20 Sep 12
One of the most popular defences to 'the argument from the existence of evil' is to claim that since we do not know the bigger picture we cannot understand nor judge Gods actions.
However this leads to the inevitable conclusion that we cannot understand nor judge Gods actions. So we cannot know whether any of Gods actions is good or bad by observation.
For those that agree with the above claim, how do you know God is good or just? Is it an article of faith?
How do you know that it is not Satan who is good? After all, without the bigger picture you cannot judge Satans actions either.
20 Sep 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe must start with some belief and have faith that that belief is true to attempt to prove anything logically to ourselves or someone else. The atheist starts with the belief that God does not exist to account for the existence of everything we now know exixts. So they attempt to work backward from what we know exists now to the first thing that ever existed. They can't go very far without running into logical difficulties. Christians use their logic in the opposite direction with the belief that God started it all and inspired some men to write things that we could not know. These are all recorded it the Holy Bible.
One of the most popular defences to 'the argument from the existence of evil' is to claim that since we do not know the bigger picture we cannot understand nor judge Gods actions.
However this leads to the inevitable conclusion that we cannot understand nor judge Gods actions. So we cannot know whether any of Gods actions is good or bad by observation. ...[text shortened]... tan who is good? After all, without the bigger picture you cannot judge Satans actions either.
To be a Christian, one must believe God exists and His goal in creating us was for good rather than evil. An atheist can believe whatever they wish, but they have no way of knowing anything they can't experience in a physical way and they can only guess about what happened in the distant past going back to the beginning.
20 Sep 12
Originally posted by RJHindsSo in other words, you're claiming that the only way to reach the conclusion that god exists is to start with the assumption that he exists?
We must start with some belief and have faith that that belief is true to attempt to prove anything logically to ourselves or someone else. The atheist starts with the belief that God does not exist to account for the existence of everything we now know exixts. So they attempt to work backward from what we know exists now to the first thing that ever exist ...[text shortened]... y and they can only guess about what happened in the distant past going back to the beginning.
Also, atheists don't start with the assumption that god doesn't exist. We start with the assumption that the world is logical.
20 Sep 12
Originally posted by VartiovuoriOh, another liberal spin, that is to be expected. What else have you?
So in other words, you're claiming that the only way to reach the conclusion that god exists is to start with the assumption that he exists?
Also, atheists don't start with the assumption that god doesn't exist. We start with the assumption that the world is logical.
20 Sep 12
Originally posted by RJHindswtf is "liberal" about it?
Oh, another liberal spin, that is to be expected. What else have you?
you just like to label everything you disagree with as "liberal".
here's a new thought for your small conservative brain: how about just labeling stuff you don't like as "stuff you don't like"?
Just say "I disagree". You don't *have* to be insulting about it.
20 Sep 12
Originally posted by RJHindsonce again, you prove that you have failed to see any part of the picture, big or small.
We must start with some belief and have faith that that belief is true to attempt to prove anything logically to ourselves or someone else. The atheist starts with the belief that God does not exist to account for the existence of everything we now know exixts. So they attempt to work backward from what we know exists now to the first thing that ever exist ...[text shortened]... y and they can only guess about what happened in the distant past going back to the beginning.
20 Sep 12
Originally posted by SuzianneWhat is so insulting about telling the truth. Some people are even proud to be a "liberal".
wtf is "liberal" about it?
you just like to label everything you disagree with as "liberal".
here's a new thought for your small conservative brain: how about just labeling stuff you don't like as "stuff you don't like"?
Just say "I disagree". You don't *have* to be insulting about it.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
20 Sep 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis question could be framed as one to be asked in "constructing" a concept of a god -- not just any god, but a god over all, the one source of all that is. Would the concepts of good and evil make sense to apply to it or its actions? Or is it somehow "beyond good and evil" as we know those terms?
One of the most popular defences to 'the argument from the existence of evil' is to claim that since we do not know the bigger picture we cannot understand nor judge Gods actions.
However this leads to the inevitable conclusion that we cannot understand nor judge Gods actions. So we cannot know whether any of Gods actions is good or bad by observation. ...[text shortened]... tan who is good? After all, without the bigger picture you cannot judge Satans actions either.
20 Sep 12
Originally posted by JS357why would it be beyond good and evil? if a being has evolved to a point where it can recognize good and evil actions then such concepts would apply to their actions.
This question could be framed as one to be asked in "constructing" a concept of a god -- not just any god, but a god over all, the one source of all that is. Would the concepts of good and evil make sense to apply to it or its actions? Or is it somehow "beyond good and evil" as we know those terms?
the question should be, can we apply concepts of good and evil to events that can't recognize good and evil actions (such as destructive weather events)?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
21 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI like that way of stating the question. It leads me to think of what I was taught, probably on 10th grade religion class, at a Catholic school. Here is more than what I remember:
why would it be beyond good and evil? if a being has evolved to a point where it can recognize good and evil actions then such concepts would apply to their actions.
the question should be, can we apply concepts of good and evil to events that can't recognize good and evil actions (such as destructive weather events)?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm
"With regard to the nature of evil, it should be observed that evil is of three kinds — physical, moral, and metaphysical. Physical evil includes all that causes harm to man, whether by bodily injury, by thwarting his natural desires, or by preventing the full development of his powers, either in the order of nature directly, or through the various social conditions under which mankind naturally exists. Physical evils directly due to nature are sickness, accident, death, etc. Poverty, oppression, and some forms of disease are instances of evil arising from imperfect social organization. Mental suffering, such as anxiety, disappointment, and remorse, and the limitation of intelligence which prevents humans beings from attaining to the full comprehension of their environment, are congenital forms of evil each vary in character and degree according to natural disposition and social circumstances."
I ask: Who is responsible for these?
21 Sep 12
Originally posted by JS357That is the basic 'problem of Evil' question from my OP.
I ask: Who is responsible for these?
Either God is not all powerful, or he is choosing not to prevent those evils (whether or not he is the direct cause). If he is choosing not to prevent them, then either he is evil, or we are missing the 'bigger picture'.
21 Sep 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadMaybe, God is just lazy like most humans. Laziness seems to be the reason humans don't prevent evil or am I missing the bigger picture?
That is the basic 'problem of Evil' question from my OP.
Either God is not all powerful, or he is choosing not to prevent those evils (whether or not he is the direct cause). If he is choosing not to prevent them, then either he is evil, or we are missing the 'bigger picture'.