Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How can a loving god let children get cancer?

racismisawesome
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 10:23:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I know two christian parents and their child has leukemia.
They constantly pray that the child gets better but his condition is getting worse.

It says in the bible "god is love" or something like that right?
Then why does he allow innocent harmless children to suffer?
And don't give me the old "God wants them back in heaven, its their time to go."

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?" - Epicurus
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 10:49:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Another version would be:

1. If evil exists, objective moral values and duties exist.
2. If objective moral values and duties exist; God exists.
3. Therefore if evil exists, then God exists.
4. Evil exists.
5. Therefore God exists.

Now what about God "letting" evil, does this not make him not loving?
Well actually there is no reason to think that God and evil are incompatible logically. There is after all no explicit contradictions present. If there are some implicit contradictions, please inform me.

Also you are presupposing that God doesn't have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil in the world. Since this assumption is not axiomatic (necessarily true), it follows that if there is even a possibility that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, then God and evil are logically consistent.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 12:26:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 10:49:34 PM, Crede wrote:
Another version would be:

1. If evil exists, objective moral values and duties exist.
2. If objective moral values and duties exist; God exists.
3. Therefore if evil exists, then God exists.
4. Evil exists.
5. Therefore God exists.

Now what about God "letting" evil, does this not make him not loving?
Well actually there is no reason to think that God and evil are incompatible logically. There is after all no explicit contradictions present. If there are some implicit contradictions, please inform me.

Also you are presupposing that God doesn't have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil in the world. Since this assumption is not axiomatic (necessarily true), it follows that if there is even a possibility that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, then God and evil are logically consistent.

One good presupposition deserves another, you presuppose that God does have moral sufficient reasons for permitting evil.

Never the less lets look at the evidence and two different options shall we.........

A child dies a painful agonizing death from cancer. Now which is more plausible.....

1) That an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God exists and painful death follows for the child as God chooses not to stop it................or

2) That an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God does NOT exist thus there is no such God to stop it and the child dies an agonizing painful death from cancer.

Not only is option 2 more plausible, to choose option number 1 over 2 violates Occam's razor does it not ?
"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
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 12:30:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's all part of the plan.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 12:39:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 12:30:59 AM, tvellalott wrote:
It's all part of the plan.
Or, in other words, "God works in mysterious ways"....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
racismisawesome
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 1:50:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 12:30:59 AM, tvellalott wrote:
It's all part of the plan.

So Gods plan is to murder innocent children with a painful agonizing death? Wow what a great loving amazing God!!! You opened my eyes, hallelujah praise the lord! -_-
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 2:02:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
One good presupposition deserves another, you presuppose that God does have moral sufficient reasons for permitting evil.

Never the less lets look at the evidence and two different options shall we.........

A child dies a painful agonizing death from cancer. Now which is more plausible.....

1) That an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God exists and painful death follows for the child as God chooses not to stop it................or

2) That an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God does NOT exist thus there is no such God to stop it and the child dies an agonizing painful death from cancer.

Not only is option 2 more plausible, to choose option number 1 over 2 violates Occam's razor does it not ?

Ah a versed one in the problem of evil. The approach that sure it is possible, but highly improbable. Let me give some problems with this.

1.The ability of finite man to assess the reasons behind God who knows all of time is not something we are not able to justify. In other words even though we can't see the reason for certain evils, maybe in this entire life time, God can. He can see how to carry out his will while navigating through man's freewill, and putting up with certain evils to have it accomplished. So when you consider God acting with all of time in mind, we really have absolutely no grounds to assess the probabilities.

2. God's wish is not necessarily for happiness in this life, but to know him. This Christian doctrine increases the probability of God and evil co-existing.

3. Mankind through free-will is in rebellion to God. Therefore we should expect evil in this world because many men are against God. Even men who say they are for God, truly are against him and manifest some of the most horrific evils.

4. God also knows that this life is not the end but has in mind that after this life you will spend an eternity in paradise with him. So in comparison this life's sufferings will be so insignificant when compared to the eternity of life in communion with the Lord.

5. Finally God knows that one can be brought closer to him through suffering. That when one is claimed by God, and one knows God's love, any amount of suffering can take place while retaining the ability to say God is good.

So quite honestly I think it is highly more probable that God exists in light of evil existing, and that God is loving.
racismisawesome
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 2:38:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 2:02:46 AM, Crede wrote:
One good presupposition deserves another, you presuppose that God does have moral sufficient reasons for permitting evil.

Never the less lets look at the evidence and two different options shall we.........

A child dies a painful agonizing death from cancer. Now which is more plausible.....

1) That an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God exists and painful death follows for the child as God chooses not to stop it................or

2) That an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God does NOT exist thus there is no such God to stop it and the child dies an agonizing painful death from cancer.

Not only is option 2 more plausible, to choose option number 1 over 2 violates Occam's razor does it not ?

Ah a versed one in the problem of evil. The approach that sure it is possible, but highly improbable. Let me give some problems with this.

1.The ability of finite man to assess the reasons behind God who knows all of time is not something we are not able to justify. In other words even though we can't see the reason for certain evils, maybe in this entire life time, God can. He can see how to carry out his will while navigating through man's freewill, and putting up with certain evils to have it accomplished. So when you consider God acting with all of time in mind, we really have absolutely no grounds to assess the probabilities.

2. God's wish is not necessarily for happiness in this life, but to know him. This Christian doctrine increases the probability of God and evil co-existing.

3. Mankind through free-will is in rebellion to God. Therefore we should expect evil in this world because many men are against God. Even men who say they are for God, truly are against him and manifest some of the most horrific evils.

4. God also knows that this life is not the end but has in mind that after this life you will spend an eternity in paradise with him. So in comparison this life's sufferings will be so insignificant when compared to the eternity of life in communion with the Lord.

5. Finally God knows that one can be brought closer to him through suffering. That when one is claimed by God, and one knows God's love, any amount of suffering can take place while retaining the ability to say God is good.

So quite honestly I think it is highly more probable that God exists in light of evil existing, and that God is loving.

Ok so what if a random guy killed your children would you be happy? Because now they are in paradise so killing innocent children is a good thing right? Do you understand how sick and demented you sound, justifying the pain and death of children.
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 2:52:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ok so what if a random guy killed your children would you be happy? Because now they are in paradise so killing innocent children is a good thing right? Do you understand how sick and demented you sound, justifying the pain and death of children.

Wow, you have completely taken what I've said out of context. Of course I would not be happy if someone killed my children. I would be devastated. The only good thing to hold onto from it in my finite mind would be that they were not eternally gone, but are in heaven. So no it's not a good thing to me, I want to live and love my children every day and see them grow up to be strong and loving individuals. And on the contrary to your last spiteful comment, I actually have a reason to give the family 1. hope, 2. the acknowledgment that if their child does pass, he is with God in heaven. You on the other hand have no hope to give.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 2:58:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 2:02:46 AM, Crede wrote:
One good presupposition deserves another, you presuppose that God does have moral sufficient reasons for permitting evil.

Never the less lets look at the evidence and two different options shall we.........

A child dies a painful agonizing death from cancer. Now which is more plausible.....

1) That an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God exists and painful death follows for the child as God chooses not to stop it................or

2) That an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God does NOT exist thus there is no such God to stop it and the child dies an agonizing painful death from cancer.

Not only is option 2 more plausible, to choose option number 1 over 2 violates Occam's razor does it not ?

Ah a versed one in the problem of evil. The approach that sure it is possible, but highly improbable. Let me give some problems with this.

1.The ability of finite man to assess the reasons behind God who knows all of time is not something we are not able to justify. In other words even though we can't see the reason for certain evils, maybe in this entire life time, God can. He can see how to carry out his will while navigating through man's freewill, and putting up with certain evils to have it accomplished. So when you consider God acting with all of time in mind, we really have absolutely no grounds to assess the probabilities.

2. God's wish is not necessarily for happiness in this life, but to know him. This Christian doctrine increases the probability of God and evil co-existing.

3. Mankind through free-will is in rebellion to God. Therefore we should expect evil in this world because many men are against God. Even men who say they are for God, truly are against him and manifest some of the most horrific evils.

4. God also knows that this life is not the end but has in mind that after this life you will spend an eternity in paradise with him. So in comparison this life's sufferings will be so insignificant when compared to the eternity of life in communion with the Lord.

5. Finally God knows that one can be brought closer to him through suffering. That when one is claimed by God, and one knows God's love, any amount of suffering can take place while retaining the ability to say God is good.

So quite honestly I think it is highly more probable that God exists in light of evil existing, and that God is loving.

1) 1.The ability of finite man to assess the reasons behind God who knows all of time is not something we are not able to justify. In other words even though we can't see the reason for certain evils, maybe in this entire life time, God can

Whats more plausible, that an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God chooses not to stop the agnozing cancer death of the child for un-known moral sufficient reasons or.............its just an excuse/rationalization ?

2. God's wish is not necessarily for happiness in this life, but to know him. This Christian doctrine increases the probability of God and evil co-existing.

You claim that we can't know Gods reasons, then you know whats God wish is......... And again whats more plausible this is just a rationalisation ?

3. 3. Mankind through free-will is in rebellion to God. Therefore we should expect evil in this world because many men are against God.

Makind in rebellion against God = God chooses not to stop the cancer death of a child.........moving on.

4. 4. God also knows that this life is not the end but has in mind that after this life you will spend an eternity in paradise with him

Can't be proven, only asserted.

5. Finally God knows that one can be brought closer to him through suffering.

And one can be driven away too.

So quite honestly I think it is highly more probable that God exists in light of evil existing, and that God is loving.

Trouble is no amount of your rationalizations are testable. You can also make a claim and make rationalizations not only for lack of evidence to back up this claim but even when the evidence starts pointing in the other direction.

So whats more plausible.............These are the reasons why an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God allows the cancer death of timmy or its just a bunch of rationalizations cause the actual evidence points in the other direction ?

And you never answered my question about the violation of occam's razor. Is it in violation of occams razor ?
"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
racismisawesome
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 3:27:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 2:52:08 AM, Crede wrote:
Ok so what if a random guy killed your children would you be happy? Because now they are in paradise so killing innocent children is a good thing right? Do you understand how sick and demented you sound, justifying the pain and death of children.

Wow, you have completely taken what I've said out of context. Of course I would not be happy if someone killed my children. I would be devastated. The only good thing to hold onto from it in my finite mind would be that they were not eternally gone, but are in heaven. So no it's not a good thing to me, I want to live and love my children every day and see them grow up to be strong and loving individuals. And on the contrary to your last spiteful comment, I actually have a reason to give the family 1. hope, 2. the acknowledgment that if their child does pass, he is with God in heaven. You on the other hand have no hope to give.

Well then you obviously "love" your child. If you had the ability to cure your child from cancer you would cure them, correct? Well "God" DOES have the power to cure the child from cancer, and he is a LOVING GOD, yet he doesn't cure the child? Therefore either God is not a loving god, or he doesn't exist.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 3:37:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 3:27:39 AM, racismisawesome wrote:
At 10/10/2011 2:52:08 AM, Crede wrote:
Ok so what if a random guy killed your children would you be happy? Because now they are in paradise so killing innocent children is a good thing right? Do you understand how sick and demented you sound, justifying the pain and death of children.

Wow, you have completely taken what I've said out of context. Of course I would not be happy if someone killed my children. I would be devastated. The only good thing to hold onto from it in my finite mind would be that they were not eternally gone, but are in heaven. So no it's not a good thing to me, I want to live and love my children every day and see them grow up to be strong and loving individuals. And on the contrary to your last spiteful comment, I actually have a reason to give the family 1. hope, 2. the acknowledgment that if their child does pass, he is with God in heaven. You on the other hand have no hope to give.

Well then you obviously "love" your child. If you had the ability to cure your child from cancer you would cure them, correct? Well "God" DOES have the power to cure the child from cancer, and he is a LOVING GOD, yet he doesn't cure the child? Therefore either God is not a loving god, or he doesn't exist.

Or to allow the cancer to continue is ultimately for the greater good. No I am not arguing that is the case, but that is one of the three/four possible logical conclusions.
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.
racismisawesome
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 3:46:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 3:37:35 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:27:39 AM, racismisawesome wrote:
At 10/10/2011 2:52:08 AM, Crede wrote:
Ok so what if a random guy killed your children would you be happy? Because now they are in paradise so killing innocent children is a good thing right? Do you understand how sick and demented you sound, justifying the pain and death of children.

Wow, you have completely taken what I've said out of context. Of course I would not be happy if someone killed my children. I would be devastated. The only good thing to hold onto from it in my finite mind would be that they were not eternally gone, but are in heaven. So no it's not a good thing to me, I want to live and love my children every day and see them grow up to be strong and loving individuals. And on the contrary to your last spiteful comment, I actually have a reason to give the family 1. hope, 2. the acknowledgment that if their child does pass, he is with God in heaven. You on the other hand have no hope to give.

Well then you obviously "love" your child. If you had the ability to cure your child from cancer you would cure them, correct? Well "God" DOES have the power to cure the child from cancer, and he is a LOVING GOD, yet he doesn't cure the child? Therefore either God is not a loving god, or he doesn't exist.

Or to allow the cancer to continue is ultimately for the greater good. No I am not arguing that is the case, but that is one of the three/four possible logical conclusions.

having an innocent child die a slow painful death because it is somehow for the greater good is not a logical conclusion.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 3:47:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 3:46:40 AM, racismisawesome wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:37:35 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/10/2011 3:27:39 AM, racismisawesome wrote:
At 10/10/2011 2:52:08 AM, Crede wrote:
Ok so what if a random guy killed your children would you be happy? Because now they are in paradise so killing innocent children is a good thing right? Do you understand how sick and demented you sound, justifying the pain and death of children.

Wow, you have completely taken what I've said out of context. Of course I would not be happy if someone killed my children. I would be devastated. The only good thing to hold onto from it in my finite mind would be that they were not eternally gone, but are in heaven. So no it's not a good thing to me, I want to live and love my children every day and see them grow up to be strong and loving individuals. And on the contrary to your last spiteful comment, I actually have a reason to give the family 1. hope, 2. the acknowledgment that if their child does pass, he is with God in heaven. You on the other hand have no hope to give.

Well then you obviously "love" your child. If you had the ability to cure your child from cancer you would cure them, correct? Well "God" DOES have the power to cure the child from cancer, and he is a LOVING GOD, yet he doesn't cure the child? Therefore either God is not a loving god, or he doesn't exist.

Or to allow the cancer to continue is ultimately for the greater good. No I am not arguing that is the case, but that is one of the three/four possible logical conclusions.

having an innocent child die a slow painful death because it is somehow for the greater good is not a logical conclusion.

Are you omniscient?
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.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 8:34:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 10:49:34 PM, Crede wrote:
Another version would be:

1. If evil exists, objective moral values and duties exist.
2. If objective moral values and duties exist; God exists.
3. Therefore if evil exists, then God exists.
4. Evil exists.
5. Therefore God exists.

Now what about God "letting" evil, does this not make him not loving?
Well actually there is no reason to think that God and evil are incompatible logically. There is after all no explicit contradictions present. If there are some implicit contradictions, please inform me.

Also you are presupposing that God doesn't have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil in the world. Since this assumption is not axiomatic (necessarily true), it follows that if there is even a possibility that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, then God and evil are logically consistent.

Premise 2 is absolute nonsense. Therefore premise 3 does not follow. Someone ought to teach you a thing or 2 about syllogisms.
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.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 8:54:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 8:34:39 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/9/2011 10:49:34 PM, Crede wrote:
Another version would be:

1. If evil exists, objective moral values and duties exist.
2. If objective moral values and duties exist; God exists.
3. Therefore if evil exists, then God exists.
4. Evil exists.
5. Therefore God exists.

Now what about God "letting" evil, does this not make him not loving?
Well actually there is no reason to think that God and evil are incompatible logically. There is after all no explicit contradictions present. If there are some implicit contradictions, please inform me.

Also you are presupposing that God doesn't have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil in the world. Since this assumption is not axiomatic (necessarily true), it follows that if there is even a possibility that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, then God and evil are logically consistent.

Premise 2 is absolute nonsense. Therefore premise 3 does not follow. Someone ought to teach you a thing or 2 about syllogisms.

Even though you struggle to wipe your arse without poking a finger in your eye I have to agree. Premise 2 is flawed.
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.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 9:31:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 8:54:36 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/10/2011 8:34:39 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/9/2011 10:49:34 PM, Crede wrote:
Another version would be:

1. If evil exists, objective moral values and duties exist.
2. If objective moral values and duties exist; God exists.
3. Therefore if evil exists, then God exists.
4. Evil exists.
5. Therefore God exists.

Now what about God "letting" evil, does this not make him not loving?
Well actually there is no reason to think that God and evil are incompatible logically. There is after all no explicit contradictions present. If there are some implicit contradictions, please inform me.

Also you are presupposing that God doesn't have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil in the world. Since this assumption is not axiomatic (necessarily true), it follows that if there is even a possibility that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, then God and evil are logically consistent.

Premise 2 is absolute nonsense. Therefore premise 3 does not follow. Someone ought to teach you a thing or 2 about syllogisms.

Even though you struggle to wipe your arse without poking a finger in your eye I have to agree. Premise 2 is flawed.

Truly must say I am shocked that didn't convert you, you fall for many arguments just as stupid, but good for you not falling for this one.
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.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 9:41:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 9:31:52 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/10/2011 8:54:36 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/10/2011 8:34:39 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/9/2011 10:49:34 PM, Crede wrote:
Another version would be:

1. If evil exists, objective moral values and duties exist.
2. If objective moral values and duties exist; God exists.
3. Therefore if evil exists, then God exists.
4. Evil exists.
5. Therefore God exists.

Now what about God "letting" evil, does this not make him not loving?
Well actually there is no reason to think that God and evil are incompatible logically. There is after all no explicit contradictions present. If there are some implicit contradictions, please inform me.

Also you are presupposing that God doesn't have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil in the world. Since this assumption is not axiomatic (necessarily true), it follows that if there is even a possibility that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, then God and evil are logically consistent.

Premise 2 is absolute nonsense. Therefore premise 3 does not follow. Someone ought to teach you a thing or 2 about syllogisms.

Even though you struggle to wipe your arse without poking a finger in your eye I have to agree. Premise 2 is flawed.


Truly must say I am shocked that didn't convert you, you fall for many arguments just as stupid, but good for you not falling for this one.

Such as?
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.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 9:42:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 10:23:27 PM, racismisawesome wrote:
I know two christian parents and their child has leukemia.
They constantly pray that the child gets better but his condition is getting worse.

It says in the bible "god is love" or something like that right?
Then why does he allow innocent harmless children to suffer?
And don't give me the old "God wants them back in heaven, its their time to go."

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?" - Epicurus

Who said God was a loving deity?

The Bible is full of smiting and wailing and gnashing of teeth and people being stoned to death at God's behest.

Ask yourself this: would a loving god flood the entire planet, drowning defenceless little kittens, puppies and bunnies, as well as innocent women and children, leaving sharks, crocodiles and alligators to feast on their carcasses?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 9:45:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 9:42:23 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 10/9/2011 10:23:27 PM, racismisawesome wrote:
I know two christian parents and their child has leukemia.
They constantly pray that the child gets better but his condition is getting worse.

It says in the bible "god is love" or something like that right?
Then why does he allow innocent harmless children to suffer?
And don't give me the old "God wants them back in heaven, its their time to go."

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?" - Epicurus

Who said God was a loving deity?

The Bible is full of smiting and wailing and gnashing of teeth and people being stoned to death at God's behest.

Ask yourself this: would a loving god flood the entire planet, drowning defenceless little kittens, puppies and bunnies, as well as innocent women and children, leaving sharks, crocodiles and alligators to feast on their carcasses?

Yet for some reason the philosophical definition of God, and the God that the Christians preach is omnibenevolent. He may still be so, but to claim that is to claim that all the suffering and 'evil' of the world is necessary. Which seems unlikely.
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.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 9:51:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 2:02:46 AM, Crede wrote:
One good presupposition deserves another, you presuppose that God does have moral sufficient reasons for permitting evil.

Never the less lets look at the evidence and two different options shall we.........

A child dies a painful agonizing death from cancer. Now which is more plausible.....

1) That an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God exists and painful death follows for the child as God chooses not to stop it................or

2) That an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God does NOT exist thus there is no such God to stop it and the child dies an agonizing painful death from cancer.

Not only is option 2 more plausible, to choose option number 1 over 2 violates Occam's razor does it not ?

Ah a versed one in the problem of evil. The approach that sure it is possible, but highly improbable. Let me give some problems with this.

1.The ability of finite man to assess the reasons behind God who knows all of time is not something we are not able to justify. In other words even though we can't see the reason for certain evils, maybe in this entire life time, God can. He can see how to carry out his will while navigating through man's freewill, and putting up with certain evils to have it accomplished. So when you consider God acting with all of time in mind, we really have absolutely no grounds to assess the probabilities.

As illegal pointed out, 1) pretty much counteracts the next 4 responses, because it (if it is correct) shows the difficulty of finite man to assess God's reasons for suffering. You can't hold to this position, and then claim suffering occurs because of x,y, and z. Also, the problem with this type of response is not only does it fail to really address Rowe's particular problem (where the emphasis is not on knowledge of gratuitous suffering, but on the reasonableness of the belief that it exists), it also (as has been noted) evicerates things like moral knowledge, theological knowledge and even possibly revelation. It falls to prey to Stephen Law's evil God challenge, where we explain away the problem of good by playing the mystery card. Another problem is that when when one has every reason to suppose situation e is gratuitous, it is no good postulating unknown unknown solutions, as there could just as easily be unknown unknowns which strengthen the PoE. Lastly, when believers are trying to reason God through things like Kalam, it seems extraordinary to me that one could accuse the other party of rash or premature conclusions. If the theist can try to build a case for God from an event 13.7bn years ago, where all frames of reference break down, then surely the atheist is reasonable to conclude from everything we know about a particular event, it is really gratuitous.

2. God's wish is not necessarily for happiness in this life, but to know him. This Christian doctrine increases the probability of God and evil co-existing.

2. This is one of WLC's typical responses. However, it seems to me it doesn't work on a number of levels. Firstly, it ignores point 1. Secondly, it ignores animal suffering. Thirdly, it seems unclear why bone cancer in children is logically necessary for knowledge of God, especially when there are good arguments for God already, there is personal experience of Him, and suffering makes Christianity no more attractive than Islam, say, even if it where somehow to provide this good, which I don't really agree with. Lastly, the PoE is responsible for the many if not most cases of unbelief. Certainly, most atheists interested in the God question that I know of hold the PoE is a powerful and primary reason for unbelief.

3. Mankind through free-will is in rebellion to God. Therefore we should expect evil in this world because many men are against God. Even men who say they are for God, truly are against him and manifest some of the most horrific evils.

3. This only really refers to "free-will" evil, which again ignores animal suffering and natural evil, as well as seeming to go against point 1. This point is again susceptible to Law's evil God challenge. Why does evil God allow free-will? Because of the admittance of moral evil. Also, it's not clear to me that free-will is so valuable that God should allow some of the most horrendous evil. Given the existence of prisons, we certainly don't share this value of unimpeachable free-will. Lastly, I would just submit that some of the worst evils were to follow God's commands, or so people thought. It just seems question-begging to say they were wrong, and that if one truly followed these commands, we would have no evil, especially given bible passages to the contrary.


4. God also knows that this life is not the end but has in mind that after this life you will spend an eternity in paradise with him. So in comparison this life's sufferings will be so insignificant when compared to the eternity of life in communion with the Lord.

4. This doesn't even attempt to answer the problem now, but assumes that heaven will reconcile the evils in this world. The problem is that we have no reason to think that our hypothetical suffering baby could go to heaven without the suffering, nor that it will even go in the first place, much less that the evils are logically necessary. Secondly, it doesn't answer animal suffering, and goes against point 1. Thirdly, it can be mirrored: why does evil God allow good? Well, it will be compensated by an eternity of torment. Then we have those who will end up in Hell (according to Craig's PoV, which you seem to be following), and we also have to say that this again assumes heaven exists.


5. Finally God knows that one can be brought closer to him through suffering. That when one is claimed by God, and one knows God's love, any amount of suffering can take place while retaining the ability to say God is good.

5. Again, this just a non-answer. The question is why suffering takes place in a particular instance, so it seem strange to say this in the first place. Of course, it's not exactly true either. Look at some of the writings of Mother Teresa, for example, who questioned the existence of God, because of the scale and the nature of suffering. No-one, I assume, will say that she did not believe truly. Or even Craig himself, who says:

When I consider the depth and extent of suffering in the world, then I have to admit that it makes it hard to believe in God.

Also, all the points about animal suffering and so on apply here as well.


So quite honestly I think it is highly more probable that God exists in light of evil existing, and that God is loving.

There's lots of various reasons why I am not a Christian, but this certainly is the main reason, for both intellectual and emotional reasons. As Sinnott Armstrong point out in response to much of these points above, one can always explain away any problem by saying, "might", "might", "might", but I see no reason to believe that this is the case, and all other things being equal, it certainly provides a strong argument against the existence of God.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 9:55:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 10:23:27 PM, racismisawesome wrote:
How can a loving god let children get cancer?

A loving god loves the cancerous cells too. he's sometimes torn between letting the cancerous cells live or the children. Maybe the cancerous cells were really good Christian cells and are thus being rewarded with a child to gobble up!
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
jewgirl
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 10:07:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 10:23:27 PM, racismisawesome wrote:
I know two christian parents and their child has leukemia.
They constantly pray that the child gets better but his condition is getting worse.

It says in the bible "god is love" or something like that right?
Then why does he allow innocent harmless children to suffer?
And don't give me the old "God wants them back in heaven, its their time to go."

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?" - Epicurus

1)This first point, is based on a lecture by Professor Dale Gottlieb, Formerly professor of philosophy at Johns Hopkins: [1]

There is a common misconception regarding science, that theories are automatically dropped as soon as a counter example is found. This view of science is incorrect. Richard Roty professor of philosophy of science at Princeton university points out that every known theory ha d/s known unsolved problems or counter examples. When a scientific theory is rejected for another theory, we are exchanging a theory with it's problems for a theory with its problems.

To site an example, in the 30's scientists using quantum mechanics calculated the energy of a single electron to be infinite. Obviously impossible. This did not cause the scientists to reject the whole quantum theory. bec. Contrary to popular belief that not the way science works, to automatically reject a theory just bec. of an unanswered question.

Thus being said It would be double standard to do so in theology. Just bec. There is an outstanding question (I'm not saying there is, I am saying even if there was,) doesn't automatically disprove god.

2)Furthermore god and a large part of the world is metaphysical. Something we know next to nothing about. It would therefore be unwise and inaccurate to make speculative conclusions based on next to nothing.

3)Lastly, there are unanswered questions regarding the existence of a godless world. For example, the problems of first cause. The intricacy and complexity of the world. The large gaps in the fossil record. Ect. (see also list of arguments at the beginning of this round.)

So if questions are automatic reasons to reject, there is trouble both ways.

[1] The lecture can be heard by going to his web site: http://www.dovidgottlieb.com...... from the top.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 10:40:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I believe Crede was clear in pointing out that omniscience is the key point.

If God had killed Hitler as a small child or baby you would call him a baby killer.

He would have acted to stop the future murders, but by your limited knowledge would only have killed a baby.

You have no idea what children will be future mass murderers and which ones will not.

Some God allows for a greater good, some God does not allow for a greater good.

We simply are not in a good position to know what God is doing.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 10:58:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 10:23:27 PM, racismisawesome wrote:
I know two christian parents and their child has leukemia.
They constantly pray that the child gets better but his condition is getting worse.

It says in the bible "god is love" or something like that right?
Then why does he allow innocent harmless children to suffer?
And don't give me the old "God wants them back in heaven, its their time to go."

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?" - Epicurus

How do you know that God is not going to heal the Child? How do you know that God will not use the death of this child to create very devout parents and save 300 cancer children?

Have you ever noticed how whenever a Hollywood star gets a major incurable disesase they become an advocate in defeating the disease?

We see a clear track record empathy is created by common experiences.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 11:45:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 10:58:44 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/9/2011 10:23:27 PM, racismisawesome wrote:
I know two christian parents and their child has leukemia.
They constantly pray that the child gets better but his condition is getting worse.

It says in the bible "god is love" or something like that right?
Then why does he allow innocent harmless children to suffer?
And don't give me the old "God wants them back in heaven, its their time to go."

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?" - Epicurus

How do you know that God is not going to heal the Child? How do you know that God will not use the death of this child to create very devout parents and save 300 cancer children?

Have you ever noticed how whenever a Hollywood star gets a major incurable disesase they become an advocate in defeating the disease?

We see a clear track record empathy is created by common experiences.

I am not asking you if you think your argument is valid, but I do ask you do you believe that all the suffering of the world is necessary?
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.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 12:00:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
1. God is not all powerful (my belief)
2. It's impossible to understand the nature of God.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 12:42:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 11:45:11 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/10/2011 10:58:44 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/9/2011 10:23:27 PM, racismisawesome wrote:
I know two christian parents and their child has leukemia.
They constantly pray that the child gets better but his condition is getting worse.

It says in the bible "god is love" or something like that right?
Then why does he allow innocent harmless children to suffer?
And don't give me the old "God wants them back in heaven, its their time to go."

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?" - Epicurus

How do you know that God is not going to heal the Child? How do you know that God will not use the death of this child to create very devout parents and save 300 cancer children?

Have you ever noticed how whenever a Hollywood star gets a major incurable disesase they become an advocate in defeating the disease?

We see a clear track record empathy is created by common experiences.

I am not asking you if you think your argument is valid, but I do ask you do you believe that all the suffering of the world is necessary?

It is entirely necessary in my personal experience. Without suffering I would not be who I am today. I love who I have become through suffering.

Think of the people you personally admire. Are people who sit around with their silver spoons playing video games until they are 40 admirable? Or are the overcomers of adversity people you admire?

Adversity reveals and even creates admirable qualities to us. How much more so to our Father who created us? How much pride and joy do you get when your child overcomes adversity?
How much sadness do you have when your child ccreates an adverse situation for other people or families?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 12:46:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 12:42:57 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/10/2011 11:45:11 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/10/2011 10:58:44 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/9/2011 10:23:27 PM, racismisawesome wrote:
I know two christian parents and their child has leukemia.
They constantly pray that the child gets better but his condition is getting worse.

It says in the bible "god is love" or something like that right?
Then why does he allow innocent harmless children to suffer?
And don't give me the old "God wants them back in heaven, its their time to go."

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?" - Epicurus

How do you know that God is not going to heal the Child? How do you know that God will not use the death of this child to create very devout parents and save 300 cancer children?

Have you ever noticed how whenever a Hollywood star gets a major incurable disesase they become an advocate in defeating the disease?

We see a clear track record empathy is created by common experiences.

I am not asking you if you think your argument is valid, but I do ask you do you believe that all the suffering of the world is necessary?

It is entirely necessary in my personal experience. Without suffering I would not be who I am today. I love who I have become through suffering.

Think of the people you personally admire. Are people who sit around with their silver spoons playing video games until they are 40 admirable? Or are the overcomers of adversity people you admire?

Adversity reveals and even creates admirable qualities to us. How much more so to our Father who created us? How much pride and joy do you get when your child overcomes adversity?
How much sadness do you have when your child ccreates an adverse situation for other people or families?

If God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent then all suffering must be of the most optimal benevolence. Miscarriage, cancer, famine... all these things, every single death, every single tear must be necessary. Think of the worst thing that has happened to you... do you seriously believe it was for the ultimate benefit of everyone concerned? There was no other, better option avaliable to God?
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.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 1:12:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 12:46:46 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/10/2011 12:42:57 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/10/2011 11:45:11 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/10/2011 10:58:44 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/9/2011 10:23:27 PM, racismisawesome wrote:
I know two christian parents and their child has leukemia.
They constantly pray that the child gets better but his condition is getting worse.

It says in the bible "god is love" or something like that right?
Then why does he allow innocent harmless children to suffer?
And don't give me the old "God wants them back in heaven, its their time to go."

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?" - Epicurus

How do you know that God is not going to heal the Child? How do you know that God will not use the death of this child to create very devout parents and save 300 cancer children?

Have you ever noticed how whenever a Hollywood star gets a major incurable disesase they become an advocate in defeating the disease?

We see a clear track record empathy is created by common experiences.

I am not asking you if you think your argument is valid, but I do ask you do you believe that all the suffering of the world is necessary?

It is entirely necessary in my personal experience. Without suffering I would not be who I am today. I love who I have become through suffering.

Think of the people you personally admire. Are people who sit around with their silver spoons playing video games until they are 40 admirable? Or are the overcomers of adversity people you admire?

Adversity reveals and even creates admirable qualities to us. How much more so to our Father who created us? How much pride and joy do you get when your child overcomes adversity?
How much sadness do you have when your child ccreates an adverse situation for other people or families?

If God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent then all suffering must be of the most optimal benevolence. Miscarriage, cancer, famine... all these things, every single death, every single tear must be necessary. Think of the worst thing that has happened to you... do you seriously believe it was for the ultimate benefit of everyone concerned? There was no other, better option avaliable to God?

I personally know from raising my children that every tear of their learning process is incredibly necessary. The tougher the circumstances the faster they learn.
In addition to the increased speed, the longer lasting the lesson as well.
So both speed and quality of the lesson is determined by the level of the adversity.

Now that does not address the fact that a process of learning through adversity has not been perverted by God's enemy, the god of this world.

I personally at one point agreed with you and serious doubts until I met demons and learned of Satan and his dominion as god of this earth and the perversions over this world.

It is a complex circumstance to explain but it is not beyond understanding.