The Problem of Evil and how it provides evidence for the existence of God.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Picking out individuals who express a spiritual view, or lack there of, to represent the whole, is a sign that that is an attack not based on proof.

I could quiet easily pick the following Christians, to say all Christians are morally reprehensible.

Sun Myung Moon
David Koresh
Pat Robertson
Matthew Hale
Michael Bray
Paul Jennings Hill
Marshall Herff Applewhite, Jr.
Jim Jones
Charles Coughlin
and
Fred Phelps, Sr.

Yet I do not. Thus there are indeed moral athiests just as there are amoral "good Christians".

and I can deny their christianity by using the bible

Galatians 5:22-23English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK)

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

Matthew 7:16English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK)

16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thorn bushes?

ames 2:18-26English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK)

18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

Matthew 7:21-23English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK)

I Never Knew You
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Yes there are immoral christians that act contrary to our law, not up for debate, no questions, they are against the laws, the accepted moral standard of christianity, against Gods requirements.

and yes there are indeed moral athiests but why are they moral, whats immoral when you have no standard, no law other than the government implemented rule

You are arguing something I dont contest and ignoring the question

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Evil can exist just fine since Evil is a subjective concept that is defined by each of us. It needs no God.

Atheists and their morals are just as valid as anyone's morals are valid to them. Subjective Morality is obvious and is evident to everyone and always has been. Some just choose to deny it.

You claim an Objective God and an Objective Morality from that God as it's source. Yet you can prove neither of them.

A question that I'm not getting in your argument is that you say for #7 "If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists." But you also say "God Exists". But if God Exists according to #7 then Evil Can't Exist" but then say "Evil Exists" but if "Evil Exists" then God Can't Exist because he'd stop it.

But your premise is that Evil and God have to both exist. But doesn't #7 stop that from being true???

I've seen the youtube arguement for this which you have clearly just watched and made a thread on. Pretty embarrassing logic. These people are not smart and repeating conflicting sentences is not intelligent debate.

Atheists have feelings believe it or not. We know what evil is without a book.

Sure you can move onto slavery.

"And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."

You see the word slavery in the Bible and think it refers to this type of slavery which as you can see is condemned. The slavery the Jews practiced was a form of debt payment.

Ok OP, I could play along with this until you went "there" with the slavery. Sorry, but I can't just let that go.

It appears that you are referencing the popular apologist line that goes something like this, "...oh slavery in the bible was this benign happy little thing, nothing like those old meanies in the US. After all, they didn't have WELFARE or FOODSTAMPS back then, so what else were they to do? And the "slaves" were all like family members and just happy as can be."

Alrighty then, let's just have a look boys and girls and see what the bible has to say about this happy affair. After all, you wouldn't try to dispute the bible, would you?

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. " (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Hmmm... you can BUY them and pass them on to your children. That doesn't sound very friendly and family like. Sounds a lot like the meanies.

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." Exodus 21:20-21 NAB

So, it's ok to beat them to death as long as they don't die on the first day of your beating. Is that the Tony Soprano method of debt collection being advocated here?

"But of these things be not ashamed, lest you sin through human respect;…Of constant training of children, or of beating the sides of a disloyal servant; or of a seal to keep an erring wife at home. (Sirach 42:1,5-6 NAB)

Oh I get it, if you beat them on their sides, maybe they won't die on the first day. Clever!

"Deu 20:10 "When you go to attack a city, first give its people a chance to surrender.
Deu 20:11 If they open the gates and surrender, they are all to become your slaves and do forced labor for you.

Oh, when "I" go to attack, if "they" will be so kind as to surrender all their possessions (and virgins of course, after all, we ain't stupid, lol!) then they can have the honor of doing forced labor for me. Funny, I would've thought that giving all their property, possessions, and virgins would've been enough to pay their debt, especially since they didn't owe anything in the first place.

Sure doesn't sound so friendly and happy to me!

Devil's advocate here(pun intended).

Many philosophers, in their search for meaning, realize that both good/bad, light/dark, destructive/constructive forces all emanated from the same Source, and thereby transcend the dualistic viewpoint to what I would consider a more mature perception of reality. If you end up with 2 forces, good and evil, you are forgetting the next logical mathematical step if you are looking for a unified theory.

This however involves letting go of attachment, something which Abrahamic belief systems have a hard time doing due to their inherent materialism.

I really hope this doesn't sound pretentious, but simple people require simple explanations, however the devout seeker will undoubtably find that existence is much more nuanced and complex.

Usually what the spiritually immature fail to understand is the concept of living selflessly and with love, even if there might not be a definite reward in the long run. But living this way is far nobler than doing it in exchange for salvation. What Christian would hold steadfast if it turned out the Devil was more powerful than God and would win in the end, destroying all God and his followers? 'Knowing' you're on the 'winning' side is the only way you follow the path you follow. It is the very definition of ego.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Can you define "good" objectively? What are its parameters? How do we measure it? If this cannot be done then good cannot exist as a definitive concept within the universe. Since evil is the opposite of good, if good cannot exist then evil doesn't exist. QED

That's MY logic and I did it without assuming something like "god" exists to prove it.

a reply to: Raggedyman

And I can accuse you of using a "No True Scotsman" fallacy for doing so. The fact of the matter is that the Christian bible, by relying heavily on metaphor and inconsistency to tell its message, is open to a wide array of interpretation. Just because YOU don't interpret various actions as "Christian" doesn't entitle you to judge someone else's interpretation that DOES interpret those actions as "Christian" as not Christian. By doing so you are objectively defining the Bible, but if you do that then you disprove your religion because your bible doesn't hold up to objective scrutiny. Thus you have to accept the bad apples along with the good apples as equally Christian.

Funnily enough if you'd ACTUALLY do this, you can recognize the faults in your religion and start doing things to fix the problems in your religion. However when you repudiate these Christians and call them not Christians you end up ignoring the faults in your religion by choosing to label them as "not Christian". This despite people actually using your religion in a way you don't intend. So the faults go unacknowledged and unfixed. And more and more people become disaffected from your religion. As an aside, this is likely why Christians fail to see the vast similarities between their religion and the Muslim religion.

Nope.


Your logic chain is not accurate. Morality does in no way require God


Morality is forced by a ruler or is decided through consensus.

This is why morality is so variable and so fluid.

Atheism derrived morality from two places society in its consensus form and from philosophy. Ethics has been a topic of philosophy longer than any abrahamic faith.

It's been discussed by the earliest Atheists on record with the use of logic


Emanuel Kant for instance came up with the categorical imperative it does not require God.

It just says before you act think about if everybody did what your about to do. Would your action be destructive or constructive to society and the world if everybody were to do it.


The problem with evil gets discussed in philosophy 101. It has many many problems rationally speaking and isn't seen as a valid arguement on its own for the claim of God.

Now the first cause necessary being things get more interesting. I you stated talking g about the teleological modern arguements you would have more success. There are some interesting arguments in fine tuning. None that prove a biblical God but some arguements that a design is possible. Meaning something designed it. Not the typical intelligent design stuff my fellow Atheists before you jump on me but fine tuning does have some actual interesting things to consider. God in the new physics is an interesting take.

Also if God is omniscient there is no free will.

And let me just add the foundational arguements already available on the topic.

www.iep.utm.edu...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And you know I can use the no true Scotsman argument wit all atheists, yet I know how stupid that is
Atheism is only governed by an individual's morals
The rest of your comments are based on pure ignorance that your confirmation bias demands you worship
Yes yours is a religion, a belief that you are subject to

You see faults because you need faults to justify your beliefs

This is why atheists ignore their chosen religions beliefs with that of Islam, Islam with a smaller death toll than atheists high priests and their followers, Pol Pot, Mao and Joe Stalin

You have nothing to stand over me with, we are on the same level, your religion of atheism is more dispicable than any religion in my opinion, it's just convenient for you to ignore ir

Humans are just animals, no value at all to atheists, christianity teaches we are formed in Gods image

Crap argument you have there KS

a reply to: Raggedyman

Atheism isn't governed by anything. It is just the absence of belief in all deities. All someone has to do is say they don't believe in god(s) and they are an atheist. It has nothing to do with their morality. So your entire post here made no sense and just reads like you don't understand what you are talking about.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Atheism can be governed by only self but the majority of modern atheist will have morality by philosophical historical conversations on ethics (2500 plus years of ideas written on the subject. I will even include the Bible's. I will just weigh them about the same as Plato both of which have glaring discriminative logic in parts)

And by consusus. Meaning the social contract. Your assuming church is the only way to have a social contract,.. that again is false.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Raggedyman

Atheism can be governed by only self but the majority of modern atheist will have morality by philosophical historical conversations on ethics (2500 plus years of ideas written on the subject. I will even include the Bible's. I will just weigh them about the same as Plato both of which have glaring discriminative logic in parts)

And by consusus. Meaning the social contract. Your assuming church is the only way to have a social contract,.. that again is false.

I would never presume that church is the only way, that is ludicrous, sheer arrogance on your part, fast and lose with confirmation bias
How do you come to that conclusion
Atheism have churches, leaders, organizations, worship systems.

You have offered less than KS, just rhetoric

Atheism has no standard, never can and never will Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao whatever you choose to follow, follow with a religious zeal

Piece from here, from there, what ever suits the atheist at the moment, no sin, no accountability, just self if you choose

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Denial is exactly the response I would expect

No true Scotsman, pol pot Stalin Mao
Even hitler was a fan of Darwin, send the Jews to the camps, what's stopping you

True Scotsman arnt you, what's stopping you

a reply to: Raggedyman

Your arguments are as fallacious as an atheist saying Christianity caused the Inquisition, mass murder and genocide. If I were to apply your terrible logic to Christianity you would see how many Christian rulers used Christianity as the reason for conquest.

No my friend you just haven't read very much philosophy so you are unaware ethics has been discussed without the bible for thousands of years.

When we had a theocracy in Europe it was the most barbaric of times.

The secular nature of democracy allowed the largest population to enjoy freedom than had since egalitarian societies in domestic scale culture.

My arguement is logic not rhetoric.

It's obvious you have no idea how to debate the logic aspects here.

Morality is most often derrived from a consensus based on cultural and historical lessons. In advanced culture its based on the historical representation of the ever advancing arguement of what is liberty and how can we give the people liberty and stability at the same time.

For instance the constitutions morality was brought forth from the two Treatises of government by Locke. All these philosophies from empericicsm were the first step away from theocracy and divine rights of kings.

Locke and the forefathers rejected a lot of theocracy particularly superstitions. Jefferson having rewritten the bible to exclude miracles and superstition. This was the rise of diests, panthiest, and atheist philosophy. The rejection of religious authority.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Lol. You call that denial? Wow. You truly have no clue what you are talking about. That wasn't a denial, it was a correction.

No true Scotsman, pol pot Stalin Mao
Even hitler was a fan of Darwin, send the Jews to the camps, what's stopping you

This has nothing to do with what I was saying about atheism having nothing to do with morality. Besides Hitler was a Christian, or are you going to pull another "He wasn't a real Christian. WAH WAH WAH" on me again? But in any case, believing in evolution (or in the example you gave eugenics) doesn't make you atheist either.

True Scotsman arnt you, what's stopping you

I don't think you know what that fallacy is. Lol. You keep putting your foot in your mouth every time you respond to me.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Here ya go Ragman:

"Belief" is not "religion". "Religion" is about the worship of unseen deities. Atheists don't believe in or worship unseen deities.

I have lots of beliefs, but I don't believe in nor worship any deities or gods.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Exactly.

Christianity hasn't believed in the literal translation of creation for about a thousand years until the new breed of Christians.

Big Bang George Laimatre Jesuit priest.

Genetics Mendel a Catholic monk.

Faith and science didn't seem to conflict with these guys.

Could include a few more scientific clergy men who pushed science forward.

St Basil is the last possible interpretation that Genesis is literal. That is a long long time ago.

Since then most Christianity accepts evolution and all science.

Which is fine. Morality evolves as the human social intellect does. Up or down. Good or bad. Which ever side you are on.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Wrong, Atheism makes the individual responsible for his own actions. It is Religion which gives people the excuse of not being responsible for the things they do.

For an Atheist, it is his or herself which is accountable for the choices each of us make. Religious People make an Invisible God responsible for everything thereby excusing themselves from what's been done or justifying it by saying God told them to act that way.

There is more Accountability not less. Atheism make us accountable in the here and now. Religion makes you accountable only after death which nobody can prove as being correct.

I think that the only evidence of God is existence.

He can not possibly be involved in the affairs of this world and be omnibenevolent.

Yahweh is a God of good and evil per the OT.

The difficulty with Monotheism is that it makes God responsible for evil.

But duality means that an equal but evil God exists, which makes sense.

A good God and a bad God.

A God who is both.

A God who is uninvolved and we are evil not him.

Many Gods.

Those are the God options.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Morals are determined by the mass, but there are also personal morals which are determined by the individual. Morals also change over time. Therefore, morals are subjective.

Your societies influence may have something to do with moral epistemology but it has nothing to do with moral ontology....your confusing two different topics...

Says the person who NEEDS them to be objective to prove a point.

No says the person that clearly perceives moral values and duties...even if I didn't believe in God I would still believe in objective moral values I just wouldn't have a way to ground that belief.

Meat eaters and non meat eaters both believe they're morally right. If your argument about morals being objective is true, then one must be wrong. If my argument, that morals are subjective, is true, they can both be right or wrong depending on the individual.

Nature Red in Tooth and Claw by Michael Murray takes a look at animal suffering. According to the neurological studies he references in his book there a three levels of pain awareness experienced in nature. Humans and the great apes are the only ones capable of experiencing level three pain. Namely Humans and the great apes are aware that they are in pain. The rest of the animal kingdom with maybe some new exceptions I am not aware of on the basis of new evidence are do not experience pain the same way as us. Animals like a dog experience mental states of pain but they are not aware they are in pain. And lower level things like earth worms simply respond to noxious stimuli. If your intent is to kill and eat an animal for survival its not immoral. If your intent is to kill an animal for sport then I would say it is immoral.