Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Problem Of Evil?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    So you think you can criticize an omniscient and omnipotent being and say what he really should be doing, but I can't defend what he is doing because I am not an omniscient and omnipotent being? Is that a double standard on your part or do you think you too are omniscient and omnipotent?
    I can simply point out how some people believe this entity operates.

    If my brief overview is accepted then this entity [in full foreknowledge] set up its creation to fail and knowingly permitted its creation to suffer misery and horror.

    Nor was any Fall necessary because this omniscient deity [being omniscient] knew the Fall would happen and could have prevented it.

    It chose not to.

    What does that tell us about such an entity?
    "It ain't necessarily so
    The things that you're liable
    To read in the Bible
    It ain't necessarily so
    ."

    Sportin' Life
    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

    Comment


    • Originally posted by mossrose View Post

      But the Fall had to happen in order for God to show His justice and mercy and grace and love and His saving nature.
      No the Fall did not have to happen. The omniscient entity knew what the serpent, Eve, and Adam would do. It could have arranged things differently.

      It chose not to.
      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

        No the Fall did not have to happen. The omniscient entity knew what the serpent, Eve, and Adam would do. It could have arranged things differently.

        It chose not to.
        How do you know that? If, as most of us believe, men were given the gift of moral freedom it seems that there always would be the logical possibility of choosing wrong. Even if it went initially right sin could have easily entered later on.

        Alvin Plantinga

        A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.
        Last edited by seer; 01-26-2022, 12:23 PM.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

          I can simply point out how some people believe this entity operates.

          If my brief overview is accepted then this entity [in full foreknowledge] set up its creation to fail and knowingly permitted its creation to suffer misery and horror.

          Nor was any Fall necessary because this omniscient deity [being omniscient] knew the Fall would happen and could have prevented it.

          It chose not to.

          What does that tell us about such an entity?
          Again, you are not omniscient nor omnipotent. You have no business second-guessing God. Your rules.

          Comment


          • That freedom came from God's very being is what I am having a difficult time grasping right now. In the beginning, God was the only One in existence, the only Consciousness.

            From there, He created man(and at the same time, freedom) from His own essence. What did God draw from for materials in creation? Nothing. He Himself was the only Source.

            Freedom is from God's very substance and nature, and this nature turned on itself. So it would be easy to view this as God having a nature with the capacity to turn on itself.

            If I could grasp this much, it would be quite the feat. That God created agency, with consciousness, free will, rationality...all the faculties...and these are all independent...

            That's like saying He created a God.

            I'm sure this was probably covered in some early church council.

            It's seeming very counterintuitive right now that this property of Freedom, that came from God, turned against God.

            Comment


            • for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.

              That's simple enough to grasp. In order for there to be something called dark, you gotta have light. No high without a low...no in without an out, etc.

              Things are defined by their opposites.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
                for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.

                That's simple enough to grasp. In order for there to be something called dark, you gotta have light. No high without a low...no in without an out, etc.

                Things are defined by their opposites.
                True. If there is no free will, then any "good" done is not really doing good. It is merely going through the motions programmed by God. Moral good requires free will.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by mossrose View Post

                  I am putting forward the way it is. I am not imagining another, better world, because what we have is what we have. It is as God made it and I fully believe that He made it according to His will and His sovereign design. I will not suppose that I can remotely know what other designs the Lord may or may not have thought about. He did what He did, according to His own reasons.
                  The point is that if this is the "least evil" world God could have created to satisfy his wishes, it goes some way towards an explanation of the "problem of evil". I won't pursue it further.

                  I'm not ignoring "natural evil". But that is part of fallen creation. Scripture mentions common grace, as in "the rain falls on the just and the unjust", and hence there is common evil, as well. That's what death is.

                  But you have to take it back [to?] the Fall. And God's omniscience and God's sovereignty.
                  Ah, the fall. That is often used to explain why God's originally "perfect" world is so screwed up now. I don't see though how that lets God off the hook. Given that God can foresee and control everything, he can be seen as responsible for everything, either by action or inaction, including the fall.

                  And who are we to understand the mind of God? All of this is trying to unscrew the inscrutable.
                  That's a point I have often made myself. In that case, we should immediately give up all attempts to understand God. But Mossy, you yourself continue to make categorical statements about God, usually without any qualification (like "it may be"). How can you do that if God is so incomprehensible? My own position is that all this is an interesting exploration of the logic, or lack thereof, of a particular theological statement about God. Of course it's from a human perspective, how could it be otherwise?

                  Salvation takes place in the here and now. Today is the day of salvation! Man is appointed to die once, and after this comes judgment.
                  Yes. Perhaps I should have said "rewards" not "salvation".

                  And who are we to say who deserves suffering? We all suffer undeservedly.........in our own eyes. Many times we do deserve it. I'm not about to be stupid enough to go play on the freeway, but it is my own fault if I choose to do so and get hurt or dead.

                  Innocent people suffer, even children. Many not-innocent people do not suffer........now. But their judgment will come, have no doubt.
                  Who are we? We are thinking beings, trying to make sense of things from the evidence we have. Once again, reducio ad absurdum, we would have no system of punishment for crimes, because we are not equipped to decide who "deserves" punishment.

                  Regarding the italicized words above, perhaps you could address the example I gave of the suffering baby, as I can't see any way to suggest the child "deserved" its suffering.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                    Then you have no business criticizing how God is handling the problem of evil.
                    Sparko, do you not see that saying we have no business criticizing God applies equally to praising him? You ding Hypatia for (loosely) suggesting that God is evil, but (I'm sure) have no problem asserting that God is good. If we are not equipped to judge God then we shouldn't make any judgments about him, good or bad.

                    Incidentally, during my brief excursion into Christianity, I struggled with this. I finally came to the decision that I would proceed on the assumption that God is good, for two reasons. First, I could see some evidence of it in my own life, and second, the alternative was too horrible to live with.

                    While we are talking, would you put your moderator's hat on for a moment? I'm thinking of starting a thread about my struggles with Christianity and why I eventually abandoned ti. Where should such a thread go?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Alien View Post

                      Sparko, do you not see that saying we have no business criticizing God applies equally to praising him? You ding Hypatia for (loosely) suggesting that God is evil, but (I'm sure) have no problem asserting that God is good. If we are not equipped to judge God then we shouldn't make any judgments about him, good or bad.

                      Incidentally, during my brief excursion into Christianity, I struggled with this. I finally came to the decision that I would proceed on the assumption that God is good, for two reasons. First, I could see some evidence of it in my own life, and second, the alternative was too horrible to live with.

                      While we are talking, would you put your moderator's hat on for a moment? I'm thinking of starting a thread about my struggles with Christianity and why I eventually abandoned ti. Where should such a thread go?
                      Alien, This was Hypatia's initial objection to me explaining how and why God would put off punishing evil. I tried to explain that she as a parent would allow her son to experience some failure and harm in order to become a better human being. She said I was not able to use such an explanation because God is omnipotent/omniscience. So I just pointed out that if I am unable to try to explain God's actions because I am not a God, then she has no business criticizing God's actions because neither is she.

                      You could put your thread in Apologetics. If you don't want any debate, just put that in the initial post.


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
                        for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.

                        That's simple enough to grasp. In order for there to be something called dark, you gotta have light. No high without a low...no in without an out, etc.

                        Things are defined by their opposites.
                        I've never subscribed to that argument. It's perfectly possible to describe something without reference to its opposite. Indeed, it can be very tricky to use opposites for that purpose. Try to describe a bird. Fairly easy, live creature, feathers, with some exceptions capable of flight ... Now try it with an opposite. What is the opposite of "bird"?

                        Light is easily described without referring to dark (I'll assume everyone can think of their own examples from here on). Dark does have to be "the absence of light", but that's not really an opposite. High/low, in/out etc are actually relative states, not opposites. I think this will be challenged, so I'll explain further. "High" actually has no exact meaning. It should be "higher", followed by a statement of what it is being compared to. Let's say you are standing at the base of a 10,000' mountain. You say, "Wow that's high". Now move your perspective to the top of mount Everest and assume you can look down on the other mountain. You say, "Wow, that's low". In each case case you mean "higher" (than where I am) and "lower" (than where I am). Of course that's fine in common usage, and everyone knows what is meant. However, if you are trying to show that "evil" is necessary for "good" to exist, then it becomes problematical. I'll expand if anyone takes the bait.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Alien View Post



                          However, if you are trying to show that "evil" is necessary for "good" to exist, then it becomes problematical. I'll expand if anyone takes the bait.
                          Please do. This is interesting.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                            Alien, This was Hypatia's initial objection to me explaining how and why God would put off punishing evil. I tried to explain that she as a parent would allow her son to experience some failure and harm in order to become a better human being. She said I was not able to use such an explanation because God is omnipotent/omniscience. So I just pointed out that if I am unable to try to explain God's actions because I am not a God, then she has no business criticizing God's actions because neither is she.

                            You could put your thread in Apologetics. If you don't want any debate, just put that in the initial post.
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Machinist View Post

                              Please do. This is interesting.
                              OK, it goes something like this. It's a simple matter to state that "good" is the opposite of "evil", but is it? Christians tend to see "righteousness" as good and everything else as evil. Fair enough, as that's part of their belief system. But maybe we can look at good and evil in a different way, which is as part of a spectrum. Draw an imaginary line with "totally good" at one end and "totally bad" at the other. Decide on a definition of "good" and "bad" (my definition is based on harm caused by the action to another being). Now take an action, any action, and decide where it goes on the line. Rinse and repeat. I venture to predict that you will find it difficult to place anything at either end point. Conclusion, good and evil are not absolutes but points on a good/bad spectrum. I'm going to refrain from actual examples, because they tend to invite disagreement based only on the specific examples, and instead invite anyone who cares to join in this thought experiment.

                              What do you think?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Alien View Post

                                OK, it goes something like this. It's a simple matter to state that "good" is the opposite of "evil", but is it? Christians tend to see "righteousness" as good and everything else as evil. Fair enough, as that's part of their belief system. But maybe we can look at good and evil in a different way, which is as part of a spectrum. Draw an imaginary line with "totally good" at one end and "totally bad" at the other. Decide on a definition of "good" and "bad" (my definition is based on harm caused by the action to another being). Now take an action, any action, and decide where it goes on the line. Rinse and repeat. I venture to predict that you will find it difficult to place anything at either end point. Conclusion, good and evil are not absolutes but points on a good/bad spectrum. I'm going to refrain from actual examples, because they tend to invite disagreement based only on the specific examples, and instead invite anyone who cares to join in this thought experiment.

                                What do you think?
                                I think that's an interesting thought. It's late in the day. I'll mull it over and get back with you tomorrow.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                158 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X