We have free will because God does not force us to love and obey him. In order for us to truly love God we have to choose to do it not have God do it for us. Thats why God created the tree in the Garden of Eden. He created it so Adam and Eve could choose whether or not they wanted to obey God or not. What kind of love would it be if God forced us to love him by not allowing us not to?
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Evil means a Christian God cannot exist?
- Thread starter jc104
- Start date
The Heaven/Hell choise is equivalent to me pointing a gun at someone's head and giving them two choices, one of which gets them killed immediately, the other which doesn't, only much worse. That's not a choice, that's control. Which is one of the major uses of religion, and the most practical, as far as history is concerned.
And, as I believe Brain state already, we cannot will ourselves to fly or teleport, no matter how much free will we have, which means that your god supposedly place restrictions on our free will, yet not enough to prevent human created evil. And if he created us and we create evil, then he indirectly created/is creating evil.
I would not want to believe in a god that consciously creates evil. So I don't.
I used to agree with the Problem of Evil, but I'm not sure I do anymore. Pardon me if the rest of my post doesn't make much sense, I'm just sort of putting some thoughts down, they're not really fleshed out.
First, why does it mean he cannot exist? When something is declared impossible, it's because it defies logic. However, "people do nice things for people they love" isn't logical, it's rational. For example, even if you love your mother, it doesn't mean it's impossible for you to go and punch her in the face. (The only way this wouldn't apply is if you define 'love' not in terms of how you feel, but how you act. However, generally people talk about it in terms of emotion)
Second, what is evil? Evil is completely subjective. So when you say "there's evil in the world", what you are saying is "what I think is evil is in the world today". Really, anything could be considered evil by someone. The only way evil could actually be removed is if God put thoughts in our head. The only way to remove evil is to control both our actions and our thoughts. If both of those are being controlled, do we even exist?
Third, even if you bend the laws of physics to prevent physical harm, it's still easy to think of examples where "evil" can occur. Removing evil is not a trivial matter. For example, if there is communication between people in this "evil-free" soceity, you still create problems where the only choice is a harmful outcome. Let's say Person A really, really wants to talk to Person B.
If you allow Person A to talk to Person B, then you have caused Person B to suffer.
If you don't allow Person A to talk to Person B, then you have caused Person A to suffer.
If you allow people to have any freedom, it's easy to think of situations where evil could occur.
Fourth, what is happiness without low points to define it? Happiness simply doesn't exist without low points to contrast it. If you live your life in what we consider a constant "high", then why would you consider it "high"?
Fifth, who's to say that we don't live in a soceity with very little evil? "Very little" is relative; you can imagine soceities that would have very little evil compared to our own, and soceities with a lot compared to ours. Even if you keep reducing the amount of evil, you can't completely remove it. Eventually God would stop at an arbitrary point and say "ok, that's a good amount of evil". It's easy to say "why not make it less?" but you could say that an infinite amount of times. And furthermore, it seems possible that even those theoretical soceities whose amount of evil is what we would call "very little", think they have a lot of evil.
The only solution I can think of is to have multiple (infinite?) different worlds, each with one soul and the rest are soulless machines designed to look like humans. The soceity would act exactly according to what the soul thinks "isn't evil". (It's OK to assume a soul for the purposes of religious debate, right?) However, this doesn't logically preclude the possibility of the Christian God, and it's possible that a loving God might not even want to do that.
So I apologize if this didn't really make sense, I just sort of started typing.
EDIT: I'd like to clarify that I think that it's a good argument against the Christian God, just that it doesn't preclude it entirely. And yes, I do realize that there is a lot of suffering in the world, suffering I don't experience, and intuitively I agree with "why wouldn't he try to reduce it?"
First, why does it mean he cannot exist? When something is declared impossible, it's because it defies logic. However, "people do nice things for people they love" isn't logical, it's rational. For example, even if you love your mother, it doesn't mean it's impossible for you to go and punch her in the face. (The only way this wouldn't apply is if you define 'love' not in terms of how you feel, but how you act. However, generally people talk about it in terms of emotion)
Second, what is evil? Evil is completely subjective. So when you say "there's evil in the world", what you are saying is "what I think is evil is in the world today". Really, anything could be considered evil by someone. The only way evil could actually be removed is if God put thoughts in our head. The only way to remove evil is to control both our actions and our thoughts. If both of those are being controlled, do we even exist?
Third, even if you bend the laws of physics to prevent physical harm, it's still easy to think of examples where "evil" can occur. Removing evil is not a trivial matter. For example, if there is communication between people in this "evil-free" soceity, you still create problems where the only choice is a harmful outcome. Let's say Person A really, really wants to talk to Person B.
If you allow Person A to talk to Person B, then you have caused Person B to suffer.
If you don't allow Person A to talk to Person B, then you have caused Person A to suffer.
If you allow people to have any freedom, it's easy to think of situations where evil could occur.
Fourth, what is happiness without low points to define it? Happiness simply doesn't exist without low points to contrast it. If you live your life in what we consider a constant "high", then why would you consider it "high"?
Fifth, who's to say that we don't live in a soceity with very little evil? "Very little" is relative; you can imagine soceities that would have very little evil compared to our own, and soceities with a lot compared to ours. Even if you keep reducing the amount of evil, you can't completely remove it. Eventually God would stop at an arbitrary point and say "ok, that's a good amount of evil". It's easy to say "why not make it less?" but you could say that an infinite amount of times. And furthermore, it seems possible that even those theoretical soceities whose amount of evil is what we would call "very little", think they have a lot of evil.
The only solution I can think of is to have multiple (infinite?) different worlds, each with one soul and the rest are soulless machines designed to look like humans. The soceity would act exactly according to what the soul thinks "isn't evil". (It's OK to assume a soul for the purposes of religious debate, right?) However, this doesn't logically preclude the possibility of the Christian God, and it's possible that a loving God might not even want to do that.
So I apologize if this didn't really make sense, I just sort of started typing.
EDIT: I'd like to clarify that I think that it's a good argument against the Christian God, just that it doesn't preclude it entirely. And yes, I do realize that there is a lot of suffering in the world, suffering I don't experience, and intuitively I agree with "why wouldn't he try to reduce it?"
umbarsc, god knows everything, so before he creates a person he would know every action that that person would take, so he could allow people free will (though honestly the concept of free will makes no sense to me) and prevent evil by simply creating only people who desire good and thus would choose good.
The point you FAIL to understand is that God CAN'T allow evil to go unpunished, and he WILL NOT allow evil to go unpunished, and he WILL deal with it. not under YOUR terms. Evil doesn't exist because God does. If he had to get rid of evil now, he'd destroy us all, because we are all sinners. But he gave a way to be saved.
1 Corinthians 1:25-26a: For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards.
I don't understand the whole basis behind your thinking, but the Heaven and Hell choice is simply your choice. You choose heaven if you want to love, know, serve, and enjoy a relationship with someone who loved you so much, that he gave up his only son to justly deal with sin, and provide a way out by imputing his son's perfect life onto yours.
This is just senseless talk now. "if i can't do such and such, i don't have a free will" knock it off and use real logic please.
*sigh* how many times does it have to be said? God never created evil, evil is opposite of God and is wiped out. Evil was created by Man who conscientiously chose to disobey him and serve himself.
Stop the preaching.
Reread the discussion until you actually understand the point, that has been stated several times by several people.
But if you believe humans were created by God, then they were created with the capacity to do evil. God may never have directly created evil, but if his creations are the source of evil then he has indirectly created it.
Firstly why did you quote my post? I wasn't replying to you and what I said did not really have much to do with what you said.
God is supposedly omnipotent and allowing evil to go unpunished is certainly within the class of possible actions so how is it that he can't do that?
Hell is supposedly the worst existence imaginable, so if my only choices are heaven or hell than god is essentially forcing me to follow him if I want to have a good life.
What is so senseless about it? how is limiting people's free will with science any less restrictive than making it impossible for them to commit evils
God is supposedly all-knowing and all-powerful, so before he created mankind he knew that doing so what cause the creation, god can also do everything so he could have created mankind differently without causing. so the actions of god led directly to the creation evil when it was not necessary, so god created evil
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He is a perfect deity of Holy righteousness and justice. Justice demands wrongdoing go unpunished.
A Death Threat? You think to man that this is a death threat? Why don't you read up on the history of Israel! They were given the same "threat" yet they didn't listen and did evil. Judah was given the same "threat" and looked what happened to them! As stated so many times this isn't a fear game God plays, this is a love game. The Bible is God's love letter to us. your rod and your staff,
they comfort me. taken from Psalm 23, why would a rod and staff be comforting?
How senseless would you think if i said i wanted to eat a giant black mattress i've been eyeing this second? I'd probably be a laughing stock now wouldn't I? Science doesn't restrict a person's free will, you are only putting your mind on things that were conceived by man. Just because you can't do these things, doesn't mean your free will has been violated. You're still free to do whatever you can given. You fail to understand that this universe is built on laws. Without laws to sustain life, chaos would ensue and life would be non existent. Once again Science is not a limiter, rather a finely tuned preserver of life.
See the first response to this post and read the gospel, and you'll understand just how awesome God is for giving the human race a second chance even though we deliberately offended him and disobeyed a command given by him thus bringing a justified curse on the world and sentencing man, who was designed to live for eternity, and eternal condemnation to spend the rest of eternity away from him (hell).
stop using strawmen, he didn't call it a death threat you retard what are you deck knight 2.0
His argument is that it's not much of a choice if one leads to eternal damnation and the over to the kingdom of heaven. Techincally it is a choice, but:
1. God believes 'his path' is the best one for all mankind if he's basically persuading it to follow it by offering a lovely prize for doing so and a nasty surprise for not doing so, in which case he's not taking into account mankind's free will to have a different opinion/disposition (unless we all have the same one, in which case we don't have free will lol).
2. He doesn't think it's the best path and that there is some validity in either, in which case he's just meaninglessly punishing those who don't follow his path, and god is not benevolent.
I'll assume you are referring to the "original sin" committed by both Adam and Eve.
You say the curse given to mankind is justified because Adam and Eve disobeyed him. I think if you read the story carefully you will see that the punishment given to Adam, Eve, and the entire human race, was not warranted.
First off, God created the Tree, as well as Adam and Eve. The Tree was there in order to test Adam and Eve. Now let us look at one of your claims: God is omniscient. God created Adam, Eve, and the Tree as part of a test. However, God knew that Adam and Eve would fail before he even made the Tree. He did not test them. He set them up to fail. He devised a clever trap.
However, let us ignore that he purposely set up a scenario in which they had to fail. Let us focus on other things said in that story.
God threatened Adam and Eve with death if they ever ate from the tree. However, before Adam and Eve nothing had ever died. If you told a toddler that the punishment for stealing cookies was rape, they would probably still steal cookies, because they have no idea of knowing how severe the punishment is. The word "rape" would carry no meaning for them. God essentially gave a threat that bore no weight. It isn't a surprise Eve took the fruit.
Meanwhile God never warned Adam and Eve not to converse with serpents. How can you blame Eve (and mankind) for being tricked by the serpent? They had no way of knowing if the serpent was lying. They had no knowledge of evil, and thus no way of knowing that lying even existed.
And after they ate the fruit god punished them for disobeying. He punished them because they did something wrong. Now let us remember, before eating the fruit they had no way of knowing that disobeying god was wrong.
God essentially punished two people, for failing a test that they were predestined to fail. He set up conditions in which the only real option was to fail. He punished them when it was really his fault they had failed. He punished them for following the evil serpent, even though they had no way of knowing the serpent was evil. He punished them for disobeying a commandment from God even though they had no idea it was wrong.
An omnipotent God would have the power to maintain life in a lawless and chaotic Universe.
I never said death threat. What I meant was that by making it so that only one course can have a favorable outcome god is limiting our freedom
Really?
Numbers 31:7-18 (New International Version)
7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho. [a]
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
because this sounds more like an immoral warstory
I challenge you to try to fly without using any outside devices. I guarantee that you will fail. There are certain things that humans cannot do by virtue of the fact that they are humans, if god had made evil one of these things it would hae still allowed us freedom, just like how you have freedom now even though there is no way you can fly without using an outside device.
Honestly man do you even READ my posts? I'm not arguing for God... I'm arguing that evil and a benevolent God are compatible but it is not necessarily the case that a Christian God exists. I REPEAT: I am NOT arguing for the existence of God. Why the fuck would I care about changing people's beliefs? Read my damn posts before you post in response, please.
And even if I were.... umm listen people can make legitimate attempts at arguing for God's existence WITHOUT trolling or resorting to "just gotta believe man". I ultimately haven't found any convincing but they attempt to establish God through reason. Trust me, there is a world of knowledge outside of the stuff you pick up off-hand from high school. Just because you mention a few anecdotes about unfruitful experiences concerning arguments for/against God does not mean that is the case every time. And just because the debate can become unpleasant does not mean that both sides do not have legitimate arguments. Bad experience =/= God obviously doesn't exist and people who say he does are all either hardcore evangelists or trolls.
ALSO: cantab I'm interested in what you have to say in response to my previous post. Or anyone for that matter: does the best of all possible worlds hypothesis alleviate concerns about the problem of evil?
It seems I overlooked it...
Let me see if I understand you argument correctly:
Assumption: Conventional logic. (I don't know any others, so I'm stuck with it)
Premise: God exists. (Well, otherwise we have no argument)
Premise: God is omnipotent (though restricted by logical possibility) and benevolent. (This is the conception of the Christian God, and thus relevant to the present discussion).
Corollary: God creates the best world possible. (This seems valid too).
Observation: Evil exists. (This is definitely valid).
Conclusion: Evil is necessary in order to maximise good.
It's valid, but I find it somewhat unsatisfying, in that it doesn't explain HOW evil is necessary in order to maximise good. Of course, that I find it unsatisfying is a personal opinion. It does, however, leave 'how' as an open question, that we can seek to answer. Most arguments in this thread have been mechanistic in nature, addressing how evil and God do not contradict, but their validity often seems shaky.
To be honest my own proposed line of enquiry doesn't fare much better. By suggesting we can use the presence of evil to make inferences about the nature of God, to then use the nature of God to explain the presence of evil is rather circular.
A conclusion I have also reached.
Let me see if I understand you argument correctly:
Assumption: Conventional logic. (I don't know any others, so I'm stuck with it)
Premise: God exists. (Well, otherwise we have no argument)
Premise: God is omnipotent (though restricted by logical possibility) and benevolent. (This is the conception of the Christian God, and thus relevant to the present discussion).
Corollary: God creates the best world possible. (This seems valid too).
Observation: Evil exists. (This is definitely valid).
Conclusion: Evil is necessary in order to maximise good.
It's valid, but I find it somewhat unsatisfying, in that it doesn't explain HOW evil is necessary in order to maximise good. Of course, that I find it unsatisfying is a personal opinion. It does, however, leave 'how' as an open question, that we can seek to answer. Most arguments in this thread have been mechanistic in nature, addressing how evil and God do not contradict, but their validity often seems shaky.
To be honest my own proposed line of enquiry doesn't fare much better. By suggesting we can use the presence of evil to make inferences about the nature of God, to then use the nature of God to explain the presence of evil is rather circular.
It does in a very roundabout and contrived way. Essentially, you can solve the problem of evil trivially as such:
First, look at your own life and determine whether you are satisfied with it or not. If not, your well-being fails to be accounted for and thus God fails to be omnibenevolent. If so, however, suppose that every single other person on the planet is not, in fact, a human like you, but is instead some sort of robot, puppet or angel whose sole objective is to make you happy. You can then appreciate that most evil in the world is actually illusory - nobody in Port-au-Prince is a real human, only puppets are murdered or raped, and the whole game is rigged so that you live a good life.
Yes, this is deceitful. But you don't know it, so who cares? As a matter of fact, to take every human on the planet and to make up a whole world for each of them that is rigged so that they can be as happy as possible is a trivial divide-and-conquer strategy to have your cake and eat it too: vanquish the vast majority of evil without sacrificing free will or any human qualities at all. All that remains, I guess, are self-destructive natures, but that's pretty mild, I can live with that.
And what's funny about this is that from the perspective of anyone living a happy, fulfilling life, the universe might very well be exactly like that. They would be deceived into thinking evil exists, whereas in fact it's just a puppet show.
So yeah, maybe God did pick the best possible world. But when you try to solve the problem of evil by saying God's ways are mysterious and that he has reasons that are beyond human comprehension... pause a little, think about what I said, and consider, for a second, that this "reason" might actually be nothing more than what I just said. That I might actually be right, that I might actually have uncovered God's little dirty secret here. And if you don't like it, well, that's a pretty good justification for God not telling you, is it not? Maybe you're just not worthy of that knowledge. Maybe it is beyond your comprehension that pitting you alone in a world of puppets was God's plan all along. Maybe your anger at being deceived is just one of your many human flaws.
Maybe you would rather just not know what God's reasons are, lest you would be disappointed.
That is an excellent argument, Brain, although I would be surprised if many Christians were to accept it (particularly since they don't like to see God as deceitful.)
Unfortunately though, in however small a way, every person would suffer if they could, regardless of whether everybody else was doing so. You (hopefully) even suffer indirectly as a result of the disaster in Haiti. This is a different scale of suffering, but there still lacks a decent explanantion for its existence.
In reality, you should not be asking whether you are satisfied with your life, but why your life is not perfect.
Unfortunately though, in however small a way, every person would suffer if they could, regardless of whether everybody else was doing so. You (hopefully) even suffer indirectly as a result of the disaster in Haiti. This is a different scale of suffering, but there still lacks a decent explanantion for its existence.
In reality, you should not be asking whether you are satisfied with your life, but why your life is not perfect.
Sorry I couldnt resist coming back.
What disturbs me about this thread is some of you won't listen to other's points, let alone consider them. A decent point comes up and you just dismiss it.
This isn't a discussion or a debate, it's a bunch of people screaming "you're wrong!".
How can you blame the creator when he didn't do the act of evil? That's like throwing a man in prison because his son killed someone.
I suggest some of you open your minds a little and consider some of the things people have said here. I'm not telling you to renounce your athiesm, I'm just saying actually think about what others are saying before shouting "nono you're wrong".
What disturbs me about this thread is some of you won't listen to other's points, let alone consider them. A decent point comes up and you just dismiss it.
This isn't a discussion or a debate, it's a bunch of people screaming "you're wrong!".
How can you blame the creator when he didn't do the act of evil? That's like throwing a man in prison because his son killed someone.
I suggest some of you open your minds a little and consider some of the things people have said here. I'm not telling you to renounce your athiesm, I'm just saying actually think about what others are saying before shouting "nono you're wrong".
Hobo Bob, as much as I agree with your first statement, I must disagree wholeheartedly with your second. TO liken God's omnipotence/Ominiscience and his act of creating humans with complete knowledge of what's next vs. a father who does not know everything, nor has the power to excercise such control should he have the knowledge, and then sees his son commit murder are two HUGELY different arguments. As much as I understand your desrire for more unity and understanding among everyone, I mst ask you to refrain form coming p with strawman arguments - they do not do your cause any justice.
Quoting scripture and telling someone how to be "saved" is not a discussion or a debate either, it is proselytizing. It is also rather difficult to take someone seriously who makes statements like "How senseless would you think if i said i wanted to eat a giant black mattress i've been eyeing this second?" (sic throughout).
I should have explained better. Say you are considering having a child. Now you know your kid will lie, cheat, and hurt other people in thier lifetime since nobody is perfect. You know that your child will cause others pain, and that your kid will suffer but in the end people still have children (sometimes by accident though :naughty:)
You are saying that God should not have created humans because humans create evil, but by the same logic nobody would have kids in order to prevent "more evil" from occuring.
Point taken. Although I can find equally strange quotes (when taken out of context).
--------------------
This is true and it always confuses me >.<
For instance some parts of the Bible say to "turn the other cheek" and forgive while other parts state "an eye for an eye".
Oh and it's 4 am here too :D
I Lol'd so hard from reading the original quote, you don't even know. I also wanted to point out that Scripture itself contradicts its many passages. It is 4 in the morning where I am, please don't make me have to use examples, as many of them not only deal with direct translation, but with historical context. However, if you bring up a verse trying to justify your argument, I will fight back! :D
I'm sorry Hobo Bob, but I see your argument as a little childish. You don't know hat's going to happen when you concieve a child, as sch things as cheating, lying, hrting, and from yor previos comment, killing are not co-requisites for living. In fact, provided that the father is smart and intellectually honest enough, such things can even be prevented. Your argument now goes to accepting that sch "evils" will happen through this child. To accept not only are these evils a reality, but that they will happen to a child that you can influnce and raise yourself shows a lack of confidence in yourself as well as shoddy parenting. In the case of a God who is all-powerful and all-knowing, this either points out to his lack of omni-benevolence, or, to those whom believe in all three attributes, his lack of existence.
Are you saying you could raise a perfect child who would
1. Never lie
2. Never lust (at least to the point of obsession)
3. Never hurt ANYONE mentally or physically
4. Win the Smogon Tour
5. The list goes on....
If so call me up and I'll fly to wherever you're at. I don't see how it is "childish" if EVERY human has done something wrong. There are no exceptions. No matter how "smart or intellectually honest" a father is, his child will do something wrong because the child's mentor is flawed just like every other human being.
also, dealing with the problem of free-will...god's power over all is defined in scripture:
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. Isaiah 45:7, NIV
God in the Bible makes it clear that he is in control of ALL things. However, then we come up with problems of how God is portrayed in Genesis and other books of the Bible, where he "regrets" making men, etc. The evolution of how God was seen as is very evident as you continue reading (that is, if you have enough patience with alot of what is says). TO claim "Free-will" in any of this is to claim that God is a liar, as he should have absolute and unlimited power in all things. TO argue that his will over us makes s puupets is another straw-man, only because we are influence regardless of what is the influencer. Why did yo get up this morning? Why did you brush your teeth? Why are you on this forum? Everything we do has a reason. To appeal to free-will in a world that is most obviously not free from influence is a fool-hard choice, and to argue that the Creator of all things who claims to be in control of everything isonly self-destructive in your argument.
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. Isaiah 45:7, NIV
God in the Bible makes it clear that he is in control of ALL things. However, then we come up with problems of how God is portrayed in Genesis and other books of the Bible, where he "regrets" making men, etc. The evolution of how God was seen as is very evident as you continue reading (that is, if you have enough patience with alot of what is says). TO claim "Free-will" in any of this is to claim that God is a liar, as he should have absolute and unlimited power in all things. TO argue that his will over us makes s puupets is another straw-man, only because we are influence regardless of what is the influencer. Why did yo get up this morning? Why did you brush your teeth? Why are you on this forum? Everything we do has a reason. To appeal to free-will in a world that is most obviously not free from influence is a fool-hard choice, and to argue that the Creator of all things who claims to be in control of everything isonly self-destructive in your argument.
