Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Good morning all. My Brother in law has some AP students that asked the following question and I was hoping to get some thoughts from you thinkers please.
How does one look at the fails, deficiencies of our world and basic tragedy and evil, without surmising there is little evidence in a loving and omnipotent God and conclude there is not a God who is actively concerned in the affairs of humans or as the theist existentialist tenants, it is impossible to conclude or assert anything about God.
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif'] Thank you for sharing your ideas on this question. I guess they have given him 4 main questions and the above is the first. [/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']Connect[/FONT]
Parents love children. Employees love boss. Soldiers love country. Etc.
If you do not know more examples of love, you have big problem.
Reword into a question, or questions, and I can better answer. I would not dare take a stab at what is written without first knowing what you are asking in a clearly written form.
It might be helpful to form one paragraph regarding the premise, then ask a simple question in response.
I think keith99 was referring to things like Satan, demons, angels and other spiritual entities. Christianity often highlights the spiritual struggle between God and Satan. Since there is such a struggle present in the literature, it would imply that God is not omnipotent.
Look, this is sophomoric. We do not know everything about God's doings and purposes and we cannot know everything. That's because the nature of the inquiry deals with things above our "grade level." We can know much, but it doesn't follow that we must know everything or else there can't be a God.
I said there are a number of possible answers, all sensible.
However, I'm not going to proceed to prove God to anyone when the question of the OP didn't even ask that of us! It is sufficient to say that the question the class posed is not worth asking, being little more than a complicated and ungrammatical way of saying "We don't know everything about God, so we're going to conclude that he doesn't exist."
Thank you for your replies Albion and Paradoxum as a child who does not understand the reason for their parents behavior and they feel mistreated the parent has plans and a fuller undemanding of what they do as God does.
Pradoxum pointed out why not also violate the whole population. My issue with that is God will punish many as not all will be saved. He wishes that none perish but they do, they do not come to God. He also provides a way to salvation, the gift of God which is the ransom of Jesus to cover the sins of the world. Did I understand the both of your posts?
Para you seem to think it "is an unjust moral plan" is that correct? What would make a better moral plan if that's what you are saying? Thank you. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Or maybe there is no God, and people are raped, murdered, and get cancer because there's no God to save them.
If so, to what do you attribute all the things that are GOOD in the universe? "Oh, that just happened." Really?I'd think that a godless universe explain it much better than a loving God.
Ah, now we come to the real issue--the "If I were God, I would do it this way" is how I describe it.God should heal all the sick,
That's one possibility, of course, but it's no more likely than a number of other theories that include there being a God.
If so, to what do you attribute all the things that are GOOD in the universe? "Oh, that just happened." Really?
Ah, now we come to the real issue--the "If I were God, I would do it this way" is how I describe it.The corollary is "And since I'm not, I won't believe there is any other. So there."
The students mention ideas such as "deficiency", "tragedy" and "evil". I think they need to first ask the more preliminary question of how and where they got these ideas. It's my belief that these would be meaningless words were it not for us having received their meaning from a God who cares about such ideas.
When you realize that the ideas can't fully come from mere "empathy" as certain atheists might say, then you can go on to the question they're asking.
What?
If you're going to criticize something as wrong, you need something with which to contrast wrong. You need to know what wrong and right are, and why.
The students mention ideas such as "deficiency", "tragedy" and "evil". I think they need to first ask the more preliminary question of how and where they got these ideas. It's my belief that these would be meaningless words were it not for us having received their meaning from a God who cares about such ideas.
When you realize that the ideas can't fully come from mere "empathy" as certain atheists might say, then you can go on to the question they're asking.
You've been reading too much Descartes. We're in the 21st century. We know perfectly well that the human mind is capable of constructing these ideas. We don't have to wonder where they came from. They can indeed come from empathy that has developed through natural selection.The students mention ideas such as "deficiency", "tragedy" and "evil". I think they need to first ask the more preliminary question of how and where they got these ideas. It's my belief that these would be meaningless words were it not for us having received their meaning from a God who cares about such ideas.
When you realize that the ideas can't fully come from mere "empathy" as certain atheists might say, then you can go on to the question they're asking.
It is disturbing that a course intended to broaden one's world view and critical analysis skills, would target faith so harshly, as though intended to destroy diversity and free choice.How does one look at the fails, deficiencies of our world and basic tragedy and evil, without surmising there is little evidence in a loving and omnipotent God and conclude there is not a God who is actively concerned in the affairs of humans or as the theist existentialist tenants, it is impossible to conclude or assert anything about God.
What course are you talking about? The kids asked these questions. There's no AP Philosophy course. The College Board presents religion in a sufficiently neutral and objective light, based on my experiences in two AP history courses.The AP Philosophy question? (Sometimes people at CF ask for answers to their own homework, or unethically make money writing term papers for others.)
It is disturbing that a course intended to broaden one's world view and critical analysis skills, would target faith so harshly, as though intended to destroy diversity and free choice.
Why would anyone need a "god" for that?
You've been reading too much Descartes. We're in the 21st century. We know perfectly well that the human mind is capable of constructing these ideas. We don't have to wonder where they came from. They can indeed come from empathy that has developed through natural selection.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?