Argument for the non-existence of God

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I made a thread about this when I first joined but the entire thread was immediately derailed by a certain member of the forum who was banned shortly after partly because of that. The thread never got back on topic because of that so I'm giving it a second try because I really thought the argument was interesting and I would like to see some discussion on it.

Some of you may have read this before, but it's new to me. Dean Stretton wrote this argument that attempts to prove the non-existence of God by using problems that middle knowledge creates that theists probably never foresaw. Basically, if God has middle knowledge, then there's no reason for a free person to not stop another person's suffering because it ultimately all works out for good in the end. Said person is morally justified in allowing the evil then. He argues that even the most rational theist would not allow all suffering even if they knew all suffering would be worked out for good, so they are not morally justified in allowing any evil to occur, and from that he says that no theists knows God exists. After this, he argues that basically that God does not exist because no theists really knows God exist (it's more sophisticated than that in the article). My summary is very simplistic so don't critique my summary and expect to be critiquing the argument itself.



http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/d...n/mae.html

What do you think of it?

[pocaracas]

I admit I only read your summary, but I anticipate a reply from theists along these lines:

[...] I also believe he does but we often don't recognize it as such. Reminds me of the story of the old guy in the flood who heard on the radio that the flood was coming and should leave his house but didn't saying God will save me, same again when the neighbours came and the water was lapping round his doorstep, and again when the national service came with a boat and again when the army sent a helicopter. When he dies he is angry with God and says why didn,t you save me and God just smiled and said i let you hear the radio warning, sent your neighbours, the national service, the army so in the end I decided we needed a little talk.

[KichigaiNeko]

From a brief perusal......I am thinking that it is why many here just say "this god-godboy dude is an amoral piece of shit and I will intervene where and when I can"

[Brian37]

I don't think this is a new argument at all but moral arguments against the idea of god only address the flaws in the omni concept of "all loving" and "all powerful". Epicurus addressed this a long time ago and to this day I still see no credible refutation to that.

But having said that, these types of arguments against God only address moral objections, not scientific reasons. Right off the bat the article presents us with the common excuse theists give which is really not hard to refute at all, "We are mere mortals maybe god has a good reason, but we simply don't understand".

I'd think it pretty cruel and outright assholish to allow suffering, claim to have a reason, and then keep that reason from those you allowed to suffer but didn't have to because you were the one who set up the game and rules in the first place.

"I work in mysterious ways"
"I can do what I want"
"You wouldn't understand"
"I don't have to explain myself to you"

No one in their right mind would accept such dodges or excuses if a baby sitter sat their kid, and allowed harm to come to it knowing they could have stopped it before it happened. That would be nothing short of child abuse. That baby sitter would be arrested.

That is a moral reason to reject a god claim, but it is not the core reason or best reason. The only good reason to reject a god claim is lack of evidence. But I do agree the concept of an all loving god can not be logically consistent by trying to make it fit a observable reality. One could only conclude as the god character is written that it could only be described as an inept selective deadbeat parent, or a malicious bully narcissist.

---

I admit I only read your summary, but I anticipate a reply from theists along these lines:

[...] I also believe he does but we often don't recognize it as such. Reminds me of the story of the old guy in the flood who heard on the radio that the flood was coming and should leave his house but didn't saying God will save me, same again when the neighbours came and the water was lapping round his doorstep, and again when the national service came with a boat and again when the army sent a helicopter. When he dies he is angry with God and says why didn,t you save me and God just smiled and said i let you hear the radio warning, sent your neighbours, the national service, the army so in the end I decided we needed a little talk.

Funny how all the fantastic magic in the bible you seem to not want to claim today that he could have, despite his magic powers(I am all powerful I can do what I want).

Are you telling me that this all powerful god couldn't have made him float in the air like an angel and fly over the flood waters safely to a non flooded area? This is the dude who magically popped an adult out of dirt? This is the guy who magically "poof" made the sun in the blink of an eye. And "poof" pulled an adult woman out of a man's rib?

But you reduced him to mortal technology with radios and humans. Doesn't sound all powerful to me.

Or is it you know all the fantastic claims in the bible are bullshit, but have to water them down and try to naturalize him to make him not look like fictional comic book super hero you deny he is? Water your belief down so you can keep it, even though you know it is bullshit.

Mark Twain "Faith is believing in things you know aint so".