[Debate] The Problem of Evil [Religion] (79)

1 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-27 06:33 ID:Q1vR73sN

Okay, I'll branch this thread off the other one myself if you guys don't want to take the initiative. It may die in silence, but at least I tried. :p

RULES
-No flaming or trolling. Emphasis on flaming. Keep the argument down to a mild level.

-Back up what you say. I know it's hard for this, but don't just say something like "God is evil". Tell WHY you think God is evil, and use logic to back it up if you have tot. If you want to say "God is good", then the same goes for you.

-Keep this as mature as possible. This is basically like repeating the first rule, but don't let your emotions/beliefs get in the way of your argument. It makes you and your whole case look childish.

STARTING ARGUMENT:
Supposing that a God exists, he cannot be both benevolent and omnipotent, because evil also exists.

2 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-27 17:43 ID:Heaven

shut up

3 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-27 20:49 ID:Heaven

Science == worst board on 4ch

4 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-29 00:55 ID:Heaven

Won't anybody think of the scientists??

5 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-29 04:16 ID:MmkhN8Mn

Things that must be said to arrive at the conclusion of this matter cannot be spoken. For my own sake and yours, God don't want me to share this... Yet

lulz

6 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-29 07:13 ID:LK0lpUYK

>>1

There are many typical counter arguments. What do you say about them?

  • God is omnipotent but he created human as finite being intentionally.
  • God is good but mankind degenerated and brought evil into the world.
  • God is benevolent so he forgives our sin and brings us into heaven where no evil exists.

7 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-29 14:21 ID:Heaven

> God is omnipotent but he created human as finite being intentionally.

Thus, god is not benevolent.

> God is good but mankind degenerated and brought evil into the world.

Thus, god is not omnipotent (if he couldn't prevent this) or not benevolent (if he could but didn't prevent this).

> God is benevolent so he forgives our sin and brings us into heaven where no evil exists.

God is not omnipotent (if he can only prevent evil this way, and not by simply eradicating it) or not benevolent (if he can but doesn't).

8 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2008-03-29 15:17 ID:KYXEpJQ/

From a logical standpoint, there is no 'problem of evil.' If there were no God, the very concept of 'evil' would be meaningless. What one 'bag of advanced primordial slime,' does to another 'bag of advanced primordial slime' would be entirely irrelevant.

What Epicurus, or anyone here, has not done, and cannot do, is define 'evil' apart from an absolute standard, or show that God could not have sufficient moral reason for the evil in this world.

9 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-29 20:25 ID:Heaven

>>8
There have been thousands of deities, how do you know you're worshipping the correct one?

GTFO

10 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2008-03-29 20:32 ID:KYXEpJQ/

>>9
Simple, God has revealed Himself to us in such a way that we can be certain of His existence.

YLTWY (You'd like that wouldn't you :-)

11 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-29 23:55 ID:Heaven

>>10

The followers of all those other gods would say the exact same thing. What makes you different?

12 Name: proofthatgodexists.org : 2008-03-30 01:31 ID:KYXEpJQ/

>>11
The followers of all those other gods would say the exact same thing. What makes you different?
Pardon me, but this just shows your lack of knowledge regarding world religions. Only a handful of religions, outside of Christianity, claim revelation by a personal God, and those that do can be easily refuted. Still though, that is not the point, the point of this thread is 'the problem of evil.' It is my position that the very concept of evil cannot be accounted for absent an absolute standard. Rather than appeal to other religions, why don't you tell me by what absolute standard YOU call anything 'evil.'

13 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-30 18:42 ID:Heaven

> Pardon me, but this just shows your lack of knowledge regarding world religions. Only a handful of religions, outside of Christianity, claim revelation by a personal God, and those that do can be easily refuted.

Let's see you do that, then.

14 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-31 04:25 ID:XqyfoL3i

>>11
Really, you need to know more about religion before you try to argue about it. Otherwise you just end up looking stupid, like you did in your post.

15 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-31 18:13 ID:Heaven

>>14

Please don't join proofthatgodexists.org in completely missing the point.

16 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-04-05 06:38 ID:Np9/JT/T

lol, i'd hate to join proofthatgodexists.org in anything.

17 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-04-05 16:51 ID:txm8qq3v

you people really need to read "the god delusion" by richard dawkins.

18 Name: God : 2008-04-12 17:16 ID:FGV9vgMo

I did it for the lulz!

19 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-04-12 19:17 ID:WMiIxeWc

How about the FSM? It seems irrefutable until now.

20 Name: lulz : 2008-05-23 21:29 ID:e5WOBZg7

god created evil, while not able to do it himself, so that people realize the need for a god :p

or, mabey gravity doesnt exist, and the enemys gate allways HAS been down.

21 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2008-05-23 23:39 ID:Heaven

Why does evil make people realize they need a god when it was a god who created it?

22 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-05-24 11:37 ID:Heaven

Fuck this thread. FUCK IT IN THE ASS.

23 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-05-27 21:35 ID:Heaven

Science fuckers!

24 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-05-30 03:54 ID:9PTZ+nxD

Nature didn't create evil, people created this perception of evil. An asteroid hitting the earth, or a tsunami isn't evil, just chaotic; but a murderous serial killer with a chainsaw is definitely evil.

25 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-05-30 09:38 ID:Heaven

>>24
so would an infant raised by wolves, who had no contact with other humans, recognize this murderous serial killer with a chainsaw as definitely evil? would they understand the concept of 'evil' at all?

(that's what those who argue for the proof from morality claim, which means we'll have to perform such an experiment to disprove it)

26 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-05-30 10:07 ID:Heaven

Morality is a human construct that varies between cultures and has no objective reality at all.

27 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2008-05-30 18:04 ID:Heaven

I wonder about that. Consider the following experiment:

There are two cages. Connecting the two cages is a board. The first cage has a rope that if pulled will cause the board to collapse, and everything on it to fall off. The second cage has a rope that pulls whatever is on the board towards it. Now put a chimp in each cage, a person sitting in front of the board, and a bowl of bananas on the board.

If the human gives the bowl to the chimp in the first cage, and the chimp in the second pulls the rope to pull the food towards itself, the chimp in the first gets angry and yanks its rope, causing the food to fall on the floor out of reach of everyone.

If the human gives the bowl to the chimp in the first cage, then snatches it away and gives it to the second, the first chimp doesn't do anything.

28 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-05-31 05:33 ID:wf1C+plZ

What if it's a beef bowl from Yoshinoya and the first chimp asks for extra sauce?

29 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-06-05 00:32 ID:23FZSCD7

>>28

If it so happens, that chimp is lawful neutral.

This thread has been closed. You cannot post in this thread any longer.