DNGAF about Atheist Problem of Evil?

[Kenny]

Do you care about the atheist argument against God known as the problem of evil? Essentially it asserts that their can’t be an all knowing, all benevolent, and all loving God you if He allows suffering and evil to exist?

I find that atheist generally use this argument but don’t really seek an answer. Obviously there are some who really want to see other answers.

As a Christian, i have no problem reconciling the differences that being that the earth was man’s as a gift and that it was man who opened the proverbial Pandora's box.

IMV, love requires a choice.

Imo as a theist I don’t have to care if I can move onto endless bliss and salvation. I am perfectly satisfied enough, I would be a gluten when it comes time to help people with the maximally, and I just need to be happy.

Nice.

 

[Kenny]

To ask 'Why does God allow the innocent to suffer?' is to ask the wrong question, imo. After all is said and done, not all questions have answers.

Those are pretty good statements and, indeed, not all questions have answers, Although asking questions is still good.

A better question might be, 'What can I do to alleviate the suffering of others?'

Nice. Isn’t that the fast that God asked for? Alleviate the burdens and correct the wrongs. (Isaiah 58:6)

To ask that and to act on it, is I believe, to do the will of God

Sounds good to me.

 

[shunyadragon]

The suffering of the innocent is the most powerful argument against the existence of God. Incredible acts of love are the greatest argument in favor of the existence of God.

Both can be simply a natural expression of the nature of being human regardless of whether God exists or not. Though it is a good argument against ancient tribal religion's belief in the nature of evil. The problem is compounded by the belief Adam and Eve caused the sin, suffering and evil in the world by very fallible human First Sin.

From the view that the nature of human spiritual reality is not physical suffering in Creation.

 

[shunyadragon]

I find that atheist generally use this argument but don’t really seek an answer. Obviously there are some who really want to see other answers.

I believe it is justified by atheists that the Christian Theist arguments for the justification of evil as in Fall and First Sin in the mythical explanation of evil, pain and suffering on the world

As a Christian, i have no problem reconciling the differences that being that the earth was man’s as a gift and that it was man who opened the proverbial Pandora's box.

True that you justify your beliefs, but your argument is very circular.

 

[Kenny]

I believe it is justified by atheists that the Christian Theist arguments for the justification of evil as in Fall and First Sin in the mythical explanation of evil, pain and suffering on the world

Yes.. .I have no problem with other viewpoints - everyone feels justified in their own minds… that is understandable and includes me. You probably feel justified since your position is “mythical”.

True that you justify your beliefs, but your argument is very circular.

I think this statement is circular in that you equally justify your beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes.. .I have no problem with other viewpoints - everyone feels justified in their own minds… that is understandable and includes me. You probably feel justified since your position is “mythical”.

I think this statement is circular in that you equally justify your beliefs.

This has nothing to with my beliefs. The problem is the justification of evil . . .

I believe it is justified by atheists that the Christian Theist arguments for the justification of evil as in Fall and First Sin in the mythical explanation of evil, pain and suffering on the world.

Myth: Myth - Google Search

a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

 

[Kenny]

This has nothing to with my beliefs. The problem is the justification of evil . . .

I believe it is justified by atheists that the Christian Theist arguments for the justification of evil as in Fall and First Sin in the mythical explanation of evil, pain and suffering on the world.

Myth: Myth - Google Search

A site isn’t evidence for me nor is a definition as presented by another person in as much as definitions change over time.


Myth - General sense of "untrue story, rumor, imaginary or fictitious object or individual" is from 1840.

 

[shunyadragon]

A site isn’t evidence for me nor is a definition as presented by another person in as much as definitions change over time.


Myth - General sense of "untrue story, rumor, imaginary or fictitious object or individual" is from 1840.

OK definition it id a bit incomplete. The mid-19th century is the time the Pentateuch was a later compilation containing ancient mythology, and not a literal historical record, Yes, the Creation myth of Genesis evolved From Sumerian, Babylonian, and Canaanite/ Phoenician myths, The Hebrew culture, language and Creation myths reflect they evolved as a Canaanite tribe, these myths are common to all the ancient cultures of the world. Today they are replaced by our knowledge of science and history.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do you care about the atheist argument against God known as the problem of evil? Essentially it asserts that their can’t be an all knowing, all benevolent, and all loving God you if He allows suffering and evil to exist? Imo as a theist I don’t have to care if I can move onto endless bliss and salvation. I am perfectly satisfied enough, I would be a gluten when it comes time to help people with the maximally, and I just need to be happy.

Well....
Perhaps the God you believe in is all knowing, all benevolent and all loving, but isn't omnipotent.
That ameliorates the problem of evil somewhat.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

My problem with the argument of suffering against God is that ending God and Heaven would create a great deal of darkness, it’s just making a bad problem worse.

I mean...arguments don't change reality. They merely allow us to try and understand it, and challenge our own beliefs.
No one can 'end God and Heaven' nor 'create' it.

It's more about seeing whether someones beliefs are consistent and coherent.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

People who don't care about viable arguments that challenge their beliefs are intellectually careless at best.

Indeed. And limiting their own opportunities for growth.

 

[zach-harris]

No one can 'end God and Heaven' nor 'create' it.

Zues and his realm no longer exists. How did that happen? Did your god end it? Or did we humans?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Zues and his realm no longer exists. How did that happen? Did your god end it? Or did we humans?

My God?
When did this forum grow so polarised that people assume @Jayhawker Soule is an atheist or that I am not based on us not automatically jumping to some parody version of our 'side' in a discussion?

I'm an atheist, in case that is unclear.

Now, to restate what I said...do you think human argument impacts on the reality of Heaven existing or otherwise?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I find that atheist generally use this argument but don’t really seek an answer. Obviously there are some who really want to see other answers.

As a Christian, i have no problem reconciling the differences that being that the earth was man’s as a gift and that it was man who opened the proverbial Pandora's box.

IMV, love requires a choice.

Nice.

We've spoken enough that I think/hope you'd see me as honest in my arguments, for all our differences.

Three quick ones from my perspective, combination of points and clarifications.

1) To me, the problem is more accurately stated as the problem of suffering than evil, per se
2) It's only a problem for certain conceptions of God/s. Certainly not all.
3) Assuming those make sense, it's not evil men, acting under free will and causing harm that seems problematic. Nor is it good meaning men causing harm. Moreso it is undirected suffering of innocents...and suffering related to nature if you believe in a fully involved designer, as opposed to God as a catalyst for evolution or something.

 

[zach-harris]

Sorry lew, I'm new here.

do you think human argument impacts on the reality of Heaven existing or otherwise?

Reality/the universe doesn't give a dam what we think.

 

[Kenny]

Thank you for a very friendly and thoughtful response

We've spoken enough that I think/hope you'd see me as honest in my arguments, for all our differences.

Yes.

In the answering of the thoughts below, I understand the validity of your positions and the difficulty in the addressing of the same.

Three quick ones from my perspective, combination of points and clarifications.

1) To me, the problem is more accurately stated as the problem of suffering than evil, per se
2) It's only a problem for certain conceptions of God/s. Certainly not all.
3) Assuming those make sense, it's not evil men, acting under free will and causing harm that seems problematic. Nor is it good meaning men causing harm. Moreso it is undirected suffering of innocents...and suffering related to nature if you believe in a fully involved designer, as opposed to God as a catalyst for evolution or something.

Can one answer such deep questions in such a way that there is never a doubt in the readers mind? I don’t think one can.

IMV, it just ends up being just what one believes to be true. If I believe something to be true and, supposing, it is absolutely true, I don’t think that translates into that the hearer or reader accepts it as truth and questions with doubts can and will still remain. Additionally, who then establishes what is true? And thus the question “What is truth” by Pilates as he asked the one who said, “I am... the truth…"

So all I can present is simply my thought process as each person has to come to their own conclusion.

For me, the process of aging is an enigma. We basically produce a new you in 80-100 days by replacing the cells of our bodies. If our cells are replaced, what is the genesis of the deterioration of our bodies?

Obviously my paradigm for life and living rests in what I have learned in the Bible. I simply believe that from the beginning, we were suppose to have unending life. That it was the separation from the God of life, that man chose, that opened the door to suffering which included the suffering of the innocent. Like cells that multiply again and again and in that process they loose its original strength, that is what happened over time. Mankind lived for centuries but as the reproduction process continued, man’s lifespan continued to grow less and less. The suffering of the innocent increased as time went on (although it has increased mainly because of what man has done to our environment and what we do through what we ingest).

I believe God never intended suffering but man chose his own way in a path away from God and opened the proverbial Pandora’s Box.

Fast forward to Jesus who said that he only expressed the perfect will of God… thus, on the suffering of the innocent: (My paraphrased) “He was not born blind because of his own sin or that of his parents but to show the power of God at work, we must carry on the work of him who sent me while the daylight lasts. Night is coming, when no one can work. I am the world’s light as long as I am in it.”

A man born blind. Innocent suffering - no fault of anyone. The response from Jesus, ergo God, is to eliminate the suffering. His sight was restored again.

Again, obviously this is just my viewpoint and probably raises more questions than answers and remains my viewpoint and understanding. Ultimately, though, still the result of man’s decisions and not of because of original design.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Thank you for a very friendly and thoughtful response





Yes.

In the answering of the thoughts below, I understand the validity of your positions and the difficulty in the addressing of the same.



Can one answer such deep questions in such a way that there is never a doubt in the readers mind? I don’t think one can.

IMV, it just ends up being just what one believes to be true. If I believe something to be true and, supposing, it is absolutely true, I don’t think that translates into that the hearer or reader accepts it as truth and questions with doubts can and will still remain. Additionally, who then establishes what is true? And thus the question “What is truth” by Pilates as he asked the one who said, “I am... the truth…"

So all I can present is simply my thought process as each person has to come to their own conclusion.

For me, the process of aging is an enigma. We basically produce a new you in 80-100 days by replacing the cells of our bodies. If our cells are replaced, what is the genesis of the deterioration of our bodies?

Obviously my paradigm for life and living rests in what I have learned in the Bible. I simply believe that from the beginning, we were suppose to have unending life. That it was the separation from the God of life, that man chose, that opened the door to suffering which included the suffering of the innocent. Like cells that multiply again and again and in that process they loose its original strength, that is what happened over time. Mankind lived for centuries but as the reproduction process continued, man’s lifespan continued to grow less and less. The suffering of the innocent increased as time went on (although it has increased mainly because of what man has done to our environment and what we do through what we ingest).

I believe God never intended suffering but man chose his own way in a path away from God and opened the proverbial Pandora’s Box.

Fast forward to Jesus who said that he only expressed the perfect will of God… thus, on the suffering of the innocent: (My paraphrased) “He was not born blind because of his own sin or that of his parents but to show the power of God at work, we must carry on the work of him who sent me while the daylight lasts. Night is coming, when no one can work. I am the world’s light as long as I am in it.”

A man born blind. Innocent suffering - no fault of anyone. The response from Jesus, ergo God, is to eliminate the suffering. His sight was restored again.

Again, obviously this is just my viewpoint and probably raises more questions than answers and remains my viewpoint and understanding. Ultimately, though, still the result of man’s decisions and not of because of original design.

Hey mate,

Thanks for taking some time and outlining that.
I agree, ultimately, that this is all just us humans thinking out loud, and we all need to draw our own conclusions. Atheism isn't an answer to why there is suffering in any case, except more to say 'why not?'

No need to hash this out, as we are both pretty comfortable where we sit, but one thing I've never quite been clear on around the design and suffering points I made was more around the non-human animal kingdom. So, for example, why does the hyena give via a narrow, clitoral birth canal which commonly causes her first litter to suffocate and be still born? Why does the emerald cockroach wasp need to paralyze a live host to lay it's eggs in, that same host eventually being consumed by the larvae.
These are not questions of evil.

It might be that you simply don't see this as meaningful suffering, or you think the fall of man impacted, or you're simply unsure. I'm not even asking you to justify it, to be honest. But these are things I look at, and struggle to think of a perfect, all-powerful and benevolent God being actively involved.

That's without getting into more human suffering, like crack babies, or similar, where I can clearly see human agency, or various other birth defects where I cannot. To me, it smacks of an imperfect process, which makes more sense for an evolved process than a designed one.

(To be clear, I don't think any of this speaks to whether God exists. Moreso the potential nature and investment of that God.)

 

[Kenny]

Hey mate,

Thanks for taking some time and outlining that.
I agree, ultimately, that this is all just us humans thinking out loud, and we all need to draw our own conclusions. Atheism isn't an answer to why there is suffering in any case, except more to say 'why not?'

No need to hash this out, as we are both pretty comfortable where we sit, but one thing I've never quite been clear on around the design and suffering points I made was more around the non-human animal kingdom. So, for example, why does the hyena give via a narrow, clitoral birth canal which commonly causes her first litter to suffocate and be still born? Why does the emerald cockroach wasp need to paralyze a live host to lay it's eggs in, that same host eventually being consumed by the larvae.
These are not questions of evil.

It might be that you simply don't see this as meaningful suffering, or you think the fall of man impacted, or you're simply unsure. I'm not even asking you to justify it, to be honest. But these are things I look at, and struggle to think of a perfect, all-powerful and benevolent God being actively involved.

That's without getting into more human suffering, like crack babies, or similar, where I can clearly see human agency, or various other birth defects where I cannot. To me, it smacks of an imperfect process, which makes more sense for an evolved process than a designed one.

(To be clear, I don't think any of this speaks to whether God exists. Moreso the potential nature and investment of that God.)

Hear you and understand.

I consider the following about the future and then ask the question...

Is 11: 6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Question: Was the hyena originally created to case her first litter to suffocate? Was the lion carnivorous from the beginning? et al? Is it the original design?

Or are they the deterioration of the original design to be corrected in the time to come.

Anyway… that’s my view.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

OK definition it id a bit incomplete. The mid-19th century is the time the Pentateuch was a later compilation containing ancient mythology, and not a literal historical record, Yes, the Creation myth of Genesis evolved From Sumerian, Babylonian, and Canaanite/ Phoenician myths, The Hebrew culture, language and Creation myths reflect they evolved as a Canaanite tribe, these myths are common to all the ancient cultures of the world. Today they are replaced by our knowledge of science and history.

Science is just one tool for studying myths.

Science doesn’t replace myths.

That’s not the role of science.

Science is respectful towards myths in my experience.

(This has not been every culture’s experience, but then, I know next to nothing about most cultures of the world, and I’m constantly amazed at just how smart some people are that they know everything about everything.)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The suffering of the innocent is the most powerful argument against the existence of God. Incredible acts of love are the greatest argument in favor of the existence of God.

The reason why God has allowed bad things to happen:

Why does it seem that God never intervenes in Human Suffering

Are you daft? This is hell. Must be your attitude, my life is pretty sweet!

www.religiousforums.com