282 replies to this topic

[Rlyeh]

simplybill, on 01 February 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

I believe the Bible because it works. And not only does it work, it's the ONLY thing that works. No other religion or philosophy or political mechanism can say that. The Judeo/Christian values of the Bible actually work in real life.

Too bad, other religions have said the same thing.

[manbearpigg]

redhen, on 01 February 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

I'm not sure Buddhism has a satisfactory answer to the problem of evil either. Suffering is front and center in Buddhism and dukha has many levels. But the answer is hard to swallow for a lot of people; the trick to ending suffering is not to be born in the first place. Thanks, I'll work on that.

This my understanding of Buddhism and why I believe the problem of evil does not affect it.

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.
so cause=desire effect=suffering. (8 fold path and 4 noble truths anyone?)
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.
Even Buddha himself was just the first to reach Nirvana and escape the cycle of rebirth, not a deity.
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.

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...

Edited by manbearpigg, 01 February 2013 - 07:22 PM.

[Beckys_Mom]

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

This my understanding of Buddhism and why I believe the problem of evil does not affect it.

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.
so cause=desire effect=suffering. (8 fold path and 4 noble truths anyone?)
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.
Even Buddha himself was just the first to reach Nirvana and escape the cycle of rebirth, not a deity.
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.

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...

It's not a religion though, not in the sense as the word itself is commonly understood...  Buddhism doesn't require blind faith from it's adherents, nor does it have a deity .. it is best described as the way, or a philosophy.. In saying that, I don't like the idea of belonging to anything that tells me how to control myself.. I couldn't eliminate all desires...  Some yes, but not all..

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 01 February 2013 - 07:48 PM.

[redhen]

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

This my understanding of Buddhism and why I believe the problem of evil does not affect it.

What we've called natural evil in this thread is just a technical term for unnecessary pain and suffering. Therefore, Buddhism is affected by it, as physical pain is one of the forms of suffering covered under the term dukha.

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.

You just mentioned it, the 4 noble truths, the first of which is "suffering exists".

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.

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...

Buddhism is not down on desire, it's craving or attachment that's the problem. Non-attachment is not just the purview of Buddhism. Ancient Greek Stoic philosophers also taught the same thing, during the same time in history.

[markdohle]

manbearpigg, on 28 January 2013 - 08:56 PM, said:

I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the problem of evil but just in case here it goes:

1) GOD (in the Abrahamic Religions) is omnipotent (ALL ABLE), omniscient (ALL KNOWING) and omni-benevolent (ALL LOVING).
2) EVIL/SIN exists (again in the religious sense.)
3) GOD is not one of those three things thus the GOD that many major religions believe does not exist.

The COUNTERARGUMENT:

1) What we perceive as evil can be good in GOD's plan
2) In order to know and experience GOOD there must be a relative EVIL (light/shadow theology)
3) As an ANT cannot fathom the renaissance or computers, WE cannot fathom GOD's actions.


This is my COUNTER-COUNTERARGUMENT:
1) if God is all powerful why does not create an alternate reality without the need for evil? (AKA HEAVEN?)
2) If God Is all knowing, why does did he go through the process of creating something that he does not desire?
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)

Seriously, what proof do you have that God exists besides personal testimonials?
what proof do you have against the fact that people have existed before the founding of these religions?
what would you say if i told you that the modern bible was CREATED in 325AD by the first council of NICAEA?
Where is your God now?

The canon was put together in 325 AD, it was not created.  All were writen within the first century.  The four gospels were included because they were the ones most accepted by Christians.

Peace
mark

Edited by markdohle, 01 February 2013 - 11:51 PM.

[redhen]

markdohle, on 01 February 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

The canon was put together in 325 AD, it was not created.  All were writen within the first century.  The four gospels were included because they were the ones most accepted by Christians.

Peace
mark

Correct. I don't know why the OP threw that last bit about orthodoxy in, plus a taunt "Where is your God now?" There's no need for that.

He started off with a fairly good explanation of the problem of evil. He should have just left it at that.

[Paranoid Android]

Beckys_Mom, on 01 February 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

Romans 9 is not an answer of any kind..It is a statement and a command.. To let you know your place, and to show that you do not own a right to question god. The statement summed up is - He is god, you are just human, don't even think about it...  No point in beating around a bush,  fact is  no answers in Romans 9  

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

Beckys_Mom, on 01 February 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

Because it doesn't give you anything to go on.. Dismissive is just one word to describe it and what it lacked ..

I could write a book, create a story, create characters...It's published, people buy it, read it.. I am at a book signing.. but I am met with a few questions  - Chapters 1 and 2 don't make sense..  So I say - Who are you to question my creations, my work?  I am the author, you are just the reader, don't question me.. Besides, the rest of the chapters do make sense ..Now go away

Yes, that should indeed make people feel happy, and I am betting they will be keen to buy anything else I write in future too

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

But in saying that, I understand the point of your analogy.  I don't agree with it, but I do understand it.

[Zaphod222]

Fact is, religion is not a solution to the problem of evil.
Again, some of us figured out the obvious flaws in that non-argument in first grade.

I am surprised that these same non-arguments to defend theism are still brought up today, and not only in forums like this but also by the supposed intellectual superstars like William Lane Craig. He cites the same non-starter, only dressed in so many learned words.

[Paranoid Android]

Zaphod222, on 02 February 2013 - 04:15 AM, said:

Fact is, religion is not a solution to the problem of evil.
Again, some of us figured out the obvious flaws in that non-argument in first grade.

I am surprised that these same non-arguments to defend theism are still brought up today, and not only in forums like this but also by the supposed intellectual superstars like William Lane Craig. He cites the same non-starter, only dressed in so many learned words.

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

[Zaphod222]

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

I think you misunderstand. Maybe you are not familiar with the argument. The problem with evil, as religionists like to tell us, is that that without their god we would not have a morality.
If you agree that that is a non-starter, good.

Edited by Zaphod222, 02 February 2013 - 04:59 AM.

[Paranoid Android]

You're right, I did misunderstand.  I thought the problem of evil was an argument against God because of the existence of suffering and evil in this world.  The quote given earlier from Epicurus sums it up, I thought:

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

I do not believe this is even a problem to begin with.  The existence of evil has no bearing on the existence of religion or God, in my opinion.

[redhen]

Zaphod222, on 02 February 2013 - 04:58 AM, said:

I think you misunderstand. Maybe you are not familiar with the argument. The problem with evil, as religionists like to tell us, is that that without their god we would not have a morality.
If you agree that that is a non-starter, good.

No that's the argument from morality, that apologists use to confirm the existence of God.

[Zaphod222]

Paranoid Android, on 02 February 2013 - 05:06 AM, said:

You're right, I did misunderstand.  I thought the problem of evil was an argument against God because of the existence of suffering and evil in this world.  The quote given earlier from Epicurus sums it up, I thought:

Oh, OK. Maybe I misunderstood. I did not read the starter but jumped right in.
OK, if that is the topic here, then I agree with you. It is completely irrelevant to the question of god.
I thought this was about evil in the context of morality.

[WoIverine]

manbearpigg, on 28 January 2013 - 08:56 PM, said:

I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the problem of evil but just in case here it goes:

1) GOD (in the Abrahamic Religions) is omnipotent (ALL ABLE), omniscient (ALL KNOWING) and omni-benevolent (ALL LOVING).
2) EVIL/SIN exists (again in the religious sense.)
3) GOD is not one of those three things thus the GOD that many major religions believe does not exist.

The COUNTERARGUMENT:

1) What we perceive as evil can be good in GOD's plan
2) In order to know and experience GOOD there must be a relative EVIL (light/shadow theology)
3) As an ANT cannot fathom the renaissance or computers, WE cannot fathom GOD's actions.


This is my COUNTER-COUNTERARGUMENT:
1) if God is all powerful why does not create an alternate reality without the need for evil? (AKA HEAVEN?)
2) If God Is all knowing, why does did he go through the process of creating something that he does not desire?
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)

Seriously, what proof do you have that God exists besides personal testimonials?
what proof do you have against the fact that people have existed before the founding of these religions?
what would you say if i told you that the modern bible was CREATED in 325AD by the first council of NICAEA?
Where is your God now?

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

[Frank Merton]

redhen, on 01 February 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

I'm not sure Buddhism has a satisfactory answer to the problem of evil either. Suffering is front and center in Buddhism and dukha has many levels. But the answer is hard to swallow for a lot of people; the trick to ending suffering is not to be born in the first place. Thanks, I'll work on that.

Buddhism doesn't have "evil" or "sin."  These are things against the will of God, and Buddhists tend to see it in terms much like we get from Plato (using Socrates's mouth) -- is something evil because God declares it is evil or does God declare it evil because it is?

There are things that sort-of help the universe along, and things that hold it back -- harmony and disharmony -- helpfulness and hurtfulness -- good merit (karma) and negative merit.

There is no point in trying to assign a judgment.  We can tare a house down or we can build a house.  Whether this is "good" or "bad" all depends on the circumstances.

Suffering serves many purposes, but we have to remember that our senses evolved in an environment of blind natural selection.  The sensation of pain alerts us that something is wrong and motivates us to deal with it, but it is not smart and does not know when to turn itself off.

So when we leave God out of the universe, we see that suffering is just the way things are, and we are stuck in it.  The "problem of suffering" does not even arise until you say there is a merciful, loving, omnipotent God.  At that point you have to ask, why does God allow this, and we have no answer.