The Problem of Evil?
-
woof woof@@ meow meow@#@!
kah kah kah, coughing@!!
-
aah ahah ah, reality is more real than anything lah, nah nah nah nah nah! God God god? REally God God God ah??????
-
.
-
"Doesn't it ever occur to you that to speak of evil "coming from" sin is incorrect? Consider how 1 Kings 16:19 puts it thus, "because of the sin he committed by doing what was evil in the Lord’s sight and by following the example of Jeroboam and the sin he caused Israel to commit.""
Has it occured to you that I was paraphrasing you to get a clearer picture? Trying to get a definition of evil here... You are saying there can be no "evil" when there is no sin and "evil" is when sin is.What is the distinct feature of "evil" from sin?
"I already defined good, you failed to read. God IS good. To know God is to know Good. Does God's goodness depend on Satan? Yes or No?"
No you did not... Food is good. To know food is to know good. Does food's goodness depend on rubbish? Yes or no, do you see the meaninglessness of your attempted definition? What you did was just saying "good" is an attribute of God.... Just as "good" is an attribute to God's creation.
"God's omniscience and omnipotence is clearly taught in Scripture, what do you really want to defend anyway? Every attack on God's attributes will fail inevitably. The existence of evil does not call into question God's omnipotence and omniscience. "
My God is all powerful, all knowing and benevolent, this is the objective truth. Anything against such, is evil. Any believer of the 1st commandment of love would act, respond or react to repel any effort to desecrate. Even after God had judge, "evil" still is. Does your God allow "evil"?
"Why does evil exist is not to be answered by impugning the attributes of God, certainly not for the Christian who wants to give a Biblical answer."
In case you did not notice... the question is not why does "evil" exist but why God.
".... I think you are much better at it than me."
Thank you. I hear only the good stuff.
"Anyway, where did you get your idea that Jesus have to die for our sins? The Bible? The Scriptures? Which one? Duh...."
Are you insinuating that Jesus (the Saviour) don't have to die for our sins? Just correct me if I'm wrong.
"To know what is good you look at God, not the devil."
Who had ever looked at God and lived. I look at His creations and its "good". Why did you invoke the devil?
"To know the Truth you look at Jesus, not Satan. So what is this nonsense about referencing good to evil? "
1st you referenced God to devil in a sentence then you referenced Jesus to Satan in a sentence and call referencing "good" to "evil" nonsensical... I hope you see some form of conflict or irony there.
"Well, you did write, "This sense of guilt I believe is the sin, contrary to conventionally believed." So why would it be a misinterpretation on my part?"
Oh I did, my bad. Apologies. Edited
"No, evil cannot be created.
Non-Diametrical model...
"Dia" = in 2 directions (eg. Dialogue, Diameter)
"Metric" = measurement
Diametric = measurable in 2 directions. +10/ -10 relationship.
Non-diametric = not measured in 2 directions.Stationary-ness cannot be meaured. (How still is it?) It is the blank state. Therefore based on this model, evil cannot be created anymore than stationary-ness can be created. It is the blank state."
If evil cannot be created, can the conclusion be it existed be before sin?
"Evil is simply the rejection of God, rejection of light, rejection of love, rejection of truth. (can substitute "rejection" with "absence of")"
God, light, love, truth all have the attritbute of "good".
"Before Adam, there was Lucifer who became Satan. He rejected God and rejected light (hence darkness is associated with Satan, and he's also called the "father of lies" since there is no truth in him)"
Sin does not apply but "evil" does. So sin occurs after "evil".
"Adam rejected the truth in a way since God's instruction is also truth."
God's words = truth, therefore God's instruction = truth. Valid.
God's creation = perfect, therefore Adam = perfect. Valid
God's creation = God's instruction, therefore perfect = truth. Valid.
Rejection of truth(God's instruction) = not truth, therefore not truth = not perfect. Valid(?)
Where did this rejection comes from if God's creation = perfect?"Opposite of love isn't hate. It's apathy. So the diametric model explains it quite well."
Absence of love or hate = apathy. Pardon my dullness, I don't get the diametric model explaination.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
I have tried to explain to you that god was invented by men out of ignorance, fear and wishful thinking, but you still chose to believe, so what can I do
Dude, you have confused an assertion with an explanation.
Asserting is not the same as explaining. I have pointed this out to you many times.
But you still continue to assert without explaining, so what can I do?
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
take a listen to Lawrence Krauss A Universe from Nothing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9urEFoaI1iY&feature=related
So the void in the nothingness of nothing is actually not devoid of un-nothingness: while nothing looks like nothing, nothing is actually not nothing, and conversely, not nothing is nothing, since nothing like anti-thing doesn't exist within the nothing of nothingness, and this is not nothing.
You are actually saying something about nothing not being nothing but that nothing is really something though it looks like nothing.
From what I see you basically said NOTHING while trying to say something!
And one can write books about nothing and make money by talking about nothing?
See a disgusted review here http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/03/a-universe-from-nothing-krauss-reviewed.html
No wonder Krauss doesn't like philosophers!
-
Repeat Post Deleted. Sorry
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You are actually saying something about nothing not being nothing but that nothing is really something though it looks like nothing.
From what I see you basically said NOTHING while trying to say something!
And one can write books about nothing and make money by talking about nothing?
See a disgusted review here http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/03/a-universe-from-nothing-krauss-reviewed.html
No wonder Krauss doesn't like philosophers!
I actually understand what he is "trying" to say.
Your argument just discounted Anti-matter. Anti-matter has a mass. It's an "inverse charge", the same as velocity - it has a (+) and a (-) . Stationary-ness is the "nothing". It exists as "nothing" - the absence of any change of position over a period of time.
The opposite of magnetism is the inverse charge of whatever charge the magnet is imposing. The absence of magnetism is the blank state. Nothing, nada, zilch.
So is light. It is a form of electromagnetism - it has a (+) and a (-) and moves in oscillations in a form of what we call a "wave". Even if you inverse that wave to cancel it, it still exists; it will still show up as light, because the electromagnetic wave is still there. The absense of light is the blank state. Nothing, nada, zilch.
Gosh! Scientific discussions are annoying. Maybe I'll stick to the Bible.
-
Originally posted by Joe 328:
I actually understand what he is "trying" to say.
Your argument just discounted Anti-matter. Anti-matter has a mass. It's an "inverse charge", the same as velocity - it has a (+) and a (-) . Stationary-ness is the "nothing". It exists as "nothing" - the absence of any change of position over a period of time.
The opposite of magnetism is the inverse charge of whatever charge the magnet is imposing. The absence of magnetism is the blank state. Nothing, nada, zilch.
So is light. It is a form of electromagnetism - it has a (+) and a (-) and moves in oscillations in a form of what we call a "wave". Even if you inverse that wave to cancel it, it still exists; it will still show up as light, because the electromagnetic wave is still there. The absense of light is the blank state. Nothing, nada, zilch.
Gosh! Scientific discussions are annoying. Maybe I'll stick to the Bible.
I think science discussions are fun though oftentimes they go way over me. But the facts of science always points to a Creator. See also http://creation.com/how-the-universe-works
-
BIC
It's interesting how a christian concentrates on the 1% of prayers "answered" and totally forgets about the 99 times he prayed and 99 times his prayers are not answered?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
It's interesting how a christian concentrates on the 1% of prayers "answered" and totally forgets about the 99 times he prayed and 99 times his prayers are not answered?
You must be slept through Sunday messages and CE lessons. God answers ALL prayers, even if the answer is NO, unless of course you do not take no for an answer. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You must be slept through Sunday messages and CE lessons. God answers ALL prayers, even if the answer is NO, unless of course you do not take no for an answer.BIC
hahaha. yes yes I have heard that typical "excuse" that god answers even if it's a "no".
Lol!
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
hahaha. yes yes I have heard that typical "excuse" that god answers even if it's a "no".
Lol!
Excuse? You mean you were never in your lifetime given a NO for an answer? Or is it you refuse to take NO for an answer? -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Excuse? You mean you were never in your lifetime given a NO for an answer? Or is it you refuse to take NO for an answer?BIC
Silence =/= no.
Silence (maybe) = no one there
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
Silence =/= no.
Silence (maybe) = no one there
That no one is there is the atheist explanation. That God says "no" or "wait" is the Christian's explanation. And within the the Christian worldview this is perfectly coherent and consistent with what we know about God.For the atheist he has to look at every answered prayer and cavalierly dismiss it as mere coincidence even though such a dimissive explanation is ridiculously absurd.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Doesn't it ever occur to you that to speak of evil "coming from" sin is incorrect? Consider how 1 Kings 16:19 puts it thus, "because of the sin he committed by doing what was evil in the Lord’s sight and by following the example of Jeroboam and the sin he caused Israel to commit.""
Has it occured to you that I was paraphrasing you to get a clearer picture? Trying to get a definition of evil here... You are saying there can be no "evil" when there is no sin and "evil" is when sin is.What is the distinct feature of "evil" from sin?
"I already defined good, you failed to read. God IS good. To know God is to know Good. Does God's goodness depend on Satan? Yes or No?"
No you did not... Food is good. To know food is to know good. Does food's goodness depend on rubbish? Yes or no, do you see the meaninglessness of your attempted definition? What you did was just saying "good" is an attribute of God.... Just as "good" is an attribute to God's creation.
"God's omniscience and omnipotence is clearly taught in Scripture, what do you really want to defend anyway? Every attack on God's attributes will fail inevitably. The existence of evil does not call into question God's omnipotence and omniscience. "
My God is all powerful, all knowing and benevolent, this is the objective truth. Anything against such, is evil. Any believer of the 1st commandment of love would act, respond or react to repel any effort to desecrate. Even after God had judge, "evil" still is. Does your God allow "evil"?
"Why does evil exist is not to be answered by impugning the attributes of God, certainly not for the Christian who wants to give a Biblical answer."
In case you did not notice... the question is not why does "evil" exist but why God.
".... I think you are much better at it than me."
Thank you. I hear only the good stuff.
"Anyway, where did you get your idea that Jesus have to die for our sins? The Bible? The Scriptures? Which one? Duh...."
Are you insinuating that Jesus (the Saviour) don't have to die for our sins? Just correct me if I'm wrong.
"To know what is good you look at God, not the devil."
Who had ever looked at God and lived. I look at His creations and its "good". Why did you invoke the devil?
"To know the Truth you look at Jesus, not Satan. So what is this nonsense about referencing good to evil? "
1st you referenced God to devil in a sentence then you referenced Jesus to Satan in a sentence and call referencing "good" to "evil" nonsensical... I hope you see some form of conflict or irony there.
"Well, you did write, "This sense of guilt I believe is the sin, contrary to conventionally believed." So why would it be a misinterpretation on my part?"
Oh I did, my bad. Apologies.
"No, evil cannot be created.
Non-Diametrical model...
"Dia" = in 2 directions (eg. Dialogue, Diameter)
"Metric" = measurement
Diametric = measurable in 2 directions. +10/ -10 relationship.
Non-diametric = not measured in 2 directions.Stationary-ness cannot be meaured. (How still is it?) It is the blank state. Therefore based on this model, evil cannot be created anymore than stationary-ness can be created. It is the blank state."
If evil cannot be created, can the conclusion be it existed be before sin?
"Evil is simply the rejection of God, rejection of light, rejection of love, rejection of truth. (can substitute "rejection" with "absence of")"
God, light, love, truth all have the attritbute of "good".
"Before Adam, there was Lucifer who became Satan. He rejected God and rejected light (hence darkness is associated with Satan, and he's also called the "father of lies" since there is no truth in him)"
Sin does not apply but "evil" does. So sin occurs after "evil".
"Adam rejected the truth in a way since God's instruction is also truth."
God's words = truth, therefore God's instruction = truth. Valid.
God's creation = perfect, therefore Adam = perfect. Valid
God's creation = God's instruction, therefore perfect = truth. Valid.
Rejection of truth(God's instruction) = not truth, therefore not truth = not perfect. Valid(?)
Where did this rejection comes from if God's creation = perfect?"Opposite of love isn't hate. It's apathy. So the diametric model explains it quite well."
Absence of love or hate = apathy. Pardon my dullness, I don't get the diametric model explaination.
Has it ever occurred to you that some things are better described than defined? In any case you are the dictionary guy, so are you really not sure of the distinction or is this another set-me-up so that you can show-case your knowledge of fallacies?
Your food analogy fails. Food can be bad or good. But God IS good.
You asked if God allows evil. Haven't you read of the parable of the wheat and the tares? What does that tell you?
In case you haven't noticed, the issue the atheist raised is that the existence of evil is proof of the non-existence of God, of the Bible to be precise.
I am not insinuating anything about the death of Christ, I am asking you where you get your ideas from. Which Bible? Has it ever occurred to you that this is a little bit of giving you a taste of your own medicine?
I invoked the devil? Has it ever occurred to you that I was only extending your argument about referencing the good to the evil? But since you apparently take issue with this, then you should realise for yourself why it is wrong to talk about referencing the good to the evil, or that one can only know good with reference to evil. You have put the cart before the horse, the egg before the chicken.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Has it ever occurred to you that some things are better described than defined? In any case you are the dictionary guy, so are you really not sure of the distinction or is this another set-me-up so that you can show-case your knowledge of fallacies?
Your food analogy fails. Food can be bad or good. But God IS good.
You asked if God allows evil. Haven't you read of the parable of the wheat and the tares? What does that tell you?
In case you haven't noticed, the issue the atheist raised is that the existence of evil is proof of the non-existence of God, of the Bible to be precise.
I am not insinuating anything about the death of Christ, I am asking you where you get your ideas from. Which Bible? Has it ever occurred to you that this is a little bit of giving you a taste of your own medicine?
I invoked the devil? Has it ever occurred to you that I was only extending your argument about referencing the good to the evil? But since you apparently take issue with this, then you should realise for yourself why it is wrong to talk about referencing the good to the evil, or that one can only know good with reference to evil. You have put the cart before the horse, the egg before the chicken.
"Has it ever occurred to you that some things are better described than defined? In any case you are the dictionary guy, so are you really not sure of the distinction or is this another set-me-up so that you can show-case your knowledge of fallacies?"
OK.... How does one describe "good" without referencing to "evil" and vice versa...?
Set you up? Sounds like you are playing victim...."and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us." - Titus 2:8"Your food analogy fails. Food can be bad or good. But God IS good."
Its not an analogy... Its a simple word replacement, where axiom becomes: From Axiom: "God is good" to "Food is good", to let you see the meaninglessness of your description...
"You asked if God allows evil. Haven't you read of the parable of the wheat and the tares? What does that tell you?"
The question was does your God allow evil? Yes, no?
The fruits will reveal those to be harvested."In case you haven't noticed, the issue the atheist raised is that the existence of evil is proof of the non-existence of God, of the Bible to be precise."
You really don't read well... The issue raised is that the existence of evil challenges the attributes of God which the bible believers worship, not proving the non existence... That is why I call for definition of "evil".
"I invoked the devil? Has it ever occurred to you that I was only extending your argument about referencing the good to the evil? But since you apparently take issue with this, then you should realise for yourself why it is wrong to talk about referencing the good to the evil, or that one can only know good with reference to evil. You have put the cart before the horse, the egg before the chicken."
Why do you think it is wrong to ask such?
All I'm asking for is a definition of "good" without referencing to "evil" and vice versa. Can anyone here give a defintion/ description?
What is these jibberish about horse carts and chicken eggs? Is it biblical or relevent? -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
That no one is there is the atheist explanation. That God says "no" or "wait" is the Christian's explanation. And within the the Christian worldview this is perfectly coherent and consistent with what we know about God.For the atheist he has to look at every answered prayer and cavalierly dismiss it as mere coincidence even though such a dimissive explanation is ridiculously absurd.
BIC
You mean you always hear voices (other than your own) in your head? Just curious.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
You mean you always hear voices (other than your own) in your head? Just curious.
Nope. That's not what I meant. You should know, right? I mean, you did claim to be a Chrisrian and have good knowledge of it, so much so that you ended up rejecting it, ya? Duh... -
Originally posted by BroInChris
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Nope. That's not what I meant. You should know, right? I mean, you did claim to be a Chrisrian and have good knowledge of it, so much so that you ended up rejecting it, ya? Duh...BIC
If you don't hear voices, how do you know it's a "no" ? I mean it could be that no one is there listening or answering thats why things don't go according to your "prayers"? Why you assume?
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Has it ever occurred to you that some things are better described than defined? In any case you are the dictionary guy, so are you really not sure of the distinction or is this another set-me-up so that you can show-case your knowledge of fallacies?"
OK.... How does one describe "good" without referencing to "evil" and vice versa...?
Set you up? Sounds like you are playing victim...."and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us." - Titus 2:8"Your food analogy fails. Food can be bad or good. But God IS good."
Its not an analogy... Its a simple word replacement, where axiom becomes: From Axiom: "God is good" to "Food is good", to let you see the meaninglessness of your description...
"You asked if God allows evil. Haven't you read of the parable of the wheat and the tares? What does that tell you?"
The question was does your God allow evil? Yes, no?
The fruits will reveal those to be harvested."In case you haven't noticed, the issue the atheist raised is that the existence of evil is proof of the non-existence of God, of the Bible to be precise."
You really don't read well... The issue raised is that the existence of evil challenges the attributes of God which the bible believers worship, not proving the non existence... That is why I call for definition of "evil".
"I invoked the devil? Has it ever occurred to you that I was only extending your argument about referencing the good to the evil? But since you apparently take issue with this, then you should realise for yourself why it is wrong to talk about referencing the good to the evil, or that one can only know good with reference to evil. You have put the cart before the horse, the egg before the chicken."
Why do you think it is wrong to ask such?
All I'm asking for is a definition of "good" without referencing to "evil" and vice versa. Can anyone here give a defintion/ description?
What is these jibberish about horse carts and chicken eggs? Is it biblical or relevent?OK, regarding good and referencing evil, I know what you are getting at. In our current knowledge we already know good and evil so we will talk about good by also contrasting or referencing it with evil. My point, however, was that God is good even if evil does not exist. Just like in the Garden of Eden, there was no sin or evil when God pronounced that all was "very good". BTW, to say that "God is good" is not meaningless.
The parable of the wheat and tares shows that God allows evil for a while to accomplish the greater good.
I don't think it is the case that I don't read well, but like you don't. Have you been following the debates you would not have failed to note the many times that the existence of evil is taken as an argument against the existence of God, especially that of the God of the Bible.
-
"OK, regarding good and referencing evil, I know what you are getting at. In our current knowledge we already know good and evil so we will talk about good by also contrasting or referencing it with evil."
This category of "good" and "evil" is subjective... an appeal to emotion used to set up this trilemma.
" My point, however, was that God is good even if evil does not exist."
God = objective. God is good = objective. Valid.
"Just like in the Garden of Eden, there was no sin or evil when God pronounced that all was "very good"."
Where/ when did evil come from since it cannot be created?
"BTW, to say that "God is good" is not meaningless."
God is the basis for good. The meaningless part is your description.
"The parable of the wheat and tares shows that God allows evil for a while to accomplish the greater good."
"greater" is subjective... I do agree evil is inevitable.
"I don't think it is the case that I don't read well, but like you don't. Have you been following the debates you would not have failed to note the many times that the existence of evil is taken as an argument against the existence of God, especially that of the God of the Bible."
I unlearnt every fruitless debates. I found this to be reasonable...
It is impossible to prove that unjustified evil exists, and it is therefore impossible to use the existence of unjustified evil to prove that God does not exist. Those who believe in God can comfort themselves with the thought that all suffering serves a purpose, that, though it may be impossible for us to fathom the mind of God, God works all things to the good. -
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"OK, regarding good and referencing evil, I know what you are getting at. In our current knowledge we already know good and evil so we will talk about good by also contrasting or referencing it with evil."
This category of "good" and "evil" is subjective... an appeal to emotion used to set up this trilemma.
" My point, however, was that God is good even if evil does not exist."
God = objective. God is good = objective. Valid.
"Just like in the Garden of Eden, there was no sin or evil when God pronounced that all was "very good"."
Where/ when did evil come from since it cannot be created?
"BTW, to say that "God is good" is not meaningless."
God is the basis for good. The meaningless part is your description.
"The parable of the wheat and tares shows that God allows evil for a while to accomplish the greater good."
"greater" is subjective... I do agree evil is inevitable.
"I don't think it is the case that I don't read well, but like you don't. Have you been following the debates you would not have failed to note the many times that the existence of evil is taken as an argument against the existence of God, especially that of the God of the Bible."
I unlearnt every fruitless debates. I found this to be reasonable...
It is impossible to prove that unjustified evil exists, and it is therefore impossible to use the existence of unjustified evil to prove that God does not exist. Those who believe in God can comfort themselves with the thought that all suffering serves a purpose, that, though it may be impossible for us to fathom the mind of God, God works all things to the good.You mean there is no such thing as objectively good and objectively evil? So you don't believe in the existence of objective moral values? The Bible speaks of good and evil, all subjective and appeal to emotions?
Sin was first conceived in the devil himself. In his pride he led a rebellion against God.
Which part of my description is meaningless? Why?
I disagree that evil is inevitable. Anyway, the fact remains that times that the existence of evil is taken as an argument against the existence of God, especially that of the God of the Bible. How do you deal with this? Just say it is a fruitless debate to the atheist?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You mean there is no such thing as objectively good and objectively evil? So you don't believe in the existence of objective moral values? The Bible speaks of good and evil, all subjective and appeal to emotions?
Sin was first conceived in the devil himself. In his pride he led a rebellion against God.
Which part of my description is meaningless? Why?
I disagree that evil is inevitable. Anyway, the fact remains that times that the existence of evil is taken as an argument against the existence of God, especially that of the God of the Bible. How do you deal with this? Just say it is a fruitless debate to the atheist?
*facepalm*