Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Silent Acorns · 04-07-2003, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by emotional
So the question boils down to: can God be good at the same time that His creation is full of evil? Can a supervisor over his creation be called good if evil runs rampant through it while it is under his supervision?

No, the question boils down to: Can God be all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing at the same time given that evil exists?

yguy · 04-07-2003, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Silent Acorns
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. I thought we were talking about demonstrating and recognizing love.

The discussion started with Dr Rick's challenge to my claim that God couldn't create love without the possibility of betrayal.

Quote:

To me, this requires a definition of love. Surely, if we can define love without reference to hate or betrayal then we can recongnize and demonstrate love without hate or betrayal. I categorically deny that the opportunity for betrayal is required to demonstrate love (unless you define "betrayal" very loosely). I could easily betray my wife and still love her, just as I could stop loving my wife and yet not betray her.

Betrayal is an act of love?

Quote:

Are you defining love as the act of "staying true" to another?

Love, in the secular sense, is the concern for the welfare of another creature, especially a human being. Betrayal can't spring from such motivation.

Quote:

The fact of the matter is that I don't need hate or betrayal to demonstrate and recognize love,

Then how does anyone know THAT you love? Hugs & kisses? I don't think so.

"Greater life hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friends." We can't all be war heros dying for the freedom of our countrymen, but maybe we can deny our egos a night of foolish pleasure so that it dies a little bit, and put that money in our kid's college fund instead.

yguy · 04-07-2003, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Silent Acorns
Do you realize that what you are describing here is NOT the Omni-max God of Christianity? By defining God as "the uncaused first cause of all things good" and Lucifer as "the uncaused first cause of all things evil" you are effectively saying that God is not omnipotent since he couldn't stop the "creation" of Lucifer and has no control over the evil things that Lucifer does.

I never said He couldn't stop evil. He just doesn't always do it.

Dr Rick · 04-07-2003, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
The discussion started with Dr Rick's challenge to my claim that God couldn't create love without the possibility of betrayal.

No, it didn't.

HRG · 04-08-2003, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jamie_L
Supervisor is the wrong analogy. It's more like: "Can a computer programmer be good if evil runs rampant through his program."

Jamie

True.

And even a supervisor was hanged for letting "evil running rampant" by troops under his control, although he was not personally involved in any crime: the Japanese general Yamashita for his role as military governor of the Philippines during WWII.

Regards,
HRG.

winstonjen · 04-08-2003, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
I never said He couldn't stop evil. He just doesn't always do it.

So he doesn't care enough to stop evil? Then he's not worth worshipping.

justashooter · 04-09-2003, 10:04 AM

you guys really need to read the book, before you argue against it. the whole story is about the creation of one opportunity - the opportunity for man to accept an unwarranted sacrifice. everything else is just illustrative window dressing. the only question of any importance, is whether zaccheus will come down from the damned tree.

whether the story is true or not, whether there is a god or not is beyond my capacity to determine, but the questions can't be argued, if they are not understood.

Hawkingfan · 04-09-2003, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by emotional
The Argument from Evil seems attractive at first, but when I think about it, it doesn't look like a good disproof of God. It is said that the good God, since He created diseases, suffering, struggle and arms races between animals, cannot exist. This seems reasonable.

I think it depends on how you look at it. It can either say god does not exist or he is not omnibenevolent and omnipotent. Either one. Because if god was omnibenevolent and omnipotent, he would have NO CHOICE but to completely rid the world of evil and suffering. Otherwise, he could exist, but he would just not be omnibenevolent and we would have to resort to another argument for his non-existence.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-09-2003, 10:04 AM	#67
justashooter Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: york, pa. (birthplace of a nation) Posts: 70	you guys really need to read the book, before you argue against it. the whole story is about the creation of one opportunity - the opportunity for man to accept an unwarranted sacrifice. everything else is just illustrative window dressing. the only question of any importance, is whether zaccheus will come down from the damned tree. whether the story is true or not, whether there is a god or not is beyond my capacity to determine, but the questions can't be argued, if they are not understood.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.