Is God evil because He causes death?

[sojourner]

There's so many arguments against God because He cause people to be killed in the Flood, or because I commanded nations to be destroyed. Or they argue God is evil because He allows innocent children to die or people to die 'before there time.' So I'm going to take this argument to is logical conclusion.

Is God evil because He allows TRILLIONS of people to die from old age? Surely and all knowing, all loving God, would not allow trillions of people to die from problems with their bodies.

I could never believe in such a God that would allow death to come to EVERY elderly person in the worlds history. Such a God could NOT be a loving God!

:sarcastic

You need to delve deeper into theodicy before coming to such conclusions.

 

[Autodidact]

There's so many arguments against God because He cause people to be killed in the Flood, or because I commanded nations to be destroyed. Or they argue God is evil because He allows innocent children to die or people to die 'before there time.' So I'm going to take this argument to is logical conclusion.

Is God evil because He allows TRILLIONS of people to die from old age? Surely and all knowing, all loving God, would not allow trillions of people to die from problems with their bodies.

I could never believe in such a God that would allow death to come to EVERY elderly person in the worlds history. Such a God could NOT be a loving God!

:sarcastic

No, that's not the logical conclusion. Allowing someone to die of old age is not the same thing as taking a sword and slicing open a baby's belly.

However, you do raise the problem of evil, which many do find a reasonable objection to the existence of an all-powerful and all-loving God.

 

[Sola'lor]

Equating death as a punishment would just be like considering birth as a penalty. There is no difference. They are both transitions. One brings you in and the other takes you out.

I agree.

One of the quotes I agree with is: Death is a release not a punishment. I don't believe God is punishing anyone when someone dies no matter how they die. The punishment comes after the resurrection and judgement.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

There's so many arguments against God because He cause people to be killed in the Flood, or because I commanded nations to be destroyed. Or they argue God is evil because He allows innocent children to die or people to die 'before there time.' So I'm going to take this argument to is logical conclusion.

Is God evil because He allows TRILLIONS of people to die from old age? Surely and all knowing, all loving God, would not allow trillions of people to die from problems with their bodies.

I could never believe in such a God that would allow death to come to EVERY elderly person in the worlds history. Such a God could NOT be a loving God!

:sarcastic

This is a quote from Plotinus:

Things that come and go have only borrowed being; not they, but they on whom they draw are real.

'Nuff said.

 

[BruceDLimber]

>Is God evil because He causes death?

Clearly not!

Ignoring for the nonce the fact that God is All-good and All-wise, without death, how are you (eventually) going to have room for births?!

Not to mention that via death He's advancing us on to the Next Life, which our scriptures proclaim to be far more wondrous then we can describe now!

Best,

Bruce

 

[JTFC]

God always loves us, and when we die it is either a gift or a punshiment. We can either go to Heaven and live with God forever as a gift for being good on earth or we can go to Hell and suffer as a punishment for being bad on earth. We make the choice of where we go after life, and God flooded the Earth to rid the world of the evildoers. The innocent people went to live with him, and the evil people who did not follow
God went to hell because they did not love God in return as He had loved them.

 

[Autodidact]

I agree.

One of the quotes I agree with is: Death is a release not a punishment. I don't believe God is punishing anyone when someone dies no matter how they die. The punishment comes after the resurrection and judgement.

Oh, O.K. Can I kill you now?

 

[gnomon]

I think I understand the point of the OP.

You hear it time and again when people say..."I can't believe in the Christian God because look at all the death, doom and gloom in the Bible. How can he allow all this evil to happen." That's usually the time you want to tell them to actually study the history of Judaism and stop being juvenile. It's amazing that people would use that as an indicator as to what they will believe. It's nothing more than a pure admittance that if they are holding to a faith it is one of complete imagination. Why should they even bother at all?

Using the notion of evil against the existence of a God is absurd. How an atheist could ever posit such an argument and still maintain an atheistic viewpoint.......is absurd as well.

 

[Magic Man]

Using the notion of evil against the existence of a God is absurd. How an atheist could ever posit such an argument and still maintain an atheistic viewpoint.......is absurd as well.

Is this part supposed to be sarcastic? If not, can you tell me why it's absurd?

 

[Syphros]

Chaos is behind the imperfection of the world. It causes natural disasters etc.

The bible/torah is a storybook of morals, not a factfile of the past.

 

[Magic Man]

Chaos is behind the imperfection of the world. It causes natural disasters etc.

The bible/torah is a storybook of morals, not a factfile of the past.

It sure would be nice to have that factfile, though, wouldn't it?

 

[gnomon]

Is this part supposed to be sarcastic? If not, can you tell me why it's absurd?

Since when would an atheist not follow a God because of a personification of an assumption?

What logical or empirical reason could be given that a God of love could exist but not a God of evil. There is the absurdity because there is no empirical evidence for the existence of either.

However, it's a common refrain I hear on this forum and out in the real world. It's absurd.

 

[Magic Man]

Since when would an atheist not follow a God because of a personification of an assumption?

What logical or empirical reason could be given that a God of love could exist but not a God of evil. There is the absurdity because there is no empirical evidence for the existence of either.

However, it's a common refrain I hear on this forum and out in the real world. It's absurd.

I'm still not quite sure I get what you mean, but people choose not to believe in Christianity because their version of God doesn't make logical sense, mainly for the reasons you offered.

Wouldn't it make more logical sense for there to be both a God of love and a God of evil? Therefore, just a God of love wouldn't make much sense at all?

Your points are the reason atheists don't believe. At least personally, I don't believe because of the absurdity of the claims of religions like Christianity, and the fact that Christians do believe in someone else's assumptions of what God is. That's the big problem with it.

 

[gnomon]

I'm still not quite sure I get what you mean, but people choose not to believe in Christianity because their version of God doesn't make logical sense, mainly for the reasons you offered.

Wouldn't it make more logical sense for there to be both a God of love and a God of evil? Therefore, just a God of love wouldn't make much sense at all?

Your points are the reason atheists don't believe. At least personally, I don't believe because of the absurdity of the claims of religions like Christianity, and the fact that Christians do believe in someone else's assumptions of what God is. That's the big problem with it.

What I'm saying is that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of any God. For, as an atheist, for anyone to assert that it is more reasonable, i.e. rational, to believe in a God A vs. God B...no matter the characteristics defining A and B...it absurd because both are equivalent matters of faith.

In short, it is just as rational to posit the existence of some higher power which loves all humanity, a different higher power which has chosen only one group of people, a different higher power that's just waiting to eat all of us or yet a whole slew of different personalities that don't even know we are here.

Dismissing the possibility of the existence of an object that lies outside the realm of reason based on a personality? I can understand when people of different faith assert such things. Primarily because they hold some sort of faith but for an atheist....you first have to imply the existence of the being you don't believe in to dismiss on the grounds of personification.

 

[Magic Man]

What I'm saying is that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of any God. For, as an atheist, for anyone to assert that it is more reasonable, i.e. rational, to believe in a God A vs. God B...no matter the characteristics defining A and B...it absurd because both are equivalent matters of faith.

In short, it is just as rational to posit the existence of some higher power which loves all humanity, a different higher power which has chosen only one group of people, a different higher power that's just waiting to eat all of us or yet a whole slew of different personalities that don't even know we are here.

Dismissing the possibility of the existence of an object that lies outside the realm of reason based on a personality? I can understand when people of different faith assert such things. Primarily because they hold some sort of faith but for an atheist....you first have to imply the existence of the being you don't believe in to dismiss on the grounds of personification.

I agree. It's just that when arguing against something, it's better sometimes to start with the assumption that it's true, and prove logically why it couldn't be true through contradictions. That's the reason for those arguments, which are generally brought up by believers, or former believers.

In the end, no there's no empirical evidence for any God, which is the primary reason not to believe, but there is also the use of logic to prove or disprove theories in the absence of evidence.

 

[gnomon]

I agree. It's just that when arguing against something, it's better sometimes to start with the assumption that it's true, and prove logically why it couldn't be true through contradictions. That's the reason for those arguments, which are generally brought up by believers, or former believers.

In the end, no there's no empirical evidence for any God, which is the primary reason not to believe, but there is also the use of logic to prove or disprove theories in the absence of evidence.

I highlight the first part because there was a recent study highlight that when we hear a proposition, any proposition, most people apply some level of truth to it. That's an aside however.

If you cannot prove God, just the notion of a universal divine creator, exists than how can you prove any of its values. You would have just as easy a time proving the Invisible Pink Unicorn is indeed...

 

[Magic Man]

I highlight the first part because there was a recent study highlight that when we hear a proposition, any proposition, most people apply some level of truth to it. That's an aside however.

If you cannot prove God, just the notion of a universal divine creator, exists than how can you prove any of its values. You would have just as easy a time proving the Invisible Pink Unicorn is indeed...

It's just a way of arguing, that's all. Science does i too. A scientist comes up with a theory and tests it. If the evidence upholds the theory, then it is said to be true. Again, as I said, in an absence of evidence for God, sometimes you must resort to logic to disprove the theory.

 

[gnomon]

It's just a way of arguing, that's all. Science does i too. A scientist comes up with a theory and tests it. If the evidence upholds the theory, then it is said to be true. Again, as I said, in an absence of evidence for God, sometimes you must resort to logic to disprove the theory.

Then we have nothing further to discuss in this thread.

 

[Magic Man]

Then we have nothing further to discuss in this thread.

Maybe we don't, but some do.

 

[Jeremiah]

God A vs. God B

I got the impression from the OP and the following post that we were talking about Abraham's God. Not God B. If that is so than the problem of evil is a valid logical argument against the God in question.