Why the Common Conception of God is Impossible
The “Problem of Evil” is probably the most discussed issue in the philosophy of religion. In simple terms, the problem of evil claims that evil is incompatible with the existence of an omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnibenevolent (all-good) being. This quote by Epicurus says it perfectly:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Theist philosophers have tried with varying degrees of success to overcome this problem. Defenses range from the commonly known “free will argument” to arguments that evil is necessary for soul growth.
To defeat these defenses, I’m going to classify these defense as: evil exists because evil is needed for “x”. Evil is a broad term that I’ll define as anything that has a negative intrinsic value (intrinsic means on its own, or its value separate from any further consequences). X is any justification for evil, which will be assumed to be some positive intrinsic value.
These arguments basically claim that the negative intrinsic value of evil is justified by creating the positive intrinsic value x. In this way, evil is instrumentally valuable so long as the positive value of x exceeds the negative value of evil.
Here’s the problem: if an omnipotent God exists, then there cannot be any “x” such that God cannot create x without using “y” as a means to x. In simple terms, this means that God cannot be omnipotent if he needs to meet certain conditions to bring about x. If God wants x, then God should be able to make/produce/establish x on its own without needing to use y. If God needs any single condition y to meet x, then God is not omnipotent.
In the theistic defense, y is all evil that exists. The claim is that evil is “necessary” to have free will, character growth, or good in the world. But, if God cannot establish free will, character growth, and good in the universe without using evil as a means, then God is not omnipotent.
A quick note: It may be intuitive to think that free will, or any other matter, would be impossible without evil. But if that is true, then God is simply not omnipotent (because God would be unable to make free will independent of evil). If there is a single action or feat that God cannot accomplish, then he is not all-powerful.
From this, there are only two ways to potentially save the concept of God: get rid of one of the three omni’s, or argue that evil doesn’t exist.
Most theists are unwilling to get rid of any of the three omni’s, meaning that the common conception of God is dependent on those three qualities.
To argue that evil does not exist takes a stretch of the imagination. Certain theists have argued that evil is an illusion, or that what we think of evil is simply an absence of good. To argue that evil is an illusion would be akin to arguing for full blown skepticism of reality.
The “evil is the absence of good” argument takes me to my next point: there are easily understandable things that are objectively negative in intrinsic value. Pain and death, especially a death before being “saved” (if the Christian God were to be assumed) are all intrinsically negative values. I’ll use pain for my argument because it’s simpler:
Imagine one instance of pain. The person experiencing it does not want it and it is negatively affecting their quality of life. Intrinsically, it is a negative value. There are various ways a theist could try to make it instrumentally valuable, like pointing to the avoidance behaviors learned from pain, the building of character, etc. But keep in mind, all these positive values could have been achieved by God without needing pain as a means if he were omnipotent.
In order to maintain God’s omnipotence, a theist’s only defense would be that God values that pain positively completely isolated from any consequences. Meaning that if the pain did nothing except hurt the person, God would value it. The theist could then argue that we are not capable of telling God that he’s wrong about the valuation of pain. This in turn would have to apply to every other matter that we see as intrinsically negative.
My last question would then be: why follow this God? What kind of God values pain, death, and any other evil that exists?
The Problem of Evil is ultimately a fatal flaw of the common conception of God. There is literally no way to logically evade the problem and maintain the omni’s for God (please post in the comments if you think you have a successful rebuttal). While it is true that this argument doesn’t disprove the existence of any God, it does disprove the existence of any beings that are omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
From the perspective of a Biblical theist (Christian), there are several premises that your arguments have failed to consider.
From a Biblical perspective, “evil” means to rebel against God, or behave in a manner that is contrary to His standards. Evil can also reflect the consequences of the corrupting influence of sin; such as human death and suffering.
What many, including Epicurus, fail to consider is the possibility that God is also perfectly just. A God of perfect justice cannot allow any transgression to go unpunished. As the Bible attributes all suffering to human sin, then there are only two ways for a perfectly just God to intervene to put an end to evil;
1) God could take away our free will, and therefore our capacity to sin. We could be turned into puppets or robots – following our programming. There would be no purpose to our creation.
2) God could immediately cleanse the world by applying His perfect justice to it. Everyone who does not belong to Christ would be immediately condemned to eternal separation from God (The source of all virtue; goodness, love, peace, rest, comfort, joy, hope etc.)
According to the Bible, God had determined one day to apply the latter strategy.
Both Epicurus and yourself seem to incorrectly define omnipotence to mean “can do anything”. That is not the connotation that Christians use. Omnipotence means that God’s power is without limit, or infinite. So God could create a billion, billion universes without raising a sweat. There is no task that would burden His power because His power has no limit.
Nevertheless, the Bible describes several things that God cannot do, not because His power is limited, but because He is limited by His own perfection. For example;
God cannot lie.
God cannot change.
God cannot be tempted.
God’s perfect justice prohibits His allowing any transgression to go unpunished.
To my knowledge, there is no theistic position stating that free-will necessitates evil. However, for the will to be truly free, it must incorporate the capacity to make both right and wrong decisions. Your suggestion that God must be able to “make free will independent of evil” is a redefinition of free-will. Without the capacity to make wrong decisions, there is only limited-will.
Your argument does not disprove the existence of the Biblical God who is allknowing, all powerful, perfect love, and perfect justice.
To start with, you’ve misunderstood what I meant by evil. I defined it in my post as “Evil is a broad term that I’ll define as anything that has a negative intrinsic value”
So I’m not using evil as a moral term. If pain is a negative value, then it is evil. If a hurricane causes negative value, then it is evil. And so forth. You’re using a definition of evil that is far too narrow and thus doesn’t nullify my point.
I’ve heard the “perfect justice” argument, and it similarly fails. To start with, you said:
“1) God could take away our free will, and therefore our capacity to sin. We could be turned into puppets or robots – following our programming. There would be no purpose to our creation.”
That entails that the evil of sin is necessary for free will (which you reiterated later in your reply). Or in terms that relate to the argument, God could not create free will without also creating the possibility of sin. This isn’t hard to disprove, as we could have free will choosing between two good choices, not necessarily one good and one bad.
As for omnipotence, I’m using the dictionary definition. I’m aware of the “limitations” you’ve described, but that doesn’t affect my point. If there is some feat that God desires, and God cannot bring it about, then God is not omnipotent.
That’s the argument in my post that you beat around but didn’t directly address. All the “positive values” you listed: justice, free will, etc. could all be achieved by God without any negative values: ie suffering, pain, natural disasters, etc.
To understand this argument, you have to look at it from a logical progression. Both your counterarguments (free will and justice) gloss over the argument without addressing it. Further, you only addressed one type of evil (moral evil) which I already refuted. You also have to take into account every instance of every moment in time that an omniscient God could know about from before creation. If God valued any of that negatively, then he could have prevented it without breaking one of his rules. If he could not, then he is not omnipotent.
One additional note-the idea that God has to adhere to some standard of “perfect justice” is absurd. Think of the Euthyphro dilemma, but replace morality with justice:
Does God command justice because it is just, or is justice just because God commands it?
Most theists claim that the source of justice is God’s commands, as if not then justice/morality is an objective concept not put forth by God. So, if justice is made by God, then why would that concept limit himself and cause evil (moral and non-moral)? Think about what you’re saying: God created justice, then as a result of that concept, was limited in preventing suffering. How does that solve any problem?
I thought God was supposed to be omnipresent. That kind of ruins everything, as if God is omnipresent, then we cannot be separated from God, not can we go someplace where God is not, like hell, unless God is there too. But why would God make a hell if God had to experience it also? It is all nonsense, and you can’t make sense of nonsense. Astrotheology makes much sense of the NT, Jehovah being an ET to do genetic experiments on the hosts makes sense of the OT. .In Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsh God says that evil and hell do not exist yet that does not mean we cannot experience them as we create with our thoughts and we have free will to create whatever experience we wish. God also says we have not challenged our ideas, our God, in a long time and it is about time we do! Anyways, IDK, we have eternity to play the figure it out game!
HI Kathy Miller!! Fancy meeting you here!!
On YA, I saw a post of yours, inviting comment. So I come here and start to read. Well, right off the bat, I can see I don’t share much of how you see things. For one thing, the nature of our Creator is unknowable by the small human mind, and always will be, so we can only peck around the edges. I’ll put in another piece of my belief system: God is not perfect. God is magnificent and glorious, but not perfect, and He himself (she/it/them etc.) is evolving through his own Creation. The nature of reality is so complex and profound that we cannot truly answer the question of why there is “evil.” We just need to learn how to deal with it within ourselves and within our society. I’ve always had the idea that since we evolved through our ancestor’s existance as animals (and lower creatures previous to that) – and animals operate largely though hard-wired instinct – and the limbic system in the brain shares its nature with animal nature – we often react from what our feelings tell us to do, without thinking. And even when we think, we are still operating from old instincts we developed as primitive beings – such as the territorial instinct, which makes us want to grab and hoard – so that we can survive this brutal physical world – and that is seen as “Evil.” There may actually be no such thing as Evil – it may be that there is just so much of us that isn’t pure soul. It’s the combination of soul energy and the profound wisdom, compassion, love etc that is God, and material existence within this Universe He created that is such a miracle.
Interesting response, but a few things:
“God is not perfect”-that goes against the common conception of God. My post is arguing against that conception, it doesn’t apply to all types of ideas of God.
That being said, I don’t buy the “may be no such thing as evil” argument. You can distinguish between objective evil and subjective evil. There is no denying subjective evil, we can clearly see and understand things that harm us. Objectively, there might not be evil as all matter interacts from a morally neutral point.
I appreciate the feedback though
Your post addresses the “Common Conception of God”. It is my opinion that your conclusion is based on a failure to consider many of the specific fundamental premises of the Biblical argument.
Regarding the definition of “evil”.
The Biblical premise is that everything with “a negative intrinsic value” is the consequence of the corrosive influence of human sin. This stems from the premise that God created the universe free of any form of corruption.
Regarding the definition of “omnipotence”.
Ominis means “all”, potentis means “powerful”. If your dictionary defines omnipotent to mean ‘can do anything’, then your dictionary is wrong. God’s power has no limits, but that is not the same as God ‘can do anything’. There are other limiting factors determining the extent of God’s actions.
Regarding free-will.
A reality consisting of only good choices;
Scenario 1) If we are incapable of making bad choices, then freedom is an illusion.
Scenario 2) If all choices are independently considered to be good, then reality is utterly relativistic. There is no such thing as good or bad. The whole idea of ‘good’ is rendered to be irrelevant. Everything we decide is predetermined to be acceptable. A serial killer is the moral equivalent of a new born. But take away the serial killers capacity to cause harm, then you end up back at scenario 1.
There is no way to reconcile the concept of freedom, with a reality of ‘only good choices’.
Regarding Justice.
Both Euthyphro and yourself have misunderstood the Biblical premise regarding the nature of both Justice and God. God is eternal and God is perfectly just. Therefore the concept justice is eternal. Justice is not a subsequent creation of God. There is no legitimate distinction between the two. As long as God has existed, justice has also existed (i.e. eternally). Therefore justice is an eternal standard.
Ultimately, the origins of justice are less relevant then the fact that there is a Biblical premise that such a thing as perfect justice exists; which therefore must be factored into any consideration of the Biblical God.
So considering the Biblical premises;
1) That all evil is the consequence of human sin,
2) That there is perfect justice, &
3) Humans have free-will,
then the “capacity” for evil is a logical necessity. Justice provides the standard, and free-will provides the capacity to accept or reject the standard. The evil itself is not necessary, but the potential for evil is ever present if the will is truly free.
You have further assumed that God’s lack of ‘immediate’ action reflects either inability or unwillingness. This ignores the Biblical premise of the human need for salvation. The Bible does promise that God will ultimately deal with the issue of evil. The reason given for the delay is that God is giving as much time as possible, for as many humans as possible, to receive His offer of salvation (2 Peter 3:9).
When disputing opposing ideas, we are asking whether or not the arguments are logically consistent within the context of their own axioms. There is no logical obligation for opposing views to demonstrate logical consistency our own axioms.
The Epicurus problem can be logically remedied if you incorporate the Biblical premise of perfect justice. That is, if there is perfect justice, then evil can exist; even with a God that is omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
You may ignore the premise of perfect justice and label it “absurd”, but that’s the premise that the Bible provides. Conclusions that ignore this premise cannot be legitimately applied to the Biblical God.
Regarding the definition of evil:
What about pain? How did we create our nerve receptors? How did our sin create natural disasters? How did sin create death?
Your defense is an over-simplification. None of those necessarily follows from sin, they only result if God makes them result. Any “rules” that God had to follow were made by himself.
Regarding omnipotence:
All-powerful is a literal definition based on the latin, but the common definition is “can do anything”. Ask Christians anywhere if God “can do anything” and you’ll see the response.
Regarding free will:
Good is not a relative term that is dependent on evil. Why can’t there be good, and simply less good or a lack of good? Think about heat: cold doesn’t exist, it is simply a lack of heat. Similarly, good could only exist in varying levels.
Evil, on the other hand, is a negative value, not simply an absence. It isn’t necessary for their to exist the positive value good.
As for your example: what if there were no serial killers? What if death and pain were impossible? What if it was literally impossible to harm anyone, as nothing harmed anyone? Think about it: for evil choices to exist, evil results need to exist. Only God could create these evil results to choose (like the fruit to tempt adam and eve). If God does not create these evil results, then there is no way to choose evil and free will still exists.
In this world, we could still freely choose how to enjoy the positives. We could freely choose between one option that is good in one way, and another option that is good in another way.
Evil is only necessary for a truly free choice if some form of harm is possible. If harm is impossible, so is evil. That doesn’t negate freedom or free will.
Regarding Justice:
You are vaguely implying that the standards of justice exist outside of God’s decision. That is ridiculous, who came up with justice? How can their be objective justice outside of the being that created everything?
Think of what you’re saying: outside of God’s decisions, strict rules of punishment and harm existed without God’s permission. Further, God has to abide by these rules. Does that really make sense to you?
In Conclusion:
I can easily reject all three of your premises, so your conclusion is invalid.
So I want to start my own argument, and see if you can rebuttal it:
1. God could create a perfect world, where harm is impossible and things like pain/death don’t exist.
2. God didn’t.
Therefore,
God did not want a perfect world where harm is impossible.
Now, without using vague metaphors, please clearly explain why God prefers the current world to that perfect world.
Of course you can reject the Biblical premises. That’s not the issue. You claimed that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is “impossible” if there is evil. However, I have demonstrated that such a condition is not “impossible” when considered in the context of Biblical axioms. The alleged contradiction between the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, and the existence of evil can be logically remedied.
Whether you like or accept the path of reasoning is independent of the allegation of contradiction. If a path of reasoning exists that remedies the contradiction, then the contradiction no longer stands.
Now we can debate the validity of the individual premises if you like, but that is secondary to your original claim.
If you decide to reject these Biblical premises (for whatever reason), then you cannot legitimately apply your claim to the Biblical God.
I tend to agree with what you write, but for the sake of discussion, I do see some possible avenues for someone to disagree. For instance, questions could arise about the vagueness of your treatment of the “omnis.” Does “all-powerful” mean able to do anything that is not logically contradictory, or something more than that. This brings up questions about God’s relationship to logic.
If God is not subject to logic, of course, anything we say will be irrelevant, as at best we could point to such a being with something like the statements of Negative Theology. If, on the other hand, God is subject to logic, then any possible creation would have to be imperfect, since it would have to be distinct from God. That leaves the possibility of evil without suggesting a weakness on God’s part. The problem of evil would only have force, then, if we could show that a universe with less evil was possible. Seems difficult to do from within the universe.
But, however we interpret the omnis, we do have the problem of atheism/agnosticism. Any “all-loving” creator would want a relationship ‘his’ creations. Any omniscient being would know how to generate that relationship without violating anything about our nature (bypassing any counter argument based on free will, no matter whether we have it or not), especially if said being was omnipotent. That predicts a universe where the creatures in it know that God exists. They may choose not to worship, but none of them would doubt. The very existence of atheists and agnostics would be impossible. Clearly our universe has both, and thus no creator with all three omnis exists.
Well I purposefully labeled this as “the common conception of god” as there are too many different takes that would be impossible to disprove as a whole. In the common view, God can do all things that are logically possible, and might even be able to do logical contradictions. That’s the view I argue against.
A universe with less evil is easy to picture: no death, no pain, and no forbidden apple tree in the garden of eden.
Tristen (this format won’t let me reply directly to your post, so I have to post down here)-
I specifically rejected the idea that free will necessitates evil. I also rejected the idea that justice can be separate from God and bind God’s actions. Your argument relies on both ideas to support the existence of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent god and evil.
Try refuting my points there, otherwise your argument does not show what you are claiming it does.
You seem to be suggesting that I attempt to prove the concept of justice. I cannot prove justice any more than I can prove omnipotence or omni-benevolence. All three are faith-based premises.
Your claim is that if evil exists, then it is “impossible” for an omnipotent, omni-benevolent God to exist. My claim is that these conditions can logically co-exist if you incorporate the concept of perfect justice into your reasoning.
Now whether or not you accept, like, or understand perfect justice is irrelevant to your initial claim. It is a valid premise that renders possible, the thing which you claimed to be impossible. This is why I didn’t defend the premises in my last message; because their defense is irrelevant to the fact that these premises exist. Debating the logic of each premise is a separate issue to the topic of whether or not it is impossible for evil to exist in the context of an omnipotent, omni-benevolent God. It’s a distraction from discussing the initial claim of the article.
We could equally debate the legitimacy of omnipotence or omni-benevolence as concepts. We don’t have to because you have arbitrarily qualified these faith-premises for the purpose of your discussion. But they are no more or less valid then the justice premise.
By demanding a defense of each premise before consideration, you are equivocating the standards of the discussion. You introduced three faith-premises into the discussion (omnipotence, omniscience, & omni-benevolence) based solely on the fact that these premises exist. They didn’t have to be proven to qualify for discussion. Well, I have introduced other faith-premises into the discussion that also exist. Yet you won’t consider these for discussion without a thorough defense. That’s having one rule for you, and another rule for me.
By the standards you are requiring of me, you should have presented a logical proof of the concept of omnipotence before considering the concept for discussion (by this standard there would be no discussion). Your decision to reject the premises I presented does not automatically invalidate them.
You said that you “rejected the idea that free will necessitates evil”. What I have said is that, in the presence of justice, free-will necessitates the “capacity” for evil. It does not necessitate evil; one can still use their free will to make righteous decisions instead of unrighteous ones. The term justice implies a standard. Perfect justice implies a perfect standard. Free-will by definition, incorporates the capacity to reject that standard (otherwise it wouldn’t be free).
So given the 4 faith premises you presented (Omni- potence/science/benevolence/ & evil), I agree that these alone are difficult to reconcile. However, if you add the additional faith premise of perfect justice, then it is ‘possible’ to logically reconcile these conditions. That speaks directly to the “impossibility” claim of your article. Whether or not we like, accept or comprehend these faith premises does not speak to the “impossibility” claim of your article.
In this post I am offering a response to your objections of the premises I raised. I’ve done this in a separate post because, whilst I am happy to discuss these issues, they do not at all speak to the “impossibility” claim of your original argument. The mere fact that the premises exist are relevant to that topic. My capacity to justify, and your decision to accept/reject these premises, are not relevant to that topic.
Omnipotence
You said, “Ask Christians anywhere if God “can do anything” and you’ll see the response”. Well I am a Christian. If any Christian defines omnipotence that way, then they are also incorrect. By applying this incorrect definition of omnipotence, I actually agree with your conclusion. However, it cannot be legitimately applied to the Biblical God, as the Bible is explicit that there are things that God cannot do. So if you mean some other god, of whom it is legitimately claimed, “can do anything”, then I’m right there with you.
Justice
You claimed that I am “vaguely implying that the standards of justice exist outside of God’s decision”. I am not vaguely implying anything. The suggestion that justice must either be, objectively independent of God, or a subsequent decision of God is a false dichotomy. The premise I presented has Justice as an intrinsic part of God’s nature. It is therefore an absolute, eternal standard. There is no initial point of decision. The same is true of God’s omniscience, omnipotence, omni-benevolence etc. God didn’t decide to be any of these; He just is.
You also said, “God could create a perfect world, where harm is impossible and things like pain/death don’t exist”. But if there are no negative consequences for injustice, then there is no such thing as justice. The standard of justice would be meaningless. But that’s the premise of the Biblical God.
(Replying in between as this format oddly chooses what posts I can reply to)
The premise of yours I reject is
“My claim is that these conditions can logically co-exist if you incorporate the concept of perfect justice into your reasoning.”
Justice doesn’t have to be defined, nor should it as it would be foolish for us to try to do that.
Here’s my argument in simple form again:
An omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent being would have been able to create a world without evil (moral and non-moral). You seem to be focusing entirely on moral evil, and the results of our decisions. So I’ll separate the two types of evil:
Moral evil-your claim is that “the capacity for evil” is necessary for free will. That is another premise I reject. As said earlier, it is possible to only have capacities for good and still have a free choice. The easiest example would be the garden of eden. Imagine if God did not create Satan, the serpent, or the tree of knowledge or the tree of life. Adam and Eve live in a paradise and can do what they please with no concept of sin.
Do they have free will? I find it hard to believe that they don’t. They can freely choose what to eat, what to do, and so forth. However, they have no capacity for evil: there is no negative action available to them.
So why does God have to create the trees or Satan?
Non-moral evil: this is unrelated to the free will argument. What many Christians argue, and I believe you are to an extent, is that all non-moral evil is somehow the result of the original sin.
This takes me to the concept of “perfect justice”. The only way to justify all non-moral evil is to claim that it is the perfectly just result of that original sin. Nerve cells that can feel pain, death, animals needing to eat other animals to survive, viruses, harmful bacteria, etc.
Since we can’t argue about what perfect justice really is, I can accept the weird idea that the original sin necessitates all that. But what I can’t accept is your idea that justice is an inherent part, or trait, of God. I find it implausible that God could not form the laws of justice, and that it was undecided by him.
Here’s why: humans, and sin, only exist because of God’s creation. Why would laws of justice that relate to sin be inherent in a God before the time of creation?
Last point: I have no issue if you want to limit God’s omnipotence, as logic would demand so. I’m not arguing against that type of God though, as the title of my post directly refers to the “common conception of god”. If you don’t have the common conception, then this post doesn’t necessarily disprove your version of god.
This is a good article John! I found reading through the comments very interesting! I definitely found some commenters more interesting than the “we have too small minds to understand what such a great god is doing” bla bla. The other comments at least are attempting to go at it the same way as you instead of just giving up!
Good points though!
I am not an expert in Theology or Philosophy, but your post reminded me of something mentioned in the Book of Sirach (11:14), “Good and evil, life and death, poverty and riches, are from the LORD.” — Notice the “Good AND Evil.” I do not find comfort in the mere supposition that “Evil is the absence of God”. This can be disproved very simply. Consider God making Lucifer. Now if He made Lucifer, He obviously must have designed and defined the recesses of Lucifer’s mind. He must have given him the ability to think up nefarious schemes. If all intelligence comes from God, He alone is the ultimate source of all thinking, all “probabilities” of human conduct (good and evil) have been developed by Him, but not all of them have been endorsed by Him.
“But keep in mind, all these positive values could have been achieved by God without needing pain as a means if he were omnipotent.” — You mention avoidance behaviors and a built-up character. I avoid drugs and my character is good. I have achieved these two positive values without having undergone the negative sides. I did not have to take drugs, suffer, and then decide that they’re bad for me, and I did not have to be immoral or unethical, suffer, and then build my character. Some people, though, follow the other route, that of pain, because they allow themselves that. So this means God CAN and CANNOT use pain. It depends upon human discretion.
“In simple terms, the problem of evil claims that evil is incompatible with the existence of an omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnibenevolent (all-good) being. This quote by Epicurus says it perfectly: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” — Problem of Evil is attributed to Epicurus. Now was Epicurus a believer? What was he? His problem was that he was a human being, a creature limited in his understanding of God. Most people who are unsettled by the Problem of Evil must be Atheists, because their concept of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence may be inconsistent with those held by the Theists. In my opinion, Theists should find Evil TOTALLY COMPATIBLE with the existence of an omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnibenevolent (all-good) being. If there were no Evil, there would be no appreciation of Good. And therefore, a lot of human emotions that succeed Goodness would be non-existent (jubilation, gratitude, satisfaction, etc). Only an omniscient God would know that humans would need a myriad of emotions to live an interesting life!
“My last question would then be: why follow this God? What kind of God values pain, death, and any other evil that exists?” — I cannot coherently answer as to why I should follow THIS God, but I can tell you I would most certainly not like living in a universe which has absolutely no pain, no death, and no other evil. It would be the most dull and unadventurous place possible. Have you watched the movie ‘Dead Man Walking’? It got me thinking a lot. There is a brutal rape in there. I abhor rapists. If you have a baby girl tomorrow, as a father you would have a constant fear for her well-being. But imagine if there were no possibility of harm at all. Not only would you love your daughter very little then, your love towards her would also be very, very boring. Imagine if your wife gives birth to a baby as easily as she spits in the sink. Would she mind caring for a child brought about with such ease? No.
“The Problem of Evil is ultimately a fatal flaw of the common conception of God. There is literally no way to logically evade the problem and maintain the omni’s for God.” — There is no need to evade the problem and maintain the omni’s. There is however a need to dissect the problem better and rethink (some may even want to revise) the meaning of the omni’s.
Additions:
If all intelligence comes from God, He alone is the ultimate source of all thinking, all “probabilities” of human conduct (good and evil) have been developed by Him, but not all of them have been endorsed by Him. — *God gave Lucifer both the ability to remain Lucifer, and the ability to turn into Satan.*
Only an omniscient God would know that humans would need a myriad of emotions to live an interesting life! — *Only an omnipotent God would be able to GIVE humans an interesting life. And only and omnibenevolent God would do humans the FAVOUR of according an interesting life.*
P.S.– I really love your blog!
I suppose that if the rules of the discussion state that you have the right to reject any premise that undermines your position, then technically, you can’t be wrong.
Tulika-You made the “life would be boring without evil” argument. That is the easiest to take apart, and its the most ridiculous. Were Adam and Eve totally depressed? Were they leading interesting lives? If so, evil is not necessary for a fulfilling life. We don’t need pain to appreciate the good things, to think so is an overly simplistic approach that doesn’t work.
Tristen-I rejected your premise that free will necessitates the capacity for evil. I gave evidence for my position, I didn’t simply reject it. Since your entire argument was dependent on that, you need to defend yourself against that objection instead of ignoring it.
This subject is about two totally different lines of thought. What the Theists say always appear ‘simple and ridiculous’ to Atheists and VICE VERSA. Anything religious is always a cop-out to Richard Dawkins. Same way, I have heard believers on Y!A say ‘Atheism is a mere cop-out’. You feel I am ignoring a lot of things, I feel the same.
“Life would be boring without evil” – This is definitely NOT ridiculous to me. No, life COULD exist without evil. And it SHOULD exist without evil. But life would be boring without the POSSIBILITY of evil, of harm. Otherwise you would never know what is self-control, discipline, caution. I deeply value those things.
“Were Adam and Eve totally depressed? Were they leading interesting lives?” – Before the Fall they weren’t depressed, but they could only feel limited emotions.They had not toiled so they weren’t able to feel ‘satisfaction’. Before the Fall, I believe their lives were actually neutral (not happy or sad). And definitely not interesting. Also, our definitions of the word ‘interesting’ may differ.
“We don’t need pain to appreciate the good things.” – I suppose you are not even fit to make that massive assertion right now. In order to just be ABLE to say that, you need to be born again in a totally different world where there is zero pain. Just like there is no evidence for God, there is no evidence for your assertion. (In the world without pain I doubt if there’ll be “good” things; there will only be “things”.)
Now I’ll tell you what doesn’t work for me, the “overly simplistic approach” that Atheists adopt when defining Evil. For them it is a “problem”. The Problem of Evil. Actually, yes, you are right, the PROBLEM of evil IS incompatible with the conception of God…for it is only the PHENOMENON of evil that should be compatible with the conception of God. To call something a problem means to magnify it, to place it on a pedestal, to make it a destructive force. To call something merely a phenomenon means to consider it something absolutely normal that can easily be overcome if you have enough willpower.
“Why are there so many starving people in the world?” — GodIsImaginary people say pompously (I suppose they are from America — a damn rich country!)
My answer is simple — There are so many starving people in the world because you refuse to move your ass from your chair. It doesn’t occur to you that you have the ability to feed them. God never said He will rain cakes and cookies from the sky for those starving people. (Now if GII had bothered to follow religious teachings seriously they would have thought twice before asking such a shamefully irresponsible question.)
The number of Atheists is rising in the world, because “pain” is increasing. Two centuries ago spending 4-5 days in a carriage to travel from one city to another, and spending half a year in a ship to travel from one continent to another was not yet pain for many. But now sitting for one extra hour at the airport because of a delayed flight is pain for almost all. The more “pain” you identify (even though it may actually be no pain at all!), the greater is the chance that you will want to attack and deride the concept of God.
Tulika-
You still haven’t backed up your claim on why life would be boring without evil. Why do you need death to be interested in life? Why do you need pain?
Here’s a simple question: if heaven exists, are you dreading it? I assume there is no evil or pain in heaven, so isn’t it boring?
If you make the claim “but I’ll remember what evil was like, so I’ll be able to appreciate the good”, then I could just as easily ask “why didn’t God just make us without evil and give us the knowledge necessary to enjoy ourselves here”?
It is interesting that you call Adam and Eve “neutral”, and are not so subtly implying that life got better after the fall of adam and eve. Are you saying that God wanted them to sin, so all of our lives would be more interesting?
Also, our definitions of “interesting” most certainly differ. I feel a paradise in the garden of eve or heaven would be plenty interesting, but you are claiming that it is missing something that is so necessary that it outweighs the evil of pain and death.
“We don’t need pain to appreciate the good things.” – I suppose you are not even fit to make that massive assertion right no”
You are exercising a massive double standard. You are making the opposite claim with no proof, yet chastising me for making my claim with minimal proof. I don’t need other worlds to exist, I am simply using the common ideas that theists claim of the garden of eden and heaven.
Here’s the best example of how good can exist without evil: temperature. Heat clearly exists, but the opposite of heat does not. Our idea of “cold” is simply less or the absence of heat. We can still experience heat without ever experiencing the opposite.
Same with good. If no negative values existed (no pain, no death, etc) we could still appreciate various levels of good. There would only exist a spectrum of really good to neutral.
Your use of “phenomenon” is amusing. “Something we can get over with enough willpower”-tell me, how much willpower is necessary to avoid death, our nerve receptors that feel pain, and starvation?
Also, “you could help feed the starving people” is a hilarious claim. I could help some, yes. As a college student I have some money and could help several people. Interesting that you call me out for my failure to do so. Why? How many people do you think God could help? God is sitting in his chair, with the power to instantly solve every problem in the world, and does nothing. He could make it rain manna like he did in the OT and feed every starving person in the world. Why do you excuse God yet attack me for failing to solve an infinitely smaller problem?
Lastly, there is less “pain” today than at any point in history. We have less wars, longer life spans, better quality of life, etc. The reason atheism is growing is because people are getting better educated, and information over the internet is massively available.
Whoa! So much…
You still haven’t backed up your claim on why life would be boring without evil. Why do you need death to be interested in life? Why do you need pain? — I gave you examples. I told you about love for a daughter deepened by the thought that she could be harmed, and care for a child deepened by the thought that it has been brought into the world with effort. (If my examples do not convince you, that’s another story. They never will.) Yes, you can still love and still care without pain around, but how can you be sure that your love will be intense? Ok, may be or may not be. Just like I cannot say it WOULD NOT be intense, you cannot say it WOULD be intense.
Here’s a simple question: if heaven exists, are you dreading it? I assume there is no evil or pain in heaven, so isn’t it boring? — I don’t even think of Heaven. I know nothing of it. My concentration is on this life, this world. And if there is a physical place called Heaven, it is not absolutely free of evil. Book of Job mentions that Satan did come to Heaven to have a chat with God after patrolling the earth. Heaven was open, and should be!
If you make the claim “but I’ll remember what evil was like, so I’ll be able to appreciate the good”, then I could just as easily ask “why didn’t God just make us without evil and give us the knowledge necessary to enjoy ourselves here”? — I don’t need to think about this question, because I am not dissatisfied by the way things have been made. Yes, maybe when one day I think man is absolutely powerless, unable to combat evil then I would be forced to ask God this question. Actually, it is possible to be innocent of evil and enjoy here. Just choose that lifestyle. I know ‘death’ irritates you (no matter how much evil we avoid, we won’t escape death), you think this way because probably you think death’s the end of it all. Why get worked up over death? What makes you think it is THE END? There could be other worlds, other lives in other universes. What do you know?
It is interesting that you call Adam and Eve “neutral”, and are not so subtly implying that life got better after the fall of adam and eve. — Not subtly implying, openly stating!
Are you saying that God wanted them to sin, so all of our lives would be more interesting? — He may not have “wanted” them to sin. But, yes, He was not totally against the idea of humans sinning, He left it to them to choose. Otherwise wouldn’t He have put a security system around the Garden of Eden? (This security system thingie I read in Paulo Coelho’s ‘Veronika Decides to Die’.Now this is a book from a Brazilian writer, and his writing may not be in agreement with the fixed (and narrow) American ideas of religion.)
Also, our definitions of “interesting” most certainly differ. I feel a paradise in the garden of eve or heaven would be plenty interesting, but you are claiming that it is missing something that is so necessary that it outweighs the evil of pain and death. — Good for you!
“We don’t need pain to appreciate the good things.” – I suppose you are not even fit to make that massive assertion right now. You are exercising a massive double standard. You are making the opposite claim with no proof, yet chastising me for making my claim with minimal proof. I don’t need other worlds to exist, I am simply using the common ideas that theists claim of the garden of eden and heaven. — So both of us don’t have proofs. We both come down to the same point – we’re limited. So why the debate? Move on.
Here’s the best example of how good can exist without evil: temperature. Heat clearly exists, but the opposite of heat does not. Our idea of “cold” is simply less or the absence of heat. We can still experience heat without ever experiencing the opposite. Same with good. If no negative values existed (no pain, no death, etc) we could still appreciate various levels of good. There would only exist a spectrum of really good to neutral. — Heard this multiple times. Heat and cold are felt physically, not spiritually or emotionally. I’m not very satisfied by this analogy. (I wish I could!).
Your use of “phenomenon” is amusing. — Is it? Don’t like it? Consider changing it. “The occurence of evil”, “the thing called evil”, BUT the “problem of evil”.
“Something we can get over with enough willpower”-tell me, how much willpower is necessary to avoid death, our nerve receptors that feel pain, and starvation? — Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough. I did not speak about willpower flowing in nerve receptors at all. I said “to call something merely a phenomenon means to consider it something absolutely normal that can easily be overcome if you have enough willpower.” By this I simply meant that if you see pain (a person dying of hunger), have the willpower to believe that YOU can curb that pain (by feeding that person). Or if you are disgracefully promiscuous have the willpower to believe that YOU can control your flesh because your spirit is stronger. With this simple attitude, it is possible to overcome evil (done by yourself to you/others and done by others to you/others). I want to explain this point further, but I’m afraid you’ll get bored. Or should I?
Also, “you could help feed the starving people” is a hilarious claim. — It’s not hilarious. By “you” I was targeting those people who complain about the bad state of the world, without offering any aid. But even you, why do you think you can’t? You come from a comfortable, affluent country. You have loads of cash and ample opportunities as compared to many in the other side of the world. You have the power! What can’t you do! You should only be willing to! Gandhi was ONE person, so was Mandela, so was Martin Luther, Jr, so is Aung San Suu Kyi.
I could help some, yes. As a college student I have some money and could help several people. Interesting that you call me out for my failure to do so. Why? — Not calling ‘you’ a failure specifically (did you take it on yourself?), but the people who sit and complain and blame God for human folly (are you one of them? Please don’t be!). They waste their time in claims like “God is Dead”, “God is a Delusion”, “God is Imaginary”, “God is a Bitch”. Hardly helps. These are expressions of weakness and irresponsibility, and nothing else.
How many people do you think God could help? God is sitting in his chair, with the power to instantly solve every problem in the world, and does nothing. — An old set of questions. One of the core issues that separate Atheism and Theism. Until last year, I used to curse God big time. I used to think exactly like you. But something changed me. The “overly simple” realisation that humans have been blessed with a mind, a heart and free-will. And if put to proper use, human free-will could do wonders in this very world! We don’t need to get irritated by the present system and aspire for some other “better” system with no this and no that. This world is beautiful enough. WE are unable to maintain its beauty. I don’t like taking God’s name in vain for every thing. I am aware that He has made ME responsible. And it’s my job to be dutiful.
He could make it rain manna like he did in the OT and feed every starving person in the world. Why do you excuse God yet attack me for failing to solve an infinitely smaller problem? — Thank heavens, He DOES NOT rain manna down! Because if He did, I would no longer find a reason to revere Him (If today I revere my parents, it’s because they did not spoon-feed me all the time). God wants to place “His” faith in man, He knows man can make light in the darkness. Also, again the issue of literally taking the Bible. Though I do not like everything that Dan Brown writes, I did like the effort he made in explaining to the world HOW the Bible should be read in ‘The Lost Symbol’. Look between the lines.
Lastly, there is less “pain” today than at any point in history. We have less wars, longer life spans, better quality of life, etc. — If one kind of big “pain” (ill-health) has gone down, a thousand other smaller pains have risen. Longer life spans do not necessarily mean better lives.Yes, there are medical facilities, so is there rampant depression, poor self-esteem, lack of self-control, etc. Gizmos and gadgets have made man’s life comfortable – that’s splendid! But I don’t see how the endurance of man’s spirit has gone up.
The reason atheism is growing is because people are getting better educated, and information over the internet is massively available. — This is how they all start (Science opened their eyes!), but they do come down to the “Problem of Evil” (which is a spiritual issue). According to me, the advancement in knowledge is only truly effective if it is complemented by an equal increase in human wisdom. If a man grows intelligent, it does not necessarily mean he has grown wise. (On a lighter note now, don’t forget Dr. Frankenstein!)
Tulika-
Regarding your love example-actually, I can say that it would be intense, and you cannot say it wouldn’t be. The default position is that people would be able to live normally without pain, that is the common-sensical idea. Your position asserts something different, namely, that without this pain love would be significantly worse. So the burden of proof is on your assertion, not mine.
Providing an example doesn’t provide evidence, you are merely describing how, if you were right, one case would be different. To disprove that example: do you think the intensity of love directly correlates with expected pain? Do parents in Africa feel much greater love due to the harsh living conditions than us?
About death-once again, the burden of proof lies on you. Why would there be something after death? If heaven exists, and there is something after death, why create this life in the first place?
I find it odd that you think things got better after the fall, but thats an opinion and there isn’t much use in debating preferences.
As for God wanting them to sin, it seems like, as you said, he did because he did not place a security system or anything. I guess we can agree here.
I need a response to this question though: how is pain interesting enough to outweigh the negative costs? Is it better that people can starve, die painfully, be tortured, etc. because the interesting factor outweighs it? If you can’t answer this, then you’re entire position falls apart.
“So both of us don’t have proofs. We both come down to the same point – we’re limited. So why the debate? Move on.”
Absolutely not. Once again, you are making the positive assertion that “we need pain to appreciate good things”. That is the positive assertion, so the burden of proof lies on you again. If neither of us can proves our case, then I win by default.
Heat and cold analogy-Why is not satisfactory? It doesn’t matter that its physical, its simply an example of how we could judge matters in a relative way in the absence of two opposite entities.
“With this simple attitude, it is possible to overcome evil (done by yourself to you/others and done by others to you/others). I want to explain this point further, but I’m afraid you’ll get bored. Or should I?”
You definitely should. Explain how willpower overcomes: natural disasters, diseases, viruses, pain felt when no one is around, starvation when no one is around, miscarriages, etc. You are overly simplifying what evil exists to try and claim that it all could be fixed if humans were less sinful. That simply isn’t even close to true.
You didn’t answer my question. If it is okay for God to leave the problems in our hands, why is it wrong for us to leave problems in the hands of whoever has them? Why can God justly pass down all responsibility for the worlds problems to us, when God is clearly more capable of fixing them?
About manna-you would revere God less if he decided to feed starving people? That makes absolutely no sense. You did not revere your parents less because they fed you regularly. In fact, wouldn’t you absolutely hate your parents if they refused to feed you and told you to fend for yourself? How has God not done that?
“I don’t see how the endurance of man’s spirit has gone up”-what exactly does that mean? I am assuming you are talking of how people have been doing more and more pleasurable activities: we have sex more often with more people, we do drugs, have parties and go to bars, buy phones/laptops/etc, and so forth. So let me ask: why are any of these pleasures bad? Why is repressing pleasure good?
“equal advancement in wisdom”-Please explain. You are somehow claiming that knowledge will lead to atheism, but wisdom will lead to religion. I find that laughable, wisdom is best defined as the ability to use knowledge correctly. If the correct conclusion from knowledge is atheism, then wisdom would be in line with atheism.
It is always difficult to get knowledgeable people with this issue, nevertheless, you be understood as you understand exactly what you are posting about! Appreciate it.
Hi John —
Got a little late in replying. Have been too busy reading and writing. Hope you’re good!
Let’s go back to your original post. You said “Why follow this God?” So you find it unacceptable to worship a God who accomplishes good things ‘in the end’ after involving bad things ‘in the process’. This makes you question and attack the potency of God. That’s a fair observation. — Ok, up to you, I say. But I’ll try to make you realise where you fall short. You do not know the full output of this God. You still don’t have a complete idea of what all He CAN establish and in HOW MANY different ways. Consider yourself one character in one novel of a writer (who has written over a 100 books). You have no idea of the complete oeuvre of this writer, you see only a part of his work. And on the basis of that, you conclude about his prowess, and finally you say that he does not exist at all.
Now, burden of proof lies on me, you may point out:
What can I know about the potency of this God? — My tradition openly says that He is a hidden God. We only see Him ‘through a glass darkly’.
What can I know about the output of this God? — Again, my tradition openly says that we don’t know what all He has created. But this world is not all that there is.
You are free to ‘not accept’ these above two points. They may appear shallow and disingenuous to you (not to forget ‘overly simplistic’). But they are not about being stupid and unargumentative – they’re about being meek and aware of your ignorance. And good Theologians over the ages have never been shallow and disingenuous. The Doctors of the Church used a comprehensive question-answer format while addressing philosophical issues. I suggest you not to just dismiss a 2012-year-old tradition as bogus. Refrain from making fun of it, for it has given you your beloved civilisation. Most secular Westerners only acknowledge Ancient Greece and the Enlightenment Era as the bases for their civilisation, but then this won’t change the facts. Have you watched Thomas Woods’ documentary on the Church? May be he isn’t as charismatic as those ‘acerbic and polemic’ New Atheists, but then he is not a thicko and has plenty to say.
You guys are so busy enjoying the fruits, that you have forgotten the tree, moreover you want to cut it off. Look at yourself, even your name is “John”, yet how well do you really know the gem that is the Gospel of John, especially its revolutionary First Chapter? Chances are you consider this John guy some primitive delusional retard. Then think for a moment — San Francesco, San Jose, San Diego, Santa Barbara, San Antoinio – how “saintly” were your beginnings. But again, chances are you consider these people primitive delusional retards.
One more thing — I wrote about the rise of Atheism ‘in the world’. I was wrong. Actually Atheism is only rising in Europe-America (where there is also a severe moral decay). Peter Hitchens points out how ‘young women in Britain these days are married to the State’, this is doing immense damage to their children and they are unaware of it. Also, ‘kids’ there are having sex like never before. Now America…deep down you yourself know the problems that are brought by easy divorce, the hook-up culture, consumerism …come on, man! All these things have a lot to do with the loss of God, accept it or reject it.
In Africa, Christianity is rising rapidly – and not because of white missionaries this time! The other day, I just watched a documentary on the work of Jesuits in eastern Africa. They are building schools, educating children (particularly AIDS orphans), changing lives. In China, the traditional, narrow mindset of people is being radically changed. This has a lot to do with the quiet and powerful rise of Christianity. — Your mainstream anti-Christian media organisations won’t bring this to your attention. When it comes to Religion, they’ll only focus on things like clerical abuse and the disturbance in Palestine. They love exposing the dark side and then revel in it. I’m not saying the dark side should be ignored. Not at all! One should know about the harm that has come out of the misuse of Religion, but then they must also be aware of the help that is coming out of it.
So, my point – what Westerners have used up and are now discarding away (because they feel too embarrassed by it), others are picking up with reverence and it is transforming them.
It’s very sad. As an Asian, I admired the West for giving the world the classy, sophisticated culture of ‘Ben-Hur’ and ‘The Sound of Music’. But when I look there now, I see shallowness. I see ‘American Pie’ and, whole bunch of slutty pop-stars and indecent rappers. Man, truly, where are you guys going? Please be careful, because what you do, the world tries to emulate. The world derives its “popular culture” from America. It breaks my heart when I see family values being broken in India, rise of live-in relationships, increasing promiscuity among the youth. There was a time when Westerners helped Indians to get out of superstition, when they established schools and colleges for them, when they dispelled the caste system by proclaiming the idea of equality that Christianity taught them! And now…
(contd.)
“We need pain to appreciate good things.” – Ok, I concede defeat. You win. We don’t need pain to appreciate good things. But where did you take me? Back to Eden before the Fall. I became more Christian than ever!
“If Heaven exists, and there is something after death, why create this life in the first place?” – I won’t blame you for saying this. All I can say is that, I find it good and reasonable to be thankful for what I have got. The prayer ‘Our Father’ clearly says ‘Thy Kingdom come, thy Will be done ON EARTH as it is in HEAVEN.’ A Christian’s work is to make Heaven on earth in this very life. And it is not impossible! Christ told us how to do it! In clear and pithy sentences, he has given us all – you have to love God (that is, you have to acknowledge a higher power) and you have to love your neighbours (that is, you have to care for their well-being, you have you share what you have in excess with those who are in need). Things cannot get simpler than this! What MORE simplicity and clarity do Atheists desire? Please let me know!
Imagine for a moment…if all those rich people in Europe and America cared to SERIOUSLY follow Luke 3:11, that small little teaching of John the Baptist, imagine if they gave their surplus food and clothing to those suffering people of Africa, Asia and South America…Heaven would not be far! Automatically, a lot many problems would be solved.
“I DO NOT WANT TO seriously follow the teachings of Christianity, therefore, the Christian God is a Delusion (and also a Flying Spaghetti Monster).” —– This is what most Atheists mean. I don’t quite go with it.
My suggestion to you? — Keep your bitterness aside. Sometimes we have to go beyond Reason. Just take a leap of FAITH (although you might detest that word) and TRY, for once, (along with your other Atheists and Christian friends) to follow Christ SERIOUSLY AND PRACTICALLY. Dare to apply Luke 3:11. Maybe start a nation-wide movement. Put the word of God on test. And THEN if you still see starvation and loneliness and sadness, if you feel the instruction has been imperfect and insufficient, you are free to attack and curse Christianity all you want. (I will be the first one to applaud you). But don’t you dare do so WITHOUT and BEFORE practising its teachings.
When white people went around colonising the world, making slaves out of nations – then God was good!! Now when poor countries are suffering — God does not exist!! Wow, that is some logic. “I ONLY KNOW HOW to take and not to give, therefore, there is no God.” Some logic, again.
Now you may say, ‘giving and sharing and caring’ won’t stop natural disasters and the ultimate death that awaits us all. – Neither am I saying so. But at least, we MUST DO what WE CAN while we are here! We have Death in this world and we don’t have answers for Natural Disasters (actually, we do, for some of them, if not all. Hurricanes and floods and storms could, in a way, be traced back to humankind’s careless and selfish interference with nature. Way too much damage in nature occurs to Global Warming. And Global Warming is due to Man). About earthquakes, yeh, I still don’t know well. I know HOW they occur but WHY a good, just God allows them? I don’t know. Still, we MUST DO what WE CAN while we are here. Death and Natural Disasters are sad realities, but they are not enough for me ‘to stop attempting to bring Heaven on earth’.
(contd.)
My “willpower” sentence is annoying you way too much. You have distorted it in a very vulgar and nasty way by placing it out of context. I am not talking about “overcoming” miseries, but I am talking about “avoiding” miseries. I don’t mean to say that once the damage is done, we can’t do anything. Sure we can! But prevention is better than cure. Willpower is “THE TRAIT OF RESOLUTELY CONTROLLING YOUR OWN BEHAVIOUR.” And this is what Religion teaches you, to avoid misery by adhering to the guidelines.
Now if humankind resolutely controls its behaviour, a lot of (if not all) natural disasters won’t occur. The Book of Genesis has commanded you to take care of nature! Be careless, invite disaster. Now if humankind resolutely controls its behaviour a lot of diseases, viruses, miscarriages could be avoided too. Christopher Hitchens died of oesophageal cancer. Why? He was a heavy smoker. Man is not punished for his sins, but by them. If he had resolved to control his will by “not smoking”, he would have avoided the cancer.
Now if “pain and starvation felt because of loneliness” irritates you, do something about it! Be a friend to the lonely to end their pain, and feed the starving to end their pain. In stead of complaining, go DO SOMETHING for a change, there is great peace and happiness in it.
What I find interesting in a lot of Atheists is their sharp ability to point out misery. And then that’s the end for them. Misery in the world = No God. I don’t quite understand why they identify misery, yet wilfully ignore the antidotes to misery.
“You are overly simplifying what evil exists to try and claim that it all could be fixed if humans were less sinful. That simply isn’t even close to true.” — You’re right. You’ve hit it right on spot. Yes, it is not enough to just be “less sinful”. It’s high time we were “more saintly”. Avoiding vice won’t help, we have to go seeking virtue.
Try to understand that we humans are ONE RACE, ONE BODY. What one part does, affects another. If the glitterati of America and Europe continues to be extravagant and careless, the needy of Africa and Asia will continue to suffer. Don’t believe me? There is such a DIRECT relation. E.g., So many products you find in your country are composed of parts manufactured in the inhumane factories of developing countries.
And kindly stop insulting me by repeating this YOU ARE OVERLY SIMPLIFYING IT sentence of yours. It is really not as intellectual as it might sound.
(contd.)
“We have sex more often with more people, we do drugs, have parties and go to bars, buy phones/laptops/etc, and so forth. So let me ask: why are any of these pleasures bad? Why is repressing pleasure good?” – Nah, I didn’t say pleasures are bad or repression of pleasure good. In fact, as a serious Christian I believe sex is toooooo good and a great gift from God, and that is precisely why it should be practised with care and caution, otherwise it loses its significance and importance. Sex is not bad, sex outside marriage is. Drugs, when used for medicinal purposes are good, but not when you want to use them to alter your consciousness just for fun or to escape from reality. Phones/laptops, etc are gifts of Science. They are all good. But overdependence on them is bad. Overdependence on any material object is harmful and unhealthy.
You live in California and do you know where am I currently? Thailand! You live next door to Hollywood, you should be more aware of the problems/dysfunctions that arise from ‘more sex, more drugs, more liquor and more materialism’. How blind can you be! Every now and then, we hear of celebs dissolving their marriages due to irreconcilable differences, having animalistic sex (making and leaking tapes too!), checking into rehab, experimenting with drugs, struggling with depression and also contemplating suicide.
Please don’t misconstrue my words. I say that – Pleasure is not bad; excessive pleasure is. Repression of pleasure is not good; control of excessive pleasure is necessary’. THIS is what serious Christians mean. Please, please, please don’t bash them for things they don’t mean. I know you’re too addicted to bashing them and it might be tempting to mock every Christian, but kindly learn to control yourself. As human beings, we are not merely a clump of cells. Beneath the material flesh, we have an immaterial spirit. The spirit needs to be taken care of. And this is what Religion is for.
(contd.)
“About manna-you would revere God less if he decided to feed starving people?” — You just don’t want to get me, do you? No, I won’t revere Him less if He rains manna, but then I would DEFINITELY ask Him as to why He is not physically present at the bedside of a lonely teenager to give him/her company, why He does not loudly warn a person before they have the sex that gives them AIDS, why He does not change the direction of the steering wheel of a car that causes accidents. If He decides one misery miraculous, He would have to end every misery miraculously.
God does not force you to love Him. He gives you choice. If He starts doing these miraculous things, people would be ‘forced’ to love him. (But, even then, I’m sure many would curse Him for being “too interfering” and “too undignified”). If right now, He appears too cold and too indifferent, then He would appear too warm and too mushy.
Now, I’ll tell you one more thing. I’m Indian, and in India population is a big problem and so is poverty. A lot many times, people themselves bring ‘starvation’ upon themselves. God doesn’t drop down babies from the sky, you make them out of your own choice. Now, if you have limited income, yet if you make 10 babies, of course there’ll be poverty! My heart goes out to those poor kids, but I don’t blame God for them, I blame the carelessness of their parents.
The one God did drop down supernaturally, He took up supernaturally.
(contd.)
CORRECTION ABOVE: “If He decides *to end* one misery miraculously, He would have to end every misery miraculously.
“You are somehow claiming that knowledge will lead to atheism, but wisdom will lead to religion. I find that laughable, wisdom is best defined as the ability to use knowledge correctly. If the correct conclusion from knowledge is atheism, then wisdom would be in line with atheism.” — When did I say Knowledge will lead to Atheism? Yea, ‘Incomplete Knowledge’ does. And if Atheism is about using ‘incomplete knowledge’ correctly, then that sure isn’t Wisdom. That is foolishness.
You said “Atheism is rising because people are getting better educated, and information over the internet is massively available”. — What education, I ask? Even people from Oxford are speaking utter bullshit these days. And what “massively available information”? Just because things are available, does not mean they are accessed. People ONLY click on what they want to.
For e.g., it is ignored that Georges Lemaître, the propounder of Big Bang was a priest, that Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics was a friar, that another friar named Roger Bacon advocated the importance of empiricism in the 1200s, centuries before the Enlightenment.
There is a whole legion of these cleric-scientists who have been working since the Middle Ages. Atheists wouldn’t want to look at their workings. If they do look, they’ll say their knowledge was “caused by Chance”? — as Richard Dawkins answered John Lennox when the latter was trying to bring to the former’s attention certain theological aspects of the Christianity that provided the matrix for scientific enquiry in Europe. I find it a bit weird how Atheists have a huge faith in Chance, yet no faith in Faith itself.
John, if you study History carefully you will find that it is Religion (particularly) Christianity that has led to Knowledge, not Atheism.
I want to thank you for enriching my spirituality. The more I hear what Atheists have to say, the more am I forced to delve into true, classic Theology and the more I learn about Science. Dawkins and Hitchens and Denett and Harris have won multitudes of followers but it is precisely because of them that people are turning back to Christianity. May be their numbers aren’t very impressive, but these people ARE STILL THERE. Christianity refuses to fade away.
One small request. Please avoid using adjectives like “laughable, ridiculous, hilarious” when you talk to people who take Religion seriously. They sound very anti-intellectual. Most Atheists these days need a nano-second to call anything said by a Christian as “a joke, nonsense, retarded, idiotic, amusing.”No, ALL Atheists ain’t like that. Some do maintain dignity and stick to polite words. You dislike Fundamentalist Christians, so don’t be a Fundamentalist Atheist. Well, you may still be an Atheist, but please keep some class, sophistication and respect for good Christians.
Tulika-
“So you find it unacceptable to worship a God who accomplishes good things ‘in the end’ after involving bad things ‘in the process’.”
The purpose of this post was exactly this-why does God need to involve bad things in order to achieve good things in the end? He doesn’t-there is no things he needs to achieve his ends. He can just achieve them, no process. So why does he bring about the process of evil?
“You guys are so busy enjoying the fruits, that you have forgotten the tree, moreover you want to cut it off.”
The current civilization is a product of Christianity to an extent, because a large majority of our ancestors were Christian. But what does that mean? We are debating the validity of it now-and I can very easily say the theory is wrong, as it does not hold up to scientific inquiry. We would not be here without people who thought that the earth was the center of the solar system, but that does not mean we should value geocentric theories.
“Look at yourself, even your name is “John”, yet how well do you really know the gem that is the Gospel of John, especially its revolutionary First Chapter?”
Actually, I have read the entire Bible multiple times. Growing up in a Church that emphasized Bible study, I studied the Bible chapter by chapter for 15 years. I know very well what John has to offer, and knew full well what I was rejecting in Christianity. (For the record, I was named by my Christian parents after John the Baptist)
“. But again, chances are you consider these people primitive delusional retards.”
I consider the religion to be illogical, and those who believe in it to have accepted an illogical doctrine. That is all.
“. Actually Atheism is only rising in Europe-America (where there is also a severe moral decay)”
No, there is not a “moral decay”, and our problems are not a result of the causes you described. Young people have always had sex, we now just don’t demonize them as much.
A question-what moral decay are we really experiencing? We have longer life expectancies than ever before, slowly having less war, and so forth.
Quick note: I do not think all religions do is create evil. I view religion as a tool, that some use for good and others use for bad.
” I see shallowness. I see ‘American Pie’ and, whole bunch of slutty pop-stars and indecent rappers.”
You cannot judge a culture by its popular media.
““We need pain to appreciate good things.” – Ok, I concede defeat. You win. We don’t need pain to appreciate good things. But where did you take me? Back to Eden before the Fall. I became more Christian than ever!”
Exactly. “Back to Eden before the Fall”. Why did God even create the possibility of the Fall?
“What MORE simplicity and clarity do Atheists desire? Please let me know!”
I would want everyone to be created in heaven. No need for the complications of earth, death, or sin.
As for your call to follow Christian teachings-
I will not take a “leap of faith”. I do not reject rationalism and believe something without evidence, and if I did, why shouldn’t I choose another religion?
As for charity, I think everyone, Christians included, should work to help the poor. I care much more about the fight against poverty than religion.
“When white people went around colonising the world, making slaves out of nations – then God was good!! Now when poor countries are suffering — God does not exist!! Wow, that is some logic. “I ONLY KNOW HOW to take and not to give, therefore, there is no God.” Some logic, again.”
I’m not exactly sure what this is supposed to mean. I was not part of the colonizers, and would still not believe in God if I was alive then.
” I know HOW they occur but WHY a good, just God allows them? I don’t know. ”
That’s the million dollar question.
(about willpower) “But prevention is better than cure”
Not all disasters can be prevented with willpower. That is the problem-hurricanes, etc. are not man-made and cannot be prevented by people.
“Now if humankind resolutely controls its behaviour, a lot of (if not all) natural disasters won’t occur. ”
Completely false. I don’t deny global warming or our affect on the climate, but most of the damaging effects are future, not current. Natural disasters would exist with or without us.
” Be a friend to the lonely to end their pain, and feed the starving to end their pain. In stead of complaining, go DO SOMETHING for a change, there is great peace and happiness in it.”
I complain because I am one person who does not have enough power to fix the problem. Collectively, all people might have enough power to do so. But think about it-would an omnipotent God have this power? If so, why does God not do so?
“What I find interesting in a lot of Atheists is their sharp ability to point out misery. And then that’s the end for them. Misery in the world = No God. I don’t quite understand why they identify misery, yet wilfully ignore the antidotes to misery.”
Because any and all misery could have been prevented by an omnipotent God. And not all misery has an antidote-once a person dies, they are dead. Not all premature death can be prevented, and no one’s death can be ultimately prevented.
“Don’t believe me? There is such a DIRECT relation. E.g., So many products you find in your country are composed of parts manufactured in the inhumane factories of developing countries.”
Yes I agree, people could do more than they currently are to make the world better. But once again, so could God.
“And kindly stop insulting me by repeating this YOU ARE OVERLY SIMPLIFYING IT sentence of yours. It is really not as intellectual as it might sound.”
It is not an insult or an attempt to be intellectual. You oversimplify when you offer up a simple solution to a complicated problem, such as being less sinful as a solution to all the world’s problems.
” Sex is not bad, sex outside marriage is. Drugs, when used for medicinal purposes are good, but not when you want to use them to alter your consciousness just for fun or to escape from reality. Phones/laptops, etc are gifts of Science. They are all good. But overdependence on them is bad. Overdependence on any material object is harmful and unhealthy.”
I’ll break it down into each segment.
“Sex outside of marriage is bad”.
Why? It cannot be because of direct harm to the person-otherwise, it would be okay for the people who don’t end up being harmed by it. Further, not all people are harmed by it-in fact, it enriches the quality of many people’s lives. What you are claiming, I believe, is that it is intrinsically bad (bad for its own sake). Why?
“Drugs used for fun is bad”
Again, why? Drugs for recreation is for pleasure-is the pleasure bad? If not, what about drugs that have little to no side effects (like marijuana)? Why demonize these pleasures?
“Overdependence on material objects is harmful”
I agree with you depending on what you mean by overdependence. If the overdependence is hurting the person (like cheapening their quality of life with family), then I agree with you. But to be clear, the wrongness is in the harm and not the materials.
“You live in California and do you know where am I currently? ”
I actually live in Santa Barbara, in Isla Vista (a college party town). I see first hand, and experience often, the life of partying that Christians demonize. Often, the demonization is justified-people actively hurt themselves and others with it. But I don’t then infer that the entire population or activity is wrong-harmless fun is not morally wrong.
Side note: Interesting that you live in Thailand. I would say that you shouldn’t judge America based on the media we produce, especially Hollywood. America does have a lot of flaws, but most of them are based in ignorance and intolerance, not secularism.
“Please don’t misconstrue my words. I say that – Pleasure is not bad; excessive pleasure is. ”
Why though? What level of pleasure is too much? I understand if the pleasure is clouding out more important things, like meaningful relationships. But excessive pleasure does not necessarily do this-so why is it bad when it does not?
“Repression of pleasure is not good; control of excessive pleasure is necessary’.”
My “bashing” still holds against this.
“No, I won’t revere Him less if He rains manna, but then I would DEFINITELY ask Him as to why He is not physically present at the bedside of a lonely teenager to give him/her company, why He does not loudly warn a person before they have the sex that gives them AIDS, why He does not change the direction of the steering wheel of a car that causes accidents. If He decides one misery miraculous, He would have to end every misery miraculously.”
Exactly. Why doesn’t God do all these things?
” If He starts doing these miraculous things, people would be ‘forced’ to love him. (But, even then, I’m sure many would curse Him for being “too interfering” and “too undignified”). If right now, He appears too cold and too indifferent, then He would appear too warm and too mushy”
Not true. People are not “forced” to love their parents or their governments that help them. If he did interefere and help people, I would wholeheartedly support him. I cannot speak for all atheists, but I myself would love if God existed and did these things. I have literally no problem with intervention to prevent misery or suffering.
“Now, if you have limited income, yet if you make 10 babies, of course there’ll be poverty! My heart goes out to those poor kids, but I don’t blame God for them, I blame the carelessness of their parents.”
Once again, God, being omniscient and omnipotent, could think of and execute a perfect solution to any problem. Why doesn’t he?
“CORRECTION ABOVE: “If He decides *to end* one misery miraculously, He would have to end every misery miraculously.”
That is exactly what I want/expect an omnipotent being to do, especially one that is omnibenevolent.
” What education, I ask? Even people from Oxford are speaking utter bullshit these days. And what “massively available information”? Just because things are available, does not mean they are accessed. People ONLY click on what they want to.”
I’m not sure what you meant by the first statement. Oxford is a fantastic school, and its graduates are on average incredibly intelligent. On the internet you can find any information you want. You, a Christian in Thailand, are reading and responding to an atheist blogger from California. That simply would not be possible twenty years ago. Further, not everyone on the internet comes in with a made mind. Many of the older ones do, of course. But people who want to learn have the resource now that never existed. Further, a lot of people growing up now can use the internet to form their own opinions rather than accept what was handed down to them. For example, I myself used debating on YA to better understand my own views.
“For e.g., it is ignored that Georges Lemaître, the propounder of Big Bang was a priest, that Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics was a friar, that another friar named Roger Bacon advocated the importance of empiricism in the 1200s, centuries before the Enlightenment.”
All irrelevant. Their theories are valued solely for their own merit, as is Christianity.
“There is a whole legion of these cleric-scientists who have been working since the Middle Ages. Atheists wouldn’t want to look at their workings. If they do look, they’ll say their knowledge was “caused by Chance”? ”
Ideas are not evolved by chance like species are, so not really sure what you mean. I have no problem accepting scientific theories, if they are valid, from any type of religious person.
“John, if you study History carefully you will find that it is Religion (particularly) Christianity that has led to Knowledge, not Atheism.”
Absolutely false. Christianity is a belief system. If you derive knowledge from Christianity, you derive things that are dependent on the truth of that belief system. Christianity is an “assumed premise”. That does not lead to knowledge. You discover knowledge from facts, not beliefs (for the record, people do not derive knowledge from atheism either, as atheism does not assert facts, it is the absence of religious belief). Consider the contrasting philosophies of Hume and Berkeley. Hume did not assume God, or anything for that matter, and so his work is still relevant and studied. Berkeley assumed God to begin with, so he based his philosophy of the world on that (he inferred that reality is only in the mind because God would not waste time with a physical world if he didn’t need to). This is just one example, but you get the general point. You cannot assume anything and discover knowledge-you have to stick with facts.
“The more I hear what Atheists have to say, the more am I forced to delve into true, classic Theology and the more I learn about Science. ”
I am perplexed how I have done so, but I do not delude myself into thinking that I could convert you over this blog. Our debate, though, is here for others to read.
“One small request. Please avoid using adjectives like “laughable, ridiculous, hilarious” when you talk to people who take Religion seriously.”
I use “laughable, ridiculous” in all my debates, regardless of content, if the asserted premise or conclusion has no basis. I actually debate politics more than religion, and use it against non-religious and religious people alike if the statements have no backing. I am not trying to be disrespectful to you, I am aiming to tear down your argument, not you as a person.
In conclusion: This is a really long post, and I am willing to respond as much as you want at this length if you desire. If you want to keep things simple, we can as well.