The argument against "evil", theists please come to the defense.

[Faith No More]

I keep explaining to you that original creation and creation are two different things...

I've been following this thread with interest, and I missed this. Could you send me a link or tell me the post number, as I don't really have time to go back through this thread?

[fr0d0]

Greetings FNM. Apologies for the brief reply, I'm posting from my phone. Skepsis asked a few posts back for me to explain that, and that's all I've been addressing since. Is what I meant. I'll try and check in later if I get around to firing up the laptop.

[Skepsis]

Dude, all I'm trying to do is explain this one point to you, about original creation. I keep explaining to you that original creation and creation are two different things, and then you go ahead and conflate the two again. I'm not asking anything difficult here. Do you understand the concept of first cause? As opposed to say, you creating a weapon of mass destruction?

So that is what you are trying to do. Honstly, it is one hell of a job trying to decipher meaning from your posts. It had seemed to me to be your point to make sure I understood that an evil creator -> negative -> destructive, not that creation and original creation are different things. It's almost like you are speaking a different language.
The concept of first cause as opposed to my own creation of a weapon of mass destruction? Well, perhaps.
An original creator of the "first cause" is more responcible than me for creating that nuclear weapon, just as he would be responcible for the creation of every single plague of mankind and nature ever to exist.
Either that or you are suggesting that it somehow wasn't this creator's fault and some third party was the one wrecking havok in the world, to which I could only reply that your God is lame. Is he incapable of destroying this evil force, or subduing it? Was he incapable of stopping it at its conception, or better yet simply discarding any version of the world that had this figure in it?
I can only assume you are clinging to the end of your rope here, despite the fact I hardly ever understand what point you are trying to make with your drivel.

[fr0d0]

"I can only assume you are clinging to the end of your rope here, despite the fact I hardly ever understand what point you are trying to make with your drivel."

This is you never being insulting? If I take your honest perception of reality on that statement then perhaps that would explain why I see absurdity. I apologise if I've talked above you. That wasn't my intention. I assumed that you were as intensely involved in this discussion as I am.

Your attacks on your understanding of God remain just that. Ill informed. And your grasp of first cause is logically flawed. I keep trying to explain it, and your counter seems to amount to: No. Nope. No it isn't. I'm not going to explain why.

I'm now out of patience waiting for some justification from you. I will assume that you just don't have any.

[Faith No More]

Greetings FNM. Apologies for the brief reply, I'm posting from my phone. Skepsis asked a few posts back for me to explain that, and that's all I've been addressing since. Is what I meant. I'll try and check in later if I get around to firing up the laptop.

No worries. Take your time.

[Skepsis]

This is you never being insulting?

I didn't expect you to be so thin-skinned.

[quote]
Your attacks on your understanding of God remain just that. Ill informed. And your grasp of first cause is logically flawed. I keep trying to explain it, and your counter seems to amount to: No. Nope. No it isn't. I'm not going to explain why.

Your argument remains that only a loving God would create the universe because suffering and love are necessarily found in conjunction in reality.
If this is wrong, simply correct me. but it is what I take as an argument because your rhetoric is shitty as hell.

"Same as a loving God creating beings to love him without suffering is illogical. Neither (love or suffering) can exist alone. They're interdependent. So only a loving God would create this reality."

Here is my answer:

If you are arguing that only a loving God is capable of creating this universe, I'll give that to you. I could care less what is capable of creating this universe, material wise. If you are arguing that a loving God ought to be willing to create this world, you are sadly mistaken. He shouldn't be willing to because an infinitely loving God would prefer no existence to an existence of suffering.
I am more worried about the contradictions found between that God and the universe he created.
So here we have our universe, a place of love and a good bit of suffering. No loving God would opt to create that universe, due to the massive amounts of unnecessary suffering. And we have your proposed God who is supposed to be all-loving who decided to create the world anyway.
Your argument also doesn't address unnecessary suffering at all. Thinking back, I feel it is directly contradictory for a God to invalidate his own nature by acting differently than his nature dictates. This would make the creation of a world with evil impossible for a loving God.
I still hold that an infinitely loving God has no business creating any evil, instead opting out of creation. Keep that in mind in your next reply.

I'm now out of patience waiting for some justification from you. I will assume that you just don't have any.

Thin skinned and impatient?
Who would have known?


"God's creation is this reality.", you say.
And then you chide me for dismissing it with a "nope"?
You have yet to back that one up, and if you don't intend on doing so then don't boldly declare such things.

[fr0d0]

Hey Skep. I'm not thin skinned. Ask around. If you say you're not being insulting and you are, I have a conflict to resolve somehow. I'm pretty good with the wind ups I like to think. But I'm trying to get an opinion out of you, and also be a good boy.

So your counter argument is: you agree!

Your argument remains that only a loving God would create the universe because suffering and love are necessarily found in conjunction in reality.[/quote ]

Well no, my argument is that the Christian concept of god as first cause is that only a positive force could possibility be that first cause. Because any element of negativity would defeat the creative event. Simple as that.

With this, I take it, you have no issue.

[quote='Skepsis' pid='314697' dateline='1343088831']
If you are arguing that a loving God ought to be willing to create this world, you are sadly mistaken. He shouldn't be willing to because an infinitely loving God would prefer no existence to an existence of suffering.

And like I responded, god is not responsible for evil/ the negative force, that necessarily, in physics, opposes him. God works with physics, in that he provides the positive. In him is life.

Now a notion of anti physics; of life being possible without death, is logically impossible. It kinda wrecks the happy train before it has chance to leave the station. As many atheist will attest: what we have to do is accept reality as it is. God cannot be logically impossible. I think you conceded that above. So God could not create happy land.

unnecessary suffering

Please explain how any suffering is unnecessary. If it is necessary for this logical world to function, then it is encompassed in Gods design. We may not understand fully the scientific processes. But I doubt very much that any scientist would agree that it (the process of suffering as part of life) would be illogical.

Your argument also doesn't address unnecessary suffering at all.

My argument specifically confronts suffering. There is no such thing as unnecessary suffering in this reality. Only in your fantasy reality, where the illogical is possible.

God cannot logically remove suffering from a logical world, so an argument against the need for suffering has to dismiss logic.

Thinking back, I feel it is directly contradictory for a God to invalidate his own nature by acting differently than his nature dictates.

God never acts contrary to his nature. I've shown what constituted Gods actions, and how the negative counter is not God.

This would make the creation of a world with evil impossible for a loving God.

The creation of a world without evil is logically impossible full stop. It does not negate the presence of an all loving god, who's presence serves to counter evil.

"God's creation is this reality.", you say.
And then you chide me for dismissing it with a "nope"?
You have yet to back that one up

How are you proposing that from a Christian viewpoint, that this isn't correct?

If God = creator, then creation (ie: this reality) is what God created. I fail to see the reason behind your objection here. Please explain.

[Cato]

Please explain how any suffering is unnecessary.

You first, how is any suffering necessary?

[Skepsis]

Thanks for butchering my quote.
Might want to fix that so I can understand what you are trying to say.
ANNNND they're off!

---

And like I responded, god is not responsible for evil/ the negative force, that necessarily, in physics, opposes him. God works with physics, in that he provides the positive. In him is life.

Lolwut?
Evil/negative force necessarily opposes God in physics?
I see what you are trying to say, but I won't let you off the hook without proving your statements. Why is God= creator= positive and vice versa, with unknown evil force "x" being the negative force?
You still have'nt proven why creation is necessarily positive, in the general sense nor in the "special" case of original creation.

Now a notion of anti physics; of life being possible without death, is logically impossible. It kinda wrecks the happy train before it has chance to leave the station. As many atheist will attest: what we have to do is accept reality as it is. God cannot be logically impossible. I think you conceded that above. So God could not create happy land.

"God cannot be logically impossible."
I can make assertions too.
Your argument is that evil must exist in conjunction with good. You still haven't answered why a morally perfect God would have created a world with suffering of any kind, much less the huge amount of unnecessary suffering that exists. Why did he have to create any world at all?

Please explain how any suffering is unnecessary. If it is necessary for this logical world to function, then it is encompassed in Gods design. We may not understand fully the scientific processes. But I doubt very much that any scientist would agree that it (the process of suffering as part of life) would be illogical.

The point of contention is NOT that suffering is logically unnecessary in a world without an omnibenevolent creator God.
You must not have ever heard this argument before, or seriously misunderstood it.
So here it is: A perfectly moral God creates a world. He can create ANY world. He creates a world with unnecessary suffering (i.e., suffering that could have been averted by creating a different world or crafting physical laws differently). This created world is incompatible with a God of any kind of compassion. Just because this world must have suffering and you assume it to be God's creation doesn't make it so.
Basically, we aren't assuming a world under natural contexts, but rather under the context of a perfectly moral creator God.
He could make ANY world.
He made this world.
It not only has suffering, but unnecessary suffering.

My argument specifically confronts suffering. There is no such thing as unnecessary suffering in this reality. Only in your fantasy reality, where the illogical is possible.

"Only in the Fantasy Reality, where the illogical is logical, the impossible, possible, and the unimaginable imaginable! See it in theaters today!"
...
Anyway, your argument fails to address suffering in the context of an omnibenevolent creator. You have effectively avoided the objection.

God cannot logically remove suffering from a logical world, so an argument against the need for suffering has to dismiss logic.

BLEEP! Wrong answer.
No, a God didn't need to create this world or any world at all. You keep assuming this, but I assure you it hasn't been proven that a God needed to have created this world. He could have created any world, being as powerful as he is. But he chose this one, and therein lies the problem; why didn't your God choose not to create a world with suffering, opting out of creation? Or, why didn't he make the world with no unnecessary suffering?
Unnecessary suffering still kills your argument, any way you cut the cake.

God never acts contrary to his nature. I've shown what constituted Gods actions, and how the negative counter is not God.

Sorry, I am not familiar to your personal brand of Christianity. If your God created all things, he is directly responsible for all things, including any and all destructive forces or the possibility for destructive forces.

I find it odd that you label creation positive and destruction negative, because anything ever created will eventually be destroyed. Is time the destructive force you are labeling "negative"? Because God created this too- creation directly creating destruction.

But I don't want to lose my mind in your useless waffle, so I won't bother.

The creation of a world without evil is logically impossible full stop. It does not negate the presence of an all loving god, who's presence serves to counter evil.

Yes! So why does this world exist at all if your God is omnibenevolent?

Please explain.

It's not important. I would prefer to keep this as direct as possible and avoid other topics.
If only I could avoid this positive and negative creation destruction good evil stuff too, as it reminds me of circus kooks and television psychics.

---

[Epimethean]

Yours is the only irreality I see Epi.

Your command of irony is epic.