The Problem of Evil

[Archaeopteryx]

Here, in combination with the other posts that you failed to grasp.

Never mind though.

I've already addressed your comments in that post.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Given limitless resources, this would not be difficult for him to accomplish.

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.

No one asking you to spoon-feed them, but you simply haven't argued for your points very well.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Does this mean God saves no one?

Makes Christianity a waste of time then, doesn't it? God can't save anyone.

 

[Inkfingers]

Given limitless resources, this would not be difficult for him to accomplish.

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.

No one asking you to spoon-feed them, but you simply haven't argued for your points very well.

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.

 

[Ken-1122]

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)
*Evil is not necessary in order to appreciate good. You don't need to taste bitter in order to appreciate sweet.

Ken

 

[Inkfingers]

*Preventing some evil is better than preventing none at all. (don't confuse evil with misfortune)

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.

*Evil is not necessary in order to appreciate good. You don't need to taste bitter in order to appreciate sweet.

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.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

I grasp them. I haven't seen you support them, however.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

This analogy bodes ill for your previous point that evil is necessary for us to know good. Can you see why?

 

[Inkfingers]

* 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.

It really isn't rocket science.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

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.

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.

So heaven doesn't exist, or if it does, everyone there is ignorant of what good is?

 

[Inkfingers]

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.

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. That's all. The issue of why evil exists is in point 2.

So heaven doesn't exist, or if it does, everyone there is ignorant of what good is?

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).

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

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.

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).

It's not a different issue; it's a related issue. You are claiming that God cannot prevent all evil since doing so would apparently mean that we are rendered ignorant of good. Yet Heaven is commonly believed to be absent of all evil and purely good. If that is the case, then Heaven is a place where people are ignorant of good. Either that, or Heaven isn't real because, according to you, God can only do what is real, and what is real is a world that necessarily includes evil.

 

[Inkfingers]

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.[

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.

It's not a different issue; it's a related issue.

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.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

If you're not addressing the problem of evil, then aren't you the one going off on a tangent?

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 of direct relevance to the matter at hand. You made certain claims about the necessity of evil and about what God is capable of doing to prevent evil (apparently nothing). These claims have implications for what Heaven is like. Based on what you have stated, it appears that God is incapable of creating a Heaven at all or those who reside there are ignorant of good.

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.

There's no need to be pompous, particularly when you're on the back foot.

 

[Inkfingers]

If you're not addressing the problem of evil, then aren't you the one going off on a tangent?

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.

It's of direct relevance to the matter at hand.

No, it isn't, for the reasons that I have made clear.

There's no need to be pompous, particularly when you're on the back foot.

As I said, point scoring.

Cheerio.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

What reasons were those?

As I said, point scoring.

Cheerio.

You can view it as a point-scoring exercise if you wish, but that doesn't do you any favours.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

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.

You need to experience not-sweet in order to know what sweet is.

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.

Ken

 

[Inkfingers]

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.

Which is utterly irrelevant to the philsophical issue called The Problem of Evil.

I did not say not-sweet, I said bitter.

Exactly. You misunderstood the whole issue.

Hence your posts are irrelevant and not worth responding to further until you change that situation.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Which is utterly irrelevant to the philsophical issue called The Problem of Evil.

Preventing evil when one is able to do so has nothing to do with the problem of evil? Do you know how silly this sounds?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

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. ...

I can only speak for myself, but that's not true. Lets look at the ongoing problem of priests and pastors raping children:

If I walked into a room and saw a pastor raping a child, I would stop it. That is the moral thing to do.

If God sees a pastor raping a child, he says to the rapist "don't forget to ask, and I'll forgive you later", walks out of the room, closes the door, and lets the rapist finish unimpeded. That is not the moral thing to do. How can you see it as anything but God condoning evil?