But if god is real has allowed children in poor countries to die of all sorts of terrible conditions. He has let this go on and on. I wouldn't say it is temporary. Why doesn't he use some of his goodness to help them?

The quot still however stand because they are using the religion to do evil things. Not matter that it is just a part of there religion they are following.

I'm not sure if i said something that implied it, but i actually don't believe in "macro Evolution" at all, not even theistic evolution. Again, for philosophical/theological reasons as opposed to scientific.

I'm not sure if i said something that implied it, but i actually don't believe in "macro Evolution" at all, not even theistic evolution. Again, for philosophical/theological reasons as opposed to scientific.

I am not sure you have recently. Wagga said so, so I assumed you had stated so previously.

Sorry, Arwenel, it was me and it was my fault.

I believe Christianity and evolutionary theory don't mix. They came from opposing worldviews (one believe God is the supreme creator, the other removes God from the picture) and can't be reconciled with each other. If God's Word is Absolute Truth, why place the ideals of man (evolutionary theory) above the Bible? We should be adjusting our ideas to what the Bible says, not trying to fit the Bible to our own ideas. If our ideas don't align with the Bible, we're the one's who need to rethink what we believe.

How does evolution remove God from the picture? If Evolutionary theory is true, it's just another natural process that God Himself designed and set in motion.

I'm not sure how Evolution contradicts the Bible. The Bible says God created the universe, but it doesn't go into great detail as to how He did it. Scientific research is just a way of investigating God's creation. And the Bible encourages us to seek after knowledge. So if scientific research turns up a theory as to how God created the universe, I don't really see any reason to label it as a humanistic ideal.

~Riella

Exactly, and thank you Ithy. Evolution is just a process in which the most successful living things compete to survive and recreate themselves. Nothing more and nothing less, and it only proves itself. On a geological scale evolution of such beings is dependent on such things as the conditions caused by continental drift, climate change and tectonics, and the ability of living things to adapt to such conditions. Sometimes there has been physical interventions from heaven such as comets and asteroids.

If you look at astronomy the more planets are found the more marvellous and homely the Earth looks. I don't want a diamond that is planet sized, and can't imagine a silicon planet where it rains glass sideways. Some of the planets found so far make our own Solar System planets look positively welcoming by contrast. To get a planet something like Earth you have to have the right combinations of water, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen as well as carbon and silicon. Not to mention gold, silver, iron, copper and much else in the rocks.

It is not only the combination of Chemical elements on Earth which makes our planet look unique - so far. It is also the size of our Moon, how it interacts with the Earth, and the sort of Sun we have. A different sort of Sun might be too hot or too cold, with too much helium or not enough hydrogen, for example.

So I can't not believe in God, because I can't believe in coincidences. If that makes sense.

I wouldn't say it is temporary.

It is temporary, because the world won't last forever. Remember, we are debating from a hypothetical point of view where God exists. If God exists, an afterlife would exist as well.

But if god is real has allowed children in poor countries to die of all sorts of terrible conditions....Why doesn't he use some of his goodness to help them?

Disease is a terrible thing, and it also is a part of this temporary world. At the end, there won't be sickness and disease anymore. Why hasn't God gotten rid of it now? Because like all other bad things in this world, it does still have a purpose for right now. What's more, this world isn't meant to be perfect. It was never God's goal to make this world as pleasant and comfortable as possible. So why expect God to do something He never promised to do? It would be one thing if God said he was going to get rid of sickness and evil in this world, but he never claimed he was going to do that.

If you or anyone else disagrees with God's decision to allow evil and sickness, that's fine. But here's the thing: if an entity makes a decision you disagree with, that does not prove the entity doesn't exist. By asking, "If God exists, why does he allow evil?" what you're essentially asking is, "If God exists, why does He do things differently than I would, if I were in His situation?" It doesn't prove anything. It may work in an argument concerning whether or not you believe He's worthy of worship, or whether He is good or bad. But it has nothing to do with His existence. It is quite possible for an entity to exist, and do things you disagree with.

The quot still however stand because they are using the religion to do evil things. Not matter that it is just a part of there religion they are following.

It isn't a part of Christianity to do the evil things they do. Nowhere does Christ command people to treat other people cruelly, or to be self-righteous or any of that sort of thing. Again, if people abusing religion makes religion bad, then cars and medicine are also bad, because people abuse them.

~Riella

God is discribed as omnopotent(having unlimited power).

It appears that you are or unconsciously trying to mischarterise the problem of evil. This isn't the argument of the existence or non existence or god it is a demonstration that a description of any deity as omnibenevolent and omnipotent is inherently contradictory, and therefore such a description must be inaccurate. It in't possible for the god described to exist. It must either not be omnipotent, or not be omnibenevolent. The two characteristics cannot be embodied in the same being, because evil exists.

I doubt a god that was omnibenevolent would create a universe that is not perfect. God wants people to worship him. If the world was perfect people would feel the need to worship the one who did this.

It appears that you are or unconsciously trying to mischarterise the problem of evil. This isn't the argument of the existence or non existence or god it is a demonstration that a description of any deity as omnibenevolent and omnipotent is inherently contradictory, and therefore such a description must be inaccurate. It in't possible for the god described to exist. It must either not be omnipotent, or not be omnibenevolent. The two characteristics cannot be embodied in the same being, because evil exists.

Point #1. It isn't contradictory because the "benevolent" thing to do in any given circumstance is a matter of opinion. What you think is benevolent may not be considered benevolent by someone else. For example, you think that since evil exists, then God (assuming he can stop it) must stop it in order to be benevolent. Whereas, I don't think stopping it would be benevolent at all. I think the better/easier this world is, the more cruel death becomes, because instead of leaving a cruel world when you die, you are leaving a good one. (Unless God stopped death altogether. But then everyone would be immortal, and no one would reach the afterlife God created for them; which would also be cruel.) Also, pain and suffering has led some people to come to Christ, saving them from Hell. In those cases, it was more benevolent for God to let those people suffer for a little while on earth so that they would go to Heaven, rather than have a comfortable life on earth and then spend eternity in Hell. Benevolence is subjective.

Point #2. When the Bible calls God benevolent, kind, compassionate, etc., you must also keep in mind who the author is. If the person writing that segment of the Bible calls God benevolent, that means that God is benevolent in that person's opinion. Or, if you take into account the belief that the Bible is divinely inspired, it means God is benevolent in his own opinion. In which case, it is not at all contradictory for God to be omnipotent, allow evil, and still be benevolent in His own opinion and in the opinion of the people writing the Bible. You may disagree with the assertion He is benevolent. But it is not a contradiction.

I doubt a god that was omnibenevolent would create a universe that is not perfect. God wants people to worship him. If the world was perfect people would feel the need to worship the one who did this.

That's a matter of opinion concerning tactic. Like I said before, it doesn't prove God doesn't exist just because He makes a choice other than the one you would make if you were in His place. He never claimed that He was going to try to earn our worship by making the world perfect. Instead, He commanded people to worship Him no matter what the world is like, simply because of who He is, and because of His status as their Creator.

~Riella

If there isn't a God, then how do you define what "good" and "evil" actually are? There would be no overarching authority to say, "This is good and that is evil" to apply to all people in all times. Ultimately, everyone could decide for themselves what they want "good" and "evil" to be. I could say, "Killing people is 'my' good." We go by what we feel to be right; but one can say that that feeling is only what we've been taught, or brainwashed to think. One could argue that good is what the majority says is good, but what happens in a state like Nazi Germany when the majority thinks that persecuting particular minorities is good? Besides, I'm free to disregard what the majority says and create my own good and evil. What Voldemort said in "Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone" becomes true: "There is no good and evil - there is only power."

I would like to link us all to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics and we can discuss it later if you wish.

King_Erlian my friend on another forum felt the need to reply to you when I showed him your post. His reply is much more better than mine. Though this isn't exactly his reply since his language can be a bit rude at times.

if there isn't a God, then how do you define what "good" and "evil" actually are?
Good and evil are terms which do not stand attempts at rigorous definition, certainly not if you attempt to maintain them as some form of spiritual absolutes. Various attempts have been made, but any time someone's tried it they've come up with something like Utilitarianism, and of course those wedded to the deity-perspective cannot get their heads around it sufficiently well to begin a refutation.

Good and evil, to put it another way, are not rigorous terms, and have no place in rigorous intellectual discourse. They cannot be quantified, and so are effectively useless.

Quote:
There would be no overarching authority to say, "This is good and that is evil" to apply to all people in all times.
There is no evidence to suggest that there is, or ever has been, any such extant authority. There is abundant evidence to suggest that in general terms we, as evolved social animals, tend to behave in ways which result in positive outcomes for evolved social animals, and that part of this includes such motivators as compassion and empathy... because if we didn't act based on such motivations, we'd be an entirely different sort of animal.

Quote:
Ultimately, everyone could decide for themselves what they want "good" and "evil" to be. I could say, "Killing people is 'my' good."
If you can legitimately argue that killing people is your good, then you are a sociopath. I seriously doubt you could legitimately claim that position, but if you could, then don't be surprised when someone like me cuts you in half when you try to kill me. Killing people isn't my good, but if you try it on me, your future faces a foreshortened horizon.

Most people don't tend to kill other people on a whim. Even in war, most recruits don't kill other people.

Quote:
We go by what we feel to be right; but one can say that that feeling is only what we've been taught, or brainwashed to think. One could argue that good is what the majority says is good, but what happens in a state like Nazi Germany when the majority thinks that persecuting particular minorities is good?
Non sequitur.

I will reply to ithy later on when I have more time.

Good and evil are terms which do not stand attempts at rigorous definition, certainly not if you attempt to maintain them as some form of spiritual absolutes.

Not true. Good and evil are terms which only stand up to rigorous definition if they are maintained as spiritual absolutes: "good" is what the Creator intended and "evil" is working against the Creator. That was the point of my original post: good and evil cannot stand up to rigorous definition if you remove the possibility of a spiritual absolute.

Various attempts have been made, but any time someone's tried it they've come up with something like Utilitarianism, and of course those wedded to the deity-perspective cannot get their heads around it sufficiently well to begin a refutation.

Insulting your opponents' intelligence is not conducive to healthy debate.

Good and evil, to put it another way, are not rigorous terms, and have no place in rigorous intellectual discourse. They cannot be quantified, and so are effectively useless.

This assertion is based on the assumption that there is no spiritual element. If you allow for the possibility that there is, then the assertion falls. Besides, I would question the assertion that if something cannot be quantified it is useless in intellectual debate. Love cannot be quantified, unless you define it as a particular combination of electrical impulses in our brains. Does that mean that love has no place in intellectual discussion? If so, a great many philosophers' work over the past three thousand years has been in vain.

There is no evidence to suggest that there is, or ever has been, any such extant authority.

This is a very sweeping statement. Millions of people throughout the ages have testified to having some kind of spiritual or "God" experience. Can you confidently assert that each and every one of these people is either lying or insane?

There is abundant evidence to suggest that in general terms we, as evolved social animals, tend to behave in ways which result in positive outcomes for evolved social animals, and that part of this includes such motivators as compassion and empathy... because if we didn't act based on such motivations, we'd be an entirely different sort of animal.

Fair enough. But that doesn't prove the existence or non-existence of God, one way or the other. It only suggests an atheist view if you believe that the concept of evolution "proves" that God does not exist.

If you can legitimately argue that killing people is your good, then you are a sociopath.

I agree. But there are many people who are taught that killing those who don't belong to their "group" (religious, political, racial or whatever) is right. How can you convince them otherwise, with no absolute? From their point of view, they may see a world populated only by people with their world view as a better world. Besides, someone arguing the "rightness" of murder is the furthest extreme. What about someone who might argue that it's OK to steal pens and paper from their office, on the grounds that they're not paid as much as people doing the same job in other companies?

(I wrote)We go by what we feel to be right; but one can say that that feeling is only what we've been taught, or brainwashed to think. One could argue that good is what the majority says is good, but what happens in a state like Nazi Germany when the majority thinks that persecuting particular minorities is good?
Non sequitur.

Why is that a non sequitur? Can you explain?

Goodness gracious; this thread was comatose for two months and now it's moving so quickly, I've been trying and failing to find a place to jump in for two days. I was going to follow MfA's lead and write an update on where I was with my walk with God, but you guys had to go and start all these fascinating discussions before I could.

The discussion regarding the compatibility of omnipotence and omnibenevolence is interesting to me, partly because it reminded me of one of the first ways I attempted to articulate my fledgling understanding of God: "I believe that God is all-powerful because He is all-loving." Even now, many years later, I still believe there is truth to that.

I understand where you are coming from, IlF. Many people, even those who profess to have faith, have difficulty looking at the suffering in this world and understand how God can "let" it continue, if He is all-powerful. It's something I've struggled with and continue to struggle with; it is perhaps one of the hardest questions to grapple with in this life.

(I'd like to add a disclaimer now that says the following are just my own thoughts, which are in a state of continuous evolution; they may or may not reflect the majority of Christian opinions.)

I believe God is omnipotent, but His essence is Love. I think that 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 describes God's character just as much as it teaches us what we must strive to cultivate in our hearts. Whether or not the verses capture the entirety of His Love, I don't know, but I do believe that what it tells us about Love is true.

Though words certainly can mean different things to different people, I think we can also look at the basic human understanding of love and glean a little bit information about our relationship with God from it.

If a person is coerced to "love" another, we do not call it love at all. Love cannot be forced, and it cannot be controlled by anyone but the possessor of the individual heart. Love must be freely given to the recipient. A loving relationship is when two parties both consent of their own power to love the other person more than themselves and place the other's needs above their own.

The act of denying your own self-will in favor of the desires and well-being of another is essential to the existence of love. Jesus Christ, in his anguish in the Garden of Gethsemane, demonstrated his love for the Father and for the world when he prayed, "Not my will, but yours be done."

I know that your feelings are motivated by love and concern for the state of humanity, IlF, and I can understand why you might think that God should have created a world where everyone would be forced to "love" Him—but that isn't love; it doesn't come close to what we know to the definition of love to be, even in our flawed, human understanding. You may be able to prevent the advent of evil in a world devoid of free will, but in doing so, you would take away the most precious thing we have: the ability to love. You cannot have love without freedom, and I don't believe you can have true worship without love, either.

There's much, much more to be said on the topic of suffering, to be sure, but this post is long enough as it is and I've run out of time to write for the time being. I hope to continue with this discussion, though.

I believe Christianity and evolutionary theory don't mix. They came from opposing worldviews (one believe God is the supreme creator, the other removes God from the picture) and can't be reconciled with each other.

But have you separated evolutionary theory (in strictly scientific terms) from the worldview it was born into (i.e. 19th Century Deism/Epicureanism/Atheism)? Those worldviews (i.e. Deism, Epicureanism, or Atheism - pick your poison) are opposed to, and irreconcilable with Christianity. Period. Evolutionary theory, as a scientific theory, is reconcilable with Christianity, unless you believe that the first three chapters of Genesis are 100% historically accurate. The question I would ask you, since I know you believe that the first three chapters of Genesis are indeed 100% historically accurate, is what is this belief of yours based on?

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

- Epicurus Quotes

In 2,300 years there hasn't been a better argument for Atheism.

As for morality, I believe that God is the source of morality, as He is the source for everything else (I don't include evil in this since I think of evil as an absence or perversion of good). Because of this, I think it's a waste of time to say that we have better morals than God, because our very concept of morality comes from Him. Our morals are copies of His and there can be no goodness apart from Him. You should instruct yourself in what is good (I do this with the Bible, philosophy, and, to some extent, fiction), so that your will is in line with Goodness, because often situations aren't clear-cut (e.g. when you have to choose the lesser of two evils) and you need a well-cultivated conscience to guide you through the moral dilemmas of life. So, basically, I believe in objective morality, but don't think that makes me a "black-and-white" thinker. I'm well aware that sometimes doing good involves an action that would, in other situations, be considered an evil, or the choosing of the least bad of the options available to you.

King_Erlian I will send him your reply and see what he says. I have never been a debater and try not to get involved in such things.

I have read all the replies and this is just a general statement for everyone:

If there was a god there would be suffering in the world but wouldn't he spread the suffering out more. It is fine for us white middle class westerners(I know I am being a bit general here) to say well the suffering is temporary and we will all be fine in the afterlife but many of us a fine now. Many of us are living good comfortable lives now. Would you think the same if our lives were reversed?

To make it easier I will link everyone to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Party_of_Australia which is basically my thoughts in a nutshell.

e775:As for arguments for atheism I have found some of these to be interesting http://www.nairaland.com/1150005/librar ... -arguments .

It is fine for us white middle class westerners(I know I am being a bit general here) to say well the suffering is temporary and we will all be fine in the afterlife but many of us a fine now. Many of us are living good comfortable lives now. Would you think the same if our lives were reversed?

Not everyone in this discussion is a "white middle class westerner", though.

It's true that I'm not one of the starving children in Africa; there are certainly people out there with bigger hardships than me. But as a person who is fairly well below the poverty level, living in a toxic house, unable to leave said house due to long-term sickness and disability, who was abused by multiple people growing up, whose chances at ever being able to marry/bear children/live a normal life look rather bleak due to an array of factors, who has to rely solely on two people who are most likely going to die soon, and who will be completely alone when they do, with absolutely no way to fend for myself because I have no one to take me in, am too disabled to hold down a job, don't qualify for any government programs, and am likely to be homeless in the near future; I wouldn't say that it's easy for me to ignore evil and sickness. But I still stand by all the arguments I have made thus far.

~Riella

If there was a god there would be suffering in the world but wouldn't he spread the suffering out more. It is fine for us white middle class westerners(I know I am being a bit general here) to say well the suffering is temporary and we will all be fine in the afterlife but many of us a fine now. Many of us are living good comfortable lives now. Would you think the same if our lives were reversed?

Couldn't you make the same argument about atheists in the western world, though? That it's well and fine for them to say that there is no God who will right all wrongs and bring mercy and justice in the afterlife, because theoretically they aren't suffering much themselves in their wealthy part of the world?

As for God spreading the suffering out more evenly—in the famous Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6:17-26 and Matthew 5:1-12), Jesus indicates that it is the poor and the suffering who are nearer to the kingdom of God than those who are rich, well-fed, frivolous, et cetera. From a Christian perspective, it seems that those who are suffering the most in this life are those that will be the most blessed in the age to come.