Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

I think whether it is a stumbling block depends on the individual - different people have different perspectives on defining 'good' depending on the situation. I think 'good' in relation to the rest of a theist's beliefs about a higher entity and spiritual development could be defined differently from 'good' in relation to a neighbour/ friend/ parent/ child and therefore the 'Problem of Evil' might not necessarily be the stumbling block it is for you, based on your definition of 'good'.

I don't think the 'Problem of Evil' has much to do with personal morality regarding 'good' or 'evil'. It challenges the notion of there being an intrinsically 'good' omni-God - it is more about the attributes of 'God' as asserted by those theists who subscribe to this notion of 'God'.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I don't think the 'Problem of Evil' has much to do with personal morality regarding 'good' or 'evil'. It challenges the notion of there being an intrinsically 'good' omni-God - it is more about the attributes of 'God' as asserted by those theists who subscribe to this notion of 'God'.

It challenges the notion based on how it defines 'good'.

As there is no objective definition of 'good', then whether an entity can be described as 'good'  when it comes to a supernatural omni entity that a theist believes in, will depend on the individual person's definition of 'good'. A theist may have different criteria for 'good' for a supernatural, omni, creator entity than they would for a human being  because of the spiritual aspect of their beliefs - e.g. spiritual development, justice, purpose, plan, an after-life etc. An atheist would have a different criteria for 'good' because they don't believe in a spiritual purpose, plan etc

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For people, who have no even indirect control over the geophysical processes, you can't. For an omnipotent deity that either designed the process, or chooses not to intervene, or both, that restriction doesn't apply.

I don't know how common it is in the 'Christian on the street' - I suspect a large number of them don't think about those sorts of things very much at all - but amongst the people undertaking apologetics it's not a rare tack.

Which opens up the question 'why does God allow it?' if it's not necessary.

To humans. no. To a God, who is arguably responsible for both, though... We are what we are made, as much as volcanoes are what they are made.

O.

Do you agree then it’s impossible for a volcano to be morally evil but possible for a human to be?
If so then surely we should make no confusion or conflation of the two.
You seem to be claiming the same amorality as unconscious phenomena here while attempting moral reasoning.

Can good exist without evil, Yes, that is the point of the story of Adam and Eve.
Can Evil exist independently of good? It is the absence of good or as Lewis said a parasite on good.

Cosmically if the greatest good is love given freely then evil is the absence of love.

Is suffering to be equated with evil also. I’m not sure you can make a wholesale equation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - not the genetic fallacy, since I did listen to the vid and I have read some of Lewis' apologism. I'd say that the presumption they had about 'God not being evil rather presupposed that 'God' has been demonstrated to exist other than in the minds of its fans.

I never mentioned the cosmological argument: you're confusing arguments. You'll need to elaborate more on this chap and the relevance of his take on moral realism.

Law is not claiming an 'evil God' exists: do pay attention.

Gordon. To argue that it’s “just a load of Christians and catholic’s” isn’t a good looks.
Yes you did mention something about the “fallacious cosmological arguments”.
I think Law’s argument is partly if you can postulate a good god you can equally postulate a bad one and his that’s what is being rebutted. One argument being that if evil is the absence of good evil god is incomplete and thence cannot be “God”....
I know, I know.....You and Laws don’t believe in God anyway.

[Gordon]

Gordon. To argue that it’s “just a load of Christians and catholic’s” isn’t a good looks.

And?

Yes you did mention something about the “fallacious cosmological arguments”.

Try reading back, and then you can apologise for getting it wrong - twice.

I think Law’s argument is partly if you can postulate a good god you can equally postulate a bad one and his that’s what is being rebutted. One argument being that if evil is the absence of good evil god is incomplete and thence cannot be “God”....
I know, I know.....You and Laws don’t believe in God anyway.

I think you maybe need to bone up a bit on the 'Problem of Evil' since you clearly haven't 'got it' yet.

[Gordon]

It challenges the notion based on how it defines 'good'.

As there is no objective definition of 'good', then whether an entity can be described as 'good'  when it comes to a supernatural omni entity that a theist believes in, will depend on the individual person's definition of 'good'. A theist may have different criteria for 'good' for a supernatural, omni, creator entity than they would for a human being  because of the spiritual aspect of their beliefs - e.g. spiritual development, justice, purpose, plan, an after-life etc. An atheist would have a different criteria for 'good' because they don't believe in a spiritual purpose, plan etc

I think that you're missing a core aspect - that there simply is, and always has been, so much 'evil' around, in the form of 'suffering' and 'bad things' happening on this wee planet, that it negates the possibility of there being a 'good God' as espoused by some Christians.

What people consider as 'good' on a personal level isn't really relevant to this argument.

[Outrider]

Do you agree then it’s impossible for a volcano to be morally evil but possible for a human to be?

It depends on the phrasing - the volcano itself has no moral agency, it can be neither moral nor immoral, it merely is. The existence of the volcano, a particular eruption, the activity - all of those, given that they are purported to be within the whim of God, could be considered immoral.

If so then surely we should make no confusion or conflation of the two.

Agreed, but we need to be particular about the phrasing.

You seem to be claiming the same amorality as unconscious phenomena here while attempting moral reasoning.

And you seem to want a omnipotent creator deity who somehow bears no responsibility for what his creation does.

Can good exist without evil, Yes, that is the point of the story of Adam and Eve.

That's the point that you take, there are others. God has lax safety procedures is the lesson I take from it...

Can Evil exist independently of good? It is the absence of good or as Lewis said a parasite on good.

Either way, if God is omnipotent then there is no reason for it.

Cosmically if the greatest good is love given freely then evil is the absence of love.

That's a big 'if'.

Is suffering to be equated with evil also.

If you want to make an argument that creating, permitting or fomenting is somehow not evil, crack on.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And?

Try reading back, and then you can apologise for getting it wrong - twice.

I think you maybe need to bone up a bit on the 'Problem of Evil' since you clearly haven't 'got it' yet.

Yes, you are right. You said ontological instead of cosmological. I ‘m sooooooo sorry.

[Gordon]

Yes, you are right. You said ontological instead of cosmological. I ‘m sooooooo sorry.

Thank you, Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It depends on the phrasing - the volcano itself has no moral agency, it can be neither moral nor immoral, it merely is. The existence of the volcano, a particular eruption, the activity - all of those, given that they are purported to be within the whim of God, could be considered immoral.

I don’t think God uses nature like a bank robber uses a shotgun. Here is the problem. The same created processes that build and create are the same forces that tear down and recreate. The rules is what God is guilty of.

And you seem to want a omnipotent creator deity who somehow bears no responsibility for what his creation does.

He cannot hide from his responsibilities. The question is whether responsibility equals guilt

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you want to make an argument that creating, permitting or fomenting is somehow not evil, crack on.

O.

Why is creating physics evil?

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

It challenges the notion based on how it defines 'good'.

As there is no objective definition of 'good', then whether an entity can be described as 'good'  when it comes to a supernatural omni entity that a theist believes in, will depend on the individual person's definition of 'good'. A theist may have different criteria for 'good' for a supernatural, omni, creator entity than they would for a human being  because of the spiritual aspect of their beliefs - e.g. spiritual development, justice, purpose, plan, an after-life etc. An atheist would have a different criteria for 'good' because they don't believe in a spiritual purpose, plan etc

Just in passing, this is a self-negating argument. Essentially it says that because we can’t get an agreed bead on what constitutes “good”, anything that happens can be said to be good: therefore god is good. The same could be said of “evil” too by the way – ie, “therefore god is evil" is equally (in)valid. Unless some basic agreement on the meanings of these terms is reached then any attempt at a discussion about a supposed god’s involvement in them evaporates.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Just in passing, this is a self-negating argument. Essentially it says that because we can’t get an agreed bead on what constitutes “good”, anything that happens can be said to be good: therefore god is good. The same could be said of “evil” too by the way – ie, “therefore god is evil" is equally (in)valid. Unless some basic agreement on the meanings of these terms is reached then any attempt at a discussion about a supposed god’s involvement in them evaporates.

Gordon's argument seemed to be that some Christians have defined a 'good god' in a way that means the presence of suffering in this world negates the possibility of there being a 'good God'. I am not sure what definition of a 'good god' he is referring to but I made the general point that 'good' does not have the same meaning for everyone in every situation. 

I did not claim that anything that happens can be good. My point was 'good' has a different meaning to an atheist compared to a theist that believes in a supernatural, omni, creator entity because of the spiritual aspect of their beliefs - e.g. spiritual development, justice, purpose, plan, an after-life etc.

A theist might therefore accept suffering for a spiritual purpose and still see god as good - because they see a point to the suffering e.g. spiritual development, tests of faith, the struggle caused by  good and bad, pain, loss etc - all of which can cause a theist's faith in god to increase.

Whereas an atheist would consider suffering as pointless. Obviously an atheist would not accept that an entity that allows suffering could be seen as 'good' as they have no belief in the spiritual in the religious sense of the word and have no experience of religious faith increasing despite suffering pain and loss.

[ekim]

What's good or bad?  It reminds me of a (I think) Taoist story:
There was an old farmer who was very poor. One day his only horse ran away. The farmer's neighbour came over and said, "Oh, my, your horse ran away, that is so bad!"  To which the farmer replied, "What's good, what's bad, who knows?"  The next day the horse came back and other horses came with him. The farmer's neighbour came over and said, "Oh, my, your horse came back! And he brought other horses with him! That is very good!"  To which the farmer replied, "What's good, what's bad, who knows?"  The next day the farmer's son was trying to break in  one of the horses and was thrown and broke his leg. The farmer's neighbour came over and said, "Oh, my, your only son broke his leg. Now he can not help you in the fields. That is very bad!"  To which the farmer replied, "What's good, what's bad, who knows?"  The following day the army came by taking young men to go to war. They came to the farmer's house, but since the son had a broken leg they did not take him. The farmer's neighbour came over and said, "Oh, my, your son escaped being drafted into the army and going to war! That is very good!"  To which the farmer replied, "What's good, what's bad, who knows?"

[Gordon]

Gordon's argument seemed to be that some Christians have defined a 'good god' in a way that means the presence of suffering in this world negates the possibility of there being a 'good God'. I am not sure what definition of a 'good god' he is referring to but I made the general point that 'good' does not have the same meaning for everyone in every situation. 

Not exactly - even if, for the purposes of discussion, it was conceded that a 'good God' would allow a degree of 'evil'(bad things and suffering) in order to contrast the 'good' then it should allow no more than the absolute minimum level of 'evil' required. Yet 'evil' (bad things and suffering) has been ubiquitous for time immemorial.

I did not claim that anything that happens can be good. My point was 'good' has a different meaning to an atheist compared to a theist that believes in a supernatural, omni, creator entity because of the spiritual aspect of their beliefs - e.g. spiritual development, justice, purpose, plan, an after-life etc.

A theist might therefore accept suffering for a spiritual purpose and still see god as good - because they see a point to the suffering e.g. spiritual development, tests of faith, the struggle caused by  good and bad, pain, loss etc - all of which can cause a theist's faith in god to increase.

Whereas an atheist would consider suffering as pointless. Obviously an atheist would not accept that an entity that allows suffering could be seen as 'good' as they have no belief in the spiritual in the religious sense of the word and have no experience of religious faith increasing despite suffering pain and loss.

Perhaps you are taking a too people-orientated approach - the natural prey/predator system, natural disasters and the various forms of illness and disease would be examples of 'evil' (bad things and suffering), and I doubt it requires much in the way of moral debate to recognise the 'evil' (the consequences of bad things and suffering) that an 'omni-God' (for those who believe in such a thing) presumably allows to happen.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not exactly - even if, for the purposes of discussion, it was conceded that a 'good God' would allow a degree of 'evil'(bad things and suffering) in order to contrast the 'good' then it should allow no more than the absolute minimum level of 'evil' required. Yet 'evil' (bad things and suffering) has been ubiquitous for time immemorial.

Perhaps you are taking a too people-orientated approach - the natural prey/predator system, natural disasters and the various forms of illness and disease would be examples of 'evil' (bad things and suffering), and I doubt it requires much in the way of moral debate to recognise the 'evil' (the consequences of bad things and suffering) that an 'omni-God' (for those who believe in such a thing) presumably allows to happen.
 

You haven't shown why we should consider suffering as an alternative term for evil.
You haven't shown we should put accident or chance in with evil.
You haven't shown how a parent is totally responsible for it's adult child's murder rap to the point where they should be in the Dock instead.

There's a few nuggets to get your teeth into.

[Gordon]

You haven't shown why we should consider suffering as an alternative term for evil.
You haven't shown we should put accident or chance in with evil.

I thought I had already explained that in the context of this argument 'evil' is a synonym for 'suffering' and 'bad things'.

You haven't shown how a parent is totally responsible for it's adult child's murder rap to the point where they should be in the Dock instead.

What on earth are you on about? In the context of this argument, which seems to have escaped you, I'd say that that 'God' should be in the dock. Clearly You don't really understand what is being discussed as regards the 'Problem of Evil'.

There's a few nuggets to get your teeth into.

Thin gruel more like.

[Dicky Underpants]

You haven't shown why we should consider suffering as an alternative term for evil.
You haven't shown we should put accident or chance in with evil.
You haven't shown how a parent is totally responsible for it's adult child's murder rap to the point where they should be in the Dock instead.

There's a few nuggets to get your teeth into.

Isaiah 45 may help you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought I had already explained that in the context of this argument 'evil' is a synonym for 'suffering' and 'bad things'.

And you have been informed that there is no unanimity on the equation of all suffering and bad or suffering is all bad

What on earth are you on about? In the context of this argument, which seems to have escaped you, I'd say that that 'God' should be in the dock. Clearly You don't really understand what is being discussed as regards the 'Problem of Evil'.

Again there is no unanimity on whether Death and pain can be equated with evil. As for God being in the dock for what people do wrong I would say that was even more contentious.



Thin gruel more like.
[/quote]

[Gordon]

And you have been informed that there is no unanimity on the equation of all suffering and bad or suffering is all bad

Says who? I'm struggling, you see, to think that the suffering involved in cases of childhood cancer is anything other than a 'bad' thing.
 

Again there is no unanimity on whether Death and pain can be equated with evil.

Death can certainly be a release from suffering but that still leaves the initial suffering to contend with: a friend of ours lost their daughter (whom we knew) to bone cancer at the age of 15 (her name was Emily-Jane) - can't see that wasn't a 'bad thing'.

As for God being in the dock for what people do wrong I would say that was even more contentious.

Can't see it myself: if you believe in an 'omni God' that allows 'free will' then unless you can justify the 'evil' it is the fault of this thing you call 'God' (no matter how many excuses you offer on it's behalf).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not exactly - even if, for the purposes of discussion, it was conceded that a 'good God' would allow a degree of 'evil'(bad things and suffering) in order to contrast the 'good' then it should allow no more than the absolute minimum level of 'evil' required. Yet 'evil' (bad things and suffering) has been ubiquitous for time immemorial.

Ok, but I think once it is conceded that in principle it is possible for a 'good' God to permit suffering, it becomes very subjective to evaluate whether the extreme 'good' we observe in the world balances out the extreme 'evil' or to assess what level of suffering is an acceptable level. 

Perhaps you are taking a too people-orientated approach - the natural prey/predator system, natural disasters and the various forms of illness and disease would be examples of 'evil' (bad things and suffering), and I doubt it requires much in the way of moral debate to recognise the 'evil' (the consequences of bad things and suffering) that an 'omni-God' (for those who believe in such a thing) presumably allows to happen.
 

While I can see why those examples could be viewed as a reason to disregard the possibility of an omni-God, on the flip side I also think awareness of the unpredictability and precariousness of life, an appreciation of its dangers and the potential for imminent pain and loss are some of the reasons people feel deeply for others, take huge risks, appreciate the joys and dream big - which then leads some people to a belief in the concept of a God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can't see it myself: if you believe in an 'omni God' that allows 'free will' then unless you can justify the 'evil' it is the fault of this thing you call 'God' (no matter how many excuses you offer on it's behalf).

The trouble is though that in free will, the decision for evil is not predetermined by anything external nor is it necessary since the good can be chosen.

Post fall there is a bias or pull toward evil.

[Gordon]

The trouble is though that in free will, the decision for evil is not predetermined by anything external nor is it necessary since the good can be chosen.

So why did your 'good God' allow what happened in Southport recently: could it not have intervened?

Post fall there is a bias or pull toward evil.

Ah yes - the 'fall': pardon me for laughing! 

[Outrider]

Why is creating physics evil?

Because physics has consequences, and if you have perfect knowledge you are responsible for those consequences.

O.

[jeremyp]

Ok, but I think once it is conceded that in principle it is possible for a 'good' God to permit suffering, it becomes very subjective to evaluate whether the extreme 'good' we observe in the world balances out the extreme 'evil' or to assess what level of suffering is an acceptable level. 
While I can see why those examples could be viewed as a reason to disregard the possibility of an omni-God, on the flip side I also think awareness of the unpredictability and precariousness of life, an appreciation of its dangers and the potential for imminent pain and loss are some of the reasons people feel deeply for others, take huge risks, appreciate the joys and dream big - which then leads some people to a belief in the concept of a God.

I don't really like this kind of mealy mouthed apologetics. "Who'd to say what's good or bad? nuh nuh".

Let's think about the Southport incident, for example. You could argue that the eventual consequences were good because large parts of the country came together to face down the racists. However, three young girls had their lives cut short and others probably have life changing injuries. Couldn't God have found a better way?