Why do people believe in evolution?

[HitchSlap]

Theodicy by G.W. Leibniz is a very good reading on this topic.

This book (and author) is unique in the area of "how can there be a good God and still an evil in the creation".

Let me guess, it’s our fault, but he loves us?

 

[trophy33]

Let me guess, it’s our fault, but he loves us?

No. Leibniz is quite a different league
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Theodicy, by G. W. Leibniz

Or you you want just a quick summary:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Theodicy, by G. W. Leibniz

 

[HitchSlap]

No. Leibniz is quite a different league
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Theodicy, by G. W. Leibniz

Or you you want just a quick summary:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Theodicy, by G. W. Leibniz

A sentence or two will be fine.

 

[trophy33]

A sentence or two will be fine.

But simplified to be useless.

These deep problems need also a deep study and thinking.

 

[HitchSlap]

But simplified to be useless.

These deep problems need also a deep study and thinking.

Incorrect. If you can’t explain things in simple terms, then you don’t understand it. I haven’t looked at your links, but I’m willing to bet it boils down to every ‘serious’ study of theodicy I’ve ever read. Usually that it’s necessary for human salvation, and it s a result of man’s “sin.”

CMV

 

[trophy33]

Incorrect. If you can’t explain things in simple terms, then you don’t understand it. I haven’t looked at your links, but I’m willing to bet it boils down to every ‘serious’ study of theodicy I’ve ever read. Usually that it’s necessary for human salvation, and it s a result of man’s “sin.”

CMV

You must get yourself oriented in the problem and in the related terms, in the first place.

Metaphysical problems like the origin of evil and the role of such supreme being as God in it is not some quick topic somebody will explain you properly in two sentences.
You are rightly not satisfied with the answers you got till now, because you looked for the quick and primitive ones, like from children.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You must get yourself oriented in the problem and in the related terms, in the first place.

Metaphysical problems like the origin of evil and the role of such supreme being as God in it is not some quick topic somebody will explain you properly in two sentences.
You are rightly not satisfied with the answers you got till now, because you looked for the quick and primitive ones, like from children.

It is rightly said that 'Philosophers ask questions like children and answer them like lawyers'

OTOH, a summary of the core argument should be possible.

 

[trophy33]

It is rightly said that 'Philosophers ask questions like children and answer them like lawyers'

And who asks like a lawyer and expects answers like from a child?

A summary of the core argument should be possible.

Something like this?
Summary of the controversy reduced to formal arguments - Theodicy, by G. W. Leibniz

 

[AV1611VET]

And who asks like a lawyer and expects answers like from a child?

Those who are "sore displeased" with Jesus.

Matthew 21:15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased,
16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

 

[trophy33]

Those who are "sore displeased" with Jesus.

Matthew 21:15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased,
16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

Thats a totally different context

 

[AV1611VET]

Thats a totally different context

Yes.

Today they have been replaced with educatees.

 

[trophy33]

Yes.

Today they have been replaced with educatees.

No. It was not a philosophical or scientific debate, it was about them not liking that children praised Him as being the promised Christ.

Nothing similar to these forums where we discuss our ideas as humans-to-humans, as equals. Instead of humans-to-God in flesh.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nothing similar to these forums where we discuss our ideas as humans-to-humans, as equals.

Right.

And I'm Genghis Khan, who can't get a single light bulb to come on to save me.

I've been called everything but what's in my profile, and any attempts to explain myself gets handwaved away.

Just recently I tried to explain to someone what Embedded Age Creation is, and he didn't hear a thing I said.

 

[trophy33]

Just recently I tried to explain to someone what Embedded Age Creation is, and he didn't hear a thing I said.

We hear you, but you do not like questioning the validity of your presentations. Its like you are trying to preach to us instead of to have a discussion in which your ideas can be tried, weighted and judged.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And who asks like a lawyer and expects answers like from a child?


Something like this?
Summary of the controversy reduced to formal arguments - Theodicy, by G. W. Leibniz

Yes - thanks for that.

Skimming through, he rebuts a number of weak arguments (from determinism, etc), but seems to make several arguments from the 'Greater Good' (e.g. 'there is evil because it is necessary for the greater good'), which are arguably weak, but can also, with equal weight, be inverted in support of an evil God (e.g. 'there is some good in the world because it is necessary for the greater evil'). Surprisingly, he uses an argument from belief - denying a proposition because he believes it to be mistaken. Finally, he uses an argument combining God Works In Mysterious Ways and the argument from perfection (begging the question?), i.e. 'things can only be the way they are because God is perfect'.

So, frankly, I don't find his arguments compelling or particularly interesting.

 

[trophy33]

Yes - thanks for that.

Skimming through, he rebuts a number of weak arguments (from determinism, etc), but seems to make several arguments from the 'Greater Good' (e.g. 'there is evil because it is necessary for the greater good'), which are arguably weak, but can also, with equal weight, be inverted in support of an evil God (e.g. 'there is some good in the world because it is necessary for the greater evil'). Surprisingly, he uses an argument from belief - denying a proposition because he believes it to be mistaken. Finally, he uses an argument combining God Works In Mysterious Ways and the argument from perfection (begging the question?), i.e. 'things can only be the way they are because God is perfect'.

So, frankly, I don't find his arguments compelling or particularly interesting.

Why exactly is, for example, the argument for the necessity of evil from "the Greater Good" weak?

From our personal experience, the good is really greater when we realize it. And we realize it when we (at least temporarily) loose it, like health.

 

[AV1611VET]

We hear you, but you do not like questioning the validity of your presentations. Its like you are trying to preach to us instead of to have a discussion in which your ideas can be tried, weighted and judged.

Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

 

[trophy33]

Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

6 years ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

6 years ago.

Okay, chief, let's go over this yet again, since I could talk about creation all day.

God created the earth with age embedded in it.

Why?

Adam Clarke answers it best:

It appears that God created every thing, not only perfect as it respects its nature, but also in a state of maturity, so that every vegetable production appeared at once in full growth; and this was necessary that man, when he came into being, might find every thing ready for his use.

God did not "plant fake scars" anywhere. He created the universe in absolute perfection.

Adam didn't have a navel, as that would constitute Omphalism; and by the same token, the earth didn't have scars, the moon didn't have craters, and Mars didn't have canals.

 

[Larniavc]

Why exactly is, for example, the argument for the necessity of evil from "the Greater Good" weak?

From our personal experience, the good is really greater when we realize it. And we realize it when we (at least temporarily) loose it, like health.

Because it’s like saying you have to have your foot broken so that you can appreciate not having your leg broken.

Why not just have nothing broken (evil in this case is the breaking)?