• Victoria Nova
    36
    One can use visible, but not easily debunked, logical chain as method to prove existence of God, especially to a not seasoned mind. Say, woman got raped and questions God's intention. Religious leader explains that God knew of this person's intention ahead of time, and for that reason decreased person's murderous attempts so greatly, that woman actually survived. Thus God saved her life.
    Another person got beaten up by his brother, he also has questiones. The answer goes like this: when your brother was a baby, God, knowing of his intentions in a future, threw him into a pot of scolding water, so his right arm got burned and weakened. If God did not do this, your brother could have killed you. So, God saved your life.
    For unscrupulous mind it seems almost obvious. While others would ask how come God plays role of only debugger and not creator of the world. Of course, he can be creator as well, but the world mulfunctions in a way computer systems do, so God is busy in ongoing manner fixing mulfunctions of the system he created. The more he fixes, the more reliable the world becomes, the more we pay for it. Not every religious person's favorite set up, I beleave.
  • Rank Amateur
    1.5k
    Say, woman got raped and questions God's intention. Religious leader explains that God knew of this person's intention ahead of time, and for that reason decreased person's murderous attempts so greatly, that woman actually survived. Thus God saved her life.Victoria Nova

    Others would say the rape was an evil act of free will of the rapist. And the compensating good of humans having free will is great enough to allow for some of the evil choices it allows.


    Your argument above is just a restatement of " The Argument from Evil" , which is the most uses and probably best argument against the existence of God. The theist answer is "compensating goods"
    meaning a moral God can allow evil, if and only if there is a compensating good. In order to be a compensating good it must firstly be a true good, and significantly better than the evil, and it could only be obtained by allowing the evil. The theist generally separates the "evil" into 2 categories - that which is done by man - the compensating good for this is free will. The second category is for natural acts of evil - the best theist argument against these are skeptical theism. Meaning we have no reason to believe that it there was a compensating good for theses, we would see it and recognize it as such.

    if you have the time and interest - this lecture does a very good job of explaining this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJbgnyFlW5M
  • Victoria Nova
    36
    Did not read given argument from Evil, glad to learn new phrase "compensating goods".
    If God created everything, he also created Evil, the goat of escape. Haha.
  • Rank Amateur
    1.5k
    Did not read given argument from Evil, glad to learn new phrase "compensating goods".
    If God created everything, he also created Evil, the goat of escape. Haha.
    Victoria Nova

    my point was you are starting down a well trodden path. probably worth the time to see what the folks who walked it before have to say about it.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.