The Problem of Evil

[Koldo]

It is absurd and just patently ridiculous because what you are proposing violates the damn laws of physics that govern are world. Please explain to us how God is going to turn us into diamond people without altering the laws of physics.

And so what?
Why couldn't he alter the laws of physics if that was required?
Remember that I have been talking about an omnibenevolent god.

 

[gree0232]

And so what?
Why couldn't he alter the laws of physics if that was required?
Remember that I have been talking about an omnibenevolent god.

He could ...

WHY WOULD HE?

That is a questioned asked several hours ago Koldo.

And again, when you die, if you are religious, not only do you acknowledge that death is the end of finite and small timeline against eternity, but its the end of suffering when you return to God.

And we ALL die Koldo. Are you implying immortality is required for omnibenevolance?

 

[gree0232]

How can I possibly reject such a logical, well written claim as "I don't have to make a claim"

I'm totally sold, you silver tongued devil.
Once again, you completely fail to make a claim.
honestly, to you, I don't even have the rejection if a claim, because you refuse to make one..
Other than your claim that god is obvious.
So, as that is the only claim you've made, in multiple posts, I will respond to that I've.

Claim, god is obvious.
Since you won't define god, I'll just go with "obvious" to start.

easily perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent.

I do not consider god to be obvious, clear, self evident or easily perceived.
The multitude of people who claim they understand god, and can't agree on him show how un clear he is.
I do not perceive him, and he is not self evident to me.your claim is rejected.

Go back to shirking your burden of proof, I'm giving up on asking you to your claim, as stated you won't do it.

And exactly as predicted ... I have no idea what religion or what claim of religion you are rejecting?

I'd be Christian brother, and the claims that I found value in are attributed to Jesus and his Apostles.

I consider a straw man to anything but rational. It is easily perceived though.

Again, if atheists tone down the derision, acknowledged that religious people had a brain and could use it, they would know that when they start talking incorrectly about someone's faith that the religious person would easily know that it was incorrect.

And getting my religion wrong make agnostic atheism logical how exactly? Straw men are by definition fallacious and irrational.

I have no burden of proof to explain why you think my religion is irrational. That is your claim to support.

I have previous provided four examples of apologetics, from statistical analysis to philosophy, investigative analysis and testimony, and you skipped it entirely even as you demand more proof?

As I said, agnostic atheism is about avoiding the burden of proof and the simple reality that most atheists are not at all familiar with that which they reject. Its why they get the basics of our faith wrong. Its why they are unaware of most the body of apologetic.

Atheism is, or at least agnostic atheism, IMHO, more emotional than rational.

 

[Koldo]

He could ...

WHY WOULD HE?

That is a questioned asked several hours ago Koldo.

Because he is omnibenevolent.

And again, when you die, if you are religious, not only do you acknowledge that death is the end of finite and small timeline against eternity, but its the end of suffering when you return to God.

The existence of suffering and evil can not be justified simply because there is an afterlife.

To give an analogy, imagine a person that slapped your face and then gave you candy.

Since it is possible to give you a candy without slapping your face, what excuse is there to slap your face in the first place?

And we ALL die Koldo. Are you implying immortality is required for omnibenevolance?

Not really.

 

[gree0232]

Because he is omnibenevolent.



The existence of suffering and evil can not be justified simply because there is an afterlife.

To give an analogy, imagine a person that slapped your face and then gave you candy.

Since it is possible to give you a candy without slapping your face, what excuse is there to slap your face in the first place?



Not really.

If a person slapped me in the face, than I could exercise my own restraint and, despite being a trained Army Ranger, not beat the person into a bloody pulp.

I have free will and choose to exercise restraint.

The person who ostensibly slapped me ALSO has free will and choose NOT to exercise restraint.

That is free will, where people CAN CHOOSE either good or bad choices and get their attendant consequences.

You are stating that benevolence requires NO BAD consequence.

I handily disagree with you, as I have been around people who utterly lack discipline and there is nothing benevolent about the lack of consequences.

ALLOWING someone to reap with they sew is a tremendous act of love and compassion. It requires FAITH that a person can acknowledge that they are wrong, and CHANGE THEMSELVES.

To deny that? To lock people away and prevent them from making any choice that has consequences is cruel. Its slavery, not benevolence.

Even murders can repent Koldo. Even murderers can acknowledge what they did was wrong and seek to atone for it. Can let their lives be defined as more than a single serious sin.

To deny someone the ability to rehabilitate or atone is extraordinarily cruel.

And remember, what we do here is short. We return to Heavenly Father wiser and having learned and grown. That is an act of near perfect benevolence.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

And so what?
Why couldn't he alter the laws of physics if that was required?
Remember that I have been talking about an omnibenevolent god.

Why wouldn't God alter the laws of physics? Because the laws of physics are the will of God. This is the way God wants it, God wants a physical universe based on the laws of physics not the laws of whimsy.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

And exactly as predicted ... I have no idea what religion or what claim of religion you are rejecting?

I consider a straw man to anything but rational. It is easily perceived though.

And getting my religion wrong make agnostic atheism logical how exactly? Straw men are by definition fallacious and irrational.

Let's see, you made a claim about god, refused to back it up with anything, and kept asking me to respond to it..
Once I finally tried to work with the nothing you gave me, I got the "that's not what I meant..that's not my religion" argument..

Who could gave POSSIBLY seem this coming??
Oh yeah..

There are so many religions, branches of a religion, and "personal gods" out there.. One person may say god is spiritual, one may say he's physical, but outside space, one may say he's immaterial, but omnipresent, and all three can be the same denomination , and just view god differently.
It really IS good to find out what the christian that your speaking to thinks of when they say god, because it really does mean something different for each person, especially when you get into debates where actual characteristics are to be considered.
We can't read your mind. So if we ask you questions about what you think god is, it isn't because we've never heard of christianity, or are mocking you, it's because we've sopken to enough different people to find out that, people are all different, and so are their beliefs.

And again, see above. Especially when you get into apologetics.. everyone has different feelings, and thoughts about god.

Oh look. called it,120 posts in advance.

 

[Koldo]

Why wouldn't God alter the laws of physics? Because the laws of physics are the will of God. This is the way God wants it, God wants a physical universe based on the laws of physics not the laws of whimsy.

Therefore, he is not omnibenevolent.
If he creates a world based on the law of physics where the utmost well-being is not a priority, then he is not omnibenevolent.

We have been over this before, haven't we?

 

[Willamena]

Do you mean god lacks the power to make people fly at will?
Do you mean if god never did something in the past, he is unable to do it?

We are talking about god. And about what god can accomplish with his power.

No, I mean that logic dictates that as people are not capable of flying by the power of will, it's not an option. It's nothing they can choose.

 

[gree0232]

Let's see, you made a claim about god, refused to back it up with anything, and kept asking me to respond to it..
Once I finally tried to work with the nothing you gave me, I got the "that's not what I meant..that's not my religion" argument..

Who could gave POSSIBLY seem this coming??
Oh yeah..




Oh look. called it,120 posts in advance.

Wow, you called your own flagrant mis-statement?

I have made no claims about God.

I claimed that agnostic atheism, in stark contrast to atheism itself, is basely illogical.

I have explained why without once having to refer to 'God'. In fact, I have been rather studiously avoiding bringing God into the discussion, pointedly and repeatedly reminding you that my claims of God have no bearing in the logic basis, or lack thereof, of agnostic atheism. That you have ripped something out of context, which happens to be you getting my faith wrong (as predicted) is hardly me dragging 'God' into in.

How one conflates, "That is not what Christians believe," into, "My God is a personal God and explains why your agnostic atheism is invalid," is both dishonest and irrational. its EXACTLY what I have come to expect when dealing with self styles agnostic atheists, as opposed to actual atheists.

This would be your biases speaking, and is exactly the kind of behavior that I think agnostic atheism is designed to facilitate or otherwise excuse.

Your finding of religion (all of it) to be illogical has absolute no reference to any claim that I have made. Nor should it.

That you called such dissociative logic 120 posts ago would not be something to brag about.

Again, WHY IS AGNOSTIC ATHEISM logical or otherwise supportable? Attempting to shift the burden of proof and indeed the entire topic to a discussion of my personal opinion of God is silly.

Its again, the EXACT behavior I predicted in my initial assessment of agnostic atheism ... called that one like 120 posts ago or something.

 

[Willamena]

What is absurd about it?
Being particularly different than our current world is absurd in your view?
Is that it?

Either it has to be similar to our current world, or it is deemed as absurd.
Do you have anything meaningful to add? Or is that all you can come up with?

Impossibility is absurd. Murder exists as an actual part of our world, and it does not stand alone, independent of all the things it touches. Eliminating it would eliminate a whole mess of things that depends on it, and on which it depends.

 

[Willamena]

Therefore, he is not omnibenevolent...

Because he doesn't do whatever we imagine?

 

[Ouroboros]

It's not a power that we lack, it's an impossibility.

We can fly, no problem. It's the landing that's tricky.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Therefore, he is not omnibenevolent.
If he creates a world based on the law of physics where the utmost well-being is not a priority, then he is not omnibenevolent.

We have been over this before, haven't we?

Show where in this entire thread I have ever argued that God is omnibenevolent.

 

[Koldo]

If a person slapped me in the face, than I could exercise my own restraint and, despite being a trained Army Ranger, not beat the person into a bloody pulp.

I have free will and choose to exercise restraint.

You missed the point. But I will talk about this further down.
The point is: Is giving someone something good like a candy ( heavens ) an excuse for slapping his face ( making him endure evil and suffering ) ?

No, it is not. Because giving a candy doesn't require slapping someone's face.

The person who ostensibly slapped me ALSO has free will and choose NOT to exercise restraint.

That is free will, where people CAN CHOOSE either good or bad choices and get their attendant consequences.

You are stating that benevolence requires NO BAD consequence.

I handily disagree with you, as I have been around people who utterly lack discipline and there is nothing benevolent about the lack of consequences.

Why are some choices bad in the first place?
What makes them bad? Some choices like murder harm people.
But who is inherently harmed by sex with strangers, for example?

Why must people have discipline? What is wrong with having no discipline?

ALLOWING someone to reap with they sew is a tremendous act of love and compassion. It requires FAITH that a person can acknowledge that they are wrong, and CHANGE THEMSELVES.

To deny that? To lock people away and prevent them from making any choice that has consequences is cruel. Its slavery, not benevolence.

People can still make choices even if evil is completely absent.
And these choices can still have consequences.

Even murders can repent Koldo. Even murderers can acknowledge what they did was wrong and seek to atone for it. Can let their lives be defined as more than a single serious sin.

To deny someone the ability to rehabilitate or atone is extraordinarily cruel.

Deny?

Murders wouldn't even exist in the first place. So there would be no need to rehabilitate for something like that.

And remember, what we do here is short. We return to Heavenly Father wiser and having learned and grown. That is an act of near perfect benevolence.

It doesn't matter. That's the whole point of the slap in the face analogy.
That we get something better at the end, doesn't excuse god from slapping us in the face.

 

[Koldo]

No, I mean that logic dictates that as people are not capable of flying by the power of will, it's not an option. It's nothing they can choose.

And, by the same reasoning, god could change us in a way that we as people wouldn't be capable of being murdered or murdering. It wouldn't be an option. Nothing we could choose.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Therefore, he is not omnibenevolent.
If he creates a world based on the law of physics where the utmost well-being is not a priority, then he is not omnibenevolent.

We have been over this before, haven't we?

So God not holding the utmost well-being as the greatest good somehow makes God bad?

Please show me how this magic trick is done.

I don't like Brie, I must be bad.

 

[Koldo]

Impossibility is absurd. Murder exists as an actual part of our world, and it does not stand alone, independent of all the things it touches. Eliminating it would eliminate a whole mess of things that depends on it, and on which it depends.

Nothing is impossible to omnipotence barring logical contradictions. It is true that our world wouldn't work in the same way. We wouldn't even exist as we do. But, what is wrong with that?

 

[Koldo]

Because he doesn't do whatever we imagine?

Because he doesn't will what an omnibenevolent god would.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Your claim about god, which you made multiple times, was that god is obvious.
One second while I look back to see where you support your claim...
Nope.

I stated atheism is a response to a claim, and cannot be illogical, unless the claim it is rejecting is shown to be logical..
One moment again, where you show your claim is logical...
Nope.

You told me to refute every apologetic that has ever been, in return, I asked you to show you were willing to do the same, with other religions, or admit it was am absurd request..
One second...
Nope.

You ask for claims to be proven while adamantly refusing to do that yourself,
You ask for tasks to be completed that you refuse to do yourself, you call other people bullies and uncivil while insulting them yourself.
If this is the conversation style christianity facilitates, I'm quite happy staying an atheist.
I believe that old Gandhi quite applies fairly well here...