The Problem of Evil (version 12,430,459.7)

[Resha Caner]

But that's not what I'm asking. Again, as I stated many posts ago:

“Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?”

Actually, you keep changing the question, requiring my answer to change. Further, these are typically compound questions, requiring different answers for different parts.

If Carter ever claimed He sees all rape/murder, has the power to stop it at will, and sometimes chooses to do nothing, in such published books, it would not be hard to assess that maybe he is not completely 'good', in my book

Shifting goal posts. This is unworkable.

 

[cvanwey]

Actually, you keep changing the question, requiring my answer to change. Further, these are typically compound questions, requiring different answers for different parts.

No. The question has essentially been the same, just using slightly different words; expressing the exact same scenario. (i.e.) Can you think of a reason, demonstrating 'good' for an all knowing, all loving, and all powerful God, to sometimes do nothing, while children are raped and then killed? But rather than answer the question. You either state, "I don't know", or, have instead chose to navigate elsewhere.

Starting from post #22, you stated, 'God is good.' In post #23, I asked how you know? In post #24, you provided Scripture verses. In post #25, I stated "Have you ever heard of the term, 'actions speak louder than words'? Do statements, such as Psalm 34:8, for instance, negate anything and everything God could ever do, simply because He states He is 'good'?" In post #27, you did not address this question. Moving all the way to post #37, I asked for further clarification, (i.e.) "Were you merely regurgitating Scripture? Meaning, you are simply reiterating what the claim from the book states, or, do you believe He IS good? Meaning, anything God does IS 'good'? You again failed to answer.

To recap:

Thus far, this is your given rationale. God is good because a book says so. Good is good because He's always been good to you personally apparently. I stated that actions speak louder than words. No response. I asked if you would believe someone or something is [all good], simply because they say so in a book, while doing contrary action(s) [you] might not see as moral (like rape, disease, and starvation of small children)? Again, no answer.

Again, is there a morally 'good' rationale for child rape? Probably not. Is there a rationale for a claimed all powerful and all loving God sitting idly by, and letting it happen, when He has the power to stop it? Probably not?

Please remember, I'm a moral relativist. I think rape is wrong. I think not stopping a child rape, when I have complete power to do so, is 'wrong.' I would assume you do too. If you do, then you agree with me, that God allows rape of innocent children, and this looks to at least be, in the very least, negligence. If you don't agree, then maybe you are okay with some facet of this scenario? Which I doubt?

Thus, I ask you yet again, why don't you just fess up, and state that if this claimed God does exist, He does things you find 'morally reprehensible'? Which I then would reply... Well, God can do whatever He wants, and answers to no one. But for God to state God is 'good' begs the question... What is 'good'? Which leads back to the question above you failed to answer, from post #37:

Is anything that this God does deemed 'good', because it's God?

Shifting goal posts. This is unworkable.

This is wishful thinking. From the get go, I have been asking why an all loving, and all powerful God would allow child suffrage (i.e) disease, rape, starvation.

The Bible gives us many claims. My point is such claims seem to contradict, when presenting the classical 'problem of evil', and the Christian claims.

 

[Resha Caner]

Thus, I ask you yet again, why don't you just fess up, and state that if this claimed God does exist, He does things you find 'morally reprehensible'?

Because I'm not here so you can project your conclusions onto me.

The claims. My point is such claims seem to contradict, when presenting the classical 'problem of evil', and the Christian claims.

I strongly suspected that was your conclusion as soon as I saw the thread title. Your methods remain, IMHO, unworkable. As such, I don't expect to get much farther than that.

 

[cvanwey]

Because I'm not here so you can project your conclusions onto me.

I would assume you agree with me, regarding the allowance of rape and murder of children, when you have the power to stop it. Thus, it becomes mere formality at this point. There is nothing to 'project.' You either agree with me, or you don't. If you do, then you too find 'the problem of evil' a contradiction (i.e)

“Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?”

If you disagree, then maybe you can demonstrate how such acts are 'good'?

I strongly suspected that was your conclusion as soon as I saw the thread title. Your methods remain, IMHO, unworkable. As such, I don't expect to get much farther than that.

'The problem of evil' is unworkable, unless you 'redefine' the term 'good'. But in doing so, it might also contradict The Bible's version?

 

[Resha Caner]

@cvanwey
If you want to reboot this conversation, let me know.

 

[cvanwey]

@cvanwey
If you want to reboot this conversation, let me know.

No problem

How would you like to proceed? Very small? Settle into 'concrete answers' to specific/concise questions, prior to moving on to the next? If so, may I start? And please be forewarned, I'm not necessarily trying to 'trap' you, even though that may seem the case from time to time Assuming you agree, I'll start. If you suggest otherwise, please respond accordingly:

It's a question that was asked by @BigV and later edited by @Moral Orel in another thread. If you've already answered the question, just regurgitate your answer here

(2) yes or no questions, kinda....

1. Could there be anything that God may do, that you find 'wrong'?

2. Or, do you resign to the fact that if God does it, it must be 'good' --- and your fallible human nature is translating such actions incorrect?

 

[Resha Caner]

No problem

How would you like to proceed? Very small? Settle into 'concrete answers' to specific/concise questions, prior to moving on to the next? If so, may I start? And please be forewarned, I'm not necessarily trying to 'trap' you, even though that may seem the case from time to time Assuming you agree, I'll start. If you suggest otherwise, please respond accordingly:

It's a question that was asked by @BigV and later edited by @Moral Orel in another thread. If you've already answered the question, just regurgitate your answer here

(2) yes or no questions, kinda....

1. Could there be anything that God may do, that you find 'wrong'?

2. Or, do you resign to the fact that if God does it, it must be 'good' --- and your fallible human nature is translating such actions incorrect?

We can try if you will allow some back and forth. With respect to question 1, I expect it is asked sincerely, but I want to rephrase it. Would you accept the following?

1. Has God done anything I thought was wrong?

I want to rephrase because the original phrasing is too speculative. Could I make a moon out of cheese? Could Tom Hanks be a robot? Could little people live on Horton's speck of dust? Umm … I guess, but it's better to ask: Is the moon made out of cheese? Is Tom Hanks a robot? Do little people live on Horton's speck of dust?

Is my new phrasing acceptable?

 

[cvanwey]

Is my new phrasing acceptable?

Yes

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes

Has God done anything I thought was wrong?

No, with the following qualifications: 1) My answer only applies to things I attribute to God, not things others may attribute to God, 2) There is a difference between what I think is wrong and what I don't understand or don't like.

 

[cvanwey]

Has God done anything I thought was wrong?

No, with the following qualifications: 1) My answer only applies to things I attribute to God, not things others may attribute to God,

So are you saying that if you don't like it, or don't agree with it, you assume it is not from God?

Furthermore, do you attribute that God has the ability to respond to petitionary prayer? In this case, that a parent might pray to God, for their abducted child to be returned to them home safely? Only to instead find that their child was raped and murdered.

 

[Resha Caner]

So are you saying that if you don't like it, or don't agree with it, you assume it is not from God?

No. I was distinguishing morality from things I understand and like.

Furthermore, do you attribute that God has the ability to respond to petitionary prayer? In this case, that a parent might pray to God, for their abducted child to be returned to them home safely? Only to instead find that their child was raped and murdered.

God can answer prayers, yes.

 

[cvanwey]

No. I was distinguishing morality from things I understand and like.

I'm going to back up to what you stated in post #49:

"1) My answer only applies to things I attribute to God, not things others may attribute to God,"

I'm apparently not following here then, as it also pertains to the 'yes' answer quoted below? Going back to my last example...

"a parent might pray to God, for their abducted child to be returned to them home safely? Only to instead find that their child was raped and murdered."

I need clarification, by asking a series of yes/no questions:

- Is God good?
- Is God all powerful?
- Does God intervene?

I'm going to preemptively assume the answer to the above 3 questions are 'yes', to save a reply

In which case, I might ask again, but maybe qualify a bit....

Your response above, in post 49, may result in the following?

"God allows for free will. Hence, 'bad' things happen. Therefore, rape and murder will happen, as we live in a fallen world. God will restore order in His time. In the mean time, sin will happen."

Am I close here? I don't want to straw man you

God can answer prayers, yes.

What I take this response to mean, is that God could answer the parent's petitionary prayer to bring their abducted child back to them. Right?

 

[Resha Caner]

If we aren't already, we need to be clear on a few points:
1) When I answer a question like "Is God good?", I am not making a claim I possess absolute, irrefutable logic such that everyone must accept my position and I'm ready to argue that position to the death. I don't care about winning debates. Instead, when you ask that question, I am saying, "Yes, I think God is good and I'm willing to talk to you about why I think that."
2) In the end, I expect you'll conclude the statement "God is good" and all the moral imperatives attached to that are just my moral system, which differs from your moral system.
3) What you'll get, then, is at most answers to these questions: A) Do I think rape and murder are bad? Yes. B) Do I want to stop them? Yes. C) What will I do about that? As much as I can.

If you're expecting something other than that, I'd be curious to know what that is. Suppose you soundly defeat my theodicy and convince me you've defeated it. What then? Are you hoping my answer to 3A, 3B, or 3C will change?

I'm going to back up to what you stated in post #49:

"1) My answer only applies to things I attribute to God, not things others may attribute to God,"

I'm apparently not following here then, as it also pertains to the 'yes' answer quoted below? Going back to my last example...

"a parent might pray to God, for their abducted child to be returned to them home safely? Only to instead find that their child was raped and murdered."

I need clarification, by asking a series of yes/no questions:

- Is God good?
- Is God all powerful?
- Does God intervene?

Is God good? Yes.
Is God all powerful? Per my definition, yes.
Does God intervene? Sometimes.

I'm going to preemptively assume the answer to the above 3 questions are 'yes', to save a reply
In which case, I might ask again, but maybe qualify a bit....
Your response above, in post 49, may result in the following?

"God allows for free will. Hence, 'bad' things happen. Therefore, rape and murder will happen, as we live in a fallen world. God will restore order in His time. In the mean time, sin will happen."

It's an OK summary.

What I take this response to mean, is that God could answer the parent's petitionary prayer to bring their abducted child back to them. Right?

What do you mean by "answer"?
1) Could he do what was requested? If the request is logically possible and good, then yes he could do what was requested.
2) Could he communicate his yes/no decision? Yes. Does he always? I don't know.
3) Would the requester know what God did / hear his answer? Not necessarily.

 

[cvanwey]

If we aren't already, we need to be clear on a few points:

Okay

1) When I answer a question like "Is God good?", I am not making a claim I possess absolute, irrefutable logic such that everyone must accept my position and I'm ready to argue that position to the death. I don't care about winning debates. Instead, when you ask that question, I am saying, "Yes, I think God is good and I'm willing to talk to you about why I think that."

I can appreciate that. However, If I were to present my case... One which [you] cannot refute logically, is it 'possible' you might then change your current position at all - (which might remain to be seen)?

2) In the end, I expect you'll conclude the statement "God is good" and all the moral imperatives attached to that are just my moral system, which differs from your moral system.

Even though I'm a moral relativist, I would argue that both yours and my 'moral systems' might parallel much more than they differ.

But I have to ask...

In post #51, you stated "you are distinguishing things you don't like or understand, from 'morality'."

If you don't like something, like the rape of a young child, is this 'morality', or just something you don't like or understand?

Furthermore, if you were to find there exists a God, and is allowing this to happen, are you then saying that IF God is allowing as such, you must not understand God's morality?

It kind of sounds like this is where you are headed? If so, how is this any different than the unanswered question in post #37? i.e.

"This doesn't really answer my direct question. Were you merely regurgitating Scripture? Meaning, you are simply reiterating what the claim from the book states, or, do you believe He IS good? Meaning, anything God does IS 'good'?"

3) What you'll get, then, is at most answers to these questions: A) Do I think rape and murder are bad? Yes. B) Do I want to stop them? Yes. C) What will I do about that? As much as I can.

Agree

If you're expecting something other than that, I'd be curious to know what that is. Suppose you soundly defeat my theodicy and convince me you've defeated it. What then? Are you hoping my answer to 3A, 3B, or 3C will change?

No. It might then demonstrate that (your) morality differs from the God you state is good?

Please understand my position. If God does exist, He can do whatever He wants. I doubt He does. But if He does, seems as though we are dealing with a blaring contradiction here. Does 'might make right'? You know, the whole 'Euthephro' thingy....

Is God good? Yes.
Is God all powerful? Per my definition, yes.
Does God intervene? Sometimes.

* Hypothetical * Let's not get into a twist about exact numbers here...

500 children, under the age of 10, are abducted every year. 450 of them are raped, 350 of them are raped and murdered. The other 50 are rescued or returned without rape and/or murder.

--- Is it YOUR understanding, that God aided in the sparing of these 50, whom were not raped and/or murdered? Yes or no?

Assuming your answer is 'yes', we can then proceed...

This means that God had the ability to save all 500, but chose to aid in only 50 of them.

Us humans are then left with a plausible conclusion, where maybe only (2) options exist?

Concluding your rationale aforementioned, we may either surmise....

1. God chose not to save the 450, and us humans don't understand, but God has His reasons.
2. There is no such God, and stuff happens, sometimes 'favorably', and other times not.

You subscribe to option 1, where as I subscribe to 2. ?.?.?.?.?

 

[Resha Caner]

I can appreciate that. However, If I were to present my case... One which [you] cannot refute logically, is it 'possible' you might then change your current position at all - (which might remain to be seen)?

Proposition 1: I doubt.
Proposition 2: Doubting requires thought.
Conclusion: I doubt, therefore I think.

Proposition 1: I think.
Proposition 2: Thinking requires existence.
Conclusion: I think, therefore I am.

 

[cvanwey]

Proposition 1: I doubt.
Proposition 2: Doubting requires thought.
Conclusion: I doubt, therefore I think.

Proposition 1: I think.
Proposition 2: Thinking requires existence.
Conclusion: I think, therefore I am.

Let's cut to the chase. Between you and I, am I to conclude:

1. God chose not to save the 450 rape/murder victims (listed in a previous post), and us humans don't understand, but God has His reasons.
2. There is no such God, and stuff happens, sometimes 'favorably', and other times not.

You subscribe to option 1, where as I subscribe to 2. ?.?.?.?.?

 

[Resha Caner]

Let's cut to the chase.

We tried that already.

 

[cvanwey]

We tried that already.

Looking for closure here. When you have the time and energy, I wanted you to drive home your points, which I requested upon further, and have yet to receive closure. Can you please expand upon some unresolved inquiries?

1. What is the difference between things [you] don't like, verses 'morality'?

2. If you were to find there exists a God, and is allowing the rape/murder of young children to happen, are you saying that IF God is allowing as such, you must not understand God's 'morality'?

3. Does anything that God decides to do, or chooses not to take action upon/against, considered 'good'?

The three above questions may overlap a bit....

Thank you!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Let's cut to the chase. Between you and I, am I to conclude:

No.
Do not "conclude" anything.

The natural mind is unable to reach the truth, thus any conclusion reached by the natural, carnal, worldly, fleshly mind cannot be helpful at all, and is not helpful at all.

 

[Resha Caner]

What is the difference between things [you] don't like, verses 'morality'?

Things I like are things I like. They're based on personal preferences and make me happy in some way. From dictionary.com - like: to take pleasure in; find agreeable or congenial; to regard with favor; have a kindly or friendly feeling for; find attractive.

My morality involves being accountable to something outside myself. That deciding agent outside myself is not me, and so doesn't always make the decisions I would make. From dictionary.com - moral: founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom. (I would add, not founded on things I like.)

If you were to find there exists a God, and is allowing the rape/murder of young children to happen, are you saying that IF God is allowing as such, you must not understand God's 'morality'?

God has declared sexual assault (Deuteronomy 22:25) and murder (Exodus 20:13) wrong. When it happens, I conclude I don't know all the conditions that led to the event. In my mind that means I understand God's morality (for the general action of rape - the fundamental principle of right action as defined above), but don't know the complexities of the entire history and future of the universe that led to a specific event. If you want to conclude from that that my answer to the question is "yes", fine. If you want to conclude my answer is "no", fine.

Does anything that God decides to do, or chooses not to take action upon/against, considered 'good'?

I don't like questions that ask me to speculate on aspects of God's nature that I don't know. That you don't understand that yet speaks volumes. I would tend to think there is never a case where God is not acting - acting in keeping with his nature - that nature being opposed to sexual assault. It's just that we don't like the outcome and don't understand the complexities involved.

If God were to explain such things to me (and the Bible has explicitly stated he won't; Job 38), I expect I would conclude everything he has done is good.

As a bonus, I'll answer one more question. Why do things we consider bad happen? For the same reason I sometimes have to wait in the emergency room and endure the pain of my injury rather than expecting immediate care the moment I walk in. I've been on the other side. I've been the patient that needed immediate emergency treatment to save my life, and watched all those other people sitting there enduring pain so I could be treated, and I will forever appreciate them for it, and I will forever be willing to do the same because now I understand.

Would I say that to a victim of sexual assault? Absolutely not! God didn't put me in their life to lecture them in the midst of their pain. He put me in their life to comfort them, to help them heal in any way I can.

Now we're done, you have your closure, and everything is clear.