Argument from evil

Deut. 32.8 said:

Absurd. People make choices daily "without the presence of evil". Furthermore, by what tortured ethic do you justify the suffering of the victim on the grounds that the victor was able to exercise choice?

Click to expand...

Sorry Deut I think you have misunderstood me - or I wrote what I meant badly.
QUOTE "Without the presence of evil, there would be no choices for us to make; without choices, we would all only ever follow the 'good path', which would be a totally fruitless exercise. You must learn to make your choice; there's no shortcut." UNQUOTE

What I meant by that was that if there was no 'choice element' at any juncture in life, we would not have to make a decision between the 'good' choice or the 'bad' choice. Therefore the ability for us to choose to do wrong is the positive element that allows us to do good. This applies to morality as well as theology. The onus is on us, as individuals to make sure that we choose our path.

I would think it would prove God's exsistence even stronger as well as proving Satin is hard at work to pull God's humans as far from Him as possible.

Click to expand...

How do you figure that, fromtheHeart?

michel said:

Without evil, there would be no God, and vice versa. The existence of evil Proves the existence of God; to every force there is an equal and opposite reaction; phisically and theologically.

Click to expand...

Well, assuming that things like universal evils do exist, they certainly would not prove the existance of God, but rather the existance of good.

good point meogi but then we get back the question of who set up the universal evils and goods? Something or someone outside of the universe must have established them. Atoms and chance cant account for them. And they were not just set up by society because we all know in our own heart and mind that certain things are wrong and right.

SportyAngel2006 said:

good point meogi but then we get back the question of who set up the universal evils and goods?

Click to expand...

I never said anything but assuming they exist, then certain things follow. There are no universally good or bad things.

SportyAngel2006 said:

And they were not just set up by society because we all know in our own heart and mind that certain things are wrong and right.

Click to expand...

Please give me one, just one, universal good/evil that is not influenced by or affects society. We can continue after that.

michel said:

Therefore the ability for us to choose to do wrong is the positive element that allows us to do good.

Click to expand...

michel, do you equate 'wrong' with 'evil'? Conversely, do you equate God's genocide and biocide with 'good'?

Deut. 32.8 said:

Then he chooses what he does not prevent, from poverty to tsunami to holocaust.
He also chooses what he implements, from global biocide to the genocide of the Midianites to the murder of the first-born.

Nonsense. In the context of this discussion, those comments are irrelevant at best and, at worst, a pathetic attempt to blame the victims. Talk to me about the free will of the tsnami and holocaust victims. Talk to me about the free will of the first-born.

Rubbish. What judgements were in place when he allowed the victims of the tsunami to be torn apart alive by he force of debris? What judgements were in place when he allowed the victims of the holcaust to be tossed into mass graves?

blah ... blah ... blah :banghead3

Click to expand...

Because of our power of choice, we have the power to bring chaos into other people's lives, like the Halocaust. We also have the power to chose to raise up heros who will fight for the liberation of victims. The cost of freedom is the absence of direct intervention, though some theologians would say that God does intervene (eg, helping the just win wars, etc).

The understanding of freewill and choice is not a pathetic attempt to blame the victims. It placed responsibility on all of humanity - in Christian theology, there is natural evil in the world because of the sin of the community. The tsnami victims are not personally responsible for beinging this evil upon themselves, but natural evil exists because of the sin of humanity. We are communally responsible.

So Christian theology seperates these two questions:

What judgements were in place when he allowed the victims of the tsunami to be torn apart alive by he force of debris? The tsunami is a natural evil, that is, and evil which occurs in nature like a still born baby or children born with horrible diseases. From the Christian POV, nature is not perfect because of humanity's rebellion. No human being is more innocent than another - we all will die, and no one deserves a tsunami more than another.

What judgements were in place when he allowed the victims of the holcaust to be tossed into mass graves? This is an example of evil brought about by personal rebellion, and is not a natural evil. The evils brought about in the Halocaust were done by individuals making bad choices because of our freewill. God does not make choices for us. Some may think that God helped America and others win WWII for the sake of justice. However, He did not chose for it to occur, He allowed humanity to make their own choices. From the Christian POV, God has placed humanity on earth as stewards.

I'm just curious AE, but how do you connect nature with sin of community? Can you clarify on this a little more for me, please.

angellous_evangellous said:

Because of our power of choice, ...

Click to expand...

'Free will' is the most banal of strawman arguments. At issue is not whether we have the freedom to perpetrate horrific acts, but whether an omnipotent Deity had no alternative but to enable such excesses. If so, the Deity is less than omnipotent; if not, the Diety is more than malevolent.

angellous_evangellous said:

We also have the power to chose to raise up heros who will fight for the liberation of victims.

Click to expand...

Praise be to God ... except that 6 million of those victims were not liberated. Perhaps an oversight on the part of YHWH, or was this, too, an example of "Intelligent Design"?

angellous_evangellous said:

The cost of freedom is the absence of direct intervention, though some theologians would say that God does intervene (eg, helping the just win wars, etc).

Click to expand...

So God does not intervene except when he does. I guess those 6 million Jews just didn't make the cut. Thanks for explaining it to us.

angellous_evangellous said:

The tsunami is a natural evil, ...

Click to expand...

A necessary one? Created by whom? For what purpose?

angellous_evangellous said:

The evils brought about in the Halocaust were done by individuals making bad choices because of our freewill. God does not make choices for us.

Click to expand...

Except, of course, when He does - as when he 'hardened Pharoah's heart' rendering necessary the willful slaughter of the firstborn. In fact, assertions about what God does or doesn't do are little more than self-serving pretense. They are also irrelevant, since the real issue is whether or not free will necessitates unconstrained free will with undelimited consequences. No sane parent would create such an environment for a child.

angellous_evangellous said:

So Christian theology seperates these two questions: ...

Click to expand...

I note that you evade the third question, that dealing with the malevolence of God-sponsored biocide, the malevolence of God-sponsored genocide, and the malevolence of God-sponsored infanticide.