Does God cause evil?

[DanieltheDragon]

Does God cause evil?

Some assert that God causes no evil. Is there cause to believe this is true. Can this position be supported. Is the character described in the bible incapable of evil?

I would assert that a position that claims God created everything would make him the original cause of evil. That God cannot escape being the cause of evil since he created any and all situations in which evil would arise.

[Zzyzx]

.

Well, goodness, try Post 265 and teh one I just posted. I hate to say it, but I'm getting the feeling you aren't reading my posts.

Humor me and give a straight answer without philosophical pondering or baloney or word salads or claims to have answered previously -- just straight forward answer.

How do you know 'God's goal'? You can handle that simple question, can't you?

Let me help get that started. 'I learned what God's goal is by . . . . . "

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 263 by hoghead1]

I gave a solid line of reasoning for my claim that God is Cosmic Artist.

I can bore you to death with my reasons for believing in Santa.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 271 by Zzyzx]

These are, however, deeply philosophical and theological matters. So I reserve the right to speak from a theological perspective. That may seem like word salad or baloney to you. But that is your problem. If that is how you feel, then I suggest avoiding such discussions altogether and stop ridiculing us theists by writing us off al all baloney and word salad because we speak a language you do not understand.

I have told you a number of times that I believe God's goal is beauty because anything I have of ourselves and our world shows we are all on the quest for beauty. If you are having trouble with this notion, with the idea that we are all seeking to live well and live better, than I can suggest only that you better examine yourself. Period, end of it.

[Zzyzx]

.

These are, however, deeply philosophical and theological matters.

Is it a 'deep philosophical and theological matter' to say openly and honestly how you KNOW 'God's goal'?

So I reserve the right to speak from a theological perspective.

You are free to speak whatever language suits your purposes. However, I am equally free to point out that stringing together flowery vague terms to describe one's OPINION does not constitute debate.

That may seem like word salad or baloney to you. But that is your problem.

I trust that I am not the only one reading who recognizes obfuscation and evasion even when camouflaged in lofty sounding verbiage.

It does not require word salads or pontification to answer How do you KNOW God's goal?

If that is how you feel, then I suggest avoiding such discussions altogether and stop ridiculing us theists by writing us off al all baloney and word salad because we speak a language you do not understand.

Notice that we debate in a public forum that is open to people of all theistic positions. This sub-forum in particular is a meeting ground for wide-ranging points of view. Some of the other sub-forums are designed for Theists to talk at each other in their jargon. In fact, some sub-forums are exclusive to Christians and do not allow Non-Christians to post.

Some people who are well educated have learned to use non-jargon when addressing the public – without any need to hide behind esoteric terminology. For instance, if asked how they learned the department chairman's goals they can answer straight-forwardly that they learned by reading the statement of goals written by the chairman – or that they participated in meetings when the chairman stated her/his goals.

Many who prefer God talk / religious language may be more comfortable posting in Holy Huddle or perhaps Theology, Doctrine and Dogma sub-forums.

Could it be, as I (and I trust readers) suspect / suggest / think, that is possible that avoiding answering that simple and direct question appears to reflect that ANY answer will reveal that the claimed 'knowledge' of 'God's goal' is pure speculation (ancient or modern).

I have told you a number of times that I believe God's goal is beauty

Correction: you stated 'God's goal is beauty' without acknowledging that is only your OPINION or conjecture.

You have repeated yourself several times without even attempting to answer a VERY BASIC question – How do you KNOW God's goal?

If you claim to know 'God's goal' show READERS exactly where and how you came about such valuable information.

because anything I have of ourselves and our world shows we are all on the quest for beauty.

Repeating one's claims is NOT substantiation (at least not here in debate – even if it would be in philosophical discussions or in theological environments – between fellow believers).

Kindly show that ALL humans are 'on the quest for beauty'. Such blanket, all-inclusive statements are typically false.

If you are having trouble with this notion, with the idea that we are all seeking to live well and live better,

I have no reason to accept that ALL humans are 'on the quest for beauty' – and you have not substantiated that claim. Kindly show readers how that applies to a woman in Syria who has lived in abject poverty all her life and who just lost her husband and children to nerve gas.

than I can suggest only that you better examine yourself.

That's sounding a bit judgmental. Have you been appointed as official adviser to others regarding how to live?

Period, end of it.

Is this intended as notice that you intend to retire from debate? The only person's actions you can control here are your own.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 274 by Zzyzx]

I have already advanced my argument umpteen times. What I don't follow is why you seem to miss it.
You talk about my "flowery and vague" terms. OK, but that is simply your opinion on my writing style, nothing more. Indeed, you have yet to verify that claim or explain where it came from. Maybe it's due to the fact I put things in a way you are not familiar with, maybe it's due to the fact you don't read me careful, etc. So quit playing the blame game, blaming me. You stop being vague and provide me with more specifics where you are having problems and I'll see if I can fix that. You keep saying you want some sort of verification, well, where is it here for your claim? I do the best I can to communicate and I think I do a pretty good job of keeping very complex issues short and simple. Now, if you are having trouble understanding some of my terms, then you should bring up some specific instances. The way I speak is stock and trade in my neck of the woods, actually a far simpler vocabulary that what is generally used in the literature. So I have no trouble being understood there. So you need to clue me in where you are having problems.
From what I gather now, the problem isn't that you find I have provided no argument; the problem is that you don't agree with my argument. Now, that is entirely a different matter. OK, you don't agree we are all on the quest for beauty. That seems to be the basic issue here. Fine, let's discuss that. We've already started in another post, where you brought up what you considered to be counterexamples.

The rest of your post tells me nothing new and is actually irrelevant. I am already aware of all that. And that's the reason I talk and proceed the way I do. So perhaps the problem is that you may be working with a very different philosophy of language and dialogue that others such as myself do.

[marco]

I have told you a number of times that I believe God's goal is beauty because anything I have of ourselves and our world shows we are all on the quest for beauty.

Let us dismiss the word "all" for a start, since it is obvious we are not "all" on such a search. This reduces purpose to those who may well be seeking beauty, while others seek sin. It is possible - to make your claim correct - to redefine beauty to incorporate evil. That would make your claim empty.

If we can see beauty in the world - a subjective notion since what John sees as beautiful James thinks ugly - we can also see wickedness; we see love but we see its opposite extreme too. Where good was created, so too was bad. If we render praise to God for making the beautiful things in life, we must accord him censure for the defects. The carpenter is responsible for his workmanship, and God more so, since unlike the carpenter he had all the time and resources at his disposal to get things right.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 276 by marco]

It is obvious to me that the quest for beauty does apply to all persons. I have never yet found anyone who did not seek to live well and live better. This is also true of the "bad" guys. You may disagree with their means, true, but their goal is to live and to live better. Even Hitler was on the quest for beauty. Not only was he an artist, but he was seeking a more beautiful Germany. It's just that the means he used were perverse and at odds with his quest.

I think beauty is an objective, fundamental dimension of all reality, because beauty is harmony, uniformity in diversity, the many re one and yet the many; and that characterizes every single entity that there ever was, is , or will be. Granted, some may be more harmonious than others. But all have a basic harmony. The characteristics of great works of art, of great symphonies are also characteristics of personalities and, if you come right down to it, every living thing.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 273 by hoghead1]



[center]
Only the FOOL says in his heart.... dot dot dot. Maybe that's why we don't understand what you mean.. We are too FOOLISH to understand what you mean. Right?[/center]

If that is how you feel, then I suggest avoiding such discussions altogether and stop ridiculing us theists by writing us off al all baloney and word salad because we speak a language you do not understand.

That's arrogant bigotry.

Most of us atheists do not UNDERSTAND the language that theists use because it's not really all that COMPREHENSIBLE to us. And that, according to you, is OUR fault.

Religious English vs Secular English, I suppose.

Anyone who doesn't understand you are what?
Illiterate FOOLS?

Most atheists HAVE BEEN religionists.
Nice try.

Fails UTTERLY.
And INSULTS all of us.

[Zzyzx]

.

I have already advanced my argument umpteen times. What I don't follow is why you seem to miss it.

Yes, you have stated your OPINION repeatedly – but have not substantiated your claims or responded to challenges with evidence other than repeating opinions.

This is not a discussion among philosophers, theologians or academicians – but is public debate involving people who have very different positions and backgrounds. Waxing philosophical is unlikely to be accepted or persuasive to more than a few readers in this environment.

You talk about my "flowery and vague" terms. OK, but that is simply your opinion on my writing style, nothing more.

It is more; it is pointing out that flowery language is being used to obfuscate and evade – avoiding answering challenges and questions.

Indeed, you have yet to verify that claim or explain where it came from. Maybe it's due to the fact I put things in a way you are not familiar with, maybe it's due to the fact you don't read me careful, etc. So quit playing the blame game, blaming me.

If you are sincere about quitting game playing kindly answer the question How do you KNOW God's goal?

You stop being vague and provide me with more specifics where you are having problems and I'll see if I can fix that.

How much more specific does it need to be than the bold above?

You keep saying you want some sort of verification, well, where is it here for your claim? I do the best I can to communicate and I think I do a pretty good job of keeping very complex issues short and simple.

Okay, short and simple How do you KNOW God's goal?

Now, if you are having trouble understanding some of my terms,

What I have 'trouble understanding' is why an evidently well educated person is unable or unwilling to give an honest, straight-forward answer to the above question.

then you should bring up some specific instances.

Red and bold above

The way I speak is stock and trade in my neck of the woods, actually a far simpler vocabulary that what is generally used in the literature.

Many of us who have spent decades in academia know the jargon of our field – the esoteric vocabulary we use in professional or academic settings. However, we may be wise enough to avoid trying to 'baffle with baloney' when writing / speaking in public to non-professional audiences.

So I have no trouble being understood there. So you need to clue me in where you are having problems.

Perhaps it would be prudent to consult opinions other than your own regarding being understood.

However, understanding the terminology is NOT the issue I raise, but rather it is the use of flowery language to duck and weave rather than answering a simple question such as the above in red bold.

From what I gather now, the problem isn't that you find I have provided no argument; the problem is that you don't agree with my argument.

Where, exactly, did you provide an answer to the question?

Now, that is entirely a different matter. OK, you don't agree we are all on the quest for beauty. That seems to be the basic issue here.

The basic issue regarding 'quest for beauty' is a blanket statement claiming that ALL people do so. If there are exceptions, the statement is false.

Fine, let's discuss that. We've already started in another post, where you brought up what you considered to be counterexamples.

Notice that there is a new thread entitled 'How did you learn about God?' viewtopic.php?t=32230

Perhaps that will encourage you to answer the question.

The rest of your post tells me nothing new and is actually irrelevant. I am already aware of all that. And that's the reason I talk and proceed the way I do. So perhaps the problem is that you may be working with a very different philosophy of language and dialogue that others such as myself do.

General Statement:

Flowery language specialists, word salad chefs, creative tap dancers, philosophers, and theologians (some apparently genuine) pass through this Forum occasionally. I have been debating them for ten years, so that position is not unique or unfamiliar to me.

Word salads, flowery language, creative obfuscation, trips to la-la land, and other evasive tactics do not work very long – then those who attempt to use them tend to leave debates and leave the Forum – after discovering (through trial and error) that their methods don't work

When people who could be credible debaters join the Forum and start down that path, I often make an attempt to gently and in friendly manner through PM communication encourage them to avoid assuming superiority, using jargon, making blanket statements, making claims they cannot substantiate, etc. Some understand – others evidently think that their 'credentials' and their brilliant opinions make them immune from the realities of public debate.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 276 by marco]

It is obvious to me that the quest for beauty does apply to all persons. I have never yet found anyone who did not seek to live well and live better.

The Navajo world hozro defines the feeling of being in harmony with one's environment, at peace with one's circumstances, content with the day, devoid of anger, and free from anxieties. They also call being in hozro to be walking in Beauty.

Their religion is the use of ritual to restore people who have lost the beauty in their lives back to hozro.

But all have a basic harmony. The characteristics of great works of art, of great symphonies are also characteristics of personalities and, if you come right down to it, every living thing.

And yet I can see that beauty / harmony to a demon, the goals they think will bring them hozro, is inimical to the definitions and goals of a Christian or even GOD HIMself! May I suggest that what will be walking in beauty for a demon is the humiliation of and annihilation of YHWH by their own hand and the increase of their power over all other people until everyone hates YHWH as much as they do?

If both are eternal commitments, then the war between demons and GOD is eternal until one is removed from the presence of the other. Does this not add up? Even the Navajo have their witches who try to gain their own power in the spirit and personal harmony by attacking the hozro of non-witches through their own rituals etc.