The Problem of Evil

[Koldo]

Are diseases evil? I mean is catching a cold now worse than genocide?

Not in themselves.
Diseases are not moral agents, at least in my opinion.

Or are we really that petty that we think there is no God because ... viruses exist? Bacteria? Many of which are necessary for us to live and digest food! And yet sometimes our bodies interact with these things in ways that are sufferable.

1) When you say 'god', do you mean it in the strict sense of the problem of evil? This is an important clarification. I don't want to debate using a particular concept of god just so in the end someone will say something along the lines of: Oh, but the god I have been talking about is not really as omnibenevolent as the one referred to in the problem of evil.

2) Necessary for us to live? Only in our current world. Or do you mean god is unable to create beings that depend on bacterias to live?

And we appreciate good health how exactly? Its just there right? taken for granted and expectation?

Why not? Are you unable to do that?
I can appreciate being able to walk around freely even though I have never been in a wheelchair.

So what happens when you shove your body full of salt, sugar and fat? Should you still have good health? Or should gluttony have consequences? And when our gluttony lowers our immune system response? What then?

Why not? Why should it have bad consequences? Why should gluttony lower our immune system response?

Tell me, if we have promiscuous sex in parks with anonymous strangers should that be free of consequence? No STD's because good health is just ... required?

Why shouldn't it be free of bad consequences?

Right ... consequences are evil.

Are you seeing the problem with this line of thinking?

Why do you believe we should be punished for certain choices we make?

Even so, what about people who don't get STDs even though they have a lot of sex with anonymous stranges? Or those who get STDs from their one and only spouse?

It seems that you believe that diseases are a direct consequences of our choices. But this is not particularly true. Some people are born with certain diseases. Others engage into risky activities and don't really have to face any bad consequence at all.

 

[Koldo]

Oh? So there is an alternate to the A and B reality of either having free will or not?

Please explain these other choices ... like half free will ... you can make some choices but not others! Which means .. you don't have free will.

I think its interesting that most of the people who bring up false dichotomy don't really understand what it means.

Some propositions do have more than two possible outcomes. Some do not. For example, either 1+1=2 or it does not. Or a true or false statement is not a false dichotomy. Saying that you can only cut a carrot in half or not would be a false dichotomy.

Saying we either have free will or we do not? That is not a false dichotomy.

Feel free to explain what the other options are here?

Obviously, my religiously addled Neanderthal brain is just not up to the task.

Again, I find it necessary to point out the trend in atheism to make, and then utterly fail to support a claim.

The free will argument is a false dichotomy because ...

I realize you atheists think we posses all kinds of fantastical divine magic, but really, no Christian actively claims the ability to read minds. Really. All honest like and all. We honestly cannot simply read your mind to figure out how you arrived at a conclusion.

That is why claims require support.

Can you choose to fly at this moment?
I mean, literally, without the use of anything else other than your own body.

Perhaps you could say: yes. But still you wouldn't be able to fly at will regardless.

So, to say that we have free will means that free will doesn't depend on us being able to make certain choices, such as being able to fly at will.

Being unable to fly is a shortcoming of our bodies. What if being unable to rape or murder was also a shortcoming of our bodies? Think about it.

But more to the point of this post, what is wrong with god not letting humans ( as we are ) make certain choices? Humans do that to each other all the time. Why is it acceptable for humans to do it to themselves but not acceptable if god does it?

 

[Willamena]

Can you choose to fly at this moment?
I mean, literally, without the use of anything else other than your own body.

Impossible things are generally not considered to be in the realm of choice.

 

[Koldo]

Omnibenevolent? As soon as you find something clearly bad? Its not bad anyway because there is a reason for it haven't yet discerned. He's onmibenevolent you see?

On practice, what would be the difference between an omnibenevolent god and an omnimalevolent god?
What does it mean to be good and to be evil ?

Do you consider directly harming someone needlessly to be a bad thing ( morally speaking ) ?
Do you consider directly improving the well-being of someone to be a good thing ( morally speaking )?

 

[Koldo]

Impossible things are generally not considered to be in the realm of choice.

Correct.

Make 'murder' also an impossible thing, and, alas, we have free will, even though we are not able to murder anyone.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

With respect I see a circular argument there, where the conclusion is the same as the opening premise. It is also an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). Omnibenevolence is neither logcally demonstrable nor empirically evident. It is not true in any sense.

Yeah. It's a word without a coherent concept behind it... like all the omnis.

Sometimes people make up words just to play with.

 

[Willamena]

Correct.

Make 'murder' also an impossible thing, and, alas, we have free will, even though we are not able to murder anyone.

Murder is not an impossibility.

 

[Koldo]

Murder is not an impossibility.

Not as we are.

Is God unable to make murder an impossibility?
Does he lack the power to do that?

 

[Willamena]

Not as we are.

We are what we are.

Is God unable to make murder an impossibility?
Does he lack the power to do that?

We are not "God."

 

[LuisDantas]

It sure looks like "free will" as a concept has no useful purpose whatsoever.

 

[Koldo]

We are what we are.


We are not "God."

So what?

 

[Willamena]

So what?

So impossibilities are not in the realm of choice.

Edit: Just pointng out a problem with the argument. Carry on.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It sure looks like "free will" as a concept has no useful purpose whatsoever.

Not so. It can be used to tie our thoughts into decorative knots.

 

[Mortose]

Is there a "true evil"? An "evil" universal enough to have every human capable of response in agreement that it is "evil"? Some define me as evil, though this really is the operative term here, "some". As in "some" define me as evil, not all. I could even go further to state that many define me as evil but still, many is not all. Does what is evil come down to democratic vote?

As for the problem of evil, I do not see one. I see ignorant and disgruntled ex-religionists who have turned Atheist because they have found no evidence of "God" being "good". This is not true of all Atheists though, some do not care, some never cared and some are simply too clinically minded to bother. There are many reasons, though the reason for Atheism in the Original Post is one based on a benevolent deity.

Can someone define what omni-good is?

 

[idav]

Can someone define what omni-good is?

Good for everyone equally doesn't even seem possible. Unless we sever relations between beings, someone is going to get the short end somehow cause someone will always end up needing to be constrained. Things happen all the time to people that are not good or best for them and are out of their own physical control.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Forgive me but I have to mention that the personal pronoun "I" appears rather frequently in the above. Surely it is the suffering of others that we ought to consider in the context of this debate and not how best we can achieve goals and personal satisfaction as individuals? And it seems to me that a supposed need for unspeakable suffering in order to progress as individuals must destroy any credence in arguments to a moral and worshipful God.

You are not addressing how the world you propose is not Brave New World.

 

[Koldo]

So impossibilities are not in the realm of choice.

Edit: Just pointng out a problem with the argument. Carry on.

No problem to my argument at all.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Good for everyone equally doesn't even seem possible. Unless we sever relations between beings, someone is going to get the short end somehow cause someone will always end up needing to be constrained. Things happen all the time to people that are not good or best for them and are out of their own physical control.

It is not possible, all you can do is try to minimize pain because different free agent will inevitably come in conflict.

I don't want the world without risk, danger or conflict that some here are proposing has the world God should have made, my ideas of how I want the world to be conflicts with there. The very fact that we are debating these things should give them ample proof the with agency and with people having different experiences and views that there will always be conflict.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Correct.

Make 'murder' also an impossible thing, and, alas, we have free will, even though we are not able to murder anyone.

To make murder an impossible thing, God would have to take away our ability to kill. Last time I looked just about every living thing needs to take the life of another living thing in order to live. So what would we eat in your no-kill world...sunshine and happiness?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

To make murder an impossible thing, God would have to take away our ability to kill. Last time I looked just about every living thing needs to take the life of another living thing in order to live. So what would we eat in your no-kill world...sunshine and happiness?

God is omnipotent... is what I hear people saying.

So He could have created us with the ability to fart cupcakes and koolaid for one another.