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.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 309 by hoghead1]


[center]

I HAZ Claim[/center]

My claim is that God is Cosmic Artist

WELL you have yourself a claim, don't you?
Now what?"

[Zzyzx]

.

My claim is that God is Cosmic Artist

WELL you have yourself a claim, don't you?
Now what?"

If past is prologue in this thread (and some others), claims just pile up accompanied by opinions but with no evidentiary support. Perhaps in some circles 'debate' means to throw out conjectures or opinions and expect them to be accepted unless disproved.

Thus, one could say that fairies have a goal for the universe and that beauty of the universe is evidence of that -- no proof required -- prove it wrong. Substitute 'gods' for 'fairies' and the argument is no more valid.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 310 by Zzyzx]

As I said before, judge not, they you be not judged. All you have presented here are your opinions on top of your opinions, nothing more. For example, you claim that "your example shows nothing more than your opinion." Well, truth is, that's just your opinion on the matter and nothing more. You need to verify it, provide a substantiating argument, show it is just an opinion on my part. Well, where is it? Where have you given anything other than your own opinion on what I have said. Where did you offer a single rebuttal to any argument I made? Again, it seems that all you are giving are your own opinions on what constitutes evidence and that's it. Well, who says you are right? Where is your argument that it is invalid to assume all entities have complex order, for example? Where is your counterargument that we aren't social-relational beings arising out of the manyness of the world? I know modern science, especially social science, would side with me on that one. Where are your counter examples that would disprove my claim that all entities exhibit a unity of feeling? Where is your counter example to anything I have said? In every case, I have provided you with real-world data .So it sure is funny you are having so much trouble with what I m saying. Seems to me you are more tied up with your opinions than taking a look at the world. If you want to take me to task, OK. But then you have to show counterexamples, which you have yet to do, largely because all your have done is give your opinion and walk away.

[Zzyzx]

.

As I said before, judge not, they you be not judged.

As I have said before, that is a silly platitude and very poor advice. Each of us 'judges' those with whom we come in contact or with whom we associate or do business. If we fail to use good judgment we fall prey to opportunists, egotists, politicians, 'false' preachers, and various unscrupulous types.

I EXPECT to be 'judged' by those who observe my actions and my words -- and have no fear of such judgments.

All you have presented here are your opinions on top of your opinions, nothing more. For example, you claim that "your example shows nothing more than your opinion." Well, truth is, that's just your opinion on the matter and nothing more.

I'll bet that really impresses readers -- 4000 views of this thread so far -- watching someone avoid "How do you know 'God's goal'?"

The readers are likely to realize that was a pompous statement that has not been shown to be anything more than wishful thinking at best -- but presented as though authoritative.

Are those who speak above their level of knowledge generally well regarded / respected?

You need to verify it, provide a substantiating argument, show it is just an opinion on my part. Well, where is it?

In honorable and reasoned debate we test whether something is an opinion or not by asking that it be substantiated by other, disconnected sources.

If substantiation is not forthcoming after extended time and multiple requests, the claim is regarded as unsubstantiated and questionable at best.

Where have you given anything other than your own opinion on what I have said.

I have repeatedly asked for verification. When that is not or cannot be supplied in honorable and reasoned it is rational to conclude that whatever was said is nothing more than opinion.

Where did you offer a single rebuttal to any argument I made?

Since you have offered NO substantiation for claims (beyond more personal opinions), there is nothing to refute. You are entitled to have opinions -- but are not entitled to present opinions as facts.

Again, it seems that all you are giving are your own opinions on what constitutes evidence and that's it. Well, who says you are right?

Readers will decide if I am right in asking for evidence OTHER than more personal opinions and word salads. They, the readers, are (in my opinion) more astute than many give them credit.

I appreciate the opportunity to have readers evaluate what I say compared to what is said by a presumably well-educated Theist.

Where is your argument that it is invalid to assume all entities have complex order, for example?

Exactly what position have I taken regarding the validity of assuming that 'all entities have complex order'? Verbatim quote? URL?

Where is your counterargument that we aren't social-relational beings arising out of the manyness of the world?

Whether we are 'social-relational beings' or not is no assurance that any supernatural entity is involved.

I know modern science, especially social science, would side with me on that one. Where are your counter examples that would disprove my claim that all entities exhibit a unity of feeling?

My counter-argument to that grandiose blanket statement is that none of us is capable of speaking for all entities (unless we are omniscient).

Where is your counter example to anything I have said? In every case, I have provided you with real-world data .

Okay -- provide 'real-world data' to demonstrate that you know 'God's goal'.

So it sure is funny you are having so much trouble with what I m saying. Seems to me you are more tied up with your opinions than taking a look at the world.

Correction: I have specialized in examining the real world for at least fifty years -- with particular emphasis on geology, hydrology, meteorology, botany, and related fields.

Nothing in the real world assures or even indicates involvement of supernatural entities with a 'goal'.

If you want to take me to task, OK.

I have repeatedly -- How do you know 'God's goal'? The response has been evasion and refusal to answer the question.

But then you have to show counterexamples,

In reasoned and honorable debate or discussion one who makes claims is expected and required to provide substantiation if challenged. 'You must provide counterexamples' is a very amateurish response -- and an avoidance of responsibility.

which you have yet to do, largely because all your have done is give your opinion and walk away.

Notice that I express NO opinion regarding 'God's goal' -- but ask one who professes to know that to cite the source of information that provides such knowledge. If there was a rational answer / citation it is long past time to identify it.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 314 by Zzyzx]

Z, the reason I am having trouble with what your are saying is that you seem to be doing the exact, same thing you accuse me of. When you continually claim that I am but giving my opinions, I don't think you realize that is an opinion, a very big one, on your part, nothing more. It therefore requires you to provide evidence, an argument to support it, which you have yet to do. Just writing off anything I say as "opinion"and leaving it go at that, which apparently is all you want to do, is not a fair way to debate. That's why I say again that you should not judge, lest you be judged. If I'm guilty of giving just opinions at times, the same goes double for you.

[Zzyzx]

.

Z, the reason I am having trouble with what your are saying is that you seem to be doing the exact, same thing you accuse me of.

Correction: The reason you are having trouble is that you have made grandiose statements that you cannot substantiate and rather than admit doing so you are constructing elaborate word games and diversions -- entertaining readers with a fancy tap dance.

'When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging'

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 313 by hoghead1]

As I said before, judge not, they you be not judged.

We are NOT to judge people in here, but what they write.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 309 by hoghead1]

Moderator Intervention

Z accuses hoghead of "dancing around", and hoghead accused Z of the "same old song and dance".

Gentlemen, enough with this dance, let's stick to debating

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[Elijah John]

Seems to me you are more tied up with your opinions than taking a look at the world.

Moderator Comment

hoghead, your post was OK up to this point. Your evaluation of Z's motives are a step beyond, and could ironically be considered "judging".

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 313 by hoghead1]

Where did you offer a single rebuttal to any argument I made?

Oh, the irony.