The Problem Of Evil?

[Sparko]

Yes, that's clear. I'm just joining in. Her point is that it's a false analogy to compare human parents and their actions to God's "parenting", if that's right word. I kind of agree, but not aggressively, it's an interesting discussion. I'm just saying that if we can't legitimately criticize God because he is beyond our understanding (which I think is a fair point) we should also refrain from positive (flattering) statements about God for the same reason. It's actually a new thought to me, which is why I'm airing it here. Your comments would be appreciated.

Thanks for the guidance about the thread.

God makes a point of describing himself in terms of a parent in the bible and us as his children. So if that analogy is good enough for God, it is good enough for me. Hypatia just didn't want to accept the analogy so she made up an excuse that God was omniscient and omnipotent so we can't use human analogies because apparently he is beyond our understanding. I was just throwing her own argument back in her face. I think it is perfectly fine to use such analogies and to try to understand God's motivations and try to explain them. But if she thinks that God is so far beyond human understanding then she can't turn around and try to criticize what God is doing about evil.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Nope, that doesn't follow. God is a life giver, Creator. We own our very existence to Him. Just because you, in your limited sinful understanding, don't like the way He does things does not mean that He is not perfectly good or just. Or not worthy of praise. Christian, Jews and even Muslims see the same world that you do, yet we still praise God and do not question His goodness.

That is an theological belief not a fact.

[tabibito]

That is an theological belief not a fact.

Christians are hardly going to pander to your flawed perceptions of fact.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

God makes a point of describing himself in terms of a parent in the bible and us as his children.

That is one of the various anthropomorphic views of the deity in the OT [there are several others]. However, this deity did not describe itself anywhere in those biblical texts. Unless you believe the deity penned the words itself.

So if that analogy is good enough for God, it is good enough for me. Hypatia just didn't want to accept the analogy so she made up an excuse that God was omniscient and omnipotent so we can't use human analogies because apparently he is beyond our understanding.

Do you not believe your deity to be both omniscient and omnipotent?

[tabibito]

That is one of the various anthropomorphic views of the deity in the OT [there are several others]. However, this deity did not describe itself anywhere in those biblical texts. Unless you believe the deity penned the words itself.

Hardly - Citing someone's own words when he speaks of himself is considered to be a record of that person's own self description. Christians would have to believe that the prophets who claimed to be citing God's own words were lying before your claim could be accepted.

[Sparko]

That is one of the various anthropomorphic views of the deity in the OT [there are several others]. However, this deity did not describe itself anywhere in those biblical texts. Unless you believe the deity penned the words itself.

we believe he directly inspired the authors of the books in the bible and they accurately recorded his words. We also believe that Jesus was God and he clearly described the familial relationship between God and mankind. That you don't believe it is irrelevant for the purposes of this conversation which is discussing "the problem of evil" in which you have to assume the God of the bible is real in order to discuss it.

Do you not believe your deity to be both omniscient and omnipotent?

Of course. But he is also loving, just and merciful. Which is why he has delayed the punishment of evil and given us a way out of the punishment.

But if your excuse is that we can't understand an omniscient and omnipotent being, so we can't explain his motivations, then you also cannot criticize such a being based on your limited understanding and flawed morals.

[Markus River]

Right. You hate God and you dislike me since I didn’t let you know about a decision about your infraction that I had no idea about.

Second part first.
The appeal decision is concluded, with both sides agreeing on the outcome. Your involvement, or otherwise, was not relevant.
As for disliking you? I don’t know you, so how could I dislike you? Or come to that, anyone else on TWeb. To me, “mossrose” is a handle and an avatar on a web forum, who is usually, but not always, on the other side of the philosophical fence. Along with everyone else here, I know nothing about you personally, other than that which comes out in conversation from time to time.

First part second.
Of course I don’t “hate God”, I’m a non-believer. How could I hate something for which I have no belief? Hating God would be as foolish as hating Odin, Zeus, Vishnu or any other god, for which I have no belief, from the pantheon. I was simply responding to what I considered was your line of unsubstantiated, and rather preachy, comments regarding designers and their plans.

It is pointless now for me to continue to explain to you and HA about the nature of this topic. You are both blind and cannot see the truths before you. I pray you both change your choice before it is too late for you.

At this point, some flippant and sarcastic response would normally be inserted. But there isn’t much point in doing so here. You clearly believe what you preach, and antagonism for the sake of it would achieve nothing here but a short lived, warm glow of self-congratulation, achieving nothing productive. So that's where I'll leave it.

[seer]

That is an theological belief not a fact.

God is a fact, the most concrete fact possible.

[Machinist]

Got a question about moral realism:

when you suggest this view, doesn't that assume there is an objective realm of moral forms ?

[Machinist]

God is a fact, the most concrete fact possible.

This is a True statement.

[seer]

Got a question about moral realism:

when you suggest this view, doesn't that assume there is an objective realm of moral forms ?

Yes, if they existed they would be in the Platonic forms sense, I suppose (I don't actually believe they exist though). But I believe the majority of atheistic philosophers hold to some form of moral realism today- moral relativism is bankrupt as a moral theory.

[Machinist]

Yes, if they existed they would be in the Platonic forms sense, I suppose (I don't actually believe they exist though). But I believe the majority of atheistic philosophers hold to some form of moral realism today- moral relativism is bankrupt as a moral theory.

Cool. Thanks!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

God is a fact, the most concrete fact possible.

A God [whichever one you are invoking] is not a fact and you cannot prove such an entity [or entities] to be a fact.

[seer]

A God [whichever one you are invoking] is not a fact and you cannot prove such an entity [or entities] to be a fact.

'The heavens declare the Glory of God, the skies proclaim His handiwork.' Of course being a lost and willful sinner you will not accept that evidence, I may as well try and prove the color red to a man born blind....

[Alien]

I was talking about defining something (not just morality) by its opposite, not how the standards of morality are determined.-Alien

Perhaps not defined by it's opposite, but rather "exists" by virtue of it's opposite.

I don't think that helps. Light doesn't exist by virtue of darkness. It can be shown to exist in various ways (open your eyes!) that don't require darkness. In any case, "darkness" is just a word we use to describe the absence of light. We could, I suppose, invent a word "notbacon" to describe the absence of bacon, and its meaning would actually be something like "the set of all objects that are not bacon". That doesn't mean that bacon can only exist if there are other things that are not bacon. Does that make sense? (I have to apologize to anyone who is distressed by the idea that there could be a universe without bacon. Don't worry, that's highly unlikely.)

This reminds me of the Taoist take on the subject:


Under Heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness.
All can know good as good only because there is evil.

Therefore having and not having arise together.
Difficult and easy complement each other.
Long and short contrast with each other;
High and low rest upon each other;
Voice and sound harmonize each other;
Front and back follow one another.

Therefore the sage goes about doing nothing, teaching no talking.
The ten thousand things rise and fall without cease,
Creating, yet not possessing,
Working, yet not taking credit,
Work is done, then forgotten.
Therefore it lasts for ever.

After the first line that lost me quite quickly. I would note though that "beauty" and "ugliness" are totally subjective terms, as evidenced by the fact that male wart hogs find female wart hogs very attractive.

I understand the whole idea of the relative uses of "high" and "low" for positional references, but high/low, dark/light, in/out, etc are absolutes in concept.

I don't understand "absolutes in concept". Could you explain?