Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

@Frenzie, my long post is a response to the Euthyphro dilemma.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.

Atheists tend to believe that the dilemma is a knock-down argument against theism.

You implied that the dilemma should involve an intellectual struggle for theists like Craig. Sam Harris emphatically presents the dilemma as such. String also seemed to believe so and asked for my response.

For me personally the dilemma was always a non-issue. I can see how it may upset one's sensibilities, but intellectually it's completely uninteresting. I have only elaborated the response over time in discussion with others who had an issue with it.

And how is it atheists' business to complain about God they don't believe in anyway? It isn't. It only makes sense to issue complaints and demands regarding someone or something if that someone or something exists. This last thing was crystal clear to me when I was atheist (or agnostic), so I didn't issue such complaints. The so-called problem of evil is irrational at its core. Only irrational people make a problem of it.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-02-18, 05:08:45

Atheists tend to believe that the dilemma is a knock-down argument against theism.

No they don't.

You discount that as irrelevant because Christianity means nothing to you. With fatalistic, apocalyptic thinkers at or near the metaphorical launch buttons of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, I'd say maybe it should.

contrary to what you indirectly implied, these Dutch Reformed Protestants are not choosing to be evil. They are doing what they falsely believe to be good.

Quote from: Frenzie on 2014-02-18, 09:02:39

Quote from: ersi on 2014-02-18, 05:08:45

Atheists tend to believe that the dilemma is a knock-down argument against theism.

No they don't.

Watch Harris again.

Craig: But that's exactly your retort, Sam, that God has not issued such a command, and therefore, you're not morally obligated to do it.
Harris: No, if God did, he would be evil. So I can get behind that God (emphasis mine). If God is issuing that command, he's an evil bastard.

Do you have socio-political ambitions? The rest of your post points that way.

No. What I pretty directly implied in my section on moral psychology, it's a form of evil to not inform oneself as to the true nature of what is good. Both self-deception and seemingly innocent ignorance are evil.

The right way is: Think, then act. What is irrational is to try to busy oneself with things that one can't change. That's what I mean when I say in a more blunt way about myself: I don't care. It's because the issue is out of my hands. Let powers that be deal with it. How is it my responsibility to convert apocalyptic thinkers like Harris or groups like Dutch Reformed protestants?

Should we try this against the Dutch Reformed protestants who annoy you so much, Frenzie?

Quote

Craig: But that's exactly your retort, Sam, that God has not issued such a command, and therefore, you're not morally obligated to do it.
Harris: No, if God did, he would be evil. So I can get behind that God (emphasis mine). If God is issuing that command, he's an evil bastard.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-02-18, 09:17:01

Do you have socio-political ambitions? The rest of your post points that way.

Telling people to shut up and preserve the status quo is just as much a socio-political ambition. And accepting the status quo doesn't square with choosing to do good. It's a bit like lying by omission.

Moreover, I said, you must not wonder that those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our allegory may be trusted.
[...]
And the only life which looks down upon the life of political ambition is that of true philosophy. Do you know of any other?

Indeed, I do not, he said.

And those who govern ought not to be lovers of the task? For, if they are, there will be rival lovers, and they will fight.
[...]
[There are] States, in which men fight with one another about shadows only and are distracted in the struggle for power, which in their eyes is a great good. Whereas the truth is that the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are most eager, the worst.

And yet it is somehow wrong to make it easier for them to inform themselves or to spur them into at least thinking about their beliefs?

What is the form of his reasoning supposed to be? Maybe:

1. My God is evil, therefore yours is too.
2. Evil God does not exist because no rational person can like an evil God.
3. Ergo: Your God does not exist. Neither does mine. Theism is irrational.

Can you help him out here?

We are fundamentally divided on this issue. For you a philosopher must be a social reformer and activist. You are effectively asking me to be like Martin Luther King or the good old original Martin Luther, a preacher, mover of masses and of heads of state. You seriously have not had your fill of those? Want another one?

Caution is strongly advisable...

One could summarize the argument by saying that if God does exist, he/she/it does not have the properties Craig ascribes to it, but I think the underlying point is more accurately paraphrased by saying that any good will have to come from you—regardless whether God is actually being good, bad, indifferent or nonexistent.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-02-18, 11:35:32

We are fundamentally divided on this issue. For you a philosopher must be a social reformer and activist. You are effectively asking me to be like Martin Luther King or the good old original Martin Luther, a preacher, mover of masses and of heads of state. You seriously have not had your fill of those? Want another one?

More like the Buddha, who advocated sapere aude. But yes, I think it's about time for another Martin Luther King.

Looks like the thing is that you are actually yearning for someone you could unreservedly idolise.

Let's try to proceed slowly. "If God does exist, he/she/it does not have the properties Craig ascribes to it" -- If not these properties, then what other properties and why?

[…]

"any good will have to come from you—regardless whether God is actually being good, bad, indifferent or nonexistent." -- How did the good get into you so that it can come from you, even will have to come from you? Good by whose definition?

A global one this time, right? Anything wrong with the Pope? And I am not being silly here. Do you have a shortage of authorities, past and present, spiritual, clerical, political, military, etc? Harris is not good enough, I gather. Why?

Looks like the thing is that you are actually yearning for someone you could unreservedly idolise.

I haven't.

I have.  It's about planting the seed of doubt; it might take ages to come to fruition.

Were you a godless swine from birth?

is anybody here aware

On a slightly more serious note, is anybody here aware of a discussion between a person who follows some sort of religion and a person who thinks that religion is bollocks that has led one of them to say, "Damnation, you're right! I'm changing sides now!"

I haven't.

If God sends billions of people to Hell for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time, "good" is not an epithet I would apply. Would you?

Obviously God isn't going to do anything about, say, helping the victims of *insert the latest natural disaster*, whatever the reasons may be.

I have - when Colonel Rebel over at the old site clashed with Bantay. It was with a slight modification: "Damnation, you can't be right! I'm changing sides now!"

No, I wouldn't call it good. But when did he do that? I have seen this claim only from hardcore militant atheists - and the likes of Gainsboro Baptist Church. Talk to them. You have a lot in common.

But when natural disasters occur, lives must be in danger. Otherwise, how can you call it a natural disaster?

Didn't I explain adequately enough in my long post why and how non-intervention makes sense? It would not make sense to intervene miraculously and destroy causal links in the world. Causal links are how this world makes sense. This is what "makes sense" means. Or is it that when we say "explain" and "to make sense", we mean something totally incompatible with each other?

Seriously, your remarks explain nothing to me. They come out of the blue and change shape all the time. The statements you had earlier were: "If God does exist, he/she/it does not have the properties Craig ascribes to it" and "any good will have to come from you—regardless whether God is actually being good, bad, indifferent or nonexistent." You did nothing to explain them. You only added other claims without any apparent link.

The first statement looks to me stemming from this idea: "Hey, let's attach some random contradictory properties on God. After all, this is what theologians do, hehe. And then we can declare God is evil or self-contradictory and thus refuted. QED!" If not, please explain.

The second looks like "Let's say that the source of good is anywhere else than God, so God has no reason to exist, hence he doesn't. QED!" If not, please explain.

It doesn't trouble me if you have different ideas. Differences by themselves don't matter at all. What matters is the consistency, scope, purpose, and explanatory power of your ideas. They have to serve a purpose. They have to be workable theories, as complete as possible. For example, for any theory to be relevant in my view, I expect it to ANSWER its own WHY and HOW. If this condition is not met, the theory or statement under scrutiny lacks explanatory power and most likely it also lacks purpose. In such case, either further elaboration is called for or it must be discarded. Which way will it be?

Well, evidently I must accept that these kinds of explanations work for you. Sorry but they don't for me. This is not a cultural gap. It is a methodical gap, systemic gap.

"that omnipotence in a God and goodness in a God (any God, not just the Christian God) are incompatible with the real world."?

Quote from: ersi on 2014-02-18, 13:00:16

Looks like the thing is that you are actually yearning for someone you could unreservedly idolise.

I'm available.
==============================================
On a slightly more serious note, is anybody here aware of a discussion between a person who follows some sort of religion and a person who thinks that religion is bollocks that has led one of them to say, "Damnation, you're right! I'm changing sides now!"

I haven't.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-02-18, 19:00:51

No, I wouldn't call it good. But when did he do that? I have seen this claim only from hardcore militant atheists - and the likes of Gainsboro Baptist Church. Talk to them. You have a lot in common.

I think you mean Westboro. This is the mainstream Protestant God in both its Calvinist and Lutheran incarnations.

Craig says God is good, yet his God also sends billions of people to hell for no good reason.

God doesn't help victims of a disaster, ergo we must. I could go into more detail, but your longer text above gave me the impression you understood the principle.

Both are obvious straw men. What's there to explain? No atheist has said anything even remotely like that, ever.

You're not making much sense. If you want to be informed, a debate is a very bad place to go. Read a book or two. I believe Harris' is called The Moral Landscape.