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.
Children dying in car accidents is an example of "evil" occuring.
If God rescued one, you would whine that he did not rescue all...and then move on the the smallpox sufferers, those born disabled, the ones' abused, and so onwards.
Click the links and start going backwards down the thread. You'll find them. I'm not spoon-feeding someone who turns up 15 pages in and refuses to read the previous conversation.
Does this mean God saves no one?
Given limitless resources, this would not be difficult for him to accomplish.
No one asking you to spoon-feed them, but you simply haven't argued for your points very well.
*Preventing some evil is better than preventing none at all. (don't confuse evil with misfortune)And given that I am not speaking of whether God has the resources to save them all, but rather:
* that if he didn't save them all, you would still complain about the evil that remains
* the point that I have been making all along; that for good to exist there has to be the real possibility of experiencing evil (as to know X you have to compare it to not-X) hence God has a universe with evil in it.
*Preventing some evil is better than preventing none at all. (don't confuse evil with misfortune)
That is a false dichotomy.*Evil is not necessary in order to appreciate good. You don't need to taste bitter in order to appreciate sweet.
And given that I am not speaking of whether God has the resources to save them all, but rather:
* that if he didn't save them all, you would still complain about the evil that remains
* the point that I have been making all along; that for good to exist there has to be the real possibility of experiencing evil (as to know X you have to compare it to not-X) hence God has a universe with evil in it.
Given your repeated insistence to utterly fail to grasp the previous points, and to instead go off on tangents, the difficulty is yours not mine.
Yet it does not answer the Problem of Evil....which is what this thread is about. Reducing the amount of evil in no way answers the Problem of Evil.
That is a false dichotomy.
You need to experience not-sweet in order to know what sweet is, but not-sweet encompasses many things rather than being a simple polar dichotomy of sweet and bitter.
You need to experience not-good in order to know what good is, but not-good is not a variety of things but is a singular polar thing; good v evil.
Comparing good/evil with sweet/bitter is thus not comparing like with like. Not-sweet can be neutral, savoury, bitter, etc. Not-good is only evil.
* that if he didn't save them all, you would still complain about the evil that remains
* the point that I have been making all along; that for good to exist there has to be the real possibility of experiencing evil (as to know X you have to compare it to not-X) hence God has a universe with evil in it.
I grasp them. I haven't seen you support them, however.
Support them with what? They are deductive reasoning, not empirical science. Do you grasp the difference between those things?
Point 1:
The Problem of Evil is the problem of any evil existing at all.
So long as some evil remains, the problem of evil remains.
Therefore reducing the amount of evil makes no difference.
Point 2:
For us to know X we must experience not-X
Therefore to know good we must experience evil
Hence evil is is necessary in the universe so that we can know good.
The implication of this is that we should never intervene to prevent evil, since we can never prevent all evil. Given limitless resources, God has no such excuse.
Different issue.So heaven doesn't exist, or if it does, everyone there is ignorant of what good is?
No, it is simply to point out that people will always raise the Problem of Evil so long as there is even one minute drop of evil in the universe....and so getting rid of some evil in no way answers the problem of evil.
Different issue.
This thread is on the problem of evil, not on any tangent you want to redirect it onto (such as the nature of heaven).
You seem to be missing the point. A being with inexhaustible resources could indeed prevent all evil effortlessly. Even so, this being doesn't appear to prevent any evil whatsoever. He isn't willing to lift a finger to stop the child from wandering onto oncoming traffic, much less intervening in numerous other evils.[
No. Its a tangent because we are discussing evil in the universe and not heaven (which is a completely different issue and a matter of theology (is it a place, a condition, a metaphor, etc) and not simply ethics). Stick to the subject, otherwise it looks like you are just trying to point score by moving goalposts.It's not a different issue; it's a related issue.
You seem to be missing the point.
In point 1 I am not addressing the Problem of Evil itself. I'm just showing how a reduction of evil in no way answers the problem of evil and so is irrelevant to the subject at hand.
No. Its a tangent because we are discussing evil in the universe and not heaven (which is a completely different issue and a matter of theology (is it a place, a condition, a metaphor, etc) and not simply ethics). Stick to the subject, otherwise it looks like you are just trying to point score by moving goalposts.
But as I said, you don't appear to understand the issues and so keep trying to head off into tangents, so until you grasp the basics that I have set down we really cannot have a conversation on the matter.
If you're not addressing the problem of evil, then aren't you the one going off on a tangent?
It's of direct relevance to the matter at hand.
There's no need to be pompous, particularly when you're on the back foot.
No. I'm pointing out how the argument being used (that God should act to reduce evil) in no way addresses the Problem of Evil.
No, it isn't, for the reasons that I have made clear.
As I said, point scoring.
Cheerio.
Reducing evil may not solve the problem, but it is a heck of a start. Preventing evil would be even better! I see no reason why evil should not be challenged by those able to challenge it, and prevent it if they could.Yet it does not answer the Problem of Evil....which is what this thread is about. Reducing the amount of evil in no way answers the Problem of Evil.
I did not say not-sweet, I said bitter. There is a lot of options between sweet and bitter, and there are a lot of options between good and evil. Just because something is not sweet doesn't mean it is bitter, and just because something is not good doesn't mean it is evil.You need to experience not-sweet in order to know what sweet is.
Reducing evil may not solve the problem, but it is a heck of a start. Preventing evil would be even better! I see no reason why evil should not be challenged by those able to challenge it, and prevent it if they could.
I did not say not-sweet, I said bitter.
Which is utterly irrelevant to the philsophical issue called The Problem of Evil.
No, it is simply to point out that people will always raise the Problem of Evil so long as there is even one minute drop of evil in the universe....and so getting rid of some evil in no way answers the problem of evil. ...
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?