Natural Evil

[CHRISTINE77]

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic." (from Voltaire’s essay On Atheism).

True words - great quote!

 

[inocente]

I hope I have clarified my questions so that our discussion doesn’t become too fragmented:

1. Have you ever done or failed to do something you regret?
2. Have you ever wished to make amends for the harm you have done?
3. Are we ever influenced by the moral defects of others?
4. Do we ever need spiritual help and inspiration?
5. Are children often inclined to be naughty?
6. Is it often easier to do what is wrong rather what is right?
7. Are films and novels about crimes often more interesting and exciting than other subjects?
8. Are children ever morally responsible for what they do?
9. What did Jesus liberate us from?
10. What were the natural causes of WW2?
11. How do you justify the assumption there is needless suffering in the world?

Sorry but I didn’t join this thread to answer questionnaires. What’s your point?

 

[inocente]

So, as a Baptist, why don’t you try to answer your own question?

< sigh > It’s not my question. It’s the Problem of Evil. I didn’t invent it. It’s been around for centuries.

Would you mind citing the post where I said this?

#173 (and now #180)

*I have always acknowledged the problem of evil. I just don’t acknowledge the problem of evil as indicating there is no God; and yes I think people who draw that inference are, to use your words not mine, “just plain dumb.”
*

As I keep on having to repeat, debate that with all the philosophers, theologians, apologists and others who disagree with you. On the one hand there is you, only you, you alone. On the other hand there are all of them. Argue about who is dumb with all of them. There’s no point arguing it with me, that would be dumb as I can’t change their minds or change history.

Seems to me we’re going in circles and the thread is RIP.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

< sigh > It’s not my question. It’s the Problem of Evil. I didn’t invent it. It’s been around for centuries.

And I notice that you are not interested in commenting on it except to argue that the problem of evil is a principal reason for atheism.

Absurd, utterly absurd.

so tell us, as a Baptist, do you think the problem of evil is an intelligent reason to become an atheist?

 

[inocente]

And I notice that you are not interested in commenting on it except to argue that the problem of evil is a principal reason for atheism.

Absurd, utterly absurd.

so tell us, as a Baptist, do you think the problem of evil is an intelligent reason to become an atheist?

The entire thread has been commenting on it. As I keep on having to repeat, debate it with all the philosophers, theologians, apologists and others who disagree with you on the logic. There’s no point trying to argue it with me.

*"The originator of the logical problem of evil has been cited as the Greek philosopher Epicurus, and this argument may be schematized as follows:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

This argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid if its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity." - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil*

Got it? EPICURUS. Not inocente.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The entire thread has been commenting on it. As I keep on having to repeat, debate it with all the philosophers, theologians, apologists and others who disagree with you on the logic. There’s no point trying to argue it with me.

Apparently you don’t cotton to complex questions.

I repeat (please do not sidestep): Is the problem of evil an intelligent reason to be an atheist?

As a Baptist, do you believe there is ANY intelligent reason to be an atheist?

 

[davidv]

Apparently you don’t cotton to complex questions.

I repeat (please do not sidestep): Is the problem of evil an intelligent reason to be an atheist?

As a Baptist, do you believe there is ANY intelligent reason to be an atheist?

These questions are clearly off topic. How does any answer to these questions address the topic of “Natural Evil”?

And, to me, they, the questions, are too close to the prohibition of discussing posters rather than posts.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

These questions are clearly off topic. How does any answer to these questions address the topic of “Natural Evil”?

And, to me, they, the questions, are too close to the prohibition of discussing posters rather than posts.

It’s very difficult to separate the problem of evil from atheism, as inocente is so often pleased to remind us. See his last post above.

What do you mean by “discussing posters rather than posts”?

 

[tonyrey]

Sorry but I didn’t join this thread to answer questionnaires. What’s your point?

Thank you for the “discussion”.

 

[tonyrey]

“Natural evil” is a confusing term because it is applied to nature but also human nature. Nature is obviously not morally evil nor are we are naturally evil because we are created by God. So where does “original sin” fit in? The Catechism sums it up in St Paul’s words:

“By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

Really “original sin” is a misnomer because we are not originally evil nor are we individually guilty for the sins of our ancestors as the Catechism points out:

“405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle."

The effects of our ancestors’ sins are clearly demonstrated by the blood-stained history of our race, the lust for power which has so often dominated mankind, the inclination of children to be naughty, the fascination of evil and attraction of vice which often seem more exciting than virtue, our difficulty in following the precepts of Jesus even though we have good intentions, our susceptibility to the bad example of others, our need to confess what we have done wrong and above all our need for redemption by Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross. He came to liberate us from our ignorance, weakness and slavery to sin, both individual and collective. We are not isolated individuals but members of one family deeply affected by one another’s beliefs and behaviour for good and for evil from the moment we are born until the moment we die. Of that there is no doubt whatsoever and that is why we belong to the Communion of Saints if we choose to respond to Our Lord’s love. However much we have sinned we are forgiven to the extent we forgive others, follow His example of overcoming temptation at Gethsemane, accepting suffering as the price of our salvation and ultimately being united to Him forever in heaven. Nothing can separate us from His love except ourselves…

 

[inocente]

Apparently you don’t cotton to complex questions.

I repeat (please do not sidestep): Is the problem of evil an intelligent reason to be an atheist?

As a Baptist, do you believe there is ANY intelligent reason to be an atheist?

To a sectarian, no doubt Baptists are as intelligent as atheists when it comes to complex [sic] questions.

We’re both on another thread where your question would at least have had something to do with the topic, yet you break forum rules by jumping threads and try to tempt me into also breaking forum rules.

RIP thread. It was interesting until it got hijacked.

 

[inocente]

Thank you for the “discussion”.

And “you” .

btw In #190 you say natural evil is a confusing term and original sin is a minomer, but they are traditional terms, in use for hundreds of years, and I wouldn’t think confusing if the concepts behind the terms are clearly understood.

 

[tonyrey]

And “you” .

btw In #190 you say natural evil is a confusing term and original sin is a minomer, but they are traditional terms, in use for hundreds of years, and I wouldn’t think confusing if the concepts behind the terms are clearly understood.

The problem is that in our secular society such terms are taken at their face value and not clearly understood by most people. Even a fair number of Christians believe there is an element of guilt in original sin and natural evil is the result of moral evil. The Catechism corrects this mistake by pointing out that physical existence inevitably has drawbacks, limitations, and imperfections. An earthly Utopia is no more than a fantasy.

 

[tonyrey]

The entire thread has been commenting on it. As I keep on having to repeat, debate it with all the philosophers, theologians, apologists and others who disagree with you on the logic. There’s no point trying to argue it with me.

*"The originator of the logical problem of evil has been cited as the Greek philosopher Epicurus, and this argument may be schematized as follows:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

This argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid if its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity." - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil*

Got it? EPICURUS. Not inocente.

The first premise is false because omnipotence doesn’t entail inconsistency. Since only God is perfect in every respect it is inevitable that everything created by God is imperfect in some respect, i.e. it has limitations and drawbacks. Therefore the argument is invalid…

 

[inocente]

The first premise is false because omnipotence doesn’t entail inconsistency. Since only God is perfect in every respect it is inevitable that everything created by God is imperfect in some respect, i.e. it has limitations and drawbacks. Therefore the argument is invalid…

It isn’t logically inconsistent, since God created heaven, and there is no evil or suffering in heaven.

And there is no reason why logic constrains an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God to only being able to create a world in which a child dies of diarrhea every minute of every day.

And logically, even in this world, an all-powerful God could act to stop such suffering. Or don’t you believe in miracles?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And there is no reason why logic constrains an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God to only being able to create a world in which a child dies of diarrhea every minute of every day.

And logically, even in this world, an all-powerful God could act to stop such suffering. Or don’t you believe in miracles?

Is it your view that God is indifferent, malevolent, or less than omnipotent?

In other words, can you explain why God allows these things to happen?

Or do you think these things that happen are a good reason not to believe in God?

Please try not be evasive by referring to Epicurus. We are interested in YOUR thoughts, not his.

 

[inocente]

Is it your view that God is indifferent, malevolent, or less than omnipotent?

In other words, can you explain why God allows these things to happen?

Or do you think these things that happen are a good reason not to believe in God?

Please try not be evasive by referring to Epicurus. We are interested in YOUR thoughts, not his.

Who is this royal we you keep referring to? Have you been crowned Prince of Lubbock? Or recently developed a split personality?

In your enthusiasm you don’t appear to have noticed the difference between explaining an argument and agreeing with an argument. I did my best to explain the argument. I didn’t agree with it. Take a moment to savor the difference. Well, take longer as I’m out of here now for today.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Who is this royal we you keep referring to? Have you been crowned Prince of Lubbock? Or recently developed a split personality?

In your enthusiasm you don’t appear to have noticed the difference between explaining an argument and agreeing with an argument. I did my best to explain the argument. I didn’t agree with it. Take a moment to savor the difference. Well, take longer as I’m out of here now for today.

Evasive as ever!

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Is it your view that God is indifferent, malevolent, or less than omnipotent?

In other words, can you explain why God allows these things to happen?

Or do you think these things that happen are a good reason not to believe in God?

Please try not be evasive by referring to Epicurus. We are interested in YOUR thoughts, not his.

I’m curious if all Baptists share Inocente’s view of God? I thought all Christians believe that God is merciful and all-loving?

 

[tonyrey]

The first premise is false because omnipotence doesn’t entail inconsistency. Since only God is perfect in every respect it is inevitable that everything created by God is imperfect in some respect, i.e. it has limitations and drawbacks. Therefore the argument is invalid…

Unsurprisingly heaven is in a different category from earth. There is no moral or natural evil because it is a spiritual realm in which everyone is united to God.

And there is no reason why logic constrains an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God to only being able to create a world in which a child dies of diarrhea every minute of every day.

God is not constrained but He is consistent. It would defeat the purpose of creating the laws of nature which are essential for physical life if He constantly suspended them simply because of disease and starvation that are largely caused by human greed, indifference and selfishness. We do not know to what extent God intervenes to prevent and alleviate suffering and death but we can be sure He does His utmost to do so unless we are hardened cynics and sceptics like Schopenhauer who think this is the worst of all possible worlds. Obviously there are disasters such as epidemics, droughts, earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, and avalanches but how could they all be prevented without depriving us of our freedom to choose what to believe and how to live? If we object to Big Brother observing all our activity how much more constrained would we be if we knew for certain every single thought, feeling and temptation is known to God…

And logically, even in this world, an all-powerful God could act to stop such suffering.

How do you know God never or even rarely prevents or mitigates pain and misery? Do you have any evidence? If so produce it.

Or don’t you believe in miracles?

It sounds as if you are the one who doesn’t believe in miracles. Otherwise you wouldn’t have emphasised so wholeheartedly that natural evil is an overwhelming objection to the existence of a loving God beyond all possible doubt. It seems incompatible with being a Christian - unless you agree with Luther that reason is a whore and subscribe to the dictum “Credo quia absurdum”…