# The Morality of God



## atlashunter (May 10, 2012)

This reminds me of the words of Mark Twain.

"We hear much about His mercy and kindness and goodness - in words - the words of His Book and of His pulpit - and the meek multitude is content with this evidence, such as it is, seeking no further; but whoso searcheth after a concreted sample of it will in time acquire fatigue. There being no instances of it. For what are gilded as mercies are not in any recorded case more than mere common justices, and due - due without thanks or compliment. To rescue without personal risk a cripple from a burning house is not a mercy, it is a mere commonplace duty; anybody would do it that could. And not by proxy, either - delegating the work but confiscating the credit for it. If men neglected “God’s poor” and “God’s stricken and helpless ones” as He does, what would become of them? The answer is to be found in those dark lands where man follows His example and turns his indifferent back upon them: they get no help at all; they cry, and plead and pray in vain, they linger and suffer, and miserably die. If you will look at the matter rationally and without prejudice, the proper place to hunt for the facts of His mercy, is not where man does the mercies and He collects the praise, but in those regions where He has the field to Himself."


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 10, 2012)

Watched that and browsing through some of this guys other lectures. Makes me realize why critical thinkers have such a hard time understanding why I have the hope that I do. I guess I have always realized it to be a hard sell. But to hear someone speak so rationally, or should I say logical, it really hits home. Makes me ponder over issues that I have never addressed. The problem of suffering. I need to ponder this to decide what it is that I believe about suffering. It's the hard issues that we face, rather than ignore that make our beliefs solid


----------



## gemcgrew (May 10, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Watched that and browsing through some of this guys other lectures. Makes me realize why critical thinkers have such a hard time understanding why I have the hope that I do.



Interesting how he starts off with the children in order to evoke more emotion.


----------



## bullethead (May 10, 2012)

One heck of a video. It touches on some thoughts I have had for many years.


----------



## bullethead (May 10, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Interesting how he starts off with the children in order to evoke more emotion.



9 million children per year die before the age of 5. That is not counting children over the age of 5 nor adults. That is a LOT of dead people each year. It should be emotional.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> 9 million children per year die before the age of 5. That is not counting children over the age of 5 nor adults. That is a LOT of dead people each year. It should be emotional.



And it is. That is why religion comes up with an "age of accountability" in order to soothe the anxiety it stirs. The God of the Bible kills people. It makes it difficult to fill the church buildings if proclaimed from the pulpit.


----------



## bullethead (May 10, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> And it is. That is why religion comes up with an "age of accountability" in order to soothe the anxiety it stirs. The God of the Bible kills people. It makes it difficult to fill the church buildings if proclaimed from the pulpit.



Agreed Gem!


----------



## atlashunter (May 11, 2012)

92 views and only 6 replies.


----------



## atlashunter (May 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> 9 million children per year die before the age of 5. That is not counting children over the age of 5 nor adults. That is a LOT of dead people each year. It should be emotional.



It get's worse than even what Sam Harris says in that clip because not only do Christians refuse to lay any responsibility at the feet of their all powerful God for this suffering, they blame humanity.


----------



## JB0704 (May 11, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> 92 views and only 6 replies.



Is there a chance your position cuold be changed on the subject, short of Jesus riding up on a unicorn and telling you "it's all good"?

This is kind-of like the problem of evil.  You(pl) are mandating how things "ought be," and then dismissing God for not living up to your expectations.  If God is the assumption, "ought be" ain't got nothing to do with it.  It is a discussion of how things "are."


----------



## bullethead (May 11, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> It get's worse than even what Sam Harris says in that clip because not only do Christians refuse to lay any responsibility at the feet of their all powerful God for this suffering, they blame humanity.



One of the big factors for me was when I mustered up the courage to hold my "do no wrong" God accountable for the wrongs. It was not long after that I concluded it made much more sense that no god was or is involved in anything. It is people making excuses.


----------



## bullethead (May 11, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Is there a chance your position cuold be changed on the subject, short of Jesus riding up on a unicorn and telling you "it's all good"?
> 
> This is kind-of like the problem of evil.  You(pl) are mandating how things "ought be," and then dismissing God for not living up to your expectations.  If God is the assumption, "ought be" ain't got nothing to do with it.  It is a discussion of how things "are."



Assuming God/Jesus is capable of the things we are told daily that they are capable of........a quick trip on the Uni would be no problem to clear a lot of things up.

You(pl)are mandating things from "IF" instead of facing the truth of the known.


----------



## JB0704 (May 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> You(pl)are mandating things from "IF" instead of facing the truth of the known.



How so?  Not following.....


----------



## bullethead (May 11, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Is there a chance your position cuold be changed on the subject, short of Jesus riding up on a unicorn and telling you "it's all good"?
> 
> This is kind-of like the problem of evil.  You(pl) are mandating how things "ought be," and then dismissing God for not living up to your expectations.  If God is the assumption, "ought be" ain't got nothing to do with it.  It is a discussion of how things "are."



Did you ever notice how man(lets just exclude religion for right now) makes up fairy tales and magic worlds where things and events just work out miraculously? In these fabricated stories everything always turns out for the better.
Now including religion..... No made up entity can ever live up to our expectations as for thousands of years the supreme being has been tweaked and twisted into something that is what every believer needs and the triumphant hero of everything the believer fears.

We hold accountability to the unaccountable. Real and fake.


----------



## bullethead (May 11, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> How so?  Not following.....



You said "IF" there is a God........

ANYTHING can be made to appear real when we have to pretend it is real.


----------



## atlashunter (May 11, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Is there a chance your position cuold be changed on the subject, short of Jesus riding up on a unicorn and telling you "it's all good"?
> 
> This is kind-of like the problem of evil.  You(pl) are mandating how things "ought be," and then dismissing God for not living up to your expectations.  If God is the assumption, "ought be" ain't got nothing to do with it.  It is a discussion of how things "are."



You're way off base here JB. Sam is the one pointing out the way things are and the way things are don't reconcile with the claims christians make. If one simply claimed "There is a God" and left it at that we might then look at the world and draw some logical conclusions concerning that God. The problem is that Christians go much further than that and in doing so end up with beliefs that just don't mesh with reality. That is what Sam is pointing out. Mark Twain saw it too.


----------



## JB0704 (May 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> ANYTHING can be made to appear real when we have to pretend it is real.



Ok.  I agree.  Then the whole argument depends on whether or not that "if" is true.........


----------



## gemcgrew (May 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> One of the big factors for me was when I mustered up the courage to hold my "do no wrong" God accountable for the wrongs.



How is it wrong for the Creator of the universe to do as He pleases with His creation? Would we, the created, have right to question? Or just be.


----------



## JB0704 (May 11, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> You're way off base here JB. Sam is the one pointing out the way things are and the way things are don't reconcile with the claims christians make. If one simply claimed "There is a God" and left it at that we might then look at the world and draw some logical conclusions concerning that God. The problem is that Christians go much further than that and in doing so end up with beliefs that just don't mesh with reality. That is what Sam is pointing out. Mark Twain saw it too.



Here's my $0.02, and obviously, I am not the majority (seems like a theme with my opinion these days)......

Claims that Christians make have zero to do with the way things are.  Things are what they are.  We all draw our conclusions based on the evidence given.  Who and what God is does not depend on what anybody says he is.  Whether or not he exists does not depend on whether you believe it.

Take anything you know of, I will use my computer for an example.   It is a Dell.  If I told you it was a Mac, that wouldn't make it so.

My point is that before we judge anybody's conclusions, we have to see if the premise is correct.  Is there a God.  I say yes, you say no.  From there, we can use logic, , the Bible, evidence, intuition, astrology, or whatever else assists us in understandin the nature of that God.  For those that say no, the only logical view of anybody's faith is to dismiss it as "fairy tales."


----------



## gemcgrew (May 11, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Sam is the one pointing out the way things are and the way things are don't reconcile with the claims christians make. If one simply claimed "There is a God" and left it at that we might then look at the world and draw some logical conclusions concerning that God. The problem is that Christians go much further than that and in doing so end up with beliefs that just don't mesh with reality. That is what Sam is pointing out. Mark Twain saw it too.



I would agree. Religion would have a difficult time controlling the masses and taking their money though.


----------



## atlashunter (May 11, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Claims that Christians make have zero to do with the way things are.  Things are what they are.  We all draw our conclusions based on the evidence given.



You're correct and that is exactly what Harris is doing. He is taking the christian claims (that there is a God that is all powerful and good, kind, loving, and just) and is contrasting that claim with the hard evidence. The claims do not mesh with reality. Does that prove there is no God? No and Harris isn't claiming that. He says in light of the suffering that goes on that if this God exists he is either unable to intervene or he doesn't care to, impotent or evil. Those are two feasible alternatives to the possibility that there simply is no God.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 11, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> It get's worse than even what Sam Harris says in that clip because not only do Christians refuse to lay any responsibility at the feet of their all powerful God for this suffering, they blame humanity.



It gets much worse. They take the all powerful God, that sweeps 100,000 men, women and children out to sea, and replace Him with a god that loves everybody and has a wonderful plan for their life.


----------



## ambush80 (May 11, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> It gets much worse. They take the all powerful God, that sweeps 100,000 men, women and children out to sea, and replace Him with a god that loves everybody and has a wonderful plan for their life.



......or a god that they can surprise by choosing to believe in.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 11, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> ......or a god that they can surprise by choosing to believe in.



Or a Christ that judges and makes war. He will be replaced with a christ who is longing for you, yearning for you and desires to have a relationship with you.

How many funerals would we have to attend before we heard a preacher talking about the eternal suffering of the one just departed?


----------



## JB0704 (May 11, 2012)

Personally, I disagree with you fellas.  The concept of free will addresses all of this.

Gemcgrew, why does God have to be what you say he is in order to be God?

Atlas, I am sure we can come up with other alternatives than the one you presented....God created freedom, perhaps?????

When I read the NT, I do not see a Jesus who is eager to make war on humanity.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 11, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Personally, I disagree with you fellas.  The concept of free will addresses all of this.


Of coarse it does. It makes things much more pleasant. It gives us a say-so in the matter.


JB0704 said:


> Gemcgrew, why does God have to be what you say he is in order to be God?


He doesn't. 


JB0704 said:


> When I read the NT, I do not see a Jesus who is eager to make war on humanity.


"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." (Rev. 19:11-16)


----------



## JB0704 (May 11, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." (Rev. 19:11-16)



You and I might see that book a bit differently.  Personally, I think the snapshot of the character is in John, but, we all have our own take on things.....


----------



## atlashunter (May 11, 2012)

JB what does free will have to do with a child killed by disease or famine or natural disaster?


----------



## JB0704 (May 11, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> JB what does free will have to do with a child killed by disease or famine or natural disaster?



Not much.  But it's existence indicates God is not as interventionist as some would like us to believe.  If God directs every action, then we are not free.  We are either free, or we are robots, I see very little middle ground available.  If we are free, then we have consequences of actions (disease and famine are often spread as a result of poor management of resources).  If we are robots, then God is killing folks with those things you mentioned.


----------



## bullethead (May 11, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> How is it wrong for the Creator of the universe to do as He pleases with His creation? Would we, the created, have right to question? Or just be.



Well again, there really is absolutely nothing that proves such a creator exists. IF.....such an entity was well known and made regular appearances I could marvel in it greatness and accept many different things that I do now.

When someone does not have any hard facts to prove a being exists, let alone created the universe, let alone created all creation, everything else is just a magical fairy tale of hope.


----------



## atlashunter (May 11, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Not much.  But it's existence indicates God is not as interventionist as some would like us to believe.  If God directs every action, then we are not free.  We are either free, or we are robots, I see very little middle ground available.  If we are free, then we have consequences of actions (disease and famine are often spread as a result of poor management of resources).  If we are robots, then God is killing folks with those things you mentioned.



Not the answer I thought I would get. I thought you would go with the fallen world due to Adam eating the fruit.

If you want to claim the deist God that doesn't intervene then you're talking about a different God from the bible. The biblical God is constantly intervening in the world and Christians certainly believe in an interventionist God. Again, Harris specifically addresses this.

If the free will argument is that God wants people to be able to exercise their free will then to any extent that he intervenes in the world does it not make sense that he would intervene on behalf of children who will die before the age of 5 so that they have that opportunity? A 3 year old that is swept away by a tsunami will never get to exercise their free will. You suggest that disease and famine are often the fault of man. They are often not man's fault too. If you want to credit a man who jumps off a cliff as receiving the consequences of his free will that makes sense and could be compatible with a just God. But this idea that some should suffer and have their free will violated by others would be neither moral or just if it were true. It would be like you watching a rape occur, having the power to stop it at absolutely no personal risk to yourself, and choosing to do nothing because you don't want to interfere with the free will of the rapist. So the free will position doesn't help much in addressing this problem except for cases where the victim is a victim of their own free will. In most of the cases which Sam is speaking of it is completely irrelevant.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Well again, there really is absolutely nothing that proves such a creator exists.


I understand. My comment was directed at your previous state of unbelief. "One of the big factors for me was when I mustered up the courage to hold my "do no wrong" God accountable for the wrongs." Not your current state of unbelief.


bullethead said:


> When someone does not have any hard facts to prove a being exists, let alone created the universe, let alone created all creation, everything else is just a magical fairy tale of hope.


And the criteria of proof you require may or may not be provided during your life. It does not appear that you are asking too much.


----------



## bullethead (May 11, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> I understand. My comment was directed at your previous state of unbelief. "One of the big factors for me was when I mustered up the courage to hold my "do no wrong" God accountable for the wrongs." Not your current state of unbelief.
> 
> And the criteria of proof you require may or may not be provided during your life. It does not appear that you are asking too much.



10-4
Once I had that initial courage to think outside the box and ask the first question, the rest became easier and easier because the answers, or lack of answers made much more sense.


----------



## atlashunter (May 11, 2013)

bump for semperfidawg


----------



## Robert Tuck (May 16, 2013)

Atlas, 

Sam Harris brings up a very traditional objection for belief in God, the problem of evil; but does so eloquently. Speaking with all emotional reactions aside, I don’t believe this objection is capable of demonstrating that God does not exist or that he is impudent. To say it is impossible or improbable for God to have morally sufficient reasons for suffering is quite the claim. It’s a claim that, in my humble opinion, can only use the emotional reaction to suffering to persuade. Intellectually, no one can state as fact “God has no morally sufficient reason to allow suffering”. Standing on the ground watching tracks switch and redirect trains, one can hardly see the big picture. But standing in front of the vast circuit board with lights showing all the trains racing in different directions, one could see the bigger picture more clearly. In the case of human history, we have a vast inconceivable array of events interconnected with one another. It seems presumptuous to claim emphatically that suffering will not be redeemed in some way. 

This is the hope and belief of the Christian; that in the end even after death, justice will be done. On the other hand, without God, it’s just tough luck. Without the existence of God, there is only suffering, death, and then oblivion for these children.  
Here’s a short 4 minute video response to the problem of evil from my favorite philosopher. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_ps36TV_vI&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EcdXA1dVgb7-C0lXtp6LFp4&index=2

In case you’re interested, he debated Sam Harris at the University of Notre Dame back in 2011.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2013)

Robert Tuck said:


> Atlas,
> 
> Sam Harris brings up a very traditional objection for belief in God, the problem of evil; but does so eloquently. Speaking with all emotional reactions aside, I don’t believe this objection is capable of demonstrating that God does not exist or that he is impudent. To say it is impossible or improbable for God to have morally sufficient reasons for suffering is quite the claim. It’s a claim that, in my humble opinion, can only use the emotional reaction to suffering to persuade. Intellectually, no one can state as fact “God has no morally sufficient reason to allow suffering”. Standing on the ground watching tracks switch and redirect trains, one can hardly see the big picture. But standing in front of the vast circuit board with lights showing all the trains racing in different directions, one could see the bigger picture more clearly. In the case of human history, we have a vast inconceivable array of events interconnected with one another. It seems presumptuous to claim emphatically that suffering will not be redeemed in some way.
> 
> ...



Craig makes a lot of improbable assertions himself doesn't he?
Like: every action has a ripple effect and could effect something 300 years in the future and possibly in another country. Yet no mention or example of how he can back that up.
I saw the 2011 debate. It was very one sided(especially for an audience at a Catholic University) and it was not in favor of Dr. Craig.


----------



## stringmusic (May 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Craig makes a lot of improbable assertions himself doesn't he?
> Like: every action has a ripple effect and could effect something 300 years in the future and possibly in another country. Yet no mention or example of how he can back that up.



That's not an assertion, it's a rational opinion. Note the key words "could" and "possibly".

And I don't think Dr. Craig would have much of a problem giving some examples of how this could happen, he didn't because that was not the point of the discussion.

The point was "we don't know" if things have ripple effects that do not manifest themselves until many years later, and that is a problem for the atheist making the assertion that God is not real based on the fact that pain and suffering happen.


----------



## swampstalker24 (May 16, 2013)

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?  

-Epicurus


----------



## stringmusic (May 16, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?


No


> Is he able, but not willing?


It's not in His will.


> Is he both able and willing?


He is able, but it's not in His will.


> Then whence cometh evil?


Because humans are evil.


> Is he neither able nor willing?


He is able, but it's not in His will.

This has been posted in here many times, while on the surface it looks like a pursuasive argument, but once one starts to dig a little deeper into it there's not much there. All the scenario's are not given, the writer simply takes biased questions that support the agenda of writing it in the first place.


----------



## swampstalker24 (May 16, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> No
> 
> It's not in His will.
> 
> ...



So, by your own argument, God is able, but he choses not to because it's not in his will.  Therefore his will is for people to suffer and he is malevolent.  I think the simplicity of the argument is what makes it so true, there is no need to dig deeper.


----------



## stringmusic (May 16, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> So, by your own argument, God is able, but he choses not to because it's not in his will.  Therefore his will is for people to suffer and he is malevolent.


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ignoring-a-common-cause.html




> I think the simplicity of the argument is what makes it so true, there is no need to dig deeper.



Simplicity doesn't have any bearing on whether an argument is true or not. When other logical and reasonable scenario's can be introduced into an idea such as the one you quoted, they should be.


----------



## swampstalker24 (May 16, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ignoring-a-common-cause.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, what is the logical and reasonable scenaris you speak of, besides "Its not in his will"?


----------



## stringmusic (May 16, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> So, what is the logical and reasonable scenaris you speak of, besides "Its not in his will"?



That humans are allowed to choose between good and evil, and most of them choose evil, which is why we see evil. If God takes away evil, He also takes away our choice, by definition, the relationship that God wants with us must come with a choice, else there is no relationship.


----------



## swampstalker24 (May 16, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> That humans are allowed to choose between good and evil, and most of them choose evil, which is why we see evil. If God takes away evil, He also takes away our choice, by definition, the relationship that God wants with us must come with a choice, else there is no relationship.



Can a person choose good, with out choosing God?


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> That's not an assertion, it's a rational opinion. Note the key words "could" and "possibly".
> 
> And I don't think Dr. Craig would have much of a problem giving some examples of how this could happen, he didn't because that was not the point of the discussion.
> 
> The point was "we don't know" if things have ripple effects that do not manifest themselves until many years later, and that is a problem for the atheist making the assertion that God is not real based on the fact that pain and suffering happen.



Ripple effects happen without a God.
Craig is saying that things beyond our comprehension are allowed to happen now for a greater good later. He is making it sound like God can see the greater good in a tragedy so he lets it happen, then 300 years in the future something could take place that ultimately is because of the tragedy 300 years earlier.
Doesn't sit well with the free will and predestination arguments.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> No
> 
> It's not in His will.
> 
> ...



Do you think it is not "his will" or do you know it is not "his will" and if you know that please share with us just how to came to have this inside knowledge.


----------



## stringmusic (May 16, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> Can a person choose good, with out choosing God?



No. At least not something that is inherently good.

Yes, a person can do something that man sees as "good" but without being justified by God it is not really good.


----------



## stringmusic (May 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Ripple effects happen without a God.
> Craig is saying that things beyond our comprehension are allowed to happen now for a greater good later. He is making it sound like God can see the greater good in a tragedy so he lets it happen, then 300 years in the future something could take place that ultimately is because of the tragedy 300 years earlier.
> Doesn't sit well with the free will and predestination arguments.



I don't think anybody is contending that ripple effects can't happen without God.

Dr. Craig is making the assertion that without omniscience, an atheist is making a mistake by stating that the existence of evil in the world is evidence that God does not exist.


----------



## stringmusic (May 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Do you think it is not "his will" or do you know it is not "his will" and if you know that please share with us just how to came to have this inside knowledge.



I know it's not God's will, because if it was, the nature of suffering and pain would be different.


----------



## swampstalker24 (May 16, 2013)

So, did God create evil?  And if so, why?


I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

—Isaiah 45:7


----------



## stringmusic (May 16, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> So, did God create evil?


Yes.....


> I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
> 
> —Isaiah 45:7





> And if so, why?


If there were no evil, would we have a choice to deny God?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 16, 2013)

I just watched the video in the OP and one of the things that occurred to me is something I've notice on here though its not as bad here. His disbelief in God goes much deeper than a simple rejection of the evidence on an objective level as say a juror would have in a court case or a mathematician would have in rejecting a theorem.  His rejection is venomous.  Its blatantly obvious that he holds an indignant disgust for anyone who doesn't agree with him.  Just a side observation.


----------



## atlashunter (May 16, 2013)

Robert Tuck said:


> Atlas,
> 
> Sam Harris brings up a very traditional objection for belief in God, the problem of evil; but does so eloquently. Speaking with all emotional reactions aside, I don’t believe this objection is capable of demonstrating that God does not exist or that he is impudent. To say it is impossible or improbable for God to have morally sufficient reasons for suffering is quite the claim. It’s a claim that, in my humble opinion, can only use the emotional reaction to suffering to persuade. Intellectually, no one can state as fact “God has no morally sufficient reason to allow suffering”. Standing on the ground watching tracks switch and redirect trains, one can hardly see the big picture. But standing in front of the vast circuit board with lights showing all the trains racing in different directions, one could see the bigger picture more clearly. In the case of human history, we have a vast inconceivable array of events interconnected with one another. It seems presumptuous to claim emphatically that suffering will not be redeemed in some way.
> 
> ...




A couple points. First I agree the problem of evil isn't a proof that god doesn't exist. It is a very good argument against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good god. As Epicurus points out, it could be there is a god that is impotent. Or there could be an evil god. Or maybe there simply is no god at all. That is the simplest explanation for the world we live in.

Second, it is one heck of an assumption to believe that god only allows the death of innocent people when he has some higher purpose, especially when you consider the scale of the suffering that Harris points out. Millions of kids suffering and dying year after year but it's ok because it's all part of god's plan? Is that moral for a being that as an omnipotent is capable of achieving the same end without the suffering? I'd say it isn't. Harris is right. It's tiresome and it's morally reprehensible. And I'm not buying that any believers really think it either. If they did then they should welcome death at every turn. God is in control right? If he be for you who can be against you? So why bother fighting disease? Why bother locking up murderers for doing gods work? Who knows the mind of god and since he permitted it to happen we should assume he has some higher purpose that exceeds our ability to comprehend.

One last point. If there is a god that permits a reality with both good and evil by choice why should it be assumed that the evil allowances are the mysterious side of god? The same reality could be reconciled by positing an evil god that permits good for some greater unexplained evil purpose.


----------



## atlashunter (May 16, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes.....
> 
> 
> 
> If there were no evil, would we have a choice to deny God?



If god is incapable of offering that choice in the absence of evil that means he isn't omnipotent.

Besides, who says that choice even matters to god? I see no reason to think it does. People in heaven won't have that choice will they?


----------



## ddd-shooter (May 16, 2013)

One thing strikes me here.  
Christians say the world is in a terrible mess (both physically and spiritually) *and it ought not be so. *

Naturalists say the world is exactly what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. We are simply "dancing to our DNA" in an environment that is hostile. 
For a naturalist to claim the world is "bad" or "evil" is to interject something foreign into his world view; that is, a notion that exists outside of scientific proof.


----------



## atlashunter (May 16, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> One thing strikes me here.
> Christians say the world is in a terrible mess (both physically and spiritually) *and it ought not be so. *
> 
> Naturalists say the world is exactly what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. We are simply "dancing to our DNA" in an environment that is hostile.
> For a naturalist to claim the world is "bad" or "evil" is to interject something foreign into his world view; that is, a notion that exists outside of scientific proof.



I'm not sure I follow your point.


----------



## ddd-shooter (May 16, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> If god is incapable of offering that choice in the absence of evil that means he isn't omnipotent.
> 
> Besides, who says that choice even matters to god? I see no reason to think it does. People in heaven won't have that choice will they?



I would say that would be tantamount to asking God to draw a square circle and then pointing out how he isn't all powerful because he couldn't. 

I would argue that for there to be a choice for me to Love God, then there would have had to be someone else on whom I could place my love. 

People in heaven make their selection for eternity here.


----------



## ddd-shooter (May 16, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> I'm not sure I follow your point.



Christians say the world is not as it should be. 
A naturalist says the world is exactly what it is. No standards can be applied to what we observe. It simply is what it is.


----------



## atlashunter (May 16, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> I would say that would be tantamount to asking God to draw a square circle and then pointing out how he isn't all powerful because he couldn't.



That would be impossible by definition. There is no such conflict by definition in what we are talking about. You would have to make the case that there is some good which could not possibly be achieved except by some prior evil. This defense against the problem of evil really is just a case of special pleading. We can't explain the evil so let's just assume that it is for some ultimately good purpose. Why should anyone make that assumption?




ddd-shooter said:


> People in heaven make their selection for eternity here.



You know how many people have died before being born or reaching an age at which a choice could be made over the course of human history?


----------



## atlashunter (May 16, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Christians say the world is not as it should be.
> A naturalist says the world is exactly what it is. No standards can be applied to what we observe. It simply is what it is.



Yes, nature simply is what it is. Good and evil are human constructs.


----------



## ddd-shooter (May 16, 2013)

If I had the opportunity to select a judge to determine where I would spend eternity, I would pick the one who himself took the punishment for the sins of the world. I think he will be pretty fair...(tongue in cheek). 

Yes atlas, my point was this thread is meaningless to a true naturalist. Why make a big deal of why the world is why it is? Unless there may be something in all of us that doesn't line up with the naturalist view. There ought to be a different world, and I think we all know it. The naturalist cannot make that claim; the Christian does make that claim. 

Anyway, I am done. I have indulged myself with arguments far too much already.


----------



## atlashunter (May 16, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Yes atlas, my point was this thread is meaningless to a true naturalist. Why make a big deal of why the world is why it is? Unless there may be something in all of us that doesn't line up with the naturalist view. There ought to be a different world, and I think we all know it. The naturalist cannot make that claim; the Christian does make that claim.
> 
> Anyway, I am done. I have indulged myself with arguments far too much already.



I don't think anyone is making a big deal of the naturalist view of the world. This topic is addressing the world view put forward by theists.


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> If I had the opportunity to select a judge to determine where I would spend eternity, I would pick the one who himself took the punishment for the sins of the world. I think he will be pretty fair...(tongue in cheek).
> 
> Yes atlas, my point was this thread is meaningless to a true naturalist. Why make a big deal of why the world is why it is? Unless there may be something in all of us that doesn't line up with the naturalist view. There ought to be a different world, and I think we all know it. The naturalist cannot make that claim; the Christian does make that claim.
> 
> Anyway, I am done. I have indulged myself with arguments far too much already.



Well, I for one am really enjoying your posts!

Hope you stick around for a while.


----------



## Four (May 17, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Personally, I disagree with you fellas.  The concept of free will addresses all of this.
> 
> Gemcgrew, why does God have to be what you say he is in order to be God?
> 
> ...



If I as a person would witness a horrific event for which i could intercede. Such as some child rape, or murder, or even a simple mugging, assault, paint whatever terrible picture you want. .. If I could stop this terrible thing from happening with no ill effect to myself.. but i dont and when asked i tell you "free will" Would that satisfy you?


----------



## ddd-shooter (May 17, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> I don't think anyone is making a big deal of the naturalist view of the world. This topic is addressing the world view put forward by theists.



Ok. So after pointing out the lack of moral ground established within naturalistic world views, what do you find lacking in the teachings of Christ? Pointing to a corrupt world and blaming God is like looking at dirty hands and saying soap doesn't work.


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Ok. So after pointing out the lack of moral ground established within naturalistic world views, what do you find lacking in the teachings of Christ?



Not relevant to the topic.




ddd-shooter said:


> Pointing to a corrupt world and blaming God is like looking at dirty hands and saying soap doesn't work.



Poor analogy. Christians are claiming that there is a god that helps them with the most insignificant troubles they have in life and claim this same being has the power to save millions of children every year but chooses not to. Harris is correct when he says this is the perfection of narcissism.


----------



## ddd-shooter (May 17, 2013)

How can you claim the thread is questioning the worldview put forth by Christians and yet when I ask you what is lacking in Christ's teachings you say it's not relevant?

Christians believe its our duty to make the world a better place. Those who are naturalists see no problem with millions of children dying  we should simply accept that it happens. It is neither good nor bad


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> How can you claim the thread is questioning the worldview put forth by Christians and yet when I ask you what is lacking in Christ's teachings you say it's not relevant?



The video in the OP I think is pretty clear. If there is something specific about it that you want to discuss then let's discuss it.




ddd-shooter said:


> Christians believe its our duty to make the world a better place. Those who are naturalists see no problem with millions of children dying  we should simply accept that it happens. It is neither good nor bad



When you don't have an invisible friend to fix your problems then you can fully understand and accept the responsibility for doing whatever you can to improve your condition and the condition of others.

For the non-believer you are right, it isn't nature itself that is good or bad. For example physics isn't evil if a tsunami kills a couple hundred thousand people. What is evil is having the power to eliminate the suffering of millions of children and refusing to do so. Absent the mythical figures we have to rely on ourselves and each other to make the most of the world as it is. It's when you posit that one of these figures is real that the moral judgments come into play based on the claims made.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Ok. So after pointing out the lack of moral ground established within naturalistic world views, what do you find lacking in the teachings of Christ? Pointing to a corrupt world and blaming God is like looking at dirty hands and saying soap doesn't work.



Nobody is blaming God for anything because there are a few in here that just do not believe a God exists.
What IS happening is that in order to have conversations with people that DO believe in God we have to play along. Being that it is common among believers to say God created everything and is responsible for everything we then sometimes get curious about how these believers are quick to give credit and praise to God for all the "good" things yet totally ignore the fact that the same God is responsible for many "bad" things also. We have to use the only tool available (Bible) to point out these instances. Then we sit back and watch the believers that use all the "good" parts of every book in the Bible totally disregard and even deny certain parts of the Bible pertain to them when the "bad" God is pointed out.

If the New Testament is all that counts for Christians that is fine. But skip the creation story nonsense and all the OT info totally instead of pointing out the stuff that suits and disregarding the stuff that does not. If the Bible is the truth to a believer then acknowledge and defend it all.


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> The video in the OP I think is pretty clear. If there is something specific about it that you want to discuss then let's discuss it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To make a claim such as the one above, you must assume purpose to the lives of the children you're referring to, otherwise, millions of children suffering and in pain wouldn't be evil.

What was the purpose of their lives?


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> To make a claim such as the one above, you must assume purpose to the lives of the children you're referring to, otherwise, millions of children suffering and in pain wouldn't be evil.
> 
> What was the purpose of their lives?



Really? Why must that be assumed?


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Really? Why must that be assumed?


Purpose is automatically assumed when one makes a moral judgment.


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Purpose is automatically assumed when one makes a moral judgment.



Sorry I'm not seeing the logical connection. You're saying if I rape someone that the morality of the act hinges on whether or not some vague "purpose" can be established for the life of the victim? You'll have to explain that one because you've lost me.


----------



## ddd-shooter (May 17, 2013)

If I may, string is perhaps inferring that we value human life above the level that science says we should. Without that intrinsic value, what is the difference between children dying in a tsunami and the hundred shrimp you ate last weekend?


----------



## David Parker (May 17, 2013)

Jumping in head first here.  With regard to the Tsunami kids, if their parents reject God b/c they can't resolve in their mind this conundrum about God's will, are they condemned?  

Second part, if those folks ARE condemned how can it be justified when compared to folks that didn't experience a tragedy such as that.  It appears it would be so much easier to cling to faith for someone who skates by without true loss than someone who had to endure it, but yet salvation is granted to the one who endured less?  

I know everyone has to be tired of the questions getting posed to disprove and prove but it's about the only way I know to get a clarification on it.


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Sorry I'm not seeing the logical connection. You're saying if I rape someone that the morality of the act hinges on whether or not some vague "purpose" can be established for the life of the victim? You'll have to explain that one because you've lost me.



ddd-shooter is hitting on what I'm talking about.


----------



## ddd-shooter (May 17, 2013)

David Parker said:


> Jumping in head first here.  With regard to the Tsunami kids, if their parents reject God b/c they can't resolve in their mind this conundrum about God's will, are they condemned?
> 
> Second part, if those folks ARE condemned how can it be justified when compared to folks that didn't experience a tragedy such as that.  It appears it would be so much easier to cling to faith for someone who skates by without true loss than someone who had to endure it, but yet salvation is granted to the one who endured less?
> 
> I know everyone has to be tired of the questions getting posed to disprove and prove but it's about the only way I know to get a clarification on it.



If you haven't read CS Lewis, I highly recommend him. I hope this helps. 

“The bad psychological material is not a sin but a disease. It does not need to be repented of, but to be cured. And by the way, that is very important. Human beings judge one another by their external actions. God judges them by their moral choices. When a neurotic who has a pathological horror of cats forces himself to pick up a cat for some good reason, it is quite possible that in God's eyes he has shown more courage than a healthy man may have shown in winning the V.C. When a man who has been perverted from his youth and taught that cruelty is the right thing does some tiny little kindness, or refrains from some cruelty he might have committed, and thereby, perhaps, risks being sneered at by his companions, he may, in God's eyes, be doing more than you and I would do if we gave up life itself for a friend.

It is as well to put this the other way round. Some of us who seem quite nice people may, in fact, have made so little use of a good heredity and good upbringing that we are really worse than those whom we regard as fiends. Can we be quite certain how we should have behaved if we had been saddled with the psychological outfit, and then with the bad upbringing, and then with the power, say, of Himmler? That is why Christians are told not to judge. We see only the results which a man's choices make out of his raw material. But God does not judge him on the raw material at all, but on what he has done with it. Most of the man's psychological makeup is probably due to his body: when his body dies all that will fall off him, and the real central man, the thing that chose, that made the best or worst out of this material, will stand naked. All sorts of nice things which we thought our own, but which were really due to a good digestion, will fall off some of us: all sorts of nasty things which were due to complexes or bad health will fall off others. We shall then, for the first time, see every one as he really was. There will be surprises.”


― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity


----------



## Robert Tuck (May 17, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> .....It is a very good argument against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good god....Or maybe there simply is no god at all. That is the simplest explanation for the world we live in.



I realize you believe it’s a "very good argument", I'm asking for the proof required to substantiate the argument. Who's to say this isn't the world that has the least amount of suffering, along with the highest number of free will choices to be saved, possible? 

Shout out to Swampstalker, he actually gave a logical argument in an effort to substantiate the claim made by Sam Harris in the video. It was a great post. However I think Stringmusic has already pointed out its shortcomings in not taking into account free will and life beyond death. Since you started the strand Atlas, I’d like to hear from you proof that this world isn’t the world with the least amount of suffering, along with the highest amount of free will choices for salvation, possible.

This isn't a frivolous request. The argument you posted falls flat without the answer. There's a reason Sam Harris doesn't lay out a logical proof like Epicurus attempted to. Instead he relies on emotion to persuade.


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> If I may, string is perhaps inferring that we value human life above the level that science says we should. Without that intrinsic value, what is the difference between children dying in a tsunami and the hundred shrimp you ate last weekend?





stringmusic said:


> ddd-shooter is hitting on what I'm talking about.



From the standpoint of nature there is no difference.

You're asking for a scientific explanation for why we value our lives and the lives of others?


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2013)

Robert Tuck said:


> I realize you believe it’s a "very good argument", I'm asking for the proof required to substantiate the argument. Who's to say this isn't the world that has the least amount of suffering, along with the highest number of free will choices to be saved, possible?



Why should I or Sam Harris do the theists homework for them? If that is the defense for all of the suffering we see then it is the theist who needs to substantiate that such is the case and that it is morally justified. That is going to be quite a challenge given the fact that theists are already selling a place with no suffering in the hereafter.


----------



## Robert Tuck (May 20, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Why should I or Sam Harris do the theists homework for them?



Simple, it's not the theist's homework. Sam Harris is going on the offensive by making the claim that suffering and the God of the Bible are incompatible. The burden of proof is on him to back up his claim. 

Unless he can show that it is impossible, or at least improbable, he hasn't demonstrated his argument to be true or even probably true. As I've said, no one has shown it is impossible, or even improbable, for both God to exist and suffering to occur.

Therefore one is justified, and perfectly rational, to believe in God even in the midst of suffering. No argument from impossibility or improbability has been given to disprove - this is the world with the least amount of suffering and the most free will choices for salvation.


----------



## bullethead (May 20, 2013)

From another website:



> Atheism offers the best explanation for unjustified pain and suffering in the world. Let me be clear. I do not mean to imply that God cannot allow some pain and suffering in the world, if he exists, since it would be possible for an all loving God to allow pain that we all can learn from, like that of the pain after touching a hot stove, or maybe even pain that leads to some greater good, like that felt after a root canal. In these cases pain is justifiable, instead, my claim is that it is impossible for a morally perfect God to allow unjustifiable suffering, like pain that teaches nothing and in which there is no greater good.
> 
> For example, consider the severe pain suffered by most people suffering from cancer, there is no conceivable justification for it, they are going to die anyway. As caring and compassionate human beings we do what we can to ease and their suffering, with the limited resources available to us (e.g. painkillers). But if God exists, he is even more caring and compassionate than we are , and has an even greater ability alleviate pain than we do. Since no one can be morally superior to God, we would expect God to also do something ease the entirely unnecessary pain in cancer victims. But he doesn’t. Yet as even theists admit, unnecessary pain and suffering cannot, there has to be some ultimate justification. But God hasn’t shared it with us. And those speaking on his behalf hasn’t figured it out yet. In contrast, if atheism is true, we have an explanation. A sensation of pain happens naturally as body’s way saying something is wrong, but since an evolution is not intelligent process, it never figured a way to turn the pain off when there was no more need of warning, thus since only atheism is compatible with unjustifiable pain and suffering, and because it appears that unjustifiable pain and suffering exists, the existence of unjustifiable pain and suffering is evidence for atheism and against theism.


----------



## JFS (May 20, 2013)

Robert Tuck said:


> Unless he can show that it is impossible, or at least improbable, he hasn't demonstrated his argument to be true or even probably true. As I've said, no one has shown it is impossible, or even improbable, for both God to exist and suffering to occur.



Seems improbable.  Back to the choices of  impotent, evil or omnipotent, suffering fits well with the first two but not the last.  To steal String's favorite analogy, if you see a man raping a young child, is it "impossible" that he is good?  I don't know about impossible, but I think the burden has now shifted to explain how that person is in fact good.  Here we have god causing or permitting grievous suffering to young innocent children, same as the rapist, yet you maintain the burden is on non-believers to prove such acts aren't in fact bad.   Absent any rules to the game both sides can insist the burden is on the other side, but I have a hard time seeing how objectively one could look at that and not feel the burden lies with those seeking to claim the child rapist or god is in fact good.


----------



## Robert Tuck (May 21, 2013)

JFS said:


> Seems improbable....



Hey JFS, 

I understand that emotionally it may seem improbable, but intellectually I don't see the improbability. Please view this short 4 minute video, it outlines why it is an insurmountable task to either emphatically or probabilistically show there is no morally sufficient reason for God to permit suffering. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_ps36TV_vI&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EcdXA1dVgb7-C0lXtp6LFp4&index=2

Remember, it is up to the offensive side to provide proofs for their arguments. It is then up to the defending side to counter those proofs as best they can. This is debating 101. Think of the courtroom. If the prosecution merely asserts the defendant is guilty but can offer no proofs, the case should never go to court or should be thrown out. The atheist is positing a huge, insurmountable claim; that there is a possible world with less suffering and more free will decisions for salvation.


----------



## atlashunter (May 21, 2013)

Robert Tuck said:


> Simple, it's not the theist's homework.



Of course it is. Who is to say that killing millions of children every year is necessary to providing a greater amount of free choice and even if it was who is to say that doing so is moral? If that is the theists defense for the world we live in then it is the theists job to make and substantiate it. I can tell you now if that is the justification it is an easy one to shoot down based on what theists themselves believe.


----------



## atlashunter (May 21, 2013)

Robert Tuck said:


> The atheist is positing a huge, insurmountable claim; that there is a possible world with less suffering and more free will decisions for salvation.



Actually Harris does address this with the Epicurean challenge. If the above is your position then what you are saying in response to that challenge is that god is impotent. That he is unable to create a world in which men have free will but evil does not exist. If that is what you are saying then that has very interesting implications for the garden of eden story as well as the concept of heaven as a place without evil.


----------



## JFS (May 21, 2013)

Robert Tuck said:


> it is up to the offensive side to provide proofs for their arguments.



I'll watch when I get to work, but I don't have a side. Yet I still, as we all do, have to draw my own conclusion.  This doesn't seem like the kind of issue that can be "proven", merely analyzed on the balance of evidence.  But when you see or think about the suffering, that presents at least a prima facia case for evil or impotence (or at least absence).   There doesn't seem to be any rebuttal other than "oh that god works in mysterious ways".   But that's just arguing from your preconceived conclusion, not actually weighing the evidence at hand.


----------



## atlashunter (May 21, 2013)

JFS said:


> But that's just arguing from your preconceived conclusion, not actually weighing the evidence at hand.



^This


----------



## Robert Tuck (May 23, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Of course it is. Who is to say that killing millions of children every year is necessary to providing a greater amount of free choice and even if it was who is to say that doing so is moral? If that is the theists defense for the world we live in then it is the theists job to make and substantiate it. I can tell you now if that is the justification it is an easy one to shoot down based on what theists themselves believe.



Atlas, if you take the affirmative it is your job to prove it. I know it's a claim you can't substantiate, but that doesn't mean you can put it off on the theist. If I was auguring in the affirmative, that because suffering exists there must be a God, then I would have to provide proofs for that position. I believe, given our lack of knowledge of the interconnected ripple effect of choices across billions of people over so many years, one cannot argue this point in the affirmative rationally from either side.  I believe there are far better arguments from the atheists and the theists than the argument from suffering.


----------



## Robert Tuck (May 23, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> ....If the above is your position then what you are saying in response to that challenge is that god is impotent. That he is unable to create a world in which men have free will but evil does not exist....



You do realize what free will is right? I don't take the stance that God can create round squares, but I do believe he is omnipotent.


----------



## Robert Tuck (May 23, 2013)

JFS said:


> But that's just arguing from your preconceived conclusion, not actually weighing the evidence at hand.





atlashunter said:


> ^This



If Atlas or Harris cannot supply proofs that God has no morally sufficient reasons to allow suffering, then it is they who are arguing from "preconceived conclusions". Also, they cannot possibly "weigh the evidence at hand". This is my point, neither Harris or Atlas know the cause and effect relations of trillions of choices effecting billions of people. So tell me, who's not weighing the evidence in the argument from suffering? The atheist, for it would be impossible. 

I openly admit I cannot weigh all the evidence and take the affirmative and argue that God exists do to the perfectly formed world of least suffering and most free will decisions of salvation, because I can't weigh such a thing. But I see no reason why I cannot hold this view to be rational.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 23, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> I would say that would be tantamount to asking God to draw a square circle and then pointing out how he isn't all powerful because he couldn't.
> 
> I would argue that for there to be a choice for me to Love God, then there would have had to be someone else on whom I could place my love.
> 
> People in heaven make their selection for eternity here.



We could ask him to do anything... and most of the time, he'd do nothing... Which believers would just say is his will so he really did exactly what you wanted.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 23, 2013)

Listening to the radio the other night Jeff Foxworthy came on a commercial for childhood cancer. A VERY serious topic for which I have complete sympathy and respect. He said that some very low percentage of cancer research goes in to childhood cancers and that we should donate money specifically to this charity or,

*"we might as well just pray a lot."*

The topic, again, is very serious and I am have complete respect for it... But it would seem that Foxworthy, who I would believe to be a noted christian, would blatantly, on air, speak like that about the power of god and prayer. He even realizes it....


----------



## atlashunter (May 23, 2013)

Robert Tuck said:


> If Atlas or Harris cannot supply proofs that God has no morally sufficient reasons to allow suffering, then it is they who are arguing from "preconceived conclusions". Also, they cannot possibly "weigh the evidence at hand". This is my point, neither Harris or Atlas know the cause and effect relations of trillions of choices effecting billions of people. So tell me, who's not weighing the evidence in the argument from suffering? The atheist, for it would be impossible.
> 
> I openly admit I cannot weigh all the evidence and take the affirmative and argue that God exists do to the perfectly formed world of least suffering and most free will decisions of salvation, because I can't weigh such a thing. But I see no reason why I cannot hold this view to be rational.



You could have saved a lot of verbiage by just saying "God is mysterious. Qho can know the mind of God?" Harris already addressed that defense. Again, this isn't an argument against God's existence as much as an argument against the nature of the God claimed.


----------



## stringmusic (May 23, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Listening to the radio the other night Jeff Foxworthy came on a commercial for childhood cancer. A VERY serious topic for which I have complete sympathy and respect. He said that some very low percentage of cancer research goes in to childhood cancers and that we should donate money specifically to this charity or,
> 
> *"we might as well just pray a lot."*
> 
> The topic, again, is very serious and I am have complete respect for it... But it would seem that Foxworthy, who I would believe to be a noted christian, would blatantly, on air, speak like that about the power of god and prayer. He even realizes it....



I just listened to 3 different commercials that Foxworthy did for "CURE", I can't find where he said this. I'm not saying he didn't, but do you have a link to it?


----------



## stringmusic (May 23, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> From the standpoint of nature there is no difference.
> 
> You're asking for a scientific explanation for why we value our lives and the lives of others?



Skip to the 24 min. mark


----------



## stringmusic (May 23, 2013)

Interesting quote form Kai Nielson, Canadian philosopher and professed atheist.

“We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me… Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.”1 

- Kai Nielsen (1926 – Present)


----------



## ddd-shooter (May 23, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> When you don't have an invisible friend to fix your problems then you can fully understand and accept the responsibility for *doing whatever you can to improve your condition and the condition of others.*
> 
> For the non-believer you are right, it isn't nature itself that is good or bad. For example physics isn't evil if a tsunami kills a couple hundred thousand people. What is evil is having the power to eliminate the suffering of millions of children and refusing to do so. Absent the mythical figures *we have to rely on ourselves and each other to make the most of the world as it is.* It's when you posit that one of these figures is real that the moral judgments come into play based on the claims made.



Why should we do those things in bold?


----------



## Robert Tuck (May 27, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> You could have saved a lot of verbiage by just saying "God is mysterious. Qho can know the mind of God?" Harris already addressed that defense. Again, this isn't an argument against God's existence as much as an argument against the nature of the God claimed.



Atlas...tisk tisk, putting words in my mouth on a forum where people can look and see what I said. When I say I have no ability to weigh the trillions of choices and outcomes across humanity and therefore would never use this argument from the affirmative to proof the God of the Bible exists, it doesn't mean I think God is mysterious when it comes to suffering. I hold the belief that God can and did measure the trillions of choices and created a world with the least amount of suffering with the highest free will choices for salvation.  

What's "mysterious" is how Sam Harris and yourself conclude that God has no morally sufficient reason to allow suffering. As if somehow, mysteriously, you know the potential outcomes of every decision and have come to the conclusion that a better free will world could have existed.  That is a mysterious conclusion, one to which I have yet to see a proof of in this thread.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 28, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I just listened to 3 different commercials that Foxworthy did for "CURE", I can't find where he said this. I'm not saying he didn't, but do you have a link to it?



Can't find it...


----------

