Does Evilness around the World disprove God?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

There is a lot of nonsense in this thread. We can all agree that this is an argument that will run and run, but can I ask that people don't use words like 'logic' and 'philosophy' so negligently?

Some examples:

yes yes yes..i feel like im in my first year philo lectures again..look..i could pull out a whole lot of aquinas to throttle all that away..its philosophy...u can dispute all day...and prove and disprove anything....its a matter of 'playing with words'...

This shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of what philosophy is and what it does.

a) Using a medieval theologian to support your beliefs is rather pointless when it is widely agreed amongst professional philosophers that his arguments were obliterated by the work of Immanuel Kant and David Hume in the 18th century. Aquinas' arguments would still have to face those replies. If you think you can produce a modified version of Aquinas' arguments which doesn't contain the defects others have found, then go for it. You'd have to display some serious ingenuity to do so.

b) Philosophy is emphatically not 'playing with words'. If arguments are convincing, they survive; if not, they perish. You can't just imagine that philosophers "prove" nonsensical statements with no regard for truth.

Which went on to go about, why God does not stop evil and accountability - but the point was, even though this guy was atheist, believed in multiverse, evolution from apes to humans, he had the logical capability to see that, freewill and omniscience do not contradict.

The free will / omniscience paradox has been much discussed over the centuries, and there are many different views about it. Just because someone agrees with your opinion, that does not mean he (or you) are more logical than anyone else.

Peace

 

[Trumble]

Philosophy is emphatically not 'playing with words'. If arguments are convincing, they survive; if not, they perish. You can't just imagine that philosophers "prove" nonsensical statements with no regard for truth.

The free will / omniscience paradox has been much discussed over the centuries, and there are many different views about it. Just because someone agrees with your opinion, that does not mean he (or you) are more logical than anyone else.

Great post.

 

[Md Mashud]

The free will / omniscience paradox has been much discussed over the centuries, and there are many different views about it. Just because someone agrees with your opinion, that does not mean he (or you) are more logical than anyone else.

Peace

I think you missed the point. It was to show, being Atheist, does not mean you cannot accept omniscience and freewill being able to work together - it does not go against your belief system, or "disbeleif" system :skeleton:

 

[Isambard]

I think you missed the point. It was to show, being Atheist, does not mean you cannot accept omniscience and freewill being able to work together - it does not go against your belief system, or "disbeleif" system :skeleton:

It has nothing to do with a 'atheist mantra'. What is happening is that his arguement is unconvincing.

The only way God could be omisciencient and we have free-will is for him to stay out of the universes affairs else causing a series of events that he by already knowing all the outcomes, would eliminate free-will via causality.

Seeing that those who argue for both of these (and especially for a muslim or christian) God not meddling is thrown out the window and you remain with a paradox.

 

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


Me and trumble had a discussion about this a while back, near the bottom of this page and the page after:


http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/45223-life-earth-test-3.html



I remember reading by Ibn ul Qayyim that a wife can't get pregnant unless she has intimate relations with her husband, nor can a person fulfill his/her hunger unless he/she eats. Nor can a person reach their destination unless they travel to it. Similarly, none of us know whether we are destined for paradise or the fire, so we take our journey towards it, and hope for Allah's reward of paradise. It's that simple. The test isn't for Allah, but for us. And the only way we'll succeed is if we do the things required to get there. Don't expect to go paradise, or escape Allah's punishment if you don't take the required measures to get where you want to reach.


And Allah knows best.

 

[Skavau]

yes yes yes..i feel like im in my first year philo lectures again..look..i could pull out a whole lot of aquinas to throttle all that away.

I am not a fan of Aquinas in the slightest. I am also unaware of Aquinas actually said on this subject.

What at all made you think my objection here was not at all philosophical in any way? It has been since the start.

its philosophy...u can dispute all day...and prove and disprove anything....its a matter of 'playing with words'...

It can be indeed a matter of playing with words (see the Ontological Argument).

But real philosophy (that actually intends to achieve something) goes beyond 'playing with words'. In this specific scenario, I am not playing with words and I actually criticise those that do.

gods knowledge encompasses what we will choose...he is not wrong in knowing what we will choose...

Precisely.

So we could not do otherwise to what God knows, since his omniscience ultimately means he will know what we will go on to 'choose'.

i dnt see how that undermines his omnisc. or our free will..

It doesn't undermine his omniscience.

It does undermine his free-will. I shall give another example: If I have a choice between A and C and God knows that I will do C I could not do otherwise because that would make God wrong, and God cannot be wrong because God is omniscient.

So I would have to do C.

Which went on to go about, why God does not stop evil and accountability - but the point was, even though this guy was atheist, believed in multiverse, evolution from apes to humans, he had the logical capability to see that, freewill and omniscience do not contradict.

Be that his imperative then.

Appealing to popularity is a fallacy, not a good reason.

I remember reading by Ibn ul Qayyim that a wife can't get pregnant unless she has intimate relations with her husband, nor can a person fulfill his/her hunger unless he/she eats. Nor can a person reach their destination unless they travel to it. Similarly, none of us know whether we are destined for paradise or the fire, so we take our journey towards it, and hope for Allah's reward of paradise. It's that simple. The test isn't for Allah, but for us. And the only way we'll succeed is if we do the things required to get there. Don't expect to go paradise, or escape Allah's punishment if you don't take the required measures to get where you want to reach.

This makes no effort to address the supposed contradiction and all asserted above is completely meaningless assuming the contradiction indeed is the case.

 

[sevgi]

I am not a fan of Aquinas in the slightest. I am also unaware of Aquinas actually said on this subject.

lets just say he believes in god...

What at all made you think my objection here was not at all philosophical in any way? It has been since the start.

i didnt say anything like that...

It can be indeed a matter of playing with words (see the Ontological Argument).

But real philosophy (that actually intends to achieve something) goes beyond 'playing with words'. In this specific scenario, I am not playing with words and I actually criticise those that do.

i dnt know of any philosophy which intends to acheive anything...in philo..there are always two sides to an issue..and they battle it out till they die...then new age thinkers come along..and keep battling...its a bunch of theories, premises, falacies, plausibilities...

i like studyn it though...

Precisely.

So we could not do otherwise to what God knows, since his omniscience ultimately means he will know what we will go on to 'choose'.

knowing something is not an intervention...

It doesn't undermine his omniscience.

It does undermine his free-will. I shall give another example: If I have a choice between A and C and God knows that I will do C I could not do otherwise because that would make God wrong, and God cannot be wrong because God is omniscient.

So I would have to do C.

how does this undermine our free will...?at the end of it all, we choose what we want...and that just happens to be what god knows..
QUOTE]

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I think you missed the point. It was to show, being Atheist, does not mean you cannot accept omniscience and freewill being able to work together - it does not go against your belief system, or "disbeleif" system :skeleton:

I had grasped that already, but thanks for pointing it out anyway.

I'm not taking issue with anyone on the free will / omniscience paradox here - it's a debate I don't feel like getting into right now. What I am taking issue with is your continued misuse of the word 'logic'.

i dnt know of any philosophy which intends to acheive anything...in philo..there are always two sides to an issue..and they battle it out till they die...then new age thinkers come along..and keep battling...its a bunch of theories, premises, falacies, plausibilities...

i like studyn it though...

Words fail me. :rollseyes

Peace

 

[sevgi]

Greetings,



Words fail me. :rollseyes

Peace

what? my words? words in general?lol...i dnt get it...

 

[Skavau]

lets just say he believes in god...

I know he does.

I also know that I have found much of his considerations regarding God unconvincing.

i dnt know of any philosophy which intends to acheive anything...in philo..there are always two sides to an issue..and they battle it out till they die...then new age thinkers come along..and keep battling...its a bunch of theories, premises, falacies, plausibilities...

i like studyn it though...

There are many sides to many issues.

Some however remain much more competent than the other sides.

knowing something is not an intervention...

I have never contended that it was. You're creating a strawman.

how does this undermine our free will...?at the end of it all, we choose what we want...and that just happens to be what god knows..

Because choice rests on the ability to choose more than one outcome. If God knows then you simply cannot 'choose' anything that God does not know, so you could not choose more than one outcome.

My previous posts have described this in greater detail.

 

[Pygoscelis]

This idea that "evilness disproves a god" simply makes no sense.

Why can't a God be evil?

 

[Pygoscelis]

As to the free will bit, free will is an illusion anyway. I have yet to see any evidence or even logical argument otherwise.

 

[Trumble]

This idea that "evilness disproves a god" simply makes no sense.

Why can't a God be evil?

Possibly because it is difficult to disassociate the concepts of God and 'the Good'. One tends to get defined in terms of the other.

And possibly because the thought of an omnipotent, omniscient, malevolent God is too horrifying to contemplate?