If we take the assumption that God is good, then whence came evil? — wax
And it's fine you think so.Well I personally think the God hypothesis is fine. — wax
So if God has some good in him, then where did all the destruction and misery come from, is the subject of the thread. — wax
If we take the assumption that God is good, then whence came evil? — wax
That he is error-prone, fallible, makes mistakes - and is clearly questionable
well I have no problem with that, but let us assume he is not error prone, and doesn't make mistakes...where then do processes of evil come from? — wax
As Terrapin pointed out, the evil is in your eye. What makes you think that just because you think something is evil, that it is evil. — tim wood
The same collective acknowledgement, although subjective to the individual, I base my OP question about where do destructive processes that lead to suffering come from. — wax
Time for you to give a clear statement of what you understand evil to be. Not to be confused with evil-to-you.
If by "destructive processes that lead to suffering" you mean the storms of the world and its natural processes, then the answer is built in: it's part of the world - it is the world! — tim wood
Questioning God? And how do you know you're suffering? What is "suffering"? And how about that clear statement about evil? — tim wood
that is based upon the assumption that there is some kind of god. — wax
We get back to the first point. You assume a "superhero." With that you can do whatever you want. There is no discussion of interest, significance, or merit that comes out of such things. — tim wood
Assumptions for this model:
1) There is some kind of god.
2) This god is the source of everything.
3) He is all knowing.
4) a) He does not want suffering, b) and will optimise his actions to avoid it.
5) He has his own needs. — wax
Sorry, you shall have to unpack this. There appears to be a hidden assumption that suffering, presumably meaning an unpleasant felling, is somehow justified. I reject this for lack of evidence or argument.and there are logical reasons for why there is suffering, — wax
Anyway if that ends up as the logical conclusion, then the existence of suffering isn't an argument against the idea the god is benevolent. — wax
If we take the assumption that God is good, then whence came evil?
If we take the assumption that God is all knowledgeable then, he will know every single action, and permutation that is possible...he will know that it is possible for for a being to kidnap and torture to death someone who meant only good to the beings they came into contact. He will know that the torturer was once an innocent being himself, and fell to an existence of destruction.
And that is just a glimpse of what he knows. — wax
You didn't say that God is omnipotent. Not all Theists believe that God created this physical world or is responsible for its worse aspects. (I'll avoid your Biblical word "Evil"),. For example, the Gnostics don't believe it, and I agree with them.
Omnipotence is problematic, and brings contradiction.
Do you think it would be possible to make there be a logical proposition that is true and false?
Do you think it would be possible to make there be two mutually-contradictory facts?
If not, then maybe you're blaming too much on God.
Michael Ossipoff — Michael Ossipoff
5) Can you give any account at all of what it might mean for God to have needs? — tim wood
I don't understand your question. — TheMadFool
First, I consider desire and need kissing cousins - not worth distinguishing between them. But. to to have a need is to be subject to - to the need. How can God be subject to anything? Presumably also, need, it seems, must be prior. God would not create it, would he? And, you overlook reason as motive, although you have not established that "motive" applies to God. God, it seems to me, must be prior to motive. And God as realized reason, has no need of reason, being himself reason itself. These are just a few of the rabbit holes a casually created God falls into.Can you explain what decision, and action that isn't based upon need, is then based on? — wax
This is one of your givens: given, God does not want suffering. I would argue that if God does not want it, and given your other givens, then there is no suffering. Whatever it is you think is suffering must be something else, and it's up to you to say what that something else is. If it isn't something else,, and there is suffering notwithstanding that God does not want suffering, then your premises 2) and 3) above are a problem.If God doesn't want suffering, then what lead to its existence? — wax
This is the problem of evil. An answer that makes sense and also doesn't satisfy is that we can't comprehend God's intent or logic. — TheMadFool
funnily enough when I reach these positions after a lot of thought and taking myself way too seriously, I do find it intensely satisfying.
To realise I am naked and an atom in a reality whose complexity maybe unbounded...I am like an amoeba compared to the intelligence that is running the show. — wax
Notice though that such a standpoint is irrefutable and some consider that a flaw. I don't know why as yet but it does look suspicious when someone says: "I'm right no matter what''. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.