Regarding the Trilemma Argument

[Steeno7]

If love is to will the ultimate good of the other, then God can form my will to will the ultimate good upon God and others. Why hasn't God?

Genuine love cannot be forced, coerced, or programmed...it can only be freely given and freely received.

 

[Hentenza]

Did I sin upon my creation?

You were created in your mother's belly and soon after birth became quite self-centered and manipulating and lying to your parents shortly there after.

 

[Chany]

The problem of evil has been bothering Christians for centuries. Before them, it obviously bothered the author of the book of Job, because he wrote a whole book grappling with the problem.

The only answer can be that God must have overriding concerns. If atheists are allowed to say, "We don't know," when it comes to scientific questions, Christians are allowed to say, "We don't know," when it comes to theological questions.

It's a bit different. When scientists say they don't understand, they mean it in one of two ways:

1) A negative. For example, I don't know what's outside the universe. It could be a deity (though I'm more than inclined, unless there's a bunch of information I'm missing, to say the Christian God does not exist), it could be some spiritual force, it could be some universe generator, it could be nothing. I don't know. However, I don't make a positive claim; I only argue against other positive claims and try to show how they are wrong.

2) Simple admission of unknowing. For example, a geneticist who specializes in canines would say he/she doesn't know the intricate details of the inorganic chemistry of metals. She may know a bit, but may be ignorant. That doesn't mean that nobody knows inorganic chemistry.

Christians have a different position, a positive claim. When one makes a claim, they must back it up. I'm arguing against your claim.

 

[Chany]

You were created in your mother's belly and soon after birth became quite self-centered and manipulating and lying to your parents shortly there after.

If Adam and Eve did not cause the Fall, would I have been that way? Also, soon after birth is not the same as being a part of my essence.

 

[Hentenza]

If Adam and Eve did not cause the Fall, would I have been that way? Also, soon after birth is not the same as being a part of my essence.

It is part of your essence, and mine, which is sinful. God was fully aware that the fall would happen because he gave man reason and intelligence.

What if God does not want to stop evil now since good and evil are necessary for mankind to be able to love? How can you know what good is if you don't know evil?

God loves you but could you love Him back if you only knew good?

You might have miss this post in answer to your OP.

 

[Chany]

It is part of your essence, and mine, which is sinful. God was fully aware that the fall would happen because he gave man reason and intelligence.

So God made us sinful, then holds us responsible for being the way we are? Likewise, if your essence is tainted, how is salvation ever possible? You can be fixed without completely changing you down to your essence, meaning you pretty much have to be destroyed to that. Reason and intelligence leads to sin? I would think Gabriel and God's angels would beg to differ.

You might have miss this post in answer to your OP.

Oops, forgot about that one. Thanks.

I don't think you have to understand evil to properly understand good, for multiple reasons, both in and out of Christianity.

Out of Christianity, it's the same as saying I can't understand breathing unless I'm half-drowning in a violent and stormy ocean. I can't understanding the cold without being thrown into a roaring fire. It's absurd.

In Christianity, God is entirely good. There is no evil in God. What you are saying is God either commits evil, because he is originally alone and nothing could show him evil, or that God does not commit evil and therefore does not understand good, preventing omniscient.

 

[Hentenza]

So God made us sinful,

No, man decided to sin.

then holds us responsible for being the way we are?

Man is responsible for sinning.

Likewise, if your essence is tainted, how is salvation ever possible?

Have faith in Jesus Christ. He took your sins upon Himself.

You can be fixed without completely changing you down to your essence, meaning you pretty much have to be destroyed to that.

Not really. Our sinful nature will remain but destruction is not necessary.

Reason and intelligence leads to sin?

If you had no reason or intelligence then you would be a robot, would you not?

I would think Gabriel and God's angels would beg to differ.

lol Nah, no reason for wither of them to sin.

Oops, forgot about that one. Thanks.

No problem.

I don't think you have to understand evil to properly understand good, for multiple reasons, both in and out of Christianity.

Out of Christianity, it's the same as saying I can't understand breathing unless I'm half-drowning in a violent and stormy ocean. I can't understanding the cold without being thrown into a roaring fire. It's absurd.

How do you know what a violent and storming ocean is if you don't know what a calm ocean looks like? How do you know what cold is if you have never experienced heat?

In Christianity, God is entirely good. There is no evil in God. What you are saying is God either commits evil, because he is originally alone and nothing could show him evil, or that God does not commit evil and therefore does not understand good, preventing omniscient.

Nah, God is fully aware of what evil is and yet cannot be or do evil. In scripture, God tells Adam after eating from the tree of knowledge that they had become like God in that now they know good and evil. God is entirely good and the evil that exists on earth is created by man, but it is necessary for God's creation to have choice. You want choice don't you? Mankind would not have the ability to love without having the ability to choose.

 

[dhh712]

In Christianity, God is entirely good. There is no evil in God. What you are saying is God either commits evil, because he is originally alone and nothing could show him evil, or that God does not commit evil and therefore does not understand good, preventing omniscient.

It seems you want someone to explain God to you so that he makes sense according to your standards but that is just not going to happen. Not that God is illogical, He just transcends the limits of our limited and corruptible minds. According to our logic, it can only be that God is indeed the source of all things evil (namely sin); unfortunately that is just not the truth yet such a thing will never be able to apprehended by the rules of our logic. Our logic is fallible, the fact of it being that it can only trace the origin of evil to the source of all things.

It is akin to the logical fallacy of removing the goal post from the field (?? not sure if I have the wording of it correct). God's transcendence of logic demands this fallacy for if it were not, the infinite would then be contained within the finite which is impossible.

It is a matter of trust that we know that God is the source of all things good and not at all the author of sin (though He may be the author of evil--though not moral evil, for He certainly does use evil to work whatever is His purpose). It is a matter of experiencing His holiness that we realize then the nature of our complete depravity and inability to do any good outside of Him.

Out of Christianity, it's the same as saying I can't understand breathing unless I'm half-drowning in a violent and stormy ocean. I can't understanding the cold without being thrown into a roaring fire. It's absurd.

I don't know that you could. How could the concept of breath exist without the concept of the lack of it? Unfortunately the actuality of these things do occur and not only the concept of them--yet would we be able to have a precise understanding of these things if they were not able to actually occur to us? Do we have precise understanding for anything which can not happen outside the laws of the physical world? We have our imagination of them, but does that suffice for an appreciation of it?

Faith for instance is something which exists outside of the realm of the physical world. Those who have it can only frustratingly describe it as something imagined, some feeling or something (at least it seems like it can be only thusly described). But we can only precisely understand the attributes of God (though all through the corrupted vessels of our weak flesh) by experiencing Him through the workings of His creatures. The rest, that faith or relationship with Him which is alive in our spiritual bodies can not be accessed by the physical; it remains imagined, something psychologists can say is a delusion. It seems that evil then, is the only way we can appreciate the goodness of God in the physical realm now.

 

[lesliedellow]

Christians have a different position, a positive claim. When one makes a claim, they must back it up. I'm arguing against your claim.

You can argue against all you want. The fact that a position has difficulties doesn't render that position invalid. It only means that it has difficulties. Unless you want to embark upon an atheism of the gaps.

I need to justify my beliefs to nobody. If I want them to share my beliefs, I might need to persuade them. If I fail to convince them, that also does not invalidate my beliefs, unless the person I fail to convince is supposed to be possesed of omniscience.

 

[dhh712]

Christians have a different position, a positive claim. When one makes a claim, they must back it up. I'm arguing against your claim.

I also would like to know on what grounds must one back up a claim. The answer to the question is that there is no answer. If I were engaged in a formal debate about the existence of God, then I would understand that having no answer to that question would not be acceptable on the grounds what constitutes a debate: then I should not have accepted the offer to debate. Yet that wasn't the question. As the reply above this intimated, I am not here to convince any one of my beliefs, only to share them.

 

[Hentenza]

This is a break-off thread found in the creation and evolution forums in the "Discussion and Debate" section.

My question is this:

How can Christians answer the paradox of evil?

1) God is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving.
2) All-loving means he wants to eliminate evil.
3) Omniscient means he knows all futures and ways to prevent evil.
4) Omnipotent means he can do whatever to stop evil.
5) Evil exists.

Why does evil exist in the world if God supposedly loves me?

Lets look at your argument from a logic perspective. In order for an argument to be valid the structure must be valid. The structure of your argument is valid but is it sound? In logic, arguments can only be valid and sound, valid and unsound, or invalid. In order for an argument to be sound all premises must be true in order for the conclusion to be true. Here is your problem.

1. Premise one. I would posit this premise to be true.
2. Premise two. All-loving does not mean that God wants to eliminate evil since evil can serve a purpose. I will not posit premise two and it is up to you to prove that it is true.
3. Premise three. I would posit this premise to be true.
4. Premise four. Omnipotent does not mean that he can do "whatever." The word "whatever" is vague. You need to properly define "omnipotent" and "whatever." Secondly, "omnipotent" does not mean that a being having this attribute will use its omnipotence 100% of the time. The being has choice. I will not posit this premise and its up to you to prove that it is true.
5. Premise five. I would posit this premise to be true.

You need to prove premise two and four in order for your argument to be valid and sound.