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.