The paradox of Pain and Evil

[liamconnor]

The notion of a good God is incompatible with the world as we experience it: i.e., disease, violence, famine, etc. In other words, if God were as good as the Christians tell us, the world would be infinitely better.

Thus we conclude that there either there is no God or, if there is, it is something indifferent to good and evil.

So then, under this worldview (no God, or an indifferent power), where derives our idea that this world is not as good as it can be? Where in fact derives our standard of goodness by which we reject the notion of a good God?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 23 by ttruscott]

Sounds to me you are saying the creator is perfect full stop, regardless of what he creates. Which of the following creators is better?

a) A creator whose creations, at the moment of creation, is unfinished, able to change for better or worse, and while the majority does become perfect, a small number do become worse later on; or

b) A creator whose creations, at the moment of creation, is unfinished, able to change for better or worse, but only become perfect with time; or

c) A creator whose creations, at the moment of creation, is finished and perfect, unable to change for better or worse?

I would say c) is the best, followed by b).

a) of course with b) as the process of achieving a)...if my opinion means anything on a debate forum.

[Bust Nak]

a) of course with b) as the process of achieving a)...if my opinion means anything on a debate forum.

But b) says all of creation will become perfect in time, if you want to merge that with a) then we all will become perfect, even the unelected, correct?

[Justin108]

That is a given in the expression "self-generating". That which is self replicating can only replicate (reproduce) that which it is.

Why did God make Adam and Eve self replicating then? Wouldn't it have been better if God designed Adam to reproduce according to the original "perfect blue-print"?

If I cut off both my arms and reproduce, my children won't be born armless. That's not how DNA works. Our actions do not alter our DNA. So why would Adam's sin alter his DNA? More importantly, why would God design DNA to be altered this way? Would it not be more just for God to give every generation the same change he gave Adam? Why punish every generation for the sins of Adam and Eve?

therefore a "damaged" self generating organism will by definition reproduce its damaged self which is effectively what Adam and Eve did*.

Nope. A man who lost both his arms will still reproduce children with arms.

They could not pass on perfection because they were no longer perfect.

With this logic, a man with no arms wouldn't be able to reproduce children with arms. But since he can, your logic fails.

No, but if your mother contracted or was born with a genetically transmitable disease it would sadly be passed on to her off spring.

Care to explain the science behind this supposedly genetically transmittable disease? Or is this an adhoc explanation for the logical gaps in original sin?

Assuming you didn't just pull this out of nowhere (which it seems you did), why did God make Adam and Eve susceptible to this genetically transmittable disease? Isn't part of being perfect being immune to all diseases? Does the fact that Adam and Eve were susceptible to this genetically transmittable disease suggest they weren't ever perfect to begin with?

Is that good design? Is that good biology?

Well "good" is a opinion based assessement, in my opinion is it "good" that the living things pass on their characteristics through a set genetic code? er... yes

So it's a good thing that Huntington's disease can be passed on genetically...?

its what stops people being born with their noses under their arm pits

Alternatively, God could simply design a reproductive system that passes on genes while filtering out the "genetically transmittable disease" you mentioned earlier.

Pros:
- everyone is born perfect and get the same change as Adam and Eve
- genes are still passed on, so no one will be born with noses in strange places

Cons:
- ...?

[JehovahsWitness]

Why did God make Adam and Eve self replicating then? Wouldn't it have been better if God designed Adam to reproduce according to the original "perfect blue-print"?

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 913#873913

No, but if your mother contracted or was born with a genetically transmitable disease it would sadly be passed on to her off spring.

Care to explain the science behind this supposedly genetically transmittable disease?

http://www.who.int/genomics/public/gene ... ndex2.html

why did God make Adam and Eve susceptible to this genetically transmittable disease?

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 036#874036

God could simply design a reproductive system [where] everyone is born perfect and get the same change as Adam and Eve; - genes are still passed on, so no one will be born with noses in strange places

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 036#874036

[ttruscott]

a) of course with b) as the process of achieving a)...if my opinion means anything on a debate forum.

But b) says all of creation will become perfect in time, if you want to merge that with a) then we all will become perfect, even the unelected, correct?

Only 2 days ago I wrote

Post 21: Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:15 pm Re: The paradox of Pain and Evil
Obvious to me is that no one was created perfect but innocent and able to choose by their free will to become perfectly righteous and holy OR perfectly evil.

Once the non-elect descent into evil starts it will never end until it is fully and perfectly evil, unable to become more evil at all - that is what leavening the whole lump means. It is meaningless to apply to the non-elect what I say about the elect, eh?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 34 by JehovahsWitness]

So, since your answers do not align to the question, and obviously can never answer the question, and there is a better explanation - are you going to concede religion/this debate for the truth that has been demonstrated?

[Bust Nak]

But b) says all of creation will become perfect in time, if you want to merge that with a) then we all will become perfect, even the unelected, correct?

Only 2 days ago I wrote

Post 21: Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:15 pm Re: The paradox of Pain and Evil
Obvious to me is that no one was created perfect but innocent and able to choose by their free will to become perfectly righteous and holy OR perfectly evil.

Once the non-elect descent into evil starts it will never end until it is fully and perfectly evil, unable to become more evil at all - that is what leavening the whole lump means. It is meaningless to apply to the non-elect what I say about the elect, eh?

One last question: Which is better, perfectly righteous; or perfectly evil? Bearing in mind you said creation could change for the better or worse. It doesn't seem reasonable to say perfectly evil is perfection in itself.

[Justin108]

The Miracle of Procreation

If the bible account is to be believed, God had already created millions, perhaps billions of intelligent beings directly. These intelligent creatures were also free moral agents, capable of independent thought end decisions; we usually call these "angels" or spirits. What God chose to do for the material world and the intelligent beings that would live on this planet earth was entirely different, He chose to give them the gift of procreation.

Adam and Eve, although themselves created directly by God (Adam from the same essential elements that we find in the earth) were to become the parents of the entire human race; to achieve this God gave them the gift of procreation. Every other human, rather than being directly created by God would develop from the sexual union of a man and a woman. This would mean, as the bible puts it that Eve would be "mother of all who live", not by herself giving birth to all humans, but by virtue of the fact that her children would themselves have the ability to conceive and give birth to other humans, not by herself giving birth to all humans, but by virtue of the fact that her children would themselves have the ability to conceive and give birth to other humans.

Ok. Using the original blueprint rather than the defective post-sin one wouldn't change things. Adam and Eve could still procreate. They could still give birth to other humans. The difference is that instead of using their DNA, the original blueprint would be used instead. Where is the flaw in this?

Good, worse, better, bad... are all moral opinion based judgements, everyone is entitled to their opinion as to which system is "better"

The difference is I can explain why using the original blueprint is better, namely the fact that no one would be born with defects and sin. What benefit is there in us inheriting sin?

Is it a gift or a curse? Of course this system meant it was possible to pass on negative traits

Why? Why could God not simply filter out the negative traits?

Still anyone that has held his new born baby in his arms for the first time and seen his wife's blue blue eyes staring back at him, or watched their baby boy give the same goofy smile his grandfather used to give decades earlier, will say that the ability to procreate is not only a gift, the ability to make a whole other human being entirely unique but that has the distinct characteristics of its parents, is for some a miralce.

And how do you think the parents felt when they gave birth to a girl with Harlequin ichthyosis? Why can't God simply allow some traits to be genetic but not others? Keep the blue eyes and cut out the birth defects?

Care to explain the science behind this supposedly genetically transmittable disease?

http://www.who.int/genomics/public/gene ... ndex2.html

I asked for the science behind this genetically transmittable disease, namely the notion that Adam sinning somehow influenced our DNA? Do you know of any sin-gene in the human genome?

why did God make Adam and Eve susceptible to this genetically transmittable disease?

He didn't. He made PERFECTION inheritable

Then why did you bring up genetically transmittable diseases if they're not responsible for our imperfection? Very well, if you're going to twist your argument midway... Why did God make DNA susceptible to being altered? The DNA was once perfect, then Adam sinned, and this somehow changed his DNA (despite the fact that DNA is not influenced by behavior...). God could have made DNA perfect and immune to any alteration. Then Adam's sin would have affected Adam alone. His DNA would have remained unchanged and his offspring would be born perfect as he was.

God could simply design a reproductive system [where] everyone is born perfect and get the same change as Adam and Eve; - genes are still passed on, so no one will be born with noses in strange places

Why are organisms not genetically self-repairing, reverting to the original norm when altered?

In a closed system this cannot be

Oh I'm sorry, I was under the impression your God was omnipotent.

[ttruscott]

But b) says all of creation will become perfect in time, if you want to merge that with a) then we all will become perfect, even the unelected, correct?

Only 2 days ago I wrote

Post 21: Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:15 pm Re: The paradox of Pain and Evil
Obvious to me is that no one was created perfect but innocent and able to choose by their free will to become perfectly righteous and holy OR perfectly evil.

Once the non-elect descent into evil starts it will never end until it is fully and perfectly evil, unable to become more evil at all - that is what leavening the whole lump means. It is meaningless to apply to the non-elect what I say about the elect, eh?

One last question: Which is better, perfectly righteous; or perfectly evil? Bearing in mind you said creation could change for the better or worse. It doesn't seem reasonable to say perfectly evil is perfection in itself.

Perfection of evil if a fact does demonstrate that there is no moral quality to the simple word 'perfection' which so many people use to only mean a fullness of goodness. There is no vaunted ideal of perfection that makes perfection in evil to be a good of any kind. Only perfection in righteousness is perfectly, completely morally good...perfection in evil is perfectly, completely morally bad.

Gradations of evil are found throughout the bible but I like this one: 2 Timothy 3:13...while evildoers and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. to indicate that the evil ones do indeed get worse, ie, more perfect and complete in their evil.

[dio9]

this is the classic question why do bad things happen to good people. does this mean there is no God? Atheists argue it does. but really? This is just the way it is birth and death. Really open your mind, Go Mega Life is suffering , there is nothing evil about it. Do your best not to suffer in your head.