RE: The Problem of Evil, Free Will, and the "Greater Good"
April 30, 2013 at 10:07 pm
(This post was last modified: April 30, 2013 at 10:14 pm by A_Nony_Mouse.)
(April 28, 2013 at 9:52 pm)Venom7513 Wrote: It seems that many Christians try to avoid the problem of evil by arguing that God has given men "free will", but doesn't this just hide the problem behind another layer of abstraction?
Syllogistic Argument:
I. If a being is omnipotent, then he has a means to every end to which any other being has a means, and he carries out all means to which he wills the ends.
Anything which requires humans to do anything or be part of is not.
Quote:II. If a being is omnibenevolent, then every end that he wills is good, and he wills all ends that are good and to which he has a means.
Where did you find anything which might support this assumption?
Quote:III. There exists at least one scenario in which there exists two distinct beings (A and B) such that A carries out a means to an evil end E, and B has a means to an end E' such that if B would have carried out the means to E' then A would not have had the means to E.
Given the abuse of OMNI one could with the word had never been invented.
Proof: Assume there exists some being G such that G is simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then G has (I) but does not carry out (III) the means to E'. Hence, G does not will E' (I) which implies that E' is not good (II). Assuming objective morality, it is then, therefore, wrong for B to carry out the means to E'.
Intuitive Appeal:
Bob hates Bobbette and decides that he is going kill her, but first confides in his close friend Bobby. Bobby could call the police and stop Bob, but since he also hates Bobbette, he decides to let his friend go through with his sinister plan. Since Bobby has a means to stop Bob from killing Bobbette, certainly an omnipotent god would also have some means. This god could act to stop the murder but does not; thus, he does not want to stop the murder. If this god is also omnibenvolent, he or she wants only what is good, so the act of stopping Bobbette's murder must not have been good. Assuming objective morality, it would have been wrong for Bobby to stop Bob. To put it plainly, either no omnipotent, omnibenevolent god exists, or it is wrong to inhibit another from evil. Both are absurd in light of Biblical Christianity.
Argumentation is worthless. Show me the physical evidence.
(April 28, 2013 at 11:26 pm)Drich Wrote:(April 28, 2013 at 10:03 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Actually, the first is not. Biblical Christianity (especially the OT) does not portray god as omnibenevolent.
Holy crap i almost fell out of my Chair! Wow i guess at least some of what I have said has stuck.. Even if it wasn't my words specifically your are pointed in the right direction.
That said you can also expand the God of the Nt as not being 'omni benevolent' through the vengence and wrath being poured out on the last generation of revelations. Not to mention what Christ says about the unrepentant sinners.
For the God of the OT and Nt are the Same God, the only thing that has changes is we now have a buffer between us and God's wrath. That buffer according to the book of Revelation has an experation date meaning it is not infinate. Once the cup of man's iniquity is full God's wrath will rain down upon this world one final time.
Seems to me a mature human does not live by vengeance and wrath and in fact such behavior is considered immature and juvenile. It is unclear why some people accept a god subject to uncontrolled behavior indistinguishable from childish trantrums.
(April 28, 2013 at 11:29 pm)Drich Wrote: ...
I knew it was too good to last.
We talked about this the word for generation also translates into 'people' as in the Jewish people. The Jewish people have not 'passed away' have they?
How in the world did I miss that bit of bullshit? The idea of a Jewish people was invented in the 19th c. Why do you think you can get away with backdating the idea by nearly 2000 years?
