- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Over Half of Democrats Don't Believe in Hell or the Devil
Posted on 7/25/23 at 11:00 am to TrussvilleTide
Posted on 7/25/23 at 11:00 am to TrussvilleTide
quote:I actually agree with you on this reasoning, which is why, as a Christian who subscribes to the Reformed tradition, I don't believe "free will" is the answer, nor do I think that we even have a completely free will as a people (our desires are influenced by our sinful natures).
Not really. If you see a baby laying alone on the side of the road you aren't obligated to help it. But should you? Hopefully that is obvious even with free will.
"To preserve free will" is always an argument against the Dilemma but God could keep the free will of man in tact without disease, natural disasters, death during childbirth, etc and he chose not to.
"His motives/actions are unknowable" is both potentially true and kind of a cop out.
The answer to the problem is that God allows evil to exist so that an even greater good could exist.
Goodness, love, and mercy are like diamonds that sparkle best when placed against a dark backdrop. To appreciate God's goodness, we have to know what evil looks like.
The most loving act and the most evil act ever performed in history converged with the cross where Jesus Christ, the perfect Son of God, was killed. It was evil for humans to put him to death, but it was the most beautiful act of goodness, kindness, mercy and love for the Father to send Jesus to die to save sinners, and for Jesus to willingly be sent for this purpose.
1
Posted on 7/25/23 at 11:02 am to TrussvilleTide
quote:
Not really.
Yes, really.
It has so many problems I don't have time to list them all, but I'll give you two:
1. The Dilemma requires that one assume that God is not either all powerful or all benevolent from the get-go. Otherwise God would be understood to be the objective moral authority/standard and by definition anything He did or allowed would necessarily be good. Including those things you listed (disease, death, etc). You have to assume that's not true to even posit the syllogism in the first place, so you necessarily have to assume the conclusion in the beginning of the argument. Anything you name as being "evil" is something that you had to classify as such by using some standard, and that standard cannot be a universal transcendent benevolent authority unless it's God, and then the argument is nonsense. So it tells you nothing either way, as you have to assume one or the other of those conclusions to even make the argument work.
2. The syllogism also ignores the fact that an implied third statement easily reveals the question to be unanswerable. If we add, "God has morally suficient reasons for permitting evil in the world," then it brings it to a place at which no one can know whether that's true or not, so it's unanswerable. This is implied because (again) the syllogism assumes a contradiction between God allowing evil and being all powerful or all good, but that's not self-evident or obvious at all beyond a surface level. It's something that has to be proven, and it's just assumed. When you try to prove it you end up having to deal with whether God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil in the world, which no one can answer.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 11:04 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The answer to the problem is that God allows evil to exist so that an even greater good could exist.
But if he is all-powerful he could just make the greater good exist with no evil.
My view on it as someone who is religious (but often takes counter positions in religious arguments) is that we just don't really understand God and he isn't this 100% perfect being. Maybe we will understand it when we die, maybe not. He did some objectively "not so good" stuff in the Old Testament. But thats just one person's attempt at knowing the unknowable.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 11:05 am to TrussvilleTide
quote:
The issue here is that you're talking to people who aren't aware that their being raised within a certain framework and having a certain set of moral principles doesn't mean that everyone naturally has that set of principles because of God. Read any history book about societies outside of the Christian/Roman Catholic purview, the morals of various societies throughout history are wildly different.
So let's take two of those societies and say they had a take on any given subject that was 180 degrees opposite each other.
Which one was morally right and which one was morally wrong?
Posted on 7/25/23 at 11:07 am to TrussvilleTide
quote:
But if he is all-powerful he could just make the greater good exist with no evil.
You can't even define evil without a transcendent moral authority.
Go ahead and try it. What "evil" exists in the world and what makes it "evil?"
This post was edited on 7/25/23 at 11:08 am
Posted on 7/25/23 at 11:08 am to TrussvilleTide
quote:
but God could keep the free will of man in tact without disease, natural disasters, death during childbirth, etc and he chose not to.
A perfectly good world with no suffering would be a nightmare.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 11:12 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Because most people who reject the notion of objective morality received from some supernatural entity … see morality as something that evolves within a given society.
I understand what the word means, I'm asking why you used it. If all morality is evolved then it's superfluous. I would think you would have said this:
quote:
Under the rules of THEIR society, absolutely YES. You act like this is a huge “gotcha.” It is the very ESSENCE of morality. No one argues that point.
Again, this is not how the word is used in normal conversation. "Slavery was immoral" is 10 times more likely to be used than "Slavery is immoral" and exponentially more likely to be used than "Slavery was moral but now it's not".
Posted on 7/25/23 at 11:16 am to TrussvilleTide
quote:
But if he is all-powerful he could just make the greater good exist with no evil.
The question is can he eliminate evil without eliminating free will. In my opinion that's a logical contradiction.
This is a take on the "can God make a rock so big he can't lift it". God can do anything but that's not a thing, it's just an inherently contradictory phrase. It's like asking whether God can make a married bachelor.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 11:16 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Yes, really.
Not really.
How many millions of Christians would tell you when asked that God is both All Powerful and All Good?
Its more of a rebuke on a commonly held idea than it is an actual philosophical question.
Whether there are issues with the question or not, it is impossible to logically argue that both positions are true with the information we have.
And like I said in my first reply, your two answers are just "God is unknowable" which is both true and a cop out.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 11:17 am to BengalOnTheBay
quote:
A perfectly good world with no suffering would be a nightmare.
Heaven?
Posted on 7/25/23 at 11:19 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Which one was morally right and which one was morally wrong?
It's an incoherent belief system. Whether or not Hitler was doing a morally good thing by gassing the Jews is a function of time and geography; nothing more.
Most people do not accept that definition of morality, and even the ones who claim they do don't use the term that way in normal conversation.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 11:22 am to Flats
quote:Because 99% of the population has never given a nanosecond of thought to the origins of morality. Of those who HAVE considered the question, I suspect that most just do not want to deal with the childish tantrums of those holding a different view or ESPECIALLY of those who think that their understanding of morality is the ONLY one.
Again, this is not how the word is used in normal conversation. "Slavery was immoral" is 10 times more likely to be used than "Slavery is immoral" and exponentially more likely to be used than "Slavery was moral but now it's not".
This post was edited on 7/25/23 at 11:30 am
Posted on 7/25/23 at 11:23 am to TrussvilleTide
quote:or Pleasantville.
A perfectly good world with no suffering would be a nightmare.quote:
Heaven?
Posted on 7/25/23 at 11:24 am to Flats
quote:As I said ….
Most people do not accept that definition of morality, and even the ones who claim they do don't use the term that way in normal conversation.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 11:24 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
So let's take two of those societies and say they had a take on any given subject that was 180 degrees opposite each other.
Which one was morally right and which one was morally wrong?
We would be judging that through the lense of our own society. They might both be wrong in our view.
If God exists then a certain set of morals would be legitimately backed by whatever God's view is, but since we can't prove his existence definitively we are sort of stuck.
There are commonly held morals, like about not killing people, but the degrees vary wildly. There were times in this country where in one part of the US its unacceptable to ever kill a person and then you go out west during the gold rush and you could legally kill for a number of reasons.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 11:31 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
You can't even define evil without a transcendent moral authority.
Go ahead and try it. What "evil" exists in the world and what makes it "evil?"
According to me, a US born man with a Christian upbringing? Crimes against children is a great example and one that would seemingly support your notion if you look at it on the surface, but I think its more about natural parental/human instinct to care for children than it is some higher power imposing a set of morals on everyone. If God could do that, why wouldn't he just make it so strong that no one ever even think to hurt a child?
Posted on 7/25/23 at 11:33 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Because 99% of the population has never given a nanosecond of thought to the origins of morality. Of those who HAVE considered the question, I suspect that most just do not want to deal with the childish tantrums of those holding a different view or ESPECIALLY of those who think that their understanding of morality is the ONLY one.
Perfect. You can justify anything anybody says, including yourself, and still claim you're standing firm on principle.
BTW, nobody who describes Christianity as you do on a regular basis can be taken seriously when they rant about others being childish.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 11:33 am to TrussvilleTide
quote:Others have answered this so I won't elaborate too much, but it's easy enough to say "if God is al-powerful, He could...", but God being "all-powerful" doesn't mean He can not do any thing the mind can imagine. As was mentioned, God cannot engage in logical contradiction. When the Bible says that God cannot lie, it's talking about this point. A lie is a contradiction, and God cannot engage in logical contradictions because it would violate His nature and character, as even logic flows from the mind of God.
But if he is all-powerful he could just make the greater good exist with no evil.
"Greater good" is a comparable statement. Good compared to what? It's why I mentioned contrasting good with evil. If God is good, then the opposite would be evil. God's law reflects His moral perfection (His goodness), so sin is evil.
quote:God is perfect, though; He can not and does not sin.
My view on it as someone who is religious (but often takes counter positions in religious arguments) is that we just don't really understand God and he isn't this 100% perfect being. Maybe we will understand it when we die, maybe not. He did some objectively "not so good" stuff in the Old Testament. But thats just one person's attempt at knowing the unknowable.
When you say that God "did some objectively 'not so good' stuff", what do you mean? Is it wrong for God to take the life of his creation? If so, what standard are you appealing to in order to make that claim? The 6th commandment? That law is about murder, not all "killing", as there are several exceptions, including with instances of capital punishment. Is God not the king over His creation? Can He not exact capital punishment for law-breakers? Why is God evil for that in your view?
This post was edited on 7/25/23 at 12:08 pm
Posted on 7/25/23 at 11:40 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Others have answered this so I won't elaborate too much, but it's easy enough to say "if God is al-powerful, He could...", but God being "all-powerful" doesn't mean He can do any thing the mind can imagine. As was mentioned, God cannot engage in logical contradiction.
Yep. God constrains himself by his own proclamations. Like when he said he’ll never destroy the earth again by a flood. Or that he would restore Israel as a nation.
This post was edited on 7/25/23 at 11:45 am
Posted on 7/25/23 at 11:43 am to TrussvilleTide
quote:
But if he is all-powerful he could just make the greater good exist with no evil.
Not according to the Fundamentalists. "My god is right because someone claimed that he said he was right."
Page 10 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News