Thought about this while listening to a debate when the concept of the atonement was brought up.

The argument from evil is usually: Evil exists, therefore a good god cannot. I'm going to make it backwards. Atheists, bear with me, I'm going to grant a lot of premises.

If any sin is committed, no matter how insignificant, it's all the same in the eyes of God, which is because he is sin-free, 100% good, and detests evil. Yet in Isaiah 45:7 it explicitly states that he created it, and indeed, if you believe that the tree of knowledge of good and evil existed, then the concept of evil existed prior to Adam choosing it.

The point is, why would a god who detests evil also create or allow it to exist in the first place? The correct answer is, he wouldn't, regardless of giving us free will.

This also brings into question the atonement, because there need be no retribution for god since the problem originated with him in the first place.

I argue (because the bible supports it)
Sin is an act or want to be outside of God's expressed will.
Evil is an intense desire or malicious act of/to sin.

Not all sin is evil but all evil is sin.

Free will is the ability to choose to return to God through the grace and atonement offer to you through Christ. Do not confuse biblically based free will with the Greek philosophy that has one free to make any choice you want to make. In fact the opposite is true as we are Slaves to sin for life. Meaning no matter what we choose with the free will God gives us we will still sin.

Where the arguement from evil fails is it assume God is controlling what happens in this realm/this world. (If God is good His world can contain no evil) When in fact God gave all authority of this world over to man/adam. Man (at the fall) bound himself to sin, making him a slave to it. Elevating lucifer to the position of slave master to the ruler of this world. That is why when Chirst was tempted lucifer had the power and authority to offer up all of the kingdoms of this world, if only Christ would bow down to him. Otherwise the temptation would be meaningless.

So in a sense we have evil in this world because the rulers of this world have evil in their hearts.

You really ought to read your own shit once in a while, Drippy.

Quote:King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Isa. 45,7

Yeah, I know...you in your borderline mystic wisdom have conned yourself into believing that it doesn't mean what it clearly says.

That's because you are a jackass.

Whether or not God controls what happens in the world is irrelevant (and, there are millions of people who believe he takes an active role in the world's affairs). What is relevant, and why the argument from evil is irrefutable, is because God created everything, including the conditions necessary for sin to be possible. If he creates beings which can sin against him, it's his fault for making beings which can sin against him. He did not make humans capable of total cooperation and altruism. He made humans capable of rape and murder. He did not tell people to go and seek knowledge of the world, he told people who to kill and why. He did not tell people how to raise good kids, only to kill bad ones. Really, the Epicurean paradox is only reminding us of what is patently obvious throughout the entire Bible.

(May 21, 2013 at 2:47 pm)Praetorian Wrote: The point is, why would a god who detests evil also create or allow it to exist in the first place?

So that we know he's a god who detests evil.

Depth of relationship is dependent on knowledge of the subject of the relationship. God chose a deeper relationship with fewer people over a superficial relationship with many or all people.

(May 21, 2013 at 3:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote: That's because you are a jackass.

I wouldn't say that, he's just telling us what he believes.

(May 21, 2013 at 3:16 pm)John V Wrote: So that we know he's a god who detests evil.

Do you see how that reasoning is circular, though? If you consider that he brought everything into existence in the first place, he need not have made the people he did not want a relationship with. He need not have created the evil which led to Adam's bad choice in the first place.

You could argue that God created another universe before ours and that evil came to exist on it's own, and God hated it, and that's why the concept of evil existed before our world. But then you would have to imply that Adam was able to get God's knowledge of that evil through eating a fruit, and that he preferred it to goodness.

(May 21, 2013 at 3:05 pm)Drich Wrote: I argue (because the bible supports it)
Sin is an act or want to be outside of God's expressed will.
Evil is an intense desire or malicious act of/to sin.

Not all sin is evil but all evil is sin.

But if this is the case, then sin is arbitrary, and the only reason we are destined for damnation is because God wills it.

(May 21, 2013 at 3:05 pm)Drich Wrote: Where the arguement from evil fails is it assume God is controlling what happens in this realm/this world. (If God is good His world can contain no evil) When in fact God gave all authority of this world over to man/adam.

If this is the case, and we're sort of like...God's cosmic ant farm, then he still has to answer for why: 1. He ever intervened, and why when he did, he did so on a purely arbitrary basis (i.e. choosing the Hebrew people as "his people" as opposed to, say, the Egyptians) and, 2. Why he created beings capable if evil if he, in fact, desires a relationship with those people.

Quote:I wouldn't say that, he's just telling us what he believes.

I've been down this road with him before. After a while you'll lose patience with him too. He thinks that he gets to re-write his book to make it say what he wants it to say.

It's a good trick if you can get away with it but I won't let him.

I'm a prick.

(May 21, 2013 at 3:55 pm)Praetorian Wrote: Do you see how that reasoning is circular, though?

No.

Quote:If you consider that he brought everything into existence in the first place, he need not have made the people he did not want a relationship with. He need not have created the evil which led to Adam's bad choice in the first place.

Again, depth of relationship is dependent on knowledge. The relationship cannot be as deep if important parts of his personality are hidden.

(May 21, 2013 at 3:16 pm)John V Wrote:

(May 21, 2013 at 2:47 pm)Praetorian Wrote: The point is, why would a god who detests evil also create or allow it to exist in the first place?

So that we know he's a god who detests evil.

Why is it necessary for us to know God detests evil?

Quote:Depth of relationship is dependent on knowledge of the subject of the relationship. God chose a deeper relationship with fewer people over a superficial relationship with many or all people.

Is this yet another admission that God's abilities have limits? He could have chosen to have as deep a relationship with as many people as he wished if he really was omnicapable. People have to be choosy about investing time and energy into relationships because we have finite abilities and lifespans. If God is being choosy, then he is deciding to intentionally exclude the majority. And for some reason, that's our fault.

That's why the "god stays invisible because he wants us to have faith" idea is repulsive and illogical. If he actually showed himself and did good things for people, almost everybody in the world would want what you want and try as hard as you do to get it. Why make blind faith a requirement, in fact, the only requirement he actually cares about?

There's an obvious and certainly correct answer for that: the requirement of faith is necessary for people to believe in a god which doesn't exist.

(May 21, 2013 at 4:12 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Why is it necessary for us to know God detests evil?

For depth of relationship, as I explained.

Quote:Is this yet another admission that God's abilities have limits?

Sure, if you want to phrase it that way.

Quote:He could have chosen to have as deep a relationship with as many people as he wished if he really was omnicapable.

Then he's not omnicapable. Doesn't bother me. I don't see how he could have a deep relationship while not revealing important aspects of himself. It would be like an eternal first date.

Quote:People have to be choosy about investing time and energy into relationships because we have finite abilities and lifespans. If God is being choosy, then he is deciding to intentionally exclude the majority. And for some reason, that's our fault.

The point isn't time and energy, it's unveiling. Most people could have a successful first date with many more people than they could have a successful marriage with. Some people choose superficial relationships. Some people want to find someone they can open up to and be accepted.

I've seen numerous threads over the years in which an atheist is dating someone, hasn't revealed their atheism, and is hesitant to do so because it might hurt the relationship. Very few people advise them to bottle it up for the sake of peace. Most advise them to reveal it as it's an important part of them, and if the other person doesn't like it, so be it.