(February 13, 2015 at 11:48 am)Pyrrho Wrote: Unfortunately for you, the OP isn't about evil in the abstract, but about particular physical things, diseases and cancer. Being things, diseases and cancer were created by god, if god created all things.

Abstract or not, let's hear it from the horse's mouth...

Quote:Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

(February 13, 2015 at 2:53 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(February 13, 2015 at 1:45 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Two points. In the initial creation account (where 'God created all things' comes from) there were no diseases.

Please tell me you're joking. I refuse to believe people are really this stupid.

Are you arguing my recall of the account or the truth of the account?

(February 13, 2015 at 2:53 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(February 13, 2015 at 1:45 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Secondly you'll have to prove that diseases and cancer are evil to make your argument. Are not chemical reactions amoral?

It's not chemical reactions themselves anybody's debating, dipshit. It's the horrible physical and psychological turmoil inflicted on otherwise innocent mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, children, and babies who were going about their lives, minding their own business, and now will likely die a slow and painful death while your God supposedly sits on his lazy ass bathing in beggars' tears.

So that I can understand you, are you now changing your argument from 'cancer and disease are evil' to 'the effects of cancer and disease are evil'?

(February 13, 2015 at 3:05 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(February 13, 2015 at 1:45 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Two points. In the initial creation account (where 'God created all things' comes from) there were no diseases. He did create them in a different sense later on as a consequence of sin, not of His initial creation which He deemed good. There is a difference between the initial 'creation of all things' and the world we observe today. Namely sin.

It does not matter whether god created diseases and cancer in the beginning or only later on. Either way, it is god's creation, if he created everything. So he cannot escape responsibility by creating it later on; it is still his handiwork.

Sure it does, and for the previously mentioned reason.

(February 13, 2015 at 3:05 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: If the disease were not caused by an intelligent being, then it would just be amoral.

According to your worldview it is.

(February 13, 2015 at 5:06 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Are you arguing my recall of the account or the truth of the account?

I'm trying to figure out what relevancy you believe ancient Mesopotamian myths have on the issue of your God being too powerless or apathetic to correct his mistakes while people gratuitously suffer.

(February 13, 2015 at 5:06 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: So that I can understand you, are you now changing your argument from 'cancer and disease are evil' to 'the effects of cancer and disease are evil'?

How can you even conceive of the notion of evil apart from the afflictions imposed upon sentient creatures? Your question doesn't make sense.

(February 13, 2015 at 5:06 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: ...

(February 13, 2015 at 3:05 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: It does not matter whether god created diseases and cancer in the beginning or only later on. Either way, it is god's creation, if he created everything. So he cannot escape responsibility by creating it later on; it is still his handiwork.

Sure it does, and for the previously mentioned reason.

Right, because Adam and Eve sinned, little babies, who had nothing whatever to do with that, get bone cancer. You seem to imagine that if someone does something wrong, then it is right to punish people for it who had nothing to do with that wrong. If someone else commits murder, would it be just to lock you up in prison or execute you for it, if you had nothing to do with the murder? Is that your idea of justice?

(February 13, 2015 at 5:06 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(February 13, 2015 at 3:05 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: If the disease were not caused by an intelligent being, then it would just be amoral.

According to your worldview it is.

That is hilarious, coming from you, given that you previously posted:

(February 13, 2015 at 1:45 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: ...

Secondly you'll have to prove that diseases and cancer are evil to make your argument. Are not chemical reactions amoral?
...

(February 13, 2015 at 1:45 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: In the initial creation account (where 'God created all things' comes from) there were no diseases. He did create them in a different sense later on as a consequence of sin, not of His initial creation which He deemed good.

Doesn't that make him seem petulant?

(February 16, 2015 at 10:22 am)Tonus Wrote:

(February 13, 2015 at 1:45 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: In the initial creation account (where 'God created all things' comes from) there were no diseases. He did create them in a different sense later on as a consequence of sin, not of His initial creation which He deemed good.

Doesn't that make him seem petulant?

Yes, and it makes him stupid and wrong. If he were right about his creation being good, then it would not have gotten screwed up (because there was nothing that he did not create that could interfere with its actions). If he were omniscient, he would have known how it would go from the beginning. Yet he (according to the story) did it anyway. In other words, he chose the outcome by creating a world that would have this outcome instead of creating one in which there would be a different outcome.

Being the creator of everything makes one responsible for everything.

Right. What kind of buck passer blames his own creation for their problems?

"You two should have listened, like I knew you wouldn't! Life's gonna be shit for everyone now, I don't want to do that, but I have to for some reason. Mainly because I'm insane."

I would like to make a bet that orange doesn't realize he's relying on Old Babylonian myths about the gods creating a paradise that mankind once rejected through disobedience (where the Genesis account stems from) to side-step God's responsibility as the ultimate creator of natural and moral evil.

(February 13, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(February 13, 2015 at 5:06 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Are you arguing my recall of the account or the truth of the account?

I'm trying to figure out what relevancy you believe ancient Mesopotamian myths have on the issue of your God being too powerless or apathetic to correct his mistakes while people gratuitously suffer.

None.

(February 13, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(February 13, 2015 at 5:06 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: So that I can understand you, are you now changing your argument from 'cancer and disease are evil' to 'the effects of cancer and disease are evil'?

How can you even conceive of the notion of evil apart from the afflictions imposed upon sentient creatures? Your question doesn't make sense.

Please clarify your argument.

(February 14, 2015 at 2:21 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(February 13, 2015 at 5:06 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: ...
Sure it does, and for the previously mentioned reason.

Right, because Adam and Eve sinned, little babies, who had nothing whatever to do with that, get bone cancer. You seem to imagine that if someone does something wrong, then it is right to punish people for it who had nothing to do with that wrong. If someone else commits murder, would it be just to lock you up in prison or execute you for it, if you had nothing to do with the murder? Is that your idea of justice?

No, that is not my idea of justice.

(February 14, 2015 at 2:21 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(February 13, 2015 at 5:06 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: According to your worldview it is.

That is hilarious, coming from you, given that you previously posted:

(February 13, 2015 at 1:45 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: ...

Secondly you'll have to prove that diseases and cancer are evil to make your argument. Are not chemical reactions amoral?
...

That's my point. According to the atheistic worldview, disease were not caused by an intelligent being, and are therefore amoral. How can you assign a moral value to an amoral entity?

(February 16, 2015 at 10:22 am)Tonus Wrote:

(February 13, 2015 at 1:45 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: In the initial creation account (where 'God created all things' comes from) there were no diseases. He did create them in a different sense later on as a consequence of sin, not of His initial creation which He deemed good.

Doesn't that make him seem petulant?

You could choose to look at it that way. You could also choose to see it as a consequence of an action.

(February 16, 2015 at 2:02 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Being the creator of everything makes one responsible for everything.

Are you then not responsible for your own actions?

(February 13, 2015 at 3:02 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: It's very telling that the religious have to go through such mental gymnastics to explain diseases and natural disasters, where as with the non-religious there is no need to explain it away or have any sort of apologetic program. These things just are part of the natural world.

Yes and by equating GOD = NATURE
then you are right there is no need to overexplain

As for Nestor's questions about what orange was referring to

the NATURAL pure state is to be healthy and in harmony.
That's the DEFAULT. So the state of imbalance or disease etc
indicates something is off kilter or not perfect.
This is what leads to disease:

Normally the human mind and body is designed to heal itself.
What allows cancer or other diseases to take over, is some
weakened or compromised state, or introduction of an injury,
virus, etc. that causes infection, disease, etc.

When we are in harmony with our natural healing and all our
available resources (ie not an overage of resources in one area and lack of access or poverty in another), then we can treat these ills,
whether they came about by human fault, or accident, etc.

As long as we have more diseases or ills than we can treat,
this tells us we are NOT in perfect harmony or health as a society,
but we can be doing more to correct and prevent causes,
and remedy the effects, to restore a closer to natural balance.