Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

Appeal to Popularity logical Fallacy!

So if 5 billion people cut off their noses they must be right that they all get a free pass into heaven when they do it?

 

Hmmm... what if they all exist? The 10 Commandments can be interpreted that it implies they do other wise why would GOD assert superiority over other the Gods people might be believe in.... which, by they way, have as much evidence for their existence as the ‘Christian’ God.
Does that statement make me an atheist?

 

Excellent point!

In essence all that the 1st commandment claims is to be is the deity that is first in line and clearly allows for there to be any number of other deities in the rest of the line.

 

So your god gave mankind free will only so he could do evil things because all good things come from your god?

 

Yep, all depends on your interpretation as does much in the Bible.
As for the other Gods, back in the ‘70’s, I was second hand to several Maya (they worked for me off and on), all raised in the Catholic tradition, who witnessed first hand the Hand of the Maya God Chaac, and despite their Catholic Church teachings are convinced of his existence. Perhaps at some point I will share the ‘evidence’... the death of a close friend and colleague was involved, on whose story is shared in Wikipedia. It was Biblical (pun intended’).

 

Yes, but that's not the same as saying that that is the point of the argument. A person who does not believe that god exists doesn't have that much interest in whether God is evil. However, presenting the idea of an evil god to people who believe God is real is interesting and a reasonable line of argument.

Agreed, and I think atheists who argue that God is evil would agree with that (well, not all). The question is what conclusions we draw from that. Is it true that a person or god is good exactly in proportion to how many good or bad things they do? Someone else brought up the idea of someone who praises one child and beats another. If we're counting good and bad, then maybe that person is neither good nor bad. If we ask whether a person causes unnecessary suffering, then that father may be considered evil, or at least not omnibenevolent.

God also causes good things, but I don't see that as a slam dunk against the atheists who claim that God is evil, so much as beside the point.

It seems to me unlikely (although I agree with Plantinga, not logically impossible) that the only possible way to ensure human freedoms is to allow bone cancer in children. I can see how the argument works if it is good to allow a person the freedom to shoot another person, but to include earthquakes in that, humans must have some impact on the earthquakes and if freedom is to be invoked, I would argue that it requires deliberate impact. Someone must use their freedom to put bone cancer in children. That bit strikes me as at best pretty tin-foil-hat-ty. You could even make the argument that human suffering is good, that consideration also shows that the logical problem of evil has flaws.

Plantinga's defence is reasonable in the sense that it shows that the logical problem of evil is not water tight, but it doesn't really provide any persuasive paths out of it.

I don't think even Plantinga's argument should be interpreted as God not causing unnecessary suffering, God still deliberately created the circumstances under which suffering is inevitable. What Plantinga argues is that God's omnibenevolence values human freedom (and freedom of the demons who cause earth quakes and cancer) above the avoidance of suffering and death.

If we are judged based on our free will, does that mean that any Christians who are convinced enough to not commit sins are actually robbed of their freedom? If the argument is that freedom is meaningless unless there is a substantial alternative to "goodness", then convincing someone of this theology is to rob them of their actualisable free will, which apparently has more moral worth than even life and limb.

In a sense, Plantinga solves the logical problem of evil by redefining good away from the common understanding of good to a different one (apparently exercising your freedom to shoot an innocent is an expression of God's goodness). This isn't really a logical problem, but it highlights how subjective morality is, even among those who claim it not to be subjective.

Largely, we understand the reasons why Duty to Rescue laws tend to be a bad idea. It requires a person to make all sorts of judgements which people in a stressful situation may not be expected to do right. They have to assess the danger of the situation, they have to assess whether they're being tricked, etc.. However, an omniscient god should have none of those problems.

There is also the issue that the law is not equal to morality, the law states that I am allowed to watch a perfectly saveable person get run over by a train, but that's not to say it is morally defensible.

 

That would be interesting and a refreshing change from the endless atheist bashing threads.

 

Some theist's view of God too. That's my point. You're making a big thing about (some) atheists not acknowledging the idea of God being responsible for good things but at the same time you're ignoring the significance of accepting God being directly responsible for some evil things too.

Put simply, there is no conflict between someone accepting the concept of a God who does both good and evil and them not believing in the existence of that God or even declaring that God a bad thing in general. There is a conflict between someone accepting the concept of a God who does both good and evil and them believing that God is omnipotent, omniscient and, significantly, benevolent, loving and perfect.

Again, I'm not sure that is consistent with the idea of the world being (or ever having been) perfect. It's perfectly viable within itself, I'm just not convinced it's consistent with the surround theology.

Kind of a side point, but how do you know what God is willing to accept? Are humans able to know the mind of God now?

Unless they grew up in very isolated environments, they will have still had the wider influence of society around them, shaping those views, if only subconsciously. Maybe it would have been more accurate if I'd said nobody has an independent perception of God. We're all influenced by our upbringing and social environment, regardless of what we end up believing as a consequence.

And that could be a valid point but do you also challenge believers who never accept that God would be responsible for all the evil in the world too? Isn't that, after all, the root cause of this issue? Those atheists are responding to theists who push to credit God with all the good things in the world but dismiss all the bad things as a consequence of human free will. I see the latter as a much more significant inconsistency, especially given that the atheists are talking about an abstract concept that don't actually believe whereas the theists are presenting their ideas of how the world actually works.

 

I disagree.

What I wrote has zero to do with the Fallacy of an Appeal To Popularity.
And zero to do with 5 billion people deciding to cut off their noses.

You personally could, if you wanted to, make the claim that "There is not
one shred of evidence for {God's} existence. Not a single one. Nothing"
That would be no more than what YOU claim to be true. You cannot speak
for humanity. And you are not the final authority that has the power to
decide if there are, or are not, valid arguments for the existence of God.

Neither am I.

I, like you, can only say that there are valid arguments for the existence of
God that I personally find to be valid arguments.

{However, I do NOT believe that there are any arguments for the
existence of God that rise to the certainty-level of 2 + 2 = 4 -- which
would mean that FAITH would be eliminated from Christianity.
And that would wreck Christianity because Christianity IS a FAITH.
"without faith it is impossible to please God" Hebrews 11:6 . . .and
"for by grace are you saved through faith" Eph. 2:8}

Back to you . . .

If you did make that claim and if you wished to be correct and accurate
you need to make it clear that "There is not one shred of evidence of
{God's} existence. Not a single one. Nothing" that convinces you
personally.

If you said that you would be correct.

But you do not have the power or the authority to decide for the world's
some 5 billion Theists that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

Just as I have no power or authority to decide for the world's atheists that
there ARE valid arguments for the existence of God.

__________

Intelligent Design.
Here below is part of The Teleological Argument for the existence of God.
You don't have the authority or the power to decide if this argument
is valid or invalid -- the most you can say is that you personally do not
believe the argument is a valid argument.

Vise versa. The same is true for me

Start quote.

5. The Design Argument
This sort of argument is of wide and perennial appeal. Almost everyone admits that reflection on the order and beauty of nature touches something very deep within us. But are the order and beauty the product of intelligent design and conscious purpose? For theists the answer is yes. Arguments for design are attempts to vindicate this answer, to show why it is the most reasonable one to give. They have been formulated in ways as richly varied as the experience in which they are rooted. The following displays the core or central insight.

1. The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end—for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health. (See also argument 8.)
2. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
3. Not chance.
4. Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.
5. Design comes only from a mind, a designer.
6. Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#5
End quote.
_________

 

Swensson, just a note to say thank you for your interesting
and informative comments. There is to much going on here
right now for me to have time to compose 1/2 way intelligent
responses to what is being posted. Thanks again for taking
the time to respond to my posts. I will reply as time permits.

 

HonestJoe, same note to you.
Just a word to say thank you for your interesting
and informative comments. There is to much going on here
right now for me to have time to compose 1/2 way intelligent
responses to what is being posted. Thanks again for taking
the time to respond to my posts. I will reply as time permits.

 

One word renders this useless................................................................

Anthropomorphism
I. What is Anthropomorphism?
Anthropomorphism (pronounced ann-throw-poe-MORF-ism) is giving human traits or attributes to animals, inanimate objects or other non-human things. It comes from the Greek words anthropo (human) and morph (form).
​

 

Agreed. It is not a slam dunk against atheists who claim that God is evil.

I believe Plantinga would fully agree with you on that. I know I do agree with
you on that.

My view is that The Problem Of Evil as presented by Epicurus
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not Omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither able or willing? Then why call Him God?"__Epicurus. . .

, , , cannot be solved with rational argumentation. The Problem Of Evil
is in the Realm Of The Supernatural and therefore cannot be solved with
empiricism. Christianity is a FAITH, it is not an intellectual system.

I recall reading somewhere that Alvin Plantinga did not claim to have
demonstrated anything other than to show that God's Goodness and
His Omnipotence was not contradictory. So? So Plantinga did not
claim to have solved The Problem Of Evil.

For example Earthquakes and bone cancer in children. The only way
to reconcile the Goodness of God and God's Omnipotence with regard
to Earthquakes and cancer is to present explanations based upon faith.

And this immediately takes us back to the Bible and to The Fall of man
into Sin. So? So the logical answer is there is no logical answer. A man
will either {1} choose to embrace faith based answers or {2} choose not to
embrace faith based answers. It is utterly impossible to use logic to prove
that the reason we have natural disasters on Earth is because mankind
used his Free Will and plunged into Sin. Why? Because the very word
"sin" requires one to exercise faith. How so? Because "sin" is committed
against God.

If you asked me to use empiricism to demonstrate to you that there was
in fact any such thing as "sin", I would obviously not be able to do that.

"Sin", as a concept, cannot be tested or measured or examined. All the
"sinful" behavior in the world can be explained as "evil" or "immoral"
behavior without reference to God. So? So the existence of "sin" is a
faith belief.

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who
comes to Him must believe that He exists and that he rewards those
who earnestly seek Him."__Hebrews 11:6

Later . . .

_____________

Thought For Today:
"Such is the nature of evil. Out there in the vast ignorance of the world
it festers and spreads. A shadow that grows in the dark. A sleepless
malice as black as the oncoming wall of night. So it ever was. So will
it always be. In time all foul things come forth."___Thanduil, the Elvin King
of Mirkwood.




`

 

JAG Previously Wrote:
"God is willing to have "acceptable losses" {some perish} in order
to have untold billions inherit eternal life."__JAG

HonestJoe Replied:
"Kind of a side point, but how do you know what God is willing
to accept? Are humans able to know the mind of God now?"__HonestJoe

JAG Responds With:
On Christian lights, humans can know the mind of God as it is revealed
in the Bible, and my view is that the Bible teaches that God was/is willing
to have "acceptable losses" in order to have untold billions inherent
eternal life. How so? Because the entire Bible is written on that assumption.

For example, Christendom's most famous Bible verse John 3:16 assumes
that is true. "For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son
that whosoever believes in Him might not perish, but have eternal life."
Note the two (2) categories:
{1} Those who perish.
{2) Those who have eternal life..

Question: How do we know that {2} Those who have eternal life, will far
outnumber those {1} Those who perish ?

Answer: Because the Bible makes it clear that the final number
of the saved will be like the stars in the sky and like the grains of
sand on the seashore --- my view is that before human history
finally comes to an end, that there will have been untold hundreds
and hundreds of billions of the redeemed born into this world and
saved. The final number of the saved in Revelation at the end of
human history is said to be a number so large that no man can
count them.

If you are interested in these numbers . . .

I wrote an Opening Post here at PF titled
"Christians To Become As Numerous As The Stars In The Sky"
that presents some of the Biblical evidence demonstrating that
the number of the finally saved will be HUGE ENORMOUS;
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-stars-in-the-sky-yes.572848/#post-1071711631

____


By the way, there is floating around on the Internet the stat
that says there has been about 107 billion people that have
been born on the Earth to date. I just mentioned that as a
point of interest.

There are untold hundreds and hundreds of billions yet coming . .



`

 

I'm not ignoring it. I just don't believe it. The Bible teaches clearly that
it was fallen humanity that was directly responsible for all the evil in
the world. You know what it teaches:
{1} God made a perfect world.
{2} God made man.
{3} God gave man a Free Will.
{4} Man used his Free Will to choose sin.
{5} Sin corrupted man and brought such as Aging, Cancer, and Death into the world.
{6} Sin corrupted the world and brought such things as Earthquakes and Tsunamis into the world.

Question: Can any of that be demonstrated true using empiricism? Answer: No
Christianity is a faith. Not an intellectual system.

______________


Thought For Today:

"Life with God is not immunity from difficulties, but peace in difficulties."__C.S. Lewis


`

 

The question of evil usually goes like this.

If God is all-powerful all loving and all-knowing the suffering should not exist.

if he is all-powerful he should be able to end suffering if he is all-knowing he should know house in suffering if he is all loving he should one in suffering the existence of suffering proves that one of these or all of these is not true.

If he is willing but not able he is not all-powerful.
If he is able but not willing in his evil.

 

He is whatever humans choose to define Him as. They’re overall opinion of God will reflect on their own material existence.

 

This is all assuming that God has exclusively benign attributes.

 

There is no inconsistency if it is originally assumed that God has both benign and rogue attributes.

 

No, it’s simply a case of humans being limited in their perception of reality, and thus ending up thinking mostly in terms of bad (which causes more bad). God is all-Good, but it’s up to man to figure out to how much he can manifest this goodness in material existence.

 

Exactly. I'd imagine a miniscule percentage of atheists think about gods omnipotence in the Christian doctrine.

I'm an atheist and I rarely think about Christianity at all. I know some Christian doctrine from my youth, but I never think about the concept of God's omnipotence. Whether an imaginary God is imaginary omnipotent or hasn't warranted even a moment of my time in the last 20 years.

 

You are agnostic about the existence of Bigfoot??? Okay. I'm a strong Bigfoot atheist.

 

Of course, as He is all-Good. There’s no way our good choices can’t invariably be referred back to Him, as He is the very source of Goodness.

Evil is a lack of Goodness, and comes from ego. The ego does not worship God, but itself, and ergo, evil deeds always return back to their sender.

 

Why? To believe that you have to have evidence of his non existence. Otherwise you disbelieve in him(it) by purely blind faith.

 

LOL

Can ya just see allen down on his knees prayin' to the mighty Baal...