tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post4214669169120793325..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: The "change the subject" defence of GodRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-68012036599462926162009-10-06T05:52:29.706+11:002009-10-06T05:52:29.706+11:00This is my first time coming to this particular we...This is my first time coming to this particular website, but it does remind me of many others I've been to that discuss God, atheism etc. <br /><br />What really strikes me about all of them is how there is supposed 'rational discussion' or 'argument' but it's really all just re-justifications of already firmly held, intractable positions. <br /><br />I can't imagine anyone here actually changing their minds as a result of anything anyone of opposite opinion says (because 'of course' no one can prove the opposite opinion!). <br /><br />When I see this I start to wonder: What is the point of all of this non-discussion?dan wolperthttp://www.micahprays.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-52649321179799422402009-09-24T22:05:31.155+10:002009-09-24T22:05:31.155+10:00Indeed. If god is omni-benevolent, and at one poin...Indeed. If god is omni-benevolent, and at one point was all that existed, then good can exist without evil.<br /><br />If it can't, then god can't be omni-benevolant. QED.<br /><br />Re: contradiction, please take a look at particle physics. Contradictory things CAN and DO happen in this, our universe. States can BOTH exist and not-exist. Things CAN happen without a cause, logic be damned. This is well documented. Go look.<br /><br />So if our puny intellects (by comparison to god's) can comprehend the real existence of contradiction, then of course the infinitely superior intellect of god can go as far as he likes.<br /><br />And hell, I don't even have to consider omni-anything. I can conceive of a world marginally better than this one. Can't you? So god can, too, but doesn't make it happen. Forget perfection, he doesn't even spruce things up.<br /><br />As far as I can see, the world is much more evidence of a hateful god than a loving one. The good stuff is just there to get our hopes up.Magpienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-48662320213698224572009-09-24T05:33:59.882+10:002009-09-24T05:33:59.882+10:00If you cannot say what it would mean to make good ...<i> If you cannot say what it would mean to make good without bad, you cannot ask it to come to pass.</i><br /><br />You are basing this claim on human understanding of possibility, and the whole <i>notion</i> of possibility presumably comes from the creator god. Just because this universe as we conceive it doesn't support contradiction doesn't mean that such has to be true of any universe created by a god. It seems to me this is like a fish saying that of <i>course</i> motion involves fluid friction, how could it be otherwise?<br /><br />But, to answer your question, I can indeed conceive of good without evil, as that presumably was the state of things prior to creation (but not, of course, prior to god). And what else is heaven but good in the absence of evil? Is there some evil in heaven to make people appreciate all the good they have there?Tulsenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-72918175321795395352009-09-24T05:13:44.815+10:002009-09-24T05:13:44.815+10:00Tulse,
I think you are making an ontological con...Tulse, <br /><br />I think you are making an ontological confusion of what (and where) meaning is. "Omnipotence" means, to my mind, being able to do anything meaningful. If we can't specify a task, we can't ask someone to perform it. If I asked a genie to "make red blue" or to "make hot cold" he'd be within his rights to ask what I meant by that.<br /><br />The same with an other meaningless power, like creating dark with no light or good with no bad. This is not a potential act, it is a language game.<br /><br />J.J. is right to say that God's failure to make colorless green ideas sleep furiously is a failure in the proposition, not in God's omnipotence. If you cannot say what it would mean to make good without bad, you cannot ask it to come to pass.Chris Schoenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993906736813166617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-91527488903019978472009-09-24T02:44:22.175+10:002009-09-24T02:44:22.175+10:00Tulse: "Again, as I understand it, the law of...Tulse: "Again, as I understand it, the law of contradiction does not hold in some logic systems (such as paraconsistent logics)."<br /><br />But this doesn't help you. Paraconsistent logics are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic#Paraconsistent_logics_are_propositionally_weaker_than_classical_logic" rel="nofollow">weaker than classical logic</a>, that is, they can't be used to prove things that classical logic can't.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-18965696157856973352009-09-24T01:03:46.825+10:002009-09-24T01:03:46.825+10:00contradictory statements are nonsense, so the sent...<i> contradictory statements are nonsense, so the sentence "God can do A and not-A at the same time" is void of meaning.</i><br /><br />Again, as I understand it, the law of contradiction does not hold in some logic systems (such as paraconsistent logics). And given that it is generally taken to be an axiom, it itself is not provable. (Again, logic is not my area of expertise.)Tulsenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-14668630601090508982009-09-24T00:40:54.759+10:002009-09-24T00:40:54.759+10:00He can't give us knowledge, no, we have to use...<i>He can't give us knowledge, no, we have to use our mundane intellects to learn it? </i><br /><br />You prefer that God did your thinking for you? You don't want to grow and live and learn as a free thinking adult? You prefer to be protected and coddled like a child or would you rather set your face to the storm?<br /><br />Let me repeat, to argue against evil is to argue against life and freedom. So grow a pair (aka "gird your loins like a man")and learn to face life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-31821645349661002992009-09-24T00:40:48.836+10:002009-09-24T00:40:48.836+10:00Tulse: "Unless one is going to argue that the...Tulse: "Unless one is going to argue that the rules of classical logic are prior to the existence of god, ..."<br /><br />One needn't do that at all. One need only point out that contradictory statements are nonsense, so the sentence "God can do A and not-A at the same time" is void of meaning. It is equally silly as well to insist that an omnipotent God can make colorless green ideas sleep furiously.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-45637756408049307242009-09-24T00:08:56.582+10:002009-09-24T00:08:56.582+10:00Once you deny that the law of non-contradiction al...<i> Once you deny that the law of non-contradiction always holds, anything goes.</i><br /><br />I thought that "anything goes" was pretty much what one meant by "omnipotent". Unless one is going to argue that the rules of classical logic are prior to the existence of god, presumably god is responsible for those rules. (And although it is outside my bailiwick, I understand that not all logic systems accept the law of non-contradiction.)Tulsenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-28584377677631083802009-09-23T22:25:05.723+10:002009-09-23T22:25:05.723+10:00Magpie: "Remember the old question: can god c...Magpie: "Remember the old question: can god create a rock so big that not even he can lift it? The answer is yes, because god is not bound by such puny contrivances as logic."<br /><br />That doesn't work because of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion" rel="nofollow">principle of explosion</a>. Once you deny that the law of non-contradiction always holds, anything goes.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-64605925220666210692009-09-23T21:35:03.930+10:002009-09-23T21:35:03.930+10:00who says that God, if he existed, knows good witho...<i>who says that God, if he existed, knows good without the presence of evil? My point is not just that humans can't know good without evil, it's that is can't be known as such, in the same way light can't be known without shadow. It means nothing to assert such a thing. </i><br /><br />It means that god cannot be all-good, since he must have experience of evil prior to creation. It also means that he himself didn't create this initial evil (how could he without experiencing it?), in other words, evil must have an existence independent of the one entity that Christians think is responsible for all existing things. Far from meaning nothing, your assertion means that the Christian understanding of god is profoundly wrong.Tulsenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-28700831380571228992009-09-23T19:39:02.093+10:002009-09-23T19:39:02.093+10:00Gah.
An omnipotent god can do ANYTHING. So such a...Gah.<br /><br />An omnipotent god can do ANYTHING. So such a god can make a world that is both perfect - in that it includes no suffering - and as satisfying, instructive, and good as this one can be.<br /><br />You can't see how that can be done? Doesn't matter - YOU'RE NOT GOD. God knows everything, including how to do the impossible. It doesn't matter if you start wondering about paper cuts, or whether good can exist without evil - god knows how to leave us with NO suffering, and can make good exist without evil - HE'S GOD.<br /><br />Remember the old question: can god create a rock so big that not even he can lift it? The answer is <b>yes</b>, because god is not bound by such puny contrivances as logic. He can do anything, including acts that seem contradictory to our inferior human brains. If he can't, then he is not all-powerful. Sorry.<br /><br />So god KNOWS HOW to make a world without suffering that nevertheless contains all the advantages of this one, because he's omniscient.<br /><br />God CAN MAKE a world without suffering that nevertheless contains all the advantages of this one, because he's omnipotent.<br /><br />God WANTS a world without suffering that nevertheless contains all the advantages of this one, because he's omni-benevolent.<br /><br />So.... what's the problem?<br /><br />Either he (like you) doesn't know how to do this, in which case he's not omniscient; or he can't do it, in which case he's not omnipotent; or he doesn't want to, in which case he's not omni-benevolent.<br /><br />That doesn't say that there's no god, simply that a god with all three properties cannot exist.Magpienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-63578922881584491742009-09-23T15:58:50.722+10:002009-09-23T15:58:50.722+10:00WAT,
The logic of my point is made more difficult...WAT,<br /><br />The logic of my point is made more difficult to grasp with reference to "incredible amounts" of suffering, which is why in making it I wish to limit myself to suffering generally. The question of why suffering need be so "incredible" at times is related, but, at the moment, separate. Suffering can include very modest hardships. Missing a meal. Fighting with a loved one. Losing a job. Even banging a toe. These all fall in the category of things that are not good, not desirable in themselves, not pleasurable.<br /><br />The question I am trying to raise is how we can know good without the attenuation of good. I am using the metaphor of light because it is less emotionally charged. We all admit the need for darkness in order to see what is being lit (and this includes shades of gray, not just absolute blackness). Why can't we also admit that some similar gradation of non-goodness is necessary to see, feel, experience goodness? <br /><br />We know things by what they are not. This is just an epistemological fact. I'm prepared to hear any counterexamples you can offer. Without any, all you are proposing is some kind of deus ex machina. Without concretizing it with an example, the insistence that things could be all-good remains not just hypothetical, but logically unimaginable.Chris Schoenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993906736813166617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-78860531958643641412009-09-23T15:41:37.980+10:002009-09-23T15:41:37.980+10:00There's no logical contradiction in a good god...There's no logical contradiction in a good god, that is powerful enough, giving us all the knowledge we need without an iota of suffering. It is simply odd to claim that this god, that could create the universe, couldn't allow us to know whatever it wanted us to know. God is very weak indeed if it has to rely on us to learn by supplying an incredible amount of suffering.Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15857703322764833955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-91353412786328845792009-09-23T15:39:27.571+10:002009-09-23T15:39:27.571+10:00What fantasy?What fantasy?Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15857703322764833955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-57792588590274884682009-09-23T15:23:46.687+10:002009-09-23T15:23:46.687+10:00Tulse,
First, not my god. I don't believe in ...Tulse,<br /><br />First, not my god. I don't believe in a supernatural anything.<br /><br />Second, who says that God, if he existed, knows good without the presence of evil? My point is not just that humans can't know good without evil, it's that is can't be known as such, in the same way light can't be known without shadow. It means nothing to assert such a thing. <br /><br />WAT,<br /><br />I disagree. Desiring a fantasy is not the same thing as desiring goodness.Chris Schoenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993906736813166617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-69146305607204602532009-09-23T15:09:47.282+10:002009-09-23T15:09:47.282+10:00If god allows evil or suffering so the we can mini...If god allows evil or suffering so the we can minimize it helping others and thus learn courage, or charity, or benefit from the care of others. Who's more benevolent? The god who allowed it, or the people who try to mitigate it. That god, the one who can't just let us know good, is not a good god.Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15857703322764833955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-84730797048979749302009-09-23T12:33:46.224+10:002009-09-23T12:33:46.224+10:00we cannot know good except where it is bounded by ...<i>we cannot know good except where it is bounded by something that is not-good. This makes some form of evil a logical necessity to the experience (if not actual existence) of goodness.</i><br /><br />Does this apply to your god as well? Was he not able to know what good is except through a bounding, co-existing evil? If so, where did the evil come from? If not, why didn't he create humans to be like him, and know good <i>without</i> the presence of evil?Tulsenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-58900649705275748782009-09-23T10:04:15.589+10:002009-09-23T10:04:15.589+10:00"Heaven is defiend [sic] as a non-physical pl..."Heaven is defiend [sic] as a non-physical place located outside of time."<br /><br />Hey, that sounds <i>exactly</i> like the place I figure I'll be in once I'm dead.Ernst Hothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02978654004931641374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-57353810546217100282009-09-23T09:38:31.858+10:002009-09-23T09:38:31.858+10:00This is not possible without remittance. We cannot...<i>This is not possible without remittance. We cannot know light without shadow.</i> So god is pretty lame then? He can't give us knowledge, no, we have to use our mundane intellects to learn it? I think you ought to rethink this, it's probably not what you want.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256953909644408214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-85003613445923267672009-09-23T07:46:55.228+10:002009-09-23T07:46:55.228+10:00Tulse,
I've cited a recent pope, and at any r...Tulse,<br /><br />I've cited a recent pope, and at any rate Russell's post addresses the specific beliefs of a specific believer (A. Sullivan) so I'm not sure how relevant it is to <i>this</i> discussion what the multitudes believe, whether or not the non-temporal-locality of heaven is heretical to them. <br /><br />I know you value truth, and that you would consider the gift of knowledge a loving gesture. I think you would agree then that it is not enough to <i>be</i> happy; one must <i>know</i> one is happy. It is not enough to experience goodness; one must know one is experiencing goodness.<br /><br />This is not possible without remittance. We cannot know light without shadow. A world of unattenuated brightness is the same as complete darkness; it is blinding. Nothing in it can be seen. In the same way we cannot know good except where it is bounded by something that is not-good. This makes some form of evil a logical necessity to the experience (if not actual existence) of goodness.<br /><br />I don't argue from this that tsunamis and genocides and childhood disease are specifically necessary for a good life. I merely argue that the desire for goodness exclusive of evil is a delusion. It cannot be satisfied without the cessation of that goodness. A loving God would not offer his beloved a delusion any more than we would to our beloveds.Chris Schoenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993906736813166617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-18626870438741921142009-09-23T05:24:43.009+10:002009-09-23T05:24:43.009+10:00"...stop believing in that God" (from RB...<i>"...stop believing in that God"</i> (from RB)<br /><br />I think that the key words here are 'that God'. The god referenced is the tri-omni God - omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. If you remove any one of the omnis the P of E goes away. It seems to me that all the defenses that theists put up for the P of E try to rationalize either the omniscience or the omnipotence of the tri-omni god. Usually the effort is focused on the omnipotent aspect (no one wants to minimize the benevolence of God but that approach is perhaps the most consistent with the OT Yahweh.) That is, the Tri-Omni God really isn't omnipotent because there really are things he can't do (e.g. make a Universe that minimizes evil).<br /><br />All the defenses that I've read strike me as just special pleadings - all in the convoluted effort to avoid the most parsimonious answer - the Triomni God is inconsistent with the reality we see about us.jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-69473350720003364392009-09-23T05:20:15.277+10:002009-09-23T05:20:15.277+10:00It's mainstream (but not unanimous or universa...<i>It's mainstream (but not unanimous or universal) Christian theology that heaven is not a literal reward, that is, not a place you "go" after death.</i><br /><br />This ex-Catholic was certainly taught that heaven is real, and I am willing to bet that, outside of the ivory tower and theology schools, most Christian believers adhere to that view as well. I think it is a bit disingenuous to say that the notion that there is no afterlife is "mainstream" -- most Christians would likely regard that as heresy.<br /><br /><i>I also didn't characterize suffering as God-produced (as in "God sent a tsunami"). I implied it was a logical consequence of pleasure</i><br /><br />I do not think "logical" means what you think it means. More to the point, I think it is necessarily the case that if your god is omnipotent, it then is in some real sense responsible for suffering, just as it is responsible for everything else in the universe.<br /><br /><i> God cannot be fair in the sense of meting justice with equanimity. But this is a separate matter from whether God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent</i><br /><br />You'll have to clarify this point for me, as you seem to be saying that your god is neither just, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent. Have I misunderstood?Tulsenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-54140305496069632532009-09-23T04:42:39.464+10:002009-09-23T04:42:39.464+10:00Anonymous,
I'm not making things up out of w...Anonymous, <br /><br />I'm not making things up out of whole cloth here. It's mainstream (but not unanimous or universal) Christian theology that heaven is not a literal reward, that is, not a place you "go" after death. Many people believe it, yes, but many also believe atoms are little solar systems and a bunch of other Cliffs Notes versions of scientific truths. Thoughtful discussions on both topics can proceed despite these simplifications.<br /><br />I do concede that literal heaven (Or hell) as a second life is problematic both in terms of theodicy and in other regards. But the afterlife is not a necessary consequence of a creator god. There's not much emphasis on salvation in the OT, for example. <br /><br />I also didn't characterize suffering as God-produced (as in "God sent a tsunami"). I implied it was a logical consequence of pleasure (a Buddhist would say of attachment to pleasure.) Once you consider that suffering and joy are aspects of meaning and not ontological entities this becomes more evident. <br /><br />You do get at a notion of fairness or justice here and I think that is important. That many innocent people, including infants, are killed in disasters and have other tragedies befall them means that God cannot be fair in the sense of meting justice with equanimity. But this is a separate matter from whether God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, which is how Epicurus and others originally formulated the problem, and how Russell does so now.Chris Schoenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993906736813166617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-13633553304689015532009-09-23T04:10:09.693+10:002009-09-23T04:10:09.693+10:00There is the question of how literally we should t...<i> There is the question of how literally we should take the afterlife, but I don;t think it is central to the P of E.</i><br /><br />So you're willing to dump heaven in order to preserve the plausibility of god-produced suffering? You're willing to abandon the notion that suffering will be rewarded? Heck, you're willing to jettison the whole idea of salvation? I would think that should tell you just how knotty the problem of evil is, if it means excising such an important part of traditional Christianity in order to maintain logical consistency. (It also means losing one of the standard explanations of suffering, that it is nothing compared to the benefits that await the faithful.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com