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

[Mystic]

5. Honour and Value gained through the system of struggle and suffering, cannot be given without such a system.
-Why?

I already showed why I thought so in the post before.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm afraid that I'm going to require more than "because Mystic thinks so" when it comes to the subject of suffering as it's being invoked. Don't you think that's fair?

[fr0d0]

This "all good" you make it into, is innacurate. If you can't get over that, then I guess you're whistling in the wind. If this makes your argument innefective to you, then you have to move on.

This makes the argument unnecessary. You conceded that an all-loving God does not exist. That is the point of the rhetoric employed.

God is perfect. Sure. But God is love; and God is a loving God. I don't know where you get "all loving" from that.

Guess it's my turn to get a hearty laugh from what you have to say.
So God is perfect. As an attribute, this translates to perfection on all fronts, including a moralistic one. You then concede that God is literally love, at least as a rule of a part of himself.
How the hell does this NOT translate to "all loving"?

Hold on... retraction time again... God is all loving. God cannot act in an unloving way, as you're suggesting he has. Omni-benevolent, the original bone of contention, you are adding what God didn't do to.

Your contention: God created not God, by allowing not God in his creation.
My contention: "Nothing" can never logically be ommitted from any creation.

Erm... which one did I make up?

"God is necessarily a creator"

Dude, it's very difficult for me to check your reference if you don't quote it. I click 'quote' and I can't read previous posts without a lot of messing about. Just a request

Well without the creator factor God doesn't exist. So the question doesn't begin. "God could create nothing" = "" <-- there's nothing in there lol!

I'm presenting you with a logical position > nothingness = evil, to help you to understand my POV.

Let me try one more time.

1. Nothing < this is before the begining
2. Something < the begining has happened.
3. Nothing < the end. Something was removed.

Perfect example of the equivocation of the word "nothing".
Before anything there was true nothing. After creation there is no longer a chance of there being "nothing" ever again, according to the laws of the universe which you tout as unchangeable (I guess, because every time I bring up the idea that universal laws could have been altered to fit life better and restrict suffering, you always say "no, because universal law dictates this suffering").

I agree it's an equivocation as I've said.

'Nothing' doesn't exist... I can go along with that. But nothing = the existence of nothing.. so that isn't saying anything is it? hehe

Now this is our (theoretical) universe.

+ your fallacy of equivocation.

It's all that it ever contained. 'Something' is good. Good because it is a positive.

Why is "something" good? Because it is positive. Why are positive things good? Because they are something. Why is "something" good? Because...
One of your premises needs to be validated before I take you seriously. The positive side of a AA isn't "good", and shouldn't rightly be thought to be so. It is what it is, not good nor evil unless specifically derived to be so. Adding a cup of acid to a dish and a cup of water to another, while both "positive" in the sense that they add to the nothing in the dish, aren't identical in content. This has been the argument, that a God had the capacity to filter the acid of this world into the nearly pure water of another.

Good = functional. Functional is what God created. He ordered it (everything) so that it worked. A chair with a broken leg is not good. It fails to serve it's purpose.

Your God wound up the universe and set it loose. He gave it a limited amount of energy. To give it this limited energy is to knowingly set it on a course for destruction. If the rules of the universe are such that the universe will dissipate eventually, then God is the cause of the dissipation.

What is the negative force, how does it operate, and is it necessary that it does so?

Destruction is the natural outcome that God couldn't avoid. Hence heaven.

The negative force is the attraction of everything to it's original state. It operates via physical forces, and is the way this reality works.

Not creating Something is nothing to consider. God could have created Nothing. Erm.... sure...

God could have witheld creation. This isn't the same as "creating nothing".

How so?

then please give a working example. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just need to be shown how. If you can't think of one, please just say.

Any world that follows Rhythm's rules for a ratchet and rancorous existence would do as a better model for a universe.
Better distribution of goods, better human nature, better resource management- things like that would drastically reduce sufferings.

Yes, but you still haven't provided the 'how'.

I don't feel it's my place to tell you what God is and isn't.

Well you have. And that's fine. I might argue against what I know, likewise you can point out what you think I may be wrong on. Nobody holds the infallability card here.

Then that would be the natural logical progression in that reality. Gazillions of other permutations. So what? So you think that in one possible permutation no one dies? Quickly the food and water runs out. What permutation kicks in then to prevent death? Does everyone die happy by some coincidence?

I don't have to affirm any of that. My point was, God is a prick if he fails to create the best conceivable world. If there is even one improvement that can be conceived, then God has failed to be moral because it shows that he arbitrarily picked a world with more or less suffering that the "perfect" model.

And no one has managed to come up with how a better alternative works. So God remains good.

Nature works because of the cycle that you seemingly despise and hold God to account for. I hold that this POV of yours is in fact the entertaining of a fantasy, which is unhealthy when this reality is perfectly beautiful as it is. Maybe that's my perspective kicking in. Factoring in a loving God, the world makes sense from a positive point of view.

Entertaining of a fantasy? That's rich, coming from a theist.

Can you not entertain the possibility even? Is that bias?

Why can't there be a world devoid of suffering? God can change the laws in any way he wants, allowing for a perfect world. Why not make that one?

My contention is thqat he cannot. And as you fail to back up your assertion, I assume it to be incorrect.

In the context of your God, this reality is morally devoid of value and is disgusting.

Then you misunderstand my God

In the context of a physical universe devoid of the supernatural, this world is a beautiful and wonderful place, nearly full to the brim with wonder with the occasional side of suffering- however, for some it is a hell and for others still it wasn't even a glimpse of beauty.

This is one of my chief bandwagons... if you can see the world as a beautiful and wonderful place sans God, you cannot see it as the opposite 'with'. The two statements (with and without God) cannot be polar opposites.

People live hell through personal choice, is my dogma. They fail to live through choice.

How do you know that God doesn't care? Why should God care? What priorities should God have?
If God is good and loving, as in my construct; then what should he be doing differently to make this situation any better?

Easy. If he was good and loving, then this world wouldn't exist. That is what he would be doing.

That seems a very sad POV. You fail to see the positivity so that makes it all too painful to bear. You'd rather nothing than this. This, to me, is the point of belief. To understand the positive benefit of life.

Can you define your example more so that I can have more to get my teeth into? Would God have to do to prevent all death? How does that work?

Any sufferings would have to be eliminated, through any means necessary. That would make the universe pure.

I have a question for you that will solve any ills you may have.
Is heaven devoid of sufferings? Do people in heaven have free will?
If you answered yes to both, why no make the world like heaven?
If no, why not make a place like some believe heaven to be like?

See I gave you that loophole hehe

Heaven is devoid of sufferring - yes.
Do people of heaven have free will...

The difference between earthly and heavenly people is knowledge. Heavenly bodies no longer know evil. They are no longer subject to the question of disobeyng God. They accept that full life is the only logical conclusion, where earthly people do not. Earthly people often choose no life, or not God.

God already created heaven, so in your mind God has already done what you desire.

Ok I see what you mean. Nothing then isn't evil. But the force back to nothing is. Destruction. decay... how are these not negative forces? Loosely, negative = nothing.

God isn't "leaving the universe in a state of evil" if he were to decide against creation.

No I agree. God just 'isn't'.

Evil only existed after something was created. Nothing is exactly that. Nothing.

Evil is the sun block. Sun shines down on us until something gets in the way. Darkness isn't caused by the sun, but by the lack of sun. The sun shines on regardless. Likewise evil is the absence of God. Gods love carries on regardless.

Evil overpowers God, then? It keeps God from making contact in any meaningful way.
If evil only existed after creation... God created evil. Necessarily. By your own logic.

Evil blocks God, yes. God is the dominant power, being more than creation.

No, nothing is the default state. God didn't create it, just as light didn't create dark. Dark was the nothing that existed before light.

In my understanding, factoring in God, all things lead to him > we end up with a positive conclusion to everything. All souls are saved, all evil is defeated. Love wins.

Like a fairytale!
Eherm.
If everthing ends up peachy-keen, why not make it that way from the start?

If it's a logical progression, then it isn't a fairytale. Faitytales intrinsically do not follow reality. To fantasize about it being perfect from the start, is a departure from reality. (+1 to me hehe)

Creating everything doesn't entail the creation of nothing. Because nothing didn't need creation to create it. Noting pre exists everything, unless you suggest the there never was a nothing in the first place.

"Creation of everything entails the decay of everything".
I never said it entails the creation of nothing in the sense you are using the word. You already conceded this point!!
Creation entails decay. God creates "nothing" (the decay of matter to an undefinable state) in this way.

A byproduct of creation is the propensity for everything to revert. You need to prove that God created nothing for your proposition to work. And as that is clearly illogical, your point is lost.


I think you made me realise (again) the point of heaven. This is how I came to belief, working through the ideas until they made sense. So thankyou, and apologies haha!

[Skepsis]

I read your response and have a rebuttal, but I would personally like to condense the issues as best we can.
Would it be too much for me to ask you to pick the vital issues that must be addressed and either copy-paste them or summarize them to the best of your ability. My hope is that we can eliminate the wordwalls we have going and make the whole process more efficient.
The reason I burden you with this is because I feel you understand my position, but I am have trouble understanding yours because it changes from time to time. Not beating you over the head here, just saying what I have observed.
So. Can I ask for this little favor?

[Faith No More]

The difference between earthly and heavenly people is knowledge. Heavenly bodies no longer know evil. They are no longer subject to the question of disobeyng God. They accept that full life is the only logical conclusion, where earthly people do not. Earthly people often choose no life, or not God.

But if he is capable of creating a suffering free world, as you contend he is since he created heaven, why not bypass the whole earth thing and just create heaven?

[The Grand Nudger]

If Frods could answer that question he wouldn't be here, he'd be busy writing a manuscript for his next opus.

[fr0d0]

@ Skepsis

I was going to add that I'm pretty happy with what we've concluded already. Those circles we're tangled in I don't expect resolution to. Although I've seen some progression in your thinking, and I hope you have in mine.

---

If he [God] is capable of creating a suffering free world, as you contend he is since he created heaven, why not bypass the whole earth thing and just create heaven?

Heaven is not a corporeal world. Heaven is an ethereal world. God did create heaven, and all things lead to it. If that's what you want of God then God has provided it.

I fail to see unnecessry sufferring. Sufferring is a necessary part of nature. In the scheme of things (good and bad together, which is neither good nor bad), nature works.

If you can say, like Skepsis has said above, that this world is a beautiful and wonderful place, then how can you not say that this is not a beautiful and wonderful creation? I don't separate the two.

[The Grand Nudger]

Easy, the beauty and value of this world is a very simple appraisal to make considering how horribly shitty things could have gone (and still may) at any point. Relative to that, this place is a wonderland. Even the shitty things have a sort of awe about them. Nothing is directed at us, not even the shitty things, there is no malice, there is no intent.

When you invoke conscious, directed, creative effort...and specifically by a creative agent that is presumed to be very very smart.....the picture darkens. If this creative force had within it the power to go any way it wanted with it's creation it goes pitch black. You can't assume incompetence or carelessness, as you might with a child who accidentally hits their sibling, you begin to suspect malice, as with an adult who is fond of stabbing people.

I'm personally of the opinion, that if we're willing to invoke gods as a remotely plausible or respectable proposition -even in the absence of evidence- that a much stronger argument can be made for an infinitely malicious god than has ever been made for any benevolence, of any measure, whatsoever.

To you, the suffering you see seems necessary. You justify this by reference to nature and life, an area which is in no way enhanced or elaborated upon by the concept of a benevolent creator...that's just something you decided to shoehorn into it. You have not established that any of this suffering is necessary at all in light of your creator (and alternatives have been offered in spades). Is this the is-ought argument of suffering as a necessity with a side of goddidit? Seems to be.

[Faith No More]

Heaven is not a corporeal world. Heaven is an ethereal world. God did create heaven, and all things lead to it. If that's what you want of God then God has provided it.

Which still doesn't answer the question of why god didn't simply create only heaven and spare his creation the suffering that exists in this corporeal existence.

I fail to see unnecessry sufferring. Sufferring is a necessary part of nature. In the scheme of things (good and bad together, which is neither good nor bad), nature works.

Are you saying it was beyond god's ability to create nature without suffering?

If you can say, like Skepsis has said above, that this world is a beautiful and wonderful place, then how can you not say that this is not a beautiful and wonderful creation? I don't separate the two.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so saying that you see a beautiful creation reflects only your subjective opinon. It does not necessarily follow that this beauty actually exists, however, upon further thought, I'm guessing you will argue an objective standard of beauty exists, correct?

[fr0d0]

Which still doesn't answer the question of why god didn't simply create only heaven and spare his creation the suffering that exists in this corporeal existence.

Why didn't he.. who could know? Why couldn't he.. he could.

Not messing with you here. Just addressing your question. More questions follow. I'll let you pick them. Or not.

Are you saying it was beyond god's ability to create nature without suffering?

As God is logical, God couldn't create the illogical. I'm not adverse to considering the possibility that other logical solutions might be possible. I think that's outside our puny abilities to understand, but I don't rule out the possibility.

Sufferring isn't the problem to me. Unnecessary sufferring is. That's the injustice. I have no problem with justice. Other people seem to (by concluding that God is unjust).

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so saying that you see a beautiful creation reflects only your subjective opinon. It does not necessarily follow that this beauty actually exists, however, upon further thought, I'm guessing you will argue an objective standard of beauty exists, correct?

And I thought I had the objectiv/ subjective thing beat. Damn you!

It has to be subjective doesn't it? Objective from God's perspective are you getting at??

If the world isn't beautiful to us, then we have a problem connecting to it. The beauty is still there. How's that?