The Problem of Evil

[Jquestionmark]

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.

If you are unwilling to engage in debate with valid points that I make, it's your right. You fail to explain in what way my point is ridiculous, though. This only serves as a good example of your refusal to address good refutations of your claims.

Also, it's worth noting, in a debate technicalities are important: the technical aspects of what you say form your claims. If there is a flaw in the technical aspects, there is a flaw in the claim.

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 rationality supports this claim, I would appreciate if you would explain the reasoning. You also haven't addressed the issue that there would be no way for us to be aware of our situation being free will based or deterministic. We could reason and think and act just fine if our actions were predetermined.

If your free will was taken away, would that be a gift to you?

How would I even know? This is the problem with the free will versus determinism argument - from our perspective, both are the same.

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?

As I am explaining for the second time, determinism does not make us mindless. Also, the two points (god's authority and determinism being a possibility) are not related unless you have something connecting them. My claim regarding god's authority is not undermined by the reasoning I use regarding free will versus determinism (especially when I made it clear we would not be mindless vessels: that's your claim, not mine, and if you want to assert it, provide reasoning that determinism would make us mindless).

Again, I ask: "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?"

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.

How would we ever know when we're making our own choices and when our free will is lacking? And if free will is so great, why is it not the only state, instead of a mixture of the two?

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.

So, we're all neutral in a good and evil sense? What's the point of good and evil then?

Rocks have no value? Or do you mean moral values? I thought you claimed there is a duality in nature - is the majority of nature (non-humans) excluded from the term nature?

Also, a duality contains TWO parts, not three. Neutral would be a third part.

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

So the rock is good and evil?

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.

So there have never been any Christian nations with public executions?

Christian countries uphold laws that most atheists fully agree with.

Overwhelming evidence says no. The use of the word fully might be what's tripping you up, though. You could try making the statement more vague, I guess.

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.

Yes, we did. Perhaps because god's morals were insufficient to prevent us? Or maybe because we were barbaric and there was no god? Regardless, we're learning, and not because of religion (since religion hasn't changed much lately, I would have to think we're doing it in spite of religion).

God actually softened the inevitable.

Telling people how to treat their slaves implies that it's okay to have slaves. This is a fine example of terrible morals.

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.

Since there's no evidence that the Jews were ever in Egypt, I fail to see god saving them from anything. What's wrong with worshiping a golden calf? Is there actually something wrong with that (other than being silly and pointless)? I only see a god jealous to lose out on attention. In fact, Bible quote time:

"(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth." Deuteronomy 6:15

The golden calf isn't an example of people doing something wrong, it's just about God being greedy for attention. Also, I could be way off, but didn't he promise to cut out the purging thing after the flood? So no, him fixing slavery would not have resulted in a purge (unless a}he broke his word or b}you think the world would be worse off without slavery having happened).

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?

No, and that's my point.

God couldn't punish them without punishing all mankind.

Yes, he could have. Quite easily. Also, I never said he had to punish them, just stop them.

The fact that they were His chosen people doesn't exactly inhibit that notion either.

I thought he loved everyone? Picking favourites doesn't seem that benevolent.

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.

Any evidence that the Bible is not fiction will get me to stop calling it that, but as it currently stands, I don't see any. No insult to the debate is occurring, I'm just addressing the literature with the best information available. Do you have evidence that every word of the Bible is true?

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.

So you agree that the rules are arbitrary? And I fail to see where Lucifer screwed anyone. Could you be a little more specific?

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.

If you're referring to the garden of eden incident, it's a serpent's fault (poor guy, lost his legs for it too). And I don't know that I'd say knowledge of good and evil is torment. God inflicted the torment as a punishment against people that didn't know the difference between right and wrong (remember, they didn't have knowledge of good and evil 'til after they ate the fruit) when they did something he considered wrong. That's not ironic, just cruel and arbitrary.

Also, what foundation is rattling?

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.

That's why I said "it looks like you're" and not just "you are."

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.

You are aware that the Lucifer story is not originally contained in the old testament (or the bible at all), but was added later? In fact, him getting kicked out of heaven doesn't show up until the first century.

And where is vanity listed as the reason humans aren't allowed into heaven? I thought it was refusal to believe in Jesus (you know, according to the Bible)?

It's important to remember that term if you wish to competently debate this with me.

I'm debating competently just fine, thank you. But here's an issue I see with the foundation of your debate: where is this whole vanity thing coming from anyways? I'm failing to see any support for it in the Bible, and it looks like it's just one of the seven deadly sins (Pride) and not the only (or origin of) sin.

I only say this because you may very well be finding yourself tripping up over the concept attaching to it.

I am having a bit of trouble, but only because I'm not seeing any basis for it other than your personal view of Christianity, and not normal Christian teachings.

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).

I fail to see how your interpretation of vanity is philosophically true (could you lay out your argument clearly so that we can examine it?), or how math has anything to do with this. Could you show the mathematical basis for vanity creating chaos?

This may be your opinion, but without a very good line of reasoning, we have no reason to see it as any sort of truth.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

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

See, this is why debating with you two is so frustrating. I say that you cannot believe in Christ and flaunt vanity, and..
you know what, it's not even worth wasting space on this post

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.

Okay..

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

..so your contradiction speaks.

And life without free will is vain, as there is no purpose in it. Does God want praise? How is it praise if there is no will in it? Does God want company? How is it company if there is no will in it? Does God need slaves? No, He's God. What purpose would he need slaves?

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.

Exactly, that's why it's duality is neutral. It has no values to be affected by good/evil or to variate good/evil onto something else.

How would we ever know when we're making our own choices and when our free will is lacking? And if free will is so great, why is it not the only state, instead of a mixture of the two?

Our free will never lacks. We can never know if fate exists, because we do not know what our fates are.
But both can exist in unison. There is no rationality that can prove otherwise.





I could sit here and simplify many of your other arguments, as well as point out your own contradictions-
>Good and evil are only opinion, remember?
>Free will isn't a gift, but I wouldn't be able to contend God without it
>Duality is a concept of generic conflict//good and evil. Not good and evil. I made that very clear. I don't know what you all have made of that, but ok..
>God/Lucifer being equal and opposite? Someone is very ill-informed on where they stand individually.
>You both think that the world is getting better. Wha? Maybe where you live.

I could go on and on with all this, but quite simply, there is no need to re-explain. Just hit the number thumbs on the thread and go back to previous pages.

Vanity is the reason why God would be justified in purging man, and yet He is giving you a chance to prove that you will not disturb Heaven with it. Balance must be maintained, eye for an eye, so on and so on..

If you cannot prove these things wrong, then I see no point in continuing on this thread.

And why is it always you two? It's kind of disturbing to tell you the truth. It's almost as if you both need eachother to back one another up, as this debate was tangible until another one of you hits the thread, and all of a sudden bOoM! There goes intuition right on out the window and it all becomes damned to technical madness.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

And life without free will is vain, as there is no purpose in it.

Even if you consider life without free choice to be meaningless, if we were unaware of things being determined there would still be the illusion of choice. So from our perspective, it's kind of a moot question.

Exactly, that's why it's duality is neutral. It has no values to be affected by good/evil or to variate good/evil onto something else.

Well yeah, but it doesn't have duality. Duality would mean two states of existence/nature (good/evil in this case) of which it has neither, so it does not have a duality.

>Good and evil are only opinion, remember?

Of course.

>Free will isn't a gift, but I wouldn't be able to contend God without it

Unless you were determined to. And contend God how, exactly?

>Duality is a concept of generic conflict//good and evil.

Duality means something has a dual state, whereas dualism means two things are in binary opposition.

>God/Lucifer being equal and opposite? Someone is very ill-informed on where they stand individually.

Well, a lot of denominations grant the Lucifer creation quite a lot of power. It ranges from Lucifer directly interfering with man's affairs to deceive or corrupt (even possess) to him creating the entire fossil record to mislead people. God's dominance over Lucifer gets called into question a lot because people wonder why God just didn't get rid of him in the first place. So it makes sense that God could be more powerful and Lucifer is still around if God is an asshole, apathetic, or has a thought process we can't conceive (which would make sense with an all-powerful kind of god, I suppose).

>You both think that the world is getting better. Wha? Maybe where you live.

I'd argue that man's lot in the world has been improving steadily since prehistory with only brief moments where things got worse before we began progressing again.

Vanity is the reason why God would be justified in purging man, and yet He is giving you a chance to prove that you will not disturb Heaven with it.

At what point does self worth, preservation, or interest turn into vanity?

And if vanity is the huge issue, why doesn't god kill the vain for good when they die, rather than sending them to eternal (or even temporary) torment? To do so is incredibly cruel. And if we have the chance at redemption, why not just offer to smush our souls for good when we die, in case we'd like to give up rather than suffer? If God valued free will, it seems like that would be a viable option.

Your interpretation of Christianity is incredibly different than what's actually in the Bible (without some very liberal interpretation, which varies greatly between people), but I suppose it's a unique one.

If you cannot prove these things wrong, then I see no point in continuing on this thread.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

It grieves to say this, but nothing has proved my statements wrong, and it will likely stay that way. So I must pull from this debate.

I have defined and exemplified duality of generic conflict/good and evil exactly it should be. It almost pains me to see these 'matter of fact' statements fail under their own pretenses.
Logical fallacies masquerading as truth in lieu of my previous explanations to get the upper hand in the debate.
Really getting old.

Goodbye, thread.

 

[der Astronom]

It grieves to say this, but nothing has proved my statements wrong, and it will likely stay that way. So I must pull from this debate.

And is it so much trouble just to answer a few questions? If you really believe your statements are correct, then surely, it should be really easy to answer any questions we have about your arguments, right?

I have defined and exemplified duality of generic conflict/good and evil exactly it should be. It almost pains me to see these 'matter of fact' statements fail under their own pretenses.

Apparently, you're just not seeing the problem with the duality model of good and evil. I think we get what you're trying to explain, but we just happen to think it doesn't make sense.

Logical fallacies masquerading as truth in lieu of my previous explanations to get the upper hand in the debate.
Really getting old.

Goodbye, thread.

In debate, identifying logical fallacies is extremely important. If your argument fails on logical grounds, there's no reason why anyone should be convinced by it. If you disagreed that it was a fallacy to begin with, all you had to do was dispute it by explaining why you think it isn't a fallacy. And if you don't like the way this works, then tough luck; you can't expect to pose an argument and not have anyone tear it to shreds. It can and does happen to debates, and that's the whole point. If you just want to make statements for the sake of it, and don't want people picking it apart, even if your arguments are flawed, then it's not in this forum.

 

[Jquestionmark]

See, this is why debating with you two is so frustrating. I say that you cannot believe in Christ and flaunt vanity, and..
you know what, it's not even worth wasting space on this post

It sure is tough when people want you explain or justify your claims, huh? Wouldn't want to waste space on actually responding to the refutations against you... You still haven't actually responded to the refutation, by the way.

And life without free will is vain, as there is no purpose in it. Does God want praise? How is it praise if there is no will in it? Does God want company? How is it company if there is no will in it? Does God need slaves? No, He's God. What purpose would he need slaves?

These are good questions, and kind of point out why god might want free will (not that he's even seemed to have issue with the idea of slavery... but okay), but in no way to you explain how life without free will is vain. Have you read the definition of vain lately?

Exactly, that's why it's duality is neutral. It has no values to be affected by good/evil or to variate good/evil onto something else.

How did this third value of neutral come to be in the good and evil duality?

Our free will never lacks. We can never know if fate exists, because we do not know what our fates are.
But both can exist in unison. There is no rationality that can prove otherwise.

Other than the fact that you don't have free will if you are forced (see also "fated") to do something. So no, they can't exist in unison.

I could sit here and simplify many of your other arguments, as well as point out your own contradictions-
>Good and evil are only opinion, remember?

I'm not the one who said it is a duality in all of nature. So yeah, I remember.

>Free will isn't a gift, but I wouldn't be able to contend God without it

So something that lets you struggle against god has to be a gift? Is that what you're trying to say? I don't follow this at all...

>Duality is a concept of generic conflict//good and evil. Not good and evil. I made that very clear. I don't know what you all have made of that, but ok..

We're just addressing the claims you made about this concept.

>God/Lucifer being equal and opposite? Someone is very ill-informed on where they stand individually.

Thanks for trying to insult me. Good job showing how great you are at debate by calling your opponents "ill-informed." Like I said, it "looks like" that's what you're saying. I never made the claim that it was necessarily what you said. Did you read the response where I clarified that?

>You both think that the world is getting better. Wha? Maybe where you live.

So you're saying the world was better when we stoned people for speaking their mind and had slaves? Where do you live, that is worse than a world like that?

I could go on and on with all this, but quite simply, there is no need to re-explain. Just hit the number thumbs on the thread and go back to previous pages.

But there is a need to explain, or we wouldn't have pointed out issues with your claims. You may not have realized this from all the times you've done this in other threads: you don't explain everything perfectly all the time, and we ask questions because you need to explain/clarify. If you just reference things you already said, you're not arguing, you're just playing a broken record.

Vanity is the reason why God would be justified in purging man, and yet He is giving you a chance to prove that you will not disturb Heaven with it. Balance must be maintained, eye for an eye, so on and so on..

So, we're not allowed in heaven because we're vain, but we're allowed to be vain as long as we don't disturb heaven with it? How would that even disturb heaven. I'm not following you at all.

If you cannot prove these things wrong, then I see no point in continuing on this thread.

We already did that, in case you missed it.

And why is it always you two? It's kind of disturbing to tell you the truth. It's almost as if you both need eachother to back one another up, as this debate was tangible until another one of you hits the thread, and all of a sudden bOoM! There goes intuition right on out the window and it all becomes damned to technical madness.

It's because we both feel the need to show the flaws in your claims. We're not the only two, for that matter. And as I said before, the technical stuff matters.

It grieves to say this, but nothing has proved my statements wrong, and it will likely stay that way. So I must pull from this debate.

You only waited a single post, and even it pointed out some issues with things you said. Maybe you missed it? I don't know...

I have defined and exemplified duality of generic conflict/good and evil exactly it should be. It almost pains me to see these 'matter of fact' statements fail under their own pretenses.
Logical fallacies masquerading as truth in lieu of my previous explanations to get the upper hand in the debate.

What? Whose statements fail? Which logical fallacies? How is anyone supposed to know what you're talking about here?

Really getting old.

You say this every time we provide good refutations and won't back down.

Goodbye, thread.

This too.