What justification does this atheist have and what is the truth?

[Going Merry]

And I want to point out, why does he have to help his enemies?

You're stuck in a mindset that for some reason he should help everyone regardless of how they live their lives. Well, what makes them better than hitler if they are living lives of sin? Nothing as far as I am concerned. Though for me God is not a topic that I have doubt it so I am much more positive about it. Even if you don't believe in it, you're unable to acknowledge our POVs.

IMO helping those who are against love, those who live their lives in sin, would go against his benevolence. It would be better spent on his disciples living in love. Even if his disciples live in love, like i said, he can make them sick and even kill them.

BUT that too is to spare them from doing evil. Our flesh is weak and many people live a pagan lifestyle (in pleasure) instead of worshipping God they put their pleasure in creation. Well God hates that =^ _ ^=

 

[Ken-1122]

And I want to point out, why does he have to help his enemies?

I never said anything about helping his enemies! I said he should have prevented some of those people from doing evil.

K

 

[Redac]

I never said anything about helping his enemies! I said he should have prevented some of those people from doing evil.

K

I guess the point is that humans are enemies of God so why should he help them by preventing evil? I think.

 

[Going Merry]

I guess the point is that humans are enemies of God so why should he help them by preventing evil? I think.

yep

 

[quatona]

yep

...because that´s what God recommends us to do, and therefore suggests itself as his way?

 

[quatona]

"An omnibenevolent God would not absent himself/herself in ways that cause or allow suffering."

Unless we also assume that God is omniscient and omnipotent this is simply a non-sequitur.

"Furthermore, if some people can experience a "lack of God", then God is clearly not omnipresent."

Feelings are notoriously unreliable, so the argument as presented is a non-sequitur, as well.

 

[elopez]

I saw an atheist article and in it they said:
"An omnibenevolent God would not absent himself/herself in ways that cause or allow suffering."

The problem of evil is persistent with the Christian God. It at least needs an explanation. Some of those explanations, however, make the problem even worse, so we must get what we say from Scripture.

Furthermore, if some people can experience a "lack of God", then God is clearly not omnipresent.

Our experience is not a necessary condition for omnipresence. Since God is incorporeal He cannot occupy a finite space as the infinite cannot be contained. God is spirit. So omnipresence does not refer to the "dimensive quantity" He could occupy in some space as a corporeal human.

Instead, omnipresence means as Aquinas put it, the power, knowledge, and essence of God. God has power over all things. God knows of all things and so nothing is hidden from Him. And in some way or another God is the cause of their being.

 

[Ken-1122]

I guess the point is that humans are enemies of God so why should he help them by preventing evil? I think.

According to him, not all humans are God's enemies, just the ones who do the super bad stuff. But when he imposes upon free will to prevent them from doing evil, he only imposes upon his friends who do little evil not his enemies who do a lot of of it. I'm asking why not impose upon those doing the big stuff?

K

 

[Paradoxum]

And I want to point out, why does he have to help his enemies?

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. ~ Matthew 5:43-48

You're stuck in a mindset that for some reason he should help everyone regardless of how they live their lives.

Because he is meant to be perfect? There are times when I would acknowledge that I have a duty to help my enemy. If I had a strong enough will to love as I should then I should help the good and bad.

Well, what makes them better than hitler if they are living lives of sin? Nothing as far as I am concerned. Though for me God is not a topic that I have doubt it so I am much more positive about it. Even if you don't believe in it, you're unable to acknowledge our POVs.

What makes the average person better than Hitler? Really? Even Jesus said that no all sins are the same, and throughout the Bible.

IMO helping those who are against love, those who live their lives in sin, would go against his benevolence. It would be better spent on his disciples living in love. Even if his disciples live in love, like i said, he can make them sick and even kill them.

Well you might consider me sinful, but I would disagree, though I know I am imperfect and I don't live up to my own standard at times. But I don't go out of my way to sin any more than a Christian does. If I sin then I do so because I am fallible. What you advocate for God seems little different than parent abandoning a child just because the child is naughty sometimes.

BUT that too is to spare them from doing evil. Our flesh is weak and many people live a pagan lifestyle (in pleasure) instead of worshipping God they put their pleasure in creation. Well God hates that =^ _ ^=

Well, that is your opinion anyway.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

I saw an atheist article and in it they said:
"An omnibenevolent God would not absent himself/herself in ways that cause or allow suffering.

The Day suffering end is The Second Coming, so the "atheist" from the article has no complaining rights.

Furthermore, if some people can experience a "lack of God", then God is clearly not omnipresent."

Nope, God is everywhere/Omnipresent, He however will not break our Free Will so I don't see what logic that "atheist" used here.

I know that it isn't a reasonable argument but what would be a sensible answer to this "problem"?

The Answer to that "atheist" would be, the entire argument is illogical and naive.

 

[Gracchus]

There is no way to create a world without evil. If the worst of the evils of the world were eliminated, we would characterize minor inconveniences and discomforts as terribly evil. If everyone had enough to eat, some would complain when they couldn't have their favorite dessert.

That said, we could eliminate much of the evil in the world. We could end war, if enough people just would not support it. That done, we could feed the hungry, clothe the naked, provide schools and hospitals for all. We could recognize that natural catastrophes are inevitable and make plans for the inevitable.

We won't do these things, because they aren't economically feasible, which is to say, it wouldn't be immediately profitable to the people who run things.

Why was climate change not a subject discussed in the last presidential election? It was because no one wants to bring up the obvious steps we must take to alleviate it and prepare for it.

People say, "Oh, I'm not really very bad. Others are worse." Taken together, however, we're all just bad enough to ensure our self-destruction as a species.

Jesus told us how to save ourselves. Most of us would prefer to wait for him to save us. It doesn't work that way.

Perhaps we are the children of God. If so, it is time we grew up. There comes a time when children have to take responsibility for their own lives.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

There is no way to create a world without evil. If the worst of the evils of the world were eliminated, we would characterize minor inconveniences and discomforts as terribly evil. If everyone had enough to eat, some would complain when they couldn't have their favorite dessert.

"Very little evil" does not mean "no evil". Please explain why a 'world' with no evil is impossible.

 

[super animator]

The problem is that it assumes that evil is a problem that needs to be solved.
It assumes that it must be solved by god and not us.
Frankly I don't view as a problem for me, because I view as a side-effect of free-will.
Then again everyone have their own image of god.

 

[Gracchus]

"Very little evil" does not mean "no evil". Please explain why a 'world' with no evil is impossible.

I will try and make this simple, with an analogy. If "red" were evil, and "red" were elimninated, then we would perceive "orange" and "purple" to be evil, and were those eliminated, "yellow" and "blue" would be evil, and if the evil "green" were eliminated, there would be no color at all. "Evil" is a construct of the human mind. That construct evolved because it has survival value. It is a simplification that allows for fast reaction. Every "good" has its concomittent "evil". We humans go to great lengths to ignore that simple fact.

Even if we propose a "God" who is completely "good" we must have a "devil" to balance things out. The reality is: We can never be satisfied. It is not enough that we have sufficient to feed, clothe, and house us. We must have more, even if that means others must do without. Few have done as much evil in the world as those who fanatically pursue what they perceive as good.

Perhaps I misspoke. It is possible to have a world without evil, but it would also be a world without good. And it would have to be a world without human beings.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I will try and make this simple, with an analogy. If "red" were evil, and "red" were elimninated, then we would perceive "orange" and "purple" to be evil, and were those eliminated, "yellow" and "blue" would be evil, and if the evil "green" were eliminated, there would be no color at all. "Evil" is a construct of the human mind. That construct evolved because it has survival value. It is a simplification that allows for fast reaction. Every "good" has its concomittent "evil". We humans go to great lengths to ignore that simple fact.

Even if we propose a "God" who is completely "good" we must have a "devil" to balance things out. The reality is: We can never be satisfied. It is not enough that we have sufficient to feed, clothe, and house us. We must have more, even if that means others must do without. Few have done as much evil in the world as those who fanatically pursue what they perceive as good.

Perhaps I misspoke. It is possible to have a world without evil, but it would also be a world without good. And it would have to be a world without human beings.

Blind people have no comprehension of colour. So what good is purple and orange instead of red to a blind person? Going back to the original point, what good is good and evil to someone who has no comprehension of good and evil?

 

[Ken-1122]

I will try and make this simple, with an analogy. If "red" were evil, and "red" were elimninated, then we would perceive "orange" and "purple" to be evil,

When people ask about God getting rid of evil, they are talking about what we currently call evil; not something else that we might label evil if the current definition of evil (extremely bad behavior) did not exist!
To use a bit of your analogy, if red were evil and orange were trees; and red were eliminated, if they choose to start calling trees red, nobody would be suggesting we get rid of trees simply because they have been relabeled red.
K

 

[Gracchus]

Blind people have no comprehension of colour. So what good is purple and orange instead of red to a blind person? Going back to the original point, what good is good and evil to someone who has no comprehension of good and evil?

Sociopaths are morally blind. To them, good means not getting caught, or at least, not getting punished.

"Good" and "evil" are only meaningful in a social context.

 

[Gracchus]

When people ask about God getting rid of evil, they are talking about what we currently call evil; not something else that we might label evil if the current definition of evil (extremely bad behavior) did not exist!
To use a bit of your analogy, if red were evil and orange were trees; and red were eliminated, if they choose to start calling trees red, nobody would be suggesting we get rid of trees simply because they have been relabeled red.
K

My point was that people will always find something to regard as evil. It is just how we are.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The problem is that it assumes that evil is a problem that needs to be solved.
It assumes that it must be solved by god and not us.
Frankly I don't view as a problem for me, because I view as a side-effect of free-will.
Then again everyone have their own image of god.

That really makes no sense... If your God is omnibenevolent, then yes, Evil is a problem. It especially makes no sense that God would create Evil (which the Bible states that he did).

And nobody is assuming evil must be solved by God.... however if you were all powerful and all loving, it's impossible you could stand by and let someone suffer. The existence of evil and suffering in and of itself makes an all powerful, all loving god impossible.

 

[Gadarene]

Perhaps indeed the characterisation of things as good and evil is problematic, but it doesn't really do anything to solve the problem that if you are an omnipotent, omniscient being and you don't want a certain set of acts committed by people - even under free will - then there is no good reason why those acts should end up being committed.