(March 27, 2012 at 10:56 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Anyone else see a circular argument incoming, ready to shit all over the thread?

Your definitions are wrong, because God's will is automatically the measure for perfection, good, and benevolence, therefore a benevolent God exists.

This is why I do not like the "problem of evil" and have never been particularly convinced by it's argumentation. It always ends in this circular argument involving god's actions always being just by definition. Once again Job being the archetype and "god works in mysterious ways" being the annoying cliche. Put more sophisticatedly it is an epistemological question regarding the knowledge of good and "evil". In Candide the argument is that this is the best of all possible worlds and that if humans had knowledge of the whole they would see that everything "fits" and has a place irregardless of the suffering imposed on humans and we simply lack "perspective" to see it that way.

I am willing to go out on a limb here and say that the holocaust was probably not a good thing. It raises as many questions to say that god created a world in which such human suffering was neccessary to achieve his ends. Also if god could not have utilized any other means to achieve his ends than a holocaust it raises the question of whether god is omnipotent (is he incapable of achieving his ends with an event requiring no suffering? "Incapable" should not be in the Christian god's vocabulary).

Neither should incompetent, as in "has the best of intentions, and the ability to act upon those intentions, but somehow fails in the execution".

Is there an old thread I could revive on the "Problem of Evil"? Or perhaps start a new one to avoid confusion with other attempted solutions? I have a couple of other threads to reflect on, but I do not want anyone to think that I am intentionally dodging the subject. The issue is complex and it will take me some time to put into words my thoughts on the subject. It touches on many other areas of contention.

(March 27, 2012 at 6:05 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Is there an old thread I could revive on the "Problem of Evil"? Or perhaps start a new one to avoid confusion with other attempted solutions? I have a couple of other threads to reflect on, but I do not want anyone to think that I am intentionally dodging the subject. The issue is complex and it will take me some time to put into words my thoughts on the subject. It touches on many other areas of contention.

I'd be interested to hear your viewpoint.

---

Chad, I understand that because morality is subjective it means evil just about doesn't exist for you. What I'm wondering is this: does evil necessarily need to be objective for God to fail in the omnibenevolent department? In other words, take those that e.g. die before their 1st birthday and tell me, is there a perfect explanation as to why this can't remotely be 'bad'? (I.e. bad enough to start questioning God's properties).

Related or not, the answer 'God works in mysterious ways' doesn't cut it. Jesus is often described as 'the word of God alive' so either let me know how he works or accept that even the god(s) are a subjective human construct that moulds around a person's wishful thinking.

I guess I might as well continue the conversation on this thread, although like I said, I have not pieced together my theology around the problem of evil. I'm sorta feeling it out in my mind right now. Maybe a little Q&A will give me a preview of complexities I have not yet considered.

(March 27, 2012 at 7:41 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Chad, I understand that because morality is subjective it means evil just about doesn't exist for you.

In a very restricted sense I do not believe 'evil' actually exists. While the word 'evil' is useful, I think it describes a lack of good, in the same sense that a hole is nothing except an area not filled with dirt. 'Evil' people like serial killers and terrorists lack humanity, for example. Tornadoes and earthquakes are morally neutral but impact us adversely because we lack the knowledge and foresight to avoid their damage.

With respect to subjectivity, I consider moral knowledge imperfect like all other forms of knowledge. If morality is part of the fabric of reality, the problem turns to how we are able to recognize it. So I will be crafting an explanation of how morality can be locally subjective, but universally absolute and why the inference of an absolute is necessary. By analogy, physical science provides a working model of material reality, but does not guarantee an exact fit with what is actually happening at the most fundamental level.

(March 27, 2012 at 7:41 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: What I'm wondering is this: does evil necessarily need to be objective for God to fail in the omnibenevolent department? In other words, take those that e.g. die before their 1st birthday and tell me, is there a perfect explanation as to why this can't remotely be 'bad'? (I.e. bad enough to start questioning God's properties).

In my opinion, yes, because everything hinges on the definition of good, which is what I will have to address more fully. As for your second statement, questioning god is an essential part of the biblical tradition as witnessed by the stories of Abraham pleading against the destruction of Sodom, Jacob wrestling with god, and Job demanding an account from god. The members of this forum are correct to question god for his apparent atrocities; however, in doing so one takes on the responsibility for demonstrating why the god is in the wrong. And yes, it is acceptable to use his own words against him.

(March 27, 2012 at 7:41 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Related or not, the answer 'God works in mysterious ways' doesn't cut it. Jesus is often described as 'the word of God alive' so either let me know how he works or accept that even the god(s) are a subjective human construct that moulds around a person's wishful thinking.

I hate that kind of churchspeak, too. And I'm not very fond of mysteries that must be accepted on faith. Some mysteries, like infinity and the void, are unavoidable, but things like the hypo-static union should not be left as unexplainable articles of faith.

Hopefully, this addressed you immediate questions until I have a chance to flesh it out more.

I hereby define vanilla as the lack of chocolate (actually that's not true, I coined this definition the last time "evil is the lack of good" was floated). But hey, whatever, why is there "a lack of good"?

I agree Evil is too nebulous a concept, but if replaced by needless pain and suffering, the argument is slightly sounder.

Rocks lack humanity but you wouldn't call them evil. Evil is a positive concept like good is. There is a neutral in between that is a lack of either. For example if you had a sandwich and a person next to you was hungry it isn't evil to avoid giving your sandwich to them, it is not good but it is also not evil. If someone gave them a sandwich and you took it that would be evil or at least bad heading toward evil. In my opinion you can't be evil by simply avoiding being good, just like you can't be good by simply avoiding evil. There has to be some merit in your action, either good or evil, for the action to be called such.

(March 28, 2012 at 5:10 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: I agree Evil is too nebulous a concept, but if replaced by needless pain and suffering, the argument is slightly sounder.

Its unavoidable in whatever christian definition of the term one accepts whether it be disobedience of god's law/will, breaking the commandments, sin, original sin etc... within that context, to a believing christian "evil"/"sin" exists in some facet otherwise it is useless to talk about Jesus as a sin offering for the world. If one does not accept this bare minimum definition one could not accept the basic requirements of calling oneself a christian. So within the Christian worldview sin neccessarily exists. Which at least makes the question a valid one to pose to a Christian.

(March 28, 2012 at 11:10 am)mediamogul Wrote: Its unavoidable in whatever christian definition of the term one accepts whether it be disobedience of god's law/will, breaking the commandments, sin, original sin etc... within that context, to a believing christian "evil"/"sin" exists in some facet otherwise it is useless to talk about Jesus as a sin offering for the world. If one does not accept this bare minimum definition one could not accept the basic requirements of calling oneself a christian. So within the Christian worldview sin neccessarily exists. Which at least makes the question a valid one to pose to a Christian.

The concept of religious sin = evil itself relies on the assumption that the religious terms are valid in order to refute the premise. Its circular in nature. Therefore it is a useless term in a philosophical argument about existence of God.

God doesn't exist because of Evil, which wouldn't exist without assuming God is real when we accept this definition. It cannot be allowed to be used, any more than we can allow the Bible to be evidence of creationism.

For Evil to be a concept for use in a philosophical argument, it needs to have a measurable objective criteria, not a metaphysical one. That is easy to provide with the definition of "needless pain and suffering".

It is not valid to use their definition of evil when posing the question to a Christian. Its smoke and mirrors. Can they deny needless pain and suffering? Its explained only in terms of causation by humankind but not causally linked to a omnibenevolent God, and its this logical fallacy which should be addressed.