The problem is evil solved?

[Ignatius A]

You didn't answer my question: Who describes evil as the state of being absent from God?

Definitely not me, so you are not speaking for me.

I did. Did you not read it? You should comment on things you havet read. Just a suggestion.

Where did I say I was speaking for you? Please don't respond to the voices in your head and post them here. Either respond to what I wrote or just move on please.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes it is known to be factual that the word evil is used in various versions of the Bible. I don't disagree. That doesn't change the discussion one bit.

Wasn't talking to you but to @Trailblazer . Good discussion.

Thought you are welcome to join in if you want

 

[I Am Hugh]

Telling a child to not play in the street is not evil even if the child thinks it is. Truth is not determined by individual thoughts or feelings.

All right, then, if a moderator decided that the discussion of your OP is evil, would it still be evil even though you didn't think so?

 

[Trailblazer]

I did not say god should take over everything humans are responsible for. I said god, if he can, should stop child rape and starvation.

Saying that God, if He can, should stop child rape and starvation is saying that God should take over what humans are responsible for.
Where would that end?

 

[Ignatius A]

All right, then, if a moderator decided that the discussion of your OP is evil, would it still be evil even though you didn't think so?

Not necessarily. But their decision rules the day.

 

[I Am Hugh]

Well, maybe some things in the Bible are factual (proven to be true) but the claims about God and Jesus can never be factual.

Never? According to who and on what basis. See, what believers tend to do in a discussion like this is measure from their own perception which negates all other possibilities. Perspective is required in order to have a balanced perception. The unbeliever will always win this sort of debate because they have to have that - at least more balanced perception. All they need is a few simple facts. Which is unfortunate if they stop there, but if it's almost always an ideological discussion. They only have a slight advantage.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Saying that God, if He can, should stop child rape and starvation is saying that God should take over what humans are responsible for.
Where would that end?

I am not asking for god to do anything else.

 

[I Am Hugh]

Not necessarily. But their decision rules the day.

Is that decision, then, or is it not, evil? To the OP. In other words if you go into a forum to debate truths and the moderators think those truths evil and separate you from the forum, is that evil to you and to them?

 

[Trailblazer]

Never? According to who and on what basis. See, what believers tend to do in a discussion like this is measure from their own perception which negates all other possibilities. Perspective is required in order to have a balanced perception.

What nonbelievers tend to do in a discussion like this is measure from their own perception which negates all other possibilities.

The unbeliever will always win this sort of debate because they have to have that - at least more balanced perception. All they need is a few simple facts.

The unbeliever will never win since that they are clueless as to what God is since they go by what they have cherry-picked from the Bible.
There is nothing balanced about that.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am not asking for god to do anything else.

Child rape and starvation, why stop there? What about cancer and all the other horrific diseases?
You can ask away, but God does not like being ordered around.

 

[I Am Hugh]

What nonbelievers tend to do in a discussion like this is measure from their own perception which negates all other possibilities.

That's true to some extent - for both. Ultimately that is the case, but it's much easier for the unbeliever to grapple with the alleged possibility of whatever you want to call God than it is for the believer to grapple with the alleged impossibility of the same.

The unbeliever will never win since that they are clueless as to what God is since they go by what they have cherry-picked from the Bible.

No one ever wins outside of their own mind or the constructs of current logic. Again, the unbeliever has the advantage, IMO. Take macroevolution, for example. The Bible teaches microevolution and describes the Biblical kinds which are observable. Macroevolution has never been observed. Ever. To the macro evolutionist would have the disadvantage if it weren't for the common belief.

There is nothing balanced about that.

Well, then, where do you cherry-pick your data from? See this post on a similar theme.

 

[Spice]

Ok

I made no claims about people who have no God. This thread is about the presence of evil not people who have no God. I hope you can distinguish the difference and stay on topic.

Just change "God" to "good" and yes, your view is on target. The absence of light is darkness. There can be no darkness without light to define it. There is no evil without goodness to define it. This is most notable in cultural differences.

 

[Spice]

I don't think suffering is mere absence of joy and peace.

But in many ways it is the absence of gratitude.
I suffered from having no shoes, until I met a man with no feet.

 

[Koldo]

I did. Did you not read it? You should comment on things you havet read. Just a suggestion.

Where? I can not read what has not been written.

Where did I say I was speaking for you? Please don't respond to the voices in your head and post them here. Either respond to what I wrote or just move on please.

You didn't say you were speaking for me, but you were speaking for a group of people since you used the 'we'. Since I am not included in this 'we', who is?

 

[Trailblazer]

It was always, from my first post, an if-then argument. It started with "If God is the omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything...".

That is irrelevant to the point because even IF God is the omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything that does not mean that God is responsible for everything.

That's a reasoning-free assertion. I gave you the detail of why I came to that conclusion, where is the flaw, exactly?

God is not responsible for 'taking action' just because God is the omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything
There is no logical connection between God being the omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything and God 'taking action.'
That is the flaw in your argument.

Again, by starting point was "If God is the omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything...". Creation is an action. Other than that, I didn't talk like God was human, humans aren't omnipotent, omniscient creators of everything.

You realise that unargued assertion is a fallacy, right? If you're going to say something is illogical, you need to show your working.

Nothing you've said has actually pointed to a flaw in my chain of reasoning from God being the omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything (premiss), to God being responsible for everything (in its creation).

Nothing you've said has explained WHY God being the omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything (premiss) MEANS that God is responsible for everything (in its creation).

The fly in the ointment for your argument is that God gave humans free will, and after that God was not responsible for anything that is human caused. God relinquished responsibility for human choices as soon as He gave humans free will.

God also gave man dominion over the earth which means God no longer had dominion over the earth.

Genesis 1 KJV

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


What did God mean when he said have dominion?

In Genesis 1:26, God, after creating mankind, delegates authority to him to have dominion. This word, dominion, strongly means to rule or have power over. This is reinforced in Genesis 1:28 were God said that humanity was to subdue the earth.Jun 28, 2017
What is the Significance of God Giving Mankind Dominion Over the Earth?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Child rape and starvation, why stop there? What about cancer and all the other horrific diseases?
You can ask away, but God does not like being ordered around.

I just offered my opinion on what god should do. He obviously can do what he wants if he exists. If he does not want to fix everything that is fine but maybe the most horrific things like child rape should be considered. I think your morality and my morality are better than gods morality.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's true to some extent - for both. Ultimately that is the case, but it's much easier for the unbeliever to grapple with the alleged possibility of whatever you want to call God than it is for the believer to grapple with the alleged impossibility of the same.

The unbeliever who cannot grapple with the possibility of there being a God.
The believer cannot grapple with the possibility of there being no God.

No one ever wins outside of their own mind or the constructs of current logic. Again, the unbeliever has the advantage, IMO. Take macroevolution, for example. The Bible teaches microevolution and describes the Biblical kinds which are observable. Macroevolution has never been observed. Ever. To the macro evolutionist would have the disadvantage if it weren't for the common belief.

The unbeliever only has an advantage with Christians who believe what the Bible teaches. I am not a Christian so atheists don't like going up against my Baha'i beliefs, which teach that any belief that contradicts science is false.

Well, then, where do you cherry-pick your data from? See this post on a similar theme.

I am not cherry-picking data from anywhere.

 

[Trailblazer]

I just offered my opinion on what god should do. He obviously can do what he wants if he exists. If he does not want to fix everything that is fine but maybe the most horrific things like child rape should be considered. I think your morality and my morality are better than gods morality.

God is not subject to morality because God is not a person so God is not a moral agent. Only humans are moral agents.

A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions. Moral agents have a moral responsibility not to cause unjustified harm.

Moral Agent - Ethics Unwrapped

A Moral Agent is a person who can be held accountable for his or her actions because he or she has the ability to tell right from wrong.

ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu

 

[PureX]

Ok, All I know is that I would stop child rape and starvation if I could and I think you would too. If god can stop these things he should.

I’m not seeing the point, here.

 

[I Am Hugh]

The unbeliever who cannot grapple with the possibility of there being a God.
The believer cannot grapple with the possibility of there being no God.

Why would they?

The unbeliever only has an advantage with Christians who believe what the Bible teaches. I am not a Christian so atheists don't like going up against my Baha'i beliefs, which teach that any belief that contradicts science is false.

Science contradicts science. That's part of what science does. Science doesn't contradict God and God doesn't contradict science.

I am not cherry-picking data from anywhere.

Then where do you pick your data and what is the difference between picking cherries or anything else, like data. Selection.