Subject:
|
Re: The Problem of Evil
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 2 Dec 2000 07:29:40 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.net#spamcake#
|
Viewed:
|
247 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Marchetti wrote:
> Hey Y'all:
>
> I see some of you exerting some considerable effort around the subject of
> the problem of evil. I thought I might summarize the essentials if I might...
>
> The problem of evil is normally worded in the manner of a theorem, as are
> the following variants:
>
> 1. If God is good, he will want to abolish evil
Flawed. God is good and gives us free will to choose evil. Respecting this
choice is a part of honoring our autonomy.
> 2. If God is all powerful, he must be able to abolish evil
If God wanted to. See above.
> 3. Evil exists
> Therefore, an all powerful, good God does not exist
>
> or:
>
> 1. God is the first cause and created everything
> 2. Evil is something
Flawed. Explain how to quantify evil.
> Therefore, God is the creator of evil
>
> What I find interesting about this problem is that either conclusion only
> matters if you happen to believe in good or evil to begin with -- which I do
> not. I think the above "proofs" have an intended audience of Christian
> believers, and are essentially meaningless to others outside that circle --
> however large that circle may in fact happen to be. But the point is: the
> Christian god cannot exist in the manner in which most Christians envision
> him to exist. Whatever he may or may not be, God is other than what
> Christians have imagined.
This goes without saying.
> If you base your ideas on duality as opposing forces, rather than aspects of
> the same thing you will always get the above results. To paraphrase
> Shakespeare: There are more things in existence than are dreamt of in your
> philosophy!
>
> Me? I don't believe in good or evil -- I believe in adversity. I believe
> that the universe is a place where things struggle, not necessarily in
> opposition, but merely for survival. Every living thing, every energy,
> strives for it's own position or niche. A fish might eat seaweed or
> microscopic organisms, I eat the fish, something else might eat me -- none
> of us the more evil for having done it.
Maybe not for non sentient beings and things, but it is different for us. We
have free will. What about morality?
-John
> Evil is just a word, a conceit to
> reify the asserted nature of human existence -- "O, woe is me!". Good is
> just a word too, the sort of idea one wants to luxuriate in when one has
> done something out of self-interest but wants to pretend otherwise.
> -- Richard
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Problem of Evil
|
| (...) Flawed. Prove free will rather than determinism. Prove to me that your actions are not determined by your nervous system, learned behavior, socialization skills, etc. Free will is an idea I tend to agree with because I find it aesthetically (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | The Problem of Evil
|
| Hey Y'all: I see some of you exerting some considerable effort around the subject of the problem of evil. I thought I might summarize the essentials if I might... The problem of evil is normally worded in the manner of a theorem, as are the (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
