We could install security cameras to establish a chain of custody for the water pots. Atheists can still talk about “right” and “wrong”, if they define “right” not in terms of actions that are “good”, but rather as actions that reduce “suffering”. As such, there is in fact a legitimate standard with which the atheists recognize good and evil (at least perceived good and evil) — and their judgments are often valid — without taking anything from our Judeo-Christian worldview…. “Irrelevant. i) Notice the circular or regressive nature of Ryan’s argument. We just don’t know the hows and whys and impacts of an event, whether made up in our head or not. You said not all scientific activity consists of laboratory experiments. But that’s the way the world tells us it works. It is one thing to evaluate something from the outside; it is quite another to personally experience it. It’s a strange self-reinforcing beast you’ve created for yourself. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. This conversation won’t advance if you refuse to conduct it in good faith. The hubris might otherwise be incredible, were it not so common among atheists. I want you to be able to handle evil and pain both […]. I think many of these comments are an unfortunate case of boxing yourself into a particular worldview and only examining evidence, lines of argument and observations that fit neatly into it. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. God has the ability to destroy the entire universe with just a thought, the fact that He chooses not to exercise this power again doesn’t make Him less powerful. This approach may take away the absolute certainty one places in the moral code of his day (if he is willing to reason through it), but that doesn’t render the code any less meaningful or useful. Fourth, Rowe doesn’t ‘induce’ anything. This is not an easy doctrine to get. Perhaps, moreover, they both had heart disease. I think William Rowe, in his published work: ‘The Problem of Evil & Some Varieties of Atheism’, established a pretty difficult objection for any conceivable theodicy, with theodicy being the philosophical attempt to reconcile the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God with the presence of evil and suffering in the world. How could this possibly promote some greater good? I discuss it because of the way it can cloud some folks’ judgment. Please reread and understand exactly what I said about the test. The men were not punished, as far as we know. The process of cannonization was gradual and lacks definite criteria. Their only reason for engagement is to cause problems among those who believe, and in the end their goal is to attempt at disproving God in any way possible. Or do we really think God spoke to these people and that the 1,000 other religions and 10,000 other Gods that man has invented are all false except one? If, in fact, there are two domains–nature and supernature–then you can’t stipulate that these two domains never interact. [63] A second issue concerns the distribution of evils suffered: were it true that God permitted evil in order to facilitate spiritual growth, then we would expect evil to disproportionately befall those in poor spiritual health. You know this…right?”. The point about limited authority is, however, that it is not objective. Honestly, you should have picked up on that from my last submission. Why would a scientific investigator be barred from concluding that since there was no plausible natural cause, the cause must have been supernatural? “Reason too far detached from experience is bound to lead to absurd falsity.”. There’s something you’re missing here. Which journal(s) did you publish in? An attentive spectator. Let’s hope he will reconsider and come back to offer sound and reasoned argumentation though. I don’t think it’s good manners to paint someone’s entire character and worth with a broad brushstroke based SOLELY on their philosophical positions. Far from being pointless, forest fires are beneficial to the ecosystem. It’s how we do science.”, “It doesn’t mean one is philosophically committed to the metaphysical claim that only the material/natural universe exists. In all probability, most of them would agree whole heartedly with your “Conclusion: God has good reasons for allowing suffering and evil to exist. Rowe’s syllogism is invalid because it relies on faulty assumptions where he is taking certain things for granted without any reasoning or support. If Goodness is an essential characteristic or quality of God, then it is not stuck on the…. Differentiating between ordinary wrongdoing and evil is a discussion for a future comment…. Hence morality is arbitrary, being simply contingent on the unrestricted commands of God. Hence, given that there is this much pain, God must not exist. Moreover, I said that’s not a necessary condition of scientific investigation. The traditional view of the church (Augustinian) is ‘original sin’. If God is all-good, all-just, wouldn’t he have to prevent arbitrary suffering? The Atheistic Response * Premise 1: God is all-good (omnibenevolent) (untrue) * Premise 2: God is all-powerful (omnipotent) (untrue) * Premise 3: Suffering and evil exist (true) Conclusion: An all-good, all-powerful God could not exist since there…. Put down the bible for a second – even though I think it’s an interesting book – and pick up a book on anthropology, world history, perhaps psychology, maybe history of science, maybe some secular ethics, and stop bothering people who read and reflected before forcing their ill-informed, unbalanced, self-serving beliefs on an unfortunate public. But since the comparative framework is, itself, a scientific construct, what’s the standard for that? First off, that means that we could label anything with malicious or evil intent as God. Psalm 51:5 shows David’s understanding of our sin nature. But without that relationship with God Almighty, without knowing His love for us, there is a certain futility to life. God’s Options: When one attempts to explain why God created THIS world, rather than any other, we can either say that God had a reason for choosing to create the world this way, or He did not.