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

[Gadarene]

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

So you can't figure out an answer to it, but you know it's unreasonable?

Eeeeenteresting.

 

[super animator]

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.

I like how you jump in and asserting what I believe and what are my definition when it comes to infinity.
Pro-tip don't assume that every christian believes the same way just because you converse with them.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

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.

No, the problem is that it assumes that evil is an actual "thing" rather than just some stupid concept humans made up because some people can't stand some of the stuff some other people do.

 

[Ken-1122]

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

And my point was, if what we currently call evil (Genocide, mutilation, slaughter etc) were red, and what we currently call “bad behavior” (stealing, cheating, lying, etc) were orange, and we got rid of what we currently call red (evil), I would be perfectly okay with them renaming stealing, cheating, and lying as red (evil ) because if that’s the worst human behavior we would have to deal with, the world would be a much better place than it is right now.

Ken

 

[SavedByChrist94]

There is no way to create a world without evil.

Yes, choosing not to do evil, we can't do that now, we had the chance, or better yet Adam had the best opportunity to not sin yet did it.

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.

Nope as that is, wrong, evil, etc. complaining is a wrong, would be no different, and I would actually Love if the present evils in the world didn't exist and the wrongest of wrongs were something like complaining.

That said, we could eliminate much of the evil in the world.

Nope, with the evils of "liberalism", "atheism", people not learning from History, and just sin in general, without The Lord Jesus Christ you will be doomed.

We could end war, if enough people just would not support it.

Too late now, now war is a necessity, we need defense. evil exists therefore there's always going to be war, and not having defense would make the wound bigger.

That done, we could feed the hungry, clothe the naked, provide schools and hospitals for all.

Yet why don't we? Sin.

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.

Because those people are evil, in their sins, etc.

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.

See you agree we're all bad, all done wrong to contribute to evil, That's why we need Jesus Christ Salvation, to be saved from Eternal Damnation.

Jesus told us how to save ourselves.

By Accepting Him, God Incarnate into our lives. no one is good without God, no matter how you put it. you could do all the good deeds in the world, doesn't make one a good person.

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

Actually it does work that way, I know first hand when you try to Save yourself, you're going to fall in the dirt. live doesn't end at the grave, that's what Jesus Christ was telling us, we can't Save ourselves! We need God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit), otherwise eternity of Hell, you agree that we are all bad, therefore all deserve that eternal shame, which Jesus Christ Saves us from.

Perhaps we are the children of God.

Now your smarting up.

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

That's what's impossible, we can't, The Only Responsibility is having The Trinity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit and His Word The Bible in our lives, that way we could go to Heaven.

In general you weren't thinking when you wrote all that.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I like how you jump in and asserting what I believe and what are my definition when it comes to infinity.
Pro-tip don't assume that every christian believes the same way just because you converse with them.

Two points:

1) I never made any reference to a definition of infinity, I never even said infinity or infinite in my post.... so I'm not sure what you're upset about. I also made no reference to your beliefs... I stated my viewpoint on the issue.

2) Part of the problem with the "Christian" label is that none of you guys believe the same thing. Once you guys can get your story straight on what qualifies as "absolute truth" this week, it'll go a long way towards convincing us there's anything to it.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

2) Part of the problem with the "Christian" label is that none of you guys believe the same thing. Once you guys can get your story straight on what qualifies as "absolute truth" this week, it'll go a long way towards convincing us there's anything to it.

Aside. Part of the reason I let go of my Christian faith was in no small part due to the nebulous nature of religious belief contrasted with the appeal to objective truth that the Christian community I was once part of gave. To argue up difference of belief among religious doctrines eventually struck me as an appeal to relativistic thinking.

 

[Ken-1122]

Even if we propose a "God" who is completely "good" we must have a "devil" to balance things out.

No we don’t! What’s the worst that can happen if we didn’t have a “devil” to balance things out as you say?

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.

I disagree; in the real world, when people acquire more; it rarely results in less for everybody else, it usually puts the rich in a position to help others. Let’s face it; the rich do more to help the poor than anybody else.

Few have done as much evil in the world as those who fanatically pursue what they perceive as good.

And few have done more good in the world as those who frantically pursue what they perceive as good. Most people who try to do good; do it.

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.

I disagree! Please explain why evil is necessary in order for good to exist.

K

 

[Eudaimonist]

I disagree; in the real world, when people acquire more; it rarely results in less for everybody else, it usually puts the rich in a position to help others. Let’s face it; the rich do more to help the poor than anybody else.

Reality^


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gracchus]

Please explain why evil is necessary in order for good to exist.

OK! I'll start over. Good and bad/evil are opposite ends of a measuring stick. It is a strechable and compressible stick, and we can use it to measure anything we want. If we flip it end for end and concentrate on other aspects of the endpoints we can even call what was "evil", "good", and vice-versa. (Just admit your brain is too small or too inflexible to get your head around this concept, I will provide examples. Hint: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Another hint: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.")

The world is what it is. It is we humans who must look at it through a kaleidoscopic lens of "good" and "evil".


If "God" must be omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, then we must explain why there is "evil". But this is apologetics, and that is a taboo subject on these forums, like homosexuality. I know that there used to be an "Apologetics" forum here, but it was closed. I can't imagine why, unless it was scaring the children.

 

[Ken-1122]

OK! I'll start over. Good and bad/evil are opposite ends of a measuring stick. It is a strechable and compressible stick, and we can use it to measure anything we want. If we flip it end for end and concentrate on other aspects of the endpoints we can even call what was "evil", "good", and vice-versa. (Just admit your brain is too small or too inflexible to get your head around this concept, I will provide examples. Hint: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Another hint: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.")

The world is what it is. It is we humans who must look at it through a kaleidoscopic lens of "good" and "evil".


If "God" must be omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, then we must explain why there is "evil". But this is apologetics, and that is a taboo subject on these forums, like homosexuality. I know that there used to be an "Apologetics" forum here, but it was closed. I can't imagine why, unless it was scaring the children.

Maybe you should provide examples or something because, it appears to me you did nothing to answer my question. Again I ask:
why is what we currently call evil, necessary in order for what we currently call good to exist?
If you wish to assume my brain is too small, I am too inflexible, or that you need to provide examples; fine! Do what ever you feel is necessary to answer my question.

Thanx
Ken

 

[quatona]

Maybe you should provide examples or something because, it appears to me you did nothing to answer my question. Again I ask:
why is what we currently call evil, necessary in order for what we currently call good to exist?
If you wish to assume my brain is too small, I am too inflexible, or that you need to provide examples; fine! Do what ever you feel is necessary to answer my question.

Can´t speak for Gracchus, but I don´t think the point is that in order for what we currently call good to exist it is necessary for that which we currently call evil to exist.
The point is rather: It is necessary for us to experience that which we currently call good as good.
Chocolate can exist without there being something that tastes unpleasant. It just wouldn´t taste good.

The experience of good and evil is necessarily tied to sentient existence. Sentience/awareness without suffering is impossible.

 

[Gracchus]

Maybe you should provide examples or something because, it appears to me you did nothing to answer my question. Again I ask:
why is what we currently call evil, necessary in order for what we currently call good to exist?
If you wish to assume my brain is too small, I am too inflexible, or that you need to provide examples; fine! Do what ever you feel is necessary to answer my question.

"Good" and "evil" are labels we put on things. They are not inherent in the things themselves. They are inherent in our perceptions, in the way we see the world. "Good" exists only insofar as we can contrast it with evil, and vice-versa. And without the judgment of the human mind there is neither.

Example: A bombadier dropping a nuke on Nagasaki knows that he was doing a good thing, shortening the war. But the guy whose family was turned into crispy critters by the blast knows that he was doing a bad thing.

Example: A lawyer got his client acquitted, and that was a good thing. But his client was a murdering serial rapist, and that was a bad thing. But it was the same thing.

 

[Ken-1122]

Can´t speak for Gracchus, but I don´t think the point is that in order for what we currently call good to exist it is necessary for that which we currently call evil to exist.
The point is rather: It is necessary for us to experience that which we currently call good as good.
Chocolate can exist without there being something that tastes unpleasant. It just wouldn´t taste good.

The experience of good and evil is necessarily tied to sentient existence. Sentience/awareness without suffering is impossible.

If you are suggesting we won't appreciate good as much if evil weren't around, I can respect that point of view (even though for me that wouldn't be the case) but that isn't what he is saying; he is saying if we don't have evil, we won't have good thus we won't have humans. With that I disagree.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

"Good" and "evil" are labels we put on things. They are not inherent in the things themselves. They are inherent in our perceptions, in the way we see the world. "Good" exists only insofar as we can contrast it with evil, and vice-versa. And without the judgment of the human mind there is neither.

Example: A bombadier dropping a nuke on Nagasaki knows that he was doing a good thing, shortening the war. But the guy whose family was turned into crispy critters by the blast knows that he was doing a bad thing.

Example: A lawyer got his client acquitted, and that was a good thing. But his client was a murdering serial rapist, and that was a bad thing. But it was the same thing.

I can understand many actions that cause good for some will cause harm for others; that is not what I am talking about. In the bible God would regularly intervene in the actions of humans. If God were to regularly intervene in human actions today and prevented evil by stopping Hitler, Gacy, Stalin, and many of the other monsters who have and continue to reek evil, how would that prevent the best of us from doing good?

Ken

 

[Gracchus]

If you are suggesting we won't appreciate good as much if evil weren't around, I can respect that point of view (even though for me that wouldn't be the case) but that isn't what he is saying; he is saying if we don't have evil, we won't have good thus we won't have humans. With that I disagree.

Indeed it is not what I am saying. I am saying that without minds to judge, there is no good and evil. I am saying that good and evil are not intrinsic to an action, or a situation, but intrinsic to the human mind.

I am saying that even with judgmental minds, whether an action is good or evil, depends on who is evaluating it, and which aspects of the total situation are ignored and which are noted, and some aspects are always ignored. I am saying that even in the best world, trivialities would be regarded as differences between good and evil.

"Good" is what we find pleasant, and "evil" is what we find unpleasant, or less pleasant, and if that less pleasant alternative were even marginally less pleasant humans would brand it evil.

 

[Ken-1122]

Indeed it is not what I am saying. I am saying that without minds to judge, there is no good and evil. I am saying that good and evil are not intrinsic to an action, or a situation, but intrinsic to the human mind.

I am saying that even with judgmental minds, whether an action is good or evil, depends on who is evaluating it, and which aspects of the total situation are ignored and which are noted, and some aspects are always ignored. I am saying that even in the best world, trivialities would be regarded as differences between good and evil.

"Good" is what we find pleasant, and "evil" is what we find unpleasant, or less pleasant, and if that less pleasant alternative were even marginally less pleasant humans would brand it evil.

I think we have different definitions of evil. You seem to be defining evil as what I would simply call "bad" where as I would define evil as much worse.

Ken

 

[super animator]

2) Part of the problem with the "Christian" label is that none of you guys believe the same thing.

Neither does the people carry the label "atheist" believe the same thing or agree on the same thing. We all are people with differing beliefs and opinions.

 

[Gracchus]

I think we have different definitions of evil. You seem to be defining evil as what I would simply call "bad" where as I would define evil as much worse.

Well, "bad" is virtually indistinguishable from "unpleasant", but evil usually carries the connotation of deliberate intent. But if some one hits me with a car, it is of little practical value to me whether it was an accident or intentional.

But pray tell, what is your definition of "evil"? (Since you brought it up!)

 

[Ken-1122]

Well, "bad" is virtually indistinguishable from "unpleasant", but evil usually carries the connotation of deliberate intent. But if some one hits me with a car, it is of little practical value to me whether it was an accident or intentional.

But pray tell, what is your definition of "evil"? (Since you brought it up!)

I would define evil as very bad behavior. As far as where the line is drawn between bad behavior verses very bad behavior is probably a matter of opinion. What I might call evil another might call bad behavior and visa versa. There are some things that most people would agree is evil such as what Amin, Hitler, or Gasey did. If God were to prevent evil it would be up to him to decide what is evil that is worth intervening in verses what is simply bad behavior, which is allowed to happen.

Ken