this planet as well. First, this planet is suitable for hosting life. Secondly, diversity in life-forms (from simple to complex) is essential for formulation and sustenance of the ecosystems. Third, complex animals exhibit advanced forms of behavior including notions of care. Fourth, killings are not exactly personal in the wildlife; animals are struggling for survival and competition is fierce. Fifth, death itself is an important driver of productivity and control in ecosystems. And the list goes on.
Enter humans, with highest level of intellect. Humans are striving for excellence in lifestyle with notions of organization and civilization at the forefront of their practices. Humans are also attempting to understand the environment around them in different ways (notion of education? science is a product of education, right?). Now, what kind of lessons a human may draw from the environment around him; positive or negative or a mix of both?
Unfortunately, the environment is incredibly complex, too complex for a single person to fully grasp and process at a time. End-result is half-baked notions of stuff that is not fully understood.
My point? It is pointless to judge the nature of God without an all-encompassing grasp of reality. And none of us have it.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on May 27, 2017 15:16:43 GMT 5
I just had to revive this thread after reading Hemant Mehta's post about the Manchester attacks: www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/05/26/a-terrorists-belief-in-islamic-paradise-may-have-justified-the-manchester-bombingIn this post, Hemant drew parallels between the recent terror attack and one that happened in Pakistan 2014 where 145 people had died, among them 132 children. There he quotes someone quoting a Taliban. Said Taliban justified the infanticide in this manner: “Paradise is for those of pure hearts. All children have pure hearts. They have not sinned yet… They have not yet been corrupted [by their apostate parents]. We did not end their lives. We gave them new ones, in Paradise, where they will be loved more than you can imagine[…] You will never understand this. If your faith is pure, you will not mourn them, but celebrate their birth into Paradise.” Why did I post this here? Consider what William Lane Craig had to say about the infanticide committed by the Israelites against the Canaanites: I know that Craig is the master of making absurd statements sound reasonable and reasonable statements sound absurd with his Philosophy, but the clip below made my eyes drop out of my skull. www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUMzYA3XSEcMost Christians agree that not all parts of the Bible are factually true or up for literate interpretation, but to hear supposedly one of the most respected theist apologists make statements like the one above is... mind-blowing. What was his argument? He basically said: "Whom did God wrong? The evil parents, who deserved to die or the innocent children, who went straight into a place of eternal bliss?" Now, some people may accuse me of making an ad hominem argument against WLC (in fact, some people think that the clip posted by Vodmeister alone is sufficient for ignoring him). No, I'm not saying that he is evil and must be ignored, he does make arguments which deserve serious consideration. It's just the fact that a Taliban and one of the most respected Christian apologists are justifying an infanticide in exactly the same way! I hope Bill one day realizes how sickening this is. And if you think Dr. Craig's reasoning was sickening enough, just wait for what Ken Ham has to say: answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/10/22/old-earth-christian-cannot-ultimately-give-richard-dawkins-an-answer/Basically, these children were far from innocent. They descent from Adam, therefore, they deserved it. |
|
