tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post7991875554878108925..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: The Morality Test for GodMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger139125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-77380570792523879572011-04-21T17:46:46.991-07:002011-04-21T17:46:46.991-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.The Ellipsishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00506748420552727724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-25166704020794902562011-04-21T14:39:41.856-07:002011-04-21T14:39:41.856-07:00Havok: “So in the former case someone can be saved...Havok: “So in the former case someone can be saved without accepting salvation, simply because their suffering was sever enough to counter balance their sins, and in the second fashion, the suffering led the person to accept salvation? Is that what you're saying?<br />That seems to be advocating salvation through works, which as far as I'm aware is fairly unorthodox Christian doctrine. It was my understanding that no amount of good deeds (or suffering) could make up for your sins, and that without accepting Jesus (and salvation) all were hell bound.”<br /><br />With respect to the idea that suffering has a redeeming effect I made it quite clear that I’m not sure if it is correct and so I’m not dogmatic about it. But even if it was correct it would not amount to salvation through works, as involuntary suffering clearly is no work that someone accomplishes. It would still amount to salvation through grace. The same applies to the idea that people who die before they reach the age of accountability are saved.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-7138841464606219372011-04-21T14:32:55.484-07:002011-04-21T14:32:55.484-07:00Havok: “You're contradicting yourself.
Yes, a ...Havok: “You're contradicting yourself.<br />Yes, a perfectly just being would not (could not even) intervene if the suffering was just. If the suffering was unjust, then a perfectly just being would not (could not even) help BUT alleviate the suffering.<br /><br />[…]<br /><br />So we still have the fact that God, if he existed and were perfectly just, would intervene if suffering was unjust, and therefore we should not intervene (as to do so would be unjust).<br />If God is omnibenevolent, then God would only let someone suffer in a manner which would reduce their own and global suffering, and so we can assume that intervening will increase suffering (theirs and/or gloabally).”<br /><br />My point is that God may be unable to help a sufferer, even if the suffering is unjust, because as being perfectly just the best He cannot help a suffering sinner before dealing legally with the sufferer’s previous sins. But even if we assume that God is able to help a suffering sinner He nevertheless may not do so, as He may regard the sinners unjust suffering as an anticipation of the sinner’s punishment in the afterlife or at least part of it. The unjust suffering in this life would so to speak be subtracted from the suffering in the afterlife. A Christian on the other hand need not be concerned with the sufferer’s overall amount of suffering, as he can try to make the sufferer receptive of God’s salvation by conspicuously doing good works, something God may not be able to do.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-88240428715705831682011-04-21T14:24:19.541-07:002011-04-21T14:24:19.541-07:00Havok: “The passages seem to imply that you're...Havok: “The passages seem to imply that you're arguing that God hides himself from the world generally, and from those who don't already believe. That doesn't seem very loving.”<br /><br />In my view God only hides only from those who don’t seek Him but not from those who seek Him (Jeremiah 29,13-14, Matthew 7,8).<br /><br />Havok: “And yet perhaps had the Christian not intervened, the person may have accepted salvation.”<br /><br />To me this seems psychologically implausible.<br /><br />Havok: “Why must that be assumed?<br />Many Christians lose their faith, change faith, or whatever, and it seems that at least some of them have had the full religious experience. I don't think you can blithly make that assumption.”<br /><br />I don’t see why this should keep Christians from helping. Even if you are right, a Christian may arrive at the conclusion you refer to in any situation, not necessarily when he helps people.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-91246634745648758812011-04-21T14:17:11.791-07:002011-04-21T14:17:11.791-07:00Havok: “If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, t...Havok: “If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then God could intervene without causing the sort of disruption you're suggesting.<br /><br />[…]<br /><br />Since you're claiming that perhaps God doesn't intervene because it may increase suffering, the Christian is in the same bind (because if intervening was not going to increase suffering, then God would intervene).<br /><br />[…]<br /><br />that seems to be evidence against either God's (constrained) omnipotence, or omnibenevolence. Surely an omnipotent being could temper it's "power"? Surely an omniscient being would want to?”<br /><br />Here again an analogy may help to show what I mean. Thinking about the power of electricity we can use it to accomplish amazing things. One of these accomplishments is the running of railway trains at a high speed over long distances. But in order to accomplish this the electric tension must be very high, indeed so high that it is exceedingly dangerous for humans, so that they must be protected from it. With only a low electric tension you cannot achieve that much, maybe make a pocket lamp shine, but dealing with it isn’t a dangerous matter. In the same way one may assume that the greater God’s beneficial power is the greater is God’s destructive power.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-71052278087427280732011-04-21T14:15:00.052-07:002011-04-21T14:15:00.052-07:00Havok: “If it is unjust suffering, then I cannot s...Havok: “If it is unjust suffering, then I cannot see any way you can claim a perfectly just being would not alleviate it. Since you're suggesting the Christian God may not alleviate unjust suffering, then we're left concluding that the Christian God would not/could not be perfectly Just.<br /><br />[…]<br /><br />Whatever you are postulating to prevent God from alleviating unjust suffering (omnibenevolence?) is therefore not compatible with perfect Justice - one of the two will have to go.”<br /><br />Let me use an analogy to explain my point. Someone takes out an insurance policy, but then fails to pay the insurance premium. Then the event insured against occurs. In such a case the insurance company is not going to pay the insurance benefit, although there is no insurance fraud. The insurance company certainly doesn’t pay the insurance benefit before it receives the outstanding payments, even if the amount of these payments is much smaller than the amount of the insurance benefit.<br /><br />In this analogy the outstanding payments are the sins the sufferer has committed and of which he has not repented, the event insured against is the unjust suffering, the insurance benefit God’s help.<br /><br />Havok: “This smells of an ad-hoc assumption on your part.”<br /><br />It would only be an ad-hoc assumption if I hadn’t provided Biblical passages supporting this view.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-22531481920344064392011-04-20T17:15:27.696-07:002011-04-20T17:15:27.696-07:00So we still have the fact that God, if he existed ...So we still have the fact that God, if he existed and were perfectly just, would intervene if suffering was unjust, and therefore we should not intervene (as to do so would be unjust).<br />If God is omnibenevolent, then God would only let someone suffer in a manner which would reduce their own and global suffering, and so we can assume that intervening will increase suffering (theirs and/or gloabally).<br /><br />We also have a number of difficulties with the general concept of God, the solution to which do not seem possible while keeping the nature of God intact (why worship a being who is not perfectly Just or loving, etc?)Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-81161307077854395362011-04-20T17:12:31.911-07:002011-04-20T17:12:31.911-07:00Patrick: As for the historicity of the Exodus the ...<b>Patrick: As for the historicity of the Exodus the following links are very informative:</b><br />I don't want to derail this thread too much more than we already have. I had a quick glance, and they seem replate with rationalisations and some misunderstandings, though I'll take a more in depth look a bit later.<br /><br />As I understand it, there are a number of different pieces of evidence which make the Exodus (and the Conquest) as presented in the bible very very unlikely. Various sites have been excavated (such as the site the Hebrew's supposedly camped at for some 30+ years during the "wandering") with no evidence of a large group of people. Surveys of the Late bronze/early Iron highland villages show a continuity of culture from the late bronze age city states of the lowlands, rather than what would be expected on the Exodus/Conquest (abrupt change in material culture). The highland villages show a gradual (though rapid) increase in population of the area, implying migration from the collapsing late bronze city states. Excavation of the places mentioned as destroyed by the Hebrews (in Joshua) do not agree with the bible account (jericho and Ai being notable examples). There are cultural and geographical anachronisms which are more suited to a much later period (around the 8-10th centuries if I recall correctly). And the last couple of things I'll bring up (though by no means the last piece of evidence which undermines the biblical account) is the lack of evidence from Egypt itself. While we might not expect the Egyptian chroniclers to record a defeat as depicted in the Exodus, as your links mentioned, we would expect evidence of the societal collapse which would ensue (going from memory, the Biblical account has some 1-2 million people up and leaving, and the estimated population of Egypt at the time was ~3 million - having 1/3-2/3 of the population, and the labourers at that, would have certainly left evidence). Finally, we do not have Egyptian power lessening during this period, and have evidence that Egypt actually controlled the area prior to and after the supposed time of the Exodus (the Armana letters, plus other archaeological evidence, for example).<br /><br /><br /><b>Patrick: I don’t think that they are the same, as in the latter case suffering needn’t have a redeeming effect. As for the former case the suffering may only have a redeeming effect if it is involuntary.</b><br />So in the former case someone can be saved without accepting salvation, simply because their suffering was sever enough to counter balance their sins, and in the second fashion, the suffering led the person to accept salvation? Is that what you're saying?<br />That seems to be advocating salvation through works, which as far as I'm aware is fairly unorthodox Christian doctrine. It was my understanding that no amount of good deeds (or suffering) could make up for your sins, and that without accepting Jesus (and salvation) all were hell bound.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: As I pointed out it may not be a lack of power that prevents God from acting on a sufferer’s behalf but the fact that He is perfectly just. </b><br />You're contradicting yourself.<br />Yes, a perfectly just being would not (could not even) intervene if the suffering was just. If the suffering was unjust, then a perfectly just being would not (could not even) help BUT alleviate the suffering.<br />As I said above, you've got some serious problems with how you conceive of God which need to be rigorously worked out prior to ANY of the stuff we've been discussing meriting serious consideration :-)Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-14084580351542875032011-04-20T17:11:27.626-07:002011-04-20T17:11:27.626-07:00Patrick: I don’t suggest that the suffering is nec...<b>Patrick: I don’t suggest that the suffering is necessarily just. It may even be very unjust.</b><br />If it is unjust suffering, then I cannot see any way you can claim a perfectly just being would not alleviate it. Since you're suggesting the Christian God may not alleviate unjust suffering, then we're left concluding that the Christian God would not/could not be perfectly Just.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: But as the sufferer certainly has committed sins before he came into this situation, those previous, unpunished sins may prevent God from intervening on the sufferer’s behalf.</b><br />Whatever you are postulating to prevent God from alleviating unjust suffering (omnibenevolence?) is therefore not compatible with perfect Justice - one of the two will have to go.<br />I'll point out again that this discussion is fairly pointless (interesting though it is) simply because you're arguing for the existence of something which is incoherent and illogical - your concept of God. Much like the your dismissal of the invisible Pink Unicorn easlier.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: So, God may be inclined to intervene to such a degree that the resulting harm is as small as possible.</b><br />This smells of an ad-hoc assumption on your part. If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then God could intervene without causing the sort of disruption you're suggesting.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: I don’t argue for a general but for a partial hiddenness of God</b><br />The passages seem to imply that you're arguing that God hides himself from the world generally, and from those who don't already believe. That doesn't seem very loving.<br /><br /><b>Partick: I don’t see what would motivate a follower of Satan to help sufferers.</b><br />Lack of imagination perhaps?<br />2 people can certainly cause more misery than 1 - the more followers of Satan (assuming he existed) surely the "better".<br /><br /><b>Patrick: But even if this occurred this would be even more motivation for a Christian to help sufferers.</b><br />I've argued that Christians have an obligation NOT to help sufferers.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: If this is the case then for the consequences of such a reaction nobody but the sufferer will be to be blamed.</b><br />And yet perhaps had the Christian not intervened, the person may have accepted salvation.<br />Since you're claiming that perhaps God doesn't intervene because it may increase suffering, the Christian is in the same bind (because if intervening was not going to increase suffering, then God would intervene).<br /><br /><b>Patrick: It is to be assumed that the Christian is someone to whom God was revealed</b><br />Why <i>must</i> that be assumed?<br />Many Christians lose their faith, change faith, or whatever, and it seems that at least some of them have had the full religious experience. I don't think you can blithly make that assumption.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: Even in the Bible God never talked to all people but only to a select number of people</b><br />That in itself is suspicious - see Matt's next post on "The Natural Theologians Dilemma" (though the comments have now gone a little off topic).<br /><br /><b>Patrick: But even for those chosen people the encounter with God could be an unpleasant experience</b><br />that seems to be evidence against either God's (constrained) omnipotence, or omnibenevolence. Surely an omnipotent being could temper it's "power"? Surely an omniscient being would want to?Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-24659728453059154982011-04-20T17:10:21.889-07:002011-04-20T17:10:21.889-07:00Patrick: Is there any phenomenon of which you can ...<b>Patrick: Is there any phenomenon of which you can say with certainty that it can’t possibly ever be accounted for naturally?</b><br />Not with certainty no, but on the converse, there are no phenomena I can say with certainty can ever be accounted completely for naturally. We're left with some degree of doubt (though that may be arbitrary small).<br />Given that, then there certainly could be phenomena which could better be accounted for supernaturally.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: As far as I can see my view of the supernatural based on the concept of design-imposed isn’t affected by your objection.</b><br />You're trying to demonstrate rarified design by contrasting it with ordinary design. You're trying to justify rarified design without regard for the fact that non-intelligent processes <i>can</i> produce "design" (ie. evolution). You're trying to claim rarified design, without external evidence for the designer (and if you're a "mainstream" ID'er, at great pains to avoid discussing the attributes of the designer).<br />As I pointed out above, what you need is a detailed intentional explanation which has enough empirical content to be subject to falsification/confirmation. The "God hypothesis" which have been presented so far, are empty of empirical content, meaning that any finding and it's converse could be claimed as evidence for the hypothesis. An hypothesis like this is useless.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: What would you regard as “decent evidence” that could not be dismissed as a case of the God of the gaps fallacy? </b><br />A detailed and tested intentional explanation would be a start.<br />A worked out methodology and epistemology supporting the supernatural (as the science has), preferably utilising publically accessible information rather than subjective, internal "revelation" (if such a method and epistemology existed, there would be far less disagreement regarding the different faiths).<br /><br />As it stands, with the poor to non-existent evidence of anything supernatural ever having happened, the terrible track record of supernatural explanations in general and the lack of a solid methodology and epistemology in which to invesitage and support supernatural claims, I see no reason to think that the "supernatural" is a thing rather than just an idea.Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-27976122410115197132011-04-20T13:46:43.844-07:002011-04-20T13:46:43.844-07:00Havok: “Both of your "ways to salvation"...Havok: “Both of your "ways to salvation" from suffering seem basically the same, Patrick.”<br /><br />I don’t think that they are the same, as in the latter case suffering needn’t have a redeeming effect. As for the former case the suffering may only have a redeeming effect if it is involuntary.<br /><br />Havok: “How can the good deeds of Christians be more effective than the efforts of an omnipotent/"All Powerfull" God?”<br /><br />As I pointed out it may not be a lack of power that prevents God from acting on a sufferer’s behalf but the fact that He is perfectly just. <br /><br />Havok: “One may not assume that, Patrick. One must demonstrate that that is the case.”<br /><br />To me this seems to be so obvious that I don’t see any need to demonstrate it.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-61892046590631793892011-04-20T13:45:03.317-07:002011-04-20T13:45:03.317-07:00Havok: “- We know the suffering is Just because Go...Havok: “- We know the suffering is Just because God does not alleviate it (if it were unjust God would not tolerate it, as it would be against his perfect Justice to allow injustice)”<br /><br />I don’t suggest that the suffering is necessarily just. It may even be very unjust. But as the sufferer certainly has committed sins before he came into this situation, those previous, unpunished sins may prevent God from intervening on the sufferer’s behalf.<br /><br />Havok: “Assuming the bible is to believed, it has never stopped him in the past.”<br /><br />In an earlier comment I wrote: “But I think you cannot have God’s blessing without God’s righteousness. This means the more conspicuously God interferes in this world blessing us, the more conspicuously God interferes in this world judging us, and the latter may be quite a painful experience.“ In the same comment I pointed to the rebelling Israelites in the Old and to Ananias and Saphira in the New Testament as people for whom God’s conspicuous intervention had an unpleasant effect. I think if God intervened in this world to the utmost degree nobody would survive such an intervention, as we all to a certain degree are sinners. So, God may be inclined to intervene to such a degree that the resulting harm is as small as possible. <br /><br />Havok: “- God alleviating A's suffering will result in more harm than good (ie. saving a young drowning Hitler)”<br /><br />Your example with the drowning Hitler doesn’t reflect my idea. I’m thinking about the situation described just before.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-23196941806043066112011-04-20T13:40:32.070-07:002011-04-20T13:40:32.070-07:00Havok: “The hiddenness of God is a great argument ...Havok: “The hiddenness of God is a great argument against his existence (at least, against any deity supposedly depicted in the Christian Bible) - there was no injunction against God's intervention then, yet you're claiming there is one now.”<br /><br />I don’t argue for a general but for a partial hiddenness of God (Matthew 11,25-27, John 14,15-24). <br /><br />Havok: “And if a follower of Satan helps him?”<br /><br />I don’t see what would motivate a follower of Satan to help sufferers. But even if this occurred this would be even more motivation for a Christian to help sufferers.<br /><br />Havok: “Or if the person helped resents the Christian and turns against God further?”<br /><br />If this is the case then for the consequences of such a reaction nobody but the sufferer will be to be blamed.<br /><br />Havok: “Or the Christian, in helping person A, realises that God is so hidden as to be non-existent, and loses his faith?”<br /><br />It is to be assumed that the Christian is someone to whom God was revealed (Matthew 11,27).<br /><br />Havok: “And yet we have instances of the Christian God talking to people directly AFTER Exodus (which is not historical anyway) took place.”<br /><br />Even in the Bible God never talked to all people but only to a select number of people (Numbers 12,8, 2 Kings 3,11, John 5,37-38, Acts 10,41, 22,7-9). But even for those chosen people the encounter with God could be an unpleasant experience (Isaiah 6,5, Acts 9,1-9).<br /><br />As for the historicity of the Exodus the following links are very informative:<br /><br />http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48938472.html <br /><br />http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48939077.htmlPatrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-31633462915504632872011-04-19T17:44:09.061-07:002011-04-19T17:44:09.061-07:00Patrick: My point is that for a perfectly just bei...<b>Patrick: My point is that for a perfectly just being it may be impossible to help a sinner and remain perfectly just, as it would mean that the sinner is rewarded for his evil deeds instead of being punished for them</b><br />Which is just reinforcing my point.<br />Assuming your God exists:<br />- God is perfectly Just<br />- We whould emulate God to the best of our ability, and be Just ourselves.<br />- Person A is suffering.<br />- We know the suffering is Just because God does not alleviate it (if it were unjust God would not tolerate it, as it would be against his perfect Justice to allow injustice)<br />- We should not alleviate A's suffering, as it would be injust of us to do so.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: As we are not perfectly just and in addition to this, unlike God, not entitled to be other people’s judges (James 4,12), this restriction doesn’t apply to us. </b><br />It's irrelevant - we could infer precisely God's judgement because he's perfectly Just.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: God may not intervene conspicuously in this world, as it would do more harm than good</b><br />Assuming the bible is to believed, it has never stopped him in the past.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: This certainly doesn’t apply to us.</b><br />Yes it does.<br />- God alleviating A's suffering will result in more harm than good (ie. saving a young drowning Hitler)<br />- Therefore alleviating A's suffering will result in more harm than good.<br />- We have reason not to alleviate A's suffering<br /><br /><b>Patrick: Moreover, as God may only be able to intervene in a hidden way, the sufferer may not realize that God helped him, and therefore the helping act cannot contribute to his salvation.</b><br />The hiddenness of God is a great argument against his existence (at least, against any deity supposedly depicted in the Christian Bible) - there was no injunction against God's intervention then, yet you're claiming there is one now. Special pleading?<br /><br /><br /><b>Patrick: However, if a follower of Christ helps him, this may cause him to praise God and eventually to accept God’s salvation.</b><br />And if a follower of Satan helps him?<br />Or if the person helped resents the Christian and turns against God further?<br />Or the Christian, in helping person A, realises that God is so hidden as to be non-existent, and loses his faith?<br /><br />Sorry, I think you'll need to do a little better than that.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: One might ask why God may only be able to intervene in a hidden way and not be able to talk to the sufferer personally and inform him of His helping act. He may indeed be able to do so, but from Exodus 20,18-19 one can draw the conclusion that it is better if God doesn’t speak to us directly. </b><br />And yet we have instances of the Christian God talking to people directly AFTER Exodus (which is not historical anyway) took place.<br />More special pleading.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: Suffering may in two ways lead to a person’s salvation.</b><br />Both of your "ways to salvation" from suffering seem basically the same, Patrick.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: Moreover, from Matthew 5,16, 1 Peter 2,11-12, and 3,1-2 one can draw the conclusion that the good deeds of Christians may be an even more effective means to make people receptive of God’s salvation.</b><br />How can the good deeds of Christians be more effective than the efforts of an omnipotent/"All Powerfull" God?<br />It's ridiculous, really.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: So, if such deeds and some amount of suffering don’t make a sufferer receptive of God’s salvation one may assume that an additional amount of suffering won’t have this effect, either.</b><br />One may not assume that, Patrick. One must demonstrate that that is the case.<br /><br />So, we're still left with Christian theism being incompatible with ordinary morality, and either us having no moral obligation to help those who are suffering, or God being morally blameworthy for not doing so (which would demonstrate God's non-existence, since God is supposedly "perfectly moral", and the most morally praiseworthy being).Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-28015133877966545982011-04-19T12:58:51.896-07:002011-04-19T12:58:51.896-07:00Havok: “- If God does not intervene due to the cur...Havok: “- If God does not intervene due to the current suffering leading to the person's salvation, then we should not intervene and interfere with this process.”<br /><br />Suffering may in two ways lead to a person’s salvation. One way could be that suffering itself has a redeeming effect. Luke 16,25 could point to this, although it is not clear if it is just assumed without being explicitely stated that Lazarus had accepted God’s salvation while alive, and that it was this act rather than his suffering that led to his enjoyment of heavenly bliss. Another effect of suffering could be that it makes the sufferer receptive of God’s salvation. Luke 15,11-21 could serve as an illustration for such a view. <br /><br />Moreover, from Matthew 5,16, 1 Peter 2,11-12, and 3,1-2 one can draw the conclusion that the good deeds of Christians may be an even more effective means to make people receptive of God’s salvation. So, if such deeds and some amount of suffering don’t make a sufferer receptive of God’s salvation one may assume that an additional amount of suffering won’t have this effect, either.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-53454522033157992192011-04-19T12:57:04.755-07:002011-04-19T12:57:04.755-07:00Havok: “- If God's perfect justice means he do...Havok: “- If God's perfect justice means he does not intervene, then it is unjust of us to intervene.”<br /><br />My point is that for a perfectly just being it may be impossible to help a sinner and remain perfectly just, as it would mean that the sinner is rewarded for his evil deeds instead of being punished for them. As we are not perfectly just and in addition to this, unlike God, not entitled to be other people’s judges (James 4,12), this restriction doesn’t apply to us. <br /><br />Havok: “- If God wanting to reduce overall suffering and suffering in the afterlife means he does not intervene, then for us to intervene would increase suffering over all.”<br /><br />God may not intervene conspicuously in this world, as it would do more harm than good (Exodus 19,9-23, Matthew 13,27-29). This certainly doesn’t apply to us. Moreover, as God may only be able to intervene in a hidden way, the sufferer may not realize that God helped him, and therefore the helping act cannot contribute to his salvation. However, if a follower of Christ helps him, this may cause him to praise God and eventually to accept God’s salvation.<br /><br />One might ask why God may only be able to intervene in a hidden way and not be able to talk to the sufferer personally and inform him of His helping act. He may indeed be able to do so, but from Exodus 20,18-19 one can draw the conclusion that it is better if God doesn’t speak to us directly.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-90390905011381900282011-04-19T12:53:27.984-07:002011-04-19T12:53:27.984-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-88438571540837688152011-04-18T05:39:37.792-07:002011-04-18T05:39:37.792-07:00Havok: “And therein lies a serious problem for des...Havok: “And therein lies a serious problem for design theorists of your stripe - you need to demonstrate not just that such things are not accounted for naturally, but that they cannot be accounted for naturally. Since that claim seems to require either a completed explanation in favour of your claims, or a completed science (which we'll never have), I don't see why such claims ought to be taken seriously.”<br /><br />Is there any phenomenon of which you can say with certainty that it can’t possibly ever be accounted for naturally?<br /><br />Havok: “Of course the problem really lies with supernaturalists who have had to continually redefine what they mean in the face of advancing scientific knowledge, leading to the situation we're currently in, we're such concepts seem no longer logically coherent.”<br /><br />As far as I can see my view of the supernatural based on the concept of design-imposed isn’t affected by your objection.<br /><br />Havok: “Oh, we're not ruling it out a priori, just a posteri due to a lack of rational arguments and decent evidence.”<br /><br />What would you regard as “decent evidence” that could not be dismissed as a case of the God of the gaps fallacy?Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-6684722009950099922011-04-15T21:19:33.408-07:002011-04-15T21:19:33.408-07:00Basically Patrick, it seems that every concern you...Basically Patrick, it seems that every concern you bring up as to why God may not intervene is also a concern as to why we ought not intervene (assuming teism, of course).<br />- If God's perfect justice means he does not intervene, then it is unjust of us to intervene.<br />- If God wanting to reduce overall suffering and suffering in the afterlife means he does not intervene, then for us to intervene would increase suffering over all.<br />- If God does not intervene due to the current suffering leading to the person's salvation, then we should not intervene and interfere with this process.<br /><br />It is your making exceptions and special pleading for God which is the problem, and is what you've been trying to wiggle your way around, without success.Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-6904511491906989162011-04-15T21:12:14.425-07:002011-04-15T21:12:14.425-07:00Patrick: In addition to that it must appear design...<b>Patrick: In addition to that it must appear designed in one way or another. </b><br />"Appearance of design" is not enough, as we know of design like features can and do arise from non-teleological sources.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: This idea is very well explained in a paper entitled “Miracles, Intelligent Design, and God-of-the-Gaps”, written by Jack Collins</b><br />That paper is not particularly good. He relies upon an "intuition" regarding whether something is designed or not, favourable references Dembski (whose project to formalise that intuition is dead in the water) and Behe (whose project to demonstrate "enevolvable features" in biology has yet to find a positive), and conflates the archaeologists inference of "design", which is basically detecting human activity, with some rarified design of some thing or some one whose existence and attributes tend to be completely glossed over. Collins seems to think that since we have inferred design for stone henge and go on to enquire about why people may have made it, we can do the same for other unanswered scientific questions which fit his supposed criteria, without justifying his inference to design in these cases.<br />In fact, Collins entire argument seems akin to:<br />1. God exists<br />2. God would design stuff<br />3. Some stuff looks designed.<br />4. Therefore God exists.<br /><br />The apparent circularity in his claims is not a great basis for an argument.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: In my view it is reasonable to regard phenomena as supernatural, if they show design-imposed, as defined by Jack Collins, and cannot be accounted for naturally.</b><br />And therein lies a serious problem for design theorists of your stripe - you need to demonstrate not just that such things <i>are not</i> accounted for naturally, but that they <i>cannot</i> be accounted for naturally. Since that claim seems to require either a completed explanation in favour of your claims, or a completed science (which we'll never have), I don't see why such claims ought to be taken seriously.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: The three examples I mentioned above meet these requirements.</b><br />And how would you know that?<br /><br /><b>Patrick: If you don’t accept this definition I don’t see how a miracle or some other supernatural event could ever be established.</b><br />Well, since the supernatural generally, much like your god, seems and ill defined and likely incoherent, I'm not sure that would be a big problem. Of course the problem really lies with supernaturalists who have had to continually redefine what they mean in the face of advancing scientific knowledge, leading to the situation we're currently in, we're such concepts seem no longer logically coherent.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: But if this is the case the objection put forward in connection with the problem of evil that God doesn’t intervene in favour of sufferers is no longer valid as it is impossible to establish such an intervention. </b><br />Oh, we're not ruling it out a priori, just a posteri due to a lack of rational arguments and decent evidence. But you're welcome to try to address this problem.Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-4278044014856343012011-04-15T14:14:31.941-07:002011-04-15T14:14:31.941-07:00Havok: “So if the obstacles are not important, why...Havok: “So if the obstacles are not important, why are they obstacles for an omnipotent being?<br />If sinfullness is an obstacle, then there must be a reason why God doesn't simply "overcome" it, and that reason seems to make it important.”<br /><br />It’s not really clear to me what you mean by “important”. As for sinfulness God cannot simply overcome it as He respects the sinners’ free will. If people are not ready to abstain from sinful behaviour this results in hard work for God (Isaiah 43,24, Jeremiah 5,3, Matthew 23,37). <br /><br />Havok: “So you were presenting what is, even for you, an implausible or impossible situation (knowing that someone has certainly accepted and been given salvation) to illustrate a point?”<br /><br />This is by no means an implausible or even impossible situation, as I know people of whom I’m quite sure that they have accepted God’s salvation.<br /><br />Havok: “Ok then, how could/would one know if one was supposed to be God's tool, and is not being tricked in some way (by demons/devils for example)?”<br /><br />I don’t think that the helper has to be concerned with such questions; he is simply supposed to help. If it is really in God’s plan that a person is going to die, but a human or a demon prevents this (if it is possible at all), God may accomplish His goal later. <br /><br />Havok: “And why would God need to use tools - nothing is an effort for this being. Doing everything takes no greater effort or concentration than doing nothing.”<br /><br />As I pointed out earlier a direct intervention by God may produce more harm than good.<br /><br />Havok: “And how would/could one know that this was not a delusion?”<br /><br />With respect to the issue we are discussing it is completely irrelevant whether or not it is a delusion. If the sufferer is convinced that he or she is soon going to die and accepts this idea, no matter where such conviction comes from, it is moral for God to let the person die. If the conviction is a delusion and the sufferer doesn’t die, so much the better for him or her.<br /><br />Havok: “Completely irrelevant to my point.”<br /><br />It is relevant. You cannot blame someone for not keeping a sane person from inflicting suffering upon himself. If a Christian helps a person, and the persons fails to praise God, the Christian is not to be blamed for the suffering such a reaction may cause for the person.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-45260275533217294732011-04-15T09:44:52.294-07:002011-04-15T09:44:52.294-07:00Havok: “For the 3 examples you've provided, th...Havok: “For the 3 examples you've provided, the arguement God's existence seems to consist of "There is no (current) natural explanation, therefore God", as if "God" were some kind of default position (it's not). <br />In "Theism and explanation", Gregory Dawes goes into great detail concerning whether supernatural "intentional" explanations (which God hypothesis always seem to be) are even possible explanations (he concludes they are), and what they should look like - what details need explanation, etc. He makes a very convincing case, and thus far none of the proposed God hypothesis come close to meeting the requirements of a successful explanation.”<br /><br />In my view simply the fact that a phenomenon is unexplained is no justification for regarding it as supernatural. In addition to that it must appear designed in one way or another. This idea is very well explained in a paper entitled “Miracles, Intelligent Design, and God-of-the-Gaps”, written by Jack Collins. It can be read in the following link: <br /><br />http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF3-03Collins.pdf <br /><br />In my view it is reasonable to regard phenomena as supernatural, if they show design-imposed, as defined by Jack Collins, and cannot be accounted for naturally. The feature of design-imposed is necessary to distinguish phenomena with apparent supernatural cause from merely unexplained phenomena.<br /><br />In the paper mentioned above Jack Collins defines “design-imposed” as “the imposition of structure upon some object or collection of objects for some purpose, where the structure and the purpose are not inherent in the properties of the components but make use of these properties.” The three examples I mentioned above meet these requirements.<br /><br />If you don’t accept this definition I don’t see how a miracle or some other supernatural event could ever be established. But if this is the case the objection put forward in connection with the problem of evil that God doesn’t intervene in favour of sufferers is no longer valid as it is impossible to establish such an intervention.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733557675273087950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-11161009381748474692011-04-14T06:18:18.695-07:002011-04-14T06:18:18.695-07:00Patrick: We were not talking about such a person.
...<b>Patrick: We were not talking about such a person.</b><br />So you were presenting what is, even for you, an implausible or impossible situation (knowing that someone has certainly accepted and been given salvation) to illustrate a point?<br />Ok then, how could/would one know if one was supposed to be God's tool, and is not being tricked in some way (by demons/devils for example)?<br />And why would God need to use tools - nothing is an effort for this being. Doing everything takes no greater effort or concentration than doing nothing.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: I don’t see that this is an accurate response to my claim that Hitler was not a person who had accepted God’s salvation.</b><br />Well, apart from Hitler being a (somewhat unusual, I gather) Christian, and therefore seeming to have actually accepted salvation (assuming god existed, of course), your response regarding salvation is completely irrelevant.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: I think if it is God’s will that a Christian should die He can make it clear to this person and make him or her accept it</b><br />And how would/could one know that this was not a delusion?<br /><br /><b>Patrick: All men are called to repent and accept God’s salvation irrespective of their situation</b><br />Completely irrelevant to my point.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: Whatever Hitler’s personality might have been like, if there hadn’t been a specific (non-Christian) intellectual atmosphere supportive of the rise of Nation Socialism the atrocities we now deplore would never have taken place. So, clearly man is to blame for this outcome and not God.</b><br />Germany was, then, rather a solidly Christian nation, so claiming the environment was "non-Christian" seems to fly in the face of history. Not to mention that the groundwork for much of the atrocites was laid during the millenia of preceeding Christian anti-Semitism.<br />Sorry, God is indeed to blame - remember, he could quite easily have "tweaked" everyone, to direct things, and didn't. And God doing anything is exactly as difficult as Go doing nothing, given his omnipotence.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: Problematic as this attitude is it itself would never have caused such a phenomenon, and in fact between the 1st and the early 20th century there have been no plans entertained by pious Christians to exterminate all Jews.</b><br />Irrelevant. The anti-Semitism was fostered by Christianity in Europe, and it was a large part of the motivation behind the Nazi actions.Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-40420405873853546002011-04-14T06:15:57.115-07:002011-04-14T06:15:57.115-07:00Patrick: I don’t see what knowledge you refer to w...<b>Patrick: I don’t see what knowledge you refer to which supposedly has pushed God and demons further and further away. </b><br />Neuroscience and psychology in the case of demon possession, for instance.<br />Biology, Physics, etc in the case of God<br /><br /><b>Patrick: It is beyond doubt that there are persons showing symptoms that some people believe to be demon possession and that these people were cured after undergoing exorcism.</b><br />It's not the "symptoms" or "experience" I doubt, its the explanation for it. And the symptoms can be explained as purely mental/brain phenomena, as I mentioned previously. So why postulate demons unnecessarily? <br /><br /><b>Patrick: . If you interpret these symptoms and its cure supernaturally or naturally depends on your viewpoint.</b><br />With a "Natural" explanation, why would one need to resort to a supernatural one?<br /><br /><b>Patrick: But both interpretations are positive claims for which evidence is to be presented. It does not only apply to the former interpretation.</b><br />And, in the case of demon possession being a mental/brain event, there is evidence. Since we know that brains/minds exist, this explanation is on a firmer footing than the demon possession, since the event is basically the only evidence we have FOR the existence of demons, and using the existence of demons to explain possession, while using possession to explain the existence of demons is rather more circular than either of us should want :-)<br /><br /><b>Patrick: The obstacles needn’t be important. People’s sinfulness, one of these obstacles, mentioned earlier, clearly isn’t.</b><br />So if the obstacles are not important, why are they obstacles for an omnipotent being?<br />If sinfullness is an obstacle, then there must be a reason why God doesn't simply "overcome" it, and that reason seems to make it important.Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-37786964258946447072011-04-14T06:15:29.322-07:002011-04-14T06:15:29.322-07:00Patrick: But the problem with this accusation is ...<b>Patrick: But the problem with this accusation is that unless atheists present clear criteria when it is legitimate to attribute phenomena to God and when it is not no amount of evidence will ever be accepted as being sufficient to establish God’s existence. As far as I know no atheist has so far identified such criteria.</b><br />Actually, that is not at all the case.<br />For the 3 examples you've provided, the arguement God's existence seems to consist of "There is no (current) natural explanation, therefore God", as if "God" were some kind of default position (it's not).<br />In "Theism and explanation", Gregory Dawes goes into great detail concerning whether supernatural "intentional" explanations (which God hypothesis always seem to be) are even possible explanations (he concludes they are), and what they should look like - what details need explanation, etc. He makes a very convincing case, and thus far none of the proposed God hypothesis come close to meeting the requirements of a successful explanation.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: An invisible pink unicorn is a logical impossibility, as a being cannot be at the same time pink and invisible.</b><br />This might be an opportune moment to point out that, as it stands, you conception of God is a logical impossibility.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: Leprechauns do not fall into the same category as God or demons, because with respect to the former there are good reasons to think that they do not exist, whereas with respect to the latter there is at least some evidence available that they exist.</b><br />How about elves then? A large portion of Icelandic people believe in them.<br />Besides, there is always some rationalisation which can be made to "save" a preferred belief from falsification, such as the many which are used to maintain belief in the biblical god, as well as demons, and even Leprechauns.<br /><br /><b>Patrick: Whether or not this evidence is regarded as conclusive is a matter apart.</b><br />Or relevant, or indicative of what it is claimed to be, etc etc.Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.com