Theodicy for or against God

[cacian]

I find this word quite intriguing because it plays on the notion that the presense of evil in the word negate the existence of God.
The other idea is that evil could not exist without good/ie God.
The question that comes to mind is this:

Does God need beliefs from anyone to exist?

[SkyCetacean]

I think the arguments against the problem of evil slant more toward free will, that is, that it wasn't god who created evil but rather that humans chose of their own free will to defy god and thus "create" evil. God places a high value on free will, and thus, allows us to choose to be good or evil, and being imperfect humans, we frequently choose evil.

[Volya]

If by God, you mean The God of the Abrahamic faiths, then no, He doesn't need us to believe in Him. If you mean God as a concept humans came up with, then he DOES need us to believe in him. I am a supporter of the second theory.

Evil will exist in the world without God, since humans are the ones that cause it.

Evil in the world is what leads me to personally find the idea of the Christian god rather foolish. However I can't deny the existence of some kind of higher being that created the universe.

[cacian]

I think the arguments against the problem of evil slant more toward free will, that is, that it wasn't god who created evil but rather that humans chose of their own free will to defy god and thus "create" evil. God places a high value on free will, and thus, allows us to choose to be good or evil, and being imperfect humans, we frequently choose evil.
Interesting that you do quote evil with defyance of God. I wonder if god ever defie defiance itself.
About free will I am not sure myself it exists. I firmly believe it does not but that is beside the point.
I feel that god makes us then it is up to us to make of it what we wish.
I tend to separate god from our wishes. I am not so sure god gives allowances because he has already give us a brain to use of our own accord.
I chose to use my brain and avoid evil. Others chose to not have one and go on to excute evil as a mean to prove themselves up as being useful.



If by God, you mean The God of the Abrahamic faiths, then no, He doesn't need us to believe in Him. If you mean God as a concept humans came up with, then he DOES need us to believe in him. I am a supporter of the second theory.
I do not see the difference between the two.

Evil will exist in the world without God, since humans are the ones that cause it.
Agreed.


Evil in the world is what leads me to personally find the idea of the Christian god rather foolish.
I feel the title of 'chritian' to a god rather foolish myself.
However I am not sure I follow what you mean.


However I can't deny the existence of some kind of higher being that created the universe.
Good point. The big bang has hardly a hand on everything although I am inclined to believe bigbang was god's making to keep the mind racing towards the existence of God.
The numbers of scientists disagreeing against the religious does not get better then this.
Conflict at the heart of earth and humanity.

[Volya]

I do not see the difference between the two.
.
Agreed.


I feel the title of 'chritian' to a god rather foolish myself.
However I am not sure I follow what you mean.


Good point. The big bang has hardly a hand on everything although I am inclined to believe bigbang was god's making to keep the mind racing towards the existence of God.
The numbers of scientists disagreeing against the religious does not get better then this.
Conflict at the heart of earth and humanity.

cacian, I think this is another of those topics where you need to do some more research xD

There is a big difference between the two 'Gods' I mentioned. The first, is assuming that God is real, and is omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent. The second is saying that God isn't real, he is just an idea humans came up with. I assume you are an atheist?

When I say the Christian god, I mean God from the Bible. What else would you call him?

[cacian]

cacian, I think this is another of those topics where you need to do some more research xD

There is a big difference between the two 'Gods' I mentioned. The first, is assuming that God is real, and is omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent. The second is saying that God isn't real, he is just an idea humans came up with. I assume you are an atheist?

When I say the Christian god, I mean God from the Bible. What else would you call him?

I am not an atheist and bear no labels upon myself. I am enjoy my own views on what God is what isn't.
I did mention somewhere else that I think there has to be only one higher being and that all religions eventually all lead to one god.
I have no other name for god but god.
I know god is real but that is beside the point.
Whether it is real for others does not concern me.
I speak of evil and whether by deying evil one defies god this higher being.

[Umbreon]

If there is a God, beliefs are not needed for him to exist. Beliefs do not cause anyone or anything to exist (at least not by the mere cognitive activity of believing). Beliefs about a woman being pregnant do not cause a woman to become pregnant. Just as your laptop exists independently of a mind knowing it, if God exists, he'll exist whether someone believes he does. Things that exist exist independently of minds.

[cafolini]

:cheers2:
If there is a God, beliefs are not needed for him to exist. Beliefs do not cause anyone or anything to exist (at least not by the mere cognitive activity of believing). Beliefs about a woman being pregnant do not cause a woman to become pregnant. Just as your laptop exists independently of a mind knowing it, if God exists, he'll exist whether someone believes he does. Things that exist exist independently of minds.

We disagree regarding these matters. For God to be or exist, we need to believe that it is so. It is different for God to occur physically apart from the imagination or any belief born to it. That's when people are comical.
:cheers2::leaving:

[cacian]

:cheers2:

We disagree regarding these matters. For God to be or exist, we need to believe that it is so. It is different for God to occur physically apart from the imagination or any belief born to it. That's when people are comical.
:cheers2::leaving:

God exists regardless of one's belief.
Faith does not reinforce one's existence. One does not depend on the other.

[Umbreon]

:cheers2:

We disagree regarding these matters. For God to be or exist, we need to believe that it is so. It is different for God to occur physically apart from the imagination or any belief born to it. That's when people are comical.
:cheers2::leaving:

Does your bed exist?
Okay, now if that exists, do you (or anyone for that matter) need to believe that your bed exists for it to exist?
(The answer should be "no.")

[Rores28]

As someone pointed out earlier, individuals hold different meanings of God, and it affects the answer to your question.

If by God you simply mean some extremely powerful being responsible for the creation of the universe and divorced from any holy books or doctrine, then I would say that the existence of evil seems to pose no problem. An entity’s power seems to say nothing about its beneficence or any other motivation for that matter.

If you are speaking about particular Gods as described in religious texts, then you run into some fairly insurmountable issues. The argument about evil though, usually is dilated to include events that are bad in general such as natural disasters, debilitating disease, and other such examples which are not directly authored by humans or sentient entities.

We can then ask questions about why God would let such things happen to people. If, as in the Christian tradition, he is believed to be a loving and caring God you have an issue.

At this point most will object on the grounds that you cannot know the will of God, he works in mysterious ways etc… I see no issue with this on the face of it. It seems likely, in fact, that an omnipotent being would have inscrutable motives. This, however, just leads to an even more insurmountable difficulty with respect to ANY of God’s motives. Maybe God really doesn’t care if we sin or not. Maybe he just wrote that in the Bible to see how we would react to it. Maybe he does care about sin, but he wants us to sin as much as possible. Maybe heaven doesn’t exist. Once we have admitted that God’s motives are beyond the scope of our understanding, the entirety of the Bible’s (or any other holy text with a similarly anthropomorphic Godhead) meaning and relevance is called into question.

[Cioran]

The Abrahamic God is generally thought to be morally perfect, omniscient (knows absolutely everything that is knowable) and omnipotent (can do anything at all, save, perhaps, for instantiating a logical contradiction.)

The presence of evil is the world is attributed to man's free will, which, for some strange reason, God is said to highly prize. Of course, free will doesn't account for natural evils like tsunamis that level coastlines and kill thousands of people in an hour. Does a tsunami have free will, such that God does not wish to preclude it?

But put aside natural evil. It is easy to show, via logic, that if God is omniscient and omnipotent, he is entirely responsible for evil, even if man has free will.

One need only look at the case from the possible worlds terminology of modal logic.

"Adam eats the apple" stands for the introduction of evil into the world on Judeo-Christian theology. If Adam has free will, then there are two possible worlds: A world at which Adam eats the apple, and a world at which he does not.

God, being omniscient, knows ahead of time which way Adam will choose. This does not impeach Adam's freedom, however, since Adam eating the apple supplies the truth grounds for God's advance knowledge of this act.

But God is supposed to be more than omniscient. He is supposed to be omnipotent, and he is supposed to have made the world. An omnipotent being can make any world that he wants, provided it does not bring about a logical contradiction. And being omniscient, he will know in advance how the world he makes will turn out. He will also know in advance how the counterfactual worlds that he does not make would turn out, if he made them.

Being perfect, he cannot err in making the world that he wants.

This means that it was within God's power to make the possible world in which Adam freely eats the apple and introduces evil into the world. And it was also within his power to make the possible world in which Adam freely does not eat the apple and does not introduce evil. Both worlds must be possible since Adam's act is logically contingent and not necessary. If it were necessary, then Adam would lack free will.

God, with perfect foreknowledge, perfect freedom and perfect ability, and also with perfect responsibility, chose to make the world in which Adam freely ate the apple and introduced evil into it.

It logically follows that the Abrahamic God, if he exists, is entirely and solely culpable for all evil in the world from first to last. Since it is impossible for a perfect God to err and make a world that he did not want, it follows that God wanted evil and its sole and complete source.

[Anton Hermes]

I think God "exists" in the same way any other symbol exists: as a way for humans to conceptualize a complex reality. It has always been so convenient for believers to ascribe intent to phenomena that the definition of God as a powerful sky being is understandably common. However, it's not an original observation that the existence of suffering in the world does away with such a definition of God as either all-powerful or all-loving.

If God is all-powerful and yet doesn't mitigate the suffering of the innocent, He can't be all-loving. If God is all-loving and yet doesn't do away with suffering, then He can't be all-powerful.

[YesNo]

Those accepting a religion have no problem with evil. Their religion solves the problem of evil for them. Those who don't have a belief system need to continue looking for a solution to the problem of evil. Because of this, the problem of evil is mainly a problem for atheists and also for those missionaries who feel obligated to convert the atheists to their particular religion. For the normal theist the problem is solved.

Today many of us have a large number of religions to choose from as well as political freedoms and mobility that allow us to exercise such choices. That was not the case even 100 years ago. Add to that our 21st century knowledge about what our universe is through quantum physics, the big bang, evolution, as well as historical studies of the world religions and we also have an enormous amount of information.

From our perspective the problem of theodicy is best presented as a problem of cosmodicy. Do we believe the universe is good or not? Is it good that we are here at all? That is our real starting point.

There are some who say the universe is not good. Consider the recent movie Melancholia where a psychic, of all people, is presented as taking a moral high road of being glad the earth will crash into the flyby planet Melancholia so all life in the universe can cease. Consider people who think the best thing we should do ethically is to stop reproducing so that suffering will cease. Or consider the people who think their suicides should be coupled with the deaths of a classroom full of 5 and 6 year old children.

Theodicy reformulated as cosmodicy presents us with a choice: Is life worth living or not? Is the universe good enough for us to live with each other or should our lives be best spent destroying it?

After we make the only sane choice, given the fact that we are, that the universe is good, then we can search the world religions and philosophies, picking and choosing what makes sense, to help us understand. We might start appreciating our world cultural legacy more. It is not something to dismiss with arrogance. The problem of evil is not trivial, but we are not the first people who have had to answer it.

[Anton Hermes]

Those accepting a religion have no problem with evil. Their religion solves the problem of evil for them. Those who don't have a belief system need to continue looking for a solution to the problem of evil. Because of this, the problem of evil is mainly a problem for atheists and also for those missionaries who feel obligated to convert the atheists to their particular religion. For the normal theist the problem is solved.

By "solved" you must mean "ignored."

I think you've got things a little backward in your argument. The believer is the one who has to acknowledge the reality of evil and suffering and rationalize it. If the believer says God loves us, or the universe is good, then the existence of evil becomes a problem: why does God permit the innocent to suffer? What's the function of evil in a good universe?

The nonbeliever has no such baggage. We expect the universe to seem ugly and brutal as often as it seems beautiful and fair. We don't ascribe intent or moral meaning to natural phenomena. We don't handwave away the suffering of the innocent, or pretend it's all part of a cosmic plan.

[Cioran]

Those accepting a religion have no problem with evil. Their religion solves the problem of evil for them.

Really? How? Did you read my post above?


Those who don't have a belief system need to continue looking for a solution to the problem of evil. Because of this, the problem of evil is mainly a problem for atheists and also for those missionaries who feel obligated to convert the atheists to their particular religion. For the normal theist the problem is solved.

Exactly the opposite is the case, of course! Under a thoroughly naturalistic understanding of the world, both natural and human-willed acts of evil are not only explained, they are inevitable. So-called "natural evils" like tsunamis that wipe out thousands of people in an hour are explained by physics and geology. Human evils are explained by the fact that humans, like all animals, are in competition for scarce resources and live, as it were, in a dog eat dog world. The very nature of evolution guarantees human conflict and conflict throughout the animal kingdom, which is a daily bloodbath.

None of this makes any sense under theism. And, as I have shown above, if the Abrahamic God exists with the properties normally ascribed to him of omniscience and omnipotence, it is easy to logically demonstrate that this God is the sole author of evil with no co-authors.



Today many of us have a large number of religions to choose from as well as political freedoms and mobility that allow us to exercise such choices.

If such "choices" are uninformed or carried out with a built-in bias they are worthless. They are nothing more than exercises in wishful thinking.



After we make the only sane choice, given the fact that we are, that the universe is good, then we can search the world religions and philosophies, picking and choosing what makes sense, to help us understand.

Unfortunately, "picking and choosing" does not mean you will pick and choose rightly.

[Cioran]

Yes, for the "normal" theist I guess the problem is solved, because it would appear that the "normal" theist doesn't want to think too deeply about this issue. Once the Problem of Evil is subjected to scalpel of logic, as I have shown, it not only becomes a difficult problem for theists, it is actually unsolvable. If one believes in the Abrahamic God and the traits traditionally ascribed to him, God is the sole author of evil and bears full responsibility for it.

[YesNo]

Exactly the opposite is the case, of course! Under a thoroughly naturalistic understanding of the world, both natural and human-willed acts of evil are not only explained, they are inevitable. So-called "natural evils" like tsunamis that wipe out thousands of people in an hour are explained by physics and geology. Human evils are explained by the fact that humans, like all animals, are in competition for scarce resources and live, as it were, in a dog eat dog world. The very nature of evolution guarantees human conflict and conflict throughout the animal kingdom, which is a daily bloodbath.

Given your philosophy, what is your answer to the cosmodicy question? Is it good that we are alive or not?


None of this makes any sense under theism. And, as I have shown above, if the Abrahamic God exists with the properties normally ascribed to him of omniscience and omnipotence, it is easy to logically demonstrate that this God is the sole author of evil with no co-authors.

I am not interested in any particular definition of God, nor am I interested in trashing any of our world cultural legacy. Clearly the views of a religion make sense for those who believe in that religion. That they don't make sense for an unbeliever is to be expected.

Logic helps, but too many times people use logic simply to justify their own "biases" not to reach any deeper understanding. Basically, people can prove anything is true if they dismiss enough evidence and assume enough junk. Hopefully, they don't convince anyone but themselves for very long.



If such "choices" are uninformed or carried out with a built-in bias they are worthless. They are nothing more than exercises in wishful thinking.

Unfortunately, "picking and choosing" does not mean you will pick and choose rightly.

That is how a missionary, whether theistic or atheistic, would approach the problem. The missionary wants to make sure the other guy picks and chooses "rightly" which means the way the missionary sees the solution. Unfortunately for the missionary, the other guy will do what he or she wants to do.

[Hawg Horse]

I think God "exists" in the same way any other symbol exists: as a way for humans to conceptualize a complex reality. It has always been so convenient for believers to ascribe intent to phenomena that the definition of God as a powerful sky being is understandably common. However, it's not an original observation that the existence of suffering in the world does away with such a definition of God as either all-powerful or all-loving.

If God is all-powerful and yet doesn't mitigate the suffering of the innocent, He can't be all-loving. If God is all-loving and yet doesn't do away with suffering, then He can't be all-powerful.

Anton, you have my vote for the best opening sentence of any post I've read so far. Is there a name or category for those of us who think God is a useful tool and an effective symbol (in science and in art) for humans to conceptualize reality? Is there a category other than agnostic or atheist, or am I doomed to join one of the two?

[Anton Hermes]

Anton, you have my vote for the best opening sentence of any post I've read so far.
Much obliged. It's the thinking of theologian Paul Tillich, who warned that we can't understand the symbols of faith just by taking them literally. Our "ultimate concern" isn't something finite, or even subject to defintion, so we have to use symbols to conceptualize it.


Is there a name or category for those of us who think God is a useful tool and an effective symbol (in science and in art) for humans to conceptualize reality? Is there a category other than agnostic or atheist, or am I doomed to join one of the two?
I don't put a lot of stock in labels. I'm a nonbeliever, agnostic, atheist, whatever.

Whether God is a useful tool for conceptualizing reality is still open to debate. I certainly don't see the point in ascribing agency to all phenomena, or pretending that everything is part of God's cosmic plan. That's why I chimed in here. People who think there's a Big Magic Guy seem very blasé about the Almighty's unwillingness or inability to mitigate the suffering of the innocent. Believers who think everything happens for a reason don't realize that they're trivializing people's suffering.

[cafolini]

For God is mandatory. Any other position is foolishness.

[Cioran]

For God is mandatory. Any other position is foolishness.

Right. All you have to do is first demonstrate that God exists. Any other position is foolishness.

[cafolini]

If God didn't exist, we would have to invent Him. ~ Voltaire

Thank God I don't have to be so stupid as to do that.

[Cioran]

If God didn't exist, we would have to invent Him. ~ Voltaire

Thank God I don't have to be so stupid as to do that.

That is just what you have done.

"Gott ist tot." ~Nietzsche

"If God doesn't exist, everything is permitted." ~ I. Karamazov

"If God doesn't exist, then everything is prohibited … if God exists, then everything is permitted." ~ Zizek

Well, quotes are nice! :alien:

[cafolini]

That is just what you have done.

"Gott ist tot." ~Nietzsche

"If God doesn't exist, everything is permitted." ~ I. Karamazov

"If God doesn't exist, then everything is prohibited … if God exists, then everything is permitted." ~ Zizek

Well, quotes are nice! :alien:

Case closed.

[Cioran]

Case closed.

I'm glad you agree that you invented God, and that quotes are nice.

[cacian]

For God is mandatory. Any other position is foolishness.

Is God a position? Interesting concept. Could you fire this position though?

[cacian]

If God didn't exist, we would have to invent Him. ~ Voltaire
If god was invented then someone is its creator. Imagine the power behind the idea. The creator versus the invented. Not much left for god's reason to be. Pointless.

Thank God I don't have to be so stupid as to do that.
Yes thank god for wisdom.

[cacian]

Right. All you have to do is first demonstrate that God exists. Any other position is foolishness.

It is impossible to demosntrate God exists in the same way that it is impossible to prove Jesus was crucified.

[cafolini]

Merry Christmas, everyone. May the Lord protect you from big mistakes and be on the side of your good intentions.

[russellb]

It is impossible to demosntrate God exists in the same way that it is impossible to prove Jesus was crucified.Is it impossible to demonstrate that in 1066 the battle of hastings took place in the south of england? This is the same order of claim (historical) as the claim that Jesus was crucified. To claim that God exists on the other hand is to make a claim, i presume, about a being who transcends the temporal universe. Whether hastings took place or jesus was crucified is a matter of weighing up the historical evidence. As for deciding about the old man are we agreed on what constitutes evidence? Perhaps to the person of faith evidence is besides the point. And perhaps for all their huffing and puffing atheists can't come up with any evidence to support their point either

[cafolini]

Is it impossible to demonstrate that in 1066 the battle of hastings took place in the south of england? This is the same order of claim (historical) as the claim that Jesus was crucified. To claim that God exists on the other hand is to make a claim, i presume, about a being who transcends the temporal universe. Whether hastings took place or jesus was crucified is a matter of weighing up the historical evidence. As for deciding about the old man are we agreed on what constitutes evidence? Perhaps to the person of faith evidence is besides the point. And perhaps for all their huffing and puffing atheists can't come up with any evidence to support their point either

Evidence is indeed besides the point. Why? Because for any bit of finite scientific fact (knowledge), there is an infinity that cannot be known. God be with you.

[bulfinch]

I think the arguments against the problem of evil slant more toward free will, that is, that it wasn't god who created evil but rather that humans chose of their own free will to defy god and thus "create" evil. God places a high value on free will, and thus, allows us to choose to be good or evil, and being imperfect humans, we frequently choose evil.

And yet you conveniently ignored natural disasters, plague, hunger, and everything else that humans do not decide. I mean whatever God you choose to believe in places us on a planet of limited resources and active crustal plates and leaves us to our own devices. My point is that not all evil is human created and if that's the case then we need to take that into account when responding to the problem of evil.

Also, what's interesting to me is that fromt he Christian perspective, evil pre-dates humans, in the form of Satan and his legions. So it seems to me that God purposefully allows evil to continue to exist, for we must assume that angels have no freewill and neither would the Satan.

[YesNo]

I mean whatever God you choose to believe in places us on a planet of limited resources and active crustal plates and leaves us to our own devices. My point is that not all evil is human created and if that's the case then we need to take that into account when responding to the problem of evil.


Then let's leave any particular God out of it unless one actually believes in that God. How should one respond to the problem of evil?

[bulfinch]

Then let's leave any particular God out of it unless one actually believes in that God. How should one respond to the problem of evil?

I would think that if a deity did exist its motives and intentions would be completely beyond human understanding. There would be a huge comprehension gulf between the mind of a person and that of a all knowing all powerful God that created everything. But that's unsatisfying and I would think a better argument does exist.

[Snow]

I find this word quite intriguing because it plays on the notion that the presense of evil in the word negate the existence of God.
The other idea is that evil could not exist without good/ie God.
The question that comes to mind is this:

Does God need beliefs from anyone to exist?


But my question is that...does God exist???

[cacian]

But my question is that...does God exist???

Good question but one that I never paused myself. It never bothered me personally to think whether there is a god or not.
It is not in my nature to obsess about concepts and therefore the answer is unimportant to me.
The next question however if it help at all is this:
What do you think?

[Snow]

Ya u r right..everyone is having their own views and beliefs.:)
i believe that GOD is just a name to make people scared of atleast something.so that they wont dare to do bad/evil things.
For me,Parents are the real GOD..:)
its jus MY view or belief.

[cacian]

Ya u r right..everyone is having their own views and beliefs.:)
i believe that GOD is just a name to make people scared of atleast something.so that they wont dare to do bad/evil things.
For me,Parents are the real GOD..:)
its jus MY view or belief.

You are pretty much right there. Whoever created the word GOD intended to install fear of some sort. I think fear is deadly when it takes over someone. Existence and life can do without this terrifying god that is out to get people.

[chrisiacovetti]

I was just thinking about theodicy, specifically from a Christian perspective. Curious what you guys have to say about this:

At its core, the problem of evil is more of an existential question than it is a rational one. I spent a long long time trying to figure out a rational answer (from a Christian perspective), but it ultimately just left me unsatisfied. This isn't to say that there is no rational answer though - it's just that the rational sphere wasn't really the sphere that addressed the core of the question for me.

Greg Boyd, for instance, has created a satisfactory rational answer to the problem of evil that coincides neatly with Chrisianity. (Angels/humans both have free will; they both rebelled; evil came about; etc.). But it feels shallow to me for some reason.

I think that my best understanding in regards to theodicy and the problem of evil is that, biblically, it is the responsibility of both God and humans to respond to it with their lives. Jesus' death wasn't an intellectual answer to the problem, but it was a self-sacrificial, existential response to it. I really don't think this example Jesus provides need be exclusively revered by Christians; it's pretty simple and admirable from any ordinary perspective.

And as for humans in general, maybe we can follow that example (regardless of what we think of Jesus) and respond to evil before we even attempt to rationalize it? My increasing suspicion is that it will only be in this response that I'll ever find anything close to an 'answer.' Who knows though? Personally, the Christian faith intrigues me because it talks about a God who suffers with his creation. Or, in Berdyaev's words:

"Christ as the God-Man is both the sole possible theodicy and the sole possible anthropodicy. The sacrifice of Christ on Golgotha, made by God and by man, is a theodicy not merely intellectual, but rather in life, and in deed. The Lamb is given in ransom from the very foundation of the world. The sacrifice of God primordially has entered into the plane of the world-creation. God Himself shares in the tragedy of the world, in the sufferings of the world, and takes upon Himself the sufferings of mankind."

[Shaman_Raman]

Interesting feed...about good and evil. It's funny, how being faced with evil makes humans resentful, against the idea of God. But what are we calling evil? And why are we calling it that?

Here's why I ask...man's fall, according to Genesis,happened when Adam and Eve ate fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Prior to this, God grants man free will to do as he pleases, all but not to eat from this tree. When Adam and Eve do this, they suddenly see themselves as naked, and hide from God before he even knows what they've done. It's not till later God finds them and realizes what they've done that he separates from them.

Theologians constantly say our sin was disobeying God, but is that all of it? I mean are we not looking into the significance of the act. Man has free will, and chooses to eat from this tree, desiring good and evil. Could the irony be that in doing this, we actually lost our free will, now every action requiring a reflection of whether it's good or evil? Maybe our greatest sin was not disobeying God, but rather becoming slaves to the good and the evil, never choosing actions just for their own sake.

Look at what knowledge of good and evil does. Certain people get set above others as more good, and arrogantly talk down to those considered lacking good. We envy what we don't have, because we see what someone else has as good, and our own possessions as bad. We murder, because we justify our side as good, and the other side as evil.

Maybe the knowledge of good and evil was more harmful to humankind than helpful.

[The Atheist]

Sorry to join the party so late, but I'll just drop in Epicurus (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/epicurus.html) who was winning this battle long before the alleged birth of Jesus.


If there is a God, beliefs are not needed for him to exist. Beliefs do not cause anyone or anything to exist (at least not by the mere cognitive activity of believing). Beliefs about a woman being pregnant do not cause a woman to become pregnant. Just as your laptop exists independently of a mind knowing it, if God exists, he'll exist whether someone believes he does. Things that exist exist independently of minds.

Exceedingly well put.


Ya u r right..everyone is having their own views and beliefs.:)
i believe that GOD is just a name to make people scared of atleast something.so that they wont dare to do bad/evil things.
For me,Parents are the real GOD..:)
its jus MY view or belief.

Wild guess here - you're quite young?

Either way, you are right on track.

Just like dogs - their god is human. Cats may offer a different perspective.


And perhaps for all their huffing and puffing atheists can't come up with any evidence to support their point either

You seem to misunderstand what "atheist" actually means.

Whatever you've been told, it is literarily, grammatically, factually and actually correct to use this definition:

Atheism - the lack of belief in god/s. (A= without; theism = belief in god)

Nothing else.

There are degrees of atheism, certainly; from people like me - who burn effigies of the pope and use the sacred host as mini-frisbees - to people like your neighbour who just doesn't believe in any god/s but never even occurs to him to question why other people do. People also have different reasons for being atheists, but none of that matters to the description above.

Just like an a-philatelist's only trait is the not collecting stamps.

[chrisiacovetti]

Maybe the knowledge of good and evil was more harmful to humankind than helpful.

I would absolutely say so. I never picked up on this for years, but I was reading a Jewish commentary and a Rabbi brought up a brilliant little observation about Genesis 3 (the "Fall" passage).

In the passage, God actually sends Adam and Eve out of the garden for their own sakes. He realizes how miserable and burdened by this new knowledge they will become, and so he prevents them from ever eating of the Tree of Life once they eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Read the passage carefully:

"Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life."

It would be a disaster for men to 'live forever' with knowledge of good and evil. So, yes, both biblically and practically speaking, I think you're dead-on right.

[cafolini]

The impersonation of God is not very productive. But people make it look inevitable. Food for atheists to chew with arrogance.

[The Atheist]

The impersonation of God is not very productive. But people make it look inevitable. Food for atheists to chew with arrogance.

Not really. You've just gone back to Voltaire.

The fact that it isn't inevitable is pretty simple, because it's learned behaviour.

[cafolini]

Not really. You've just gone back to Voltaire.

The fact that it isn't inevitable is pretty simple, because it's learned behaviour.

You taught the course? LOL

[cacian]

The impersonation of God is not very productive. But people make it look inevitable. Food for atheists to chew with arrogance.

I am sure god does not mind one bit if atheists think nothing of him/her. No hard feelings there.

[The Atheist]

I am sure god does not mind one bit if atheists think nothing of him/her. No hard feelings there.

That's one of the things I find highly amusing.

Theists must attack atheists, yet their invisible friend is an omnipotent ruler of the universe. Does he really need the help of humans?

[cacian]

That's one of the things I find highly amusing.

Theists must attack atheists, yet their invisible friend is an omnipotent ruler of the universe. Does he really need the help of humans?

Exactly he does not and that it the point. I think the whole argument is just because people argue not necessarily about god but just because the concept is there then they do/will.
I was meant what does your avatar picture meant to represent? haha. :)

[The Atheist]

Sorry - I screwed up the quotes. I answered that but must have deleted it by mistake.

The avatar is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which materialised outside our house one day.

[cacian]

Sorry - I screwed up the quotes. I answered that but must have deleted it by mistake.

The avatar is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which materialised outside our house one day.

Haha sorry I did see your answer in the other thread. That must have been one hell of a freight when it just appeared from nowhere.
The flying monster is funny I did not know there was any flying ones until now :smilewinkgrin: