23 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloi think you are missing the point of the argument from evil. if an omnipotent, omniscient god exists, then every single event that occurs has his stamp of approval (or indifference) on it.
[b]Evil in my opinion is that which is done purposely with purely
selfish reasons, more often than not to the hurt or destruction of
another without just cause. Typhoons do not fit that standard they are
simply results of physics within nature...
i think you are missing the point of the argument from evil. if an omnipotent, omniscient god exist ...[text shortened]... thical standard), then i would conclude that the typhoon is evil perpetrated solely by this god.[/b]
Not missing that point, I'm saying the world is filled with evil without
God period, because of people.
Kelly
23 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI answered the storm issue without God in another post, I'll address
[b]Evil in my opinion is that which is done purposely with purely
selfish reasons, more often than not to the hurt or destruction of
another without just cause. Typhoons do not fit that standard they are
simply results of physics within nature...
i think you are missing the point of the argument from evil. if an omnipotent, omniscient god exist ...[text shortened]... thical standard), then i would conclude that the typhoon is evil perpetrated solely by this god.[/b]
God in this one.
There are a couple of ways God could deal with evil.
1. Not allow any to act out anything that is evil, so diminishes free will.
2. Create the universe and punish those that are about to do evil,
before it is done to make sure it never occurs.
3. Create the universe allow evil to manifest itself, deal directory with
those that are going to suffer to the exposure as evil happens to them,
and deal with those that do evil as soon as it occurs.
4. Allow good and evil to reveal themselves throughout the universe
so a judgment against good and evil can be made out anyone having
any doubts what should be allowed to survive and what should not.
5. Fill in anything I didn't think of here.
Kelly
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
23 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloFirst of all nowhere in the bible are the words omnipotent nor omni-anything. These are man's words trying to explain God's attributes.
for our purposes, omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is logically possible ('logically possible' is key because not even an omnipotent being can do the logically impossible, like create a square circle or some other such nonsense).
do you think it is the case that god cannot lie (ie, it is not possible for him to lie); or do you ...[text shortened]... esponse, and indeed also the need to 'start over', is not indicative of an omni-whatnot being.
I can only quote scripture to answer your question..
Titus 1:2
2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,
(NKJ)
Num 23:19
19 "God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
(NKJ)
By the way, the latter verse is another one that contradicts the Trinity, God is not a man, Jesus was.
But in any event...
I think it would be, cannot, as in He refrains in the case of the planes...for purposes I don't fully understand other than that there was no human interaction, as I stated earlier.
But in lying, He cannot or not able because that would contradict His Holiness. If God could lie, He then would not be Holy...however, the evil in the world, I think He refrains in some cases, like the Twin Towers, the Halocaust, etc., for reasons, again, that I don't fully understand.
I have heard some theology concerning legalalities if you will, concerning what happened way back in Genesis...The way I understand it, and I cannot articulate this as I would like, but it concerns God giving Adam certain authority in the world...(He named the animals,etc) and there is not a lot revealed in the scriptures either. Then Adam was deceived into transferring this authority to Satan...A better way to see this or an example would be if, let's say I gave you a million dollars and you turned around and gave it to some one else. Since I freely gave as you did....then I could not rightfully take it back....well I believe God operates from a similiar morality....That would explain why Satan is called the god of this world..
2 Cor 4:3-4
3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,
4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.
(NKJ)
So on this premise God has to observe certain legal rights that Satan now posseses,and cannot stop certain evil events.
When there is human interaction,( perhaps that is why we are exhorted to pray without ceasing)...things change. I have known about this for some time, and I am still studying this matter, but so far it makes a lot of sense...to me anyway.
Luke 4:5-8
5 Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
6 And the devil said to Him, [b]"All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish.[b/]
7 "Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours."
8 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.'"
(NKJ)
[i]Notice that Jesus does not argue who has this authority, and satan also reveals that it was delivered to him. when?..in the garden of Eden.[i/]
23 Aug 05
One serious problem I have with the Christian God (if he exists) is that he values free will (if it exists) over preventing suffering. Such a being is not omnibenevolent as I define benevolence. Therefore such a being is free from the Problem of Evil, but I would only submit to such a being through fear or greed, not love.
23 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungRomans 8: 17 & 18
One serious problem I have with the Christian God (if he exists) is that he values free will (if it exists) over preventing suffering. Such a being is not omnibenevolent as I define benevolence. Therefore such a being is free from the Problem of Evil, but I would only submit to such a being through fear or greed, not love.
17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.
It is a matter of what is necessary or important, is suffering to be
avoided at cost, if so why?
Kelly
24 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaDoes bbarr define evil other than through moral preference?
According to this evil is implicitly defined by moral preference of consequences. I think this is essential for the argument to hold.
Does bbarr define evil other than through moral preference?
I also reject that a morally perfect God would prevent ALL evil if he attributes any value to free-will, but that was discussed in a previous discussion of ours ...[text shortened]... hat does not come about by use of free-will is sufficient for the GAFE argument to hold, though.
no; the argument is essentially neutral with respect to ethical theory. it is appropriately left to the reader to supply the construct by which one event may be deemed morally preferable to another. an explicit definition of evil would only complicate the argument completely unnecessarily.
I also reject that a morally perfect God would prevent ALL evil if he attributes any value to free-will, but that was discussed in a previous discussion of ours.
i recall...could you tell i was in a bad mood that week? i still stand by my ideas, but not the manner in which i advanced them.
The fact that some evil (so defined) exists that does not come about by use of free-will is sufficient for the GAFE argument to hold, though.
very true.
24 Aug 05
Originally posted by HalitosehiYA! (a little more confrontational than your 'Hiya.' so much of life is found in the cracks and corners.)
Hiya LJ. You disapeared rather quickly yesterday, before we could get the discussion going. (I'm sure it was duty that called)
Omnipotent and omniscient: Yes.
Omnibenevolent: Hmmm... Aren't you trying to divorce God's love from his justice and judgement? Its a paradox, I know.
why do you say that god is omnipotent and omniscient? does the bible say this? i am just wondering.
Aren't you trying to divorce God's love from his justice and judgement?
hmmm...not sure what you mean. tell me this: what 'justice' is being served when a typhoon rips through a small fishing town like a thief at night, killing every unsuspecting person in its path -- man, woman, and child?
24 Aug 05
Originally posted by KellyJayWhether or not suffering is to be avoided "at cost" is not relevant, I don't think. An omnipotent God should be able to avoid suffering without cost. He's omnipotent after all!
Romans 8: 17 & 18
17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God ...[text shortened]... matter of what is necessary or important, is suffering to be
avoided at cost, if so why?
Kelly
24 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe argument is not entirely neutral with regard to what the definition of morality is. Here is my paraphrase of bbarr's definition which he did not dispute when I presented it to him.
[b]Does bbarr define evil other than through moral preference?
no; the argument is essentially neutral with respect to ethical theory. it is appropriately left to the reader to supply the construct by which one event may be deemed morally preferable to another. an explicit definition of evil would only complicate the argument completely unnecessa ...[text shortened]... about by use of free-will is sufficient for the GAFE argument to hold, though.[/b]
very true.[/b]
Morally Perfect (def): An entity G is morally perfect if and only if for any two acts, events, or states of affairs A and B, if A is morally preferable to B then G prefers that A occur or obtain rather than B, and G acts accordingly.
If two states of affairs C and D exist and are identical except that C causes more suffering than D, or D lessens more suffering than C, or both, then it is understood that D is morally preferable to C. (see bbarr's lengthy post on page 12 for elaboration).
I'll link the page with this paraphrase as well as page 12 of the relevant thread if you'd like to look it up.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=21886&page=12
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=21886&page=25
24 Aug 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungwell, to be sure, the argument will fail under certain ethical theories. for example, if the ethical theory says that logically unnecessary suffering is great (or just suffering in general is great), and we should have as much of it as possible, then clearly the argument fails. this is a minor point since not too many theists would endorse such an ethical theory.
The argument is not entirely neutral with regard to what the definition of morality is. Here is my paraphrase of bbarr's definition which he did not dispute when I presented it to him.
Morally Perfect (def): An entity G is morally perfect if and only if for any two acts, events, or states of affairs A and B, if A is morally preferable to B the ...[text shortened]... 1886&page=12
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=21886&page=25
24 Aug 05
Originally posted by KellyJayhow does this address the typhoon example?
i think you are missing the point of the argument from evil. if an omnipotent, omniscient god exists, then every single event that occurs has his stamp of approval (or indifference) on it.
Not missing that point, I'm saying the world is filled with evil without
God period, because of people.
Kelly
24 Aug 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhy I ask, depending on what God is doing why should suffering
Whether or not suffering is to be avoided "at cost" is not relevant, I don't think. An omnipotent God should be able to avoid suffering without cost. He's omnipotent after all!
not be apart of life?
Kelly
24 Aug 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloIf there is no god!
how does this address the typhoon example?
My post before that statement made it clear, the storm is not evil,
it is just a storm. It is what it is, the universe acts this way when the
conditions were there to create a strom, a storm was created and the
storm does what it does. People dying are just part of the process,
even a great loss of life isn't evil, it is nature, it is the way it is.
Evil is only when choices are made, will acts to do what is evil. The
storm isn't a living being to act out of hate or whatever drives
something evil to act.
Since we are describing a unverse without God, that means that all
the evil acts are done by....who? People, therefore people are
the ones doing all the evil in the universe, animals are not evil even
when they kill people? They are simply acting out as animals act
according to their nature.
Heck you may say than evil isn't real, in a universe without God.
Since people are simply acting according to their nature too.
Kelly