The god fallacy

[ShivKC]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

one of the comical points of the outdated epicurus' atheist philosophy is 'fear not death'.

he says, ' Death involves neither pleasure nor pain & The only thing that is bad for us is pain"


sticking on to epicurus on this 21st century will lead to words dangerous situations like,


why should we take precautions like wearing seat belts, to prevent death?
why should we go to a doctor
why should we have laws against murder? for death is not to be feared and its painless.

 

[C RAVI]

Shri Nara believes in this logic:

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? -- Epicurus

Here's similar logic:

Is a doctor willing to not administer injection to an infant, but not does not know how? Then he is not well qualified. He knows to administer but is not willing. Then he is not doing his duty. He is neither willing nor knows to administer. Then he is not fit to be a doctor. He is willing and knows to administer. Then why does he pain the child?

Can Shri.Nara and other atheists understand which part of the logic is fallacious?

Excellent Shri Sravna....

2) Is a jury willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not capable. 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 jurry?

3) Is admirable nature of survival willing to prevent catastrophe, but not able? Then it is not the nature of survival. Is it able, but not willing? Then it is cruel and destructive. Is it both able and willing? Then whence cometh havoc? Is it neither able nor willing? Then why call it and admire it as nature of survival?

 

[sravna]

Folks, messed up my last post a bit. Here's the post again:

Shri Nara believes in this logic:

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? -- Epicurus

Here's similar logic:

Is a doctor willing to administer injection to an infant, but does not know how? Then he is not well qualified. He knows to administer but is not willing. Then he is not doing his duty. He is neither willing nor knows to administer. Then he is not fit to be a doctor. He is willing and knows to administer. Then why does he pain the child?

Can Shri.Nara and other atheists understand which part of the logic is fallacious?

 

[Nara]

....Can Shri.Nara and other atheists understand which part of the logic is fallacious?

Dear sravna, the difference is, medical doctors do exist for all to see and nobody but totally deluded think they are ominpotent and are all uniformly oceans of compassion.

In contrast, whether there is a God or not is a matter of faith. The qualities attributed to that God of faith are human qualities elevated to the infinite extreme. There is no logical foundation for this, and that is the point of the Epicurus quote.

I hope you now see the unteneability of what you are implying.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

The contentious part is this:

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

What you see as evil is only there for achieving a higher purpose. From that point of view it is necessary. Thus the conclusion made in the above part of the argument that God is malevolent if he is not willing to prevent evil is fallacious.

 

[Nara]

...What you see as evil is only there for achieving a higher purpose. From that point of view it is necessary. Thus the conclusion made in the above part of the argument that God is malevolent if he is not willing to prevent evil is fallacious.

Dear sravna, you are assuming a God and a "higher purpose", there is no basis for this assumption.

Even so, I can't see what "higher purpose" is served by letting evil happen when the entity is capable of preventing it and as an ocean of compassion should want to prevent it however high the purpose may be. Only contrived "higher purpose" can be cited just so an a priori conclusion is defended.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear sravna, you are assuming a God and a "higher purpose", there is no basis for this assumption.

Even so, I can't see what "higher purpose" is served by letting evil happen when the entity is capable of preventing it and as an ocean of compassion should want to prevent it however high the purpose may be. Only contrived "higher purpose" can be cited just so an a priori conclusion is defended.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

Why do wise men say, "kalavum katru mara" because to strengthen yourself you need to be exposed to the bad and evil things too. That is the higher purpose of evil. Without that experience your development is not consummate.

 

[Nara]

...Why do wise men say, "kalavum katru mara" because to strengthen yourself you need to be exposed to the bad and evil things too. That is the higher purpose of evil. Without that experience your development is not consummate.

Dear sravna, is this why your God let the Nazis gas millions of Jews and Gypsies, Stalin kill millions of Russians, and Pol Pot murder millions of his own people? Was he trying his hand on these evils so that he can then forget it afterwards? How long is it going to take for him learn this "kalavu" so that he can start forgetting it?

The only logical explanation given so far is all this is God's leela, and, unfortunately, that would make God a sadist.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear sravna, is this why your God let the Nazis gas millions of Jews and Gypsies, Stalin kill millions of Russians, and Pol Pot murder millions of his own people? Was he trying his hand on these evils so that he can then forget it afterwards? How long is it going to take for him learn this "kalavu" so that he can start forgetting it?

The only logical explanation given so far is all this is God's leela, and, unfortunately, that would make God a sadist.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

Evolution is a long process. One has to go through all conceivable experiences from the most pleasant to the most macabre so that your mind becomes still at the end of it all. Then you become God, all powerful and all knowing, thanks to your experiences, good and bad.

 

[ShivKC]

Dear sravna, the difference is, medical doctors do exist for all to see and nobody but totally deluded think they are ominpotent and are all uniformly oceans of compassion.

In contrast, whether there is a God or not is a matter of faith. The qualities attributed to that God of faith are human qualities elevated to the infinite extreme. There is no logical foundation for this, and that is the point of the Epicurus quote.

I hope you now see the unteneability of what you are implying.

Cheers!

couldnt consider this to be convincing, vis a vis, the counter analogy given by sravana. should refine, with a new counter argument

 

[ShivKC]

Dear sravna, is this why your God let the Nazis gas millions of Jews and Gypsies, Stalin kill millions of Russians, and Pol Pot murder millions of his own people?
Cheers!

when one conveniently quoted Spinoza to counter the existence of god, the same person is also expected to bound by the same arguments 'free will and problem of evil'.

<Edtd - KRS>

anyways, whats the answer of atheists, about SS/stalin/pol pot's murders? do you call it as the result of 'survival of fittest?..


on top of it, few months back, whenever some one referred hitler, thou was quick enough to put them down by referring Godwins law.. . how come , now, thou art using the same reference of hitler? convenience right!!

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara and all others.

Nara's post #83:
The only logical explanation given so far is all this is God's leela, and, unfortunately, that would make God a sadist.

Suppose we are characters in a work of fiction by a novelist. As everyone knows, a novelist is omnipotent and omniscient in the fictional world he has created, and omnipresent too in a sense, since every character has originated from his mind.

Now let us take the Epicurean paradox, and substitute the Novelist in the place of God:

Is the Novelist 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 a Novelist?

If the work of fiction is the Novelist's lIlA that he enjoyed creating, with his good and bad characters and all the clash between them, do we call the Novelist a sadist?

The difference between a Novelist and God is that the characters in a novel can never know their author, whereas God has made it a legacy for us to know him eventually.

 

[C RAVI]

namaste Nara and all others.

Nara's post #83:
The only logical explanation given so far is all this is God's leela, and, unfortunately, that would make God a sadist.

Suppose we are characters in a work of fiction by a novelist. As everyone knows, a novelist is omnipotent and omniscient in the fictional world he has created, and omnipresent too in a sense, since every character has originated from his mind.

Now let us take the Epicurean paradox, and substitute the Novelist in the place of God:

Is the Novelist 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 a Novelist?

If the work of fiction is the Novelist's lIlA that he enjoyed creating, with his good and bad characters and all the clash between them, do we call the Novelist a sadist?

The difference between a Novelist and God is that the characters in a novel can never know their author, whereas God has made it a legacy for us to know him eventually.

:yo:

 

[Nara]

...Suppose we are characters in a work of fiction by a novelist..

Dear Saidevo, if we are mere fictional characters, then anything goes, nothing need to be considered as evil. Is this your position? Further, if we get into the realm of supposing, anything can be supposed.

Earlier I cited some well known mass-scale evil. For each one of these dreadfully wicked events in human history, there are millions of instances of one-on-one evil that take place, some under the very watchful eyes and nose of the god you suppose, like the temple priest sexually assaulting women inside the sanctum and selling videos of it, or the boys the Catholic priests molested inside their Churches. What these gods didn't prevent were stopped only when secular human authority intervened.

Saidevo, my point is this, the arguments you and sravna are putting forward do not satisfactorily answer Epicurus.

Anyway, with the kind of potshots that is beginning to appear and the "Likes" being given, I have a feeling this thing is starting to heat up. I don't want to be a part of it, so, I am going to get on with posting some more passages from freethinkers, unless a new and compelling point is brought up.

Cheers!

 

[ShivKC]

Earlier I cited some well known mass-scale evil. For each one of these dreadfully wicked events in human history, there are millions of instances of one-on-one evil that take place, .

Saidevo, my point is this, the arguments you and sravna are putting forward do not satisfactorily answer Epicurus


Cheers!

how can you condemn or worry about the million killings of jews/polpot as evil, when , few posts ago, you yourself glorified 'EPICURUS', who said, death is not all pain, and has to be faced with brave.

wont you be ideologically asking those victims to face death bravely?

anticipating this question about death, you have conveniently shifted the discussion slightly, towards rape, cos Epicurus has not mentioned about rape in his philosophy.. go tell it on the WW11 victims about this epicurian philosophy and wait for the outcome..

 

[C RAVI]

As Alber Einstein explained to his professor - Evil does not exists unto itself, it is simply the absence of Good...(similar to the existence of darkness due to absence of light and the existence of cold due to absence of heat)

We can justify the God's willingness for Evil and his acceptance for the evil to prevail "temporarily" from time to time, ONLY in the sense that -

GOD allows Evil to act where ever and when ever Good is not been upholded and administered and to make humans understands how Evil can have it's impact when people of authority missuse their authority with their over dose and imbalanced sense of accomplishments, proudness, selfishness and all powers attempt to implement their FREE WILL in the pretext of their Rational Brains, that fails to recognize, realize and accept the Supreme Authority and his flawless Rationality.

To show how Evil acts upon itself auwkwardly, due to its own evilness.

 

[ShivKC]

Anyway, with the kind of potshots that is beginning to appear and the "Likes" being given, I have a feeling this thing is starting to heat up.

Cheers!

<Edtd - KRS>

Dear Sri ShivKC Ji,

Please refrain from making comments that are not direct and implying certain things about a member here. The above words by Professoe Nara Ji are perfectly fine to describe his feelings. Yours are not acceptable because your words ascribe motives on his part. Please do not do this again.

Regards,
KRS

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

Ok, answer this. If all are equal and there is only good, what is the point of a physical existence? I am answering your question why wouldn't God be compassionate and allow no evil?

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Saidevo, if we are mere fictional characters, then anything goes, nothing need to be considered as evil. Is this your position? Further, if we get into the realm of supposing, anything can be supposed.

Earlier I cited some well known mass-scale evil. For each one of these dreadfully wicked events in human history, there are millions of instances of one-on-one evil that take place, some under the very watchful eyes and nose of the god you suppose, like the temple priest sexually assaulting women inside the sanctum and selling videos of it, or the boys the Catholic priests molested inside their Churches. What these gods didn't prevent were stopped only when secular human authority intervened.

Saidevo, my point is this, the arguments you and sravna are putting forward do not satisfactorily answer Epicurus.

Anyway, with the kind of potshots that is beginning to appear and the "Likes" being given, I have a feeling this thing is starting to heat up. I don't want to be a part of it, so, I am going to get on with posting some more passages from freethinkers, unless a new and compelling point is brought up.

Cheers!

Shri Nara,

Even if we don't have a civil society and Law & order, God has his way to bring the things to light and punish the culprit, some or the other way.

For the humans of todays civilized society with so called law and order (that itself have the loopholes and humans manipulate them), God knows how and when a culprit should be exposed and subjected to our Law & Order OR can say to his law and order.

Majority of humans who believe in Him, could experience and accept the above, out of real life experiences.

 

[Nara]

Ok, answer this. If all are equal and there is only good, what is the point of a physical existence? I am answering your question why wouldn't God be compassionate and allow no evil?

Dear sravna, I am not saying all are equal and there is only good. What is the purpose of life is a question for which the answer may always elude us, but any answer that includes God is only supposed, a matter of faith. If there is a God who is omnipotent and compassionate, then there is no reason for evil to exist. But we know what we consider as evil exists. If we suppose there is God, then what we think of as evil is not evil at all, and that cannot be a very comforting thought for theists and atheists alike. So, the only answer we are allowed is the God that has been supposed does not exist in reality.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear sravna, I am not saying all are equal and there is only good. What is the purpose of life is a question for which the answer may always elude us, but any answer that includes God is only supposed, a matter of faith. If there is a God who is omnipotent and compassionate, then there is no reason for evil to exist. But we know what we consider as evil exists. If we suppose there is God, then what we think of as evil is not evil at all, and that cannot be a very comforting thought for theists and atheists alike. So, the only answer we are allowed is the God that has been supposed does not exist in reality.

Cheers!

When there is no evil then everything is good. and if there is no equality then you would ask why should God allow inequality if he is really caring towards all? So all being equal and everything good what is the point?

 

[sravna]

Dear sravna, I am not saying all are equal and there is only good. What is the purpose of life is a question for which the answer may always elude us, but any answer that includes God is only supposed, a matter of faith. If there is a God who is omnipotent and compassionate, then there is no reason for evil to exist. But we know what we consider as evil exists. If we suppose there is God, then what we think of as evil is not evil at all, and that cannot be a very comforting thought for theists and atheists alike. So, the only answer we are allowed is the God that has been supposed does not exist in reality.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

Ok I will address your point directly. The way to discerning the higher purpose of evil is in understanding that we learn from bad and harrowing experiences and more so than from pleasant experiences. This aspect called LEARNING is the crux of all. That is what drives our evolution all the way up to divinity. But if we did not benefit from evil experiences but just suffer then you have a point. But that is not the case.

 

[Yamaka]

"Spirituality is the work of neurons" - Nara.

Hello ALL:

Because I am very busy elsewhere, I don't have time to engage in this Thread, a topic very near and dear to me.

I fully agree with dear Nara's statement above.

Most of the Theists are burdened by

TRADITION and/or
FEAR and/or
Superstition when they Believe & Practice

the tenets of SNA (the Human-like Personal Gods), the usefulness of PPB and the truthfulness of PJK.

Their specialized sensory neurons in the pre-frontal cortex are conditioned to believe in the Super Natural Agent.

In fact, all the abstract thinking, imagination, fear, pleasure, belief etc etc are all activities in the person's sensory neurons in the brain.

My view is the Theists will change their minds in course of time (most probably, their kids will not be burdened this much) when Science, Engineering and Technology -SET- takes root in the Society as it has done in most of the OECD countries.

Again, the Theism incurs a REAL cost to the Society... as I have posited before Religious Fatalism is the ROOT cause of backwardness and poverty in India, Indonesia, Haiti, Central and South America etc.

Therefore, the Society has to change, walking away from this man-made Theism sooner or later for its own survival.

Wait & watch.

 

[saidevo]

You agreed in your post #83 that "all this is God's leela" as the "only logical explanation given so far" but surmised "that would make God a sadist". It is in this context that I compared God's lIlA to a Novelist's work of fiction and asked it the Novelist could be called a sadist.

As an atheist/agnostic if you don't subscribe to the theory of karma and rebirth, then the paradox of good and evil in the world cannot be explained convincingly, within a single life in the physical realm. Epicurus probably did not know about the karma theory, which explains his blaming God in his famous quote.

If you think physical death--which cannot be predicted by the best theist/atheist/scientist--is the ultimate end to man's life, then shouldn't that death be enough punishment for all the evil deeds a person has done in life--although physical death also deprives a man of any rewards for his good deeds?

In this scenario, let us hear about

• what you people as non-believers can explain about the paradox of good and evil, in a rational and scientific way; and

• how the philosophers you have quoted/planned to quote, have explained it without blaming God.

The onus of explaining the good and evil in the world rests equally with the theists and the atheists.

 

[Nara]

You agreed in your post #83 that "all this is God's leela" as the "only logical explanation given so far"

Dear Saidevo, I did not agree that all this is God's leela, how could I? My point was that even the only explanation that could be logically made, i.e. all this suffering is God's leela, makes God into a sadist, thus undermining God's compassion. In this way, even this explanation is illogical given the theist's premise.

As an atheist/agnostic if you don't subscribe to the theory of karma and rebirth, then the paradox of good and evil in the world cannot be explained convincingly, within a single life in the physical realm. Epicurus probably did not know about the karma theory, which explains his blaming God in his famous quote.

Karma theory is an explanation that is conjured up to explain all the suffering. Now, having already concluded there is a benevolent all powerful god, you think this karma theory comes to your rescue, but it really does not.

Even under the karma theory, Epicurian challenge remains unanswered. God being all powerful, he must have the power to wipe away all the karma of all people in one fell sweep and thus eradicate all suffering and evil. If he is capable of this, but does not do it because of his proclivity for leela, then he is malevolent. If he wants to, but karma is too powerful for him to wipe away, then he is not omnipotent. If he is both capable of wiping them away and wishes to do so as well, why has he not done it yet, why is there still suffering that you are having to attribute to this karma theory? If he is neither capable of wiping it away nor wanting to do, well then he is not god.

So, you see, even the karma theory cannot answer Epicurus' challenge.

Reaching a conclusion first without solid irrefutable evidence and then searching for an explanation and finding one in evidence free karma theory is irrational.

If you think physical death--which cannot be predicted by the best theist/atheist/scientist--is the ultimate end to man's life, then shouldn't that death be enough punishment for all the evil deeds a person has done in life--although physical death also deprives a man of any rewards for his good deeds?

No Saidevo, if God were to eradicate all evil and suffering there would not arise a need for punishment in the first place. Worse still, what about the victims? Existence of an all powerful and compassionate god is negated by the mere existence of victims of evil. If only God will exercise his omnipotence and interminable compassion, there would be no victim, and no perpetrator to punish.

• what you people as non-believers can explain about the paradox of good and evil, in a rational and scientific way; and

• how the philosophers you have quoted/planned to quote, have explained it without blaming God.

The onus of explaining the good and evil in the world rests equally with the theists and the atheists.

No Saidevo, there is no onus on anybody to explain good and evil. Theists get into this problem on their volition because they assert an omnipotent and compassionate God. Atheists do not have to face this conundrum because they do not assert such a god.

There are many questions for which we humans have not found a rational explanation. Some of these may for ever remain outside the reach of human intellect. All through history theists have asserted God as the answer to the unanswered questions. As the rationalists keep slowly and methodically figuring out answers to many of these question, the theists keep retreating to the questions that remain unanswered and assert their God as the answer, easy cop out. The God of the theists is the God of unanswered questions. As long as there are unanswered questions, which is very likely to be the case forever, there will always be theists offering God as the answer.

Cheers!