Questioning the Problem of Evil once again

[instantc]

Here is what I find slightly baffling about the Problem of Evil.

The argument essentially says that the present world is not what the universe would look like if it were ruled by a loving and powerful ruler. I.e, there is too much evil in the world.

There is too much evil in the world, that strikes me as an odd thing to say. What would be an appropriate amount of evil for an almighty ruler to allow? Is it logically possible to know happiness without knowing any suffering? Some variants of the PoE say that it is the unnecessary suffering that disproves God, but is any suffering completely unnecessary or gratuitous? I don't think so. Some instances of suffering may be highly disproportionate to the potential positive consequences, but every instance of suffering has at least some conceivable positive consequences.

I think that one who wants to endorse PoE also has to define where he draws the line with regard to the acceptable amount of suffering, i.e he should define what amount/type of suffering would be consistent with the God hypothesis. He would then have to show that a world with those conditions would be (1) conceivable and (2) desirable.

To make it short, if you are to claim that this is not how a loving God should act, then you should be able to explain how it is that a loving God should act. If you say that this is not what a universe ruled by a loving ruler looks like, then you should, according to the rules of inference, first have a vision of what a universe ruled by a loving ruler does look like.

What do you think?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 70 by ttruscott]
Then we are back to where we were. You accept that what I called the intermediate steps are not logical necessity. If a deity cannot fulfill his goal without going through some unnecessary intermediate steps, then he is NOT onmipotent. If a deity can fulfill his goal without going through some unnecessary intermediate, but chooses to so anyway, then he is NOT benevolent.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 70 by ttruscott]
Then we are back to where we were. You accept that what I called the intermediate steps are not logical necessity. If a deity cannot fulfill his goal without going through some unnecessary intermediate steps, then he is NOT onmipotent. If a deity can fulfill his goal without going through some unnecessary intermediate, but chooses to so anyway, then he is NOT benevolent.

The only logical non-necessity I agreed to was that BEFORE THE CHOICE THERE WAS NO LOGICAL NECESSITY FOR ANYONE TO GO TO HELL.

FROM GOD'S POV:
It was logically necessary to:
- create people with the ability to make true free will decisions
- to allow them to create their eternal relationship with HIM by true free will choices
- to abide by those decisions not matter what someone chose.

Therefore, since HE did not decree the outcome of the choices pro or con HIS diety, the logical necessity against anyone going to hell CHANGED when some one chose to reject HIM, forcing the logical necessity of hell!!!

Peace, Ted

[tariki]

[Replying to post 70 by ttruscott]
Then we are back to where we were. You accept that what I called the intermediate steps are not logical necessity. If a deity cannot fulfill his goal without going through some unnecessary intermediate steps, then he is NOT onmipotent. If a deity can fulfill his goal without going through some unnecessary intermediate, but chooses to so anyway, then he is NOT benevolent.

FROM GOD'S POV:
It was logically necessary to:
- create people with the ability to make true free will decisions
- to allow them to create their eternal relationship with HIM by true free will choices
- to abide by those decisions not matter what someone chose.

Hi Ted, really, this should be headed "From Ted's point of view".......as the Good Book says, "your ways are not my ways" and "with God ALL things are possible". Sadly, some replace the possibilities offered by the Divine to the parameters set by their own grasp of logic.

All the best

[Bust Nak]

The only logical non-necessity I agreed to was that BEFORE THE CHOICE THERE WAS NO LOGICAL NECESSITY FOR ANYONE TO GO TO HELL.

You also agreed that someone choosing to reject God's claims is not a logicall necessity, didn't you?

FROM GOD'S POV:
It was logically necessary to:
- create people with the ability to make true free will decisions
- to allow them to create their eternal relationship with HIM by true free will choices
- to abide by those decisions not matter what someone chose.

Therefore, since HE did not decree the outcome of the choices pro or con HIS diety, the logical necessity against anyone going to hell CHANGED when some one chose to reject HIM, forcing the logical necessity of hell!!!

Sure, I acknowledged that.

But that doesn't help you one bit in showing hell is a logical necessity, only a direct consequence of someone rejecting God. If someone rejecting God is not a logical necessity then neither is its consequence.

[10CC]

[Replying to post 70 by ttruscott]
Then we are back to where we were. You accept that what I called the intermediate steps are not logical necessity. If a deity cannot fulfill his goal without going through some unnecessary intermediate steps, then he is NOT onmipotent. If a deity can fulfill his goal without going through some unnecessary intermediate, but chooses to so anyway, then he is NOT benevolent.

The only logical non-necessity I agreed to was that BEFORE THE CHOICE THERE WAS NO LOGICAL NECESSITY FOR ANYONE TO GO TO HELL.

FROM GOD'S POV:
It was logically necessary to:
- create people with the ability to make true free will decisions
- to allow them to create their eternal relationship with HIM by true free will choices
- to abide by those decisions not matter what someone chose.

Therefore, since HE did not decree the outcome of the choices pro or con HIS diety, the logical necessity against anyone going to hell CHANGED when some one chose to reject HIM, forcing the logical necessity of hell!!!

Peace, Ted

Ted your doctrine is so much more insane than any "christianity" that my mind is boggled by it.

You claim that each of you chose to either accept this god as your god or reject this god as your god.

If you accepted this god as your god then you will go to heaven, if you reject this god then you will go to hell.

This god then created the universe where those who rejected him can go to be punished before he punishes them for eternity and so that some of those who accepted him as god, told him he was out of line for sending the unacceptors to suffer until they get to suffer for eternity could be taught a lesson.

Then this god who already knew who was saved and who wasn't decided to slaughter his son/self in order that the already saved could be saved.

Can anybody with even a modicum of intellect even consider this?

[ttruscott]

The only logical non-necessity I agreed to was that BEFORE THE CHOICE THERE WAS NO LOGICAL NECESSITY FOR ANYONE TO GO TO HELL.

You also agreed that someone choosing to reject God's claims is not a logicall necessity, didn't you?

FROM GOD'S POV:
It was logically necessary to:
- create people with the ability to make true free will decisions
- to allow them to create their eternal relationship with HIM by true free will choices
- to abide by those decisions not matter what someone chose.

Therefore, since HE did not decree the outcome of the choices pro or con HIS diety, the logical necessity against anyone going to hell CHANGED when some one chose to reject HIM, forcing the logical necessity of hell!!!

Sure, I acknowledged that.

But that doesn't help you one bit in showing hell is a logical necessity, only a direct consequence of someone rejecting God. If someone rejecting God is not a logical necessity then neither is its consequence.

I am running out of ways to express what seems to me to be a tautology...

No logical necessity for them to reject HIM but there is a logical necessity for them to go to hell IF they do reject HIM, that is what choice means...no matter how you feel about it.

Free will means you get to chose a course of action without any logical necessity forcing you to go one way or the other AND consequences means you will pay the price for the decisions you make, and the consequences are set.

Choice is not forced but consequences are forced. So what?

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

...

You claim that each of you chose to either accept this god as your god or reject this god as your god.

If you accepted this god as your god then you will go to heaven, if you reject this god then you will go to hell.

This god then created the universe where those who rejected him can go to be punished before he punishes them for eternity and so that some of those who accepted him as god, told him he was out of line for sending the unacceptors to suffer until they get to suffer for eternity could be taught a lesson.

Then this god who already knew who was saved and who wasn't decided to slaughter his son/self in order that the already saved could be saved.

Can anybody with even a modicum of intellect even consider this?

No, you've garbled it enough so it makes no sense at all. I cannot repair your thinking. Debate is over. See you on another topic,

Peace, Ted

[tariki]

...

You claim that each of you chose to either accept this god as your god or reject this god as your god.

If you accepted this god as your god then you will go to heaven, if you reject this god then you will go to hell.

This god then created the universe where those who rejected him can go to be punished before he punishes them for eternity and so that some of those who accepted him as god, told him he was out of line for sending the unacceptors to suffer until they get to suffer for eternity could be taught a lesson.

Then this god who already knew who was saved and who wasn't decided to slaughter his son/self in order that the already saved could be saved.

Can anybody with even a modicum of intellect even consider this?

No, you've garbled it enough so it makes no sense at all. I cannot repair your thinking. Debate is over. See you on another topic,

Peace, Ted

Nice try Ted. But lets take......"Free will means you get to chose a course of action without any logical necessity forcing you to go one way or the other AND consequences means you will pay the price for the decisions you make, and the consequences are set"

How about your claim that an unborn foetus has been able to make such "free choice" determining its eternal destiny? This based upon some obscure verse from the OT strained to the very limits.......and far beyond? While ignoring umpteen verses from the Gospels from the lips of Jesus, at least as recorded.

But, then, anyway, you appear to ignore everything I post, including what I have said about the so called "free will" defence of Hell on this thread and others.

Anyway, go off to another topic and see what you can make of that, whatever it is.

Once again, before I depart for another FORUM, your own take on Christianity is - to my eyes , and based upon the other defences of it I am familiar with - is a complete travesty of virtually the entire Gospel of Christ.

All the best

[10CC]

...

You claim that each of you chose to either accept this god as your god or reject this god as your god.

If you accepted this god as your god then you will go to heaven, if you reject this god then you will go to hell.

This god then created the universe where those who rejected him can go to be punished before he punishes them for eternity and so that some of those who accepted him as god, told him he was out of line for sending the unacceptors to suffer until they get to suffer for eternity could be taught a lesson.

Then this god who already knew who was saved and who wasn't decided to slaughter his son/self in order that the already saved could be saved.

Can anybody with even a modicum of intellect even consider this?

No, you've garbled it enough so it makes no sense at all. I cannot repair your thinking. Debate is over. See you on another topic,

Peace, Ted

Did I hear somebody say cop-out?

I've just described in a nutshell (pun.....) what you have claimed as your beliefs, without all the claptrap you like to throw in the mix.

What I described is what your beliefs boil down to. Now you can run away, because you know I'm right !!!

[Bust Nak]

I am running out of ways to express what seems to me to be a tautology...

No logical necessity for them to reject HIM but there is a logical necessity for them to go to hell IF they do reject HIM, that is what choice means...no matter how you feel about it.

Free will means you get to chose a course of action without any logical necessity forcing you to go one way or the other AND consequences means you will pay the price for the decisions you make, and the consequences are set.

Both granted. I accept that. I told you I accepted those the first time you brough it up. So you can stop reiterating these points.

Choice is not forced but consequences are forced. So what?

So you have a problem of evil.

Let try another angle. Lets say you have a broken arm, when I touch it, it hurts a lot. I don't have to touch your arm, I do it by choice, but every time I do, it hurts you. Your arm hurting is a direct consequence of me touching your arm. You could rightly say that by me touching it, I am forcing the logical necessity of your pain.

Would you be impressed if I keep touching your arm to cause you pain with the reasoning that, well, you HAVE to fell pain, it is a logical necessity of me touching it? Or would you tell me, "but you don't HAVE to touch it!"