Arguments against Christianity, for the ‘forgetful’

Today Mung claimed of TSZ that

I see mocking of Christianity, what I don’t see are arguments that Christianity is false.

As the regulars here (including Mung) know, this is bollocks. There have been many such arguments, and Mung has fled from a number of them.

I replied:

You see plenty of them [arguments against Christianity], but you’re in denial.

Want to test that hypothesis? Start a thread asking for arguments against Christianity. You’ll get an earful.

He got cold feet, so I am starting the thread for him. I’ll provide some arguments in the comments. Feel free to add your own or to cross-post or link to old OPs and comments, if you can’t be arsed to reinvent the wheel for Mung’s trollish sake.

Mung’s fellow Christians are welcome to come to his aid. He’ll need all the help he can get.

534 thoughts on “Arguments against Christianity, for the ‘forgetful’

  1. Mung:
    So, keiths, if it’s not a matter of the preponderance of the evidence then what is it a matter of? Do you think that if God permits even one single act of evil then that is sufficient for you to have made your case?

    There is no evidence for there to be a preponderance of. You might as well claim that since the number of hypothetical bad tastes are “obviously” outnumbered by the hypothetical good tastes, that this is somehow “evidence” for a taste god. You somehow don’t notice that evil isn’t an objective term, that reasonable people disagree, that a hypothetical determination of evil acts is pulled purely ex rectum, and that 42 angels dance on a pinhead according to the evidence!

    Because if that’s what you’re arguing I see no difference between that and the logical problem of evil. From where I sit you are still confused.

    I’ve never quite understood this problem. My take is, stuff happens that people dislike, and some people propose a supernatural agency that is supposed to prevent this stuff, and since it happens anyway, that agency prevents it poorly. Or is the problem that, GIVEN such an entity, then what some people dislike isn’t “evil” at all, it’s just their personal misconception?

    Further, as I have already explained, Christians believe that God permitted His only Son to be crucified. So if you appeal to “one evil act is one act too many for the Christian God to permit” you’re simply not going to convince a Christian. Back to the logical problem of evil with you!

    According to Paul, an entity (at the time unnamed) descended from the highest to the lowest levels of heaven (never all the way to earth), took on human form to trick Satan into killing him, so that he could be resurrected and returned to the top level as the messiah.

    However, I understand that Christians don’t follow Paul’s teachings, but rather a composite of the writings of others. So we get to the REAL problem of evil, which is that proposing any sort of interested god is the entire source of the whole dispute. Eliminate that, and reality looks normal again.

  2. I had been vaguely aware of the problem of evil, even purchased a few books on it. But as a Christian I never saw it as a particular cause for concern for me personally, as a Christian, for reasons already stated in this thread.

    While I was aware of many of the OPs by keiths I found it difficult to take them seriously, because they lacked any serious argument.

    But now we’re on the evidential problem of evil and I’d like to give a tip of the hat to keiths for finally motivating me to look further into the subject. Of course, that flies right in the face of the claim that Christians never challenge their beliefs or are afraid to do so. but that’s another of those claims that I tend to not take seriously because I don’t see how it applies to me personally.

    According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Evidential Problem of Evil asks us to “put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God.” And once we do this, “it becomes unlikely, if not highly unlikely, that the world was created and is governed by an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good being.”

    I’m serious. This is the argument that keiths is relying on. We need to “put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God.”

  3. Mung, now:

    I had been vaguely aware of the problem of evil, even purchased a few books on it. But as a Christian I never saw it as a particular cause for concern for me personally, as a Christian, for reasons already stated in this thread.

    While I was aware of many of the OPs by keiths I found it difficult to take them seriously, because they lacked any serious argument.

    Mung, then:

    I don’t think it’s [the problem of evil is] the last refuge. I think it pretty much underlies the entire enterprise. Which isn’t to say it should not be taken seriously.

    I have no problem agreeing, for instance, that the problem of evil is the most (only?) serious objection that can be offered against the existence of God.

    Your incompetence is spectacular, Mung.

  4. keiths: Dog ate baby head. Evidence that God does not exist.

    Mung: Dog did not eat baby head. Evidence that God does exist.

    keiths: My argument requires that you put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God.

    Mung: So your argument is a probabilistic argument only in the sense that it assigns a probability of zero to the existence of God.

    keiths: You don’t understand my argument, you can’t possibly understand my argument, you’ll never understand my argument.

    Mung: Sure. Whatever you say. You’re the logical one.

  5. Mung:

    I don’t have to defeat the argument that God is not omnibenevolent (as benevolent as is logically possible) because that’s not the argument before us.

    I can’t tell if this is genuine stupidity or whether you’re just being a pedantic ass and pretending not to see the connection between omnibenevolence and the existence of the Christian God.

    In either case: Yes, Mung you need to defeat the argument against God’s omnibenevolence.

    You can’t, obviously.

  6. keiths: Your incompetence is spectacular, Mung.

    And yet, in spite of my incompetence, or perhaps even because of my incompetence, I’ve managed to expose the vacuous nature of your argument.

    Let me quote the IEP again:

    Evidential arguments from evil attempt to show that, once we put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God, it becomes unlikely, if not highly unlikely, that the world was created and is governed by an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good being.

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-evi/

  7. Mung,

    I am not the IEP. I did not write those words. If you want to argue with the IEP, fine. If you want to argue with me, then you’ll have to address my argument, not the IEP’s.

    FFS, indeed. What are you, a third-grader?

  8. Flint,

    I’ve never quite understood this problem. My take is, stuff happens that people dislike, and some people propose a supernatural agency that is supposed to prevent this stuff, and since it happens anyway, that agency prevents it poorly. Or is the problem that, GIVEN such an entity, then what some people dislike isn’t “evil” at all, it’s just their personal misconception?

    Here’s how I explained it in an earlier thread:

    Hi Jackson,

    a) Where do you get the criteria by which you evaluate God? Why are the criteria you use the right ones?

    Since we’re talking about the problem of evil, I’ll assume Yoder is asking about moral criteria. The answer is that they come from the person(s) advancing the particular omniGod hypothesis.

    Let’s say I claim that an omniGod named Frank exists — omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Suppose I also claim that Frank regards seahorses as the absolute height of evil. The world contains a lot of seahorses, and Frank, being omnipotent, has the power to wipe them off the face of the earth. Why doesn’t he? Why does he countenance a world full of seahorses?

    Is the existence of seahorses a means to a higher end? Is it just that Frank’s ways are mysterious? Or should I conclude that Frank probably doesn’t exist?

  9. keiths: FFS, indeed. What are you, a third-grader?

    I’m all that I need to be. Given that your arguments don’t rise above grade one I think that grade three is sufficient.

  10. keiths: I am not the IEP. I did not write those words. If you want to argue with the IEP, fine. If you want to argue with me, then you’ll have to address my argument, not the IEP’s.

    The IEP makes clear statements about the evidential problem. This is in clear contrast to your own failure to to do likewise. Given your failure to state your argument, I have to rely on other sources. So the author(s) of the IEP article failed to anticipate your argument.

    I’d love to address your argument. What is your argument?

  11. Look, Mung, all this discussion is accomplishing is to establish that you are

    a) incompetent; and
    b) dishonest.

    But everyone knew that already. The coffin lid has long since been nailed shut, and any further banging is superfluous.

    The more interesting question is whether intelligent Christians can come up with a viable defense against the evidential problem of evil, not whether you can. Given your performance in this thread, you also can’t be trusted as an interpreter of intelligent Christians, such as van Inwagen and Plantinga — plus it wouldn’t be fair to saddle them with you.

    I’ll think about whether it’s worth it to engage you further on this topic — I have to admit that it’s been amusing to see you fume at your continued failure — but I’m leaning toward removing the incompetent middleman and dealing with the arguments of van Inwagen, Plantinga, etc., directly.

  12. keiths: Look, Mung, all this discussion is accomplishing is to establish that you are

    a) incompetent; and
    b) dishonest.

    Was that ever in doubt?

    keiths: But everyone knew that already.

    Everyone?

  13. keiths is once again reduced to flailing. The IEP article is clear. It’s not my fault that keiths is wrong.

  14. keiths: Shall we follow your logic and become Flat Earthers, since the flat earth hypothesis hasn’t been disproven? It’s merely improbable

    That’s not my logic at all. I’m not saying that you should become a Christian because the logical problem of evil has been defeated. I’m saying you should look elsewhere if you what to make an argument that Christianity is false.

    With these kinds of things all you can do is gather all the evidence you have and weigh it.

    When it comes to the earth the evidential approach asks that we weigh sensory impressions against things like satellite imagery . The conclusion we come to will depend on the relative weight we give the competing evidences

    When it comes to Christianity the evidential approach asks we weigh the presence of evil against the arguments for the Christian God’s existence. The conclusion we come to will depend on the relative weight we give the competing evidences.

    We can never falsify an idea with this approach

    however……….

    We can make a logical argument that a Flat earth is false by pointing out that it is logically impossible to travel directly west and arrive at the place you started if the earth is flat and showing that such a thing is possible on the earth we inhabit.

    Therefore we have demonstrated that a flat earth is false

    Do you see the difference?

    peace

  15. Look, keiths, all this discussion is accomplishing is to establish that you are
    a) incompetent; and
    b) dishonest.
    But everyone knew that already.

    The alleged problem of evil has been dealt with for centuries. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

  16. fifthmonarchyman: With these kinds of things all you can do is gather all the evidence you have and weigh it.

    Did you know that if you put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God, it becomes unlikely, if not highly unlikely, that the world was created and is governed by an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good being?

    What kind of evidential argument does that make room for? Have I been giving atheists too much credit? Not that keiths is the IEP mind you.

  17. keiths: Yes, Mung you need to defeat the argument against God’s omnibenevolence.

    By setting aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God?

    It’s a simple question keiths. Are we allowed to include evidence that supports the existence of God or not?

  18. Mung: What kind of evidential argument does that make room for? Have I been giving atheists too much credit?

    for sure 😉

    Mung: Not that keiths is the IEP mind you.

    There are lots of atheists who are thoughtful some even post here.

    Typically they are not the ones who beat their chest and crow about how they can prove that Christianity is false.

    peace

  19. fifthmonarchyman:
    . . .
    We can make a logical argument that a Flat earth is false by pointing out that it is logically impossible to travel directly west and arrive at the place you started if the earth is flat and showing that such a thing is possible on the earth we inhabit.

    Therefore we have demonstrated that a flat earth is false

    The Flat Earth Society FAQ has an answer for that.

  20. Mung: Is this the logical problem of a round earth or the evidential problem of a round earth?

    I did not see an answer to the logical problem on that website. Maybe I’m missing something

    peace

  21. keiths: Interested readers may also want to listen to this recent interview with Flat-Earther Mark Sargent.

    If you have an answer to the logical problem of a round earth why not just post it here and save us some time wading through the irrelevant evidential noise.

    peace

  22. Mung,

    Are we allowed to include evidence that supports the existence of God or not?

    Of course, doofus. A rational person will consider all of the available evidence when evaluating an evidential question.

    And I’ll bet the author(s) of the IEP article would agree, and that you’ve simply misunderstood him/her/them, or are quote-mining in typical Mungian fashion.

    What evidence do you have to offer in favor of the Christian God that outweighs the enormous negative evidence highlighted by the problem of evil?

  23. keiths: Of course, doofus. A rational person will consider all of the available evidence when evaluating an evidential question.

    What would count as evidence for the Christian God?

    Please be specific

    peace

  24. keiths: What evidence do you have to offer in favor of the Christian God

    You are the one making the argument you need to provide the evidence that you have and explain why it is outweighed by the existence of evil

    I haven’t even heard you say what would count as evidence for you.

    This evidential approach thingy is a lot more involved than you apparently understand

    peace

  25. fifth:

    If you have an answer to the logical problem of a round earth why not just post it here and save us some time wading through the irrelevant evidential noise.

    What are you babbling about? I think the earth is round, and my belief is based on — you guessed it — evidence.

    It’s a probabilistic argument.

    Scientific facts are merely empirical truths with extremely high probabilities. This is news to you?

  26. keiths: And I’ll bet the author(s) of the IEP article would agree, and that you’ve simply misunderstood him/her/them, or are quote-mining in typical Mungian fashion.

    Probably both. 🙂

  27. fifthmonarchyman: What would count as evidence for the Christian God?

    You beat me to it, sort of. 🙂

    But at times it seems we’re going in circles. I asked keiths this (what counts as evidence) up thread but don’t think he ever answered. I also gave him a specific example and asked him about it. At least we now now that we’re allowed to consider evidence for the existence of God and not just evidence that purports to be evidence against the existence of God. Progress, of a sort.

    It would seem to follow, would it not, that I don’t have to make a response to each of his instances of an evil? Like, for example, why he thinks that each instance is an instance of evil.

    Speaking of which, in at least one case his argument seems to be that in that particular case, it’s evil because no normal person would stand by and let it happen. So in my thinking, every normal person is evidence for the existence of God. 🙂

  28. fifthmonarchyman: I did not see an answer to the logical problem on that website. Maybe I’m missing something

    I didn’t see it either. I don’t think you missed anything. But I have problems with reading comprehension. So I could be answering a question you didn’t even ask. How would I know.

  29. keiths: A rational person will consider all of the available evidence when evaluating an evidential question.

    Sure. But we’re talking about you.

  30. keiths: What are you babbling about? I think the earth is round, and my belief is based on — you guessed it — evidence.

    It’s a probabilistic argument.

    I offered a logical argument not an evidential one

    Premise 1) if the earth was flat you could not travel due west and wind up where you started
    Premise 2) On earth you can travel due west and wind up where you started
    conclusion ) the earth is not flat.

    It’s not probabilistic it’s definitive and certain

    peace

  31. IEP

    It is also important to note that it is the notion of a “horrendous moral evil” that comports with the current, everyday use of “evil” by English speakers. When we ordinarily employ the word “evil” today we do not intend to pick out something that is merely bad or very wrong (for example, a burglary), nor do we intend to refer to the death and destruction brought about by purely natural processes (we do not, for example, think of the 2004 Asian tsunami disaster as something that was “evil”). Instead, the word “evil” is reserved in common usage for events and people that have an especially horrific moral quality or character.

  32. fifthmonarchyman: I offered a logical argument not an evidential one

    Premise 1) if the earth was flat you could not travel due west and wind up where you started
    Premise 2) On earth you can travel due west and wind up where you started
    conclusion ) the earth is not flat.

    It’s not probabilistic it’s definitive and certain

    I don’t really want to read more of the Flat Earth Society stuff because it’s possibly the only material I’ve found that’s more irrational than religious apologetics, but their argument appears to be that when you are traveling west, you’re actually following a circular path on a flat Earth that returns you to your starting point.

  33. IEP (cont.):

    …non-realist ethical theories, such as moral subjectivism and error-theories of ethics, hold that there are no objectively true moral judgments. But then a non-theist who also happens to be a non-realist in ethics cannot help herself to some of the central premises found in evidential arguments from evil (such as “If there were a perfectly good God, he would want a world with no horrific evil in it”), as these purport to be objectively true moral judgments (see Nelson 1991).

    Another question I don’t think keiths ever answered. Whether his evidence is objective evidence.

  34. Patrick: but their argument appears to be that when you are traveling west, you’re actually following a circular path on a flat Earth that returns you to your starting point.

    So the response is to claim that there is no such thing as due west? If so then we can modify the logical syllogism thusly

    Premise 1) The relational concept of “west” exists
    Premise 2) if the earth was flat you could not travel due west and wind up where you started
    Premise 3) On earth you can travel due west and wind up where you started
    conclusion ) the earth is not flat.

    The argument still definitive and still certain. Nothing probabilistic at all

    peace

  35. Sure enough, Mung has been flailing away at a straw man. I skimmed the IEP article, and the author, Nick Trakakis, fully acknowledges the need to look at competing evidence for God’s existence as well as evidence against:

    Firstly, the theist may agree that Rowe’s argument provides some evidence against theism, but she may go on to argue that there is independent evidence in support of theism which outweighs the evidence against theism.

    It’s unclear whether the strawmanizing was due to dishonesty on Mung’s part versus mere stupidity, but either way he got it completely wrong.

  36. It’s a shame. Look at how close Mung was to orgasm:

    According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Evidential Problem of Evil asks us to “put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God.” And once we do this, “it becomes unlikely, if not highly unlikely, that the world was created and is governed by an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good being.”

    I’m serious. This is the argument that keiths is relying on. We need to “put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God.”

    Idiot.

  37. fifth, having missed the point completely, is now off “proving” that the earth is not flat.

    Dear God,

    If you exist, please send some intelligent Christians who can actually demonstrate that fact.

    Thanks,
    keiths

  38. keiths: fully acknowledges the need to look at competing evidence for God’s existence as well as evidence against:

    In your worldview what would count as evidence for God’s existence?? Be specific

    peace

  39. Lots of things would count as evidence in favor of the existence of the Christian God.

    Some examples:

    1) Christians, and only Christians, run around bringing the dead back to life, simply by praying. No one else can do it.

    2) All copies of the Q’uran, the Guru Granth Sahib, the Upanishads, etc., spontaneously combust, and the only scriptures left on earth are copies of the Christian Bible.

    3) Every time someone tries to change a word of the Christian Bible, a lightning bolt comes down from heaven, restoring the text.

    4) Christians produce a slew of mind-boggling answers to scientific, mathematical, and philosophical problems that have evaded solution for decades or centuries. No one else does anything remotely comparable. When asked how they come up with their answers, the Christians reply, “Jesus reveals them to us.”

    Wouldn’t you agree that those would count as evidence on the “for” side of the ledger?

  40. fifthmonarchyman: Premise 1) The relational concept of “west” exists
    Premise 2) if the earth was flat you could not travel due west and wind up where you started
    Premise 3) On earth you can travel due west and wind up where you started
    conclusion ) the earth is not flat.

    Premise 2 is false.

  41. keiths: Wouldn’t you agree that those would count as evidence on the “for” side of the ledger?

    None of those would count as evidence for the Christian God. Most would directly contradict Scripture.

    But it is enlightening to see that you are looking for exactly the wrong sort of evidence. With this approach it’s no wonder you are so confused

    peace

  42. Neil Rickert: Premise 2 is false.

    elaborate please and I can modify the argument as needed

    Are you talking about how the surface of a cylinder can roll back on itself?

    I’m reasonably sure that is not the kind of flat the flat earthers have in mind

    peace

  43. keiths, in his skimming, fails to mention that the article actually says it more than once!

    Evidential arguments purport to show that evil counts against theism in the sense that the existence of evil lowers the probability that God exists. The strategy here is to begin by putting aside any positive evidence we might think there is in support of theism (for example, the fine-tuning argument) as well as any negative evidence we might think there is against theism (that is, any negative evidence other than the evidence of evil). We therefore begin with a “level playing field” by setting the probability of God’s existing at 0.5 and the probability of God’s not existing at 0.5 (compare Rowe 1996: 265-66; it is worth noting, however, that this “level playing field” assumption is not entirely uncontroversial: see, for example, the objections raised by Jordan 2001 and Otte 2002: 167-68). The aim is to then determine what happens to the probability value of “God exists” once we consider the evidence generated by our observations of the various evils in our world. The central question, therefore, is: Grounds for belief in God aside, does evil render the truth of atheism more likely than the truth of theism? (A recent debate on the evidential problem of evil was couched in such terms: see Rowe 2001a: 124-25.) Proponents of evidential arguments are therefore not claiming that, even if we take into account any positive reasons there are in support of theism, the evidence of evil still manages to lower the probability of God’s existence. They are only making the weaker claim that, if we temporarily set aside such positive reasons, then it can be shown that the evils that occur in our world push the probability of God’s existence significantly downward.

  44. fifth:

    None of those would count as evidence for the Christian God.

    Bullshit.

    But if you truly believe that, you’re welcome to get off your ass and actually supply some positive evidence, so that we can see how it stacks up against the overwhelming negative evidence highlighted by the problem of evil.

    I sense that you’re a bit short on evidence, considering that you resort to presuppositionalism.

    Those who have evidence for their beliefs are able to provide it. Those who don’t, presuppose.

Leave a Reply