Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Rebuttals to the problem of evil

Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 11:52:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Some people might argue that evil in this logical argument is several things: 1) suffering (natural disasters, sickness, etc.) and 2) Moral evils

1) Nothing specifically about suffering is a moral evil, simply your perception of it. Suffering is simply a state of being by external factors. If i get killed in a Hurricane, does it make the Hurricane morally evil? No. Furthermore, it's scientifically proven that natural disasters and other things considered "necessary evil" are naturally beneficial. Viktor Frankl, the founder of Logotherapy states that suffering ceases to be labeled "suffering" once meaning is found. This completely destroys the problem of evil's proposition that God is evil for allowing suffering, it actually makes him good.

2) Moral evil is harm caused by other humans, but to shift the responsibility on God is to deny responsibility for any of your actions contributing to it. Still, your views of good and evil can also be mere perceptions of good and evil, not absolutes. A murderer might kill because he is genetically hard-wired to do so according to Nature vs. Nurture. This also defeats the purpose of the problem of evil as it is also subject to interpretation not established within the axioms.

That being said, there is empirical evidence to fully refute the classical problem of evil's approach to finding contradictions in God.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 12:41:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don"t know there truth_seeker, the Lord God by using nature and His direct power in the case with their first born, has brought what at least the Egyptians at the time would see as evil. And by having Moses tell pharaoh at that time that not only that He was Lord, but, Lord in favor of the Israelites. So it"s relative. There are many instances where even the daily wether can change the tide of a battle and that would be good or evil depending who you are in the battle.

The bounce of the ball and bad calls in a sporting event can be perceived as good or evil, hence relative.

The death of an organ donor can be a good thing for someone who"s life was saved by the same.

And that is the same with morals, they are also relative. The constitution of the US is relative to the US citizen and means nothing to a Russian citizen. The Russian isn"t bound to the agreement of the constitution of the US, it ways or its thinking. As long as the Russian remains in the land ruled by Russian law and power, he is in agreement with the same by virtue of being there. Even if he doesn"t like the ways of Russia, he must respect the ways of Russia if he wants to stay out of Russian prisons, for as long as he is on Russian territory.

If your saying good and evil are relative, then yes you are correct. Any other is a mudding of the truth.
Demetriuscapone
Posts: 152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 12:42:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 11:52:45 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Some people might argue that evil in this logical argument is several things: 1) suffering (natural disasters, sickness, etc.) and 2) Moral evils

1) Nothing specifically about suffering is a moral evil, simply your perception of it. Suffering is simply a state of being by external factors. If i get killed in a Hurricane, does it make the Hurricane morally evil? No. Furthermore, it's scientifically proven that natural disasters and other things considered "necessary evil" are naturally beneficial. Viktor Frankl, the founder of Logotherapy states that suffering ceases to be labeled "suffering" once meaning is found. This completely destroys the problem of evil's proposition that God is evil for allowing suffering, it actually makes him good.


That's correct. A hurricane is a natural phenomena without any conciousness that doesn't deliberately harm people because they think it's funny. However, what the point being made here ( to avoid the free will question, which is actually a non-sequteir ) is that if god exists and he is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, he doesn't allow hurricanes to happen. The only way for a theist to undercut this argument would be to say 'god isn't omninbenevolent' or 'god is not omnipotent'. Because the minimum standard of moral goodness, is to do things you can do to prevent suffering. You don't hold somebody accountable for not saving a child drowning if he is in the middle of the ocean. But if you stand idle while a child is drowning in a lake and you could easily just jump into the water and lift him up, that actually says alot about your moral character. A person who wouldn't save the child, would be considered evil.

The only rebuttal to this argument would be that god is on a different form of moral standard, but this is just moving the goalpost. If we can't define God's goodness by his actions, then we can't define him at all. Because any discussion about morality has to deal with the actions of individuals.

2) Moral evil is harm caused by other humans, but to shift the responsibility on God is to deny responsibility for any of your actions contributing to it. Still, your views of good and evil can also be mere perceptions of good and evil, not absolutes. A murderer might kill because he is genetically hard-wired to do so according to Nature vs. Nurture. This also defeats the purpose of the problem of evil as it is also subject to interpretation not established within the axioms.

It actually isn't. The people using the problem of evil argument points out the inevitable flaw in a person or a god claiming to be good, but at every turn, does not act as though that was the case. Regardless of free will and personal responsibility ( allthough free will is a nonsensical notion: https://www.youtube.com... ).

That being said, there is empirical evidence to fully refute the classical problem of evil's approach to finding contradictions in God.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

That's not empirical evidence for anything.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 12:47:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 11:52:45 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Some people might argue that evil in this logical argument is several things: 1) suffering (natural disasters, sickness, etc.) and 2) Moral evils

1) Nothing specifically about suffering is a moral evil, simply your perception of it. Suffering is simply a state of being by external factors. If i get killed in a Hurricane, does it make the Hurricane morally evil? No. Furthermore, it's scientifically proven that natural disasters and other things considered "necessary evil" are naturally beneficial. Viktor Frankl, the founder of Logotherapy states that suffering ceases to be labeled "suffering" once meaning is found. This completely destroys the problem of evil's proposition that God is evil for allowing suffering, it actually makes him good.

2) Moral evil is harm caused by other humans, but to shift the responsibility on God is to deny responsibility for any of your actions contributing to it. Still, your views of good and evil can also be mere perceptions of good and evil, not absolutes. A murderer might kill because he is genetically hard-wired to do so according to Nature vs. Nurture. This also defeats the purpose of the problem of evil as it is also subject to interpretation not established within the axioms.

That being said, there is empirical evidence to fully refute the classical problem of evil's approach to finding contradictions in God.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Good and evil things are only illusions in this make-believe world ( the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ) that God planned and designed to keep His people from knowing who He is and who they are until He has used His prophets and saints to testify to the Truth of who we really are within His thoughts.
Demetriuscapone
Posts: 152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 12:55:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 12:47:39 PM, bornofgod wrote:

Good and evil things are only illusions in this make-believe world ( the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ) that God planned and designed to keep His people from knowing who He is and who they are until He has used His prophets and saints to testify to the Truth of who we really are within His thoughts.

That's a very strange position to hold, given that the entire theistic argument out of religions utility is to say that religions make people moral and otherwise we would just rape and eat one another.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 12:56:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

That's correct. A hurricane is a natural phenomena without any conciousness that doesn't deliberately harm people because they think it's funny. However, what the point being made here ( to avoid the free will question, which is actually a non-sequteir ) is that if god exists and he is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, he doesn't allow hurricanes to happen. The only way for a theist to undercut this argument would be to say 'god isn't omninbenevolent' or 'god is not omnipotent'. Because the minimum standard of moral goodness, is to do things you can do to prevent suffering. You don't hold somebody accountable for not saving a child drowning if he is in the middle of the ocean. But if you stand idle while a child is drowning in a lake and you could easily just jump into the water and lift him up, that actually says alot about your moral character. A person who wouldn't save the child, would be considered evil.

If you define moral goodness as preventing suffering immediately then you are introducing your own concept not found in Scripture. Plus God is able to allow suffering in order to produce the greater good. If by letting the child drown, good is produced in the person observing it, it would be morally evil to completely prevent the greater good happening from suffering.

The only rebuttal to this argument would be that god is on a different form of moral standard, but this is just moving the goalpost. If we can't define God's goodness by his actions, then we can't define him at all. Because any discussion about morality has to deal with the actions of individuals.

God's morals are derived from the Scriptures. The flaw in the problem of evil is that it assumes that all morals are absolute. If morals are subjective then there can be no logical attacks on God's morality from different definitions of good and evil.

Demetriuscapone
Posts: 152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 1:08:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 12:56:22 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:

If you define moral goodness as preventing suffering immediately then you are introducing your own concept not found in Scripture.

One might wonder what it actually is then. What can questions of good and evil relate to if not questions of suffering and wellbeing?

Plus God is able to allow suffering in order to produce the greater good. If by letting the child drown, good is produced in the person observing it, it would be morally evil to completely prevent the greater good happening from suffering.

I do get the idea that the greater good in God's eyes is to let humanity kill, eat, rape, torture, enslave one another and destroy the enviroment so god can punish those who have done the wrong things in the end. But there is no greater good in that scenario, since god is omnipotent and he could just avoid letting all of those things happening from the start, that way he wouldn't have to be arsed to be a child with an ant farm.

God's morals are derived from the Scriptures. The flaw in the problem of evil is that it assumes that all morals are absolute. If morals are subjective then there can be no logical attacks on God's morality from different definitions of good and evil.

It does not assume all morals are absolute. It only sets up a standard of goodness that is so basic that only a psychopat could reject it at it's face value. The immense suffering of the people on this planet can only be described as bad, because nothing good will come from it. You live in a situation where your life is bearable and your minor struggles in the form of job interviews, breaking up with your girlfriend or missing the bus. There are millions of people who's suffering will not make anything better for anyone. They will just die in terror and agony after having lived agonizing and horrible lives. The country I come from originally is a nation where the good people die all the time, while criminals, religious charlatans, crooked politicians and murderers get to live in luxuary flats at the cost of everyone.

This is not a circumstance where goodness can be found. This is hell on earth. It doesn't require absolutism to see that this is a place where there are not nuances. It's the worst possible misery on earth.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 4:51:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

One might wonder what it actually is then. What can questions of good and evil relate to if not questions of suffering and wellbeing?

You didn't create solid definitions of morals.

I do get the idea that the greater good in God's eyes is to let humanity kill, eat, rape, torture, enslave one another and destroy the enviroment so god can punish those who have done the wrong things in the end. But there is no greater good in that scenario, since god is omnipotent and he could just avoid letting all of those things happening from the start, that way he wouldn't have to be arsed to be a child with an ant farm.

No Scripture backs up your claims.


It does not assume all morals are absolute. It only sets up a standard of goodness that is so basic that only a psychopat could reject it at it's face value. The immense suffering of the people on this planet can only be described as bad, because nothing good will come from it. You live in a situation where your life is bearable and your minor struggles in the form of job interviews, breaking up with your girlfriend or missing the bus. There are millions of people who's suffering will not make anything better for anyone. They will just die in terror and agony after having lived agonizing and horrible lives. The country I come from originally is a nation where the good people die all the time, while criminals, religious charlatans, crooked politicians and murderers get to live in luxuary flats at the cost of everyone.

According to psychology, experiences are not negative, it's people's beliefs on them which can affect them negatively. Being positive and rational enables many benefits and growth to develop from suffering. The justice of God is different from the justice of man. God promises that eventually evil will end.

This is not a circumstance where goodness can be found. This is hell on earth. It doesn't require absolutism to see that this is a place where there are not nuances. It's the worst possible misery on earth.

If you believe that then for you it is, but not everyone agrees. I see it as a opportunity for personal growth.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 5:11:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 12:55:35 PM, Demetriuscapone wrote:
At 10/7/2014 12:47:39 PM, bornofgod wrote:

Good and evil things are only illusions in this make-believe world ( the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ) that God planned and designed to keep His people from knowing who He is and who they are until He has used His prophets and saints to testify to the Truth of who we really are within His thoughts.

That's a very strange position to hold, given that the entire theistic argument out of religions utility is to say that religions make people moral and otherwise we would just rape and eat one another.

It's the Truth, that's why it seems strange to you. Not one religious person has known God. Only us saints and prophets know God and speak for Him.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 5:12:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 12:55:35 PM, Demetriuscapone wrote:
At 10/7/2014 12:47:39 PM, bornofgod wrote:

Good and evil things are only illusions in this make-believe world ( the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ) that God planned and designed to keep His people from knowing who He is and who they are until He has used His prophets and saints to testify to the Truth of who we really are within His thoughts.

That's a very strange position to hold, given that the entire theistic argument out of religions utility is to say that religions make people moral and otherwise we would just rape and eat one another.

It's the Truth, that's why it seems strange to you.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 6:57:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 12:42:38 PM, Demetriuscapone wrote:



That's correct. A hurricane is a natural phenomena without any conciousness that doesn't deliberately harm people because they think it's funny. However, what the point being made here ( to avoid the free will question, which is actually a non-sequteir ) is that if god exists and he is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, he doesn't allow hurricanes to happen. The only way for a theist to undercut this argument would be to say 'god isn't omninbenevolent' or 'god is not omnipotent'. Because the minimum standard of moral goodness, is to do things you can do to prevent suffering. You don't hold somebody accountable for not saving a child drowning if he is in the middle of the ocean. But if you stand idle while a child is drowning in a lake and you could easily just jump into the water and lift him up, that actually says alot about your moral character. A person who wouldn't save the child, would be considered evil.

If you are talking about the God of Israel, He"s omnipotent alright, but He certainly is not benevolent towards all. Towards His Word and the fulfillment of his Word is His pleasure. Read scripture it"s all over the place. But towards that which is against the fulfillment of His Word and men who disregard His Word, He has only the acceptance of repentance in the case of humans.
Measure
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 11:28:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 11:52:45 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Some people might argue that evil in this logical argument is several things: 1) suffering (natural disasters, sickness, etc.) and 2) Moral evils

1) Nothing specifically about suffering is a moral evil, simply your perception of it. Suffering is simply a state of being by external factors. If i get killed in a Hurricane, does it make the Hurricane morally evil? No. Furthermore, it's scientifically proven that natural disasters and other things considered "necessary evil" are naturally beneficial. Viktor Frankl, the founder of Logotherapy states that suffering ceases to be labeled "suffering" once meaning is found. This completely destroys the problem of evil's proposition that God is evil for allowing suffering, it actually makes him good.

2) Moral evil is harm caused by other humans, but to shift the responsibility on God is to deny responsibility for any of your actions contributing to it. Still, your views of good and evil can also be mere perceptions of good and evil, not absolutes. A murderer might kill because he is genetically hard-wired to do so according to Nature vs. Nurture. This also defeats the purpose of the problem of evil as it is also subject to interpretation not established within the axioms.

That being said, there is empirical evidence to fully refute the classical problem of evil's approach to finding contradictions in God.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Since Jesus rebukes the storm, its obvious that HE is against that which we think is a "natural disaster" in our opinion. Therefor, unnatural
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 11:29:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 11:28:54 PM, Measure wrote:
At 10/7/2014 11:52:45 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Some people might argue that evil in this logical argument is several things: 1) suffering (natural disasters, sickness, etc.) and 2) Moral evils

1) Nothing specifically about suffering is a moral evil, simply your perception of it. Suffering is simply a state of being by external factors. If i get killed in a Hurricane, does it make the Hurricane morally evil? No. Furthermore, it's scientifically proven that natural disasters and other things considered "necessary evil" are naturally beneficial. Viktor Frankl, the founder of Logotherapy states that suffering ceases to be labeled "suffering" once meaning is found. This completely destroys the problem of evil's proposition that God is evil for allowing suffering, it actually makes him good.

2) Moral evil is harm caused by other humans, but to shift the responsibility on God is to deny responsibility for any of your actions contributing to it. Still, your views of good and evil can also be mere perceptions of good and evil, not absolutes. A murderer might kill because he is genetically hard-wired to do so according to Nature vs. Nurture. This also defeats the purpose of the problem of evil as it is also subject to interpretation not established within the axioms.

That being said, there is empirical evidence to fully refute the classical problem of evil's approach to finding contradictions in God.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Since Jesus rebukes the storm, its obvious that HE is against that which we think is a "natural disaster" in our opinion. Therefor, unnatural

Jesus rebuked the storm to demonstrate that he is God.
Demetriuscapone
Posts: 152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 11:48:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 6:57:18 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 10/7/2014 12:42:38 PM, Demetriuscapone wrote:


If you are talking about the God of Israel, He"s omnipotent alright, but He certainly is not benevolent towards all. Towards His Word and the fulfillment of his Word is His pleasure. Read scripture it"s all over the place. But towards that which is against the fulfillment of His Word and men who disregard His Word, He has only the acceptance of repentance in the case of humans.

According to Rabbi Bradley Artson and David Wolpe, he isn't omnipotent. Am I to trust your words over these two men?
Measure
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 11:53:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 11:29:39 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 10/7/2014 11:28:54 PM, Measure wrote:
At 10/7/2014 11:52:45 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Some people might argue that evil in this logical argument is several things: 1) suffering (natural disasters, sickness, etc.) and 2) Moral evils

1) Nothing specifically about suffering is a moral evil, simply your perception of it. Suffering is simply a state of being by external factors. If i get killed in a Hurricane, does it make the Hurricane morally evil? No. Furthermore, it's scientifically proven that natural disasters and other things considered "necessary evil" are naturally beneficial. Viktor Frankl, the founder of Logotherapy states that suffering ceases to be labeled "suffering" once meaning is found. This completely destroys the problem of evil's proposition that God is evil for allowing suffering, it actually makes him good.

2) Moral evil is harm caused by other humans, but to shift the responsibility on God is to deny responsibility for any of your actions contributing to it. Still, your views of good and evil can also be mere perceptions of good and evil, not absolutes. A murderer might kill because he is genetically hard-wired to do so according to Nature vs. Nurture. This also defeats the purpose of the problem of evil as it is also subject to interpretation not established within the axioms.

That being said, there is empirical evidence to fully refute the classical problem of evil's approach to finding contradictions in God.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Since Jesus rebukes the storm, its obvious that HE is against that which we think is a "natural disaster" in our opinion. Therefor, unnatural

Jesus rebuked the storm to demonstrate that he is God.

It demonstrated that to.
Demetriuscapone
Posts: 152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 11:54:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 4:51:47 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:

One might wonder what it actually is then. What can questions of good and evil relate to if not questions of suffering and wellbeing?

You didn't create solid definitions of morals.

The only thing you need in order to be a moral realist to admit that specific ways of life are better than others, that we don't reach better life by cointoss and that morals relate to those questions. That morals have something to do with the outcomes of actions and the suffering vs happiness dichotomy is something that is true in all moral systems ever created.


I do get the idea that the greater good in God's eyes is to let humanity kill, eat, rape, torture, enslave one another and destroy the enviroment so god can punish those who have done the wrong things in the end. But there is no greater good in that scenario, since god is omnipotent and he could just avoid letting all of those things happening from the start, that way he wouldn't have to be arsed to be a child with an ant farm.

No Scripture backs up your claims.

Well. Yes. Because this is the entire content of christianity.


It does not assume all morals are absolute. It only sets up a standard of goodness that is so basic that only a psychopat could reject it at it's face value. The immense suffering of the people on this planet can only be described as bad, because nothing good will come from it. You live in a situation where your life is bearable and your minor struggles in the form of job interviews, breaking up with your girlfriend or missing the bus. There are millions of people who's suffering will not make anything better for anyone. They will just die in terror and agony after having lived agonizing and horrible lives. The country I come from originally is a nation where the good people die all the time, while criminals, religious charlatans, crooked politicians and murderers get to live in luxuary flats at the cost of everyone.

According to psychology, experiences are not negative, it's people's beliefs on them which can affect them negatively. Being positive and rational enables many benefits and growth to develop from suffering. The justice of God is different from the justice of man. God promises that eventually evil will end.

No, the truth is that we label specific experiences negative and positive, and we do it based on our intuitions. Examples:
' Does this hurt really much? Yeah, it does, alot. Is that a good thing at this moment? Do I feel like I enjoy it? No, it isn't and I don't enjoy it = this is a bad experience.'

Yes, god promises alot of things. Very few of which he's demonstrated to actually fullfill.

If you believe that then for you it is, but not everyone agrees. I see it as a opportunity for personal growth.
Yeah. Let's see if you can look at these oportunities for personal growth in a circumstance where everyone you care for die in front of you. Does that sound cynical? Yes, but it is a circumstance millions live under.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 12:43:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 11:48:20 PM, Demetriuscapone wrote:
At 10/7/2014 6:57:18 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 10/7/2014 12:42:38 PM, Demetriuscapone wrote:


If you are talking about the God of Israel, He"s omnipotent alright, but He certainly is not benevolent towards all. Towards His Word and the fulfillment of his Word is His pleasure. Read scripture it"s all over the place. But towards that which is against the fulfillment of His Word and men who disregard His Word, He has only the acceptance of repentance in the case of humans.

According to Rabbi Bradley Artson and David Wolpe, he isn't omnipotent. Am I to trust your words over these two men?

Definition found in the OED the authority of the English language: Omnipotent 1. Strictly said of God (or of a deity) or His attributes: Almighty, infinite in power.

The book of Geneses is the first book in the Torah, you are going to have to call your reference provider for more accurate sources. Read the bible if you want to talk about it:

Gen:17:1: And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. KJV (note I use KJV not only because I trust it but it has stood public scrutiny for now over 4000 years.)

Therefore the God of Israel, says of Himself, He is Almighty.

But if you looking to argue a Jewish view from a Rabbi or Sage then one says El Shaddai means who is sufficient in granting his mercies, and who has sufficient power to give whatever is necessary. (Rashi) and sufficient also denotes one who sets limits on creation by establishing laws of nature so on and so forth. (How much closer do you need for Almighty) There is more, but these are from the Stone Edition. Its also common knowledge there is dispute on this amongst Hebrew scholars, nothing new, or surprising there. So for every view you can post I"m sure I can find another. But if you look at it honestly, God created the heaven and the earth. The same that is the God of Israel. That"s Almighty in anybody"s definition. There was nothing but God, and then there is everything else after God made it.

So maybe you should consider the source, scriptures, and what is evident in scripture, or someone's opinion of what it says.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 1:46:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 12:43:53 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 10/7/2014 11:48:20 PM, Demetriuscapone wrote:
At 10/7/2014 6:57:18 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 10/7/2014 12:42:38 PM, Demetriuscapone wrote:


If you are talking about the God of Israel, He"s omnipotent alright, but He certainly is not benevolent towards all. Towards His Word and the fulfillment of his Word is His pleasure. Read scripture it"s all over the place. But towards that which is against the fulfillment of His Word and men who disregard His Word, He has only the acceptance of repentance in the case of humans.

According to Rabbi Bradley Artson and David Wolpe, he isn't omnipotent. Am I to trust your words over these two men?

Definition found in the OED the authority of the English language: Omnipotent 1. Strictly said of God (or of a deity) or His attributes: Almighty, infinite in power.

The book of Geneses is the first book in the Torah, you are going to have to call your reference provider for more accurate sources. Read the bible if you want to talk about it:

Gen:17:1: And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. KJV (note I use KJV not only because I trust it but it has stood public scrutiny for now over 4000 years.)

Therefore the God of Israel, says of Himself, He is Almighty.

But if you looking to argue a Jewish view from a Rabbi or Sage then one says El Shaddai means who is sufficient in granting his mercies, and who has sufficient power to give whatever is necessary. (Rashi) and sufficient also denotes one who sets limits on creation by establishing laws of nature so on and so forth. (How much closer do you need for Almighty) There is more, but these are from the Stone Edition. Its also common knowledge there is dispute on this amongst Hebrew scholars, nothing new, or surprising there. So for every view you can post I"m sure I can find another. But if you look at it honestly, God created the heaven and the earth. The same that is the God of Israel. That"s Almighty in anybody"s definition. There was nothing but God, and then there is everything else after God made it.

So maybe you should consider the source, scriptures, and what is evident in scripture, or someone's opinion of what it says.

that was supposed to say 400 years, not 4000

{note I use KJV not only because I trust it but it has stood public scrutiny for now over 400 years.}
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 3:04:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 11:52:45 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Some people might argue that evil in this logical argument is several things: 1) suffering (natural disasters, sickness, etc.) and 2) Moral evils

1) Nothing specifically about suffering is a moral evil, simply your perception of it. Suffering is simply a state of being by external factors. If i get killed in a Hurricane, does it make the Hurricane morally evil? No. Furthermore, it's scientifically proven that natural disasters and other things considered "necessary evil" are naturally beneficial. Viktor Frankl, the founder of Logotherapy states that suffering ceases to be labeled "suffering" once meaning is found. This completely destroys the problem of evil's proposition that God is evil for allowing suffering, it actually makes him good.

So you don't see anything "evil" about a natural disaster which condemns a population of sentient creatures to suffer from starvation, say? As for it being about perspective, suffering, even for a good reason, can still be horrendous.

Also, the PoE doesn't claim God is "evil" for allowing suffering, more that a morally perfect God wouldn't allow certain evils (unnecessary suffering, say) if He exists.

2) Moral evil is harm caused by other humans, but to shift the responsibility on God is to deny responsibility for any of your actions contributing to it. Still, your views of good and evil can also be mere perceptions of good and evil, not absolutes. A murderer might kill because he is genetically hard-wired to do so according to Nature vs. Nurture. This also defeats the purpose of the problem of evil as it is also subject to interpretation not established within the axioms.

Even accepting your assumptions, why is free-will so valuable that it prohibits God from intervening in the case of the Holocaust, for example? And if Hitler were "genetically hard-wired" to cause misery and death for millions of innocent people, why is that acceptable?

That being said, there is empirical evidence to fully refute the classical problem of evil's approach to finding contradictions in God.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 5:46:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

So you don't see anything "evil" about a natural disaster which condemns a population of sentient creatures to suffer from starvation, say? As for it being about perspective, suffering, even for a good reason, can still be horrendous.

If we assume that it is a moral "evil" then you could argue that it is, but you have an inconsistency as there are necessary evils done such as surgery which you don't consider immoral.
Also, the PoE doesn't claim God is "evil" for allowing suffering, more that a morally perfect God wouldn't allow certain evils (unnecessary suffering, say) if He exists.

That's saying the same thing but in different wording, the implications of that logic still point to him being evil.


Even accepting your assumptions, why is free-will so valuable that it prohibits God from intervening in the case of the Holocaust, for example? And if Hitler were "genetically hard-wired" to cause misery and death for millions of innocent people, why is that acceptable?

If Hitler was genetically hard-wired to kill many innocent people then you can only accept that as a natural by-product of his actions. If you accept that morals exist independent of biological nature then you would have to provide a set of absolute morals applying to all of the human race.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 6:51:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 5:46:03 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:

So you don't see anything "evil" about a natural disaster which condemns a population of sentient creatures to suffer from starvation, say? As for it being about perspective, suffering, even for a good reason, can still be horrendous.

If we assume that it is a moral "evil" then you could argue that it is, but you have an inconsistency as there are necessary evils done such as surgery which you don't consider immoral.

It's a natural evil and I don't see how you've answered my point. Droughts, famines and so forth are instances of mass suffering (or evil). If that doesn't fit your description of evil, you'd need to flesh out what you mean by evil. Cause I don't know of any definition of evil that wouldn't include suffering.

Also, the PoE doesn't claim God is "evil" for allowing suffering, more that a morally perfect God wouldn't allow certain evils (unnecessary suffering, say) if He exists.

That's saying the same thing but in different wording, the implications of that logic still point to him being evil.

Nope. It's an argument against a Good God, not an argument for an evil God (which, incidentally would have to face the problem of Good).


Even accepting your assumptions, why is free-will so valuable that it prohibits God from intervening in the case of the Holocaust, for example? And if Hitler were "genetically hard-wired" to cause misery and death for millions of innocent people, why is that acceptable?

If Hitler was genetically hard-wired to kill many innocent people then you can only accept that as a natural by-product of his actions.

So, if you could thwart Hitler's murderous rampage easily, you'd refrain from doing so to "accept" his inclination as a psychopath? Nope.

If you accept that morals exist independent of biological nature then you would have to provide a set of absolute morals applying to all of the human race.

You don't actually, for reasons I could go in to, but regardless, I'm a moral realist. I have no problem in saying there are objective moral values.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:24:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 11:52:45 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
This completely destroys the problem of evil's proposition that God is evil for allowing suffering, it actually makes him good.

Only religion can twist a persons brain so bad that to actually manage to convince themselves that a being is good because he is evil.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 9:09:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The problem of evil is only a problem if good and evil cancel each other out, which is debatable.

If I rescue Bob from a burning building, and then stab Joe in the throat so he dies, does the evil of the second act make the first act less good?

The Holocaust killed 20 million people, but Hitler also passed laws to protect animals. Does the evil of the Holocaust negate the good of combating animal abuse?

If God, in his omnipotence, does things that are infinitely good, but also does things that are infinitely bad, do the bad things negate the good things? Regardless, God is omnipotent, so he can ignore morality if he chooses.
bulproof
Posts: 25,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 9:18:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 5:46:03 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:

So you don't see anything "evil" about a natural disaster which condemns a population of sentient creatures to suffer from starvation, say? As for it being about perspective, suffering, even for a good reason, can still be horrendous.

If we assume that it is a moral "evil" then you could argue that it is, but you have an inconsistency as there are necessary evils done such as surgery which you don't consider immoral.
Also, the PoE doesn't claim God is "evil" for allowing suffering, more that a morally perfect God wouldn't allow certain evils (unnecessary suffering, say) if He exists.

That's saying the same thing but in different wording, the implications of that logic still point to him being evil.


Even accepting your assumptions, why is free-will so valuable that it prohibits God from intervening in the case of the Holocaust, for example? And if Hitler were "genetically hard-wired" to cause misery and death for millions of innocent people, why is that acceptable?

If Hitler was genetically hard-wired to kill many innocent people then you can only accept that as a natural by-product of his actions. If you accept that morals exist independent of biological nature then you would have to provide a set of absolute morals applying to all of the human race.

Surgery is evil now?
How about eating whole grain bread?
Or maybe drinking water?
Is doing anything to keep you alive evil, I don't mean you personally?
Natec
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 9:26:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 11:52:45 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Some people might argue that evil in this logical argument is several things: 1) suffering (natural disasters, sickness, etc.) and 2) Moral evils

1) Nothing specifically about suffering is a moral evil, simply your perception of it. Suffering is simply a state of being by external factors. If i get killed in a Hurricane, does it make the Hurricane morally evil?

No, but it makes your god evil for allowing that to happen and including that in his "plan".

Furthermore, it's scientifically proven that natural disasters and other things considered "necessary evil" are naturally beneficial. Viktor Frankl, the founder of Logotherapy states that suffering ceases to be labeled "suffering" once meaning is found. This completely destroys the problem of evil's proposition that God is evil for allowing suffering, it actually makes him good.

An all powerful, all good god would by able to achieve that good without having the holocaust, wars, tortures, etc. The fact that good might come out of allowing evil events to occur doesn't mean anything because god would be able to achieve the good without resorting to using evil. If the god does have to resort to evil, he is clearly not all good.

2) Moral evil is harm caused by other humans, but to shift the responsibility on God is to deny responsibility for any of your actions contributing to it. Still, your views of good and evil can also be mere perceptions of good and evil, not absolutes. A murderer might kill because he is genetically hard-wired to do so according to Nature vs. Nurture. This also defeats the purpose of the problem of evil as it is also subject to interpretation not established within the axioms.

Again, god's supposedly the all powerful all good creator of everything. This means that god designed the people the way they are today, or the way they were when the evil event occurred. Ultimately, the person who murders is guilty but god is as well, due to god pulling the strings in a way that would make the person murder someone. God could have chose a different path for his greater good but he chose the evil one. If god is the all powerful creator of the universe, then he must accept responsibility for everything that's happened in that universe.

That being said, there is empirical evidence to fully refute the classical problem of evil's approach to finding contradictions in God.

No there isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Dude... stop...
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 8:21:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

It's a natural evil and I don't see how you've answered my point. Droughts, famines and so forth are instances of mass suffering (or evil). If that doesn't fit your description of evil, you'd need to flesh out what you mean by evil. Cause I don't know of any definition of evil that wouldn't include suffering.

Actually, the burden of proof is on people who use terms such as evil and suffering in the PoE.


So, if you could thwart Hitler's murderous rampage easily, you'd refrain from doing so to "accept" his inclination as a psychopath? Nope.

That has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

You don't actually, for reasons I could go in to, but regardless, I'm a moral realist. I have no problem in saying there are objective moral values.

And how we would objectively reach those morals?
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 8:23:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 9:09:39 PM, apb4y wrote:
The problem of evil is only a problem if good and evil cancel each other out, which is debatable.

If I rescue Bob from a burning building, and then stab Joe in the throat so he dies, does the evil of the second act make the first act less good?

The Holocaust killed 20 million people, but Hitler also passed laws to protect animals. Does the evil of the Holocaust negate the good of combating animal abuse?

If God, in his omnipotence, does things that are infinitely good, but also does things that are infinitely bad, do the bad things negate the good things? Regardless, God is omnipotent, so he can ignore morality if he chooses.

He doesn't do anything "evil", he only allows for it to happen for a reason. It's humans who decide whether or not that is a moral evil or a blessing. Would you prevent someone from experiencing suffering in order to personally grow as a person? If so, is that evil?
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 8:25:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

Surgery is evil now?
How about eating whole grain bread?
Or maybe drinking water?
Is doing anything to keep you alive evil, I don't mean you personally?

If you accept that evil is any form of harm to another human then yes.

No for all the rest.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 8:30:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

No, but it makes your god evil for allowing that to happen and including that in his "plan".
You didn't logically deduce that from the Problem of evil argument.


An all powerful, all good god would by able to achieve that good without having the holocaust, wars, tortures, etc. The fact that good might come out of allowing evil events to occur doesn't mean anything because god would be able to achieve the good without resorting to using evil. If the god does have to resort to evil, he is clearly not all good.

That's black and white thinking. Either he would find a way to prevent all evil or he is evil for allowing it to happen. There are many possibilities.


Again, god's supposedly the all powerful all good creator of everything. This means that god designed the people the way they are today, or the way they were when the evil event occurred. Ultimately, the person who murders is guilty but god is as well, due to god pulling the strings in a way that would make the person murder someone. God could have chose a different path for his greater good but he chose the evil one. If god is the all powerful creator of the universe, then he must accept responsibility for everything that's happened in that universe.
Not necessarily, we as humans dictate how we are to live. We have free-will.
That being said, there is empirical evidence to fully refute the classical problem of evil's approach to finding contradictions in God.

No there isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The fact that this kind of therapy seeks to find meaning in suffering defeats the whole purpose of the problem of evil which seems to imply that no suffering whatsoever should exist.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 8:31:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:24:16 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/7/2014 11:52:45 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
This completely destroys the problem of evil's proposition that God is evil for allowing suffering, it actually makes him good.

Only religion can twist a persons brain so bad that to actually manage to convince themselves that a being is good because he is evil.

You didn't support that with reasoning.