Argument from evil, restated

[pocaracas]

If I did believe in God, I would have to believe in one that created me with a desire to understand things that I cannot possibly understand.

And that is truly evil.

[Undeceived]

Hello again, Zarith.

So let's call it like it is, and state that the creator makes statues that have the impulse to lie, cheat, steal, murder, rape, torture, and whatever other horrible thing we can think of.

As ronedee says, no option makes us robots. Without a evil, there is nothing to choose. Ergo, it is not possible to love.

Evil is the void of good--it is anything done against God's will. So God need not create us with an 'impulse' for evil. He need only make it occur to us that we can disobey. He did this through Satan in the garden. Satan presented the possibility of sin to Adam and Eve. God used Satan to introduce free will, and with it, love.

Then of the statues that make this request, some will make it and claim that it has been granted, while continuing to do bad things.

Romans 3:7-8
Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!

Others will make the request and it won't be granted, and they will be told that this is because they did not ask in the right way, were not sincere about it, or whatever.

If you’re worried, try this: “God, I’m sorry for every wrong I’ve done against others and against you. Thank you for sending your son to take my punishment for me. Please forgive me.” I think you can judge whether you are sincere or not.

All of this is necessary because it is of the utmost importance that these statues be able to choose to make such a request.

What’s important is love. Take a few minutes and imagine a world without love.

Now imagine a world without evil or love—this is the world you seem to advocate. Is it worth living in?

I seem to recall an old Star Trek episode along these lines. There existed an alien race without pain, but also without emotion. When confronted with a choice between the status quo and a world with both pain and emotion, the race picked emotion, pain included. In essence, they chose to climb the ladder from dumb animal to rational, moral human.

Then of course there is the issue of, if heaven and hell aren't supposed to influence our decision, then why are people informed of their existence?

One reason: hope.
1 Corinthians 13:13:
“Now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”
Free will produces love. Promises produce hope. Experience produces faith.
Heaven encourages us to “fight the good fight” and “finish the race” (2 Tim 4:7).

Another reason: truth.
Truth is the most powerful weapon on earth. It motivates. Without the knowledge of hell, believers would have no reason to spread the good news. There would be no goal. Humans are narrow-sighted. As much as we might want to do things for God, we would see nothing wrong with dabbling in sin at the same time. Hell reminds us just how grievous our sins are in God’s sight.

Can you think of a question more relevant to human existence than the afterlife?

[The Grand Nudger]

Can you think of a question more relevant to human existence than the afterlife?

.......................................................................................................

It's difficult to think of any question about human existence that isn't more relevant- but don't let me stop you with your devaluing life -thing-.

[Zarith]

As ronedee says, no option makes us robots. Without a evil, there is nothing to choose. Ergo, it is not possible to love.

So when we ask God to remove the impulse to do evil from us, we are asking him to make us a robot, and remove the possibility to love. And earth is basically one big robotics factory, with the rejects being thrown in the incinerator for eternity, and heaven is some sort of robotics playground in the sky. No thanks.

Evil is the void of good--it is anything done against God's will. So God need not create us with an 'impulse' for evil. He need only make it occur to us that we can disobey. He did this through Satan in the garden. Satan presented the possibility of sin to Adam and Eve. God used Satan to introduce free will, and with it, love.

Which is more likely? That this really happened, or that someone had the clever idea to create 2 separate accounts, charge all the good to one and all the evil to another, presto, now there exists a being which is pure good, problem of evil solved. Well, not really. More like obfuscated.

If you’re worried, try this: “God, I’m sorry for every wrong I’ve done against others and against you. Thank you for sending your son to take my punishment for me. Please forgive me.” I think you can judge whether you are sincere or not.

But that's just it. Given what I believe, I can't possibly make this request in a sincere way, any more than you can sincerely put aside your belief in God.

Now imagine a world without evil or love—this is the world you seem to advocate. Is it worth living in?

I don't advocate any world. I look at the world and attempt to describe how it works. I (like many others) never asked to become an atheist. I wasn't allowed to choose which things made sense to me and which things did not. All I did was realize one day that the things I was being told made no sense, and many of them sounded downright immoral.

Another reason: truth.
Truth is the most powerful weapon on earth. It motivates.

---

---

Without the knowledge of hell, believers would have no reason to spread the good news. There would be no goal. Humans are narrow-sighted. As much as we might want to do things for God, we would see nothing wrong with dabbling in sin at the same time. Hell reminds us just how grievous our sins are in God’s sight.

But this is in direct contradiction to your previous post in which you said that we should choose to love God for the sake of loving God.

Can you think of a question more relevant to human existence than the afterlife?

As soon as you can show that it exists, then I'll accept that it's relevant.

[Undeceived]

So when we ask God to remove the impulse to do evil from us, we are asking him to make us a robot, and remove the possibility to love. And earth is basically one big robotics factory, with the rejects being thrown in the incinerator for eternity, and heaven is some sort of robotics playground in the sky. No thanks.

That's the choice to be made. Do you want to be who you are, who is dying? Or do you want to be what God can make you to be, which lasts forever? If there is a Creator, would you not think he knows what is best for you?

Which is more likely? That this really happened, or that someone had the clever idea to create 2 separate accounts, charge all the good to one and all the evil to another, presto, now there exists a being which is pure good, problem of evil solved. Well, not really.

Are you acknowledging that both good and evil exist? If so, where do their ideas come from?

I don't advocate any world.

This thread is called 'Argument from evil.' It attempts to disprove God by saying that if there is evil, no good God can exist. I just explained that evil can, and necessarily does, exist when God introduces love. So if you or anyone use this argument, you take love down with it. Love exists. Therefore, a good God has reason for allowing evil. Was I mistaken that you support the 'Argument from evil'?

[The Grand Nudger]

I just explained that evil can, and necessarily does, exist when God introduces love. So if you or anyone use this argument, you take love down with it. Love exists. Therefore, a good God has reason for allowing evil. Was I mistaken that you support the 'Argument from evil'?

I think it's amusing that this is what you feel that you have accomplished. I enjoy the thinly veiled appeal to consequence with regards to love. Don't you find it a tad bit troubling that you've had to assert a game of emotional opposites - and will be patently incapable of assigning any measure of truth to any assertion made because of this?

I think that what you've been able to demonstrate with your posts is that if one is allowed to define things with their conclusion in mind - and assert whatever they wish in absentia of fact, that anything can be -rationalized-.

But we already knew this....so?

An argument from evil is not likely to be able (or intended) to prove that no "good god" exists. It strikes at the notion of an omnimax god, more commonly. What you've invoked is, essentially, necessary evil. Which is fine, so long as your content to let your god have the necessary evil you've invoked. Mostly good /w added necessary evil (for flavor?) - certainly not all powerful etc....

[Zarith]

That's the choice to be made. Do you want to be who you are, who is dying? Or do you want to be what God can make you to be, which lasts forever? If there is a Creator, would you not think he knows what is best for you?

This doesn't address my question though. I would also argue that history shows that creators generally don't know a lot about the stuff that they supposedly created.

Are you acknowledging that both good and evil exist? If so, where do their ideas come from?

All I need acknowledge is that there are categories of actions which Christians call good and evil, and that the way in which they make this classification is inconsistent with the rest of their beliefs, and that the Christian explanation for the existence of good and evil appears more man-made than anything else. Don't try to put this back on me.

Also, I can tell you where good and evil most certainly don't come from, and that is from the circumcision-obsessed, shellfish-hating, genocidal god of the OT. Nor do good and evil come from ideas saying that I am responsible for someone else's actions (original sin), or that I am now absolved of that responsibility (vicarious atonement).

The problem with the argument from morality is that if God defines what good and evil are, then the statement "God is good" has no meaning. God is good, good is whatever God wants it to be, therefore God is good. OK then.

This thread is called 'Argument from evil.' It attempts to disprove God by saying that if there is evil, no good God can exist. I just explained that evil can, and necessarily does, exist when God introduces love. So if you or anyone use this argument, you take love down with it. Love exists. Therefore, a good God has reason for allowing evil. Was I mistaken that you support the 'Argument from evil'?

I think Rhythm summed it up pretty well, so I'll add just this one thought.

The issue that I have with people arguing the "free-will defense" or the "evil really has to exist" or "evil is just absence of good" is this: suppose that we were all to wake up tomorrow to find that hunger, starvation, famine, disease, natural disasters, war, violent crime, and so on, no longer existed.

If I am to believe the arguments you have made in this thread, then such a state of affairs would have you scratching your head and saying, "Hrmmm, this is clearly a most troubling development, vast amounts of people have been deprived of their exercise of free will and their capacity to love. What deviltry is this?"

Of course, this is ridiculous, no Christian would be saying this. Christians of all stripes would instead be saying it is a miracle, and it would be trumpeted as evidence of God's existence and perfection. So I find it a bit hard to accept when you guys argue that the current state of affairs is somehow necessary or better.

[Undeceived]

All I need acknowledge is that there are categories of actions which Christians call good and evil, and that the way in which they make this classification is inconsistent with the rest of their beliefs, and that the Christian explanation for the existence of good and evil appears more man-made than anything else.

What I'm asking is, how do you know that good and evil are opposites? How can the founders of Christianity invent two 'opposite' accounts and have anybody understand them to be opposites? Wouldn't the ideas of good and evil have to exist from antiquity, if converts are to be made? As far as we know, they have existed from antiquity. Do you, Zarith, consider most of the popular virtues such as temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness 'good'? Do you consider most the popular vices such as greed, sloth, pride and envy 'bad'? They were not invented out of nowhere. People decided what was good and what was evil based on experience. Virtues tended to create a peaceful, healthy community. Vices tended to lead to hurt or war. From what I see in history, good and evil are practically built in. What do you think?

The issue that I have with people arguing the "free-will defense" or the "evil really has to exist" or "evil is just absence of good" is this: suppose that we were all to wake up tomorrow to find that hunger, starvation, famine, disease, natural disasters, war, violent crime, and so on, no longer existed.

If I am to believe the arguments you have made in this thread, then such a state of affairs would have you scratching your head and saying, "Hrmmm, this is clearly a most troubling development, vast amounts of people have been deprived of their exercise of free will and their capacity to love. What deviltry is this?"

And humanity would stop hurting others and allowing hunger... why? For what rational reason? I can think of only one reason: love. But that doesn't exist. So you must be describing a world without rational reasons--a world in which we are robots or animals. Can a robot or animal judge that the sudden absence of hunger, disease and war is a change for the better? Or perhaps I should ask: Are you willing to give up your humanity in order to eliminate evil?

---

Don't you find it a tad bit troubling that you've had to assert a game of emotional opposites...?

Show me the error in my logic.

[The Grand Nudger]

Beyond a litany of bare assertion? I kind of make it a habit to go no further than that. There's no need to. Garbage in, garbage out. I'd probably spend more time in picking it apart if you showed any interest in spending the time to put it together competently. Perhaps I'm jaded, ah well.

The theist looks up and cries "Prove me wrong!"

I look down and say

"no."

[Zarith]

What I'm asking is, how do you know that good and evil are opposites? How can the founders of Christianity invent two 'opposite' accounts and have anybody understand them to be opposites? Wouldn't the ideas of good and evil have to exist from antiquity, if converts are to be made? As far as we know, they have existed from antiquity. Do you, Zarith, consider most of the popular virtues such as temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness 'good'? Do you consider most the popular vices such as greed, sloth, pride and envy 'bad'? They were not invented out of nowhere. People decided what was good and what was evil based on experience. Virtues tended to create a peaceful, healthy community. Vices tended to lead to hurt or war. From what I see in history, good and evil are practically built in. What do you think?

Hey, you don't get to pick and choose only the stuff most people agree upon. If your moral system is absolute and timeless, you have to defend all of it.

Other than that, I agree with the claim that people can and do figure out how to live together in a better fashion i.e. one that leads to less suffering. I do not take this as evidence of anything more than our capacity to figure stuff out.

And humanity would stop hurting others and allowing hunger... why? For what rational reason? I can think of only one reason: love. But that doesn't exist. So you must be describing a world without rational reasons--a world in which we are robots or animals. Can a robot or animal judge that the sudden absence of hunger, disease and war is a change for the better? Or perhaps I should ask: Are you willing to give up your humanity in order to eliminate evil?

Well ... no. You would be you, having woken up to see a great many bad things removed from existence, and retaining an understanding of what they were and why they were bad. I didn't specify why, for all I care we could assume that it was completely and totally inexplicable. Did eliminating smallpox make us "less human"? If we knew how, would eliminating the impulse that some adults have to sexually assault children make us "robots"? Would you really be the one to say, "Hey guys, maybe that's not such a good idea, after all someone needs to rape a child every now and then so that we can all understand the nature of good". These aren't supposed to be trick questions.