I have no problem with that. :frog:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Problem of Evil
- Thread starter CynthiaCypher
- Start date
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
fantôme profane;3694669 said:
Well it is easy for us to dehumanize our fellow human beings.
According to you, you have already made that decision. At least once. When you burst through that door of those rapist and torturers you made a decision about who gets free will and who does not. We as a society use our judgement to make that decision every day. There is no logical contradiction here.
When you see a man raping a woman, take away his freewill. Bash him in the head, that will do it. (or as Cynthia suggests, turn him into a frog) No logical contradiction here.
You don't need to take away his freewill before you see him raping someone. You don't need to take away freewill from everyone. No logical contradiction here.
But we do this everyday. Every day we deny freewill to some people while doing our best to preserve the freewill of others. You can't tell me that is logically impossible when it is happening all the time. Not only that but we deny freewill to some people in some areas, while allowing them freewill in other areas. We do this, human beings do this, you have done this. Don't tell me it is a logical paradox. It is reality.
Last edited:
adi2d
Active Member
An all knowing God would know who would use their free will to rape and murder. He would know before they were born. He could eliminate them without stopping others from having freewill
I'm not saying that's the way He should have done it but it would be a way it could have been done
Free will without rape and murder
I'm not saying that's the way He should have done it but it would be a way it could have been done
Free will without rape and murder
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
And what else should God eliminate besides rapist and murderers?
lunamoth
Will to love
Hunger, poverty, disease, natural disasters, mental illness, prejudice, injustice of all types.
adi2d
Active Member
I even posted I wasn't saying what God Should do. He's makes those decisions not me. Just pointing out the obvious
That poor baby who suffers and dies would probably be high on the list
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Besides natural disasters, what is preventing us from making an effort to eliminate those evils?
lunamoth
Will to love
Ignorance and selfishness.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
And who responsible for eliminating the ignorance and selfishness within us, if not ourselves?
In order for us to eliminate these things, it takes risk, it takes danger, it takes effort and we will feel suffering and pain in that effort.
lunamoth
Will to love
Why can't God just take away our ignorance and selfishness?
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Because if God just waved her hand and did that? What would we have learned? What value would it have if we didn't make an effort to grow out of it?
CS Lewis once said that God isn't in the business to make us happy, God simply wants us to grow up, to become mature. To learn, to learn how to maturely love and to learn how to be maturely loved. And all that takes effort.
lunamoth
Will to love
Wouldn't it be better if we were like all other animals with no moral responsibility? God could provide us with all food without killing and prevent all disease and natural disasters and we would not be able to choose evil, but just follow our instincts to live, breed, and pass on.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Then we wouldn't be humans anymore...we would be sheep. God didn't bring this all about so we could become sheep, we are here to become like God.
The problem I see, which supoorts a need to learn, you can give everyone no suffering, make it all perfect, but then we would all be fully god and the wars would be worse, good and evil gods running amuck. If we just had all the knowledge that doesnt change it still makes it worse. Look what happens with what little we have managed to learn.
Well, that awfully pessimistic.
Out of curiosity, as one of the few Americans to actually see combat, and our country is embroiled in war for 12 years now ... if war and strife is what defines us ... why then have so few been actually thrust into the proverbial fire?
There is a lot more to humanity than war, even for those of us who have been to war.
Why, for instance, have you not wondered about volunteer works or other charitable actions? I would wager a far higher portion of Americans has engaged in charity than war?
What about work? That seems a pretty defining characteristic for Americans? What does this say about us? Those of us who climb the corporate ladders and those who find comfort at work to support a family?
Why not family? The vast majority of Americans have families do they not? In fact, dysfunctional families and healthy families have a huge impact on a great many things?
I guess what I am saying is that I find it extremely pessimistic to see humans define themselves by war when less than 1% of us, with plenty of opportunity for war, actually answered the call of duty. I'd love to know how these wars define the 99% that didn't go, or how it castes them or taints them rather than the thing they actually do and what they actually learn.
I will also tell you that war ropes the lid of human civilization and you get to see the very worse of people. You also get to see the very best of people. Even in the worst places, you see tremendous acts of kindness ... you find people willing to take great risks to put things right. You find incredible charity as family and friends stretch to take in the displaced. You find agencies run by incredibly brave people who mobilize logistics from all over the world to ensure people have food, water, medical care, continued access to education, rudimentary jobs to feed their families, etc.
I wonder why that knowledge doesn't define us more than the 1% of us stupid enough to actually try to kill one another?
And do you really think God sees only the strife and not the charity?
Ok, Gree. Sorry for failing to realize which level of communication you want earlier.
I won't lose a lot of time with you, because I now realize how little you value what you say and I will adjust my expectations accordingly.
Why, of course. There is no proof that Russell's teapot does not exist, either.
Come back to me when you want to talk about something worth the effort.
I won't lose a lot of time with you, because I now realize how little you value what you say and I will adjust my expectations accordingly.
Why, of course. There is no proof that Russell's teapot does not exist, either.
Come back to me when you want to talk about something worth the effort.
ROFL!!!
WOW, just WOW!
My God is fake because I am flawed as a human - which you know through the internet ... by magic! (and you somehow dismiss the magic of magic floating space tea posts, eh? Curious that).
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
Oh right, that's called an ad hominem. Me, of course, being an absolute Neanderthal based solely on my faith choice (which you don't even know), must have an addled intellect and be unable to spot fallacious reasoning when I see it ...
Isn't that kind of how the Gestapo viewed Jews? Odd that atheists would adopt this mentality to religion writ large, supported by fallacy rather than evidence in support of their claims.
And your evidence? Yeah, its also a well known fallacy.
Let me post it for you:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
burden of proof
You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.
Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one.
Did you kind of notice how that demonstration of fallacious reasoning works in the example provided there?
https://borne.wordpress.com/tag/russells-tea-pot/
Are you really so weak in logic that you can neither figure out how to disprove that magic tea pot? Incapable of even acknowledging that its be rebutted and annihilated thousands of times? Are you familiar with how inductive reasoning works? How is probability based ... and lacking that test you claim ... which remains oddly absent your rebuke (I love it when personal pot shots are considered evidence rather than actual evidence) means your own conclusion about no God is based on ... right, inductive logic - just like every other religion in the world.
And, since I've been down this path before, you can indeed disprove a negative. In fact, disproving a negative is a negative claim and violates its own rule if its true.
Here is what actual logicians think.
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf
Would you also like me to annihilate agnostic atheism? That utter rejection of logic and its bass rules meant only to avoid the burden of proof you signed yourself up for when you arrogantly assumed that me God was definitely not real. Obviously so.
So obvious that what your support is, is tired and well worn, thoroughly debunked bits of propaganda that rests upon easily identifiable fallacies.
But heh, you accepted Russell's tea Pot as fact without knowing it was fallacious ... clearly your atheism is better than my faith - which is supported by Apologetics, historical study and analysis, rather than ... invisible pink unicorns and magic floating tea pots ... the real stuff of raw intellectualism rather than simple hooliganism there ...
So, how's that personal tirade going for ya? You convincing a lot of people that there is no God? Or are you learning that sometime, people actually stand up to bullies? Particularly when people are attempting to brow beat people with fallacies in which they think other people are the stupid ones?
I am pretty sure that rejecting fallacious reasoning is a pretty damb good reason to stand up and say, "Agh, not so fast ..."
If rejecting fallacy makes me a bad person? So be it. I know where virtue lies ... and it isn't with magic floating tea pots. Most atheists know this too.
Awkward Fingers
Omphaloskeptic
huh..
trying to keep up with this.. but apparently I missed something.. If you would be so kind as to clarify, for this poor slow observer.
1. Where is his Ad hominem? It looks like he said (to paraphrase) - Since you're not going to listen to what I say, why waste my time
Where's him saying your god is fake, because you're flawed? Please point that out for me.
2.Where is he calling you ANYthing based solely on your views?
3. For the burden of proof fallacy, you stated "oh look, no proof there's no god" His response was "Oh look, no proof there's no Russell's Teapot" Why was it fine for you, but a fallacy for him? What is the nuance I'm missing?
4. For the "how to prove a negative" Atheists constantly use that, and it gets shot down by theists. give us a clear definition of god, OR let us use our own, I'm OK with that, but if you refuse to define your god, and we use our own definition, we just get "Oh, well that's not quite how MY god is, so you haven't disproven HIM yet"
And I'll add in, I'd like to see you destroy agnostic atheism, I'm curious to have my mind changed... go for it.