The Problem of Evil

[Emyunoxious]

In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to explain evil if there exists a deity that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Some philosophers have claimed that the existence of such a God and of evil are logically incompatible or unlikely.

Now, personally, I don't believe that God or evil exist, but I'd be interested to see what the users of this board think.

 

[Ichigo]

Ah, this is a great topic, I find that theistic individuals have a very difficult time tackling this dilemma from a logical standpoint.

The existence of God and Evil seem like they were to be mutually exclusive when they were created by man but the concepts, after what to be honest isn't really an exhaustive use of deductive reasoning proved otherwise.

While I also do not place much faith in either concept, there are things, in the context of society, that can be mutually beneficial or harmful to the whole. But then it becomes a matter of perspective since what may be bad for the whole is beneficial to the individual.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

You speak of evil as if it is an object, when rather evil is relevance.
There has to be good for there to be evil, and so there is a duality in nature.
If God didn't give us free will, it would be evil. And since we have free will, we create evil.
There is an underlying question as to why we would even be created in the first place if there was to be so much evil.

Well, the first thing to heed is that God gets angry and grieves throughout certain parts of the bible, so omnipotence shouldn't be taken to it's full literal construct. If He was 100% omnipotent, he would not be angry or grieved, because He would've known it was going to happen infinite years beforehand.

Another thing is that regardless if evil, it was not specifically created by God, it was created by breaking His tenets. Lucifer's vanity (self importance; greed) led to how things are now. Like a chaos theory, knowledge of good and evil topples man like dominoes.

Lucifer becomes jealous in Heaven, and is cast out. Since he was promised to be the keeper of Earth, he threw man through the loop.
Eve- became tempted to eat the forbidden fruit. After doing so she felt ashamed and insecure, so she had Adam eat the forbidden fruit also. They both became ashamed and covered themselves with garments, as well as being fearful of God.
See, what happened was that the tree itself bore no knowledge. The knowledge of good and evil was gained by the act of disobeying God.
Once they became enlightened, they knew of shame, fear, anger, etc. and so were booted out of Eden for cursing all of man.

This is why God is held to be omnibenevolent. He has the exaction of benevolence that outdoes man-made morals. To illustrate it further:
Sin literally translates to 'missing the point'. Because we miss the point, we create and continue a flux of evil. This idea alone presents a high morality of God, as it happened exactly like so.

Whether God exists or not is up in the air for me, as I believe it to be illogical to refuse the possibility. Good and evil are dependent on opinion, but that does not mean they don't exist. Unless you are the only person on the planet, good and evil are visible constructs of man.

 

[der Astronom]

You speak of evil as if it is an object, when rather evil is relevance.
There has to be good for there to be evil, and so there is a duality in nature.

No, it does not, and there's a simple test for that: is a rock good or evil? According to you, if it's not good, it's evil. If it's not evil, it must be good. But a rock is neither good nor evil, so such a duality does not exist. And for that matter, I also strongly disagree with the sentiment that babies are born evil and must be cured of their sins; they haven't done anything, and yet they are still being labeled as sinners for the simple act of being born.

If God didn't give us free will, it would be evil. And since we have free will, we create evil.

And he's still evil because he knew it would happen, and made people go through pointless tests.

There is an underlying question as to why we would even be created in the first place if there was to be so much evil.

Well, the first thing to heed is that God gets angry and grieves throughout certain parts of the bible, so omnipotence shouldn't be taken to it's full literal construct. If He was 100% omnipotent, he would not be angry or grieved, because He would've known it was going to happen infinite years beforehand.

If you believe he's not omnipotent, then his strength is quantifiable, and it's entirely possible that we don't have to obey him. Actually, that people believe him to be omnipotent is probably one of the reasons why people are so afraid of disobeying him.
However, I don't believe in might makes right, and that he uses such abilities to send people to hell just because they don't believe in him is not something I find particularly honorable or benevolent.

Another thing is that regardless if evil, it was not specifically created by God, it was created by breaking His tenets. Lucifer's vanity (self importance; greed) led to how things are now. Like a chaos theory, knowledge of good and evil topples man like dominoes.

So what? Hitler probably killed not a single Jew with his own hands, and yet he is responsible for the death of millions of Jews during the Holocaust. The fact is, god is responsible for creating those tenets, and if he knew they were going to be broken, then he is just as evil for having allowed those things to happen to people.
And by the way, I don't think good and evil can be quantified as knowledge because it is subjective.

Lucifer becomes jealous in Heaven, and is cast out. Since he was promised to be the keeper of Earth, he threw man through the loop.
Eve- became tempted to eat the forbidden fruit. After doing so she felt ashamed and insecure, so she had Adam eat the forbidden fruit also. They both became ashamed and covered themselves with garments, as well as being fearful of God.
See, what happened was that the tree itself bore no knowledge. The knowledge of good and evil was gained by the act of disobeying God.
Once they became enlightened, they knew of shame, fear, anger, etc. and so were booted out of Eden for cursing all of man.

All of which god knew was going to happen. So why even bother doing it in the first place? If he knew they were going to do it and allowed it to happen, then he is the one who is more evil than the people who disobeyed him.

This is why God is held to be omnibenevolent. He has the exaction of benevolence that outdoes man-made morals. To illustrate it further:
Sin literally translates to 'missing the point'. Because we miss the point, we create and continue a flux of evil. This idea alone presents a high morality of God, as it happened exactly like so.

Our actions have no bearing on how nice god himself is. If I went to my neighbor's lawn and stomped and killed all the flowers, I wouldn't be considered a nice person. I might still be nicer than Hitler, but my actions wouldn't make me a nice person, and they certainly wouldn't make Hitler any less nice; he's just as mean as he ever was.
I consider a "god" who has every intention of not being a coward and showing himself to his creations, who will work with them, won't condemn them for their mistakes or disobeying him, but will try to help his creations along as best he can, and if they don't end up being great, he wouldn't feel the need to be a murderous, violent bastard about them to be infinitely more benevolent than the Christian god.

Whether God exists or not is up in the air for me, as I believe it to be illogical to refuse the possibility. Good and evil are dependent on opinion, but that does not mean they don't exist. Unless you are the only person on the planet, good and evil are visible constructs of man.

I'm not refusing the possibility; however, I think god's character is not something people can define consistently because they can't seem to agree. Some Christians believe that their god is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and they don't see anything wrong with that. And some Christians don't believe in such a god who sends people to hell because they don't think it's right.
Good and evil are abstract concepts. I'm not entirely sure what your idea of good and evil existing implies, but they don't exist in this world anymore than math does.

That actually reminds me--either you believe free will exists and omniscience is useless, or you believe free will does not exist and omniscience is applicable--do you or do you not believe god is omniscient?

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Mind you 'sinning' is not technically to commit an evil act, but rather evil ultimately spawns from it. Saying that babies are born into sin is actually pretty accurate. They are born in Lucifer's domain, and thus become part of it's constructs immediately.

There is a duality in nature with good and evil, we do not need to consider inanimate objects such as a rock. Such things are neutral in their duality.
And as I said, if God knew that evil would scourge the world, He probably would not have made it. Why would He waste His time? Think about it- you create a universe, give man free will to do as they please, redirect them throughout history to right their wrongs, and even promises the Messiah to serve grace when you could have just waved your wand and made everything perfect.

Free will is a gift, not a curse. To not have it would make you a mindless vessel. If it is evil to create man in this way, then you would not be on your PC right now posting, nor would you even exist. Are you saying it is evil that you exist?

The point is, God made these tenets out of necessity for man. They weren't originally there. He wanted us to be happy and prosper, not to be evil and ruin everything.
If God made any mistake, it was not creating man, but rather Lucifer. He's the one who brought knowledge onto man.

And as I said before, God gets angry, grieves, and even becomes jealous throughout the Bible. This shows that He cannot see the future. In other words, hope is not an attribute to an omnipotent being, and He makes strides with man to right the wrongs despite the continuation of evil.

With that said, I don't see why you are continuing to hold infinite omnipotence as truth. Because of His knowledge, He can see further down the road, no doubt, but just like in science, mathematics can be misleading.
God can have any attribute, and free will can still exist. Even with fate, one has free will. If God has a purpose for you, it's because He sees something in you that isn't going to falter. In the end, it was your will that brought you to your fate.

There's many different ways of looking at it, but presuming that God is evil is subjective logic. In fact, presuming that Lucifer is evil is subjective logic as well. There's two sides to the coin that must be examined before drawing a dividing line anywhere in the religious context. And since it speaks for all reality, no detail can simply go ignored. You have to take in the entirety of every specific cause/effect.

 

[Dionysos]

A lot of people tend to place the label of evil as a means to shock themselves and others into avoiding said people, or confronting said people (but more importantly avoiding). In a way it is a kind of self-defence mechanism to regard someone as evil so that you reinforce your own sense of good, and let other people know how great you are at being good by putting down the person you call bad or evil. A lot of people feel the need to create a villain for themselves to vent all of their hatred.

I now have quite a deterministic view of life, and I don’t believe that true evil really exists outside of fiction. I believe that characteristics and actions are determined conditionally (socially and environmentally through our upbringing and the people we meet, as well as the structure of our minds which largely develops through this too). I only believe free will in some cases can exist when we reach a sort of realisation stage, look back on our lives and recognise everything that has happened to make us what we are now, and then act upon it to change or improve if needed.

In terms of religion and evil, they need to lay out what evil is in order to accentuate their ideal of good, and in order to scare people away from certain paths for fear that they’d be becoming evil if they weren’t doing what is deemed good. Some of the details of what is deemed good and evil changes over time and with cultural variations, but the basics of mindless murder (as opposed to killing for a perceived respectable purpose), selfish stealing (unless of course from other cultures, or from people within a society perceived as deserving) and other such things most societies would agree with.

As for God and evil, it also doesn’t make much sense to me how he’d place humans on a planet where evil apparently lurks on every corner, and is effectively advertised as being present rather than ignored or got rid of. Perhaps we’re a social experiment, and he wants to see how we react, or perhaps he wishes to discover for himself what true evil is by letting us discover it (though this would conflict with him being omniscient), and then he can work out how to effectively beat it. It strikes me as strange, though, but I think to me that stands as a testament to the human hand that wrote, translated and printed the Bible. Perhaps if we were to directly meet and question God he’d give us a decent answer.

While I also do not place much faith in either concept, there are things, in the context of society, that can be mutually beneficial or harmful to the whole. But then it becomes a matter of perspective since what may be bad for the whole is beneficial to the individual.

I definitely believe that there are actions and personalities which are not good to have, but I place the blame more on the situation or circumstances than on the person. Putting the blame on the person or their perceived status concerning good and evil, for me is a cop out for sorting out what led that person to be that way. It’s much easier to label someone as evil and dump them in a prison / execute someone and forget about them without having to think “but if I truly was them, and had lived their lives, then I’d have done the same, so something must have happened here” for each person. That said, that is just a way of looking at it, I guess.

Overall I believe the term evil to be a manmade invention which is used as yet another label (along with many other negative terms of different categories) to generalise and isolate an individual from the norm or ideal, be it (for different extremes) a viewpoint which conflicts with the norm or ideal, or an action which goes against the norm or even humanity itself, without really looking too much into the person, or looking in the wrong places (i.e only viewing their viewpoints and actions as they are now, rather than viewing their lives as a whole and understanding how they developed and formed as human beings). It's a tool used by religion, but I personally do not think that evil exists. Perhaps (if God exists) he realises this but recognises that some humans need a bit of a push to understand what can be good and what can be bad, especially as humanity was moving out of its more primitive stage, and perhaps having humans questioning what is good and evil can be therapeutic (if we were to ignore the serious dangers of such labels).

 

[der Astronom]

Mind you 'sinning' is not technically to commit an evil act, but rather evil ultimately spawns from it. Saying that babies are born into sin is actually pretty accurate. They are born in Lucifer's domain, and thus become part of it's constructs immediately.

Which is the same as saying we're all potentially capable of doing bad things to other people--in which case, being a sinner just means you're a regular, imperfect person, and there's nothing to be ashamed of. There's no reason why being imperfect needs to be pardoned. Not any reason I know of that makes sense.

There is a duality in nature with good and evil, we do not need to consider inanimate objects such as a rock. Such things are neutral in their duality.

What do you mean by that? Surely, rocks and other inanimate objects are part of nature, as are bacteria, and other living beings that we might not consider sentient (and fish can feel pain; we just weren't aware of that). You can only apply good and evil to people or things capable of committing such acts, and such a label is only applicable in certain contexts; and you can be good while being evil; you can be good towards your church by donating money while being bad towards the law by evading your taxes.

And as I said, if God knew that evil would scourge the world, He probably would not have made it. Why would He waste His time? Think about it- you create a universe, give man free will to do as they please, redirect them throughout history to right their wrongs, and even promises the Messiah to serve grace when you could have just waved your wand and made everything perfect.

That's begging the question; you have assumed that god is only capable of doing good, when in fact, a closer look at the bible reveals that god has done nothing but get angry at all the mistakes that have happened. The "solutions" he's made in order to right wrongs are ridiculous. He punishes people that don't deserve it. He makes people go through unnecessarily cruel ordeals just to test them. He floods the world because he wasn't happy with his creations. He sacrifices someone as a scapegoat to prevent people from learning about responsibility. And if people did these things because they weren't happy with their neighbors, or because they were unsure about someone's intentions, they'd be considered jackasses.

Free will is a gift, not a curse. To not have it would make you a mindless vessel. If it is evil to create man in this way, then you would not be on your PC right now posting, nor would you even exist. Are you saying it is evil that you exist?

Unlike you, I actually don't have a reason to believe that god gave anyone free will. And ironically, even less so in the bible. He hardens the pharaoh's heart, and predetermines who goes to hell and who doesn't. So how do you know he did?
I'm not denying that the ability to choose what you want to do can contribute to making us as individuals unique; I just don't see why it necessarily has to originate with god.

The point is, God made these tenets out of necessity for man. They weren't originally there. He wanted us to be happy and prosper, not to be evil and ruin everything.

And I don't believe they were particularly good tenets anyways--can't have sex before marriage? Can't rape people unless god commands it? No wonder the church has so many problems with sex; their bible considers sex to be dirty, and no matter how much you see verses about abstinence, it does no good for people in general. If you make rules that are easy to break (you can't look at a woman and not feel lust! Well, most guys probably can't at least to some degree), you're either ignorant or cruel.

If God made any mistake, it was not creating man, but rather Lucifer. He's the one who brought knowledge onto man.

And he still punishes Adam and Eve.
And I don't see why bringing someone knowledge makes them evil.

And as I said before, God gets angry, grieves, and even becomes jealous throughout the Bible. This shows that He cannot see the future. In other words, hope is not an attribute to an omnipotent being, and He makes strides with man to right the wrongs despite the continuation of evil.

And there are also verses that say god predestines people to go to heaven or hell, which would imply that he knew what they were doing. That's what you call a contradiction. If he can get angry and jealous over the things that happen to people, for which he should know what should happen to them (because he predestines them to heaven or hell), then that's a contradiction.
And I can hardly consider might makes right (which god often does) a particularly good effort to help humanity. Neither does hurting those who are not involved (which god often does), nor putting people through cruel, unnecessary tests (which god often does), nor breaking your own rules (which god often does).

With that said, I don't see why you are continuing to hold infinite omnipotence as truth. Because of His knowledge, He can see further down the road, no doubt, but just like in science, mathematics can be misleading.

I'm not; omnipotence doesn't mean your actions have anything to do with truth. Maybe you probably meant omniscience?

I don't hold omniscience to be truth, quite simply because it probably doesn't exist. However, much of what is written in the bible points towards an all knowing god who knows what happens to people since they are predestined to go to heaven or hell (fat lot of good free will does here). I'm not saying I believe any of this to be the truth, but if it were true, the Christian god is infinitely unjust and cruel for not doing anything about the people going to hell. And it's not even about whether or not he can do it; he set up this horrible system in the first place when it didn't even have to be there.

God can have any attribute, and free will can still exist. Even with fate, one has free will. If God has a purpose for you, it's because He sees something in you that isn't going to falter. In the end, it was your will that brought you to your fate.

If god were omniscient, then any sort of free will I have means nothing. Particularly if god can predestine people to go to heaven or hell. Whatever I do won't change the fact that I'm going to one or the other. The whole idea behind free will is that you can use it to change your fate. But if you're fated from the beginning, and it can't be changed, then free will is useless, and probably just as good as if it didn't exist.

There's many different ways of looking at it, but presuming that God is evil is subjective logic. In fact, presuming that Lucifer is evil is subjective logic as well. There's two sides to the coin that must be examined before drawing a dividing line anywhere in the religious context. And since it speaks for all reality, no detail can simply go ignored. You have to take in the entirety of every specific cause/effect.

That depends on whether you consider "cruel" and "unjust" to be evil. In my opinion, being cruel or unjust is immoral, and therefore, "evil". If you're willing to concede that people have different ways of considering evil, then you should have no problems with other people getting into the idea that god is evil.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Personally, I think the term 'evil' is often abused, especially by many theists. At the same time, however, I do think that what is right and wrong needs to be authorized by God. It is only necessary, honestly, because if this wasn't so than mankind would be screwed. Most Western countries have an incredibly strong Christian presence in their laws and customs whether it's realized or not.
Even in the U.S., the President unofficially has to be Christian to get into office. Yet, when looking at religiously mandated countries, there's automatically animosity towards them.

I wanted to bring this up so evil can be more closely examined. No country is 'evil' in itself, yet suffering spurs. According to biblical teachings, it's what causes this suffering that is evil.
The act of feeling animosity towards another is a sin, and therefore evil spawns from it.
In other words, evil does not exist only if everyone shares the same moral values.

Good and evil are co-dependent, needing each other for comparison. I believe that there is a duality on Earth as far as this goes. Everyone has attributes of both, and which one outdoes the other is what labels the individual. In the realm of Heaven, such a duality is not allowed, and so Lucifer was kicked out.

Which brings me to the next thing- Lucifer and evil.
How Lucifer thinks is exactly how we think. This is also why he is called our adversary. Just as many men are your adversary, so is he. Both want you to fall for temptation and vanity,, both want you to believe in their convictions. Lucifer believes his way is right, and has the power to sway others. God disagrees, as Lucifer's way results in greed and death. Man's way results in greed and death. For every person who lives in self-importance and contemporary morals, another is paying the penalty for it. Nothing could be closer to the truth than this, with or without God.

The fundamental aspects of good and evil are really secondary. They do not exist in solidity, but rather are formed out of difference and textbook chaos. Creating a paradox, however, they are what spurred difference and chaos in the first place.
With that said, they are definitely counterparts in the scheme of things. Otherwise, there would've never been differences to begin with.

 

[der Astronom]

Personally, I think the term 'evil' is often abused, especially by many theists. At the same time, however, I do think that what is right and wrong needs to be authorized by God.

Why is that, and why god in particular? Why not Shiva, Thor, Zeus or any other deity?

It is only necessary, honestly, because if this wasn't so than mankind would be screwed. Most Western countries have an incredibly strong Christian presence in their laws and customs whether it's realized or not.
Even in the U.S., the President unofficially has to be Christian to get into office. Yet, when looking at religiously mandated countries, there's automatically animosity towards them.

So you believe in might makes right and appeal to populace; just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right. Just because the majority of people in America happen to be Christian doesn't mean we have to abide by Christian laws, and it would be unconstitutional, since separation of church and state exists to make things fair for people, regardless of what religion you belong to. You can apply the same thing to racism; just because all the white people had all the power and made up all the laws back then, and the black people were reduced to slavery doesn't mean they were ever right.
I would be happy not to live in a country where you have to dress a certain way or be punished for not doing so, where you can be killed for renouncing your religion, you can be stoned for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or raped and abused for no good reason. Would you want to live in such a country? Quite a few of these countries with rules based off of religion allow these things to happen, so I am rather glad that we live in countries that shun such behavior. Our countries rules which protect our freedom to religion and expression exist as they do in spite of religion, and not because of it.

I wanted to bring this up so evil can be more closely examined. No country is 'evil' in itself, yet suffering spurs. According to biblical teachings, it's what causes this suffering that is evil.
The act of feeling animosity towards another is a sin, and therefore evil spawns from it.
In other words, evil does not exist only if everyone shares the same moral values.

Ja, but I can't consider someone evil if they only have "evil" thoughts and never act on them (I probably wouldn't even know they're having them); for example, I can probably imagine particularly painful ways of torturing and killing you, but that doesn't mean I actually want to torture or kill you. Does that make me evil, even if I don't intend on doing such things to you? Thought is not a crime. Action can be.
I don't think sharing the same morals is a necessary precondition for getting along with other people. Accepting that someone else's morals are different and finding ways to coexist helps us get along. I don't have to agree with what Christians believe, and I'll leave them alone so long as they leave me alone about what I believe. You don't achieve cooperation by pretending everyone has to believe stuff they don't believe and forcing them to do so; in any given moment of weakness, they'll most likely be their old selves, abandon ship and flee. Instead, you work with what you're given and agree to disagree.
Which actually makes me wonder if you actually agree with the bible on this matter, and if you do, why you believe it's right.

Good and evil are co-dependent, needing each other for comparison. I believe that there is a duality on Earth as far as this goes. Everyone has attributes of both, and which one outdoes the other is what labels the individual. In the realm of Heaven, such a duality is not allowed, and so Lucifer was kicked out.

Not really; you can have a society of people who only do good (or conversely, only evil); it just doesn't happen in practice because our ideas of good and evil are different from person to person and because we aren't perfect; we all try to be good people, but we don't always succeed at achieving our ideals, and it's not got to do with good or evil depending on the other.
And if you can purge this kind of duality by simply calling Jesus a scapegoat and blaming him for everything, then I don't think you're any better as a person; you're still just as evil as you used to be, if not more so for using a scapegoat.
So I guess heaven would be filled with people scapegoating Jesus for everything that goes wrong.

Which brings me to the next thing- Lucifer and evil.
How Lucifer thinks is exactly how we think. This is also why he is called our adversary. Just as many men are your adversary, so is he. Both want you to fall for temptation and vanity,, both want you to believe in their convictions. Lucifer believes his way is right, and has the power to sway others. God disagrees, as Lucifer's way results in greed and death.

Actually, I don't see how god is any different, since he believes he is right, and he wants us to believe in him, or else he wouldn't torture people with fear of hell. Which is the irony because how can you tell the difference between believing in Lucifer disguised as god and god himself? What if some people aren't perceptive enough to realize that scapegoating Jesus is laying the blame on someone else to remove responsibility, and not realizing that a benevolent, just god would never do something so horrible? If Lucifer were truly evil, wouldn't that be more reflective of something he would do rather than god?

Man's way results in greed and death. For every person who lives in self-importance and contemporary morals, another is paying the penalty for it. Nothing could be closer to the truth than this, with or without God.

That we all die is explained by natural consequences, not god, suffering or any other number of morality related things. And we're all selfish. Even religious people are. They only care about going to heaven, and that's basically what's best for them. They're also selfish enough to scapegoat someone for everything that they do wrong to avoid taking responsibility for it. It's not any different from having inherent selfish desires for your own well-being. And that we have to compensate for these natural feelings, good or bad is ridiculous. Death doesn't need compensating because I'd rather not live with arthritis or a weak immune system. And being selfish doesn't need compensating either because without it, you wouldn't bother to take care of yourself and you'd die.
Suffering happens to people, regardless of what they believe. It's not got to do with if they believe in god, or follow any of his tenets. Natural disasters take people's lives indiscriminately, whether or not they're good or bad. We punish criminals, regardless of whether or not they're in line with what god wants us to believe is right. Regardless, I think we suffer less due to our contemporary morals than we do from the morals during the Dark Ages. One look at secular societies like those in Sweden and Finland are enough to see that; they have lower crime rates, lower incidences of rape or divorce, and they have access to good education and good healthcare.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

I fail to see any scapegoating as far as Jesus. It's actually quite the opposite really. Jesus was crucified,.
But nonetheless, He is the Messiah according to Christians, and he showed mercy to man, forgiving even those who tortured and nailed him to the cross. He was the only being on Earth to not have a duality complex, and look at his beliefs- peaceful and calm as a Hindu cow.
The NT brings with it a lot of grace. In the OT, far more people went to hell. Only those chosen and their families were generally granted into Heaven. That was when duality was practically unacceptable by God and only forgiven with sacrifice or exaction.

Duality: As I mentioned in my last post, duality of good and evil is sort of like a unification theory. In each person individually, there lies a ratio of good and evil adjusted by difference. On the big scale, the duality of good and evil is one unified thing- conflicting moral values.
Good and evil are divided, opinionated constructs, but yet they still exist as one.
Duality unifies this paradox.

God and Lucifer have opposing views on morality. That is why things are the way they are. The difference between them is that Lucifer's way does not hold everyone's interests at heart. He believes in self pride and power while God demands it go to Him.
It's obvious which one is best for the chaos we are bounded by even with religious influence.

Think about if we were to find out with certainty that there was no god? Do you honestly think the world would be a better place? Because personally I think it would slip directly into hellish chaos.
This is another aspect of duality- good and evil would become obsolete individually and be one on the small scale as well if this happened.
The fact is that the world has been practically shaped by religion, and so good and evil have become a natural condition of reason.
Or, in other words, knowledge of good and evil. It's because of Lucifer that duality even exists within mankind.

And I have to say this again, as it is really important to be mindful of this on the current subject we're on.
Sin is not an 'evil act'. It is simply means to 'miss the point'. Thinking a bad thought, as you said, is a sin. Dwelling on thoughts may lead to acting on them. Thus, an evil act.

 

[Chivalry Augustus]

I've always felt that the concepts of natural good and natural evil are synonymous with the belief in god (or the belief in gods). I don't believe in evil as a definable state of being. I don't believe in complete evil. In fact, I don't believe in evil in the sense that so many people use it. It's something of a shock word even though its use has become so prevalent. I don't see how serious people can stand up and talk about a murder case in such ridiculous terms. Don't tell me that somebody is evil, tell me about their motives, their upbringing, what led them to commit their crimes, and what their threat is to the world.

Words including good, evil and god do not belong in the world of law, of legislation, or of serious debate. Somebody or something is not evil. You can abhor what they stand for and justify your state of abhorrence, but to stand up, point a finger at somebody and describe them as evil is based on the same principle as standing up, pointing a finger at somebody and calling them a witch. It's a shock term without a base in evidence. Nobody is evil, the crimes they commit though repugnant should be dismantled and criticised on a basis of solid and hard law, and fought against because of the harm they cause to the wider populace.

Evil is for fiction and for fairy tales - this is the real world, where people are motivated by a complex interaction of feelings, instincts, emotions, natures and nurtures.

 

[der Astronom]

I fail to see any scapegoating as far as Jesus. It's actually quite the opposite really. Jesus was crucified,.
But nonetheless, He is the Messiah according to Christians, and he showed mercy to man, forgiving even those who tortured and nailed him to the cross.

That's exactly the scapegoating I'm talking about. Allowing people to be forgiven for the things they have done, and receiving no punishment or responsibility for it. Just because someone forgives you doesn't mean you're right. Allowing people to be excused for anything they do wrong, and still getting to go to heaven, and not having to take responsibility is scapegoating. And if you have wronged someone, and asked Jesus to forgive you, you haven't done anything for the people you wronged, and you still have a responsibility to the people you have wronged--I consider that more immoral than anyone who does not ask Jesus to forgive their sins and tries to take responsibility by making up for the things he did wrong to someone.
And apparently, god probably wanted Jesus to be tortured (you can't really blame the people that did it since they were predestined to anyways, according to the bible). What I find so stupid about all this is that you can forgive someone without having to kill or torture someone. That is neither mercy nor forgiveness in my opinion.

He was the only being on Earth to not have a duality complex, and look at his beliefs- peaceful and calm as a Hindu cow.

Not if he didn't abolish slavery or condemn the Old Testament. If he truly were benevolent, he would condemn the atrocities in the Old Testament.
And I don't think someone who tells people to leave their family behind for him or his beliefs is necessarily a good person; they are acting on selfish desires, as it is with the kind of behavior religion encourages.

The NT brings with it a lot of grace. In the OT, far more people went to hell. Only those chosen and their families were generally granted into Heaven. That was when duality was practically unacceptable by God and only forgiven with sacrifice or exaction.

Nobody went to hell in the Old Testament; they died and that was it. In the New Testament, people can go to hell and suffer eternal punishment, and that is why it's infinitely worse than the Old Testament.
And that still doesn't address the fact that people who are predestined have not much of a free will, or why we have to accept such a ridiculous notion as being only good and denying everything you do wrong by blaming it on someone else. And for that matter, I don't believe a nice guy like Jesus forgiving you absolves you of doing anything wrong; you'd still be as "evil" as you were before.

Duality: As I mentioned in my last post, duality of good and evil is sort of like a unification theory. In each person individually, there lies a ratio of good and evil adjusted by difference. On the big scale, the duality of good and evil is one unified thing- conflicting moral values.
Good and evil are divided, opinionated constructs, but yet they still exist as one.
Duality unifies this paradox.

But good and evil cannot be quantified on an absolute scale because no one knows for sure what is good and evil; we just have ideas of what is good and what is evil, but no one can agree with what they are. So how do you know that god has any right to judge anyone by the things they do and condemn them for it? For example, why do I have to suffer eternal torment if I've been good to pretty much everyone around me, but don't believe in god?

God and Lucifer have opposing views on morality. That is why things are the way they are. The difference between them is that Lucifer's way does not hold everyone's interests at heart. He believes in self pride and power while God demands it go to Him.

Actually, god is exactly the same as the Lucifer you are describing. If god were completely selfless, he wouldn't kill people he didn't intend to punish. If he really did care about his creations, he wouldn't condemn them to hell or banish them for being curious (he'd have to be incredibly ignorant not to know that). He wouldn't demand people to worship him or stop people from worshipping other idols if he had no self pride, and when he doesn't like something, he uses violence and flooded the planet--that's a demonstration of his power. So how is he really any different from Lucifer?

It's obvious which one is best for the chaos we are bounded by even with religious influence.

Yes it is, and it's to stop having these unhealthy obsessions where one's life is concerned, over deities that hold no sway over our lives, and for which no evidence for their existence exists. We are better off without them and we are more able to make the right choices without them.

Think about if we were to find out with certainty that there was no god? Do you honestly think the world would be a better place? Because personally I think it would slip directly into hellish chaos.

So why aren't Sweden and Finland in chaos? France?
This is the same ridiculous argument where you think people who don't believe in god are immoral; just because you can't use a god to justify morality doesn't mean you necessarily must be immoral; what I actually find scary is how religious people think they have to act evil or be immoral if god doesn't exist--what do you have to gain by killing your neighbors, even if god didn't exist? Or if you have everything you need, why do you care to steal from someone, just because god doesn't exist? That I have no god doesn't prevent me from caring about the people I live with, and in fact, I think it is worse that the biblical god doesn't want you to care about other people that might live with you; he only wants you to care for him, and if you don't, you're probably going to hell, and I find that infinitely more unjust and more selfish than anyone who demands attention.

This is another aspect of duality- good and evil would become obsolete individually and be one on the small scale as well if this happened.
The fact is that the world has been practically shaped by religion, and so good and evil have become a natural condition of reason.

No, it has damaged the thinking capabilities of people who have become indoctrinated by it. It has hampered the growth of science, killed people who didn't deserve it, caused unnecessary wars, destroyed artwork, and revolutions and enlightenment periods have sprung up in spite of religion, and in opposition to religious ideas. And still, it continues to do the same thing, in the form of creationism in science classrooms, misconceptions about condom use, discrimination against homosexuals, problems with abortion and stem cell research, 9/11, and governments based on religion.

Or, in other words, knowledge of good and evil. It's because of Lucifer that duality even exists within mankind.

And I find this statement as unjustified as a previous one you made about god having authority over morality. Provide some evidence that Lucifer is responsible for everything we do wrong, and not that we are ourselves.
And if you believe Lucifer is responsible for the evil that we do, then there's no point in asking for forgiveness from Jesus; it wasn't our fault in the first place.

And I have to say this again, as it is really important to be mindful of this on the current subject we're on.
Sin is not an 'evil act'. It is simply means to 'miss the point'. Thinking a bad thought, as you said, is a sin. Dwelling on thoughts may lead to acting on them. Thus, an evil act.

If that's what you believe, then sin is a useless term. You cannot even consider whether or not an act is bad without even thinking about it. You cannot consider Hitler to be a bad person without having thoughts about what he did. Not all thoughts lead to actions, which is why it's wrong to accuse people of evil for simply thinking about it. It's entirely possible that someone, having thought about it enough times, might decide they won't steal from their neighbors. But that can't happen unless they've considered these "evil" thoughts. And if thinking makes you evil, then it's absurd for god to hold you to being evil in such a sense, and completely unnecessary to ask Jesus for forgiveness. Thoughts do not require forgiveness; you haven't done anything to anybody.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

That's exactly the scapegoating I'm talking about. Allowing people to be forgiven for the things they have done, and receiving no punishment or responsibility for it. Just because someone forgives you doesn't mean you're right. Allowing people to be excused for anything they do wrong, and still getting to go to heaven, and not having to take responsibility is scapegoating. And if you have wronged someone, and asked Jesus to forgive you, you haven't done anything for the people you wronged, and you still have a responsibility to the people you have wronged--I consider that more immoral than anyone who does not ask Jesus to forgive their sins and tries to take responsibility by making up for the things he did wrong to someone.

But you see, the Messiah relinquishes us from ourselves. God doesn't want another Lucifer incident in Heaven, so if we give unto the Messiah and forget about vanity, Heaven will be free of such things happening again.
When it comes the Messiah, it's really just that simple.
Life on Earth is just the beginning according to scripture. The soul never really 'dies'. No act of evil is punishable by eternity in Hell, yet vanity cannot be allowed in Heaven.

Not if he didn't abolish slavery or condemn the Old Testament. If he truly were benevolent, he would condemn the atrocities in the Old Testament.
And I don't think someone who tells people to leave their family behind for him or his beliefs is necessarily a good person; they are acting on selfish desires, as it is with the kind of behavior religion encourages.

It's as I said before in other related threads, God had two choices: He could have softened the inevitable construct of man, or annihilated man altogether.
He flooded the Earth and to no avail, you see. Eventually, grace became the only option. It is not as if He wishes man to suffer.

Nobody went to hell in the Old Testament; they died and that was it.

That's simply just not true. The NT only painted the picture of what Hell is.

But good and evil cannot be quantified on an absolute scale because no one knows for sure what is good and evil; we just have ideas of what is good and what is evil, but no one can agree with what they are. So how do you know that god has any right to judge anyone by the things they do and condemn them for it? For example, why do I have to suffer eternal torment if I've been good to pretty much everyone around me, but don't believe in god?

Duality is the key thing here. As long as there is good, there is room for evil. They both have to co-exist. That doesn't mean both have to be present, however.
The yin-yang paints this pretty well. It presents the duality of not just good and evil, but also life and death and such. All have a duality construct.
As far as you having to suffer eternal torment because you don't believe in God- When it comes down to it, I feel it's not necessarily believing in God, but the things that come with the concept. You have vanity, and it's not allowed in Heaven. God will judge you and do with you what He sees fit. It really comes down to your moral value, really. The fact is, you will believe in God if you die and He appears right in front of you, and therefore you would have believed in Him before being judged.
It all fits pretty well, I think.

So why aren't Sweden and Finland in chaos? France?

Well how about China? It is secular as well and yet is chaotic. The fact is, religion or the lack there of has little to do with it. It really just comes down to general morality.

 

[der Astronom]

But you see, the Messiah relinquishes us from ourselves. God doesn't want another Lucifer incident in Heaven, so if we give unto the Messiah and forget about vanity, Heaven will be free of such things happening again.

No it won't. Scapegoating someone with everything you do wrong doesn't in any way discourage you from doing anything that might be considered evil.

When it comes the Messiah, it's really just that simple.
Life on Earth is just the beginning according to scripture. The soul never really 'dies'. No act of evil is punishable by eternity in Hell, yet vanity cannot be allowed in Heaven.

If you can't punish someone for doing something evil, then what's the point of hell? That would further reinforce the point that god is endlessly cruel and unjust.

It's as I said before in other related threads, God had two choices: He could have softened the inevitable construct of man, or annihilated man altogether.
He flooded the Earth and to no avail, you see. Eventually, grace became the only option. It is not as if He wishes man to suffer.

Or you know, he could have decided not to create us in the first place and spare us and himself all the trouble. Or if he decided to create us anyways, that he knew it was going to happen (he'd have to be incredibly arrogant to expect nothing would go wrong if he isn't perfect), and not throw tantrums or punish people just because they don't agree with him.
And if he really could prevent people from suffering, he'd do it. But then I guess that's because you don't believe he's omnipotent, do you?

That's simply just not true. The NT only painted the picture of what Hell is.

I have found no verse in the Old Testament that indicates the existence of hell. I don't think it was mentioned at all in there, unless you'd like to do some creative twisting to make it seem like hell exists in the Old Testament.

Duality is the key thing here. As long as there is good, there is room for evil. They both have to co-exist. That doesn't mean both have to be present, however.
The yin-yang paints this pretty well. It presents the duality of not just good and evil, but also life and death and such. All have a duality construct.
As far as you having to suffer eternal torment because you don't believe in God- When it comes down to it, I feel it's not necessarily believing in God, but the things that come with the concept. You have vanity, and it's not allowed in Heaven. God will judge you and do with you what He sees fit. It really comes down to your moral value, really. The fact is, you will believe in God if you die and He appears right in front of you, and therefore you would have believed in Him before being judged.
It all fits pretty well, I think.

Even if he did exist, and he revealed himself to me, that wouldn't change what I think of him; if he did exist, I'd still think he's an asshole. And I suppose he wouldn't want me in heaven because I happen to be completely honest about how I feel about beings who punish undeserving people and are needlessly cruel and unjust.
And for that matter, you still haven't exactly explained why god has any authority over morality or judging what happens to us.

Well how about China? It is secular as well and yet is chaotic. The fact is, religion or the lack there of has little to do with it. It really just comes down to general morality.

In the original argument I responded to, you said the world would descend into chaos if we lived without god, and now you're saying religion doesn't have anything to do with it. If you're going to talk about how god prevents us from being chaotic, then you are talking about religion because god is a part of it.
I pointed out France, Sweden and Finland because they are examples of secular societies that live largely without a belief in god and do better than most countries in healthcare and education, and have low crimes; I could hardly call them chaotic. So if your statement about living without god leads to chaos is true, why is it that these secular societies haven't descended into chaos?
I only need a counter example to disprove your point. I am not saying that secular societies not descending into chaos is necessary, only that it is sufficient.

 

[Shaissa]

Well in my opinion, evil is in the mind of the beholder, we say something like...
"Killing is wrong" now we would agree... but yet we don't 100% agree, if someone is going to kill your family, you would kill them if it meant saving your family right? or if we go to war, and a soldier is expected to kill the other side right?

Well what I'm getting at is, evil and good are in the person's mind, and if they believe that there is evil because God is there, and Satan is there or whatever, they will believe it.

Evil isn't black and white, and neither is God as far as I'm concerned.
Man created what is right and wrong from what their own beliefs of life and after-life and thats that.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

No it won't. Scapegoating someone with everything you do wrong doesn't in any way discourage you from doing anything that might be considered evil.

That's right, and that's why not all Christians are going to Heaven either, to be honest. You can't believe in Christ and still flaunt vanity. It's a hard pill to swallow, but it's nonetheless true. God is not going to let Heaven be that of current Earth. In fact, He's going to purge Earth and built on top of it.
(According to scripture. I don't want to confuse the idea of me being agnostic)

If you can't punish someone for doing something evil, then what's the point of hell? That would further reinforce the point that god is endlessly cruel and unjust.

The point of Hell is balance. The idea of holiness is perfection. God served grace out of acknowledgment that we as man cannot achieve such. If we refuse that, balance must be maintained. I see no reason why God would or should be cruel. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that He doesn't want the best for man, some just naturally see an unjust nature of Him because they fail to see the big picture.

Or you know, he could have decided not to create us in the first place and spare us and himself all the trouble. Or if he decided to create us anyways, that he knew it was going to happen (he'd have to be incredibly arrogant to expect nothing would go wrong if he isn't perfect), and not throw tantrums or punish people just because they don't agree with him.
And if he really could prevent people from suffering, he'd do it. But then I guess that's because you don't believe he's omnipotent, do you?

I believe He is omnipotent, but also capable of making mistakes. This is quite relevant throughout the entirety of the Bible. He has the power to create life and a universe for life to dwell in, and yet He becomes grieved to see man screw itself. It's not so much a tantrum as it is dismay and correction.

I have found no verse in the Old Testament that indicates the existence of hell. I don't think it was mentioned at all in there, unless you'd like to do some creative twisting to make it seem like hell exists in the Old Testament.

Daniel 12:2 "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake. Some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt."

Isaiah 33:14 "The sinners in Zion are afraid; Fearfulness has seized the hypocrites: Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?"

The Old Testament has many more references, but these two will more than suffice. Hell was not created when the Messiah came, it has always been there. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise anyways, as saying people die and nothing more goes against the entire construct of life within the bible.

And for that matter, you still haven't exactly explained why god has any authority over morality or judging what happens to us.

I think I explained it quite well actually. Who better than the creator, and who better than the one who holds the only key way of man not tormenting themselves? I can talk about it all day, but the fact remains that man will never achieve peace as a whole.

In the original argument I responded to, you said the world would descend into chaos if we lived without god, and now you're saying religion doesn't have anything to do with it. If you're going to talk about how god prevents us from being chaotic, then you are talking about religion because god is a part of it.
I pointed out France, Sweden and Finland because they are examples of secular societies that live largely without a belief in god and do better than most countries in healthcare and education, and have low crimes; I could hardly call them chaotic. So if your statement about living without god leads to chaos is true, why is it that these secular societies haven't descended into chaos?
I only need a counter example to disprove your point. I am not saying that secular societies not descending into chaos is necessary, only that it is sufficient.

My counter example is China. And Vietnam, and Russia, and others as well. China is even an emerging superpower, and it's still almost as screwed as these other countries.
The fact that Iraq is in turmoil and America is paradise in comparison just further nullifies the idea altogether.
The thing with Christian countries, however, is that many of it's laws are agreeable even to atheists.
What I meant about the world finding out that there is no god is this: Over half the world is religious. Religion gives many people purpose. With that purpose gone, the world would descend into madness. If atheists rebuild, it will not become a paradise, but almost the same as it is now. It's just the nature of man.

People would like to think that religion does not have such a grip, especially in this day and age, but that simply isn't true.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

People would like to think that religion does not have such a grip, especially in this day and age, but that simply isn't true.

I doubt anyone would really argue that. Religion has always been here and, as far as we can tell, always will be. It's part of the human condition and one of many ills plaguing society, but it's not all bad. It does provide a sense of community and kinship (which has negative sides itself, but oh well). The number of atheists is increasing, so perhaps there's hope.

Who better than the creator, and who better than the one who holds the only key way of man not tormenting themselves?

Well, His position as creator doesn't really grant any authority. Having a child does not mean a person will be a good parent (or person, for that matter). And how exactly does God hold the key way of freeing man from torment? Is that just acceptance of God? It seems that only removing free will would work. As long as we have the ability to make choices, even if we are completely well intentioned, we will make mistakes. And mistakes often cause problems or pain.

Regardless, I was thinking the issue of evil doesn't really conflict with many other religions. Only monotheistic religions seem to claim a benevolent and/or omnipotent god. Polytheistic religions have the advantage of having multiple gods of which none are completely powerful and, often, none of them are completely benevolent.

Then again, the way Christianity (especially forms of Protestantism) is handled in the modern era, it's more of a dualistic religion. Sure, only one is actually referred to as God, but Satan is often given nearly as much power as God. Though God triumphs in the end, it isn't as cut and dry as a all-powerful god facing a lesser entity. Otherwise, God wouldn't allow him to exist as he does, able to lead people astray and undermine God's wishes for humanity. Granted, the concept of Satan is not actually within the Bible (as the concept exists now), but it is a large feature in many forms of Protestantism.

It seems the dualistic form is what you're talking about, Sum1sgruj. Otherwise so much emphasis wouldn't be placed on Lucifer/Satan.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Free will is a gift, not a curse. To not have it would make you a mindless vessel. If it is evil to create man in this way, then you would not be on your PC right now posting, nor would you even exist. Are you saying it is evil that you exist?

This is interesting. First of all, there's nothing that I know of existing to imply that free will has some inherent value that makes it "good" or a "gift." There's nothing I know of that says we would not think and feel if our actions were predetermined. Which brings me to the second issue: there's no reason to think we wouldn't exist as we do right now if our paths were set. That's part of the issue with the free will versus determinism argument, there's no way to tell which one of those systems we're in.

Are you saying there's some reason to believe that lacking free will would be objectively evil? Or that evil exists as a non-man-made objective value?

There is a duality in nature with good and evil, we do not need to consider inanimate objects such as a rock. Such things are neutral in their duality.

There is no neutral position in a duality. That directly contradicts the term. If all of nature is a good or evil duality, then every rock MUST be good or evil.

Personally, I think the term 'evil' is often abused, especially by many theists. At the same time, however, I do think that what is right and wrong needs to be authorized by God. It is only necessary, honestly, because if this wasn't so than mankind would be screwed. Most Western countries have an incredibly strong Christian presence in their laws and customs whether it's realized or not.

I don't think anything needs to be authorized by god. One of the stories in the main piece of fiction that supports his existence makes it clear that we have knowledge of good and evil equal to his (in fact, the only thing separating us appears to be immortality, according to the story), so we can come up with morals just fine on our own. Morals seem to be improving drastically as time goes on and we move away from the religion that used to mandate them. God (via the Bible) actually gave us terrible morals, and I'm glad we're escaping from them.

In other words, evil does not exist only if everyone shares the same moral values.

Ultimately, I think evil doesn't exist at all, it's just a fictional concept that exists within subjective moral systems. That being said, even if everyone shared the same moral system, it wouldn't eliminate the existence of evil, it would just define it in a way everyone can agree on. My moral values don't prevent me from violating them, so evil would still thrive if everyone shared morals.

God and Lucifer have opposing views on morality. That is why things are the way they are. The difference between them is that Lucifer's way does not hold everyone's interests at heart. He believes in self pride and power while God demands it go to Him.
It's obvious which one is best for the chaos we are bounded by even with religious influence.

Well, Lucifer inspired people to eat the fruit of knowledge (I'm assuming you're still connecting Lucifer and the serpent, so I'm going with that even though I don't see any connection), and God makes arbitrary rules and punishes people in a viscous fashion. Yeah, it IS obvious who we should side with. You know, if they even existed.

It also looks like you're talking about a dualistic view of religion, where Satan is equal and opposite to God. While very interesting (and the way christianity seems to be moving naturally anyway), if we're going with a monotheistic view of christianity, Satan cannot be equal to God. If they're equal and opposing forces, then the problem of evil has won out, and we're talking about a dualistic system - polytheism, not monotheism. Hence the whole problem of evil in the first place - you can't define evil as an equal force to good and stick with a monotheistic system.

Think about if we were to find out with certainty that there was no god?

The Christian God? It's a lovely thought.

Do you honestly think the world would be a better place?

At first, maybe not. It would be a little rough at first with all the zealots losing it and religious folk having to adapt. But once we realized we were the makers of our own meaning, instead of some cruel tasklord in a magical realm, I definitely believe we'd be in a better place. In every way. A world where no one kills over the slight differences in details of their deity as interpreted by others? Sign me up.

It's as I said before in other related threads, God had two choices: He could have softened the inevitable construct of man, or annihilated man altogether.

So God can make arbitrary rules about chopping off your foreskin, and everyone will follow it for thousands of years (something both unimportant and, depending on who you ask, detrimental to men), but they wouldn't have listened if he had just said "Hey, bitches, no slavery" (something very certainly important, as you're talking about the life of a thinking being)?

I think that God, had he existed, could have done something about it, and the picture you paint portrays him as weaker than the gods of most polytheistic systems. He can create the universe, but not prevent slavery? Seems to me that at best he was lying about the creation thing (as he's obviously a weakling and a coward in this scenario).

As far as you having to suffer eternal torment because you don't believe in God- When it comes down to it, I feel it's not necessarily believing in God, but the things that come with the concept. You have vanity, and it's not allowed in Heaven. God will judge you and do with you what He sees fit. It really comes down to your moral value, really. The fact is, you will believe in God if you die and He appears right in front of you, and therefore you would have believed in Him before being judged.

The Bible directly disagrees with this.

You can't believe in Christ and still flaunt vanity.

Yes, you totally can. Believing in Christ does not make it physically impossible to flaunt vanity.

There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that He doesn't want the best for man, some just naturally see an unjust nature of Him because they fail to see the big picture.

What big picture might that be? It seems like God just wants what's best for himself. He wants man to bow to him and follow his terrible rules.

I believe He is omnipotent, but also capable of making mistakes.

So he's all-powerful, but not all-powerful enough to do things correctly? That's not omnipotence. Could you define omnipotence as you're using it?

I think I explained it quite well actually. Who better than the creator, and who better than the one who holds the only key way of man not tormenting themselves? I can talk about it all day, but the fact remains that man will never achieve peace as a whole.

Man. Since the Bible makes it clear man knows as much about good and evil as God, it seems like he's well qualified to do things for himself. That's quite the claim that "man will never achieve peace as a whole." Have any evidence for that? France, Sweden, etc. seem to be good counterpoints to this claim.

My counter example is China. And Vietnam, and Russia, and others as well. China is even an emerging superpower, and it's still almost as screwed as these other countries.

Your counter-example is pointless. As der Astronom said, "I am not saying that secular societies not descending into chaos is necessary, only that it is sufficient" meaning that he is not claiming secular society prevents descent into chaos - he's just claiming it doesn't guarantee that descent. Your counter examples aren't addressing anything - he has used examples to show that some societies without god did not descend into chaos, meaning that your claim that "it would slip directly into hellish chaos." is incorrect. If you want to argue his point, you have to defeat his examples, and not provide counter examples. To put it in simple terms he has said "SOME societies do not descend into chaos without god" and your counter examples are only support against the statement "ALL societies do not descend into chaos without god" (which no one has claimed).

People would like to think that religion does not have such a grip, especially in this day and age, but that simply isn't true.

People are all too aware of the grip religion has (some even over-estimate it, I'd bet), and think that grip is the problem.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sum1sgruj
You can't believe in Christ and still flaunt vanity.

Yes, you totally can. Believing in Christ does not make it physically impossible to flaunt vanity.

This right here- the ridiculous technicality front, will serve as a good example to the things I will completely ignore.

Anyways,

This is interesting. First of all, there's nothing that I know of existing to imply that free will has some inherent value that makes it "good" or a "gift." There's nothing I know of that says we would not think and feel if our actions were predetermined. Which brings me to the second issue: there's no reason to think we wouldn't exist as we do right now if our paths were set. That's part of the issue with the free will versus determinism argument, there's no way to tell which one of those systems we're in.

Are you saying there's some reason to believe that lacking free will would be objectively evil? Or that evil exists as a non-man-made objective value?

It's simple to explain- what is the point of life without free will? There is nothing I know of that states it is a 'gift'-
besides rationality. If your free will was taken away, would that be a gift to you?
By extension, it is evil. It's the most vain thing that could ever be done, really. How can you proclaim that God should not have authority and yet justify the idea of being a mindless vessel?
Furthermore, free will and determinism can co-exist. It doesn't have to be either or. In fact, it makes more sense that both are dualistic as far as biblical teaching goes.

There is no neutral position in a duality. That directly contradicts the term. If all of nature is a good or evil duality, then every rock MUST be good or evil.

Good and evil are essentially the same thing- conflicting moral values. But conflicting moral values result in separation,, good and evil. This is a paradox that can only be explained by combining both into a concept of duality, where individually everything is neutral but altogether there is good and evil. And vice versa (hence duality).
Good and evil, however, can only be attributed to things that have values, so a rock's duality is neutral.

Think about light having a wave/particle duality unlike other matter, and it becomes picture perfect.

I don't think anything needs to be authorized by god. One of the stories in the main piece of fiction that supports his existence makes it clear that we have knowledge of good and evil equal to his (in fact, the only thing separating us appears to be immortality, according to the story), so we can come up with morals just fine on our own. Morals seem to be improving drastically as time goes on and we move away from the religion that used to mandate them. God (via the Bible) actually gave us terrible morals, and I'm glad we're escaping from them.

First, I don't know if you've noticed, but China, Vietnam, Russia, and other screwed countries are full of atheists.
China is secular and holds public executions.
Christian countries uphold laws that most atheists fully agree with.

I don't see how God gave us terrible morals at all. In fact, I believe that to be a flat out misconception. It was man that did all the slavery, murder, rape, greed, etc.
God actually softened the inevitable. Anymore would have resulted in Him purging the Earth once more. God took the Jews out of slavery and they started worshipping a golden calf before Moses could even get back down the damn mountain. The Messiah came and relinquished man of their sins and he was labeled a blasphemer by the Jews.
Do you honestly think that they would've gotten rid of slavery? God couldn't punish them without punishing all mankind. The fact that they were His chosen people doesn't exactly inhibit that notion either.

Also, please do not insult this debate with calling the Bible 'fiction' as if it some kind of truth. Such things are unneeded and quite unknown.

Well, Lucifer inspired people to eat the fruit of knowledge (I'm assuming you're still connecting Lucifer and the serpent, so I'm going with that even though I don't see any connection), and God makes arbitrary rules and punishes people in a viscous fashion. Yeah, it IS obvious who we should side with. You know, if they even existed.

God acknowledged that man cannot reach holiness, and that's why the Messiah is necessary. His arbitrary rules never existed until man screwed itself beyond repair. This was because of Lucifer's influence.
Man's been brought into torment, and the bringer believes he has done the opposite. The ones who were brought fail to see it, even as their foundation rattles.

Such a beautiful work of irony.

It also looks like you're talking about a dualistic view of religion, where Satan is equal and opposite to God.

Woah, I never said anything about Lucifer being equal to God.
Back that right up. I said that there is duality in good and evil, not in the abilities of angels and gods.
God could have removed Lucifer from existence if He wanted to, but spared him because He promised Lucifer that he'd be the keeper of Earth. Lucifer was kicked out of Heaven for the same reason we are not allowed in Heaven- vanity.
It's important to remember that term if you wish to competently debate this with me. I only say this because you may very well be finding yourself tripping up over the concept attaching to it. It is a philosophical and near mathematical truth of how chaos begins (fully relevant in the story of Lucifer), and continues (fully relevant to the world we live in).

 

[der Astronom]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sum1sgruj
You can't believe in Christ and still flaunt vanity.

Yes, you totally can. Believing in Christ does not make it physically impossible to flaunt vanity.

This right here- the ridiculous technicality front, will serve as a good example to the things I will completely ignore.

There's nothing ridiculous about it. Provide a counter argument that shows that Christians cannot logically be vain.

It's simple to explain- what is the point of life without free will? There is nothing I know of that states it is a 'gift'-
besides rationality. If your free will was taken away, would that be a gift to you?

That's argument from ignorance. Just because you might not consider the taking away of free will to be a gift doesn't mean the converse is necessarily true.

By extension, it is evil. It's the most vain thing that could ever be done, really.

It's not vain; it's just unjust.

Good and evil are essentially the same thing- conflicting moral values. But conflicting moral values result in separation,, good and evil. This is a paradox that can only be explained by combining both into a concept of duality, where individually everything is neutral but altogether there is good and evil. And vice versa (hence duality).
Good and evil, however, can only be attributed to things that have values, so a rock's duality is neutral.

Yes, but unlike people, rocks are incapable of performing things that are considered good or evil; just because earthquakes or landslides happen doesn't mean you blame a rock for falling and hitting your house in the same way you blame someone for dropping a rock on your house.

First, I don't know if you've noticed, but China, Vietnam, Russia, and other screwed countries are full of atheists.
China is secular and holds public executions.

The morality of those countries cannot be blamed on atheism. Actually, that there are atheists in China, Vietnam or Russia is a moot point because atheism says nothing about morality. Why not find me a country or society that promotes humanist secularism that you think is screwed? I think that's the better morality that Jquestionmark is driving at.

Christian countries uphold laws that most atheists fully agree with.

Actually, I don't think we do. For one, I don't agree with laws that prevent homosexuals from marrying. I also support separation of church and state. I don't think creationism has any place in the public school system. I don't think stem cell research should be illegal. I think abortions should be legal, and some atheists will agree with me on these things. And these are some things that countries governed by Christianity might not agree with.

I don't see how God gave us terrible morals at all. In fact, I believe that to be a flat out misconception. It was man that did all the slavery, murder, rape, greed, etc.

But he never condemned slavery, and in fact, he commanded people to murder and rape the people they conquered.

God actually softened the inevitable. Anymore would have resulted in Him purging the Earth once more. God took the Jews out of slavery and they started worshipping a golden calf before Moses could even get back down the damn mountain. The Messiah came and relinquished man of their sins and he was labeled a blasphemer by the Jews.

Well someone clearly doesn't agree with the concept of freedom of religion. And by the way, anyone who doesn't support freedom of religion is not benevolent.

Do you honestly think that they would've gotten rid of slavery? God couldn't punish them without punishing all mankind. The fact that they were His chosen people doesn't exactly inhibit that notion either.

Since you believe god is omnipotent, then yes, it would be easy for him to get rid of slavery. And I don't see why everyone else needs to be punished. They didn't do anything. It's the same problem with trying to punish a group of people in some city, but the entire city has to take the fall for it, even if they had nothing to do with it.

Also, please do not insult this debate with calling the Bible 'fiction' as if it some kind of truth. Such things are unneeded and quite unknown.

Actually, it is known that a great deal of what is written in the bible is either a contradiction, in which case it holds no truth at all, or it is historically or scientifically inaccurate--and holds no truth either.

God acknowledged that man cannot reach holiness, and that's why the Messiah is necessary. His arbitrary rules never existed until man screwed itself beyond repair. This was because of Lucifer's influence.
Man's been brought into torment, and the bringer believes he has done the opposite. The ones who were brought fail to see it, even as their foundation rattles.

As I said, scapegoating someone doesn't resolve you of your responsibilities. If you do wrong now and scapegoat Jesus for it, it doesn't guarantee that you won't do wrong when you're in heaven. You'll still be the same person you were before when you did wrong.
If this was all Lucifer's fault, why did everyone else have to be punished as well?

Woah, I never said anything about Lucifer being equal to God.
Back that right up. I said that there is duality in good and evil, not in the abilities of angels and gods.
God could have removed Lucifer from existence if He wanted to, but spared him because He promised Lucifer that he'd be the keeper of Earth. Lucifer was kicked out of Heaven for the same reason we are not allowed in Heaven- vanity.

Then god has bad judgment and probably shouldn't be using this same judgment to send people to hell.
And I consider god to be just as vain as Lucifer. Once again, you fail to explain the difference between god and Lucifer, and one could easily be the other.

It's important to remember that term if you wish to competently debate this with me. I only say this because you may very well be finding yourself tripping up over the concept attaching to it. It is a philosophical and near mathematical truth of how chaos begins (fully relevant in the story of Lucifer), and continues (fully relevant to the world we live in).

Your assertion of chaos is unfounded. Please explain it more clearly because you just mentioned philosophy and math without explaining exactly how that has to do with how chaos works.
If it's your story about god and Lucifer, please explain why we have to believe any of it as being true, as none of it has anything whatsoever to do with math, and I don't know why it would be related to philosophy either.