Could A Good God Permit So Much Suffering?

[gmark77]

If by "Absentee God" you mean the Deist "Watchmaker God", I don't have a problem with it.

Oh I agree. It's a perfectly workable solution. I just feel it has no real explanatory value and since it cannot be characterized in any objective manner and it has no imperatives it wishes from us then it has no real value to me.

Unlike atheists who believe the Universe just magically popped into existence for no rhyme or reason

But this isn't a better explanation. It's just a placeholder that has no objective characteristics, cannot be detected and has no imperatives we need to comply with. It's nothing more than a place holder for an idea.

, I believe there is a rhyme and reason for the existence of the Universe. Using a "God" as a placeholder for that creation works for me.

I can see that. That, however, presupposes a rational God that has some definite characteristics. Like "intelligence". That just opens up a whole can of worms about "where does God come from?"

We can't just say "God is eternal" unless we can also say the same thing about the Universe (there's one variant of cosmology that supposes an eternal universe in a cyclical state of bigbang-expansion-existence-collapse-repeat or the M-theory of branes which touch etc.)

Is it important that the physical laws make sense? Yes and no. If the laws didn't function correctly nothing would exist. It's kind of like the argument against the Ontological Argument which treats "existence" as some predicate, but Kant notes that is incorrect.

But let's play this game out a few more steps: what if the universe is an eternal yo-yo of existence-collapse-existence-collapse and in each iteration the universe that is spawned has dramatically different sets of "constants" which result in dramatically different if not impossible universes

But at the end of it all: it's all just guesses. There may not even be a way to know anything about any of this. Perhaps this is the PERFECT item for true agnosticism. The answer simply cannot be known becasue we are within the system and can't see outside of it.

Atheist whine that God allows suffering. Kindergarteners whine that grownups are mean for making them go to school. Those two ideas have a lot of similarity.

The "Problem of Evil" is actually far removed from this part of the conversation. The P.O.E. really only matters if God is a personal God that interacts with his creation and has requirements and is as advertised (Omnipotent and all-loving).

For the Watchmaker God who is absent there is no "POE" if only because that God has no objective description but is a placeholder whose only requirements are: "to exist" and "to create logically consistent laws which allow for existence"

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Oh I agree. It's a perfectly workable solution. I just feel it has no real explanatory value and since it cannot be characterized in any objective manner and it has no imperatives it wishes from us then it has no real value to me.



But this isn't a better explanation. It's just a placeholder that has no objective characteristics, cannot be detected and has no imperatives we need to comply with. It's nothing more than a place holder for an idea.




I can see that. That, however, presupposes a rational God that has some definite characteristics. Like "intelligence". That just opens up a whole can of worms about "where does God come from?"

We can't just say "God is eternal" unless we can also say the same thing about the Universe (there's one variant of cosmology that supposes an eternal universe in a cyclical state of bigbang-expansion-existence-collapse-repeat or the M-theory of branes which touch etc.)

Is it important that the physical laws make sense? Yes and no. If the laws didn't function correctly nothing would exist. It's kind of like the argument against the Ontological Argument which treats "existence" as some predicate, but Kant notes that is incorrect.

But let's play this game out a few more steps: what if the universe is an eternal yo-yo of existence-collapse-existence-collapse and in each iteration the universe that is spawned has dramatically different sets of "constants" which result in dramatically different if not impossible universes

But at the end of it all: it's all just guesses. There may not even be a way to know anything about any of this. Perhaps this is the PERFECT item for true agnosticism. The answer simply cannot be known becasue we are within the system and can't see outside of it.




The "Problem of Evil" is actually far removed from this part of the conversation. The P.O.E. really only matters if God is a personal God that interacts with his creation and has requirements and is as advertised (Omnipotent and all-loving).

For the Watchmaker God who is absent there is no "POE" if only because that God has no objective description but is a placeholder whose only requirements are: "to exist" and "to create logically consistent laws which allow for existence"

That's a lot to respond to in a single post so I'll pick and choose.

If defining "eternal" as being timeless or outside of time, then by definition anything existing outside the Universe would be "eternal".

The Oscillating Universe theory has been downgraded in favor of evidence supporting a universe that expands to complete entropy. There's only so much mass in the Universe so, spread out far enough, nothing can exist except molecules lightyears apart. Heat Death AKA "The Big Chill". https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-big-freeze-how-the-universe-will-die/
There's still the mystery of both Dark Matter and Dark Energy, but the evidence points to Heat Death.

The human perception of our universe is its dichotomy. Hot Cold, Up Down, Left Right, Good Evil. Although it doesn't apply to all the dichotomies, like Cold is the absence of Heat, Evil can be seen as an absence of Good. Since humans have choices, they also have the choice of Good or Not-So-Good if not a complete absence of Good meaning Evil.

 

[Cypress]

If by "Absentee God" you mean the Deist "Watchmaker God", I don't have a problem with it. Unlike atheists who believe the Universe just magically popped into existence for no rhyme or reason, I believe there is a rhyme and reason for the existence of the Universe. Using a "God" as a placeholder for that creation works for me.

As for the Watchmaker, space-time exists inside the Universe as part of its structure. Outside, no one knows even if there is an outside, but if there is, then time is meaningless. Hence the term "eternity". It's not like a watchmaker who winds up an watch and walks away forever. More like a watchmaker who winds up a watch and watches it wind down without interference.

Atheist whine that God allows suffering. Kindergarteners whine that grownups are mean for making them go to school. Those two ideas have a lot of similarity.

Reconciling Deism and Puritanism in Benjamin Franklin - Yale University Press

Thomas S. Kidd— Americans incessantly debate the role of religion in our nation’s origins. Was America founded as a Christian nation? Or was the American Revolution mostly championed by Enlightenment... READ MORE

yalebooks.yale.edu

Some deists espoused the classic “watchmaker” view of God: the deity had wound up the world and went away, never to be involved with humankind again.

Nice work.

We have definitely moved the discourse past longstanding atheist claims that believing in theism is just as irrational and unreasonable as believing in invisible leprechauns.

There's no question theism can be based on reason and logical inference.

I would modify to say the classical Christian apologist position is not only based the appearance of the universe out of nothing 13.7 billion years ago.

The classical Christian apologist reasoning for theism is based on multiple, mutually supporting lines of rational reasoning.

There is your cosmological argument.

There is the teleological argument.

There is the moral argument.

And there is the witness testimony about Jesus, at least the reliable parts.


I think the cosmological argument and teleological argument are pretty powerful. There really is no convincing argument to really undermine them at this time.

 

[Cypress]

That's a lot to respond to in a single post so I'll pick and choose.

If defining "eternal" as being timeless or outside of time, then by definition anything existing outside the Universe would be "eternal".

The Oscillating Universe theory has been downgraded in favor of evidence supporting a universe that expands to complete entropy. There's only so much mass in the Universe so, spread out far enough, nothing can exist except molecules lightyears apart. Heat Death AKA "The Big Chill". https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-big-freeze-how-the-universe-will-die/
There's still the mystery of both Dark Matter and Dark Energy, but the evidence points to Heat Death.

The human perception of our universe is its dichotomy. Hot Cold, Up Down, Left Right, Good Evil. Although it doesn't apply to all the dichotomies, like Cold is the absence of Heat, Evil can be seen as an absence of Good. Since humans have choices, they also have the choice of Good or Not-So-Good if not a complete absence of Good meaning Evil.

You are correct. We have known for almost 30 years that there is no tangible evidence for a Big Crunch or an oscillating universe. All evidence points in the opposite direction.

The heat death looks like the most likely outcome. Protons theoretically have a half life and are supposed to decay after trillions of years, meaning atomic nuclei and molecules won't even be possible. AFAIK the only stable fundamental particles left hanging around after the heat death are supposed to be a diffuse haze of electrons and neutrinos.

 

[gmark77]

I think the cosmological argument and teleological argument are pretty powerful. There really is no convincing argument to really undermine them at this time.

The only problem I have with the Cosmological Argument, specifically the first uncaused cause, is that it ultimately fails for the very reason it exists. It requires God have no cause.

And, again, if God is merely defined as the "first uncaused cause" that is nothing more than a place holder for some as-yet-unknown thing. And the only reason the placeholder needs to be there is because the claimant simply states that it is.

The Oscillating Universe theory has been downgraded in favor of evidence supporting a universe that expands to complete entropy.

I merely mentioned the "yo-yo" type universe as a hypothetical. Insert any number of potential "eternal universe" scenarios or even eternal "hyper-universes" in which our universe exists etc.

The point being that "God" is no more valuable than proposing an eternal universe of some form.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I merely mentioned the "yo-yo" type universe as a hypothetical. Insert any number of potential "eternal universe" scenarios or even eternal "hyper-universes" in which our universe exists etc.

The point being that "God" is no more valuable than proposing an eternal universe of some form.

I just follow the science. So far, Heat Death is the direction we're headed which means a one-shot universe.
FWIW, I also think the multiverse theory is likely. An infinite number of universes.

God, per the discussion, is outside the universe. Our universe, while having an end of Heat Death, is still inside the boundaries of this universe.

 

[Cypress]

The point being that "God" is no more valuable than proposing an eternal universe of some form.

To me, an eternal universe can be dismissed on both logical and empirical grounds.

If the universe was infinitely old, today would have never gotten here.

There is no tangible evidence for an an eternal universe or multiverse.


The universe we live seems curiously mathematically rational and too finely tuned for it to be a random accident.

 

[IBDaMann]

So you refuse to explain why you act like you want to get the details of physics right, but then intentionally ignored the most scientifically ignorant comment on the entire thread because it came from your beloved boyfriend ITN.

So you refuse to remain on topic and to remain pivoted to ignoring my comments. Let me know when something changes and you wish to get back on topic.

 

[IBDaMann]

To me, an eternal universe can be dismissed on both logical and empirical grounds.

I can tell this is going to be good.

If the universe was infinitely old, today would have never gotten here.

So, your argument is that whatever day it is in an infinitely old universe ... somehow isn't, i.e. there can be no such thing as an infinitely old universe essentially because you have declared such.

There is no tangible evidence for an an eternal universe or multiverse.

How do you know? You don't even know what constitutes evidence of an infinitely old universe, so you wouldn't recognize it if you were to find it.

The universe we live seems curiously mathematically rational and too finely tuned for it to be a random accident.

You are too stupid to learn. You have been told many times that the universe appears to be a totally random dust cloud that is hostile to terrestrial life except for the tiny piece of a flake of a fraction of a relatively infinitesimal speck of a dot of matter within it. You cannot show how any part of this "totally hostile to terrestrial life" universe is somehow "finely tuned" in any way. Your implication that there is a "tuner" is rejected out of hand until you admit that you are speaking entirely of your religious faith and that everything you assert requires prior religious belief.

 

[gmark77]

To me, an eternal universe can be dismissed on both logical and empirical grounds.

If the universe was infinitely old, today would have never gotten here.

Yes, the infinite series "problem". That still seems like a stretch. If there are an infinite number of stars in the heavens then one can never count more than 1?

There is no tangible evidence for an an eternal universe or multiverse.

And there is no tangible evidence of an intelligence beyond the universe. Which is kind of my point. The proposal of "God" is exactly equivalent since there is no evidence for either proposal.

The universe we live seems curiously mathematically rational and too finely tuned for it to be a random accident.

Do you think the water in the puddle marvels that it could find the exact shape hole to fit into? This is the problem from being trapped inside the system. You can't look around you and say "Yeah, this must be special because it allows me to live". That's the core of the anthropic principle.

All we know is this universe. What if it is part of a "hyper universe" in which new universes spawn each with radically different values to their laws, some of which can function, some of which spontaneously fail.

The point being that my proposal of this "eternal hyper universe" is literally as good as your proposal of "God".

 

[gmark77]

I just follow the science. So far, Heat Death is the direction we're headed which means a one-shot universe.
FWIW, I also think the multiverse theory is likely. An infinite number of universes.

God, per the discussion, is outside the universe. Our universe, while having an end of Heat Death, is still inside the boundaries of this universe.

Then use the "eternal hyper universe" scenario. The results are the same. We both make proposals neither of which can be proven or disproven and neither of which provides any useful information.

What makes one more desirable as an explanation than the other and why?

 

[Cypress]

Yes, the infinite series "problem". That still seems like a stretch. If there are an infinite number of stars in the heavens then one can never count more than 1?

There is no evidence there are an infinite amount of stars.

And there is no tangible evidence of an intelligence beyond the universe. Which is kind of my point. The proposal of "God" is exactly equivalent since there is no evidence for either proposal.

The Big Crunch has basically been ruled out by empirical data.

There is no empirical data one way or the other for a designer.

The argument for God comes from rationality, aka logic inference, not from empiricism. Rationality gets equal footing with empiricism in the pantheon of human knowledge.

Creation and lawful design imply a Designer. Design and order do not come from chaos and chance.
That is a perfectly rational logical inference, whether or not one agrees that the conclusion flows from the premises.

Do you think the water in the puddle marvels that it could find the exact shape hole to fit into? This is the problem from being trapped inside the system. You can't look around you and say "Yeah, this must be special because it allows me to live". That's the core of the anthropic principle.

All we know is this universe. What if it is part of a "hyper universe" in which new universes spawn each with radically different values to their laws, some of which can function, some of which spontaneously fail.

The point being that my proposal of this "eternal hyper universe" is literally as good as your proposal of "God".

Those aren't convincing arguments. There is no evidence of a hyper universe, a multiverse, a Big Crunch, an eternal universe, an infinite universe. Appealing to a multiverse strikes me as an example of an unsupported ad hoc way of sweeping fine tuning under the rug.

That leaves us with one universe that seems to be mathematically rational and finely tuned at a razor's edge to allow for atomic matter and a stable durable universe.

The question that naturally arises is why would it be that way. You could say it is an incredibly amazing chance coincidence. But I don't believe coincidences make good arguments.

Just throwing up one's hands in exasperation and declaring "that's just the way it is" is not an explanation of anything, and is actually intellectually lazy.

I spent a number of years trying to convince myself that theism was totally irrational and unreasonable, and I never could cross that threshold. If anything, I found that theism could be approached on a rational basis, while atheism offered no explanations and possibly required even more faith and miracles than theism did.

 

[gmark77]

There is no evidence there are an infinite amount of stars.

The Big Crunch has basically been ruled out by empirical data.
There is no empirical data one way or the other for a designer.

The argument for God comes from rationality, aka logic inference, not from empiricism. Rationality gets equal footing with empiricism in the pantheon of human knowledge.

Creation and lawful design imply a Designer. Design and order do not come from chaos and chance.
That is a perfectly rational logical inference, whether or not one agrees that the conclusion flows from the premises.

Those aren't convincing arguments. There is no evidence of a hyper universe, a multiverse, a Big Crunch, an eternal universe, an infinite universe. Appealing to a multiverse strikes me as an example of an unsupported ad hoc way of sweeping fine tuning under the rug.

That leaves us with one universe that seems to be mathematically rational and finely tuned at a razor's edge to allow for atomic matter and a stable durable universe.

The question that naturally arises is why would it be that way. You could say it is an incredibly amazing chance coincidence. But I don't believe coincidences make good arguments.

I sense you might be missing the larger point. You can tell me there is no evidence for various cosmologies but you can't allow the self-same limitations on "God". There is no evidence for "God" anymore than there is evidence for an eternal hyperuniverse. They are exactly equivalent.

Just throwing up one's hands and declaring "that's just the way it is" is not an explanation of anything, and is actually intellectually lazy.

Throwing up one's hands and saying "God did it" is equally intellectually lazy in that it provides nothing of value to the conversation. It's a place holder.

I spent a number of years trying to convince myself that theism was totally irrational and unreasonable, and I never could cross that threshold.

I spent years trying to figure out why there was no objective proof of any God or gods. I couldn't make it over the threshold of belief for belief's sake. And I gave it a GOOD 35 years worth of effort.

If anything, I found that theism could be approached on a rational basis, while atheism offered no explanations and possibly required even more faith and miracles than theism did.

It sounds like you didn't really grasped atheism per se. If you think it requires "faith" then you missed the point of atheism.

 

[Cypress]

I sense you might be missing the larger point. You can tell me there is no evidence for various cosmologies but you can't allow the self-same limitations on "God". There is no evidence for "God" anymore than there is evidence for an eternal hyperuniverse. They are exactly equivalent.



Throwing up one's hands and saying "God did it" is equally intellectually lazy in that it provides nothing of value to the conversation. It's a place holder.



I spent years trying to figure out why there was no objective proof of any God or gods. I couldn't make it over the threshold of belief for belief's sake. And I gave it a GOOD 35 years worth of effort.



It sounds like you didn't really grasped atheism per se. If you think it requires "faith" then you missed the point of atheism.

The empirical argument Christians have is that the historical witness testimony about Jesus is evidence of a higher power, a providential authority. Even atheist scholars accept some testimony from the New Testament as reliable.


The rational argument for theism is that design, order, mathematical rationality come from a designer.

Design, order, rationality do not pop into existence out of nothing.

That is a powerful argument that cannot be dismissed as irrational and unreasonable.


The multiverse has no empirical evidence, and didn't even exist as a hypothesis until scientists started realizing in the 1990s that the universe was finely tuned on the edge of a razor blade. That's always struck me as an ad hoc idea to sweep fine tuning under the rug.


The bottom line is that the atheist claims that religious belief is irrational and unreasonable doesn't hold water for me.

 

[gmark77]

The empirical argument Christians have is that the historical witness testimony about Jesus is evidence of a higher power, a providential authority. Even atheist scholars accept some testimony from the New Testament as reliable.

I don't believe that there was a man in Judea 2025 years ago who walked on water and rose from the dead. Sorry, but the ancients told lots of stories and believed lots of things. Flying snakes, people with faces in their chests, all written quite authoritatitvely.

I have little doubt there was an a apocalyptic preacher wandering Judea at the time. There were a BUNCH of such people at this time and place. And I even think that whoever wrote his words often wrote some amazingly good things.

But it wasn't God.

The rational argument is that design, order, mathematical rationality come from a designer.

So where did the design come from? Where did the intelligence that is your version of God come from?

Design, order, rationality do not pop into existence out of nothing.

You sure about that?

That is a powerful argument that cannot be dismissed as irrational and unreasonable.

It can easily be dismissed since you have no way to make the declaration in the first place. I mean just take virtual particles and the Casimir effect to dismiss it.

The multiverse has no empirical evidence, and didn't even exist as a hypothesis until scientists started realizing in the 1990s that the universe was finely tuned on the edge of a razor blade. That's always struck me as an ad hoc idea to sweep fine tuning under the rug.

And proposing "God" is somehow a superior concept? How so?

 

[Cypress]

I don't believe that there was a man in Judea 2025 years ago who walked on water and rose from the dead. Sorry, but the ancients told lots of stories and believed lots of things. Flying snakes, people with faces in their chests, all written quite authoritatitvely.

I have little doubt there was an a apocalyptic preacher wandering Judea at the time. There were a BUNCH of such people at this time and place. And I even think that whoever wrote his words often wrote some amazingly good things.

But it wasn't God.



So where did the design come from? Where did the intelligence that is your version of God come from?



You sure about that?



It can easily be dismissed since you have no way to make the declaration in the first place. I mean just take virtual particles and the Casimir effect to dismiss it.



And proposing "God" is somehow a superior concept? How so?

You don't have to accept the witness testimony of the New Testament.

You don't have to accept the cosmological argument.

You don't have to accept the teleological argument.

You don't have to accept the moral argument.


But I think the honest person has to accept that Christianity does not have to be irrational, unreasonable, a primitive superstition.

I think the honest person has to accept that there is a rational basis for Christianity, whether one agrees with it or not.


I have found very little that is rational in atheism and physical materialism. It would require in me a massive leap of faith to believe that:
something can come from nothing;
that design and order can come form pure chance;
and that life and rationality just accidentally comes from inanimate non-life.

 

[gmark77]

You don't have to accept the witness testimony of the New Testament.

That's good.

You don't have to accept the cosmological argument.

I wouldn't be alone.

You don't have to accept the teleological argument.

I would like to see how one assesses "design".

You don't have to accept the moral argument.

That's easy to dismiss.

But I think the honest person has to accept that Christianity does not have to be irrational, unreasonable, a primitive superstition.

"honest" person? Well I guess I'm dishonest because I kind of find the literal concept of God manifesting himself as a human in a tiny backwater corner of the Roman Empire in order to sacrifice himself to himself to atone his creation to himself is kind of irrational.

Now, don't get me wrong, the metaphor of man atoning to God is moving and interesting. But I see no reason that it be so patently obvious that only about half the planet will burn in hell for failing to believe in it.

I think the honest person has to accept that there is a rational basis for Christianity, whether one agrees with it or not.

This is an interesting gambit. The "rational basis" argument says nothing about the necessity for God to exist.

And might I note now you are no longer advocating for a deistic type of God but rather a very specific God with very specific features many of which defy rational explanation. It might be better to stick with the general nearly meaningless concept of "God as intelligence behind the universe".

I have found very little that is rational in atheism and physical materialism. It would require in me a massive leap of faith to believe that:
something can come from nothing;

Casimir effect.

that design and order can come form pure chance;

Random process often result in localized order. This is part of why the "intelligent design" advocates in Creationism fail as well and further because there isn't really a means to determine "design" vs "undesigned" in a natural system.

and that life and rationality just accidentally comes from inanimate non-life.

That would seem obvious. Life and non-life share the exact same chemistry and the same elements. There are non-life analogues to life-chemistry that occur naturally without life. And life bears hallmarks of having come from non-life. But most importantly: where else could life have come from????

 

[Cypress]

That's good.



I wouldn't be alone.



I would like to see how one assesses "design".



That's easy to dismiss.



"honest" person? Well I guess I'm dishonest because I kind of find the literal concept of God manifesting himself as a human in a tiny backwater corner of the Roman Empire in order to sacrifice himself to himself to atone his creation to himself is kind of irrational.

You then have to claim the witness testimony in the New Testament is all lies and fabrications, and the rationality of that assumption could be debated.

Now, don't get me wrong, the metaphor of man atoning to God is moving and interesting. But I see no reason that it be so patently obvious that only about half the planet will burn in hell for failing to believe in it.



This is an interesting gambit. The "rational basis" argument says nothing about the necessity for God to exist.

The cosmological argument and the teleological argument do not prove a God of Abraham exists. It does reasonably point to some kind of rational and purposeful author of the universe. Random chance does not explain exquisite order and design.

And might I note now you are no longer advocating for a deistic type of God but rather a very specific God with very specific features many of which defy rational explanation. It might be better to stick with the general nearly meaningless concept of "God as intelligence behind the universe".



Casimir effect.



Random process often result in localized order. This is part of why the "intelligent design" advocates in Creationism fail as well and further because there isn't really a means to determine "design" vs "undesigned" in a natural system.



That would seem obvious. Life and non-life share the exact same chemistry and the same elements. There are non-life analogues to life-chemistry that occur naturally without life. And life bears hallmarks of having come from non-life. But most importantly: where else could life have come from????

Atheists are obligated to explain how mathematically rational order and design can just pop into existence out of nothing by random chance if they want to claim they are being more rational than theists.

The data we have says there is no eternal universe, there is no Big Crunch;
the universe can't be infinitely old because that would be logically irrational. Infinity is uncountable, and today would have never gotten here.
Invoking a multiverse to attempt to dismiss the teleological argument is unconvincing, because a multiverse has no explanatory power for creation.

 

[gmark77]

You then have to claim the witness testimony in the New Testament is all lies and fabrications, and the rationality of that assumption could be debated.

Yeah, I have zero problem with saying that no one actually saw a man come back from the dead. I'm completely comfortable in saying that no man in Judea in the year 0 AD walked on water.

Just as I am quite comfortable in saying there were no talking snakes or talking donkeys, despite both being in the Bible.

Atheists are obligated to explain how mathematically rational order and design can just pop into existence out of nothing by random chance if they want to claim they are being more rational than theists.

No they aren't. Where did you get that from?

 

[Cypress]

If by "Absentee God" you mean the Deist "Watchmaker God", I don't have a problem with it. Unlike atheists who believe the Universe just magically popped into existence for no rhyme or reason, I believe there is a rhyme and reason for the existence of the Universe. Using a "God" as a placeholder for that creation works for me.

Based on the creation, order, and design of the cosmos it is perfectly rational to infer there is a rational author of the universe.

The rank and file fire-and-brimstone Xtians are annoying because they tend to be irrational and don't ground their diffuse beliefs in any kind of reason.

Atheist whine that God allows suffering. Kindergarteners whine that grownups are mean for making them go to school. Those two ideas have a lot of similarity.

Unless one thinks we are just meat robots, you have to link sin and evil to our ability to freely choose.