Problem of Design

[Jassman]

If god is the way he presents himself, I'm glad he's imaginary. Because his existence would make either after-life option, heaven or hell, pretty damn awful. But as his existence lacks any sense, I know he doesn't.

That is an opinion that I have as well. If someone tomorrow 100% proved the existence of Yahweh to me, I'm not sure if I could bring myself to worship such a beast.

[Whitney]

I added to the original problem of design argument to take care of the common refutations.  I just typed it up real quickly as an answer to a yahoo answers question...so it still needs clarification:


I happen to think the strongest argument against the existence of a loving god (other than apparent non-involvement) is the problem of evil. There have been numerous ways this problem has been worded since Epicurus:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”

I state it in the following manner (I used christian, but replace christian with any god that has knowledge of future events and involves an eternal hell concept then it still applies):

Since the current Christian view of God is one outside of 'time,' makes more sense to say that God is outside of the dimension but whatever, I'm going to use that idea of God. Being outside of time, he can essentially fast forward and see the consequences of whatever universe he decides to make. At the moment just before creation (pick your favorite version of creation because it doesn't matter) God knew how each possible universe he would create would turn out. He knew at that moment that mankind would be inherently sinful and that most of the world would not accept Christianity, yet nonetheless this universe was the best he could do out of the many possible universes so he created it anyway.

The problem with this isn't so much a classic problem of evil, even though I could use that here, but a problem of the design of human nature and the existence of punishment. God, knowing how everything would be, knowing that Bill, and many other Bills, would not become christian, made people and made hell. He knew that he would be sending the majority of his creation to hell. So, it is a problem of evil, but not the problem as normally stated. Why would a loving God create a world in which he knows that by creating such a world that he would be sending most of the creation he claims to love to an eternal burning hell?

The common refutations to the above are "free will" and "with good there must be evil." Free will is essentially the ability to make an unrestricted decision between two or more choices. So, it is easily argued that free will can exist without evil...it would be a choice between 'good' and 'good' rather than 'good' and 'evil.' So, I won't entertain the free will response any further since it seems rather weak to me.

"With good there must be evil," this may be true. However if a god is all powerful then shouldn't he be able to overpower evil? If a god is restricted by the nature of good and evil then that god is not all powerful. Additionally, If god is good by his very nature would he be able to create anything evil? I would think not. This part of the argument, of coarse, fails if one accepts that god is both good and evil. But, it still leaves the question of if god loves his creation would he allow evil to exist...especially an evil place such as hell? A parent, no matter what his child has done will still do everything they can to prevent harm from befalling that child. This is how we understand unconditional love. But with many religions god is stated to love us yet be willing to send people to a bad afterlife if they don't act in a certain way. An all loving god would not do such a thing...s/he would do everything possible (which for god would be anything that doesn't defy logic) to make sure that none of the creation it loves would suffer an eternity of damnation. This would mean that a eternal hell wouldn't exist at all because god would not allow such a place.

So, if for some reason the only possible universe a god could create is one where humans are inherently sinful in need of salvation to avoid some horrible afterlife...a loving god would choose not to create in the first place. As stated before, this argument is against the existence of a loving god and that of hell. The problems stated are easily avoided by changing the way one perceives god or removing the belief in an eternal hell.

That concludes this very short argument against the existence of a particular type of god. I would also say that if a being is not all loving it isn't worthy of worship and therefore is not god. But opinions of what is worthy of worship are subjective.

[iplaw]

Sorry been gone on work then vacation.  

I don't see that your new or revised version of your argument made much of a difference in regards to the debate at hand.  I will attempt to discuss what I see is the perceived addendum.

Being outside of time, he can essentially fast forward and see the consequences of whatever universe he decides to make.

This argument assumes omniscience which is not asserted in this debate.  It is fully plausible and consistent to assert limited omniscience.  

So, I won't entertain the free will response any further since it seems rather weak to me.

Free will has never been advanced as a solution to the problem, though it is a variable in the equation like it or not.

With good there must be evil," this may be true.

This point is not to be glossed over or taken lightly.  It is a philosophical necessity in determining the existence of good.

If a god is restricted by the nature of good and evil then that god is not all powerful.

This is a highly presumptive statement.  Willfuly operating within a delineated system hardly defines what ontological charateristics we can presume about the creator of the system.  I.E.  a god cannot violate the law of non-contradiction.  Does that make a god any less omnipotent since he chooses not to violate the laws created?  No, it means that god acts within the system as it stands and nothing more.

A parent, no matter what his child has done will still do everything they can to prevent harm from befalling that child. This is how we understand unconditional love.

Agreed.  Just as I would never wish my own child harm.  I cannot make their decisions for them, sometimes they choose wisely, sometimes unwisely, but never forced.  I can love them in spite of their failures and pain, but they cannot avoid consequences because I love them in such a manner.  The analogy remains and thus directs us back to ask why god made the universe at all, but does not blunt the force of the observation.

An all loving god would not do such a thing...s/he would do everything possible (which for god would be anything that doesn't defy logic) to make sure that none of the creation it loves would suffer an eternity of damnation. This would mean that a eternal hell wouldn't exist at all because god would not allow such a place.

So, if for some reason the only possible universe a god could create is one where humans are inherently sinful in need of salvation to avoid some horrible afterlife...a loving god would choose not to create in the first place. As stated before, this argument is against the existence of a loving god and that of hell. The problems stated are easily avoided by changing the way one perceives god or removing the belief in an eternal hell.

This entire statement brings us front and center back to the original argument of what has been discussed previously.  How do you determine what is loving in the first place?  How do you differentiate between good and evil and why?  Why do place value on the idea of loving?  Here is my favorite story on the topic.

In the debate between the agnostic philosopher Bertrand Russell and the Christian philosopher Frederick Copleston, Copleston asked Russell if he believed in good and evil. Russell admitted that he did. Copleston then asked him how he differentiated between the good and evil. Russell said that he differentiated between good and evil in the same way that he distinguished between two different colors. "But you distinguish between colors by seeing, don't you? How then, do you judge between good and evil?" asked Copelston.  "On the basis of feeling, what else?" said Russell.   It has been said that in some cultures people love their neighbors while in other cultures they eat them--both on the basis of feeling...do you Mr. Russell have a personal preference?  

How can we possibly justify differentiating between good and evil merely on the basis of personal feeling? Whose feeling? Hitler's or Mother Theresa's, maybe Stalin's? There must exist a standard by which to determine good and evil. Without such a point of reference, the question of evil is no longer coherent and lacks foundation.

But opinions of what is worthy of worship are subjective.

I think I tend to agree with this statement the more I read it.

[iplaw]

I'm completely frustrated with the picture of god you have painted. He is willing to allow three quarters of his creation to burn in hell forever because HE wants a meaningful relationship and real worship and groveling, not just superficial. Well, that's lovely.

No. The argument is that given our set of possible choices, the universe we live in is the only choice which creates the possibilty for love to exist.  Just as parents cannot force children to abstain from activities which can end up costing them their lives, god does not force a relationship on humanity.

Perhaps if he wanted a true relationship with humans he should have made his books and works a bit more obvious (ie-not violent, scientifically false, and many times, just plain ridiculous) and ancient.

If god is the way he presents himself, I'm glad he's imaginary. Because his existence would make either after-life option, heaven or hell, pretty damn awful. But as his existence lacks any sense, I know he doesn't.

Ahhh, the old Bertrand Russell claim.  Unfortunately this is a matter of personal opinion.  There have been many a brilliant scholar who lived and attested to a belief in god... Aquinas, Godel, Polkinghorne, Flew, Leibniz; I could go on and on ad nauseam.  These brilliant individuals all argued for the existence of a god, so your assertion that god's existence is rediculous just happens to be the way you see it, nothing more.  Just as my opinion on the subject is personal as well, but it proves nothing.

Laetusatheos is making a good argument that if god exists, the type of universe he made attests to his non-sensical selfishness and unfeeling nature (for example, infinite punishment for finite sins). It is one of many arguments against him, as it is completely contradictary to our idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god. Sure seems easy to blame it on us, doesn't it? But the only sin we have committed is believing in this mythical god.

The argument is presumptive and assumes that we know what conditions would be better for the creation of the universe, all of which would be up to personal perference.  The argument that evil happens so a good god does not exist is sophomoric.  The argument is that to even discuss good, evil is a necessary component in the debate.

[Whitney]

This argument assumes omniscience which is not asserted in this debate.  It is fully plausible and consistent to assert limited omniscience.

The revised argument was not one meant to be a response to your comments specifically.  If whatever version of god you happen to be defending is not omniscient then the argument doesn't apply.

Free will has never been advanced as a solution to the problem, though it is a variable in the equation like it or not.

It has been by others...this isn't the only forum I post on.

This point is not to be glossed over or taken lightly.  It is a philosophical necessity in determining the existence of good.

With saying that evil is not necessary for good, I'm thinking abstractly in that an all powerful god should be able to figure out how to have free will without the need of evil while still allowing people to understand good.

This entire statement brings us front and center back to the original argument of what has been discussed previously.  How do you determine what is loving in the first place?  How do you differentiate between good and evil and why?  Why do place value on the idea of loving?  

I would think that most would agree that throwing someone into an eternal hell is not a loving act.  Going back to the parent example, it would be like taking a child that acts unfavorably, throwing him in the cellar then throwing away the key.  

We can define love by the desire to do what is best for someone else.  If that is an acceptable definition, I don't see how a God who allows an eternal hell to exist could be considered loving.

Why do we place value on love?  Because we are social beings and love is one of the main ways we form relationships with others.

[iplaw]

Free will has never been advanced as a solution to the problem, though it is a variable in the equation like it or not.

Hey, I understand.  Some of the most rediculous arguments I have ever heard come straight from the mouths of the religious.  Crtitical thinking is not valued in most christian circles...

I would think that most would agree that throwing someone into an eternal hell is not a loving act. Going back to the parent example, it would be like taking a child that acts unfavorably, throwing him in the cellar then throwing away the key.

To characterize god as "throwing" anyone into hell is incorrect.  A correction in the analogy bears this out.  What you fail to see is that the initial conditions of the afterlife exist as such.  No action is necessary on god's behalf to place us in either place eternally, god does not throw us into hell, we ultimately choose our destiny.  

A better analogy is a parent who tells their child to play in the yard and not the street.  The child from time to time trys to run into the street, even knowing that the yard is safer.  At some time in it's life, that child must determine for itself if the yard or the street is safer.  Those that choose the street find pain.  The parent didn't force them into the street.  The parent gave them direction to stay in the yard.  But one day the parent, as all parents do, must let their children make their own choices.  How would you feel if every decision you made was ultimately decided by parental fiat?  

We can define love by the desire to do what is best for someone else. If that is an acceptable definition, I don't see how a God who allows an eternal hell to exist could be considered loving.

The key word is desire not compulsion which has been my contention from the beginning.  I desire for certain things to happen all the time, but desire can often be insufficient.  I think the question is answered best by asking another one.

"How could a compassionate government ever create such a place as a jail?"

Why do we place value on love? Because we are social beings and love is one of the main ways we form relationships with others.

That's quite a pragmatic view of such an esoteric experience.

[Court]

I would think that most would agree that throwing someone into an eternal hell is not a loving act. Going back to the parent example, it would be like taking a child that acts unfavorably, throwing him in the cellar then throwing away the key.

To characterize god as "throwing" anyone into hell is incorrect.  A correction in the analogy bears this out.  What you fail to see is that the initial conditions of the afterlife exist as such.  No action is necessary on god's behalf to place us in either place eternally, god does not throw us into hell, we ultimately choose our destiny.  

A better analogy is a parent who tells their child to play in the yard and not the street.  The child from time to time trys to run into the street, even knowing that the yard is safer.  At some time in it's life, that child must determine for itself if the yard or the street is safer.  Those that choose the street find pain.  The parent didn't force them into the street.  The parent gave them direction to stay in the yard.  But one day the parent, as all parents do, must let their children make their own choices.  How would you feel if every decision you made was ultimately decided by parental fiat?  

I don't think that's analogous at all, because the child can SEE the street and the yard. There can be no doubt in the child's mind that the street and its dangers actually exist.
God is an absent father...who chooses to threaten us with an afterlife of which we have no evidence, through a copy of a copy of a 2000-year-old, factually inaccurate, bigoted, sexist, contradictary, and just plain silly book of myths. Real life cannot compare to the kind of parent god would be, because no parent would ever be that cruel.

[iplaw]

I don't think that's analogous at all, because the child can SEE the street and the yard. There can be no doubt in the child's mind that the street and its dangers actually exist.

It's a loose analogy I agree, but the fact remains that children are run over in the street every day despite SEEING the street and its dangers.  Enter the free will variable.  Most instruction to avoid dangers are anecdotal and some dangers even experienced once result in irreparable harm so that the validity of the danger must be taken on instruction only.

God is an absent father...who chooses to threaten us with an afterlife of which we have no evidence, through a copy of a copy of a 2000-year-old, factually inaccurate, bigoted, sexist, contradictary, and just plain silly book of myths. Real life cannot compare to the kind of parent god would be, because no parent would ever be that cruel.

Again, it's hard to debate with people when they resort to hyperbole and personal opinion.  This sounds more like a rant than a substantive response.  Also, I have made many more points that no one chooses to address.  These arguments tend to be circular and rely heavily on personal opinion.  Many brilliant men and women have looked at the exact same set of facts you scoff at and have chosen to believe differently.  To your last statement, are governments evil for creating jails?

[Court]

No, governments are not evil for creating jails.
Jails are not like hell, though. If you commit a crime, you go to jail. Sometimes you can rehabilitate and get parole, many times you serve a set sentence and are released, and sometimes, for more monstrous crimes, you serve until you die. There's a system of punishments fitting to the crimes. If you were to compare this to hell, it's unbelievably fair. Do you get sent to jail for all of eternity because you don't believe the government exists? Do you get tortured in jail for all of eternity because you didn't worship the government and stroke its ego?
Sounds a bit totalitarian, doesn't it?

[iplaw]

Do you get sent to jail for all of eternity because you don't believe the government exists?

This is a falacious argument.  Not believing in the government is not a crime.  What you are failing to see is that unbelief IS the monstrous crime.  The analogy therefore holds.  You just don't happen to think, in your own opinion, that it's fair, which I might add happens in itself to be be a moral denunciation on your part.  

And as I have said before many brilliant people throught time have looked at the exact same evidence that you categorize as insufficient and found it to be anything but.  If the totality of your argument rests upon evidential insufficency you may very well be treading on the very thin ice of flawed subjective analysis.

[Asmodean Prime]

That is an opinion that I have as well. If someone tomorrow 100% proved the existence of Yahweh to me, I'm not sure if I could bring myself to worship such a beast.

Jassman, I personally consider it offensive that you call my redeemer a beast, not that I expect you would place much importance on that.  I think, though, that God destroyed people in the old testament, as I said before, because they corrupted their gene pool by mating with fallen angels, demons, the 'nephilim', and therefore endangered the children of men

I mean, what would you do if somebody tried to either kill, or corrupt, YOUR kids?  For example, terrorists, or drug dealers, would you not want them dead, in order to protect your children?  Just a thought.   I think it's a matter of perspective that's all.

By the way, don't take personally my writing about taking 'offense'

I want to hear your views, it's just that I'd like to keep things in perspective, and fair, that's all.

[iplaw]

Awww crap...this debate was actually going somewhere...

[Squid]

I think, though, that God destroyed people in the old testament, as I said before, because they corrupted their gene pool by mating with fallen angels, demons, the 'nephilim', and therefore endangered the children of men

Or for making fun of bald prophets.

[Asmodean Prime]

or for making fun of bald prophets.

i think it just goes to highlight the fact that we are human, we don't have all the answers, and we are not all-powerful.  we should just show some respect, that's all, we are not invincible, though every generation of young people have thought they are invincible.  they are all dead.  respect where respect's due, I think.  please refer to my earlier postings if you want a more detailed explanation on my views.  You many not agree with them, but I think they are valid points.  

Isn't the internet a great thing?

[iplaw]

Squid is that a picture of Dimebag Darrell?