282 replies to this topic

[Zaphod222]

WoIverine, on 02 February 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

Last I checked bub, nobody has to prove anything to you, or anybody else. If you don't like someone's beliefs, deal.

Well, all this religious stuff does matter to the rest of us, when religionists fly planes into building or kill all homosexuals in the country, because their belief says so. I could go on.

[Jinxdom]

1) GOD (in the Abrahamic Religions) is omnipotent (ALL ABLE), omniscient (ALL KNOWING) and omni-benevolent (ALL LOVING).
God didn't say say it man did, but where the concept of God resides(In your head keyword concept) Then those 3 would make sense to fulfill the stories requirements

2) EVIL/SIN exists (again in the religious sense.)
It does but a lot of people do not understand what it is. Placing unwarranted expectations on others, and following unwarranted expectations yourself is a good place to start. Watch what things do and not what they say because a person's actions will betray their intentions.

3) GOD is not one of those three things thus the GOD that many major religions believe does not exist.
Why isn't he? You cannot place your expectations on somebody else. You are saying he is not those things based on guidelines and not the guidelines of actuality.

1) What we perceive as evil can be good in GOD's plan
You only come to that conclusion if you focus on the wrong part of the book.

2) In order to know and experience GOOD there must be a relative EVIL (light/shadow theology)
Agreed

3) As an ANT cannot fathom the renaissance or computers, WE cannot fathom GOD's actions.
Wrong it's downright simple to even people who don't believe in a personified God. He wanted to. No hidden motives. Hard to believe because we are taught to submit to other people all our lives.

1) if God is all powerful why does not create an alternate reality without the need for evil? (AKA HEAVEN?)
Maybe he did and we just can't find it.

2) If God Is all knowing, why does did he go through the process of creating something that he does not desire?
Ever had a breakup with a women who had some place and she wanted to go but you couldn't? Did you let her go or make her stay with you? He let us go to be able to live our own lives as we see fit. Not everybody leaves people they love because for their own sake.

3) If God is all loving, what happens to those who are not fortunate enough to know or even hear one of the three major Abrahamic Religions? (CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM, JUDAISM)
Nothing

Seriously, what proof do you have that God exists besides personal testimonials?
Non-Issue, since I can think about concepts and not just objects.

what proof do you have against the fact that people have existed before the founding of these religions?
Only a problem if you believe the bible is an actual work of history instead of a book of philosophy

what would you say if i told you that the modern bible was CREATED in 325AD by the first council of NICAEA?
I wish they didn't so I could of raked in the cash and curbed people from teaching it wrong before it got popular. Nothing I can do about that now though

Where is your God now?
Right now in my thoughts because of the seed that was planted by this topic

maybe I should consider myself plainly gnostic

That's the thing people need to realize is that we aren't stuck with anything unless we want to be stuck with it. If you don't like what is happening around fix it.

[Beckys_Mom]

Paranoid Android, on 02 February 2013 - 04:07 AM, said:

And yet, as I noted, despite that hypothesis is presented - what if God did this for x, y, z purposes.

I stand by ALL I have said..  Asking what IF is not an answer..  

Quote

That is a horrible analogy. God is not simply an author out to make money.   

God isn't a potter either, your point?   .. Fact is, an author  creates characters and stories  (  like the bible authors and other books ) .. God is meant to create humans.. The potter is meant to create a pot.....  The analogy  I made up was sweet and it fitted..

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 02 February 2013 - 02:06 PM.

[Paranoid Android]

Beckys_Mom, on 02 February 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

I stand by ALL I have said..  Asking what IF is not an answer..  

And I stand by all I have said. Looks like we're at an impasse.

Beckys_Mom, on 02 February 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

God isn't a potter either, your point?   .. Fact is, an author  creates characters and stories  (  like the bible authors and other books ) .. God is meant to create humans.. The potter is meant to create a pot.....  The analogy  I made up was sweet and it fitted..

So you now agree that the potter-analogy has merit?  At least that's a change from the first time I brought it up...

~ PA

[redhen]

Paranoid Android, on 02 February 2013 - 04:32 AM, said:

I would argue that there is no problem of evil to solve in the first place.  It simply is what it is.  The fact that evil exists is not a counter to say that religion therefore is wrong.  It's a non-sequitur

How do you reconcile your two conflicting explanations for natural evil in this thread? At one point you told me that unnecessary suffering was a mystery, His ways are so far above our ways, to paraphrase. In other posts (like this one) you claim that natural evil is simply what it is, i.e. the nomic regularity argument.

Which is it? Is it a ineffable mystery, or is not mysterious at all?

[Paranoid Android]

redhen, on 02 February 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

How do you reconcile your two conflicting explanations for natural evil in this thread? At one point you told me that unnecessary suffering was a mystery, His ways are so far above our ways, to paraphrase. In other posts (like this one) you claim that natural evil is simply what it is, i.e. the nomic regularity argument.

Which is it? Is it a ineffable mystery, or is not mysterious at all?

When did I say unnecessary suffering was a mystery?  I referred to Romans 9 and "who are you, O man, to talk back to God", but that wasn't in the context of the existence of evil, but rather in the question of salvation.  In reference to evil, I have only ever claimed that God's will for us includes evil in this world (natural and moral) and the argument that God should stop it if he really were God is predicated on the assumption that if God exists his primary aim for us is that we be happy and content in this world.  As such, my simple answer to this is what if that assumption is wrong?  What if God has a different purpose for us?  And as an eternal being, if we believe God created us for eternal life, then eternal life is what God has in mind, not this world where our physical bodies will live (if you are very very lucky) for 100 years.  What is 100 years or less compared to eternity?

~ PA

[Frank Merton]

manbearpigg, on 01 February 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

Buddhism (to me) is much more realistic/scientific than many other religions I have had the chance of studying.
It strictly adheres to the natural law of cause and effect, which in its creed tells you to get rid of the cause in order to rid the effect.

There is a lot of religion in Buddhism, but I would say its origins were a philosophical movement before philosophy was invented.  Its basis is not revelation but introspection and reason.

Quote

I don't see how the Problem of evil affects a philosophy that does not preach (but does not deny) a GOD or some form of it.

Precisely.  You can take a naturalistic approach and say that while a volcano may seem evil to some, it enriches the soil for later generations.  Buddhism, however, did not exactly take that route.  There is karma, which is seen as naturalistic and automatic, not god-driven, but still something quite outside modern materialist (physicalist) thinking.

Quote

Even Buddha himself was just the first to reach Nirvana and escape the cycle of rebirth, not a deity.

You probably already know this, but so there is no misunderstanding by others, "Buddha" is not a name.  The Buddha was Siddartha Guatama, and legend has it that he was not the first Buddha and that there will be others.

Quote

I believe that in Buddhism evil (greed/desire), is a natural offshoot of human existence. The only way to rid yourself from such faults is to rid your own existence from this reality and achieve a higher plane of contentedness and understanding.

Well that's fine, but we have many lifetimes.  You don't have to do it all in one go.

Quote

The ONLY problem i have with buddhism is that you must eliminate ALL desires... which includes sex...
Can't really be all that gung-ho about a philosophy that limits my sex drive...

Desires are only one of the things to deal with; you must also deal with delusions and revulsions.  I would point out that these are not sins to be guilty about, but forces we evolved to achieve biological objectives, and there is nothing wrong with them.  It is just that in the end they always bring about some sort of suffering -- maybe grief, maybe frustration, etc.  Once this is understood, each person can choose with their eyes wide open.

[Beckys_Mom]

Paranoid Android, on 02 February 2013 - 02:49 PM, said:

So you now agree that the potter-analogy has merit?  At least that's a change from the first time I brought it up...

Nope, because, the pot and the characters from a book cannot do what humans can, and that is question their creator .. The point made in ref to the potter and his pot ( in Romans 9 )   was about asking its creator why? So humans shouldn't ask god why, who are you to ask?  That was the main point for that weak analogy.... I said that before, I also pointed out in a previous post, that the potter and god only have one thing in common, they created something.. Other than that, the analogy is pointless .

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 02 February 2013 - 04:50 PM.

[redhen]

Paranoid Android, on 02 February 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

When did I say unnecessary suffering was a mystery?

Quote

Suffering is transitory.  Eternity is eternal.  In that context, while suffering may be transitory, so also is joy only transitory.  What is the point of a transitory joy if God has an eternal purpose in mind.

This is the afterlife argument; "The afterlife has also been cited as justifying evil. Christian theologian Randy Alcorn argues that the joys of heaven will compensate for the sufferings on earth,"

Quote

Scientifically the greater good cannot be established.  Theologically, though, it can.  The greater good is eternity.  What good is it for a man to gain the whole world but condemn his eternal soul

This is the greater good argument, which you propose is heaven. "Greater good responses to the problem make use of this insight by arguing for existence of goods of great value which God cannot actualize without also permitting evil, and thus that there are evils he cannot be expected to prevent despite being omnipotent."

Quote

I argued that we do not have the knowledge base that God does and therefore cannot say we would do a better job at creation.  And in the context of this discussion we can't say that God should have made a world without suffering, because we simply don't know the ramifications of that.

Quote

Well, as Bruce Almighty found out, you're willing to try, but without God's knowledge you cannot ever know that you'd be right in doing so.

This is what I mean by the mystery defense. We don't know what God's plans are (in this case). Funny, but this argument is missing from the wiki entry I've been quoting from. http://en.wikipedia....Problem_of_evil  probably because saying "it's a mystery" is no answer at all.

Quote

At the very least, suffering was part of God's plan for salvation - through Jesus' suffering and death (and eventual resurrection).  If we had no suffering, Jesus' death would have no meaning.

Yes, I've heard this argument before from a college chaplain. God takes on our suffering. In fact He suffers the fall of each sparrow, according to scripture. That's a heck of a lot of suffering over millions of years, just to get to reach the stage of modern hominids. Surely there was a better (more loving) way to bring this about. Surely.

Edited by redhen, 02 February 2013 - 04:47 PM.

[Paranoid Android]

Beckys_Mom, on 02 February 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

Nope, because, the pot and the characters from a book cannot do what humans can, and that is question their creator .. The point made in ref to the potter and his pot ( in Romans 9 )   was about asking its creator why? So humans shouldn't ask god why, who are you to ask?  That was the main point for that weak analogy.... I said that before, I also pointed out in a previous post, that the potter and god only have one thing in common, they created something.. Other than that, the analogy is pointless .

I guess we can't agree then.  While I admit the analogy is not perfect, it gets the point across, in my opinion.  I know you don't agree with that, so let's just leave it at that.

[Paranoid Android]

redhen, on 02 February 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

This is the afterlife argument; "The afterlife has also been cited as justifying evil. Christian theologian Randy Alcorn argues that the joys of heaven will compensate for the sufferings on earth,"

This is the greater good argument, which you propose is heaven. "Greater good responses to the problem make use of this insight by arguing for existence of goods of great value which God cannot actualize without also permitting evil, and thus that there are evils he cannot be expected to prevent despite being omnipotent."

So these arguments have names.  I've never looked into these alternatives.  Since I first researched it, II've always found the simplest answer (the one I've given) answer enough.

redhen, on 02 February 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

This is what I mean by the mystery defense. We don't know what God's plans are (in this case). Funny, but this argument is missing from the wiki entry I've been quoting from. http://en.wikipedia....Problem_of_evil  probably because saying "it's a mystery" is no answer at all.

How is my comment stating "it's a mystery".  I'm saying that as a human being, you are not able to categorically state that God should do something differently just because YOU think it would be better that way.  That isn't about mystery.  

Perhaps an example may help.  I heard a story once, from someone I knew.  Their baby kid was going through teething problems, crying and always in pain.  One day the kid found a sure fire way to help the pain.  He found something at just the right height for him to suck on, it was nice and cold and numbed the pain.  Baby Joey (not real name) found this to be a great thing, but his parents would never let him, and would stop him from doing this.  Why?  Why would so-called loving parents intentionally cause their child to feel pain?  Don't they love him?  Don't they care that his teething is hurting?  These may all be questions baby Joey is thinking of.

Baby Joey doesn't know what his parents know.  Sucking on the rim of a toilet bowl may stop the pain but carries with it such health risks.  But baby Joey doesn't have the knowledge base to understand about germs and such, he just knows that his parents are not allowing him to alleviate his suffering.

Back to the concept of suffering.  To say that if you were God you'd do it differently isn't a "mystery argument".  It's simply pointing out that as a limited human being you may not be privy to all the facts that God is, anymore than baby Joey was privy to the facts his parents had.

redhen, on 02 February 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

Yes, I've heard this argument before from a college chaplain. God takes on our suffering. In fact He suffers the fall of each sparrow, according to scripture. That's a heck of a lot of suffering over millions of years, just to get to reach the stage of modern hominids. Surely there was a better (more loving) way to bring this about. Surely.

Why?  Because you declare that there must?

Edited by Paranoid Android, 02 February 2013 - 06:34 PM.

[Beckys_Mom]

Paranoid Android, on 02 February 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

I know you don't agree with that, so let's just leave it at that.

You're right, I don't..

[redhen]

Paranoid Android, on 02 February 2013 - 06:32 PM, said:

So these arguments have names.  I've never looked into these alternatives.  Since I first researched it, II've always found the simplest answer (the one I've given) answer enough.

It's not they all have technical names, I quoted these select parts of your post to show that you don't have just one answer to the problem of evil, but several. I'm not sure if that's valid.

1) The afterlife justifies any temporary current suffering.
2) It's for a greater good, which you speculate is heaven.
3) "that's just the way it is". The nomic regularity argument that posits that suffering is an inherent byproduct of natural forces. (That's actually a very good argument, for an atheist).
4) Gods suffers with you, and that somehow makes it tolerable.

Quote

Back to the concept of suffering.  To say that if you were God you'd do it differently isn't a "mystery argument".  It's simply pointing out that as a limited human being you may not be privy to all the facts that God is, anymore than baby Joey was privy to the facts his parents had.

Again, it's the same answer Job got.

"Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? ³Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me.

⁴“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. ⁵Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? ⁶On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone ⁷when the morning stars sang together and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy? ⁸“Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb?— ⁹when I made the clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band, ¹⁰and prescribed bounds for it, and set bars and doors, ¹¹and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stopped’? ¹⁶“Have you entered into the springs of the sea, or walked in the recesses of the deep? ¹⁷Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness? ¹⁸Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth? Declare, if you know all this."

Job 38:1-11,16-18


Sounds like a mystery to me.

[redhen]

For PA; I would like to ask you the same question posed by the philosopher Anthony Flew. It's from the last paragraph of his essay Theology and Falsification. The bolded emphasis is mine,

Now it often seems to people who are not religious as if there was no conceivable event or series of events the occurrence of which would be admitted by sophisticated religious people to be a sufficient reason for conceding "there wasn't a God after all" or "God does not really love us then." Someone tells us that God loves us as a father loves his children. We are reassured. But then we see a child dying of inoperable cancer of the throat. His earthly father is driven frantic in his efforts to help, but his Heavenly Father reveals no obvious sign of concern. Some qualification is made —God's love is "not merely human love" or it is "an inscrutable love," perhaps — and we realize that such suffering are quite compatible with the truth of the assertion that "God loves us as a father (but of course…)." We are reassured again. But then perhaps we ask: what is this assurance of God's (appropriately qualified) love worth, what is this apparent guarantee really a guarantee against? Just what would have to happen not merely (morally and wrongly) to tempt but also (logically and rightly) to entitle us to say "God does not love us" or even "God does not exist"? I therefore put to the succeeding symposiasts the simple central questions, "What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or the existence of, God?"

http://www.stephenja...sification.html

[Paranoid Android]

redhen, on 02 February 2013 - 08:00 PM, said:

Sounds like a mystery to me.

Maybe we are just arguing different parts of the same argument, but nothing in my argument is predicated simply on the fact that "it's a mystery, so go figure".

redhen, on 02 February 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

For PA; I would like to ask you the same question posed by the philosopher Anthony Flew. It's from the last paragraph of his essay Theology and Falsification. The bolded emphasis is mine,

I therefore put to the succeeding symposiasts the simple central questions, "What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or the existence of, God?"

http://www.stephenja...sification.html

Being honest, nothing that happened could convince me of proof otherwise that God loves us.  And this is coming from someone who has seen people he loves drown because God decided to collapse a sandbar where non-swimmers were taking a bit of a swim.

The argument against evil (presented by Antony Flew imagines that the characteristics of a "father" presented therefore must mean that God relates as a father-figure to us just as a father relates to his own son, or else the argument is not valid.  Sorry, I do not subscribe to that.  I do not think it relevant, and I do not think it accurate.

~ Regards, PA