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

[1robin]

Watching children suffer and die an doing nothing about it is evil. I'm sorry you can't see it

I did not realize your omniscience was the arbiter and determiner of all moral fact even without any basis for claiming that moral fact even exists. I get the fact that no one likes suffering so you do not like God (makes no sense to condemn the only solution but fine). Beyond that you are in a moral and philosophical morass that your views do not have the capacity to even begin to extract your argument from.

 

[Leftimies]

This was brought out many times by Atheists and agnostics, I would like to discuss it with you in a rational and respectful manner. My disclaimer is I am a true 5 point Calvinist and If that is offensive to you,You are free to close the thread now. If I may suggest , we leave out all slander against My God in the process of this discussion, slander being pre-defined as name calling as If he were real and present.Questioning scriptures depiction of God however you interpret is allowed. Example: Is God evil? Fair enough?

Here is my premise,
this is my belief based upon my scriptures.
God not only allows children to die, He has pre-ordained them to die. Hard for us to fathom, granted, but True nevertheless in Scripture. If we say he did not cause it and only allowed it to happen then God would be reacting to free will of man to accomplish their own destruction, thus putting too much power in men and essentially tying God's hands. God ordained for this latest tragedy for his own purposes, we cannot know them, we are not our creator, so The bible tells us we must accept that their is a divine plan and God is in control completely.

So you have asked, where is the comfort in that? Why do religious peoples comfort families of these tragedies with this premise of a God in control? Well let me ask you Atheists would you attempt to comfort these mothers with your precept that there is no God? No heaven and no hell? That their children are reduced to dust as they came? That the man who murdered them who took his life is also Dust and there is no justice for them either? Both parties cease to exist, one guilty, one innocent, both have the same fate in the end.

Or could it be more comforting that a God in control is with their babies now, that they know no suffering,feel no pain have no more tears and the man that took their life will be punished by a Just and perfect God. Where is the evil in my premise and the lack of evil in yours? I find evil in evildoing going unpunished.I find evil in a life given for no purpose but to die and cease to exist.
What say you?

I would have to say, with absolutely zero offense intended, that children die precisely because the omnipotent, good God does not exist. That is my view.
Dust to dust, ashes to ashes, the circle of change goes on, ignorant of moral dilemmas. :sorry1:

 

[1robin]

I would have to say, with absolutely zero offense intended, that children die precisely because the omnipotent, good God does not exist. That is my view.
Dust to dust, ashes to ashes, the circle of change goes on, ignorant of moral dilemmas. :sorry1:

You do not offend me by stating an opinion as an opinion but on what basis is exactly what the Bible claims will happen, actually happening, evidence the Bible is wrong. It might be but that is certainly one weird argument for it. If the Bible says Tyre will fall and it does, in the exact circumstances predicted, I do not say therefore it is wrong.

 

[adi2d]

I did not realize your omniscience was the arbiter and determiner of all moral fact even without any basis for claiming that moral fact even exists. I get the fact that no one likes suffering so you do not like God (makes no sense to condemn the only solution but fine). Beyond that you are in a moral and philosophical morass that your views do not have the capacity to even begin to extract your argument from.

I never claimed to be omniscient. I thought we were all voicing our opinions here. Just like you are voicing your opinion

One of the descriptors of God is omnibenevolence.

I never said I didn't like God so kindly state your opinion and allow me to voice mine

 

[1robin]

I never claimed to be omniscient. I thought we were all voicing our opinions here. Just like you are voicing your opinion

One of the descriptors of God is omnibenevolence.

I never said I didn't like God so kindly state your opinion and allow me to voice mine

You did not sate an opinion or did not indicate it was. You stated a claim to an objective fact that can't possibly be true unless you have a God to begin with. Claims to knowledge carry the burden of proof.

Omni benevolence is quality, not will nor purpose.

If you state something as opinion or what you think then the record (even my very recent record) will show I do not object. You didn't, so I did.

 

[adi2d]

I did not realize your omniscience was the arbiter and determiner of all moral fact even without any basis for claiming that moral fact even exists. I get the fact that no one likes suffering so you do not like God (makes no sense to condemn the only solution but fine). Beyond that you are in a moral and philosophical morass that your views do not have the capacity to even begin to extract your argument from.

Here is where you said I don't like God. I never said nor implied that. Yet you say I did.
You were wrong(imho). Time for you to admit it

 

[InformedIgnorance]

That would only be true if God declared morality into existence. God is morality he did not decide at some point what it was. It is an effect of his nature. This makes no difference even if his morals were subjective. They are objective in respect to us by definition. They are perfectly binding and absolute and all are accountable no matter what label you slap on it.

By the same token MY morals are objective in respect to you by definition.

Give me your money.

 

[johnhanks]

No it can't in any actual moral sense. It could at best tell us what we should do to survive but it can't tell us survival is moral. Your simply redefining morality as (specie, human, group, tribe, etc...) flourishing or something similar. That is speciesm not morality.

How carefully do you read the posts you respond to? Do you ever stop to think before starting to type out your reply? No, I am not "redefining morality as [anything] flourishing". The capacity to form moral judgments is an evolved capability of human brains, and one that confers survival value. Evolutionary survival value is not identified with the feature that confers it, whether that feature be the capacity for morality or the opposable thumb.

In know very well it is futile but that does not mean it is not perfectly true and absolute. Futility comes from a refusal to accept as much as inadequacy in presentation. It is not only likely but very very likely if God has given us all a conscience that is similar.

It is far more likely that evolution has given us all a conscience that is similar.

What the heck is Hamkering anyway?

You know you've reached the bottom of the tank when you're reduced to sneering at typos. Check back for the beam in your eye.

It is very ironic I must read a book titled Angels to understand evolution.

No, the book isn't entitled Angels, and it's not about understanding evolution. It's entitled The Better Angels of our Nature (a phrase coined by Abraham Lincoln, as I had imagined a civil war expert might know) and is subtitled A History of Violence and Humanity. Read it before you rubbish it.

I am completely sick of evolution. It is an elastic theory capable of being stretched over whatever a person wishes it to be but incapable of covering what it must. Dawkin's pegged out my arbitrary assumes BS meter long ago on it. I am far more honest about evolution than most. It probably does occur but would produce as many abominations as agreeable intuitions concerning behavior. It is your side who is hyper selective and (blinkered, whatever that means) by claiming it can produce every benevolent action but not one malevolent one. That is just wrong. In fact evolution at it's very (not true) best can only create arbitrary ethics and never, ever, actual moral truth.

Once again, you reveal how comprehensively you have missed the point. No-one is claiming that evolution has produced "moral truths". It has produced brains which are strongly predisposed to frame moral principles (of whatever nature currently suits) and to label them "truths".

 

[Magic Man]

That is inconsistent with his purpose. On what ground do you demand God violate the purpose life has and instead do as you would have? On what basis do you contend evil and a good God are inconsistent. You pointed out a difference without distinction.

The only standard which God can be held to is consistency to his word. In fact he could still exist even if he lied. You and I may wish we could hold God to a standard but there is no basis for claiming that is true. In what court will you try him and by what law? What law is binding on God? I think he is good and will argue that but he does not have to be. In what way have you shown his imperfection? What does evil even mean without God?

This is a common response, the old "who are you to judge God?". I'm not the one judging God. You and other who believe in him are the ones who describe him as all-loving, perfect, omniscient and omnipotent. I'm just applying your judgements to the details of reality. It's true that humans might not do everything they can to help others, but we're not supposed to be perfect and all-loving, and we're certainly not omnipotent. I'm not even as benevolent as God is supposed to be, and yet, if I had his power, I'd do a heck of a lot more than he currently does to help people. That's an indication that such a being does not actually exist, since the qualities attributed to him are incompatible with reality.

 

[AlisonRose222]

In my faith, the New Message from God, God has sent us here to do the work. We have great responsibility and free will in coming here. When death occurs, it was not "time" to be taken, but death can occur for many reasons. For example, we have mistreated our planet and set up a situation in which climate change is causing floods and drought. People are dying because of this. This is not God's fault. We have done this work. Death can occur for completely foolish reasons such as not looking as you walk out into traffic.
We are here for a purpose in the world at this time. It is important that we take care with the body, our vehicle, that we are given. We do the best we can. God's plan included putting Knowledge within us to find our way, and to make the sacred rendezvous with the people we must meet. It is up to us what we do with it. While the plan may have been perfect, we are creatures born into a world of separation, and it is up to us to join again.

 

[1robin]

Here is where you said I don't like God. I never said nor implied that. Yet you say I did.
You were wrong(imho). Time for you to admit it. By the same token MY morals are objective in respect to you by definition.

I will happily give you my money if you take the bills as well. What was that supposed to mean anyway, the fathers of the faith lost money, suffered life long Earthly misery, and even lost their lives for the faith. Maybe you think Benny Hinn is more representative of Christianity than Paul but I do not.

I do not think you understand what objective means. In this context it means independent from the opinion of any of it's subjects.

1. You opinion is not independent from the subject of it.
2. I am not bound not in any way affected by your opinion.
3. I am not subject to it.

There is not one objective aspect to your opinion outside it's existence. Opinion is a synonym of subjective. However we were discussing God not you so even if you were right (which you aren't) it would make no difference whatever.

I inferred you stance on God from two things.

1. You seem to be arguing that he acted evil in some way.
2. People normally do not like beings that act in evil ways.

It may be wrong but it sure was logical. Maybe you like beings that act evil or do not even believe your claims he did so, I have no idea.

 

[1robin]

How carefully do you read the posts you respond to? Do you ever stop to think before starting to type out your reply?

Oh come off the sarcasm. Yes I read the posts because you evolutionary guys can literally claim anything and suggest whatever was said is evolution. I am sure evolution exists and am also sure it is not the universal solvent many think it is.

No, I am not "redefining morality as [anything] flourishing". The capacity to form moral judgments is an evolved capability of human brains, and one that confers survival value. Evolutionary survival value is not identified with the feature that confers it, whether that feature be the capacity for morality or the opposable thumb.

Your words made no difference to what I said but I will use them to keep from getting scolded any more. Morality is not equal to survival (or without God it would not be and even with God it must be specified). I never mentioned biological features so I do not know what you meant there. I meant behavior which is programming not hardware.

It is far more likely that evolution has given us all a conscience that is similar.

On what did you evaluate that. It might be true but you absolutely no means to know whether it is more or less likely.

You know you've reached the bottom of the tank when you're reduced to sneering at typos. Check back for the beam in your eye.

Would you come off the victim routine. How do I know the difference between a type O and a word I am unfamiliar with?

No, the book isn't entitled Angels, and it's not about understanding evolution. It's entitled The Better Angels of our Nature (a phrase coined by Abraham Lincoln, as I had imagined a civil war expert might know) and is subtitled A History of Violence and Humanity. Read it before you rubbish it.

I did not rubbish it. Do you think it rational to suggest the reading of entire books within debates. I can't go to the library before engaging every point in a discussion. Why don't you simply post the point from the book you wish to make. I have stacks of books that I am reading and more stacks waiting it would be a while before I can take on new ones. BTW do you Lincoln coined that quote or just popularized it. I am certainly aware he used it.

Once again, you reveal how comprehensively you have missed the point. No-one is claiming that evolution has produced "moral truths". It has produced brains which are strongly predisposed to frame moral principles (of whatever nature currently suits) and to label them "truths".

That equals exactly what I said it did. Preference and opinion and has nothing to do with actual moral truth. I have no problem conceding evolution may have produced ethical concepts if you will concede that it would have produced both constructive and destructive ones. However I do not care about ethics. I care about the ontological basis for moral truth. The Human race might expand or self destruct given evolutionary ethics but society needs a foundation for moral fact to be just and rational.

 

[1robin]

This is a common response, the old "who are you to judge God?".

And that is a genetic fallacy. Old does not mean invalid, wrong, or inapplicable. It usually means, so basic even ignorant primitive men recognized its value.

I'm not the one judging God. You and other who believe in him are the ones who describe him as all-loving, perfect, omniscient and omnipotent.

That is not a judgment it is a statement of fact. The Christian concept of God is a statement of those qualities. If God turns out not to be that then the concept is not Christian. It is a description of a concept not a judgment. Evaluating whether that description is accurate or that being existent is another matter.

I'm just applying your judgments to the details of reality. It's true that humans might not do everything they can to help others, but we're not supposed to be perfect and all-loving, and we're certainly not omnipotent.

That was not an argument it was simply a true point given the parameters of that post. I would not think that person evil nor should that same parameter be used to suggest God is.

I'm not even as benevolent as God is supposed to be, and yet, if I had his power, I'd do a heck of a lot more than he currently does to help people.

At best that is an argument for less than Omni benevolence but that is being very generous. It certainly does not prove God evil and if it did would also make anyone capable but unwilling evil as well.

That's an indication that such a being does not actually exist, since the qualities attributed to him are incompatible with reality.

If you use very very faulty logic to evaluate the attributes and ignore purpose and context it might.

 

[Monotheist 101]

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

Why does God let anyone die? Using this logic, we should all be immortal, that would prove that God is not evil..

I think children dieing has more to do with the circumstances in which they were born.

 

[johnhanks]

Your words made no difference to what I said but I will use them to keep from getting scolded any more.

Would you come off the victim routine.

Morality is not equal to survival (or without God it would not be and even with God it must be specified). I never mentioned biological features so I do not know what you meant there. I meant behavior which is programming not hardware.

Sorry, you'll need to clarify this.

On what did you evaluate that [conscience being a product of evolution]. It might be true but you absolutely no means to know whether it is more or less likely.

All I have is that we are evolved animals with evolved brains; that makes it more likely in my view, but not perhaps in yours.

I did not rubbish it. Do you think it rational to suggest the reading of entire books within debates.

Fair point. I do commend the book to you, though, if you find the time.

BTW do you Lincoln coined that quote or just popularized it. I am certainly aware he used it.

As far as I know it's original to Lincoln, but I'll happily concede to anyone who knows better.

That equals exactly what I said it did. Preference and opinion and has nothing to do with actual moral truth.

Whose moral truth? Cultures develop moral truths that suit their purposes. If coercive slavery becomes a socioeconomic necessity, it also becomes a moral good in that culture. Distasteful? Certainly; but also real life.

The Human race might expand or self destruct given evolutionary ethics but society needs a foundation for moral fact to be just and rational.

Which society? Modern Western Judaeochristian societies? Because you certainly won't find your "moral facts" operating universally.

 

[1robin]

Emoticon back at you.

Sorry, you'll need to clarify this.

Whatever evolution could possibly produce would not be morality. It would be survival maximization, ethics, or the problem is evolution evolves from one evolutionist to the next. Whatever evolution could ever theoretically produce would be something not-objectively moral. Evolution might (probably wouldn't but for the sake or argument) produce some general desire not to murder. However it can never make murder actually wrong nor right. Natural law says what is, never what should be.

All I have is that we are evolved animals with evolved brains; that makes it more likely in my view, but not perhaps in yours.

Opinions are not really arguments. My point was there is no way possible to know which would be more likely so in this case even an opinion is almost meaningless. I have heard very good argument that suggest morality would not develop by evolution across isolated groups in common. Nature is anything but not diverse. If evolution produces immortal jellyfish that can withstand several dozen atmospheres and birds that can sustain collision at over 30 G's why would it produce common moral codes. Even among species we have radical differences in skin color, height, eye shape, even disease immunity.

Fair point. I do commend the book to you, though, if you find the time.
As far as I know it's original to Lincoln, but I'll happily concede to anyone who knows better.

Is it online? I do like the Title and the quote it comes from regardless of source.

Whose moral truth?

All moral claims that do not have an objective source.

Cultures develop moral truths that suit their purposes.

I thought you claimed we all have the same general morality?

If coercive slavery becomes a socioeconomic necessity, it also becomes a moral good in that culture.

If it consistent it certainly does no demonstrate it is true. I have already conceded (very generously) that maybe evolution could explain commonality in morals. However God explains them just as well or better. It also explain economics of slavery and it's incentive both good and evil. Only with God could slavery ever be called actually bad or evil. Only with God's creating us equal is chattel slavery wrong. Evolution never produced two equal things it history.

Distasteful? Certainly; but also real life.

That is a preferential distinction not a moral and a demonstration of exactly what I have been saying. Is distasteful a foundation for morality or law? Distasteful to who? You, me, Muslims, Hitler, Mother Theresa.

Which society? Modern Western Judaeochristian societies? Because you certainly won't find your "moral facts" operating universally.

That is an application issue not an ontological one. God gives foundation even if we screw it up and make up our own applications. Without him only preference (who's) and opinion are available.

 

[Ingledsva]

Yes it was; where you were replying to a post of mine. Where I was talking about allowing events which caused suffering to occur, you on the other hand replied with a comment about causing events which inflicted suffering.

I would point out that my reasoning would still hold true for cause as it does for allow; this suffering can still be caused to occur if this particular god concept does not know that suffering will occur (perhaps it was not clear to him that killing people inflicts suffering - seems dubious), or perhaps he was not able to not kill them (dont know why but maybe), or perhaps he did not desire to not kill them (for whatever 'mysterious' reasons).

It isn't inherently impossible... it just takes mental gymnastics.

Just found this one.

No mental gymnastics needed - the Bible specifically says YHVH is - angry - jealous - punishes, etc.

Eze 25:17 And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them.

According to the Exodus story YHVH murders the First Born as punishment/revenge.

*

 

[adi2d]

Just found this one.

No mental gymnastics needed - the Bible specifically says YHVH is - angry - jealous - punishes, etc.

Eze 25:17 And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them.*

I've heard this a few times before but never better than when jackson said it in pulp fiction

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Just found this one.

No mental gymnastics needed - the Bible specifically says YHVH is - angry - jealous - punishes, etc.

Eze 25:17 And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them.

According to the Exodus story YHVH murders the First Born as punishment/revenge.

*

Personally I agree, I was however making the comment with regards to someone who purports to hold certain premises:

1. Some god exists
2. This god is cognizant (some entity or force with the ability to think)
3. This god is aware of our existence
4. This god is 'benevolent' with regards to our existence
5. This god is aware of what the outcomes of events or his/her/it/their actions would be
6. This god desires to effect some change in our existence
7. This god has the ability to effect this change

Note that within the above model, I view corrective action (where god might consider attempting to rectify unpredicted or undesired outcomes of events) would be dealt with as a subsequent iteration of the process. Provided the above premises are held, it is still possible for this god to attempt to (and succeed) effect our existence in a way that we would deem to cause suffering; one must merely recognise that there are multiple points at which it can break down.

1. If god does not exist
2. If god's cognition is limited
3. If god's capacity to perceive us is limited
4. If god's benevolence towards us is limited
5. If god's capacity to predict is limited
6. If god's desire to intervene is limited
7. If god's capacity to intervene is limited

Given the assumptions implied in your comment, point 1 is irrelevant (as god is assumed to be in existence) while for the other points each remain possible sources by which the incongruence that a 'benevolent' god might knowingly inflict suffering might be explained. However, were any of them valid they would confer attribution of characteristics far from 'perfect', such as some pathology.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I am quite concerned with people who find it necessary that a deity with so many human attributes would care anything about us. If God is jealous and vengeful like depicted in almost every religion then he would obviously be a bipolar deity to some extent.

Oft loving and oft wrathful. The attributes given to Yahweh, Jesus, Allah along with the devis and devas portray god as extremely unreliable and almost totally untrustworthy.

The fundamental flaw with this thought is declaring god beyond physical form and beyond cosmological existence yet expecting him to think and concern himself with the most miniscule and worthless speck int he galaxy, humans.

Without a doubt god does not care about us in the normal sense.