The central argument is the "free will" one which makes literally zero sense. You could write a hundred pages easily on how bullshit it is. Basically, we don't have the "free will" to get evidence for God but we have the "free will" to burn forever for requesting evidence.
On Sep 2, 9:01 am, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 2, 8:07 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> The central argument is the "free will" one which makes literally zero > sense. You could write a hundred pages easily on how bullshit it is. > Basically, we don't have the "free will" to get evidence for God but > we have the "free will" to burn forever for requesting evidence.
I think they should have some arguments. Why not try to listen to what they say before we criticize it.
Not all theists believe in burning forever in hell.
It makes no sense at all to believe in such a thing.
It is not execuses. There is one simple answer.. We can never understand the wisedom of God.
When Alexander Felming checked his Petri-Dish on that particular day and he found it was contaminated with fungal growth, he could have blamed it on God for allowing this to happen, but rather than that, he discovered Penicillin and saved lifes of millions of people.
When we look at all the evil in the world, we would realize it comes from us humans. The worst enemy of man is not viruses, floods, eathquakes, etc. but man. And after that, we want to blame it on God!!
This life is only a test period. The real life is in the here after. It makes lots of sense in this case if God left us passing through the test, to prove to us where we deserve to go after that
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave" <dvor...@gmail.com> To: "Atheism vs Christianity" <Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 10:01 AM Subject: Re: God and Evil
> On Sep 2, 7:48 am, zuhair <zaljo...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Hi
>> If God is Omnipotent and Omniscient and Omnibenovolent, >> then why he permited all this evil to happen in this world?
>> I would like to know the answers Monotheists have for this question.
On interesting but foolish response to the problem of evil is this
"God did not make it; we did." (Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli. "Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics." Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press. 2003, p. 47). Indeed, sin exists as a consequence of human free will (ibid). This still doesn't explain why God allowed it to happen in the first place. Indeed, many calvinists would have us believe that not only does God allow evil to exist, but that he also has a hand in perpetrating it.
In considering any action, "the same deed is in its entirety both a deed of God and a deed of the creature. It is a deed of God insofar as it is determined from moment to moment by the will of God. And it is a deed of man insofar as God realizes it through the self activity of the creature." (Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology, quoted by Gordon J. Spykman in "Reformational Theology: A new Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics", Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1995, p. 276).
So apparently God is slightly blamed for sin but then blushingly taken out of his own prison by means of a dogma that maintains that he is just upholding the creature's free will to sin. He's not REALLY sinning himself through the creature. This comes back to that post about the theist dilemma.
> On Sep 2, 8:07 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > > The central argument is the "free will" one which makes literally zero > > sense. You could write a hundred pages easily on how bullshit it is. > > Basically, we don't have the "free will" to get evidence for God but > > we have the "free will" to burn forever for requesting evidence.
> I think they should have some arguments. Why not try to listen to what > they say before we criticize it.
> Not all theists believe in burning forever in hell.
> It makes no sense at all to believe in such a thing.
> Zuhair
> > On Sep 2, 9:01 am, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > If God is Omnipotent and Omniscient and Omnibenovolent, > > > > then why he permited all this evil to happen in this world?
> > > > I would like to know the answers Monotheists have for this question.
> > > Theists do not have answers, they have excuses. Your argument is an > > > old one. Here is a little history: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil- Hide quoted text -
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dev" <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> To: "Atheism vs Christianity" <Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 10:07 AM Subject: Re: God and Evil
> The central argument is the "free will" one which makes literally zero > sense. You could write a hundred pages easily on how bullshit it is. > Basically, we don't have the "free will" to get evidence for God but > we have the "free will" to burn forever for requesting evidence.
> On Sep 2, 9:01 am, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sep 2, 7:48 am, zuhair <zaljo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Hi
>> > If God is Omnipotent and Omniscient and Omnibenovolent, >> > then why he permited all this evil to happen in this world?
>> > I would like to know the answers Monotheists have for this question.
Answer is that one of the three attributes you mention must go away for it to work logically. Then you get what is called a theodicy. This is why theodicies in general are so unbelievably unsatisfying to those who actully suffer (God will is a mystery, there is a greater purpose, God is teaching us something, evil is a privation of good, etc.).
Limiting one of these attibutes is said to abnegate the very being of God. My question has been why this is necessary to do as if our concepts of God are somehow exhaustive of the being of God. That always seemed like a contradticiton theolgians just avoid to rule out the possibility of heresy and unorthodox positions.
I prefer an understanding that God chose to be self-limited in the act of the creation and does care about the laws of nature. This establishes the conditions of free will which has often awful consequences. If therefore God is omnibenevolent then God is with the created order in the midst of suffering and does not laugh at it.
But I would venture a guess that most Christians and certianly Muslims and Jews would find the idea of God's own sacrifice of omnipotence to be distasteful since most of these traditions need a "mega-daddy" of sorts - a Superman who can do anything for that faith to be valid. I think this is patently absurd. The test is how you communicate this to an AIDS patient, a Holocaust survivor, Nagasaki survivor, rape survivor who are having faith crises and maintain it with a straight face and still validate the reality of human suffering. Dealing with the suffering ion the moment is always the trump cad to a neat and tidy theology since neat and tidy theologies have very little to do with reality in the long run.
On Sep 2, 10:48 am, zuhair <zaljo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The evil situation is the last thing that deserves our attention (Matthew 5.39). Because 'all this evil to happen in this world' are but very, very small comparing to all the goodness that are happening in this world (The parable of the wheat and the tares in Matthew 13.24).
On Sep 2, 5:48 pm, zuhair <zaljo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 2, 7:48 am, zuhair <zaljo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi
> If God is Omnipotent and Omniscient and Omnibenovolent, > then why he permited all this evil to happen in this world?
> I would like to know the answers Monotheists have for this question.
I would agree that God is omnipotent and omniscient. But I see no reason to apply the term omnibenevolent, at least what the term says to me, to God. God is willing to allow people to make whatever choices they want, including those that are harmful to themselves or others.
On Sep 2, 10:23 am, "Ahmad Shalaby" <amashal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is not execuses. There is one simple answer.. > We can never understand the wisedom of God.
See.... that's their main excuse. How do you KNOW you cannot understand the wisdom of a god? You have no way of proving the silly thing exists so how can you claim to know anything about what it thinks of does?
It's also a circular argument, a tautology - a logical fallacy. This fallacy occurs if you assume as a premise the conclusion which you wish to reach. Often, the proposition is rephrased so that the fallacy appears to be a valid argument
On Sep 2, 10:28 am, "Ahmad Shalaby" <amashal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When you wrote that reply, did you choose to write it and picked your own > words?
> Or, have you been forced to write them?
> That is why when you get judged and get rewarded/punished it is fair.
> That is the concept of free will
The problem with that is that an omniscient god cannot have free will itself. If it already knows everything, past, present, and future, it cannot do anything but what it already knows.
And none of it makes any sense. It is like creating a bomb knowing exactly what you were doing because you were omniscient and when it blows people the fuck up saying "I was just giving the bomb free will".
On Sep 2, 11:24 am, "Phillip Montgomery" <phillipm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On interesting but foolish response to the problem of evil is this
> "God did not make it; we did." (Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli. "Pocket > Handbook of Christian Apologetics." Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press. > 2003, p. 47). Indeed, sin exists as a consequence of human free will > (ibid). This still doesn't explain why God allowed it to happen in the > first place. Indeed, many calvinists would have us believe that not only > does God allow evil to exist, but that he also has a hand in perpetrating > it.
> In considering any action, "the same deed is in its entirety both a deed of > God and a deed of the creature. It is a deed of God insofar as it is > determined from moment to moment by the will of God. And it is a deed of man > insofar as God realizes it through the self activity of the creature." > (Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology, quoted by Gordon J. Spykman in > "Reformational Theology: A new Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics", Grand > Rapids: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1995, p. 276).
> So apparently God is slightly blamed for sin but then blushingly taken out > of his own prison by means of a dogma that maintains that he is just > upholding the creature's free will to sin. He's not REALLY sinning himself > through the creature. This comes back to that post about the theist > dilemma.
> > On Sep 2, 8:07 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > > > The central argument is the "free will" one which makes literally zero > > > sense. You could write a hundred pages easily on how bullshit it is. > > > Basically, we don't have the "free will" to get evidence for God but > > > we have the "free will" to burn forever for requesting evidence.
> > I think they should have some arguments. Why not try to listen to what > > they say before we criticize it.
> > Not all theists believe in burning forever in hell.
> > It makes no sense at all to believe in such a thing.
> > Zuhair
> > > On Sep 2, 9:01 am, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 2, 1:46 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Sep 2, 7:48 am, zuhair <zaljo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hi
> > If God is Omnipotent and Omniscient and Omnibenovolent, > > then why he permited all this evil to happen in this world?
> > I would like to know the answers Monotheists have for this question.
> I would agree that God is omnipotent and omniscient.
Think about it, that is a clear logical fallacy. Under that God cannot do something or cannot see something: change the future. If he changes it, he may be omnipotent but then the future he knew is wrong, and if he does not, then he may be omniscient, but not omnipotent.
The idea of "randomness" is based on ignorance. When you roll a dice it is considered "random" because almost nobody can control what number of dots is going to pop up. God is supposed to be "omniscient". This means that when he creates someone, he knows everything that person will do based on how he or she is created. So He created you literally to do what you do. Of course, no He didn't, but surely you see my point.
The "free will" argument from theists makes less than no sense whatsoever. I can't think of a more illogical argument. There are so many problems with the concept of "free will". There are some things we can do and some thing we can't. There are some things we know and some things we don't. If we know exactly what the consequences of an action will be we are responsible for them. The same should be said of God. One of the main problems I have noticed is that theists automatically assume that God is as stupid as they are.
On Sep 2, 3:16 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 2, 10:28 am, "Ahmad Shalaby" <amashal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > When you wrote that reply, did you choose to write it and picked your own > > words?
> > Or, have you been forced to write them?
> > That is why when you get judged and get rewarded/punished it is fair.
> > That is the concept of free will
> The problem with that is that an omniscient god cannot have free will > itself. If it already knows everything, past, present, and future, it > cannot do anything but what it already knows.
> This life is only a test period. The real life is in the here after. > It makes lots of sense in this case if God left us passing through the test, > to prove to us where we deserve to go after that
We must all suffer to meet god after our death. Great. When a mouse is eaten alive by a cat, surely he suffers a lot before he dies. Does that mean the mouse will also go to heaven? If not, why does god allow that animals have to suffer the way they do? I will never forget my cat that died 5 years ago with feline AIDS. It took her 4 weeks of suffering until I got the strenth to take her to a Vet to put her down. Animals have nothing to do with the "original sin" of Adam and Eve. Could it be possible that they suffer because they do not believe in god? Does this also make a lot of sense to you, Ahmad Shalaby? Not to me.
On 2 Sep, 15:48, zuhair <zaljo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi
> If God is Omnipotent and Omniscient and Omnibenovolent, > then why he permited all this evil to happen in this world?
> I would like to know the answers Monotheists have for this question.
> Zuhair
often pondered this myself :)
1) Play the game "Second Life" for a few months (free download at www.secondlife.com) It's an online graphical "multi user dungeon" where you can meet other people and fight, dance, drive, buy/sell, fuck, whatever. It's really engrossing. (good tip on how to make money, create a sexy female avatar, even if you're really a bloke, and sell your body) However it's all just pixels at the end of the day, and even if the game goes down (the end of the world) you've still got your real life to go back to.
2) Watch the following films (some of the best religious themed movies) The Matrix/13th floor- suggests the whole physical universe as we know it is a computer sim. The Truman Show- a bloke who's whole life turns out to be a reality TV show Bruce Almighty- another Jim Carrey comedy. JC (sic) has a shit day and curses God, who gives him His job as a punishment. See the world from God's (played by Morgan Freeman) side of things. Groundhog Day- Bill Murray is forced to live the same day over and over again, till his day is perfect.
3) Finally, try to get hold of the Bill Hicks "just a ride" sketch (maybe on YouTube) Again, suggesting the world is nothing more than a videogame.
Because the world we live in is just another videogame, God could fix everything at the click of a mouse. Bring back the dead, cure the sick, feed the hungry, anything. So why doesn't he? Well he wants to let boys be boys, let us fuck up here and there. We have free will, and the only way you can teach someone with free will to make the right choices is to let them make the wrong ones first. The world as we know it is just like a child's sandpit, where things are built, smashed up and built up again. George W. Bush as leader of the "free world"?. It's got to be some kind of joke, hasn't it.This has (to quote Bill Hicks) gotta be a fucking dream......
The real world is actually heaven. Gets a bit boring though living in paradise for eternity. So we play total-immersion virtual reality video games for both fun and educational purposes. This planet is one of them. We can make friends, enjoy ourselves and with every eathly incarnation, move a little bit higher up the spiritual ladder.
Yes. The idea is alot like giving your five year old a loaded automatic weapon. After he kills himself and/or his friends, you then claim it wasn't your fault.
On Sep 2, 3:46 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Sep 2, 7:48 am, zuhair <zaljo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hi
> > If God is Omnipotent and Omniscient and Omnibenovolent, > > then why he permited all this evil to happen in this world?
> > I would like to know the answers Monotheists have for this question.
> I would agree that God is omnipotent and omniscient. But I see no > reason to apply the term omnibenevolent, at least what the term says > to me, to God. God is willing to allow people to make whatever > choices they want, including those that are harmful to themselves or > others.
> On 2 Sep, 15:48, zuhair <zaljo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hi
> > If God is Omnipotent and Omniscient and Omnibenovolent, > > then why he permited all this evil to happen in this world?
> > I would like to know the answers Monotheists have for this question.
> > Zuhair
> often pondered this myself :)
> 1) Play the game "Second Life" for a few months (free download atwww.secondlife.com) > It's an online graphical "multi user dungeon" where you can meet other > people and fight, dance, drive, buy/sell, fuck, whatever. It's really > engrossing. (good tip on how to make money, create a sexy female > avatar, even if you're really a bloke, and sell your body) However > it's all just pixels at the end of the day, and even if the game goes > down (the end of the world) you've still got your real life to go back > to.
> 2) Watch the following films (some of the best religious themed > movies) > The Matrix/13th floor- suggests the whole physical universe as we know > it is a computer sim. > The Truman Show- a bloke who's whole life turns out to be a reality TV > show > Bruce Almighty- another Jim Carrey comedy. JC (sic) has a shit day and > curses God, who gives him His job as a punishment. See the world from > God's (played by Morgan Freeman) side of things. > Groundhog Day- Bill Murray is forced to live the same day over and > over again, till his day is perfect.
> 3) Finally, try to get hold of the Bill Hicks "just a ride" sketch > (maybe on YouTube) Again, suggesting the world is nothing more than a > videogame.
> Because the world we live in is just another videogame, God could fix > everything at the click of a mouse. Bring back the dead, cure the > sick, feed the hungry, anything. So why doesn't he? Well he wants to > let boys be boys, let us fuck up here and there. We have free will, > and the only way you can teach someone with free will to make the > right choices is to let them make the wrong ones first. The world as > we know it is just like a child's sandpit, where things are built, > smashed up and built up again. George W. Bush as leader of the "free > world"?. It's got to be some kind of joke, hasn't it.This has (to > quote Bill Hicks) gotta be a fucking dream......
> The real world is actually heaven. Gets a bit boring though living in > paradise for eternity. So we play total-immersion virtual reality > video games for both fun and educational purposes. This planet is one > of them. We can make friends, enjoy ourselves and with every eathly > incarnation, move a little bit higher up the spiritual ladder.
> Imagine the world was perfect, and it can be.
Yes, I know all what you mentioned , I actually call it The Fantasy defence, it simply say that the world we are living in is a fantasy: The argument is:
1) God is Omnibenovolent thus he will never allow evil to exist in a real world.
2) we are observing evil in our world.
Thus the conclusion is:
Our world is not real.
This is a logically consistent argument.
The bad thing about this argument is that it says God not only allowed pain and evil to exist in our world, he also fooled us in making us feel it real while it is in reality not. So we are not only feeling evil and pain, we are also halucinating and thus crazy.
The fantasy defence, though logically consistent, yet it doesn't solve the matter.
No only that, If God is supposed to be Omnibenovolent and Omnipotent then he shouldn't allow evil to exist even at a fantasy level.
The free will argument doesn't solve the matter either since evil and pain was long existing on earth even before man was created, and still most evil is existing outside man's power even nowadays.
Millions of animals live in pain, hunger and suffering, and that has nothing to do with man's actions at all.
However some theists that believe in reincarnation, have an answer to animal suffering as a punishment for sins of the soles of people who are reincarnated in the animal body. Even animals before humanity existed are claimed to have soles of other creatures that have free will, like Gen and the alike species.
However even that does't solve the question of why evil was allowed in the first place?
Still I would like to hear if there are other defences theists has.
It is the wise and the wicked who know this for sure. But in their own selfish interests they propogate the concept of god amongst the gullible and make them spend their life in misery and evil.
The concept of god was propagated by humans to create and maintain a just and peaceful society. However with so much of population over so many thousands of years, there are too many views with obvious self contradictions as well as contradictions with other beliefs. People with vested self interests create problems for others and thereby promote evilness.
There is no reason why the earth itself should not be a perfectly good heaven as envisaged by most religions. However the selfish approach and narrow mindedness of all humans(in?) takes this world far away from that heaven.
On Sep 2, 7:48 pm, zuhair <zaljo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I honestly believe that God sees things from a different perspective than we do, and that there may be an explanation for evil. That is, an explanation which would suffice to give what we perceive as evil a justification for it existing. I would hastily add that I do not think one should pursue evil for its own sake, or delight in the suffering of others. Except maybe dev and observer to name a few.
|
