Except that one could make an argument that the closer one gets to viability, the closer one gets to having a good argument that it's a person. The problem here of course is that the line gets blurry at points, and thus isn't as clear as we would like. For me it's clear that a zygote isn't a person. Thus, not being a person it's difficult to see how abortion could be murder, since murder always involves persons. — Sam26

are you familiar with Don Marquis argument on a future of value ? If so what do you think of it.

this part is opinion - not argument - but the concept of person hood has a rich history of being used as a justification for making a sub class of human beings that it is ok to do bad stuff to.

legal and moral are at best distance cousins — Rank Amateur

man I am messing this up - that was meant for the comment about it being settled law -

the fetus has rights, this is a case of competing rights - — Rank Amateur

sorry - this was meant to read " if the fetus has rights - that was big IF i left off

I sure wouldn't stipulate that all abortion is equivalent to murder, that's just not true. I don't believe that a zygote is equivalent to a person, it's just not the same thing. — Sam26

legal and moral are at best distance cousins

I sure wouldn't stipulate that all abortion is equivalent to murder, that's just not true. I don't believe that a zygote is equivalent to a person, it's just not the same thing. The most you can say is it's a potential person, and as such it has value. — Sam26

I wouldn't stipulate abortion is murder either. All the other points there are far from settled and there are good arguments for and against - and the best arguments IMO on both sides of the issue have abandoned any tie to person hood at all.

Consider a case where the mother's life is in danger if she gives birth, how can it be murder to take the life of the fetus to protect her own life? I — Sam26

the fetus has rights, this is a case of competing rights -

You could argue that some, most, or many abortions are immoral, but that has to be decided on a case by case basis. — Sam26

I don't see any reason you can't make an argument either for or against abortion as moral or immoral, understanding of course that all such general judgments can be mitigated by particular circumstances.

Although I think that ultimately humans have a significant degree of free will, it's a lot more limited--by genetics and environment--than is apparent on the surface. Thus the free will defense defends God against being the cause of evil to a much lesser degree than many would think. — Michael Cunningham

The issue with free will is, that free will itself is the compensating good. That it is a good that we are beings of free will, as opposed to some type of slave or puppet. The ability to chose freely leads to some of humans' greatest virtues. It they are not free choices, than they are not virtues. The problem is that if humans are free to chose - it brings in all the possibility of bad choices.

You issue of genetics or environment are to some large degree just observations of some continuum of a series of free will choices. More on this in a sec.

. If an atheist presents a large number of examples of natural evil, shouldn't it be incumbent on the theist to at least make a prima facie case that it's plausible to think there are compensating goods for a substantial portion of those evils? — Michael Cunningham

As above, well if you buy, as I do, that free will is a compensating good for evil acts of free will, that encompasses a great deal of them - For the others 2 points:

The first is are all evil due to natural disasters free of acts of free will? If you build your house on a cliff overlooking the ocean, is it an act of God or an act of free will if a storm knocks it into the ocean?

And this nature of causality can lead back to very small items that can have great impacts - the butterfly effect - my favorite example is suppose Winston Churchill's mother decided to sleep on a different side the night Churchill was conceived, maybe a different sperm would have fertilizes the egg, and an entire different human could have been born, and maybe Hitler would have won the war, and ....

The point is that we tend to look at individual acts, and use our limited cognitive abilities, and within our prejudices look for answers. So here are some questions along those lines.

The earthquake in Haiti kills thousands, some quite horrifically. How could God allow that to happen. Well if 10 years before that Bill Gates decided he didn't need all those billions of dollars he has and decided he wanted to return that side Hispaniola to its natural state and gave every body there $100,000 to move somewhere else. I understand that is crazy - but you get the point.

There are millions upon millions of human choices that if decided differently could have permeated into millions upon millions of different scenarios that could have changed the impacts or effects on much of the evil attributed to God. Awful storms kill thousands of people - the are awful storms on top of Mt. Everest almost every day - Is it the awful storm that kills or some chain of acts of free will that put the people in the way of the storm ?

Secondly - it is really not the main issue, or even needed by the theist - the main issue is cognitive difference between humans and God. And human hubris. In your point above you are just moving the issue of cognitive distance from - if there was a compensating good - would we be aware of it and recognize it, to, there is some right number of compensating goods that allow us to make a valid inference - and if there was such a right number we would be aware of it and recognize it as such. You are asking the same question in a different form.

Finally - again - the theist in these arguments has nothing to prove. The argument from evil is from the Atheist to the Theist - saying your theistic belief is not reasonable. The theist presents his case of compensating goods, based on cognitive distance as a reasonable explanation of how evil can exist, and God can be perfectly moral. And is not convinced his theistic belief is out side reason.

If you grant that it is not a matter of fact, that God is. (sorry the cap if it offends - too much Catholic guilt not to)

Then as a matter of reason, the only God claim that i know off that can be argued is if there was or was not at least at one moment - a necessary being. a non contingent being.

All other God claims that I can think of are matters of faith - and discussions are theological not philosophical. Fun to have none the less.

I think where the theist lives in philosophy is a simple claim that belief in God is not in conflict with fact or reason.

Firstly, as clarity, against an argument that God does not exist with the argument from evil, the theist need not prove that compensating goods do exist, the theist just needs to show that it is a possible explanation.

The compensating good for act of free will I think is pretty self evident.

The arguments on compensating goods for natural disasters are "no seeum" arguments.

Something along the lines of, if there was an abstract state of affairs that was a compensating good for some natural disaster would we be aware of it, and would we recognize it as such even if we were aware of it? Which leaves 3 possiblities:

We know the entire set of all possible abstract states of affairs - we would know a compensating good if we saw one, and there is none there - well since the set of abstract states of affairs are infinite this is clearly false.

We know a lot of possible abstract states of affairs, we would know a compensating good if we saw them, and we would recognize it as such - we don't see any, and we infer there are none - because we believe the sample size of the abstract we know of is large enough for us to know. Again - if the set is infinite - can you ever really feel confident you have enough data to form that inference?

Lastly - the infinite set of abstract states of affairs, could contain compensating goods, and even if we were aware of it, we may not recognize it as such.

So - the theist conclusion is there is at least a reasonable possibility that there are compensating goods that, if there, shows God could be operating in a moral way, could be all good, and allow for evil to exist.

I also want to ask something along the lines of how do we know that the good in this world doesn't simply make evil worse, e.g., by raising our expectations and hopes and then dashing them? — Michael Cunningham

just keep turning the coin over - how do we know that a positive outcome of the bad is it does not make the good better ???

I believe the most important part in any God discussion is to identify if the belief, or truth claim is based on fact, reason, or faith. Arguments based on fact on God are not really relevant. In one says God is, is fact, it is not really worth a continued discussion. And I find the biggest disconnects when one person is making a faith based argument and getting an argument of reason back. Important that both parties are "Godspeaking" from the same basis.

People think I am Christian, or a God believer. I am in fact an Atheist. My morality is based on secular principles, so I wouldn't adhere to a God, whether he exists or not. I need the clarification, if a God actually exists, for the people who believe in him. — chatterbears

If your claim is atheism - or there is no god. That claim in no way obligates the theist to show proof of God as argument against. If that is your claim the burden of proof for that claim rests with you.

His believers have created wars and segregation throughout the centuries, mostly based on what they think God means or wants for humanity. One church interprets God's word in one way, while another church interprets God's word in another way. In the US, a vast majority of the population are God believers. Many of these people have used their religious beliefs to enact laws that discriminate against people, based on what they think God wants. — chatterbears

2 points, first is there has also been evil caused in the world in the name of atheism. Secondly, religion is an act of man, not an act of God, and as such is subject to all the inherent errors that entails.

lastly - the concept of a hidden God is well argued. The usual answer back is there is more value to us - the creature. What we consider valuable traits such as Faith, Charity, Chastity, Love of neighbor etc lose value if done on some guarantee of an eternal hereafter of bliss. It becomes a transaction , base.

No it's not, to the extent that one even considers what will happen in your example, it is a strong inductive inference. — Txastopher

I would hope it is a strong cogent argument with a high truth value that your spouse won't shoot you, but it is all argument until you open the door, and that is an act of faith.

To answer the OP's original question, god did make sense, but he was superseded a long time ago. — Txastopher

Thank goodness we can finally put that question to rest.

And since the rise is mass produced ice cream, there have been giant leaps in computer science. Therefore ice cream lovers make better computers.

If God made Himself unequivocally known, Pascal's wager becomes a sure thing.
— Rank Amateur

Quite the opposite. Blaise Pascal said that it is not possible to prove or disprove that God exists. Therefore, it is better to bet that God exists. If God made himself unequivocally known, Pascal's wager would be irrelevant and not applicable. — chatterbears

Seems we are in violent agreement. Well except for that "quite the opposite part"

Life 101 -

The scientific method is useful to identify matters of fact, or very very highly probable to be fact. But you can, and you already do believe things to be true and act accordingly by both reason and faith.

Here is an example.

You do not know as a matter of fact, that your spouse is not going to shoot you when you walk in the door.

You can by reason believe it is not very likely, you haven't done anything worth getting shot over, you are getting along fine, no reason not to open the door.

But actually opening the door is an act of faith.

So, wayfarer, evidence I would accept would be based on the scientific method — Life101

What method would you use to prove the scientific method is valid?

I don't understand what this has anything to do with what I said. If God cleared up the confusion in the Bible from believers interpreting it differently, why would that violate anyone's free will? — chatterbears

If God made Himself unequivocally known, Pascal's wager becomes a sure thing.

I still haven't gotten a good explanation of natural disasters or why god decided to make life so cruel. — darthbarracuda

I am not sure if you would or would not consider it a good explanation or not, but the one most used by theists like myself would be the concept of compensating goods. Dr. Hud Hudson has a very good lecture on it on youtube based on The Rabbit in the Garden Story if you have an hour to kill on a drive.

The evil, caused by human acts of free will, is kind of easy. The ability to act freely is a good thing, it has a consequence that it also allows people to act badly and cause suffering, but the value of free will compensates for the suffering.

Natural disasters are harder, and in general involve some type of no seeum defense. Something along the lines off what makes us think we would know the compensating good, even if we saw it.

This part is not a defense - but it is something I always wonder when someone brings up the problem from evil, is they never mention the good. Seems like we are happy to accept the good as a creation of man, but the bad - well that is God. Just an aside.

I agree with Kamikaze that desire for God is a major source of religion. However, even though desire is not evidence of truth it's not evidence of falsehood either--except that if one has only desire then one does not have reasons for belief. — Michael Cunningham

This in general is Camus' absurdity. We have some innate desire to search for meaning, yet we lack the ability and the tools to actually find it, if it even exists. Camus' answer is an acceptance of this absurdity, while he feels others perform some type of philosophic suicide in finding meaning in false faiths. God being the most used.

My personal answer to this absurdity is a theistic belief, that does provide a meaningful reason to push the rock up the hill one more time. However, I fully acknowledge that most of these beliefs are based on faith and are outside reason. I see nothing wrong with that as long as the beliefs are not in conflict with fact or reason. And all opinions to the contrary - theism is still a reasonable believe

And my reasoned defense for my theistic believe is twofold, the first is easy, it works for me. It makes me happier, more joyful, and in many ways a better human being as I define that. The second is either due to some combination of nature or nurture I am always drawn back to my faith. I have tried to intellectualize myself out it on many occasions, but there is some part of me that is always drawn back.

More theology than philosophy in that last part.

We become a world of informed people. As I stated before, just because God clears up what he really meant by his message, doesn't mean people would follow him. Satan is a perfect example of this, as Satan had more evidence than we ever would of God's existence, as well as God's plan and God's wants. Yet Satan still went against what God told him, and is now neither a saint o — chatterbears

God stops the world from turning tells people all that eternal bliss stuff if you love one another is right, and the alternative, well not so good.

Who is not a follower now? Well everyone who is not an idiot is, but is there any choice now? Does it have any value? Is it paradise or prison? Do your 80 years, get your ticket punched. Are you still a human being with any kind of free will? Does your acts of kindness even matter now, if there is no choice not to.

perfect - and i agree with you. And always have disagreed with the absurdists - freely finding our own "false faiths" is to me anyway - superior to acceptance.

That is a lovely phrase "condemned to freedom". — Marcus de Brun

Sartre - assumed you knew - no stolen glory here

No I don't see how this can be the case. To deduce that if determinism is true and we are unfree, does not fully imply that thought is not free in other ways. The relation between thought and the execution of the material function that is our life, is not as fixed and rigid as determined doomsayers like to insist. — Marcus de Brun

My point is not determinism - quite the opposite actually - it is existential - i think we have complete freedom - and that is enormously scary - so we are in general happy to find some "false faith" to relinquish our freedom to. From something as simple as " I have to do this job because it is all I can do" to the much more esoteric.

But this existentialism runs into the problem of OK, so I exist, and I get to freely establish the entire essence of my existance - but why ?? What is the purpose ??

And that is the "false faith in your post I was referring to - Is your stated purpose " to find truth" really a "false faith" if the absurdist is correct and we lack the tools to find any meaningful truth.

Don't read any value judgement into "false faith" by the way in the way I use it. To me it is just anything other than an acceptance of the absurd. Which I don't buy.

Because Freudian 'todestrieb' is ridiculous and is the point at which Psychoanalysis begins to fail. There is no death-drive. Human beings do not subconsciously wish to die. — Marcus de Brun

You are taking Camus' point a little too literal - Sure you know - it is about the why, the purpose. Why push the rock up the hill one more time , if there is no purpose. And as I am sure you know he included all kinds of philosophic suicides as well.

So is yours, mine - and others search for some real truth, as much a form of philosophic suicide as a belief in a supernatural purpose. Should we accept the absurdity that we feel some need for purpose, and don't have the tools to find it? Put a smile on our face - find the things that provide us personal meaning and enjoyment - maximize them - and push the rock back up the hill.

I am trying to find a way to make the concept of absurdity and the concept of a supernatural reason somehow co-exist. I am not sure they are mutually exclusive. But it is a very incomplete thought.

so are the only answers to being "condemned to freedom" a selection of false faiths ? Is it a false faith that we have the ability or tools to arrive at any truth of real value ? Are we in effect only left with some belief in some god based on faith - or an acceptance of the absurd ?

should the post really be Camus' question that the only real philosophic question is why don't we all just kill ourselves ?

Is it a better world if God came on the evening news - stopped the world spinning for an hour and cleared up all the confusions ?

Do we become a world of saints, or a world of sheep?

Is this in someway a Sarte " condemned to be free" issue?

Maybe the scariest thought is that we are in complete control of our lives. And we willingly, out of fear of freedom, find comfort is willingly giving up that freedom to those "conditioned responses you talk about"

Is the real issue that we have complete free will - and are just too weak or scared to believe it ?

Is this philosophy around determinism just another "false faith" or if you are a Camus fan a type of "philosophic suicide"

How about as a necessary being ? A being contingent on nothing ?

The God question is as old as God. If there is such a thing I doubt if it is particularly perturbed by what us plebs believe or don't believe.

What is most interesting is how the God thing can hijack the passions so readily and so easily. — Marcus de Brun

Agree - Camus' absurdism. Why do we push the rock up the hill.

In any meaningful way - as in how it effects your actions. Belief in God is a matter of faith.

However, it is important for thinking people to not hold this belief as a fool in conflict with fact or reason.

God does or does not exist is not a matter of fact

Theist's need a reasoned argument for the existence of a necessary being, to keep from being fools. Atheists need a reasoned argument for the non - existence of God - to keep from being fools.
Both have them.

Agnostics don't need anything - to believe nothing or both. By far the weakest position.

In the end history ends with God, or a big black hole -

And is there an infinite regression on what started the movement in the first place.

activity. — JustSomeGuy

Is that possible? If the embodied brain is alive in a biological sense. Isn't the lack of sensation a sensory input. Brain to body - What do you see, feel, taste, smell, hear? Body back - nothing. Brain ok nothing there. Seems a thought to me.

Changing it a little, would it be a good or a bad thing if God did reveal Himself so as to remove all doubt.

He breaks in every TV station in the world, parts the Atlantic Ocean, starts the world spinning the other way, you name it. There is no longer any reasonable doubt, God is fact.

He signs off by saying, you all need to love one another, stop hurting each other, share all this stuff I gave you, and if you do - paradise to level you can't understand awaits you.

Do we now have a world of saints, or sheep?

To make "sense"to me means understanding that the concept is rational, logical, and reasonable. In my (our??) world, the Western World, and from the perspective of a scientist, the concept of god does not make "sense" . The existence of a god is a profound phenomenon which requires profound evidence, so far for which has not ever been presented. — Life101

Just don't think that is true. There are many who would rightly call themselves scientists who are theists. Even one or two philosophers.

Asking if God makes sense - is inevitable

What I believe is empirically true is man has an ingrained curiosity or drive to search for a meaning for his existence. And this drive almost inevitably leads to an evaluation of theism.

Why are we pushing the rock up the hill?

We can’t answer the question as a matter of fact. It would be easy, but I am not sure in any real sense better, If God appeared on the evening news, parted the Atlantic ocean and made the sun rise in the west – and told us to believe, or else suffer an eternity in hell. Is that a world of saints, or a world of sheep?

It would be equally easy if science unequivocally established as a matter of fact how the universe (meaning all we know of what exists or might exist) came into existence. Would we still search for meaning ? Would there be another hole that a being like a God could fill ? Or would that void need to be filled in outer ways ? Materialism, hedonism, acceptance, humanism ??

But neither of those options are available to us right now. So we find things we believe to be true and we act on those beliefs accordingly - to give us reason to push the rock up one more time.

However, we are reasoned beings, and we don’t want to be fools. We want what we believe to true stand the test of fact and reason. So we think. We find or develop reasoned arguments that test our beliefs. And that is where we are.

It is a fact, that man searches for meaning
It is not a fact that God is, or is not.
It is reasonable to believe God is, or is not
By faith one can believe and act accordingly to be theist or atheist.

The first hurdle is understanding X. What is god? ‘Uncreated creator’ is kinda coherent: maybe science can help with that. ‘Higher and caring intelligence that can affect the natural order’? I struggle — Pronsias del Mar

I agree - i think the best reasoned argument can only defend a position that at least at one moment of time - there was an un-created creator or necessary being - belief in the God of the bible, or Torah, or Koran is a belief by faith - outside of reason

more importantly in the above - what does "true" mean. Can it be true as a matter of fact only? Can it be true as reasoned belief ? Can it be true as a matter of faith ?

do your thoughts exist ? does your understanding of love, hate, fairness, exist ? all are outside nature as i think you are using it

Like the soccer-ball question, you would probably say that you simply don't care and that nothing seems to actually be at stake. For me, having emancipated myself from religion and theistic belief so long ago, there re almost no remaining god-shaped holes that I haven't already filled with something else. Whether or not god exists changes nothing for me as it very clearly does not reveal itself in this life, and presuming that god-belief is important for the next life is a presumption that comes out of nowhere and has no rational advantage over its rejection or negation — VagabondSpectre

Thanks for all - appreciate the comments. All due respect - this statement certainly sounds like you have taken a position - in your actions and in your thoughts. All that really remains is to acknowledge it as such. I would also assume you arrived at this position from reason, which is in conflict with your statement:

" In my view, both the theist and hard-atheist views are unreasonable"

maybe we just have a difference on assumptions of truth. I believe one can believe something to be true, and act accordingly, by fact, reason, or faith. And make no value judgement of which is "more true"

I read into your comment that your definition of truth seems to lie only in what is fact. And reasoned beliefs of truth have less weight.

That to me is a very different position than indifference - which I would have no argument against. Although I am skeptical that any thoughtful person is truly indifferent to the question - Which returns me to my view that the agnostic is not a reasoned position - or even an absence of reasoned position - it is a hedge against the position of your beliefs and actions.

I have no issue that my world view impacts my position - as I think yours and others does as well.

asserting that if a dichotomous question has meaning to you, is worth effort to arrive at 1 of the 2 possible answers, and an analogy of evaluating others positions without taking one, are not ad hominids in my understanding or the term. But I guess we could into the weeds of if the ad hominid is in the eye of the sender or receiver.

What I can say - without equivocation, is none was intended.

What thoughts do you have on Don Marquies FOV argument ?

Or the view that knowingly having sex, where pregnancy even while using birth control, is a predicable consequence of one's act of free will establishes a tacit right on the part of the fetus to the use of the mother's body ( this argument of course is predicated on the assumption the fetus is a Human being with a right to life - to make any sense)

"I agree that there either is or is not an uncreated creator, but I must ask by which form of "reason" one can establish a quality argument for or against the existence of uncreated creator? We can choose to believe whatever we like, but what logical or rational reasons are there to do so?"

there are a few reasonable arguments for there being at one time an un-created - creator. I understand there are challenges. And I have acknowledged that the counter position is not un-reasonable. But the assertion that a theistic belief is un-reasonable is more rooted in a particular prejudice than in argument.

and the addition of Pascal is not really for the mechanics of the wager, but for the need to bet.
The game is on, whether one acknowledges it or not. There either is or is not a God.

But my real objection to agnostic or soft atheism - is, it is really a semantic hedge - disguised as reason. If our actions are the manifestations of our beliefs - most/all agnostics - are practicing atheists - just holding on to a hedge. Or as above - conversely - umpires in the argument - calling different positions in or out while sitting comfortably in the chair above the court, indifferent as to the outcome of the match.

there either is, or is not an uncreated creator. There are no other options. That was called being black or white earlier, call it what you like, but it is a true statement. One can, chose by reason to believe either argument. If one finds the question important, one should work to answer it.

Which leads me back to your soccer ball.

My answer is, I don't care if there is or is not a soccer ball in your closet. The question has no importance to me.

If however you said if you guess correctly, I will give you 5,000 dollars I would work to try and answer correctly.

If you said, if you guess there is a ball, and you are right, you get 100 million dollars, if you guess there is not a ball, and you are right you get 35 cents. I guess there is a ball.

there is no doubt that I am inexperienced- hence the name. However how does your point of what a position has going for it, pros cons, merits etc, apply when the position is, I have no position on the question?

That does not mean that on any particular item in the argument an agnostic can not have a valid or helpful view. But at its core equivocation is not a position.

If you will accept that an important part of what we believe to be true is how it effects what we do. How can agnosticism have any impact on what we do. Pray on tuesdays and thursdays? Accept absurdity on Monday Wednesday and friday?

not what I am saying.

What I am saying is, it is not a position to say proposition A may or may not be true, or this or that point in support or defense of proposition A may or may not be valid. It is way beyond reasonable. It is objectively true that there is or is not a God. It needs no discussion or defense. It also is not very helpful.