Logical Problem of Evil

[Meow Mix]

I'm sorry if this topic has [probably] been done to death on this board but it's one of my favorite subjects with respect to Christianity and I thought I would bring it up.

Epicurus put the problem fairly well when he supposedly said:

If God is willing to prevent evil but unable,
Then He is impotent.
If He is able but not willing,
Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing,
Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing,
Then why call Him God?

Now, rather than get into the whole debate over what "evil" means, I'm going to make this a little easier by simply talking about suffering. I think most of us can probably agree that suffering is undesirable and that a being which causes or allows unnecessary suffering can't possibly fulfill the definition of "benevolent."

Thus we arrive at the question: if God is omnipotent (can actualize any logically possible state of affairs), omniscient (absolutely knows all possible states of affairs), and omnibenevolent (never malevolent), then why does suffering exist in the actual world?

I'll pre-emptively remove the most typical response: that of the "free will" theodicy. Suffering isn't entirely explained by the existence of human free choice -- after all, what free choice was responsible for, say, child leukemia? Beyond that, an omnipotent being should be able to create a world in which there is no physical suffering that remains conducive to free will.

I could go on, but I'd rather focus on responses as they come. Thoughts?

[dianaiad]

I'm going to attempt to respond to everyone that directed comments/questions at me as promised, but due to a limitation of time and the sheer volume of attention this thread has garnered I'll probably only be able to meaningfully converse with only a few people at a time. I'll do my best, though, to accomodate everyone.

Normally I limit quotations to the last pertinant statement but due to the amount of material between these old posts I'm responding to I'll leave a bit more for context in my quotations.

That is fine..but also an abrogation of our free will, I think.

Here's a question, though....what if the purpose is to train up future creators of universes?

How does it conflict with our free will? Do you agree that my inability to hop through my computer screen into your living room because I'm physically unable to doesn't harm my free will? If so, then why do you suppose my inability to hit someone with a baseball bat would?

It is possible (science fictionally speaking, at least) that someday you might actually be able to do that. Even now, there's nothing stopping you from TRYING. It is the consequences of that trial that tell you that perhaps that's not a viable choice.

I have a sort of deck outside my bedroom window. Now, I'm no bird; I"m not equipped to fly. However, there is nothing stopping me from stepping to the edge, flapping my arms really hard, and TRYING to. The consequences of my choice won't be comfortable and would probably involve broken bones (I'm not up that high)..but I can certainly make the choice to try.

What you are proposing is a bit different; that one cannot even attempt to swing the bat at a head; in order to do that, the very ability to think about doing so must be removed. If we can conceive of a possibility, we can try to do it. It is the consequences of the trial that teach us possibilities, not the impossibility of the thought.

Removing the negative consequences of a thing in order to keep suffering at bay...what does THAT teach us? Again, we are back to the video game players.

Perhaps you've misunderstood me. I've only said that in such a world you may indeed try to swing a bat at someone's face -- it just wouldn't harm them, as for instance all inertia is removed from the bat once it contacts a human face. Just as you can try to flap your arms to fly and fail, you could try to hit someone in the face with a bat and fail. Your ability to conceive of the action wouldn't be removed, either. I've never advocated removing the ability to come up with ideas, even bad ones -- because my whole point has been that it's possible to remove physical suffering without removing free will.

I see that you have not addressed the problem of the video game players...a very real discovery, not unique; it is a study that has been repeated several times. Children and teenagers who play violent video games in which they may enact their most lethal fantasies without real consequences; they become more aggressive an prone to violence in the 'real world.'

The consensus is that being allowed to enact fantasies without having the consequences promotes an unreal expectation of the world...a lack of empathy and a real lack of an appreciation of consequences. If God did as you suggested, that is, allowed for free will (the urge and ability to bash someone, but not the consequences) would we not, as a species, have the same problem? How could we develop empathy and understanding...what reason would we have, as future 'universe creators' to give a hoot about those worlds we end up creating? Would we not be like that old "Star Trek" episode, where the crew of the Enterprise was stuck in a place....completely under the control of an incredibly powerful....child?

As for the latter question, there is no reason why God couldn't impart knowledge on how to create said universes without malevolently introducing suffering in its inhabitants. If God fails to do so, then again God wouldn't be omnibenevolent by way of negligence.

Ah....

But if He IS training up universe creators, He is also training up people who would, by the very nature of creating universes, able to decide whether those universes are good places, or bad ones...whether they are places of eternal possibilities, or eternal suffering.

Wouldn't He want to train universe creators who would prefer NOT to make their creations places of horrific misery? What better way to so that than allow them experience some of that, to develop empathy, and to understand on a very visceral level what suffering is?

Remember, according to my belief, He didn't even exempt
His Own Son from that experience.

Indeed, you are probably right; He may well be able to fix it so that we didn't have to suffer...but then how is that testing, or teaching, US? If we have free will, then that comes with taking very real consequences of the choices we make.....and we always have choices, no matter how physically constrained we may be. Even the blindfolded, bound and gagged guy in front of a firing squad has a choice...in what he chooses to think about in the last seconds of his life, if nothing else. If God takes all the negative consequences of our choices away--He's taking the choices themselves away, I believe.

You're forgetting that God could also simply impart in universe-creators' minds the distinction between a horrific pain filled universe and a peaceful paradise.

I'm not...but in my belief system, He could not, without abrogating free will. One of the problems you and I are having in this conversation is a really big disconnect; we are using utterly different paradigms for deity.

You are thinking 'creator who has total control, who can treat us like puzzle pieces,' and I am thinking "Father/Parent."

You are thinking of humans who were created as we are, by God, unable to be anything but what He created us to be....

and I am thinking 'children who need to grow up." We cannot be given the knowledge we need, nor given the personalities and characters we need. WE have to find all that in ourselves.

I also realize that mine is a slightly different approach than people see when they see 'Christianity' as a whole.

[catalyst]

dianaiad wrote:

<snip communication difficulty with the definitions of 'waffle' and 'ramble,' which seem...at least to this American and Australian, to have switched meanings...oh, yeah, and skipping the ad hominem>

I used waffle as a verb, not a noun; hence removing the notion of it purely being (what some consider) a delicious breakfast or dessert treat. It's not synonymous for Australians to use it as a verb. No ad hominem, but rather, an observed, through multiple interactions, conclusion. If need be, citation of your waffle vs ramble on posts can be given to show the point. Hardly anything that can be considered baseless prejudice on my part, Dianaiad.

Not according to our beliefs, Cat, and right now you ARE having to deal with our (or at least, my) beliefs. There was no constraint. The choice was all, and entirely, that of the killer.

That is interesting, considering I read that: Mormons believe that God has given all humans the gift of free will (or free agency in Mormon terms) and has also predestined or foreordained everyone to do certain things in life, including to return to his presence. Do you reckon that http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/ are incorrect in that analysis? If so, take it up with them as all the mormons there seem to be in agreement on the above point as do the ones over at Mormon.org that were nice enough to interact with me(live) and answer my questions openly and honestly. Just have to let you know, before asking you what "mormons believe" as to the "omni thing", I had already been to these sites to explore and asked them (at mormon.org) the question.

So that said, as per your "mormon" understanding, the little 10 yr old could well have been predestined or foreordained TO suffer as she did, just as the abducter, torturer, rapist and murderer, could also have been predestined or foreordained to commit such multiple crimes, as to fulfill your god's plan, correct? As such, where does the free agency disclaimer come into the equation?

This is a fictional example, right? This story of the 10 year old who was raped and tortured? If it is, where is there any claim from within the story that the guy claims to have been commanded by God to do this?
If it is a 'real world' example (and I wish there were NOT plenty of those) is there any indication that the man claimed to have been commanded by God to do this?

As far as I know it is an hypothetical situation. What does it matter though? As per the predestined or foreordained "understanding" in your belief system, god could well have made him do it. It appears that the "predetermined/foreordained" thing doesn't just relate to those calling themselves mormon, it is EVERYONE.. atheist, buddhist, muslim, taoist...etc.. alike.

Oh....and please, feel quite free to show me, anywhere in the Bible, ANY example of God commanding anybody to torture, rape and then murder ten year old children. G'head.

AND:

Yes, the OT has examples of people claiming that God told them to kill everybody, men, women, children..and all the animals. Yes, at other times people claim that God commanded them to kill all the men, and 'take the women to wives,' if they were of marriageable age and virgin. There is NO example of God commanding someone to kidnap, torture, rape and then murder children.
Sorry.

I never said there were exact examples as per the "challenge" I did say that bible god commanded (directly to the individual) comparable examples.

Again, I said comparable. Perhaps in your belief system you reckon that the killing of all the 10 yr olds family; mother,brothers, dad; her whole life as she knew it destroyed and then to be "kept" pretty much as a slave (for sex or otherwise) as NOT comparable suffering?

As to "women to take as wives", considering in ancient Israel the "marrying age" (marriage as in ring on finger.. as you probably know was not what marrriage was considerd to be back then...marriage was the uniting of two people to become one - IE: SEX) was for a female between the ages of 12-13, then it doesn't take much to do the math that they thought a 10 yr old girl would be a prime candidate to be a virgin as at least one would HOPE that her virginity was a guarantee in these god commanded rape, pillage and murder fests. A "woman" (just what bible version do you read?) back then was any female whom had hit puberty or was close to it. (again, 10yrs old would have "fit" into this requirement considering the average life expectancy was 35-40 years of age and in many cases, the onset of puberty happened as early as 8yrs old).

Oh in case you need a link as to verification as to what was considered "marrying" age back then: http://www.theology.edu/marriage.htm

So that said, comparable examples are: Judges 21:10-24 , Numbers 31:7-18 and Deuteronomy 20:10-14.

Oh, by the way, a, I am not a biblical inerrantist. b. That which was commanded in the OT has nothing to do with what Christians are commanded to do or not do, and c; you are trying to have this both ways; asking me to accept a 'what if' that is neither presented in the story nor deemed possible by me.

Ahh, so you are a salad-bar theist? Just take the little bits from it that are to your palate and leave the rest behind? WOW, what an unconditional faith you have. Unfortunately for you, the OT has EVERYTHING to do with christianity as without all the alleged "prophecies" taken from there, then the jesus god model you subscribe to, would not even be plausible to YOUR belief in and of the bible jesus character. If though as you claim that the OT has nothing to do with what christians are commanded to do or not do, then I suppose you then throw the 10 commandments out the window?

I am not trying to have it both ways at all. I am dealing with YOU wanting to have it both ways. I have stated quite clearly that the man committing those things against the little girl are HIS fault. Now you as a believer really have to point out to me why this particular example is not covered under the mormon understanding of predetermined or foreordained god will.

No, my 'comfort' is based upon solid doctrine, based upon scripture that I accept as such. You might call it wishful thinking if you want to, but you can do so only in the sense that you think any theism is wishful thinking.

Yes it is nothing but wishful thinking. From what I have seen, there is no solid doctrine to any god or jesus belief. I have made no secret of my position, Dianaiad.

You probably haven't, if you have restricted your studies to the Bible. I don't. For instance, the following scriptures are not found in the Bible:

Mosiah 15: 25And little children also have eternal life.
Doctrine and Covenants 137:10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven. (the Celestial Kingdom, to us, is the highest level of heaven, where families are together for eternity...among other things.)

.........but to us they are as binding as those scriptures which ARE in the Bible.

We believe that marriage can be eternal; not just 'until death do you part,' but forever...and that children born to our marriages are also ours forever...down through the generations. Family, to us, is the foundation upon which our culture is built, and depends.

To us, Cat, the idea that a child who dies before adulthood WILL be with his or her parents again. It is basic doctrine to us, as important as any rite or belief can be. You may call it wishful thinking if you like, AND follow it with the snide 'how special," but it is what it is.

Oh yes, based on the wafflings of a man who claimed that "god" had directed him, right? Something that "god" had predetermined or foreordained for him to do?

Strawman, m'dear. I don't believe (oh, and Mormons don't, either) that a murderer, much less a sane child murderer, could do that. True, one can be forgiven almost everything, if one truly repents. However, part of repentance is that one should make amends and ask forgiveness. Wanna tell me how a murderer could do either one?

They tend to do it a lot on the american "death-row" or in jail. Again though as per one of the mormon sites I visited : We believe, as do other Christians, that Christ died and three days later was resurrected. He overcame death and because He rose again, all mankind is freed from the bondage of death. Regardless of age, race, gender, religious beliefs, good actions or bad actions, everyone will be reunited with their bodies at the time of the resurrection, after Christs second coming.

But what happens in the meanwhile? Before becoming resurrected beings our spirits dwell in the spirit world. Those who accepted the gospel of Christ during their mortal lives will be in spirit paradise and those who did not, either due to ignorance or rejection, will be in spirit prison. There will be opportunities for those in spirit prison to accept the gospel of Christ as missionary work continues in the spirit world. It is here, in the spirit world, that Christ spent those three days while His body lay in the tomb (see Doctrine & Covenants 138:29-34).

Dale C. Mouritsen explained, Peter refers to the spirit world as prison, and it is for some. (1 Pet. 3:18"20, 1 Pet. 4:6.) However, it is chiefly a place of learning and waiting, not a place of suffering. Here, those who did not have an opportunity in mortality to receive the gospel and those who had a partial opportunity but rejected it will be taught. However, for those in spirit paradise, the spirit world will be a place of great activity as they will be the ones on whom the responsibility falls to spread the gospel message. There is much work to be done there!


Seems whatmoronsbelieve disagrees with you on this too Dianaiad. So just what trouble do you claim this abductor, torturer, rapist and murder will be in again? Unless "trouble" is having to sit through more missionary "work" in "spirit prison" at the hands of mormons such as yourself being the worst case scenario for him. If however he repents prior to his earthly death, then he will be up in spirit paradise with the little girl he raped and murdered.

I did. You ignored it.

Oh I didn't ignore it at all. All I saw you state was the validating point of her suffering in such a heinous way here on earth, was that after her murder, she would be with jesus and all would be peachy THEN as in perhaps, he will protect her after the fact. It does not in anyway give valid reason WHY an "omni-all" god, allegedly capable of ANYTHING, did not intervene.

I believe in the death penalty.

Oh, NO WAY! *shock* lol (sarcasm) I expected as much, little miss "pro-life".

I see. You really are mad at Him, aren't you?

I see, so you can't answer the question and BTW, fallacious statement on your part. The emotion of anger is wasted on a mythological entity, Dianaiad. I am as mad at your god model as you are at Apollo or Zeus.

I fail to see how you can construe that I am supposedly "mad" at your god model, by stating:

that is because I don't subscribe to a deity, whom in past reference points has supposedly "intervened", (or shown himself) but when this helpless little girl was TRULY needing her god to support her, he was no where.

All I did was make a valid observation of things that have been attributed to him. It is not only biblical references either. I have read MANY a testimony(gee was even party to many of these personal god given "revelations") of "now" christians" who were in low ebb situations( a lot shallower that the 10 yr old girl's experience) and supposedly, "god revealed himself and intervened" to raise them out of their individual dire situation. So with the hope you will actually answer it this time, rather than do the standard dianaiad ramble around, please explain why your god abandoned her in her TRUE time of need.

I would intervene, as would you, because of our position of NOT being God. It's our job. God has a different viewpoint. True, this child's suffering isn't lessened by God's existence...but unlike you and I, HE (if He exists, that is) took her, comforted her, and cares for her in a way that we can't. In the meantime, the murderer has shown that he is not simply evil in thought, but evil in deed. He has sealed his own fate past redeeming.

All that shows me is that you and I have far more compassion for a complete stranger than your god model has for one of his own "children". Secondly, please elaborate as to your claimed knowledge of what your god's supposed viewpoint supposedly is. Your presumption, you must appreciate can not be taken as viable evidence to support your claim. Third, how can it be OUR job if it an impossibility for us to he at her side. As your god model allegedly is ALWAYS WITH his faithful, in their times of need, why wouldn't it be HIS job? Forth, the only "sin" that cannot be forgiven is that of blasphemy against the spirit; at least that is what I was taught in theology college. ALL else, are pardonable, including murder.(ref: Luke 12:10, Mark 3:29 and matthew 12:31-32.) Or did Josph Smith changed the goalposts on that one too?

..........and Cat? You can't HAVE this both ways. If you are going to rail at me for my beliefs, you have to at least know what they ARE. So far you haven't come very close, and I certainly feel no need to defend beliefs I don't hold....such as the stupidity of claiming that this guy can simply 'give himself to Jesus' and all will be well.

You may write off my comment as stupidity, but I suggest you do a little google of christian converts on death row. I would have provided a specific link, but there are just SO MANY of them, I was spoiled for choice. I fail to see as well just how you can allude that I want it both ways when I have made it clear all along that I reckon the GUY is at fault here - done deal, simply because to me your god model is a non-existent entity, whereby not "owning" the attributes claimed of him. The only thing I (and doing so hypothetically may I add) am doing is working with the attributes that those of "faith" CLAIM their god has which are: omniscience, omnipotence and.omnipresence.

As to your collective 3 post point. *sigh* No Ad hom there either. Perhaps you should check with a dictionary of your liking to show you that reiterating a point YOU put out there, then replying to a question you asked me with a straightforward answer, and then clarifying my position as to a comment YOU made prior, doesn't actually "fit" in ANY dictionary's definition of what an ad hominem is.


Catalyst.

[Goat]

I see that you have not addressed the problem of the video game players...a very real discovery, not unique; it is a study that has been repeated several times. Children and teenagers who play violent video games in which they may enact their most lethal fantasies without real consequences; they become more aggressive an prone to violence in the 'real world.'

Considering those studies are not conclusive, and other studies do not come up with the same results, I would say using that as an example is hardly logical or reasonable

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversy

. Video games have been studied for links to addiction and aggression. One meta-analysis found that exposure to violent video games causes at least a temporary increase in aggression and that this exposure correlates with aggression in the real world. A negative association with prosocial behavior was also noted.[1] However other meta-analyses using similar methods[2] or focusing more specifically on serious aggressive behavior[3] have come to opposing conclusions, stating that video game violence is not related to aggressive behavior.

[Hobbes]

I disagree that evil is necessary for good to exist.

An action that has positive results would not be considered "good" unless there was another possible action that is less than good, to be compared to. If all actions and possibilites were "good," then good wouldn't exist... instead it would just be... "normal."

If I jump into the ocean to save the life of someone who fell overboard, that would be considered "good" of me. However if I had no choice in the matter, then it wouldn't have been good of me, it would just be a natural consequence like a leaf blowing in the wind.

Similarly, light wouldn't be light if there was no such thing as darkness. It would just be a white-out and nothing would be distinguishable. Because of this, darkness makes the world a better place.

The same goes for pleasure. Pleasure would not be defined as such unless less-than-pleasurable experiences (pain) exist. The pleasure of eating something wouldn't be possible without hunger.

Love wouldn't be appreciated unless there was the possibility of not being loved.

Taken further, assuming God exists... He could never be considered perfect if He did not have something less than perfect to compare to.

And so on.


Also I don't think you responded to me but then again the thread has jumped to well over a dozen pages in 2 days, so, your response could have gotten lost in the shuffle.

I took issue with what I called your presupposition in the OP but would have been better to call it your stipulation--that God is "omnibenevolent." The bible does support this stipulation. I think afterward someone chastised me for assuming you are talking about the biblical God so if you weren't then there's no reason to respond.

Anyway, your stipulation and conclusion within it was that God must (a) be at least partially malevolent, or (b) be omnibenevolent.

I didn't see that anyone challenged this stipulation but my issue with it is, you are insisting that every single action must either be either good or evil. I beg to differ. Some actions can be perpetrated with complete indifference. Some actions can be essentially inconsequential. There is middle ground is what I'm trying to say.


Welcome to the forum.

[Meow Mix]

I see that you have not addressed the problem of the video game players...a very real discovery, not unique; it is a study that has been repeated several times. Children and teenagers who play violent video games in which they may enact their most lethal fantasies without real consequences; they become more aggressive an prone to violence in the 'real world.'

The consensus is that being allowed to enact fantasies without having the consequences promotes an unreal expectation of the world...a lack of empathy and a real lack of an appreciation of consequences. If God did as you suggested, that is, allowed for free will (the urge and ability to bash someone, but not the consequences) would we not, as a species, have the same problem? How could we develop empathy and understanding...what reason would we have, as future 'universe creators' to give a hoot about those worlds we end up creating? Would we not be like that old "Star Trek" episode, where the crew of the Enterprise was stuck in a place....completely under the control of an incredibly powerful....child?

I thought I had addressed it, but let's continue on in this vein anyway. Alright: imagine the world I'm talking about where inflicting physical injury is physically impossible.

What harm could ever possibly occur from someone who decides to run around swinging a bat?

Why couldn't we have empathy and understanding in the world I describe? People would still need to form friendships; there would still be negative consequences for lying to other people, for saying rude things to people, etc.

Let's assume Bob is a kid that lives in this world and he has a baseball bat. What are the negative repurcussions of him running around swatting at everyone? If we take this to its furthest extent, then at most he will annoy them and they'll chastise him for it -- and he'll still get negative consequences. In this world there'd be a lot of people with broken bones, but in a better world made by a more benevolent deity, everyone would be fine.

You argue that it's important to learn consequences, but I'm saying there would still be consequences (social issues caused by annoying people) and furthermore that there's no serious need to learn consequences since physical suffering doesn't exist and nothing in the future would ever change it. Again I liken it to complaining in such a world that doctors aren't learning how to treat malaria even if malaria doesn't exist and never will exist -- so what?

Even so, what is your defense for the existence of leukemia, cancer, malaria? Why does that stuff need to exist?

I'm not...but in my belief system, He could not, without abrogating free will. One of the problems you and I are having in this conversation is a really big disconnect; we are using utterly different paradigms for deity.

You are thinking 'creator who has total control, who can treat us like puzzle pieces,' and I am thinking "Father/Parent."

You are thinking of humans who were created as we are, by God, unable to be anything but what He created us to be....

and I am thinking 'children who need to grow up." We cannot be given the knowledge we need, nor given the personalities and characters we need. WE have to find all that in ourselves.

I also realize that mine is a slightly different approach than people see when they see 'Christianity' as a whole.

Nothing about the world I'm discussing prevents free will. I simply suggested that if people are to create worlds then God can give them knowledge on how to create paradises rather than hells. I didn't say God could force them to create paradises, they could simply make an informed choice -- all without this world, the actual world, being a hell itself. There is no reason for physical suffering to exist if a creator exists who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. The free will argument doesn't seem to work since free will would still exist just fine.

[Meow Mix]

An action that has positive results would not be considered "good" unless there was another possible action that is less than good, to be compared to. If all actions and possibilites were "good," then good wouldn't exist... instead it would just be... "normal."

If I jump into the ocean to save the life of someone who fell overboard, that would be considered "good" of me. However if I had no choice in the matter, then it wouldn't have been good of me, it would just be a natural consequence like a leaf blowing in the wind.

Similarly, light wouldn't be light if there was no such thing as darkness. It would just be a white-out and nothing would be distinguishable. Because of this, darkness makes the world a better place.

The same goes for pleasure. Pleasure would not be defined as such unless less-than-pleasurable experiences (pain) exist. The pleasure of eating something wouldn't be possible without hunger.

Love wouldn't be appreciated unless there was the possibility of not being loved.

Taken further, assuming God exists... He could never be considered perfect if He did not have something less than perfect to compare to.

And so on.

Sure, but in the world I describe there may still be emotional suffering for instance. There'd still be comparisons such as "The way I feel right now when I'm hanging out with my friends is positive compared to an hour ago when I was at home by myself. I'd call this condition 'happy.'" I don't think your argument wins out in this scenario: it does appear to be possible to have happiness and goodness without the existence of physical suffering.

Do you have to slap a baby in the face before giving it candy for the candy to be good?

Can't the comparison of "happy" simply be made from the absence of happiness rather than the presence of sadness, and likewise for the concept of "good?" It seems that way to me.

In such a universe, "happiness" and "good" would just be comparisons to a neutral state -- what we would maybe call "neutrally content" in our universe where we know suffering. Perhaps they wouldn't have a word for "content" in that universe, but so what?

Right now, you are not being attacked by a fire breathing dragon. I doubt you'd describe your situation as necessarily "happy" just from that fact alone considering you probably weren't even thinking about it, but I bet you find it preferable. That would be the normal state in the universe I speak of; happiness and good would be what happens when things extra good happen.

Also I don't think you responded to me but then again the thread has jumped to well over a dozen pages in 2 days, so, your response could have gotten lost in the shuffle.

I took issue with what I called your presupposition in the OP but would have been better to call it your stipulation--that God is "omnibenevolent." The bible does support this stipulation. I think afterward someone chastised me for assuming you are talking about the biblical God so if you weren't then there's no reason to respond.

Anyway, your stipulation and conclusion within it was that God must (a) be at least partially malevolent, or (b) be omnibenevolent.

I didn't see that anyone challenged this stipulation but my issue with it is, you are insisting that every single action must either be either good or evil. I beg to differ. Some actions can be perpetrated with complete indifference. Some actions can be essentially inconsequential. There is middle ground is what I'm trying to say.


Welcome to the forum.

Yes, it's hard to keep up when the thread explodes so fast -- sorry about that. In any case, the Problem of Evil only applies when all of its premises are believed. If you don't believe in one of its premises -- in this case, the premise that God is omnibenevolent -- then the PoE doesn't apply to your belief. This is just like if you didn't believe in a Euclidean square-circle, no one could jump out and say "Aha, you believe in a contradiction!" Same applies here; it indeed solves the PoE if God is not benevolent, or not omnipotent, or not omniscient, or has no sovereignty over the states of affairs in the universe, or doesn't exist.

[fewwillfindit]

Thus we arrive at the question: if God is omnipotent (can actualize any logically possible state of affairs), omniscient (absolutely knows all possible states of affairs), and omnibenevolent (never malevolent), then why does suffering exist in the actual world?

In any case, the Problem of Evil only applies when all of its premises are believed. If you don't believe in one of its premises --in this case, the premise that God is omnibenevolent --then the PoE doesn't apply to your belief.

My question is, are you asserting in the OP that historically, traditional orthodox Christianity, namely the historical majority which has traditionally believed in the Bible as primarily literal, has taught that the God of the Bible is omnibenevolent, or are the above attributes merely hypotheticals for the sake of debate?

If that is your assertion and not merely hypothetical, can you cite evidence, without relying on Platinga, Oord, postmodern/progressive philosophers and theologians, universalists or fringe cultists that it is indeed fact? Major orthodox creeds, catechisms, or confessions will suffice. Bear in mind that "loving," "good" and "benevolent" are distinct from omnibenevolent.

Thanks.

By the way, I would add the following to your definition of omnibenevolence: "Acting in a benevolent manner toward every person."

[dianaiad]

dianaiad wrote:

<snip communication difficulty with the definitions of 'waffle' and 'ramble,' which seem...at least to this American and Australian, to have switched meanings...oh, yeah, and skipping the ad hominem>

I used waffle as a verb, not a noun; hence removing the notion of it purely being (what some consider) a delicious breakfast or dessert treat. It's not synonymous for Australians to use it as a verb. No ad hominem, but rather, an observed, through multiple interactions, conclusion. If need be, citation of your waffle vs ramble on posts can be given to show the point. Hardly anything that can be considered baseless prejudice on my part, Dianaiad.

ad hominem means 'to the man.' or in this case, 'to the debater.' Your argument was based upon your opinion of my character, not upon any point of the argument. Thus, 'ad hominem.'

..............as to the 'waffle,' I have never waffled. Rambled? Yep, I do that. It's a fault. "Waffle?" Never...'waffle' as a verb inferring a deliberate attempt to dissemble or confuse. I have answered every question as straight up as I can. Your dislike of the answer does not constitute a waffle on my part.

Not according to our beliefs, Cat, and right now you ARE having to deal with our (or at least, my) beliefs. There was no constraint. The choice was all, and entirely, that of the killer.

That is interesting, considering I read that: Mormons believe that God has given all humans the gift of free will (or free agency in Mormon terms) and has also predestined or foreordained everyone to do certain things in life, including to return to his presence. Do you reckon that http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/ are incorrect in that analysis?

You did not see any reference to our having been predestined to anything on that site, Cat, in the sense of the Calvinist view of it. Indeed, it's a rather large sore tooth for us, this idea of predestiny in that sense. We do, however, believe in a sort of 'fore-ordination."

What's the difference?

You cannot refuse a predestined future. You CAN, a 'fore-ordained' future, which is why we believe that those terms are NOT exactly interchangeable, even if you present them that way. One may be 'called' to do a job, but it is entirely up to you to do it; you may refuse. Many, unfortunately, do.

If so, take it up with them as all the mormons there seem to be in agreement on the above point as do the ones over at Mormon.org that were nice enough to interact with me(live) and answer my questions openly and honestly. Just have to let you know, before asking you what "mormons believe" as to the "omni thing", I had already been to these sites to explore and asked them (at mormon.org) the question.

Then you either did not understand the very real difference between 'predestiny' in the Calvinist sense of removing free will and predestiny/fore-ordination in the way we believe in it (as something that can be refused)...or you are deliberately misrepresenting our beliefs here.

So that said, as per your "mormon" understanding, the little 10 yr old could well have been predestined or foreordained TO suffer as she did, just as the abducter, torturer, rapist and murderer, could also have been predestined or foreordained to commit such multiple crimes, as to fulfill your god's plan, correct?

No. Incorrect. As in, not a chance.

As such, where does the free agency disclaimer come into the equation?

Exactly where I said it did. By the way, since you are so certain that you found evidence of LDS belief in pre-destiny...as something that cannot be avoided or that takes away one's free will...in those websites, kindly post the quotes.

This is a fictional example, right? This story of the 10 year old who was raped and tortured? If it is, where is there any claim from within the story that the guy claims to have been commanded by God to do this?
If it is a 'real world' example (and I wish there were NOT plenty of those) is there any indication that the man claimed to have been commanded by God to do this?

As far as I know it is an hypothetical situation. What does it matter though?

It matters greatly. As it stands, we can both agree that such a hypothetical situation can be 'real.' It far too often is. However, adding the bit about God commanding this action is taking the situation out of the realm of that which we would BOTH agree as possible. That's what's wrong with it.

As per the predestined or foreordained "understanding" in your belief system, god could well have made him do it.

No. He would not have, and still be God, in our belief system. Sorry. You are engaging in a strawman argument. Mormons do NOT believe in predestination (the sort that removes free agency.) At all. Period. Sorry.

It appears that the "predetermined/foreordained" thing doesn't just relate to those calling themselves mormon, it is EVERYONE.. atheist, buddhist, muslim, taoist...etc.. alike.

Oh....and please, feel quite free to show me, anywhere in the Bible, ANY example of God commanding anybody to torture, rape and then murder ten year old children. G'head.

AND:

Yes, the OT has examples of people claiming that God told them to kill everybody, men, women, children..and all the animals. Yes, at other times people claim that God commanded them to kill all the men, and 'take the women to wives,' if they were of marriageable age and virgin. There is NO example of God commanding someone to kidnap, torture, rape and then murder children.
Sorry.

I never said there were exact examples as per the "challenge" I did say that bible god commanded (directly to the individual) comparable examples.

There is no comparable example to this hypothetical situation anywhere in the Bible, Cat. There is NO instance of God commanding a man to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a ten year old child. None. Nothing even close. In fact, there are no commands to torture at all. "Rape?" One could call commanding men to 'take to wife' enemy women 'rape.' I would...but there isn't anything in there about torture and murder after marriage. Whatever you think about the morals of that time and place, even you will have to admit that any man who committed such a crime under the Law of Moses would receive very short shrift, indeed.

Again, I said comparable. Perhaps in your belief system you reckon that the killing of all the 10 yr olds family; mother,brothers, dad; her whole life as she knew it destroyed and then to be "kept" pretty much as a slave (for sex or otherwise) as NOT comparable suffering?

Suffering? Yes. Comparable to being tortured, raped and murdered? No. Apples to apples, Cat.

As to "women to take as wives", considering in ancient Israel the "marrying age" (marriage as in ring on finger.. as you probably know was not what marrriage was considerd to be back then...marriage was the uniting of two people to become one - IE: SEX) was for a female between the ages of 12-13, then it doesn't take much to do the math that they thought a 10 yr old girl would be a prime candidate to be a virgin as at least one would HOPE that her virginity was a guarantee in these god commanded rape, pillage and murder fests. A "woman" (just what bible version do you read?) back then was any female whom had hit puberty or was close to it. (again, 10yrs old would have "fit" into this requirement considering the average life expectancy was 35-40 years of age and in many cases, the onset of puberty happened as early as 8yrs old).

That is a LOT of speculation going on there, Cat. In actuality, puberty at THAT time happened, on average, later than it does now. NOW girls often hit puberty at 10-12. THEN the average age was 12-14. That still does not affect the fact that nowhere in the bible does it state that God commanded a man (or men) to kidnap, torture, rape and then murder children.

Oh in case you need a link as to verification as to what was considered "marrying" age back then: http://www.theology.edu/marriage.htm

Irrelevant. One does not 'marry' and then torture and murder one's wife...and there is certainly no commandment in the bible that told any man to do that.

So that said, comparable examples are: Judges 21:10-24 ,

Yep, that was bad. Two things, though: first, there is no hint there that GOD commanded these actions. In fact, this entire passage, in a book that is replete with "God said's" avoids that phrase. Here is is 'the people remembered" and "The Elders of Israel" told the folks to go get the virgins and kidnap the dancers. So, the virgins were obtained, and the dancers taken...to WIVES. They were not tortured or murdered. Oops, twice. Not comparable. Bad, but not comparable....and not 'God commanded,' either.

Numbers 31:7-18

OK, this has the 'God said" in it...but what did God command? That the Israelites go to war (as was usual during that time) and kill all the men and the women who had 'lain with man.' There is no command to torture, rape and then murder children. This is NOT comparable. The motives were not the same, by any means, as this hypothetical sociopathic sadist in the example.

and Deuteronomy 20:10-14.

Are you KIDDING? Here the Israelites are told to go to the cities and 'proclaim PEACE' to them. If the cities allow them in, then the inhabitants were not to be touched. If the cities resisted, THEN all the men would be killed, but there was no torture, rape and murder of children going on there, either. C'mon, Cat...as bad as these things look to modern eyes, there is no comparison to the hypothetical example given.

Oh, by the way, a, I am not a biblical inerrantist. b. That which was commanded in the OT has nothing to do with what Christians are commanded to do or not do, and c; you are trying to have this both ways; asking me to accept a 'what if' that is neither presented in the story nor deemed possible by me.

Ahh, so you are a salad-bar theist? Just take the little bits from it that are to your palate and leave the rest behind? WOW, what an unconditional faith you have.

Snide sarcasm is not a good debate technique, Cat. It just messes up the atmosphere. I am not a 'salad bar theist.' At least, if I am, I choose my menu from the salad bar I think is there, not the one you serve up. The thing is, you can't decide for me what my beliefs should be, so that you can criticize me for not living up to them. They are my beliefs, and I get to tell you what they are.

Unfortunately for you, the OT has EVERYTHING to do with christianity as without all the alleged "prophecies" taken from there, then the jesus god model you subscribe to, would not even be plausible to YOUR belief in and of the bible jesus character. If though as you claim that the OT has nothing to do with what christians are commanded to do or not do, then I suppose you then throw the 10 commandments out the window?

I believe that Jesus handled that one when He said to His questioner regarding those commandments: Matt. 22:35-40 (trust a lawyer..)

35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Christians are not required to obey the Laws of Moses. (snip to end...I have to go to work and I'll deal with the rest of this post in another answer.)

[dianaiad]

<snip to here...part 2>

I am not trying to have it both ways at all. I am dealing with YOU wanting to have it both ways. I have stated quite clearly that the man committing those things against the little girl are HIS fault.

so do I. what part of 'I agree with you' is a problem?

Now you as a believer really have to point out to me why this particular example is not covered under the mormon understanding of predetermined or foreordained god will.

It is. Your problem is that you are presenting our 'understanding of predetermined or foreordained god will' is erroneous. To us, free agency..or free will, is, well...sacrosanct. We can be 'fore-ordained' to do something, but we can always say no--and NOBODY is 'fore-ordained' to be evil. Some may be predicted to be, the way I can predict that my son will go hang-gliding this weekend, but a prediction based upon an understanding of character, and a forced decision FOR that character, are very different things, indeed.

It is obvious that you didn't pay much attention to the 'What Mormons believe' site if you got ANY indication of predestination in the sense that free will is in any way abrogated.

No, my 'comfort' is based upon solid doctrine, based upon scripture that I accept as such. You might call it wishful thinking if you want to, but you can do so only in the sense that you think any theism is wishful thinking.

Yes it is nothing but wishful thinking. From what I have seen, there is no solid doctrine to any god or jesus belief. I have made no secret of my position, Dianaiad.

Indeed you have. However, when you make fun of my own beliefs, you pick out particular ones to be especially snarky about. As I have pointed out, there is no reason for you to do so, other than your general disbelief in deity. There is certainly no reason for you to be snide about such beliefs when they make sense within the logical construct of the beliefs given. Such comments as 'How special," and 'wishful thinking' and 'salad bar theist,'....Oh, and "Oh, NO WAY! *shock* lol (sarcasm) I expected as much, little miss "pro-life"." are not helpful, are ad homenems, and...well...

I am neither "little,' nor a 'miss,' and since both terms are used by you as insults intended to denigrate and insult, rather than to communicate logically and civilly, perhaps you should, er, cut back on them a bit?

You probably haven't, if you have restricted your studies to the Bible. I don't. For instance, the following scriptures are not found in the Bible:

Mosiah 15: 25And little children also have eternal life.
Doctrine and Covenants 137:10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven. (the Celestial Kingdom, to us, is the highest level of heaven, where families are together for eternity...among other things.)

.........but to us they are as binding as those scriptures which ARE in the Bible.

We believe that marriage can be eternal; not just 'until death do you part,' but forever...and that children born to our marriages are also ours forever...down through the generations. Family, to us, is the foundation upon which our culture is built, and depends.

To us, Cat, the idea that a child who dies before adulthood WILL be with his or her parents again. It is basic doctrine to us, as important as any rite or belief can be. You may call it wishful thinking if you like, AND follow it with the snide 'how special," but it is what it is.

Oh yes, based on the wafflings of a man who claimed that "god" had directed him, right? Something that "god" had predetermined or foreordained for him to do?

"Foreordained,' as in 'called to" or even 'offered the job," if you will...yes. However, not constrained. His choice.

Oh, and you are really going to have to define 'waffling' for me. I don't think it means to me what it means to you.

Strawman, m'dear. I don't believe (oh, and Mormons don't, either) that a murderer, much less a sane child murderer, could do that. True, one can be forgiven almost everything, if one truly repents. However, part of repentance is that one should make amends and ask forgiveness. Wanna tell me how a murderer could do either one?

They tend to do it a lot on the american "death-row" or in jail. Again though as per one of the mormon sites I visited : We believe, as do other Christians, that Christ died and three days later was resurrected. He overcame death and because He rose again, all mankind is freed from the bondage of death. Regardless of age, race, gender, religious beliefs, good actions or bad actions, everyone will be reunited with their bodies at the time of the resurrection, after Christs second coming.

Yes, we believe that. Everybody gets resurrected. John 5: 29 mentions that ....they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation" the 'good' will be resurrected Even (gasp) Hitler will be. So?

(quoting from the LDS.org site) But what happens in the meanwhile? Before becoming resurrected beings our spirits dwell in the spirit world. Those who accepted the gospel of Christ during their mortal lives will be in spirit paradise and those who did not, either due to ignorance or rejection, will be in spirit prison. There will be opportunities for those in spirit prison to accept the gospel of Christ as missionary work continues in the spirit world. It is here, in the spirit world, that Christ spent those three days while His body lay in the tomb (see Doctrine & Covenants 138:29-34).

Dale C. Mouritsen explained, Peter refers to the spirit world as prison, and it is for some. (1 Pet. 3:18"20, 1 Pet. 4:6.) However, it is chiefly a place of learning and waiting, not a place of suffering. Here, those who did not have an opportunity in mortality to receive the gospel and those who had a partial opportunity but rejected it will be taught. However, for those in spirit paradise, the spirit world will be a place of great activity as they will be the ones on whom the responsibility falls to spread the gospel message. There is much work to be done there!


Seems whatmoronsbelieve disagrees with you on this too Dianaiad.

How so? How does the mere existence of such a place affect this? Nowhere in the above passages do you see where repentance isn't a requirement. Full repentance. "Turn one's life around" repentance. What the above section describes is our belief that nobody is going to be condemned for things that they didn't know about...and without a full chance to accept and repent.

We do not, by the way, believe in death bed repentance...and death row inmates are doing that, if anybody can be said to do that.

So just what trouble do you claim this abductor, torturer, rapist and murder will be in again? Unless "trouble" is having to sit through more missionary "work" in "spirit prison" at the hands of mormons such as yourself being the worst case scenario for him. If however he repents prior to his earthly death, then he will be up in spirit paradise with the little girl he raped and murdered.[/qluote]

Where did you get THAT from any of the above? Please; show me the exact quote where it says that such men as are described in that hypothetical situation are going to be in the same place as their victims??? Yes, we do believe in this place of waiting and teaching..'spirit prison.' However, we also believe that we will be judged according to what we did here on earth, according to those laws we DID know. In other words, Nobody is going to hell because he lived according to his beliefs as best he could--if those beliefs are different from ours. However, most cultures have a real problem with pedophiles who torture, rape and murder. Most pedophiles know that their actions are wrong..which is why they try to hide it..and they will most certainly be judged according to those laws they know they are breaking. The only thing they get from 'spirit prison' is a further education in just how badly they screwed up.

I did. You ignored it.

Oh I didn't ignore it at all. All I saw you state was the validating point of her suffering in such a heinous way here on earth, was that after her murder, she would be with jesus and all would be peachy THEN as in perhaps, he will protect her after the fact. It does not in anyway give valid reason WHY an "omni-all" god, allegedly capable of ANYTHING, did not intervene.

Because that would be a complete abrogation of free will. It would allow HIM to claim that 'I wouldn't really have done this...you can't punish me for something I did not, after all, DO!" We believe that eternity is a very long time...against which this life is but an instant, and any suffering we endure here is also fleeting. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant; WE do, and it is, after all our perspective you are dealing with, not yours.

I believe in the death penalty.

Oh, NO WAY! *shock* lol (sarcasm) I expected as much, little miss "pro-life".

It utterly astounds me that some people are so adamantly against ending the lives of those who deliberately torture and murder others, but will blithely end the lives of the very most helpless and innocent of human beings, whose only 'crime' is that they exist and are an inconvenience to the women who invited their existence in the first place. If there is hypocrisy involved here, I would much rather be the hypocrite who protects the innocent and punishes the guilty than the hypocrite who murders the innocent and spares the horrific.

I see. You really are mad at Him, aren't you?

I see, so you can't answer the question and BTW, fallacious statement on your part. The emotion of anger is wasted on a mythological entity, Dianaiad. I am as mad at your god model as you are at Apollo or Zeus.

You never believed in Apollo or Zeus...but you did, according to your own posts, once believe in the Judeo-Christian God. Your reaction seems very indicative of anger, rather than of mere disbelief; after all, I don't see you here railing against Zeus or Apollo, or insulting those who believe in them. <snip to>

I would intervene, as would you, because of our position of NOT being God. It's our job. God has a different viewpoint. True, this child's suffering isn't lessened by God's existence...but unlike you and I, HE (if He exists, that is) took her, comforted her, and cares for her in a way that we can't. In the meantime, the murderer has shown that he is not simply evil in thought, but evil in deed. He has sealed his own fate past redeeming.

All that shows me is that you and I have far more compassion for a complete stranger than your god model has for one of his own "children".

No, it shows that I don't have the same perspective as He does. That's all.

I once knew a group of women who, having been told that there was a shipment of faulty vaccine, refused to allow their children to get vaccinated against polio. They were right to act that way, according to what they knew. What they did NOT know was that the faulty batch had been replaced; the doctors knew about the replacement, and they told the woman about it. Some women trusted the new information, (had faith in it...) and their kids were vaccinated. A few did not--and their children were not...and two of them contracted polio.


It's all about who knows what, Cat. We mere mortals know about mortality; our job is to prevent and cure suffering here as much as we can, and CERTAINLY to avoid inflicting it. However, God, Who knows a lot more than we do, must be allowed to act on His greater knowledge. YOU do not, of course, since you don't believe in Him at all, but since you don't, you can't blame Him, or be mad at Him. Nor can you insist that WE be upset with Him because YOU do not believe. That's illogical.

Secondly, please elaborate as to your claimed knowledge of what your god's supposed viewpoint supposedly is. Your presumption, you must appreciate can not be taken as viable evidence to support your claim.

Why?

The idea behind this debate isn't so much that God doesn't exist, as that if He does, He is evil. That presupposes that He DOES exist...for the purposes of the conversation--and for the purposes of the conversation, He exists as omniscient, omnipotent,omnipresent and omnibenevolent. If, for the purposes of refuting the idea that such a God is evil for allowing evil, then the theists get to describe why...if that involves a different description of Deity, then...

tough noogies. You don't believe in any God; therefore you don't get to decide what He would have to be like if there WERE one. We get to tell you, and if we say 'He has a wider viewpoint,' then...He has a wider viewpoint.

As well, It is illogical for you to accept the idea of a creator deity who made everything (including us) and NOT accept also that such a creator deity would, as a logical necessity, have a wider viewpoint than any one of his creations. If he didn't, he wouldn't have been able to do any creating.

Third, how can it be OUR job if it an impossibility for us to he at her side.

Someone could have raised him better...caught him earlier...protected her better...any number of things. Of course, all those things might have been negated by his own choices (as the steps that were taken obviously were) but it is still our job to prevent such things, not God's. It's one of the reasons we were put here, we believe.

As your god model allegedly is ALWAYS WITH his faithful, in their times of need, why wouldn't it be HIS job? Forth, the only "sin" that cannot be forgiven is that of blasphemy against the spirit; at least that is what I was taught in theology college. ALL else, are pardonable, including murder.(ref: Luke 12:10, Mark 3:29 and matthew 12:31-32.) Or did Josph Smith changed the goalposts on that one too?

Only one unforgivable sin. Murder may be forgiven...but it is, we believe, second only to that of denying the Holy Ghost in seriousness. We excommunicate convicted murderers. We do NOT believe that murder is something that can be forgiven for someone on death row who is merely attempting to avoid punishment. Of course, we also do not have the sort of 'once saved, always saved' notion of salvation some do, either. We do not believe that salvation works like that. Indeed, we have been accused of being a 'works based' religion, and in many ways, we are. Forgiveness of sins is dependent upon complete repentance...which is more than just saying 'I repent!"

.........and Cat? You can't HAVE this both ways. If you are going to rail at me for my beliefs, you have to at least know what they ARE. So far you haven't come very close, and I certainly feel no need to defend beliefs I don't hold....such as the stupidity of claiming that this guy can simply 'give himself to Jesus' and all will be well.

You may write off my comment as stupidity,

I didn't 'write off your argument as stupidity." ...unless YOU are arguing that someone can simply 'give himself to Jesus' (in terms of simply saying something) and all will be well." THAT is the argument I called stupid. Are you making that argument?

but I suggest you do a little google of christian converts on death row.

Why? They may well be Christian converts, but that doesn't necessarily make them saved...not in my belief system, anyway.

I would have provided a specific link, but there are just SO MANY of them, I was spoiled for choice. I fail to see as well just how you can allude that I want it both ways when I have made it clear all along that I reckon the GUY is at fault here - done deal, simply because to me your god model is a non-existent entity, whereby not "owning" the attributes claimed of him. The only thing I (and doing so hypothetically may I add) am doing is working with the attributes that those of "faith" CLAIM their god has which are: omniscience, omnipotence and.omnipresence.

Uhmnnnn.....omnipotence which is constrained to act isn't omnipotence. Omniscience which is limited to the human perspective (which ends at death) isn't omniscience. Oh, and we don't believe in His omnipresence in the same way most Christians do.

Your problem is that you are using the words 'omniscience,' 'omnipotent' and 'omnipresence' (oh, and omnibenevolence, though you didn't use that word in the above sentence) in strictly mortal human terms; that is, knowing all that humans can know, being able to do all that humans can, or would like, to do, and doing nice things for every human individual, no matter what happens to the larger group.

You are going to have to expand your mind and think bigger than that.

As to your collective 3 post point. *sigh* No Ad hom there either. Perhaps you should check with a dictionary of your liking to show you that reiterating a point YOU put out there, then replying to a question you asked me with a straightforward answer, and then clarifying my position as to a comment YOU made prior, doesn't actually "fit" in ANY dictionary's definition of what an ad hominem is.


Catalyst.

addressing points of argument? Nope, those aren't ad hominems. Addressing my character for making those arguments? Sorry, those are ad hominems.

[Woland]

Hello dianaiad,

I have a few questions for you, if you don't mind.

...blithely end the lives of the very most helpless and innocent of human beings, whose only 'crime' is that they exist

Has "God" ever done such a thing, in your view?
If you think that "He" did, was it because he was powerless to let these babies/children live?
Is "God" exempt from common and BASIC human moral concepts because he owns us and made us? Is there a remotely valid reason for this special pleading when it comes to moral issues?
Wouldn't we expect the "source of all love and morality and joy" to at least not kill children and babies AND order them killed?
Wouldn't that be sort of the minimum that you would expect from "love itself"?
If not, why in the WORLD do Christians keep telling us "God is love" when humans use the word "love", as well as "compassion" and "empathy" to mean entirely different things?

Has "God" designed or allowed (for thousands of years) biological pathways which naturally terminate the pregnancies of countless women? If so, why?
What about all of those naturally aborted fetuses?
Do they get to become "universe creators" according to your speculation?
Did they miss out on "the great and necessary experience of living and suffering" by being killed before being born?

Do you have coherent answers to these questions?

-Woland