How Do You Justify Worshipping a god in an Evil World?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@Edgarcito, let's get back to that ten-year-old sex slave, shall we?

[Edgarcito]

8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@Edgarcito, let's get back to that ten-year-old sex slave, shall we?

As was pointed out before....worshiping a god could be as simple as hoping for redemption from evil.  Justification enough for you??

[TheRedneckProfessor]

20 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

As was pointed out before....worshiping a god could be as simple as hoping for redemption from evil.  Justification enough for you??

No.

[florduh]

The perennial problem of evil indicates that if there is some sort of god, it cannot be both all good and all powerful. There is no way out of this problem for fans of the Christian god.

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, florduh said:

The perennial problem of evil indicates that if there is some sort of god, it cannot be both all good and all powerful. There is no way out of this problem for fans of the Christian god.

Gotta have faith brother....and choose to do the best in the interim.

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No.

Gonna harbor anger as a choice..... fwiw, I can see that in you already.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

43 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Gonna harbor anger as a choice..... fwiw, I can see that in you already.

Think what you will about me.  It's your god who's under scrutiny here.

[Edgarcito]

11 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Think what you will about me.  It's your god who's under scrutiny here.

How can you choose love if you are bias against a group?

[florduh]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Gotta have faith brother....and choose to do the best in the interim.

Faith in what, exactly, and why? Do you have any facts or logical arguments to bring to the table or will you just continue to babble about faith, puzzles and other bullshit?

 

Make a cogent argument to explain the problem of evil as it relates to the Bible God or STFU.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

48 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

How can you choose love if you are bias against a group?

Think what you will about me.  It's your god who's under scrutiny here. 

[Edgarcito]

39 minutes ago, florduh said:

Faith in what, exactly, and why? Do you have any facts or logical arguments to bring to the table or will you just continue to babble about faith, puzzles and other bullshit?

 

Make a cogent argument to explain the problem of evil as it relates to the Bible God or STFU.

Not even my thread....I'm a guest by INVITATION of your mod....chill.

 

Given all your glorious intellect, the thing you DON'T see is the importance of love....pretty much the hinging of our lives to some decency throughout life.  And if you can't see this message in Christianity then I feel sorry for you.  Don't choose otherwise.

 

btw.....IT'S LOGICAL TO CHOOSE LOVE....

[LogicalFallacy]

The problem of Evil. https://iwasfreeborn.wordpress.com/problem_of_evil/

This was first discussed by the Greek philosopher Epicurus

The problem of evil proposes that the two main premises – that is 1) God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, and 2) evil exists – are logical contradictions.

Note this problem does not argue against an evil or malicious God if such one existed. However this is not a particular concern as most people worship a God that they consider to be all good and the progenitor of objective moral values. This argument shows that reality is inconsistent with such a God given, and this is important, certain attributes. My response to any apologetic that may say well God might not be all good, or might not be our definition of good, or might not be all powerful is that why is such a God worth of worship if it existed?

I also discuss in the Biblical Contradictions section the contradictory accounts of God being or causing evil or not.

The logic problem can be summarised as this:

1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists (logical contradiction). (Source Why-do-atheists-think-there-is-no-god )

The logical conclusion there being that both evil and God as stated in the logic problem cannot co-exist. However I do expand this to cover another potential aspect which most Christians might not like to think  about:

9. Therefore if God exists then God is at least part evil as per #2 you cannot have a God with evil existing if God is perfectly good.

10. If God is part evil then he is no better than humans as this reduces God to nothing more than an evil dictator who visits evil upon the world.

11. So why worship such a God?

The free will argument is the most common and possibly the best argument for the possibility of their being both a perfectly good God and evil existing. This is summaried as follows:

God’s creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value. God could not eliminate much of the evil and suffering in this world without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will with whom he could have relationships and who are able to love one another and do good deeds. Alvin Plantinga (1974, 1977)

However what we essentially have is a God who intentionally orchestrated a divine master plan knowing of all the pain and suffering, in order to bring about an act of redemption and save his chosen. In order for this to happen you need free will so that people can choose to believe or reject God.  However a just God would have to take account of those who truly searched but couldn’t believe due to lack of evidence. Laying aside the fact that there is a massive evidence problem, you have further problems of predestination and the concept of chosen ones which refutes the free will argument out of the problem.

There is also the very real serious question of if God is all knowing, all powerful, then can you truly have free will? Free will implies that you can alter an outcome, but if its ‘God’s will’ then nothing you do or believe will change the outcome. Let’s face it – there are numerous Christian sects – most think that everyone else is wrong and are not among God’s chosen – and therefore not going to heaven. Which means going to hell. Speaking of hell – the mere conception of a place of eternal punishment by torture for infinite crimes related to lack of belief is an evil that defies comprehension.

A final point. The argument that God needed evil in the world to produce a greater good is logically inconsistent when taken in context of the concept of Heaven. Heaven in the Bible is a place of perfect paradise where “there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.” (Revelations 21:4) If this is the case, and since Heaven is eternal, there is no reason why God could not have created Heaven for his ‘chosen ones’ without having to go through the tremendous agony of earths history first. Think on these things.

For a thorough analysis of the Problem of Evil please visit Logical Problem of Evil

[Joshpantera]

Again, like with the pantheism example, christianity is a self contradicting religion which reveals that it's creators and contributors were unable to think their claims through very far. So many of them fall flat the minute they are investigated. Such as demonstrated above. A god who knows all possible outcomes curbs the assertion of the existence any real free will. So free will can be eliminated as an explanation for evil. Done, gone just like that. The most popular apology rendered meaningless. With free will gone, the existence of evil provides a logical contradiction as stated. 

 

Then what? 

 

The god isn't really all knowing, all present and all powerful? If that's the direction then the god ceases to be a god, basically. It's too bad that christians were foolish enough to present this self contradicting religion as the beacon of "love," in this world. That sort of degrades the love message, wouldn't you say? Because now a religion of "love" is exposed as a religion of "self contradiction." That's not very fair of christians to hijack "love" in such a way that it might go down with the ship, is it? The baby out with the bathwater? 

 

I think the best solution is to separate "love" away from the self contradicting religion and allow "love" to stand on it's own, as it is, as a human emotion that exists independently of any religions which try and attach themselves to the emotion. If someone wants to conduct themselves according to love, great! Feel free to do so regardless of religious affiliations. Especially the more unflattering religious associations such as the one's outlined above and throughout this thread of discussion. Christianity crashes and burns, love lives on regardless! 

 

Christianity is not a religion of love, it's a religion which hijacked the human emotion of love and mixed it together with the human emotion of hate to produce a religion that profess's to love everyone, while at the same time hating everything the might run contrary to it's assertions. It's about hating the world, hating the people who disagree and threatening them with hell fire damnation, and then back peddling to talk about love when the former becomes unflattering when they're called out on it. 

[Justus]

 

12 hours ago, florduh said:

 

Make a cogent argument to explain the problem of evil as it relates to the Bible God or STFU.

Can you provide a good definition for evil?

 

9 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

The problem of evil proposes that the two main premises – that is 1) God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, and 2) evil exists – are logical contradictions.

The only logical contradiction is your claiming that the Bible God is not real simply because you have no actual knowledge of his existence. 

 

 Therefore, not knowing what one must do to come to the Bible God then you could not have realistically attempted to come to the Bible God.

 

So according to your example, the existence of evil only contradicts the logic of anyone who thinks they are doing good because as you say the existence of good and the existence of evil are logical contradictions.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

42 minutes ago, Justus said:

The only logical contradiction is your claiming that the Bible God is not real simply because you have no actual knowledge of his existence. 

This is a strawman.

[Joshpantera]

Surprise everyone!!!! A straw man is hung!!!

 

[florduh]

19 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Not even my thread....I'm a guest by INVITATION of your mod....chill.

 

Given all your glorious intellect, the thing you DON'T see is the importance of love....pretty much the hinging of our lives to some decency throughout life.  And if you can't see this message in Christianity then I feel sorry for you.  Don't choose otherwise.

 

btw.....IT'S LOGICAL TO CHOOSE LOVE....

My challenge still stands. Make a cogent argument, say something that makes sense, drop the empty platitudes.

[florduh]

3 hours ago, Justus said:

Can you provide a good definition for evil?

 

If evil needs to be defined for you, religion isn't going to do you any good. How about we start with the example of the ten year old sex slave being discussed here. Since you won't be able to address that particular problem either, perhaps we could look at slavery in general, torture, genocide and Kanye West.

[LogicalFallacy]

4 hours ago, Justus said:

The only logical contradiction is your claiming that the Bible God is not real simply because you have no actual knowledge of his existence. 

 

Find where I've claimed that God isn't real? One of the many positions I hold is that I think it impossible to prove God/s doesn't exist, therefore one cannot say that no God/s exist as an absolute. Therefore my position is that thus far there is not sufficient evidence to warrant acceptance of the claim God exists (in this particular case Edgarcitos God).

 

To quote TRP "Strawman"

 

Quote

Therefore, not knowing what one must do to come to the Bible God then you could not have realistically attempted to come to the Bible God.

 

This is bordering on no true scotsman. Apparently I wasn't a true Christian and didn't have the proper knowledge to come to God. Despite believing the same things my church did, reading the bible, hearing the preaching. Believe me when I say I tried to find God. I can only conclude he doesn't exist or doesn't wish to reveal himself to me... in which case that to me looks the same as not existing.

 

Quote

So according to your example, the existence of evil only contradicts the logic of anyone who thinks they are doing good because as you say the existence of good and the existence of evil are logical contradictions.  

 

The fuck? Did you even read my post? I'm not saying good and evil are contradictions (They are opposites which is different). I'm saying that a God, and I'll quote myself here, "given, and this is important, certain attributes," is in contradiction with evil. I make if very clear that this argument doesn't rule out a prick of a God, which the OT God clearly is.

 

To quote Dawkins: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

[Edgarcito]

57 minutes ago, florduh said:

My challenge still stands. Make a cogent argument, say something that makes sense, drop the empty platitudes.

What type of evidence....because you seem unwilling to accept things we can't readily define.....your call.

[florduh]

55 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

What type of evidence....because you seem unwilling to accept things we can't readily define.....your call.

Anything that is indefinable is rather useless when constructing a proof or argument. Maybe you could use things such as "people exist and they do this" or "the church exists and they do this" or "many texts were not included in canon and they say this" or anything else you, and we, can define and demonstrate. Otherwise you're just stating your particular beliefs that seem to be somewhat related to Christianity and sometimes not. Opinions are not facts. If you can't define what you're talking about how can we make any sense of it? How can you?

[Edgarcito]

7 minutes ago, florduh said:

Anything that is indefinable is rather useless when constructing a proof or argument. Maybe you could use things such as "people exist and they do this" or "the church exists and they do this" or "many texts were not included in canon and they say this" or anything else you, and we, can define and demonstrate. Otherwise you're just stating your particular beliefs that seem to be somewhat related to Christianity and sometimes not. Opinions are not facts. If you can't define what you're talking about how can we make any sense of it? How can you?

The point is people do better when nurtured/loved/valued.  It's something that happens everyday in various ways outside of biology. You will just explain it away with some evolutionary speculation....not sure why we are attempting to discuss.

[LogicalFallacy]

31 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

The point is people do better when nurtured/loved/valued.  It's something that happens everyday in various ways outside of biology. You will just explain it away with some evolutionary speculation....not sure why we are attempting to discuss.

 

What do you mean it "happens outside of biology?"

 

You realise that feelings of love, the desire to nurture and be valued are chemical processes in your brain right? There is no outside weird gobbely force providing these things. It's also not speculation  - we have a pretty good understanding of what's going on with the processes inside the brain. Not a complete understanding, but certainly not "speculation".

[disillusioned]

6 hours ago, Justus said:

Can you provide a good definition for evil?

 

A good question Justus, and, in my mind,  the only really substantive response to the problem of evil. It is somewhat short-sighted, though.

 

If evil is to be a problem, then it must be properly defined. Atheistic definitions of evil are often problematic, at least to a certain extent. This is why for a long time I refrained from arguing from the problem of evil. However, I've come to see that this is a distraction.

 

Yes, on an atheistic perspective there are problems with defining evil precisely. I think these difficulties can be overcome,  but that is beside the point. If we are discussing the existence of God, we are forsaking an atheistic perspective necessarily. On an atheistic perspective, the question of god is decided. There is no reason,  on atheism,  to think that God exists. So if we're discussing the problem of evil,  we're all wearing our theistic hats for the purposes of discussion. So the objection loses its potency.

 

On theism, and specifically, on Christianity, God is posited to both exist, and to be good. There is an obvious contradiction here, and it's a problem specifically for Christians. If you wish to maintain that God exists, is good, and is all powerful, the you have quite a bit of explaining to do (see: Epicurus). If not, you have an interesting view of Christianity,  and you still have quite a bit of explaining to do. 

 

On atheism, there simply is no problem. God does not exist. Evil may or may not exist. Either way,  there is no contradiction. The contradiction arises only because of theism's (and, more specifically, Christianity's) specific claims. If we dispense with the absurd beliefs, the problem is solved. We may, of course, still ask "on atheism, what is evil?", but that is an entirely seperate question which has absolutely no bearing on this discussion.

[WalterP]

Posted 1 hour ago

  1 hour ago, florduh said:

Anything that is indefinable is rather useless when constructing a proof or argument. Maybe you could use things such as "people exist and they do this" or "the church exists and they do this" or "many texts were not included in canon and they say this" or anything else you, and we, can define and demonstrate. Otherwise you're just stating your particular beliefs that seem to be somewhat related to Christianity and sometimes not. Opinions are not facts. If you can't define what you're talking about how can we make any sense of it? How can you?

The point is people do better when nurtured/loved/valued.  It's something that happens everyday in various ways outside of biology. You will just explain it away with some evolutionary speculation....not sure why we are attempting to discuss.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Edgarcito,

 

Claiming that something is 'outside of biology' fails to fulfill Florduh's request that you provide something that can be defined and demonstrated.

 

That is a definition of what it is not, not what it is.

 

You've claimed that people do better when nurtured/loved/valued, but implied that the reason for this is something that doesn't lie within biology.

 

Therefore, to do justice to Florduh's request, it falls to you to properly define this 'something' and to provide examples that demonstrate how it works.

 

So, what is it and how does it work?

 

Walter.