Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Thank God

nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2011 9:16:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
From what I understand, Christians believe that humans have free will and are therefore responsible for their actions. When the Argument from Evil is brought up, it is dismissed with the answer of "free will".

I've always had a problem with this, but now I've thought of something else.

I notice that whenever something good happens, Christians thank God. When they pray, they thank God for what he has "done" or what he has "blessed" them with. Celebrity acceptance speeches are often prefaced with "First and foremost, I'd like to thank God..."

Why is it that when evil happens, humans are to take responsibility for that, but when something good happens, God gets the credit? Why should you thank God for your own hard work? If all that happens to you is based on luck (ie. God favouring you), shouldn't you then condemn him when something bad happens to you?

Doesn't "thanking God" contradict free will?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2011 9:21:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think you don't take into account the fact that we don't only thank God for good things. In fact, Muslims specifically say Subhanallah which means "Glory be to God" anytime we experience some form of suffering.

Also, what is "bad"? Is having problems with your finances simply "bad" and never good?
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2011 10:15:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/11/2011 9:21:53 PM, Mirza wrote:
I think you don't take into account the fact that we don't only thank God for good things. In fact, Muslims specifically say Subhanallah which means "Glory be to God" anytime we experience some form of suffering.


Doesn't that negate free will if it was all God's doing?

Also, what is "bad"? Is having problems with your finances simply "bad" and never good?

Apparently, "bad" is whatever humans bring on themselves because God is "all good". My question is why?
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2011 11:46:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
To further explain, when something happens (whether it's good or bad), either God has something to do with it or God doesn't have something to do with it.

Something good happens
(a) I thank God, therefore he had something to do with it
(b) I have free will, therefore my success is due to my own choices

If the situation is (a) then the Argument from Evil makes sense. If the situation is (b) then thanking God doesn't make sense.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2011 11:49:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I notice that whenever something good happens, Christians thank God. When they pray, they thank God for what he has "done" or what he has "blessed" them with. Celebrity acceptance speeches are often prefaced with "First and foremost, I'd like to thank God..."


Double standards in religion ? surely you must be mistaken.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 12:24:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/11/2011 9:16:06 PM, nonentity wrote:
From what I understand, Christians believe that humans have free will and are therefore responsible for their actions. When the Argument from Evil is brought up, it is dismissed with the answer of "free will".

I've always had a problem with this, but now I've thought of something else.

I notice that whenever something good happens, Christians thank God. When they pray, they thank God for what he has "done" or what he has "blessed" them with. Celebrity acceptance speeches are often prefaced with "First and foremost, I'd like to thank God..."

Why is it that when evil happens, humans are to take responsibility for that, but when something good happens, God gets the credit? Why should you thank God for your own hard work? If all that happens to you is based on luck (ie. God favouring you), shouldn't you then condemn him when something bad happens to you?

Doesn't "thanking God" contradict free will?

It comes down to the way you live your life for me. I can do it my way or His way.

I have an example.

I have been married for 15 years now. I got married young 19 and I can say it has been rough. If I had followed my way (the way of the world) I would be divorced and my children would pay the costs.

I followed Gods way and my children are receiving the blessings. I didn't want to follow His way but I made myself. I can't praise myself for that because it wasn't what I wanted.

I thank Him for His way and good instructions and help. When I thought I couldn't go on I was encouraged by His Word. I can't take credit for His Word anymore then I can take credit for bring born. And in both I am thankful.

If I had decided to ignore Him I couldn't honestly blame Him. He didn't cause me to ignore Him. Some may say He let's things happen that might interfer with my choice but that is just an excuse to me.

No my children couldn't blame Him if I had divorced their mother. But they could thank Him for giving me His Word so I had the chance to do the right thing by them, myself and Our Lord.

I hope this helps. Sorry if it doesn't.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 12:29:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/11/2011 11:46:30 PM, nonentity wrote:
To further explain, when something happens (whether it's good or bad), either God has something to do with it or God doesn't have something to do with it.

Something good happens
(a) I thank God, therefore he had something to do with it
(b) I have free will, therefore my success is due to my own choices

If the situation is (a) then the Argument from Evil makes sense. If the situation is (b) then thanking God doesn't make sense.

I totally agree with you, Christians do often say what you said, and they more often than not are so into thinking Christianity is all about faith and little else that they do not think into these problems. It cannot be one and the other at the same time. I would say that situation (a) is true and that we do not have free will. Everyone is moulded by culture, upbringing, and other factors. I cannot be someone which my culture does not demand me to be, I can only be it's product. However I can knowingly decide on what to eat, when to go to bed etc. But again such choices are again ultimately determined by my culture. Given that I was living in Africa in a tribe, I wouldn't think like I do now - say that I am the same person, just brought up by an African tribe.

We almost have no free will, although it seems like we have all the free will in the world, it is a mere illusion since our culture also demands that we are to think we have free will. We, in other words are slaves to our culture. So answering your question, God ought to be thanked for all what happens, for I breathe because of God's grace, but when a starving child in Africa dies, God also allows that to happen. It says in the Bible (I cannot remember were) that those who are children of God were chosen to be children of God before the creation of the universe. And thus, that says to me that God has created people not to be His children but instead to go to hell for an eternity. And that brings up far more theological questions that would go off this topic, such as, how are we therefore responsible for our sin, and if we are not, why are many punished in hell etc etc...

However, those who are children of God, repented and believed in Jesus Christ at some point in their life, and that they continued to do so. But you must remember that to God, if not for His compassion towards humanity, we wouldn't be seen as anything to Him, our worth to Him would be nothing, less than one dust particle is to us. So when people say, "Why does God send many to hell if their sin isn't their responsibility?" it appears to make a good argument against such theology, however at the same time, strange as it might sound, we do actually take control of our own actions, if think what you want to think and do what you want to do all within the boundaries of your culture, yet at the very same time, your sin, was known before the universe was created by God. So the question becomes very complex and difficult to answer. And the view from free will isn't any easier to explain in terms of your question.

It is quite beyond me to be honest, I cannot seem to justify how God can choose some to be His children from the beginning yet at the same time punish others for their sin as if they actively chose not to be children of God and go on sinning knowing that they would go to hell if they were to sin. But do consider that God is inter or extra dimensional, as He is spirit, not physical like you and I. So perhaps in that, being that we are totally conscious of the dimensions we are in only, having more dimensions would made things much clearer. Just like we can see stars that are in line with the sun, this is because the sun's gravity bends the star light around the sun's surface. In analogy terms in accordance to what I was saying with the dimensions, we don't know that gravity bends light or that it gravity exist.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 1:40:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 12:24:55 AM, jharry wrote:
At 8/11/2011 9:16:06 PM, nonentity wrote:
From what I understand, Christians believe that humans have free will and are therefore responsible for their actions. When the Argument from Evil is brought up, it is dismissed with the answer of "free will".

I've always had a problem with this, but now I've thought of something else.

I notice that whenever something good happens, Christians thank God. When they pray, they thank God for what he has "done" or what he has "blessed" them with. Celebrity acceptance speeches are often prefaced with "First and foremost, I'd like to thank God..."

Why is it that when evil happens, humans are to take responsibility for that, but when something good happens, God gets the credit? Why should you thank God for your own hard work? If all that happens to you is based on luck (ie. God favouring you), shouldn't you then condemn him when something bad happens to you?

Doesn't "thanking God" contradict free will?

It comes down to the way you live your life for me. I can do it my way or His way.

I have an example.

I have been married for 15 years now. I got married young 19 and I can say it has been rough. If I had followed my way (the way of the world) I would be divorced and my children would pay the costs.

I followed Gods way and my children are receiving the blessings. I didn't want to follow His way but I made myself. I can't praise myself for that because it wasn't what I wanted.

I thank Him for His way and good instructions and help. When I thought I couldn't go on I was encouraged by His Word. I can't take credit for His Word anymore then I can take credit for bring born. And in both I am thankful.

If I had decided to ignore Him I couldn't honestly blame Him. He didn't cause me to ignore Him. Some may say He let's things happen that might interfer with my choice but that is just an excuse to me.

No my children couldn't blame Him if I had divorced their mother. But they could thank Him for giving me His Word so I had the chance to do the right thing by them, myself and Our Lord.

I hope this helps. Sorry if it doesn't.

Get married to someone you don't love, and endure many years of sufferring for the sake of the kids you probably did not want all because you are an inbred retarded redneck that could not be bothered to put a helmet on the little fellow.

Not the best argument for Christianity or a Christian ethical system now is it? But a good argument as to how the welfare state corrupts society.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Christopheratheist
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 7:02:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Nonentity, I have always seen the argue of evil explained away by free will which supposedly god being "Omnipotent" Can't interfere with, which leads to a lot of it being humanities fault strangely this does not cover volcano's, earthquakes and such. So on its own is an insufficient argument, but everything good is gods work. So I got to thinking and I came up with a Solution (Not that I believe this, however it is my attempt of rationalism)

To start we must take point 3 and define what the meaning is of ‘Evil and Suffering'. The logical way to do this is to separate what evil is in to relevant categories which are as follows:-

Natural Evil
: All the evil and suffering due to natural force's that are beyond human control. ‘Acts of God' e.g. Earthquakes, Diseases etc.

Moral Evil: Evil that people choose to do out of envy, lust, spite, anger, hatred, intolerance etc.

Does Moral Evil Mean God is not Omnipotent or Benevolent?

Now that we have defined what the meaning of ‘evil and suffering' we can explore how the categories can be explained in the presence of an Omnipotent and Benevolent god. First let us tackle moral evil.

As humans we have been given the gift of free will by god so that we may make choices for ourselves and so that we may experience the creation of god to its full without being used as pawns by god. One criticism of this claim is "Why would god give us free will if he knows we will use it for evil, if he is benevolent?" This question can be answered in one sentence:-

- God gave us free will so that we may worship him by choice.

This is by far the simplest reason and it is not within itself without questions such as "Does god need to be worshipped?" or "Do we need to worship god with free will to be at peace within ourselves?" The answer further is that yes we do need to worship a god for without god what do we have to hope in? What do we have to explain our existence and its purpose? What do we have to show us the morality of our actions?

This all being said it is fairly certain that most western beliefs in god assert that we have been given free will, so moral evil is not a factor of god but of humanity, and if god was to stop us then he would remove that gift that he has bestowed upon us, and thus god has left it up to us to use free will to better humanity and life.

Does Natural Evil Mean God is not Omnipotent or Benevolent?

The category of Natural Evil is somewhat more difficult to defend, as I have previously asserted that God is the cause of all evil in this category, however after looking at the proposition put forward, It becomes clear that by showing god with some of his other attributes will easily solve this problem: -

1. God is Omnipotent.
2. God Is Benevolent.
3. God is all-knowing.
4. God is the most wise.
5. There is evil and suffering in the world.

By adding that god is both all knowing and all wise which is are attributes that a perfect being must possess, then we can explain the problem of natural evil with examples for each I will show some now.

Let us suppose that an earthquake hits Britain and as a result 100,000 people lose their life, on the face of it this looks like a case where god has allowed evil and suffering to occur when he himself is a "Benevolent" being. However if we examine this then we can see that this may in fact cause for a "greater good". For example, currently the world is facing the prospect of over population, which threatens to cause a shortage of food, water and living space as well as increase disease rates. God in this case has killed 100,000 people in order to prevent an evil which is far worse. In either case we can assume that because god is all-knowing he would know what the result would be, and because god is all wise he would know the best action to take in the situation.

Now god is all benevolent so we might ask "Yes but why would god need to lessen evil due to the fact he is all powerful can he not just get rid of it completely?" The answer here is simply yes he can, however let us look more at the example already given. God was forced to act to prevent over-population; however over-population is due to the human's ability to reproduce, and the way that in modern life humanity has begun to act, which is to breed from a young age with a wide selection of partners. This is something that falls in to the category of Moral Evil and all Natural evil in this way can be shown as the result of Moral Evil. This renders Natural Evil non-existent.

Now if we return back and say that "God has given us the gift of free-will" Then he has done what would be expected of a Benevolent being and he has not interfered with that which he gave us, and at the same time reduced the evil to the lowest possible amount on the earth.

(In any case it covers all aspects, its not infallible but nothing in religion is.)
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 7:13:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
expecting christians to think basic concepts like this through is illogical.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 7:20:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 7:02:47 PM, Christopheratheist wrote:
Nonentity, I have always seen the argue of evil explained away by free will which supposedly god being "Omnipotent" Can't interfere with, which leads to a lot of it being humanities fault strangely this does not cover volcano's, earthquakes and such. So on its own is an insufficient argument, but everything good is gods work. So I got to thinking and I came up with a Solution (Not that I believe this, however it is my attempt of rationalism)

To start we must take point 3 and define what the meaning is of ‘Evil and Suffering'. The logical way to do this is to separate what evil is in to relevant categories which are as follows:-

Natural Evil
: All the evil and suffering due to natural force's that are beyond human control. ‘Acts of God' e.g. Earthquakes, Diseases etc.

Moral Evil: Evil that people choose to do out of envy, lust, spite, anger, hatred, intolerance etc.

Does Moral Evil Mean God is not Omnipotent or Benevolent?

Now that we have defined what the meaning of ‘evil and suffering' we can explore how the categories can be explained in the presence of an Omnipotent and Benevolent god. First let us tackle moral evil.

As humans we have been given the gift of free will by god so that we may make choices for ourselves and so that we may experience the creation of god to its full without being used as pawns by god. One criticism of this claim is "Why would god give us free will if he knows we will use it for evil, if he is benevolent?" This question can be answered in one sentence:-

- God gave us free will so that we may worship him by choice.

This is by far the simplest reason and it is not within itself without questions such as "Does god need to be worshipped?" or "Do we need to worship god with free will to be at peace within ourselves?" The answer further is that yes we do need to worship a god for without god what do we have to hope in? What do we have to explain our existence and its purpose? What do we have to show us the morality of our actions?

This all being said it is fairly certain that most western beliefs in god assert that we have been given free will, so moral evil is not a factor of god but of humanity, and if god was to stop us then he would remove that gift that he has bestowed upon us, and thus god has left it up to us to use free will to better humanity and life.

Does Natural Evil Mean God is not Omnipotent or Benevolent?

The category of Natural Evil is somewhat more difficult to defend, as I have previously asserted that God is the cause of all evil in this category, however after looking at the proposition put forward, It becomes clear that by showing god with some of his other attributes will easily solve this problem: -

1. God is Omnipotent.
2. God Is Benevolent.
3. God is all-knowing.
4. God is the most wise.
5. There is evil and suffering in the world.

By adding that god is both all knowing and all wise which is are attributes that a perfect being must possess, then we can explain the problem of natural evil with examples for each I will show some now.

Let us suppose that an earthquake hits Britain and as a result 100,000 people lose their life, on the face of it this looks like a case where god has allowed evil and suffering to occur when he himself is a "Benevolent" being. However if we examine this then we can see that this may in fact cause for a "greater good". For example, currently the world is facing the prospect of over population, which threatens to cause a shortage of food, water and living space as well as increase disease rates. God in this case has killed 100,000 people in order to prevent an evil which is far worse. In either case we can assume that because god is all-knowing he would know what the result would be, and because god is all wise he would know the best action to take in the situation.

Now god is all benevolent so we might ask "Yes but why would god need to lessen evil due to the fact he is all powerful can he not just get rid of it completely?" The answer here is simply yes he can, however let us look more at the example already given. God was forced to act to prevent over-population; however over-population is due to the human's ability to reproduce, and the way that in modern life humanity has begun to act, which is to breed from a young age with a wide selection of partners. This is something that falls in to the category of Moral Evil and all Natural evil in this way can be shown as the result of Moral Evil. This renders Natural Evil non-existent.

Now if we return back and say that "God has given us the gift of free-will" Then he has done what would be expected of a Benevolent being and he has not interfered with that which he gave us, and at the same time reduced the evil to the lowest possible amount on the earth.

(In any case it covers all aspects, its not infallible but nothing in religion is.)

If a parent gives a child baseball bat, they don't interfere if the child is playing baseball, but you better believe it is their responsibility to interfere if they turn the bat on someone. Argument fails.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 7:22:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 7:20:56 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/12/2011 7:02:47 PM, Christopheratheist wrote:
Nonentity, I have always seen the argue of evil explained away by free will which supposedly god being "Omnipotent" Can't interfere with, which leads to a lot of it being humanities fault strangely this does not cover volcano's, earthquakes and such. So on its own is an insufficient argument, but everything good is gods work. So I got to thinking and I came up with a Solution (Not that I believe this, however it is my attempt of rationalism)

To start we must take point 3 and define what the meaning is of ‘Evil and Suffering'. The logical way to do this is to separate what evil is in to relevant categories which are as follows:-

Natural Evil
: All the evil and suffering due to natural force's that are beyond human control. ‘Acts of God' e.g. Earthquakes, Diseases etc.

Moral Evil: Evil that people choose to do out of envy, lust, spite, anger, hatred, intolerance etc.

Does Moral Evil Mean God is not Omnipotent or Benevolent?

Now that we have defined what the meaning of ‘evil and suffering' we can explore how the categories can be explained in the presence of an Omnipotent and Benevolent god. First let us tackle moral evil.

As humans we have been given the gift of free will by god so that we may make choices for ourselves and so that we may experience the creation of god to its full without being used as pawns by god. One criticism of this claim is "Why would god give us free will if he knows we will use it for evil, if he is benevolent?" This question can be answered in one sentence:-

- God gave us free will so that we may worship him by choice.

This is by far the simplest reason and it is not within itself without questions such as "Does god need to be worshipped?" or "Do we need to worship god with free will to be at peace within ourselves?" The answer further is that yes we do need to worship a god for without god what do we have to hope in? What do we have to explain our existence and its purpose? What do we have to show us the morality of our actions?

This all being said it is fairly certain that most western beliefs in god assert that we have been given free will, so moral evil is not a factor of god but of humanity, and if god was to stop us then he would remove that gift that he has bestowed upon us, and thus god has left it up to us to use free will to better humanity and life.

Does Natural Evil Mean God is not Omnipotent or Benevolent?

The category of Natural Evil is somewhat more difficult to defend, as I have previously asserted that God is the cause of all evil in this category, however after looking at the proposition put forward, It becomes clear that by showing god with some of his other attributes will easily solve this problem: -

1. God is Omnipotent.
2. God Is Benevolent.
3. God is all-knowing.
4. God is the most wise.
5. There is evil and suffering in the world.

By adding that god is both all knowing and all wise which is are attributes that a perfect being must possess, then we can explain the problem of natural evil with examples for each I will show some now.

Let us suppose that an earthquake hits Britain and as a result 100,000 people lose their life, on the face of it this looks like a case where god has allowed evil and suffering to occur when he himself is a "Benevolent" being. However if we examine this then we can see that this may in fact cause for a "greater good". For example, currently the world is facing the prospect of over population, which threatens to cause a shortage of food, water and living space as well as increase disease rates. God in this case has killed 100,000 people in order to prevent an evil which is far worse. In either case we can assume that because god is all-knowing he would know what the result would be, and because god is all wise he would know the best action to take in the situation.

Now god is all benevolent so we might ask "Yes but why would god need to lessen evil due to the fact he is all powerful can he not just get rid of it completely?" The answer here is simply yes he can, however let us look more at the example already given. God was forced to act to prevent over-population; however over-population is due to the human's ability to reproduce, and the way that in modern life humanity has begun to act, which is to breed from a young age with a wide selection of partners. This is something that falls in to the category of Moral Evil and all Natural evil in this way can be shown as the result of Moral Evil. This renders Natural Evil non-existent.

Now if we return back and say that "God has given us the gift of free-will" Then he has done what would be expected of a Benevolent being and he has not interfered with that which he gave us, and at the same time reduced the evil to the lowest possible amount on the earth.

(In any case it covers all aspects, its not infallible but nothing in religion is.)

If a parent gives a child baseball bat, they don't interfere if the child is playing baseball, but you better believe it is their responsibility to interfere if they turn the bat on someone. Argument fails.

This argument also fails miserably when you consider this is usually for the christian god who apparently has already created better place where none of this is necessary, called heaven.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 7:23:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 7:02:47 PM, Christopheratheist wrote:
Nonentity, I have always seen the argue of evil explained away by free will which supposedly god being "Omnipotent" Can't interfere with, which leads to a lot of it being humanities fault strangely this does not cover volcano's, earthquakes and such. So on its own is an insufficient argument, but everything good is gods work. So I got to thinking and I came up with a Solution (Not that I believe this, however it is my attempt of rationalism)

To start we must take point 3 and define what the meaning is of ‘Evil and Suffering'. The logical way to do this is to separate what evil is in to relevant categories which are as follows:-

Natural Evil
: All the evil and suffering due to natural force's that are beyond human control. ‘Acts of God' e.g. Earthquakes, Diseases etc.

Moral Evil: Evil that people choose to do out of envy, lust, spite, anger, hatred, intolerance etc.

Does Moral Evil Mean God is not Omnipotent or Benevolent?

Now that we have defined what the meaning of ‘evil and suffering' we can explore how the categories can be explained in the presence of an Omnipotent and Benevolent god. First let us tackle moral evil.

As humans we have been given the gift of free will by god so that we may make choices for ourselves and so that we may experience the creation of god to its full without being used as pawns by god. One criticism of this claim is "Why would god give us free will if he knows we will use it for evil, if he is benevolent?" This question can be answered in one sentence:-

- God gave us free will so that we may worship him by choice.

This is by far the simplest reason and it is not within itself without questions such as "Does god need to be worshipped?" or "Do we need to worship god with free will to be at peace within ourselves?" The answer further is that yes we do need to worship a god for without god what do we have to hope in? What do we have to explain our existence and its purpose? What do we have to show us the morality of our actions?

This all being said it is fairly certain that most western beliefs in god assert that we have been given free will, so moral evil is not a factor of god but of humanity, and if god was to stop us then he would remove that gift that he has bestowed upon us, and thus god has left it up to us to use free will to better humanity and life.

Does Natural Evil Mean God is not Omnipotent or Benevolent?

The category of Natural Evil is somewhat more difficult to defend, as I have previously asserted that God is the cause of all evil in this category, however after looking at the proposition put forward, It becomes clear that by showing god with some of his other attributes will easily solve this problem: -

1. God is Omnipotent.
2. God Is Benevolent.
3. God is all-knowing.
4. God is the most wise.
5. There is evil and suffering in the world.

By adding that god is both all knowing and all wise which is are attributes that a perfect being must possess, then we can explain the problem of natural evil with examples for each I will show some now.

Let us suppose that an earthquake hits Britain and as a result 100,000 people lose their life, on the face of it this looks like a case where god has allowed evil and suffering to occur when he himself is a "Benevolent" being. However if we examine this then we can see that this may in fact cause for a "greater good". For example, currently the world is facing the prospect of over population, which threatens to cause a shortage of food, water and living space as well as increase disease rates. God in this case has killed 100,000 people in order to prevent an evil which is far worse. In either case we can assume that because god is all-knowing he would know what the result would be, and because god is all wise he would know the best action to take in the situation.

Now god is all benevolent so we might ask "Yes but why would god need to lessen evil due to the fact he is all powerful can he not just get rid of it completely?" The answer here is simply yes he can, however let us look more at the example already given. God was forced to act to prevent over-population; however over-population is due to the human's ability to reproduce, and the way that in modern life humanity has begun to act, which is to breed from a young age with a wide selection of partners. This is something that falls in to the category of Moral Evil and all Natural evil in this way can be shown as the result of Moral Evil. This renders Natural Evil non-existent.

Now if we return back and say that "God has given us the gift of free-will" Then he has done what would be expected of a Benevolent being and he has not interfered with that which he gave us, and at the same time reduced the evil to the lowest possible amount on the earth.

(In any case it covers all aspects, its not infallible but nothing in religion is.)

Yeah...I've always found one overwhelming flaw with the PoE.

Exactly what about the judeo-christian god strikes you as "omnibenevolent?" This entire argument rests on semantic contradiction that hinges over "all good," yet this is the same guy who wipes out entire civilizations out of pure frustration and flattens cities that don't obey his every command.

While I failed to be surprised when the religious defend these actions as "benevolent" I cannot fathom why atheists would accept that premise.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 7:26:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 7:23:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/12/2011 7:02:47 PM, Christopheratheist wrote:
Nonentity, I have always seen the argue of evil explained away by free will which supposedly god being "Omnipotent" Can't interfere with, which leads to a lot of it being humanities fault strangely this does not cover volcano's, earthquakes and such. So on its own is an insufficient argument, but everything good is gods work. So I got to thinking and I came up with a Solution (Not that I believe this, however it is my attempt of rationalism)

To start we must take point 3 and define what the meaning is of ‘Evil and Suffering'. The logical way to do this is to separate what evil is in to relevant categories which are as follows:-

Natural Evil
: All the evil and suffering due to natural force's that are beyond human control. ‘Acts of God' e.g. Earthquakes, Diseases etc.

Moral Evil: Evil that people choose to do out of envy, lust, spite, anger, hatred, intolerance etc.

Does Moral Evil Mean God is not Omnipotent or Benevolent?

Now that we have defined what the meaning of ‘evil and suffering' we can explore how the categories can be explained in the presence of an Omnipotent and Benevolent god. First let us tackle moral evil.

As humans we have been given the gift of free will by god so that we may make choices for ourselves and so that we may experience the creation of god to its full without being used as pawns by god. One criticism of this claim is "Why would god give us free will if he knows we will use it for evil, if he is benevolent?" This question can be answered in one sentence:-

- God gave us free will so that we may worship him by choice.

This is by far the simplest reason and it is not within itself without questions such as "Does god need to be worshipped?" or "Do we need to worship god with free will to be at peace within ourselves?" The answer further is that yes we do need to worship a god for without god what do we have to hope in? What do we have to explain our existence and its purpose? What do we have to show us the morality of our actions?

This all being said it is fairly certain that most western beliefs in god assert that we have been given free will, so moral evil is not a factor of god but of humanity, and if god was to stop us then he would remove that gift that he has bestowed upon us, and thus god has left it up to us to use free will to better humanity and life.

Does Natural Evil Mean God is not Omnipotent or Benevolent?

The category of Natural Evil is somewhat more difficult to defend, as I have previously asserted that God is the cause of all evil in this category, however after looking at the proposition put forward, It becomes clear that by showing god with some of his other attributes will easily solve this problem: -

1. God is Omnipotent.
2. God Is Benevolent.
3. God is all-knowing.
4. God is the most wise.
5. There is evil and suffering in the world.

By adding that god is both all knowing and all wise which is are attributes that a perfect being must possess, then we can explain the problem of natural evil with examples for each I will show some now.

Let us suppose that an earthquake hits Britain and as a result 100,000 people lose their life, on the face of it this looks like a case where god has allowed evil and suffering to occur when he himself is a "Benevolent" being. However if we examine this then we can see that this may in fact cause for a "greater good". For example, currently the world is facing the prospect of over population, which threatens to cause a shortage of food, water and living space as well as increase disease rates. God in this case has killed 100,000 people in order to prevent an evil which is far worse. In either case we can assume that because god is all-knowing he would know what the result would be, and because god is all wise he would know the best action to take in the situation.

Now god is all benevolent so we might ask "Yes but why would god need to lessen evil due to the fact he is all powerful can he not just get rid of it completely?" The answer here is simply yes he can, however let us look more at the example already given. God was forced to act to prevent over-population; however over-population is due to the human's ability to reproduce, and the way that in modern life humanity has begun to act, which is to breed from a young age with a wide selection of partners. This is something that falls in to the category of Moral Evil and all Natural evil in this way can be shown as the result of Moral Evil. This renders Natural Evil non-existent.

Now if we return back and say that "God has given us the gift of free-will" Then he has done what would be expected of a Benevolent being and he has not interfered with that which he gave us, and at the same time reduced the evil to the lowest possible amount on the earth.

(In any case it covers all aspects, its not infallible but nothing in religion is.)

Yeah...I've always found one overwhelming flaw with the PoE.

Exactly what about the judeo-christian god strikes you as "omnibenevolent?" This entire argument rests on semantic contradiction that hinges over "all good," yet this is the same guy who wipes out entire civilizations out of pure frustration and flattens cities that don't obey his every command.

While I failed to be surprised when the religious defend these actions as "benevolent" I cannot fathom why atheists would accept that premise.

Its why I say the biblical god is more likely then the god the christians claim to worship, with the attributes they give him.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 8:56:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/11/2011 9:16:06 PM, nonentity wrote:
From what I understand, Christians believe that humans have free will and are therefore responsible for their actions. When the Argument from Evil is brought up, it is dismissed with the answer of "free will".

I've always had a problem with this, but now I've thought of something else.

I notice that whenever something good happens, Christians thank God. When they pray, they thank God for what he has "done" or what he has "blessed" them with. Celebrity acceptance speeches are often prefaced with "First and foremost, I'd like to thank God..."

Why is it that when evil happens, humans are to take responsibility for that, but when something good happens, God gets the credit? Why should you thank God for your own hard work? If all that happens to you is based on luck (ie. God favouring you), shouldn't you then condemn him when something bad happens to you?

Doesn't "thanking God" contradict free will?

Opinion: Very intelligent. I agree with your thoughts and I feel this is a fresh spin on a familiar topic.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 9:27:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 1:40:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/12/2011 12:24:55 AM, jharry wrote:
At 8/11/2011 9:16:06 PM, nonentity wrote:
From what I understand, Christians believe that humans have free will and are therefore responsible for their actions. When the Argument from Evil is brought up, it is dismissed with the answer of "free will".

I've always had a problem with this, but now I've thought of something else.

I notice that whenever something good happens, Christians thank God. When they pray, they thank God for what he has "done" or what he has "blessed" them with. Celebrity acceptance speeches are often prefaced with "First and foremost, I'd like to thank God..."

Why is it that when evil happens, humans are to take responsibility for that, but when something good happens, God gets the credit? Why should you thank God for your own hard work? If all that happens to you is based on luck (ie. God favouring you), shouldn't you then condemn him when something bad happens to you?

Doesn't "thanking God" contradict free will?

It comes down to the way you live your life for me. I can do it my way or His way.

I have an example.

I have been married for 15 years now. I got married young 19 and I can say it has been rough. If I had followed my way (the way of the world) I would be divorced and my children would pay the costs.

I followed Gods way and my children are receiving the blessings. I didn't want to follow His way but I made myself. I can't praise myself for that because it wasn't what I wanted.

I thank Him for His way and good instructions and help. When I thought I couldn't go on I was encouraged by His Word. I can't take credit for His Word anymore then I can take credit for bring born. And in both I am thankful.

If I had decided to ignore Him I couldn't honestly blame Him. He didn't cause me to ignore Him. Some may say He let's things happen that might interfer with my choice but that is just an excuse to me.

No my children couldn't blame Him if I had divorced their mother. But they could thank Him for giving me His Word so I had the chance to do the right thing by them, myself and Our Lord.

I hope this helps. Sorry if it doesn't.

Get married to someone you don't love, and endure many years of sufferring for the sake of the kids you probably did not want all because you are an inbred retarded redneck that could not be bothered to put a helmet on the little fellow.

Not the best argument for Christianity or a Christian ethical system now is it? But a good argument as to how the welfare state corrupts society.

Lol, I thought you were izbo for a second. You two are like peas in a pod.

First thing you assume way to much.

I do and always have loved my wife. Just childish arrogance and ignorance got in the way.

People that have been married for a long time have issues too.

Not only do my kids reap the blessings of faithfulness to Gods Word. I also have reaped great blessing, the love I now have is as concrete and steady as the oak tree.

I see your single, I see why.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 11:47:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
jharry, I personally have a lot of qualms with your explanation (i.e., the problem of subjective morality; the fact that "His word" is really man's word, which is completely founded on the subjective morality and the customs of the times it was written, as well as written by flawed people and manipulated over time to suit various interests... amongst other criticisms), but I thought your post was interesting and well written. If I agreed with the legitimacy of the Bible then your point would somewhat make sense.

I personally believe that Christians have a lot of good ideas, and I recognize Jesus as a Jewish ethical philosopher. That doesn't legitimize the Abrahamic concept of God though, and I certainly don't believe that Jesus was God incarnate and/or died for our sins.

It's also ironic I came across this. I was just browsing television and The 700 Club was on. I watched for a moment. The topic of divorce came up, and the Christian guy was saying that God doesn't like divorce because he wants Godly children, a.k.a. children raised by married parents. He then said psychology supported the argument that children are happier and healthier when raised in two-parent households.

However I don't believe psychology supports that, and when it does, it's usually because a child is reacting to the change (and children usually react negatively to change in general); because they are seeing their parents fight (which would be the same if the parents were fighting and acting maliciously toward each other while married); because they feel responsible (which is because kids are egocentric and tend to believe the world revolves around them) or because society tells them that a married mother-father household is most appropriate (but times are changing so people may no longer always believe that is necessarily the case).

Anyway, I just wanted to comment on your interesting approach to the question.
President of DDO
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 1:16:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 8:56:24 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/11/2011 9:16:06 PM, nonentity wrote:
From what I understand, Christians believe that humans have free will and are therefore responsible for their actions. When the Argument from Evil is brought up, it is dismissed with the answer of "free will".

I've always had a problem with this, but now I've thought of something else.

I notice that whenever something good happens, Christians thank God. When they pray, they thank God for what he has "done" or what he has "blessed" them with. Celebrity acceptance speeches are often prefaced with "First and foremost, I'd like to thank God..."

Why is it that when evil happens, humans are to take responsibility for that, but when something good happens, God gets the credit? Why should you thank God for your own hard work? If all that happens to you is based on luck (ie. God favouring you), shouldn't you then condemn him when something bad happens to you?

Doesn't "thanking God" contradict free will?

Opinion: Very intelligent. I agree with your thoughts and I feel this is a fresh spin on a familiar topic.

Thank you.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 1:20:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 7:23:23 PM, Wnope wrote:

Yeah...I've always found one overwhelming flaw with the PoE.

Exactly what about the judeo-christian god strikes you as "omnibenevolent?" This entire argument rests on semantic contradiction that hinges over "all good," yet this is the same guy who wipes out entire civilizations out of pure frustration and flattens cities that don't obey his every command.

While I failed to be surprised when the religious defend these actions as "benevolent" I cannot fathom why atheists would accept that premise.

Atheists are not saying that God is omnibenevolent. They are saying IF he is omnibenevolent, THEN such and such wouldn't happen. So the conclusion is either God doesn't exist, or God is not omnibenevolent.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 1:28:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 12:24:55 AM, jharry wrote:
At 8/11/2011 9:16:06 PM, nonentity wrote:
From what I understand, Christians believe that humans have free will and are therefore responsible for their actions. When the Argument from Evil is brought up, it is dismissed with the answer of "free will".

I've always had a problem with this, but now I've thought of something else.

I notice that whenever something good happens, Christians thank God. When they pray, they thank God for what he has "done" or what he has "blessed" them with. Celebrity acceptance speeches are often prefaced with "First and foremost, I'd like to thank God..."

Why is it that when evil happens, humans are to take responsibility for that, but when something good happens, God gets the credit? Why should you thank God for your own hard work? If all that happens to you is based on luck (ie. God favouring you), shouldn't you then condemn him when something bad happens to you?

Doesn't "thanking God" contradict free will?

It comes down to the way you live your life for me. I can do it my way or His way.

I have an example.

I have been married for 15 years now. I got married young 19 and I can say it has been rough. If I had followed my way (the way of the world) I would be divorced and my children would pay the costs.

I followed Gods way and my children are receiving the blessings. I didn't want to follow His way but I made myself. I can't praise myself for that because it wasn't what I wanted.

I thank Him for His way and good instructions and help. When I thought I couldn't go on I was encouraged by His Word. I can't take credit for His Word anymore then I can take credit for bring born. And in both I am thankful.

If I had decided to ignore Him I couldn't honestly blame Him. He didn't cause me to ignore Him. Some may say He let's things happen that might interfer with my choice but that is just an excuse to me.

No my children couldn't blame Him if I had divorced their mother. But they could thank Him for giving me His Word so I had the chance to do the right thing by them, myself and Our Lord.

I hope this helps. Sorry if it doesn't.

It didn't the first time I read it, but I came back to it and it makes sense now. The saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force him to drink" comes to mind. Is that what you mean? If so, then you've explained my OP for me.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 11:58:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 1:28:42 AM, nonentity wrote:
At 8/12/2011 12:24:55 AM, jharry wrote:
At 8/11/2011 9:16:06 PM, nonentity wrote:
From what I understand, Christians believe that humans have free will and are therefore responsible for their actions. When the Argument from Evil is brought up, it is dismissed with the answer of "free will".

I've always had a problem with this, but now I've thought of something else.

I notice that whenever something good happens, Christians thank God. When they pray, they thank God for what he has "done" or what he has "blessed" them with. Celebrity acceptance speeches are often prefaced with "First and foremost, I'd like to thank God..."

Why is it that when evil happens, humans are to take responsibility for that, but when something good happens, God gets the credit? Why should you thank God for your own hard work? If all that happens to you is based on luck (ie. God favouring you), shouldn't you then condemn him when something bad happens to you?

Doesn't "thanking God" contradict free will?

It comes down to the way you live your life for me. I can do it my way or His way.

I have an example.

I have been married for 15 years now. I got married young 19 and I can say it has been rough. If I had followed my way (the way of the world) I would be divorced and my children would pay the costs.

I followed Gods way and my children are receiving the blessings. I didn't want to follow His way but I made myself. I can't praise myself for that because it wasn't what I wanted.

I thank Him for His way and good instructions and help. When I thought I couldn't go on I was encouraged by His Word. I can't take credit for His Word anymore then I can take credit for bring born. And in both I am thankful.

If I had decided to ignore Him I couldn't honestly blame Him. He didn't cause me to ignore Him. Some may say He let's things happen that might interfer with my choice but that is just an excuse to me.

No my children couldn't blame Him if I had divorced their mother. But they could thank Him for giving me His Word so I had the chance to do the right thing by them, myself and Our Lord.

I hope this helps. Sorry if it doesn't.

It didn't the first time I read it, but I came back to it and it makes sense now. The saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force him to drink" comes to mind. Is that what you mean? If so, then you've explained my OP for me.

That is what I was trying to say in a nutshell. I apologize for my lack in being able to effectively communicate. It's one of the biggest roadblocks in my marriage as well :/
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 12:16:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 11:47:11 PM, Danielle wrote:
jharry, I personally have a lot of qualms with your explanation (i.e., the problem of subjective morality; the fact that "His word" is really man's word, which is completely founded on the subjective morality and the customs of the times it was written, as well as written by flawed people and manipulated over time to suit various interests... amongst other criticisms), but I thought your post was interesting and well written. If I agreed with the legitimacy of the Bible then your point would somewhat make sense.

I personally believe that Christians have a lot of good ideas, and I recognize Jesus as a Jewish ethical philosopher. That doesn't legitimize the Abrahamic concept of God though, and I certainly don't believe that Jesus was God incarnate and/or died for our sins.

It's also ironic I came across this. I was just browsing television and The 700 Club was on. I watched for a moment. The topic of divorce came up, and the Christian guy was saying that God doesn't like divorce because he wants Godly children, a.k.a. children raised by married parents. He then said psychology supported the argument that children are happier and healthier when raised in two-parent households.

However I don't believe psychology supports that, and when it does, it's usually because a child is reacting to the change (and children usually react negatively to change in general); because they are seeing their parents fight (which would be the same if the parents were fighting and acting maliciously toward each other while married); because they feel responsible (which is because kids are egocentric and tend to believe the world revolves around them) or because society tells them that a married mother-father household is most appropriate (but times are changing so people may no longer always believe that is necessarily the case).

Anyway, I just wanted to comment on your interesting approach to the question.

Thank you very much for the comment.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 9:38:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/11/2011 9:16:06 PM, nonentity wrote:
From what I understand, Christians believe that humans have free will and are therefore responsible for their actions. When the Argument from Evil is brought up, it is dismissed with the answer of "free will".

I've always had a problem with this, but now I've thought of something else.

I notice that whenever something good happens, Christians thank God. When they pray, they thank God for what he has "done" or what he has "blessed" them with. Celebrity acceptance speeches are often prefaced with "First and foremost, I'd like to thank God..."

Why is it that when evil happens, humans are to take responsibility for that, but when something good happens, God gets the credit? Why should you thank God for your own hard work? If all that happens to you is based on luck (ie. God favouring you), shouldn't you then condemn him when something bad happens to you?

Doesn't "thanking God" contradict free will?

We have free will in our own lives but we cannot control others or the world around us, so we thank God when He interevenes in the lives of others or the world.
The Cross.. the Cross.