Why does God permit evil????

No, I am suggesting that natural disaster cause pain and suffering, and pain and that the pain, and suffering of innocents like children or animals, are evils that a good-God would want to prevent, and that an all-powerful God could prevent.

Just the traditional Judaic-Christian understanding of the term.

Think how the world would differ if it were created by an evil malevolent depraved entity, thank God for God

Think how the world would differ if it were created by an evil malevolent depraved entity...

Naturally occuring events aren't "evil" unless you're suggesting that earthquakes, floods, famine, and disease are sentient lifeforms capable of making moral decisions.

You lost that one; just admit it and move on.

First of all, who said that God is "all-powerful" ? -- Not me. You're using the same broken tactics that Krumple and Xris tried to use: making a Strawman argument. I never once said that God was all-powerful so tryng to use that as an argument against me is moot.

Second, and this is my really big question: You don't believe in God, but you keep making arguments about what God is or what God would do. How are you in any position whatsoever to make such claims? What do you base them on? That's what I would like to know.

Exactly what is your basis for making statements about the nature of God?

Trust me, I will keep asking you this until you give a non-evasive answer.

^^^^ The pot asked the kettle.



Once again, you answered my question with a question. You're one step away from my Ignore List. Keep it up.



And again, you didn't respond to my point.



I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. 2nd time I said that.

To All: Does anybody have any idea what Xris is talking about here?

--IntoTheLight--

---------- Post added 11-21-2009 at 02:18 PM ----------



Yet another evasion. I'm adding you to my Ignore List.

Goodbye.

Thank you for finally being honest with me. I appreciate it. However....

I've expressly stated no less than four times that I do not subscribe to the Judeo-Christian conception of God and yet you have continued to try to argue from that standpoint with me. What up with that?

You're wasting your time with me trying to debate about God from that conceptualization because it's not mine. I started a new thread on this subject - in this base - called "My Take On God". If you desire to discuss these issues with me, you should read it.

The 'one-size-fits-all' approach is certainly not true when it comes to philosophy and theology. I hope that you and everyone else realizes that.

--IntoTheLight--

What do you mean, "finally being honest with you"? When do you believe I was not honest? The concept of God as all-powerful and all-good. is the one that is assumed by the problem of evil. I am not debating about God with you. I was talking about the problem of evil. If God is good and He is all=powerful, then why is there evil? That is a conditional question. If you disagree about those attributes of God, then you are not talking about the traditional problem of evil. Full stop.

But you are the one limiting the thread to the traditional problem of evi. The OT was about the general question of "why does god permit evil"? it was not even phrased or put forward as the traditional problem of evil. Others are trying to open the thread up into responses other than a Leibniz type response.

God can be very powerful without being all powerful.
God can have some foreknowledge without knowing all future events.
In fact such conceptions of god are not scriptural, not early traditional and are self contradictory.

Originally Posted by IntoTheLight
Naturally occuring events aren't "evil" unless you're suggesting that earthquakes, floods, famine, and disease are sentient lifeforms capable of making moral decisions.

[quote]Actually to be intellectually honest here you have forgotten something. Couldn't there be god beings that are behind these disasters?

I mean if you discount mischievous gods causing hurricanes, earthquakes or plagues then you would also have to be fair and discount your own god concept.

So he didn't technically lose that one. (see first paragraph)

There never was a strawman, and using if statements doesn't count as imposing statements.

You never fully pinned down your concept so it leaves us guessing where you are.

It is noted that your god concept is not all powerful but you are also noted with saying that your god concept is omnipresent. Which I have refuted in the past as being problematic. I won't go into again here unless you request it.

I don't believe in god, yet for a structured discussion you must start with the possibilities and work them out for solutions. That is all he is doing and I do the same thing. To pose a question about god, one does not need to believe in god or gods. I can ask questions about the flying pink elephant but do you believe in the flying pink elephant? Probably not.

The basis is from the perspective of the neutral corner. If you are trying to make the claim that you can not approach it from a neutral corner, then by all means no corner would be approachable from unless you want to enter the realm of make believe.

Therefore all basises are equal when it comes to the concept of god, even the absurd ones.

Is that what you think? If so, what is your argument to support that claim?

Not quite, since your premise is not based on anything. You threw it out there completely unsupported. Am I susposed to accept that as fact simply because you suppose it could be the case? LOL

Actually he did - based on his original argument. One thing I've noticed that Atheists do a great deal is suddenly change their original premise mid-debate to counter a argument that they can't rebut.

Actually, I would like you to go into it because I"m interested in hearing your views on the subject. But please keep in mind that I am not making claims of absolute truth; I am making claims of personal belief.

Since he is an Atheist, any statement about the nature of God presented as an objective fact is a complete contradiction of his own premise, and moreover, his own philosophy. Exactly how does one go about describing something that they don't believe exists, and then presenting the description as factual? LOL - Such a jest!

First of all, calling Atheism a "neutral corner" in a debate about Theism is more than just a little bit absurd. It's not neutral; it's oppositional.

Second, my claim is that you cannot make objective statements about the nature of something you claim doesn't exist.

Watch this:

Atheist position 01: There is no God. God is literally nothing.

Atheist position 02: The nothing must neccessarily be all-powerful and good and protect everyone from harm.

LOL! That doesn't work, but yet that's the position that just about every Atheist in this thread has taken. It's hilarious to watch.

In fact, I wonder why Atheists seem drawn to threads about the nature of God?? Hmmmmmm... That is a mystery indeed. Because if you really don't believe in God, then it seems like it would be a pointless waste of time to sit around trying to argue about something that is not there (from your perspective).

That conclusion fails because your first premise, "Atheism is a netural corner in a theistic debate" is false.

The question is why does God permit evil if He is all-powerful, and He is all good? Otherwise, why is there an issue? Why then shouldn't God permit evil? What is the point of the question, otherwise?

Of course there is still a problem. The question now becomes why does a "good" creator permit evil? One just drops the assumption or stipulation that the creator is also assumed to be "all" powerful and "all" knowing. The range of solutions just gets opened up to something perhaps more satisfactory than the Leibniz suggestion.

Sure, and that is a different problem. What does it mean to "drop" the all-powerful assumption? It that means simply that God is not all-powerful (which is, so far as I can tell, all it can mean) then the answer to your question, why does an all-good God permit evil is--He has to. He cannot prevent it. He is not powerful enough to prevent it. What else?

The comment was made 'you don't have to believe in God to pose questions about God'. The difficulty is that whatever attitude one has - whether positive or negative - inevitably forms a large part of the answer you get back. If you start out from a position of asking questions, or framing arguments, because you're fairly sure that belief in God is a delusion, then what are the odds of getting an answer that changes your view (apart from the unlikely possibility of the clouds parting and thunderous voice issuing from sky, or similar).

The point is, to 'know' about God, if indeed knowledge is possible, requires a rather deeper immersion in the nature of the question of what God might be, than is possible if you start from the premise that there really could be no such thing. I see this problem writ large in the writings of the so-called new atheists - starting from the presumption that religion is a lie and god a delusion, let's proceed to argue the case. Then you can see where it is going to end up.

At issue are different modes of knowing. A monk, for example, would speak of 'knowing God in silence and stillness'. It may not be a lot of use to us, because it might take some years of that silence and stillness for whatever it is he is hearing to be heard.

There are other ways of knowing as well - devotional, immersive, and so on. But the point is to pursue any of them requires, if not faith, at least sympathy to the idea that there is something there to be sought. Studying other cultural outlooks, other ways of knowing, really does require what might be called 'a sympathetic imagination'.

I dont come from a position that god is impossible, only that he is beyond our comprehension. When ever certain believers try to develop a new view of this god, I'm inclined to ask for the details. The details usually drift back to the same basic idea of a god and the usual inconsistencies. Don't you think a convinced agnostic, as I, have not considered all these alternative views? Every new kid on the block imagines he is the first to come up with a new description,they aint..

In my opinion God is all powerful, but can limit it when he wants to, such as looking aside when evil men do evil.The purpose is give man a chance to evolve into his light or to become useless to creation and ultimately be eliminated. If God were not good the whole universe would become dominated with ugliness, hate, no chance for forgiveness and ultimate elimination from existence.

We all will one day account for every act we have done on earth, both good and bad, accountability is the reason God allows evil. Life is a school which one will either fail or graduate in a realm beyond death, life and life in my opinion is a disputable reality

How about this xris?

THE ALL -God. No human qualities can be ascribed to it.

There is nothing that can be added or subtracted from its Infinite stature because it has no boundaries or edges in space to add or subtract from. It does not learn anything because it KNOWS everything. It is no respecter of beliefs, skin color, social standing, religion, government, country, and does not favor anybody or anything.

It is UNCONDITIONAL in the manifestation of LIFE and the LOVE it has for its CREATION. Man has the responsibility to understand the final result of his or her choices which follow firmly established unconditional universal rules which behave as a door that swings in both directions. good or evil, we choose not God!!

See how easy that was. Now can a god who is not all powerful still be a "god" and worthy of praise? Can a very powerful but not all powerful god still "create" a world of value and possiblity as well as a world with risk and reward?

Why does god need to be "all powerful" and "all knowing"? How could the world possibly be of any interest to such a "being"? How could an all powerful all knowing "god" possibly be in meaningful relationship to the world?

Where did the notion that God was all powerful and all knowing come from in the first place? The Greeks? The medieval rationalists?
Not from ancient traditions and not from scripture.