Is God Responsible For The Evil In The World? No He Is Not.

*You set a good example of how to discuss ideas.

* I think its time for me to reduce my participation in
this thread. Its non-productive.

* Thanks again for your input.

* Here is a good Tolkien quote for you:

“All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be the blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.”
___J.R.R. Tolkien


`

 

RE: Is God Responsible For The Evil In The World? No He Is Not.
⁜→ et al,

(SHORT ANSWER) Yes the Supreme Being is responsible.

OPPOSING VIEW ​

Just for the sake of the discussion, let's assume the a priori position that (the scale, magnitude and complexity of the universe → the physical laws and say) IF what we see is true, THEN the Supreme Being (the creator of all things) must exist - THEN it also follows that there is a "Manufacturers Defect" in the creation of "man."
(COMMENT)

In order for "evil" to exist, the action being "evil" is a product of "free will." The "Free Will" assumption is that man has the choice to take action. The "Free Will Argument" is based upon that ability to make the choice: We either have the capacity to choose between doing "good" or "evil" (the decision-making process).

• IF the Supreme Being is all knowledgeable (Omniscience) THEN it follows that if the Supreme Being knows today, what action I will take tomorrow and the Supreme Beings knowledge is infallible, then I have no choice tomorrow to do anything other than to make the choice that the Supreme Being knew to be true.

• IF the Supreme Being is all knowledgeable (Omniscience) THEN it follows that the Supreme Being's creation can only do what the Supreme Being included in the creations capabilities. And the Supreme Being knows today, what action I will take in the future, then in the future, I have no choice than to function accordingly.​

In the case of Adam and Eve → the Apple → and the Garden of Eden, when the Supreme Being created Eve, the Supreme Being knew then that Eve would choose to eat the Apple. This raises the question:

• Can the Supreme Being do "evil" through an act of omission?

• Where does the fault rest when the creation does evil through the improper assembly?

• The case of knowing right from wrong, good from evil, and the special significants
in moral turpitude, is that the fault of the Supreme Being?​

These open the question as to the culpability of the Supreme Being (if there is such a thing) in the matter of the "Original Sin."

Just My Thought!


Most Respectfully,
R

 

That can never be established with Empiricism and Rationalism.
The very concept of God demands Faith.
The world of the supernatural cannot be accessed with the tools
of Secularism. The path to Faith in God is the heart, and not the
intellect.

That presents the same problem: Who created the Aliens?
There has to be a First Cause of all things -- otherwise you are
left with believing that the Universe and all that is in it, is Eternal --
that it always existed and never "began to exist." So? So if you
can believe that by Faith, you can believe in God by Faith.

You most surely cannot prove that the Universe and all that
is in it, always existed --- that it never "began to exist" --- so
the belief that the Universe always existed is a Faith belief.
It cannot be demonstrated true with science. It takes no more
Faith to believe in John 3:16 than it takes to believe that
there was no First Cause that created the Universe.
Without belief in a First Cause you have to believe that
the Universe {matter} is Eternal that it always existed --
that it never "began to exist" -- this is pure Faith.

That is surely true.
Consider this:

"Henry y Dodwell argues that matters of religious faith lie outside
the determination of reason. God could not possibly have intended
that reason should be the faculty to lead us to faith, for faith cannot
hang indefinitely is suspense while reason cautiously weighs and
reweighs arguments. The Scriptures teach, on the contrary, that the
way to God is by means of the heart, not by means of the intellect

Now Alvin Plantinga . . .

"Alvin Plantinga has launched a sustained attack on theological
rationalism. Plantinga maintains that belief in God and in the
central doctrines of Christianity is both rational and warranted
wholly apart from any evidential foundations for belief . . .

Then William Lane Craig says . . .

I think that Dodwell and Plantinga are correct that, fundamentally, the way we
know Christianity to be true is by the self-authenticating witness of God's
Holy Spirit."
End quote

Source:
Reasonable Faith
by William Lane Craig
pages 35, 39, 43

Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig are considered to be Christendom's top
Christian apologists.

__________________

JAG Writes:
Christianity is a FAITH.

The word FAITH occurs hundreds and hundreds of times in the Bible and is
presented as being absolutely essential to sustaining the Christian FAITH.

So?

So demonstrate with Empiricism and Logic that Christianity is true at the
certainty-level of 2 + 2 = 4 and you then no longer have to exercise
FAITH in God.

It does NOT require any FAITH to believe that 2 + 2 = 4.

Eliminate FAITH from Christianity and Christianity has just been destroyed and wrecked.

These 5 Bible verses below would no longer be needed and would no longer be true.

■ "without faith it is impossible to please God"

■ "for by grace are you saved through faith"

■ "he that comes to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him"

■ "believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved"

■ God gave His only Son that whoever believes on Him shall not perish but have eternal life

■ And the HUNDREDS of other Bible verses that demand faith would no longer be needed or be true.

Demonstrate with empiricism that Christianity is true at the certainty-level
of 2 + 2 = 4 and then you would have the following false view of Christianity:

{AA} He that comes to God need NOT exercise faith because we now know, based upon
empirical evidence that rises to the certainty-level of 2 + 2 = 4, that God exists. It is
just as certain as is the fact that New York City exists. No faith is needed to believe
that New York City exists. No faith is needed to believe that 2 + 2 = 4

{AA} above would destroy the Christian Faith. Christianity is a Faith and not a philosophical
intellectual system based upon Rationalism and Empiricism.


`

 

YOU listed things you omnipotent God was impotent in, and I added another. You didn't have to say your God was impotent because you listed his impotence proving his impotence. An omnipotent God CAN do the impossible if he can't, as you yourself proved, then he or she is NOT omnipotent.

om·nip·o·tent
adjective

1. (of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.

 

You just described ENERGY!!!!
Did you know that everything in the universe is energy in one form or another.
You simply have taken energy and made it a God with human characteristics!!!!!

 

It's wrong to assume that being "free" means that we are automatically prone to committing acts that others would consider evil. Why create a species of bipedal great apes with primitive impulses to commit acts of violence and murder, both individually and in groups, acts of sexual violence, acts of theft, destruction, hatred and bigotry and so on? Being intelligent creatures with free will does not necessitate having this particular kind of primate nature.

 

I've read your response with great interest and I just have to quote the OP on this one

Ditto!

Hmmm! Sounds a lot like "The Big Bang"!

 

Where is your answer to these two very simple questions?

Do you see knowledge as an asset or a curse? And what about honesty? Is that an asset or a curse?

Answer: You haven't decided.

 

And if God does not exist where did the Universe come from. An age old excuse for believing in a supreme creator. Why, if the concept of God can be considered eternal then the concept of the Universe being eternal can be considered. Did God create the universe or did the Universe create God. The Universe is as much a living being as the concept of God being a living being. In fact, more so, as we can see it, explore it and experience it. With God we have nothing. Only attributes that come from the human mind. To say that everything came from nothing is nonsense until we understand scientific explanation of nothing. Nothing was supposed to exist between the earth and the moon but we know various things do. Gravity, dark matter etc. Quantum Physics and Quantum mechanics is altering our understanding of 'nothing' According to many there is no such things as nothingness.
Quantum Physics and Quantum Mechanics are showing that what we thought was nothing has always been full of atoms, quarks etc appearing out of nothing and often returning to nothing.

You don't know that God exists. He is just a series of neurons and electrical impulses in your mind. I don't know he doesn't exist for the same reason. Neither you or I have any proof only opinions about God. . What we can do is to prove/disprove those things that are written down or actually occur.

Good luck with your opinions. I'm wasting time

 

But are the ants wrong?

 

I have no friends on this thread or indeed forum, some posts I agree with and some I do not, you have made my friends up, they are a figmant of your furtive imagination. Please stick to the arguments and not what you imagine. This is clearly deflection.

Again no rebuttal of my arguments simply personal attack on myself, try sticking to rebutting the arguments and not your strawmen created by your imagination.

 

​

Logic demands that conclusion.
Man is clearly imperfect.
If all you use is Logic then you will be forced to conclude that
there is a Manufacturer's Defect in the creation of man.
And here the discussion ends.
If all you have to go on is Logic. There is nothing else to say
Here you will simply hold your Logical position.
Here you will draw whatever conclusions you want to draw.
Here you win the point.
_________

But , , ,
There are Faith based answers to the Manufactures Defect problem.
If you rule out Faith answers then there is nothing left to say.
I will give you MY Faith based answer.
Here it is:
Yes God created man with a defect.
That defect was man's Free Will.
The defect was in the fact that man could use his Free Will to sin.
Man did in fact do that.
Man was therefore NOT created perfect in the sense that he could not Sin.
But God had a good long-term reason for creating man with a Free Will.
God wanted creatures that would freely choose to love and obey Him.
Free Will was required to get this results.
Here I am going to have to give you MY views on Christian Eschatology.
The Human Race is in its infancy. We have many mega-millenniums
yet to go before Human History comes to an end.
There will be mega-billions of human yet to be born.
God knows that the huge-enormous vast majority of the human race
will be rescued from Sin. Yet future.
The final number of the saved will be like the number of the stars in the
sky and the number of the grains of sand on the seashore.
The final number of the lost will be relatively small in percent ratio
to the final number of those salvaged.
So? So God's Net Gain in percent ratio to God's "acceptable losses"
is huge-enormous.
Those finally lost will make up only a "tiny corner" of the Universe,
so to speak.
Thus Free Will was God's long term Plan for His Human race Project.
_______

As I said, if you rule out Faith based answers then your point up there
is irrefutable. Without Faith based answers you win the point.

______

RoccoR, you wrote a good post up there.
I will try to respond to another of your points tomorrow.


Edit: That formatting CENTER code you used caused the above center format, not me.`


​

 

While I will agree with Alvin and his point of free will, in answer to the question in the title, God is indeed responsible for the evil in the world. Simply by defining what is good, it in turn automatically creates a definition of what is evil. One cannot exist without the other. By further allowing the free will, He then assures that individuals will engage in evil acts. For that matter Alvin says as much.

 

RE: Is God Responsible For The Evil In The World? No He Is Not.
⁜→ JAG, trevorw2539, et al,

BLUF: Before we can even intelligently address this question, we must come to a consensus as to what we mean when we say: "there is a GOD." We must be able to agree upon a sound and deductively valid definition of the term "GOD." We cannot agree on any solution if we can NOT agree on this description.

(QUESTIONS)

Is there one single deity? (If not, how many deities are there?)
What are the characteristic of a deity?

1. Is the deity everlasting – without a beginning and without an ending.
   
2. Is the deity unchanging throughout all time, neither eroding or evolving?
   
3. Does the deity have human characteristics? (Or does the deity have any wants and needs.)
   
4. Is the deity All-Powerful?
5. Is the deity All-knowing? (Does this include being all-wise?)
   
6. Is the deity infallible?
7. Can the deity procreate? (When the diety procreates, are the God Powers inherited in the offspring.)
8. Can a deity empower lesser beings with supernatural powers?
9. Is the deity beyond the limitations in the dimensions of space and time?

We need to agree on the answers to these questions before we can describe the supernatural (outside the scope of scientific understanding of the laws of the universe).



Most Respectfully,
R

 

Again an entire post in which you do not address the arguments but simply attack the poster with your imaginings on how I feel and what you think I think, something you cannot possibly know!
Anyone reading your post can see the clear deflection away from my points.
Here is my original post try to concentrate on the arguments,

Hard not to mock a spell in the 21st century which is what an atheist
would think of your incantations. Luckily you have directed it at a fellow
atheist and not a theist of a different brand, they can get very upset
when you utter what they consider to be your false gods woo woo.
Plenty of wars, suicide bombings and torture have taken place
because of the wrong magic directed at the wrong person.

How is your prayer different from a magic spell? Neither can be shown to work, if you have some evidence of a magic prayer working show it do not attack me for showing your p[rayer to be what it is, magic.
Do you argue that different theists have fought over their different ideas of magic?

 

I am afraid that I must disagree with you on that point. If prayer can be proved to actually work or in the words of the OP ...

... then it would be magic. But it's just a lot of balderdash that cannot be proven nor does it even work. That my friend is not called "magic". It is called superstition.

You see, finding ways to explain the unexplainable has been a long-time occupation for many throughout the ages. That is called "ignorance" and it is nothing to be ashamed about. But making up ridiculous assertions through superstition (without even the benefit of reality in front of your face) requires something called "faith" which is the dirty form of ignorance.

 

Yeah such as that is typical of how you post.
My view is that's why you don't enjoy any lengthy discussions.
The truth is you're no fun to talk to. Your posts are no fun
to read. They are packed with insults and unhappiness.
With regard to Christians, you're fond of posting "they don't
come here to discuss, they come here to preach" -- but when
any Christian tries to have a discussion or conversation with
you, you immediately "fly into a rage" and start postings insults
and accusations. You have no more intention of carrying on a
serious discussion with any Christian -- than I have of going
to the Moon. You're here to mock and ridicule and insult.

_______

I have no interest in discussing any subject with you.



`

 

It seems to me somewhat more plausible that there is a primordial cause, or source, of the cosmos than that there is not. I get the counter argument that "if everything has a cause, then the primordial cause had a cause."

It's a dilemma.

 

That's a little unfair. Many people pray merely for the purpose of giving thanks and praising the source of all life. Some pray just to get their priorities in order. "Help me to avoid sin."

A "spell" sounds like an incantation performed to achieve a physical result. And admittedly there is that kind of prayer as well. "Ask and it shall be given." But the real hard core believers, monks for example, who do nothing but work for the poor and pray, deserve respect.

 

"I don't know he doesn't exist for the same reason.
Neither you or I have any proof only opinions about
God."___Trevorw

I spend a considerable amount of time composing
a somewhat lengthy post written just for your consideration,
a post without so much as a slight hint of insult or hostility
and you brush it off as nothing more than my opinions and
tell me that you are wasting your time.

"The Universe is as much a living being as the concept
of God being a living being. In fact, more so . . With God
we have nothing, Only attributes that come from the human
mind.___Trevorw

Speaking of opinions. That up there is pure opinion. You
can not scientifically demonstrate the truth of your
assertion.

You yourself must agree that your statement up there
is nothing more than your personal opinion. Why?
Because again you said this:

"I don't know he doesn't exist for the same reason.
Neither you or I have any proof only opinions about
God."___Trevorw

"Good luck with your opinions. I'm wasting time"__Trevorw



`
`

 

Again you do not even attempt to rebut the ideas but just focus on the poster, it appears you are incapable of doing otherwise.

If you choose not to reply to my posts even with your normal tactics of attacking the poster not the post then nothing will of changed apart from I will not have to read your insults and imaginings on what you think I think.

I shall continue to comment on your falsehoods, inconsistencies and woo woo.

 

I have no interest in discussing any subject with you.

"But like many Christians you have no interest in the truth."___Ronald Hillman
Post 267 in this thread.

It is characteristic of your posting to attack or make denigrating
remarks about the people with which you disagree, rather than
focus your remarks strictly upon the actual arguments they present.
This approach is not an academic intellectual approach to
argumentation, rather it is an approach based upon emotions.

____________

Yeah such as that up there is typical of how you post.
My view is that's why you don't enjoy any lengthy discussions.
The truth is you're no fun to talk to. Your posts are no fun
to read. They are packed with insults and unhappiness.
With regard to Christians, you're fond of posting "they don't
come here to discuss, they come here to preach" -- but when
any Christian tries to have a discussion or conversation with
you, you immediately "fly into a rage" and start postings insults
and accusations. You have no more intention of carrying on a
serious discussion with any Christian -- than I have of going
to the Moon. You're here to mock and ridicule and insult.


Again, I have no interest in discussing any subject with you.



`

 

Yes I got the message and you responded as I have indicated you normally do by simply attacking the poster and not the post. I accept and understand you do not wish to debate me but simply throw you humorous little insults around, hope it makes you feel better!

 

A TRUE STORY
I know this guy whose name is Jimmy Granola. Many years ago we went camping in the mountains together. On the way up we saw a tree with a bird’s nest in one of the lower branches. There was a single egg in it. Here is a photo I took of it as proof:



We camped for several days and then we returned the same way we had come. We looked in the nest but all that was left was a broken eggshell. Here is a photo I took of it as proof:




I said to Jimmy, “I guess the bird has hatched”. He disagreed and told me it was probably a flock of dragons that had flown in from Tramtaria and ate the bird leaving only the shell. Now we both saw the nest and the egg so that was real (as my photo can attest) and we both saw the empty eggshell a few days later (as my photo can attest) but we have a completely different understanding of what could have happened. I think my version is more plausible than his. What do you think?

Jimmy became a born-again Christian. He says Jesus died, was buried, and resurrected to fly up to heaven ….. and he wants me to believe it. The thing is, he never saw Jesus with his own eyes, he wasn't there when Jesus was supposed to have been buried, and he certainly did not witness Jesus being resurrected and flying up to heaven. At least with the earlier incident, there was definitely an egg that later hatched. We saw it! But this Jesus story? Give me a break.

 

I guess ? the prayer he was talking about was this one:

JAG Previously Wrote In This Thread:
"Here is a prayer for you {and me too -- and for all of us}

May the Lord bless you.
May the Lord keep you safe.
May the Lord make His face to shine upon you.
May the Lord be gracious unto you.
May the Lord turn His face toward you.
May the Lord protect you.
May the Lord protect all those you love.
May the Lord give you peace.
{based on Numbers 6:24-27}"___JAG

I wrote that prayer sincerely from the heart
with good will and good intentions. But
I guess ? that too, was mocked and ridiculed.

`