The problem of evil

[Picky Picky]

Yes, it's the kind of burning which refines something to perfection. Its not a pointless heartless kind of burning. God will make His creation into what He desires it to be and this involves burning away what's useless and keeping what's valuable.

Oh, jolly good. So long as God isn't heartless when He sets fire to us, I suppose that's just great. Although it's a bit of a shame He didn't make His creation into what He desires it to be from the start. That way we could have avoided being consumed by fire.

 

[Picky Picky]

Evil is man fault we keep saying Gods in control he wont let us do anything thats true and false. We have a will thats not free. WE WILL PAY the price for sin saved or lost. One man disobedience death entered the world and sin was passed upon all men. God doesnt create evil DIRECTLY he created evil indirectly he permitted lucifer to become satan and use him to PUNISH sin. God does believe in necsessary evil 70th of week of daniel is Gods wrath but its SATAN whose actually doing the evil. God is simply letting him because they want none of my reproof YOU DONT WANT MY CHRIST then ILL LET SATAN give you his!!

This God of yours sounds very unpleasant. He'd probably not sound too good, even in lower case.

 

[Dan Bert]

The OT speaks of the Spirit of Knowledge, the Spirit of Understanding, the Spirit of Wisdom etc. Knowledge of the world, understanding of the world and the wisdom of the world is for coping with the world...and is completely useless when it comes to the Spiritual. People today are deceived and are fulfilling prophecies without knowing it.

dan

That'll be the God of Love we're always being told about?

 

[Dan Bert]

Everything that exist, and happens is due to spiritual laws. The Spiritual laws bring both sufferings and blessings - depending whether we obey or not. Spiritual laws are designed to push each of us to greater Spiritual heights. Jesus said once..If obedience has been learned, what need therefore is suffering?

dan

No, I'm sure I'm not living in the USA.

It's always dangerous to think weather is climate, but yes I am told that there is evidence of the climate change that has been predicted. We could say that's just God being nasty, or we could try to deal with the output of greenhouse gases. I suggest the latter would be the more productive choice.

 

[Picky Picky]

Everything that exist, and happens is due to spiritual laws. The Spiritual laws bring both sufferings and blessings - depending whether we obey or not. Spiritual laws are designed to push each of us to greater Spiritual heights. Jesus said once..If obedience has been learned, what need therefore is suffering?

dan

How does that part of the living world which is not homo sapiens learn obedience and therefore avoid suffering?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Come, come. Let's keep this fun. I may be unable to explain myself well, but it will be fun to try as long as we all keep our head.

For my part, we only need consider one of the horns. There is no objective standard independent of God's will. There is nothing over which God's sovereignty does not extend. I don't know/recall your position regarding whether morality is objective or subjective, so it would help for you to state your position. But, again, as far as I'm concerned we need only discuss the other horn ...

Since the Euthyphro Dilemma only deals with what a presupposed god decrees to be good, my position doesn't mean anything. I don't even know why you would bring it up.

The other horn being that supposedly a morality extending only from God's will is arbitrary. I don't think that's the case simply because God is also the creator. As such, he knows the purpose for which everything was created and knows what is best for everything that is created. I don't see how it is arbitrary for him to express a morality that fulfills those purposes and achieves what is best.

You're just moving the goalposts. If a god determines what is good by what fulfills arbitrary plans, based on arbitrary determinations of "what's best", then any action deemed good is therefore arbitrary as well.

If "what's best" is not arbitrary, then any plans that fulfill "what's best" are non arbitrary, and any action deemed good that fulfills those plans are also non arbitrary.

And you're back to the same dilemma you had before...

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth, Maybe you missed this question.

I don't know if there is an objective morality or not. What I do know is that you don't establish an objective morality simply by claiming a book written by humans is infallible.

 

[Loudmouth]

Come, come. Let's keep this fun. I may be unable to explain myself well, but it will be fun to try as long as we all keep our head.

For my part, we only need consider one of the horns. There is no objective standard independent of God's will.

Then how can you say that God is good? It would seem that God just does whatever God wants, and we have no ability to determine if it is good or bad.

The other horn being that supposedly a morality extending only from God's will is arbitrary.

You describe it as being arbitrary. You define what is good by what God does. That's as arbitrary as it gets.

My mother's cooking is the best in the world, and by definition, the best food in the world is whatever my mom cooks. See a problem with that?

I don't think that's the case simply because God is also the creator. As such, he knows the purpose for which everything was created and knows what is best for everything that is created. I don't see how it is arbitrary for him to express a morality that fulfills those purposes and achieves what is best.

You have arbitrarily labeled it as being good simply because God did it.

 

[bhsmte]

Then how can you say that God is good? It would seem that God just does whatever God wants, and we have no ability to determine if it is good or bad.



You describe it as being arbitrary. You define what is good by what God does. That's as arbitrary as it gets.

My mother's cooking is the best in the world, and by definition, the best food in the world is whatever my mom cooks. See a problem with that?



You have arbitrarily labeled it as being good simply because God did it.

No, my mom cooks the best food.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It seems to me the problem of evil is a real problem, and it is my main barrier to faith. I just have trouble believing in a benevolent creator that cares about people- I see no evidence for it in this world. There is gross unfairness and suffering in the world and I don't believe Christians can account for it.

I grant that I could be wrong, that somehow there is a God in charge of it all and its just like the Christian God and is beyond my understanding. But it would be pretty cruel for such a being to hold honest doubts against me, given the quality of evidence he's left.

And honestly, if it is the case that God exists and he has such a mysterious plan, what does that say about Christian epistemology? How could we take any religious authority seriously if God's will is so inscrutable? It seems to me much more skepticism of religious claims are warranted, regardless of whether or not the Christian God exists.

I'm surprised that the problem of evil is what has tangled you up. I don't find the argument to be convincing on any level because the Bible itself does not claim God is benevolent. That is pure apologetic assertion, a pulpit invention, a cultural creation.

The amount of atrocities God has ordered or committed personally is entirely incompatible with the claim that he is benevolent. He tortured and killed David's infant son to punish David. He ordered the Jews to utterly wipe out villages with the occasional exception that the men were allowed to take the virgins for themselves. A virgin in the Bible is certainly code for "12-15 year old." Let's not forget the obvious fact that if a young woman saw her whole family and village slaughtered in front of her in traumatic fashion, and then one of the attackers "claims" her as "war booty," the ensuing relations will be nothing but rape and if she seems willing it is only out of paralyzing fear. So in other words, God is literally ordering genocide and permitting kidnapping along with pedophilia and rape. He also clearly allows slavery. I don't see how a single word of anything I've just said can possibly be contested. There can only ad hoc be clarifications and justifications, but I'm not interested in clarification or justification for these war crimes any more than I am interested in the same for the actions of Hitler.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, my mom cooks the best food.

You must be one of those militant Amomists.

 

[Resha Caner]

Since the Euthyphro Dilemma only deals with what a presupposed god decrees to be good, my position doesn't mean anything. I don't even know why you would bring it up.

I was asking a general question - whether you consider morality to be objective or subjective. We can use your morality as an example if that helps. Is your morality objective or subjective?

But if you don't want to reply, that's an answer of sorts as well.

You're just moving the goalposts. If a god determines what is good by what fulfills arbitrary plans, based on arbitrary determinations of "what's best", then any action deemed good is therefore arbitrary as well.

It's not moving the goalposts or arbitrary to pursue root cause. Suppose someone designs a machine they know will be damaged if it falls off a cliff. If they warn users of that machine not to throw it off a cliff, their instructions are not arbitrary, but based on their knowledge of the machine. They have a reason for their instructions. What would be arbitrary is for the designer to flip a coin as to whether to instruct users to throw the machine off a cliff when the consequences are known.

Saying nothing would be negligent.

Now, maybe the designer could make a machine that is not damaged when thrown off a cliff. In that case, instructions regarding throwing the machine off the cliff become somewhat irrelevant. Maybe the designer could inform users the machine will survive, but saying nothing is no longer negligent. It does become a rather arbitrary choice whether to say something because of the irrelevance of throwing the machine off the cliff.

You could say the decision to design the machine as cliff-proof or not is arbitrary, and I would agree. But it doesn't follow that because the design is arbitrary, the morality is necessarily arbitrary.

Even then, if one drives to root cause, I'm not sure if even design remains arbitrary. Not being an infinite being that is a question I can't answer. I do find interesting, however, discussions about mathematical first principles and whether they are self-evident or not. Mathematicians are always in search of such things. It is interesting that in geometry the Cartesian idea of an origin was challenged as arbitrary. The result was the origin used in affine geometry. Maybe you could argue the affine origin is still arbitrary, but the solution is so elegant that it begs to be accepted. It seems the arbitrary choice would be not to use it.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't know if there is an objective morality or not. What I do know is that you don't establish an objective morality simply by claiming a book written by humans is infallible.

If you don't know whether objective morality exists, from whence are you judging the morality of others?

The second sentence is a strawman.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's not moving the goalposts or arbitrary to pursue root cause. Suppose someone designs a machine they know will be damaged if it falls off a cliff. If they warn users of that machine not to throw it off a cliff, their instructions are not arbitrary, but based on their knowledge of the machine. They have a reason for their instructions. What would be arbitrary is for the designer to flip a coin as to whether to instruct users to throw the machine off a cliff when the consequences are known.

Imagine if that machine is full of money, and they don't want someone to throw it off of the cliff because it will bust open, showing everyone the money. Since our immoral person does not want to share any of the money, he tells them not to throw it off the cliff.

That is not arbitrary, and immoral.

You keep ignoring the possibility that a deity is immoral.

What becomes arbitrary is the claim that since the person asks you not to throw the machine off the cliff that they must have a moral and just reason for doing so. That isn't always the case. That is just an assumption.

 

[bhsmte]

If you don't know whether objective morality exists, from whence are you judging the morality of others?

The second sentence is a strawman.

If morality was driven by purely objective means, wouldnt that mean what is considered moral or not would never change?

 

[Resha Caner]

If morality was driven by purely objective means, wouldnt that mean what is considered moral or not would never change?

Change in what sense? Different conditions can possibly result in a different answer.

 

[Resha Caner]

You keep ignoring the possibility that a deity is immoral.

I'm not ignoring it. You haven't yet answered post #254 to tell me by what standard you expect gods to be judged.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not ignoring it. You haven't yet answered post #254 to tell me by what standard you expect gods to be judged.

The same standards that we judge our fellow humans by.

Now, is it possible that a deity is immoral?

 

[Resha Caner]

The same standards that we judge our fellow humans by.

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

 

[bhsmte]

Change in what sense? Different conditions can possibly result in a different answer.

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