Saturday, March 26, 2011

Response to Apples of Gold on divine providence


The quotes are Red's response to "why would god let this happen?" concerning the tsunami in Japan. My response is below them:

 

"And, how do we know God didn't intervene?"



 

  • Um… because there are over 10,000 men, women, and children dead and counting, countless missing, and many infected with radiation poisoning from the nuclear plants. Are you telling me all those people died because they deserved it in god's eyes? He could have prevented it in a way that seemed "natural" so it would not destroy our "free will". But he did not, and thus he either had no power to do so (and thus not omnipotent), or he refused to do so (thus not omnibenevolent), or he just simply does not exist… response?

     
"How do we know it wasn't going to be worse than it was?"



 

  • What do you mean? Are you saying god's punishing man and saying, "you should be grateful, it could have been worse. I could have destroyed the whole world!" Who would worship a god like that?

 

"Can you say for sure, 100% that he didn't?"


 

  • Yep. It seems pretty clear to me. No benevolent god I could possibly conceive of would let thousands of innocent families drown to death. Can YOU say with 100% certainty that he did? Theists always think the burden of proof is somehow on the atheist (prove god does NOT exist), but why should this be? It's MY responsibility to disprove a supernatural myth? Why? What can be introduced without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


 

"In terms of natural disasters (I have posted this somewhere else recently!) I think it comes down to the fact that God created our earth, with all its foibles."


 

  • Thus he created that tsunami?

 


 

"It still comes down to free will. We know, and have known for a long time which areas of the earth are more susceptible to earthquakes and so on, but we still chose to live there."


 

  • Well isn't that just convenient. Let's just blame it on human stupidity. We can't generalize like this. Who's gonna move all those people? Where are they gonna go? So god creates the earth with unpredictable tsunamis, claims to love man, and then let's children die? Can children decide to move off on their own because their parents and their entire civilization is being stupid? Was god justified in killing them for not using their "free will"??
 
 

"God created the world to work as it does, and when it does, do we blame him for it? That's hardly fair is it?"



 

  • Are you kidding? Read what you just said. YES it's fair! You just said HE created it. Who's responsibility is it then? His. He's all-knowing and all-powerful, and created everything, thus he created the earth to be harmful to us. Yes, if you believe god exists, he is blameworthy of all creation.

     
"In terms of prayer and the references you raise, all of the passages you highlighted are about faith. About trusting in God..."



 

  • Has god shown himself to be trustworthy? Where? He drowns people in the bible just as in reality (if you believe what the bible says).
  • Also, those passages are pretty clearly about prayer's being answered "ask and ye shall receive." As I have already addressed here. I guess if you asked to be saved from a tsunami or holocaust, you shall not receive.

 

"I can say with security that my prayers are always answered. They may not be answered in the way I want them to be, I may get a 'no' sometimes but I think God is still there listening when I pray. For example I may ask for wisdom, but does God give me wisdom, or an opportunity to show it? If I ask for strength does he make me strong or give me an opportunity to be so? (I read this somewhere recently and would like to give the credit to that person but I can't remember where it was!)"

 

- You are simply attributing your happy moments of life to god, when really it's more of a result of the actual people around you, and the experience of reality. Talking to yourself might help give you a feeling of strength and wisdom, but that doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that you talked to yourself and encouraged a behavioral response. What about some real evidence that isn't ambiguous? That can't be ascribed to a "feeling" or coincidence…

 

"I do not know why bad stuff happens to good people, or why prayers are seemingly unanswered, why innocent children die at the hands of drunk drivers or why guilty men get off scott free in court."

 

- Easy, I'll tell you. Because there is no god, and we need to learn to depend on each other, on humanity and civilization. On science! On reality; on living THIS life instead of postponing and holding out for the afterlife.

 

"I don't know, I do not profess to have the mind of God…"

 

- But you do profess to KNOW the mind of god. You profess to know he is the god of Christianity. You profess to know that he is All-good, all-loving, and all-knowing. You profess to know that he wants to be worshiped. You profess to know he created man in his image. You profess to know many, many things about god and his mind. You believe he is forgiving? That he listens to you? That he judges you? You thus profess to know the mind of god.

 

I also know that he can use all things for good. (Romans 8:28)"

 

- So the war in Afganistan, Iraq, and Libya is used for good? The holocaust was for good? Nuclear bomb was for good? He was too weak to stop man from doing that? From diverting it with a strong wind or something that wouldn't harm our free will? From simply making us incapable of building it?
- Is something good because god says it is good or is something good because it is good in itself? If it is only "good" because god says it is good, then how meaningful is it to say "god is good"? He could destroy all the world and say "This is good what I do because I assert that it is good to kill".


On that note, I'll end with some provocative comics and quotes:











 

4 comments:

Red said...

ok so the Pope one made me chuckle... ;)
You know this debate could run and run. I've always avoided getting into these discussions in the past,not because I am afraid of being challenged, but because it ends up in an impasse. One of your clips at the end was about reasoning with the religious, and the thing is when you believe something so compeltely and utterly it is unlikley that you will be persuaded from that belief (and I mean both of us here!), you can expect someone to think about the questions raised and as I have said before I like being challenged, but I dont think either of us are going to change our minds are we?
Out of interest are you asking the questions because you want to know what I believe and why, or so that you can prove me wrong? I ask that honestly, I'm not making a dig!
BTW I don't think the burden is on atheists to 'prove' God doesn't exist, probably the opposite actually as Christians are called to spread the word, so in that sense the onus is on us, not atheists. And ultimately neither of us can 'prove' our point of view, as in when you assume that 'proof' is 100% unrefutable evidence.
I'm not going to reply to most of what you wrote, because we'll be going over the same ground and I think you twisted what I was saying (and you know it ;) ) in order to make your point. Eg: you know I wasn't saying for one second that the people who died deserved it, but you still chose to level that at me. Come on if we are going to debate, let's be fair, ok?
However you did ask for evidence that isn't ambigious and all I have is my own experiences of God. I will post later about something that happened that to me that I feel was God acting in my life. See what you think. I expect you will have an answer for it though..;)
blessings
redx

Phaedrus said...

I understand what you mean. As to your question. You know how important it is to religious people like yourself to "spread the word" right? If you don't, people you care about might go to hell (or whatever the perceived repercussion is). Well I feel similar about the repercussions of not questioning such beliefs. I feel like it's important to introduce some of these problems too often ignored, and to present these arguments to theists of all religions when I can. It's important to examine beliefs we depend that aid us in making the profound decisions in life, and especially beliefs that effect others (children who cannot yet make a rational choice or haven't developed critical thought yet to make their own decision, Politics is effected by religion, moral issues such as gay rights, abortion, stem-cells... religion is always around to take sides). So every now and then I try and get a little debate going. It also helps me out when I see what arguments are really driving people to accept religion.

If I can get at least one person to think a little more critically about it, I feel I've done my part. ;) Plus I like how diverse the topics on philosophical fields get when debating religion. It involves logic, epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, etc. It's exciting for a philosophy student.

But we can discontinue this debate if you wish. Just thought I should answer at least one of your responses. I appreciate that you have actually made an effort to respond to the problems.

Phaedrus said...

I also ask a lot of questions in my response because I want the reader to start thinking about the claim I'm picking on and reach their own answer, not just accept an answer I provide. Most of the questions are picking on a basic claim that is not very well grounded.

Red said...

yeah, agree with most of that entirely! Keep challenging and questioning - actually thats my approach too :) So do keep chalelenging me, I am happy to be challenged, sometimes we will end in impasse, but the debate is good along the way!
redx