Shadowy Man

I guess I was just pointing out that the same logic used by the original poster to "prove" that atheists are intrinsically evil can be used to say the same thing about God.

Personally, I'm not compelled by the logic at all, because I don't think the conclusions follow from the premises, and I don't think all of the premeses are correct.

Van Agon

Hi SanDiegoAtheist,

In response to your post in this thread dated July 03, 2002 11:02 AM, thank you for your response.

[You said:]
"that parent has the power, and the knowledge, to prevent"

1. Omniscient - Having total knowledge.

The atheist parent had total knowledge that the child would experience evil in their lifetime.

2. Omnipotent - Having unlimited power.

The atheist parent had unlimited power to prevent the child from experiencing evil by choosing not to conceive the child and bring them into an evil world.

Therefore, the atheist parent was evil to have the child.

Blessings, -Van
P.S. I'm new here. Would an evil atheist parent be kind enough to tell me how to enable HTML in my post? Or anyone else? Thanks.

Perchance

Van Agon:

To put in a link (I'm assuming this is what you mean by enabling HTML?) hit the "URL" button next to the smilies, type in the web address of the link you want to use, and then, when it asks you what text you want to enter, type whatever you want. It should appear at the end of your post.

Like so:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org" target="_blank">Shining Example of Wisdom</a>

{URL=http://www.infidels.org}Shining Example of Wisdom{/URL}

Just replace the {} with [].

Hope this helps,
Perchance.

Who is not evil, atheist, or a parent, but thought she would reply to this anyway .

SanDiegoAtheist

True, but an incomplete and strawman version of the position which I have already stated that that atheist is in. They may also have knowledge that overall, that child would have a likelihood of experiencing much good during their lifetime. The problem is that, NOT being omniscient, the atheist has no way of doing more than making an informed guess about what the ratio of positive and negative events in that childs life will be.

Does not follow. The atheist would also prevent that child from experiencing any good or neutral acts in life as well.

Again, the problem is that the atheist neither creates, nor has the power to eliminate all the evil in the world (in general). The Christian concept of God supposedly does.

The only possible choice that the atheist has is not to bring a child into the world at all - a course I would expect a rational atheist to take if, in that atheists judgement, the child would experience far more evil than good during that childs lifetime. The atheist does not set the amount of 'evil' in the world, nor the amount of 'good' - they are largely beyond the atheists control.

Again, this is based in a false analogy. The atheists choice in this matter is solely whether to create a child in THIS universe, given THIS universe's state as an imperfect place that has many events occurring within it which could be categorized both as 'good' and 'evil'. Some events will be positive, some events will be negative, but the ATHEIST has no choice in the matter as to how many positive or negative events will occur, nor how they will balance out in the end. The atheist can only make a reasoned judgement (hopefully), based on incomplete knowledge, that the positive will outweigh the negative.

The Christian Gods situation is substantially different. According to Christians, God not only creates the humans (the 'child' in your analogy), but ALSO sets ALL the conditions (the universe, and the ratio of positive and negative events, and indeed whether there are any negative events at all).


The only way that YOUR analogy would work is if the Christian God was NOT omnipotent, nor omniscient, and did NOT create the universe, nor set the conditions. If the Christian God's ONLY choice was to create, or to not create, humanity, and the world was set as is outside of It's power, then and only then would this analogy adequately fit the situation of the atheist above.

We atheists are stuck with the world as it is...supposedly your God isn't. Why the world contains evil is the question - not whether or not a God is malevolent for bringing people into it.

That, after all, is the crux of the Argument from Evil - not that your God is EVIL...but that he does not EXIST because natural evil exists.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

Van Agon

Hi SanDiegoAtheist,

In response to your post dated July 03, 2002 03:53 PM in this thread, thank you for your response. I am enjoying our discussion, and appreciate your posts.

[You said:]
"They may also have knowledge that overall, that child would have a likelihood of experiencing much good during their lifetime."

What is "much good"?

[You said:]
"The atheist does not set the amount of 'evil' in the world"

What "amount of 'evil'" is too much evil.

[You said:]
"if the Christian God was NOT omnipotent, nor omniscient"

This depends on an understanding of these terms. Some things are intrinsically impossible. For example, it is a contradiction in terms to give an individual the ability to choose between good and evil, and yet disallow the possibility of choosing evil. It may be that the possibility to love another person is only feasible when the possibility to deprive love from another person is also possible.

[You said:]
"That, after all, is the crux of the Argument from Evil - not that your God is EVIL...but that he does not EXIST because natural evil exists."

Perhaps, but I've heard the argument also end with, "if there is a God, He must be evil."

I'll close with this. The argument is, indeed, absurd. However, where we part ways is that I believe that the argument is just as absurd as the argument from evil against God. (Surprise, surprise.)

Allow me to explain. I believe that the absurdity of the argument against evil, either for atheist parents or for God, lays in the fact that utility doesn't define what is good. Rather good is so intrinsically.

So, people are good. And although an atheist parent may bear children in the hopes that the very best for them will transpire, I believe that having that child is intrinsically good, even if they had foreknowledge of horrific tragedies (such as Auschwitz, or HIV).

The goodness is the child, not the utility of the child or the utility for the child. Therefore, IMHO, foreknowledge does not necessarily constitute culpability. Rather, deliberate participation constitutes culpability.

The second reason I believe the argument is absurd is because it does analogize humans with God, and these are two different categories. So, where we may hold a human accountable for the prevention of a tragedy (such as involuntary manslaughter), we cannot apply the same litmus test to God.

Finally, I trust God's economy, and therefore deduce that the only feasible solution for acheiving the greatest utility is the creation of free beings with the capacity to choose to love, or to choose to deprive love. This of course cannot be proven, but only becomes the logical conclusion since I trust God is a loving God. Therefore, utility is apart of God's economy, but not at the expense of the means.

In summary, things are intrinsically good, people are intrinsically good, and freedom is intrinsically good, therefore God is The Good.

I've enjoyed our dialog. The holiday weekend awaits. I hope we are able to dialog again in the future. And I hope you have a wonderful 4th.

Blessings, -Van
P.S. Perchance, thanks for the URL tip. I'm also interested in employing the use of HTML markup codes such as &lt;blockquote&gt;, &lt;tt&gt;, &lt;b&gt;, etc. Does anyone know how to enable this option? Thanks.

Bill Snedden

HTML markup is not enabled on this board due to the possibility of malicious code and the inability of UBB security to deal with such a possibility.

However, UBB has its own version of <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=ubb_code_page" target="_blank">markup code</a> which can be used to perform some of the same functions.

You'll note that there is a link to the UBB markup functions on the left hand side of the window that opens when you are posting or replying to a post (there's also a note there to the effect that HTML is not enabled).

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Van Agon

Hi Bill Snedden,

In response to your post dated July 03, 2002 05:21 PM, thank you for your response.

[You said:] Thanks for the tips Bill. I'm sure I'll make a few mistakes before figuring out this UBB stuff. How do you do an equivalent to "&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;tt&gt;Text Here.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/tt&gt;? IOW, is there another way to get an indent without " "? For example, when I am citing another work, which may not necessarily be a quote, per se.

Blessings, -Van

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: Van Agon ]</p>

ohwilleke

Generally the argument from evil for the non-existence of god goes something like this:

(1) The Bible tells us that God is perfectly good.
(2) There is evil in the world.
(3) The Bible tells us that God created the world.
(4) The Bible tells us that God has the power to prevent evil.
(5) A perfectly good being would not create evil or allow it to continue.
(6) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist as described.

Wizardry

Non-sequitur. I could just as easily rewrite the above as follows:

1. There is good in the world.
2. Atheists have children.
3. Children will experience good in the world.
4. Therefore, atheists who have children are intrinisically good for introducing their children to a world of good.

Also, some atheists do not believe in "Good" or "Evil", which further invalidates the argument. You need to establish that having children in a world with some evil is an evil act and that the commission of that act makes a person intrinsically evil.

Have fun trying.

Autonemesis

That's right. But you miscast the analogy to atheists. To maintain the proper relations in the analogy, you would need to name this thread Argument from evil against the existence of atheists with children. This structural flaw in your analogy is independent of the other fallacies involved in the attempt to equate atheists with children to a creator-god.