The Problem of Evil (XXVII)

[Mister Agenda]

Why hasn't God arranged for everyone to be able to have knowledge of God? Romans 1:20 comes to mind: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." There are many more verses that speak about how the heavens, etc. declare this or that about God. That seems to be the "God Shaped Hole" in our psyche that psychologist like to talk about. 

In addition, I think that God has a different idea than you do about where the line between freely choosing God from a) the amount of information that has been revealed and b) the amount of information needed that would be so obvious that freely choosing God would not play into it. I think philosophers call it morally sufficient freedom. 

Another question: If we are in a "fallen state" or a have a "sin nature" affecting us, why wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude (as does the Bible) that our cognitive abilities have been impaired and our built-in selfcenteredness (pride) prevents us from seeing evidence that conflicts with the selfcenteredness (a kind of noetic effect).

You've been here this long and are still resorting to argument from Bible verse? That verse is one of the clearest evidences of the Bible's fallibility to an atheist, because we know it isn't true. 

It's telling that the biggest problem with God is explaining why he's hiding.

You mean, if we assume your claim is true, why wouldn't we think your conclusion is true? I hope you don't think that was a good question. In any case, if true, our 'fallen nature' wouldn't be our fault, it would be due to the choices of two humans and God. It's like blaming a blind person for tripping over obstacles when you're the one who blinded her.

[LadyForCamus]

I'd like to make this general observation:

Is it reasonable that God needs so much explaining and justifying?

Lol, of course it isn't. Apparently, "Knowing" God is like a souped-up game of Where's Waldo, except in this version Waldo is wearing the invisibility cloak from Harry Potter.

[Pat Mustard]

The logical incompatibility of the claims "a tri-omni God exists" and "gratuitous suffering exist" is not terribly controversial....To salvage the doctrine of a tri-omni God, theists by and large take the skeptical position and argue that we don't know that God isn't morally justified in permitting such instances of suffering.

You can cry foul all you want. The skeptical objection still contains a positive claim that cannot be proven. That claim is this: there is a possible world without evil.

Secondly, there is no doctrine to salvage. Skeptics' definitions of "tri-omni" are not part of Christian doctrine. Skeptics strain the definition of omnipotent well beyond any reasonable bounds by saying that an all-powerful god could do the impossible. In so doing they are objecting to a god not associated with Christianity.

"...All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word 'all' when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, "God can do all things," is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent." - Thomas Aquinas, Summa, Question 5

Chad's post implied that he speaks for all Christians on their view of God's omnipotence. He certainly doesn't.

Not all. Nearly all. As you can see from the Aquinas quote, my position is eminently traditional and widely accepted.

Aquinas' definituon of omnipotence per you qoute boils down to "being all powerful does not grant you the power to do anything".

And that's a major problem right there because Aquinas defined omnipotence as being the exact opposite of what the word was coined to describe viz "the poewr to do anything". But of course Aquinas had to go that route because being all powerful was a non negotable tenet of christian theology, but being all powerful meant that god was responsible for evil. The only way out of this dilemma that god had two mutually conflicting natures was to redefine all powerful as "not all poweful", a powerfully weak weaseling out of the corner the church had backed itself into.

[Mister Agenda]

I want to mention that I admire SteveII's manner with us, even though I have trouble understanding his points. I appreciate him being respectful. We need more discourse like this, instead of it degenerating into arrogant dismissal, insults or threats.

Fuck you. ;-). Seriously though. I was insulted and treated like shit from day one. Maybe I've become a bit jaded. And I really did make every effort to debate with gentleness and respect. Many atheists it seems know the literal meanings of the bible but I must say their grasp of theology is pretty simplistic. Maybe their objections stump your average evangelical but those objections don't really pose serious theological problems. It saddens me to think that people settle for the arguments that satisfy their own preconceptions rather than explore the limits of their philosophy.

I may have mentioned to you before, that's it's the fundamentalists whose actions we're most concerned about and therefore whose reasoning we're concerned about. You have a tendency to jump in and tell us that what we're saying doesn't apply to your more sophisticated theology. That is usually correct, because usually we weren't talking about your theology. Swedenborgianism isn't high on our list of things to talk about, because we never hear the Swedenborgians have engineered laws that prevent women from getting an abortion after 20 weeks or requires people to prove their biological sex before using a bathroom. It's the literalists who want to violate other people's rights at every turn.

So what your comments usually wind up being, is changes to the subject. This thread, however, is appropriate for your view of a general theological question. Since about 1/3 of the world's evangelicals live in the USA (though they're still a minority) and have significant influence over a major political party in a two-party system, it rings hollow when you intimate that we should be ignoring their theology because yours is 'more mainstream'.

If the 'mainstream Christians' had done more to prevent the rise of fundamentalist Christianity in America, maybe Christianity wouldn't be undergoing such a rapid decline in the USA today. Fundamentalists have done horrible damage to the 'Christian brand'. But I get why atheists might be more fun to argue with.

[Mister Agenda]

Chad's post implied that he speaks for all Christians on their view of God's omnipotence. He certainly doesn't. As a great theologian once said: if the Bible said that Jonah swallowed the whale, he'd believe it.

I find that it is a good portion of them, that do agree with Chad, especially those who have given it any thought, or listened to those who had.   In any case, if your discussing with Chad, then it would seem that it is his view that needs to be addressed.  I don't think that demanding he adhere to a weaker view so you can make your argument is the correct course.

There's no problem addressing his view. There's a problem with him insisting that we pay special attention to his view because it's the real Christian one.

Can you give an example of me insisting that he adhere to a weaker view?

[Mister Agenda]

---

---

Let's say that I wouldn't lift a finger. Would you make any effort to still find a way to consider me benevolent?

It depends on the reason why you did not.

My reasons are beyond the capacity of mere mortals to understand. But trust me, they're very good. They're the best reasons. I'm very good at reasons, and if you could understand them, you'd be impressed. Everything would make sense.

[LadyForCamus]

It depends on the reason why you did not.

My reasons are beyond the capacity of mere mortals to understand. But trust me, they're very good. They're the best reasons. I'm very good at reasons, and if you could understand them, you'd be impressed. Everything would make sense.

LOL.

[Catholic_Lady]

Interesting thread.

SteveII, I'm glad you're here. You're saying a lot of things which I have tried to explain before but could never quite put into words.

[Mister Agenda]

What is wrong with the idea of a Multiverse in which all possible worlds are exhasted and we just got a crumby one?

Nothing, except there is no reason to think such a multiverse contains a theodic God, because the PoE still applies to a multiverse. With not God at all, retaining the idea of a multiverse, we probably got one of the more hospitable ones, all things considered.

Unless you're proposing a multiverse where different universes can have different Gods or no God? That would be an interesting position.

[robvalue]

Maybe this is one of the early prototypes.

We have the problem of working backwards from the conclusion, then trying to rationalise the available evidence.

1) Dad loves us completely
2) Dad beats us
3) Therefor, the beatings we get must be justified and must show us he loves us