NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vngRs8riW7A

If God is all-powerful and all good, then his refusal to stop evil means that he is evil. Therefore, an all-powerful and all good God cannot co-exist with evil. Evil exists. Therefore, God cannot exist.

If God is willing to stop evil but unable, then he is not worthy of worship.

If God is able to stop evil but not willing, then he is not worthy of worship.

If God could not figure out a way to make good and free will co-exist, then he is not all-knowing and not worthy of worship.

Discuss.

I reject the designation "worthy to worship." Buddhism is pretty popular, and they don't even have a God. :p

Maybe some people will only worship a certain kind of God, but there are all kinds of ideas about that, and no one standard.

1) God/s = omnipotence which thus means they see the big picture, maybe just maybe its for the best

2) that video is dull and poorly made

3) if God was evil I think I would worship him, the wrath of an omnipotent being is not fun :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vngRs8riW7A

If God is all-powerful and all good, then his refusal to stop evil means that he is evil. Therefore, an all-powerful and all good God cannot co-exist with evil. Evil exists. Therefore, God cannot exist.


Also, the standard response to this normally involves "free will," meaning God allows evil because he wants to preserve human autonomy for some reason. That, or Satan has a hand in it and God tolerates Satan for some reason. God's motivations are another story entirely. ;)

"God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to only do what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free at all"

The answer to your question is inside your own video, even if it was sarcastically meant.

Benjamin Franklin said "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both"

Would you sacrifice your God-given blessing of Free Will? God created and maintains evil through temptaion in order to give us a choice. He already has the angels - beings without choice only able to do good and worship him - why would he want another batch of yes-men? We are human, inherintly flawed because of design - not accident.

Bad things happen in this world because other people make the wrong choices. Everyone makes mistakes, some people are not strong enough to resist their temptions, and most of us do not know the effect of our actions on a world-wide scale. That young man did not starve to a skeletal state because of his own actions, but because of the consequences of the actions of others.

You want to keep evil from happening to you and the rest of the world? Make your decisions carefully, every single one of them. That thing you throw away today may damage the environment causing problems that have led to the starvation and poverty in Africa. The diamond you purchase may be the result of war and slavery and murder. But you cannot make others' choices for them, and you cannot stop all the evil all the time - it's there for a reason. God only asks that we do our best and that we trust in Him. Kinda why we call him 'Father', cause even those of us who had craptastic dads still have a pretty cool Father watching out for us. Even (and especially) when the bad stuff happens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vngRs8riW7A

If God is all-powerful and all good, then his refusal to stop evil means that he is evil. Therefore, an all-powerful and all good God cannot co-exist with evil. Evil exists. Therefore, God cannot exist.

If God is willing to stop evil but unable, then he is not worthy of worship.

If God is able to stop evil but not willing, then he is not worthy of worship.

If God could not figure out a way to make good and free will co-exist, then he is not all-knowing and not worthy of worship.

Discuss.

God doesn't appear to stop good either, I suppose that makes him good by your silly argument. The universe works-off cause-and-effect. For every effect, there MUST, I repeat MUST be a cause. If you trace this far enough, it's obvious God exists as he/she/it could be the ONLY concievable thing immune to this, and therefor the only concievable beginning.

God doesn't appear to stop good either, I suppose that makes him good by your silly argument. The universe works-off cause-and-effect. For every effect, there MUST, I repeat MUST be a cause. If you trace this far enough, it's obvious God exists as he/she/it could be the ONLY concievable thing immune to this, and therefor the only concievable beginning.

I never understood this one. First you say everything must have a cause, but then say that God doesn't have one. The conclusion contradicts the premise.

Unworthy of worship, perhaps, but what's otherwise wrong with the second of those options? Perhaps God isn't all powerful, and can't stop evil completely. That seems like an entirely possible state of affairs; even a well-intentioned king needs an entirely fallible chain of command in order to make his will be done.

If God could not figure out a way to make good and free will co-exist, then he is not all-knowing and not worthy of worship.

Discuss.

Erm, why wouldn't he be

Have you ever considered that its impossible to make good exist indendently of evil not because God is somehow weedy and insubstantial, but for the same reason you cannot make four sided triangles.

I never understood this one. First you say everything must have a cause, but then say that God doesn't have one. The conclusion contradicts the premise.

No, he says everything in and of the universe has a cause. However God is neither in nor of this universe, thus he does not have one. We only consider things to need a cause within linar space time. God is beyond linar space time if he created it. Therefore he does not need a cause.

No, he says everything in and of the universe has a cause. However God is neither in nor of this universe, thus he does not have one. We only consider things to need a cause within linar space time. God is beyond linar space time if he created it. Therefore he does not need a cause.

If that's the argument, then I don't see the need to assume that this mysterious cause, if it exists, is a deity or even intelligent. And linear is spelled with an 'e'.

God doesn't appear to stop good either, I suppose that makes him good by your silly argument. The universe works-off cause-and-effect. For every effect, there MUST, I repeat MUST be a cause. If you trace this far enough, it's obvious God exists as he/she/it could be the ONLY concievable thing immune to this, and therefor the only concievable beginning.

I can conceive of the universe having no beginning, and going on infinitely. Why is God so special? Because you say so?

Honestly, I figure the only solution to the problem of evil is this: God is akin to a novelist, and we are all his characters, and if your mom gets shot while getting a subway sandwich that's just how the plot goes. But I can't see how such a being would be worthy of worship.

I can conceive of the universe having no beginning, and going on infinitely.

How could that be? Do you mean that the universe has no beginning, but has instead been around for an infinite amount of time? How can an infinite amount of time have elapsed to bring us to the present?

No, he says everything in and of the universe has a cause. However God is neither in nor of this universe, thus he does not have one. We only consider things to need a cause within linar space time. God is beyond linar space time if he created it. Therefore he does not need a cause.

You assume that just because a higher being is a higher being, it doesn't need a reason to exist?

No, he says everything in and of the universe has a cause. However God is neither in nor of this universe, thus he does not have one. We only consider things to need a cause within linar space time. God is beyond linar space time if he created it. Therefore he does not need a cause.
If God is neither in nor of this universe, and never has, then he is obsolete and useless. He has never performed miracles, had any contact with humans, sent his son or spirit to do his will,

A First Cause, a Prime Mover, or whatever you want to call it, must have some contact with the series of cause-and-effect that precedes from it, and as such must be, if not of the universe, then necessarily in it. One cannot give special dispensation to God.

And to the OP, I prefer Epicurus’ version of the problem:

Are the Gods willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then they are not omnipotent.
Are the Gods able, but not willing? Then they are malevolent.
Are the Gods both able and willing? Then whence does evil come from?
Are the Gods neither able nor willing? Then why call them Gods?

How could that be? Do you mean that the universe has no beginning, but has instead been around for an infinite amount of time? How can an infinite amount of time have elapsed to bring us to the present?

How can an infinite amount of time have elapsed to bring us to the point where God created the universe?

If God is neither in nor of this universe, and never has, then he is obsolete and useless. He has never performed miracles, had any contact with humans, sent his son or spirit to do his will

Perhaps I should have been clearer. He is not a product of this universe. He has contact with it, yes indeed he does, but if he created the universe then logic dictates that is he is somehow beyond it.

A First Cause, a Prime Mover, or whatever you want to call it, must have some contact with the series of cause-and-effect that precedes from it, and as such must be, if not of the universe, then necessarily in it. One cannot give special dispensation to God.

I don't see why not. We are in the universe, we are only capable of seeing things with the cause and effect logic. But if God is beyond the universe (which is nesscitated if he created it) then he can be beyond cause and effect.


Are the Gods willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then they are not omnipotent.

Not omnipotent in your classical, silly four sided triangles way. In a way that we don't understand fully.

How can an infinite amount of time have elapsed to bring us to the point where God created the universe?

The universe is space and time. How can time pass before there is time? What does 'before there is time' even mean?

What I have been saying is that God is the only possible concept that doesn't require a cause. Therefore, tracing back cause-and-effect God is the only answer because otherwise it would require an infinite amount of cause-and-effect cases, which is phisically impossible. Time CANNOT have gone on infinitely. Why? Because it is still going-on, which would add to infinite, and nothing is higher then infinite, so that's impossible.
Why would you want to worship God? I can't really say. :p
Perhaps because fear of God encourages moral, therefore it helps those to stupid to be moral naturally.
Why should evil exist? Because a purely-good world is impossible, think about it. You need evil to exist, and therefore you are around due to it. I wonder if that means you should worship evil :p...of course without good you couldn't exist either, because it's phisically impossible to have a purely evil world, and most would agree one that is good is better.

Understand I'm only trying to debate, and show you my point-of-view. I'm not trying to convert you or anything. :p

Playing devil's advocate..
;)
If God is all-powerful and all good, then his refusal to stop evil means that he is evil. Therefore, an all-powerful and all good God cannot co-exist with evil. Evil exists. Therefore, God cannot exist.Does evil exist? Or might we just misperceive it, failing to note it's role in the bigger scheme of things? What we denote as evil may be in some way necessary to give meaning to life.
Certainly some adversity in life is a necessary evil.

If God is willing to stop evil but unable, then he is not worthy of worship.Why would that be the only reason to worship something? Might that not be like saying "A doctor that wants to, but cannot, save everyone doesn't deserve to be paid"?

If God is able to stop evil but not willing, then he is not worthy of worship.Would that not depend on why he is unwilling? Parents could stop their children from most of life's problems by locking them in their room their entire life. It's not, however, something they should be willing to do if they actually have their children's best interest at heart.
If evil is some way necessary, God should not want to stop it.

If God could not figure out a way to make good and free will co-exist, then he is not all-knowing and not worthy of worship.That may be like saying "if god doesn't know how to make a square circle he's not all-knowing". Omnipotence and omniscience does not go beyond the bounds of logic. Nevermind that it seems some good does exist in the world together with free will; but I'm tacidly assuming you mean "to make only good (and no evil) and free will coexist".
And again, I don't see how the conclusion would follow that because of this he is not worthy of worship.


Hail Eris, she may not do squat, but she's cute!

? What does 'before there is time' even mean?

"Before time" isn't possible in itself. BUT an entity that exists outside of time is.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. He is not a product of this universe. He has contact with it, yes indeed he does, but if he created the universe then logic dictates that is he is somehow beyond it.
But if he is beyond time and space, outside the universe, then how did he produce a cause (something necessarily part of a time-space framework)? He cannot cause time to begin, as causality is a time-based system.

But getting away from semantics, another point to make is the reasoning for choosing God, and in particular the Christian God, as the First Cause. There is nothing to suggest that, if indeed there was a First Cause, that it was necessarily a god or gods.

I don’t see why not. We are in the universe, we are only capable of seeing things with the cause and effect logic. But if God is beyond the universe (which is nesscitated if he created it) then he can be beyond cause and effect.
See above.

Not omnipotent in your classical, silly four sided triangles way. In a way that we don’t understand fully.
Oh, that ol’ cop-out:

“We don’t understand it..... it must be God!!”

So God’s an all-powerful being in a way as such that he isn’t all-powerful? Omnipotent in such a way that he isn’t omnipotent?

It’s like pointing at something that clearly isn’t cheeese, and saying, “oh, it’s cheese alright, just not cheese that you could understand.”

However God is neither in nor of this universeIf God were outside the universe, then the universe wouldn't be the universe. By definition the universe is all that is; and if God exists, he's therefore part of the universe.

Why won't anyone argue with me?!?! I came here to argue damnit. :p

"Before time" isn't possible in itself. BUT an entity that exists outside of time is.But if it is to do or think anything, it presupposes time again. Perhaps its own frame of time, but still.

Why won’t anyone argue with me?!?! I came here to argue damnit. :p
Maybe we’re all astounded at your l337 debating skillz....

:p

"Before time" isn't possible in itself. BUT an entity that exists outside of time is.

Ok. That really has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Maybe we’re all astounded at your l337 debating skillz....

:p

Leet? Is that a complement? Eh? Another clever hidden insult?

Ok. That really has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Yes it is. I was merely staing "Before Time" isn't possble because "Before" is a word that relates to time.

No one can say anything definitive about God - either He exists or He does not - pontificating on why He does anything may be an interesting conceptual discussion but it has no boundaries as such and is therefore, ultimately, pointless.

You can choose to believe or choose not to - ours is not to wonder why.

I choose not to due to this very point.

Yes it. I was merely staing "Before Time" isn't possble because "Before" is a word that relates to time.

Yes, I know. It was a rhetorical question. I was asking GAC to defend his idea that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time.

So God’s an all-powerful being in a way as such that he isn’t all-powerful? Omnipotent in such a way that he isn’t omnipotent?Omnipotence may sensibly be linked to a context. The context of all things logically possible; all things physically possible; all things humanly possible, etc.
In the proper context anything and everyone can be omnipotent. ;)
At the very least, the context can't be greater than the logically possible things. But how much is claimed for God varies depending on who you ask.

No one can say anything definitive about God - either He exists or He does not - pontificating on why He does anything may be an interesting conceptual discussion but it has no boundaries as such and is therefore, ultimately, pointless.

You can choose to believe or choose not to - ours is not to wonder why.

I choose not to due to this very point.

But it's quite fun to debate, is it not?

But it's quite fun to debate, is it not?

It's why we're signed in :)

Yes, I know. It was a rhetorical question. I was asking GAC to defend his idea that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time.

It can't. I already smashed that argument. Infinite is the highest possible number. Time is still going on, which is adding to infinite, which impossible because infinite is infinitely high already and can't be added-too.

It's why we're signed in :)

Right-o. I never care if I'm right, but it is fun to pretend I am and smash someone who is supposedly wrong with supposedly un-defeatable logic.
Ego is quite the drug. If it weren't, who would come here?

It can't. I already smashed that argument. Infinite is the highest possible number. Time is still going on, which is adding to infinite, which impossible because infinite is infinitely high already and can't be added-too.

You don't need to tell me that, we're on the same side on that point. I don't think your reasoning is entirely accurate, though; you can add finite numbers to infinity (the sum is merely infinity itself), the point is that an infinite amount of time can never actually elapse, so our past certainly can't be infinite.

Ego is quite the drug. If it weren't, who would come here?

Those addicted to Id *nod*

Leet? Is that a complement? Eh? Another clever hidden insult?
No, not an insult at all.

Merely playful banter. :D

No one can say anything definitive about God–either He exists or He does not–pontificating on why He does anything may be an interesting conceptual discussion but it has no boundaries as such and is therefore, ultimately, pointless.
A universe with an all-powerful god is drastically different to one without. I’m not claiming that the existence or not of God can be conclusively proven, but we must accept that physics, ethics, epistemology, history, etc., would be substantially affected by an intervening god.

Omnipotence may sensibly be linked to a context. The context of all things logically possible; all things physically possible; all things humanly possible, etc.
In the proper context anything and everyone can be omnipotent. ;)
At the very least, the context can’t be greater than the logically possible things. But how much is claimed for God varies depending on who you ask.
But, as the OP points out, does that not reduce God’s status to something lesser? If God must abide by the rules of logic, then why can he ignore the rules of time and space?

It can't. I already smashed that argument. Infinite is the highest possible number. Time is still going on, which is adding to infinite, which impossible because infinite is infinitely high already and can't be added-too.
Of course it can. It's one of those weird things about infinity.

3000 + infinity would seem, logically, to be larger than 5 + infinity, wouldn't it?

If God were outside the universe, then the universe wouldn't be the universe. By definition the universe is all that is; and if God exists, he's therefore part of the universe.

Quite clearly not. Science has demonstrated that this universe exists but it had a cause, and the cause is nesscearly beyond it, as something cannot bring itself into existance

But getting away from semantics, another point to make is the reasoning for choosing God, and in particular the Christian God, as the First Cause. There is nothing to suggest that, if indeed there was a First Cause, that it was necessarily a god or gods..

Indeed not, but it was you who initiated the conversation about said Gods. If you want to discuss the nature of the cause then another thread would be needed.

But if he is beyond time and space, outside the universe, then how did he produce a cause (something necessarily part of a time-space framework)? He cannot cause time to begin, as causality is a time-based system.

How does a child make a junk model? How does a writer create a plot? There are all sorts of ways to create something. To know the specific method God used would be to be God, or much closer than we are now.

So God’s an all-powerful being in a way as such that he isn’t all-powerful? Omnipotent in such a way that he isn’t omnipotent?

Not omnipotent in the 'square circles' way. That doesnt make my argument any less valid.

Right-o. I never care if I'm right, but it is fun to pretend I am and smash someone who is supposedly wrong with supposedly un-defeatable logic.
Ego is quite the drug. If it weren't, who would come here?

For instance *whispers* I got "owned" in "The State of Balck America" thread. However, I came back for more with my thread, in which I feel I'm doing substantially better on, but not *exactly* winning. But just for the record, I am going to maintain I soudly won both. :)

You don't need to tell me that, we're on the same side on that point. I don't think your reasoning is entirely accurate, though; you can add finite numbers to infinity (the sum is merely infinity itself), the point is that an infinite amount of time can never actually elapse, so our past certainly can't be infinite.

Eh? Your reasoning is superior to mine, but I'd say both our reasoning is quite good.

Not omnipotent in the 'square circles' way. That doesnt make my argument any less valid.

Why must you use that already over-used example? Why can't we be more creative, and say 'hexagonal pentagons' instead?

No, not an insult at all.

Merely playful banter. :D

Ah-so.


Of course it can. It's one of those weird things about infinity.

3000 + infinity would seem, logically, to be larger than 5 + infinity, wouldn't it?
Infinite is not set number. It can never be attained, just strived for. If it can get bigger (5/3000) then it is not truely infinity, because infinity is all-ready the highest possible concept.

Why must you use that already over-used example? Why can't we be more creative, and say 'hexagonal pentagons' instead?

Or make 2 + 2 = 5!

It can't. I already smashed that argument. Infinite is the highest possible number. Time is still going on, which is adding to infinite, which impossible because infinite is infinitely high already and can't be added-too.

We have never really experienced anything truly infinite, so we don't really know what kind of logical rules infinity runs by.

In any case, the universe existing as it's own first cause does not necessarily imply infinity. Perhaps at the beginning of time the universe just "big banged" into existence. Because why does the universe need a cause, but god doesn't?

What created the god that created the god that created the god that created the god that created the god that created the god that created the universe?

Eh? Your reasoning is superior to mine, but I'd say both our reasoning is quite good.

Er, I suppose. Maybe I didn't understand exactly what you meant. But you can actually add things to infinity; here, grow your knowledge of useless mathematics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity#Infinities_as_part_of_the_extended_real_number_line

Indeed not, but it was you who initiated the conversation about said Gods. If you want to discuss the nature of the cause then another thread would be needed.
Not at all, this one will do fine. I think the mods will let this level of hijacking slide. ;)

How does a child make a junk model? How does a writer create a plot? There are all sorts of ways to create something. To know the specific method God used would be to be God, or much closer than we are now.
Another cop-out.

A child or a writer creates something by affecting time and space. They could not cause anything to happen outside of time and space because, as I said previously, causality is necessarily part of space-time.

With God being so mysterious and all, you’d think he was one of a long line of socially-controlling origin myths, propagated to keep certain social and moral elites on top in society. But, of course, us plebs couldn’t possibly understand that. :p

Not omnipotent in the ‘square circles’ way. That doesnt make my argument any less valid.
Because your argument relies on defining a word, ‘omnipotent’, in a way that is meaningless. If God isn’t omnipotent, then we shouldn’t re-define omnipotent to describe God, we should describe God with a different set of words.

Again, if God isn’t bound by space nor time, why must he be bound by logic?

How is he omnipotent without being all-powerful?

Er, I suppose. Maybe I didn't understand exactly what you meant. But you can actually add things to infinity; here, grow your knowledge of useless mathematics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity#Infinities_as_part_of_the_extended_real_number_line

EVERYTHING is contain within infinity. Therefore adding a number to it is like...cuting a piece out of a pie, then putting it next to it and saying "now we have more pie".

Gosh, all this thinking is feeding my brain. It was seriously underfed, perhaps starving. First-time in probably...years...that I've actually used it.
My brain thanks you for the meal. :D

EVERYTHING is contain within infinity. Therefore adding a number to it is like...cuting a piece out of a pie, then putting it next to it and saying "now we have more pie".

Gosh, all this thinking is feeding my brain. It was seriously underfed, perhaps starving. First-time in probably...years...that I've actually used it.
My brain thanks you for the meal. :D

I like pie.

EVERYTHING is contain within infinity. Therefore adding a number to it is like...cuting a piece out of a pie, then putting it next to it and saying “now we have more pie”.
But it’s not that simple.

Numbers still get larger as we count up, even though there are infinite numbers. So even though we could, theoretically, count for an infinite amount of numbers, any number we arrived at would still be smaller than the number+1, and we could still count further, to infinity.

As I said before, 3000 + infinity is larger than 5 + infinity.

I like pie.
I concur.

I like pie.

Infinity + Pie equals what Heaven should like if I'm to endorse it.

As I said before, 3000 + infinity is larger than 5 + infinity.

I still say no. If you can get higher, then you have not reached infinity becasue infinity is infinitely high and goes on forever.

Then whence does evil come from?
I believe that evil is the absence of good. "Evil" is not a thing, it is a state. Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good.

But then, the question still begs itself. Why can't/won't God quell this state? Isn't S/He omnipotent?

Not doing something isn't proof that powers don't exist. God, I believe, is able. S/He is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnivore (no, no, just kidding!). When you ask "Why doesn't S/He do that? Then he must've been unable to do that." is, admittedly, faulty logic.

The bigger question is God's willingness. S/He knows, S/He is there, S/He can quell that state of evil. Why doesn't S/He?

God probably has reasons. Probably we ourselves can dig ourselves out of that state; probably it is a consequence of our free will; probably we are like children who must learn how to walk. I don't know, this mortal head cannot fathom that of a Godhead.

I still say no. If you can get higher, then you have not reached infinity becasue infinity is infinitely high and goes on forever.
That’s what I’m saying, you can’t ‘reach’ infinity. There will always be more numbers; an infinite amount, as it happens.

It’s a bit screwy.

I believe that evil is the absence of good. "Evil" is not a thing, it is a state. Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good.

But then, the question still begs itself. Why can't/won't God quell this state? Isn't S/He omnipotent?

Not doing something isn't proof that powers don't exist. God, I believe, is able. S/He is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnivore (no, no, just kidding!). When you ask "Why doesn't S/He do that? Then he must've been unable to do that." is, admittedly, faulty logic.

The bigger question is God's willingness. S/He knows, S/He is there, S/He can quell that state of evil. Why doesn't S/He?

God probably has reasons. Probably we ourselves can dig ourselves out of that state; probably it is a consequence of our free will; probably we are like children who must learn how to walk. I don't know, this mortal head cannot fathom that of a Godhead.
And I say that's a cop-out.

If we can't fathom it out, why should we be expected to do God's will? 'Thou shall not kill' is pretty easy to understand, and the question of why 'evil' exists seems, to me, pretty easy as well: God either does not exist (or at least is so ineffectual and useless that he might as well not exist) or he is a sadistic fuck not worthy of worship. Note we're talking about the Abrahamic conception of God here.

Going, "w0o0o0o0o0o, it's all too mysterious", seems to me like there's an uncomfortable answer waiting in the wings.

But it’s not that simple.

Numbers still get larger as we count up, even though there are infinite numbers. So even though we could, theoretically, count for an infinite amount of numbers, any number we arrived at would still be smaller than the number+1, and we could still count further, to infinity.

As I said before, 3000 + infinity is larger than 5 + infinity.


Infinity isn't a real number though. It is just the state of being greater than all real numbers. 3000 + infinity is not larger than 5 + infinity, because neither has any value. They are both meaningless semantic constructs.

But it’s not that simple.

Numbers still get larger as we count up, even though there are infinite numbers. So even though we could, theoretically, count for an infinite amount of numbers, any number we arrived at would still be smaller than the number+1, and we could still count further, to infinity.

As I said before, 3000 + infinity is larger than 5 + infinity.


I concur.

I don't think you quite grasp the concept of infinity. Infinity is not just 'a very large number' or even a number at all; it's a limit. Check out that link I posted, it might help.

That’s what I’m saying, you can’t ‘reach’ infinity. There will always be more numbers; an infinite amount, as it happens.

It’s a bit screwy.

Exactly. Infinity is the unattainable. There is nothing higher then that. Adding the attainable is impossible because it's all already been added.

As I said before, 3000 + infinity is larger than 5 + infinity.
It depends on the semantics of the comparison. For instance, if our comparison function permitted us to eliminate like terms before the evaluation of the expression then yes, you'd be right. If, however, it depended on the evaluation of the innermost terms before making the check, you'd find that you're comparing two values that are semantically equivilent (due to how addition on infinity is defined).

It depends on the semantics of the comparison. For instance, if our comparison function permitted us to eliminate like terms before the evaluation of the expression then yes, you'd be right. If, however, it depended on the evaluation of the innermost terms before making the check, you'd find that you're comparing two values that are semantically equivilent (due to how addition on infinity is defined).

Well put. You made a spelling error though, so I fear you fall short of perfection.

I don’t think you quite grasp the concept of infinity. Infinity is not just ‘a very large number’ or even a number at all; it’s a limit. Check out that link I posted, it might help.
Condescending, much?

Can you grasp the concept of infinity?

Infinity isn’t a real number though. It is just the state of being greater than all real numbers. 3000 + infinity is not larger than 5 + infinity, because neither has any value. They are both meaningless semantic constructs.

Exactly. Infinity is the unattainable. There is nothing higher then that. Adding the attainable is impossible because it’s all already been added.
Some areas of set theory, albeit somewhat paradoxical set theory, would disagree with you guys.

MOreover, to end this conversation, I would point out that the mathematical and philosophical concepts of infinity vary greatly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vngRs8riW7A

If God is all-powerful and all good, then his refusal to stop evil means that he is evil. Therefore, an all-powerful and all good God cannot co-exist with evil. Evil exists. Therefore, God cannot exist.

If God is willing to stop evil but unable, then he is not worthy of worship.

If God is able to stop evil but not willing, then he is not worthy of worship.

If God could not figure out a way to make good and free will co-exist, then he is not all-knowing and not worthy of worship.

Discuss.God may exist. He just might not be as good as we'd like to believe. He could be an angry bastard.

Condescending, much?

Can you grasp the concept of infinity?

Just trying to help. Sure, mathematically. Isn't that what we're talking about?

Just trying to help. Sure, mathematically. Isn’t that what we’re talking about?
Sorry if I took you the wrong way; you seemed overly hostile that’s all.

Sorry if I took you the wrong way; you seemed overly hostile that’s all.

No problem. I should have phrased my response better.

The "free will" excuse is an awful one.

Most of us value human freedom, but how many people would object to restraining a murderer about to kill someone?

If we can do it, why can't God?

No problem. I should have phrased my response better.
“Let me apologise.”

“No, I must apologise”

“No, I insist.”

“I really must.”

“No, I’m the one apologising!”

“No, I am!!”

“I’ll apologise before you, you bastard!”

“Never!!!”

*fight*

If God is all-powerful and all good, then his refusal to stop evil means that he is evil. Therefore, an all-powerful and all good God cannot co-exist with evil. Evil exists. Therefore, God cannot exist.
Good can not exist without evil. When something happens to a human they see the event as good if it is more desirable then their average experience and evil if it is less desirable then their average experience. Without evil no experience can be worse then average, that means no experience can be better then average either. Thus there would be no good without evil, there would only be average.

If God would put up invisible forcefields and stuff to prevent all wars, violence, diseases, pain and death it would not remove evil. It would only raise our average standard and we would be complaining about the evils of losing the TV remote or actually having to walk to the kitchen to get a cold beer. So to raise the average standard of our varied experiences is not enough to remove evil. All experiences would have to be exactly average with no evil but no good either.

Would it be worth it to remove all that is good to get rid of all that is evil?

The “free will” excuse is an awful one.

Most of us value human freedom, but how many people would object to restraining a murderer about to kill someone?

If we can do it, why can’t God?
Mmmm, indeed.

And some free will! Your free to exercise whatever will you choose, along as it complies with a certain book of laws.

Good can not exist without evil. When something happens to a human they see the event as good if it is more desirable then their average experience and evil if it is less desirable then their average experience. Without evil no experience can be worse then average, that means no experience can be better then average either. Thus there would be no good without evil, there would only be average.

If God would put up invisible forcefields and stuff to prevent all wars, violence, diseases, pain and death it would not remove evil. It would only raise our average standard and we would be complaining about the evils of losing the TV remote or actually having to walk to the kitchen to get a cold beer. So to raise the average standard of our varied experiences is not enough to remove evil. All experiences would have to be exactly average with no evil but no good either.

Would it be worth it to remove all that is good to get rid of all that is evil?
But he's all-powerful. By definition, he can get rid of evil but keep good experiences.

“Let me apologise.”

“No, I must apologise”

“No, I insist.”

“I really must.”

“No, I’m the one apologising!”

“No, I am!!”

“I’ll apologise before you, you bastard!”

“Never!!!”

*fight*

;):) :);) ;):) :);) ;):headbang:

If we can't fathom it out, why should we be expected to do God's will? 'Thou shall not kill' is pretty easy to understand, and the question of why 'evil' exists seems, to me, pretty easy as well: God either does not exist (or at least is so ineffectual and useless that he might as well not exist) or he is a sadistic fuck not worthy of worship. Note we're talking about the Abrahamic conception of God here.
I believe that we created the state of evil, not God. Now, the question is, why won't God prevent us from doing that? I believe it's a consequence of our free will. Still, there hangs the question.
But who determines what "good" means? Them televangelists? Them snakes? Perhaps you and me and God have different definitions of "good". "Good" for God may seem "bad" for you.

Going, "w0o0o0o0o0o, it's all too mysterious", seems to me like there's an uncomfortable answer waiting in the wings.
I don't think "having faith" is an uncomfortable answer, nor is "we cannot know". That is precisely the definition of faith: believing something that is not known or cannot possibly be known. I know some of the "rational" ones would object or ridicule it; but not having proof doesn't mean it is nonexistent.
I believe, though, that to each to his own. If you choose to believe or not to believe, I don't care. *shrugs*

Some areas of set theory, albeit somewhat paradoxical set theory, would disagree with you guys.

Just as well we're talking about real analysis and not set theory, then.

<snip>
I think it’s more common to wonder why suffering exists in the world, rather than evil. ‘Evil’ is such a strange concept, politically charged and hard to actually point at.

Suffering is easier to define and point at, albeit not completely without trouble. And the idea that God lets us suffer, lets parents watch their children die and vice versa, just because it’ll show us how good ¬suffering is, seems rather ineffectual.

Furthermore, your conception of evil as “less than your average experience” seems to be on very shaky ground. I am in the middle of my exams. These exams are less desirable than my ‘average’ desired state (I couldn’t think of my ‘average experience"; sleeping, perhaps?), but they aren’t ‘evil’.

God may exist. He just might not be as good as we'd like to believe. He could be an angry bastard. An old angry bastard.

I believe that we created the state of evil, not God. Now, the question is, why won’t God prevent us from doing that? I believe it’s a consequence of our free will. Still, there hangs the question.
But who determines what “good” means? Them televangelists? Them snakes? Perhaps you and me and God have different definitions of “good”. “Good” for God may seem “bad” for you.
Well, that’s another massive problem for the Abrahamic conception of God; the Euthyphro dilemma:

If God is the sole authority on ‘good’ and ‘bad’ then morality is completely arbitrary. Murder, rape and whatever would be ‘good’, and kindness, humility and whatever would be ‘bad’ if only God said so. Furthermore, calling God ‘good’ would mean simply that God is consistent; as ‘good’ is a construct made by God.

However, if morality isn’t arbitrary, and God says murder is wrong because it is, objectively, wrong, then morality stems from an authority outside of God. A higher moral authority than God exists; which, for god, is pretty shitty.

I don’t think “having faith” is an uncomfortable answer, nor is “we cannot know”. That is precisely the definition of faith: believing something that is not known or cannot possibly be known. I know some of the “rational” ones would object or ridicule it; but not having proof doesn’t mean it is nonexistent.
I believe, though, that to each to his own. If you choose to believe or not to believe, I don’t care. *shrugs*
Are you damning me to eternity without even making the effort to preach to me? :p

Seriously though, there’s a big difference between having faith in something even though there isn’t proof, and having faith in something even though, by your own admission, it would be impossible to even conceive of the thing you have faith in.

I believe that we created the state of evil, not God.

That just doesn't hold water. It is like filling a building full of nerve gas and then saying "Well, if it kills anyone, it's not my fault."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vngRs8riW7A

If God is all-powerful and all good, then his refusal to stop evil means that he is evil. Therefore, an all-powerful and all good God cannot co-exist with evil. Evil exists. Therefore, God cannot exist.

If God is willing to stop evil but unable, then he is not worthy of worship.

If God is able to stop evil but not willing, then he is not worthy of worship.

If God could not figure out a way to make good and free will co-exist, then he is not all-knowing and not worthy of worship.

Discuss.

you're assuming Evil exists. the ancient dharmic religions all posit that evil does not exist and that suffering is a state of mind. God has nothing to do with evil - "good and evil" is a false dichotomy.

God may exist. He just might not be as good as we'd like to believe. He could be an old angry bastard.

I don't pretend to fully follow the maths, but noted philosopher Quentin Smith has some very interesting things to say about the possibilities of an infinite regression

http://www.qsmithwmu.com/infinity_and_the_past.htm

Similarly, Cambridge mathmatician Neil Turok is making interesting investigations with string theory towards the possibility of an infinite universe.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1126,The-Cyclic-Universe-A-Talk-With-Neil-Turok,edgeorg

Since it is bad form to argue by link, allow me to summarise; both men argue (farily persuasively in my opinion) that an infinitely existing universe is possible, and show this by maths.

If there were an infinite universe, God would seem rather redundant.

Two further, unrelated points. It is not valid to simply smear a new conceptual label upon God and say 'unlike anything else he requires no cause'. This point needs to be argued, otherwise it amounts to merely crass special pleading. Secondly, if God is bound by logic, then doesn't that mean God is less omnipotent that logic? It seems God is merely 'Pretty-potent'

P.S earlier in the thread I saw misuse of the phrase 'begs the question'. Please, I urge you, don't misuse!

Wow, so you start a thread and then don't read the responses?

Militant atheists such as yourself are no better than the Christians you complain about. I've read your other threads...

But he's all-powerful. By definition, he can get rid of evil but keep good experiences.
Yes he can. And if he did that we would adjust our expectations accordingly and consider the very good experiences to be just good while the slightly good experiences that are not as good as the average good to be evil.

Furthermore, your conception of evil as “less than your average experience” seems to be on very shaky ground. I am in the middle of my exams. These exams are less desirable than my ‘average’ desired state (I couldn’t think of my ‘average experience"; sleeping, perhaps?), but they aren’t ‘evil’.
Something that isn't evil, only a bit bad is still evil, only to a lesser degree. Just like a day that isn't cold, just a bit chilly is still cold, only to a lesser degree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vngRs8riW7A

If God is all-powerful and all good, then his refusal to stop evil means that he is evil. Therefore, an all-powerful and all good God cannot co-exist with evil. Evil exists. Therefore, God cannot exist.

If God is willing to stop evil but unable, then he is not worthy of worship.

If God is able to stop evil but not willing, then he is not worthy of worship.

If God could not figure out a way to make good and free will co-exist, then he is not all-knowing and not worthy of worship.

Discuss.

If you have a small kid who keeps falling off the bike, do you pick him up and encourage him to continue, in spite of all the bruises and scratches, or do you keep him away from the bike?

The concept of good and evil is more intertwined than we westerners are willing to admit. For instance, remember the old concept of Jin and Jang - good and evil, dark and light, bound together into the whole. The western christian and muslim traditions split good from evil with an absolute line and say "one cannot cross the line between them". Unfortunately, the line is blurry. And it is this blur that defines us, that makes us evolve. The evil of hunger made man to pursuit new ways of making food, thus settling in towns and eventually nations. The evil of wars brought us progress in technology that we could use in times of peace. The evil of millions of dead in WW2 made Europe say "NO MORE!" and unite.

If we believe the (original) bible (as much of it still remains), God perceives humans as his kids. Kids that have to learn, to evolve, to strive for the stars.

You have to understand that in most religions, corporeal has little meaning. If a child died, it was simply an event necessary for whatever reason. However, the child's soul is not lost by it. Many religions encourage people to celebrate the "liberation of soul from the trap of physical body" - which, of course, often leads to pretty insane cults (think Aztec sacrifices).

Me... I'm a man of science. If there's things science can't explain, I have no doubt that we have yet to reach further and learn it eventually. But relativity and quantum mechanics, two of the most advanced sciences of modern times, tell us that everything we see, everything we perceive as real, is but a perception of our own and far from reality as such. Time slows with speed and even stops eventually, yet we perceive it as linear. Space is far from simple emptyness and mass... mass is nothing but highly concentrated energy. We're literally walking, talking energy clouds. We're not even that different from stone. So why do we think? How do we think? DO we think?

To be completely honest, you asked a question to which "42" seems the most reasonable answer :)

Well put. You made a spelling error though, so I fear you fall short of perfection.
But the A in Equivalent seems less aesthetically pleasing than an I in Equivilent would...

*Pouts*

Yes he can. And if he did that we would adjust our expectations accordingly and consider the very good experiences to be just good while the slightly good experiences that are not as good as the average good to be evil.


Something that isn’t evil, only a bit bad is still evil, only to a lesser degree. Just like a day that isn’t cold, just a bit chilly is still cold, only to a lesser degree.
So my exams, having the sniffles, corked wine, and all other experiences that aren’t better than our average expectations are evil?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vngRs8riW7A

If God is all-powerful and all good, then his refusal to stop evil means that he is evil. Therefore, an all-powerful and all good God cannot co-exist with evil. Evil exists. Therefore, God cannot exist.

If God is willing to stop evil but unable, then he is not worthy of worship.

If God is able to stop evil but not willing, then he is not worthy of worship.

If God could not figure out a way to make good and free will co-exist, then he is not all-knowing and not worthy of worship.

Discuss.

I love this argument it completely fails to see that morality is subjective and so what is evil, may be viewed differantly from place to place, culture to culture, and timeline to timeline.

And surley any omnipotant God will view good and evil a lot differantly the OP does.

I love this argument it completely fails to see that morality is subjective and so what is evil, may be viewed differantly from place to place, culture to culture, and timeline to timeline.
That’s very much up for debate.

And surley any omnipotant God will view good and evil a lot differantly the OP does.
Not if morality is objective

And surley any omnipotant God will view good and evil a lot differantly the OP does.

If God thinks that genocide, slavery, rape, child abuse, bigotry, and war are okay, He's a vile, disgusting being unworthy of the slightest respect or worship.

That’s very much up for debate.

Sure we can debate that, but you know I'm right!;)


Not if morality is objective

And it isnt. Quick test, what is the right thing to do for your elderly parents.

Should we:

a) Put them in a home when they get old so that the best of care can be theirs.
b) take them into our house and look after them as they did us.

Now if morality is objective then there can only be one answer to this question, only one. So lets have it boys and girls of NSG, what's the moraly correct answer?

If God thinks that genocide, slavery, rape, child abuse, bigotry, and war are okay, He's a vile, disgusting being unworthy of the slightest respect or worship.

Huh what?!? How do you know what God thinks?

Now if morality is objective then there can only be one answer to this question, only one. So lets have it boys and girls of NSG, what's the moraly correct answer?
There is only one answer, but that doesn't mean morality is objective (or, for that matter, that it is subjective).

The answer is "We need more information about this particular case".

So lets have it boys and girls of NSG, what's the moraly correct answer?

Mere difference of opinion over an answer does not establish the non-existence of a correct one.

Huh what?!? How do you know what God thinks?

"If."

There is only one answer, but that doesn't mean morality is objective (or, for that matter, that it is subjective).

The answer is "We need more information about this particular case".

Huh what, it's a simple question, lets take to a personal level, the case is you, it's about your parents when they get old, and what you would do.

If God is neither in nor of this universe, and never has, then he is obsolete and useless. He has never performed miracles, had any contact with humans, sent his son or spirit to do his will,

A First Cause, a Prime Mover, or whatever you want to call it, must have some contact with the series of cause-and-effect that precedes from it, and as such must be, if not of the universe, then necessarily in it. One cannot give special dispensation to God.

And to the OP, I prefer Epicurus’ version of the problem:

Are the Gods willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then they are not omnipotent.
Are the Gods able, but not willing? Then they are malevolent.
Are the Gods both able and willing? Then whence does evil come from?
Are the Gods neither able nor willing? Then why call them Gods?


in einstines thery he says that for every positive effect there is an impositive effect so clearly god or some thing that must hav been there in the beginning must hav made a positive/impositive effect which would cause another effect
So there is whats known as a god but, this god could not even be aware of are realivance and there fore could even belong to a whole new unknown race of his own
he could be even a child and we are the experiment he did in a jar for a science fair but what the main point is, is that somthing or someone must have been there in the beggining of our life creation and theree could be considered as a God.

Huh what, it's a simple question, lets take to a personal level, the case is you, it's about your parents when they get old, and what you would do.

Then even an advocate of objective morality might say that the answer is specific to the situation: different circumstances have different morally relevant factors.

Sure we can debate that, but you know I’m right!;)
Well, actually I believe you’re mistaken. You’re perceiving cultural and parental influence for culturally relative morality.

And it isnt. Quick test, what is the right thing to do for your elderly parents.

Should we:

a) Put them in a home when they get old so that the best of care can be theirs.
b) take them into our house and look after them as they did us.

Now if morality is objective then there can only be one answer to this question, only one. So lets have it boys and girls of NSG, what’s the moraly correct answer?
First off, the above is not necessarily a moral question. Economics and ability come into account here.

Secondly, and far more importantly, no matter what decision you, or anybody, makes (and it will be influenced by culture and background, but influenced doesn’t mean 100% relative) you will be making a decision to care for your elderly parents. Only those people with psycho- or sociopathic tendencies will make a decision not based on caring for the elderly. Our innate moral sense, one that I believe has evolved a survival and procreational technique, is a shared, objective sense. The prejudices of our lives cloud and conceal this moral sense, but it works in all of us.

Both a supporter of the right to abortion, and someone who opposes it believe in the sanctity of life. They merely quibble over how to define this, over whether mother or child are more important, and over the definition of a ‘child’. But they both share a basic moral sense that harming a human is a Bad Thing.

In most cases, morality isn’t black and white. But it isn’t totally relative either.

Then even an advocate of objective morality might say that the answer is specific to the situation: different circumstances have different morally relevant factors.

Heh and so showing that morality is subjective.

in einstines thery he says that for every positive effect there is an impositive effect

I'm pretty sure you mean Newton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Law_of_Newton#Newton.27s_third_law:_law_of_reciprocal_actions), not Einstein.

so clearly god or some thing that must hav been there in the beginning must hav made a positive/impositive effect which would cause another effect

If everything must have a cause, what was the cause of that thing that was there in the beginning?

Heh and so showing that morality is subjective.

:rolleyes:

Do you even know what the terms mean?

There is no theory of objective morality that wouldn't allow you to take into account, say, your capability to take care of your parents, or the quality of care they would get at the homes that are available to them.

The PRINCIPLES are objective, according to the advocates of objective morality. They do not vary according to circumstance. But the specific actions the principles demand might.

He already has the angels - beings without choice only able to do good and worship him - why would he want another batch of yes-men?
If angels have no free-will then how did Lucifer rebel?

Morality is a comlpetely relative state created by nurture and culture.

Murder is a Moral concept, Killing is a reality.

If a lion kills another lion there is no moral question. If a man kills another man the question becomes entire moral "Was it murder?".

So here is a moral question.

I see a man speaking to my mate, he touches her.

I beat him to death in protection of my mate, not protecting her life, strictly in the alpha male animal sense I protect my basic genetic right to have my genes be the ones passed on to the next generation.
Have I broken some objective moral code inherent to all humans everywhere?
Is what I have done wrong because we have been taught it is wrong...or because indeed there does exist an objective morality that crosses all boundries, i submit there is no such moral objectivity for the human race, but rather purely societal morality created by man for man.

I hope i worded that correctly.

If angels have no free-will then how did Lucifer rebel?

If you study Judaism you see that Lucifer earns a name not widely used anymore.

Accuser.
Also he is called Prosecutor.

The rebellion is fluff, I prefer the Jewish mythos...he is doing his job.
EDIT
Also Smunk dont forget...no where in your Bible is the Fall described.
Revelations does not describe the First Fall that is so commonly spoken of, I am not sure where it first comes from...Milton is the only source I know of personally.

Huh what, it's a simple question, lets take to a personal level, the case is you, it's about your parents when they get old, and what you would do.
It depends on whether I have the time and resources that they need given their circumstance. Do I have a family of my own to support? Will my parents require special medical attention? What are their thoughts on the matter?

You can't make justified ethical decisions based on the flimsiest of abstracts; you need more detail than that in order for your choices to carry any weight.

Well, actually I believe you’re mistaken. You’re perceiving cultural and parental influence for culturally relative morality.

Not at all. I say that morality is subjective, that it changes from one culture to the next, and from one timeline to the next, however I do not limit myself there. It also changes from person to person, and there are many, many influsnces from where we obtain a sense of morlaity.

Parents are indeed one, and culture is another.


First off, the above is not necessarily a moral question. Economics and ability come into account here.

Of course it is a moral question. Morality deals with what is right and what is wrong. It's really very simple, is it right to put your elderly parents in a home, or is it right to take them into your home? Trying to make it the answer based on economics does not make it non moral. In fact I would say that if you based your answer on econmics that is an example of a bad moral judgement.


Secondly, and far more importantly, no matter what decision you, or anybody, makes (and it will be influenced by culture and background, but influenced doesn’t mean 100% relative) you will be making a decision to care for your elderly parents. Only those people with psycho- or sociopathic tendencies will make a decision not based on caring for the elderly. Our innate moral sense, one that I believe has evolved a survival and procreational technique, is a shared, objective sense. The prejudices of our lives cloud and conceal this moral sense, but it works in all of us.

Both a supporter of the right to abortion, and someone who opposes it believe in the sanctity of life. They merely quibble over how to define this, over whether mother or child are more important, and over the definition of a ‘child’. But they both share a basic moral sense that harming a human is a Bad Thing.

In most cases, morality isn’t black and white. But it isn’t totally relative either.

I don't suggest that morality is balck nor white, nor inbetween, I do suggest that it is subjective. All I can see in your words is an attempt to say that although it appears subjective, it is not so.

1) God/s = omnipotence which thus means they see the big picture, maybe just maybe its for the best

2) that video is dull and poorly made

3) if God was evil I think I would worship him, the wrath of an omnipotent being is not fun :(
Thats pretty worrying! Show some balls! As an evil being, Evil God would still pesecute you even if you worshiped him!

If you study Judaism you see that Lucifer earns a name not widely used anymore.

Accuser.
Also he is called Prosecutor.

The rebellion is fluff, I prefer the Jewish mythos...he is doing his job.

then there is no evil.

then there is no evil.

Oh, yes there is.
Us, and what we do.
The only evil is the lack of will to follow the Law.
WHo gets your ass if you dont follow the Law...the Prosecutor.

Check my edit...there is no biblical support o that first Fall of Lucifer.

Oh, yes there is.
Us, and what we do.
The only evil is the lack of will to follow the Law.
WHo gets your ass if you dont follow the Law...the Prosecutor.

sorry, I was unclear. I mean there is no spiritual evil......grr......I can't figure out how to explain it.

hmm......


the only evil is in the hearts and lives of humans


yeah.

no?

I give up.

sorry, I was unclear. I mean there is no spiritual evil......grr......I can't figure out how to explain it.

hmm......


the only evil is in the hearts and lives of humans


yeah.

no?

I give up.

YEAH.
See the Christian Devil becomes evil because his job is to test you, to tempt you to see if you will indeed break...so he is part of your evil, but you are free to remain strong.

The Devil is only as evil as he is allowed to be, (as far as I can tell), that is also of course if recognize the Jewish Faith as the birth place of christianity.

If not and you adhere strictly to Christianity being the begining then you must accept the Duality---Equal Good and Equal Evil and a Non-omnipotent God.

I accept the Devil is the work of God, that Angels do not have free will as we do...as we do...and so he got a shitty job.

Thats all, a shitty job.

So my exams, having the sniffles, corked wine, and all other experiences that aren’t better than our average expectations are evil?
Yes it is in the same direction but not to the level where we'd use the word evil. Just like cool is in the same direction as freezing but not to the level where we'd use the word freezing.

YEAH.
See the Christian Devil becomes evil because his job is to test you, to tempt you to see if you will indeed break...so he is part of your evil, but you are free to remain strong.

The Devil is only as evil as he is allowed to be, (as far as I can tell), that is also of course if recognize the Jewish Faith as the birth place of christianity.

If not and you adhere strictly to Christianity being the begining then you must accept the Duality---Equal Good and Equal Evil and a Non-omnipotent God.

I accept the Devil is the work of God, that Angels do not have free will as we do...as we do...and so he got a shitty job.

Thats all, a shitty job.
Isaiah 14:12-15 is where I get hung up, it sounds like what I was told had happened. I am still trudging through the prophecy books though.....

as far as God being omnipotent there is a lot of old testament scripture to support that.

:rolleyes:

Do you even know what the terms mean?

There is no theory of objective morality that wouldn't allow you to take into account, say, your capability to take care of your parents, or the quality of care they would get at the homes that are available to them.

The PRINCIPLES are objective, according to the advocates of objective morality. They do not vary according to circumstance. But the specific actions the principles demand might.


*Sigh* Yes of course I know what the term means.

You are right when you say that the objective point is the care of your elderly, but you missed the point I was grabbing for.

In some cultures they do equate care of the elderly to mean that you do the care, you care for your own. To put your folxs in a home would then be viewed as dodgeing your responceabilites, in short moraly reprehensble.

Myself I would put them in a home, I see no problems with this, like you say, they are still being cared for, and probaly I am paying for it.

So my upbringing, both culturaly, and historicaly sees no moral problems with my choice.

A man from a differant culture would disagree with me. Not because his culture has made him view things in a differant light(although obviosuly they have) but because his moral compas is set differantly to mine. How can that be so if morality was objective, from where does this objectivity spring?

Morality is a comlpetely relative state created by nurture and culture.

Murder is a Moral concept, Killing is a reality.

If a lion kills another lion there is no moral question. If a man kills another man the question becomes entire moral "Was it murder?".

So here is a moral question.

I see a man speaking to my mate, he touches her.

I beat him to death in protection of my mate, not protecting her life, strictly in the alpha male animal sense I protect my basic genetic right to have my genes be the ones passed on to the next generation.
Have I broken some objective moral code inherent to all humans everywhere?
Is what I have done wrong because we have been taught it is wrong...or because indeed there does exist an objective morality that crosses all boundries, i submit there is no such moral objectivity for the human race, but rather purely societal morality created by man for man.

I hope i worded that correctly.

I agree. It is a man made thing, and one whose rules have claerly changed over time. How many kids go up chimneys nowadays?

How can that be so if morality was objective,

I think humans are the products of evolution.

I know people who believe that humans were created by God, and that evolution is a myth.

Does that mean that the truth or falsity of evolution is subjective... or just that people disagree over what the objective truth is?

from where does this objectivity spring?

Reason.

this "oh god sucks" stuff is rather annoying.

if you take the (obviously nonexistent) god OUT of the equation, where does all this evil come from ?

US

why dont WE stop being evil? why dont WE fix things so that no one has to face mass starvation or genocide?

because we cant be bothered to.

so we rail at GOD for this evil that is within our own power to stop. we blame GOD for our own lack of conscience. for our own evil.

what is the point?

to absolve US from responsibility for our own actions.

well ya know, if god existed, maybe he would want us to face our own responsibility. and perhaps until the day we do we can all go to hell for our sin of indifference.

to absolve US from responsibility for our own actions.

No.

If that were the objective, the argument from evil would seek to prove that God is evil.

Instead, the argument from evil seeks to prove that God is non-existent. Which means that we ARE responsible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vngRs8riW7A

If God is all-powerful and all good, then his refusal to stop evil means that he is evil. Therefore, an all-powerful and all good God cannot co-exist with evil. Evil exists. Therefore, God cannot exist.

If God is willing to stop evil but unable, then he is not worthy of worship.

If God is able to stop evil but not willing, then he is not worthy of worship.

If God could not figure out a way to make good and free will co-exist, then he is not all-knowing and not worthy of worship.

Discuss.
Yep. Simple, fundamental problem. Nobody has ever solved it, IMO.

It's pure unmitigated bullshit to claim that evil must exist in order for free will to exist. It's perfectly possible to have free will sans ability for evil, just like it's perfectly possible to have free will sans ability to fly.

Personally, I just think it's generally stupid for people to claim God is all-powerful. That only creates problems. It's much easier to say that God is extremely powerful and all-good (and therefore worthy of worship), but God isn't capable of removing evil completely.

The "Gawd is omnipotent" thing just sounds like playground "my dad can beat up your dad!" taken way too far.

Is religion even compatible with free will? I don't believe so, mostly for reasons already pointed out in this thread. The main one being, if everything is God's will, then it's not ours.

No.

If that were the objective, the argument from evil would seek to prove that God is evil.

Instead, the argument from evil seeks to prove that God is non-existent. Which means that we ARE responsible.

I'm not sure this is true on any level...

First - the existence of evil often is argued as evidence for the evil of 'god'... or ambivalence... or malign intent... or lack of diligence... uncaring disposition... toying with humans... cruelty... you name it. I don't think the 'argument from evil' only has one response... as you seem to suggest.

Second - I don't think there is only one argument being made either... I think different people approach the 'argument for evil' with different intent. The believer might use it as a logical tool to prove the existence of God (not that I think it works in that guise), while a non-believer might think it proves the non-existence. (I'm no more convinced of the final conclusion in that case).

Third - the conclusions are just not as concrete as might be suggested, based on the process. So - god is not omnipotent... does that realy place responsibility for evil on humans? No - it really doesn't.. although it might if you accept the premise of the lazy/evil/malign/careless god... and retain the idea that everything else about the suggested model has been right and true. Couldn't it also suggest the existence of another - more malign - force? Just as easily?

I think humans are the products of evolution.

I know people who believe that humans were created by God, and that evolution is a myth.

Does that mean that the truth or falsity of evolution is subjective... or just that people disagree over what the objective truth is?


Hehe there are many ways to answer this one. I belive that both evolution and God created man. But you mix disiplines here. Truth is both objective and subjective,

Morality is either one or the other.

Either what is considered the 'right and proper thing' is objective, in which case we should all be able to answer the question I possed in the same manor.

Or it is subjective, in which case what is consdered 'right and proper' will change.

The thing to do would be find a question that has a solid moral answer and see how many differant answers we get, and more importatly find why the differances.

No.

If that were the objective, the argument from evil would seek to prove that God is evil.

Instead, the argument from evil seeks to prove that God is non-existent. Which means that we ARE responsible.

yeah but to recall a thread from a month ago


if we were convinced that god didnt exist, we wouldnt be so mad at him over this evil thing now would we?

God doesnt exist, nor good or evil.

They are only symbols of our ignorance and atempt of creating concrete ideas of how about the world works. Of course, they are quite primitive and fail miserably, but they are good enough for the main ignorant population.

If you study Judaism you see that Lucifer earns a name not widely used anymore.

Accuser.
Also he is called Prosecutor.

The rebellion is fluff, I prefer the Jewish mythos...he is doing his job.
EDIT
Also Smunk dont forget...no where in your Bible is the Fall described.
Revelations does not describe the First Fall that is so commonly spoken of, I am not sure where it first comes from...Milton is the only source I know of personally.

There is a strong argument that 'Lucifer' has nothing to do with it... that mention of 'Lucifer' refers to a temporal ruler (a king of Tyre) and his ascent and eventual descent of power, compared to local astrological terms.

I'd like to pick up on something you said and run with it a little... HaSatan isn't a name - when you see it in the Hebrew it is more obvious... there is an angel described who is 'the Satan'. It's a job-description. And, if one studies the book of Job carefully, it is clear both who 'the satan' is employed by, and who it is that he is adversary or accuser of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vngRs8riW7A

If God is all-powerful and all good, then his refusal to stop evil means that he is evil. Therefore, an all-powerful and all good God cannot co-exist with evil. Evil exists. Therefore, God cannot exist.

If God is willing to stop evil but unable, then he is not worthy of worship.

If God is able to stop evil but not willing, then he is not worthy of worship.

If God could not figure out a way to make good and free will co-exist, then he is not all-knowing and not worthy of worship.

Discuss.

GoodNewsAtheism,

You have to understand the reason BEHIND the evil of this world. It's called total depravity. It because of this we are the way we are. God is all powerful and all good, but He allows evil to continue. Because if He decided to do away with everyone and everything that is evil, well then a lot of the world's population wouldn't be here right now, now would they? But then you ask, "Well why doesn't He get rid of them now?" I'll tell you. He doesn't destroy the world because of the "elect." They are the select few who's salvation God predestined from the foundation of the world. Once everyone who is going to be saved is saved, then will the end of the world come.

Reformed Calvinists

Morality is either one or the other.

Either what is considered the 'right and proper thing' is objective, in which case we should all be able to answer the question I possed in the same manor.

Whether or not I have brown eyes is a matter of objective fact.

If you asked a dozen people whether or not Soheran has brown eyes, should they all be able to give the correct answer?

Edit: A better example would be a complicated math problem. The answers to math problems are matters of objective fact. Yet would you really expect everyone who made the attempt at solving it to arrive at the same answer?

Or it is subjective, in which case what is consdered 'right and proper' will change.

No. In which case "good" and "evil" are fundamentally the mental interpretations of certain things by an observer.

Moral truth could change without being subjective (say, cultural relativism), and moral truth could be subjective without changing (if everyone thought the same way always).

The thing to do would be find a question that has a solid moral answer and see how many differant answers we get, and more importatly find why the differances.

Yes, the "why" aspect is crucial.

If people give different answers because some people have reached the wrong conclusions, then morality can still be a matter of objective fact.

Evil exists in this world because of total depravity.

Skibereen, we have no free will. Everything we do is ordained of God. He knows all things, including who will be saved and who won't.

Whether or not I have brown eyes is a matter of objective fact.

If you asked a dozen people whether or not Soheran has brown eyes, should they all be able to give the correct answer?

Again this is imaterial. I am talking about the subjectivity or objectivity of morality, not thruth, nor your eyes, nor peoples understanding of these two terms, nor am I trying to equate disagreement on what is true with subjective.



No. In which case "good" and "evil" are fundamentally the mental interpretations of certain things by an observer.

And you deny that this is subjective?



Moral truth could change without being subjective (say, cultural relativism), and moral truth could be subjective without changing (if everyone thought the same way always).

Now I have to ask you, if you understand these terms.

Culteral realitivism is a sort of subjectivity, and if everyone though the same way always, then that surly is objective.





Yes, the "why" aspect is crucial.

If people give different answers because some people have reached the wrong conclusions, then morality can still be a matter of objective fact.

The thing with this is how do we show that the wrong conclusions are reached? I mean if I feel that I am moraly right, then I must also feel that the oppsite is moraly wrong. How do we go about decideing whate side is correct? I think you are geting ethics mixed up with morality.

Ahhh it never gets old.

If God is all-powerful and all good, then his refusal to stop evil means that he is evil. Therefore, an all-powerful and all good God cannot co-exist with evil. Evil exists. Therefore, God cannot exist.

If God is willing to stop evil but unable, then he is not worthy of worship.

If God is able to stop evil but not willing, then he is not worthy of worship.

If God could not figure out a way to make good and free will co-exist, then he is not all-knowing and not worthy of worship.

Discuss.

This argument is basically a false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma) argument. Essentially it asserts that For God to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, there can be no evil in the world. If there is evil, then either God doesn't exists or He isn't omnibenevolent.

If God is neither in nor of this universe, and never has, then he is obsolete and useless. He has never performed miracles, had any contact with humans, sent his son or spirit to do his will,

A First Cause, a Prime Mover, or whatever you want to call it, must have some contact with the series of cause-and-effect that precedes from it, and as such must be, if not of the universe, then necessarily in it. One cannot give special dispensation to God.

And to the OP, I prefer Epicurus’ version of the problem:

Are the Gods willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then they are not omnipotent.
Are the Gods able, but not willing? Then they are malevolent.
Are the Gods both able and willing? Then whence does evil come from?
Are the Gods neither able nor willing? Then why call them Gods?

This is a bit arrogant, don't you think?

There is evil in the world, ladies and gentlemen, because of Free Will. If God imposed goodness upon us all the time, we'd have no freedom to choose for ourselves which would negate out entire purpose for being here.

Why are we here?

Do you like chocolate pudding? Yummy, ain't it? (If you don't like chocolate pudidng imagine something you do like) Imagine having nothing but yummy chocolate pudding ALL the time. How well do you suppose you'd be able to appreciate just how good chocolate pudding is if it's the only thing you'd ever tasted? Would you be grateful to have it? Would you choose to have some more? Would yuo even desire it at all, after a while? Heck, if chocolate pudding were the only thing you'd ever eaten, could you really even know what it means to taste good?

Probably not.

Now have a plate of brussel sprouts. (If you like brussel sprouts then pick something you hate). Maybe you have brussel sprouts more often than not.

Suddenly that bowl of chocolate pudding means something, doesn't it?

We're on earth so that we can learn what it is to choose good (or not). Since evil can't exists in God's presence, it is necessary that we should leave His presence and come here, where we can experience good and evil. Only in this way can we truly understand the difference. Whoever made that Youtube video appears to understand that difference well. Now all they're missing is the connection.

THIS is why choosing good/salvation means something. THIS is why sin means something. God would like very much for each person to choose good to return to Him in the afterlife, but that choice MUST be our own or it means nothing.

That's why there can be hope for those who suffer. That's why people who appear to have everything can still be unhappy. It's what we've chosen for th enext life that counts.

THat's why a poor and destitute person is capable of being happy and millionaires can be miserable.

The video had images of concentration camp prisoners. Any one of those people learned more about evil than we ever will (hopefully) and yet they still chose to pray and keep their religion. Maybe you should be asking them about it.

There is evil in the world, ladies and gentlemen, because of Free Will. If God imposed goodness upon us all the time, we'd have no freedom to choose for ourselves which would negate out entire purpose for being here.

I'd say 99.99999999% of the choices made by humans have absolutely nothing to do with good vs. evil.

I choose between different shirts to wear to work. I choose different things to do with my free time. I choose what to eat. Who to date. Where to travel. What career to pursue.

As a matter of fact...I don't think a single one of the ten most important decisions I've made in my life had anything remotely to do with good vs evil. Every one of those choices could easily have existed in a world with no evil.

The existence of evil limits my ability to choose, if anything. Options that would be available to me in an all-good world simply are not available in the world we have today.


Why are we here?

Why not?


Do you like chocolate pudding? Yummy, ain't it? (If you don't like chocolate pudidng imagine something you do like) Imagine having nothing but yummy chocolate pudding ALL the time. How well do you suppose you'd be able to appreciate just how good chocolate pudding is if it's the only thing you'd ever tasted? Would you be grateful to have it? Would you choose to have some more? Would yuo even desire it at all, after a while? Heck, if chocolate pudding were the only thing you'd ever eaten, could you really even know what it means to taste good?

You're actually using the example backwards.

Evil is only one of an infinite numbers of "flavors" that choice can come in. If you eliminate "evil" as a possible choice, you're still left with countless other choices.

It's like how I can't choose to fly by flapping my arms. That choice is denied to me. But I still have tons and tons and tons of choices in how I move through the world. The removal of one choice from my set of options does not remove my ability to choose.


We're on earth so that we can learn what it is to choose good (or not).

We only need to learn this BECAUSE evil exists. If evil didn't exist, there'd be no need to learn how to choose to avoid doing evil.


Since evil can't exists in God's presence, it is necessary that we should leave His presence and come here, where we can experience good and evil.

If evil can't exist in God's presence, then our ability to choose between good and evil has precisely zero value if we are with God. What you appear to be saying is that God created evil (or allows evil to exist) purely so humans will have to learn to deal with it. That's bonkers.

That's like saying, "We should create a new horrible disease, in order to force our children to develop resistances to it in order to be able to survive the plague we created." Why not just...um...not create the disease in the first place? Then your kids won't have to worry about developing resistances to the disease.


THIS is why choosing good/salvation means something. THIS is why sin means something. God would like very much for each person to choose good to return to Him in the afterlife, but that choice MUST be our own or it means nothing.

There is no reason why humans must possess the ability to do evil in order for this to happen.


That's why there can be hope for those who suffer. That's why people who appear to have everything can still be unhappy. It's what we've chosen for th enext life that counts.

THat's why a poor and destitute person is capable of being happy and millionaires can be miserable.

I'm not following your logic.

Yes, a poor person can be happy, and a rich person can be sad. What does this have to do with the supposed requirement of the existence of evil?

If there were no evil in the world, there could still be suffering and sadness sometimes.

Example: sometimes things aren't evil, they're just the way things are. My lover's grandmother passed away recently. She lived a full, happy life. She died a natural death, surrounded by her friends and family. There was nothing evil about it. But people still were sad to see her go.


The video had images of concentration camp prisoners. Any one of those people learned more about evil than we ever will (hopefully) and yet they still chose to pray and keep their religion. Maybe you should be asking them about it.

I don't really think you should hold up this particular example. "Religion as psychological coping mechanism" doesn't support your point.

If God were outside the universe, then the universe wouldn't be the universe. By definition the universe is all that is; and if God exists, he's therefore part of the universe.

But then again, right there you're going on the (not necessarily true) assumption that that definition is correct.

But then again, right there you're going on the (not necessarily true) assumption that that definition is correct.

Heh yeah if the universe was by defintion all that exists, I guess that puts the kybosh on brane theory, or superstring theory then. Them poor theoretical cosmologist, hampered before they have began all because of the bloody English language!

The problem with the whole God arguement, is that one must first believe God exists. I don't. The world, solar system, galaxy, universe is just to damn big for 1 being to be everywhere at once, know everything about everything that is going on everywhere, and have all power over it.

All i can say is god was created because of the fear of the unknown. Us as humans have a natural instinct to fear what is unknown to them. So creating a god explains these things.

The problem with the whole God arguement, is that one must first believe God exists. I don't. The world, solar system, galaxy, universe is just to damn big for 1 being to be everywhere at once, know everything about everything that is going on everywhere, and have all power over it.



Yes, exactly, humans created god, to answer these questions. Where we came from, ect...

Its amazing how billions upon billions of innocent, or soldiers have died because of ones belief. For a sacred building, ect...

If their was a god why wouldn't he(or she) stop this madness

Its amazing how billions upon billions of innocent, or soldiers have died because of ones belief. For a sacred building, ect...

If their was a god why wouldn't he(or she) stop this madness

Well according to Christian belief, God doesn't stop it because he wants people to have free will. Personally, I think that's a load of bullshit, because God has "talked" to numerous people in the bible and told them to go to war. In some cases he ORDERED genocide.

Yes, exactly, humans created god, to answer these questions. Where we came from, ect...

Heh whats amazing is the ability of those that do not belive in God to formulate opinions and 'knowledge' of how and why, all of this without proof, and then declare those that belive mad and irrational?

I'd say 99.99999999% of the choices made by humans have absolutely nothing to do with good vs. evil.

I choose between different shirts to wear to work. I choose different things to do with my free time. I choose what to eat. Who to date. Where to travel. What career to pursue.

As a matter of fact...I don't think a single one of the ten most important decisions I've made in my life had anything remotely to do with good vs evil. Every one of those choices could easily have existed in a world with no evil.


True. How does that contradict what I said?


The existence of evil limits my ability to choose, if anything. Options that would be available to me in an all-good world simply are not available in the world we have today.

Like leaving your front door unlocked and not needing police? Or do I misunderstand?


Why not?

The question follows form the original "philosophy." if you aren't wondering for yourself, then ignore the rest.


You're actually using the example backwards.

Evil is only one of an infinite numbers of "flavors" that choice can come in. If you eliminate "evil" as a possible choice, you're still left with countless other choices.


Are you referring back to the first statement you made about the irrelevancy of most options? By way of clarification: We're limiting our scope to issues that are commonly classified as good vs. evil, since I suspect the OP wasn't bothering with what shirt one wears or what color to paint the hallway.


It's like how I can't choose to fly by flapping my arms. That choice is denied to me. But I still have tons and tons and tons of choices in how I move through the world. The removal of one choice from my set of options does not remove my ability to choose.

Relevance?


We only need to learn this BECAUSE evil exists. If evil didn't exist, there'd be no need to learn how to choose to avoid doing evil.

If evil can't exist in God's presence, then our ability to choose between good and evil has precisely zero value if we are with God. What you appear to be saying is that God created evil (or allows evil to exist) purely so humans will have to learn to deal with it. That's bonkers.

That's like saying, "We should create a new horrible disease, in order to force our children to develop resistances to it in order to be able to survive the plague we created." Why not just...um...not create the disease in the first place? Then your kids won't have to worry about developing resistances to the disease.

Bonkers why? Haven't you ever heard of parent deliberately letting their kids get chicken pox at a young age so that they won't have to deal with it later? (My oldest son and I got it a year before the vaccine came out. bleh.)

Although it does imply that evil exixts independently of God, doesn't it? I have no problem with this view.


There is no reason why humans must possess the ability to do evil in order for this to happen.

Of course it does, or choice is irrelevant.


I'm not following your logic.

Yes, a poor person can be happy, and a rich person can be sad. What does this have to do with the supposed requirement of the existence of evil?

I included that as a matter of perspective, to illustrate that if this were "it" for us, with no higher priority or goal, then theoretically a person who "has it all" ought to be virtually guaranteed happiness and a person who has comaprtiviely nothing should find it next to impossible to be happy.


If there were no evil in the world, there could still be suffering and sadness sometimes.

Example: sometimes things aren't evil, they're just the way things are. My lover's grandmother passed away recently. She lived a full, happy life. She died a natural death, surrounded by her friends and family. There was nothing evil about it. But people still were sad to see her go.


Well this is where we'll differ by virtue of divergent philosophy so I present this as a difference of belief, not as a rebuttal.

We are mortal because of the corruption of this world. That's why salvation=immortality. No death.


I don't really think you should hold up this particular example. "Religion as psychological coping mechanism" doesn't support your point.

I've noticed you often tend to try and reduce religion to nothing more than a psychological coping mechanism." That's a narrow view indeed. It goes well beyond that. It's like going to a hospital with a painful but minor injury. You do not fear because you know it'll be over at some point. It's not a way of coping, it's your understanding of how tings work that enables you to overcome fear.

Again this is imaterial. I am talking about the subjectivity or objectivity of morality, not thruth, nor your eyes, nor peoples understanding of these two terms,

Obviously. And I am pointing out that objectivity does not imply what you say it does.

nor am I trying to equate disagreement on what is true with subjective.

That is precisely what you have been doing.

And you deny that this is subjective?

No. I am saying that that is the definition of "subjective morality."

Now I have to ask you, if you understand these terms.

Yes, I do.

Culteral realitivism is a sort of subjectivity,

It is a form of moral relativism.

Subjective morality puts moral judgment in the hands of the subject: the individual's perception. Not the culture in which he or she lives.

Cultural relativism argues that morality has a necessarily cultural foundation - beyond the individual.

and if everyone though the same way always, then that surly is objective.

Hardly. "Objective" means beyond the subject: in the world of objects. Objective qualities are qualities of the things we perceive that exist in the things themselves, or in the fundamental nature of the universe in which they exist, not in our mental interpretation of them.

If we all perceive something the same way, but in a way that is not intrinsic to the thing, that is subjective, not objective.

The thing with this is how do we show that the wrong conclusions are reached?

With reason. Or through some other objective method.

How do we go about decideing whate side is correct?

Well, you can always start with asking for a justification, and evaluating it rationally.

I think you are geting ethics mixed up with morality.

I don't see how you can possibly distinguish the two in a way that would allow one to be objective, but not the other.

Care to explain?

Ahhh it never gets old.



This argument is basically a false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma) argument. Essentially it asserts that For God to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, there can be no evil in the world. If there is evil, then either God doesn't exists or He isn't omnibenevolent.


And... that's wrong, how?

Actually I think you misrepresent. I think a better version is that God is supposed to be the architect of all, and god is also supposed to be incapable of tolerating evil. Either he created an evil world that he can't tolerate... or he has no control. So - he is either impotent with regards to his creation, or he is just impotent. The fact he is supposed to be omnipotent AND omnibenevolent figures into that - because it implies his creation should be perfect and flawless, and that all should transpire for good.

Clearly, reality has an established bias against god.

Heh whats amazing is the ability of those that do not belive in God to formulate opinions and 'knowledge' of how and why, all of this without proof, and then declare those that belive mad and irrational?

There is proof.

Every day, we see proofs of people constructing coping mechanisms... creating false cradles to sustain themselves against the harshnesses of reality. Every day, we see examples of people employing positivity exercises to make their days more bearable, to help them succeed, or just get through.

Prayer looks a lot like a positivity exercise. The constructs of religion look a lot like coping mechanisms. To arrive at those conclusions, is to analyse the facts ONLY in the context of everything else we 'know'.

In slightly earlier times (only a hundred or so years ago), it was not an uncommon occurance for a family to decide their good baby had been replaced by a changeling - a deceptive fairy creature that was hungry and angry, and had to be put out of the house. Can you see how this could be a coping mechanism in a primitive society, for parents who couldn't deal with yet another mouth to feed, and yet another screaming child?

Is it more logical to assume that the stories of changelings ARE coping mechanisms? Or that we really are plagued by a world filled with other 'people' we can't see?

If God wants us to have free will, then should we also negate the "positive" things people attribute to god's doing (ie, miracles)? Since that also would be a violation of free will. Furthermore, if god's omnipotent couldn't he allow us to have free will to choose and do what we want, but eliminate dangers (for example, natural disasters...)?

And the free will argument is bs anyway. The inaction of god is comparable to someone who blatantly refuses to call 911 when he sees several people trapped in a burning building. He has the power to stop it, but refuses to on the premise of letting people solve their own problems. Maybe not pure evil, but that's certainly assholish.

For my view on the whole good/evil god shizzle thing, assuming you are speaking of the Christian god, I thought it was quite clear that he was not "good" unless you buy into the whole "mysterious ways" or "anything he does is good" type things. I, as a couple above, have read quite a few nasty actions by him in the bible and plenty of genocide. Who says these things aren't his idea?


Of course, to my fellow Discordians, you should simply consult your pineal gland.

For my view on the whole good/evil god shizzle thing, assuming you are speaking of the Christian god, I thought it was quite clear that he was not "good" unless you buy into the whole "mysterious ways" or "anything he does is good" type things. I, as a couple above, have read quite a few nasty actions by him in the bible and plenty of genocide. Who says these things aren't his idea?


Of course, to my fellow Discordians, you should simply consult your pineal gland.

The weird thing is... the Jewish version of god wasn't really 'all good'. The original concept is very much that God is the source of everything... and that makes the good AND the evil part of the same entity. One could argue that their god was 'good' in as much as he had a plan that might have a positive ending. In such a context, all the 'evil' that comes before that end is a means to that end. The 'all good' god is a later creation.

If God wants us to have free will, then should we also negate the "positive" things people attribute to god's doing (ie, miracles)? Since that also would be a violation of free will. Furthermore, if god's omnipotent couldn't he allow us to have free will to choose and do what we want, but eliminate dangers (for example, natural disasters...)?

i totally agree.

the notion that god lets us wallow in evil but now and then cheats to allow some really good supplicant to get his way is ......wrong.

to praise god for anything good that happens is as silly as dissing him for any bad thing that happens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vngRs8riW7A

If God is all-powerful and all good, then his refusal to stop evil means that he is evil. Therefore, an all-powerful and all good God cannot co-exist with evil. Evil exists. Therefore, God cannot exist.

If God is willing to stop evil but unable, then he is not worthy of worship.

If God is able to stop evil but not willing, then he is not worthy of worship.

If God could not figure out a way to make good and free will co-exist, then he is not all-knowing and not worthy of worship.

Discuss.

that's where your argument falls apart...

whoever told you god (I'm assuming you mean Judeo-Christian god) was good
was lying...:p

http://www.goatstar.org/atrocities-committed-or-commanded-by-god/

And the free will argument is bs anyway. The inaction of god is comparable to someone who blatantly refuses to call 911 when he sees several people trapped in a burning building. He has the power to stop it, but refuses to on the premise of letting people solve their own problems. Maybe not pure evil, but that's certainly assholish.

i dont think it IS assholish.

i think its childish to insist that if god didnt create the universe in exactly the way *I* think he should have done it, then he is bad.

god created the world he created the way he created it. to whine that its not "perfect" is to suggest that we know all the parameters and could have done it all better. (which is not to say that i think this is the best of all possible worlds.)

blaming god for human evil is as silly as blaming your parents for you ending up in jail.

that's where your argument falls apart...

whoever told you god (I'm assuming you mean Judeo-Christian god) was good
was lying...:p

http://www.goatstar.org/atrocities-committed-or-commanded-by-god/

The only plausible god: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltheism

blaming god for human evil is as silly as blaming your parents for you ending up in jail.

Difference is - god is omnipotent, parents are not. God can easily prevent evil, or tragedy but decides not to. Free will is a baloney excuse. The police man doesn't (or shouldn't) neglect a domestic disturbance on the account of free will now, does he?

Difference is - god is omnipotent, parents are not. God can easily prevent evil, or tragedy but decides not to. Free will is a baloney excuse. The police man doesn't (or shouldn't) neglect a domestic disturbance on the account of free will now, does he?

gods "goodness" is (extremely obviously) not about THIS world. its about the NEXT world.

this world is just a short preparation for our eternal life. the sucky things that happen here are not the important parts of our "life" which extends to eternity.

god isnt interested in micromanaging everything that happens here. he set it up and let it go. he is interested in how we deal with it and how it prepares us for life with him in heaven or how it demonstrates that we are unworthy of heaven by example of how we live this life so badly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vngRs8riW7A

If God is all-powerful and all good, then his refusal to stop evil means that he is evil. Therefore, an all-powerful and all good God cannot co-exist with evil. Evil exists. Therefore, God cannot exist.

If God is willing to stop evil but unable, then he is not worthy of worship.

If God is able to stop evil but not willing, then he is not worthy of worship.

If God could not figure out a way to make good and free will co-exist, then he is not all-knowing and not worthy of worship.

Discuss.

Actually, evil does not exist. Evil is an absence of goodness in a certain situation, so God does not cause or allow evil, because evil is nothing. In any sin that you can think of, there are one or more objects. No object itself is evil, it is only actions involving that object in a certain situation that is not good (read: evil) If God did not allow evil things to happen, he would have to prevent any possible action because in a certain situation it could be bad.

gods "goodness" is (extremely obviously) not about THIS world. its about the NEXT world.

this world is just a short preparation for our eternal life. the sucky things that happen here are not the important parts of our "life" which extends to eternity.

god isnt interested in micromanaging everything that happens here. he set it up and let it go. he is interested in how we deal with it and how it prepares us for life with him in heaven or how it demonstrates that we are unworthy of heaven by example of how we live this life so badly.

But god is certainly capable of micromanaging it, and this world is pretty damn important considering your actions here determine whether you get an eternity of luxury (heaven) or an eternity of torment (hell). Determining your eternal place in existence based on a relatively short experience on earth makes it seem like this life is pretty damn important.

Actually, evil does not exist. Evil is an absence of goodness in a certain situation, so God does not cause or allow evil, because evil is nothing. In any sin that you can think of, there are one or more objects. No object itself is evil, it is only actions involving that object in a certain situation that is not good (read: evil) If God did not allow evil things to happen, he would have to prevent any possible action because in a certain situation it could be bad.

ya but god didnt stop the nazi genocide. doesnt that mean he is not good?

(not my argument)

i dont think it IS assholish.

i think its childish to insist that if god didnt create the universe in exactly the way *I* think he should have done it, then he is bad.

god created the world he created the way he created it. to whine that its not "perfect" is to suggest that we know all the parameters and could have done it all better. (which is not to say that i think this is the best of all possible worlds.)

blaming god for human evil is as silly as blaming your parents for you ending up in jail.

Ash, you are way too smart to be hanging out with people like us.

:D

Ash, you are way too smart to be hanging out with people like us.

:D

i tell myself that every day

just before someone hands me my ass.

i tell myself that every day

just before someone hands me my ass.

Hey Ash... is this yours...?

:D

Hey Ash... is this yours...?

:D

DAMMIT!

i wondered where that went.

gods "goodness" is (extremely obviously) not about THIS world. its about the NEXT world.

this world is just a short preparation for our eternal life. the sucky things that happen here are not the important parts of our "life" which extends to eternity.

god isnt interested in micromanaging everything that happens here. he set it up and let it go. he is interested in how we deal with it and how it prepares us for life with him in heaven or how it demonstrates that we are unworthy of heaven by example of how we live this life so badly.

so all that stuff in genesis about seeing what he made and it being good wasn't meant to be taken literally?

"God saw all that he had made, and said to Himself, 'Eh, good enough, I guess'. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."

ya but god didnt stop the nazi genocide. doesnt that mean he is not good?

(not my argument)

though it is a perfectly sound one. clearly a world in which the nazis killed only 1 million jews is a vastly better one than this one. either god had the power to bring that about and chose not to, or god didn't have a power that seems damn near trivial compared to everything else god is supposedly capable of. philosophical christian god is a logical contradiction. best move back to evil fuckhead christian god for consistencies sake.

The answer to this conundruum is really pretty simple.

God doesn't create or maintain evil (a good God would not do that). Nor does God decide beforehand and lay out what will happen. God does not cause evil. BUT, God's omnipotence is, though it sounds paradoxical, a limited omnipotence.

God cannot do things which are intrinsically impossible. Examples would be a 4-sided triangle or a burrito so big he can't eat it. Another example would be to violate his own nature/his own laws. Thus, it's true, God isn't absolutely and literally omnipotent. He is omnipotent within the confines of the Logos: the glue that binds everything together (which also happens to be God, but in a slightly less actively conscious form one might say).

Thus, God does not "prevent" evil because it would violate his own nature: which is to allow free will. God allows free will because goodness which is forced is not truly goodness: it's slavery. Thus, in order to obtain goodness from humanity (which is, arguably, God's goal, or at least a good possibility as his goal) God must allow free will and, by implication, must not directly prevent evil. But, God does take action to aid humans in preventing evil. At times in the form of miracles, at times in the form of the "still small voice".

I believe Immanuel Kant speaks alot about intrinsic impossibility.

Rule of thumb: do not trust information from any site which openly and up front informs you of it's agenda. Good example would be Daylight Atheism, or Focus on the Family: two organizations I take great joy in deconstructing, humiliating, and otherwise proving incorrect or just generally agitating.

Honestly, I figure the only solution to the problem of evil is this: God is akin to a novelist, and we are all his characters, and if your mom gets shot while getting a subway sandwich that's just how the plot goes. But I can't see how such a being would be worthy of worship.


Yeah, and if you look at it from the POV that said Novelist convinces his characters to pray for another plot outcome other than the one He has already preconceived, the Writer-Of-All-Things is one sadistic SOB. Doubly unworthy of worship.

so all that stuff in genesis about seeing what he made and it being good wasn't meant to be taken literally?

"God saw all that he had made, and said to Himself, 'Eh, good enough, I guess'. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."

the world IS good.

that doesnt mean that bad things dont happen.

i mean DUH, his people didnt last a month in eden. he wasnt talking about THEM.

though it is a perfectly sound one. clearly a world in which the nazis killed only 1 million jews is a vastly better one than this one. either god had the power to bring that about and chose not to, or god didn't have a power that seems damn near trivial compared to everything else god is supposedly capable of. philosophical christian god is a logical contradiction. best move back to evil fuckhead christian god for consistencies sake.

the nazi genocide is not god's fault. he didnt do it, they did. the rest of the world didnt care enough about those who were being killed to put in the effort necessary to stop it before it got into the millions.

we dont live in a world where we are god's puppets.

Difference is - god is omnipotent, parents are not. God can easily prevent evil, or tragedy but decides not to. Free will is a baloney excuse. The police man doesn't (or shouldn't) neglect a domestic disturbance on the account of free will now, does he?

The policeman shouldn't neglect a domestic disturbance if he obeys the rules of his job. He can, (if he wishes) on the account that he has free will.

If people obey God's rules they shouldn't do evil things or stand by and let evil things happen. Of course they can on the account that they have free will.

Either way there will be consequences.

the nazi genocide is not god's fault. he didnt do it, they did. the rest of the world didnt care enough about those who were being killed to put in the effort necessary to stop it before it got into the millions.

we dont live in a world where we are god's puppets.

all powerful and all knowing, remember. therefore god knew it would happen before there were any nazis in existence at all. so that means either the holocaust was the best god could manage (which means god can't be all powerful) or the holocaust was unpredicatable (whoops, there goes all knowing).

pretty much, the tri-omni-ist must demonstrate that the precise number of jews killed by the nazis was the only logically possible way for things to be - it must have been logically impossible for god to have made the world better by saving even a single extra jew. this world must be the best of all logically possible worlds. and that claim seems absurd on the face of it.

also, i should mention that not even the nonsensical theological conception of free will can save philosophical christian god, what with the massive death and suffering caused by non-human forces and all that.

all powerful and all knowing, remember. therefore god knew it would happen before there were any nazis in existence at all. so that means either the holocaust was the best god could manage (which means god can't be all powerful) or the holocaust was unpredicatable (whoops, there goes all knowing).

pretty much, the tri-omni-ist must demonstrate that the precise number of jews killed by the nazis was the only logically possible way for things to be - it must have been logically impossible for god to have made the world better by saving even a single extra jew. this world must be the best of all logically possible worlds. and that claim seems absurd on the face of it.

also, i should mention that not even the nonsensical theological conception of free will can save philosophical christian god, what with the massive death and suffering caused by non-human forces and all that.

knowing it isnt creating it. fine, he knew from the beginning of time that that nazis would kill millions. not that they are the only ones. he still didnt cause it unless you wish he hadnt started the universe at all. i suppose thats a stance.

no. god does not micormanage the world. now, if you believe that god has a PLAN for each of us, that he never gives us more than we can bear, or whatever other nonsense people believe, then YES, god is actively doing bad things to people for his own mysterious reason. and it would be hard to imagine just HOW sentencing billions to misery is in any way GOOD. thats why i dont believe that.

i dont know that its the best of all possible worlds, i just know that its the one god created for us. maybe other beings in other worlds got a better deal. i wouldnt know. but, god's goodness lies not in the running of THIS world but in his willingness to give you eternal life in heaven. THIS world is obviously not meant to be paradise. its a test. its a passage. its our extremely temporary home.

if heaven sucks or you didnt have a fair chance to make it there, THEN you have reason to complain. that this imperfect world isnt paradise is more our fault than god's.

What I don't get is that religious people say things like, "God did not stop the holocaust to happen because he could see the bigger picture." OK. Fine. By why doesn't that logic extend to issues like stem cells? Shouldn't Christians be expert by now on seeing the bigger picture?

What I don't get is that religious people say things like, "God did not stop the holocaust to happen because he could see the bigger picture." OK. Fine. By why doesn't that logic extend to issues like stem cells? Shouldn't Christians be expert by now on seeing the bigger picture?

Same kind of mental framework that thinks an interventionist god is going to be flummoxed by a half millimetre of latex...

Desperate Measures:
"What I don't get is that religious people say things like, "God did not stop the holocaust to happen because he could see the bigger picture." OK. Fine. By why doesn't that logic extend to issues like stem cells? Shouldn't Christians be expert by now on seeing the bigger picture?"

if i may make ths comparison, both the holocaust as well as stem cell research are attempts by human beings to enact upon their idea of the big picture, the nazis thought the world would be better off overall if the jews weren't in it, and now people are promoting the idea that the world would be better off with a little "sacrifice" from our unborn population for the improvement of the living.

and yes, i know that there are plenty of other examples of human beings using corrupt or debatible means to "improve" the big picture, including actions done by "religious" people who pretend to be doing God's will.

Desperate Measures:
"What I don't get is that religious people say things like, "God did not stop the holocaust to happen because he could see the bigger picture." OK. Fine. By why doesn't that logic extend to issues like stem cells? Shouldn't Christians be expert by now on seeing the bigger picture?"

if i may make ths comparison, both the holocaust as well as stem cell research are attempts by human beings to enact upon their idea of the big picture, the nazis thought the world would be better off overall if the jews weren't in it, and now people are promoting the idea that the world would be better off with a little "sacrifice" from our unborn population for the improvement of the living.

I don't understand where you get the idea that a "sacrifice" from our unborn population is needed. We don't need more stem cells. There are plenty enough.

knowing it isnt creating it. fine, he knew from the beginning of time that that nazis would kill millions. not that they are the only ones. he still didnt cause it unless you wish he hadnt started the universe at all. i suppose thats a stance.

he did cause it. that's the point. if he knew with certainty that it would happen if he did x (and conversely, would not happen if he did not x), had the power to do other than x, and went ahead and did x anyways, then he caused it and bears responsibility for doing so.

and as i said, you are going to have to argue for the position that it was holocaust or nothing, that this was the best of all logically possible universes. and the idea that it was beyond the realm of logical possibility for god to create a world with the holocaust minus 1 death (and therefore more good) is fucking stupid.

How could that be? Do you mean that the universe has no beginning, but has instead been around for an infinite amount of time? How can an infinite amount of time have elapsed to bring us to the present?

Because time is something we measure, it can be infinite.

Why won't anyone argue with me?!?! I came here to argue damnit. :p

Because you're right? :D

it's obvious God exists as he/she/it could be the ONLY concievable thing immune to this

Why?

The rules of this physical universe did not apply before this physical universe.

But it’s not that simple.

Numbers still get larger as we count up, even though there are infinite numbers. So even though we could, theoretically, count for an infinite amount of numbers, any number we arrived at would still be smaller than the number+1, and we could still count further, to infinity.

As I said before, 3000 + infinity is larger than 5 + infinity.


I concur.

Infinity doesn't get larger. Infinity is not a number. Actually, numbers do not get larger, either; the value associated with them does.

If I add one to two, two does not "get bigger". Rather, I have created a three where none existed before.

If I add one to infinity I still have infinity, it has not got "larger".

he did cause it. that's the point. if he knew with certainty that it would happen if he did x (and conversely, would not happen if he did not x), had the power to do other than x, and went ahead and did x anyways, then he caused it and bears responsibility for doing so.

and as i said, you are going to have to argue for the position that it was holocaust or nothing, that this was the best of all logically possible universes. and the idea that it was beyond the realm of logical possibility for god to create a world with the holocaust minus 1 death (and therefore more good) is fucking stupid.

fine. but i deny that he caused it.

he created a world in which evil is possible. that he did. the rest is our fault.

if you have a problem with god creating a world where evil is possible, youll have to take it up with him. he'll probably ask where YOU were when he laid the foundations of the universe and then go on and on about behemoths and leviathans.

What I don't get is that religious people say things like, "God did not stop the holocaust to happen because he could see the bigger picture." OK. Fine. By why doesn't that logic extend to issues like stem cells? Shouldn't Christians be expert by now on seeing the bigger picture?

i really hate that "god sees the bigger picture" theory. oh great, god had the nazis toss babies into the pit with their dead parents to save on bullets, god had the hutus hack the tutsis to death with machetes. god had the khmer rouge kill all the educated people in cambodia. because HE SEES THE BIGGER PICTURE.

god i wish he wasnt so insightful.

Because time is something we measure, it can be infinite.

:confused: I would say that because time is measurable, it can't be infinite. And the entire time interval that is the past can't be infinite, otherwise we would never have gotten to the present.

fine. but i deny that he caused it.

he created a world in which evil is possible. that he did. the rest is our fault.

ok, i clearly have no idea what you are using the word 'cause' to mean.

if i build a thing, and i know that my building it a certain way will result in k, and if i built it a different way k would not happen, and i can chose how to build it, how am i not the cause of k when i made the choice that inevitably led to it?

if you have a problem with god creating a world where evil is possible

actually, my problem is incredulity at the idea that this is the best god could do, given his supposed omniscience and omnipotence. i cannot see how it is logically impossible for the world to be better than it is.

I would say that because time is measurable, it can't be infinite.

i can measure a segment of a line...

Epicurus rules.

Now continue fighting over the sky fairy.

i can measure a segment of a line...

Actually, you can't.

You can define a line segment, but you can never really measure it.

If there was no evil, there would be not need to worship this god in ther first place. You can't have good without evil. Besides this point, who is to judge what is evil or not? Some people believe that this evil you speak of is good. To me, they're just two symbolistic opposites.

Actually, you can't.

You can define a line segment, but you can never really measure it.

A line segment is a line between two points. Tell me how this is unable to be measured?

A line segment is a line between two points. Tell me how this is unable to be measured?

Go measure one then. I bet you can't.

You can't have good without evil.

fine. now explain to me why we need such massive amounts of evil in the world. seems to me that we'd only need a single little example of evil in order to have good on this account.

fine. now explain to me why we need such massive amounts of evil in the world. seems to me that we'd only need a single little example of evil in order to have good on this account.

evil does not exist. all of the eastern religions accept death and suffering, can be fundamentally atheist if the believer wants to be, and view human suffering as a problem of perspective and not a fundamental flaw in creation. creating utopian pipe-dreams and denying half the natural forces of the world as undesirable and wrong is completely pointless, and westerners do it across the board, atheists as much as anybody. its an exercise in futility. there is no "problem of evil" - there is only dissonance between what people imagine to be ideal and reality. people create their own problems.

blaming god for human evil is as silly as blaming your parents for you ending up in jail.

Perhaps, but what about natural evil such as volcanoes, earthquakes, droughts, and genetic defects?

I don't think the Problem of Evil is sufficient to disprove the existance of God, but it's certainly enough to disprove the traditional conception of a perfect God. For example:

P1. Saving an innocent child is a morally good act.
P2. A God who chose not to save one particular innocent child is therefore less morally good than an otherwise identical God who did choose to save the child.
IC. Therefore a God who chose not to save one particular child is not morally perfect as it isn't as morally good as it could be.
P3. An innocent child has not been saved.
C. Therefore a morally perfect God does not exist.

Perhaps, but what about natural evil such as volcanoes, earthquakes, droughts, and genetic defects?How and why are those things evil? Because you don't like their effects?

I don't think the Problem of Evil is sufficient to disprove the existance of God, but it's certainly enough to disprove the traditional conception of a perfect God. For example:

P1. Saving an innocent child is a morally good act.
P2. A God who chose not to save one particular innocent child is therefore less morally good than an otherwise identical God who did choose to save the child.
IC. Therefore a God who chose not to save one particular child is not morally perfect as it isn't as morally good as it could be.
P3. An innocent child has not been saved.
C. Therefore a morally perfect God does not exist.Why are you so focused on the biblical god? There might be others. And you should consider that in other religions humans are not the focus of divine activity as they are in the abrahamic religions.

How and why are those things evil? Because you don't like their effects?

Are you suggesting that death, pain, and suffering aren't evil? The three Abrahamic religions tend to agree that they are so I'm adopting their views for the sake of argument.

Why are you so focused on the biblical god? There might be others. And you should consider that in other religions humans are not the focus of divine activity as they are in the abrahamic religions.

Well, given that believers in Abrahamic religions make up over half the population of the planet (and the overwhelming majority of theists on NS) I feel it's justified to focus on their specific beliefs. Given that eastern and western religions have such different understandings of the word 'God/s' it'd only confuse the issue if I tried to address both at the same time.

Are you suggesting that death, pain, and suffering aren't evil?Exactly. Intentions are evil, not circumstances developing out of natural causes.

The three Abrahamic religions tend to agree that they are so I'm adopting their views for the sake of argument.The abrahamic religions view volcanoes and earthquakes as evil? Since when?

Well, given that believers in Abrahamic religions make up over half the population of the planet (and the overwhelming majority of theists on NS) I feel it's justified to focus on their specific beliefs. Given that eastern and western religions have such different understandings of the word 'God/s' it'd only confuse the issue if I tried to address both at the same time.Quantity says nothing about quality.

Exactly. Intentions are evil, not circumstances developing out of natural causes.

The abrahamic religions view volcanoes and earthquakes as evil? Since when?

Quantity says nothing about quality.
They're not necessarily natural causes when you assume the existence of a god...

The abrahamic religions view volcanoes and earthquakes as evil? Since when?

not in themselves, but certainly in their effects. at least some of the time. other times they are apparently dog's divine judgment against sinners.

:confused: I would say that because time is measurable, it can't be infinite. And the entire time interval that is the past can't be infinite, otherwise we would never have gotten to the present.

"Infinite" is one of our measures.

:confused: I would say that because time is measurable, it can't be infinite. And the entire time interval that is the past can't be infinite, otherwise we would never have gotten to the present.wtf?
a time period that has an end but no beginning is still infinite, just like a time period with a beginning but no end. and wtf does measurability to do with this?

Perhaps, but what about natural evil such as volcanoes, earthquakes, droughts, and genetic defects?

I don't think the Problem of Evil is sufficient to disprove the existance of God, but it's certainly enough to disprove the traditional conception of a perfect God. For example:

P1. Saving an innocent child is a morally good act.
P2. A God who chose not to save one particular innocent child is therefore less morally good than an otherwise identical God who did choose to save the child.
IC. Therefore a God who chose not to save one particular child is not morally perfect as it isn't as morally good as it could be.
P3. An innocent child has not been saved.
C. Therefore a morally perfect God does not exist.


those things arent evil. they are the circumstances of life.

we all have problems. we all die. its not worse for a good or innocent person to die than a bad or guilty person.

saving an innocent child doesnt save him. he is going to die. the only way god SAVES anyone is by saving them from "the grave" and having them come to live with him in heaven.

god is not immoral for not changing the laws of the universe for an innocent person.

god is not immoral for not changing the laws of the universe for an innocent person.however, god is immoral for killing a planet's population in a flood.

Are you suggesting that death, pain, and suffering aren't evil? The three Abrahamic religions tend to agree that they are so I'm adopting their views for the sake of argument.


youre going to have to show some evidence that natural disasters and natural suffering are considered evil.

if i stop to unlock my gate and am attacked and killed by a mountain lion, is the lion EVIL? no, she is just part of nature and doing what lions do.

if an earthquake hits my house and knocks a wall down on top of me, killing me, is the earthquake EVIL? no, its just an earthquake.

evil has to come from some kind of conscious decision. its not a matter of every bad thing that happens being evil.

Go measure one then. I bet you can't.

Why can't we measure it?

however, god is immoral for killing a planet's population in a flood.

he did regret it afterwards so it does seem that even he ended up thinking it was a bad idea at least.

youre going to have to show some evidence that natural disasters and natural suffering are considered evil.

if i stop to unlock my gate and am attacked and killed by a mountain lion, is the lion EVIL? no, she is just part of nature and doing what lions do.

if an earthquake hits my house and knocks a wall down on top of me, killing me, is the earthquake EVIL? no, its just an earthquake.

evil has to come from some kind of conscious decision. its not a matter of every bad thing that happens being evil.

Is evil natural?

Is evil natural?only if you consider human thought a part of nature.

Is evil natural?

only if you consider human thought a part of nature.

i dont know what the question means.

it does seem to come quite naturally to us.

youre going to have to show some evidence that natural disasters and natural suffering are considered evil.

if i stop to unlock my gate and am attacked and killed by a mountain lion, is the lion EVIL? no, she is just part of nature and doing what lions do.

if an earthquake hits my house and knocks a wall down on top of me, killing me, is the earthquake EVIL? no, its just an earthquake.

evil has to come from some kind of conscious decision. its not a matter of every bad thing that happens being evil.

Presumably God consciously chose to create the universe the way He did, so there is a conscious decision behind those things: he wanted them to be that way. He wanted lions to attack people and he wanted continental plates to slide alongside one another and cause earthquakes.

Presumably God consciously chose to create the universe the way He did, so there is a conscious decision behind those things: he wanted them to be that way. He wanted lions to attack people and he wanted continental plates to slide alongside one another and cause earthquakes.

very true

but are you suggesting that the MANNER of death is more "evil" than the existence of death itself?

i dont know what the question means.

it does seem to come quite naturally to us.

If lions are not "evil" for doing what lions naturally do, and if making decisions is what we naturally do, then wherein lies the "evil"?

those things arent evil. they are the circumstances of life.

we all have problems. we all die. its not worse for a good or innocent person to die than a bad or guilty person.

saving an innocent child doesnt save him. he is going to die. the only way god SAVES anyone is by saving them from "the grave" and having them come to live with him in heaven.

Are you suggesting that the morality of god should be judged in a different way to the morality of humans? I'm sure that, if decided not to save a drowning child on the grounds that "they'd die eventually anyway", very few people would accept that as an excuse.

god is not immoral for not changing the laws of the universe for an innocent person.

Why not? Most religions claim he's done so on numerous occaisons in the past. Besides, who created the 'laws of the universe' in the first place?

very true

but are you suggesting that the MANNER of death is more "evil" than the existence of death itself?

Certainly. The death of a newborn child is far more 'evil' than the death of an elderly man or woman who's lived their life to the fullest.

Exactly. Intentions are evil, not circumstances developing out of natural causes.

And whose intentions led to the existence of these natural events?

The abrahamic religions view volcanoes and earthquakes as evil? Since when?

Death and suffering are regarded as evil, having entered the world through sin.

Quantity says nothing about quality.

And this is relevant how exactly?

but are you suggesting that the MANNER of death is more "evil" than the existence of death itself?

who could doubt that?

If lions are not "evil" for doing what lions naturally do, and if making decisions is what we naturally do, then wherein lies the "evil"?

the evil is in our ability to know right and wrong.

for example, my cat has a limited amount of free will but she has NO concept of right and wrong. her choices, such as they are, have no potential for evil because her mind cannot grasp morality.

i, however, DO know right from wrong. i am expected by god to follow a certain moral code (not that its the only possible moral code, its just his). unlike my cat, i have a choice of actions. there is choice in almost everything i do. they dont all have a moral element, but those that do give me the possibility to choose evil over good.

that its natural to do evil doesnt make it any less evil.

that a lion does things that would be considered evil if WE did them, does not make the lion evil for doing them.

Certainly. The death of a newborn child is far more 'evil' than the death of an elderly man or woman who's lived their life to the fullest.

no, its not.

we are not guaranteed a number of days. we get the number we get.



so do you believe that the 2 big realities of life--that "life is suffering" and that we all will die--means that god must be evil for having created it that way?

who could doubt that?

i could

death isnt evil, its a fact of life.

i could

death isnt evil, its a fact of life.

right. but certain ways to die are evil/bad/horrific.

the evil is in our ability to know right and wrong.

for example, my cat has a limited amount of free will but she has NO concept of right and wrong. her choices, such as they are, have no potential for evil because her mind cannot grasp morality.

i, however, DO know right from wrong. i am expected by god to follow a certain moral code (not that its the only possible moral code, its just his). unlike my cat, i have a choice of actions. there is choice in almost everything i do. they dont all have a moral element, but those that do give me the possibility to choose evil over good.

that its natural to do evil doesnt make it any less evil.

that a lion does things that would be considered evil if WE did them, does not make the lion evil for doing them.

So evil resides in us, in our ability to know and choose "wrong" over "right." The earthquake is not "wrong" in itself, but if it was not "wrong" for god to produce an earthquake at a certain time, and cause deaths and suffering, then how is death and suffering "wrong"?

(That the cat doesn't have a concept of right and wrong or make choices is debatable, but let's not go there.)

Edit: not saying you said it was "wrong"; just trying to figure out something.

right. but certain ways to die are evil/bad/horrific.

certain ways of dying are more painful, involve more suffering, or are more horrifying.


you can be killed through the evil actions of another.

but the dying itself isnt evil.

no, its not.

we are not guaranteed a number of days. we get the number we get.



so do you believe that the 2 big realities of life--that "life is suffering" and that we all will die--means that god must be evil for having created it that way?

If God chose to create life in such a way that it was necessarily synonymous with suffering then yes, that would make God evil (or at least, imperfect). I don't think that all life is suffering myself.

but the dying itself isnt evil.

the suffering is

So evil resides in us, in our ability to know and choose "wrong" over "right." The earthquake is not "wrong" in itself, but if it was not "wrong" for god to produce an earthquake at a certain time, and cause deaths and suffering, then how is death and suffering "wrong"?

(That the cat doesn't have a concept of right and wrong or make choices is debatable, but let's not go there.)

suffering and death are facts of life. they are not moral actors.

when we say a certain death (say of a newborn) is WRONG it not because it is evil but because it is outside the expected flow of life.

we have an idea of how life SHOULD be and when it doesnt go that way we think its wrong. thats not the same as thinking that its evil.

god doesnt produce earthquakes. god set up a world on which earthquakes happen. he doesnt say "god i hate those fucking indonesians, im gonna cause an undersea earthquake and kill a bunch of them with a tsunami"

I don't think that all life is suffering myself.

yeah, that idea is patently silly. but the existence of suffering at all still brings about the problem.

the suffering is

no its not.

are you sure you know what evil is?

If God chose to create life in such a way that it was necessarily synonymous with suffering then yes, that would make God evil (or at least, imperfect). I don't think that all life is suffering myself.

ask a buddhist,

life is suffering.

i disagree with you. it is not evil of god to create an imperfect world.

Edit: not saying you said it was "wrong"; just trying to figure out something.

two different kinds of wrong

the wrong of "knowing right from wrong" is a moral thing

the wrong of things turning out badly is a breaking of our concept of the way the world should be.

ask a buddhist,

life is suffering.

Is this a new and more interesting form of the 'Argument from Authority', argument ad Buddhism? :p

i disagree with you. it is not evil of god to create an imperfect world.

But wouldn't it have been better to have created a perfect world?

two different kinds of wrong

the wrong of "knowing right from wrong" is a moral thing

the wrong of things turning out badly is a breaking of our concept of the way the world should be.

ya know im thinking that its the confusion between the 2 that causes people to do evil when they think they are doing good.

suffering and death are facts of life. they are not moral actors.

when we say a certain death (say of a newborn) is WRONG it not because it is evil but because it is outside the expected flow of life.

we have an idea of how life SHOULD be and when it doesnt go that way we think its wrong. thats not the same as thinking that its evil.

god doesnt produce earthquakes. god set up a world on which earthquakes happen. he doesnt say "god i hate those fucking indonesians, im gonna cause an undersea earthquake and kill a bunch of them with a tsunami"

Thank you.

Is this a new and more interesting form of the 'Argument from Authority', argument ad Buddhism? :p

what? you have a problem with that? jot it down, ill use it again later.

i said it because its true but i didnt think it up on my own.



But wouldn't it have been better to have created a perfect world?

but he DID create a perfect world. you get there after you die in this one.


ya know, this idea of god needing to be the source of evil has bugged christians since the beginning of christianity.

there was an early christian group that believed that there was an evil god who created this world.

there was early christian group that believed that the creator of this world was in inferior god and thats why his creation sucked

there was an early christian group that believed there were dozens of gods.

the squeezing of all possible gods into one makes the issue of good and evil quite thorny.

The Buddhist concept of "all life is suffering" is a little different from a particular instance of harm or pain. The idea includes all mental and emotional states that lead us to "forget" that we are a part of the "nature" that has no moral implication.

no its not.

are you sure you know what evil is?

yes. are you sure you do? because suffering is clearly a kind of evil (and extreme suffering among the worst sorts of it, no less), even if you reject utilitarian theory.

it is not evil of god to create an imperfect world.

it is if the 'imperfection' is avoidable, because that means knowingly creating evil when it wasn't logically necessary.

what? you have a problem with that? jot it down, ill use it again later.

i said it because its true but i didnt think it up on my own.

I know you didn't make it up but I still don't buy it.

but he DID create a perfect world. you get there after you die in this one.

But a God who created two perfect worlds would still be better than a God who created one perfect and one imperfect world, yes? This is why I prefer to use an 'argument from imperfection' to rule out the possibility of a perfect god rather than trying to disprove god entirely.

ya know, this idea of god needing to be the source of evil has bugged christians since the beginning of christianity.

there was an early christian group that believed that there was an evil god who created this world.

there was early christian group that believed that the creator of this world was in inferior god and thats why his creation sucked

there was an early christian group that believed there were dozens of gods.

the squeezing of all possible gods into one makes the issue of good and evil quite thorny.

I believe it was the Gnostics who believed in the evil god of matter and the good god of spirit.

it is if the 'imperfection' is avoidable, because that means knowingly creating evil when it wasn't logically necessary.

That 'imperfection', like all worldly things, is unavoidable.
(Better, in my opinion, to argue that it's hardly an imperfection.)

That 'imperfection', like all worldly things, is unavoidable.

then heaven is impossible

it is if the 'imperfection' is avoidable, because that means knowingly creating evil when it wasn't logically necessary.

its blasphemy to think that you can limit god.

god isnt bound by human logic.

then heaven is impossible

In a certain context, it is.

Don't mind me, I was just interjecting a random opinion based on my own beliefs. Carry on.

I know you didn't make it up but I still don't buy it.

well im not a buddhist so when buddha said it he probably did mean something other than what i mean when i say it.

it is impossilbe to avoid suffering in this life.



But a God who created two perfect worlds would still be better than a God who created one perfect and one imperfect world, yes? This is why I prefer to use an 'argument from imperfection' to rule out the possibility of a perfect god rather than trying to disprove god entirely.

or you can believe that god is "outside of time" and that this world is a step in the creation of a perfect world which is already finished. we are bound inside time so we dont see the finished product but we hold the hope that we will be included when it is done.



I believe it was the Gnostics who believed in the evil god of matter and the good god of spirit.

as far as i can tell there was a great mixing between christianity and gnositicism. the gnostics pretty much got beat out in the end but their ideas are still reflected in christianity.

consider how completely different the theology of the new testament is from the theology in the old testament.

its blasphemy to think that you can limit god.

its actually about limits imposed by the claimed nature of this god character. clearly god could have created an evil world. it is just that actually doing so is in contradiction with other claims about god.

god isnt bound by human logic.

can god create square circles? limiting god to the logically possible is just the standard way of making the notion of god at least plausibly coherent rather than absolute nonsense.

we approach this problem from 2 (or 3) different angles

you, rli, look at common christian theology and show that it cannot possibly work out to an all powerful, all loving and all knowing god.

which is true.

*I* come from the angle where i figure out HOW there can be an all powerful, all loving and all knowing god, but it requires non standard beliefs.

(the 3rd angle tends to be by people who strawman god and knock down a mishmash of the worst christian beliefs)

as far as im concerned, in order for it to work, certain things HAVE to be true.

1) if there is ONE god then all gods that are worshipped in this world are the one god and god is pleased with that.

2) all people on earth therefore have an equal shot at heaven (if the word heaven would even apply). god WANTS us in heaven and allows for human error.

3) as our agnostic brothers tell us, we cant truly know god. he is far beyond our human capabilities. we get glimpses of the truth of god and turn them into the various religions of earth.

and probably some other things that arent springing to mind right now.

its actually about limits imposed by the claimed nature of this god character. clearly god could have created an evil world. it is just that actually doing so is in contradiction with other claims about god.



can god create square circles? limiting god to the logically possible is just the standard way of making the notion of god at least plausibly coherent rather than absolute nonsense.

who is to say that god is limited to the nature that is claimed for him?

yeah god can create square circles, he can create a rock so large that even he cant move it.

god isnt bound by human paradoxes. that is OUR limitation, not his.

who is to say that god is limited to the nature that is claimed for him?

yeah god can create square circles, he can create a rock so large that even he cant move it.

god isnt bound by human paradoxes. that is OUR limitation, not his.

Who is to say anything about God? And yet we must.

Edit: Not disagreeing.

Who is to say anything about God? And yet we must.

Edit: Not disagreeing.

as i said, we get glimpses of god. we figure things out from there as best we can.