@xris,
xris;123655 wrote:So what of my repetitive arguments dont you understand? If I have stated them often enough you should be able to say why my argument is not logical. I will try putting this way....I make perfect cars...they dont break down ever for whatever reason, they are indestructible...would you buy car breakdown insurance?
Please pardon the length of this. Also, please read to the end before responding, however mightily you might disagree with some part of it:
Xris, your argument, [and my commentary] is presented below in a clear and rigorous form:
"We wish to test the validity of the following proposition (proposition X) about which we disagree:
X: There exists a Supreme Entity, Whom we will call "God", Who has the following attributes:
[INDENT]1.God is the Sole Creator of the universe, and has created this universe with full knowledge and understanding of all aspects of that creation.
2.God is All Powerful, meaning that He can do whatever he pleases with His creation. Among the things which He can do: He can cause whatever change in it He desires, including changing the mental and physical characteristics of the creatures, the laws of physics, the relative densities of specific substances, the operation and severity of the weather. etc.)
3.God is All Loving. He loves each of His creatures, and most certainly us humans.
[/INDENT]
We are going to test the logical validity of proposition X against the following propositions, A, B, and C, which we either all agree upon, or which are clear and evident to any reasonable and observant person:
A. In this world, which God is said to have created according to #1, we all agree that there is human suffering.
[INDENT] I.We also agree that some of that suffering is caused by evil actions of humans.
II. We also agree that events, such as earthquakes, and severe weather, which are caused by physical circumstances that seem to be part of this world, also cause suffering.
[/INDENT] B. According to X - 2 above, God is All Powerful, and therefore He is capable of preventing human suffering of both kinds if He wished to. [I believe that most of us can agree on this.]
C. A Loving God would not allow his beloved human creatures to suffer if He could prevent it.
Proposition C is a key point on which the theists and and atheists disagree.
If C is true, then we must conclude one of the following:
[INDENT] I.That if there exists an Entity Who is the Sole Creator of the universe and is All Loving, He is NOT All Powerful. OR
II.That if there exists an Entity Who is the Sole Creator of the universe and is All Powerful, then He is NOT All Loving OR
III.That there exists NO Entity Who is the Sole Creator of the universe.
[/INDENT][In truth, we really only need I or II, but III is the conclusion that the atheists believe and the belief to which they wish us all to convert.] ;- D
Now, as xris has complained, all of us "traditional" theists are quite attached to proposition X, which he wishes to test. (Some "modern" or "untraditional" theists are not so convinced about many aspects of proposition X, but we will set that aside for now.) Because we theists take proposition X on faith, and believe that it "Must be True", we are ready to seek any way that we can to give good cause for rejecting proposition C. In other words, we feel compelled to demonstrate why a Loving God would, in fact, allow the human suffering that we see in the world, even though He could prevent it. There are several arguments, which theists consider conclusive, for rejecting C. If the theists and the atheists cannot or will not agree upon the validity of C, then we are at an impasse.
I believe the atheist argument in support of C is as follows:
C - 1 "Any reasonable person will agree that if one person loves another, they would gladly do [nearly] anything to prevent the ones they love from suffering."
There is a second part of this argument which I have not seen stated, but that is necessary to completing the logical support of C. That is:
C - 2 "God is a person, or enough like a person, (and God's relationship to us humans is enough like the relationship between a person who loves other persons) that statement C - 1 also applies to God."
Assertion C - 1 is supportable and verifiable as far as human persons (and many other living creatures, particularly mammals and marsupials) are concerned, but the question is, whether it is reasonable to extend this assertion and apply it to the God whose nature and existence we are testing. I will conclude with my own arguments why we cannot extend this generalization about persons to God; that is, why C - 2 is not acceptable. (Understand that this is an argument specifically regarding why proposition C cannot be reasonably applied to the being described in proposition X):
God is fundamentally different from human persons in that (according to X) He created the universe and has full knowledge and understanding of all of its aspects, whereas humans are creations of His and have only very limited knowledge of the universe. But the question still remains whether this difference is sufficient to reject C - 2.
Part of human knowledge of the nature of the universe is explained by the theory of Evolution, which provides a framework for explaining aspects of the anatomy, physiology, and behavior of all living beings in terms of the efficacy of those aspects for assuring the survival of the species. It can easily be shown that physical sensations of the body, which result from stimuli impinging on the sensory organs, have evolved because they (pleasurable sensations) tend to attract us towards things that are beneficial, or they (pain and other unpleasant sensations) tend to repel us from things that are detrimental. Likewise, we can show that most mammals feel compelled to intervene on behalf of a member of the same species when that other expresses pain or appears to be in peril. This is particularly true in the case of two individuals whose lives are closely conjoined, as in a familial relationship. Thus, the scientific explanation for the fact of C - 1 is that this is a response that has evolved because it has contributed to the survival of the species. Any reasonable person will have this tendency, will feel sympathetic pain, will do what they can to prevent or alleviate the pain of another because it is in our genes. We value this tendency and call it an expression of "love" for good reason: it preserves our species, and particularly those individual members of our species who are closest to us genetically.
God, on the other hand, does not have such a need, as He is not
part of any species, but has created all species and the balance of forces that supports them and causes them to evolve and advance. Therefore, it is unreasonable to say that God is enough like a "person" that statement C - 1 applies to God.
QED
God shows His love by providing guidance to our human species, whom he has endowed with capacity far beyond that of all other species. His guidance is the surest means to ensure the advancement of the species with a minimum of pain and suffering. We will be able to use observation of the decrease in the pain and suffering in the world as one small measure of how well we are following His guidance:
"O CHILDREN OF MEN! Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other. Ponder at all times in your hearts how ye were created. Since We have created you all from one same substance it is incumbent on you to be even as one soul, to walk with the same feet, eat with the same mouth and dwell in the same land, that from your inmost being, by your deeds and actions, the signs of oneness and the essence of detachment may be made manifest. Such is My counsel to you, O concourse of light! Heed ye this counsel that ye may obtain the fruit of holiness from the tree of wondrous glory."
