If there were no God


#262

Why would it be? Negatives cannot be “proven”. The atheists simply say that there is no visible positive side effect of pain and suffering. Their argument is the “duck principle”. And everyone uses the duck principle, both believers and infidels.

And “what” greater good are you talking about? It is your job to take each and every “seemingly” evil event and show that it was actually a blessing in disguise. Take the Holocaust and bring up arguments that preventing the Holocaust would have brought forth an even worse state of affairs.

That is the point. You cannot establish God’s existence or God’s “nature”. All you can do is observe the physical existence, here and now, and you can try to extrapolate from your observation. And it definitely does NOT point to a loving, caring God.


#263

We know certain aspects of God’s will from both reason and revelation.


#264

No atheist claims it is evidence, but it is obviously a lack of evidence. Why is the default assumption that a supreme being exists?


#265

Ha, yeah, only until you don’t, then it’s “Ah we are just stupid humble humans, we cannot know God.”


#266

It is your job to take each and every “seemingly” evil event and show that it was actually a blessing in disguise.

No, it’s not my job…

It’s the atheist saying that physical evil counts against God…


#267

That is the point. You cannot establish God’s existence or God’s “nature”. All you can do is observe the physical existence, here and now, and you can try to extrapolate from your observation. And it definitely does NOT point to a loving, caring God.

I think otherwise, and I think the philosophical proofs are rather solid for the existence of an unrestricted, united, and simple actuality that is existence itself and cause of all else that exists.


#268

Only the God defined in the Judeo-Christian model.


#269

Ha, yeah, only until you don’t, then it’s “Ah we are just stupid humble humans, we cannot know God.”

Well obviously there has to be a point at which we don’t. Finite vs. Infinite.


#270

Then why lay claim to know anything? Seems like a bit of an opportunistic leap to me.


#271

Isn’t this thread “If there were no God”?


#272

point…?


#273

Huh? Pretend for a moment you found the philosophical proofs for God convincing. Well then, we’d agree that we’d at least know that much about God (i.e., what those metaphysical demonstrations provide).


#274

If you think that the existence of physical evils – even arbitrary ones without any greater good – is compatible with this definition of God:

The eternal act of existence itself, that is entirely simple, trans-physical, and intelligent

Then that is a good start.

For then it’s only a matter of one more attribute, i.e., God’s goodness. And if the former can be shown to be true, and if the latter (goodness) can also be shown to be true as a separate attribute with its own argument, then it follows physical evils cannot count against God.


#275

It’s not a question of whether this omnipotent God would act in a way I would like. As I say, if He exists He hasn’t.

The question was whether the evidence from creation suggests that this omnipotent God is ultimate goodness.

As to whether pain is bad, that’s not the point; the question is whether designing pain into a constructed system is bad. And it is. If I were to set up a dairy farm where as livestock reached the end of its natural life it was torn apart by a pack of dogs, that would be (illegal and) immoral. An omnipotent absolutely good God would not meet only a lesser standard of behaviour.


#276

God is defined in many different ways by different people and cultures. Up until the last 2 to 3 thousand earth years, most peoples believe in multiple gods (if they believed at all).


#277

These articles might be of interest:

https://strangenotions.com/index.php?s=problem+of+evil


#278

The God of classical theism in Western thought has actually remained quite consistent from both pagan philosophy up through Jewish, Christian, and Muslim thought.


#279

I also recognize these books for participants and readers of this thread:

robspit

And also this by Ed Feser:


#280

If I were to set up a dairy farm where as livestock reached the end of its natural life it was torn apart by a pack of dogs, that would be (illegal and) immoral.

How so?

If there is no God, what is morality?

As to whether pain is bad, that’s not the point; the question is whether designing pain into a constructed system is bad.

Actually, that is the point. If pain is not in itself bad, then “designing pain into a constructed system” cannot also be bad – at least, not under the same sense of the word “bad.” Pain could very well serve a purpose, and indeed, it does. Even IF pain were bad, unless you can show how God would derive his eternal, intelligent, and perfect plan from an alternative Universe, then you have failed to show how pain or “designing pain into a system” is wrong, evil, or contrary to the definition of God.


#281

I was not arguing that there is no God.

Whether pain is always bad or not, designing a system reliant on pain is not absolutely good.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.