Discussion of the design argument

Felix · Post by **Felix** » August 26th, 2014, 5:17 am

Shrimpmaster said: 2a) The chief purpose of life is not happiness but a relationship with God.

What does it mean to "have a relationship with God."? Is that a personal choice? But how could it be? - if God is omnipotent, personal choice is not possible.

ShrimpMaster · Post by **ShrimpMaster** » August 26th, 2014, 11:28 am

Belinda wrote:But Shrimpmaster, nobody has more than human understanding and judgement. To any human's understanding and judgement omnipotence and omnibenevolence are incompatible. I claim, not that all evil is incompatible with omnibenevolence, but that the degree of evil is incompatible with omnibenevolence. The reason for my conclusion is simple: for instance a two year old dies in agony of spirit or body but has insufficient time to learn from her experience. There is no justice in that, no benevolence.

If there is a superintelligent, personal, interventionist Creator He is failing in his responsibility to His intelligent creatures when He neglects to explain to them why He allows such atrocities to happen.

Belinda,

You are holding hidden premises in your argument. It sounds like you are saying God owes an explanation of some sort, or He does not have morally sufficient reasons, or the two year old dying needs to learn from her experience before she passes. Those premises can be resolved through the Christian faith. One would be that we are called to live in faith, that God works all things for the good of those who love him (Romans 8:28), so in fact, God does give an explanation - namely that there is something better for the little girl, and for the people who she knew on Earth in her passing.

Not only that, but your argument is assuming her life would be better if she lived. What if the two year old had something terrible (will not mention what) if she had lived beyond two years old. What if God is sparing her by his mercy? I am not saying that is the case. I am just saying that you do not know otherwise.

-- Updated August 26th, 2014, 8:32 am to add the following --

Felix wrote:
Shrimpmaster said: 2a) The chief purpose of life is not happiness but a relationship with God.
What does it mean to "have a relationship with God."? Is that a personal choice? But how could it be? - if God is omnipotent, personal choice is not possible.

To have a relationship with God is to know Him personally through his son Jesus Christ. God is omnipotent and humans have free will. Although God cannot control the free choices of humans he can annihilate them at His choosing, so even if we maintain our free choices God still maintains His omnipotence. For an exposition on God's omnipotence I will refer you to these resources;

http://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/265/power.htm
http://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/mp.htm

Felix · Post by **Felix** » August 26th, 2014, 2:20 pm

Shrimpmaster said: Belinda, You are holding hidden premises in your argument

Belinda's "hidden premise" is simply that reason disproves the existence of god. Therefore, faith in God or a "relationship with God" must be founded on something other than reason. What is that something?

ShrimpMaster · Post by **ShrimpMaster** » August 26th, 2014, 4:23 pm

Felix wrote:
Shrimpmaster said: Belinda, You are holding hidden premises in your argument
Belinda's "hidden premise" is simply that reason disproves the existence of god. Therefore, faith in God or a "relationship with God" must be founded on something other than reason. What is that something?

Felix,

That is not what Belinda was arguing. Faith and reason are not antonyms. All people know this, because everyone has reason for the faith in things. If you wish to engage in a more lively discussion I would suggest you elaborate on the points you are trying to make instead of attempting the standard village-atheist tactics. Thanks.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » August 26th, 2014, 4:32 pm

Shrimpmaster said: Felix, That is not what Belinda was arguing.

Let's see what she has to say about it, but it sounded that way to me, e.g., she said, "nobody has more than human understanding and judgement." You gave an unreasonable answer to her reasonable question. Obviously if the existence of God could be proven by a logical argument, we'd all be believers.

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » August 26th, 2014, 7:02 pm

Shrimpmaster rebutted my objection:

Those premises can be resolved through the Christian faith. One would be that we are called to live in faith, that God works all things for the good of those who love him (Romans 8:28), so in fact, God does give an explanation - namely that there is something better for the little girl, and for the people who she knew on Earth in her passing.

Don't you understand that faith is faith despite, not because of, reason? There is no evidence that God has something better for all of the innocent victims of cruelty and injustice; there is no evidence of an afterlife in which individuals will receive reparation. Indeed that sort of afterlife idea is unworthy of what could still be a great religion.

Not only that, but your argument is assuming her life would be better if she lived. What if the two year old had something terrible (will not mention what) if she had lived beyond two years old. What if God is sparing her by his mercy? I am not saying that is the case. I am just saying that you do not know otherwise.

I do know otherwise. The little girl is only one of many victims of this ferocious world. Entire ethnic groups of men, women and children have been the victims of genocide, or of pandemic, or of famine. It is crude superstition to believe that "God is sparing ----------------by by his mercy" entire ethnic groups of persons. Shrimpmaster, yours is one of the worst attempts at theodicy I have ever read. I repeat that Christianity deserves better than this .I also repeat that faith is faith despite the evidence.

ShrimpMaster · Post by **ShrimpMaster** » August 27th, 2014, 11:33 am

Belinda wrote:Shrimpmaster rebutted my objection:

Those premises can be resolved through the Christian faith. One would be that we are called to live in faith, that God works all things for the good of those who love him (Romans 8:28), so in fact, God does give an explanation - namely that there is something better for the little girl, and for the people who she knew on Earth in her passing.
Don't you understand that faith is faith despite, not because of, reason? There is no evidence that God has something better for all of the innocent victims of cruelty and injustice; there is no evidence of an afterlife in which individuals will receive reparation. Indeed that sort of afterlife idea is unworthy of what could still be a great religion.

Not only that, but your argument is assuming her life would be better if she lived. What if the two year old had something terrible (will not mention what) if she had lived beyond two years old. What if God is sparing her by his mercy? I am not saying that is the case. I am just saying that you do not know otherwise.
I do know otherwise. The little girl is only one of many victims of this ferocious world. Entire ethnic groups of men, women and children have been the victims of genocide, or of pandemic, or of famine. It is crude superstition to believe that "God is sparing ----------------by by his mercy" entire ethnic groups of persons. Shrimpmaster, yours is one of the worst attempts at theodicy I have ever read. I repeat that Christianity deserves better than this .I also repeat that faith is faith despite the evidence.

I am not attempting to give you a subjective reconciliation for theodicy. These are broad reasons for theodicy that are not meant to apply on an individual level. All I am showing you is that individuals are not rationally justified to hold that God does not exist on the basis of the problem of evil and suffering. You can continue to reject the existence of God if you want. I just want to make it clear you are not rationally justified to do so on the basis of the problem of evil. I have provided a multitude of defeaters for that.

Also, faith is not faith despite the evidence. Do you have faith in your spouse or romantic partner? Is it because they cheated on you first and then you had faith in them? What kind of argument is that...

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » August 27th, 2014, 11:57 am

Shrimpmaster wrote:

You can continue to reject the existence of God if you want. I just want to make it clear you are not rationally justified to do so on the basis of the problem of evil. I have provided a multitude of defeaters for that.

Also, faith is not faith despite the evidence. Do you have faith in your spouse or romantic partner? Is it because they cheated on you first and then you had faith in them? What kind of argument is that...

I reject the version of God that you project. The God that I believe in is not in existence at all, but is Being itself. Being itself holds this phenomenal existence which we inhabit. Thus the God that I believe in is the God of panentheism.

I have no evidence that this phenomenal world of existence is not all that constitutes Being. I choose to have faith that this is so. Thus faith is a different act from trust which may be misplaced. Faith cannot be misplaced because faith is impervious to evidence, unlike spouses or romantic partners.

ShrimpMaster · Post by **ShrimpMaster** » August 27th, 2014, 12:05 pm

Belinda wrote:Shrimpmaster wrote:

You can continue to reject the existence of God if you want. I just want to make it clear you are not rationally justified to do so on the basis of the problem of evil. I have provided a multitude of defeaters for that.

Also, faith is not faith despite the evidence. Do you have faith in your spouse or romantic partner? Is it because they cheated on you first and then you had faith in them? What kind of argument is that...
I reject the version of God that you project. The God that I believe in is not in existence at all, but is Being itself. Being itself holds this phenomenal existence which we inhabit. Thus the God that I believe in is the God of panentheism.

I have no evidence that this phenomenal world of existence is not all that constitutes Being. I choose to have faith that this is so. Thus faith is a different act from trust which may be misplaced. Faith cannot be misplaced because faith is impervious to evidence, unlike spouses or romantic partners.

Faith, as used in the traditional sense, is trust. It sounds like you are using faith in a manner that defies reason. I see no need to warrant that. If you choose so, then so be it. I reject the version of God you project. Ta da!

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » August 27th, 2014, 12:20 pm

Faith doesn't have to defy reason because faith is a feeling about the Numinous . The |Numinous is never accessible to reason.

While it is true that reason is one way to access experience of the Numinous reason is not the only way. It can come via religious devotions, works of art , and relationships of love.

ShrimpMaster · Post by **ShrimpMaster** » August 27th, 2014, 12:23 pm

Belinda wrote:Faith doesn't have to defy reason because faith is a feeling about the Numinous . The |Numinous is never accessible to reason.

I think you just confirmed what I said because if the Numinous is never accessible to reason, then it would defy it by nature. Thanks

Felix · Post by **Felix** » August 27th, 2014, 12:55 pm

Shrimpmaster said: You can continue to reject the existence of God if you want. I just want to make it clear you are not rationally justified to do so on the basis of the problem of evil. I have provided a multitude of defeaters for that.

The problem is that none of your counter-arguments were reasonable (e.g., as in your post #32), they were based on articles of faith.

ShrimpMaster · Post by **ShrimpMaster** » August 27th, 2014, 1:18 pm

Felix wrote:
Shrimpmaster said: You can continue to reject the existence of God if you want. I just want to make it clear you are not rationally justified to do so on the basis of the problem of evil. I have provided a multitude of defeaters for that.
The problem is that none of your counter-arguments were reasonable (e.g., as in your post #32), they were based on articles of faith.

Felix,

The problem of evil is itself based on suppositions that are articles of faith. It is only that their faith is different than mine. They say God has to be a certain way; I show them that is not the case. Further, they are reasonable because they provide reasonable means to defeat the argument Belinda proposed (namely, that God and suffering cannot coexist). If you want to argue about something specifically please cite my previous posts. Otherwise, I cannot continue to debate this further if you just suggest I am wrong.

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » August 27th, 2014, 2:27 pm

Shrimpmaster, when I referred to the problem of evil and "God" I meant the theists' God. The conversation at that point was about the theists' God and it was in that context that I wrote.

I rebutted the theodicy which you presented, Shrimpmaster:

Posts: 10387 ( View: All / In topic )

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:02 pm Location: UK

Re: Discussion of the design argument

Post Number:#30 PostTue Aug 26, 2014 2:38 am

But Shrimpmaster, nobody has more than human understanding and judgement. To any human's understanding and judgement omnipotence and omnibenevolence are incompatible. I claim, not that all evil is incompatible with omnibenevolence, but that the degree of evil is incompatible with omnibenevolence. The reason for my conclusion is simple: for instance a two year old dies in agony of spirit or body but has insufficient time to learn from her experience. There is no justice in that, no benevolence.

If there is a superintelligent, personal, interventionist Creator He is failing in his responsibility to His intelligent creatures when He neglects to explain to them why He allows such atrocities to happen.

please note that I wrote that omnibenevolence and omnipotence are incompatible with regard to the fact of the incomprehensibly extreme degree of evil.

Platos stepchild · Post by **Platos stepchild** » August 27th, 2014, 2:51 pm

Consider the claim that, if God is omniscient, then we lack free will. The argument is that, since God is "all-knowing", He must therefore know whatever it is we'll end up doing, in any scenario. And, that fore-knowledge (presumably) "locks" us into what's tantamount to being our destinies. But, if God counts on us to fulfill our destinies, and commits Himself, accordingly, then we can, in fact freely choose to thwart Him. That is, if (and this admittedly a "big if") we're able to discern how God has "committed Himself" to whatever His "omniscience" perceives. in other words, we must know that which God believes to be true, about us. But, is that possible?

You know, let's forget about "second-guessing" God. Just imagine all the various, and sundry times humankind has tried to "read" the Divine Mind. It really doesn't matter, though whether someone is actually clever enough to pull-it-off. Maybe, as a fluke someone stumbles into behavior which makes it seem as though he's "outwitted" God. But, regardless of whether this has ever happened, the mere possibility of it happening is quite enough. (And, it is possible, if only because the impossibility of doing so is not logically precluded). God's omniscience is therefore, at the very least vulnerable.

I submit that, if God did design the universe, then He necessarily has definite intentions, for it. "Divine Intentions", however are predicated upon "Divine Omniscience. And, if that "omniscience" is in any way impugned, then God's "intentions" (and therefore His "designs") concerning the universe suddenly become suspect. A flaw, however miniscule repudiates God, inasmuch as His perfection brooks no compromise. The Design Argument therefore collapses due to a hairline fracture in it's logic.