Atheists - prove it.

Post Reply New Topic

Where did you give a rigorous way to rate the greatness of any universe? Never mind proving that "Except a greater choice is always possible" (that is not definition).

91's response is equally weak. A better theist debater would just reject your rating system or definition of maximally greatness - unless you can prove that the system is unique. At this point, I don't see your argument is anything more than strawman.

So AG:91 0:0

You are VERY close, so good work.

But neither argument is really a strawman. I think we may not completely understand each other here, but it doesn't reek of a deliberate and gross misrepresentation. AG is right on the line of being strawman'ish, but he's being careful to avoid it.

I've said this before, and this argument is just too much like others I've seen before on related subjects; the difference is we're tying "best possible worlds" to free will: The issue that just won't die is whether this really is the best possible world or not. The Christian viewpoint adequately explains WHY this clearly is NOT the best possible world. What's more: Christianity and atheism both arrive at the same conclusion as to why it isn't.

Hey, I thought about that a minute and figured something out. From the Christian viewpoint, a better possible world existed--having been created by a perfect being to function perfectly according to its design. It's a mistake of human reasoning, perhaps resulting from pride and arrogance, to assume that a greater possible world is possible and act accordingly to create it. If we have perfect world P, a "greater" world P+1>P, then we also have P+1=/=P. Attempting to render such a world inherently ruins it.

The world we live in is obviously "not P." It is as optimal as it can be to facilitate our survival. It is not the "best possible world," but rather the "best possible world under the circumstances." It can only be restored to "P" if we remove that which ruins it, the "+1" such that we have (P+1)-1=P. This, however, while POSSIBLE, is extremely unlikely without extraordinary circumstances. Either we UNIVERSALLY agree, together with our children and future generations, what the "+1" is and get rid of it, or we wait patiently for a Supreme Being to supernaturally intervene to remove the human and imperfect "+1." One is unlikely to the point it is impossible for all practical purposes. The other is possible in the mind of the believer, and anyone who so desires to act an individual's part to remove "+1" may do so in the hope that reaching (P+1)-1 is at least a little bit closer than it was before.

From a Christian viewpoint, we make the choice to do so, hence we see present result as an accumulation of past choices and the future we desire as the result of choices yet to be made. It is easy to view the world as conducive to free will experiences.

The atheist argument arrives at the same conclusion in regards to "best possible worlds." One who "does not believe God exists" does not assume that God exists. Therefore God is not an explanation for anything. If God does not/cannot explain anything, then the world as it is cannot be explained as a world resulting from spiritual activity. It is, just as the Christian believes, NOT the best possible world due to human activity. The difference in the two arguments is that the Christian can say such a world may be chosen, where the atheist would say this is the only world anyone CAN choose. Because there is no real choice ("THIS is all there is"), then there is no free will. Free will CANNOT exist.

Therefore:

Without God, free will does not exist.

Thoughts?

Binary, you're just missing the point.

First of all, a "rigorous rating system" isn't needed. What's needed is that there has to be facts about "better" and "worse" and that point is one that just about everybody would grant, because if there aren't facts about "better" and "worse" then any hell is AS GOOD as heaven. All that we need is ranking, which can exist EVEN IF we don't know where things would rate or rank. So, just so long as the world cleaves into X>Y, Y=Z, Z<A relations, then the entire framework still works.

Second of all, "a greater choice is always possible" is all that is needed. We don't need to know the number for X, only that X stands in relationship to X+1. That's WHY X is expressed as a variable rather than a number. We'd only need ratings if we were working with numbers and not variables.

Finally.... a rigorous system isn't even needed in many circumstances. For example, when determining that a car is larger than a chihuahua, we eyeball it. All that we need is justification to "eyeball it".


There is no set rating system, instead, there is the accepted belief in the objectivity of "good" and "bad" traits.

As well, 91's proposing that "maximal greatness" is the criterion. I'm pointing out that a greater being is possible by definition.

In any case, saying "there is nothing but strawmen" kind of shows that you don't actually have a grasp on the debate, and you tend not to, which is why you always focus on definitions, even though the framework is preset but often implicitly known. The lines here already exist in a larger theo-philosophical discourse.


No, I've won regardless of whether you have the competence to understand the discussion or not.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 18 May 2011, 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't think your argument on free will works, BUT I do think your use of the free will theodicy is relevant. It's not the line of the debate being advanced, but any "best of possible worlds" person has to address that kind of concern, that is that there is a better possible world that CANNOT be legitimately actualized. (I disagree with this reasoning rather strongly though, as you know)

But you have neither. You just assert such comparison exists.


Even you admit that those holding free will theodicy will dispute your notion.


Proof? How many possible universes have you ever 'eyeballed'?

The topic isn't whether this is the best of all possible worlds, or how the world ranks to other worlds. The issue is just ranking and how this relates to God's actions.


No, they'll dispute the notion of an actualizable best of all possible worlds.


Countless ones. Every counterfactual is an "eyeballed" possible world. So, if you ever regret an action, or you feel happy that things turned out a certain way, you eyeballed another possible universe and stated that this one is better or worse than that possible universe.

You call that proof?
1) Events tends to correlate to each other. What you think is better for you at one moment may be worse overall at other moments e.g. missing the plane that crashes.
2) The examples considered this way are very similar to the universe you know. You cannot rule out there is a very different universe that is better than ALL you eyeballed and maximally great.


Read: I assert there is some a maximally great being cannot do therefore maximally great being does not exist... begging the question?

Do you think that all knowledge is deductive and a priori? Sure, I call that proof. At least proof enough to go off of.

Events can correlate with each other, yes. However, with the plane crash, we very much tend to see an improvement caused by not being on the plane. However, the problem is still very apparent, as even with your example, we'd be better yet with a world that didn't have a plane crash at all. Even further, believers have difficulties with this as they all cry out that the problems of the world are due to sin, BUT if this is the best of all possible worlds, then there is no notion of sin being a problem. The level of sin in the world at any given point in time is optimal, which stands against standard theism which seeks to abolish all sin. Believers still have a problem with this because they assert that a better world, a world called "heaven" is possible, but not actual.

I mean, binary, in order to say that this is the best of all possible worlds is that you have to say that each and every wrong is for the best. Even if this is possible(which I have strong doubts), it certainly can't be regarded as reasonable, as if you assign a probability of each event being for the best at 99%, you STILL ought to reject the idea that all bads are for the best. The probability you have to set at the basic level given your background knowledge is ABSURDLY HIGH to accept this claim. So, given almost ANY Bayesian prior on this, we ought to reject this conclusion.

As well, for the eyeball thing, I am not saying "Oh, there can't be a better world". I am saying "oh, this ISN'T the best world possible", and the skepticism isn't considered plausible because it isn't as if there is just one bad thing I don't understand. There are countless scores of things that are considered bad in some form or fashion, where acceptance of these things as bad is uncontroversial and where a greater good is not seen. Even if we accept that it is POSSIBLE that these could all come together to form the greatest good, it sure as hell isn't likely, and just about everyone believes deep down that these things do not, as we struggle against certain conclusions VERY STRONGLY, which makes no sense if we believe that any conclusion accepted is the best.


No, not at all. I mean, I didn't assert this, it's part of the definition accepted by 91, if there are infinite possibilities for better worlds, and God creates a world, then it is true that God had the ability to create a better world and chose not to. However, if a being that makes a better choice is better than one that makes a worse choice, then any being who created this world can't be a maximally great being, and if we take the logic to the conclusion, no such entity is possible.

Frankly, my argument doesn't read at all the way that you represent it as reading. The blame is that this being is failing to do something that is logically possible, and thus is worse than another possible being.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 23 May 2011, 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There is also the perceived relativity of good and evil and the actualization of "better" or "worse" worlds throughout time. Is the world we live in at the PRESENT time better than that of the early Medieval time, for instance? If time is factored in as a quasi-relative variable, then it is possible at one point in time a maximal world WAS actualized. It is also possible that a maximal world WILL be actualized. The Christian worldview expresses how such a world was lost and how it might be regained as a matter of our own choosing. It also expresses "good" and "evil" in objective terms. Moreover if Christianity can assume an eternal realm in parallel with the temporal realm, then one may conclude that the ideal world not only HAS been actualized or WILL BE actualized, but also IS actualized--just not HERE, or at least not "yet."

I don't for one second believe THIS is the best of all possible worlds (as I've often said). I believe this world to be a fallen creation descending from the choices of human beings. It IS the best possible world in a different sense, though, and the problem I see is we're trying to make the argument that the world as we perceive it is EXACTLY as it was intended to be AND optimal for our existence.

Either the world exists as intended by its Creator or it doesn't. Either the world allows for our survival or it doesn't.

Best possible world?

YES--in the sense it allows us to survive, through our offspring if not long-term.
NO--in the sense that there are too many problems with the world to assert that a Creator possessing a nature of good is responsible for it.

Human nature and the existence of evil, in my opinion, is sufficient to prove that if such a Creator exists, the temporal world is NOT the world He created. Evil and suffering, however, are not sufficient to disprove that such a world existed, doesn't exist, or never will exist.

AngelRho, you're invoking the free will theodicy. I know that. It makes more sense than the other views in this thread, in that it doesn't get into the problems of other ideas, but it still has its problems. Because it rejects the overall framework I've been hammering out, I am not going to address it at this moment.

I have a questions for the christians. And yes I am atheist.

1. Why did your god let satan/lucifer judge/test humans?

2. What was the purpose of having a god sacrifice himself to himself? if your god just wanted a "ego trip"?
(for the sake of arrguement since we don't know whether god is male/famale exactly besides religious scripture I will be refering to god as a male)

3. Relating to questions 1 & 2. If he was all seeing then what purpose did satan/lucifer serve? Was it to introduce free will?
Also, ( hebrew bible refrence to Job) Why was lucier allowed to test Job, if god know the result?

4. Try and explain free will as you see fit.

5/21/2011

A problem remains: The majority of Christians didn't sign on to this and claim it was true. Only a few loud ones did.

Nor is "Christian" the proper antonym of "atheist",
though that makes your point all the more relevant-
it was not even a majority of but one of many religions rallying around such idiotic "prophecy",
therefore it is no more "proof" for...
whatever positive claim the OP believes atheists make
than an atheist demanding proof from a theist
and being met with a response involving the awesomeness of Tantric sex.

Yeah, I didn't believe in the 5/21/2011 prophesies, so that's invalid in my case. I maintain that only God knows when this system will end.

Your "poem" doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying atheists do not have proofs that God doesn't exist? This would mean you don't really know one way or the other, in which case, it would be foolish to be so positive.

I am saying that theists do not have any valid material proof that God exists (only "Faith", which proves nothing), which would mean they really don't know one way or the other. That being the case, it would be foolish to be so positive about unprovable claims.