Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Locked
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Londoner »

Vijaydevani wrote:
Londoner wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Because God does not see the badness a being a property of the event, but a property of the moral actors. In a material world inhabited by people with free will, suffering and death is inevitable. What matters is how we respond to that situation.

If a child dies horribly, that child is not acting immorally, so a miracle is not supposed to prevent horrible deaths. Rather, a miracle is supposed to send a message that will inform our moral choices. For example, God might intervene in the death of a martyr, not in order to save the martyr's life but to send a signal to those witnessing the event that physical death should not be our primary consideration when making choices.

That is the theory.
Okay. Do you as a human being agree with and support this theory?

-- Updated October 21st, 2016, 6:58 pm to add the following --

Do you believe such a god who designed a system where children dying horrible deaths is something which is justified is worthy of respect and worship for his design?
Well, I support the theory in that I think it is consistent with that notion of God. To put it another way I think the criticisms of God for not intervening to prevent suffering are a straw man, it is to invent a notion of God that is not the one proposed and then show our own invention is inconsistent.

In answer to your update, God could easily prevent human suffering by not creating humans. Or making us like robots, such that we would no more describe judge an event as 'horrible' or have notions of 'respect' than my computer judges the words I write. However, if humans are going to be conscious of things like good and bad then they must necessarily live in a world in which good and bad exist.

I think the misunderstanding arises from the notion that God can do anything; including contradictory things. That is not the traditional understanding. God may be entirely good, but he cannot create something (which is therefore external to him) which is also entirely good. God cannot create a material world that does not operate under material laws. God cannot create a being with free will and also make them act a particular way.
Vijaydevani
Posts: 2116
Joined: March 28th, 2014, 3:13 am

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Vijaydevani »

Londoner wrote: --

Well, I support the theory in that I think it is consistent with that notion of God. To put it another way I think the criticisms of God for not intervening to prevent suffering are a straw man, it is to invent a notion of God that is not the one proposed and then show our own invention is inconsistent.

In answer to your update, God could easily prevent human suffering by not creating humans. Or making us like robots, such that we would no more describe judge an event as 'horrible' or have notions of 'respect' than my computer judges the words I write. However, if humans are going to be conscious of things like good and bad then they must necessarily live in a world in which good and bad exist.

I think the misunderstanding arises from the notion that God can do anything; including contradictory things. That is not the traditional understanding. God may be entirely good, but he cannot create something (which is therefore external to him) which is also entirely good. God cannot create a material world that does not operate under material laws. God cannot create a being with free will and also make them act a particular way.
It does not matter what solution you come up with. The fact is that God designed the system. The system is such that it is necessary for children to suffer horrible deaths and for God not to intervene in it even though he can. God then chooses not to intervene while telling humans that children are the MOST important things and must be protected at all costs even though He does not himself lead by example. So humans have to live through the slow and horrible deaths of children while trying to understand that though they are most important things, for God they are not. Yet, they are supposed to worship that God. How do you justify that? How do you worship a God that designed a system that allows for slow and horrible deaths of children? How do you justify his actions when he designed you to give top priority to children?

-- Updated October 21st, 2016, 9:42 pm to add the following --

Essentially what I am getting at is, forget God. He is God. What worries me is you guys who have been designed to prioritize children and yet are willing to justify the death of children by a God who designed it. More than that, you are willing to worship him. How does that work??????
A little knowledge is a religious thing.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Fooloso4 »

Anthony Edgar:
he [God] must have a good reason.
Why? One of the fundamental teaching of Job is that things do not happen for a good reason. What was the reason why Job was forced to suffer? A wager over whether Job was an upright and righteous man because he possessed the good things in life is not a good reason to destroy his family and property or inflict terrible pain on him. Job’s friends antagonize him with talk of reasons, but the reader who has read the exchange between God and the adversary know better. The answer given in Job is no answer: it is God’s will. God does what God does. He does not do it for any reason that we may understand. The faithful do not demand of God that He must have a good reason.

I say all this as an atheist, but could just as well say the same thing if I were a pious believer. My point here is not to attribute the will of a god to what happens but rather to call into question the claim that things happen as they do because a god must have a good reason. The twisted lengths to which some go in their attempts to explain the unexplainable in order to defend their god is, according to texts such as Job and Ecclesiastes, not an act of faith but a sign of a lack of faith.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Londoner »

Vijaydevani wrote: It does not matter what solution you come up with. The fact is that God designed the system. The system is such that it is necessary for children to suffer horrible deaths and for God not to intervene in it even though he can. God then chooses not to intervene while telling humans that children are the MOST important things and must be protected at all costs even though He does not himself lead by example. So humans have to live through the slow and horrible deaths of children while trying to understand that though they are most important things, for God they are not. Yet, they are supposed to worship that God. How do you justify that? How do you worship a God that designed a system that allows for slow and horrible deaths of children? How do you justify his actions when he designed you to give top priority to children?
You are doing what I mentioned in my last post; creating your own theology and then pointing out the flaws in your own creation.

You will agree that, just like you, theists will have noticed that there is suffering in the world? So if they thought the way you say they do, they would have spotted the same problem as you. So surely you should consider the possibility that you are misrepresenting them?
-- Updated October 21st, 2016, 9:42 pm to add the following --

Essentially what I am getting at is, forget God. He is God. What worries me is you guys who have been designed to prioritize children and yet are willing to justify the death of children by a God who designed it. More than that, you are willing to worship him. How does that work??????
We have not been 'designed to prioritize children'. We have been designed with the ability to make moral choices, which includes the possibility of not prioritizing children.

And we don't, so leave out God. There are plenty of children suffering because you and I are unwilling to prioritize children over our own comforts.

This criticism has the high moral tone of a rich person who refuses to give to the poor, but weeps tears over the existence of a society that contains poor people.
Vijaydevani
Posts: 2116
Joined: March 28th, 2014, 3:13 am

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Vijaydevani »

Londoner wrote:
Vijaydevani wrote: It does not matter what solution you come up with. The fact is that God designed the system. The system is such that it is necessary for children to suffer horrible deaths and for God not to intervene in it even though he can. God then chooses not to intervene while telling humans that children are the MOST important things and must be protected at all costs even though He does not himself lead by example. So humans have to live through the slow and horrible deaths of children while trying to understand that though they are most important things, for God they are not. Yet, they are supposed to worship that God. How do you justify that? How do you worship a God that designed a system that allows for slow and horrible deaths of children? How do you justify his actions when he designed you to give top priority to children?
You are doing what I mentioned in my last post; creating your own theology and then pointing out the flaws in your own creation.

You will agree that, just like you, theists will have noticed that there is suffering in the world? So if they thought the way you say they do, they would have spotted the same problem as you. So surely you should consider the possibility that you are misrepresenting them?
I have not created any theology. I have simply stated facts. The facts, according to Edgar, are that God does perform miracles. In such a case, all I ask is how does he or anyone who agrees with him justify the fact that God does not perform miracles to save children from dying slow and horrible deaths. No one, not even you, has given a good answer or justification for this. So where is the misrepresentation?

I have not used the word suffering anywhere. I have simply asked for a justification of why God does not perform miracles to save children from dying slow and horrible deaths. It is a specific case I am asking about. Not suffering in general. My question is how theists who believe God performs miracles justify this non-intervention and believe such a God worthy of worship.

Taking pot shots at me is not going to change the fact that you have not answered my question either. I am still waiting.

-- Updated October 22nd, 2016, 9:03 am to add the following --

The least he could do is intervene to ensure quick painless deaths. Why does that not happen? What could be a good reason, according to theists, to allow these children to die slowly and painfully by actively not intervening? Can you think of a single one that justifies this?
A little knowledge is a religious thing.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Londoner »

Vijaydevani wrote: I have not created any theology. I have simply stated facts. The facts, according to Edgar, are that God does perform miracles. In such a case, all I ask is how does he or anyone who agrees with him justify the fact that God does not perform miracles to save children from dying slow and horrible deaths. No one, not even you, has given a good answer or justification for this. So where is the misrepresentation?
I'm sure Edgar can speak for himself, but you did not ask us to respond to him. You asked if there could be any reason or justification for why God permits suffering. I gave you one. You say you do not think it is a good answer but give no reason.
I have not used the word suffering anywhere. I have simply asked for a justification of why God does not perform miracles to save children from dying slow and horrible deaths. It is a specific case I am asking about. Not suffering in general. My question is how theists who believe God performs miracles justify this non-intervention and believe such a God worthy of worship.
You wrote of 'kids dying slow and horrible deaths'. I think 'suffering' would be a reasonable gloss for that, but in fact I quoted your particular example directly. My reply is in post 2395.
Taking pot shots at me is not going to change the fact that you have not answered my question either. I am still waiting.
Again, if you don't like my answer you can say why; but you can't pretend it isn't there.
Vijaydevani
Posts: 2116
Joined: March 28th, 2014, 3:13 am

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Vijaydevani »

Londoner wrote:
Vijaydevani wrote: I have not created any theology. I have simply stated facts. The facts, according to Edgar, are that God does perform miracles. In such a case, all I ask is how does he or anyone who agrees with him justify the fact that God does not perform miracles to save children from dying slow and horrible deaths. No one, not even you, has given a good answer or justification for this. So where is the misrepresentation?
I'm sure Edgar can speak for himself, but you did not ask us to respond to him. You asked if there could be any reason or justification for why God permits suffering. I gave you one. You say you do not think it is a good answer but give no reason.
Again, I DID NOT ask for justification for suffering. I asked specifically for non performance of miracles by God to prevent children dying slow and horrible deaths. You have not given any reason for this. I DID NOT ask for reasons for suffering.
Londoner wrote:
Vijaydevani wrote: I have not used the word suffering anywhere. I have simply asked for a justification of why God does not perform miracles to save children from dying slow and horrible deaths. It is a specific case I am asking about. Not suffering in general. My question is how theists who believe God performs miracles justify this non-intervention and believe such a God worthy of worship.
You wrote of 'kids dying slow and horrible deaths'. I think 'suffering' would be a reasonable gloss for that, but in fact I quoted your particular example directly. My reply is in post 2395.
I do not think existence of suffering is a 'reasonable gloss' for the non performance of miracles by a miracle performing God to prevent children from dying slow and horrible deaths. If you have a reasonable justification for God not preventing the slow horrible deaths of children by performing miracles, give me one. Your post 2395 does not address this.

Londoner wrote:
Vijaydevani wrote:Taking pot shots at me is not going to change the fact that you have not answered my question either. I am still waiting.
Again, if you don't like my answer you can say why; but you can't pretend it isn't there.
Again, your answer is in regard to suffering. I am asking SPECIFICALLY for non performance of miracles by a miracle performing God to prevent kids from dying slow and horrible deaths. If you have any justification, I am all ears. I am not pretending anything. You are pretending to have given an answer to my specific question. Just give me one if you have one.

I am not sure if I can make myself any clearer. But let me repeat. I did not ask for justification for existence of suffering. I asked specifically for justification of the non performance of miracles by a miracle performing God to prevent the slow and horrible deaths of children. Not suffering. Slow horrible deaths of children. Specifically. If you wish, I will repeat this after your next reply in case you have any doubts about what I am asking for SPECIFICALLY.
A little knowledge is a religious thing.
Mercury
Posts: 377
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Mercury »

I just wanted to point out that this title: 'Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported' is grammatically incorrect. It should read: Why logically, atheism cannot be supported. Maybe the author doesn't believe in grammar!
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Londoner »

Vijaydevani wrote: I do not think existence of suffering is a 'reasonable gloss' for the non performance of miracles by a miracle performing God to prevent children from dying slow and horrible deaths. If you have a reasonable justification for God not preventing the slow horrible deaths of children by performing miracles, give me one. Your post 2395 does not address this.
Yes it did.
Again, your answer is in regard to suffering. I am asking SPECIFICALLY for non performance of miracles by a miracle performing God to prevent kids from dying slow and horrible deaths. If you have any justification, I am all ears. I am not pretending anything. You are pretending to have given an answer to my specific question. Just give me one if you have one.
What do you mean; 'specific reason'? The general argument why God does not prevent suffering will cover specific instances of suffering, like kids dying horrible deaths.
I am not sure if I can make myself any clearer. But let me repeat. I did not ask for justification for existence of suffering. I asked specifically for justification of the non performance of miracles by a miracle performing God to prevent the slow and horrible deaths of children. Not suffering. Slow horrible deaths of children. Specifically. If you wish, I will repeat this after your next reply in case you have any doubts about what I am asking for SPECIFICALLY.
Putting it in capitals does not help.

I can see what you are doing.

Any question 'why?' requires an answer that covers more than any specific instance. If somebody asks 'Why do swallows migrate?' any answer is going to address migrating birds generally. If the person keeps asking 'Yes, but why do swallows migrate?' , you would have to reply 'Because they are a type of migrating bird'. If the questioner went on; 'Yes, but why does this particular swallow migrate?' , then eventually the only answer left can be 'Because it does'.

'Ah ha!' says the questioner. 'I knew you couldn't give a reason!'
Vijaydevani
Posts: 2116
Joined: March 28th, 2014, 3:13 am

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Vijaydevani »

Londoner wrote:
Vijaydevani wrote: I do not think existence of suffering is a 'reasonable gloss' for the non performance of miracles by a miracle performing God to prevent children from dying slow and horrible deaths. If you have a reasonable justification for God not preventing the slow horrible deaths of children by performing miracles, give me one. Your post 2395 does not address this.
Yes it did.
Again, your answer is in regard to suffering. I am asking SPECIFICALLY for non performance of miracles by a miracle performing God to prevent kids from dying slow and horrible deaths. If you have any justification, I am all ears. I am not pretending anything. You are pretending to have given an answer to my specific question. Just give me one if you have one.
What do you mean; 'specific reason'? The general argument why God does not prevent suffering will cover specific instances of suffering, like kids dying horrible deaths.
I am not sure if I can make myself any clearer. But let me repeat. I did not ask for justification for existence of suffering. I asked specifically for justification of the non performance of miracles by a miracle performing God to prevent the slow and horrible deaths of children. Not suffering. Slow horrible deaths of children. Specifically. If you wish, I will repeat this after your next reply in case you have any doubts about what I am asking for SPECIFICALLY.
Putting it in capitals does not help.

I can see what you are doing.

Any question 'why?' requires an answer that covers more than any specific instance. If somebody asks 'Why do swallows migrate?' any answer is going to address migrating birds generally. If the person keeps asking 'Yes, but why do swallows migrate?' , you would have to reply 'Because they are a type of migrating bird'. If the questioner went on; 'Yes, but why does this particular swallow migrate?' , then eventually the only answer left can be 'Because it does'.

'Ah ha!' says the questioner. 'I knew you couldn't give a reason!'
Okay you did give an answer as to why God did not perform miracles to save children dying from horrible deaths. But you didn't answer my question to that post which was do you agree with this? Do you think God is justified in not performing miracles to save children from horrible deaths? Do you think God is justified in saving his miracles to make a point or send a message for the good of man kind and choosing not to save children from horrible deaths by performing a miracle? Do YOU think it is right? Do you think such a God is worthy of worship?

-- Updated October 22nd, 2016, 4:56 pm to add the following --

Remember, he is seeing it happening everyday, day in and day out to children all over the world and he does not do a thing. It is his choice not to do so.
A little knowledge is a religious thing.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Londoner »

Vijaydevani wrote: Okay you did give an answer as to why God did not perform miracles to save children dying from horrible deaths. But you didn't answer my question to that post which was do you agree with this? Do you think God is justified in not performing miracles to save children from horrible deaths? Do you think God is justified in saving his miracles to make a point or send a message for the good of man kind and choosing not to save children from horrible deaths by performing a miracle? Do YOU think it is right? Do you think such a God is worthy of worship?

-- Updated October 22nd, 2016, 4:56 pm to add the following --

Remember, he is seeing it happening everyday, day in and day out to children all over the world and he does not do a thing. It is his choice not to do so.
As my earlier answer suggests, I think we are mistaken in assuming that not intervening is his free choice. As I wrote, God is not supposed to be able to do self-contradictory things, such as create a material world in which people have free will and also to interfere in that world. I think we are mislead by the notion that miracles are 'doing impossible stuff'. They rarely are; they rather tend to be very improbable events. Where God does do impossible stuff, those stories tend to be set in the mythical past. Of course, if we treat scripture as if it is a history book then we cannot draw that distinction, but I do not think that was how it was traditionally understood. For example, events like the parting of the Red Sea were seen as metaphorical echoes of other events involving water/chaos, such as in the creation story and Noah's flood.

As to our own attitudes to things like the death of children, most people have an emotional response, but that is not the same as a moral one. I can observe a road accident and be horrified, perhaps because subconsciously I'm thinking 'that might have been me!', but I don't think of it as bad in the moral sense. So if we say that such events are wrong morally, the wrongness is seen not in the event but in the mindset of some actor, somebody who willed the event to happen. So, if we look on events like the painful deaths of children as 'bad', rather than simply a neutral fact, then we can only do so if we believe that there is a God who runs things (badly). So, as an argument not to believe in God, it requires a belief in God!

This means we are in the awkward situation of having a God who we accept must be greater and wiser than us (if we have a moral sense, it is the moral sense God has given us), but who we also want to judge. I can't go into details, but I think that this relationship is discussed at length in scripture; from eating the fruit in Eden, Abraham and Isaac, Job and so on. But I would say it is not just a theological problem. To argue that we should create and live by a moral code, a set of rules, is also to argue we should no longer respond spontaneously to particular cases.

To put the same thing another way, suppose you are God. Can you draw up a code of behaviour for yourself, that includes preventing children having horrible deaths? Then what is the cut-off age? Why are you happy to allow old people to die horrible deaths? Why do you allow suffering just because it doesn't happen to be fatal? Who are you to say that a lesser amount of suffering is acceptable, when you could prevent that too? Or even a tiny amount? The problem is not with God, but in drawing up any code that prevents badness while not requiring everyone to live in padded cells.

So, as I say, I don't think God is meant to be able to do anything, and I don't see that the issue is really about God. That is why I think any yes/no answer would be misleading.
Vijaydevani
Posts: 2116
Joined: March 28th, 2014, 3:13 am

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Vijaydevani »

Londoner wrote:
Vijaydevani wrote: Okay you did give an answer as to why God did not perform miracles to save children dying from horrible deaths. But you didn't answer my question to that post which was do you agree with this? Do you think God is justified in not performing miracles to save children from horrible deaths? Do you think God is justified in saving his miracles to make a point or send a message for the good of man kind and choosing not to save children from horrible deaths by performing a miracle? Do YOU think it is right? Do you think such a God is worthy of worship?

-- Updated October 22nd, 2016, 4:56 pm to add the following --

Remember, he is seeing it happening everyday, day in and day out to children all over the world and he does not do a thing. It is his choice not to do so.
As my earlier answer suggests, I think we are mistaken in assuming that not intervening is his free choice. As I wrote, God is not supposed to be able to do self-contradictory things, such as create a material world in which people have free will and also to interfere in that world. I think we are mislead by the notion that miracles are 'doing impossible stuff'. They rarely are; they rather tend to be very improbable events. Where God does do impossible stuff, those stories tend to be set in the mythical past. Of course, if we treat scripture as if it is a history book then we cannot draw that distinction, but I do not think that was how it was traditionally understood. For example, events like the parting of the Red Sea were seen as metaphorical echoes of other events involving water/chaos, such as in the creation story and Noah's flood.
So basically you do not agree with Edgar. Then why are we discussing this? This question was meant only for Edgar and people who agreed with him. You don't.
A little knowledge is a religious thing.
Dolphin42
Posts: 886
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Dolphin42 »

Vijaydevani:
Okay. Do you as a human being agree with and support this theory?
Do you believe such a god who designed a system where children dying horrible deaths is something which is justified is worthy of respect and worship for his design?
...

From post #2410:
Okay you did give an answer as to why God did not perform miracles to save children dying from horrible deaths. But you didn't answer my question to that post which was do you agree with this?
Vijaydevani, I've seen in previous exchanges that Londoner, more than many other posters, generally tries to explain how systems work, while avoiding personalizing it and turning the conversation into a slanging match. It's always interesting to see how much this approach is resisted, particularly with regard to religion. Most people don't want their interlocutor to simply explain their own understanding of, for example, the standard historical Christian view about the existence of suffering in the world. They want the person to make a statement of personal conviction about it so that they can be attacked for it. Which is interesting. You seem to be doing the same thing. You appear to want Londoner to say something like "I endorse God's non intervention in the suffering of children".
The least he could do is intervene to ensure quick painless deaths. Why does that not happen? What could be a good reason, according to theists, to allow these children to die slowly and painfully by actively not intervening? Can you think of a single one that justifies this?
You keep asking this question in various forms. If we believe that intelligent beings possess something called free-will that does not arise in any way from the mechanisms of physical law, then it has to be divided into two separate questions: (1) Suffering caused by things that arise as an inevitable, logical consequence of physical laws, such as disease. (2) Suffering caused by the actions of beings with free-will (people).

If God were to perform a miracle to prevent the former type of suffering then he would have to do so by doing something that Mr Scott out of Star Trek could never do - changing or suspending the laws of physics (and thereby the laws of chemistry and biology that sit on top of them.) This would require logical contradictions. And, according to an earlier post by Londoner, God is not generally regarded as having the ability to do things that contradict logic. I don't know much about the subject, so will have to assume that is true. If it is true, then I can see why God is unable, whether he wants to or not, to prevent suffering which is an inevitable, deterministic consequence of the laws of physics.

You might ask: But if he created the laws of physics then he could have subtly arranged them such that suffering is impossible. couldn't he? Not if its logically impossible to do so. It seems to me that preventing suffering in one place might always, inevitably, cause suffering somewhere else.

What do you think of that explanation as to why God does not intervene to prevent suffering of the first kind?

-- Updated October 23rd, 2016, 9:31 am to add the following --

Personalizing it, as often seems to be required:

I guess, whether we're religious or not, we can all consider a question which is very similar to the question of whether a God who allows suffering in the world is worthy of reverence. I can look at the wonders of the universe and I can note that that universe contains suffering and I can ask myself "Do I still think the universe is an amazing, wonderful awe-inspiring place or, given that it contains suffering, would I rather that it didn't exist?"

The answer is, no, I wouldn't rather it didn't exist. I am willing to tolerate the suffering of little children while still being inspired by the beauty of the universe. In a sense, I can revere the universe in a way that is not dissimilar to the way that religious people revere God despite the fact that the beautiful and elegant laws of physics which describe that universe also, when extended upwards to chemistry and biology, describe the way that some virus or other eats a child's face (or whatever).
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Fooloso4 »

Dalphin42:
Vijaydevani, I've seen in previous exchanges that Londoner, more than many other posters, generally tries to explain how systems work, while avoiding personalizing it and turning the conversation into a slanging match. It's always interesting to see how much this approach is resisted, particularly with regard to religion. Most people don't want their interlocutor to simply explain their own understanding of, for example, the standard historical Christian view about the existence of suffering in the world. They want the person to make a statement of personal conviction about it so that they can be attacked for it. Which is interesting. You seem to be doing the same thing. You appear to want Londoner to say something like "I endorse God's non intervention in the suffering of children".
Questions regarding religion can be approached from a theoretical perspective or with scholarly objectivity, but for many the real questions are existential. They are, of course, not mutually exclusive and tend to be interrelated. For many the important question is not how do you understand this but how does your understanding shape your personal convictions and way of life. When we enter into discussion in good faith the point of such questions is not to set someone up to be attacked but to examine the issues in more than abstract intellectual terms. Unfortunately, we do not always argue in good faith, but the inquiry can be carried on in good faith.
If God were to perform a miracle … This would require logical contradictions.
Perhaps, but belief in miracles is fundamental to Christian belief. There are some who disregard this aspect of Christianity and still identify as Christians. For them belief in miracles is not be fundamental to their beliefs, but this is true only because they disregard this aspect of Christianity.
And, according to an earlier post by Londoner, God is not generally regarded as having the ability to do things that contradict logic.
Here is another way of looking at it, although it is not a position I endorse - God created the world according to his command, therefore he can change or suspend the laws of the world he created as he sees fit.

What do you think of that explanation as to why God does not intervene to prevent suffering of the first kind?
Personally I think the problem only arises when one gives attributes to God. Compare the God of Genesis, a God who is jealous and wrathful, a God who destroys almost everything in the world and then is remorseful, to the God who is perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Trying to maintain that God is perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient, and omnibenevolent and trying to explain why God does not intervene by an appeal to logic is illogical and contradictory. To shift gears to what I was talking about earlier, it does not make any difference to someone who is suffering. Theological niceties be damned.

And then, we have the God of Exodus who performs miracles to end the suffering of his people. Some have tried to explain the miracles in natural terms, but this, in my opinion, runs counter to the whole emphasis of the story, which is, in briefest terms, God intervenes to save his people and does so by performing miracles that are by definition at odds with nature.
Vijaydevani
Posts: 2116
Joined: March 28th, 2014, 3:13 am

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Vijaydevani »

Dolphin42 wrote:
Vijaydevani, I've seen in previous exchanges that Londoner, more than many other posters, generally tries to explain how systems work, while avoiding personalizing it and turning the conversation into a slanging match. It's always interesting to see how much this approach is resisted, particularly with regard to religion. Most people don't want their interlocutor to simply explain their own understanding of, for example, the standard historical Christian view about the existence of suffering in the world. They want the person to make a statement of personal conviction about it so that they can be attacked for it. Which is interesting. You seem to be doing the same thing. You appear to want Londoner to say something like "I endorse God's non intervention in the suffering of children".
This whole thing started when Edgar said that God performs miracles and it is well documented. I don't want any statement from Londoner. I just want him or anyone else who claims that God performs miracles to justify the non-performance of miracles.
Dolphin42 wrote: You keep asking this question in various forms. If we believe that intelligent beings possess something called free-will that does not arise in any way from the mechanisms of physical law, then it has to be divided into two separate questions: (1) Suffering caused by things that arise as an inevitable, logical consequence of physical laws, such as disease. (2) Suffering caused by the actions of beings with free-will (people).

If God were to perform a miracle to prevent the former type of suffering then he would have to do so by doing something that Mr Scott out of Star Trek could never do - changing or suspending the laws of physics (and thereby the laws of chemistry and biology that sit on top of them.) This would require logical contradictions. And, according to an earlier post by Londoner, God is not generally regarded as having the ability to do things that contradict logic. I don't know much about the subject, so will have to assume that is true. If it is true, then I can see why God is unable, whether he wants to or not, to prevent suffering which is an inevitable, deterministic consequence of the laws of physics.
I think all miracles require suspending the laws of physics. So if God can suspend the laws of physics to make bread or fish, I think it would make more sense to suspend them to save a child. I just want someone who believes in miracles to explain this contradiction to me. I am simply questioning God's priorities if he performs miracles.
Dolphin42 wrote: You might ask: But if he created the laws of physics then he could have subtly arranged them such that suffering is impossible. couldn't he? Not if its logically impossible to do so. It seems to me that preventing suffering in one place might always, inevitably, cause suffering somewhere else.

What do you think of that explanation as to why God does not intervene to prevent suffering of the first kind?
Again, it all boils down to the ability of God to perform miracles, even a single one. If he does have that ability and does perform them, then his non-performance of miracles comes into question. That is all. If it is not possible to do so, then fine. I have no problem with that.
A little knowledge is a religious thing.
Locked

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021