Disproving theism

[Thorolf]

Does the reality of suffering disprove theism?

To get back to the original point (not that I'm not enjoying the other discussion!).

The so-called "problem of evil" does argue against a theistic God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

Yet God need not be all or any of these things. The assumption that God is a personal being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving is not necessarily true. Moreover, our notions of what "all-powerful," "all-knowing," and "all-living" need not be correct or applicable to the Deity.

This ties into the point I've made above that logic and reason are all well and good, but the premises which one submits to reason and logical analysis have just as much to do with the validity of the conclusion. If the assumptions one makes to frame the argument are invalid, the rest of the argument will be, too.

I don't see how "the problem of evil" argues against a theistic God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

None of those characteristics means He is a glorified puppet master/control freak who manipulates and manages every aspect of our lives.

Why can't we suffer BECAUSE He loves us and, as a result, has set us free to live our own lives - mistakes, suffering, and all?

A parent who loves their children does not control everything that child does for his or her entire life - but letting that child learn, and grow, and experience, and even make mistakes does not mean that parent loves the child any less, nor does it mean that parent never existed in the first place.

[jacknky]

Thorolf,
"A parent who loves their children does not control everything that child does for his or her entire life - but letting that child learn, and grow, and experience, and even make mistakes does not mean that parent loves the child any less, nor does it mean that parent never existed in the first place."

The whole concept of a "loving" god that would torture most souls for all eternity violates my personal logic and sense of fairness.

First, as far as we know we didn't ask to be born. Why punish us for essentially being human?

Secondly, we all don't have equal access to "the Word". Why punish those who never get a chance?

Third and to me most importantly, the punishment is vastly out of proportion to the crime. We're to be tortured for eternity because we didn't believe the right way in a god that remains pretty hard to figure out? Which god do we choose to believe in? if we pick the wrong one we burn. And what loving father would torture his children? That concept would be like my slowly flaying the skin off my dear daughters for stealing a piece of candy from the candy store. It doesn't make sense. Why should my poetty beliefs matter so much to an Infinite Creator that he would torture me?

[Thorolf]

Thorolf,
"A parent who loves their children does not control everything that child does for his or her entire life - but letting that child learn, and grow, and experience, and even make mistakes does not mean that parent loves the child any less, nor does it mean that parent never existed in the first place."

The whole concept of a "loving" god that would torture most souls for all eternity violates my personal logic and sense of fairness.

Nothing like a but of hyperbole borne of ignorance to spice up a conversation.

I don't believe that "most souls" will be tortured. So I guess that should eliminate that objection.

First, as far as we know we didn't ask to be born. Why punish us for essentially being human?

See above.

Secondly, we all don't have equal access to "the Word". Why punish those who never get a chance?

That's a better question. The Bible actually answers that... but what it boils down to is what I said before. I don't believe that "most souls" will be tortured. In fact, I believe that, if ANYONE is "tortured," that place is reserved for those that actually deserve it... hitler comes to mind.

Third and to me most importantly, the punishment is vastly out of proportion to the crime. We're to be tortured for eternity because we didn't believe the right way in a god that remains pretty hard to figure out? Which god do we choose to believe in? if we pick the wrong one we burn. And what loving father would torture his children? That concept would be like my slowly flaying the skin off my dear daughters for stealing a piece of candy from the candy store. It doesn't make sense. Why should my poetty beliefs matter so much to an Infinite Creator that he would torture me?

You make good points to argue against those who, I think, are wrong on the matter. However, since I think they are wrong, your points don't really compel much of a response from me.

[Adrian1197]

The whole concept of a "loving" god that would torture most souls for all eternity violates my personal logic and sense of fairness.

First, as far as we know we didn't ask to be born. Why punish us for essentially being human?

Secondly, we all don't have equal access to "the Word". Why punish those who never get a chance?

Third and to me most importantly, the punishment is vastly out of proportion to the crime. We're to be tortured for eternity because we didn't believe the right way in a god that remains pretty hard to figure out? Which god do we choose to believe in? if we pick the wrong one we burn. And what loving father would torture his children? That concept would be like my slowly flaying the skin off my dear daughters for stealing a piece of candy from the candy store. It doesn't make sense. Why should my poetty beliefs matter so much to an Infinite Creator that he would torture me?

Punishing any soul for all of an eternity is highly unethical. What about the commandment "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me"? Essentially, God's saying, "If you worship another God (regardless of the reason)" you'll suffer the Pit. Why does it matter who or what we worship as long as we get the message right? The message is what counts...
No offence, but it seems Christians worship a jealous God.

[Thorolf]

Are you REALLY imposing your concept of ethics on God?

Really?

Are you sure you aren't a Sophomore?

Don't worry... I don't really expect you to get that one, either.

[Adrian1197]

Are you REALLY imposing your concept of ethics on God?

Really?

Are you sure you aren't a Sophomore?

Don't worry... I don't really expect you to get that one, either.

If you don't expect me to reply, then why do you say it to begin with? And, yes, I disagree with God's teachings and his moral values. I always have.

[Thorolf]

I didn't say that I don't expect you to reply.

And don't you think you should at least UNDERSTAND God's teachings and "moral values" before you claim to disagree with them?

[Adrian1197]

I didn't say that I don't expect you to reply.

And don't you think you should at least UNDERSTAND God's teachings and "moral values" before you claim to disagree with them?

Then teach me, oh "enlightened one"... Your "interpretation"...

[Thorolf]

I thought you wanted me to leave you alone. 

Love your neighbor as yourself, and "the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength."

Everything is built on those two... quite objectionable, I know.

[Adrian1197]

Well... I don't believe in God. And there inlies the problem...

[Thorolf]

 

[Acumen]

I didn't say that I don't expect you to reply.

And don't you think you should at least UNDERSTAND God's teachings and "moral values" before you claim to disagree with them?

Then teach me, oh "enlightened one"... Your "interpretation"...

Adrian, I agree with Thorolf on this point.  You should keep in mind that Christianity is a rich 2000 year old tradition steeped in the philosophical thoughts of some of the greatest minds like Augustine and Aquinas.  To make drive by posts about the injustice of hell or the moral consequences of polytheism is considered disrespectful to our religion because it refuses to take the time and consideration that Christianity deserves. 

And although I'm against using ageism as a debating tactic in here for discussion purposes, the fact you're an 18 y/o with limited experience and the fact you're making back-handed remarks about something of which you don't have a sufficient understanding is analogous to slapping a profoundly intellectual religion in the face.  Undoubtedly, your matter of fact posts, with a touch of adolescent arrogance, will rustle up some feathers in here and subsequently bring out the worst in people.

[VLinvictus]

I don't see how "the problem of evil" argues against a theistic God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

None of those characteristics means He is a glorified puppet master/control freak who manipulates and manages every aspect of our lives.

Why can't we suffer BECAUSE He loves us and, as a result, has set us free to live our own lives - mistakes, suffering, and all?

A parent who loves their children does not control everything that child does for his or her entire life - but letting that child learn, and grow, and experience, and even make mistakes does not mean that parent loves the child any less, nor does it mean that parent never existed in the first place.

If a parent has the ability to prevent his or her child from unjustly and unfairly experiencing horrific pain and suffering and even death but does not do so, what does that say about the parent?

[VLinvictus]

Are you REALLY imposing your concept of ethics on God?

Really?

That is kinda the whole point of theodicy...

[Thorolf]

I don't see how "the problem of evil" argues against a theistic God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

None of those characteristics means He is a glorified puppet master/control freak who manipulates and manages every aspect of our lives.

Why can't we suffer BECAUSE He loves us and, as a result, has set us free to live our own lives - mistakes, suffering, and all?

A parent who loves their children does not control everything that child does for his or her entire life - but letting that child learn, and grow, and experience, and even make mistakes does not mean that parent loves the child any less, nor does it mean that parent never existed in the first place.

If a parent has the ability to prevent his or her child from unjustly and unfairly experiencing horrific pain and suffering and even death but does not do so, what does that say about the parent?

That's pretty rough. Do you believe that life is "unjust and unfair" experiences of horrific pain?

Boy, it sure is a good thing that the Christian God has extended His grace to give us a way to avoid such pain and death, wouldn't you agree?

[Thorolf]

Are you REALLY imposing your concept of ethics on God?

Really?

That is kinda the whole point of theodicy...

I agree it's pretty shallow, although I'm not sure it would qualify in my mind as "idiocy."




Incidentally, imposing a selfish and narrow-minded, personally-held concept of ethics on God is hardly theodicy. It's a nice word - worth a good $.25 - but it really means that we DEFEND God's goodness and grace, not taint it by pretending He is no different than us.

[VLinvictus]

That's pretty rough. Do you believe that life is "unjust and unfair" experiences of horrific pain?

Let's just say that historically, the glass has been half empty.

Boy, it sure is a good thing that the Christian God has extended His grace to give us a way to avoid such pain and death, wouldn't you agree?

Ah, but did he?

Since the discussion so far has focused on the so-called "problem of evil" -- as in "why does God allow bad things to happen to innocent people?" -- it is plainly clear that God's grace doesn't really accomplish all that much in this world of helping folks avoid pain and death.

Now, if we're going to switch tracks and talk about some supposed spiritual pain and death after mortal death, then we have a problem.

Namely, some people claim that the Christian God has indeed extended such grace and all one need do is place one's faith in Jesus. Fine. If there were no other options to choose from, if the only choice available was between atheism/agnosticism on the one hand and Christianity on the other (one would need to specify which particular brand of Christianity is the correct version, of course) then Pascal's Wager is valid -- there would be no reason not to adopt the Christian faith.

However, there is a multiplicity of religions in the world, many of whom contradict each other claiming to be the One True Faith. Yet none of them has any more evidence in favor of them than any other, although some have more evidence against them than others. So, how is one to know what exactly is the proper way that God has chosen to extend his grace into the world? Take other people's word for it? Or is one to have a totally subjective personal experience of the Divine? Or is one supposed to be "predestined" to automatically choose the right path by having been elected for salvation since the beginning of time?

IOW, why should a totally objective observer choose the Christian path over any other?

[Thorolf]

That's pretty rough. Do you believe that life is "unjust and unfair" experiences of horrific pain?

Let's just say that historically, the glass has been half empty.

To each his own.

Boy, it sure is a good thing that the Christian God has extended His grace to give us a way to avoid such pain and death, wouldn't you agree?

Ah, but did he?

According to the Christian - absolutely, yes.

Since the discussion so far has focused on the so-called "problem of evil" -- as in "why does God allow bad things to happen to innocent people?" -- it is plainly clear that God's grace doesn't really accomplish all that much in this world of helping folks avoid pain and death.

Terms line "innocent" and concepts like "this world" make for a fascinating statement. Of course, those subjective and narrow human constructs are peppered with subjective perspectives that have been characterized as "plainly clear" and so on... Let's put it plainly - it is your OPINION, based on limited knowledge, experience, and perspective, that God's grace doesn't REALLY accomplish all that much in this world.

But as I mentioned, "this world" is hardly a blink of the eye in terms of eternity, your concept of clarity is hardly clear, people aren't "innocent" in comparison to how they COULD be, and SHOULD be, and your experience has precluded a lot of people whose experiences directly contradict your own.

Now, if we're going to switch tracks and talk about some supposed spiritual pain and death after mortal death, then we have a problem.

Namely, some people claim that the Christian God has indeed extended such grace and all one need do is place one's faith in Jesus. Fine. If there were no other options to choose from, if the only choice available was between atheism/agnosticism on the one hand and Christianity on the other (one would need to specify which particular brand of Christianity is the correct version, of course) then Pascal's Wager is valid -- there would be no reason not to adopt the Christian faith.

However, there is a multiplicity of religions in the world, many of whom contradict each other claiming to be the One True Faith. Yet none of them has any more evidence in favor of them than any other, although some have more evidence against them than others. So, how is one to know what exactly is the proper way that God has chosen to extend his grace into the world? Take other people's word for it? Or is one to have a totally subjective personal experience of the Divine? Or is one supposed to be "predestined" to automatically choose the right path by having been elected for salvation since the beginning of time?

IOW, why should a totally objective observer choose the Christian path over any other?

First off, I would question if there is such a thing as a "totally objective observer," but my initial response is that religion and faith are not naturalistic, totally logic-driven concepts. I would contest your claim that none have any more reason to support them than the others, but for now we can presuppose that you are correct - so what?

People will be people.

You have to choose the path that FEELS right to you. I can't possibly convince you with naturalistic or intellectual arguments that any one belief system is the right way. But if one is truly objective and sensitive to what a deity (or lack thereof) is trying to tell them, they will find their path. But, if you're not objective, any "feeling" you get will likely be impacted by your personal bias.

I BELIEVE that path to be Christianity, but if you're looking for some mathematical proof, you're never going to get very far.

For ANY religion.

[VLinvictus]

According to the Christian - absolutely, yes.

Of course, but then again if a Christian didn't believe in Christ then he wouldn't be a Christian. So we're dealing with a tautology here

And unfortunately, all we have to go on is the Christian's word that this is in fact the case. If there were some way to get the truth first-hand rather than -- what, 1000th hand? -- we'd all be in a better situation.

put it plainly - it is your OPINION, based on limited knowledge, experience, and perspective, that God's grace doesn't REALLY accomplish all that much in this world.

Right. It is my opinion based on limited experience that I have never seen nor have I come across any account of anyone, anywhere in the past 2000 years who has been protected from suffering and death due to his or her faith.

I would contest your claim that none have any more reason to support them than the others, but for now we can presuppose that you are correct - so what?

I'm interested what religions you think have positive evidence in their favor.

You have to choose the path that FEELS right to you. I can't possibly convince you with naturalistic or intellectual arguments that any one belief system is the right way. But if one is truly objective and sensitive to what a deity (or lack thereof) is trying to tell them, they will find their path. But, if you're not objective, any "feeling" you get will likely be impacted by your personal bias.

I BELIEVE that path to be Christianity, but if you're looking for some mathematical proof, you're never going to get very far.

For ANY religion.

In your religious worldview, what ultimate eternal fate awaits those who believe they are honestly and openly seeking the truth and "feel" they have found it -- but this leads them to Judaism or Buddhism or Islam or basically any other path than Christianity?

Are they up the proverbial creek?

[/quote]

[Thorolf]

Of course, but then again if a Christian didn't believe in Christ then he wouldn't be a Christian. So we're dealing with a tautology here

Not sure I see a point to that comment...

And unfortunately, all we have to go on is the Christian's word that this is in fact the case. If there were some way to get the truth first-hand rather than -- what, 1000th hand? -- we'd all be in a better situation.

No, all *you* have to go on is the Christian's word. I suppose you could invent a time machine and go either direction to witness it for yourself - but as a Christian I believe that I HAVE received first-hand confirmation... the fact that perhaps you haven't experienced the same does not mean nobody else has.

Right. It is my opinion based on limited experience that I have never seen nor have I come across any account of anyone, anywhere in the past 2000 years who has been protected from suffering and death due to his or her faith.

There are plenty of stories to the contrary... certain death seemingly averted when someone called upon the name of Jesus, near misses, medical miracles, etc, etc... Some write those off to coincidence. Others to the power of the human mind - but none are actual explanations for these "miraculous" events. So it seems to me that your comment should be amended to something more like "I have not accepted any explanations from people who claim that they were protected from suffering and death due to his or her faith."

Which is a very different perspective, with much less basis in reason and logic.

I'm interested what religions you think have positive evidence in their favor.

It's less about positive evidence than the existence of the negative, IMO...

In your religious worldview, what ultimate eternal fate awaits those who believe they are honestly and openly seeking the truth and "feel" they have found it -- but this leads them to Judaism or Buddhism or Islam or basically any other path than Christianity?

Are they up the proverbial creek?

I don't know... I'm not their judge in the end.

I realize that it sounds "convenient" - but I believe that God will judge, and will judge perfectly. No man knows the mind of God, but I think His judgment will be somewhat different than many people believe... I suspect that a lot of people who presume themselves to be "saved" are in for a surprise, for example...