Freethought & Rationalism Archive

nogods4me · 05-01-2002, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
Datheron,
Note that you do not credit God for things like
-The recent 7+ earthquake in Seattle that could have killed tens of thousands yet no one was seriously hurt.
-The catastrophic 1908 Siberian explosion which could have killed millions had it occured in a metropolitan area yet few or none were even hurt.
-The thousands of hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanoes that occur that don't harm anyone.
If you blame God for the 'bad' you must also credit him for the 'good'. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty and/or bias.

Thoughts and comments welcomed,
Satan Oscillate My Metallica Sonatas

"Why yes your honor I did horribly murder 45 people yesterday. My defense? Well, it could have been worse, I did stop at 45. Besides, I didn't kill anybody the day before."

BTW, atheists don't "blame" god for the bad or the good, god does not exist. What we are attempt to show is that, if an omnipotent and omnibenevolent creature existed these things would not happen. Unleess of course this creature was also insane.

nogods4me · 05-01-2002, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nogods4me:


"Why yes your honor I did horribly murder 45 people yesterday. My defense? Well, it could have been worse, I did stop at 45. Besides, I didn't kill anybody the day before."

BTW, atheists don't "blame" god for the bad or the good, god does not exist. What we attempt to show is that, if an omnipotent and omnibenevolent creature existed these things would not happen. Unleess of course this creature was also insane.

Philosoft · 05-01-2002, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
Note that you do not credit God for things like
-The recent 7+ earthquake in Seattle that could have killed tens of thousands yet no one was seriously hurt.
-The catastrophic 1908 Siberian explosion which could have killed millions had it occured in a metropolitan area yet few or none were even hurt.
-The thousands of hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanoes that occur that don't harm anyone.

If you blame God for the 'bad' you must also credit him for the 'good'. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty and/or bias.

This makes no sense at all. How is a meteorite crashing into uninhabited Siberia "good"? Is it "better" than a meteorite not crashing into Siberia at all?

Ender · 05-01-2002, 01:25 PM

SOMMS cannot surmount this knowing the unknowable fallacy when he blithely (and quite frivolously) ignores the limitations of this all-too-imperfect and finite existence/universe/reality by positing an omnipotent and benevolent God as the cause.

Another argument for you to mull over, SOMMS:

When we infer a particular cause from an effect, we proportion the one to the other and ascribe to the cause only the qualities that are sufficient to produce the event. (Theistic attributes to the creator is ad hoc, false, spurrious and dishonest)
If the cause is known only through the effect, we ought never add any qualities besides what is essential to produce the effect. Nor is it prudent to infer extra effects from the cause beyond what is already known to us.
Therefore, supposing the design argument is true, then the existence of natural evil or human suffering in the world is sufficient evidence against the possibility of gods of moral characters the theistic religions stubbornly attribute to him/her/them/it.

I have no problems with a deficient deity, since this removes the highfaulting backing these phony-balonies pretend to.

~WiGGiN~

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 05-01-2002, 01:38 PM

Tron,

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
SOMMS:
What confused labels you use: "human suffering caused by natural processes" is "human suffering" but "human suffering caused by humans" is "evil." Since "human suffering" should encompass suffering that results from either natural processes or other humans, using the label "natural evil" makes much more sense.

It depends on which point of view you refer to.

From the view point of the victim...the sufferer.
Natural process that causes suffering = suffering
Human intent that causes suffering = suffering

In this sense you are correct...relative to the empirical senses of the 'sufferer' both catagories register as 'suffering'.

However I prefer (you don't have to) to catagorize suffering as to *why* the suffering is occuring:
Bucket A-Natural process
Bucket B-Intent of will

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:

That would be because the free will defense doesn't work, and it's the only real defense of moral evil I've ever seen.

For me free will explains why there is evil. This explanation works for me.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

philechat · 05-01-2002, 02:03 PM

SOMMS

Just wondering. How about human evil that are not intentionally or willfully evil? (For example, a car accident or a person who burned the whole building with other people b/c he forgot to turn off the gas)

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 05-01-2002, 02:58 PM

PHilosoft,

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft:


This makes no sense at all. How is a meteorite crashing into uninhabited Siberia "good"? Is it "better" than a meteorite not crashing into Siberia at all?

I see.

You would prefer it hit a city?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

philechat · 05-01-2002, 03:04 PM

If God is omnipotent, couldn't He be able to destroy the meteorite in air before it hit siberia (or anywhere it might hit). By the way an earthquake hit the central part of Taiwan two years ago (thousands died)...Supposedly God could change it to uninhabited area as well?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 05-01-2002, 03:09 PM

Ender,

A few thoughts.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ender:

Another argument for you to mull over, SOMMS:

When we infer a particular cause from an effect, we proportion the one to the other and ascribe to the cause only the qualities that are sufficient to produce the event. (Theistic attributes to the creator is ad hoc, false, spurrious and dishonest)
If the cause is known only through the effect, we ought never add any qualities besides what is essential to produce the effect. Nor is it prudent to infer extra effects from the cause beyond what is already known to us.
Therefore, supposing the design argument is true, then the existence of natural evil or human suffering in the world is sufficient evidence against the possibility of gods of moral characters the theistic religions stubbornly attribute to him/her/them/it.

The design argument has nothing to do with the topic...natural evil. Why do you bring it up? Was this a cut and paste error?

Moreover, I suprised that 'modern' atheists still harp on the 'evil implies a loving God can't exist' thing.

This old argument was put to bed some time ago when it was shown that existence of evil in the context of an all-loving God is not contradictory as long as there is a morally sufficient reason for God to allow it. Fini.

Thoughts and comments welcomed,

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonotas

Philosoft · 05-01-2002, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
PHilosoft,

I see.

You would prefer it hit a city?

This is non-responsive and I'm sure you are very well aware of it. Please try to answer the question asked in the future.

Let me rephrase: If God throwing a meteorite into Moscow is 'bad,' and God throwing a meteorite into Siberia is 'good,' if our working definition of good is "didn't kill anyone," why throw the meteorite at all? Surely that would be better still because it would remove the chance that Vladimir, with his free will and all, decided to go camping in the middle of Siberian-nowhere before the big rock hit, no?

05-01-2002, 01:25 PM	#34
Ender Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Lusitania Colony Posts: 658	SOMMS cannot surmount this knowing the unknowable fallacy when he blithely (and quite frivolously) ignores the limitations of this all-too-imperfect and finite existence/universe/reality by positing an omnipotent and benevolent God as the cause. Another argument for you to mull over, SOMMS: When we infer a particular cause from an effect, we proportion the one to the other and ascribe to the cause only the qualities that are sufficient to produce the event. (Theistic attributes to the creator is ad hoc, false, spurrious and dishonest) If the cause is known only through the effect, we ought never add any qualities besides what is essential to produce the effect. Nor is it prudent to infer extra effects from the cause beyond what is already known to us. Therefore, supposing the design argument is true, then the existence of natural evil or human suffering in the world is sufficient evidence against the possibility of gods of moral characters the theistic religions stubbornly attribute to him/her/them/it. I have no problems with a deficient deity, since this removes the highfaulting backing these phony-balonies pretend to. ~WiGGiN~ [ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-01-2002, 02:03 PM	#36
philechat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mind of the Other Posts: 886	SOMMS Just wondering. How about human evil that are not intentionally or willfully evil? (For example, a car accident or a person who burned the whole building with other people b/c he forgot to turn off the gas)

05-01-2002, 03:04 PM	#38
philechat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mind of the Other Posts: 886	If God is omnipotent, couldn't He be able to destroy the meteorite in air before it hit siberia (or anywhere it might hit). By the way an earthquake hit the central part of Taiwan two years ago (thousands died)...Supposedly God could change it to uninhabited area as well?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.