evil and God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-06-2016, 04:38 PM
RE: evil and God
(22-06-2016 04:32 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(21-06-2016 08:42 PM)godisinspiteofevil Wrote:  Does the existence of evil negate the existence of God? Can they not coexist?

Neither exist.

Yabut, Momsbb already said that back in post #2.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
22-06-2016, 04:44 PM
RE: evil and God
(22-06-2016 04:38 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(22-06-2016 04:32 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Neither exist.

Yabut, Momsbb already said that back in post #2.

Big Grin

so embarrassed ... I really need to start reading these threads front-to-back instead of back-to-front. Blush

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2016, 09:59 PM
RE: evil and God
So, answering OP questions:

Quote:Does the existence of evil negate the existence of God? Can they not coexist?

I've never felt the question of evil is a compelling problem one way or another. Only for certain types of god. But for the existence question it doesn't matter one way or the other.

Quote:Interesting...how would the horrible events in the world be explained?

The universe is random. Some of the stuff it does benefits us. Some of the stuff it does hurts us. Most of the stuff it does has no effect. The universe does not care about us. It is not just. It just is.

Quote:Did God create evil or was it the misuse or deprivation of the good God created?
Who says God HAS to participate in this Reality; instead, could it be He chooses to?

Depends on which religion you subscribe to. Since you seem to be a christian, yes, god created evil.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

And since you seem to be a christian, yes, god (according to you) participated in reality. If he doesn't, then what's the point? What is the difference between a god that does not manifest and one that does not exist? And why should we care? Of course this is moot, since the christian god definitely participates in reality.

Quote:Would it not lead to reason that since God is outside of the created "natural" realm, that He has to be supernatural and therefore, not detectable by natural means?

Since your god is intimately involved with reality, I see no reason to think that he is "outside" of the natural realm. But then, I am not exactly sure what your definition of god is. And again, if it isn't detectable by natural means, what does it matter? What is the difference between this god and one that does not exist?

Quote:Could it be possible that God's gift of free choice to man was poorly exercised by man; while God is divinely perfect man is only creaturely perfect capable of making poor choices?

As I don't believe in the concept of free choice, I would say no. And I would ask that you defend the position that god has perfect. Because the bible does not indicate that.

Quote:How would one define morality without an objective source? How could we proclaim God is immoral when He may by working in spite of evil to bring about good?

We define morality by our own preference, by reference to a set of values. Life is preferable to death. Pleasure is preferable to pain. Healthy society is preferable to a chaotic one where everyone harms each other. Etc. If god acts contrary to that, we label him as immoral.

Morality isn't objective. The universe doesn't care about us. Your actions have no consequences on the rest of the cosmos.

Quote:What if God then is doing something about evil even restraining most of it?

Babies born with horrid diseases and defects that live their whole of their short lives in pain is a monstrosity to human decency. If god can restrain evil, and does not do that much, then he's a bastard.

Quote:I am not inferring God could NOT stop all evil, just that it is possible He is preventing much of it and only allowing it to remind humans we are created and under authority of the creator.

This isn't a question but I wanted to respond to it. The idea that we are "under authority of the creator" implies that we are property of god. While this lines up with ancient thinking it does not with modern ideas of identity and individual agency.

People are not property. We are not chattel. We are not slaves. This idea of god is disgusting.

Allowing children to be born, live, and die in horrible pain to remind us that humans are "created and under authority of the creator" is a vile excuse. That is the actions of a sadist and possibly a sociopath.

Quote:If someone who knows that alcohol consumption in large quantities negatively impacts them yet consume large quantities anyway. They get in their car, drive home, and on the way hit another car and those in the car die from this wreck. The people in the car who was hit by the drunk did nothing wrong yet suffered from the consequences of the drunk. Similarly, man's poor choice in disobeying God has consequential effects, at the core of man's nature which has become corrupt. Would this not provide a reasonable answer to the evil and suffering on our world? God has judged evil in Christ and offers redemption to all who by faith trust in the work of Christ.

The universe is not just. The universe is not fair. It sucks, but that's the way it is. Saying that man is corrupt is a way for theists who want there to be justice in the universe and want god to be just to get around this fact. It also allows them to avoid nastier bits of the implications of their theology.

And vicarious punishment is another piece of dogma I find morally reprehensible.

Quote:Perhaps the greater good is not our happiness but knowledge of God. Since man is rebellious, God allows suffering to increase our dependency on Him. Therefore, the benefit of increased knowledge of God is far greater than suffering experienced.

By what value system would knowledge of a god be more valuable than health, happiness, or life? Why is dependency a positive?

Quote:Have you considered the cosmological argument for God's existence?

Yes. Most try to define god into existence and rely on faulty reasoning. As such they are not compelling.

Quote:He did, yet chose to create anyway. He thought offering redemption to fallen humanity was worth creating man anyway. Since He is God, His ways are beyond our understanding unless He reveals them to us.

This is not compelling. If I know that building a three legged table with uneven legs will result in an unstable table, it is not the table's fault for falling over. It doesn't matter if I offer a coaster or level to make the table more stable, I still made the decision to build an unstable table.

Quote: If man were robotic, he could not experience a real loving relationship which is why God created man in the first place. Would you want someone to choose you based on robotic response or real emotion?

If the two manifest the same I see no difference and no reason to prefer one or the other. Love is simply a chemical reaction upon which we have no control. I tend to think the universe is deterministic and free will is an illusion, so I find no problem with the idea.

Quote:What is the purpose of life in your worldview?

Life has no objective or intrinsic purpose. The only purpose is that which any individual gives to it.

Quote: By the way, by what basis do you determine what is bad? If there is no God then good is determined by man. Man is selfish so who is to say what man determines as good is good?

Yes. Man is the judge of morality. Good is a linguistic label we place on certain things that have desirable outcomes that correspond with held values. No more no less.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like natachan's post
22-06-2016, 10:17 PM
RE: evil and God
OP question for you:

Do you accept the Biblical account that Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree and at that point gained knowledge of good and evil?

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2016, 10:19 PM
RE: evil and God
(22-06-2016 10:17 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  OP question for you:

Do you accept the Biblical account that Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree and at that point gained knowledge of good and evil?

I'm well aware that I am not the OP.

Still:
I accept that it was an account of obvious fiction. Beyond that, I need no forgiveness for my atheism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2016, 10:23 PM
RE: evil and God
(22-06-2016 10:19 PM)Foxen Wrote:  
(22-06-2016 10:17 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  OP question for you:

Do you accept the Biblical account that Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree and at that point gained knowledge of good and evil?

I'm well aware that I am not the OP.

Still:
I accept that it was an account of obvious fiction. Beyond that, I need no forgiveness for my atheism.

I just have a follow up question for him if he does, cause I'm a curious lil' bugger, and didn't wanna type the whole thing out if he didn't believe the Biblical account as accurate.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
22-06-2016, 10:24 PM
RE: evil and God
(21-06-2016 08:42 PM)godisinspiteofevil Wrote:  Does the existence of evil negate the existence of God? Can they not coexist?

Evil is such a convoluted word.

Religiously, there is no such thing as evil, for religion was created by man, and religion was one of man's worst creations.

If you wish to discuss evil in another context, which I doubt you do, due to the fact that you included god in the discussion, then by all means become smarter by altering your perspective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 07:46 AM
RE: evil and God
(22-06-2016 10:17 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  OP question for you:

Do you accept the Biblical account that Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree and at that point gained knowledge of good and evil?

Yes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 07:48 AM
RE: evil and God
(22-06-2016 10:17 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  OP question for you:

Do you accept the Biblical account that Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree and at that point gained knowledge of good and evil?

Yes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2016, 07:51 AM
RE: evil and God
(22-06-2016 09:59 PM)natachan Wrote:  So, answering OP questions:

Quote:Does the existence of evil negate the existence of God? Can they not coexist?

I've never felt the question of evil is a compelling problem one way or another. Only for certain types of god. But for the existence question it doesn't matter one way or the other.

Quote:Interesting...how would the horrible events in the world be explained?

The universe is random. Some of the stuff it does benefits us. Some of the stuff it does hurts us. Most of the stuff it does has no effect. The universe does not care about us. It is not just. It just is.

Quote:Did God create evil or was it the misuse or deprivation of the good God created?
Who says God HAS to participate in this Reality; instead, could it be He chooses to?

Depends on which religion you subscribe to. Since you seem to be a christian, yes, god created evil.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

And since you seem to be a christian, yes, god (according to you) participated in reality. If he doesn't, then what's the point? What is the difference between a god that does not manifest and one that does not exist? And why should we care? Of course this is moot, since the christian god definitely participates in reality.

Quote:Would it not lead to reason that since God is outside of the created "natural" realm, that He has to be supernatural and therefore, not detectable by natural means?

Since your god is intimately involved with reality, I see no reason to think that he is "outside" of the natural realm. But then, I am not exactly sure what your definition of god is. And again, if it isn't detectable by natural means, what does it matter? What is the difference between this god and one that does not exist?

Quote:Could it be possible that God's gift of free choice to man was poorly exercised by man; while God is divinely perfect man is only creaturely perfect capable of making poor choices?

As I don't believe in the concept of free choice, I would say no. And I would ask that you defend the position that god has perfect. Because the bible does not indicate that.

Quote:How would one define morality without an objective source? How could we proclaim God is immoral when He may by working in spite of evil to bring about good?

We define morality by our own preference, by reference to a set of values. Life is preferable to death. Pleasure is preferable to pain. Healthy society is preferable to a chaotic one where everyone harms each other. Etc. If god acts contrary to that, we label him as immoral.

Morality isn't objective. The universe doesn't care about us. Your actions have no consequences on the rest of the cosmos.

Quote:What if God then is doing something about evil even restraining most of it?

Babies born with horrid diseases and defects that live their whole of their short lives in pain is a monstrosity to human decency. If god can restrain evil, and does not do that much, then he's a bastard.

Quote:I am not inferring God could NOT stop all evil, just that it is possible He is preventing much of it and only allowing it to remind humans we are created and under authority of the creator.

This isn't a question but I wanted to respond to it. The idea that we are "under authority of the creator" implies that we are property of god. While this lines up with ancient thinking it does not with modern ideas of identity and individual agency.

People are not property. We are not chattel. We are not slaves. This idea of god is disgusting.

Allowing children to be born, live, and die in horrible pain to remind us that humans are "created and under authority of the creator" is a vile excuse. That is the actions of a sadist and possibly a sociopath.

Quote:If someone who knows that alcohol consumption in large quantities negatively impacts them yet consume large quantities anyway. They get in their car, drive home, and on the way hit another car and those in the car die from this wreck. The people in the car who was hit by the drunk did nothing wrong yet suffered from the consequences of the drunk. Similarly, man's poor choice in disobeying God has consequential effects, at the core of man's nature which has become corrupt. Would this not provide a reasonable answer to the evil and suffering on our world? God has judged evil in Christ and offers redemption to all who by faith trust in the work of Christ.

The universe is not just. The universe is not fair. It sucks, but that's the way it is. Saying that man is corrupt is a way for theists who want there to be justice in the universe and want god to be just to get around this fact. It also allows them to avoid nastier bits of the implications of their theology.

And vicarious punishment is another piece of dogma I find morally reprehensible.

Quote:Perhaps the greater good is not our happiness but knowledge of God. Since man is rebellious, God allows suffering to increase our dependency on Him. Therefore, the benefit of increased knowledge of God is far greater than suffering experienced.

By what value system would knowledge of a god be more valuable than health, happiness, or life? Why is dependency a positive?

Quote:Have you considered the cosmological argument for God's existence?

Yes. Most try to define god into existence and rely on faulty reasoning. As such they are not compelling.

Quote:He did, yet chose to create anyway. He thought offering redemption to fallen humanity was worth creating man anyway. Since He is God, His ways are beyond our understanding unless He reveals them to us.

This is not compelling. If I know that building a three legged table with uneven legs will result in an unstable table, it is not the table's fault for falling over. It doesn't matter if I offer a coaster or level to make the table more stable, I still made the decision to build an unstable table.

Quote: If man were robotic, he could not experience a real loving relationship which is why God created man in the first place. Would you want someone to choose you based on robotic response or real emotion?

If the two manifest the same I see no difference and no reason to prefer one or the other. Love is simply a chemical reaction upon which we have no control. I tend to think the universe is deterministic and free will is an illusion, so I find no problem with the idea.

Quote:What is the purpose of life in your worldview?

Life has no objective or intrinsic purpose. The only purpose is that which any individual gives to it.

Quote: By the way, by what basis do you determine what is bad? If there is no God then good is determined by man. Man is selfish so who is to say what man determines as good is good?

Yes. Man is the judge of morality. Good is a linguistic label we place on certain things that have desirable outcomes that correspond with held values. No more no less.

Thanks for this summation. Would you elaborate on the purpose of life? For example, if life has no meaning or purpose how would we be able to determine that? If we did not know what purpose was how would we know whether it could or could not be achieved?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: