jd curtis' first rebuttal

8/3/2019 JD Curtis' First Rebuttal

1/3

While perusing Mr. Vacula's opening statement there were a few items that caught my attention and I will list

them for his consideration and comment.

Can one honestly believe that malaria, AIDS, Indian Ocean Tsunamis, Chilean earthquakes, andthe like are

the work of an omni-good god?

While we are discussing the concept of whether the Christian concept of a god exists, it is important to bear

in mind that these things occur, according to orthodox Christian doctrine, because we all live in a fallen

world. These things came about after the fall, this world/plane of existance isn't paradise, and the existance

of these aforementioned items only serve to reinforce and help prove that contention. If the narrative was

such that these things did not exist, then it would seem contradictory that they do, however, that is not the

case.

I contend that 'natural evil' earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, tsunamis, animal suffering, and the like is

incompatible with belief in an omni-good god and serves as a defeater to Christian belief

I notice that Mr. Vacula made the huge leap of terming these things 'evil' without ever explaining how he

arrived at that conclusion. At no point does he explain the criteria that must be met in order for any of these

things to be defined as 'evil'. I would posit the fact that Mr. Vacula views these things as 'evil' counts towardsevidence that an objective good exists by which we can gauge these things. And if that objective good exists,

then what is it?

A strict materialist would simply look at these things and shrug. An earthquake causing destruction?A seismic

event that is the result ofplate tectonics, and why did they make the decision to live near a fault line

anyway? Should they be shaking their fist at God or do they carry at least part of the blame if it affected

them or their loved ones? Same goes for a flood wiping out a bunch of houses and displacing hundreds, the

materialist would think that it's the result ofa meteorological event such as heavy rain. Did anyone put a gun

to their respective heads and force them to live in a flood plain? Is it God's fault if the didn't do their

homework? Do humans bear any responsibility at all in these equations whatsoever?

Again, by what standard are these things termed 'evil'? If a tsunami occurs out at sea and hardly anyone

notices, is it 'evil'? If a tornado doesn't actually kill anyone, but does delay my flight out of Tulsa for an hour

and a half, is it 'evil' or merely a 'nuisance'? If a hurricane causes some property damage and minor abrasions,

is it 'evil' or just 'not very nice'?

I do hope that some measurement for clarification is offered up by Mr. Vacula to help us understand how he

determined this. And furthermore that any clarification put forward isn't based on anything so highly

subjective aspersonal feelings, experience or opinion. Because after all, we know that these things indeed

vary greatly from person to person. We'll see.

In addition to human suffering, an egregious amount of animal suffering exists ecosystems thrive because

animals kill other animals, often in a slow and painful fashion. Does this seem to be the work of an all-

loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing being?

You know what? That's quite interesting. I don't recall that I have ever heard of the so-called suffering of

animals objection that Mr. Vacula raises as being a valid argument against the existence of God.

But I wonder if we actually know how much these animals are truly 'suffering'. For instance, some animals

inject a numbing venom so their prey doesn't feel the pain of being bitten. But setting aside the uncertain

level of pain that some animals feel when being eaten by others, I would like to know why Justin simply
http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/3039/plate-tectonics-could-be-essential-for-lifehttp://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/3039/plate-tectonics-could-be-essential-for-life


2/3

settled on animals. I mean, who is going to stand up for the vegetables? What was the criteria considered

when the animal kingdom got the big 'thumbs up' for approval that their experiences were valid and those of

plants are not? Recent researchwould suggest that plants are suffering too.

"When a plant is wounded, its body immediately kicks into protection mode. It releases a bouquet of volatile

chemicals, which in some cases have been shown to induce neighboring plants to pre-emptively step up their

own chemical defenses and in other cases to lure in predators of the beasts that may be causing the damage

to the plants. Inside the plant, repair systems are engaged and defenses are mounted, the molecular details

of which scientists are still working out, but which involve signaling molecules coursing through the body to

rally the cellular troops, even the enlisting of the genome itself, which begins churning out defense-related

proteins.

Plants dont just react to attacks, though. They stand forever at the ready. Witness the endless thorns,

stinging hairs and deadly poisons with which they are armed. If all this effort doesnt look like an organism

trying to survive, then Im not sure what would. Plants are not the inert pantries of sustenance we might wish

them to be.

If a plants myriad efforts to keep from being eaten arent enough to stop you from heedlessly laying into that

quinoa salad, then maybe knowing that plants can do any number of things that we typically think of as

animal-like would. They move, for one thing, carrying out activities that could only be called behaving, if at a

pace visible only via time-lapse photography. Not too long ago, scientists even reported evidence that plants

could detect and grow differently depending on whether they were in the presence of close relatives, a level

of behavioral sophistication most animals have not yet been found to show."

So why do plants get the short end of the stick here? They seem to have an awareness of whats going on. And

lest you think that a diet of mushrooms would solve the problem and let you off the hook, the above article

contains a link explaining how fungi are even more closely related to us than plants are. (provided evolution is

correct) So I guess they are 'off the table' so to speak, also.

I don't wish to make my opponent's arguments for him, but are animals used in this argument against God

because they have faces and perhaps we are more sympathetic towards them for mere sentimental reasons?

Or perhaps because they have brains? The above quoted author brings up the example of Jellyfish which "can

be really tasty when cut into julienne and pickled, [and] have no brains, only a simple net of nerves, arguably

a less sophisticated setup than the signaling systems coordinating the lives of many plants" and asks "How do

we decide how much sensitivity and what sort matters?"

Since Justin brought up this line of argument, I will assume that he has carefully thought through his position

on the matter and will await for him to tell us just where the terminator line is as to whose suffering is

uplifted and who the ultimate losers are to be in these scenarios.

If the amount of good in the world renders belief in an omni-evil god unreasonable, why doesn't theamount

of suffering and death in the world render belief in an omni-good god unreasonable?...we are equally

justified in believing that of evil in the world demonstrates that there is not a good creator god.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/science/15food.html?pagewanted=allhttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/science/15food.html?pagewanted=allhttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/260/5106/340.abstract?ijkey=432194683e94fc08118d7e6e448fa22d7512d03f&keytype2=tf_ipsecshahttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/science/15food.html?pagewanted=allhttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/260/5106/340.abstract?ijkey=432194683e94fc08118d7e6e448fa22d7512d03f&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha


3/3

I don't believe that my opponent has a rudimentary understanding of one of the more basic concepts ofChristianity, namely, that according to widely accepted, orthodox belief, the God of this world is not theCreator God. This is made quite clear in 2nd Corinthians 4:4 "Satan, who is the god of this world, has blindedthe minds of those who dont believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They dontunderstand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God". There are various otherpassages that confirm this and I admit that I'm a bit puzzled that my opponent was (seemingly) unaware ofthis doctrine.

Premise One: Naturalism, the philosophical belief that all that exists is the natural world, is very inductivelyjustified.

Premise Two: If naturalism is very inductively justified, we are justified in rejecting any supernaturalexplanations.

Premise Three: The Christian god is a supernatural explanation.

Conclusion: We are justified in rejecting belief in the Christian god.

I would like to turn this discussion back towards Christianity (or the 'Christian God'). Exactly where did NaturalLaw come from and was it in fact a necessary prerequisite that lead to methodological naturalism and

ultimately sytematic science? Christians typically do not seek supernatural explanations except perhaps onorigin of life discussions and numerous scientists seem to hold their faith concerning where the first living,reproducing organism came from with equal ardor. As one man put it, "Supernatural intervention plays no rolein Natural Law, except to have set the ground rules".

jd curtis' first rebuttal

Documents