The problem of evil

[Resha Caner]

So if the Nazi's titled Hitler "Hitler the Good", everything he did would have been good? If someone said, "Hitler can't do anything bad, it is impossible," would you accept that explanation?

Just for clarification, do you believe in an objective moral standard?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So if the Nazi's titled Hitler "Hitler the Good", everything he did would have been good? If someone said, "Hitler can't do anything bad, it is impossible," would you accept that explanation?

Just because people claim God can only do good does not make it true.

And thank God for that This is one pointy horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma - if 'what is good' is defined as, 'what God is, says, does, or tells you to do', then it becomes autocratic and arbitrary; by substitution, 'what God is, says, does, or tells you to do is good' becomes simply, 'what God is, says, does, or tells you to do is what God is, says, does, or tells you to do'; 'good' sublimes away... and if God has the prerogative to do things that man is not allowed to do, there's a double standard of 'good', as in, "do as I say, not as I do"; and if good is defined that way, it may also be contradictory to our own inner moral compass, which is likely to be problematic. Other than that, it's fine

 

[Loudmouth]

And thank God for that This is one pointy horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma - if 'what is good' is defined as, 'what God is, says, does, or tells you to do', then it becomes autocratic and arbitrary; by substitution, 'what God is, says, does, or tells you to do is good' becomes simply, 'what God is, says, does, or tells you to do is what God is, says, does, or tells you to do'; 'good' sublimes away... and if God has the prerogative to do things that man is not allowed to do, there's a double standard of 'good', as in, "do as I say, not as I do"; and if good is defined that way, it may also be contradictory to our own inner moral compass, which is likely to be problematic. Other than that, it's fine

Precisely. It is replacing morality with obedience, which in other situations has led to some of the worst atrocities in human history. All Christians seem to be saying at this point is that "we just do whatever God says, no matter what it sounds like". Again, that's scary.

 

[Resha Caner]

Just for clarification, do you believe in an objective moral standard?

Loudmouth, Maybe you missed this question.

This is one pointy horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma ...

Nah.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Nah.

Nice argument

 

[Achilles6129]

As a non-theist I reject everything in the Bible having to do with a god.



Because once something (and in this case that something is suffering) has existed, it's impossible for it not to have existed. It's as impossible as a square circle.

You don't believe that your god can make a square circle, right?

1) Impossible for it not to have existed? Says who? How do you arrive at this conclusion?

2) Suppose it is impossible for it never to have existed: certainly an omnipotent being could make everything right and rectify any evil that had occurred. If you believe otherwise, then explain why.

 

[Jason Sanders]

In my opinion, The problem of evil is not a problem that has anything to do with God, but rather with who He has chosen to act in His name on this Earth- that is, the Church.

If we, as Christians, truly believe that we are on this earth to fulfill God's will, then why don't we act that way? All the problems in the world that people complain about ate things that we (again, the Church/believers) have been called to deal with. God has given US the tools, the means, and (most importantly) the power to go out into the world and shine light into the darkness. That we have not done this, that I have not done this with my every waking breath, is one of the greatest failures of the Church today.

No amount of words in this forum is going to convince someone who doesn't believe that God cares- it requires action, and beyond that it requires us (believers) to trust that God can, has, and will fulfill every promise that He has made, both in His Word and through His Spirit.

 

[Resha Caner]

Nice argument

I wasn't trying. Things like the Euthyphro Dilemma seem cogent at first, but once you give it some thought and pull on the first thread, it all falls apart. In the end it's so fractally wrong it's difficult to even know where to begin.

My comment was only meant to convey how completely unconvincing the dilemma is to me. So, in mentioning it, were you simply indicating an argument that is convincing to you or were you hoping it would serve to refute God as a source of morality?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

1) Impossible for it not to have existed? Says who? How do you arrive at this conclusion?

Says reality, because once something has existed, it... has existed. It's tautologically true. To argue otherwise is nonsensical.

But by all means, describe the mechanism by which something that existed (suffering) ceases to have existed.

2) Suppose it is impossible for it never to have existed: certainly an omnipotent being could make everything right and rectify any evil that had occurred. If you believe otherwise, then explain why.

Describe how an omnipotent being can "rectify" any suffering so that it had never occurred, defying all possible realities.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I wasn't trying. Things like the Euthyphro Dilemma seem cogent at first, but once you give it some thought and pull on the first thread, it all falls apart. In the end it's so fractally wrong it's difficult to even know where to begin.

My comment was only meant to convey how completely unconvincing the dilemma is to me. So, in mentioning it, were you simply indicating an argument that is convincing to you or were you hoping it would serve to refute God as a source of morality?

It's unconvincing but you seem unable to actually put forth an argument against it...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My comment was only meant to convey how completely unconvincing the dilemma is to me. So, in mentioning it, were you simply indicating an argument that is convincing to you or were you hoping it would serve to refute God as a source of morality?

Neither; I just think it's a proposition for which a thinking Christian should have a counter argument; 'Nah' isn't a counter argument.

I mentioned it to put Loudmouth's contribution into perspective.

 

[Oafman]

All the problems in the world that people complain about are things that we (again, the Church/believers) have been called to deal with.

The core of the problem of evil is not about people doing nasty things to each other. It's about the fact that death and pain exist, and that animals must eat alive the children of other animals, that their own offspring may survive. It's about the suffering inherent in the natural world. A natural world which is quite clearly NOT the work of a benevolent creator.

 

[Picky Picky]

The core of the problem of evil is not about people doing nasty things to each other. It's about the fact that death and pain exist, and that animals must eat alive the children of other animals, that their own offspring may survive. It's about the suffering inherent in the natural world. A natural world which is quite clearly NOT the work of a benevolent creator.

Yes, I agree. Christians tend to try to limit the conversation to the evil that men do, which enables them to drift into nebulous stuff about free will, forgiveness, redemption etc etc. The fact is that suffering is threaded through the whole living world in a fashion that a benevolent creator could not possibly have planned.

 

[Resha Caner]

Neither; I just think it's a proposition for which a thinking Christian should have a counter argument; 'Nah' isn't a counter argument.

I mentioned it to put Loudmouth's contribution into perspective.

OK.

 

[Resha Caner]

It's unconvincing but you seem unable to actually put forth an argument against it...

Unable? That you would make such a conclusion before I even give an argument is not a good start. It doesn't bode well for your objective consideration of what I might say about Euthyphro's dilemma.

Frumious' reply was more apropos. He is correct that what I said is not an argument against it. That doesn't mean I've got no argument.

 

[Jason Sanders]

The core of the problem of evil is not about people doing nasty things to each other. It's about the fact that death and pain exist, and that animals must eat alive the children of other animals, that their own offspring may survive. It's about the suffering inherent in the natural world. A natural world which is quite clearly NOT the work of a benevolent creator.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. When I said all problems? I mean all of them. The Bible says the Jesus was able to whet a raging storm with nothing but a word. We (that is, believers) have the same Spirit in us that was in Him, and are called to do the same, and even greater, things.

As for the way the natural world works, that to has an explanation- though, given how you've reacted to others on here, I highly doubt you'll believe my reasoning.

Regardless, the reason that the natural world is the way that it is is because of the Fall- when God made man, He put us at the head if all creation, just beneath Him in terms of authority. When we sinned, that sin caused death to spring up in us and, through us, it spread to the whole world.

 

[Oafman]

Regardless, the reason that the natural world is the way that it is is because of the Fall- when God made man, He put us at the head if all creation, just beneath Him in terms of authority. When we sinned, that sin caused death to spring up in us and, through us, it spread to the whole world

That 'explanation' opens countless cans of worms. And is absolutely not the behaviour of a benevolent being.

 

[Jason Sanders]

That 'explanation' opens countless cans of worms. And is absolutely not the behaviour of a benevolent being.

Oh? And how is giving us a choice not benevolent? Unless you are under the impression that forcing other living beings to conform to His Will against their own is a good thing? It isn't God's fault we chose not to believe Him, nor is it His fault that we suffered the consequences of our decision- the thief cannot blame the lawmaker for his punishment when he gets caught, nor can he lay the fault at the judge's feet for his sentence. It is his fault, his decision, and any attempt to muddle the issue is just that; an attempt to muddy the waters so as to confuse and redirect someone from the truth.

 

[Oafman]

Oh? And how is giving us a choice not benevolent?

'Worship me or burn for eternity' is a choice?

Unless you are under the impression that forcing other living beings to conform to His Will against their own is a good thing?

This is precisely what your version of God is doing

It isn't God's fault we chose not to believe Him

He could have been a little more up front about things! rather than the whole 'I'm here but hiding, you need to have faith' thing

nor is it His fault that we suffered the consequences of our decision- the thief cannot blame the lawmaker for his punishment when he gets caught, nor can he lay the fault at the judge's feet for his sentence. It is his fault, his decision, and any attempt to muddle the issue is just that; an attempt to muddy the waters so as to confuse and redirect someone from the truth.

Entrapment! Collective punishment! There is so much morally wrong with this, it's hard to know where to start.

One thing is for sure. There is not one shred of benevolence in any of it.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Unable? That you would make such a conclusion before I even give an argument is not a good start. It doesn't bode well for your objective consideration of what I might say about Euthyphro's dilemma.

Frumious' reply was more apropos. He is correct that what I said is not an argument against it. That doesn't mean I've got no argument.

And again with the non argument...