Whose 'logic' is it anyway?

[muhammad_isa]

But there's still a logical contradiction .. saying "everything's fine and there is no evil" simply isn't an option.

There's a difference between saying that "God is loving" and "there is no evil" ..

You might deem that Almighty God is evil because He allows evil .. but there is a distinction between the two, and they are not equal

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's a difference between saying that "God is loving" and "there is no evil" ..

You might deem that Almighty God is evil because He allows evil .. but there is a distinction between the two, and they are not equal

This is where the other purported characteristics of God become relevant. It is not loving to knowingly subject a person to unnecessary evil, but if God is all-powerful, then no evil is necessary, and if God is all-knowing, then any evil inflicted anywhere is within his full knowledge.

Also, God does more than simply *allow* evil: if God is the ultimate source of everything, then God is the ultimate source of evil as well.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hang on - muhammad, I think we may be arguing from a misunderstanding of our positions. Earlier, I took your argument to be something lime "we're not in a position to judge God's actions as evil, therefore we can't condemn him as unloving." Is that a fair re-wording? Because your most recent post makes it seem like you're arguing something else, but I can't tell what.

 

[waitasec]

Which would be totally incorrect!

that would be totally incorrect subjectively speaking of course...
so what?

 

[muhammad_isa]

.. It is not loving to knowingly subject a person to unnecessary evil, but if God is all-powerful, then no evil is necessary..

I think you know the answer to that already..
What is evil? Isn't it that which is not good for us, individually and collectively?

Well .. how can we have the responsibility of our actions, without the capability of commiting evil?
[ bearing in mind, the previous 'definition' ]

Of course, you could argue that God could have made us all angels ie. without responsibility, but I for one, can see that mankind has the capacity for a greater status than angels .. although the converse is true as well

Almighty God knows what we know not

 

[1137]

We tend to digress greatly in these forums, which I actually thoroughly enjoy. I just want to point out again that the question asked is "who's logic is it?" The answer is God's from a Christian perspective. So a Christian who avoids logical and philosophical thought cannot know god, as they are rejecting one of god's most important creations: The laws of logic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you know the answer to that already..
What is evil? Isn't it that which is not good for us, individually and collectively?

Well .. how can we have the responsibility of our actions, without the capability of commiting evil?
[ bearing in mind, the previous 'definition' ]

Three things occur to me when I read this:

- your definition would include "natural evils": i.e. natural sources of harm and suffering that human beings have no control over. Since humans aren't responsible for them, they can't be said to have anything to do with human responsibility.

- by implying that God can't create free will-endowed creatures without also creating evil, you're arguing that God is not omnipotent. If your God isn't omnipotent, then fine, but this doesn't mesh with the belief system we were just talking about.

- you aren't actually saying that God doesn't create evil; you're only arguing that God has a good reason for creating evil.

Of course, you could argue that God could have made us all angels ie. without responsibility, but I for one, can see that mankind has the capacity for a greater status than angels .. although the converse is true as well

Almighty God knows what we know not

If that's your attitude, you might as well have said "I dunno" and saved the song and dance.

 

[muhammad_isa]

- your definition would include "natural evils": i.e. natural sources of harm and suffering that human beings have no control over.

You mean like "breaking your arm" or in other words, our fragility? Is that really evil? Are all forms of suffering evil? Is pain evil?

- by implying that God can't create free will-endowed creatures without also creating evil, you're arguing that God is not omnipotent. If your God isn't omnipotent, then fine, but this doesn't mesh with the belief system we were just talking about.

That's an illogical argument .. omnipotence doesn't include logical impossibilities, unless of course you wish to define it so .. I do not .. there wouldn't be much point having a logical argument about the nature of God if the concept of God was illogical

- you aren't actually saying that God doesn't create evil; you're only arguing that God has a good reason for creating evil.

Quite obviously, He created beings capable of evil .. is that the same as "creating evil"?
ie. is He responsible for it?

Yes and no! He is responsible for the whole universe, and everything it contains, yet that doesn't absolve us from the responsibility of our evil actions.
It is not "either or"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You mean like "breaking your arm" or in other words, our fragility? Is that really evil? Are all forms of suffering evil? Is pain evil?

By your definition, yes. Would you like to change your definition?

That's an illogical argument .. omnipotence doesn't include logical impossibilities, unless of course you wish to define it so .. I do not .. there wouldn't be much point having a logical argument about the nature of God if the concept of God was illogical

Is there free will in Heaven?

Quite obviously, He created beings capable of evil .. is that the same as "creating evil"?
ie. is He responsible for it?

Yes and no! He is responsible for the whole universe, and everything it contains, yet that doesn't absolve us from the responsibility of our evil actions.
It is not "either or"

I didn't say it was. Responsibility isn't a zero-sum game. Even if I'm fully responsible for my own actions, someone else can also be responsible for them to the extent that they knowingly enabled them.

 

[muhammad_isa]

By your definition, yes. Would you like to change your definition?

There's no doubt that it's extremely unpleasant .. but then there's the converse to that .. pleasure..
Is pleasure evil, as well?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's no doubt that it's extremely unpleasant .. but then there's the converse to that .. pleasure..
Is pleasure evil, as well?

Are you a chatbot? It seems like you're not actually putting forward a coherent argument, just pulling one question out of each post to respond to. It almost seems like you have no memory of the things you said previously. Debating with you feels like talking with ELIZA.

Tell you what: I'll give you one more chance before I abandon this discussion with you. What are you actually arguing? What are the main points you're trying to communicate?

*Are* you trying to communicate?

 

[muhammad_isa]

What are you actually arguing?

Whose logic is it anyway? Well .. we have to try and make sense of our existence .. some people find logic & reason in Scriptures, and some don't..

You're saying that our 'fragility' is evil, presumably because you deem suffering of any kind to be evil.
As I say, it's very unpleasant, yes .. but is that the definition of evil, something unpleasant?

You didn't disagree with me earlier, when I suggested that evil was what was individually & collectively not good for us .. if there was no pain, no suffering, would we learn not to repeat the same mistakes?
As a simple ex. the case of getting burnt and its consequences

So .. I'm arguing that this "problem of evil" is according to our (subjective) perception, which is much more complex than is being suggested

 

[idav]

Whose logic is it anyway? Well .. we have to try and make sense of our existence .. some people find logic & reason in Scriptures, and some don't..

You're saying that our 'fragility' is evil, presumably because you deem suffering of any kind to be evil.
As I say, it's very unpleasant, yes .. but is that the definition of evil, something unpleasant?

You didn't disagree with me earlier, when I suggested that evil was what was individually & collectively not good for us .. if there was no pain, no suffering, would we learn not to repeat the same mistakes?
As a simple ex. the case of getting burnt and its consequences

So .. I'm arguing that this "problem of evil" is according to our (subjective) perception, which is much more complex than is being suggested

There is no problem with evil except for gods indifference. Humans try to do what we can to circumvent the atrocities people would like to commit as they run wild but we are neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Whose logic is it anyway? Well .. we have to try and make sense of our existence .. some people find logic & reason in Scriptures, and some don't..

You're saying that our 'fragility' is evil, presumably because you deem suffering of any kind to be evil.
As I say, it's very unpleasant, yes .. but is that the definition of evil, something unpleasant?

The definition you gave implies that unpleasantness is "evil". All I'm asking for is logical consistency in your argument.

You didn't disagree with me earlier, when I suggested that evil was what was individually & collectively not good for us

Actually, I do have some problems with your definition, but I didn't want to get bogged down in a debate over the definitions of terms so I accepted it for the purposes of this discussion so I could find out what you were trying to get at with the rest of your argument.

.. if there was no pain, no suffering, would we learn not to repeat the same mistakes?
As a simple ex. the case of getting burnt and its consequences

That depends on how you look at it. If you're arguing that an omnipotent god couldn't teach us things without hurting us, then I'd say that this is inconsistent with the idea that this god is omnipotent.

So .. I'm arguing that this "problem of evil" is according to our (subjective) perception, which is much more complex than is being suggested

Yes, but that doesn't let you ignore premises you've stated in order to establish your argument. It's one thing to say that we don't have all the information; it's another thing to say (implicitly) "here's a piece of information we can rely on", but then decide that it's not reliable later on when it doesn't suit your argument.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That depends on how you look at it. If you're arguing that an omnipotent god couldn't teach us things without hurting us, then I'd say that this is inconsistent with the idea that this god is omnipotent.

.

Is that your answer to every logical argument put forward?
If God is omnipotent .. da da, da da..

I tell you what, I know that you're not God or omnipotent, but just give us a clue what you're talking about, please?
What has Almighty God done wrong? How could He have done better, while still giving us responsibility and choice?
Let's have a logical answer, please :candle:

PS. Saying that God should have put us all in paradise without question does not give us any choice, does it?

 

[cablescavenger]

The atheist talk of logic in trying to explain away God ,Religion or Spirituality is a moot point.

Whose logic are we talking about here - God's or human's?

What may seem logical to us is only so because we only understand our own logic.

Think of a tribe comprised of children - their leaders would make the rules based on their own logic - to them it would all be commonsense and correct yet an adult could easily prove them wrong.

How about animal logic? - would a human be able to tell the leader of the Wolf Pack the correct way to do things, and how could a human possibly know anyway?

The same is true of God.

Statements such as 'the concept of God defies logic therefore it is just a delusion' are erroneous as they are based on the logical fallacy of human logic being correct.

God exists otherwise how else can you explain anything?

Man has been capable of explaining many things without God, and man has used God as an explanation for many things, but God has failed to explain anything.

 

[Daviso452]

Is that your answer to every logical argument put forward?
If God is omnipotent .. da da, da da..

I tell you what, I know that you're not God or omnipotent, but just give us a clue what you're talking about, please?
What has Almighty God done wrong? How could He have done better, while still giving us responsibility and choice?
Let's have a logical answer, please :candle:

PS. Saying that God should have put us all in paradise without question does not give us any choice, does it?

First off, can't we make choices in heaven?

But secondly, the concept of God being omnipotent is in itself contradictory. It is impossible for anything to be omnipotent. Here is a well used example of this:
"Suppose God is omnipotent. Then he can do anything, right? Doesn't that mean he can make a rock so big that not even he can move? But if he did, and couldn't move the rock, that would mean he isn't omnipotent."
It's simple, but proves a point. God CANNOT do anything. Therefore he is not omnipotent. And thus, we must re-make our definition of God, without the ability to do anything. Now the question is, what are his limits?

 

[PolyHedral]

What has Almighty God done wrong?

All of these.

PS. Saying that God should have put us all in paradise without question does not give us any choice, does it?

Course it does. You can choose to do whatever you want in paradise, can't you?

 

[muhammad_isa]

First off, can't we make choices in heaven?
God CANNOT do anything. Therefore he is not omnipotent. And thus, we must re-make our definition of God, without the ability to do anything. Now the question is, what are his limits?

Errr .. no..
Aren't you being a bit pedantic here? Taking your argument to the limit, we could say that because God is 'omnipotent',
it means that He can die, and therefore no longer be eternal !

Silly, isn't it? Almighty God has no limits, apart from the obvious logical impossibilities, which negates the point of discussion

 

[Koldo]

Is that your answer to every logical argument put forward?
If God is omnipotent .. da da, da da..

What is wrong with his argument exactly?

I tell you what, I know that you're not God or omnipotent, but just give us a clue what you're talking about, please?
What has Almighty God done wrong? How could He have done better, while still giving us responsibility and choice?
Let's have a logical answer, please :candle:

Are you saying he couldn't have done better?
He could have created us unable to feel undesired pain, for example.
People would still have responsibility and choice.

PS. Saying that God should have put us all in paradise without question does not give us any choice, does it?

Can't people make choices and have responsibilities in the paradise?