If Stephen Fry Met God - Revisited God & Problem of Evil

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

Good post X - I appreciate your honest appraisal as well. And yes, the older one gets the 'end of everything' just on a personal level is a 'in your face' concept to consider - one's own mortality. And on a larger scale, the mortality of society at large.

The "grasping of one's own mortality" is a rude smack in the face from life that I could have done without. It's not a pleasant thought to dwell on, that I'm going to die and life will continue without me.

 

 

Christopher Hitchens also said something almost exactly like that the last part of your sentence there. It one of the hardest parts form him to deal with when he was dying of esophageal cancer. It's not the dying or being dead part. It's that the party is going to keep going but you're told you can no longer attend.

 

But extending that metaphor, would you or I or anyone be any happier to hear that we're invited to a party, that attendance is compulsory, and that you may never ever leave? This also seems to me to be a problem.

 

 

Depends on how good the party is. If it was a drag, I'd be ready to leave. Being unable to leave would be a bigger drag.

 

One of the things I find neatest about life is that I have a burning curiosity about what's going to happen next. I think we live in a fun time, when lots of things are changing and improving. Advancements in science, culture, society and the overall quality of life are fascinating to me, and I want to see the Next Thing: Humans on Mars, discoveries, aliens, the next great boy band, whatever.

 

We should all have that burning & continuing curiosity for life. Good statement

[TGHusker]

 

 

We all have a Monster Snorkel to help us with our world view and make sense out of life!

[BigRedBuster]

 

Great discussion.

 

But, I get back to, if we are so smart now that we realize that we are cooperating so that the survival of the fittest survives and continues to reproduce humans on this earth and that is really the only meaning in life, why continue it?

 

To me, now...really, nothing means anything in this world, why continue the charade of that it DOES mean something?

 

Now that we know all of that, we can now move towards educating our kids and indoctrinating the population that really, there is no reason to save the planet, worry about your fellow human...etc.

 

If all we are is a chemical reaction, then there is no purpose in continuing anything. The feelings we feel towards these things are nothing more than part of the chemical reaction that we are and we can work to change that and save billions of people a lot of grief.

 

Why is a god or afterlife necessary to make this life meaningful? I'm not following this logic at all.

 

You go to Prom, you're there for the pomp and ceremony, and have a blast amongst all your friends. Afterward you could either go home and chill or you could go to an after party and continue to hang with folks.

 

The last few posts you're making seem to say, if you don't go to the after party, it was never worthwhile to go to the Prom in the first place. I'm saying, the Prom is worthwhile in its own right, and doesn't need to have anything attached to justify it. I'm going to rent that tux, wash my car, comb my hair and buy my date a corsage because that's part of the whole experience. It is its own thing, and doesn't need anything after.

 

 

 

To me, there is a spiritual side of life that gives us purpose. This from TGH somewhat sums it up.

 

William Lane Craig agrees by addressing the Ultimate meaninglessness of man without God. He addresses the area of meaning and gives 3 options 1. suicide 2. Face the absurdity of life and live bravely (kind of what Husker X says above about facing the facts of life head on as an atheist) 3. God exists therefore life has ultimate meaning, value and purpose. God & Immortality are the prerequisites for ultimate meaning and purpose in life (around minute 29 in the video)- he goes on to explain the Christian world view on the subject.

I believe that human life has a spirit inside that gives us meaning and makes us care. It gives us that understanding of what life is. I believe that spirituality comes from a higher power that created the world.

Now, you might be right. We might just simply be one big chemical reaction and there really isn't any deeper meaning to life than that. But, to me, if that is the case, then our feelings really don't mean anything. In an sense, they are fake. They are simply the aftermath of chemicals reacting within our bodies towards something outside that body. If that is the case, then me watching you take a knife and butchering my child little by little in front of me while she screams in pain till she's dead should (logically) have no more affect on me than sitting on my patio drinking a beer watching dandelions wither and die after I spray them with 2-4D.

BUT...that isn't reality. In reality (at least mine), I have a spiritual connection with that child (or any human) that makes me care. It gives me that love for that child that makes me feel the pain of what I'm seeing happen to it.

If what you say is true, how a conservative Republican thinks about the world should have no affect on how a liberal Democrat feels about the world. Two completely separate realities and one really shouldn't affect the other. Simply their chemical reactions in their brains will continue on processing information and progressing that chemical reaction.

Your "prom" example is interesting. To me, life here isn't the prom. It is like the all day long work/fun/struggle my daughter and her friends go through preparing for the prom. If there is no prom, then the all day work to prepare is meaningless and might as well not happen.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Great discussion.

 

But, I get back to, if we are so smart now that we realize that we are cooperating so that the survival of the fittest survives and continues to reproduce humans on this earth and that is really the only meaning in life, why continue it?

 

To me, now...really, nothing means anything in this world, why continue the charade of that it DOES mean something?

 

Now that we know all of that, we can now move towards educating our kids and indoctrinating the population that really, there is no reason to save the planet, worry about your fellow human...etc.

 

If all we are is a chemical reaction, then there is no purpose in continuing anything. The feelings we feel towards these things are nothing more than part of the chemical reaction that we are and we can work to change that and save billions of people a lot of grief.

 

Even as atheists, we're not saying that we know that -- it's just our best guess as to what's going on. How we got here isn't a known quantity at this point, and likely will never be. We just see no reason to believe that we got here because an omniscient higher power put us here, because the evidence doesn't suggest it to us.

 

Saying that there's no purpose to living completely factors out the human element, and it assumes that there's a sole arbiter of whether or not life has actual meaning, or what that meaning might be. Everyone has their own reason for living. Yes, there's a lot of pain and suffering in this world, and not everybody can handle it. That's why some people do decide to end it all. Despite that, there's also plenty of pleasure to be derived from living too. If this is the one life we get, why not see it through? On a grand scale, all those chemical reactions may be nothing more than that, but the meaning of it all is vastly different at a personal level.

 

Besides, even if there is a higher power, there's still just as much question as to what our purpose is. Were we created to serve that higher power unflinchingly in exchange for eternal life? Why would an all-powerful deity need to create sentient beings to worship it? Why would we be eternally punished for not serving our purpose, despite no clear evidence that we have a purpose granted from a higher power? To me, lending credence to the possibility of a higher power out there creates more questions than the alternative.

 

What is the "human element" if all we are is a chemical reaction? And, that doesn't mean that there has to be only one sole arbiter. Maybe native Americans were right. Maybe there are many spirits at work in the grand scheme of things. (I admit I don't know much about there religion.) I have always thought the native American spirituality was beautiful and full of meaning.

 

Quite frankly, I am Christian because of two things.

 

a) I have gone through a thought process and come to believe there is a higher power involved.

 

b) I grew up in a Christian family in a Christian society.

 

(a) is extremely important part of my beliefs. I can't sit here and say with 100% fact that Christianity is exactly true and the fact of how the world works. So, I respect other people's religious beliefs and keep it at that. I also don't have any reason to NOT believe Christianity is reality of how the world works.

 

I do know one thing for sure. When we die, we will know what the truth is. Either there is nothing or there is something.

[NUance]

I do know one thing for sure. When we die, we will know what the truth is. Either there is nothing or there is something.

Maybe. Maybe not. Some people, especially the olde timey fire-and-brimstone types, believe that non-believers go to hell and are tortured for eternity. Others believe that non-believers are judged and then simply die. They are snuffed out, and cease to exist. I guess it's possible that those who are already dead on judgement day would simply not be resurrected. If that's the case they would go to their graves not knowing the truth. But I guess no human is really sure what happens upon death.

[Hammerhead]

 

 

Great discussion.

 

But, I get back to, if we are so smart now that we realize that we are cooperating so that the survival of the fittest survives and continues to reproduce humans on this earth and that is really the only meaning in life, why continue it?

 

To me, now...really, nothing means anything in this world, why continue the charade of that it DOES mean something?

 

Now that we know all of that, we can now move towards educating our kids and indoctrinating the population that really, there is no reason to save the planet, worry about your fellow human...etc.

 

If all we are is a chemical reaction, then there is no purpose in continuing anything. The feelings we feel towards these things are nothing more than part of the chemical reaction that we are and we can work to change that and save billions of people a lot of grief.

 

Even as atheists, we're not saying that we know that -- it's just our best guess as to what's going on. How we got here isn't a known quantity at this point, and likely will never be. We just see no reason to believe that we got here because an omniscient higher power put us here, because the evidence doesn't suggest it to us.

 

Saying that there's no purpose to living completely factors out the human element, and it assumes that there's a sole arbiter of whether or not life has actual meaning, or what that meaning might be. Everyone has their own reason for living. Yes, there's a lot of pain and suffering in this world, and not everybody can handle it. That's why some people do decide to end it all. Despite that, there's also plenty of pleasure to be derived from living too. If this is the one life we get, why not see it through? On a grand scale, all those chemical reactions may be nothing more than that, but the meaning of it all is vastly different at a personal level.

 

Besides, even if there is a higher power, there's still just as much question as to what our purpose is. Were we created to serve that higher power unflinchingly in exchange for eternal life? Why would an all-powerful deity need to create sentient beings to worship it? Why would we be eternally punished for not serving our purpose, despite no clear evidence that we have a purpose granted from a higher power? To me, lending credence to the possibility of a higher power out there creates more questions than the alternative.

 

What is the "human element" if all we are is a chemical reaction? And, that doesn't mean that there has to be only one sole arbiter. Maybe native Americans were right. Maybe there are many spirits at work in the grand scheme of things. (I admit I don't know much about there religion.) I have always thought the native American spirituality was beautiful and full of meaning.

 

The human element is how we perceive all those complex interactions (be they chemical reactions or something else).

[BigRedBuster]

You're right. Either it's just chemical reactions or...something else.

 

How can someone believe in "something else" and not believe in a higher power of some kind that works within us?

[Hammerhead]

You're right. Either it's just chemical reactions or...something else.

 

How can someone believe in "something else" and not believe in a higher power of some kind that works within us?

 

Because if it is something else, we don't know what it is. Just because we don't have an airtight scientific explanation for it doesn't necessarily mean it's something supernatural.

[notherplace93]

The burden of proof is solely on the theist in this regard. It is the strongest atheistic argument for not believing in an Omni-benevolent deity. My biggest objections, which I've never heard answered or even discussed, are as follows,

 

1) Omni-benevolence/Omni-present Contradiction-If God is the ultimate being, postulated by Anslems Ontology, one of the aspects of this would be that he is Omni-Present as well as Omni-benevolent. Omni-presence would also indicate timeless-ness, as it would indicate fullness of presence, eternally, in every possible moment as well as in all possible realities, many of which never existed, nor ever will. However, monotheisms justify the doctrine of eternal punishment with the argument that an All-just as well as an All-Loving God cannot tolerate any Evil in his presence. However, if he is Omni-present, than evil has existed in the fullness of God's presence forever, and if he is eternally in every moment, he is eternally in the presence of evil. And this argument cannot be avoided by having two different definitions of Presence, for if presence is not full and complete in every moment, it ceases to be Omni, as well as violates Anslems Ontology, in any real way, and would cease to be the God of classical western theistic philosophy.

 

2) The Argument from Sufficient Moral Reason- This is William Lane Craig's favorite argument to combat the classic problem of evil. This has always struck me as at the very least Begging the Question, but even a bit circular reasoning. Because if God is bound in someway by a concept of moral necessity, then he ceases to be omnipotent in a meaningful way. Even if one argues that God must allow evil in order for Free Will to be possible, then Free will becomes the concept that God is bound by. But omnipotence cannot be bound in such a way, for if God is omnipotent, then the very concepts of Moral Necessity as well as free will are concepts he created. And if these concepts can exist independent of God's exist, how is he the ultimate being? Once again the ultimate being becomes too prone to paradox, and if he can be bound by paradox, then he isn't "omni." So the classic problem of evil still stands. "Either god cannot stop evil, and is thus impotent, or he will not stop evil, and is thus either capricious or indifferent"

 

So, even if God's existence was validated by cosmological or teleological arguments, one would never be able to rationally believe he was omni-benevolent while at the same time being omnipotent or omniscient. It is simply too paradoxical to be accepted in anything other than a Kierkegaard-esque fashion. If a there exists an ultimate being, ultimate responsibility also follows for succeeding causal events.

[TGHusker]

The burden of proof is solely on the theist in this regard. It is the strongest atheistic argument for not believing in an Omni-benevolent deity. My biggest objections, which I've never heard answered or even discussed, are as follows,

 

1) Omni-benevolence/Omni-present Contradiction-If God is the ultimate being, postulated by Anslems Ontology, one of the aspects of this would be that he is Omni-Present as well as Omni-benevolent. Omni-presence would also indicate timeless-ness, as it would indicate fullness of presence, eternally, in every possible moment as well as in all possible realities, many of which never existed, nor ever will. However, monotheisms justify the doctrine of eternal punishment with the argument that an All-just as well as an All-Loving God cannot tolerate any Evil in his presence. However, if he is Omni-present, than evil has existed in the fullness of God's presence forever, and if he is eternally in every moment, he is eternally in the presence of evil. And this argument cannot be avoided by having two different definitions of Presence, for if presence is not full and complete in every moment, it ceases to be Omni, as well as violates Anslems Ontology, in any real way, and would cease to be the God of classical western theistic philosophy.

 

2) The Argument from Sufficient Moral Reason- This is William Lane Craig's favorite argument to combat the classic problem of evil. This has always struck me as at the very least Begging the Question, but even a bit circular reasoning. Because if God is bound in someway by a concept of moral necessity, then he ceases to be omnipotent in a meaningful way. Even if one argues that God must allow evil in order for Free Will to be possible, then Free will becomes the concept that God is bound by. But omnipotence cannot be bound in such a way, for if God is omnipotent, then the very concepts of Moral Necessity as well as free will are concepts he created. And if these concepts can exist independent of God's exist, how is he the ultimate being? Once again the ultimate being becomes too prone to paradox, and if he can be bound by paradox, then he isn't "omni." So the classic problem of evil still stands. "Either god cannot stop evil, and is thus impotent, or he will not stop evil, and is thus either capricious or indifferent"

 

So, even if God's existence was validated by cosmological or teleological arguments, one would never be able to rationally believe he was omni-benevolent while at the same time being omnipotent or omniscient. It is simply too paradoxical to be accepted in anything other than a Kierkegaard-esque fashion. If a there exists an ultimate being, ultimate responsibility also follows for succeeding causal events.

The first argument - I think you make the mistake of stating that time is eternal. God started time with the creation of the universe. Time cannot be eternal (infinite) as time would be going infinitely backwards and we could never arrive to 'today'. So to say God has lived with evil forever is incorrect. God lives outside of time and can see the beginning from the end. But even with that, as I posted in my 1st post at the beginning of this thread, God's knowledge of our actions do not control our actions. Psalms 139 tells us that God is everywhere and we cannot hide from His presence it is Omni. However, His actions may differ - His presence may be there to judge, to sustain, or to bless. God's presence with the existence of evil is to judge it. Also, evil has not been eternal either. Read my 4th post which is from Geisler's book "When Skeptics Ask". God chooses to tolerate evil for a period until the right time comes to destroy it.

The 2nd argument - God's omnipotent nature isn't bound by the concept of free will. Again, God, "who works all things after the counsel of His will" Ephesians 1:11 takes our free will actions/choices and works them towards and after His ultimate will and plan - that is Omnipotence. Philippians chapter 2 tells us that Jesus Christ being both God and Man - temporarily laid aside the advantages of His God nature to suffer and serve mankind. His action, His choice. In the same way, while God could predetermine all of our actions, he chooses to give us free will. Our free will does not negate or control His power. His choices control and direct His power. His power is demonstrated in that he will ultimately take our free will choices (all of the events of history) and work them together for good after his will. One could argue and many have, that God took the misery and choices of WW2 to cause the re-creation of the nation of Israel as a part of his prophetic plan. Free will is the tool, gift, or ability God gave man to be able to love freely. For believers, we see God taking events and our choices and working them for our ultimate good - Christlikeness which is God's ultimate goal for us and take us to our ultimate destiny in heaven. (read Romans 8:28-30)

 

From my 1st post:

In order for true love to exist, true free will must exist.God’s fore knowledge does not control our actions.In the same way, that I knew with 90% accuracy that my wife was going to pick the pistachio nut ice cream when we walked into the ice cream shop (because I know her intimately – her tastes for ice cream included, and I saw the sign “new pistachio ice cream”) – I still didn’t control her choice – I knew it but it was still her free will choice.God, even with greater certainty, knows our actions but still allows us the freedom to choose according to our free will.God doesn’t remove the choice of our action ( or the consequences –good or bad)or gives us the appearance of a choice.For real love to exist – real choices have to be made.

 

So, I still stand that if evil is the atheist's strongest point against God's existence, the atheist has a burden of proof to show how God and suffering cannot co-exist. Now all of us may have an emotional response to that. I react and question God on an emotional level when bad things happen. We all have an emotional reaction. But I still believe that God's love transcends the evils of this world and his Power will ultimately bring justice and set things right.

[knapplc]

 

So, I still stand that if evil is the atheist's strongest point against God's existence, the atheist has a burden of proof to show how God and suffering cannot co-exist.

 

 

The Theist still has the initial burden of proof to show that God exists. Without that proof, literally every other part of the conversation is speculation.

[Husker_x]

 

 

So, I still stand that if evil is the atheist's strongest point against God's existence, the atheist has a burden of proof to show how God and suffering cannot co-exist.

 

 

The Theist still has the initial burden of proof to show that God exists. Without that proof, literally every other part of the conversation is speculation.

Bingo.

[Hammerhead]

 

The burden of proof is solely on the theist in this regard. It is the strongest atheistic argument for not believing in an Omni-benevolent deity. My biggest objections, which I've never heard answered or even discussed, are as follows,

 

1) Omni-benevolence/Omni-present Contradiction-If God is the ultimate being, postulated by Anslems Ontology, one of the aspects of this would be that he is Omni-Present as well as Omni-benevolent. Omni-presence would also indicate timeless-ness, as it would indicate fullness of presence, eternally, in every possible moment as well as in all possible realities, many of which never existed, nor ever will. However, monotheisms justify the doctrine of eternal punishment with the argument that an All-just as well as an All-Loving God cannot tolerate any Evil in his presence. However, if he is Omni-present, than evil has existed in the fullness of God's presence forever, and if he is eternally in every moment, he is eternally in the presence of evil. And this argument cannot be avoided by having two different definitions of Presence, for if presence is not full and complete in every moment, it ceases to be Omni, as well as violates Anslems Ontology, in any real way, and would cease to be the God of classical western theistic philosophy.

 

2) The Argument from Sufficient Moral Reason- This is William Lane Craig's favorite argument to combat the classic problem of evil. This has always struck me as at the very least Begging the Question, but even a bit circular reasoning. Because if God is bound in someway by a concept of moral necessity, then he ceases to be omnipotent in a meaningful way. Even if one argues that God must allow evil in order for Free Will to be possible, then Free will becomes the concept that God is bound by. But omnipotence cannot be bound in such a way, for if God is omnipotent, then the very concepts of Moral Necessity as well as free will are concepts he created. And if these concepts can exist independent of God's exist, how is he the ultimate being? Once again the ultimate being becomes too prone to paradox, and if he can be bound by paradox, then he isn't "omni." So the classic problem of evil still stands. "Either god cannot stop evil, and is thus impotent, or he will not stop evil, and is thus either capricious or indifferent"

 

So, even if God's existence was validated by cosmological or teleological arguments, one would never be able to rationally believe he was omni-benevolent while at the same time being omnipotent or omniscient. It is simply too paradoxical to be accepted in anything other than a Kierkegaard-esque fashion. If a there exists an ultimate being, ultimate responsibility also follows for succeeding causal events.

The first argument - I think you make the mistake of stating that time is eternal. God started time with the creation of the universe. Time cannot be eternal (infinite) as time would be going infinitely backwards and we could never arrive to 'today'. So to say God has lived with evil forever is incorrect. God lives outside of time and can see the beginning from the end. But even with that, as I posted in my 1st post at the beginning of this thread, God's knowledge of our actions do not control our actions. Psalms 139 tells us that God is everywhere and we cannot hide from His presence it is Omni. However, His actions may differ - His presence may be there to judge, to sustain, or to bless. God's presence with the existence of evil is to judge it. Also, evil has not been eternal either. Read my 4th post which is from Geisler's book "When Skeptics Ask". God chooses to tolerate evil for a period until the right time comes to destroy it.

The 2nd argument - God's omnipotent nature isn't bound by the concept of free will. Again, God, "who works all things after the counsel of His will" Ephesians 1:11 takes our free will actions/choices and works them towards and after His ultimate will and plan - that is Omnipotence. Philippians chapter 2 tells us that Jesus Christ being both God and Man - temporarily laid aside the advantages of His God nature to suffer and serve mankind. His action, His choice. In the same way, while God could predetermine all of our actions, he chooses to give us free will. Our free will does not negate or control His power. His choices control and direct His power. His power is demonstrated in that he will ultimately take our free will choices (all of the events of history) and work them together for good after his will. One could argue and many have, that God took the misery and choices of WW2 to cause the re-creation of the nation of Israel as a part of his prophetic plan. Free will is the tool, gift, or ability God gave man to be able to love freely. For believers, we see God taking events and our choices and working them for our ultimate good - Christlikeness which is God's ultimate goal for us and take us to our ultimate destiny in heaven. (read Romans 8:28-30)

 

From my 1st post:

In order for true love to exist, true free will must exist.God’s fore knowledge does not control our actions.In the same way, that I knew with 90% accuracy that my wife was going to pick the pistachio nut ice cream when we walked into the ice cream shop (because I know her intimately – her tastes for ice cream included, and I saw the sign “new pistachio ice cream”) – I still didn’t control her choice – I knew it but it was still her free will choice.God, even with greater certainty, knows our actions but still allows us the freedom to choose according to our free will.God doesn’t remove the choice of our action ( or the consequences –good or bad)or gives us the appearance of a choice.For real love to exist – real choices have to be made.

 

So, I still stand that if evil is the atheist's strongest point against God's existence, the atheist has a burden of proof to show how God and suffering cannot co-exist. Now all of us may have an emotional response to that. I react and question God on an emotional level when bad things happen. We all have an emotional reaction. But I still believe that God's love transcends the evils of this world and his Power will ultimately bring justice and set things right.

 

 

The time comment brings up an interesting conundrum: if time had a beginning but has no end, isn't it technically still eternal? The promise given is exactly that -- eternal life. Time seems like a concrete concept to me, so I don't think there could be any sort of start to it.

 

Even if God doesn't control people's actions, if he is omniscient, he knows what they'll be regardless. So with that, he's still allowing people to be born on this earth who would eventually be condemned to Hell. Granted, these people are born out of others' free will, but it just seems odd to picture God seeing these people, thinking to himself "Welp, that one's going to Hell, nothing I can do about that" and moving on to someone else. Some of these people simply have no way of learning that God exists. It's not their choice not to follow God, because they're unaware that the option is even there. Missionaries are tasked with delivering the word of God to all corners of the globe, but what if there are people in places so remote that they can't? Who's to blame when those people die never having the option to follow God? Who's condemned for it?

 

Speaking for myself, evil is definitely not my strongest point against God's existence. The infinite amount of possibilities that don't involve supernatural occurrences is.

[TGHusker]

 

 

So, I still stand that if evil is the atheist's strongest point against God's existence, the atheist has a burden of proof to show how God and suffering cannot co-exist.

 

 

The Theist still has the initial burden of proof to show that God exists. Without that proof, literally every other part of the conversation is speculation.

 

Yes, but that brings us all back to the point that both sides have a hard time proving that God does or does not exist. The atheist might have certain arguments and 'evidences' and the theist the same (First Cause, Fine Tuning, Complexity,Moral, etc) What I am saying is that the atheist cannot use the existence of evil as a argument to refute the existence of God. They would have to prove first that God and evil cannot co-exist at the same time to use that as a valid argument against God's existence.

 

X - can I bingo myself ? Just kidding. I agree both sides have burdens to prove and perhaps the Theist more so - esp if the argument is only based on naturalistic evidences - what I can feel, see, touch etc.

[knapplc]

Again, the atheist has zero reason to prove anything. In any conversation about "god," the first question is, "Where is 'god?'" It is incumbent upon the person claiming their god exists to show that it does.