Problems and Questions in Atheism

[37818]

Right, there's also the Hawking-Hartle model, Turok and Steinhardt's Ekpyrotic model, Vilenkin's proto-universe, etc., etc.

What is being a failure to be understood is if we can describe any model, it has finite and temporal componets to it. Otherwise it becomes undefinable.

For examle the Hawking-Hartle model which claims that the universe has no beginning, but it is not the steady state universe of Hoyle, that it simply has no initial boundaries in time nor space, references a hypothetical vector in the Hilbert space of a theory of quantum gravity that describes this wave function.

[37818]

Again, our natural laws and the nature of our physical existence is possibly uncaused, and has no origin.

You seem here again to fail comprehend that what ever you define naturel laws to be, they have to do with what is finite and temporal making them to be finite and temporal. What is physical is finite and temporal. To argue that is in any way uncaused is to effectively claim that it is both uncaused and temporal.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

What is being a failure to be understood is if we can describe any model, it has finite and temporal componets to it. Otherwise it becomes undefinable.

It's not at all clear what you mean by "finite and temporal components." If you mean that any model which can be described has a past-finite dimension of time, you are wrong.

For examle the Hawking-Hartle model which claims that the universe has no beginning, but it is not the steady state universe of Hoyle

I'm glad you finally seem to acknowledge that there are past-infinite models of the universe besides Steady State.

...that it simply has no initial boundaries in time nor space, references a hypothetical vector in the Hilbert space of a theory of quantum gravity that describes this wave function.

I'm not sure why you think that copy and pasting out-of-context lines from Wikipedia has any force of argument. I'm not even sure you understand what it is that you've posted, here. Which of the emboldened terms are you suggesting is "finite and temporal?"

[shunyadragon]

You seem here again to fail comprehend that what ever you define naturel laws to be, they have to do with what is finite and temporal making them to be finite and temporal. What is physical is finite and temporal. To argue that is in any way uncaused is to effectively claim that it is both uncaused and temporal.

The assertion on your part that our physical existence is temporal and finite is an assertion of belief, and you have not provided any objective evidence to support this claim.

Still waiting . . .

[37818]

The assertion on your part that our physical existence is temporal and finite is an assertion of belief, and you have not provided any objective evidence to support this claim.

Still waiting . . .

The only evidence is finite and temporal. There is no other evidence! By you rejecting that evidence, then define what you expect for evidence.

[shunyadragon]

The only evidence is finite and temporal. There is no other evidence! By you rejecting that evidence, then define what you expect for evidence.

There is no evidence that our physical existence is finite nor temporal.

Still waiting . . .

[Carrikature]

But don't you believe in the B-theory of time in which the universe is static, i.e. not actually expanding?

I would strongly caution you against using anything mentioning A-theory or B-theory. Those terms have been taken well beyond the context in which they were created, and usage of them continues to misunderstand their actual meaning.

This isn't just you. I don't think I've seen anyone, particularly on these forums, use those terms correctly.

[JimL]

I would strongly caution you against using anything mentioning A-theory or B-theory. Those terms have been taken well beyond the context in which they were created, and usage of them continues to misunderstand their actual meaning.

This isn't just you. I don't think I've seen anyone, particularly on these forums, use those terms correctly.

I'm no expert in regards to the theories of time, but I do know that in B-theory, the universe of time is static, ergo all events within that universe, whether designated as past, present or future, exist in the now, even though each of those nows are located at different points along the time line. Thats part seems fairly obvious, but if I am wrong about that, I'd love to hear the true explanation.

[JohnMartin]

Problems for Atheism –

Atheism concludes to God does not exist using the following or a similar argument from evil -

Argument from Evil

If God did exist, then He is both infinitely good and infinitely powerful.
Yet evil exists, which is a lack of a due good.
If both God and evil exists then
1) evil exists and God permits the evil making the all good God, evil
and
2) evil exists and God does not have the power to prevent the evil making the all-powerful God, not all powerful.
As evil exists then God is not all good and not all powerful.
Therefore God does not exist.

1) - Evil is a lack of a due good. If evil exists, then evil must reside in the good, whereby the good is the material cause of evil. The blind man is blind due to the evil of blindness, but also due to the goodness of the existence of the man. If the man did not exist, the blindness that resides in the man, would also not exist. Therefore the existence of evil assumes the existence of the good.

The good exists if evil exists, but the good is that which is appetible. And that which is appetible is a mode of being. Then if evil exists, the evil resides in a thing which has being. But being is either had by participation or by nature. If by participation, a thing has some being, which in turn is dependent upon the necessary being, which is God. Therefore is evil exists, God must exist, for evil presumes the good as a material cause, which can only be accounted for through the existence of the necessary being, which is God. Therefore, because evil is dependent upon the good and the good is caused by God, then because evil exists, God must exist.

Question - How then does atheism account for the existence of evil without accounting for the existence of the good?

2 and 3 are also documented below for consideration after a discussion on the question raised in 1 above.

2) - Evil in the world is caused by sin (Gen 3:17ff.) whereby sin is a defect in the will of a creature. The existence of evil is then dependent upon the existence of human free will. For atheism to then posit that evil exists apart from human free will, is to posit evil exists in the world apart from free will as revealed by God (Gen 3:17ff.). If so, then according to atheism, evil exists in the world apart from Adam's free will and thereby has its origin only in nature and not will. Consequently, atheism would claim God alone has authored evil as the creator of the universe in which we observe evil. Hence God is the powerless and evil, false god as concluded from the above argument from evil.

Question - How then does atheism account for the existence of evil without accounting for the Christian revelation that evil has its origin in human free will and the subsequent curse after the original sin?

Question - doesn't atheism require a false, a-priori denial of Christian revelation concerning the original cause of evil, to then propose the false argument from evil presented above, and to then conclude to God does not exist? If not why not?

Question - If atheism posits the cause of evil in nature and not will, how does atheism account for evil in nature, when nature is caused by God as the universal cause of all things?

3) - If the argument from evil concludes to God does not exist, the argument must contain within it an unresolvable problem concerning the nature of evil which is said to be incompatible with the existence of the all good and all powerful God. Yet the argument from evil must conclude to the existence of the all-powerful and all good God, for

1) God is the universal cause of being and therefore of the good, in which evil resides.

2) If evil exists, then God exists, which infers evil only exists because of the good. As the good is revealed by God through Christian revelation to include the restoration of the universe on the final day and ultimate union of men with God in beatitude, then the evil in the universe exists as part of the Christian revelation to ultimately glorify God and save men from sin.

Question - If the argument from evil is thought to conclude to God does not exist, then the argument must both implicitly affirm the existence of God and implicitly deny Christian revelation concerning the ultimate cause and ultimate resolution to the existence of evil. How then does the argument from evil conclude to the non-existence of God when God is implied in the argument and the correct resolution to the original cause and ultimate resolution to the problem of evil are both ignored?

JM

[Yttrium]

The good exists if evil exists, but the good is that which is appetible. And that which is appetible is a mode of being. Then if evil exists, the evil resides in a thing which has being. But being is either had by participation or by nature. If by participation, a thing has some being, which in turn is dependent upon the necessary being, which is God. Therefore is evil exists, God must exist, for evil presumes the good as a material cause, which can only be accounted for through the existence of the necessary being, which is God. Therefore, because evil is dependent upon the good and the good is caused by God, then because evil exists, God must exist.

Appetible?

Appetible. Apppppetibililible. Appetite? Appetence? Appetile? Appetible. Hmm.

Appetible: (obsolete) desirable or capable of arousing desire

Please come up with a term that isn't obsolete. Frankly, the whole paragraph is painful to read. I get the feeling that it could be expressed much more simply.

[shunyadragon]

Problems for Atheism –

Atheism concludes to God does not exist using the following or a similar argument from evil -

Argument from Evil

If God did exist, then He is both infinitely good and infinitely powerful.
Yet evil exists, which is a lack of a due good.
If both God and evil exists then
1) evil exists and God permits the evil making the all good God, evil
and
2) evil exists and God does not have the power to prevent the evil making the all-powerful God, not all powerful.
As evil exists then God is not all good and not all powerful.
Therefore God does not exist.

1) - Evil is a lack of a due good. If evil exists, then evil must reside in the good, whereby the good is the material cause of evil. The blind man is blind due to the evil of blindness, but also due to the goodness of the existence of the man. If the man did not exist, the blindness that resides in the man, would also not exist. Therefore the existence of evil assumes the existence of the good.

The good exists if evil exists, but the good is that which is appetible. And that which is appetible is a mode of being. Then if evil exists, the evil resides in a thing which has being. But being is either had by participation or by nature. If by participation, a thing has some being, which in turn is dependent upon the necessary being, which is God. Therefore is evil exists, God must exist, for evil presumes the good as a material cause, which can only be accounted for through the existence of the necessary being, which is God. Therefore, because evil is dependent upon the good and the good is caused by God, then because evil exists, God must exist.

Question - How then does atheism account for the existence of evil without accounting for the existence of the good?

2 and 3 are also documented below for consideration after a discussion on the question raised in 1 above.



JM

Most atheists prefer the simple approach to cut the gordian note. Simply there is no consistent evidence for God(s). Arguments like you present require the a prior assumption that God(s) exist.

[JohnMartin]

Most atheists prefer the simple approach to cut the gordian note. Simply there is no consistent evidence for God(s). Arguments like you present require the a prior assumption that God(s) exist.

Another statement made without presenting any evidence.

JM

[Yttrium]

Although I'm not an atheist, I don't follow religious concepts of good and evil. For me, the question has a pretty simple answer, one that isn't wrapped in philosophical jargon.

"Good" is a term I occasionally apply to things I like.
"Evil" is a term I occasionally apply to things I don't like.

The contrast between "good" and "evil" is as simple as the contrast between "like" and "dislike". I'm just using words to describe how I feel about things. I don't recognize absolutes of good and evil. For me, they're relative and somewhat arbitrary terms, and can be used very inconsistently.

Of course, I can hardly speak for the atheists out there. I'm simply describing one possible non-religious view of good and evil.

[JohnMartin]

Although I'm not an atheist, I don't follow religious concepts of good and evil. For me, the question has a pretty simple answer, one that isn't wrapped in philosophical jargon.

"Good" is a term I occasionally apply to things I like.
"Evil" is a term I occasionally apply to things I don't like.

The contrast between "good" and "evil" is as simple as the contrast between "like" and "dislike". I'm just using words to describe how I feel about things. I don't recognize absolutes of good and evil. For me, they're relative and somewhat arbitrary terms, and can be used very inconsistently.

Of course, I can hardly speak for the atheists out there. I'm simply describing one possible non-religious view of good and evil.

Evil is a lack of a due good. Blindness is a lack of sight due to man. Hence blindness is evil. Goodness is a mode of being under the aspect of that which is appetible, or that which is capable of being desired.

JM

[JimL]

Evil is a lack of a due good. Blindness is a lack of sight due to man. Hence blindness is evil. Goodness is a mode of being under the aspect of that which is appetible, or that which is capable of being desired.

JM

Mode of being? Simple answer John, there is no such thing as "good" or "evil". They are not existing things.