The Problem of Evil Solved?

MrC
Posts: 5
Joined: 2014-01-23
User is offlineOffline
The Problem of Evil Solved?

So I've found this article over at Tekton Ministries (heheh):

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/godprime.html

Apparently, it answers the question as to why an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god does not intervene (except for all the times that this same god intervenes in the OT numerous times). The thesis is that God has his own "Prime Directive" to follow (a la Star Trek, complete with quotes from a pair of ST fans who are on opposite sides of the validity of the Prime Directive). I have read it through a couple of times, and the argument seems pretty solid. However, I'm not convinced.

Give the article a good read-through as well. I'd like to know what you think (formal logical examination is especially welcome; no knee-jerk emotional reactions, please). This would be especially interesting for ST fans.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
MrC wrote:So I've found this

MrC wrote:

So I've found this article over at Tekton Ministries (heheh):

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/godprime.html

Apparently, it answers the question as to why an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god does not intervene (except for all the times that this same god intervenes in the OT numerous times). The thesis is that God has his own "Prime Directive" to follow (a la Star Trek, complete with quotes from a pair of ST fans who are on opposite sides of the validity of the Prime Directive). I have read it through a couple of times, and the argument seems pretty solid. However, I'm not convinced.

Give the article a good read-through as well. I'd like to know what you think (formal logical examination is especially welcome; no knee-jerk emotional reactions, please). This would be especially interesting for ST fans.

It is impossible, based on the "christian god" lore, to have a prime directive. The prime directive of Star Trek is from a governing body setting forth rules and regulations for their members to follow.

Is the "christian god" a member of a collective? does it answer to a comittee? does it have multiple personalities?

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
There are a number of

There are a number of problems with the supposed solution. I think I'll start with context.

The Federation's Prime Directive was created specifically because the Federation is NOT omniscient or omnipotent. Because there is no way to predict the cascading efrects over even a year, let alone hundreds or thousands or millions of years.
The christian god is not so limited.

Next I'll grab this little quote:

"And therein lies yet another irony. God has His own Prime Directive with which he is consistent."

Their god is NOT consistent. If it were, we'd have absolutely no knowledge of its existence. Just telling ONE person would be interfering with the culture. But their god has, according to the bible, done significantly more than tell one person. It has told at least hundreds, created a disciple to wander around telling thousands, and even caused at least one massive disaster purported to have wiped upwards of 99% of our species out. And that's just a FEW examples of its interference.
This guy might respond by saying god changed the rules, but the Prime Directive does not change. Ever. Underr any circumstances. Only one directive in all of the Star Trek formats supercedes the Prime Directive, and THAT Directive was set to prevent disasters on such a scale as wiping out significant chunks of the galaxy, and perhaps even the universe.
Since man is in no way capable of such a feat, there is no real comparison to be drawn. Best you can do is suggest Earth stands in for the universe, but that inevitably fails because man has only been capable of wiping out most life on Earth for about 70 years.
The author attempts to justify the actions of god as being for the greater good whilst simultaneously suggesting that god can't act because of his own directive. To him I say this:
The concepts are mutually exclusive. Pick one. You can't have both. Either god has a personal rule against interference or he doesn't.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15747
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Of course there ar problems

Of course there ar problems with this claim.

This is nothing more than re dressing a skunk in a new tuxido.

 

Bad input will always equal crap as outcome. "Omni" as a claimed atribute failes from the start.

Name me one Omni God or even "limited god" or "lesser god" that has been proven in the entirety of human history as being fact?

Yet humans have no problem making these claims and when a question is posed to challenge the atributed the claimant always moves the goal posts. They are not protecting facts, they are protecting their own selfish egos and project their own antropomorphic desires on the rest of humanity.

Supernatural/deity/god claims boil down to humans making up excuses to pretend they are not finite.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
all he was doing was

all he was doing was promoting his fucking app. is it too much to ask you not shit a brick for once?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


MrC
Posts: 5
Joined: 2014-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Double Post Fix

 

(This was accidental double post; pay it no heed)


MrC
Posts: 5
Joined: 2014-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Interesting Response

Hey. I did say no knee-jerk emotional reactions.

Interesting points, Vastet, and you brought up that quote nicely. There is, however, the other half of that quote from the same article:

"Yet ST set its own PD and then had the characters violate it with impunity."

Upon doing some research, each instance that the PD was not abided by had an underlying and objectively legitimate reason not to abide by it. To quote the Star Trek wiki:

There were many exceptions to the applicability of the Prime Directive that were accepted by the Federation. Each was driven by the context of the situation, the society, and the circumstances at the moment. These were typically not full exceptions that voided the Prime Directive entirely; it was only suspended to the extent minimally necessary to address the matter at hand (e.g., answer a hail, provide rescue assistance). Also, actions were to be handled in a way that attempted to minimize the interference resulting from the limited suspension. For example, the attempted "repair" of prior cultural interference was not, itself, to be done in a way that would lead to even greater interference. These exceptions generally fell into the following categories:

  • The society already knew of and contacted the Federation (e.g., seeking assistance; treaty matters)
  • The society sent a general distress call to any space-faring cultures who might pick it up 
  • A material injustice involving a Federation citizen would occur absent the interference
  • Compliance with specific (and valid) orders that could not be followed if the Prime Directive fully applied (e.g., ancillary to a war with the Federation; first contact missions; diplomatic missions; trade negotiations)
  • The society hails or attacks a Federation vessel
  • Rescue missions
  • The society is in diplomatic discussions with the Federation
  • The society was previously interfered with by Federation citizens, whether or not in violation of the Prime Directive (e.g., prior to the Prime Directive being in force; accidental interference.
  • The society was previously interfered with by non-Federation citizens (e.g., Klingons) in a manner that would have violated the Prime Directive had it been done by Starfleet personnel
  • The society had been contacted by Starfleet but, upon recommendation by the contact/survey team, the planet was nonetheless subject to the Prime Directive as though such contact had not occurred.

In contrast, the god of the Old Testament seems to show very little prudence in his decisions to intervene with the OT cultures and societies.

Your thoughts?


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:all he was

dp while attempting to edit the last one.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
MrC wrote:Hey. I did say no

MrC wrote:

Hey. I did say no knee-jerk emotional reactions.

Interesting points, Vastet, and you brought up that quote nicely. There is, however, the other half of that quote from the same article:

"Yet ST set its own PD and then had the characters violate it with impunity."

Upon doing some research, each instance that the PD was not abided by had an underlying and objectively legitimate reason not to abide by it. To quote the Star Trek wiki:

There were many exceptions to the applicability of the Prime Directive that were accepted by the Federation. Each was driven by the context of the situation, the society, and the circumstances at the moment. These were typically not full exceptions that voided the Prime Directive entirely; it was only suspended to the extent minimally necessary to address the matter at hand (e.g., answer a hail, provide rescue assistance). Also, actions were to be handled in a way that attempted to minimize the interference resulting from the limited suspension. For example, the attempted "repair" of prior cultural interference was not, itself, to be done in a way that would lead to even greater interference. These exceptions generally fell into the following categories:

  • The society already knew of and contacted the Federation (e.g., seeking assistance; treaty matters)
  • The society sent a general distress call to any space-faring cultures who might pick it up 
  • A material injustice involving a Federation citizen would occur absent the interference
  • Compliance with specific (and valid) orders that could not be followed if the Prime Directive fully applied (e.g., ancillary to a war with the Federation; first contact missions; diplomatic missions; trade negotiations)
  • The society hails or attacks a Federation vessel
  • Rescue missions
  • The society is in diplomatic discussions with the Federation
  • The society was previously interfered with by Federation citizens, whether or not in violation of the Prime Directive (e.g., prior to the Prime Directive being in force; accidental interference.
  • The society was previously interfered with by non-Federation citizens (e.g., Klingons) in a manner that would have violated the Prime Directive had it been done by Starfleet personnel
  • The society had been contacted by Starfleet but, upon recommendation by the contact/survey team, the planet was nonetheless subject to the Prime Directive as though such contact had not occurred.

In contrast, the god of the Old Testament seems to show very little prudence in his decisions to intervene with the OT cultures and societies.

Your thoughts?

I thought about taking the full quote but figured it could take a lot of time. lol.

What you say is true. I can only recall one time when the Prime Directive was willfully and unreasonably broken, and that was in the 9th movie, when Picard & crew effectively mutinied against a superior officer because of it. And even that turned out to not actually be breaking the Directive, as the species ended up only having the appearance of being primitive when in fact it was fully space capable and had been for a very long time.

More often than not, any violation was accidental. An omnipotent, omniscient being can't have accidents.

Times when they weren't accidental were usually when contact with a space capable species had already been made. But there's only one "god".

Never have stafleet personnel attempted to force their morals on the culture in question, something that god did frequently.

To my amusement; the closer you examine the comparison, the more you see there is no comparison.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
MrC wrote:Hey. I did say no

MrC wrote:

Hey. I did say no knee-jerk emotional reactions.




you don't know brian, do you? the man is incapable of an unemotional response to everything. i'm willing to bet even asking him about the weather would provoke a hysterical tirade.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


MrC
Posts: 5
Joined: 2014-01-23
User is offlineOffline
More interesting points to bring up

I found these other interesting quotes in the article:

"By no means do we say there is an exact parallel here. For one thing of course, Star Fleet did not create all the alien cultures (though the relationship of those that had forgotten or rejected knowledge of God would be essentially the same). For another, cultural contact would be inevitable between the Israelites and other nations."

I found the part in parantheses to be incorrect on the author's behalf because in ST, developing worlds never has prveious contact with Star Fleet and the Federation, so these developing worlds would, by definition, not be capable of forgetting or even rejecting Star Fleet's existence. Also, these developing worlds' existence and sentience is not dependent on the existence of Star Fleet and the Federation. By the author's own admission, there is no exact parallel, but then he attempts (in the same sentence) to justify an inexact parallel, even though it isn't the same thing because lack or rejection of Star Fleet's existence is not pertinent to Star Fleet's ultimate mission.

 

"What I want to highlight, though, is the specific point that we see in the PD from Trek an example of non-interference as a virtue. Those who have seen the series to any extent know that the PD was reckoned with even in examples where an alien world was in danger of destruction. They will also recall that characters regularly (more so in the older ST series) acted with blatant inconsistency with respect to the PD."

While I do concede that the author is correct in stating that the PD from ST is non-interference by virtue, I will say that he is incorrect in stating that Star Fleet was inconsistent in their upholding of the PD. As I stated earlier, every instance that Star Fleet violated the PD was driven by the context of the situation, the society, and the circumstances at the moment. These were typically not full exceptions that voided the Prime Directive entirely; it was only suspended to the extent minimally necessary to address the matter at hand. (ibid)

 

"...if they really thought it through, Skeptics would not really want God to violate His own Prime Directive. God does not take the high hand in things because, first, it is coercive, and true love does not rely on coercion; second, and most importantly, we have shown every time we sin that we do not want God's personal guidance in such high-handed fashion."

This, I believe, is the hubris of the article.

First, the author does not get to speak on someone else's behalf lest he be called a liar by someone who doesn't believe what the author believes what somebody ought to believe. Not only that, God has been demonstrated in the OT that he takes the high hand in things (e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah), let alone justify it as an act of "true love".

Second, since atheists do not believe in God, it is meaningless to accuse an atheist of being a sinner simply because the accuser (i.e. the author) believes he can speak collectively for all of humanity. Humanistic atheists recognize the concept of right and wrong actions in terms of their impact on other people, and the idea of sin is basically irrelevant without appealing to a deity or a code of laws presented in holy writ.

 

"Skeptics and critics who believe that the God of the Bible, rather than punishing sin justly, ought to simply pick us up, dust us off, and pat us on the head like a senile grandpa, show thereby exactly the God they want."

Here, the author is accusing the skeptics and atheists of wanting a god who would never want us from learn from our mistakes and grow as a person. There are a couple of problems with this:

1) This does not account for "trials" and "tests of faith" that result in the death of the one or many being "tested" (e.g. terminal diseases and natural disasters), because what good will it do to learn from your mistakes if you're dead?

2) It's ultimately a self-defeating answer because if a person or people can learn from their mistakes and grow as a person on their own without the interference of God (willfull or otherwise), then what does that person or people need God for?

 

"On the other hand, those who ask for God's interference had best watch out, because the first thing on the list to be zapped is most likely you, because before you ever got to the podium someone else who was wronged by you beat you to it!"

This is all based on the assumption that there is even a god that exists in the first place, let alone one who is going to deal out a blanket punishment for every "sin" that interferes with someone else's free will (which is kind of ironic considering that God never gets punished for interfering with people's free will in the OT).

 

Thoughts, anyone?


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Not trying to raise a rukus

MrC wrote:

So I've found this article over at Tekton Ministries (heheh):

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/godprime.html

Apparently, it answers the question as to why an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god does not intervene (except for all the times that this same god intervenes in the OT numerous times). The thesis is that God has his own "Prime Directive" to follow (a la Star Trek, complete with quotes from a pair of ST fans who are on opposite sides of the validity of the Prime Directive). I have read it through a couple of times, and the argument seems pretty solid. However, I'm not convinced.

Give the article a good read-through as well. I'd like to know what you think (formal logical examination is especially welcome; no knee-jerk emotional reactions, please). This would be especially interesting for ST fans.

asusually happens Smiling when I post something but------

They have a wrong understanding of God. There is no superhuman being anywhere in the universe. We are all under the laws of physics and other sciences for the goods and evils (helps or harms) that naturally happen when one exists in a natural universe. The only one's with prime directives that I know of are the one's that run the world. What one should be doing is weighing their own prime directives. (sorry for being repetitious). As it sits---anyone of us would be a better God then what religions have going. If it don't exist it can't have an effect on things---other then that we're all subject to the same forces.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth