The problem of Evil: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » The problem of Evil » The problem of Evil

The problem of Evil
(the Epicurean paradox)

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

The problem of Evil

730
Thoughtless being!

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 31, 2005
Location: here
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 23

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 12/06/05 - 09:36 AM:	#71
when you've performed every single bad thing ever to be thought of by man...how wise will your overstanding be....realizing the omnipotence of the almighty you could do whatever the hell you want, ride this muthafucka until the wheels fall off....bring everybody on the ride with you...have fun with life.....shit homie we're immortal....the almighty created us perfect...we kill our own damn selves.. but if we realize that we're perfect and we take this trip on faith and trust and truth...why couldn't we do whatever the hell we want, and be limitless just like the almighty is....not be the almighty, but be limitless as a child of his...why hate lucifer because he had faith???.....An angel that was jealous of man and so went through all the trials and tribulations that man had to go through so that he could return to where he was given his seat. you gain wisdom when you go through tuff times....so why don't we try it sometime and live in the gutter...i'm not saying kill ever person we see, i'm not saying go against the ten commandments....i'm saying Trust the almighty and just live. Stop worrying about what the next man thinks......maybe then we'll overstand something and realize what the hell we're doing.....there's no problem with evil. there's a problem with Man!
The perfect motion is stopping, and that's the motion we move at!

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1251

Posted 12/06/05 - 09:58 AM:	#72
Mariner wrote: Why? . My mistake. For some reason when I wrote that I thought you were argueing evil doesnt exist.(I'm very careful about checking for such mistakes before I submit a post, but they happen and I feel it is only proper to admit them when I do.) Mariner wrote: Because knowledge and will are independent. There is wide availability of knowledge about God, but much less people willing to follow it. Also, because we can't fulfill our role in Creation without God's help (because we once shunned Him), what is called "grace". Then how come God doesn't show himself and explain why everything is the way it is? If there is a God and the knowledge of his existance does not hinder our ablility to have free will then there is no reason for him not to show himself and for him to help us. It seems you are trying to use the 'free will' arguement to have it both ways: in one arguement you are claiming that God giving us 'free will' (enough free will to only choose obeying him or death) and claim this is for a 'greater good' because God not showing himself and not helping us in any way is best way for us to have free will and become 'good', however when I explain that if that is true than it would be best if God just left us alone you claim that us knowning for a fact that God exists and him explaining everything to us would not hinder our ability to excercise free will. Mariner wrote: As I said earlier, there is wide availability of knowledge about that matter . But none of it proves for a fact that God is good. Mariner wrote: It is also not what I am saying. The substance of things is good, but they are not made of substance alone. .. We can't destroy matter anyway. And matter isn't substance. It would help if you were familiar with Thomist ontology. But even if you're not you should beware of drawing conclusions from the feel of words. .. Since I deny that God created evil, this is exactly what it can't sound like . .. Exactly. I don't deny evil, I deny the substance of evil. Evil is very real, but it is a deprivation of good (try that in Eastern philosophy ). Shadows are real too, but they do not have substance. .. This, by the way, is John's (the Evangelist) metaphor for good and evil. I remark that to emphasize the pedigree of my opinions. They are quite Christian . Just to be sure, please state which of the following definitions of 'substance' you are using or define it in your own words what it means... (from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary ) 1 a : essential nature : ESSENCE b : a fundamental or characteristic part or quality c Christian Science : GOD 1b 2 a : ultimate reality that underlies all outward manifestations and change b : practical importance : MEANING, USEFULNESS <the... bill--which will be without substance in the sense that it will authorize nothing more than a set of ideas -- Richard Reeves> 3 a : physical material from which something is made or which has discrete existence b : matter of particular or definite chemical constitution c : something (as drugs or alcoholic beverages) deemed harmful and usually subject to legal restriction <possession of a controlled substance> <has a substance problem> 4 : material possessions : PROPERTY <a family of substance> I believe that you are using the first, but if you (or anyone) wanted to, you could almost any one of these definitions with what you stated and it would have several diffferent meanings...
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 4337

Posted 12/06/05 - 10:19 AM:	#73
dclements wrote: Then how come God doesn't show himself and explain why everything is the way it is? You mean, by a clearly stated revelation? I believe He did. But if you are wondering why God does not appear high in the clouds surrounded by glory and take away the mystery, it is because He wants us to love Him, and this would only cow us into feigning love. Note, by the way, that God wants us to love Him because that's best for us; it's not as if He needs it. If there is a God and the knowledge of his existance does not hinder our ablility to have free will then there is no reason for him not to show himself and for him to help us. As I said, I believe He did . He did all He could, actually -- down to the point of taking up our sins into Himself and dying for us. All we have to do now is to accept His gift, as a free movement of our will. How could He have done it better without curtailing our will? It seems you are trying to use the 'free will' arguement to have it both ways: in one arguement you are claiming that God giving us 'free will' (enough free will to only choose obeying him or death) and claim this is for a 'greater good' because God not showing himself and not helping us in any way is best way for us to have free will and become 'good', however when I explain that if that is true than it would be best if God just left us alone you claim that us knowning for a fact that God exists and him explaining everything to us would not hinder our ability to excercise free will. God can't "leave us alone", because if He does that, we cease to exist. God sustains creation, it is not a clock that he wounded and let go. Similarly, through creation, we can approach God, because every piece of creation bears His stamp. The evidence that "knowing for a fact that God exists and him explaining everything to us would not hinder our ability to exercise free will", in the end, is the existence of non-Christians who are knowledgeable about History and doctrine. Just to be sure, please state which of the following definitions of 'substance' you are using or define it in your own words what it means... (from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary ) 1 a : essential nature : ESSENCE b : a fundamental or characteristic part or quality c Christian Science : GOD 1b 2 a : ultimate reality that underlies all outward manifestations and change b : practical importance : MEANING, USEFULNESS <the... bill--which will be without substance in the sense that it will authorize nothing more than a set of ideas -- Richard Reeves> 3 a : physical material from which something is made or which has discrete existence b : matter of particular or definite chemical constitution c : something (as drugs or alcoholic beverages) deemed harmful and usually subject to legal restriction <possession of a controlled substance> <has a substance problem> 4 : material possessions : PROPERTY <a family of substance> I believe that you are using the first, but if you (or anyone) wanted to, you could almost any one of these definitions with what you stated and it would have several diffferent meanings... I would not use essence as a synonym of substance, following the Aristotelian distinction between the two. You said that I should define it in my own words -- can I use Kant's? Substance is the noumenon. Essence is the concept. Accidents are the phenomena. A short and quick translation of Aristotelian terms, as I understand them, into Kant-speak. Let me know if this suffices.
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1251

Posted 12/06/05 - 11:32 AM:	#74
BubbaSwitzler wrote: I also am suspicious of the general claims of omnipotence, omnicience, and benevolence. Even those who believe in these will quickly concede that God cannot make a round square and there is little agreement on whether God knows or controls the decisions we generally know of as "free will." But you don't have to agree with me here either. Feel free to define or explain your view on God (everyone has a different view anyways) and if you want to you can explain your definition of omnipotence, omnicience, and/or good. However I do not believe this will in any way explain away the problem of evil. BubbaSwitzler wrote: My argument is simply this: If God's only power is to decide who goes to heaven and who goes to hell then that pretty much determines what is good and what is evil. The fact that you might disagree with God's definition is unimportant. If God's only power is to decide who goes to heaven and hell then he isn't omnipotence. The problem of evil does not state that God does not exist or that God is not benevolent or omnipotence, it only states that in order for us to believe that God is both benevolent and omnipotence that we must know why he allows evil in the world.
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

BubbaSwitzler
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 02, 2005
Total Topics: 75
Total Posts: 2542

Posted 12/06/05 - 11:43 AM:	#75
dclements wrote: If God's only power is to decide who goes to heaven and hell then he isn't omnipotence. The problem of evil does not state that God does not exist or that God is not benevolent or omnipotence, it only states that in order for us to believe that God is both benevolent and omnipotence that we must know why he allows evil in the world. Sorry, that just doesn't follow because without an agreement on what benevolence is one cannot know how it contradicts the existence of evil. You are assuming that a benevolent, omnipotent God would not allow evil to exist. My point was that, while I might question the omnipotence and omnicience of God for other reasons, I do not see the contradiction that you are claiming because I do not assume, as you (and many others) do that the existence of evil contradicts God's benevolence.
"Can anything good come from Nazareth?"

osibe
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 519

Posted 12/06/05 - 12:29 PM:	#76
I fail to see why there would be any limits at all on God's power if he were all powerful, many claim that an illogical "square-circle" is essentially "nothing," and God would not be able to create this because it is a logical fallacy. But that is based on our limited concept of: not only logic, but the basic principles we claim to know about our universe. Just because we cannot conceive it, or even perceive it does not mean it's nothing outside of humanity, outside of our minds and within the realm of universal truth. God created the universe and its truths and is not a slave to them. In the same sense that a 2-Dimensional being could never perceive and truely experience the 3-Dimension it is the same with us, God (which is many, perhaps an infinite ammount of dimensions above us) WOULD be able to create free-willed being that will never sin, I mean it is the almighty God we are talking about here, who is any mere mortal to place limits on him/her?
"Live everyday like it's your first"

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1251

Posted 12/06/05 - 12:38 PM:	#77
BubbaSwitzler wrote: Sorry, that just doesn't follow because without an agreement on what benevolence is one cannot know how it contradicts the existence of evil. You are assuming that a benevolent, omnipotent God would not allow evil to exist. My point was that, while I might question the omnipotence and omnicience of God for other reasons, I do not see the contradiction that you are claiming because I do not assume, as you (and many others) do that the existence of evil contradicts God's benevolence. As I said before, feel free to define whatever you think what any word means as long as you explain your definition in a way that other forum members can understand what it means to you. I do not want to try to guess what you think benevolent, omnipotent, or any word means if you do not believe it is properly defined in a dictionary. It is hard enough reading people posts and trying to respond without having to deal with forum members who use their own definition of words and are not willing, or can not, explain to others what those definitions are.
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

BubbaSwitzler
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 02, 2005
Total Topics: 75
Total Posts: 2542

Posted 12/06/05 - 02:46 PM:	#78
osibe wrote: I fail to see why there would be any limits at all on God's power if he were all powerful, many claim that an illogical "square-circle" is essentially "nothing," and God would not be able to create this because it is a logical fallacy. But that is based on our limited concept of: not only logic, but the basic principles we claim to know about our universe. Just because we cannot conceive it, or even perceive it does not mean it's nothing outside of humanity, outside of our minds and within the realm of universal truth. God created the universe and its truths and is not a slave to them. In the same sense that a 2-Dimensional being could never perceive and truely experience the 3-Dimension it is the same with us, God (which is many, perhaps an infinite ammount of dimensions above us) WOULD be able to create free-willed being that will never sin, I mean it is the almighty God we are talking about here, who is any mere mortal to place limits on him/her? A few points of observation: First, we are obvioulsy limited in our understanding of God, which was one of my points. In fact, I go further than most in suggesting our incompetence there. On the other hand, being the humans that we are, we do try to understand God and whatever our faults we have something to work with and, by God's on revelation, something to base it upon. So having said that, we have to venture into the anatomy of God with some humility but venture we will. I would suggest that God is limited by, for example, his own choices and his own essence. Our concept of circles and of squares, for example, derive from our understanding of the world. Insofar as God created the world with particular attributes he cannot do and not do, cannot unmake what he has made any more than he can unbe what he is. My other example was free will. For whatever reason, God created man with free will. So that may in and of itself limit his power and his knowledge. Philosophers are ever debating free will, determinism, etc. But as we generally understand it, we have been given the ability to make real choices and it seems reasonable to believe that in so giving us free will God has again determined the universe in a way that limits his own power and knowledge. This does not mean that God is a slave to what he has created but rather a comment on the nature of what he has done. God could undo what he has done but until/unless he does the things done are done.
"Can anything good come from Nazareth?"

BubbaSwitzler
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 02, 2005
Total Topics: 75
Total Posts: 2542

Posted 12/06/05 - 02:57 PM:	#79
dclements wrote: I do not want to try to guess what you think benevolent, omnipotent, or any word means if you do not believe it is properly defined in a dictionary. Well, look them up in the dictionary. You won't get much help there. "Omnipotence" is not so much a problem (though see my other post) but "benevolence" is where the real problem lies. What I would suggest is simply that there exists a set of understandings of God and these terms that are consistent. I have already suggested one (the heaven/hell decision). In the heaven/hell decision the benevolence is creating people and giving them the opportunity to get into heaven. Mortal suffering is discounted as irrelevant (some would suggest the price of admission). That's a very simplistic example but it suffices to make the point. The notion that benevolence is incompatible with omnipotence and omnicience is a fallacy. The argument that these are contradictionary inevitably rests on a humanistic defintion of benevolence. ("Life is not fair therefore God is dead or he is a mean kid with a magnifying glass.")
"Can anything good come from Nazareth?"

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1251

Posted 12/07/05 - 09:16 AM:	#80
Mariner wrote: You mean, by a clearly stated revelation? I believe He did. But if you are wondering why God does not appear high in the clouds surrounded by glory and take away the mystery, it is because He wants us to love Him, and this would only cow us into feigning love. Note, by the way, that God wants us to love Him because that's best for us; it's not as if He needs it. As I said, I believe He did . He did all He could, actually -- down to the point of taking up our sins into Himself and dying for us. All we have to do now is to accept His gift, as a free movement of our will. How could He have done it better without curtailing our will? God can't "leave us alone", because if He does that, we cease to exist. God sustains creation, it is not a clock that he wounded and let go. Similarly, through creation, we can approach God, because every piece of creation bears His stamp. The evidence that "knowing for a fact that God exists and him explaining everything to us would not hinder our ability to exercise free will", in the end, is the existence of non-Christians who are knowledgeable about History and doctrine. As you may imagine, I disagree. I see nothing in the bible that proves that God explained the reasons that evil exists nor has it proven that God has done anything to effect our lives. In order to believe the bible one can not question Christian beliefs and must accept it's stories on faith alone instead of being able to prove them as facts. Because it is a book about stories,and not facts, and these stories do not make one understand why God allows there to be evil, the problem of evil remains. Mariner wrote: I would not use essence as a synonym of substance, following the Aristotelian distinction between the two. You said that I should define it in my own words -- can I use Kant's? Substance is the noumenon. Essence is the concept. Accidents are the phenomena. A short and quick translation of Aristotelian terms, as I understand them, into Kant-speak. Let me know if this suffices. Ok. So your definition of this substance is the same as noumenon. There is only one definition of noumenon that I can find and it is: 'In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is in itself independent of the mind, as opposed to a phenomenon. Also called thing-in-itself.' Is this an accurate definition of the substance you are talking about?
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.