The problem of evil

[Dan Bert]

From this bunch it is not hard to have...more truth which is knowledge on how things work in heaven and on the earth...but among some other Spiritual seekers,,,I am on the bottom of the totem pole.

dan

Yes of course ... you happen to have the most true truth. Everyone else is misinformed. You're amazing.

 

[Resha Caner]

You acted as if citing a common moral code found in multiple cultures and multiple religious texts is somehow supportive of the Bible simply because it is also found in the Bible. That is what is under contention.

I understand you thought that's what I said, but I never intended to say that. So, I'm going to ask you to choose from 2 options and then let's move on:
1) Caner is lying
2) I understand what Caner meant to say

Sorry, but all you are doing is making stuff up.

Are you asking me for a citation to support what I said?

There is absolutely no reason why the Hebrew people could not have taken the Amalekite children into their homes.

Have you ever taken a foreign child into your home? I have, and what I will say is that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Prove it.

Since you conceded abortion for this discussion, I don't have to. However, I will mention that I as I recall, the clinical definition of pain covers unborn children down to a certain age. I forget what age that is. Below that age they don't exhibit the clinical definition of pain. However, they do continue to exhibit a response to invasive material - a "protection mode" so to speak. Given your response that you do consider pain in other species and also consider their "stage of development", I'll again ask:

What is your basis for these judgements? Why can you dismiss pain in animals and kill them? Or dismiss the exhibited protective behavior in earlier stages of development?

People doing immoral things doesn't change the fact that morality exists. You keep acting as if people act immorally because they don't know what is moral. Can you explain this position?

I don't hold that position despite what you may have inferred. Regardless, as I understand psychology, it is rare (maybe even nonexistent) for someone to commit an act they are ready to acknowledge as immoral. Instead, they rationalize why it is acceptable for them to do it. That's the whole theme of the book Crime and Punishment. It's a topic often discussed in the context of film noir - that crime is not chaos, it's simply a different kind of order.

Can you show me where I made that argument?

You didn't. I was asking a question about how you justify killing unborn children. However, since you conceded that point for this discussion, we'll move on.

There is one deity under discussion in this thread that had no problem killing children.

From what statement of mine did you draw a conclusion that God has no problem with killing?

Then why didn't God change the situation if it would have saved lives?

Because as I explained, the result would have been worse (civil war that Saul would have lost ... indeed he did eventually lose). Rather than stopping with an answer to the immediate question, I think it prudent to answer the attendant question. If we continue down the chain: Why didn't God stop this? And that? And that? And that? We eventually require him to remove free will. It's simply the fact that he doesn't permanently remove free will because he implicitly promised that he wouldn't.

I assume that would lead to the question: Then why didn't God create a world where free will is possible but those immoral choices can't be made? That question creates a logical contradiction.

The next statement is then: So God is responsible for evil (the issue mentioned in the title of this thread). I will say he's not. You will say he is, and my explanation is unsatisfactory.

So, I'll just cut to the chase. Suppose God were responsible for evil. Then what?

In fact, we can see just the opposite with the story of the Exodus. God heartened the heart of the pharaoh so that he would not free Moses' people. Even though God took the pharaoh's free will, he still punished the entire nation by killing their first born. If you think killing unborn children is immoral, how immoral is that? ...

We have a track record of immoral acts for God that you are ignoring.

Again, based on what we've established, all you're saying is that you think these acts are immoral. Moving on to another example gives the impression you're conceding the Amalekite example. I don't think it's productive to leave this open-ended where you can continue to concede things and yet introduce example after example to try the same thing with a different story.

So I suggest we move on. You think God is evil. OK. So what does that mean?

 

[Dan Bert]

Logic is of the Greeks....Jesus cursed the cities which he did most of his miracles...the Greeks in those cities damned themselves with their logic. God is willing to prevent evil things (negative life experiences) if His people ask Him. However it not necessary as Saints have the power to overcome. That argument of Epicurus makes as much sense if the Rats in the maze got together and reasoned like that. The rats in the maze know nothing of the world beyond the maze. They do know nothing of the Scientists conducting the test or for what reason the test is being conducted. They don't even know 1% of the wonders these scientists do when not conducting the test. And if the scientists were able to hear the rats..reason from Epicurus argument they would laugh and say how foolish they are.

dan

That is one of the lines from Epicurus' argument.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Epicurus

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't have spiritual evidence of anything. That's why I'm an atheist...

Always an interesting topic with unbelievers.

 

[Dan Bert]

For you there is no evidence that is how it is suppose to work. The only time an unbeliever receives direct evidence is at death when he crosses over. There are exceptions of course. Thomas the Apostle got to behold Christ because the other Apostles had prayed to Jesus for an intervention. However, this type of intervention does not end well for everyone. Paul almost single handed destroyed the Church of Christ. When Christ appeared to Him...His light blinded him and he fell down with a fever that would have killed him if Jesus had not sent Two Apostles to heal Paul. This intervention of Christ was the result of prayers and fasting.
dan

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So, I'll just cut to the chase. Suppose God were responsible for evil. Then what?

Then the phrase "God is love" or the term "omnibenevolent" become meaningless.

 

[Loudmouth]

I understand you thought that's what I said, but I never intended to say that. So, I'm going to ask you to choose from 2 options and then let's move on:
1) Caner is lying
2) I understand what Caner meant to say

If you didn't intend to say it, then we can move on.

Are you asking me for a citation to support what I said?

I am asking you to not invent stories about what people believed or intended.

Have you ever taken a foreign child into your home? I have, and what I will say is that you have no idea what you're talking about.

People take in foster children all of the time.

Since you conceded abortion for this discussion, I don't have to. However, I will mention that I as I recall, the clinical definition of pain covers unborn children down to a certain age. I forget what age that is. Below that age they don't exhibit the clinical definition of pain. However, they do continue to exhibit a response to invasive material - a "protection mode" so to speak. Given your response that you do consider pain in other species and also consider their "stage of development", I'll again ask:

Then for the purpose of this discussion, abortion is immoral. What more do you want to say about it?

What is your basis for these judgements? Why can you dismiss pain in animals and kill them? Or dismiss the exhibited protective behavior in earlier stages of development?

I already discussed this in the previous post:

"The overall argument in the field of bioethics is that as you get closer to humans on the tree of life you have species that experience pain with the same emotional distress that humans experience. For example, chimps experience pain in much the same way humans do, but mice do not experience pain in a manner that is human-like."

I don't hold that position despite what you may have inferred. Regardless, as I understand psychology, it is rare (maybe even nonexistent) for someone to commit an act they are ready to acknowledge as immoral. Instead, they rationalize why it is acceptable for them to do it. That's the whole theme of the book Crime and Punishment. It's a topic often discussed in the context of film noir - that crime is not chaos, it's simply a different kind of order.

If that were true, then they wouldn't try to cover up their crimes.

From what statement of mine did you draw a conclusion that God has no problem with killing?

From all of them. You act as if it was the obvious thing to do, and not a big deal.

Because as I explained, the result would have been worse (civil war that Saul would have lost ... indeed he did eventually lose).

With an omnipotent deity, there is absolutely no reason why it would have been worse.

Why didn't God stop this? And that? And that? And that? We eventually require him to remove free will.

You already did that when you decided that those children were going to be a problem for society, and you never gave them the chance to prove otherwise. That also occurred other places in the Bible, where God took free will away from the pharaoh so that he wouldn't release Moses and his people, even if he wanted to.

I assume that would lead to the question: Then why didn't God create a world where free will is possible but those immoral choices can't be made? That question creates a logical contradiction.

It is God making the immoral choices.

So, I'll just cut to the chase. Suppose God were responsible for evil. Then what?

Then we would conclude that God is immoral, and people wouldn't blindly follow the edicts of an immoral deity.

Again, based on what we've established, all you're saying is that you think these acts are immoral. Moving on to another example gives the impression you're conceding the Amalekite example. I don't think it's productive to leave this open-ended where you can continue to concede things and yet introduce example after example to try the same thing with a different story.

If you can't figure out how genocide is immoral, then I really don't know what else to say.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I assume that would lead to the question: Then why didn't God create a world where free will is possible but those immoral choices can't be made? That question creates a logical contradiction.

The question "Why didn't a god create a world where free will exists but immoral choices aren't made" does not lead to a logical contradiction.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The question "Why didn't a god create a world where free will exists but immoral choices aren't made" does not lead to a logical contradiction.

Exactly.

And if you believe heaven exists, and there is free will without sin in heaven, then it's inescapable that god can create a place where free will exists, and immoral choices are never made.

For someone who believes in Christian mythology, that is absolute proof that no contradiction exists.

 

[Resha Caner]

If that were true, then they wouldn't try to cover up their crimes.

Didn't you just ask me to avoid assumptions of intent? The quote was, "I am asking you to not invent stories about what people believed or intended." Hiding their actions may have nothing to do with acknowledging immorality. Along with the psychological issue of rationalization I mentioned earlier, it could also simply be a tactical decision to avoid detection by an opponent.

If covering up one's actions indicates recognition of immorality, then undercover cops are immoral.

Then we would conclude that God is immoral, and people wouldn't blindly follow the edicts of an immoral deity.

Given the power ascribed to deities, how do you plan to avoid obedience? It's probably less painful to just do what they demand.

So, if forced to deal with a deity, what would you ask?

 

[Loudmouth]

Didn't you just ask me to avoid assumptions of intent?

It isn't an assumption when they are caught trying to destroy evidence, and admitting to it.

Also, we don't throw people in jail when they are incapable of differentiating between right and wrong. Last I checked, the jails are pretty full.

The quote was, "I am asking you to not invent stories about what people believed or intended."

I am not talking about ancient kings who may have never existed, and inventing stories about civil wars that didn't happen as an excuse for killing children.

You have done nothing but invent stories to try and rationalize your view that killing innocent children is entirely moral.

Given the power ascribed to deities, how do you plan to avoid obedience? It's probably less painful to just do what they demand.

Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between morality and obedience.

 

[Resha Caner]

It isn't an assumption when they are caught trying to destroy evidence, and admitting to it.

Destroying evidence is innately immoral? Regardless of the circumstances? So when a cop infiltrates a drug ring and destroys evidence to protect his cover, that's immoral? Even if it leads to stopping the drug ring and imprisonment of the dealers?

Tell me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me you want an objective morality to exist. You keep making these dogmatic statements: this is immoral; that is immoral - as if your statements should be self-evident. You won't tell me the logical process by which you measured the pain of the situation and used reason to balance it against the alternatives (even though I've asked multiple times). You just state your beliefs.

Why are you trying so hard - why does it matter if an objective morality exists - if, in the end people don't follow it and you have to forcefully confine them?

I am not talking about ancient kings who may have never existed, and inventing stories about civil wars that didn't happen as an excuse for killing children.

It was your example, so you chose to discuss kings you don't believe existed. And the elements I stipulated are evident either from the text or from what we know about the conditions of people living at that time. For example, the Amalekite killing occurs in 1 Samuel 15. David (Saul's rival) first appears in 1 Samuel 16. What would you call it that Samuel recruits David as an opposition king, and David then proceeds to recruit Israelites to his side. I would call that civil war.

Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between morality and obedience.

I recall your comments about obedience. That I disagree doesn't mean I misunderstand. I don't see how this answers the question. Someone possesses a power you can't resist. If your system is based on pain, isn't it possible that obedience will minimize your pain? That is your measure of morality.

If it doesn't minimize your pain, then what request will you make of this power?

 

[Locutus]

For you there is no evidence that is how it is suppose to work. The only time an unbeliever receives direct evidence is at death when he crosses over. There are exceptions of course. Thomas the Apostle got to behold Christ because the other Apostles had prayed to Jesus for an intervention. However, this type of intervention does not end well for everyone. Paul almost single handed destroyed the Church of Christ. When Christ appeared to Him...His light blinded him and he fell down with a fever that would have killed him if Jesus had not sent Two Apostles to heal Paul. This intervention of Christ was the result of prayers and fasting.
dan

There are thousands of African kids fasting (and no doubt praying). What gives?

 

[Loudmouth]

Destroying evidence is innately immoral?

If you can't address the obvious point, then this discussion isn't worth continuing.

 

[Resha Caner]

If you can't address the obvious point, then this discussion isn't worth continuing.

If you don't want to continue, that's fine. Or you can tell me what the "obvious" point is. Either is fine with me.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you don't want to continue, that's fine. Or you can tell me what the "obvious" point is. Either is fine with me.

You are purposefully ignoring the obvious points in posts so that you don't have to address them. I am willing to continue with this conversation if you can stop avoiding the points I am making.

For example, EVERYONE knows that you admit to knowing your actions are immoral when you try to cover up or destroy the evidence. You know this too. All you are trying to do is avoid the point.

 

[Resha Caner]

For example, EVERYONE knows that you admit to knowing your actions are immoral when you try to cover up or destroy the evidence. You know this too. All you are trying to do is avoid the point.

I understand the point you are trying to make, and I am challenging it. I would agree that covering up is a good indicator that someone is violating the moral standard you have set. But that doesn't mean they agree with your morals. Many times they think what they are doing is moral.

My supporting citation:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...lly-motivated-claims-controversial-study.html

FYI, were the discussion of this challenge to ever conclude, we could also address the other two challenges I raised in post #612.

 

[Loudmouth]

I understand the point you are trying to make, and I am challenging it.

No, you were trying to deflect.

"Destroying evidence is innately immoral? Regardless of the circumstances? So when a cop infiltrates a drug ring and destroys evidence to protect his cover, that's immoral? Even if it leads to stopping the drug ring and imprisonment of the dealers?"--Resha Caner

You know exactly what I am talking about. You know I am not talking about undercover cops or other such nonsense. All you are trying to do is avoid the point.

 

[Dan Bert]

Not all prayers have power nor are effective. Correct teachings help things along. Like I said faith is power not a set of beliefs. A set of beliefs is a religion. And Faith the power of....is the product of a correct set of beliefs. That is why most Christians are powerless spiritually. Most of them have bypass true repentance with teachings of Grace and mercy. So these remain blind and powerless spiritually. Noting can replace the gospel of repentance and all must begin their Journey in the gospel of Repentance.

dan

There are thousands of African kids fasting (and no doubt praying). What gives?

 

[Loudmouth]

Not all prayers have power nor are effective. Correct teachings help things along. Like I said faith is power not a set of beliefs. A set of beliefs is a religion. And Faith the power of....is the product of a correct set of beliefs. That is why most Christians are powerless spiritually. Most of them have bypass true repentance with teachings of Grace and mercy. So these remain blind and powerless spiritually. Noting can replace the gospel of repentance and all must begin their Journey in the gospel of Repentance.

dan

Then prayer and faith are indistinguishable from something that has no power. I could claim that praying to the Flying Spaghetti monster will cure every type of cancer. If people come back and tell me their cancer is not cured, I will just tell them they were not praying the right way, or that they didn't have enough or the right kind of faith. Easy-peasy.