Does God cause evil?

[DanieltheDragon]

Does God cause evil?

Some assert that God causes no evil. Is there cause to believe this is true. Can this position be supported. Is the character described in the bible incapable of evil?

I would assert that a position that claims God created everything would make him the original cause of evil. That God cannot escape being the cause of evil since he created any and all situations in which evil would arise.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 252 by hoghead1]



[center]We can't possibly imagine it, but we can.[/center]

Hence, God as truly transcendent enjoys an empathic sensitivity that is on a far grandeur scale than anything we can imagine.

And yet, we don't seem to have a problem imagining that, do we?
Bravo for us being able to imagine the unimaginable !!

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 252 by hoghead1]

In reasoned and honorable debate a credible debater is expected to substantiate their opinion with something other than more of their opinions. Citing one's 'reasoning' is NOT providing evidence.

This may be a difficult concept for someone who is accustomed to being an “authority� – as in the case of preacher, teacher, or just someone who has high regard for their own importance. They are often inclined to present their OPINION as though it was fact. Perhaps they are unaware that others may not have such high regard for those opinions.

Here in debate no one is the 'authority', not even 'God' or the Bible. No one's OPINION rules or dominates. It is foolish to act like a teacher lecturing a class of uninformed, ignorant students.

You have been challenged to support a claim that you have made:

God's goal is to achieve beauty.

How do you KNOW this?

The next post contains the following self-references (as though 'I think' settles the matter).

I stated
I presented
I think
as far as I am concerned
I think
I cannot but help but think
I already explained
I don't believe
As I have said before
as I already mentioned
how I see God
I don't see the relevance of your posts

Ducking, weaving, tap dancing, diversions, evasions, excuses don't count.

Wordy posts and word salads and more opinions may impress some readers; however, the question remains unanswered – and the claim to KNOW 'God's goal' is unsubstantiated.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 262 by Zzyzx]

In reasoned debate, one cites one claims and then one's line of argument, and that is what I have done. If you object to points in my line of reasoning, then you should offer your rebuttal to them. Well, where is it? We each have different writing styles. The fact I might preface something, with say, "I believe..." is a perfectly legitimate form of argument. The reader should look at what I have said, decide whether he or she agrees with it, and then give their response. That's the way dialogue works.

I gave a solid line of reasoning for my claim that God is Cosmic Artist. For example, I have outlined my case for beauty as an objective dimension of all existence. If you wish to object, you are welcome. But then you need to address my specific arguments , such as problems with the primary-secondary dichotomy, etc. Well, where is it?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to hoghead1]

Still dancing . . . Let's try again

God's goal is to achieve beauty.

How do you KNOW this?

Again, HOW do you KNOW 'God's goal'? Where did you learn 'God's goal'? Was it direct communication? Was it from some ancient writings claiming to know? Was it just something made up?

In reasoned debate, one cites one claims and then one's line of argument, and that is what I have done.

Perhaps in philosophical and theological circles 'reasoned debate' consists of claims and 'line of argument'; however, elsewhere (including this Forum) one is expected and required to substantiate their claims with evidence OTHER than their own opinions and arguments.

If you object to points in my line of reasoning, then you should offer your rebuttal to them. Well, where is it?

When a 'debater' claims knowledge of gods, fairies, or leprechauns, I am not required or expected to offer a rebuttal. Simply asking for verifiable substantiating evidence is sufficient.

We each have different writing styles. The fact I might preface something, with say, "I believe..." is a perfectly legitimate form of argument.

'I believe' is NOT evidence of anything other than personal opinion.

The reader should look at what I have said, decide whether he or she agrees with it, and then give their response. That's the way dialogue works.

When a person has presented nothing beyond their opinion supported only by their opinion, it is reasonable to ask for supporting verifiable evidence.

I gave a solid line of reasoning for my claim that God is Cosmic Artist. For example, I have outlined my case for beauty as an objective dimension of all existence.

Those claims have NOT met with agreement or respect. They are ONLY opinions.

An opinion and a few dollars will get a cup of coffee in some places (but not here in debate).

If you wish to object, you are welcome. But then you need to address my specific arguments , such as problems with the primary-secondary dichotomy, etc. Well, where is it?

I object to a claim to KNOW 'God's goal' – and ask for substantiating verifiable evidence that the claim of knowledge is truthful and accurate. I am NOT asking for a song and dance. If you claim to know 'God's goal' show READERS exactly where and how you came about such valuable information.

If you claim direct communication that is an unverifiable personal testimonial which asks people to 'Take my word for it�

If you claim to have learned from writings those are unverifiable testimonials of the writers – and asks 'Take their word for it'.

If you just think it sounds good, SAY SO and stop beating around the bush. We can agree that it sounds good and is purely speculation. Okay?

No amount of 'reasoning' makes up for the absence of verifiable information.

Once again: How do you KNOW God's goal?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 264 by Zzyzx]

Still dancing...let's try again. Let's consider the shoe on the other foot, shall we?
On my end, I did not ask people to take my word for it or take their word for it. I simply presented my view and my case, and then it's up to the reader to decide.

In a number of previous posts, I have presented my case as to why I see the universe as a fundamentally aesthetic enterprise, why beauty is a fundamental dimension for reality, and how we are all on the quest for beauty. Basically, I have point out out why I believe feeling is a fundamental dimension of all entities. And I also pointed out how our goal is for enriched experience. We just don't seek to survive, we strive to live well and to live better. Indeed, why science, for example? Well, we are seeking enriched experience. I can continue giving examples, if that's what you want. But one or two should suffice. Under these circumstances, the logical inference is that God's goal is to achieve beauty.

In earlier posts, I addressed, largely in response to classical theism, the necessity of attributing passive, empathic, receptive dimensions to God,, as these are also perfections. Given that God is the most perfect of all beings, then God must also be the eminently sensitive one. And I don't know of any other model of God that does justice to this radical sensitivity, except God as Cosmic Artist. Certainly, God as the traditional Ruthless Moralist or Ruling Cesar, or Unmoved Mover do not. If you can think of a better metaphor for God than I, let's hear it.

I remind you that the current OP does not ask for proofs for the existence of God, an issue which I have addressed in other posts. If that is what you are interested in, then please set up another post. This OP's I am immediately interested in are presupposing the existence of God and then asking whether God changes and how God is involved in evolution.


When you say you want more than arguments, I'm afraid that is all anyone is going to be able to give here. Anything anyone says can be said to simply be their argument, their thoughts. That should be taken fro granted. In your present post, you have presented nothing but your thoughts, your own opinions.

As to starting sentences with "I believe" or "I feel," that is a major tactic highly recommended by experts in counseling as a great way to diffuse situations, for a number of reasons. So maybe you should consider going that way more.

[Zzyzx]

.

I remind you that the current OP does not ask for proofs for the existence of God, an issue which I have addressed in other posts. If that is what you are interested in, then please set up another post.

May I remind you that in THIS thread you claimed knowledge of 'God's goal'.

My challenge is NOT the existence of 'God' -- but IS a challenge specifically and exactly to your claim of knowing 'God's goal'.

God's goal is to achieve beauty.

How do you KNOW this?

Again, HOW do you KNOW 'God's goal'? Where did you learn 'God's goal'? Was it direct communication? Was it from some ancient writings claiming to know? Was it just something made up?

Perhaps it is acceptable in philosophy and theology circles to make a claim then dance away when asked to substantiate the claim. However, that evasion is not acceptable in debate here -- and does not seem likely to impress readers with one's sincerity and ability.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 266 by Zzyzx]

Z, I have already presented my argument several times, including in my previous post.

[Zzyzx]

.

Z, I have already presented my argument several times, including in my previous post.

Where, exactly (URL / post number), did you answer:

God's goal is to achieve beauty.

How do you KNOW this?

Again, HOW do you KNOW 'God's goal'? Where did you learn 'God's goal'? Was it direct communication? Was it from some ancient writings claiming to know? Was it just something made up?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 268 by Zzyzx]

Well, goodness, try Post 265 and teh one I just posted. I hate to say it, but I'm getting the feeling you aren't reading my posts.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 268 by Zzyzx]

By one I just posted, I mean my Post 306 in "Divinely Inspired Evolution."