Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Problem of Evil

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:17:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've been reading up on this a bit and from what I can see, there are two main approaches when dealing with it: the Augustinean and Irenaean approach.

August approach: God is good and therefore creates only good things. As a result, evil is not a thing but instead a sense of deprivation of good.

Irenaean: God creates evil because man is not perfect and he needs to reach salvation (or doom) by overcoming (or succumbing) to evil acts. As a result, God gives humans free will to overcome evil. This let's us determine what is good by overcoming what is bad.

To all the Theologists here, which approach do you use?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:25:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 10:17:27 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I've been reading up on this a bit and from what I can see, there are two main approaches when dealing with it: the Augustinean and Irenaean approach.

August approach: God is good and therefore creates only good things. As a result, evil is not a thing but instead a sense of deprivation of good.

Irenaean: God creates evil because man is not perfect and he needs to reach salvation (or doom) by overcoming (or succumbing) to evil acts. As a result, God gives humans free will to overcome evil. This let's us determine what is good by overcoming what is bad.

To all the Theologists here, which approach do you use?

I'm Deist so the POE helps affirm my belief, but beforehand I've used the Irenean theodicy. I think Plantingas free-will defence which THEBOMB used against me in a debate [http://www.debate.org...] is the best one.
Another defence I used was that the POE reaches into the great unkown in that we have no way of knowing why God would or could allow evil or what good might come out of it and we also cannot presume to fathom Gods character. Therefore concluding the POE commits somewhat of a falacy.
"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)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:33:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 10:25:41 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:17:27 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I've been reading up on this a bit and from what I can see, there are two main approaches when dealing with it: the Augustinean and Irenaean approach.

August approach: God is good and therefore creates only good things. As a result, evil is not a thing but instead a sense of deprivation of good.

Irenaean: God creates evil because man is not perfect and he needs to reach salvation (or doom) by overcoming (or succumbing) to evil acts. As a result, God gives humans free will to overcome evil. This let's us determine what is good by overcoming what is bad.

To all the Theologists here, which approach do you use?

I'm Deist so the POE helps affirm my belief, but beforehand I've used the Irenean theodicy. I think Plantingas free-will defence which THEBOMB used against me in a debate [http://www.debate.org...] is the best one.

His second reason (necessary for moral goodness) is pretty much a ripoff of Irenaen theodicy, in the sense that God created human beings as evil to reach moral greatness. Personally, I don't find this convincing as if it is within God's power to create good (and it should because he is omni-potent), then there is no point in creating evil if he can create universal good, as that would cause needless suffering.

Another defence I used was that the POE reaches into the great unkown in that we have no way of knowing why God would or could allow evil or what good might come out of it and we also cannot presume to fathom Gods character. Therefore concluding the POE commits somewhat of a falacy.

You can't really argue this as it is the basis of basic theological vs atheist disagreement but at best you can point out that it is not logical.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:34:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 10:17:27 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I've been reading up on this a bit and from what I can see, there are two main approaches when dealing with it: the Augustinean and Irenaean approach.

August approach: God is good and therefore creates only good things. As a result, evil is not a thing but instead a sense of deprivation of good.

Irenaean: God creates evil because man is not perfect and he needs to reach salvation (or doom) by overcoming (or succumbing) to evil acts. As a result, God gives humans free will to overcome evil. This let's us determine what is good by overcoming what is bad.

To all the Theologists here, which approach do you use?

Recently I've been toying with the idea that evil is specifically presented for us to give us choices, to the extent that the devil is actually a calling, and he's not really evil, just doing that job for us.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:37:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 10:33:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
His second reason (necessary for moral goodness) is pretty much a ripoff of Irenaen theodicy, in the sense that God created human beings as evil to reach moral greatness. Personally, I don't find this convincing as if it is within God's power to create good (and it should because he is omni-potent), then there is no point in creating evil if he can create universal good, as that would cause needless suffering.

I would be careful saying what should be possible for God. God is almighty, and the best translation for that into English is most powerful. Perhaps it isn't possible to just create us the way we can become through overcoming suffering.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:42:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 10:37:24 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:33:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
His second reason (necessary for moral goodness) is pretty much a ripoff of Irenaen theodicy, in the sense that God created human beings as evil to reach moral greatness. Personally, I don't find this convincing as if it is within God's power to create good (and it should because he is omni-potent), then there is no point in creating evil if he can create universal good, as that would cause needless suffering.

I would be careful saying what should be possible for God. God is almighty, and the best translation for that into English is most powerful. Perhaps it isn't possible to just create us the way we can become through overcoming suffering.

Almight: "Having complete power; omnipotent: "God almighty"."

http://www.google.ca...

Furthermore, how is God powerful enough to create an almost infinite universe but not eliminate evil? If God invented free will, then free will presupposes any good or bad acts, therefore making it superior.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:48:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 10:33:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:25:41 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:17:27 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I've been reading up on this a bit and from what I can see, there are two main approaches when dealing with it: the Augustinean and Irenaean approach.

August approach: God is good and therefore creates only good things. As a result, evil is not a thing but instead a sense of deprivation of good.

Irenaean: God creates evil because man is not perfect and he needs to reach salvation (or doom) by overcoming (or succumbing) to evil acts. As a result, God gives humans free will to overcome evil. This let's us determine what is good by overcoming what is bad.

To all the Theologists here, which approach do you use?

I'm Deist so the POE helps affirm my belief, but beforehand I've used the Irenean theodicy. I think Plantingas free-will defence which THEBOMB used against me in a debate [http://www.debate.org...] is the best one.

His second reason (necessary for moral goodness) is pretty much a ripoff of Irenaen theodicy, in the sense that God created human beings as evil to reach moral greatness.

I do remember he quoted the same person I did when I was defending the Irenean theodicy.

Personally, I don't find this convincing as if it is within God's power to create good (and it should because he is omni-potent), then there is no point in creating evil if he can create universal good, as that would cause needless suffering.

I don't find it convincing either, but then again Gods knowledge and logic far extends our own. Maybe there is some truth to the theodicy.

The free will defence is one of the better ones though. It argues that if God made us perfect we could only choose the good path therefore we don't really have any ability to go against duty and can therefore commit no morally significant acts. Moral free-will would give us the ability to be good persons while if we are created in perfection we don't really have a choice.


Another defence I used was that the POE reaches into the great unkown in that we have no way of knowing why God would or could allow evil or what good might come out of it and we also cannot presume to fathom Gods character. Therefore concluding the POE commits somewhat of a falacy.

You can't really argue this as it is the basis of basic theological vs atheist disagreement but at best you can point out that it is not logical.

Not sure what you mean.
"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)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:53:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Another possible defence, though it wouldn't apply to most peoples view point, is that there are in a sense two forces in the world, good and evil. God and perhaps his angels are the good and Satan and his demons our whatever are the evil. However God is not omnipotent, just very powerful; and Satan or whoever/whatever is also very powerful or perhaps even more powerful. Thus the evil force is responsible for all the evil we see while the good force is trying to counter-act the evil but cannot fully as they are both powerful.

Allot of that stems from basic Christian theology except that God is not omnipotent and Satan is more powerful.
"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)
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:56:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 10:53:41 PM, phantom wrote:
Another possible defence, though it wouldn't apply to most peoples view point, is that there are in a sense two forces in the world, good and evil. God and perhaps his angels are the good and Satan and his demons our whatever are the evil. However God is not omnipotent, just very powerful; and Satan or whoever/whatever is also very powerful or perhaps even more powerful. Thus the evil force is responsible for all the evil we see while the good force is trying to counter-act the evil but cannot fully as they are both powerful.

Allot of that stems from basic Christian theology except that God is not omnipotent and Satan is more powerful.

If Satan was more powerful, why isn't there more suffering? Why isn't the world literally...hell. Why isn't everyone suffering and dying, (including those who are comfortable). I like the idea that they are equal, and that ultimately, the sum total of "good and evil" is "0". They balance each other out.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:57:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 10:42:02 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:37:24 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:33:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
His second reason (necessary for moral goodness) is pretty much a ripoff of Irenaen theodicy, in the sense that God created human beings as evil to reach moral greatness. Personally, I don't find this convincing as if it is within God's power to create good (and it should because he is omni-potent), then there is no point in creating evil if he can create universal good, as that would cause needless suffering.

I would be careful saying what should be possible for God. God is almighty, and the best translation for that into English is most powerful. Perhaps it isn't possible to just create us the way we can become through overcoming suffering.

Almight: "Having complete power; omnipotent: "God almighty"."

What does it mean to have complete power? It means you can do anything that can be done.

Do you think it means you can do things that can't be done?

Furthermore, how is God powerful enough to create an almost infinite universe but not eliminate evil? If God invented free will, then free will presupposes any good or bad acts, therefore making it superior.

God couldn't give us free will without giving us choices. That was the whole point of the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve had to be given a choice to learn the difference between good and evil.

If it's not possible to teach certain things without having adversary, then it's not possible. God can only do what is possible.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 11:27:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 10:56:42 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:53:41 PM, phantom wrote:
Another possible defence, though it wouldn't apply to most peoples view point, is that there are in a sense two forces in the world, good and evil. God and perhaps his angels are the good and Satan and his demons our whatever are the evil. However God is not omnipotent, just very powerful; and Satan or whoever/whatever is also very powerful or perhaps even more powerful. Thus the evil force is responsible for all the evil we see while the good force is trying to counter-act the evil but cannot fully as they are both powerful.

Allot of that stems from basic Christian theology except that God is not omnipotent and Satan is more powerful.

If Satan was more powerful, why isn't there more suffering? Why isn't the world literally...hell. Why isn't everyone suffering and dying, (including those who are comfortable). I like the idea that they are equal, and that ultimately, the sum total of "good and evil" is "0". They balance each other out.

I meant more powerful than he is in the general Christian concept. Not more powerful than God. However I still disagree that Satan couldn't be more powerful. If Satan was just slightly or a little bit more powerful than God than the balance of good and evil would sway to the evil side. You could argue that more evil exists in the world than good.
"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)
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 9:27:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 10:17:27 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I've been reading up on this a bit and from what I can see, there are two main approaches when dealing with it: the Augustinean and Irenaean approach.

August approach: God is good and therefore creates only good things. As a result, evil is not a thing but instead a sense of deprivation of good.

Irenaean: God creates evil because man is not perfect and he needs to reach salvation (or doom) by overcoming (or succumbing) to evil acts. As a result, God gives humans free will to overcome evil. This let's us determine what is good by overcoming what is bad.

To all the Theologists here, which approach do you use?

God is defined by His attributes (love, mercy, justice etc) and so anything that is definable is also defined by what it is not: A square is a square not only by being a square but by not being a triangle or a circle etc..

God has allowed satan to steal the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven and subvert them in order to glorify His holy Name..

Batman is seen as Batman by the existence of the Joker..

Superman is revealed by Lex Luther..

Gods goodness (Grace, mercy and forgiveness) is seen by Him overcoming Satan at the cross:

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
The Cross.. the Cross.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 10:27:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

That is my debate I won against Microsuck on the problem of evil.
There is the logical problem of evil and the probabilistic problem of evil. The first tries to show that evil and God are logically incompatible. The probabilistic problem really comes down to: is there unjustified evil occurring in the world? Both are rather simple to defend as I did so in my debate.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 11:01:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 10:17:27 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I've been reading up on this a bit and from what I can see, there are two main approaches when dealing with it: the Augustinean and Irenaean approach.

August approach: God is good and therefore creates only good things. As a result, evil is not a thing but instead a sense of deprivation of good.

Irenaean: God creates evil because man is not perfect and he needs to reach salvation (or doom) by overcoming (or succumbing) to evil acts. As a result, God gives humans free will to overcome evil. This let's us determine what is good by overcoming what is bad.

To all the Theologists here, which approach do you use?

I wouldn't necessarily consider myself a theologist, but I will say that initially, I subscribed to the Augustinean approach, until I later realized that God isn't described in the Bible as omniscient, omnipotent, nor omnipresent.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 11:32:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 10:17:27 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I've been reading up on this a bit and from what I can see, there are two main approaches when dealing with it: the Augustinean and Irenaean approach.

August approach: God is good and therefore creates only good things. As a result, evil is not a thing but instead a sense of deprivation of good.

Irenaean: God creates evil because man is not perfect and he needs to reach salvation (or doom) by overcoming (or succumbing) to evil acts. As a result, God gives humans free will to overcome evil. This let's us determine what is good by overcoming what is bad.

To all the Theologists here, which approach do you use?

O Felix Culpa.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 3:34:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 11:01:55 AM, Ren wrote:

I wouldn't necessarily consider myself a theologist, but I will say that initially, I subscribed to the Augustinean approach, until I later realized that God isn't described in the Bible as omniscient, omnipotent, nor omnipresent.

God is all knowing - 1 John 3:20
God is all powerful - Jer 32:17, 27
God is everywhere - Psalm 139:7-12
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 4:03:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 10:17:27 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I've been reading up on this a bit and from what I can see, there are two main approaches when dealing with it: the Augustinean and Irenaean approach.

August approach: God is good and therefore creates only good things. As a result, evil is not a thing but instead a sense of deprivation of good.

Irenaean: God creates evil because man is not perfect and he needs to reach salvation (or doom) by overcoming (or succumbing) to evil acts. As a result, God gives humans free will to overcome evil. This let's us determine what is good by overcoming what is bad.

To all the Theologists here, which approach do you use?

This is not quite correct. There are indeed two main approaches when dealing with the PoE, but they are the aporetic and the analytical.

Aporetic: God exists. Evil exists. These two facts may be reconciled in such and such a manner. (This covers both the Augustinean and Irenaean approaches.)

Analytical: Evil exists. This fact makes, or does not make, the existence of God less likely.

To be a Christian and take the aporetic approach, all you need is an awareness of the world and a love of good puzzles. To be a Christian and take the aporetic approach, you need the above plus the courage to question your most deeply cherished beliefs.

There are many Christian philosophers of religion, and several have tackled the PoE from a purely analytic perspective, which impressed me at first when I dug into their works. However, I have discovered that all such philosophers either stopped publishing on the subject prematurely, meaning well before the end of their careers or their involvement in philosophy of religion (e.g. Wykstra, Swinburne) or it turned out that their approach boiled down to the aporetic (e.g. Craig, Plantinga).

If you grant that Plantinga successfully killed the logical PoE (and recent papers suggest that he did not after all), then these two approaches are entirely compatible. Which one you take depends entirely on how far you are willing to go in asking "What if . . .?"
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 4:14:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 4:03:55 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:17:27 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I've been reading up on this a bit and from what I can see, there are two main approaches when dealing with it: the Augustinean and Irenaean approach.

August approach: God is good and therefore creates only good things. As a result, evil is not a thing but instead a sense of deprivation of good.

Irenaean: God creates evil because man is not perfect and he needs to reach salvation (or doom) by overcoming (or succumbing) to evil acts. As a result, God gives humans free will to overcome evil. This let's us determine what is good by overcoming what is bad.

To all the Theologists here, which approach do you use?

This is not quite correct. There are indeed two main approaches when dealing with the PoE, but they are the aporetic and the analytical.

Aporetic: God exists. Evil exists. These two facts may be reconciled in such and such a manner. (This covers both the Augustinean and Irenaean approaches.)

Analytical: Evil exists. This fact makes, or does not make, the existence of God less likely.

To be a Christian and take the aporetic approach, all you need is an awareness of the world and a love of good puzzles. To be a Christian and take the aporetic approach, you need the above plus the courage to question your most deeply cherished beliefs.

There are many Christian philosophers of religion, and several have tackled the PoE from a purely analytic perspective, which impressed me at first when I dug into their works. However, I have discovered that all such philosophers either stopped publishing on the subject prematurely, meaning well before the end of their careers or their involvement in philosophy of religion (e.g. Wykstra, Swinburne) or it turned out that their approach boiled down to the aporetic (e.g. Craig, Plantinga).

If you grant that Plantinga successfully killed the logical PoE (and recent papers suggest that he did not after all), then these two approaches are entirely compatible. Which one you take depends entirely on how far you are willing to go in asking "What if . . .?"

See Goetz
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 4:37:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 3:34:42 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/18/2012 11:01:55 AM, Ren wrote:

I wouldn't necessarily consider myself a theologist, but I will say that initially, I subscribed to the Augustinean approach, until I later realized that God isn't described in the Bible as omniscient, omnipotent, nor omnipresent.

God is all knowing - 1 John 3:20
God is all powerful - Jer 32:17, 27
God is everywhere - Psalm 139:7-12

Honestly, the authors of the Bible could get a little over zealous in their praising God as do many Christians. I wouldn't be to quick to assume what they say is correct.
"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)
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 4:38:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 4:14:26 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/18/2012 4:03:55 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:17:27 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I've been reading up on this a bit and from what I can see, there are two main approaches when dealing with it: the Augustinean and Irenaean approach.

August approach: God is good and therefore creates only good things. As a result, evil is not a thing but instead a sense of deprivation of good.

Irenaean: God creates evil because man is not perfect and he needs to reach salvation (or doom) by overcoming (or succumbing) to evil acts. As a result, God gives humans free will to overcome evil. This let's us determine what is good by overcoming what is bad.

To all the Theologists here, which approach do you use?

This is not quite correct. There are indeed two main approaches when dealing with the PoE, but they are the aporetic and the analytical.

Aporetic: God exists. Evil exists. These two facts may be reconciled in such and such a manner. (This covers both the Augustinean and Irenaean approaches.)

Analytical: Evil exists. This fact makes, or does not make, the existence of God less likely.

To be a Christian and take the aporetic approach, all you need is an awareness of the world and a love of good puzzles. To be a Christian and take the aporetic approach, you need the above plus the courage to question your most deeply cherished beliefs.

There are many Christian philosophers of religion, and several have tackled the PoE from a purely analytic perspective, which impressed me at first when I dug into their works. However, I have discovered that all such philosophers either stopped publishing on the subject prematurely, meaning well before the end of their careers or their involvement in philosophy of religion (e.g. Wykstra, Swinburne) or it turned out that their approach boiled down to the aporetic (e.g. Craig, Plantinga).

If you grant that Plantinga successfully killed the logical PoE (and recent papers suggest that he did not after all), then these two approaches are entirely compatible. Which one you take depends entirely on how far you are willing to go in asking "What if . . .?"

See Goetz

To what end?
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 7:09:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 4:37:03 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/18/2012 3:34:42 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/18/2012 11:01:55 AM, Ren wrote:

I wouldn't necessarily consider myself a theologist, but I will say that initially, I subscribed to the Augustinean approach, until I later realized that God isn't described in the Bible as omniscient, omnipotent, nor omnipresent.

God is all knowing - 1 John 3:20
God is all powerful - Jer 32:17, 27
God is everywhere - Psalm 139:7-12

Honestly, the authors of the Bible could get a little over zealous in their praising God as do many Christians. I wouldn't be to quick to assume what they say is correct.

But you said that God is not described in the bible as omniscient, omnipotent, or omnipresent. Which is false.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 7:28:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 7:09:13 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/18/2012 4:37:03 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/18/2012 3:34:42 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/18/2012 11:01:55 AM, Ren wrote:

I wouldn't necessarily consider myself a theologist, but I will say that initially, I subscribed to the Augustinean approach, until I later realized that God isn't described in the Bible as omniscient, omnipotent, nor omnipresent.

God is all knowing - 1 John 3:20
God is all powerful - Jer 32:17, 27
God is everywhere - Psalm 139:7-12

Honestly, the authors of the Bible could get a little over zealous in their praising God as do many Christians. I wouldn't be to quick to assume what they say is correct.

But you said that God is not described in the bible as omniscient, omnipotent, or omnipresent. Which is false.

That was Ren.
"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)
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 7:33:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 7:28:56 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/18/2012 7:09:13 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/18/2012 4:37:03 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/18/2012 3:34:42 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/18/2012 11:01:55 AM, Ren wrote:

I wouldn't necessarily consider myself a theologist, but I will say that initially, I subscribed to the Augustinean approach, until I later realized that God isn't described in the Bible as omniscient, omnipotent, nor omnipresent.

God is all knowing - 1 John 3:20
God is all powerful - Jer 32:17, 27
God is everywhere - Psalm 139:7-12

Honestly, the authors of the Bible could get a little over zealous in their praising God as do many Christians. I wouldn't be to quick to assume what they say is correct.

But you said that God is not described in the bible as omniscient, omnipotent, or omnipresent. Which is false.

That was Ren.

Sorry I wasnt paying enough attention to who wrote it haha
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 10:30:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 11:27:13 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:56:42 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:53:41 PM, phantom wrote:
Another possible defence, though it wouldn't apply to most peoples view point, is that there are in a sense two forces in the world, good and evil. God and perhaps his angels are the good and Satan and his demons our whatever are the evil. However God is not omnipotent, just very powerful; and Satan or whoever/whatever is also very powerful or perhaps even more powerful. Thus the evil force is responsible for all the evil we see while the good force is trying to counter-act the evil but cannot fully as they are both powerful.

Allot of that stems from basic Christian theology except that God is not omnipotent and Satan is more powerful.

If Satan was more powerful, why isn't there more suffering? Why isn't the world literally...hell. Why isn't everyone suffering and dying, (including those who are comfortable). I like the idea that they are equal, and that ultimately, the sum total of "good and evil" is "0". They balance each other out.

I meant more powerful than he is in the general Christian concept. Not more powerful than God. However I still disagree that Satan couldn't be more powerful. If Satan was just slightly or a little bit more powerful than God than the balance of good and evil would sway to the evil side. You could argue that more evil exists in the world than good.

If Satan was slightly more powerful than omnipotence my argument still stands.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 10:57:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 10:30:52 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2012 11:27:13 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:56:42 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:53:41 PM, phantom wrote:
Another possible defence, though it wouldn't apply to most peoples view point, is that there are in a sense two forces in the world, good and evil. God and perhaps his angels are the good and Satan and his demons our whatever are the evil. However God is not omnipotent, just very powerful; and Satan or whoever/whatever is also very powerful or perhaps even more powerful. Thus the evil force is responsible for all the evil we see while the good force is trying to counter-act the evil but cannot fully as they are both powerful.

Allot of that stems from basic Christian theology except that God is not omnipotent and Satan is more powerful.

If Satan was more powerful, why isn't there more suffering? Why isn't the world literally...hell. Why isn't everyone suffering and dying, (including those who are comfortable). I like the idea that they are equal, and that ultimately, the sum total of "good and evil" is "0". They balance each other out.

I meant more powerful than he is in the general Christian concept. Not more powerful than God. However I still disagree that Satan couldn't be more powerful. If Satan was just slightly or a little bit more powerful than God than the balance of good and evil would sway to the evil side. You could argue that more evil exists in the world than good.

If Satan was slightly more powerful than omnipotence my argument still stands.

I don't recall saying that and I think I clearly stated that assuming this argument God would not be omnipotent...
"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)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 11:53:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 3:34:42 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/18/2012 11:01:55 AM, Ren wrote:

I wouldn't necessarily consider myself a theologist, but I will say that initially, I subscribed to the Augustinean approach, until I later realized that God isn't described in the Bible as omniscient, omnipotent, nor omnipresent.

God is all knowing - 1 John 3:20

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,f that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.g 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

This does not state that God is all-knowing, but instead, that all good acts are done "through God," or, in other words, by God's example, through God's leadership, or as a result of God.

God is all powerful - Jer 32:17, 27

16 "After I had given the deed of purchase to Baruch the son of Neriah, then I prayed to the Lord, saying, 17 ‘ Ah Lord [d]God! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and by Your outstretched arm! Nothing is too difficult for You who shows lovingkindness to thousands, but repays the iniquity of fathers into the bosom of their children after them, O great and mighty God. The Lord of hosts is His name; 19 great in counsel and mighty in deed, whose eyes are open to all the ways of the sons of men, giving to everyone according to his ways and according to the fruit of his deeds; 20 who has set signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, and even to this day both in Israel and among mankind; and You have made a name for Yourself, as at this day.

That is a general statement of praise to begin a prayer and does not serve as verifiable evidence that God's power is actually unlimited, especially given there's evidence elsewhere in the Bible that directly contradicts it.

God is everywhere - Psalm 139:7-12

Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
10 even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.
11 If I say, "Surely the darkness will hide me
and the light become night around me,"
12 even the darkness will not be dark to you;
the night will shine like the day,
for darkness is as light to you.

This isn't necessarily evidence that God is everywhere all at once. Once again, this is generalized praise; a song written about God. Inasmuch as it would be silly to really try to find a balm in Gilead (in fact, there is actually a Balm in Gilead, in the town of Bethlehem, New Hampshire: http://www.karmabalm.org...), it would be silly to take everything stated in a song of praise as directly literal. Consider, for example, that God is not in Hell. Consider also, that God is not anywhere that does not actually exist.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 3:03:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 5:35:27 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/18/2012 4:38:56 PM, WriterDave wrote:

See Goetz

To what end?

http://commonsenseatheism.com...

Aporetic.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 9:35:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 10:57:08 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/18/2012 10:30:52 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2012 11:27:13 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:56:42 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:53:41 PM, phantom wrote:
Another possible defence, though it wouldn't apply to most peoples view point, is that there are in a sense two forces in the world, good and evil. God and perhaps his angels are the good and Satan and his demons our whatever are the evil. However God is not omnipotent, just very powerful; and Satan or whoever/whatever is also very powerful or perhaps even more powerful. Thus the evil force is responsible for all the evil we see while the good force is trying to counter-act the evil but cannot fully as they are both powerful.

Allot of that stems from basic Christian theology except that God is not omnipotent and Satan is more powerful.

If Satan was more powerful, why isn't there more suffering? Why isn't the world literally...hell. Why isn't everyone suffering and dying, (including those who are comfortable). I like the idea that they are equal, and that ultimately, the sum total of "good and evil" is "0". They balance each other out.

I meant more powerful than he is in the general Christian concept. Not more powerful than God. However I still disagree that Satan couldn't be more powerful. If Satan was just slightly or a little bit more powerful than God than the balance of good and evil would sway to the evil side. You could argue that more evil exists in the world than good.

If Satan was slightly more powerful than omnipotence my argument still stands.

I don't recall saying that and I think I clearly stated that assuming this argument God would not be omnipotent...

Then what is god? A maximally powerful being as in more powerful then any other force? In your scenario, Satan is more powerful then the most powerful?

Also, on a side note, you would love Zoroastrianism.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 9:51:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 9:27:13 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:17:27 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I've been reading up on this a bit and from what I can see, there are two main approaches when dealing with it: the Augustinean and Irenaean approach.

August approach: God is good and therefore creates only good things. As a result, evil is not a thing but instead a sense of deprivation of good.

Irenaean: God creates evil because man is not perfect and he needs to reach salvation (or doom) by overcoming (or succumbing) to evil acts. As a result, God gives humans free will to overcome evil. This let's us determine what is good by overcoming what is bad.

To all the Theologists here, which approach do you use?

God is defined by His attributes (love, mercy, justice etc) and so anything that is definable is also defined by what it is not: A square is a square not only by being a square but by not being a triangle or a circle etc..

God has allowed satan to steal the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven and subvert them in order to glorify His holy Name..

Batman is seen as Batman by the existence of the Joker..

Superman is revealed by Lex Luther..

Gods goodness (Grace, mercy and forgiveness) is seen by Him overcoming Satan at the cross:

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
The Cross.. the Cross.