The problem of evil

[William]

Q: Is the statement "Then there is "The problem of evil"" one of fact or conjecture? [science or opinion] In realty, does such a problem actually exist?

The problem of evil refers to the challenge of reconciling belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God, with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. eta:{SOURCE}

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #121]



I am saying that, that is what the bible is saying - yes.

We disagree on that as per usual.

Hiding behind the skirts of Christ Jaheshua and poking one's finger at a perceived evil doesn't change the fact that it is through biblical stories that something is said to accuse something else.

The story itself is clear on the details - YHWH is no respecter of human romanticizing - even in his Fatherly state.

That The Son protects one from that darker side of The Father, does not signify that the darker side is non-existent.

The "problem of evil derives" from the darker side of Father YHWH but the problem is a misunderstanding rather than something real.

By all means, cuddle up to Christ Jaheshua and stay away from the fray. I have no problem with anyone doing so.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #130]

That won't do "To have the evidence of an all-benevolent GOD, the requirement is to show that those laws of nature are over-ridden and no harm happens to anyone due to natural causes."

Of course, we are excluding deist god, but an interactive one, and assuming it's benevolent, as you say. The evidence for any such god (so as to make a case for it) would require, to paraphrase what you say, evidence that a god rather than unthinking natural forces are involved and that would have to be forthcoming. I underlined you saying (after you had denied it) that there was no such evidence there, and thus the default theory was no god, no evil.

That is (at the risk of repeating) false. Evil is a human subjective view, but none the less valid for all that. It would be silly to say that art or music don't exist because they are not universal natural forces or (for all we can tell) given by a god. They are perfectly valid as human constructs and conventions and so is morals, with the conventions on good and evil.

I've forgotten how that links into the problem of evil, which is a Bible -related debate rather a non -religious god who doesn't seem to be necessary for morality, not does morality cease to be just because there probably isn't a god.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #132]

The idea of GOD orbits ones perspective.

I did not say "assuming it's benevolent". I said that the assumption is based upon a misinterpretation of nature by judging nature through the lens of 'good and evil' which are absolutely constructs of the mind rather than something nature has somehow 'shown' us.

As Old Badger pointed out;


I assign this to the localized event we all know is taking place here on this one planet;

Re that - my position on the matter;



Couple that with biblical concepts and Father YHWH isn't too far off the mark in relation to the portrayal of how a GOD would behave if it was a people-making planet.

I am not claiming that the Earth is a receptacle for a conscious entity but have seen no reason as yet, to why the idea shouldn't on the table as a possible truth...

...I continue to investigate...joining the dots through my subjective experience of it and stating opinions re the data from the Other position I am at.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok. Nature doing its' thing. In which case mortals are puely a human thing and god (shopuld there be one) has no part in it. The"God" of Einstein my be mindful. I don't have any reason to believe so, but it's academic anyway, since it appears we both have the same view of religion - man made.a...I trust by the way, that you now get that human morality, it's validity and meaning, does not depend on there being a god of any kind?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #134]



I have been shown no evidence to support that it is or is not the case. I am Other.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #121]



I am saying that, that is what the bible is saying - yes.

Where does the bible say that?

That doesn't even make sense, since you are then claiming that the bible says Christ is 'taking after the devil'. You might say that, William, but the bible does not. Neither does the Father say that about His son, nor the Son about His Father. Not to mention the fact that you appear to take a simple statement of fact (such as: you have not provided evidence for your claim) and even perhaps a simple comment such as 'you are mistaken', as an accusation, then saying that the people making such comments/accusations are 'taking after the devil'. If that were true, a person could not even call a lie, a lie... (not even if they corrected that lie with the truth) without you claiming that they are making an accusation, and are therefore, 'of the devil/Satan' (the liar who speaks his native language when he lies).

I'm not upset by your accusation because I know it is both false and absurd. It is odd though, that you seemed so offended and hurt when you thought I had previously said that about you. Something is off there, William. Some re-evaluating might be in order.

We disagree on that as per usual.

As we must.

Hiding behind the skirts of Christ Jaheshua and poking one's finger at a perceived evil doesn't change the fact that it is through biblical stories that something is said to accuse something else.

Personal comments notwithstanding, so what if "something is said to accuse something else"? How does that equate to "anyone who makes an accusation is taking after the devil/Satan"?

The story itself is clear on the details - YHWH is no respecter of human romanticizing - even in his Fatherly state.

What "human romanticizing"?

That The Son protects one from that darker side of The Father, does not signify that the darker side is non-existent. The "problem of evil derives" from the darker side of Father YHWH but the problem is a misunderstanding rather than something real.

First you need to provide evidence of this so-called 'darker side of the Father', and then that the Son protects us from it.

Do you not remember that Christ is the perfect representation of His Father? The Image of God? The TRUTH (even of His Father)? And then... that Christ is the Light?

See Christ, see His Father as well.

Know Christ, know His Father as well.

This is what Christ says, and He is the One to whom I listen and whose word I remain in.



Peace again.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #135]


You have given the evidence yourself. If there is no supernatural intervention shown and (you said) there is no evidence. Thus human morality is either a physical law (which is rather absurd) or is a human construct like art and music and equally as valid.

Is this seeping through?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #137]

If there is no supernatural intervention shown and (you said) there is no evidence.

I have not and do not ever bring the idea of 'supernatural' into my arguments as I do not approach the question of GOD as being one of an unnatural consequence.

For example, on the idea of existing within a simulation, the implication is that said simulation was designed to then be experienced as real.

Involved with that, the simulation is obviously designed to ensure that the one experiencing it is totally unaware that they are within a simulation and this is achieved through blocking out any memory the individual would otherwise have, of existing prior to the simulation experience. [tabula rasa]

As such, and like with all simulations, we do not refer to the goings on outside of the simulation as 'supernatural' because, clearly they are not and never can be, even if we do forget the life we once had, prior to going into a simulation experience.

The evidence I referred to had nothing to do with so-called 'supernatural'

Is this seeping through?

No.

The reason being is that you are taking my words and applying these to something I never said and then implying I am a touch idiotic for that.

If you want to continue conversing with me, you will have to correct your approach and desist with personal jibes.

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #136]

Where does the bible say that?

Throughout, from beginning to end.

you are then claiming that the bible says Christ is 'taking after the devil'.

So what?

Satan means accuser. Therefore when one accuses, one is being a satan...an accuser.

No one likes to be accused. Sometimes the accuser is correct and sometimes not.

If the accusation fits, then wear it. If not, then resist.

you appear to take a simple statement of fact (such as: you have not provided evidence for your claim) and even perhaps a simple comment such as 'you are mistaken', as an accusation, then saying that the people making such comments/accusations are 'taking after the devil'.

Accusation is accusation Tam. There are not 'degrees' of accusation. Calling someone "deluded" or even inferring another is being "lead by lying spirits" is accusation.

If that were true, a person could not even call a lie, a lie... (not even if they corrected that lie with the truth) without you claiming that they are making an accusation, and are therefore, 'of the devil/Satan' (the liar who speaks his native language when he lies).

Lies and truth are only so WHEN evidence is presented in support of an accusation. Accusations are not true or false on their own merit. True or false come into play with the supporting evidence.

Accusation can thus be treated as statements of opinion until they are backed up with evidence.

I'm not upset by your accusation because I know it is both false and absurd.

What accusation are you referring to?

It is odd though, that you seemed so offended and hurt when you thought I had previously said that about you. Something is off there, William. Some re-evaluating might be in order.

The offence and subsequent hurt is related to past accusations you have made both directly and indirectly against me Tam.
Readers new to our particular disagreement will have no knowledge of this, and if you yourself have forgotten, we can agree to leave it in the past and move forward.
However, it is wise to deal with personal comments, either in private or in a thread designed for that purpose as to do so here, is to go off-track and our continuing fray should not be allowed to create such distraction.

First you need to provide evidence of this so-called 'darker side of the Father', and then that the Son protects us from it.

Do you not remember that Christ is the perfect representation of His Father? The Image of God? The TRUTH (even of His Father)? And then... that Christ is the Light?

See Christ, see His Father as well.

Know Christ, know His Father as well.

This is what Christ says, and He is the One to whom I listen and whose word I remain in.

The Problem of Evil exists due to dubious acts attributed to YHWH.
Since Christians insist that YHWH is the Father Jesus was referring to, then the problem hasn't gone away.

In what way do you believe that the Jesus character exemplifies the nature of YHWH?

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.~ From the Bible [Hosea Chapter 13] and attributed to being the words of YHWH

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #137]

If there is no supernatural intervention shown and (you said) there is no evidence.

I have not and do not ever bring the idea of 'supernatural' into my arguments as I do not approach the question of GOD as being one of an unnatural consequence.

For example, on the idea of existing within a simulation, the implication is that said simulation was designed to then be experienced as real.

Involved with that, the simulation is obviously designed to ensure that the one experiencing it is totally unaware that they are within a simulation and this is achieved through blocking out any memory the individual would otherwise have, of existing prior to the simulation experience. [tabula rasa]

As such, and like with all simulations, we do not refer to the goings on outside of the simulation as 'supernatural' because, clearly they are not and never can be, even if we do forget the life we once had, prior to going into a simulation experience.

The evidence I referred to had nothing to do with so-called 'supernatural'

Is this seeping through?

No.

The reason being is that you are taking my words and applying these to something I never said and then implying I am a touch idiotic for that.

If you want to continue conversing with me, you will have to correct your approach and desist with personal jibes.

Sorry for the jibe, but you are making very heavy weather of this when it is actually very simple. You indeed brought the supernatural into it as something for which there was no evidence, so stop trying to cheat by pretending that I was saying something that wasn't so. As to computer simulations, that is irrelevant and a red herring. Reality is what has rules, and even as a hologram, a computer simulation or a brain in a vat, the rules obtain, which is why I prefer to put a real reality rather than a simulation done by some capricious entity as the default theory. Far -fetched unproven undisprovables are an irrelevance.

So your last post was empty flailing. Is the preferred case made, whether it is what you like or not? Because you seem to have nothing but clumsy verbal traps and speculative red -herrings.