Could A Good God Permit So Much Suffering?

[Dutch Uncle]

Absolute truth. Christians are atheists with the exception of one.

QED

A juvenile response that, while true, misses the entire point. No worries. I was an atheist as a teen and outgrew it. Later, I had hours of discussions with atheists and have seen all their little arguments. Most would get angry at me like you and Perry. LOL

FWIW, the theist extremists would do the same.

 

[Cypress]

In your opinion. Yeah, I get it. What I also get is your anger.

Ummmm...seems you do. Regardless, you and I can agree that no one knows what caused the origin of our universe or if there is anything outside of it. This line of talk angers you for some reason, which piques my curiosity.

The New Atheists of the early 2000s invented the position that atheism is simply just a state of disbelief, it's not a truth claim. And moreover, that atheistic physical materialism should always be the default position absent any proof otherwise.

That was a clever redefinition of atheism, because it was intended to give atheists an out from having to explain or defend taking their belief system to its logical conclusions.

That's why you see the militant atheists get agitated when you ask them to explain what caused the big bang, how something can come from nothing, and how order and mathematical organization can come from pure random inanimate chance.

In general, I observe that both Bible thumpers and militant atheists get agitated when they are asked to take their belief systems to their logical conclusions.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The New Atheists of the early 2000s invented the position that atheism is simply just a state of disbelief, it's not a truth claim. And moreover, that atheistic physical materialism should always be the default position absent any proof otherwise.

That was a clever redefinition of atheism, because it was intended to give atheists an out from having to explain or defend taking their belief system to its logical conclusions.

That's why you see the militant atheists get agitated when you ask them to explain what caused the big bang, how something can come from nothing, and how order and mathematical organization can come from pure random inanimate chance.

In general, I observe that both Bible thumpers and militant atheists get agitated when they are asked to take their belief systems to their logical conclusions.

It's a weenie excuse on their part.

They're free to use all the teenage cleverly worded excuses they like, but their lack of logic and high levels of negative emotions tell a different story. Like children, they think it works for them. Weird!

LOL Agreed on their agitation on "logical conclusions".

 

[Cypress]

LOL Agreed on their agitation on "logical conclusions".

It's really hard to explain the fine tuning and mathematical organization of the universe by invoking random physical inanimate chance.
I would get agitated having to defend and explain that!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It's really hard to explain the fine tuning and mathematical organization of the universe by invoking random physical inanimate chance.
I would get agitated having to defend and explain that!

Which is why I favor the multiverse theory. Akin to the million monkeys/million typewriters analogy, an infinite number of universes, all slightly different, would have some that can support life and many that could not.

 

[Libhater]

Why would God want humans to commit evil?

Why don't you ask HIM yourself?

 

[domer76]

QED

A juvenile response that, while true, misses the entire point. No worries. I was an atheist as a teen and outgrew it. Later, I had hours of discussions with atheists and have seen all their little arguments. Most would get angry at me like you and Perry. LOL

FWIW, the theist extremists would do the same.

Just one god different.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Cypress]

Which is why I favor the multiverse theory. Akin to the million monkeys/million typewriters analogy, an infinite number of universes, all slightly different, would have some that can support life and many that could not.

I agree the mutiverse is a nice escape hatch to explain fine tuning and organization.

But I see two major problems with it.

1) There isn't a shred of tangible evidence for a multiverse. At this point, it's just an ad hoc idea to explain away fine tuning.

2) Invoking the multiverse also does nothing to explain where the physical laws and mathematical constants of nature come from, or why they exist. Those are the mathematical scaffolding of reality that really causes organization and order.

 

[domer76]

The New Atheists of the early 2000s invented the position that atheism is simply just a state of disbelief, it's not a truth claim. And moreover, that atheistic physical materialism should always be the default position absent any proof otherwise.

That was a clever redefinition of atheism, because it was intended to give atheists an out from having to explain or defend taking their belief system to its logical conclusions.

That's why you see the militant atheists get agitated when you ask them to explain what caused the big bang, how something can come from nothing, and how order and mathematical organization can come from pure random inanimate chance.

In general, I observe that both Bible thumpers and militant atheists get agitated when they are asked to take their belief systems to their logical conclusions.

I’ll go with theoretical physicists who study the science their entire lives, rather than an invisible creator that will ensure your eternal life if you believe.

None of them claim something came from nothing. Those are your words. I’ve never seen a claim about “pure random inanimate chance” whatever the fuck that means.

As there are multiple theories, that community still hasn’t figured out how this universe began, so it’s perfectly acceptable to say “we don’t know”. Yet, what they do agree on is that natural phenomena is preferable to the supernatural.

 

[domer76]

It's a weenie excuse on their part.

They're free to use all the teenage cleverly worded excuses they like, but their lack of logic and high levels of negative emotions tell a different story. Like children, they think it works for them. Weird!

LOL Agreed on their agitation on "logical conclusions".

Yep. Logic dictates that natural phenomena trumps supernatural beliefs every time.

 

[Cypress]

I’ll go with theoretical physicists who study the science their entire lives, rather than an invisible creator that will ensure your eternal life if you believe.

Polls show that about half of all physicists and chemists believe in some type of god or higher transcendental power.
The Nobel Prize in physics has been awarded to believing Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims.

None of them claim something came from nothing. Those are your words.

The easiest way to dodge defending atheism is to just avoid answering the question.
There is some point at which matter, time, and energy were created. Nobody can prove how or why matter and energy were created.

I’ve never seen a claim about “pure random inanimate chance” whatever the fuck that means.

This is one thing Dutch is right about. Having your atheism questioned in any way makes you angry and belligerent. Chance, inanimate, random are standard English words everyone understands.

As there are multiple theories, that community still hasn’t figured out how this universe began,

Incorrect, there are no theories. Zero. There are only ideas and speculations. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been experimentally confirmed, or some might say it was not falsified.

so it’s perfectly acceptable to say “we don’t know”. Yet, what they do agree on is that natural phenomena is preferable to the supernatural.

If you say "you don't know", then you are agnostic at the core.

If you say you are 100 percent certain there was an inanimate physical cause for all the order and design we see in the cosmos, then you can say you are an atheistic physical materialist.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Just one god different.

Prove me wrong.

QED on the teenage-level argument.

Unlike you, kid, I have no fucking clue if there is a god or not. You're the one who claims to know there isn't one. When you grow up, maybe you'll learn the meaning of agnosticism.

What is Agnosticism? A Short Explanation

Agnosticism is the state of not claiming to know if any gods exist or not. It is compatible with theism and atheism and isn't an in-between third way.

www.learnreligions.com

An agnostic is anyone who doesn't claim to know that any gods exist or not. Some imagine that agnosticism is an alternative to atheism, but those people have typically bought into the mistaken notion of the single, narrow definition of atheism. Strictly speaking, agnosticism is about knowledge, and knowledge is a related but separate issue from belief, which is the domain of theism and atheism.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I agree the mutiverse is a nice escape hatch to explain fine tuning and organization.

But I see two major problems with it.

1) There isn't a shred of tangible evidence for a multiverse. At this point, it's just an ad hoc idea to explain away fine tuning.

2) Invoking the multiverse also does nothing to explain where the physical laws and mathematical constants of nature come from, or why they exist. Those are the mathematical scaffolding of reality that really causes organization and order.

1. There isn't a shred of tangible evidence of intelligent design in the Universe. The logic of seeing a working universe as being intelligently designed only works if one assumes this is the only one. If there are an infinite number of random universes, then some would work and some not. The Multiverse theory does not rule out an intelligent force behind all the universes, but it certainly opens the door wider for a deist viewpoint of a "watchmaker god".

2. Randomness. While seeing a dam in a river may indicate the presence of beavers (or humans), it could also be a random act of nature following a flash flood and the collection of debris.

 

[Lionfish]

MAGA morons whine even more as proved on JPP daily.

mR. tINY pENIS,
How would you know? You claim to have 40+ conservatives on ignore.

Fake ignore is the best.

 

[domer76]

Polls show that about half of all physicists and chemists believe in some type of god or higher transcendental power.
The Nobel Prize in physics has been awarded to believing Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims.


The easiest way to dodge defending atheism is to just avoid answering the question.
There is some point at which matter, time, and energy were created. Nobody can prove how or why matter and energy were created.


This is one thing Dutch is right about. Having your atheism questioned in any way makes you angry and belligerent. Chance, inanimate, random are standard English words everyone understands.

Incorrect, there are no theories. Zero. There are only ideas and speculations. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been experimentally confirmed, or some might say it was not falsified.

If you say "you don't know", then you are agnostic at the core.

If you say you are 100 percent certain there was an inanimate physical cause for all the order and design we see in the cosmos, then you can say you are an atheistic physical materialist.

Believing in a higher power is not the same as thinking that entity is the creator of the universe.

There are theories that do not adhere to “a point in time”.

You two VERY amateur psychologists are wrong time and again. I don’t give a flying fuck about either one of you to be angry. You give yourselves too much credit.

Again, you confuse two different issues. Admitting to not knowing how this universe began, as everybody with a brain will agree, is not the same as rejecting a supernatural being who will guarantee your eternal life if only “believe”.

You need that supernatural being. I don’t.

 

[domer76]

QED on the teenage-level argument.

Unlike you, kid, I have no fucking clue if there is a god or not. You're the one who claims to know there isn't one. When you grow up, maybe you'll learn the meaning of agnosticism.

What is Agnosticism? A Short Explanation

Agnosticism is the state of not claiming to know if any gods exist or not. It is compatible with theism and atheism and isn't an in-between third way.

www.learnreligions.com

An agnostic is anyone who doesn't claim to know that any gods exist or not. Some imagine that agnosticism is an alternative to atheism, but those people have typically bought into the mistaken notion of the single, narrow definition of atheism. Strictly speaking, agnosticism is about knowledge, and knowledge is a related but separate issue from belief, which is the domain of theism and atheism.

One god different.

Prove me wrong. Still waiting.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don’t give a flying fuck about either one of you to be angry.

Clearly a lie as this thread proves.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

One god different.

Prove me wrong. Still waiting.

Are you and Perry go to the same 6th grade class? Clearly you didn't read my response. No worries. I know you, like Perry, love claiming to be smart and logical, but you both are obviously very immature and emotional. Sad.

 

[Cypress]

1. There isn't a shred of tangible evidence of intelligent design in the Universe

There's no proof of anything.

Organization and mathematical design don't come from random chance, not in my experience. That's the most powerful logical inference the theists have, even if I don't necessarily think it has to be the truth. There are a couple other explanations I think could be possible

. The logic of seeing a working universe as being intelligently designed only works if one assumes this is the only one. If there are an infinite number of random universes, then some would work and some not. The Multiverse theory does not rule out an intelligent force behind all the universes, but it certainly opens the door wider for a deist viewpoint of a "watchmaker god".

The multiverse always struck me as an ad hoc idea intended to sweep fine tuning under the carpet. I don't even think the multiverse was a widely discussed idea until the 1990s, and only after when scientists first began to realize how incredibly finely tuned the universe is.

2. Randomness. While seeing a dam in a river may indicate the presence of beavers (or humans), it could also be a random act of nature following a flash flood and the collection of debris.

A temporary and ephemeral blockage on a river from debris deposited by floods is not analogous to the design and lawful order of the universe.

The physical laws, mathematical constants, and fine tuning of the cosmos persist through time. They are predictable and lawful.

None of us on this board have ever seen that kind of persistent, complex, lawful design and organization appear by random chance.

 

[domer76]

Clearly a lie as this thread proves.

You give yourself too much credit, Festus