yguy

Maybe so, but we're not talking about defining love, but about creating it.

But without the opportunity for betrayal, your love could never be demonstrated. You and your wife would be nothing more than Wellsian Eloi throwing flowers at each other all day.

As for your other post, the answer is none of the above. I think I'll start another thread on it in the next day or two.

Treacle Worshipper

Originally posted by yguy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wyrdsmyth
Oh, you can do a little better. I think you may be close to an epiphany. Think about it: who tempts the devil?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not God.

Who, then?
I'm also genuinely interested in the third way between possibility and impossibility. Please will you elaborate?

Originally posted by emotional
If you believe God can be good while evil runs unrestrained, what basis have you for judging between good and evil? If God is good while the mouse is crying under the cat's claws, isn't it time to take every dictionary and change the definition of "good"?

If you believe that an omni-god is good while evil exists, then I agree that changing the definition of good is the way forward. However, another way is to say that an omni-god cannot exist, which is the point of the PoE. However, it doesn't mean some sort of cruel, sadistic god doesn't exist.
TW

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

SRB

Why does a proponent of the argument from evil need to have some concept of an Ideal World? He simply needs to point out that some possible worlds are significantly better than the actual one. If God existed, he would see to it that there is SOMEHWAT LESS suffering than the quantity we currently observe. It is hard to know just what world is the best possible one, with the ideal amount of suffering and adversity to make things reasonably interesting. It is not hard to see that the ideal world contains significantly less suffering than the world we currently observe.

For example, the world would very probably be significantly improved if the hijackers on 9/11 had dropped dead on the morning of the hijack, or had been arrested. Do you disagree? Please make it clear if you think such events would NOT have probably made the world a significantly better place overall.

SRB

yguy

God is the uncaused first cause of all things good. Lucifer became the uncaused first cause of all things evil.

The way I look at it, to say God tempted the devil is like saying the builders of the WTC tempted those terrorists to destroy it. It's absurd on its face.

As for possibility/impossibility, give me a day or two to post a thread on it.

Treacle Worshipper

Originally posted by yguy
God is the uncaused first cause of all things good. Lucifer became the uncaused first cause of all things evil.
But wasn't Lucifer caused (created) by God?

As for possibility/impossibility, give me a day or two to post a thread on it.
I look forward to it.
TW

Jamie_L

Furthermore, I think it's a weak arguement that an "Ideal World" would be boring.

We would only find it boring because that's the way we've been created. In an "ideal world", we would be content with the idyllic nature of things. An omnipotent God can see to that as easily as he can eliminate cancer and whatnot.

Jamie

Silent Acorns

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. I thought we were talking about demonstrating and recognizing love. 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.

Are you defining love as the act of "staying true" to another? While this is certainly an aspect of what we commonly understand as "love" there is a lot more to love than just staying true.

The fact of the matter is that I don't need hate or betrayal to demonstrate and recognize love, and for the same reasons I don't need evil to demonstrate and recognize good.

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.

You should know that the Problem of Evil argument says that at least one of the following must be true:

1) God is not omnibenevolent
2) God is not omniscient
3) God is not omnipotent
4) evil doesn't exist

That's all it claims. Apparently, you agree with the argument and choose (3).

Theli

So, if I steal money to feed a starving family, it was lucifer that caused me to steal the money and god who caused me to give it away?
Do you even live in the real world?