Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Well, it can be more complicated, though. Especially when there is "only one God" as in monotheism.When I speak of God and the Problem of Evil, it is self-evident that I'm speaking of a God who is said to be omnipotent and all-loving. If your God is not omnipotent and all loving then you simply disregard the argument. And it really could not be more simple than that!
What do you mean? The POE really only concerns the concept of a omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. All other gods can just chillax.
It does, indeed.
Well, technically, other gods could exist. This argument would concern only the one that was omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
Yes, but that's polytheism.
Which is not relevant to Epicurus' argument. He is speaking about a specific type of God, which happens to be the same type that most modern Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in.
True, but if you follow the conversation, it had slipped onto a side topic.
Yes, but that's also not relevant to Epicurus' argument.
On further reading, I discovered that since the quote is attributed to Epicurus by a Christian in the 3rd Century, with no substantiation, you are in all likelyhood correct.
Why do you say that?
But calling God "Love" does not really do much to refute Epicurus' eloquent argument. The rest of your post touches on points that have already been made and criticized in this thread. You mentioned free will, for example. Can you explain how it is that God's intervention to prevent serious suffering in a natural disaster (e.g. the Haitian earthquake) would in any way reduce our ability to make free choices?Yes I am a Christian theist so I'm talking about the God described in the NT by Jesus.I presume that you are only talking about the New Testament God, who comes off as slightly more likable than the OT one.
True, but you are not God. You can't always be there when your kid gets into trouble, so you need to teach him or her to survive. God, being omnipresent, can always be there. So the analogy fails pretty badly on this one.
You aren't making sense. A lot of people never get the chances you got to live a reasonably comfortable life. Is the child who dies at birth given an opportunity to develop discernment, exercise choice, or explore curiosity? The omnimax perspective would take these other situations into account, but you are not.
This is not true. God allows some to pass through life relatively untested and unchallenged. He is omnipotent and therefore able to give everyone the same opportunities. But you seem to admit that he is unwilling to prevent evil.
How do you stop an earthquake, a hurricane, or severe birth defect? People are not responsible for all the suffering they experience. Your argument does not apply to suffering that is not in anyone's power to stop. And it is certainly the case that many victims of violence are incapable of doing anything to stop it, yet God still refuses to intervene.
You dodged the question. If God is able and willing to prevent evil (which you seemed to doubt in responses 1 and 2), then how is it that any evil can occur? After all, an omnipotent being cannot suffer any impediment to its will. And there is no reason at all why he needs to let some people (but not all) experience excruciating pain and suffering before their so-called "return" to him.
See my response to your point 3.
Absolutely. That's the whole point. Evolution is a purely mindless process. It works independently of any intelligent agency.
False dichotomy. If God existed, those would not be the only choices. The least suffering would occur in the case where fibromyalgia never afflicted any human being, and God most certainly has the power to bring that about.
Thank you. You have answered the question now, and the answer we agree on is that we do not understand why it was necessary for God to allow it (assuming there is a God). Whether or not we cannot understand it in principle, I think, is not established. In this case, God appears malevolent, although there may be some justification for his behavior that we do not understand.
Agreed. I do not agree to that stipulation in the end, but I can agree to it as a hypothetical condition. If God was the initial cause for everything (and understood the consequences of his action), then he is the cause of all evil that exists.
Fair enough, but you have now departed from what most Christians believe and what scripture tells us. Most Christians believe that we are special to God and that we are "worth more" than deer, at least. Otherwise, would he consider it moral for us to hunt them? It may be, however, that God considers humans in no better light than, say, worms and dandelions. Or maybe you think that mammals are generally higher in God's esteem than other living beings. I don't know. Only you know what you really think.
I think that the answer depends on how you define those words, but I do believe that evolution occurs quite independently of intelligence.
Yes, I have. Satan was God's creation, was he not? And God understood the consequences of creating Satan, did he not? If God created Satan in full knowledge of what he would do and knowing that he could stop Satan from carrying out what he wanted, then God is fully complicit in Satan's behavior.
Not really. Any way you look at it, God is ultimately in control of everything and in full possession of knowledge of the consequences of his actions.