If There Is No God...

[Socrates]

If evil is the lack of goodness, evil can exist without a god.  And since it is usually argued the reason why evil can exist in a world of an all-good God is because evil is the lack of good, you have to go with that explanation.

 

Without an objective standard of goodness (as Christians, we believe God to be the ultimate standard and origin of goodness, and evil to be that which is contrary to God), "good" and "evil" become purely subjective.  Objective good and evil make no sense in an atheistic framework.

 

If there is no objective standard of good and evil, we cannot say that anything is objectively evil, only that we find it distasteful or unpleasant.  If there is no God, nothing is really "good" or "evil" - it simply is.

 

Therefore, the common argument against God from the existence of evil in the world fails.  If there is in fact no God, there is no standard to declare anything to be "evil," other than our own human preferences.

[Era Might]

Interesting, though it appears you missed my point, which is simply that if atheistic materialism is true, the thoughts, ideas, and philosophies we discuss have no existence outside of physical activity in brains and elsewhere.

 

if we were having this conversation face-to-face, you could substitute, "blowing air" or such for "pixels on a computer screen" and the point would still stand.

 

Well, sure, even if I believe in god I don't see how my thoughts have existence outside of myself. A thought is an extension of my ability to act in the world. When we analyze the world, we are analyzing our experience. Religion is different...religion ultimately doesn't appeal to experience but to revelation of some sort...or at least that's true of the monotheistic religions.

I suppose it is possible for someone to be an atheist and still believe in a spiritual realm, though I don't think it would make much sense logically or philosophically.

I'm not sure how the spiritual would come into existence in an atheistic framework.  It makes more sense philosophically to believe that immaterial intelligent Being created unintelligent matter than vise-versa.

 

By "spiritual" I don't mean invisible beings that exist apart from experienced reality. A buddhist, for example, could have a broader definition of spirit without reference to a personal god. Even modern atheists can be quite spiritual...I think of someone like Danilo Dolci, the gandhi of Sicily. "Spiritual" is ultimately that immense and wonderful capacity of man, to love, to create, to experience. And perhaps, one could also conceive of some kind of collective spirit of nature, in which we take part. I'm not trying to argue any of this, simply pointing out that they are all possible constructions of meaning that do not depend on a personal god.

[Socrates]

Not understanding something doesn't equate to a default "god must be real" position.

 

I'm not offering a comprehensive proof for the existence of God here (that would be outside the scope of this thread), simply pointing out some problems and difficulties of the materialist atheist worldview.

 

I believe a theistic framework which acknowledges spiritual/immaterial realities can offer more satisfactory answers in this matter than a materialistic framework which says that physical matter is all that exists.

 

There is also no reason to presume atheism as a default philosophical position.

[Era Might]

Without an objective standard of goodness (as Christians, we believe God to be the ultimate standard and origin of goodness, and evil to be that which is contrary to God), "good" and "evil" become purely subjective.  Objective good and evil make no sense in an atheistic framework.

 

If there is no objective standard of good and evil, we cannot say that anything is objectively evil, only that we find it distasteful or unpleasant.  If there is no God, nothing is really "good" or "evil" - it simply is.

 

Therefore, the common argument against God from the existence of evil in the world fails.  If there is in fact no God, there is no standard to declare anything to be "evil," other than our own human preferences.

 

Well, yes, I can't think of much that is not based on human preference, even in Christian society. Take human sacrifice, for example. The idea that Christianity saved the world from barbarism is simply a preference for a different kind of barbarism, a different kind of human sacrifice, a barbarism that ee cummings expresses in one of his poems:

 

 

next to of course god america i

love you land of the pilgrims' and so forth oh
say can you see by the dawn's early my
country tis of centuries come and go
and are no more what of it we should worry
in every language even deafanddumb
thy sons acclaim your glorious name by gorry
by jingo by gee by gosh by gum
why talk of beauty what could be more beaut-
iful than these heroic happy dead
who rushed like lions to the roaring slaughter
they did not stop to think they died instead
then shall the voice of liberty be mute?''

He spoke. And drink rapidly a glass of water

 

In Catholic society burning people at the stake, persecuting Jews, nd a whole host of other evils were at various times considered good.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Era Might

[Fidei Defensor]

I'm not offering a comprehensive proof for the existence of God here (that would be outside the scope of this thread), simply pointing out some problems and difficulties of the materialist atheist worldview.

 

I believe a theistic framework which acknowledges spiritual/immaterial realities can offer more satisfactory answers in this matter than a materialistic framework which says that physical matter is all that exists.

 

There is also no reason to presume atheism as a default philosophical position.

 

The default position must be ascribing everything that can be observed to natural causes.  Attempting to assert a supernatural cause requires the burden of proof to be on the theist.  I'm not saying that one can't show it reasonable to believe in God, but I am saying you can't fault someone for assuming God doesn't exist based on what a human being can reasonable conclude from the world around us.

[Apotheoun]

St. Maximos the Confessor would probably say something along these lines:  nothing truly exists if God does not exist, because all that exists - whether physical or spiritual - has its being in God.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Era Might]

St. Maximos the Confessor would probably say something along these lines:  nothing truly exists if God does not exist, because all that exists - whether physical or spiritual - has its being in God.

 

God exists...does he have his being in God?

[Apotheoun]

God exists...does he have his being in God?

Actually, St. Maximos holds that God is beyond existence (hyperousios), but his theology is not something I can probably summarize well enough to fully convey his thought.  The most I could do is give a rough sketch of it, but if you want to get a real grasp on his theological worldview you would need to read Lars Thunberg's "Man and the Cosmos: The Vision of St. Maximus the Confessor," or the scholarly articles published on this topic by Dr. John D. Jones.

[Era Might]

Actually, St. Maximos holds that God is beyond existence (hyperousios), but his theology is not something I can probably summarize well enough to fully convey his thought.  The most I could do is give a rough sketch of it, but if you want to get a real grasp on his theological worldview you would need to read Lars Thunberg's "Man and the Cosmos: The Vision of St. Maximus the Confessor," or the scholarly articles published on this topic by Dr. John D. Jones.

 

Beyond existence? Interesting, never heard that before.

[Apotheoun]

Beyond existence? Interesting, never heard that before.

St. Maximos says that God is beyond God, and that we cannot comprehend what He is, or even that He is, but we do see Him in the created order, because creation is in a sense an extension of Him, or - to put it another way - a participation in Him.

[Evangetholic]

There is a God. It's atheists who do not exist, not God.

 

Psalm 14:1, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

 

Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

 

I do not think the Bible admits the possibility of atheism, self-delusion perhaps, lying definitely, unregenerate sin soaked wishful thinking as well, but not "atheism" as is commonly understood.

[4588686]

There is a God. It's atheists who do not exist, not God.

 

 

 

 

Hi!

 

Q.E.D

[KnightofChrist]

In actual society, good and evil are not abstract philosophical concepts...people generally act according to customary conceptions of good and evil. In the middle east hospitality is a very important part of the culture, welcoming the stranger. In America, we pass beggars by and don't think twice...indeed, we tell ourselves that god helps those who help themselves.

This argument from society for the existence of good and evil is really no different than theists using a similar argument for the existence of God or gods. After all most people have acted as if God or gods exist. Atheists typically reject such arguments for the divine, so why should I accept similar arguments for good and evil? There is a giant leap from subjective concepts of good and evil existing in the minds and imaginations of people and it existing outside themselves. Perhaps good and evil could exist without God, for the sake of argument, but we cannot just remove God from society and it not greatly and directly effect morality. Nor should we use arguments in favor of good and evil's existence which wouldn't be good enough for God's existence. Edited February 8, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Era Might]

This argument from society for the existence of good and evil is really no different than theists using a similar argument for the existence of God or gods. After all most people have acted as if God or gods exist. Atheists typically reject such arguments for the divine, so why should I accept similar arguments for good and evil? There is a giant leap from subjective concepts of good and evil existing in the minds and imaginations of people and it existing outside themselves. Perhaps good and evil could exist without God, for the sake of argument, but we cannot just remove God from society and it not greatly and directly effect morality. Nor should we use arguments in favor of good and evil's existence which wouldn't be good enough for God's existence.

 

I don't think the belief in god does much for society in terms of morality. Society has its own logic of operation. And even if we look at things from a biblical perspective, there is no expectation that God will make a better society. Christ himself asks whether, when he returns, he will even find faith on earth.

 

I have no interest in "removing god" from society. I think the concept of god is a phenomenon of human experience. It's one of the ways we construct meaning. Even if there is no god, the idea is pretty constant across human experience, though different cultures construct the idea differently. But that doesn't mean philosophical atheism can be dismissed...even going back to the greeks there were strains of atheism. When Christianity came along they were actually considered atheists because they did not believe in the gods...the Romans could not conceive how society could survive with these atheists ignoring the gods.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Era Might

[KnightofChrist]

I don't think the belief in god does much for society in terms of morality. Society has its own logic of operation. And even if we look at things from a biblical perspective, there is no expectation that God will make a better society. Christ himself asks whether, when he returns, he will even find faith on earth.

I have no interest in "removing god" from society. I think the concept of god is a phenomenon of human experience. It's one of the ways we construct meaning. Even if there is no god, the idea is pretty constant across human experience, though different cultures construct the idea differently. But that doesn't mean philosophical atheism can be dismissed...even going back to the greeks there were strains of atheism. When Christianity came along they were actually considered atheists because they did not believe in the gods...the Romans could not conceive how society could survive with these atheists ignoring the gods.

Ok but none of that really goes to what I said. I am not saying you're saying anything, I am not saying atheism can just be dismissed. I am not arguing here that God exist. I am trying to play devils advocate, pretending God doesn't exist, and the effects the would have on good and evil. I am saying there is no proof that objective right and wrong exist. Using arguments that are similar to those used for God aren't good enough. Telling me what Christians do and believe doesn't prove to me objective good and evil exist. It just tells me the opinions and actions of a people who believe in an imagery being if no God actually exist.