point5 Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 (edited) 1. God is, by definition, perfectly good. 2. God is, by definition, all powerful. 3. A perfectly good, all powerful being would prevent needless suffering. 4. Needless suffering exists. 5. Therefore God does not exist. I have been going back and forth with my brother for some time now about this, and I need some input. I dont think you can accually use uneccesarry suffering. How can you have suffering without unecessary suffering. Its like some free will, but then God is supposed to intervene. He likes to refute my critiques of the proof from this story of twelve officers and how they use the same excuses or reason we use for God as to why they did not step in and help a victum: [url="http://www.uvm.edu/~phildept/?Page=pereboom/PE.html"]http://www.uvm.edu/~phildept/?Page=pereboom/PE.html[/url] just some help here. Also this needs to be from a philosophical standpoint, not necessarily the catholic view. Trying to show the existence of God for now, not the Catholic God...we will get to that if we ever finish these things! pax Kiel Edited May 20, 2004 by point5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Bobola Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 As for a proof that God exists, check Summa Theologica, I'll even give you a link, [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm[/url] as for the second part, God allowing suffering, look to the Book of Job. Also, suffering is simply part of life, a test for us from God. But it is also much more that that. Our suffering can be used to glorify God or to shun Him. Suffering is a complicated thing, one which I cannot explain briefly, myriads of books have been written. Hope that helped a little Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishphan47 Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 [quote]1. God is, by definition, perfectly good.[/quote] Sure. He is the chief good around which all other goods are ordered. He is what makes them good. [quote]2. God is, by definition, all powerful.[/quote] Sure, all that exists exists in him, so he is more powerful than all that is in him. [quote]3. A perfectly good, all powerful being would prevent needless suffering.[/quote]This one i do not know if i buy, for a number of reasons. I do not think that, for this argument you need to "prove god's existence" but merely find the flaws in his reasoning. a) He assumes there is such a thing as needless suffering, and that it is impossible for some suffering to bring about good. His proof of this is pretty weak, if it's merely that cops beat some man or some-such thing. God permissively allowes evil; he does not will it. And he allows it so that a greater good may come about; love. Free love. Compassion. God is love. That is his nature, and why he created us. Now, being love, he created, not to gain any glory or power or even for company, but only for the sake of love. Love cannot be forced; god is not a rapist. We are free to love him, to seek the Good in life. But we can also seek after other things, which never bring us happiness. All suffering is a result of failing away from God... When we suffer, it shows this seperation. Showing that separation is not a "needless" thing, but the thing which is best for us. As a man knows God more and more, his happiness increaces 10 fold. As happiness increases, ability to suffer decreases. b)This assumes that having suffering is not part of the perfect plan. If heaven is our goal, and this world is temporal, then suffering for the sake of the kingdom is, again, not in vain. [quote]4. Needless suffering exists.[/quote] Again, i think it's hard to rule out that there is no good to ever come from suffering. [quote]5. Therefore God does not exist.[/quote] This is a question which has pondered humanity for centuries. But it is not unanswerable, if daunting. You need to take baby steps. Resolving this particular problem is not in and of itself a difficult task, nor does it take the proving of god. You might look [url="http://www.faithnet.org.uk/AS%20Subjects/Philosophyofreligion/fiveways.htm"][b]here[/b][/url] for a brief overview to act as a springboard into some catholic thought on the matter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 (edited) [quote name='point5' date='May 20 2004, 12:23 AM'] 1. God is, by definition, perfectly good. 2. God is, by definition, all powerful. 3. A perfectly good, all powerful being would prevent needless suffering. 4. Needless suffering exists. 5. Therefore God does not exist. [/quote] i see two ways to refute this. you can confront the faulty premise that suffering is needless--as phishphan and bobola have done--or you can confront the logical inconsistencies that exist in his logic. i will take the latter approach. first of all, it is God's perfect knowledge which allows him to choose what is good and therefore makes him perfectly good. so, the foundational premise of "God has perfect knowledge" must be included first and foremost. secondly, the author assumes that the definition of "good" hinges upon his own subjective experience. he is defining good as it relates to himself. however, God chooses good as it relates to God's perfect knowlegde of good--NOT man's [i]imperfect[/i] knowledge of it. So, if God is perfectly knowledgable and he is likewise perfectly good, then it can only be that everything that happens in this world occurs for the good--as God knows it. another logical inconsistency occurs between steps 4 and 5. even if we operate under the assumption that God determines "good" as it relates to our imperfect knowledge of good, the existence of needless suffering would NOT cause God to somehow cease to exist. it would merely prove that God is not as good as we expect him to be. so, from his argument we have at least three faulty premises: 1. suffering is needless 2. "good" is relative to our definition of it 3. if our definition of good is correct, the existence of needless suffering causes God to cease to exist we likewise have at least two logical inconsistencies: 1. between steps two and three 2. between steps four and five this should be enough to prove that his logic is incorrect. if i have any inconsistencies of my own, please let me know. pax christi, phatcatholic Edited May 20, 2004 by phatcatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socalscout Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 #3 makes it an uncogent arguement. That statement is relative and a matter of opinion not a statement of fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archangel Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 1. God is, by definition, perfectly good. 2. God is, by definition, all powerful. 3. A perfectly good, all powerful being blesses its creatures with abundant and undeserved graces. 4. Abundant and undeserved graces exist. 5. Therefore, God does exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
point5 Posted May 20, 2004 Author Share Posted May 20, 2004 Phatcatholic...you are dope...I strive to seek knowledge the way you do...I have just began new steps in my faith journey this last couple months, and I cant stop seeking...your refutation is very sound. to all others...thank you I did sppreciate it...Ill let you know if he finds fault any any of this...you guys basically said what I thought but could not put in words...philosophical and theistic debates are almost like an art and I am just beginning to learn the correct process to participate in them. thanks to all -Kiel aka Moses the Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 Good would not exist without bad. If everything was good, there would be no bad. Without bad, we wouldn't have good. Just like without hot, there would be no cold. Without darkness, there would be no light. Without black, there would be no white. Everything would be grey. So, therefore, in order for God to be good, there must be bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 That argument (against God's existence) is built on questionable premises. When I hear the premise, "A perfectly good, all powerful being would prevent needless suffering," I think it to easily translates in the mind of an atheist into, "A good God would prevent all inconvenience." Who are we to say that suffering is needless? Who are we to say that, given this suffering is needless, a good, all-powerful God would prevent it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 [quote name='point5' date='May 20 2004, 09:52 AM'] Phatcatholic...you are dope...I strive to seek knowledge the way you do...I have just began new steps in my faith journey this last couple months, and I cant stop seeking...your refutation is very sound. to all others...thank you I did sppreciate it...Ill let you know if he finds fault any any of this...you guys basically said what I thought but could not put in words...philosophical and theistic debates are almost like an art and I am just beginning to learn the correct process to participate in them. thanks to all -Kiel aka Moses the Black [/quote] dude, you sound just like me! when i had my conversion experience, i was like "gimme gimme gimme" i was salivating for knowledge i soaked that stuff up too. every millisecond of free time i had i spent just reading articles, and i could feel the holy spirit guiding me in different directions. i would wake up in the morning, go sit in front of my computer and just say to myself, "what do i need to know today?" when i heard the answer, i was on it like a houndog and i didn't quit until it was time to go to bed. i remember getting frustrated b/c i had to stop to go to class, or to go to the bathroom, or to go eat. it was pretty crazy man, but it was also really awesome. it was like i had this brain that had just been wasting time for 22 years and then finally found something it wanted to do. of course, your experience doesn't have to be like mine. but, i would suggest that you make urself as open to the HS as u can possibly be. let him direct you towards the things He wishes you to know. i feel ya dawg pax christi, phatcatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p0lar_bear Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 [quote name='dUSt' date='May 20 2004, 12:51 PM'] Good would not exist without bad. If everything was good, there would be no bad. Without bad, we wouldn't have good. Just like without hot, there would be no cold. Without darkness, there would be no light. Without black, there would be no white. Everything would be grey. So, therefore, in order for God to be good, there must be bad. [/quote] How very Zen of you....but you are wrong. Think about it. You said that goodness would not exist without evil. Evil, then, is necessary. God is pure goodness and has existed from all eternity. If evil were necessary, the devil (or some form of pure evil) would also have to exist from all eternity. We know that "the eternal God gave a beginning to all that exists outside of himself" (Catechism no. 290). That would mean that God is both pure goodness and pure evil, which is not true. ("God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil" (Catechism, no. 311). God's providence and the scandal of evil is addressed in the Catechism nos. 309-314. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP2Iloveyou Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 [quote name='p0lar_bear' date='May 20 2004, 03:05 PM'] How very Zen of you....but you are wrong. Think about it. You said that goodness would not exist without evil. Evil, then, is necessary. God is pure goodness and has existed from all eternity. If evil were necessary, the devil (or some form of pure evil) would also have to exist from all eternity. We know that "the eternal God gave a beginning to all that exists outside of himself" (Catechism no. 290). That would mean that God is both pure goodness and pure evil, which is not true. ("God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil" (Catechism, no. 311). God's providence and the scandal of evil is addressed in the Catechism nos. 309-314. [/quote] I wouldn't say that Polar Bear. God created the world with the intent of there being no evil. Evil is not necessary for the existence of good, it might be argued that evil is necessary in order to properly define "good," but not for its existence. Also, the devil has not existed for all eternity. That would mean he is coequal with God, which is clearly false. Satan was created by God and is no different from us in that respect. Intrinsically, Satan is even a good creature since God can't create anything evil. Satan became evil from his own volition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 [quote name='p0lar_bear' date='May 20 2004, 03:05 PM'] How very Zen of you....but you are wrong. Think about it. You said that goodness would not exist without evil. [/quote] No. I didn't say that. Please read what I said again. But this is actually just getting off the point of the original premise anyway. My point was that without knowing what bad is, we can't know what good is, by the very definition. Good being an absence of bad. By the mere definition, bad would have to exist in order to simply define good. Summary: the original argument makes an assumption that God is "all good", which automatically applies that there is a bad. In actually, God would just be. In other words, He would describe Himself as, "I am who I am". "Good" is a human term which only makes sense when "bad" exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 that's what polar bear said... it's dUST that said evil was necessary :ph34r: uh oh... the webmaster of PhatMass wrong?!! SCANDAL.. haha, i've heard what he said before though, i always thought there was something fishy about it but never figured out quite what, polar bear and JP2Iloveyou are dead on. Pax Amorque Christi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP2Iloveyou Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 [quote name='Aloysius' date='May 20 2004, 04:26 PM'] that's what polar bear said... it's dUST that said evil was necessary :ph34r: uh oh... the webmaster of PhatMass wrong?!! SCANDAL.. haha, i've heard what he said before though, i always thought there was something fishy about it but never figured out quite what, polar bear and JP2Iloveyou are dead on. Pax Amorque Christi [/quote] sorry Polar bear, bad reading on my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now