The problem of evil

[ToddNotTodd]

I admit, my friend could have chosen better words to articulate his message. However, just to clarify, their was no "better way" or "worse way". It is simply God's way. And this way was the way He chose in order to clear the path for His plan for the Messiah and redemption of mankind.

Couldn't this plan taken place earlier so that innocent people wouldn't suffer for things someone else did? I find it hard to believe that a god that anyone would call "good" using a typical definition of the word would allow this to happen to some people, and then change the "rules" so it no longer happened. Would kind of suck to have been one of those people who were punished despite their innocence, don't you think?

So why is it when a Christian " tells you why they believe the things they do", that doesn't seem to be enough for you? If you are asking someone why they believe something, that is not up for debate or arguement because you cannot prove that that individual does or does not have that belief for the reason they explained.

Isn't believing in things for good reasons important to you, or are all reasons equally good?

If someone said to you "I know there's no god because the shoes I'm wearing today are red.", would you accept that as true, or would you try and point out that the person's reasoning is fallacious? What if that person has started a large "red shoe" movement, and is deconverting Christians left and right?

As for the "Dilemma". Here is a copy/paste from my notes once again:

Plato's famous question concerning the nature of goodness asks whether a thing is good because God says it is good, or does God say it's good because it is good. This is known as Euthyphro's Dilemma (named after the character Euthyphro in Plato's 'socratic dialogue' on the subject of goodness).

The problem this question raises for the Christian is two-fold. First, if a thing is good simply because God says it is, then it seems that God could say anything was good and it would be. This might include things that we instinctively know to be evil, like rape or murder. But we don't want a morality based on God's arbitrary declarations, so it seems this choice is a poor one for the believer. However, if God is simply reporting a thing's goodness, then He is no longer the standard for goodness and seems to be at the mercy of some outside standard. But we don't want there to be a standard above God that He must bow to, so this response does not seem attractive, either. Hence the dilemma.

There is, however, a third option. As Christians we should affirm both God's sovereignty and His non-derived goodness. Thus, we don't want a standard that is arbitrary nor one that exists outside or above God. Fortunately, God is both supremely sovereign and good. Therefore, God's nature itself can serve as the standard of goodness, and God can base His declarations of goodness on Himself. God's nature is unchangeable and wholly good; thus, His will is not arbitrary, and His declarations are always true. This solves both issues.

How is God the standard of goodness? Because He is the creator. A thing's goodness is determined by its purpose. A dull knife is not a good knife because the purpose of a knife is to cut. Sharpness is bad for a shoe, however, for a good shoe is one that is comfortable and supportive to a foot. God, as creator, is the determiner of all purposes of His creation. What He makes is made purposefully, and anything that stands in the way of that purpose is bad. Rape is evil because that is not what sex is made to be. Murder is evil because it is not the purpose of humans to arbitrarily decide when people should die. (Note that this does not necessarily vilify all human-caused deaths, such as capital punishment or war. If God has stated guidelines for these actions, then it is no longer arbitrary human will being carried out.)

In conclusion, a thing is good to the degree that it fulfills its purposes. Because God is the creator of all things, according to His own good nature, He is therefore both the standard and declarer of goodness.

Your argument suffers from the fallacy of equivocation (among other things), which invalidates the argument. Your definition of "good" as a fulfillment of a purpose is not the same "good" that relates to ethics. According to your argument, a killer robot is "good" if it murders people according to its purposes. That's obviously not the "good" we're talking about.

In addition, the "god's nature" aspect doesn't actually address the dilemma, it reformulates it. "is God's character good because it's inherently good, or is it good because God made it that way?" is the exact same dilemma. If it is inherently good, then morality is again independent of the existence of a god. If God made it that way, then it was arbitrary.

Unfortunately, the OP is not a philosophical question. It is an effort to attack Christians and their beliefs.

I would disagree with this whole heartedly. What about it isn't Philosophical in nature? It was even written by a Christian, so if you're asserting that this was some sort of attack thread, it doesn't follow.

I could very well have asked, "Why would anyone choose to be an atheist and risk going to hell?". If I posted that question in TTA in their philosophy section, what reaction would you expect me to get?

You'd get the reaction that Pascal's wager is a fallacious argument. Which it is. I don't think anyone would be upset about it, as the wager has been refuted a million times and isn't seen as anything important anymore.

OK, I would like you to answer this question honestly. If you saw a man who claimed to be "God incarnate" and this man performed a miracle in front of your very eyes (caused a cripple to walk for example), would you believe in God then? Or would you instead think it was a hoax or a trick and find any other rational explanation?

As I've seen healing "miracles" faked over and over, as I'm sure you have as well, I would of course think it was a hoax or trick. Perhaps you should find a better miracle to posit.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You fail to grasp the concept of "consequences for your actions and decisions". The whole "or the kids gets it" would not be a punishment from God but rather the kids suffering as a consequence for your actions. If you cheated on your spouse and you wound up getting a divorce because of it. Your child's suffering is a direct result of your actions. The child is not being punished by God because of your actions.

Accepting the direct consequences of your actions on others wasn't the situation being discussed; it was the moral justification for God punishing the innocent for the sins of others; i.e. punishing those that wouldn't otherwise have suffered as a result of those sins (God wouldn't need to punish them if they were going to suffer as a direct result).

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

As I've seen healing "miracles" faked over and over, as I'm sure you have as well, I would of course think it was a hoax or trick. Perhaps you should find a better miracle to posit.

I just had to bypass everything you mentioned earlier to focus on this. And I need you to be completely honest because this is important. Are you really telling me that if Jesus Christ came down to earth and performed a miracle right before your eyes, you would still refuse to believe it?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Dave Ellis]

What if by killing that innocent animal, a lesson was taught that saved someone's life?

If that is the case, then god is both immoral, and a poor teacher.

You're telling me the wisest being in the universe can't figure out a better way to teach a lesson than to slaughter an innocent animal?

There are so many better ways to teach a lesson, especially if you are all powerful and all knowing.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I just had to bypass everything you mentioned earlier to focus on this. And I need you to be completely honest because this is important. Are you really telling me that if Jesus Christ came down to earth and performed a miracle right before your eyes, you would still refuse to believe it?

I'm not opposed to believing, if the claims can be backed up.

For example, how do you know it's Jesus, and how do you know it's a real miracle, and not some trickery? There could be a number of other options, all of which could appear indistinguishable to us.

For example, it could be an advanced alien species that make one of their own look like Jesus, and then pull off "miracles" via advanced technology that we don't understand.

That being said, if the real Jesus came back, I'm sure he'd know what it would take to demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that it's really him. I'd have to see what evidence he has to offer in that way.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I'm not opposed to believing, if the claims can be backed up.

For example, how do you know it's Jesus, and how do you know it's a real miracle, and not some trickery? There could be a number of other options, all of which could appear indistinguishable to us.

For example, it could be an advanced alien species that make one of their own look like Jesus, and then pull off "miracles" via advanced technology that we don't understand.

That being said, if the real Jesus came back, I'm sure he'd know what it would take to demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that it's really him. I'd have to see what evidence he has to offer in that way.

Can you give me an example of what it would take to convince you? Raising the dead perhaps?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Dave Ellis]

Can you give me an example of what it would take to convince you? Raising the dead perhaps?

As I said, I have no idea.

However, if God is all knowing, then he knows a way to provide sufficient evidence to prove he is who he says he is. I'll leave that up to god to do so.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Despite the failed mindreading attempts, which are intellectually dishonest by the way, I don't believe in any gods.

Logical conclusion by taking all the signs into account is not mind reading. Though it may be to your advantage to conveniently think on a lower level at the moment and refer to it as mind read so in your view I can be nothing but wrong, in reality, there is much more to it. It all falls back to the same ol' agenda driven selective understanding you are so fond of....all part of creating our own reality.

You know he's there, and he scares you so much that you desperately try to pretend he isn't....it's written all over your posts.

I don't believe in several religions "gods", simply discount them as silly and pretty much leave it at that because they are no threat to me. You on the other hand go out of your way to fight tooth and nail against the God you either don't believe exists or just don't believe in, as you put it.

Again, nothing else makes sense...you know he's there, you choose not to do as he says, and you try to make the repercussions of that inaction null by proving God is null, at least in your own mind.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Logical conclusion by taking all the signs into account is not mind reading. Though it may be to your advantage to conveniently think on a lower level at the moment and refer to it as mind read so in your view I can be nothing but wrong, in reality, there is much more to it. It all falls back to the same ol' agenda driven selective understanding you are so fond of....all part of creating our own reality.

You know he's there, and he scares you so much that you desperately try to pretend he isn't....it's written all over your posts.

I don't believe in several religions "gods", simply discount them as silly and pretty much leave it at that because they are no threat to me. You on the other hand go out of your way to fight tooth and nail against the God you either don't believe exists or just don't believe in, as you put it.

Again, nothing else makes sense...you know he's there, you choose not to do as he says, and you try to make the repercussions of that inaction null by proving God is null, at least in your own mind.

What an utterly condescending piece of drivel. I thought you Christians were supposed to be humble?

Would you not find it in poor taste or arrogant if I wrote a post saying "you know your god is not real, you're on here simply trying to delude yourself into keeping your faith, because you're too scared to face reality". That's ultimately the exact same thing your post is saying, but taken from the other perspective.

I'd say you owe ToddNotTodd an apology.

 

[Kenny'sID]

What an utterly condescending piece of drivel. I thought you Christians were supposed to be humble?

Would you not find it in poor taste or arrogant if I wrote a post saying "you know your god is not real, you're on here simply trying to delude yourself into keeping your faith, because you're too scared to face reality". That's ultimately the exact same thing your post is saying, but taken from the other perspective.

I'd say you owe ToddNotTodd an apology.

Wouldn't bother me a bit because I'm secure with my beliefs. Not sure why it would bother you or Todd so much. If you are secure with your beliefs, then why not just laugh it off as the nonsense it is to you?....yet you become terribly offended over my saying you are afraid of a God you feel doesn't even exist or you don't believe in?

That's akin to my getting upset if someone told me there was something wrong with me because I didn't believe Micky Mouse was the God and creator of all things.

Once again, only one thing makes sense here.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Wouldn't bother me a bit because I'm secure with my beliefs. Not sure why it would bother you or Todd so much. If you are secure with your beliefs, then why not just laugh it off as the nonsense it is to you?....yet you become terribly offended over my saying you are afraid of a God you feel doesn't even exist or you don't believe in?

That's akin to my getting upset if someone told me there was something wrong with me because I didn't believe Micky Mouse was the God and creator of all things.

Once again, only one thing makes sense here.

You misunderstood the point of my post.

The fact you wrote an arrogant post didn't bother me in the slightest in regards to my beliefs (and I imagine the same goes for ToddNotTodd), it bothered me because you're simply being rude.

It's a shame you don't seem to think there's a problem with being rude to people. That's not what I was lead to believe about how Christians are supposed to behave.

The point of my counter-example was not to be offensive to you, it was to highlight the fact that if I presented the same argument in reverse to you, it would be completely ineffective towards your beliefs, and only serve to make myself look like a smarmy (expletive).

That's why I suggested you apologize.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Wouldn't bother me a bit because I'm secure with my beliefs. Not sure why it would bother you or Todd so much. If you are secure with your beliefs, then why not just laugh it off as the nonsense it is to you?....yet you become terribly offended over my saying you are afraid of a God you feel doesn't even exist or you don't believe in?

That's akin to my getting upset if someone told me there was something wrong with me because I didn't believe Micky Mouse was the God and creator of all things.

Once again, only one thing makes sense here.

Maybe he is upset by your poor reasoning?

 

[Kenny'sID]

The fact you wrote an arrogant post didn't bother me in the slightest in regards to my beliefs (and I imagine the same goes for ToddNotTodd), it bothered me because you're simply being rude.

I would expect "rude" to fall into the picture somewhere along the line...whatever it takes. You don't see speaking of my God as you do in my presence as rude? And I could easily pick and choose other posts here that stand out to me as rude but I simply don't care, they don't bother me. Rude is clearly not a concern to anyone.. It's just a matter of whatever you can grab hold of at the moment. It's not rude for you to speak your mind, yet it is for me when you need something as defense. Plus you know as well as I do about online discussion boards and how a thick skin it a must. And that by no means is to say you have reason to need thick skin for my comment.

Honestly, I think I hit a nerve and instead of t sticking with the content of the post itself, you now go into accusations of rude, when once again, I'm being no more rude than the next man. I just reread the post in question and I don't see rude at all, I see honest and forthright opinion and exactly how I see Todd and the big picture here as to why many Atheists do what they do here based on what I observe, just exactly how I see others posting here.

I was getting tired of the same ol' same ol' here anyway, and the comment was part of my getting near wrapping up my part in the thread, so now'd be as good a time as any with the extra advantage of, no one gets their feelings hurt anymore...not by me anyway.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I would expect "rude" to fall into the picture somewhere along the line...whatever it takes. You don't see speaking of my God as you do in my presence as rude? And I could easily pick and choose other posts here that stand out to me as rude but I simply don't care, they don't bother me. Rude is clearly not a concern to anyone.. It's just a matter of whatever you can grab hold of at the moment. It's not rude for you to speak your mind, yet it is for me when you need something as defense. Plus you know as well as I do about online discussion boards and how a thick skin it a must. And that by no means is to say you have reason to need thick skin for my comment.

Honestly, I think I hit a nerve and instead of t sticking with the content of the post itself, you now go into accusations of rude, when once again, I'm being no more rude than the next man. I just reread the post in question and I don't see rude at all, I see honest and forthright opinion and exactly how I see Todd and the big picture here as to why many Atheists do what they do here based on what I observe, just exactly how I see others posting here.

I was getting tired of the same ol' same ol' here anyway, and the comment was part of my getting near wrapping up my part in the thread, so now'd be as good a time as any with the extra advantage of, no one gets their feelings hurt anymore...not by me anyway.

Religious apologists always think they've "hit a nerve" when they've hit a dead end.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Religious apologists always think they've "hit a nerve" when they've hit a dead end.

As I said, same ol', same ol' I reply, I'm rude, I don't and get out in part to spare your feelings and I've hit a dead end.

Wonderful.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As I said, same ol', same ol' I reply, I'm rude, I don't and get out in part to spare your feelings and I've hit a dead end.

Wonderful.

Well, yeah, it is the same old, same old line of apologetics... Topped off with the usual self-congratulatory speech about how you've hit some nerve somewhere because your opponent doesn't concede to your poor reasoning. "Oh look, I'm right because someone said that I'm not! I must have hit a nerve. Go me."

 

[Picky Picky]

If that is the case, then god is both immoral, and a poor teacher.

You're telling me the wisest being in the universe can't figure out a better way to teach a lesson than to slaughter an innocent animal?

There are so many better ways to teach a lesson, especially if you are all powerful and all knowing.

Look, give God a break. OK, that was then, but he doesn't do that sort of thing any more. Apparently.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

As I said, I have no idea.

However, if God is all knowing, then he knows a way to provide sufficient evidence to prove he is who he says he is. I'll leave that up to god to do so.

Are you familiar with Jesus' reaction to the pharisees when they had seen the miracles right before their very eyes and still rejected them? You can read about it in Mark 4. Basically, my point is this. If Jesus performing miracles right in front of your eyes cannot convince you of anything, what would you expect to gain on an Internet forum? The only thing that will convince you, and you will be convinced, is seeing God in his full glory after you die. Then it will be too late. For every knee will bow and confess Jesus is Lord before judgement. No explanations or miracles will change your mind. The only thing that can help you is prayer. I will be praying for you.

Blessed are those who see and believe. Blessed more who do not see and still believe. But for those who see and do not believe:

“The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that,

“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'”

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

What an utterly condescending piece of drivel. I thought you Christians were supposed to be humble?

Would you not find it in poor taste or arrogant if I wrote a post saying "you know your god is not real, you're on here simply trying to delude yourself into keeping your faith, because you're too scared to face reality". That's ultimately the exact same thing your post is saying, but taken from the other perspective.

I'd say you owe ToddNotTodd an apology.

You do know that you are on a "Christian Forum "...right?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

If that is the case, then god is both immoral, and a poor teacher.

You're telling me the wisest being in the universe can't figure out a better way to teach a lesson than to slaughter an innocent animal?

There are so many better ways to teach a lesson, especially if you are all powerful and all knowing.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk