how can a good God create a world iwhere there is suffering

[Guest]

Asimov

I don't think I asked for one. I know in whom I believe.

[Guest]

Hey there Asimov,

Thanks for the reply.

Completely baseless assertion. Atheism doesn't make any prescriptive statements about reality, atheism doesn't offer philosophical concepts. It is the mere lack of a concept. Trying to equate it solipsism or nihilism is fallacious.

I didn't have to say "atheism". I could just say "unbeliever". Because no unbelieving worldviews provide an objective standard of good, bad, evil, etc., on which to base the "problem of evil" argument.

If anyone says that suffering is good or bad, it means their concepts arise from the culture around them, the environment they live in, and the knowledge they accrue as they move throughout life.

Then nothing is really good or bad, in the final analysis, but is relative to one's culture/enviorment, and the argument falls apart. You can't say that evil exists on the one hand, and say that evil is determined by culture and enviorment on the other. To say this, means that no action is really good or bad, given the culture/enviorment in which the action takes place. You can only state your opinion.

That makes no sense. If you use evil for good, it is no longer evil. That's like saying murdering someone is bad, but then saying "well I murdered a criminal, so that was a good thing". If murder is wrong, it's wrong.

God can use an evil action to bring about a good result. The following is a biblical example:

In Genesis, Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery. An obviously evil act. God however, used this act to get Joseph into Egypt where through various circumstances he was able to save his family in a time of famine (not to mention all of Egypt). Therefore Joseph was able to say to his brothers: "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." God used evil, to bring about a good result. The action of the brothers was still evil. It did not cease being evil because God used it for good. So it's not like your example at all.

Allowing evil to exist, when you abhor it and don't want it to exist is problematic

There is nothing illogical in God allowing something that He abhors to exist, in order to use it, and to implement it into His greater plan.

No, the answer is because he wants it to exist.

How's that?

[Guest]

I didn't have to say "atheism". I could just say "unbeliever". Because no unbelieving worldviews provide an objective standard of good, bad, evil, etc., on which to base the "problem of evil" argument.

Unbeliever in what? Everyone is an unbeliever of some sort. One doesn't have to have an objective standard of good and evil on which to base the problem of evil. I've based the problem of evil on the Christian standard of good and evil, and it doesn't make sense.

Then nothing is really good or bad, in the final analysis, but is relative to one's culture/enviorment, and the argument falls apart.

Non sequitur. All concepts arise from ones environment, all knowledge arises from ones environment. That doesn't make it "relative".

You can't say that evil exists on the one hand, and say that evil is determined by culture and enviorment on the other.

It would be appreciative if you didn't misrepresent my statements. I didn't even imply that evil was determined by the environment.

God can use an evil action to bring about a good result. The following is a biblical example:

In Genesis, Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery. An obviously evil act. God however, used this act to get Joseph into Egypt where through various circumstances he was able to save his family in a time of famine (not to mention all of Egypt). Therefore Joseph was able to say to his brothers: "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." God used evil, to bring about a good result. The action of the brothers was still evil. It did not cease being evil because God used it for good. So it's not like your example at all.

You're acting like God never intended for Joseph to be sold into slavery, like he's a 'character' in a story who sees an action and then seeks to correct it. If God didn't want Joseph to be sold into slavery, he wouldn't have been, simple as that. Joseph was sold into slavery, because God wanted him to be in order to bring about a series of events with a good outcome.

And naturally, all the evil that comes out of the situation is man's fault and all the good is God's fault. Such dichotomous reasoning.

There is nothing illogical in God allowing something that He abhors to exist, in order to use it, and to implement it into His greater plan.

There's something inconsistent in saying that you can't stand the presence of something, yet allowing it to exist.

The greater outcome would, of course, be the one without evil in it.

Not to mention that you're making God out to be a being who has to incorporate evil into his plan because it was an unforeseen contingency and now he has to adapt his original plan to suit it.

No, the answer is because he wants it to exist.

How's that?

Because it exists.

[Guest]

Derek wrote:
I didn't have to say "atheism". I could just say "unbeliever". Because no unbelieving worldviews provide an objective standard of good, bad, evil, etc., on which to base the "problem of evil" argument.

Unbeliever in what? Everyone is an unbeliever of some sort. One doesn't have to have an objective standard of good and evil on which to base the problem of evil. I've based the problem of evil on the Christian standard of good and evil, and it doesn't make sense.

Let's back up a bit. Where's the logical inconsistency in the following?

a.God is all loving.
b.God is omnipotent
c.Evil exists
d.God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist

One doesn't have to have an objective standard of good and evil on which to base the problem of evil.

Yes you do. If it's not an objective standard, then it's just your opinion. That's why you're using the Christian understanding of it. If evil is determined by culture, then there's no such thing. Try to base the argument on a non-theistic view of evil, and the arugment quickly falls apart.

Quote:

You can't say that evil exists on the one hand, and say that evil is determined by culture and enviorment on the other.

It would be appreciative if you didn't misrepresent my statements. I didn't even imply that evil was determined by the environment.

Do you not believe that one's view of good and evil is due to their enviorment and culture? In an atheist worldview, what else could it be?

You're acting like God never intended for Joseph to be sold into slavery, like he's a 'character' in a story who sees an action and then seeks to correct it. If God didn't want Joseph to be sold into slavery, he wouldn't have been, simple as that. Joseph was sold into slavery, because God wanted him to be in order to bring about a series of events with a good outcome.

I don't know if God "intended it" to happen or not. Of course, had God wanted to stop it He could have. Anyway, what's your point? He wanted a certain series of events to happen, and allowed Josephs brothers to commit this evil act in order to make them happen. The point reamains that God can use evil for good, and this story is one such example. God used the evil actions of Josephs brothers to bring about a good chain of events.

And naturally, all the evil that comes out of the situation is man's fault and all the good is God's fault. Such dichotomous reasoning.

Well, God didn't commit any evil in this story, so yeah, I would say that.

[Guest]

Asimov

Quote: "There's something inconsistent in saying that you can't stand the presence of something, yet allowing it to exist".

Why do you think this is inconsistent? I do not like my boss at work. In fact, I cannot stand to be in the same room with him for five minutes. But, I have to allow this relationship to "exist" for a greater "good", i.e. my paycheck!
The issue then becomes one of motives, does it not? So there is nothing inconsistent with God not "liking evil" or even "standing it's presense". The fact is it is present and He allows it to exsist. Therefore, there must be a greater good behind the suffering we temporally experience.

Tell me Asimov. What is your understanding of good? By what standard do you measure it from?

[Guest]

I am new here so please be patient, but to get as simple as I can...

Metal is worked through the fires of a forge and hammered.

Clay is worked through pressure.

Stone is worked with a chisel and hammer that knocks away the unwanted.

As new life that is being prepared to "Freely" ask to spend eternity with God, wouldn't it make sense that we are being crafted in a process that is unique to each individual piece?

We can imagine that God could just miracle an army of varied and unique free-willed Stepford Christians to move in with him.

I think it is very reasonable to think that the process we are being formed in is perfect and works better than alternatives.

The people who end up with God will have the value and worth of a free willed volunteer who has endured through all tests to reach the goal.

Perhaps college fraternities mimic the process in a sick way.

Not sure.

[Guest]

djeaton:

How can an all-knowing God take risks?

Why not? Since, as I have clearly shown, it is contradictory to know in advance what a free-will agent will choose.

If Christ is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world", was it "just in case" things turned out badly?

It waw "just in case" man chose to disobey.

[Guest]

Why not? Since, as I have clearly shown, it is contradictory to know in advance what a free-will agent will choose.

"Shown" or "claimed" is in the eyes of the beholder.
D.

[Guest]

Convince a man against his will; he's of the same opinion still.

[Guest]

Let's back up a bit. Where's the logical inconsistency in the following?

a.God is all loving.
b.God is omnipotent
c.Evil exists
d.God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist

They don't follow. A morally sufficient reason hasn't been given.

Yes you do. If it's not an objective standard, then it's just your opinion. That's why you're using the Christian understanding of it. If evil is determined by culture, then there's no such thing. Try to base the argument on a non-theistic view of evil, and the arugment quickly falls apart.

The only standard one has to use in order to criticize Christian thought is the Christian standard. If it isn't consistent, then the Christian worldview fails. The argument only falls apart if the Christian worldview is consistent with their concept of good and evil.

Do you not believe that one's view of good and evil is due to their enviorment and culture? In an atheist worldview, what else could it be?

Now you're flip-flopping. Please be consistent, as you've made two separate statements and now you're asking me a different question. I've said our concepts of good and evil, like all knowledge, comes from our environment.

Then you make two statements:

1) That I said that evil is determined by culture and environment.
2) That I said that one's view of good and evil is due to their environment.

So which is it?

I don't know if God "intended it" to happen or not. Of course, had God wanted to stop it He could have. Anyway, what's your point?

That is my point. Every event occurs because wants it to happen, including the evil ones. How is it then evil if God does want it to happen? What makes any of those actions evil if they are what God wants?

Well, God didn't commit any evil in this story, so yeah, I would say that.

Neither did the humans, they were doing everything God wanted them to do.