The short answer, which I feel sure many have already pointed out, is that atheists don’t have a problem with the creator, who is called God. For the same reason that we don’t have a problem with fairies or unicorns. We do not accept that this God you refer to exists. Because there is no evidence for it.
I have often been asked, why do you hate God. The answer is the same.
If you can provide convincing evidence that God truly exists and that this God is the God as described by the Bible, then I will have a problem with him. If you wish more detail on that, please come back to me.
Not all versions of God require evidence, by definition. A lack of evidence is no longer “evidence of absence in this case.” Another argument may be constructed.
“The distinction between a god that is not evidenced and one that does not exist is indistinguishable; therefore, the position of non-belief is completely justified while the position of belief necessarily requires a leap of imagination.”
The god of the Deists, for example, does not require evidence. There are other versions of this argument where God is beyond human understanding. “God is beyond human understanding???” And how would they understand that? Still, the assertion lends itself to the fact that “god can not be known and evidence is beyond human ability to comprehend.” In this case, the evidence argument you have asserted, is useless.
Finally. the evidence argument you assert is completely useless against the presuppositionalists. I think the best you can do with a presuppositionalist is demonstrate that the supposition is without foundation. The presupposition of the laws of logic exist because they work (as do other forms of accepted a-priori.) The presupposition of God has no such foundation and no such evidence asserting any kind of consistency or value in explaining anything.
I am interested in your contention that not all versions of God require evidence. I accept that there is little to be gained by arguing against a deistic interpretation but I would still lean towards requiring evidence that the universe is not a natural and infinite existence without need for a creator. I fall back on the weakness in the cosmological argument that logically asserts there must be a first cause but then grants God a special case which doesn’t need to follow the rules of logic used until that point.
Presuppositionalists suffer from the same problem as other arguments. In that they begin with belief in God and then fit their logic around it. If you begin with the supposition that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, you must then defend the Bible against all criticism. I have yet to find anyone who can do that without falling back on, “You don’t understand because God has blinded you” or some such excuse.
One of the problems we face when arguing against literalists, is their propensity to redefine words for their own benefit. Truth, is one such. When someone in a discussion is unable to answer a direct observation of biblical internal contradiction and fall back on, “well the Bible is true to me”, I have to ask what gives them the right to redefine the word.
I my view, belief in any and all gods requires evidence. I refuse to believe in any of them unless it can be shown that there is sufficient reason. The late great Carl Sagan said it best, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.
Of course they require it as far as I am concerned. The evidence, both theists and atheists agree, is beyond anyone’s ability to gain. If you require it, you are not talking about the same god they are talking about.
It’s simple. Requesting evidence is merely evidence that you are not listening.
So, as I said above. The better argument is simply, “A god that does not manifest in reality is no different than no god at all.” There is no reason to believe in such a deity and no way for you to discern that such a thing even exists.
Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were actually suggesting that the existence of some gods did not require evidence. You are perfectly correct, it is important to ensure to understand the other’s position before arguing against it. Steel manning as opposed to straw manning. I hang my head in shame that I made such a basic error.
I think we’ve covered the problems of evil and suffering.
None of the Abrahamic faiths can justify evil and suffering.
Perhaps the simplest answer to the question is from Epicurus (341-270 bce):
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?”[3]"
I like your question. To be honest, I’m a pagan. But I DO have a BIG PROBLEM with the Abrahamic God !!! (The old and New Testament god). See, Nordic (white) people were good nature respecting people. They believed in living in harmony with the laws the Gods set up for earth. The Biblical god Hijacked all other races/ethnicity and forced them to think man is Dominant to the creatures of earth. This all brought wars, industrialism, patriarchy and even enslavement! Under FASCIST in the dictionary they’re should be a picture of the Bible.
Oh, boy do I have news for you. War certainly did exist long before the Abrahamic god was invented. War is documented from back when writing was first invented, in Sumeria approx. 3400-3100 BCE (and perhaps independently in Egypt around 3250 BCE). War in different forms have also been widespread (one could even say endemic) in all parts of the world, both before and after Jesus-on-a-stick arrived. Patriarchy? Heck, Middle Assyrian laws were extremely misogynistic, to the point where if islamic laws regarding women suddenly had been introduced, they would probably have been viewed as liberation(*). Enslavement? Are you kidding me? People have probably kept slaves for longer than documented history, probably at least as far back as the neolithic, at the birth of agricultural societies. Industrialism? You lost me there – what on earth has that got to do with the biblical god?
(*) Paul Kriwaczek: Babylon – Mesopotamia and the birth of civilization
You are correct - there were other patriarch religions and slavery isn’t unique to Abrahamic religion. The main thing is that it’s sooo ridiculous that white people think they are sons of Abraham ! I hate that ignorance! I do feel
I’m northern european, draw your own conclusions. When it comes to “sons of Abraham”…what a weird concept. As if you’re obliged to believe something or think and behave a certain way just because your ancestors followed a certain religious belief or a led a certain way of life. Fair enough that it can be considered a good thing to keep traditions and languages alive, but to extend that to an obligation to follow in the footsteps of you ancestors? Nope. Not my cup of tea. I live my life the way I want to, I socialize(*) with whoever I want to, I do stuff I am interested in, etc. Times change. Millennias of superstition do not apply.
Oh, so you’re a theist, or perhaps an animist?. Based on what evidence?
I’m not sure one may speak reasonably about Nordic people as a group., Anyway, on what evidence do you base that claim?
Oh, the Nordic gods set up no laws, what with almost certainly being imaginary and all. Of course I’m assuming you have no empirical evidence for your pagan beliefs. If you do, I’d be thrilled to see it. I’ve ways been fond of Loki. It would be peachy if you could demonstrate his existence.
What does their colour have to with anything? Ever heard of the ancient Egyptian civilisation? THEY were not white. What about the ancient Indus valley civilisation. ? Why mention colour at all?
