Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[ZenMonkey]

You’ve not addressed any of the points I’ve made. And you are also attacking a straw man; I am not talking of God changing himself or being what he is not, and in fact I gave you an argument to show that doing so would be contradictory. I also gave an explanation of the concepts and attributes that are metaphysically necessary to God and those that are not, such as omnibenevolence. Forgive me, but you don’t seem to know where you are going with your arguments.

I know where I stand on the issue. The failure is in comprehension ability and/or an unwillingness to see what I'm suggesting on your end. You view God to be something God isn't, which is the false premise you are basing your points on. Your entire argument is based on what you think God should be and not on reality. You may as well just say that the universe is malevolent because we suffer at times and die. Never mind personal responsibility and/or lack of understanding when it comes to the mechanics of life.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I know where I stand on the issue. The failure is in comprehension ability and/or an unwillingness to see what I'm suggesting on your end. You view God to be something God isn't, which is the false premise you are basing your points on.

So:

1) what is God? and

2) how do you know? and

3) how do you know that others are wrongly comprehending God?

Where do you get your information about God?

 

[ZenMonkey]

So:

1) what is God? and

2) how do you know? and

3) how do you know that others are wrongly comprehending God?

Where do you get your information about God?

1) Life, reality, truth (existence).

2) There is only one truth to be known by us.

3) Because life (reality) is that truth.

4) Through existence and from what is shown to us by existing.


Our sovereign authority in life is the same as that which gave us life. God is the origin and sovereign authority over all things existing. God is existence itself.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I know where I stand on the issue. The failure is in comprehension ability and/or an unwillingness to see what I'm suggesting on your end. You view God to be something God isn't, which is the false premise you are basing your points on. Your entire argument is based on what you think God should be and not on reality. You may as well just say that the universe is malevolent because we suffer at times and die. Never mind personal responsibility and/or lack of understanding when it comes to the mechanics of life.

No what you are arguing is a completely different case for God then him. Essentially everyone in this thread were talking about a particular God, you came in and started talking about a completely different God.

YOU introduced a new definition of God, you are the one viewing God as something that in this debate God is not.

In this debate God is an Omnipotent Creator who is also said to be Omnibenevolent. No matter how much you twist and turn and say that suffering is necessary it is not a necessity, because an omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent and omnibenevolent diety can create a world without suffering in any shape or form, this is not a matter of whether suffering is good or bad, its a matter of suffering happening.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

1) Life, reality, truth (existence).

If you see God as those things, I can't help seeing you as a word worshipper.

2) There is only one truth to be known by us.

That's a fine opinion. I don't share it. All of us know a different truth. How could it be otherwise?

Our sovereign authority in life is the same as that which gave us life. God is the origin and sovereign authority over all things existing. God is existence itself.

Sorry, but I can only see you as lost a bit in words.

But words aren't things. They're just little bits of sound which we use to try and point at things.

 

[ZenMonkey]

No what you are arguing is a completely different case for God then him. Essentially everyone in this thread were talking about a particular God, you came in and started talking about a completely different God.

YOU introduced a new definition of God, you are the one viewing God as something that in this debate God is not.

In this debate God is an Omnipotent Creator who is also said to be Omnibenevolent. No matter how much you twist and turn and say that suffering is necessary it is not a necessity, because an omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent and omnibenevolent diety can create a world without suffering in any shape or form, this is not a matter of whether suffering is good or bad, its a matter of suffering happening.

Then you guys are arguing over a no thing. Kinda like children arguing over the existence of Santa Clause. However, God is still ever present, all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Ever present in that God is all that exists. All powerful in that all things are subject to what is. All knowing in that everything existing is existent in existence. All good in that existence (God) does not act maliciously ... existence gives birth to life. Existence (God) is both the origin of all life and the sovereign authority over all life. We as existent beings simply live, move, and have our being in God (existence). The God you seem to be arguing is unknown to man because that god is non existent except in the minds of the religiously superstitious. I'm arguing what is known ... not what is not.

 

[ZenMonkey]

If you see God as those things, I can't help seeing you as a word worshipper.

Word worshiper? I'd rather think I honor reality.

That's a fine opinion. I don't share it. All of us know a different truth. How could it be otherwise?

There is only one truth to be known about what is real. My reality (life experience) will differ from your own, however. What humans perceive to be real isn't always true. The same is true for everyone. There will always be more to learn, know, and understand about reality.

Sorry, but I can only see you as lost a bit in words.

No, but it's fine that you think so.

But words aren't things. They're just little bits of sound which we use to try and point at things.

It's called the art of communication. We express ourselves through limited language and dialogue. Sometimes others understand what's being said and other times they don't. It comes down to comprehension abilities and/or willingness to understand a point.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There is only one truth to be known about what is real.

I think you're mistaken. We can only know stuff through observing with our senses or by constructing truth with our words.

But the physical world is boring. Atoms are atoms. I think only the world we create with our words is interesting, and that isn't a truth which is shared from person to person. That truth is different for everyone.

 

[Mycroft]

One one hand, those who have the power to intervene have the responsibility to intervene.

But on the other hand, supposing a god does exist, has it not vested humans with the power to overcome tribulation? For example, we're close to curing AIDS, HIV and Cancer with genetically engineered antibodies. If, then, a god gave humans the ability to create such a cure, perhaps it doesn't need to intervene and humans simply need to get themselves into gear? After all, we live in a world where most people know more about their favourite celebrity than they do as something basic like the Laws of Physics.

 

[cottage]

He is arguing from a false premise. God is certainly benevolent (well meaning, good, kind) as I understand God, but then our actions have consequences based on that which is intrinsic to God (law). Cottage is trying to make an argument based on what he 'thinks' God 'should' be and not on what God 'is'. At this point, I think you and cottage both are refusing to understand 'my' argument. Cottage seems to think God should be able to change what is inherent to God so that humans are able to not be bound by that which governs our existence in existence. Cottage seems to want absolute freedom to do what he wants without consequence of action. The whole argument is juvenile.

You are being disingenuous in attributing an argument to me that I have not made. Nowhere have I stated what I ‘think God should be’. I have pointed out what God is by definition, i.e. omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, necessarily existent, immaterial, eternal and immutable. That last characteristic is crucial: God is unchanging. And I have never, ever said or implied that I believe ‘I should have absolute freedom to do what I want’, and it forms no part of my argument whatsoever. You are coming very close now to telling outright lies.

Law exist for a reason. They can be both beneficial and detrimental depending on our observance and understanding or on our lack of understanding and failure to observe. We are capable and fully able to understand how life operates, but then some are content leading haphazard lives and without direction. I feel like I'm arguing with a 2 year old having a tantrum over a cookie he can't have. Laws exist. You observe them or you don't, but there are consequences to be had either way, whether you subjectively view them to be positive or negative. Death (destruction) is the flip side of life (creation). We're going to die, but then creation demands destruction, but that destruction demands new creation. That is just the way it is. That too is a law (principle) inherent to existence.

Please read the following carefully: The laws of nature exist because God, the Creator, created natural laws. God can change natural laws or create new ones because natural laws are contingent. But being contingent they are not part of God’s nature, since God is necessary and immutable. If it were otherwise then God too would be contingent, which is absurd for then he would be not-God, which is a contradiction. Tell me if you don’t understand this because I can explain it using simpler terms?

For example: Why did God create if it is required that something be destroyed through the active process of creating? Why does a painter destroy a dark blank canvas by painting a picture ... bringing the canvas to life with color and form? From creation (life) comes destruction (death). Creation requires sacrifice. The pendulum swings from creation to destruction, and then from destruction to creation again. This cycle is a circular continuum ... without one the other could not be. God creates life, but in the process of creation, something else must be sacrificed and destroyed. I suppose God's benevolence or malevolence is in the eyes of the beholder beholding these truth's about existence.

Sigh! We know the way the world works. Nobody is disputing that! The argument is that if God exists, as an omnipotent being, then the world didn’t have to be the way it is; in fact God lay under no necessity to create the world at all! And if he lay under no necessity to create the world then self-evidently he lay under no necessity to create a world containing evil and suffering. This is simple logic. If you disagree then please show how an omnipotent being was compelled to create the world with suffering?

I myself perceive God's will to create to be a benevolent thing, whereas cottage seems to perceive God's will to create to be a malevolent thing. I see God as a master designer with an intent to create a masterpiece. Even so, there are laws inherent to God that dictate the way things must be done. Creation is active, whereas destruction is a passive result of creating.

A ‘will to create a benevolent thing' doesn’t unseat the contradiction. And when are you going to stop putting words in my mouth? God is not ‘malevolent’ and I have never said or implied such. My argument is that there is no omnibenevolence, which means at most that God is indifferent to suffering. And there are no laws applicable to God other than the laws of logic, and he is therefore able to create any logically possible world.

 

[cottage]

I know where I stand on the issue. The failure is in comprehension ability and/or an unwillingness to see what I'm suggesting on your end. You view God to be something God isn't, which is the false premise you are basing your points on. Your entire argument is based on what you think God should be and not on reality. You may as well just say that the universe is malevolent because we suffer at times and die. Never mind personal responsibility and/or lack of understanding when it comes to the mechanics of life.

Oh, face palm! You’ve descended to that level, then?

I said you had not addressed a single point that I made in that post, and you still haven’t. You say things such as:

‘You view God to be something God isn't, which is the false premise you are basing your points on’. But don’t support your (false) assertions.

You also said: ‘Your entire argument is based on what you think God should be and not on reality.’

So tell me what I’ve said about God that he isn’t? And since ‘reality’ is general experience explain where God is in reality?

Now to the mechanics of life: In the natural world of our universe, heat, precipitation, oxygen and nitrogen etc supply our needs for life; objects degrade and die and new objects appear from the old constituents and then grow to maturity, ensuring the continuity and the cyclical balance of life. That is the reality.

And among this complex and wonderfully diverse collection of living things we humans exist as higher order primates that form attachments with one another and live in complex groups in which there are values, rituals, and social norms. And unlike other animals we have ethical standards, are capable of empathy and a willingness to help and see the best in others. So there is much that is good in the world. But nevertheless it is a sad fact that this is a world where animals kill other animals, men kill animals, and men kill each other. There are also the so-called metaphysical evils as natural disasters, and destructive diseases and pathogens that cause suffering and deaths. So that is also the reality.

No one can deny that these things, horrific as they are, may be necessary in some sense for the continued existence of our planet since that is the way it functions. So if there is a Creator then he created the universe to be as it is, and he is self-evidently indifferent to the suffering he created. But once again, if God is omnipotent then it is self contradictory to state that (A) that God had to create any world necessarily, and (B) that necessarily he had to create this particular world as it is. To maintain either of those statements as true is to undermine God’s omnipotence, and it must therefore be false. Or - there is no omnipotent God!

 

[ZenMonkey]

I think you're mistaken. We can only know stuff through observing with our senses or by constructing truth with our words.

Right, that how we interact with all that is. Words are how we communicate with each other.

But the physical world is boring. Atoms are atoms. I think only the world we create with our words is interesting, and that isn't a truth which is shared from person to person. That truth is different for everyone.

The physical world is far from being boring to me. Also, we likely perceive the world differently, which is why I suggested that our realities (based on experiences) differ from person to person. There are still very real constants in life, namely the laws that govern our existence.


Truth is truth - Life operates the same for all. Everything functions according to the mechanics inherent to existence. These realities are true for all no matter where we are, or how we perceive the world around us through our senses. There are constants in life and they apply to everyone.

 

[Mycroft]

Truth is truth -

Is it, though? Or is the Truth only as strong as your understanding of things and the tools you possess to increase that understanding?


People may say 'God exists. God is real. And that's the truth!' They may be sincere about that, but it may not be the truth. People often call things 'the truth' when they do not have the tools necessary to accurately describe events.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Truth is truth - Life operates the same for all. Everything functions according to the mechanics inherent to existence. These realities are true for all no matter where we are, or how we perceive the world around us through our senses. There are constants in life and they apply to everyone.

So you're back to truth as 'the laws of physics'?

Newton and Einstein are our prophets?

 

[ZenMonkey]

Oh, face palm! You’ve descended to that level, then?

I said you had not addressed a single point that I made in that post, and you still haven’t. You say things such as:

‘You view God to be something God isn't, which is the false premise you are basing your points on’. But don’t support your (false) assertions.

You also said: ‘Your entire argument is based on what you think God should be and not on reality.’

So tell me what I’ve said about God that he isn’t? And since ‘reality’ is general experience explain where God is in reality?

Now to the mechanics of life: In the natural world of our universe, heat, precipitation, oxygen and nitrogen etc supply our needs for life; objects degrade and die and new objects appear from the old constituents and then grow to maturity, ensuring the continuity and the cyclical balance of life. That is the reality.

And among this complex and wonderfully diverse collection of living things we humans exist as higher order primates that form attachments with one another and live in complex groups in which there are values, rituals, and social norms. And unlike other animals we have ethical standards, are capable of empathy and a willingness to help and see the best in others. So there is much that is good in the world. But nevertheless it is a sad fact that this is a world where animals kill other animals, men kill animals, and men kill each other. There are also the so-called metaphysical evils as natural disasters, and destructive diseases and pathogens that cause suffering and deaths. So that is also the reality.

No one can deny that these things, horrific as they are, may be necessary in some sense for the continued existence of our planet since that is the way it functions. So if there is a Creator then he created the universe to be as it is, and he is self-evidently indifferent to the suffering he created. But once again, if God is omnipotent then it is self contradictory to state that (A) that God had to create any world necessarily, and (B) that necessarily he had to create this particular world as it is. To maintain either of those statements as true is to undermine God’s omnipotence, and it must therefore be false. Or - there is no omnipotent God!

A. I didn't say that God had to create. I suggested that all things were created without malicious intent. Human suffering is largely a result of not being informed and/or indifferent to how life operates and to how our actions affect those we share this world with. Natural disasters, disease, and whatnot are not evils in and of themselves. They're not pleasant, but then they likely serve a greater purpose. I don't know and won't pretend to.


B. What I do know is that existence is omnipotent over all existing things. The laws that govern us are intrinsic to God, thus God is subject to be who God is and create according to those laws. My contention is your insistence that existence (God) should be able to create anything not subject to that which is intrinsic to God, and inherent to God's quality of being ... namely the laws that govern all things.


God is bound to be who God is. That's one point where we differ in understanding. We are bound by the same inherent laws that bind God. God is law, principle, and truth (what is real). It is law (God) that holds everything together in the cosmos, which then enables life on earth. Take away the inherent law in existence (God) and we'd be left with chaos unable to foster life.


Take away that part of God's being (law) and there would be no universe at all. It is through the laws inherent to God's being that life was able to be formed. Without law there would be no known existence for humans to perceive. God is subject to himself, which would still make God omnipotent and unlimited in power. Take that away and maybe then you could suggest that God is not omnipotent ... that's not the case, however. God is omnipotent even unto himself.

 

[ZenMonkey]

So you're back to truth as 'the laws of physics'?

Newton and Einstein are our prophets?

They were learned men who had a greater understanding of how life operates. Also, I never left post. Physics is only part of the equation. There are other laws and principles to consider, which are likewise universal in application.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

They were learned men who had a greater understanding of how life operates. Also, I never left post. Physics is only part of the equation. There are other laws and principles to consider, which are likewise universal in application.

Can you enumerate them? I'm not asking to to list a few words, like 'existence' and 'life' and such. I'm asking you to state a couple of the laws which you believe to have universal application.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Is it, though? Or is the Truth only as strong as your understanding of things and the tools you possess to increase that understanding?

Truth doesn't change. Human perception and understanding of truth does.

People may say 'God exists. God is real. And that's the truth!' They may be sincere about that, but it may not be the truth. People often call things 'the truth' when they do not have the tools necessary to accurately describe events.

That would be a statement based on their understanding of what is real. We'll never come to a point where we have nothing else to be learned. Truth is forever unfolding itself to us as we develop as a people and as we grow in understanding.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Can you enumerate them? I'm not asking to to list a few words, like 'existence' and 'life' and such. I'm asking you to state a couple of the laws which you believe to have universal application.

The law of polarity is one. Everything has a pair of opposites. Opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree of vibration, which then corresponds on all levels of being (physical, mental, and spiritual).

The law of rhythm is another, which points to the truth that in everything there is a measured motion ... a swing backward and forward, a pendulum like movement, or rather a tide like ebb and flow.

The law of vibration is another still, which points to the truth that everything is in constant motion ... nothing rests. From spirit to matter, there are millions of varying degrees of vibration between the two poles of existence.

Then there are principles such as love, forgiveness, service, gratitude, etc. All of which are able to help us lead beneficial and potentially more fulfilling lives.

 

[Mycroft]

Truth doesn't change. Human perception and understanding of truth does.

So you agree with my above comment.

An ancient tribesman may say 'water is only a liquid and nothing else. And that's the truth'. What he can't know, however, is that water becomes solid when something impacts it at a certain speed. So is water only a liquid? No. Does that man believe he is telling the truth? Yes. Is he telling the truth? No.

'Truth' is a shaky word.