As much as I love Carlin . . . his "Religion is Bullshit" routine is incredibly offensive to the truly devout. Not only that, but he uses his Jesuit education to, once again, pick and choose his shots so as to ridicule something that a great many people hold dear.
Fine tuning argument still stumbling for you? Don't worry atheism doesn't have an answer to the fine balancing of the universe and it's perfect harmony to sustain life. They can't even come close to duplicating it in any lab on any scale, they just accept it by faith and teach it in science class as science.
Take your time.
Science may not have all the answers yet. But don't think they aren't making progress in their search. I believe it is only a matter of time and, as extraordinary as it sounds, they will be able to create life in a lab.
When that happens, doesn't that immediately disprove God? More personally, if Man can recreate something that you feel is solely the work of a God, does that in your mind cast doubt on the existence of God?
As much as I love Carlin . . . his "Religion is Bullshit" routine is incredibly offensive to the truly devout. Not only that, but he uses his Jesuit education to, once again, pick and choose his shots so as to ridicule something that a great many people hold dear.
It may get laughs, but it isn't very funny.
So if something is popular it isn't worth making fun of?/it's off limits? I think Carlin uses his mind to realize that what he was "taught" isn't what he believes....or for that matter what is reality. Is "truly devout" less likely to see reason? Seems that way some times.
So if something is popular it isn't worth making fun of?/it's off limits? I think Carlin uses his mind to realize that what he was "taught" isn't what he believes....or for that matter what is reality. Is "truly devout" less likely to see reason? Seems that way some times.
I did not say that at all . . . personally, I find it hilarious. But I take it for what it is . . . namely a comic using his upbringing as source material for his schtick. It impacts my beliefs not one bit, because I know he is parsing his past to suit his present, at least in terms of getting laughs.
As for "reason", there are plenty of atheists who lack that quality as well.
"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
Excellent reference. And indeed the same man who wrote:
Colluphid uses the Babel fish as an argument for intelligent design (or - and there are some subtle differences here) in a version of the so-called teleological argument for God's existence. But Colluphid then goes further - using the existence of the Babel fish to try to prove that God does not exist.
The whole argument runs, roughly, as follows.
(1) God refuses to prove that (S)He exists because proof denies faith and without faith God is nothing.
(2) Man then counters that the Babel fish is a dead giveaway because it could not have evolved by chance. So the fish proves that God exists - but hence also, by God's own reasoning (see 1) that God does not exist.
(3) God says that (S)He hadn't thought of that (hadn't thought of 2) and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
It should be noted that most leading theologians (together with the original author of this article) think that Colluphid's argument is "a load of dingo's kidneys."
Two things: I really need to reread HHGTTG; and this is the argument I think of every time an atheist claims not to believe in God because there's no proof. Duh, He can't prove he exists!
The Intelligent Design theory (as it is known nowadays) stems from the teleological argument for the existence of God. This argument is as follows:
1. All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
2. These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
3. Acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence.
4. Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends.
5. This being is what we call God.
Basically, this argument is suggesting that since there is some form of intelligent design in the world, there must be some kind of intelligent designer who created it. This argument is based on empirical evidence of human-like design as seen in nature. One common example is the creation of the eye organ and its complex design.
First of all, we must consider how theists establish this argument - they take empirical evidence from the world around them. Now, how do they make the distinction of ‘something that is designed’? They use nature as the basis of comparison and they distinguish between designed objects or artefacts and natural objects. Now herein is where we see the problem with the basic logic of the intelligent design theory: it supposes the presence of design only in that it differs from natural characteristics, and in doing so, it destroys the basis that is used to distinguish between designed artefacts and natural objects (credited to George H. Smith). Basically, it uses its conclusion as one of its premises and that’s a big no-no in logic.
Another problem from an empirical perspective is that theists are greatly assuming that this notion of design does in fact exist in nature. Again, the notion of ‘something that is designed’ comes from human understanding of witnessing the creation of man-made objects. Arguably, since we cannot see the creation of the universe, it is problematic for theists to suggest that it was a result of design. Hence, the two can’t be compared in the same way. Furthermore, humans have access to an extremely minute experience of the universe, and, therefore, it is possible that even though what we’ve experienced seems like there is an order, there could definitely be chaos in other parts of the universe (or even an underlying chaos as can be seen in quantum physics). (credited to David Hume)
Finally, even if we were to admit to the theist that there is intelligent design in the universe, it doesn’t necessarily follow that there must be an intelligent designer who created the universe. For example, it’s entirely possible that order in nature is due to nature alone. That is, there is a principle of order that is necessarily a part of nature and nature itself could not exist without this form of order. And even if we just assumed that there was a designer of the universe, the theory does not support an omniscient, omnipotent being in any way. The designer could easily have been flawed or defective. Also, there is no certainty that only one designer was needed. The theory does not eliminate the possibility of multiple deities or designers.
So, I’ll ask you again: does intelligent design lead to the existence of God or does it just merely suggest how our human brains function in order to establish understanding by attempting (and failing) to extrapolate our human experiences onto an alleged infinite being? I’ll let your stupid human brain decide.
I may do a part 4 about the problem of evil as well.
Part 4: If God Exists Then Innocent Babies Must Die! (and God doesn’t care)
In order to discuss the problem of evil, certain stipulations must be agreed upon. First of all, this argument focuses on the idea of an omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), omni-benevolent (all good) God who is able to influence the world (for example through miracles). If your definition of God differs from this, then there is most likely no issue with the problem of evil. It is important to note that if any of these characteristics are removed, then this “ultimate being” is no longer considered "God".
The problem of evil argues that this notion of God is incompatible with the existence of evil in the world. Since we generally agree that there is evil in the world, it follows that God (as described above) cannot also exist (if anyone would like to argue there is no evil in the world, I’d love to hear it!). With these stipulations settled, we can move on.
The original problem of evil came from Epicurus and can be basically summed up in the following:
God is omnipotent.
God is omni-benevolent.
Evil exists in the world.
Only two out of the three statements above can be compatible with each other at any one time.
For example, if evil exists in the world and God is omnipotent (i.e. he has the power to rid the world of evil), then God must not be omni-benevolent since he is allowing this evil to exist. Another example is if evil exists in the world and God is omni-benevolent (i.e. he is infinitely good), then God must not be omnipotent as he must be unable to rid the world of evil. In both cases, the theist would have to disagree as God must be both infinitely powerful and infinitely good. So then why do innocent, baby kittens ever die?
To combat this argument, the theist would suggest that the only reason evil exists in the world is due to us humans. Through our freedom of will, we create evil as we have the choice to either do good or do evil. Moreover, this is necessarily so as without this freedom of choice there would be no such thing as moral good since there would be no proper choice between good and evil. Basically, God is testing us and giving us the options and most of us just keep choosing evil, and therefore we bring the evil into this world, not God.
The major flaw in this reasoning is that God is also omniscient. That is, God knows all, past and future. Therefore, before God even created humans, he knew he’d supply them with free will. He also knew that he would give humans the choice between good and evil. Therefore, he knew that many (if not most) people would choose to be evil. As a result, he consciously unleashed evil into this world as he gave us the ability to choose, he supplied us with the only possible choices, and he knew ahead of time that most of us would choose evil over good, yet he still followed through with his plan. Hence, God is in fact responsible for bringing evil into the world (which negates his omni-benevolence and therefore negates his existence).
Now even if theists are able to argue around this point, there are still further issues with respect to the problem of evil as the above only relates to human choice. However, there are other evils in the world that occur that are arguably not a result of human choice. The common example that is referenced is the Lisbon earthquake in which the entire town of Lisbon was suddenly and utterly destroyed. Up to 100,000 people were killed. Now why would God allow this evil to occur outside of any human’s freedom of choice? How is a natural disaster that kills thousands and thousands of people a necessary evil?
The common philosophical example comes from William Rowe and is referred to as “Rowe’s Fawn”. Pretend there is a cute, innocent, little fawn walking through the forest. Suddenly, a tree next to the fawn falls over crushing the fawn’s leg and breaking it. The fawn cannot get up or move and just lies there for days and days in agony until it eventually starves to death. Obviously, it is practically impossible to argue that this was caused by free will of humans creating evil. Furthermore, how does the suffering of this poor fawn lead to any greater good (another of the theist’s arguments for the existence of evil)? In fact, what benefit of any kind could come from this evil?
In summary, the existence of evil in the world runs in complete contrast to the existence of God. The only way God can exist alongside evil is if he is malevolent or he is limited in his power, and since God cannot be either of those things, and evil does in fact exist in the world, we can conclude that there is no God.
Nice post Trig, you are well read, this much I know.
The problem of evil in this world can certain prove to be a stumbling block for many people in their quest to know God. Some who claim to have found God at some point in their life, only to reject Him later as in their own mind they can’t understand why God, as Trig has described, allow evil and suffering. This is true of Dr. Bart Ehrman, professor of Religious Studies at North Carolina and NY Times bestselling author of books such as Mis Quoting Jesus and God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer. He says he was a born again Christian but chose to give back his faith because in his mind, the Bible fails to answer the question of evil and suffering.
I don’t believe there is a simple answer to this question. Certainly not one to satisfy everyone. In talking with seminary students who are trying to make sense of this question I think honesty is the best policy. In truth, it is not my responsibility to explain this question to the satisfactory of everyone who asks it. It can’t be done. In fact, if I could answer this question to the satisfaction, that would make sense, to a sinful degenerate man, would I not be God?
Nik likes to bring up the Old Testament and his point is a valid one. When Israel takes the promise land through the violence of war. They were given clear directives. “No one is to remain alive”, including woman and children and all their livestock. Burn it to the ground. Pretty harsh from an all loving God no? It is in the Bible therefore it has to be dealt with, the truth however, doesn’t make sense. One can talk about free will of man, but in reality God wipes out generations of people, nations in fact, because of their disobedience. How can man possible understand this? Who said man purpose is happiness at all cost, or even any cost for that matter? The bible clearly states that man’s purpose is to enjoy God and glorify Him forever.
One day it will all make sense, the question of evil and suffering, I am just not the one who has to explain it.
In reality, I believe in fact that because there is evil, it is an indication there is a God.
Proof of God from the question of evil?
1. If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist
2. Evil exists
3. Therefore objective moral values exist
4. Therefore God exists
Everyone in this world hinges their belief on something, Bart Ehrman chose to deny there is a God based on evil and suffering. I chose not to let that get in the way of what I do know to be true and leave God to answer the question of evil and suffering to Him.
What is part 5 going to be -- Denial of the Resurrection? This one we can banter back and forth, and please don't use John Dominic Crossan, Robert Price, Robert Funk and Marcus Borg.
just to play devil's advocate (against my side), i always found the most difficult argument to get around is the cosmological argument (i.e. God as the first cause). granted, it doesn't prove the type of God religion talks about, but i find it very difficult to argue that there was absolutely nothing and then suddenly there was something. there has to be a first cause which has no cause itself and is therefore infinite (or at least exists outside of time).
not sure about a part 5 yet or if there will be one. not going to try and deny the resurrection though lol.
just to play devil's advocate (against my side), i always found the most difficult argument to get around is the cosmological argument (i.e. God as the first cause). granted, it doesn't prove the type of God religion talks about, but i find it very difficult to argue that there was absolutely nothing and then suddenly there was something. there has to be a first cause which has no cause itself and is therefore infinite (or at least exists outside of time).
not sure about a part 5 yet or if there will be one. not going to try and deny the resurrection though lol.
True, for me the cosmological argument is equal to the fine tuning argument. You have approached this thread with class, insight and well research arguments. It has been a pleasure to discuss in an open forum like this without making it personal. I hope our paths cross one day.
I like how this thread is going with well thought out responses and debate..
My personal believe that there are parts of both sides of the equation that are correct and that they can co-exist. We just don't know at this point and for that matter may not ever know.
I like how this thread is going with well thought out responses and debate..
My personal believe that there are parts of both sides of the equation that are correct and that they can co-exist. We just don't know at this point and for that matter may not ever know.
definitely something we may never know for sure, hence why i reserve judgement and consider myself an agnostic.
EDIT: btw, not sure if i mentioned this before but i think it's important. i remember the first time i heard this and it definitely made me change my mind about certain things.
theists will believe in God even if shown proof that he doesn't exist. atheists won't believe in God even if shown proof of his existence. agnostics are undecided and when presented with indisputable facts they are able to decide on one way or the other. i haven't been presented with such facts for either side...yet.
i'm curious as to whether anyone has ever read the writings of baruch spinoza, aka benedict de spinoza (one of my favourite philosophers!) or have ever heard of his theories.
he has quite a convincing argument (although quite bland and boring i'll admit) about the nature of reality. he argues that god, nature, the universe, substance (he defines substance different than just matter) are all one and the same. everything in existence is actually just one whole entity. that is, there is only one, single, fundamental substance in the world and all "lesser entities" are just modes of the whole. think of it like being a cog in a giant machine. it is small compared to the whole entity and may not seem important, yet remove it and the whole machine breaks down.
he argues that everything is controlled by natural laws and causality. however, we are not able to fully see or understand the chain of cause and effect as it is too complex (hence we think we have free will because we just can't understand).
i could blab on but it's probably better to read up on him yourself if interested. his wiki page is decent (check out the substance, attributes and modes section), and you can read his whole book, ethics, as well.
even the theists might enjoy it as it pretty much argues that "god" is everything and that we are just parts of this "god".
The Roman Catholic version of God does not promise a perfect "life". He promises a perfect eternity for those who follow His teachings. Evil and suffering in this life are irrelevant to the perfection of an eternity in God's presence.
People take Bill O'Reilly seriously? He's nothing but a clown who likes to sexually harass women.
Yes people take him seriously.
"He anchors the highest-rated news program on cable.
In the 65 weeks since “Killing Lincoln” was released in fall 2011, Mr. O’Reilly has owned territory near the top of The New York Times’s best-seller list for hardcover nonfiction.
It would have been an extraordinary run by itself, but in October he released “Killing Kennedy,” which has since sold about one million copies. For the last full week of the year he snagged both the No. 1 and 2 spots on the list, a rare feat."
Bill calls himself a historian and writes a book about the Killing of Jesus the same time Joseph Atwill writes a paper claiming the Jesus of Nazareth was a made up person.
I find it ironic and wonder who the people will side with.
Oh, he writes books. That's great. Hitler wrote a best selling book too. Also, there has been a lot of criticism of his books, including allegations of inaccuracies and factual errors. Kind of like his show. That's the thing about Fox News and the people who work there. They are under no obligation to ever tell the truth. I imagine his new book will be no different.
He's also a sexual deviant who likes to harass women. That is not cool.
As for Atwill, he is just an author too, out to sell books. His whole premise is exploded by asking one question: if the Romans made up Jesus and Christianity and wanted to encourage its spread, why did they continue to persecute Christians for another 300 years?
Neither author should be taken seriously as being historically factual.
Oh, he writes books. That's great. Hitler wrote a best selling book too. Also, there has been a lot of criticism of his books, including allegations of inaccuracies and factual errors. Kind of like his show. That's the thing about Fox News and the people who work there. They are under no obligation to ever tell the truth. I imagine his new book will be no different.
He's also a sexual deviant who likes to harass women. That is not cool.
As for Atwill, he is just an author too, out to sell books. His whole premise is exploded by asking one question: if the Romans made up Jesus and Christianity and wanted to encourage its spread, why did they continue to persecute Christians for another 300 years?
Neither author should be taken seriously as being historically factual.
You are a hard guy to impress!
I would like to see the factual errors list you have compiled from reading his books Killing Kennedy and Lincoln.
I can't speak to the issue of sexual harassment, but it must be a fact if you read it on the internet. Maybe you could list them. But it seems to me those individuals are usually taken off the air. (unless your name is Rush Limbaugh)
Fox is no different the CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC etc, they all have their way of telling a story to their audience.
I also think it is relevant in these kinds of discussions to be able to put aside the person involved and look at the writings or arguments. You have dismissed it based on the name of the author alone especially when his co-author Martin Dugard does all the research and Reilly writes the narrative.
I would like to see the factual errors list you have compiled from reading his books Killing Kennedy and Lincoln.
I can't speak to the issue of sexual harassment, but it must be a fact if you read it on the internet. Maybe you could list them. But it seems to me those individuals are usually taken off the air. (unless your name is Rush Limbaugh)
Fox is no different the CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC etc, they all have their way of telling a story to their audience.
I also think it is relevant in these kinds of discussions to be able to put aside the person involved and look at the writings or arguments. You have dismissed it based on the name of the author alone especially when his co-author Martin Dugard does all the research and Reilly writes the narrative.
It is not up to me to prove it is NOT true. It is up to you to prove it IS true. I can't wait to read the list of facts that you have compiled to prove that his books are true.
As for the sexual harassment, he settled for millions of dollars before it went to court. It's safe to say he didn't want the facts to get out about that episode. But it is still out there and common knowledge.
It is not up to me to prove it is NOT true. It is up to you to prove it IS true. I can't wait to read the list of facts that you have compiled to prove that his books are true.
As for the sexual harassment, he settled for millions of dollars before it went to court. It's safe to say he didn't want the facts to get out about that episode. But it is still out there and common knowledge.
You don't get it. I don't have to prove anything! First you are the one that said his books are not historically accurate. Second, you have to have knowledge or faith in someone else research to prove his books are historically wrong. Third, I haven't read anything by O'Reilly so I don't have an opinion on his writings. Fourth, I will say it again. He writes a book about the "murder" of Jesus and another guy writes a paper that Jesus was a "made up story". Who's work will capture the imagination of the people. Clearly it is O'Reilly as you continue to talk about him and nothing about the arguments in his book. If I decide to read it, I will let you know what I think.
For me personally, I am interested in Atwill's paper. Just because Liberal or Conservative, Christian or Atheist, Muslim, or Mormon the percentage that believe there was NOT a man named Jesus of Nazareth who lived just over 2000 is very very small. So his paper peaks my interest more than O'Reilly's book. I have studied the crucifixion in detail and I don't think O'Reilly's book brings anything new to the table, although I could be wrong.
I am too busy to read either now. Report card time. Check back on the weekend.
Brent
PS don't have time to look for the sex stuff either. I don't even watch O'Reilly. But agree he shouldn't sexually harass anyone.
O'Reilly was sued on at least one occasion (with, iirc, multiple complainants) for harassment, and the case was settled. I am willing to bet that said settlement involved a withdrawal of charges, so that he did not have to register as a sexual offender. He did lose his job at the time (Inside Edition?) and took several years before returning to the mainstream on Fox.
As for who needs to prove what, If I say that the sky is "blue", and someone disagrees, isn't the onus on that person to provide a counterargument to my assertion?
So, if I assert that Atwill is rehashing a long established trope as allegedly "new" data, then doesn't the onus fall on his supporters to provide evidence of my being incorrect?
I thought we were talking about the credibility of Bill O'Reilly? Experts have read his books and pointed out the factual errors. If you say they are not errors, then please explain your reasoning. Factual errors equals no credibility in my book. Maybe not yours, but that's your opinion.
One of the bigger mistakes in his 325-page book is a reference to Lincoln doing business in the Oval Office when in fact no such room existed in the White House until almost a half century after he was shot.
“I didn’t think my people should be reading it and getting ill advised,” said owner Daniel Weinberg, who described the book as “almost more novelized than it is true history.”
Comments
It may get laughs, but it isn't very funny.
Science may not have all the answers yet. But don't think they aren't making progress in their search. I believe it is only a matter of time and, as extraordinary as it sounds, they will be able to create life in a lab.
When that happens, doesn't that immediately disprove God? More personally, if Man can recreate something that you feel is solely the work of a God, does that in your mind cast doubt on the existence of God?
Astrochemists Explore Origins of Life
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/science/space/a-far-flung-possibility-for-the-origin-of-life.html
So if something is popular it isn't worth making fun of?/it's off limits? I think Carlin uses his mind to realize that what he was "taught" isn't what he believes....or for that matter what is reality. Is "truly devout" less likely to see reason? Seems that way some times.
I did not say that at all . . . personally, I find it hilarious. But I take it for what it is . . . namely a comic using his upbringing as source material for his schtick. It impacts my beliefs not one bit, because I know he is parsing his past to suit his present, at least in terms of getting laughs.
As for "reason", there are plenty of atheists who lack that quality as well.
Colluphid uses the Babel fish as an argument for intelligent design (or - and there are some subtle differences here) in a version of the so-called teleological argument for God's existence. But Colluphid then goes further - using the existence of the Babel fish to try to prove that God does not exist.
The whole argument runs, roughly, as follows.
(1) God refuses to prove that (S)He exists because proof denies faith and without faith God is nothing.
(2) Man then counters that the Babel fish is a dead giveaway because it could not have evolved by chance. So the fish proves that God exists - but hence also, by God's own reasoning (see 1) that God does not exist.
(3) God says that (S)He hadn't thought of that (hadn't thought of 2) and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
It should be noted that most leading theologians (together with the original author of this article) think that Colluphid's argument is "a load of dingo's kidneys."
Two things: I really need to reread HHGTTG; and this is the argument I think of every time an atheist claims not to believe in God because there's no proof. Duh, He can't prove he exists!
The Intelligent Design theory (as it is known nowadays) stems from the teleological argument for the existence of God. This argument is as follows:
1. All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
2. These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
3. Acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence.
4. Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends.
5. This being is what we call God.
Basically, this argument is suggesting that since there is some form of intelligent design in the world, there must be some kind of intelligent designer who created it. This argument is based on empirical evidence of human-like design as seen in nature. One common example is the creation of the eye organ and its complex design.
First of all, we must consider how theists establish this argument - they take empirical evidence from the world around them. Now, how do they make the distinction of ‘something that is designed’? They use nature as the basis of comparison and they distinguish between designed objects or artefacts and natural objects. Now herein is where we see the problem with the basic logic of the intelligent design theory: it supposes the presence of design only in that it differs from natural characteristics, and in doing so, it destroys the basis that is used to distinguish between designed artefacts and natural objects (credited to George H. Smith). Basically, it uses its conclusion as one of its premises and that’s a big no-no in logic.
Another problem from an empirical perspective is that theists are greatly assuming that this notion of design does in fact exist in nature. Again, the notion of ‘something that is designed’ comes from human understanding of witnessing the creation of man-made objects. Arguably, since we cannot see the creation of the universe, it is problematic for theists to suggest that it was a result of design. Hence, the two can’t be compared in the same way. Furthermore, humans have access to an extremely minute experience of the universe, and, therefore, it is possible that even though what we’ve experienced seems like there is an order, there could definitely be chaos in other parts of the universe (or even an underlying chaos as can be seen in quantum physics). (credited to David Hume)
Finally, even if we were to admit to the theist that there is intelligent design in the universe, it doesn’t necessarily follow that there must be an intelligent designer who created the universe. For example, it’s entirely possible that order in nature is due to nature alone. That is, there is a principle of order that is necessarily a part of nature and nature itself could not exist without this form of order. And even if we just assumed that there was a designer of the universe, the theory does not support an omniscient, omnipotent being in any way. The designer could easily have been flawed or defective. Also, there is no certainty that only one designer was needed. The theory does not eliminate the possibility of multiple deities or designers.
So, I’ll ask you again: does intelligent design lead to the existence of God or does it just merely suggest how our human brains function in order to establish understanding by attempting (and failing) to extrapolate our human experiences onto an alleged infinite being? I’ll let your stupid human brain decide.
I may do a part 4 about the problem of evil as well.
In order to discuss the problem of evil, certain stipulations must be agreed upon. First of all, this argument focuses on the idea of an omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), omni-benevolent (all good) God who is able to influence the world (for example through miracles). If your definition of God differs from this, then there is most likely no issue with the problem of evil. It is important to note that if any of these characteristics are removed, then this “ultimate being” is no longer considered "God".
The problem of evil argues that this notion of God is incompatible with the existence of evil in the world. Since we generally agree that there is evil in the world, it follows that God (as described above) cannot also exist (if anyone would like to argue there is no evil in the world, I’d love to hear it!). With these stipulations settled, we can move on.
The original problem of evil came from Epicurus and can be basically summed up in the following:
- God is omnipotent.
- God is omni-benevolent.
- Evil exists in the world.
Only two out of the three statements above can be compatible with each other at any one time.For example, if evil exists in the world and God is omnipotent (i.e. he has the power to rid the world of evil), then God must not be omni-benevolent since he is allowing this evil to exist. Another example is if evil exists in the world and God is omni-benevolent (i.e. he is infinitely good), then God must not be omnipotent as he must be unable to rid the world of evil. In both cases, the theist would have to disagree as God must be both infinitely powerful and infinitely good. So then why do innocent, baby kittens ever die?
To combat this argument, the theist would suggest that the only reason evil exists in the world is due to us humans. Through our freedom of will, we create evil as we have the choice to either do good or do evil. Moreover, this is necessarily so as without this freedom of choice there would be no such thing as moral good since there would be no proper choice between good and evil. Basically, God is testing us and giving us the options and most of us just keep choosing evil, and therefore we bring the evil into this world, not God.
The major flaw in this reasoning is that God is also omniscient. That is, God knows all, past and future. Therefore, before God even created humans, he knew he’d supply them with free will. He also knew that he would give humans the choice between good and evil. Therefore, he knew that many (if not most) people would choose to be evil. As a result, he consciously unleashed evil into this world as he gave us the ability to choose, he supplied us with the only possible choices, and he knew ahead of time that most of us would choose evil over good, yet he still followed through with his plan. Hence, God is in fact responsible for bringing evil into the world (which negates his omni-benevolence and therefore negates his existence).
Now even if theists are able to argue around this point, there are still further issues with respect to the problem of evil as the above only relates to human choice. However, there are other evils in the world that occur that are arguably not a result of human choice. The common example that is referenced is the Lisbon earthquake in which the entire town of Lisbon was suddenly and utterly destroyed. Up to 100,000 people were killed. Now why would God allow this evil to occur outside of any human’s freedom of choice? How is a natural disaster that kills thousands and thousands of people a necessary evil?
The common philosophical example comes from William Rowe and is referred to as “Rowe’s Fawn”. Pretend there is a cute, innocent, little fawn walking through the forest. Suddenly, a tree next to the fawn falls over crushing the fawn’s leg and breaking it. The fawn cannot get up or move and just lies there for days and days in agony until it eventually starves to death. Obviously, it is practically impossible to argue that this was caused by free will of humans creating evil. Furthermore, how does the suffering of this poor fawn lead to any greater good (another of the theist’s arguments for the existence of evil)? In fact, what benefit of any kind could come from this evil?
In summary, the existence of evil in the world runs in complete contrast to the existence of God. The only way God can exist alongside evil is if he is malevolent or he is limited in his power, and since God cannot be either of those things, and evil does in fact exist in the world, we can conclude that there is no God.
The problem of evil in this world can certain prove to be a stumbling block for many people in their quest to know God. Some who claim to have found God at some point in their life, only to reject Him later as in their own mind they can’t understand why God, as Trig has described, allow evil and suffering. This is true of Dr. Bart Ehrman, professor of Religious Studies at North Carolina and NY Times bestselling author of books such as Mis Quoting Jesus and God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer. He says he was a born again Christian but chose to give back his faith because in his mind, the Bible fails to answer the question of evil and suffering.
I don’t believe there is a simple answer to this question. Certainly not one to satisfy everyone. In talking with seminary students who are trying to make sense of this question I think honesty is the best policy. In truth, it is not my responsibility to explain this question to the satisfactory of everyone who asks it. It can’t be done. In fact, if I could answer this question to the satisfaction, that would make sense, to a sinful degenerate man, would I not be God?
Nik likes to bring up the Old Testament and his point is a valid one. When Israel takes the promise land through the violence of war. They were given clear directives. “No one is to remain alive”, including woman and children and all their livestock. Burn it to the ground. Pretty harsh from an all loving God no? It is in the Bible therefore it has to be dealt with, the truth however, doesn’t make sense. One can talk about free will of man, but in reality God wipes out generations of people, nations in fact, because of their disobedience. How can man possible understand this? Who said man purpose is happiness at all cost, or even any cost for that matter? The bible clearly states that man’s purpose is to enjoy God and glorify Him forever.
One day it will all make sense, the question of evil and suffering, I am just not the one who has to explain it.
In reality, I believe in fact that because there is evil, it is an indication there is a God.
Proof of God from the question of evil?
1. If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist
2. Evil exists
3. Therefore objective moral values exist
4. Therefore God exists
Everyone in this world hinges their belief on something, Bart Ehrman chose to deny there is a God based on evil and suffering. I chose not to let that get in the way of what I do know to be true and leave God to answer the question of evil and suffering to Him.
What is part 5 going to be -- Denial of the Resurrection? This one we can banter back and forth, and please don't use John Dominic Crossan, Robert Price, Robert Funk and Marcus Borg.
not sure about a part 5 yet or if there will be one. not going to try and deny the resurrection though lol.
True, for me the cosmological argument is equal to the fine tuning argument. You have approached this thread with class, insight and well research arguments. It has been a pleasure to discuss in an open forum like this without making it personal. I hope our paths cross one day.
Prophet22
My personal believe that there are parts of both sides of the equation that are correct and that they can co-exist. We just don't know at this point and for that matter may not ever know.
definitely something we may never know for sure, hence why i reserve judgement and consider myself an agnostic.
EDIT: btw, not sure if i mentioned this before but i think it's important. i remember the first time i heard this and it definitely made me change my mind about certain things.
theists will believe in God even if shown proof that he doesn't exist. atheists won't believe in God even if shown proof of his existence. agnostics are undecided and when presented with indisputable facts they are able to decide on one way or the other. i haven't been presented with such facts for either side...yet.
he has quite a convincing argument (although quite bland and boring i'll admit) about the nature of reality. he argues that god, nature, the universe, substance (he defines substance different than just matter) are all one and the same. everything in existence is actually just one whole entity. that is, there is only one, single, fundamental substance in the world and all "lesser entities" are just modes of the whole. think of it like being a cog in a giant machine. it is small compared to the whole entity and may not seem important, yet remove it and the whole machine breaks down.
he argues that everything is controlled by natural laws and causality. however, we are not able to fully see or understand the chain of cause and effect as it is too complex (hence we think we have free will because we just can't understand).
i could blab on but it's probably better to read up on him yourself if interested. his wiki page is decent (check out the substance, attributes and modes section), and you can read his whole book, ethics, as well.
even the theists might enjoy it as it pretty much argues that "god" is everything and that we are just parts of this "god".
Holy Trollers: How to argue about religion online – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs
Ok "peacemaker"!
Bill O'Reilly writes a book called Killing Jesus: A History.
Which one will be taken more seriously?
Yes people take him seriously.
Bill calls himself a historian and writes a book about the Killing of Jesus the same time Joseph Atwill writes a paper claiming the Jesus of Nazareth was a made up person.
I find it ironic and wonder who the people will side with.
He's also a sexual deviant who likes to harass women. That is not cool.
As for Atwill, he is just an author too, out to sell books. His whole premise is exploded by asking one question: if the Romans made up Jesus and Christianity and wanted to encourage its spread, why did they continue to persecute Christians for another 300 years?
Neither author should be taken seriously as being historically factual.
You are a hard guy to impress!
I would like to see the factual errors list you have compiled from reading his books Killing Kennedy and Lincoln.
I can't speak to the issue of sexual harassment, but it must be a fact if you read it on the internet. Maybe you could list them. But it seems to me those individuals are usually taken off the air. (unless your name is Rush Limbaugh)
Fox is no different the CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC etc, they all have their way of telling a story to their audience.
I also think it is relevant in these kinds of discussions to be able to put aside the person involved and look at the writings or arguments. You have dismissed it based on the name of the author alone especially when his co-author Martin Dugard does all the research and Reilly writes the narrative.
It is not up to me to prove it is NOT true. It is up to you to prove it IS true. I can't wait to read the list of facts that you have compiled to prove that his books are true.
As for the sexual harassment, he settled for millions of dollars before it went to court. It's safe to say he didn't want the facts to get out about that episode. But it is still out there and common knowledge.
You don't get it. I don't have to prove anything! First you are the one that said his books are not historically accurate. Second, you have to have knowledge or faith in someone else research to prove his books are historically wrong. Third, I haven't read anything by O'Reilly so I don't have an opinion on his writings. Fourth, I will say it again. He writes a book about the "murder" of Jesus and another guy writes a paper that Jesus was a "made up story". Who's work will capture the imagination of the people. Clearly it is O'Reilly as you continue to talk about him and nothing about the arguments in his book. If I decide to read it, I will let you know what I think.
For me personally, I am interested in Atwill's paper. Just because Liberal or Conservative, Christian or Atheist, Muslim, or Mormon the percentage that believe there was NOT a man named Jesus of Nazareth who lived just over 2000 is very very small. So his paper peaks my interest more than O'Reilly's book. I have studied the crucifixion in detail and I don't think O'Reilly's book brings anything new to the table, although I could be wrong.
I am too busy to read either now. Report card time. Check back on the weekend.
Brent
PS don't have time to look for the sex stuff either. I don't even watch O'Reilly. But agree he shouldn't sexually harass anyone.
As for who needs to prove what, If I say that the sky is "blue", and someone disagrees, isn't the onus on that person to provide a counterargument to my assertion?
So, if I assert that Atwill is rehashing a long established trope as allegedly "new" data, then doesn't the onus fall on his supporters to provide evidence of my being incorrect?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/13/bill-oreilly-killing-lincoln-errors_n_1091168.html
Lincoln sites spurn Bill O
God told me to write about Jesus: Bill O'Reilly claims he penned book after being given a message in his sleep | Mail Online
Oh my, God told him to write a book about Jesus.
apparently the debate is over. no friggin' clue what the researchers did though as the article is pretty much gibberish to me.
If you need any more proof AGAINST the existence of God here it is . . . Lou Reed is dead, and Chris Brown is still alive.
Yay science?