is this while they are being indoctrinated?, ah I understand, this is why we have so many religious fanatics. make sense now.
Can Evil Exist with an Omnipotent God?
- Thread starter the preacher
- Start date
What I was saying was that even if we had only "Good" and "So-So" to choose from, then "So-So" would be called evil simply because it is at the far end of the spectrum.cole grey said:
Good and Evil are comparative terms.
I am not saying that a atubbed toe is a bad as being brutally tortured to death, but if the worst that had ever happened to a person was stubbing their toe, then that would be the earmark for what evil is.
Have you ever met someone that was had everything they ever wanted haned to them?
Their life was without any real difficulty or strife...
They never broke a bone...
They never went hungry...
They never wanted for anything...
I have known quite a few of them.
Compare them to someone that grew up poor and hungry and had to struggle for everything they ever had in life while trying to avoid getting beaten by their alchoholic dad.
Person A will utterly collapse under the strain of things that person B deals with on a daily basis and doesn't even get phased by.
I have known people to react as if the world is crashing down around them because of a stain on an expensive shirt, and I have known people who feel blessed when they can get their hands on a shirt that doesn't have gapng holes in it.
Do you think there is no difference in what constitutes a very bad situation from the perspective of a rich kid that grew up in the suburbs of Philadephia and the kid that grew up in a mite infested hut in Somalia?
Raven,
from what I have seen, a person who is given love and is instilled with some opportunity to have self-worth and self-love is going to have a better chance of dealing with the struggles of surviving this life's challenges.
One example - I was reading a pamphlet from a local shelter for homeless youth saying a very large percentage of them had been seriously abused by their parents or guardians. Most of these kids depend on theft and begging for their "livelihoods". Many are dependent on types drugs that are incredibly damaging mentally and physical, and many sell themsleves for money, giving up their right to choose who they prefer as a sexual partner in exchange for money.
Would you say those people are not getting "phased by" the situations life throws at them?
Another example comes from a sociological study of two groups of kids from very low income neighborhoods. One group of kids, most of which had been able to see the example of a parent with a job and had not just been dependent completely on welfare, was able to maintain a hope for future development and therefore tended towards finishing their education, worked more often towards a self-supporting life, and stayed out of jail more. Your post would suggest the kids who were less supported are better able to not be "phased by" the situations they are presented with, although the evidence seems to point in the other direction.
I still affirm the idea that if things were less evil, people would be more receptive to believing in God, and am still trying to figure out, "how can there be so much evil", as I am still thinking that is the question that hinders human belief, not "how can there be any evil at all?"
from what I have seen, a person who is given love and is instilled with some opportunity to have self-worth and self-love is going to have a better chance of dealing with the struggles of surviving this life's challenges.
One example - I was reading a pamphlet from a local shelter for homeless youth saying a very large percentage of them had been seriously abused by their parents or guardians. Most of these kids depend on theft and begging for their "livelihoods". Many are dependent on types drugs that are incredibly damaging mentally and physical, and many sell themsleves for money, giving up their right to choose who they prefer as a sexual partner in exchange for money.
Would you say those people are not getting "phased by" the situations life throws at them?
Another example comes from a sociological study of two groups of kids from very low income neighborhoods. One group of kids, most of which had been able to see the example of a parent with a job and had not just been dependent completely on welfare, was able to maintain a hope for future development and therefore tended towards finishing their education, worked more often towards a self-supporting life, and stayed out of jail more. Your post would suggest the kids who were less supported are better able to not be "phased by" the situations they are presented with, although the evidence seems to point in the other direction.
I still affirm the idea that if things were less evil, people would be more receptive to believing in God, and am still trying to figure out, "how can there be so much evil", as I am still thinking that is the question that hinders human belief, not "how can there be any evil at all?"
cole grey said:
Those people are certainly suffering greatly, and that's exactly my point.
The things these people have gone through compared to what the others had to go through greatly affetcted what their scale of what evil and good is.
The whole point is that if you lived in a world in which no one had ever experienced any pain in any way, and you were the first (even if that pain was simply a stubbed toe) that pain would be the worst anyone had suffered and, therefore, would be the benchmark for what would be considered "bad"
Do you disagree with that statement?
(I am sorry for swaying back and forth between "Evil" and "Bad" I am attemting to stay consistent with the fact that I believe that "Evil" implies intention, but, in my opinion, the good/evil relationship is the same as the good/bad relationship)
Raven's statement
I don't think we would have many people using the stubbed toe as a reason not to believe in God.
Funny, both statements seem reasonable, but neither answer the question. I think you are correct that we have drifted and the original question needed to be asked again. Even if just to commemorate the thread, unless there is someone with an answer.
Cole grey's statement-one_raven said:
I don't think we would have many people using the stubbed toe as a reason not to believe in God.
Funny, both statements seem reasonable, but neither answer the question. I think you are correct that we have drifted and the original question needed to be asked again. Even if just to commemorate the thread, unless there is someone with an answer.
Cole Grey
I thought you were questioning my arguments themselves. I did not realize you were just pointing out my lapses in logic. I am sorry for the miscommunication. I understand what you are saying now. I read through both threads and read your responses. The reason my posts seem to go into a circle is because the way I am presenting them, not that my arguments are incorrect. I will try and do a better job for now on. I am going to use this thread for discussing free will and evil for now on since it better applies to this topic.
I thought you were questioning my arguments themselves. I did not realize you were just pointing out my lapses in logic. I am sorry for the miscommunication. I understand what you are saying now. I read through both threads and read your responses. The reason my posts seem to go into a circle is because the way I am presenting them, not that my arguments are incorrect. I will try and do a better job for now on. I am going to use this thread for discussing free will and evil for now on since it better applies to this topic.
*gives cole grey a hug*
*hands brutus a red licorice rope*
*hands brutus a red licorice rope*
The Devil Inside said:
Devil Inside
Is that to hang myself with?
the question of free will and suffering has been mentioned a number of times. why would god create free will and give us the option of creating suffering for ourselvesl? the most common reply i hear is that he wants us to come back to him voluntarily, to do his way, voluntarily, to find out for ourselves . but why? this suggests that god watches us much like a soap opera, like the increasing amounts of AI given to characters in compture games these days. its more interesting to play.
are we, his creation, not now seeking to go back to this paradise of the garden of eden / heaven? this is the ultimate goal of all theistic religions. if we had a suffering free existence that we hope to regain why would a god ever want us to leave this state in the first place? surely this again smacks of a playful, egotistical god playing with us?
if it is heaven that we seek and heaven that god wants us to come to of our own free will then why would we ever leave it in the first place? what is possibly gained by this journey which has suffering for us all and for some seems to be nothing but?
one answer that i hear is that god lets us make our own mistakes and learn much as we let our children do so. the reaosn i may let a child sting themselves on nettles and suffer as a result is because, while i do not want that child to suffer, they will learn from it in a far more powerful way, they will experience it and will remember it for next time.
however this is only applicable in a world in which a child may encounter nettles. if not then the exercise is pointless. i might as well have saved the child a few minutes of suffering.
since we are all aiming for heaven where there is no suffering what is it that we could possibly need to learn in this life that would help us on the other side? and for who's benefit?
now is this really a god worthy of veneration and worship? the more we look at the evidence in the world around the more it seems that the only god that could exist would be a god that is most likely malevolent and at best ambivalent.
these are only questions one has to answer when one introduces the idea of a god. one then has to shoehorn the evidence of the world around us into awkward philosophical paradoxes. we have to credit god with all sorts of strange nuances, cut him reams and reams of slack and ultimately say that "who are we to know his plans".
isnt it time to move on?
are we, his creation, not now seeking to go back to this paradise of the garden of eden / heaven? this is the ultimate goal of all theistic religions. if we had a suffering free existence that we hope to regain why would a god ever want us to leave this state in the first place? surely this again smacks of a playful, egotistical god playing with us?
if it is heaven that we seek and heaven that god wants us to come to of our own free will then why would we ever leave it in the first place? what is possibly gained by this journey which has suffering for us all and for some seems to be nothing but?
one answer that i hear is that god lets us make our own mistakes and learn much as we let our children do so. the reaosn i may let a child sting themselves on nettles and suffer as a result is because, while i do not want that child to suffer, they will learn from it in a far more powerful way, they will experience it and will remember it for next time.
however this is only applicable in a world in which a child may encounter nettles. if not then the exercise is pointless. i might as well have saved the child a few minutes of suffering.
since we are all aiming for heaven where there is no suffering what is it that we could possibly need to learn in this life that would help us on the other side? and for who's benefit?
now is this really a god worthy of veneration and worship? the more we look at the evidence in the world around the more it seems that the only god that could exist would be a god that is most likely malevolent and at best ambivalent.
these are only questions one has to answer when one introduces the idea of a god. one then has to shoehorn the evidence of the world around us into awkward philosophical paradoxes. we have to credit god with all sorts of strange nuances, cut him reams and reams of slack and ultimately say that "who are we to know his plans".
isnt it time to move on?
I don't think it has anything to do with him wanting us to come back to him.
I haven't seen any arguments that make that a reasonable option.
It is unnecessary to make excuses as to WHY.
It is quite simple.
If you believe in Free will at all, then there MUST be suffering.
Free will does not exist if it is offered with imposed limits.
Let's imagine God creates a planet of solitary jail cells, where people are created to sit and watch videotapes God has made to describe God and God's desire to have a relationship with each prisoner. At the end of the tape the prisoners are offered the choice, "would you like a personal relationship with God? If so, please pick up the white phone next to your bed."
Wouldn't these people have "free-will"?
Wouldn't these people have "free-will"?
I would assert that a shackled prisoner has the free-will to "come back to Him" as you put it. If God is concerned with the relation of our souls to God (I assume you do not use "come back to Him" as referring to physical movement), how do shackles on our physical bodies matter?
If you are saying that a person who goes to jail in real life, no longer has "free-will", then we have been talking about two different concepts.
If you are saying that a person who goes to jail in real life, no longer has "free-will", then we have been talking about two different concepts.
A person that goes to jail has had their free will limited to a great degree by society.
Free will is the freedom to do what your will desires.
According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. it is:
1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will. 2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
In other words, free will is quite simply the freedom to do whatever you want to do without being externally resticted.
Being in shackles, being in a prison cell, being unable to harm others, being restricted by ANY person or entity other than yourself is an imposed restriction on free will.
Therefore, free will, offered with imposed restrictions, is not free will at all.
What was the understanding of free will that you were arguing about?
Not being under mind-control?
Free will is the freedom to do what your will desires.
According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. it is:
1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will. 2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
In other words, free will is quite simply the freedom to do whatever you want to do without being externally resticted.
Being in shackles, being in a prison cell, being unable to harm others, being restricted by ANY person or entity other than yourself is an imposed restriction on free will.
Therefore, free will, offered with imposed restrictions, is not free will at all.
What was the understanding of free will that you were arguing about?
Not being under mind-control?
I was talking about a type of free-will that can only be used in theological discussion. The idea that people are created not under the "mind-control" of God.
RAVEN-
"In other words, free will is quite simply the freedom to do whatever you want to do without being externally resticted."
Your definition, and the dictionary's 2nd definition; both show that our "free-will" is already being limited by external restrictions, in the world we currently inhabit. Gravity inhibits my ability to levitate to the grocery store, thereby limiting my choices.
If our free-will is not considered hindered by our current reality, why does an insistence on free-will insist upon this type of reality?
RAVEN-
"In other words, free will is quite simply the freedom to do whatever you want to do without being externally resticted."
Your definition, and the dictionary's 2nd definition; both show that our "free-will" is already being limited by external restrictions, in the world we currently inhabit. Gravity inhibits my ability to levitate to the grocery store, thereby limiting my choices.
If our free-will is not considered hindered by our current reality, why does an insistence on free-will insist upon this type of reality?
Which would simply be an external entity restricting your freedom.cole grey said:
There is no difference.
Free will is freedom of will.
I knew you were going to say that. *sigh*cole grey said:
There is quite obviously a difference between the physical restriction of the laws of physics and an entity or force restricting our will.
It is a forced restriction keeping us from doing what we wish to and would otherwise be able to do.
An argument that we are not able to magically turn into a purple foam-breathing dragon is not a restriction of free will, it is a simple limitation of the system we live in.
If, however, we we restricted from walking on grass, it would be a forced restriction of our will.
Arguing otherwise would be a pedantic abuse of semantics, in my opinion.
The point is, we are mortal.cole grey said:
We live in a world with rocks, sticks and cliffs.
We live in a world with big jungle cats with large teeth.
We live in a world with fire.
We live in a world with water, which we can not breathe in.
We have to drink water and eat food to survive.
We are vulnerable to people who wish us ill will.
In order for God to force us to not perform any evil upon another person, even though we are obviously QUITE able to do so would be an artificial restriction of our free will.
If we are to have free will, you can not restict our ability to do harm to others.
If you restrict our ability to do harm to others, we do not have free will.
I, personally would rather live in a world with free will and risk, than a false prison world and be one of God's little puppets.
That, in my opinion, would be Hell.
Just a few questions...
1) If god cannot be or create evil, then where does it ultimately come from? Free choice you say? But god created that as well. If WE are the only ones that can create evil then we are like gods ourselves. For we can create something that god cannot.
2) Why does free choice have to involve a choice between good and evil? Why the extremes? For choice to exist all you need are two options to choose from. One can be "good" and the other can be "neutral". An example of this would be if you happened upon a street person begging for money. You can exert your free will by either being "good" and drop a few coin in his lap...or you can be "neutral" by just walking by and ignore him (which most of us do anyway). Why should the option of "evil", like beating the crap out of this poor person and stealing what little money he has, be even there? Evil does NOT have to be there...just "neutrality".
3) Does god have free choice? If so, is one of the options that he can choose from "evil"? If we need evil to understand what good is all about then how does god understand his goodness? Being nothing but goodness, he can't possibly conceive what evil is...let alone try to make US understand the difference between the two.
4) Can you be all knowing (omniscent) and still have free choice? Can you think about choosing between two options if you already know what you will choose in the end anyway?
God restricts our free will in many ways. He creates us with mental handicaps that doesn't give us intellectual freedom to hurt someone (being severely retarded for example). He restricts us from flying just by flapping our arms (hey, not all free choice has to involve good and evil does it?). The poor people of soddom and gomorrah were severely restricted of their free will when god decided to wipe them out. So were the egyptians who enslaved moses and his people. God twisted their arms by sending plague after plague and killing their first born. Sure you can say they still had free will to hold moses but when a superior is coming down on you like a ton of bricks then free will vanishes pretty darn quickly.
So if god doesn't want us to use our free will and punishes us for doing so (like soddom and gomorroh and the egyptians) then why did he give it to us in the first place?
1) If god cannot be or create evil, then where does it ultimately come from? Free choice you say? But god created that as well. If WE are the only ones that can create evil then we are like gods ourselves. For we can create something that god cannot.
2) Why does free choice have to involve a choice between good and evil? Why the extremes? For choice to exist all you need are two options to choose from. One can be "good" and the other can be "neutral". An example of this would be if you happened upon a street person begging for money. You can exert your free will by either being "good" and drop a few coin in his lap...or you can be "neutral" by just walking by and ignore him (which most of us do anyway). Why should the option of "evil", like beating the crap out of this poor person and stealing what little money he has, be even there? Evil does NOT have to be there...just "neutrality".
3) Does god have free choice? If so, is one of the options that he can choose from "evil"? If we need evil to understand what good is all about then how does god understand his goodness? Being nothing but goodness, he can't possibly conceive what evil is...let alone try to make US understand the difference between the two.
4) Can you be all knowing (omniscent) and still have free choice? Can you think about choosing between two options if you already know what you will choose in the end anyway?
God restricts our free will in many ways. He creates us with mental handicaps that doesn't give us intellectual freedom to hurt someone (being severely retarded for example). He restricts us from flying just by flapping our arms (hey, not all free choice has to involve good and evil does it?). The poor people of soddom and gomorrah were severely restricted of their free will when god decided to wipe them out. So were the egyptians who enslaved moses and his people. God twisted their arms by sending plague after plague and killing their first born. Sure you can say they still had free will to hold moses but when a superior is coming down on you like a ton of bricks then free will vanishes pretty darn quickly.
So if god doesn't want us to use our free will and punishes us for doing so (like soddom and gomorroh and the egyptians) then why did he give it to us in the first place?
Last edited: