(April 6, 2025 at 10:52 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: He argues that if God truly exists, he would not allow such suffering to occur.If that is Stenger's argument, then he isn't using theology. He's just using logic.
That's a theological argument. How does an atheist use theology to make an argument against the existence of a Creator?
I am open to the possibility of the existence of a creator; I don't think there are any universe origin stories that are intuitive to me.
But I can, with certainty, disqualify any number of possible deities and religions as being true. Even the most devout religious person does this as well, seeing as they have to accept one god/religion and reject all others. And a God who claims to be concerned with my wellbeing and my future prospects, but does nothing to address those concerns, is pretty easy to dismiss. Heck, any God that created our universe and our world out of a desire to have anything to do with us, and then never ever shows up, can be tossed on that pile as well. There are a long list of ways in which pretty much every God that people worship isn't real.
"God has to exist, check out these proofs" is simply unconvincing and unsatisfying. Explain how the one YOU believe in is actually real.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould