tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2326647847990482641.post4879933296158406216..comments2022-10-06T21:01:32.436-05:00Comments on God and Logic: Solving the Problem of God and Evil/Pain/SufferingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2326647847990482641.post-86328198717655789602011-03-28T22:39:10.363-05:002011-03-28T22:39:10.363-05:00SW:
Here is a paper submitted to a professional j...SW:<br /><br />Here is a paper submitted to a professional journal concerning many of the unknowns of Standard Model Physics. It details some of the weaknesses and inaccuracies when dealing with particle physics.<br />http://pavel.physics.sunysb.edu/~rylov/wdsmf1e.pdf<br /><br />Here is another detailing 5 major areas of unknowns:<br />http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasics/a/fiveproblems.htm<br /><br />Another:<br />http://www.new-science-theory.com/the-standard-model.html<br /><br />More problems for theories in physics:<br />http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/open_questions.html<br /><br />Modern Standard Model does not explain MATTER:<br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A666173<br /><br />So, you see, the only assertion that "science" or "scientists" have neatly arrived at quantifiable answers is only spoken by those who have not deeply looked into it's problems.<br /><br />You may talk about the "soundness" of our understanding of all-things-physical, but real researchers never talk that way, indeed, the number of theories and models is increasing daily.<br /><br />Human science has yet to even begin to come close to the most fundamental question: "What creates mass?" (you can't get more fundamental than that---so please accept my sincere apologies if I do not worship at the altar of human infallibility). Is Higgs-Boson your God(particle)? I guarantee you that even that meta-physical religion will leave you empty as before.<br /><br />There is no agreement on the true nature of the wave-particle or particle-less-ness of light, or of the actual mechanism of gravity, or of most of the findings of quantum physics (which the standard model cannot begin to address).<br /><br />Again, I would love to have a point-by-point discussion of the points above concerning the probability or moral soundness of the various possible scenarios concerning God and suffering. None have come forward yet, neither here, nor in any other forum, debate, paper, or book that I have been exposed to.<br /><br />Side note: By the way, I love your humble statement near the end of your comment: "If you sincerely want to learn something..." Now there's a good place to start, from self-assured, assumed-intellectual/moral superiority. Thanks for the heads up about the type of person we are supposed to take seriously. Arrogance is the trademark of closed-minded bias.RMcWilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10701614653248007354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2326647847990482641.post-5017033185081031462011-03-28T22:07:42.401-05:002011-03-28T22:07:42.401-05:00SW:
Thanks for your comment, which obviously took...SW:<br /><br />Thanks for your comment, which obviously took time and a bit of thought. I'm not sure that you read the blog, perhaps perused it. You were critical of my analogies regarding natural phenomena (which, as a pre-engineering student I studied in great detail at the University(secular)). Your claim is invalid, let me quote my post again:<br />"Scientists have developed well-supported models that seem to explain most of the common questions about these issues.<br /><br />But, concerning the problematic areas that do not fit neatly into these models, we realize that there are answers, though we may not have all those answers...yet. The same may be true regarding the issue of God and suffering. Are there good models offering real solutions? Absolutely. Are there specific areas that we still struggle with? Absolutely."<br /><br />The analogy stands. All known models break down at certain points and under certain conditions/criteria in physics. The models (fairly) neatly describe most (not all behavior) for the majority of natural activity, but it is at the level of the super-massive and super-"tiny" that our models fall apart. The point/analogy made is that just because we do not have the answers (yet), it does not logically follow that there are NO answers, or that there are not GOOD answers.<br /><br />I have yet to read or view any debate, whereby the essential premise that: "It is possible that God may have a compelling moral reason to allow suffering" has ever been even remotely challenged. Even Hitchens was silenced when confronted with that single explanation by WL Craig. Let me repeat the words of philosopher, Michael Horner, who commented about the problem of God and suffering: "It may be too complicated, or, more than likely, we are lacking crucial information that is available to an all knowing God. Therefore, merely because we can't think of a good reason why a particular evil should be allowed, it does not follow that God does not have a good reason, nor does it follow that we are irrational in believing God has a good reason."<br /><br /><br />Some would argue: "But couldn't God create a world that does not allow for the possibility of evil and suffering?" The answer is surprising...but then again, maybe not. Even the atheist philosopher Evan Fales admits, "Not even an omnipotent being can guarantee the best of all possible worlds, for if such a world must contain created free beings, it will be partly up to them what transpires." <br /><br />If you can disprove, or seriously challenge the points, one by one on moral or philosophical grounds (the only foundation for a discussion of the justifiability of suffering) then I would be glad to engage you on this matter. Your comment displays much passion, but mainly ridicule with little substantive evidence or reasoning. It was filled with emotional and shallow glosses, designed to paint Christianity with broad strokes of mis-characterization. Please respond to the points made, and why they are not justifiable on either moral or philosophical grounds.RMcWilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10701614653248007354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2326647847990482641.post-312491153375834872011-03-28T21:48:46.775-05:002011-03-28T21:48:46.775-05:00Greg:
Thanks for (apparently) reading the contents...Greg:<br />Thanks for (apparently) reading the contents of this blog. You criticisms could be taken as serious if there were any concrete examples of error/fallacy, logical refutations, or contrary evidence or reasoning. Please re-post specific examples and/or point-by-point discussions of the reasons why any or all of these items could or couldn't be probable/moral explanations. Calling something lame in now way changes the essential truth of a matter.RMcWilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10701614653248007354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2326647847990482641.post-89523653633492481542011-03-21T00:49:35.826-05:002011-03-21T00:49:35.826-05:00Suffice it to say that you are entirely unconvinci...Suffice it to say that you are entirely unconvincing, often beside the point, and assume what you would hope to prove (that a loving and all-powerful God exists). Your analogies to science in general and gravity in particular are laughable. I'm glad I was not your physics teacher. Light, gravity and other physical phenomena are understood much more than you can imagine. There are no such doubts in science as there are in religion because the fundamental method of science is sound. Religion has no method and no way of determining truth. To the faithful, God is comprehensible in all ways – he wants us to eat this or that, to pray in this or that way, to marry this person and not that, to touch each other with these body parts and not those. However, ask one simple question – "Why is there suffering from natural disasters?" (not evil, there is a difference) and Christians fall back on a variety of fatuous explanations that boil down to "We can't understand it". The result is that God gets all of the praise for everything good and none of the blame for everything horrible. And don't tell me that life is a test, that man caused suffering through sin (this is so wrong on so many levels), that suffering is good for us, that it brings us closer to God, that it teaches us things, that it has something to do with free will (it doesn't). All of these arguments are absurd on their face. If the greatest religious thinkers in all of history haven't come up with better explanations (the contributors to the CNN piece on Japan certainly represent some of these traditions), what makes you think that you can? I doubt you will approve this comment, but I would be happy to engage you on any and all of these points. If you sincerely want to learn something and converse in private, I will provide an email address.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17224153869741197766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2326647847990482641.post-3838805700406066812011-03-21T00:23:21.434-05:002011-03-21T00:23:21.434-05:00These are all terrible reasons. #1 is just a cop-o...These are all terrible reasons. #1 is just a cop-out, a non-reason, some of these are just repeats, and in the end, god could have created any reality she wanted, but she chose suffering to be part of it. That's just lame no matter how you slice it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10852693269963457906noreply@blogger.com