Problem of Evil

[jubilationtcornpone]

Marys virginity is claimed to be a miracle, thats the point. A miracle is not a natural event, so you cant say its artifical insemination. Are you saying God has sperm too? To give birth to himself? Come on.

Who said anything about Mary? I sure didn't. I was merely illustrating how there is no LOGICAL contradiction in saying that someone is a pregnant virgin. The use of artificial insemination illustrates that there is no such contradiction.

As for Mary's conception, that would indeed be a miracle -- specifically, a suspension of the laws of nature. As I said, that is another way in which one could be a pregnant virgin. At no point did I every claim that she was artificially inseminated.



In fact, I explicitly said,

"This is not logically contradictory with pregnancy... especially if you allow for a God who can suspend or change the laws of nature. In fact, one does not even require such a God; after all, a virgin can be inseminated artificially, and can therefore become pregnant. Ergo, the concept of a pregnant virgin is not LOGICALLY contradictory."



​

In other words, I allowed for miraculous pregnancies... but I also pointed out that a virgin can be pregnant even without appealing to miracles. Did you miss this part?

Really. If you're going to criticize, at least pay attention first.

 

[Edx]

In other words, I allowed for miraculous pregnancies... but I also pointed out that a virgin can be pregnant even without appealing to miracles. Did you miss this part?

You knew what he meant, you're just playing silly games.

edit: unless I misunderstood his point.


Ed

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

You knew what he meant, you're just playing silly games.

edit: unless I misunderstood his point.

He claimed that the term "pregnant virgin" is logically contradictory -- without any appeal to Mary's specific situation. If he was referring to Mary's situation, then he should have said so.

Moreover, I already anticipated your objection. That is why I specifically talked about miracles as a suspension of the laws of nature (not the laws of logic!). In fact, I offered two lines of reasoning to refute the notion that "pregnant virgin" is a logical contradiction. One of these lines of reasoning appealed to miraculous events, and one did not. What part of that don't you understand?

It seems to me that you're the one who's playing silly games here, not me.

Now, just to spell this out for you even further... The term "married bachelor" is a logical contradiction because the definitions of "married" and "bachelor" are mutually exclusive. Similarly, the term "virgin who has had sex" would likewise be a contradiction. So would the term "pregnant woman who is not pregnant."

In contrast, the term "pregnant virgin" is not. One might say that it violates the laws of nature, but that does not mean that it violates the laws of logic. (Moreover, even that claim is disputable, since artificial insemination can easily produce a pregnant virgin.)

I hope this is sufficiently clear. If you want to read more about what the laws of logic are (and what they are not!), I think the Wikipedia article on this topic provides a good starting point. For a deeper discussion, any academic text on the philosophy of logic should suffice.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Guys, Jubliation is correct about this.

"Married bachelor" is a contradiction because "bachelor" is defined as "an umarried man."

"Pregnant virgin" is not a contradiction because "virgin" is not defined as "a non-pregnant woman."

It may be the case that "pregnant virgin" is a contradiction in some other way, but not in the way that "married bachelor" is a contradiction.

 

[elman]

Imagine that the world was created differently. In this different world it might be that the ability to have free will and not do evil is just as logical as the ability to have free will and not be able to levitate. Basically, I don't think there is a reason why God would have to forfeit logic in order to achieve this state. It would just be one more thing humans are incapable of doing because that is how the environment was set up.

Words have meaning. Square circle does not have meaning. it is the same with freewill but not able to do evil. It has no meaning. It does not communicate an idea.

 

[Telephone]

it is the same with freewill but not able to do evil. It has no meaning. It does not communicate an idea.

Does heaven not have free will without being able to do evil or can one do evil in heaven ?

 

[elman]

Does heaven not have free will without being able to do evil or can one do evil in heaven ?

I am not sure about the details in heaven, but I do not believe we are prisoners there. I think everyone there is voluntary. If one chose evil in Heaven I believe that would be like chosing to leave.

 

[LVdesigns]

Words have meaning. Square circle does not have meaning. it is the same with freewill but not able to do evil. It has no meaning. It does not communicate an idea.

I don't see a need to be able to communicate the difference between good and evil in relation to free will. In the absence of evil then the term good may not exist. Things would just be in a state that we would describe as good, but they may just accept happily through use of another term.

 

[elman]

I don't see a need to be able to communicate the difference between good and evil in relation to free will. In the absence of evil then the term good may not exist. Things would just be in a state that we would describe as good, but they may just accept happily through use of another term.

Something is good or evil because of what we chose to do. If we have no choice, then nothing we do is either good nor evil.

 

[Jamza]

Does heaven not have free will without being able to do evil or can one do evil in heaven ?

I think words such as free will and evil will not have meaning in heaven. The reality of heaven must necessarily be so unlike life on Earth to be incomprehensible to the human mind as it currently exists. Further, the biblical information is sparse and written in symbols. Paul says 'what we will be has not yet been revealed'; so I think its safe to say concepts of life in heaven cannot really be relevent to discussions of evil and free will.

 

[elman]

I think words such as free will and evil will not have meaning in heaven. The reality of heaven must necessarily be so unlike life on Earth to be incomprehensible to the human mind as it currently exists. Further, the biblical information is sparse and written in symbols. Paul says 'what we will be has not yet been revealed'; so I think its safe to say concepts of life in heaven cannot really be relevent to discussions of evil and free will.

I think you are correct about that.

 

[Charlie V]

I was just wondering what Christians here thought about it. How can evil/suffering exist when God is both all powerful-and all-loving?

One possible answer (one I heard recently from a television evangelist) is that evil & suffering exist only temporarily, that God allows evil to exist for a temporary time, and that it leads ultimately to something good, which could include educating us and teaching us compassion, and that ultimately, all evil and suffering cease to exist.

If so -- this would suggest that the doctrine of eternal hell is false, as eternal hell would suggest evil/suffering that exists for all eternity, thus leaving only the possibilities of annihillationism or universalism, and annihillation, if seen itself as an evil or something that causes suffering (e.g., the annihillation of a son causes suffering for the mother) then only universalism is left.

Charlie

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

If so -- this would suggest that the doctrine of eternal hell is false, as eternal hell would suggest evil/suffering that exists for all eternity...

I think that's overstating the matter. I'm sure that the evangelist in question mean that evil on earth was a temporary condition, which it most certainly is.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

What I mean is; if the disorder of evil spread humans through Satan; why God, being all knowing, create a creature that would turn against him? And, why does suffering continue to undeserving people when God is powerful enough to stop it; and is truly just?

If God is all powerful and just, then you must agree and admit that his ways are higher and you will not understand them all (which doesn't automatically make Him unjust). You either acknowlege that God is all powerful and you won't understand Him and His ways or say that God wasn't powrful enought to have stopped things, such as evil and such, from happening, in which case you can't really get angry at Him. You can't have it both ways...

 

[Charlie V]

I think that's overstating the matter. I'm sure that the evangelist in question mean that evil on earth was a temporary condition, which it most certainly is.

Well.. if evil gets to go on for all eternity.. then evil wins, I guess.

Which is certainly not what I believe.

Charlie

 

[elman]

Well.. if evil gets to go on for all eternity.. then evil wins, I guess.

Which is certainly not what I believe.

Charlie

Me neither.