War, what is it good for?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

If God's domain is infinite, why couldn't it be the case that every weapon up to weapons of mass destruction is possible, but weapons of mass destruction are not. It seems profoundly strange and unfair that the right of very very very few humans to the moral choice of whether or not to use an atomic bomb has very little moral value for the rest of us.

Infinite does not mean everything. If you take the number 2 and halve it every second for an infinite amount of time you would get an infinite string of numbers, but none of them will be negative and none of them will be over 2. Just because God's domain is infinite doesn't mean that a universe in which there's a magical barrier against weapons of mass destruction is a viable concept

I think the victims of a flood would disagree with you. A flood isn't inherently evil, but needless death and destruction seem to be. Maybe such events give us some gumption to live life to the fullest or whatever, but they don't give that benefit to the children they kill. And are floods, earthquakes, etc. really the best or only way to texture the world such that humans face meaningful choices / reflect on their morality?

One imagines it is far more preferable for God to create a real and consistent universe and correct any injustice, such as the untimely death of a child, in the next realm (or life or afterlife or whatever you wish to call it) than it is to create an inconsistent fantasy universe that needs constant meddling in order to make it fair. I don't know any of this for certain, obviously, but the former strikes me as the more elegant solution.

I remain a little confused about your belief in God's power and domain. It seems to rest on the idea that there are concepts / rules that, once brought into existence, even God can't fine tune. So if "free will" means "free will", God has to abide by some absolutist version wherein he never gets involved in human affairs (despite setting them in motion, creating all the preconditions, etc.)? Doesn't God itself invent the meaning and purpose of concepts like "free will", and could therefore just adjust them as necessary to balance freedoms, suffering, etc., to serve some whatever God's purpose is (maximal Good)?

We would take any universe given to us as real and consistent. That we've habituated to certain types of natural horrors and not others says nothing about their "consistency", but rather out ability to adapt to the world we find ourselves in. If we instead lived in some alternative universe with some new force of physics that prevented earthquakes from causing tsunamis we wouldn't say "wow, look how inconsistent", we just use science to discover that this is the relationship between earthquakes and killer waves that exist.

As unsatisfied as I am with the answer that "freedom begets suffering, and God's committed to allowing us some freedom", I'm even more concerned with the answer "maybe it is an evil and terrible, but God will fix it in the next life". Both of these things could be true, but they're both totally unfalsifiable - no matter what evil happens, these two answers are akin to the faithful giving God a get-out-of-jail free card that will not be recognized by skeptics.

[CaptainFritz28]

I understand your hesitancy. The question ultimately always boils down to some version of "Why did God do this when He could've done this?" To which the response is really just: because He is God and decided that that is the best way to go about doing things. So yes, it is circular. There will always be an "I don't know, because that is outside the scope of what I can possibly know," which relies on faith.

Now, then, you may ask why I still believe in the Bible even with these circular and unknowable troubles presented by it, to which I will say that while Christianity does not provide every answer, and there are some questions which it poses which we cannot answer, I find there to be less faith required to believe it than to believe any other worldview I've seen. Every worldview, whether it be Atheism, Islam, Buddhism, Pantheism, etc. Has such unanswerable questions as these. Some try to avoid them by simply not acknowledging them, such as Jamie mentioning that Atheism does not try to explain morality because it isn't meant to. It just leaves that question unanswered, supposedly purposefully.

So it isn't so much that I have an answer for you as it is that my answer is that there isn't one. Despite that, Christianity provides a more comprehensive and logical approach to the world, such as in matters of purpose, morality, origin, destination, and the like, which I believe other worldviews fail to explain as sufficiently.

Hopefully that clears up my stance. Yes, there are questions to which the answer is simply "because God us God." Which are circular. This trouble of it being circular and unanswerable, I find, is still a better option than anything else, because everything else also requires a circular source and has unanswerable questions. I just think that Christianity provides that which requires the most complete set of answers to the questions of the universe with the least amount of faith to believe in it.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I understand your hesitancy. The question ultimately always boils down to some version of "Why did God do this when He could've done this?" To which the response is really just: because He is God and decided that that is the best way to go about doing things. So yes, it is circular. There will always be an "I don't know, because that is outside the scope of what I can possibly know," which relies on faith.

Now, then, you may ask why I still believe in the Bible even with these circular and unknowable troubles presented by it, to which I will say that while Christianity does not provide every answer, and there are some questions which it poses which we cannot answer, I find there to be less faith required to believe it than to believe any other worldview I've seen. Every worldview, whether it be Atheism, Islam, Buddhism, Pantheism, etc. Has such unanswerable questions as these. Some try to avoid them by simply not acknowledging them, such as Jamie mentioning that Atheism does not try to explain morality because it isn't meant to. It just leaves that question unanswered, supposedly purposefully.

So it isn't so much that I have an answer for you as it is that my answer is that there isn't one. Despite that, Christianity provides a more comprehensive and logical approach to the world, such as in matters of purpose, morality, origin, destination, and the like, which I believe other worldviews fail to explain as sufficiently.

Hopefully that clears up my stance. Yes, there are questions to which the answer is simply "because God us God." Which are circular. This trouble of it being circular and unanswerable, I find, is still a better option than anything else, because everything else also requires a circular source and has unanswerable questions. I just think that Christianity provides that which requires the most complete set of answers to the questions of the universe with the least amount of faith to believe in it.

This all seems right to me.

The Problem of Evil doesn't have a logical answer and so it requires a faith-based solution. We've seen how "God created free will, and free will requires suffering" only covers a portion of the evil in the world and sidesteps important questions about how God is balancing these competing values. The pro-God side will need to double-down on their faith commitment that God is doing the best possible job balancing whatever goals he has for the universe.

Those of us who are not convinced by this faith claim might therefore prefer answers from outside of monotheistic traditions. If God is less than totally powerful, if there are multiple competing Gods, or if there is no God at all, then the existence of evil is much easier to explain. Of course that doesn't mean that any of these alternatives are true, but it gives the non-believer one reason not to rush to Christianity (or similar religions) to answer the big questions in life ("why do bad things happen to good people?"), especially if they've suffered some pretty serious evil that will be hard to square with a newfound belief in a single all-powerful God.

[CaptainFritz28]

If God is less than totally powerful, if there are multiple competing Gods, or if there is no God at all, then the existence of evil is much easier to explain.

I'm curious now, how do you explain the existence of evil?

[Octavious]

I'm even more concerned with the answer "maybe it is an evil and terrible, but God will fix it in the next life". Both of these things could be true, but they're both totally unfalsifiable - no matter what evil happens, these two answers are akin to the faithful giving God a get-out-of-jail free card that will not be recognized by skeptics.

I don't see anything there to concern anyone. I'm not attempting to convince any skeptic of some great truth that I've worked out. I merely seek to present a possible solution to the Jamies of this world who cannot conceive of any working model of existence in which a God who isn't a total arse can inhabit. Personally I don't believe that what I have briefly sketched out is true, but to me it seems viable and if one viable solution can be dreamed up by the likes of me then it stands to reason that a greater intelligence can come up with a large number of far more elegant solutions that satisfy justice and fairness. It is an attempt at proof of concept rather than trying to sell a finished product.

[Octavious]

I remain a little confused about your belief in God's power and domain. It seems to rest on the idea that there are concepts / rules that, once brought into existence, even God can't fine tune. So if "free will" means "free will", God has to abide by some absolutist version wherein he never gets involved in human affairs (despite setting them in motion, creating all the preconditions, etc.)? Doesn't God itself invent the meaning and purpose of concepts like "free will", and could therefore just adjust them as necessary to balance freedoms, suffering, etc., to serve some whatever God's purpose is (maximal Good)?

I am an astrophysicist by training. Ultimately the tools we have for understanding the universe are our brain, our senses, and the observations we make. My belief in God ultimately has to fit amongst the observations I make and the fundamental assumptions of the universe we all have. If God contradicted those observations I would not be able to believe in him. The God that made the universe 6,000 years ago and turned people into pillars of salt simply does not exist. But the God who created life and provides guidance to those who need it, be that in the form of the Bible or a feeling during prayer or a moment of wonder or whatever, certainly can

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

If God is less than totally powerful, if there are multiple competing Gods, or if there is no God at all, then the existence of evil is much easier to explain.

I'm curious now, how do you explain the existence of evil?

This is a great question. I keep being allowed to debate Christians without having to put forward my own view, which is unfair :)

I'm agnostic about the existence of God, but I do suspect that, if It exists, It doesn't have a lot to do with our day-to-day lives.

So that leaves me with natural explanations. An earthquake is just the inevitable expression of the laws of physics and it happens without regard to whomever might be misfortunate enough to get jostled by it. A baby gazelle getting gobbled by a lion is suffering a straightforward consequence of both animals being made from genetic blueprints that have been selected for survival.

Human evil seems to have quite a bit of overlap the suffering animals cause one another - we all have some share of rapists, freeloaders, and thugs in our ancestry, because in different circumstances these evils conferred an advantage to our ancestors' reproductive fitness. We're lucky that it happened to be the case that other, more desirable traits, also conferred reproductive fitness to humans in different circumstance such that we're also the progeny of those who cared for their families and communities, those who were able to convince others of their genuine good intentions, etc.

Human creations reflect our dual nature. We can use the State to uplift the poor, or we can use it to genocide our enemies. Evil in this context can reflect bad personal moral choices (e.g., a murderer indulging evil impulses), but it can also be a consequence of the logic of the systems we establish (e.g., every possible legal system will still accidentally imprison some innocent people).

The worst fates can strike us at any time for no real reason. There is no limiting principle to natural or human evil.

[CaptainFritz28]

What you've described is simply human nature. People do evil because it is to their advantage, and when it is no longer to their advantage, they stop doing it. I agree that that is why people do evil.

However... that doesn't explain where evil comes from, or why it exists. If it is simply a consequence of nature, why are some things bad and others good?

I suppose I see what you have said as an answer to "why do people do evil," and I agree with your analysis. That all fits with my view as well. So I suppose my question is: if there is an objective moral standard, as you claimed in the other forum (unless I misunderstand what you said there), then there is evil and there is good which are unchangeable. People do evil because it is naturally advantageous to them. But if evil is simply a product of nature, then what makes it evil, and why does it exist as such?

[Jamiet99uk]

Our difference, as I see it, is that I would choose* to minimise human suffering, even if this limits the extent of human pleasure, whereas you would like to maximise the possibility for pleasure, even if this also maximises the amount of suffering.

What a hedonist you are.


*Not that I can actually effect this choice - this is all a thought experiment.

No, you're failing to understand completely. The only reason you are motivated to end suffering, which may well be a crucial part of what makes you you, is because suffering exists. Suffering is required if you wish to live in a universe that contains people who sacrifice their own pleasures to help others. Without suffering the best of you doesn't exist. Without suffering you are a far lesser man.

So, you are saying that if Adam had obeyed God, humanity would have been a tiny shadow of its potential, forever. Yes?

[Jamiet99uk]

It wouldn't be the same. It wouldn't provide God opportunity to show love in the same way that a creation where choices have consequences does.

You don't get it, do you?

I don't think God is real, so your words mean nothing to me.

You also haven't given a reason not to believe in God, nor have you tried to explain your logic for it. You've claimed that God would be cruel, and thus He doesn't exist, but even if it were true that wouldn't be logical. You claim that God is not consistent with the universe, and yet you have not shown any reason why that would be. If God exists, and He created the universe, then He doesn't have to abide by its laws.

Put simply, you've made a bunch of claims without backing, and it makes me question what reason you have to claim that God doesn't exist. Your claims mean nothing because you have made them mean nothing, and thus I'll remain on the side that at least provides a purpose for our existence and an explanation of morality.

You claim God exists.

I claim nothing.

The burden of proof is on you, not me.

[Jamiet99uk]

@Octavious:

I think this is actually quite important.

If Adam and Eve had obeyed God's instructions, and had kept away from the tree of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, you would give your life to change Adam and Eve's decision, and to make sure they defied God's word.

That's what you're saying, yes? Directly disobeying God is correct, in this one instance, in your view? Right?

[Jamiet99uk]

While Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden with God, and before they ate the forbidden fruit, there was NO SUFFERING IN THE WORLD.

The Bible presents that as a nice, pleasant state of affairs.

I am basically saying the universe would have been better, if that state of affairs had remained.

I am advocating for the original state of affairs God put in place.

Octavious WOULD DIE to ensure that the balance of the Garden of Eden was disrupted.

.... and I'm the one who holds a controversial view?

[CaptainFritz28]

You don't get it, do you?

I don't think God is real, so your words mean nothing to me.

You also haven't given a reason not to believe in God, nor have you tried to explain your logic for it. You've claimed that God would be cruel, and thus He doesn't exist, but even if it were true that wouldn't be logical. You claim that God is not consistent with the universe, and yet you have not shown any reason why that would be. If God exists, and He created the universe, then He doesn't have to abide by its laws.

Put simply, you've made a bunch of claims without backing, and it makes me question what reason you have to claim that God doesn't exist. Your claims mean nothing because you have made them mean nothing, and thus I'll remain on the side that at least provides a purpose for our existence and an explanation of morality.

You claim God exists.

I claim nothing.

The burden of proof is on you, not me.

I claim God exists.

You claim God does not exist.

You have made that claim multiple times. We both have a burden of proof. I have given reasons for my position, and you have not. Perhaps I would respect your position if you even made a single argument for it, but at the moment your claims mean nothing to me because you have not backed them up.

[CaptainFritz28]

While Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden with God, and before they ate the forbidden fruit, there was NO SUFFERING IN THE WORLD.

The Bible presents that as a nice, pleasant state of affairs.

I am basically saying the universe would have been better, if that state of affairs had remained.

I am advocating for the original state of affairs God put in place.

Octavious WOULD DIE to ensure that the balance of the Garden of Eden was disrupted.

.... and I'm the one who holds a controversial view?

I won't speak for Oct, but I can say that I myself would die so that the world went back to the garden of Eden, when humans walked with God and we did not sin. That's irrelevant to my position, because even when these were the circumstances they still had the ability to choose sin. Even before sin was in this world, Adam and Eve had free will, because they had the option to obey God or not. Obviously, they chose the latter.

That was the perfect world. No suffering, no evil, but still free will. That was God's intention for society. We messed it up, not God.

[CaptainFritz28]

I am basically saying the universe would have been better, if that state of affairs had remained.

I am advocating for the original state of affairs God put in place.

I thought your argument was that God is cruel and unloving, and yet you want the world to be exactly as He made it, when it was good in His eyes. I completely agree that that was totally better, but they still had free will. If they didn't, then they would not have the capacity for love.

The ability to love and do good has nothing to do with people actually committing evil or choosing to sin. It only relies on the existence of free will.

[CaptainFritz28]

@Octavious:

I think this is actually quite important.

If Adam and Eve had obeyed God's instructions, and had kept away from the tree of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, you would give your life to change Adam and Eve's decision, and to make sure they defied God's word.

That's what you're saying, yes? Directly disobeying God is correct, in this one instance, in your view? Right?

Again, I can't speak for Octavious, but it has nothing to do with actually disobeying God. It has everything to do with the ability to choose to disobey Him.

[Octavious]

@Octavious:

I think this is actually quite important.

If Adam and Eve had obeyed God's instructions, and had kept away from the tree of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, you would give your life to change Adam and Eve's decision, and to make sure they defied God's word.

That's what you're saying, yes? Directly disobeying God is correct, in this one instance, in your view? Right?

Are you calling me the serpent?

I view the Adam and Eve story as a metaphor for humanity's transition from being just another animal to being something more, the thinking ape with the ability to consider the future and try to consciously change it. Obviously I was never there and never could be there, so we are talking purely in terms of hypotheticals, but I will attempt to answer in the spirit of the question.

Now, as we are talking about the birth of humanity becoming human and showing free will, the idea that an external force telling them what to do could be beneficial is very much missing the point, so I wouldn't interfere purely from that perspective. The whole point is that it is Adam and Eve's choice. If I choose for them the significance is destroyed.

But also, at that point in time their was no wealth of humanity to lose, so nothing to die for. You would enslave the world in a misguided attempt at kindness. That is something worth dying to prevent, not a couple of apes deciding whether to ponder their existence or just lie in the sun eating mango all day.

As to whether it was right or wrong, who is to say? We may well have been better off sitting in the branches of the trees and munching on bananas for eternity. But that's not what happened, and I for one am very glad that the metaphorical apple was eaten

[Jamiet99uk]

You also haven't given a reason not to believe in God, nor have you tried to explain your logic for it. You've claimed that God would be cruel, and thus He doesn't exist, but even if it were true that wouldn't be logical. You claim that God is not consistent with the universe, and yet you have not shown any reason why that would be. If God exists, and He created the universe, then He doesn't have to abide by its laws.

Put simply, you've made a bunch of claims without backing, and it makes me question what reason you have to claim that God doesn't exist. Your claims mean nothing because you have made them mean nothing, and thus I'll remain on the side that at least provides a purpose for our existence and an explanation of morality.

You claim God exists.

I claim nothing.

The burden of proof is on you, not me.

I claim God exists.

You claim God does not exist.

You have made that claim multiple times. We both have a burden of proof. I have given reasons for my position, and you have not. Perhaps I would respect your position if you even made a single argument for it, but at the moment your claims mean nothing to me because you have not backed them up.

Hogwash. You claim a specific thing / entity exists. I make no claim. I reject yours.

[CaptainFritz28]

Atheism is simply a complete lack of religious faith, a state of non-belief in gods.

That's all. Atheism doesn't have commandments or advocate for a specific way of living.

We just don't think God exists. That's it.

I beg to differ. You claimed here that God does not exist.

[CaptainFritz28]

I don't know anything about God, clearly. This is not a huge problem for me because I don't imagine that God exists.

Okay, first Awesome. You've moved from not being able to conceive of God to simply not imagining He exists. That's movement in the right direction. Good deal.

For someone who doesn't know anything about God though (and it may have been a sarcastic remark, I'm not 100% sure.) You seem to make a lot of statements about Him, and you're not really receptive to anyone else's counter proposals about Him. I've met very strict Christians who are more yielding to diverse ideas than you appear to be on this one.

Whatever. I'm tired of these games.

There's no God, and if there was, he would be an abusive parent not worthy of worship.

I'm done.

And here, in the other forum.