The problem is evil solved?

[Clizby Wampuscat]

But if you're just wasting their time telling them how you believe they're wrong even though you have no way of actually knowing that they are, then you're really just baiting them so you can pretend to be more "right" then them, right? I mean, that's what it's looking like.

No, I am telling them my side and why I think their belief is flawed. They can listen to me or not. You tell people here a lot of things you think they are wrong about. People are wrong about a god belief because every piece of evidence ever presented so far has logical problems and therefore cannot be true. So I am convinced they are wrong about believing a god exists, I am not saying a god does not exist.

 

[Alien826]

But the bible is the book we are discussing.

Pardon me if I use this as a hook to explain something.

The problem of evil is an attempt, using logic, to say that a certain version of "God" cannot exist. It relies on certain premises.

God is omniscient
God is omnipotent
God is omnibenevolent

There are other premises that are not directly stated.

God can be judged by human standards (not so unreasonable as it might appear, as these attributes are claimed for God by humans).
These three attributes can be used with common meanings.
Evil exists.

So if you want to address the apparent paradox, saying that the premises don't apply or that we can't know God or other ways to dismiss the whole thing may be reasonable are not playing the game according to the rules. Of course, if you say that God isn't benevolent, powerful or whatever that does avoid the paradox, but you haven't solved anything because all you have done is change the premises, which will of course lead to a different conclusion.

 

[PureX]

No, I am telling them my side and why I think their belief is flawed.

But you have no basis for presuming that it is flawed because you know nothing of God. Not even that God exists. You find someone else's thinking to be contradictory but you have no basis upon which to presume such a contradiction is an error.

They can listen to me or not.

The question is why are you speaking at all? You have nothing to offer but blind negation. Why should anyone care about your blind negation? Why are you even proffering it?

You tell people here a lot of things you think they are wrong about.

But I can tell them why I think so. I can contribute to their body of information if they are willing to ask and to listen. I don't just offer blind negation.

People are wrong about a god belief because every piece of evidence ever presented so far has logical problems and therefore cannot be true.

That is false, but you cannot see this because your assessment of evidence and logic are biased.

So I am convinced they are wrong about believing a god exists, I am not saying a god does not exist.

Why would anyone care?

 

[Ignatius A]

If you are going to be strictly scientific, then the only state where heat is totally absent is absolute zero, where all molecular movement ceases. At all other temperatures, there is simply a varying amount of heat*.

So, for that to be a reasonable analogy, evil would not exist until all traces of "God" were absent, when it would suddenly switch on, full force. OK, you're trying to show that evil doesn't exist at all, so call the bad things something else, it comes down to the same thing.

The problem of evil depends partially on an observation of the world. Bad things happen. Why does that happen if there is a "tri-omi" God? We do see bad things, but there don't seem to suddenly switch on in some observable point of space and/or time. So your heat/cold analogy doesn't really work, leaving you with the job of establishing the truth of "evil is the absence of God" in some other way. So far I only see a claim that it is so.

*As we use the terms in common parlance, "hot" and cold" are relative terms that are quite subjective. Try an experiment with three cups of water. One fairly hot, one fairly cold and one lukewarm. Place a finger for a while in the "hot" cup, then in the lukewarm cup. It will feel cold. Then do the same with the "cold" cup first. the lukewarm cup will feel hot. This is actually a better analogy for how people view good and bad, but not much use for your argument. .

Absolute zero is the complete absence of heat. Nothing else. Cold.is only what we call that state but it is accurately called the complete absence of heat.

 

[Alien826]

Absolute zero is the complete absence of heat. Nothing else. Cold.is only what we call that state but it is accurately called the complete absence of heat.

Agreed. Though I don't think we only call absolute zero "cold". "Cold" is a relative term, as I think you agreed in a previous post. Any thoughts on the rest of what I said?

 

[Trailblazer]

Ok, you can insult me all you want but I cannot stop child rape and starvation. God can and chooses not to.

You do not know what God can do. Nobody knows that except God.

Again, why should God only stop child rape and starvation? Why shouldn't God go for the whole nine yards?
If I put in my order, I would want God to stop cancer and other horrible diseases like Alzheimer's.
But the worst thing is death. God should have made it so nobody has to die.

 

[Trailblazer]

Neither does anyone else.

Some of us do know certain things about God, enough to know why God does not do what you want.

 

[Trailblazer]

Wait, God doesn't discern right from wrong?

God knows what is right and what is wrong and that is how God can discern right and wrong human behavior.

 

[Ignatius A]

Agreed. Though I don't think we only call absolute zero "cold". "Cold" is a relative term, as I think you agreed in a previous post. Any thoughts on the rest of what I said?

It's relative only to the presence heat. Cold cat be measured because it doesnt exist only heat does.

By your own argument evil is relative if cold is. I am merely claiming cold.is only the condition we call the absence of heat. Same with evil. It's not created it's just what happens when God is absent

 

[Trailblazer]

The only conclusion is god chooses not to for some unknown reason.

The reason is not unknown. God chooses not to because God expects humans to do these things.

It is clear humans are not doing what you want them to do, god should step in if it can.

God is not a human being so God cannot 'step in.'
That is one reason God does not step in and the other reason is noted above.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

But you have no basis for presuming that it is flawed because you know nothing of God. Not even that God exists. You find someone else's thinking to be contradictory but you have no basis upon which to presume such a contradiction is an error.

I do, their flawed logic tells me their belief may be true but their evidence does not support that belief.

The question is why are you speaking at all? You have nothing to offer but blind negation. Why should anyone care about your blind negation? Why are you even proffering it?

I am offering responses to illogical evidences and attributes of god. Why are you trying so hard to stop me? Why not just ignore me?

But I can tell them why I think so. I can contribute to their body of information if they are willing to ask and to listen. I don't just offer blind negation.

I never said and do not believe that god does not exist.

That is false, but you cannot see this because your assessment of evidence and logic are biased.

All someone has to do is tell me why I am wrong in my assessment. You admit that you have no good reason to believe in a god but many think they do. Those reasons are logically flawed. If they are not they can just tell me why they are not and we can discuss.

Why would anyone care?

Seems like you do. No one has to respond to me, but most people do for awhile.

 

[Trailblazer]

People are wrong about a god belief because every piece of evidence ever presented so far has logical problems and therefore cannot be true.

what you BELIEVE are logical problems....

Granted, some of the evidence has logical problems but not all of the evidence has logical problems...
To claim that would be the fallacy of hasty generalization.

 

[Spice]

I cannot stop one child rape because I don't know how to do that, how do I know where it is happening? I can help stop starvation by giving to organizations that feed people and get the clean water. Many people believe god could snap its fingers and make these two terrible things go away and never happen again. The only conclusion is god chooses not to for some unknown reason. It is clear humans are not doing what you want them to do, god should step in if it can.

Simply being alert, aware, and involved in your community can save the children. You probably won't see or hear of it, but that doesn't mean you can't positively influence your unseen, unheard surroundings.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You do not know what God can do. Nobody knows that except God.

I never claimed I did.

Again, why should God only stop child rape and starvation?

Really? Because it hurts children and people. It is the humane thing to do.

Why shouldn't God go for the whole nine yards?

I don't know, I never asked god to do that.

If I put in my order, I would want God to stop cancer and other horrible diseases like Alzheimer's.

Great, that would be a good thing.

But the worst thing is death. God should have made it so nobody has to die.

The better thing would have been to give us the decision when we want to die.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Some of us do know certain things about God, enough to know why God does not do what you want.

Can you please explain it to me then? And how do you know this?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

what you BELIEVE are logical problems....

Granted, some of the evidence has logical problems but not all of the evidence has logical problems...
To claim that would be the fallacy of hasty generalization.

Then please provide evidence that does not have logical problems.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Simply being alert, aware, and involved in your community can save the children. You probably won't see or hear of it, but that doesn't mean you can't positively influence your unseen, unheard surroundings.

This will stop people from raping children? Ok.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not at all inconsistent with what I said. Lack of heat is cold and lack of God is evil.

I'm not evil.

 

[Link]

Pardon me if I use this as a hook to explain something.

The problem of evil is an attempt, using logic, to say that a certain version of "God" cannot exist. It relies on certain premises.

God is omniscient
God is omnipotent
God is omnibenevolent

There are other premises that are not directly stated.

God can be judged by human standards (not so unreasonable as it might appear, as these attributes are claimed for God by humans).
These three attributes can be used with common meanings.
Evil exists.

So if you want to address the apparent paradox, saying that the premises don't apply or that we can't know God or other ways to dismiss the whole thing may be reasonable are not playing the game according to the rules. Of course, if you say that God isn't benevolent, powerful or whatever that does avoid the paradox, but you haven't solved anything because all you have done is change the premises, which will of course lead to a different conclusion.

God can't do all things, a lot of things are by just their nature impossible. He can do all possible things. The framework of possible worlds he creates is in fact constrained in that not everything we assert is possible is possible.

The non-suffering forced world could've been created or he could've made things that it would be very easy to obey God and very difficult to disobey to the extent near impossible.

For example, if he made Adam (a) into a luminous light fire being with more brightness and powers then all Angels, and his form was much higher, then Iblis would not disobey. But Angels (a) would not be tried with respect to their pride and they would be in a way worshiping God vainly.

And if he made a lesson of Satan, then everyone would never disobey purely out of fear of similar destruction right away.

However, the trial was made easy but not too easy. It was unexpected Iblis disobey nor Adam disobey. And so that is the next thing I don't agree with, God knows all possible things, but unset future cannot be known before it happens.

God has back up plans on top of back up plans. We in one of the last resort type plans.

He has been trying to correct and eliminate evil, given the constraints.

One of these constraints is that when he sends with miracles, if the first generations reject them, it's made difficult for later generations to narrate them and be trusted, and they face oppression severely. When miracles are denied by first generations after a founding Messenger it leads to prevention for later generations to see them unfortunately but God does it out of his grace. If people feared with respect to God and his miracles and signs, then he would continue to send them.

Now that the world is globalized, the rejecting of miracles would lead to a bigger catastrophe. Followers of Imam (a) also should not be like previous awaiting people in that when the savior from oppressors comes, they turn ungrateful after being saved (many of them, not all), and associate with God and denied his favors and begin to trouble the Messengers, Prophets, and Guides.

The Mahdi being the last test with Jesus returning and others like Elijah returning, the consequences on a world scale would be more severe. Therefore God is giving us time to set it up that more people are saved and fewer people condemned. But if the oppression becomes too severe and oppressors will get their way, it's upon God then to deliver the believers. So if forced to, God will do what he warned about and what he wanted us to avoid which is destruction of much of the world in terms of cities destroyed or punished severely.

 

[Ignatius A]

I'm not evil.

So?