A question for Christians, particularly those of the inerrantist stripe.
28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matthew 10:28, NIV
And:
8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed.
2 Thessalonians 1:8-10, NIV
“Punished with everlasting destruction.” Is that what a perfectly merciful, perfectly benevolent Father would do to his children?
That’s what I thought!
Yes, I think Robin’s post above is a bit confused.
🙂
While I totally agree, I think that misses the point in this case. To me, Keith’s question (and one others and I have raised previously) isn’t defined by EVIL (big E) or some vague, first-world complaint about things that make life difficult and so I’m going to pout as Phoodoo’s strawman suggests. Whether the term is vague or even misused as a concept most of the time is not really pertinent to the underlying problem of the implication of such a concept and the concept of omni-benevolence.
I think in this case, “evil” is simply a useful term for those events and occurrences that cause such levels of suffering, that those with any sort of compassion and empathy cannot help feel distress, frustration, anguish, and despair.
In the face of such events, particularly given that the vast majority of people immediately feel compelled to do whatever they can to alleviate as much of whatever the consequences, to say nothing of the cause, they can, there’s a glaring question raised by a supposed absolutely compassionate entity that apparently won’t do anything.
All that said, I repeat – I agree with you. The term evil in general is not well-defined at all.
…and lets not forget low, harsh, nasty, and just plain old mean. 🙂
Yep. Quite so.
The point is, what is ‘evil’ is irrelevant in this case. The real point of the Problem of Evil for theists gets back to the whole concept of what love and compassion are and what actions supposedly loving and compassionate entities, particularly supposedly capable loving and compassion entities would engage in. It’s the whole empty toilet paper roll issue. It’s not that not that an empty roll of toilet paper somehow qualifies as evil (which I can see Phoodoo obtusely trying to insist is being claimed), but rather that loving compassionate people don’t even hesitate to help a loved one (or even strangers in most cases!) out and bring a roll in such situations. So for those who believe there’s a really, Really, R E A L L Y POWERFUL BEST BUDDY out there with limitless time, love, and compassion, they ought to be able to come up with…I don’t know…some sort of logical explanation for why said Super Buddy even bother with empty toilet paper rolls or the killing of 6 million people by an omnicidal maniac.
That’s not how I’m reading Keith’s point in this case. I tend to agree that there is actually no such thing as evil as many people use the term, but that doesn’t take away from the term’s usefulness in some discussions.
Be that as it may, the point, as I see it, is one of difficulty in reconciliation. I just don’t see how theists logically and easily reconcile the idea of an all caring entity and events that really should implore compassion.
I personally am not suggesting (in contrast to Phoodoo’s characterizations) that absolutely nothing bad or inconvenient should ever occur if such entity exists. Rather, I can’t find a reasonable or logical way to explain why such an entity would not exhibit overt love and compassion to those victims of such events. And alas, I don’t see any reasonable or logical explanations from the theistic crowd.
No sorry Robin you haven’t gotten it at all.
In order for their to be good, in an imperfect world, there must be a counter to good-and that is bad. In other words consequences. Outcomes. Desires sought and desires achieved. Motivation for action. Reasons for doing things.
Without consequences there is no motivation for anything. With choice, we must have both good and bad outcomes. So what keiths, and anyone else here, is trying to describe, in their “less evil” world can’t be described.
Now, of course you can say, why can’t we have a perfect world, why can’t we all be in heaven right now? Well, the fact that you can’t be in a heaven state right now does not mean that God is evil for not giving that to you. It means that can’t exist in the world I just described (or that any of you can describe, which also includes choices), maybe one day you will be in such a world. But in such a world there would also be no need to do anything. No need for actions. No need for free will.
You want to say, well, why do babies have to die? So, you want babies to be immortal? Until what age? And if a baby is immortal, why does one need to care for it. You can throw it off a cliff if you wanted, nothing bad will happen anyway. You can never feed it, nothing bad could happen. So why do anything?
The existence of choice, necessitates the existence of consequences. But God says, don’t worry, I will take away your choice one day, if that’s what you want. But first try living in the world that has choice. Then you can try living in a world without choice if that’s what you prefer.
We can’t know the rest of the outcome for now.
You want God to solve a paradox, choice without consequences. You can’t have that now, because the nature of choice precludes it, not God precludes it.
The problem is you used the phrase ” You say nothing but this is.” I did not say nothing else is evil, I said one example is sufficient to show evil exists. Now if you disagree that child molestation or acceptance of it is not evil, I can name another example. If you do agree it is evil then you understand what evil is. If that is what your goal is.
I assumed anyone one who used the metaphor “a cat in your throat” for a cat has your tongue probably is using a non traditional sentence structure rather than Trumpian lying.
Robin,
How can there be compassion in a world that nothing bad happens Robin?
There can’t.
Just so we’re clear, I’m not making that argument and I don’t see Keith’s as making that argument specifically. From my perspective, the only entity contradicted by the presence of “evil” (or whatever atrocity that falls into that category) is that an omni-benevolent entity of any sort of superhuman capability.
So, if someone wishes to propose and worship an non-omni-benevolent entity that really has no greater capabilities than those your average human possesses, meh…I suppose I have no logical problem with the existence of such an entity. I’d be curious why anyone would worship such an entity as god, but that’s a different subject I suppose…
newton,
Robin,
The point is, you have no justification for calling a child being molested as being more or less evil than someone not liking their haircut. If being happy is good, not being happy is bad. Calling anything evil is meaningless.
But, but..I am really, REALLY unhappy, what about that! That’s evil right?
Some people want to kill themselves because someone doesn’t love them. Does that mean this is evil? Should whoever you want to love you-love you-because that is what you want?
The concept of evil is meaningless if you don’t include everything that is not what someone wants.
phoodoo,
Then why do so many priests molest children?
It just seems like Calvinism lite
Actually the accusation of lying stems from Phoodoo’s less than clear representation of my position.
OMagain,
I don’t know, but do you still keep in touch with him?
newton,
I quoted you.
Now can you explain why someone being unhappy about their hair is not evil? What if it makes them cry?
Why? What establishes this? Where are you getting this idea and what substantiates it?
Even it this is true (which I disagree with), there is nothing inherent about motivations that require the existence of good and not-good.
I think you need to flesh out your premises a bit. There’s nothing about this first part that’s valid.
Where are you getting this idea. In simple principle, it’s absurd. But simply declaring it by fiat doesn’t make for a very sound argument regardless of it’s validity or absurdity. So really, you need to support this claim in some way before we can even begin to discuss this.
Which, as noted, is a strawman, regardless of the dubiousness of your previous premises.
Just for the record, I’m not saying this or arguing for it. “Perfect world” is a meaningless concept to me. And since I’m not a theist in any classic sense, I don’t have to reconcile the idea of “evil” or atrocities or quirky human behavior of any kind with some contrarily-defined, oddly ineffectual Super Ghost. Not my pig, not my farm.
Actually no, it simply presents a compelling piece of evidence gainst such a God, nevermind such a place as heaven existing in the first place.
Nope…not asking that. All living things have to cease functioning at some point. A) there’s finite space and resources. B) entropy and energy mean that things can’t work forever and some configurations won’t work at all.
So that’s not an issue as far as I’m concerned.
However, the fact that some supposed all loving and all compassionate entity hasn’t and doesn’t overtly show up at every funeral around globe is something I’d think that those who believe in said entity would wrestle with and at least try to come up with some reasonable explanation for since it’s much more easily explained by the non-existence of said entity.
See previous.
As noted, a dubious claim. But even if true, it doesn’t necessitate good and not-good.
Hmmm…so far, not a very compelling or valid argument…
Totally agree. And…?
I already have, I can’t help that you haven’t noticed.
Why must one act, if there is no negative consequence for not doing so?
You did. What I did not say is “nothing but this is.” That is an inaccurate paraphrase.
Why? Never claimed it was or crying or unhappiness were intrinsically evil. Now answer mine, is condoning child molesting not evil?
newton,
Perhaps you purposely don’t want to listen.
What can evil possibly mean, other than something you don’t want to happen? What makes something evil-because you REALLY REALLY don’t want it to happen? Or if you REALLY REALLY REALLY don’t want it to happen, is that when it becomes evil? Or if you just really don’t want it to happen, is that enough to make it evil? When does something go from unwanted, to evil?
Well I think I do, given the rather common accepted definition of evil. But that aside, it’s rather moot since I’m not making any argument that relies on a sliding scale of evil or any other label. My argument is not, and has never been, “given vaguely defined “evil”, there can be no God”. To my knowledge, no one in this discussion has made that argument at all.
So to repeat, while I find your equating child molestation and bad haircuts as no different on the vague scale of “evil” to be nothing more than the fallacious Argument of the Beard, such is rather moot as I’m not making the argument that these one of these things should not exist if there was an actual compassionate god out there. Rather, my argument is that anything that one wishes to define as evil (or similar) and the lack of any response to said evil of any kind is pretty compelling evidence that there is no omni-benevolent entity of any kind.
This is simply an argument by definition coupled with an appeal to emotion. It’s not logical, nor is it compelling.
Being happy is being happy; by most definitions it is neither “good” nor “bad”. It simply a term to describe a state. Ditto for unhappy. While most people may well prefer to be happy over being unhappy, that doesn’t indicate anything about their overall quality and function. That you wish to use terms in such a vague and equivocating ways as to render them meaningless is noted, and rejected.
See above. You’re argument is argument and invalid.
See above. This is yet another fallacious example.
Thank you for trying to rebut a point that has not be made with a fallacious argument.
walto,
Huh? Where on earth did you get that idea?
ETA: Are you confusing “morality is subjective” with “evil doesn’t exist”?
So humidity is evil, if God doesn’t get rid of it when you want.
There can’t be a benevolent God, because I don’t like humidity.
I do think that evil exists, but that’s irrelevant, since the questions I’m asking in this thread neither refer to evil nor depend on its definition.
I made that point earlier:
Phoodoo is just looking for an excuse not to answer my questions. The definition of ‘evil’ is irrelevant when the questions don’t even mention the word.
Right, but the questions YOU refuse to answer Do depend on it, see?
Poor, sensitive keiths. You must hate loud noises too.
No, you actually haven’t. There is nothing in living behavior, psychology, or any other area of research of which I’m aware that even remotely implies that without consequence there can be no motivation. And while there are studies that show that there is a correlation between some consequences and motivation, they all note the specifics of the consequences and that other factors also play a role.
So, I will simply reject your claim here.
Here’s the first problem with your question: there are a minority of “must” act situations for the vast majority of people (and other animals) in this world. Most actions are voluntary and have negligible or no consequences. Must I eat chicken for lunch? Must I eat lunch? What are the consequences of eating stir-fried veggies instead of chicken for lunch? What are the consequences of not eating lunch? And so forth.
Now certainly the U.S. has gone out of it’s way to create a society where a whole lot of actions are tied to a whole lot of consequences, but I hardly consider the U.S. society as a valid model for overall inherent behavior.
But more to the point, what makes you think that the only option for a lack of consequence is stasis? Seems to me that without consequence, people would be free to do things spontaneously simply to do things.
Once again, that’s your strawman. Your summary doesn’t match my argument.
Yep…you keep whacking away at that strawman there, Phoodoo. I can tell how fearful you are of even attempting to deal with the actual point.
Perhaps you are too inarticulate to make a coherent argument, maybe I can help you make your argument.
I don’t want the Spurs to lose but do not consider it evil if they do. There are lots of reasons other than evil for not wanting things to happen.
Oh,” REALLY,REALLY”, that is a much more convincing argument. I think or at least I hope you are trying to make the argument for atheists everything is subjective and since everything has the same value.Chopping off hair and chopping off heads are equal
You don’t even seem to be trying now
phoodoo,
You’re desperately trying to change the subject. The OP is about what a loving God would do.
Why not just admit that you can’t answer my questions? Everyone already knows that you believe in a loving God despite the evidence, not because of it.
Could you be any more obtuse Phoodoo? Why are you attempting to counter an argument that no one is making?
Try this:
Why doesn’t this supposed omni-benevolent, all-loving god you supposedly believe in show up at every death and funeral and give overt comfort (like a hug and some kind words) to the survivors?
So you turn ‘The Problem of Evil’ into ‘The Problem of Personal Distaste.’ that’s what phoodoo has been complaining about. One person’s distaste is another’s joy. If God is to blame for the aggregate sum, you need a calculation and a position on its Pareto standing before you can conclude that you’ve got evidence for non-existence.
walto,
No.
First of all, ‘evil’ is not tantamount to ‘personal distaste’. We’ve been over this before.
Second, my questions are not about what is and isn’t evil. They are about what a loving God would do.
Phoodoo can’t answer them, so he is trying to change the subject.
keiths,
Or, he does not think he has the right perspective from the bottom of the well.
colewd,
No. If that were the case, he wouldn’t make the claim that God is loving. He’d remain undecided.
The same goes for you.
You’re both deeply irrational, ignoring the evidence simply because you don’t like what it’s telling you. You’re fighting against the truth.
keiths,
We all have cognitive bias. Even you Keiths. You are in love with your argument and don’t understand why others don’t find it a logically compelling as you do.
How would you argue Phoodoo’s position?
colewd:
Some more than others, to put it mildly.
The evidence tells you one thing, so you and phoodoo jump, with no justification, to the opposite conclusion. Now that’s cognitive bias.
I can’t. I couldn’t do it when I was a Christian, and I can’t do it now. It’s simply not tenable.
Your ‘bottom of the well’ argument certainly doesn’t succeed, as I explained above. Do you understand why?
Do you have any others?
A loving and just God
God is omnipresent,He is at every funeral and the belief of an afterlife gives comfort. Being all loving does not require overt.
keiths,
Keith you are making lots of assertions and very few arguments. The above says you are categorically denying your opponents position. This is evidence of extreme cognitive bias.
It is an opposing argument to yours.
What is your measure of whether an argument succeeds or fails?
I’d say it’s evidence that phoodoo isn’t actually making an argument. He’s deliberately misstating other’s views and squirming to avoid answering direct questions, but he’s certainly not presented anything resembling an argument.
Perhaps you could state your position more effectively than phoodoo has.
colewd,
For me to defend phoodoo’s position effectively, there would need to actually be an effective defense for it.
I can’t find one. Phoodoo certainly doesn’t have one. If he did, he’d use it to answer my questions instead of running away from them. Neither you nor Mung have one. And far more importantly, philosophers haven’t come up with one.
Should anyone get around to presenting one, I will consider it. In the meantime, it would be stupid to believe in a loving God when the evidence points overwhelmingly in the opposite direction.
It’s irrational to believe in a loving God. The theists who do so, including you, are suffering from a huge cognitive bias.
colewd,
How about tackling the questions that phoodoo and Mung are running away from?
1. Would a loving Father punish his children with “everlasting destruction” and shut them out from his presence?
2. Would a loving God allow 230,000 people to die in a tsunami, without even warning them?
3. Would a loving God stand by, doing nothing, while a dog ate the head of a living, innocent baby?
As for why your “bottom of the well” argument fails, do I really need to keep explaining it?
If we’re really frogs at the bottom of a well, lacking the information we need to decide whether God is loving or not, then why do you claim that God is loving?
You’re a frog at the bottom of a well. By your own account, you don’t have the information you need to decide one way or the other.
Your bias is obvious. You only pull the “frog at the bottom of a well” stunt when the overwhelming evidence against your view is presented. The rest of the time, you quite happily assume that you’re hopping around on the surface where the view is clear, allowing you to draw conclusions about God.
It’s a pitiful and obvious double standard.
keiths,
Would a loving God allow dandruff?
You should probably stop talking talking about evil, and demanding others answers your questions, until you can even explain what makes something evil and something not.
Try to confront your shyness, its a small step in self improvement.
Phoodoo phail.
My questions don’t even mention evil. Why are you afraid to answer them?
(That’s a rhetorical question. Everyone knows why.)
Right, because you don’t know what evil is.
So you can’t claim God allows evil, when you don’t even know what it is.
Try an acting class. Got out and talk to a stranger. Put yourself in an uncomfortable situation, like being around a group, without panicking. These are all ways to get over the painful awkwardness you have with expressing yourself. It gets better keiths.
Its just a simple question.
Or in the case of keiths, it’s God’s failure to act that he find abhorrent. Whatever that term means to him.
The objective fact that we think some things are in fact objectively evil is evidence for the existence of God. 🙂
Mung,
I disagree, I don’t think there is any objective fact that we think some things are objectively evil.
Evil to one person might be a pleasure to another. We all live within our own conscience, and are only subject to it. I believe a God’s guidance is to allow you to view your own conscience.
And still my questions remain unanswered.
You and Mung, who supposedly have the wise and mighty Creator of the universe on your side, are running away from some simple questions posed by a mere atheist who has no gods on his side. It’s pitiful.
That’s some faith you’ve got. Let me remind Mung of what Jesus supposedly said:
Ask your “loving” God to explain why 230,000+ people denied in the tsunami. You know as well as I do that you won’t receive an answer. That’s why you’re running from my questions.
O ye of little faith.
Your demand for having all of YOUR questions answered, whilst running from any of you has expired.
No one should take your hypocritical demand for answers seriously.
Confront your fears ketihs.