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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That verse does not mean God created mass murder for example as we use the term today.

Despite the fact that the Bible describes God committing mass murder himself on several occasions?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I have no idea what the technical definition of Harsh is but in general use it is relative and many times used to indicate only that something done to us or another does not line up with what we would have chosen which is irrelevant. I was comparing the level of harshness between two things anyway not necessarily defining the term. No matter what else may by true no solution is far more harsh than even one we would not have chosen if it fixes that problem.

This is one of the most understood issue by non-theists IMO. Please review Craig's book on the problem of evil. The subject has exhausted me. God could have wiped us out at any point in time and would have still been benevolent, just, and omnipotent.


It is not very useful to claim what God could or could not do. It very speculative. However it is meaningful to examine what he did do. He said to fear the one that can destroy the soul in Hell. He said he was omnipresent yet Hell was separation from him, he said Hell would be thrown into the lake of fire and destroyed. All these add up to a Hell of annihilation. This is not however one of the doctrines I hold strongly. There is just too little information on it. There is far less than that to allow speculations on abstract concepts.

I recommend Craig's book. It is a legendary resource from a great scholar. Or maybe Aquinas as well.

I don't think there is a problem of Evil, I'm just going by the standard assumptions that people have made about God based on what they pull from the Bible and other religious discussions.

**** happens, God lets **** happen. Why complain? Fairness is a human creation.

 

[1robin]

You imply over and over that physicists just make things up, as a way to avoid inserting your god into the equation.

I imply that because they have said they have done that and I have even posted a few of their statements. The only thing unresolved is how many or how much they do it.

I don’t believe in things I can’t see can be true because I have no reason to think they are true. I can feel the wind, I can measure the wind, and I can demonstrate its effects on its surroundings. How do we do that with “spirit?”

Then black holes, multiverses, oscillation verses, macro evolution, abiogenesis, strings, and M theory are all false because you can't see them or measure them yet many of them you have argued are valid concepts. The same can be said for every historical event that occurred before your time. I do not care what you adopt just adopt it consistently. You can see the effects of the spirit in miracles, the continuous self sacrifice made by those who claimed faith was their motivation for 2000 years, the Church its self or at least some aspects of it, and you could experience it directly if you would allow your self. Believe whatever you wish just do so consistently. What other culture or faith has even a fraction the number of willing martyrs as Christianity and Judaism?

You imagine the same to be true of god, you mean.
I guess, using this reasoning, I have to believe in ghosts, fairies, Santa Claus, etc. because hey, they might exist!

Not at all. I never said everything that can't be seen must be believed in. I said that not seeing something is not evidenced it isn't true.

You don’t think ancient peoples were asking the same philosophical questions that we are? Come on.
What questions do you think they answered perfectly?

No they did not ask the same questions we do in many ways. The level of detail for instance that philosophy and science have indicated the cause of the universe must have were not even guessed at 5000 years ago.

I’m using your own rule to examine your claims. Funny how you throw it out the window when you want to jam your god into the picture.
Philosophers can claim all kinds of things. I’m interested in demonstrable evidence.

I left natural rules exactly where they belong, in nature and binding on nature. You are the one that are attempting to apply laws where they do not apply, not me. You have more evidence than you will ever be able to get to. What you actually want is proof and then only to consider not commit IMO. I have given you lists of things that have no natural explanation, the Bible is 750,000 words full of evidence, the internet is full of supernatural claims. Until you prove them all wrong you may not claim there is no evidence. Good luck.

Hmm, okay. So how many gods have been purported to have existed throughout human history? It’s somewhere in the thousands, at least. Why do you think that is?
And what untold paradoxes and dilemmas were solved by people living 5000 years ago?

1000s, but less than 3 that meet the requirements I mentioned. I have already answered the other questions at least twice.

We know this is true. Unless you believe Thor creates lightning bolts during thunderstorms.

I agree that occurred but you have no way of knowing if the Biblical writers did it themselves. Every indication is they did not but even if they did you have no way to know it.

Simple. It didn’t.

There is no other text or concept in human history more universally claimed to have answered these questions than the Bible.

I don’t think they “faked it.” I think they actually believed it because they lacked better explanations.

That does not account for why their description matches up with what modern thinking has posited to answer questions they were unaware of 5000 years ago. Do you think they knew that whatever created time must be independent of time long before even cause and effect was an issue?

Well, it’s like Hitchens used to say, hell is for everyone else!

I care little about what Hitchens claimed. They posited Hell for themselves as well and gave themselves some very very inconvenient methods for getting out of the jam.

What was inconvenient about their morality? Slavery was acceptable. Genocide was acceptable. Killing everyone who was disobedient in any way was apparently acceptable.

I take it you have never read Leviticus. No one that cared anything for convenience would have created a fraction of the list it contains. Servitude was legal and benevolent and almost always voluntary. I see posted page after page of evidence and facts did not dent your pet objection at all. Killing was and is justified at times, yet they recorded God's incredible wrath when they did so without justification. Genocide is practical given purpose at that time yet was a great exception not a rule. I can give you link to the best discussion of OT warfare if you wish and I have read many secular books on the subject. It was not what you apparently wish it was.

God of the gaps is still used constantly, as far as I can see. Every time an “I don’t know” pops up somewhere, somebody is inserting god into the equation.

No, it is not. It is a something apologists have tailored their arguments to keep even the false claims of it to a minimum. I can give you a link to a pure mathematician professor from Oxford talking about the issue if you wish.

How about this:
Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist

Please pay attention to this. Here is their Earth shattering evidence:

In the most recent study on pre-Big Bang science posted at arXiv.org, a team of researchers from the UK, Canada, and the US, Stephen M. Feeney, et al, have revealed that they have discovered four statistically unlikely circular patterns in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The researchers think that these marks could be “bruises” that our universe has incurred from being bumped four times by other universes. If they turn out to be correct, it would be the first evidence that universes other than ours do exist.

Pay attention to what it says. It says four things that are improbable exists and that a theory exist. That is being very very generous but it gets worse. Even if by some miracle which will never occur (how would this ever be resolved even given the unlikely chance it is true?) it would be the very first piece of evidence. So by their own admission this guess work (to be very generous) is the only possible evidence that exists.

How on Earth can you deny Biblical evidence and then buy into this stuff. It is not even science. It is hyperbolic assumptions on steroids. Every link I have ever been given for multiverses and abiogenesis turns out to be void of anything useful. I will no longer follow these links for the time being. There is no meaningful evidence for either currently. I can't believe people get paid to do this. Where have the Newton's and Einstein's all gone.

I don’t agree, obviously. To me, the Bible is just a collection of carefully chosen books. All the people that worship other gods described in other holy books don’t agree with you either.

I am quite aware of what you think. The issue is if what you think is the best conclusion too make given what we have. I have spent quite a bit of time suggesting in quite a few ways it is not.

I guess I don’t think of faith as a virtue. At least, not the kind of faith you’re talking about. And the fact that your religion apparently relies on faith over works makes it something I can’t get on board with (plus a whole bunch of other reasons, I’ve alluded to many, many times).

It would only be a virtue if true it would be a terrible mistake if not. I used to be puzzled why God would place so much value on faith in salvation even after I had been born again. It was only when I saw the impossibility of every other possible standard for salvation that I saw faith for what it actually is. Faith and faith alone in Christ has done more good for humanity that every moral philosopher, evolutionist, and ethics expert all combined.

 

[1robin]

Despite the fact that the Bible describes God committing mass murder himself on several occasions?

For the Love!! have we not beat the "God is evil" non-sense into the ground by now. I will make you a deal. Prove God has ever done anything evil and I will debate it. Or as an alternative prove anything evil has ever been done by anyone if God does not exist. Your sides tenacity is worthy of a better cause.

 

[Krill The Unwashed]

This thread has several explanations of this concept. The almost universal conclusion of the accepted commentators is that evil here means the evil of punishment and judgment and does not mean evil as we do today. It would include Hell and what misery sin produces. God creates the right use of something like sex, food, and chemicals. He did not produce our using good things in bad ways, we did. He might produce the retribution of their misuse in some ways. That verse does not mean God created mass murder for example as we use the term today. You can easily search for those previous posts where I and others went into some detail.

Assuming that Isaiah was real and lived way before the English language was formed, I'd say Isaiah did not speak English. Based on this conclusion, I'd speculate that to speculate on what the verse in question means by the English word/concept "Evil" is irrelevant to the actual verse.

If we desire to actually genuinely understand what Isaiah prolly meant, we'd have to try to figure out what the Hebrew word "Ra" meant back during his time. This word "Ra" is the word Translated as "Evil."

There are examples to glean from such as the Hebrew terms:

1. Ayin ha-ra: The Evil Eye - Source.
2. Yetzer ra: Evil Inclination - Source.
3. Lashon ha-ra: The Evil Tongue - Source.
4. Etz ha-da-at tov ve-ra: The tree of knowledge of good and evil - Source.

Ra means "Wickedness" as the following quote states:

Wickedness = "Ra" (ר&#1506 in Hebrew. According to the Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, רע (Resh-Ayin) means "to break" (pg.772). - Source.

 

[1robin]

Assuming that Isaiah was real and lived way before the English language was formed, I'd say Isaiah did not speak English. Based on this conclusion, I'd speculate that to speculate on what the verse in question means by the English word/concept "Evil" is irrelevant to the actual verse.

That is not the opinion of every commentator I could find. At least ten went to great links including concordances to explain it in detail.

If we desire to actually genuinely understand what Isaiah prolly meant, we'd have to try to figure out what the Hebrew word "Ra" meant back during his time. This word "Ra" is the word Translated as "Evil."

There are examples to glean from such as the Hebrew terms:

1. Ayin ha-ra: The Evil Eye - Source.
2. Yetzer ra: Evil Inclination - Source.
3. Lashon ha-ra: The Evil Tongue - Source.
4. Etz ha-da-at tov ve-ra: The tree of knowledge of good and evil - Source.

Ra means "Wickedness" as the following quote states:

My post was informative only. I have little interest in this issue but had looked it up a few times recently. I do not feel it worth contending with all the garbage I have to get to. Tell me this though. What is it that you conclude from your premise whether right or wrong? What are you building a case to prove?

 

[Krill The Unwashed]

That is not the opinion of every commentator I could find. At least ten went to great links including concordances to explain it in detail.

That's your whole problem. You rely on religious (re: Christian) commentators, and theological commentators. Of course they will formulate their opinions within your own Christian Weltanschauung.

When I said we should try to understand what the Hebrews meant by the word "Ra" regarding Isaiah 45:7, I mean a secular, scholarly, etymological study of the word. Sans religious comments.

 

[1robin]

That's your whole problem. You rely on religious (re: Christian) commentators, and theological commentators. Of course they will formulate their opinions within your own Christian Weltanschauung.

You do not know even a fraction of what you need to make even a fraction of the claim you made. That is not true and I am histories greatest expert on what I think and do. Even if true are you suggesting ignoring the greatest and most respected scholars in a subject better than reading them? When I was born again, I went to no church and read no scholastic works of any kind. I read only the Bible and even threw my TV in the lake. Through prayer I arrived at what I think the basics are but things like language and word usage in cultures at certain times is the perfect place for scholarship. Especially many independent but consistent conclusions of men who have access to far more information than the two of us combined. There is no doctrinal issue here for them to slant towards. There is no Church rivalries riding on that verse. This is not an issue that has ever divided anything.

When I said we should try to understand what the Hebrews meant by the word "Ra" regarding Isaiah 45:7, I mean a secular, scholarly, etymological study of the word. Sans religious comments.

So scholars are ok about Biblical things as long as they are not Biblical scholars. Strange rational but if I had any reason to resolve this issue whatever scholars you used would be carefully examined unlike you with some of the most respected in history that I use. I still have no idea what your trying to demonstrate. What is the conclusion? If it is abhorrent enough and unjustified you may have your debate after all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For the Love!! have we not beat the "God is evil" non-sense into the ground by now. I will make you a deal. Prove God has ever done anything evil and I will debate it. Or as an alternative prove anything evil has ever been done by anyone if God does not exist. Your sides tenacity is worthy of a better cause.

This goes back to your "there's no such thing as evil without God" argument, right?

I find it strange that you're so wedded to the idea that your god is good that you can't even come out and say that something as heinous as mass murder is wrong. The only way you've come up with to excuse the supposed actions of your god is to deny the idea that morality exists.

Well... maybe not so strange, since I recognize that this is the only way to defend the morality of a character as despicable as the God of the Bible. I guess the only way to argue that something as awful as the slaughter of the firstborn isn't moral is to argue that morality itself doesn't exist.

I think I mentioned this before, but I think it's funny how you turn into Pilate ("truth? What is truth?") in defense of Christianity.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

This goes back to your "there's no such thing as evil without God" argument, right?

I find it strange that you're so wedded to the idea that your god is good that you can't even come out and say that something as heinous as mass murder is wrong. The only way you've come up with to excuse the supposed actions of your god is to deny the idea that morality exists.

Well... maybe not so strange, since I recognize that this is the only way to defend the morality of a character as despicable as the God of the Bible. I guess the only way to argue that something as awful as the slaughter of the firstborn isn't moral is to argue that morality itself doesn't exist.

I think I mentioned this before, but I think it's funny how you turn into Pilate ("truth? What is truth?") in defense of Christianity.

I think it goes back to his "By what standards can we judge God", to which I would say...the same standards that god gave us?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it goes back to his "By what standards can we judge God", to which I would say...the same standards that god gave us?

Indeed. It always strikes me as strange when Christians claim that we can't know morality. After all, Christ is supposed to be the "second Adam" who redeems mankind for the sins of the first Adam. If humanity does not know good and evil, then Adam never sinned, which would make Christ's sacrifice unnecessary. IOW, claiming that we can't understand morality without God demeans Christ.

... which is no big deal for me, but isn't what I'd expect from a Christian.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Indeed. It always strikes me as strange when Christians claim that we can't know morality. After all, Christ is supposed to be the "second Adam" who redeems mankind for the sins of the first Adam. If humanity does not know good and evil, then Adam never sinned, which would make Christ's sacrifice unnecessary. IOW, claiming that we can't understand morality without God demeans Christ.

... which is no big deal for me, but isn't what I'd expect from a Christian.

Shrug I think it's a circular type of logic.

God is a source (morality in this case)

As such Man's morality is not man made but God given

It may be flawed by mans free will

But overall man will intuitively be able to determine between Good and Evil (that fruit made sure of that lol).

The only reason man would not be able to say is "God is Evil" is only due to limit. So the argument switchs to "God is not evil because we don't understand". This is talking about the motive.

In a court of law though, it's intent that matters not motive. Motive determines your sentencing, Intent though is what defines the crime (if I remember what little law I know correctly). I attacked someone (My intent is clearly to do them wrong), I attacked someoen because (My motive behind the intent). However that does not change the fact that I did someone harm, it only changes the reason.

So while we may not know Gods motive, we can clearly see Gods intent. Though in many cases in the Bible we are given the motive.

Gods intent in Egypt was to do harm to them. Gods motivation was to prove that God was better than the egyptian gods.

 

[1robin]

Indeed. It always strikes me as strange when Christians claim that we can't know morality. After all, Christ is supposed to be the "second Adam" who redeems mankind for the sins of the first Adam. If humanity does not know good and evil, then Adam never sinned, which would make Christ's sacrifice unnecessary. IOW, claiming that we can't understand morality without God demeans Christ.

... which is no big deal for me, but isn't what I'd expect from a Christian.

You know what is even stranger. The fact that me and every Christian I know who uses moral ontological arguments know very well that atheists do not understand the term apparently and so go way out of our way to state we are not making a moral epistemological claim. That both the atheist and Christian can apprehend murder is wrong, etc... but that only the Christian has the bases for claiming it is actually wrong. It is a foundational not awareness issue. Despite page after page of me and others explaining this you and others still attempt to claim a false moral high ground that does not exist by claiming we think exactly the opposite of what we explained and you ignored. I see this bizarre stuff in even professional debates as well informal ones and apparently stems from that being the only game in town for the atheist.

 

[1robin]

I don't think there is a problem of Evil, I'm just going by the standard assumptions that people have made about God based on what they pull from the Bible and other religious discussions.

**** happens, God lets **** happen. Why complain? Fairness is a human creation.

Well there are certainly more comprehensive, technical, and explanatory ways to lay that issue out. However the sentiment you display is not to far off except for one thing. Claims of fairness are only true if God exists. Without God fairness is an illusion. That is not to say things are fair but that the concept has no meaning without God.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Well there are certainly more comprehensive, technical, and explanatory ways to lay that issue out. However the sentiment you display is not to far off except for one thing. Claims of fairness are only true if God exists. Without God fairness is an illusion. That is not to say things are fair but that the concept has no meaning without God.

Even if God exists fairness is an illusion because it is only what is fair to God not you.

Simply because we would have to accept or just be in agreement with God, does not mean that the judgement or decision or whatever was fair, it's just that God has the power to define it as fair and we don't. It's still subjective.

 

[1robin]

This goes back to your "there's no such thing as evil without God" argument, right?

Well there is no way out of that fact that I can see.

I find it strange that you're so wedded to the idea that your god is good that you can't even come out and say that something as heinous as mass murder is wrong. The only way you've come up with to excuse the supposed actions of your god is to deny the idea that morality exists.

I am not wedded to that word. I almost never use good to describe God. I use right and just. BTW you did not even attempt to demonstrate what I said you must before the argument is even rational. Why not?

Well... maybe not so strange, since I recognize that this is the only way to defend the morality of a character as despicable as the God of the Bible. I guess the only way to argue that something as awful as the slaughter of the firstborn isn't moral is to argue that morality itself doesn't exist.

Since I did not do what your premise supposes for some reason your conclusion is invalid.

I think I mentioned this before, but I think it's funny how you turn into Pilate ("truth? What is truth?") in defense of Christianity.

Nope, I turn into this is truth. In my view a sufficient basis for the truth of what I claim exists. In yours there isn't that same foundation which is probably why you did not attempt to supply the very necessary foundation I requested for the argument to even be made. Prove God is evil? or there is no argument at all. Heck prove evil exists? Do something.

 

[1robin]

I think it goes back to his "By what standards can we judge God", to which I would say...the same standards that god gave us?

Yes it's a paradox so convenient I used to deny divine command theory. However there is no escaping the logic. It is, whether convenient or not.

 

[1robin]

Even if God exists fairness is an illusion because it is only what is fair to God not you.

Simply because we would have to accept or just be in agreement with God, does not mean that the judgement or decision or whatever was fair, it's just that God has the power to define it as fair and we don't. It's still subjective.

Good Lord that was fast. No fairness has an objective quality to it. Things being equal to other things are not determined by revelation or declaration. Let me illustrate.

If all we have is evolution then we have no basis for equality among the races. Evolution has never created two equal things in history. If I demand fairness I must have another standard that exceeds evolution.

God claims to have made all men equal in his eyes. His standard transcends natural law. I can then demand fairness under the law or equal pay or whatever. I may not get it but I can't rationally demand it without God.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Good Lord that was fast. No fairness has an objective quality to it. Things being equal to other things are not determined by revelation or declaration. Let me illustrate.

If all we have is evolution then we have no basis for equality among the races. Evolution has never created two equal things in history. If I demand fairness I must have another standard that exceeds evolution.

God claims to have made all men equal in his eyes. His standard transcends natural law. I can then demand fairness under the law or equal pay or whatever. I may not get it but I can't rationally demand it without God.

Except we see that fairness is not always at play. God made the exclamation that he loved Jacob yet hated Esau. What had Esau done? God chose, there is no fairness in that, besides simply God made a decision. If all men were equal than God would not have chosen Jacob over Esau. God "chose" Isaac over Ishmael (yet still blessed Ishmael), but Ishmael had done nothing wrong. The fairness isn't objective, it's only called "objective" because the one with the might is making the rules.

Also your evolution usage is not correct, you're moving towards social darwinism. Evolution leaves the weeding out of "inferior" to nature. The fact that each "race" was able to survive in it's given region successfully is an indication that they were suited for that particular region. The fact that humans overall have been successfully been able to survive in their environments overall is an indication that we are successful in those environments. There is nothing there that equals to the "unfairness" of social darwinism that you are referring too.

Now if you want to talk about social darwinism, that's a seperate matter and relates to how races (a social construct) survive in different environments (societies). It's a social construction game, not a natural one.

Going on that route though, it is easy to say that equality is not the issue that people argue, it's equity. I.e. What is right for each person. Simply because you have a shoe and you give me a shoe may make us equal, but if the shoe doesn't fit me it doesn't matter. So the question wouldn't be is everyone equal under God, but is everyone given what is needed to them under God.

 

[1robin]

Except we see that fairness is not always at play. God made the exclamation that he loved Jacob yet hated Esau. What had Esau done? God chose, there is no fairness in that, besides simply God made a decision. If all men were equal than God would not have chosen Jacob over Esau. God "chose" Isaac over Ishmael (yet still blessed Ishmael), but Ishmael had done nothing wrong. The fairness isn't objective, it's only called "objective" because the one with the might is making the rules.

These are several independent arguments different from mine.

1. I did not say fairness is always God's prime directive.
2. I did not say that fairness was always present. Especially in a world that has in large part chosen to be under the rule of a malevolent being.
3. What I said was that fairness is valid if God exists. Societies have a foundation to enable them to attempt to incorporate fair laws and rules. Without God the word fairness has no foundation, and without a foundation no legitimate application.
4. The same is true of rights, sanctity of life, dignity of man, etc...

Also your evolution usage is not correct, you're moving towards social darwinism. Evolution leaves the weeding out of "inferior" to nature. The fact that each "race" was able to survive in it's given region successfully is an indication that they were suited for that particular region. The fact that humans overall have been successfully been able to survive in their environments overall is an indication that we are successful in those environments. There is nothing there that equals to the "unfairness" of social darwinism that you are referring too.

Evolution is a term so expansive, so ambiguous and so elastic it has almost lost all meaning. Every evolutionist I speak to has a different definition. Some say morality was produced by evolution, others that all behavior was, others that it is only biological, etc... I believe it occurred but it is so little understood as to be hard to debate. I will only say that many of the greatest defenders of evolution (alone) on the professional debate circuit claim it produces behavior. However this does not matter. The fundamental reason for racism is the assertion that one race is genetically superior or that one is inferior. Evolution would produce exactly this fact. If you insist evolution only produced the brain then fine. It never produced two equal ones and the brain is where behavior and capacity come from. Unequal brains produce un-equal behavior and capacity. Instant justification for racism.

Now if you want to talk about social darwinism, that's a seperate matter and relates to how races (a social construct) survive in different environments (societies). It's a social construction game, not a natural one.

I think my point stands without this being necessary.

Going on that route though, it is easy to say that equality is not the issue that people argue, it's equity. I.e. What is right for each person. Simply because you have a shoe and you give me a shoe may make us equal, but if the shoe doesn't fit me it doesn't matter. So the question wouldn't be is everyone equal under God, but is everyone given what is needed to them under God.

That is an interesting take on the issue but I think more advanced than I need to claim what I have. My point was mainly this. Almost everyone believes that actual objective right and wrong exist, that fairness is a real truth, that we have rights, human life has sanctity, etc.... and I agree. However none of that is true unless God exists so it is reasonable evidence that he does, though by its self is probably not convincing.