Atheist arguments and the morality of God.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

But the contradiction is only between the atheist view of God and the world as is. There is no contradiction between the theist view of God and the world as is. Your statement above would, suggest, be more accurate as

It calls into question the way the world is compared to how We think it should be if a perfect being exists.

That introduces two potential weak links, our view of what a perfect world would be and God. A theist will pretty much always decide that our view of the perfect world which is wrong rather than God.

It's a fantastic argument to reinforce an atheists beliefs but damn all use to challenge a Christian's. Which is what it's for isn't it?

---

I don't think even christians think the world is perfect.
Children wouldn't die from hunger in a perfect world.

The question is why do parents let their kids die from hunger in the first place? Don't they know that kids have to eat?

[Mystic]

Because God is awesome.

Why is he awesome?

Because he is the necessary being that has all awesome qualities.

[tor]

Why is he awesome?

Because he is the necessary being that has all awesome qualities.

Apparently not all the awesome qualities since he doesn't prevent evil from existing.

---

---

---

I don't think even christians think the world is perfect.
Children wouldn't die from hunger in a perfect world.

The question is why do parents let their kids die from hunger in the first place? Don't they know that kids have to eat?

Parents also die from hunger.

[Mystic]

Because he is the necessary being that has all awesome qualities.

Apparently not all the awesome qualities since he doesn't prevent evil from existing.

Eh unless he has a good reason not to prevent it.

[Chas]

You put my thoughts into words. So why do you believe in such a god?

If it was just an intellectual question then I probably would not believe. I believe for spiritual mystic reasons.

That's fine; just don't try to represent it as reasonable.

[archangle]

It's a funny thing. When I was a Christian I got pissed off because of weak Christian arguments. Since I started thinking of myself as an atheist, I'm sort of the other way around.

There have been a few "gods a meanie" type threads recently. Has that ever worked?

If you believe in you probably believe that he defines morality. In which case any argument that god acts / has acted in an immoral, or evil, way is De facto flawed. The epicurean paradox has been mentioned a lot. From the perspective of a good christian, this falls to the same logical fallacy as the origin argument falls to atheists.

The argument is basically, " we don't know how the universe, therefore God" . It fails because the logical position knowing that the universe clearly exists, is simply "we don't know how the universe". Accepted ignorance is the logical position.

Now put yourself in a theists shoes for a second. Pretend that you accept as absolute truth the existence of a benevolent God. Now plug in one of the "meanie" arguments. "god is a meanie therefore God can't be good." The logical position for the theist to take then simply "God appears to be a meanie, obviously I don't understand the situation well enough". After all once you've accepted as truth that God is the infinite creator of the universe, how much sense does it make for me, with my limited squashy biological brain, with its 4 dimensional limitations and it's tiny window on the world, and it's very limited information to think I know better than God.

Really, the suffering argument is as weak for the theist as the ultimate origin argument is to the atheist.

But it does help to give hope to some. I see no reason to take it away from them. I wouldn't take a wheel chair from a cripple. But if that person were to tell me I must be in a chair to or I am evil I would knock him over and out.

be that as it may.

How a person describes the god of the bible is a look into that person. Good and bad. Most are in the middle. Hey, wait a min. It sounds just like politics.

Again human nature and not belief. dern it. it seems in describing theist I am describing atheists too.

[Mystic]

If it was just an intellectual question then I probably would not believe. I believe for spiritual mystic reasons.

That's fine; just don't try to represent it as reasonable.

It's not unreasonable.

[coldwx]

Apparently not all the awesome qualities since he doesn't prevent evil from existing.

Eh unless he has a good reason not to prevent it.

Once again, this fails in light of the fact that if god has a good reason what reason would we as humans have not to prevent it. If this is the case we should just sit back and let all the evil in the world happen because there has to be a "good reason".

[tor]

Apparently not all the awesome qualities since he doesn't prevent evil from existing.

Eh unless he has a good reason not to prevent it.

There is some versions I made that adds to the issue of the argument of evil, I don't know if the philosophical intellectual world is all too aware of them.

One of them goes along the lines of:

Suffering is either good or evil for humanity.
If we should want to stop it, then it is evil.
We should want to stop it.
Therefore it's evil for humanity.

Another:

Suffering is either good or evil for humanity.
If it is good for humanity, we should not want to stop it.
We should want to stop it.
Therefore it's not good for humanity.

Also:

If God doesn't want to stop suffering, so shouldn't we.
We should want to stop suffering for humanity.
Therefore God should want to stop suffering for humanity.

[archangle]

Why is he awesome?

Because he is the necessary being that has all awesome qualities.

You can support a belief in god using reasonable data and science. However. Once you preach submission and mystic, you have made an unreasonable leap of faith.

That does not mean you can prove it without a doubt. You can't do that today. And those that need this kind of proof are unreasonable anyway. as unreasonable as bible thumpers.