Proof God Doesn't Exist

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote]so what happens when the corrections happen so perfectly that they leave no one who chooses evil? evil would not exist. so does this mean that God is not perfect?[/quote]

This life is our exile our test. [b][u]God is perfect[/u][/b], our goal is to be like Him, "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Even Jesus Himself was led off into the desert to be tempted for 40 days and 40 nights.

So this is our trail, our test, God has given us everything we need, God Himself, His Holy Catholic Church, The Sacraments, we have to use our free wills to say yes to His Holy Will everyday. But He gives us what we need to do this. But leaves it up to us to make the final decision!

God Bless
Jason

[Theoketos]

Some would say that we do always choose good. In this way we are just confused on what is better...

[Crusader_4]

I dunno for me personally i find great comfort in this and an Atheist will never accept this as a valid reason.

Why question God's plan? If God is all good like ppl say he is then who are we to question his existence?

just a thought i think the book of Job says it nicely. I am not saying inquriing or having doubts filled or whatever, but for me personally it accomplishes little in my faith, and if an atheist is looking for reason to prove God to themselves its hopeless because in some back corner in a pizza hut in downtown chicago a group of atheists are probably thinking of a comeback...so its a viscious cycle...in my opinnion sometimes we just need something more deepr and less intellectual to prove gods existence. I just have had little success in proving Gods existence for the most part using logic or the like to Atheists i guess it comes to that mentailty you cant argue a person into heaven. To me the best way is to show ppl how God works through u and then they can feel it and every1 has heard the quote and i will put it down but it is a good quote to dwell on

"Let us go to the village and preach and if we have to let us use words,"

St. Francis

My two cents.

[DojoGrant]

I wrote a paper on this once (well, sorta like this). It was against the Epicurean notion that if God is all-good and all-powerful, how could evil possibly exist?

It's a bit long, but maybe it'll help.
----------------
The problem of evil and suffering in the world is one that mankind has dealt with since he has pondered any question that asks, “Why?” It would appear that man innately seeks answers to the mysteries of life, and there are few more complicated questions as those who seek to resolve the problem of evil. Standing alone, perhaps, there is no problem with the existence of evil; it is when coupled with the belief in a monotheistic, omni benevolent God that serious problems begin to arise. Cultures and religions around the world attempt to deal with the question of why we suffer in various ways, but it is primarily western monotheism that faces the most obstacles. Throughout the centuries, theologians and philosophers have sought to resolve the inherent conflict or exploit it, depending on the motive of the thinker: does God exist, or does He not? Epicurus was one such thinker who in the fourth century BC could not rationalize the existence of a God because of the existence of evil. Here, I will demonstrate this argument and illustrate its logical flaws, responding to possible criticisms that might arise from my refutation.

Epicurus, a Greek philosopher in the Hellenistic period, had difficulty believing that a god could exist when he saw so much suffering in the world around him. He disagreed with popular beliefs of his time, including the immaterial soul, and was a bona fide skeptic. (O’Keefe) He was quoted as saying in his Dialogues, “Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” (Pojman 137) This challenge has lasted even into modern times.

In his book, Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, Louis P. Pojman takes Epicurus’ sentiments and forms them into a logical argument. His version reads as follows:

1. God is all-powerful (his powers include omniscience).
2. God is perfectly good.
3. Evil exists.
4. If God (an all-powerful, omniscient, omni benevolent being) exists, there would be no (or no unnecessary) evil in the world.
5. There is evil (or unnecessary evil) in the world.
6. Therefore, God does not exist. (Pojman 137)

Logically, based on the premises, the conclusion is valid. However, what I will demonstrate is that if the conclusion were actually true, it would then negate premises three and five. How can a true conclusion destroy the very premises that make it true? Simply put, it cannot. I will first, however, go through each of the steps of the original argument and fully explain them, for this will help one to better understand why it subsequently fails.

Pojman describes the first three premises as those traditionally accepted by Judeo-Christians, with the latter three showing the impossibility of the first. The first and the second, which could actually be combined in a single statement, set up the often-held view of what God is. God is all-powerful, all knowing, always present, and all good. In being all-powerful, God is in complete control of all creation, which itself is His handiwork. In being all knowing, God has foreseen all future events, effectively predestining all that humankind will do for the rest of time. In being always present, God can actively participate in the thoughts, words, and actions of humans, as well as the natural universe, at any given place or time. Finally, in being all good, it is thus impossible for God to cause evil to exist, for that would be a self-contradiction.

In step three of the argument, Pojman asserts that evil exists, and he reaffirms this in step five, although he clarifies it to make it state that evil not only exists, perhaps theoretically, but also actually in the world around us. This is the hinge of the argument that Epicurus and many others say make God’s existence an impossibility. For as long as it is true that God exists and maintains all of the characteristics listed in steps one and two, evil cannot exist. As Epicurus wrote, an all good God who is all powerful would simply use this power to end all suffering, and since God is all knowing, there is no excuse for Him to not take action. For if God does not remove evil from the world, He is not all powerful (the presence of evil being an obstacle He has no power over), not all knowing (He is unaware that evil exists), or not all good (a good God would not allow evil to exist). This leads the reader to the final step which nullifies the existence of this God, because it is impossible for such a God to exist without contradicting Himself or lacking the abilities that, put frankly, make an entity “God.”

Again, the conclusion follows from the premise; it does not, on the contrary, mean that the premises themselves are wholly sound. I will now demonstrate, not that God exists, but that this argument does not disprove that God exists. The fatal flaw in Pojman’s argument is that outside of the existence of God, it cannot be shown necessarily that evil exists at all, and if one cannot know objectively whether or not evil exists, he or she cannot maintain the understanding that God cannot exist because of it. A clearer understanding of evil and its relationship to God will properly expose the reasoning behind this rebuttal.

The concept of “evil” is not synonymous with the concept of “suffering.” The concept of evil must necessarily be linked with suffering to be understood, but suffering can easily exist without the same necessity of evil. For example, if one man intentionally harms an innocent man, the victim suffers because of the unwarranted assault of the attacker; in this given circumstance, an evil action resulted in suffering. In retrospect, we can say that a child who suffered from frequent abuse from a parent and grows up to in turn abuse his own children, learned to commit evil because of his suffering. Evil is the cause of suffering, in the first case, and in the second case suffering is the cause of evil. However, suffering can exist without the presence of evil. If a child is running, trips on his own shoelaces, and falls only to be injured, the suffering he experiences is not caused by evil, but by mere natural consequence to action. Evil and suffering, thus, are separate because suffering is an event, while evil is purely a motive or intention. Additionally, without suffering, there is no justification in stating that something is evil; evil has no meaning if it is not connected to a negative effect. The point here is that it is possible to not refer to any suffering as the product of evil when one simply takes an opposing viewpoint; evil cannot exist apart from an action and can be claimed to not exist at all.

Because evil, as well as good, are actually motives and intentions, they are purely subjective. For example, in recent years, we have seen the murder of abortion doctors by some anti-abortionists. Many view the doctor’s actions as acceptable and the killer’s as cruel and evil, but just as plainly, there are those that view the doctor’s actions as evil and the killer’s actions as justifiable and good. Much like beauty being in the eye of the beholder, “good and evil” are also totally dependent on such things as culture, morals and values, religion, and context of the situation. To state that evil actually exists is but an opinion, for one would be just as justified in stating that all actions are good.

The only way to continue to argue that evil actually exists in the world, as Pojman states as true in his fifth proposition, is to believe that there is an objective moral lawgiver, which we refer to as “God.” If God exists, then objective good and objective evil can exist, because there is a standard existing before the instantiation of the universe. With the existence of God, there is objective order in the world, and thus one may freely state as truth that if order exists, it can subsequently break down. The breakdown of order (good) is evil, for if a perfectly good God established order, then the lack of order is by consequence evil. Unfortunately for proponents of Pojman’s argument, this is where the argument falls apart at the seams.

The conclusion to this argument, once more, is that “God does not exist.” If God does not exist, then there is no logical reason to assert that order necessarily exists, and if order does not necessarily exist, then there is nothing to be broken down. Therefore, any breakdown in order that we observe cannot be objectively classified as such, for it could just as easily be only a conception of the mind. This makes the qualifiers good and evil purely subjective, for there is no standard of order upon which to base them. With that said, premises three and five are no longer valid, and the conclusion can no longer follow. Evil can only exist objectively if God, too, exists, and cannot be used to state that He does not exist. Therefore, God can still possibly exist.

[MagiDragon]

thanks DojoGrant

it sounds like what you are essentially saying is that evil is the absense of God, and without God, the concept doesn't make sense. I like it.

unfortunately, i'm pretty sure that he'll just redefine evil on me. something like: we can define evil as suffering, or as something that causes suffering without benefit. I don't think he can offer a fully satisfactory response to this though.

thanks again

[Archangel]

[quote name='MagiDragon' date='Apr 1 2004, 02:20 PM']He also says that if God is all-good and omnipotent and gives us free will, why did He not create us in a manner so that though we have free will, we would always choose Good?[/quote]
Because God is all-good and omnipotent, even if we choose to do bad, He can bring a greater good out of our bad decisions.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]Trying to disprove faith (inherently illogical) using a set of logical statements to renounce a being that's above logic is... illogical? 
[/quote]

Actually...St. Thomas Aquinas says that Faith is "the consent of the intellect to the Truth revealed by God, which we CAN understand." Faith is not illogical...if it were, then there would be no way to convert an atheist, and there would be no reason to believe anything we do, for it is illogical and unreasonable.

God bless.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='MagiDragon' date='Apr 1 2004, 10:19 PM']
Yes, I see your point. It *should* be enough to force belief in *a* god. Unfortunately, he has completely eliminated any chance of God existing within his own mind. He considers the odds to be 0 vs. 100. Thus, Pascal's wager doesn't hold.

I need something to *disprove God's nonexistence*, not something to prove God's existence. I believe that if he can no longer consider it to be illogical to believe in God, he will be forced to look deeper into Christianity, and eventually Catholicism.

My friend is a rationalist, but an honest one. He will try to test things as much as possible to see if they break, but if they do not break he will accept them.

Edit: to add a little more background: He believes in chaos theory. (The theory that choice is an illusion: all things are predetermined by prior circumstances. We may consider ourselves to have a choice, but we will always choose to do the same thing under exactly the same circumstances.) Yet, he's a moral guy. He says that even though all choice is an illusion, that's no reason to stop applying effort. [/quote]
Please read the article, your answer is in it.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[DojoGrant]

[quote name='MagiDragon' date='Apr 1 2004, 11:10 PM'] thanks DojoGrant

it sounds like what you are essentially saying is that evil is the absense of God, and without God, the concept doesn't make sense. I like it.

unfortunately, i'm pretty sure that he'll just redefine evil on me. something like: we can define evil as suffering, or as something that causes suffering without benefit. I don't think he can offer a fully satisfactory response to this though.

thanks again [/quote]
If he is free to logically redefine evil, an abstract concept that he apparently believes "actually" exists in the world, he is being just as "irrational" (by his own standards) as the one who believes in God.

To an atheist, the label of "evil" is totally subjective. Whatever he decides to call "evil," is not binding on any other person, because in the absence of objective order or good, evil is in the "eye of the beholder."

Therefore, whatever he defines evil as personally, it can do nothing to shatter a belief which is by nature objective.

We say, "A tangible (as opposed to conceptual) God exists."

If he says, "A tangible (as opposed to conceptual) evil exists," then he is stating something based on faith, not on reason alone.

If he says that, "Evil is a concept that we force into situations to understand them," then he is admitting the subjectivity of evil in an atheistic world view, and thus he cannot argue against God using evil.

Again, without order, there can be no evil (the breakdown of order). If order exists, then at minimum, God CAN exist.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
4/2 - St. Francis of Paola

DojoGrant:

There's an absence of definition in the argument by Epicurius' commentator. That is, he doesn't define what sorts of evil there are in the world. There are, in fact, two kinds: positive evil (the evil I do or have done to me by others) and natural evil (natural disasters, "acts of God" and the like). It seems that only positive evil is being addressed. What about natural evil?

[DojoGrant]

Pio Nono,

That's really interesting. That's the exact same comment I got from my professor. It had to be a five page paper, so I didn't have the time to address natural evil, although I can.

In short, it follows the same principles. Volcanos, earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, disease, pestilence, etc. We consider all of these "bad" because they harm our species and cause us to die, or in some cases with other species, die out completely.

However, again, outside of some outer providence, plan, or objective order, how are we to label these things as "evil?" There is no better world view than another because human interpretations of global events are subjective. Who are we to force our interpretations, even of our own extinction, as negative? Are we greater than the whole ecological system? If we are not fit enough to survive cataclysmic (spelling?) events, then that is just that. Sure, we may not "like" it, but we're also in no way actually suprerior to any other creature or thing, because superiority implies the possibility of superlative. God is superlative, and if there is no God (the belief of the atheist), then no superlative exists.

Again, labeling natural events as "evil" is merely a human way of coping with events beyond our control. Unless we are [i]meant[/i] to control them or overcome them (a supposition that cannot be supported by atheism), the label of "evil" has no bearing on the situation.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
4/2 - St. Francis of Paola

DojoGrant,

Well done! Do you mind if I continue to play devil's advocate?

I believe the atheist objection may run thus:

Though atheism may not posit a metaphysical superlative, a merely phyical one is possible. The Philosopher makes this claim on numerous occasions: for instance, men are superior to the animals because of the ability to reason (Nich. Ethics). An ability implies a responsibility - since I can reason, I must use that reason. How do I best use my reason? By controlling my environment as best as I am able (perhaps this could be placed in a communal setting as well). The infringement of nature upon this is a genuine evil in my life. No omnibenevolent God would allow actual evil. Therefore, there is no omnibenevolent God.

---

I also think we've got a false equivocation in here; we're thinking "evil = bad." However, St. Thomas (Summa I, Q.2, a.3, ad 2) tells us that, while evil=bad is legitimate in our minds, it is not necessarily so in the mind of God. Whatcha think?

[Jake Huether]

Your agruments are lost to an atheist. You cannot prove or disprove God's existence or nonexistence. That is why it is called "faith".


If your friend has no faith, then all you can do is pray that God gives him the Grace to have faith.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
4/2 - St. Francis of Paola

Jake Huether,

If you're right, then the entire Christian philosophical system is moot. St. Thomas tells us that the existence of God is not an object of faith, but of [u]knowledge[/u]. Aquinas says that I am able to know, without a shadow of a doubt, that God exists; he says I could know this even if God had chosen not to reveal anything about Himself to us. That it can be demonstrated philosophically removes it from the field of faith and places it within the realm of philosophical knowledge.

However, he does also admit that there is no problem with simply having faith in God's existence, since there's nothing wrong with having faith in what can be proven philosophically.

[MagiDragon]

[quote]Please read the article, your answer is in it.[/quote]

ummm . . . i did. but i don't think it is. i could be wrong, but i see nothing that destroys his initial argument. What did i miss?

[quote]If he is free to logically redefine evil, an abstract concept that he apparently believes "actually" exists in the world, he is being just as "irrational" (by his own standards) as the one who believes in God.[/quote]

not really. he simply is adjusting to new information. this is a good thing. it means that he is both flexible and on his heels. if he weren't flexible, it would mean that he has made up his mind to the point that arguing with him is pointless.

[quote]To an atheist, the label of "evil" is totally subjective. Whatever he decides to call "evil," is not binding on any other person, because in the absence of objective order or good, evil is in the "eye of the beholder."[/quote]

actually it *is* binding to a certain degree: his proof relies upon using Christian definitions against Christians. When i prove that he has missed the boat on something, then he has to reformulate. every time he reformulates he'll need to go about things a slightly different way. when he can find no other alternative, he will have to admit that God [i]might[/i] exist. Once i can force him into that conclusion, then i can use pascal's thingymabopper.