Posted on 09/03/2023 10:10:00 AM PDT by daniel1212
Certainly that logical fallacy, a superficial ignorant parroted polemic (such as invokes everything from the Flood to AIDS as a moral argument against God), can be answered. There simply is no contradiction btwn God being omnipotent (and omniscient) and all good (from whom all good has come, as the creator of an exceedingly vast, systematicity ordered universe, exquisitely fine-tuned for our physical life), and the allowance of evil, For unless you want a world in which mankind is like a cloud or a robot, then allowing evil is a necessary good if: Man is to be a being with the ability to make moral choices; And if such choices are to have effects/consequences, for both good and evil, And which consequences can affect others as well as self, directly or indirectly. But which God can make to ultimately work out for what is Good, in the light of all that can be known. Which includes just punishment for eternal beings which manifest they wanted the opposite of God, (John 3:19–21) though only being punished according to what they could and did choose to do, (Deuteronomy 24:16; Luke 10:1- 15; Revelation 20:12; cf. 2 Corinthians 8:12) while making all to work out to the benefit of those who honestly choose Him over sin, seeking and finding the mercy of God in the Lord Christ. (Roman 8:28) Consider some alternatives. God could have, 1. made us (and angels) with no moral standard or sense or deprived us from the moral ability to respond to or choose good [morally insensible, even as with clouds]. 2. granted us free moral agency, but never have given us anything to choose between [negation of moral choices, and no devil or God]. 3. left man only with recourse to finite competing sources as his ultimate object of spiritual affection and allegiance and source of security, and supreme judge of what is good [atheism and atheistic governments]. 4. called man to make the Creator their ultimate object of spiritual affection and allegiance and source of security as being what is right and what is best for man, versus finite created beings or things being one's "god," and provided moral revelation and influences. Yet always have moved us to do good, and never have allowed us to choose evil (even if as by making believing in God and choosing good so utterly compelling — like God appearing daily and always doing miracles on demand, and preventing any seeming evidence to the contrary - so that no man could attempt to make excuses for not believing in Him [effective negation of any freedom to choose]). 5. allowed created beings a negative alternative to faithfulness to the creator, and the ability to choose evil, but immediately reversed any effects and not penalized such [negation of consequences to choices]. 6. allowed us to do bad, but restricted us to a place where it would harm no one but ourselves [isolated consequences to choices]. 7. allowed us to choose between good and evil, and to affect others by it, but not ultimately reward or punish us accordingly [negation of judicial and eternal consequences, positive or negative]. 8. given us the ability to choose, and alternatives to chose between, and to face and overcome evil or be overcome by it, with the ability to effect others and things by our choices, and to exercise some reward or punishment in this life for morality, and ultimately reward or punishment all accordingly [pure justice]. 9. restrained evil to some degree, while making the evil that man does to work out for what is Good, with justice yet with mercy, and grace, towards those who want good, and who thus the One who is supremely Good. 10. in accordance with 8, the Creator could have chose to manifest Himself in the flesh, and by Him to provide man a means of escaping the ultimate retribution of Divine justice, and instead receive unmerited eternal favor, at God's own expense and credit, appropriated by a repentant obedient faith, in addition to the loss or gaining of certain rewards based on one's quality of work as a child of God. And eternally punish, to varying degrees relative to iniquity and accountability, those whose response to God's revelation manifested they want evil, [justice maintained while mercy and grace given]. But man, as an exceedingly finite being who is but a speck in this universe, and in the sea of humanity, and whose existence on earth occupies an infinitesimal amount of time, and who is very ignorant of what all the effects of his choices have been and will be, in time and eternity, and quite impotent to make them all work out as he/she wants, not only in one’s own life but in others, and for this life, as well as eternity, is in no position to sit in judgment upon an omniscient and omnipotent being and giver of life, who alone knows what all the effects will be of even our most seemingly insignificant actions or inactions, not only in this life but for eternity. And can make all work out for what is Good, for what is just, as well as showing mercy and grace. And which the God of the Bible has often manifestly done already, and promises to do for those who choose the ultimate Good, the living and true God, (Romans 8:28) by His grace, thanks be to God. This the choices of an omniscient omnipotent Being cannot be judged as being evil or good by extremely finite and relatively ignorant man. Not that - in my ignorance myself - I have/do not too often protested His dealing with me as I subjectively imagined Him, though objectively blessed, and I am being blessed right now listening to,
“Love is what we’ve been discussing the entire thread.”
Love or else bad things will happen to you....that is the message I am hearing. I am sure folks know former spouses like that.
Lol.
There! Fixed it!
Not swallowing without due consideration every bold assertion is NOT to be equated with "denying."
Regards,
Black 47 is Propaganda?
You haven’t reordered things as logical. Shifting burden of proof.
I was simply pointing out that your conceptualization of “proof” is highly problematic. Your reply here is in agreement.
More on proof: DesCartes derives, through a process of doubt, that the SUBJECTIVE SELF is real and thus objectively true.
If it’s real it’s part of creation, and evidence for the Creator.
He already said: Vast chunks of their memory will be wiped. That decade they spent in a Soviet gulag will be "obliviated" - like with the Harry Potter magical spell. The unhappy childhood? Gone! Forgotten!
Only question is: Will they still be the same individual, after undergoing such a thorough brain-cleansing?
Regards,
It does have Elrond in it.
But you assert outcome as emphatically as I do.
So there is no way for you to escape your own “finger on the scale” accusation.
When you attempt to quote me with your own statements, you’re quoting yourself, not me.
This is a falsehood. At best, it’s your distorted interpretation of my statements. Highly distorted, thus false.
Why would you base your propositions on falsehood? We aren’t seeking what is false, but what is true!
I believe God allows evil to happen, because God allows Free Will. He has given us the tools needed to create a better world and He expects us to use them.
He will hold us accountable for we’ve done in life.
But forensic-level evidence and geometric logic about ultimate good is universally acknowledged.
So it’s a massive stretch, and unreasonable, to deny it.
People like this do not understand how much God would have to interfere with their own lives constantly throughout the day. You wouldn’t be able to just live and do things without being stopped or admonished.
He would intervene on your thoughts and words too. It would be impossible to live, we are all evil. Many just have their natural evil human nature, 100% sinner. Many have both their natural human nature and their new spirit, both sinner and saint in the same body struggling each day.
Everyone would be stopped so often life would become unliveable for imperfect people living in the current fallen world.
My "gut" might tell me that that Mexican at the check-out line is a greasy, untrustworthy person. My "gut" might tell me that that girl over there is looking at me funny, and laughing about me, and that maybe I should force myself upon her to teach her a lesson.
That's why I don't generally listen to my "gut" when I have my Neocortex to rely on.
People often have faulty reasoning faculties, and can be influenced by false beliefs, superstition, etc. They can be venal, close-minded, short-sighted.
Therefore, a better question would be: How would an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Creator decide?
I say: He'd say, "Nothingness would be better than choosing a course of action that will inevitably lead to some of my children experiencing untold suffering!"
Regards,
This is stupid. If God can erase or overcome any evil men can do He needn’t worry overmuch about it. The Bible says that the human mind can’t even encompass what God has prepared to us. My guess is that people would go through five lifetimes of crap and evil to be in Heaven, once they’ve seen it.
The self is not material.
If you think the self is material, you’re in error.
The self is immaterial, and it is eternal.
Pain and suffering are material, so they don’t last. Least of all do they define the self.
See #215.
My response is not irrelevant, since its follows that, faced with the proposition, "unless you want a world in which mankind is like a cloud or a robot, then allowing evil is a necessary good," then since you chose "Anything to avoid evil, misery, and suffering" then perhaps you only want a Stepford wife, or she should want an android.
Thus the question is whether you are being disingenuous or really want a world in which mankind is like a cloud or a robot.
We all die. That is the wages of sin. When looking at life spans versus eternity, there is no difference in the life span of a person who dies a minute after birth, or someone that lives to 123. Both life spans take up the same percentage of space on the infinite line of the space-time continuum. Both life spans contain the same amount of suffering on an infinite line as well.
To be precise, I said that natural disasters, catastrophes as he called them, are not evil because there is no moral component to them. That does not make them pleasant or fun. Just that there is no such thing as natural evil. Dying in a tornado is merely a matter of statistics, not evil. Being bitten to death by a dog is evil only in so far as the owner of the dog did not control the beast. The dog was just acting within the nature of a dog. And, the number of people die in catastrophes pale in comparison to the numbers that die at the hands of our fellows.
Suffering is a result of sin. In this fallen world we all suffer. When Adam fell all of creation fell with him. Does that mean that if Adam had never fallen, he could have never tripped on a stone and broken his leg? I do not know. But, assuming he could have, neither the process of tripping or the stone are inherently evil, they just are.
All that said, suffering can service a number of purposes.
1. It reveals to us how deep, strong, or genuine of faith in God is.
2. It is a witness to those around us of the reality of our faith
3. It allows us to remember the hope we have of a place where EVERY tear will be wiped from our eyes
None of those are things that God needs to know or be reminded of. But they are all things WE need to be reminded of. And each of those things have had actual books written about them.
Plantinga is very, very good in general, as is Craig.
“The self is not material.
If you think the self is material, you’re in error.
The self is immaterial, and it is eternal.
Pain and suffering are material, so they don’t last. Least of all do they define the self.”
You got three out of four correct—and then you blow it.
What we do here and what happens to us does matter—even to our eternal selves.
Pretty much every religion agrees on that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.