'I think that most theologians would agree it's passed that test with pretty good marks.'

haha, you should ask some Muslim theologians, i'm pretty sure their book does just aswell, if not better.

'But it suffers the exact same flaws as that of God-based creation.'

Except it doesn't assume anything beyond what we have evidence for.

Q: If God can program us however he likes, why are we programmed to "need" evil to appreciate good? This has been a key line of argument with some of the posts in here, and I don't get it. It presupposes that humans must be unable to appreciate good without evil. Whether or not this holds is a matter for debate; I actually think it's somewhat convincing, but it only moves the problem back a step. Why were we made this way?

Similarly... There's a big contradiction in two pivotal ideas mentioned here. The first is that God chose methods of justice, order and mercy in Old Testament times that would be abhorrent to us today because people in Old Testament times wouldn't understand it any other way. The second is that we're capable of asking all of these questions and being puzzled and left wondering about the answers. Why, if God chooses to act in ways that the contemporary people of the era can understand, does He not act in ways which we contemporary people of this era can understand?

I'd disagree, orathaic. I'd say the singularity is more guess than evidence at this point. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as it's our very best guess based on our very limited evidence.

The original cause would have to be something that was not only of this universe(s), but also distinct from it. That is the argument.

@singularity, i keep thinking we're talking about the other singularity, the transhumanist idea....

'since nature requires a first cause, I'd be more inclined to go with the supernatural explanation than the natural one. Give me evidence to the contrary, and I will gladly change my mind.'

IF nature requires a first cause. Quantum mechanics never seems to have first causes, stuff just happens in the vacumn, and we can't ever predict when, it seem probabilistic. Now that doesn't explain where the laws of quantum mechanics came from...

But again, if God is allowed to escape the need for first causes, then so can anything else, you just have to consider that possibility (and the infinite other options) or NOT choose to put your faith in an unprovable. Accept that you can't answer certain question, and that anyone who claims they can is lying to you.

'The original cause would have to be something that was not only of this universe(s), but also distinct from it.'

But WHY would it have to be, especially when we see features in this universe which have no cause?

@Eden--My argument is based on the nature of good and evil, not humanity. Opposites need each other. Up and down, justice and injustice, hot and cold, good and evil. A chemist might tell you that in reality cold does not exist--it's merely the lack of heat. I would say that good and evil work the same way.

I never said we should be puzzled by questions. I have taken several courses on the Old Testament in college and I have had a rather vigorous religious education through Church. I think that it is understandable. If we put ourselves in the shoes of the people of the time and keep in mind what they were going through and understood about their role in society and the world at large, we can understand. The mistake is when we take our modern view and look at a distant time and place and expect people to act and feel as we do now.

In fact, lets look at this again... if you sit looking at the vacumn closely and for long enough, stuff happens, and no cause can be distinguished.

We can work out some probabilistic mathematics to model these events, but they seem random. And they are everywhere, are the rule not 'of this universe but also distinct from it'? in the sense that platonic ideals are distinct from this universe of shadows?

"But again, if God is allowed to escape the need for first causes, then so can anything else, you just have to consider that possibility (and the infinite other options) or NOT choose to put your faith in an unprovable."

Sure, something else that had the same abilities as God could also escape the need for a first cause. But I'd say there is nothing else that fits that description.

Do you mean quantum fluctuations?

Fair enough, orathaic. Quantum mechanics could be the answer to the first cause. But we obviously don't know enough yet to make any sort of prediction or model explaining the role of quantum mechanics and the singularity. I'd be very glad to see it when it comes.

@RavenKing, Surely we could have the idea of evil without anyone actually doing evil.

I mean, if we assume god is omnipotent, we know humans use the pre-frontal cortex (front part of our brain) to control/suppress urges, we can choose not to act on anger or fear, or love, or lust (for whatever rational reason we concoct). Why not make us better at this, why have illness like dementia which degrade the function of the pre-frontal cortex, why have children not develop a fully functioning pre-frontal cortex until they are ~25, why is removal of the pre-frontal cortex (lobotomy) not always fatal?

We could imagine doing bad things, being tempted, without the weakness of self-control.

Now I thought that the quantum fluctuation vacuum story had been debunked. Small amounts of energy/mass are in fact present in these so called vacuums.

"But we obviously don't know enough yet to make any sort of prediction or model explaining the role of quantum mechanics and the singularity. I'd be very glad to see it when it comes. "

and we CERTAINLY do not know enough yet to say that the cause is your Christian God.

And TheRavenKing, you completely miss the point of Eden's argument, miscontruing it like you miscontrue lots of things here. As far as you see it, God has set limits on us. For instance, we are only able to see certain frequencies of the wave spectrum, and others are invisible to us. Since God has set such limits on us, why not set it up so that we can distinguish good without evil (and I already think that we can/could, as I have argued)? Then he could get us to do good without genocides, dying babies, slaughters, thieves, disease, earthquakes, suffering, depression etc.

'Do you mean quantum fluctuations?' - em, sure. Why not? Using physics jargon doesn't really add to my meaning, does it?

The uncaused virtual particle. (and yes, we don't have a quantum theory of gravity which would apply during the big bang, yet.)

'Sure, something else that had the same abilities as God could also escape the need for a first cause. But I'd say there is nothing else that fits that description.'

A) the Universe
B) Alah,
C) the gaping abyss of Ginnungagap (see norse mythology)
D) Primordial chaos....

'Now I thought that the quantum fluctuation vacuum story had been debunked. Small amounts of energy/mass are in fact present in these so called vacuums.'

cite your source so i can have a good read, i like to keep up with physics.

As I have stated, the millions of impoverished children in Africa blow apart all of your arguments. They never had any free will, never had any choice - they just have a short life of misery. If you think that kind of evil is a complement to you doing good, then you're sick. And if you think that God would ever allow that travesty to happen, then you're demented.

Orathaic, what you're proposing is to diminish our ability to choose freely. The entire point of being human is that we can choose freely. As for illness, death, etc, I believe that sin entering the world caused this. When the world is remade and sin is vanquished, your dream will come true. But right now we have an a wonderful and heroic chance--we can choose good because we wish to do so. Our humanity is incumbent upon the ability to do evil.

"But right now we have an a wonderful and heroic chance--we can choose good because we wish to do so. Our humanity is incumbent upon the ability to do evil."

The most stupid argument of all. I can't even be bothered to begin arguing against this one.

@TheRavenKing, it sounds like you are arguing from a 17th century theologians point of you, bringing up free will, Pascal's Wager and ignoring the scientific method without comprehending all of massive problems that modernity has with ALL of the arguments that you cite.

*point of view!

''Orathaic, what you're proposing is to diminish our ability to choose freely. The entire point of being human is that we can choose freely.''

No i'm not, i'm talking about enhancing our ability, as others have proposed, if we could recognise good&evil and then choose... oh and wait human don't have free will, it's an illusion created by the brain. We're capable of responding to our environment and the constructed model of it we learn... And the only proof you have to contradict this position is that your brain has created the subjective illusion of your own free will.

@fulhamish - go back to your live game ;p

I never said evil is a complement to doing good and I never would. Starving children in Africa is horrible. And you're right, they never had the choice to escape evil. But then again, that's not what we're talking about. It's the horrible politicians and warlords taking advantage of these children that are evil, and they do have a choice. They made the wrong one. And you and I have a choice, to try to help these children or not.

But you have to remember that I also don't believe there's anything short about their life. You have never met a mere mortal. These children may be done on earth, but that's far from the end. And I believe that God will not turn a blind eye to the suffering they endured. Meanwhile, the corrupt men who abused these children, in exchange for power and pleasure for this short life, will reap what they sowed. This does not excuse evil or ease pain, but it does provide hope and help us remember that all hurts will be mended and justice will happen.

But even God will forsake those poor suffering children who happened to grow up in Muslim areas and weren't baptised, because it is only through Jesus (as i learned on another thread) that you will find heaven. Right?

Lol Ora, I think I will be finished pretty soon. :-)

"But you have to remember that I also don't believe there's anything short about their life. You have never met a mere mortal."

Yes I have - I'd like to see some proof for your belief in an afterlife!

"Meanwhile, the corrupt men who abused these children, in exchange for power and pleasure for this short life, will reap what they sowed."

Getting pretty black and white here! Often these 'corrupt men' are fearful, terrified and abused themselves, and simply doing what they can to survive. They don't have a whole lot of free will themselves. It is the system that is broken, and not really any of the individuals inside it.

"This does not excuse evil or ease pain, but it does provide hope and help us remember that all hurts will be mended and justice will happen."

No it won't. Keep believing this lovely narrative if you like, if it makes you feel better about the disaster that is the world.

I'm not so sure about that. I believe that every single person has an opportunity to follow Christ. That choice may come in a very different form in a place like Riyadh or Bengal. I think I remember a Biblical basis for this belief, but for the life of me I cannot remember the verse. I haven't done a whole lot of research into this aspect of my faith, seeing as how it doesn't affect me too much, but I know others have done a lot of work into this question.

"My argument is based on the nature of good and evil, not humanity. Opposites need each other. Up and down, justice and injustice, hot and cold, good and evil. A chemist might tell you that in reality cold does not exist--it's merely the lack of heat. I would say that good and evil work the same way."

None of that answered why we're programmed to need it to work this way. The cold/heat analogy is flawed because heat is an observable physical phenomenon (and cold is 'observable' by proxy -- as a relative absence of heat). You can't take a thermometer or equivalent instrument and determine an object's "good" or "bad"; the analogy is painfully pseudoscientific. What you said earlier is that humans understand evil as the absence of good, and that's why they need each other; and again I ask, why are we programmed to? If you think humans need violence, pain and scarcity to appreciate peace, love, and comfort, why did God program them this way?

"I never said we should be puzzled by questions. I have taken several courses on the Old Testament in college and I have had a rather vigorous religious education through Church. I think that it is understandable. If we put ourselves in the shoes of the people of the time and keep in mind what they were going through and understood about their role in society and the world at large, we can understand. The mistake is when we take our modern view and look at a distant time and place and expect people to act and feel as we do now."

Again you didn't answer the question. "Why is there evil and suffering in the world?" "What physical evidence is there for a God?" "Do we really have free will?" All of these questions are widely asked in our time, and whatever you might think, there is no broadly accepted answer for any of them. It is extraordinarily clear that the existence of so many serious questions about the way God works is indicative of the fact that God is not working in a way we, modern man, can understand, today. "God works in mysterious ways" isn't some cheap throwaway line, it's often a serious answer to these questions. Why, if God resorted to genocide in the Old Testament because "that's the only way Old Testament peoples could understand him," has he decided not to act in ways we understand now?