bd-from-kg

theophilus:

The Bible attributes a great many purposes to God. For example, it says

So one of His purposes, at least, (according to the Bible) is to wreak vengeance for the sins of the fathers on the sons and daughters unto the tenth generation.

In the New Testament we learn of some new purposes. For example, in Mark we find:

So another of God’s purposes is to confuse and baffle those who are not of the elect, lest they be saved.

Of course, you can (and probably will) say that these passages are unrepresentative or that I’m misunderstanding them. But the unavoidable implication is that the Bible is not at all straightforward; you can’t just read a passage and figure it’s true and means what it seems on its face to mean because it’s “God’s word”. Nothing that this book says is “clear”. That’s why there are thousands of Christian sects, all claiming that all of the others have got it wrong.

I’m sorry, but you don’t know what it is either. No one does. No matter what you posit as “God’s purpose” I can cite aspects of the real world that seem to be flatly incompatible with it.

Um, that’s the UPD. Would you care to deal with at least some of the points against it that have been made here?

This type of analogy has been deconstructed innumerable times. Attempts to justify seemingly gratuitous suffering in this way are doomed to fail because of God’s omnipotence. Unless, of course, you’re alluding (in a very indirect, obscure way) to the FWD, which is another can of worms altogether; it’s so far off-subject that it just doesn’t belong on this thread.

This argument has been thoroughly refuted many times over, including in this thread. Are you paying attention at all?

Cripes. Do all Christians have this compulsion to interpret honest doubts about God’s existence as “rebellion against God”? This is insulting and counterproductive. It’s insulting because it says that you know better than I do why I don’t accept theism (and by extension Christianity), and that my “real” motives are low, unworthy, and even depraved. (It’s depraved to knowingly reject Goodness Itself out of pride.) And it’s obviously counterproductive to tell people whom you’re trying to convert that they “really” know that you’re right but refuse to admit it out of pure cussedness. It’s also sinful. It’s your duty as a Christian to try to bring as many people to Christ as possible, whereas this claim is guaranteed to drive them away.

I could say that the real purpose of this argument is to save you the trouble of having to think seriously about whether your beliefs are true: that any argument against your beliefs becomes merely a demonstration of the wickedness of those who pose it and an opportunity to demonstrate the purity of your faith, rather than an intellectual challenge to be grappled with seriously. But I won’t say that. These kinds of ad hominem exchanges are monumentally unproductive.

theophilus

The child does not know what the greater good is, either.

Besides, "greater good," is a meaningless term when applied to God's purposes. Since he is the standard of good, all his actions are absolutely good. "Evil" is a condition of material existence.

But, to the point, it doesn't matter what the "higher good" may be. In order for the PoE argument to work, you must know that there is none.

Check and mate.

theophilus

The "alternatives" derive from the purpose. The "means" as well as the "end" are part of the purpose. Unless you know better.

Spenser

That's a load of crap. Suggesting that geography of birth deems necessary the amount of suffering one should have inflicted upon them over the course of their life is a cop out. Close your eyes, turn your head. Answer with a mystery because there is no good answer. You can say we don't know the purpose just as easily as we can say you don't know that there is a purpose and that can be our UPD used against you. It's a pointless argument talking of unknowns...

Backtrack:

So your parents use their free will to fuck and create you, you get fucked because they happened to do it in the Middle East. That is no sense of morality nor does that suggest a 'fair' God. If God is not at least fair, then omnibenevolence is a joke and there is more evil in the world than is necessary.

theophilus

This last is the "best guess" scenario and, while it maybe okay for a physicist who doesn't want his "facts" to be challenged, it won't do for those who want to make categorical statements about the nature and meaning of any part of human experience.

theophilus

Well, once again ignorance of biblical theology leads to false arguments against Christian theism.

First, I never said that the "geography of birth" determines the level of suffering one deserves.

Second, you assume that "geography of birth" is purely happenstance, that it is not guided by providence. This is gross question begging that assumes your atheistic position.

Third, whether I know the purpose or not is irrelevant to the argument of whether such a purpose exists or not.

"Fair" is not a biblical concept, it is a humanist concept. God is "just," he gives sinners who do not come under his grace what they deserve.

Once again, how do you know there is "more evil in the world than is necessary." How much evil is necessary? How do you explain the existence of evil, as a transcendent concept, in a materialist world?

theophilus

But I will say, that on the basis of scripture, your "honest doubts" are not honest at all . They are a mask for your active rebellion against the God who created you, whom you know through his creation, though you deny that knowledge, and that your arguing agains God is motivated by your need to justify your unbelief.
As to it being unproductive; first, you don't know, of yourself, what may or may not be productive because you don't know what may be produced.
Second, scripture says that God's word does not return to him without having accomplished the purpose for which he sent it. So, my "duty" is to declare and defend what God has said.

theophilus

How indeed?

BTW, whoever said that? He'd have to be pretty stupid since saying "I know what the details are" is a direct contradiction to the concept of an Unknown Purpose.

The point is, God's purpose cannot be discerned empirically, it must be revealed. Since believers (should) start from God's word as authoritative, they can claim to know God's purpose.

Those who beginng by denying the authority of God's word (they do this by asserting their autonomous reason as authoritative), cannot know whether there is a purpose or not and, therefore, have no basis for denying that it exists or using their ignorance as a basis for denying God via the PoE.

Spenser

Now that's funny. Correct me if I am wrong but the best one could do is interpret the bible. Seeing the great indecisiveness in Christianity as a whole this statement ultimately means nothing. All you are asserting is that only you have the correct interpretation of biblical theology.

OK, what other reason could you possibly have for saying this:

I suppose we can dismiss your intent there as meaning nothing.

Hmmm, I thought parents had the free will to attempt procreating. Since most children grow up to be very much like their parents, its hard to imagine a pool of souls, of 'individuals' who and then end up becoming so much like the people that they grew up around. Sounds like you are saying I'm assuming something with out considering an absurd mystery which may dictate otherwise. I prefer Occums Razor thank you. You are born where you are born because you parents had you there.

I could have sworn I said you don't know that there is a purpose, not what the purpose may be, but take another step back if you will.

Oops, 'just' not 'fair'. Funny, you are willing to concede that God is not fair, and if he is not fair once again omnibenevolence is a joke and he is being more evil to some than others so the argument stands. Same can be said for substituting the word just for fair. It would be unjust to give an unlevel playing field where some have to do very little to get into heaven while others have to overcome their society, that societies religion that is taught to then as correct of Xianity, possibly being killed as an infidel in the process, in order to avoid hell. How just is that 'just'? Sounds like you may be more ignorant of geography than I am of theology.

Once again, if all people are not given a 'just' chance, a fair shot at finding Jesus and not burning in hell, then that is far more evil than necessary than could be justified from an omnibenevolent being. Billions of Chinese, Indians, Muslims and others are burning in hell cause they were taught something different, because they were born somewhere non-xian. Really 'just' huh?

As far as explaining the existence of evil as a transcendent concept, in a materialist world, why should anyone?

transcendent - Being above and independent of the material universe. Used of the Deity.

This is unobservable, unknowable, not likely and obviously you are attempting to get me to make a contradictory definition. Good and Evil are perfectly understandable concepts here in the material world and trying to say they mean something different somewhere else is another cop out. Since you can't be right here on earth best answer with a nonsensical mystery....

Wow, you've out done me...

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by bd-from-kg :

Ah, but I said the "crude EAE." I meant the evidential argument. But you're right; what you posted is the baseline argument, and it must be blocked for the theist to have any hope.

You mean libertarian free will? And, are you familiar with David O'Connor's attempt at a logical problem of evil that bypasses FWD?

My own response to FWD is that natural laws prevent much freedom of action these days anyway, so it's doubtful that a little more would cause us to cease to have significant freedom.