The problem of evil

[Loudmouth]

I gave you what he said earlier.

That's what humans said.

No, God says it.

All facts demonstrate that humans wrote that.

Why would it be?

Why wouldn't it be?

Because God's perception of reality is the true perception of reality and God is infallible.

Why? Because you say so? Already we can see that God is not omnipotent. You can't show that God is moral. All you can do is claim that we have to be obedient, which has nothing to do with determining morality.

Your perception of reality could be totally wrong, and then you'd be wrong about what's moral or immoral.

And your perception can't be wrong?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

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.

I think it's self evident that once a thing has existed (suffering in this case), nothing in any reality can "undo" it's prior existence. It's as illogical as a square circle.

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

Yes, if you're defining "undo" as "cause something to not have happened that has happened".

Do you believe that "omnipotent" means the ability to do anything, or anything that's logically possible?

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.

Neither of those things are "undoing" anything that has occurred, as I've defined above. And in both of those cases, it would have been better to have not suffered at all, than to suffer and then either get rewarded or forget the suffering occurred.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would suggest that the most intelligent being would know the true difference between good and evil. Since God is, by definition, the most intelligent being, I say that God would know the true difference between good and evil. So it's God's perception that's important and that we should adjust our perception to.

The first problem is that you are only offering the human perspective, which is the Bible.

The second problem is that knowing what is good and evil does not guarantee that you will always do good.

 

[Resha Caner]

Good idea. I'm not finding that you're understanding what I've written, since I clearly address your "second horn" objection. So it's probably best that we just drop it.

I've not seen an indication you ever considered my objection. If it is to remain that way, then yes, it's best to drop it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've not seen an indication you ever considered my objection. If it is to remain that way, then yes, it's best to drop it.

When you define what is moral by what God orders, you have played right into the hand of Euthyphro's dilemma. You have admitted that you just assume God is moral without any reason to believe so.

 

[Resha Caner]

When you define what is moral by what God orders, you have played right into the hand of Euthyphro's dilemma. You have admitted that you just assume God is moral without any reason to believe so.

I admitted no such thing. I gave my reasons. Do you recall them?

 

[Loudmouth]

I admitted no such thing. I gave my reasons. Do you recall them?

I have read your posts. The reasons given thus far do not support your claims.

 

[Resha Caner]

I have read your posts. The reasons given thus far do not support your claims.

Well, at least we agree I have reasons. I never promised they would be convincing to you.

Just for some clarification, I'll point to definitions for "autocratic" and "arbitrary" from the Oxford Dictionary:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/autocratic
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/arbitrary

Specifically, I'll note the aspect of "autocratic" indicating it takes "no account of other people’s wishes or opinions," which to me indicates a lack of concern for the welfare of those under the autocrat's authority. Further I'll note the aspect of "arbitrary" indicating it is a "personal whim" not based on any system.

I never got to addressing whether God's morality is autocratic, but only began discussing whether it was arbitrary by indicating the "system" I see in it. Since you disagree, maybe we can return to my request to agree upon some examples of what is and is not arbitrary in order to set a starting point.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, at least we agree I have reasons. I never promised they would be convincing to you.

Just for some clarification, I'll point to definitions for "autocratic" and "arbitrary" from the Oxford Dictionary:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/autocratic
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/arbitrary

Perfect examples. Here is the definition given for arbitrary:

"Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system"

You are basing morality on the personal whims of a deity, as written about in books by humans. More to the point, you are basing it on your personal beliefs that one deity out of the thousands that humans believe in is the true and real deity. Can't get much more arbitrary than that.

Specifically, I'll note the aspect of "autocratic" indicating it takes "no account of other people’s wishes or opinions," which to me indicates a lack of concern for the welfare of those under the autocrat's authority. Further I'll note the aspect of "arbitrary" indicating it is a "personal whim" not based on any system.

I never got to addressing whether God's morality is autocratic, but only began discussing whether it was arbitrary by indicating the "system" I see in it. Since you disagree, maybe we can return to my request to agree upon some examples of what is and is not arbitrary in order to set a starting point.

"Because the Bible says so" is what is arbitrary. If you can't produce any reasoning beyond the personal whims of the biblical authors, then it is arbitrary.

 

[Resha Caner]

You are basing morality on the personal whims of a deity, as written about in books by humans.

Never mind. You've conflated so many things here unrelated to what I said that it's not worth trying to untangle them.

 

[Loudmouth]

Never mind. You've conflated so many things here unrelated to what I said that it's not worth trying to untangle them.

I haven't conflated anything. The personal whims of a deity as to what we should or shouldn't do is completely arbitrary, and yet you are basing morality on those whims.

 

[Resha Caner]

I haven't conflated anything. The personal whims of a deity as to what we should or shouldn't do is completely arbitrary, and yet you are basing morality on those whims.

Not that anything you said represents my position, but maybe it could help to unpack this statement you've made. Who is being arbitrary? Me or this deity you speak of?

 

[bhsmte]

What was easy?

Giving up and not addressing a straight forward question.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not that anything you said represents my position, but maybe it could help to unpack this statement you've made. Who is being arbitrary? Me or this deity you speak of?

Since you can't show me a valid reason other than "God says so", it would appear to be both.

 

[Resha Caner]

Giving up and not addressing a straight forward question.

If you can get someone else to agree to the way you're connecting the objectivity of the subject and the immutability of the object, maybe they can explain your question to me so I understand it.

 

[Resha Caner]

Since you can't show me a valid reason other than "God says so", it would appear to be both.

No need to load every statement you make. "It would appear to be both," is a satisfactory answer to the question.

If we're both being arbitrary, then I'm irrelevant to the issue. This deity of yours is arbitrary without me. Why is this deity being arbitrary?

 

[Loudmouth]

If we're both being arbitrary, then I'm irrelevant to the issue. This deity of yours is arbitrary without me. Why is this deity being arbitrary?

Unless you can show the objective standards by which God conforms his morality to, they would be personal whims.

 

[Resha Caner]

Unless you can show the objective standards by which God conforms his morality to, they would be personal whims.

Why do I have to show it? Isn't that the responsibility of said deity?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do I have to show it? Isn't that the responsibility of said deity?

It is the responsibility of the person making the claim that obedience to the commands of a chosen deity is not arbitrary.

 

[Resha Caner]

It is the responsibility of the person making the claim that obedience to the commands of a chosen deity is not arbitrary.

Umm. That obedience to the commands is arbitrary or that the commands themselves are arbitrary?