The Problem of Evil

[bahman]

No. You still can choose between different goods in a world that is good.

That moves the problem to slightly different terms, but doesn't change it. For we could easily accuse God of not always making the BEST good happen, and cry out that he's letting second-rate goods happen instead. But God isn't just "a little bit good": He's the absolute Source of all goodness, health, life and light. He's the consummate good...and so those who stand in relationship to Him must also become consummately good, or they are not fit companions for a righteous God.

As the Word of God says, "You shall be holy, as I am holy."

So again, if God is morally-bound always to make only the best possible thing happen, and only to relate to the kinds of friends who also only ever do the BEST possible thing, then there is no possibility of human freedom.

But God cares about human freedom: and one main reason He does, is that he wants men and women to have a free choice of associate with Him. He wants us to be individuals, consciences, identities...in short, real people who freely choose to be his friends and beloved ones. This consummate good, this BEST good, is simply impossible if we never had a choice but to choose it in the first place.

And what does it mean when we say, "To have a choice other than to be in relationship freely with a righteous God?" What if one of the things it means is to have the option to kick dogs? Or to do much worse. What if having genuine freedom to choose to know and love God means that we also have to have the option to reject Him, though He is the source of all that is right, good and true, and to choose "the Other"?

What is that "Other"? If He is righteous, it can be nothing other than that which is unrighteous...dark, evil, false and cruel. And kicking dogs probably fits that description, doesn't it?

No. Haven't we been through this? You reply to the same comment twice. I already answered this. And kicking a dog is evil which should not happen. Dogs shouldn't be in the fallen world.

[bahman]

off topic - sorry.

but related to Jubalees.

the first theolgy of why Satan and his legion fell was due to lust of mortal women - refer to Genesis and the "men of renoun, and the niphilum' sometime around Jesus time the nerrative changed from the Legion fell due to lust to on eof Pride - refer to The Apocaylypse.

sometime shortly aftr Jesus time the mainline theology of why the Legion fell became on eof pride and not lust. since 200 AD or so the former became dogma and the latter uttly ignored.

ot rejected, just ignored.

so rejectd by default - and now forgotten by modern jews/christians.

I heard of the lust of Satan for women. I was not aware of the historical change of the story. Good to know that.

[Immanuel Can]

...kicking dogs probably fits that description, doesn't it?

No.

It doesn't? But you say,

kicking a dog is evil which should not happen.

You're contradicting yourself there, I think. Either kicking dogs is bad, or it's not.

Dogs shouldn't be in the fallen world.

So you believe there's some reason we should think that it's wrong for there to be dogs in a world with free human beings in it?

You'd better explain that, maybe.

[gaffo]

the first theolgy of why Satan and his legion fell was due to lust of mortal women - refer to Genesis and the "men of renoun, and the niphilum'

"Satan and his legion" are not at all mentioned in that passage, actually.

lol.
i know.per genisis the story i s not. I'm not an ignoramous - read most of your bible .

the stories are in jub.rev. of course.

and maybe book of enoch.

And the meaning of the whole "Nephilim" reference is a matter of much debate but little actual information. Best not to speculate too wildly. We don't seem to have the textual basis to make any definite claims about that one.

dont give me that bullshit - the information is in the surviving works we have. most outside of the canon.


i know you are a christian and would like to defend your concept of your faith - but afford me my reasoned position here - there are non canonical works which we can make rasond inferance upon all i talked about above.

peace.

[bahman]

...kicking dogs probably fits that description, doesn't it?

No.

It doesn't? But you say,

kicking a dog is evil which should not happen.

You're contradicting yourself there, I think. Either kicking dogs is bad, or it's not.

Dogs shouldn't be in the fallen world.

So you believe there's some reason we should think that it's wrong for there to be dogs in a world with free human beings in it?

You'd better explain that, maybe.

Let me summarize: 1) Innocents should not be exposed to evil, kicking a dog, for example, 2) Creating an agent with evil nature is evil, human for example, and 3) There is a solution out of the evil situation that we are living within, the beatific vision.

[Immanuel Can]

And the meaning of the whole "Nephilim" reference is a matter of much debate but little actual information. Best not to speculate too wildly. We don't seem to have the textual basis to make any definite claims about that one.

most outside of the canon.

My point precisely.

[Immanuel Can]

Let me summarize: 1) Innocents should not be exposed to evil, kicking a dog, for example,

Right. But we're begging the question of whether or not it's possible to conceive of it being better where such things were allowed (note: not "made to happen," but allowed), if it also meant that some beings could have moral freedom.

What's your answer to that?

2) Creating an agent with evil nature is evil, human for example,

Well, of course, human beings aren't merely evil. They are capable of good, as well. They are beings with moral freedom to choose.

So, is a free being not better than one with no possibility of freedom? You seem to say so. You say you would prefer to be free.

I agree.

[gaffo]

And the meaning of the whole "Nephilim" reference is a matter of much debate but little actual information. Best not to speculate too wildly. We don't seem to have the textual basis to make any definite claims about that one.

most outside of the canon.

My point precisely.

ok, so via your Christianity ignore non-canon (Shepard of Hermis is a good work you out to read BTW) - you wall off disscusion of such works?

you do not think they offer value? - in the general or per you faith?

of so - lets talk about why you ignore such works and why, or if not why might affirm value in them though outside of canon.


----i'm pretty drunk now, so might not be able to converse in a few hours.


so i i am not able to. will log in next week to disscuss.


--do you value disscussion on non canon works? of so i love to discusss.

if not.........well........sad, about i like to talk about things i think are imporant, and i think the noncanon works offer value - many should b canon (not all - there are 40 or so - but 1/4 desirved to be included in your "bible".

imo.

thanks for reply. you are a good man, thanks for never being an asshole. that does your God credit.

peace.

[Immanuel Can]

most outside of the canon.

My point precisely.

ok, so via your Christianity ignore non-canon

No. There can be some interesting stuff in them. But non-canonical works are also often non-canonical for a reason. So you have to be very critical and reflective about the statements they contain, and also to consider that some of them are purely fictitious works. So some careful sorting has to be done.

[gaffo]

My point precisely.

ok, so via your Christianity ignore non-canon

No. There can be some interesting stuff in them. But non-canonical works are also often non-canonical for a reason. So you have to be very critical and reflective about the statements they contain, and also to consider that some of them are purely fictitious works. So some careful sorting has to be done.

ok, thats fair.

so are you saying you do value some of the non-canon works? if so which works and why (whcih ones have you read?).

as state there are at least 40 - of them personally i think Shepard of Hermis, Boook of Enoch, and Jubalees should have been included (all highly reveired at the time).

i personally like all 3.


so have your read any non-canon works? if so which/why. you find value in them?

if not why not?


--


addembum, The Apocaplypse (which i like) was almost rejected) and Hermis (which i like) was almost included.

just sayin.


thanks for reply.

[Immanuel Can]

so are you saying you do value some of the non-canon works?

In some small measure. I've seen some plausible ideas in some of them, but the good ones are confirmed by Scripture. The rest is either dead wrong, or merely speculative. I certainly don't take them as being reliable. There are very good reasons they're not canonical.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The "Problem of Evil" has been claimed by many non-theists [atheists] to be the 'silver bullet' against the theists' claim God exists.

Over the years, theists had offered loads of defense against the Problem of Evil and all had failed.

What is the latest and strongest defense from theists [with references and links] to counter against the Problem of Evil.

For some reason, known only to a deity, the best of possible worlds must include evil.
That the whole, with the evil, is better than the whole with only good or only good and neutral.
Note this argument does not prove the necessity of evil, it leaves open the possibility that it is right to be included.
There is a stalemate.

The anti-theist can say that it cannot be better, but this presumes that the anti-theist has some way to evaluate what is best, period. And there's a hubris in that. But since the problem of evil is sometimes used to prove there is no God or no loving god or no loving omniscient, omnipotent god, the onus is on the anti-theist to demonstrate that they can finally evaluate the whole shebang. I think that's hubris.

I don't happen to buy this defense on theists' part, though I am a theist. But I don't think Problem of Evil proofs of God's nonexistence work.

1. The point is theists has to claim their God is omni-potent and omni-whatever such that their God is than which no greater than can be conceived.
Surely you would want to claim your God is omni-potent and omni-whatever, otherwise others will claim your God is an inferior God.
If your God is inferior to the other omni-God, then the other omni-God can command your god to kiss its arse [Muslims will do that]. Surely you would not want your God to be in that position.

2. Evil is defined as acts by humans that are net-negative to the well being of the individuals and that of humanity.
The extreme of the range of evil is genocides with torture of millions of humans. It is so evident there many genocidal acts within the history of humanity. Note there are many other sorts of evil, e.g. torturing of babies for pleasure, etc.

3. If God is omni-whatever with the capability to have the highest precision of fine-tuning the mechanisms of the Universe,
why it that the omni-whatever God cannot do the necessary to fine-tune humans so that they do not commit evil acts?

From the above, 1, 2 and 3 are contradictory and do not follow.
Since 2 [evil acts] are so evident in reality,
therefore the necessary God in 1 do not exists as real.

If you insist in believe in a God, that is not God as in 1, your god can only be some sort of inferior entity which you have to prove that it exists as real.

My confidence is you will not be able to prove your God exists as real. It is an illusion that arise as a consonance to soothe the inherent existential cognitive dissonance.
Other spiritual groups [Buddhism and the likes] has recognized the above and dealt with cognitive dissonance directly and empirically.

The other pacifist alternatives to theism are thus more realistic without clinging to a God which has the potential to enable acts of evil and atrocities to be committed upon non-believers.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Let me summarize: 1) Innocents should not be exposed to evil, kicking a dog, for example,

Right. But we're begging the question of whether or not it's possible to conceive of it being better where such things were allowed (note: not "made to happen," but allowed), if it also meant that some beings could have moral freedom.

What's your answer to that?

2) Creating an agent with evil nature is evil, human for example,

Well, of course, human beings aren't merely evil. They are capable of good, as well. They are beings with moral freedom to choose.

So, is a free being not better than one with no possibility of freedom? You seem to say so. You say you would prefer to be free.

I agree.

You got a very skewed sense of freedom.
What is absolutely-absolute cannot exists as real.
As such there is no absolute-absolute freedom for humans, otherwise, they will be like God.
As such, within theism, God grant humans freedom but not absolutely-absolute freedom like that of God.

As such, God being omni-potent, omni-whatever and is a being than which no greater can be conceived, should be able to create and fine-tuned humans that do not kick dogs or commit any other acts that are evil [as defined].

That there are real acts of evil by humans, i.e. from kicking dogs, torturing babies for pleasure, to genocides of millions, prove that your omni-God as expected do not exists as real to prevent the above acts of evil.

My confidence is you will not be able to prove your God exists as real. Your idea of a God as reified is an illusion that arose as a consonance to soothe the inherent existential cognitive dissonance.
Other spiritual groups [Buddhism and the likes] has recognized the above and dealt with cognitive dissonance directly and empirically.

The other pacifist alternatives to theism are thus more realistic without clinging to a God which has the potential to enable acts of evil and atrocities to be committed upon non-believers.

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

---------there is no absolute-absolute freedom for humans, otherwise, they will be like God.

That is true. God is free to do anything within the bounds of His own reason. It follows the more and better the reason, the more Godlike it is.

Evil is basically relative absence of reason. Good pervades everything but unreason =evil hides the good from us.

[Immanuel Can]

You got a very skewed sense of freedom.
What is absolutely-absolute cannot exists as real...

I didn't say that. I honestly have no idea what you're rattling on about here, and can't participate with it.

The rest of your objection seems like a kind of messed-up, simplistic objection to the effect that God can, and should, make robots that don't sin. If that's your view, that's your view.

I don't share it. I think human freedom is real, and is also a very great good. Stay with my discussion with B, and you might pick up something.