However fancy the long arrangements of words the theologians come up with, they disappear in a puff of shame when watching a mother helplessly holding her infant that is dying a slow painful death from whooping cough. — andrewk

If you are grass, a rabbit is a curse inflicted by an Evil God.
If you are a wolf, rabbits are a gift from a Good God.

Is God only the God of Humans?

If you are grass, a rabbit is a curse inflicted by an Evil God.
If you are a wolf, rabbits are a gift from a Good God.

Is God only the God of Humans? — Pattern-chaser

If you're talking about the God of the Bible, then yes, there is a clear sense, supported by scripture, in which God is the God of humanity, over and above fish, felines, canines, birds, and all other animals. See here.

If you think that it's acceptable to interpret an infant that is helplessly dying a slow painful death from whooping cough in his or her loving mother's arms as a gift, then there's something wrong with you. Heaven is a fiction, a human invention, and a psychological coping mechanism.

hard to argue against such a complete and thoughtfully reasoned argument like that. Have you considered publishing?

If you think that it's acceptable to interpret an infant that is helplessly dying a slow painful death from whooping cough in his or her loving mother's arms as a gift, then there's something wrong with you. — Sapientia

The God I worship is the God of humans and Bordetella pertussis, and everything else too.

Your God is your problem. :roll:

As a point of clarity, the argument from evil, is an argument made by an atheist, as a proof God does not exist. The burden of proof is on the atheist. The skeptical theist need only show a possibility of God and evil do coexist, and they do so with the combination of compensating goods, and cognitive distance. There is no burden of proof on the theist to proof this to reject the argument of evil. The burden is on the atheist to disprove this objection if they continue to attempt to move the theist to atheism.

The God I worship is the God of humans and Bordetella pertussis, and everything else too. — Pattern-chaser

Okay. Have fun worshiping an imaginary God.

Your God is your problem. :roll: — Pattern-chaser

I don't have a God. That's other people's problem.

Hard to argue against such a complete and thoughtfully reasoned argument like that. Have you considered publishing? — Rank Amateur

You know it's true. (Or maybe you really don't, and are ignorant of what the typical reaction would be. Maybe you should crawl out from under that rock and actually talk to people).

As a point of clarity, the argument from evil, is an argument made by an atheist, as a proof God does not exist. — Rank Amateur

No way, man. Who knew? Thanks for clearing that up.

The burden of proof is on the atheist. The skeptical theist need only show a possibility of God and evil do coexist, and they do so with the combination of compensating goods, and cognitive distance. There is no burden of proof on the theist to proof this to reject the argument of evil. The burden is on the atheist to disprove this objection if they continue to attempt to move the theist to atheism. — Rank Amateur

Nice try. There's a burden on both, and it begins with the theist, who has the burden of attempting to resolve the problem of evil. If problems are found in the attempted resolution, then again, there's a burden on the theist to attempt to resolve it. It's a back and forth thing.

Interesting that anyone would believe we live in a world where people are less likely to blindly follow others, not the impression I get when I see the majority of people with their hands glued to their phones. Whilst philosophy if fun and interesting and certainly makes you think 'outside the box' they are only opinions of clever but flawed men/women (although for some reason not many women) and most of them are dead.

No amount of harm, betrayal, exploitation, defamation or disenfranchisement can damn you. Nothing can do that, only sin, only God. — All sight

By your own choice. Damnation is a positive thing from the perspective of those that want it.

If you give people examples of evil acts, like rape, murder, child abuse, and genocide, they'll respond in their droves that these acts are unjustifiable. — Sapientia

The co-existence of multiple unjustifiable moral actions is incoherent in utilitarianism, which is a fairly wide-spread philosophy especially amongst those without deep knowledge of philosophy. If the answers were as homogeneous as you claimed it'd be because an average person doesn't understand the word unjustifiable. Would rape be unjustified even if it prevented a genocide (or vice versa)?

If you are grass, a rabbit is a curse inflicted by an Evil God.
If you are a wolf, rabbits are a gift from a Good God.

Is God only the God of Humans? — Pattern-chaser

If we are talking about the God of the Bible, which is the god that is almost always the one under discussion when this topic of theodicy comes up, then Yes, because the story of that god, and all the theories of its nature, is written by humans.

If we are talking about other concepts of God then No, but many, possibly most, other concepts of god don't have the same problem, because they do not assert omnipotence. So there is nothing that such concepts of god need to be defended against.

The god that forms part of my worldview from time to time is not the god of the bible. She is the god of all things, and she is not omnipotent. So the problem of evil does not arise.

No amount of harm, betrayal, exploitation, defamation or disenfranchisement can damn you. Nothing can do that, only sin, only God. — All sight

What reality must you live in for this to bear true? It must require a substantial disassociation, a denial, a rationalisation, a religious fervour.

The co-existence of multiple unjustifiable moral actions is incoherent in utilitarianism, which is a fairly wide-spread philosophy especially amongst those without deep knowledge of philosophy. If the answers were as homogeneous as you claimed it'd be because an average person doesn't understand the word unjustifiable. Would rape be unjustified even if it prevented a genocide (or vice versa)? — BlueBanana

And what possible realistic scenario can you envision where, say, raping a baby prevents genocide? Let's keep it real. If your moral philosophy is far removed from reality and requires bending over backwards and mental gymnastics, then what value is it, really?

Let's keep it real. — Sapientia

Why? The discussion has a bearded sky fairy judging your masturbation as a premise (not my phrasing btw).

My point is we're talking of evil and/or suffering having a meaning and being a tool for greater good on a metaphysical level, so I don't think completely valid thought experiments can be brushed off merely for not being realistic from the viewpoint of our everyday lives.

I guess what I'm saying is that you're arguing that those actions are unjustifiable but simultaneously assume that they can't have good consequences, which is circular reasoning.

A reality within which I can breathe fully. A reality within which I do not need to trust anyone, in order to be kind to them. A reality within which I cannot be bought, sold or intimidated. A reality within which I hold all the keys. A reality within which, I am justified, and can act freely without hesitation. I wonder what kind of reality you live in?

As a point of clarity, the argument from evil, is an argument made by an atheist, as a proof God does not exist. — Rank Amateur

No. It is an argument by anybody that does not believe that there is a god that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, that no being, created or uncreated, have all three of those properties. In no way does that require that the person making the argument is an atheist.

My choice is to drop the omnipotent bit, as it has enormous logical problems even before one gets to considering the problem of evil. A non-omnipotent god is far more lovable.

Why? The discussion has a bearded sky fairy judging your masturbation as a premise (not my phrasing btw). — BlueBanana

Sorry, I forgot where I was for moment there.

My point is we're talking of evil and/or suffering having a meaning and being a tool for greater good on a metaphysical level, so I don't think completely valid thought experiments can be brushed off merely for not being realistic from the viewpoint of our everyday lives. — BlueBanana

In what sense is the thought experiment completely valid? It's possible, yet counterintuitive and unconvincing. That's all it has going for it, so on that basis, I do think that it can brushed off for being unrealistic, just as the evil demon, brain in a vat, and dreaming butterfly thought experiments can be brushed off.

I guess what I'm saying is that you're arguing that those actions are unjustifiable but simultaneously assume that they can't have good consequences, which is circular reasoning. — BlueBanana

No, I'm not saying that they can't have good consequences.

And what possible realistic scenario can you envision where, say, raping a baby prevents genocide? Let's keep it real. If your moral philosophy is far removed from reality and requires bending over backwards and mental gymnastics, then what value is it, rea — Sapientia

The compensating good for all the evil caused by the acts of men is free will. If you consider free willed beings to be a good, then you must accept the evil that free willed beings can do. You can not have one, without the other.

The harder issue for theists to counter are natural evils. This requires the noseeum defense of the skeptical theist.

No. It is an argument by anybody that does not believe that there is a god that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, that no being, created or uncreated, have all three of those properties. In no way does that require that the person making the argument is an atheist. — andrewk

Yes, despite your word smithing and personal definition of God, The Argument From Evil, is, was, and has always been an atheistic argument against the existence of God.

Corruption requires Purity to have proceded it, a flaw implies flawlesness. This is duality, because each requires the other and implies it. — Lucid

Duality is an invention of the human mind, a very very small electro-chemical mechanical device which operates by a process of conceptual division. Declaring God to be good or evil, powerful or powerless, perfect or imperfect, existing or non-existing, small or large etc is an attempt to reduce God to human scale so that it would be comprehensible to us.

Assuming something the scale of a God exists, it seems quite unlikely it would be bound by the dualistic "this or that" paradigms created by the minds of a single species on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies. As example, consider the vast majority of reality, space. It can reasonably be said to both exist, and not exist. Our dualistic minds demand that it be one or the other, exist or not exist, but reality is not required to comply with our human limitations.

Any perceived division between perfection and imperfection, purity and corruption etc, are just illusions created by a device which operates by dividing the single unified reality in to conceptual parts.

Point being, all such conversations are doomed from the start as they are incurably limited by the medium in which they are taking place. All we can hope to accomplish is entertainment.

If you are grass, a rabbit is a curse inflicted by an Evil God.
If you are a wolf, rabbits are a gift from a Good God.

Is God only the God of Humans? — Pattern-chaser

If we are talking about the God of the Bible, which is the god that is almost always the one under discussion when this topic of theodicy comes up, then Yes, because the story of that god, and all the theories of its nature, is written by humans. — andrewk

So the so-called 'problem of evil' is a purely Christian problem? :wink:

The god that forms part of my worldview from time to time is not the god of the bible. She is the god of all things, and she is not omnipotent. So the problem of evil does not arise. — andrewk

:up: :smile:

If you think that it's acceptable to interpret an infant that is helplessly dying a slow painful death from whooping cough in his or her loving mother's arms as a gift, then there's something wrong with you. — Sapientia

The God I worship is the God of humans and Bordetella pertussis, and everything else too. — Pattern-chaser

Okay. Have fun worshiping an imaginary God. — Sapientia

I do, and I will, thank you. :razz: But your unnecessary emotional outburst - "an infant that is helplessly dying a slow painful death from whooping cough" - ignores the needs and wants of another of God's creatures: Bordetella pertussis. Should vampire bats be exterminated because they feed off cows? Should bears be exterminated because humans have stolen their lands, and seek to prevent them from moving elsewhere? And so on, and on.... Humans are only one species; there are many other species who live here.

A reality within which I can breathe fully. A reality within which I do not need to trust anyone, in order to be kind to them. A reality within which I cannot be bought, sold or intimidated. A reality within which I hold all the keys. A reality within which, I am justified, and can act freely without hesitation. I wonder what kind of reality you live in? — All sight

Reality. You live in your own little world, where there's a God, and only God can damn people. That's not reality.

The compensating good for all the evil caused by the acts of men is free will. If you consider free willed beings to be a good, then you must accept the evil that free willed beings can do. You can not have one, without the other. — Rank Amateur

You're just making things up. You could arbitrarily pick a number of good things we already possess and claim them to be the compensating good for evil. Why would an all good God put us in a world with evil to begin with? Why would an all good God need to compensate to begin with? That's either malice or incompetence.

The harder issue for theists to counter are natural evils. This requires the noseeum defense of the skeptical theist. — Rank Amateur

It's not hard to resolve. It's only hard for theists because they don't like the inconvenient truth and cling to their precious beliefs about God.

just as the evil demon, brain in a vat, and dreaming butterfly thought experiments can be brushed off. — Sapientia

Hol' up.

So the so-called 'problem of evil' is a purely Christian problem? — Pattern-chaser

It is a problem of any set of beliefs that asserts that its god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. That includes the main branches of Christianity, but not all of them. I expect there are other religions that promote the same troublesome set of three beliefs, and they'll have the same problem.

The Argument From Evil, is, was, and has always been an atheistic argument against the existence of God. — Rank Amateur

It is often used by atheists. It is also used by theists that reject the notion of omnipotence, and I have witnessed such people making it. Are you saying that I misheard, or that they were lying when they said they were theists?

Well I'm evil and I say he can't.

Yeah this is fairly standard theodicy. The only problem with it is that it's all very well and good in a world of sophisticated adults learning from their mistakes, etc., but it doesn't make any sense of what we would normally call "senseless" suffering happening to innocents.

And further, if you do use this justification, the cost of innocents' suffering for this pretty pattern of dualism and redemption makes it even more evil.

This is where the karma idea has a bit of an advantage in theoretical terms: you can explain away the kid suffering sexual abuse as being punishment for crimes they committed in a past life. That makes the picture make a kind of sense over vast stretches of time. But of course it's horrendous in another way, and excuses current abuses, etc.

Well I'm evil and I say he can't. — Evil

Q.E.D.