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]

"Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour." 1Peter 5:8

Words attributed to YHWH:

I will be unto them as a lion: as a leopard by the way will I observe them:

I will meet them as a bear that is bereaved of her whelps, and will rend the caul of their heart, and there will I devour them like a lion: the wild beast shall tear them. [Hosea
Chapter 13]

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #140]

Sorry for the jibe, but you are making very heavy weather of this when it is actually very simple.

When 'sorry' is accompanied by "but" - the sincerity disipates.

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 I explained, "Supernatural" is not how I personally view the question of GOD. As a non-theist, YOU might do this, and theists may also practice this, but I do not.

As to computer simulations, that is irrelevant and a red herring.

On the contrary, in is in line with the question of GOD because GOD assumes a creator and being within a creation assumes a simulation.

As a non-theist YOU might assume otherwise and handwave that away as somehow besides the point, but I do not.

Reality is what has rules, and even as a hologram, a computer simulation or a brain in a vat, the rules obtain,

"Obtain" what?

which is why I prefer to put a real reality rather than a simulation done by some capricious [given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behaviour.
changing according to no discernible rules; unpredictable.] entity as the default theory.

Not what I said. How does this reality experience equate to being one designed by such an entity as you propose, IF indeed, we exist within a simulation? You will need to explain your reasoning behind that.

Also;

William: The issue is not "Is the tree real?" The point of any simulation is to make things seem as real as possible for the one experiencing it. {SOURCE}

Far -fetched unproven undisprovables are an irrelevance.

Not to Theists and not to Others. Quite clearly - on the question of GOD - not to non-theists such as yourself, otherwise why are you wasting your time arguing about "far -fetched unproven undisprovables?"

The beauty of the middle-path [E="Others"] is that one is not obligated to accept the labels that [in this case] non-theists try to attach to one.


Try again, and in doing so - avoid making personal comments...

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #140]

Sorry for the jibe, but you are making very heavy weather of this when it is actually very simple.

When 'sorry' is accompanied by "but" - the sincerity disipates.

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 I explained, "Supernatural" is not how I personally view the question of GOD. As a non-theist, YOU might do this, and theists may also practice this, but I do not.

As to computer simulations, that is irrelevant and a red herring.

On the contrary, in is in line with the question of GOD because GOD assumes a creator and being within a creation assumes a simulation.

As a non-theist YOU might assume otherwise and handwave that away as somehow besides the point, but I do not.

Reality is what has rules, and even as a hologram, a computer simulation or a brain in a vat, the rules obtain,

"Obtain" what?

which is why I prefer to put a real reality rather than a simulation done by some capricious [given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behaviour.
changing according to no discernible rules; unpredictable.] entity as the default theory.

Not what I said. How does this reality experience equate to being one designed by such an entity as you propose, IF indeed, we exist within a simulation? You will need to explain your reasoning behind that.

Also;

William: The issue is not "Is the tree real?" The point of any simulation is to make things seem as real as possible for the one experiencing it. {SOURCE}

Far -fetched unproven undisprovables are an irrelevance.

Not to Theists and not to Others. Quite clearly - on the question of GOD - not to non-theists such as yourself, otherwise why are you wasting your time arguing about "far -fetched unproven undisprovables?"

The beauty of the middle-path [E="Others"] is that one is not obligated to accept the labels that [in this case] non-theists try to attach to one.


Try again, and in doing so - avoid making personal comments...

Personal comments eh? Here's one: you will do yourself and your case no good by trying to play the "Atheist is being Rude" card. I have been very patient with what is essentially a blustering and ...let me think of the right word...polemical caltrop-strewn defence.

You persist is saying you did not bring supernatural into it, plus protesting that you don't argue for it. You did bring it in, and said there was no evidence for iut, which is what I pointed out when you denied it. It will be noted what a dishonest (or perhaps confused) ploy that was.

A creation type simulation (making something according to an imagined idea) and a simulation on some kind of computer isn't the same thing. One, when made, follows the rules of physics. The other on a computer can be altered according to the whim of the operator. Reality (rules of physics) do not operate like a computer game; they do not get altered.

Of course a computer game may have rules. That is why whether made of matter or on a computer, the rules of physics are the reality. And is why a computer -game hypothesis is an irrelevance. Does that make sense or do you 'handwave' that away as an 'It is not what I believe"?

"The rules (of physics) obtain": They are reliable.

"Not what I said. How does this reality experience equate to being one designed by such an entity as you propose, IF indeed, we exist within a simulation? You will need to explain your reasoning behind that."

And that's not what I said. The 'reality experience' (reliable laws of Physics) do NOT imply a computer generated universe by some entity or another. If there was such, it would have to be 'Real' on the same terms, in which case a difference that makes no difference IS no difference, which puts the computer of God (so to speak) into an unverified hypothesis that is not needed. Which covers your irrelevant 'is the tree real?' argument. It's real in that it follows (for all anyone can prove) the rules of physical reality.

Undisprovables are an irrelevance logically. That it is relevant for Theists makes them short on logic and thus their beliefs and opinions are also irrelevant. As are these 'others' which i can only assume mean those without enough information to make relevant conclusions. Which covers this:

"The beauty of the middle-path [E="Others"] is that one is not obligated to accept the labels that [in this case] non-theists try to attach to one."


It is not 'labels', it is logic. Try again and try not to misrepresent what I wrote.

[William]

Personal comments eh? Here's one: you will do yourself and your case no good by trying to play the "Atheist is being Rude" card. I have been very patient with what is essentially a blustering and ...let me think of the right word...polemical caltrop-strewn defence.

I read to that point and see no coherent reason as to why I need to continue trying to converse with you.

[TRANSPONDER]

And that friends is what we in the Trade call "A Flounce".

it is a very hoary and threadbare Theist ploy (or anyone who knows they are losing the argument) enabling said party to march off, hat in hand, nose in the air telling themselves (and anyone else not seeing through this dog -eared and tatty ploy) that they would have won, but there was no point in debating with one so closed minded (at least). It not infrequently follows an attempt to start a fight or at least accuse the atheist of provoking one.

It is generally taken to mean the opponent of the atheist loses.

cue - 'It's not about winning'. Not exactly, but 'winning' in showing the better case (can't be refuted, so they have to flee under a smokescreen) as exemplified by the "Flounce".

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #136]

Where does the bible say that?

Throughout, from beginning to end.

Anyone could make that statement about anything they wanted. The statement is too vague to be meaningful.

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

So what?

So that is absurd: it contradicts what is written in the bible about and/or from Christ. It would also mean that the bible writers (especially NT) said and believed this, when this is clearly not the case:

For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?



And there is a stark contrast here:

Christ is the Truth (and the Life); the One who gave His life FOR LIFE.

The Adversary, the one called Satan, is a liar, a murder, and the father of lies.

There is a stark contrast here:

The Adversary is our enemy and seeks our destruction.

Christ intercedes on behalf of His Bride, seeking for us to have life (just as the Father desires, Deuteronomy 30:19).

There is a stark contrast here:

“The One who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed represents the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39and the enemy who sows them is the devil.

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

I see the connection that you are trying to make, but just because the Adversary (the one called Satan) makes accusations does not mean that anyone who makes an accusation is taking after him. It certainly does not mean that any person pointing out or correcting a mistake is 'taking after the devil'. Pointing out and correcting mistakes is something teachers do every day, to help students learn (unless you get a bad teacher of course). Nor does it mean that speaking the truth (which can include pointing out wrongdoing or error) means that a person is 'taking after the devil'.


Also, "Satan" means ADVERSARY:

1. adversary.
2. Satan (Late Hebrew שָׂטָן, סָטָן; Aramaic שָׂטָנָא, סָטָנָא, Syriac axnEjxs (Hebrew); Late Hebrew verb סָטַן, Aramaic סְטַן; Arabic شَطَنَ is be remote, especially from the truth, and from the mercy of God; شَيطَانً Satan, Ethiopic ለይጣን፡); —
1. adversary, in general, personal or national; (ל) הָיָה לְשׂ׳ Numbers 22:22 (JE), 1 Samuel 29:4 (compare NesMarg. 15), 2 Samuel 19:23, יָצָא לְשׂ׳ Numbers 22:32 (JE); שׂ׳ 1 Kings 5:18; 1 Kings 11:25; ל הֵקִים שׂ׳, subject God 1 Kings 11:14, 23, compare Psalm 109:6 (|| רָשָׁע).
2. superhuman adversary, הַשּׂ׳ :
a. of Job, one of בְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים Job 1:6, 7 (twice in verse); Job 1:8, 9, 12 (twice in verse); Job 2:1, 2(twice in verse); Job 2:3, 4 (twice in verse); Job 2:6, 7.
b. of high priest of Israel before י׳, Zechariah 3:1, 2(twice in verse); Greek Version of the LXX. ὁ διάβολος.
c. as proper name שׂ׳ Satan 1 Chronicles 21:1 (interpret 2 Samuel 24:1), Greek Version of the LXX διάβολος (Greek Version of the LXX σατάν 1 Kings 11:14, 23; Σατανᾶς Matthew 4:10; Mark 1:13; Luke 10:18 + 33 times NT).

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

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.

Sure.

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.

Making 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', are not accusations.

Agree or disagree?

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.

A lie is a lie even if everyone accepts it. The truth is true even if no one accepts it. Lies and truth might only be EVIDENT (apparent) to others with evidence, but that doesn't change the fact that something was always true (even before being apparent) or always false (even before being evident).

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

On that we can agree.

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

What accusation are you referring to?

That anyone making an accusation (even just pointing out an error or a lie, and correcting it) is 'taking after the devil'.

*snipping out the past stuff so as to keep on track in this thread*

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #146]

2 Corinthians 6:15 Context

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

[Replying to tam in post #121]

"Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour." 1Peter 5:8

Words attributed to YHWH: [aka "The Lord Almighty."]

I will be unto them as a lion: as a leopard by the way will I observe them:

I will meet them as a bear that is bereaved of her whelps, and will rend the caul of their heart, and there will I devour them like a lion: the wild beast shall tear them. [Hosea
Chapter 13]

Please explain the obvious similarities.
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?

Also please hear this video as it relates to how the Hebrews differ in perspective from what you are saying as a Christian.



Adversity can be good.

[oldbadger]

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.

I don't believe in a tangible existing 'evil' and I don't think that Jesus did, all his references to 'evil' in G-Mark were about the sinful things that folks could do.... Sin was simply a word to describe people braking the laws, and Sin led to sickness, weakness, varying kinds of failure. I sometimes wonder about any agendas amongst the translators.

Anyway, I don't know a Christian who really really takes notice of what Jesus said about it........ In G-Matthew Jesus made a very clear point when he said '{5:37} But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.'........ and then they swear on bibles, swear before god, swear on their brother's baby........ no simple yes and no for Christians.

Evil? Meh......... the idea of badness in any given community or at any particular time.

[TRANSPONDER]

i don't believe in a tangible existing Evil either, just a set of human conventions, and like such varying from culture to culture and getting regular revisions (with the religions fighting against them and then getting into line and pretending it was all their idea). And I don't think any of the Gospels are a valid or reliable guide to what Jesus may have thought or indeed said; but some will probably disagree with me.

[William]

I don't believe in a tangible existing 'evil' and I don't think that Jesus did, all his references to 'evil' in G-Mark were about the sinful things that folks could do.... Sin was simply a word to describe people braking the laws, and Sin led to sickness, weakness, varying kinds of failure. I sometimes wonder about any agendas amongst the translators.

Anyway, I don't know a Christian who really really takes notice of what Jesus said about it........ In G-Matthew Jesus made a very clear point when he said '{5:37} But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.'........ and then they swear on bibles, swear before god, swear on their brother's baby........ no simple yes and no for Christians.

Evil? Meh......... the idea of badness in any given community or at any particular time.

In relation to the bible GOD, how does the above matter? If evil doesn't really exist except in the way the human animal might do his business and thus coming from a misinterpretation of nature -I think that this would vindicate any GOD creator.

Re your sometimes wondering about any agendas amongst the translators.

Do you think it possible that the storytellers were translating their subjective experience were also misinterpreting nature?