afdave
Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006
|
Shirley Knott said ... | Quote | What logic? A string of ruminations does not constitute logic, nor a logical argument.
Evil is not generally defined as "opposition to the will of the Creator".
Amongst other problems, and they are legion, you are assuming your conclusion. Were this logic that would disqualify your 'argument' right there.
You have yet to show that the notion of 'Creator' as you use it is meaningful and possible.
You have yet to reconcile omniscience and omnipotence.
Similarly you have yet to reconcile omnipotence and omnibenevolence in the face of evil [in the normal sense of the term] which has nothing to do with human action or will.
You misreprsent the standard objection to your claims -- it is not the case that the argument from evil is "why doens't an all powerful and all knowing beingf stop this?", it is "how can a being described as all-knowing and all-powerful permit this in the first place". |
I do understand the claim ... I know it is that "how can a being described as all-knowing and all-powerful permit this in the first place"? And the answer is "the same way parents can permit their children to experience evil." Obviously parents are not all-powerful, but the analogy works because parents do indeed have the power to keep their children from evil. How? By not having them, or by going to Radio Shack and buying robot "children" instead of having natural children with CHOICE. God also had the power to keep us from experiencing evil, but chose not to because of the greater good that would result in the big scheme of things. He could have either not created us, or created us like little robots. That would be no fun though, just as it would be no fun for human parents. Omniscience and omnipotence are separate issues. We obviously cannot comprehend this type of thing because we have never experienced it. Why is this a proof that it is a wrong idea? To say it is wrong as you do would be equivalent to a jungle native who had never seen an airplane fly saying that "airplanes are impossible." Both are denials based upon ignorance. Truly open minded people say, "there are things I do not understand, but let me try to understand as much as I can, and I will not rule out any possibilities until I have solid evidence to do so." The notion of an Intelligent Designer is the only plausible explanation for the phenomena we find in the universe. I (with Paley) have given intuitive arguments. Bill Dembski is all about giving those intuitive arguments rigorous mathematical proofs, based on our recently acquired knowledge that life is essentially INFORMATION which assembles raw materials. While neo-Darwinism has been excellent in explaining the variation we see within specified boundaries, it is bankrupt in explaining where the information came from in the first place, and how the information was added to organisms to add new gross morphological features. The answer is Intelligent Design and this in turn supports Theism quite nicely. And Theism has no difficulties explaining the 'omnipotence and omnibenevolence problem' as I have shown.
Norm said ... | Quote | | So, if God's will is that the worshippers of the golden calf must be killed by melting down their calf and making them drink it, that's not evil because it's God's will? If God's will is that Muslim hijackers crash planes into our skyscrapers, that's not evil because it's God's will? So, if you get ebola and die a horrible death, that's obviously God's will since no man decided you should get that disease? The problem with assuming you have to do God's will is figuring out what God's will is. |
You are correct that figuring out God's will is a very big deal and should not be taken lightly. We also have the question of "Why is it OK for states to execute a convicted murderer?" and the like. And the answer to all these questions really boils down to an authority question. And this in turn boils down to the question of "Is there a Creator? Or is there not?" Which is precisely why I am so interested in these questions. Here's the deal. IF there is a Creator, then it follows that HE gets to make the rules, not us. IF He says "Go destroy all the Amalekites" and He was the one that created the Amalekites, then how can we say, "No, that's wrong?" Now of course, you do have the problem of determining if it was really the Creator who created the Amalekites who is now saying go destroy them. Maybe the Jewish prophet is just a religious scheister and he's just pretending to speak for the Creator. And this should not be determined lightly. And it was not. God went to great lengths to make checks and balances with the Jewish people to make certain that the prophets were validated before they were trusted to give guidance on weighty matters such as destroying entire people groups. Contrast this with the modern claims of Jihadists. They have no authority from anywhere that has been rigorously validated by anyone.
Now regarding the obvious question of "How can God ordering the killing of people groups be considered good" the fact is that IF there is a Creator God, then there are things that we do not know or understand, and how can we say that God is not good if he orders the killing of certain people groups. In the big scheme of things, maybe He knows that He is doing the world a favor by killing them off. Killing people is a good thing under certain conditions and if done with the proper authority -- i.e. with government sanction in today's world (God has given life and death authority to governments--see Romans 13). Did it not do the Americans good to kill off those British soldiers? Look at all the good that has come to America as a result of killing those Brits and founding an independent nation. Ditto for Hitler and the Nazis (yes, I know ... Godwin ... OK fine). As for getting ebola and dying a horrible death, this too can be good if you are looking at it from God's perspective. Remember, this life is only a small portion of our total life. Humans will live forever somewhere and this short life within a physical body is nothing in the big scheme of things.
| Quote | | How about a more humanist definition of "good" and "evil"? What is good is what promotes human happiness and co-operation. What is evil is that which disrupts human happiness and co-operation. |
What do you mean by that? How would you apply that if you were Roosevelt and Churchill in WW2? I would really be interested to hear how your definition would play out in the hard decisions.
| Quote | | So, God must feel the same way about things that you do? Could it be that you have made God in your own image? |
It's logically possible, yes, but you cannot escape the empirical evidence for a real Creator God, so no, when all things are considered it makes more sense to believe that WE were created in His image, rather than vice versa.
| Quote | | So, AFDave's 'evidence' that god intervenes on earth is (a) an event that didn't happen and (b) a mythical event that he thinks will happen in the future. |
There is more evidence for the Global Flood of Noah than there is that George Washington lived. As for the future event which I cannot verify, I believe in this after I have established the authority of the Bible as a whole from a rigorous examination of the claims I can verify.
| Quote | | He then drew parallels between parenting, and god's handling of mankind. Does it follow, by extention, that parents should then subject those children who defy their will to unending, inescapable pain and torment? Where is the line drawn in this "in his image" concept? I found his explanation of "Evil in the World" to be kind of creepy. |
Actually parents in a way do subject their kids to inescapable pain and torment by not always intervening. Parents all the time choose not to intervene in the lives of kids who make bad life decisions. These kids end up in pain and torment all their lives because of their own decisions, not because the parents consigned them to this pain. Why should God be any different? He offers eternal life to anyone, but He does not force himself on anyone. If people want to choose to reject Him, it is they who are choosing their destiny, not Him.
| Quote | | yes, what a surprise that everyone here doesn't see the author of fictional children's novels as authoritative in the world of science. |
Do you all not realize that the children's novels are allegories of Lewis' Christian faith? He is primarily a Christian philosopher. His brilliance is shown in his children's novels because he not only writes exciting kid stuff, but also weaves in essentials of the Christian faith in a hidden sort of way.
--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com
|
