Why does God allow evil to exist on Earth?

[elman]

True. Then again, for an omniscient omnipotent creator god everything is boring.
(Let alone that you are side-tracking from the point that having "freewill" and having the illusion of "freewill" feels the same.)

I don't know what is boring to God and what is not. I agree reality and illusion would feel the same but I see not reason to believer our observance of our ability to make decisions and effects our world is illusion.

 

[elman]

Originally Posted by loudatheist101
This is really....dumb. To me. I recently read the book "Night" about the Holocuast and, it's disturbing what happend. People would throw infants up into the air and shoot them. Yet, you think God is letting this unbelievable suffering happen so we can "learn". Why couldn't we be born knowing these mistakes? Free will? Yeah right. Those infants thrown up in the sky and shot at for target practice had no free will or choice. God has the power to steer hurricanes out of the way of big cities too. That tornado recently killed 8 kids in a high school. How is it their fualt nature killed them, why couldn't God steer the tornado to an area not filled with a bunch of innocent children learning? I don't know how an all powerful and all loving God could do this.

Just restating this again, and yes, "free will" that you all talk about is most certainly an allusion. It's all chance. If something good happens, thank God for it! If something bad happens, it's a punishment for sin or, maybe God is trying to tell us something!

You are saying these people did not chose to do that? Why should I believe it is an illusion that they could have decided differently? When something bad like that happens it is not a punishment for sin, it is the consequences of sin, or it is the consequences of living in a world of pain and suffering When men hurt others it is being unloving and it is a choice. God did not do the infants for target paractice. Man did.

 

[loudatheist101]

You are saying these people did not chose to do that? Why should I believe it is an illusion that they could have decided differently? When something bad like that happens it is not a punishment for sin, it is the consequences of sin, or it is the consequences of living in a world of pain and suffering When men hurt others it is being unloving and it is a choice. God did not do the infants for target paractice. Man did.

God should have stoped it, because the *infants getting shot* had no choice at all. Their captors did but, the babies themselves did not. The thing you don't understand is, God is also "All knowing" so, He must have known the Hollacaust and any major disaster was going to happen. He must. How can someone all knowing and all powerful not? God must have known Adam would not obey his orders. God must have known all of our mistakes before we do them, if he really is all knowing and powerful.

 

[quatona]

I don't know what is boring to God and what is not.

Then why did you bring it up, in the first place?
Anyways, to me it´s pretty simple: Something entirely foreknown isn´t thrilling.

I agree reality and illusion would feel the same but I see not reason to believer our observance of our ability to make decisions and effects our world is illusion.

Sure you don´t. Since that´s the way illusions work it doesn´t tell me much.
Anyways, I brought this up in response to a certain claim of yours: "We need freewill to be happy." No, we either need "freewill" or the illusion of "freewill" and to experience ourselves as doing good or not so good.
If you want to respond to this objection, you are welcome.

 

[elman]

God should have stoped it, because the *infants getting shot* had no choice at all. Their captors did but, the babies themselves did not. The thing you don't understand is, God is also "All knowing" so, He must have known the Hollacaust and any major disaster was going to happen. He must. How can someone all knowing and all powerful not? God must have known Adam would not obey his orders. God must have known all of our mistakes before we do them, if he really is all knowing and powerful.

Maybe you don't understand the bottom line, the reason we exist and perhaps the reason we exist causes us to have to have the ability to hurt other people since in order for us to be loving to other people we have to have the ability to not be loving. I think He did know when He created you and I that we would be unloving to other people, but He also knew that we would be able to mature into loving people and that was the goal He was trying to achieve.

 

[elman]

=quatona;32491551]Then why did you bring it up, in the first place?
Anyways, to me it´s pretty simple: Something entirely foreknown isn´t thrilling.

I think maybe you brought up that God would be bored.

Sure you don´t. Since that´s the way illusions work it doesn´t tell me much.
Anyways, I brought this up in response to a certain claim of yours: "We need freewill to be happy." No, we either need "freewill" or the illusion of "freewill" and to experience ourselves as doing good or not so good.
If you want to respond to this objection, you are welcome.

I think I said we need free will to be able to love others and that would be the source of happiness. Yes I agree if we are being fooled by illusion we would not know the difference, but why should we assume we are being fooled?

 

[quatona]

I think maybe you brought up that God would be bored.

You just have to look it up. My post #73 (talking about the robots=the creatures in this analogy), your post #79 (changing the subject to the maker i.e. god in this analogy, assuming that it might be boring for him).

I think I said we need free will to be able to love others and that would be the source of happiness. Yes I agree if we are being fooled by illusion we would not know the difference,

Ok, that´s all I wanted to get across.

but why should we assume we are being fooled?

1. What do I know? God´s ways are mysterious.
2. I didn´t say we should assume it. I said that the statement "we need "freewill" in order to be happy and experience ourselves as loving or unloving" is inaccurate.
3. elman, you yourself are so quick to judge people who disagree with your perception as insane or deluded - you can´t be seriously asking why someone´s perception might be inaccurate.
Plus your own theology assumes that the truth is incomprehensible and hidden from us. So don´t tell me you think it´s unreasonable not to unconditionally trust our experience.
4. You have a habit of loading what I have said with implications that were not in my original statements. "Fooled" assumes someone who fools us; this is not what I would be thinking of. In the same way that you keep using the term "we are forced" to paraphrase deterministic notions.

 

[elman]

=quatona;32520659]

2. I didn´t say we should assume it. I said that the statement "we need "freewill" in order to be happy and experience ourselves as loving or unloving" is inaccurate.

Ok it is inaccurate if we are being fooled into thinking what we are observing is real when it is not.

3. elman, you yourself are so quick to judge people who disagree with your perception as insane or deluded - you can´t be seriously asking why someone´s perception might be inaccurate.
Plus your own theology assumes that the truth is incomprehensible and hidden from us. So don´t tell me you think it´s unreasonable not to unconditionally trust our experience.

I never said to unconditionally trust our experiences. I do say don't unconditionally distruct them for no reason.

4. You have a habit of loading what I have said with implications that were not in my original statements. "Fooled" assumes someone who fools us; this is not what I would be thinking of. In the same way that you keep using the term "we are forced" to paraphrase deterministic notions.

That is a misinterpretation of what I was saying, but if we are being fooled into thinking something is real when it is not, that is a valid word for what is happening. Also if we are not able to make decisions, that means something are someone is making decisions for us and we are being fooled into thinking they are our decisions. Deterministic would be the opposite of being able to make our own decisions. It seems to me that the decsions we make, if they are not our own, are being forced on us since we are not able to chose them but cannot escape them and the consequences of them.

 

[elman]

=quatona;32520659]

2. I didn´t say we should assume it. I said that the statement "we need "freewill" in order to be happy and experience ourselves as loving or unloving" is inaccurate.

Ok it is inaccurate if we are being fooled into thinking what we are observing is real when it is not.

3. elman, you yourself are so quick to judge people who disagree with your perception as insane or deluded - you can´t be seriously asking why someone´s perception might be inaccurate.
Plus your own theology assumes that the truth is incomprehensible and hidden from us. So don´t tell me you think it´s unreasonable not to unconditionally trust our experience.

I never said to unconditionally trust our experiences. I do say don't unconditionally distruct them for no reason.

4. You have a habit of loading what I have said with implications that were not in my original statements. "Fooled" assumes someone who fools us; this is not what I would be thinking of. In the same way that you keep using the term "we are forced" to paraphrase deterministic notions.

That is a misinterpretation of what I was saying, but if we are being fooled into thinking something is real when it is not, that is a valid word for what is happening. Also if we are not able to make decisions, that means something or someone is making decisions for us and we are being fooled into thinking they are our decisions. Deterministic would be the opposite of being able to make our own decisions. It seems to me that the decisions we make, if they are not our own, are being forced on us since we are not able to chose them but cannot escape them and the consequences of them.

 

[quatona]

=quatona;32520659]
Ok it is inaccurate if we are being fooled into thinking what we are observing is real when it is not.

No, the statement as it is is inaccurate. It pretends that there is only one option whilst in fact there are at least two.

I never said to unconditionally trust our experiences. I do say don't unconditionally distruct them for no reason.

Well, people here have filled pages after pages with reasons why to question our idea of a self and "freewill". So there are reasons. Whether you find them convincing is another question.

That is a misinterpretation of what I was saying, but if we are being fooled into thinking something is real when it is not, that is a valid word for what is happening.

Yes, if we are being fooled "being fooled" is a valid word for it. Yet, I am not talking about being fooled. I am talking about having illusions.

Also if we are not able to make decisions, that means something are someone is making decisions for us and we are being fooled into thinking they are our decisions.

No, that does not follow.

Deterministic would be the opposite of being able to make our own decisions.

Yes. The "our own" is redundant, though: It would be the opposite of making decisions. (There wouldn´t have to be any agent making the decisions for us, instead -which the "our own" is implying).

It seems to me that the decsions we make, if they are not our own, are being forced on us since we are not able to chose them but cannot escape them and the consequences of them.

No, they wouldn´t be decisions, in the first place.
Think of the things you think don´t have "freewill": stones, trees, cars, bugs , etc. You wouldn´t say that the decisions of a tree are forced upon it, but you would say that a tree doesn´t make any decisions. Same with us if our actions, thoughts, changes, developments are determined.

 

[Red530]

This is really....dumb. To me. I recently read the book "Night" about the Holocuast and, it's disturbing what happend. People would throw infants up into the air and shoot them. Yet, you think God is letting this unbelievable suffering happen so we can "learn". Why couldn't we be born knowing these mistakes? Free will? Yeah right. Those infants thrown up in the sky and shot at for target practice had no free will or choice. God has the power to steer hurricanes out of the way of big cities too. That tornado recently killed 8 kids in a high school. How is it their fualt nature killed them, why couldn't God steer the tornado to an area not filled with a bunch of innocent children learning? I don't know how an all powerful and all loving God could do this.

I read Night, an awesome book. Surely sad. And it was that of the Nazi's fault, not God's. Of course God wants to stop it, but he gave us creation and we are supposed to claim it ourselves and take full responsiblity for it. A construction manager builds the apartment building for the owner; after it is built it is full responsibility of the owner.

"The simple answer is that it is no good asking God to get rid of all suffering, because in doing so, knowing that we are to blame for most of it, He would have to get rid of all of us, and we would then be demanding our own demise."

"
It is much like a game of chess: There are rules in the game which must be applied consistently throughout. Certainly we make mistakes and pieces are taken from us, so that in the end we will win or lose the game depending on how many pieces are left. We enjoy it when the opponent loses a piece, and this brings us happiness, yet we do not carry the same sentiment when on the next move our own piece is eliminated. While we could say that losing a piece is horrible and painful and therefore is not just, we would not change the rules so that no-one would lose a piece, because then it would no longer be the game of chess."

"The third question concerns why, if there is a loving God, does He not intervene and stop the bad actions of bad men? Certainly the innocent should not have to suffer at the hands of those who are evil? Where is the justice in that?

To begin with, we need to look at what the humanist is demanding. In order to fulfill this obligation God would have to intervene all the time, and thus alter the laws of nature: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when used as a weapon, or a knife blade became putty in the hands of an aggressor, or the bullet of the assassin disintegrated in mid-flight. It would be impossible to imagine a world like this. Life would be a mass of confusion, as there would be no longer any rules which we would be held accountable to. Like the chess game, the fact that there are rules and consequences to our actions gives the game its relevance and makes it worth playing. In order to create persons with free will there had to be a predictable universe, which included both evil and good. Thus the possibility of evil is inherent in the very existence of freedom. Yet because of man's rebellion one of the inescapable consequences of this was suffering, whether mental or physical, whether self-inflicted or by another. While we love freedom, we tend not to like the consequences which go with it; yet we cannot have one without the other."

 

[loudatheist101]

I read Night, an awesome book. Surely sad. And it was that of the Nazi's fault, not God's. Of course God wants to stop it, but he gave us creation and we are supposed to claim it ourselves and take full responsiblity for it. A construction manager builds the apartment building for the owner; after it is built it is full responsibility of the owner.

"The simple answer is that it is no good asking God to get rid of all suffering, because in doing so, knowing that we are to blame for most of it, He would have to get rid of all of us, and we would then be demanding our own demise."

"
It is much like a game of chess: There are rules in the game which must be applied consistently throughout. Certainly we make mistakes and pieces are taken from us, so that in the end we will win or lose the game depending on how many pieces are left. We enjoy it when the opponent loses a piece, and this brings us happiness, yet we do not carry the same sentiment when on the next move our own piece is eliminated. While we could say that losing a piece is horrible and painful and therefore is not just, we would not change the rules so that no-one would lose a piece, because then it would no longer be the game of chess."

"The third question concerns why, if there is a loving God, does He not intervene and stop the bad actions of bad men? Certainly the innocent should not have to suffer at the hands of those who are evil? Where is the justice in that?

To begin with, we need to look at what the humanist is demanding. In order to fulfill this obligation God would have to intervene all the time, and thus alter the laws of nature: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when used as a weapon, or a knife blade became putty in the hands of an aggressor, or the bullet of the assassin disintegrated in mid-flight. It would be impossible to imagine a world like this. Life would be a mass of confusion, as there would be no longer any rules which we would be held accountable to. Like the chess game, the fact that there are rules and consequences to our actions gives the game its relevance and makes it worth playing. In order to create persons with free will there had to be a predictable universe, which included both evil and good. Thus the possibility of evil is inherent in the very existence of freedom. Yet because of man's rebellion one of the inescapable consequences of this was suffering, whether mental or physical, whether self-inflicted or by another. While we love freedom, we tend not to like the consequences which go with it; yet we cannot have one without the other."

It's more like, a mysterious guy, just creates the store. No one knows how, he just does. He gives us no evidence he made the store, but we have a book talking about it that was written by the owners of the store, not the creator of it. The creator says he loves all of them and knows everything and is all powerful. Yet, if one owner kills 6 other owners, the creator just stands there and watches. Some owners will say "Oh! Well it's not his problem!" Even though the book talking about the guy that made the store says the guy that made it is always there, all loving, all knowing, and all powerful. Strange huh?

 

[Red530]

Of course it's the owner's problem for killing the other owner, because he killed him with his own hands. Why does this mysterious creator need to jump in and defend? Because he loves us? Unconditional love does exist, in which you love, but you also allow.

I'm reading the quotes I added and they make so much sense, and I'm amazed that they don't to you. And no, it's not because you're atheist.

Here's a good page: http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/suffer.htm Tell me what you think of it.

 

[loudatheist101]

Of course it's the owner's problem for killing the other owner, because he killed him with his own hands. Why does this mysterious creator need to jump in and defend? Because he loves us? Unconditional love does exist, in which you love, but you also allow.

I'm reading the quotes I added and they make so much sense, and I'm amazed that they don't to you. And no, it's not because you're atheist.

Here's a good page: http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/suffer.htm Tell me what you think of it.

Ok, if that link about your god is true, then he is either carelss, or he forgets that HE was the one that decided to make us inperfect and mistake making beings in the first place. When those babies in "Night" got thrown up in the air and got shot, God didn't save those innocent babies because someone else did not flatter Him? Seriously? (God must be pro-choice then if he allows that to happen)

 

[Red530]

Actually, they believed in God, but that has nothing to do with this discussion, whether you believe in him/her or not.

With death, there is also a time everyone has to leave life, and it is logical to believe it whether an atheist or a believer.
Life is a plan, and if the babies were to die a horrible death, then it was their time to go. I sure as hell wished the Holocaust didn't happen, but we can't stop it and God does not want to, because it is life that must be fulfilled.

 

[loudatheist101]

Actually, they believed in God, but that has nothing to do with this discussion, whether you believe in him/her or not.

With death, there is also a time everyone has to leave life, and it is logical to believe it whether an atheist or a believer.
Life is a plan, and if the babies were to die a horrible death, then it was their time to go. I sure as hell wished the Holocaust didn't happen, but we can't stop it and God does not want to, because it is life that must be fulfilled.

The sufferning of babies? Nice end to their 5 week life.

If God created and planned the babies' lives, he planned Hitler's too.

If He plans our lives, wheres the free will? He must have planned for us atheists not to believe in Him too I guess. (Assuming He existed)

 

[Red530]

That's the debate Christians are having.

Yes, God planned Hitler's life, for sure.

When I say the word "plan," though, I'm not talking about, "Well, he's going to be a horrible dictator who demands the killing of the Jews; he's going to be a millionare....," I mean the way God knows the actions you will take in the future, whether it's a minute, a day, a week, month, year, decades....

He knew you wouldn't believe in Him, but is he stopping you, no. If he were to stop you, wouldn't you be pretty angry and upset that someone is trying to control your beliefs? Honestly, that would suck.

 

[quatona]

That's the debate Christians are having.

Yes, God planned Hitler's life, for sure.

When I say the word "plan," though, I'm not talking about, "Well, he's going to be a horrible dictator who demands the killing of the Jews; he's going to be a millionare....," I mean the way God knows the actions you will take in the future, whether it's a minute, a day, a week, month, year, decades....

I can´t seem to follow this distinction. I don´t see the difference between the two.

He knew you wouldn't believe in Him, but is he stopping you, no. If he were to stop you, wouldn't you be pretty angry and upset that someone is trying to control your beliefs? Honestly, that would suck.

If god controlled my belief, I wouldn´t even notice it, in the first place. There are so many beliefs that are like hardwired into us (which, in your terminology, means that god controls them), so one more or less wouldn´t make much of a difference. If I would naturally believe in god, I wouldn´t feel controlled, and I see no reason why I would be angry or upset.
The actually funny thing is that this alleged god wants us to believe in him without the evidence that we usually require in order to believe something. Thus, god showing up in a way that doesn´t leave me with any doubts about his existence wouldn´t equal controlling me, in my book.
I don´t control people into believing in my existence if I introduce myself to them, and I haven´t noticed that they were angry or upset because by doing so I hard pressed them to believe that I existed.

 

[elman]

The sufferning of babies? Nice end to their 5 week life.

If God created and planned the babies' lives, he planned Hitler's too.

If He plans our lives, wheres the free will? He must have planned for us atheists not to believe in Him too I guess. (Assuming He existed)

I agree, Hitler did what he did and God did not do it or force Hitler to do it. The babies also were not killed by God but evil men.

 

[loudatheist101]

I agree, Hitler did what he did and God did not do it or force Hitler to do it. The babies also were not killed by God but evil men.

Well God should have saved those beyond innocent infants from that sufferning pain. And, if God plans things, and if He is all powerful, He should've known this would happen before it actually did.