Board index ‹ Jesus

[Book Mitten]

> Let me ask you an honest question. How would you recognize and admit that God had intervened to protect someone from torture, rape, disease, etc? What are you looking for that would be a clear-cut thing for you to say, "Wow, God did that"?
> I'm serious. If the rapist suddenly ran away, would you say, "Oh, that was God!" I'm not sure you would. If the rapist suddenly died on the spot? If the girls reported that an angel came from heaven and killed the guy, would you believe her? I'm honestly wondering: what is this proof that you want that God "did something about it"?

Well, depends how you define God. The whole thing I'm discussing is whether an omnibenevolent God could exist by definition when the things in question continue. I can also imagine believing God exists without wanting to worship him.

With that said, audiovisual evidence from multiple sources of an angel perhaps? Something that could be analysed and tested as watertight? Better still the same conditions of recording God himself?

[jimwalton]

> With that said, audiovisual evidence from multiple sources of an angel perhaps?

Thanks for being honest, but when people have Near Death Experiences (NDE) with similar audiovisual evidence, it is often excused away with, "Well, that's just what the chemistry of the brain does at death." Would you, or someone else say (about angels during rape that makes the perpetrator go away), "Well, that's just what the chemistry of the brain does under stress, and she must do something that makes the perp run." Again, I'm being serious (not trying to be a jerk). I guess my question is, "Would audiovisual evidence from multiple sources truly persuade you that God had acted to protect her?"

> Something that could be analysed and tested as watertight?

You mean a science experiment set up at the rape site before it happens, with observers and technology in place, so whatever phenomena occurs can be analyzed and tested?

> Better still the same conditions of recording God himself?

Again, so you'd have to know ahead of time where and when a rape would happen so as to catch it on camera. I'm sure you've seen the documentaries where people claim to catch ghosts (poltergeists, specters) on cameras, in reflections, and moving. Do you believe them?

So I guess I'm asking, "Are these realistic expectations for proof, and would they really prove God to you?"

I'm genuinely trying to nail down what you consider to be persuasive evidence in these matters, because, honestly, I wonder if anything honestly qualifies for that in your mind.

[Book Mitten]

> What would be that evidence by which you would be persuaded?

Ok, so perhaps God appearing to me and several others in a way that could be recorded and analysed by modern technology. I've never heard God speak to me alone, let alone the former scenario.

> God stopping rapes, torture, and disease wouldn't do it. (as per a previous post)

It might if those things didn't exist in the first place (or at the VERY least were nowhere near as excessive as they are and have been in this world).

> The resurrection evidence isn't strong enough

Not strong enough to tip me firmly in favour of Christian theism. I think there's something there that does make me think; hence why I'm agnostic not atheist. I've listed possibilities however that make me believe that it's in no way clear that the accounts are conclusive.

> Reasoning that shows theism is a stronger case than atheism just "isn't strong enough."

It's more a case of me contesting whether the reasoning even shows that theism is a stronger case to begin with. Likewise with the following quote: "Scientific arguments don't persuade".

[jimwalton]

> Ok, so perhaps God appearing to me and several others in a way that could be recorded and analysed by modern technology.

Again, thanks for being honest. So you'd have to know ahead of time that God was going to up at such-and-such a time and place so you could have the equipment and observers ready to go. So you think modern technology is the master stroke: If we can record an unassailable audio/video event, you'd be persuaded?

> I've never heard God speak to me alone

To me either. God doesn't speak to me in audible voices.

> "Rape, torture, etc." It might if those things didn't exist in the first place (or at the VERY least were nowhere near as excessive as they are and have been in this world).

Well, that's not an option at this point. They do exist, but you decry that God doesn't stop them. I was wondering what would be sufficient proof to you that God was active in stopping it.

I have heard stories of girls praying and the perp leaving, of girls praying and other people showing up to rescue her, etc. But often, I have found, those events are shucked off as coincidence or luck, not divine intervention. I was just wondering what you would consider to be actual persuasive evidence of God's intervention.

> "The resurrection." Not strong enough to tip me firmly in favour of Christian theism.

Well, that was my question. Would *any* evidence really (honestly) be strong enough to persuade you, or are you in a place where nothing qualifies that way? Just wondering, in reality.

> It's more a case of me contesting whether the reasoning even shows that theism is a stronger case to begin with.

I've been examining cases for a long time, and have honestly yet to see an atheist mount a reasonable case for what they believe. I have asked on this forum no less than a dozen times, "Please substantiate what you believe. I'm not asking you to prove a negative (God doesn't exist), but I am asking you to support whatever it is you DO believe (whatever that happens to be: nature is all there is; naturalism can explain everything, the cosmos is a closed system, secular evolution is the only possible mechanism of the development of life—whatever)." I usually get NOTHING in response. It makes me think there IS no case on the other side.

But there is a case for theism, and it has some strength to it. Maybe the case is 50% good (I think it's better than that; maybe you don't think it's that high), but the case for the other side is close to nothing. There's nothing there. There is no case. It's usually "I don't think nature needs anything besides itself to have come to the present point" and "I'm bothered by the presence of evil in the world." Not meaning to be insulting, but that's the history of what I get. And yet then I get agnostics like you saying you contest whether reasoning shows the theistic case to be stronger to begin with. But what's your case that has so much weight to it that leaves theism in the dust?

[Book Mitten]

> what's your case that has so much weight to it that leaves theism in the dust?

I believe I've been clear in saying that I'm not "leaving theism in the dust". That's why I'm having this conversation with you. There'd be no point in doing so If I was fully convinced by Atheism, which I'm not. Likewise, what's your case that positions other than theism are in the dust? That nature couldn't have got here on its own?

> the case for the other side is close to nothing. There's nothing there. There is no case. It's usually "I don't think nature needs anything besides itself to have come to the present point" and "I'm bothered by the presence of evil in the world."

If you think the existence of evil is a matter that is "close to nothing" in weighing up evidence, I strongly disagree. That's the most diplomatic way I can possibly put it.

[jimwalton]

The case I have expressed to you is (briefly put):

• Nothing can be its own cause. The universe has a causative mechanism outside itself.
• It's more reasonable to think that the purpose we see in the universe had a purposeful cause than a "random" one
• It's more reasonable to think the personality we see in the universe had a personal cause than an impersonal one.
• It's more reasonable to think that the morality we see in the universe had a moral source than as a social construct for survival
• It's more reasonable to think that our ability to reason came from an intelligent source than a blind one
• We see enough design elements in the universe to lead us to the plausibility, if not probability, of a designer
• Science is more concordant with theism (order, regularity, purpose, etc.) than with atheism
• Nature as we see it is more concordant with theism than with atheism
• The problem of evil does not explain away the existence of God. There are justifiable reasons God could allow evil to exist.

I'm not saying nature couldn't have gotten here on its own; I'm saying that evidence for a powerful, timeless, personal, moral, intelligent cause explains far better what we see than does "random" unguided processes.

But you have also said that pretty much nothing short of a dedicated science experiment with unassailable audio-video evidence would ever persuade you otherwise. But I honestly wonder if you have established for yourself an incoherent criteria for proof. There is probably no such thing.

> If you think the existence of evil is a matter that is "close to nothing" in weighing up evidence, I strongly disagree.

I think the existence of evil is adequately dealt with by the explanations I have offered

• Most evil is the result of free will. A lack of free will (or God's perpetual interference in it, which would negate it) steals away our very humanity, ability to reason, and science itself.
• A good being can allow suffering and evil (examples of surgeons and oncologists) when such suffering is the only road to healing; allowing suffering doesn't negate their goodness
• A good being can allow suffering and evil if many good things can come from such suffering and evil (though this is not to claim all suffering brings about good things).
• A dynamic world is not only superior to a static one, but possibly necessary for life as we know it.
• Evil, pain, and suffering—as negative as they are—have a beneficial role to play in the grand scheme of things.

Needless to say, the existence of evil doesn't speak against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and even omnibenevolent God. While evil and suffering are still and always will be evil and awful, their existence doesn't negate God's existence or His good attributes. One may question His strategies, as we all do. But we all, if we are being honest, must admit there is so much about this picture we don't know.

Steve Wykstra, in an essay, wrote, "Imagine you walk into a dog park. Seeing only dogs and their owners, you observe, 'It appears there are no hippopotami in the dog park today.' You then conclude, 'There are probably no hippopotami here.' You are entitled to your conclusion because it is reasonable, because if there had been a hippo in the park, things would have looked different to you. In other words, you were in a position to tell the difference; you had sufficient access to the situation to reasonably judge whether or not there was a hippo present.

"Now imagine that you strain your ears for a few minutes and hear only dogs and their owners. So you observe, 'It appears that no dog whistles are being blown today.' Would it be reasonable for you to conclude, 'There probably are no dog whistles being blown'? You are not entitled to make this claim because you do not have sufficient access to the situation to judge reliably. Even if the dog whistles had been blowing, you would not have heard them."

In other words, not everything is as it appears. We can only draw reliable conclusions if we have adequate information. Consequently, we may be able to discern that there are possibly good reasons to permit evil. But given our limited understanding of our circumstances and all the causative mechanisms behind them, "it seems unreasonable to expect that we could know the God-justifying reason for every case of evil, even if such a reason were to exist. In fact, with the limitations of our knowledge, it seems reasonable to expect cases of evil for which we do not know a justifying reason." With our limited information, we are in no position to make conclusive judgments either way when there appears to be no obvious purpose behind the evil. We don’t have all the information to render an unassailable judgment. Nor is it within our scope to determine that God is remiss in allowing what He does. Such information is just not within our reach.

> That's the most diplomatic way I can possibly put it.

I didn't mean to offend with my questions. They are honest questions of mine. My apologies if I came across as harsh. What I mean is that as serious as the realities of evil and suffering are, one thing they do NOT do is show that God doesn't exist. You may evaluate that you don't like the God who allows this (even while recognizing that we have little information to make such an evaluation), or that you disagree with His "wisdom" (again, we have only a slice of the whole picture), but that's different than using the problem of evil to claim God likely doesn't exist.

[Book Mitten]

> I didn't mean to offend with my questions.

You didn't. Don't worry. I was more worried about causing offence myself.

> You may evaluate that you don't like the God who allows this (even while recognizing that we have little information to make such an evaluation)

What makes you think we have little information? In addition, I'd claim that a tendency to dislike God calls into question his omnibenevolence, providing I have good reason to do so, which I believe I do (depending of course on how you define God). If God is not omnibenevolent, is he really God?

> With our limited information, we are in no position to make conclusive judgments either way when there appears to be no obvious purpose behind the evil.

So why have you been doing so this whole time? Moreover, why even make the judgement quoted here? Yes our information is limited, but that doesn't mean we are never correct, or that we can't make sound judgements.

The other points I will respond to in an upcoming post.

[jimwalton]

> What makes you think we have little information?

The complexities of all the factors that go into how I got to a certain place, all of what decisions by many people contributed to the situation or event, even my own thought and motives, added to circumstantial environmental contributors is somewhat of a Butterfly Effect all its own. Some of those factors may spread back for various years, include innumerable decisions and contributors, and many times with unknown feelings or motives that contribute to a current situation.

> If God is not omnibenevolent, is he really God?

No, with that condition He's not.

> So why have you been doing so this whole time?

The point I have been making is that we know of many situations where evil brings good effects despite its horrific consequences. We know this. The community of Newtown, CT, comes together in strength and courage. South African are motivated to order and civility, not bloody revenge. Persecution of Christians in Iran and China makes them stronger.

But that doesn't put us in a position to knowingly evaluate every evil, like children dying from cancer, women getting raped, or genital mutilation. We don't have enough knowledge to be able to conclude with certain, "There was no purpose in this."

[Book Mitten]

> Most evil is the result of free will. A lack of free will (or God's perpetual interference in it, which would negate it) steals away our very humanity, ability to reason, and science itself.

I would argue that the opposite is often the case. If you are able to want/will whatever you want (or will to want), wouldn't this make the processes of reasoning and action arbitrary and science unworkable? What I want or will is based upon the reality which surrounds me and of which I am a part. You may have to define humanity, but if people have free will, we can attempt any act of atrocity and it would not matter since the recipient could simply freely will what happened to them. You might argue that intention as well as result matter, with which I agree, but I think the two are defined by each other in the way they can be classified as good.

[jimwalton]

If there is no free will, then there is no such thing as speculating a hypothesis, as researching data, weighing evidences or arriving at a conclusion. It is the only thing that makes science workable.

To me it's untenable that the prospect of free will makes science unworkable. If my biology (chemical causation, neuronal action) guides the decisions I make, how can it also be true that my actions are caused by my volitions (my intentions and my will)? My volitions would themselves be effects of my biology. But if each volition is cannot happen without a previous one, we have an infinite series of volitions involved in every action, which is absurd and untenable.

> What I want or will is based upon the reality which surrounds me and of which I am a part.

I am always in response to my surroundings, but my volition is what directs me to actual thoughts, reasoning, and eventually science. If I ask you to sit there until biology (chemicals, neuronal activity) brings about motion, you will sit for a LOOOOOONG time. But if I ask you to volitionally move your arm, you do so in a second of time. Your will causes the action, not your biology.