Dodging theodicy: 'On Faith' panel stumbles over Haiti and God

[fr0d0]

Because he is the opposite of Evil

[Purple Rabbit]

What was the first cause of evil?

[theVOID]

What was the first cause of evil?

It was a dark and stormy night, roughly 9 months before Fr0d0 was born

[fr0d0]

The absence of good.

[theVOID]

The absence of good.

Then failing to do good would make one Evil and not indifferent?

If the absence of Good is evil, God is everywhere, and there are plenty of places absent of good, then are parts of God evil?

[fr0d0]

1. Since when is 0 a negative??

2. No that's too simplistic

[theVOID]

1) You said Evil is the absence of good, but indifference is also the absent of Good, and indifference is not evil.

So how do you discern between, evil, indifference and good? Saying Evil is the absence of good clearly brings a false dichotomy.

2) Too simplistic, what are the other factors?

If Good is simply the absence of evil, and there exists places in which there are no good, and god is (as you have said yourself) everywhere and everything, then god cannot be 'all good' or rather God is partly evil.

You're going to have to come back to me with your modified description of good and evil and your definition of what and where God is and whatever else you think might be relevant, as it stands the logical conclusion is that God is not 'all good' as claimed.

[fr0d0]

1) Those who are not with us are against us ...is this also a false dichotomy?

2) Modified LMAO

If you think about what you just said, rather than trying to use it in a game, you might understand the beauty of the notion. God is a positive force, hence creation. Destruction is a result of the negative of that force. God is everywhere in the force. Evil is in the destruction of the force. It's completely logical.

[leo-rcc]

1) Those who are not with us are against us ...is this also a false dichotomy?

Yes. You can against an action or policy and still not be against those performing the action or enforcing the policy.

[theVOID]

1) Those who are not with us are against us ...is this also a false dichotomy?

Oh surprise surprise, he dodged my question.

First, in answer to your question, Yes it is a false Dichotomy, there are also those who don't care, what's your point?

Second, Would you care to answer my question? I'll repost to make it nice and easy for you to catch up:

You said Evil is the absence of good, but indifference is also the absent of Good, and indifference is not evil.

So how do you discern between, evil, indifference and good? Saying Evil is the absence of good clearly brings a false dichotomy.

2) Modified LMAO

If you think about what you just said, rather than trying to use it in a game, you might understand the beauty of the notion. God is a positive force, hence creation. Destruction is a result of the negative of that force. God is everywhere in the force. Evil is in the destruction of the force. It's completely logical.

Firstly, this isn't a 'game', i've been trying to understand what it is you believe and why and so far every time i dig just bellow the surface I get a fucking cop out response loaded with spin, dodge and bald-faced assertions that lack any attempt what-so-ever to show why your argument is logically valid.

Second, You still haven't explained 'the notion' adequately, I already pointed out that saying "Evil is the absence of good" is a false dichotomy, so using it in an argument is illogical.

If God is a positive force, such as creation or good, and it can be destroyed by a negative, leaving destruction and evil, then where does that leave God in the whole Omnipotent vs Omnibenevolent argument? If God is omnipotent he allows his Good to be negated by evil he is therefore not Omnibenevolent. If god is Omnibenevolent but is unable to prevent the destruction of his positive force, then he is not omnipotent. How do you reconcile the two if at all?

See, these are the kinds of questions that i have about your theology, they are perfectly valid concerns, but i'm not getting any answers to my questions nor explanations for Why my questions are wrong and what they should be. You continually fail to provide anything meaningful to further the discussion, i only ever get the feeling that you haven't got anything beneath the surface, just hot air.