Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Philosoft · 06-19-2003, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
I was going to respond to this but could find nothing of substance.

Consider this a friendly warning: I'd rather you respond to arguments substantively, ignore them, declare them essentially identical to those of another poster (in which case you can direct him or her to another response) or politely decline to answer. This type of contemptful handwaving really has no place here. Rick is intelligent, educated and a veteran of this board; I find it hard to believe his arguments lack any substance whatsoever. Your post is tantamount to insult. Thanks in advance.

~Philo

theophilus · 06-20-2003, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Metcalf
Originally posted by theophilus :

It's a moral obligation, and yes, moral obligations can exist in a materialistic world. It's just that they exist in the minds of human beings.

That's a big dose of question begging. You must first establish that there is an objective moral standard and then that we (parents in this case) are obligated to follow it.
Note, popularity or general consent does not constitute objectivity.
You must explain how transcendent concepts like morality can arise from a purely materialist system (hint - rocks are neither good nor bad).

That there is such a thing as a greater good, which is a good that outweighs the badness of an evil so much that it's worth it to allow the evil.

Before you can talk about a "greater" good, you must explain what good is (it's meaningless to talk about something being greater or lesser if it doesn't exist).
Again, you must establish an objective basis for goodness before you can talk about what is the "greater" good.
Even then, you'll have to show why your vote for the "greater" good goes to one choice rather than another.

Either that, or you have to assert that goods and evils are incommensurable, which is a rather strange position to take.

Not actually; I only have to assert that talk of good and evil is meaningless from a materialist system.

These concepts have been in philosophy of religion for centuries, so it's mildly suprising to me that you're unfamiliar with them.

The issue is not how long they've been around; the issue is on what philosophical system, i.e., world-view, you can account for the existence of such. Materialism, as a system, surely can't.

Whether intense suffering exists is an objective fact, and everyone agrees that it's better to prevent gratuitous suffering than to allow it. Because gratuitous suffering probably exists, God probably doesn't exist.

In law, this is called "assuming facts not in evidence:" That there may be certain types of existential phenomena that are less biologically or mentally pleasurable than others does not give you a basis for making any kind statements about the metaphysical nature of those phenomena.
Besides, even if you could legitimately describe certain types of experience as objectively "evil" you'd have no empirical standard by which to call them "gratuitous."
If there is an earthquake and 10,000 people are killed, what material basis would you have for calling that evil or describing the experience as suffering?
Surely, earthquakes are simply a feature of the material constitution of the earth and are caused by the tektonic or geological forces which are part of that structure.
From a materialistic perspective, who's to "blame" for this evil? Is it the earth itself: so you say "bad earth, bad?" Is it the blind forces which produce the effect: "bad forces, bad?"
How much, if any, of the earthquake would be "gratuitous?" Would 1,000 out of the 10,000 be necessary deaths and the remainder gratuitous; or would it be vise versa?

No one's asking God to prove himself. I'm asking theists to prove God, or in fact, to show us that contrary to all the evidence, it's not the case that he probably doesn't exist.

Interesting how atheists always deny that they are making an affirmative argument against God's existence and are, therefore, immune to the burden of proof. Especially interesting when this discussion is taking place on an atheist website.

You are asking for proof that assumes that your materialsit worldview is correct; that things are the way that you think they are, i.e., your assessment of what is possible and what is not are authoritaitve, and that your standards of proof are infallible.

In order for a Christian to "prove" God by your standards, he would first have to deny the ultimate authority of God and his word.

I won't do that, but for the sake of argument, I'll let you have your assumptions and ask that you "prove" that your materialistic worldvies is consistent with and can account for all the transcendent features of human experience.

Nope. I'm making an affirmative charge that the PoE provides evidence against God's existence, because evil exists and God would try to prevent evil.

You have not demonstrated an objective basis for this claim, i.e., that evil exists and that, if it did, God would try to prevent it. You are making subjective judgements about evil and holding God to act according to how you think he should respond.
In order to talk about evil, you first assume the Christian worldview and it's definition of the conditions of human experience, but then you try to bring in your subjective standard of what these experiences mean and then try to dictate how God must behave in relationship to these experiences.

You are free to assert that evil has a greater purpose all you want, but until you provide evidence for that proposition, I'm not entitled to accept it to any degree.

I don't assert that "evil has a" purpose at all, greater or otherwise. I assert that God has a purpose for all that he ordains or permits to occur within his creation, and that there is no greater or lesser about it. It is his purpose and that is sufficient. "Until you provide evidence that that is not true, I'm entitled to accept it absolutely."

Suppose I told you that there's an elephant in the room with you. Would you believe me? Why or why not?

Well, I certainly wouldn't believe it simply because you said so. I would look around and see.
This is not a problem for me; it is a problem for you.
Because God is the creator and governor of his creation, and because I am created in his image, I can have confidence (relatively) in my senses. If I see an elephant, I can believe it is there. If I don't see it, I can assume it isn't.
The problem for you is that, because you live in a purely materialist world, you can have no confidence that your senses are telling you the truth because you have nothing against which to measure them (except more of the same). Since your senses are notoriously susceptible to deception (optical illusions, sticks that bend when you put them in water), you can have no confidence, based on your worldview, that any particular perception is true.

Spenser · 06-20-2003, 01:08 PM

Here goes another string of 'Nothing Can Exist in a Material World Cause I Said So' rant. Expect multiple posts...

:boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo:

theophilus · 06-20-2003, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
Consider this a friendly warning: I'd rather you respond to arguments substantively, ignore them, declare them essentially identical to those of another poster (in which case you can direct him or her to another response) or politely decline to answer. This type of contemptful handwaving really has no place here. Rick is intelligent, educated and a veteran of this board; I find it hard to believe his arguments lack any substance whatsoever. Your post is tantamount to insult. Thanks in advance.

~Philo

Ok. Well, since you and Tyler think that I short-changed Dr. Rick, let's take a look at his "substantial" post.

That's two logical fallacies; shifting the burden of proof and a strawman, and your initial assertion is still unsubstantiated.

No explanation, no proof. What were the fallacies? How did I shift the burden of proof? Why was my "initial assertion" unsubstantiated? Certainly, his assertion is unsubstantiated - a categorical denial is not proof.

In the inductive PoE, necessary evil is defined as that which is required to fulfill the putative omnimax god's unknown purpose proposed by the unknown purpose defense. Unnecessary evil would be any evil that is not necessary to fulfill that purpose. That's the standard the arguement proposes.

This probably did deserve a response.
This is pure speculation and probably self-contradictory.
First, it doesn't substantiate the assignment of "evil" as a designation of any type of human experience.
Second, if God's purpose is "unknown" (which I reject), then you couldn't possibly know which suffering is "necessary" and which is not. This is pure question begging.

For a guy who claims that God's purpose is "clearly" defined, you sure don't seem to know much about it.

Where's the substance here? Does he get a "warning?"

There's something palpably disgusting about the implicit suggestion that babies in Afghanistan may "need" to freeze to death more than ones in Southern California.

This is just an expression of his personal emotional response. It has no argumentative value. I'm not here to give lessons in argumentation.

There is no reason to assume that pain and death are good, so when you say "if they are" the burden of proof is upon you.

This is responsive to nothing I said. I do not believe that "pain and death are good;" I claim that you have no basis for calling them "bad," and that if you want to do so, the burden of proof is on you.

Even if you are correct, and somehow people in Beverly Hills aren't getting their daily ration of what they should, then it's unfair to the people of Beverly Hills, and god is still not being omnibenevolent.

Again, this was not responsive to anything I said. The challenge was for him, as a materialist, to show why anything should be called evil (objectively) any why it is significant (materialistically) for one group of people to experience more than another.

I think we just spotted the problem: you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about. The PoE is about "omni."

This is certainly respectful. Will he get a warning?

What kind of gibberish is this?

Same as above.

An omni-god would.

An omni-god would "what?" How would you know? Where is the evidence?

theophilus · 06-20-2003, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spenser
Here goes another string of 'Nothing Can Exist in a Material World Cause I Said So' rant. Expect multiple posts...

:boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo:

Cute pictures.

Where exactly did I say that?

theophilus · 06-20-2003, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Pascal would likely not agree with this assertion, and absent any explanation and substantiation, there's no reason any rational person should.

Do you deny that probability can only be assessed where the paramaters of possibility are known? If so, please explain how this is possible.

This is no better than arguing that gods must exist simply because it's not impossible for them to exist.

Well it's nothing of the kind. I deny that you can apply probability statements to the existence of any immaterial entity. You would first have to know how possible/impossible it was for it to exist before you apply any probability statements.

When you flip a coin, you know that there are only two possibilities; heads or tails. So, the probability of it coming up either heads or tails is 50%. However, the probability of it coming up neither is 0.

An improbable god is still improbable, "transcendent" or otherwise.

And a meaningless statement is still a meaningless statement.

Spenser · 06-20-2003, 01:50 PM

Quote:

You must first establish that there is an objective moral standard and then that we (parents in this case) are obligated to follow it.
Note, popularity or general consent does not constitute objectivity.
You must explain how transcendent concepts like morality can arise from a purely materialist system (hint - rocks are neither good nor bad).

I suppose your use of the word objectivity makes the definition that you are asking for impossible. Morality is subjective, not objective and subjective morality has little problem existing in a purely materialistic world. Consensus works just fine here. As far as s strict moral standard, even people that get their morality from the bible don't seem to have a matching set of morals.

Do you believe abortion is evil? How about Euthanasia? Why do so many Christians disagree with you? Will God send all the ones that are wrong to hell?

I am impressed with your ability to manipulate the English language and use it to argue (except for your ignoring peoples obvious intentions in some of their statements), but it does very little to substantiate your assertions. You seem to be representing the idea that good and evil cannot exist objectively in a materialistic world. Lose the qualifier, realize that good and evil are subjective and they exist quite fine in a material world.

If the consensus of people in the world can agree that suffering is evil, I have little problem accepting it as evil. Now if there is a God, and we are all wrong, then God and the Bible are doing a crappy job of letting the world know the difference between good and evil. Now if we are supposed to be living a morally good life, yet God isn't letting us know that certain things we consider evil are really good, then how omnibenevolent is God? It all lends to the absurdity of an actually all good being who allows so much perceived evil and who failed communications in college. Now for more cute faces:

:banghead: :banghead:

Spenser · 06-20-2003, 02:00 PM

Theophilus,

After rereading your many replies, I am beginning to understand more your arguments (not that I agree with them). I would think it interesting, and worthwhile here if you were to create a new thread here explaining your exact reasoning for the existence of God. I'd like to see it all in one place then hash out a few discrepancies that I have with it.

Up to the challenge?

Thomas Metcalf · 06-20-2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by theophilus :

Quote:

That's a big dose of question begging.

Huh? When did I assume the conclusion of my argument to justify one of my premises? Show me where I did that, please, or apologize for making a false accusation.

Quote:

You must explain how transcendent concepts like morality can arise from a purely materialist system...

I don't need to be a materialist to be an atheist, so you're attacking a straw person. I don't have to explain anything of the sort. And I don't even have to account for morality in an atheistic system, because the only reason we'd need to work in an atheistic system is if I already demonstrated that God does not exist.

Here's the argument. (1) If God existed, then it would be morally better to prevent gratuitous suffering than to allow it. (Right?) (2) But there is gratuitous suffering. (3) So if God existed, God would be failing a moral obligation. (4) So God doesn't exist. With which of the two premises do you disagree?

Quote:

...you'd have no empirical standard by which to call them "gratuitous."

Again, you really need to do some research. All professional Christian philosophers agree that it makes sense to talk about gratuitous vs. non-gratuitous suffering. If an instance of suffering is gratuitous, then it's not necessary for an equal or greater good thing. (If God exists, then there are such entities as good things.)

Quote:

If there is an earthquake and 10,000 people are killed, what material basis would you have for calling that evil or describing the experience as suffering?

Once again, I have no reason to assume materialism. Even if I did, folk psychology indicates that earthquakes cause suffering.

Quote:

Interesting how atheists always deny that they are making an affirmative argument against God's existence and are, therefore, immune to the burden of proof.

Show me where I did that, please, or apologize for misrepresenting me.

Quote:

You are asking for proof that assumes that your materialsit worldview is correct; ...

Show me where I did that, please, or apologize for misrepresenting me. I'm beginning to wonder if you even read my posts, or rather, if you simply attribute to me what you want me to be saying.

Quote:

Because God is the creator and governor of his creation, and because I am created in his image, I can have confidence (relatively) in my senses. If I see an elephant, I can believe it is there. If I don't see it, I can assume it isn't.

I'm afraid not. God might have a good reason for not showing you the elephant that's actually in the room with you, and a good reason for not telling you that good reason. God might have a greater purpose. Therefore, you can't be confident that there isn't an elephant in the room, the same way you can't be confident that God would prevent more suffering in the world.

Thomas Metcalf · 06-20-2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Spenser :

Quote:

Theophilus,

After rereading your many replies, I am beginning to understand more your arguments (not that I agree with them). I would think it interesting, and worthwhile here if you were to create a new thread here explaining your exact reasoning for the existence of God. I'd like to see it all in one place then hash out a few discrepancies that I have with it.

Up to the challenge?

Hear, hear. I second that emotion. Let's get it out in the open.

06-20-2003, 01:08 PM	#63
Spenser Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Don't you wish your boy friend got drunk like me, Posts: 7,808	OH GOD! Here goes another string of 'Nothing Can Exist in a Material World Cause I Said So' rant. Expect multiple posts... :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo:

06-20-2003, 02:00 PM	#68
Spenser Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Don't you wish your boy friend got drunk like me, Posts: 7,808	Request Theophilus, After rereading your many replies, I am beginning to understand more your arguments (not that I agree with them). I would think it interesting, and worthwhile here if you were to create a new thread here explaining your exact reasoning for the existence of God. I'd like to see it all in one place then hash out a few discrepancies that I have with it. Up to the challenge?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.