Archived

Problem of Evil

Read 2293 times
the problem of evil.
« on: January 30, 2016, 07:41:32 pm »
first question I have is in question its argument (the problem of evil)
assumptions are not only well placed to separate my doubts.

1- God allows suffering because of free will (understand this argument for granted).

2- there is a world (logically impossible) without evil because of free will for example. Heaven could not be one of these worlds logically impossible?

3- if people in heaven has no free will, then do not term morality "would not be holy people."

4 Craig said in his book (Guarda) on page 173 the following argument:
the fact that God is all powerful does not mean that he can make happen what is logically impossible --- in fact there is something that is logically impossible ...

My question is: sometimes God intervenes in the history of human being working miracles (this would not be logically impossible if it is, then atheists would be right in making this question.
second question.

1
Re: the problem of evil.
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2016, 07:48:05 pm »
first question I have is in question its argument (the problem of evil)
assumptions are not only well placed to separate my doubts.

1- God allows suffering because of free will (understand this argument for granted).

2- there is a world (logically impossible) without evil because of free will for example. Heaven could not be one of these worlds logically impossible?

3- if people in heaven has no free will, then do not term morality "would not be holy people."

4 Craig said in his book (Guarda) on page 173 the following argument:
the fact that God is all powerful does not mean that he can make happen what is logically impossible --- in fact there is something that is logically impossible ...

My question is: sometimes God intervenes in the history of human being working miracles (this would not be logically impossible if it is, then atheists would be right in making this question.
second question.

to my limited thoughts I think your moral argument on an issue (socio-evolution) goes on a tangent and end up not hitting the target:

Animals kill other species and has no values ​​or moral duties right?
but the atheist can ask that man also kills other species (irrational animals) and still have moral values ​​and duties.
then how to solve this issue?
irrational animals kill other species for food and not imputed to him moral obligation but man kills another species for food and yet it is accused moral obligation?

if they do not understand let me know, I am Brazilian and I do not know English.

2

Lion IRC

  • ***
  • 2233 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: the problem of evil.
« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2016, 04:56:27 am »
Punishing evil doers causes them to suffer.

But failure to punish evil doers - eg. letting rapists get off scott free - would presumably cause their victims to suffer.
This user will NEVER be posting at Reasonable Faith Forum again.

3

Lion IRC

  • ***
  • 2233 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: the problem of evil.
« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2016, 04:58:29 am »
I wouldn't worship a God who let unrepentant rapists and murderers go free while their victims continued to suffer.
This user will NEVER be posting at Reasonable Faith Forum again.

4

jayceeii

  • **
  • 480 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: the problem of evil.
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2020, 08:17:23 am »
ms: 1- God allows suffering because of free will (understand this argument for granted).

jc: The proposition presumes correctly that the vast majority of suffering on Earth is from man, against man. The question should become why men inflict suffering on one another, but also why the religions don’t have a better explanation for why this is so, or offer a means of redressing these deficiencies in character. Christians say only, “We are sinners,” without the insight into the nature of this sin and its amelioration which a true religion would provide. Even saying, “Jesus will save us,” you are still going to Jesus unintelligently and not caring very much either, what it is that separates you from Him.

ms: 2- there is a world (logically impossible) without evil because of free will for example. Heaven could not be one of these worlds logically impossible?

jc: Jesus mentioned the “pure in heart” without going into any details whatsoever, but if there is such a breed it follows these would be entities of freewill but lacking the malice that causes humans to stumble. One can argue that such entities would have a much greater scope for actions, that the fields of goodness are not only brighter than the fields of evil, but more expansive as intelligence multiplies. Indeed, acts of evil can be called the absence of intelligence, mere reaction without mental activity.

ms: 3- if people in heaven has no free will, then do not term morality "would not be holy people."

jc: Jesus’ exact statement was, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” By implication, the impure in heart will not see God! The holy people can recognize what is holy, but not the unholy.

ms: 4 Craig said in his book (Guarda) on page 173 the following argument:
the fact that God is all powerful does not mean that he can make happen what is logically impossible --- in fact there is something that is logically impossible ...

jc: Yes. One of these is knowing all the natural numbers. A conceptual infinity breaks creation’s ability to hold it. Even if the entire resources of the universe are set to counting the natural numbers, multiply by 10. Something more pertinent that is logically impossible, is making a bad man good overnight.

ms: My question is: sometimes God intervenes in the history of human being working miracles (this would not be logically impossible if it is, then atheists would be right in making this question.

jc: Oh, have you seen miracles then? Or only read the rumors from the Bible? And yet, your body is a miracle you take for granted, as is a fantastic planet that should have been counted a heavenly region.

ms: second question. .to my limited thoughts I think your moral argument on an issue (socio-evolution) goes on a tangent and end up not hitting the target:

Animals kill other species and has no values or moral duties right?
but the atheist can ask that man also kills other species (irrational animals) and still have moral values and duties.
then how to solve this issue?
irrational animals kill other species for food and not imputed to him moral obligation but man kills another species for food and yet it is accused moral obligation?

jc: Health of the body is paramount, and it came up through evolution eating meat for energy and nutrients. Therefore the Bible was right to give men dominion over the animals, neglecting to mention it would be better if man did not cause millions of animals to go extinct because of his overpopulation.