Is evil in the world and deep human suffering a valid atheist argument for the non existence of God?
Offline If there exists an extreme depth of ( evil-negative) wickedness , then there must also be an extreme height of Love (good -positive) This then is God.
In the discipline of physics, a law
States that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In this sense, excesses of wickedness like Auschwitz and other massacres prove God's existence.
All deep human suffering is not a valid atheist argument but proof that there must be a Comforter to compensate for it. Much suffering is directly or indirectly God's punishment for sin. To deduce from such suffering that there is no God is to deny instrumentality . One might as easily prove that a child has no father by the fact that his father spanked him.
Richard Wurmbrand
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
- Login to post comments
While human suffering might have played a tiny ( very tiny) part in my deconversion, it was not a major factor.
Even if these above assertions that you are making were true, it still would not prove that if a god existed, that it would care, love or comfort us or do anything bad to us.
So to make the automatic leap that there has to be "something" and that "something" must be god is a huge one and does not prove anything.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I am going to have to ask you to prove that.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Why do you think that good and evil need to balance out?
And even if they did, then earthly wickedness would be balanced by earthly goodness, not a heavenly creator.
My first point is more important though.. unless you can show evidence that doing something evil inevitably leads to something good happening, this argument has no merit.
I am curious about that one myself. Especially how something like Auschwitz proves the existence of a loving and caring god ?
To analyze mass murder and genocide as comparable to a child being angry for a father spanking him is really rather an apples and oranges case.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
In fact, logically, if you take the premise that good and evil must balance out, and that god exists, and that he answers prayers, then every time you pray you are doing evil.
THUS:
So answer me that?
Actually, this resolves to an equality. Meaning 0 sum. So, if god is good, and allows for an equal amount of evil... Let's say god has a goodness value of 40, and allows for evil enough to equate that (because you like the discipline of physics so much (I think you're looking for conservation of energy)), then god ends up not giving a crap. Since it is impossible the quantify any of those values, your physics analogy is laughable. It's like trying to resolve an equation through a modern dance interpretation, cute but ultimately retarded.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
You'd actually be better off if it proved the non-existence of God.
Otherwise, it shows your God exists and he's a hateful prick. He's also schizophreninc (being Comforter and Afflictor at the same time).
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
The laws of physics apply to.... physics.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
How do I fix the effing format?
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Well because of the laws of physics, every well formatted post has to be offset by a poorly formatted post. Your poorly formatted post is just proof that somewhere there is a well formatted post. If you fixed it, it would just fuck up a post somewhere else.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
LMAO.
I guess that means posters like Bishadi, created a whole bunch of well balanced posts. Also according to the laws of physics, every time we resort to "typical atheist mockery" as TWD liked to put it, that means that a whole bunch of atypical atheist non-mockery was simultaneously being posted elsewhere.
If this does not prove the existence of a computer god of some sort, I just don't know what will.
To say that the internet is not governed by an electronic deity is the same logic as a calculator getting angry at the fingers punching it.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
It depends on the claimant's description as to what attributes they believes applies to the god they claim.
According to most believers of the gods of Abraham the logic fails as to all loving, all knowing, all seeing, all powerful. If one claims this, then this god can only be described as inept, or malicious.
No sane parent would go out of their way to put their child in a home with broken glass on the floor, razor blades, lead paint, and fecal matter, and allow others to harm that child knowing they could stop it. God would seem to have no excuse given the attributes the claimants of such make.
Epicurus's "Problem with evil" argument, to this day, I have yet to see any credible argument from a theist that knocks down his rightful and solid objection to such a concept.
Some believe that there is a generic god who simply stepped aside and did nothing afterwords. A backslide away from the alleged god who intervenes and allegedly cares.
But to me this is a distraction to the core issue of any super natural claim. If you can accept that a hurricane does not need an ocean god named Posiden to cause it, why would anything good or bad in life, nature or the universe need to be the product of a magical super hero vs a magical villain? Do you really want us to believe that all of this is some cosmic battle over the neurons in human brains?
What would be so frightening if you knew that humans merely like the idea of a super hero, and that in our history humans have always made them up?
There has never been one period in human history that some individual, group, religion or nation, that has not suffered, failed or gained by the pain of others, nor has there been a period in human history where humans don't die for a variety of reasons EVERY SINGLE DAY.
The meteor that killed off the dinos was not sent there by Allah or Jesus or Thor. That event was a result of the motions and physics of the universe. Evolution is also the same, a product of processes, not the invention of a thinking being.
If you can accept that the sun is not a god, then you should be able to see why we reject your gap answer as well. Good and bad have always existed, just like a hurricane is neither good or bad, but we view it as bad because it can harm us and often does. Just like it doesn't take a Shinto god fo the Japanese to know that their Tsunami was harmful to their population. But that Tsunami also, was a product of conditions of the crust of the planet, and was not the weapon used by Allah or Thor or Jesus.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Oskar Schindler .
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
No. He saved hundreds of jews. Millions died. This absolutely does not balance it out.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
I never said it was a balance . It is a positive
Outcome of evil .
Epicurus's "Problem with evil" argument.
It was debunked by Richard Wurmbrand.
Read thread #1.
Could you be a little more explicit? A link to "thread #1" perhaps? I did a quick search for Richard Wurmbrand and what I found he is talking about Communism and Marx with the only reference to Epicurus being a quote from Marx. Not in any way related to debunking Epicurus's argument. Thanks.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
I fail to see how the Wurmbrand quote at the top of this page debunks Epicurus argument in anyway.
I wonder why you have this short, clipped responses to in depth posts ?
Is it because you are afraid of engaging in a roll 'em up your sleeves and get dirty debate or is it because your afraid of having longer typed arguments shredded even more quickly than the brief ones that you use here ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Where is there any evidence that a comforter is needed ? Wumberland is obviously an idiot if his only sound justification for suffering is proof of a comforter. Why wouldn't god just eliminate all of the suffering to begin with ? Why allow it ?
I hope your not going to reiterate with Schindler. After all, god made the rules, god knew what the choices were going to be, and he knew the outcomes.
To put forth the notion that he is allowing sufferint SOLELY for the purposes of giving comfort would be even MORE evil than an indifferent god. This would be like me torturing one of my children (I don't have any of my own BUT) , just so that they could experience comfort afterward from their mother. Fucked up logic and reasoning if you ask me.
Care to argue this point a little more in depth and with some sense of reason ? Hell, even use some proof of these physics "laws" that you are pushing.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Totally empty argument.
The physical law you refer to applies only to the physical forces acting on a specific object at a specific point on it.
The suffering does not disprove God, it is true, only makes it highly problematic that any such being is good and loving. There is no compelling logic that any such being must be 'good' by definition, the only argument would be 'might makes right'. God belief provides no other basis for deciding what is 'good' or 'evil'. It is inherently impossible for our finite mortal minds to 'know' with any certainty whatever what the motives or intent of any such being, if it actually existed, might be. It would be capable of totally misleading us for whatever purpose it may have. Faith implies total ignorance, pure subjective speculation.
Empirical evidence may not give absolute certainty, but it does allow us to estimate what degree of confidence any proposition may warrant.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Irrelevant and untrue. Oskar Shindler's actions are indeed positive, but they do not originate or come from the acts of the holocaust in any way.
His actions are a heroic response to the depravity of the holocaust. It is from his own self that this good deed comes, and the only way it is related to the evil events of the holocaust is that they are in opposition to them and in response to them. As far as the holocaust goes, even with the actions of people like Shindler, there is a horrifying unbalance on the side of 'evil' occurred.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
Why does it have to be god? Extreme dept of wickedness is a state of being or action really, so the extreme opposite would be one of love and selflessness or as buddhist call a state of nirvana....why would it have to be god? If humans can be wicked then they can be selfless and loving....all without god.....this is illogical from you.
opposite and equal reaction (plus this is in regards to physics not human psychology or actions) but what you have stated well.....one is an action the other is well not an action but a god.......kinda like saying this; extreme sadness exists, therefore the opposite is extreme happiness, Therefore we call this is a clown.........it's illogical...just like your god analogy.
Being wicked or acting wicked does not mean that the opposite is god, it means that the opposite is being loving and selfless or acting in such a manner......I don't get how you leap from action to deity.
What is even worse for your analogy is the following, you attempt to give the attribute of ultimate love to god, however if this is true, then god is incapable of hate, which if you use your bible, he is quiet capable, with that said a being of ultimate love would also not want others to suffer and would do what is possible to stop their suffering....which your god seems very much incapable of doing. One of ultimate love would mean ultimate selflessness yet your god is very selfish and jealous being (again if we are using the god of the bible) so....yeah.....your analogy goes against your argument about your particular god.
Everything is made up of positive and negative energy.
Look at a atom and what will you see ?
To some people, Good and evil is a reflection of this energy.
If a negative exists, then there must also be a positive.
If evil exist then there must also be a Good or God. Or in
Other words, the ultimate positive being.
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
[Citation Needed]
When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...
Even if the net amount of 'good and evil' was subject to these rules, and god existed, that would leave only 2 possible scenarios:
1. Satan (or, an ultimate negative being) exists, or
2. the balance to god's goodness is an excess of evil here in our world, yet he allows us to live here. What is this, god's sick reality TV show?
But your entire argument rests on erroneous presuppositions anyway. Good and evil are not bound by the laws of physics. Then you just presuppose that if ANY level of evil exists, you need a supreme good being (presumably to maintain this moral equilibrium). It's no more a stretch to say that this deity is made of spaghetti.
Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.
Does this mean that if there was always and ultimate positive being, then there was always an ultimate negative being?
Care to balance that equation with Scripture?
"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia
Incorrect. We see positive and negative electric charge, and opposite polarities or senses of various other physical polarities, but not of energy.
The known fundamental particles, and atoms, can only be made up of positive energy. Negative energy is a tricky concept, and is NOT something you will see as commonly as you suggest. Not relevant anyway to questions of subjective values like 'good' and 'evil'.
Even in the context of your 'argument', the existence of even extreme 'evil' would logically imply nothing about the existence of extreme 'good', certainly not require the existence of "the ultimate positive being", any more than the existence of both positive and negative electric charge in any way implies that somewhere in the Universe there must be an 'ultimate' positive or negative charge concentration. The absence of such massive accumulations of charge suggests there is no reason to expect to see an ultimate 'good' being, so this style of argument is not working for you at all.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
How do you figure this, Jim? Going with you, extreme wickedness is no more than the efforts of men to kill each other. The opposite of this would be the efforts of men to help each other, surely.
Where does the 'extreme' love of god fit in as the 'polar' opposite of human achievement in ill?
The argument from evil is a poor argument. For once I'd like some singular proof of a god, not appeals to extravagant hypothesis like this seems to be.
Just appear, arguable god, for fuck's sake. Put your poor, desperate people out of their misery. Their arguments could really use your help.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
small sample fallacy. To some people Pandora is a real place, there are aliens and the Cronulla Sharks are going to win this year's NRL Grand Final.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I agree on your statement.
The known fundamental particles, and atoms, can only be made up of positive energy.
God is described as a light of energy in scripture.
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
God is a word title.
Some people like the word force, power, energy
And others like the word Jesus.
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
Where?
I've searched "Light of energy" in all English versions of the bible (http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword) but found no results.
Not in any general sense. However, in the case of a god described as both loving and omnipotent, it works perfectly.
Then god is nothing more than a state of being, and one that can vary from individual to individual and culture to culture. Such a god is not a creator or force of any kind, merely a concept of self.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
That is streching physics into philosophy, which do not compliment each other. Just because humans suffer does not necessitate some all powerful being to comfort them. Especially considering that humans have become very good at comforting and caring for fellow humans. If for no other reason than nothing else does so nearly as capably. No god has ever put food on someone's plate, but people do so every single day. No god has built a shelter for any being, but people do so every day. No god helps a child when lost and alone, people do.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Since we already have words for the things you described (you used them) - isn't equating "god" to any of them meaningless?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
The state of a being is existence.
"Cogito ergo sum"
Exodus 3:14
I believe that was Descartes, not God.
So because the writer of Exodus gave Yahweh a good Popeye impression he must exist?
Also, since God supposedly knows everything he doesn't need to think.
Descartes original statement also includes something that God can't do and you didn't mention - "Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum"
"I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am."
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
The state of a being is to exist .
Exodus 3:14
To be, or not to be: that is the question?
Shakespeare, and he was writing about suicide.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
"How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop?"
Exodus 3:14
The state of a being is to exist.
Since we're throwing disjointed catchphrases around.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
The state of a being is much more than mere 'existence'. Even rocks 'exist'.
But back to that quote:
Are you going to get to some proper arguments eventually?
Oh, and BTW, there is plenty of evidence these days that Exodus was just a story, not supported by historical or archeological research.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Good catch.
Besides that, what would god "believe" in or have "faith" in ? Hmm, would that mean that god is an atheist ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
ROFLMAO !
Break me off a piece of that Kit Kat Bar : Exodus 3:14
Born to Ride : Exodus 5:16
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I learn something new everyday. I had no idea that Descartes and Shakespeare wrote the book of Exodus.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Ok, I have a little tidbit of info on this whole existence thing.
In order for something to exist fundamentally, it needs to have a location and a shape. A location would place it in reality and a shape would be the boundary which separates it from the rest of the universe. For this reason, a shape without a location doesn't exist. For example a perfect circle has a shape but not a location.
A concept doesn't exist in reality, it is a subjective interpretation of reality. It has neither shape or location. So, in order for god to exist, you have to tell us the shape and location, otherwise god is just a concept.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Genesis 1:IV
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...
Revelation 22:5
All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X