wade-w

Looks to me as if that is what you are doing, Van. Where are your references?

Thomas Metcalf

Thanks for your reply.

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"Surely you'll agree that people often take a position without examining all the potential types of evidence. Is it not a matter of what is to be considered as convincing evidence?"

Yes, they do. It is a matter of what is to be considered convincing evidence; I simply left that out because I'm prepared to offer support for the idea that we can agree on what would be convincing evidence, and there is not enough of it for God.

"Sound on what basis? A sound argument is valid and based on premises that are positively know to be true. What positive atheistic argument possesses these qualities."

I'm using "sound argument" to mean "an argument with true premises and a valid deductive form." I would say we know that, for example, evil exists.

"Also, let me ask you: What attributes of God do you find to greatest opposition? Upon what do evidence do you support your conclusion?"

Depending upon one's version of "omnipotent," there are quite a few conflicts between omnipotence and God's other essential properties, especially omniscience. The conjunction of God's attributes makes it hard to explain why widespread intense human suffering exists, as well.

"For you, what is the single strongest demonstration that it is impossible that God exists?"

All the versions I've seen so far do not possess coherent definitions of "omnipotent" or definitions of "omnipotent" that do not preclude widespread, intense human suffering or conflict with God's other attributes. Until the apologist offers a definition of God with a workable definition of "omnipotent," it will be the case that all the versions in my experience are impossible.

If we assume, however, that God's attributes are all internally consistent and compatible with His other attributes, I think the best reason to disbelieve in Him is the widespread intense suffering we observe, most of which has no visible greater purpose.

I'm eagerly awaiting your response.

Vanderzyden

I think you point directly to the problem: definition. Obviously, a poor example for a definition would be "God is so powerful that he can make a rock so big he can't lift". That's silly. Do you mind if I ask: What is the most respectable definition of which you are aware? Upon what is it based?

I will grant your assumption, though we are still left with the immense challenge of defining and relating God's attributes.

You allude to the problem of evil, of course. Again, we must be careful how we define evil. But, in response, I would first insist that it is entirely possible that God is not directly responsible for the evil. It is also possible that it is not evil for God to choose to avoid directly opposing evil. Furthermore, it is also possible that what we describe as natural evil (floods and earthquakes), is not evil at all.

What say you?

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to dialogue with you!

Vanderzyden

Vibr8gKiwi

This one just makes reason stare. How can an all-knowing, all-powerful god of all creation NOT be responsible for all aspects of his creation? Does he just "turn off" the all knowing portion of himself and pretend he doesn't know what's going to happen? Can he somehow create something that can itself create things he couldn't and didn't anticipate?

Is this a god that created all the laws of the universe and knows what every atom will do, or is this some dope who glances at his creation occasionally and goes "wow, Ebola--I didn't see that one coming--damn evolution, doh!"

(assuming the universe is a created thing for a moment)
I would contend that if there is something in creation that a god of creation is not responsible for, then that god is not all-powerful. Otherwise we have the strange case where the creation can somehow have power the creator does not have (which since the supposed god is all-powerful, disproves such a god's existance).

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Vibr8gKiwi ]</p>

Jobar

Vander, I have a couple of pieces of advice for you. One- it's a good idea to approach all of us, even those who state specifically they are strong atheists, as weak atheists. Most of us are sure that we have seen no *evidence* for a personal God of whatever sort. If you wish to convince us that such a thing exists, at minimum you must provide evidence, or prove logical necessity.

I also very strongly suggest that you cut the huffy act. I have seen you more than once proclaim that a particular opponent isn't 'serious' about the debate- and it is always when you are left with no real answer to the points they are making. If you want to keep posting here, and not in Rants & Raves, you should start following the advice of your Saviour, and meet what you might perceive as sarcasm and insults with gentle words. Observe HelenM- she is a past master at this; even though we may disagree with her strongly, we are polite to her, and she to us. Many of the other theists who post here regularly also do this.

Ah, you also have the option of attempting to answer sarcasm with sarcasm- but be sure your sarcasm is directed at your opponent's arguments, and not at their persons. We frown on ad hominem here.

Vanderzyden

I appreciate the advice and the reminder, Jobar. Perhaps you will notice the differences in my engagements with Thomas and Dr S.

In addition to your suggestions here, I will, as necessary, withdraw and give reasons why I am doing so.


Vanderzyden

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"Do you mind if I ask: What is the most respectable definition of which you are aware? Upon what is it based?"

I think the best position for the theist is to abandon total omnipotence and instead say that God is as powerful as is consistent with and contributes to perfection. This removes God's ability to perform several logically possible actions, but preserves His moral perfection. If we must allow God to be omnipotent, the most defensible version is "can bring about any logically possible state of affairs that can be brought about," but this version has its own problems.

"I would first insist that it is entirely possible that God is not directly responsible for the evil. It is also possible that it is not evil for God to choose to avoid directly opposing evil. Furthermore, it is also possible that what we describe as natural evil (floods and earthquakes), is not evil at all." (Italics original.)

My position does not require us to call anything "evil," really. All we need to accept is that it's morally better for a person to prevent gratuitous intense suffering than to allow it. Do you accept or reject this principle?

Vanderzyden

I think it is rather easy to distinguish potential power from exercised power. An analogy: I could use a sledgehammer to tap a finishing nail, but you could argue that would be a bit much.

Yes, inevitably, the argument finds its way to "gratuitous suffering". But, I'm not sure of the precise meaning of your question. The two primary meanings of "gratuitous" are:

a. given unearned or without recompense
b. not involving a return benefit,
compensation, or consideration

If you insist that God's permitting of suffering is unwarranted, then I would remind you of the human condition. Can a man, who is--to one degree or another--an immoral being, justifiably demand of God that his suffering is undeserved?

If, on the other hand, you mean that suffering has no apparent benefit, then I would argue that humans have a limited perspective. The very existence of suffering in the human experience may indeed directly serve to influence individuals in a variety of ways. There are things worse than pain and death.

Now, I have yet to experience dreadful suffering myself, so I will borrow the words of a very wise man:

God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.

-- C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

So the answer is: no, I don't accept the artificial moral constraint upon suffering. Can the pot make demands of the potter?

Vanderzyden

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"I think it is rather easy to distinguish potential power from exercised power. An analogy: I could use a sledgehammer to tap a finishing nail, but you could argue that would be a bit much."

All definitions of "omnipotent" I've seen have been about potential power. Do you have an alternative?

"If you insist that God's permitting of suffering is unwarranted, then I would remind you of the human condition. Can a man, who is--to one degree or another--an immoral being, justifiably demand of God that his suffering is undeserved?"

Philosophers of religion take "gratuitous" in "gratuitous suffering" to mean "without a justifying good." Is it morally better to prevent an instance of suffering without a justifying good, or to allow an instance of suffering without a justifying good? Or do you assert that we cannot make this judgment at all?

I believe immoral beings can indeed identify some immoral actions.

Vorkosigan

Can a man, who is--to one degree or another--an immoral being, justifiably demand of God that his suffering is undeserved?

Dunno. Is it your claim that my sister deserves to die thirty years early of a degenerative condition that causes her chronic pain and has made it impossible for her to get married, raise children, and otherwise have a normal life? Oh, and she's learning disabled too. And her nerves were put in backwards, so her sensory system is all screwed up and she tastes foods differently than everyone else. God apparently decided to especially torture her -- remember, not a sparrow falls.....

Do you think she deserves this? What sin could possibly warrant that? Would you do that to any creature that you loved? I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

Vorkosigan