Does Evil disprove God's existence?
Chump
I've got the following idea for a 10 page philo paper for my class.
I want to argue that the existence of evil and evil acts alone does not
disprove the existence of god (or some other omnipotent being). It seems
that that is a main argument of atheists and it has never set well with me.
I think it my be interesting to argue this as I am an agnostic.
Anyone have any input? Places to start exploring?
Please cc me as well in any replies.
Thanks for the help
chump
Daniel T.
>I want to argue that the existence of evil and evil acts alone does not
>disprove the existence of god (or some other omnipotent being). It seems
>that that is a main argument of atheists and it has never set well with me.
>I think it my be interesting to argue this as I am an agnostic.
>
>Anyone have any input? Places to start exploring?
The existence of evil doesn't disprove the existence of god, but it does
disprove the existence of an omnipotent, benevolent being. It means god
is *not* good, at which point one must wonder why he is being worshiped.
There are a few ways to avoid the problem, the most obvious is to deny
that there is evil in the world.
--
Improve your company's understanding of objects...
Hire me. <http://home1.gte.net/danielt3/resume.html>
Sir Frederick
In your context it depends on what your class instructor has in the way
of mental models or stories about the issue.
Religion, similar to languade, is totally arbitrary.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcn...@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"We must never conceal from ourselves that our concepts are
creations of the human mind which we impose on the facts of
nature, that they are derived from incomplete knowledge and
therefore will never _exactly_ fit the facts, and will require
constant revision as knowledge increases."
-- A.G. Tansley (1871-1955)
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
david lindauer
"Daniel T." wrote:
> "Chump" <aug...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >I want to argue that the existence of evil and evil acts alone does not
> >disprove the existence of god (or some other omnipotent being). It seems
> >that that is a main argument of atheists and it has never set well with me.
> >I think it my be interesting to argue this as I am an agnostic.
> >
> >Anyone have any input? Places to start exploring?
>
> The existence of evil doesn't disprove the existence of god, but it does
> disprove the existence of an omnipotent, benevolent being. It means god
> is *not* good, at which point one must wonder why he is being worshiped.
> There are a few ways to avoid the problem, the most obvious is to deny
> that there is evil in the world.
it doesn't prove any such thing. All it proves is that men disapprove of
whatever it is that god is doing (great mystery) because they think with their
instincts rather than with their minds.
David
Daniel T.
>"Daniel T." wrote:
>
>> "Chump" <aug...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I want to argue that the existence of evil and evil acts alone does not
>> >disprove the existence of god (or some other omnipotent being). It seems
>> >that that is a main argument of atheists and it has never set well with me.
>> >I think it my be interesting to argue this as I am an agnostic.
>> >
>> >Anyone have any input? Places to start exploring?
>>
>> The existence of evil doesn't disprove the existence of god, but it does
>> disprove the existence of an omnipotent, benevolent being. It means god
>> is *not* good, at which point one must wonder why he is being worshiped.
>> There are a few ways to avoid the problem, the most obvious is to deny
>> that there is evil in the world.
>
>it doesn't prove any such thing. All it proves is that men disapprove of
>whatever it is that god is doing (great mystery) because they think with their
>instincts rather than with their minds.
That's what I ment when I said "deny that there is evil in the world."
You are saying that everything that happens is actually for the best.
zobicus
a compelling argument and create doubt, but you'll never disprove
god's existence. Concepts that are faith-based are difficult to bring
into the realm of logic. But good luck!
"Chump" <aug...@pobox.com> wrote in message news:<5Ob19.43036$ND5.4...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>...
Solomon Gyurko
>
> I've got the following idea for a 10 page philo paper for my class.
>
> I want to argue that the existence of evil and evil acts alone does not
> disprove the existence of god (or some other omnipotent being). It seems
> that that is a main argument of atheists and it has never set well with
me.
> I think it my be interesting to argue this as I am an agnostic.
>
> Anyone have any input? Places to start exploring?
Here's the gist of it:
You're a kid. Your dad takes you to the dentist Is your dad evil even
though he let the bad man do bad things to your teeth? Of course not, it's
just a matter of perception. The trials we go through now toughen us up and
help us learn valuable skills and principles.
Besides, those that argue that things like the WTC and the Holocaust are
proof that God doesn't exist neglect the fact that most or all of those
people are supposedly in a better place right now, so it's not quite as
"tragic" for one who believes in God as someone who believes that they're
just dead organisms.
Solomon Gyurko
>
> I've got the following idea for a 10 page philo paper for my class.
>
> I want to argue that the existence of evil and evil acts alone does not
> disprove the existence of god (or some other omnipotent being). It seems
> that that is a main argument of atheists and it has never set well with
me.
> I think it my be interesting to argue this as I am an agnostic.
>
> Anyone have any input? Places to start exploring?
http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/29/39#39
Ben Hoff
benevolent being. Maybe it disproves an omnipotent being. It is possible for
God(s) to be benevolent but without the omnipotence to accomplish total
goodness.
"Daniel T." <notda...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:notdanielt3-8FBB...@news.bellatlantic.net...
Ben Hoff
would have committed suicide to be with her deceased husband. It is a sin to
commit suicide though, right?
"Solomon Gyurko" <solomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ai3vt4$voptv$1...@ID-133934.news.dfncis.de...
GeneIn
"zobicus" <zo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5df5bafc.02072...@posting.google.c
om...
> My feeling... nothing can disprove the existence
of god. You can make
> a compelling argument and create doubt, but
you'll never disprove
> god's existence. Concepts that are faith-based
are difficult to bring
> into the realm of logic. But good luck!
i agree but by the same token one cannot prove the
existence of a god....so that leaves us as we are,
in various camps of beliefs.....
g.
Neil Coward
I think God exists and also evil exists. I'm not convinced by the
'everything is for the best' argument. I believe the 'official' answer to
this is ..If God is so powerful couldn't He have designed a better world ,
where evil and suffering didn't exist.
Then you get into the 'ah but man should have free will to choose' argument
which leads to the 'yes but couldn't God have designed a world where there
is no evil or suffering but where we still have free will' argument.
This quickly leads to the "is God bound by logic" argument which then casts
doubt on his omnipotence if he is and soon afterwards all the combatants
disappear up their own backsides!
My own 2 cents worth about evil being necessary for us to learn and grow
would be what does a 2 month old African baby learn by dying of starvation?.
Has it developed and learned though suffering? I don't think so.
So the only logical result I can see is 1)God exists 2)Evil exists so the
problem must be with our understanding.
Man does not have the capacity to understand the universe. This seems anti
philosophical but maybe it is a branch of philosophy in itself?
Another idea is ok there is evil in the world so God cannot exist, so where
do you draw the line? If there had never been any wars, would that mean God
existed? No because there's still suffering, ok so we have to remove wars,
then suffering, then illnesses, then crime and so on and so forth - so when
do we stop?.
Woody Allen once joked that there is no God because he once got his tongue
caught in the roller of an electric typewriter.
This seems to me the logical end of the existance of evil argument.
I think to get good marks in your essay you will have to acquaint yourself
with all the official arguments and counter arguments to prove you have read
into the subject, and also demonstrate you understand the arguments and
counter arguments.
Then you can spice it up with your own ideas, then if you're really
desperate, add on the bits us cretins on this newsgroup have suggested!
"Chump" <aug...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:5Ob19.43036$ND5.4...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
Daniel T.
>The existence of evil does not disprove the existence of an omnipotent,
>benevolent being. Maybe it disproves an omnipotent being. It is possible for
>God(s) to be benevolent but without the omnipotence to accomplish total
>goodness.
Maybe you didn't understand me. The existence of evil proves that no
being exists that is both omnipotent and benevolent. God may be
omnipotent but not benevolent, or benevolent but not omnipotent. If the
former then we should not worship it because it is wicked, if the latter
we should not worship it because it is impotent (it would be like
worshiping a king.)
Another alternitive (as I said before) is to deny that evil exists.
Immortalist
> "Ben Hoff" <goodid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The existence of evil does not disprove the existence of an omnipotent,
> >benevolent being. Maybe it disproves an omnipotent being. It is possible
for
> >God(s) to be benevolent but without the omnipotence to accomplish total
> >goodness.
>
> Maybe you didn't understand me. The existence of evil proves that no
> being exists that is both omnipotent and benevolent. God may be
> omnipotent but not benevolent, or benevolent but not omnipotent. If the
> former then we should not worship it because it is wicked, if the latter
> we should not worship it because it is impotent (it would be like
> worshiping a king.)
>
> Another alternitive (as I said before) is to deny that evil exists.
>
if a farmer had experience planting koRn during many seasons and he knew
that a small percentage of the stalks would develop cancer growths that
killed them, would he be less potent and kind because he planted the koRn
this season. koRn is a s koRn does.
Ben H.
"Daniel T." <notda...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:notdanielt3-4C00...@news.bellatlantic.net...
Ben H.
found someone who was all-good but not all-powerful wouldn't that person be
worth worshipping? Especially if they were able to create a universe, even
an imperfect one. I don't know about worship though. It doesn't seem like
something a all-good being would want or need. Some say that our worship is
for our own good. I don't have an opinion about that.
"Daniel T." <notda...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:notdanielt3-16F5...@news.bellatlantic.net...
Ben H.
Bible, if not a God without definite attributes?
"zobicus" <zo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5df5bafc.02072...@posting.google.com...
Ben H.
"Neil Coward" <Neil....@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ai4bjt$k7t$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
Kathleen Murphy
>
>>I want to argue that the existence of evil
>>and evil acts alone does not disprove the
>>existence of god (or some other omnipotent
>>being). It seems that that is a main argument
>>of atheists and it has never set well with me.
>>I think it my be interesting to argue this as
>>I am an agnostic.
>>
>>Anyone have any input? Places to start
>>exploring?
>
>
>The existence of evil doesn't disprove
>the existence of god, but it does disprove
>the existence of an omnipotent, benevolent
>being. It means god is *not* good, at which
>point one must wonder why he is being
>worshiped. There are a few ways to avoid
>the problem, the most obvious is to deny
>that there is evil in the world.
>
You are quite right in that if you only consider
an omnipotent, benevolent being on one hand and
evil on the other, you end up with a seeming
non-sequitur. However, it neither disproves God's
existence or his benevolence---it just requires
one more aspect for consideration to resolve the
problem.
Given that there is evil in the world, and if you
are to hold to the existence of God, you have to
also hold to free will---a third ingredient in the
mix. You have to hold that the omnipotent and
benevolent God has voluntarily limited himself by
giving us free will. Christianity, for example,
argues that God wants us to love him freely, as a
Father, and that God also wants us to love each
other as brothers and sisters. (See especially
the letters of John) Love, by its very nature, by
definition, has to be a free act (you cannot
convince another person to love you by holding a
gun to his head). By giving us freedom, God
limited his omnipotence, allowed us to hurt
him---break his heart, so to speak, with sin---and
to hurt each other.
As an analogy, consider the case of unrequited
human love----that one person A benevolently loves
person B but that person B does not reciprocate
and in fact hurts person A does not disprove the
existence of person A nor does it negate their
benevolence. It is just part of the anarchically
free nature of love that it can be rejected as
well as reciprocated.
Just my $0.02
Kathleen Murphy
>
>Ayn Rand said that if she believed,
>really believed what you say then she
>would have committed suicide to be
>with her deceased husband. It is a sin
>to commit suicide though, right?
>
In fact, if you read some of the writings of the
early Christian martyrs, they certainly sought
death almost with eagerness (I am thinking of
Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the late first
century or early second---I forget now, it was
awhile ago I read him---writing to the other
Christians asking them NOT to seek pardon for him
because he wanted the teeth of the lions to grind
him up like wheat so he could be with the Lord. )
At the same time, all the Christian churches I
know of also teach that suicide is sinful because
"you are not your own, but God's." Mind you,
seems like Ignatius was kinda pushing the envelope
there. Others pushed it even harder---one sect
(again, the name escapes me because it was over 10
years ago I was reading this stuff) used to ambush
unsuspecting travellers and ask them basically
"martyr me or I'll martyr you." This ended up
being condemned as being "outside the envelope"!!!
That Christianity has such interesting seeming
contradictions within in----like this
martyrdom/suicide thing---is one of the reasons I
find it so fascinating. The "dynamic tension"
between the two concepts kind of brackets a
middle-road. Anyway, that's how I get my kicks.
X
evil ones.
-X
Mike Dubbeld
You'r right. It took me just about 10 pages using a lot of
assumptions. Good luck. Start with the thing that is making
the what is and is not evil basis and work toward how
evil is objectified. Then ask if evil could serve a purpose
and if it could - how would a mind know what God's purpose
was? Would you not be guilty of anthropomorphizing God
(degrading/reducing God to your minds level) by justifying
evil in this Godly fashion? Just what is it that would lead
a mind or minds to believe that their conception of evil
is what Gods conception of evil if any was? Is it evil if God
does it? Is God evil if God does evil things? How are you
(your ego) going to justify itself sitting in judgement of God?
What if your silly mind does not even truely know what evil
is? What if there is no such thing apart from your mind/
the objectified notion of evil by a group of minds. When the
World Trade Center was blown up Americans said - This
is evil. Bin Laden said - This is good. A bird flying by observed
Something violent happened. Depends on whose shoes you
happen to be standing in at the time. The geographical location
of yourself on the planet. The politics of the day. The political
wind. Good vs evil? How about Justice and Evil? Why exactly
is it after 1000's of years there is no single set of morals followed
by all? Why are there so many different religions? Do they
all have the same conception of God? Why not? What is it
exactly that has these conceptions? The mind? Do you think
you are your mind? How about a soul? Would evil take on
a different form knowing that when your dead your dead. No
after life? Who could blame someone for pardy-hardy attitude?
Do it to them first before they do it to you. What sort of
conflict with this group forming morality do you suppose
would arise with a group that believed in an afterlife?
Ever notice how some people thing animals are real smart?
Do you think they have morals? So do atheists.
Leibniz addresses the question of Theodicy - the question of
evil and how do you justify a Perfect God and an imperfect
world with evil. So does Hume. Both are fairly humerous
but your teacher will likely buy it as a simple Westerner.
The real answer to evil is found in karma.
Good luck
Mike Dubbeld
"Chump" <aug...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:5Ob19.43036$ND5.4...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
Ben H.
all those people and went to jail and got murdered there.
"Mike Dubbeld" <mi...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:ai596v$alk$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Ben H.
"Kathleen Murphy" <mur...@travel-net.com> wrote in message
news:bZl19.1585$Z3....@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
Ben H.
will then you must believe that God didn't create man's will. Because God
would have created a perfect will. Maybe he created man's to have free will
but didn't know what his creation was going to do with it. But why did
he/she/they create temptation? Free will doesn't seem to have anything to do
with the omnipotent all-goodness of God. Unless God likes a good soap
opera... who said that?
"Kathleen Murphy" <mur...@travel-net.com> wrote in message
news:6Nl19.1582$Z3....@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
Ron Toon
First post on these boards, or on a newsgroup ever. Do lots of posting on
the CBS MarketWatch Rel/Phil board, though.
Well, this is something of a bass-ackwards approach to things. An Atheist
answers a student to get him/her on the right path to proving the existance
of evil does not disprove the existance of "God." But, I used to teach at
the University of Cincinnati, and I have a soft spot in my heart for
students. But, I agree with you. Certainly, if that was our only argument
against the existance of God, it wouldn't set well with me, either.
I take it by "God" you mean the Judeo/Christian cloud potato. If so, he says
he created evil at least a couple times, so that flimsy atheist argument
would be shot to hell, one, two, three! Please allow me to suggest you try
starting with the skeptic's annotated bible at:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.html . You should find all kinds
of ways to use it, once you get familiar with it. Also, if you have a good
search engine (may I recommend Copernic?), search for a few words, e.g.,
God, evil, etc., etc. and see what pops up.
The best proof that YHWH doesn't exist? The Bible itself. Christianity.
Anthony Flew's tale of the absent gardener. Here's one I posed to a
Christian at 7/24/2002 4:22:03 AM (ET).
[[ If "god" is "made up," that is, he has absolutely nothing to do with
reality, he would have no impact whatsoever on the lives of either man or
beast. However, if he does exist, and, as you claim, he actually cares about
us, he is almost certainly intervening in our behalf relatively often. I ask
not that you show that he intervenes every few days, or every few years or
every few centuries. I ask that you show me that your god has done anything
which can uniquely be credited to him, and him alone, in the past millineum
(thousand years). Can you do so in a reasonable and straight-forward
ner? ]]
Complete absence of presence, activity, or effect is one proof (in my humble
opinion), but certainly not the existance of evil.
Good luck in your quest, and, if I can be of any more assistance in any way,
you now have my e-mail address.
Sincerely,
Ron
"Chump" <aug...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:5Ob19.43036$ND5.4...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
Daniel T.
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The farmer isn't all powerful. He did not create the koRn. If he had
created the koRn plant with the intention that a percentage of the
stalks would develop cancer and die, then is he being kind?
Daniel T.
>Being less than all-powerful is not being impotent. Why the jump? If you
>found someone who was all-good but not all-powerful wouldn't that person be
>worth worshipping?
Captian Kirk didn't seem to think so. :-)
I don't think it is a good idea for people to go around worshiping
someone just because he is stronger than them. Should we worship bullies?
Slysherm
> Hello,
>
> I've got the following idea for a 10 page philo paper for my class.
>
> I want to argue that the existence of evil and evil acts alone does not
> disprove the existence of god (or some other omnipotent being). It seems
> that that is a main argument of atheists and it has never set well with me.
> I think it my be interesting to argue this as I am an agnostic.
>
> Anyone have any input? Places to start exploring?
>
> Please cc me as well in any replies.
>
> Thanks for the help
>
> chump
Sly: Try some of Spinoza's work in his Ethics. That might lead you
to some interesting points.
Kenny Pearce
>Hello,
>
>I've got the following idea for a 10 page philo paper for my class.
>
>I want to argue that the existence of evil and evil acts alone does not
>disprove the existence of god (or some other omnipotent being). It seems
>that that is a main argument of atheists and it has never set well with me.
>I think it my be interesting to argue this as I am an agnostic.
>
>Anyone have any input? Places to start exploring?
>
Begin by reading Richard Swinburne's "Why God Allows Evil". This
essay was required reading in my introductory philosophy class and I
thought it was excellent.
--
Kenny Pearce
(www.kennypearce.net)
Co-Developer, "Truth2000: The Talking Bible Project"
(truth2000.sourceforge.net)
"If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved" - Romans 10:9
Immortalist
Suppose a person found an herb that healed 98 out of 100 people who had an
previously uncurable disease and 2 out of a 100, died from the herb. If he
gave the Herb to the government, would he be less potent and kind because 2
out of every hundred people who took the herb would die?
I am not to religious but in failed christian apologetics is logical
consistency a requirement in normal conversation. The old joke, could god
create a rock that was too heavy for god to create. illustrates logical
inconsistency, can A = B & -B? So the christian goon can say hey what if it
is logically impossible to create humans with free will and eliminate the
possibility for evil?
Kenny Pearce
What if he created the koRn plant with the intention that each of
the stalks would be able to make a conscious choice to live or die?
Kenny Pearce
>"Ben H." <goodid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Being less than all-powerful is not being impotent. Why the jump? If you
>>found someone who was all-good but not all-powerful wouldn't that person be
>>worth worshipping?
>>
>>
>
>Captian Kirk didn't seem to think so. :-)
>
>I don't think it is a good idea for people to go around worshiping
>someone just because he is stronger than them. Should we worship bullies?
>
>
>
But if God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then certainly He
has a right to demand our worship.
Kenny Pearce
>david lindauer <dlin...@notifier-is.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Daniel T." wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The existence of evil doesn't disprove the existence of god, but it does
>>>disprove the existence of an omnipotent, benevolent being. It means god
>>>is *not* good, at which point one must wonder why he is being worshiped.
>>>There are a few ways to avoid the problem, the most obvious is to deny
>>>that there is evil in the world.
>>>
>>>
>>it doesn't prove any such thing. All it proves is that men disapprove of
>>whatever it is that god is doing (great mystery) because they think with their
>>instincts rather than with their minds.
>>
>>
>
>That's what I ment when I said "deny that there is evil in the world."
>You are saying that everything that happens is actually for the best.
>
>
>
Biblical Christianity says that there is, in fact, evil in the
world, but that God created not evil, but merely the possibility of
evil. Men and angels were given free will and chose evil. Because God
originally gave man dominion over the earth, when man fell into evil,
the entire world was affected.
Kenny Pearce
>If you believe that there is evil in the world because God gives us free
>will then you must believe that God didn't create man's will. Because God
>would have created a perfect will. Maybe he created man's to have free will
>but didn't know what his creation was going to do with it. But why did
>he/she/they create temptation? Free will doesn't seem to have anything to do
>with the omnipotent all-goodness of God. Unless God likes a good soap
>opera... who said that?
>
Again I refer you to Swinburne's "Why God Allows Evil". The right
thing to do is always the most logical. It always ultimately leads to
the most happiness (although it may lead to less happiness in the
immediate future). If humans acted based purely on logic and always
thought things through, we would always do what was right. There would
be no choice, and hence no free will. Instead, God created just a tiny
seed of depravity in men and angels, in order to implement true free
will (Swinburne uses the phrase "Free and Responsible Choice").
At this point one particularly beautiful archangel by the name of
Lucifer became prideful and came to the conclusion that he could run
things better than God. He's a smooth talker and has led one third of
the angels to rebel along-side him. After this, he realized that he
could not hurt God directly, God being omnipotent, and so decided to
cause Him emotional hurt by doing damage to His pet creation, man. And
so, Lucifer came to earth in the form of a serpeant and lied to the
human race, claiming that God was only trying to keep the best things
from them - that by disobeying God they could become like Him. Man bit
(pardon the pun) and the rest is history.
Call it a myth, if you will, but it does adequately explain the
problem of evil and where it comes from, as far as I can see.
Kenny Pearce
>Ayn Rand said that if she believed, really believed what you say then she
>would have committed suicide to be with her deceased husband. It is a sin to
>commit suicide though, right?
>
>
Suicide is the murder of the self, and as such is a sin. And yet,
Paul writes "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. But if I
am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I
do not know which to choose. But I am hard-pressed from both directions,
having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much
better; yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake."
(Philippians 1:21-24). Everyone who has a truly living faith is
similarly torn between these two desires. However, the only conclusion
that one can come to, from the Christian perspective, is to wait and let
God make the decision - He'll take you when He's ready. None of us has
enough perspective on the issue to make such a difficult decision for
ourselves.
Kenny Pearce
>Do you think it is possible to disprove the existence of the God of the
>Bible, if not a God without definite attributes?
>
>
I don't think it is possible, but in a sick sort of way I think it's
kind of fun to answer people who try ;p.
Daniel T.
>Chump wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I've got the following idea for a 10 page philo paper for my class.
>>
>>I want to argue that the existence of evil and evil acts alone does not
>>disprove the existence of god (or some other omnipotent being). It seems
>>that that is a main argument of atheists and it has never set well with me.
>>I think it my be interesting to argue this as I am an agnostic.
>>
>>Anyone have any input? Places to start exploring?
>>
> Begin by reading Richard Swinburne's "Why God Allows Evil". This
>essay was required reading in my introductory philosophy class and I
>thought it was excellent.
Another variation on "there really isn't any evil."
Kenny Pearce
>>Ayn Rand said that if she believed,
>>really believed what you say then she
>>would have committed suicide to be
>>with her deceased husband. It is a sin
>>to commit suicide though, right?
>>
>>
>>
>Yes, that does seem like a logical conclusion, eh?
>In fact, if you read some of the writings of the
>early Christian martyrs, they certainly sought
>death almost with eagerness (I am thinking of
>Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the late first
>century or early second---I forget now, it was
>awhile ago I read him---writing to the other
>Christians asking them NOT to seek pardon for him
>because he wanted the teeth of the lions to grind
>him up like wheat so he could be with the Lord. )
>
If you read of those martyred in the New Testament - I think
specifically of Peter and of Jesus Himself - you find something very
interesting. Peter escaped death numerous times. Jesus used to walk
right through the middle of an angry crowd seeking to kill Him and
somehow just disappear. But in the last chapter of John's gospel we read
the risen Christ prophesying the death of Peter as a martyr. In both
cases, and others, the martyrs had a profound sense that it was time for
them to go. This was an impulse from the Spirit and clearly not a
fleshly decision.
Modern-day martyr Rachel Joy Scott, who was a senior at Columbine
High School in Littleton, Colorado where she was one of the first to be
shot to death, wrote in a journal before she finished her junior year of
high school about "beginning her last year". Her girl friends would talk
about marriage and she would tell them that she didn't expect to live
that long. She frequently told her youth group leader that she expected
to die young. The Spirit prepared her for her coming day. It didn't
catch her by surprise. The same is true of the Biblical martyrs. Of
course the flip-side is that the power of God alone prevented John the
son of Zebedee (brother of James, one of the Twelve) from being martyred
and when the Romans couldn't kill him they exiled him to Patmos where he
received the Revelation.
>
>At the same time, all the Christian churches I
>know of also teach that suicide is sinful because
>"you are not your own, but God's." Mind you,
>seems like Ignatius was kinda pushing the envelope
>there. Others pushed it even harder---one sect
>(again, the name escapes me because it was over 10
>years ago I was reading this stuff) used to ambush
>unsuspecting travellers and ask them basically
>"martyr me or I'll martyr you." This ended up
>being condemned as being "outside the envelope"!!!
>
There have been lots of ridiculous "fringe groups", especially in
the first few centuries of Christianity. Even today we have Jehova's
Witnesses, Mormons, "Moonies" and countless other "Christian fringe
groups" with bizarre and unbiblical teachings.
>
>That Christianity has such interesting seeming
>contradictions within in----like this
>martyrdom/suicide thing---is one of the reasons I
>find it so fascinating. The "dynamic tension"
>between the two concepts kind of brackets a
>middle-road. Anyway, that's how I get my kicks.
>
There are lots of other cases of this in Biblical teaching. For
example, the "dynamic tension" between faith and works. Read Galatians
and then read James. However, a close study of the New Testament as a
whole reveals that both Paul and James agree: if your faith is not
evidenced by works it doesn't exist, and if your faith does not exist
you are bound for hell. The entire epistle of James is about this, and
Paul makes statements to that effect in Acts 26:20 and Romans 2:13.
Daniel T.
>Daniel T. wrote:
>
>>david lindauer <dlin...@notifier-is.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Daniel T." wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The existence of evil doesn't disprove the existence of god, but it does
>>>>disprove the existence of an omnipotent, benevolent being. It means god
>>>>is *not* good, at which point one must wonder why he is being worshiped.
>>>>There are a few ways to avoid the problem, the most obvious is to deny
>>>>that there is evil in the world.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>it doesn't prove any such thing. All it proves is that men disapprove of
>>>whatever it is that god is doing (great mystery) because they think with
>>>their
>>>instincts rather than with their minds.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>That's what I ment when I said "deny that there is evil in the world."
>>You are saying that everything that happens is actually for the best.
>>
>>
>>
> Biblical Christianity says that there is, in fact, evil in the
>world, but that God created not evil, but merely the possibility of
>evil. Men and angels were given free will and chose evil. Because God
>originally gave man dominion over the earth, when man fell into evil,
>the entire world was affected.
You might want to re-read Isa. 45:7 "I form the light, and create
darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these
things." Also re-read Exodus 4 where God hardens the Pharos heart so
that he will not release the hebrews, then kills the Pharos' first born
son.
Daniel T.
Suppose a person intentionally created a herb that killed 2 out of every
hundered people that took it. Keep in mind, if this person is
omnipotent, then he is quite capable of creating a herb that cures
everyone.
Daniel T.
>Daniel T. wrote:
>
>>"Ben H." <goodid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Being less than all-powerful is not being impotent. Why the jump? If you
>>>found someone who was all-good but not all-powerful wouldn't that person be
>>>worth worshipping?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Captian Kirk didn't seem to think so. :-)
>>
>>I don't think it is a good idea for people to go around worshiping
>>someone just because he is stronger than them. Should we worship bullies?
>>
>>
>>
> But if God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then certainly He
>has a right to demand our worship.
But, the existance of evil proves that he cannot be both omnipotent and
omnibenevolent.
Daniel T.
According to your comments above, man could act "good" in all things if
it wasn't for the "tiny seed of depravity" that was forced upon him by
God. IE God is omnipotent but not benevolent.
Kenny Pearce
>Then you get into the 'ah but man should have free will to choose' argument
>which leads to the 'yes but couldn't God have designed a world where there
>is no evil or suffering but where we still have free will' argument.
>This quickly leads to the "is God bound by logic" argument which then casts
>doubt on his omnipotence if he is and soon afterwards all the combatants
>disappear up their own backsides!
>
>
I'd like to comment on this. God wanted a world with free will. Free
will, /by definition/ (or at least the definition that I am using when I
say that God wanted it), requires the possibility of evil. However I
/don't/ think that God is bound by logic (my philosophy professor once
asked the class rhetorically "could God make 2+2=5?" to which I, without
hesitation, replied "absolutely", and proceeded to refer to the feeding
of the 5000, which looks more like 1-5000=12, which is far stranger). I
just think that if there were no possibility of evil, then we wouldn't
have this thing called free will which is what God wanted. In other
words, while God /didn't/ want evil, He /did/ want the possibility of
evil, and by creating a real, legitimate possibility of evil He
voluntarily precluded Himself from preventing certain undesirable things.
--
Kenny Pearce
(www.kennypearce.net)
Co-Developer, "Truth2000: The Talking Bible Project"
(truth2000.sourceforge.net)
"You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." - James 2:19
Ben H.
"Kenny Pearce" <ke...@kennypearce.net> wrote in message
news:3D46C7F1...@kennypearce.net...
Ben H.
sure) means things like hardship and pain and death but not the diabolical,
insane, Jeffrey Dahmer kinds of evil that we often use today.
"Daniel T." <notda...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:notdanielt3-70DB...@news.bellatlantic.net...
Ben H.
> created the koRn plant with the intention that a percentage of the
> stalks would develop cancer and die, then is he being kind?
That seems like a good thing to say to someone who has lost a child to
inherited problems. But it assumes the less than omnipotent nature of God.
That's ok with me.
Ben H.
"Kenny Pearce" <ke...@kennypearce.net> wrote in message
news:3D46C88B...@kennypearce.net...
Ben H.
then why did God create us with a need to worship?
"Kenny Pearce" <ke...@kennypearce.net> wrote in message
news:3D46C8DE...@kennypearce.net...
Ben H.
to make it work. We could be making choices between greater goods based on
our own individual differences where evil does not come into the equation.
Why is it important for man to have free will if that free will is tainted
by God? I think you need to say, "There is evil", "God is good","Free will
is a gift of God", "Take it on faith because it doesn't make sense
logically." Faith seems to be stronger than logic anyway. The real test
seems to be if logic can root out false faith and that part of religion that
is not good for man.
"Kenny Pearce" <ke...@kennypearce.net> wrote in message
news:3D46CB10...@kennypearce.net...
Kenny Pearce
>[[ If "god" is "made up," that is, he has absolutely nothing to do with
>reality, he would have no impact whatsoever on the lives of either man or
>beast. However, if he does exist, and, as you claim, he actually cares about
>us, he is almost certainly intervening in our behalf relatively often. I ask
>not that you show that he intervenes every few days, or every few years or
>every few centuries. I ask that you show me that your god has done anything
>which can uniquely be credited to him, and him alone, in the past millineum
>(thousand years). Can you do so in a reasonable and straight-forward
>ner? ]]
>
>
The "which can uniquely be credited to Him" part is a great
difficulty. God works in such a way that most of the things He does
could be otherwise explained. However, let me present a couple of
stories, not only from the last millenium, but from the last fifty
years. Verifying the truth of these stories may be difficult, but if you
are really serious about doing the research, there are probably living
witnesses.
Firstly, I have a friend who is a missionary to Thailand. He tells
me that there is a story told there, it's truth being acknowledged by
both the Christians and the Buddhists in that country, of a Buddhist
monk who died. He was dead for approximately a week, during which time
it is customary to leave the body lying out on a bed or some such (I
don't remember what this custom is called right off). At the end of the
week, this monk was being carried to the funeral pier where he would be
cremated. On the way there he suddenly woke up and immediately began
preaching Christianity. He was exiled from the country.
Secondly, an excerpt from Father Dennis J. Bennet's book /Nine
O'Clock in the Morning/, published 1970, concerning the baptism in the
Holy Spirit, the gift of tongues and how these were revived in certain
parts of the Episcopal/Anglican church beginning in 1960 (on a side
note, I do not personally have the gift of tongues, but very strongly
believe in it):
"The husband of another of the 'faithful women' received the Baptism
in the Holy Spirit. He had been a consistent scoffer for many years, but
when his wife received the Holy Spirit and he began to see miracles
happenin in his own family, he became interested and asked for and
received this experience himself. His 'tongue' was strikingly oriental,
so much so that one day, while on his delivery route - he drove a
delivery van - he encountered a Chinese customer, and boldly spoke some
words in his 'tongue'! The Chinese man answered him in the same dialect.
Bob spoke again and the Chinese person again responded, then asked in
English:
"'Where did you learn to speak my language?'
"'What language is it?' Bob inquired.
"'Why it's Mandarin, of course,' the other replied, 'and you speak
it perfectly!'
"'What did I say?'
"'You greeted me, and I returned your greeting. Then I suggested
that since you spoke my language, you should take a trip to the Orient
with me next year and meet my family. You replied:
"'"I can't go now, but I will go later."'
"Sometime later, this man was at a prayer meeting and in the course
of the evening spoke in his new tongue. There was an interpretation in
English expressing praise to God. Present at the meeting was a Chinese
woman, the wife of a medical doctor, and an exchange student at the
University of Washington. She spoke up:
"'How can this man speak Mandarin so perfectly? Where did he learn
such beautiful Mandarin?'
"Where indeed-?"
Father Bennet narrates countless other stories about the gift of
tongues, as well as many bizarre "coincidences", and even several
miraculous healings. Here is an excerpt from a book by Dr. Randy White,
pastor of Without Walls International Church in Tampa, Florida, entitled
/Without Walls/, published in 1998:
"By the time we met Greg, the HIV virus he had picked up years
before had progressed into full-blown AIDS, and he was beginning to
battle a variety of related health problems. Paula and I ministered to
Greg, praying and counseling with him, explaining the scriptural
teachings against homosexuality, but stressing God's love and acceptance
of him as an individual of great value and worth...his health continued
to deteriorate; on at least four occasions he came to the point of death
with double pneumonia and an AIDS-related condition called Giardia,
which involves a parasite that attacks the intestines, liver, and kidneys.
"During the fourth attack, the medical staff at the Catholic
hospital where he was being treated didn't think he was going to make
it. He weighed only one hundred eleven pounds, and his T-cell count,
which is about twelve hundred fifty in a normal person, had plummeted to
seventeen. There didn't seem to be any hope, and the last rites were
administered.
"That night the Lord woke me up and laid Greg on my heart. As I
prayed for him, I felt impressed to go to the hospital and tell him that
this was absolutely his last chance - that either he turn his life over
to God without reservation and be restored, or his life would come to an
end.
"So I did what God had directed me to do, and a barely conscious
Greg nodded that he understood. I prayed for him there, and to
everyone's astonishment, he rallied and began gaining strength. In a
short time, his T-cell count went from the almost-fatal level of
seventeed back to one hundred and fifty-one, and at last report it was
still climbing.
This without touching upon the three books (/Fresh Wind, Fresh
Fire/, /Fresh Faith/ and /Fresh Power/) by Jim Cymbala, pastor of
Brooklyn Tabernacle, Brooklyn, New York, or mentioning my personal
experience. God is living and active today. He is, perhaps, not so
overtly active as He once was, probably due to a lack of faith within
the Church, but He is alive, and He does act.
--
Kenny Pearce
(www.kennypearce.net)
Co-Developer, "Truth2000: The Talking Bible Project"
(truth2000.sourceforge.net)
lowkoo
leading to edification. But he could be wrong. Who hasn't made
mistakes.
Among the good points you brought up, you stated:
"So the only logical result I can see is 1)God exists 2)Evil exists so
the
problem must be with our understanding.
Man does not have the capacity to understand the universe. This seems
anti
philosophical but maybe it is a branch of philosophy in itself?"
The universe is real, not logical; the universe is the "territory" and
the mind (logic) is the "map." Therefore, it is not only a lack of
capacity that keeps us from understanding; it is that our minds are
instruments that are not designed for that kind of "understanding." It
might be that there is no "understanding" of such things, that
"understanding" is a construct of our minds only.
As for that being a branch of philosophy, I think it is where an
honest study of epistemology leads. I believe philosophy is the art of
producing wonder. The object of wonder is the ordinary world. But we
do not wonder about that which we know; therefore, philosophy produces
wonder by dispelling the conviction of knowledge in us. Wisdom is
consciousness of ignorance, accompanied by an attitude of wonder.
"Neil Coward" <Neil....@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<ai4bjt$k7t$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>...
> Well I'm just a novice in philo but my own thoughts are these:
>
> I think God exists and also evil exists. I'm not convinced by the
> 'everything is for the best' argument. I believe the 'official' answer to
> this is ..If God is so powerful couldn't He have designed a better world ,
> where evil and suffering didn't exist.
>
> Then you get into the 'ah but man should have free will to choose' argument
> which leads to the 'yes but couldn't God have designed a world where there
> is no evil or suffering but where we still have free will' argument.
> This quickly leads to the "is God bound by logic" argument which then casts
> doubt on his omnipotence if he is and soon afterwards all the combatants
> disappear up their own backsides!
>
> My own 2 cents worth about evil being necessary for us to learn and grow
> would be what does a 2 month old African baby learn by dying of starvation?.
> Has it developed and learned though suffering? I don't think so.
>
> So the only logical result I can see is 1)God exists 2)Evil exists so the
> problem must be with our understanding.
> Man does not have the capacity to understand the universe. This seems anti
> philosophical but maybe it is a branch of philosophy in itself?
>
> Another idea is ok there is evil in the world so God cannot exist, so where
> do you draw the line? If there had never been any wars, would that mean God
> existed? No because there's still suffering, ok so we have to remove wars,
> then suffering, then illnesses, then crime and so on and so forth - so when
> do we stop?.
>
> Woody Allen once joked that there is no God because he once got his tongue
> caught in the roller of an electric typewriter.
>
> This seems to me the logical end of the existance of evil argument.
>
>
> I think to get good marks in your essay you will have to acquaint yourself
> with all the official arguments and counter arguments to prove you have read
> into the subject, and also demonstrate you understand the arguments and
> counter arguments.
>
> Then you can spice it up with your own ideas, then if you're really
> desperate, add on the bits us cretins on this newsgroup have suggested!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Chump" <aug...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:5Ob19.43036$ND5.4...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've got the following idea for a 10 page philo paper for my class.
> >
> > I want to argue that the existence of evil and evil acts alone does not
> > disprove the existence of god (or some other omnipotent being). It seems
> > that that is a main argument of atheists and it has never set well with
> me.
> > I think it my be interesting to argue this as I am an agnostic.
> >
> > Anyone have any input? Places to start exploring?
> >
Kenny Pearce
You are reading KJV, which is a sometimes-inaccurate translation
from a reliable Greek text (Textus Receptus). NKJV has corrected such
errors and reads "I form light and create darkness, I make peace and
create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things". There is no mention
of "evil", only "calamity". In the context, God is promising that He has
anointed Cyrus, a future king of Medo-Persia, to overthrow Babylon and
free the Jews. He promises to bring calamity to Babylon in order to free
His people. This occurred more than 150 years after the time of writing.
As to Pharaoh, in Exodus 4:21, God predicts that He shall, in the
end, harden Pharaoh's heart, but this has not happened yet. However,
when it comes time for this to actually occur, the first reference is
Exodus 8:15, which says "But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he
hardened his heart..." In 8:19 we have the phrase "But Pharaoh's heart
was hardened". 8:32 - "Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also". 9:7 -
"The heart of Pharaoh was hardened". 9:34 - "he sinned again and
hardened his heart". Finally, in 10:1, God speaks of having in the past
hardened Pharaoh's heart when He commands Moses "Go to Pharaoh, for I
have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may
perform these signs of Mine among them". In 4:21 God speaks of hardening
Pharaoh's heart at some time in the future. It is not until we read that
Pharaoh hardened his own heart at least three times that God speaks of
hardening his heart for him. In other words, Pharaoh acted first. There
comes a point where a man has hardened his heart to such a great degree
that God further hardens it for him, such that it becomes impossible for
him to repent. This is what occurred. Pharaoh hardened his own heart first.
--
Kenny Pearce
(www.kennypearce.net)
Co-Developer, "Truth2000: The Talking Bible Project"
(truth2000.sourceforge.net)
"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved." - Acts 4:12
Kenny Pearce
>Why did God create the possibility of evil and man with an imperfect will?
>
>
I have discussed this in another post in this same thread.
--
Kenny Pearce
(www.kennypearce.net)
Co-Developer, "Truth2000: The Talking Bible Project"
(truth2000.sourceforge.net)
Kenny Pearce
>Why would God create a cornstalk with the imperfect ability to choose death?
>
>
It has the perfect ability to choose death. The point is for it to
choose - and it doesn't choose death and then not die, or choose life
and then not live, so it has the perfect ability to choose. This was
God's intention.
--
Kenny Pearce
(www.kennypearce.net)
Co-Developer, "Truth2000: The Talking Bible Project"
(truth2000.sourceforge.net)
Kenny Pearce
Genetic flaws/illnesses/etc. did not exist prior to the fall of man.
The entirety of creation was corrupted when the human race fell into
sin. I can produce Scripture references if you like...
Kenny Pearce
>Kenny Pearce <ke...@kennypearce.net> wrote:
>
>> But if God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then certainly He
>>has a right to demand our worship.
>>
>>
>
>But, the existance of evil proves that he cannot be both omnipotent and
>omnibenevolent.
>
>
>
To say that God is omnibenevolent is a meaninglessly redundant
statement. God is intrinsically good. That is, the definition of the
word "good" is "like God". So of course God is infinitely good, since He
is infinitely like Himself. The thing which comes into discussion, then,
is does the type of God we believe in lead to a definition of the word
"good" compatible with the way we use that word in everyday speech. God
being intrinsically good, the world He creates is the best possible
world by virtue of the fact that He created it. However, this world has
fallen from that state...
--
Kenny Pearce
(www.kennypearce.net)
Co-Developer, "Truth2000: The Talking Bible Project"
(truth2000.sourceforge.net)
Kenny Pearce
>Why would God want or need worship? If the worshipping is for our own good
>then why did God create us with a need to worship?
>
>
Why would you want ice cream? Who knows... It just happens to be a
part of God's nature that He desires to be worshipped, and for this
reason He created us with a need to worship.
--
Kenny Pearce
(www.kennypearce.net)
Co-Developer, "Truth2000: The Talking Bible Project"
(truth2000.sourceforge.net)
Kenny Pearce
>Kenny Pearce <ke...@kennypearce.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Chump wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>I've got the following idea for a 10 page philo paper for my class.
>>>
>>>I want to argue that the existence of evil and evil acts alone does not
>>>disprove the existence of god (or some other omnipotent being). It seems
>>>that that is a main argument of atheists and it has never set well with me.
>>>I think it my be interesting to argue this as I am an agnostic.
>>>
>>>Anyone have any input? Places to start exploring?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Begin by reading Richard Swinburne's "Why God Allows Evil". This
>>essay was required reading in my introductory philosophy class and I
>>thought it was excellent.
>>
>>
>
>Another variation on "there really isn't any evil."
>
>
>
Have you read it? Swinburne does not say this at all. But,
curiously, St. Augustine does... He says that there is no evil, but
merely the unexpected absense of good, much as a hole is not anything,
but rather the unexpected absence of something. I disagree, but I
thought it was an interesting stance to take.
Kenny Pearce
>According to your comments above, man could act "good" in all things if
>it wasn't for the "tiny seed of depravity" that was forced upon him by
>God. IE God is omnipotent but not benevolent.
>
>
>
No. Free will is a great good, hence this "tiny seed of depravity"
is good, since it makes free will possible, but acting upon it is evil.
However, because man first acted upon it near the beginning of time, the
entirety of the human flesh is now depraved, and it is no longer a "tiny
seed".
--
Kenny Pearce
(www.kennypearce.net)
Co-Developer, "Truth2000: The Talking Bible Project"
(truth2000.sourceforge.net)
Kenny Pearce
>I don't see any big deal about free will if it includes a seed of depravity
>to make it work. We could be making choices between greater goods based on
>our own individual differences where evil does not come into the equation.
>
Read the Swinburne article. This might be "free will", but not "free
and responsible choice". The "free will" that God created us to have is
the ability to choose between good and evil.
>Why is it important for man to have free will if that free will is tainted
>by God?
>
It was not tainted by God. It was tainted by a short little incident
between Adam, Eve and Satan. Prior to that time, there was only just
enough depravity to make it so there was actually a choice to be made -
so that evil was possible. Why do I say that this is good? Well, if God
is intrinsically good, then all I mean when I say something is good is
that God happens to like it. God happens to like this kind of free will.
Why? Why do you like ice cream (or why do you not like ice cream)? It's
in His nature.
>I think you need to say, "There is evil", "God is good","Free will
>is a gift of God", "Take it on faith because it doesn't make sense
>logically." Faith seems to be stronger than logic anyway. The real test
>seems to be if logic can root out false faith and that part of religion that
>is not good for man.
>
>
It does make sense logically. It just requires that we accept a few
things that we cannot prove. It is logically coherent, but not logically
provable.
--
Kenny Pearce
(www.kennypearce.net)
Co-Developer, "Truth2000: The Talking Bible Project"
(truth2000.sourceforge.net)
Ben H.
What would you seem to know about the creator
of scenarios like the one I snipped from your post
below? I mean what kind of God would create
this?
> Modern-day martyr Rachel Joy Scott, who was a senior at Columbine
> High School in Littleton, Colorado where she was one of the first to be
> shot to death, wrote in a journal before she finished her junior year of
> high school about "beginning her last year". Her girl friends would talk
> about marriage and she would tell them that she didn't expect to live
> that long. She frequently told her youth group leader that she expected
> to die young. The Spirit prepared her for her coming day. It didn't
> catch her by surprise.
Did her death serve a purpose? Does God in some cases create children to be
killed by other children? It sounds like to me that you have to make a
choice
between accepting the evils of life or attributing them to some unknown plan
of God. Doing that makes God a creator of these events and it makes someone
who believes that, a participant in a small way after the fact.
I'm kind of thinking while I'm writing so I'm sure it doesn't hold together
perfectly,
so take it that way. My thoughts might be turned around completely by
another
post. But this is my true thinking at the moment and I don't think I'm using
someone else's ideas as my own. A lot of life seems to be a choice between
power and goodness. To be powerful and evil or to be good and impotent
would be the extreme ultimate choice. Please correct me.
If there is a philosopher who has dealt with this please let me know.
Ben H.
possibility that God created evil. I'm kinda sure that after I think about
it for a while I won't be on your side of the issue but you did make me
think and who knows... I would really like to find a reason to believe in
the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenificence of God. I'm starting
another thread on the definition of evil. I hope you will participate.
I'm wonder now though, why God would need to make man go through the process
and pain of choosing (free will), when God could have created the final
result in the first place. If you were playing Let's Make a Deal and there
were three doors behind which were 3 Gods. You couldn't know the God behind
any of the doors but you could see His creation on the stage in front of the
door. One of the doors had a creation that involved pain and suffering to
achieve a desired character and he second door had a creation where the
character was created at the beginning with the same result? You might say
that the first creation earned the character and was more real which would
appeal to many but it occurs to me and does it to you? that God did not go
through the process and is more like the creation in front of the second
door...
"Kenny Pearce" <ke...@kennypearce.net> wrote in message
news:3D46DEC7...@kennypearce.net...
Hewpiedawg
> Ben H. wrote:
>
> >>The farmer isn't all powerful. He did not create the koRn. If he had
> >>created the koRn plant with the intention that a percentage of the
> >>stalks would develop cancer and die, then is he being kind?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >That seems like a good thing to say to someone who has lost a child to
> >inherited problems. But it assumes the less than omnipotent nature of
God.
> >That's ok with me.
> >
> Genetic flaws/illnesses/etc. did not exist prior to the fall of man.
> The entirety of creation was corrupted when the human race fell into
> sin. I can produce Scripture references if you like...
Nevertheless, it is certainly the case that God was the author of that
corruption, as punishment. As it is written:
Genesis 3:17: And unto Adam he said, because thou hast hearkened unto the
voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded
thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake;
in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
It is a strange sort of justice that punishes those who are not responsible
(such as the child born with spina bifida) for the original crime.
Hewpiedawg
> Ben H. wrote:
>
> >Why would God want or need worship? If the worshipping is for our own
good
> >then why did God create us with a need to worship?
> >
> >
> Why would you want ice cream? Who knows... It just happens to be a
> part of God's nature that He desires to be worshipped, and for this
> reason He created us with a need to worship.
So, since it is a part of his nature, God cannot choose otherwise?
He has no free will?
Hewpiedawg
"Ben H." <goodid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OzW19.49237$Fq6.4...@news2.west.cox.net...
Nietzsche
Ben H.
they should.
Kenny Pearce
Perhaps it is, to human ears, "a strange sort of justice", but it is
not incompatible with the goodness of God, goodness being properly
understood.
--
Kenny Pearce
(www.kennypearce.net)
Co-Developer, "Truth2000: The Talking Bible Project"
(truth2000.sourceforge.net)
"Who needs a life when you've got a c++ compiler?"
Kenny Pearce
>What would you seem to know about the creator
>of scenarios like the one I snipped from your post
>below? I mean what kind of God would create
>this?
>
God did not CREATE these scenarios, rather He FOREKNEW them. Try
C.S. Lewis's /Mere Chrisitianity/. Lewis asserts (and I think that he's
got a good deal of Scripture backing him up) that God is outside of
time. What this means is that God exists in all moments simultaneously.
For Him there is no past or future, just an eternal NOW. So God is,
right now, seeing what you will do in ten years, but that doesn't mean
He's making you do it, anymore than another person in the room with you
knowing what you are doing now makes you do the things you are doing.
God did not FOREORDAIN these events, He merely FOREKNEW them, and thus
perpared the world in such a way that He could use these evil events to
accomplish good.
>
>
>
>> Modern-day martyr Rachel Joy Scott, who was a senior at Columbine
>>High School in Littleton, Colorado where she was one of the first to be
>>shot to death, wrote in a journal before she finished her junior year of
>>high school about "beginning her last year". Her girl friends would talk
>>about marriage and she would tell them that she didn't expect to live
>>that long. She frequently told her youth group leader that she expected
>>to die young. The Spirit prepared her for her coming day. It didn't
>>catch her by surprise.
>>
>>
>
>Did her death serve a purpose? Does God in some cases create children to be
>killed by other children?
>
It was not God's plan for her to be killed, but He knew that she
would be. Therefore He prepared her throughout her life so that her
death could accomplish a purpose. Today her father travels around
preaching. He has spoken before congress (his speech was on the order of
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people." - he pointed out that when
Cain killed Abel no one blamed it on the National Club Association).
Various prophetic statements and drawings were found in Rachel's
journals, and many have come to Christ through her dying witness and the
witness of her father.
> It sounds like to me that you have to make a
>choice
>between accepting the evils of life or attributing them to some unknown plan
>of God. Doing that makes God a creator of these events and it makes someone
>who believes that, a participant in a small way after the fact.
>
God has a plan. "All things work together for the glory of God".
Look at it this way: imagine you or I playing chess with Kasprov (I
assume you are not a chessmaster of that caliber - I am certainly not).
Now, in the course of the game, I could make any number of moves. Most
likely, the moves that I make will not be the ones that my opponent
would prefer I make, in order for him to win in the fewest number of
moves possible, but it doesn't matter, because he is such a better
player than I that no matter what I do, he will be able to use it to his
advantage. There is a galactic chess game going on, between God and
Satan, and it is more one-sided than a game between Bobby Fisher and a
five year old. The devil can do various things that God would prefer he
didn't, but he can never properly oppose God, because there is nothing
he can ever do that God is not capable of using to His advantage.
Kenny Pearce
He can choose whatever He wishes. He could even change His own
nature, if He so chose. The nature of God does not determine what He
COULD or COULDN'T do, but rather what He WOULD or WOULDN'T do.
--
Kenny Pearce
(www.kennypearce.net)
Co-Developer, "Truth2000: The Talking Bible Project"
(truth2000.sourceforge.net)
Kenny Pearce
>Very interesting post. I would not have thought I would be considering the
>possibility that God created evil. I'm kinda sure that after I think about
>it for a while I won't be on your side of the issue but you did make me
>think and who knows... I would really like to find a reason to believe in
>the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenificence of God. I'm starting
>another thread on the definition of evil. I hope you will participate.
>
>I'm wonder now though, why God would need to make man go through the process
>and pain of choosing (free will), when God could have created the final
>result in the first place. If you were playing Let's Make a Deal and there
>were three doors behind which were 3 Gods. You couldn't know the God behind
>any of the doors but you could see His creation on the stage in front of the
>door. One of the doors had a creation that involved pain and suffering to
>achieve a desired character and he second door had a creation where the
>character was created at the beginning with the same result? You might say
>that the first creation earned the character and was more real which would
>appeal to many but it occurs to me and does it to you? that God did not go
>through the process and is more like the creation in front of the second
>door...
>
All I can say is that God wanted the world this way. Of course,
before Original Sin, there was no pain and suffering, and in heaven
there will again be no pain and suffering, but in this present world,
God is sometimes the cause of pain and suffering. Perhaps He has chosen
to work this way, producing good through that which appears to be evil,
as a result of the state that the world is in.
--
Kenny Pearce
(www.kennypearce.net)
Co-Developer, "Truth2000: The Talking Bible Project"
(truth2000.sourceforge.net)
Daniel T.
>Hewpiedawg wrote:
>>Nevertheless, it is certainly the case that God was the author of that
>>corruption, as punishment. As it is written:
>>
>>Genesis 3:17: And unto Adam he said, because thou hast hearkened unto the
>>voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded
>>thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake;
>>in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
>>
>>It is a strange sort of justice that punishes those who are not responsible
>>(such as the child born with spina bifida) for the original crime.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Perhaps it is, to human ears, "a strange sort of justice", but it is
>not incompatible with the goodness of God, goodness being properly
>understood.
And now your back to denying that evil exists.
--
Is your company in Tampa?
Improve it's understanding of OO.
Hire me... <http://home1.gte.net/danielt3/resume.html>
Daniel T.
Kenny Pearce <ke...@kennypearce.net> wrote:
>Daniel T. wrote:
>
>>Kenny Pearce <ke...@kennypearce.net> wrote:
>>
>>> But if God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then certainly He
>>>has a right to demand our worship.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>But, the existance of evil proves that he cannot be both omnipotent and
>>omnibenevolent.
>>
>>
>>
> To say that God is omnibenevolent is a meaninglessly redundant
>statement. God is intrinsically good. That is, the definition of the
>word "good" is "like God". So of course God is infinitely good, since He
>is infinitely like Himself. The thing which comes into discussion, then,
>is does the type of God we believe in lead to a definition of the word
>"good" compatible with the way we use that word in everyday speech. God
>being intrinsically good, the world He creates is the best possible
>world by virtue of the fact that He created it. However, this world has
>fallen from that state...
Again, the denial that evil exists.
Kenny Pearce
>Kenny Pearce <ke...@kennypearce.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hewpiedawg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Nevertheless, it is certainly the case that God was the author of that
>>>corruption, as punishment. As it is written:
>>>
>>>Genesis 3:17: And unto Adam he said, because thou hast hearkened unto the
>>>voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded
>>>thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake;
>>>in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
>>>
>>>It is a strange sort of justice that punishes those who are not responsible
>>>(such as the child born with spina bifida) for the original crime.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Perhaps it is, to human ears, "a strange sort of justice", but it is
>>not incompatible with the goodness of God, goodness being properly
>>understood.
>>
>>
>
>And now your back to denying that evil exists.
>
>
>
I'm not denying that evil exists at all - I'm denying that God is
it's author. Some things appear to be evil which are not, but that is
not to say that there is nothing in the world that is actually evil.
--
Kenny Pearce
(www.kennypearce.net)
Co-Developer, "Truth2000: The Talking Bible Project"
(truth2000.sourceforge.net)
"But be ye hackers of the code, and not users only, deceiving your own selves." - James 1:22, version 2.0
Kenny Pearce
>In article <3D48114A...@kennypearce.net>,
> Kenny Pearce <ke...@kennypearce.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Daniel T. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Kenny Pearce <ke...@kennypearce.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> But if God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then certainly He
>>>>has a right to demand our worship.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>But, the existance of evil proves that he cannot be both omnipotent and
>>>omnibenevolent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> To say that God is omnibenevolent is a meaninglessly redundant
>>statement. God is intrinsically good. That is, the definition of the
>>word "good" is "like God". So of course God is infinitely good, since He
>>is infinitely like Himself. The thing which comes into discussion, then,
>>is does the type of God we believe in lead to a definition of the word
>>"good" compatible with the way we use that word in everyday speech. God
>>being intrinsically good, the world He creates is the best possible
>>world by virtue of the fact that He created it. However, this world has
>>fallen from that state...
>>
>>
>
>Again, the denial that evil exists.
>
>
>
I just said that to be "good" means to be like God. Therefore
anything that is not like God is evil. That means you, me, and the rest
of the human race, among other things. I can produce Scripture
references if you like. There are also evil actions - actions that God
would not take were He in your position. There is plenty of evil in the
world, but God is not the source of any of it.
--
Kenny Pearce
(www.kennypearce.net)
Co-Developer, "Truth2000: The Talking Bible Project"
(truth2000.sourceforge.net)
Ben H.
sound "evil" has changed and no longer means what it meant in King James
time. If the Bible had the letters "gay" then there might need to be a
correction now. It doesn't mean the Bible was translated incorrectly at the
time. One mistake that hasn't been corrected is that the heavens are said to
be made of water. (Genesis)
"Kenny Pearce" <ke...@kennypearce.net> wrote in message
news:3D480EBB...@kennypearce.net...
Ben H.
create evil. Evil in this post means anything against the omnibenificent
will of God.
"Kenny Pearce" <ke...@kennypearce.net> wrote in message
news:3D480F48...@kennypearce.net...
Ben H.
You might be really causing yourself internal conflict. You can believe in
God without thinking He is omnipotent. There can still be a resurrection and
heaven. Those can be within the power of God even if He could not create a
perfect world because He is not ALL powerful. You may be right though. I
just think differently.
"Kenny Pearce" <ke...@kennypearce.net> wrote in message
news:3D480F9B...@kennypearce.net...
Frank Palermo
Funny thing about religious arguments. There's always reference to the
Bible, Koran or whatever text one is supposed to take on faith. The notion
of evil seems to be defined as that which is inimicable to the deity
described in the text. I'll distunguish here between 'evil' and 'bad'. Bad
refers to something that is harmful in some way to a person or people,
independent of any sort of malice. For example, an earthquake is bad; it
kills people, destroys their belongings &c., but there is no malice to the
event. It just happens.
Murder on the other hand, can be said to be evil since it is against the
will of the deities in religious texts and is an expression of malicious
intent. These are just examples, not an exhaustive list of acts...
Now, what if our clture was based on a text that condoned murder when
performed under certain criteria (not getting into the death penalty debate
here!). Would *not* murdering people who fulfilled the criteria then be
considered evil, since it is against the will of the putative deity?
What of an entirely atheistic society? Would they have a notion of evil? Or
would harmful acts be considered 'bad'?
I tend to think that 'evil' is as much a product of faith as the notion of
god. If one does not believe in a god, how can one believe in evil?
The conclussion I come to, if the above comments are even partially
accepted, is that a belief in evil constitutes a belief in god. Therefore,
the existence of Evil rather proves God's existence. Now the problem isn't
to prove the existence of God... who's game to prove the existence of Evil?
Frank (new to the group, so be kind!)
Ben H.
monetary benefit? from the "Talking Bible Project".
"Kenny Pearce" <ke...@kennypearce.net> wrote in message
news:3D4971A6...@kennypearce.net...
Ben H.
nature? I don't want to try to make anybody not believe the way they want, I
do think that sometimes it might be a good idea to say, "It's a matter of
faith and resides in a spiritual world that is more real then reality but it
can not be explained logically."
"Kenny Pearce" <ke...@kennypearce.net> wrote in message
news:3D4975DF...@kennypearce.net...
GeneIn
"Frank Palermo" <pang...@NOSPAMiinet.net.au>
wrote in message news:3d4dc702$0
the definition of evil would be morally bad,
wicked, causing injury or pain...it can also refer
to a natural event that causes destruction but it
is not meant that the natural event is evil but
the suffering endured by those that were the
recipients of the evil event.....an entirely
atheistic society would be well aware of good and
evil
the definition of bad would be primarily something
that does not quite come up to snuff....a
disobedient child is bad not evil....as is a
disagreeable odor....some do use "bad" in place of
evil but it does not really do the proper job...a
bit too mild....and some use evil when "bad" would
be more appropriate.......example: he was an evil
child"....(he was overly noisy)
> I tend to think that 'evil' is as much a product
of faith as the notion of
> god. If one does not believe in a god, how can
one believe in evil?
by reading newspapers and being observant one can
easily see the evil in the world and the good.
> The conclussion I come to, if the above comments
are even partially
> accepted, is that a belief in evil constitutes a
belief in god. Therefore,
> the existence of Evil rather proves God's
existence. Now the problem isn't
> to prove the existence of God... who's game to
prove the existence of Evil?
>
> Frank (new to the group, so be kind!)
good effort frank......
g.
>
>
Kenny Pearce
>Maybe the reason for the "correction" is that the meaning attached to the
>sound "evil" has changed and no longer means what it meant in King James
>time. If the Bible had the letters "gay" then there might need to be a
>correction now. It doesn't mean the Bible was translated incorrectly at the
>time. One mistake that hasn't been corrected is that the heavens are said to
>be made of water. (Genesis)
>
Not so. Here is the reference: "Then God said, 'Let there be an
expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it seperate the waters from
the waters.' And God made the expanse and seperated the waters which
were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and
it was so. And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and
there was morning, a second day." (Genesis 1:6-8). Here God places an
empty space in between the "waters above" (clouds) and the "waters
below" (a single ocean which at this time covered the entire earth), and
calls that empty space "shameh", which means "aloft, the sky, height,
heaven(s)" and is presumed to be the noun form of a Hebrew verb not used
in the OT meaning "to be lofty" (Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D., "Lexical Aids
to the Old Testament", from "The Hebrew-Greek Keyword Study Bible"). One
of the meanings of "shameh" is the physical sky, as in the area where
birds fly, which happens to be in between the clouds and the seas, just
as the passage suggests.
--
Kenny Pearce
(www.kennypearce.net)
Co-Developer, "Truth2000: The Talking Bible Project"
(truth2000.sourceforge.net)
Kenny Pearce
>I don't mean this as an attack on your character but do you receive any
>monetary benefit? from the "Talking Bible Project".
>
>
No. It's open source. Purely volunteer. There is no budget for the
project at all, and there are only two developers (including myself).
Kenny Pearce
>Kenny, the Bible says that it is not God's will to lose even one sparrow.
>You might be really causing yourself internal conflict. You can believe in
>God without thinking He is omnipotent. There can still be a resurrection and
>heaven. Those can be within the power of God even if He could not create a
>perfect world because He is not ALL powerful. You may be right though. I
>just think differently.
>
There is a SEEMING contradiction here, but I really don't think that
it's that difficult to get rid of. The Bible is pretty adamant about the
omnipotence of God.
--
Kenny Pearce
(www.kennypearce.net)
Co-Developer, "Truth2000: The Talking Bible Project"
(truth2000.sourceforge.net)
Joseph R Abbott
can easily knock down. The atheists I know don't believe in God
because there is no scientific evidence for His existence.
Evil doesn't disprove the existense of good, anymore than mountains
disprove the existance of vallies. We need "highs" to have "lows" and
we need "good" to have "evil". This is probably why God invented good
and evil and gave men free will to choose a path between them.
"Chump" <aug...@pobox.com> wrote in message news:<5Ob19.43036$ND5.4...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>...
> Hello,
>
> I've got the following idea for a 10 page philo paper for my class.
>
> I want to argue that the existence of evil and evil acts alone does not
> disprove the existence of god (or some other omnipotent being). It seems
> that that is a main argument of atheists and it has never set well with me.
> I think it my be interesting to argue this as I am an agnostic.
>
> Anyone have any input? Places to start exploring?
>
> Please cc me as well in any replies.
>
> Thanks for the help
>
> chump
David B.C.
T." <notda...@gte.net> writes:
>The existence of evil doesn't disprove the existence of god, but it does
>disprove the existence of an omnipotent, benevolent being. It means god
>is *not* good, at which point one must wonder why he is being worshiped.
>There are a few ways to avoid the problem, the most obvious is to deny
>that there is evil in the world.
No no, it just means God is not omnibenevolent. Benevolent doesn't necessarily
imply all-benevolence, but omnibenevolence does.
~David
"...whenever I succeed in disproving another person's claim to wisdom in a
given subject, the bystanders assume that I know everything about that subject
myself. But the truth of the matter... that real wisdom is the property of
God..." ~Socrates
bbb
I can argue it. I did argue it at my site at
<ADDRESS>http://www.geocities.com/drwhorl/MAYBEsingle1.html</ADDRESS>
Plenty of new ideas there. Kinda tired of only Hollywood and some authors
putting them to use for free.
Feel free. Just don't leave out some credit for my ideas as those guys do.
Robert Lauzeckas
----------------------------------------------------
David Lindauer
bbb wrote:
try thinking about genesis 2:17
David