(Untitled)

May 22, 2007 22:17

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?" - Epicurus

Leave a comment

motorhome May 24 2007, 17:36:28 UTC
do you understand the words you are typing? if so, why are you not completly ashamed at your arrogance?

"It is possible for God to set those aside at certain times, but if He did so at all times then the universe would not function."

how in the hell do you know? how can you claim to have such a chokehold on absolute truth?

your chess metaphor fails because cancer is a bit more important than chess. actually I guess cs lewis failed. Say you are losing a game of chess. all you have is a king and a pawn and your opponant hasnt lost a piece... and the dog runs in the room and knocks the board off the table.... ya gotta start the game over eh? no big deal... lets have another go eh? cool!

in that story, the dog is god and the person loosing has cancer. god started over and gave them a second game and the world continues to spin. why can a dog do something so great but god cant? spounds like a silly question but if you want to use metaphors than go ahead...

and you are getting off topic. the initial question never asked to raise people from the dead or let people live forever. it questioned gods power. evil exists and god does nothing... why? because he cant, wont or unable? it sounds like your answer is "cant or the "universe would not function"".

or maybe god doesnt exist and evil is just an offshoot of mans selfish nature?

Reply

dj_jonny_flash May 25 2007, 06:28:53 UTC
Well, I would say that evil is defiantly an off-shoot of man's selfish nature. The dog that knocks things off the table would be adding another god to the mix.

You raise some good points that I'll have to think more on, but my basic position is that evil is a side-effect of the nature of the universe. The question of God's goodness or power in this is one that I also need to think more on.

Here's another one, I'd like to see what you think. I once heard the argument that if God was responsible for killing babies(ie. that God had the ability to prevent it and chooses not to, a bit different from my argument), then not only would the deaths of those babies not be wrong, but it would in fact be good, even the best possible good. This from the assumption that God is good and cannot do wrong, so anything that we might perceive as God doing wrong is an error in our perception.

Reply

motorhome May 25 2007, 14:42:52 UTC
thats why the chess metaphor fails.. and thuly maybe cs lewis didnt have it all right?

I had dinner with a christian at about the time I started losing faith and I brought up the scenario of an Islam girl who is brought up to hate christianity and the west in general. she is taught that jesus was a false prophet and there is "one god, allah, and muhamed was his prophet". she then dies at some point in her early 20's and according to the bible seperated from YOURE one true god, which is to say... hell. I asked my christian friend if by reading the bible you can come up with any way to say that the christian god is loveing and caring... how god can send someone to hell when they notonly never heard the gospel but where taught to hate the gospel... how is that thier fault.

anyways, this relates to the last point you brought up because his answer was that god really does have complete control and that any evil in the world was actually good. maybe that muslim girl was going to grow up to kill people so god brought her to him before she could (which is bullshit). I then brought up a different story about my gay uncle whodied of aids when I was 13. was he in hell or did god kill him with aids before he could commit more evil? either option there is complete bullshit. any reference to the bible and anyone trying to justify the christian (or any religion) god can not do so because hes not real. it really is that simple. its not our poop perception of god thats bringing up all these complications...

Reply

motorhome May 25 2007, 14:51:13 UTC
haha.. I meant poor perception, not poop perception.

so... i want to post the initial question again and I cant accept these answers:

1) he cant make nonsense make sense (which is what raising the dead and walking on water is...)
2) the evil that is done is actually good, we just cant see that because we are just human and not perfect. (this is a familiar arguement because its how our president, lil georgie bush, justifies the iraq war)

but shouldnt there be an answer if god truly exists? id like you to think about oxams razor... the simplest answer would be that there is no answer because we are arguing about something that doesnt exist. its like saying "do you think unicorns eat marbles, if they dont is it because they cant? they dont want to or just never thought about it?" it doesnt have an answer much like the original question doesnt really have an answer...

Reply

dj_jonny_flash June 12 2007, 12:09:34 UTC
Sorry this has taken a while, been out of net access a lot.

So lets start again: Is God willing but unable, or able but unwilling?

I still don't see that those are the only too possibilities. How about unwilling and unable? Unable because the nature of the universe as it is does not allow for the suspension of human self-determination and therefore must allow the possibility of a human to determine evil. Unwilling because the purpose of the universe depends upon human beings making self-determined choices.

Of course, we could argue any purpose in the universe to no end forever, but I feel that from a Christian perspective such a purpose is essential to understanding.

Occam's razor is one of my least favorite philosophical tools because it leads to an over simplification of everything. I feel that our current scientific understanding has lead us to the conclusion that even the simplest actions have incrediably complex factors involved(ie. everything that gets wrapped up in chaos theory).

But, to use Occam's razor requires presuppositions. Let me try a few and see what you think:
1. God exists, and He desires there to be no evil.
2. Evil exists.
3. God is described by His followers as all powerful.

You could continue with;
4. God created universe.
5. Universe contains evil.
6. Hence, God created evil.
7. God by nature cannot be evil.

Obviously, problems arise. I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, and I'll need some more thinking, but what I'm trying to arrive at is that there is no denying the seeming contradiction between what the Bible says(or is intrepreated as saying) about God's nature and power and the reality of existence. So I think we agree there.

Where we differ is that I don't like to consider what might be possible in some kind of alternate universe that most likely doesn't exist. It is kind of like saying, as Microsoft recently did, that by building a more expensive product over another cost them several billion dollars. Despite the fact all their assumptions for the additional profit are based upon the success of the more expensive product. I reject the arguement because it is based on assumptions that are made by observing a fundamentally different situation.

Essentially, the problem I have with the arguement is the same one I have with Microsoft's claims of lost profits. Both are based upon a theoretical reality but incorporate only our knowledge of this reality. Kind of like the grass always being greener on the other side of the fence, untestable since no matter which side of the fence you are on the grass will always be greener on the other side. Who can say what a reality would be like without evil? Would we even be able to exist as we do now? Could we be having a similar discussion? Who knows?

Reply

motorhome June 13 2007, 14:17:10 UTC
ok i will accept that god is unable and unwilling. but if I do that then I am gonna ask.. whats his purpose?

yes obviously problems arise with trying to get god (if he/she exists) out of this little jam cause if god really did exist we wouldnt need to have this debate.

im an optimist and a dreaer. i think its REALLY fun to think about a universe without cancer, aids, malaria, lice, etc.... see, i understand theft and murder and human frailty what I dont understand is how god can allow those things that i listed. they are unnecessary and he could easily do away with them if he felt so moved. I feel moved and i am supposed to be made in gods image so why isnt he so moved to end some suffering. im not even asking for all suffering, or for him to make some alternate universe like you mentioned.

Reply

dj_jonny_flash June 17 2007, 12:55:32 UTC
I still maintain that the point is arguing for a different creation/universe. Cancer, for example, is unregulated reproduction of cells. It is a broken version of the essential process of life. If you want to believe that the world is fallen and broken, then it is just another aspect of creation being perverted.

As for God's purpose, then we're getting into another argument. To take a Christian perspective, God's purpose would be simply to exist. It kind of goes along with my argument that God's goodness means that whatever He does has to be good, even if we might perceive it as wrong. I think that such seeming contradictions are totally consistent with the Bible's portrayal of a God who destroys worlds and nations and also promises love for all people.

If you want to argue the philosophical concept of God separate from the Bible, I'm not as versed but my understanding is that in that case he is basically a prime mover, and worshiping him would be akin to worshiping gravity.

Reply

motorhome June 18 2007, 08:02:42 UTC
allright. i understand how you see god but you should understand that god cursed the world and made it fall and all created cancer and all that for all eternity and basicly fucked everyone over just cause some lady (that never existed) ate a fruit froma tree.... thats one hell of an asshole god ya got there.

Reply

motorhome November 5 2007, 07:29:31 UTC
isnt that what you were talking about?

Reply

motorhome June 11 2007, 17:34:24 UTC
where you gonna reply?

Reply


Leave a comment

Up