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}

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #159]

I do not know a "Jesus character".

Does it confuse you when folk use the Biblical name?

"Character" can imply "fictional".

Are you speaking of someone else perhaps?

A real, living person. Not a fictional one.

I know how some Jewish perspectives differ on the subject of "Satan".

But you said you based your idea off the BIBLE. The bible includes the NT (various authors and books), including Revelation, and including things that Christ said about the Adversary (the one called Satan, the dragon, the ancient serpent, the devil). So our conversation includes all of that evidence, as well as stuff in the OT.

To remain in truth one has to consider the possibility that Christianity and the NT are appropriations of the Hebrew idea of YHWH by the Greek/Roman cultures and in that, a misrepresentation of YHWH [and Satan] has occurred. Certainly many Jewish folk think that is the case.

To remain in truth, one need only remain in Christ (starting by coming to Him of course).

That being said, this does not change my point.

If you had said you were basing your ideas off a Jewish perspective, in just the OT, then we could have had a different conversation. I mean, I am not going to blind myself to the rest of the evidence, just to maintain a position, but I think the nature of the Adversary is also shown in Job.

Also to note;

GM: It is what it is

I'm not interested in watching youtube videos to comment upon, sorry.

[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.

A metaphor describing an activity.

It is obviously metaphor. You were asked to explain the similarities.

Yeah, I don't make a connection between them. You are the one who makes these kinds of connections (such as, if one person is an accuser, all others who accuse are taking after him). Hence, I asked, what do you THINK it is saying.

Also, please explain why YHWH had no doubts about Job and was confident the accuser would not sway Job, but did have doubts with Adam and was not confident Adam could not be swayed...since that is what we are told happened - Adam was swayed - and we can assume that YHWH knew Adam would fail as surely as YHWH knew Job would not.

He knew the people involved. What is in them; the inside of the cup. Nothing is hidden from Him.

Peace again.

[oldbadger]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #155]

I think that translators have a real problem in transferring communications from one language to another, but I don't understand your comment about 'misinterpreting nature'. The Israelites were just a part of nature, as are we.... now we get nature wrong all the time and nature keeps on smacking us in the mouth, but you would need to explain to me how 'getting nature wrong vindicates God'. I don't even believe in an aware, interested, involved God..... so I need your help, about your question.

Thanks for your answer OB.

My comment has to do with your own shared ideas re "Nature being The boss".

I can agree with that because it is obviously true.

Since I suspect that Nature is mindful - not just that human beings were some happy accident of nature which produced mindfulness - and I think it is possible that the planet itself may well be a mindful entity, so regard the existence of Earth to being evidence of mindful creativity, when I see statements about nature which confer boss-hood and when I compare such to theistic notions of gods - I can't help but wonder if the two are - not only related - but actually speaking about the same thing in different ways, and this is what I am referring to when I asked if you think it possible that the theist storytellers were translating their subjective experience, were also misinterpreting nature.

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 evil-doing is coming from a misinterpretation of nature - in that little to no thought is given to consequences of said business - I think that this would vindicate any GOD creator even if the god-creator was the Earth itself.

For what about nature [Earth/The Boss] can we point to and say "evil"?

So the misinterpretation said another way, is the human animal projecting their own evil-doing onto nature - essentially blaming nature for having to exist within nature and having to resort to evil-doing for the sake of whatever business is being supported by such activity.

If one accepts for the sake of argument that the planet is sentient, is it acceptable to blame a planet for giving one the ability/opportunity to behave with ill intent [evil] i, and if not, then why is it acceptable to blame any god-idea for the evil that humans do?

Asked another way;

Does the problem of evil go away if the idea of a creator-god also goes away?

Thankyou for the time that you spent on the above post.
That's an interesting idea....... an 'aware nature'. (You wrote:- Since I suspect that Nature is mindful )
I acknowledge the suspicion, but I expect that Nature is evolution and devolution within complete chaos.... Chance. We are here by chance, and it took long enough for 'us' to happen, by chance.

And so there is Nothing that humanity can do that is 'God and the Devil' EVIL...... nothing.
If you would please think of the most dreadful actions that it is possible for a human to carry out..... it's just an animal within nature doing what that that animal does. Humans have not risen above nature's drives and demands...not much, anyway.

But the human animal is just smart enough to make rules for humans to abide by for 'Better Living' and when humans break these rules very badly......... we tend to call those actions (and even the humans themselves) evil.
Evil, and the dreadful things that humans can do is very very real to us, but that's all included within Nature.
Murder is a very bad and serious crime to us, but Nature is mindless. Nature can be much worse than that....Nature can burst a star apart and destroy whole planets in fire.... which is worse?...... they are both simply a part of Nature.

But we have rules and laws, and the Laws of Moses were amongst the first that we know about........ amazing for their time.

[oldbadger]

Theists do flounces... you've seen it "No point in talking to the closed -minded...", "Atheists will never accept any evidence for God" and of course, "Atheists are so WUDE", The point is to find an excuse to run away when they are about to get beat.

I think I've seen all manner of folks leaving a discussion in anger, embarrassment, boredom, etc......
But it's the (written and described) toss of head, dismissive hand, the walk ........ it's the style of it all that I seek to observe.
I expect that Theists may be able to carry that off with more style, after all, atheists just trudge along, no finesse, you know?

An alternative (1) is apologetics of the 3rd kind - cheek and snark. It enables them to think they are holding up the debate while they are trying to wear out the atheist (see the Gish Gallop or information overload), get the Last Word or start a fight which gives them the excuse to stalk off ("I could have won this, but this debate is beneath my dignity.") Now you know what a Flounce is.

(1) and also the Deep Dive - they vanish from the debate and then reappear a fortnight or month later, making the same arguments.

Now hold on! Deep dives? I do deep dive, T........ Oh yes! Not on here but elsewhere a single post could send me in to deep slumber and no need for any diving board.

I'll leave this to the Badger, but it's a simple one: Of course not, because it is a human thing based on evolutionary instincts. And yes, the evils in nature are entirely humans projecting their own values on nature which does not do Morals, only survival, however it needs to. Since no Creator -god was needed for it the lack of one doesn't affect it.

You're welcome ol' Badger, you can take the rest of the day off.

Hurrah! Freedom! I'll spend some time practicing flounces; we ignostics just haven't got the poise and elegance for it.... it's gotta be done proper.....

[TRANSPONDER]

Theists do flounces... you've seen it "No point in talking to the closed -minded...", "Atheists will never accept any evidence for God" and of course, "Atheists are so WUDE", The point is to find an excuse to run away when they are about to get beat.

I think I've seen all manner of folks leaving a discussion in anger, embarrassment, boredom, etc......
But it's the (written and described) toss of head, dismissive hand, the walk ........ it's the style of it all that I seek to observe.
I expect that Theists may be able to carry that off with more style, after all, atheists just trudge along, no finesse, you know?

An alternative (1) is apologetics of the 3rd kind - cheek and snark. It enables them to think they are holding up the debate while they are trying to wear out the atheist (see the Gish Gallop or information overload), get the Last Word or start a fight which gives them the excuse to stalk off ("I could have won this, but this debate is beneath my dignity.") Now you know what a Flounce is.

(1) and also the Deep Dive - they vanish from the debate and then reappear a fortnight or month later, making the same arguments.

Now hold on! Deep dives? I do deep dive, T........ Oh yes! Not on here but elsewhere a single post could send me in to deep slumber and no need for any diving board.

I'll leave this to the Badger, but it's a simple one: Of course not, because it is a human thing based on evolutionary instincts. And yes, the evils in nature are entirely humans projecting their own values on nature which does not do Morals, only survival, however it needs to. Since no Creator -god was needed for it the lack of one doesn't affect it.

You're welcome ol' Badger, you can take the rest of the day off.

Hurrah! Freedom! I'll spend some time practicing flounces; we ignostics just haven't got the poise and elegance for it.... it's gotta be done proper.....

Yes. We atheists lack Style. Always did. Them Theists always had the edge in Amateur theatricals, big expansive dramatic gestures, emotional manipulation of the audience, fake clothing that goes back in store once the show is over...But you know, Rather than overdone onstage declamations and fairy stories that we buy into just for a while, I'll stick with scraping away at the clues, dull and uncelebrated, and getting at the truth.

The Flounce was discovered on my former board by a Genius call Raffius, who also invented Raff's Law (1) and is all connected with the parthian shot (from the 'You'll wish you had listened to me when Jesus comes in Pow'r' to the infamous 'thirty pieces of silver' jibe at the end of the 'Life of Brian' debate, and of course 'I'll pray for you'. (2) The Deep dive (has many meanings) is when they vanish for a week or so and reappear on a different thread making the same claims. And yes, boredom or whatever. I opted out of the innerrancy thread (not to say ran away or even flounced) and I could have handled that better, but countering the pages and pages of taking Bibletext and vaguely relating it to Egyptian mythology spammed me out. I'm as subject to being floored as any (though I think I did well debunking that Hyksos= Jews' stuff. I was quite pleased with the debunk of the Hyksos seal = tribes of israel. And I should stop blowing my own shofar).

But yes, we have to 'Choose our battles', at least not getting into a field where we don't know our stuff. It's easy for the Theists. There are piles and piles of glossy apologist materials to reference, books they can tell us to read, links to websites they can tell is to research (not that any of the Creationists look at Talk origins, ever, never, ever) or videos to post, and demand that we do their research for them. It was a Rule made on my last forum that posting videos with no explanation being posted would be deleted. Talk origins is the nearest to a Thinktank that Atheism has, but we could sure deal with a go-to thinktank of info on anything from Roman numismatics to Anselm's ontological arguments, because an atheist apologist has to deal with everything, because Bible apologetics can utilise anything.

Oh, and one basic rule of apologetics debate, which is vitally important to remember: Never, ever, ever, take a Theist claim at face value. Check it out (because they never do). It is most important that you don't forget this rule. I should know; I'm always forgetting it.

(1) God apologists are fine with science, until it conflicts with their beliefs and then it is the lies of the Devil.

(2) Transl. "You are wrong, and I pray that God will cause you to come to agree with me, but you're wrong, even if you don't". And the relevant classic vid. one of the Mustwatch playlist



(there are several versions of these classic atheist parable, but this is the best.
Along with 'Religious family values' (Tracie Harris) , Losing Faith (Theramin Trees') Open mindedness ' (Qualiasoup) and Thunderfoot on the Venomfang fallacy. (I recall no 30 of 'Laugh at Creationists) If God were a car (Dark matter)

[William]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #162]

Thankyou for the time that you spent on the above post.

Acknowledged.

I expect that Nature is evolution and devolution within complete chaos.... Chance. We are here by chance, and it took long enough for 'us' to happen, by chance.

Based upon the evidence I continue to disagree with that belief system.

It appears that a mindless nature has an anomaly in the nature of mindful humankind, according to your overall belief regarding evil.
From that, would the reader be mistaken to think that - re your beliefs - there is no "Problem of Evil" and that arguments using statements which may begin with "Then there is "The problem of evil"" derive from conjecture, rather than from fact?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #162]

Thankyou for the time that you spent on the above post.

Acknowledged.

I expect that Nature is evolution and devolution within complete chaos.... Chance. We are here by chance, and it took long enough for 'us' to happen, by chance.

Based upon the evidence I continue to disagree with that belief system.

It appears that a mindless nature has an anomaly in the nature of mindful humankind, according to your overall belief regarding evil.
From that, would the reader be mistaken to think that - re your beliefs - there is no "Problem of Evil" and that arguments using statements which may begin with "Then there is "The problem of evil"" derive from conjecture, rather than from fact?

Your post is a waste of time and not worth an answer, and that isn't getting at you. It is not your fault; it is a common misconception of what is natural and existing dividing between what exists and is natural even if there were no humans and what is existing and natural but only as regards humans.

If you still do not get it, there would be no cars or buses if humans did not exist, yet they are real. There would be no rules of Football, no science and no laws or constitution if it were not for humans. But to say they are 'conjecture' is falling far short of a valid argument. They exist, are real and are valid. I have explained why the Badger nor anyone else needs to reply to your post until you rethink you entire flawed mindset.

Oh... and you are better than to even think of 'I wasn't talking to you' let alone 'Oh you are being so Wude'.

[William]

[TRANSPONDER]

I have to say I enjoyed that post and liked some points, but essentially it is not for me to get involved in it (try to stop me if it was ) any more than I'd get between an argument between a Catholic and a Protestant. I might nibble peanuts while they hack at each other.

[tam]

[oldbadger]

Yes. We atheists lack Style. Always did. Them Theists always had the edge in Amateur theatricals, big expansive dramatic gestures, emotional manipulation of the audience, fake clothing that goes back in store once the show is over...But you know, Rather than overdone onstage declamations and fairy stories that we buy into just for a while, I'll stick with scraping away at the clues, dull and uncelebrated, and getting at the truth.

The Flounce was discovered on my former board by a Genius call Raffius, who also invented Raff's Law (1) and is all connected with the parthian shot (from the 'You'll wish you had listened to me when Jesus comes in Pow'r' to the infamous 'thirty pieces of silver' jibe at the end of the 'Life of Brian' debate, and of course 'I'll pray for you'. (2) The Deep dive (has many meanings) is when they vanish for a week or so and reappear on a different thread making the same claims. And yes, boredom or whatever. I opted out of the innerrancy thread (not to say ran away or even flounced) and I could have handled that better, but countering the pages and pages of taking Bibletext and vaguely relating it to Egyptian mythology spammed me out. I'm as subject to being floored as any (though I think I did well debunking that Hyksos= Jews' stuff. I was quite pleased with the debunk of the Hyksos seal = tribes of israel. And I should stop blowing my own shofar).

But yes, we have to 'Choose our battles', at least not getting into a field where we don't know our stuff. It's easy for the Theists. There are piles and piles of glossy apologist materials to reference, books they can tell us to read, links to websites they can tell is to research (not that any of the Creationists look at Talk origins, ever, never, ever) or videos to post, and demand that we do their research for them. It was a Rule made on my last forum that posting videos with no explanation being posted would be deleted. Talk origins is the nearest to a Thinktank that Atheism has, but we could sure deal with a go-to thinktank of info on anything from Roman numismatics to Anselm's ontological arguments, because an atheist apologist has to deal with everything, because Bible apologetics can utilise anything.

Oh, and one basic rule of apologetics debate, which is vitally important to remember: Never, ever, ever, take a Theist claim at face value. Check it out (because they never do). It is most important that you don't forget this rule. I should know; I'm always forgetting it.

(1) God apologists are fine with science, until it conflicts with their beliefs and then it is the lies of the Devil.

(2) Transl. "You are wrong, and I pray that God will cause you to come to agree with me, but you're wrong, even if you don't". And the relevant classic vid. one of the Mustwatch playlist



(there are several versions of these classic atheist parable, but this is the best.
Along with 'Religious family values' (Tracie Harris) , Losing Faith (Theramin Trees') Open mindedness ' (Qualiasoup) and Thunderfoot on the Venomfang fallacy. (I recall no 30 of 'Laugh at Creationists) If God were a car (Dark matter)

You should enjoy the pantomime of it all a little more, T.
That post was like a scene out of 'sessions with a therapist'....
If only people would tell me that they will pray for me...... why you? What've you got that attracts all these offers?
If I should be so lucky then I'd ask if I could confess my sins to, and if they'd be so daft as to tell me 'yes' I'd leave them with such dark scenes that they'd never forget..... could never delete. ....... ever.

Nearly 60 years ago one of my first girlfriends was a devout Christian and she wanted to save me. Oh boy! I can't go further or the guv'nors will bash me.