The Problem of Evil and Free Will Defense

[lofktis14kr]

Perfectly logical, and totally unreasonable.

Please explain how the wholescale destruction of ever human being (some toddlers, some unborn) along with the animals was “necessary”. How the genocides, rapes, murders are “necessary”? How the Earthquakes, hurricanes and other catastrophies are “necessary”? What is the “good” that comes out of them, which even God could not bring forth without these means applied?

That narrative reveals more than the wrath of God which we rightly deserve.
It also reveals God’s provision of deliverance from such destruction, the ark. God is wrathful toward sin, but He is also merciful to point us to the way of escape from impending judgment, Jesus Christ.

It was logical for the flood to occur. It was a necessary judgment upon sin.
What was unreasonable was for the people to reject God’s token of mercy.

God’s judgment upon sin is not unreasonable. It is holy. What should seem unreasonable is God’s mercy.
Isa 55:6 "Seek the LORD while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

God is unlike us both in His wrath and His mercy. Both are perfectly demonstrated in the death of Christ.
John 12:27 “Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I have come to this hour.”

 

[ateista]

hmm, i proved your argument wrong and you quickly encountered with the same argument, this debate on my part is over, since you seem to be willfully irrational and ignorant.

Your job is the prove how that argument is wrong, or give a better argument, if i am right your argument is:

if God exists there should not be irrational or unnecessary evil

There is irrational or unnecessary evil

so God does not exist,

My argument to answer that was that human knowledge cannot comprehend what is right from the point of view of God, we are not God so to say, so

if God exists there should not be irrational or unnecessary evil

There is God

so There is no irrational or unnecessary evil

To say that Christian position on this issue therefore is not as good as Atheist you would need to show my argument wrong

To argue for God exist, there is uncaused cause, fine tuning, complexity, moral objectivity, and so forth. For atheist as yourself it is actually funny to accuse God of being evil since in atheist position all good and bad things must be relative, which means problem of evil is only a real problem for atheist (i.e you cannot really say Hitler ever did anything wrong and base it on a real moral foundation, to me he did something wrong and I have a foundation)

But what I am saying is the problem of evil cannot disprove God,

And i know this argument works it is tested by a theist Philosopher called Dr. Craig, here is a link to a good article on problem of evil: reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5350 (you gotta register)

Since you do not understand the difference between a logically valid and logically sound argument, there is nothing to talk about.

And, no, you did not understand my argument at all. Here it comes to you edification:

1. If there is a omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, there can be no unnecessary death, pain or suffering.
2. The definiton of unnecessary death, pain and suffering is: which is not a logical prerequiste to some grater good, which cannot be brought about by any means, God’s omnipotence notwithstanding.
3. The pain and suffering of an innocent child or aminals, who will not benefit from it in this existence is unnecessary. The pain and suffering of an unrepented “sinner” (whose only “sin” is that he does not believe in God) is unnecessary. The possible argument that they will be rewarded “later” is nonsense. A possible later reward does not compensate for prior suffering - since the reward is not logically contingent upon this suffering.
4. These incients happen. There are children who die in pain and suffering. There are animals who die in pain. There are unrepented “sinners” who die in pain and suffering. None of these can be denied.
5. Therefore either there is no God, or, if there is, he cannot be omnibenevolent.

Q.E.D.

Your “argument” that we cannot fathom the ways of God is the purest nonsense. We can say with certainty that these beings do not benefit in any way in this existence. You (and your peers) strongly assert that an unrepented sinner will go directly to hell - and that is not a “greater good” - no matter how you twist it. Even if the child would be rewarded, that does not count, unless you wish to assert that without their pain they would not be “rewarded”. And the animals will not be rewarded at all.

 

[ateista]

Yes, if you take the story out of its context it certainly portrays God in a bad light. What precedes and procedes this portion of Genesis can’t be left out to understand it. It’s really rather simple;

Cain murdered his brother Able, God had mercy on him , set a merk on him that none would avenge Able by killing Cain. Lamech was the second murderer, who invokes God’s mercy and declares he is all the more to be left alone. Without specifics, it is said how depraved man had become. God was sorrowful of the situation, Chose Noe and his family to build an ark for a coming flood, which, given the size of the ark available tools and manpower, took years, decades. Given the proximity to the creation account, and the narrative, man was not yet dispersed throughout the earth, so it’s implied in the facts of the story that all had knowledge of what Noe was doing and could have joined him, the blood of the innocents was upon the parents.
After the flood, the first thing God did was make a covenant that he would never flood the earth again and instituted the death penalty.
God had to intervene that mankind would not self destruct, saving the specie without removing free will.

That does not help.

No matter how many humans were on the Earth at that time, there must have been small children, there must have been small toddlers, there must have been fetuses in the womb of pregnant women. None of these could have committed any “evil” acts, since they were all before the age of responsibility. And the question of “evil” animals cannot even be contemplated. The death of all these beings cannot be explained away.

 

[lofktis14kr]

No matter how many humans were on the Earth at that time, there must have been small children, there must have been small toddlers, there must have been fetuses in the womb of pregnant women. None of these could have committed any “evil” acts, since they were all before the age of responsibility. And the question of “evil” animals cannot even be contemplated. The death of all these beings cannot be explained away.

The Saducees denied the ressurection and gave Jesus a scenario which they thought he could not “explain away”.
Mat 22:29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.”

What is your basis for determining the greater good? The glory of God?
On what grounds do you assert that the death of infants and animals is unnecessary? On what grounds do you assert that death of infants is necessarily evil?

 

[ateista]

What is your basis for determining the greater good? The glory of God?

I intentionally left that one open. If the glory of God requires the painful demise of children and toddlers… I leave it to you to finish that sentence.

On what grounds do you assert that the death of infants and animals is unnecessary? On what grounds do you assert that death of infants is necessarily evil?

The painful death of these beings. Death is part of our existence. We all die eventually. But pain can be avoided in certain circumstances. Our moral compass says that if some pain can be avoided, then it must be avoided. To intentionally inflict or allow gratuitous pain and suffering is immoral.

Pain is something that we all try to avoid. Due to the lack of our omnipotence, sometimes it is necessary to inflict pain on someone in order to achieve something desirable. (Example: a surgery may be painful, but the restoration of health outweighs the pain which was endured.)

Now God could avoid these painful incidents due his omnipotence. We cannot. So in this respect the infliction of the pain (by us!!!) is a necessary pain.

The whole problem of evil boils down to this dilemma: “there might be some greater goods (unspecified) that logically require the pain and suffering of innocent individuals”. Not even God could avoid this route, no matter how “omnipotent” he is.

These pains and sufferings are morally justifiable (if they exist). Any and all other pains and sufferings are morally unjustifiable. The question is: “are there such pains and sufferings”? If there are, then God (if exists) is not benevolent. The definition of “benevolence” is that God does not allow gratuitous pain and suffering.

The problem is not simple, nor it is easy. There are several scenarios which must be considered. (The word: “person” will signify a human being, the word “being” will signify an animal in the following paragraphs.)

Scenario #1: The person who endures the pain is the same who reaps the “benefit” and this person is in full command of her faculties. Example: someone suffers from cancer. Her life might be elongated by very painful chemotherapy. It is her prerogative to decide if she wishes that artificial extention of her life. If she says “no”, her decision is final. Overriding her decision (and inflicting pain on her) is morally unjustifiable.

Scenario #2: The person who reaps the benefit is the same who endures the pain, but she is not capable of making such decision. Example: a child or an incapacitated adult. Who should make the decision for such a person?

Scenario #3: The person who must endure the pain is not the same who reaps the benefit. This is quite problematic. To treat a human being as a “tool” in order to give benefit to someone else is morally unjustifiable. Example: to extract someone’s kidney to transplant it into someone else.

Scenario #4: The being (animal) which is exposed to pain and suffering does not benefit from the process - but a human does. Under certain circumstances we may find this process acceptable (slaughtering an animal for food), but even in these instances our moral compass does not allow more pain than absolutely necessary. To torture an animal is morally reprehensible.

Can you (or anyone else) substantiate that none of these pains ever happen? Is there no animal (killed for food) which is exposed to more pain than absolutely necessary? Is it true that every human being who is exposed to pain will always benefit from it?

Arguing from the concept that God does not interfere with our free will is not acceptable. If God could prevent a morally unjustifiable pain and suffering, and he does not do it, then his lack of interference is not morally justifiable either.

Arguing that we are not in the position to make these judgments is not acceptable either. If there is no discernible benefit to the person exposed to pain then the pain cannot be morally justified. If any animal is ever exposed to pain which can be avoided, that pain is morally unjustifiable.

 

[tobias]

That does not help.

No matter how many humans were on the Earth at that time, there must have been small children, there must have been small toddlers, there must have been fetuses in the womb of pregnant women. None of these could have committed any “evil” acts, since they were all before the age of responsibility. And the question of “evil” animals cannot even be contemplated. The death of all these beings cannot be explained away.

This is a problem for you because you scoff at the idea of origional sin, and would ask ‘why does God let the whole specie be affected by acts of 2 individuals?’ Well, I will point you back to your own example of mathematical induction, You have ‘proved’ that it is a tenable scenario, so you can’t just say it doesn’t fit, unless you think your own reasoning is flawed.
If this does not fit a greater good scenario, what does?

On another point, all of these persons and beings would have died one way or another. Explain away or not, death is a fact of this present existence. Being bitter about the manner of someones death does not grant your position greater force.

 

[Fran65]

ateista,

Why is it ‘unacceptable’ to show a little humility and say ‘I don’t know’; but I do believe in God and He knows.

It appears to me that you put great value on the human intellect and it appears that you think we should know everything and be able to explain it.

Presumably your argument will end ‘and suffering happens because we live in a meaningless world and there is no God.’

 

[ateista]

This is a problem for you because you scoff at the idea of origional sin, and would ask ‘why does God let the whole specie be affected by acts of 2 individuals?’ Well, I will point you back to your own example of mathematical induction, You have ‘proved’ that it is a tenable scenario, so you can’t just say it doesn’t fit, unless you think your own reasoning is flawed.
If this does not fit a greater good scenario, what does?

Except it does not fit. Even if one accepts the “original” sin as a valid starting point, it did not have a “disease-like” consequnece. God actively cursed them and his creation. He did not simply “allow” the others to be affected, he cursed all the others, too. That is not the way a “loving”, benevolent being behaves. Or a “just” one. Or a “merciful” one.

On another point, all of these persons and beings would have died one way or another. Explain away or not, death is a fact of this present existence. Being bitter about the manner of someones death does not grant your position greater force.

You mean that other people’s pain and suffering does not hurt you, so it is inconsequential? Not very “Christian-like” behavior. I may be just an abominable heathen, but it does bother my sense of decency and justice.

But be as it may, the whole problem of evil is not my concotion. Christian philosophers, theologians and apologists all subscribe to the concept that causing or allowing gratuitous pain and suffering is morally reprehensible. None of them could come up with a plausible explanation, their only argument is that faith must be blind, the evidence must be tossed out. And then they are surprised that the non-Christians do not accept their version of “Truth”.

 

[ateista]

ateista,

Why is it ‘unacceptable’ to show a little humility and say ‘I don’t know’; but I do believe in God and He knows.

The reason is simple: you do not profess the same ignorance when you assert (most forcefully) that God is Love, God is benevolent, God is caring, God is merciful and God is just. These are positive assertions. When we see examples which seem to contradict these assertions (and I hope that you are willing to allow that they seem to point in the opposite direction) then you demand of me to suspend my rational approach and succumb to blind faith.

It appears to me that you put great value on the human intellect and it appears that you think we should know everything and be able to explain it.

Yes, I do value intellect very much. But I don’t expect to be able to explain everything. If in doubt, one may suspend judgment or give the benefit of doubt. But when case after case (millions of them) seem to point in the other direction, then at least one should stop and ponder.

The ironic thing is that believers assert that the existence of unexplained events (miracles?) should make me ponder, if maybe there is a God. Never mind that the incidents of such “miracles” is extremely rare, while the events I am referring to happen millions of times every day.

Presumably your argument will end ‘and suffering happens because we live in a meaningless world and there is no God.’

Indeed, it does. Or if there is a God, he does not care about us.

 

[tobias]

Except it does not fit. Even if one accepts the “original” sin as a valid starting point, it did not have a “disease-like” consequnece. God actively cursed them and his creation. He did not simply “allow” the others to be affected, he cursed all the others, too. That is not the way a “loving”, benevolent being behaves. Or a “just” one. Or a “merciful” one.

I’ll accept that as a self refutation of your ‘proof’ through mathematical induction.
And that is not the classical understanding. God said if you do, you will die. What you are seeing to be unjust, I would call merciful.

You mean that other people’s pain and suffering does not hurt you, so it is inconsequential? Not very “Christian-like” behavior. I may be just an abominable heathen, but it does bother my sense of decency and justice.

I was pointing out basic facts, not personal feelings. You are reinforcing my thoughts that such logic is merely feelings based, wrapped in rational terms.

But be as it may, the whole problem of evil is not my concotion. Christian philosophers, theologians and apologists all subscribe to the concept that causing or allowing gratuitous pain and suffering is morally reprehensible. None of them could come up with a plausible explanation, their only argument is that faith must be blind, the evidence must be tossed out. And then they are surprised that the non-Christians do not accept their version of “Truth”.

No, the ‘problem of evil’ is an Epicurian concoction. Just because it is not to your liking, does not make it implasible. Could you give example of Catholicism throwing out the ‘evidence’?
As long as you continue in denial of sin, no explanation or evidence will suffice. Which puzzles me that you can acknowledge moral evil, but will not call it sin.

 

[ateista]

I’ll accept that as a self refutation of your ‘proof’ through mathematical induction.

Since you don’t seem to understand it, I will not bother with it any more.

And that is not the classical understanding. God said if you do, you will die. What you are seeing to be unjust, I would call merciful.

I consider “annihilation” vastly preferable to eternal torture. You don’t like the idea that God cursed them along with all his creation. But according to the Bible that is what happened. In my eyes it was “overreacting” and definitely unjust. Not to mention that it was a lie. They tasted it, and did not die. And, no, please don’t even bother with the term “spiritual” death. It is yet another meaningless, nonsensical term.

I was pointing out basic facts, not personal feelings. You are reinforcing my thoughts that such logic is merely feelings based, wrapped in rational terms.

The fact that I feel strongly about it is irrelevant. The fact is that gratuitous pain and suffering is immoral, if one can prevent it, and yet allows it.

No, the ‘problem of evil’ is an Epicurian concoction. Just because it is not to your liking, does not make it implasible. Could you give example of Catholicism throwing out the ‘evidence’?

You bet. The evidence is all the inconceivable pain and suffering which has no rational explanation - if one assumes a benevolent God. Without such assumption the problem is moot.

Every time I ask these questions the same “non-replies” show up. The summary of them is: “since we are not omniscient, we cannot pass moral judgment”. In another form: “maybe” there is some good, unbeknownst to us. That “maybe” is all the argument I get.

It would be quite funny if a defense attorney would try the same argument on the trial of mass murderer. Just imagine the jury’s face when the attorney for the accused would say: “You cannot pass judgment on the defendant, since you have no full information about his frame of mind, when he tortured and killed his victims. Maybe there was some good reason why he did it. Since you are not omnisicent, you must acquit…”. What do you think the jury’s response would be? (Beside an uproar of laughter, that is.)

And make no mistake about it: this is your only defense.

As long as you continue in denial of sin, no explanation or evidence will suffice. Which puzzles me that you can acknowledge moral evil, but will not call it sin.

Of course I deny sin. Sin is a religious term. Moral evil is not.

Nevertheless your answer is acceptable. I understand it this way: if one wishes to stay on rational ground and does not accept the solution on faith, then there is no acceptable explanation. Precisely my sentiment.

 

[lofktis14kr]

I intentionally left that one open. If the glory of God requires the painful

demise of children and toddlers… I leave it to you to finish that sentence.

The glory of God does not require anything of us. If God had not created anything, He would be just as glorious. His glory is not dependant on what we are or what we do. Rather, He manifests His glory upon, and in, and through His creation.

The painful

 

[ateista]

The glory of God does not require anything of us. If God had not created anything, He would be just as glorious. His glory is not dependant on what we are or what we do. Rather, He manifests His glory upon, and in, and through His creation.

Death and pain and sorrow is our earthly destiny as a result of sin. A large part of God’s glory is perfect justice. He demands that our transgressions against His moral law be punished. It would be immoral of God not to punish sin.

In this case, the pain inflicted is a mercy of the one inflicting it. But that is not the only moral justification for inflicting pain. Jesus Christ, God’s own Son, was mercilessly afflicted by His Father while He hung on the cross. Though Christ only ever pleased His Father, having lived a sinless life, God vented His wrath upon His innocent Son. But it was not immoral of God to do so. Christ suffered in the place of God’s people. The just for the unjust. “By His stripes we are healed.”

Of course He could, but He would not because He determined pain to be a means of expressing His wrath toward sin.

Benevolent means to be disposed to do good. How would it be benevolent of God to allow sin to go unpunished? Your earthly, temporal thoughts cannot explain the existence of suffering. Physical pain and death are not the worst that can happen to a man. These are only the precurser to the eternal punishment that awaits. “Do not fear man who can kill the body and after that can do nothing more to you. The One you should fear is God who can cast both body and soul into the lake of fire.”

Because of sin, we deserve the miseries that come upon us. Any good that we recieve from God comes as a token of His mercy. These tokens are designed to move us to repentance. God even uses suffering to turn many unbelievers to Himself.

God has established various means for such circumstances.(family, church, state, etc…)

Example: Place undeserved guilt on your Son and spending your wrath on Him, then place His righteousness to sinners forgiving all their debts.

God has given us our ‘moral compass’ to teach us what He would have to do, though our consciences are polluted by ungodliness and unrighteousness. Yet, in spite of what good direction our consciences point us, we often disregard it and and dull our moral senses.

No, it is not true. We are guilty of forfeiting the benefit which God designs for our suffering. A proper response is to cry out to Him for the grace to honor Him while in the midst of suffering, but instead we murmur and complain against Him, judging Him as immoral and inhumane.

Rom. 6:23 The wages of sin is death.

Well, my friend, what you say may be a wonderful testimony of the depth of your faith, but it has nothing to do with the problem at hand. So I will thank you for your effort, but that is all.

 

[lofktis14kr]

You are saying that our ‘moral compass’ is the ultimate judge of what is good or evil.
What if your ‘moral compass’ points in a different direction from anothers?
Who determines what is evil then? We make our appeal to the law. Why? Because moral evil is manifested by a transgression of the law. Civil Law has its root in the 10 commandments, at least the second table (5-10) which are offences against men.

You are arguing about God, at least your idea of God is in view. Has this God in your view written the 10 Commandments? If not, then you have no basis for moral evil. Sin is lawlessness.
In order to keep sin out of the argument, then you must set forth a God void of moral expectations.

Sin exists as a violation of the standard of God’s law.
Moral evil cannot be conceived of without a standard violated.
You at least have a valid standard on which to argue the existence of moral evil
He does not.
Moral evil other than sin is, ultimately, nonsensical.
How can there be such a standard without One who has the sovereign right to establish it?
On what grounds can one possibly argue for the existence of moral evil? You may say that you do not like something. Maybe others do. You may say that good men don’t approve of something, but good men have changed their minds considerably and fundamentally over the years.
Are you saying what is in the best interest of mankind is moral good, and anything against that is moral evil, but who is to determine what that good is?
You?
Take infanticide. Over the centuries this has had radical swings in popular opinion of what is good or not.
Killing the weak. Bad? Now some call it euthanasia and to not kill certain sick people is labeled “selfish”
God’s law is an unchanging standard which His people stand upon, to determine what counts as murder (born, unborn, how old) and under what circumstances. Without God’s law, ultimately, fundamentally, by what authority can you say that infanticide is good or evil?

 

[Fran65]

ateista,

I am impressed by your lack of doubt that God does not exist.

You must have a tremendous and far reaching grasp of all things in the Universe.

Presumably, you also have no doubt that consciousness is not possible outside a brain.

Again, very impressive.

This could have saved (and will save?) many thousands of years of philosophical, theological and scientific endeavour; should you choose to share the reasons for your definitive conclusions.

 

[ateista]

I am impressed by your lack of doubt that God does not exist.

You must have a tremendous and far reaching grasp of all things in the Universe.

That is not necessary. The lack of a benevolent deity is supported by all the evidence around us.

Presumably, you also have no doubt that consciousness is not possible outside a brain.

Naturally. All the overwhelming evidence points in that direction. Neurophysics established that the learning process creates physical changes in the brain. When stimulating certain brain areas (with simple electrodes), we can induce thoughts, invoke emotions. Nothing points to the existence of a “supernatural” component.

This could have saved (and will save?) many thousands of years of philosophical, theological and scientific endeavour; should you choose to share the reasons for your definitive conclusions.

Just study science, and forget superstitions. Nothing could be simpler.

 

[ateista]

You are saying that our ‘moral compass’ is the ultimate judge of what is good or evil.
What if your ‘moral compass’ points in a different direction from anothers?
Who determines what is evil then? We make our appeal to the law. Why? Because moral evil is manifested by a transgression of the law. Civil Law has its root in the 10 commandments, at least the second table (5-10) which are offences against men.

You are arguing about God, at least your idea of God is in view. Has this God in your view written the 10 Commandments? If not, then you have no basis for moral evil. Sin is lawlessness.
In order to keep sin out of the argument, then you must set forth a God void of moral expectations.

Sin exists as a violation of the standard of God’s law.
Moral evil cannot be conceived of without a standard violated.
You at least have a valid standard on which to argue the existence of moral evil
He does not.
Moral evil other than sin is, ultimately, nonsensical.
How can there be such a standard without One who has the sovereign right to establish it?
On what grounds can one possibly argue for the existence of moral evil? You may say that you do not like something. Maybe others do. You may say that good men don’t approve of something, but good men have changed their minds considerably and fundamentally over the years.
Are you saying what is in the best interest of mankind is moral good, and anything against that is moral evil, but who is to determine what that good is?
You?
Take infanticide. Over the centuries this has had radical swings in popular opinion of what is good or not.
Killing the weak. Bad? Now some call it euthanasia and to not kill certain sick people is labeled “selfish”
God’s law is an unchanging standard which His people stand upon, to determine what counts as murder (born, unborn, how old) and under what circumstances. Without God’s law, ultimately, fundamentally, by what authority can you say that infanticide is good or evil?

Your questions are beyond the scope of this thread, so I will not go into details. If you want to open a new thread about this subject, I will tell you more (time permitting).

Morality is just a label we attach to certain behavior, which we agree with. Nothing more, nothing less. Some of these behaviors are codified into laws, others are unwritten rules, agreed upon by the society. Yes, they do change over time, and yes, they differ from one society to the next. For example: public nudity is perfectly accepted in some parts of the world, while it is frowned upon (even illegal) in others.

Laws can go against our established moral concensus (like the laws against the Jews in the Nazi Germany) and in those cases people will not obey those laws. So there is just a weak connection between laws and morality. Before you bring it up, in the Nazi Germany there was no general concensus against the Jews - so the existence of concentration camps cannot be considered “moral”.

It is possible that a certain society agrees upon rules we happen to find reprehenisble. Your example of infanticide (presumably you refer the the Taigetos) is one of them.

Just one more example. Today we find cannibalism unacceptable. However, a few years ago there was an airplane crash in the Andes and the survivors had to resort to cannibalism in order to survive. Yet, no one deemed their actions “immoral”, notwithstanding the fact that cannibalism is considered immoral. So much for “absolute” morality. There ain’t no such thing.

 

[Fran65]

So you live in world bounded by the existing evidence.

You also claim more than any neuroscientist or neuropsychologist that I know.

I am not convinced by your argument or claims.

You have not; nor has anyone else; demonstrated that consciousness cannot exist outside the biological brain. You can claim that,sure; but you are making a claim without enough evidence. Something that you accuse ‘theists’ of doing.

In addition, do you happen to be aware of the phrase ‘correlation not causation’? Most neuroscientists of my acquaintance are well aware of it and do not make the sort of claims that you do.

The neuroscientific evidence that you refer to has been likened to listening to a cocktail party through a wall with a glass and without knowing any of the guests or what they are talking about confidently mapping the interactions and claiming that there is nothing to more it than your own experience. Indeed, claiming that you know who is there, what they are doing, what they are talking about and why.

It appears that the more educated one is, the less certain one becomes.

As a Catholic and a scientist - not mutually exclusive as you might assert - I remain unimpressed by your argument.

 

[tobias]

Since you don’t seem to understand it, I will not bother with it any more.

Dodge.

I consider “annihilation” vastly preferable to eternal torture. You don’t like the idea that God cursed them along with all his creation. But according to the Bible that is what happened. In my eyes it was “overreacting” and definitely unjust. Not to mention that it was a lie. They tasted it, and did not die. And, no, please don’t even bother with the term “spiritual” death. It is yet another meaningless, nonsensical term.

Why is it a problem to confirm beings in who they are?
Whether God allowed a curse by natural consequence or instituted it matters not, it was an act of mercy to not allow initial sin to be eternally consequential as in the case of the angelic beings.
They ate the fruit and they also died, what lie are you talking about? Not fitting with your perception of cause-effect time frame is meaningless, for it is a willful misread of the text. And of course it’s nonsensical if you deny sin, for death is a direct result of sin in classical theism, whether natural or spiritual.

The fact that I feel strongly about it is irrelevant. The fact is that gratuitous pain and suffering is immoral, if one can prevent it, and yet allows it.

Pain and suffering without reason? Only athiests say it is without reason, I’ve reasserted multiple times in this thread there is reason and gave it.

You bet. The evidence is all the inconceivable pain and suffering which has no rational explanation - if one assumes a benevolent God. Without such assumption the problem is moot.

Again, where did ‘Catholicism’ toss the evidence out?
Mercy is good, and it abounds in the face of pain and suffering. Without mercy the entire specie is dammed, it is offered to all, yet many will it not. Let me rephrase that, mercy is not just a good, but the highest of goods, because just punishment is reverted. Mercy is greater good than justice.

Every time I ask these questions the same “non-replies” show up. The summary of them is: “since we are not omniscient, we cannot pass moral judgment”. In another form: “maybe” there is some good, unbeknownst to us. That “maybe” is all the argument I get.

see above.

It would be quite funny if a defense attorney would try the same argument on the trial of mass murderer. Just imagine the jury’s face when the attorney for the accused would say: “You cannot pass judgment on the defendant, since you have no full information about his frame of mind, when he tortured and killed his victims. Maybe there was some good reason why he did it. Since you are not omnisicent, you must acquit…”. What do you think the jury’s response would be? (Beside an uproar of laughter, that is.)

And make no mistake about it: this is your only defense.

Then you have not been paying attention to the defense.

Of course I deny sin. Sin is a religious term. Moral evil is not.

Nevertheless your answer is acceptable. I understand it this way: if one wishes to stay on rational ground and does not accept the solution on faith, then there is no acceptable explanation. Precisely my sentiment.

Sin is a moral evil commited against another person, so I fail to see your distinction. It is not rational to dismiss answers.

 

[ateista]

You have not; nor has anyone else; demonstrated that consciousness cannot exist outside the biological brain.

What kind of a negative question is that? There is the overwhelming evidence that our consciousness is the product of the brain. I don’t have to demonstrate that it “cannot” exist outside the biological brain - especially since I don’t agree with that idea. There are huge advancements in AI research, even though there is a lot to go. Eventually there will be true artificial intelligence, an entity which will pass the Turing test. Seeing the advancement in information technology it might even be in our lifetime. What will you say then?

In addition, do you happen to be aware of the phrase ‘correlation not causation’? Most neuroscientists of my acquaintance are well aware of it and do not make the sort of claims that you do.

Yes I am aware of it. Also aware of the phrase “post hoc ergo propter hoc”. How many neuroscientists do you know?

It appears that the more educated one is, the less certain one becomes.

Now that is something I agree with. The brain is barely mapped at all, but since the work has just begun, that is not much of a surprise.

As a Catholic and a scientist - not mutually exclusive as you might assert - I remain unimpressed by your argument.

No, they are not mutually exclusive at all. Simple curiousity, which part of science are you involved in? Please disregard the question if you find it intruding.

And since you are a scientist, what kind of evidence can you bring up for your positive claim that the consciousness is somehow “independent” from the infrastructure of the brain. As a scientist, you should have more than simple faith…