Special Pleading and the Problem of Evil

[F1fan]

One point I was just pondering about theists who think their God exists and will make a child suffer, and perhaps die, for some test or higher purpose. I said of a poster that his moral freedom is limited if he thinks his God justifies killing little children for some unknown purpose. What would the believer think of this sort of God if it justifies these acts, wouldn't the believer be wary of this God since it wouldn't think twice about killing a believer that challenges it?

This moral dilemma just compounds, and the believer is paralyzed from having any serious and sober question about God's judgment.

 

[F1fan]

Yes. A child's life may well have ended up worse if they continued to live it. Have you thought of that? There is so much you don't know.

If an omnipotent God knows this why bother letting it being implanted in the uterus, born, lived to a degree that parents and family become attracted and committed, and then kill it thought a painful disease?

It's the Rube Goldberg of God's Justice.

And let's not ignore that many millions of adults have suffered brutal life experiences, and were not taken out early to help them. So your suggestion really doesn't work, does it?

 

[74x12]

You said you trust God.

After other posters brought up the example of God killing children with cancer to "test" the child's parents, you said you trust that God is doing the right thing.

... by killing children.

Then, in order to have a context where this wouldn't be automatically monstrous, you created a fantasy about zombies.

As God kills children, you trust and don't question. You're sure that killing children must be for the best somehow.

Oh, I got your point.

Even my analogy was about perceptions and literally nothing else. Yet you just want to focus on the analogy itself without attacking the substance. You seem too preoccupied with other people's points and arguments to give mine serious consideration.

My whole argument was about perceptions and how some people understand they can be wrong because perceptions are limited by our own momentary discernment and so they choose to trust someone they know regardless of transient perceptions. You on the other hand don't know God and so of course you don't trust God. I get that. But where you're wrong is to not admit that perceptions can and often are mistaken. The reason is not important even though you keep emphasizing the apparent reason.

But how you change my point into something else is a clear example of mistaken perceptions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see the irony.

Did I say "irony?"

Just pointing out how theodicy - like much of apologetics - generally ends up trying to explain why God would act in a way that is perfectly consistent with him not existing at all.

 

[F1fan]

My whole argument was about perceptions and how some people understand they can be wrong because perceptions are limited by our own momentary discernment and so they choose to trust someone they know regardless of transient perceptions. You on the other hand don't know God and so of course you don't trust God.

Hold on a minute, Gods aren't known to exist. No mortal human can demonstrate they know any God exists, nor that they know any of the many gods in human history. And how do you propose someone who can't confirm a God (which is everybody) exists TRUST a God?

I get that. But where you're wrong is to not admit that perceptions can and often are mistaken. The reason is not important even though you keep emphasizing the apparent reason.

Yet you show no humility to the likelihood that your perceptions that self-verify your God existing isn't flawed. So you're demanding others apply something that you don't. This is special pleading as brought up in the opening post. You can't have it both ways.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even my analogy was about perceptions and literally nothing else. Yet you just want to focus on the analogy itself without attacking the substance. You seem too preoccupied with other people's points and arguments to give mine serious consideration.

My whole argument was about perceptions and how some people understand they can be wrong because perceptions are limited by our own momentary discernment and so they choose to trust someone they know regardless of transient perceptions. You on the other hand don't know God and so of course you don't trust God. I get that. But where you're wrong is to not admit that perceptions can and often are mistaken. The reason is not important even though you keep emphasizing the apparent reason.

But how you change my point into something else is a clear example of mistaken perceptions.

So is your perception of God as good a "transient" perception? If not, how do you know it isn't?

 

[blü 2]

What about a parent who consents to having a child undergo painful but life-saving surgery which the child does not understand?

How is that an analogy for an educated adult human?

Isn't this argument about why God never says nor does but always sits on [his] hands and watches the innocent suffer and die?

And isn't the answer, either that God is partly malevolent, as it says in

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.​

or more credibly that there's no God there, just a shared story?

 

[viole]

Im curious. What do you mean by this question? You mean this "being" is the standard. That means this beings own morality is the standard, not the proposal. Is that right?

Yes, like when theists say that God is good. Some also say He is the standard for morality. Basically, tautologies. Since whatever He does, it is always good and just.

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Yes. A child's life may well have ended up worse if they continued to live it. Have you thought of that? There is so much you don't know.

So, why didn’t baby Hitler get a cancer?

you are saying now that it was not a test, but a sort of preventive killing. But why do not simple cause an immediate miscarriage, or prevent fecundation altogether?

and of course we don’t know. But if you are intellectually consistent, then you should be agnostic, or a deist, or a believer in an amoral god, .and not a Muslim (assuming it is safe for you) since you don’t know if your God, or any other god, exists and is moral. It is too easy to use “we don’t know” only when we cannot answer embarrassing questions.

ciao

- viole

 

[firedragon]

Yes, like when theists say that God is good. Some also say He is the standard for morality. Basically, tautologies. Since whatever He does, it is always good and just.

ciao

- viole

Right. So now I understand you. Thanks for that.

You are addressing someones argument. I think that's fine. But have you thought about a flip side? IF God exists, his morality or ethics is only assumed by human beings. All humans can actually know are figure out is what God has outlined for humans in part of general. Making God the standard is illogical. Because we simply cannot know.

 

[viole]

Right. So now I understand you. Thanks for that.

You are addressing someones argument. I think that's fine. But have you thought about a flip side? IF God exists, his morality or ethics is only assumed by human beings. All humans can actually know are figure out is what God has outlined for humans in part of general. Making God the standard is illogical. Because we simply cannot know.

Well, of course it depends on whom you ask. For instance, I am currently debating a Christian who believes in divine command theory. Which has the consequence of rendering things like « God is good » mere tautologies.

Actually, he maintains the Bible is the standard. A sort of manual that also logically justifies objective moral statements. You know, that book that mandated the stoning of rebellious children, and ripping pregnant women apart, if they are not your neighbors.

but then, again, didn’t we cause a huge cosmic drama by acquiring that knowledge of good and evil? Or was it all for the cat, as they say in Germany?

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Right. So now I understand you. Thanks for that.

You are addressing someones argument. I think that's fine. But have you thought about a flip side? IF God exists, his morality or ethics is only assumed by human beings. All humans can actually know are figure out is what God has outlined for humans in part of general. Making God the standard is illogical. Because we simply cannot know.

Well, of course it depends on whom you ask. For instance, I am currently debating a Christian who believes in divine command theory. Which has the consequence of rendering things like « God is good » mere tautologies.

Actually, he maintains the Bible is the standard. A sort of manual that also logically justifies objective moral statements. You know, that book that mandated the stoning of rebellious children, and ripping pregnant women apart, if they are not your neighbors.

but then, again, didn’t we cause a huge cosmic drama by acquiring that knowledge of good and evil? Or was it all for the cat, as they say in Germany?

ciao

- viole

 

[Shakeel]

One point I was just pondering about theists who think their God exists and will make a child suffer, and perhaps die, for some test or higher purpose. I said of a poster that his moral freedom is limited if he thinks his God justifies killing little children for some unknown purpose. What would the believer think of this sort of God if it justifies these acts, wouldn't the believer be wary of this God since it wouldn't think twice about killing a believer that challenges it?

This moral dilemma just compounds, and the believer is paralyzed from having any serious and sober question about God's judgment.

I don't even understand the problem? Are atheists super mad at nature for that we die? Don't they just accept it? Even many of them claiming to not fear death? Don't they say, "well then the child won't be in pain anymore"? People die, it's not a disaster. In fact, religious people find comfort in their religion when such a thing happens. I suppose atheists get comfort from the utter meaninglessness of their life.

 

[viole]

I suppose atheists get comfort from the utter meaninglessness of their life.

We don’t need to make up comforting gods to find meaning in life. In general.

You seem to indicate that theists are, in fact, closet nihilists.

ciao

- viole

 

[firedragon]

Well, of course it depends on whom you ask. For instance, I am currently debating a Christian who believes in divine command theory. Which has the consequence of rendering things like « God is good » mere tautologies.

Actually, he maintains the Bible is the standard. A sort of manual that also logically justifies objective moral statements. You know, that book that mandated the stoning of rebellious children, and ripping pregnant women apart, if they are not your neighbors.

but then, again, didn’t we cause a huge cosmic drama by acquiring that knowledge of good and evil? Or was it all for the cat, as they say in Germany?

ciao

- viole

I am not speaking of specific scripture or religions and what they argue. It was for you to consider.

 

[rational experiences]

Let's say humans lie.

They blame anyone or anything else for conditions.

Say God evolved and from non evil evolution cooling supported your form. Yet you came from a higher place. Would you then try to remove God for doing wrong?

 

[Irate State]

The responses to this post got really scary really fast.
On the other hand, it must be exhausting making extreme excuses for the divine figure of choice.
I'm in awe, truly.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I suppose atheists get comfort from the utter meaninglessness of their life.

I think more of us get some pleasure from knowing that the religious have it odds on that their belief is the wrong one - even if so many are insistent on their belief being the one and only one. A sense of purpose and any meaning we might give to our lives is at least chosen by us and has some freedom, rather than the slavery that so many of the religious are often happy to accept.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Erin: Why does child leukemia exist? Why doesn't your omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being prevent it?
1) God does not have the attribute of "omnibenevolent", so this whole reasoning makes no sense and is not correct

The Problem of Evil is specifically about gods that are omnipotent, omniscient and all-good.

Many god-concepts don't meet all three of those criteria. Many don't meet any of them. If this is the case for you - and it seems like it is - then the PoE isn't addressed to you.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I believe that the intensity/magnitude of such natural disasters is an indicator of how much negative karma we actually accumulate. It may seem inconceivable, but suppose that the amount of evil we as a species perpetuates is an inconceivable amount.
to hold this view, you have to have faith in some sort of God. Yes, I know we can observe how volcanoes naturally erupt, but because of my faith, I can believe this belief simultaneously. I personally see a connection.

You didn't answer to my ultimate point. No surprise - I find that many theists have a gargantuan problem staying on task.

Here, let me re-phrase part of it as a simple question:

Do you find it to be rational and just to severely (and anonymously) punish someone without informing them what it is you feel they did wrong?