God and Evil, working towards a solution

[Koldo]

Already went over this. No. You're arguing something I'm not even concerned with or brought up. I suggest you go back and reexamine what I'm saying, or just listen to the podcast, because at this point, we aren't even on similar tracks.

Then let me check: Do you agree that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent ?

If not, then I will bow out of this conversation because I am under the impression you agree with that. If you agree with that and if you can't justify every single evil you have no ground to stand on this debate.

I propose you have no idea what free will is.

How can I prove otherwise ?
Let me know how.

Yes, it's incomplete. I said that when I began .To define evil would take books and books. I tried to explain that already.

Luckly we are all one click away from understanding the term: The Concept of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

No. It won't exist because for it to exist, everything would have to fundamentally change. That's no a plausible outcome. What you are doing is creating a strawman so you can tear it down.

And what's the problem with everything fundamentally changing ? Claiming it is not plausible is not sufficient. What strawman am I creating? Merely claiming so is not sufficient either.

It doesn't matter what the claims are that humans make. We can say certain things about God, and then make arguments for those, but it doesn't necessarily reflect God, or God's understanding.

Sure. But what we are debating is what people claim about God. After all, I suppose you haven't met God yourself and that he made claims about himself to you, right ? So even God's very existence is a claim that humans make.

More so, the definition of omnibenevolent you are using is so strict that it doesn't mean much in this discussion as you're ignoring everything that doesn't agree with your narrow view of it.

I am fine with using a different definition if you can justify why. You should be able to explain why a distinct definition is more proper.

Wouldn't matter. Humans are limited. Just because I couldn't think of a greater good doesn't mean their isn't one.

But how do you figure there is a greater one to begin with, no matter which one it is ?
If God told the greater good possible is the existence of Bic Mac, for instance, how would you determine that it is actually the greater good possible ?

I can not say what exact state of affairs is the greater good for I am limited but I can say that the greater good is necessarily the one that maximizes well being because that is the underlying meaning of the term.

But you seem to be stating that you don't even have an underlying definition for greater good which means that if someone claimed the Holocaust was the greater good you would have no way of stating otherwise.

You switched the goal posts mid argument. You can't argue for something then only to change the meaning later on and say you're right.

I don't think I have done that, but if you can properly show me rather than merely claiming it I might change my mind.

Nor am I going to as this conversation is going no where.
I told you where to find it. If you're unwilling to even do a little bit of work, I can't help you.
You claimed we are claiming to know something. You're just not taking things in context, and this conversation is going nowhere.

I have to agree with you: It is not getting anywhere but that's because you both make claims that you don't substantiate and keep trying to shrug off instances of evil as if you didn't have to justify their existence.

 

[Bird123]

That really is just making exceptions based on information that doesn't agree with your argument, which isn't sound logic. They didn't lack the knowledge. Many Germans argued it was wrong, and fought against it. They proceeded anyway.

Already went over this. No. You're arguing something I'm not even concerned with or brought up. I suggest you go back and reexamine what I'm saying, or just listen to the podcast, because at this point, we aren't even on similar tracks.
I propose you have no idea what free will is.
Yes, it's incomplete. I said that when I began .To define evil would take books and books. I tried to explain that already.
No. It won't exist because for it to exist, everything would have to fundamentally change. That's no a plausible outcome. What you are doing is creating a strawman so you can tear it down.
It doesn't matter what the claims are that humans make. We can say certain things about God, and then make arguments for those, but it doesn't necessarily reflect God, or God's understanding. More so, the definition of omnibenevolent you are using is so strict that it doesn't mean much in this discussion as you're ignoring everything that doesn't agree with your narrow view of it.
Wouldn't matter. Humans are limited. Just because I couldn't think of a greater good doesn't mean their isn't one.
You switched the goal posts mid argument. You can't argue for something then only to change the meaning later on and say you're right.
Nor am I going to as this conversation is going no where.
I told you where to find it. If you're unwilling to even do a little bit of work, I can't help you.
You claimed we are claiming to know something. You're just not taking things in context, and this conversation is going nowhere.

I never said every German was blind to the truth. Perhaps, it was the leaders. Let's not forget those that followed.

If you do not see or understand what I have been saying, clearly there is much you are blind to or choose not to see.

 

[amatuerscholar]

I never said every German was blind to the truth. Perhaps, it was the leaders. Let's not forget those that followed.

If you do not see or understand what I have been saying, clearly there is much you are blind to or choose not to see.

I see what you're saying. I'm saying you're wrong. You're trying to make exceptions to what you said so that you can be right, but it doesn't work like that. You can't keep moving the goal post because the information disagrees with you.

 

[Bird123]

I see what you're saying. I'm saying you're wrong. You're trying to make exceptions to what you said so that you can be right, but it doesn't work like that. You can't keep moving the goal post because the information disagrees with you.

Clearly, you do not understand. I am constant. One might appear intelligent to you at a point in time, then when you see they were missing the knowledge to make the best choice, you discover they were not as intelligent as they appeared after all. One could be an intelligent brain surgeon and yet could not even cook a pizza. Something missing??

 

[rebeccaf]

Check out this page on theodicies - it maps out all the opinions on them! Thought it might be helpful here if anyone needs the issue simplified bc I definitely did...