The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by k3lt01 Do I hear the sounds of hypocrisy? YES

I know you mean well k3lt01, but I don't think either you nor I, nor anyone this side of death should be quick to suggest hypocrisy, except I think in ourselves. In every case, it could be hypocrisy, or it could be ignorance, poor aptitude, misunderstanding and scores of other variables. We just don't know enough to judge. But I see your point.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Okay, SigTerm, what is the specific question regarding the "problem of evil," which I've not yet addressed? Please be concise if possible.

The Problem of Evil

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Read on to the section of theodicies, which explore the various arguments for why the problem of evil isn't a problem, such as the free will argument, etc.

If Evil (the bad) means absence of God (the good), it works. But that also means that God can be absent somewhere, sometimes...

Originally Posted by bluegospel Okay, SigTerm, what is the specific question regarding the "problem of evil," which I've not yet addressed? Please be concise if possible.

Are you kidding me? I already explained it to you many times.

See posts:
3316, 3321, 3454, 3537, 3540, 3542, 3588, 3611, 3614, 3616, and there are many others.

Here's summarization:
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/godevil.html with common "counterarguments".

Here's wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

The problem may be older than christianity (~2300 years old vs christianity being roughly 2080 years old).

The point is that evil, pain and suffering cannot exist in a world with a omnipotent, omniscient, merciful/just/loving (i.e. "good") god. You have to remove one of those qualities, or nobody should ever suffer. Bible, however, claims god has ALL of those qualities at once. Which is impossible since "evil" exists. Which means that bible lies, because evil and suffering can exist only in a world without a god, or in a world where god is NOT omnipotent or is NOT omniscient or is NOT "good". The problem is fundamental and cannot be defeated by casual explanation - you already tried that and failed.

It doesn't disprove god in general. But it does disprove christian god and all similar deities.

Originally Posted by reed9 The Problem of Evil 1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. 2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. 3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. 4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. 5. Evil exists. 6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. 7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

I'm hardly philosophical or an expert on this question, but in my estimation this answer hinges on #2 and is incomplete, viz, if God exists eternally, w/out beginning or end, and is the author and creator of the worlds, then the right to either act immediately or to delay the destruction of evil is reserved solely to him. That right and power is his.

Originally Posted by reed9 Read on to the section of theodicies, which explore the various arguments for why the problem of evil isn't a problem, such as the free will argument, etc.

That section might be used to intoduce the discussion, but hardly addresses the question.

Originally Posted by bluegospel I know you mean well k3lt01, but I don't think either you nor I, nor anyone this side of death should be quick to suggest hypocrisy, except I think in ourselves. In every case, it could be hypocrisy, or it could be ignorance, poor aptitude, misunderstanding and scores of other variables. We just don't know enough to judge. But I see your point.

I'll leave you to your obvious fate in this topic. It won't be pretty but it hasn't been so far.

Originally Posted by bluegospel then the right to either act immediately or to delay the destruction of evil is reserved solely to him.

Two months have passed and you still don't get it. God is supposed to have absolute power, absolute knowledge and be able to predict consequences of his own actions. If evil exists, it because god created it. By your faith god is eternal and is beginning of everything, which includes evil. In other words, the world was purposely designed to ensure that evil exists. You can have "evil" if god is not "just" or is not "good", which would contradict the bible.

Originally Posted by bluegospel I'm hardly philosophical or an expert on this question, but in my estimation this answer hinges on #2 and is incomplete, viz, if God exists eternally, w/out beginning or end, and is the author and creator of the worlds, then the right to either act immediately or to delay the destruction of evil is reserved solely to him. That right and power is his.

Then you must admit that He is not much of a "Loving God."

By the way...

Originally Posted by bluegospel then the right to either act immediately or to delay the destruction of evil is reserved solely to him. That right and power is his.

For a deity it wouldn't be a problem to stop the time in the universe for a few centuries and take a break, you know. Omnipotence means that nothing is impossible. Omniscience means that nothing is unknown. Those power are meant to be absolute, and if there's a "just"/"good" god that has both of those powers, "evil" simply cannot exist.

Originally Posted by bluegospel I'm hardly philosophical or an expert on this question, but in my estimation this answer hinges on #2 and is incomplete, viz, if God exists eternally, w/out beginning or end, and is the author and creator of the worlds, then the right to either act immediately or to delay the destruction of evil is reserved solely to him. That right and power is his.

I don't see how that's a problem for the argument given. Indeed, the whole thing hinges on the claim that the "right and power is his". That's the point, he has the power and the right to prevent evil and yet chose to create it and allows it to exist.

If I recall, your response in the past was that free will means people have the ability to choose to do evil. Disregarding how natural disasters fit into that, I had a question that remained unanswered. Even if I were to grant libertarian free will, it still operates within a framework of emotions and desires. Some things are easier to will away than others. If we don't have the desire, then we don't have to engage the will much. So why did God set our desires where they are? Most people aren't particularly murderous, under normal circumstances, so not killing is easy enough. I've never had to will myself not to kill someone. But most people have a strong sex drive, so not masturbating, which many religious folks have considered a sin, or not having sex outside of marriage, is much harder. Why not just make people naturally more monogamous? Why not make people so they have a brief window when the go into "heat", so they don't even have to worry about sex the rest of the time? And if the goal is to make a challenge for people to overcome, why aren't we more violent? Why don't we have a greater desire to dishonor our mother and father?

Our emotions have a huge range they could be set to, but aren't, and it doesn't contradict free will to have them set to some level where the desire to "sin" or commit evil isn't there. At best it seems like God chose to make people want to sin, so they could prove to him they can resist the very desires he gave them in the first place. Which is pretty f-ing perverse.

You know, much as I love following this thread (), it's getting rather boring to me. Maybe we should start getting down to some of the deeper issues?

Originally Posted by reed9 Even if I were to grant libertarian free will, it still operates within a framework of emotions and desires.

Yeah…sure. If it's constrained, it's hardly free, is it? That's why "free will" doesn't work. Period. Under any circumstances. Rationalize all you want, it doesn't put your actions any more in your "control", whatever that means.

Why can't we just say that self is an illusion, consciousness is a meaningless abstraction (as are most things we consider part of the "human experience", whatever that means), and just call it a f*cking day?

Okay, so I broke my promise. …but hey, not like there was anything I could "do" about it, amirite?

Originally Posted by MrCode Yeah…sure. If it's constrained, it's hardly free, is it? That's why "free will" doesn't work. Period. Under any circumstances. Rationalize all you want, it doesn't put your actions any more in your "control", whatever that means. Why can't we just say that self is an illusion, consciousness is a meaningless abstraction (as are most things we consider part of the "human experience", whatever that means), and just call it a f*cking day?

There is no predetermination. Get over it already.

As a forward, I realize that I'm committing logical fallacies in the the following statement (most notably shifting the burden of proof and saying something that (I don't think) can't possibly be falsified), but humour me for a minute...

Concerning the problem of evil and logic arguments in general, would it be possible that our current system of logic is flawed? As far as I know, you can't logically prove logic because it ends up being a circular argument. It seems that a few philosophers ran into the problem that when you get down to it, you have to assume something so that you can start building on that. If take this to the extreme that you can't prove anything because you have nothing to start with. Anyone?

And as a side question inspired by Reddit, if it were somehow proven that God does exist and with that, Heaven and Hell), would you worship God or despise him?

Originally Posted by MrCode You know, much as I love following this thread (), it's getting rather boring to me. Maybe we should start getting down to some of the deeper issues? Yeah…sure. If it's constrained, it's hardly free, is it? That's why "free will" doesn't work. Period. Under any circumstances. Rationalize all you want, it doesn't put your actions any more in your "control", whatever that means. Why can't we just say that self is an illusion, consciousness is a meaningless abstraction (as are most things we consider part of the "human experience", whatever that means), and just call it a f*cking day? Okay, so I broke my promise. …but hey, not like there was anything I could "do" about it, amirite?

Ok, be predetermined as much as you want, your choice But let us have some free will...please.

Originally Posted by spudgunner As a forward, I realize that I'm committing logical fallacies in the the following statement (most notably shifting the burden of proof and saying something that (I don't think) can't possibly be falsified), but humour me for a minute... Concerning the problem of evil and logic arguments in general, would it be possible that our current system of logic is flawed? As far as I know, you can't logically prove logic because it ends up being a circular argument. It seems that a few philosophers ran into the problem that when you get down to it, you have to assume something so that you can start building on that. If take this to the extreme that you can't prove anything because you have nothing to start with. Anyone?

Deductive logic is essentially true by definition. (And the above is a deductive argument.) So long as the premises are correct, the conclusion cannot be wrong. *But*, there's no reason that it has to apply to the real world.

All bibbles are floovs.
Jork is a bibble.
Jork is a floov.

This is deductively sound, but meaningless as far as the real world goes.

Inductive logic, however, does not have to be true. It's more a statement of probability that we think gives good reason to believe something. For example,

California has had at least 1 7.0 or greater earthquake every year on record, therefore California will have at least 1 7.0 earthquake this year.

We don't know that will happen, but we're pretty darn sure. Inductive arguments usually assume that what has been true will continue to be true. That's where the circularity enters. You can't justify inductive reasoning without making an inductive argument. In the Philosophy of Science, this is called the Problem of Induction.

We do have to make assumptions. Science has very few assumptions, primarily that there is an objective reality, that reality is intelligible, ie, we are capable of understanding portions of it, and that what was true yesterday will continue to be true today, ie, we're not going to wake up tomorrow and find that gravity no longer works. I think those are relatively conservative assumptions, especially given the tremendous success science has had, ie, it works. While it might all be a pipe dream, no other human endeavor has anything like that success record, so if the ground is shaky for science, how much worse for religion or those much touted "other ways of knowing"!

And as a side question inspired by Reddit, if it were somehow proven that God does exist and with that, Heaven and Hell), would you worship God or despise him?

Which God? If we're talking the Christian god as conceived of by his followers and described in the Koran and Bible, then clearly I would oppose him as an evil, parochial, dictatorial little turd.