Natural Evil

  • Thread starter Thread starter Achilles6129
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
On the contrary. The fatal flaw in such arguments is that no one has ever even attempted (as far as I know) to produce a feasible blueprint of a universe devoid of natural evil. You need to explain why you believe it is possible and if you cannot you should admit it is not a rational objection but a presumption based on appearances rather than facts which highlights once again the absurdity of atheism and reveals hubris and small-mindedness rather than awe, humility and gratitude when confronted with the breathtaking beauty and majesty of the night sky in all its incomparable splendour:…
:confused: You’re shooting the messenger, those were not my words, I merely linked and quoted them to show that traditionally the problem of evil has been an argument against belief in God.

So can’t help you here. Suggest you take it up with Stanford, Princeton and every other university in the world, along with all the Christian apologists who failed to employ your argument. Good luck!
 
The difference between Gid and a seven headed dragon or a flying spaghetti monster is so vast as to make this analogy terrible.
The principle is the same. There is no way to find a positive evidence for nonexistence. On the other hand, the lack of positive evidence points to nonexistence, be it God, the flying spaghetti monster, leprechauns or Nessie. Because there is no positive evidence for any of them, the only rational approach is the lack of belief… while being open to the possibility that a positive evidence MAY pop up, and then the skepticism will HAVE to be discarded.
There are metaphysical arguments about the necessity of a being like God.
No, there are none. All the alleged metaphysical arguments (first cause, prime mover, sustaining cause, etc…) are unfounded speculations.
 
There is absolutely no evidence that a seven headed, fire-breathing dragon does not exist… so what now? When will people realize that there can be NO EVIDENCE of NONexistence? On the other hand: Absence of evidence is a very strong evidence of absence.
You may not be aware of the bear outside your cabin, but absence of evidence does not mean absence of bear. 😃
 
Quote mining is using a quote out of context to pretend it means something other than what the original author intended. - rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining

So nope - unless you want to argue that the quote misrepresents Jesus of course.

If you look around, the PhD professor of philosophy who wrote the article is correct, the problem of evil does cause people to not believe in God. For instance, Princeton course notes begin “The Problem of Evil is not a single problem, but rather a family of arguments for the non-existence of God”. The Wikipedia article has “The existence of natural evil challenges not only belief in the omnibenevolence or the omnipotence of God, but also belief in the existence of God”. And so on. That’s why it’s such a long-lasting and difficult problem.

I posted my answer, not sure when, about a week or so ago.
As to the logic, your point is immaterial. Yes, many have turned from the problem of evil to atheism. That does not mean they were logical in doing so.

The only three logical propositions you can produce from the problem of evil are as follows:
  1. God doesn’t care whether we suffer.
  2. God’s reasons for allowing evil are inscrutable.
  3. God is diabolical.
God does not exist is not a logical option. It would be as if you argued that electricity does not exist because you got shocked changing a light bulb.

Moreover, there is no logical evidence that God does not exist.

Therefore, there can be no logical conviction of the same.
 
You may not be aware of the bear outside your cabin, but absence of evidence does not mean absence of bear. 😃
On the other hand, if you go outside your cabin, look around with all the available methods and equipments at your disposal and see no bear, hear no bear, smell no bear… then the lack of the bear will be the only rational conclusion. It is not a 100% Cartesian certainty, only the logical and rational result.

You keep confusing strong evidence with 100% certainty.
 
On the other hand, if you go outside your cabin, look around with all the available methods and equipments at your disposal and see no bear, hear no bear, smell no bear… then the lack of the bear will be the only rational conclusion. It is not a 100% Cartesian certainty, only the logical and rational result.

You keep confusing strong evidence with 100% certainty.
Well, here is the rub. You want to be able to see, hear, or smell God.

Those are not the options for finding God.

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”
 
As to the logic, your point is immaterial. Yes, many have turned from the problem of evil to atheism. That does not mean they were logical in doing so.

The only three logical propositions you can produce from the problem of evil are as follows:
  1. God doesn’t care whether we suffer.
  2. God’s reasons for allowing evil are inscrutable.
  3. God is diabolical.
God does not exist is not a logical option. It would be as if you argued that electricity does not exist because you got shocked changing a light bulb.
I linked the SEP which says “The epistemic question posed by evil is whether the world contains undesirable states of affairs that provide the basis for an argument that makes it unreasonable to believe in the existence of God.”

I linked the Princeton course notes which say “The Problem of Evil is not a single problem, but rather a family of arguments for the non-existence of God”.

I linked the Wikipedia article which says “The existence of natural evil challenges not only belief in the omnibenevolence or the omnipotence of God, but also belief in the existence of God”.

The problem of evil has been described in similar terms for hundreds of years by professors and apologists and philosophers. If you think they’re not being logical, tell all of them, I can’t do anything about it.

btw The number of logical alternatives in any problem is always a power of two (as per truth tables). By only giving three alternatives, you therefore missed out at least one. I’d suggest it’s “God doesn’t exist or has departed”. But I’d also suggest you need to go to a higher power of two, since you missed out all the answers given by posters earlier such as “God can’t do anything about it”, “It’s a reward”, “It’s a punishment”, “It’s not unjust”, etc.
 
On the other hand, if you go outside your cabin, look around with all the available methods and equipments at your disposal and see no bear, hear no bear, smell no bear… then the lack of the bear will be the only rational conclusion. It is not a 100% Cartesian certainty, only the logical and rational result.

You keep confusing strong evidence with 100% certainty.
Your argument reminds me of David Hume looking for his “self” in vain. Do you believe you have no mind because you can’t perceive it? Is reality restricted to sense data? Perhaps you’re unaware of the reason for the demise of logical positivism…
 
Yes faith is the only way to find God, and faith is found only through the grace of God!👍
Jesus gave us reasons for believing in God:

“Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, 29yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. 30"But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith!” Matthew 6:28
 
I linked the SEP which says “The epistemic question posed by evil is whether the world contains undesirable states of affairs that provide the basis for an argument that makes it unreasonable to believe in the existence of God.”

I linked the Princeton course notes which say “The Problem of Evil is not a single problem, but rather a family of arguments for the non-existence of God”.

I linked the Wikipedia article which says “The existence of natural evil challenges not only belief in the omnibenevolence or the omnipotence of God, but also belief in the existence of God”.

The problem of evil has been described in similar terms for hundreds of years by professors and apologists and philosophers. If you think they’re not being logical, tell all of them, I can’t do anything about it.
That’s like telling Planned Parenthood they are wrong about taking the lives of the unborn.

I would be spending my whole life doing it with no result. 🤷

So neither of us can do anything about it.
 
First of all, it was YOU who brought up the “bear” example. How come you want to distance yourself from your own argument?
Well, here is the rub. You want to be able to see, hear, or smell God.
You mean that God is UNABLE to present himself to us? If so, why should anyone “worship” such a being? I seem to remember that “with God all things are possible”.
Those are not the options for finding God.
What are the “options”? The biblical quotes of “knock and the door will be opened” and “whatever you ask in my name will be granted because I will go to the Father” simply do not work. Is there a certain, tried and tested method to “evoke” God to ascertain that he actually exists?
 
Pallas Athene;1349471 said:
tried and tested method to “evoke” God? Meaning to call God forth, show Himself? The devil tried that and failed. Of course you may not know that. But there is a method that employs logical reasoning that prove He exists. It is call the Cosmological argument , there are several ways using the argument, through motion, order, necessity, grades of beings and origin. There are many other ways, but these are the classical ones. Of course you can reject them, but that wouldn’t prove the arguments wrong. Even so that wouldn’t give you the Faith, but it is a pre-amble. It is not right and appropriate for God to subject Himself to man, He did this once, in Jesus Christ, humbled Himself to the Cross, and gave His mortal life as a human for us. Now we will humble ourselves and accept Him on His terms, it is right and just. It is by Faith in Christ that we receive salvation, there is no other way. It was pride that caused the downfall of humanity through Adam, and the Devil, now we justly should humble ourselves before Christ. He showed us how.
 
I asked whether you believe in the need for spiritual medicine, i.e. spiritual help, and whether you have nothing to regret or wish to make amends for the harm you have done.
And I answered those questions :).
*The questions are:
  1. Aren’t we ever adversely* affected by our moral environment?
  2. Is there no** inclination **towards wrong-doing in children?
  3. Isn’t evil often more ** attractive** and exciting than virtue?
Question 2 is poorly phrased as it doesn’t differentiate between a child behaving immorally and one misbehaving through ignorance in the way that pet animals do.

Assuming you mean the former, the question is redundant as questions 1 and 3 also apply to children. I say yes to both those questions, which is perfectly in line with being born innocent and acquiring knowledge of good and evil as we grow up. In that Baptist theology, we are born innocent as are Adam and Eve, and then acquire knowledge of good and evil, as do Adam and Evil.

However, the thread is about natural evil.
The blood-stained history of the human race suggests there isn’t a natural explanation for evil that causes so much needless suffering.
Again this is off-topic, but every war has natural explanations, there are no wars without natural explanations, so I don’t see your point.
“natural evil” is a misnomer for misfortune. There is not much subtlety about death, disease, deformities and natural disasters: how could there be a natural system without them?
Natural evil is the traditional term. The problem of evil is that everything is as if there is no God. For instance, suppose a deistic deity who created the world and then departed and takes no more part in the world. That solves your issue of where did the world come from. But that’s also how the world seems to be. The problem of evil is that if God is omniscient then he is aware of needless suffering. If he is omnibenevolent he wants to stop needless suffering. If he is omnipotent then he can act to stop needless suffering. Yet he doesn’t. It’s exactly as if he’s not there. Why?

This is a perfectly logical question, despite Charles throwing up his hands and saying that all the philosophers and theologians and apologists and ordinary folk throughout the centuries who have seen this as a problem were just plain dumb.
 
And I answered those questions.

Question 2 is poorly phrased as it doesn’t differentiate between a child behaving immorally and one misbehaving through ignorance in the way that pet animals do.

Assuming you mean the former, the question is redundant as questions 1 and 3 also apply to children. I say yes to both those questions, which is perfectly in line with being born innocent and acquiring knowledge of good and evil as we grow up. In that Baptist theology, we are born innocent as are Adam and Eve, and then acquire knowledge of good and evil, as do Adam and Evil.

However, the thread is about natural evil.

Again this is off-topic, but every war has natural explanations, there are no wars without natural explanations, so I don’t see your point.

Natural evil is the traditional term. The problem of evil is that everything is as if there is no God. For instance, suppose a deistic deity who created the world and then departed and takes no more part in the world. That solves your issue of where did the world come from. But that’s also how the world seems to be. The problem of evil is that if God is omniscient then he is aware of needless suffering. If he is omnibenevolent he wants to stop needless suffering. If he is omnipotent then he can act to stop needless suffering. Yet he doesn’t. It’s exactly as if he’s not there. Why?

This is a perfectly logical question, despite Charles throwing up his hands and saying that all the philosophers and theologians and apologists and ordinary folk throughout the centuries who have seen this as a problem were just plain dumb.
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?
 
What are the “options”? The biblical quotes of “knock and the door will be opened” and “whatever you ask in my name will be granted because I will go to the Father” simply do not work. Is there a certain, tried and tested method to “evoke” God to ascertain that he actually exists?
Yes.

Do not think of God as an idea to be proven, but rather as a person to be known.

After you get to know him, you stop trying to prove or disprove he exists. 🤷
 
The problem of evil is that everything is as if there is no God. For instance, suppose a deistic deity who created the world and then departed and takes no more part in the world. That solves your issue of where did the world come from. But that’s also how the world seems to be. The problem of evil is that if God is omniscient then he is aware of needless suffering. If he is omnibenevolent he wants to stop needless suffering. If he is omnipotent then he can act to stop needless suffering. Yet he doesn’t. It’s exactly as if he’s not there. Why?
So, as a Baptist, why don’t you try to answer your own question? 🤷
 
This is a perfectly logical question, despite Charles throwing up his hands and saying that all the philosophers and theologians and apologists and ordinary folk throughout the centuries who have seen this as a problem were just plain dumb.
Would you mind citing the post where I said this?

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.”

With respect to natural evil, it would be far more logical to draw the inference that God is indifferent or cruel than to draw the inference that God does not exist.

"I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and infinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters, and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, the generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. We see too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in its course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and, were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite members of man who have existed through all time, they have believed in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe. Surely this unanimous sentiment renders this more probable than that of the few in the other hypothesis.” Thomas Jefferson

“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).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top