|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Apr 9, 2010 3:24:50 GMT -5
This is Preaching and Worship material. As such... *punt*
|
|
ytdn
New Member
Posts: 35
|
Post by ytdn on Apr 9, 2010 3:28:08 GMT -5
Whence Cometh Evil “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270 if you ask me this is epic pownige to all god believers ;D ;D prove me wrong. Well, I'm a Catholic (very very technically), so I'll try and answer your question. Back in the day, Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This meant they gained 'Original Sin', as in the capacity to do evil things, basically, free will. If God starts making it so people can't commit evil, that contradicts free will. In conclusion, God thinks we're responsible and smart enough to deal with our own problems and isn't going to wave his magic hand and fix everything when we screw up. Taking responsibility for our own actions is the price that Adam and Eve paid for knowledge, so we've just got to deal with it. Sufficient?
|
|
|
Post by Meshakhad on Apr 9, 2010 3:47:22 GMT -5
Answer: If G-d prevents all evil, that defeats the point of free will.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 9, 2010 7:36:39 GMT -5
The Riddle of Epicuris Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? get it? Don't put to much stock into anthological arguments such as this. They are great at provoking thought, but not much else. Take the first part "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent." This would be true, if God was bound to the limits of logic. The very idea of omnipotents is something really beyond that. The old questions "can God create a rock so large even he can't move it" is a good example. This question would seem to remove the possibility of omnipotence even being a possibility since at there will be at least one thing the God could not do. Unless we allow non-logical answers. "Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent." Good and evil are very often subjective. They are also very often seen as two part of a whole. One can argue that without one, you could not not measure the other. Would a man who does something that could be perceived as evil be evil if it was for good ends? "Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?" Again whenever Good and Evil come into and argument we must realize they are subjective.
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Apr 10, 2010 21:52:11 GMT -5
I always thought "god", a germanic word, referred to a mound spirit, an idol, a noun meaning "to pour" or "to invoke" or perhaps to a long dead chieftain called Gaut. So, yeah!
I'd also wager that Omnipotence, Omniscience and particularly Omnibenevolence were all a wish list of impossibilities chucked in for the "wow" factor.
What was the point of this discussion again?
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Apr 11, 2010 0:07:04 GMT -5
Hell if I know.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Apr 11, 2010 2:44:05 GMT -5
All religious people of any faith are right-winger Christian fundies, and atheists are superior.
I guess that's what the point of this topic is.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Apr 11, 2010 12:35:00 GMT -5
Holy crap, you mean they aren't?
|
|
|
Post by safaraz on Apr 11, 2010 16:07:19 GMT -5
All religious people of any faith are right-winger Christian fundies, and atheists are superior. I guess that's what the point of this topic is. That is an attitude I see (either expressed outright or at least heavily implied) from far too many atheists (no offense to anyone here who are all lovely people of course )
|
|
|
Post by big_electron on Apr 11, 2010 16:19:30 GMT -5
thephalanx: you really need to open a YouTube account and post your arguments there. The Christians we have here are sane, but the ones at YT will probably block you, or just do not allow any responses.
|
|
|
Post by Random Guy on Apr 11, 2010 18:21:53 GMT -5
Fundies do have an answer to the problem of evil, but it requires a lot of ridiculous assumptions that don't make sense and are not supported by any empirical evidence.
Essentially, the idea is that the world was originally created to be perfect, with no pain, suffering, or death, sharks ate plants, etc. That is, until Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and caused death and sin to enter the world, making everything the way it is today.
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on Apr 11, 2010 19:33:14 GMT -5
See, that's why I'm agnostic. The WHOLE PLANET has to suffer because one dumbass human fucked up? Yeah that God is an asshole.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Apr 11, 2010 22:23:57 GMT -5
Well, I'm a Catholic (very very technically), so I'll try and answer your question. Back in the day, Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This meant they gained 'Original Sin', as in the capacity to do evil things, basically, free will. If God starts making it so people can't commit evil, that contradicts free will. In conclusion, God thinks we're responsible and smart enough to deal with our own problems and isn't going to wave his magic hand and fix everything when we screw up. Taking responsibility for our own actions is the price that Adam and Eve paid for knowledge, so we've just got to deal with it. Sufficient? Nope. For one thing, free will has restrictions anyway. I'm incapable of flying around like Superman, traveling through time, seeing through walls, breathing underwater, etc., yet I still have free will. Humans could conceivably be incapable of doing evil things to each other and still have free will. For another thing, not all suffering is caused by free will. Sometimes bad things just happen that aren't anyone's fault, either by maliciousness or negligence. Also, he's God. Couldn't an all powerful, all knowing deity make us so that we could make bad choices but wouldn't? And for that matter, why did he put the Tree of Knowledge in the garden in the first place? If he's all knowing, he knew exactly what would happen. Clearly he wanted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Apr 12, 2010 2:22:13 GMT -5
Another one that gets me about that argument is what about the person whose free will is being limited by the asshole doing evil to them while God is too busy not wanting to limit said asshole's free will?
|
|
ytdn
New Member
Posts: 35
|
Post by ytdn on Apr 12, 2010 3:39:55 GMT -5
'Kay then. Yes, but that's not the point. The point is that God wants us to have the free will to do good things because we want to, which means we must have the choice to do bad things. Yeaahh... I got nothing. Sorry. See point 2. Exactly. He wanted humanity to have free will to do good and evil, but he needed them to make that choice themselves, free will and all that. Please keep in mind that I'm only technically a Catholic. I'm not a theologian or anything, so I can't explain the nitty gritty stuff really well. Sorry again.
|
|