The Problem of Evil

[4x4toy]

What's "perfect" about this plan?

Everyone is put in their place according to their desire with their just reward

 

[Received]

Would you say that "loving" is intersubjective? Or maybe just subjective?

To some degree neither. Love starts subjectively, affects another subject (intersubjective), but also is objective, because love is "will to good" (benevolence), which means any instance of love should result in changes in the person loved, whether covertly (minimizing stress hormones, oxytocin, etc.) or overtly (change of facial expression, different behaviors, etc.).

 

[yesyoushould]

ex cathedra

Ooooh. Cause "ex cathedra" is supposed to make more sense.

 

[yesyoushould]

To some degree neither. Love starts subjectively, affects another subject (intersubjective), but also is objective, because love is "will to good" (benevolence), which means any instance of love should result in changes in the person loved, whether covertly (minimizing stress hormones, oxytocin, etc.) or overtly (change of facial expression, different behaviors, etc.).

Actually, Love is another word for perfection, disregarding any subjection and failed mans rules.

 

[Chany]

Actually, Love is another word for perfection, disregarding any subjection and failed mans rules.

Love=Perfection? Sorry. No. I can talk about these two words in very different contexts and I cannot use them interchangeably.

The relationship between the mother and child is full of love.

The relationship between the mother and child is full of perfection.

 

[yesyoushould]

Love=Perfection? Sorry. No.

God is Love.

1 John 4:8

 

[quatona]

Ooooh. Cause "ex cathedra" is supposed to make more sense.

Is this a request to explain this term to you?

 

[yesyoushould]

Is this a request to explain this term to you?

What request?

I haven't requested it.

 

[quatona]

What request?

I asked "Is this a request...?"

I haven't requested it.

Ok.

 

[Chany]

God is Love.

1 John 4:8

Can you explain what love is?

Also, please explain the difference between the example I provided?

Love isn't a thing, an entity, or a state in the same way an adjective like perfection is; it is a verb/participle.

 

[yesyoushould]

Can you explain what love is?

Love isn't a thing, an entity, or a state in the same way an adjective like perfection is; it is a verb/participle.

Of course. Life itself is love. All that exists. Your flesh is the result of love. Life.
Surely that isn't hard to understand.

Love is all. All that we see, all that we have, all that is. I don't know who convinced you that love isn't real, the truth is though, that love is all that is.

 

[talquin]

If God exists, I would like to see sufficient evidence of his existence. But all available evidence points to the truth being that he doesn't exist.

What, in your opinion, would be "sufficient evidence"?

Since your question presupposes God does exist, then sufficient evidence would be whatever God deems sufficient evidence to convince me he does exist. And I don't know what that would be. If he does exist, he hasn't done what it would take to get me to believe he exists.

Upon asking for specifics, Christians usually admit that God is capable of doing things like re-routing a typhoon, stopping a rapist from raping a child, preventing an earthquake from occurring, keeping a murderer from going on a murder spree.

So according to Christians, God is perfectly capable of preventing evil.

Yes, God is perfectly capable of preventing evil. He is. Just wait until the "one who restrains" is removed. You have not seen nothing yet.

Unless you think that things like rape, torture, murder, destructive tornadoes and destructive earthquakes don't occur, then you implicitly hold the belief that God doesn't love everyone.

Does man cause typhoons, earthquakes, diseases of children, tsunamis, etc.?

Maybe the people pushing the whole climate change would like you to believe that, however, no man doesn't cause these things.

Do you believe God causes those things?

The world was a perfect place until the fall. After that, when sin entered the world, the whole game changed.

What do you mean by "perfect place", "the fall" and "sin"?

Whether God or Satan is in control of the natural disasters is not the issue. The fact is that God allows them to happen or they wouldn't happen.

This confirms that you hold the implicit belief that God doesn't love everyone.

We are coming to the end of an age.

Define "age".
How do you know we're coming to the end of an age?

Christ said that we would see these natural disasters increase before He returned. You can say they are evil. You can say they are a sign to those who are watching. In the end, they serve a purpose far beyond our control and, in many cases, our understanding.

Why doesn't God put a halt to such destructive catastrophes?

That has nothing to do with the problem of evil.

That also has nothing to do with the problem of evil.

You are dissecting my post and in segments it won't have the same meaning.

Either way, the comments of yours I was responding to didn't have anything to do with the problem of evil.

How does free will determine that earthquakes and hurricanes will occur?

It doesn't. Free will caused the fall, causes sin. Sin causes suffering.

What do you mean by "the fall"
How do you know free will caused the fall?
What do you mean by "sin"
How do you know sin causes suffering?

That isn't proof of anything. I think you can do better than that.

Your right that its not proof of anything. What are you looking for when you say I can do better?

Don't offer something as proof when it isn't really proof. If you're not sure, ask if it is proof.

How do you know what God wants?

His word says it. 1 Peter 5:6 - Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:

Isn't it better to pay attention to actions than to trust a book of which you don't know the origin? Once again, how do you REALLY know what God wants?

That sounds like a straw man argument to me. Perhaps you could do a better job of addressing my OP.

Your entitled to your opinion.

It's not just my opinion. It's a fact that it's a straw man argument. Do you know what a straw man argument is?

 

[JacksBratt]

If God exists, I would like to see sufficient evidence of his existence. But all available evidence points to the truth being that he doesn't exist.

My response was:

Originally Posted by JacksBratt

What, in your opinion, would be "sufficient evidence"?
​

Your rebuttal:

Since your question presupposes God does exist, then sufficient evidence would be whatever God deems sufficient evidence to convince me he does exist. And I don't know what that would be. If he does exist, he hasn't done what it would take to get me to believe he exists.

This is just "bafflegab"

Sorry, but whether I believe God exists or not is not the issue or any kind of factor here.

The question is simple:

What, in your opinion, would be sufficient evidence?

Only you can answer this and it has no bearing on "whatever God deems sufficient evidence to convince you" or the completely obvious fact that "he hasn't done what it would take to get you to believe he exists".

Everything in your rebuttal is mute. The question is simple. Only you can answer.

Unless you think that things like rape, torture, murder, destructive tornadoes and destructive earthquakes don't occur, then you implicitly hold the belief that God doesn't love everyone.

So, I don't like grapes, therefore, I don't like fruit?

Hebrews 9:27King James Version (KJV)

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:


Nobody gets off planet earth alive. Stop blaming God for every evil thing that man does to his fellow man. Or asking Him to zoom down here every time someone is going to get hurt. Can you imagine that. Seriously?


As for the weather. We have had bad storms and weather for centuries upon centuries. The world before sin entered the world had no bad storms, earth quakes, tornadoes, ice storms.



Again, you want God to just zoom down here every time a storm is going to come and people die and are injured? And, then say "see, God doesn't love anyone"?



God loves everyone. We have a choice to follow Him so that when "our number is up" we can be with Him. It is only a tragedy when a non believer dies. I could have a brain aneurism right now. Does that mean God doesn't love me? Not at all. This world is running a course. It started pure and righteous. It was corrupted by sin, it is on it's course and things are going to happen. God has every power to stop the ride and say "everyone off" but, it has to run it's course. All who take the narrow road will live forever. All that take the broad road will perish. It won't matter if you live to be 100 or die in a car crash at 18. You will face God and He will judge your soul.

Do you believe God causes those things?

No, He doesn't cause them. The air currents, sunlight, ocean temp, barometric pressure cause them.

What do you mean by "perfect place", "the fall" and "sin"?

Before the first sin, sometimes called the fall or the fall of man, the earth was a paradise. God talked with Adam and Eve. There was no shame, pain, death, worry, etc. That was perfection.

Sin is doing anything contrary to God's law or way.

This confirms that you hold the implicit belief that God doesn't love everyone.

No. That's your view.

Define "age".
How do you know we're coming to the end of an age?

This is a term used to describe a time frame that is describable from another. Exampes, The age of creation until the fall, the age from the fall until the flood, the age from the flood until Christ came, died and rose from the dead, the age after the resurrection of Christ, the age that will be called the tribulation, the age after the tribulation called the millennial age where Christ will rule the earth for 1000 years.

I know we are near the end of the age as the book of revelation predicts it.

Why doesn't God put a halt to such destructive catastrophes?

He will.

 

[talquin]

If God exists, I would like to see sufficient evidence of his existence. But all available evidence points to the truth being that he doesn't exist.

My response was:

What, in your opinion, would be "sufficient evidence"?
Your rebuttal:

Since your question presupposes God does exist, then sufficient evidence would be whatever God deems sufficient evidence to convince me he does exist. And I don't know what that would be. If he does exist, he hasn't done what it would take to get me to believe he exists.

This is just "bafflegab"

Sorry, but whether I believe God exists or not is not the issue or any kind of factor here.

Correct. This has nothing to do with whether or not you believe God exists. To be honest with you, I don't know what it would take to get me to believe a god exists. But whatever it is, if a god does indeed exist, it would know precisely what it would take to get me to believe it exists. And I don't know what that is. If you'd like me to guess, it would be solid demonstrations of his omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence.

The question is simple:

What, in your opinion, would be sufficient evidence?

Only you can answer this and it has no bearing on "whatever God deems sufficient evidence to convince you" or the completely obvious fact that "he hasn't done what it would take to get you to believe he exists".

Everything in your rebuttal is mute. The question is simple. Only you can answer.

To be honest with you, I don't know what it would take to get me to believe a god exists. But whatever it is, if a god does indeed exist, it would know precisely what it would take to get me to believe it exists. And I don't know what that is. If you'd like me to guess, it would be solid demonstrations of his omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence.

Unless you think that things like rape, torture, murder, destructive tornadoes and destructive earthquakes don't occur, then you implicitly hold the belief that God doesn't love everyone.

So, I don't like grapes, therefore, I don't like fruit?

Hebrews 9:27King James Version (KJV)

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Nobody gets off planet earth alive. Stop blaming God for every evil thing that man does to his fellow man. Or asking Him to zoom down here every time someone is going to get hurt. Can you imagine that. Seriously?

As for the weather. We have had bad storms and weather for centuries upon centuries. The world before sin entered the world had no bad storms, earth quakes, tornadoes, ice storms.

How do you know there were no bad storms back then?

Again, you want God to just zoom down here every time a storm is going to come and people die and are injured? And, then say "see, God doesn't love anyone"?

God loves everyone.

If so, then as long as you think mass calamity/disaster occurs and children get raped, then you hold an implicit belief that God can't do anything. Remember, it is logically impossible for a god which loves everyone and can do anything to exist in the presence of mass suffering (e.g. mass disease of children, typhoons wiping out thousands of homes and families, rapists raping children, etc.)

We have a choice to follow Him so that when "our number is up" we can be with Him.

How can one have a choice to follow something that they don't even believe to exist?

It is only a tragedy when a non believer dies. I could have a brain aneurism right now. Does that mean God doesn't love me? Not at all. This world is running a course. It started pure and righteous. It was corrupted by sin, it is on it's course and things are going to happen. God has every power to stop the ride and say "everyone off" but, it has to run it's course. All who take the narrow road will live forever.

How do you know some will live forever? Do you have any scientifically supported resources which state humans can live forever?

All that take the broad road will perish. It won't matter if you live to be 100 or die in a car crash at 18. You will face God and He will judge your soul.

How do you know this?

Do you believe God causes those things?

No, He doesn't cause them. The air currents, sunlight, ocean temp, barometric pressure cause them.

Do you believe God has the power to divert a potentially destructive typhoon such that it harmlessly dissipates over the ocean?

What do you mean by "perfect place", "the fall" and "sin"?

Before the first sin, sometimes called the fall or the fall of man, the earth was a paradise. God talked with Adam and Eve. There was no shame, pain, death, worry, etc. That was perfection.

Sin is doing anything contrary to God's law or way.

Please provide me three of your best examples of sin.

This confirms that you hold the implicit belief that God doesn't love everyone.

No. That's your view.

Remember, it is logically impossible for a god which loves everyone and can do anything to exist in the presence of mass suffering (e.g. mass disease of children, typhoons wiping out thousands of homes and families, rapists raping children, etc.).

So if you agree with me that such tragedies do occur and you believe that God can do anything, then the only way to reconcile this is to believe that God doesn't love everyone. So it's not a point of view. It's a logical response to you holding two out of three positions where if the first two are true, the third can't be true.

Define "age".
How do you know we're coming to the end of an age?

This is a term used to describe a time frame that is describable from another. Exampes, The age of creation until the fall, the age from the fall until the flood, the age from the flood until Christ came, died and rose from the dead, the age after the resurrection of Christ, the age that will be called the tribulation, the age after the tribulation called the millennial age where Christ will rule the earth for 1000 years.

I know we are near the end of the age as the book of revelation predicts it.

How do you know that predictions in the book of revelation are accurate - especially if the event in question hasn't occurred yet?

Why doesn't God put a halt to such destructive catastrophes?

He will.

OK, so he sits there and does nothing while an innocent child gets brutally assaulted. Is that what you would do if you had the power to stop an innocent child from getting brutally assaulted? Would you also be like God and do nothing - or would you step in and help the child?

 

[terryjohn]

If God stepped in and stopped evil and suffering before they arose, that would be meaningless to me as I would still not know about it and still ask God for proof of his existence. Can we only demand love from God and neglect justice? Can even we be both?

 

[Inkfingers]

If God stepped in and stopped evil and suffering before they arose, that would be meaningless to me as I would still not know about it and still ask God for proof of his existence.

Indeed.

We cannot know anything without knowing also its opposite. Awareness requires both X and not-X to be experiencable.

Without the experience of darkness, we cannot know light.
Without the possibility of hate, we cannot know love
Without the possibility of loss, we cannot know preciousness.
Without the possibility of pain, pleasure is a meaningless concept.

The existence of suffering is integral to the universe. To posit a universe without the experience of evil is to posit a universe without life itself.

To complain about that is to turn from reason to emotivism and fantasy.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Indeed.

We cannot know anything without knowing also its opposite. Awareness requires both X and not-X to be experiencable.

Without the experience of darkness, we cannot know light.
Without the possibility of hate, we cannot know love
Without the possibility of loss, we cannot know preciousness.
Without the possibility of pain, pleasure is a meaningless concept.

The existence of suffering is integral to the universe. To posit a universe without the experience of evil is to posit a universe without life itself.

To complain about that is to turn from reason to emotivism and fantasy.

You seem to misunderstand the nature of the "complaint." The point in question is why an ostensibly omni-benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent god would design a universe in which evil exists. Relatedly, why would such a being, who is easily able to prevent evil from happening, refrain from doing so? This isn't a challenge to theism per se, but a challenge to those who are committed to the doctrine that god is all-good and morally perfect.

 

[Inkfingers]

" The point in question is why an ostensibly omni-benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent god would design a universe in which evil exists.

And I just explained to you how the existence of evil is a necessary part of a universe with awareness in it.

Relatedly, why would such a being, who is easily able to prevent evil from happening, refrain from doing so? This isn't a challenge to theism per se, but a challenge to those who are committed to the doctrine that god is all-good and morally perfect.

That is a Straw God.

You keep waving "omnipotent" around as if it means that God can do that which is not real, without seeming to be aware of how you are asking what amounts to why a duck cannot backwards toggle fish-stick toaster pig. In other words, the question itself is not reasoned. Its emotivism masquerading as reason. Its the child asking "but whyyyyyy" to a question they have already been told the answer to but do not understand.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And I just explained to you how the existence of evil is a necessary part of a universe with awareness in it.

Which, again, is not really the point in question.

That is a Straw God.

You keep waving "omnipotent" around as if it means that God can do that which is not real, without seeming to be aware of how you are asking what amounts to why a duck cannot backwards toggle fish-stick toaster pig. In other words, the question itself is not reasoned. Its emotivism masquerading as reason. Its the child asking "but whyyyyyy" to a question they have already been told the answer to but do not understand.

Human beings are capable of preventing evil by their actions. If God cannot do what us mere mortals can then we might have reason to question whether he is genuinely omnipotent.

 

[Inkfingers]

Which, again, is not really the point in question.

It's exactly the point, when you don't erect straw gods.

Repeating the question as if it has not been answered will not change that (although it may fill the thread with more posts in the hope that others do not see the answer has already been given).