Arguments like the contingency argument are independent of how the physical world "works." Instead, they concern meta-physical questions like, "Why is there a physical world at all?"

There are two things I can see you doing with this kind of logical/philosophical argument.

The first is to just "pure thought" or as I would call it "pure mathematics". You start with the some axioms and deduce theorems. No implications for the real world.

The second is to try and say something about the real world. For the existence of God this is where you want to be. The first situation is useless unless you want a theoretical God not in the real world. If you want to say something about the real world then you need to make some connection between your pure thought and the real world. Your ideas of contingency for example or causality need to reflect how the real world behaves. So you need to have the best information on how the real world works to have a hope of making anything like a sensible argument.

Me I'm a pure mathematician so I live and work in the first situation. Ironically you had many people posting here who where experts in the second situation and we could have had a really interesting discussion.

But you banned them all.

1. Then gods should create a world with less suffering. If this is a goal worthy of ourselves, then I see no reason to not apply the same expectations and more to a 3O god.

2. We don't have to know anything about other possible worlds to make pronouncements about this one, and what sort of stimuli make us feel better. We have the immediacy of our own experience, the science of psychology etc, to inform us that suffering isn't really all that much fun, and that the valueless suffering is a blight on human existence. If gods are incapable of seeing that families ripped apart by tragedy is a bad thing, then such gods are not worthy of either our time, or our respect.

3. I don't think that there are good arguments for gods. I don' think they are any longer serious. Though once such speculations may have been worthy and focused minds, they have also distracted from other more important matters. Furthermore, the question of whether or not gods exist is an empirical matter, it is an empirical question. The so-called philosophical arguments operate often by making false claims about what we do know about reality. They may once have been great speculations but those days are really long past. An argument is not a form of evidence for anything.

2) I would disagree that less suffering is actually better.

From this one could definitely infer that heaven is a 'worse' place to be... BTW, IMO, this fixation on trying to rescue 'suffering' from its obvious detriment to the idea of an omnibenevolent god is, well, demeaning to the all the sufferers in this world, both human and otherwise. The desperation in clinging to the idea that suffering is somehow a means to a good is purely a human condition trying to come to terms with a reality that is unnerving at best.

We are alone.

and we can do better than this rescue attempt...

Glen

(1) God is not limited. He could create a world which there was less suffering but worse overall in some other sense.

How do you know this?

After saying God is not limited, you strongly imply that if God had created a world with less suffering, it would be a world equal in imperfection to our own, with lessened suffering being balanced out by an increase in some other unfortunate aspect of life. Even assuming God created this world, and further assuming God could have created a different world instead of this one, how can you possibly know the nature of the possible worlds God did not create?

I think the "theists" ought to keep in mind that at least part of their audience is made up of atheists and skeptics who often doubt, or disbelieve in, God, and are necessarily going to be dissatisfied by many of the assertions made here about God, not a few of which those of us who attended Catholic school learned in the lower grades. This is not to say, if Catholicism is correct, that what second-graders learn is false. But to an adult, what was taught in second-grade religion class is necessarily going to seem as inadequate as what was taught in second-grade science class.

"But it would be silly to suggest that [Aristotle's] ideas about physics are serious. Serious when he made them but not serious now. They are just wrong now."

That's certainly true. We would all agree that some of Aristotle's physics have since been refuted.

However, his *metaphysics* have not. We must be careful not to confuse the two, otherwise we'll be no different than the man who dismisses Darwin's theory of evolution because Darwin had faulty theology. Just as Darwin's theology is independent of his genetics, so is Aristotle's physics distinct from his metaphysics.

"The philosophical arguments for God that I have seen are likewise flawed. Often for the same reason that they are based on wrong ideas about how the physical world works."

Although this assertion is somewhat vague, and therefore I'm not sure which particular arguments or which "wrong ideas" about the physical world you're referring to, on the surface it displays a deep confusion about the classical arguments for God.

Arguments like the contingency argument are independent of how the physical world "works." Instead, they concern meta-physical questions like, "Why is there a physical world at all?"

(1) God is not limited. He could create a world which there was less suffering but worse overall in some other sense.

Strange then that humans, vastly inferior though we are, have made a world with less suffering in the last few hundred years.

At least have the respect to say that you disagree with them but they are serious.

I have enormous respect for someone like Aristotle. He clearly had a much better brain than I do. But it would be silly to suggest that his ideas about physics are serious. Serious when he made them but not serious now. They are just wrong now.

The philosophical arguments for God that I have seen are likewise flawed. Often for the same reason that they are based on wrong ideas about how the physical world works.

(1) God is not limited. He could create a world which there was less suffering but worse overall in some other sense.

(2) I would disagree that less suffering is actually better. We do not have any grounds to claim this. We would have to know the past and future of the other possible worlds. It is entirely possible that all of the evil on the whole in this world is used to bring about a greater good, even if we do not know in each instance what that good is.

(3) I don't ask for "evidence" for God. As a philosophical question, we must ask if there are good arguments for His existence. It's not fair to the philosophical tradition to say that the arguments either aren't there or are just obviously flawed. At least have the respect to say that you disagree with them but they are serious.

It is still possible that God could actualize a certain world with less suffering but overall that world would be a worse world than this one.

God is limited then? He couldn't create a world in which there was vastly less suffering and that would be better than this one?

I would contend that a world with less suffering is actually better than the one we currently have . Our lives are not made any better for it. I do not lament any long stretches of my life in which I lacked turmoil, or heartache. Indeed, all that represents is a very serious obstacle toward my life's goals, and the quality of my existence. I would happily trade all those woes for better times with out them. I don't feel any better for having developed a reasonable stoicism in the face of this. I would be much happier to have avoided the need. I am sure most people would agree with me. No, again, you are failing to appreciate the 3O god.

Also, when I say your god is one god among many, I simply mean he is one mythology among a great many from which to choose. You may demur that your god is different in so many ways from a god like Zeus, but from the standpoint of evidence there really isn't much difference.