I personally have a very complex theory describing what god "is" so, I wouldn't say I don't believe in god- I don't believe in him in the Christian sense of the word. More so, I acknowledge that there is something out there- however I do believe we aren't meant to know what it is. Humans want to much.

ANYWAY, the proof against god comes from my buddy Epicurus:

"Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God."

Argue.

Think of yourself as a character in a story. You don't know what's coming. The reader knowing the ending doesn't take away your freewill. Gotta think outside the box. You are subservient to some laws in this reality. HIS laws.

The more I read the posts here, the more I think most of you are pissed at the fact mommy made you go to Church.

Think of yourself as a character in a story. You don't know what's coming. The reader knowing the ending doesn't take away your freewill. Gotta think outside the box. You are subservient to some laws in this reality. HIS laws.

The more I read the posts here, the more I think most of you are pissed at the fact mommy made you go to Church.

So then he is malevolent? Either way god looses from that quote.

Ok now I am not saying that I am leaning either way but...

The argument would be that God sees (or, rather, knows since he is omnipotent) that free-choice for humans, even the choice to do evil, is better than not having evil all together. Or it may be something other than FC that I/we have just not thought of. When you alter something that has been a constant (evil in this case) for as long as anyone can remember, the consequences are usually more extensive and broader than at first anticipated. Also, everything is relative, what you consider to be evil may, in fact, not be evil at all. You just don't know what real evil is.

You base your argument on the fallacious statement that a malevolent God would rather eradicate evil than free-choice. You don't know, and can't prove this to be true. And therefore your argument is based on questionable pretenses.

That being said, the evil debate will always come down to a free-choice debate. It is the brick wall at the end of Evil Road.

Again, I argue for the sake of arguing, as well as, and more importantly, to show alternative ways of thinking which is important if you want to keep an open mind.

Ah that is quite true, I just thought of this:

If we are built in his image- (I'm referring to Christian faiths ONLY)- then why would he let this precious creation practically destroy itself? Why do prayers go unanswered?

This isn't meant to be a complete disproof of god per say, rather a disproof of the fact that god indeed dictates what happens. He might just be force that doesn't really do much of anything, except generate life in a scientific sense. (Energy transfer)

if that made no sense, I am really tired and going to bed. I hope you guys enjoy mulling over that quote! It sure made me think.

"Dear God,

Give me everyt'ing what I like, the way I like it & when I like it: no matter what I do! Otherwise...

Otherwise you are no damn good & besides? You don't exist! So there! :mad:

Yours truly, kenshiro_kid"

No I agree with you in that regard. It could be that he is only a creationary god. That may be his only purpose, to make organisms.

Eddie Izzard had a good quote about gods who can only create things. It was something to the effect of:
"There's 200,000 gods in Hinduism... and they've got gods like Shiva, the God of Creation and Destruction. Which is a good god to be, 'cause you can go *WHOOM* (creates thing) "What do you think? Do you like that? You don't like that?" *WHOOM* (destroys thing) If you're just the God of Creation, you're going *WHOOM* "Do you like that? You don't? All right, I'll put it in the garage... shit, I haven't got a garage! *WHOOM* (creates garage)"

This isn't meant to be a complete disproof of god per say, rather a disproof of the fact that god indeed dictates what happens.
What is it then, that dictates what happens?

He might just be force that doesn't really do much of anything, except generate life in a scientific sense. (Energy transfer)

An energy force underlying all of creation that doesn't really do much of anything, except for all of creation.

When God created the world around us, why, in all his love and wisdom put us in the middle of a cosmic shooting gallery? Either god seeks to terrorize us or there is no god. Being a Gnostic, I proposed that god seeks to terrorize us, but than this is not god if god is love, in which case if I feel alienated by this creator, I was not created by it and came from somewhere else, someplace higher than the universe itself.

I had an antithetical proposition to the orthodox but I nonetheless, still maintain belief in a deity even if it runs contray to tradition and authority.

What is it then, that dictates what happens?

An energy force underlying all of creation that doesn't really do much of anything, except for all of creation.

We dictate what happens to use in our personal view of the world, men still dictate "what happens" and for things like natural disasters, they are dictated by the earths cycles etc.,

And moonmeister: I know you're being facetious...but I don't really like to pre-occupy myself with these kinds of arguments because I find they often lead nowhere, in fact this is the first time I've perpetuated this sort of thing in the past...year and half maybe? Anyway, I just really liked the quote and I've been studying existentialism lately...

Think of yourself as a character in a story. You don't know what's coming. The reader knowing the ending doesn't take away your freewill. Gotta think outside the box. You are subservient to some laws in this reality. HIS laws.

The more I read the posts here, the more I think most of you are pissed at the fact mommy made you go to Church.

Your free will is governed by the structure of your brain. If god created people, he's responsible entirely for all decisions they make in their lives.

Think of yourself as a character in a story. You don't know what's coming. The reader knowing the ending doesn't take away your freewill. Gotta think outside the box. You are subservient to some laws in this reality. HIS laws.

The more I read the posts here, the more I think most of you are pissed at the fact mommy made you go to Church.

Ahahaha, I love that last line negz.

"Dear God,

Give me everyt'ing what I like, the way I like it & when I like it: no matter what I do! Otherwise...

Otherwise you are no damn good & besides? You don't exist! So there! :mad:

Yours truly, kenshiro_kid"

Ahahahaha, another good one. Thanks moony.

Ahahahaha, another good one. Thanks moony.

Anything to contribute? =/ I don't mean to be rude, (that isn't suppose to be rude either)- but most of use here have contributed something to this topic. Give them props, then put in your own input =P

Existence is like a book.

Most people think God's the author, because they cant see outside of their reality so they assume its another dude fucking shit up.

God is the book. What's in the book is also the author. The Neverending Story is a good movie.

Good and evil, bad shit, war, good shit ,love, its all the same to the book, its just stuff. It's just something, instead of nothing. "God" isn't supposed to stop bad things from happening, God houses all things. God is neutral and has no perspective of right or wrong except through you.

There's no way to refute Epicurus' quote while believing in a Christian God. I've been through this debate a thousand times, many of them on this forum, and no one has come up with a solution yet.

There's no way to refute Epicurus' quote while believing in a Christian God. I've been through this debate a thousand times, many of them on this forum, and no one has come up with a solution yet.

Yes there is. Adam and Eve. The serpent tells Adam and Eve that eating of the Tree of Knowledge will grant them god-like understanding of Good and Evil. Instead, it brought them shame (and the ability to judge something as good or evil) for disobeying God. They falsely conclude that disobeying God is evil. This holds the serpent's status as a deceiver intact, without giving man the real ability to distinguish good and evil.

Take this into consideration then: Man doesn't know what good and evil really are. (Ask a group what is good and what is evil and see how varied your response is...nobody has a clue to what the truth of it is)

How then, do we know that evil even exists? Taking a few minutes to look at the premises of Epicurus' question invalidates its ability to assess the faith of Christians who take heed of what their religion's stories convey.

Edit: If you want to understand how the judgments of man upon acts, items, etc. as good and evil have formed morals over the past several thousand years, look up Labeling Theory.

Ah yes, the problem of evil. I will now show that it has no power to be applied to Christians. All formulations of the problem of evil require a moral premise, which takes the form:

Moral Premise:
If a being has the power to stop an evil act, then they are morally required to.

Without this premise, the line "Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent." is a non-sequitor, since it would then be possible to be able, not-willing and benevolent.

Now consider that a Christian gets their moral judgements from the bible. In the book of Job, God stands by while the interlocutor takes away all of Job's riches, his livestock, his house, his servants, and his children. Since the bible does not assert the above moral premise, while it does assert that an all-good being can act in opposition to it, then the bible implicitly states that:

If a being has the power to stop an evil act, then they are not always morally required to.

And this is in contradiction with the moral premise required for the Problem of Evil to work at all. So what he have here is that a Christian cannot accept the premises of the Problem of Evil, so it's conclusions can have no effect on their beliefs.


The way I see it, there are three possible ways that my final conclusion is wrong:

Possibility 1: I have made an error in reasoning. Showing that my conclusion does not follow from my premises would allow the dismissal of my argument.

Possibility 2: Somewhere in the bible, it is implicitly or directly stated that if a being has the power to stop an evil act, then they are morally required to. Finding such a verse would allow the dismissal of my argument.

Possibility 3: The moral premise of the Problem of Evil is objectively true, hence a Christian is forced to accept it as a premise. Showing this objectivity would allow the dismissal of my argument.

Except the bible could be implying god was acting evilly in the Book of Jobs.

Not only are you assuming what the bible is trying to convey in that message, but then you put an unjust burden on those trying to refute you by saying they must show "Somewhere in the bible, it is claimed with divine authority that if a being has the power to stop an evil act, then they are morally required to" when you haven't shown where "somewhere in the bible, it is claimed with divine authority that if a being has the power to stop an evil act, then they are not morally required to".

Yes there is. .

If there is, you haven't even come close to providing it. The fact that there are many different interpretations of "good" or "bad" is irrelevant if we can agree something "bad" exists, has occurred, or will occur. After we reach this consensus, there is no real need to define what "bad" is. As long as it exists, the Problem of Evil exists - though you could potentially attack it as faillinghouse has.

I've never once, in my entire life, experienced something 'evil'. It seems, Rust, that those campaigning for the Problem of Evil's usefulness in straying from spirituality, or more precisely here, Christianity, are in the same boat as the theists when it comes to the burden of proof.

Put simply, nobody has ever proven that our perception of something as evil actually makes it evil - nor has anyone ever shown evil to genuinely exist: we can come up with descriptions of evil, then find something that matches this description to prove it does, in fact, exist. That would be doing what you so often accuse me of: redefining terminology to suit a purpose. Evil is just as delusional a concept in reality as God is in atheism.

We don't know of any absolute morality; and even when we come to the idea that such exists, anyone is free to disagree with us and adopt their own morality...their own judgment of what is good and what is evil. Truth is, neither has been shown to exist anywhere but in the mind; just like God.

Existence is like a book.

Most people think God's the author, because they cant see outside of their reality so they assume its another dude fucking shit up.

God is the book. What's in the book is also the author. The Neverending Story is a good movie.

Good and evil, bad shit, war, good shit ,love, its all the same to the book, its just stuff. It's just something, instead of nothing. "God" isn't supposed to stop bad things from happening, God houses all things. God is neutral and has no perspective of right or wrong except through you.

I'm referring to a Christian god, not a higher power. I should of specified.

Referring to the problem of a defined evil, evil is defined separately to each person and seeing as how we will not come to a consensus on what "true" evil is, we must assume that each man has a separate understanding of what is evil to himself. Upon drawing this conclusion, that evil is separate of outward influence (i.e, everything happens according to our perception)- We can also conclude that evil things will happen to us no matter what.

Let me illustrate, with an example:

A man, is chased by the cops and arrested. To the cops, this was the bad guy, but to him, the cops are the bad guys.

The perception is different, meaning that the definition of evil is also different. Evil is not a constant define thing, it is a variable that applies to whatever influences a negative reaction at our time of experiencing what ever we perceive to be negative.

Therefore, Epicurus's argument holds true on the basis that we are
A) Talking about a Christian god
B) Evil is separate for each being

I'm thinking about going into philosophy for my university minor- is this a good idea? ;) lol.

EDIT: Hexadecimal, I didn't see you post. Read what I wrote here.

You missed the point entirely and worse yet, created strawmen.

Absolute morality is irrelevant. You not experiencing something "evil" is irrelevant. Nobody showing "that our perception of something as evil actually makes it evil" (which nobody here has even claimed) is irrelevant, as is no one having "ever shown evil to genuinely exist".

The important point is that the parties agree that something "bad" exists. That's it. How it's defined or whether it's absolute or not is unimportant.

If both parties agree that something "bad" exists, then the Problem of Evil exists. Christians routinely say that something bad exists (or occurs) like sin for example.

Who cares about the Christian God?

You missed the point entirely and worse yet, created strawmen.

Absolute morality is irrelevant. You not experiencing something "evil" is irrelevant. Nobody showing "that our perception of something as evil actually makes it evil" (which nobody here has even claimed) is irrelevant, as is no one having "ever shown evil to genuinely exist".

The important point is that the parties agree that something "bad" exists. That's it. How it's defined or whether it's absolute or not is unimportant.

If both parties agree that something "bad" exists, then the Problem of Evil exists. Christians routinely say that something bad exists (or occurs) like sin for example.

I take you're not talking about my post? =/

Except the bible could be implying god was acting evilly in the Book of Jobs.


A Christian would dismiss that possibility using Psalms 18:30: "As for God, his way is perfect...", which is often taken to mean God is omnibenevolent.

Not only are you assuming what the bible is trying to convey in that message,

I will attempt to show that my concept of what is being conveyed is not merely an assumption, but a deduction from other Christian beliefs:

P1. God could have acted to stop evil being done to Job.
P2. God did not act to stop evil being done to Job.
P3. God is morally perfect.
∴ there is at least one case where it is not true that: if a being has the power to stop an evil act, then they are morally required to. In other words, if a being has the power to stop an evil act, then they are not always morally required to.

you put an unjust burden on those trying to refute you by saying they must show "Somewhere in the bible, it is claimed with divine authority that if a being has the power to stop an evil act, then they are morally required to" when you haven't shown where "somewhere in the bible, it is claimed with divine authority that if a being has the power to stop an evil act, then they are not morally required to".

You are right; I concede that it would be just as good of a rebuttal to find a case where the moral premise of the problem of evil is implicit in the same way I claimed a denial of it was implicit.

A Christian would dismiss that possibility using Psalms 18:30: "As for God, his way is perfect...", which is often taken to mean God is omnibenevolent.

Not "would" but "could". There is a difference. You don't know (or I you somehow do, let me know) how a Christian is going to interpret that passage, and whether he would dismiss that possibility.

Not to mention that the argument "his way is perfect, therefore he is omnibenevolent" requires further proof.



In other words, if a being has the power to stop an evil act, then they are not always morally required to.

Which ultimately doesn't really refute the Problem of Evil unless you can show how this applies always, not just to Job. In other words, even if a Christian can show that perfection implies omnibenevolence, and even if we argue that the god didn't have the burden to stop the evil act in the case of Job, it doesn't necessarily follow that the god isn't required to act in other cases.

It could be that it is perfectly good to allow evil to occur in the case of Job, and not in any other context, and thus god is being evil elsewhere.

Alright then. I don't agree that evil exists, so this argument has no merit for me. I still don't see how I'm unable to hold a belief in the teachings of Christ and a faith in God while also denying the validity of this argument within reason.

Two big parts of my faith as a Christian are thus: God is everything and God is perfect. The very idea of evil is complete nonsense to me.

Who said you're "unable to hold a belief in the teachings of Christ and a faith in God while also denying the validity of this argument within reason"?

Also gives a fuck what the parts of your faith are?

Quoting Twisted_Ferret:

There's no way to refute Epicurus' quote while believing in a Christian God.

You denying the validity of the argument does not equal you having refuted it. For example, many creationists deny the validity of radiometric dating. Their denial is meaningless. It's not a refutation of that dating method, which has been established by countless trials and experiments.

So again, Who said you're "unable to hold a belief in the teachings of Christ and a faith in God while also denying the validity of this argument within reason"?

It's a question about God dealing with evil. The argument fails. It uses the premise that evil exists, which has not been shown to be true once in all history.

And again, read what I typed, comprehend what it means, then read what TF typed and comprehend what it means. He states that nobody can refute Epicurus' question and believe in the Christian God. I am able to do both.

Refutation of an argument is equivalent to 'invalidation of an argument within reason'.

Believing in the Christian God is equivalent to 'holding a belief in the teachings of Christ and a faith in God'.

Alright, on to your next straw man, please.

It's a question about God dealing with evil. The argument fails. It uses the premise that evil exists, which has not been shown to be true once in all history.

And again, read what I typed, comprehend what it means, then read what TF typed and comprehend what it means. He states that nobody can refute Epicurus' question and believe in the Christian God. I am able to do both.

Refutation of an argument is equivalent to 'invalidation of an argument within reason'.

Believing in the Christian God is equivalent to 'holding a belief in the teachings of Christ and a faith in God'.

Alright, on to your next straw man, please.
Question: Does it not say anywhere in the Bible that something called evil exists? I mean, anywhere? Surely somewhere it says "don't do this, this is evil." I believe, in fact, that Christ teaches not to do some things because they are evil. If you're going to believe in the Bible, you're going to have to accept that some things are evil and God Does Not Want them.

Edit: If you'd like to deny that the Bible says anything is evil, look over here (http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/E/EVIL/). For just one example. No-one may have ever proved that evil exists, sure; but the Bible thinks it does, and so must Christians... and that's all that's relevant in this case.

When does Christ call something evil?

Various followers of Christ have conjured the word to express their own missteps from divine love, but the Messiah never labels anything evil. The closest he comes to claiming something is evil is when he says that blasphemy of the Spirit puts one in danger of damnation.

At no point does the Messiah claim that evil exists. There are those that seek to harm, there are those we see as enemies, there are those that hate God, and there is sin: But does Christ call sin evil? No, he doesn't.

Let's look at something brother James wrote about sin, "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am tempted by God', for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full grown, brings forth death."

Christ never says evil is what tempts us, either. Even James slightly contradicts himself. It poses first that evil tempts us, but then states that we are tempted by our desires, act upon them, and cause our own destruction. It seems that James is equating evil to self-destruction; but is James the Messiah? Nope. As valuable as his experience and words are in the application of day to day life are (especially his appeals for patience and gratitude), he is still another brother rather than the divine.

And further: The only occasions in which the Messiah even uses the word evil is in reference to what the temple was judging him as, and in a parable in which a King calls his servant evil for not forgiving a debt.

When does Christ call something evil?

...

And further: The only occasions in which the Messiah even uses the word evil is in reference to what the temple was judging him as, and in a parable in which a King calls his servant evil for not forgiving a debt.
Check out Mark 7:21-23, for instance. Or Matthew 6:23. And in the parable, he still admits the existence of evil. God himself is recorded as calling many things evil, and references to evil are found in every book in the Bible. If you do not accept the accuracy and authority of these books and their authors, I question whether you are a Christian at all. (Especially since these books are where you get the quotes from Jesus anyway!)

Moreover, I would say that "sin" is synonymous with evil, or near enough to make no difference. Don't let yourself get hung up on these words; "evil" can easily be replaced with "sin" in the original argument.

Edit: Oh, apparently God will also damn people for things which aren't evil - according to you. Very nice. :p

And again, read what I typed, comprehend what it means, then read what TF typed and comprehend what it means. He states that nobody can refute Epicurus' question and believe in the Christian God. I am able to do both.

Refutation of an argument is equivalent to 'invalidation of an argument within reason'.


Please read what I typed, and comprehend what it means.

You denying the argument does not mean you have refuted it. Denying something does not equal refuting it. Just like a creationist denying the validity radiometric dating doesn't magically refute it, neither does you denying the argument suddenly refute it.

Refutation of this argument entails proving that either the premises aren't true in reality or that the conclusions don't follow from the premises. You have done neither. You personally not believing in evil does not mean that evil does not exist, nor that the argument is refuted. Both parties can assume evil exists and thus the problem continues.

What you quoted didn't show anyone saying you couldn't deny the validity of the argument. Do you have something that does, or is this a fail? :)

Hexadecimal, you obviously didn't read a little fucking bit of what I wrote. Evil is individual of outward influence meaning that it can exist separately to each person, and since negative things happen to us in our perception evil is proven to exist. (If we accept that it is indeed separate of outward influence).

This is why I sometime hate arguing with Christians, they have no clue what the fuck they're talking about. Don't get me wrong, I have an organ lesson at a church tonight, but honestly.

If something existing in perception is proof of it existing, then isn't god as much reality as evil? (Negative is a perception; nothing is negative unless you perceive it as such; much like nothing is god unless you perceive it as such.)

Why then is my belief in my perception delusional while yours is considered realistic when neither of us have tangible evidence to present? We both fail on the burden of proof, so I ask you, why can't those who want to believe and don't care to waste their time convincing the unconvinceable just be let alone? You can convince me that evil exists with the same measure of success that I can convince you that a god exists...it's a matter of faith, brother; there's nothing physical to back either belief.

If something existing in perception is proof of it existing, then isn't god as much reality as evil? (Negative is a perception; nothing is negative unless you perceive it as such; much like nothing is god unless you perceive it as such.)

Why then is my belief in my perception delusional while yours is considered realistic when neither of us have tangible evidence to present? We both fail on the burden of proof, so I ask you, why can't those who want to believe and don't care to waste their time convincing the unconvinceable just be let alone? You can convince me that evil exists with the same measure of success that I can convince you that a god exists...it's a matter of faith, brother; there's nothing physical to back either belief.

Mine is tangible because there is sufficient proof that negative things fucking happen. Every get a cut or something? Yeah. Wowwww I'm just going to stop because you don't think this shit out.

And again, read what I typed, comprehend what it means, then read what TF typed and comprehend what it means. He states that nobody can refute Epicurus' question and believe in the Christian God. I am able to do both.
Well, I suppose you might be able to do both, like I might be able to believe in the Christian God and believe that Satan is the universes' sole true lord and master. I might claim myself as believing in the CG, but I believe in something completely different from Christian doctrine - which is what makes the Christian God distinct from any other sort. So what you'd be believing in is an entity you identify with the CG, but is not the God of the Christians. Not the God described in Christian doctrine (i.e. the Bible).

If you see what I mean. If I don't make sense, I will amend my original argument to "nobody can refute Epicurus' question and believe in the Biblical God without contradicting themselves."

Mine is tangible because there is sufficient proof that negative things fucking happen. Every get a cut or something? Yeah. Wowwww I'm just going to stop because you don't think this shit out.
"Negative" isn't "evil", though. (Well, I think it is, but you've only proved you experience negative perceptions.)

Quite what I was saying in my last post. I can easily prove I was a homeless junkie...drug tests and homeless shelter registrations are all on record for me. I can also easily prove that I've come a long way since. I can't prove, however, that God did these things for me, but that's what I believe.

You can prove that people are murdered, raped, tortured, stolen from, lied to, etc...but you can't prove that any of these things are evil, but that may very well be what you believe.

Kenshiro, how is a cut a negative thing? If it heals, it's a testament to the human body's magnificence. If it becomes infected or gangrenous, it's a testament to the power of bacteria. It's all perception, dude. All the things I believe to be God's body are entirely tangible and known to exist, but it's my perception that makes them the body of God. Just as all the things you perceive as negative are entirely tangible and known to exist, but it's your perception that makes them negative.

Say for example, somebody dies: In one perception, this might be seen as a life lost; I see it as a return to the source. I choose to see my God everywhere I look, although I'm not perfect, so obviously I can't hold that outlook at all times. I am at odds with the world sometimes, but that doesn't mean there's anything to actually be upset about. I'm alive, and so long as I am, I can receive God's blessings in my life and share as many as possible. When I'm dead, I don't need these blessings anymore. There's no justification in my life for seeing negatives. That obviously is not the case with you, and I see no problem with that.

The question of evil and free will earlier stated is irrelevant. This assumes all evil comes from beings which (may or may not) have free will. Yet, many people would agree that there are many evils which come from nature, ie hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. These are things that an omnipotent god could stop without impending or affecting anyone's supposed free will.

The question of evil and free will earlier stated is irrelevant. This assumes all evil comes from beings which (may or may not) have free will. Yet, many people would agree that there are many evils which come from nature, ie hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. These are things that an omnipotent god could stop without impending or affecting anyone's supposed free will.
More, we're not perfectly free either. Free will is a matter of degree. Are we not free because we can't teleport? Why would we not be free if we couldn't kill each other? Isn't this what laws are for? Wouldn't Heaven be perfectly good, without evil, and yet free?

Well, I suppose you might be able to do both, like I might be able to believe in the Christian God and believe that Satan is the universes' sole true lord and master. I might claim myself as believing in the CG, but I believe in something completely different from Christian doctrine - which is what makes the Christian God distinct from any other sort. So what you'd be believing in is an entity you identify with the CG, but is not the God of the Christians. Not the God described in Christian doctrine (i.e. the Bible).

If you see what I mean. If I don't make sense, I will amend my original argument to "nobody can refute Epicurus' question and believe in the Biblical God without contradicting themselves."

Yes, I can believe in the Biblical God and refute Epicurus' question without contradicting my self. Take a look at Ecclesiastes. Solomon is the wisest of the humans in the Bible; aside from Christ he has the single greatest understanding of God. Take a look at his words regarding judgment. As wonderful as the experiences with God the other accounts in the Bible are, the wisest man and the Messiah simply have a better understanding. They are the two most reliable sources. Look into Proverbs, and you will see Solomon referencing evil, but these sayings were during his younger years, before he reached the epitome of his wisdom. Ecclesiastes is the end of his days...his final and greatest understanding.

The question of evil and free will earlier stated is irrelevant. This assumes all evil comes from beings which (may or may not) have free will. Yet, many people would agree that there are many evils which come from nature, ie hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. These are things that an omnipotent god could stop without impending or affecting anyone's supposed free will.

Actually, the argument assumes that perceiving something as evil makes it evil, which rests upon another assumption that evil even exists.

Yes, I can believe in the Biblical God and refute Epicurus' question without contradicting my self.

Do so then. Refute the argument of evil. You've yet to do so. Denying the argument isn't a refutation.

Do so then. Refute the argument of evil. You've yet to do so. Denying the argument isn't a refutation.

Yes, I did Rust, you're just filled to the top with religious prejudice.

How about I make this claim: God exists.

What does it fail?

Oh yes, the burden of proof. The same burden that the premises The Problem of Evil fail to carry. Argument worthless. Matter of faith.

Just because you wish it were a solid argument doesn't mean it is.

Yes, I did Rust, you're just filled to the top with religious prejudice.

How about I make this claim: God exists.

What does it fail?

Oh yes, the burden of proof. The same burden that the premises The Problem of Evil fail to carry. Argument worthless. Matter of faith.

Just because you wish it were a solid argument doesn't mean it is.
It doesn't carry the burden of proof because it's a proof in itself. An argument. The conclusion follows from the premises, and that's what we're concerned with. You can deny the premises if you want, but you cannot be a Christian at the same time - at least, not what is normally recognized as "Christian."

Yes, I can believe in the Biblical God and refute Epicurus' question without contradicting my self. Take a look at Ecclesiastes. Solomon is the wisest of the humans in the Bible; aside from Christ he has the single greatest understanding of God. Take a look at his words regarding judgment. As wonderful as the experiences with God the other accounts in the Bible are, the wisest man and the Messiah simply have a better understanding. They are the two most reliable sources. Look into Proverbs, and you will see Solomon referencing evil, but these sayings were during his younger years, before he reached the epitome of his wisdom. Ecclesiastes is the end of his days...his final and greatest understanding.
I'll read Ecclesiastes, just for you ;), but I have before and don't recall seeing anything that says evil doesn't exist.

I'll read Ecclesiastes, just for you ;), but I have before and don't recall seeing anything that says evil doesn't exist.

It's not that he directly claims it doesn't exist, it's that concludes 'all is vanity'. Righteousness and wickedness are mere human judgments...misunderstandings born in the human mind. We're all of one breathe and move fluidly in God's world whether we desire to or not. God removes the righteous and the wicked the same, blesses them the same, and ends them the same: as we are born from earth, so we return to earth.

But don't just take my condensed paraphrase...it's a good read, be you Christian, Jew, other faiths, agnostic, or atheist.

It doesn't carry the burden of proof because it's a proof in itself. An argument. The conclusion follows from the premises, and that's what we're concerned with. You can deny the premises if you want, but you cannot be a Christian at the same time - at least, not what is normally recognized as "Christian."

Evil is a condition of possibility in the Problem of Evil. If one cannot satisfy the burden of proof for evil's existence, the argument then rests upon a faith in evil's existence.

It's a meaningless argument. Much like someone arguing that green is ugly. In order for it be an argument of factuality rather than opinion, one would have to prove 'ugly' to be an objective value rather than judgment value. That is, something that exists outside of perception.

The Problem of Evil is entirely an argument of opinion, as evil has no proven objective reality, merely perceptive reality. To argue that evil's existence contradicts the benevolence/power of God presumes the existence of evil (and oddly enough for an argument against God's existence...that God exists). The argument works if the individual holds that same presumption...but I don't.

The argument works if the individual holds that same presumption...but I don't.
This is what I'm trying to get across. :) You don't, but you're not a Bible-believing Christian. More, the argument works for anything God doesn't like: if God has the ability to remove x, and wants to remove x, and knows about x, why doesn't he remove x?

"Negative" isn't "evil", though. (Well, I think it is, but you've only proved you experience negative perceptions.)

Okay, well I've calmed down a bit so I'll explain this.

Everyone agrees that negative things happen, everyone might go as far to agree that evil things happen. If you don't, you're pulling one of the most childish arguments in the book.

"Everyone thinks like this."
"Yeah, well not me."

So don't start that shit, on the other hand; not everyone agrees that god exist, there is so much debate about it that we can't even begin to define what it might be. Evil things happen regardless of religion, it doesn't matter if you fucking think they do or don't, because they just do so fucking stop trying to say otherwise. I'm very sure if you told a Jew hitler wasn't evil they would completely agree with you, they've just been "seeing it wrong" for the past fucking 50 years.

EDIT: Er, practically all of this is aimed at Hexadecimal. I largely agree 100% with what TF and Rust are saying, I just don't feel the need to repeat what they said.

*sigh* It has nothing to do with seeing it right or wrong, it's that it's solely a matter of opinion (which inherently cannot be right or wrong, as it relates entirely to the individual). I don't see anything as evil, so this argument is completely worthless TO ME. If a Jew wants to see Hitler as evil, wonderful...he might want to ask himself about the Problem of Evil.

You can call this childish if you want to, but you haven't, nor can you, prove evil or even negative events to exist. You can't support the premise of the Problem of Evil; it works only if the individual reading the Problem of Evil accepted the premise as their own opinion. This is something I have not done. You will not be able to change my opinion that evil does not exist, it is part of who I am.

Edit: And as Rust said earlier, denying (or in your case, stating) something, doesn't make it true. You're using 'evil exists because it just does'...well shit, I can say that God exists because it just does. That might satisfy and convince me of God, but that certainly wouldn't sway the OPINION of a skeptic that wishes to see the burden of proof satisfied.

Really, why are you getting bent about being unable to convince me of evil? I'm not mad that I can't argue for God. It's a personal matter...a choice left up to the individual to believe, neither of which can be proved to one who doesn't believe it to be true. You accept negativity/evil (and I'm guessing contrarily positivity/good) on faith; I accept God on faith. Since the discussion can not, nor will it, go any further than this; I will thank you for getting me thinking about a couple things I haven't in awhile. Good day, and I hope that out of this discussion you might find a better acceptance of differences.

This is what I'm trying to get across. :) You don't, but you're not a Bible-believing Christian. More, the argument works for anything God doesn't like: if God has the ability to remove x, and wants to remove x, and knows about x, why doesn't he remove x?

Alright, I'll bite, why am I not a Bible-believing Christian?

Is it because I understand that divinely inspired doesn't mean divinely dictated? (Divinely inspired, akin to love inspired, simply means that the writings are inspired by the author's experience with the inspiration.)

Look at what the authors claim God to have written: The ten commandments. That's it. The rest is exclusively written by various children of God...their wisdom, their dreams, their epiphanies, their revelations, their thoughts, their relationships, their lives, and their understanding of what it all means. I definitely believe in the Bible...but that doesn't mean I believe the words of the authors to be the words of God: that is idolatry, in direct conflict with the commandments, which ARE God's personal edicts.

Edit: As to your second point...as for God not liking anything: "For God so loved the world..." (You probably know the rest of the verse). Do you know what love is, TF? It's unconditional acceptance of something as it is, not as it 'should' be.

Yes, I did Rust, you're just filled to the top with religious prejudice.

You did? Show me.

Also, please spare me your comments about things you know nothing about. I have no problem with religion as long as it doesn't say anything stupid. Alas, it seems most of them can't control themselves. Much like you.


What does it fail?

Oh yes, the burden of proof. The same burden that the premises The Problem of Evil fail to carry. Argument worthless. Matter of faith.They don't have to carry a burden of proof so long as the other person also agrees evil exists! I've already explained that to you. This is a premise that is being assumed as true for the sake of argument. Just like "God exists" is also a premise of this argument.

Like you yourself already said:

"so this argument is completely worthless TO ME. If a Jew wants to see Hitler as evil, wonderful...he might want to ask himself about the Problem of Evil."

In other words, the argument works perfectly fine; it's just that you've conveniently decided not to believe in Evil. Wonderful. That' still not a refutation. A refutation would entail showing how the premises are not true in reality or how the conclusion does not follow the premises. You have done neither.

If we followed your inanity to conclusion, I could "refute" any argument I want ... even your own!

Argument A has X, Y and Z premises. I've decided not to believe in X, Y, and/or Z, therefore I've refuted 'Argument A'. Wrong. That's not how refutations work.

But let me guess... it's time for dictionary-rape? Am I right?


Just because you wish it were a solid argument doesn't mean it is.Just because you wish it weren't a solid argument, doesn't mean it isn't.

As to your second point...as for God not liking anything: "For God so loved the world..." (You probably know the rest of the verse). Do you know what love is, TF? It's unconditional acceptance of something as it is, not as it 'should' be.

Then why in the fuck did God hate Easu?

Romans 9:11 - 9:13

Perhaps he doesn't understand your definition of love. When you pray tonight, be sure to educate.....you know.....God!

Then why in the fuck did God hate Easu?

Romans 9:11 - 9:13

Perhaps he doesn't understand your definition of love. When you pray tonight, be sure to educate.....you know.....God!

I'll spare my retort. Frankly, I don't care if you think my faith is justified.

If YOU want to know why God hates Esau (as I'm not going to spend twenty minutes cross-referencing sources), learn what the words translated to 'hate' in the verses about Esau actually mean.

It rains on the righteous and the wicked alike...

"They don't have to carry a burden of proof so long as the other person also agrees evil exists!"

Which I don't, Rust. Hence the burden of proof does exist, and is fallen short of.

I already covered that. How about you actually read what I say and reply to it in it's entirety instead of quoting things out of context to weasel your way out?

I repeat myself:

"In other words, the argument works perfectly fine; it's just that you've conveniently decided not to believe in Evil. Wonderful. That' still not a refutation. A refutation would entail showing how the premises are not true in reality or how the conclusion does not follow the premises. You have done neither."

Again, just because you've decided to take the position evil does not exist does not mean this argument is refuted; it means that you decided not to take the premise as true and thus have decided not to work within the argument being made. Great. That's still not a refutation.

If you want yet another example, take your own argument about the non-existence of evil. If we follow this "reasoning" of yours (i.e. "I decided not to agree with one of the premises thus I've refuted the argument being made") to its completion, then that argument would be utterly refuted.

Indeed one can apply that inane "reasoning" of yours to any argument, even to the "reasoning" itself.

When does Christ call something evil?

Various followers of Christ have conjured the word to express their own missteps from divine love, but the Messiah never labels anything evil. The closest he comes to claiming something is evil is when he says that blasphemy of the Spirit puts one in danger of damnation.
How are you to know that Jesus never called anything evil? Do you know him? Did you know him while (if) he was alive? I think not. Therefore you cannot accurately say that Jesus never said "evil" as it is NOT something that can be tested.

Jesus Christ, did you not understand the Book of Job?

Lets say that you particularly enjoy insects, and you see a bug caught in the web of a spider. You want to save the bug, but if you do, perhaps the spider will starve. This is the position God is in, with us humans of course. To save one of us, to prevent us from starving, were to cause someone else to starve, etc. The network of relations is complex, and all this represents God's intelligence. It requires dexterity to balance this system of give and take.

^ Except humans aren't analogous to gods. Omnipotent gods have the power to both free the insect and feed the spider.

In other words, the Christian god must have the power, by definition, to help Job without negatively affecting anyone else.

Alright, I'll bite, why am I not a Bible-believing Christian?

Is it because I understand that divinely inspired doesn't mean divinely dictated? (Divinely inspired, akin to love inspired, simply means that the writings are inspired by the author's experience with the inspiration.)
The Bible claims it is divinely dictated as well, or at least all of the versions I've read.

Look at what the authors claim God to have written: The ten commandments. That's it. The rest is exclusively written by various children of God...their wisdom, their dreams, their epiphanies, their revelations, their thoughts, their relationships, their lives, and their understanding of what it all means. I definitely believe in the Bible...but that doesn't mean I believe the words of the authors to be the words of God: that is idolatry, in direct conflict with the commandments, which ARE God's personal edicts.
So God doesn't like idolatry etc., right? Besides which, this isn't true at all: God says, directly, many many other things in the Bible.

I don't see how you could make the case that God likes, say, sin. :confused: Or Esau, for that matter: perhaps every version written in the past five hundred years was incorrectly translated and he didn't really mean "hate", but please pardon me if I do not find it likely. :p

Jesus Christ, did you not understand the Book of Job?

Lets say that you particularly enjoy insects, and you see a bug caught in the web of a spider. You want to save the bug, but if you do, perhaps the spider will starve. This is the position God is in, with us humans of course. To save one of us, to prevent us from starving, were to cause someone else to starve, etc. The network of relations is complex, and all this represents God's intelligence. It requires dexterity to balance this system of give and take.
I'd think someone who created it would be able to do a better job. This makes God sound like a cosmic bumbler - even I could manage to save the spider and prevent the insect from starving, were I motivated enough (go find a freshly dead insect, perhaps).

I plan to properly reply to this thread when my current load of maths assignments are done.

I'd think someone who created it would be able to do a better job. This makes God sound like a cosmic bumbler - even I could manage to save the spider and prevent the insect from starving, were I motivated enough (go find a freshly dead insect, perhaps).

You make it sound like the insect being injected with venom is a bad thing, or that the spider starving is a bad thing.
Death is a good thing, why anyone would want to stop it, I cannot fathom.

^ They are specifically talking in a Christian perspective. Generally speaking, Christians frown upon letting someone starve to death or get killed.

Although the Christian god did kill a lot of motherfuckers, so maybe it isn't...

^ They are specifically talking in a Christian perspective. Generally speaking, Christians frown upon letting someone starve to death or get killed.

Although the Christian god did kill a lot of motherfuckers, so maybe it isn't...

And some Christians killed a lot of people for their God.
That doesn't really make much sense.

What doesn't make sense? You saying death is a good thing makes no sense in a discussion taking place within a Christian perspective.

What doesn't make sense?

"Christians frown upon letting someone starve to death or get killed."
They have caused that very thing to occur.

You saying death is a good thing makes no sense in a discussion taking place within a Christian perspective.Why not?

They have caused that very thing to occur.

Indeed! I don't know what you expect from me... because I'm all in favor of pointing out Christian hypocrisy.


Why not?

Perhaps "makes no sense" wasn't the right word choice. I meant, it's not relevant, or it's not an argument against what he has said.

Suddenly saying "X, Y and Z are seen as good in this other perspective" doesn't invalidate his argument within the analogy being used to speak in a Christian perspective/context.

indubitably

Verily!


----

This seems appropriate for this thread:

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/images/Motivational-atheists.jpg


:p

Rust:
While perfection may or may not imply omnibenevolence, it is ultimately insignificant, as if it does not, a Christian can just take the omnibenevolence of God as justified from the Christian doctrine (ie. as a matter of faith), in the same way that the problem of evil itself does.

Second, while I admit you are correct that the case of Job may simply be an exception, the moral premise of the problem of evil becomes far less seductive when it must be ad hoc altered to something like, "If a being has the power to stop an evil act, then they are morally required to, except in the specific case of God's recorded dealings with Job."

This weakening of the problem of evil does not, of course, defend my initial conclusion, that Christian beliefs are in contradiction with the moral premise; for that I'm going to have to revise my argument as follows:

Premise 1. Christians would agree with the following inductive claim:

If a moral position is implied throughout a text and a denial of that position is never implied or asserted in that text, then that text is supportive of the generalised formulation of that moral position.

(There are probably in reality a few Christians who would disagree; I'm happy to concede that the problem of evil may be applicable to such people)

Premise 2. Throughout the bible, the following moral position is implied "If a being has the power to stop an evil act, then they are not morally required to"

(For justification of this premise, I am going to list 20 cases in the bible where evil acts occur in the same universe as a morally perfect being with the power to stop them. I could provide more, but I think this is more than sufficient for the scholarly standards of this forum (note: while the biblical God does eventually deal with several of the evil acts in this list, what is important is that he allowed them to occur in the first place):
1. Cain Kills Abel.
2. Most people before the great flood are evil.
3. Joseph is wrongfully imprisoned.
4. King Manasseh allows pagan worship in Jewish temples. (This one and a couple of others may not be evil in the eyes of an atheist, but they are evil in a universe where the biblical God exists, which is the case in the bible)
5. Zechariah Ben Jehoiada is stoned to death for condemning the wickedness of King Joash
6. Job's livestock, house, servants and children are destroyed or killed.
7. The people of Israel repeatedly forsake God.
8. There is drought and famine in Israel
9. Nebuzaradan burns down the Jewish temple and royal palace.
10. The people of Nineveh in the time of Jonah are full of wickedness.
11. There are many false prophets of God.
12. In the time of Jesus, people use the temple of God as a market.
13. King Herod kills all male children in Bethlehem.
14. John the Baptist is beheaded for speaking against the king.
15. Judas betrays Jesus.
16. Jesus is executed.
17. Paul persecutes the early Christians.
18. The Apostle James is executed.
19. Paul and Silas are wrongfully imprisoned.
20. There are false apostles.)

Premise 3. In the bible, it is never implied or asserted in either a general or specific form that "If a being has the power to stop an evil act, then they are morally required to" (This premise could potentially be disproved by giving a counter example)

Premise 4. Christians consider the moral judgements of the bible to be absolute truth. (From Christian doctrine)

Conclusion 1. Christians are required to agree that the bible supports the generalised moral claim that "If a being has the power to stop an evil act, then they are not morally required to". (From premises 1, 2, 3)

Conclusion 2. Christians are required to consider the following moral claim to be absolute truth: "If a being has the power to stop an evil act, then they are not morally required to". (From premise 4 and conclusion 1)

Conclusion 3. For a Christian to claim that "If a being has the power to stop an evil act, then they are morally required to" is in contradiction with their beliefs. So, the moral premise of the problem of evil cannot be accepted by Christians without contradiction, so the problem of evil has no power to be applied to Christians.

‪
‪

While writing out that argument, another, separate argument with the same conclusion appeared to me:

Christian moral beliefs are supposed to be derived from the primary Christian belief in an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God. Therefore, if there is a contradiction between the moral beliefs of a Christian and the belief in an omni... God, then the beliefs that must be dismissed are the derived ones, since they do not really follow from the primary beliefs at all and are therefore incorrect anyway. What this means is that the problem of evil is really just a very clever piece of sophistry.

A few problems:

1. You claim that Christians base themselves on three primary beliefs (omnipotence, omniscience and omni-benevolence). I would say that's not true. They base themselves on the idea that the Bible is the word of a God and they justify any other belief base on this. That is, they say "God is omnipotent because in X Book, y-z verses, it says "..."; they don't say "God is omnipotent because that's the primary belief I have".


2.Premise 2 assumes that those examples are not examples of the Christian God acting that badly or evilly. What justifies this assumption? The initial, "primary", assumption that he must be omni-benevolent?

So essentially: I assume he's omni-benevolent, I see these passages, I conclude he's acting benevolently.

Seems rather circular. Part of what we're doing in the 'problem of evil' is determining whether he is actually benevolent or not; assuming he is serves as no real refutation.

3. We could also say that those things that occur are good! The argument is assuming that the list you cite in Premise 2 contains acts of evil or "bad" that God has let happened. What if they are acts of good? This doesn't contradict at all the primary assumptions...


4. Like you said, Premise 3 could be refuted by counter-example. Well I can take the story of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22 as an example of God believing he has a moral imperative to act. He acts by stopping Abraham from killing his son.

God wanted to see if Abraham would be willing to do anything for him, even evil, saw that he would and then stopped the evil act before it occurred based on a moral requirement to do so.

To me that's a denial of that position [i.e.If a being has the power to stop an evil act, then they are not morally required to" ] implied that text.

In the bible, it is never implied or asserted in either a general or specific form that "If a being has the power to stop an evil act, then they are morally required to" (This premise could potentially be disproved by giving a counter example)
I think it is. I don't know of any Christians who would disagree, at least, so I can look around.