Yes you do if you're using words in their conventional way. If I believe in a doughnut - a doughnut I call 'God' and 'Jesus' interchangeably yet that at the same time I believe to be a ring of sugary bread and nothing more - then I can call myself a Christian, but I am not one.

But that is by the by. Let's not start discussing labels rather than philosophical problems, despite the fact most prefer to do the former.

The problem of evil arises for a believer in God, understood - as is conventional - as a being who is essentially omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. And this thread is about the problem of evil and its implications for the ethics of human procreation. It is not about Christianity. It is not about labels.

you dont know the mind of God, how do you know it has one? — frank

That's a great question Frank. For all we know God doesn't have a consciousness like human consciousness. In a so-called metaphysical world, it's entirely possible completely different axiomatic principles would be used to define existence .

For example, if the current success in mathematic's still cannot crack the cosmic codes, it could follow an entirely different or novel metaphysical language would be used to describe things...

Just focus on the argument I made in the OP.

Just focus on the argument I made in the OP. — Bartricks

Trust me bartricks I really want to provide some helpful input. That's one reason why I wanted to contribute to your thread so that I can help out and mitigate some of your angst.

But regretfully the only way I'll be able to do that is for you to drop the Omni nonsense, and somehow re-word the OP

There probably is a Christian sect somewhere that claims God is a doughnut. Instead of handling snakes and speaking in tongues, they hang out at Krispy Kreme.

I already have explained what needs explaining, man, and you've not done so validly. Misread my objection to your heart's content. (The (oral) Torah dates back to almost 2nd millennia BCE, btw - centuries before Epicurus' formulation of the PoE) Nobody here is buying what you're selling not mostly or only for my reasons. Why is that? :shade:

Trust me bartricks I really want to ... help out ... But regretfully the only way I'll be able to do that is for you to drop the Omni nonsense, and somehow re-word the OP — 3017amen

:up:

No, he wants to kill all the children in the world and he’s trying to build his court case for why he’s not evil and that he’s just an angel of death helping us all find peace in true serial killer fashion. — Mark Dennis

Anti-natalism is indeed a weird thing. It wants to snuff us out. In dark moods I can understand. The source of our suffering is life itself. So if the goal is to make suffering impossible, then the solution is to make life impossible. It's the gentlest genocide imaginable. No one need be hurt. Some philosophers even think of history as the species finally becoming mature enough to let go of existence, the very opposite of 'be fruitful and multiply.' 'Grow up and quit the game forever. '

Von Hartmann is a pessimist, for no other view of life recognizes that evil necessarily belongs to existence and can cease only with existence itself. But he is not an unmitigated pessimist.[8] The individual's happiness is indeed unattainable either here and now or hereafter and in the future, but he does not despair of ultimately releasing the Unconscious from its sufferings. He differs from Schopenhauer in making salvation collective by the negation of the will to live depend on a collective social effort and not on individualistic asceticism. The conception of a redemption of the Unconscious also supplies the ultimate basis of von Hartmann's ethics. We must provisionally affirm life and devote ourselves to social evolution, instead of striving after a happiness which is impossible; in so doing we shall find that morality renders life less unhappy than it would otherwise be. Suicide, and all other forms of selfishness, are highly reprehensible. His realism enables him to maintain the reality of Time, and so of the process of the world's redemption.

The essential feature of the morality built upon the basis of Hartmann's philosophy is the realization that all is one and that, while every attempt to gain happiness is illusory, yet before deliverance is possible, all forms of the illusion must appear and be tried to the utmost. Even he who recognizes the vanity of life best serves the highest aims by giving himself up to the illusion, and living as eagerly as if he thought life good. It is only through the constant attempt to gain happiness that people can learn the desirability of nothingness; and when this knowledge has become universal, or at least general, deliverance will come and the world will cease. No better proof of the rational nature of the universe is needed than that afforded by the different ways in which men have hoped to find happiness and so have been led unconsciously to work for the final goal. The first of these is the hope of good in the present, the confidence in the pleasures of this world, such as was felt by the Greeks. This is followed by the Christian transference of happiness to another and better life, to which in turn succeeds the illusion that looks for happiness in progress, and dreams of a future made worth while by the achievements of science. All alike are empty promises, and known as such in the final stage, which sees all human desires as equally vain and the only good in the peace of Nirvana. — Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Robert_Eduard_von_Hartmann

Imagine this being taught in PHIL 101. It would make for an interesting class discussion.

Eh? Once more, actually argue something - address the argument of the OP - rather than telling me about religious texts. It's irrelevant.

Also, don't say something is a non-sequitur without explanation.

I don't have any angst! What are you on about? This is philosophy forum, not a therapy forum.

I am not rewording the OP so that it addresses you! It is about the problem of evil and its implications for human procreation. Either address the arguments it raises or don't.

highlights a problem of evil for human procreators that is, in some ways anyway, more acute than the problem of evil for God. — Bartricks

I've often felt this, just not on a philosophical level. Observing people all over the place who don't love or take proper care of their children, are neglectful and abusive, thus bringing up another generation of abusive and neglectful parents. It's the greatest tragedy in the world.

Observing people all over the place who don't love or take proper care of their children, are neglectful and abusive, thus bringing up another generation of abusive and neglectful parents. It's the greatest tragedy in the world. — uncanni

Yeah. Live long enough and see ... too much you don't want to see ... repeated too often.

Either address the arguments it raises or don't. — Bartricks

Okay great! Who said God is OmniX3 then?

Start from your premise there and the soundness of your argument. I will argue it has little import because the definition of God is a nonsensical reconciliation.

Question: why do you believe God is Omnix3?

You don't have to believe God is omni-x3 to be a Christian

This Bud's for you Frank, cheers!

Also, don't say something is a non-sequitur without explanation. — Bartricks

Why not? Res ipsa loquitur, B. :victory:

:up:

because saying something doesn't make it so and this is a philosophy forum so it is reasonable to expect people to provide reasons in support of their views, rather than just express them.

So, once more, try actualy arguing for something.

yes, but he's wrong.

er, the problem of evil is addressed to those who believe in the omni god.

I have argued. You haven't. The difference is on public display for all to see. :yawn:

No worries Bartricks. It's all good. Thanks anyway.

Bartricks,

In analyzing your argument regarding the problem of evil I first sought to outline your argument, noting the premises and conclusion below:

If God were omnipotent, omniscient, and morally good, then He would create a moral world that is suitable for innocent, sentient life to live without evil.
Our world is not moral for innocent, sentient life to live without evil.
Therefore, God is not omnipotent, omniscient, and morally good. (1, 2 MT)

In identifying your argument, it is important to recognize which evils exist in our world that you identify as being immoral for innocent, sentient life. In assuming you are referring to moral evils, or evils requiring human intervention (opposed with natural evils which require no human intervention), I will argue from the Free Will Defender perspective that the existence of moral evil is not incompatible with God’s omnipotence, omniscience, or His moral goodness.

Assuming individuals have free will from God, the choices they make can be deemed morally right or wrong. God could not have created a world with moral good without the inclusion of a world with moral evil. This is a challenge to Premise 2 of the outlined argument. For example, some decisions can be made that encompass both moral good and moral evil. Take for example animal experimentation. According to the Foundation for Biomedical Research, testing on animals has improved scientific research in diseases including but not limited to malaria, polio, ebola, smallpox, and cancer. This improvement in scientific research has required the deaths of many innocent, sentient beings in labs. It seems that cases similar to this one, encompassing both moral goods (scientific research to save the lives of humans) and moral evils (killing innocent, sentient animals), pose a problem for the complete existence of moral good without moral evil.

Your argument goes on to pose that it would be moral for God to create a universe like this one that is devoid of innocent life, solving the problem of eliminating moral evil. Although this resolution would eliminate moral evil, it would also eliminate moral good. Would it be moral of God to create a world with moral goodness but to not create any other being to experience that moral goodness? This does not seem like a morally good God, this seems like a selfish God. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally good, He would use His powers to create innocent, sentient beings that have the capabilities to experience moral goodness.

I pose the same problem for your argument that procreation is immoral because you are willingly imposing the moral evils of this world on your children. Although procreation does assume that your child will experience at least one moral evil throughout their life, procreation also not only assumes that your child can experience the moral goodness created by God but also continue to create moral goodness of their own. I would argue that failing to reproduce is a greater moral failing than reproducing as you directly prohibit future generations stemming from your child to experience moral goodness and to create that goodness of their own.

“Animal Research Achievements.” n.d. Foundation for Biomedical Research. Accessed October 26, 2019. https://fbresearch.org/medical-advances/animal-research-achievements/.

You have focussed on moral evils and not natural ones, though it is the latter that pose the more acute problem.

But even putting that to one side, you claim that the production of some moral goods requires the existence of evils.

I don't think the examples you give illustrate this convincingly.

But I concede that it does seem true that some moral goods require moral evils. For instance, it is morally good when an wrongdoer comes to harm. This kind of just-desert good clearly requires moral evils in order to exist.

But would a good god create a world full of wrongdoers and ensure that all come to harm so that the good of justice can come into being? No, that's not the act of a good person.

So even if there are moral goods whose existence requires moral evils, that does not demonstrate that a world containing them is plausibly the creation of God.

You also say that it would be selfish to create a world and not also create some innocent sentient creatures to live in it. But that is question begging and false. It is question begging because the idea of selfishness incorporates a moral judgement. That is, it assumes the wrongness of the act in question. So creating a world devoid of innocent sentient life can only be judged selfish - as opposed to just self-interested - if you assume one ought to create innocent sentient creatures. But that's precisely what's at issue.
It is also just plain wrong because there is clearly no positive obligation to create innocent sentient life.