Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
manbearpigg

Problem of Evil

283 posts in this topic

That answers nothing..Romans 9 doesn't give you any answers, It was written with what If this and that.?. but states you are only human and not god ..Not an answer, just his own statement and a command for you not to question.. When you tell someone not to question you, that is saying you are not giving them an answer, they are not entitled to ask or be given.. You cannot class that as an answer itself.. It holds no logic..

Despite everything else, Paul does offer hypotheses. You can't know - but WHAT IF this happened the way it did....

I meant to ask you before.. Can you explain why you personally do not like what is said in Romans 9 ? You noted you don't like the answer ( even though I do not see it as one ) ..Why do you feel that way ?

I don't like its dismissiveness. It is a dismissive answer. No matter what else can be said about the passage, it is what it is, and it is dismissive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I look at the same thing and see so clearly that there can't possibly be a God. Interesting how two people can look at the same thing so differently.

I can't say whether you have been experience to such a tragedy as I have (people drowning to their death), but I do agree with the general view that two people can look at the same criteria with different conclusions. That has never been in dispute in my argument....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I look at the same thing and see so clearly that there can't possibly be a God. Interesting how two people can look at the same thing so differently.

Indeed this is most true.. People will view it in a different light.

A real life situation that sickened me ..My husbands uncle Gerald, spent his life working in the TV repair business, and part time, he worked for his local church.. He was a regular church goer and he organised many church functions.. He was a really decent bloke..

Garys mother ( my monster in law ) never went near church, unless if she was invited to the odd wedding and funeral.. Other than that Eileen wouldn't show her face... She never cared to look at a bible, and Gary told me she wasn't the praying type.. In fact, Sunday mornings were her hangover mornings..

His uncle Gerald, is diagnosed with brain cancer... He was going in for treatment...He prayed hard that all will work out.. He was only in his early 50's and was looking forward to seeing his new grandchildren.. He had so much planned.. The minister to whom Gerald was close friends with, ( same minister is my brothers father in law ) held some church services asking for others to pray for Gerald...

After chemo, everyone thought Gerald was going to be better.. I must admit, when I saw him at his sons wedding, I thought he might make it..But he was still sick, he looked so frail ... Months later before his eldest had another baby, Gerald was told his cancer has spread too far, and nothing more can be done... Gerald died a few years ago..This indeed was sad.. All the praying, church services and treatments, could not save him

What sickened me.. Garys mother, the one I mentioned earlier .. Had a cancer scare.. What she was told is, bad cells showing up on her tests, look like it can turn cancerous, if they are left longer.. She needed to act ASAP to eliminate them before anything were to develop into cancer ... She is one heck of a milker.. She milked the life out of this and fishes for a lot of attention.. Planned meetings to have people sit down to hear her news.. She didn't like it when some said, you are lucky to catch this early and it isn't cancer as yet, so NOT what she wanted to hear.. What she wanted was, for people to cry and show her how saddened it all is..But people were trying to keep her positive.. Eileen even put on one of those sick voices, like as if she had a sore throat..and talked like she did...

Thing is, she didn't need any cancer treatments ( because it wasn't cancer and just a few cells ) but still had regular visits to the hospital and was given meds.. Later her sister convinces her that god spared her, and now Eileen goes to church every week... She tells people how god looked out for her.. She plumb forgot about her brother in law Gerald, who was a much nicer man, and dedicated a lot of his time to god and the church, but he was not spared despite church services and prayers along with treatments..

My husband Gary will admit that it just looks so weird.. He is glad his mother never had to face cancer, but he cannot understand why his uncle did.. . He knows what his mother is like.. The sad thing about this was - His uncle Gerald was so looking forward to seeing his grandkids come into the world and grow up a bit... His mother Eileen ( the monster in law ) told my husband she didn't like the fact I was having a second child... So when my little girl did die, Eileen never so much as paid me a phone call.... She doesn't appreciatethe idea of other grandchildren.. All she cares about is herself and when is the next cruise date lined up for her, so she can go off on her usual holidays

Two completely different human beings.. To lay the emphasis - One was a gentleman, who was well liked, the other a spoilt rotten wind bag that loves to interfere and huff a lot, who should make special appearances on CSI drama, as she is great at playing the victim ( Ok I am getting a bit carried away there lol ) . Yet one was spared and the other suffered and died.. The only thing Eileen had to suffer was from a hangover.. So when she thinks she can come into our house and nag about going to church, with her usual line - "But you HAVE to go.. God spared me".. I cringe I would love to slap her in the gob and say - Did god spare you from that? But I wouldn't, I couldn't do that, she just annoys the life out of me and others..

This world we live in is weird..

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite everything else, Paul does offer hypotheses. You can't know - but WHAT IF this happened the way it did....

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

I don't like its dismissiveness. It is a dismissive answer. No matter what else can be said about the passage, it is what it is, and it is dismissive.

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

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad they work for you, but I wouldn't say that it is the only thing that works. I'm a happy Buddhist, and I assure you it works too.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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".

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :P

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.