Quote from: AkrasiaYes. The argument points out that these accounts are incompatible with the attributes that those religions ascribe to God.

Suffering is bad and these religion's perception of God should not allow bad because God is good?  All we have to do now is define what bad and good are and what God views as bad and good and then the argument would be valid.

I'm not sure that's the kind of evidence I'm looking at for proof.

Quote from: Spike... 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? ...

Many points have been raised in this thread.

The point that I was making when I posted the "problem of evil" argument was simply that atheism does not require 'faith'.  Rather, one might become an atheist simply by weighing the available arguments in favour and against the various claims made concerning the existence of God.  

The "problem of evil" was presented as one such argument concerning a very common conception of God (viz. the conception of God found in the mainstream monotheistic religions).  Other arguments may be necessary for other beliefs and views.  But I was not trying to provide a comprehensive summary of all the arguments concerning all the different (radically different!) views concerning God that are out there.  That would take 1000+ page book, not a post on some forum.

I think that the "problem of evil" argument helps illustrate why atheism does not require 'faith', but instead can be the outcome of rational reflection.  That was my main purpose in mentioning it, and I apologise if I was not adequately clear.

Quote from: Spike... Great. The Sky is blue.

Do I win something now?

No, because no one denies that the Sky is blue.

Billions of people do believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-just deity.  Showing that that belief is problematic is a bit more significant.

Quote from: beejazzYeah... benevlent God... I'll concede that alot of Christians think so, but from a Biblical standpoint it's rubbish...

You won't get an argument on this from me, as the God presented in the Bible strikes my as a morally repugnant schizophrenic tyrant.

Still, it's the "official view" of mainstream Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
:shrug:

(Some adherents of those religions do reject that view, but that's obviusly a whole different debate.)

Quote from: Akrasia...as the God presented in the Bible strikes my as a morally repugnant schizophrenic tyrant.

And that guy behind the wheel isn't consistent with reality how?

Quote from: beejazzAnd that guy behind the wheel isn't consistent with reality how?

Oh quite consistent!

Job by Heinlein presents a convincing case for the existence of such a God!

Quote from: James McMurraySo 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?

Is it conceivable that a perfect God could be the 'source of all goodness' but not himself be perfectly good?

According to the mainstream monotheistic religions, the answer to this is no.  It is also the view of the most significant religious philosophers throughout history (e.g. Augustine and Aquinas in the Catholic tradition, Al-Gazali in the Islamic tradition, Maimonides in the Jewish tradition).  (Yes, there are some dissenters and heretics, but I'll put those views aside for now.)

Think about it.  Is God Perfect?   If so, then according to the main monotheistic religions, God must also be perfectly good.  For him to lack this feature would be an imperfection.  But God is perfect!

Hey, hey, I'm a sporting person ...     I’ll grant you something: let's say that God is not all good.

Would you instead agree that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are committed to the view that God is all just?  I'm going to assume that the answer is 'yes' (since otherwise we simply live in alternate realities).

Guess what?  Mutatis mutandis, the "problem of evil" argument still works!  Simply substitute "all just" for "all good", and "unjust suffering" for "natural evil/suffering".  Voila!  The argument is still valid.  (I also think it is sound, but arguing for this does not introduce anything new to the debate at this point.)

Quote from: James McMurrayReally? 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."

Well, all this shows is that there are all kinds of inconsistencies in the main texts of the monotheistic religions.  This is a point that I happily acknowledge, have already noted, and in no way undermines my overall position.

Quote from: James McMurrayAnd with good reason: it's crap. Unless you profess to understand the Infinite?

I don't have to understand the 'Infinite'.  All I simply need a basic understanding of logic (inductive and deductive).

Sure it’s conceivable that all my beliefs about the external world and logic are false (maybe I’m being manipulated by an ‘evil demon’, or am trapped in ‘the Matrix’, or whatever).  But I form beliefs on the basis of the best available evidence and arguments.  

Including my belief about whether the God of Christianity exists.  (Or Islam, etc.)

But let’s say that I do decide to believe in God.  What then?  How do I decide whether to believe in the Christian God (Protestant or Catholic?), the Jewish God, the Muslim God, or some other kind of God?  Do I use reason?  If not, what am I to do?

No matter where you go, you need to adopt beliefs, as best you can, on the basis of reason.  Including belief in God.

Quote from: James McMurrayI've always wondered whether there was a God or not. I'd love to see actual evidence and irrefutable arguments.

I never claimed that the argument was ‘irrefutable’.  However, I have never encountered a reply to the argument that was convincing.  But I’ll mention one (that I find unconvincing, but others do not) shortly …

Quote from: James McMurrayYou mean beyond the reasons it's failed at for hundreds of years (see above)?

But the argument has not failed!  At least it hasn’t failed logically.  

(Has it failed in terms of persuasion.  Well, many people throughout the ages have been persuaded by it.  And I would suggest that the vast majority of Christians, Muslims, and Jews are oblivious to it.  Nonetheless, I can understand why  one might think it ‘failed’ insofar as billions of people continue to be religious.  However, people hold all kinds of illogical, contradictory beliefs!  Millions of people still believe in astrology, they still ‘affirm the consequent’ when making arguments [as well as committing all kinds of other fallacies], and so forth.  But whether an argument is logically valid and whether it is persuasive are two entirely different matters.  I care about the former.)

It is a valid argument!  This cannot be disputed.  Even religious (including Christian) philosophers and theologians recognise this.

The debate concerns its soundness (in particular, the truth/falseness of premise 2, although you also want to debate premise 1, but I’ve already addressed that).  

I’m sorry to burst your bubble, James, but people much smarter than both you and I -- of both theistic and nontheistic persuasions -- continue to debate this.  It’s not as obvious as you seem to think.  Now, as far as I can tell (reflecting to the best of my ability on the available evidence and the various claims attributed to God by the main monotheistic religions), premise 2 is true.  This also happens to be the view of most (but certainly not all!) analytic philosophers.

Obviously, traditional Christians, Jews, and Muslims want to believe that it is false.  The best explanation that they can give is something similar to the point that you and others have made about the ‘unknowability of God’s master plan’ (we perceive his actions “through a glass darkly”, as St. Paul says).  I’ll happily concede that this is a possible reply available to a religious person to this argument.  But it only convincing if you are already committed to the existence of (something like the traditional conception of) God!  

In other words, this reply to the “problem of evil” argument requires faith, namely, faith that somehow, someway, God’s “master plan” will ultimately be justified.

By contrast, the person who is persuaded by this argument (e.g. moi) need not make any analogous ‘leap of faith’!  

 

Quote from: James McMurrayIf you state something as a fact but have no proof, it is a belief / faith.

Again, I don’t know what you mean by ‘proof’, and there is a huge difference between ‘justified belief’ and ‘faith’.  Faith, as I understand it, is belief without justification.  

(I suspect that some of the confusion in our discussion might be attributed to the fact that you mean something different by 'belief' than I do.  For me, knowledge is 'justified true belief'.  The best we can generally hope for is 'justified belief'.  Faith is 'unjustified belief', although it may occassionally turn out to nonetheless be true, e.g. if I have 'faith' that I purchased the winning lottery ticket, and by chance I in fact did, then I have a true unjustified belief, i.e. true faith.)

I have arguments (based on inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning) to support my position of atheism vis-à-vis the main extant religions of the world.  I don’t claim that my arguments are irrefutable, any more than I would claim that it is inconceivable that many of my other core beliefs about the external world may be mistaken (e.g. water is composed of H2O).

No beliefs about the external world -- whether about water, people, physics, or God -- are irrefutable.  But we try to form our beliefs on the strongest available grounds.

And my exercise of my rational faculties lead me to conclude that the God of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism does not exist.  That’s not faith.  That’s just one of my justified beliefs.

Justice is a little fuzzier, and has more room for favoritism. Especially considering the possibility that God would make a universe for His own purposes/amusment as opposed to ours. Even if it was made for someone else's benefit than His, it still might not exist solely for us.

In which case, humans might be sacrificed here and there because it is necessary for the actual purpose of the universe, which might be goodness and justice for some other party.

Yay subjectivity!

Long live the King in Yellow!

Again with the Job: Justice for whom? I like you alot, but this place wasn't built for you, or you'd have been in it from the start.

QuoteRather, one might become an atheist simply by weighing the available arguments in favour and against the various claims made concerning the existence of God.

And then what? Choosing one based on proof or on what they believe[/i] is the better argument (since the premises for said arguments cannot be proven one way or the other). Sounds suspiciously like faith to me.

QuoteThink about it. Is God Perfect? If so, then according to the main monotheistic religions, God must also be perfectly good. For him to lack this feature would be an imperfection. But God is perfect!

By that argument he's also perfectly evil. Agin, you're trying to assign human motives to the mind of God and say "see, I proved he can't exist because if I were in his shoes I'd do things differently." It can't work, no matter how many times you repeat it.

QuoteWould you instead agree that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are committed to the view that God is all just?

Sure, but I won't agree that we can know exactly what the most just course of action is in any given circumstance, because we don't have infinite knowledge.

QuoteGuess what? Mutatis mutandis, the "problem of evil" argument still works! Simply substitute "all just" for "all good", and "unjust suffering" for "natural evil/suffering". Voila! The argument is still valid. (I also think it is sound, but arguing for this does not introduce anything new to the debate at this point.)

Guess What? It still fails unless you claim to fully understand the mind of God and know his every idea and motive.

QuoteWell, all this shows is that there are all kinds of inconsistencies in the main texts of the monotheistic religions. This is a point that I happily acknowledge, have already noted, and in no way undermines my overall position.

This is true. It in no way undermines your position that an idea of god which is not wildly held falls apart when you apply human motives to an infinite being. I'll definitely agree with you on that.

QuoteAll I simply need a basic understanding of logic (inductive and deductive).

Really? Ok then, logically, what is best for me at this very moment? Not what you think is best, but what an infinite mind with infinite knowledge would know is best. State your answer clearly and prove your case. If you can't, then you can't claim that simply understanding the laws of logic lets you know when an infinite and supposedly all just god is or is not being unjust.

QuoteSure it's conceivable that all my beliefs about the external world and logic are false (maybe I'm being manipulated by an 'evil demon', or am trapped in 'the Matrix', or whatever). But I form beliefs on the basis of the best available evidence and arguments.

Including my belief about whether the God of Christianity exists. (Or Islam, etc.)

That's an awful lot of basis in belief[/i] for someone that doesn't think what they have is a faith.

QuoteBut let's say that I do decide to believe in God. What then? How do I decide whether to believe in the Christian God (Protestant or Catholic?), the Jewish God, the Muslim God, or some other kind of God? Do I use reason? If not, what am I to do?

If I had that answer I'd be peddling it and getting rich. I can't tell you what you should believe, all I can do is point out that belief without proof is faith.

QuoteNo matter where you go, you need to adopt beliefs, as best you can, on the basis of reason. Including belief in God.

No I don't. I can abstain from that choice. I don't have to claim either way whether God (in whatever form) exists or not. I can avoid acting on Faith in the matter and simply go on with my life in blissful ignorance.

I'm done with the quote war. Obviously your faith in your argument is too strong. If you can't see that the problem of evil relies on unsubstantiated ideas of what things are and are not good and/or just then there's nothing that will shake your belief structure, or even open your eyes and show you that it is a belief structure (which is odd, since you constantly refer to it as such).

Please, if you can answer my question about what is best in terms of absolute good (or most just if you prefer) then do so. If you can't, then you have to realize that an argument which sets as its foundation "God wouldn't do that because it's bad" cannot work.

QuoteIt is a valid argument! This cannot be disputed. Even religious (including Christian) philosophers and theologians recognise this.

Wait! Now I see! you're not saying it's right, just that it's logically sound. Yeah, I'll give you that.

Joe the Butcher wants what is best for his child
Joe the Butcher allows harm to come to his child
Joe the Butcher does not exist

That's the exact same argument. Sounds pretty stupid though, doesn't it?

QuoteIn other words, this reply to the "problem of evil" argument requires faith, namely, faith that somehow, someway, God's "master plan" will ultimately be justified.

you mean like the faith the argument requires? You know, that part where it says that somehow, someway the human formulating the argument knows that suffering is of necessity not good? ur funny

QuoteFaith, as I understand it, is belief without justification.

Aha! We've found another problem. You're not actually speaking the English language, just a close proximity to it. I did go ahead and actually define the word a couple of times, but I guess something more formal is required?

Faith: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/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.

Quotebased on inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning

And unprovable premises.

Please don't let that stuff distract you from explaining to me what is best so I know that your premises are sound though. And of course, I'd love some proven knowledge of what is best for me. That's gotta come in handy somewhere.

Dude, chill. He's not claiming to know what God wants because he's claiming God is fictional. Who the fuck knows the motives of a fictional being? The argument is not based on any objective, extant God, but on tenative accounts of said God which (admittedly) is about all we've got to work with.

If the argument is broken, it's in contradicting the most established accounts by making the claim of benevolence.

Athesim doesn't happen by extrapolating its beliefs as "anti (insert specific existing religion)." It's a belief that could stand on its own. This is why it would do better to argue for itself rather than against its peers.

Furthermore, specific issues concerning morality are more important than the presence or absence of a God. The former is arguable. The latter is inconsequencial as often as not.

Quote from: James McMurrayAnd then what? Choosing one based on proof or on what they believe[/i] is the better argument (since the premises for said arguments cannot be proven one way or the other). Sounds suspiciously like faith to me ....

Yet again, you keep appealing to some notion of 'proof'.   I don't know what you mean by this term, as it can mean different things depending on context (e.g. a 'proof' in mathematics or formal logic is completely different from the idea of a 'burden of proof' in legal reasoning), but I assume that you mean something like an argument that is 'irrefutable' or establishes 'absolute' knowledge.

But let me give you a little insight into epistemology: all of our beliefs about the external world are inductive in nature.  But we don't believe whatever we want, do we?  I mean, we don't believe that the existence of pixies is just as plausible as the existence of the sun, right?  Rather, we should -- if we are responsible reasoners -- determine what to believe on the basis of the strength of the available evidence.

Consequently, I believe in modern physics and not Aristotelian physics.  I believe in science and not magic.  I believe the earth is round and not flat.  And I believe that the God of Christianity (and Islam, etc.) does not exist, instead of believing that He does exist.  It's simply a matter of comparing the available arguments in favour of different propositions about the external world.

To assert that a proposition needs an absolutely irrefutable argument (or 'proof', in your sense) in order to be a subject of justified belief or knowledge would render us with no beliefs about the external world at all.

Quote from: James McMurrayBy that argument he's also perfectly evil.

No, because according to established religion evil is the absence of goodness.  (Sheesh, do I have to explain everything here?)  

Quote from: James McMurrayAgain, you're trying to assign human motives to the mind of God and say "see, I proved he can't exist because if I were in his shoes I'd do things differently." It can't work, no matter how many times you repeat it...

You seem to think this is a strong argument.  I'm sorry, but it isn't (despite being used by a lot by people).  I am only appealing to the attributes ascribed to God by the main monotheistic religions and well established facts about the world (e.g. the suffering of innocents).

Anyhow, if God was truly completely incomprehensible to us, why would anyone possibly worship Him?  We wouldn't even know what God is, and thus what it would even mean to 'worship Him'!

Consider this possible God: God in fact wants to be as evil as possible, and his commandments, actions, and statements in the Bible are all an elaborate practical joke.

Now, if you're right, and God is truly completely incomprehensible, then we have no reason to believe that my 'evil trickster God' is any less possible than the traditional conception of God.

However, you're simply wrong in claiming that the established religions assert that God is wholly incomprehensible to us.  In Christianity and Judaism at least, God created Man in His Image.  This suggests that we do resemble God in at least some limited ways.  Moreover, as I've already mentioned, the main monotheistic religions all make certain claims about God's "state of mind", namely, that He loves us, that He wants us to obey Him, that we have (at least some) knowledge of His moral law, etc.
 
So, not only is your own argument implausible in its own right, it is directly contradicted by what the main monotheistic religions assert.

 

Quote from: James McMurrayGuess What? It still fails unless you claim to fully understand the mind of God and know his every idea and motive.

Again, my argument doesn't require me to 'fully understand the mind of God and know his every idea and motive'.  I simply do not understand why you think this is a plausible argument against my overall position.

Quote from: James McMurrayReally? Ok then, logically, what is best for me at this very moment? ...

I think I've already explained why this whole line of argument is not plausible.

Quote from: James McMurrayThat's an awful lot of basis in belief[/i] for someone that doesn't think what they have is a faith.

See my earlier explanation regarding all of our beliefs about the external world.

What makes an inductive belief not an example of faith is that it is justified by the best available evidence and reasoning.  In contrast, faith requires belief inspite of evidence and reasoning (or positing something in the complete absence of evidence and reasoning).

Look, even religious people agree that some of the inductive beliefs that we have (e.g. 'water is composed of H2O') are very well justified -- and are fundamentally different from religious beliefs.  I hear from religious people all the time that they have 'faith', and that this is different form their other beliefs.  I'm willing to take them at their word: they assert that they hold beliefs that they cannot justify or rationally argue for.  I agree.  This is why I'm not religious -- I oppose adopting worldviews on the basis of faith.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'm done with the quote war. Obviously your faith in your argument is too strong.

Please explain to me why my argument involves 'faith' in any form.  

Quote from: James McMurrayIf you can't see that the problem of evil relies on unsubstantiated ideas of what things are and are not good and/or just then there's nothing that will shake your belief structure, or even open your eyes and show you that it is a belief structure (which is odd, since you constantly refer to it as such).

Nice cop out.  

And please see my earlier point about 'belief'.  You keep equating 'belief' with 'faith'.  

They are not the same thing!

Quote from: James McMurrayPlease, if you can answer my question about what is best in terms of absolute good (or most just if you prefer) then do so. If you can't, then you have to realize that an argument which sets as its foundation "God wouldn't do that because it's bad" cannot work.

I have not idea what this means.

 

Quote from: James McMurrayJoe the Butcher wants what is best for his child
Joe the Butcher allows harm to come to his child
Joe the Butcher does not exist

That's the exact same argument. Sounds pretty stupid though, doesn't it?

No that's not the 'exact same argument'.  And yes, it is pretty stupid.  

Quote from: James McMurrayFaith: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/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.

Nothing in that definition is in contradiction to what I have stated and argued.
 

Quote from: James McMurrayPlease don't let that stuff distract you from explaining to me what is best so I know that your premises are sound though. And of course, I'd love some proven knowledge of what is best for me. That's gotta come in handy somewhere.

Premises are not sound or unsound.  Arguments are sound or unsound.  Premises are true or false.

That important point aside, I don't know why you think I need "some proven knowledge of what is best for you" or what that has to do with anything I've argued.

Thanks for making an important point far more succinctly than I did, beejazz.  

Quote from: beejazz... If the argument is broken, it's in contradicting the most established accounts by making the claim of benevolence...

I'm kind of surprised at the opposition that that premise is encountering in this thread.

Most of my Christian friends seem committed to the idea that God is perfect and therefore 'all good' (loving, etc.).  They're pretty unconventional Christians, admittedly, but my impression that this is certainly the 'standard view' among most Christians.  It is the official view of the Catholic Church, and certainly was the view espoused by my (Mennonite) church when I grew up.

But since I don't believe in the Christian God for many reasons (not just the 'problem of evil'), I don't have a horse in this race.  

On your statement about evil, it's incorrect. Or, at least, doesn't mesh with the religions you're mentioning.

Evil isn't the absence of good. It's a choice to do something wrong.
Sin (from het, right?) is error.

Different explanations are giving depending on who you ask, from the idea of progressively faint emanations of divinity being responsible for progressively less divine realities to the idea of their being an actual opposing force to good and God. Others where they apply. Evil as the absence of good is hardly mainstream religion.

Quote from: AkrasiaThanks for making an important point far more succinctly than I did, beejazz.  



I'm kind of surprised at the opposition that that premise is encountering in this thread.

Most of my Christian friends seem committed to the idea that God is perfect and therefore 'all good' (loving, etc.).  They're pretty unconventional Christians, admittedly, but my impression that this is certainly the 'standard view' among most Christians.  It is the official view of the Catholic Church, and certainly was the view espoused by my (Mennonite) church when I grew up.

But since I don't believe in the Christian God for many reasons (not just the 'problem of evil'), I don't have a horse in this race.  

I'd maybe mitigate this with the tired cliche about always hurting the ones you love?

Would this be too cheesy?

One could also say that God is not omnipotent. There were bits of Genesis where it is implied that humans could actually pose a threat (if not to God, then to the whole divine plan or will).

In any case, with the exception of maybe omniscience (which I'll leave in there because I can think of no Biblical accounts to refute it), those assumptions are hardly set in stone.

Quote from: beejazzOn your statement about evil, it's incorrect. Or, at least, doesn't mesh with the religions you're mentioning.
...
 Evil as the absence of good is hardly mainstream religion.

Well, it is the official view of the Catholic Church.  Aquinas is quite explicit in describing evil as a 'privation', and the Church has since held that view.

The idea is that 'evil' is like 'coldness' -- the absence of 'goodness' or 'heat'.

You're right, though, that I may have been too quick in assuming that this is the standard view for all branches of Christianity, let alone Islam and Judaism.

Anyway, James and Spike (and others!), I wanted to apologise for the frequently condescending and obnoxious tone of my posts.  I sometimes get into a kind of 'snark mode' that isn't especially constructive.

:imsorry:

These are complicated issues, and I think that we've sometimes been arguing past each other (though, obviously, not always; we clearly disagree about certain fundamental matters).

Stepping back from the details of our exchange, my basic position is this.  All of our beliefs about the external world are inductive in nature (and thus fallible), but we should try to form our beliefs on the basis of the best arguments (evidence, explanations, etc.) available.  Some of our beliefs are very well justified (e.g. 'water is composed of H2O'), while others are not.  On the basis of rational reflection on the best evidence and arguments that we have concerning the existence of God, I think that we have strong reasons not to believe in the existence of the God posited by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.  I also think that we have good reasons for rejecting belief in any supernatural entity, including other conceptions of God (but I think that these reasons are somewhat less compelling than those that we have for rejecting the traditional monotheistic conception of God).  These beliefs about God, though, are all based on my best attempt to critically and rationally evaluate the available arguments.  No 'faith' (unjustified belief) is involved.

Okay, okay ... enough of this for now.  No hard feelings, I hope.
 :joecool:

I'll be travelling and visiting with friends over the next few days, so my internet access will be limited.  However, I would be happy to discuss these matters (time permitting) after I get back to Dublin on January 2nd.

Good night, and good luck!