22 Aug 05
Originally posted by rwingettSo you think it is evil if people die, it is not a natural occurance?
God created the natural world, including the conditions which spawn typhoons. Yes or no.
Could god have created a world in which people did not die in typhoons? Yes or no.
When people die in typhoons, god knew it was coming. Yes or no.
If the natural world is all there is, why would dying be evil, and
not just an amoral event that is going to happen no matter what
anyway? If God created the natural world, why would that change
dying from being part of the natural world no different than a
chemical reaction, making it amoral? I don't understand your
logic here! Is evil just simply dying in your opinion here?
Kelly
22 Aug 05
Originally posted by rwingettOh, and so you have no complaints.
God created the natural world, including the conditions which spawn typhoons. Yes or no.
Could god have created a world in which people did not die in typhoons? Yes or no.
When people die in typhoons, god knew it was coming. Yes or no.
1. yes
2. yes
3. yes
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
22 Aug 05
Originally posted by rwingettI agree with you here...I also think typhoons are evil...because I don't resolve myself to a naturalistic world. But I believe they are caused by satan, which brings us back to why did God create him in the first place?....which we already went through, earlier.
Typhoons are not evil in a purely naturalistic world. They just happen. But in a world that was created by a god, everything becomes an instrument of his will. God could have created a world where people were not wiped out by typhoons, but apparently he wanted things to be this way. An omniscient god would know that typhoons would occur. He would know in ad ...[text shortened]... s of thousands of people, that is exactly what he wanted to happen and that he is pleased by it.
22 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayQuit playing the fool here, KellyJay. You understand my logic perfectly well and you know it. I have answered all these points already, but at the risk of sounding redundant, I will do so again.
So you think it is evil if people die, it is not a natural occurance?
If the natural world is all there is, why would dying be evil, and
not just an amoral event that is going to happen no matter what
anyway? If God created the natural world, why would that change
dying from being part of the natural world no different than a
chemical reaction, making ...[text shortened]... l? I don't understand your
logic here! Is evil just simply dying in your opinion here?
Kelly
•In a purely natural world, with no god, dying is not evil. It just happens.
•In a world created by god, dying itself may not be evil. But being slaughtered en masse and indiscriminantly by a typhoon can only be described as being an act of evil. It is possible to argue that manmade evils are necessary for instructive purposes. We may learn something or become wiser in the long run for having experienced such evil. But natural evils such as typhoons serve no instructive purpose whatsoever.
•You freely admit that god could have created the world differently. He could have created a world in which tens of thousands of people were not slaughtered by typhoons. But he did not. He could have intervened and prevented or diverted each specific typhoon. But he does not. He knows in advance when each typhoon is coming and what the total body count will be. But he does nothing. We can conclude one of two things. Either god does not exist, or things are proceeding exactly as god wants. God wants tens of thousands of men, women, and children to be indiscriminanatly slaughtered by typhoons. If these events displeased him, it would be a simple matter for him to change them.
•If I designed a product that I knew would end up slaughtering thousands of my customers through design flaws which I could have easily changed at any stage, I would rightfully be described as an evil man. So it is with god.
Please do not waste my time by dancing around the point or pretending you don't know what I'm talking about. You're not a complete idiot, like dj2becker. I'm sure you understand the Problem of Evil very well. If you can do no better than to try to shift the emphasis from mass slaughter to merely dying, then I will have to quit wasting my time in this thread.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
22 Aug 05
1 edit
It is possible to argue that manmade evils are necessary for instructive purposes. We may learn something or become wiser in the long run for having experienced such evil. But natural evils such as typhoons serve no instructive purpose whatsoever.That's your opinion....how about a nation who worship a false god? Maybe their god has failed them.
22 Aug 05
I think the only way for the theist to refute the non-human sources of evil in the GAFE is to consider the possibility of some people not having souls, i.e. being merely an accessory in the grand theater.
If we push this argument to the limit, it would take us to a one-person-one-world perspective, but it is not necessary to go as far to refute the GAFE.
22 Aug 05
Originally posted by David CActually, I think it is Lucifer who fell, for his sin of pride. Satan, is supposedly in hell for the sin of anger.
Wasn't Satan an angel once? Who fell? So, no...the appropriate question would be why god allows him to continue to exist, if all he's going to do is wreak havoc on god's children. And god's puppies. And burn god's biscuits. And dent the fender on god's '67 cherry red Camaro.
22 Aug 05
Originally posted by checkbaiterLet us assume (momentarily) that having people indiscriminantly slaughtered en masse by a typhoon does serve some nebulous instructive purpose. The overriding question then becomes - could not god have delivered that same instruction by a less catastrophic means? An omnibenevolent (all-loving) god would necessarily want to get his point across with the least amount of suffering. And an omnipotent (all-powerful) god could easily have done so. So why doesn't he?
That's your opinion....how about a nation who worship a false god? Maybe their god has failed them.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
22 Aug 05
Originally posted by rwingettAs I said earlier, I think God has His reasons that no one understands. If I could understand everything about Him, then He wouldn't be God. We only know in part. He see's the whole picture, and He is not on the judgement block...We are....He does not have to explain Himself.
Let us assume (momentarily) that having people indiscriminantly slaughtered en masse by a typhoon does serve some nebulous instructive purpose. The overriding question then becomes - could not god have delivered that same instruction by a less catastrophic means? An omnibenevolent (all-loving) god would necessarily want to get his point across with the leas ...[text shortened]... f suffering. And an omnipotent (all-powerful) god could easily have done so. So why doesn't he?
"Shall the clay say to the potter, why have you done this?"
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
22 Aug 05
The overriding question then becomes - could not god have delivered that same instruction by a less catastrophic means? An omnibenevolent (all-loving) god would necessarily want to get his point across with the least amount of suffering. And an omnipotent (all-powerful) god could easily have done so. So why doesn't he?[/b]Here is another point that hasn't been mentioned...
If God is a loving God couldn't He just rid us of evil? Destroy Satan now?
Well in a sense He has or promised...in the "new heavens and new earth"
If He were to rid us of the cause of evil(satan)now...then what would happen to mankind ? Just go on their own selfish ways? Discarding God and do what was right in their own minds?
If you look at the overview of God's plan...and none of us knows it totally, He created evil for two reasons that I am aware of. So that we could see evil and truly know what is good, and so we could see our need of the Creator.
22 Aug 05
Originally posted by checkbaiterIf the clay (or pot) were a sentient being then it would be well within its rights to demand to know why the potter does what he does.
As I said earlier, I think God has His reasons that no one understands. If I could understand everything about Him, then He wouldn't be God. We only know in part. He see's the whole picture, and He is not on the judgement block...We are....He does not have to explain Himself.
"Shall the clay say to the potter, why have you done this?"
If you cannot understand god's reasons, then what can you claim to know about this god? How can you claim that he defies understanding in one area and then claim to have concrete knowledge about him in other areas?
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
22 Aug 05
Originally posted by rwingettI didn't say I don't understand His reasons, I said I don't understand all His reasons.
If the clay (or pot) were a sentient being then it would be well within its rights to demand to know why the potter does what he does.
If you cannot understand god's reasons, then what can you claim to know about this god? How can you claim that he defies understanding in one area and then claim to have concrete knowledge about him in other areas?
I understand as I learn the scriptures and as He reveals to me, as I am able.
The reference to the potter is not sentiment it is scripture.
Isa 29:16
16 Surely you have things turned around! Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay; for shall the thing made say of him who made it, "He did not make me"? Or shall the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?
(NKJ)
Jer 18:4
4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.
(NKJ)
Rom 9:21
21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
(NKJ)
🙂