Does God exist? (77 Viewers)

[KFunk]

I actually find this definition to be fairly non-descriptive in this issue although I do find it to lean slightly toward my own definition. When I refer to moral objective truths, I am not referring to logic or reasoning in the sense that you seem to be putting forward. Ie 1+1=3 is not the same "wrong" as implied with rape or some act which we regard to be morally wrong.

I agree, actually. Which is why I don't think morality can be derived from tenets of logic/reason (as I have mentioned, I am a moral relativist).

I also find one part in your argument here which doesn't seem to make much sense. That being "If logic/reason are able to exist independent of god". I don't know that you could possibly show this, for you would need to first be able to prove that God does not exist and that logic can then still exist.

If you don't allow that logic and reason hold independent of god's existence then I'm not sure whether we can hold any proper debate. To suggest that logic is dependent on god, depending on what you meant, might allow that god could generate contradictions (a square circle, a two tailed one tailed lemur, etc.). Also, I don't think that logic is something which 'exists', per se, in the way a cat or a newspaper exists (the question of the ontological status of logic and mathematics is something of a philosophical sorespot).

I see the following point as very important if you want to engage in a reasonable debate here:

I took for granted (warrantedly, I thought) that it is uncontroversial to assume the truth of basic items of logic (take 'If-P-Then-Q, P, therefore Q' as a prime example). It isn't fair for you to claim that I have to prove the non-existence of god in order to use logic in a sense that allows it to arbitrate independent of the existence of god. Why? Because it is impossible to do so. In order to show the non-existence of god one would need a) the tools of logic and b) to be able to use the tools of logic in a god independent sense. But, if one must prove god's non-existence before one can use logic in this sense then such a proof is impossible to provide. Certainly, this is a move you can make if you want to be loose about your concept of 'logic', but it is not going to allow for productive debate.

 

[BradCube]

If you don't allow that logic and reason hold independent of god's existence then I'm not sure whether we can hold any proper debate. To suggest that logic is dependent on god, depending on what you meant, might allow that god could generate contradictions (a square circle, a two tailed one tailed lemur, etc.). Also, I don't think that logic is something which 'exists', per se, in the way a cat or a newspaper exists (the question of the ontological status of logic and mathematics is something of a philosophical sorespot).

I see the following point as very important if you want to engage in a reasonable debate here:

I took for granted (warrantedly, I thought) that it is uncontroversial to assume the truth of basic items of logic (take 'If-P-Then-Q, P, therefore Q' as a prime example). It isn't fair for you to claim that I have to prove the non-existence of god in order to use logic in a sense that allows it to arbitrate independent of the existence of god. Why? Because it is impossible to do so. In order to show the non-existence of god one would need a) the tools of logic and b) to be able to use the tools of logic in a god independent sense. But, if one must prove god's non-existence before one can use logic in this sense then such a proof is impossible to provide. Certainly, this is a move you can make if you want to be loose about your concept of 'logic', but it is not going to allow for productive debate.

Ha ha, what a fantastic point! Let me point out that I did not want to suggest that we cannot use logic and reasoning in our discussions and debates here. I had simply not thought through the ramifications of what I was saying. So apologies on my behalf.

Having said that I would maintain that without a God there would not be the logic we are using today because I do not believe that we would be in existence. However, this is external to the current issue we are talking about. The fact is that we are in a world that does have logic (or at least we believe it does) regardless of whether there is a God or not. I would encourage the use of logic and sound reasoning whole heartedly as it is really the only thing we have to rely on in our knowledge and existence.

Back to the original point that you were making however (from which my thoughtless comment arose) you were saying that based on Euthyphro's dilemma and that of logic outside of God, it would follow that morality too could be independent of God. I have put forward my response in regard to the dilemma in the reply to veloc1ty so regardless of how illogical logic outside of God may seem, it shouldn't have bearing in this case.

 

[KFunk]

Back to the original point that you were making however (from which my thoughtless comment arose) you were saying that based on Euthyphro's dilemma and that of logic outside of God, it would follow that morality too could be independent of God. I have put forward my response in regard to the dilemma in the reply to veloc1ty so regardless of how illogical logic outside of God may seem, it shouldn't have bearing in this case.

Yeah, that's fair enough. As I have mentioned, I an a moral relativist and so I play devil's advocate to a degree in some of the things I am saying here (some things are said simply for the sake of stimulating discussion of getting people to think). I am thus interested to know what you think morality is. For example, take the moral claim 'murder is wrong'. Some would hold that it is true because it can somehow be established as a logical theorem (given suitable premises) and others would hold that it is true by virtue of its relation to some fact or collection of facts (e.g. facts regarding human nature, or conscious experiences such as pleasure and pain). So here we have positions which take morality to be extensions of logic and empirical knowledge, respectively.

My personal position is that a claim like 'murder is wrong' is not properly true or false. Rather, I think it is essentially an expression of preference/value, as you might find in aesthetic claims like 'orchids are beautiful', 'chocolate is better than vanilla' and 'one ought not put their elbows on the dinner table'.

What is the status of morality, in your opinion?

 

[Silver Persian]

This is why I am agnostic.

But surely the burden of proof rests with the individual trying to prove that god does exist, given that it is virtually impossible to prove the non-existence of something?

 

[veloc1ty]

Okay, before I start on this I would like to firstly state that I don't mind if you simply disregard what I am saying here, because I realize that most of these things may seem foreign or absurd.

I will be honest and say though I might find some things absurd, they are far from being foreign (strongly religious family, and I still submit to going to mass weekly). But it would be arrogant (and silly, in a thread intended for debate) of me to disregard any part of what you say.

My opinion is that there is a third option, that being that God himself is the very definition of what right and wrong is. He did not create it since it is a by-product of his character and essentially who he is. This concept took my mind quite a while to wrap itself around. In the context of an omnipotent and omnipresent God such as that of christian belief it makes perfect sense to me since that God is the absolute definition and reason for everything. There is nothing for him to abide to and there is nothing for him to create to abide to - he simply is.

So you are saying good itself is defined by God's character. Thus, whatever character God possesses determines what is good. If God had been malevolent and cruel, those characteristics would be considered good.

Objective morality would assert that these seemingly universal moral convictions are due to more than simply evolutionary factors - hence why they still persist despite have negative effects on the survival of humans.

Can you give me an example of a universal moral conviction that persists despite having negative effects on the survival of humans, that cannot be explained by evolutionary factors? Evolutionary psychology and similar such fields have addressed such values as altruism and self-sacrifice, and though not perfect it would be short-sighted to cast an ethical system from evolution alone as simply keeping the species alive.

Although this rarely proves ineffective, If I am still concerned about the issue then I would consult someone which I feel has had excellent moral judgment in the past, pray about it and read the bible on any similar issues - particularly that of how Jesus would have decided when placed in the same situation.

The Bible condones racism, slavery, war and gender inequality among other things. It preaches an out-of-date set of ethics proposed by a man over 2000 years ago, centred around a reward and punishment system. Now, by saying this I don't think there is no value in the Bible (there are many good passages) but it contains just another ethical view, which has no inherent value over any other.

Of course, I do not expect that you define your morality by the Bible alone, but choose the passages relevant to you. This just confirms what I said earlier; that each individual is influenced by many beliefs and practices.



There may be an absolute, universal moral system that does not require belief in any form of deity or afterlife (I believe some forms of utilitarianism come close). I don't see why it is necessary to have it handed to us - why we cannot arrive at it ourselves.

What do you believe is the purpose of morality?

 

[BradCube]

yikers! i completely disagree with this.

this is a common misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. evolutionary wise, survival of our species doesnt necessarily favour the individual organism itself to be selfish; increase in its own selfish survival can be achieved by influencing other organisms (eg. genetic or close kin: parents looking after children, sharing etc), which may have a statistical likelihood of sharing copies of the same genes.
there is also reciprocal altruism, which is independent of shared genes. basically our whole worlds economy works this way, "you do this for me (eg. work), i'll do this for you (eg. give you money)". we still however need a system of dealing with cheats (police) otherwise, for example, this alone will not make our economy stable. humans especially, with our ability of language, are also able to spread "reputations", which also too benefit our survival advantage simply by having a "reputation" for being a good reciprocator.

so what has this got to do with being "good" to a kid in africa thats dying and is not going to give you anything in return? one example, ive read asks the question "why do we still have the same sexual urges for women that cannot conceive who are on the pill?". simply, even though we know consciously about natural selection, its too strong a urge independently; even if you are christian, knowing its a "sin" to lust is not enough to stop lusting itself. since our human society's growth was so rapid (before we only had the opportunity to be altruistic to close kin), we are now presented with these new possibilities (such as the kid in africa dilemma), yet the "rule" or urge still exists.
in otherwords, people who believe in the evolutionary acquisition of the "moral law", understand that, sure, a child is made of atoms, a cow is made of atoms, theres probably not much difference . however knowing this alone cannot stop our fundamental way of thinking that killing the children is wrong, unless perhaps cases of delusion (possibly "some" religions) or schizophrenia.

I think you may have misunderstood my post there 3unitz. I was not suggesting that morals do not exist without a God. I was stating that any morals that do exist (without a God) and are caused by our own evolutionary growth hold no real value at all. Value here being in relation to good and evil. The only morals that could exist without God are those (as you have pointed out) that keep our societies wheels running. Illusionary morals (that would make up or create what right and wrong is) are simply a method to stop anarchy.

However I do have a problem with this sense of morality that is formed on the basis of evolution. That being, how to moral traits which would prove hindering to natural selection still exist? For example rape, adultery, etc.

For that matter how to issues such as pedophilia have any moral grounds when they would appear to have a neutral application to natural selection?

Kfunk may have provided some answers to these questions in the document he attached to a post in the previous page. Unfortunately I have not had time to read through this yet so I cannot comment on it's validity or whether those questions are answers at all.

"with or without it [religion], you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion" - steven weinberg (nobel laureate in physics)

I find some flaws in this idea:

1. Without religion (or essentially saying without God?) there is no good and there is no evil, hence people can do neither good nor evil things. The only sense of good and evil we believe to have is based on evolution that came about to maintain order and promote survival in society. In this way, this fake sense of morality speaks nothing about actually being good or evil.

2. With religion (or at least in the case of Christianity) there are no good people (since all are sinners). Hence good people cannot do bad things since good people do not exist.

 

[BradCube]

So you are saying good itself is defined by God's character. Thus, whatever character God possesses determines what is good. If God had been malevolent and cruel, those characteristics would be considered good.

In short, yes I agree with what you have said here. However, using words such as malevolent and cruel is misguiding because it is using what we already know as good and evil. Hence this becomes circular in logic.

So yes, if God's character were different to what it is, then morality would also be different to what it is. This is the case when we are talking about an omnipotent and omnipresent God because he would define the reason for everything.

Can you give me an example of a universal moral conviction that persists despite having negative effects on the survival of humans, that cannot be explained by evolutionary factors? Evolutionary psychology and similar such fields have addressed such values as altruism and self-sacrifice, and though not perfect it would be short-sighted to cast an ethical system from evolution alone as simply keeping the species alive.

Sure, rape, adultery and pedophilia.

The Bible condones racism, slavery, war and gender inequality among other things. It preaches an out-of-date set of ethics proposed by a man over 2000 years ago, centred around a reward and punishment system.

Would you be able to quote me specific passages in relation to racism, slavery and gender inequality which you feel are supported by the Bible? It would certainly be something I feel worth investigating.

War is an issue I am still dealing with personally. I still have not found in my mind a reasonable explanation of how a God that defines our morality can send people into war to kill other people. I am open to admit that. I suppose that a God that has dominion over everything is legally entitled to judge and take life as He pleases. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this issue?

There may be an absolute, universal moral system that does not require belief in any form of deity or afterlife (I believe some forms of utilitarianism come close). I don't see why it is necessary to have it handed to us - why we cannot arrive at it ourselves.

As I said in my previous post, people have the ability to ignore there own conscience if it does not fit with what they want to do. Having it handed to us allows us to remind ourselves of these values before we compromise or alter them for our own benefit.

So while I would expect that most people can arrive at these morals values, I would also expect that people would ignore and change them in order to excuse what they are doing.

What do you believe is the purpose of morality?

On a strictly Christian level, I would say that the purpose of morality is to guide us in how we should conduct our lives. It allows us to know when we have done right and when we have done wrong (in an ethical sense). It also allows us to realize that we fail (and are imperfect) so that we recognize the need for God or at least forgiveness.

 

[veloc1ty]

In short, yes I agree with what you have said here. However, using words such as malevolent and cruel is misguiding because it is using what we already know as good and evil. Hence this becomes circular in logic.

So yes, if God's character were different to what it is, then morality would also be different to what it is. This is the case when we are talking about an omnipotent and omnipresent God because he would define the reason for everything.

Would you call your god perfectly good? It would seem so if you're saying good is defined by god himself. I'm sure you're aware of the problem of evil?

Sure, rape, adultery and pedophilia.

Wait, what? I asked for a "universal moral conviction".

Would you be able to quote me specific passages in relation to racism, slavery and gender inequality which you feel are supported by the Bible. It would certainly be something I feel worth investigating.

Racism: This is linked to war; do you wish quotes on the thousands who have been slaughtered with God's approval?

Slavery: Most of Exodus 21, Exodus 22:3, Leviticus 25:44-46, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Peter 2:18 and Colossians 3:22 among others. Slavery used to be acceptable, and so a book written in the early first millenium unsurprisingly allows it.

Misogyny: Male dominance is again an archaic view which the Bible endorses.

From the New Testament we find "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. . . ." (Ephesians 5:22–23) and "These [redeemed] are they which were not defiled with women; . . ." (Revelation 14:4); and from the Old Testament we find "How then can man be justified with God? Or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?" (Job 25:4) Other relevant New Testament passages include Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:7; 1 Corinthians 11:3, 11:9, and 14:34; and 1 Timothy 2:11–12 and 5:5–6. Other Old Testament passages include Numbers 5:20–22 and Leviticus 12:2–5 and 15:17–33.

I'm not interested in taking this much further though, all I was saying is that the Bible reflects out-of-date views. I am honestly surprised you needed quotes on misogyny, at least. I've even heard some of those being read out during mass, and was rather shocked that the priest did not speak about it.

As I said in my previous post, people have the ability to ignore there own conscience if it does not fit with what they want to do. Having it handed to us allows us to remind ourselves of these values before we compromise or alter them for our own benefit.

So while I would expect that most people can arrive at these morals values, I would also expect that people would ignore and change them in order to excuse what they are doing.

What I was getting at was that I don't find an external source of morality necessary.

On a strictly Christian level, I would say that the purpose of morality is to guide us in how we should conduct our lives. It allows us to know when we have done right and when we have done wrong (in an ethical sense). It also allows us to realize that we fail (and are imperfect) so that we recognize the need for God or at least forgiveness.

On a strictly Christian level, what reason is there to obey the rules (that is, do what is "right") other than being punished in purgatory/hell?

 

[BradCube]

At the end of the day the issue is this: either the will is random, or it is not. If it is random then I am baffled about how our actions manage to acheive their self- and world-relevance. If the will is not random then it is ordered by some constraining factor. This factor may be sensory input, it may be social conditioning, it may be logic and reasoning, and it may be god's will. Whatever the constraining factor might be, if the will is to be non-random (as is necessary to explain how it correlates so well with the world and our individual identities) then it must be constrained in a way which prevents it from being free. That's all there is to it.

Thought I would first highlight that I am still making my way through the article you had attached, hence me not quoting and talking about those particular area's regarding morality.

Back to what I have quoted however, it would seem that our very definitions of "free" in regard to freewill are drastically different. Whilst I understand and appreciate that our will is influenced by factors external to it - I don't think "constrained" as you put it, is the correct terminology in reflecting this. Constrained implies that one is forced unwillingly in a particular fashion. The only sense I can see constrained being used logically here is to describe the fact that one must choose an option.

For example if a person has to make a choice between "a", "b" or "c" then they are constrained to choose only from those options. Then cannot choose option "d" for instance - since it was not an option.

Your definition of free seems to imply that the will can only be free if it is not influenced by any other factors. This explains why you believe true free will to be only random. However, as I have stated earlier, I do not follow that that definition of free (at least in regard to will) is accurate. We both agree that the will is not random but yet neither do I think that the will is forced into a particular choice. I would claim that the will is free simply because it has the ability to chose "a", "b" or "c". Of course we have reason that would make one option more logical to us, but that does not mean that we are forced to make only that decision. This ability to perform any of the actions means that ultimately the will itself is free of constraint despite how overbearing one possible choice may be.

 

[KFunk]

Thought I would first highlight that I am still making my way through the article you had attached, hence me not quoting and talking about those particular area's regarding morality.

Noted .

Your definition of free seems to imply that the will can only be free if it is not influenced by any other factors. This explains why you believe true free will to be only random. However, as I have stated earlier, I do not follow that that definition of free (at least in regard to will) is accurate. We both agree that the will is not random but yet neither do I think that the will is forced into a particular choice. I would claim that the will is free simply because it has the ability to chose "a", "b" or "c". Of course we have reason that would make one option more logical to us, but that does not mean that we are forced to make only that decision. This ability to perform any of the actions means that ultimately the will itself is free of constraint despite how overbearing one possible choice may be.

Aye, but even within a limited subset of choices randomness will turn up if free will is present. Ultimately, if there is more than one option to choose from (even if there are only very few!) then a free choice from amongst those options will have to be random. If the choice is to properly responsive to the world and one's self then determining factors will have to be introduced. Certainly, given the apparently random nature of quantum mechanics it is plausible that our choices could be restricted to a random selection from the limited subset that makes most sense in the context of self+world. However, I don't know that there is much evidence for this.

I appreciate that you have an intuition that you 'could have done otherwise' in most situations but it is worth noticing that this intuition doesn't fit well into either the random or the deterministic picture. In the former, 'choosing otherwise' amounts to re-rolling the dice (which hardly carries the right kind of 'empowering' quality), while the latter, deterministic, picture excludes the possibility of 'choosing otherwise'. There doesn't seem to be a logically available third option which would support your pre-theoretical convictions regarding free will. Unless you can provide a logically coherent account of the will that accords with your convictions I think you might end up finding that they are baseless (note also that I used to have very similar convictions regarding free will which I later rejected following critical reflection).

 

[BradCube]

because, obviously, there are other reasons for not doing so which outweigh. one reason which i can think of (off the top of my head) is that peacocks dont have sex, or choose any random partner (they like pretty colours ), even though can have great sex and past on their genes to some ugly bastard.

Ha ha, I'm not sure that it is valid in comparing a peacocks reasons for not having sex in relation to that of our own morals. Also, as an aside, wouldn't this type of behavior be seen as counter intuitive to evolution? ie - a peacock that finds all peacocks attractive is more likely to have sex with large amounts of peacocks. Hence that characteristic is more likely to be carried on.

rape restricts the females choice in picking a partner, making her sad. close kin (the raped peacocks friends/children) dont want horny males making her sad so would probably cut the peacock penis off for doing so as punishment. not to mention the statistical likelihood of her already in a partnership and directly asking for the boyfriends wrath.

I would like to place a warning on my response here as it will seem quite blunt and offensive to some. I assure you though that this is not how I feel. I say it only to demonstrate a point:

Rape does not restrict a females choice in picking a partner. It simply shares her round with more partners - likely to increase the amount of reproduction in the woman. Being this as it may it follows that natural selection would encourage a population of females that are happy to be raped - in fact they may even endorse it. It would also encourage a population of males that are happy to rape and encourage raping. With this is mind there is no reason to think that in this society a mans penis would be cut off for raping a female. There is also no reason to think that the females partner (if one did exist) would be unhappy about her being raped. The very thought that he would be mad about her being raped implies that he has moral attitudes counter to what natural selection would encourage.

 

[BradCube]

i explained this bottom of last page, not really that well (maybe you missed).. the point being theyre not really hindering at all.

I've given a response to that reply now - sorry it did not come sooner (I can only think and type so fast )

however my brain has evolved in a way which still overcomes this thought and distinguishes "good" and "evil", thus i can still classify things in this way. like say, obsessive compulsive disorder... they may know what theyre doing is completely stupid, (eg. intelligent scientists constantly washing their hands) but they simply cant help it on the fundamental level.

The fact that you still know how to classify good and evil, while noting that they hold no relevance in relation to actual good and evil seems quite odd. Incoherent even.

The reason I don't find this problem similar to OCD is that OCD is regarded as a medical problem. - ie an actual dysfunction of the brain. I don't believe that your morals quite fit into the same basket. Especially since all people have morals and not all have OCD.

 

[BradCube]

Would you call your god perfectly good? It would seem so if you're saying good is defined by god himself. I'm sure you're aware of the problem of evil?

Yeah I am calling God perfectly good. I was waiting for the evil/suffering argument to come up.
I must mention that I do find it interesting that when people are asked to provide their reasons against believing in God they state that there is too much suffering in the world for a good and loving God to exist. Hence they are using their moral judgment to determine the likely hood of a God even though they don't technically believe in accuracy of foundation of that moral judgment.

Such an argument I find to be illogical for someone that disregards morals as having any truthful meaning. Being that I believe in both objective morals and God however, this argument still carries heavy weight. Indeed the argument of suffering is extremely real emotionally since it tears at our very heart and deepest convictions. So join me as I point out what, to me, allows a loving God, pain and suffering in the world to exist. This reasoning I found from philosopher Dr William Lane Craig.

1. We are not in a good position to judge whether God has sufficient reasoning for allowing the existence of suffering and evil to exist:
As limited/finite human beings, we are limited in time, space and our intelligence. Unfortunate as it is, we have no way of being able to judge in the same capacity that an all knowing God would be able to. This inhibits our ability to make truthful judgments on the reasoning behind the suffering in the world we see. Although we may think that a certain amount or degree of suffering has no point or reason, we are simply not in a good decision to judge something like this. The reason God allowed such an action to occur may not arise until centuries later in a different country. Those familiar with the butterfly effect would also attest that it is impossible to know what the final result of any particular action is.

2. The Christian faith entails doctrines that increase the probability of the co-existence of God and evil.
The suffering argument is usually posed at the Christian all knowing, all loving perfect God. The Christian faith however includes doctrines that increase the probability of God and evil. Here those four are:

a) The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God

All too often I see both christians and non-christians making the assumption that the reason they exist is for their own happiness. Certainly this may be a logical way to carry out life if there is no God. If there is a God however, we should not assume that this is our divine purpose. I would assert that the purpose of life under a God is the knowledge of that God.

Under this idea, suffering may not be without purpose if it helps in increasing the knowledge of God. An innocent person suffering could increase their dependency and trust in God. It could also have a positive benefit for those watching them going through the suffering. The outcome will depend upon the reaction of that person/s however. Do they react with bitterness against God, or do they turn to him for help?

b) Mankind is in a state of rebellion from God
Christianity teaches that humans are in a state of rebellion whereby we don't want to submit or worship a God that has higher power than us. So instead we choose to do as we please and find our selves alienated from God and morally guilty before him because we instead pursue our own desires. The Christian is not surprised by evils in the world because they expect it based on the fact that people decided to turn away from God.

c)The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life.
Christianity teaches that people will be rewarded for the suffering they have gone through when in heaven so in this way, the suffering they went through would be justified in some way.

d)The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.
Christianity would also teach that the knowledge of God and relationship with him is an incommensurable good. Meaning that despite what a person may be going through, regardless of how much they are suffering, they can still say that God is good simply based on the fact that they have knowledge and relationship with him.

3. Relative to the full scope of the evidence, God’s existence seems more probable (I would argue probable, period)

If we take into account only the suffering in the world then we are far more likely to draw the conclusion that a God (such as the Christian one) is not probable. However, since the world is not only suffering - indeed "good things" also happen too, We need to take into account the other reasons that are quoted to present a probability in relation to Gods existence. (Now I could expand upon these point, but I feel that they are probably worthy of debate within themselves. As such I will leave them as statements which we can then pull apart and investigate together)

a) God provides the best explanation of why the universe exists instead of nothing.
b) God provides the best explanation of the complex order in the universe.
c) Objective moral values in the world.(This one is particularly debatable as we are already finding out)

It would seem to me that the problem of suffering in the world with the inclusion of Gods existence is not an intellectual one but an emotional one. We simply do not like the idea that a loving God would allow people to suffer. As a result we want nothing to do with Him. It is simply an atheism of rejection. So does the Christian belief have anything to these people? Well it certainly does because the very central belief of Christianity is based around Christ/Jesus who entered the world specifically to take on our suffering in order that we would be free of it. Although it is a much quoted verse, it sums up why Christians believe that God does more than sit idly by watching his creations suffer:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, so that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life"

Now while this may have seemed like a long winded response I'm not sure that it completely dealt with your question veloc1ty. You asked me if I am aware of the problem of evil? Now I assumed that you were leading on to how evil has become so prevalent in our society and hence how could the suffering that evil causes exist with a loving God. However, you may have not been asking this at all. You may have simply been asking how evil could possibly exist if there was only a perfect God to begin with? If so, I would suggest that this is because free will on our part. This is an already a fairly debated topic in this thread, but I currently still hold the position that we have the ability to make our own choices. With this in mind, for God to logically allow free will, he must be enabling us to choose otherwise to what he would. Hence the appearance of evil with a perfect God. (Since that anything apart from perfectly good must not be good at all)

Wait, what? I asked for a "universal moral conviction".

You might need to point out to me what you don't feel is universal about feelings towards rape, adultery and pedophilia. As far as I am aware most people, if not all (apart from those with medical conditions) would regard these acts as wrong.

Racism: This is linked to war; do you wish quotes on the thousands who have been slaughtered with God's approval?

No, I don't wish you to quote thousands who have been slaughtered with Gods approval. I would like you to quote those passage which God approves war on the basis that they are one particular race. As far as I was aware there was usually always a reason that extended beyond their nationality. ie they had fallen into immorality, turned away from God etc.

Slavery: Most of Exodus 21, Exodus 22:3, Leviticus 25:44-46, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Peter 2:18 and Colossians 3:22 among others. Slavery used to be acceptable, and so a book written in the early first millenium unsurprisingly allows it.

Took a quick look at a few of your quoted passages and also questioned myself how these seem plausible. A quick google search revealed what I feel is a perfectly reasonable answer.

Misogyny: Male dominance is again an archaic view which the Bible endorses.
I'm not interested in taking this much further though, all I was saying is that the Bible reflects out-of-date views. I am honestly surprised you needed quotes on misogyny, at least. I've even heard some of those being read out during mass, and was rather shocked that the priest did not speak about it.

It was not that I had never heard of these issues through church, it was simply that I wanted to see which verses you brought up specifically and whether any of them I had not considered before. You did end up bringing up the most commonly quoted verse in relation to this topic - although you took it rather out of context by missing the rest of the passage. I will quote the full passage here instead:

₂₂Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. ₂₃For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. ₂₄Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

₂₅Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her ₂₆to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, ₂₇and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. ₂₈In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. ₂₉After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— ₃₀for we are members of his body. ₃₁"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." ₃₂This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. ₃₃However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Looking at the whole passage, it is clear to me that there is nothing that would suggest that the bible is being sexist here. The bible indicates that both male and female have different roles, but this in no way demotes either of those roles. In fact it states simply at the end of the passage "However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

For further reading on the topic (which covers more than just this verse) see:
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-Bible-sexist.html
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/women.html

What I was getting at was that I don't find an external source of morality necessary.

Necessary for what exactly? Necessary to believe they exist or that they have meaning?

On a strictly Christian level, what reason is there to obey the rules (that is, do what is "right") other than being punished in purgatory/hell?

On a Christian level you have to realize that the Christian is in a relationship with God. The reason for doing "right" is not to avoid punishment of hell, its done in order to please God. Or in other words it is beneficial for the relationship because you know that is what God would be pleased in you doing.

As an example, If I had a wife or girlfriend I would not physically care for them because I want to avoid punishment of physically abusing them. I would physically care for them because I love them and want to express this love to them.

 

[KFunk]

1. We are not in a good position to judge whether God has sufficient reasoning for allowing the existence of suffering and evil to exist:

Ok, we can grant this point but then you can't make the following argument:

2. The Christian faith entails doctrines that increase the probability of the co-existence of God and evil.

To argue that suffering is a necessary feature of a world which contains knowledge of a certain form you have to be able to show that such knowledge is impossible without suffering. I doubt that one can show this given our finite human capacities. Thus, if you want to make point (1), it becomes quite difficult for you to make point (2).

3. Relative to the full scope of the evidence, God’s existence seems more probable (I would argue probable, period)

a) God provides the best explanation of why the universe exists instead of nothing.
b) God provides the best explanation of the complex order in the universe.
c) Objective moral values in the world.(This one is particularly debatable as we are already finding out)

(a) and (b) are equally debatable. Given the number of debates that are raging at the moment I wouldn't recommend adressing these points now but, naturally, as a philosophically driven agnostic I feel that very strong arguments can be brought against these claims. If nothing else these points are contentious, and so constitute poor premises to use against non-believers.

Yeah I am calling God perfectly good. I was waiting for the evil/suffering argument to come up.

I must mention that I do find it interesting that when people are asked to provide their reasons against believing in God they state that there is too much suffering in the world for a good and loving God to exist. Hence they are using their moral judgment to determine the likely hood of a God even though they don't technically believe in accuracy of foundation of that moral judgment.

Another important logical point:

I apologise in advance, but I feel I have to pull you up on an item of logical reasoning again. People don't have to use a conception of morality that they agree with in order to make the 'problem of evil' argument against god. Properly speaking it is a proof by contradiction in which one assumes a set of premises, for arguments sake, only to show that, collectively, they lead to contradiction. One then concludes that at least one of the premises must be rejected.

Using this structure, all one needs to do is suppose 'an all good, all knowing, all powerful god exists' and 'this god believes suffering/harm/pain to be wrong' (or some variation on these). It doesn't matter if the person making the argument doesn't agree with the moral tenet/system in question, because the nature of a proof by contradiction only requires that the premises be assumed, not accepted.

 

[Omium]

Most productive thread on BOS

 

[Stevo.]

BradCube, if you're having problems with suffering, I suggest you try Buddhism. For everything else, I'm glad I didn't bother trying to re-educate you.

 

[BradCube]

Ok, we can grant this point but then you can't make the following argument:

To argue that suffering is a necessary feature of a world which contains knowledge of a certain form you have to be able to show that such knowledge is impossible without suffering. I doubt that one can show this given our finite human capacities. Thus, if you want to make point (1), it becomes quite difficult for you to make point (2).

Very true. However there is a reason I added point (2) rather than just leaving the whole discussion at point (1). That is that it addresses the assumptions that the person questioning has made. Namely the view that suffering is evil. At least under the Christian doctrine, this is not taught.

(a) and (b) are equally debatable. Given the number of debates that are raging at the moment I wouldn't recommend adressing these points now but, naturally, as a philosophically driven agnostic I feel that very strong arguments can be brought against these claims. If nothing else these points are contentious, and so constitute poor premises to use against non-believers.

Also agree that we should leave points (a) and (b) for later discussion since we have enough debate to deal with simply on (c). I mentioned them because they are still factors. I would like to eventually address these issues however.

Another important logical point:

I apologise in advance, but I feel I have to pull you up on an item of logical reasoning again. People don't have to use a conception of morality that they agree with in order to make the 'problem of evil' argument against god. Properly speaking it is a proof by contradiction in which one assumes a set of premises, for arguments sake, only to show that, collectively, they lead to contradiction. One then concludes that at least one of the premises must be rejected.

Agreed, but this is why I simply noted this as interesting rather than a logical flaw. Its also why I addressed the issue and didn't just leave it.

Using this structure, all one needs to do is suppose 'an all good, all knowing, all powerful god exists' and 'this god believes suffering/harm/pain to be wrong' (or some variation on these). It doesn't matter if the person making the argument doesn't agree with the moral tenet/system in question, because the nature of a proof by contradiction only requires that the premises be assumed, not accepted.

This quoted passage was originally part of your explanation for the quote above it. I pulled it out to highlight that this reasoning relies on the assumptions being correct for the sake of the argument. Point (2) however dealt with this assumption (suffering is evil) at least against the Christian God to which the question is most usually issued.

 

[BradCube]

also brad, how do you explain the fact that more males commit crime then females, "biblically-wise"? im just curious to your answer, something which i randomly thought of/cant fully understand.
why do, on average, more males choose to sin? why are our gaols filled with men? is it because satan influences males more so then females? are males more vulnerable to satan, if so, why?
theres a 50/50 ratio of females and males in the world, we are both seen equally in the eyes of god, and are both given the exact same choice and freedom to sin/commit crime... wouldnt this then predict a 50/50 gaol ratio?

Ha ha, no idea really. I don't know that it is anything as sinister as "satan influences males more than females".
I would think that the most logical explanation would simply be based on the conditions of our current society. ie - divorce rates affecting a fathers role with his son. A bit of research into the current social conditions would probably turn up more results than a look into the bible here.

As an aside, I feel this whole discussion on crime rates is pretty secondary to what we are talking about.

 

[BradCube]

Most productive thread on BOS

Well that is certainly a change in opinion for most watching this thread

BradCube, if you're having problems with suffering, I suggest you try Buddhism. For everything else, I'm glad I didn't bother trying to re-educate you.

Ha, I wouldn't say I am having trouble with it. Not sure if you are being sarcastic in your second comment or complimenting me. I suppose "meh" if you are critising me for what you see as illogical arguments. Otherwise, thanks

 

[HalcyonSky]

Ha ha, no idea really. I don't know that it is anything as sinister as "satan influences males more than females".
I would think that the most logical explanation would simply be based on the conditions of our current society. ie - divorce rates affecting a fathers role with his son. A bit of research into the current social conditions would probably turn up more results than a look into the bible here.

try testosterone.

and it is relevant, because it points out that the bible doesnt explain anything that was ahead of the current scientific thought of the time. You know, if the bible talked about the big bang, evolution, atomic structure, dinosaurs and what not.. then id undoubtedly believe in god. Noahs ark, adam and eve, and a 7 day creation just doesnt cut it for me.
If the bible was a truly revealing text that contained thought youd expect from a god, it would be given alot more credibility. But unfortunately, it sounds like it was written by cavemen.