Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Parallellism is atheological and theistic arguments

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Parallellism is atheological and theistic arguments

    From Robin Collins
    Typically, the atheist argument against God based on evil takes a similar form to the core version of the fine-tuning argument. Essentially, the atheist argues that the existence of the kind of evils we find in the world is very improbable under theism, but not improbable under atheism. Thus, by the prime principle of confirmation, they conclude that the existence of evil provides strong reasons for preferring atheism over theism.

    What makes this argument weak in comparison to the core version of the fine-tuning argument is that, unlike in the case of the fine-tuning, the atheist does not have a significant objective basis for claiming that the existence of the kinds of evil we find in the world is highly improbable under theism. ... But how could atheists show this without first surveying all possible morally good purposes such a being might have, something they have clearly not done? Consequently, it seems, at most the atheist could argue that since no one has came up with any adequate purpose yet, it is unlikely that there is such a purpose. This argument, however, is very weak, as I will now show.

    The first problem with this atheist argument is that it assumes that the various explanations people have offered for why an all good God would create evil--such as the free will theodicy--ultimately fail. But even if we grant that these theodicies fail, the argument is still very weak. To see why, consider an analogy. Suppose someone tells me that there is a rattlesnake in my garden, and I examine a portion of the garden and do not find the snake. I would only be justified in concluding that there was probably no snake in the garden if either: i) I had searched at least half the garden; or ii) I had good reason to believe that if the snake were in the garden, it would likely be in the portion of the garden that I examined. If, for instance, I were to randomly pick some small segment of the garden to search and did not find the snake, I would be unjustified in concluding from my search that there was probably no snake in the garden. Similarly, if I were blindfolded and did not have any idea of how large the garden was (e.g., whether it was ten square feet or several square miles), I would be unjustified in concluding that it was unlikely that there was a rattlesnake in the garden, even if I had searched for hours with my rattlesnake detecting dogs. Why? Because I would not have any idea of what percentage of the garden I had searched.

    As with the garden example, we have no idea of how large the realm is of possible greater purposes for evil that an all good, omnipotent being could have. Hence we do not know what proportion of this realm we have actually searched. Indeed, considering the finitude of our own minds, we have good reason to believe that we have so far only searched a small proportion, and we have little reason to believe that the purposes God might have for evil would be in the proportion we searched. Thus, we have little objective basis for saying that the existence of the types of evil we find in the world is highly improbable under theism.

    From the above discussion, therefore, it is clear that the relevant probability estimates in the case of the fine-tuning are much more secure than those estimates in the atheist's argument from evil, since unlike the latter, we can provide a fairly rigorous, objective basis for them based on actual calculations of the relative range of life-permitting values for the parameters of physics. (See the Appendix to this chapter for a rigorous derivation of the probability of the fine-tuning under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis.) Thus, I conclude, the core argument for preferring theism over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis is much stronger than the atheist argument from evil.

    Pretty interesting. Especially for those guys (like Hallquist or Law) who think the argument from evil is knockdown refutation of Christianity.

  • #2
    Originally posted by LaplacesDemon View Post
    From Robin Collins



    Pretty interesting. Especially for those guys (like Hallquist or Law) who think the argument from evil is knockdown refutation of Christianity.
    Link please. Please also read Dembski's The End of Christianity. The new trend in evangelical Christianity is to blame natural evil on the fall retroactively. There'd be no need to formulate such a hypothesis if natural evil didn't present major challenges to God's declaring creation to be very good.

    Comment


    • #3
      The main mistake most atheists make is trying to reason as the "God-like" all knowing being they are trying to disprove, and do so with limited human reasoning.

      For example, atheists say

      "If God existed X,Y & Z would never happen, but because X,Y & Z is happening, this proves God does not exist, or is highly unlikely to exist."

      But this flawed philosophy only proves a God that thinks and reasons exactly like them does not exist, or is highly unlikely to exist. Its not possible for anyone to reason as anything other than what they are, let alone reason as a all knowing God would if he existed. And this flawed philosophy posing as logic and reason comes from some of the most educated atheists in the world.

      I have come to the conclusion most atheists are liberal philosophers and not critical thinkers

      Comment


      • #4
        So true.
        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
        The main mistake most atheists make is trying to reason as the "God-like" all knowing being they are trying to disprove, and do so with limited human reasoning.

        For example, atheists say

        "If God existed X,Y & Z would never happen, but because X,Y & Z is happening, this proves God does not exist, or is highly unlikely to exist."

        But this flawed philosophy only proves a God that thinks and reasons exactly like them does not exist, or is highly unlikely to exist. Its not possible for anyone to reason as anything other than what they are, let alone reason as a all knowing God would if he existed. And this flawed philosophy posing as logic and reason comes from some of the most educated atheists in the world.

        I have come to the conclusion most atheists are liberal philosophers and not critical thinkers
        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by IDScience View Post
          I have come to the conclusion most atheists are liberal philosophers and not critical thinkers
          I can't say yea or nay about most atheists, but I'm a conservative philosopher.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
            The main mistake most atheists make is trying to reason as the "God-like" all knowing being they are trying to disprove, and do so with limited human reasoning.

            For example, atheists say

            "If God existed X,Y & Z would never happen, but because X,Y & Z is happening, this proves God does not exist, or is highly unlikely to exist."

            But this flawed philosophy only proves a God that thinks and reasons exactly like them does not exist, or is highly unlikely to exist. Its not possible for anyone to reason as anything other than what they are, let alone reason as a all knowing God would if he existed. And this flawed philosophy posing as logic and reason comes from some of the most educated atheists in the world.

            I have come to the conclusion most atheists are liberal philosophers and not critical thinkers
            Actually this and most of the posts above do not accurately represent the atheist's arguments. The basic atheist argument is roughly as follows.

            (1) There is insufficient evidence to believe in any form of Divine Beings called God(s). The logical arguments for God are old, outdated and highly circular.

            (2) There is insufficient evidence that any form of evil exists. What is described as evil is simply natural suffering and death. The view of evil and miracles from ancient religions is just supersticious views of natural events and behavior.

            (3) The evidence for God claimed by theists is anecdotal.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by IDScience View Post
              The main mistake most atheists make is trying to reason as the "God-like" all knowing being they are trying to disprove, and do so with limited human reasoning.

              For example, atheists say

              "If God existed X,Y & Z would never happen, but because X,Y & Z is happening, this proves God does not exist, or is highly unlikely to exist."

              But this flawed philosophy only proves a God that thinks and reasons exactly like them does not exist, or is highly unlikely to exist. Its not possible for anyone to reason as anything other than what they are, let alone reason as a all knowing God would if he existed. And this flawed philosophy posing as logic and reason comes from some of the most educated atheists in the world.

              I have come to the conclusion most atheists are liberal philosophers and not critical thinkers
              That's rich considering that theologians themselves initiated discussion on the problem of evil. So only *you* can reason as the God-like all-knowing being you're trying to "prove," but atheists who engage in such thought exercises lack critical thinking skills? Seriously?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by LaplacesDemon View Post
                From Robin Collins

                Pretty interesting. Especially for those guys (like Hallquist or Law) who think the argument from evil is knockdown refutation of Christianity.
                While I agree it's a weak argument, the responses to it are not any better (including the one provided). The fine-tuning argument, for its part, has at its base an extremely faulty premise. They are both weak arguments.
                I'm not here anymore.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                  The main mistake most atheists make is trying to reason as the "God-like" all knowing being they are trying to disprove, and do so with limited human reasoning.

                  For example, atheists say

                  "If God existed X,Y & Z would never happen, but because X,Y & Z is happening, this proves God does not exist, or is highly unlikely to exist."
                  Few atheists would ever say that, since it presupposes that there is only one concept of "God".

                  Most atheists would say "If your God existed..." or "If the Xtian God existed..."

                  I have come to the conclusion most atheists are liberal philosophers and not critical thinkers.
                  I have come to the conclusion that you make little or no attempt to understand what atheists actually say, and therefore your conclusions are based on false assumptions.

                  Roy
                  Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                  mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                  Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                  Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                    The main mistake most atheists make is trying to reason as the "God-like" all knowing being they are trying to disprove, and do so with limited human reasoning.

                    For example, atheists say

                    "If God existed X,Y & Z would never happen, but because X,Y & Z is happening, this proves God does not exist, or is highly unlikely to exist."

                    But this flawed philosophy only proves a God that thinks and reasons exactly like them does not exist, or is highly unlikely to exist. Its not possible for anyone to reason as anything other than what they are, let alone reason as a all knowing God would if he existed. And this flawed philosophy posing as logic and reason comes from some of the most educated atheists in the world.

                    I have come to the conclusion most atheists are liberal philosophers and not critical thinkers
                    What is a liberal philosopher? A problem with the word "liberal" is that people use it in several senses.

                    I guess what you are saying is that atheists tend to assume that whatever God they are arguing against is a being that has whatever "working theory about the universe" and ethics that the atheists assume, perhaps unwittingly. And won't you believe, atheists tend to assume God would be a being whose ethics and working theory are like the atheists'.
                    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                    [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                      While I agree it's a weak argument, the responses to it are not any better (including the one provided). The fine-tuning argument, for its part, has at its base an extremely faulty premise. They are both weak arguments.
                      What's the faulty premise?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by LaplacesDemon View Post
                        What's the faulty premise?
                        There are two, actually. First, it assumes the constants are not inter-dependent. That is, a change to one constant without subsequent changes in the others might not allow life as we know it, but there's no reason to suspect that each constant exists independently. Second, it assumes that life as we know it is the only possible form it can take.

                        Even taken as is, the fine-tuning argument greatly overstates how 'fine' the tuning has to be. What's worse is when people extend it to describe earth's position in the solar system.
                        I'm not here anymore.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                          I can't say yea or nay about most atheists, but I'm a conservative philosopher.
                          Everyone is a philosopher to some degree or another, philosophy is what we use to fill in the gaps between known logical absolutes or empirical facts. But many atheists tend to completely ignore frame work of logical absolutes all together in favor of an imaginary (if they can imagine it to be true, it can be true) subjective philosophy. For example many atheists don't understand if evolution is false, ID must be true, because these are the only two possibilities for the origins of life, no third hypothesis can exist, and even Dawkins understands this and I give him credit for understanding it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            Actually this and most of the posts above do not accurately represent the atheist's arguments. The basic atheist argument is roughly as follows.

                            (1) There is insufficient evidence to believe in any form of Divine Beings called God(s). The logical arguments for God are old, outdated and highly circular.

                            (2) There is insufficient evidence that any form of evil exists. What is described as evil is simply natural suffering and death. The view of evil and miracles from ancient religions is just supersticious views of natural events and behavior.

                            (3) The evidence for God claimed by theists is anecdotal.
                            There is a long list on why atheists choose to be atheists, my example is a common argument atheists make, and its the main argument used by Sam Harris & Dawkins and the argument Christopher Hitchens made for rejecting God

                            Also I have a different definition of God than atheists do. Because its religion that the term God originated from, therefore its only religion that can properly define the term. And the oldest know definition of God found is from the sumer civilization and the bible, and that definition is Elohim, which simply means a position of authority. Psalms 82 calls men gods. And the Hebrew Judges and Angels were also called Elohim (gods)

                            Psalms 82
                            1 God presides in the great assembly;
                            he renders judgment among the “gods”:

                            “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
                            you are all sons of the Most High.’
                            7 But you will die like mere mortals;
                            you will fall like every other ruler.”

                            God is a position of authority, just as president is a position of authority. the term God per se does not denote the definite article, it denotes a position of authority that many hold. The fathers name is Yahweh, but his position in the universe is the most high God/Elohim. But because there is only one most high God (capital G) the term God becomes synonymous with the person of Yahweh

                            Lastly, divinity is just a higher nature, and just as humans have a higher nature than worms do, the most high being having a higher nature should not be incomprehensible

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by whag View Post
                              That's rich considering that theologians themselves initiated discussion on the problem of evil. So only *you* can reason as the God-like all-knowing being you're trying to "prove," but atheists who engage in such thought exercises lack critical thinking skills? Seriously?
                              I never said I could reason as a God, I don't claim to know the reasons why God would do everything he does, nor do I use subjective philosophy in my reasoning for Gods existence. I use irrefutable logical inferences to claim God exists. Example

                              We exist, Therefore other sentient life can exist, and can not be rejected
                              We co-exist with a vast range of life forms with a vast range of intellects and attributes , therefore other sentient life in the universe(s) with a vast range of intellects and attributes (which would include God) can exist elsewhere, and can not be rejected.

                              I don't illogically put a "cap" on the attribute and intellect levels of all life that can exist in the universe as the atheists do.

                              Also the universe and biological life (admittedly by science) have the appearance of design, therefore that which appears to be designed can not be rejected from being what it appears to be, because that would be an irrational deduction.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by lee_merrill, 10-30-2020, 09:01 PM
                              28 responses
                              120 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post thormas
                              by thormas
                               
                              Started by Whateverman, 07-26-2020, 11:01 AM
                              330 responses
                              6,602 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Electric Skeptic  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 09-09-2016, 03:27 PM
                              1,254 responses
                              55,040 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post thormas
                              by thormas
                               
                              Working...
                              X