Political Crossfire Forums

[Anyis]

God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, he is weak -- and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?"
-Epicurus


Discuss.

[Prog]

Anyis wrote: -- which is equally foreign to god's nature....

Discuss.

You're privy to God's nature? -- Do tell!

[Anyis]

Prog wrote: Anyis wrote: -- which is equally foreign to god's nature....

Discuss.

You're privy to God's nature? -- Do tell!

Im not the one defending God. I dont even no how ppl can, have u evr met God? Then how do u no he is merciful? How do u no he is just, when so many people die painful, tragic deaths each day from starvation and torture? After Hurricane Katrina there was a lady who was in a documentary. she said somethin to the extent of ' thank god that my family is alright'...well what about all the hundreds of other people who drowned and suffocated? Many of them were 'God's children' too. Or did God turn his head as their cries of anguish and pleading were muffled by the sounds of rushing water coming to take them to their death!? People would say, 'O it was God's will that it was their time to go'...What is that!? If it was 'their time to go', then why must they die such a horrible horrible death?

"The living say that there would be no happiness without horrible things in the world...but what do you think the dead would say about the horrible things that killed them?" You can quote me on that. Just think about that tonite as you say your prays and lay in your nice comfy mattress and thank God for everything that you have...Think about the millions of people out there in the world who have no mattress to be thankful 4.

[Prog]

Anyis wrote: Im not the one defending God. I dont even no how ppl can, have u evr met God? Then how do u no he is merciful? How do u no he is just....

I don't!

My lack of knowledge of God and your presumption of knowledge of God.......doesn't mean jack-s**t!

[Anyis]

Prog wrote: Anyis wrote: Im not the one defending God. I dont even no how ppl can, have u evr met God? Then how do u no he is merciful? How do u no he is just....

I don't!

My lack of knowledge of God and your presumption of knowledge of God.......doesn't mean jack-s**t!

My knowledge of God? lol...you are a sad stange little man

[mojo]

Anyis wrote: Prog wrote: Anyis wrote: -- which is equally foreign to god's nature....

Discuss.

You're privy to God's nature? -- Do tell!

Im not the one defending God. I dont even no how ppl can, have u evr met God? Then how do u no he is merciful? How do u no he is just, when so many people die painful, tragic deaths each day from starvation and torture? After Hurricane Katrina there was a lady who was in a documentary. she said somethin to the extent of ' thank god that my family is alright'...well what about all the hundreds of other people who drowned and suffocated? Many of them were 'God's children' too. Or did God turn his head as their cries of anguish and pleading were muffled by the sounds of rushing water coming to take them to their death!? People would say, 'O it was God's will that it was their time to go'...What is that!? If it was 'their time to go', then why must they die such a horrible horrible death?

"The living say that there would be no happiness without horrible things in the world...but what do you think the dead would say about the horrible things that killed them?" You can quote me on that. Just think about that tonite as you say your prays and lay in your nice comfy mattress and thank God for everything that you have...Think about the millions of people out there in the world who have no mattress to be thankful 4.

Christ told us of what God was like. Through his miracles and resurrection he showed us God's glory.

Those people died from their own ignorance and failure to get out of the path of the storm. A category 5 was coming to New Orleans and they failed to leave. God gave us free will so that people may know pleasure and triumph. If suffering or pain never occured we would never know true joy.

[Prog]

Anyis wrote: Prog wrote: Anyis wrote: Im not the one defending God. I dont even no how ppl can, have u evr met God? Then how do u no he is merciful? How do u no he is just....

I don't!

My lack of knowledge of God and your presumption of knowledge of God.......doesn't mean jack-s**t!

My knowledge of God? lol...

You were the one proclaiming attributes of God's nature in the OP! Was the original post written in religious ignorance or spitefulness?


Anyis wrote: you are a sad stange little man

BTW -- Yes, I am occasionally sad and st[r]ange but I haven't been little for quite some time!

[Cato]

Prog wrote: My lack of knowledge of God and your presumption of knowledge of God.......doesn't mean jack-s**t!

Well, the real point at issue here, or so it seems, is actually Christianity's presumption of knowledge of God, and not Anyis'. So, in so far as Anyis hopes to reveal logical inconsistency in Christianity's presumed knowledge of God, his argument is valid.

But, you're right; it's foolish to claim to know anything about something that can't be known. For shame organized religion! For shame!

[Zoot]

Quote: But, you're right; it's foolish to claim to know anything about something that can't be known. For shame organized religion! For shame!

For shame, theists.

"God exists" is no less a claim about something the theists call unknowable.

[Cato]

soldierofchrist wrote: He will not interfere with our free will. We have the freedom to choose to do good or evil. If we choose evil, then that's our choice. Take comfort in the fact that one day justice will be restored, we will reap what we sow.

"Thou didst promise them the bread of Heaven, but, I repeat again, can it compare with the earthly bread in the eyes of the weak, ever-sinful and ignoble race of man? And if for the sake of the bread of Heaven thousands and tens of thousands shall follow Thee, what is to become of the millions and tens of thousands of millions of creatures who will not have the strength to forego the earthly bread for the sake of the heavenly? . . No, we care for the weak, too. They are sinful and rebellious, but in the end they will become obedient. They will marvel at us and look on us as gods, because we are ready to endure the freedom which they have found so dreadful and to rule over them---so awful it will seem to be free." -- Dostoyevsky, The Grand Inquisitor

[Prog]

Cato wrote: Prog wrote: My lack of knowledge of God and your presumption of knowledge of God.......doesn't mean jack-s**t!

Well, the real point at issue here, or so it seems, is actually Christianity's presumption of knowledge of God, and not Anyis'.

Christianity/Christians do not understand the ultimate nature of God and his works, let alone Anyis.


Cato wrote: So, in so far as Anyis hopes to reveal logical inconsistency in Christianity's presumed knowledge of God, his argument is valid.

Possibly logically valid based on philosophical speculation/inane attempt to presume knowledge of the unknowable.

Cato wrote: But, you're right; it's foolish to claim to know anything about something that can't be known. For shame organized religion! For shame!

Faith and perfect knowledge in God are quite different beasts. No shame to be placed upon faith!
You disagree?

[Cato]

Quote: Christianity/Christians do not understand the ultimate nature of God and his works, let alone Anyis.

And I believe Anyis attempted to demonstrate that.

Quote: Possibly logically valid based on philosophical speculation/inane attempt to presume knowledge of the unknowable.

He didn`t presume; he merely attacked the presumptions of Christianity.

Quote: Faith and perfect knowledge in God are quite different beasts. No shame to be placed upon faith!
You disagree?

No, I agree, there`s nothing wrong with faith. But Christian dogma on the characteristics of God is presumptive.

[The Philosopher]

Anyis wrote: Im not the one defending God. I dont even no how ppl can, have u evr met God? Then how do u no he is merciful?

The grand assumption is that if God created this universe he has to have some connection with it. This connection is expressed through an analogy. Although we can know that God is merciful, because a good person is merciful.... we cannot know how merciful or how God is merciful (Fideism).

In the Brothers Karamazov, by Fyodor Dostoeyevsky, the striking claim is made that God could have made a better planet. This is a response to Leibniz who said we are in the best of all possible worlds. The Leibnizian argument is that evils are necessary as without them there can be no virtues. It is better to have a world with evil and virtues than a world without virtues. Such a theory cannot account for how much evil there is, strikingly how many people die.

I think one of the main problems with philosophers and God is that they assume God is perfect, immutable, omniscient, and omnipotent. But if you look at the 'god of Abraham', God is none of those things. In fact God does make mistakes. God learns as he goes along. And most importantly God is a pretty mean guy. The problem with discussing God is that we are endeavoring to apply Platonic forms and Aristotlean perfection to God and hope that what he comes out with is what we want. If you go back to the bible and look at that god you see no logical inconsistency since God is all-powerful... and not omnipotent. God is all-knowing and not omniscient. God's opinions change and so God is mutable.

[Skiazo]

The free will argument is a very strong one on this topic, as free will is essential for a human being. It is also the first verbiage to present itself when this argument is presented. However, things such as:

hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, cancer, all diseases, etc...

do not have a whole lot to do with free will. cancer and diseases may if you consider that what you may expose yourself to is your own choice, however, their existance is not necessary for humans to posess free will.

The argument of defending God's existance by man's free will only holds up for events that involve man's actions.

[Prog]

Cato wrote: Quote: Christianity/Christians do not understand the ultimate nature of God and his works, let alone Anyis.

And I believe Anyis attempted to demonstrate that.

Quote: Possibly logically valid based on philosophical speculation/inane attempt to presume knowledge of the unknowable.

He didn`t presume; he merely attacked the presumptions of Christianity.

Okay, let's examine Anyis' quote once again.

God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, he is weak -- and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?"
-Epicurus

Was Epicurus referring to the Christian version of God? It doesn't seem likely. Epicurus the philosopher was born 341 BCE.


More important, is Anyis referring to the Christian God? His preconceptions of what constitues "God" - ie - his presumption of an omnimax, Chirstian God was an attempt at demonstrating an alleged contradiction within the belief of a all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful, Christian God who allows evil to flourish in a universe born of His benevolent will.

But, not all versions of "God" fit so snugly within the Christian mold.

Therefore, the premises used to attest to the nature of "God" are presumptive at best and unsound indistinctions at worst.

For example:

"God .......neither wishes to [eliminate evil] nor can...." - ergo - "If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to god's nature."

Now assuming a Christian God, this premise may be considered sound. Yet, assuming say, a conception of a non-personal God, one all powerful being who created the universe yet, is essentially indifferent and irrelevant to the human situation. (In Buddhism/Hinduism such a being is called Brahmâ)

To assume Brahmâ to be the correct God, holds that it would be within its nature to "neither wishes to [eliminate evil]" nor, could this God be considered spiteful.

There are similar problems with this in holding a pantheistic view of "God".

Which view of "God" is correct? ...........Any?

One may only speculate on the presumed, vague nature of a speculative "God"!

The Argument from Evil is weak.

[Cato]

Okay, let's examine Anyis' quote once again.

Oh, Geez, didn't notice that it was a quote... So, why are you calling him presumptive? If Anyis is attacking that particular conception of god, then he's not being presumptive himself, but attacking somebody else presumption.


Oh, and I nowhere suggested that all people conceptualize god in the same way. Nowhere. It stands without saying that there are myriad notions of god; just, these other notions are not the point at issue here...

Besides, the Christian omni-everything God is actually the product of Hellenization in Israel. During this period, Jewish theists (Philo to name one) were influenced by Greek philosophy, especially the stoic, Orphic and Platonist notion of 'soma sema', dying to the body and transcending to a higher realm. Before the period of Hellenization, there was no life after death---good men were rewarded during life; the rich were actually considered to be those more loved by god. God was never considered to be a perfect god until the Greek philosophical notion of the absolute power in the universe, the good, was married with the Hebrew's absolute deity. So, Epicurus is actually addressing the Christian notion of god in its youth.

[Talleyrand]

Epicurus may make a valid argument, but it is easily refuted. God has provided us with free will, and we are thus able to do things that he would not normally allow. This can be observed not through knowledge of the source, but knowledge of the result; if I can choose to do whatever I want, then God has provided me with free will. And if I have free will, and I decide to kill someone, then it is not fitting of God to interefere, as doing so would be interfering in my free will, something which, we can deduce, he has promised not to do. Therefore, interfering, and thus breaking his promise, would be foreign to God's nature. The same, I believe, goes for God's control of nature.

[Cato]

Quote: Epicurus may make a valid argument, but it is easily refuted. God has provided us with free will, and we are thus able to do things that he would not normally allow. This can be observed not through knowledge of the source, but knowledge of the result; if I can choose to do whatever I want, then God has provided me with free will. And if I have free will, and I decide to kill someone, then it is not fitting of God to interefere, as doing so would be interfering in my free will, something which, we can deduce, he has promised not to do. Therefore, interfering, and thus breaking his promise, would be foreign to God's nature. The same, I believe, goes for God's control of nature.

A) Why would a perfectly 'good' god allow us free will knowing it would cause us pain?

B) Why would a perfectly 'good' god subject people to natural circumstances which cause them pain?

C) Why would a perfectly 'good' god create a world in which there is pain?

[Gus]

Cato wrote: A) Why would a perfectly 'good' god allow us free will knowing it would cause us pain?
Technically, God didn't initially give us free will, we "earned" it by eating from the Tree. How Eve managed to sin without having free will boggles my mind, though.

[Ananda Lee]

A) Why would a perfectly 'good' god allow us free will knowing it would cause us pain?

B) Why would a perfectly 'good' god subject people to natural circumstances which cause them pain?

C) Why would a perfectly 'good' god create a world in which there is pain?

ANSWERS:

A: Why would a perfectly good god not allow us free will? We'd be the equivalent of robots. You can't rebel, you can't love, you can't do anything without instructions. Would you rather live like that?

B: I don't really know the answer to this question, but maybe my answer to the third question will help.

C: The Christian God didn't create a world in which there is pain. He created a world with the potential for pain. Until Eve ate the fruit, the world was painless and pure. Humans caused a world in which there is pain.

I don't know if God causes pain or simply allows pain, but I know that he intends every difficulty you experience to be a learning experience that helps you grow stronger. He also hopes to grow closer to his followers, because they turn to him in pain. From what I've been told, he won't smite you into ash for asking him these questions. One of the biggest problems we humans have with pain is the question "WHY?" God doesn't always answer that question, and that's a big problem in today's society because there are so many scams and liars out there that it's difficult to follow someone blindly without knowing how it's all going to work out. But that's exactly what God asks. :?

There was a book I read by Orson Scott Card, called the Worthing Saga, and it dealt a lot with what would happen in a society with no pain whatsoever. It's an interesting take, and I reccomend it.