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?

[Bro Dave]

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

So long as you set up a straw-man as a God figure, you can ridicule as much as pleases you. If however, you sincerly would like an answer to the question, then, you must allow a larger picture of what an infinite diety might be like. The God I know and love, is a personal God, a Father if you will, who wishes the best for his children. He has provided an opportunity for his kids to grow, by making their own free will choices. He then participates fully in the outcome of those choices, and experiences the growth personally as a partner with them.(talk about getting involved with the kids homework! ) Poor choices bring negative results. Sometimes, because the universe created to allow imperfection, negative results happen for no apparent reason. That too is a lesson in itself. One way or another, God's kids get an education that yeilds more than memorized facts. It yeilds wisdom, and an ultimate bonding wth God, when we finally discover that it was He who "carried us when we could not walk".
Now, you can continue to issue up this wicked, uninvolved god, who either inflicts pain, or is indiferent to that pain, if you like. Its just not a worthy model, even at our very limited abilities to understand our Infinite Parent.

Bro Dave

[spetey]

Hey Bro Dave and everyone...

Bro Dave, this is a credo on your part, not an argument. I know you think God is good. Why do you think this, given all the senseless evil there is in the world? Is it just an appeal to faith?

Poor choices bring negative results. Sometimes, because the universe created to allow imperfection, negative results happen for no apparent reason.

It's interesting you mistakenly omitted the verb here. Presumably you wanted the passive "the universe was created to allow imperfection..." First, according to you, God is the one who created this imperfect universe, right? Why did God create it to contain tsunamis that kill hundreds of thousands of people, including many innocent children?

That too is a lesson in itself. One way or another, God's kids get an education that yeilds more than memorized facts. It yeilds wisdom, and an ultimate bonding wth God, when we finally discover that it was He who "carried us when we could not walk".

Are you still insisting that drowning, for those children, was a worthwhile lesson that God was kind to grant? Are you still reaching for that stapler to teach yourself more painful "lessons"?

Now, you can continue to issue up this wicked, uninvolved god, who either inflicts pain, or is indiferent to that pain, if you like. Its just not a worthy model, even at our very limited abilities to understand our Infinite Parent.

I think you don't understand the structure of the argument, Bro Dave. I am not claiming that there is a wicked, uninvolved God. I am claiming there is no God at all. One advantage of my position is that it is consistent with the mix of evil and good in the world.

You, on the other hand, claim that there is an all-good, all-powerful God. But this is completely inconsistent with the obvious unnecessary evil in the world. Do you agree that your beliefs are inconsistent (and therefore irrational), or do you have some reason I haven't considered to show that these beliefs are consistent after all?


spetey

[Bro Dave]

Bro Dave, this is a credo on your part, not an argument. I know you think God is good. Why do you think this, given all the senseless evil there is in the world? Is it just an appeal to faith?

News flash; EVERYTHING is based on faith of some sort. There are no provable absolutes, period.

Poor choices bring negative results. Sometimes, because the universe created to allow imperfection, negative results happen for no apparent reason.

It's interesting you mistakenly omitted the verb here. Presumably you wanted the passive "the universe was created to allow imperfection..." First, according to you, God is the one who created this imperfect universe, right? Why did God create it to contain tsunamis that kill hundreds of thousands of people, including many innocent children?

Good grief, stop with “the children” nonsense! There is much evil and much pain in this world, and it really is not focused on “the children”.
Now, to the point; God created and imperfect universe, that its inhabitants might grow in strength, physically, mentally and spiritually, and that this growth would produce not only intellect, but wisdom. Imperfection of course means the possibility of evil. That is, the possibility of “un-God-like” things. It is the seed for the rest of the process. How do you have growth, if you start out in a perfect universe???

That too is a lesson in itself. One way or another, God's kids get an education that yields more than memorized facts. It yields wisdom, and an ultimate bonding with God, when we finally discover that it was He who "carried us when we could not walk".

Are you still insisting that drowning, for those children, was a worthwhile lesson that God was kind to grant? Are you still reaching for that stapler to teach yourself more painful "lessons"?

And, are you still suggesting that the ONLY God possible, is the straw variety you want to hold up? You are “drowning” in emotion.

Now, you can continue to issue up this wicked, uninvolved god, who either inflicts pain, or is indiferent to that pain, if you like. Its just not a worthy model, even at our very limited abilities to understand our Infinite Parent.

I think you don't understand the structure of the argument, Bro Dave. I am not claiming that there is a wicked, uninvolved God. I am claiming there is no God at all. One advantage of my position is that it is consistent with the mix of evil and good in the world.

You, on the other hand, claim that there is an all-good, all-powerful God. But this is completely inconsistent with the obvious unnecessary evil in the world. Do you agree that your beliefs are inconsistent (and therefore irrational), or do you have some reason I haven't considered to show that these beliefs are consistent after all?


spetey

My friend, you are unwilling to grasp the possibility of a Universe that is in fact, a University. There is nothing inconsistent in what I have offered you. Your unwillingness to consider the entire picture, hardly makes it inconsistent. True, your “gutted” universe model with no god and no purpose, and no explanation for its order, beauty or direction has no problem with having good and evil side by side. Hardly satisfying either intellectually OR spiritually. Your universe is an empty vessel, which I have no desire to occupy.

Bro Dave

[spetey]

Bro Dave, this is a credo on your part, not an argument. I know you think God is good. Why do you think this, given all the senseless evil there is in the world? Is it just an appeal to faith?

News flash; EVERYTHING is based on faith of some sort. There are no provable absolutes, period.

Hmn. So there can be no beliefs with good reason, according to you? And are some faiths better than other faiths? For example, if my faith is in racism, is that just as good as a faith in God? If not, why not? Ooops, I've asked for those pesky reasons again.

If you want to defend faith, I suggest you try it here. At this point no one on that thread even tries to defend faith. But you can give it a go. Maybe I've overlooked something about the good side of faith.

Good grief, stop with “the children” nonsense! There is much evil and much pain in this world, and it really is not focused on “the children”.

Some is, some isn't. The point of the children in the tsunami is that it neatly avoids the "God gave us free will and that's why we must suffer so" nonsense. I'm sure you'd like to forget the children who died in the tsunami. It's a common reaction for those who believe in God to try just to forget the evil that's around, as though that somehow made it more reasonable to believe. Myself, I don't just "forget" things that happen to conflict with my previous worldview.

Now, to the point; God created and imperfect universe, that its inhabitants might grow in strength, physically, mentally and spiritually, and that this growth would produce not only intellect, but wisdom. Imperfection of course means the possibility of evil. That is, the possibility of “un-God-like” things. It is the seed for the rest of the process. How do you have growth, if you start out in a perfect universe???

Again, is your claim here that those horrific drownings were a lesson that God was kindly giving those children? It's a difficult position to defend.

Are you still insisting that drowning, for those children, was a worthwhile lesson that God was kind to grant? Are you still reaching for that stapler to teach yourself more painful "lessons"?

And, are you still suggesting that the ONLY God possible, is the straw variety you want to hold up? You are “drowning” in emotion.

Actually I think I'm reasoning dispassionately. It's you who seem to feel that how you want the universe to be has something to do with reasons to believe the universe is that way.

And no, I don't think the only God possible is the all-good, all-powerful kind. If there were a God it seems it could just as well be Zeus or the Invisible Pink Unicron. But you seem to believe in an all-good, all-powerful God, right? How do you reconcile that God with the existence of unnecessary evil? Or do you leave this contradiction unreconciled?

There is nothing inconsistent in what I have offered you. Your unwillingness to consider the entire picture, hardly makes it inconsistent.

Okay! Good! You do not want to be inconsistent, and that's very good. Now: please, give me the "entire picture" so that I can see how what you believe is consistent. Right now it looks to me like you believe in these two things: a) there is an all-good, all-powerful God, and b) there is unnecessary evil. And it looks to me like these two beliefs are straightforwardly contradictory. Please explain to me how they're not. Give me reasons.

True, your “gutted” universe model with no god and no purpose, and no explanation for its order, beauty or direction has no problem with having good and evil side by side. Hardly satisfying either intellectually OR spiritually. Your universe is an empty vessel, which I have no desire to occupy.

My worldview is perfectly satisfying from the intellectual and spiritual standpoint. (Atheists can still explore spirituality and the wonders of nature and love through organizations like the Unitarian Universalists.) But in your sense of "satisfying", whether it's "satisfying"--whether you like it--is beside the point, as I argue here. To believe in God because you sure hope there is a God, and because you fear life would be "unsatisfying" without a God, a mere "empty vessel", is to commit the wishful thinking fallacy.


spetey

[MagusYanam]

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.

This may be a mischaracterisation of the Judeo-Christian branch of belief. There are theists of the Judeo-Christian persuasion that have argued for a God (the Abrahamic God) who is personal, superlatively moral and compassionate and omniscient - but not omnipotent. Edgar Sheffield Brightman, one of the leaders of the personalist-idealist school, is the first name that springs to my mind.

The idea of a non-omnipotent God is not a new one in the Judeo-Christian sphere. In fact, there is some scriptural basis - God's plans don't always work out as He states them; Exodus is a good example, and the flight from Egypt. We see God being thwarted, interrupted, even course-changed by the interference of human beings. I think that the attribute of God's omniscience might be a more recent development peculiar to the Hellenist streak that developed in the earlier stages of Christianity, specifically neo-Platonism (or as some like to call it, classical theism).

Bro Dave, this is a credo on your part, not an argument. I know you think God is good. Why do you think this, given all the senseless evil there is in the world? Is it just an appeal to faith?

News flash; EVERYTHING is based on faith of some sort. There are no provable absolutes, period.

Hmn. So there can be no beliefs with good reason, according to you? And are some faiths better than other faiths? For example, if my faith is in racism, is that just as good as a faith in God? If not, why not? Ooops, I've asked for those pesky reasons again.

I think what Bro Dave may have been trying to convey with the above quote was the observation that even 'reason' may have ingrained within it elements of faith concerning the natures of logic, causation, correlation et cetera. This is not to say that reason is without validity or that one shouldn't bother with trying to reason things out, but that in order to have a sound basis for a worldview based on reason one must have or at least address some specific articles of faith. For example, 'cogito, ergo sum' (Descartes).

[stevencarrwork]

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.

This may be a mischaracterisation of the Judeo-Christian branch of belief. There are theists of the Judeo-Christian persuasion that have argued for a God (the Abrahamic God) who is personal, superlatively moral and compassionate and omniscient - but not omnipotent. Edgar Sheffield Brightman, one of the leaders of the personalist-idealist school, is the first name that springs to my mind.

The idea of a non-omnipotent God is not a new one in the Judeo-Christian sphere. In fact, there is some scriptural basis..... .

I don't think we should start changing the words of the Hallelujah Chorus just yet. The Bible states clearly that God is omnipotent.

[spetey]

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.

This may be a mischaracterisation of the Judeo-Christian branch of belief. There are theists of the Judeo-Christian persuasion that have argued for a God (the Abrahamic God) who is personal, superlatively moral and compassionate and omniscient - but not omnipotent.

This is certainly a possible solution to the Problem of Evil--you can give up that God is all-powerful. In fact, God can't even stop a tsunami, or stop the electrical shorts that set houses on fire, and so on. This is a bit mysterious, since God is supposed to have the kind of power that can create a whole universe just as God wants it to be. But it is a possible solution. On this solution, God is more powerful than a human, but not all-powerful--kind of like a nice alien who happens to have more technology. It's not clear why you would worship such an entity, but it's at least an entity consistent with the presence of evil.

Of course, I think theism has plenty of problems besides the Problem of Evil, and so I don't think there's a non-all-powerful God either. (The Invisible Pink Unicorn is not said to be all-powerful, so there is no problem of evil for her, but I still don't think she exists for other reasons!)

News flash; EVERYTHING is based on faith of some sort. There are no provable absolutes, period.

Hmn. So there can be no beliefs with good reason, according to you? And are some faiths better than other faiths? For example, if my faith is in racism, is that just as good as a faith in God? If not, why not? Ooops, I've asked for those pesky reasons again.

I think what Bro Dave may have been trying to convey with the above quote was the observation that even 'reason' may have ingrained within it elements of faith concerning the natures of logic, causation, correlation et cetera. This is not to say that reason is without validity or that one shouldn't bother with trying to reason things out, but that in order to have a sound basis for a worldview based on reason one must have or at least address some specific articles of faith. For example, 'cogito, ergo sum' (Descartes).

Yes, I may have been unfairly mischaracterizing Bro Dave's position. If he meant to say that in practice eventually our justifications will hit bottom in some basic beliefs somewhere, like that "pain is bad" or "2+2=4" or "cogito ergo sum", then I would have to agree. The question then is, where should they bottom out? Is it okay to have faith in important and controversial beliefs when others can give reason against that position? I think no, as I argue here. Bro Dave seemed to say that it was okay just to have faith that God is all-good and all-powerful. This is not an okay place for your justifications to end, since there seems to be good reason against such a view (namely, the presence of unnecessary evil).


spetey

[harvey1]

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.

No, my argument is that there is at least one good reason that we can imagine why evil and a good, all-powerful, all-knowing God can exist, and therefore any reductio ad adsurdum argument against God's existence (i.e., an argument that assumes what it seeks to prove wrong) is not a valid argument. There might be other reasons for evil, but the argument is already proven misplaced by referring to paradoxial constraints that a Creator might be working under.

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.

I don't see how you consider this a response:

Harvey, you keep fumbling for some sophisticated theory I haven't heard of, in hopes to bluff me out--but I'm sorry to say you have consistently bad luck in this realm. There's lots I don't know about, but as for Tarski, I am probably one of the few people alive who have read The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages multiple times. (I assure you it has nothing to do with cosmology, as you seem to think.) In my experience people often resort to grand, complex-sounding, issue-distracting worldviews when confronted with a simple question like this.... Harvey, inconsistent claims are bad. We know not all of them can be true--that's what it is to be inconsistent. Normally we struggle to avoid such inconsistency in our beliefs. For example, once we thought there was an ether, but it turned out inconsistent with data and further reasoning. So we rejected it. If you are claiming that you do not try to keep your beliefs consistent, then that means you do not believe according to reasons. (Since you are familiar with logic, you must know that any crazy belief follows deductively from an inconsistent set.)

I gave an 18-point summary of my position, and you responded (incorrectly) to only one point.

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.

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?

What we know of the universe is that it operates on some straightforward physical laws that are magnificent in producing galaxies, stars, life, etc. Modifying when and how tsunamies occur is certainly possible by a God, however what we don't know is what it takes for there to be an exception to the laws of physics. The world is obviously dictated by natural laws, so it would be inconsistent for God to violate those laws unless the "violation" could be accomplished in a manner that a real violation would not occur (e.g., there might be elements of chance to quantum waveform collapse and the laws are perhaps not violated if God favors one direction of collapse over another--just as long the random probability matrix is overall satisfied. If a paradox happens where God violates natural law (i.e., supernaturalism), then in such a case, God would be violating mathematical law, and mathematical law is a necessitated law of the world. To violate it would to be inconsistent in God's nature, and that would lead to massive contradictions (i.e., the fabric by which anything true can be true, or anything that can exist does exist).

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.

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?

The world is not free from paradoxes, but if there is truth that exists (i.e., mind-independent truth), then some paradoxes might actually have a resolution that we are just not aware of. However, if you went back in time and stopped your grandfather from having children, then you would be introducing a real paradox. It is the real paradoxes that God must by all means avoid in order to maintain the existence of the Universe (including God).

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?

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?

Let's put it this way.

• Unnecessary evil (non-paradoxial preventable): Humans can prevent this evil, but they don't. This kind of evil never happens because God always prevents this evil from happening. God is not prevented from stopping this evil, so God always prevents this evil from happening. Usually it comes in the form of a cutoff (e.g., God bringing the U.S. into Berlin by using Patton and Eisenhower, etc.).
• Unnecessary evil (paradoxial unpreventable): Humans can prevent this evil (e.g., not allowing Nazi concentration camps), but they don't so it happens. This is most of the human-caused evils that happen in the world. However if God were to intervene in stopping this evil, it would push the world into paradox. It means that God must engage in some kind of violation of natural law that results in violations of laws of existence (e.g., logico-mathematical standards).
• Necessary evil (non-paradoxial preventable): These are evils that humans cannot prevent and they are the result of natural laws (i.e., necessary). However, for whatever reason, there are loopholes in the laws that God can manage (e.g., influencing quantum waveform collapses in a certain way) such that these evils never happen. We don't see all the evils that could happen because of the laws of nature, and God is active in preventing them.
• Necessary evil (paradoxial unpreventable): These are evils that humans cannot prevent and they are the result of natural laws (i.e., necessary). However, for God to violate these laws would require a violation of serious magnitude which would spell paradox and thus even God must allow these evils to occur. God made universes that only conform to the divine will, so even though these evils happen, they are controlled by the mere fact that God has already decreed that divine will is accomplished and these evils are temporary and must be beared out by those who suffer from them.

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.

There is very good ground for this claim. We have mathematical structures that show that randomness and design exist in a delicate balance. Change the digits of pi in a manner that brings a pattern, and you affect all the entire structure of mathematics--paradoxial results. Therefore, there is no reason not to believe that the world is any different than mathematics--which is our best objective access to the underlying structure of reality (even more so than the laws of physics since these laws look like a limiting case of the more general laws of mathematics).

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?

God was able to save them, however that would cause worse results elsewhere, and therefore God allowed evil to happen to prevent even worse results. Of course, you are critical to this, but you are not God. You have no clue as to the challenges of bringing about a happy world and therefore any criticisms are made in complete ignorance (and arrogance and self-righteousness since it is extremely arrogant and self-righteous to assume that our limited perspective is suitable to judge God's actions).

... 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.

No. I think you don't buy into good reasons because it is not what you want to believe. That's fine, and I've already come to accept that you want to be an atheist. However, I'm not exactly sure of what the point of these discussions are if you a) don't buy into good reasons, b) don't want to be a theist. If you don't want to be a theist, then I shouldn't be trying to convince you of being one. I'm happy for you if you are content in your life. That's all I could ever want for someone. My concern, though, is that you are not happy as an atheist. But, you insist you are happy, right?

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.

I gave you my 18-point summary that is a very strong reason to believe paradoxes are consistent with God's existence, and you never responded. What else can I do?

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.

I have showed it. You just want to believe you have some kind of superb argument, but it is an argument that is unable to show that it is inconsistent for an all-powerful, all-good God to exist. Hence, the argument is faulty.

[Bro Dave]

Bro Dave, this is a credo on your part, not an argument. I know you think God is good. Why do you think this, given all the senseless evil there is in the world? Is it just an appeal to faith?

News flash; EVERYTHING is based on faith of some sort. There are no provable absolutes, period.

Hmn. So there can be no beliefs with good reason, according to you? And are some faiths better than other faiths? For example, if my faith is in racism, is that just as good as a faith in God? If not, why not? Ooops, I've asked for those pesky reasons again.

My intent in posting here, is to clarify and share. You seem bent on emotional games. But, on the off chance you really have not been able to understand me, I will answer your, what seem to be patently insincere questions;
1) As mentioned, there are no provable absolutes. What that means is, you or I may have deep convictions based on personal experiences, but those are not proofs to anyone but ourselves. Science, like religion, is based on assumptions and observations. All “proofs” are relative to something else, and are therefore not absolute.
2) If you don’t mind, I am going to skip the childish stuff about racism

If you want to defend faith, I suggest you try it here At this point no one on that thread even tries to defend faith. But you can give it a go. Maybe I've overlooked something about the good side of faith.

Faith does not need defending. Scientist have faith that their relative observations, over a very limited time span, are representative of all observations taken or not, past or future. Since we are able to operate on their findings, we all come to have “faith” that science really “knows” what its talking about. Religion similarly relies on observations and experiences. Where science is an “every” approach in which all observers must agree on the observations and the conclusions. Religion is an “each” approach, and only that which the individual observer experiences is important to validating the conclusions.

Good grief, stop with “the children” nonsense! There is much evil and much pain in this world, and it really is not focused on “the children”.

Some is, some isn't. The point of the children in the tsunami is that it neatly avoids the "God gave us free will and that's why we must suffer so" nonsense. I'm sure you'd like to forget the children who died in the tsunami. It's a common reaction for those who believe in God to try just to forget the evil that's around, as though that somehow made it more reasonable to believe. Myself, I don't just "forget" things that happen to conflict with my previous worldview.

The use of children suffering, is simply a ploy you like, because it raises emotions, which obscure logic. Evil is a relative, not an absolute. It depends entirely on the observer whether something is “evil” or not. Evil, as we are discussing it here, describes more a lack of understanding; a lack of refinement if you will. The Universe, being imperfect, is therefore by definition, evil. Whether that imperfection impacts a child or an adult is merely subterfuge.

Now, to the point; God created and imperfect universe, that its inhabitants might grow in strength, physically, mentally and spiritually, and that this growth would produce not only intellect, but wisdom. Imperfection of course means the possibility of evil. That is, the possibility of “un-God-like” things. It is the seed for the rest of the process. How do you have growth, if you start out in a perfect universe???

Again, is your claim here that those horrific drownings were a lesson that God was kindly giving those children? It's a difficult position to defend.

It is only “difficult” if the listener has no desire to hear what was said.

Are you still insisting that drowning, for those children, was a worthwhile lesson that God was kind to grant? Are you still reaching for that stapler to teach yourself more painful "lessons"?

And, are you still suggesting that the ONLY God possible, is the straw variety you want to hold up? You are “drowning” in emotion.

Actually I think I'm reasoning dispassionately. It's you who seem to feel that how you want the universe to be has something to do with reasons to believe the universe is that way.

And how does that differ from your position on the way you see the universe; i.e. subjectively relative to what you put your faith in?

And no, I don't think the only God possible is the all-good, all-powerful kind. If there were a God it seems it could just as well be Zeus or the Invisible Pink Unicron
But you seem to believe in an all-good, all-powerful God, right? How do you reconcile that God with the existence of unnecessary evil? Or do you leave this contradiction unreconciled?

Your insistence that the existence of “evil” disproves a loving God, is based on your definition of “evil”, and the limitations you then ascribe to God. I wouldn’t believe in the god you describe either. It is a straw man of your own creation.

There is nothing inconsistent in what I have offered you. Your unwillingness to consider the entire picture, hardly makes it inconsistent.

Okay! Good! You do not want to be inconsistent, and that's very good. Now: please, give me the "entire picture" so that I can see how what you believe is consistent. Right now it looks to me like you believe in these two things: a) there is an all-good, all-powerful God, and b) there is unnecessary evil. And it looks to me like these two beliefs are straightforwardly contradictory. Please explain to me how they're not. Give me reasons.

God, is quite outside your or my ability to understand as a totality. But, the Universe He created, acts to bridge our being finite while He is infinite. The terms “good” and “evil” are themselves limited by our individual languages and experiences. My kids think they have it “rough”, and at time, the I am “evil”. They will grow, better to understand, as will you and I. For now, the worry is not whether on not God is “good”, but whether or not we ourselves are moving away from being “evil”.
As to your second assertion that I believe “there is unnecessary evil”, you are simply incorrect. My belief is that evil is simply a condition of imperfection, and therefore necessary as a starting point.

True, your “gutted” universe model with no god and no purpose, and no explanation for its order, beauty or direction has no problem with having good and evil side by side. Hardly satisfying either intellectually OR spiritually. Your universe is an empty vessel, which I have no desire to occupy.

My worldview is perfectly satisfying from the intellectual and spiritual standpoint. (Atheists can still explore spirituality and the wonders of nature and love through organizations like the Unitarian Universalists)

Fascinating! I was a Unitarian Universalist for a while, and in fact still enjoy attending occasionally.

But in your sense of "satisfying", whether it's "satisfying"--whether you like it--is beside the point, as I argue here.

Ultimately, satisfaction is entirely an individual experience, and therefore only individually relevant.

To believe in God because you sure hope there is a God, and because you fear life would be "unsatisfying" without a God, a mere "empty vessel", is to commit the wishful thinking fallacy.

spetey

Ascribing “fear” as my motivation for making up God, is silly and inaccurate. You have no way of knowing what my relationship with Father brings me. You are left guessing, and doing a very poor job of it as well I might add. Have you asked yourself why you need to ridicule anyone who claims such a relationship? Is it that it somehow threatens your disbelief? If you feel “complete” relying only on a mechanistic existence, it is your choice. I do not. For me, going from that to beginning to understand God’s Universe, and my place in it, is like going from shades of gray to brilliant color!

We all get to choose; I’ll take wide screen, 3-D and Technicolor, thank you…

Bro Dave

[Zarathustra]

Wow, turn my back for one minute, and my thread grows to 15 pages?

Bro Dave, would you mind clarifying something for me? It seems like you are saying that God is infinite and perfect, correct (I could be wrong, to be honest, I haven't read the entire thread)? If so, how does he partake in our growth?

I'll probably be back with more questions/points/etc after I read some more