The Answer

[kisc]

Pretty commonly, folks ask questions like "how can you believe in a god that would allow X to happen?" I've stumbled across this answer a few times, but pretty commonly forget. I'm not clear why I forget every other year or so

Comments

[lonelocust]

You should be aware that your dismissal of the question as childish or assholeish doesn't give the impression that you are willing to have a discussion.

As I said, the reversed question is relevant to ethics and morals and philosophy, to how one should live one's life. As a deeply Humanistic person, it resonates with me quite a bit. Given no involved god, we SHOULD try to make the changes that a loving and omnipotent god would make. However, it has nothing to do with questions of existence.

And yes, ineffability is a cop out. If this alleged being is so ineffable that you can't understand why it would allow atrocity, why is it not so ineffable that you (generic you) don't feel certain that a specific book knows what is what about it, so ineffable that you don't really have any idea how it wants you to live your life, so ineffable that you don't really know whether it is in fact loving or merciful at all. We know what "loving" and "merciful" mean. Saying "omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving and all-merciful being" we can make some predictions of how that being would and could behave, because we have meanings for the words "omnipotent" and "omniscient" that have to do with capability and we have meanings for the words "loving" and "merciful" that have to do with proclivities. Nothing in particular in the world is suggestive of the existence or non-existence of an ineffable being (omnipotent and omniscient or not), by definition. However, we know what love and mercy are.

[ruthanolis]

That was part of my point. Why should the existence of God change just what we ourselves are doing? Even if we could prove the existence of God, should we stop trying to make those changes? Why should our humanity rely upon the existence or non-existence of a deity?
In the end, it's possible that the only God man has is man himself. But if that isn't true and there is a being out there, it doesn't mean we should stop and wait for them to do everything.

As for a seeming willingness/unwillingness to discuss, in my experience, the entire question is based around belittling someone's belief in God. Not in eliciting discussion. Simply because it's not used as a fair question.
As a side note, I never claimed I wasn't an arsehole because I framed a 'better' question - I am unquestionably so, simply for rephrasing their question and tossing it back at them. It doesn't change the nature of the question, just the nature of the target.

[lonelocust]

It absolutely changes the nature of the question. One question is about whether a specific sort of god exists, and the other is about how we should live our lives. "Who cares, let's be good people!" is a great way to live, but is irrelevant to a discussion of the reasoning people have for believing or not believing in a deity. It's not a rephrasing of the question; it is a totally different topic.

[ruthanolis]

I see the questions as the same. You see them as different. Perhaps from our differing beliefs, perhaps from some error in communication. And I do believe we've already seen some recursion in the discussion.

[lonelocust]

Let me try one more time to clarify, and if you could clarify why you think they are the same, that would be great. There are two base questions at work here.

1) Does God (in a very specific sense) exist?
2) How should we live our lives?

And there are two argument questions:

A) "Would a god (that meets the previously established criteria of being omniscient, omnipotent, loving, and merciful) allow X things to happen." or otherwise phrased "Why would a god (that meets these criteria) allow X things to happen?"
B) "Why do YOU allow X things to happen?"

Question A) is logically related to question 1) because we are thinking about the existence of a certain kind of deity. We are making an argument of the nature IF a deity with certain qualities exists, THEN he would not allow X things to happen. (I am for this purpose ignoring statements like "It is arrogant for us to think we would know what this deity would do" or "This deity is ineffable." (since ineffability is not compatible with the human-understood qualities of mercy and love which are a criteria for the sort of god we are contemplating))

Question B) is not logically related to question 1) in the way of IF a deity with certain qualities exists, THEN YOU would not allow X things to happen. What YOU as a non-omniscient, non-omnipotent being would do is not relevant to the existence or nont-existence of the being that is being contemplated since YOU would/should (relevant to question 2) behave in the same fashion whether or not such a being exists. This makes question B) not logically connected to question 1).

Can you now explain your view that question B) and question 1) are logically connected, or how the answer to question B) informs the answer to question 1)?

[ruthanolis]

I find that those two 'base' questions aren't all that necessary. Question A isn't asked from a point of wanting to know, but asked from a position of 'I know God doesn't exist, so let's see how you like this question!' In my experience it makes the assumption that the person being asked isn't willing to work or is some sort of sheep. It's an attempt to belittle someone.
Question B is asked in a similar manner - the difference being that it's more direct and honest about what it is stating. It is also important to add, 'Whether or not God exists' to the start, as it can make it more obvious that it's a moot point for the question.
I personally find questions A & B only barely related to questions 1 & 2. There is a relationship there, but it is not what the questions A & B are based on. I don't believe I ever stated that questions B & 1 connected logically.

[lonelocust]

So do you understand that when you say the question THAT ONE IS DISCUSSING (i.e. does God exist) is "not that necessary" that you are changing the topic? If I'm trying to discuss question 1) and you say "That question is not that necessary", you're not in any way addressing the question. You are dismissing it. Whatever your reasons for that (and dismissing someone's emotional reasons for asking a question is also a fallacy), changing the question to something not logically related to the original question doesn't actually address the original question.

You are elaborately saying "I don't want to discuss the logic of this question, so I will discuss something else." That does not make the questions the same. That makes you uninterested in discussing a certain question. (Again, that's the same whatever your reasons for not wanting to discuss it are.)

[lonelocust]

I additionally find it disingenuous of you to say that people ask that question in an attempt to belittle someone when I, right now, am pretty clearly trying to discuss this with you in a purely reason-oriented fashion.

And, additionally in direct response, yes your "whether or not god exists" precursor to your question demonstrates that the question has nothing to do with any questions of whether god exists. How can you then say that it is the same question as one that is trying to address the existence of god?

[ruthanolis]

Firstly, I'm going to apologise to Kisc for letting this go on this long in his journal.

Secondly, I won't be taking this any further. I thought you were asking for a reponse without an attack, so I gave you one, and instead was told I don't know what I'm on about. I wonder if you do either.

The initial claims in both your replies makes little sense to myself. I'm am unsure as to when we began discussing the existence of God/s as opposed to discussing the meaning behind the original question, 'Why doesn't God solve all the ills in the world?'. So in my mind it was you who changed the topic.

Your assumption/deduction in the second part of the first comment shows that even you aren't sure what you're discussing. First you claim to argue the answer to the question and then you claim to discuss the logic of the question itself?
You then do the exact opposite in the second post, claiming to argue the logic and then claiming to discuss the answer instead.

The logic of the queston is not the same as the answer to the question. That's two separate topics. I never raised the issue of the answer - you did - because I found that any answer was disingenuous to the question itself.

I hope this satisfies your curiousity, or whatever it is that's driving you to continue this.

[lonelocust]

What generally drives me to have these conversations is interest in why people believe what they do. I'm unclear what I said that was telling you that you don't know what you're on about or what I said that was an attack on you. Anyway, you have lost interest, so I'll not continue to respond.

[kisc]

You two are mincing words, and I think you strayed even off of your own topic. But I could be wrong. I'm replying to this particular frayed end of this particular thread because it is as deep as the rabbit hole goes. :)

I find discussions of "would a loving god do X" pointless at best. I think they are tantamount to the meritless arguments that some Christians raise that "life is too complex, life could not exist without god, so there must be a god".

If (a) God exists, then life exists because of him/her/it. If he does not, then life still exists, no?

If God exists, then bad things happen on his watch - presumably for some reason or other, hopefully for a good or unavoidable reason. It is simple enough for me to conceive of an existence where God must let us suffer for a few mortal years in order to prepare us for an eternal span. And if he does not exist, bad things still happen.

Neither of these points are useful in determining whether he exists, and I consider neither of them evidence.

I hope that is useful for your interest at least in why I believe what I do?

[lonelocust]

I never strayed from my own topic, but maybe it was a different topic to begin with.

Note that I don't think that the existence of atrocity in the world that good people *would* stop if they *could* is evidence against the existence of *a* deity, just a very very specific sort of deity. (Which happens to be the sort that Abrahamic religions teach.) It is no evidence against an evil, a neutral, a human-like, or an uninvolved deity for example.

Thinking an argument is "pointless" is all well and good. It just has nothing to do with said argument. Someone can insist to me that pink is the greatest color there is. I think that's pointless, but thinking it's pointless is not a logical argument against the greatness of pink, and I don't treat it as such.

[lonelocust]

I just accidentally made an anonymous comment while not logged in and not realizing it. That was me.

[kisc]

I suggested that the arguments listed are pointless because I think they are invalid arguments.

Life exists. Arguing that since life exists, only god could have created it is circular.

Now that you make me look at it again, arguing that a deity that would let bad things happen cannot be a loving deity is not similarly circular. I disagree strenuously with that requirement, on the basis that I believe there is more going on.

To use a very old example: a parent can teach their child balance and how to pedal and steer, but until you put them on the bike and take off the training wheels, it isn't like the real thing.

I think that people (probably including me) assign more eternal weight to tragedy and even atrocity than it needs. Assuming that I believe in Jesus, he'll take away all the bad parts of it from the victims. Since I believe that, I also believe that the bad things that happen in life will be little more than skinned knees or broken arms in eternal terms.

One of the problems I have is that I really believe these things - eternal consequences of other people's actions are not going to be that bad for ME - but I am completely overwhelmed with this stuff right now. I don't know how to reconcile all of that. I feel like my posts in this part of the thread are in strong opposition to the posts at the other end of the thread. Maybe it's just me.