Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GeoTheo · 10-29-2002, 03:24 PM

I would say the title of this thread is true. Since I believe God created the Big Bang and I assume hydrogen and such can't feel pain.

MrDarwin · 10-31-2002, 06:37 AM

*bump*

GeoTheo · 10-31-2002, 08:32 AM

How about responding to my post. I think it has serious implications for the problem of evil.
If God set the peramiters for life to evolve gradually then suffering is completely wound up in the nature of life itself and thus a neccessary evil and somthing that could not have been avoided.

babelfish · 10-31-2002, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
How about responding to my post. I think it has serious implications for the problem of evil.
If God set the peramiters for life to evolve gradually then suffering is completely wound up in the nature of life itself and thus a neccessary evil and somthing that could not have been avoided.

Okay, I'll bite. Why did he set the parameters that way? If all things are possible for the Big Guy, why set it up so that evil should inevitably evolve?

MrDarwin · 10-31-2002, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
How about responding to my post. I think it has serious implications for the problem of evil.
If God set the peramiters for life to evolve gradually then suffering is completely wound up in the nature of life itself and thus a neccessary evil and somthing that could not have been avoided.

Theo, I thought you were being humorous, but you actually have a good point. I wonder, would Douglas agree with you? Judging from past discussions with him, I think not. Feel free to try to draw him out on this topic, as nobody else has managed to do so. I have less time right now to spend on these things than I would like.

GeoTheo · 10-31-2002, 09:59 AM

Mr Darwin,
I will try to engage him on this. I actually spend more time here than I can afford

But I need a break somtimes! (that's what I tell myself.)
Babelfish:
I guess that is a question that could be pondered for eternity. The question of "Why?" I think the best I can say is given, a, b, and c, then such and such. Take away A, B, and C and you have a really big "Why?". Too big for my taste. God can't make square circles, in this universe at least, So why not make a different Universe?
But a Universe in which square circles existed would be unable for us to comprehend in any detail.
By identifying Good and evil in the world we are defining the world through a dualism. Do dualisms actually exist outside of our ability to create them? If so a different Universe would not solve the problem. You wouldn't neccesarily get a more Good God, just a different Universe that was missing the good and evil dualism. If we define God through one extreme of a dualism, you need the other half to exist. Otherwise good is a moot point.
Did evil (meaning suffering) exist before the development of the nervous system? Or perhaps did it not come about until the existence of the ability of language to express it?

Douglas J. Bender · 11-01-2002, 07:16 AM

Hey, if it wasn't for HelenSL (or is that HelenM?), I wouldn't have found this thread, or the other one dealing with this issue to which she actually directed me. Don't assume that because I haven't responded it means I am ignoring someone's points.

I don't have time right now, at this minute, to respond, but I'll try to by tonight. However, my mother is getting out of the hospital after having had a stroke, and surgery on her carotid artery a few days ago, so I might be preoccupied the rest of the day and then too tired later to be motivated to respond tonight. Just to forewarn those who can't wait.

In Christ,

Douglas

babelfish · 11-01-2002, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Douglas J. Bender:
Hey, if it wasn't for HelenSL (or is that HelenM?), I wouldn't have found this thread, or the other one dealing with this issue to which she actually directed me. Don't assume that because I haven't responded it means I am ignoring someone's points.

I don't have time right now, at this minute, to respond, but I'll try to by tonight. However, my mother is getting out of the hospital after having had a stroke, and surgery on her carotid artery a few days ago, so I might be preoccupied the rest of the day and then too tired later to be motivated to respond tonight. Just to forewarn those who can't wait.

In Christ,

Douglas

Hi Douglas,

Sorry about your mom. Taking care of her is way more important than the petty squabbles you get into on this board!

I'll be thinking about you....

Jamie_L · 11-01-2002, 08:33 AM

I used to be one of those folks who thought God set up the initial conditions for the universe and then let them run. It's a way to reconcile science with theology, but it doesn't do anything for the problem of evil WRT the Christian God.

After all, a god who is omnipotent and omniscient knows what the results of his initial conditions will be, and is capable of adjusting them to reach any conclusion he wants. So, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then the world must be exactly the way he wants it. Which means God wants human suffering. Which does not jive with the concept of a God who loves his creations as much as Christians claim he does.

The other alternatives are that God is not omnipotent or not omniscient.

All three of these options, however, clash with the standard Christian concept of God.

Jamie

MrDarwin · 11-02-2002, 06:04 AM

Douglas, I'm sorry I implied you were ignoring us. I know from recent experience that our lives away from our computers sometimes get in the way of our online fun! Family and other real-life obligations always come first. Hope you mom is doing well.

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

10-29-2002, 03:24 PM	#11
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	I would say the title of this thread is true. Since I believe God created the Big Bang and I assume hydrogen and such can't feel pain.

10-31-2002, 06:37 AM	#12
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	bump

10-31-2002, 08:32 AM	#13
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	How about responding to my post. I think it has serious implications for the problem of evil. If God set the peramiters for life to evolve gradually then suffering is completely wound up in the nature of life itself and thus a neccessary evil and somthing that could not have been avoided.

10-31-2002, 09:59 AM	#16
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	Mr Darwin, I will try to engage him on this. I actually spend more time here than I can afford But I need a break somtimes! (that's what I tell myself.) Babelfish: I guess that is a question that could be pondered for eternity. The question of "Why?" I think the best I can say is given, a, b, and c, then such and such. Take away A, B, and C and you have a really big "Why?". Too big for my taste. God can't make square circles, in this universe at least, So why not make a different Universe? But a Universe in which square circles existed would be unable for us to comprehend in any detail. By identifying Good and evil in the world we are defining the world through a dualism. Do dualisms actually exist outside of our ability to create them? If so a different Universe would not solve the problem. You wouldn't neccesarily get a more Good God, just a different Universe that was missing the good and evil dualism. If we define God through one extreme of a dualism, you need the other half to exist. Otherwise good is a moot point. Did evil (meaning suffering) exist before the development of the nervous system? Or perhaps did it not come about until the existence of the ability of language to express it?

11-01-2002, 07:16 AM	#17
Douglas J. Bender Banned Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Elkhart, Indiana (USA) Posts: 460	Hey, if it wasn't for HelenSL (or is that HelenM?), I wouldn't have found this thread, or the other one dealing with this issue to which she actually directed me. Don't assume that because I haven't responded it means I am ignoring someone's points. I don't have time right now, at this minute, to respond, but I'll try to by tonight. However, my mother is getting out of the hospital after having had a stroke, and surgery on her carotid artery a few days ago, so I might be preoccupied the rest of the day and then too tired later to be motivated to respond tonight. Just to forewarn those who can't wait. In Christ, Douglas

11-01-2002, 08:33 AM	#19
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	I used to be one of those folks who thought God set up the initial conditions for the universe and then let them run. It's a way to reconcile science with theology, but it doesn't do anything for the problem of evil WRT the Christian God. After all, a god who is omnipotent and omniscient knows what the results of his initial conditions will be, and is capable of adjusting them to reach any conclusion he wants. So, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then the world must be exactly the way he wants it. Which means God wants human suffering. Which does not jive with the concept of a God who loves his creations as much as Christians claim he does. The other alternatives are that God is not omnipotent or not omniscient. All three of these options, however, clash with the standard Christian concept of God. Jamie

11-02-2002, 06:04 AM	#20
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Douglas, I'm sorry I implied you were ignoring us. I know from recent experience that our lives away from our computers sometimes get in the way of our online fun! Family and other real-life obligations always come first. Hope you mom is doing well.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.