Originally posted by HalitoseI'm sorry, but I find your objection incoherent. I also find your answer to BDN to be flippant. I don't see any "problem of evil from a pantheistic view" mainly because the "Argument from Evil" that has been discussed so often in this forum does not apply to pantheism. Nor do I understand why you seem to think it should.
Er... the reality of good and evil.
Don't forget we are discussing the Problem of Evil from a pantheistic view.
Originally posted by no1marauderMassive amounts of suffering to whom?
Since you insist on viewing a "God" as a single entity outside of the universe itself, that, to you, is "reality". Your God seems very far from reality in my view; an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good entity that nonetheless allows massive amounts of suffering capped off by punishment meted out to vastly inferior creatures. And that Man on a tiny plan ...[text shortened]... niverse strains credulity as well. I think "reality" is the wrong tree for you to bark at.
Originally posted by Halitosegood and evil are only points of view, not real things at all. A person who, for example, rapes a child does so not in the belief that they are doing any thing wrong, unless they have severe mental defiencies. Hitler thought he was doing the world a favour in the long term, with just a little short term unavoidable nastiness to reach those goals. Roads to hell and all that...
The undeniable existence of evil needs to be reconciled with whatever worldview you hold -- this is what I call the Problem of Evil.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNobody is claiming that suffering is the 'greatest wrong'. But you have to admit that, all else being equal, it's morally wrong to fail to attempt to alleviate a person's suffering when a) that suffering is unnecessary for some greater good and b) you can do so at little or no cost to yourself. This is sufficient for the argument's purposes.
For some reason, the suffering experienced by man on a physical level is the greatest wrong. Unbelievable.
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe sheer idiocy of your post will ensure its perpetuation in the annals of forum history.
good and evil are only points of view, not real things at all. A person who, for example, rapes a child does so not in the belief that they are doing any thing wrong, unless they have severe mental defiencies. Hitler thought he was doing the world a favour in the long term, with just a little short term unavoidable nastiness to reach those goals. Roads to hell and all that...
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrEssentially what you are suggesting is that God should have offered each and every person their own Garden of Eden scenario. In that perfect environment, there was certainly no pain, and God was in direct contact with them every day. What happened?
Nobody is claiming that suffering is the 'greatest wrong'. But you have to admit that, all else being equal, it's morally wrong to fail to attempt to alleviate a person's suffering when a) that suffering is unnecessary for some greater good and b) you can do so at little or no cost to yourself. This is sufficient for the argument's purposes.
Obviously, perfect environment is not the answer. In fact, human history is God's response to the angelic conflict initiated by Satan, with each phase of the former a mirror of the phases in the latter. Each phase of human history proves circumstances, government, environment, moral codes, etc., are not the solution.
God uses the lesser (man) to prove His case to the greater (angelic realm). In the end the lesser becomes greater than the former, more than recompensed for any suffering endured. Does this seem fair?
Who bears the greatest cost?
Originally posted by bbarrDo you think the suffering cause by modern medicine to cure an ill
Nobody is claiming that suffering is the 'greatest wrong'. But you have to admit that, all else being equal, it's morally wrong to fail to attempt to alleviate a person's suffering when a) that suffering is unnecessary for some greater good and b) you can do so at little or no cost to yourself. This is sufficient for the argument's purposes.
is justified or reasonable? Do you think suffering caused by one's
one actions to be justified or reasonable?
Kelly
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, that's not what I'm claiming at all. Minimizing unnecessary suffering doesn't entail providing a "garden of eden scenario".
Essentially what you are suggesting is that God should have offered each and every person their own Garden of Eden scenario. In that perfect environment, there was certainly no pain, and God was in direct contact with them every day. What happened?
Obviously, perfect environment is not the answer. In fact, human history is God's response to the angeli ...[text shortened]... an recompensed for any suffering endured. Does this seem fair?
Who bears the greatest cost?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHGlad to see debating at its finest.
The sheer idiocy of your post will ensure its perpetuation in the annals of forum history.
Actually, Hal, I'm happy to see that I've got you so worked up. All you've done recently is attack me personally, rather than actually challenge my points. And YOU are the one who always complains about this type of thing. Funny how you've got no problem when it's you doing the attacking.
No, Hal, you made the assertion that 'evil' exists, so now you have to prove that 'evil' as a actual thing exists and that it is not simply a label given by people to things that they dissaprove of. You'll also have to show that individual people are evil (not just suffering some type of psycological problems).
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou do realize that your statement is a complete non sequitur. I made no such assertion nor can it be reasonably implied from my posts. Your lack of reading comprehension skills is "unbelievable".
For some reason, the suffering experienced by man on a physical level is the greatest wrong. Unbelievable.