The Problem of Evil

[Inkfingers]

The problem of evil is in response to claims that God loves everyone. This is often phrased as "all-loving". Whether or not he loves sin isn't necessary to show that the problem of evil means that a god who loves everyone and can do anything doesn't exist.

Actually "all-loving" is a reference to God loving everything (hence the famous deer burning to death slowly in a forest fire).

But if God does not love sin, he does not love everything - making the problem of evil defunct (because it rests on God loving everything).

 

[talquin]

Actually "all-loving" is a reference to God loving everything (hence the famous deer burning to death slowly in a forest fire).

But if God does not love sin, he does not love everything - making the problem of evil defunct (because it rests on God loving everything).

The issue of "all-loving" has already been clarified with establishing that God loves all human children. If he allows these children - who he loves - to be brutally molested, then obviously he's limited in his power to stop the culprit.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Actually "all-loving" is a reference to God loving everything (hence the famous deer burning to death slowly in a forest fire).

But if God does not love sin, he does not love everything - making the problem of evil defunct (because it rests on God loving everything).

Perhaps the better way of phrasing the problem then would be why would Christians call their god a loving father, when, if described to someone without mentioning that it's god they're referring to, most (if not everyone) would say this person is anything but a loving father.

 

[Received]

Perhaps the better way of phrasing the problem then would be why would Christians call their god a loving father, when, if described to someone without mentioning that it's god they're referring to, most (if not everyone) would say this person is anything but a loving father.

True story. Or: God is a loving father -- to me.

 

[Inkfingers]

The issue of "all-loving" has already been clarified with establishing that God loves all human children. If he allows these children - who he loves - to be brutally molested, then obviously he's limited in his power to stop the culprit.

And I already pointed out to you that God can only do what is real; and real means a universe in which suffering happens and is unavoidable.

A human father dooms his children to suffering, because all life suffers; is he any less loving because of that?

When you don't build a straw god (one who is supposed capable of doing that which is unreal), the same applies to God.

You might say we are just looking for excuses for a God we believe in....but I would say you appear to be looking for excuses to keep not believing.

 

[Received]

And I already pointed out to you that God can only do what is real; and real means a universe in which suffering happens and is unavoidable.

A human father dooms his children to suffering, because all life suffers; is he any less loving because of that?

When you don't build a straw god (one who is supposed capable of doing that which is unreal), the same applies to God.

You might say we are just looking for excuses for a God we believe in....but I would say you appear to be looking for excuses to keep not believing.

Says the Calvinist. Is it really needed, or just redundant, to blame a sinner for sinning if he can't by his own volition respond to grace and it's only up to God? A bit like blaming a rock that falls for falling.

 

[Inkfingers]

Says the Calvinist. Is it really needed, or just redundant, to blame a sinner for sinning if he can't by his own volition respond to grace and it's only up to God? A bit like blaming a rock that falls for falling.

Sorry, how does that apply to what I said?

Or are you just doing a wormtongue and changing the subject when given evidence that blows your argument?

 

[Received]

Sorry, how does that apply to what I said?

Or are you just doing a wormtongue and changing the subject when given evidence that blows your argument?

Neither, really.

I'm just seeing your icon up there and assuming you mean it when you have it there.

 

[Inkfingers]

Neither, really.

I'm just seeing your icon up there and assuming you mean it when you have it there.

And like I said, that has what exactly to do with what I said?

 

[Received]

And like I said, that has what exactly to do with what I said?

Nothing. It just has something to do with what you believe. In a way, you're "saying" something indirectly by having your icon (which indicates principles, e.g., TULIP, etc.) and contributing to conversation and making points like you did (about the sinner being culpable). Sure, it's not what you explicitly said, but it still is a statement of sorts. If you don't want to respond, that's fine. I just wanted to make a conversation.

 

[Chany]

And I already pointed out to you that God can only do what is real; and real means a universe in which suffering happens and is unavoidable.

A human father dooms his children to suffering, because all life suffers; is he any less loving because of that?

When you don't build a straw god (one who is supposed capable of doing that which is unreal), the same applies to God.

You might say we are just looking for excuses for a God we believe in....but I would say you appear to be looking for excuses to keep not believing.

I don't see how a world without suffering is logically impossible. How is suffering a logical necessity?

As a counter example:

Imagine a world without physical evil and which everyone is determined to do the right and just action. This world is logically possible. Therefore, suffering is not a logical necessity.

Also, I would like to add: I could simply qualify my statement that a omnibenevolent and omnipotent God would not allow unnecessary evil and suffering. This makes things a bit different.

 

[talquin]

And I already pointed out to you that God can only do what is real; and real means a universe in which suffering happens and is unavoidable.

Are you saying God is physiologically incapable of stopping a rapist from raping a child?

A human father dooms his children to suffering, because all life suffers; is he any less loving because of that?

False analogy. Human fathers aren't posited to be able to do anything.

When you don't build a straw god (one who is supposed capable of doing that which is unreal), the same applies to God.

Please elaborate. And explain what you mean by "unreal".

You might say we are just looking for excuses for a God we believe in....but I would say you appear to be looking for excuses to keep not believing.

I'm not looking for excuses to do anything. And I certainly don't need an excuse to not believe in something for which there is no evidence of.

 

[talquin]

I don't see how a world without suffering is logically impossible. How is suffering a logical necessity?

As a counter example:

Imagine a world without physical evil and which everyone is determined to do the right and just action. This world is logically possible. Therefore, suffering is not a logical necessity.

Another good question is whether or not there is suffering and/or evil in heaven. Christians would say no. Therefore, God is capable of creating a world in which there is no suffering or evil.

 

[talquin]

Like most on this board you are trying to set a question up that makes the person answering wrong no matter what they choose. You try to not even give them a chance, they are wrong before they can begin.

My answer remains.

They're wrong before they begin because they have posited a logically impossible God. It's logically impossible for an all-powerful and all-loving god to exist in the presence of mass calamity.

 

[J0hnSm1th]

God allows evil to be on earth such that those leaning to it will be removed. The righteous thus will be qualified, under open witnessing, to enter heaven where evil no longer exists.

This is another reason why i believe some of my brothers overstate the importance of "free will". Some say God gave us free will because "he doesnt want robots". That love requires free will. Yet they say that there will be no evil, no sin, and no suffering in heaven. Is there to be free will in heaven?

 

[kristina411]

No. What happens is you present a question and you yourself present the answers and say "choose!" But we say you are leaving out the real option but you insist on it only being your three possible answers and nothing else. You present a question with your mind already made up that the opposing side I wrong and it can be no other way.

You have been given the same answer in one sense or another on the free will thread but refuse to acknowledge the answer given, only repeat your question. Same as when I answered in this thread originally. Your behavior goes to show how little you want answers and how much you really just want to point the blame.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And I already pointed out to you that God can only do what is real; and real means a universe in which suffering happens and is unavoidable.

A human father dooms his children to suffering, because all life suffers; is he any less loving because of that?

A human father is, well, human. He isn't omniscient or omnipotent.

When you don't build a straw god (one who is supposed capable of doing that which is unreal), the same applies to God.

You might say we are just looking for excuses for a God we believe in....but I would say you appear to be looking for excuses to keep not believing.

You could say that, but it would be rather silly to say that.

 

[Inkfingers]

Imagine a world without physical evil and which everyone is determined to do the right and just action. This world is logically possible. Therefore, suffering is not a logical necessity.

I can imagine a world where teleporting unicorns exist; it doesn't then follow that they can.

God can only make a universe that does not contradict itself.

A universe that does not contradict itself must contain suffering because creatures in a universe must by definition be finite; and finite creatures must face disappointment (which all suffering is in essence) because they each have different and conflicting goals at some point.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I can imagine a world where teleporting unicorns exist; it doesn't then follow that they can.

God can only make a universe that does not contradict itself.

A universe that does not contradict itself must contain suffering because creatures in a universe must by definition be finite; and finite creatures must face disappointment (which all suffering is in essence) because they each have different and conflicting goals at some point.

What's contradictory about a universe in which this does not happen?

 

[Inkfingers]

What's contradictory about a universe in which this does not happen?

Could you be more specific?