Quote from: Akrasia1. If God exists (as understood by the main monotheistic religions), he is omniscient and omnipotent and omnibenevolent
2. If suffering exists, God cannot be omniscient & omnipotent & omnibenevolent (at most he can only be two of those things, e.g. he might be all-knowing and all-powerful, but not care about the existence of widespread suffering).
3. We know suffering exists.
4. Therefore God does not exist (i.e. any God that is omniscient & omnipotent & omnibenevolent).

That is a logical argument but one that is assuming that we have a logical perspective on the subject matter.  If that assumption is not true, the entire argument is false.  A lack of evidence does not make something true or false.  All we can do as a species is to continue observations over time to get closer to "the truth".  Even science makes the assumption that the universe can be translated logically.  If that assumption is not true, well the answer is "42".

Quoteit is called the 'problem of evil'.

The problem of evil is based upon the assumption that man can understand the mind of God. Hence it is flawed.

QuoteI use it to introduce undergraduates to basic logic.

Then I hope you're using it to point out that flawed premises can result in flawed conclusions even with impeccable logic. Otherwise you're dong the students a disservice by teaching them crap.

It can be refuted by the mere fact that as far as many situations where kids and parents are concerned the parents are effectively omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. Yet we still let our children fall on their faces because that's better for them than coddling, and it serves them better later down the road.

I'm sorry, but the so-called "problem of evil" just doesn't cut it.

If you can't disprove the existence of an omnipotent being that wants to stay hidden, you can't have strong atheism without faith that your belief in his nonexistence is valid.

Personally I reject all the major religions for the simple reason that they are all about controlling the masses, and if they ever had a grain of truth to them it has long been buried under centuries of politically motivated interpretations, revisions, 'revelations', etc.

Christianity and islam both have been used as justifications for tyranny, oppression, wars of aggression, torture, mass terrorism and worse. The crusades, which started a lot of our trouble with islam, was a massive land grab justified by religion. The muslim jyhad against the west is justified by religion, etc.

The spanish inquisition, the salem witch trials, the list of atrocities comitted under the auspices of religion goes on and on, I don't believe in any religion per se.

As to the rest, there may be something like god, who knows? People may be created by the mind of the universe as a whole in an attempt to understand itself. But I do not buy into any of the world's major religions to any degree, they're nothing but means to controllng people and justification for the worst acts in human history.

Quote from: Spike... First of all, if your 'atheism' is predicated only on rejection of Judeo-christian belief structures you have a narrow perspective.  

... Properly speaking, you should be rejecting faiths which have no relation to the J-C ideal...    
 

I agree that the argument is aimed squarely at the main three monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism), as traditionally understood.

I never claimed that it applies to other conceptions of God (e.g. an indifferent deist god), or 'religions' that do not presuppose a particular conception of 'God' (like Buddhism).  

Please read my post more carefully.

A single argument can only do so much.  This argument has as its aim  the three main monotheistic arguments.  And with respect to those religions, I think that it is quite convincing.  (Even theistic philosophers recognise its strength, even if they ultimately reject it.)

Other arguments may be appropriate for other religions or faiths (like Buddhism).  So what?  Your entire point rests on an obvious fallacy, namely, that any single argument against theism must address all existing religions.  But that's obviously ridiculous.  The focus of this argument is Christianity, Islam and Judaism.  Other arguments can be applied to other religions/faiths.

Quote from: Spike...
 I've heard it said that God was good, yes. that He was benevolent and kind, sure. But 'All Benevolent'? Not once.  

Well, I've got news for you: all three main monotheistic religions assert that God is the source of all goodness/morality in the universe.  This is a fundamental feature of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, as traditionally understood.  

If you don't know that, then I can hardly do anything about your apalling ignorance in this thread.

Quote from: Spike...
The best method of explaining your 'problem of evil' would be that God is teaching us something when we suffer from natural evil, and that human evil is a direct result of free will.  You do remember that fundamental part of J-C doctrine, right? Free will?  True, Islam rejects it, but then Islam doesn't claim god is particularly benevolent either....

:sleeping:

Oh yes, the tired old 'free will' defense (btw, many branches of Christianity also reject the existence of 'libertarian' free will).

Well, this is hardly a new attempt to refute the argument.  Assuming that it even makes sense to posit the existence of 'libertarian free will' in a universe created by an omnipotent and omniscient being, this argument will hardly let you get around the argument that I've presented.

The reason is painfully simple: massive amounts of suffering have nothing to do with free will!  Not all of human suffering is caused by 'moral agents' (creatures with free will doing harmful things to others).  A lot of human suffering (and animal suffering) is caused by natural processes.

So the free will defense fails entirely in justifying the suffering and death caused by diseases, natural disasters, etc.

Nice try, though.  I give your effort a 'B'.

Quote from: Spike...
You set your arguements up for an easy win.

:rolleyes:

Look, the argument (which is not 'mine') proceeds by attributing to God the very attributes that Christians, Muslims, and Jews do.  It then proceeds to show that such a conception of God is incompatible with the existence of suffering in the world.

Well, maybe it's an 'easy win'.  Whatever.  But it's a win that a staggeringly large number of religious people seem oblivious to.

Quote from: Spike...  
 But, may I remind you of the logical impossibility of proving a negative?   You might be able to prove the existance of God with enough evidence, but you can never fully prove He doesn't exist. Thus 'reasonable doubt'.

Look, we have two conflicting propositions: (a) 'God as conceived by the main monotheistic religions does exist' and (b) 'God as conceived by the main monotheistic religions does not exist'.

These propositions are mutually incompatible.  When deciding which of these two propositions to believe, one should endorse the one best supported by the arguments and evidence.  The 'problem of evil' argument is a strong (very strong IMO) rational argument in favour of endorsing proposition )b).

Quote from: GunslingerThat is a logical argument but one that is assuming that we have a logical perspective on the subject matter.  If that assumption is not true, the entire argument is false.  A lack of evidence does not make something true or false.  All we can do as a species is to continue observations over time to get closer to "the truth".  Even science makes the assumption that the universe can be translated logically.  If that assumption is not true, well the answer is "42".

Well, we do have evidence of widespread suffering in the world.  The argument claims that this suffering is incompatible with God, as traditionally conceived by Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

Now, we are limited, fallible human beings.  So perhaps the argument fails for some reason that I cannot comprehend.

But I should form my beliefs on the basis of the best arguments and evidence available.  This is certainly  compatible with recognising that I have limited evidence and cognitive abilities.

Quote from: James McMurrayBelief without proof = faith, ergo atheism is a faith. Not sure about the 'alternative' part, but if you mean "not mainstream" or "not one of the big three" then it's definitely 'alternative'.

The Pundalini already touched on this, but since you can't read his posts I'll give it to you in my own words.

Lack of belief is not the same thing as belief. Declining to participate in the discourse does not give you faith.

Quote from: James McMurrayThe problem of evil is based upon the assumption that man can understand the mind of God. Hence it is flawed...

The argument merely proceeds by attributing to God the very same attributes that Christians, Muslims, and Jews do, and then pointing out that those attributes are incompatible with the existence of widespread natural suffering.

Perhaps the 'mind of God' is wholly incomprehensible to human beings.  But if this is so, why would we conceivably worship such a creature?  

According to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, we at least understand some things about the mind of God -- namely, that He loves us, wants us to love and obey Him, and wants us to obey His law (commandments).

Quote from: James McMurrayThen I hope you're using it to point out that flawed premises can result in flawed conclusions even with impeccable logic. Otherwise you're dong the students a disservice by teaching them crap...

:tears:

Quote from: James McMurrayIt can be refuted by the mere fact that as far as many situations where kids and parents are concerned the parents are effectively omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. Yet we still let our children fall on their faces because that's better for them than coddling, and it serves them better later down the road.

I'm sorry, but the so-called "problem of evil" just doesn't cut it.

I'm sorry, but your so-called "refutation" gets a grade of 'C'.  See my explanation, in an earlier post, of why the 'free will defense' fails.

(But notice also that your attempted reply fails to attribute omnipotence to God.  This is because it assumes that God is constrained in requiring that his creations suffer in order to learn and 'become better'.)
 

Quote from: James McMurray...
If you can't disprove the existence of an omnipotent being that wants to stay hidden...

Ummm ... does God want to 'stay hidden' or does he want us to 'love and know him'?  

If the former, why did he reveal Himself, as claimed by the sacred texts of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam?  If the latter, where has he been lately?  
:confused:

Actually, I mentioned before that the "problem of evil" is only one argument against the traditional monotheistic conception of God.  Some others include: the 'Hiddenness argument' (roughly, the idea that if God loves us, and wants us to love Him, why does he hide?); and the 'Argument for Explanatory Uselessness' (roughly, the idea that positing the existence of God fails to explain anything about the universe).

Quote from: James McMurray... you can't have strong atheism without faith that your belief in his nonexistence is valid.

I don't know what you mean by 'strong atheism', but my rejection of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is based on rational reflection alone.

With respect to other possible conceptions of God -- say, the deistic one -- I would say that I'm agnostic.  But such conceptions of God don't really posit anything more than a supernatural alien -- not exactly an entity worth 'worshipping'.

Akrasia:

I have no knowledge of what you have, or have not learned of Judeo-Christianity as a whole, what your background is, etc.

However, Free will has be a pretty fundamental part of the 'biblical' expirence to just about every Christian I've spoken to in my entire life.  I'm tempted to look around for a bible to check for specific passages.  Rejecting it because it doesn't leave much room for your arguement is trying to stack the deck.

On the other hand, you erroniously assign it to Islam. Islam DOES NOT have the same idea of Free Will as a fundamental belief.  Inshallah, brother. It means God Willing. The Quran is pretty specific, everything you do, good or bad, is because God willed it. Don't even question it.  Give me a day or two and I'll quote the suras to you.

Further, by bringing in your 'problem of evil' you specifically chose to narrow the conversation to the existance of 'God' in the J/C mythic structure, rather than focusing it on Atheism, which properly speaking rejects all god figures.  

I particularly like how you missed the most common defense of God, that is 'the unknowability of god'.   I'd give your 'condemnation' of God the same failing grade I gave the 'Defense of Atheism' article, if I had condecended to 'grading' other posters in the first place.  You, and you alone, keep trying to narrow down the 'conditions' of your argument to where you feel your statements are strongest.    

To be honest, the old testament, and I'd have to get with a Rabbi to check this, the Talmud/Torah thingamajigger never once suggests that God is benevolent, and the 'all powerful' thing gets opened to interpretation depending upon which book you are reading.  I think the favorite description of the God of the old testament is 'Angry, vengeful God' or even, in His own words 'Jealous'.   You paint all three 'faiths of the book' with too broad a brush, and are heavily inaccurate as a result.  

Refuting a single set of beliefs (or in your case, three linked beliefs) does not prove, or disprove the existance of any godlike figures. It just refutes those faiths.  I don't have to be an Atheist to reject the teachings of the Great Mother Chicken, and rejecting the GMC doesn't make me an atheist by default.   THAT is the flaw with your entire argument over the last several posts.

Quote from: AkrasiaWell, we do have evidence of widespread suffering in the world. The argument claims that this suffering is incompatible with God, as traditionally conceived by Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

It's  making the assumption that an omnibenevolent, omnipresent, and omniscient being can't allow what we define as our suffering.  Both the Jewish and Christian relegions have numerous accounts where God has allowing suffering, so that is also a misrepresentation (I don't feel familiar enough with the Muslim relegion to comment).

QuoteBut I should form my beliefs on the basis of the best arguments and evidence available. This is certainly compatible with recognising that I have limited evidence and cognitive abilities.

Yes, but your basing your beliefs off a lack of evidence available.  It's one thing to say "I don't know enough to believe firmly in either" it's another thing to say "I don't know enough so this is true."  I know of no firm evidence that proves either theory correct or incorrect.  So in essence, you have faith in what you don't believe in.

Quote from: droogThe Pundalini already touched on this, but since you can't read his posts I'll give it to you in my own words.

Lack of belief is not the same thing as belief. Declining to participate in the discourse does not give you faith.

Def'n - Faith
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.  
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.  

I disagree that Atheists are declining to participate in the discourse because that would be an observer.  They have faith in their lack of belief when there is no firm evidence to discredit either theory.

Quote from: GunslingerI disagree that Atheists are declining to participate in the discourse because that would be an observer.  They have faith in their lack of belief when there is no firm evidence to discredit either theory.

I don't identify myself as an 'Atheist', so I can't speak for them.

Quote from: Spike... Free will has be a pretty fundamental part of the 'biblical' expirence to just about every Christian I've spoken to in my entire life.  I'm tempted to look around for a bible to check for specific passages.  Rejecting it because it doesn't leave much room for your arguement is trying to stack the deck...

Have you ever met a Calvinist?  Do you know what Calvinism is?

Even in Catholicism the question of 'free will' is not clear cut.  Aquinas appears in places to posit a 'compatibilist' -- as opposed to a 'libertarian' -- account of free will, but is ultimately unclear.

In any case, as I've already explained, the 'problem of evil' argument works whether one believes in libertarian free will or not.

 

Quote from: Spike...
On the other hand, you erroniously assign it to Islam.

:confused:

No I didn't.

Please, point out where I explicitly attributed 'free will' to Islam.  I didn't do it.

My point was merely that even if a monotheist (of whatever brand) wanted to assert the 'free will' defense, that defense failed to refute the argument.

I never specifically referred to Islam in making that point.

Yet again you failed to properly read my posts.  I guess that I should be used to this by now.

Quote from: SpikeFurther, by bringing in your 'problem of evil' you specifically chose to narrow the conversation to the existance of 'God' in the J/C mythic structure, rather than focusing it on Atheism, which properly speaking rejects all god figures.

As I said, one argument can only do so much.  I've already clarified this.  

You seem to have absurdly high expectations for specific arguments.

Quote from: SpikeI particularly like how you missed the most common defense of God, that is 'the unknowability of god'.  

I didn't miss it.  I mentioned it briefly in a previous post, and I'll elaborate on it in a future post.  (No time now ...)
 

Quote from: SpikeYou, and you alone, keep trying to narrow down the 'conditions' of your argument to where you feel your statements are strongest.    

Rubbish.  I'm just trying to make explicit what the target of a particular argument happens to be. It's called being a careful reasoner.  If you want me to evaluate other beliefs and claims, I'll be happy to do so.


But the point I was trying to make in my original post was that rejecting the standard monotheistic conception of 'God' (which is commonly assumed to be at least one thing that 'atheism' entails) required no 'faith'.

I only have so much time to waste here.  I could bring up other arguments concerning other beliefs and claims, if you like...

Quote from: Spike...  I think the favorite description of the God of the old testament is 'Angry, vengeful God' or even, in His own words 'Jealous'.   You paint all three 'faiths of the book' with too broad a brush, and are heavily inaccurate as a result.  

There are indeed inconsistent descriptions of God in the Old Testament (let alone the manifest inconsistencies between the OT & the NT for Christianity; I still find it mystifying how anyone could believe that the messiah described by Isaiah could be Jesus Christ).  Yet another reason for not taking those beliefs seriously!  Nonetheless, the considered position in 'mainstream' Judaism is that God is the source of all good and the moral law.  What else could be?

Quote from: SpikeRefuting a single set of beliefs (or in your case, three linked beliefs) does not prove, or disprove the existance of any godlike figures. It just refutes those faiths.  

Mission accomplished!  

Quote from: SpikeTHAT is the flaw with your entire argument over the last several posts.

Flaw? :confused:

You just conceded the very point I sought to establish!

Quote from: GunslingerIt's  making the assumption that an omnibenevolent, omnipresent, and omniscient being can't allow what we define as our suffering.  Both the Jewish and Christian relegions have numerous accounts where God has allowing suffering, so that is also a misrepresentation ...

Yes.  The argument points out that these accounts are incompatible with the attributes that those religions ascribe to God.  

Quote from: GunslingerYes, but your basing your beliefs off a lack of evidence available.  It's one thing to say "I don't know enough to believe firmly in either" it's another thing to say "I don't know enough so this is true."  I know of no firm evidence that proves either theory correct or incorrect.  So in essence, you have faith in what you don't believe in..

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

But I think I have enough justification to reject the traditional conception of God.  Consider:

A. I have abundant evidence for the existence of suffering.

B. I also have knowledge of the conception of God affirmed by  the main monotheistic religions.

As far as I can tell, it is clear that A is in conflict with B.  Given that my belief in A is pretty damn secure, belief in B has to go.

Why is this not a justified belief?  It seems like I've engaged in the kind of reasoning that leads to all kinds of perfectly well-justified beliefs in other domains of life (and in science, etc.).

Quote from: AkrasiaFlaw? :confused:

You just conceded the very point I sought to establish!

I'll get to the rest of your post when I have more time (in a few hours)...


So. You made a point that had little, if anything to do with the discussion at hand, and you are proud that I conceeded it too you?

Great. The Sky is blue.


Do I win something now?

Yeah... benevlent God... I'll concede that alot of Christians think so, but from a Biblical standpoint it's rubbish. There are entire books explaining both that this isn't so and why this isn't so.

QuoteWell, I've got news for you: all three main monotheistic religions assert that God is the source of all goodness/morality in the universe.

So what? If you empty your bladder into an otherwise empty toilet you're the source of all urine in that toilet. Does that mean you're all piss, all the time?

QuoteLook, the argument (which is not 'mine') proceeds by attributing to God the very attributes that Christians, Muslims, and Jews (CJMs from here on out) do.

Really? The bible (old and new testaments) show a lot of instances of God being non-benevolent (or at least not very nice from a human perspective). The Koran does the same. How then can you say that the big three say that God is "Omnibenevolent."

And of course, even if it is, you've not refuted our lack of understanding of the mind of god. It's possible from some alien standpoint that takes multiple lifetimes into account that suffering is a good thing.

QuoteBut it's a win that a staggeringly large number of religious people seem oblivious to.

And with good reason: it's crap. Unless you profess to understand the Infinite?

QuoteWhen deciding which of these two propositions to believe, one should endorse the one best supported by the arguments and evidence.

You've got evidence? You've got arguments that don't require false premises? Spill them out, please. I've always wondered whether there was a God or not. I'd love to see actual evidence and irrefutable arguments.

QuoteSo perhaps the argument fails for some reason that I cannot comprehend.

You mean beyond the reasons it's failed at for hundreds of years (see above)?

QuoteLack of belief is not the same thing as belief. Declining to participate in the discourse does not give you faith.

I agree. If you say "I don't know" or "I don't bother with that" you're not stating a belief. yiou're also not endorsing atheism (or "strong atheism" if you prefer). If you're a strong atheist you state emphatically that God does not exist. If you state something as a fact but have no proof, it is a belief / faith.

QuoteThe argument merely proceeds by attributing to God the very same attributes that Christians, Muslims, and Jews do,

Which Christians, Muslims, and Jews? The ones that haven't read their own holy texts to see evidence that God isn't Omnibenevolent? Sure, I'll go along with you that people who state the ludicrous belief that God is Omnibenevolent make the "Problem of Evil" a stronger argument. However those aren't the majority of Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Likewise it still doesn't ignore the fact that for the argument to work we have to be able ti understand the mind of god enough to know that suffering isn't a good thing in the long run. Even pseudo-omnipotent and pseudo-omniscient (and still "omnibenevolent") parents let their children suffer at times in pursuit of the "greater good" for the child.

QuoteI'm sorry, but your so-called "refutation" gets a grade of 'C'. See my explanation, in an earlier post, of why the 'free will defense' fails.

Where did I say anything about free will? I said that we can't understand the mind of god enough to know exactly what is best in his mind. Are you trying to say that we can?

QuoteUmmm ... does God want to 'stay hidden' or does he want us to 'love and know him'?

How the hell should I know? From what I understand of religions it's both. He wants us to love and know him through faith. Are you trying to say that CJMs claim that God wants us to see him walking down the street (or doing whatever it is Gods do when they want to be seen)?

Quotethe 'Hiddenness argument' (roughly, the idea that if God loves us, and wants us to love Him, why does he hide?);

Don't know. Not infinite nor omniscient. Again, the argument fails because it presume we can apply human motives to God.

Quote'Argument for Explanatory Uselessness' (roughly, the idea that positing the existence of God fails to explain anything about the universe).

"There's piss in the cat litter" fails to explain anything, but it doesn't make the piss disappear. Would that it did.

QuoteI don't know what you mean by 'strong atheism', but my rejection of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is based on rational reflection alone.

By Strong Atheism I mean the version that states "there is no God." It was defined earlier in the thread. Generally I just call that version atheism and all the "I'm not sure" stuff agnosticism, but some people prefer more stringent categories.

QuoteThe argument points out that these accounts are incompatible with the attributes that those religions ascribe to God.

You keep saying this, but keep failing to show anywhere that says "god is Omnibenevolent". An argument needs a foundation, and while you've stated yours you've failed to demonstrate it.

QuoteAs far as I can tell, it is clear that A is in conflict with B. Given that my belief in A is pretty damn secure, belief in B has to go.

Why is this not a justified belief? It seems like I've engaged in the kind of reasoning that leads to all kinds of perfectly well-justified beliefs in other domains of life (and in science, etc.).

It's a justified belief, but it's still a faith because it's predicated on something you cannot prove: that suffering is not somehow good for us when viewed with God's eyes. and even there, you admit it to be a belief, and hence something you're taking on faith. If you didn't think it was one, why would you call it one? For that matter, why would you debate it for several pages and then concede that it is indeed a belief?