The Problem of Evil

[andy b]

*Errrrrrrrrrrrrr,
*I
*don't
*I'll
*What's
*I
*I'm
*you're
*You're


You haven't read the rules of this forum, have you.

Yes it says no Sherlocks ALLOWED

 

[andy b]

That's nice.




No.




No comment. Are you done with the trolling, then?

I aint trolling this is my nice side....but you already know that sherlock

 

[andy b]

I read the complete works some time ago. There is more to life than Google and the internet.




No need to. I already did. Why do you continue to fail to grasp this?

because im thick god wired me this way

 

[Skybringr]

God is evil because, according to christians, he refuses to cure people of cancer because they refuse to stroke his ego. I was flatly told that people are not cured of cancer because they refuse to worship God.

I'm sorry, but that sounds more to me like "Life isn't fair! It's all God's fault! He's a big meanie for not making me a god!"

*Sayeth Satan, if you've ever picked up a Bible


God came down and sacrificed Himself rather then just waving a wand and making everything good and well.

Do you know why?
Because in order for God to be God, He must be perfect. There must be exaction. Otherwise, the entire premise of His being fails, and He would in fact not be God.

Really? I didn't eat of the Tree of Good and Evil, and yet I am paying for it, supposedly.

Is it moral to throw a child into jail because of something her great-grandfather did? Absolutely not. So why is it moral for God to do the same?

Are you even aware of what the Tree of Knowledge was? It gave Adam and Eve the ability to know good and evil. They taught their sons and daughters good and evil, and today, you know good and evil as well as everyone else.
Mankind is incapable of doing anything with this knowledge other then to cause perdition. Wherever man does something good, something comes along and destroys it.

This is why you don't live in a perfect world, and blame God for it.

The least fewest number of HIV infections found amongst lesbians. Their rate of HIV infection is lower than heterosexuals. Does this mean that God approves of lesbian sex more than he does heterosexual sex?

Well that's only because the way sex between men is done makes it extremely easy to infect each other. Also, without fear of pregnancy, condoms are more often neglected.

And lesbians are their own disservice. They have robbed themselves by leaning on another woman rather then a man. There's no good in it, and I'm certain even most women feel the same.

Could God stop all HIV infections with a wag of his finger? According to christians, he could. God is omnipotent. So why not do it?

A better question would be to ask why HIV exists at all. Why would God cure it over just never having it exist in the first place?

But you don't want to go to the root of it, you just want to point your finger at God and say He's bad for not making you a god as well.

 

[Skybringr]

Oh, look -- yet another straw man.

You are a walking talking straw man going down the Yellow Brick Road. All through this thread you have resorted to nothing but a cheap reach arounds to misrepresent what one states.

I've have not seen a single thing from you that isn't quite frankly childish and pointless.

According to the myth, it was obviously a trap that the creator-deity laid as a "gotcha" for his creations to stumble into. The more relevant issue is why a loving creator would so cruelly set up its creations for failure, and then get angry about it.

What is cruel, being a robot or having choice?

*than

That just shows how ridiculous you are.

That isn't even coherent. That would mean that we would be incapable of making the choices to believe that you would force on us, in order to "save ourselves.

I'm sure it doesn't avail you. What even does? Unless something says 'God is evil' it is like Greek to you.

AND you don't speak for anyone's motivations but your own.

Whatever you say, just know that I know

But again, you fail to address the point that was made: You claim that HIV is retribution for your "sin", and yet lesbians have fewer rates of HIV for the same "sin" than heterosexuals do. Your assertion is destroyed.

No I didn't, there you go with your STRAW MAN FALLACY

I said that people reap what they sow. You touch a flame, don't blame God when you get burned.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnd I thought you said we weren't even worth your time.

That's the fifth time you have stated that even though I already responded to it.
Grow up.

 

[Skybringr]

You claiming that doesn't make it so.

Yeah, but looking at each and every one of your posts shows the claim to be true.

I think this forum has a strict policy against any profanity and vulgarity. Didn't you know?

And where is this profanity and vulgarity?
The only thing I'm guilty of is feeding a troll.

Ad Hoc Ad Hominem Ho-Hum.

Oh, look -- a False Choice Fallacy, a Fallacy of Many Questions, and a Strawman Fallacy. All in less than ten words. Well done.

You are just making yourself look foolish with all that. One can gather a fallacy from absolutely anything if one wants to be overly technical. You are not convincing anybody with any of that.

It's, like, third-grade-level English, man.

You know what's also third grade? Pointing out small grammatical errors just to insult people's intelligence.

Oh, and of course, babies in Africa who contract AIDS pre-birth because of the catholic church's disinformation campaign regarding use of condoms -- I suppose THEY "touched the flame" too.

I don't see you doing anything about it besides living snugly in your 1st world country using condoms, STILL killing fetuses and getting stds, eating unhealthy food and complaining about how your healthcare doesn't cover mortality.

Anything you don't agree with is 'disinformation' to you. Why don't you take some accountability for once_

And I pointed out that you had spent a whole hour on me, and now it's a whole day. Rather silly of you to claim we are "not even worth your time" when you spend an entire day on us.

Don't mistake my weakness for feeding trolls as you being someone worth a proper discussion. you probably aren't going to make it passed the three digit post line before you are banned.

Still waiting on that bible citation for your "He's a big meanie for not making me a god!" Was I perhaps reading the wrong version of your book?

I'm so glad you just said what you just said. It vindicates me on so many levels. You have no idea what the Bible teaches, don't even pretend as if you do.

And how old are you anyway? Please dear God do not say over 20.

 

[niye]

I agree. God played a part. He created man in His own Image and likeness.



All of this is true. I agree.



To give Adam the chance to be a human being and to exercise his unique ability to choose to obey and love God or to disobey Him.

God did not cause Adam to sin. God knowing beforehand that (x) will occur does not mean that God causes (x) to happen anymore than you knowing beforehand that offering someone one million dollars in cold hard cash causes the person to accept it when you do offer it. The person chooses to accept it. You knowing beforehand that they will accept it does not cause them to accept it.

It is silly to say that knowing (x) will happen causes (x) to happen.





God chose to create beings with the ability to choose to obey Him or disobey Him. There are many things God cannot do. Omnipotence =/= ability to do anything.



God placed Adam in a situation where it was possible for him to obey God and live in paradise, or disobey God and die. Sins have consequences. Evil acts have consequences. Surely you agree?




If Adam had not sinned, there would be no death. It is just that simple.

...

It is not unreasonable to say that one reason why God does not heal people is unbelief. Scripture even bears this out. It is recorded that Jesus could not do many miracles in certain places because of their unbelief.

I agree that God's omniscience does not necessary undo our free will--Boethius.

Everything after that is a summary of Christian mythology, which is fine.

Does that mythology make sense given a god who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent? I don't believe it does. I'm not going to repeat myself as that's boring.

I'm going off on a tangent (with apologies) on one of your statements, though. You say that "it is not unreasonable to say that one reason why God does not heal people is unbelief." That sounds pretty nasty today--see responses to that statement as explanation. What interests me is that it wouldn't have sounded as nasty only a few centuries ago.

God was always the ruler of the universe, and not so long ago, people had different expectations of their rulers than we do today. Until the early 18th century, a beloved, merciful ruler could torture, then disembowel traitors. A just ruler could show extra mercy to a subject who was extra prolific with praise. A good ruler could chop off the limb of a subject who criticized him. A good ruler could punish an entire family for the rebellion of one of its members. Queen Elizabeth I, who was considered a wise and merciful ruler in her time, and is still considered an excellent ruler, did all of the above and more.

People who expected good rulers to behave like that would easily accept a God who cured only (or mostly) those who believed in him. A God who tortured rebels in hell would make complete sense. A God who extended Adam's curse to all of his progeny, again, would make complete sense.

Those days are gone, and our definition of a good ruler has changed. Today, any leader who behaved like Elizabeth I would be considered a monster.

The way God is depicted hasn't changed, though. He still acts like a ruler only someone who lived in the past would find just and merciful. By today's standards, God as a ruler is what Elizabeth would be: A monster.

That in turn creates a radical divide between what is acceptable for God, and what is acceptable for present-day leaders. imo that adds a dimension to the problem of evil that an normal Elizabethan (maybe) wouldn't have experienced.

 

[Skybringr]

Put up or shut up.

How original.

"Reach-around". You can't be that ignorant.

Going around arguments with cheap antics to keep up your facade.

Get your mind out of the gutter.

Being a troll, rather.

Are we on to dishonesty now? You are the troll of this entire thread, notice that I'm the only one who wasn't smart enough to leave it.

Not at all. The fact that your own rationales are so sloppy doesn't mean everyone else's are.

You don't even know what my rationale is. You have snarled at every little thing I've stated before even going into such things because you are nothing more then a troublemaker. You serve no other purpose on here.

....because some yahoo on the interwebz says so?

That's the third time I've seen you say that. Have you ever thought that by other people's perspectives, you may be the 'yahoo'?

Your admission, "also third grade", is noted.

I'm sure making such observations make you feel superior.

OH, and look: ANOTHER strawman. Plus a Mind-reading Fallacy, an Ad Hominem Fallacy. You're racking them up there, sport.

Blah blah blah. You've attempted to call out over a hundred so called fallacies on this thread.
That is extremely juvenile.

I have seen no evidence to indicate that you would be capable of such a discussion.

You don't give anybody the chance to. They end up having to not try to tear your head off rather then have a sober discussion with you. You are a troublemaker who just aims to aggravate people.

I'm not the one walking all over the forum rules.

Yes you are. I have not broken any rules and quite frankly I'm tired of this stupid, recurring thing where a rank TROLL comes on here and tries to act like they aren't the one's who ARE THE PROBLEM and trying to talk about rules.

Grow up, and welcome to my ignore list. I'm done with you.

 

[Neogaia777]

God is holy and there is no unrighteousness in him, the reason there is evil and bad things happen is because we have free will...

Free will to chose, but most of us use this free will to chose sin, an instrument (tool) of the devil (Satan) and when we choose sin, then the devil (Satan) goes before God, the Father, and in the presence of all the angels, "demands" that we be handed over into his hands... And because he does this in the presence of all the angels, God, the Father is almost forced to concede...

But, the good news is that there is power in Jesus Christ, we can plea in his name and claim that we belong to him, and he (Jesus) upon calling upon him, Jesus will make supplication for us (come to our defense) and try to make (plea) the legal case that we do belong to him, and should therefore be passed over, or spared, or "saved" from being handed over into the devils hand and power and grasp, before the angels, but we have to call upon him (Jesus) and claim that we belong to him, and not the devil (Satan)

Jesus told Peter that the devil (Satan) was asking for him to be sifted out as wheat (tested, tempted, tried and persecuted) by him, the devil (Satan) But Jesus said that he/I have made "supplication" for you (Peter)...

Now, Some people will suffer and die regardless, in this world, this realm, because that is where the devil (Satan) operates, but he is/has been ousted from the next world, and has no power or authority there. God's point-of-view on death and dying in this world is also very different from ours: He (God) sees it as returning to him in heaven, so his perspective (on the first death in this world) is a bit different from ours you see...

Not that he doesn't care, but when a righteous person suffers and dies for their righteousness (or his, Jesus's) in this world, then they go to be with God, the Father in heaven, you see...

Hope that helps, God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

....except this thread is full of clear examples of unrighteousness attributed to it.


Incoherent:

If that were so, then this free will would have been given to us by that deity, and thus it's the deity's mistake for giving us free will.

Your assertion also fails to address the many examples of unrighteousness attributed to your deity that have been demonstrated in this very thread.


Cool Story, Bro. Doesn't address the issues raised in this thread, though.

You call God an "it"? How interesting...

God created a being who would tempt us to do bad, who would be the king of sin, and sins master, so that all who were proved; before/in the presence of, the angels looking on, to be sinners, would be demanded to hand them over to the authority of sins master, a.k.a Satan, the devil and all the angels he got to follow him...

Then he also created a being who would make a legal case for/in our defense (of us sinners), instead of against us... and that is Jesus Christ...

But, God created a being who would be allowed to tempt, not force us, to do bad, so that we would have a choice, and free will, without the potential (choice) to do bad, there is no free will...

And it is the dieties "mistake" for giving us free will, you say...? I don't think so, you are gravely mistaken...

God saw that we would, in our youth and ignorance, he saw that some (most, initially, at first anyway) would choose to do bad, in our age or ignorance... but he also looked ahead and saw that we would (eventually) grow up/out of that age of ignorance, and learn to reject the bad, and reject the tool of the enemy (sin, and Satan, the Devil) and choose, (of our free will) good, and reject the bad... (which is what God intended to create in the first place; beings who would have the freedom (free will) to choose bad, but would not, but would willingly choose and serve good)... eventually anyway... needless to say, we are still "growing up"

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Satan is responsible for sin, death, plagues, diseases, suffering, misery, and the like (see Job 1 & 2)...

Now if you wanna blame God for allowing the enemy (Satan) to exist and for allowing him to do the things that he does, then fine... But Satan is ultimately responsible...

Responsible, not for tempting God so much (although he does do that), but for proposing the line of reasoning before God, the Father, in the presence of all his other created beings (the angels) and for trying to sway them (to go "against" humankind) For trying to sway all the others (angels) minds into deeming humankind wicked and unworthy and deserving of nothing but suffering, anguish, torment, and death...

Jesus Christ on the other hand, will not deny that we are sinners, but/and yet, will make the legal case for us in our defense, before the angels, and not be against us but is for us...

God Bless!

 

[Skybringr]

@Neogaia777

He has no interest in anything you are saying. We have a bonafide troll in progress. Just look at his post history.
I've already sent the report, forget that dude.

 

[andy b]

You seem to have missed much.



Actually I don't and to say that I'm not impressed would be quite an understatement. But you already know that.





Fine. Now run along, and let the adults speak.

Says Mr mockingbird the plastic Buddhist hey sherlock me and you have something in common i dont know much about Christianity and you know nothing about buddism lol

 

[Hammster]

ADMIN HAT ON



Okay folks, the sniping needs to stop. If you must resort to subtle insults (and some not-so-subtle ones) to make your arguments, then perhaps it's not as strong as you think it is. Nevertheless, if you can't right the ship, this thread will be closed.


ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[Mediate]

A lot of people try to pawn that off on free will when evil acts are not prevented by god. But what of the free will of the victims, it isn't their will to be raped or murdered, etc. So if god doesn't intervene in such acts, it is viewing the will of the rapists as more valid than that of the victims. Even better, god could arrange it so that these criminals experience some sort of event that changes them and makes them lose the desire to harm others, and even I stills the desire to help prevent future rapes and murders, rather than just dumping these people in hell.

In reality, suffering happens.

Should God, and would God, are irrelevant questions. Should we, and would we, are relevant ones.

Should we rape children?

Should we perpetuate pointless arguments on the merits of omnipotent Gods existent outside time and space and simultanesously within it which we don't believe in having more motive for creating a non-suffering Earth than the suffering one that exists, as if we might be able to understand the motives of whomever that God is we don't believe in?

Or should we accept the suffering Earth and the desire of all people to be free of suffering?

For the christian this is seen in Jesus' quotes 'love your enemies' and 'consider others as yourself'.

For the atheists, in the realization that suffering (rape, murder, death, torture, whatever it may be) is an awful, undeniably violating thing that is best off alleviated and avoided.

We're all after the same purpose here, the same things; to be happy and to be free of suffering. One person here chooses the path of the God they believe in, whose Son taught people empathy and consideration for others.

Another person believes in the inherent value of another's happiness and right not to suffer.

It is important for us as a species to draw these similarities and commonalities and even if we don't agree with one another on the dogma or the back-story, work towards what we all realize is inherently our biggest innate desire - to be free of suffering at no expense to another's freedom from suffering.

If anybody is to speculate further, it may well be a good idea to accept that suffering happens and use the reality of the Earth as some basis for speculating on the existence of God, rather than say 'no God exists because if he did we wouldn't suffer'. That is as much a massive jump in logic as anything else, although it does underpin perhaps a belief in 'something out there' that isn't the christian God, even if that 'something' is just an ideal of ultimate morality. That may be intrinsic, and perhaps instead of using it against the teaching of a morally enlightened character like Jesus who went round healing and giving, you should follow its call and become what you really believe.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

In reality, suffering happens.

Should God, and would God, are irrelevant questions. Should we, and would we, are relevant ones.

Should we rape children?

Should we perpetuate pointless arguments on the merits of omnipotent Gods existent outside time and space and simultanesously within it which we don't believe in having more motive for creating a non-suffering Earth than the suffering one that exists, as if we might be able to understand the motives of whomever that God is we don't believe in?

Or should we accept the suffering Earth and the desire of all people to be free of suffering?

For the christian this is seen in Jesus' quotes 'love your enemies' and 'consider others as yourself'.

For the atheists, in the realization that suffering (rape, murder, death, torture, whatever it may be) is an awful, undeniably violating thing that is best off alleviated and avoided.

We're all after the same purpose here, the same things; to be happy and to be free of suffering. One person here chooses the path of the God they believe in, whose Son taught people empathy and consideration for others.

Another person believes in the inherent value of another's happiness and right not to suffer.

It is important for us as a species to draw these similarities and commonalities and even if we don't agree with one another on the dogma or the back-story, work towards what we all realize is inherently our biggest innate desire - to be free of suffering at no expense to another's freedom from suffering.

If anybody is to speculate further, it may well be a good idea to accept that suffering happens and use the reality of the Earth as some basis for speculating on the existence of God, rather than say 'no God exists because if he did we wouldn't suffer'. That is as much a massive jump in logic as anything else, although it does underpin perhaps a belief in 'something out there' that isn't the christian God, even if that 'something' is just an ideal of ultimate morality. That may be intrinsic, and perhaps instead of using it against the teaching of a morally enlightened character like Jesus who went round healing and giving, you should follow its call and become what you really believe.

The reason the question "Should God have created a universe without suffering?" is important is because it deals with what you can say about the Christian god.

Quite simply, if the definition of the Christian god requires "all-powerful" and "all-loving" as components, and we acknowledge that the universe as it is does not match what an all-powerful and all-loving god would create, then the Christian god as defined cannot exist.

You're left with a few choices. You can argue that the universe is as an all-powerful and all-loving god would create, but so far I'm not seeing any coherent explanations for why suffering exists. In another thread I've shown that a universe where we could but don't cause suffering to each other doesn't violate free will, so that retort by apologists doesn't work. And nothing seems to account for natural suffering without resorting to hand waving or making excuses for a god that quickly become ridiculous.

The more practical solution would be adjusting the definition of a god to eliminate either "all-powerful" or "all-loving". Charles Hartshorne, a prominent religious philosopher called omnipotence a 'mistake' when discussing the attributes of a god.

I think if more theists actually thought about things instead of just throwing out "omni" terms like they've been programmed to do, they'd come to the same conclusions Hartshorne did...

 

[Chany]

The reason the question "Should God have created a universe without suffering?" is important is because it deals with what you can say about the Christian god.

Quite simply, if the definition of the Christian god requires "all-powerful" and "all-loving" as components, and we acknowledge that the universe as it is does not match what an all-powerful and all-loving god would create, then the Christian god as defined cannot exist.

You're left with a few choices. You can argue that the universe is as an all-powerful and all-loving god would create, but so far I'm not seeing any coherent explanations for why suffering exists. In another thread I've shown that a universe where we could but don't cause suffering to each other doesn't violate free will, so that retort by apologists doesn't work. And nothing seems to account for natural suffering without resorting to hand waving or making excuses for a god that quickly become ridiculous.

The more practical solution would be adjusting the definition of a god to eliminate either "all-powerful" or "all-loving". Charles Hartshorne, a prominent religious philosopher called omnipotence a 'mistake' when discussing the attributes of a god.

I think if more theists actually thought about things instead of just throwing out "omni" terms like they've been programmed to do, they'd come to the same conclusions Hartshorne did...

The problem with doing this, of course, is that their god becomes more and more of a powerful type of person, i.e. a god like Zeus or Thor. It's no longer the Alpha and Omega, but a super hero.

There's also the problems that comes along with the levels in between omni and nothingness. If the being is still loving towards all of humanity and still possesses the power and knowledge to eliminate suffering, than the problem of evil still applies, depending upon the specifics. Likewise, it does not make sense for a being to arbitrarily like some of its human creations more than others.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm sorry, but that sounds more to me like "Life isn't fair! It's all God's fault! He's a big meanie for not making me a god!"

Then you need to clear your ears out.

Is it moral to not cure someone of cancer, when it costs you nothing, simply because they won't worship you?

The answer, in case you were wondering, is no.

God came down and sacrificed Himself rather then just waving a wand and making everything good and well.

Sacrificed what? What did God lose?

Are you even aware of what the Tree of Knowledge was? It gave Adam and Eve the ability to know good and evil. They taught their sons and daughters good and evil, and today, you know good and evil as well as everyone else.
Mankind is incapable of doing anything with this knowledge other then to cause perdition. Wherever man does something good, something comes along and destroys it.

This is why you don't live in a perfect world, and blame God for it.

So you are saying that it is moral to punish grandchildren for what their grandparents did?

Well that's only because the way sex between men is done makes it extremely easy to infect each other. Also, without fear of pregnancy, condoms are more often neglected.

And lesbians are their own disservice. They have robbed themselves by leaning on another woman rather then a man. There's no good in it, and I'm certain even most women feel the same.



A better question would be to ask why HIV exists at all. Why would God cure it over just never having it exist in the first place?

But you don't want to go to the root of it, you just want to point your finger at God and say He's bad for not making you a god as well.

I already got to the root of it. According to christians, God is punishing granchildren for what their grandparents did. That is immoral.

 

[Skybringr]

I already got to the root of it. According to christians, God is punishing granchildren for what their grandparents did. That is immoral.

Having knowledge of good and evil is only fixable by one accepting that they are now a man of perdition and must deal with it.

If God had let them remain in paradise, they would have eventually become like Satan anyway.

You seriously just aren't deep enough of a person, or will refuse to go into such depth, to understand the true meaning and logic of that.

All I see going on in this thread is basically others complaining that life isn't fair, so God is evil *poor me* *tyrannical tyrant from Tyrantville who holds me accountable*. It's not like I have much faith discussing anything deep with your lot.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Having knowledge of good and evil is only fixable by one accepting that they are now a man of perdition and must deal with it.

If God had let them remain in paradise, they would have eventually become like Satan anyway.

You seriously just aren't deep enough of a person, or will refuse to go into such depth, to understand the true meaning and logic of that.

All I see going on in this thread is basically others complaining that life isn't fair, so God is evil *poor me* *tyrannical tyrant from Tyrantville who holds me accountable*. It's not like I have much faith discussing anything deep with your lot.

Or god could have just not put the completely pointless tree of knowledge there to begin with. Also, never suggested in the bible that after eating that fruit people would actually become evil, only that they would have knowledge of both good and evil. Therefore, they could actually use that knowledge to make choices based in morality.