Total Posts:96|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Problem of Evil

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 9:18:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's been a hot topic of late but here is my view....

The Problem of Evil is best termed the problem of suffering. Evil is a silly subjective term, and though suffering is also subjective it rather cuts to the chase of what we are talking about.

1: God is aware of all suffering (omniscient), is able to prevent all suffering (omnipotent) and would prevent all suffering (omnibenevolent).

2: Suffering exists.

3: Therefore God does not.

Surely are only two rebuttals to this (with numerous sub-variations within).

1: The definition of God is false, he lacks one or more omni-characteristics. This is not a true rebuttal because it accepts that the previously defined God can't exist, rather it is a revision. This does not seem to be a popular option, but I would have thought Christian thinkers would embrace this idea. The Bible does not support the omni-God. Indeed there is no reason to suppose a God possessed of all these omni-characteristics.

2: Suffering is necessary for there to be happiness. This seems to be the most popular option, but it is very poorly defended and opens up a massive can of worms, which I'll go into later.
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.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 11:16:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 11:12:33 AM, Thrasymachus wrote:
Evil is only a 'silly subjective' term if moral realism is false. If moral realism is false, then Theism is false.

Moral realism is clearly false, but it does not follow that if moral realism is false so too is theism.
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.
inferno
Posts: 10,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 11:19:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 11:16:56 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:12:33 AM, Thrasymachus wrote:
Evil is only a 'silly subjective' term if moral realism is false. If moral realism is false, then Theism is false.

Moral realism is clearly false, but it does not follow that if moral realism is false so too is theism.

This is where you are wrong. There is much logic here my friend. Would you be willing to suffer in life the way a human does in order to attain riches, wealth and eternal life ?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 11:22:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 11:19:59 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:16:56 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:12:33 AM, Thrasymachus wrote:
Evil is only a 'silly subjective' term if moral realism is false. If moral realism is false, then Theism is false.

Moral realism is clearly false, but it does not follow that if moral realism is false so too is theism.

This is where you are wrong. There is much logic here my friend. Would you be willing to suffer in life the way a human does in order to attain riches, wealth and eternal life ?

Do you want a debate on morality?
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.
inferno
Posts: 10,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 11:25:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 11:22:40 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:19:59 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:16:56 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:12:33 AM, Thrasymachus wrote:
Evil is only a 'silly subjective' term if moral realism is false. If moral realism is false, then Theism is false.

Moral realism is clearly false, but it does not follow that if moral realism is false so too is theism.

This is where you are wrong. There is much logic here my friend. Would you be willing to suffer in life the way a human does in order to attain riches, wealth and eternal life ?

Do you want a debate on morality?

This is not about morality, you pinhead. I am asking you about eternal life.
Noone else can give this to man. Only God. Your suffering pales in comparison
if you really look at it from this perspective. Suffering is not a bad thing.
Most of what you do is in your mind anway, and is a product of sin.
Some people have harder lives than others. You can maintain for the most part if you are doing the right thing on your own merits.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 11:28:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 11:25:48 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:22:40 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:19:59 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:16:56 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:12:33 AM, Thrasymachus wrote:
Evil is only a 'silly subjective' term if moral realism is false. If moral realism is false, then Theism is false.

Moral realism is clearly false, but it does not follow that if moral realism is false so too is theism.

This is where you are wrong. There is much logic here my friend. Would you be willing to suffer in life the way a human does in order to attain riches, wealth and eternal life ?

Do you want a debate on morality?

This is not about morality, you pinhead. I am asking you about eternal life.

You directly replied to my comment about morality and told me I was wrong. What was I wrong about then if not morality?

Noone else can give this to man. Only God. Your suffering pales in comparison
if you really look at it from this perspective. Suffering is not a bad thing.
Most of what you do is in your mind anway, and is a product of sin.
Some people have harder lives than others. You can maintain for the most part if you are doing the right thing on your own merits.

What is it you to debate?
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.
inferno
Posts: 10,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 11:32:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 11:28:41 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:25:48 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:22:40 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:19:59 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:16:56 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:12:33 AM, Thrasymachus wrote:
Evil is only a 'silly subjective' term if moral realism is false. If moral realism is false, then Theism is false.

Moral realism is clearly false, but it does not follow that if moral realism is false so too is theism.

This is where you are wrong. There is much logic here my friend. Would you be willing to suffer in life the way a human does in order to attain riches, wealth and eternal life ?

Do you want a debate on morality?

This is not about morality, you pinhead. I am asking you about eternal life.

You directly replied to my comment about morality and told me I was wrong. What was I wrong about then if not morality?

Noone else can give this to man. Only God. Your suffering pales in comparison
if you really look at it from this perspective. Suffering is not a bad thing.
Most of what you do is in your mind anway, and is a product of sin.
Some people have harder lives than others. You can maintain for the most part if you are doing the right thing on your own merits.

What is it you to debate?

To debate this would be irrelevent. Eternal life is the topic now. Would you be willing to suffer life here on Earth in order to obtain victory over death.
Simple question.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 11:36:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 11:32:39 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:28:41 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:25:48 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:22:40 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:19:59 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:16:56 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:12:33 AM, Thrasymachus wrote:
Evil is only a 'silly subjective' term if moral realism is false. If moral realism is false, then Theism is false.

Moral realism is clearly false, but it does not follow that if moral realism is false so too is theism.

This is where you are wrong. There is much logic here my friend. Would you be willing to suffer in life the way a human does in order to attain riches, wealth and eternal life ?

Do you want a debate on morality?

This is not about morality, you pinhead. I am asking you about eternal life.

You directly replied to my comment about morality and told me I was wrong. What was I wrong about then if not morality?

Noone else can give this to man. Only God. Your suffering pales in comparison
if you really look at it from this perspective. Suffering is not a bad thing.
Most of what you do is in your mind anway, and is a product of sin.
Some people have harder lives than others. You can maintain for the most part if you are doing the right thing on your own merits.

What is it you to debate?

To debate this would be irrelevent. Eternal life is the topic now. Would you be willing to suffer life here on Earth in order to obtain victory over death.
Simple question.

Yes.
Still curious as to what I was wrong about!
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.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 5:31:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 11:32:39 AM, inferno wrote:

Would you be willing to suffer life here on Earth in order to obtain victory over death.
Simple question.

Woah, slow down there C_N.

What he really means to ask is:

Would you prefer to spend the existence you know and understand in a state of suffering on the chance that doing so would lead to an even longer existence that you cannot experience and cannot understand, and that is reportedly consumed with an activity you *could* engage in now, yet choose not to.

Simple question.
VocMusTcrMaloy
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 6:29:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
With the exception of the ad hom, I agree with the answers given here concerning eternity.  Paul puts it this way,
Romans 8:16-18
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

This old gospel song summarizes the New Testament perspective of life on Earth:

This world is not my home I'm just a passing through
My treasures are laid up somewhere beyond the blue
The angels beckon me from heaven's open door
And I can't feel at home in this world anymore

If that is the perspective then suffering is irrelevant, except that it makes the heart yearn the more for home (in heaven).
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 7:13:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Trouble is all the justifications for God allowing suffering are not testable or provable, they can only be asserted.

Non Theism has an answer why God allows all sorts of suffering, cause God doesn't exist in the first place.

Why accept non provable non testable claims to justify why God allows suffering ?

Would some one allow such reasoning if I was to make the claim that the reason we have no evidence of the alien mothership hovering above earth is because it has a cloaking device ? At the very least you would be highly skeptical of such claims.
"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
hotdog
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 7:19:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 9:18:37 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It's been a hot topic of late but here is my view....

The Problem of Evil is best termed the problem of suffering. Evil is a silly subjective term, and though suffering is also subjective it rather cuts to the chase of what we are talking about.

1: God is aware of all suffering (omniscient), is able to prevent all suffering (omnipotent) and would prevent all suffering (omnibenevolent).

2: Suffering exists.

3: Therefore God does not.

Surely are only two rebuttals to this (with numerous sub-variations within).

1: The definition of God is false, he lacks one or more omni-characteristics. This is not a true rebuttal because it accepts that the previously defined God can't exist, rather it is a revision. This does not seem to be a popular option, but I would have thought Christian thinkers would embrace this idea. The Bible does not support the omni-God. Indeed there is no reason to suppose a God possessed of all these omni-characteristics.

2: Suffering is necessary for there to be happiness. This seems to be the most popular option, but it is very poorly defended and opens up a massive can of worms, which I'll go into later.

I agree with your assessment to use the word suffering instead of evil. Evil is a really loaded word.

The flaw in your logic is the last of your omni's - omnibenevolent. Although God is omnibenevolent - You are wrong to assume that preventing all suffering is the most benevolent thing to do.

For example, say you are undergoing chemotherapy to cure your cancer. If someone was unaware of the disease you had and just looked at the effects of your treatment (hair falls out and many other effects of the treatment that could be termed suffering) they would assume the doctor was cruel. Same would apply if you were having an operation - if someone have a limited perspective they would only see the doctor cutting you up and 'causing' you suffering.

But if you have a bit more knowledge and a broader perspective you would see that the doctor is being benevolent by causing this suffering. The suffering he causes is necessary to fulfil a higher good - ie cure the disease and save your life.

Its true that if we get rid of the doctor some suffering would be removed, but only the doctor can end the suffering by curing the disease. The doctor is benevolent even though he creates suffering.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 7:28:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
For example, say you are undergoing chemotherapy to cure your cancer. If someone was unaware of the disease you had and just looked at the effects of your treatment (hair falls out and many other effects of the treatment that could be termed suffering) they would assume the doctor was cruel. Same would apply if you were having an operation - if someone have a limited perspective they would only see the doctor cutting you up and 'causing' you suffering.

But if you have a bit more knowledge and a broader perspective you would see that the doctor is being benevolent by causing this suffering. The suffering he causes is necessary to fulfil a higher good - ie cure the disease and save your life.

Its true that if we get rid of the doctor some suffering would be removed, but only the doctor can end the suffering by curing the disease. The doctor is benevolent even though he creates suffering.

The Dr can't cure without inflicting suffering but God can. The Dr has restrictions that result in them inflicting suffering, the omi God has no such restrictions.
"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
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 7:46:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 7:19:48 PM, hotdog wrote:
At 8/23/2011 9:18:37 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It's been a hot topic of late but here is my view....

The Problem of Evil is best termed the problem of suffering. Evil is a silly subjective term, and though suffering is also subjective it rather cuts to the chase of what we are talking about.

1: God is aware of all suffering (omniscient), is able to prevent all suffering (omnipotent) and would prevent all suffering (omnibenevolent).

2: Suffering exists.

3: Therefore God does not.

Surely are only two rebuttals to this (with numerous sub-variations within).

1: The definition of God is false, he lacks one or more omni-characteristics. This is not a true rebuttal because it accepts that the previously defined God can't exist, rather it is a revision. This does not seem to be a popular option, but I would have thought Christian thinkers would embrace this idea. The Bible does not support the omni-God. Indeed there is no reason to suppose a God possessed of all these omni-characteristics.

2: Suffering is necessary for there to be happiness. This seems to be the most popular option, but it is very poorly defended and opens up a massive can of worms, which I'll go into later.

I agree with your assessment to use the word suffering instead of evil. Evil is a really loaded word.

The flaw in your logic is the last of your omni's - omnibenevolent. Although God is omnibenevolent - You are wrong to assume that preventing all suffering is the most benevolent thing to do.

For example, say you are undergoing chemotherapy to cure your cancer. If someone was unaware of the disease you had and just looked at the effects of your treatment (hair falls out and many other effects of the treatment that could be termed suffering) they would assume the doctor was cruel. Same would apply if you were having an operation - if someone have a limited perspective they would only see the doctor cutting you up and 'causing' you suffering.

But if you have a bit more knowledge and a broader perspective you would see that the doctor is being benevolent by causing this suffering. The suffering he causes is necessary to fulfil a higher good - ie cure the disease and save your life.

Its true that if we get rid of the doctor some suffering would be removed, but only the doctor can end the suffering by curing the disease. The doctor is benevolent even though he creates suffering.

I agree to an extent, that is the can of worms I was alluding to. If we take option to then it must be that all suffering serves the purpose of non-suffering/happiness whether we know it or not. In such instances the "chemotherapy" must be the most benevolent act avaliable to an omnipotent being.
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.
hotdog
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 7:56:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 7:28:37 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:


The Dr can't cure without inflicting suffering but God can. The Dr has restrictions that result in them inflicting suffering, the omi God has no such restrictions.

But you are suffering from a disease - thats why youre in this world. Its like if someone chooses to smoke cigarettes. The doctor can only try and cure them when they show up at his clinic.

As a blunt analogy - God lets you smoke cigarettes. Its your choice. Its a bad choice admittedly, but if you dont have the option of choosing the wrong thing - you don't have free will - you're just a robot. Free will is an inherent quality of conscious beings. Its inseparable from them. It defines who they are.

When Ghandi was involved in asking the British for independence for India, the English said - you aren't capable of ruling yourselves. Ghandi replied - we want the freedom to do wrong. Otherwise how is it freedom?
hotdog
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 8:04:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago

I agree to an extent, that is the can of worms I was alluding to. If we take option to then it must be that all suffering serves the purpose of non-suffering/happiness whether we know it or not. In such instances the "chemotherapy" must be the most benevolent act avaliable to an omnipotent being.

The suffering is a reaction to things we are doing - choices we are making. It is the outcome of us mis-using our free will - doing the wrong thing. Our position now is a situation we have created by the bad choices we have made in the past. Just like if we sit watching tv all day (or talking on the internet!), eat bad things, never exercise - we will eventually end up with heart disease. Smokers end up with lung cancer etc.

So if we know someone like that with heart disease or lung cancer, we will agree they are suffering, but we also acknowledge they brought it on themselves.

God is actually benevolent because he is always doing stuff to try and help us - he is like the doctor. The benevolent doctor will still treat the smoker.
VocMusTcrMaloy
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 8:12:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 7:19:48 PM, hotdog wrote:
At 8/23/2011 9:18:37 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It's been a hot topic of late but here is my view....

The Problem of Evil is best termed the problem of suffering. Evil is a silly subjective term, and though suffering is also subjective it rather cuts to the chase of what we are talking about.

1: God is aware of all suffering (omniscient), is able to prevent all suffering (omnipotent) and would prevent all suffering (omnibenevolent).

2: Suffering exists.

3: Therefore God does not.

Surely are only two rebuttals to this (with numerous sub-variations within).

1: The definition of God is false, he lacks one or more omni-characteristics. This is not a true rebuttal because it accepts that the previously defined God can't exist, rather it is a revision. This does not seem to be a popular option, but I would have thought Christian thinkers would embrace this idea. The Bible does not support the omni-God. Indeed there is no reason to suppose a God possessed of all these omni-characteristics.

2: Suffering is necessary for there to be happiness. This seems to be the most popular option, but it is very poorly defended and opens up a massive can of worms, which I'll go into later.

I agree with your assessment to use the word suffering instead of evil. Evil is a really loaded word.

The flaw in your logic is the last of your omni's - omnibenevolent. Although God is omnibenevolent - You are wrong to assume that preventing all suffering is the most benevolent thing to do.

For example, say you are undergoing chemotherapy to cure your cancer. If someone was unaware of the disease you had and just looked at the effects of your treatment (hair falls out and many other effects of the treatment that could be termed suffering) they would assume the doctor was cruel. Same would apply if you were having an operation - if someone have a limited perspective they would only see the doctor cutting you up and 'causing' you suffering.

But if you have a bit more knowledge and a broader perspective you would see that the doctor is being benevolent by causing this suffering. The suffering he causes is necessary to fulfil a higher good - ie cure the disease and save your life.

Its true that if we get rid of the doctor some suffering would be removed, but only the doctor can end the suffering by curing the disease. The doctor is benevolent even though he creates suffering.

WOW! This is so on point!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 8:17:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 7:56:46 PM, hotdog wrote:
At 8/23/2011 7:28:37 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:


The Dr can't cure without inflicting suffering but God can. The Dr has restrictions that result in them inflicting suffering, the omi God has no such restrictions.

But you are suffering from a disease - thats why youre in this world. Its like if someone chooses to smoke cigarettes. The doctor can only try and cure them when they show up at his clinic.

As a blunt analogy - God lets you smoke cigarettes. Its your choice. Its a bad choice admittedly, but if you dont have the option of choosing the wrong thing - you don't have free will - you're just a robot. Free will is an inherent quality of conscious beings. Its inseparable from them. It defines who they are.


You can have plenty of free will without people being born deformed into a life of misery.

And now you imply that God is a dr who is healing people who come to his clinic. Just out of curiosity, how many of american christians soldiers who had legs blown off have been healed by God ? I'll take a guess....zero.
"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
VocMusTcrMaloy
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 8:48:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 7:13:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Trouble is all the justifications for God allowing suffering are not testable or provable, they can only be asserted.

Much of history cannot be tested or proven <b>scientifically</b>. There is no <b>scientific</b> evidence that Christopher Columbus discovered America nor that Henry VIII started the Church of England.

Non Theism has an answer why God allows all sorts of suffering, cause God doesn't exist in the first place.

...which is not testable nor provable.

Why accept non provable non testable claims to justify why God allows suffering ?

Because I know Him personally and have seen Him work supernaturally. I trust Him, so He need not prove Himself to me. Can a parent prove to a child that if he/she is allowed to continue wearing diapers, it will have a negative impact on their social life someday? This assertion is not testable or provable until it is too late to do anything about it. Sometimes it's good to trust without evidence!
Would some one allow such reasoning if I was to make the claim that the reason we have no evidence of the alien mothership hovering above earth is because it has a cloaking device ? At the very least you would be highly skeptical of such claims.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 9:45:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Enjoy.
"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
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 9:49:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 8:48:05 PM, VocMusTcrMaloy wrote:
At 8/23/2011 7:13:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Trouble is all the justifications for God allowing suffering are not testable or provable, they can only be asserted.


Why accept non provable non testable claims to justify why God allows suffering ?

Because I know Him personally and have seen Him work supernaturally. I trust Him, so He need not prove Himself to me.

The Sam Harris video is in response to this claim from VocMusTcrMaloy.

When something happens good to you, its God, never mind all the other people, nevermind all the things your God doesn't do, as long as God is good to you.
"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
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 9:56:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 9:18:37 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It's been a hot topic of late but here is my view....

The Problem of Evil is best termed the problem of suffering. Evil is a silly subjective term, and though suffering is also subjective it rather cuts to the chase of what we are talking about.

1: God is aware of all suffering (omniscient), is able to prevent all suffering (omnipotent) and would prevent all suffering (omnibenevolent).

2: Suffering exists.

3: Therefore God does not.

Surely are only two rebuttals to this (with numerous sub-variations within).

1: The definition of God is false, he lacks one or more omni-characteristics. This is not a true rebuttal because it accepts that the previously defined God can't exist, rather it is a revision. This does not seem to be a popular option, but I would have thought Christian thinkers would embrace this idea. The Bible does not support the omni-God. Indeed there is no reason to suppose a God possessed of all these omni-characteristics.

What is about it about flood inducing, massacre provoking, borderling genocidal God that strikes you as "omnibenevolent?"
hotdog
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 12:26:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
You can have plenty of free will without people being born deformed into a life of misery.

And now you imply that God is a dr who is healing people who come to his clinic. Just out of curiosity, how many of american christians soldiers who had legs blown off have been healed by God ? I'll take a guess....zero.

The doctor example was an analogy to explain a point. The forum started with the common atheist suggestion that if God is the 3 omni's, its contradictory and therefore logically suggests that God must not exist. I was pointing out the flaws in this logic.

As for God physically healing christians or anyone else, you have misunderstood my point. I was saying that to assume that because God is benevolent he would have to stop all suffering is incorrect.

Suffering, disease, death are the laws of the material (physical) world. If you choose to live in this world, this is the price you must pay. Assume you choose to jump off a tall building - being squashed on the pavement is the price you will pay. Would you blame gravity for your fate? Its nothing to do with gravity - gravity is just a law of nature. Gravity must exist if space and time exist. Its your ignorance of the effects of gravity when making your choice to jump that is the problem. So its the same with suffering. Its merely a necessary consequence of the existence of this material world.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 4:03:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 8:04:15 PM, hotdog wrote:

I agree to an extent, that is the can of worms I was alluding to. If we take option to then it must be that all suffering serves the purpose of non-suffering/happiness whether we know it or not. In such instances the "chemotherapy" must be the most benevolent act avaliable to an omnipotent being.

The suffering is a reaction to things we are doing - choices we are making. It is the outcome of us mis-using our free will - doing the wrong thing. Our position now is a situation we have created by the bad choices we have made in the past. Just like if we sit watching tv all day (or talking on the internet!), eat bad things, never exercise - we will eventually end up with heart disease. Smokers end up with lung cancer etc.

So if we know someone like that with heart disease or lung cancer, we will agree they are suffering, but we also acknowledge they brought it on themselves.

God is actually benevolent because he is always doing stuff to try and help us - he is like the doctor. The benevolent doctor will still treat the smoker.

Not the best analogy, you have to assume that the human body susceptible to heart disease or lung cancer was ultimatly the most benevolent design.
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.
VocMusTcrMaloy
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 4:25:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 9:49:59 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/23/2011 8:48:05 PM, VocMusTcrMaloy wrote:
At 8/23/2011 7:13:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Trouble is all the justifications for God allowing suffering are not testable or provable, they can only be asserted.


Why accept non provable non testable claims to justify why God allows suffering ?

Because I know Him personally and have seen Him work supernaturally. I trust Him, so He need not prove Himself to me.

The Sam Harris video is in response to this claim from VocMusTcrMaloy.

When something happens good to you, its God, never mind all the other people, nevermind all the things your God doesn't do, as long as God is good to you.

I wasn't talking about something "good" happening. I have experienced His workinging SUPERNATURALLY. I can't credit man with that!
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 5:04:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 4:25:44 AM, VocMusTcrMaloy wrote:
At 8/23/2011 9:49:59 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/23/2011 8:48:05 PM, VocMusTcrMaloy wrote:
At 8/23/2011 7:13:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Trouble is all the justifications for God allowing suffering are not testable or provable, they can only be asserted.


Why accept non provable non testable claims to justify why God allows suffering ?

Because I know Him personally and have seen Him work supernaturally. I trust Him, so He need not prove Himself to me.

The Sam Harris video is in response to this claim from VocMusTcrMaloy.

When something happens good to you, its God, never mind all the other people, nevermind all the things your God doesn't do, as long as God is good to you.

I wasn't talking about something "good" happening. I have experienced His workinging SUPERNATURALLY. I can't credit man with that!

How is this induced?
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.
VocMusTcrMaloy
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 5:35:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 5:04:13 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/24/2011 4:25:44 AM, VocMusTcrMaloy wrote:
At 8/23/2011 9:49:59 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/23/2011 8:48:05 PM, VocMusTcrMaloy wrote:
At 8/23/2011 7:13:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Trouble is all the justifications for God allowing suffering are not testable or provable, they can only be asserted.


Why accept non provable non testable claims to justify why God allows suffering ?

Because I know Him personally and have seen Him work supernaturally. I trust Him, so He need not prove Himself to me.

The Sam Harris video is in response to this claim from VocMusTcrMaloy.

When something happens good to you, its God, never mind all the other people, nevermind all the things your God doesn't do, as long as God is good to you.

I wasn't talking about something "good" happening. I have experienced His workinging SUPERNATURALLY. I can't credit man with that!

How is this induced?

1. God knows you are an atheist
2. God knows why you are an atheist

If you are an atheist because you are being honest about the information you have and you want truth, then God is willing to provide you with evidence for His existence if you are open. I really believe that a prayer that resembles this will be answered:

"God, I don't believe You exist; but, if You do I am open to becoming a believer. Please show Yourself to me in a supernatural way that I cannot deny."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 5:56:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 5:35:43 AM, VocMusTcrMaloy wrote:
At 8/24/2011 5:04:13 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/24/2011 4:25:44 AM, VocMusTcrMaloy wrote:
At 8/23/2011 9:49:59 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/23/2011 8:48:05 PM, VocMusTcrMaloy wrote:
At 8/23/2011 7:13:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Trouble is all the justifications for God allowing suffering are not testable or provable, they can only be asserted.


Why accept non provable non testable claims to justify why God allows suffering ?

Because I know Him personally and have seen Him work supernaturally. I trust Him, so He need not prove Himself to me.

The Sam Harris video is in response to this claim from VocMusTcrMaloy.

When something happens good to you, its God, never mind all the other people, nevermind all the things your God doesn't do, as long as God is good to you.

I wasn't talking about something "good" happening. I have experienced His workinging SUPERNATURALLY. I can't credit man with that!

How is this induced?

1. God knows you are an atheist
2. God knows why you are an atheist

If you are an atheist because you are being honest about the information you have and you want truth, then God is willing to provide you with evidence for His existence if you are open. I really believe that a prayer that resembles this will be answered:

"God, I don't believe You exist; but, if You do I am open to becoming a believer. Please show Yourself to me in a supernatural way that I cannot deny."

With respect I have been trying that on and off since I was about 9 years old.
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.
hotdog
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 9:05:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 4:03:46 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 8:04:15 PM, hotdog wrote:

I agree to an extent, that is the can of worms I was alluding to. If we take option to then it must be that all suffering serves the purpose of non-suffering/happiness whether we know it or not. In such instances the "chemotherapy" must be the most benevolent act avaliable to an omnipotent being.

The suffering is a reaction to things we are doing - choices we are making. It is the outcome of us mis-using our free will - doing the wrong thing. Our position now is a situation we have created by the bad choices we have made in the past. Just like if we sit watching tv all day (or talking on the internet!), eat bad things, never exercise - we will eventually end up with heart disease. Smokers end up with lung cancer etc.

So if we know someone like that with heart disease or lung cancer, we will agree they are suffering, but we also acknowledge they brought it on themselves.

God is actually benevolent because he is always doing stuff to try and help us - he is like the doctor. The benevolent doctor will still treat the smoker.

Not the best analogy, you have to assume that the human body susceptible to heart disease or lung cancer was ultimatly the most benevolent design.

All physical things are subject to decay and eventually death. Best design or worse design is irrelevant. There's no design that isn't subject to corruption. Disease and death are the real problems and they are laws of the material nature. So the only solution is to get out of this world. Otherwise, you have to accept disease and death. That's the price for living here.