This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

A little sidebar about the problem of evil

#131DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 5/20/2013 4:31:04 PM
Galatians 5:22-23 gives us a way of identifying what actions would be of a God's, separate from priori biases.

Now, go on ladies and gentlemen, explain to me how forcing antiquity unto someone's children for actions they didn't do is any of those fruits. Explain to me how forcing people to eat fecal matter is any of those. Cutting a woman into 12 pieces while she's alive as a sacrifice. Letting a woman be raped as atonement. I can go on and on and on and on and on. And the burden of proof is entirely on you guys to demonstrate how these actions are as such.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#132Julian_CaesarPosted 5/24/2013 9:19:45 PM
From: JonWood007 | #130
Look, if God does wrong without good reason, he's not perfect, period.


I agree. And yet God by definition cannot do wrong.

Perfection is not an innate characteristic, it's something you have to work for. You're treating God the way we treated kings in the pre enlightenment days. Don't you see how problematic that is?


I see a problem with comparing an omniscient, eternal being to a human ruler.

Why should god be treated any different than any other being?


Because He's completely different from every other being.

Well I'd argue that too, because a perfect God can't and wouldn't do the things mentioned in the Bible, but the thing is, if such a being didn't exist, congratulations, it just defied its supposed perfection.


I don't think you understood what I was saying. I'm saying that your argument boils down to your belief that God of the Bible doesn't exist. Not a logical argument, an opinion. That is your only recourse for a good argument that God of the Bible isn't perfect...to assume beforehand that He doesn't exist at all.

You think God can be both perfect and do whatever bad things he wants because "he has a reason", no craps given, no proof.


If God is perfect, then nothing He does is bad. Therefore I am only eating my cake.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#133Julian_CaesarPosted 5/24/2013 9:25:21 PM
From: DarkContractor | #131
Galatians 5:22-23 gives us a way of identifying what actions would be of a God's, separate from priori biases.

Now, go on ladies and gentlemen, explain to me how forcing antiquity unto someone's children for actions they didn't do is any of those fruits. Explain to me how forcing people to eat fecal matter is any of those. Cutting a woman into 12 pieces while she's alive as a sacrifice. Letting a woman be raped as atonement. I can go on and on and on and on and on. And the burden of proof is entirely on you guys to demonstrate how these actions are as such.


Actually, the burden of proof is on you to prove these things:

1. Every one of those actions was considered a "good" thing by God. Not "a thing that was allowed to happen," but specifically "a thing that God would wish everyone to do."
2. Any of those actions were condoned by Jesus, whose example took the place of the ancient priesthood/prophecy/revelation methods of knowing God's Will.
3. That you didn't grossly ignore the context of those situations in the first place.

Get going. You have a tough row to hoe.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#134JonWood007Posted 5/24/2013 9:53:16 PM

I agree. And yet God by definition cannot do wrong.


And then he does wrong. You have a contradiction on your hands.

I see a problem with comparing an omniscient, eternal being to a human ruler.


I see a problem with holding him to special standards without demonstrating your claims.

Because He's completely different from every other being.


prove it.

I don't think you understood what I was saying. I'm saying that your argument boils down to your belief that God of the Bible doesn't exist. Not a logical argument, an opinion. That is your only recourse for a good argument that God of the Bible isn't perfect...to assume beforehand that He doesn't exist at all.


It's a logical argument until you can prove he exists. Get cracking.

Also, God existing and God being perfect are two different claims. God could exist, but could be a jerk. You need to prove both claims separately.

If God is perfect, then nothing He does is bad. Therefore I am only eating my cake.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#135Julian_CaesarPosted 5/24/2013 10:26:12 PM
From: JonWood007 | #134
And then he does wrong. You have a contradiction on your hands.


Prove that He did wrong. Remember that in order to do so you have to assume He exists. And part of His existence is the fact that He defines good, thus cannot do wrong.

Have fun.

I see a problem with holding him to special standards without demonstrating your claims.


I don't have to demonstrate any claims, other than saying "I believe God has these qualities." You are the one who claims to be able to attack my beliefs about God and prove that His existence is incompatible with the existence of evil; the burden of proof is on you to show that my beliefs about God are inconsistent with the existence of evil. Until you do that, I can hold him to any standard I choose (namely, that given to me by Scripture) and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

You of course are free to believe what you wish.

prove it.


God is inherently beyond proof. Your demand is meaningless, like demanding me to prove what light-spectrum color my brain hears when I eat chicken.

It's a logical argument until you can prove he exists. Get cracking.


You keep coming back to this nonsensical demand, as if you haven't already assumed His existence in order to show that the presence of evil contradicts it. Even if God could be proved/disproved, your original question requires that assumption in order to arrive at a logical contradiction.

So you're wrong on both levels. I'm sure if you keep posting you'll continue deluding yourself into thinking you have a case, but the truth is that you don't. Not in any sense of the word logical, anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma


If you'd read the article, then you would've found your answer:

As Rogers puts it, "Anselm, like Augustine before him and Aquinas later, rejects both horns of the Euthyphro dilemma. God neither conforms to nor invents the moral order. Rather His very nature is the standard for value."
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#136JonWood007Posted 5/25/2013 12:06:33 AM
Almost 3 AM so I'm gonna do this quick.

Prove that He did wrong. Remember that in order to do so you have to assume He exists. And part of His existence is the fact that He defines good, thus cannot do wrong.

Have fun.


I already went over this in two other topics today.

Your system is arbitrary. If he defines good, of course he's always going to be seen as good, since he set the bar in such a way that he can do no wrong. This is arbitrary and circular, it's not valid. I'd argue God's morality has to be subject to external consequences. Jean Jacques Rousseau mentions that the number one reason we have rules to begin with is for self preservation. I agree with this, because I see no other reason why anyone would want to be subject to rules. Even God's morality ultimately comes down to this. If people follow his arbitrary rules, it's likely out of fear of punishment, not out of a deep seated will to do the right thing. Might doesn't equal right from a logical standpoint, because if might fails, such a morality is no longer valid. Morality has to be based on a system of logic and reason, and it makes the most sense to base this on human well being. It's functional. You can't have a decent set of rules unless you address this question. And by this standard, God's morality as far as hell, and genocide and rape totally fails.

Even if you call my standards arbitrary, they're still less arbitrary than the whims of a divine being.

I don't have to demonstrate any claims, other than saying "I believe God has these qualities." You are the one who claims to be able to attack my beliefs about God and prove that His existence is incompatible with the existence of evil; the burden of proof is on you to show that my beliefs about God are inconsistent with the existence of evil. Until you do that, I can hold him to any standard I choose (namely, that given to me by Scripture) and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.


I'm pointing out the flaw in your assumptions, pointing out the disparity between God's supposed qualities and supposed actions. I'm a critic to your claims, which you've failed to defend properly. Stop shifting the burden to me. He's your god, your belief system. I reject your system altogether,q uite frankly, and one reason is because I don't believe that God can be both perfect and advocate what he does in the Bible. That and because I see no evidence to believe any of it is true to begin with. But that doesn't stop me from criticizing.

God is inherently beyond proof. Your demand is meaningless, like demanding me to prove what light-spectrum color my brain hears when I eat chicken.


Then I reject your claims, period. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#137JonWood007Posted 5/25/2013 12:06:40 AM
You keep coming back to this nonsensical demand, as if you haven't already assumed His existence in order to show that the presence of evil contradicts it. Even if God could be proved/disproved, your original question requires that assumption in order to arrive at a logical contradiction.

So you're wrong on both levels. I'm sure if you keep posting you'll continue deluding yourself into thinking you have a case, but the truth is that you don't. Not in any sense of the word logical, anyway.


God existing and God being moral are two different claims. God could exist, but be a jerk. You don't seem to get that Just because I assume God exists for the sake of argument doesn't mean I accept that he's perfect. And if you ask why I accept his actions but don't accept the definition of perfection, I already went over this with OW. It's because the two statements seem contradictory, and actions speak louder than words.

As Rogers puts it, "Anselm, like Augustine before him and Aquinas later, rejects both horns of the Euthyphro dilemma. God neither conforms to nor invents the moral order. Rather His very nature is the standard for value."


I read that answer, I don't accept it. That's just a fancy way of saying he defines it. After all, if you define morality on one's character, he's always going to be seen as blameless, since the standard is his character. Flawed as heck.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#138DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 5/26/2013 5:29:12 PM

Prove that He did wrong. Remember that in order to do so you have to assume He exists. And part of His existence is the fact that He defines good, thus cannot do wrong.


This does not follow.

Why do automatically assign omnibenevolence?
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#139Julian_CaesarPosted 5/26/2013 9:54:42 PM
From: DarkContractor | #138
Why do automatically assign omnibenevolence?


Because that is an attribute given to God of the Bible, which is usually the one being discussed in the problem of evil...i.e. the one mentioned in Galatians that you quoted.

From: JonWood007 | #136
Your system is arbitrary. If he defines good, of course he's always going to be seen as good, since he set the bar in such a way that he can do no wrong.


BINGO. Finally you get it.

Of course it's arbitrary. As I've stated on many occasions, the idea of God being "arbitrary" does not constitute imperfect judgment as it would for a human "arbiter."

It's not circular, because it begins with a clear assumption (God defines good) that is NOT dependent on its conclusions (anything God does is good) in order to exist. That is, my assumption does not require observing God's good acts in order for it to be true; all it requires is that God of the Bible exists.

I'm pointing out the flaw in your assumptions


There is no objective flaw in assuming that God of the Bible exists, because the assumption is not subject to human-based "objective" judgment. Only subjective judgment can be used; thus any "flaw" is based on your own subjective word against mine. Thus you cannot say it is "flawed" by any objective standard, while I cannot say it is "supported" by any objective standard. It simply is what it is.

Then I reject your claims, period. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


Such as the claim that evidence-based truth is the only possible truth? I concur.

From: JonWood007 | #137
God existing and God being moral are two different claims. God could exist, but be a jerk. You don't seem to get that Just because I assume God exists for the sake of argument doesn't mean I accept that he's perfect.


God of the Bible cannot exist and also be not "perfectly moral due to defining morality." And yes, I've read what you wrote to OW. Unfortunately, you can't use the "actions speak louder than words" argument because the "actions of God" come from the Bible. You know, the same source that says He is perfectly moral? It's dishonest argumentation plain and simple. Cherry-picking.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#140Julian_CaesarPosted 5/26/2013 10:04:52 PM
From: JonWood007 | #137
That's just a fancy way of saying he defines it. After all, if you define morality on one's character, he's always going to be seen as blameless, since the standard is his character. Flawed as heck.


It's only flawed if you disagree with the original assumption. Which you plainly do, I suppose, but personal opinion isn't really close to sufficient grounds for claiming that such a belief system is "objectively" flawed. The best you can do is say "I disagree" and leave it at that.

Again, you're the one trying to have your cake and eat it too. You assign objective "truth" to assumptions of yours which are purely subjective, as I've proven over and over and OVER again in many topics on this very board. I have not once challenged your right to believe that God doesn't exist, while you have consistently attempted to prove that my belief in God (or anyone's belief in God of the Bible) is not allowable by the "objective standard" of whatever subjective materialistic/atheist/agnostic worldview you adhere to.

Now that I think about it, you're trying to take away my cake in order to eat it and keep yours. So stop pretending that my success in defending my cake is somehow an attempt to take your cake. I don't even LIKE atheist cake.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.