(July 7, 2014 at 12:21 pm)SteveII Wrote: We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evils that occur. As an example, under Chaos theory, large systems are sensitive to the smallest fluctuation. A butterfly flapping its wings might produce a hurricane 10,000 miles away. The same applies to any single event in human history. From a perspective only available to God, there is no way to see how allowing any event OR intervening in any event will affect other events.

How do you square that off with your statement in the other thread in which you said:

Quote:A miracle is an event that cannot occur naturally. But that does not leave out the possibility of an outside force causing such an event to happen. No laws of nature are broken since natural laws assume only natural causation.

If even the seemingly most insignificant event as a butterfly flapping its wings might produce a hurricane 10,000 miles away, then by God intervening in nature, there are going to be a myriad of effects and these should be scrutable to the same degree that other causal chains are. Otherwise, you're suggesting that god intervenes to re-arrange the ENTIRE chain of natural events (a clear violation) which stem from the original miracle or intervention of natural processes.

Quote:Alternatively, I'm sure you have all heard that if God does not exist, there would be no basis for moral absolutes and therefore nothing could really be good or evil. Even more disturbing is that free will is an illusion and everything that happens is determined by your molecules--further destroying the argument that good and evil exists.

There need be no basis for moral 'absolutes' any more than there need be an absolute basis for defining what a human being is. Those categorical distinctions are classifications we make, nature does not. Our justification for doing so is based off our experiences of brain states (or for taxonomists, specimens) by which we compare and contrast, and label for various purposes. This applies to our deities as much as it does to our social norms. And your free will remark reminds me of the lovely anecdote when Sir Arthur Eddington discovered that atoms are composed primarily of empty space...the morning after he was actually paranoid to get out of bed due to fear that he might fall through the floor. Clearly, his discovery does not effect a person's sense of solidity when approaching a brick wall. Neither does free will entail that our own motivations to act do not or cannot have prior causes.

(July 7, 2014 at 6:09 pm)GalacticBusDriver Wrote:

(July 7, 2014 at 11:23 am)SteveII Wrote: I don't think that the position that God causes an evil event to happen is defensible logically nor an accurate interpretation of the Bible.

So, gawd ordering the genocide (yes, genocide) of the Canaanites for nothing more heinous than presuming to live in the "promised land" before Moses and the rest showed up isn't an "evil event?"

If you let him off for being inscrutable, you must also let Hitler off. After all, he was claiming to be doing gawds work. Who are you to say he wasn't?!?

Mind you, that's just one example.

You are wrong in your reasons God gave to wipe out the Canaanites. It was because their culture had risen to the wickedness to judge them (child sacrifice, temple prostitutes etc. etc.). In fact, God mentioned earlier to Abraham in Genesis 15:

“Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. . . . And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites [one of the Canaanite clans] is not yet complete” (Gen. 15. 13, 16).

That shows that at some point the Canaanites' sins had not risen to the level to receive God's judgement. That tells a little different story that your "nothing more heinous than presuming to live in the "promised land" before Moses and the rest showed up".

(July 7, 2014 at 11:23 am)SteveII Wrote: Esquilax--are you assuming that God causes an "evil" event or allows an "evil" event? There is a big division in Christianity between these two positions.

I don't think that the position that God causes an evil event to happen is defensible logically nor an accurate interpretation of the Bible. So, your argument that the "God's mysterious intentions...is irrelevant...because motives aren't the sole determining factor when deciding moral issues", does not progress your hypothesis because then motive is not an issue.

There are some christians that believe that god is in control of all things, and that nothing happens without his say so. In that scenario, god is directly responsible for everything that happens.

Don't mistake your christian beliefs for the only possible christian beliefs. If you'd watched the video, you'd see the context in which I was working: so often people will give praise to god for the good things, while in the same breath handwaving away the bad with mysterious ways. Even here, we often get the "who are you to judge god?" attitude, presuming some added complexity or motivation for god that's lost to us. My point is that one doesn't get to merely assume some vague special motive that clears up all wrongdoing- and the biblical god has some crimes to answer for even just reading through his exploits in the past- and nor is one absolved of a crime because they refuse to justify their actions, leaving their motives mysterious.

We're especially not justified in making that assumption when we have no referent to derive information from, beyond a book of claims supposedly authored by the being we're making the assumption about. It's circular reasoning: I know god has a good justification for any action because this book he divinely inspired tells me that any action he takes is justified, so I must just not know which justification yet. Well, that's very convenient for god, but we don't take "by definition, I'm justified in any action I take, but I don't have to tell you how," as a valid excuse for actions from anyone else, and god isn't even bothering to argue as to why we should for him.

Any claim of mysterious ways, or higher moral standing or what have you, relies on the unspoken presumption that if god claims it, it's automatically true. But atheists don't make that leap, and so the assertion that god is justified by mysterious ways itself needs to be argued for, and not merely claimed.

(July 7, 2014 at 2:37 pm)SteveII Wrote: Bringing up past bad deeds in the name of Christianity is also a poor logical argument. To make it a good argument, you would have to:
1. Assume all motives for all actions were purely religious,
2. Show that those responsible had a correct understanding of the Bible and its precepts and
3. Always acted in accordance with these precepts.

Point 2!
Is there such a thing as a correct understanding of the bible?
Every christian has a correct understanding which they're comfortable with.
The bible itself is so open and vague that no 2 Christians agree on what is correct.

Point 2 is just as mysterious as the god itself. Coincidence?

(July 7, 2014 at 8:05 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(July 7, 2014 at 12:21 pm)SteveII Wrote: We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evils that occur. As an example, under Chaos theory, large systems are sensitive to the smallest fluctuation. A butterfly flapping its wings might produce a hurricane 10,000 miles away. The same applies to any single event in human history. From a perspective only available to God, there is no way to see how allowing any event OR intervening in any event will affect other events.

How do you square that off with your statement in the other thread in which you said:

Quote:A miracle is an event that cannot occur naturally. But that does not leave out the possibility of an outside force causing such an event to happen. No laws of nature are broken since natural laws assume only natural causation.

If even the seemingly most insignificant event as a butterfly flapping its wings might produce a hurricane 10,000 miles away, then by God intervening in nature, there are going to be a myriad of effects and these should be scrutable to the same degree that other causal chains are. Otherwise, you're suggesting that god intervenes to re-arrange the ENTIRE chain of natural events (a clear violation) which stem from the original miracle or intervention of natural processes.

Quote:Alternatively, I'm sure you have all heard that if God does not exist, there would be no basis for moral absolutes and therefore nothing could really be good or evil. Even more disturbing is that free will is an illusion and everything that happens is determined by your molecules--further destroying the argument that good and evil exists.

There need be no basis for moral 'absolutes' any more than there need be an absolute basis for defining what a human being is. Those categorical distinctions are classifications we make, nature does not. Our justification for doing so is based off our experiences of brain states (or for taxonomists, specimens) by which we compare and contrast, and label for various purposes. This applies to our deities as much as it does to our social norms. And your free will remark reminds me of the lovely anecdote when Sir Arthur Eddington discovered that atoms are composed primarily of empty space...the morning after he was actually paranoid to get out of bed due to fear that he might fall through the floor. Clearly, his discovery does not effect a person's sense of solidity when approaching a brick wall. Neither does free will entail that our own motivations to act do not or cannot have prior causes.

First, I appreciate the tone of your post. Others seem to substitute slurs and ridiculous comparisons for substantive conversation.

My mention of chaos theory was to support the sentence that we are not in a position to judge if God has a morally justified reason for allowing something to happen. The discussion on miracles was in the context of science proving that no such thing exists. If God chooses to cause a miracle to happen, He would still know the infinite ramifications of it.

Your mention of re-arranging the entire chain does not apply if you believe that God already has the foreknowledge of everything that will happen. The miracle would have already been part of the chain.

Believing there are no objective moral values is a philosophical slippery slope. Judgments about right or wrong are not possible. If Hitler had won WWII and established his new order with his views, would it still have been wrong to exterminate the Jews and other undesirable people groups? Is it objectively wrong the way women are treated in Afghanistan?

(July 7, 2014 at 6:06 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Not only does Yahweh become infallible, but ha satan becomes a person instead of a title, on whom we can blame all evils. They put some effort into reworking Yahweh, likely to get new converts instead of just focusing on one chosen people.

Those English guys sort of got things mixed up but it was all supposed to have been a prank.

(July 7, 2014 at 10:16 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(July 7, 2014 at 11:23 am)SteveII Wrote: Esquilax--are you assuming that God causes an "evil" event or allows an "evil" event? There is a big division in Christianity between these two positions.

I don't think that the position that God causes an evil event to happen is defensible logically nor an accurate interpretation of the Bible. So, your argument that the "God's mysterious intentions...is irrelevant...because motives aren't the sole determining factor when deciding moral issues", does not progress your hypothesis because then motive is not an issue.

There are some christians that believe that god is in control of all things, and that nothing happens without his say so. In that scenario, god is directly responsible for everything that happens.

Don't mistake your christian beliefs for the only possible christian beliefs. If you'd watched the video, you'd see the context in which I was working: so often people will give praise to god for the good things, while in the same breath handwaving away the bad with mysterious ways. Even here, we often get the "who are you to judge god?" attitude, presuming some added complexity or motivation for god that's lost to us. My point is that one doesn't get to merely assume some vague special motive that clears up all wrongdoing- and the biblical god has some crimes to answer for even just reading through his exploits in the past- and nor is one absolved of a crime because they refuse to justify their actions, leaving their motives mysterious.

We're especially not justified in making that assumption when we have no referent to derive information from, beyond a book of claims supposedly authored by the being we're making the assumption about. It's circular reasoning: I know god has a good justification for any action because this book he divinely inspired tells me that any action he takes is justified, so I must just not know which justification yet. Well, that's very convenient for god, but we don't take "by definition, I'm justified in any action I take, but I don't have to tell you how," as a valid excuse for actions from anyone else, and god isn't even bothering to argue as to why we should for him.

Any claim of mysterious ways, or higher moral standing or what have you, relies on the unspoken presumption that if god claims it, it's automatically true. But atheists don't make that leap, and so the assertion that god is justified by mysterious ways itself needs to be argued for, and not merely claimed.

Just as with any philosophy, competing religious views must be scrutinized, compared, and one needs to decide which view is more plausible. I am not making the mistake that my beliefs are the only possible christian beliefs. However, I am not going to make arguments from a religious view I do not hold.

To clarify, I believe God has foreknowledge of what is going to happen--contrasted against the view that God predetermines everything (Calvinism/Reformed Doctrine). I do not think that God predetermining events is logical and is not consistent with what is revealed about the nature of God.

You are bothered by not being able to always comprehend motives for God's actions. Let's suppose that God exists. Do you think that a human mind could begin to comprehend a non-physical being that always existed (something that you cannot possibly wrap your head around), that has the power and intelligence to speak the unimaginable complexity of the universe into being (including time), whose mind is big enough to know all past and future events simultaneously? I am not trying to hide behind the "mysterious ways" argument, but you cannot demand a motive or "crimes to answer for" because it is illogical that a finite mind could hold details on an infinite number of future events--which is God's perspective.

Another small point. You said that "Any claim of mysterious ways...relies on the unspoken presumption that if god claims it, it's automatically true." Do you think that it is more plausible that an infinite God (as described above) would make false claims or true claims?

(July 7, 2014 at 10:56 pm)SteveII Wrote: My mention of chaos theory was to support the sentence that we are not in a position to judge if God has a morally justified reason for allowing something to happen. The discussion on miracles was in the context of science proving that no such thing exists. If God chooses to cause a miracle to happen, He would still know the infinite ramifications of it.

Your mention of re-arranging the entire chain does not apply if you believe that God already has the foreknowledge of everything that will happen. The miracle would have already been part of the chain.

You talk about philosophical slippery slopes below, I think in a dubious way, but here it genuinely applies. How on earth could one ever distinguish between a miracle that is intrinsic to the natural processes and an anomaly? You can call everything a miracle, and some Christians actually do, but you cannot offer any justification for calling a single event a miracle under your definition. Moreover, for one who thinks that free will cannot coincide with the laws of nature, how do you justify God's foreknowledge? In other words, the Future is ever-present from a God's-eye-view of time, which means the actions I will commit tomorrow are present to God's foreknowledge, and you seem accepting of this notion but in the name of free will protest the idea of Laplace's demon? Please elaborate and clarify what you mean by free will. If you think actions or thoughts are somehow Uncaused, then your only mechanism for the source of all thoughts and actions are their random spontaneous appearance in the will, and that hardly preserves the quality of freedom you insist upon any more than the scientifically informed point of view.

Quote:Believing there are no objective moral values is a philosophical slippery slope. Judgments about right or wrong are not possible. If Hitler had won WWII and established his new order with his views, would it still have been wrong to exterminate the Jews and other undesirable people groups? Is it objectively wrong the way women are treated in Afghanistan?

Now, I can understand why it would seem impossible to make judgments about right or wrong under theism, which basically renders all moral statements to the determination of an authority--the irony being that that's exactly how a sociopathic racist like Hiter was able to persuade so many to his cause; duping them into surrendering free, rational, honest, introspective dialogue about the nature of humans, race, and the individual to society for complete devotion and trust in his grand, sovereign, "good" plan. However, under a godless paradigm of morality, we do not derive evaluative statements from supreme leaders, gods, or authorities, but rather rational debate that includes what it is we in fact mean by good, evil, and moral value, shaped by our experiences which are constantly expanding as knowledge progresses. If your locus of moral value does not begin with sentient beings, then you really have no objective paradigm by which to have rational discourse--all you have are competing theologies...which gets one no where.

(July 8, 2014 at 12:16 am)SteveII Wrote: You are bothered by not being able to always comprehend motives for God's actions. Let's suppose that God exists. Do you think that a human mind could begin to comprehend a non-physical being that always existed (something that you cannot possibly wrap your head around), that has the power and intelligence to speak the unimaginable complexity of the universe into being (including time), whose mind is big enough to know all past and future events simultaneously? I am not trying to hide behind the "mysterious ways" argument, but you cannot demand a motive or "crimes to answer for" because it is illogical that a finite mind could hold details on an infinite number of future events--which is God's perspective.

Any omnipotent god with infinite foreknowledge would be able to formulate an explanation that's comprehensible to a human mind. But additionally, I'm not asking for an exhaustive explanation of every possible thing that ever existed and ever will. When a person makes recourse to mysterious ways, they're necessarily discussing a single temporal event, a very small facet of the overall picture. Why is that so hard to discuss?

It's also important to note that we're not being given any explanation: god isn't even saying "you wouldn't understand, but trust me, it's for the best." God isn't saying anything, which is kind of the point I'm making: a person saying we can't comprehend god's methods is just making an assumption based on no information. They've never seen god, they have no experience with god that can be verified at all. We are, actually, in the situation where the person for whom all the evidence points toward as guilty is refusing to give any testimony. All those christians making "mysterious ways" excuses are nothing more than random people who don't know the accused saying that he doesn't look guilty.

Quote:Another small point. You said that "Any claim of mysterious ways...relies on the unspoken presumption that if god claims it, it's automatically true." Do you think that it is more plausible that an infinite God (as described above) would make false claims or true claims?

That depends on his motivations, doesn't it? If he's got motivations that require him to lie, I suppose he would. Also, "infinite god" isn't really something anyone can confirm; a god could merely claim infinite status without actually knowing that there's things it doesn't know.

There's plenty of reasons a god might tell a falsehood.

(July 8, 2014 at 12:41 am)Esquilax Wrote: There's plenty of reasons a god might tell a falsehood.

But Esquilax, we're talking about the Christian God, who "sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie," a being only committed to truth.