ForumsWEPREvil & God

113 24576
eyetwitch
offline
eyetwitch
737 posts
Shepherd

This problem of The existence of Evil and the existence of God at the same seems to come up here on AG, more than any other argument against Christianity, (which i find odd since there are better arguments out there...) so I thought i'd just make one topic on the subject, to centralize the debate. Christians please add or change anything i'm about to say, atheists/agnostics have a swing at what i'm about to put forward, and if anyone has a different way of looking at it, please go ahead.

Here's the argument, usually,
1.God exists.
2.God is omnipotent and omniscient.
3.God is all-benevolent.
4. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil.
5. All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it.
6. Evil still exists
7. Therefore, God does not exist or he is not omniscient/all-benevolent.

The problem with this argument is #5. The word immediately. As with most people's thought process, why does evil still exist?? You must keep in mind of this.
How can you possibly constrain a time frame to an eternal being? God is not bound by time, we know from the several prophecies within the bible assigning days or years to a specific event have rarely come in those human time periods, we must therefore assume that Immediately to a being outside of time means absolutely nothing. We know by the following

"3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Revelations 21:3-5

that Evil will end on earth, and that is all that is required of God. He will, according to our finite universe, eventually abolish all evil from the earth.


And....begin debate!
  • 113 Replies
firefighterpaul
offline
firefighterpaul
33 posts
Nomad

I m o relgion is A religion is a set of conducts resulted from tenets (or a belief system) about the ultimate power. It is generally expressed as prayers, rituals, or other practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality (the cosmos, and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience.

The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system,"[1] but it is more socially defined than personal convictions, and it entails specific behaviors, respectively.

The development of religion has taken many forms in various cultures. It considers psychological and social roots, along with origins and historical development.

In the frame of western religious thought,[2] religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of patriarchal religious thought": the division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane.[3] Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life" or a life stance.The English word religion has been in use since the 13th century, loaned from Anglo-French religiun (11th century), ultimately from the Latin religio, "reverence for God or the gods, careful pondering of divine things, piety, the res divinae".[4]

The ultimate origins of Latin religio are obscure. It is usually accepted to derive from ligare "bind, connect"; likely from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect." This interpretation is favoured by modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell, but was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius. Another possibility is derivation from a reduplicated *le-ligare. A historical interpretation due to Cicero on the other hand connects lego "read", i.e. re (again) + lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully".[5] It may also be from Latin religiÅ, religiÅn-, perhaps from religÄre, to tie fast.[6]Religion has been defined in a wide variety of ways. Most definitions attempt to find a balance somewhere between overly sharp definition and meaningless generalities. Some sources have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions while others have emphasized experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors. Definitions mostly include:
a notion of the transcendent or numinous, often, but not always, in the form of theism
a cultural or behavioural aspect of ritual, liturgy and organized worship, often involving a priesthood, and societal norms of morality (ethos) and virtue (arete)
a set of myths or sacred truths held in reverence or believed by adherents

Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought⦠it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.â[7] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions.

There is a tendency in the sociology of religion to emphasize the problems of any definition of religion. Talal Asad has gone so far as to say âthere cannot be a universal definition of religion ⦠because that definition is itself the historical product of discursive processesâ[8]

Other religious scholars have put forward a definition of religion that avoids the reductionism of the various sociological and psychological disciplines that reduce religion to its component factors. Religion may be defined as the presence of a belief in the sacred or the holy. For example Rudolf Otto's "The Idea of the Holy," formulated in 1917, defines the essence of religious awareness as awe, a unique blend of fear and fascination before the divine. Friedrich Schleiermacher in the late 18th century defined religion as a "feeling of absolute dependence."

The Encyclopedia of Religion defines religion this way:[9]
In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels â" a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience â" varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."


Other encyclopedic definitions include: "A general term used... to designate all concepts concerning the belief in god(s) and goddess(es) as well as other spiritual beings or transcendental ultimate concerns"[10] and "human beings' relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine."[11]

Religion and superstition
Further information: Superstition, Magical thinking, and Magic and religion

While superstitions and magical thinking refer to nonscientific causal reasoning, applied to specific things or actions, a religion is a more complex system about general or ultimate things, involving morality, history and community. Because religions may include and exploit certain superstitions or make use of magical thinking, while mixing them with broader considerations, the division between superstition and religious faith is hard to specify and subjective. Religious believers have often seen other religions as superstition.[12] Likewise, some atheists, agnostics, deists, and skeptics regard religious belief as superstition. Religious practices are most likely to be labeled "superstitious" by outsiders when they include belief in extraordinary events (miracles), an afterlife, supernatural interventions, apparitions or the efficacy of prayer, charms, incantations, the meaningfulness of omens, and prognostications.

Greek and Roman pagans, who modeled their relations with the gods on political and social terms scorned the man who constantly trembled with fear at the thought of the gods, as a slave feared a cruel and capricious master. Such fear of the gods (deisidaimonia) was what the Romans meant by superstitio (Veyne 1987, p 211). Early Christianity was outlawed as a superstitio Iudaica, a "Jewish superstition", by Domitian in the 80s AD, and by AD 425, Theodosius II outlawed pagan traditions as superstitious.

The Roman Catholic Church considers superstition to be sinful in the sense that it denotes a lack of trust in the divine providence of God and, as such, is a violation of the first of the Ten Commandments. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states superstition "in some sense represents a perverse excess of religion" (para. #2110).

Superstition is a deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand is to fall into superstition. Cf. Matthew 23:16-22 (para. #2111)

History

Detail from Religion, Charles Sprague Pearce (1896). Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building, Washington, D.C.
Main articles: History of religion and Timeline of religion

Development of religion
Main articles: Evolutionary origin of religions, Origin of religion, Development of religion, Anthropology of religion, and Prehistoric religion

There are a number of models regarding the ways in which religions come into being and develop. Broadly speaking, these models fall into three categories:
Models which see religions as social constructions;
Models which see religions as progressing toward higher, objective truth;
Models which see a particular religion as absolutely true.

In pre-modern (pre-urban) societies, religion is one defining factor of ethnicity, along with language, regional customs, national costume, etc. As Xenophanes famously comments:
Men make gods in their own image; those of the Ethiopians are black and snub-nosed, those of the Thracians have blue eyes and red hair.

Ethnic religions may include officially sanctioned and organized civil religions with an organized clergy, but they are characterized in that adherents generally are defined by their ethnicity, and conversion essentially equates to cultural assimilation to the people in question. The notion of gentiles ("nations&quot in Judaism reflect this state of affairs, the implicit assumption that each nation will have its own religion. Historical examples include Germanic polytheism, Celtic polytheism, Slavic polytheism and pre-Hellenistic Greek religion.

The "Axial Age"
Main article: Axial Age

Karl Jaspers, in his Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte (The Origin and Goal of History), identified a number of key Axial Age thinkers as having had a profound influence on future philosophy and religion, and identified characteristics common to each area from which those thinkers emerged. Jaspers saw in these developments in religion and philosophy a striking parallel without any obvious direct transmission of ideas from one region to the other, having found very little recorded proof of extensive inter-communication between the ancient Near East, Greece, India and China. Jaspers held up this age as unique, and one which to compare the rest of the history of human thought to. Jaspers' approach to the culture of the middle of the first millennium BCE has been adopted by other scholars and academics, and has become a point of discussion in the history of religion.

In its later part, the "Axial Age" culminated in the development of monism and monotheism, notably of Platonic realism and Neoplatonism in Hellenistic philosophy, the notion of atman in Vedanta Hindu philosophy, and the notion of Tao in Taoism.

Central Asian (Tocharian?) and East-Asian Buddhist monks, Bezeklik, Eastern Tarim Basin, 9th-10th century.

Middle Ages

Newer present-day world religions established themselves throughout Eurasia during the Middle Ages by: Christianization of the Western world; Buddhist missions to East Asia; the decline of Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent; and the spread of Islam throughout the Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa and parts of Europe and India.

During the Middle Ages, Muslims were in conflict with Zoroastrians during the Islamic conquest of Persia; Christians were in conflict with Muslims during the Byzantine-Arab Wars, Crusades, Reconquista and Ottoman wars in Europe; Christians were in conflict with Jews during the Crusades, Reconquista and Inquisition; Shamans were in conflict with Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims and Christians during the Mongol invasions; and Muslims were in conflict with Hindus and Sikhs during Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent.

Many medieval religious movements emphasized mysticism, such as the Cathars and related movements in the West, the Bhakti movement in India and Sufism in Islam. Monotheism reached definite forms in Christian Christology and in Islamic Tawhid. Hindu monotheist notions of Brahman likewise reached their classical form with the teaching of Adi Shankara.

Modern period

European colonisation during the 15th to 19th centuries resulted in the spread of Christianity to Sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas, Australia and the Philippines. The 18th century saw the beginning of secularisation in Europe, rising to notability in the wake of the French Revolution.

In the 20th century, the regimes of Communist Eastern Europe and Communist China were explicitly anti-religious. A great variety of new religious movements originated in the 20th century, many proposing syncretism of elements of established religions. Adherence to such new movements is limited, however, remaining below 2% worldwide in the 2000s. Adherents of the classical world religions account for more than 75% of the world's population, while adherence to indigenous tribal religions has fallen to 4%. As of 2005, an estimated 14% of the world's population identifies as nonreligious.

Classification
Main article: Major religious groups
Further information: Comparative religion and Sociological classifications of religious movements

Religious traditions fall into super-groups in comparative religion, arranged by historical origin and mutual influence. Abrahamic religions originate in the Middle East, Indian religions in India and Far Eastern religions in East Asia. Another group with supra-regional influence are African diasporic religions, which have their origins in Central and West Africa.

Major religious groups as a percentage of the world population in 2005
The main Religions of the World, mapped without denominations.
(Encyclopaedia Britannica).
The main Religions of the World, mapped without denominations.. In summary, religious adherence of the world's
population is as follows: "Abrahamic": 53.5%, "Indian": 19.7%, irreligious: 14.3%, "Far Eastern": 6.5%, tribal religions: 4.0%, new religious movements: 2.0%.
Abrahamic religions are by far the largest group, and these consist primarily of Christianity, Islam and Judaism (sometimes the Bahá'í Faith is also included). They are named for the patriarch Abraham, and are unified by the practice of monotheism. Today, around 3.4 billion people are followers of Abrahamic religions and are spread widely around the world apart from the regions around South-East Asia. Several Abrahamic organizations are vigorous proselytizers.[13]
Indian religions originated in Greater India and tend to share a number of key concepts, such as dharma and karma. They are of the most influence across the Indian subcontinent, East Asia, South East Asia, as well as isolated parts of Russia. The main Indian religions are Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism. Indian religions mutually influenced each other. Sikhism was also influenced by the Abrahamic tradition of Sufism.
Far Eastern religions consist of several East Asian religions which make use of the concept of Tao (in Chinese) or Do (in Japanese or Korean). They include Taoism, Shinto, Chondogyo, Caodaism, and Yiguandao. Far Eastern Buddhism (in which the group overlaps with the "Indian" group) and Confucianism (which by some categorizations is not a religion) are also included.
Iranic religions originated in Iran and include Zoroastrianism, Yazdanism and historical traditions of Gnosticism (Mandaeanism, Manichaeism). It has significant overlaps with Abrahamic traditions, e.g. in Sufism and in recent movements such as Bábísm and the Bahá'í Faith.
African diasporic religions practiced in the Americas, imported as a result of the Atlantic slave trade of the 16th to 18th centuries, building of traditional religions of Central and West Africa.
Indigenous tribal religions, formerly found on every continent, now marginalized by the major organized faiths, but persisting as undercurrents of folk religion. Includes African traditional religions, Asian Shamanism, Native American religions, Austronesian and Australian Aboriginal traditions and arguably Chinese folk religion (overlaps with Far Eastern religions). Under more traditional listings, this has been referred to as "Paganism" along with historical polytheism.
New religious movements, a heterogeneous group of religious faiths emerging since the 19th century, often syncretizing, re-interpreting or reviving aspects of older traditions (Bahá'í, Hindu revivalism, Ayyavazhi, Pentecostalism, polytheistic reconstructionism), some inspired by science-fiction (UFO religions). See List of new religious movements, list of groups referred to as cults.

Demographic distribution of the major super-groupings mentioned is shown in the table below:

samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

What was the point of that post?

samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

Yup. Trying to branch off and understand different denominations of Christianity though. The differences are subtle, but make a huge change


haha ok but as i have been taught angels are also free beings because they too worship God so if they weren't free it would defeat the purpose. Also if they didn't this argument would be lost. Honestly.
Parsat
offline
Parsat
2,180 posts
Blacksmith

Necromancer: After some more thought, I see another objection with your argument. It focuses on premises 5-8.


5. God is responsible for what happens in the universe he created.
6. There is human suffering.
7. God is responsible for not preventing this from happening in his creation.
8. God does not fulfill his role as a virtuous being.


I think that it is important to establish the realms of God's responsibility and our responsibility. It was entirely possible for God to create free creatures that did not sin. Jesus was one, when he was God incarnate. Adam and Eve were as well, before the Fall. Perhaps he could have even made a mechanism where whenever we were tempted we would be distracted by something glittery on the ground. But you have to ask, is that actually free? God does not force upon us; he gave us the ability to be completely free and to shoulder our own responsibilities. What happened? We gave into temptation. So you see, God did not bring in evil. We as humans are responsible for bringing it into the world. Could God have resetted everything after we had committed the sin? He is, after all, omnipotent. However, he is virtuous and just, and we must be prepared to take the consequences of our monumental sin. If he had resetted everything, that would be taking away our freedom, contradicting his virtuousness. God is responsible for what happens in the universe, but at the same time we are responsible for actualizing the possibility of evil.
Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

We as humans are responsible for bringing it into the world.


Are we not constructed with God's hands? Anything we do is the result of our brain action, constructed by God.

If we have to go into the free will vs determinism argument, your pwned :P

Also, what would be wrong with us being all Jesuses?
Parsat
offline
Parsat
2,180 posts
Blacksmith

Admittedly, free will and determinism is a tough argument, and the question here would be which one adheres to the Bible. Arguments have been made for both sides, but it is my belief that God made us with free will to decide between good and evil. In fact, the Calvinism and Arminianism arguments both feature free will; Arminianists believe we are still able to use free will, while Calvinists believe that free will is masked and heavily tainted by our total depravity. If you'd like to open a free will vs. determinism thread, I can discuss with you, but I believe the Bible supports us having free will.

To your second question. The answer is simple: Because we are not. All of us sin. We are not perfect in our deeds, unlike Jesus. We require his grace to be saved, because we were born with sin. It would be an outright lie to claim that we are Jesus, because none of us are perfect in the sight of God. We are made in God's image, but we have none of God's total attributes.

woody_7007
offline
woody_7007
2,662 posts
Peasant

If there was no evil in the world then presumably we wouldnt need a God. Jesus didnt jump off the temple and let the angels catch him because he wanted people to belive in him through free will and faith not through the witnessing of miracles. In the same way we are given the free will to choose to commit acts of good and/or evil. That is why there is a hell and a heaven to reward the righteous and to punish the wickid. At least that is my understanding. As an atheist i will not caim to know too much about the bible.

samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

Also, what would be wrong with us being all Jesuses?


Jesus had free will he begged God for another way, but God said that going to the cross was the only way, so jesus did, he could have said no free will at work.
DaKurlzz
offline
DaKurlzz
26 posts
Nomad

We can't be all like Jesus anyway. There was only one. We can try our hardest I guess. Anyway, God doesn't condone evil. But like it was quoted in the bible, there will always be evil on Earth. Not natural evil. Human-made evil to be exact. Blame ourselves and our ancestors.

Skyla
offline
Skyla
291 posts
Peasant

1.God exists.

Well this is a vague arguement. It may seem simple but we don't have any idea of what God might be. It's not a matter of whether he exists or not, there are many options in between. What if he exists as a symbol, or to serve as hope (which we as a species are desperately in need of.)

2.God is omnipotent and omniscient.

OK, God cannot be omnipotent or omniscient mainly because of the paradoxes that have been bought up. The omnipotence paradox questions the existance of God with this question: "Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot microwave it?"

Omniscience, similarly, has another paradox. This one is my personal favorite as my arguements with believers usually go something like this:

Skyla: So God is Omniscient?
Believer: Yes.
Skyla: So God can see the future?
Believer: Of course.
Skyla: So he can see his future?
Believer: Indeed he can.
Skyla: So he knows what he will do next, and therefore he has no free will?
Believer: NO!

This usually continues with the believer bombarding me with biblical or Qu'ranic verses as to how God is omniscient, but never specificly answers my question, because it cannot be answered. It's a simple and effective way to disprove the omniscience of God.

3.God is all-benevolent.

Do I have to say anything to this except "POVERTY?!"

4. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil.

Not all poor people are evil ^.~


-I have to get going I'll finish this up when I'm back

Itachi2641747
offline
Itachi2641747
264 posts
Nomad

We were made in God's image, but taint ourselves, because of our freedom of choice. I think of this as being a proving ground, in that we try to prove that we can rise up against sin. I don't believe in religion, but do believe in God and Jesus. Religion just puts in false truths and fake causes.

Itachi2641747
offline
Itachi2641747
264 posts
Nomad

This is a fear about heaven for me. No challenge. I need problems, or life is pointless. Just because God is all good doesn't mean he will make life a cushoined, cornerless playhouse for us. We make OUR way through life, and can't say, "Hey God? I need a billion dollars for cars, sex, and drugs, so get right on that." or even "Hey, I need more food." because God provides enough, not want we want. He will give you food, but you must work to get it. I can't prove God, but you can't disprove Him, now can you?

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

I haven't read all the pages of the thread, so if someone has already said this then I apologize.
Just to recap the argument:

1.God exists.
2.God is omnipotent and omniscient.
3.God is all-benevolent.
4. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil.
5. All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it.
6. Evil still exists
7. Therefore, God does not exist or he is not omniscient/all-benevolent.

There is indeed a problem with 5 as you point out, but there is a much graver overall problem. This argument assumes the negation of the conclusion as its first premise.
So, (1) says that god exists while (7) purports to show that god does not exist. So, even if this is a valid argument, it is a contradiction which means it can literally prove anything (thus is the nature of logic systems). (2) and (3) also suppose that god is both omniscient and omnibenevolent, which again is contradicted by the conclusion.
The argument also fails on what is called the "definition objection." Instead of giving these qualities to god in this argument that you haven't even proven exists, each premise should start with "If god exists, then..." But if you do this to the premises, what you end up proving in the end is that if god exists, then god exists.
I have not seen an argument either for or against god that does not presuppose something major.

Parsat
offline
Parsat
2,180 posts
Blacksmith

Skyla: I am glad to see that you have doubts of your own. Here is my rebuttal to your remarks, which I find perfectly natural.

Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot microwave it?


Microwave? If you're talking about the omnipotence paradox, remember that omnipotence means he is unlimited in his perfection. The implication of this is that he cannot do things imperfectly. In a way, we can do things that God cannot do, because we sin and we make mistakes. Similarly, the so-called "omnipotence paradox" fails because it is a contradiction, of which only weak and stupid beings like us humans can make.

Skyla: So God is Omniscient?
Believer: Yes.
Skyla: So God can see the future?
Believer: Of course.
Skyla: So he can see his future?
Believer: Indeed he can.
Skyla: So he knows what he will do next, and therefore he has no free will?
Believer: NO!


Let's make this clear, free will and omniscience do not exclude each other. When we say that God is omnipotent, we mean that he is unlimited in his perfections. God is completely perfect, he cannot commit wrong. Therefore you are exactly correct, God has no free will. Precisely because he is completely perfect he has no free will. He cannot choose between evil or good. We are finite beings. We cannot comprehend everything; we are not completely perfect. As a result, God gave us free will so that we may indeed experience perfection at our choosing, which is good. Remember also that God is eternal, ie he has no beginning or end. Therefore, his "future" is not really true in any sense, because he existed, he exists, and he will exist. Time is underneath him because it is his creation; he is infinite.

Do I have to say anything to this except "POVERTY?!"


Do I have anything to this except "HOPE"? Leo Tolstoy looked at the Russian serfs, and saw their enormous poverty and their hardship, and he wondered how life could have hope. But then, he realized that these men and women do hope. And so he did find hope to survive. As the Bible says, three things abide: faith, love, and hope. And to me, those are the three words that convince me every time that evil will have an answer.

Not all poor people are evil ^.~


I have a hard time understanding the logic in this, but I'll respond to what I think you're saying. Let's be clear, being poor is not a sin. The circumstances that force you into being poor may be, but poverty does not imply benvolence.

To Itachi:

You believe in God and Jesus, but not religion? How does that work?
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

If you're talking about the omnipotence paradox, remember that omnipotence means he is unlimited in his perfection. The implication of this is that he cannot do things imperfectly.

I'm pretty sure that omnipotence means "all-powerful" or perhaps "able to do anything" (which I take it is the case with god). What follows from this is, as you mentioned, the omnipotence paradox, which I still think is applicable.
You can make the move of simply declaring God's true nature something we cannot understand, but this seems like ad hocery to me.
Showing 76-90 of 113