|
|
The problem of evilAredon
Consult Problem of evil before answering.
1. God is all powerful. 2. God is all good. 3. Evil exists. Explain how all three can be true without being logically inconsistent. MrBlueSky
What do you mean by 'explain'?
There is no logical inconsistency between those 3 statements, so there's nothing to explain. If you meant that 'all good' means 'never let anything happen which we perceive as evil', or something like that, then you should have added that premise. The meaning of 'all good' is totally unclear. Besides that, I have never heard someone claim his god is All Good. Righteous maybe, or loving. Stubru Freak
So you're saying god is all powerful and he makes evil thing happen? A god that kills as many people as are killed today is evil in my view. If you don't think that's evil, you're a danger to society and should be put in jail. TrueFact
From the point of view of Islam, I can explain it as follows:
God is all powerful... God is ultimate and can do whatever, whether common or complete nonsense (like miracles). God is all good... Nothing bad can come from a God, if something bad happens to you, then it is you and from you... Evil exists... From the last statement, it is obviouse that evil does exist but it doesn't come from God. Evil comes from the human and devil. How they relate to each other... it is as follows: God is GOOD and will never harm you, God created us in this life to see if we will do good or bad. If we do good deeds we go to heaven and vice versa. But SOMETIMES and although we do good deeds, bad things happen to us for the sake of puring us more. If you are a good person and bad things happen to you, then you should know that this happened to purify you more as there's no man with no mistakes. Anyways, You may also why God give good things to bad people?! it is for them to go deeper and deeper into their bad deeds so they can not pretend that they didn't know or that they did few good things and deserve to go to heaven as well. A God being good doesn't mean he is not not rightous or not a loving God. Many people being killed may not be evil. These people may suffer much much more if they lived. A basic rule in Islam is: God never apply pain more than a one can handle. A child may suffer pain that you see a killing pain, while if the same amount of pain applied to you, it might be nothing more than a scrath to you. If pain exceeds what you can handle, you die as this should be more merciful to you. I said it is pain in means of its various shapes and forms such as: hunger, losing hearing or sight, losing the ability of speach and of course the known pain of injuries or sickness. It is not easy to describe a God as God in the first place a higher power that a human can not understand or otherwise we can judge God. If you understand why God did this or didn't do that, then you can judge God which is not possible at all coasts due to the human weakness and his need to believe into a higher and more powerful (unknown force) to him. Upon this concept, we can say that God may do bad things to us in sake of our good, while we see it as pure evil. Hope I was clear enough to explain my point of view... Stubru Freak
But if god is omnipotent, he can prevent this from happening, so it's his fault if evil still happens. You could argue that there's no evil in the world, like you did, but what you're actually saying is that god gives you pain until you either lose your faith, or die, which seems evil to me. MrBlueSky
Yes. And I am also saying that this doesn't mean He is not 'all good' (depending on what that is supposed to mean). But you didn't understand what my post was about.
Ah. Well, if you can make list of opinions that you don't like, I can see if I should turn myself in. Stubru Freak
That's of course the easiest way to win a discussion, accusing the other one of not understanding you.
I'm not saying you can't have your opinion. I'm just saying it's dangerous to believe that killing thousands of people every day, like god does, isn't an evil deed. Of course you can have that opinion, but I sincerely hope you'll never put it to practice. I was just trying to show this. Of course I know you won't actually do this, and I don't actually think you should be in jail. HalfBloodPrince
How is God killing them, o' enlightened one?
Stubru Freak
If he's omnipotent, for everything that happens in the world, he can choose if it will happen or not. So if he chooses someone kills someone else, he is actually the killer. (Edited my post for decency.) HalfBloodPrince
He doesn't necessarily choose for someone to kill someone else. He gave man free-will. If person A kills person B, then it's person A's fault person B is dead.
Stubru Freak
So you're saying if person A chooses something, God can't prevent it from happening? Then he's not omnipotent.
Or you're saying God can prevent it from happening, but he doesn't? Then he's an accessory. If someone asks you: "Should I kill person B or not?", and you answer that he can choose, you're an accessory. You could even say god is a principal, as he is present at the crime scene. (He sees it happening and he can interfere at any moment.) So in that way, he is a killer. HalfBloodPrince
God may allow it to happen, in which case it will happen. God may not allow it, in which case it will not happen. If it happens, person A, the murderer, will be duly punished in the Hereafter, and person B, the victim, will be compensated in the Hereafter.
Stubru Freak
So you're saying the Jews killed in World War II will be compensated by your God (I assume you're a Muslim), even though they were non-believers? Or are you saying they deserved it? Klaw 2
I think a factor has been overlooked so far. God created the earth from the start, is making certain things hapen and everythings goes to his "plan". If someone kills someone is because he was engineered in a certain position in life wich made him kill that person. If one of those gods really exist they make every killer a killer. Think about it.
Stubru Freak
As far as I know, that's indeed (probably among others) the Calvinist view. So the Calvinist god is indeed evil, according to that argument. I think some other religions don't believe God has this very strict plan, but still, he can prevent people from being killed, and he doesn't. Klaw 2
Yes but the point is also if he is so great (according to the bible) he also knows the future so he is making a world were sin happens because he makes the world that way. Stubru Freak
Yes that's true indeed. MrBlueSky
My previous reaction was a bit over the top (sorry), so here's another one.
Not entirely. He doesn't make them happen, but He does allow them to happen and doesn't prevent them, altough He could.
Yes, but the important point here is: in my view (i.e. our, the human view). When we look at the world around us, we cannot help but think that any god who allows these terrible things to happen, must be evil. But are we correct to assume this? Can we judge about this? Do our ethics reach further than human nature? Do they even apply to a god? You, and a lot of people, would answer 'yes' to these questions, I think. That might be a correct answer, but not necessarily so. Bikerman
1st objection - we are made in the image of God (according to Christianity). 2nd objection - since Christian morality is based on the teaching of Jesus - who was, supposedly, an incarnation of God, then why would God instruct us in a moral system that defines his own actions as evil? Seems a bit dodgy to me... MrBlueSky
Yes, but just being an image of God doesn't have to mean we can understand Him completely (maybe not even remotely). A bit like the parent-child relationship. I think that is the stand the bible takes:
Because, according to Jesus, the Christian moral system is based on Gods will. Not on our conscious: when Gods law and our conscious clash, its the first which should be followed. Whether you believe in a god or not, human conscious is always a shaky foundation for morality. The Bible teaches, I think, that this is because altough man was indeed created in the image of God, he has lost the natural knowledge that comes with it when he fell in sin. Since God's will is the basis for our morality, and the final answer to the question 'why is x evil?' always is 'because God says so', this moral system does not apply to God himself. Bikerman
Firstly consciousness is an excellent basis for morality. Humanism, for example, is an entirely rational system of ethics which rivals any religious morality. Your argument is that God is the ultimate hypocrite. He prescribes our morality but does not apply it to himself. Anything that God says, is moral? What is evil for man is fine for God? You seriously want to worship this 'thing'? Indi
i'd go a step farther than that. i'd call him out on the duplicity of saying that morality is beyond human ken yet we deserve to be punished for not following it. That's like saying that dogs should be held to the same standards of behaviour as humans - even though dogs clearly can't comprehend the rules humans have to follow. We don't even hold human children to the same standards as human adults, because we realize that children are unable to grasp those standards until their minds develop more. Yet God thinks there's nothing wrong with holding us to rules that are beyond our capacity to understand? Then i'd pick apart the shaky biblical background of claiming that "... altough man was indeed created in the image of God, he has lost the natural knowledge that comes with it when he fell in sin...." Isn't that... like... the exact opposite of what the Bible says happened? ^_^; Didn't we start out with no knowledge of good and evil... until the first "sin" (such as it was). Then, finally, i'd point out that he is describing divine command theory (mentioned here) - and that, therefore, there is nothing wrong with rape and torture except that God says its wrong... and if God changed his mind tomorrow and said rape and torture is fine...? But that's just me. ^_^ Bikerman
LOL...being a Brit I went with the Marquis of Queensbury and landed a left jab. Obviously Canadian rules are different and you went with the left cross followed by the right hook.
Needless to say I agree with your points, and I might have got around to the right hook after a few more jabs  MrBlueSky
Darn, I said "conscious" when I meant "conscience". It's really frustrating to express yourself in a language which you don't speak fluent, especially with topics like this. What I ment to say was: human conscience is a shaky foundation for morality. It's highly subjective, and culture-specific. This is, I think, because men fell in sin. We were created as an image of God, with a natural knowledge of -and inclination to do- 'good'. With the first sin we gained knowledge of how to do bad things (after all, wasn't doing something God had forbidden them to do the first sin of Adam and Eva? It was this very act, and not the tree, which taught them how to do the wrong thing) Thus we won the possibility to choose between good and bad, and (therefore) we are no longer Gods image.
No, my argument is that our notion of morality does not apply to God. That's because God is the source of morality. Good and evil are not like universal (Platonian) ideas which exist independent of reality and can be applied to gods, humans, animals, and possible alien lifeforms. God gives us rules, by which He expect us to live. There is nothing hypocritical about that. Without God there would be no moral right or wrong, except as arbitrary labels which people put on actions according to their own (subjective) conscience. So yes, anything that God says, is moral. And everything what God does is good. You cannot apply our morality to God, because altough our morality (still assuming God exists and the bible is His word) is derived from Gods will, it is incomplete and finite. Bikerman
If we were created in the image of God with the natural inclination to do good then how was that 'good' measured? By your definition 'good' is what God says it is. Since Eve (and Adam) didn't do what God said then there must have been a latent tendency for evil already in them (unless we are saying that the serpent brainwashed Eve and Eve brainwashed Adam, but if that was the case then why would God blame them since it clearly wouldn't have been their fault?).
fx-trading-education
Could an answer be as some mystic suggested that God is so ashamed of its creation that since it has been created he never look at it again. So God would still be powerfull and good but anyway this world is running without him. Note: I don't believe in God but find this explanation interesting catscratches
If he doesn't care then he is not all good, is he?
Klaw 2
That's the most stupid thing I ever have heard. I mean how does an all good, all powerful good god be freeking to ashamed to show his face. If he sends ANYONE to hell he should have been send there. MrBlueSky
Kind of like you learn how to walk: there's only one way to learn it, thats doing it. When Adam and Eve first disobeyed God, this idea (which would never have crossed their mind(?)) was suggested to them by the devil. They listened, did what he suggested, and thus learned how to commit sin.
I agree. They only had to realize this latent ability to do evil, which they did. Created to be like God (like an image is like the real thing) they were not little mini gods. They had the option to do evil.
How do you come to this conclusion? Besides the fact that this definition would also make parents forbidding their children to cross the street hypocrites. Or a government which forbids murder, but executes criminals. Etc.
Evil things happen. Some are caused by humans, in which case the people responsible for this evil are guilty. Some are not caused by humans (disasters of nature, illness, etc). These are, I think, caused by the Big Evil One, the devil. He is responsible for these things. Now, since God is almighty, he could stop this evil things from happening, but He doesn't. Why not? I could not tell you, and propably all we can do is speculate about it. But, to come back to the original problem of this topic, does the fact that God could stop this evil, but doesn't, mean that He is not righteous (to not use the meaningless term 'all good')? Or, to say it different, does the fact that God doesn't stop evil means God is (or does) evil himself? That's a moral question about God, and since our knowledge and understanding of good and evil is incomplete, we can ask that question, but not answer it. Bikerman
PS..Governments which execute criminals ARE hypocritical.
MrBlueSky
Indeed Man is like a child, unable to comprehend the whole picture. That's way its layed out in the Bible. The bible also tells us that we won't be judged by our actions, if we ask forgiveness. If we don't ask for forgiveness, we will be judged by the way we lived our life. And if found guilty, the punishment will fit the crime. Whether this will be eternal pain, I don't know. Bikerman
This again is inconsistent. If you don't understand the crime then how can you be held to be guilty? Do you expect a young child to ask forgiveness for some transgression when they don't really understand what that transgression is? That is the attitude of a tyrant - and a despotic tyrant at that. The bible absolutely DOES NOT tell us that we won't be judged by our actions - I suggest you need to read it again. Indi
Must be all that hockey we play, eh? Makes us all hyper aggressive. ^_^;
i question how well you know your Bible. ^_^; The bible does not say you won't be judged if you ask forgiveness, it says you will be forgiven. You'll still get judged, you just won't have to suffer eternal damnation. In some sects, this means purgatory. In others, it's not really discussed. But you know, there are actions that will end up getting you punished, regardless of whether you ask forgiveness or not. Also, if you read your Bible you should know that the punishment for not accepting Jesus is eternal pain. Jesus himself said so. Modern Christians realize how evil this is and try to water it down... but it's written there plain as day. Poetsunited
lol we bring the evil upon ourselves, i'm an atheist but even if i were a believer in any god... i'd understand it, why would god help us with stuff we can deal with ourselves....
you learn a lot more by experiencing it yourself instead of someone helping you :p Melacos
Well, the problem with mixing logic reasoning and religion, is that they're more or less each others opposite... Religion builds on its ability to explain what can not otherwise be understood - that being things that to us humans does not seem logical...
To believe is not to reason, it is a meta-reasoning... Bikerman
That is a gross libel on metareasoning http://www.cs.umd.edu/~khennacy/research/meta/ Indi
Indeed, if something is not reasoning, then it is not reasoning. Plain and simple. It is not "meta-reasoning" if it has nothing to do with reason. It is, in fact, "non-reasoning". i would also challenge the claim that religion has an ability to explain anything. Faith provides you with a set of explanations, yes, but only those explanations that it opts to give and nothing else. If your religion tells you that the sky is blue because your god likes blue, fine and good... but that is literally it. It does not tell you why your god likes blue, or why he opted to make the sky blue and the leaves green and not vice versa. It explains absolutely nothing beyond what it gives you in the initial axiom of belief. Anything else you want to explain you have to fill in with your own whimsical explanations (which is why a single religion text can have so many different sects interpreting it in so many different ways). If that is an ability to explain, is a severely limited ability to explain. If you want to accept a faith-based answer to questions that reason cannot provide an answer for yet, fine. But don't pretend that you're making a reasoned choice by using faith by obscuring it with jargon. Faith is belief without reason, not belief with a "different kind of reason". achowles
Evil does not exist. It's a relative term that has very little merit when properly analysed.
Evil seems to be simply that which is consciously detrimental to us. Whereas good is that which is consciously beneficial to us. Therefore simply changing perspectives on any given good vs evil debate could also change our perspective on what is good and what is evil. That said, I'm an atheist myself. I just consider that argument to be flawed. HalfBloodPrince
So if someone kills someone because, say, they were a witness to a crime they committed, the killer is doing good? It seems to be consciously beneficial to the killer, because now nobody knows what he or she has done. Soon the conscience kicks in and causes the killer to realize that what they have done is wrong and eeevil. webpagist81884
lol, prove the existence of god itself hasn't been done, yet you want someone to logically explain those three things...
deanhills
What happens if said person does not have a conscience? What if they could not care any less whether it is good or evil? And what if they do have a conscience but their perception of the deed is completely different, i.e. justifiable homicide? Wish life could be that simple about good and evil? Justice would have been that much easier to accomplish. Indi
Just because most of what we call "evil" is relative does not imply that "evil" itself is relative. It may just mean we're just being self-serving when we use the term in common practice - or in other words, it may just mean that most of what we call "evil" is not, really (it's just bad for us), though real, universal standards of evil could still exist. HalfBloodPrince
If the person does not have a conscience then that is a mental deficiency and therapy and other treatments go into action. Just because they don't find it evil doesn't mean it's not evil. MrBlueSky
In all western legal systems, not understanding the crime or not knowing it was a crime, will not free you from being guilty of said crime, or being excempt from punishment.
I don't think young children have to worry about this: “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.” (Mark 10:13,14)
I think it does. Here are some texts which point to this (*): “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. - John 5:24 God wiped out the charges that were against us for disobeying the Law of Moses. He took them away and nailed them to the cross. - Colossians 2:14 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. - 1 John 1:9 I write to you, little children, Because your sins are forgiven you for His name’s sake. - 1 John 2:12 No one who has faith in God's Son will be condemned. But everyone who doesn't have faith in him has already been condemned for not having faith in God's only Son. - John 3:18 I could not make myself acceptable to God by obeying the Law of Moses. God accepted me simply because of my faith in Christ. - Philippians 3:9 If God says his chosen ones are acceptable to him, can anyone bring charges against them? Or can anyone condemn them? No indeed! - Romans 8:33,34 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, - 1 John 5:11-13 So you will be saved, if you honestly say, “Jesus is Lord,” and if you believe with all your heart that God raised him from death. God will accept you and save you, if you truly believe this and tell it to others. - Romans 10:9,10 He saved us because of his mercy, and not because of any good things that we have done. - Titus 3:5
I wouldn't say they are opposite, but they can certainly not be reconciled. Religion, and in general all forms of metaphysics and ontology, do, just like esthetics, not lay in the realms of logic or scientific reason. You can reason a lot about them, but sooner or later you reach a point were logic no longer suffices. (*) All quotes are from the New King James translation. Bikerman
Indi
i think you've both misunderstood this verse. It doesn't say that children won't be judged, it says the exact opposite. It says that children actually have to explicitly and deliberately choose to believe (and that if they do so, you must not stop them). The second part is irrelevant - it is just a rather demeaning suggestion that we should all toddle along to God's will like blindly trusting children. MrBlueSky
Ah yes, I didn't know that. I assumed not understanding the crime or not knowing it was a crime would not be a reason to be excempt from liability. This leaves me with a few (offtopic) questions, but I think we can agree that even in western law mens rea is not always a necessary element of a crime.
No, I don't expect children to do this, but I do expect other people - who are in some ways like children - to do this. We may not understand the whole picture, there may be a lot we don't understand, but Man is able to understand he doesn't understand everything.
I know there are texts which seem to imply the opposite. But you said: "The bible absolutely DOES NOT tell us that we won't be judged by our actions" (followed by "I suggest you need to read it again."), which is not the same as "The bible DOES tell us that we won't be judged by our actions, BUT it also tells us the opposite". I think this isn't the topic to discuss the specific quotes we both mentioned, but it is an interesting subject.
Only when you read the English translation, "Let the little children come to Me", to be an active imperative. This is only possible in the translation, not in the original text, which roughly translateds to:
Indeed, that is what it suggests. Bikerman
*Romans 8 is clearly talking about earthly judgement Colossians is referring to 'original sin' 1 John 1;9 doesn't mention judgement either way 1 John 2:12 ditto Klaw 2
Moral laws are not fixed, not even murder. In an ancient civilization old people where killed after they couldn't work anymore. They were killed ritually and it was considered an honour to "reach" that ritual since you spend the maximum time working for the village. Also if I were to kill Osama Bin Laden a lot of Americans would thank me and praize me while some muslims would hate me and despize me. redhakaw
I agree that morality should not be fixed, but we also have to take into consideration Kantian Ethics, which describes that morality is derived from rationality, which establishes universal laws. sorry if i'm obviously too obssessed with morality and ethics in my posts  Indi
But was that right? ^_^ It's one thing to say "culture X does/did this thing that we think of as wrong, but they didn't think it was wrong". It's quite another to make the leap from that to "therefore, there is no absolute rule for what is wrong". Just because culture X killed their elderly and thought that was just fine doesn't mean that it was right. Why, i know of this one culture that sent powerful, heavily armed ships to a country of people that were technologically thousands of years behind, captured boatloads of them, put them in chains and shipped them thousands of kilometres away to another land where they put them to work and beat them when they didn't... and they didn't see anything wrong with it. Does that mean slavery was morally right back then? Ah, but you say those elderly people wanted to die - or at the very least they were "honoured" to be ritually killed when they got too old. Well, i have two things to say to that. First, if they wanted to die... it wasn't really murder, was it? Second, what if i told you that there was a country where they raised the children to believe that every day a virgin must be sacrificed in a bloody ritual or the sky would fall? Now, keep in mind, these kids are indoctrinated from birth to believe this, and they sincerely do believe. They are also raised to believe that it is the highest honour to be sacrificed, and when the time comes to choose a sacrifice, virgins are lined up begging to be chosen like the kids at one of those idol search shows. Now, you and i both know that these virgins don't need to be sacrificed. There haven't been any virgin sacrifices around here for at least a week or two, and the sky's still in place. But these kids have been raised from birth to believe that if they don't sacrifice someone, tragedy will befall everyone, and they believe it so deeply that when you tell them there will be no sacrifice they get sick with worry; they beg and plead to be sacrificed. So... tell me... are those sacrifices right? Note: i didn't ask if those people believed it was right. i specifically asked, from an objective measure, were those sacrifices moral? Or, were they a criminally unnecessary waste of life due to a silly belief? If i raised kids here in Canada to believe that stuff - that they must be sacrificed or the world will end - and they want to be sacrificed... everything's all OK? No moral problems there? Or... is there maybe something a little wrong going on. Klaw 2
hmm why not, aren't you "("("forcing")")" your moral laws onto other people in a way if you say that. I think moral laws of an culture are depending on place, time etc.
For most Europeans it was morally right, it was just "another day at the office" now it is seen as an "evil" thing to do.
If they wanted to be killed it would be more of a suicide. But I havn't hear much about them and i think it would be safe that some of them didn't wanted to get killed.
For them they are right for us no. Because (idunno) if the sky would fall everyone would die. Again those girls would want it themselves, that of course changes it again... But for those people it wouldn't be immoral to do that since it is part of their culture.
I admit i dunno for sure but, if they knew it was a waste they would find it immoral otherwise not. Indi
Am i? If they also believed the Earth was a flat plate and the sky was bowl turned upside down over it, and i told them they were wrong, would i be "forcing my physical laws" onto them? That's the answer to your "why not", by the way. If culture A says the Earth is flat, and culture B says the Earth is round, does it make sense to say "therefore, there is no absolute shape of the Earth"? Of course not. The same is true for morals. If culture A says it's OK to kill the elderly, and culture B says it's not, does that mean there is no absolute conclusion? Not necessarily. There might be, but if your only evidence is that different cultures believe different things, then you have no evidence at all, really. Different cultures believed different things about the shape of the Earth, too. That doesn't mean they were all equally right.
Well i can't argue that. ^_^; But then, look at what you just said: "the moral laws of a culture are dependent on... the culture". ^_^; *ahem* Why yes, yes they are. But that doesn't deal with the question of whether or not a culture's moral laws were right. Just like their science beliefs, their moral beliefs might simply have been flawed.
But did that make it right? ^_^ You see the question i keep hitting on: you can say "this culture did this" and "this culture believed that was fine", but it doesn't deal with with the question at all. Some cultures did (and do!) all kinds of wacky things due to their incorrect beliefs about nature and the universe. They were simply wrong. Period. Dead wrong. No relativism there. So why can't the same be true about morality? Some cultures did (and do!) all kinds of wacky things based on (what may simply be) incorrect beliefs about morality... what about that sentence is impossible, or even unlikely? Our understanding of science has evolved and continues to evolve, so why not our understanding of morality? Or, alternatively, do you think that those ancient cultures that treated women and children worse than cattle, and implemented the death penalty for sneezing the wrong way were morally enlightened? Because that's what you have to accept when you say that morality is culturally dependent - you can't say "every culture's morality is right to them" on one hand and "their morality is wrong" on the other. Here's a stinker... what about Nazi Germany? Were their morals perfectly acceptable? Note again, i am not asking if they thought so, i am asking if you think so. i know they thought it was fine, but i am saying they were wrong. If you truly believe that morality is not absolute and depends only on the culture, then you cannot say that, because you have no right to judge their beliefs by your standards in that framework. Here's where i think you're getting stuck. Yes, OK, every culture thinks their morality is just fine. i get that. But just because they think it's fine does not make it fine. Was killing the elderly considered OK in ancient cultures? Yes, sure. But does the fact that they didn't have a problem with it mean that it really was OK? i say no. i say they were mistaken. i say that, like science and everything else, understanding of morality has evolved, so now we realize that they were wrong, even if they didn't. And i also say that i don't believe our morality even today is perfect (which is what you have to claim if you believe that it is dependent on culture), and that i am sure it will continue to evolve. Related topics
|
