- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
13 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ckoh1965In view of the spiritual facts, we may conclude that God's plan had the potential for evil when he bestowed on humans the freedom of choice, but the actual origin of evil came as the result of a man who directed his will away from God and towards his own selfish desires.
Fair enough. But if the so-called good angel who turned bad was the problem in the first place, why not remove that problem? Why was that bad angel allowed to be in Paradise to seduce Eve? God should have banished Satan from the very beginning. Instead, he punished those who ate the apples. And if that's not enough, all the descendents are also punished. I e has sinned. But to say she has sinned even now, it's just too hard for me to swallow.
The fact that humans used God-given free choice to disobey God did not take God by surprise. C.S. Lewis suggests that God in his omniscience "saw that from the a world of free creatures, even though they fell, he could work out a deeper happiness and a fuller splendor than any world of automata would admit." Or as Geisler has put it so well, the theist does not have to claim that our present world is the best of all possible worlds, but it is the way to the best possible world:
"If God is to both preserve freedom and defeat evil, then this is the best way to do it. Freedom is preserved in that each person makes his own free choice to determine his destiny. Evil is overcome in that, once those who reject God are separated from the others, the decisions of all are made permanent. Those who reject God are in eternal quarantine and cannot upset the perfect world that has to come about. The ultimate goal of a perfect world with free creatures will have been achieved, but the way to get there requires that those who abuse their freedom be cast out." (Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 73)
In view of the facts, the existence of evil in the world is seen to be compatible with the existence of an all-good and all-powerful God.
1. If God is all-good, he will defeat evil.
2. If God is all-powerful, he can defeat evil.
3. Evil is not yet defeated.
4. Therefore, God can and will one day defeat evil.
One day in the future, Christ will return, strip away power from the wicked, and hold all men and women accountable for the things they did during their time on earth (see Matthew 25:31-46; Revelation 20:11-15). Justice will ultimately prevail. Those who enter without having trusted in Jesus Christ for salvation will understand just how effectively God has dealt with the problem of evil.
Even though God’s ultimate solution to the problem of evil awaits the future, God has even now taken steps to ensure that evil doesn't run amok. Indeed, God has given us human government to withstand lawlessness (see Romans 13:1-7). God founded the church to be a light in the midst of the darkness, to strengthen God's people, and even to help restrain the growth of wickedness in the world through the power of the Holy Spirit (e.g., Acts 16:5; 1 Timothy 3:15). In his Word God has given us a moral standard to guide us and keep us on the right path. (See Psalm 119). He has given us the family unit to bring stability to society, (e.g. Proverbs 22:15; 23:13). And much more!
With regards to your daughter, God will only hold her responsible when she is old enough to be responsible for her own actions, and if she willfully rejects the ways of God.
13 Sep 06
3 edits
Originally posted by dj2becker1. If God is all-good, he will defeat evil.
In view of the spiritual facts, we may conclude that God's plan had the potential for evil when he bestowed on humans the freedom of choice, but the actual origin of evil came as the result of a man who directed his will away from God and towards his own selfish desires.
The fact that humans used God-given free choice to disobey God did not take God by ough to be responsible for her own actions, and if she willfully rejects the ways of God.
2. If God is all-powerful, he can defeat evil.
3. Evil is not yet defeated.
4. Therefore, God can and will one day defeat evil
This argument isn't even logically valid. 4 does not logically follow from 1,2, and 3.
Besides, doesn't being "all-good" entail that, as allowed by his abilities and cognitive faculties, God always acts in accordance with the greater good? Isn't that a bit more stringent than the claim that he "will defeat evil" (whatever that means)?
One more question: So God would even defeat evil that is logically necessary for the greater good (if any such evil does exist)? 😲
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by ckoh1965It is true that God the Creator could by Himself destroy Satan. But He has set up a triangular situation in which the Creator will not unilaterally do so without the harmony of another creature. God wants another creature to echo His will and be in harmony with His will.
Fair enough. But if the so-called good angel who turned bad was the problem in the first place, why not remove that problem? Why was that bad angel allowed to be in Paradise to seduce Eve? God should have banished Satan from the very beginning. Instead, he punished those who ate the apples. And if that's not enough, all the descendents are also punished. I ...[text shortened]... e has sinned. But to say she has sinned even now, it's just too hard for me to swallow.
Consider this verse:
"Thus says Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel and the One who formed him, Ask Me about the things to come concerning My sons, And concerning the works of My hands, command Me." (Isa. 45:11)
Here God longs that His sons would even give Him the command to act out His will. He wants man to be in harmony with Him, echoing His desire.
Actually when man was created the Devil already had a judgment and pre-history. Satan laucnched a pre-emptive attack against this new creature man to save himself from ultimate judgment.
Once there were two wills in the universe God established a triangle situation with God, Satan, and man in between. Rather than God unilaterally destroy Satan, He created another creature man, to be in harmony with His plan. God would let the Creator fight alone with the creature. God would let the new creature be the defeat of the old creature in harmony with the will of the Creator.
Man was place before the tree of life. This tree represents the eternal purpose of God imparting His life into man to be in union with man. Adam under seducement took in the other source, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This brought man instead in union with Satan God's enemy.
But God cannot be defeated and we know that God the Creator in conjunction with the saved man the creature, together in harmony will be the final destruction of Satan. And the ONE WILL will return to the uiniverse. We all really long for the one will of God.
But mostly I want you to see that God as the Creator would not battle the creature Satan alone. He wants the creature man to echo His divine will, be in harmony with the divine will, and even command God concerning the works of His hands. He wants a group of saved people to abide in Him and He in them in harmony and cooperation:
"If you abide in Me and My words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you. In this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so you will be My disciples" (John 15:7,8)
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloThis argument isn't even logically valid. 4 does not logically follow from 1,2, and 3.
[b]1. If God is all-good, he will defeat evil.
2. If God is all-powerful, he can defeat evil.
3. Evil is not yet defeated.
4. Therefore, God can and will one day defeat evil
This argument isn't even logically valid. 4 does not logically follow from 1,2, and 3.
Besides, doesn't being "all-good" entail that, as allowed by his abilities and cog evil that is logically necessary for the greater good (if any such evil does exist)? 😲[/b]
Please explain.
Besides, doesn't being "all-good" entail that, as allowed by his abilities and cognitive faculties, God always acts in accordance with the greater good? Isn't that a bit more stringent than the claim that he "will defeat evil" (whatever that means)?
Your question evokes a moral law. Who is your moral lawgiver?
God will have to be the moral lawgiver of the moral law that you are using, since you cannot exclude him from the paradigm when discussing his actions.
Thus I fail to see your point.
One more question: So God would even defeat evil that is logically necessary for the greater good (if any such evil does exist)? 😲
Again your question assumes a moral law.
God will have to be the moral lawgiver of the moral law that you are using, since you cannot exclude him from the paradigm when discussing his actions. Is it therefore not God who decides what is necessary for the greater good?
Once again, I fail to see the point that you are trying to make.
14 Sep 06
1 edit
Because I made a typo I have to correct it.
THIS: "God would let the Creator fight alone with the creature."
WAS SUPPOSE TO BE THIS: "God would NOT let the Creator fight alone with the creature."
God would not let the Creator Himself fight alone with the rebellious creature Satan.
He created a triangular situation so that God awaits the cooperation and coordination of another creature to help Him deal with the rebellious creature Satan.
God has His will. But He desires man on the earth to echo His will and request His will. We even saw that He wanted His sons to command Him concerning His will.
All of this points to God wanting humanity to be in coordination and harmony with Him in the final execution of Satan.
He will not unilaterally destroy the source of death and rebellion by Himself alone. Creator will not battle creature alone. Creator will only battle creature with the cooperation of the replacement creature man.
14 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerPlease explain.
This argument isn't even logically valid. 4 does not logically follow from 1,2, and 3.
Please explain.
Besides, doesn't being "all-good" entail that, as allowed by his abilities and cognitive faculties, God always acts in accordance with the greater good? Isn't that a bit more stringent than the claim that he "will defeat evil" (whatever for the greater good?
Once again, I fail to see the point that you are trying to make.
Well, your argument is of the form
1. If P1, then Q1.
2. If P2, then Q2.
3. P3
4. Therefore, Q1 and Q2.
That's not a logically valid conclusion. It could be logically valid if you had another premise, like
3'. P1 and P2,
or if P3 logically entailed P1 and P2 (which it doesn't in this case).
Of course, before we discuss anything meaningfully, you may have to explain to me what the propositional content of the phrase "X will/can defeat evil" is.
Is it therefore not God who decides what is necessary for the greater good?
No, not by any reasonable ethical theory.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Sep 06
3 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloWell, your argument is of the form
[b]Please explain.
Well, your argument is of the form
1. If P1, then Q1.
2. If P2, then Q2.
3. P3
4. Therefore, Q1 and Q2.
That's not a logically valid conclusion. It could be logically valid if you had another premise, like
3'. P1 and P2,
or if P3 logically entailed P1 and P2 (which it doesn't in this case).
Of course, before w es what is necessary for the greater good?[/b]
No, not by any reasonable ethical theory.[/b]
1. If P1, then Q1.
2. If P2, then Q2.
3. P3
4. Therefore, Q1 and Q2.
I disagree. I think this is a better reflection of the logic I was using:
1. If God is P1, then Q1 will happen.
2. If God is P2, then Q2 will happen.
3. But, Q1 and Q2 has not yet happened.
4. Therefore, Q1 and Q2 will still happen.
Which premise do you reject and why?
No, not by any reasonable ethical theory.
You have to remember that God needs to remain within the paradigm when you are evaluating his actions. You cannot simply exclude him from the picture as you seem to be doing.
Just one question for you: Do you believe that 'evil' exists, and how do you personally differentiate between 'right' and 'wrong'?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RedPhoenixSo you believe that you are the product of time, matter, and chance?
The God didn't create human... But human created the God in his mind...
I live a muslim country but I don't belive in islam or any religon...
Time is relative, matter is relative, chance is also relative, therefore 'truth' must also be relative.
So do you believe in 'relative' truth?
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by dj2becker1. If God is P1, then Q1 will happen.
[b]Well, your argument is of the form
1. If P1, then Q1.
2. If P2, then Q2.
3. P3
4. Therefore, Q1 and Q2.
I disagree. I think this is a better reflection of the logic I was using:
1. If God is P1, then Q1 will happen.
2. If God is P2, then Q2 will happen.
3. But, Q1 and Q2 has not yet happened.
4. Therefore, Q1 and Q2 will still happen ...[text shortened]... e that 'evil' exists, and how do you personally differentiate between 'right' and 'wrong'?[/b]
2. If God is P2, then Q2 will happen.
3. But, Q1 and Q2 has not yet happened.
4. Therefore, Q1 and Q2 will still happen.
This is NOT logically valid. Why even bother discussing whether the premises are true or false when the conclusion does not even logically follow from the premises? I'm not sure how else to explain this simple concept to you. But "Q" does not logically follow from "If P, then Q". You need another premise -- namely "P".
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloO.K. I think I get your point.
[b]1. If God is P1, then Q1 will happen.
2. If God is P2, then Q2 will happen.
3. But, Q1 and Q2 has not yet happened.
4. Therefore, Q1 and Q2 will still happen.
This is NOT logically valid. Why even bother discussing whether the premises are true or false when the conclusion does not even logically follow from the premises? I'm not sure how " does not logically follow from "If P, then Q". You need another premise -- namely "P".[/b]
Is that better?
1. If God is all-good, he will defeat evil.
2. If God is all-powerful, he can defeat evil.
3. An all-powerful and all-good God does not need to defeat evil immediately.
4. Evil is not yet defeated.
5. Therefore, God can and will one day defeat evil sometime in the future.
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo, that's not logically valid either. But I guess in fairness, we could say that the extra premises you need (that God is all-good; that God is all-powerful) could be contained in your definition of 'God'.
O.K. I think I get your point.
Is that better?
1. If God is all-good, he will defeat evil.
2. If God is all-powerful, he can defeat evil.
3. An all-powerful and all-good God does not need to defeat evil immediately.
4. Evil is not yet defeated.
5. Therefore, God can and will one day defeat evil sometime in the future.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 Sep 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloWould you be so kind as to explain what else is missing from the equation, if God is used as a priori?
No, that's not logically valid either. But I guess in fairness, we could say that the extra premises you need (that God is all-good; that God is all-powerful) could be contained in your definition of 'God'.
15 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RedPhoenixDo you think it is possible that God does exist but man has embellished the truth with many additional imaginations?
The God didn't create human... But human created the God in his mind...
I live a muslim country but I don't belive in islam or any religon...
Do you see the difference between man creating something altogether in his imagination and man adding his own ideas to something that does exist?