If God wants to destroy evil...

[Zarathustra]

God created everything that has been, is, and is going to be in existence. He created the Earth and the Heavens. He created the Lake of Fire in which he casts sinners. He created Good, and He created evil. Does not the old adage says "I have created you, and so can I destroy you"?

If God wanted to, couldn't He, in theory, destroy evil with no need for the battle of the apocalypse?

[bernee51]

God DOES know what He's doing...

That is a very definitive statement - can you prove it?

Sure! This works best out of doors; Close your eyes, spin around, and point your finger in any direction. Open your eye, and observe the wonder of what you are pointing at! Happy accidents? I just cannot imagine why that is a more appealing and plausable answer, than a Creator, who designed it all with loving intent!

Bro Dave

That is not proof Bro that is a reason why you believe.

Can you conceive of no other reason than this?

I too can marvel at the wonder of the universe in which we find ourselves but I do see god as a default reason for its existence. Nor do I believe in 'happy accidents'.

(oops : edited: should have read I do not see god as a default...")

[Bro Dave]

That is not proof Bro that is a reason why you believe.

Can you conceive of no other reason than this?

I too can marvel at the wonder of the universe in which we find ourselves but I do see god as a default reason for its existence. Nor do I believe in 'happy accidents'.

My friend, we both know there are no absolute proofs of anything, outside what the individual accepts. For those who find God residing in their hearts, no proofs or defenses are necessary. For those who have not made that discovery, no amount of argument is sufficient.
But, I am pleased that you do not believe in "happy accidents" either. For the universe to have "big-banged" into the beautifully refined model we now see, requires more "magic" than seems scientific or prudent to believe.

Bro Dave

[bernee51]

We have wandered hopelessly off topic...

My friend, we both know there are no absolute proofs of anything, outside what the individual accepts.

You could be right Bro, but there may be some mathematicians out ther who would not agree.

For those who find God residing in their hearts, no proofs or defenses are necessary. For those who have not made that discovery, no amount of argument is sufficient.

The only thing residing in my heart is blood.

I do, believe, however, that through self enquiry I have had glimpses or moreso perhaps sensed, albeit brielfy, what you would might claim to be 'the divine'. Sort of like 'peak' experiences.

But, I am pleased that you do not believe in "happy accidents" either. For the universe to have "big-banged" into the beautifully refined model we now see, requires more "magic" than seems scientific or prudent to believe.

Actually Bro I'm quite comfortable with the theory of the big bang as a reasonable explanation as to how the universe as we perceive it came into existence. I think it has more credence than an independent 'creator' entity. I don't believe magic or the supernatural has anything at all to do with the subsequent development and on going evolution of the universe and its inhabitants.

[spetey]

I on the other hand, see all lessons presented to us as gifts of unique opportunity.

Oh, these pains and evils are "lessons" we should seek out? Those drowning kids learned great stuff in all that agony, and God was kind to let them experience it? Are you grabbing for that stapler again, so that you can give yourself opportunity to learn so many "lessons"? Don't, Bro Dave, don't do it! I can already tell you ahead of time that pain sucks, and that's the lesson of pain!

From this limited perspective, I am able to build “faith muscles” of my trust in Father, no matter the appearances.

Well, your faith is one thing. But here on this thread we debate about what reasons there might be to believe. I don't share your faith. So why should I believe? Or do you say there is no reason you can share?

(Incidentally, I don't think faith is something to be proud of. I think admissions of faith should be embarrassing, and you can see why I say such a crazy thing on this thread.)

Close your eyes, spin around, and point your finger in any direction. Open your eye, and observe the wonder of what you are pointing at! Happy accidents? I just cannot imagine why that is a more appealing and plausable answer, than a Creator, who designed it all with loving intent!

Okay, I'll try. Oops, I'm pointing at a Geo Prizm. Doesn't seem to be evidence of God's design. Okay, try again. Oops, dead squirrel, obviously mauled by some larger animal. Okay, try again. A nice tree that seems phylogenically related to the oak. Hmn. It's almost as though this is a natural world where there is some evil and some good, and where living things evolved according to some natural process.


spetey

[hannahjoy]

The Happy Humanist wrote:

HannahJoy wrote:

In the end, though it may not satisfy human curiosity, the answer to the problem of evil, and everything else, comes down to the glory of God.

And herein, I believe, lies one of the most basic, fundamental rifts between Christians and non-Christians: You absolve God of responsibility for sin, evil, what have you, on some basis that we non-Christians cannot abide, nor even fully comprehend. You see it as the Glory of God, we see it as "trying to have it both ways." On the one hand, you present your God as the Creator of the Universe, and everything in it. Evil and sin are in it, therefore he created it, or at the very least knowingly created the potential for it. On the other hand, you absolve him of sin, by presenting him as perfect and incapable of sin, and, well, "because he's God!"

This is a "pass" you would not issue to any other entity. As such, it requires a much more vigorous defense on your part. As it stands, we don't see a qualitative difference between God slaying children and humans slaying children. We don't see a moral difference between creating the potential for evil, with full knowledge that that potential will be realized, and doing evil directly.

You cannot simply define away guilt. It is a childish game - "The rules are that I, and only I, cannot be out of bounds. It's my game, so I get to make such a rule."

If God didn't have the right to "make the rules", He wouldn't be God. Of course I wouldn't "issue that 'pass'" to any other entity. There is no other entity Who is "above all, and through all" and "the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth".
Sin is not something that was created or exists of itself - it is a perversion of the good that God created. God is responsible for the good, not the perversion of it.

As for inheriting sin from Adam....more evil. I did not sign up to be held responsible for the sins of my antecedents. Humans did away with that as a legitimate legal concept long ago. We found it to be morally indefensible. Please tell us why it is not equally morally indefensible for God to do so.

By your own admission, you like the sinful nature you inherited. You could ask God to give you a new nature, but you don't want to, so you have little reason to complain about inheriting it. God is letting you have your own way.

though it may not satisfy human curiosity

If it does not satisfy human curiosity, then I submit that God's law is a poor foundation on which to base human law. That is the raison d'etre of this entire Forum. If Christians did not go around trying to impose Christianity on a pluralistic society on the basis of this being a "Christian nation" based on "Judeo-Christian ethics," this board would not exist, because the debate between Christians and non-Christians would not be even fractionally as fervent as it is.

"Gays should not be allowed to marry."
"Why not?"
"Because homosexuality is an abhorrent practice."
"Why?"
"Because God says so."
"Why?"
"Because....well, we don't know, but it must be against his Plan for us."
"What are the details of his plan?"
"Well, we don't know, but he's God, so he gets to make the rules."
"But you can't prove that he's God!"
"Doesn't matter, we're in the majority and the majority rules."

Can you see why we might be a little wary of this logic?

So I can't prove He's God - you can't prove He isn't. We're in the same situation.
"Curiosity" was probably not the best word. What I meant was, you won't like it, you won't accept it, you'll keep asking because you haven't gotten the answer you want, in that sense your curiosity will not be satisfied. But God's "plan" is not unknowable - we have many details in the Bible. We don't know all the details, but we know enough to give us reason to trust Him.

I live - including vote - according to what I believe. So do you. So does every other human being who has ever lived. You want laws to be made on the assumption that God doesn't exist, because it can't be proven that He does. I want laws to be made on the assumption the He does exist, and you can't prove He doesn't. I know you won't vote according to what I believe - why should I vote according to what you believe? Can you see why I might be a little wary of your logic?

Might does not make right - right is right whether it's popular or not. Until everyone can agree on what is right, laws will be made according to what the majority believes (at least in democratic countries).

Hannah Joy

[stevencarrwork]

If God didn't have the right to "make the rules", He wouldn't be God.

Says who?

By definition, God's opinion is subjective. That's what opinion means.

Might does not make right - right is right whether it's popular or not. Until everyone can agree on what is right, laws will be made according to what the majority believes (at least in democratic countries).

Hannah Joy

And right is right regardless of which being says it.

Laws should not be passed on the basis of what a tiny minority of 1 believes to be true.

Otherwise, we end up with laws demanding the genocide of entire people man, women, children and babies because it is thought that they are wicked.

Joshua 11:20 For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

Of course, Hannah has no evidence that her God exists.

However, if she had been born in Afghanistan, she would now be demanding that raped women be stoned to death for adultery if they could not produce 4 male witnesses to prove rape, because that is God's law.

Just like Muslims, she has taken the word of man and called it the word of God.

Hannah :-
' I want laws to be made on the assumption the He does exist, and you can't prove He doesn't.'

We will soon have Sharia law in parts of the US, if such attitudes prevail.....

[Bro Dave]

Actually Bro I'm quite comfortable with the theory of the big bang as a reasonable explanation as to how the universe as we perceive it came into existence. I think it has more credence than an independent 'creator' entity. I don't believe magic or the supernatural has anything at all to do with the subsequent development and on going evolution of the universe and its inhabitants.

Hmmm, something. (make that EVERYTHING) "suddenly appearing" from nothing... and that's not "magic"???

Bro Dave

[stevencarrwork]

Hmmm, something. (make that EVERYTHING) "suddenly appearing" from nothing... and that's not "magic"???

It's certainly not science. There is no scientific support for the doctrine of creation from nothing.

In fact, it is incoherent to suggest that there ever was nothing.

[harvey1]

Sorry, I've been busy, and about to get a whole lot busier for about a week (but I'm afraid my time is starting to look tighter for the future)...

Well, this thread assumes there is a God...

Oh, does it? Did I stumble into the Christian thread room by mistake? I thought this was about the Problem of Evil, which is traditionally an argument to show that God does not exist. But if you want to assume that God exists, despite evil, and without giving reasons, well, I'd be interested to hear you defend that position in this thread--a thread which may look familiar to you, Harvey.

Yes, it states at the beginning of this thread:

God created everything that has been, is, and is going to be in existence. He created the Earth and the Heavens. He created the Lake of Fire in which he casts sinners. He created Good, and He created evil.

So, for the sake of argument and the premise of this thread, I can assume God exists as part of my argument.

If there were no God you wouldn't even be able to wonder about such an issue.

Oh Harvey! You would not even be here to make these crazy claims about your "god" if it were not for the Invisible Pink Unicorn! So you must believe in the IPU now, I suppose?!

No, because the IPU is an invented construct having none of the realistic reasons for believing its existence that a belief in realism has, or a belief in a platonic realm has, or a belief in God has.

This is a credo. We know roughly what you believe, we want to know why you believe, especially despite the atrocities out there.

And, I did so. I'm thinking that we're already ready to go onto a new question since that one has been properly and sufficiently answered.

Oh, I must have missed it. Was it the thing about how there are paradoxes and so we just have to believe inconsistent things sometimes and trust that God is doing everything for the best? Was that the reason? Because it sounds a lot more like faith.

No. I don't think it does. I laid out a very cogent perspective of how and why paradoxes can affect God's decisions on intervention in our world, and you didn't give it a response. That's fine not to respond, but don't act so shocked when I bring up my argument again and again.

If there was some reason that might appeal to others who don't already believe, please, for us slow folks, spell it out here. Why did so many children die such horrific deaths? Was God unable to save them, or unwilling to save them, or was there simply no God to witness it in the first place?

That's a different thread, however I don't expect to convince you that God is fighting paradox battles and that's why there is evil. However, it really is not relevant since I would not use the problem of evil to convince anyone that there was a God. Rather, I would only try to show that God and evil can be consistent, and that's what I have done.

[The Happy Humanist]

If God didn't have the right to "make the rules", He wouldn't be God.

(Of course, that's my position to begin with... ) But this implies that, being God, he can make the rules any way he chooses, without regard to morality. That's fine. But let's not hear anything about "absolute morality" vs. "situational ethics," since God himself chooses to indulge in the latter, effectively obviating the former.

Of course I wouldn't "issue that 'pass'" to any other entity. There is no other entity Who is "above all, and through all" and "the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth".

Well, that's what it says in the brochure, anyway...

By your own admission, you like the sinful nature you inherited. You could ask God to give you a new nature, but you don't want to, so you have little reason to complain about inheriting it. God is letting you have your own way.

By my own admission, I did not inherit anything. I am not complaining about inheriting anything because I hold that the concept of inheriting the sins of my forebears is byzantine, barbaric, and "unGodly." Again, please, show me in human terms - i.e., other than "because God says so" - why I am wrong to believe thus.

So I can't prove He's God - you can't prove He isn't. We're in the same situation.

Tell that to the prosecution and the defense in the Robert Blake trial. The prosecution couldn't prove that Blake murdered Bonnie Bakley. The defense couldn't prove that he didn't. Are they in the same position? No, because the defense didn't have to prove anything - theirs was the default position. For every claim made, there is a default position. In this country, "innocent until proven guilty" sets up innocence as the default position. In the case of an extraordinary claim of something that cannot be observed in nature, the default position has to be non-existence, or we would be paralyzed as a society by fear of what we might not be doing right to ward off things like evil spirits, etc.

No, Hannah, we are not in the same position, not by a long shot.