(April 20, 2017 at 5:35 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: As to your idea that a good God would not create anything if it included evil,...well, then there would be no love. Personally, I think a world that has love in it, even if that entails some evil, is better than no world at all. YMMV

And a world where love exists with a complete absence of major evils (e.g., rape) would be a better world than one with major evils. Certainly, such a world is possible given a powerful God.

---

(April 20, 2017 at 9:09 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Unless you can demonstrate that God could create a perfect world, then the objection does not work.  That is why no one takes it seriously.

Forget perfect. A world without evils (or at least without severe evils) is certainly logically possible given such a powerful God. It is possible for God to stop limited beings from gratuitously hurting others, and he could do so without complete violation of man's free will. All he would have to do is stop the harmful action itself, not the intent. And why shouldn't a God that cares about the well-being of human beings do so? Why shouldn't a God that is about love prevent abuses from happening?

(April 20, 2017 at 5:35 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Mister Agenda, as far as I'm concerned a being that is powerful enough to do anything that it is possible to do satisfies most people's definition of omnipotence.

As to your idea that a good God would not create anything if it included evil,...well, then there would be no love. Personally, I think a world that has love in it, even if that entails some evil, is better than no world at all. YMMV

Can't have one without the other, eh? Something else you just pulled out of you ass?

(April 21, 2017 at 12:35 am)Grandizer Wrote: Forget perfect.

Our God grieves and suffers with us in our darkest hours. As far as I'm concerned any God that is powerful enough to raise the dead is sufficiently capable of releasing me from my personal shame and despair. That is why I trust Him with my life. I love Him because He loved me first.

(April 21, 2017 at 8:53 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(April 21, 2017 at 12:35 am)Grandizer Wrote: Forget perfect.

Our God grieves and suffers with us in our darkest hours. As far as I'm concerned any God that is powerful enough to raise the dead is sufficiently capable of releasing me from my personal shame and despair.  That is why I trust Him with my life. I love Him because He loved me first.

No such thing as a man with magical super powers, just like the Vegas stage magician isn't really sawing the woman in half. Sorry, nobody comes back from death, nobody ever has. Once your body's cells die in enough mass and decay and are beyond repair YOU DIE and that's it.

Humans grieve sure, but not fictional beings. What personal shame and despair? If you did some stuff in your past you are not proud of so what, if you stopped doing that, good for you. But there isn't a sky hero vs a guy in a red leotard using your neurons as poker chips getting you to do good or bad.

I have been through some shit in my life too, I haven't always made good decisions either, I have hurt people myself, and still have baggage I am dealing with even today. The only difference is I know that what I have done, good or bad is me, not the product of a comic book of mythology. 

I am telling you it is possible to be good and do good without mythology. If you've hurt people in the past and you no longer want to do those destructive things GREAT, but there is nobody helping you or a ground villain tempting you to do bad things. 

No, you love a fictional "him" because you fell for it, not because you have evidence for it. And funny how most of the worlds history in both monotheism and polytheism most of the deity claims are male. So your god has an invisible penis and invisible sperm, because that is what "he" refers to. Well ok, so that also means Allah and Yahweh have dicks too.

But do does Thor and Apollo and Osiris, they too are depicted as male.

Look, if you have stopped doing destructive things good for you, but you don't need to believe in fictional things and old myths of antiquity to do good or be good.

I don't love the idea even the Buddhist notion that suffering is part of life. Yes suffering is part of life, but not because religion is the cure for it, but because good and bad happen, just like volcanos and tornados happen, human's behaviors good or bad don't require religion to explain.

(April 20, 2017 at 1:58 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Again, Professor Plumb, you are not making a logical argument; but rather, appealing to emotions of incredulity and moral outrage. You give no consideration to the idea that God may have had perfectly good reasons, however inexplicable to us, for what Job experienced.

All we have to judge the god character on is the bible and in the story of job he is written as being a tool.

I give no consideration as to what the motives of a fictional character may be other than those described in the text, it would be pointless to speculate.

Does snoopy like a nice bourbon?
Is Cartman from South Park fond of Justin Bieber?

(April 21, 2017 at 8:53 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(April 21, 2017 at 12:35 am)Grandizer Wrote: Forget perfect.

Our God grieves and suffers with us in our darkest hours. As far as I'm concerned any God that is powerful enough to raise the dead is sufficiently capable of releasing me from my personal shame and despair.  That is why I trust Him with my life. I love Him because He loved me first.

Whatever gets you thru the night.  But claiming it as real for everyone is wrong.

(April 21, 2017 at 10:11 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(April 20, 2017 at 1:58 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Again, Professor Plumb, you are not making a logical argument; but rather, appealing to emotions of incredulity and moral outrage. You give no consideration to the idea that God may have had perfectly good reasons, however inexplicable to us, for what Job experienced.

All we have to judge the god character on is the bible and in the story of job he is written as being a tool.

I give no consideration as to what the motives of a fictional character may be other than those described in the text, it would be pointless to speculate.

Does snoopy like a nice bourbon?
Is Cartman from South Park fond of Justin Bieber?

No shit.

"Does the bill sitting on capital hill go to a strip joint after the cartoonists draw him?"
"Does the owl from the Tootsie Pop add get caught in a predator sting by Cris Hanson, after convincing the kid it only takes three licks to get to the center?"

That book is all drama, most of it needless drama through violence and self loathing and false martyrdom peppered with stories of kindness all used to glorify the hero. God is really Jerry Springer and humans are the stage act so he can end it with a moral story at the end, not real morality, but "look at me, I fixed the mess I allowed".

(April 21, 2017 at 8:53 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(April 21, 2017 at 12:35 am)Grandizer Wrote: Forget perfect.

Our God grieves and suffers with us in our darkest hours. As far as I'm concerned any God that is powerful enough to raise the dead is sufficiently capable of releasing me from my personal shame and despair.  That is why I trust Him with my life. I love Him because He loved me first.

I don't know that there is a God and that he grieves and suffers with us in our darkest hours. If there is a God who loves us, then I would expect him to demonstrate this love in a manner that is consistent with how we normally view love. I cannot reasonably consider it divine love when God allows all sorts of evils and sufferings to occur in this world. I can understand minor sufferings being consistent with a loving God, but not major evils and sufferings.

(April 20, 2017 at 4:59 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

SteveII Wrote:He would if free will had sufficient value as to allow the possibility of evil (which it seems it does). 

Satan and demons don't make us sin so are not part of any argument.

What does God lack that his need for people with free will overrides any harm that may result? God can't foresee which people will choose to be evil and refrain from making them, thereby not violating the free will of any people he does allow to exist? It isn't logically impossible for people to only freely choose good...so an omnipotent God should be able to manage to come up with a world where that's the case, and an omnibenevolent God would want to. [1]

What about natural evil? God can't make planets that don't have earthquakes and tsunamis? [2]

So that wasn't the devil in the Garden, just your run-of-the-mill talking snake? They don't have to make us sin, if we're worse off because of them and God is able to destroy them or confine them away from us, God is morally obliged to do so. We're innocent of their creation, that's on God. Of course if God isn't actually all that benevolent, that's not a consideration. [3] 

Believing in demons and the devil having any power at all in our world is inconsistent with believing in the God of theodicy. Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you have to believe in devils and demons. Do you think the free will of evil spirits is an important consideration for God? [4]

1. I don't want to argue the Problem of Evil Argument again. It will come down to that while it is broadly logically possible (that is a term with a specific meaning) that God could make a world where people freely chose good all the time, it may not be actually possible (free will and all). Since the burden of proof is on the atheist, the argument is not successful in the end. 

2. I posted this awhile back in response to a similar question:

Quote:First, I would say that an omnibenevolent God would not cause natural disasters. So, are we to conclude that when events at the beginning were set in motion with our physical laws that God was therefore the remote cause of all future natural disasters?

What is a natural disaster? There is nothing inherently evil about a continental plate shift or a weather pattern developing. In fact, each of those events probably have positive natural effects for the environment. When humans suffer as a result, you are making a claim of what "ought not be". Additionally, people have the freedom to move in and out of harms way. How is is that God is responsible for human choices of when and where to be?

So really you are making the claim that God should not permit suffering as a result of natural disaster and it is illogical that an omnibenevolent God would do so. What "ought not be" "ought not be permitted". I am confused on a particular point: do you think God should prevent all natural "disasters", just those that harm people, or miraculously save people during such an event?

1. Being extremely limited in big picture knowledge, why do you think we can determine both what "ought not be" and what "ought not be permitted? God being omniscient (part of the definition) would see a big picture that we could in no way understand. You would have to prove that God did not have morally sufficient reasons to a) refrain from preventing a natural disaster or b) supernaturally intervening during one.

2. Christian doctrine increases probability that God allows human suffering as a result of natural disasters.
  a) The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but knowledge of God. A natural disaster may increase that knowledge.
  b) God's knowledge includes the greatest eternal good (the maximum number of people freely choosing salvation from an eternal perspective).
  c) Man's knowledge of God is considered an incommensurable good (and end in itself)

3. We choose to sin. Your reasoning that we aren't responsible for creating the temptation would apply to everything. 

4. I don't believe demons have any causal effect on the physical world unless we invite them in by playing around with spiritual things best avoided (witchcraft, etc.). They do seem to be able to have an effect on our immaterial soul.

(April 21, 2017 at 1:05 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(April 20, 2017 at 4:59 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: What does God lack that his need for people with free will overrides any harm that may result? God can't foresee which people will choose to be evil and refrain from making them, thereby not violating the free will of any people he does allow to exist? It isn't logically impossible for people to only freely choose good...so an omnipotent God should be able to manage to come up with a world where that's the case, and an omnibenevolent God would want to. [1]

What about natural evil? God can't make planets that don't have earthquakes and tsunamis? [2]

So that wasn't the devil in the Garden, just your run-of-the-mill talking snake? They don't have to make us sin, if we're worse off because of them and God is able to destroy them or confine them away from us, God is morally obliged to do so. We're innocent of their creation, that's on God. Of course if God isn't actually all that benevolent, that's not a consideration. [3] 

Believing in demons and the devil having any power at all in our world is inconsistent with believing in the God of theodicy. Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you have to believe in devils and demons. Do you think the free will of evil spirits is an important consideration for God? [4]

1. I don't want to argue the Problem of Evil Argument again. It will come down to that while it is broadly logically possible (that is a term with a specific meaning) that God could make a world where people freely chose good all the time, it may not be actually possible (free will and all). Since the burden of proof is on the atheist, the argument is not successful in the end. 

2. I posted this awhile back in response to a similar question:

Quote:First, I would say that an omnibenevolent God would not cause natural disasters. So, are we to conclude that when events at the beginning were set in motion with our physical laws that God was therefore the remote cause of all future natural disasters?

What is a natural disaster? There is nothing inherently evil about a continental plate shift or a weather pattern developing. In fact, each of those events probably have positive natural effects for the environment. When humans suffer as a result, you are making a claim of what "ought not be". Additionally, people have the freedom to move in and out of harms way. How is is that God is responsible for human choices of when and where to be?

So really you are making the claim that God should not permit suffering as a result of natural disaster and it is illogical that an omnibenevolent God would do so. What "ought not be" "ought not be permitted". I am confused on a particular point: do you think God should prevent all natural "disasters", just those that harm people, or miraculously save people during such an event?

1. Being extremely limited in big picture knowledge, why do you think we can determine both what "ought not be" and what "ought not be permitted? God being omniscient (part of the definition) would see a big picture that we could in no way understand. You would have to prove that God did not have morally sufficient reasons to a) refrain from preventing a natural disaster or b) supernaturally intervening during one.

2. Christian doctrine increases probability that God allows human suffering as a result of natural disasters.
  a) The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but knowledge of God. A natural disaster may increase that knowledge.
  b) God's knowledge includes the greatest eternal good (the maximum number of people freely choosing salvation from an eternal perspective).
  c) Man's knowledge of God is considered an incommensurable good (and end in itself)

3. We choose to sin. Your reasoning that we aren't responsible for creating the temptation would apply to everything. 

4. I don't believe demons have any causal effect on the physical world unless we invite them in by playing around with spiritual things best avoided (witchcraft, etc.). They do seem to be able to have an effect on our immaterial soul.

"Sin" is an old bullshit mythological word. 

Humans do good and humans do bad. No old book need to state the obvious. 

There are empathetic people and non violent people, and greedy people who don't give a fuck. The there are also issues of upbringing which can lead a child to become abusive, overbearing parents, physically abusive parents. There are also economic reasons that desperate people end up stealing. 

Evolution unfortunately doesn't give a shit if empathy or cruelty work. It doesn't give a shit if the Muslim or atheist or Jew or Hindu or Christian or Buddhist win, or end up in prison or die in war. 

The good thing is that our species DOES have empathy in us and we can chose to be non violent and care about the economic stability of our neighbors and more people. 

You fell for the idea that you needed to be lead rather than considering that you can do good and be good without that book. Humans were doing good and bad long before Christianity or the word "sin" was invented, and even today there is not one nation that does not have hospitals or prisons.

The word "sin" isn't a natural explanation for human behavior. It is a mythology someone sold you. If only Christians were cable of being good then we should expect to see no Christian majority nation with prisons. Not even the idea of Buddhist/Hindu "Karma" is a natural explanation as to why humans do good or bad. 

Most humans can figure out that it is not ok to steal from your neighbor. Most humans can figure out that if you punch someone there is a good chance they might fight back. Most humans don't like having their kids fucked with. 

I am sorry someone sold you the idea that you needed a cosmic sky camera watching you in order for you to do the right thing. But you don't need that. Morality isn't doing something out of fear of punishment or promise of reward. Morality is doing the right thing, even when nobody is watching.