09 Jun 08
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to, then He is not omnipotent. If He is able, but not willing, then He is malevolent. If He is both able and willing, then whence cometh evil? If He is neither able nor willing, then why call Him God? - Epicurus.
Discuss.
09 Jun 08
Originally posted by clearlighthe is certainly not omnipotent.
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to, then He is not omnipotent. If He is able, but not willing, then He is malevolent. If He is both able and willing, then whence cometh evil? If He is neither able nor willing, then why call Him God? - Epicurus.
Discuss.
if god would stop all evil would that make him benevolent? how benevolent would he be towards evil?
how benevolent is a person that holds you by the hand and solves all your problems?(eg evil's influence in your life)
09 Jun 08
Originally posted by Zahlanzii'm pretty sure the jews would've liked somebody to hold their hands.
he is certainly not omnipotent.
if god would stop all evil would that make him benevolent? how benevolent would he be towards evil?
how benevolent is a person that holds you by the hand and solves all your problems?(eg evil's influence in your life)
09 Jun 08
Originally posted by clearlightYour error (and Epicuris'😉is statement 2. The ability to prevent evil and not doing so is not equivalent to malevolence.
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to, then He is not omnipotent. If He is able, but not willing, then He is malevolent. If He is both able and willing, then whence cometh evil? If He is neither able nor willing, then why call Him God? - Epicurus.
Discuss.
09 Jun 08
Originally posted by Zahlanzihow benevolent is a person that holds you by the hand and solves all your problems?(eg evil's influence in your life)
he is certainly not omnipotent.
if god would stop all evil would that make him benevolent? how benevolent would he be towards evil?
how benevolent is a person that holds you by the hand and solves all your problems?(eg evil's influence in your life)
In its strongest form, the argument from evil doesn't claim that God's existence is incompatible with all conceivable "evil". For example, if one could show that certain instances of what we might otherwise call "evil" are actually logically necessary for some greater good, then they should pose no problem for the theist.
So I will provide an example of unnecessary suffering, one that I think displays the problem of evil in more or less its full strength. It's an example I have already raised before in this forum, and no theist has come with any reasonable response to it. It is something that occurred relatively frequently in the past before advances in medical science allowed us to deal reliably with the problem:
A baby is born with an intestinal obstruction, and there is no known procedure yet available to save her. Over the course of several extremely painful days (including severe dehydration), she suffers, withers, and dies. Such an instance of suffering seems unnecessary for any greater good or for any project ends that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving god could have for his subjects. So if God exists, then why did this fate, in fact, befall many neonates (duodenal atresia, often with a link to Down's syndrome -- it was deadly before we could treat it)?
09 Jun 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloIn its strongest form, the argument from evil doesn't claim that God's existence is incompatible with all conceivable "evil". For example, if one could show that certain instances of what we might otherwise call "evil" are actually logically necessary for some greater good, then they should pose no problem for the theist.
[b]how benevolent is a person that holds you by the hand and solves all your problems?(eg evil's influence in your life)
In its strongest form, the argument from evil doesn't claim that God's existence is incompatible with all conceivable "evil". For example, if one could show that certain instances of what we might otherwise call "evil" are actua ...[text shortened]... resia, often with a link to Down's syndrome -- it was deadly before we could treat it)?[/b]
But, for an all-powerful God, logical necessity should not prove to be any issue, as he can supposedly do whatever he wants, which would include ordering the universe in such a way as negate the need for the evil to achieve the good end.
Could a theist here please explain to me the cosmic necessity for toothache?
10 Jun 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydIf God uses an evil act (even by proxy) then he too is evil. The killing of innocent people in the Hiroshima atomic bombing was a great evil, even if it was necessary to end the war and act as a Soviet deterent.
God cannot commit evil, but he can use evil acts to perpetuate His plan, or to test His children. Those are 2 examples.
Why would an omniscient God need to test us? He already knows what we'll do.
10 Jun 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzHe tests us for our benefit--not for Him. As for the first sentence of your reply, I respectfully disagree. And there's where the debate always plays itself out--agreeing to disagree. 🙂
If God uses an evil act (even by proxy) then he too is evil. The killing of innocent people in the Hiroshima atomic bombing was a great evil, even if it was necessary to end the war and act as a Soviet deterent.
Why would an omniscient God need to test us? He already knows what we'll do.
10 Jun 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloBut I am sure that a number have been clever enough to come up with a not so reasonable response. In fact if you think about it is isn't that unreasonable: God knows best and we don't know what the 'greater picture' is.
It's an example I have already raised before in this forum, and no theist has come with any reasonable response to it.
I realize that Theists often claim to know the mind of God and understand his purposes but it doesn't really make much sense to make such claims.
Such an instance of suffering seems unnecessary for any greater good or for any project ends that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving god could have for his subjects.
If the infant goes to heaven - which is supposedly much better than life on earth, then its death is actually a good thing. Its short time of suffering is minimal compared to the suffering it would endure if it was to live a long life. So the real question is why the short suffering and not instant painless death at birth. The same could be asked about any suffering before death - or infact almost any suffering during life. Is it to teach the infant a lesson? Is it to teach the parents a lesson? Is it truly unavoidable? God knows.
I personally disagree that any suffering is necessary. I do not believe that certain goals cannot be achieved without suffering. I also believe that most theists who claim to see how some suffering is necessary are in fact intentionally deluding themselves into thinking they understand when in fact they do not, but do not want to think about it.
10 Jun 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadi would. and i don;t agree i would be stupid.
Perfectly benevolent.
Is there really anyone in this forum stupid enough to refuse such an offer?
i would like to live my own life and if i have any successes i want them to be my "fault". and i want to be able to make mistakes so i can learn from them just in case the hand that helps me is withdrawn.
if someone tells you a riddle, would you like a person to tell you the answer?