Theodicy/Problem of Evil

[Ferde_Rombola]

Ferde Rombola: Same to you with your heroic efforts, and I too am shaking the dust off my feet and I am moving on! And, by the way, I am a she, not a he.

My apologies. It’s hard to tell at this distance.

 

[jinminn]

According to a purely scientific, objectivist, and materialist understanding, there is no evil.

Correct. Evil exists as it is defined by humans. No humans = nothing to call ‘evil’. This is exactly why, however, the problem is a problem for theists not atheists. An atheistic world view sees us living in a world governed only by natural occurrences that happen by pure chance. Those who are killed are unfortunate but neither being targeted nor being protected by any supernatural being enters into the equation. Willed ‘evil’ then, too, becomes a natural occurrence of us being evolved animals.

For people who reject God, Evil becomes something that is self-defined by each individual (this is both objectively and empirically true). For instance, one person says “I think it is evil for someone to do X.” Of course, then, a second person is free to say, “I think it is not evil for someone to do X, in fact I like it when someone does X to me.”

Though I have not worked through an atheistic morality for myself, I would agree and disagree. Some atheists would say that there is no objective morality without god; others would not. I believe both theists and atheists need to rely on some a priori principles which cannot be fully verified. You being with god and go from there to derive absolute morality. An atheist would begin with first principles like the equality of all humans, the value of living for living’s sake, the supremacy of happiness in life, etc. Then each defines morality from there.

An interesting side comment is that even for the theist who theoretically has absolute morality because god is the absolute law giver is, in practice, also a relativist. Why? Because you cannot actually establish what god’s absolute laws/moralities are. Christian sects differ on this, judgment calls are made all the time, and the bible just isn’t long enough to describe every situation which might occur… so how do you lay out an absolute case of morality when you cannot actually obtain it directly from the god you believe authored it?

Interestingly to me, the problem of evil is reduced to a problem with the essence of Christianity: subservience to the will of God, or God first, me and my feelings second. The “problem of evil” reasoning is at its core a affirmation of the primacy of individual feelings and supremacy, upon which is built the denial of anything greater than the individual.

This isn’t how it is reduced for me. I’m not bringing up evil as a way to avoid being ‘subservient’… I’m bringing it up in light of the positing of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator-god. The issue at hand is to explain why humans find flaws in the existence of both moral and natural ‘badnesses’ (since you dispute ‘evil’) when one would expect a perfect creator to have created a perfect world…

 

[jinminn]

Jinminn: What Ferde Rombola and I wrote was truth - we were not asking you to believe what WE wrote because we wrote it, but truth is truth and it has to be written down in order for you to read it. These are not opinions, but the absolute truth, from Truth Who is Jesus Christ.

This is purely an argument from authority and/or blatant assertion. You have yet to establish any reason for suspecting that your words are truth from Jesus.

Neither Ferde Rombola nor I attacked you. What we did was to share the truth, if it feels like an attack, that is you not being able to “see” what is meant and taking it in a wrong way.

Perhaps not you… though I hardly doubt if you go back and skim Ferde’s threads that you will be able to say with a straight face that there’s not a hint of animosity in them.

You must either go one way or the other, toward God or away from Him, it’s that simple.

The route is to believe in god given evidence or to see a lack of evidence as supporting his non-existence as the more likely alternative.

God is with us, but when we turn away from Him and no longer desire His friendship, He lets us have our own will, and pulls back His protection, through our own decisions.

So Christians walking with him will be protected at all times? I’m open to believing in this; how can it be tested? Or would any sign of protection be supposed to have any distinguishing characteristics from non-believers (thereby unprotected ones)?

The only survivors at ground zero in Nagasaki, Japan when the atomic bomb hit, was a house with priests who were prayerful. And none of them developed radiation poisoning, as well - this is documented.

Googling ‘priests nagasaki bomb’ yielded this from wikipedia:
*"Suwa Shrine survived the atomic bombing of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. It is thought to have survived intact due to its strategic location in the central part of Mount Tamazono-san’s southern flank, although in the aftermath of the bomb local residents were quick to note that while the famous Urakami Cathedral and surrounding Catholic neighborhoods were obliterated, the Shinto shrine still stood.

This was considered to be significant by the survivors of the bombing, showing the power of the native Japanese kami as opposed to the imported Christian god. In addition, priests from Suwa Shrine took an active role in the rebuilding of Nagasaki, including consecrating the land and purifying structures that still stood.[1]"*

Looks like it wasn’t the Christian god at all but a rival god who protected everyone. Referencing this sound on the worse end like misinformation by you our your source and on the better end like your statement might have support but that someone else’s god also apparently came through.

They were protected because they asked for protection. There are so many instances of people being saved under horrendous situations because they prayed and asked for protection. This is truth…not accidental odds in their favor. This does not mean that good prayerful people do not die - we all have a limited time on earth, and if they are taken, it was their time.

You have no idea how in favor of this I would be. If this could be established, I would be a believer. How can we establish that, as you say, protection is predictable and repeatable (by definition what would need to be the case to not be ‘accidental odds in their favor’)? Please help do this for me and I will believe.

Also, if you take credit for god’s acting on behalf of believers, please take credit for the many pilgrims headed to or from pilgrimage sites who have died by plane, train, and bus throughout the years. Google things like this and you’ll get quite the death toll; deaths of pilgrims far outweigh the 67 approved Lourdes miracles.

Keep going in the direction you were previously going, and stop the agonizing quest for answers to everything, which will never be found until we are in our true “home” in God.

Or once one resolves to just believe in god no matter what, perhaps there are no more answers because no questions are allowed.

I too am shaking the dust off my feet and I am moving on! And, by the way, I am a she, not a he.

Carry on, then. I’d be game if either of you wanted to pull some Sons of Thunder action and call down fire from heaven on me like James and John. I’d at least know the answer then. Seriously, I’m open to a negative miracle of god removing his protection so much that my life literally crumbles before my eyes because of my rejection of divine friendship.

 

[Slowlearner]

Correct. Evil exists as it is defined by humans. No humans = nothing to call ‘evil’. This is exactly why, however, the problem is a problem for theists

 

[thegrons]

To the athiest there is no problem with evil because nothing is evil in their world view since everything is by convention and is relative. What is evil to one athiest is not to another and if there is not a final authority than anything goes.

 

[Slowlearner]

This isn’t how it is reduced for me. I’m not bringing up evil as a way to avoid being ‘subservient’… I’m bringing it up in light of the positing of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator-god. The issue at hand is to explain why humans find flaws in the existence of both moral and natural ‘badnesses’ (since you dispute ‘evil’) when one would expect a perfect creator to have created a perfect world…

Christians believe that God is goodness and love and we are to First, love goodness and love; Second, show goodness and love upon others; and Third, think of ourselves. Hard to do, but that is what we aspire and work toward.

What I read from you is:

God is not sending me clear, thunderous signals.
God is not dealing with evil in way I understand or like.
Therefore, I don’t need to serve God. [Nothing is bigger or more important than my own happiness, I will live for myself, me first.]

The last part in brackets is a supposition on my part – but based on my own experience. It is the way I once thought. If you believe in something bigger than your own happiness to which you should be subservient, please explain.