|
Post by droskey on Mar 16, 2005 15:21:15 GMT -5
Cro55Pr34ch3r I really don't think that the problem of evil is all that much of a problem from a theistic standpoint. It certainly is a problem with some specific views of god. Specifically it is probably more of a problem for Southern Baptists than it is for Unitarian/Universalists. It certainly isn't a problem for deists. But to hold that god is omnicient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, one has to believe that god holds a different opinion about evil and its importance than humans do.
However, I am talking about physical evil. Things are a little different when we start to think of things like hell and what not. This has been discussed in the thread "Dreaming of Hell".
Christian As I said in "Dreaming of Hell", I believe that you are merely redefining terms by saying that the idea of omnipotence categorically gets you out of the problem of evil. I think that it can get you out of physical evil. But if we are discussing things like hell, I don't think that it is as cut and dry.
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Mar 16, 2005 15:46:24 GMT -5
I didn't "redefine terms." I simply applied the definition of omnipotence.
So, how do you think the issue of the afterlife is less cut-and-dry?
|
|
|
Post by droskey on Mar 16, 2005 17:13:49 GMT -5
Christian Effectivly that is what is going on. You are applying the word omnipotent in such a way that the word omnibenevolent (and therby good and evil) loses its meaning. Really you could apply this kind of rigor to any of the three words and relegate at least one of the others to meaninglessness. For instance, I could enforce omnibenevolence and thereby state that god could not create evil or allow it to exist. Therefore, he would not be omnipotent. The only way that you could maintain all three concepts with this rigorous definition of omnibenevolent is by simply saying that evil was not evil (a redefinition of terms).
Christian Actually, now that I think of it, neither one is cut-and-dry.
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Mar 16, 2005 17:42:07 GMT -5
ChristianEffectivly that is what is going on. You are applying the word omnipotent in such a way that the word omnibenevolent (and therby good and evil) loses its meaning. Really you could apply this kind of rigor to any of the three words and relegate at least one of the others to meaninglessness. For instance, I could enforce omnibenevolence and thereby state that god could not create evil or allow it to exist. Therefore, he would not be omnipotent. The only way that you could maintain all three concepts with this rigorous definition of omnibenevolent is by simply saying that evil was not evil (a redefinition of terms). ChristianActually, now that I think of it, neither one is cut-and-dry. God cannot create evil if he is omni-benevolent. However, if He is omnipotent, He can also be any number of other things, and do any other things, without any of His qualities contradicting eachother. In fact, if He is omnipotent, He could hypothetically be simultaneously omnibenevolent, AND utterly evil. This is the kind of power that we are speaking of when we talk about "omnipotence." I think you are still not seeing this point?
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Mar 16, 2005 19:11:34 GMT -5
I am not saying that god is limited. I’m saying that he is malevolent and a liar. If he loves us then why does he let the devil out of hell?
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Mar 16, 2005 20:58:59 GMT -5
I am not saying that god is limited. I’m saying that he is malevolent and a liar. If he loves us then why does he let the devil out of hell? If He hates you, then why does He allow you to experience joy?
|
|
|
Post by Cro55Pr34ch3r on Mar 16, 2005 22:06:43 GMT -5
So a woman giving birth is evil? A woman giving birth is not evil but the pain from child birth is. Don't mix and match.
|
|
|
Post by Cro55Pr34ch3r on Mar 16, 2005 22:09:17 GMT -5
Pain is not evil. Pain – 1 the acutely unpleasant physical discomfort experienced by somebody who is violently struck, injured, or ill in certain ways Evil - profoundly immoral or wrong, 2- deliberately causing great harm, pain, or upset You can not compare the two and say they are the same thing. Okay, how can pain not be evil if IT IS INCLUDED IN THE DEFENITION FOR EVIL!?
|
|
|
Post by Enuffalready on Mar 17, 2005 5:09:05 GMT -5
Okay, how can pain not be evil if IT IS INCLUDED IN THE DEFENITION FOR EVIL!? You're stretching big time here, it is the act of causing the pain that is evil. In definitions there are lots of words but that doesn't make each one a synonym for the word they are defining.
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Mar 17, 2005 6:00:59 GMT -5
Okay, how can pain not be evil if IT IS INCLUDED IN THE DEFENITION FOR EVIL!? I think I see your point. But I must say that I really hesistate to ascribe "evil" to natural processes about which there is little component of choice. It makes sense that pain is a necessary component of evil. But I don't think, just off the top of my head, that evil is a necessary component of pain. I try to distinguish pain from suffering; we can feel pain, but not suffer by it, due to our outlook. Some of my happiest times were when I was in intense prolonged pain while hiking; I was in pain, but I did not suffer, because I understood that pain in the context of something very satisfying and beautiful. I wouldn't call that pain evil. Suffering, though, invariably accompanies sinning. When we sin, I think it is out of suffering as a result of not understanding our pain in the context that our faith gives us.
|
|
|
Post by godslayer on May 8, 2005 3:27:21 GMT -5
The topic is the problem of evil. The problem, or what I would like to discuss, is "Since evil exists in the world does it prove or give evidence that God is not omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), or does it prove or give evidence that God doesn't even exist?" Problem of Evil proves that God is Not All good as xians like to claim and If god created ALL than he created Evil since he is allegedly All mighty and He created man with an ABILITY to do evil, which means God is responsible for all EVIL and b/c He is also All knowing he knew what will happen when he made everything. he could have very easily made man UNABLE to do evil, and nature without evil disasters such as tsunamis earthquakes diseases etc so either hes not all good or all mighty or all knowing, or doesnt exist. so which is it?
|
|
thehack
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 16
|
Post by thehack on May 9, 2005 17:20:35 GMT -5
Is it possible for God to have the power to remove evil and yet be unwilling to remove it? I think so, I think that it is perfectly rational to believe that God can be a good God and allow evil even though He has the power to overcome it; therefore breaking down Epicurus' second premise: Suppose you bruise your knee. Pain is surely an evil thing isn't it? No suppose there is a doctor who has the power and the knowledge to relieve the pain in your bruised knee. Suppose also that this is a good doctor. But really the only way to remove the evil (pain in the bruised knee) is to amputate your leg. While this would remove the pain, it would also do so at the expense of removing something good (the leg). So it is possible for a wholly good being to have the power, and knowledge to remove evil, yet allow the evil to exist. But at least the doctor acts to either actively remove the leg, or passively deny the patient treatment. God, on the other hand, hasn't shown the willingness to do either. We are left to "search" God and interpret his/her will without proof or direction. Now, let's take that doctor metaphor a step further. Let's say that there's this miracle doctor that can heal your leg, but nobody knows where he is and nobody knows how to contact him, but you're told if you believe in him, he'll come heal you. So you wait your entire life believing in that, and then you die after living a long life of pain... Some may say, hey, at least now you're cured of the pain in your leg. Me, I'd prefer to think that you were duped and you could've gone to a regular doctor, get the leg amputated or have him give you a fair assessment of your injuries, then let you make a decision (free will, right?) as to wether or not you want that leg amputated or live with the pain. It's a false promise, my dear Christian friend.
|
|