Why God allows Evil

[ppp]

Not if he truly exists and is the ultimate ruler.

That would still be arbitrary. You would be arbitrarily choosing to use him as a standard. And his position on what is good would only be his arbitrary opinion.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That would still be arbitrary. You would be arbitrarily choosing to use him as a standard. And his position on what is good would only be his arbitrary opinion.

There's no choosing. If someone IS the ultimate ruler with all knowledge and wisdom, they are automatically the ultimate authority.

 

[John53]

What is decent? Seriously in a world devoid of any standard or right and wrong, what is good? Why is a child more deserving of your interference than an adult? These are all subjective judgements unless there is some ultimate standard of right and wrong, like a God.
Yes you can say that whatever does no harm is good, but that's just another subjective standard that you made up.
And you probably don't even believe it absolutely, because you would do harm to the person hurting the child.

Of course the standard of right and wrong is subjective, that doesn't change if you add a God into the mix, in fact it probably confuses it more. Look at all the interpretations of what the Christian God supposedly wants.

Only because God has implanted within us a certain standard of right and wrong, do we make such judgments at all.
Otherwise anything goes.

I believe it to be evolutionary, group cooperation contributes to reproductive success.

It is somewhat worrying to me that some people need threats from a God to be nice.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Of course the standard of right and wrong is subjective, that doesn't change if you add a God into the mix, in fact it probably confuses it more. Look at all the interpretations of what the Christian God supposedly wants.



I believe it to be evolutionary, group cooperation contributes to reproductive success.

It is somewhat worrying to me that some people need threats from a God to be nice.

Why would survival of the fittest equal being nice? Just the opposite would seem to be more productive.

 

[ppp]

There's no choosing. If someone IS the ultimate ruler with all knowledge and wisdom, they are automatically the ultimate authority.

Ruler, as you are using it, just means "authority". All you are saying that if someone is the ultimate ruler [authority] with all knowledge and wisdom that they are the ultimate [ruler] authority [with all knowledge and wisdom]. .
That is just repetition via synonyms; not a justification. It is just your opinion that your purported god is wise and good.

 

[ppp]

Why would survival of the fittest equal being nice? Just the opposite would seem to be more productive.

That's because you think only in terms of violence and domination as being "fit".

 

[John53]

Why would survival of the fittest equal being nice? Just the opposite would seem to be more productive.

You quoted my answer to that question but here it is again... "group cooperation contributes to reproductive success".

 

[ppp]

Why would survival of the fittest equal being nice? Just the opposite would seem to be more productive.

You quoted my answer to that question but here it is again... "group cooperation contributes to reproductive success".

• It is not in numbers, but in unity, that our great strength lies
• Strength doesn't lie in numbers. Strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers. Wake up!
• Infinite diversity in infinite combinations
• in unity, there is strength
• sticks in a bundle are unbreakable
• united we stand, divided we fall
• more the merrier
• there is strength in unity
• together we are stronger
• e pluribus unum

 

[Wildswanderer]

That's because you think only in terms of violence and domination as being "fit".

Because that's what would advantage my bloodline. The group is ok until the group slows down my dominance, that's what being the fittest means.

 

[Sheldon]

God cannot and will not force men to choose good, by stopping them from doing evil.

Omnipotent.....lite?

 

[ppp]

Because that's what would advantage my bloodline. The group is ok until the group slows down my dominance, that's what being the fittest means.

In your mind certainly. But that is not the way it works in reality. A policy of domination will get you a bloodline. A policy of cooperation will get you a bloodline that is not doomed to be self-annihilatingly fratricidal. Or patricidal.

 

[Estro Felino]

Omnipotent.....lite?

Free will is something unbreakable.
So...not omnipotent.

 

[Sheldon]

That is why I pointed out that God does not have that ability. Men do.
Because if He did that, He would violate people's free will.

If you're imagining a deity that can't do something, then you're not imagining a deity that is omnipotent.

To paraphrase Burgess Meredith from Rocky 2, "there ain't no cant's".

 

[ppp]

Omnipotent.....lite?

quasi-omnipotent? demi-? para-? pseudo-? notachanceinhell-?

 

[Sheldon]

If God had had that ability, there would have been no crucifixion.
It was not a suicide.

So you worship a deity that allows an incomprehensible amount of suffering, even designed much of it into it's "plan"?

Again I find myself being relieved there isn't a shred of objective evidence for such a monster, but saddened that others are victimised and traumatised by the worst religion has to offer.

 

[ppp]

Free will is something unbreakable.
So...not omnipotent.

Interesting. Is this your position on free will?

Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All "free will theists" hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one's nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.

https://www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-will

 

[Sheldon]

This is not so straightforward because god instead of intervening here does punishment in afterlife, therefore it's not valid to say that god doesn't do anything.

Ok so this is another hypothetical rationalisation, but lets extrapolate this rationale. So this deity you imagine exists lets a child be raped, does nothing, closes the door and says go ahead, rape that child, ruin it's life, but I will enjoy torturing you forever when you die. The religion of love you say? I think I just had to re-swallow some of my lunch.

Another problem is that if god would intervene here then every evil human action would be prevented, this mean people would not be able to do evil at all, this further mean complete lack of free will, which is contradictory to god willing that people have free will.

Oh your god, well we can't have free will infringed just to stop children being raped can we? One wonders why you imagine we evolved primates have laws prohibiting such vile abuse? If a deity doesn't care enough to stop it, why are we infringing on people's free will? The ******g mind truly boggles at the mental cartwheels apologists conjure sometimes.

Also punishment in afterlife is far more just than taking free will away from you.

So a child who is raped, and then loses it's belief in a magic sky fairy, presumably gets to contemplate it's rash use of its free will, for all eternity in Hell, being tortured forever?

All things bright and beautiful, lah lah lah lah lah.....

 

[Sheldon]

You didn't answer the question, just offered up apologetics for your God. A God which seems to me to be non existent because of the inaction.

Well given the monster they're imagining, one ought really to be grateful there's the same evidence for it as Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

 

[Sheldon]

That's a very good point. God's inaction surely strengthens the non-existence argument.

I doubt that's any comfort to the abused children in the world.

Especially if they worked this out and then ended up in Hell as a result, talk about a double whammy. My 6 year old grandson developed a nut allergy, duly prayed daily to god to cure him, so he could be "normal" like other children. After 6 months and still suffering he announced he was an atheist, as if god existed he would have helped him. It's a more sound and rational argument than I have heard from any religion or religious apologist in over 4 decades that I've been scrutinising their claims.

I have to say that in the unlikely event a deity existed, and would ignore the pleas of countless children to spare them from rapists, I have to wonder why anyone would care if it existed it not.

 

[Sheldon]

That would still be arbitrary. You would be arbitrarily choosing to use him as a standard. And his position on what is good would only be his arbitrary opinion.

There's no choosing. If someone IS the ultimate ruler with all knowledge and wisdom, they are automatically the ultimate authority.

You have arbitrarily chosen to believe this, that's the choice. Do you not know what the word IF means? It's right there in your premise...