The Argument from Design vs. the Problem of Evil

[Prestor John]

So it seems according to @Prestor John the best way to reconcile the problem of evil, is to pretend evil does not exist.

You are being ridiculous.

The universe will exist whether or not there is Evil.

You have no idea what I believe concerning Evil, so don't try to put words in my mouth.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You are being ridiculous.

The universe will exist whether or not there is Evil.

You have no idea what I believe concerning Evil, so don't try to put words in my mouth.

No idea? You been posting your beliefs about evil. You are even capitalizing it as if it is a proper noun.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Then it was a reasonable path. Whatever.

Can you please explain how Evil shapes the universe?

Yes, "evil" can change our lives, yet that was not the point I was making.

You are trying to steer this discussion into metaphysical realms that neither I nor the OP mentioned.

"Can you please explain how Evil shapes the universe?"

Well I said world around us more than once, in case you are playing some silly semantic game.

But how about war, murder, rape, child abuse, etc, etc, etc. . . .

No change, huh?

 

[Prestor John]

No idea? You been posting your beliefs about evil. You are even capitalizing it as if it is a proper noun.

No. You have no idea.

All I have said is that Evil does not alter the physical universe.

 

[Prestor John]

"Can you please explain how Evil shapes the universe?"

Well I said world around us more than once, in case you are playing some silly semantic game.

But how about war, murder, rape, child abuse, etc, etc, etc. . . .

No change, huh?

"Evil" does not do any of those things. Men do.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

No. You have no idea.

All I have said is that Evil does not alter the physical universe.

"Evil" does not do any of those things. Men do.

I figured you where playing games.

 

[Fire_Monkey]

Compare and contrast:

The Teleological Argument (the Argument from Design):
We can deduce conclusions about the nature of God from what we see around us.

One response to the Problem of Evil:
We can't deduce conclusions about the nature of God from the evil we see around us.


So... which one's right? Which wins: teleology or theodicy?

... or do you think the two can be reconciled? If so, how?

So...To begin...Aren't you misusing the word Theodicy?

You DO know that Theodicy is the subdiscipline of Theology which alludes to studying the nature of God, right?


So....You can have both.....Believing in teleology AND Theodicy. Theodicy is not saying there is a God. An atheist can study Theodicy. Theodicy is all conjecture.

And those who think the natural world is a reflection of God are usually Pantheists. That is, nature and its beauty, even the wonders of the cosmos...That's their idea of God. Pantheists don't believe in a personal, biblical type of God. Einstein and many scientists are Pantheists. I am a Pantheists. But concerning a biblical Yahweh God I'm an atheist.

A Pantheists can be a Deist, as well. Different from a Theist. Deists usually lose an impersonal Creator Force sort of God who doesn't intervene in human affairs. A Deist can believe, and usually does, in a teleological Universe.

I know this can be confusing to the layman. Please feel free to ask me any questions. You seem a tad confused on the different terms we use in Theology.

Thanks..Hope this helps!

 

[Fire_Monkey]

We can reconcile the two because good wins,

Good wins? Who says? A cursory glance at the history of mankind and the billions killed in the hundreds of wars would support a contradictory opinion. As would the fact that many good men are killed by bad every day. And that there is not a shred of evidence that those bad men who kill are punished in the Afterlife. Or that there is an afterlife. Or a hell, for that matter.

Nope...No proof that, after death, a mother Theresa and a Ted Bundy do not go to the same place. The Void.

Or can you contradict anything I just said? Feel free to try. Or we can do a formal debate, maybe?

Let me know.

 

[Bird123]

Compare and contrast:

The Teleological Argument (the Argument from Design):
We can deduce conclusions about the nature of God from what we see around us.

One response to the Problem of Evil:
We can't deduce conclusions about the nature of God from the evil we see around us.


So... which one's right? Which wins: teleology or theodicy?

... or do you think the two can be reconciled? If so, how?

Yes, we can deduce the nature of God from what we see around us.

Yes, we can deduce the nature of God from the evil we see around us.

So many people try to define God as who they want God to be rather than what actually is. If one ignores what stares one in the face, how can one ever discover the Real Truth??

What does an ant see when a car drives in front of it? Clearly, understanding does take work.

One needs a wider more open view in order to Discover. Mankind wants utopia. Does this cloud their view to discover the truth? Could there exist good reasons the world exists just as it does? As I see it, this world is a Masterpiece. One could point to one part and scream, however the entire picture could not look the same in the end without it all included.

It all Speaks for God. Hmmm??? Now, how could all that evil turn out to be a good thing?? Are you going to be an ant or work at Understanding? If one reaches the point of Understanding, won't one actually know God through God's actions? Just like with science, could that Understanding open doors to more Discoveries?

Yes, a Million questions.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Good wins? Who says? A cursory glance at the history of mankind and the billions killed in the hundreds of wars would support a contradictory opinion. As would the fact that many good men are killed by bad every day. And that there is not a shred of evidence that those bad men who kill are punished in the Afterlife. Or that there is an afterlife. Or a hell, for that matter.

Nope...No proof that, after death, a mother Theresa and a Ted Bundy do not go to the same place. The Void.

Or can you contradict anything I just said? Feel free to try. Or we can do a formal debate, maybe?

Let me know.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Il Sung- yes a cursory glance at recent history, shows various atheist/socialist regimes killing more people than every religious conflict in the history of humanity combined.

but they did not prevail, did they?

 

[Prestor John]

I figured you where playing games.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

No problem.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, evil doesn't really change anything that we see in the physical universe, does it?

I have no idea what you mean by this statement.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Evil in my belief is more the absence of Good..

Which is nonsense, of course. This implies that the most abject evil is no worse than apathy. Is this really what you believe?

 

[arthra]

Which is nonsense, of course. This implies that the most abject evil is no worse than apathy. Is this really what you believe?

Thanks dear "Penquin" for your post...

I believe the absence of Good is evil... just as darkness is an absence of Light...and those who sit idly by and are apathetic condone evil...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thanks dear "Penquin" for your post...

I believe the absence of Good is evil... just as darkness is an absence of Light...and those who sit idly by and are apathetic condone evil...

Simply restating your assertion doesn't help to explain why you think it's correct.

 

[rusra02]

I find it easy to see evidence for an intelligent Creator from the superb and brilliant products he has made. I believe that just as qualities of love, kindness, generosity, etc. are not proof in themselves of God's existence, the existence of evil and hatred are not proof God does not exist. We cannot discern the reasons for evil by observing God's created works, just as we cannot answer other questions about God from observing nature,IMO. These answers we must receive from the Creator himself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I find it easy to see evidence for an intelligent Creator from the superb and brilliant products he has made. I believe that just as qualities of love, kindness, generosity, etc. are not proof in themselves of God's existence, the existence of evil and hatred are not proof God does not exist.

I didn't say anything about proving God's non-existence. My point is that if we're going to infer God's qualities from the attributes of his supposed design, then since - regardless of how we define "good" or "perfect" - God's supposed design is a mixture of good and evil, perfect and imperfect, etc., then it stands to reason that God is a mix of good and evil, or of perfect and imperfect.

 

[rusra02]

I didn't say anything about proving God's non-existence. My point is that if we're going to infer God's qualities from the attributes of his supposed design, then since - regardless of how we define "good" or "perfect" - God's supposed design is a mixture of good and evil, perfect and imperfect, etc., then it stands to reason that God is a mix of good and evil, or of perfect and imperfect.

I can see how you might reason so. But that would presuppose that the evil and good come from the same source. I believe we would need God to explain matters, and I believe he has, in the Bible. IMO, the Bible explains the source of evil and why God permits it. The study of nature cannot explain these things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can see how you might reason so. But that would presuppose that the evil and good come from the same source. I believe we would need God to explain matters, and I believe he has, in the Bible. IMO, the Bible explains the source of evil and why God permits it.

It does? This is news to me.

I know the passages in Job where Job asks these sorts of questions, and I know God's response ("I'm more powerful than you are, so it's not your place to even ask," basically), but I haven't seen an explanation.

The study of nature cannot explain these things.

So the study of nature doesn't provide any insights into the qualities of God?