The Conservative Cave
Interests => Religious Discussions => Topic started by: soleil on October 06, 2010, 07:18:37 PM
-
This is a very broad question, and I intended it to be.
Is it experiences? Is it already in our hearts and minds? Why are some so faithful and others not?
Faith is something you can't touch or see. It is something that you have or don't. Why? Free will? I guess, but that can seem harsh to me. Does everyone have some kind of experience with/from God that they don't recognize as such? Why is it considered a blessing when something good happens? Are we all blessed? I think so, but then there are these people who have so much tragedy in their lives. Is that a hidden blessing?
Ok, so the more I talk, the more questions I have. Let's just discuss this and see what people think.
-
This is a very broad question, and I intended it to be.
Is it experiences? Is it already in our hearts and minds? Why are some so faithful and others not?
Faith is something you can't touch or see. It is something that you have or don't. Why? Free will? I guess, but that can seem harsh to me. Does everyone have some kind of experience with/from God that they don't recognize as such? Why is it considered a blessing when something good happens? Are we all blessed? I think so, but then there are these people who have so much tragedy in their lives. Is that a hidden blessing?
Ok, so the more I talk, the more questions I have. Let's just discuss this and see what people think.
Faith in God---
The fact that I have survived this long in situations that for health or stupid actions should have taken me out long ago.
Both my daughters are alive after facing death a time or two. Oldest now waiting for liver transplant.
Who cannot believe in God at this time of the year in the north as the trees blaze with color that takes ones breath away.
Anyone who has ever been on scene of a baby being born, or woman knowing there is a human growing inside her , really now can anyone not believe.?
-
Faith in God---
The fact that I have survived this long in situations that for health or stupid actions should have taken me out long ago.
Both my daughters are alive after facing death a time or two. Oldest now waiting for liver transplant.
Who cannot believe in God at this time of the year in the north as the trees blaze with color that takes ones breath away.
Anyone who has ever been on scene of a baby being born, or woman knowing there is a human growing inside her , really now can anyone not believe.?
While I do agree that watching the birth of a child is so miraculous, it should make everyone know there is a god. But it doesn't. And what about those who have faced death and died? Or those in so much pain (either emotional or physical)? I have kept my faith in the most trying of times. I question, but I don't have to like the answer. Still, what makes me that way and not others? I wouldn't say I am stronger than they are. Who knows what others go through. I can only walk in my shoes.
-
I can't answer for anyone else...but for me, once you've met Him, you can get angry and deny Him, but you can't really lose faith...He is Someone you know.
-
I can't answer for anyone else...but for me, once you've met Him, you can get angry and deny Him, but you can't really lose faith...He is Someone you know.
I agree with that FOR ME. But I wonder about others who have no faith in God. I wonder why they don't. What is it that makes them not believe or have faith? Yet I would give my life defending. It is strange. Why are some of us faithful? I wonder about this a lot. I have friends of all kinds of religions, thoughts, non-believers... I come across those who believe as steadfast as I do in their god as I do mine. I come across those who used to believe but have now reconsidered. It is fascinating to me. Not really in a good way, but still, it makes me wonder. I guess these things have been thought about forever, and we'll never really know in this lifetime, but why is it I feel blessed when others feel un-blessed?
-
I agree with that FOR ME. But I wonder about others who have no faith in God. I wonder why they don't. What is it that makes them not believe or have faith? Yet I would give my life defending. It is strange. Why are some of us faithful? I wonder about this a lot. I have friends of all kinds of religions, thoughts, non-believers... I come across those who believe as steadfast as I do in their god as I do mine. I come across those who used to believe but have now reconsidered. It is fascinating to me. Not really in a good way, but still, it makes me wonder. I guess these things have been thought about forever, and we'll never really know in this lifetime, but why is it I feel blessed when others feel un-blessed?
I didn't believe for much of my adult life. I went to church some as a kid, but it was cold...distant...nothing real. Kind of like a boring social studies class. My folks believed in God, but I suppose bought into the line that we should all make our own decision (though they didn't think that about much of anything else!!!) God just wasn't anyone real. I didn't mind my kids saying the whole pledge, and I sent one child to a private Christian school to keep her off Ritalin...but it was just something "thumpers" believed, not anything real. I would guess that many are like that. A lot would even consider themselves "Christian" precisely because they have never learned enough to know what "Christian" means. The popular media certain enjoys portraying Christians as "thumpers," haters, racists, ignorant, etc.
Then I met Mr Smith...the only "thumper" I'd ever known that actually knew his stuff. He was very intelligent, very educated, and a nice guy...totally unlike any "real" Christian...so far as I knew. He explained some actual theology...and wow, this stuff actually makes sense!! It's not some garbage mishmash of ignorant ranting! It was a pretty short step for me to figure out that I wasn't a Christian...and to want to fix that.
I would guess that many, many people are in the same place I once was. If you don't know anything, how can you figure out you're wrong?
-
God always answers prayers, but not always the way a person wants him to and they become bitter and lose faith.
-
Will.
The Israelites had been freed from slavery and witnessed more miracles than a Mormon vagina sees childbirth and yet they went out and made a golden calf.
A Roman centurion heard rumors and sought out Jesus to heal a servant and was told by Jesus that the Israelites were the ones he had come to heal but the centurion willed himself past the rebuff.
-
Will.
The Israelites had been freed from slavery and witnessed more miracles than a Mormon vagina sees childbirth and yet they went out and made a golden calf.
A Roman centurion heard rumors and sought out Jesus to heal a servant and was told by Jesus that the Israelites were the ones he had come to heal but the centurion willed himself past the rebuff.
So why doesn't everyone have that will? You've explained to me before where you come from as far as your beliefs go, and you are extremely educated in theology, or so it seems.
If I may ask, how do you view the Bible? Part true? All true? A good read?
-
So why doesn't everyone have that will?
Everyone does have that will. Their will carries them to exactly the place they want to be.
Don't you think the Israelites wanted/willed the golden calf even though they could still see the lightning from Mt Sinai?
Angel or demon, sinner or saint; everyone is given the gift of exactly what they wanted most.
"Thy will be done."
-
I think it's a fundamental disposition people have just by virtue of human capacity for intellectual and abstract thinking.
-
I think it's a fundamental disposition people have just by virtue of human capacity for intellectual and abstract thinking.
Expound please.
I'm intrigued.
-
For me, it is the inability to reason that something can proceed from nothing that convinces me that God exists. God, being God, isn't bound by the same laws of physics that His creation is, so thus it is perfectly reasonable that He can have existed always, even before time and space themselves (which are only His creations as it is).
Of course, my belief in God is shaped almost entirely by my Catholic faith - but I've been around the block. I was a Protestant for about a year in my late teens, and wholly left Christianity altogether in my late 20s. Both times, I came back to the Church, though I was always impacted by my experiences otherwise. So, I've been Pagan (many kinds of that, really), been Buddhist, been agnostic and been atheist and been Deist.
Paganism and Buddhism failed me because of other theological reasons. Atheism failed me because I could not reason that the universe had no beginning. Even if evolution were true and no biological organism in the cosmos is now as it was in the beginning, a First Cause absolutely had to be present, even if just to create the building blocks and set them into motion. Agnosticism failed me because I find it equally as hard to believe that the Creator wouldn't want to be involved with the world He bothered to create, especially given the history of "miraculous" events that humankind is aware of.
So, I choose faith. I choose to believe in a God (only one God, as per the most beneficial and powerful religion the world has ever known, but for other reasons as well [see Paine]), but also in a moral and all-good God. I choose that faith because I believe all that is good and right and true has a source as well, and it must necessarily be God. We humans can develop our understanding of it, but we cannot be its source anymore than we are the source of anything else in the universe. I choose, deliberately, to believe in an all-good, moral God because it doesn't make sense that God would be the Promoter or anything else, and also because it simply enriches life so much more to believe that such a being exists. Hell, it's one of the best moral motivators ever; as Paine said, belief in such a God would encourage the believer to do only that which is seemly in His sight and not do what He would disapprove of.
In short, I cannot force myself to believe that no God exists, and the monotheistic explanations of God make infinitely more sense to me (as per the Catholic and Deist models).
-
I agree with that FOR ME. But I wonder about others who have no faith in God. I wonder why they don't. What is it that makes them not believe or have faith? Yet I would give my life defending. It is strange. Why are some of us faithful? I wonder about this a lot. I have friends of all kinds of religions, thoughts, non-believers... I come across those who believe as steadfast as I do in their god as I do mine. I come across those who used to believe but have now reconsidered. It is fascinating to me. Not really in a good way, but still, it makes me wonder. I guess these things have been thought about forever, and we'll never really know in this lifetime, but why is it I feel blessed when others feel un-blessed?
"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?†- Epicurus
The problem of evil is probably the single most devastating argument to me, against the existence of the all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God.
I think naturalism explains the universe better than theism does.
-
"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?†- Epicurus
The problem of evil is probably the single most devastating argument to me, against the existence of the all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God.
I think naturalism explains the universe better than theism does.
A world without evil is a world without empathy, compassion and selflessness. God allows evil for a season, for a reason.
-
I was brought up in the Episcopal Church...or as my son calls it, Catholic Lite. Back in those days, particularly in a "high" Episcopal Church, it was as much if not moreso, Catholic than today's Catholic Church.
I was taught God The Father, God The Son, God The Holy Ghost. At the time, I was too young to question, and young kids didn't question God's existence in those days...we never knew there was a choice.
Less than a week after my 13th birthday, God was standing at the foot of my bed, in an intensive care unit of a hospital. He had come to get me. I had had the Last Rites a couple of times, at that point. Was it a drug/pain induced vision? Nope, it was God.
I have never doubted that God existed. I have questioned Him, asked Him why? so many times, have cried to Him in anger, screamed at Him in anger.
But doubt His existence? Not ever.
As a child, it was faith....since 13....it's been certainty.
-
What gives me faith in God?
It's the feeling that I have his hand on my shoulder in my worst times. It's knowing that I can say "I trust you God" and all my worries actually fade from my being. God has gone out of his way to show me he is here all the time, he cares that much for me.
-
A world without evil is a world without empathy, compassion and selflessness. God allows evil for a season, for a reason.
I don't think this is true. There's nothing I can see about compassion, empathy, and selflessness which would make them impossibilities in a world without evil. You also presume that those things are so valuable, that evil is justified - not sure that is true either.
And note that the problem of evil doesn't suggest that there cannot be any evil, just that the sheer amount and severity of evil (which often doesn't seem to be necessary for some greater good) makes it improbable (but not impossible) that theism is true.
-
A world without evil is a world without empathy, compassion and selflessness. God allows evil for a season, for a reason.
Nonsense.
That's like saying fidelity cannot exist without adultery. Yet, it would be entirely possible to have fidelity if humans weren't motivated by self-indulgence, pettiness, vindictiveness and spite.
God does not permit adultery to extol fidelity, God heals adulterers. Healing in no way implies permission; on the contrary it implies intolerance; the way a physician is intolerant of the disease and would eradicate it so as to return the body to health. One might as well praise cancer in order to preen about the skills of an onycologist.
The fact that God would show patience should also not be mistaken for desire, permission or even tolerance, it is merely what it is: patience.
-
God allows evil for a season, for a reason.
I believe there is much more to this than we realize, and it all has to do with human nature.
For a time, I had the same objections that rubliw and SGT have expressed. Why would God permit evil to exist, especially if He could make the world function just fine without evil? After all, if that is how He intended it, if we go by the account of Genesis, and one would presume that an all-loving and all-powerful God would want it that way, right?
Or... is that just human frailty speaking? Is it the same as the presumptions that Leftists make that the world ought to be a padded nursery wherein no no harm ever comes to anyone and everyone gets what they want? Is it just applying (however unconsciously) liberalism to matters of religion?
One thing I've noticed about life, something I'm sure many other folks have, is that hard times are good for the soul. Whether it be hard work teaching us about the value of responsibility and organization or whether it be times of financial difficulty teaching us how to appreciate simple things and a simpler life as opposed to a heavily materialistic outlook, humans often learn best when we have to learn the hard way. It's simply how we function; whether this is entirely by design of whether the introduction of sin into the world caused it somehow, the fact of the matter is that it is how things work as of the time of this post and for as long as we humans can recall.
Therefore, why should God immediately eliminate evil? God has given us all the tools to resist evil; He gave us consciences, He gave us the ability to reason, He gave us plenty of teachers and "prophets" who have expounded upon the topic of morality for centuries. If you are Catholic as I am, you believe that He gave us the Church as a moral guide. If not, you still can't but acknowledge the fact that humans have studied and refined our understanding of morality over the eons. Whether or not we adhere to it and live it out is one thing - but the fact that we have a highly-refined understanding of morality is impossible to deny. Why should God eliminate evil when He gave us the ability to defy evil every moment of every day of our lives? Why should God do for us that which He gave us the ability to do by ourselves? Did He create us for nothing?
No, God certainly doesn't "approve" of evil any more than moral humans do. But, God also gave us the ability to avoid evil; many moral exemplars throughout human history have lived as examples of this. If even one person can live in a moral, noble fashion, every human can do it. Yes, it's a high standard to hold each other up to, but a standard being high doesn't mean it is wrong. If just one Francis of Assisi can exist, a million of them can exist, and I don't mean merely in terms of charitable people. Francis was a highly moral man, and if he can be good, so can the rest of us, no excuses, because Francis was just a human being - born with the same mental and physical faculties we all were.
In a sense, evil can make good look better, because we understand much more fully how much good is needed whenever we see evil take place. But, we never need to let things degrade into genuine "evil" because we simply know that good is good because it is good, and if we need to, we can look to examples of it in the world to refresh our memories. Whether or not we approve of God's evident decision to permit evil to exist for now is immaterial; what matters is that we realize that God gave us all the ability to deny evil in our lives and prevent it from happening.
-
Nonsense.
That's like saying fidelity cannot exist without adultery. Yet, it would be entirely possible to have fidelity if humans weren't motivated by self-indulgence, pettiness, vindictiveness and spite.
God does not permit adultery to extol fidelity, God heals adulterers. Healing in no way implies permission; on the contrary it implies intolerance; the way a physician is intolerant of the disease and would eradicate it so as to return the body to health. One might as well praise cancer in order to preen about the skills of an onycologist.
The fact that God would show patience should also not be mistaken for desire, permission or even tolerance, it is merely what it is: patience.
If humans weren't motivated by self-indulgence, pettiness, vindictiveness and spite...evil, pain and suffering would not be needed. Without evil, there might be no pain and suffering. How would anyone learn to feel empathy for another without it? How would one learn to have compassion, to be selfless, to give if there were no reason? Think about it...every single advance ever made by mankind has come to fight evil, pain, or suffering. Everything from fire and clothing to MRI machines; everything from the first stick used to obtain food to the advanced weaponry we use to combat terrorism; everything from the first human impulse to care for another to the current systems of giving to the destitute, all due to our long battle against evil, pain and suffering.
What would we have learned without those gifts?
-
If humans weren't motivated by self-indulgence, pettiness, vindictiveness and spite...evil, pain and suffering would not be needed. Without evil, there might be no pain and suffering. How would anyone learn to feel empathy for another without it? How would one learn to have compassion, to be selfless, to give if there were no reason? Think about it...every single advance ever made by mankind has come to fight evil, pain, or suffering. Everything from fire and clothing to MRI machines; everything from the first stick used to obtain food to the advanced weaponry we use to combat terrorism; everything from the first human impulse to care for another to the current systems of giving to the destitute, all due to our long battle against evil, pain and suffering.
What would we have learned without those gifts?
What you're claiming is evil produces good.
That is bass-ackwards. Love created the universe. The universe may be tainted and corrupt but compassion is, at its essence, love re-asserting itself amid the evil that sought to displace it.
You are making the Devil the father of the Christ.
-
What you're claiming is evil produces good.
That is bass-ackwards. Love created the universe. The universe may be tainted and corrupt but compassion is, at its essence, love re-asserting itself amid the evil that sought to displace it.
You are making the Devil the father of the Christ.
No, the devil is the master of this world. Why do YOU think God left him here? Is God just mean? Does He enjoy watching people suffer? Everything we know of God and Christ are the opposite. Everything done for humans is done for our own good. How can this not include the devil? What do humans do when faced with evil? A few join it, but most fight it. Most join God. Just as we do when faced with pain and suffering, some enjoy it, most fight it. Those things are gifts to help mankind, and each individual person, SEE the 2 sides, and join one. Otherwise, we'd all be a clueless as an infant. How would we know about good, and love, and compassion if we never had any taste of the opposite? Seriously, think it through. How would anyone learn? How would anyone ever freely choose God if there were no choice?
-
MrsSmith,
The points in your post are, for the most part, reducible down to one of the most popular and well-worn responses to the problem of evil: that evil is necessary to facilitate some greater good. That greater good may include empathy as you said earlier, or "soul building", or free-will, or any number of other things. But the burden that is placed on the theist by the problem of evil is enormous and I don't think that response is good enough. Nor is any other response that has been dreamed up to date, in my opinion (I've pretty much heard them all).
One reasonable thing to infer about God (based on His omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence) is that He would go about achieving His goals using the least amount of evil necessary. In other words, if He could realize his goals by permitting one less rape, one less baby deer painfully killed in a forest fire, one less starved child, or even one less hangnail, He would. So with that in mind, the theist and the atheist find themselves in the following positions:
Theist: Every single instance of evil in the world was necessary to bring about a greater good
Atheist: At least one instance of evil in the world was not necessary to bring about a greater good.
Given the sheer amount and intensity of suffering and evil in the world, the latter seems far more likely to me. In fact, it looks like many instances of evil in the world did not (or will not) bring about some greater good.
-
MrsSmith,
The points in your post are, for the most part, reducible down to one of the most popular and well-worn responses to the problem of evil: that evil is necessary to facilitate some greater good. That greater good may include empathy as you said earlier, or "soul building", or free-will, or any number of other things. But the burden that is placed on the theist by the problem of evil is enormous and I don't think that response is good enough. Nor is any other response that has been dreamed up to date, in my opinion (I've pretty much heard them all).
One reasonable thing to infer about God (based on His omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence) is that He would go about achieving His goals using the least amount of evil necessary. In other words, if He could realize his goals by permitting one less rape, one less baby deer painfully killed in a forest fire, one less starved child, or even one less hangnail, He would. So with that in mind, the theist and the atheist find themselves in the following positions:
Theist: Every single instance of evil in the world brought about a greater good
Atheist: At least one instance of evil in the world did not (or will not) bring about a greater good.
Given the sheer amount and intensity of suffering and evil in the world, the latter seems far more likely to me. In fact, it looks like many instances of evil in the world did not (or will not) bring about some greater good.
That's a very narrow perspective, don't you think?
Why would a theist claim that every evil brought about a greater good? If God has given us the ability to respond to evil in a positive and productive way, it depends on each individual responding in a positive and productive way - that will vary with each person. The potential for every evil to bring about a greater good (or just a greater understanding of good) naturally always exists - whether or not each individual exposed to that evil will react as he or she ought is another story, but they each have the ability to.
It's what always annoyed me about atheism - very narrow-minded and wholly unimaginative scenarios used as examples to illustrate that no God could possibly exist. No concept at all that if there is a god, then naturally that god's thought processes are infinitely more complex than those of his creations must also be considered. The atheist makes no room for any other possibilities that he is capable (or desirous) of understanding. If evil fails to bring about a greater good, it's not the fault of evil or good or God, but the fault of those who exposed to the evil and choose an inferior response.
Instead of asking why does God permit so much suffering, we should be asking why do we humans permit so much of it?
-
That's a very narrow perspective, don't you think?
No, honestly I don't, but you are certainly free to think otherwise ;)
Why would a theist claim that every evil brought about a greater good? If God has given us the ability to respond to evil in a positive and productive way, it depends on each individual responding in a positive and productive way - that will vary with each person. The potential for every evil to bring about a greater good (or just a greater understanding of good) naturally always exists - whether or not each individual exposed to that evil will react as he or she ought is another story, but they each have the ability to.
That all instances of evil must be logically necessary to bring about some greater good is a conclusion, I believe, that follows from the basic nature of the theist deity. If the deity could bring about a desired good while permitting even just a little less evil, then He would, because He is perfectly good. And it seems like He would have a lot of leeway to do so, since He is also all powerful.
And not all evil is the result of human choices, nor is all evil actually known to humans and therefore provides no opportunity for individuals to respond in productive ways. Natural evil, like the suffering of non-human creatures, arguably has been the most plentiful type of evil throughout the history of the world, and there really isn't anything to be done about it. Humans weren't even around to "respond productively" to the unimaginably plentiful instances of it.
It's what always annoyed me about atheism - very narrow-minded and wholly unimaginative scenarios used as examples to illustrate that no God could possibly exist. No concept at all that if there is a god, then naturally that god's thought processes are infinitely more complex than those of his creations must also be considered. The atheist makes no room for any other possibilities that he is capable (or desirous) of understanding. If evil fails to bring about a greater good, it's not the fault of evil or good or God, but the fault of those who exposed to the evil and choose an inferior response.
Ah, but I haven't concluded that the existence of the theist deity is impossible. My conclusion is that the theistic deity is unlikely to exist. Believe it or not, I do make room for the possibility that the responses you have given (and others have given) are true, but I weigh them against other possibilities. The myriad of responses to the problem of evil can make for some interesting thinking, but needless to say, I am unpersuaded by them. I remain convinced that the world would look far different and contain much less evil, had it been created by the theistic deity. Note I am not saying that it wouldn't contain any evil, just less.
Instead of asking why does God permit so much suffering, we should be asking why do we humans permit so much of it?
Humans aren't perfectly good, nor are all the happenings in this world under our direct providence, so its not so strange that so much evil is permitted by us. Most of it isnt even under our control. Its certainly unfortunate, but its not strange or surprising.
-
No, the devil is the master of this world. Why do YOU think God left him here?
More importantly: who invited him?
Is God just mean? Does He enjoy watching people suffer? Everything we know of God and Christ are the opposite. Everything done for humans is done for our own good. How can this not include the devil?
Good prevails in spite of evil, not because of it.
What do humans do when faced with evil? A few join it, but most fight it. Most join God.
I would love to see evidence of that, biblical or empirical.
Just as we do when faced with pain and suffering, some enjoy it, most fight it. Those things are gifts to help mankind, and each individual person, SEE the 2 sides, and join one. Otherwise, we'd all be a clueless as an infant. How would we know about good, and love, and compassion if we never had any taste of the opposite? Seriously, think it through. How would anyone learn? How would anyone ever freely choose God if there were no choice?
So if they never tasted the fruit they never would have had free will? They could never have been content/obedient/happy if they had not first been selfish, eaten the fruit and then lied about it?
Then let us sin that grace may abound.
-
No, honestly I don't, but you are certainly free to think otherwise ;)
That all instances of evil must be logically necessary to bring about some greater good is a conclusion, I believe, that follows from the basic nature of the theist deity. If the deity could bring about a desired good while permitting even just a little less evil, then He would, because He is perfectly good. And it seems like He would have a lot of leeway to do so, since He is also all powerful.
Why? Especially when we consider that the mind and thought processes of such a being might very be (and in all likelihood are) unknown to us, and also much more complex and possibly oriented towards goals we cannot fathom - why not permit the possibility of more evil?
Also, how do we know that the sum total of evil in the world today isn't a "little less" as it is? We presume that there could be a "little less" evil, but how do we know that God hasn't already beaten us to that particular punch? Especially as, again, God's mind is most likely far beyond ours, how can we be so certain that He hasn't already seen to that? It would therefore be presumptuous to assume that God doesn't exist on those grounds.
And not all evil is the result of human choices, nor is all evil actually known to humans and therefore provides no opportunity for individuals to respond in productive ways. Natural evil, like the suffering of non-human creatures, arguably has been the most plentiful type of evil throughout the history of the world, and there really isn't anything to be done about it. Humans weren't even around to "respond productively" to the unimaginably plentiful instances of it.
I agree, but whenever people speak of evil in the world, only the evil that affects humans is considered. That sort of evil, particularly that which results from our own actions (ie, malice), is what we can control.
As for evil in the non-human world, why is any of that "evil" to begin with? Sure, it might very well be evil and, especially if the account of Genesis is true and evil only entered into the world after the First Sin, even the evils and sufferings of the non-human world might be a result of that. But, what if it is not? What if those things which we observe in the non-human world and you are labeling "evil" are, ultimately, not evil at all, but rather how the non-human world was designed and intended to function? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and it might seem evil when one animal devours another - but is it actually "evil"?
Especially when we consider that when we speak of "evil" we normally imply malice, it would be difficult to prove that any animal acts out of malice towards another. If indeed they cannot do so, then the "problem of evil" shrinks by orders of magnitude.
Ah, but I haven't concluded that the existence of the theist deity is impossible. My conclusion is that the theistic deity is unlikely to exist. Believe it or not, I do make room for the possibility that the responses you have given (and others have given) are true, but I weigh them against other possibilities. The myriad of responses to the problem of evil can make for some interesting thinking, but needless to say, I am unpersuaded by them. I remain convinced that the world would look far different and contain much less evil, had it been created by the theistic deity. Note I am not saying that it wouldn't contain any evil, just less.
Again, why? Why would it contain "less" evil? How do we know that it already doesn't?
Especially if we consider that God might have guided suitable human minds throughout history along a path of moral refinement and has inspired many religions and philosophies for the overall edification of the human masses, how do we know that such isn't the method (or one of them) by which He sees to it that there is "less evil" in the cosmos?
Humans aren't perfectly good, nor are all the happenings in this world under our direct providence, so its not so strange that so much evil is permitted by us. Most of it isnt even under our control. Its certainly unfortunate, but its not strange or surprising.
Actual evil, or malice, is a different thing, I believe, than that which the non-human world experiences. Thus, it is indeed incumbent upon us to take responsibility for own actions, always bear in mind that God has equipped us to refuse to do evil (ie, malice) towards one another, and therefore that actual evil is indeed our own responsibility. The fact that nature is a harsh place or that non-human creatures must devour, displace, or destroy each other in order to survive might be the result of sin entering the world, or might instead simply be how the non-human world was designed to function.
-
More importantly: who invited him?
Good prevails in spite of evil, not because of it.
I would love to see evidence of that, biblical or empirical.
So if they never tasted the fruit they never would have had free will? They could never have been content/obedient/happy if they had not first been selfish, eaten the fruit and then lied about it?
Then let us sin that grace may abound.
Without the choice to sin, there is no grace.
Without the choice of evil, there is no good.
Without the choice of rejection, there is no love.
Without the ability to choose, there is no free will. If there'd been no tree, there would have been no free will.
You cannot have the good without any of the bad. Maybe in Heaven, but not here...and not with normal people. It just isn't possible. Even in near-paradise in the Garden, mankind had to be able to choose...and chose poorly.
-
MrsSmith,
The points in your post are, for the most part, reducible down to one of the most popular and well-worn responses to the problem of evil: that evil is necessary to facilitate some greater good. That greater good may include empathy as you said earlier, or "soul building", or free-will, or any number of other things. But the burden that is placed on the theist by the problem of evil is enormous and I don't think that response is good enough. Nor is any other response that has been dreamed up to date, in my opinion (I've pretty much heard them all).
One reasonable thing to infer about God (based on His omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence) is that He would go about achieving His goals using the least amount of evil necessary. In other words, if He could realize his goals by permitting one less rape, one less baby deer painfully killed in a forest fire, one less starved child, or even one less hangnail, He would. So with that in mind, the theist and the atheist find themselves in the following positions:
Theist: Every single instance of evil in the world was necessary to bring about a greater good
Atheist: At least one instance of evil in the world was not necessary to bring about a greater good.
Given the sheer amount and intensity of suffering and evil in the world, the latter seems far more likely to me. In fact, it looks like many instances of evil in the world did not (or will not) bring about some greater good.
You've stated this before. Unless you've managed to become God in the last few months, you still have absolutely no foundation for judging. No human can possibly judge exactly what is necessary to maintain the growth of good. In point of fact, humans are very poor at judging exactly what is evil. Today, Muslims consider the marriage of their women to non-Muslims as a horrible evil. A few decades ago, people considered marriage between 2 different races as horrible evil.
Today, we look at the horrific story of an abortionist that murdered born infants in cold blood, and see horrific evil. But, if that man's actions are one brick of the wall that eventually shuts off abortion in this country, his murders have the possibility of saving literally millions of human lives.
You can look at the evil that happens and assume you actually know something, but without an eternal perspective and an intimate knowledge of every human heart, past, present and future, you can't know anything at all.
-
Without the choice to sin, there is no grace.
Without the choice of evil, there is no good.
Without the choice of rejection, there is no love.
Without the ability to choose, there is no free will. If there'd been no tree, there would have been no free will.
You cannot have the good without any of the bad. Maybe in Heaven, but not here...and not with normal people. It just isn't possible. Even in near-paradise in the Garden, mankind had to be able to choose...and chose poorly.
You mistake potential for necessity.
-
Each of us, at some point, and perhaps at several, knowing that an act we were contemplated was somehow wrong (whether we called it unethical, immoral, illegal, sin, or whatever), went ahead and did it anyway.
This is evil in action.
The more monstrous types of evil that we still shudder to contemplate, or speak of only in hushed tones, is different from out petty misdeeds only in degree, and each of us is capable of all of it given the power and the belief of impunity.
Evil exists because we, collectively, choose daily to practice it. God could, of course, destroy each of us any time we began to think on evil acts; but he is patient and will wait (which gives those of us who will time to repent unto forgiveness).
To speak to the OP: Faith "is not from [ourselves], it is the gift of God" to those to whom He, in His Righteous judgment, will give it (Ephesians 2:8).
Lord, add Your Strength to these weak words of mine.
-
I think it is a feeling one has. When I put up the Nativity set at Christmas , listen to Christmas carols(OH Holy Night) or any other inspirational songs(Amazing Grace) A feeling I have inside me, that comes alive and good. The feeling I get from giving to others less fortunate(Salvation Army). Being the best person I can be.....
To err is human....to forgive is divine
-
You mistake potential for necessity.
The choice is necessary. Without choice, there is no freedom.
-
Each of us, at some point, and perhaps at several, knowing that an act we were contemplated was somehow wrong (whether we called it unethical, immoral, illegal, sin, or whatever), went ahead and did it anyway.
This is evil in action.
The more monstrous types of evil that we still shudder to contemplate, or speak of only in hushed tones, is different from out petty misdeeds only in degree, and each of us is capable of all of it given the power and the belief of impunity.
Evil exists because we, collectively, choose daily to practice it. God could, of course, destroy each of us any time we began to think on evil acts; but he is patient and will wait (which gives those of us who will time to repent unto forgiveness).
To speak to the OP: Faith "is not from [ourselves], it is the gift of God" to those to whom He, in His Righteous judgment, will give it (Ephesians 2:8).
Lord, add Your Strength to these weak words of mine.
Well-said! :)
-
The choice is necessary. Without choice, there is no freedom.
Perhaps you mean, "the ability to choose is necessary."
-
Why? Especially when we consider that the mind and thought processes of such a being might very be (and in all likelihood are) unknown to us, and also much more complex and possibly oriented towards goals we cannot fathom - why not permit the possibility of more evil?
Also, how do we know that the sum total of evil in the world today isn't a "little less" as it is? We presume that there could be a "little less" evil, but how do we know that God hasn't already beaten us to that particular punch? Especially as, again, God's mind is most likely far beyond ours, how can we be so certain that He hasn't already seen to that? It would therefore be presumptuous to assume that God doesn't exist on those grounds.
I agree, but whenever people speak of evil in the world, only the evil that affects humans is considered. That sort of evil, particularly that which results from our own actions (ie, malice), is what we can control.
As for evil in the non-human world, why is any of that "evil" to begin with? Sure, it might very well be evil and, especially if the account of Genesis is true and evil only entered into the world after the First Sin, even the evils and sufferings of the non-human world might be a result of that. But, what if it is not? What if those things which we observe in the non-human world and you are labeling "evil" are, ultimately, not evil at all, but rather how the non-human world was designed and intended to function? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and it might seem evil when one animal devours another - but is it actually "evil"?
Especially when we consider that when we speak of "evil" we normally imply malice, it would be difficult to prove that any animal acts out of malice towards another. If indeed they cannot do so, then the "problem of evil" shrinks by orders of magnitude.
Again, why? Why would it contain "less" evil? How do we know that it already doesn't?
Especially if we consider that God might have guided suitable human minds throughout history along a path of moral refinement and has inspired many religions and philosophies for the overall edification of the human masses, how do we know that such isn't the method (or one of them) by which He sees to it that there is "less evil" in the cosmos?
Actual evil, or malice, is a different thing, I believe, than that which the non-human world experiences. Thus, it is indeed incumbent upon us to take responsibility for own actions, always bear in mind that God has equipped us to refuse to do evil (ie, malice) towards one another, and therefore that actual evil is indeed our own responsibility. The fact that nature is a harsh place or that non-human creatures must devour, displace, or destroy each other in order to survive might be the result of sin entering the world, or might instead simply be how the non-human world was designed to function.
I'll paraphrase your questions below, and provide my take on them.
How can we know whether the evil in the world isnt actually "a little less" (or as I would say it, "necessary for some greater good")?
Well, what does it for me really is the incomprehensible volume and severity of evil in the world. I think this tips the scales in favor of the hypothesis that much of this evil is just gratuitous. And if the theist thinks there is a good reason for all of it - well, I think the burden is on him to demonstrate it.
Why should animal suffering be considered evil?
Well, regardless of what most people do, philosophers distinguish between moral evil and natural evil. Natural evil is evil that is not caused by the actions of a moral agent. This category of evil includes things like the suffering caused by disease or natural disasters. It also includes the majority of animal suffering in the world, which was not inflicted by moral agents like human beings. This type of evil is considered in the problem of evil, because they are situations that an all-good being would want to minimize to the best of his ability.
So the incalculable abundance of animal suffering in this world is something theism needs to account for in someway, and I don't feel that they've come up with a plausible answer.
What if God's mind is just beyond ours, and we can't see His reasons for permitting evil?
I've touched on this topic in other threads, as this is a standard reply to the problem of evil which, in philosophical circles, is categorized as "skeptical theism". Its pretty much a whole topic of its own, so instead of going on about it more, I'll just give a small quote from one the best atheist blogs out there, which sums up the problem I have with these sorts of replies:
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=8831
In a world so obviously indifferent to our pain or pleasure, Christians must embrace an incredible double standard to believe a God of the universe is perfectly good. They must say that many good things happen because they understand God’s ways and he wanted those things to happen, but they must also say that all bad things happen for reasons we can’t know because we don’t understand God’s ways.
-
Most Christians I know believe God has a perfect will, a permissive will, and a singular purpose. These terms are the ones I use, as I understand their meaning; "professional" theologians (who may not have Christianity, or even theism, as an agenda) may have other terms for the same things.
God's Perfect Will: no one, from Lucifer onward, would ever have sinned; Adam and Eve and such descendants as might have been would still be living innocent, immortal, and naked in Eden; and none of the abominations which have and will exist in the universe would do so.
God's Permissive Will: Lucifer, Adam, Eve, and all of us have had our opportunities to obey-- or not-- rules as simple as "acknowledge my supremacy" (Lucifer); "don't eat the fruit of that one particular tree" (Adam and Eve); the 10 or 613 commandments of the Jewish Law; and the three basic commandments of the Age of Grace, from which spring all other proper moral codes, among which are things prohibited not because they are wrong sui generis, but because in the time and place they violate the spirit of the three basic commands.
God's Singular Purpose: to work through both the good and evil which we humans do to bring the greatest number possible to salvation before closing the book on evil in all its manifestations, at which time all who have willfully persisted in evil (including Lucifer aka Satan) will be sent to eternal punishment; at which time a new heavan and new earth will replace those extant for His-- and our-- eternal enjoyment.
-
I'll paraphrase your questions below, and provide my take on them.
How can we know whether the evil in the world isnt actually "a little less" (or as I would say it, "necessary for some greater good")?
Well, what does it for me really is the incomprehensible volume and severity of evil in the world. I think this tips the scales in favor of the hypothesis that much of this evil is just gratuitous. And if the theist thinks there is a good reason for all of it - well, I think the burden is on him to demonstrate it.
Again, how can you know that for sure? Seems like more of an arbitrary statement than one that allows for the very real possibility that a superior intelligence already has seen to it that there is less evil than there might otherwise be.
I think the burden of proof is on those who claim that there absolutely is, full stop, too much evil in the world for any god to possibly exist, or that there is too much evil, period.
Why should animal suffering be considered evil?
Well, regardless of what most people do, philosophers distinguish between moral evil and natural evil. Natural evil is evil that is not caused by the actions of a moral agent. This category of evil includes things like the suffering caused by disease or natural disasters. It also includes the majority of animal suffering in the world, which was not inflicted by moral agents like human beings. This type of evil is considered in the problem of evil, because they are situations that an all-good being would want to minimize to the best of his ability.
So the incalculable abundance of animal suffering in this world is something theism needs to account for in someway, and I don't feel that they've come up with a plausible answer.
Again, how can you be sure of any of that? Especially given the distinction between moral evil and natural evil (or between actual evil and mere natural processes), one can easily understand that the former is necessary for the natural world to function whereas the former is a result of actions taken by beings who have been given the ability to make both good and bad choices.
Thus, that ability to choose, to respond to moral guidance and edification, represents part of an all-good being's minimization of evil, by operating through the free will and noble consciences of His human creations. I say "human" specifically since only "moral evil" is relevant, here; other "evils" are necessary for the world to function and thus not actually "evil" in fact.
What if God's mind is just beyond ours, and we can't see His reasons for permitting evil?
I've touched on this topic in other threads, as this is a standard reply to the problem of evil which, in philosophical circles, is categorized as "skeptical theism". Its pretty much a whole topic of its own, so instead of going on about it more, I'll just give a small quote from one the best atheist blogs out there, which sums up the problem I have with these sorts of replies:
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=8831
Meh; just more claims that because bad things happen, God can't possibly exist. I recall such arguments from my own days as an atheist and they are just too narrow to be acceptable, always proceeding from the arbitrary position that if bad things happen there can't be any good or rational reason for it.
It's too much like an impudent child stamping his feet and arbitrarily stating that his parents don't love him because they punished him for misbehaving, even though that punishment served a corrective and ultimately positive purpose. It's the application of the Leftist mentality to religion, insisting that the world ought to be a padded nursery wherein no one ever gets hurt and everyone gets what he or she wants and because it isn't, there can't possibly be any good or rational reason for the state of things.
-
Faith was a circuitous route for me. Growing up, my mother was very insecure in her faith. She bounced us kids around from one denomination to another. I started life as a Baptist, later becoming Jehovah's Witness (she even tried to make us Amish at one point) and then on to non-denominational. Talk about growing up confused! When I met my wife, she was in a very conservative Church of Christ church (long hair, dresses only, etc.) I tried to get into that with her, but I was in the Army and they told me if I ever had to kill anyone, regardless of how justified I may be, I'm going to Hell. Obviously I don't believe that, so I dropped out.
After not attending church for over 10 years, my wife agreed to go to a more mainstream Church of Christ. I sat down with the pastor and told him my past and my fears. He showed me in the book of Romans how what I was told by the other Church of Christ was wrong. I still wasn't convinced.
Then one day I looked up into the sky and thought about the immense stretch of space out there and all it holds. I began to think about the miracle of life. Not only with humans, but EVERYTHING. Using pure logic, I realized that this isn't all an accident of atoms colliding. There HAS to be a higher being. I was baptised March 28th, 2006.
-
Faith was a circuitous route for me. Growing up, my mother was very insecure in her faith. She bounced us kids around from one denomination to another. I started life as a Baptist, later becoming Jehovah's Witness (she even tried to make us Amish at one point) and then on to non-denominational. Talk about growing up confused! When I met my wife, she was in a very conservative Church of Christ church (long hair, dresses only, etc.) I tried to get into that with her, but I was in the Army and they told me if I ever had to kill anyone, regardless of how justified I may be, I'm going to Hell. Obviously I don't believe that, so I dropped out.
After not attending church for over 10 years, my wife agreed to go to a more mainstream Church of Christ. I sat down with the pastor and told him my past and my fears. He showed me in the book of Romans how what I was told by the other Church of Christ was wrong. I still wasn't convinced.
Then one day I looked up into the sky and thought about the immense stretch of space out there and all it holds. I began to think about the miracle of life. Not only with humans, but EVERYTHING. Using pure logic, I realized that this isn't all an accident of atoms colliding. There HAS to be a higher being. I was baptised March 28th, 2006.
Congrats on being baptized.
I am not picking on you in the slightest when I ask this....where you also questioning God's existence or did you believe in God, just questioned the religion?
I ask because you are a Mason, (and a Shriner?) I was in Rainbow Girls, Job's Daughters, and became an Eastern Star in my early 20's. (My dad was DeMolay, Mason, and Shriner, and my mother was in Eastern Star.) I would think it would be difficult to be in any of the organizations if one did not believe in God.
-
I've always believed in God, but found myself doubting Him because of the confusion between religions. Every religion and denomination swears it's the way to do things. How confusing is that? All along I just needed to find one that fit me. :)
You're right, it always amazes me when people equate Masons with devil worship. :lmao:
-
I've always believed in God, but found myself doubting Him because of the confusion between religions. Every religion and denomination swears it's the way to do things. How confusing is that? All along I just needed to find one that fit me. :)
You're right, it always amazes me when people equate Masons with devil worship. :lmao:
I've only been Episcopal and Catholic, so no confusion.
Yeah, I'm not sure where that "devil worship" thing ever came from either....but it is amazing how many believe it to be true.
-
When I tell people we HAVE to have a Holy Bible in order to open our lodge, people are like wha-wha-WHAT? I thought y'all killed goats! Nope, rode one, though! :whistling:
-
More importantly: who invited him?
Good prevails in spite of evil, not because of it.
I would love to see evidence of that, biblical or empirical.
So if they never tasted the fruit they never would have had free will? They could never have been content/obedient/happy if they had not first been selfish, eaten the fruit and then lied about it?
Then let us sin that grace may abound.
One of the most beautiful prayers in the Catholic Church, in my opinion, is the Exsultet, the song of praise during the Easter Vigil. The prayer calls all of heaven and earth to join in the celebration as the Easter Candle is lit for the first time. A line from the prayer stands out to me every time I hear it...
O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam,
which gained for us so great a Redeemer!
A pretty powerful statement, centuries old.
-
Yeah, I'm not sure where that "devil worship" thing ever came from either....but it is amazing how many believe it to be true.
I think the mainstream view, while not stemming from but certainly was revitalized by the book: Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin. Which is quite an ahem interesting, baptist theology leaning read, regardless of if you read the revised version by Ravi Zacharias or Hank Hanegraaff. Both, whom are interesting authors in their own ways.
If I recall, it actually referenced how many of the major denominations had outright bans on their members being masons, with the noticeable exception of Southern Baptists. Which supposedly stemmed from a majority of their preachers at the time, also being Masons, and led to a major controversy with Walter Martin.
-
Again, how can you know that for sure? Seems like more of an arbitrary statement than one that allows for the very real possibility that a superior intelligence already has seen to it that there is less evil than there might otherwise be.
I think the burden of proof is on those who claim that there absolutely is, full stop, too much evil in the world for any god to possibly exist, or that there is too much evil, period.
I agree that the burden of proof would be upon those who claim, full stop, that the existence of so much evil absolutely disproves the existence of God. A claim like that sets the bar extremely high. But it isn't my position.
My position has been that there are instances of evil which do not seem to be necessary for any greater good, so they probably aren't, and count as evidence against the existence of the theist God. And more than that, its my position that the sheer abundance of it tips the scales in favor of the belief that God does not exist. The bar is much lower here and the stakes are a little different. The argument, if successful, requires one to accept that the existence of God is less likely than the non-existence of God, but not the conclusion that God is impossible.
Again, how can you be sure of any of that? Especially given the distinction between moral evil and natural evil (or between actual evil and mere natural processes), one can easily understand that the former is necessary for the natural world to function whereas the former is a result of actions taken by beings who have been given the ability to make both good and bad choices.
Thus, that ability to choose, to respond to moral guidance and edification, represents part of an all-good being's minimization of evil, by operating through the free will and noble consciences of His human creations. I say "human" specifically since only "moral evil" is relevant, here; other "evils" are necessary for the world to function and thus not actually "evil" in fact.
What is necessary for this world to function isn't really the crux of the problem. An all-powerful being has the power to create any possible world. So its not a matter of asking whether natural evil is necessary for THIS world.. its about asking whether an omnipotent God could have created a world which both accomplished His divine goals, AND contained less (or perhaps even no) natural evil - because If he could have, he would have.
Think about the burden this places on the theist... out of any possible universe imaginable, the theist is committed to the belief that THIS one, a universe with such a seemingly over-abundance of natural (and moral) evil, is the best possible world that God could have instantiated in order to accomplish his goals. The bar for that claim is extremely high - almost as high as the bar for the claim that God is incompatible with any evil, full stop. Raising a few potential possibilities (soul building, etc) isnt enough for me. I need strong reasons to actually believe them and to actually believe that gratuitous looking evils in this world are not as they appear to be.
Meh; just more claims that because bad things happen, God can't possibly exist. I recall such arguments from my own days as an atheist and they are just too narrow to be acceptable, always proceeding from the arbitrary position that if bad things happen there can't be any good or rational reason for it.
The quote I pasted was meant to address something else. Theists often claim to know all sorts of things about God, His values, His intentions for us and the world. However, they they also tend to claim that He is mysterious and unknowable when certain arguments come up, like the problem of evil. So that seems like a double standard to me.
Also, when one starts relying on the mysterious God defenses, things get difficult for theism really quickly. The ability to say much of anything conclusive about God and his purposes, good or bad, is severely undermined. Many philosophers even argue that mysterious God defenses ultimately lead to the complete destruction of moral reasoning!
It's too much like an impudent child stamping his feet and arbitrarily stating that his parents don't love him because they punished him for misbehaving, even though that punishment served a corrective and ultimately positive purpose. It's the application of the Leftist mentality to religion, insisting that the world ought to be a padded nursery wherein no one ever gets hurt and everyone gets what he or she wants and because it isn't, there can't possibly be any good or rational reason for the state of things.
Look, its not about stomping my feet and woefully wailing about the state of the world. I love my life, and I think it rather amazing, to be honest. I'm thankful to be in this world. It just looks like a godless one to me.
-
Are you the best you, you can be or are you the best you, you want to be?
-
Think about the burden this places on the theist... out of any possible universe imaginable, the theist is committed to the belief that THIS one, a universe with such a seemingly over-abundance of natural (and moral) evil, is the best possible world that God could have instantiated in order to accomplish his goals. The bar for that claim is extremely high - almost as high as the bar for the claim that God is incompatible with any evil, full stop. Raising a few potential possibilities (soul building, etc) isnt enough for me. I need strong reasons to actually believe them and to actually believe that gratuitous looking evils in this world are not as they appear to be.
Actually, to most of us theists, at least those of the Christian variety, the best possible universe would be heaven. We of the Catholic persuasion call this world "hoc lacrimarum vale," the vale of tears.
If you consider, again I'm speaking from a strictly Roman Catholic perspective (sorry to my bretheren of other denominations), that "hell" is the absense of the love of God, and Heaven is the state with complete love of God, evil exists in this "universe" where man has chosen to move away from God. That's overly simplified, but there it is.
And I'm not sure what you mean by God's "goals." That's above my pay grade.
-
Actually, to most of us theists, at least those of the Christian variety, the best possible universe would be heaven. We of the Catholic persuasion call this world "hoc lacrimarum vale," the vale of tears.
If you consider, again I'm speaking from a strictly Roman Catholic perspective (sorry to my bretheren of other denominations), that "hell" is the absense of the love of God, and Heaven is the state with complete love of God, evil exists in this "universe" where man has chosen to move away from God. That's overly simplified, but there it is.
And I'm not sure what you mean by God's "goals." That's above my pay grade.
Well, one of God's goals, from the Catholic perspective, might be to create heaven and populate it with people who freely choose salvation.
It may be the case that he needed to create an imperfect world populated it with free beings first, in order to accomplish this goal (aka, the "soul building" response). Otherwise we wouldn't have this world - we'd just have heaven.
The key inference that the POE builds upon is that God would go about this soul building project (or any other goals he may have) while permitting the smallest amount of evil possible.
-
Are you the best you, you can be or are you the best you, you want to be?
I'm pretty sure its impossible for me to be better than I am in the present moment (or for anyone to be better than they are in the present moment). I'm sure most of us have ideals, skills, character, etc that we hope to build or improve upon as time goes by - and at the future moments when we achieve (or fail to achieve) some of those goals, it will still be impossible for us to be better than we are in those moments.... if that makes any sense.
-
I agree that the burden of proof would be upon those who claim, full stop, that the existence of so much evil absolutely disproves the existence of God. A claim like that sets the bar extremely high. But it isn't my position.
My position has been that there are instances of evil which do not seem to be necessary for any greater good, so they probably aren't, and count as evidence against the existence of the theist God. And more than that, its my position that the sheer abundance of it tips the scales in favor of the belief that God does not exist. The bar is much lower here and the stakes are a little different. The argument, if successful, requires one to accept that the existence of God is less likely than the non-existence of God, but not the conclusion that God is impossible.
I see what you mean, but the bolded excerpt is what I have, and once had, trouble with.
The assumption that whatever evils exist in the world, or a select few of them, are probably not necessary is, well, just that - an assumption, and too much of one, for me. Again, we simply don't know and can't be sure that X observable evil is necessary or not, or a part of a given god's plan or not, or what have you. The position many atheists take when they say that evil disproves God is just based on too many narrow assumptions to seem anything more than just plain silly. It's the padded nursery problem, again.
Now, to say that it renders God less likely to exist - that's certainly more reasonable, but either way is based too much on what I cannot fail to see as a very blind and narrow assumption, if you understand.
What is necessary for this world to function isn't really the crux of the problem. An all-powerful being has the power to create any possible world. So its not a matter of asking whether natural evil is necessary for THIS world.. its about asking whether an omnipotent God could have created a world which both accomplished His divine goals, AND contained less (or perhaps even no) natural evil - because If he could have, he would have.
Think about the burden this places on the theist... out of any possible universe imaginable, the theist is committed to the belief that THIS one, a universe with such a seemingly over-abundance of natural (and moral) evil, is the best possible world that God could have instantiated in order to accomplish his goals. The bar for that claim is extremely high - almost as high as the bar for the claim that God is incompatible with any evil, full stop. Raising a few potential possibilities (soul building, etc) isnt enough for me. I need strong reasons to actually believe them and to actually believe that gratuitous looking evils in this world are not as they appear to be.
I used to hold that exact same argument, and stated it many times. And yes, it is puzzling as to why God would permit things to go on as they have, seeing as in all likelihood the universe could be much "better" than what it is.
There are two problems I have with this. First, it goes back to the assumption that God hasn't done anything to lessen the amount and severity of evil in the world. I touched on that before, so you know what I mean.
The second is that perhaps God isn't able to make the world into a paradise/padded nursery, that such an invention would somehow be unable to function. Possibly, God might not be able to create such a thing, for any number of reasons. I suppose we could refer to the question "could God make a rock so big even He couldn't lift it?".
The quote I pasted was meant to address something else. Theists often claim to know all sorts of things about God, His values, His intentions for us and the world. However, they they also tend to claim that He is mysterious and unknowable when certain arguments come up, like the problem of evil. So that seems like a double standard to me.
Also, when one starts relying on the mysterious God defenses, things get difficult for theism really quickly. The ability to say much of anything conclusive about God and his purposes, good or bad, is severely undermined. Many philosophers even argue that mysterious God defenses ultimately lead to the complete destruction of moral reasoning!
The "mysterious God defense" might lead to the destruction of moral reasoning, only if it were applied in such a way as to quash all attempts at pondering God to begin with, I'd think. Otherwise, allowing for a mind and intellect that is highly complex and in all likelihood extremely difficult and maybe even impossible for us humans to fully understand allows in turn for explanations and/or possible explanations of many things, such as evil. That the mind of God might indeed be unknowable certainly doesn't stop anyone from pondering why He has done X or allowed Y and so forth.
I don't think it would lead to a double standard at all, so long as one does not claim to know absolutely the mind of God, or on the other hand claim to know there is no God whatsoever. It is just allowing for the very real possibility that we humans do not know everything there is about the cosmos.
One could also speculate that God has indeed revealed things about Himself, especially if one subscribes to a particular religion, or even if one merely believes that God has used many or even all world religions in order to communicate/try to communicate (given human imperfections and so forth) truths about Himself and/or morality, etc.
Look, its not about stomping my feet and woefully wailing about the state of the world. I love my life, and I think it rather amazing, to be honest. I'm thankful to be in this world. It just looks like a godless one to me.
My apologies if you thought I was stating that about you; it was intended to be about how I view atheist claims in general. The fact that most atheists seem to come from a generally Left-leaning stance is one I find interesting and possibly telling about how they view such spiritual matters as these.
-
I'm pretty sure its impossible for me to be better than I am in the present moment (or for anyone to be better than they are in the present moment). I'm sure most of us have ideals, skills, character, etc that we hope to build or improve upon as time goes by - and at the future moments when we achieve (or fail to achieve) some of those goals, it will still be impossible for us to be better than we are in those moments.... if that makes any sense.
You never once, in your entire cognizant life, ever looked back and said, "That was bad/stupid and I knew better."
-
You never once, in your entire cognizant life, ever looked back and said, "That was bad/stupid and I knew better."
Oh, no I say that all the time :)
But imagine that we could rewind time to that particular moment where I made the mistake and the state of the universe was *exactly* as it was during the original moment, including my knowledge and state of mind.... could I have done better or chosen otherwise? I don't really believe so.
-
Oh, no I say that all the time :)
But imagine that we could rewind time to that particular moment where I made the mistake and the state of the universe was *exactly* as it was during the original moment, including my knowledge and state of mind.... could I have done better or chosen otherwise? I don't really believe so.
Wow! No wonder you're an atheist! You're a god yourself!
-
Wow! No wonder you're an atheist! You're a god yourself!
I'm not sure where that came from :???:
-
Wow! No wonder you're an atheist! You're a god yourself!
I'm not sure where that came from :???:
Probably from right here....
I'm pretty sure its impossible for me to be better than I am in the present moment (or for anyone to be better than they are in the present moment
Personally, I am frequently asking/praying God to help me to be a better person than I am. Now and in the future.
And I am frequently asking for forgiveness for not being a better person.
-
I'm not sure where that came from :???:
I've been alive a long time. I've read the greatest Western (and many Eastern) philosophers. I've never met or read ANYONE who can say this:
I'm pretty sure its impossible for me to be better than I am in the present moment
I think I understand your athesim now. You don't have a need for a greater power. You're it.
That's all I meant.
On edit:
The entire basis of my faith in God is that I'm a broken, flawed individual. Because of Original Sin, all of us are. I don't want to get into a debate with my fellow Christians with the whole grace/good works issue, but bottom line, it is my faith in a higher power that drives me to believe I can do better.
If I believed for a second that I was the epitome of what I could be, I wouldn't have need for faith, either. There may come a time, however, when you have a different experience which leads to an epiphany. It's happened to some pretty big guns out there. St. Paul. St. Augustine. St. Francis of Assisi.
-
I follow Calvin's reformed theology which says that faith is part of the gift of grace. It is the first sign of the new birth and regeneration. It short God gives you faith.
-
I've been alive a long time. I've read the greatest Western (and many Eastern) philosophers. I've never met or read ANYONE who can say this:
I think I understand your athesim now. You don't have a need for a greater power. You're it.
On the contrary it betrays absolute impotence because he has no choice in anything, he will always be exactly what he must be and nothing else. He can neither elevate or debase himself. He is only a machine processing the stimuli of its environment.
-
If god existed and actually cared about us, why would he give children cancer and let millions of us starve to death, among limitless other evils in this world?
To me, god is either A: incompetent, B: is an asshole, or C: just doesn't really give a shit about us, or D: doesn't exist.
Sure, you can make up excuses for this megalomanical tyrant's behavior. But I refuse to follow or pray to some jackass who allows his creations to suffer so much. **** him. And if I burn in hell for it, so be it.
-
If god existed and actually cared about us, why would he give children cancer and let millions of us starve to death, among limitless other evils in this world?
To me, god is either A: incompetent, B: is an asshole, or C: just doesn't really give a shit about us, or D: doesn't exist.
Sure, you can make up excuses for this megalomanical tyrant's behavior. But I refuse to follow or pray to some jackass who allows his creations to suffer so much. **** him. And if I burn in hell for it, so be it.
In THIS particular forum, it would be my suggestion that you read and abide by the rules. No one is particularly interested in your beef with religion. If you would care to contribute to the discussion in a manner which is on-topic......feel free to do so. Otherwise, you are further free to start a topic describing your atheism in an appropriate area.
You have been warned......
doc
-
On the contrary it betrays absolute impotence because he has no choice in anything, he will always be exactly what he must be and nothing else. He can neither elevate or debase himself.
Well, I do think its true that we are exactly what we must be, that is exactly what i was trying to say. Our choices are the products of sensory data fed into our biological machinery, and are completely immersed in the stream of causality. We cannot transcend any of that to be something better than what we are (the products of causality). However, we obviously do continually change and evolve as our machinery grows and changes, and as it interacts with new data.
So, yea - I'm a determinist. The alternative - what most people call free will - I believe, is equivalent to "random will", and quite frankly, leaves one no better off in the "impotence" department. If your choices are not caused by sensory data interacting with the nature of a sentient being, they are random.
He is only a machine processing the stimuli of its environment.
Only!? I say remarkably! Remarkably, you, me, and everyone else are machines that process the stimuli of their environments! I think its absolutely astounding that we are thinking, breathing, living beings made of atoms and molecules.... atoms and molecules (forged from the explosions of stars no less) that somehow managed to gain self-awareness... self-awareness which allows those atoms and molecules to observe their voyage down the causal river.. totally amazing.
I think its rather twisted to believe (as so many do) that living things can only be remarkable if they are mere tools... meat-suits piloted by ethereal specters from another dimension. Try as I might, I can't get why that is supposed to be so great, while atoms and cells and molecules are supposed to be so mundane.
-
Post deleted by moderator due to language not in keeping with forum rules.
Member has been banned......
doc
-
I think its rather twisted to believe (as so many do) that living things can only be remarkable if they are mere tools... meat-suits piloted by ethereal specters from another dimension. Try as I might, I can't get why that is supposed to be so great, while atoms and cells and molecules are supposed to be so mundane.
First of all, plenty of theists have studied cells and molecules in rapt fascination and any cursory study of the history of science demonstrates this to be true.
One would think that anyone claiming to be a materialist based solely on matters of facts would refrain from such shallow indictments.
Secondly, absent ethereal specters your meat-suit is piloted by sub-atomic dominoes tumbling in whatever direction the preceding domino fell.
Excuse me? Who the **** do you think you are...
I'm not a christian so I have no dictator god.
You were asked to not hijack the thread and were invited--INVITED--to start your own thread where you could have whatever temper tantrum you feel is necessary to rail against the immorality of immorality. Yes, it came with an enforcement clause but that is because you appear incapable of even a cursory discussion without first needing to resort to insults and profanity.
If you walk in seeking to insult people don't act the victim when people become insulted.
In sort, stop being a mewling little pusstard puddle of whore dribblings.
-
Excuse me? Who the **** do you think you are you cocksucking little bitch? You don't get to warn me, asshole. Let's look at these "rules" for a bit, that I'm sure Hitler would approve of.
Typical Christians. "My religion is better than yours!", "Oh, but we're good people!", "We're good Americans"!
**** you, and **** your dictator of a god. I hope you and the Muslims all kill each other. I moved to Asia, so I don't care. You all pretend to be good people, but you're a bunch of hypocritical assholes who think they're better than everyone else.
By the way. I was perfectly on topic. You just don't like that I pretty much disproved a benevolent god in less than a paragraph. So, which is it? Are you for free speech, or not? You can't claim to be good, freedom loving Americans, but ban and ridicule people who say things you don't like, all while lying and telling me you approve of "different opinions".
Ban me, you useless, hypocritical ****. Again.
You are just dumber than a bag of hair. Do you know that? Sure you do!
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.politicsdaily.com/media/2009/09/mister-rogers-obama-school-speech.jpg)
But you're special, and that's what counts! :lol:
-
First of all, plenty of theists have studied cells and molecules in rapt fascination and any cursory study of the history of science demonstrates this to be true.
True - but then again, a cursory study of apologetic literature will reveal there are also many who believe that the only thing left is absurdity and despair should there be nothing that transcends the material. But my comment was more generally posed to the set of all people who believe that sort of thing, not all theists. And that set of people even includes a few atheists (like yourself, maybe?).
Secondly, absent ethereal specters your meat-suit is piloted by sub-atomic dominoes tumbling in whatever direction the preceding domino fell.
And ethereal specters will get you what? A will? I don't think so. Whether its a soul or a material mind, you can only play either one of two games: dominoes.... or roulette.
-
And ethereal specters will get you what? A will? I don't think so. Whether its a soul or a material mind, you can only play either one of two games: dominoes.... or roulette.
You mention will then you discount it's existence.
Why?
-
If god existed and actually cared about us, why would he give children cancer and let millions of us starve to death, among limitless other evils in this world?
To me, god is either A: incompetent, B: is an asshole, or C: just doesn't really give a shit about us, or D: doesn't exist.
Sure, you can make up excuses for this megalomanical tyrant's behavior. But I refuse to follow or pray to some jackass who allows his creations to suffer so much. **** him. And if I burn in hell for it, so be it.
Yikes!
I feel so sorry for you.
That's a lot of hate and anxiety right there. Let it go.
-
You mention will then you discount it's existence.
Why?
Most people believe and speak of will in the contra-causal sense. They believe the choices they make could be otherwise and are in some way disconnected from the causality of this universe. Since most people believe in this concept of will, does it mean it is coherent? Not really, in my estimation. One can utter sentences about square circles (and I can even utter sentences back ) but the notion would still be incoherent. Even if most people in the world spoke of, assumed, and acted as if square circles existed, that would still be true.
For some reason most people seem to look upon the mechanizations of deterministic will (called compatibalism) to be dehumanizing and even offensive. But I disagree. I think contra-causal will reduces to pure randomness... hardly something that's more comforting for the integrity of one's choices than causality. At least with causality one has a chance of modifying undesirable future choices with engineered causal factors like social pressure or law. If your choices are random, then these things can have no effect what-so-ever on them.
-
Faith just means "belief". People believe what they want.