Isn’t it annoying when Christians use the Bible as “proof” that God exists?
Yesterday, I had to delete several comments here, all from the same guy. They were long and obviously written long before, totally unrelated to the posts they appeared on, and most of them were quotes from the Bible, including, repeated several times, a bit from a psalm: “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”" Obviously, that was supposed to convince me, and any other atheists, that we’re being utter fools by disbelieving God… since the Bible says only fools do so!
Christians, if you don’t see the problem with that “logic”, anything I say will probably fall on deaf ears anyway… but, please, think just a little about it.
Suppose I write a book tomorrow, and in that book I write that I am God. Would you believe it, because that book says I’m God, and, so, since I wrote it, that book is the word of God, and therefore it must be true?
I’m sure you won’t. “A says B is true, and B says A is true, which proves both are true” is circular logic, and it doesn’t work.
Well, it’s exactly the same thing with your book. We think of it as you think of the Qur’an: not a reliable source. Do you believe Muhammad’s claims are true just because the Qur’an — which he wrote — says so?
Anyone (who is literate, that is) can write a book. And, sorry to say, yours isn’t special.
Related posts:
The bible proves that God exists no more than Superman comics prove that Superman exists.
[quote comment="25236"]The bible proves that God exists no more than Superman comics prove that Superman exists.[/quote]
Superman doesn’t exist!?!?!?
Oh well, as long as Batman still does.
Speaking of super-heroes, I seem to remember a comic in the 70s where J. Jonah Jameson said that Spider-Man was a crook, and when asked about proof, he said that it was because it said so in an editorial in the Daily Bugle newspaper… which he had written himself.
Actually, we could simplify the theists’ claims as:
“Everything I say is true. Proof? It says so in this book, which I myself wrote.”
As a friend of mine used to say tongue in cheek:
“I am the most honest person you can know. Just ask me..”
I’ve been meaning to try this argument on the Jehovah’s Witnesses who come to my house every so often. Problem is they always go on about the prophecies that have come true, “wars and rumours of wars” etc. Hardly impressive stuff, as evidence for their New World Translation, but it seems to convince them.
That stuff drives me crazy, but I long ago gave up arguing with people who think that quoting the Bible proves anything.
I just let myself hope that they’ll come to their senses eventually, even though I know that they probably won’t, and I walk away.
I recently had a couple visitors that used this argument when I told them I did not believe the god of the christian religion exists. This lead to them asking my why god did not strike me dead… My reply (when they let me talk after repeating themselves about 20 times) was… “Because god can’t.” Their reaction was priceless. They both stood there in shock for about 30 seconds.. the only words the could utter were “I’m scared for you”.. to witch i replied “Why? I’m not. See ya tomorrow..” lol
The fool says in his heart, “if I call a man a fool, I have proven him wrong”.
The most concrete argument against theism (and why I myself was almost an atheist), is The Problem of Evil. If God is good, and God is all-powerful, then how can he allow evil to exist?
How can God allow rape and genocide, and still expect us to live up to a moral code?
It’s a pretty air-tight argument, and NO Christian answers to date have actually ANSWERED it. They’ve almost all skirted around the issue, or blamed “the devil” (who God is apparently too weak to stop).
The Christian appeal to the bible is indeed circular logic. And the given answers to the Problem of Evil outright ignore common logic.
Nevertheless, I’ve finally answered it.
Sound like hubris? Well maybe. But I have.
http://emergentchristian.blogspot.com/2007/05/problem-of-evil-part-1-unanswered.html
-micah
micah: it’s a good series of posts, but, to me, there’s an obvious problem with them: you treat an unproved premise as absolutely, unquestionably, 100% true (there is a God, and the Christian Bible is right), and then come up with whatever you need to explain the rest. The fact that you need such a convulted explanation (which includes many other unproved but unfalsifiable claims, such as the existence of a multiverse) should make you wonder: isn’t it MUCH simpler to suggest that there is no God, or at least that the Bible is just the product of primitive desert shepherds who were trying to explain what they didn’t know?
Still, I’ll try to post about it tomorrow, and comment on several parts of it in more detail.
Hey Pedro,
You’re right that I don’t prove the existence of God in my post. Not my aim at this point. All I was trying to do was to see if that particular BARRIER to God’s existence could be answered. The Problem of Evil is what has fueled atheism for thousands of years, and rightfully so.
In my post, I only make two crucial assumptions:
1) God exists
2) The multiverse exists
I don’t expect you to accept #1, but #2 appears to be a straight-forward conclusion of physics. The only other explanation of Quantum Physics (the Copenhagen Interpretation) is not really an explanation at all, but an attempt to explain Quantum Physics away. Additionally, the Copenhagen Interpretation causes the chain-of-observers problem.
The existence of the multiverse IS actually falsifiable. By my understanding, if we take Quantum Physics literally, that is exactly what it says, and Quantum Physics is not only falsifiable, but extremely well established. Additionally, doesn’t the existence of Quantum Computers prove the multiverse?
-micah
Still trying to peddle that snake oil eh? I take it you forgot or overlooked the repeated simple and wholly sound refutations of your failed attempt to salvage the judeo-xn notion of god..
TX, I really don’t like that kind of comment here. I disagree with micah, but your comment is aggressive and insulting, accusing him of dishonesty.
Sorry, but I really don’t want to have a blog where people are afraid to comment, because they risk being insulted like this.
No insult intended or present. We went ’round this exact argument previously on your blog with the glaring errors of fact and unsound reasoning being explained with great patience and detail. I simply made clear that not all have forgotten this, or have suddenly decided that reason ought not be applied consistently. Perhaps the reference to snake oil holds a different connotation or translates peculiar, but here it is exceedingly mild way of referring to something already proved ineffective. As for dishonesty, I made no such accusation (ironically the accusation that I made such an accusation is itself dishonest given that there is nothing upon which to hang tha particular accusation). I do not know whether he/she expects deception to succeed, or even if he/she believes this regardless of the sound refutations already offered. I prefer to refer to the arguments and claims rather than speculate on the mental states of those offering the arguments.
I recognize it is your blog and because of general respect for persons and (virtual) property I recognize that I am here at your pleasure, however that does not mean that false claims become true or that false accusations must be taken as accurate.
I should make clear that I am assuming that you falsely perceived intended insult in the use of the reference to snake oil, as opposed to the wholly accurate statements concerning the refutations of the absolutely indefensible position. If you intende to refer to the latter, then of course you have necessarily adopted the position that any reference to reality is offensive (though that does not negate the possibility of a belief to the contrary), which of course is in fact absurd. Perhaps you would clarify, for if the latter is the case then the implications are dramatic and quite telling, if the former as I have assumed then at worst it is simply an error likely due to translation, rather than an error in methodology, intention, or reason.
TXTSTorm, could you refer me to the area in which you argue against Micah’s theory? Because I found it very interesting personally.
Or is you could just summarize your stance against it even.
Thanks!
And Micah, does your theory not make God selfish? He creates us and lets us suffer. What if WE would have rather not been created? If there is a perfect universe like you mentioned, then there must be an infinitely evil one, pretty much hell on earth. Now, it would follow like all these individuals would likely rather not even exist opposed to suffering like this. Yet, if they were to kill themselves God would send them to Hell.
It is like if a scientist in a lab starting cloning all these people and put them through brutal torture experiments for his own enjoyment. They may want to die, but in death he would somehow subject them to even worse experiments. Even more torture and suffering.
He values His “love” of his creation more than the wishes of it. This is not a kind God, it is a selfish one. Like a jealous lover locking his wife in the house so she cannot leave him. This may be love, but it is still evil. This is another explanation that destroys your idea of an omnibenevolant God.
Ross, thanks for your comment.
First of all, no one is saying that someone who kills themself goes to hell. Anyone who desires to cease existence can do so at any time. God does not stop (or punish) them.
“Are there people who exist who would rather not exist?” = Maybe…do people who went through Nazi holocaust hell - wish to have not existed at all? I would argue that they would rather have life than no-life, even if that life involved hellish suffering. But if they disagree, they have the choice to end it.
“Are there some people who would have decided not to exist, had they been given the chance?” - That’s a meaningless question, by definition. How can a non-existence being decide whether it would like to exist?
…
Saying that God should not let certain people exist AT ALL is like asking a parent to decide which children should get to be born. If a father finds out that his unborn child will have a crippling disease, does that mean he should not allow that child to be born?
The child will suffer, but does that mean the loving thing to do is to deny that child existence?
Who makes those value judgments? Who can make a value judgment about whether or not someone who does not exist, should exist?
At the least, the individual should be given a chance to exist, to make their own decision.
RE: “At the least, the individual should be given a chance to exist, to make their own decision.”
And why then is suicide illegal? I realize that it is a pointless law in the sense that you can’t punish someone after they have suicided anyway, but it does have the effect of creating a social stigma that the family is left to deal with.
The essence of these questions becomes one of ownership. A religious person might believe that god owns them and all people and therefore suicide is against the will of god as god has a plan for their lives which does not involve you messing with the plan by killing yourself.
A religious person might believe that the state, acting on a god or gods’ behalf, has ownership and therefore suicide is against god AND the state which is acting on god’s behalf.
A non-religious person may believe that the state has ultimate ownership over our lives.
I am a non-religious person who has no belief that either the state, or a god has ultimate ownership over my life yet I am compelled according to state law AND religious law to consider suicide as wrong.
So I guess it comes down to who you believe owns your life. I believe that I do. As I believe that I own my own life, why should I be legally compelled to act if some other entity, natural or supernatural owns it?
Suicide is not illegal (in Canada at least).
Christianity says it is a sin though. If suicide wasn’t a sin, all Christians would wish to die to enter paradise instantly if they truly believed. They have to claim it is a sin, so they can’t take the shortcut.
And some individuals would rather not exist. God knows they would rather not exist before ever making them. A father cannot know the wishes of his child, but God can and does know what His creation will want. And he makes it anyway.
Micah you miss or avoid the issue when you say: “Saying that God should not let certain people exist AT ALL is like asking a parent to decide which children should get to be born. If a father finds out that his unborn child will have a crippling disease, does that mean he should not allow that child to be born?”
First you set the existence of any given person outside the scope of this self-contradictory notion of a “god” which of course reveals a contradiction in your own explanations as this “god” supposedly creates all.. Which leads to the second major problem here in that you seem to be adopting the position that this all powerful “god” can create beings but not create a good life for them. Either this “god” can and does create everything, and thus is 100% responsible for the evils in our lives, else it fails to be all powerful, or the creator, etc. The problems of evil, as well as the inherent contradictions in the notion of this “god” remain wholly in tact.
I believe Micah was saying that only certain situations can bring about certain people, and some people can only brought about THROUGH bad situations. So there must be the suffering to create a certain person.
It makes no sense why God can’t just make that person, as he is supposed to be omnipotent, but I believe this might be so as not to interfere with “free will”.
There is no problem with interfering with free will, IF such an entity were actually omnipotent. Remember that this means that it could literally do anything, so creating a specific type of person would not be any challange..
Of course there remains the problem that omnipotence itself is a nonsensical self-contradictory notion. After all omnipotence includes the abilities to prevent oneself from doing X, as well as the abilities to overcome and therefore do X. This is an insurmountable problem for the notion of a “god.”
Well, yes. Micah seemed to wish to define God without having to say “He is omnipotent so he is above logic!”. He seemed to seek an explanation that kept God within the bounds of logic. Even if he did solve the Problem of Evil though (which he most certainly did not), the omnipotence paradox still defeats God.
Of course, if God was omnipotent and could break logic, he could simply make himself purely good while acting like an ass all he wanted, despite this making no logical sense.
I was discussing this issue without any concern for free will. In my solution to the Problem of Evil, free will never comes up.
Instead, an individual is a collection of experiences and memories. By definition, a particular individual which consists of horrifying memories and experiences, cannot exist without those horrifying memories and experiences.
I could not exist (by definition) without the bad and good experiences that have made me. To say that God shouldn’t have let me suffer is to say that God should not have made ME, but instead, should have made someone like me, but who didn’t suffer.
Since God loves ME (by definition), then he created ME, and not just the versions of me that didn’t suffer.
-micah
But Micah, as has been pointed out previously several times to no avail, you are simply ignoring what is perhaps the most defining of the four necessary characteristics for a “god” particularly the judeo-xn god: OMNIPOTENCE.
So your argument goes like this:
1. There exists an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, creator of all things.
2. This being created me.
3. This being was incapable of creating me without creating evil (at least the evil in my life).
Therefore there is no problem of evil.
But you see you deny omnipotence by stipulating that this impossible entity could not have otherwise created you. Then you trivialize the evils which are inflicted upon us, by stipulating that it is better to suffer and exist than to not exist (in the process engaging in the fallacy of false dichotomy).
So you see, you fail to salvage the very entity which you stipulate must exist because you deny the most important of the characteristics it is supposed to have, certainly one of the four necessary, nay defining, characteristics.
Furthermore the argument fails because of the trivialization of evil, along with the fallacies used in this effort.
In essence you are saying that X did not cause evil because Y created me, therefore X is all good, all powerful, and all knowing, all the while using X and Y interchangeably. This is the fallacy of equivocation, which of course further reveals that this line of argument cannot succeed.
The problem of evil still arises, you merely choose to stipulate that it does not come up. This is not the same as actually addressing the problem.
[quote] And it is nonsensical to think that ANY entity could wish itself not to come into existence. I would even argue that it is nonsensical for any entity which exists to wish to stop existing.[/quote]
Actually there is of course nothing nonsensical about this, other than the paradox which you introduce by suggesting that non-existence is identical to existence. Setting that aside, perhaps you might consider checking out John Rawls Theory of Justice in which he offers up just this sort of thought experiment, and makes the case that of course the rational being will only choose to enter a world in which there is relatively little suffering for himself. What you consider “nonsensical” is actually the very definition of rationality. We rationally choose to avoid harms, especially extreme harms. Contrarily you stipulate that the ONLY “sensible” choice to embrace pain and extreme harms to the individual. If this is axiomatic, as you seem to believe it must be, then your initial premise is that we cannot consider rationality at all and must accept irrationality as axiomatic and beyond question. Given that this necessitates that your first premise of your argument is based upon contrary to reality stipulation (doubly fatal) then you choose to doom that very argument to never being sound, never being valid, and thus never actually providing a solution.
Also, Micah, you state that a nonexistent being cannot wish he did not exist. That may be true. However, you once again forget an aspect of God- omniscience. God KNOWS whether the individual will ultimately desire to exist.
You have not solved the problem of evil, you still require God to love one of his three defined traits.
Oh, and TXStorm, what is the fourth defining trait? I know omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience.
If we define “omnipotence” to mean “God can do things logically impossible”, then I don’t believe in omnipotence.
By definition, it is logically impossible to create a “suffered” creature (like myself) without suffering existing. So God can’t do it.
And just to clarify the terms of this argument, we’re not asking what makes the most creatures “happy”. We’re asking if LOVE is consistent with allowing creatures to SUFFER. Love is not equal to “making someone else happy”. Love is equal to “wanting the best for someone else”.
I state that EXISTENCE is ALWAYS better than NON-EXISTENCE, for ANY CREATURE. But even if I’m wrong about that, if there were even ONE creature in a hellish universe that WANTED TO EXIST, it would be necessary to create all of the other suffering creatures to allow that ONE to exist.
-micah
But omnipotence can not exist logically, hence the omnipotence paradox. “Can God create a rock so heavy even he cannot lift it” and questions of the sort. Or something like “Can God create a being so powerful even he cannot defeat it?”. Either way you answer this question, it limits God in some way, making omnipotence within logic impossible.
Also, you can’t torture billions of people due to the whims of one. That is not good, that is just favouritism.
Ross, the fourth is creator of all.
So Micah you have just made explicit the equivocation I pointed out previously which is but one of the very basic logical fallacies which defeats your argument. So do you simply deny reason as a whole?
BTW “we” define omnipotence as ALL POWERFUL. This is the meaning of the word. Trying to redefine it is 1. Intellectually dishonest, and 2. merely another instance of equivocation.
I find it mildly interesting that you dictate what must constitute love, as well as what is best for others whom you may never have met. Furthermore you seem to accept that this “god” would be omniscient, but at the same time presume your own omniscience in decreeing that eternal suffering is what is best for others..
Can you really be serious in your attempts here to define evil as good?
Are you willing to address ANY of these refutations and citations of the problems inherent to, as well as fatal to, your arguments?
And as for concrete examples of instances where non-existence is preferable to existence, try talking to real people. Say perhaps those suffering from bone cancer, or real victims of terrible abuse. Stipulating that evil is good, or that existence is always and necessarily good in no way makes either the case. No pain is preferable to great pain. No abuse is preferable to severe abuse. Stipulating otherwise without an iota of evidence will never change these facts.
“Omnipotence” has never been defined by any serious philosopher as “the ability to do that which is logically possible”. ALL theistic thinkers define “omnipotence” to lie within the confines of logic. So this argument that omnipotence is logically contradictory is an argument against something no one actually believes. NO theist really thinks God can create a square circle, or a rock he cannot lift, etc, etc.
If you insist on defining “omnipotence” as the ability to do that logically impossible, then to continue this discussion, I would have to reword the argument, because I don’t believe in that “omnipotence”, nor was I arguing for it.
I used the word “omnipotence”, because in theistic circles, it means “the ability to do anything that is logically possible”. God (or Reality) actually has done this, in creating every possible universe, thus doing all that is logically possible.
-micah
So your quarrel is with actual word meaning.. so which words have no meaning or have infinitely variable meaning?
You make many bold assertions in defense of your use of equivocation but I note that even in these appeals to false authority you never once offer any supporting evidence.
Omni- all, in total
Potent- power.
Omnipotent- possessing ALL powers.
No equivocation, not slight of hand, no intellectual dishonesty, merely the actual meaning of the word. Rather than trying to play games employing very simple fallacies, why not address this head on? Or at least recognize that the arguments are fatally flawed…
BTW literally one second of searching reveals many theists who actually do take omnipotence at its meaning, contrary to your hope filled assertions. Since you make the universal claim that ALL THEISTS redefine “omnipotence” to merely mean some of that which is logically possible, one example to the contrary is sufficient to refute the universal claim. Here is one such example, one of thousands if not millions of similar examples:
http://christdot.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3622
Hmmm…well, if I’m wrong, I’m wrong. I had never met nor read any theist who posited what that link posited. Although I did qualify “theistic” with “thinker”, and this link could be argued not to fall under that category.
So, there are some theists who think that God can make a square circle. Since that is what YOU mean when you say “omnipotence”, I will cease to use that word when discussing with you.
Under your definition, I DO NOT believe God to be omnipotent. So, God is not omnipotent, just very powerful. The Problem of Evil then become:
How can a Very Powerful Being, who is All-Loving, allow Suffering to exist? Or…
Is the existence of a Very Powerful, All-loving being consistent with Suffering?
Which takes us back to my reasoning…
http://emergentchristian.blogspot.com/2007/05/problem-of-evil-part-1-unanswered.html
-micah
If you have never met a theist who “thinks” like that then necessarily you never met a theist..
As for the giving up of omnipotence, you seem to continue to overlook the fact that in doing so you give up the very notion of a “god” and thus abandon you entire argument.
If “God” is defined as “a being who can do things logically impossible to do”, then sure, I don’t believe in “God”. I don’t care about words. I care about concepts. My concept is this:
Reality is benevolent, and Ultimate Reality is personal.
The word “God” is used to differentiate the idea of a Personal Reality, from the idea of an im-Personal Reality. This is what a lot of theologians mean when they say “God”.
-micah
I have to point out that in fact your arguments give the distinct impression that all you care about is the illusion, that is to say the impression of meaning while simply out-right denying reality.
There is no such thing as “personal reality” by definition. Reality is all that is. It is literally non-sensical to try to limit that to an individual and to offer up the idea that this differs from person to person.
As for the notion that there is some benevolent power regardless of the word games you wish to play, the fact remains that torture is evil, not good as you try to redefine it. Murder is not good, but rather is evil. The suffering of pain, the harm caused by terrible diseases etc. are all not good, no mere stipulation to the contrary will change this.
Why not drop the games, the logical fallacies, and the illusions and simply address the actual notions honestly and reasonably? Why continue the word games and attempts to give the impression that illusion is real? Why do you not allow your claims to be compared to reality and all reality to determine truth?
[quote post="268"]There is no such thing as “personal reality” by definition. Reality is all that is. It is literally non-sensical to try to limit that to an individual and to offer up the idea that this differs from person to person.[/quote]
I think you misunderstand me. Yes, reality is all there is. And no, it does NOT differ from person to person. What I am saying is that the nature of reality is personhood, or consciousness.
And no, I am not saying that murder is good. That’s my point:
http://emergentchristian.blogspot.com/2007/06/problem-of-evil-part-2-multiverse-vs.html
-micah
While you may not be openly and directly stating that murder is good, your argument necessitates that no evil exists, that all is good, therefore murder, child rape, even governing must all be good.
Have you noticed that you have yet to address the refutations, correct the logical fallacies, or in any way at all address the problems inherent to your arguments which I and others have pointed out? Care to join in and address these?
TXStorm, you have disputed the definitions of terms that I have used in discussing this issue, so I saw the need to rephrase the issue in a common set of terms we could both understand. Until we do that, we can’t really discuss this rationally. We wouldn’t be discussing the same thing. Once this is accomplished, and we can agree on what we are saying, then we can deal with any problems with the reasoning.
Here is a statement of the issue, avoiding words like “God” and “omnipotence” that you and I disagree on the definition of:
THE PROBLEM:
The Laws of Physics are benevolent.
The Laws of Physics created a world with suffering.
How then can the Laws of Physics be benevolent?
MY ANSWER:
The Laws of Physics create all possible beings.
Giving Life is a benevolence greater than the benevolence of preventing suffering.
Thus, The Laws of Physics are benevolent.
Naturally, you would disagree with the premise (”The Laws of Physics are benevolent”), but that does not prevent us from dealing with the logical question.
-micah
Actually I of course disagree with all of your premises, for the same reasons already cited and apparently now completely dismissed without any answer provided.
The laws of physics are not entities, nor can we assume that they would have consciousness.
You assume a creator without evidence or support.
You assume that pain is better than no pain (as already cited)
You stipulate that all evil must be considered good. (by stipulating that there can be no evil which is worse than no existing, in doing so you force your own termporarily held value upon all others)
Your argument remains fatally flawed with all of the fallacies already cited as well as being a closed argument which does not allow that reality determines truth, rather it decrees that it must be true because it decrees that it must be true.
The premise that X create (sic) all possible beings is also false, unless you care to provide instances of all possible beings, such as elephants with purple wings which is not logically impossible merely absurd yet does not exist.
So my now too often repeated question remains, would you care to address any of the refutations already offered?
[quote post="268"]The laws of physics are not entities, nor can we assume that they would have consciousness. You assume a creator without evidence or support. [/quote]
We are not discussing “does God exist?”, or “is the Universe conscious?” We are discussing the Problem of Evil. So, yes, in this discussion, I am assuming these points.
The objection offered (that I have seen) is:
“There are types of suffering which are worse than not existing”
I would be happy to address that issue, but first let me address this one:
[quote post="268"]You assume that pain is better than no pain…You stipulate that all evil must be considered good.[/quote]
The moral case I am making is equivalent to: “It is better to knock someone down than to let them be hit by a truck”.
Is it GOOD to knock people down? No. It is bad, it involves pain and suffering.
But it is better than letting them be hit by a truck.
Similarly, it is better to allow suffering to exist, than to eliminate all the beings which suffer.
It is better that I broke my tooth out, than that I not exist.
-micah
[quote] The moral case I am making is equivalent to: “It is better to knock someone down than to let them be hit by a truck”.[/quote]
This could not be any less analogous. You are saying that it is morally good (not merely morally permissably) to actively torture someone who would otherwise be without pain. In fact you say this twice over in that first you take the position that everything that a creator were there a creator, does is necessarily good by decree regardless of the nature of the action taken. The second way that you say this is to simply stipulate away the very concept of evil or harm.
I would point out the false dichotomies that you are employing here as well, but thus far by your own statement, the only objection you have noticed, despite quite clear explanations of ALL of the objections and refutations, is that yes suffering is worse than a nuetral non-suffering position, so clearly no amount of refutation will even be considered, a fact bolstered by the refusal to address the refutations despite the repeated requests for this simple act of basic respect.
*Scratching head*
I’m confused here.
[quote post="268"]The moral case I am making is equivalent to: “It is better to knock someone down than to let them be hit by a truck”.[/quote]
[quote post="268"]You are saying that it is morally good (not merely morally permissably) to actively torture someone who would otherwise be without pain.[/quote]
I hope that this is incorrect (I don’t think it IS), and perhaps it is just the way in which a viewer reads this, but it LOOKS like TX is disagreeing with the idea that shoving someone, even tackling them to the ground is better than letting them be in a state “without pain”. Dying.
I’m not stipulating that this is the way it is, and I wouldn’t believe it either through my own experiences on WOTM, but I can say that with a look, that IS what it seems.
I don’t know about anybody else, but I’m pretty sure that most of us would rather go with a few broken bones than a broken life.
Further:
I would say that there ARE types of existing that are worse than NOT existing. (Ever watch Se7en?)
I also would would ask that you continue this in the forum, IF the very subject at hand WASN’T “circular reasoning”, which Micah is employing.
So let me say it first… ironic.
Micah, it seems that you might not know WHY your reasoning is circular.
Just ask.
Kren,
Thanks for the comment. I would like to know why my reasoning is circular (and what exactly it is perceived that I am arguing for).
TX,
I’m having a tough time deciphering what you’re saying.
-micah
Hi Micah,
To use circular reasoning means to use the conclusion as a basis for the argument. Though you may dispute that you are not making an argument, having a position is an argument as long as people are willing to dispute it, and you are willing to defend it.
First on your website you give the explanation that God may be something that could not create life without suffering.
That alone is circular due to the definition of God.
The idea of God… for anybody (except you it seems) is an omnipotent (already impossible) and benevolent being.
Perhaps we could redefine this as a “Spiral argument” due to the fact that your definition for omnipotent was different as well.
In which case you’ve put yourself in the position that you either change your own definition of “God” AND “omnipotent” or your argument fails to be inclusive with reality.
The problem of evil is already solved. Either there is a God who by definition can create life without pain, or there is no God.
By definition, there cannot be a God who is limited by this.
Therefore your argument reverts back to:
“There is a God, therefore there is a God.”
Circular reasoning.
If your definition of God is something that is governed by the laws of reality than (take no offense) your God could very well be a peanut.
It seems to ME, that your definition of God is reality itself. But do keep in mind, life starts at a very low level, and without the amount of brain power to conclude what pain and suffering IS, than life without pain does exist in the form of bacteria at least, and doing evil takes enough mental computation to know what evil is and is not.
(Not sure if TX would agree with me on that or not)
Without the wish to drag this on, I have done some reading on the multiverse myself. It seems to me that it is not actually more than one universe, but the contemplation that with a nearly unlimited amount of space the probability of something at least close to what is happening, happening comes very close to zero at a far enough distance.
Kren,
I am pointing out that Micah, despite protests to the contrary, is arguing that there is no evil, no pain so bad as to make being out of pain preferable. I agree with you that less pain if preferable to more pain, I simply disagree with the wholly unsupported and completely arbitrary stipulation by micah that once pain gets bad enough to make me value being out of pain then necessarily that pain/harm is good even celebratory.
Every suicide, every case of euthanasia, every instance where one chooses to be out of pain rather than to suffer it conclusively proves this premise of his to be patently false, yet he persists in demanding that we all take it as axiomatically true. Clearly since this is one of this conclusions to his arguments (supported only by itself of course), this serves as another example of circular reasoning, albeit a very small circle.
Micah, since I have avoided overly complex refutations, instead refuting the claims using counter-examples and simple refutations, perhaps what is needed here to alleviate the difficulty in understanding such basic concepts is an understanding of the basic elements of sound reasoning. I would suggest Wendy McElroy’s The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival as a wonderful introduction to these concepts for the layperson. It is quite accessible to any one.
Also if the use of the names of the fallacies which constitute the whole of your argument is causing some problem, then either rely upon the rest of the explanations offered, else check out http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ for much more detailed explanations of the fallacies (such as equivocation which you rely upon a great deal) as well as examples.
That said, let me further explain why what you claim is analogous cannot be analogous. You are not presenting an argument in which less harm is better than more harm, rather you are presenting an argument in which at a certain point more harm is better than no harm at all. You argue for and stipulate that existence no matter how evil is preferable to never experiencing terrible evil. You offer nothing but itself to support this assertion (yet another case of circular reasoning with a very small circle). This means that a lifetime of torture for you is equal to or preferable to a lifetime of pleasure and joy. You completely remove the nature of evil, ignore or overlook the necessary aspects of harm. By sweeping this aside with your broad brush, by switching the most important characteristic in determining quality of life for mere existence (all by stipulation to support the other stipulation that there must be a god) you are engaging in equivocation for your argument relies upon the illusion of the meaning of “good” “preferable” and the like, but undermine the meaning of these terms by changing the very basis upon which they are judged. From this then you assert that there must be an all good “god” because you have changed the meaning of “good” to include extreme evil and harm. If we were to put the two phrases into semi-symbolic logic for clarity, they would appear like this:
1. Living without pain is good.
1a. Living without pain is X
2. “god” is good.
2a. “god” is Y.
Because of this change in the very nature of what counts as good, you are NOT referring to that which the first instance of “good” refers. This is textbook equivocation. I hope that helps.
Kren,
As I’ve already stated, my definitions of “God” and “omnipotent” have nothing to do with “a being who can do absolutely anything, even if logically impossible”. The ancient definition of “God” just meant a very powerful being. The bible, for example, even addresses Jewish rulers as “gods”. In theological discussion, it is usually understood that a “God” would have limitations (such as the limitation to not lie, etc).
Since “God” is just a word, we can instead use words that more closely represent what we mean.
I mean “the universe”, “reality”, or “the laws of physics”. More poetically, I would say “being itself”. I am not alone in this, it being a common theological stance.
The universe is restricted in certain ways, mainly the need to follow the rules of logic. Thus, the universe can have as many parallel histories as possible, yet none of them can contain a suffering human being who does not suffer. Since both you and I are suffering human beings, we could not exist without suffering.
Does that make suffering good? No. But it is better for me to exist than to not exist. Therefore, both I and the universe accept my existence as a greater good. And suffering becomes a necessary evil based on the greater good that I exist.
[quote post="268"]Either there is a God who by definition can create life without pain, or there is no God. By definition, there cannot be a God who is limited by this.[/quote]
You are right that with this definition, there can be no God. But as I state, this is not the definition I am using at all. By this definition of God, I’m an atheist, because I certainly don’t believe this God exists.
[quote post="268"]Therefore your argument reverts back to:
“There is a God, therefore there is a God.”
Circular reasoning.[/quote]
But since I am not using the definition of “God” you state above, my argument does not revert to this. Nor am I trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. My restatement of The Problem of Evil is:
THE PROBLEM:
The Laws of Physics are benevolent.
The Laws of Physics created a world with suffering.
How then can the Laws of Physics be benevolent?
If there is no solution to this (ie, the first two statements are a definite logical contradiction), then the Laws of Physics are evil, or at least, not benevolent. (Since we know they created a world with suffering).
But if creating a world with suffering is better than not creating a world with suffering, then this is not a logical contradiction. I’m not claiming that this would prove the first statement to be true. I’m just saying that these statements are not logical contradictions.
TX,
[quote post="268"]Every suicide, every case of euthanasia, every instance where one chooses to be out of pain rather than to suffer it conclusively proves this premise of his to be patently false, yet he persists in demanding that we all take it as axiomatically true. Clearly since this is one of this conclusions to his arguments (supported only by itself of course), this serves as another example of circular reasoning, albeit a very small circle.[/quote]
You conflate non-existence with death. This is a false equation. Perhaps I have been guilty of being vague on that point. A non-existent being never contemplates suicide, etc. Someone who commits suicide is not non-existent in the strict sense, because their timeline still exists in reality (albeit in the past, where we can not access it).
[quote post="268"]1. Living without pain is good.
1a. Living without pain is X
2. “god” is good.
2a. “god” is Y.[/quote]
“Living without pain” cannot apply to a non-existent being, thus if “Living without pain” is “good”, it cannot be “good” for a being to not exist. But you are claiming that it IS “good” for a being to not exist.
This represents a contradiction.
Further, IF “Living without pain” is exclusively “good”, neither “Living WITH pain” nor “Not existing” are good.
This would indicate your definition of “good” is incorrect, since nothing could be “good”, by this definition.
Your semi-symbolic logic requires that “Living without pain” is the only good. But this is demonstrably not true. Everyone who deals with chronic pain, yet chooses to live, chooses life as better.
So at least in some cases, “Living WITH pain” is better than “Dying so as to avoid pain”, and thus is “good”.
In reality, “good” is a scale. I don’t think you’re allowing for that.
-micah
Micah,
This:
[quote post="268"]You are right that with this definition, there can be no God. But as I state, this is not the definition I am using at all. By this definition of God, I’m an atheist, because I certainly don’t believe this God exists.[/quote]
Is a clear example of equivocation. TX has provided some good material on fallacies. To put it simply, a tree is a tree, you can’t say tree and mean car and expect to have a valid argument.
[quote post="268"]THE PROBLEM:
The Laws of Physics are benevolent.
The Laws of Physics created a world with suffering.
How then can the Laws of Physics be benevolent?
If there is no solution to this (ie, the first two statements are a definite logical contradiction), then the Laws of Physics are evil, or at least, not benevolent. (Since we know they created a world with suffering).
But if creating a world with suffering is better than not creating a world with suffering, then this is not a logical contradiction. I’m not claiming that this would prove the first statement to be true. I’m just saying that these statements are not logical contradictions.[/quote]
The first statement “The laws of physics are benevolent.” IS a logical contradiction because of the very nature of the laws of physics, and the definition of the word benevolent.
Benevolent is doing good or being good minded. Since the laws of physics have no mind to understand what “Good” is they cannot be benevolent. Whether or not it’s better to create a world with suffering than not create one at all doesn’t even come into play.
TX, sorry for the misconception, that was just what it looked like to me and probably would be construed as the same to plenty of other readers.
[quote post="268"]Is a clear example of equivocation. TX has provided some good material on fallacies. To put it simply, a tree is a tree, you can’t say tree and mean car and expect to have a valid argument.[/quote]
But I am not changing the definition of “God” or trying to use that term in two different ways. It is common for people to have different definitions of the same term, and thus to clarify their separate definitions. This is not a fallacy. If when you say X you mean “car”, and when I say X I mean “boat”, then we can CERTAINLY redefine our terms to be mutually intelligible. Any number of prominent theologians use MY definition of “God”, and so I am not making up definitions here. I am happy to redefine my terms to any mutually accepted definitions, so that we may have a rational argument, instead of one about the meaning of terms.
[quote post="268"]The first statement “The laws of physics are benevolent.” IS a logical contradiction because of the very nature of the laws of physics, and the definition of the word benevolent.
Benevolent is doing good or being good minded.[/quote]
By your own definition, benevolent is “doing good”, and since the Laws of Physics DO things (ie, make the earth circle around the sun), then it is certainly possible for them to be benevolent.
But this is a moot point. The Problem of Evil and my answer can be restated as:
THE PROBLEM:
X is benevolent.
X created something which suffers.
How then can X be benevolent?
MY ANSWER:
Giving Life is a benevolence greater than the benevolence of preventing suffering.
Thus, X is benevolent.
We can pose this question about almost any X, where X is something which has the power to create.
But it seems like this discussion keeps veering in the direction of “does X exist?”…which I’m happy to discuss sometime, but is not what I’m discussing now. What I’m discussing now is the question of the logical coherency of the above formulation.
In that discussion, the argument that “Existence is NOT better than Non-Existence” is relevant, while the argument “X does not exist” is not.
-micah
[quote post="268"]By your own definition, benevolent is “doing good”, and since the Laws of Physics DO things (ie, make the earth circle around the sun), then it is certainly possible for them to be benevolent.[/quote]
It looks to me as though my own definition for “Benevolence” was incomplete. My bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolence
Water hydrates my body, which is a good thing (IMO), but that doesn’t make water benevolent because it has no mind to decide to hydrate me or not.
I’m not sure how many times I would have to answer this, but it takes consciousnesses to be benevolent, a mind. So by stipulating that the laws of physics are benevolent, you are stipulating that the laws have a mind of their own.
Another example is a tree falling on a car, causing the owner monetary harm. The tree can’t be thought of as evil because it didn’t DECIDE to fall on the car.
[quote post="268"]THE PROBLEM:
X is benevolent.
X created something which suffers.
How then can X be benevolent?
MY ANSWER:
Giving Life is a benevolence greater than the benevolence of preventing suffering.
Thus, X is benevolent.[/quote]
Here’s the problem. Say X creates Y. X knows that Y will suffer infinitely, and never feel any pleasure at all. Y regrets it’s existence for the duration of it, and seeks to end it via death. This being never, for one moment, wanted to exist. Furthermore, no other entity besides X wants Y to exist, and all would suffer less if Y did not exist.
So, what makes X benevolant for creating Y if X knew this would be the result?
Also, just in case you didn’t notice, you didn’t solve The Problem of Evil at all. The Problem of Evil goes:
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
Evil exists
This is a contradiction, therefore God cannot exist unless he is either non omnipotent, not omniscient, or not omnibenevolent.
All you do is go “well, God isn’t omnipotent!”. That doesn’t solve anything, that is the exact point most atheists are saying. The problem of evil was not designed to argue against a very powerful God, but an omnipotent one. If God is just unable to stop the evil without screwing things up even more, then He is not omnipotent and is therefore not the God the Problem of Evil was created to argue against.
micah,
In “defense” of your position that evil must be good, and that non-existence cannot be preferable to existence, especially an existence of evil and harm, you say: [quote]“Living without pain” cannot apply to a non-existent being, thus if “Living without pain” is “good”, it cannot be “good” for a being to not exist. [/quote]
THIS IS YOUR CONCLUSION. Therefore you have yet again employed perfectly circular reasoning in trying to defend this indefensible position. Stipulating that your belief is true and that reality and reason are both in error will never make your belief true or reality in error.
[quote]Your semi-symbolic logic requires that “Living without pain” is the only good.[/quote]
Here again is a great example of why I have suggested repeatedly that you take the time to familiarize yourself with at least the most basic elements of sound reasoning, for you would avoid such obvious errors. You are universalizing from an instance, yet another fallacy. You confuse the existence of a counter-example to your claims for the claim that necessarily everything is directly opposite of your claims. Yes clearly the examples provided prove conclusively that your claim that existence is always good (that there can be no evil) is false. That there are cases where non-existence is preferable to existence in no way necessitates that non-existence is always preferable. Look to the example of red barns. There exist some barns which are not red. This would disprove the claim that all barns are red. It would not however imply that there are no red barns. Your assertion applied here would be that the existence of non-red barns necessitates that there are no red barns. It simply does not follow.
Good is not a scale, you are confusing type with degree. There are degrees of pleasure and positive aspects but that does not mean that you can simply proclaim from the roof tops (or necessitate it using your arguments as you have) that everything is necessarily good. Your “scale” goes from really good to merely good then turns back upon itself not allowing for evil at all, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, and repeatedly ignored.
You have now abandoned two of the four characteristics in this little game of word play. Recall that the four characteristics of the god you are trying to defend (for otherwise the problem of evil simply ceases to be a problem because evil exists and there is no being which is supposed to prevent evil from existing). It is not merely benevolence in the very weak and intellectually dishonest way you are trying to equivocate on it, rather the characteristic is OMNIbenevolence. This means ALL GOOD, ONLY good. This is a far cry from the error you make of saying that if X does one good thing then necessarily benevolent. I doubt you can find anything which qualifies as evil under your bastardization of the word. Hitler was a vegetarian, so he did the good thing of refraining from killing animals for food, therefore by your argument Hitler was benevolent in exactly that same manner as “god.” (BTW if you wish to believe that this does not disprove your claims, look up argumentum ad absurdum)
Furthermore as has been proved conclusively several times thus far, your conclusion/premise of your textbook circular argument is that evil is preferable to non-evil, that pain and suffering is preferable to non-suffering, is simply false. You have the burden of proof for your assertion and therefore if you wish to use this claim/conclusion you must do two things: 1. Prove that circular reasoning is sound reasoning (this is impossible) and 2.Prove that your claim is true. So far on the second you have simply repeatedly stipulated that it must be, and in doing so have been resoundingly refuted. Common courtesy would require that you address these refutations rather than pretending that they do not exist. After all it is more benevolent that they exist than if they did not! “\:)
To add to Ross’ point, in abandoning omnipotence and omnibenevolence, you are abandoning the god notion all together, which causes your entire argument to fall into the realm of meaninglessness. You have far too many terms which are used in multiple and contrary to your appeals to popularity, very peculiar and unusual ways. As Kren said, you cannot use the term “tree” meaning “car” and expect your claims to be true of trees.