 |
 | 
Diogenes Perhaps
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 10
| Posted 4/2/2004 11:11 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by BJS
I don't want to answer for Tiggers or anything, but I would venture to say that the Mackie quote is an example of the damage that deterministic theology does to many non-believers' view of God.
Agreed!
Smart people, whether OVers or atheists, recognize the inherent, internal contradictions within calvinistic determinism.
Here's an atheist's argument for the non-existence of God based on the calvinistic view of God:
Gratuitous Evil
I think there's a second, separate argument that decisively refutes theism, based on the ordinary logic of induction that we use in our every day lives. The famous British philosopher John Mackie said that if there's any miracle in the world, it's that so many people actually believe God exists. One of the reasons Mackie thought that this is the case is that Mackie found it obvious that if there's evil in the world, no all-powerful and perfectly good being could have created the world. Consider, for example, the Spanish influenza. In World War I (1914-1918), ten million people died. But in three months, from September to November of 1919, twenty million people died -- just as many as in the plague in the fourteenth century -- from Spanish influenza. Then suddenly, this virus that caused this deadly flu disappeared, and no one has seen it again. So how could this possibly have occurred if God exists? Is God not powerful enough to kill this virus or prevent it from growing? If so, then He's not all-powerful and is not really the god of the Judeo-Christian tradition. He's just a sort of extraterrestrial intelligence. He's just more powerful than us by degrees, just as we are more powerful than ants by degrees. But that is no god; that is a finite being. You would no more worship this being than you would worship ET.
Suppose God is all-powerful and is capable of killing the Spanish influenza virus before it killed off twenty million people. Why didn't He? Is it because He's not perfectly good? Because He does not care enough about human beings? That is no god. Sounds like more an evil being governs our universe. So that's just one example of many gratuitous evils in the universe.
So how do theists respond to arguments like this? They say there is a reason for evil, but it is a mystery. Well, let me tell you this: I'm actually one hundred feet tall even though I only appear to be six feet tall. You ask me for proof of this. I have a simply answer: it's a mystery. Just accept my word for it on faith. And that's just the logic theists use in their discussions of evil.
In fact, there's a strict disproof of theism that uses the ordinary logic of induction we employ in our everyday lives. If we have evidence that something exists, we say it probably exists. If we see dark clouds approaching, we say it will probably rain. But if we no evidence for something, we admit that it's merely possible that it exists, even though it probably does not exist.
If God exists, a being who is all-powerful and perfectly good, then this being must somehow ensure our world is perfectly good. The only way He can do this is to make all of the apparent evils we see in the world into means to a greater good. For example, the pain of a vaccination is in itself bad, but is a means to a greater good. Thus, if God exists, we must have evidence that all of the evils we see are means to a greater good. But even theists admit there is no evidence. That is why they must resort to talking about the mysterious ways in which God works. There's no evidence at all, for example, that twenty million people dying from Spanish influenza is for a greater good. The conclusion follows that God probably does not exist.
Now the theist might respond that there may be some greater good we don't know about. But notice the theist says, "there may be some greater good we don't know about." Well sure there may be some greater good we don't know about. Anything is possible. It is possible there is an elephant stomping through my house. It is possible that Elvis Presley is alive and is doing the twist on the dark side of the moon. But the fact that something is possible does not show it is the least bit probable. So the fact that it is possible that God exists does not show it is the least bit probable that there is a God who created these unknown greater goods. So if someone asks me to accept on faith that there is all these greater goods which explains all evil in the world and therefore that God exists, I respond that I'll accept that on faith if you accept on faith that Elvis Presley is now swiveling his hips on the moon.
from
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/atheism.html
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 4/2/2004 11:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
Tiggers,
It is off the subject but, out of curiousity, why do you quote Mackie on your tagline? His work was primarily in defense of atheism and I am curious to what point or on which issues you resonate with his ideas? I am not being sarcastic, do you appreciate his attacks on what he perceives as god and but reject his alternatives?
Spenlake Asserts,
“It is off the subject but, out of curiosity, why do you quote Mackie on your tagline?”
Tiggers’ Reply,
In grad school I took a wonderful class regarding several critiques from various philosophers regarding Christianity. In this class and many classes at G.C.T.S. I had learned to appreciate the pursuit of truth in a tactful and loving manner. It is my firm belief that we can glean truth from agnostics, atheists, monotheists, polytheists, etc. Now, J.L. Mackie’s, Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God was merely one of the books assigned as a possibility for study, now, to come full circle, I do believe I have gained truth from Mackie’s survey of the problem of evil.
Spenlake Asserts,
“His work was primarily in defense of atheism and I am curious to what point or on which issues you resonate with his ideas? I am not being sarcastic, do you appreciate his attacks on what he perceives as god and but reject his alternatives?”
Tiggers’ Reply,
Hey Spen, you are right, i.e., his work is primarily USED in defense of atheism; however, I don’t recall Mackie proclaiming anywhere that there is NO GOD. In fact, Mackie concludes his thoughts on the problem of evil with “we cannot, indeed, take the problem of evil as a conclusive disproof of traditional theism” (176). However, it must be known that he finds the problem of evil extremely damaging to TRADITIONAL theism. There is room for revision, and that is why I love Mackie’s assertion “The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends.” I feel his critique is right on. Later Mackie asserts, “each of the changes [i.e., revisions] that would make theism more coherent would also do away with some of its attraction.” Hence your disgruntlement, right?
Follow me Spen…
It seems from the tone in your writing that you found it hard to believe a professing Christian would use a philosopher like Mackie in her/his signature, right? But think about the quote for a minute…Imagine if you will, God is in control of everything (equate omnipotence with an all-controlling God) and everything is for the higher good. Now, if God is genuine and always wants the highest good and controls/determines all things yet there is evil than from my humble perspective this smacks the idea that God is omnipotent in the face. Unless, however, God’s omnipotence does not equate God’s all-controlling; furthermore, I do believe Mackie would suggest that God’s omniscience would also have to come under heavy scrutiny. This is where (for me) Open Theism comes into the picture. Enough for now…I just believe that we should always question and stay open to new ideas, as well as critiques on our very faith. God bless you Spenlake, truly!
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers 
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 4/2/2004 12:10 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
Tiggers,
I was not disgruntled, shocked, dismayed or even offended. I was just curious. Thank you for the reply. Where did Mackie's views ultimately lead him?
Tiggers' Reply,
Hey Spenlake,
Obviously that the arguments for theism are inferior to those against theism, but what is it that you are getting at? Do you believe that his critique is invalid, if so…how? Think about this, Spenlake, Mackie’s very critique makes me think as a humble Christian and puts my belief to the fire…did it hold? For me, NO! What I held as true burned away because God is not evil and if she/he is all powerful (in an all controlling way) then it APPEARS to be crazy to think that God uses evil for a greater good. I believe Mackie just couldn’t see the way out of this mess, i.e, as he brought his ideas to HIS logical conclusion. But like I stated before…there is a way out of the mess, it just isn’t that appealing to a Traditionalist. Hey change is hard and uncomfortable, but in the end, often it is rewarding. Seek the truth, Spenlake, and love ya!
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers  (smoke'm if you got em)!
PS
I’m not trying to convert you by any means just dialoging and in the end…well, I hope I learn from you as well. God Bless!
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/2/2004 8:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Interesting paper. They say some excellent things about love being the ultimate purpose of our existence and about love requiring freedom (thus libertarian free will). But they don’t countenance the problems involved in claiming this and in their affirming that God is timeless and thus “invariable” or “unchanging.”
I had problems with:
“His [God’s] knowledge includes full knowledge of himself, which as absolute is identical to its being. Hence, the intelligent being does not have omniscience but is omniscience.”
I don’t see why infallible knowledge of one’s self by definition means one's “knowledge” IS one's “self.”
They explain it a bit:
“For people – intelligent beings of limited knowledge – the knowledge of themselves is much smaller than that fully defining them. My knowledge is not me – if it were me, I would always have it for the simple reason of my existence and I would not have to learn to acquire it; moreover, I would never forget anything. Still, since my knowledge is not me, it is much smaller than me and I do not have full knowledge of myself but only a vague concept of myself as a human being. Identification of the omniscient being with omniscience can seem paradoxical but it is directly implied by the definition of omniscience. Consequently, omniscience becomes a subject and not an object, not a thing but a being.”
I don’t see that they’ve proved that an omniscient being’s “knowledge” IS that being's “self.”
Then they claim atemporality for God:
“The omniscience O knows everything possible and does not forget anything; it knows the past, the present and the future and that is why it does not undergo any changes. Its cognitive activity is invariant and unlimited. The omniscience O has absolute knowledge in a single act of acquiring it in eternity which is not time.”
And I find their claim, “Omniscience is invariable, but in the triune omniscience an unlimited and timeless process of mutual permeation of persons O, O' and O'' takes place” to be incoherent. A “timeless process that ‘takes place’”?
Though they affirm libertarian freedom, they never think through the implications this has for timeless knowledge.
I did like the way they said this: “a relation of love between subjects may be established only under the condition of free choice.”
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 4/2/2004 9:26 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes Perhaps
quote:
Originally posted by BJS
I don't want to answer for Tiggers or anything, but I would venture to say that the Mackie quote is an example of the damage that deterministic theology does to many non-believers' view of God.
Agreed!
Smart people, whether OVers or atheists, recognize the inherent, internal contradictions within calvinistic determinism.
So if someone asks me to accept on faith that there is all these greater goods which explains all evil in the world and therefore that God exists, I respond that I'll accept that on faith if you accept on faith that Elvis Presley is now swiveling his hips on the moon.
I appreciate your thoughts on this Diogenes. I believe expressed love is more important than being theologically correct - but then, if our theology contradicts a God who is all loving, all good - how can we expect people to be drawn to Him? It is a confusing contrast. We struggle with it. No wonder atheists make a case against theism when they consider determinism. How is it possible for an all loving, all good, all powerful God who wants the best and in fact is capable in bringing about the best in our lives - allow nightmarish evil to exist? Aside from the O.V. which allows for libertarian free will and the complexity of creation, I do not understand that myself. It doesn't make sense.
Glad I discovered the O.V. Things are much clearer then before. I understand now how it is possible that nightmarish evil exists and I still believe in an all good, all loving Father.
Theology communicates what we believe about God and it affects our actions and compells or repells non-believers. He is altogether lovely IMHO in the O.V. and infinitely more sovereign than I thought before. And I have a much more critical part to play in all of this than I previously thought.
God Bless,
Jo-Anne 
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:13 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|