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?

[hannahjoy]

But this implies that, being God, he can make the rules any way he chooses, without regard to morality.

? He defines morality. God is Good - personified. There is no good, no morality apart from God.

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.

I haven't said anything about "absolute morality" vs. "situational ethics." God's morality doesn't change, but God does have rights that we don't have.

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

Are you referring to the Bible as a brochure? Do you have any idea how many hours it takes to read through it?

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.

I was talking about your sinful nature, which you inherited from Adam, and which you don't want changed. As far as Adam's sinful act being imputed to you personally, while I don't fully understand it, I do know that you justify it by continuing in Adam's steps. Every day you show yourself to be just like your father Adam, as do we all.

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.

The default position is not non-existence - God's existence can be observed in nature if you have the eyes to see it.

I was actually talking about the government of this country, as you were in the quotation I posted. It is supposed to be "by the people" and "for the people". Laws are to be set up according to what the people believe to be right (that doesn't mean they are right). I am one of those people.

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).

As a citizen of the United States of America, I have the right to vote according to what I believe to be true and just. So do you, and you have no right to criticize me for doing the same. As far as the laws of this country are concerned, we are in the same position, with the same political right to vote our consciences. How the laws are set up will depend on which of us is in the majority (unless the courts continue to make the laws for us).
As a citizen of the kingdom of God, I have not merely the right, but the responsibility to do what I can to further the cause of right, though I don't put much store in politics as a means.
Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

Hannah Joy

[bernee51]

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

I have never claimed that "something came from nothing".

That said...at a quantum level 'something' coming from 'nothing' is the basis of all that exists.

[stevencarrwork]

But this implies that, being God, he can make the rules any way he chooses, without regard to morality.

? He defines morality. God is Good - personified. There is no good, no morality apart from God.

Of course, this is the very definition of subjective morality. Morality is whatever one being defines it to be. If God said that rape was moral, then, by Hannah's definition, rape would be moral.

And God could do that, as there is *no* morality apart from God. There is nothing immoral about rape *in itself* which makes it immoral. It is immoral *only* because God has thought about rape and declared it immoral.

[The Happy Humanist]

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

Are you referring to the Bible as a brochure? Do you have any idea how many hours it takes to read through it?

Lighten up. It's a metaphor!

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.

I was talking about your sinful nature, which you inherited from Adam, and which you don't want changed. As far as Adam's sinful act being imputed to you personally, while I don't fully understand it, I do know that you justify it by continuing in Adam's steps. Every day you show yourself to be just like your father Adam, as do we all.

And just how did I show my sinful nature lying in my crib? Or do you not accept that the stain of sin exists from birth? And if you don't fully understand it, then how do you (meaning Christians in general) expect us to accept it? If this is some kind of contract that I've been made a party to without my consent, informed or otherwise, I have the right to at least fully understand it. Otherwise, I am perfectly within my rights to reject it.

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?

There was never any argument on my part that you would vote as you believe. Of course you have that right. My problem is with why you believe what you believe, and how your beliefs may be blinding you to what is truly good and proper. In a democratic society, you have the right to vote your beliefs...and I have the right to challenge those beliefs as being inimical to the progress of humanity. After all, if your beliefs take sway in our political system, but turn out to be wrong, you will have needlessly caused great harm to millions - gay couples, unwed mothers, potential stem cell recipients, Terry Schiavo, etc.

But this implies that, being God, he can make the rules any way he chooses, without regard to morality.

? He defines morality. God is Good - personified. There is no good, no morality apart from God.

And here we get down to the nitty-gritty. I submit that your statement above, highlighted, is one of the strongest logical arguments against the Christian God.

Let's talk slavery.

1. Do you, Hannah, believe that slavery is wrong?
2. Do you believe that it has always been wrong?
3. Do you acknowledge that God, through his Bible, failed to communicate the wrongness of slavery to his followers? That, in fact, he made every appearance of condoning it?
4. Do you acknowledge that humanity came to see the wrongness of slavery of its own accord, quite apart from any Biblical admonitions (of which there were none)?
5. Assuming you answered "Yes" to all the above, please tell us, in light of your highlighted statement: How could humanity come to perceive a moral truth that its Creator, the reputed "source of all Goodness," was blind to?

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.

I haven't said anything about "absolute morality" vs. "situational ethics."

True. So you haven't. But of course, you know that we humanists get that all the time. I submit that God himself is the source of situational ethics. He has demonstrated that time and again. For instance, if it is wrong to kill, then it is absolutely wrong to kill...unless you're in a situation where you're God, and you don't like what you've created...

God's morality doesn't change, but God does have rights that we don't have.

Including, apparently, the right to be morally wrong, at least from a human perspective.

Do you not see the danger in this moral exclusionism? I've made this point elsewhere - you have decided to follow God, and have decided that he is incapable of doing wrong. Therefore, everything he does is right, no matter how wrong it seems. There is no way out for you! You could conceivably be following a demonic force that was banished from another universe and that has set itself up as "the Creator", but since you have abdicated your moral judgement, you would have no way of discerning the ruse! If I'm wrong, show me a way out - show me how you could conceivably objectively determine that such a being is truly Good.

The default position is not non-existence - God's existence can be observed in nature if you have the eyes to see it.

Unfortunately he appears to have withheld this special vision from certain of us.

More to the point, if you were in a court of law, you might convince a jury that the "order" and "beauty" we perceive in nature is the product of a willed creation by a deity, but you would then be stuck with proving that the creating force is your particular deity - as opposed to, say, Quetzalcoatl, the Invisible Pink Unicorn - or <gasp> Murray! Why? Because you have no right to assume that the default position is any one particular deity. Many deities lay claim to creating the universe...why yours?

[RevJP]

And just how did I show my sinful nature lying in my crib? Or do you not accept that the stain of sin exists from birth? And if you don't fully understand it, then how do you (meaning Christians in general) expect us to accept it? If this is some kind of contract that I've been made a party to without my consent, informed or otherwise, I have the right to at least fully understand it. Otherwise, I am perfectly within my rights to reject it

.

Do not confuse sinfulness (committing sin) with our sinful nature. what you inherited from Adam is a nature corrupted from the original creation. You inherited a 'genetic abnormality' so to speak.

God Created us to be perfect companions with Him, the fall of Adam and Eve was more than them just sinning and making God mad. It was a corruption of their very being which perpetuates itself through the generations, much like a genetic flaw perpetuates itself.

[The Happy Humanist]

Do not confuse sinfulness (committing sin) with our sinful nature. what you inherited from Adam is a nature corrupted from the original creation. You inherited a 'genetic abnormality' so to speak.

OK, point taken. But the consequence of this "genetic abnormality" is that I am hellbound by default, as punishment, not for MY sins, but for Adam & Eve's sins. I could lead an exemplary life, I could feed more hungry than Mother Teresa, I could resist all temptation to do evil, but because Eve ate the apple, I am doomed to crispy critterdom UNLESS I accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as a proxy for MY sinful nature, which is imputed to me only by way of my alleged ancestors. Because of Adam and Eve, and NOT necessarily because of anything bad I might do, I am considered lower than cockroach feces in the eyes of God. I call foul.

God Created us to be perfect companions with Him

Oh well, the best laid plans of gods and men... I'll resist the temptation of asking how it is that a perfect god could create a perfect companion, only to have it go so badly awry...only because I've heard the answer a million times and it still doesn't make sense. If we were created with the capacity to become flawed, then we were created flawed in the first place. There is no getting around this.

, the fall of Adam and Eve was more than them just sinning and making God mad.

Now, do you actually think God gets mad? As in angry? Aside from the almost comedic anthopomorphism, doesn't one usually get angry at an unexpected development? Have you ever gotten angry at something you knew with certainty was going to happen? I don't mean, like, "I just know the line at Motor Vehicles is going to be an hour long" -- that's more like resigned exasperation. "Mad" implies to me that God actually thought Adam and Eve would behave themselves for all eternity, and was surprised that they didn't. Does this sound like an all-powerful entity to you?

And while I'm at it, I just thought of a great topic for a completely different thread. What Would Life Be Like Had There Been No Fall? What would we be doing today? Someone else will have to start it, though, I'm brain dead today.

[RevJP]

But the consequence of this "genetic abnormality" is that I am hellbound by default, as punishment, not for MY sins, but for Adam & Eve's sins.

Not true specifically. The consequence is eternal seperation from God, not as punishment, but because corruption cannot exist in God's presence.

You are asserting that basically you are being blamed and punished for something you did not do. In reality you are simply existing in the condition in which you were born. Do you blame your parents for you not being able to be a girl scout because you were born a boy? No, if you truly want to be a girl scout you find a way to make it happen. The difference here is that God has shown us the way already. He has already made it possible for us to be with Him for eternity, all we have to do is believe Him and accept His gift.

If we were created with the capacity to become flawed, then we were created flawed in the first place. There is no getting around this.

I'm afraid you will have to support how the capacity for something make it that something. I have the capacity to be a murderer, that does not make me a murderer. But I suppose this line of questioning will evolve into a discussion on free-will.

Now, do you actually think God gets mad? As in angry? Aside from the almost comedic anthopomorphism, doesn't one usually get angry at an unexpected development? Have you ever gotten angry at something you knew with certainty was going to happen? I don't mean, like, "I just know the line at Motor Vehicles is going to be an hour long" -- that's more like resigned exasperation. "Mad" implies to me that God actually thought Adam and Eve would behave themselves for all eternity, and was surprised that they didn't. Does this sound like an all-powerful entity to you?

Does God get angry? I'm quite sure He does. Do I think it makes Him seem less like an all-powerful entity? Hardly. I don't see how it would. Besides my comment was tinged with a touch of sarcasm in response to the implications of your questions.

[stevencarrwork]

Does God get angry? I'm quite sure He does. Do I think it makes Him seem less like an all-powerful entity? Hardly. I don't see how it would.

Matthew 5:21
21&#8220;You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, &#8216;Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.&#8217; 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.

Is anger not a sin?

[spetey]

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.

Hannahjoy, we are not assuming God does not exist. We are instead providing reasons for this claim. Here is this thread's argument against the existence of God:

• If God exists, God is all-good and all-powerful.
• If something all-good and all-powerful exists, there would be no evil, or only evil that is absolutely necessary (that is, this would be the "best of all possible worlds").
• Lots of unnecessary evil exists, like those children who drowned in a tsunami.
• Therefore there is no God.

This is just one "proof" (argument) that there is no God. If you are reasonable, that means you try to believe according to reasons. So when presented with these reasons to believe there is no God, you should either respond to this reason and show why it's wrong, or else change your belief.

A vote is a big responsibility, and it is irresponsible to vote on things that you believe without reason.


spetey

[spetey]

Hi folks...!

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

Argument for what? I thought we were debating about whether God exists. One aspect of that argument is whether the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God is compatible with unnecessary evil. I claim it is not. Your response, best as I can make out, is that this is just a paradox and we have to believe anyway.

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.

Yes I did; see this post, which did not receive a response, except irrelevant stuff about formal Tarskian semantics (to which I nonetheless responded). You later stated this sorta similar "argument" below, is that what you think needs a response? If so, I'll put my responses along with your points.

1) God is all good meaning that God chooses the best of all criteria for worlds that are created in order to reduce pain and suffering as much as possible while at the same time meeting the necessary conditions that exist due to the possibility of paradox. spetey says: for what reason do you believe that the evil of the tsunami was necessary for "meeting the ... conditions that exist due to the possibility of paradox"? What paradox was the tsunami designed to solve? Why would a paradox be more evil than a tsunami that killed innocent children in horrific ways?

2) God is all powerful in that God can do anything that doesn't contradict things that are necessary to maintain the world free from paradox. spetey says: first, obviously this world is not free from paradox; consider "this sentence is false". So God seems to be doing a rotten job at keeping the world safe from paradox. And again, how would killing innocent children save us from such paradoxes? And why would the existence of paradoxes be worse than death by drowning?

3) There is unnecessary evil and there is necessary evil that God allows because if not allowed, paradox would destroy the world and it cannot be destroyed, so the only choice is but to allow certain evils. This is the way it is, and ultimately it is that way because if it weren't that way, it would still be that way, because that's just the way it is (like or leave it). Did you catch all that? spetey says: You contradict yourself here; you suggest there is unnecessary evil that is necessary to prevent worse evil. But that means it's a necessary evil (and this is still the "best of all possible worlds"). Is there unnecessary evil, or not? If so, why?

Perhaps you can see why I did not see this "argument" convincing. It just begs the question: you claim God had to permit that tsunami in order to prevent something far worse (namely, some paradox). But there seems to be no ground for this claim. It seems to spring from your antecedent belief that God would only permit it if it were for the best. But that is just the question at issue.

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...

It seems to me very much to the point of this thread. Which do you pick: unable, unwilling, or unexistent?

... however I don't expect to convince you that God is fighting paradox battles and that's why there is evil.

Is this a confession on your part that you are not attempting to give reasons for your view? Reasons are the kind of thing that might convince someone who doesn't already believe.

However, it really is not relevant since I would not use the problem of evil to convince anyone that there was a God.

Of course not--that's not at issue. We atheists use it as a reason to convince people there isn't a God. If you believe according to reasons, you should either accept this argument, or have a good response.

Rather, I would only try to show that God and evil can be consistent, and that's what I have done.

That's what I don't see. Of course a not-all-good God, or a not-all-powerful God, is consistent with the presence of (unnecessary) evil. But you have yet to show how an all-good, all-powerful God like Yahweh is consistent with the obvious presence of unnecessary evil.


spetey