The Problem of Evil

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Your label says seeker. Just what are you a seeker of ?

 

[Occams Barber]

I don't know one instance where that "got me out of jail". All responses are like yours, where you're keenly aware of what I'm saying and not letting me "get out of jail". Maybe I'm not doing it right?

'Mystery' is a weasel word used to imply that there's some underlying unknowable (to a non-believer) Godly reason. It implies that you have special knowledge and understanding when it really means you don't know or you don't understand. Why not be honest and accept that Christianity often makes no sense - but you believe it anyway?
OB

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why not be honest and accept that Christianity often makes no sense

The Words of Eternal Life are believed by those who trust Jesus and seek the Father.
The exact same messages that are life to the Ekklesia,
are
the stench of death to the unsaved.

 

[Occams Barber]

The Words of Eternal Life are believed by those who trust Jesus and seek the Father.
The exact same messages that are life to the Ekklesia,
are
the stench of death to the unsaved.

Theobabble
OB

 

[durangodawood]

'Mystery' is a weasel word used to imply that there's some underlying unknowable (to a non-believer) Godly reason. It implies that you have special knowledge and understanding when it really means you don't know or you don't understand. Why not be honest and accept that Christianity often makes no sense - but you believe it anyway?
OB

I find nothing wrong with "its a mystery".

I mean, why should everything be known - or even knowable - to the human mind?

Seems unreasonable to expect everything to be reasonable.

 

[Occams Barber]

I find nothing wrong with "its a mystery".

I mean, why should everything be known - or even knowable - to the human mind?

Seems unreasonable to expect everything to be reasonable.

There's difference between "It's a mystery" and "I don't know". The first implies a deeper, hidden meaning. The second is a reasonable admission about a lack of knowledge.

"It's a mystery" is also used (by Christians) as a cover. When the argument becomes too difficult 'mystery' claims can be useful as an escape hatch. It's a way of claiming that there is a valid reason or counter argument - it's just hidden from sight.
OB

 

[JAL]

Actually JAL the self-sufficiency argument has two possible outcomes:

Either

God is not infinitely self sufficient​

or

God does not exist
​

Since you've decided on the 'not infinitely self sufficient' option then - what is God's limitation?

As a general observation you appear to have defined the nature of God as some arbitrary mid point between (the Christian) God and humans - powerful but fallible.
OB

Is God infinitely infallible? No. He is negligibly fallible.
For example, in my view He enforces gravity by His own hand, exerting pressure on each and every particle. And let's suppose on a scale of 1 to 100, He needs to be 99.999999 accurate to sustain our universe. Perhaps He can't do it at 100% accuracy on every particle all the time. Perhaps His actual implementation looks like this percentage:

99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

Thus He is many orders of magnitude more competent than needed but negligibly fallible.

I don't expect anyone to take my word for it, however. What I do expect theologians to do is simply be honest about the fact that there are major logical problems with traditional thinking and that those problems seem insoluble without a system like mine. Of course, you don't really know my system yet.

The Greeks did something similar.

These kinds of comments are annoying. Millions of Gods, and sundry religions, have been defined in human history. Obviously there are similarities between all religions. You're simply stating the obvious when you make a statement like this - hence it typically serves no other purpose than to insinuate that I'm following after the pattern of a false religion.

It's not the similarities among religions that are important - it's the differences.

 

[JAL]

Here's perhaps a better example. At any given moment how many languages does God did need to know to be a competent ruler? An infinite number? Hardly.

Negligibly fallible.

 

[Occams Barber]

Is God infinitely infallible? No. He is negligibly fallible.
For example, in my view He enforces gravity by His own hand, exerting pressure on each and every particle. And let's suppose on a scale of 1 to 100, He needs to be 99.999999 accurate to sustain our universe. Perhaps He can't do it at 100% accuracy on every particle all the time. Perhaps His actual implementation looks like this percentage:

99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

Thus He is many orders of magnitude more competent than needed but negligibly fallible.

I don't expect anyone to take my word for it, however. What I do expect theologians to do is simply be honest about the fact that there are major logical problems with traditional thinking and that those problems seem insoluble without a system like mine. Of course, you don't really know my system yet.

These kinds of comments are annoying. Millions of Gods, and sundry religions, have been defined in human history. Obviously there are similarities between all religions. You're simply stating the obvious when you make a statement like this - hence it typically serves no other purpose than to insinuate that I'm following after the pattern of a false religion.

It's not the similarities among religions that are important - it's the differences.

From my point of view there is no argument which adequately supports the concept of (supernatural) gods. For me the self sufficiency argument negates the concept of the Christian God

If you want to argue a slightly infallible (but supernatural?) God I suggest you take it up with a Christian.

The annoying Greek god comparison was simply a way of trying to clarify this apparent god-human continuum you appear to have adopted.
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Here's perhaps a better example. At any given moment how many languages does God did need to know to be a competent ruler? An infinite number? Hardly.

All of them
OB

 

[JAL]

All of them
OB

Ridiculous.

 

[JAL]

From my point of view there is no argument which adequately supports the concept of (supernatural) gods. For me the self sufficiency argument negates the concept of the Christian God

If you want to argue a slightly infallible (but supernatural?) God I suggest you take it up with a Christian.

Not sure what you're getting at. I'm a Christian. And as far as I can see, I'm the only Christian whose Christology provides a perfectly clear and perfectly intelligible explanation of how God incarnated Himself.

Here's what mainstream thelogians freely admit about the hypostatic union, "No sane study of Christology even pretends to fathom it" (Charles Lee Feinberg, "The Hypostatic Union: Part 2," Bibliotheca Sacra, (1935), p. 412).


You caught that, right? They admit it's humanly incomprehensible. It's total gibberish. It's like a theologian writing a treatise in Chinese even though he's never learned any Chinese. How productive is that?

Here's what evangelical theologian Millard J. Erickson admitted about the traditional understanding of the Trinity, 'logically absurd from the human standpoint' (his words). And yes, I am a Trinitarian, but my understanding of the Trinity is coherent because it corresponds to human experience.

Such theologians are not rejecting the traditional views. They are mainstream theologians. They're just admitting that the traditional views are gibberish.

 

[JAL]

Oh sorry OccamsBarber, I never looked at your profile. I assumed I was conversing with Christians only on this thread.

 

[Ken-1122]

The problem of evil is that we, being not-so-good ourselves, are quite comfortable with it. God instructs us to 'put away evil', but we rather like cozying up to it. It's exciting, profitable, fun, and appeals to that side of our nature. And we are willing to pay the price it exacts on us.

If God dislikes evil, and he made us, how come he didn't make us with an aversion to evil? That way we wouldn't want to commit evil; we would rather stay away from it.

 

[JAL]

For me the self sufficiency argument negates the concept of the Christian God

No it doesn't - it negates one VERSION of the Christian God, that is, one INTERPRETATION of the Bible.

It negates an infinite God. That is all.

From my point of view there is no argument which adequately supports the concept of (supernatural) gods.

In terms of arguments, both atheism and creationism require a degree of faith because we are very fallible creatures.

Ultimately belief in a particular religion shouldn't be based on 'arguments' since the process of determining the correct one is especially fallible. Here's what I would advise. You don't believe in a particular religion? Good. You shouldn't. If God exists, He must take it upon Himself to convince you. This doctrine is formally known in Christian theology as the "Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit". I was atheist, but currently I believe in Christianity because at some point a seemingly external Entity has convinced me and I can't shake that belief. There's nothing I can do about it.

YOUR responsibility isn't to select a particular religion but simply to be honest with your conscience. If your conscience is telling you that God MIGHT exist and that, as a result, you should TRY to find Him, then you should do so, for example by saying, "God, if you exist, if you can hear me, then show yourself. Convince me like you've convinced others."

 

[Ken-1122]

No it doesn't - it negates one VERSION of the Christian God, that is, one INTERPRETATION of the Bible.

It negates an infinite God. That is all.

Are you saying there are interpretations of the Bible where God is not infinite? That God was actually created?

In terms of arguments, both atheism and creationism require a degree of faith because we are very fallible creatures.

How are you defining faith, if faith is required to NOT believe something?

 

[JAL]

Are you saying there are interpretations of the Bible where God is not infinite? That God was actually created?

No. Not created. Why would you assume those to be the only two options.

How are you defining faith, if faith is required to NOT believe something?

I guess I don't accept that atheism is merely the negation of a belief. Seems to me that atheism is a belief, it is the belief in the possibility that the world around us came to be without divine intervention.

 

[JAL]

And by divine intervention I don't mean 'supernatural' intervention. I don't believe in the supernatural, I don't believe in a magical God, as I said. I believe in the biblical God.

 

[Ken-1122]

No. Not created. Why would you assume those to be the only two options.

What other options are there?

I guess I don't accept that atheism is merely the negation of a belief. Seems to me that atheism is a belief, it is the belief in the possibility that the world around us came to be without divine intervention.

So hypothetically, if a person does not know how the world around us came to be, or even IF it ever came to be; yet he does not believe in God, is he Atheist? How about if he is open to the possibility of whatever it is YOU call God may exist, but he doesn't call it God; perhaps he may just consider it as one of countless evolved beings from another planet, or something else; he just don't claim it to be God; is this person an Atheist?

 

[JAL]

What other options are there?

Activity must have a starting point. There had to be a first motion - this should be admitted even by atheists. But what propelled it? Most atheists would probably stipulate the Big Bang Theory but that's just a bunch of incomprehensible gibberish. My theory is more simple. Matter is never created or destroyed and thus had an initial state.

Again, what propelled the first motion? Suppose I punch you in the face. Would you be content with that behavior? If you're a determinist, than you really don't have cause for complaint, mere mechanical cause-effect propelled my fist hence you can't be angry with me. But if you believe in free will, then free will propelled that punch. NOW you've got cause to be angry with me.

Physicists have been ignoring the possibility that free will is a physical force. But doing so seems to divest them of a plausible propellant for the first motion. Ultimately SOMETHING must be self-propelling, and the Big Bang theory doesn't do a good job of identifying it.

Thus the first motion is the first act of free will, it is some of the matter of the Totality (my name for the sum total of matter) beginning to awaken (like a fetus in a womb). The first person to awaken is the being we Christians now know as God. His power? The same as ours - self-propelling free will. Nothing magical about it. Nothing supernatural about it. It's something we all see/experience every moment of every day.

Eventually - out of the leftover matter - He formed the universe, our planet, our bodies, and our physical souls. As we know, this process involved at least 13 billion years.

So hypothetically, if a person does not know how the world around us came to be, or even IF it ever came to be; yet he does not believe in God, is he Atheist? Or something else.

Hard question because I find the terms 'agnostic' and 'atheist' are used in ways still confusing to me. But I think my point was clear enough.