The problem of evil

[Loudmouth]

Those standards have been decided? I must have missed that.

Where was it decided that a deity is incapable of being immoral?

 

[bhsmte]

Those standards have been decided? I must have missed that.

If you follow what you call an objective morality, shouldnt you be able to objectively judge other people, on whether they act morally?

 

[Resha Caner]

Change from something not being acceptable at one time, to being acceptable later, or vise versa.

You'll have to give me an example where the conditions were the same but the acceptability changed.

 

[bhsmte]

You'll have to give me an example where the conditions were the same but the acceptability changed.

If it is purely objective, why would conditions matter? When do the conditions change enough to make a difference? Determining that, would appear quite subjective.

 

[Loudmouth]

You'll have to give me an example where the conditions were the same but the acceptability changed.

If God consistently did the immoral thing under the same conditions, that would be both immoral and objective.

 

[Achilles6129]

Says reality, because once something has existed, it... has existed. It's tautologically true. To argue otherwise is nonsensical.

Says your perception of reality. Of course, your perception of reality may be wrong. And, since Biblical theology clearly says God can undo actions, then if the Bible is true then your perception of reality is wrong.

But by all means, describe the mechanism by which something that existed (suffering) ceases to have existed.

You're actually going to argue that an omnipotent being can't undo something that's happened? The "mechanism" is the omnipotent being.

Describe how an omnipotent being can "rectify" any suffering so that it had never occurred, defying all possible realities.

It's not difficult to imagine. God could easily reward the person who suffered in proportion to the evil that they suffered. He could also even remove the evil that they suffered from their memory so that it no longer comes into their mind.

 

[Achilles6129]

If God consistently did the immoral thing under the same conditions, that would be both immoral and objective.

Who would decide whether or not it would be immoral?

 

[Resha Caner]

Where was it decided that a deity is incapable of being immoral?

This game, huh? I never said it has been decided. In fact, I'm quite sure you're convinced God is immoral. But either you can demonstrate an objective morality that compels me to agree, or you must concede subjectivity, which leaves you no basis for judging me.

Now, maybe you have enough people on your side such that you can punish me for obeying God when you don't like it, but that's all it amounts to.

 

[Achilles6129]

That 'explanation' opens countless cans of worms. And is absolutely not the behaviour of a benevolent being.

Question: How do you decide what is and what isn't the behavior of a benevolent being?

 

[Loudmouth]

Says your perception of reality. Of course, your perception of reality may be wrong. And, since Biblical theology clearly says God can undo actions, then if the Bible is true then your perception of reality is wrong.

How is the Bible any less of a perception of reality than anything else? If you say we can't trust our perceptions, then how can we trust them when reading the Bible? If we can't trust the evidence in the Creation, why should we trust the Bible?

Even more, were the humans who wrote the Bible infallible?

Is morality determined by the first person who writes down "because God says so" after their list of rules?

 

[Loudmouth]

This game, huh? I never said it has been decided. In fact, I'm quite sure you're convinced God is immoral. But either you can demonstrate an objective morality that compels me to agree, or you must concede subjectivity, which leaves you no basis for judging me.

Is forcing a 2 year old to suffer a painful death due to cancer immoral or moral?

 

[Achilles6129]

Suppose I say this: the net effect of all the evil in the universe is zero because God ultimately intervenes and sets all the evil in the universe right. So God can permit as much evil as necessary for his own purposes because the net effect of evil will always be zero, no matter how much evil there is.

 

[Loudmouth]

Suppose I say this: the net effect of all the evil in the universe is zero because God ultimately intervenes and sets all the evil in the universe right. So God can permit as much evil as necessary for his own purposes because the net effect of evil will always be zero, no matter how much evil there is.

That would be immoral. You don't put people through unnecessary pain, even if you right the wrongs later.

 

[Achilles6129]

How is the Bible any less of a perception of reality than anything else? If you say we can't trust our perceptions, then how can we trust them when reading the Bible?

God would be the true perception of reality. What's written in the Bible is from God, so what's written in the Bible is the true perception of reality. It's not our perception of reality we're trying to go off of, it's God's.

Even more, were the humans who wrote the Bible infallible?

God would be infallible, so anything divinely inspired by God would be infallible.

 

[Loudmouth]

God would be the true perception of reality.

According to whom? You? I have to trust your perceptions? Are you infallible?

What's written in the Bible is from God,

Yet another claim made by humans, and written by humans.

God would be infallible, so anything divinely inspired by God would be infallible.

The problem is that it is human perception that you are using to determine what is divinely inspired. If human perception can't be trusted, then neither can their claims of divine inspiration.

 

[Achilles6129]

That would be immoral. You don't put people through unnecessary pain, even if you right the wrongs later.

Who said it was unnecessary? I gave the reason God says he permits evil earlier: he says he permits it because if he intervened to stop it he would destroy the elect. He waits until the correct moment, and then intervenes to stop it.

As far as your judgment of immorality/morality: how would you know for a fact that something is immoral or moral?

 

[Achilles6129]

According to whom? You? I have to trust your perceptions? Are you infallible?

God is infallible so God would have the true perception of reality.

The problem is that it is human perception that you are using to determine what is divinely inspired. If human perception can't be trusted, then neither can their claims of divine inspiration.

It has nothing to do with human perception and everything to do with God's perception. And that's the point.

 

[Loudmouth]

Who said it was unnecessary?

God couldn't stop it?

I gave the reason God says he permits evil earlier: he says he permits it because if he intervened to stop it he would destroy the elect.

Actually, humans say that. Secondly, what is heaven supposed to be like? Is it going to be full of evil?

He waits until the correct moment, and then intervenes to stop it.

How do you know God doesn't wait for the incorrect moment?

As far as your judgment of immorality/morality: how would you know for a fact that something is immoral or moral?

My ability to use empathy, reason, and logic.

 

[Loudmouth]

God is infallible so God would have the true perception of reality.

Says who? You?

It has nothing to do with human perception and everything to do with God's perception. And that's the point.

You think you are God?

 

[Resha Caner]

If it is purely objective, why would conditions matter?

Umm. I thought this would be obvious. If some guy is a gun collector and has guns hanging on his wall, it would be wrong for the police to break into his home without cause and take his guns. If they find a note from that same guy saying he intends to shoot up a movie theater, the conditions have changed. They have cause, and they should take the guns away.

When do the conditions change enough to make a difference? Determining that, would appear quite subjective.

For we finite beings it is often very subjective. Are you proposing throwing out all conditions for judging what is acceptable and unacceptable?