Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

The point of the argument is not that God is evil, the point of the argument is that belief in God is inconsistent, that there are evil aspects of God that are inconsistent with the supposed omnibenevolence of God.

I suppose an angle to the same argument is that many atheists feel that many theists are blinded by an unjustified loyalty to God, based on the assumption that he is omnibenevolent. If we do away with that assumption, we're now justified in at least checking the facts before we accept what is being said, and at that point, potentially the entire facade can come down.

To make this point, it is not necessary to show that God causes more evil than good, or doesn't do good things, it is merely necessary that God does evil when he didn't have to do evil. Bone cancer in children seems a reasonable example. No matter how many good things God does, if he makes a conscious decision to cause unnecessary suffering (especially if we can't argue that the child might become evil since the child should retain its freedom to choose good), then omnibenevolence becomes very hard to hang on to.

 

Bigfoot doesn't exist because there is no proof.
God doesn't exist because there is no proof.
Anything else is pure silliness.

 

Prove it...

 

Swensson,

Thank you for a well written post and for making reasonable points. Much appreciated.

Some atheists DO say that God is evil. Of course they do not believe in God, so
they argue on the basis "if God does exist" then he is evil.

Regarding God's omnibenevolence: The human Free Will defense is reasonable.

Human Free Will Is A Secular Truth:
That humans do in fact have Free Will is recognized by humanity as a universal
truth. Human Free Will can easily explain why the Earth is cursed from the
effects of human sin --- thus natural disasters, disease, bone cancer in children,
human death. On Christianity God made the world perfect and humans used their
Free Will to wreck and destroy that perfection. You do not need the book of Genesis
to tell you that humanity is "fallen" --- you only need to read any major secular newspaper.

I wrote the Opening Post only to make the point that for some atheists to be consistent
they would have to reach the conclusion, on their lights, that the God of the Bible was both
evil and good. How so? Because some atheists say that the Biblical doctrine of God's Omnipotence
MUST mean that He cause ALL things. My response is if He causes ALL things then He ALSO causes
ALL the GOOD in the world. This is COMPELLINGLY true. This MUST be true. This is not arguable.

You of course understand the above is not my view as a Christian. My view is that God causes all the
good things and fallen sinful mankind causes all the evil things.

God didn't put bone cancer in children. Fallen sinful mankind put bone cancer in children. God made the original
world perfect. Mankind corrupted it and wrecked the perfection. Thus tornadoes, earthquakes, COVID-19 viruses,
Human Death, Etc.

On Christian doctrine God has never caused unnecessary suffering. It was sinful mankind that caused
all the suffering. By the way, God deals with you and me and all other humans on the foundation
of human Free Will. We will be judged based on the decisions we make using our Free Will.

Human courts of justice operate on the correct assumption that humans are personally responsible
for the decisions they make using their Free Will. If you tell a judge that God was responsible for
you choosing to rob a bank and kill 2 bank tellers --- the judge will still put you in prison for a long
time. Why do you not apply this same truth to the issue we are discussing?

If there was a shred of truth to the claim that God causes evil or is responsible for not preventing evil,
when He has the power to prevent evil, then that defense would be used in the world's court's of law.
But everybody knows that kind of defense would be considered absurd by ALL human courts of law.
The notion that God caused humans to do evil is NEVER used in courts of law.

Here is Planting's Free Will Defense:

As Alvin Plantinga summarized his defense:[14]

A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga's_free-will_defense#Further_details

Spend some time with Alvin Planting's Free Will Defense up there. It is 100% reasonable.

 

Could you show me an example of an atheist "celebrating" the alleged good god causes ?

 

We can not know for certain that there is any such thing as an
atheist. Just because some say they lack belief in the existence
of God does not mean that they actually do lack belief in the
existence of God. On Christian lights, God says there is no
such thing as an atheist.

Romans 1:18 says they that men "suppress the truth."

Romans 1:19-20 "since what may be known about God is plain to them,
because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the
world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have
been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that
people are without excuse."

It boils down to this:

(1) Will you believe the atheists?
OR
(2) Will you believe Romans 1:19-20 . . . and Romans 1:18 ?

Which one do you believe? (1) or (2) ?

Romans 1:19-20 is the germ principle of the Teleological Argument
for the existence of God -- the argument from the Intelligent Design
of the Earth and the Universe.

I hear you.

I personally put Bigfoot in the same category as the following:

(1) Bigfoot Exists.

(2) The American Government Is Putting Chemicals In Our Drinking Water
In Order To Control The American Population.

(3) The American Government Has Captured Aliens And Has Them Locked
Up In Secret Places.

(4) There Are Human Beings That Do Not Know There Is A God.
{Romans 1:18 . . .Romans 1: 19-20 }

Agreed.

Start quote.
"Henry Dodwell argues that matters of religious faith lie outside the determination
of reason. God could not possibly have intended that reason should be the faculty
to lead us to faith, for faith cannot hang indefinitely is suspense while reason
cautiously weighs and reweighs arguments.

`The Scriptures teach, on the contrary, that the way to God is by means of the heart,
not by means of the intellect . . .(What is the basis of faith? Dodwell answers that it
is) the faith-producing work of the Holy Spirit . . .

Now Alvin Plantinga . . .

Alvin Plantinga has launched a sustained attack on theological rationalism. Plantinga
maintains that belief in God and in the central doctrines of Christianity is both rational
and warranted wholly apart from any evidential foundations for belief . . .

Then William Lane Craig says . . .

I think that Dodwell and Plantinga are correct that, fundamentally, the way we
know Christianity to be true is by the self-authenticating witness of God's Holy Spirit."
End quote

Source:
Reasonable Faith
by William Lane Craig
pages 35, 39, 43

Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig are considered to be Christendom's top Christian apologists.

 

And still, no answer.

 

Sure;y we'd all celebrate the good things that happen regardless of who or what causes them. Wouldn't you celebrate good things you didn't think God was directly responsible for?

Your core point is accurate; If God is deemed responsible for everything bad, he is equally responsible for everything good. Similarly though, if God isn't deemed responsible for everything bad (due to the independence of human free will), he can't be given credit for everything good on the same basis.

This debate really isn't about how atheists perceive God, it's about how believers present the idea, and whether all the aspects they believe (or are told to believe) are internally consistent.

 

Thanks HonestJoe, that was my one and only point in writing
my Opening Post.

No debate for me in this particular thread. In this thread I seek
ONLY to make the point that you agreed was correct -- namely:

In this particular thread it is 100% about how atheists
perceive God.

Agreed.
You are correct.

On Christian lights {ie Christian doctrine} it is consistent to hold
the following:

{1} God created the world perfect.

{2} God gave humans Free Will.

{3} Humans used their Free Will to choose to embrace sin.

{4) Therefore humans, not God, corrupted the world and
wrecked God's original perfect world.

{5} God is Omnipotent {all powerful}

{6} An Omnipotent God cannot give humans Free Will to commit evil
and at the same time prevent them from committing evil. Just as God
cannot make square circles and cannot make 2 + 2 = 7.

{7} Therefore humans, not God, are responsible for evil.

HonestJoe, thanks for your comments. They were interesting.

 

If God isn't responsible for someone doing bad things, such murdering someone (setting aside, for the moment, the murdering he personally ordered), then how can he be responsible for someone doing good things?

As it involves humans, your entire philosophy revolves around the concept of corporate guilt . . . the idea that one person can ethically be punished for the sins of another. Too much murder going on? Just drown some innocent children, since they belong to the same species as the murderers, despite not being guilty of murder themselves (again, murder is only okay when God commits it or commands it, apparently). The Bible waffles on whether corporate guilt is moral or not, with God constantly changing his mind on whether or not it is okay to punish someone for the sins of another. And, no, it isn't okay to punish someone for the crimes or sins of another, despite the Bible's contradictory teachings on the subject.

There's another problem with your philosophy: it renders Heaven absolutely impossible.

1) Do people in Heaven commit sin? If so, it isn't Heaven, or at least it means Heaven isn't eternal, with people constantly being cast out of it for committing sin after they get there.
2) If they don't commit sin in Heaven, then do they have free will? If they do, then it is logically possibly to have free will without having evil. If not, then perfection means not having free will in the first place, and your "reward" in Heaven is to be lobotomized of your free will.

 

One think I often find somewhat interesting is the situational malleability of those expressing their morality as a product of their religious belief. Vast numbers of believers don’t attend services, don’t study in detail the scriptures that their beliefs are supposedly sourced, and violate those moral codes when no one is looking.
On the other hand, I don’t follow a doctrine from an organized religion, but I long ago developed a personal honor code and follow an immutable set of moral rules I never break; They are core to my identity. I don’t break them even under duress or when following them is detrimental to me; there are no excuses or equivocations. I am responsible for my actions and absolutely accountable for them.
If there is a God (no real clue on that regard) that will judge me, I will stand judgement on my inflexible following of my moral code, not one I follow of someone else’s interpretation of a doctrine passed through the interpretations of countless generations of those that believe (and often alter) the writings of others that think they know the mind of God.

 

That's not a sensible reply, even by your standards. The onus of proof is on those who claim the existence of these things, not on those who find no proof.

 

Would that mean the world was no longer perfect?

And also good? Which implies God shouldn't be celebrated for good things in the same way he shouldn't be blamed for the bad ones. That is very different to the idea of God commonly presented by mainstream Christianity.

 

Atheists do not believe in a God, so yes, he speaks for all atheists

no different from saying, all Christians believe in a God, would be speaking for all Christians

in fact Christians only disbelieve in one less God then Atheists do

 

Can you tell us what that honor code is? Equal rights for all people, for example?

 

1) God gave humans free will to choose between good and evil.
2) God isn't responsible for our choices.

3) Therefore, God isn't responsible for our evil choices.

. . .
. . .
. . .

4) But he is responsible for our good choices

Wait . . .

 

Atheist argument for everything....

" i don't have to justify my position, everyone else has to prove theirs"

Nuts to that.. you have no reason to believe what you do other than your own desire to believe that way . Again, self worship.. thus providing more evidence of God's existence by fulfilling biblical prophecy..

Your rejection of God for absolutely no good reason is in itself evidence of God's existence. Evidence that you say doesn't exist.

 

Funny how you . . . don't justify your position.

 

I prefer to keep my code to myself (it would take a long time to list my rules), but will always answer specific questions. But, one core principles I follow that of the Golden Rule.
As for equal rights for all people, it is a belief I share in it’s absolute, given my underlying code to treat all equally with one exception, that being those that would advocate otherwise.
To me all rules apply bidirectionally, not unlike aspects of the ‘Golden Rule’. I used to say, never make a law you wouldn’t allow your worst enemy to enforce.

 

I have justified my position.

 

OK, since you're having cognitive trouble today, let's look at it this way. You tell me there's a green teapot in orbit aound Mars, and I tell you it's rubbish. You say, prove it! Why should I? Should I train every telescope on Earth on Mars to try and disprove it? Of course not. Why should I have to try and disprove every crackpot theory that you come up with? You state something, you prove it.

 

You provided no justification for the accusations in your last quote. But if that's the lie you need to tell yourself to justify the hypocrisy of your argument, then go with it.

 

Prove that there is no such thing as God? Seems pretty easy. There is not one shred of evidence of existence. Not a single one. Nothing. That is the evidence you were asking for I believe.

 

HonestJoe,
An honest and good question.
My answer is that the world was perfect with man having
Free Will up until the moment that they chose to do evil,
at that moment the world was no longer perfect. In other
words having Free Will is not, in and of itself, evil, it
only became evil when the choice was made to do evil.

I don't understand your question or your point, otherwise
I would give you my best answer. Sorry.

You have to remember that my Opening Post and this thread
is NOT about how Christians look at God and not about how I
am looking at God --- rather my Opening Post is ONLY about
how atheists look at God -- as explained in my Opening Post.

. . .as explained in my Opening Post . . .


_____________



You correctly summed it up nicely when you said:
"Your core point is accurate; If God is deemed responsible
for everything bad, he is equally responsible for everything
good."___HonestJoe

So?

So the atheist Stephen Fry said that God caused bone
cancer in children -- that is, "if God does exist" and is
Omnipotent.

So?

So if Stephen Fry is correct then the following is also correct.
God ALSO caused ALL the good things in the world, -- that is,
"if God does exist" and is Omnipotent.


`