Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Fooj]

Actually, that one was a really good point. The Problem of Evil. It's already been mentioned in this thread. Do you believe in God ?

I'm not going to bring my own faith into this, it's polite not to on the internet.

As for evil, Eastern Philosophy has that covered. The ole Yin Yang stuff. "Good" and "Evil" both dependent on each other, and both part of the same. Simply, there wouldn't be white without black.

Epicurus

Annoys me. His logic only works with a "flat" world perspective on "good" and "evil". Once you realize bad things exist with a purpose, his whole thing falls apart.

Furthermore, it makes me doubt the intelligence of God. He emphasizes that they must not, under any circumstances, eat from that tree. Had he built a wall around it, or not even created the tree at all, this disaster wouldn't have happened.

Ever consider he did that on purpose? If he wanted humans to have free will and he'd done it directly then we'd all be bitching to him about how it kind of sucks. The way he did it, we've ourselves to blame and we blame the half of it we don't like on the snake too. It's the way I would have done it. Else everyone would be like the OP, bitching that there's things he doesn't like and it's God's fault therefore he rejects God. I think very few would be obedient.

I actually think it was the smartest approach if you were to give an animal higher intelligence.

[Leafsnail]

Annoys me. His logic only works with a "flat" world perspective on "good" and "evil". Once you realize bad things exist with a purpose, his whole thing falls apart.

I don't really get what you mean.  What is the purpose of, for instance, a worm that burrows into children's eyes?  Or uncurable genetic diseases that kill people before adulthood?  Or disorders that cause compulsive self mutilation?

To be honest, I think saying "All evil has a purpose" is a huge copout.

[Enzo]

Keep it civil, guys

Why, good show. That's bound to work. It's not as though we have a precedent for ridiculous and spiteful arguments on this exact subject or anything.

[Realmfighter]

There is no such thing as "Good" or "Evil".

They are word. They have no meaning in till you give them one.

Everyone's meaning of words is different.

[Fooj]

I don't really get what you mean.  What is the purpose of, for instance, a worm that burrows into children's eyes?  Or uncurable genetic diseases that kill people before adulthood?  Or disorders that cause compulsive self mutilation?

The point of them is to suck balls. That's exactly what they do. If there was nothing that sucked, there'd be nothing that was awesome either. That's the idea behind it.

Lets say you have some paper for drawing. There's red and blue paint. If there was only red paint on the paper, it's effectively monochrome. There's effectively no red or blue if it's monochrome, as in the color doesn't even really matter at that point because there's no contrast. You could be doing it in greyscale or green or yellow at that point. Additionally, because there's opposite ends of a spectrum, you've a wide range of choices to exercise your free will with. If there was only red or only blue paint, then you'd have no free will over the colors you use.

And most people don't like the red paint. Well, tough shit was always my stance on that. I like having the options it provides.

To be honest, I think saying "All evil has a purpose" is a huge copout.

Hey don't blame me.... or Western Culture.

[Leafsnail]

The point of them is to suck balls. That's exactly what they do. If there was nothing that sucked, there'd be nothing that was awesome either. That's the idea behind it.

But why would he inflict horrible diseases on some people just so others could enjoy their lives more (something I'd dispute - personally, the suffering of others depresses me greatly).

And most people don't like the red paint. Well, tough shit was always my stance on that. I like having the options it provides.

Again - would you be ok being the one with the "red paint"?  Would you mind being the boy who dies of cystic fibrosis age 20?

I'm not saying that a prospective God should've created a perfect world, but He certainly could've dealt out suffering in a fairer way that doesn't totally screw some innocent people and massively reward some guilty people.

[Strife26]

Good has no purpose without evil. Man has no purpose without evil to combat.

That's my normal answer to the question of evil.


I'm not sure how smart it is for me to enter this conversation, but there it is.

[Cyx]

Well, I've always thought the yin-yang thing was bullshit. God doesn't need evil to see good, does he ? God knows good when he sees it and evil when he sees it. Plus, God is only made of good and nothing else "compensates" him to make him real or whatever. Doesn't stop him from existing, does it ?

We don't even need unhappiness to appreciate happiness, or pain to appreciate pleasure : we are either happy or unhappy. We can never actually compare them with one another ; it's the memory and knowledge of unhappiness that makes us appreciate happiness truly. Why not simply make sure we never forget what the minus side is like, instead of making us pointlessly and chaotically experience it throughout our whole lives without any kind of justice or logic ?

The only reason we need suffering to appreciate life is because God made us so. I mean, it's not like it would be impossible for him to give us his ability for knowing what is good or what isn't : it would certainly prevent a whole lot of suffering.
Or if you want ; God created everything ever. If there is suffering, God created suffering. If there is a need for suffering... guess who created it ?

[Strife26]

We don't even need unhappiness to appreciate happiness, or pain to appreciate pleasure : we are either happy or unhappy. We can never actually compare them with one another ; it's the memory and knowledge of unhappiness that makes us appreciate happiness truly. Why not simply make sure we never forget what the minus side is like, instead of making us pointlessly and chaotically experience it throughout our whole lives without any kind of justice or logic ?

To give us something to strive for: justice and logic.



Neither memory nor knowledge last long enough.

Any chance you could clear up some of the negatives in the last paragraph? I'm guessing you mean that it is possible for God to although us the knowledge of what is good. But isn't the knowledge of good and evil what caused the fall of man? With no knowledge (the heart of nature), man is good. If you explain good, then you must explain evil . . .

[Cthulhu]

The legitimate-but-somewhat-copoutish response to the question of evil is that God, being an omniscient being, probably sees angles of the situation that humans can't.  Isn't Jesus supposed to act as something of an intermediary between us and God?  Maybe the part of God that created evil and did various things we see as cruel is very distant emotionally from humans and does things we can't understand, and the part of the God that incarnated as Jesus is the part with compassion and forgiveness.

[Leafsnail]

The legitimate-but-somewhat-copoutish response to the question of evil is that God, being an omniscient being, probably sees angles of the situation that humans can't.  Isn't Jesus supposed to act as something of an intermediary between us and God?  Maybe the part of God that created evil and did various things we see as cruel is very distant emotionally from humans and does things we can't understand, and the part of the God that incarnated as Jesus is the part with compassion and forgiveness.

For some reason this made me think of Portal, and accidentally killing the morality centre.

[Cyx]

I'll answer paragraph by paragraph.

Well, but why is it so necessary for you to have a fight to fight ? God doesn't strive for, he creates. Striving is suffering, isn't it ? Only thing it would be good for is give us the strength to face evil which shouldn't be here in the first place. You're kind of justifying the need for suffering (evil in the world) by the need for suffering (something to fight for).

Neither memory nor knowledge last long enough because God made us so goddamn forgetful. It's easy, isn't it ? You create something so stupid and inherently driven to evil and violence that it cannot help itself but be violent and evil sometimes, then when the thing messes up, it's his fault ? Anyway, my question was : if everything could have been made better by giving us a better memory, why not that rather than tornadoes and hurricanes ? Seems simpler to me.

And precisely, that's what's bugging me in the idea. God has knowledge, yet is good. What persuaded him to make us without the ability to be good and have knowledge ? What were his motives ?

[Grek]

I am going to have to agree with Leafsnail and say that "All evil has a purpose" is not a answer useful or valid answer to the problem of evil.

God, as described in the Bible is omnipotent. If someone asks "Can the Biblical God do [action]?", than the answer is "Yes" regardless of what the action is. Even if answering "Yes" to a question would contridict a previous question, the answer is still "Yes".

This, definitionally, means that the Biblical God, as described, must be capable of creating a world without suffering but with distinguishable joy and that the existance of happiness is not contigent on the existance of suffering.

This leaves us with four solutions: Reject the claim that the Biblical God is not incapable of creating a world without suffering (and therefore reject or make an exception to the claim of the Biblical God's omnipotence), Accept the claim that the Biblical God intends for there to be suffering for the sake of suffering to exist, Reject the claim that suffering exists OR Reject the claim that the Biblical God exists. One or more of these premises must be untrue; it is not possible that all of them are true.

[Ampersand]

Working on a fairly length post... in the meantime,

Keep it civil, guys

edit: OK!

(Which is disproven by the fact it takes 3 as π)

At least know the verse when you say this...

1 Kings 7:23 (New International Version)

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

Here's a link for the whole chapter in NIV translation: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Kings+7&version=NIV  If you have a different version you prefer, by all means share it.  Anyway, notice the italized words describe the measurements differently.  It doesn't use the word 'exactly' for the ten cubits and five cubits, but certainly doesn't use a non-specific term to describe those measurments.  Then notice that it's different for the circumference of the Sea; a 29.XXX... cubit circle would in fact "take" a 30th cubit to measure around it but would not be 30 cubits.

Pi is a ratio between two numbers and is always the same no matter what the units used are. It doesn't matter if I say 1 inch, one foot, one centimeter, or one cubit. For any diameter divided by the circumference, the will always be Pi. But anyway I like how you try to disprove a claim of biblical error with a quote that says that the sea is a bowl made out of cast metal.

By eating the fruit and knowing what is good and what is bad, the human has gained free will and, more importantly?, the ability to make moral decisions.
In doing so, however, they have lost their innocence, the innocence of being an animal. No longer can we do something claiming it is natural, because always, we can decide if we want to do it and also choose a less evil way, which we not always do.

Choosing to eat the fruit at all would be a moral decision.  God told them not to, and they did it anyway.

Genesis 2:15-16
5 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

You and some friends go on a camping trip.  You bring someone who's an expert on the plants, animals and other such of the area you're going to.  You set up camp, then the expert points out a bush of delicious looking berries.  "Whatever you do, don't eat those berries there.  They will kill you."  Most people would follow his advice.  Sure you could move the campsite somewhere else, but really, your group probably consists of people who are more than capable of making sensible decisions and wouldn't eat those berries.

I think you're confusing morality with obedience. Let me ask you a question. Is something right because God says it's right, or does God say it because it's right? It cannot be both. If it is the former, then there is no such thing as right and wrong under christian morality, only the dictates of an arbitrary god. If it is the latter, Morality does not require a god.

Furthermore, it makes me doubt the intelligence of God. He emphasizes that they must not, under any circumstances, eat from that tree. Had he built a wall around it, or not even created the tree at all, this disaster wouldn't have happened.
Also, he created the humans. Shouldn't he have known that the human is naturally curious, or that the snake is treacherous and wrong? Is he not omniscient after all?

God being omniscient would not stop him from planting the tree.  He would know full well that they would do that, but would let them do it because it would be their decision.  Sure, Adam and Eve weren't told the full list of consequences from eating that fruit, but God himself telling them they would die should have been enough.  In my example above, a fellow human being saying the same thing is enough.  Or is it?  Maybe you never met the expert until the day of the trip.  Sure he acts very professional, but anyone can do that.  Besides, you've been camping, you've read the books, you know a decent thing or two... in fact your friends know that too. 

Why would your friends hire this guy to tell you what you already know?  Would your friends even waste the money to hire a real expert anyway?  Maybe he's really a fraud, he's sure been a big jerk the whole time, acting like he knew every plant and tree along the way.  He didn't even say how poisonous those berries were, maybe they're actually safe to eat and exeedingly delicious, but he and your friends don't want you have to any because there's not enough for everyone.  Maybe you could try one... maybe smell it first, a little taste, if it tastes bad then just throw it away or make yourself throw up.  Just a little taste won't hurt, right?  After all, if it turns out that you're right and he's wrong, then you're even better than the train expert.

Hopefully that example was good enough.  Adam and Eve were tempted, not forced.  People can be tempted, but inevitably, it's their choice to say, spiral down to obesity when a walk every day and some dieting would improve their lives.  Here's Genesis 3.  Read what the snake said... closely.  His question in verse 1 has a huge exaggeration, then follows up with a half truth.  Yes her eyes would be opened, and she wouldn't die immediately, just eventually.  If God had never put the tree there, Adam and Eve would proabably try to find another way to rebel.

I really hope you're not trying to claim that the story of Adam and Eve is literally true. Discussing in in a serious way really doesn't make any sense at all.

More importantly, however, God curses us from then on. Women must give birth under great pain and we must forever work for our food. It has been mutliple millenia since. This makes me doubt the good-will, kindness and love God has for us, shall he exist. Were any of us there when they picked the fruit, were we born when they made that fatal decision? Is this just?

True, that is not just.  I'm personally irked about the Tiger Woods scandal for example.  I'm pretty sure many Americans have secret girlfriends/boyfriends in addition to their spouses, have cheated several times, but then they turn around and get on Tiger Wood's back for doing the same thing.  It's also unfair that the (American economy anyway) took a dive because of the bad decisions of a few (at least, that's what people say, they all seem to blame each other really), and it's unfair when people die of an easily curable disease in a civilized country just because their health care filed the wrong paperwork.  But those few people had a choice, they could do the right thing or do what would only benefit them and hurt others.
And this is my personal belief, but I believe anyone could have taken Adam and Eve's place and would have eventually done the same thing.  /Christian_doctrine Everyone sins, in different ways of course, but we believe that every time we, as people, as humans, sin, it reaffirms that we would have done the same thing many times over.

Again, equating disobeying to crime. But I think what Dwarf was getting at is that Punishing the child for the crimes of the father is not only stupid, but downright disgustingly evil.

But then, there are a lot of accident related deaths. Car crashes, failing bolts, ropes snapping, you name it. These make no differences between Christians and Atheists or people of other religions, do they?
Why does God not prevent such accidents, which nobody is really guilty of?
There was a recent example of a mudslide in Italy - even the church was destroyed.
Is God so cold-hearted and cruel he eradicates an entire village to show us we're not believing enough?
Why does he not send a very much clearer message, like speaking to all villagers?

/nitpick For car crashes, I recall the words of my driving instructor, who was a police officer: "We don't call them accidents, we call them collisions.  They aren't accidents, collisions happen because someone wasn't obeying the rules of the road."  I stand by what he said, it makes a lot of logical sense.  If an accident occured when everyone was following the rules... then the rules need to be changed before someone else gets hurt.
And I thought nobody was hurt during that mudslide?  Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong one.  The destruction of a church is no biggie for Christians really, sure it's a surprise, but we just move on... it's just another building.  Hard to say if natural disasters are directly from God, nature taking its course, or humans being neglectful of nature.

So then god is perfectly able to prevent babies from being killed by natural disasters, but is unwilling.

Speaking to people and their interaction, another interesting subject.
In the Old Testament, God was very active. He spoke to people in person, whilst in the New Testament, God is already much less active, up to today, where there's nothing at all.

Nothing at all for you, that is.  Christians report miracles all the time, revelations all the time, nobody believes us of course.  Even people who say "I"ll believe if I see a miracle," then I tell them about miracles I've seen firsthand, and they still don't believe.  I couldn't produce scientific proof on the spot though, there's certainly medical records that could prove it... I just don't have access to them.

Anecdotal evidence isn't. They said 'I'll believe if I SEE a miracle', not if you tell them about ones you think you saw. In every case of so called miracles people have claimed to me, I have investigated and found flaw, errors in logic, misunderstanding of probabilities, equating the unlikely with the impossible. You know what would be really weird? If coincidences never happened. There are 6.5 billion people in the world. Some of them are bound to get occasionally lucky.

In the Old Testament, God is cruel and unforgiving. There is a story in which one wants to count the population of Israel. Because God wants not that his people are counted, he kills 120'000, making the census wrong. He also let the man live, so he may be mocked.

Quit making me work so hard

tl;dr version: If you're going to talk about specific events in the Bible, at least know the verses involved...

Protip: If you're feeling the need to rationally and critically explain your faith, then you've missed the point of faith entirely.

Blind faith maybe.  I don't have blind faith in God, I have personal proof and faith that makes up my faith :O

Your personal proof may be good enough for you, and I'll accept that, because I don't know what it is, but do not presume that it is good enough for anyone else.

[Jude]

About the "sea" being made out of cast metal, it's not talking about the ocean, it's talking about this basin that was in the temple, hence why Sea was capitalized. Anyway, the fact that they measured pi as 3 doesn't mean they didn't build a big metal bowl, it just meant they sucked at math.

There are better biblical contradictions than that, although again, if you view it as literature and in the historical context, it makes more sense. Again, look at what I said about Batman. The stories of the patriarchs are probably a melding together of the founding myths of the various Hebrew tribes, giving them a coherent story that they could unite behind.

Anyway, the problem of evil fails to disprove God just like all other attempted logical arguments. A human understanding of evil is necessarily flawed since God's understanding is by definition more expansive than ours. After all, the suffering and happiness of this life could be insignificant compared to eternity, right? It could be as unreal as a TV sitcom compared to REAL reality. Or as transient as a toddler crying because of not getting a toy he wants.

There's a perfectly good reason to not believe in God, and that's because there has never been a single shred of empirical evidence that God exists. None of the logical no-God arguments work, but they aren't necessary anyway. IMO this makes agnosticism the most defensible, scientific position on the matter,  since "atheist" implies certainty. of course a lot of atheists would disagree