3 of 19
3
The Problem of Evil for Unbelievers
Posted: 27 June 2008 11:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
Carstonio - 27 June 2008 02:14 PM
Salt Creek - 27 June 2008 11:52 AM

Whether or not you come to terms with it, you will remain helpless (e.g., to stop an earthquake). What you can come to terms with is that you will never come to terms with it.

I was using “come to terms with” as a metaphor for moving through the stages of the grieving process. Appropriate because we are grieving for the loss of our false feeling of power. I was proposing that religious belief is the first stage.

Well, then, Carstonio, you can use “come to terms with” as a synonym for “moving through a medium”, in a situation where motion never ceases. It ain’t over ‘til it’s over. I wasn’t saying anything different. Reacting to stimuli is reacting to stimuli.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2008 12:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  462
Joined  2006-11-23

You make some good points, Keep the Reason, about saving the disabled and chronically ill becasue they have valauble knwoledge or abilities. I’ve read that even the Nazis gave some talented people with disordered passes and did not sterilize them. It may be with our increasingly global sociaty, the triabl barriers are finally breaking down, and all off us are becoming part of the same group. Racism, tribalism, may be breaking downbecasue humanity as a whole are fast becoming “the group.” However:

Altrusim in animals is very much in evidence.  Apes for instance express grief at death and attmept to sheild other from harm.  Dolphins protect one another, and their young.  Lots of animals protect their young in fact.

Again, the answer to your confusion is to understand that life is successful only when it balances competition with cooperation.  Like others; you only are seeing the competition, and you’re forgetting the cooperation.

Altruism occurs in animals, but it appears to be the exception rather than the rule. Survival partnerships between separate species exist, but they are rare. The grief those apes express is for the loss a group member. Do they ever mourn the loss of apes of another band? About protecting their young, this occurs in almost all mammals and birds. But this is a very obvious survival instinct. The reason it is hardwired into human and animal brains is to ensure the survival of one’s prodigy. We tend to think that a human or even an animal) mother who sacrifices herself for her offspring as very noble. But even rats are capable of the same sentiments, terrible as this may sound. I can even think of human examples where the instinct to protect one’s young has resulted in actions that were anything but noble, but that’s another topic.  The point I’m making here is that this is totally different from caring from individuals outside one’s particular or species.

It would function perfectly fine.  As it is, in the theistic model god did interfere with floods and water parting and columns of fire and ressurections, etc.  The gravity and inertia seems to have worked fine with those interruptions, so it’s a non sequitor quesiton you’re raising.  And of course, the first point stands apart.  god could just as easily have created an existence with both gravity and inertia and all the other laws of physics but without evil.  That evil was created tells us that within the paradigm of this particular theistic worldview, god wants evil.

And in response, now we can ask, “But why?”

This is only one particular theistic model, the Hebrew Yaweh. And he was not fighting evil or portecting the innocent in parting the Red Sea, etc. He was coming to the aid of his own chosen people, the Hebrews. And you could eaisly conclude that the Hebrew God WAS evil, without any refernce to the natural world at all, so the problem of evil is nil.

How would the world function without gravity or inertia? And what do you mean by the term “evil” in this instance? I’m talking here about “natural evil”, the accidents and natrual occrances which result in great human loss and suffering. How could such a world actually “work”, if natural laws did not exist, or were constantly in disruption from a superheroic deity?

 Signature 

...it has to put into the equation: the possibility that there is no God and nothing works for the best. I don’t necessarily subscribe to that view, but I don’t know what I do subscribe to. Why do I have to have a world view? I mean, when I wrote Cujo, I wasn’t even old enough to be president. Maybe when I’m frty or forty-five, but I don’t now. I’m just trying on all these hats.
-Stephen King

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2008 12:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
Tad Trenton’s Ghost - 27 June 2008 04:10 PM

You make some good points, Keep the Reason, about saving the disabled and chronically ill becasue they have valauble knwoledge or abilities.

But that is not typically what we see in our society, is it, TTG? What we see is people who are around purely because they want to be and can afford to be. Wanting to be is a good reason, too, so don’t get me wrong. But don’t obfuscate the issue. They’re around because they can pay for their little walker-mobiles with the oxygen tanks attached. And those who can’t pay for same, well, they suffocate. So fuck you.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2008 12:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1183
Joined  2007-08-07
Tad Trenton’s Ghost - 27 June 2008 04:10 PM

Altruism occurs in animals, but it appears to be the exception rather than the rule.

What’s the difference if it is commonplace or rare?  That it occurs at all stands as evidence that a god and a religion is not needed for altruism to exist, and as you’ve conceded it does exist, we are at an agreement.

The added ingredient to humanity is of course our higher level of sentience that gives us a sense of history and a sense of our “being-ness”.  We can empathize with our fellow creatures, and that emptahy is more developed in the human being.

Survival partnerships between separate species exist, but they are rare.

No that is not true.  Millions of animals have symbiotic relationships and one ensures the survival of the other.  you body is filled with bacteria that live off you and allow you to digest.  Bees pollinate flowers and crops, and in exchange for helping the flowers propagate, the insects receive nectar they use for food.

Rare?  I think you mean “commonplace”.

The grief those apes express is for the loss a group member. Do they ever mourn the loss of apes of another band? About protecting their young, this occurs in almost all mammals and birds. But this is a very obvious survival instinct.

One that is, of course, 100% explainable by the mechanisms of a purely materalistic evoliution.  there is simply no need for a “god” to make this a component of life’s ability to succeed.

The reason it is hardwired into human and animal brains is to ensure the survival of one’s prodigy. We tend to think that a human or even an animal) mother who sacrifices herself for her offspring as very noble. But even rats are capable of the same sentiments, terrible as this may sound.

You are, of course, making my case for me.  Yes, it’s these instincts to survive that rest as the foundation of what we are inclined to label what is “good” and what is “evil”.  Good is what helps us survive and be secure and well fed—and this includes our offspring, immediate family, and peers Evil is what precludes our survival, makes us insecure, and starves or injures us.

But if the survival instinct is explained by a wholly materialistic source, i.e., the survival brought about by a process of evolution, then we have the answer to why we see this in lower animals as well as in higher ones—and, most fully developed in humans, who have the highest level of sentience that we know of.

Ascribing all of this to a god is perfectly fine—providing you can demonstrate that god.  So far, the entire system works perfectly well without the need for the asserted god(s), so I see no reason to complicate the answer with a facet that neither explains it better (indeed, it weakens the explanation severely), and is not even demonstrable and testable anyway.

I can even think of human examples where the instinct to protect one’s young has resulted in actions that were anything but noble, but that’s another topic.  The point I’m making here is that this is totally different from caring from individuals outside one’s particular or species.

What would suffice to prove it to you then?  You have analogous examples, and you have examples that are similar in nature, but not in degree, and you even have a sliding scale that indicates the higher the sentience, the more complex is the moral standards applied—and you simply sweep that away and say, “it’s totally different”.

No, it is not “totally different”—it is the same altrusim in both cases, and it’s the same grief, the same competition, and the same cooperation seen in both humans and other animals.

This is only one particular theistic model, the Hebrew Yaweh.

It doesn’t much matter which god is selected, providing some elements of a “supernatural realm” was invoked.  It’s at that point that the train jumps the tracks, because invoking an unknown and unknowable divine realm to supply answers to questions of a known and knowable realm is counter-productive to gaining knowledge.  you’re just adding mud to clear water in order to try to clear the water up.

And he was not fighting evil or portecting the innocent in parting the Red Sea, etc. He was coming to the aid of his own chosen people, the Hebrews. And you could eaisly conclude that the Hebrew God WAS evil, without any refernce to the natural world at all, so the problem of evil is nil.

He didn’t just part the waters, he slammed them shut on the Egyptians as well.  And if I can conclude the Hebrew god was evil, I fail to see how that makes the problem of evil “nil”.

[ Edited: 27 June 2008 01:25 PM by Keep The Reason]
 Signature 

Faith-free since 1985

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2008 01:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1183
Joined  2007-08-07
clayforHim648 - 26 June 2008 10:59 PM

1.  The inability for the atheist to define “evil” proves my point that the criticism of the Christian worldview using “the problem of evil” or theodicy is thrown out.

If the atheist cannot give a meaningful definition for evil, or simply throws evil out altogether, then the problem of evil cannot be used as an argument to show logical inconsistency when it comes to God’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

 

Come on, Clay—this absolutely does not follow.  We can easily argue the points that theism raises without being somehow obligated to believe in the points theism raises.

But there is no problem with defining evil from the atheistic viewpoint at all.  We agree that evil is evil—when it occurs, it is absolute.  What we don’t agree with is that morality is absolute, and the two are not synonymous.  For instance, I can cite an example of the act of a slaveowner owning another person is undeniably evil—that is an absolute.  But was it immoral in 1770 in the colonies?  No, it was not immoral because the morality of the time did not generally recognize the evil of slavery.

2.  However, I think this dodging of the word “evil” is simply semantics.

Another strawman argument.  you ask for a definition, we give it, it’s different from the definition you’d like to embrace, and hence we are “dodging” it?  No, we are not dodging it.  We recognize evil as what it is—the act of utter selfishness by an indivdual or individuals without caring how it might affect anyone else—that is generally what is evil.  That is a perfectly accurate and meaningful definition of “evil”. 

But it’s the theists who have an utterly meaningless definition of evil because it is they who says the source material (god) is outside of the nature of himself, and it is they who continually blur the definitions.  We reasonists do not do any such thing.

If god drowns the world, as the mythology purports, we recognize this as an act of evil.  Consciously, premditatively, and purposely drowning people in pain and fear is an act of evil.  The End.  No argument.  It is evil.  Period.

God does it—and you exempt him from it.

Who has no meaningful definition of evil again?

God spurs Joshua on to countless seiges of cities full of people—and men, women and children are put to the sword.  Children murdered en masse?  Whatever for?  We reasonists recognize this as evil because it’s an act of utter selfishness (they wanted the land) without regard to the desires, feelings, or needs of others—particularly children.

What does the theist do with this blatantly obvious example of hideous evil?  He justifies these heinous acts of murder and slaughter, emptying the context of “good” and “Evil” of all meaning because he wants god’s acts to be good when they are good, and good when they are evil.

Who has no meaningful definition of evil again?

Regardless of whether you call something evil, or wrong, or rotten, the atheist seems conflicted logically when it comes to holding a relativistic viewpoint but acting as if objective morality really exists.

Ah, you’re conflating evil with morality again.  This is not a logical inconsistency on our part, it’s a strawman misunderstanding on your part.  There is no illogic or inconsistency to the naturalistic viewpoint at all, since what is good and what is evil is easily defined. 

As Bruce summed up in his last post, without God, there is no such thing as wrong/right, evil/good, there’s just a (seemingly) endless series of events…just stuff that happens.

Bruce is wrong as well.  As a thinking, feeling human being, I can judge when things happen to me or others as balanced to benefit all concerned, or unjust and unfairly burdening or harming one party (or parties) against another.  While the univesre is apparently a stream of events (we don’t know if its endless or not), those events that have impact on us positively or negatively are the context in which we understand them as right or wrong, good or evil.

Speaking of what ought to be, or what should be, makes no sense from the atheists perspective.

In order for life to be happy and secure for us as evolved beings, we seek both the happiness and the security with a foundation of natural existence as our provable template.  If our happiness and security is threatened, we seek to change the circumstance we find ourselves in.  To that end, the “oughts” and “shoulds” allow us to recognize how to change an injustice, without which we would simply be reactive to any and all circumstances that come our way.  Again—why the need for a god for this?  An animal is hungry, it needs to feed (it “ought to be” or “should be” sated, not hungry) and thus seeks out to change the circumstances to alleviate its hunger.  It may not consciously think this, but humans certainly do it.

I know this for a fact: I’m hungry right now and I should be / ought to be sated, so I am going to change my circumstances right now—with malice aforethought, and go get me a sandwich.

[ Edited: 27 June 2008 03:02 PM by Keep The Reason]
 Signature 

Faith-free since 1985

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2008 02:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  765
Joined  2006-08-16
clayforHim648 - 26 June 2008 10:59 PM

The inability for the atheist to define “evil” proves my point that the criticism of the Christian worldview using “the problem of evil” or theodicy is thrown out.  If the atheist cannot give a meaningful definition for evil, or simply throws evil out altogether, then the problem of evil cannot be used as an argument to show logical inconsistency when it comes to God’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

The atheist does not have to define “evil” because the theist already has. The logical inconsistency comes from the theist’s belief that their God defines what is “evil” but is apparently powerless to prevent it despite being omnipotent and omnibenevolent. How the atheist may define “evil” is irrelevant to the discussion.

 Signature 

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire

“Rational arguments do not work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people.”—Dr. House

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2008 03:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  892
Joined  2007-12-04

As Bruce summed up in his last post, without God, there is no such thing as wrong/right, evil/good, there’s just a (seemingly) endless series of events…just stuff that happens.  Speaking of what ought to be, or what should be, makes no sense from the atheists perspective.

Why do we need right and wrong, or good and evil in the first place? You seem so sure that these are soo important and yet I am not sure you’ve actually thought it through.

In a god created universe, right and wrong is still incredibly arbitrary. Because its just what the creator decided is right and wrong. No debate, just thats it.
Its just the same as if there was a physical law of right. Outside of traffic that is..

Why is that right, better than no right at all?

You can surely talk about what “should” and “ought” to be as an atheist, its just constrained to opinion however.

Incidentally, this is exactly what Christians do anyway. Subjectively decide what is right and wrong by interpreting the word of god.

If you people actually followed the directives of your god, the world would be a lot worse off. So much for the improvement of mankind through those rules.

Indeed, everything is a chain of events, stuff that just happens. Although it happens because self aware beings take voluntary actions, not because the history of the universe has been dictated by skydaddy.

I’m perfectly fine with there being no right/wrong, good/evil. I have found out that I can live a productive life, in a functioning society without telling myself that there are universal truths to human behaviour.

I’m more curious as to why you actually think that its important that there is a right and wrong. What does it matter? Unless you stone your children to death for talking back to you, you are just a hippocrite. Speaking of divine right, without actually practicing it.

 Signature 

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2008 03:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  777
Joined  2007-09-16

Come on, Clay—this absolutely does not follow.  We can easily argue the points that theism raises without being somehow obligated to believe in the points theism raises.

 

I still disagree and will continue to disagree.  If the problem of evil is truly a logical problem for theists (according to the unbelievers argument), then it is crucial that the unbeliever assert that there is evil in the world.  Now some here have said that evil doesn’t really exist, or something to that effect.  If that’s the case, then there is nothing inconsistent with Christian theology and the argument is thrown out.  Here is a more visual example of the supposed dilemma:

1.  God is completely good
2.  God is completely powerful

These two premises exist without contradiction.  But add this:

3.  Evil exists (happens)

So, we have to at least agree that evil exists in order to claim a logical inconsistency within the Christian worldview.  If evil does not exist or is utterly ambiguous, then there is no logical inconsistency.

Now some, including you Reason, have said that certain things are indeed evil.  Generally people here seem to condone some sort of consequential understanding of evil (or goodness).  An action or trait may be describe as good if it achieves a positive end, like the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people with the smallest amount of cost to others (added from your earlier post).  Again, I will reiterate what I said earlier, that our minds are too finite to possibly fathom the outcomes of actions to determine what indeed is the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people with the smallest amount of cost to others.  But setting that aside, here’s the real kicker, and for this I’ll use a quote:

”...more devastating is the observation that good may be taken to be whatever promotes general happiness only if it is antecedently the case that generalized happiness is itself “good.” Any theory of ethics which focuses on the goodness of achieving a certain end (or consequence) will make sense only if it can establish that the chosen end (or consequence) is a good one to pursue and promote. Instrumental theories of goodness eventually must address the issue of intrinsic goodness, so that they can correctly determine what their goals ought to be.”

Sorry I got a little sidetracked there on morality…which is a great discussion I still want to have.  But the argument from evil is only meaningful if the unbeliever can meaningfully show that evil indeed exists.  Many here have already said they don’t believe it exists at all.

 Signature 

“If you desire to be good, begin by believing that you are wicked.” -Epictetus

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2008 03:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02

What is the definition of evil that Christians can agree on?

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2008 03:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  892
Joined  2007-12-04
clayforHim648 - 27 June 2008 07:47 PM

Now some here have said that evil doesn’t really exist, or something to that effect.  If that’s the case, then there is nothing inconsistent with Christian theology and the argument is thrown out.

No its not. You are missing the point, we would need to postulate two universes. Either one without a god, or one that is indeed created by the Christian god.

The Christian doctrine itself declares the existance of evil. Hence if your god exists, so does evil. Hence the problem of evil needs to be adressed.

If you on the other hand if there is no god, then there is no evil either except as a word, a vague point of reference.

There is no problem of evil to a godless world, there is a problem of evil to a godmade world.

You still need to explain evil if you are going to stick with the Christian doctrine. Ofcourse if you abandon that particular faith, the problem of evil will not bother you anymore. I suggest the latter alternative.

 Signature 

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2008 04:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02

I do not want to steal the thread. I just want to say that Unbeliever’s mastery of the English language is better than that of most native speakers I know. I speak two other languages but would not be able to converse nearly so clearly or eloquently.

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2008 04:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1183
Joined  2007-08-07
clayforHim648 - 27 June 2008 07:47 PM

I still disagree and will continue to disagree.  If the problem of evil is truly a logical problem for theists (according to the unbelievers argument), then it is crucial that the unbeliever assert that there is evil in the world.

There is evil in the world.  And we as the arbiters of goodness and evil can attest to its validity.  The injustice of Hitler’s plan for self-aggrandizement is a patent evil.

Now some here have said that evil doesn’t really exist, or something to that effect.  If that’s the case,

It’s not the case.  Assertions are meaningless; evidence supports the contention.  Acts that qualify as “evil” do exist.  A man who rapes and slowly tortures a child to death is committing an evil act, in the here and now.  There is no need for a god to define this as an evil act, because the selfishness of the act, the suffering it causes, and the insecurity a world peopled with such murderers would irreparably harm the species ability to survive.

then there is nothing inconsistent with Christian theology and the argument is thrown out.

There is no need to postulate a supernatural divinity in the equation—it’s not needed.  We have analogous behaviors wherein animals completely unaware of any sort of god(s) function within the context of competition and cooperation, and life has been successful because of it.  I can demonstrate this, whereas you can not demonstrate your divine entity at all.  Evidence trumps assertion.

Here is a more visual example of the supposed dilemma:

1.  God is completely good
2.  God is completely powerful

These two premises exist without contradiction.  But add this:

3.  Evil exists (happens)

So, we have to at least agree that evil exists in order to claim a logical inconsistency within the Christian worldview. If evil does not exist or is utterly ambiguous, then there is no logical inconsistency.

Why should I grant you #1 and #2?  Maybe god is partly good, and partly powerful.  I know what you are asserting, and I know what the bible asserts, but demonstrate its truthfulness.  you cannot do it.  However, I can demonstrate that qualification of good and evil acts do exist both in humans and in animals (sometimes, animals do cruel and nasty things just to do them).  Once more, my demonstrable evidence will trump your mere assertion.

I don’t assume the attributes you simply accept as true for your god(s), because no case have been or can be made that your assumptions are accurate.

Again, I will reiterate what I said earlier, that our minds are too finite to possibly fathom the outcomes of actions to determine what indeed is the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people with the smallest amount of cost to others.

I heartily disagree.  I know some concentration camp surviors who were tortured mercilessly and they can attest to the suffering they experienced.  You don’t need an infinite mind to comprehend the pain and suffering of 6 million people being led into gas chambers, unless you’re of a deeply diminished empathy.

But setting that aside, here’s the real kicker, and for this I’ll use a quote:

”...more devastating is the observation that good may be taken to be whatever promotes general happiness only if it is antecedently the case that generalized happiness is itself “good.” Any theory of ethics which focuses on the goodness of achieving a certain end (or consequence) will make sense only if it can establish that the chosen end (or consequence) is a good one to pursue and promote. Instrumental theories of goodness eventually must address the issue of intrinsic goodness, so that they can correctly determine what their goals ought to be.”

Asking “Is happiness intrinsically good?” is a subjective issue that each of us can attest to.  I doubt you will find anyone who would claim that when they feel happy they are feeling something detrimental.  Of course, it’s important to take all facets of the construct into consideration, and not just one aspect of it. Happiness in and of itself can be good, or it can be bad.  Hitler’s happiness was dervied by conquest and genocide; this did not make happiness “good” (which is why I define goodness as a triangle of elements that need to be in place, noted above).

Asserting a god—which is merely a human assertion—does nothing to answer that question, because one cannot demonstrate if it is true or not.  you will always go around in circles on that one issue alone.  Meanwhile, I cxan start a poll and ask people to relate to you immediately whether or not they feel good when happy, or is happiness somehow not a good thing.

Sorry I got a little sidetracked there on morality…which is a great discussion I still want to have.  But the argument from evil is only meaningful if the unbeliever can meaningfully show that evil indeed exists.  Many here have already said they don’t believe it exists at all.

They are asserting as well.  I would ask them to justify the assertion by explaining how certain behaviors are not evil in nature and intent.  If they were the victims of a vivisectionist who got sexual satisfaction by performing surgery on them without anesthesia, but who also made sure to take all precautions to maximize the period of time in which your torment was allowed to endure, I would wonder what could possibly stand as evil if not that.

 Signature 

Faith-free since 1985

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2008 05:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  777
Joined  2007-09-16

Again you’re completely missing the point.

Theists assert the presence of an omnibenevolent god, and thus along with that assertion is the assertion of evil.

The question of evil is a logic puzzle designed to aid theists in examining the relationship between omnibenevolence and the presence of evil in the world.  (The presence of evil that they assert.)

If you, as a christian, assert the existence of god, one corollary to that assertion is the presence of evil in the universe.
If you, as a christian, assert that your god is omnibenevolent, yet maintain the position that there is evil in the universe, your position creates the conundrum that has been labeled “The Problem of Evil”.

It is the christian assertion that manufactures the problem.  Thus the christian should take responsibility for explaining this problem that results from their assertion.

Hint: IF no theist ever claimed that god was omnibenevolent, and further no theist made claims that evil exists in the universe, the Problem would evaporate

Sigh…

HINT:  The theist, based on his/her worldview, does not see an inconsistency with God’s omnibenevolence and the existence of evil…the Christian worldview accounts for both!  The atheist sees the problem from evil as some kind of burden on the theist to explain…I simply showed that the burden of evil is on the atheist. 

You can keep trying to turn this back around on me…I can give you an answer.  But that’s not the point of this post and just once, I wanted to actually address a question to the atheist and put the burden on them for an answer. 

More on this later

 Signature 

“If you desire to be good, begin by believing that you are wicked.” -Epictetus

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2008 05:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  777
Joined  2007-09-16

Totally off-topic but…

Does anyone here like Radiohead?  Man, I am lovin the “OK Computer” album right now!  I’ve heard at least half of the album before (Paranoid Android has always been one of my favs) but I finally bought the whole thing.  Its simply some of the best music I’ve ever heard

 Signature 

“If you desire to be good, begin by believing that you are wicked.” -Epictetus

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2008 06:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  777
Joined  2007-09-16

Jefe, do we really have to debate semantics all day long? 

Firstly:  there is no unified “christian worldview”.  There is a presuppositional abstraction that is labeled “christian worldview” that is used as a position of common authority from which to launch this redirect.  (prove me wrong…i invite it.)

There is no unified “atheist worldview” either, we work with what we’ve got.  Addressing the presuppositions of belief systems seems to be a great place to start with conversations of life, existence, reality, religion, etc. etc.  What would YOU suggest I do? 

Secondly: The problem of evil results from theists making claims about the universe that they wish to apply to non-theists (to varying degrees).
(Specifically that god is omnibenevolent, and that evil exists.)

Christians answer the “problem of evil” in a number of different ways.  Bahnsen proposed that not only is evil NOT a problem for the believer, but that the atheist has a bigger problem because they can’t even give a meaningful explanation for evil in the first place. 

My answer to the problem of evil is similar to most Christians (at least the ones I’ve talked to and know of)...that is simply that God has a reason for the suffering and evil in His Creation. 

Thirdly: Non-theists, not being generally disposed to accept extraordinary claims without first validating them, have pointed out the “Problem of Evil” as a conundrum in the validation of the claims made by theists.  (This problem wouldn’t even exist without the claims made by theists.)[

quote]

Again its only a conundrum in the mind of the unbeliever, not the believer.  If I say:

1.  God is all-good
2.  God is all-powerful
3.  Evil exists, and
4.  God has a perfectly good (morally sufficient) reason (or reasonS) for evil and suffering that exists…

then there is no logical contradiction to be found. 

Then don’t ask nonsensical questions?  (Or better, don’t build up an artificial position from which to launch a deflection of responsibility for a question that is manufactured specifically by claims mad by your own position.)

Answering questions with questions is a very effective way of pointing out logical inconsistencies.  You, Jefe, have done nothing to answer my questions…only made unrelated statements about presuppositions and made up positions. 

Oh I know.  Sooner or Later.  You’ll banter for a while, then get tired and post something along the lines of “Nothing new here”.  (I figure we get about 3 more posts from you in this topic…) Then you’ll skulk around for a few months or so and then dust off this tired apologetic once more hoping you’ll get to have an “I told you so” moment with some posters who are less familiar with presup nonsense.

Yes, at some point I will get tired of banging my head against the wall and arguing semantics.  Who wouldn’t?

 Signature 

“If you desire to be good, begin by believing that you are wicked.” -Epictetus

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 19
3
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed