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

[Silver Wolf]

Why must the abodes die?
Why must material things cease to exist?
And for that matter, why must these abodes exist?

Because they were created. God, and the souls were not created, therefore they are not subject to death.

Or he could prevent all evil acts performed by/to him.
Simple as that.

Why? Why take away his free will? Who knows, he may come to repent and lead an upright life, or he could die and be subject to painful rebirths, in any case, it is his will, and out of love for us, God doesn't take our free will away.

 

[1robin]

its definition. "Murder is not wrong" is a self-contradicting statement, since the word murder can only mean wrongful homicide.

That an assumption of the point. Wrongful is derivative not determinative. What is determinative is unjustifiable taking of human life. In the context you used my question would be how do you know unjustified taking of human life is wrong without assuming it. Without God humans are biological anomalies that have no basis for claiming any actual value or sanctity. What is wrong with killing off all biological anomalies without God? You just attempting to use terminology as a substitute for the substance that I asked for. You can define something as wrong if you wish but your definition has no power to actually make it wrong. I did not ask what terminology is used I asked what makes even things you might define or label as wrong actually wrong. Let me restate. You know wrongful homicide IS actually wrong based on __________________ without God.

A trivial point to make, certainly. Far more interesting are the criteria by which homicides are deemed to be morally and legally culpable (murder) or not, and the variability we find here throughout history and ethnography is huge: there have been, and are, many societies which classify as justifiable homicide what we would call murder.

I am discussing ontology not epistemology. I want foundations not definitions or aspects of apprehension.

As succinctly put recently by Ingledsva -
And what they deem lawful (and morally acceptable) is generally what lets them prosper.

This is not an answer to anything I asked. This is a point about what methods are used to establish legality not morality. There is nothing in it that would make anything wrong or right, just legal or not.

Your own response to this very obvious point, reliable as a knee-jerk, has generally been to summon up your old ally Adolf:

I have no idea what that means. I am forced to use the most extreme examples because secular morality is so ambiguous only the greatest extremes can be agreed upon as evil or good. If a group of people argues the have the right to kill human life in the womb it pretty much takes universal genocide to get them to agree an act was wrong.

You are, I'm sure, aware of the argument fallacy called Appeal to Adverse Consequences. Your argument in the above quote boils down to "morality must be absolute and god-given, otherwise I would have no solid ground from which to call the Nazis evil" - a classic appeal to consequences. You and I no doubt share a common disgust of Nazism and its deeds. Neither of us need like the fact that that disgust is culturally rather than absolutely grounded - but not liking the fact doesn't invalidate it.

I see you have proven my point above. Finding something a secular person will agree is actually wrong requires the most absurd example and as in the case even that is not enough many times. If we can't agree on what is evil then on what ground can morality be discussed.

You base your view of morality on the way you wish it to be; I (and others such as, I'm guessing, Ingledsva) on how we see it to be. It operates in the world as an observable sociological and anthropological phenomenon, not as a philosophical abstraction.

I was not asking a moral quality question. I was asking a moral foundation question. Pick anything you actually believe is objectively wrong (if such a thing exists for you) and tell me how you know it is actually wrong without defining it that way and saying "there". I can't make this much simpler or easy for you.

You know that _______________ is actually wrong even if no transcendent standard exists because of _________________.

 

[1robin]

The Key word is accident. You said it yourself. A car accident.

Is murder an accident?

I am using your definition. You said "You causing harm to another being and those around them?". You did not say intentional. You did not classify accidental harm any differently. You said harm and harm alone is the foundation for what is wrong. Of course what I said, being based on something as absurd as what you claimed, was its self absurd. When you supply absurd premises, the conclusions can't help but be absurd. I will make it even easier for you. Pick anything you think is actually wrong and tell me again how "if God does not exist" you KNOW it actually is wrong. What is the foundation for moral truth without God?

 

[1robin]

The basic for murder is unlawfully killing another human.

A God is not needed to come up with human laws.

*

I was discussing right and wrong not legality. Even the Greeks and Romans knew the difference. 2000 years later and your still mixing the two up. Why?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I am using your definition. You said "You causing harm to another being and those around them?". You did not say intentional. You did not classify accidental harm any differently. You said harm and harm alone is the foundation for what is wrong. Of course what I said, being based on something as absurd as what you claimed, was its self absurd. When you supply absurd premises, the conclusions can't help but be absurd. I will make it even easier for you. Pick anything you think is actually wrong and tell me again how "if God does not exist" you KNOW it actually is wrong. What is the foundation for moral truth without God?

Why murder is wrong, without God? Well first define to me what is murder. It certainly isn't the same as killing. Since there are plenty of reasons to kill given in the OT that have nothing to do murder. So there obviously needs to be some type of intent behind it for it to be called murder. That intent is defined by what? Has God defined that intent for us, or have we had to?

If a man comes into my home and attempts me with harm and I proceed to kill them, have I committed murder?

With God is slavery (the owning of another human being) moral or immoral?

If moral then humanity certainly has a very different opinion than God. If Immoral then God certainly had no problems with it prior.

If humans morality come from God and God is the foundation, than all acts exhibited and judged as moral come from God and would not change. So saying that Slavery is Immoral when it was at a point in time sanctioned by God is a contradiction as God would never and could never sanction anything immoral.

 

[Koldo]

Because they were created. God, and the souls were not created, therefore they are not subject to death.

Why must created things die?

Why? Why take away his free will? Who knows, he may come to repent and lead an upright life, or he could die and be subject to painful rebirths, in any case, it is his will, and out of love for us, God doesn't take our free will away.

God wouldn't need to take away his free will do that.
If i prevent you from shooting a gun, have i taken away your free will?
If i prevent someone from shooting at you, have i taken away your free will?

 

[Silver Wolf]

Why must created things die?

Because they were created, all things that have a beginning have an end. This body, this planet, this galaxy, this universe, all were created. Therefore they are weak, impermanent, and decaying.

You wouldn't need to take away his free will do that.
If i prevent you from shooting a gun, have i taken away your free will?
If i prevent someone from shooting at you, have i taken away your free will?

If the logical thing would be for the gun to fire, and God had interfered, wouldn't God be breaking logic? Without logic, or reason, the universe would turn to chaos pretty quickly.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Because they were created, all things that have a beginning have an end. This body, this planet, this galaxy, this universe, all were created. Therefore they are weak, impermanent, and decaying.



If the logical thing would be for the gun to fire, and God had interfered, wouldn't God be breaking logic? Without logic, or reason, the universe would turn to chaos pretty quickly.

Logic and Reason would all be determined by God. The Gun can still fire, but it would miss. All the time. At that point people would just stop using Guns. Or just make people sturdier. Imagine a world were we were all like superman, incapable of being harmed or harming others. The only way we could die would be old age.

 

[Koldo]

Because they were created, all things that have a beginning have an end. This body, this planet, this galaxy, this universe, all were created. Therefore they are weak, impermanent, and decaying.

Why must created things have an end?
Why must things with a beginning have an end?
Why must they be weak, impermanent and decaying?

You must show this necessity to be true if you want your answer to be acceptable.

If the logical thing would be for the gun to fire, and God had interfered, wouldn't God be breaking logic? Without logic, or reason, the universe would turn to chaos pretty quickly.

It would be illogical if there was no intervention nor malfunction.
With intervention, there is nothing illogical about it.

 

[adi2d]

Logic and Reason would all be determined by God. The Gun can still fire, but it would miss. All the time. At that point people would just stop using Guns. Or just make people sturdier. Imagine a world were we were all like superman, incapable of being harmed or harming others. The only way we could die would be old age.

According to the story if God hadn't taken away our free will we would have eaten from the tree of life and lived forever

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

According to the story if God hadn't taken away our free will we would have eaten from the tree of life and lived forever

Well Free Will doesn't necessarily mean the capacty to actually do something. It's fully possible to stop someone from doing something without impugning on their free will.

For instance you can stop your child from touching the fire, they still had the will to touch the fire, but the action of doing it was stopped. Will and Action are not the same thing.

 

[Koldo]

This just reminded me of:

Psalm 91
New International Version (NIV)

1 Whoever dwells in the shelter of the Most High
will rest in the shadow of the Almighty.[a]
2 I will say of the Lord, “He is my refuge and my fortress,
my God, in whom I trust.”
3 Surely he will save you
from the fowler’s snare
and from the deadly pestilence.
4 He will cover you with his feathers,
and under his wings you will find refuge;
his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.
5 You will not fear the terror of night,
nor the arrow that flies by day,
6 nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness,
nor the plague that destroys at midday.
7 A thousand may fall at your side,
ten thousand at your right hand,
but it will not come near you.
8 You will only observe with your eyes
and see the punishment of the wicked.
9 If you say, “The Lord is my refuge,”
and you make the Most High your dwelling,
10 no harm will overtake you,
no disaster will come near your tent.
11 For he will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways;
12 they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.
13 You will tread on the lion and the cobra;
you will trample the great lion and the serpent.
14 “Because he loves me,” says the Lord, “I will rescue him;
I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name.
15 He will call on me, and I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble,
I will deliver him and honor him.
16 With long life I will satisfy him
and show him my salvation.”

 

[Silver Wolf]

Why must created things have an end?
Why must things with a beginning have an end?
Why must they be weak, impermanent and decaying?

Because that's just how it is. If something has a beginning but not an end, it's incomplete.
Everyone takes birth based on their attributes and qualities. Therefore people are born in this gross material world, whether as humans, gods, feral animals, etc.

It would be illogical if there was no intervention nor malfunction.
With intervention, there is nothing illogical about it.

Why intervene? Why would God feel the need to stop something that happens every single day?

 

[adi2d]

Well Free Will doesn't necessarily mean the capacty to actually do something. It's fully possible to stop someone from doing something without impugning on their free will.

For instance you can stop your child from touching the fire, they still had the will to touch the fire, but the action of doing it was stopped. Will and Action are not the same thing.

So God stopping Adam and eve from eating from the tree of knowledge wouldn't have stopped our free will? Then why blame them for eating from it? If it was his plan from the start for us to sin why blame us?

If you told your child not to touch the stove and put their fave toy on stove who's at fault when they get burned?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

So God stopping Adam and eve from eating from the tree of knowledge wouldn't have stopped our free will? Then why blame them for eating from it? If it was his plan from the start for us to sin why blame us?

If you told your child not to touch the stove and put their fave toy on stove who's at fault when they get burned?

Which is why the concept of Original Sin doesn't work all that well. The point I think the story was making is that people were made with conflicting natures, that when given a choice between good and evil they can end up making the negative choice.

I even find it more interesting in that it was their reaction more so than their action. For instance, when asked about their crime, neither Adam or Eve take responsbility. Eve blames the serpent, Adam blames Eve and God.

To me it shows they had an opportunity to ask for Forgiveness but did not. Which is a nother reflection of human nature, that in times of doing wrong we will avoid revealing our fault.

 

[Koldo]

Because that's just how it is. If something has a beginning but not an end, it's incomplete.
Everyone takes birth based on their attributes and qualities. Therefore people are born in this gross material world, whether as humans, gods, feral animals, etc.

Just because that's how it is ( for the sake of the argument we could assume it is as you say ), it doesn't mean that is how it must be.

Why intervene? Why would God feel the need to stop something that happens every single day?

Does God want our well being?
It is a given that if he doesn't care about us, then he wouldn't feel the need to do anything at all.

 

[1robin]

He said -



You said -



I said -




You seem to not be understanding today.

Basic as in simplest explanation OFthe definition of the LAW, then we get into the various breakdowns, manslaughter, first degree, etc.

And by the way - it is ONLY what people agree is "wrong" in specific groups, religions, nations, etc.

In other words if Jews "today" did a lot of the things their ancient Hebrew "LAW" allowed them to do, - they would be arrested on the spot.

As would Muslims in the USA today, that decide to "honor Kill" a female relative, etc.

Thus it is people that decide what is called "lawful," or unlawful.

*

Lawful has nothing to do with what I asked. You are basically saying that what is wrong is wrong because we define it that way. That is not true. Defining something as lawful or unlawful has not the slightest thing to do with whether it is wrong or right. You seem to be confusing what some fallible person declared legal with what is morally true. No matter what terminology you use, what definitions you simply assert, or what statutes you cite morality without God can't possibly rise above human opinion.

 

[Silver Wolf]

Just because that's how it is ( for the sake of the argument we could assume it is as you say ), it doesn't mean that is how it must be.

Either that or live in a horrible world where everyone is old and grey and the population is overpopulation.

Does God want our well being?
It is a given that if he doesn't care about us, then he wouldn't feel the need to do anything at all.

Why? It's not harming our soul. I'd imagine it'd be quite a bit differently then.

 

[Koldo]

Either that or live in a horrible world where everyone is old and grey and the population is overpopulation.

Or perhaps live in multiple worlds with eternal youth.

Why? It's not harming our soul. I'd imagine it'd be quite a bit differently then.

Why not? It harms us regardless.

 

[Silver Wolf]

Or perhaps live in multiple worlds with eternal youth.

It would never make us happy eternally, it's not possible to achieve perfect happiness in this world, only by God is that possible.

1. A person will become bored with the unending opulence.
2. There will be eternal evolutionary stagnation.
3. The brain is a very limited thing, it can only hold so much information.

Why not? It harms us regardless.

We're one galaxy, among millions, in a universe that's barely out if it's diapers, with infinite other universes just as old/young as this one. Contemplate, why would God be too concerned with what happens to a bacteria (human body.) why not be worried about the person (soul.)