Why God allows evil

[zippy2006]

The insane stretches of logic and reasoning that believers go through to explain why God allows terrible things to happen when he is capable of stopping them, and then trying to claim that God allowing terrible things to happen is actually a good thing.

Honestly, if you can't see how that makes no sense, I'm not sure we'd be able to have a fruitful discussion about it.

No, kiddo, I want a concrete example. You don't get to just fling your arms in the air and do the propaganda dance. Let's see a quote from this thread where you were given an answer that makes no sense, preferably a quote from me.

 

[Kylie]

No, kiddo, I want a concrete example. You don't get to just fling your arms in the air and do the propaganda dance. Let's see a quote from this thread where you were given an answer that makes no sense, preferably a quote from me.

Post 111: "God could have created in such a way that evil would not be able to exist. He didn't do that, and as a Christian I believe that it is better the way he did create, though we will not understand fully until the end."

In other words, God could have made it so there was no evil, but he made it so there was evil, and that's a good thing, even though you don't know why.

Please don't bother trying to explain why it makes sense. I know it makes sense to you, but that's because you are motivated to believe that it makes sense. In other words, it makes sense to you because your biases require it to make sense to you. Since I do not share your biases, it doesn't make sense to me, and it can't ever make sense to anyone who doesn't share your biases because the biases you have are an essential part of it.

 

[zippy2006]

Post 111: "God could have created in such a way that evil would not be able to exist. He didn't do that, and as a Christian I believe that it is better the way he did create, though we will not understand fully until the end."

Great, thanks.

Please don't bother trying to explain why it makes sense. I know it makes sense to you, but that's because you are motivated to believe that it makes sense. In other words, it makes sense to you because your biases require it to make sense to you. Since I do not share your biases, it doesn't make sense to me, and it can't ever make sense to anyone who doesn't share your biases because the biases you have are an essential part of it.

Lol, okay. I won't. You have verified post #130 in a painfully acute way.

 

[Ken-1122]

If it isn't all bad things unconditionally, then why can't God allow some evils?

I think he should draw the line at evil. Not necessarily bad; evil.

Okay. At this point I am going to lead by example and do something that I wish others would do. I am going to quote where you said it. In this post you said, "If God doesn’t want to stop bad things from happening, either God isn’t good, or we are incapable of determining what is good. So which is it?" By affirming the dilemma ("So which is it?") you necessarily affirm the antecedent of your conditional statement ("God doesn't want to stop bad things from happening"). Again, I disagree with your statement. God does desire to stop bad things from happening.

I am giving you the benefit of doubt that God wants to stop evil. But when I see examples like Stalin killing over 20 million innocent people, I call that an example of evil; yet God didn’t stop him. So are you saying those deaths weren’t an act of evil? Or that God wanted to stop it but for some reason he did not. What are you saying here?

 

[Kylie]

Lol, okay. I won't. You have verified post #130 in a painfully acute way.

I'm utterly confused as to how me pointing out the inconsistencies of your arguments is me seeking a safe space. Seems to me that the thing that's preventing an "authentic consideration and exchange of ideas" is the biases that I mentioned you have.

 

[zippy2006]

I'm utterly confused as to how me pointing out the inconsistencies of your arguments is me seeking a safe space. Seems to me that the thing that's preventing an "authentic consideration and exchange of ideas" is the biases that I mentioned you have.

You literally claim to understand everything so well (including my alleged "biases") that you explicitly reject an explanation of your interlocutor's position. You are so locked up in your own little world that you honestly believe external input would be pointless (and are therefore incapable of dialogue). You claim that the answer does not make sense and then refuse to listen to an explanation of the answer. The icing on the cake is that you misrepresent the positions you claim to know so well at every turn. This is a kind of atheist fundamentalism in the extreme, and a perfect instantiation of post #130.

 

[Kylie]

Okay. At this point I am going to lead by example and do something that I wish others would do. I am going to quote where you said it. In this post you said, "If God doesn’t want to stop bad things from happening, either God isn’t good, or we are incapable of determining what is good. So which is it?" By affirming the dilemma ("So which is it?") you necessarily affirm the antecedent of your conditional statement ("God doesn't want to stop bad things from happening"). Again, I disagree with your statement. God does desire to stop bad things from happening.

I don't see how you can reach that conclusions. Ken started out with a conditional statement: "If God doesn’t want to stop bad things from happening..."

So what he's actually saying (in my estimation) is: "If we proceed on the assumption that God wants to stop bad things, we'll have either option A or option B." And then, by showing that both of the options are inconsistent with your earlier claims, he shows that the original conditional statement is wrong.

Let me give a simpler example.

Let's say I tell my daughter to take the sheets off her bed. Later, she tells me that she has. I can say, "If you have taken the sheets off your bed, I will find that either your bed is stripped down to the mattress, or you have put clean sheets on already."

Basically, IF a certain condition has been met, I will find that one of two situations is the case. If I find that neither of these situations is the case, I can conclude that the initial condition has not been met. For example, if I find that the sheets are still scrunched up at the foot of the bed, I know she has not taken the sheets off the bed.

 

[Kylie]

You literally claim to understand everything so well (including my alleged "biases") that you explicitly reject an explanation of your interlocutor's position. You are so locked up in your own little world that you honestly believe external input would be pointless (and are therefore incapable of dialogue). You claim that the answer does not make sense and then refuse to listen to an explanation of the answer. The icing on the cake is that you misrepresent the positions you claim to know so well at every turn. This is a kind of atheist fundamentalism in the extreme, and a perfect instantiation of post #130.

What I understand is that you make claims, you provide no support whatsoever for them, you admit you don't understand them and yet you still insist you are right. And yet you prefer to blame me for not wanting to learn, perhaps assuming that I haven't been hearing the same twisted logic from Christians to justify their beliefs for over a decade.

BTW, if you think this is atheist fundamentalism, then I hope I never see you saying that atheism is just another religion and is just as bad as Christianity. Because you've just admitted that it isn't. Atheist fundamentalism = not listening to explanations for twisted logic. Christian fundamentalism = shooting people at abortion clinics, killing gay people, etc.

 

[pc_76]

Post 111: "God could have created in such a way that evil would not be able to exist. He didn't do that, and as a Christian I believe that it is better the way he did create, though we will not understand fully until the end."

In other words, God could have made it so there was no evil, but he made it so there was evil, and that's a good thing, even though you don't know why.

Please don't bother trying to explain why it makes sense. I know it makes sense to you, but that's because you are motivated to believe that it makes sense. In other words, it makes sense to you because your biases require it to make sense to you. Since I do not share your biases, it doesn't make sense to me, and it can't ever make sense to anyone who doesn't share your biases because the biases you have are an essential part of it.

The reason I have is that I do believe many Christians in a certain way lack introspective of the suffering and protest of others because of their strong positive belief and opinion of their God. And so much for that belief that evil and sin are bad things too.

 

[zippy2006]

I don't see how you can reach that conclusions. Ken started out with a conditional statement: "If God doesn’t want to stop bad things from happening..."

So what he's actually saying (in my estimation) is: "If we proceed on the assumption that God wants to stop bad things, we'll have either option A or option B." And then, by showing that both of the options are inconsistent with your earlier claims, he shows that the original conditional statement is wrong.

So his aim was to prove that the antecedent was wrong, and that God does want to stop bad things from happening? You think he was aiming at a modus tollens on the entire disjunction? The reason that makes no sense is simple: the atheist is not trying to prove that God wants to stop bad things from happening. The context of our conversation makes this particularly clear. In fact if you were correct, then when I said I deny the antecedent he should have replied, "Good! So do I! That was my whole point!" He didn't do that.

As I already pointed out, he was trying to saddle me with a dilemma ("So which is it?"). The form is (P -> (x v y)), where P is a communally accepted antecedent that implicates the problematic dilemma between x and y.

Let me give a simpler example.

Let's say I tell my daughter to take the sheets off her bed. Later, she tells me that she has. I can say, "If you have taken the sheets off your bed, I will find that either your bed is stripped down to the mattress, or you have put clean sheets on already."

Not at all. Your example is a case of arguendo, which is completely different. You are supposing your daughter's premise for the sake of argument; Ken asserted a premise (antecedent) that I explicitly disagree with. The dynamic is completely different.

Basically, IF a certain condition has been met, I will find that one of two situations is the case. If I find that neither of these situations is the case, I can conclude that the initial condition has not been met. For example, if I find that the sheets are still scrunched up at the foot of the bed, I know she has not taken the sheets off the bed.

See above.

 

[Kylie]

The reason I have is that I do believe many Christians in a certain way lack introspective of the suffering and protest of others because of their strong positive belief and opinion of their God. And so much for that belief that evil and sin are bad things too.

Are you suggesting that sin and evil are not bad things?

 

[Kylie]

So his aim was to prove that the antecedent was wrong, and that God does want to stop bad things from happening? You think he was aiming at a modus tollens on the entire disjunction? The reason that makes no sense is simple: the atheist is not trying to prove that God wants to stop bad things from happening. The context of our conversation makes this particularly clear. In fact if you were correct, then when I said I deny the antecedent he should have replied, "Good! So do I! That was my whole point!" He didn't do that.

As I already pointed out, he was trying to saddle me with a dilemma ("So which is it?"). The form is (P -> (x v y)), where P is a communally accepted antecedent that implicates the problematic dilemma between x and y.

Well, I don't know what he was trying to saddle you with, since I haven't been following the conversation between the two of you. I'm just saying that it seems to me that he was simply pointing out:

If P, then A or B. If not A or B, then Not P.

Not at all. Your example is a case of arguendo, which is completely different. You are supposing your daughter's premise for the sake of argument; Ken asserted a premise (antecedent) that I explicitly disagree with. The dynamic is completely different.

See above.

I don't see how.

In both examples, we are saying, "If a certain premise is true, we will see condition A or condition B. We do not agree that condition A or condition B exist, so the premise must be false."

Does that not describe both examples?

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

I think he should draw the line at evil. Not necessarily bad; evil.

I am giving you the benefit of doubt that God wants to stop evil. But when I see examples like Stalin killing over 20 million innocent people, I call that an example of evil; yet God didn’t stop him. So are you saying those deaths weren’t an act of evil? Or that God wanted to stop it but for some reason he did not. What are you saying here?

Just out of curiosity, Ken...

Do you consider abortion evil? In the USA, we have killed some 50 million innocent pre-born people since 1970...

 

[zippy2006]

Well, I don't know what he was trying to saddle you with, since I haven't been following the conversation between the two of you. I'm just saying that it seems to me that he was simply pointing out:

If P, then A or B. If not A or B, then Not P.

Yes, I understand that. As I already pointed out, you are applying modus tollens to the entire disjunction. Let's substitute the terms using the original post:

• (P -> (A v B)); ~(A v B); ∴ ~P
• P: "God doesn’t want to stop bad things from happening"
• A: "God isn’t good"
• B: "We are incapable of determining what is good"

According to your theory his desired conclusion is ~P, which is "God wants to stop bad things from happening." In my previous post I explained why this is an utterly strange conclusion for him to seek. I would advise re-reading that post. "P" is the antecedent of the conditional statement.

I don't see how.

In both examples, we are saying, "If a certain premise is true, we will see condition A or condition B. We do not agree that condition A or condition B exist, so the premise must be false."

Does that not describe both examples?

No, it doesn't. His was a dilemma and yours is a reductio. Again, the difference is whether both parties agree to the antecedent ("P"). In your example your interlocutor agrees with the antecedent and you disagree with it, but you assume the antecedent for the sake of argument. In this thread his interlocutor disagreed with the antecedent and he agreed with it, and he affirmed the antecedent in order to force a dilemma. (His aim was to force a dilemma that is problematic for the theist, not to praise God's motives)

 

[Ken-1122]

So his aim was to prove that the antecedent was wrong, and that God does want to stop bad things from happening? You think he was aiming at a modus tollens on the entire disjunction? The reason that makes no sense is simple: the atheist is not trying to prove that God wants to stop bad things from happening. The context of our conversation makes this particularly clear. In fact if you were correct, then when I said I deny the antecedent he should have replied, "Good! So do I! That was my whole point!" He didn't do that.

Post #144 I made it very clear Kylie was right when she described the position I was making. I have no idea how you could read my post and conclude I was trying to make the point that your God doesn’t want to stop bad things from happening. She was right, you were wrong, you totally missed it on that one my friend; perhaps you should read it again.

 

[zippy2006]

Post #144 I made it very clear Kylie was right when she described the position I was making. I have no idea how you could read my post and conclude I was trying to make the point that your God doesn’t want to stop bad things from happening. She was right, you were wrong, you totally missed it on that one my friend; perhaps you should read it again.

Kylie said you were arguing for ~P, for the idea that God wants to stop bad things from happening. Is that what you were arguing for? For God's integrity? If Kylie is right then you are not very smart, for she is claiming that you were trying to convince a theist that God wants to stop bad things from happening. It would be like me trying to convince an atheist that God doesn't exist. It would be a waste of time. The interlocutor is already in full agreement with the conclusion.

I didn't say you were arguing for P, I said you asserted P to force a dilemma. That's what you did in the post in question. You later changed your tune and produced a new argument.

I realize that most of you haven't had any formal training in logic, and that's fine. Kylie's interpretation that your conclusion was ~P is very strange indeed. Your own shapeshifting arguments are not altogether problematic (nor inconsistent), but they do make it difficult to evaluate a single idea or syllogism.

 

[Ken-1122]

Just out of curiosity, Ken...

Do you consider abortion evil? In the USA, we have killed some 50 million innocent pre-born people since 1970...

Abortion is not a very important issue to me so I know little about it. I think the issue is when the sperm and egg combo becomes a person. Of what I know about the first trimester I have no problem with abortions at that time because it isn’t a person yet. I don’t know enough about the second trimester to judge, but I think the third trimester is a little late to abort; I think it’s a person by then. I guess it’s a matter of where to draw the line, I would draw it somewhere during the second trimester.

 

[zippy2006]

I don't see how you can reach that conclusions. Ken started out with a conditional statement: "If God doesn’t want to stop bad things from happening..."

So what he's actually saying (in my estimation) is: "If we proceed on the assumption that God wants to stop bad things, we'll have either option A or option B." And then, by showing that both of the options are inconsistent with your earlier claims, he shows that the original conditional statement is wrong.

I did notice a discrepancy in Kylie's post. The antecedent colored green is Ken's antecedent, but the antecedent colored red is not his antecedent (but rather the opposite). Obviously both should be the same. Kylie's logic depends on the mistaken version. If she fixes the second version she ought to recognize her mistake. My posts have highlighted the mistake in some detail, so this shouldn't be hard.

 

[Ken-1122]

Kylie said you were arguing for ~P, for the idea that God wants to stop bad things from happening. Is that what you were arguing for? For God's integrity?

I giving you the benefit of doubt that if God wants to stop evil, but then asking, if he wants to stop it, why is there evil?

 

[zippy2006]

I giving you the benefit of doubt that if God wants to stop evil, but then asking, if he wants to stop it, why is there evil?

Yes, I understand your new argument, but it is considerably different from the argument you gave in post #131. Kylie and I are talking about the argument given in post #131, not the newer versions. I will return to your newer arguments in time; I have not forgotten.