My personal take on gay "marriage"

[Solmyr]

I don’t really have to demonstrate the God brings greater good out of evil, because the AFE is trying to show a contradict between Christian theology and evil. There are arguments though (like from the Scriptures or from the nature of God contemplated by Classical theists).

Unfortunately for you, those arguments are useless. We live in THIS world, and the scriptures are just ancient writs. The theology is “nice”, but it is not supported by facts. Part of the theology is that “God is goodness itself”. It should be presented as a hypothesis, which can be supported or refuted by the facts. It cannot be introduced as an axiom. We have no direct access to God’s nature, we must use the information available to us.

Anyway, the crux of the issue is whether gratuitous evil exist. Has the atheist side provided evidence of an evil that is in itself gratuitous? I have yet to see it.

What kind of evidence are you looking for? The evidence is all around you, the lack of benevolent actions.

You are correct that a theist can’t demonstrate exactly what the goods are that are coming from this or that evil, but this doesnt prove that the evil is gratuitous, but rather that we humans are ignorant the the ultimate purpose of these evils, which is to be expected: an evil might be fulfilled in the future, and since humans can’t see into the future, we would expect humans, and thus theists, to be ignorant of the purpose of the evil.

That is a classical example of the “argument from ignorance”, which is a well-known logical fallacy. The duck-principle is the evidence. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and tastes like a duck, it is a duck and not a shark in disguise. The point is that you also subscribe to this principle, every moment of your life. None of us have an omniscient vision of the future, and yet we issue judgments based upon the available information. If a human father would be as negligent as God, we would not hesitate to condemn him as an “evil” father.

What this major point actually demonstrates is just how the AFE is not merely working with the facts of evil, but rather certain ontological assumptions too. For example, for the AFE to actually work now, the atheist has to also slide in the assumption that “this evil will not be fulfilled in the future,” which of course he can’t actually know precisely. Because we don’t know history in full, as well as the full causal patterns of the past, present, and future, no atheist can provide evidence of a gratuitous evil on such a basis, and thus the AFE fails to be demonstrative.

But that is not the way the cookie crumbles. Let’s take a simple example. A “seemingly” evil event is occurring. Due to this event, person “X” suffers somehow. This is what we KNOW - according to the duck principle, we are justified to issue a TENTATIVE negative assessment. If the apologist can actually SHOW the greater good coming out of this event, we MUST accept that our initial criticism was incorrect. So, yes, the onus is on you to present the mitigating circumstances. Otherwise the “duck principle” wins.

 

[Rau]

Thread is not about the existence of God. Experience shows it will be closed if posts remain off-topic.

 

[Solmyr]

thomism.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/gratuitous-evil-would-be-good-for-atheism/

There are errors in that example. Quite a few of them.

First, the fiery death of that fawn would need to be KNOWN. And if the fire completely obliterated the carcass, there would be no way to start that hullaballoo of emotionalism. Not that emotional reaction is somehow “wrong”.

Second, the emotional reaction is due the fact that the fawn is “cute”. There are millions of bugs, creatures killed in forest fires, and no one even knows about them, much less care about them.

Third, death due to fire is very “unpleasant”. The agony of burning alive could be taken out of the problem with a quick and painless heart attack, so only the carcass would be obliterated by the fire. No sign of that.

Fourth, the fawn itself does not benefit from its demise. It is - at best - a tool. Now for animals to be used as a tool is acceptable. For humans it is not. So all the human children who die to lack of water and food cannot be “chalked up” as “tools” even if their death would start a huge program.

**Fifth, most importantly it may be possible that a specific incident merely “looks” gratuitous - while it is not, that is not the issue. Even ONE gratuitous suffering undermines God’s benevolent nature. **

So the article is worth than useless. It was ill-conceived, hastily written. It was simply junk. Sorry.

 

[Lucretius]

Unfortunately for you, those arguments are useless. We live in THIS world, and the scriptures are just ancient writs.

Yeah, you can’t just dismiss arguments because they are old.

The theology is “nice”, but it is not supported by facts. Part of the theology is that “God is goodness itself”. It should be presented as a hypothesis, which can be supported or refuted by the facts. It cannot be introduced as an axiom. We have no direct access to God’s nature, we must use the information available to us.

The goodness of God is known by metaphysical demonstration and revelation. I would not introduce it as an axiom, but since we are discussing whether Christian theology is contradictory or not, there is no need to show whether the claims are true, but rather if they are coherent.

What kind of evidence are you looking for? The evidence is all around you, the lack of benevolent actions.

God maintains my being, fed me today, allowed me to enjoy the sunshine, etc. You just aren’t looking

That is a classical example of the “argument from ignorance”, which is a well-known logical fallacy… None of us have an omniscient vision of the future, and yet we issue judgments based upon the available information.

It’s not. It would be a fallacy if I claimed that “we don’t know whether this evil is gratuitous or not, therefore this evil is not gratuitous.”

However, I’m not arguing that. All I’m saying is that we don’t know. I think I should clarify the AFE for you: it is an argument put forth by the atheists side, and which requires gratuitous evils, and if we haven’t found an example of an evil that is in itself gratuitous (rather than possibly gratuitous), then the atheist side’s AFE hasn’t demonstrated conclusively the non-existence of God.

And since we don’t have an example of an evil that cannot possibly be ordered to a good, the AFE doesn’t work. It’s not dismissible (like if we suddenly discovered a gratuitous evil), but it isn’t conclusive either (since all we have evidence of is evils that are ordered to greater goods or evils that may be ordered to greater goods).

If a human father would be as negligent as God, we would not hesitate to condemn him as an “evil” father.

See above. Have you never encountered anything good in your life at all?

But that is not the way the cookie crumbles. Let’s take a simple example. A “seemingly” evil event is occurring. Due to this event, person “X” suffers somehow. This is what we KNOW - according to the duck principle, we are justified to issue a TENTATIVE negative assessment. If the apologist can actually SHOW the greater good coming out of this event, we MUST accept that our initial criticism was incorrect. So, yes, the onus is on you to present the mitigating circumstances. Otherwise the “duck principle” wins.

Like I said above, if you haven’t proven that it can’t possibly be ordered to a good, then it possibly can be, and if it possibly can be, then it can’t support the AFE.

If anything, I’m actually accusing you of appealing to ignorance: you want to claim that an evil that may or may not be gratuitous should be assumed to be gratuitous until proven otherwise

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

There are errors in that example. Quite a few of them.

First, the fiery death of that fawn would need to be KNOWN. And if the fire completely obliterated the carcass, there would be no way to start that hullaballoo of emotionalism. Not that emotional reaction is somehow “wrong”.

Second, the emotional reaction is due the fact that the fawn is “cute”. There are millions of bugs, creatures killed in forest fires, and no one even knows about them, much less care about them.

Third, death due to fire is very “unpleasant”. The agony of burning alive could be taken out of the problem with a quick and painless heart attack, so only the carcass would be obliterated by the fire. No sign of that.

Fourth, the fawn itself does not benefit from its demise. It is - at best - a tool. Now for animals to be used as a tool is acceptable. For humans it is not. So all the human children who die to lack of water and food cannot be “chalked up” as “tools” even if their death would start a huge program.

Fifth, most importantly it may be possible that a specific incident merely “looks” gratuitous - while it is not, that is not the issue. Even ONE gratuitous suffering undermines God’s benevolent nature.

So the article is worth than useless. It was ill-conceived, hastily written. It was simply junk. Sorry.

I don’t think you are familiar with Rowe, but the actual example is immaterial to the greater point. The story is just a hypothetical story to explain that if a gratuitous evil (it doesn’t actually matter if it is a fawn burning) was found and used to prove the non-existence of God, the atheists is trapped in the paradox of, on one hand, claiming that there is nothing good to come from it, and in the other hand, that the evil was order to the greatest event ever in history: proving the non-existence of God.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Solmyr]

The goodness of God is known by metaphysical demonstration and revelation.

An actual demonstration would be nice. I have never seen one. Forget the “revelation” part.

I would not introduce it as an axiom, but since we are discussing whether Christian theology is contradictory or not, there is no need to show whether the claims are true, but rather if they are coherent.

Nope, you are mistaken. One needs more than just a logically coherent argument. Such arguments can only apply in an axiomatic system. An argument can be logically correct, but not logically sound. There are lots of ways to “reconcile” God’s alleged good nature with the existence of evil. One can actually DENY the existence of suffering, for example. Don’t laugh. I have actually SEEN an argument like this.

God maintains my being, fed me today, allowed me to enjoy the sunshine, etc. You just aren’t looking

Oh, please. Get serious. I had enough of such nonsense from others.

It’s not. It would be a fallacy if I claimed that “we don’t know whether this evil is gratuitous or not, therefore this evil is not gratuitous.”

That is ALMOST exactly what you do. True, you use a slightly weaker version, by saying “since we are not omniscient, we cannot exclude the logical possibility that some unspecified good will come out from this seemingly gratuitous evil act, and therefore we should not declare it gratuitous”. But this principle is not used anywhere else. So it is not a “principle”, it is an attempt to defend the indefensible.

However, I’m not arguing that. All I’m saying is that we don’t know. I think I should clarify the AFE for you: it is an argument put forth by the atheists side, and which requires gratuitous evils, and if we haven’t found an example of an evil that is in itself gratuitous (rather than possibly gratuitous), then the atheist side’s AFE hasn’t demonstrated conclusively the non-existence of God.

The problem of evil does not directly question the EXISTENCE of God. It “merely” shows that God’s assumed “benevolence” is an empty claim.

Like I said above, if you haven’t proven that it can’t possibly be ordered to a good, then it possibly can be, and if it possibly can be, then it can’t support the AFE.

Uh-oh. The word “prove” is inapplicable. Only in axiomatic systems can you “prove” a claim. In the open system you can have “evidence beyond any doubt” that a claim is true. Or you can have “evidence beyond any reasonable doubt”. Or you can have a “preponderance of evidence”. Which one of these is applicable to the claim: “God is omnibenevolent” - in your opinion?

If anything, I’m actually accusing you of appealing to ignorance: you want to claim that an evil that may or may not be gratuitous should be assumed to be gratuitous until proven otherwise

Sorry, that does not work. I argue the duck principle. You also use this principle in every moment of your life… you only abandon it when it comes to claims pertaining to God. We always argue upon incomplete information, and only when information to the contrary is obtained do we change it. And so far, NO ONE could present any argument to the contrary.

I don’t think you are familiar with Rowe, but the actual example is immaterial to the greater point.

If it is immaterial, then why bring it up? I was arguing against the example itself.

…used to prove the non-existence of God…

No one uses the problem of evil as a “proof” for the nonexistence of God.

 

[Lucretius]

Nope, you are mistaken. One needs more than just a logically coherent argument. Such arguments can only apply in an axiomatic system.

You missed the point entirely. See the last part of the response…

Oh, please. Get serious. I had enough of such nonsense from others.

giggle Oh, so God doesn’t show benevolence, and all these things you mentioned don’t count because I called them nonsense…See below…

That is ALMOST exactly what you do. True, you use a slightly weaker version, by saying "since we are not omniscient, we cannot exclude the logical possibility that some unspecified good will come out from this seemingly gratuitous evil act, and therefore we should not declare it gratuitous. But this principle is not used anywhere else. So it is not a “principle”, it is an attempt to defend the indefensible.

giggle So, in other words, declaring yourself ignorant in manners you are ignorant in is wrong…interesting…

The problem of evil does not directly question the EXISTENCE of God. It “merely” shows that God’s assumed “benevolence” is an empty claim.

When I spoke of God, I meant the Most Holy Trinity, not merely the abstraction of Classical Theism. We say the same thing

Only in axiomatic systems can you “prove” a claim. In the open system you can have “evidence beyond any doubt” that a claim is true. Or you can have “evidence beyond any reasonable doubt”. Or you can have a “preponderance of evidence”. Which one of these is applicable to the claim: “God is omnibenevolent” - in your opinion?

This misses the major difference between us: the facts, as of now, can be interpreted both as supporting benevolence, and as supporting AFE: you don’t understand this, which is why you get annoyed with sunlight and cookies being used as evidence of God’s love for us. Both sides are making metaphysic…no, religous assumptions about the nature of things, and it is through these hermeneutics that we come to understand the argument.

Sorry, that does not work. I argue the duck principle. You also use this principle in every moment of your life… you only abandon it when it comes to claims pertaining to God. We always argue upon incomplete information, and only when information to the contrary is obtained do we change it. And so far, NO ONE could present any argument to the contrary.

The “Duck principle” isn’t used universally (and reality doesn’t come with a priori baggage anyway). For example, such a principle could be useful in everyday life, or with topics humans are very familiar with, but other subjects, such as the what and why of history, we aren’t knowledgeable in, and to dance around in that darkness is foolish and clear to lead to error.

I have a slightly distanced question: currently, our understandings into the mind and consciousness seem to require a form of dualism. Would you apply your “duck principle” here and accept dualism, or would you eschew it and claim that, in the future, science will come to completely understand the mind? Do you notice the similarities?

If it is immaterial, then why bring it up? I was arguing against the example itself.

Because I wanted to see how you would react to the paradox he found in the atheists’ position.

No one uses the problem of evil as a “proof” for the nonexistence of God.

What do you think the argument from evil is?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Latinitas]

Sure. The existence of “evil” is compatible with the existence of an evil or uncaring God’s existence. But not with an omnipotent and loving God. The summary of your reasoning is like:

Rule #1: The boss is always right.
Rule #2: If the boss is wrong, see Rule #1.

No sane person would accept this argument as “valid”.

No. It shows that an all-good God is compatible with evil existing in the world. It justifies its existence.

The argument is as follows:

Apologist: There exists an all-good God.
Skeptic: If this were true, then there would be no evil in the world, since infinite goodness precludes the existence of the contrary, which is evil.
Apologist: Evil can still exist in the world, if the all-good God can bring good even out of evil.

The idea is not that, as you claim, that God is always right. It’s that the existence of evil can be harmonized with the existence of an all-good God. I’m not saying what the good is, all I’m saying is that the evil’s existence would be justified if God could bring good out of evil. The next part is to show that He can, and it need not be direct. His omnipotence and infinite wisdom prevent us from seeing necessarily what it is, but shows that it is perfectly congruent with sound reason to hold that He can. I can concede that many apologists display this argument in a circular manner, as you said at first, but if it’s laid out properly, it does suffice to answer the objection. Also, God’s existence can be proven in ways other than by degree. So God’s existence can be assumed. Also, the infinite goodness of God can be proven in other ways as well. That, however is a large topic, and since this is already deviating from the OP’s topic, it is not good to discuss that here.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[clem456]

God is not an idea that makes logical sense out of every thing.
God is not a useful tool subject to human desires and ideas.

God is a person. A good reflection of God’s love is marriage. In fact we speak of marriage as the primordial sacrament, or sign, of how God’s interior life is.

God loves, even without other creatures (this is a huge mystery itself). And God is creative and fruitful, and sacrificial. God’s love is not sterile.
Existence itself is evidence that something arose creatively from…? Love pours itself out. Just as in marriage, man and woman love, and that love pours itself out in pro-creativity. The way our bodies are made reflects this reality.

As in a marriage, God’s love risks rejection. God’s love does not remove uncertainty from life. Love says “yes I will commit to another for as long as I am, even knowing the potential for rejection exists”. In God’s case the rejection is a known certainty for him, and he loves anyway. God says “I will be faithful to you through, and despite, any thing you can do to reject me”. It’s an awesome and life changing thing to accept.

In this way, love does not count the costs. Love does not commit on conditions, but loves the person for the person’s sake alone. Utilitarianism only commits based on what one person can do for another:
“What good are you for me? Can you solve my problems? Take away this and give me that! Prove yourself to me and I will commit!”

There is a huge amount of mystery in knowing a person. You cannot know a person in their essence. How much more so God is unknowable in that sense. He reveals himself to us, but we cannot say we know him like we know 2+2 is four, or like this:
“if there is a problem a god would automatically solve it. 2+2=my problem solved”.

God is not a tool for our satisfaction. He offers us infinitely more than problem solving.

 

[jjr9]

The CCC says some people “experience”…, not “have”. And yes, by all accounts, this is true. It’s not important whether you believe it, just that you know that to act on such is morally wrong. And to treat people unjustly is morally wrong.

If your belief is that people experience exclusive SSA but do not have exclusive SSA I disagree.

SSA is real a temptation, SS behavior is real a sin and exclusive SSA is a myth.Believe whatever
you like.

God bless

 

[Solmyr]

The argument is as follows:

Apologist: There exists an all-good God.
Skeptic: If this were true, then there would be no evil in the world, since infinite goodness precludes the existence of the contrary, which is evil.
Apologist: Evil can still exist in the world, if the all-good God can bring good even out of evil.

That is quite simplistic. The PoE is much more complicated. It accepts the following as hypotheses:1) God exists.
2) God is omniscient (all knowing).
3) God is omnipotent (can do everything except logical contradictions).
4) God is omnibenevolent (wills the best for everyone or acts in the best interest of everyone).
5) The attributes of omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent are basic, inalienable attributes of God. If any of them is missing, God’s existence is disproven.
One more time: there are presented as hypotheses - NOT actual arguments. It is a logical fallacy to present the hypotheses as arguments. I hope you agree with this.

On the other hand, the existence of moral and “natural” evil is manifest in the world. This is a fact. The so-called “Problem of Evil” is a uniquely Christian problem. It attempts to reconcile the existence of evil with God’s attributes.

It’s that the existence of evil can be harmonized with the existence of an all-good God.

Yes, that is the problem. There are several attempts, one is the so-called “greater good” approach.

It says that for every “seemingly gratuitous” act there exists a perfectly good explanation, which is not accessible to us. This approach is vacuous without substantiating it.

I’m not saying what the good is, all I’m saying is that the evil’s existence would be justified if God could bring good out of evil.

Here you are already in trouble. God is supposed to be omnipotent, so instead of “patching up” the result of the evil act, he could prevent it, and find an alternate solution to bring forth that “greater good” without the evil. In other words, you must castrate God’s omnipotence. In other words, you must prove that an evil act or event is logically necessary for God to bring forth some specific greater good; that without the evil act God would be unable to bring forth that actual good; God’s omnipotence notwithstanding.

The next part is to show that He can, and it need not be direct. His omnipotence and infinite wisdom prevent us from seeing necessarily what it is, but shows that it is perfectly congruent with sound reason to hold that He can.

Again, you commit an elementary logical fallacy: “you try to use your hypothesis as an argument”. Moreover you confuse a “logically correct” argument with a “logically sound” one.

I can concede that many apologists display this argument in a circular manner, as you said at first, but if it’s laid out properly, it does suffice to answer the objection. Also, God’s existence can be proven in ways other than by degree. So God’s existence can be assumed. Also, the infinite goodness of God can be proven in other ways as well. That, however is a large topic, and since this is already deviating from the OP’s topic, it is not good to discuss that here.

Not that I have ever seen it, but that was already stipulated as a hypothesis. If you would wish to use it as an argument, you would need to present independent arguments for it.

I suggest that you should read a short summary, called “The tale of the Twelve Officers” infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html It enumerates the basic attempts introduced to solve the “problem of evil”. And it shows how inadequate they are.

 

[Lucretius]

On the other hand, the existence of moral and “natural” evil is manifest in the world. This is a fact. The so-called “Problem of Evil” is a uniquely Christian problem. It attempts to reconcile the existence of evil with God’s attributes.

You are actually correct. Greek theologies never really had a problem with evil: they would just say that the universe is inherently imperfect.

It says that for every “seemingly gratuitous” act there exists a perfectly good explanation, which is not accessible to us. This approach is vacuous without substantiating it.

It’s actually not: it simply points out that we can’t know what the reason for every evil is. Because there isn’t an evil that is explicitly gratuitous, then one doesn’t necessarily have to accept the conclusion of the problem of evil.

Here you are already in trouble. God is supposed to be omnipotent, so instead of “patching up” the result of the evil act, he could prevent it, and find an alternate solution to bring forth that “greater good” without the evil. In other words, you must castrate God’s omnipotence. In other words, you must prove that an evil act or event is logically necessary for God to bring forth some specific greater good; that without the evil act God would be unable to bring forth that actual good; God’s omnipotence notwithstanding.

We don’t use omnipotent to mean that God can make the illogical and meaningless possible. The good of Martyrdom requires evil, and to try to get the goods lf martyrdom without evil is as stupid as asking for the square root of yellow or a four sided triangle.

Furthermore, another Christian response is that evil was brought into the world by humans, and He is simply working with and through our mistakes.

Not that I have ever seen it, but that was already stipulated as a hypothesis. If you would wish to use it as an argument, you would need to present independent arguments for it.

I’m not sure I’m comfortable with “hypothesis,” because it seems to imply that these ideas about God are empirical. Otherwise, I accept your greator point: that the AFE is pointing out contradictions in a theology.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Solmyr]

We don’t use omnipotent to mean that God can make the illogical and meaningless possible.

You cannot arbitrarily redefine the meanings of words. Originally the word “omnipotent” was taken as the ability to do literally anything - even married bachelors or square circles or rocks that are too heavy that even God cannot lift them. Later even the apologists realized that this is untenable, and “watered down” to mean that omnipotence is the ability to do anything and everything, except logical contradictions.

The good of Martyrdom requires evil, and to try to get the goods lf martyrdom without evil is as stupid as asking for the square root of yellow or a four sided triangle.

What is “good” about martyrdom? It is definitely not “good” for the martyrs themselves. If you say that their reward was eternal bliss in heaven, then you again “downgrade” God’s omnipotence. God could elevate those martyrs without the torture. In other words, there is no logical necessity to endure some torture in order to be admitted to heaven. The point is that God could create everyone into heaven, directly, and then there would be no “evil”.

Furthermore, another Christian response is that evil was brought into the world by humans, and He is simply working with and through our mistakes.

That is a different issue. There are many different “explanations” for the PoE. Here we talk about one of them - the so-called greater good defense. Read the story of the twelve officers to see other defenses. I provided the link in my previous post.

I’m not sure I’m comfortable with “hypothesis,” because it seems to imply that these ideas about God are empirical.

If those ideas are not borne out by the actual, empirical reality, then they remain empty, vacuous assertions.

Otherwise, I accept your greator point: that the AFE is pointing out contradictions in a theology.

I am VERY pleasantly surprised that we have this agreement. After all, when I talk about God, I talk about the human theology, not God itself, whose existence I do not believe in.

 

[clem456]

You cannot arbitrarily redefine the meanings of words. Originally the word “omnipotent” was taken as the ability to do literally anything - even married bachelors or square circles or rocks that are too heavy that even God cannot lift them. Later even the apologists realized that this is untenable, and “watered down” to mean that omnipotence is the ability to do anything and everything, except logical contradictions.

Omnipotence has no restrictions on ability. In fact it is pointless really to talk about “ability”, as ability is sort of a comparative idea.
You can do this, I can do more, he can do less, God can do…what? The larger more pertinent question is “who is God?”, not “what can he do?”

The lack of contradiction really has nothing to do with ability. It has to do with nature or being. God shows us who he is and how he is.
God is “logos”, or reasonable. Not as in “he does everything with clear reasons apprehendable by us”, not reasonable like that.
He is reasonable in that, as he reveals himself, his actions are in accord with himself, as he is.
For example, since God reveals himself as love which is creative, it is not in God the father’s nature to love selfishly, just for his own self centered pleasure. His love always pours out in creation.
It’s not that his “ability” to be selfish is curtailed.

We think of people in terms of abilities and usefulness and accomplishments, as I posted above.
The end point is, the fact that God does not solve every problem does not begin to disprove omnipotence.

 

[Lucretius]

You cannot arbitrarily redefine the meanings of words. Originally the word “omnipotent” was taken as the ability to do literally anything - even married bachelors or square circles or rocks that are too heavy that even God cannot lift them. Later even the apologists realized that this is untenable, and “watered down” to mean that omnipotence is the ability to do anything and everything, except logical contradictions.

False. Actually, omnipotence originally meant that God possessed all possible powers, and can exercise them according to His Nature. It was a Scholastic theological word (just look at its Latin roots). Then, Descartes and other voluntarists took it to mean that God can do anything logically possible. Then, uneducated people took it to mean that God can even do contradictions.

But anyway, this is semantical: the latter two understandings of omnipotent don’t exist: the third one because it is nonsensical, and the second one because 1) it makes God able to contradict His own nature, and 2) it confuses the difference between imaginary and real possibility.

What is “good” about martyrdom?

Because it should the person is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to God, and thus make the ultimate witness to Christ for the salvation of souls. Remember the whole point of the Book of Job.

God could elevate those martyrs without the torture.

But Martyrdom by its very nature requires suffering. To speak of a non suffering martyr is to speak nonsense!

The point is that God could create everyone into heaven, directly, and then there would be no “evil”.

He did, actually, and we rejected it. That is the whole idea of the Fall.

If those ideas are not borne out by the actual, empirical reality, then they remain empty, vacuous assertions.

I guess what I want to say is that God can’t be known directly by the senses, but rather only indirectly.

I am VERY pleasantly surprised that we have this agreement. After all, when I talk about God, I talk about the human theology, not God itself, whose existence I do not believe in.

I’ve been saying this the whole time: the AFE isn’t assuming God exists, but rather attempting to point out a fatal contradiction within a theological framework

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Solmyr]

But anyway, this is semantical: the latter two understandings of omnipotent don’t exist: the third one because it is nonsensical, and the second one because 1) it makes God able to contradict His own nature, and 2) it confuses the difference between imaginary and real possibility.

How do you think you can know God’s “nature”? After all you cannot have a direct experience of God.

Because it should the person is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to God, and thus make the ultimate witness to Christ for the salvation of souls. Remember the whole point of the Book of Job.

A sacrifice is only meaningful if it is logically necessary… if there is no other way to achieve the desired outcome. By the way, the book of Job is the most horrifying, despicable and disgusting stories in the Bible… to PLAY a game with Job’s children and family to “prove” a point??? To pile up disasters on one some innocent bystanders to break someone? If I would give any legitimacy to the bible at all, then the book of Job would be sufficient to discredit the whole “shebang”.

But Martyrdom by its very nature requires suffering. To speak of a non suffering martyr is to speak nonsense!

That is not what I am questioning. I question the logic and necessity of “martyrdom” at all.

He did, actually, and we rejected it. That is the whole idea of the Fall.

Nonsense. If one experiences the beatific vision, there is no “dissent”, there is no “rebellion”.

I guess what I want to say is that God can’t be known directly by the senses, but rather only indirectly.

Then you have no grounds to declare that you know God’s “nature”. You merely hypothesize.

I’ve been saying this the whole time: the AFE isn’t assuming God exists, but rather attempting to point out a fatal contradiction within a

That is fine. The way I prefer to express it is that theology is a meaningless navel-gazing.

 

[Latinitas]

That is quite simplistic. The PoE is much more complicated. It accepts the following as hypotheses:1) God exists.
2) God is omniscient (all knowing).
3) God is omnipotent (can do everything except logical contradictions).
4) God is omnibenevolent (wills the best for everyone or acts in the best interest of everyone).
5) The attributes of omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent are basic, inalienable attributes of God. If any of them is missing, God’s existence is disproven.
One more time: there are presented as hypotheses - NOT actual arguments. It is a logical fallacy to present the hypotheses as arguments. I hope you agree with this.

You have a very flawed understanding of the argument. God’s existence, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence can be proven other ways. The objection of the existence of evil is a purported proof that God does not exist. No one ever said the response to this objection is a proof that God exists. It simply shows that the objection holds no weight, and does not militate against the existence of an all-good God.

On the other hand, the existence of moral and “natural” evil is manifest in the world. This is a fact. The so-called “Problem of Evil” is a uniquely Christian problem. It attempts to reconcile the existence of evil with God’s attributes.

See above.

Yes, that is the problem. There are several attempts, one is the so-called “greater good” approach.

Ah, a subtle mistake. I never said “greater” good. I simply said good. The all-goodness of God does not oblige Him to bring out the greater good, all it obliges Him to do is bring out good. What is that good? It is that end for which He brought the universe into existence. The goodness of the universe does not add anything to the goodness of the Divine Essence, which is perfect and immutable.

It says that for every “seemingly gratuitous” act there exists a perfectly good explanation, which is not accessible to us. This approach is vacuous without substantiating it.

There exists a perfectly good explanation for why God allows it, not necessarily for the act. Moral evil is a still an evil, even if God permits it.

Here you are already in trouble. God is supposed to be omnipotent, so instead of “patching up” the result of the evil act, he could prevent it, and find an alternate solution to bring forth that “greater good” without the evil. In other words, you must castrate God’s omnipotence. In other words, you must prove that an evil act or event is logically necessary for God to bring forth some specific greater good; that without the evil act God would be unable to bring forth that actual good; God’s omnipotence notwithstanding.

Straw man. The arguments are correct as far as absolute optimism is concerned. But the all-goodness of God only obliges Him to do good, not the greatest good. Remember that the world is the effect of an absolutely free act of God. The goodness of the world is not determined by the goodness of God’s essence, which is immutable, at least not proximately. The goodness of the world is determined by the end for which God made it. Hence, the greater good is simply that good which furthers the end by which God mad eit.

There are, however, some goods which do require evil to exist. Mercy, for example, is a good that requires some evil to pardon. Pardoning a good act is superfluous. The omnipotence of God has nothing to do with this. God could create a world with less evil in it; he could even create a world with no evil in it whatever; but this world would not be the one which best corresponds to that end for which He created it.

Again, you commit an elementary logical fallacy: “you try to use your hypothesis as an argument”. Moreover you confuse a “logically correct” argument with a “logically sound” one.

God’s existence is already proven. Same for His goodness, omnipotence etc. These are not hypothesis, but demonstrable conclusions. All that is requried to answer to the problem of evil is to show consistency with the all-goodness of God. The existence of God can be proven without reference to evil, good etc. Similarly, His omnipotence. Even His goodness can be shown. The question is, whether the existence of evil in the world militates against this goodness, and then indirectly against His existence. The answer is it does not. All-goodness does not prevent stopping all evil; it requires stopping all evil from which good (not necessarily the greatest good) cannot be brought forth. Since God in fact, does exist, and is omnipotent, there is every reason to assume that God can bring out good from evil, even very great evil. But the point is that the definition of goodness does not require the prevention of evil per se, but only in as much as good cannot be brought from it.

Objection: But again, you’re supposing the all-goodness of God, which is what is trying to be demonstrated here. Thus your argument is circular and thus invalid.
Reply: The all-goodness of God can be demonstrated without reference to moral evil. Thus, the question is how does one reconcile the all-goodness of God with the existence of evil. Moreover, the definition of all-goodness in the objection is flawed, which is what is being shown. From these two points, the conclusion that God can be bring out good from evil can be proven.

Not that I have ever seen it, but that was already stipulated as a hypothesis…

Irrevelant. Infidels.org is a terrible website for serious intellectual discussion concerning these questions. Honestly, they don’t even have a basic idea into metaphysics, philosophy, ontology or theology.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Solmyr]

God’s existence is already proven. Same for His goodness, omnipotence etc. These are not hypothesis, but demonstrable conclusions.

Well, I am away from my regular computer, and this tablet is inconvenient, so I cannot answer in detail.
There is no reason to continue, if you think that God’s existence and his purported attributes are “proven”. Best wishes.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Well, I am away from my regular computer, and this tablet is inconvenient, so I cannot answer in detail.
There is no reason to continue, if you think that God’s existence and his purported attributes are “proven”. Best wishes.

We don’t think. We know.

 

[clem456]

We don’t think. We know.

Your answer might sound like a smart alec answer, but we do know. The knowing is not merely intellectual knowing, but in the Christian sense, which means to enter into deep relationship with another.

I know my wife.
That doesn’t mean I have her vital statistics and phone number memorized. She doesn’t prove she is a person with an ID card.

I have a deep personal experience of her. A personal interchange.
Our emotions, spirituality, experiences, physicality, all of it is shared and experienced by the other.

God knows us more deeply than we could imagine. We reciprocate and know him as our unique dispositions and his grace allow us.