The Problem of Evil

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟38,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
I have echoed this on several threads, but this life is mathematical ordered chaos. Controlled.

I don't think it is resonating with you that we aren't owed anything. Yet, this God is all but begging us to come to Him - even sending His Son to vindicate us.

Say to Zeus that you scoffed at his power, and existence, and doubted his power and authority. Let's see how far his patience goes (hint: look up Greek mythology.)

As I said, we are the ones who cause calamity. But, some of us would rather place the blame on a God they don't believe in instead of the actual culprits - humans/us.

We don't need a satan. We need to take responsibility for our actions, and stop blaming God.

I never said anybody was owed anything, and I don't think that is resonating with you.

If someone has to rationalize why the raping of a child for years, that could be prevented by someone or thing, is cosmically "ok" or just -and more so essentially their own fault- then that person is doing so solely because they have to justify their own cognitive dissonance.

The inaction and silence of that someone or thing that could do something, but chooses not to, is shameful.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Human beings are not punished for not being divine.

They are punished for not possessing a quality ostensibly possessed only by the divine - moral perfection.

If you intended to signify a being other than one worthy of worship when using the word "God" i.e. as some "god" or "deity", you should use a lower case "g". It cuts down on the ambiguity.

Whenever I see the word "God" with a capital "G", Anselm's "Greatest Conceivable Being" is what I have in mind and this being by definition is worthy of worship.

I don't even think that definition necessitates worship. The greatest conceivable being may not require or demand worship at all.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
What makes you an infallible authority on the subject?

When did I claim infallibility?

Of course I don't.

Is it honest behaviour to use an argument to support your case that you don't believe is true?

Well, though I believe such a view is better than it being bacterialcentric, if your morality is anthropocentric, how do you know that is an accurate gauge to judge God morally?

Because the consequences to people are objective. It doesn't matter if a god exists, or if a god doesn't exist.

Furthermore, if morality means anything, then god must be held to the same moral code that we are.

The difference between god and us, is that god is defined as being an example of perfect morality while we are not. Therefore, god should be held to a higher standard (one of absolute perfection).

If we have an example of your god doing something, or ordering something that's clearly not moral, then your god can not exist. If we have an example of your god permitting something immoral to occur that he could prevent, then he can not exist.

A creator god defined as amoral could exist, but not a morally perfect one. The world as we see it contradicts that possibility.

This is not an answer to the point I was making. I believe, if my memory serves me right, I was responding to your assertion most people are essentially morally good. Clearly, that is wrong, as all people, if every secret thing was known about them, would be considered morally bad.

I completely disagree, I think most people would still be considered good people even if you knew all their secrets. I believe I'm a good person, and I know all my secrets.

I don't know of anyone that is perfect, but again, that's irrelevant.

What's your justification for claiming that all people are morally bad?

Now being morally bad does not make one intellectually incapable of understanding what perfect morality is. But, being human does. We're just not smart enough, we don't know where it all leads.

If we're not smart enough, then how can you claim we're all morally bad? This is a double edged sword... If we aren't smart enough to claim we're good, you can't be smart enough to claim we're bad as well. That's because under the premise of your argument we don't have a good enough understanding of the concepts.

Nonetheless, being that all people are morally repugnant, I would say that there is no suffering that we do not deserve as a just consequence for our actions, thoughts, and etc.

And teachings like that are why I view your religion as morally repugnant. It completely dehumanizes everyone and everything, and teaches you to hate yourself.

I can't think of a more disgusting thing to teach people. That act of dehumanizing people is directly responsible for the vast majority of religious atrocities in this world.

Being that you probably would not be comfortable talking about the worst things you have ever done or thought about, I can't really talk about this subject on a personal level with you.

Actually, I don't really have much to hide. I'm fine talking about anything.

I would just say that though fear of retaliation or consequences does not always weigh into the decision process at least consciously, subconciously it has to be quite profound being that we all think of some pretty screwed up stuff and never act upon it.

Thinking about something and being willing to act upon something are two very different things. Having the thought of killing someone simply pop into your head does not mean you are immoral. The desire to act on that thought, and then putting an effort into seeing it through is what makes you immoral.

The finite cannot understand infinite perfection. We can understand the notion, but not the entirety of the concept.

I don't see how you can justify that, infinite perfection is a simple concept.

Any deviation from perfection means something is not perfect. That's all there is to it. It is very easy to identify a thing that is not infinitely perfect, if it's ever made a mistake or misstep, it is not perfect. Any being that is claimed to be morally perfect, but then turns around and orders a genocide is not a morally perfect being.

The irony is, it's impossible to identify something that is infinitely perfect, as we have no way of knowing if it'll get something wrong in the future. It may have never made an immoral decision up to now, but we don't know if it'll turn around and order a genocide tomorrow.

First, I am a misologist so I honestly do not think I can actually demonstrate to you the absolute truth about anything.

What an odd position to take.... why would you do that?

However, when it pertains to the Christian faith, I don't think there is anything anyone can say or do to convince anyone.

Then how were you convinced?

Jesus Himself said that there are those that do not believe because they cannot "hear" what He says. No man can be a Christian apart from a miracle from God that gives them the ability to "hear" real truth.

So your salvation is dependent upon god miracling you into heaven essentially?

So what about those people he decides to not bestow his miracle of hearing to? Do they wind up in hell?

If you came from mud, your consciousness is an illusion created by an ultimately arbitrary process of neurons firing off that is completely devoid of meaning.

Actually, no.... it's not an illusion, nor arbitrary. Consciousness exists as is whether a god exists or not.

You need to seriously realize if your focal point of morality is anthropocentric, this in of itself is arbitrary which is why I reject the argument from evil.

I said that morality is anthropocentric, however its grounding is based on objective consequences of actions. Those are not arbitrary at all.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
So, bad things are not evil? If they are, I think I just demonstrated my point that evil can exist for the sake of greater good.

I thought I was quite clear... bad things can be evil, but they are not necessarily evil.

Basically, all evil things are bad, but not all bad things are evil. Showing up late for lunch is not evil, but it is bad.

And while being purposely late for lunch for 15 minutes is a minor evil, is it so implausible to think of way worse things that require significant redemption, which can be accurately classified as "evil"?

First off, I dispute that it's even properly defined as a minor evil.

Secondly, as I said in my original post, things that are genuinely defined as evil (i.e. murder, rape) are better off never happening, rather than being allowed to occur so someone can be redeemed.

To reiterate my example, a universe where your son was never murdered is better than a universe where your son was murdered, and you forgave his killer.

I don't think I moved the goal posts at all, I think you have by differentiating between bad and evil. Try reading the dictionary definition for "bad." In your anthropocentric moral worldview, the world will be better if nothing bad existed. Imagine no broken glasses, no mistakes, no need to get people gifts because of mistakes...

I am arguing otherwise. Differentiating between "bad" and "evil" is semantics in this case.


And as I pointed out before, it's not semantics. All evil is bad, but not all bad is evil. Showing up late, or accidentally breaking a glass is bad, but it's not evil.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
You're a "good" person who would not his whole personal history known to everyone, nor his thoughts displayed for the world to see. That doesn't sound so good to me.


I never claimed that, you're trying to put that on to me. I have no problems sharing personal history as I have nothing to hide.
 
Upvote 0

CryOfALion

Newbie
Sep 10, 2014
1,364
63
✟1,894.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I never said anybody was owed anything, and I don't think that is resonating with you.

If someone has to rationalize why the raping of a child for years, that could be prevented by someone or thing, is cosmically "ok" or just -and more so essentially their own fault- then that person is doing so solely because they have to justify their own cognitive dissonance.

The inaction and silence of that someone or thing that could do something, but chooses not to, is shameful.

See you don't get it.

We broke Universal Law. We deserve death. We are not guaranteed safety and happiness. Prevention is a privilege. Be blessed God doesn't delight in your torture, because He would be well within His righteousness to do so. Or, cry more.

We opened the floodgates of calamity when we sinned. It is our fault. Not God's fault.
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,733
57
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟119,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
We broke Universal Law. We deserve death. We are not guaranteed safety and happiness. Prevention is a privilege. Be blessed God doesn't delight in your torture, because He would be well within His righteousness to do so. Or, cry more.

We opened the floodgates of calamity when we sinned. It is our fault. Not God's fault.

Stalin could say the same thing. Hey, it's your fault if you end up in the gulag!


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
See you don't get it.

We broke Universal Law. We deserve death. We are not guaranteed safety and happiness. Prevention is a privilege. Be blessed God doesn't delight in your torture, because He would be well within His righteousness to do so. Or, cry more.

We opened the floodgates of calamity when we sinned. It is our fault. Not God's fault.

Given that God created flawed beings without the ability to morally appraise his commands and then blamed them for, surprise surprise, being flawed, it seems that it is indeed his fault. He could have prevented the Fall, having foreseen it. It doesn't even take omniscience to predict what would've happened given the way the situation was set up. Adam and Eve were set up to fail.
 
Upvote 0
T

talquin

Guest
See you don't get it.

We broke Universal Law. We deserve death. We are not guaranteed safety and happiness. Prevention is a privilege. Be blessed God doesn't delight in your torture, because He would be well within His righteousness to do so. Or, cry more.

We opened the floodgates of calamity when we sinned. It is our fault. Not God's fault.
Is it our fault that a destructive typhoon slams into the Philippines, killing tens of thousands of people?
 
Upvote 0
T

talquin

Guest
God sees everything that happens on the face of the earth. He sees far more horrific things than you have heard of or seen or will ever see.

He saw His sinless Son being tortured and beat beyond recognition and nailed to a cross between two criminals.

Christ Himself was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.

He bore our sins, our pain, our sorrow, and our heartache while He was hanging on the cross.

Pain and suffering are only seen aright when viewed in light of the cross.
You must be talking about an impotent god.

Let's say a little child in your town is getting raped and you are in a position to help that child easily. What do you do? Do you act as God and do nothing? Or do you help the child?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jeremy E Walker

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2014
897
16
✟1,156.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Yes. Just like that. Didn't disappoint.

(You realize you said raping of children for years is only seen correctly/properly when viewed in another light/perspective??)

When seen in the light of what the Bible teaches.

What is the rape of a child according to your perspective?
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟38,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
See you don't get it.

We broke Universal Law. We deserve death. We are not guaranteed safety and happiness. Prevention is a privilege. Be blessed God doesn't delight in your torture, because He would be well within His righteousness to do so. Or, cry more.

We opened the floodgates of calamity when we sinned. It is our fault. Not God's fault.

I'm glad I am more moral and ethical than your god; it's like he's a North Korean dictator.

And it's frightening that people think this way.
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟38,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
When seen in the light of what the Bible teaches.

That's messed up. The rationalizing you have to do...

If you could do me a favor and state the that raping of children for years is only seen correctly/properly when when seen in the light of what the Bible teaches, in one complete sentence, I'd appreciate it.

I fear others might get lost or not be able to put together what you said over these past few posts. I want to make sure you are representing yourself as fully and honestly as possible.

What is the rape of a child according to your perspective?

A child being raped.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
No, it's not irrelevant. I just want to see if we are on the same page. So, does whom the crime is inflicted against have any bearing at all on the punishment?

Well, yes, it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The argument was an eternal punishment is never just for a finite crime. You're trying to compare finite crimes and see if differing finite punishments are just. It's a red herring.

Different finite punishments are just for different finite crimes. An eternal punishment is never justifiable though.

Rationality and internal logical consistency are the same thing. There are rational men (i.e. Plato and Aristotle) with very different belief systems (idealism versus materialism), it does not make either irrational, though only one or neither can be right.

No, they aren't the same thing. The Star Trek universe is an internally logically consistent construct. Believing that the Star Trek universe is real, and that Captain Picard is out there fighting the Borg is not a rational belief.

How is making morality anthropocentric not a presupposition? Seriously, can you please explain this to me.

I've already explained it to you. Since you may not have read that response before writing this post, I'll defer to my already existing explanation on this thread.

What should compel GOd to care more about animate sentient beings than inanimate objects?

Because animate sentient beings have consciousness, feelings, emotions, etc. If god has empathy, then he would be morally obligated to care about any sentient being.

Inanimate objects don't have those things.

I'm sure you already understand this concept....

What if that is an illusion though? What if we think we are making moral decisions that have meaning, but in reality they are meaningless?

Can you demonstrate it's an illusion? If not, why would we consider that a plausible scenario?

If there is a deity, making morality centered around the creation instead of the creator that devised morality would literally seem morally bankrupt.

Who is doing that? Is god not a sentient being? I said morality is based around sentient beings. Your god is held to the same moral code that we are.

I don't think it's possible that morality could originate from a god, even if one did exist however.

Yes, but you can be entirely lacking certain things without its antithesis. I already demonstrated this in my discussion of the concept of forgiveness.

Sure, but you haven't demonstrated that evil is required for good to exist.

You have demonstrated bad things exist in order for forgiveness to exist, and I agree with that. But, that's not a supporting point for your argument.

We already covered that this is merely semantics, but I think it is obvious to everyone that minor offenses require minor levels of forgiveness. Major offenses require profound levels of forgiveness. So, to make a universe without evil would essentially remove the existence of profound forgiveness, as there would be no situation that requires it. Is that absolutely, positively a better universe?

You may say "yes," but please keep in mind, your whole position is that there is no such things as something good that is increased by a correspondingly increased amount of evil. The idea of forgiveness as a positive good completely demolishes that contention, in my mind, casts doubt on your entire view of this matter.

You're missing the point entirely.

While profound forgiveness can be a good and moral act under certain circumstances, it's not required for a perfectly good universe or realm.

If all of the Jews decided en masse to forgive the Nazis for the holocaust, that means we live in a world where the holocaust still happened. The holocaust could not possibly happen in a world of perfect good.

Therefore major acts of forgiveness can only exist in a place of imperfect actions or morality. In a place of perfect goodness and perfect morality, they are simply not required.

According to whom? "To me." That seems like an arbitrary judgment call to me.

If I hadn't given an explanation for why, you'd be correct... however I gave an explanation, and you totally ignored it.

I really do like this example, as I have thought about it over the years.

I am sure you are not interested that Christian theology teaches that because hell is eternal (and I assure you that is your destiny apart from faith in Christ), that evil in our world view is completely mastered, but never completely disappears as it is punished eternally.

But back to my point. My view is that the temporary existence of evil, for a time, makes heaven better as it increases the glory that is in heaven. God's mercy to poor, pathetic evil souls like hopefully you some day and me is magnified by the fact that there was a time, though completely insignificant when compared to eternity, where we were wicked. Therefore, our eternal redemption is ever more something to be grateful for.

That's a rather creative and impressive dodge, but it doesn't address the point.

Would heaven become a better place if Satan was allowed in to spread some evil throughout it?

Why not Epicurus? Doesn't he assume there is a god in order to even make his argument?

Because we were addressing Augustine's writings, I've never even brought up Epicurus.
 
Upvote 0

CryOfALion

Newbie
Sep 10, 2014
1,364
63
✟1,894.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I'm glad I am more moral and ethical than your god; it's like he's a North Korean dictator.

And it's frightening that people think this way.

You aren't more moral and ethical; you are more emotional. You work on emotion and feelings. That makes the subject weak.

And, you should take your qualms up with God - to His face. Don't use us as your spiritual scapegoat and exit for facing Him when we don't appease you argumentatively. If you think you are so great then take that up with Him... let's see if you can stand the heat.

Oh yea, you still don't get it. You didn't answer anything addressed.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CryOfALion

Newbie
Sep 10, 2014
1,364
63
✟1,894.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Stalin could say the same thing. Hey, it's your fault if you end up in the gulag!


eudaimonia,

Mark

So what? You think if a God said don't lie, steal, lust... and you do it you deserve to be acquitted AND have a good, easy life? do you believe in responsibility? You broke universal law; "man up" and stop blaming a sky daddy you don't even believe in.

Breaking laws has consequences. You are not owed a rape free, painless life because you ate you. So, stop being a baby and blaming a god for your problems 9th others I the world. People kill, steal, lie, cheat, rape, destroy, and so on. God doesn't make someone kill. Not even satan. Do you know why?

YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE.

The blessing should be clear by the fact God preserves our whining behinds with luxuries like good tasting food, a blue sky and sex that isn't excruciating. We aren't owned anything.
 
Upvote 0

CryOfALion

Newbie
Sep 10, 2014
1,364
63
✟1,894.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I never said anybody was owed anything, and I don't think that is resonating with you.

If someone has to rationalize why the raping of a child for years, that could be prevented by someone or thing, is cosmically "ok" or just -and more so essentially their own fault- then that person is doing so solely because they have to justify their own cognitive dissonance.

The inaction and silence of that someone or thing that could do something, but chooses not to, is shameful.

You do not get it. You do think you are owed rape-free, painless life because your focus is emotional, and on those things. You aren't owed anything in life at all - not air, water or emotional happiness. You do not realize how ingrained that is in your wants. And, you and people like you implicate a sky daddy you don't even believe in when in fact it isn't Him, or a Satan messing life up. IT IS HUMANS.

Take responsibility.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

CryOfALion

Newbie
Sep 10, 2014
1,364
63
✟1,894.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Given that God created flawed beings without the ability to morally appraise his commands and then blamed them for, surprise surprise, being flawed, it seems that it is indeed his fault. He could have prevented the Fall, having foreseen it. It doesn't even take omniscience to predict what would've happened given the way the situation was set up. Adam and Eve were set up to fail.

I don't know what church people who hate what they think is an imaginary sky daddy go to, but your first sentence, and ultimately entire paragraph is wrong. Adam was not a BABY. HE WAS MATURE. And, as a mature perskn, when someone tells you not to do something - especially when that thing is your Father/God - you DON'T do it. ADAM did, and suffered consequences of breaking universal law.

The rest of your post echos the same lame and flawed story that if someone does nothing they are powerless to do it, and/or unloving and uncaring. So human, so romantic, so Western.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,733
57
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟119,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
So what? You think if a God said don't lie, steal, lust... and you do it you deserve to be acquitted AND have a good, easy life?

Is it within my power to be morally perfect? Or does "Original Sin" stand in the way?

do you believe in responsibility? You broke universal law; "man up" and stop blaming a sky daddy you don't even believe in.

Breaking a law is not self-evidently something that robs one of entitlement of humane treatment. It is possible to question the justice of a law, and of punishments for breaking a law. I'm sure that a dictator could tell you to "man up" about being sent to the gulag, but that does not place his actions beyond judgment.

The problem here is that Christian doctrine puts an absurd amount of responsibility on human beings to live up to an impossible standard of morality, and then face dire eternal consequences for failing to do what it is not in their nature to do. Furthermore, one gets only one vanishingly short life (compared to infinity) to get one's infinite destiny right. One wrong move and one is treated like dirt.

Yes, I certainly do believe in responsibility, but I also believe that there is a responsibility for any authority to treat human beings with full human dignity. There is a word for authorities that fail to do this -- tyrants.

YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE.

Bzzzt! Wrong. Apparently, Adam and Eve are responsible for Original Sin, and God is responsible for creating them without the wisdom to avoid eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. That is the logical consequence of Christian doctrine.

The doctrine is all a house of cards.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0